Yes, but obviously not anyone that can be described as WHG or SHG.
Great point, in the case of Trzcniec they were SHG men from the Narva culture who first mated with Corded Ware females and THEN conquered lands to the South of the Narva zone in Poland and Ukraine.
The most HG shifted samples with BS drift are both R1a-CTS1211 and they are also the oldest ones. Sure I would bet that I2-L233 males took part in the formation of that population but R1a-CTS1211 must have present it not even dominant in that population.
Hey Dave have you seen this guy before?: I16184 France-BA GalloRoman 1400 (2000-800) BC N1a-L708
A Gallo-Roman sample with N1a, is this contamination? I remember something about this guy not being directly dated too. Very strange, I’m thinking this is a contaminated samples, while that Únětice dude with N1a was also surely misdated (I don’t think he was directly dated either), while possibly being contaminated too.
WHG = Villabruna, AC16, RIP001 Gravettian = Vestonice16, Vestonice13, Vestonice43, I1577, DLV005, DLV006, I2483, PA12 --------- Here's my take on it: Before the LGM there existed a still unsampled population with a particular Gravettian-Aurignacian mix, probably in the Balkans and which probably contributed to Levantine Aurignacian and so to the ancestors of the Iberomaurusians & Natufians, Anatolia, Dzudzuana. It must also have contributed to WHG from the Balkans refugium.
We can always count on a "golden oldie" from you, Gaska. You're like one of the old Bee Gees, still belting out "Staying Alive".
According to you, Europe west of the steppe was always just loaded with R1b. Funny how it managed to disappear during the Neolithic, only to reappear with early Corded Ware, followed by Bell Beaker.
As crashdoc said. It's shared affinity across Aurignacian populations Archaeologists freely speak of European migrations to the Levant at this time, but they assumed they left no lasting legacy. They might have been wrong :)
"Archaeologists freely speak of European migrations to the Levant at this time, but they assumed they left no lasting legacy. They might have been wrong :) "
There has been a time that every slight parallel with European Aurignacian in Eurasia was considered proof of kinship. That fashion has come to an end, and in a comment on that Ofer Bar-Yosef mentioned that the Levantine Aurignacian even survived scrutiny.
The lasting legacy certainly is visible in U6. Some qpAdm models show a tad el Miron in Natufian and even Ibero-Massurian. Or at least, it shows up in the Dzudzuana preprint.
Ha Ha , this Golden oldie has always been right and there is a lot more R1b than you would have imagined and than the Harvardians would have liked. When Villabruna appeared (12,000 BC) Haak almost had a heart attack.
You have to accept that old mummies like you and Gimbutas have gone out of fashion. It's funny to remember when you and your friends were banning people in anthrogenica for saying that M269 would show up in neolithic sites in old Europe. Now we have Smyadovo and I am still laughing.
In any case it has become clear the affinity between Iberomaurusians and WHG which is what we are talking about.
The fate and legacy of the last hunter-gatherers in western Europe and northwestern Africa: Neolithization of northwestern Africa was ignited by migrants from Iberia and Levant-TD-Luciana Simoes (2023)
In addition to the possible impact of the Magdalenians, this study on the neolithization of North Africa has been published.
Iberian farmers YChr-G2a2b, mtDNA-HV0@195, J1c3j and U5b2b1a brought cardial culture and agriculture to the Maghreb. Another myth regarding the neolithization of Western Europe has fallen, I guess the Africanists will not be very happy. This confirms Fregel's paper which also demonstrated Iberian migrations in the Chalcolithic related to the Bell Beaker culture. The Levantine contributions are from the late Neolithic and demonstrate the complexity of human settlement in the Magreb.
We must not forget that Dzudzuana also shares an ancestor with the early Gravettians like Sunghir and Kostenki and that's logical since they came through the Caucasus.
Your results could mean that the link to Goyet and Solutrean through the ancestors of Levantine Aurignacian is not strong enough to overcome Dzudzuana's link to the early Gravettians.
Are saying you can model Natufians without any North African/ANA admixture? Do they just take standard Basal Eurasian in that case? Another thing, the E-M78 IBM had was very close to the actual tmrca of the clade. Natufians were E-Z380, different clade, but currently I thought E-M78 distribution looked like it expanded from Egypt. So while I agree with general tenor of your point regarding East to West movement, the y-DNA of IBM seems to suggest there must have been some significant flow going the other way too, no?
Regarding IBM and ANA more generally, most models I've seen tend make IBM a near 50-50 split of West Eurasian and ANA, or slightly more West Eurasian shifted but still at least 40-45% ANA. But if I recall correctly, the direct stats measuring African-IBM affinity (Outgroup African IBM Eurasian), while significant, didn't seem to suggest that IBM was really quite that heavily African? Another strange thing I thought I recalled was that IBM seemed symmetrically related to all Africans, which is weird because if it was truly African admixed how could it not be related to at least one particular group more than the others? Though corollary, that also makes it unlikely that flow could've been IBM > African because it seems very odd that IBM ancestry would disperse equally across Africa as well.
Villabruna, that old chestnut, who was L761* when L389 and probably even P297 were already in existence, who apparently left no Y-DNA descendants and belonged to an autosomal cluster otherwise populated by men who were Y-DNA I2? That Villabruna?
Smyadovo, who had steppe DNA and whose remains were recovered in EASTERN Bulgaria, not far from the Black Sea coast? That Smyadovo?
Gaska, I can't recall that you have ever been right about anything.
I think I know the result from the Taforalt paper that you are thinking of. Taforalt is, as you'd expect, closest to North Africans, then East Africans, then West Africans, and furthest from Khoisan and Pygmies. The f4(Chimp, African; Natufian, Taforalt) gives the strongest result for West Africans, so they modelled Taforalt as Yoruba/Mende + Natufian (basically making ANA a sister to West African). However, the real Taforalt was closer to other Africans (Mbuti, Khoisan, Dinka, Mota, or Hadza) than their model (Yoruba/Mende + Natufian) was. (Neither Taforalt nor the ANA component was equidistant to Africans, but there was an equidistant f4 stat in there somewhere.)
They couldn't explain this result, and argued that some kind of other African ancestry with affinities to everyone was also part of ANA. But a more parsimonious explanation is that a basal ghost ancestry mixed into West Africans (pulling them away from everyone else), and ANA is related to the main part of West African ancestry, but didn't get the ghost ancestry (hence closest to West Africans, but closer to everyone else than the latter are).
''Are saying you can model Natufians without any North African/ANA admixture? Do they just take standard Basal Eurasian in that case? ''
I don't use terms like ''Basal'', ''Crown'' or ''Princess'' Eurasian, but prefer to employ objective terminology based on real populations. But to answer what Ive already answered - the main impulse is from Near East to Taforalt, which can be modelled as half-half mix of a deeply sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern group, in broad terms. Until we get data from Egype its hard to say. So Epipalelithic Egypt could have looked like West Asians to begin with
''I thought E-M78 distribution looked like it expanded from Egypt. So while I agree with general tenor of your point regarding East to West movement, the y-DNA of IBM seems to suggest there must have been some significant flow going the other way too, no?''
I don't think it matters which side of the Red Sea the apparent distribution of E-M78 is focussed on. What matters is what the population it was originally linked with looked like.
@All “ But a more parsimonious explanation is that a basal ghost ancestry mixed into West Africans (pulling them away from everyone else), and ANA is related to the main part of West African ancestry, but didn't get the ghost ancestry (hence closest to West Africans, but closer to everyone else than the latter are).”
Could this ghost population be West African Hunter Gatherers? Are WAHG related to the Mbuti pygmies? There’s a hypothesis that Proto-Niger-Congo speakers are some putative “Green Sahara” dwellers, iron smelters, who migrated southbound into the forest zone and assimilated lithic users Hunter gatherers whom they called “Telem” or “Toloy”. Could these Telem/Toloy/ghost populations be the so-called Aterians?
Who is your boy? That paper on Albanians was actually pretty good. Autosomal, Y-DNA, and IBD comparisons with some linguistic/archeology sprinkled in (although those were a little bit weaker, understandably). Very, very thorough overall. This is the standard that should be set going forward.
I remember that paper on Greeks/Myceneans a few years back was just some weak autosomal comparisons, which could apply to any generic Southern European population. Hopefully that upcoming Greek paper will follow similar standards to this.
Yes, that Villabruna, that Smyadovo, that ATP3 etc etc etc etc, I'm still laughing and I don't think I can stop anymore. An honest man would recognize his mistakes and bad behavior, ask for forgiveness and look for another hobby.
Yes well done to Dave and Alex . Detailed analyses Intuitively I would have expected more Central Balkan (“Thracian”) related admixture in Albanians, who are evidently constituted by different subgroups. Does their model apply to all ? I’d consider the strong historical , archaeological and uniparental evidence for such movements from Dacia Ripensis toward Epirus, for ex; and the linguistically Latinesque character of western Balkans
@Copper Axe "It seems like our boy is moving up in the world: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1 Congratulations Dave!"
Our Dave with Turks and Greeks against Rome! Ask him if he is able to translate Etruscan and even Italian through Albanian, which is formed through 40% of Latin words, 20% Greek an so on. This paper of course merits to be read carefully, because it is a serious research. I, so far, think that what I wrote in the past in thousands of letters is still true, that the origin found so far in aDNA isn’t resolutive both for R-V88, R-V1636, R-M73*, also thinking to Villabruna and Les Iboussiéres, and even the subclades of R-L51 etc. About this paper I may say that I-M223* is oldest and expanded from Mesolithic Italy, J2b-Z600 is older in Sardinia than the Balkans, and also R-Z2705, that I was one of the first to study more than 10 years ago and named the “Balkan cluster”, is older in Italy and Iberia and very recent in the Balkans. Anyway I’ll write more after having studied the paper.
btw here is my output for Iberomaurisians , including the higher-coverage Natufian I tried several times last night to post an image, but it either didnt work, or came out too low res so I deleted it
https://pastebin.com/r3tgufqa
copy/ paste into : https://dreampuf.github.io › GraphvizOnline
* NB: no "ghosts' needed subject to change post Dzudzuana, of course
I got Dzudzuana from here by merging all the .bam files and doing variant calls with Q0. Yes, it's low quality as hell but it doesn't seem to be contaminated. I have also done the plink files if you want those. https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB54983
Also I'll take a look at that graph of yours, it's real interesting. I think it needs a little tuning like an edge from Neanderthals to all Eurasians. And I'm not quite sure I agree with INF coming from CHG and some weird basal West Eurasian and not CHG coming from INF, ANE and ANF.
''And I'm not quite sure I agree with INF coming from CHG and some weird basal West Eurasian and not CHG coming from INF, ANE and ANF.''
I dont think it matters about Chg coming or going from Iran - they're basically the same meta-group with regional variation of admixture distributed over that zone. Anyhow, the more important point is that Iran_N does not have some weird extra basal Western, but rather additional ENA ancestry. I think others have also noticed. And it doesn't seem to be of a recent character.
Okay Rob here goes The graph really does benefit with actual Basal Eurasian in Iran Neolithic and Anatolian. There is nothing particular about Zlaty Kun that attracts Basal Eurasians. Also there's nothing ENA in Iran Neolithic compared to CHG.
As for Natufian, it obviously has Iberomaurusian. It's simply a result of the fact that Natufians do not form a perfect clade with AHG against any other Eurasians, they all prefer AHG over it.
I shall demonstrate all this by making simple changes to your graph. With your current setup, the score is 267 I will move the edges contributing to CHG, AHG and Malta basal to that of other Eurasians. The score is 220 I shall do the same to Iran Neolithic The score is 254, worse than previously but still better than the initial graph was. I shall reverse the admixture edge from Natufian to Iberomaurusian The score is 233 Iran Neolithic's ENA could be ANE related, so let's introduce that. The score is 219 but Iran Neolithic takes no Anatolian ancestry or CHG. I think this is due to a lack of West Eurasian populations in the graph, especially WHG, because right now the drift between Iran Neolithic and Anatolian is present in Basal Eurasian.
All in all I think you ought to seriously reconsider your position on Natufian and Basal Eurasian.
I managed to get a better score by introducing Iberomaurusian ancestry into Natufian and making the Basal stuff in Iran Neolithic and Anatolian actually Basal Eurasian. My graph has a score of 172, while your graph has a score of 267. While Iran Neolithic doesn't take in any Anatolian in this graph, I think this can be chalked up to a lack of West Eurasian references in the graph. Iran Neolithic barely takes an ENA ancestry anymore.
We can not say that R-BY611 is a “Balkan cluster”, neither R-Y23373, but only from R-PH970, given from the familydnatree at 134 CE, thus during the second century CE of the Roman Empire. Probably the paper is right that the Albanian ethnos lived where we find now Albanian people, in the mountains if they could save and use their old branch of the Indo-European languages that is Albanian now, but that it is formed for 40% of Latin words, 20% Greek ones and probably not more than 10% of the original IE one, demonstrates that they lived in the bilingual (Latin and Greek) Roman Empire, just at the borders of the Latin and the Greek worlds. It would be interesting to date the Slav words present in Albanian, because it may say more about the penetration of this people in the Balkans. Anyway not more than 10%, and the times of the penetration lasted above all after the fall of the Roman Empire and the use of Latin, restricted as time passed just in the Romanians, the Dalmatians and the longstanding migration of the Vlachs, more and more assimilated into the local people. That said, it seems to me that the Dna is always thought by the authors coming from east to west, and the link of the Albanian autosome with Italy is always thought the same, forgetting that the component of the eastern Alps DNA in Italy is as old as in the Balkan people of to-day and not a property of theirs. The recent migration of the Arbereshe influenced a little the to-day population of Italy, what may be detected as “Greek-Balkan” in the modern tests, and more surely is detected by the uniparental markers, among them just the R-Z2705 marker, surely Arbereshe if found in Italy. I have the sample of my wife from Sicily, the Y of the family R-L21 could be Norman, and the mt K1c1f3, which finds just a link of an Albanian and a MRCA of 800 years, before the coming of Arbereshe to Sicily, is just of Norman or anyway German or Baltic origin. It is documented in Albania also a huge presence of Norman Y from the Normans of Southern Italy. I thererfore think that these studies should be done without prejudices but staying at the facts. Not all “ex Oriente lux”. As I reproached to some people who use algorithms in genetics, history is a fundamental component.
Thanks for the refresher. I doubt that "ANA" is something that is really related to main bulk of West African ancestry. West Africans IMO are a post-LGM product of an East African migrant population (E1b1a and L3) that gradually expanded westward and mixed with more deeply rooted populations in Center/West Africa (y-dna A and B, and non-L3 mtdna lineages). I don't think North to South movement had much of an impact on the formation of their cluster.
''Iran Neolithic's ENA could be ANE related, so let's introduce that.''
I think it has both, as depicted in my output. There is obviously the known straightforward ANE, and deeper stuff related to tianyuan, Ust-ishim & Bacho kiro. Going by their strange distribution, it would make sense a place like the zagros to have been the nexus Your graph depicts Iran-n as a sort of 2-ay mix of purported "Basal" & ANE . not sure about that.
What was your Z-score btw ? it's not listed
''There is nothing particular about Zlaty Kun that attracts Basal Eurasians. ''
Perhaps, but I dont think im the only one who has found in acts as a sort of proxy for basal-like groups (e.g. 'Kale' has thought similar)
''All in all I think you ought to seriously reconsider your position on Natufian and Basal Eurasian.'''
I just think basal is a composite layering and an apparent observation. I don't have anything against the notion of succeesive branchings of eurasian populations, with some earlier ("more basal") than others And as stated, I have no issue of bi-directionality across the Kebaran-Mushabian-etc spheres. i might shift my view when i incoroporate Dzudzuana into the perspective
User ID 1265 wrote: > I am seeing that you have the same mt of my wife > Francesca Guarino from Ribera, Agrigento, Sicily, > Italy. Can you say more to me about your origin? Hello! My and my relatives are from Scandinavia so I don't know about this connection. But K1c1f3 seems as I understand it to be very old so I don't think it says that much. Our common ancestor perhaps was from 850 years ago? K1c1f3 formed 3200 ybp, TMRCA 850 ybp Best regards Mikael I thank you very much for your answer. That confirms all my theories I made already many years ago, i.e. that the mt of my wife is in Sicily of Norman (or anyway German) origin, thus not of Arbereshe origin in Sicily as to another link with an Albanian person. Perhaps if you put in YFull the flag of your country, it may help. Thank you.
I think Khormusan is something that should be acknowledged that exists, and as for Iran Neolithic we have Rostamian and Baradostian which obviously contributed to Zarzian and the later Iran Neolithic.
Ultimately Aterian probably has a lot of influence on the Near East and vice versa and I think that it was the cultured that contributed to Iberomaurusian
Kebarans,the pre taforalt ancestors of Natufians,from which natufians derived 66% of their ancestry(dzudzuana deep origins study)were probably anatolian/pinarbasi like genetically (basically CWE+basal)and probably would plot very close to them on PCAs too.
But anatolian proper and kebarans probably separated long Although genetically they were similar and on PCAs they would almost be the same too. The 10% ANA in natufians pushes them far way
Keberans themselves Are likely the west Eurasian side of taforalt
I think the nahal ein gev kebran samples will likely be E1b already because E seems.to be a basal Eurasian clade to Me,not an ANA clade
ANA formed around 135k bc while E was born 60k bc,also E is related to Eurasian D and CF,and DE itself was born around 80k bc ,close date as of basal eurasians split and formed according to kamm et al 2018
@Cy Tolliver If ANA is not related to the bulk of West African ancestry what is it related to? Some people think it is 50-60% on its way to Eurasians? Is there any support for this?
@Rob How far west did ENA extend or did Iran receive an impulse(s) from Central Asia that accounts for its excess ENA?
Norfern my enthusiast learning on Africa is only developing, however, I believe, acc. to C14 dates, the Arterian had long gone by the time of IBM. Therefore,the source of sub-Saharan ancestry in IBM is from elsewhere. I think we could guess now that we have data from Chum Laka, Mota, South Africa, at least in broad trends, but all the inner-African 'treeness'' gets very complex
The Spread of Aterian Peoples in North Africa - Elena Garcea ''To sum up, we can say that since the late 1990s there is general agreement that the Aterian spans the period between c. 40 and, at least, 80 ka or most likely earlier (Wendorf and Schild 1992)
More explicit: Funerary practices of the Iberomaurusian population of Taforalt (Tafoughalt; Morocco, 11–12,000 BP): new hypotheses based on a grave by grave skeletal inventory and evidence of deliberate human modification of the remains Valentina Mariott
''From the archaeological point of view, a discontinuity between the Aterian culture (ca. 40–20,000 BP) and the Iberomaurusian culture is generally recognized. However, recent studies propose a rather different time span for the Aterian (ca. 73,000–40,000 BP), and note that blade-based industries were present in some areas before the Iberomaurusian (Barton et al., 2007). Thus, the relationship between these two cultures is still poorly understood. The relationship between the Iberomaurusian (ca. 20,000–10,000 BP), a more ancient civilization mainly in the coastal area, and the Capsian (ca. 10,000–7,500 BP), with sites in inland areas, is controversial. ''
For the northeast end of things , one can pass Vermeesch
Nile behaviour and Late Palaeolithic humans in Upper Egypt during the Late Pleistocene Pierre M. Vermeersch, Wim Van Neer
Archaeogenetic studies have described two major genetic turnover events in prehistoric western Eurasia: one associated with the spread of farming and a sedentary lifestyle starting ~7000-6000 BCE, and a second with the expansion of pastoralist groups from the Eurasian steppes starting ~3300 BCE. The period between these events saw new economies emerging on the basis of key innovations, including metallurgy, wheel and wagon, and horse domestication. However, what happened between the demise of the Copper Age settlements ~4250 BCE and the expansion of pastoralists remains poorly understood. To address this question, we analysed genome-wide data from 135 ancient individuals from the contact zone between southeastern Europe and the northwestern Black Sea region spanning this critical time period. While we observe genetic continuity between Neolithic and Copper Age groups from major sites in the same region, from ~4500 BCE on, groups from the northwestern Black Sea region carried varying amounts of mixed ancestries derived from Copper Age groups and those from the forest/steppe zone, indicating genetic and cultural contact over a period of ~1000 years earlier than anticipated. We propose that the transfer of critical innovations between farmers and transitional foragers/herders from different eco-geographic zones during this early contact was integral to the formation, rise and expansion of pastoralist groups ~3300 BCE.
''We propose that the transfer of critical innovations between farmers and transitional foragers/herders from different eco-geographic zones during this early contact was integral to the formation, rise and expansion of pastoralist groups ~3300 BCE.''
It's good to see genetics papers observing the evidence. Seems like most of the samples are from Bulgaria and southern Romania, so whilst important for further delineating the impact of steppe groups in Bulgaria, there'll be the same lingering questions of pre-Yamnaya dynamics & migratory paths in the western steppe
YUN027 looks EEF heavy, plots with main Balkan Chalcolithic cluster
The Boyanovo group seem to be a very steppe shifted group, like they were in the 'Arc set The Mayajki R1b-Z2103 plots with these too. There are two Usatavo females who are midway
That sample is from Mathieson (I0781-Yunatsite78)-4,528-4371 calBCE. It has been reanalyzed and it seems to be L51, IF it were true we would have M269 and L51 in Bulgaria-Old Europe (4,500 BC). For the naysayers, even before the PIE existed.
Contacts 1,200 years after the Yamnaya culture existed? Sure, but Z2103 in Yamnaya does not come from the EHGs but from the border area with European farmers.
The old argument of small percentages of steppe ancestry trying to justify the Kurgan theory in relation to R1b-M269>L51??? Really ???.
There are Smyadovo samples contemporary with the M269 sample that belong to other lineages and have more EHG or CHG than I2181. That ship sailed long ago, and those still on board are going to sink just as the Titanic sank.
Can any Kurganist reason intelligently and convincingly with which branches of Indo-European is M269>L51>L151 related? Indoaryan, Anatolian Armenian, Paleobalkan languages, Mycenean, Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italo-Celtic?
Took the approach of splitting the samples up into 7 clusters (an arbitrary number) and then running them through Vahaduo to identify the closest populations to each sample: https://imgur.com/a/yTzrujt
For the Steppe richest cluster: Samples labelled MAJ (019, 017, 004) tend to be closest to Moldova Multi-Cordoned Ware and Moldova Catacomb from 2500-1900 BCE, samples labelled BOY (019, 014, 009, 008, 001) tend to be closest to Bulgaria Boyanovo EBA 2200 BCE, and sample KTL001 seems to be relatively close to Boyanovo again and also Sintashta like samples.
Also an Intermediate cluster tends to be closest to Bulgarian samples from around 2100-2300 BCE, or more recent people from SE Europe, although this contains presumptively USV = Usatovo and the distances are not too close.
Seems is a quite a lot of spatial continuity - either recreating the same patterns over time or direct continuity - over time, if taking this study at face value with samples as being from 4500-3300 BCE. On the other hand, if they also included a bunch of EBA or later samples, then that would also explain it.
There are certainly some samples that resemble interesting steppe admixed samples from circa 4000-3000 BCE that we already have (e.g. PIE078.G0101 looks like this, like Trypillian), but not totally sure about whether the most steppe rich ones here are necessarily from an early date or the paper includes some later people. It seems like the steppe rich ones prefer Afanasievo/Yamnaya as a source over Progress, which seems to suggest they may have whatever Yamnaya/Sredni Stog bottleneck happened, anyway (at whatever date).
(Also btw sample VAR023_ANI160 was previously published by Mathieson - https://amtdb.org/sample/ANI160).
Not sure if we can trust this sample anyway, regardless of its 10% steppe autosomal DNA. I0781 matches the female sample I0781 from Mathieson et al. 2018. They both have the same mtDNA (K1a) and they’re from the same site, that being Yunatsite, Bulgaria. Additionally, I0781 only has 422 SNPs read in relation to this R-L51* call, and proper Y-DNA calls should involve tens of thousands of markers. Don’t think this one is safe, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is another contaminated sample or a misdated one at that.
All the samples from Yunatsite will need to be carbon dated, as the site has two major layers - Eneolithic and Bronze Age - separated by 1000 years , with in addition to usual coverage checks
Nevertheless, there seems to be a couple E-M78 there . Several J2a no J2b2
I’d be cautious as to the provenance of the I2a-L621 individuals. These would definitely need to be dated.
It's funny how the guardians of Kurganist orthodoxy at Anthrogenica and then the bootlickers who follow them like sheep, repeat the same slogans over and over again (low coverage, females etc). Never mind guys, let's wait for the samples to be released, and see what happens, if it's a female as it looks like in Mathieson, we'll keep looking.
I think people have not yet assumed that Smyadovo (Gumelnitsa-Karanovo VI culture) is the only M269 we have, and therefore it would not be surprising if L51 appears in Bulgaria or Romania between 4,500-3,500 BC. At the moment, all the branches derived from M269 (L23>Z2103) east of Bulgaria have their origin in the Balkans.
More than ten years of discussion and the solution is very simple, you only have to find M269, L51, L151 or P312 in the steppes (or the forest steppe) to be able to link this lineage with the dispersion of Indo-European. If you don't succeed, we will keep on talking about a nice fairy tale.
And as long as you are not able to prove the contrary, the M269 ancestors of Beakers and western europeans were neolithic farmers from Bulgaria
I have done the genotypes for the Kendrick's and Gough's caves if you would like to take a look of those samples: https://www.mediafire.com/file/cfluwio7bzh6sqb/Goughs_Kendricks.zip/file
The 2 Usatovo females seem to have too much CHG to be just EEF-Sredni Stog mixes. Nikitin in the Youtube video mentioned that some Usatovo samples from their own set (presumably the Patterson/Anthony paper) also seem to have something North Caucasian-related.
Overall, I think the dating is crucial for analysing these samples, there are some obvious EBA people there (Boyanovo, 'KTL' samples).
You think I wear a dress at night like some character from Peter Pan? I thought Australians had good banter.
Anyway, I didn't make the y chr calls for I0781 so I have no idea if they are legitimate. There are many other interesting samples in this paper to look at. Another that stands out to me:
KTL005.merge_Y R-V1636*
Again no idea if this will end up being correct, but he shares the same haplogroup as the SGC samples and seems to have CHG ancestry in excesss of what is typical for "Steppe Ancestry".
PIE061 also an interesting sample. Y calls indicate he is on the same line as RISE552, the Yamnaya Ulan IV sample. He has 25% WHG according to Milo's analyses, highest in the set.
Quick comparison between these Usatovo samples with Yamnaya and CWC in G25: the main difference seems to be the lack of Ukrainian HG (represented) ancestry. I tried Progress_EN + farmer sources + Ukr_Mesolithic, and in this combination CWC and Yamnaya takes UKR_Mes, while Usatovo pretty much just Progress + slightly WHG sifted ANF.
A possible explanation a group from near the Caucasus bypassing the region where the core of CWC - Yamnaya formed.
Actually looking at the autosomal and Y DNA, can say very confidently the PIE samples look like they come from an early CT site. They all have that 90% EEF <10% EHG/Steppe profile (as we have already seen), and the Y DNA is also similar to what we have from early CT as well.
There is MAJ017.merge_Y R-M12149, who is R1b-Z2103+ and almost completely Yamnaya on an autosomal level.
Alongside MAJ003.merge_Y G-P303, who is a 50/50 mix of EEF amd Steppe. Seems like the first generation offspring of a CT Farmer and a Steppe woman. This haplogroup, G-P303, was also found in three CT farmers from Verteba cave.will.be interesting to see the burial context.
All of the samples at this site are either fully Yamnaya or an even split of Yamnaya and EEF. No fully EEF samples. Seems like potential Yamnaya ground zero depending on the chronology.
WRT what Matt said “ Seems is a quite a lot of spatial continuity - either recreating the same patterns over time or direct continuity - over time, if taking this study at face value with samples as being from 4500-3300 BCE. On the other hand, if they also included a bunch of EBA or later samples, then that would also explain it.”
There’s probably a fairly major discontinuity in Bulgaria , which large gaps in major settlements Probably a big flood followed by famines and plague and turmoil
Eventually people resettled from various directions, especially steppe and central Balkans (eg can be seen from different mix of pre steppe ydna). Bayanovo are not going to be progress -like as they’re Yamnaya age
All of these samples from this paper are on the same line as RISE552 Yamnaya Ulan IV and they share an SNP with a TMRCA of 8500 ybp which overlaps with CT.
Davidski you have always argued that this Y DNA was from Hunter Gatherers on the Steppe and did not make it's way into Yamnaya from CT but it seems it did.
The Khvalynsk sample I6103 belongs to I2a-L701>L699 (4983-4795 calBCE), and all of those anachronistically modeled samples have steppe admixture. I see no indication that this lineage originated in CT, especially considering the lack of EEF/ANF in Eneolithic Khvalynsk.
I2a-L701 is obviously 'exotic' to Khvalynsk, probably coming from the Carpathian region. As i said years before, these are an very early link between 'Farmers' and 'steppe', and helps explain how stepppe hunter-gatheres developed pastoralism. The I2a-L701 & related lineages appear in all sorts of cultural & genome-wide contexts
Yamnaya, CWC, and Khvalynsk derive from common ancestral populations (there’s V1636 in Khvalynsk and CWC for example). The fact Khvalynsk has L701>L699 but has no discernible EEF/ANF disproves a CT origin.
@Rob
If L701 is ultimately from the Carpathians/Balkans, it had to have arrived in the steppe before ANF admixed groups came onto the scene, because there’s no EEF/ANF in Khvalynsk and all of these Bulgarian L701 guys display some steppe admixture.
This is false, it shows up in yamnaya kalmykia as well. The Mattila paper apparently has several Ukraine forager samples with I-l701, which corresponds well with its distribution. Ftdna, which has their own classification system for this, labels the only non-ukraine hg/steppe related sample with the haplogroup one from 5th millennium bc tiszapolgar (their cultural labels are not always accurate FWIW). I think it would be difficult for it not to correspond with either iron gates/carpathian foragers who moved into Ukraine or more likely it is indigenous to Ukraine itself.
It seems exceedingly likely that the bulk of its ChL/BA balkan presence was mediated by Steppe groups. Interestingly, the ftdna tmrca of downstream I-p78, which shows up in western Anatolia, corresponds to about when proto-anatolian is expected to branch off.
The idea that the farmer side of the Yamnaya equation was purely female meditated is demonstrably false as per this paper. What's more is it is demonstrably associated with I2a-L701 and G-P303. If I2a-L701 was exclusively part of the steppe side of the equation the it should exist in Yamanya sites as far as Afanasievo and Hungary but it is obviously not. Your only shitty argument is that it was miraculously both part of the steppe side of Yamnaya as well as the CT side which is factual as per this latest data, and that because your feelings these samples are irrelevant. It's all fallen apart for you.
You're showing serious signs of mental instability.
For instance, believing that Bell Beakers came from CT rather than Single Grave is desperate and stupid, and cannot be explained with any sort of logic.
Same with the I2a-L701 in Yamnaya.
It's obvious that this is a North Pontic hunter-gatherer lineage, so it's also obvious that it correlates well with North Pontic admixture in CT.
And Yamnaya has a lot of North Pontic hunter-gatherer ancestry too. Duh.
How much do I owe you for the psychological assessment?
The SGC look like Unetice (because they came from the south), the Immel samples look like German Beaker. German Beaker is the ancestor of all Beaker because it has this thing called P312.
Single Grave is western Corded Ware, and there's a Single Grave sample on the way with L51.
Right behind the R1a-M417 in Yamnaya right? Enough with the bullshit.
How do we place the origin of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language in Yamnaya when every aspect of it they received from Balkan Farmers, whom they interbred with for a thousand years before Yamnaya?
I-L701 seems to just appear c. 5500 BC in the Dnieper region. It is also found in at least a couple of Koros & Tisza Neolithic individuals, who are essentially contemporaneus. I havent noted it in any Iron Gates individuals. The closest related lineage, Z-161 is found in Iron Gates, Latvian HGs, a few other east Hungarian Neolithics, with the GAC-specific sub-group fallling within as well.
I think they were buoyed on to move further east as the earliest farmers reached Central Europe. Archaeologists have called this various thing, e.g. Grebinki, Pontic pre-Neolithic, Mariupol, etc
@alex and rob: These data look like they show two relatively distinct and clines, 1) stretching from Turkey_N towards Iron Gates HG (although maybe with a little more EHG than Iron Gates), and 2) between Steppe and cline 1 but, pointing towards the least HG rich parts of 1).
Custom PCA to try and make it simpler to visualise: https://imgur.com/a/lnKBOD6 (pastebin with the datasheet - https://pastebin.com/wUGzLUBV)
Unlike, e.g. the Corded Ware cline (or the Yamnaya Hungary from what little we saw of them so far), this is more of a mix between the HG low EEF groups and Steppe, by the looks of it.
That said, the Usatovo and MAJ samples seem "south" / less HG shifted compared to KTL and YUN samples, but I'm not sure from looking if that is more to do with CHG stuff or mixtures with differently HG rich groups on EEF cline. If your models have seen something that explains it by CHG that could be true though.
Where did you get those Kendrick and Gough sample from? The Gough sample we already have G25 coordinates from (Yu 2023) looks like WHG but yours look like Magdalenian?
righto, Natufians can be modelled waith ~ 20% Taforalt. The pre-Eurasian in Taforalt/ IBM mostly comes from a branch which contribtued ~ 50% to Mota and ~ 25% to Shum Laka, with some additional ~10% direct input from a S/L like groups
This is the true story of the “seven” steppe brothers-Male markers in CWC-Bohemia were R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, R1b-Z2103, R1b-U106 & R1b-L51>L151
1-Only two of them (Z2103, Q1b2a) in addition to V1636 and I2a-L699 (which have also been documented in the Khvalynsk culture) appear in Yamnaya-Afanasievo 2-I think the older R1a-M417 is NEO113 (5.348 BC)-Golubaya Krinitsa, Neolithic_MiddleDon, Russia-In any case, it seems to be a typical marker of EHGs. 3-It seems that they all moved to the Balkans-Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia (M417, Z2103, L699, & Q1b2a), Anatolia (V1636), Armenia (Z2103) and even India (R1a) during the Yamnaya related migrations (3.000-2.000 BC) 4-To these 5 steppe markers we have to add U106 and L51>L151 that apparently and according to the new Kurgan theory, also originated in the forest steppe or Yamnaya-Then, we already have at least 7 male markers who had to speak the same Indoeuropean language-R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103, R1b-U106 & R1b-L51>L151 since either they were part of the Yamnaya culture or were part of a sister culture (forest steppe-Ukraine, Sredni Stog etc).
And here begins the funniest part
1-Why R1b-L51>L151 and R1b-U106 have never appeared in any steppe or forest steppe culture and appear suddenly around 3,000 BC in the Bohemian CWC? 2-Why did they not participate in any Indo-European migration to other European (Balkans) or Asian (Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, India etc) regions, with their 5 steppe brothers if they shared origin and cultures? 3-Why is R1b-L51>L151 the only “steppe” marker that reached the SGC-CWC (I guess in the Netherlands, Denmark.......) and then Western Europe (France, British Isles and Iberia) during the Chalcolithic, Bronze Age or Iron Age? 4-Why R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103 & R1b-U106, NEVER reached Western Europe? 5-The 7 steppe brothers had to speak the same Indo-European language right?-What branches of IE spoke L51>L151?
Option A-Our R1b-L151 ancestors were some kind of peculiar, lazy, and selfish lineage. They decided to only travel to Bohemia probably because it was closer to their homeland (obvious sign of laziness), while leaving the responsibility of traveling the rest of the known world to his steppe colleagues. Once there, they decided that they did not like his traveling companions, they packed their bags and went to Holland, but not before warning their Indo-European relatives never to cross the Rhine River (obvious sign of selfishness)
Option B-R1b-L51>L151 It is not a steppe lineage, it never lived neither in the steppes nor in the forest steppe (Ukraine and Russia), therefore it never participated in Indo-European migrations. Its remote origin is in the Epigravettian-WHGs (Iron Gates HGs>Smyaodvo) or more probably in Baltic-Scandinavia, from where it moved south (Narva ancestry in Bohemian CWC) and where they acquired their steppe ancestry thanks to Yamnaya migrations (exogamy)-Later, independently and probably under pressure from the Indo-European migrants, they settled permanently in Western Europe. And finally, they never spoke an IE language as evidenced by their Iberian, Tartessian, Aquitanian, Etruscan, and Sicilian descendants who, thousands of years later, continued to speak their Non-IE languages.
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285449 - "Interactions between Trypillian farmers and North Pontic forager-pastoralists in Eneolithic central Ukraine"
Published: June 14, 2023
"Abstract: The establishment of agrarian economy in Eneolithic East Europe is associated with the Pre-Cucuteni-Cucuteni-Trypillia complex (PCCTC). PCCTC farmers interacted with Eneolithic forager-pastoralist groups of the North Pontic steppe as PCCTC extended from the Carpathian foothills to the Dnipro Valley beginning in the late 5th millennium BCE. While the cultural interaction between the two groups is evident through the Cucuteni C pottery style that carries steppe influence, the extent of biological interactions between Trypillian farmers and the steppe remains unclear. Here we report the analysis of artefacts from the late 5th millennium Trypillian settlement at the Kolomiytsiv Yar Tract (KYT) archaeological complex in central Ukraine, focusing on a human bone fragment found in the Trypillian context at KYT. Diet stable isotope ratios obtained from the bone fragment suggest the diet of the KYT individual to be within the range of forager-pastoralists of the North Pontic area. Strontium isotope ratios of the KYT individual are consistent with having originated from contexts of the Serednii Stih (Sredny Stog) culture sites of the Middle Dnipro Valley. Genetic analysis of the KYT individual indicates ancestry derived from a proto-Yamna population such as Serednii Stih. Overall, the KYT archaeological site presents evidence of interactions between Trypillians and Eneolithic Pontic steppe inhabitants of the Serednii Stih horizon and suggests a potential for gene flow between the two groups as early as the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE. "
There's going to be a very boring and repetitive answer to a lot of these questions, and frankly, I think you already know it:
'1-Why R1b-L51>L151 and R1b-U106 have never appeared in any steppe or forest steppe culture and appear suddenly around 3,000 BC in the Bohemian CWC?'
Founder effects. I1-M253 literally just "appears" in LN Sweden, out of nowhere, and then explodes during the Nordic Bronze Age. Founder effects happen.
'2-Why did they not participate in any Indo-European migration to other European (Balkans) or Asian (Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, India etc) regions, with their 5 steppe brothers if they shared origin and cultures?'
Why is it necessary that they do? We know that R1b-P310, R1b-U106 and R1a-M417, among others were alongside each other in the same culture at the same time in early CWC Bohemia. How come, of all of these, only R1b-P310 seems to appear in Dutch BBC? Because the early Bohemian CWC sub-group which migrated to the lower Rhine happened to carry R1b-P310. It's literally founder effects.
'3-Why is R1b-L51>L151 the only “steppe” marker that reached the SGC-CWC (I guess in the Netherlands, Denmark.......) and then Western Europe (France, British Isles and Iberia) during the Chalcolithic, Bronze Age or Iron Age?'
Strictly, not quite true, because we have the almost-exclusively western European subclade of R1a that is R1a-L446. But again, founder effects.
'4-Why R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103 & R1b-U106, NEVER reached Western Europe?'
As above, strictly not true, but for the most part, founder effects. Why is R1a-Z93 the only branch of R1a-M417 associated with Indo-Iranic expansion? Founder effects.
'5-The 7 steppe brothers had to speak the same Indo-European language right?-What branches of IE spoke L51>L151?'
By the time of expansion from central European CWC, to be honest different post-PIE languages are beginning to emerge to be honest.
'Option A-Our R1b-L151 ancestors were some kind of peculiar, lazy, and selfish lineage. They decided to only travel to Bohemia probably because it was closer to their homeland (obvious sign of laziness), while leaving the responsibility of traveling the rest of the known world to his steppe colleagues. Once there, they decided that they did not like his traveling companions, they packed their bags and went to Holland, but not before warning their Indo-European relatives never to cross the Rhine River (obvious sign of selfishness)
Option B-R1b-L51>L151 It is not a steppe lineage, it never lived neither in the steppes nor in the forest steppe (Ukraine and Russia), therefore it never participated in Indo-European migrations. Its remote origin is in the Epigravettian-WHGs (Iron Gates HGs>Smyaodvo) or more probably in Baltic-Scandinavia, from where it moved south (Narva ancestry in Bohemian CWC) and where they acquired their steppe ancestry thanks to Yamnaya migrations (exogamy)-Later, independently and probably under pressure from the Indo-European migrants, they settled permanently in Western Europe. And finally, they never spoke an IE language as evidenced by their Iberian, Tartessian, Aquitanian, Etruscan, and Sicilian descendants who, thousands of years later, continued to speak their Non-IE languages.'
Option A is, well... I mean what is it even saying? Nothing really to address, it just makes no sense.
Option B completely fails to explain why early Bohemian CWC, early Polish CWC and early East Baltic CWC are all autosomally heterogeneous (sans additional central European farmer admixture) while carrying different different Y-hgs, and why this autosomal heterogeneity sits within the bounds of western steppe eneolithic variation. It completely fails to explain where Germanic, Celtic and Italic language come from.
Honestly man, it's all just lazy, sloppy nonsense and you ought to know this.
''These data look like they show two relatively distinct and clines 1) stretching from Turkey_N towards Iron Gates HG (although maybe with a little more EHG than Iron Gates), and 2) between Steppe and cline 1 but, pointing towards the least HG rich parts of 1).''
Agree . In other words, a south/ southwest Balkan, ANF rich Neolithic, and a HG-rich northwest Pontic 'Neolithic' (HG element being on IG <-> Dnieper cline). Seems to be prominent in Majaki, USatavo, KTL & Varna.
Many Yunatsite look like straight up ANF, so they must be from the older layer of the site.
There do some to be focal peaks of AZE_N -like admixture in KTL & MJK with G25 .
So your explanation for the sudden appearance of L151 in Bohemia is a founder effect, the appearance of P310 in the Dutch-CWC (which is not proven yet) is due to a founder effect, the reason why R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103 & R1b-U106, NEVER reached Western Europe is because of several founder effects and R1a-Z93 is associated with the expansion of the Indo-Iranic branch thanks to a founder effect. I do not have enough words to express my gratitude for such a wise answer. You Kurganists are totally disoriented and have no arguments to defend what you are proposing, the building is about to collapse thanks to the internal battles between Harvardians. Max Planck doesn't know very well what is going on either.
1-You know what a founder effect is, don't you? can you explain to me when these founder effects occurred? before or after the mass migrations took place? If they were produced before we should find tons of those markers in the region (s) where they were produced, and if they were produced upon reaching the new territories this would be incompatible with the ability to produce a language shift, or do you think that one man could only impose his own language in gigantic territories?
2-The origin of germanic, italic and celtic you have to explain it yourself, because you are the one who defends the Kurgan theory, I have always been of the opinion that neither P312 nor the BB culture spoke an IE language. Which cultures in your opinion spoke these branches of IE, do you have any idea?
3-Regarding the “heterogeneity” (sic) of the autosomal composition of the CWC in its different regions, I don't understand what you mean, maybe you should start by explaining to ignorant people like me, why is there an excess of WHG signal in the early CWC?
4-The CWC is one of the most homogeneous prehistoric cultures in terms of YChr. There are R1a-M417 in Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Poland, Bohemia, Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic. Maybe you should also ask yourself why there are only R1b-L151 in Bohemia (the L52-CWC samples in Poland are much later and therefore useless). I'm sure you think it's a miracle.
5-R1b-L51>L151 was a very strange guy, not only did he not participate in the mass migrations of his steppe relatives, but when he did (supposedly to Bohemia), he left his colleagues behind and went off alone to Holland to create the BB culture while the rest were scattered all over Eastern Europe developing their original culture (CWC)- Seems they were quite independent right? no doubt he was not very comfortable with his relatives in the CWC.
Honestly man, it's all just lazy, sloppy nonsense and you ought to know this.
One thing I'd like to know is whether or not standardizing the labels for the ancient spreadsheet would be useful. There are many samples like MA1 and GoyetQ116-1 that simply are labeled by their sample name in their population label with no context, and some time period labels are inconsistently placed.
While I'd be at that, I suppose the samples not already in the spreadsheet could be added too if they're given consistent labels and show no contamination or weird coordinates.
David, if you manage to create coordinates for this sample, then it will be another sample similar to Malta. "Outside of rare burial contexts, it is impossible to assign objects in the Palaeolithic archeological record to specific individuals. Here we present a non-destructive method for gradually releasing DNA from ancient bone and tooth artefacts. Application of the method to an Upper Palaeolithic deer tooth pendant from Denisova Cave (Russia) resulted in the recovery of DNA from both the deer and a female human individual. Genetic dates obtained from the deer and human mitochondrial genomes estimate the age of the pendant at approximately 20,000 to 24,000 years. Nuclear DNA from its presumed maker or wearer shows strong affinities to contemporaneous Ancient North Eurasian individuals previously found further east in Siberia. Our work opens up new possibilities for linking cultural and genetic records in prehistoric archaeology" https://www.mediafire.com/file/5wo31vw47wvc2kb/DCP1.zip/file
It is interesting that the Sredny Stog woman married to a Trypillian man in KYT was U4b1b2 the same as Polish Corded Ware pcw430 R1a R-M417 (xL664, FGC9988). So my conviction that Sredny Stog was PIE increased even more.
Are we going to get the advertised proto-Yamnaya Sredny samples or not? This latest one is also yamnaya + dereivka ukr_n. Nowhere close to the high iranN progress/vonyuchka samples, the actual ancestors of yamnaya.
vAsiSTha: I think that if Planck publish anything, then Harvard will be pushed to publish and vice-versa. At the moment they are both taking quite a while on these samples. Even "Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia" has been in preprint for a year, and its been two years since Anthony gave talk which gave the first public picture of the extended Sredni-Stog and Khvalysnk cline. Ayshin Ghalichi's paper which claimed to find evidence of "In the Late Eneolithic period, we find evidence of admixture from the south into the steppe groups, detectable through the presence of Anatolian_Neolithic-like ancestry." has also not even reached preprint for a year and a half now.
'1-You know what a founder effect is, don't you? can you explain to me when these founder effects occurred? before or after the mass migrations took place? If they were produced before we should find tons of those markers in the region (s) where they were produced, and if they were produced upon reaching the new territories this would be incompatible with the ability to produce a language shift, or do you think that one man could only impose his own language in gigantic territories?'
They occur as the migration occurs. Let's say we have a population in Madeuplandia, and there are two major Y-hgs that the males of this population belong to, A and B (I don't mean actual Y-hg A and B, but you get me). The Madeuplandian population is a small, late neolithic population, with a patriarchal, patrilocal, patrilineal culture, and a society organised into clan groups. If the entirety of the Madeuplandian population migrates to Newlandia, then we would indeed surely see in the Newlandian archaeogenetic record that there's a sudden autosomal shift, with males in the Newlandian population carrying both Y-hg A and Y-hg B afterwards. In cases where we see that there is a sudden autosomal shift, but we see only Y-hg A or Y-hg B among these post-migration Newlandian males (or at least, we see that one of these Y-hgs is disproportionately more frequent than any others), guess what the obvious conclusion is? It was not the entirety of the Madeuplandian population that participated in this migration, but rather, a section of the Madeuplandian population, which because of Madeuplandian social structure, was not necessarily representative of the wider Madeuplandian population in terms of Y-hg distribution.
Combine this with knowing that Madeuplandians and related cultures seem quite big on inter-group violence, which can lead to sharp reductions in Y-hg diversity, particularly when population sizes are relatively small, and it's obvious to understand what's happening. I mean, what happened in central European CWC, from the early phase to the late phase? From a nearly-even split of R1b-L51 to R1a-M417, to almost all R1a-M417. These events occur, and we see the aftermath in the archaeogenetic record. Why does Yamnaya have lower Y-DNA diversity than earlier steppe groups? It's all the same sort of thing happening.
'2-The origin of germanic, italic and celtic you have to explain it yourself, because you are the one who defends the Kurgan theory, I have always been of the opinion that neither P312 nor the BB culture spoke an IE language. Which cultures in your opinion spoke these branches of IE, do you have any idea?'
I know that's your opinion, but you must understand that it's one you share with vanishingly few people. I think that BB-derived groups in central-western Europe spoke Italo-Celtic, and I think that pre-proto-Germanic was spoken by people in BA north-western Europe, personally. But I think that the earlier precursors to both I-C and pPGmc were spoken by groups in central-western Europe rich in R1b-L51, if we're talking earlier on.
'3-Regarding the “heterogeneity” (sic) of the autosomal composition of the CWC in its different regions, I don't understand what you mean, maybe you should start by explaining to ignorant people like me, why is there an excess of WHG signal in the early CWC?'
Excess of WHG signal compared to what, exactly? If we're talking compared to Yamnaya, then yeah, our early "CWC unadmixed" cluster, to coin a phrase, is shifted towards something WHG-related. What it actually has, compared to Yamnaya, is more Ukraine_N-related ancestry. Afanasievo, Yamnaya, "CWC unadmixed", and some not-yet-released eneolithic Moldovan samples all sit on a cline ranging from the more Progress_en-rich at the Afanasievo end, to the more Ukraine_N-rich at the eneolithic Moldovan end. This shouldn't be particularly surprising; we're just looking at east-west clinality across the eneolithic western steppe region and the EBA descendants of these people.
What I would ask is, how does one explain samples like poz81 from early Polish CWC, or pnl001 from early Bohemian CWC, fitting into this eneolithic western steppe cline, except for them being immigrants, or the unadmixed descendants of immigrants, to their respective regions from somewhere within the western steppe/forest steppe region? If it were the case that they were the descendants of exactly-Yamnaya-like migrants to these areas, and that the extra WHG-related ancestry they carry were from a local ancestor, then how can you reconcile how small the amount of ancestry is with how recently-arrived they are? If we're saying they have a local parent, they'd need to be 50% non-Yamnaya-like. Local grandparent, 25% non-Yamnaya-like. Great-grandparent, 12.5%. You get me, I'm sure. When they're modelling as carrying about 3% WHG-related ancestry on top of their exactly-Yamnaya-like component, we're needing that local ancestor of theirs to be about five generations back, but this just doesn't fit with the chronology. Furthermore, how can these nigh-identical samples from Bohemia, Poland and the East Baltic carry the same non-Yamnaya-like ancestry? How has one guy's central European farmer great-great-great-grandfather given him the same degree of "bonus WHG" as the other guy's Narva-related great-great-great-grandfather? It just doesn't add up. The only parsimonious explanation is that we're looking at the result of a migration of a population somewhere between Yamnaya and Moldova_en in terms of its Progress_en+Ukaine_N makeup to peninsular Europe.
'4-The CWC is one of the most homogeneous prehistoric cultures in terms of YChr. There are R1a-M417 in Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Poland, Bohemia, Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic. Maybe you should also ask yourself why there are only R1b-L151 in Bohemia (the L52-CWC samples in Poland are much later and therefore useless). I'm sure you think it's a miracle.'
I don't understand what issue you're raising here. Here's a question for you instead: Where did R1b-L51 come from, if not a western steppe group, given the following points?:
-There is no R1b-L23 (branch immediately ancestral to R1b-L51; TMRCA ~6.1kybp) in any sample anywhere without western steppe ancestry. Nor is there any sample anywhere which carries R1b-M269 (branch immediately ancestral to R1b-L23; TMRCA ~6.4kybp) but does not have western steppe ancestry. If we go a step back to R1b-P297 then yes, we have samples without steppe ancestry, with R1b-P297, but this has a TMRCA of ~13.3kybp, so it takes us to the mesolithic, and becomes kind of irrelevant. In all of the neolithic western and central European samples we have, there are none which carry Y-DNA even closely related to a possible neolithic ancestor to R1b-L51.
-There, however, is R1b-L23* in Yamnaya, telling us that the immediate ancestor of R1b-L51 was present in western steppe groups.
-There is also R1b-L51 in Afanasievo, which has been pointed out to you countless times before, and to which you have never provided any satisfactory counter-argument.
It is simply abundantly clear that R1b-L51--just like the other branch of R1b-L23, and just like R1b-L23 itself--was present on the neolithic-EBA western steppe, which... makes perfect sense when we have 100% eneolithic western steppe-like CWC samples with R1b-L51 in Bohemia.
'5-R1b-L51>L151 was a very strange guy, not only did he not participate in the mass migrations of his steppe relatives, but when he did (supposedly to Bohemia), he left his colleagues behind and went off alone to Holland to create the BB culture while the rest were scattered all over Eastern Europe developing their original culture (CWC)- Seems they were quite independent right? no doubt he was not very comfortable with his relatives in the CWC.'
I don't know if you think that these people were some kind of unified nation or empire, but, well... They weren't. It's like sarcastically saying, "Ooh yes, how strange of the mystical, magical ancestors of the insular Celts to migrate to Britain and start speaking differently, leaving their "Celtic comrades" behind on the mainland! They must have been so comfortable alongside their Celtic mainland relatives!". Do you really think that different tribes and clans of late stone age, early bronze age people all loved each other as dear friends, smoking weed round the campfire together, because they spoke the same language and had the same burial customs? What exactly is surprising about one group within a population migrating away from another? Do you doubt that early European settlers in North America came from England? They couldn't possibly ever stop being the exact same thing as their "English comrades" back over the Atlantic, could they? The points you're raising just kind of... aren't points.
Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia will be published soon. They are splitting the paper in two. One part will be exclusively about trait selection and the other will include the rest of the pre print. The content of both papers will be the same as in the pre print.
ukr_104 , female from Dereivka late 4000 bc buried on back, contracted position ?
Expected result We know Sredni Stog was a cultural horizon with genetic diversity ranging from EEF to Khvalynsk. Yamnaya-like uniformity was the end-point
“Early Contact Between Late Farming and Pastoralist Societies in Southeastern Europe”
Sort of interesting. There’s a sample from Boyanovo, Bulgaria “BOY14” that belongs to J2b. Dated EBA, 85% Yamnaya autosomal ancestry. According to 2 users on Anthrogenica, he is low coverage, but can be confidently placed under J2b M102. I’m thinking there is a high probability that he belongs to J2b L283.
Perhaps they can get a better read at some point down the road?
Congratulations to you and your fellow co authors on your recent publication “Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians”.
I’m guessing this additional Latvia_MN/PittedWare/Ukraine_N affinity Bohemia CW displays goes away once Srendy Stog and GAC are added into the mix no? Sredny Stog is Ukraine_N (EEF + WHG/EHG) with additional EHG/CHG right?
"Don't get so excited. That pea brain of yours might pop."
@Matt "and its been two years since Anthony gave talk which gave the first public picture of the extended Sredni-Stog and Khvalysnk cline"
What are we expecting here? That a region formerly rich in Ukr_N (WHG + EHG) ancestry suddenly became the major source of IranN + EHG steppe_en/yamnaya pop? What is this hypothesis based on? This is like expecting Iran to be the source of Anatolian farmer ancestry.
Now we have this data, with various combinations of yamnaya + EEF admixture and an amazing diversity of Y haplogroups - from R1b, I to J to G, E, H etc. https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?28491-Early-contact-between-late-farming-and-pastoralist-societies-in-southeastern-Europe
That's right. Ukrainian archaeologists, in particular, Rassamakin, abandoned the concept of a unified culture of Sredniy Stog 20 years ago. Sredniy Stog Rassamakin called only the earliest stage about 4800-4500 BC. And then the two lines diverge. One line is the culture of Skeliy (Novodanilovka/Suvorovo), and the second line is Dereivka. Now we see it on aDNA. Samples south of the Dereivka show high CHG, and north of the Dereivka show low CHG. This situation persists somewhere up to 3800-3500 BC. What happens then is not yet clear. There are two scenarios. According to the first scenario, part of the southern population of Novodanilovka moves to the forest-steppe, where it assimilates the Dereivka population and then goes to Europe, where it assimilates the GAC. According to the second scenario, Repino culture assimilates the Dereivka and then they go to Europe. Without a large number of samples of the period 4000-3000 BC, it is impossible to decide which scenario is correct.
Repino & Novodanilokva have little relevant meaning today. E.g. there was no Repino expansion toward the west, it's a story David Anthony made up. Its a pottery style which becomes prominent in the northern part of the Don steppe and expands eastward.
So not only do "Proto-CWC" and Yamnaya go back to SS, but also DIFFERENT parts of SS?
If that's the case, just throw PIE as a theory in the garbage and fire every linguist out there, because that's Anatolian/Core PIE level of division between CWC/Yamnaya languages.
@Rob There are no other scenarios visible there. All the southern steppe groups formed after 4000 BC were formed on the Novodanilovka horizon: Berezhnovka on the Volga, Repino on the Don, Zhivotilovka on the left bank of the Dnieper, Nizhnyaya Mikhaylovka on the right bank of the Dnieper, west of the Southern Bug Usatovo/Ytkonos, west of the Dniester Chernavoda. The only question is which of these groups became the basis for the formation of Yamnaya, and which for CWC. The basic profile of this southern steppe group is already known to us - these are two samples from Igren and Odessa and three samples from the new preprint maj004, maj017, maj019.
@ Vlad I understand the genetic evidence quite well My point was that those are outmoded classifications which will be superceded by modern anthropological data. There’s not going to be a “Repin people” that are mutually exclusive with “milhailovka” At best repin represent the group which are eastern Yamnaya Lower Don has too much Majkop going on to be relevant for either cwc or Yamnaya There’s no doubt about that. Intelligent people are gonna mark my words and listen, those who don’t get it will continue on tangents
again and again WHG/EHG population has already been found to be ancestral to Yamnaya. It is a settled debate already addressed in a peer reviewd paper by Allentoft:
We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as a mixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle Don River region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 4). Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, who already carry ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknown proximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes. The individuals in question derive from the burial ground Golubaya Krinitsa (Supplementary Note 3). Material culture and burial practices at this site are similar to the Mariupol-type graves, which are widely found in neighbouring regions of Ukraine, for instance along the Dnepr River. They belong to the group of complex pottery-using hunter-gatherers mentioned above, but the genetic composition at Golubaya Krinitsa is different from the remaining Ukrainian sites (Fig 2A, Extended Data Fig. 4).
@Davidski Can we determine that the earliest archeological culture to be speaking any putative form of PIE would be Sredny?
Words like “edze”, “wadar” and “ik” = “eat”, “water” and “I”, respectively, were discovered in the Hittite kingdom, and IIRC the Anatolian branch stems from Novodanilovka or some other Lower Don culture in Ukraine, so they may be sisters?
Take a look at all "genetic cousins" in Europe today. They all speak different dialects/languages, even if related. PIE is not the collection of all related steppe dialects/languages. It's 1 specific, HOMOGENOUS steppe language. It's a single point of origin.
That a homogenous PIE language existed is fact. This is not a matter of opinion. If Yamnaya/CW bifurcated like CW fanboys posit, linguists would have found evidence hundreds of years ago.
All IE languages today by definition have to postdate 3300 BC/Afanesievo split, because Tocharian is the 2nd most archaic PIE language after Anatolian. That rules out SS (4500 BC - 3500 BC) because it's too early and IBD shows this as well.
Plenty of them. Scandinavians, Western Slavs, Balkan Slavs, Brittonic Celts, ancient Italic people, etc... All autosomally similar, with related, but different dialects.
Once you spend a few hundred years apart, you notice clear linguistic changes, even if mutually intelligibility is maintained. If Sredny Stog is proven to be the source of Proto-Anatolian, and THAT is the "PIE" we're talking about, then I would agree SS = PIE. However, if we're talking Core PIE, i.e. modern IE languages, SS is WAYYY too early as a culture to be a candidate for those, and I don't know any academic who actually posits this.
I've said this before, but the only way to make that Yamnaya =/= CW theory work, is if we had some sort of centralized state/empire with an official language. Then we would be talking about a Proto-Indo-European Empire/Kingdom, where Yamnaya/CW lived side by side as "genetic cousins" but spoke the exact same language. This would solve both the genetic and linguistic conundrum, but now archeologists would laugh at you.
''I didn’t think that Lower Don had any significant Maykop contribution at all, not just in Yamnaya but in general. Haak 2019''
I dont think there was any publication 'Haak 2019" dealing with that. Anyhow, I was referring to the pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic period where there was probably significant influence and people from Majkop & steppe Majkop on the Lower Don. I was using it as an example because it always gets mentioned by some people as if a magic fix to the Yamnaya question.
You might be excited by that sample you quoted but be extremely aware of Allentoft et al. They’re arrogant fools who are more into story telling than science Their little doggy psikh should tell them that
So as a true scholar, which you are, leave the veneration to the sicophants at tokenGenica
here's some suggestions for new labels for some samples without them. And for consistency's sake I added time periods to some of the samples without them.
https://pastebin.com/2YgyWGsJ Also you have two Taglientes in there and the Medieval Yana sample's coordinates are the same as Yana1, they've been changed for some reason
If this hypothetical "Proto-CW" and Yamnaya go back to SS (and different parts of it at that), you'd have Yamnaya and CW linguistically be the same level of difference as Danish and Swedish, or Norwegian and Swedish. Old Norse goes back 600 years IIRC.
That's super easy to pick up linguistically. If Danish and Swedish become language families thousands of years down the line, we'd be able to reconstruct a Proto-Danish and Proto-Swedish language, and then an Old Norse beyond that. Guess what? We can't do that with Yamnaya and CW.
We can't reconstruct a Proto-CW language, and we can't reconstruct a Proto-Yamnaya language. We can only construct a PIE language, that involves all Yamnaya/CW languages. And there, Sredny Stog can't be a candidate for anything other than PROTO-ANATOLIAN. IIRC this was David Anthony's take. Modern languages (LATE PIE) can only go back to 3000 BC max.
A lot of words, old nonsense arguments and unanswered questions, in other words, a waste of time.
1-If the founder effects occurred as the migrations occurred, this means that at the beginning there were very few migrants and therefore it is incompatible with one of the basic linguistic principles that can explain a language change, i.e. a massive migration and a total replacement of the population. This small number is the reason why we find the first M269-L51 buried in neolithic dolmens or caves (Switzerland, Spain, or Belgium), in no way could they change the language spoken by the western megalithic culture.
2-Ha Ha, I am not alone, in my country, very few people believe in the Kurgan theory as interpreted by Harvard, many researchers think it is a real nonsense. We simply interpret genetic data differently. You think that the earlier precursors to both I-C and pPGmc were spoken by groups in central-western Europe rich in R1b-L51 (CWC and BBC), but you will never have proof of this because there are no written records. We do however have proof that the paternal descendants of R1b-L51 in south-France, Italy and Iberia spoke NON-IE languages, and they are conclusive proofs that cannot be refuted, ergo these are scientific data not fairy tales. Sorry my friend the BBc and P312 never spoke IE languages.
3-Try to understand Papac's models and don't fool yourself-Yamnaya_Ukraine (75,20%), Bohemia_EE (14.60%) & Latvia_Neolithic (10.20%)-Then check the male and female uniparental markers and try to find out where the excess WHG is coming from. Ukraine? NO way, it is simply an emergency solution to avoid total collapse of the Kurgan theory. Then check the dating of the samples and you will see that between 3.000-2.750 BC the men are R1b-L51 & U106 and after 2.750 BC R1a-M417, Z2103 and Q1b2a. This can only mean that either L51>L151 was already in Bohemia or that different migrations took place, a first one with L151 accompanied by mtDNA steppe markers and a second one directly from the Yamnaya culture after 2750 BC.
4-If L51>L151 was in the steppes and it was a joint migration, all those male lineages would appear in all regional variants of CWC. Yet there is only L51 in Bohemia, what is your explanation? Regarding the old Kurganist arguments related to L23, L51, Afanasievo etc, after Smyadovo (4.500 BC), are all a waste of time because all the R1b east of Bulgaria has its origin in the Balkans until you find older R1b-M269 in Ukraine, Russia, etc....
5- It is not difficult to understand what I mean when I say that L51 was a strange type. It appears in different places & different times and did not participate in any steppe migration
I will make sure to let them know the resident nutter of this comment section disapproves. They will shut down the lab within days upon hearing the dire news.
- I4427_new_all should be dated to 4059 BC, not 500 BC. - UUS001 should be dated to 1350 AD, not the BA - TUK001 should be dated to 327 AD, not the MA - KHI001 should be dated to 980 BC, not sure if this corresponds to MLBA
“The general rule about extrapolating into the unobserved past still applies: results are comparatively secure when different lines of evidence converge on the same result. Computational cladistics yields only one line of evidence; therefore, it must be used in conjunction with traditional methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence and everything else that might be relevant”.
Using traditional methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence and everything else that might be relevant we can date the separation of Indo-Slavonic languages into Proto-Balto-Slavonic and Proto-Indo-Iranian. It was the time when R1a-Z645 split into R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93, and CWC groups rich in R1a-Z93 migrated east to become later Indo-Iranians. It was around 3000 BC.
https://postlmg.cc/QHtfTPq3
So we can reconstruct Proto-CWC, which was Proto-Indo-Slavonic language, using Balto-Slavonic and Indo-Iranian languages which are still quite similar. Their similarities date to the time of their separation. Proto-CWC language, which was Proto-Indo-Slavonic, probably can be dated to Sredny Stog culture from which R1a rich CWC groups arrived.
The problem with Hittite, Tocharian and other languages is that they were recorded thousands years later, and they cannot be properly dated by other methods ; therefore their splitting and dating is not secure. Or in other words is pseudoscientific.
Yes, I4427 is from 4000 BCE UUS001 didn't have a radiocarbon date in it's study but it was described as MLBA unlike UUS002 TUK001 was designated as Early Medieval but could be Late Iron Age KHI001 could be EIA as well or MLBA
@Rob “ I dont think there was any publication 'Haak 2019" dealing with that. Anyhow, I was referring to the pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic period where there was probably significant influence and people from Majkop & steppe Majkop on the Lower Don.”
The link below references a blog entry in which Davidski rebuts any significant contributions of Maykop (or Steppe Maykop) into WSH, Yamnaya included:
This paper on a Steppe-heavy sample which the authors believe is a sredny stog migrant to Trypillia just became public, by the way. I can't get to the actual DNA data though, there's a button for it but it leads nowhere
''The link below references a blog entry in which Davidski rebuts any significant contributions of Maykop (or Steppe Maykop) into WSH, Yamnaya included:''
Then Yamnaya probably did not 'come from' the Lower Don region. i.e. it was not within the core formation zone of early Yamnaya
As I thought, in the conclusions of Poznań geneticists, the excess of WHG in the Strzyżów and Trzciniec cultures will come from Kujawy. This excerpt from their latest article proves it:
"Kujawy is an extremely interesting area of Poland from the point of view of studying neolithization processes. There was a border separating the southern areas, where agricultural Neolithic cultures were present, from the northern ones, where Mesolithic cultures of hunting and gathering existed. Neolithic community in this region was characterized by an increased share of the WHG genetic component even before the period of migration to Central Europe of the population from Scandinavia. Moreover, the presence of people without the genetic component of EEF testifies that enclaves of autochthonous WHG existed still in the Middle Neolithic."
The authors of this article also explain the principles of the law of coalescence, according to which alleles tend to reduce diversity in a population. It is coalescence that causes the further back in time we go back in the past that we find in the archeological material more Y-chromosome haplotypes currently rare or non-existent, and fewer currently common.
Speaking of Copenhagen - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39202-0 - "Imputation of ancient human genomes" - Published: 20 June 2023 - "Due to postmortem DNA degradation and microbial colonization, most ancient genomes have low depth of coverage, hindering genotype calling. Genotype imputation can improve genotyping accuracy for low-coverage genomes. However, it is unknown how accurate ancient DNA imputation is and whether imputation introduces bias to downstream analyses. Here we re-sequence an ancient trio (mother, father, son) and downsample and impute a total of 43 ancient genomes, including 42 high-coverage (above 10x) genomes. We assess imputation accuracy across ancestries, time, depth of coverage, and sequencing technology. We find that ancient and modern DNA imputation accuracies are comparable. When downsampled at 1x, 36 of the 42 genomes are imputed with low error rates (below 5%) while African genomes have higher error rates. We validate imputation and phasing results using the ancient trio data and an orthogonal approach based on Mendel’s rules of inheritance. We further compare the downstream analysis results between imputed and high-coverage genomes, notably principal component analysis, genetic clustering, and runs of homozygosity, observing similar results starting from 0.5x coverage, except for the African genomes. These results suggest that, for most populations and depths of coverage as low as 0.5x, imputation is a reliable method that can improve ancient DNA studies."
No new adna other than the high coverage GAC trio.
You know what, you're right; talking to you is a waste of time, because while I addressed every point you raised, the only point of mine you addressed is the issue of large-scale vs. small-scale migration. Which is a fair point, and the response I raise that absolute numbers versus relative numbers matter. If the population at the destination location is small, then a small migration is still a large relative migration and so easily capable of spurring a significant population shift. It's also worth bearing in mind that small migrations absolutely can lead to disproportionately large changes in language and culture. How much Roman DNA is there, really, in Romance-speaking countries outside of Italy, for example? But that's an aside, because we can see the autosomal evidence for significant population shifts in the cases we're discussing.
Other than that, there's no point touching on anything else you've said because it doesn't address what I've said, except with regards to...
'L51 was a strange type. It appears in different places & different times'
...Yes, such as early Bohemian CWC (and peninsular European populations with ancestry from CWC), and Afanasievo? Tell me, what's the point of commonality between these incredibly disparate populations? Because tone doesn't carry well over text, I'll be clear: This is a rhetorical question; I don't really want an answer.
lol yeah reminds me of their CWC & Zlota paper by Hannes Schroeder. They claimed ''Europe experienced such a dramatic reduction in Neolithic genomic ancestry at this time ''. Dramatic & and just at this time ? This is a classic example of observer-sample bias.
What they did is used the new guys - the steppe male-CWC colonists with a paucity of EEF - to make a false claim that EEF populations 'reduced dramatically', everywhere. That's wrong even for northern Europe - EEF had been 'diminishing' for thousands of years already, due to WHG introgression & regional differential demic booms & busts. But is that even a 'reduction'' or the result of ongoing admixture & complex population dymamics between EEF, WHG & steppe migrants ? Only a thorough case-by-case analysis can answer that, lest we forget places like Greece Iberia or Italy, where EEF remained the most prominent type of ancestry. They were politely informed about this, but were very dismissive. They have chosen the wrong path.
To cite another example, in Damgaard et al, they claimed ''we do not find evidence for substantial genetic contribution of Sarmatians to the 5th century Alans. Instead, we see that these north Caucasian Alans form a clade with the Iron Age Caucasian populations from Armenia with respect to the Sarmatians in a D-statistic.''
You can't exclude gene flow simply via D-Stats. The D-stats show that Alans have greater affinity with Caucasian groups. Anyone can check for themselves that Alans do have gene flow from steppe Sarmatians with qpADM or a G25-based method But no big deal, innocent error, although somewhat embarrasing.
So, ill remain sceptical of the claims in their preprint about the Cuacasian roots of WHG, or this holy-grail middle Don sample.
..not to metion that their contentions have been irrevocably refuted by this new data from Poland - GAC & other para-Neolithic groups persisted and incrementally mixed into post-CWC groups. It's so obvious one doesn't need to be prodigious.
This sample from the Middle Don, of course, is not directly related to either Yamnaya or CWC. It is fundamentally important for understanding that the CHG are not new migrants to the steppe after 4500 BC, but were in the steppe long before that. Well, the fact that there are rumors that this sample is R1a-M417.
hi i am a genetics noob. When i used WHG and Yamnaya g25 coords in vahaduo it said they had a grester distance to africans than modern europe, but when I put their coords in the Africa 3D PCA they were closer to africans than modern europeans. why is this exactly and which is true?
Mate, what are you talking about? Corded Ware is not just Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan. It's Germanic, Celtic, Italic, etc... You'd have to reconstruct a super-language with all of these while excluding, Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian, etc.. It's just not possible.
I'm not even biased against the idea of what Davidski is proposing, but it just doesn't work with the available evidence. You're causing more problems than you're solving. In order to solve a Y-DNA mystery, you throw everything else out the window. Languages don't stay frozen in time for hundreds of years, to make your Y-DNA theories work.
Can you confirm that you understand that Yamnaya and CWC both originated in the same part of the steppe, kept contact with each other and were genealogically closely related?
Yes or no?
Of course if you say yes then you've lost the argument with me.
Firstly, distance calculations using the G25 are based on 25 dimensions of genetic variation, while a 3D PCA plot only shows three dimensions.
Secondly, regional PCA analyses, like the African PCA, are only useful for studying the populations that are represented in the PCA. So you won't get reliable information about WHG from an African PCA because WHG is not an African population.
@DragonHermit “Mate, what are you talking about? Corded Ware is not just Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan. It's Germanic, Celtic, Italic, etc... You'd have to reconstruct a super-language with all of these while excluding, Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian, etc.. It's just not possibile”
Corded Ware was Indo-Slavonic. It is comparatively secure because different lines of evidence converge on the same result, i.e. linguistics and traditional methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence etc. Germanic, Celtic, Italic came from Bell Beakers. Greek, Albanian and Armenian origin is not known. Phrygian, Thracian and Dacian languages are not known and cannot be reconstructed.
Early CT + Sredny Stog -> Heterogeneous Late CT groups -> R1b-L51 Corded Ware Groups living North of the Alps -> German Beakers -> All other Beakers
Early CT + Sredny Stog -> Heterogeneous Late CT groups -> Danish SGC Groups with R1b V6136 autosomally similar to Unetice and not to Beakers -> dead end
Speaking of Nikitin, he published an article on Stratum Plus stating that, in his view, Yamnaya emerged in the Dniester-Dnieper region from steppe-icized late Tripolje groups such as Gordinesti. Essentially summarises the data for progressive admixture between Sredni Stog & Trypolje (citing his own work, Immel, Mathieson, etc).
I’ve nothing against that as one component contributing to the formation of Yamnaya, but it might be putting too much stock on a stray burnt bone from a female (his latest study). And only a multi-scalar, time progressive view which looks into all swings and streams of influence can fully elucidate the origin of bronze age steppe groups
“This sample from the Middle Don, of course, is not directly related to either Yamnaya or CWC. It is fundamentally important for understanding that the CHG are not new migrants to the steppe after 4500 BC, but were in the steppe long before that. Well, the fact that there are rumors that this sample is R1a-M417.”
"Can you confirm that you understand that Yamnaya and CWC both originated in the same part of the steppe, kept contact with each other and were genealogically closely related?
Yes or no?
Of course if you say yes then you've lost the argument with me."
Everything you mentioned can be applied to Norwegians and Swedes:
- Originated in the same area -> Check - Kept contact with each other -> Check - Were genealogically closely related -> Check
Yet, Norwegian and Swedish are different languages. Saying a hypothetical Proto-CW/Yamnaya speak the exact same language, is like saying Norwegians and Swedes are still speaking Old Norse. They're not. They derive from it, as would those two groups from SS, but they have clear linguistic laws differentiating them.
You want these two groups to live in different ecological zones, but still speak the exact same language. It just can't happen.
The main issue is how we define "Yamnaya". I've said this before, but it's quite clear most RZ2103 kurgans are just Core-PIE COUSINS, like Tocharian. Linguistically today they're a dead end. As such, MOST Yamnaya have not left linguistic/genetic descendants. PIE is a specific northwestern steppe variant with a heavy farming vocabulary, whose leading clans split apart ~ 3000 BC. The RZ2103s of PIE drifted south, the L51s west, and R1as north. That's a bit of an oversimplification but it's the gist of it. Corded Ware people like Lazaridis put it, are just "intermediaries", between Northwestern Yamnaya and the rest of Europe and the IBD study proves just that. I mean ffs we have such large IBD segments, and they're not even the direct paternal ancestors of these people. Just random samples.
Where is the R1a-m417 in Yamnaya? Where is the R1b-L51 in SGC?
Your Bell Beaker "story" is based on samples that don't exist just like your story about Corded Ware originating in Yamnaya was. What's more, both stories are directly contradicted by the samples that do exist.
Davidski, I noticed TUR_Marmara_Ilipinar_C:I10543 is not included in G25 along with the other three Ilipinar C samples. Is that because of contamination or something? It's available to look at in Genoplot calculators and seems to have a relatively large North Sea/Atlantic component in K15 Ancient, so I was curious what it looked like in PCA.
I've come across some additional tid-bits regarding various steppe samples being chatted about
* Ukr_Mes structure: 2 mesolithic Derievkans (a female, and R1a-male) are west-shifted, plotting with the Ukr_N cluster, whilst the Meso individuals from further south on the Dnieper are more east-shifted
* the 'hyper-steppe' Boyanovo are actually quite late. One of them is C14 dated to ~ 2200 BC. Hence they're uninformative about Yamnaya origins
* in regards to comments re: I-M223/ P222 in Dnieper rapids, the lineage appears to be novel there, but sampling is req. Also take note of dietary differences (mostly fish in Dnieper c.f. domesticates eaten by their kin in the Tisza basin) impact C14 dating, making the 2 esentially contemporaneous, as I originally suggested.
R1a-M417 was in Yamnaya and Corded Ware comes from Yamnaya, you are a moron if you disagree.
Davidski 2021 -> Present
Well I guess in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary Corded Ware actually comes from the "Forest Steppe". What is the Forest Steppe? Well it's not Trypillia despite that being the only archeological horizon in the area at that time aside from GAC. UHM It's Sredny Stog. Disregard Sredny Stog ceased to exist in 3500 BCE. That 500 year gap between Sredny Stog and Corded Ware doesn't matter. Also disregard the fact that Sredny Stog existed on the Steppe and not the Forest Steppe. Also disregard the fact that the entire Steppe theory of Indo-European languages hinges on equating Yamnaya with the reconstructed PIE language. Also disregard 2012-2021, that didn't happen.
Yes lets not forget your greatest catchphrase "Corded Ware comes from Yamnaya because early Corded Ware is identical to Yamnaya"
The basis? One female from a Baltic Corded Ware context.
The special pleading? Ignoring literally hundreds of other Corded Ware samples uniformly containing ~30% Farmer ancestry.
Then your follow up bullshit: "All Corded Ware acquired their Farmer ancestry from local farmers and did not carry it with them". Because they were originally Yamnaya right? This was great especially in Baltic Corded Ware where there were no preceeding farmers.
My hypothesis has always been that Corded Ware and Yamnaya derive from the same population.
This is correct.
Whether we call this ancestral population Yamnaya, proto-Yamnaya or something else is still up for debate.
My opinion has generally been that this population should not be called Yamnaya. The evidence for this is in my blog posts going back many years.
It seems that you've got me confused with David Reich etc., who are adamant that Corded Ware is derived from Yamnaya. That's not my problem, that's your problem.
And obviously the idea that Corded Ware is from the same population as Yamnaya isn't just based on a singleton Baltic Corded Ware female. All of the very early Corded Ware samples from the Baltic, Bohemia and Poland have this type of Yamnaya-like genetic structure.
It's only during the middle and late Corded Ware period that we see the farmer ancestry in the Corded Ware population rise sharply above the level that is seen in Yamnaya.
The same process is seen in the Baltic Corded Ware, where farmer ancestry rises gradually, and this is due to mixing with Corded Ware groups in Central Europe.
"Norwegians and Swedes don't show the same level of genealogical relatedness as CWC and Yamnaya you fucking idiot."
Based on what? They share similar autosomal profiles, uniparentals, and strong IBD hits. Oslo is literally 200 km from Sweden.
"My hypothesis has always been that Corded Ware and Yamnaya derive from the same population.
This is correct.
Whether we call this ancestral population Yamnaya, proto-Yamnaya or something else is still up for debate."
No is denying that. The only thing that's up for discussion is the TIME when it happened. Pushing it towards Sredny Stog makes 0 sense, when a 3300 BC Tocharian split is considered archaic linguistically. Like I said, Sredny Stog at most can be a candidate for Proto-Anatolian. Even Tocharian is too late.
PIE speakers were just a SUBSET of steppe/Yamnaya people with farming influences. This points to a western influence.
399 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 399 of 399And if they do not have Magdalenian or some sort of Solutrean or Aurignacian ancestry, would you want to explain what is going on here?
1 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Belgium_UP_Magdalenian -1.91e-4 5.73e-4 -0.333 7.39e- 1
2 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1 7.45e-4 5.73e-4 1.30 1.94e- 1
3 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Romania_PesteraMuierii_E… -5.21e-3 4.62e-4 -11.3 1.62e-29
4 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Russia_Sunghir3.SG -5.86e-3 5.19e-4 -11.3 1.48e-29
5 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Turkey_Epipaleolithic 4.59e-4 4.13e-4 1.11 2.66e- 1
6 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Bulgaria_BachoKiro_Middl… -2.93e-3 5.04e-4 -5.82 5.89e- 9
7 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 -3.49e-3 4.77e-4 -7.31 2.68e-13
8 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Czech_Vestonice16 -3.94e-4 5.11e-4 -0.771 4.41e- 1
9 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N China_Tianyuan -5.66e-3 5.49e-4 -10.3 5.87e-25
10 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Turkey_N Italy_Mesolithic.SG -2.65e-3 3.97e-4 -6.68 2.45e-11
Blogger Davidski said...
@Rob
Yes, but obviously not anyone that can be described as WHG or SHG.
Great point, in the case of Trzcniec they were SHG men from the Narva culture who first mated with Corded Ware females and THEN conquered lands to the South of the Narva zone in Poland and Ukraine.
Yeah, that's why there's hardly nay Narva Y-DNA in Poland and Ukraine today.
Haha.
There is no L233 left in Poland today because we acheived the dream of all true Poles, to migrate to an Anglo Saxon country. You know.
@Romulus
The most HG shifted samples with BS drift are both R1a-CTS1211 and they are also the oldest ones. Sure I would bet that I2-L233 males took part in the formation of that population but R1a-CTS1211 must have present it not even dominant in that population.
@Davidski
Hey Dave have you seen this guy before?: I16184 France-BA GalloRoman 1400 (2000-800) BC N1a-L708
A Gallo-Roman sample with N1a, is this contamination? I remember something about this guy not being directly dated too. Very strange, I’m thinking this is a contaminated samples, while that Únětice dude with N1a was also surely misdated (I don’t think he was directly dated either), while possibly being contaminated too.
Might be a wrongly dated Viking.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Using Mbuti for better resolution.
P1 P2 P3 P4 fstat s.err Z
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu BachoKiro_IUP -0.006713 0.000365 -18.375
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu Sunghir.SG -0.002721 0.000341 -7.980
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu CHG.SG -0.003090 0.000393 -7.866
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu Kostenki14 -0.002208 0.000424 -5.211
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu Gravettian -0.001202 0.000328 -3.667
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu GoyetQ116-1 -0.001196 0.000477 -2.510
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu Dzudzuana -0.001106 0.000476 -2.322
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu FRL -0.001026 0.000456 -2.250
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu GoyetQ2 -0.000958 0.000471 -2.032
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu Solutrean_MLZ005 -0.000754 0.000489 -1.542
result: Mbuti.DG Iberomaurusian Turkey_Boncuklu WHG -0.000017 0.000355 -0.049
WHG = Villabruna, AC16, RIP001
Gravettian = Vestonice16, Vestonice13, Vestonice43, I1577, DLV005, DLV006, I2483, PA12
---------
Here's my take on it: Before the LGM there existed a still unsampled population with a particular Gravettian-Aurignacian mix, probably in the Balkans and which probably contributed to Levantine Aurignacian and so to the ancestors of the Iberomaurusians & Natufians, Anatolia, Dzudzuana.
It must also have contributed to WHG from the Balkans refugium.
@Gaska
We can always count on a "golden oldie" from you, Gaska. You're like one of the old Bee Gees, still belting out "Staying Alive".
According to you, Europe west of the steppe was always just loaded with R1b. Funny how it managed to disappear during the Neolithic, only to reappear with early Corded Ware, followed by Bell Beaker.
@ Norfern
As crashdoc said. It's shared affinity across Aurignacian populations
Archaeologists freely speak of European migrations to the Levant at this time, but they assumed they left no lasting legacy. They might have been wrong :)
@Rob
"Archaeologists freely speak of European migrations to the Levant at this time, but they assumed they left no lasting legacy. They might have been wrong :) "
There has been a time that every slight parallel with European Aurignacian in Eurasia was considered proof of kinship. That fashion has come to an end, and in a comment on that Ofer Bar-Yosef mentioned that the Levantine Aurignacian even survived scrutiny.
The lasting legacy certainly is visible in U6. Some qpAdm models show a tad el Miron in Natufian and even Ibero-Massurian. Or at least, it shows up in the Dzudzuana preprint.
@Rich S
Ha Ha , this Golden oldie has always been right and there is a lot more R1b than you would have imagined and than the Harvardians would have liked. When Villabruna appeared (12,000 BC) Haak almost had a heart attack.
You have to accept that old mummies like you and Gimbutas have gone out of fashion. It's funny to remember when you and your friends were banning people in anthrogenica for saying that M269 would show up in neolithic sites in old Europe. Now we have Smyadovo and I am still laughing.
In any case it has become clear the affinity between Iberomaurusians and WHG which is what we are talking about.
The fate and legacy of the last hunter-gatherers in western Europe and northwestern Africa: Neolithization of northwestern Africa was ignited by migrants from Iberia and Levant-TD-Luciana Simoes (2023)
In addition to the possible impact of the Magdalenians, this study on the neolithization of North Africa has been published.
Iberian farmers YChr-G2a2b, mtDNA-HV0@195, J1c3j and U5b2b1a brought cardial culture and agriculture to the Maghreb. Another myth regarding the neolithization of Western Europe has fallen, I guess the Africanists will not be very happy. This confirms Fregel's paper which also demonstrated Iberian migrations in the Chalcolithic related to the Bell Beaker culture. The Levantine contributions are from the late Neolithic and demonstrate the complexity of human settlement in the Magreb.
The affinities don't exist in Dzudzuana but they do apperently in Anatolia Neolithic. However Iberomaurusian has even more of these affinities.
1 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Bulgaria_BachoKiro_Midd… 4.55e-4 9.49e-4 0.479 6.32e-1
2 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Italy_Mesolithic.SG 4.96e-3 8.76e-4 5.66 1.51e-8
3 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Romania_PesteraMuierii_… 1.71e-4 9.27e-4 0.184 8.54e-1
4 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_Sunghir3.SG 8.56e-4 8.94e-4 0.957 3.38e-1
5 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_Yana_UP.SG -3.30e-3 8.06e-4 -4.10 4.17e-5
6 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice16 5.03e-4 9.64e-4 0.522 6.01e-1
7 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 China_Tianyuan -6.23e-3 1.03e-3 -6.04 1.50e-9
8 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_MA1_HG.SG -1.54e-3 9.62e-4 -1.60 1.10e-1
9 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Belgium_UP_Magdalenian 2.19e-3 1.19e-3 1.85 6.49e-2
10 Chimp.REF GEO_Dzudzuana_UP Russia_Kostenki14 Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1 -6.04e-4 1.15e-3 -0.526 5.99e-1
1 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Bulgaria_BachoKiro_MiddlePaleo… 2.68e-4 6.13e-4 0.437 6.62e- 1
2 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Italy_Mesolithic.SG 4.31e-3 5.45e-4 7.91 2.52e-15
3 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Romania_PesteraMuierii_EUP -4.18e-4 5.84e-4 -0.715 4.74e- 1
4 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_Sunghir3.SG -1.13e-3 5.66e-4 -2.01 4.49e- 2
5 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_Yana_UP.SG -2.71e-3 5.26e-4 -5.15 2.56e- 7
6 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice16 1.50e-3 6.17e-4 2.44 1.49e- 2
7 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 China_Tianyuan -5.34e-3 6.53e-4 -8.18 2.91e-16
8 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_MA1_HG.SG -7.30e-4 6.20e-4 -1.18 2.39e- 1
9 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Belgium_UP_Magdalenian 3.36e-3 6.59e-4 5.10 3.38e- 7
10 Chimp.REF Turkey_N Russia_Kostenki14 Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1 2.04e-3 6.74e-4 3.02 2.53e- 3
1 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Bulgaria_BachoKi… 5.58e-4 6.01e-4 0.929 3.53e- 1
2 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Italy_Mesolithic… 8.43e-4 5.80e-4 1.45 1.47e- 1
3 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Romania_PesteraM… -1.72e-3 6.02e-4 -2.86 4.18e- 3
4 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_Sunghir3.… -2.37e-3 5.88e-4 -4.03 5.53e- 5
5 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_Yana_UP.SG -2.33e-3 5.21e-4 -4.47 7.77e- 6
6 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Czech_Vestonice16 3.10e-3 6.23e-4 4.97 6.75e- 7
7 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 China_Tianyuan -2.17e-3 6.64e-4 -3.27 1.06e- 3
8 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Russia_MA1_HG.SG -1.36e-3 6.32e-4 -2.14 3.20e- 2
9 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Belgium_UP_Magda… 3.30e-3 6.80e-4 4.85 1.24e- 6
10 Chimp.REF Morocco_Iberomaurusian Russia_Kostenki14 Belgium_UP_Goyet… 4.23e-3 6.81e-4 6.22 5.13e-10
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
We must not forget that Dzudzuana also shares an ancestor with the early Gravettians like Sunghir and Kostenki and that's logical since they came through the Caucasus.
Your results could mean that the link to Goyet and Solutrean through the ancestors of Levantine Aurignacian is not strong enough to overcome Dzudzuana's link to the early Gravettians.
@Rob
Are saying you can model Natufians without any North African/ANA admixture? Do they just take standard Basal Eurasian in that case? Another thing, the E-M78 IBM had was very close to the actual tmrca of the clade. Natufians were E-Z380, different clade, but currently I thought E-M78 distribution looked like it expanded from Egypt. So while I agree with general tenor of your point regarding East to West movement, the y-DNA of IBM seems to suggest there must have been some significant flow going the other way too, no?
Regarding IBM and ANA more generally, most models I've seen tend make IBM a near 50-50 split of West Eurasian and ANA, or slightly more West Eurasian shifted but still at least 40-45% ANA. But if I recall correctly, the direct stats measuring African-IBM affinity (Outgroup African IBM Eurasian), while significant, didn't seem to suggest that IBM was really quite that heavily African? Another strange thing I thought I recalled was that IBM seemed symmetrically related to all Africans, which is weird because if it was truly African admixed how could it not be related to at least one particular group more than the others? Though corollary, that also makes it unlikely that flow could've been IBM > African because it seems very odd that IBM ancestry would disperse equally across Africa as well.
@Gaska
Villabruna, that old chestnut, who was L761* when L389 and probably even P297 were already in existence, who apparently left no Y-DNA descendants and belonged to an autosomal cluster otherwise populated by men who were Y-DNA I2? That Villabruna?
Smyadovo, who had steppe DNA and whose remains were recovered in EASTERN Bulgaria, not far from the Black Sea coast? That Smyadovo?
Gaska, I can't recall that you have ever been right about anything.
It seems like our boy is moving up in the world:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1
Congratulations Dave!
@Cy Tolliver
I think I know the result from the Taforalt paper that you are thinking of. Taforalt is, as you'd expect, closest to North Africans, then East Africans, then West Africans, and furthest from Khoisan and Pygmies. The f4(Chimp, African; Natufian, Taforalt) gives the strongest result for West Africans, so they modelled Taforalt as Yoruba/Mende + Natufian (basically making ANA a sister to West African). However, the real Taforalt was closer to other Africans (Mbuti, Khoisan, Dinka, Mota, or Hadza) than their model (Yoruba/Mende + Natufian) was. (Neither Taforalt nor the ANA component was equidistant to Africans, but there was an equidistant f4 stat in there somewhere.)
They couldn't explain this result, and argued that some kind of other African ancestry with affinities to everyone was also part of ANA. But a more parsimonious explanation is that a basal ghost ancestry mixed into West Africans (pulling them away from everyone else), and ANA is related to the main part of West African ancestry, but didn't get the ghost ancestry (hence closest to West Africans, but closer to everyone else than the latter are).
@Romulus
lol harsh
@ Norfern
Shouldn’t you be cautious in using a 7000 SNP version of Dzudzuana ?
@ Cy
''Are saying you can model Natufians without any North African/ANA admixture? Do they just take standard Basal Eurasian in that case? ''
I don't use terms like ''Basal'', ''Crown'' or ''Princess'' Eurasian, but prefer to employ objective terminology based on real populations.
But to answer what Ive already answered - the main impulse is from Near East to Taforalt, which can be modelled as half-half mix of a deeply sub-Saharan and Middle Eastern group, in broad terms. Until we get data from Egype its hard to say. So Epipalelithic Egypt could have looked like West Asians to begin with
''I thought E-M78 distribution looked like it expanded from Egypt. So while I agree with general tenor of your point regarding East to West movement, the y-DNA of IBM seems to suggest there must have been some significant flow going the other way too, no?''
I don't think it matters which side of the Red Sea the apparent distribution of E-M78 is focussed on. What matters is what the population it was originally linked with looked like.
@Rob
This Dzudzuana is the latest available, it has 209134 SNPs on the 1240K set of SNPs.
@All “ But a more parsimonious explanation is that a basal ghost ancestry mixed into West Africans (pulling them away from everyone else), and ANA is related to the main part of West African ancestry, but didn't get the ghost ancestry (hence closest to West Africans, but closer to everyone else than the latter are).”
Could this ghost population be West African Hunter Gatherers? Are WAHG related to the Mbuti pygmies? There’s a hypothesis that Proto-Niger-Congo speakers are some putative “Green Sahara” dwellers, iron smelters, who migrated southbound into the forest zone and assimilated lithic users Hunter gatherers whom they called “Telem” or “Toloy”. Could these Telem/Toloy/ghost populations be the so-called Aterians?
@ crashdoc- That's awesome. Let's see how it fits in. Is it up on ENA ?
@CopperAxe
Who is your boy? That paper on Albanians was actually pretty good. Autosomal, Y-DNA, and IBD comparisons with some linguistic/archeology sprinkled in (although those were a little bit weaker, understandably). Very, very thorough overall. This is the standard that should be set going forward.
I remember that paper on Greeks/Myceneans a few years back was just some weak autosomal comparisons, which could apply to any generic Southern European population. Hopefully that upcoming Greek paper will follow similar standards to this.
@Rich
Yes, that Villabruna, that Smyadovo, that ATP3 etc etc etc etc, I'm still laughing and I don't think I can stop anymore. An honest man would recognize his mistakes and bad behavior, ask for forgiveness and look for another hobby.
@DragonHermit
Take a peak at the contributing authors you might see a familiar name :)
Yes well done to Dave and Alex . Detailed analyses
Intuitively I would have expected more Central Balkan (“Thracian”) related admixture in Albanians, who are evidently constituted by different subgroups. Does their model apply to all ?
I’d consider the strong historical , archaeological and uniparental evidence for such movements from Dacia Ripensis toward Epirus, for ex; and the linguistically Latinesque character of western Balkans
@Copper Axe
"It seems like our boy is moving up in the world:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.06.05.543790v1
Congratulations Dave!"
Our Dave with Turks and Greeks against Rome! Ask him if he is able to translate Etruscan and even Italian through Albanian, which is formed through 40% of Latin words, 20% Greek an so on.
This paper of course merits to be read carefully, because it is a serious research. I, so far, think that what I wrote in the past in thousands of letters is still true, that the origin found so far in aDNA isn’t resolutive both for R-V88, R-V1636, R-M73*, also thinking to Villabruna and Les Iboussiéres, and even the subclades of R-L51 etc. About this paper I may say that I-M223* is oldest and expanded from Mesolithic Italy, J2b-Z600 is older in Sardinia than the Balkans, and also R-Z2705, that I was one of the first to study more than 10 years ago and named the “Balkan cluster”, is older in Italy and Iberia and very recent in the Balkans. Anyway I’ll write more after having studied the paper.
btw here is my output for Iberomaurisians , including the higher-coverage Natufian
I tried several times last night to post an image, but it either didnt work, or came out too low res so I deleted it
https://pastebin.com/r3tgufqa
copy/ paste into : https://dreampuf.github.io › GraphvizOnline
* NB: no "ghosts' needed
subject to change post Dzudzuana, of course
z -score : -2.94
I got Dzudzuana from here by merging all the .bam files and doing variant calls with Q0. Yes, it's low quality as hell but it doesn't seem to be contaminated. I have also done the plink files if you want those.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB54983
https://www.mediafire.com/file/88gu7bnrdur2zhb/S2949.zip/file
Also I'll take a look at that graph of yours, it's real interesting.
I think it needs a little tuning like an edge from Neanderthals to all Eurasians. And I'm not quite sure I agree with INF coming from CHG and some weird basal West Eurasian and not CHG coming from INF, ANE and ANF.
@ Norfern
Thanks for sharing.
''And I'm not quite sure I agree with INF coming from CHG and some weird basal West Eurasian and not CHG coming from INF, ANE and ANF.''
I dont think it matters about Chg coming or going from Iran - they're basically the same meta-group with regional variation of admixture distributed over that zone.
Anyhow, the more important point is that Iran_N does not have some weird extra basal Western, but rather additional ENA ancestry. I think others have also noticed. And it doesn't seem to be of a recent character.
@Rob
I copied the code verbatim into GraphViz but I keep getting "syntax error in line 1 near "root". What am I messing up?
@ Cy
I posted the wrong file. here's the dotfile
Congratz on the paper, looks very well done.
@Copper Axe
I completely missed his name haha :DD
Congrats to David.
Okay Rob here goes
The graph really does benefit with actual Basal Eurasian in Iran Neolithic and Anatolian. There is nothing particular about Zlaty Kun that attracts Basal Eurasians. Also there's nothing ENA in Iran Neolithic compared to CHG.
As for Natufian, it obviously has Iberomaurusian. It's simply a result of the fact that Natufians do not form a perfect clade with AHG against any other Eurasians, they all prefer AHG over it.
I shall demonstrate all this by making simple changes to your graph. With your current setup, the score is 267
I will move the edges contributing to CHG, AHG and Malta basal to that of other Eurasians.
The score is 220
I shall do the same to Iran Neolithic
The score is 254, worse than previously but still better than the initial graph was.
I shall reverse the admixture edge from Natufian to Iberomaurusian
The score is 233
Iran Neolithic's ENA could be ANE related, so let's introduce that.
The score is 219 but Iran Neolithic takes no Anatolian ancestry or CHG. I think this is due to a lack of West Eurasian populations in the graph, especially WHG, because right now the drift between Iran Neolithic and Anatolian is present in Basal Eurasian.
All in all I think you ought to seriously reconsider your position on Natufian and Basal Eurasian.
I managed to get a better score by introducing Iberomaurusian ancestry into Natufian and making the Basal stuff in Iran Neolithic and Anatolian actually Basal Eurasian. My graph has a score of 172, while your graph has a score of 267. While Iran Neolithic doesn't take in any Anatolian in this graph, I think this can be chalked up to a lack of West Eurasian references in the graph. Iran Neolithic barely takes an ENA ancestry anymore.
https://pastebin.com/nrihDapj
We can not say that R-BY611 is a “Balkan cluster”, neither R-Y23373, but only from R-PH970, given from the familydnatree at 134 CE, thus during the second century CE of the Roman Empire. Probably the paper is right that the Albanian ethnos lived where we find now Albanian people, in the mountains if they could save and use their old branch of the Indo-European languages that is Albanian now, but that it is formed for 40% of Latin words, 20% Greek ones and probably not more than 10% of the original IE one, demonstrates that they lived in the bilingual (Latin and Greek) Roman Empire, just at the borders of the Latin and the Greek worlds. It would be interesting to date the Slav words present in Albanian, because it may say more about the penetration of this people in the Balkans. Anyway not more than 10%, and the times of the penetration lasted above all after the fall of the Roman Empire and the use of Latin, restricted as time passed just in the Romanians, the Dalmatians and the longstanding migration of the Vlachs, more and more assimilated into the local people.
That said, it seems to me that the Dna is always thought by the authors coming from east to west, and the link of the Albanian autosome with Italy is always thought the same, forgetting that the component of the eastern Alps DNA in Italy is as old as in the Balkan people of to-day and not a property of theirs. The recent migration of the Arbereshe influenced a little the to-day population of Italy, what may be detected as “Greek-Balkan” in the modern tests, and more surely is detected by the uniparental markers, among them just the R-Z2705 marker, surely Arbereshe if found in Italy. I have the sample of my wife from Sicily, the Y of the family R-L21 could be Norman, and the mt K1c1f3, which finds just a link of an Albanian and a MRCA of 800 years, before the coming of Arbereshe to Sicily, is just of Norman or anyway German or Baltic origin. It is documented in Albania also a huge presence of Norman Y from the Normans of Southern Italy. I thererfore think that these studies should be done without prejudices but staying at the facts. Not all “ex Oriente lux”. As I reproached to some people who use algorithms in genetics, history is a fundamental component.
@Capra
Thanks for the refresher. I doubt that "ANA" is something that is really related to main bulk of West African ancestry. West Africans IMO are a post-LGM product of an East African migrant population (E1b1a and L3) that gradually expanded westward and mixed with more deeply rooted populations in Center/West Africa (y-dna A and B, and non-L3 mtdna lineages). I don't think North to South movement had much of an impact on the formation of their cluster.
@ Norfern
Thanks for the suggestions.
''Iran Neolithic's ENA could be ANE related, so let's introduce that.''
I think it has both, as depicted in my output. There is obviously the known straightforward ANE, and deeper stuff related to tianyuan, Ust-ishim & Bacho kiro. Going by their strange distribution, it would make sense a place like the zagros to have been the nexus
Your graph depicts Iran-n as a sort of 2-ay mix of purported "Basal" & ANE . not sure about that.
What was your Z-score btw ? it's not listed
''There is nothing particular about Zlaty Kun that attracts Basal Eurasians. ''
Perhaps, but I dont think im the only one who has found in acts as a sort of proxy for basal-like groups (e.g. 'Kale' has thought similar)
''All in all I think you ought to seriously reconsider your position on Natufian and Basal Eurasian.'''
I just think basal is a composite layering and an apparent observation. I don't have anything against the notion of succeesive branchings of eurasian populations, with some earlier ("more basal") than others
And as stated, I have no issue of bi-directionality across the Kebaran-Mushabian-etc spheres. i might shift my view when i incoroporate Dzudzuana into the perspective
User ID 1265 wrote:
> I am seeing that you have the same mt of my wife
> Francesca Guarino from Ribera, Agrigento, Sicily,
> Italy. Can you say more to me about your origin?
Hello!
My and my relatives are from Scandinavia so I don't know about this connection.
But K1c1f3 seems as I understand it to be very old so I don't think it says that much. Our common ancestor perhaps was from 850 years ago?
K1c1f3 formed 3200 ybp, TMRCA 850 ybp
Best regards
Mikael
I thank you very much for your answer. That confirms all my theories I made already many years ago, i.e. that the mt of my wife is in Sicily of Norman (or anyway German) origin, thus not of Arbereshe origin in Sicily as to another link with an Albanian person. Perhaps if you put in YFull the flag of your country, it may help. Thank you.
I think Khormusan is something that should be acknowledged that exists, and as for Iran Neolithic we have Rostamian and Baradostian which obviously contributed to Zarzian and the later Iran Neolithic.
Ultimately Aterian probably has a lot of influence on the Near East and vice versa and I think that it was the cultured that contributed to Iberomaurusian
Kebarans,the pre taforalt ancestors of Natufians,from which natufians derived 66% of their ancestry(dzudzuana deep origins study)were probably anatolian/pinarbasi like genetically (basically CWE+basal)and probably would plot very close to them on PCAs too.
But anatolian proper and kebarans probably separated long Although genetically they were similar and on PCAs they would almost be the same too.
The 10% ANA in natufians pushes them far way
Keberans themselves Are likely the west Eurasian side of taforalt
I think the nahal ein gev kebran samples will likely be E1b already because E seems.to be a basal Eurasian clade to Me,not an ANA clade
ANA formed around 135k bc while E was born 60k bc,also E is related to Eurasian D and CF,and DE itself was born around 80k bc ,close date as of basal eurasians split and formed according to kamm et al 2018
@Cy Tolliver
If ANA is not related to the bulk of West African ancestry what is it related to? Some people think it is 50-60% on its way to Eurasians? Is there any support for this?
@Rob
How far west did ENA extend or did Iran receive an impulse(s) from Central Asia that accounts for its excess ENA?
Norfern my enthusiast learning on Africa is only developing, however, I believe, acc. to C14 dates, the Arterian had long gone by the time of IBM.
Therefore,the source of sub-Saharan ancestry in IBM is from elsewhere. I think we could guess now that we have data from Chum Laka, Mota, South Africa, at least in broad trends, but all the inner-African 'treeness'' gets very complex
Here are some archaeological references
The Spread of Aterian Peoples in North Africa - Elena Garcea
''To sum up, we can say that since the late 1990s there is general agreement that the Aterian spans the period between c. 40 and, at least, 80 ka or most likely earlier (Wendorf and Schild 1992)
More explicit:
Funerary practices of the Iberomaurusian population of Taforalt (Tafoughalt;
Morocco, 11–12,000 BP): new hypotheses based on a grave by grave skeletal
inventory and evidence of deliberate human modification of the remains
Valentina Mariott
''From the archaeological point of view, a discontinuity between the Aterian culture (ca. 40–20,000 BP) and the Iberomaurusian culture is generally recognized. However, recent studies propose a rather different time span for the Aterian (ca. 73,000–40,000 BP), and note that blade-based industries were present in some areas before the Iberomaurusian (Barton et al., 2007). Thus, the relationship between these two cultures is still poorly understood. The relationship between the Iberomaurusian (ca. 20,000–10,000 BP), a more ancient civilization mainly in the coastal area, and the Capsian (ca. 10,000–7,500 BP), with sites in inland areas, is controversial. ''
For the northeast end of things , one can pass Vermeesch
Nile behaviour and Late Palaeolithic humans in Upper Egypt during the Late Pleistocene
Pierre M. Vermeersch, Wim Van Neer
@ Paul
No, I’d say that ENA is from Western Asia, eastern parts. ENA is only called “eastern” because it became fixated there
@ Paul
I’d say ENA is from Western Asia ultimately
But obviously there was a back-diffusion of ANE (which contains ENA) back west during the ice age
You see this?
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB62503
Archaeogenetic studies have described two major genetic turnover events in prehistoric western Eurasia: one associated with the spread of farming and a sedentary lifestyle starting ~7000-6000 BCE, and a second with the expansion of pastoralist groups from the Eurasian steppes starting ~3300 BCE. The period between these events saw new economies emerging on the basis of key innovations, including metallurgy, wheel and wagon, and horse domestication. However, what happened between the demise of the Copper Age settlements ~4250 BCE and the expansion of pastoralists remains poorly understood. To address this question, we analysed genome-wide data from 135 ancient individuals from the contact zone between southeastern Europe and the northwestern Black Sea region spanning this critical time period. While we observe genetic continuity between Neolithic and Copper Age groups from major sites in the same region, from ~4500 BCE on, groups from the northwestern Black Sea region carried varying amounts of mixed ancestries derived from Copper Age groups and those from the forest/steppe zone, indicating genetic and cultural contact over a period of ~1000 years earlier than anticipated. We propose that the transfer of critical innovations between farmers and transitional foragers/herders from different eco-geographic zones during this early contact was integral to the formation, rise and expansion of pastoralist groups ~3300 BCE.
And there you have it.
''We propose that the transfer of critical innovations between farmers and transitional foragers/herders from different eco-geographic zones during this early contact was integral to the formation, rise and expansion of pastoralist groups ~3300 BCE.''
It's good to see genetics papers observing the evidence.
Seems like most of the samples are from Bulgaria and southern Romania, so whilst important for further delineating the impact of steppe groups in Bulgaria, there'll be the same lingering questions of pre-Yamnaya dynamics & migratory paths in the western steppe
@All
G25
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Ln0BMQErte_LXjtjfYXwwCOUzr3E3cyX/view?usp=sharing
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB62503
What's this guy look like?
YUN027_I0781.merge_trim2_Y R-L51*
@ Romulus
YUN027 looks EEF heavy, plots with main Balkan Chalcolithic cluster
The Boyanovo group seem to be a very steppe shifted group, like they were in the 'Arc set
The Mayajki R1b-Z2103 plots with these too.
There are two Usatavo females who are midway
The R-L51* sample does have some steppe ancestry.
about ~ 10% . Probably heavily adsorbed into the local population.
@Romulus
That sample is from Mathieson (I0781-Yunatsite78)-4,528-4371 calBCE. It has been reanalyzed and it seems to be L51, IF it were true we would have M269 and L51 in Bulgaria-Old Europe (4,500 BC). For the naysayers, even before the PIE existed.
Contacts 1,200 years after the Yamnaya culture existed? Sure, but Z2103 in Yamnaya does not come from the EHGs but from the border area with European farmers.
The old argument of small percentages of steppe ancestry trying to justify the Kurgan theory in relation to R1b-M269>L51??? Really ???.
There are Smyadovo samples contemporary with the M269 sample that belong to other lineages and have more EHG or CHG than I2181. That ship sailed long ago, and those still on board are going to sink just as the Titanic sank.
Can any Kurganist reason intelligently and convincingly with which branches of Indo-European is M269>L51>L151 related? Indoaryan, Anatolian Armenian, Paleobalkan languages, Mycenean, Balto-Slavic, Germanic, Italo-Celtic?
1200 years "before" not "after" Yamnaya of course
I0781-Yunatsite78 definitely has steppe ancestry.
So this is probably a third generation descendant of a steppe male.
912 I0781 I0781 Yunatsite78 bone 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Direct: IntCal20 6404 43 4537-4367 calBCE (5632±24 BP, MAMS-28134) .. Bulgaria_C Yunatsite Bulgaria 42.232227 24.262688 Repulldown on 3.2M snpset 1240K 2 0.344414 0.557 764321 478719 273910 F n/a (no relatives detected) n/a (female) n/a (female) n/a (female) 263.144245 K1a+195 [0.987,0.999] .. .. n/a (female) n/a (female) n/a (female) n/a (female) -0.002 0.011 None [0,0.02] ds.plus S0781.L1,S0782.L1 PASS ..
YUN027_I0781.merge_trim2.chr
X 483783 4.62%
Y 28531 0.27%
So the ancestor of the Beakers here, the oldest L51 to date, was 90%+ EEF in 4500 BCE.
I was expecting he would look like a German Beaker similar to the CT Immel samples, but he's virtually an Anatolian. Funny stuff.
Took the approach of splitting the samples up into 7 clusters (an arbitrary number) and then running them through Vahaduo to identify the closest populations to each sample: https://imgur.com/a/yTzrujt
For the Steppe richest cluster: Samples labelled MAJ (019, 017, 004) tend to be closest to Moldova Multi-Cordoned Ware and Moldova Catacomb from 2500-1900 BCE, samples labelled BOY (019, 014, 009, 008, 001) tend to be closest to Bulgaria Boyanovo EBA 2200 BCE, and sample KTL001 seems to be relatively close to Boyanovo again and also Sintashta like samples.
Also an Intermediate cluster tends to be closest to Bulgarian samples from around 2100-2300 BCE, or more recent people from SE Europe, although this contains presumptively USV = Usatovo and the distances are not too close.
Seems is a quite a lot of spatial continuity - either recreating the same patterns over time or direct continuity - over time, if taking this study at face value with samples as being from 4500-3300 BCE. On the other hand, if they also included a bunch of EBA or later samples, then that would also explain it.
There are certainly some samples that resemble interesting steppe admixed samples from circa 4000-3000 BCE that we already have (e.g. PIE078.G0101 looks like this, like Trypillian), but not totally sure about whether the most steppe rich ones here are necessarily from an early date or the paper includes some later people. It seems like the steppe rich ones prefer Afanasievo/Yamnaya as a source over Progress, which seems to suggest they may have whatever Yamnaya/Sredni Stog bottleneck happened, anyway (at whatever date).
(Also btw sample VAR023_ANI160 was previously published by Mathieson - https://amtdb.org/sample/ANI160).
@Davidski
Not sure if we can trust this sample anyway, regardless of its 10% steppe autosomal DNA. I0781 matches the female sample I0781 from Mathieson et al. 2018. They both have the same mtDNA (K1a) and they’re from the same site, that being Yunatsite, Bulgaria. Additionally, I0781 only has 422 SNPs read in relation to this R-L51* call, and proper Y-DNA calls should involve tens of thousands of markers. Don’t think this one is safe, and I wouldn’t be surprised if this is another contaminated sample or a misdated one at that.
All the samples from Yunatsite will need to be carbon dated, as the site has two major layers - Eneolithic and Bronze Age - separated by 1000 years , with in addition to usual coverage checks
Nevertheless, there seems to be a couple E-M78 there . Several J2a no J2b2
I’d be cautious as to the provenance of the I2a-L621 individuals. These would definitely need to be dated.
Yeah, the L51* ancestors of Beakers were females from Bulgaria.
Haha.
Why did they initially think this R1b-L51 guy was a female? Maybe he was buried in a dress?
Yeah, the same dress you wear every night.
It's funny how the guardians of Kurganist orthodoxy at Anthrogenica and then the bootlickers who follow them like sheep, repeat the same slogans over and over again (low coverage, females etc). Never mind guys, let's wait for the samples to be released, and see what happens, if it's a female as it looks like in Mathieson, we'll keep looking.
I think people have not yet assumed that Smyadovo (Gumelnitsa-Karanovo VI culture) is the only M269 we have, and therefore it would not be surprising if L51 appears in Bulgaria or Romania between 4,500-3,500 BC. At the moment, all the branches derived from M269 (L23>Z2103) east of Bulgaria have their origin in the Balkans.
More than ten years of discussion and the solution is very simple, you only have to find M269, L51, L151 or P312 in the steppes (or the forest steppe) to be able to link this lineage with the dispersion of Indo-European. If you don't succeed, we will keep on talking about a nice fairy tale.
And as long as you are not able to prove the contrary, the M269 ancestors of Beakers and western europeans were neolithic farmers from Bulgaria
I have done the genotypes for the Kendrick's and Gough's caves if you would like to take a look of those samples: https://www.mediafire.com/file/cfluwio7bzh6sqb/Goughs_Kendricks.zip/file
@Matt
The 2 Usatovo females seem to have too much CHG to be just EEF-Sredni Stog mixes. Nikitin in the Youtube video mentioned that some Usatovo samples from their own set (presumably the Patterson/Anthony paper) also seem to have something North Caucasian-related.
Overall, I think the dating is crucial for analysing these samples, there are some obvious EBA people there (Boyanovo, 'KTL' samples).
@ Davidski
You think I wear a dress at night like some character from Peter Pan? I thought Australians had good banter.
Anyway, I didn't make the y chr calls for I0781 so I have no idea if they are legitimate. There are many other interesting samples in this paper to look at. Another that stands out to me:
KTL005.merge_Y R-V1636*
Again no idea if this will end up being correct, but he shares the same haplogroup as the SGC samples and seems to have CHG ancestry in excesss of what is typical for "Steppe Ancestry".
PIE061 also an interesting sample. Y calls indicate he is on the same line as RISE552, the Yamnaya Ulan IV sample. He has 25% WHG according to Milo's analyses, highest in the set.
@Alex
@Matt
Quick comparison between these Usatovo samples with Yamnaya and CWC in G25: the main difference seems to be the lack of Ukrainian HG (represented) ancestry. I tried Progress_EN + farmer sources + Ukr_Mesolithic, and in this combination CWC and Yamnaya takes UKR_Mes, while Usatovo pretty much just Progress + slightly WHG sifted ANF.
A possible explanation a group from near the Caucasus bypassing the region where the core of CWC - Yamnaya formed.
PIE06061.merge_trim2_Y I-Y3259*
This guy has a haplogroup on the same line as one found in thr Verteba cave Trypillian site. He also has ~25% WHG.
Maybe this PIE site is CT.
And by Milo I mean Michalis
Actually looking at the autosomal and Y DNA, can say very confidently the PIE samples look like they come from an early CT site. They all have that 90% EEF <10% EHG/Steppe profile (as we have already seen), and the Y DNA is also similar to what we have from early CT as well.
The MAJ prefixed samples are also interesting.
There is MAJ017.merge_Y R-M12149, who is R1b-Z2103+ and almost completely Yamnaya on an autosomal level.
Alongside MAJ003.merge_Y G-P303, who is a 50/50 mix of EEF amd Steppe. Seems like the first generation offspring of a CT Farmer and a Steppe woman. This haplogroup, G-P303, was also found in three CT farmers from Verteba cave.will.be interesting to see the burial context.
All of the samples at this site are either fully Yamnaya or an even split of Yamnaya and EEF. No fully EEF samples. Seems like potential Yamnaya ground zero depending on the chronology.
The KTL site is also a mixed Steppe/Farmer group.
2/3 Y DNA are on the RISE552 line.
WRT what Matt said “ Seems is a quite a lot of spatial continuity - either recreating the same patterns over time or direct continuity - over time, if taking this study at face value with samples as being from 4500-3300 BCE. On the other hand, if they also included a bunch of EBA or later samples, then that would also explain it.”
There’s probably a fairly major discontinuity in Bulgaria , which large gaps in major settlements
Probably a big flood followed by famines and plague and turmoil
Eventually people resettled from various directions, especially steppe and central Balkans (eg can be seen from different mix of pre steppe ydna). Bayanovo are not going to be progress -like as they’re Yamnaya age
KTL001 - I-L701 : 20% ANF / 80% Yamnaya
KTL006 - I-701 -> I-Y5606 : 32% ANF / 44% Yamnaya / 11% WHG / 8.5% CHG
PIE061 - I-701 -> I-Y5606 : 65% ANF / 10% Yamnaya / 25% WHG
VAR030 - I-L701 : 85% ANF / 3% Yamnaya / 6% WHG / 6% CHG
All of these samples from this paper are on the same line as RISE552 Yamnaya Ulan IV and they share an SNP with a TMRCA of 8500 ybp which overlaps with CT.
Davidski you have always argued that this Y DNA was from Hunter Gatherers on the Steppe and did not make it's way into Yamnaya from CT but it seems it did.
The Khvalynsk sample I6103 belongs to I2a-L701>L699 (4983-4795 calBCE), and all of those anachronistically modeled samples have steppe admixture. I see no indication that this lineage originated in CT, especially considering the lack of EEF/ANF in Eneolithic Khvalynsk.
We can say objectively Khvalynsk was not ancestral to Yamnaya.
I2a-L701 is obviously 'exotic' to Khvalynsk, probably coming from the Carpathian region.
As i said years before, these are an very early link between 'Farmers' and 'steppe', and helps explain how stepppe hunter-gatheres developed pastoralism. The I2a-L701 & related lineages appear in all sorts of cultural & genome-wide contexts
I2a-L701 only appears in Yamnaya in the areas where it overlaps with CT. It doesn't appear in Afanasievo or Hungary.
Ok I take back that last comment RISE552 is east beyond the border of CT but it is also a late Yamnayan.
@Romulus
Yamnaya, CWC, and Khvalynsk derive from common ancestral populations (there’s V1636 in Khvalynsk and CWC for example). The fact Khvalynsk has L701>L699 but has no discernible EEF/ANF disproves a CT origin.
@Rob
If L701 is ultimately from the Carpathians/Balkans, it had to have arrived in the steppe before ANF admixed groups came onto the scene, because there’s no EEF/ANF in Khvalynsk and all of these Bulgarian L701 guys display some steppe admixture.
This is false, it shows up in yamnaya kalmykia as well.
The Mattila paper apparently has several Ukraine forager samples with I-l701, which corresponds well with its distribution.
Ftdna, which has their own classification system for this, labels the only non-ukraine hg/steppe related sample with the haplogroup one from 5th millennium bc tiszapolgar (their cultural labels are not always accurate FWIW). I think it would be difficult for it not to correspond with either iron gates/carpathian foragers who moved into Ukraine or more likely it is indigenous to Ukraine itself.
It seems exceedingly likely that the bulk of its ChL/BA balkan presence was mediated by Steppe groups. Interestingly, the ftdna tmrca of downstream I-p78, which shows up in western Anatolia, corresponds to about when proto-anatolian is expected to branch off.
I2a-L701 is found in Ukraine N hunter-fishers without any farmer ancestry, so there's no need to bring it into the steppe from CT.
Doing so is special pleading.
Accusing me of special pleading is peak hypocrisy coming from you Mr. decade of Yamanya -> Corded Ware.
The idea that the farmer side of the Yamnaya equation was purely female meditated is demonstrably false as per this paper. What's more is it is demonstrably associated with I2a-L701 and G-P303. If I2a-L701 was exclusively part of the steppe side of the equation the it should exist in Yamanya sites as far as Afanasievo and Hungary but it is obviously not. Your only shitty argument is that it was miraculously both part of the steppe side of Yamnaya as well as the CT side which is factual as per this latest data, and that because your feelings these samples are irrelevant. It's all fallen apart for you.
@Romulus
You're showing serious signs of mental instability.
For instance, believing that Bell Beakers came from CT rather than Single Grave is desperate and stupid, and cannot be explained with any sort of logic.
Same with the I2a-L701 in Yamnaya.
It's obvious that this is a North Pontic hunter-gatherer lineage, so it's also obvious that it correlates well with North Pontic admixture in CT.
And Yamnaya has a lot of North Pontic hunter-gatherer ancestry too. Duh.
Yes R1b-V6136 is ancestral to R1b-P312. You are a genius.
@Norfern
England_Meso:Kendricks,0.114961,0.109677,0.19648,0.189925,0.156337,0.049921,0.026791,0.035075,0.08815,0.009294,-0.012179,-0.013188,0.012339,-0.000138,0.053881,0.061389,0.005346,0.014823,-0.005908,0.065031,0.101696,0.018424,-0.056324,-0.182676,0.01892
England_UP_Magdalenian:Goughs,0.0774,0.037575,0.06675,0.114666,0.078168,0.028168,-0.00235,0.017999,0.070765,0.029158,-0.008769,-0.006145,0.00773,-0.01734,0.040037,0.025722,0.007562,-0.002534,-0.004525,0.042145,0.057149,0.010881,-0.026129,-0.104352,0.008742
England_Meso:Kendricks,0.0101,0.0108,0.0521,0.0588,0.0508,0.0179,0.0114,0.0152,0.0431,0.0051,-0.0075,-0.0088,0.0083,-0.0001,0.0397,0.0463,0.0041,0.0117,-0.0047,0.052,0.0815,0.0149,-0.0457,-0.1516,0.0158
England_UP_Magdalenian:Goughs,0.0068,0.0037,0.0177,0.0355,0.0254,0.0101,-0.001,0.0078,0.0346,0.016,-0.0054,-0.0041,0.0052,-0.0126,0.0295,0.0194,0.0058,-0.002,-0.0036,0.0337,0.0458,0.0088,-0.0212,-0.0866,0.0073
Just like R1b-Z2103 was ancestral to R1a-M417 and R1b-P312. Allah Akbar the Albanian Prophet Davidski.
@Romulus
Corded Ware L51 is ancestral to P312 you dickhead.
Single Grave is western Corded Ware, and there's a Single Grave sample on the way with L51.
By the way, I never claimed that Corded Ware was an offshoot from Yamnaya. My position was always that they were two closely related branches.
You got me mixed up with David Reich or something.
How much do I owe you for the psychological assessment?
The SGC look like Unetice (because they came from the south), the Immel samples look like German Beaker. German Beaker is the ancestor of all Beaker because it has this thing called P312.
Single Grave is western Corded Ware, and there's a Single Grave sample on the way with L51.
Right behind the R1a-M417 in Yamnaya right? Enough with the bullshit.
Here is the real question:
How do we place the origin of the reconstructed Proto-Indo-European language in Yamnaya when every aspect of it they received from Balkan Farmers, whom they interbred with for a thousand years before Yamnaya?
Beaker P312 is from Corded Ware L51 you moron.
Beaker P312 is from Corded Ware L51 you moron.
Neither of which is from SGC you double moron.
I-L701 seems to just appear c. 5500 BC in the Dnieper region. It is also found in at least a couple of Koros & Tisza Neolithic individuals, who are essentially contemporaneus. I havent noted it in any Iron Gates individuals.
The closest related lineage, Z-161 is found in Iron Gates, Latvian HGs, a few other east Hungarian Neolithics, with the GAC-specific sub-group fallling within as well.
I think they were buoyed on to move further east as the earliest farmers reached Central Europe. Archaeologists have called this various thing, e.g. Grebinki, Pontic pre-Neolithic, Mariupol, etc
@Romulus
SGC is Corded Ware you dumbass.
Where do you think that Bohemian Corded Ware L51 ended up eventually?
@alex and rob: These data look like they show two relatively distinct and clines, 1) stretching from Turkey_N towards Iron Gates HG (although maybe with a little more EHG than Iron Gates), and 2) between Steppe and cline 1 but, pointing towards the least HG rich parts of 1).
Custom PCA to try and make it simpler to visualise: https://imgur.com/a/lnKBOD6 (pastebin with the datasheet - https://pastebin.com/wUGzLUBV)
Unlike, e.g. the Corded Ware cline (or the Yamnaya Hungary from what little we saw of them so far), this is more of a mix between the HG low EEF groups and Steppe, by the looks of it.
That said, the Usatovo and MAJ samples seem "south" / less HG shifted compared to KTL and YUN samples, but I'm not sure from looking if that is more to do with CHG stuff or mixtures with differently HG rich groups on EEF cline. If your models have seen something that explains it by CHG that could be true though.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Where did you get those Kendrick and Gough sample from? The Gough sample we already have G25 coordinates from (Yu 2023) looks like WHG but yours look like Magdalenian?
righto, Natufians can be modelled waith ~ 20% Taforalt.
The pre-Eurasian in Taforalt/ IBM mostly comes from a branch which contribtued ~ 50% to Mota and ~ 25% to Shum Laka, with some additional ~10% direct input from a S/L like groups
That one is Cheddar Man, who is Mesolithic while this one is Magdalenian.
This is the true story of the “seven” steppe brothers-Male markers in CWC-Bohemia were R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, R1b-Z2103, R1b-U106 & R1b-L51>L151
1-Only two of them (Z2103, Q1b2a) in addition to V1636 and I2a-L699 (which have also been documented in the Khvalynsk culture) appear in Yamnaya-Afanasievo
2-I think the older R1a-M417 is NEO113 (5.348 BC)-Golubaya Krinitsa, Neolithic_MiddleDon, Russia-In any case, it seems to be a typical marker of EHGs.
3-It seems that they all moved to the Balkans-Bulgaria, Romania, Serbia, Croatia (M417, Z2103, L699, & Q1b2a), Anatolia (V1636), Armenia (Z2103) and even India (R1a) during the Yamnaya related migrations (3.000-2.000 BC)
4-To these 5 steppe markers we have to add U106 and L51>L151 that apparently and according to the new Kurgan theory, also originated in the forest steppe or Yamnaya-Then, we already have at least 7 male markers who had to speak the same Indoeuropean language-R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103, R1b-U106 & R1b-L51>L151 since either they were part of the Yamnaya culture or were part of a sister culture (forest steppe-Ukraine, Sredni Stog etc).
And here begins the funniest part
1-Why R1b-L51>L151 and R1b-U106 have never appeared in any steppe or forest steppe culture and appear suddenly around 3,000 BC in the Bohemian CWC?
2-Why did they not participate in any Indo-European migration to other European (Balkans) or Asian (Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, India etc) regions, with their 5 steppe brothers if they shared origin and cultures?
3-Why is R1b-L51>L151 the only “steppe” marker that reached the SGC-CWC (I guess in the Netherlands, Denmark.......) and then Western Europe (France, British Isles and Iberia) during the Chalcolithic, Bronze Age or Iron Age?
4-Why R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103 & R1b-U106, NEVER reached Western Europe?
5-The 7 steppe brothers had to speak the same Indo-European language right?-What branches of IE spoke L51>L151?
Option A-Our R1b-L151 ancestors were some kind of peculiar, lazy, and selfish lineage. They decided to only travel to Bohemia probably because it was closer to their homeland (obvious sign of laziness), while leaving the responsibility of traveling the rest of the known world to his steppe colleagues. Once there, they decided that they did not like his traveling companions, they packed their bags and went to Holland, but not before warning their Indo-European relatives never to cross the Rhine River (obvious sign of selfishness)
Option B-R1b-L51>L151 It is not a steppe lineage, it never lived neither in the steppes nor in the forest steppe (Ukraine and Russia), therefore it never participated in Indo-European migrations. Its remote origin is in the Epigravettian-WHGs (Iron Gates HGs>Smyaodvo) or more probably in Baltic-Scandinavia, from where it moved south (Narva ancestry in Bohemian CWC) and where they acquired their steppe ancestry thanks to Yamnaya migrations (exogamy)-Later, independently and probably under pressure from the Indo-European migrants, they settled permanently in Western Europe. And finally, they never spoke an IE language as evidenced by their Iberian, Tartessian, Aquitanian, Etruscan, and Sicilian descendants who, thousands of years later, continued to speak their Non-IE languages.
@ Norfern, Crashdoc
Id imagine the old Cheddar and Kendrick are baynyard Magdalenians/ Goyet-Q2 ?
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Thanks! I had overlooked the study (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-022-01883-z)
@Rob
actually the old Gough's Cave is Magdalenian and Cheddar & Kendrick are WHG
@ Crashdoc - indeed, it's post 14,000
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285449 -
"Interactions between Trypillian farmers and North Pontic forager-pastoralists in Eneolithic central Ukraine"
Published: June 14, 2023
"Abstract: The establishment of agrarian economy in Eneolithic East Europe is associated with the Pre-Cucuteni-Cucuteni-Trypillia complex (PCCTC). PCCTC farmers interacted with Eneolithic forager-pastoralist groups of the North Pontic steppe as PCCTC extended from the Carpathian foothills to the Dnipro Valley beginning in the late 5th millennium BCE. While the cultural interaction between the two groups is evident through the Cucuteni C pottery style that carries steppe influence, the extent of biological interactions between Trypillian farmers and the steppe remains unclear. Here we report the analysis of artefacts from the late 5th millennium Trypillian settlement at the Kolomiytsiv Yar Tract (KYT) archaeological complex in central Ukraine, focusing on a human bone fragment found in the Trypillian context at KYT. Diet stable isotope ratios obtained from the bone fragment suggest the diet of the KYT individual to be within the range of forager-pastoralists of the North Pontic area. Strontium isotope ratios of the KYT individual are consistent with having originated from contexts of the Serednii Stih (Sredny Stog) culture sites of the Middle Dnipro Valley. Genetic analysis of the KYT individual indicates ancestry derived from a proto-Yamna population such as Serednii Stih. Overall, the KYT archaeological site presents evidence of interactions between Trypillians and Eneolithic Pontic steppe inhabitants of the Serednii Stih horizon and suggests a potential for gene flow between the two groups as early as the beginning of the 4th millennium BCE. "
@Gaska
There's going to be a very boring and repetitive answer to a lot of these questions, and frankly, I think you already know it:
'1-Why R1b-L51>L151 and R1b-U106 have never appeared in any steppe or forest steppe culture and appear suddenly around 3,000 BC in the Bohemian CWC?'
Founder effects. I1-M253 literally just "appears" in LN Sweden, out of nowhere, and then explodes during the Nordic Bronze Age. Founder effects happen.
'2-Why did they not participate in any Indo-European migration to other European (Balkans) or Asian (Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, India etc) regions, with their 5 steppe brothers if they shared origin and cultures?'
Why is it necessary that they do? We know that R1b-P310, R1b-U106 and R1a-M417, among others were alongside each other in the same culture at the same time in early CWC Bohemia. How come, of all of these, only R1b-P310 seems to appear in Dutch BBC? Because the early Bohemian CWC sub-group which migrated to the lower Rhine happened to carry R1b-P310. It's literally founder effects.
'3-Why is R1b-L51>L151 the only “steppe” marker that reached the SGC-CWC (I guess in the Netherlands, Denmark.......) and then Western Europe (France, British Isles and Iberia) during the Chalcolithic, Bronze Age or Iron Age?'
Strictly, not quite true, because we have the almost-exclusively western European subclade of R1a that is R1a-L446. But again, founder effects.
'4-Why R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103 & R1b-U106, NEVER reached Western Europe?'
As above, strictly not true, but for the most part, founder effects. Why is R1a-Z93 the only branch of R1a-M417 associated with Indo-Iranic expansion? Founder effects.
'5-The 7 steppe brothers had to speak the same Indo-European language right?-What branches of IE spoke L51>L151?'
By the time of expansion from central European CWC, to be honest different post-PIE languages are beginning to emerge to be honest.
'Option A-Our R1b-L151 ancestors were some kind of peculiar, lazy, and selfish lineage. They decided to only travel to Bohemia probably because it was closer to their homeland (obvious sign of laziness), while leaving the responsibility of traveling the rest of the known world to his steppe colleagues. Once there, they decided that they did not like his traveling companions, they packed their bags and went to Holland, but not before warning their Indo-European relatives never to cross the Rhine River (obvious sign of selfishness)
Option B-R1b-L51>L151 It is not a steppe lineage, it never lived neither in the steppes nor in the forest steppe (Ukraine and Russia), therefore it never participated in Indo-European migrations. Its remote origin is in the Epigravettian-WHGs (Iron Gates HGs>Smyaodvo) or more probably in Baltic-Scandinavia, from where it moved south (Narva ancestry in Bohemian CWC) and where they acquired their steppe ancestry thanks to Yamnaya migrations (exogamy)-Later, independently and probably under pressure from the Indo-European migrants, they settled permanently in Western Europe. And finally, they never spoke an IE language as evidenced by their Iberian, Tartessian, Aquitanian, Etruscan, and Sicilian descendants who, thousands of years later, continued to speak their Non-IE languages.'
Option A is, well... I mean what is it even saying? Nothing really to address, it just makes no sense.
Option B completely fails to explain why early Bohemian CWC, early Polish CWC and early East Baltic CWC are all autosomally heterogeneous (sans additional central European farmer admixture) while carrying different different Y-hgs, and why this autosomal heterogeneity sits within the bounds of western steppe eneolithic variation. It completely fails to explain where Germanic, Celtic and Italic language come from.
Honestly man, it's all just lazy, sloppy nonsense and you ought to know this.
@ Matt
''These data look like they show two relatively distinct and clines
1) stretching from Turkey_N towards Iron Gates HG (although maybe with a little more EHG than Iron Gates), and
2) between Steppe and cline 1 but, pointing towards the least HG rich parts of 1).''
Agree . In other words, a south/ southwest Balkan, ANF rich Neolithic, and a HG-rich northwest Pontic 'Neolithic' (HG element being on IG <-> Dnieper cline). Seems to be prominent in Majaki, USatavo, KTL & Varna.
Many Yunatsite look like straight up ANF, so they must be from the older layer of the site.
There do some to be focal peaks of AZE_N -like admixture in KTL & MJK with G25 .
@ H₂ŕ̥ḱtos aka Mr Founder Effect
So your explanation for the sudden appearance of L151 in Bohemia is a founder effect, the appearance of P310 in the Dutch-CWC (which is not proven yet) is due to a founder effect, the reason why R1a-M417, Q1b2a-Z5902, I2a-L699, R1b-V1636, R1b-Z2103 & R1b-U106, NEVER reached Western Europe is because of several founder effects and R1a-Z93 is associated with the expansion of the Indo-Iranic branch thanks to a founder effect. I do not have enough words to express my gratitude for such a wise answer. You Kurganists are totally disoriented and have no arguments to defend what you are proposing, the building is about to collapse thanks to the internal battles between Harvardians. Max Planck doesn't know very well what is going on either.
1-You know what a founder effect is, don't you? can you explain to me when these founder effects occurred? before or after the mass migrations took place? If they were produced before we should find tons of those markers in the region (s) where they were produced, and if they were produced upon reaching the new territories this would be incompatible with the ability to produce a language shift, or do you think that one man could only impose his own language in gigantic territories?
2-The origin of germanic, italic and celtic you have to explain it yourself, because you are the one who defends the Kurgan theory, I have always been of the opinion that neither P312 nor the BB culture spoke an IE language. Which cultures in your opinion spoke these branches of IE, do you have any idea?
3-Regarding the “heterogeneity” (sic) of the autosomal composition of the CWC in its different regions, I don't understand what you mean, maybe you should start by explaining to ignorant people like me, why is there an excess of WHG signal in the early CWC?
4-The CWC is one of the most homogeneous prehistoric cultures in terms of YChr. There are R1a-M417 in Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Poland, Bohemia, Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic. Maybe you should also ask yourself why there are only R1b-L151 in Bohemia (the L52-CWC samples in Poland are much later and therefore useless). I'm sure you think it's a miracle.
5-R1b-L51>L151 was a very strange guy, not only did he not participate in the mass migrations of his steppe relatives, but when he did (supposedly to Bohemia), he left his colleagues behind and went off alone to Holland to create the BB culture while the rest were scattered all over Eastern Europe developing their original culture (CWC)- Seems they were quite independent right? no doubt he was not very comfortable with his relatives in the CWC.
Honestly man, it's all just lazy, sloppy nonsense and you ought to know this.
Here's DCP1 genotypes, the ANE from Denisova.
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5wo31vw47wvc2kb/DCP1.zip/file
One thing I'd like to know is whether or not standardizing the labels for the ancient spreadsheet would be useful. There are many samples like MA1 and GoyetQ116-1 that simply are labeled by their sample name in their population label with no context, and some time period labels are inconsistently placed.
While I'd be at that, I suppose the samples not already in the spreadsheet could be added too if they're given consistent labels and show no contamination or weird coordinates.
David, if you manage to create coordinates for this sample, then it will be another sample similar to Malta.
"Outside of rare burial contexts, it is impossible to assign objects in the Palaeolithic archeological record to specific individuals. Here we present a non-destructive method for gradually releasing DNA from ancient bone and tooth artefacts. Application of the method to an Upper Palaeolithic deer tooth pendant from Denisova Cave (Russia) resulted in the recovery of DNA from both the deer and a female human individual. Genetic dates obtained from the deer and human mitochondrial genomes estimate the age of the pendant at approximately 20,000 to 24,000 years. Nuclear DNA from its presumed maker or wearer shows strong affinities to contemporaneous Ancient North Eurasian individuals previously found further east in Siberia. Our work opens up new possibilities for linking cultural and genetic records in prehistoric archaeology"
https://www.mediafire.com/file/5wo31vw47wvc2kb/DCP1.zip/file
It is interesting that the Sredny Stog woman married to a Trypillian man in KYT was U4b1b2 the same as Polish Corded Ware pcw430 R1a R-M417 (xL664, FGC9988).
So my conviction that Sredny Stog was PIE increased even more.
@Norfern
RUS_Denisova_UP:DCP1,0.07057,-0.011171,0.050157,0.206398,-0.08894,0.059125,-0.062043,-0.06692,-0.029656,-0.078362,0.041734,-0.010191,0.020664,-0.052572,0.025244,0.026916,-0.019949,-0.007348,-0.002011,-0.004627,-0.031445,0.008779,0.018241,0.003494,-0.010059
RUS_Denisova_UP:DCP1,0.0062,-0.0011,0.0133,0.0639,-0.0289,0.0212,-0.0264,-0.029,-0.0145,-0.043,0.0257,-0.0068,0.0139,-0.0382,0.0186,0.0203,-0.0153,-0.0058,-0.0016,-0.0037,-0.0252,0.0071,0.0148,0.0029,-0.0084
@Matt
If you do a 2way "unsupervised" run with G25 and remove the anachronistic/implausible results (such as Corded Ware + Armenian) you get this:
0.019 USV005.merge = 56% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 44% HRV_MN_Sopot
0.020 USV005.merge = 57% MDA_Trypillia_Late + 43% RUS_Vonyuchka_En
0.021 USV005.merge = 54% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 46% ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N
0.021 USV005.merge = 54% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 46% HUN_Tiszapolgar_ECHA
0.021 USV005.merge = 51% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 49% BGR_Late_C
0.021 USV005.merge = 54% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 46% ITA_Sicily_MN
0.021 USV005.merge = 53% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 47% ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C
0.022 USV005.merge = 55% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 45% CZE_N
0.022 USV005.merge = 54% RUS_Vonyuchka_En + 46% HRV_C_Lasinja
0.022 USV004.merge = 54% RUS_Progress_En + 46% CZE_N_oWHG
0.023 USV004.merge = 54% RUS_Progress_En + 46% HRV_C_Lasinja
0.023 USV004.merge = 52% RUS_Progress_En + 48% ROU_C
0.023 USV004.merge = 53% RUS_Progress_En + 47% SRB_Starcevo_N
0.024 USV004.merge = 54% RUS_Progress_En + 46% HUN_Lengyel_LN
0.024 USV004.merge = 56% RUS_Progress_En + 44% AUT_LBK_N
0.024 USV004.merge = 54% RUS_Progress_En + 46% HUN_LN_EarlyC_Lengyel
0.024 USV004.merge = 55% RUS_Progress_En + 45% DEU_LBK_SMH
0.024 USV004.merge = 54% RUS_Progress_En + 46% HUN_ALPc_Szatmar_MN
0.024 USV004.merge = 53% RUS_Progress_En + 47% HUN_Tisza_LN
Are we going to get the advertised proto-Yamnaya Sredny samples or not? This latest one is also yamnaya + dereivka ukr_n. Nowhere close to the high iranN progress/vonyuchka samples, the actual ancestors of yamnaya.
Don't get so excited. That pea brain of yours might pop.
vAsiSTha: I think that if Planck publish anything, then Harvard will be pushed to publish and vice-versa. At the moment they are both taking quite a while on these samples. Even "Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia" has been in preprint for a year, and its been two years since Anthony gave talk which gave the first public picture of the extended Sredni-Stog and Khvalysnk cline. Ayshin Ghalichi's paper which claimed to find evidence of "In the Late Eneolithic period, we find evidence of admixture from the south into the steppe groups, detectable through the presence of Anatolian_Neolithic-like ancestry." has also not even reached preprint for a year and a half now.
@Gaska
'1-You know what a founder effect is, don't you? can you explain to me when these founder effects occurred? before or after the mass migrations took place? If they were produced before we should find tons of those markers in the region (s) where they were produced, and if they were produced upon reaching the new territories this would be incompatible with the ability to produce a language shift, or do you think that one man could only impose his own language in gigantic territories?'
They occur as the migration occurs. Let's say we have a population in Madeuplandia, and there are two major Y-hgs that the males of this population belong to, A and B (I don't mean actual Y-hg A and B, but you get me). The Madeuplandian population is a small, late neolithic population, with a patriarchal, patrilocal, patrilineal culture, and a society organised into clan groups. If the entirety of the Madeuplandian population migrates to Newlandia, then we would indeed surely see in the Newlandian archaeogenetic record that there's a sudden autosomal shift, with males in the Newlandian population carrying both Y-hg A and Y-hg B afterwards. In cases where we see that there is a sudden autosomal shift, but we see only Y-hg A or Y-hg B among these post-migration Newlandian males (or at least, we see that one of these Y-hgs is disproportionately more frequent than any others), guess what the obvious conclusion is? It was not the entirety of the Madeuplandian population that participated in this migration, but rather, a section of the Madeuplandian population, which because of Madeuplandian social structure, was not necessarily representative of the wider Madeuplandian population in terms of Y-hg distribution.
Combine this with knowing that Madeuplandians and related cultures seem quite big on inter-group violence, which can lead to sharp reductions in Y-hg diversity, particularly when population sizes are relatively small, and it's obvious to understand what's happening. I mean, what happened in central European CWC, from the early phase to the late phase? From a nearly-even split of R1b-L51 to R1a-M417, to almost all R1a-M417. These events occur, and we see the aftermath in the archaeogenetic record. Why does Yamnaya have lower Y-DNA diversity than earlier steppe groups? It's all the same sort of thing happening.
'2-The origin of germanic, italic and celtic you have to explain it yourself, because you are the one who defends the Kurgan theory, I have always been of the opinion that neither P312 nor the BB culture spoke an IE language. Which cultures in your opinion spoke these branches of IE, do you have any idea?'
I know that's your opinion, but you must understand that it's one you share with vanishingly few people. I think that BB-derived groups in central-western Europe spoke Italo-Celtic, and I think that pre-proto-Germanic was spoken by people in BA north-western Europe, personally. But I think that the earlier precursors to both I-C and pPGmc were spoken by groups in central-western Europe rich in R1b-L51, if we're talking earlier on.
@Gaska
'3-Regarding the “heterogeneity” (sic) of the autosomal composition of the CWC in its different regions, I don't understand what you mean, maybe you should start by explaining to ignorant people like me, why is there an excess of WHG signal in the early CWC?'
Excess of WHG signal compared to what, exactly? If we're talking compared to Yamnaya, then yeah, our early "CWC unadmixed" cluster, to coin a phrase, is shifted towards something WHG-related. What it actually has, compared to Yamnaya, is more Ukraine_N-related ancestry. Afanasievo, Yamnaya, "CWC unadmixed", and some not-yet-released eneolithic Moldovan samples all sit on a cline ranging from the more Progress_en-rich at the Afanasievo end, to the more Ukraine_N-rich at the eneolithic Moldovan end. This shouldn't be particularly surprising; we're just looking at east-west clinality across the eneolithic western steppe region and the EBA descendants of these people.
What I would ask is, how does one explain samples like poz81 from early Polish CWC, or pnl001 from early Bohemian CWC, fitting into this eneolithic western steppe cline, except for them being immigrants, or the unadmixed descendants of immigrants, to their respective regions from somewhere within the western steppe/forest steppe region? If it were the case that they were the descendants of exactly-Yamnaya-like migrants to these areas, and that the extra WHG-related ancestry they carry were from a local ancestor, then how can you reconcile how small the amount of ancestry is with how recently-arrived they are? If we're saying they have a local parent, they'd need to be 50% non-Yamnaya-like. Local grandparent, 25% non-Yamnaya-like. Great-grandparent, 12.5%. You get me, I'm sure. When they're modelling as carrying about 3% WHG-related ancestry on top of their exactly-Yamnaya-like component, we're needing that local ancestor of theirs to be about five generations back, but this just doesn't fit with the chronology. Furthermore, how can these nigh-identical samples from Bohemia, Poland and the East Baltic carry the same non-Yamnaya-like ancestry? How has one guy's central European farmer great-great-great-grandfather given him the same degree of "bonus WHG" as the other guy's Narva-related great-great-great-grandfather? It just doesn't add up. The only parsimonious explanation is that we're looking at the result of a migration of a population somewhere between Yamnaya and Moldova_en in terms of its Progress_en+Ukaine_N makeup to peninsular Europe.
@Gaska
'4-The CWC is one of the most homogeneous prehistoric cultures in terms of YChr. There are R1a-M417 in Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Poland, Bohemia, Russia, Ukraine and the Baltic. Maybe you should also ask yourself why there are only R1b-L151 in Bohemia (the L52-CWC samples in Poland are much later and therefore useless). I'm sure you think it's a miracle.'
I don't understand what issue you're raising here. Here's a question for you instead: Where did R1b-L51 come from, if not a western steppe group, given the following points?:
-There is no R1b-L23 (branch immediately ancestral to R1b-L51; TMRCA ~6.1kybp) in any sample anywhere without western steppe ancestry. Nor is there any sample anywhere which carries R1b-M269 (branch immediately ancestral to R1b-L23; TMRCA ~6.4kybp) but does not have western steppe ancestry. If we go a step back to R1b-P297 then yes, we have samples without steppe ancestry, with R1b-P297, but this has a TMRCA of ~13.3kybp, so it takes us to the mesolithic, and becomes kind of irrelevant. In all of the neolithic western and central European samples we have, there are none which carry Y-DNA even closely related to a possible neolithic ancestor to R1b-L51.
-There, however, is R1b-L23* in Yamnaya, telling us that the immediate ancestor of R1b-L51 was present in western steppe groups.
-There is also R1b-L51 in Afanasievo, which has been pointed out to you countless times before, and to which you have never provided any satisfactory counter-argument.
It is simply abundantly clear that R1b-L51--just like the other branch of R1b-L23, and just like R1b-L23 itself--was present on the neolithic-EBA western steppe, which... makes perfect sense when we have 100% eneolithic western steppe-like CWC samples with R1b-L51 in Bohemia.
'5-R1b-L51>L151 was a very strange guy, not only did he not participate in the mass migrations of his steppe relatives, but when he did (supposedly to Bohemia), he left his colleagues behind and went off alone to Holland to create the BB culture while the rest were scattered all over Eastern Europe developing their original culture (CWC)- Seems they were quite independent right? no doubt he was not very comfortable with his relatives in the CWC.'
I don't know if you think that these people were some kind of unified nation or empire, but, well... They weren't. It's like sarcastically saying, "Ooh yes, how strange of the mystical, magical ancestors of the insular Celts to migrate to Britain and start speaking differently, leaving their "Celtic comrades" behind on the mainland! They must have been so comfortable alongside their Celtic mainland relatives!". Do you really think that different tribes and clans of late stone age, early bronze age people all loved each other as dear friends, smoking weed round the campfire together, because they spoke the same language and had the same burial customs? What exactly is surprising about one group within a population migrating away from another? Do you doubt that early European settlers in North America came from England? They couldn't possibly ever stop being the exact same thing as their "English comrades" back over the Atlantic, could they? The points you're raising just kind of... aren't points.
@Rob
This one, apparently.
https://i.postimg.cc/m2qqdH1k/Sredni-Stog.png
@ Matt
'' Even "Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia" has been in preprint for a year,''
probably because there are some serious problems with some sections in that paper.
@ Matt
Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia will be published soon. They are splitting the paper in two. One part will be exclusively about trait selection and the other will include the rest of the pre print. The content of both papers will be the same as in the pre print.
@Arza
This one, apparently.
Can you share the coordinates of this sample? It looks like one of the samples of the Middle Don
@ Arza
''This one, apparently.
https://i.postimg.cc/m2qqdH1k/Sredni-Stog.png'
ukr_104 , female from Dereivka late 4000 bc buried on back, contracted position ?
Expected result
We know Sredni Stog was a cultural horizon with genetic diversity ranging from EEF to Khvalynsk. Yamnaya-like uniformity was the end-point
“Early Contact Between Late Farming and Pastoralist Societies in Southeastern Europe”
Sort of interesting. There’s a sample from Boyanovo, Bulgaria “BOY14” that belongs to J2b. Dated EBA, 85% Yamnaya autosomal ancestry. According to 2 users on Anthrogenica, he is low coverage, but can be confidently placed under J2b M102. I’m thinking there is a high probability that he belongs to J2b L283.
Perhaps they can get a better read at some point down the road?
Congratulations to you and your fellow co authors on your recent publication “Ancient DNA reveals the origins of the Albanians”.
@Davidski
I’m guessing this additional Latvia_MN/PittedWare/Ukraine_N affinity Bohemia CW displays goes away once Srendy Stog and GAC are added into the mix no? Sredny Stog is Ukraine_N (EEF + WHG/EHG) with additional EHG/CHG right?
CWC just has a bit more Ukraine N ancestry than Yamnaya. Nothing to do with Baltic HGs or Pitted Ware.
The reason being that CWC is from a somewhat different part of Sredny Stog than Yamnaya.
"Don't get so excited. That pea brain of yours might pop."
@Matt
"and its been two years since Anthony gave talk which gave the first public picture of the extended Sredni-Stog and Khvalysnk cline"
What are we expecting here? That a region formerly rich in Ukr_N (WHG + EHG) ancestry suddenly became the major source of IranN + EHG steppe_en/yamnaya pop? What is this hypothesis based on?
This is like expecting Iran to be the source of Anatolian farmer ancestry.
Now we have this data, with various combinations of yamnaya + EEF admixture and an amazing diversity of Y haplogroups - from R1b, I to J to G, E, H etc.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?28491-Early-contact-between-late-farming-and-pastoralist-societies-in-southeastern-Europe
That's right. Ukrainian archaeologists, in particular, Rassamakin, abandoned the concept of a unified culture of Sredniy Stog 20 years ago. Sredniy Stog Rassamakin called only the earliest stage about 4800-4500 BC. And then the two lines diverge. One line is the culture of Skeliy (Novodanilovka/Suvorovo), and the second line is Dereivka. Now we see it on aDNA. Samples south of the Dereivka show high CHG, and north of the Dereivka show low CHG. This situation persists somewhere up to 3800-3500 BC. What happens then is not yet clear. There are two scenarios. According to the first scenario, part of the southern population of Novodanilovka moves to the forest-steppe, where it assimilates the Dereivka population and then goes to Europe, where it assimilates the GAC. According to the second scenario, Repino culture assimilates the Dereivka and then they go to Europe. Without a large number of samples of the period 4000-3000 BC, it is impossible to decide which scenario is correct.
Repino & Novodanilokva have little relevant meaning today.
E.g. there was no Repino expansion toward the west, it's a story David Anthony made up. Its a pottery style which becomes prominent in the northern part of the Don steppe and expands eastward.
@David
So not only do "Proto-CWC" and Yamnaya go back to SS, but also DIFFERENT parts of SS?
If that's the case, just throw PIE as a theory in the garbage and fire every linguist out there, because that's Anatolian/Core PIE level of division between CWC/Yamnaya languages.
@DragonHermit
Yamnaya and Corded Ware are different populations, but as you know they're also genetic cousins.
So you're not making any sense. Try to make some sense next time you post here.
@Rob
There are no other scenarios visible there. All the southern steppe groups formed after 4000 BC were formed on the Novodanilovka horizon: Berezhnovka on the Volga, Repino on the Don, Zhivotilovka on the left bank of the Dnieper, Nizhnyaya Mikhaylovka on the right bank of the Dnieper, west of the Southern Bug Usatovo/Ytkonos, west of the Dniester Chernavoda. The only question is which of these groups became the basis for the formation of Yamnaya, and which for CWC. The basic profile of this southern steppe group is already known to us - these are two samples from Igren and Odessa and three samples from the new preprint maj004, maj017, maj019.
@ Vlad
I understand the genetic evidence quite well
My point was that those are outmoded classifications which will be superceded by modern anthropological data. There’s not going to be a “Repin people” that are mutually exclusive with “milhailovka”
At best repin represent the group which are eastern Yamnaya
Lower Don has too much Majkop going on to be relevant for either cwc or Yamnaya
There’s no doubt about that. Intelligent people are gonna mark my words and listen, those who don’t get it will continue on tangents
again and again WHG/EHG population has already been found to be ancestral to Yamnaya. It is a settled debate already addressed in a peer reviewd paper by Allentoft:
We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as a mixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle Don River region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 4). Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, who already carry ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknown proximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes. The individuals in question derive from the burial ground Golubaya Krinitsa (Supplementary Note 3). Material culture and burial practices at this site are similar to the Mariupol-type graves, which are widely found in neighbouring regions of Ukraine, for instance along the Dnepr River. They belong to the group of complex pottery-using hunter-gatherers mentioned above, but the genetic composition at Golubaya Krinitsa is different from the remaining Ukrainian sites (Fig 2A, Extended Data Fig. 4).
@Davidski Can we determine that the earliest archeological culture to be speaking any putative form of PIE would be Sredny?
Words like “edze”, “wadar” and “ik” = “eat”, “water” and “I”, respectively, were discovered in the Hittite kingdom, and IIRC the Anatolian branch stems from Novodanilovka or some other Lower Don culture in Ukraine, so they may be sisters?
@Rob “Lower Don has too much Majkop going on to be relevant for either cwc or Yamnaya”
I didn’t think that Lower Don had any significant Maykop contribution at all, not just in Yamnaya but in general. Haak 2019
@Davidski “
CWC just has a bit more Ukraine N ancestry than Yamnaya. Nothing to do with Baltic HGs or Pitted Ware.”
I always get confused when Ukraine_N is mentioned: is that Tripolye, Bug Dniester or Dnieper Donetsk?
Anthony thinks that DD is ancestral to Sredny on the paternal side, with lots of Tripolye on the mtDNA.
Ukraine N is what I believe used to be called SS1 in the past, before the PIE “SS2” partially replaced it.
@David
Take a look at all "genetic cousins" in Europe today. They all speak different dialects/languages, even if related. PIE is not the collection of all related steppe dialects/languages. It's 1 specific, HOMOGENOUS steppe language. It's a single point of origin.
That a homogenous PIE language existed is fact. This is not a matter of opinion. If Yamnaya/CW bifurcated like CW fanboys posit, linguists would have found evidence hundreds of years ago.
All IE languages today by definition have to postdate 3300 BC/Afanesievo split, because Tocharian is the 2nd most archaic PIE language after Anatolian. That rules out SS (4500 BC - 3500 BC) because it's too early and IBD shows this as well.
@DragonHermit
Can you point to two populations from Europe that speak different languages but show the same level of genealogical relatedness as CWC and Yamnaya?
What are they?
@David
Plenty of them. Scandinavians, Western Slavs, Balkan Slavs, Brittonic Celts, ancient Italic people, etc... All autosomally similar, with related, but different dialects.
Once you spend a few hundred years apart, you notice clear linguistic changes, even if mutually intelligibility is maintained. If Sredny Stog is proven to be the source of Proto-Anatolian, and THAT is the "PIE" we're talking about, then I would agree SS = PIE. However, if we're talking Core PIE, i.e. modern IE languages, SS is WAYYY too early as a culture to be a candidate for those, and I don't know any academic who actually posits this.
I've said this before, but the only way to make that Yamnaya =/= CW theory work, is if we had some sort of centralized state/empire with an official language. Then we would be talking about a Proto-Indo-European Empire/Kingdom, where Yamnaya/CW lived side by side as "genetic cousins" but spoke the exact same language. This would solve both the genetic and linguistic conundrum, but now archeologists would laugh at you.
@DragonHermit
Can you point to two populations from Europe that speak different languages but show the same level of genealogical relatedness as CWC and Yamnaya?
What are they?
@ Andrze
''I didn’t think that Lower Don had any significant Maykop contribution at all, not just in Yamnaya but in general. Haak 2019''
I dont think there was any publication 'Haak 2019" dealing with that.
Anyhow, I was referring to the pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic period where there was probably significant influence and people from Majkop & steppe Majkop on the Lower Don.
I was using it as an example because it always gets mentioned by some people as if a magic fix to the Yamnaya question.
@ Old Europe
You might be excited by that sample you quoted but be extremely aware of Allentoft et al. They’re arrogant fools who are more into story telling than science
Their little doggy psikh should tell them that
So as a true scholar, which you are, leave the veneration to the sicophants at tokenGenica
here's some suggestions for new labels for some samples without them. And for consistency's sake I added time periods to some of the samples without them.
https://pastebin.com/2YgyWGsJ
Also you have two Taglientes in there and the Medieval Yana sample's coordinates are the same as Yana1, they've been changed for some reason
Oh and RUS_AfontovaGora3 could be renamed to RUS_Afontova_Gora_Late_Paleo or _LUP
@David
Um... Tuscans and Romans?
If this hypothetical "Proto-CW" and Yamnaya go back to SS (and different parts of it at that), you'd have Yamnaya and CW linguistically be the same level of difference as Danish and Swedish, or Norwegian and Swedish. Old Norse goes back 600 years IIRC.
That's super easy to pick up linguistically. If Danish and Swedish become language families thousands of years down the line, we'd be able to reconstruct a Proto-Danish and Proto-Swedish language, and then an Old Norse beyond that. Guess what? We can't do that with Yamnaya and CW.
We can't reconstruct a Proto-CW language, and we can't reconstruct a Proto-Yamnaya language. We can only construct a PIE language, that involves all Yamnaya/CW languages. And there, Sredny Stog can't be a candidate for anything other than PROTO-ANATOLIAN. IIRC this was David Anthony's take. Modern languages (LATE PIE) can only go back to 3000 BC max.
@H₂ŕ̥ḱtos
A lot of words, old nonsense arguments and unanswered questions, in other words, a waste of time.
1-If the founder effects occurred as the migrations occurred, this means that at the beginning there were very few migrants and therefore it is incompatible with one of the basic linguistic principles that can explain a language change, i.e. a massive migration and a total replacement of the population. This small number is the reason why we find the first M269-L51 buried in neolithic dolmens or caves (Switzerland, Spain, or Belgium), in no way could they change the language spoken by the western megalithic culture.
2-Ha Ha, I am not alone, in my country, very few people believe in the Kurgan theory as interpreted by Harvard, many researchers think it is a real nonsense. We simply interpret genetic data differently. You think that the earlier precursors to both I-C and pPGmc were spoken by groups in central-western Europe rich in R1b-L51 (CWC and BBC), but you will never have proof of this because there are no written records. We do however have proof that the paternal descendants of R1b-L51 in south-France, Italy and Iberia spoke NON-IE languages, and they are conclusive proofs that cannot be refuted, ergo these are scientific data not fairy tales. Sorry my friend the BBc and P312 never spoke IE languages.
3-Try to understand Papac's models and don't fool yourself-Yamnaya_Ukraine (75,20%), Bohemia_EE (14.60%) & Latvia_Neolithic (10.20%)-Then check the male and female uniparental markers and try to find out where the excess WHG is coming from. Ukraine? NO way, it is simply an emergency solution to avoid total collapse of the Kurgan theory. Then check the dating of the samples and you will see that between 3.000-2.750 BC the men are R1b-L51 & U106 and after 2.750 BC R1a-M417, Z2103 and Q1b2a. This can only mean that either L51>L151 was already in Bohemia or that different migrations took place, a first one with L151 accompanied by mtDNA steppe markers and a second one directly from the Yamnaya culture after 2750 BC.
4-If L51>L151 was in the steppes and it was a joint migration, all those male lineages would appear in all regional variants of CWC. Yet there is only L51 in Bohemia, what is your explanation? Regarding the old Kurganist arguments related to L23, L51, Afanasievo etc, after Smyadovo (4.500 BC), are all a waste of time because all the R1b east of Bulgaria has its origin in the Balkans until you find older R1b-M269 in Ukraine, Russia, etc....
5- It is not difficult to understand what I mean when I say that L51 was a strange type. It appears in different places & different times and did not participate in any steppe migration
@ Rob
I will make sure to let them know the resident nutter of this comment section disapproves. They will shut down the lab within days upon hearing the dire news.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Please correct me if I am wrong:
- I4427_new_all should be dated to 4059 BC, not 500 BC.
- UUS001 should be dated to 1350 AD, not the BA
- TUK001 should be dated to 327 AD, not the MA
- KHI001 should be dated to 980 BC, not sure if this corresponds to MLBA
@DragonHermit
Um... Tuscans and Romans?
Obviously that's not the case.
You don't realize yet that you have no argument?
@DragonHermit
“We can't reconstruct a Proto-CW language”
Linguist Don Ringe in his recent paper wrote:
“The general rule about extrapolating into the unobserved past still applies: results are comparatively secure when different lines of evidence converge on the same result. Computational cladistics yields only one line of evidence; therefore, it must be used in conjunction with traditional methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence and everything else that might be relevant”.
Using traditional methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence and everything else that might be relevant we can date the separation of Indo-Slavonic languages into Proto-Balto-Slavonic and Proto-Indo-Iranian. It was the time when R1a-Z645 split into R1a-Z283 and R1a-Z93, and CWC groups rich in R1a-Z93 migrated east to become later Indo-Iranians. It was around 3000 BC.
https://postlmg.cc/QHtfTPq3
So we can reconstruct Proto-CWC, which was Proto-Indo-Slavonic language, using Balto-Slavonic and Indo-Iranian languages which are still quite similar. Their similarities date to the time of their separation.
Proto-CWC language, which was Proto-Indo-Slavonic, probably can be dated to Sredny Stog culture from which R1a rich CWC groups arrived.
The problem with Hittite, Tocharian and other languages is that they were recorded thousands years later, and they cannot be properly dated by other methods ; therefore their splitting and dating is not secure. Or in other words is pseudoscientific.
Yes, I4427 is from 4000 BCE
UUS001 didn't have a radiocarbon date in it's study but it was described as MLBA unlike UUS002
TUK001 was designated as Early Medieval but could be Late Iron Age
KHI001 could be EIA as well or MLBA
DCP1 is an interesting find.
What would Mbuti, DCP1; AfontovaGora3, MA1 do?
@Rob “ I dont think there was any publication 'Haak 2019" dealing with that.
Anyhow, I was referring to the pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic period where there was probably significant influence and people from Majkop & steppe Majkop on the Lower Don.”
The link below references a blog entry in which Davidski rebuts any significant contributions of Maykop (or Steppe Maykop) into WSH, Yamnaya included:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/on-maykop-ancestry-in-yamnaya.html?m=1
This paper on a Steppe-heavy sample which the authors believe is a sredny stog migrant to Trypillia just became public, by the way. I can't get to the actual DNA data though, there's a button for it but it leads nowhere
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0285449
@ Andrze
''The link below references a blog entry in which Davidski rebuts any significant contributions of Maykop (or Steppe Maykop) into WSH, Yamnaya included:''
Then Yamnaya probably did not 'come from' the Lower Don region. i.e. it was not within the core formation zone of early Yamnaya
As I thought, in the conclusions of Poznań geneticists, the excess of WHG in the Strzyżów and Trzciniec cultures will come from Kujawy. This excerpt from their latest article proves it:
"Kujawy is an extremely interesting area of Poland from the point of view of studying neolithization processes. There was a border separating the southern areas, where agricultural Neolithic cultures were present, from the northern ones, where Mesolithic cultures of hunting and gathering existed. Neolithic community in this region was characterized by an increased share of the WHG genetic component even before the period of migration to Central Europe of the population from Scandinavia. Moreover, the presence of people without the genetic component of EEF testifies that enclaves of autochthonous WHG existed still in the Middle Neolithic."
The authors of this article also explain the principles of the law of coalescence, according to which alleles tend to reduce diversity in a population. It is coalescence that causes the further back in time we go back in the past that we find in the archeological material more Y-chromosome haplotypes currently rare or non-existent, and fewer currently common.
https://czasopisma.marszalek.com.pl/images/pliki/hso/36/hso3607.pdf
Speaking of Copenhagen - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-39202-0 - "Imputation of ancient human genomes" - Published: 20 June 2023 - "Due to postmortem DNA degradation and microbial colonization, most ancient genomes have low depth of coverage, hindering genotype calling. Genotype imputation can improve genotyping accuracy for low-coverage genomes. However, it is unknown how accurate ancient DNA imputation is and whether imputation introduces bias to downstream analyses. Here we re-sequence an ancient trio (mother, father, son) and downsample and impute a total of 43 ancient genomes, including 42 high-coverage (above 10x) genomes. We assess imputation accuracy across ancestries, time, depth of coverage, and sequencing technology. We find that ancient and modern DNA imputation accuracies are comparable. When downsampled at 1x, 36 of the 42 genomes are imputed with low error rates (below 5%) while African genomes have higher error rates. We validate imputation and phasing results using the ancient trio data and an orthogonal approach based on Mendel’s rules of inheritance. We further compare the downstream analysis results between imputed and high-coverage genomes, notably principal component analysis, genetic clustering, and runs of homozygosity, observing similar results starting from 0.5x coverage, except for the African genomes. These results suggest that, for most populations and depths of coverage as low as 0.5x, imputation is a reliable method that can improve ancient DNA studies."
No new adna other than the high coverage GAC trio.
@Gaska
'in other words, a waste of time.'
You know what, you're right; talking to you is a waste of time, because while I addressed every point you raised, the only point of mine you addressed is the issue of large-scale vs. small-scale migration. Which is a fair point, and the response I raise that absolute numbers versus relative numbers matter. If the population at the destination location is small, then a small migration is still a large relative migration and so easily capable of spurring a significant population shift. It's also worth bearing in mind that small migrations absolutely can lead to disproportionately large changes in language and culture. How much Roman DNA is there, really, in Romance-speaking countries outside of Italy, for example? But that's an aside, because we can see the autosomal evidence for significant population shifts in the cases we're discussing.
Other than that, there's no point touching on anything else you've said because it doesn't address what I've said, except with regards to...
'L51 was a strange type. It appears in different places & different times'
...Yes, such as early Bohemian CWC (and peninsular European populations with ancestry from CWC), and Afanasievo? Tell me, what's the point of commonality between these incredibly disparate populations? Because tone doesn't carry well over text, I'll be clear: This is a rhetorical question; I don't really want an answer.
lol yeah reminds me of their CWC & Zlota paper by Hannes Schroeder. They claimed ''Europe experienced such a dramatic reduction in Neolithic genomic ancestry at this time ''.
Dramatic & and just at this time ? This is a classic example of observer-sample bias.
What they did is used the new guys - the steppe male-CWC colonists with a paucity of EEF - to make a false claim that EEF populations 'reduced dramatically', everywhere. That's wrong even for northern Europe - EEF had been 'diminishing' for thousands of years already, due to WHG introgression & regional differential demic booms & busts.
But is that even a 'reduction'' or the result of ongoing admixture & complex population dymamics between EEF, WHG & steppe migrants ? Only a thorough case-by-case analysis can answer that, lest we forget places like Greece Iberia or Italy, where EEF remained the most prominent type of ancestry. They were politely informed about this, but were very dismissive. They have chosen the wrong path.
To cite another example, in Damgaard et al, they claimed ''we do not find evidence for substantial genetic contribution of Sarmatians to the 5th century Alans. Instead, we see that these north Caucasian Alans form a clade with the Iron Age Caucasian populations from Armenia with respect to the Sarmatians in a D-statistic.''
You can't exclude gene flow simply via D-Stats. The D-stats show that Alans have greater affinity with Caucasian groups. Anyone can check for themselves that Alans do have gene flow from steppe Sarmatians with qpADM or a G25-based method
But no big deal, innocent error, although somewhat embarrasing.
So, ill remain sceptical of the claims in their preprint about the Cuacasian roots of WHG, or this holy-grail middle Don sample.
..not to metion that their contentions have been irrevocably refuted by this new data from Poland - GAC & other para-Neolithic groups persisted and incrementally mixed into post-CWC groups. It's so obvious one doesn't need to be prodigious.
This sample from the Middle Don, of course, is not directly related to either Yamnaya or CWC. It is fundamentally important for understanding that the CHG are not new migrants to the steppe after 4500 BC, but were in the steppe long before that. Well, the fact that there are rumors that this sample is R1a-M417.
hi i am a genetics noob. When i used WHG and Yamnaya g25 coords in vahaduo it said they had a grester distance to africans than modern europe, but when I put their coords in the Africa 3D PCA they were closer to africans than modern europeans. why is this exactly and which is true?
@East Pole
Mate, what are you talking about? Corded Ware is not just Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan. It's Germanic, Celtic, Italic, etc... You'd have to reconstruct a super-language with all of these while excluding, Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian, etc.. It's just not possible.
I'm not even biased against the idea of what Davidski is proposing, but it just doesn't work with the available evidence. You're causing more problems than you're solving. In order to solve a Y-DNA mystery, you throw everything else out the window. Languages don't stay frozen in time for hundreds of years, to make your Y-DNA theories work.
@DragonHermit
Can you confirm that you understand that Yamnaya and CWC both originated in the same part of the steppe, kept contact with each other and were genealogically closely related?
Yes or no?
Of course if you say yes then you've lost the argument with me.
@Agelmund
Firstly, distance calculations using the G25 are based on 25 dimensions of genetic variation, while a 3D PCA plot only shows three dimensions.
Secondly, regional PCA analyses, like the African PCA, are only useful for studying the populations that are represented in the PCA. So you won't get reliable information about WHG from an African PCA because WHG is not an African population.
@DragonHermit
“Mate, what are you talking about? Corded Ware is not just Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan. It's Germanic, Celtic, Italic, etc... You'd have to reconstruct a super-language with all of these while excluding, Greek, Phrygian, Armenian, Albanian, Thracian, Dacian, etc.. It's just not possibile”
Corded Ware was Indo-Slavonic. It is comparatively secure because different lines of evidence converge on the same result, i.e. linguistics and traditional methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence etc.
Germanic, Celtic, Italic came from Bell Beakers. Greek, Albanian and Armenian origin is not known. Phrygian, Thracian and Dacian languages are not known and cannot be reconstructed.
@EastPole
Corded Ware > Single Grave > Bell Beakers
Early CT + Sredny Stog -> Heterogeneous Late CT groups -> R1b-L51 Corded Ware Groups living North of the Alps -> German Beakers -> All other Beakers
Early CT + Sredny Stog -> Heterogeneous Late CT groups -> Danish SGC Groups with R1b V6136 autosomally similar to Unetice and not to Beakers -> dead end
Speaking of Nikitin, he published an article on Stratum Plus stating that, in his view, Yamnaya emerged in the Dniester-Dnieper region from steppe-icized late Tripolje groups such as Gordinesti. Essentially summarises the data for progressive admixture between Sredni Stog & Trypolje (citing his own work, Immel, Mathieson, etc).
I’ve nothing against that as one component contributing to the formation of Yamnaya, but it might be putting too much stock on a stray burnt bone from a female (his latest study). And only a multi-scalar, time progressive view which looks into all swings and streams of influence can fully elucidate the origin of bronze age steppe groups
@Romulus
Single Grave is Corded Ware from The Netherlands, northwestern Germany and Denmark.
That's where the Bell Beakers came from. This is known as the Dutch model.
Effin moron.
preaches R1a-m417 for a decade of his life then has the audacity to call others morons, you are wrong about literally everything
@ vlad
“This sample from the Middle Don, of course, is not directly related to either Yamnaya or CWC. It is fundamentally important for understanding that the CHG are not new migrants to the steppe after 4500 BC, but were in the steppe long before that. Well, the fact that there are rumors that this sample is R1a-M417.”
It’s not the veracity of sample which I doubt
@Romulus
No idea why you're babbling about M417 you retarded piece of crap.
The Bell Beaker story has been known for a while, thanks to this blog.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/single-grave-bell-beakers.html
@Davidski
"Can you confirm that you understand that Yamnaya and CWC both originated in the same part of the steppe, kept contact with each other and were genealogically closely related?
Yes or no?
Of course if you say yes then you've lost the argument with me."
Everything you mentioned can be applied to Norwegians and Swedes:
- Originated in the same area -> Check
- Kept contact with each other -> Check
- Were genealogically closely related -> Check
Yet, Norwegian and Swedish are different languages. Saying a hypothetical Proto-CW/Yamnaya speak the exact same language, is like saying Norwegians and Swedes are still speaking Old Norse. They're not. They derive from it, as would those two groups from SS, but they have clear linguistic laws differentiating them.
You want these two groups to live in different ecological zones, but still speak the exact same language. It just can't happen.
The main issue is how we define "Yamnaya". I've said this before, but it's quite clear most RZ2103 kurgans are just Core-PIE COUSINS, like Tocharian. Linguistically today they're a dead end. As such, MOST Yamnaya have not left linguistic/genetic descendants. PIE is a specific northwestern steppe variant with a heavy farming vocabulary, whose leading clans split apart ~ 3000 BC. The RZ2103s of PIE drifted south, the L51s west, and R1as north. That's a bit of an oversimplification but it's the gist of it. Corded Ware people like Lazaridis put it, are just "intermediaries", between Northwestern Yamnaya and the rest of Europe and the IBD study proves just that. I mean ffs we have such large IBD segments, and they're not even the direct paternal ancestors of these people. Just random samples.
Where is the R1a-m417 in Yamnaya?
Where is the R1b-L51 in SGC?
Your Bell Beaker "story" is based on samples that don't exist just like your story about Corded Ware originating in Yamnaya was. What's more, both stories are directly contradicted by the samples that do exist.
Davidski, I noticed TUR_Marmara_Ilipinar_C:I10543 is not included in G25 along with the other three Ilipinar C samples. Is that because of contamination or something? It's available to look at in Genoplot calculators and seems to have a relatively large North Sea/Atlantic component in K15 Ancient, so I was curious what it looked like in PCA.
@ Dave
if we were to be specific, the data point to a trifurcation of R1b-P312 in SW Germany
@DragonHermit
Norwegians and Swedes don't show the same level of genealogical relatedness as CWC and Yamnaya you fucking idiot.
What is wrong with you?
@Romulus
???
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-origin-of-corded-ware-people.html
I've come across some additional tid-bits regarding various steppe samples being chatted about
* Ukr_Mes structure: 2 mesolithic Derievkans (a female, and R1a-male) are west-shifted, plotting with the Ukr_N cluster, whilst the Meso individuals from further south on the Dnieper are more east-shifted
* the 'hyper-steppe' Boyanovo are actually quite late. One of them is C14 dated to ~ 2200 BC. Hence they're uninformative about Yamnaya origins
* in regards to comments re: I-M223/ P222 in Dnieper rapids, the lineage appears to be novel there, but sampling is req. Also take note of dietary differences (mostly fish in Dnieper c.f. domesticates eaten by their kin in the Tisza basin) impact C14 dating, making the 2 esentially contemporaneous, as I originally suggested.
@Rob
I don't know exactly how P312 evolved and expanded.
I'm talking about the origins of Bell Beakers, which, based on archeological and genetic data, look like an offshoot of Rhenish Single Grave peoples.
So the Dutch model, which is nothing new, is basically correct.
Davidski 2012->2021
R1a-M417 was in Yamnaya and Corded Ware comes from Yamnaya, you are a moron if you disagree.
Davidski 2021 -> Present
Well I guess in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary Corded Ware actually comes from the "Forest Steppe". What is the Forest Steppe? Well it's not Trypillia despite that being the only archeological horizon in the area at that time aside from GAC. UHM It's Sredny Stog. Disregard Sredny Stog ceased to exist in 3500 BCE. That 500 year gap between Sredny Stog and Corded Ware doesn't matter. Also disregard the fact that Sredny Stog existed on the Steppe and not the Forest Steppe. Also disregard the fact that the entire Steppe theory of Indo-European languages hinges on equating Yamnaya with the reconstructed PIE language. Also disregard 2012-2021, that didn't happen.
@Romulus
Hey bullshit artist.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/early-baltic-corded-ware-form-genetic.html
Just a random example from five years ago.
@ Romulus
“Late Tripolje” is somewhat distinct to early Trypillia farmers
Yes lets not forget your greatest catchphrase "Corded Ware comes from Yamnaya because early Corded Ware is identical to Yamnaya"
The basis? One female from a Baltic Corded Ware context.
The special pleading? Ignoring literally hundreds of other Corded Ware samples uniformly containing ~30% Farmer ancestry.
Then your follow up bullshit: "All Corded Ware acquired their Farmer ancestry from local farmers and did not carry it with them". Because they were originally Yamnaya right? This was great especially in Baltic Corded Ware where there were no preceeding farmers.
You are a clownski.
@Romulus
My hypothesis has always been that Corded Ware and Yamnaya derive from the same population.
This is correct.
Whether we call this ancestral population Yamnaya, proto-Yamnaya or something else is still up for debate.
My opinion has generally been that this population should not be called Yamnaya. The evidence for this is in my blog posts going back many years.
It seems that you've got me confused with David Reich etc., who are adamant that Corded Ware is derived from Yamnaya. That's not my problem, that's your problem.
And obviously the idea that Corded Ware is from the same population as Yamnaya isn't just based on a singleton Baltic Corded Ware female. All of the very early Corded Ware samples from the Baltic, Bohemia and Poland have this type of Yamnaya-like genetic structure.
It's only during the middle and late Corded Ware period that we see the farmer ancestry in the Corded Ware population rise sharply above the level that is seen in Yamnaya.
The same process is seen in the Baltic Corded Ware, where farmer ancestry rises gradually, and this is due to mixing with Corded Ware groups in Central Europe.
How do you not understand any of this yet?
@Davidski
"Norwegians and Swedes don't show the same level of genealogical relatedness as CWC and Yamnaya you fucking idiot."
Based on what? They share similar autosomal profiles, uniparentals, and strong IBD hits. Oslo is literally 200 km from Sweden.
"My hypothesis has always been that Corded Ware and Yamnaya derive from the same population.
This is correct.
Whether we call this ancestral population Yamnaya, proto-Yamnaya or something else is still up for debate."
No is denying that. The only thing that's up for discussion is the TIME when it happened. Pushing it towards Sredny Stog makes 0 sense, when a 3300 BC Tocharian split is considered archaic linguistically. Like I said, Sredny Stog at most can be a candidate for Proto-Anatolian. Even Tocharian is too late.
PIE speakers were just a SUBSET of steppe/Yamnaya people with farming influences. This points to a western influence.
Post a Comment