Thursday, May 18, 2023
Alexey Nikitin: Interpreting the genetic ancestry of the first kurgan builders
Click on the image below to view the talk. Thoughts?
See also...
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let me tell you about Yamnaya
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight
399 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
Would it be possible to add these 17x (if I didn't miss anything) pre-Medieval and Medieval Czech samples to Global25?
ReplyDeleteLIB2
LIB3
LIB4
LIB5
LIB7 (Early Medieval)
LIB11
LIB12
POH3
POH11
POH13
POH27
POH28
POH36
POH39
POH40
POH41
POH44
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39997
Saw this one posted on anthrog. I couldn't get much out of it due to it seemed like lots of talking about excavated subjects being on steppe cline, which could mean lots of things, and the focus is just talking about mt. What's decisive and new?
ReplyDeleteWell, he's saying basically that Yamnaya formed from Sredny Stog after it mixed with Trypilla.
ReplyDeleteHe also mentioned a sample with very surprising ancestry from one of the kurgans. Any bets on what he's talking about there?
I think I mentioned that a Decea (Suvorovo group) male was essentially straight up EEF, and had Y-DNA H2, from another team's preprint which Niktin also collaborates with.
ReplyDeleteHe mentions that Usatavo (some of them? ) had considerable EEF. That would parallel my hunch that EEF was present (to account for the obvious cultural links) but diluted and EHG/CHG increased toward 3000 bc.
He also comments that Usatovo culture could have taken place 500 yeras earlier than previously thought, in the first half of 4th millennium BC, (c. 4000-3500 BC).
ReplyDeleteWhether the model of farmers from Moldova-Romania contributing some ancestry or from the Caucasus sort of direction works better, depends on what sort of admixed individuals we find, and I guess from this this talk - and bear in mind I mainly skipped through it rather than watched the whole thing because of how boring these talks become when its going through published results - is that I didn't really get a clear impression of whether they do find admixed individuals that directly throw light on that question? Like is it just his opinion that admixture would be likely from that direction or is there an actual autosomal result that supports that? I couldn't tell from just skipping through this thing.
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteSkip to around 54:35.
The argument is that there's a "reciprocal relationship" between Sredny Stog and Trypilla, so if Yamnaya is derived from Sredny Stog, then like Sredny Stog it has ancestry from Trypilla.
But I guess that's not to say that there can't be some minor Caucasus ancestry in Yamnaya, especially since this type of ancestry does show up clearly in a few of the Usatovo samples from the western end of the steppe. And we have the Yamnaya Ozera outlier female as well.
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteIf we were to get more outliers like Ozera, we might see actual Caucasian admixture (rather than Mesolithic stuff). Otherwise Majkop is too late to be relevant for any non-statistically fabricated models
… not that either scenario is mutually exclusive
ReplyDeleteUsatavo appears to have some direct links with Majkop
Davidski said...
ReplyDelete"The argument is that there's a "reciprocal relationship" between Sredny Stog and Trypilla"
The Trypillian samples from that cave have some steppe-related ancestry, right? And there's also the steppe woman found in a Trypillian setting. So it could be there was some wife-exchanging happening at that stage, maybe that's what he means.
Genetic history of Slovenia:
ReplyDelete1. High variation during late Roman sites (c. 3rd to 5th cent.)
- diversity centred on southern Europe
- however, many outliers
- PCA outliers have non-trivial African ancestry
2. Less variation (but similar ancestry) in earlier post-Roman sites (c. 5th to 6th cent.)
- distribution remains centred around southern Europe
- fewer outliers overall
- some cluster with the Caucasus
- but most with present-day southern European populations
- no significant African ancestry, some individuals with some Asian ancestry instead
3. Chronological gap in the 7th to 8th centuries (only one site, n=5)
4. In the 9th-10th century, we see a sudden shift to ancestry associated with northeast Europe
- communities now largely cluster with more north-eastern populations
- everyone fits with European variation
- Asian/African gene flow gone
PCA - https://i.postimg.cc/t9b0HZzM/Genetic-history-Slovenia.jpg
Y-chromosomal DNA analyses of Slavic-Avar population from the Medieval burial ground Cífer-Pác (soon to be published) - https://i.postimg.cc/4JNVqPHN/Slavic-Avar-Slovakia.png
ReplyDelete@Suevi
ReplyDeleteIf I'm not mistaken, Davidski already converted some of these Czechs to g25 some time ago. See this thread:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23595-New-Samples-from-Migration-Era-and-Early-Medieval-Moravia
Where are the PCAs you posted from? Some unreleased studies?
@ulfing
ReplyDeleteYes, but there are some new samples (LIB4, LIB5, LIB7, LIB12 and POH39) that haven't been converted yet.
The PCAs are from unpublished HistoGenes study.
https://youtu.be/ZkFDpgyoXK8?t=1376
ReplyDeleteUnrelated to the topic, but a new article on the interactions between MLBA steppe cultures and BMAC, Kulturkugel model, and genetic imprint of early Indo-Aryans in Asia: https://nezihseven.substack.com/p/genetic-imprint-of-early-indo-aryans
ReplyDelete@David
ReplyDelete"He also mentioned a sample with very surprising ancestry from one of the kurgans. Any bets on what he's talking about there?"
If you are referring to Csongrad kurgan that is mentioned at ~36 minutes, where he states he is not at liberty to elaborate on the autosomical make up: David Anthony et al did spill some knowledge.
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/10.1515_pz-2022-2034.pdf
"A migrant from the steppes buried in Hungary at Csongrad-Kettëshalom Bastanya, contemporary with Khvalynsk, had Y-haplogroup Q1b, and autosomal DNA similar to Khvalynsk. This steppe male was part of a diaspora of steppe males into the Danube valley that occurred about 4400–4200 BCE. "
Re Slovenia
ReplyDeleteSeems like collapse of Late Antique social & demographic structure occurred ~ 600 AD
Low population levels for a century then population growth post Slavic migrations
Same as can be expected in most of Balkans
Well, he's saying basically that Yamnaya formed from Sredny Stog after it mixed with Trypilla.
ReplyDeleteI've been telling you this since 2015. BBC, CWC, Yamnaya, all share this origin.
@Matt
ReplyDelete"What's decisive and new?"
That a number of Suvorovo/Novodanilovska samples (Giurgiulesti and Csongrad) and Eneolithic samples such as Usatovo and the samples from Revova kurgan are on the Steppe/Yamnaya cline.
And as Rob said before, another Suvorovo sample is a clean EEF.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteI've been telling you this since 2015. BBC, CWC, Yamnaya, all share this origin.
Sredny Stog mixed with Trypilla you moron.
Not BBC, CWC or Yamnaya.
CWC and BBC have Globular Amphora ancestry.
You've been pushing some bullshit agenda that BBC and CWC are from Trypilla.
Do you understand now?
@Davisdski @Romulus “
ReplyDeleteSredny Stog mixed with Trypilla you moron.
Not BBC, CWC or Yamnaya.
CWC and BBC have Globular Amphora ancestry.”
Yes, but because Yamnaya, CWC & BBC are from Sredny Stog, and SS’s mixed with Triplyans, then overall Corded and Bell Beakers have some Tripolye but mostly GAC ancestry.
Yeah Sredny Stog ceased to exist in 3500 BCE because they were conpletely assimilated into CT. The Steppw migration did not begin until 2950
ReplyDeleteSteppe migrations started well before 4,000 BCE you knucklehead.
ReplyDeleteSee that's why steppe ancestry shows up in Hungary and Armenia at that time.
And Afanasievo in Mongolia is older than 2,950 BCE anyway.
Whatever I don't want to go through this for the hundredth time.
ReplyDeleteI watched the presentation, key points:
-They have a bunch of new samples from Kurgans in the NW Pontic.
-Suvorovo Kurgan contained a Neolithic Farmer.
-Paper by Nick Patterson on them is coming out end of the year.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAny ideas as to when N1 showed up in Eastern Europe? It looks like the Iron Age now, so much for Maciamo’s bs. How much of an autosomal impact did these folks have on modern day Balts and Poles (East Asian/Siberian-like ancestry)?
N-L1026 was already in Europe during the Bronze Age.
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/the-boo-people-earliest-uralic-speakers.html
Balts have a lot of N-L1026. Poles only a couple per cent.
But the autosomal impact was minimal, close to zero even in Balts.
@Davidski
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB59598
Hello David,
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you remember or not, but about a week ago I was asking if you had samples from two preprints with Sredny Stog samples. It turns out the data got made public on one of them just a few days ago.
I was hoping we could get G25 coords from this study if they do not already exist? Thank you
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB59598
https://www.researchsquare.com/article/rs-1966812/v1
@Simon Stevin You can get 5-15% for modern balts, more for russians and finns, bit less (~3-5%) as you move westward depending on the source used for the North Asian ancestry. Some of the autosomal ancestry seems to have been present in NE europe already since BOO times.
ReplyDeletesee
Lamnidis et al 2018
Peltola et al 2023
Lazaridis et al 2018 (pink component)
Jeong et al 2018
Feldman et al 2021
Tambets et al 2018
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteYou can get 5-15% for modern balts.
This is one of the dumbest things you've written here. You would need to go east of the Volga to see something like 15% Siberian ancestry.
The papers you cited are either wrong or you misinterpreted the details.
This paper explains the situation in the Baltic area.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(19)30424-5
Let's see if you can understand this pretty picture.
https://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/083161d6-5418-4b87-b243-bfaa4c80569f/fx1.jpg
@davidski
ReplyDeleteOrpheus seems to have an agenda to inflate east eurasian admixture in northern and eastern Europeans like many do for some reason. Perhaps to make them more "mixed", whatever, he claims even western Europeans have it.
See this: https://arxaiogenetiki.blogspot.com/2023/03/dna.html
"The main possible historical sources from which may have originated are: three, Huns, Scythians, and Mongols"
Makes no sense, how many Mongol uniparentals are found? The main bulk of east eurasian DNA, which is in the far north and northeast of Europe is related to Uralics.
@AR
ReplyDeleteI'm not surprised.
The claim of 5-15% Siberian ancestry in Balts is pretty wild.
I've never seen a paper claiming such a thing.
Orpheus is a troll. A really dumb one at that.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1FgoXEX5kt8KHXLjD0dh2LaUOLMRZqv3b/view?usp=sharing
Quick plot of samples from Davidski - "Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe - Preliminary" - https://imgur.com/a/OggiUVh
ReplyDeleteCompared to Progress_En, ukr104 primarily enriched with UKR_N, also some TUR_Barcin_N possibly.
In distance difference between ukr104 and RUS_Afanasievo, ukr104 is closer to Euro_HG while RUS_Afanasievo probably due to sharing more bottleneck with other Steppe_EMBA (and Steppe_En) and has more SE orientation in PCA, so is relatively closer to both other Steppe_EMBA groups and to lesser degree to present day North Caucasus people, CHG, Turan_CA, etc.
It seems like you can get to Afanasievo through convergence of ukr104, Khvalynsk and Progress_En, with small pure Barcin_N: https://imgur.com/a/oeeeMwv
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteThere was some significant substructure in Sredny Stog. Not as significant as in Khvalynsk, where there were essentially two populations, but enough not to really bother with getting extra southern stuff for Afanasievo.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks for the coordinates, much appreciated!
Some ignorant idiot had that to say in Wikipedia (Western Steppe Herders entry), following the Reich BROAD lab’s 2022 drivel:
ReplyDeleteA 2022 study concludes that Yamnaya ancestry can be modelled as a mixture of an as yet unsampled admixed EHG/CHG population with a second source from the south Caucasus, and rejects Khvalynsk Eneolithic as a source population for the Yamnaya cluster. The study also contradicts suggestions that European farmer populations of the Cucuteni-Trypillia and Globular Amphora cultures contributed ancestry to Yamnaya, as Yamnaya lack the additional hunter-gatherer ancestry found in European farmers, and carry equal proportions of Anatolian and Levantine ancestry, unlike European farmers who carry predominantly Anatolian ancestry.
@Samuel Andrews The anti-White wokeness in our country’s academia has reached epic pandemic proportions.
ReplyDeleteYamnaya did NOT have a second wave of Southern Caucasian immigration with equal amounts of Levantine and Anatolian, but a significant GAC and mainly CTC admixture from Poland and Romania. 18% farmer is a lot!
ReplyDeleteAnd Maykop did mix with Yamnaya, if that’s what people refer to, but its impact was minimal.
Last but not least, Dr. Reich and Co., the Potter’s Wheel and the Kurgans originated in the Balkans, not in West Asia.
@Rob I have to give you long overdue credit, that many theories of yours turned out to be true.
ReplyDeleteI do disagree with you re: GAC language being of WHG derivation, since we have the example of both Basques and Etruscans being of overwhelmingly Eastern European (i.e. Indo-European) patrilineal haps only to learn non-IE languages from their mothers. I suspect that the same scenario is true pertaining to GAC.
Can anyone inform me how come most commentators ignore the fact that CHG has 1/3 Mal’ta Burret or Yana just like EHG has 75%?
ReplyDeleteMost people gloss over the fact that the original WSH (before admixing fairly heavily with EEF) had 50% ANE from both sources.
@AR And on the immediate sentences after that I'm writing that any siberian ancestry precedes all these three historically plausible sources and it's pretty old.
ReplyDeleteDid you forget to translate that or did you just not get it? Lmfao
There's also no inflation anywhere, did you think that "10% ->24%" was referring to nganasan? Is the translator you're using this bad? There weren't any 100% nganasan-like people in europe, which means that a 5% nganasan ancestry somewhere came from a 50% or 33% nganasan source, which means 5% becomes 10% or 15% from that admixed source. Greek isn't that hard to autotranslate so you either missed it (lazy) or didn't understand it (stupid)
Thanks for the views though!
@Davidski I already referenced that study, they find that there's north asian ancestry in north europe since before any scythian/mongol/hun/etc invasion (that's my conclusion as well).
If you tried to present it as a comeback then that's weaker than your deadlift PR, since they find ~5% nganasan in Estonia which agrees with what papers like Lamnidis et al 2018 found. In their chromo three ancient samples score 8%, 11% and 19% too. Over 15%, and if we're talking about the carriers of the N haplos (which weren't 100% nganasan-like) which is probably what Simon alluded to, then this ancestry goes up to 30% and higher. Moving westward the north asian source will go down to 1-3% on average at most so that's a 3-5%. Exactly what I said. Bad reading comprehension perhaps
Thanks for agreeing with me though
Wasn't this Sredny ukr104 supposed to be evidence of Yamnaya origin from SS as per Davidski?
ReplyDeleteIt is much more distant from Progress than even Yamnaya with much more Ukr_N like admixture. Seems like Progress ancestry diluting farther away it was from the epicentre. SS was a sink, not a source.
First rough run.
Target: ukr104:ukr104
Distance: 1.9134% / 0.01913423 | R3P
51.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
37.2 ukr160
11.6 TJK_Sarazm_En
Hmm maybe I was too quick to dismiss Scythians contributing any NA ancestry to North/East Europe as an unsubstantiated rationalization by historians. From two blogposts back our friend Suevi informed us of this:
ReplyDelete"Genetic identification of Slavs in Migration Period Europe using an IBD sharing graph"
"One of the clusters in the IBD graph emerged that includes nearly all individuals in the dataset annotated archaeologically as “Slavic”. According to PCA a hypothesis for the origin of this population can be proposed: it was formed by admixture of a Baltic-related group with East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians."
@Matt What's a rough % estimate of CTC in that sample, considering what Nikitin said?
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteWasn't this Sredny ukr104 supposed to be evidence of Yamnaya origin from SS as per Davidski?
No, there are many more Sredny Stog samples on the way.
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteYou don't have a clue what you're talking about because you don't know anything about how these analyses work.
There's always some noise in these tests mainly because the sources of admixture are not perfect so the algorithms have to compensate by shifting the ancestry proportions.
Another problem is that the different types of data, like modern versus ancient, aren't 100% compatible, and again this causes noise.
Here's an analysis of Siberian ancestry that I did a while back using only transversion SNPs, to minimize some of these problems. The ancestry proportions are more accurate than in any of the papers you cited.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/ancient-ancestry-proportions-in-present.html
If you don't believe what I'm saying, then get in touch with someone like Iosif Lazaridis or Nick Patterson and show them this comment. Let's see what they say.
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteIf you tried to present it as a comeback then that's weaker than your deadlift PR, since they find ~5% nganasan in Estonia which agrees with what papers like Lamnidis et al 2018 found.
Estonians aren't Balts. They're Uralics.
So tell us again how Balts have 5-15% Siberian ancestry you moron.
"No, there are many more Sredny Stog samples on the way."
ReplyDeleteInteresting. It would mean that sredny and dereivka would have the special honor of being the source of 2 wildly different ancestries - ukr_n and yamnaya.
You've got it backwards, as usual.
ReplyDeleteYamnaya is a mixture between proto-Sredny Stog and Ukraine N.
Proto-Sredny Stog was very similar to Progress, but older.
This population moved west very early. One such sample will come from Copper Age Hungary.
These 'eastern' guys are just from the broader Khvalynsk (or Volga-Caspian) network, expectedly given the known links between eastern Balkans & Khvalynsk.
ReplyDeleteThey appear to have been clients/ allies and evidently there are some rather direct links between these two distant regions which cut out other more close groups such as the Dereivka -R1b-V88 clans.
The collapse of Varna was not due to raids from Khvalynsk but due to the rise of the Tiszapolgar group, which became the new metallurgical monopoly. When Varna collapsed so too did the power base of Khvalynsk chiefs. Hence, post-4000 BC, a new steppe power group appears to have arisen closer to the Dnieper-Don region, consistent with a different set of uniparental lineages and a more western genomic profile.
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteSo do you understand now why I'm calling you a dumb troll?
If not, here are two of your awesome quotes side by side. Emphasis is mine.
You can get 5-15% for modern balts.
If you tried to present it as a comeback then that's weaker than your deadlift PR, since they find ~5% nganasan in Estonia which agrees with what papers like Lamnidis et al 2018 found.
FYI, Latvians and Lithuanians are Balts.
@Davidski Any info on the dating of the upcoming Sredny samples?
ReplyDelete@Davidski Estonians are geographically Baltic Europeans and don't have a sinificant difference in siberian ancestry with lithuanians, or norwegians for that matter. It hovers around 4% with the occasional outlier (hence 15%+ total from N carriers as we can already see in the paper you posted)
Also thanks for reminding me of Saag's paper, I made sure to include his findings since they agree with all the other papers I linked ahaha
Your reading comprehension really sucks so I'll try again: 5-15% ancestry in modern (geographical) balts, as well as scandinavians and lower levels further west are not 5-15% north asian but 5-15% (in some cases higher) BOO-like. "Carriers of N haplos" refers to this, an intermediate population (or more than one population throughout time apparently) which carried haplos and languages. Nganasan ancestry is roughly 50% or 1/3 of that, which is what all papers find.
I can see why there's some confusion though, Simon asked "How much of an autosomal impact did these folks have on modern day Balts and Poles (East Asian/Siberian-like ancestry)?" and I didn't initially clarify that 5-15% refers to these folks which weren't 100% siberian (not even close), I guess you saw it as 5-15% "East Asian/Siberian-like", which is not the case. That was the conclusion in my article as well (supported by Saag too now with examples), max Nganasan you can get in most of Europe is 2-5% up to 15% (Finland is in Europe) which becomes roughly 5-25% (lower on the west, higher in the northeast) depending on the nganasan ancestry carrier population proxy (initial N haplo carriers in Europe), BOO-like or not
This isn't even controversial, it's consensus now.
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteLatvians and Lithuanians have less Siberian influence than Estonians, because they're Balts and Estonians are Uralics. A child can work this out by using open source samples and software.
By your own admission Estonians only have ~5% Siberian admix. Therefore you pulled this out of your ass.
You can get 5-15% for modern balts.
Dumb troll.
"Andrzejewski said...
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews The anti-White wokeness in our country’s academia has reached epic pandemic proportions."
These accusations are laughable given that at least 3 of Reich's close associates are openly on the conservative side of the political spectrum, and they don't try particularly hard to hide it. Twitter is an open site, you can find out yourself (hint: one of them has been the subject of a series of posts by Davidski). Not everyone who doesn't agree with a specific hypothesis about prehistory is 'woke'. Some people in this hobby like to imagine that the future of mankind hinges on whether Yamnaya had 10% Trypillian or 10% Caucasian ancestry, in reality 99% of the general population doesn't follow and doesn't care about ancient DNA (or even prehistory in general).
There's definitely bias and probably some sort of agenda at play here.
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, it's hard to imagine why anyone would want to push this idea that Yamnaya is ~25% Armenian-related.
It's an absurd claim.
@alex “ one of them has been the subject of a series of posts by Davidski)”
ReplyDeleteLazaridis comes off as a liberal judging by his Twitter posts.
Reich himself comes from a family of Holocaust survivors, so perhaps his glasses are a tad tinted by his possible unwillingness to acknowledge an Indo-European red-haired skillful elite who originated in Eastern Europe’s Western Steppe instead of West Asia or the Caucasus mountains?
Iran_N has at least 50% ANE. Why do all reconstructions depict them as Semitic looking?
ReplyDeleteHaving a lot of ANE isn't a good indicator of any type of look or lacking a certain look.
ReplyDeleteThat's not how genotype/phenotype stuff works.
You can get selection for some particular traits in one population and not in another, even though both groups might have the same basic ancestry.
You need to think about these sorts of details, instead of assuming that ratios of basic ancestral components can be informative about more than just ancestry.
List of samples with at least 15% CHG-like and ANE-like admixture.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ibb.co/Jrd0JC1/39486854.png
A bit unrelated but is EEF ancestry hidden in modern SC Asian Pops in ADMIXTURE. The reason I ask is because I have seen some formal statistic outputs which show that they have high affinity towards ANF rich populations. For example I saw one D stat output which showed Baloch showed high affinity to ANF farmers, and a pashtuns showing higher affinity towards Sardinians than they did with Sindhis or other South Asians. The particular d stats that I am talking about were posted by Kurd on Anthrogenica.
ReplyDelete"Reich himself comes from a family of Holocaust survivors, so perhaps his glasses are a tad tinted by his possible unwillingness to acknowledge an Indo-European red-haired skillful elite who originated in Eastern Europe’s Western Steppe instead of West Asia or the Caucasus mountains?"
ReplyDeleteSo he doesn't agree with you because he's a Jew. Got it.
I don't think there's any evidence that they were red-haired, maybe the IrisPlex method uses "Jewish science" and we need something better :)
@alex Haha spot on. To make things even better, even if someone's favorite theory/fantasy is proven true, nothing changes in his life or his peoples' life or his country's future. It's a brief ego boost at best
ReplyDelete@Andrze Eh more like on the 20-25% side. As for phenotypes, David's response to you is spot on so I suggest listening to someone who (I assume) you respect
@Davidski Imagine being this cringe at your age. Yes you can easily get 5-15% ancestry from whoever introduced the N y haplos in Europe in geographical Balts, Scandinavians and others, with 5-15% covering all the variation depending on their their north asian ancestry. If they were like BOO they were at best 50% siberian so 5% siberian becomes 10% BOO-like + N haplo. Would you look at that, 10% falls right in the middle of 5-15%
In fact 15% might be too conservative since 17% was detected in MA Estonia, imagine the slavic speakers further east.
You were kind enough to admit this via Saag demonstrating it (lmao again) so at this point I accept your concession.
There's definitely an anti Central European bias emerging in genetics, but I dont think it has to do 'wokenesss' directly (which is a instead a tool to oppress the middle Class by silencing and scaring it into obedieance)
ReplyDeleteAlex should read Reich's book more carefully. The narrative invention highlights consistent population turnovers in Central Europe, whilst claiming BB originated in the far west, and Greeks having 90% continuity with the bronze age, as an example.
It's got to do with the 'otherness' of Ukraine, Poland, Hungary, northern Balkans, and bad omens of Germany. Western Anglophone audiences are familiar with Iberia & Greece, and even Near East, so such narratives can fit in more easily into public perception . Same with North American audiences, and how every secoond paper has to mention native American ancesty, as if that has anything remotely to do with Europe or Steppe Majkop. It brings in acceptance by familiarity
W.r.t to the Caucasus angle, it flows from 2 major backgrounds. The Germans are obsessed with the region. Useful research of course, but not when it obscures the truth. So Hansen & his students are perpetually claiming that pastoralism was introduced via the Caucasus, despite opposite evidence, and this largely stems from Germany's national inferiority complex against Slavs.
The second factor is Russian archaeology. Their excavations are good, but they have a bizarre style, lack original and critical thought and a need to invent separate neolithicization flow not involving Europe. hence they invent claims about 'exotic' & independent origins coming either directly from Israel, or even more far-fethced claims about some mysterious spread from the Far East and conflating possible pottery infleuences with the actual process of domesticates.
The Caucasus theory is obvously popular amongst GReek antho enthusiasts, in part due to the their being scared of Slavs & what is means for the creation of their national narrative (despite mainlanders often being Greek speaking Slavs themselves).
@alex
ReplyDeleteWhat's your take on the Southern Arc paper?
Do you believe it was an objective and accurate effort?
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWe can hardly say that South Slavs are Slavs ,let alone Greeks.Even a great part of Skopjans seem to be largely Slavophone Albanians,Greeks ,Vlachs and Greco-Paeonians.
@Curtis
ReplyDeleteSouth Slavs are called Slavs because they speak Slavic languages and they have a lot of original Slavic ancestry.
And are you claiming there's no Slavic ancestry in Greece?
Curtis
ReplyDeleteDon't make statements that highlight you as Orpheus' equally-retarded cousin.
Firstly, Skopje is a city, not a country.
Secondly, there is huge amount of Slavic ancestry across the Balkans, even in Greece. It got partially re-southernized during the high Middle Ages, e.g. due to incorporation of Albanian tribes into Serbian clans. Complex topic, from your comments, it doesn't seem you'd be capable of understanding
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteIf they were like BOO they were at best 50% siberian so 5% siberian becomes 10% BOO-like + N haplo.
The data from Saag shows that even in Estonia the people who introduced Y-HG N were overwhelmingly European.
Balts do not have anything resembling Siberian ancestry at 5-15%.
You're a moron.
@Davidski I'd be a fool to claim such thing but there's a difference between indeed an important Slavic element versus "Greek speaking Slavs".Now trying to quantify it is a difficult endeavor at the moment due to overlapping components with some ancient samples here in Balkans/Greece and depending on the sources you can get quite different models so I'm not going to get into it ,we need transects.
ReplyDelete@Rob
1)Isn't that a double standard? Greeks from South Italy and Asia minor were "Greek" but you and Greeks are Slav?something doesn't fit well here.
2)40% maybe in some specific uppermost northern areas.
3)Can you name some settlements where I can find these descendants of Sicilians and Asian minorites?Or even better ,if you know can you fund some tests for them?
4)Re-southernized /Slavicized ,isn't it the same?
" Curtis
ReplyDelete''1)Isn't that a double standard? Greeks from South Italy and Asia minor were "Greek" but you and Greeks are Slav?''
Not at all. Slavs came from trans-Danubia in large numbers and that's how they imparted their effects across the Balkans. They are genetically, culturally & linguistically Slavs.
Being Greek is a more complex matter which involved a large process of cultural adoption of Greek identity and languaeg shift.
Why am I a Slav ? Because my lineages are from the north & my parents spoke that language I guess . Not rocket science.
2)40% maybe in some specific uppermost northern areas.
Conservative estimate. Inland areas like Bosnia are basically 100% Slav-related I2a and R1a. Makes claims like yours & Orpheus sound utterly uninformed
3) ''3)Can you name some settlements where I can find these descendants of Sicilians and Asian minorites?Or even better ,if you know can you fund some tests for them?''
You mean you;re not aware that Greek speaking communities existed in Sicily and Asia Minor, and there were mass resettlements into Greece after Byzantine collapse ?
4) ''4)Re-southernized /Slavicized ,isn't it the same?''
No, clearly different set of processes and order
@Rob
ReplyDelete1)No different than Greeks then , the Hellenization of the east was also a case of large numbers moving there , we are probably talking about a six-digit number moving in from Greece proper and the archaic colonies ,it wasn't simply a case of good local kids going to Greek school.The fact that there was also cultural assimilation on top of that does not change the fact that the Greekness of most was/would turn out organic.I mean If some tribes in Central Asia today have false legends of Greek origin ,imagine them at that time who actually had that and who would be a little more educated.The case is no different to that of Turks.. or the Serbians with their Albanian clans.Other than that no much can be said about genetics of the broader geography(Italy ,Greece,Balkans &Anatolia) yet besides shifts in some cases.As I said there's countless models one can make and they are all as possible as the other until better data comes out.And this is relevant for the South Italy part too.
3)I'm aware ,what I'm not aware is of the "mass" part and If it has any relevance to moderns or if it has to what extent.The reliability of the chronicle is also debated.And without even counting the movements of foreign speakers later ,there has been constant mobility between regions.Pretty much any interregional/inter-Greek migration that you can imagine has happened at one point or another.
@Andrzejewski "Iran_N has at least 50% ANE. Why do all reconstructions depict them as Semitic looking?"
ReplyDeleteWhat paper have you read which claims they're at least 50% ANE? LOL. That's impossible.
@ Curtis
ReplyDelete''Other than that no much can be said about genetics of the broader geography(Italy ,Greece,Balkans &Anatolia) yet besides shifts in some cases.As I said there's countless models one can make and they are all as possible as the other until better data comes out.''
At this stage, the evidence doesn't hold much scope for 'anything is possible'. In fact, all was clear even before aDNA. Time/slice archaeology and historical records have revealed it all. This was only obscured by New School immobilists and various nationalist agendas.
aDNA will just quantify and provide admixture dates, and show interesting exotic outliers from Egypt or Armenia.
folks ancestral to sredni stog yamnaya have already been found. It is all written on the wall save from the nay sayers
ReplyDeleteFrom approximately 5,000 BP, an ancestry component appears on the eastern European plains in Early Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists associated with the Yamnaya culture and it rapidly spreads across Europe through the expansion of the Corded Ware complex (CWC) and related cultures1,2. 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 carried ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknown proximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes
@ Andrze, Anveṣaṇam
ReplyDeleteIMO dont hold admixture % too tightly for older Pops, by whatever method. It appears to vary widely by set-up. What's important is the overall populations tructure and relations.
But I'd say 10-30% ANE in CHG & 10-20% in WHG is realistic.
"Davidski said...
ReplyDelete@alex
What's your take on the Southern Arc paper?"
I think its main hypothesis is weak and based on a genetic determinist fallacy. Just because I find Andrez's argument ridiculous doesn't mean I agree with whatever Lazaridis says.
@Rob
Bulgarians and North Macedonians have a good amount of Imperial Roman/Byzantine ancestry, and modern Greeks have even more of it. What language did these Imperial Romans and Byzantines speak?
"Secondly, there is huge amount of Slavic ancestry across the Balkans, even in Greece. It got partially re-southernized during the high Middle Ages, e.g. due to incorporation of Albanian tribes into Serbian clans. It got partially re-southernized during the high Middle Ages, e.g. due to incorporation of Albanian tribes into Serbian clans"
This happened in the western and northern Balkans, Bulgarians and N. Macedonians already had Imperial Roman admixture. The Medieval samples from Ryahovets, Veliko Tarnovo look to be straight-up Byzantine-Slav mixes and one of them plots close to modern Bulgarians (who have more paleo-Balkan admix)
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI don't believe there's a thing like a German national inferiority complex against Slavs. Why should there be one? Because of the defeat in WW2? Western Germany soon thereafter became part of the Euro-Atlantic alliance and due to the prospering economy and the political freedom had good reasons to feel superior against the communist eastern block. Eastern Germany on the other hand developped a feeling of connection and friendship with Russia that still lasts on, even now that it is really out of place. What unites many Germans from both sides is a feeling of guilt towards Russia, because of the ruthless war their fathers and grandfathers have fought there. This is also a kind of simplemindedness, because the war was not against Russia alone, but against the Soviet Union, and Ukrainians and Belarusians have suffered a lot, too. But this is another typical weakness of eastern and western Germans alike: They are not fully aware of the countries inbetween Germany and Russia. Of course I'm exaggerating, and it may be slowly changing now, but as a subconscious tendency this is still appreciable.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"this largely stems from Germany's national inferiority complex against Slavs."
Slavs were considered as inferiors, even subhumans. It was a shame and often hidden when you had slavic ancestry, even remote (by ex: Kurt Gerstein mariage was not seen favorably by his family, because his wife had some slavic ancestry, even if she was a pastor's daughter).
It was probably since the Carolingian period, since the Franks went raiding for slaves in the slavic lands.
Remember that the first specimen of Neanderthal was thought to be the remains of a Russian soldier.
Today, Germany has difficulties to cope with its history. But it isn't an inferiority complex.
And Germans are still very much into "german blood".
@ Alex
ReplyDeleteThe main point is there are people claiming that not even South Slavs have Slavic ancestry, let alone Greeks. Obviously that's nosense and now theyre back pedalling
''Bulgarians and North Macedonians have a good amount of Imperial Roman/Byzantine ancestry, and modern Greeks have even more of it. What language did these Imperial Romans and Byzantines speak?'
I haven't actually looked into modern populations in detail however the broad aspects can be easily sketched out.
To begin, people on Anthro fora approach it all wrong when they start speculating about Iron Age tribes like Paeonians, ancient Macedonians, Dardanians, Bessi with regard to modern central Balkan peoples. This is pseudo-historical because such groups didn't exist at the relevant time (even if inscriptions occassionaly recall visions of the past). To understand modern Greeks, Albanians, Macedonians, etc, then the realistic time frame is the Middle Age/ middle Byzantine period. For ex; when the Romans conquered Macedonia, the original Macedonians - held together by military/ aristocratic bonds to the king - had their flower die off and the rest dispersed & lost cohesion. Central towns like Pella were virtually abandoned or became villages, and new towns like Thessaloniki were created out of new settlers, often drawing in from the broader Mediterranean region, new infrastructure built, etc. This became the new Macedonia - a Roman provincial construct still using Greek as the LF.
The earliest history of Macedonian Slavs is actually from southern Macedonia & Thessaly. The region had become depopulated after the problematic 500s and by 640 there are numerous Slavophone tribes in the region, so much that Slavic was spoken in Thessaloniki itself. The settlement of more northern regions of Macedonia by Slavophone groups might have been later (paradoxically), maybe closer to 800s. A Romance-speaking population of the so-called Komani-Kruja culture certainly existed in NW Macedonia (Ohrid).
Bulgarians probably have varied substrate, there was a lot of population shifting occurring by the Bulgars. Some Greeks from southern Thrace. But let's not worry about Bulgarians, they're a confused nation who have it all backwards - their Slavic component come from the Morava region (7 Slavic clans moved to the Bulgar southern flank at medieval Varna), the Antes theory is BS. They then took the name of their Mongolian masters & then try to pretend the latter were actually Ancient Aryans from Bactria.
''This happened in the western and northern Balkans, Bulgarians and N. Macedonians already had Imperial Roman admixture. The Medieval samples from Ryahovets, Veliko Tarnovo look to be straight-up Byzantine-Slav mixes and one of them plots close to modern Bulgarians (who have more paleo-Balkan admix)''
That supports my point contra Curtis, which was a history-defining migration of Slavs occurred c. 600 AD, which impacted much of the Balkans. By contrast, the process of secondary 'native' (re-)admixture was heterogenoues - it had multiple sources over hundreds of years. Hence these are different phenomena.
And if the proto-Slavs didnt fly directly from Latvia, but already had more southern admixture (a sizable portion of provincial Balkan population appears to have been re-settled north by the Avars), then this would lead to under-estimating their overall impact when people are plugging in Latvia_BA into their calculators.
@Folker
ReplyDeleteYou're missing an important detail there.
Germans have indeed suffered from an inferiority complex over the ages, and this is why they had the need to feel superior.
I won't go into the details here, because all of this goes back to the Roman period, but surely you can fill in the blanks for yourself.
I enjoyed the video and am anxious to see the published paper or papers, but I do wish Nikitin was into Y-DNA rather than mtDNA. Also I hate waiting for papers. Crap!
ReplyDeleteGermans aren't the ones whose ethnic name has entered the dictionary as the word for "slave" in dozens of different cultures.
ReplyDeleteThey have contributed more than Slaves/Slavs ever had or ever will.
They come off as self-hating and willfully tamp down on pride more than anything, claiming they suffer from an inferiority complex is moronic.
The only people that would claim they suffer from an inferiority complex... would of course be Slavs/Slaves. What a shock. Projection of course.
There has never been a group of people, in the history of mankind, as successful as the Germanic people. This infuriates Slavs/Slaves since they had nothing to do with it and are not welcome either to claim it as their heritage.
The fact that Slavs sit right next to them yet have done nothing speaks to cognitive and behavioral genetic differences.
@gimby20
ReplyDeleteIt's a historical fact that the main sources of slaves in the Roman Empire were Germany and Sicily.
And yeah, the German inferiority complex was one of the main causes of WWII.
WWII is Germany's "greatest achievement". And they lost it.
@ old Europe
ReplyDelete“folks ancestral to sredni stog yamnaya have already been found. It is all written on the wall save from the nay sayers”
Have you looked at it with G25 , if it’s been done ?
@ SimonW
ReplyDeleteI was referring more to an institutional thing, not the everyday modern German who probably doesn’t bother with such thoughts
A lot of BB research, not much on CWC. They skip over the evidence of pastoralism in East Central Europe and look straight to the Caucasus. Anyhow it was just an offhand remark.
@ gimby
the term entered popular parlance via the Arab adaptation - Saqaliba- after a troop of Slavs defeated by the Byzantine army were sold to the Arabs as slaves. Their strength & aesthetics were evidently awe-inspiring so it apparently created a market for Slavic and other east European slaves.
I think I know precisely who this Gimby20 fellow is. The language, writing style, and strong antipathy towards Slavs all check out. The funny thing is he is not Germanic or any type of European, he is some cranky middle eastern anthrotard - or perhaps that is just one of his LARP identities, who knows.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteMany of the Slavic slaves probably enjoyed more prestige than Gimby20's ancestors in the muslim world, as they often held prestigious posts than the general population.
This is your brain on Euro-nationalism... lol
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteTell us about the benefits of Brexit. lol
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteWhich aspect of these facts, delivered in pristine high order, are deemed “nationalistic” by the neutral English gentleman?
@Rob, maybe Germans having a national inferiority complex towards Slavs of all people lol.
ReplyDeleteLol. Anyone who makes good beer is ok in my books
ReplyDelete@Davidski, "It is too early to say"; although I see the dream that all the European peoples will homogenize into a single nation called Europe, a single people with one body of law, one national assembly, movement between nations eroding and dissolving all national distinctions into a single people governed from Brussels, proceeds apace across the Channel.
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteYou don't think Germans have been submissive to Russians over the last 70 years?
It's one of the reasons why we have a war in Europe at the moment.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteI see the dream that all the European peoples will homogenize into a single nation called Europe, a single people with one body of law, one national assembly, movement between nations eroding and dissolving all national distinctions into a single people governed from Brussels, proceeds apace across the Channel.
lol
East Germans... Well, it's true many people have been submissive to the Russians over the last 50 years - perhaps all those peoples have strong inferiority complexes?
ReplyDeleteWell not Poles, that's for sure. We're the reason why the Berlin Wall collapsed.
ReplyDeleteAnd I actually meant West Germans, obviously. Think about it.
lol
ReplyDeleteLearn some history dipshit.
ReplyDeleteHey, it's your blog; you do you, but I have to bow out on that "high" note.
ReplyDeleteAs a slight coda, I do respect your opinions on genetics and providing a place for discussion of that; as with all blogs, silly to get into too much off-topic argument with the guy putting some otherwise interesting things out there.
ReplyDeleteIdle chit chat, Matty. Don’t take it too seriously but there’s always truth in jest, and that shouldn’t be offensive
ReplyDelete@All
ReplyDeleteI just blocked a bunch of very strange comments from obvious trolls about Germans, Poles, and the history of slavery.
Let's get back on topic.
Doesn't the DNA evidence indicate that most slaves in the Roman Empire came from the eastern Mediterranean?
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of Germans and Poles, isn’t their farmer ancestry both GAC in common, but their Steppe component comes from slightly different sources? IIRC, Poles are overwhelmingly from CWC R1a paternal markers in contrast to Germans having a majority R1b (via BBC), a considerable I2a (assimilated GAC rather than Yamnaya, since none of them have Yamnaya per se), and only a minority is R1a Corded?
ReplyDelete@A
ReplyDeleteDoesn't the DNA evidence indicate that most slaves in the Roman Empire came from the eastern Mediterranean?
As per historical records, most slaves in Rome were Germanic and from Sicily.
There's currently no way to challenge this view with ancient DNA, because there aren't enough samples from Roman slave burial sites.
"As per historical records, most slaves in Rome were Germanic and from Sicily."
DeleteThe geographical or ethnic origin of Roman slaves was too diverse to claim that the majority of them came from a specific region. As for Sicily, it is not my understanding that the majority of Rome's slaves came from there. It was indeed an important source of slaves during the late Republic, but there is a significant difference between that and asserting that the majority of slaves came from there and Germany. This is not historically accurate.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteYou can't take everything back as far as BBC, CWC or whatever.
There have been more recent founder effects in Europe that have changed Y-haplogroup frequencies.
Each major ethnic/linguistic group in Europe has a particular mix of several different Y-haplogroups due to founder effects during their expansions, and not because of being straight line descendants of any archeological cultures from the Copper Age or even Bronze Age.
I think you can take pre-proto-Germanic & early Balto-Slavic, as with other languages, back to the Bronze Age. That's not unrealistic, although their main expansions ocurred much later.
ReplyDeleteAs Andrze said, we see R1b-U106 as a kind of northern/ para -BB lineage taking root in Jutaland up the Elbe, R1a-L664 and R1a-Z284 from CWC, I1 and I2a2 from TRB/ GAC, all coming together somewhere in N/NW Europe. These then expanded into Scandinavia ad back south
IMO early Balto-Slavic formed somwhere between Poland & Belarus, with a Baltic-BA type population. Slavic per se closer to the Carpathian region, with the incorporation of ''I2a-Din'', amongst other elements, at some later point.
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteIf you attempt to post bullshit here again I'll delete all of your posts.
I just find it hilarious that Orpheus is deluded enough to host a blog.
ReplyDelete@alex Keep in mind that ethnonyms are assumed to have biological substance, since ethnic identity assumes a common biological origin with anyone who shares the same identity (often trans-national).
ReplyDeleteTo avoid getting entangled in the pilpul of some definitely not mentally ill gigacopers, just reduce everything to a biological origin, otherwise any ethnic identity is null and void without it (literally made up). But it can still be used, and this is the problem because it creates the illusion of genetic similarity due to (fake) ethnic similarity.
@John Smith
ReplyDeleteWell, we can also add Gauls and Greeks to that list.
With the convergence of various I1, I2, R1b (U106, L238, S1200, and even V1636) and R1a (Z284 and L664) lines, I wonder where in this mix Q1b fits in. We have L527 and L804 among the aforementioned lines in Germanic populations. Were these lineages hunter gatherer related legacies within the TRB/GAC populations of Northern-Central Europe, or were they brought by CWC males via the steppes/forrest steppes?
ReplyDeleteGood presentation from Prof. Nikitin. Obviously he’s limited in terms of how much he can share, but some interesting points:
ReplyDelete1. Revova kurgan from Revova, Ukraine in western Ukraine (3800 BC) appears to be possibly directly related to a male mediated migration from the northern Caucasus. This is because his previous research on this kurgan indicated that the main burial contained a man and a woman, the woman belonging to mt. haplogroup U4 related to steppe heavy Mesolithic Hunter gatherers from Eastern Europe. He mentions that this other sample show ties to Maykop or maybe steppe Maykop. However, 3800 BC is older than Maykop, so maybe some other ancient group from the northern Caucasus is behind this migration from the Caucasus to western Ukraine and Moldova. This is a very interesting kurgan with a stone cist burial with a disarticulated skeleton (male) coated in red ochre. The stone architecture of the kurgan contained a cromlech and stone plates organized in such a manner that, if viewed from above, resembles a giant sort of turtle. Never really seen anything quite like it.
2. Giurgiulesti Kurgan/Pit Grave appears to have uniparental links (Grave 3) to the Caucasus as indicated by Nikitin in a previous publication (per personal communication with David Reich). Since Prof. Nikitin’s presentation indicates that grave 3 has a local, Iron Gates derived mitochondrial line, it would stand to reason that his Y DNA line is the one that comes from Kotias Klde, Georgia.
According to Nikitin, the transition period between 4200-3900 BCE is the sweet spot for this first wave of kurgans/very early pit graves. This roughly coincides with climactic shift in the region that saw plummeting temperatures during that same time period and a possible expansion of pastoralists/agro pastoralists from the vicinity of the Caucasus, I’m assuming NW Caucasus and the Kuban steppe.
I interpret all of this to mean that there is likely some sort of secondary migration from the Caucasus area to the western steppe sometime between about 4500-3900 BCE, maybe 4200 BCE (estimated date of Giurgiulesti burial).
Sometimes this blog reminds me of that classic 1970s UK TV comedy 'Mind Your Language'.
ReplyDeleteWas that particular show ever broadcast in Australia?
Yes, and I hated it.
ReplyDelete@ Sam Elliot
ReplyDeleteIm not a believer in these "pers comm' claims, and the climate periodology of the steppe hasnt been worked out clearly.
@ Simon
ReplyDeleteWhich Germanic samples (Anglo-Saxons, Suebi, Longobards) and TRB have had Q1b ? I get that it appears in one early Czech CWC but hadnt noted it making a lasting impact, kind of like the sole R1b-V3616 in the Danish EKG
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI’m referring to Q1b’s present day distribution in Germanic populations, specifically the Scandinavians. I’ve read that a soon to be released paper has Q1b samples from Neolithic sites in Denmark. I’ll see if I can find it. I’m just curious as to what evidence there is for either lineage being CWC derived. I know the Bohemia CW sample (sample ID: DRO001, Y-DNA: Q-FT38500) belonged to a different line than either L527 or L804.
@ Simon
ReplyDeleteHow interesting, Might be via Kunda groups
@Rob & @Simon “ I’m referring to Q1b’s present day distribution in Germanic populations, specifically the Scandinavians.”
ReplyDeleteCould it be because of admixture between Vikings and Innuits?
Also, the Sami were considered Turanic Eurasian: partly European, partly East Asian). Maybe an admixture with Sami? (Although Sami’s Asian/Siberian component is hap N Uralic).
Another hypothesis- Germanic populations used to ally with Huns and Avar. Not sure though how it will impact their genetics all the way to Scandinavia OTOH
@orpheus
ReplyDeleteIran_n has >40% ane atleast,stop taking lazaridis meme preprint models too seriously
He was also showing kalash as 50% steppe_emba/Yamnaya a few years ago,and now this has been debunked completely
Here's,modelling iran_n with Ane/ma1,basal(BarciN-whg),kostenki and other things
Target: IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso Distance: 18.4926% / 0.18492634 51.6 RUS_MA1
37.4 RUS_Kostenki14
9.6 TUR_Barcin_N_-72%_WHG
1.4 KEN_LSA
0.0 GEO_Dzudzuana_UP:S2949
0.0 ETH_4500BP
0.0 Han
0.0 Jarawa
0.0 Levant_Natufian_EpiP
0.0 Levant_PPNB 0.0 MAR_Taforalt
0.0 Onge
0.0 RUS_Sunghir
0.0 TUR_Barcin_N
0.0 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
0.0 WHG
Coordinates for basal and dzudzuana
https://justpaste.it/1xi
Both are from norfern,ostrobothnian on anthrogenica
As u can see,u unlike lazaridis modelling iran_n which showed it as dzudzuana+basal+tianyuan+Ane In the model here,iran_n picks up only kostenki+ane and minor basal
Lazaridis should have added kostenki -sungir in his model
By the above model Iran_n also lacks onge or east Eurasian Ancestry and has very minor basal Ancestry,it also dosent show up dzudzuana
I am sure people will get the same results if they model iran_n on QpAdm too using the main sources above.
Lazaridis should have added kostenki and sungir in the model
Iran_n also has some Early west eurasian Ancestry responsible for the ydna G in iran_n
Kostenki might be acting as a standin for the early west eurasian in iran_n
@Andrzejewski
Because ANE didnt look like Europeans,but more like the rare caucasoid/west eurasian looking native Americans
Ane likely looked like this
https://images.nypl.org/index.php?id=433212&t=w
https://desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/his/image/1675/91/1675910015430.jpg
And iran_n reconstructions are way wrong,even chg are predicted as robust Semitic looking but if u look at modern Georgians many of them look quite
north european-ish despite being majorly chg
So if chg looked Semitic,it won't make sense
Iran_n likely looked like darker version of these Mountain Kurds in the Neolithic-chalcolithic,these mountain kurds don't have any sintashta btw,quite isolated
https://desu-usergeneratedcontent.xyz/his/image/1685/10/1685106976094.jpg
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSD6cV2bRGaLA2fJgsw9M88zZPSBRbKOoPR6g&usqp=CAU
These Kurds have done progressive selection depigmentation for lighter skin,iran_n was a bit more darker, probably olive-intermediate-dark
Their skin probably resembled this Swat valley Pakistani guy,i guess iran_n likely looked like him in facial structure and bones
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRuU85LE_dLLVVVjoRi_Qub3cLVvhfFwRbEFw&usqp=CAU
For anyone thinking,Blue eyes weren't atypical for iran_n
wezmeh cave 1 sample had 0.6/1 probability for blue eyes and 1 ivc sample Was positive for herc2 Blue eyes alleles
And there were blue eyes in satsurblia chg too
@Freakk You sound aggravated for no reason. Got any papers to suggest that model Iran_N? If yes please do share
ReplyDeleteI don't have a preference for what the papers find.
@Rob Might post about Olalde et al 2021 soon, I'm sure you'll love it my Yugo friend ;)
@ Orpheus
ReplyDeleteGood luck. If you're trying to make sense of BB, it's no easy task. The suppl. is often inadequate in details, and you would need to solicit primary literature in Spanish.
I have compiled all the samples from Posth et al that don't have G25 coordinates here: https://www.mediafire.com/file/dzo470m64lidhlx/Posth_2023.zip/file
ReplyDeleteCould you do them? Thanks!
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteI'm doing a major update on the G25 datasheets. When I'm done we can have a discussion about what's missing and why.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteRemember that there is also this list that might help you. I'm re-posting it here:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/d9zhf0fzaukmsat/G25%20Ancients%20not%20on%20the%20Spreadsheet.txt
@Davidski
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB53670
You'll probably be interested in these samples.
@ Freakk
ReplyDeleteIran _N has the most “basal” of Eurasian populations
It can be modelled as
- Zlaty Kun (basal)
- Kostenki (“west Eurasian”)
- ANE
@rob very unlikely ,that's based on supposed neanderthal levels ,but remeber that harvard was also modelling kalash 50% Yamnaya (steppe_emba) a few years ago,which obviously turned out wrong
ReplyDeleteAlso, iran_n fstats and dstats don't work as a component with Highest basal Eurasian would
Also i doubt iran had or saw a major presence of basal eurasians
Also iran_n Dosent carry much supposed basal Eurasian mtdna Like L3 or other branches of L ,or even mtdna m.
Most of its mtdna seem to be west eurasian,downstream of mtdna N
I think iran_n was just early west eurasian,which explains ydna G(First split in GHIJK and mtdna U1,R0
,and also the slight extra basal like affinity in hotu/iran_n
Also,zlaty kun isnt a basal Eurasian,but more like some kind of early crown Eurasian or even a
main eurasain
On PCAs zlaty kun sits with orher crown eurasians like bacho kiro,UST ishim
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Locations,_dates_and_MDS_plot_of_ancient_Eurasian_hunter-gatherers_%28PCA%29.png
Also,zlaty carries mtdna N,also shared by crown eurasians like bacho kiro and ust ishim
It's a crown Eurasian which probably split very early, probably among the first to split,which would explain its weird slight basal likr affinities but also
Basal would be the 80-60k bc guys from Egypt or the 40k bc guys in Levant (ahmarian culture) who ended the emiran crown Eurasian culture(bacho kiro was bohunician,itself derived from emiran)
Also, natufians score 15% crown Eurasian on g25, interestingly
Target: Levant_Natufian
Distance: 14.1783% / 0.14178304
33.0
MAR_Taforalt
29.8
WHG
15.4
BGR_Bacho_Kiro_IUP
13.0
TUR_Barcin_N_-56%_WHG
8.8
TUR_Barcin_N_-72%_WHG
Also,for the kostenki in iran and chg, interestingly,there's some archaeological evidence of gravettian movements down into Caucasus abd iran during LGM, probably to seek refuge in the less cold south
"Of particular note are the small stripe-beads with a hole, made from ivory, and having a geometric design in the form of dots arranged in line and traces of ocher (Figure 13: 11), a fragmented stripe-bead (Figure 13: 12), and a bead made of a tubular bone of a bird (Figure 13: 13) from the LUP layers in Mezmaiskaya. These artifacts have no analogues in the UP of the Caucasus but are similar to artifacts made from bone and ivory found at Sungir, on the Russian plain (Bader 1978: Figure 113). A needle case with tne geometric design found in the LUP layers at Mezmaiskaya is a unique find for the Caucasian UP, having no analogues (Figure 13: 14). The latest analyses of lithic and organic artifacts from the LUP Layers 1A2–1A1 (ca. 33/27–25 ka BP) at Mezmaiskaya cave point to new analogues between these layers and the UP sites on the Russian plain. These analogues include shouldered points with long tangs and short distal parts made from blades, and artifacts made from bone and mammoth tusk. These data may indicate either the intensification of contacts between the UP population of the NWC and the more northern UP populations of the Russian plain, or the spread of some Eastern Gravettian groups into the more southern regions before the LGM, dated ca. 25/24–20/19 ka BP in the Caucasus."
https://www.academia.edu/78612566/Golovanova_L_Doronichev_V_Doronicheva_E_Nedomolkin_A_Dynamics_of_Climate_and_Human_Settlement_During_the_Middle_and_Upper_Paleolithic_in_the_Northwestern_Caucasus_PaleoAnthropology_2022_P_52_81
So,some of the kostenki might be acting as a proxy for the early west eurasian in iran_n/hotu while some might be real
ReplyDeleteR1a-M458 in Trzciniec culture Brodzica Poland
https://postimg.cc/5jsZ4Hkn
Also,can someone explain where the mtdna U5,T,R*,u2e in tarim ANE
ReplyDeletexiaohe mummies comes from?
The r1b mtdna comes from ANE likley
Xiaohe_M121 - Xiaohe, Ruoqiang County. () mtdna R1b1 3751 China - SEXiaohe_BA
But the u5,u2e,T,R*?
Bm5 - Xiaohe cemetery ()mtdna T 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
M95 - Xiaohe cemetery ()mtdna U5a 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
Another u5
T28-5 - Xiaohe cemetery () U5a 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
U2e
Bm9 - Xiaohe cemetery () U2e 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
Mtdna K too
Xiaohe119 - Xiaohe cemetery ()mtdna K 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
Mtdna H too
Xiaohe128 - Xiaohe cemetery ()mtdna H 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
Mtdna u7 too
MW - Xiaohe cemetery () U7 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
Also,mtdna M* too, but it could from east asian side responsible for the mtdna C4 in the mummies
Xiaohe117 - Xiaohe cemetery () mtdna M* 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
Xiaohe127 - Xiaohe cemetery () C4 3500 China - Tarim Mummies
Taken from
https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Country&searchfor=CHINA&ybp=500000,0&orderby=MeanYBP&ascdesc=DESC
The tarin mummies show no european or middle eastern Ancestry either
Target: CHN_Tarim_EMBA1:GMGM1
Distance: 6.6017% / 0.06601662
81.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3
17.2 MNG_East_N
1.0 CHN_Yellow_River_MN
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 WHG
0.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Could it be that mtdna u5 and u2e be from ANE itself?or shared by other populations with ANE as a common mtdna just like mtdna H was shared between natufians,CHG iran_n,and eef Because it's difficult for u5 and u2e to reach Xinjiang into such an isolated population
Apparently ngannssans and kets have some u4 and u2e and both lack european Ancestry
@ Freakk
ReplyDeleteIt doesn’t have to do with Neanderthal levels. You can’t really use G25 calculators for these things.
ReplyDeletegenotype files from the article
Patrilocality and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry in MBA East-Central Europe
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1a_-A20q0dz3WGtXeyd0vXl6-Lak_aURf
@Freakk “ Also,can someone explain where the mtdna U5,T,R*,u2e in tarim ANE
ReplyDeletexiaohe mummies comes from?
The r1b mtdna comes from ANE likley
Xiaohe_M121 - Xiaohe, Ruoqiang County. () mtdna R1b1 3751 China - SEXiaohe_BA
But the u5,u2e,T,R*?”
U5 and U2 are from Yamnaya.
BROAD would want you to believe that it’s from WHG but it’s Indo-European.
R (female) is East (Eur)asian.
The most famous mummies, which are also Europoid looking ones are Bronze Age and later periods, like Cherchen, Ur-David and Lullan. It’s urban legend to claim that they are ANE or WSHG. Those latter ones, probably a Karasuk Culture predating Andronovo, have nothing to do with the TBM that we’re most familiar with.
The non-European mummies can’t be from EMBA. Must be a c-14 dating error.
ReplyDeleteP.S. could it be that the Cymerian, Scythian and Sarmatian East Asian mtdna come via Karasuk Culture, with whom Andronovo merged in the Tarim Basin?
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI see.
You got a list of samples needing labeling? I can go about doing that.
However, if you could take a look at least the higher coverage samples if there would be anything of use that would be nice. I managed to get a lot from merely merging the bam files and using lower quality.
@All
ReplyDeleteInteresting stuff.
But these samples don't really resemble modern-day Poles. They have too much western hunter-gatherer ancestry.
I think I know what the story is. I'll reveal it in a new blog post.
Can anyone label them?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HZ9joc5sPmd34B_Vl4UKgZowQRlBWhaV/view?usp=sharing
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete''But these samples don't really resemble modern-day Poles. ''
Of course they don't. There's an obvious settlement discontinuity in much of pPland between 400 & 600 AD.
But Balto-Slavic drift probably formed in northern Poland and adjacent parts of the Baltic.
Historic proto-Slavs obviously galvanised closer to the Danube-Carpathian region, and expanded back toward Poland, and conquered central Ukraine, Belarus & Russia from the Baltids & Finns 600- 800 AD
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“But these samples don't really resemble modern-day Poles.”
I think something like this was happening:
https://postimg.cc/qNt9SNgF
Mierzanowice probably was Proto-Slavic culture already separated from Indo-Slavic. And gradually by admixing with HG + EEF they became like modern Slavs autosomally.
There wasn't any data on the presumably Ukrainian samples
ReplyDeletehttps://pastebin.com/5h9zZprE
ReplyDeleteGenetic diversity was the result of mixing with HG/EEF groups within one culture one laguage groups on small area. Example Strzyżów Culture
https://i.postimg.cc/Pr8VCvg0/screenshot-296.png
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/366536170/figure/fig1/AS:11431281109201583@1671800341058/The-most-important-sites-of-the-Strzyzow-culture-in-Poland-Red-colour-marks-sites-that.png
Are you saying that a HG/EEF group migrated into Poland after the MBA?
ReplyDeleteWhere from? They were extinct in Europe by that time.
Obviously, the genetic shift that happened in Poland after the MBA was due to a group that had steppe ancestry as well, except that it had a lower ratio of HG ancestry than the MBA Polish population.
The question of the origin of Tshinets-Komarovo has always been controversial. Polish archaeologists claimed that Komarovo arose as a result of migration from Trzyniec, Soviet archaeologists said that Trzyniec arose as a result of migration from Komarovo. Komarovo itself arose under the influence of groups from the Carpathian basin. So it may be that finding R1a-CTS1211 in the Carpathian basin 2500 BC and finding group I2a with BS drift there is not an accident.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAre you saying that a HG/EEF group migrated into Poland after the MBA?
Where from? They were extinct in Europe by that time
There were plenty of mixed HG/EEF south of Poland. Some of them mixed with steppe. The whole area between Poland and Greece was populated by people, who were moving and mixing. Trzciniec was mixing with them. But it is difficult to see exactly because cremation became common.
I'm not seeing any Iron Age populations that fit this profile, except near and in the Mediterranean, like Sardinia.
ReplyDeleteSo that's not what happened.
It was obvious ever since R1a-Z93+ Fatyanovo genomes came out, that Balto-Slavic type drift can't be from anywhere east of the Buh-Vistula region. Some were slow to the party, because they believed that modern Y-dna distributions pointing to areas further east.
ReplyDeleteThe question is when para-Balto-Slavic groups migrate into western Russia & when did Fatyanovo groups disappear ? The Peltola et al data is too late in time to tell, and i suspect the Fino-Uralics were there first.
The other interesting finding is that southern Balto-Slavic populations had a large diversity of I2a lineages as well, but most got pruned (like the R1a-M458 bottlenecking) due to demographic flux & territorial shifts to southeast, leaving the CTS-10228 as a sole representative of earlier diversity.
I think the diversity in Trziniec is interesting. This is probably due to an active mixing event, as the diversity isn't dependent on site or time period.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteSo that's not what happened.
I don’t know what happened exactly because of common cremation. Fuzesabony had good relations with Trzciniec and Mycenaean Greece. Some mixing, exchange of women etc., was occurring between population north of the Carpathians and south of it:
https://i.postimg.cc/W40NtYsC/screenshot-297.png
https://i.postimg.cc/g0cpkzBX/screenshot-298.png
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1eyWgB5YYhfNBjfgeW5mbEhCw_F2FSLaj/view?usp=sharing
Donkalnis, Lithuania, 8413-8339 calBP:
ReplyDeleteDistance to: DON005
0.02672798 Lithuanian_PA:LTG-1352
0.02822208 Lithuanian_VA:LTG-439
0.02931026 Lithuanian_PZ:LTG-1034
0.02954380 Lithuanian_SZ:LTG-1127
0.02972645 Russian_Pskov:Rps-012
Maszycka, Poland, 18586-18184 calBP:
Distance to: MAZ001
0.03160253 Ukrainian_Zakarpattia:EG600096
0.03234937 Moldovan:44618757481C01
0.03274032 Ukrainian_Zakarpattia:EG600036
0.03354877 Ukrainian_Zakarpattia:EG600035
0.03394456 Ukrainian_Lviv:EG600089
So... Mario Alinei was right all along? :D
Re: Poland and Ukraine
ReplyDeleteSites + id: https://pastebin.com/ZzH92qa0
Sites + id + g25: https://pastebin.com/mdCvWHRd
@Davidski
ReplyDeletethanks! Although many of them seem to be heavily contaminated though so I wouldn't put most of them in the official files.
I also did this Solutrean from Iberia analyzed in a different study if you want to take a look at that. It should not have any contamination: https://www.mediafire.com/file/bk0mvd260jmgbtu/MLZ.zip/file
@Davidski Can you please convert these into G25 coordinates? Thanks
ReplyDeletehttps://zenodo.org/record/7896155
I remember when the usual betas from LameOG trying to claim there was a “population replacement” in the LBA Baltic because they typically don’t understand genetics . I was surprised when Dave repeated that notion
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteThere was definitely a genetic shift in Latvia and Estonia from the extreme BA profile that we see there until the Iron Age to something like the Trzciniec genomes.
The situation isn't as clear cut in Lithuania, because we only have a few BA samples from the southeast of the country, but I'm expecting to see a shift there as well to some extent.
Trzciniec or post-Trzciniec groups are probably the source of the genetic shift in the East Baltic, and this seems to correlate with the arrival of Baltic languages there.
@Rob @Davidski “
ReplyDeleteTrzciniec or post-Trzciniec groups are probably the source of the genetic shift in the East Baltic, and this seems to correlate with the arrival of Baltic languages there.”
What IE language branches were spoken there before Baltic?
Some sort of Indo-European, probably also a Corded Ware derived language, but not Balto-Slavic.
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteThe shift occurred after 'Baltic Corded' ware, when there is 1,000 years of virtually no settlement in the East Baltic. It seems that both the original CWC and groups related to CCC disappeared from the region
After 1500 bc, the region was repopulated probably by Trziniec groups (to be checked) and new Netted Ware derived groups from the East. The C14 dates have upper extremity of 1500 bc, but these are probably outliers and the bulk of the Bayesian modelling rests post 1200 bc.
Given that Turlojiske3, a more 'southern' profile, dates plum to 1000 BC, the claim of a shift in the later Iron Age can be dismissed. Whatever more 'southern' Balts appear in Middle Age are due to their known matrimonial links with Germanic groups who were at the time living in the Carpathian basin & Black Sea region
@Rob not true, lazaridis' postulation that hotu was 64% basal eurasain and ganj/iranN was 47% basal was based on Neanderthal levels/affinity
ReplyDeleteOfficially in their models they only showed total 26% basal for ganj dareh and 22% for chg
So, lazaridis And harvard itself is confused and are giving different models and different estimated based on different methods.
And the neanderthal level/affinity for estimating Basal Eurasian might be the most BS and weird since it's based on some kind of weird affinity tests and some other faulty method.
Alsp,my model will work on qpAdm too,but it's a bit more intricate and difficult to use because models can fail if u don't choose a direct proxy or u choose a far away indirect proxy
But nobody has run qpAdm or other calculators for iran_n using kostenki,Ane and Basal
Also,the ydna G component of iran_n is still missing ,so its a bit difficult to say whether qpAdm will accept models and how much estimate will change.
But still,the model i posted here is the best ever on g25,all other models using only dzudzuana,BarciN,natufian,onge and ANE give quite bad distances
My basal+kostenki+ANE gives the best distances ,of course real basal coordinates and the ydna G population of iran_n will help much more too,but as of current,its the best we have
@Istakhr
ReplyDeleteThese coords were posted at Anthrogenica a while ago.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ONPh_TOkYCaiWEH_yh0ULv0cHHmVrt85/view?usp=sharing
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"What IE language branches were spoken there before Baltic?"
Indo-Slavic or Balto-Slavic. I think Balto-Slavic because Spiginas CWC was R1a-Z280, and we know that separation of Indo-Slavic into pre-Balto-Slavic and pre-Indo-Iranian correlates well with the split of R1a into Z282 and Z93.
Mierzanowice and Strzyżów cultures were Proto-Slavic, Proto-Baltic was forming somewhere north-east of Mierzanowice.
@ Freakk
ReplyDeleteIm describing what Ive seen from my own qpGraph results, not others' claims or preprints.
I would agree that IranN has ~ 25% "Basal", but wouldnt be wed to these absolute figures as they can vary. What is important is the basic structure and relative frequencies.
As I suggested, 'B.E' peaks in populations from the Zagros region, higher than Natufians for sure which dont have North African admixture, as you claimed, but on the contrary are a source of west Eurasian admixture in northern Africa.
Just remember this when inferring deep history (> 25,000 bp) with PCA based approaches
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/for-typical-west-eurasian-pca.html
''Also,the ydna G component of iran_n is still missing ,so its a bit difficult to say whether qpAdm will accept models and how much estimate will change.''
Not sure what's missing, given that the ancient 'diversity' of Y-DNA G is centred on the Zagros region.
@freak
ReplyDeleteiranN = Basal + West Eurasian (any proxy, true source likely related to dzudzuana) + ANE + maybe extra east eurasian is the right way to model it.
Given the lack of samples, it's best not to overanalyze it. mtdna and Yhg of 8kbce samples is irrelevant given that this iranN profile likely formed 5-12000 years before that, maybe even older.
@Davidski Didn't see those. Thanks again!
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete"@All
Interesting stuff.
But these samples don't really resemble modern-day Poles. They have too much western hunter-gatherer ancestry.
I think I know what the story is. I'll reveal it in a new blog post.
Can anyone label them?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HZ9joc5sPmd34B_Vl4UKgZowQRlBWhaV/view?usp=sharing"
I've labeled all of them here: https://pastebin.com/H66z1tpM
Of course there could be something I got wrong.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteCould you convert the 23000 Years Old Solutrean to G25?
https://www.mediafire.com/file/bk0mvd260jmgbtu/MLZ.zip/file
(posted by Norfern-Ostrobothnian at the end of his last post)
Thanks!
To study kinship of those MBA societies and to test whether the re-emergence of those old traditions was a result of genetic shift or social changes, we generated and analyzed 91 genomes from individuals associated with EBA and MBA from modern day Poland and Ukraine.
ReplyDeleteOur results indicate that while EBA people in East-Central Europe were most likely direct descendants of the preceding populations, the MBA populations were formed by an additional admixture event involving a population with relatively high proportions of genetic component associated with European hunter-gatherers.
so what's the story? where did this MBA population come from? Seems like from the Baltic.
@ Romulus
ReplyDeleteFrom all directions
The EBA I2a is GAC variety, the MBA is from Unetice, Carpathian basin, Narva . The latter is associated with ‘the drift”
Curiously, modern Slavic associated I2a -CTS10228 is in none of those ^ groups apart from some yet to be C14 dated east Romanians
… but for those who believe certain publications & books from ca 2015, they came from pixie land
ReplyDelete@crashdoc
ReplyDeleteMLZ_scaled,0.056912,0.024373,0.036581,0.069445,0.060319,0.017291,-0.00705,0.003923,0.064834,0.035354,0.013316,-0.000899,-0.000595,-0.022432,0.020901,0.01538,0.002999,0.001267,-0.011187,0.029889,0.036436,0.009892,-0.014666,-0.080373,0.015807
MLZ003_scaled,0.0774,0.053823,0.038089,0.058463,0.058165,0.012829,-0.00141,-0.001154,0.052972,0.040639,0.018512,0.001499,-0.011298,-0.030552,0.018322,0.00716,0.004824,-0.002407,-0.009679,0.030765,0.02533,0.005812,-0.006655,-0.054948,0.009939
MLZ005_scaled,0.047806,0.008124,0.042615,0.080104,0.061858,0.019522,-0.004935,0.002077,0.070765,0.031891,0.01023,-0.003597,0.003122,-0.018992,0.021172,0.018297,-0.001565,0.001394,-0.010056,0.035017,0.036935,0.008161,-0.022185,-0.089772,0.015807
MLZ,0.005,0.0024,0.0097,0.0215,0.0196,0.0062,-0.003,0.0017,0.0317,0.0194,0.0082,-0.0006,-0.0004,-0.0163,0.0154,0.0116,0.0023,0.001,-0.0089,0.0239,0.0292,0.008,-0.0119,-0.0667,0.0132
MLZ003,0.0068,0.0053,0.0101,0.0181,0.0189,0.0046,-0.0006,-0.0005,0.0259,0.0223,0.0114,0.001,-0.0076,-0.0222,0.0135,0.0054,0.0037,-0.0019,-0.0077,0.0246,0.0203,0.0047,-0.0054,-0.0456,0.0083
MLZ005,0.0042,0.0008,0.0113,0.0248,0.0201,0.007,-0.0021,0.0009,0.0346,0.0175,0.0063,-0.0024,0.0021,-0.0138,0.0156,0.0138,-0.0012,0.0011,-0.008,0.028,0.0296,0.0066,-0.018,-0.0745,0.0132
"I've labeled all of them here: https://pastebin.com/H66z1tpM
ReplyDeleteOf course there could be something I got wrong."
poz498 and poz498_2, which I labeled POL_MBA_Tumulus, are from the Karczyn burial ground described here (if I'm not wrong they're from the grave 200 that's depicted in the study): https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324569706_The_birth_of_a_new_world_Barrows_warriors_and_metallurgists
According to this, the style of items are late Tumulus/early Lusatian, but the grave rite is Trzciniec-influenced. So these samples should perhaps not be assumed to be representative of the Tumulus culture in Poland.
All right MLZ003 has some modern contamination that MLZ005 doesn't have
ReplyDeleteTarget: MLZ003_scaled
Distance: 3.7022% / 0.03702245
53.6 BEL_GoyetQ116-1
25.8 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
12.8 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
6.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3
1.4 GEO_CHG
Target: MLZ005_scaled
Distance: 3.9185% / 0.03918496
71.6 BEL_GoyetQ116-1
13.0 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
4.8 BGR_Bacho_Kiro_MUP
4.6 ITA_Ostuni1_HG
3.8 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
2.2 RUS_Kostenki14
Target: MLZ_scaled
Distance: 3.4995% / 0.03499453
64.8 BEL_GoyetQ116-1
13.2 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
11.0 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
10.0 RUS_Kostenki14
1.0 BGR_Bacho_Kiro_MUP
@Rob
ReplyDeleteIf Natufians don't have North African ancestry where do you think they got their E from?
Also what do you make of Iberomaurusians, do they have any true Basal Eurasian or are they just African admixed?
@Davidski & @Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteThanks, appreciated!
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks for doing the Global25 coordinates. What is your opinion about Poz758 from Strzyzow (site is in North Carpathians)? Has the same I2 clade which later dominates TCC and very high HG ancestry unlike the rest of Stryzow but unlike Poz794 with Balto-Slavic R1a he seems to have no Balto-Slavic drift in Global25. Is this just because of low coverage or what would be an explanation for this?
@Rob
ReplyDeleteUnetice and Trzcniec were the first real bronze age cultures of Northern Europe, strange that they were ushered in by a migration of WHG/SHG types...
@Coldmountains
ReplyDeleteI think that poz758 does have some Balto-Slavic drift, but there's something else there, maybe Finnic-like in modern terms. So perhaps this individual is recently mixed?
@ Cy Tolliver
ReplyDelete''If Natufians don't have North African ancestry where do you think they got their E from?
Also what do you make of Iberomaurusians, do they have any true Basal Eurasian or are they just African admixed?''
I was waiting for the improved resolution Natufians from the southern Arc paper, and I was expecting north African admixture, but it's not there. Rather, Natufians are the source of 'Eurasian' admixture, within the caveat ive only done a couple of look throughs. Therefore I think the originam MPI oublication was right.
This is consistent with the post-LGM migrations into northern Africa observed in the archaeological record. Iberomaurisians only begin c. 20,000 BP, after a long settlement hiatus in the region & is also supported by the appearance of northwest Eurasian mtDNA U.
Y-hg E is deeply Eurasian and it's closest relative is D, which is found all the way in Japan & Nepal, but the subsequent branching of yhg E might be centred on NE Africa. But how it relates to the above might not be so straightforward because of the ''hitching & de-coupling'' processes which uniparentals experience.
@ Romulus
ReplyDelete''Unetice and Trzcniec were the first real bronze age cultures of Northern Europe, strange that they were ushered in by a migration of WHG/SHG types...''
Yes, archaeologists tend to classify CWC & BB as "Late Neolithic' & Unetice as Bronze Age. This is somewhat arbitrary however, as there is no doubt that many of the changes of the BA were brought in by them. However what sets the actual BA groups is the partial de-tribilization and integration in regions East of the Rhine.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteThere's no evidence in the new Polish data that WHG/SHG types migrated into Poland.
The MBA population just has a higher ratio of WHG ancestry than the EBA group.
There’s no other way to explain the appearance of novel lineages & structure other than mobility and some form of migration into Poland
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteOn Anthrogenica it seems the qpAdm users always have a bit of something African (I think Dinka/Mota?) in Natufian and also by extension Neolithic Levant and even Neolithic Anatolian. I didn't know the Southern Arc paper had new Natufian samples and that they didn't need any African, I need to go back and read it.
I do broadly agree that E seems fundamentally Eurasian but there is is very basal D0 found in West Africa recently, although there is some also in Arabia too. I also share your suspicion that NE Africa (IMO really Nile-valley Egypt) was probably the locus of demographic expansions that reached not only West and East (the rest of North Africa and the Levant) but also South to (all the way to Ethiopia and the Horn) as well, rather than the other way around post-LGM and maybe even earlier in the Upper Paleolithic.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYes, but obviously not anyone that can be described as WHG or SHG.
@Cy Tollyver
ReplyDeleteA genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia-I.Lazaridis
"The African-maximized black component is found in Levantine individuals as early as the Natufians and should thus not be interpreted as evidence of recent African influence in West Eurasia. A likely explanation is the partial derivation of the Natufians from Paleolithic Iberomaurusian North African-related ancestors-Indeed, the average proportion of this component in all Natufian individual is 9.1%, while in Taforalt from Morocco it is 41.4%, thus suggesting ~22% of North African influence, similar to the ~27% inferred using an admixture graph framework"
Natufians definitely have ANA ancestry and derive ancestry from Iberomaurusians
ReplyDeleteThey show less affinity to Eurasians than Anatolians do and it is not because of Basal Eurasian.
@ Cy
ReplyDelete“ On Anthrogenica it seems the qpAdm users always have a bit of something African (I think Dinka/Mota?) in Natufian and also by extension Neolithic Levant and even Neolithic Anatolian.”
So they’re using a modern population (Dinka) with west Eurasian admixture to model a population (Natufians) which can only be accurately be modelled with qpGraph ?
Not robust
There’s no way around it - there was a big migration from Eurasia to African during the LGM, as part of general north to south movement across the globe . That said, I wouldn’t exclude small scale migration or reciprocity from North African with the Mushabian or something similar
“ I didn't know the Southern Arc paper had new Natufian samples and that they didn't need any African, I need to go back and read it.”
I’m talking about the sample, not results/ claims of the paper
Iberomaurusians are more related to Turkey Neolithic than Dzudzuana
ReplyDeleteThis means that the admixture between Anatolians and ANA happened during or after the LGM. I think it coincides with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian as a pulse from West Eurasia accompanied by some Magdalenian ancestry from the north.
Then Natufians formed from Anatolians and Iberomaurusians
It is very important that European researchers get their hands on the iberomaurusian samples analyzed by Dr. Remi Kefi in 2015 and 2.016 because her results are totally divergent (in terms of mtDNA) from those obtained by Van de Loosdrecht.
ReplyDelete"On the origin of Iberomaurusians: new data based on ancient mitochondrial DNA and phylogenetic analysis of Afalou and Taforalt populations"
1-The absence of haplotype belonging to Sub-Saharan haplogroups (L0–L7) would suggest that our sample of Iberomaurusians is not originating from Sub-Saharan region
2-Our results showed that the mtDNA sequences of the seven specimens from AFALOU are classified exclusively into Eurasiatic haplogroups: H or U (3), T2 (2) JT (1), and J (1). Indeed, 19 among 21 individuals of TAFORALT, are classified as Eurasiatic haplogroups (H, U, JT, V). The two remaining individuals belong to the North African haplogroup U6.
Evidently the Iberomaurusians have a strong European component (mtDNA-U6) and male markers typical of the European Paleolithic will probably appear. Spanish archaeology has demonstrated the existence of Iberian Magdalenian type harpoons in North Africa, so the north>south migratory flow has been definitely proved. Another issue is the sub-Saharan component in Taforalt, we have to reanalyze all those samples and check their genetic components. Regarding the Taforalt component in the Natufians I think nobody should doubt its existence, it has already been proved many times.
@ Norfern
ReplyDeleteOverall, the main movement was from Western Asia to northern Africa
''Iberomaurusians are more related to Turkey Neolithic than Dzudzuana
This means that the admixture between Anatolians and ANA happened during or after the LGM''
Yes, but those stats dont mean that Anatolians have ANA, as you claimed.
We need to be careful in interpreting 'D-stat riddles" and be aware they dont inform directionality
I find no compelling evidence for significant NAfrican admixture in Anatolia.
Reality shows the opposite - a west Asian like population contributing ~ 60% of their ancestry to northern Africa. This is beyond dispute, given the presence of mtDNA U6a in northern Africa, and the lack of archaeological sites before the LGM
I would post the Graphviz, but the characters are too large
@ Gaska
ReplyDelete''Regarding the Taforalt component in the Natufians I think nobody should doubt its existence, it has already been proved many times.''
Yeah kind of like how you 'proved' that R1b is from the Basque Ice Age refuge.
@Cy @Gaska @Rob “ The African-maximized black component is found in Levantine individuals as early as the Natufians and should thus not be interpreted as evidence of recent African influence in West Eurasia. A likely explanation is the partial derivation of the Natufians from Paleolithic Iberomaurusian North African-related ancestors-Indeed, the average proportion of this component in all Natufian individual is 9.1%, while in Taforalt from Morocco it is 41.4%, thus suggesting ~22% of North African influence, similar to the ~27% inferred using an admixture graph framework"
ReplyDeleteWhere did the Afroasiatic languages come from, if not from Iberomaurasians?
It seems strange that Natufians would speak the language of their ANA component but would only be 22% or even 27% North African.
@ Norfern
ReplyDelete'I think it coincides with the beginning of the Iberomaurusian as a pulse from West Eurasia accompanied by some Magdalenian ancestry from the north.''
Now you're making more sense, but it wasnt; a pulse, It was a huge colonization
And I doubt there is actual Magdalenian ancestry in northern Africa. The mediterranean sea was still a formidable sea during the LGM. Any west Eurasian input into northern Africa came via or from the LEvant.
it wasn
"'Then Natufians formed from Anatolians and Iberomaurusians''
Don't think so
IBMs were moving westward , not eastward into Israel.
Natufians derive from Kebarans. It's as simple as that
And from the original paper from Loosdrecht
'' Although the oldest Iberomaurusian microlithic bladelet technologies are found earlier in the Maghreb than their equivalents in northeastern Africa (Cyrenaica) and the earliest Natufian in the Levant, the complex sub-Saharan ancestry in Taforalt makes our individuals an unlikely proxy for the ancestral population of later Natufians who do not harbor sub-Saharan ancestry.''
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThere is no Levantine blood in Taforalt (Levant ancestry arrived in the neolithic, see Fregel) only WHG-This is obvious even in the Van de Loosdrecht` paper, what happens is that the researchers did not take into account their own results.
The potential evidence for EUROPEAN ANCESTRY is found in Supplementary Materials Fig. S19 (B), where the qpGraph diagram shows the Natufians as 37% WHG like and 63% Basal Eurasian like. Taforalt is then 70% Natufian like and 30% sub-Saharan like, which calculates to 26% WHG like. These data are supported by Lazaridis et al. (2016), who report an even larger WHG like component of 47% for the Natufians in their Fig. S4.11.
It could be an Epigravettian migration to North Africa via Gibraltar or Sicily establishing the Iberomaurusians, and expand by 15kya to the Levant. Kefi et al. (2016), finds individuals at Taforalt with mtDNA H1, generally proposed to come from the Franco-Cantabrian refuge (samples were not individually dated, and could be neolithic samples, that is why I say it is very important that Europeans reanalyze and re-date these samples.)
And don't be silly, R1b in the Epigravetian culture and WHG ancestry in France and Iberia since the Solutrean, means that in addition to R1b in Iboussieres it can appear anywhere in Western Europe and of course in Africa if Magdalenian migrations are genetically proven. To think that R1b was hidden in Siberia for millennia when you have so many cases in Europe is a big stupidity.
How would you like to find MAgdalenian R1b in Morocco?, maybe you are not so far from seeing it, after all, there are tons of V88 in Africa and they do not come from Iberia but from Ukraine-Balkans.
@Rob “the complex sub-Saharan ancestry in Taforalt makes our individuals an unlikely proxy for the ancestral population of later Natufians who do not harbor sub-Saharan ancestry.''
ReplyDeleteWhere is the linkage between Semitic and Berber (Taforalt) coming from?
Natufians have Iberomaurusian ancestry not Anatolians.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe admixture between ANA and Anatolians I spoke of was regarding the formation of Iberomaurusian. I agree with you completely on that they have Anatolian ancestry on top of ANA. However Natufians formed after Iberomaurusians and they show Iberomaurusian ancestry.