Thursday, August 31, 2023
The story of the Khvalynsk people
I'm totally serious when I say that this video is more objective, informative and accurate than any peer-reviewed paper published to date when it comes to the genetic origins of the Khvalynsk people.
However, that's not to say it's perfect. I think it misses some important details. See here...
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight
Understanding the Eneolithic steppe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
358 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 358 of 358@Samuel Andrews
We have R1b-L51 in Afanasievo who are Yamnaya migrants. Plus we also have RZ2103 in Corded Ware.
Anyhow, Anthony's argument is only the dominant patriarchal clans of a certain region get proper burials and IE western expansions followed a RZ2103 -> R1a -> R1b-L51 "baton passing" dominance. But these would have all co-existed together in a post-Sredny Stog setting, with only the leading clans getting proper burials.
Plus he's still talking of very concrete IBD proof that Yamnaya -> CW. Idk if he's referring the upcoming papers or the info we already have.
@Davidski totally agree, as my name suggest.
@R1b
R1b was native to Europe, not only East, Central Asia was a common influx to R since the LGM. Simple, ANS/ANE and Related populations went to Central Asia and Iranian Plateau (at that time one Savana).
Saying that R1 was stepping since the beginning is a totally truth conclusion ,considering that Mammoths Steppe were on the whole Siberia before the LGM(Last Glacial Maximum).
So being Indo European related to R1, as it was, it came from a source that was one Steppe Type since the Paleolithic.
However WSHG Q lineage(probably related to the source of ANE Rich that went to Iranian Plateau, even if no new East Asian input was on it) plus rarely R1b on Central Asia/Iranian Plateau, considering r1b was one of the most common lineages on Europe since the Mesolithic ,suggest us that the highest chance was the relation between R1b and Cromagnons Mesolithic HG(Iron Gates HG or even other Villa tuna Like population).
CHG profile admix was common, at low percents,even on Bug Dniester and Early Neolhitic Ukraine, also found at Early Neolithic Russian Caucasus and progress, meaning that it was related to a Mesolithic population.
Some minor Iranian influence could came to steppe, even I severely doubt it , however It is impossible that some Iranian source brought Indo European language, maybe some minor words, nothing more than Tripolli .
Keep in mind that Indo European culture had everything that could been related to steppe and Indo Anatolian samples were not only low coverage(0.04% of total human DNA snps) but even from a source that was the most mixed Indo European profile and the most Unrelated IE language(without considering Tocharians), easily for models(with high BIAS) to force some wrong assumptions .
R1a-M417 was the one lineage that was common among the steppe , at all material cultures(without considering progress), and became severely more common after IE expansion, first at Baltic coast and then Scandinavia, after went to Central East Euro , became generation at generation more common.
R1b was common on Western European before IE, M269 was common among Post Tripolli contact Lower Dnipro and R-L151 was only found before Corded Expanded. So you call me if you think that the one lineage that was on Bug Dniester, Dnipro Donetsk, Sredny , Khvalynsk , Corded (from Switzerland to Central Asia) wasn't the most IE lol
@R1b
Only one non Indo European or steppe culture had R1a-M417 at that time, the Comb Ceramic,and even them had some Western Steppe Admix, probably they had some contact with Early Proto Indo European. It means that R1a-M417 was the lineage that could only be found at Indo European descendants as well as present on all Early Indo European Stages, except by Yamnaya that weren't the First Indo European population and probably got their lineage from Tripolli , even if No R-L151 lineage was found. Imo some late Tripolli admix or Globular from Galicia Area could explain R1b-L151 , like Ev13 and J2b from Paleo Balkanic Expansion(absorbed by Yamnaya Related populations).
Even it was Forest Stepped, like R1a-M417 derived , I doubt it was on steppe before Tripolli Raiders , as well as all R-M269, most R1b-M269 was on Mesolithic Balkans, meaning that it was the probably source of R-M269. If R1b-M269 was Proto Indo European like R1a, it came from WHG Iron Gates like ancestry, not EHG proper. From Tripolli contacts or before(doubt cause none - or ancestral Clade - was found at Ukraine Meso). Keep in mind that Early Neo Ukraine was much before the European Neo, since the agriculture was adopted much later than the Balkans , and they continuous being Seminomades even to some extension to the modern Era. Ironically Ukraine has the most fertile soil on Planet.
Don't be mad , r1brother , everybody will respect your Tripolli Ancestral line, you weren't WSHG related
@Davidski as I said before, that one time they will start to claim Botai was Proto Indo European. LoL Steppe R1b from Central Asia , like Amerindians were Indo Europeans, I m gaucho so I support this ideia hahaha(ironic).
The horse , at least, came from America(opposed migration that Amerindians did).
@r1b
Being 6-8% native American could I been consider at yours Botai Like Proto Indo European Clan? Q1 and R1b was common among Native Americans too, not the most ANE like Southern Amerindians, but it was very common among Canadian Natives(we don't know if it came from admixture but they had exclusive lineages). our Nigerian and Chad brothers indeed, very Indo European, not R1a Turkic as mine Eastern Euro paternal ancestor's(irony).
Something interesting, the Slavic Tribes had one of the most Indo European customs , they absorbed all populations they conquered, not always by slave based, usually they gave the option of being a warrior of the Slavic brotherhood, something similar to what the Yamnaya did on Balkans (with ev13 and J2b) .
Being Indo European could be related to Paternal ancestry but certainly the spiritual relation was more important, the Brotherhood between Males and the Patriarcal Based Society didn't mean that they killed all male and took the female, probably they absorbed some male that want to been at theirs warrior elites. The Solar Spirit , or Apolinean, as Evola or Dugin said (I m not pro Russian but likes Noology from Dugin), it wasn't related to Botai, Iranian Plateau Farmers, neither Zagros or Caucasus Matriarcal populations , it came from Steppe, from our Eastern Euro Ancestor's, just accept, Magog, the ancestor's of Scythians as Torah says, from Pontic Caspian Steppe, opposed to Ashkenaz, from Anatolia, ancestor of part of the Euros(Anatolian Farmers) .
Even Jewish tradition agreed with Pontic Caspian Origins, Vedic indeed.
I think we neglect a lot the ancient knowledge or the mythical origins of the populations. Off course, those explanations were myths, but as well as Thor raid a chariot, like the Battle Axes did when went to Scandinavia, maybe Magog was a symbolic name to the Steppe Pronto Indo European Tribes , as well as the connection of the Mythical Cimmerians to all Populations on Europe. Even the Trojan Mythical origin of the Romans could easily represent some Late Anatolian migration to Italy, considering the Aegean Influence that the Iron Age Italians had and some Anatolian mixed profile outliers.
The Hyperborean could represent the ANE, maybe not a Blonde haired pure race but a 3/4 West Eurasian 1/4 Paleo East Asian mammoths hunters, either if Q1 Gora3 had some Blonde Hair mutations .
The Eden, said by Torah, was literally on the Zagros Mountain side, like the place that agriculture was first adopted , Torah could simple represent the origin of the Farming Societies as the "Human Origins" , the start of Sedentary Practices.
Either Magog or Vedic traditions were correct or not(in some way), archeological finds just agreed, as well as mostly Genetical Models, only one bias model suggest other things, and they need more to break the Steppe Hypothesis.
What we should ask is When the Proto Indo European language was raised, cause Where we certainly knew.
Davidski or anyone familiar with Indo-European haplogroups
Me and my cousin did Living DNA tests. We are Kurds from Iraqi Kurdistan and noticed that this blog specializes in Indo-European history. We are not as much interested in our autosome results because these change from company to company. We are interested to find out if our haplogroups from both our mother and father side are Indo-European and which ancient people had haplogroups most similar to us. I have placed link here for screen shots of our Living DNA results. https://flic.kr/s/aHBqjAU545
My father side haplogroup came out R-Z2123. I checked and it was under Z2125 which is under Z2124 under R1a Z94 & Z95
My mother’s haplogroup was H15b
My cousin’s father haplogroup came out R-CTS2243 which is under R1a Z284 which is weird because it shows only in Scandanavia and surrounding area. We don’t have any known ancestor from this area.
His mother is haplogroup W.
Thanks for any help
@Virgin
There's no R1a-M417 or steppe ancestry in any Comb Ceramic samples.
It's surprising that such a large team of 'experts' can't figure out that what they call ''Yamnaya'' represents a founder effect rapidly expanding over the steppe from a more diverse parent group.
Yamnaya was a more or less an egalitarian society, in comparison to the preceding Cernavoda or Usatavo phase.
Yamnaya kurgans are uniformly constructed, although with some variation in gifts, so far all sampled burials of eastern Yamnaya with slightly richer & slighter poorer goods are Z2013. This has been discussed here amply.
The reason why R1a is missing is because those clans went in different direction than the Z2013 which mobilised over the steppe.
It's very clear that Yamnaya is the group that expanded across the steppe, and always kept to the steppe, even when it moved into Central Europe in Hungary.
Corded Ware is the group that expanded across the wooded areas (forest steppe and forest).
It's incredible that David Reich and David Anthony haven't yet noticed this.
Rob & Copper Axe,
N-F4205 (typically found among ancient Pannonian Avars and present-day Buryats) shares a common ancestor with N-B202 (found among present-day Siberian Yupiks, Koryaks, and Chukchis) in N-Y16323 approximately 4,500 to 5,000 ybp. N-Y16323 coalesces with NE European (Finnic, etc.) N-CTS10760 and with the basal (also mostly Finnic, etc.) N-Z1936 within the same time frame. So the genetic differentiation between Chukotkan N-B202 and Avar-Turko-Mongolic N-F4205 is likely to have occurred during a range expansion that also has spread over Northeast Europe, perhaps effected by people speaking the (pre-)Proto-Uralic language. Although its frequency peaks among eastern Buryats, the cline toward the southeast is extremely sharp, and N-F4205 is very rare (accounting for less than 0.1% of the total population) in the PRC. Furthermore, the diversity of N-F4205 among the Buryats appears to be low. Although they are very rare, some members of basal (diverging prior to the MRCA of the Buryat N-B199) branches of N-F4205 are present among Mongols in southern Inner Mongolia (e.g. Xilingol League, Bayannur) and Han Chinese in China proper (e.g. Tengzhou and Jining in Shandong, Tianshui in Gansu, Zhijiang in Hubei) as well as among present-day people in the United States (including one who has registered at FTDNA as Native American), Germany, Poland, Ukraine, Russia, Turkey, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, and (Outer) Mongolia. Balinova et al. (2019) have found N-F4205 in 52.2% (12/23) of a sample of Tsaatan (traditionally reindeer-herding folk who live in Khövsgöl Province, the northernmost corner of Mongolia), 15.2% (7/46) of a sample of Tozhu Tuvans (a population very similar to Tsaatans but residing on the Russian side of the present-day border), 12.5% (5/40) of a sample of Derbet from NW Mongolia, 10.6% (5/47) of a sample of Torgut from SW Mongolia, 7.1% (2/28) of a sample of Khoshut from Kalmykia, and 5.6% (1/18) of a sample of Khoshut from SW Mongolia. So the cline in distribution of N-F4205 appears to be much more gentle toward the southwest from Buryatia, and it is quite well-attested among present-day Sayan Turkic and Oirat Mongolic populations. Most members of N-M178 among Kazakhs should belong to N-F4205 > N-Y16221 as well; the main subclade in Kazakhstan should share a MRCA with Buryat N-B199 about 2,100 (95% CI 2,777 - 1,569) ybp.
By the way, the other numerically predominant clade of Y-DNA among present-day Buryats, C-Z4328 (a subclade of C-M407, which in turn is a subclade of "Southern C-M217" i.e. C-F1067), is currently estimated by FTDNA to have a TMRCA of only 831 (95% CI 1,230 - 540) ybp.
@All
By the way, to the dumb trolls who regularly attempt to comment here...
Yep, R1a and R1a-M417 are native to Europe.
This means that all Asian R1a is derived from European R1a, and, in fact, R1a only arrived in Asia during the Bronze Age from Eastern Europe.
Oh, so it was one error at mine point, thanks for the correction. So, makes my point even more correct, no Non IE related culture had it until the Late Bronzer Age.
LoL R1a-M417 was obviously from Steppe, Iranian Plateau dudes were probably R2, L , J and Q1b , maybe some rare R1a or R1b, but even the Nigerians and Amerindians had R1b, it doesn't mean that R1b came from there.
Instead it came from Eastern Euro and got frequent among WHG Iron Gates profile, some Villa tuna brought it to North Africa and then to Nigeria, as well as some outliers on Progress Area and Volga.
It was basal to Eastern Euro, however R-M269 imo came from Balkans HG or Tripolli imo
R1a was exclusively Eastern European, and as Davidski correct me, R1a-M417 only found on Steppe Related Populations, it means that it was exclusively steppe, doesn't mean that R1b wasn't Indo European from the beginning , considering that Sredny Stog culture had a lot from Tripolli . Also all profiles with R1b-M269 on Ukraine at Early Neo had a Hugh amount of DNA from Tripolli, it means something.
Indo European was formed due to contacts between different native Eastern Euro Sources, like Slavic was. CHG-Like from southern steppe, Danubian Farmers , Extra WHG from Iron Gates sources and mostly EHG , except from CHG like pops, all brought some Ydna . WHG I2 , EHG R1a and minor R1b, Tripolli or WHG R1b , maybe some WSHG on Khvalynsk base.
Keep in mind that those tribal leaders never would know their own lineage, they just had ancestry from some males. We don't know where Patriarcal customs raised up , we just know that HG and Farmers weren't before Proto Indo Europeans .
I don't know how Havard could support some theory that suggest Patriarcal Base society came from a migration, not from auctotones of the place, and didn't brought any sort of Paternal Line, considering CHG from Caucasus didn't share any single lineage with Steppe(at good proportions).
They thought those First PIE were cuckold.
Being auctotones means that the Patriarcal system was adopted at some point , from a Matriarcal base , meaning that not only one lineage could be related to theirs origins, but some lineages, not haplos but some minor branches
@Falcon
It is clear that you are coping for dear life.
The Türks in Jeong et al. 2020 are elite Göktürks from central Mongolia. They are dominated by haplogroups J and R.
The Turkic speakers originate from the union of Iranian R1 and J males with East Eurasian females. This is shown not just in the ancient DNA but in most modern Turkic speaking groups today.
The Turkicization of Eurasia in the early medieval period saw the decline of East Eurasian Y-DNA lineages. Only East Eurasian mtDNA lineages rose.
You could more accurately say Turkic languages were spread by East Eurasian women.
That is literally what happened with andronovo males taking BMAC ladies as mates and language coming via these females....
Gradually people got incorporated into the post BMAC society as vacuum was left by BMAC migrations in Iran proper....
Ebizur, many thanks for your message regarding fex the early origins of N-F4205. The distribution of the more basal type might point to some kind of a connection with the Qijia cultural area, would you agree? Especially now that there seems to be an archeological, Seyma Turbino related connection between the Qijia area and more northern areas in Siberia.
Queequeg,
A sparse distribution of a basal lineage may have been effected through any of several means.
It is of course possible that it may point toward the location of a common ancestral population.
It is also possible that it may reflect an ancient incursion or gene flow from a foreign source prior to a loss of diversity (lineages daughtering out, extirpation, etc.) in that foreign source population.
It is furthermore possible that such basal lineages may in fact persist in a population in which some other subclade now predominates (e.g. N-B199 among present-day Buryats) but that these basal lineages simply have not been sampled from that population yet because the sampling of the population to date is insufficient to capture such rare basal lineages. In regard to the finding of basal lineages in a few Chinese individuals, for example, one must keep in mind the fact that the Chinese are oversampled by several orders of magnitude relative to other populations in eastern Asia, analogous to the (Gulf) Arabs in western Asia. 23mofang has already had Y-DNA results for more than 220,000 individuals listed on their public tree two years before present, and 23mofang is just one (though admittedly the most popular) of several companies that provide direct-to-consumer Y-DNA testing to Chinese people. This contrasts sharply with e.g. the Japanese, for whom there is practically no Y-DNA data available from non-academic sources because there is no company in Japan that will conduct commercial Y-DNA testing. (I am unsure whether a law against commercial Y-DNA testing has been passed in Japan or whether genetic testing companies in Japan merely have agreed under the table not to offer Y-DNA testing.)
N-F4205
12/23 = 52.2% Tsaatan [Balinova 2019]
46/111 = 41.4% Buryat [Ilumae 2016]
23/80 = 28.8% Buryat (Ulan-Ude) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
7/46 = 15.2% Tuvan (Tozhu) [Balinova 2019]
4/27 = 14.8% Tuvan (Oorzhak clan) [Damba 2018]
9/64 = 14.1% Tuvan (Mongush clan) [Damba 2018]
5/40 = 12.5% Derbet (Uvs Province, NW Mongolia) [Balinova 2019]
5/47 = 10.6% Torgut (Khovd Province, SW Mongolia) [Balinova 2019]
2/28 = 7.1% Khoshut (Kalmykia) [Balinova 2018]
8/119 = 6.7% Karanogay [Ilumae 2016]
6/95 = 6.3% Tuvan [Ilumae 2016]
24/381 = 6.3% Mongol [Ilumae 2016]
1/18 = 5.6% Khoshut (Khovd Province, SW Mongolia) [Balinova 2019]
2/61 = 3.3% Altaian [Ilumae 2016]
23/852 = 2.7% Mongol [Damba 2018]
2/75 = 2.7% Mongol (Khalkha in Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
1/40 = 2.5% Teleut (Bekovo, Kemerovo oblast) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
1/44 = 2.3% Turkmen (Turkmenistan) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
5/221 = 2.3% Siberian Tatar [Ilumae 2016]
4/185 = 2.2% Kazakh [Ilumae 2016]
1/57 = 1.8% Evenk [Ilumae 2016]
1/91 = 1.1% Evenk (Sovetskaya Rechka, Turukhanskiy Rayon, Krasnoyarskiy Krai) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
3/277 = 1.1% Crimean Tatar [Ilumae 2016]
1/98 = 1.0% Altai-Kizhi [Karafet 2018; N-P89, which is phylogenetically equivalent to N-F4205 > N-Y16221 > N-Y16220 > N-Y16311 [TMRCA 2350 ybp] according to 23mofang]
1/100 = 1.0% Karakalpak [Ilumae 2016]
1/215 = 0.5% Uzbek [Ilumae 2016]
1/566 = 0.2% Ukrainian [Ilumae 2016]
0/10 Yukagir (Nelemnoe, Lower Kolyma River, Sakha Republic) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/11 Koryak (Severo-Evenskiy Raion, Magadan oblast) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/12 Kalmyk (Xinjiang) [Balinova 2019]
0/15 Tajik (Tajikistan) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/29 Kazakh (Kazakhstan) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/34 Nganasan (Dudinka, Ust'-Avam, Volochanka, Taymyr) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/37 German (Germany) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/40 Han Chinese (Guangdong) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/44 Ket (Sulomai, Kellog, Surgutikha, Vorogovo, Maduika) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/47 Tundra Nentsi (Samburg, YNAOa, Dudinka, Taymyr) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/50 Manchurian (Liaoning) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/51 Indian (South India) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/52 Buzava (Kalmykia) [Balinova 2019]
0/57 Dolgan (Dudinka, Ust'-Avam, Volochanka, Taymyr) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/58 Torgut (Kalmykia) [Balinova 2019]
0/61 Sart-Kalmak (Kyrgyzstan) [Balinova 2019]
0/62 Yakut (Beidinga, Syulya, Dyupsya, Nyurbachan, Sakha Republic) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/63 Korean (South Korea) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/66 Uygur (Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/69 Derbet (Kalmykia) [Balinova 2019]
0/69 Sagays [Damba 2018]
0/71 Tibetan (Tibet Autonomous Region) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/76 Altai people [Damba 2018]
0/78 Komi (Gorki, Pitlyar, Shuryshkarskiy rayon, Samburg, Purovskiy) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/82 Forest Nentsi (Tarko-Sale, Vengapur, Halesavey, Harampur, Purovskiy) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/129 Selkup (Ratta, Tol'ka, Krasnosel'kup, Kikki-Akki, Purovskiy, Tazovski) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/136 Iranian (Iran) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
0/165 Khant (Gorki, Lophari, Pitlyar, Shuryshkarskiy rayon, YNAOa) [Karafet 2018; N-P89]
Note that N-F4205 is also found among Tuvans in general (at least members of the clans Oorzhak and Mongush) as well as among Tozhu and Tsaatan folk.
Judging from Figure 5 of Vladimir N. Kharkov's PHD thesis, N-Tat among Tuvans should exhibit at least a dual (or perhaps tripartite) structure. One of the major branches among Tuvans should be closely related to the major N-Tat branch among Khakas, probably N-B187. Other Tuvan members of N-Tat share the Buryat modal haplotype or are one step away from it. Then there is a cluster of N-Tat haplotypes that is notably shared between Kharkov's Tuvan and Mongol samples, with a few members from other ethnic groups (e.g. Southern Altaian/Teleut, Soyot, Buryat); the modal haplotype of this Tuvan-Mongol cluster appears to be three steps off the Buryat modal haplotype.
I think it is most likely that N-F4205 should have originated in an area encompassing Tuva, Buryatia, and (Outer) Mongolia.
@Assuwatama
BMAC wasn't Indo-Iranian.
We know this, for one, because there are no explicit genetic ties between BMAC and modern Indo-Iranian speakers, and also no genetic ties between BMAC and modern Indians.
On the other hand, there are very specific links between modern Indo-Iranian speakers and Abashevo, Andronovo, Sintashta, Srubnaya, etc.
So yes, Andronovo was Indo-Iranian, but it didn't mix with BMAC.
@Steven Hsu
You could more accurately say Turkic languages were spread by East Eurasian women.
This is a very strange comment, because obviously Turkic languages were spread by a domino effect of military conquest.
Many Iranian speaking groups in Inner and Central Asia had to adopt Turkic culture and language, or flee because otherwise they would be destroyed.
Are you suggesting that the military conquest was done by women with East Eurasian mtDNA haplotypes? Haha.
But seriously, the East Asian mtDNA came later via female exogamy.
You see, female brides were used to strengthen political ties between allied Turkic groups, and females from the east were especially prized because they were thought to also strengthen blood ties with the Turkic homeland in the east.
@ Ebizur and re: ”I think it is most likely that N-F4205 should have originated in an area encompassing Tuva, Buryatia, and (Outer) Mongolia.” You're probably right. However, now that the N-lineage of kra001 is not that far from N-F4205 and it seems that autosomally kra001 is a mixture of groups which used to reside around the most upper reaches of Amur and Lena, eastern parts of Buryatia or Outer Mongolia could possibly make most sense. Also taking into account the fact that Avars can be partly modelled by using kra001.
@Arsalan
Neither Y-Full nor FTDNA have R-CTS2243 in their trees. Seems to be something new and rare? But then again in the screenshots you posted, Living DNA claims that as much as 20% of Norwegians belong to this haplogroup. Doesn't add up. Probably they mean something more upstream like R-Z284. Anyway, your cousin may be descended from Vikings, who also voyaged to Iran and Arabia.
Your R-Z2123 on the other hand is rather old, with a TMRCA of 2200 BCE according to FTDNA. And its subclades are widespread, in 70 countries, as you can see in the YFull tree. I would say it's broadly Indo-Iranian.
@DragonHermit
"Both David Anthony and Lazaridis have come out against Heggarty's paper.
David Anthony said he was acquainted with it a year ago at a conference, and not a single linguist there was convinced by it."
Nice, at least it stays controversial among scholars.
I read that the prof. for IE studies at the university of Zurich, Paul Widmer, found Heggarty's paper quite plausible and "thoroughly made". He lauded the authors for their broad database and their evaluation models. (As a layman in the field of DNA, he was also convinced by the DNA evidence.) Yet he had one point to criticize: That the model assumes that the vocabulary is exclusively inherited. Whereas in reality words also get adopted from other languages. If this point is neglected, the algorithm overestimates the age of PIE.
@Virgin -
There is no evidence that R1b-M269 came from Trypillia (aka Tripolye). So far, the Y-DNA haplogroups that have appeared in the Cucuteni-Trypillia cultural complex (CTCC, ~ 5000–3000 BC) have been G2a2, C1, and I2.
No R1b-M269 has been found in Europe west of the steppe that predates the arrival there of steppe pastoralist Indo-Europeans. No R1b-M269 has ever been found unaccompanied by steppe DNA. The R1b at the Iron Gates was V88, on a line (PF6323) that separated from the line (L389) M269 is on about 17,000 years ago. V88 and M269 are not close relatives and had different trajectories. Don't be confused by the shared "R1b" prefix. By far, most modern R1b men of European descent do not belong to a V88 lineage.
CTCC was an Eastern European Neolithic farmer culture, a cultural descendant of Anatolian Neolithic farmer cultures, its people primarily descendants of Anatolian Neolithic farmers. It would not surprise me if some kind of outlier R1b-M269 or R1a-M417 or Q, etc., appears in it at some point, but, if it does, it will represent a steppe pastoralist interloper or the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe pastoralist interloper. R1 is not an Anatolian Neolithic farmer Y-DNA lineage.
@Simon
Thanks. Probably there will be more information on R-CTS2243 in the future. It’s under R1a M417 which is widespread.
I just read about R1a Z94 and Z95 entering Kurdistan with Parthians and Scythians. Those are probably my Z2123 ancestors
I was wondering which ancient DNA was Z2123 or it’s upstream Z2125 and Z2124. Also wondering about our maternal side if it’s IndoEuropean
In segmentary lineage societies like that of the present-day Kazakhs, several populations sharing the same language and the greater part of their autosomal gene pools may have almost entirely different Y-DNA pools, with many of these Y-DNA ancestors likely having nothing to do with the origin of the language spoken by their present-day descendants.
Most members of the Ysty tribe of Kazakhs belong to Y-DNA haplogroup J1-M267(xP58), most members of the Qangly tribe of Kazakhs belong to Y-DNA haplogroup Q-M242, most members of the Qongirat tribe of Kazakhs belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C-M407, most members of the Baiuly and Alimuly tribes of Kazakhs belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C-M86, most members of the Syrgeli and possibly also the Uaq tribe(s) of Kazakhs belong to Y-DNA haplogroup N-M178 (probably N-F4205 at least in the case of the Syrgeli), most members of the Qypshaq (i.e. Kipchak) tribe of Kazakhs belong to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-M478, most members of the Naiman tribe of Kazakhs belong to Y-DNA haplogroup O-M134 > O-F122 > O-L1360 > O-Y22279, most members of the Argyn tribe (currently one of the largest tribes among the Kazakhs) belong to Y-DNA haplogroup G1-M285, and so forth.
The Daurs, who live on the opposite side of Mongolia from the Kazakhs, likewise consist of a number of exogamous clans (mokon) that descend from several ancient tribes (hala). Originally, the rule of exogamy forbade marriage to a woman from one's own hala, but that came to be viewed as too restrictive (at least for members of certain prolific hala), so the rule was changed to only forbid marriage to a woman from one's own mokon (who really would likely be a close relative). (Note that in China and Korea, where a woman normally will retain her maiden name even after marriage, marriage between a man and a woman sharing the same surname has been either socially taboo or illegal for most of history; this law was suspended in South Korea only in 1999 AD because of suits that claimed that, as in the case of the ancient restriction against marrying a woman of one's hala among the Daurs, the law was too restrictive and it did not take into account the fact that many Koreans who share the same surname are not closely related by blood.) Like the various tribes of the Kazakhs, the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup appears to differ among the various tribes of the Daurs, with C-F3796 predominating among the Tomo, N-M178 predominating among the Merden, O-M95 predominating among the Gobulo, and so forth.
@Davidski
"It's very clear that Yamnaya is the group that expanded across the steppe, and always kept to the steppe, even when it moved into Central Europe in Hungary.
Corded Ware is the group that expanded across the wooded areas (forest steppe and forest).
It's incredible that David Reich and David Anthony haven't yet noticed this."
Actually that's pretty much what he said on that podcast. The RZ2103 clans stopped up until central Europe, and it was the R1a/R1b-L51 who expanded more northern/westward.
He just sees CW as an offshoot/daughter branch of the Yamnaya, NOT a sibling, since they're younger archeologically, have their autosomal DNA and share very high IBD (maybe even more incoming proof on IBD).
@Rob said...
"He doesn’t actually say “Caucasus Farmers” in his articles, that’s DHs interpretation"
He said farmers in the podcast.
@DragonHermit
Let me put it this way:
Do you really believe that there were ghost Yamnaya populations rich in R1a/L51 in, say, Samara or Rostov?
And do you really believe that it's a fluke that all of the Yamnaya samples there, from the rich and poor burials, are Z2103?
If not, then you don't believe what Anthony is claiming.
What you don't realize is that this nonsense first came about because of a bunch of R1a Sarmatian samples from Samara that were found outside of Yamnaya kurgans and wrongly dated to ~2500 BCE.
@ Ebizur
Thanks for the details. I agree
@ Dragon Hermit
Interesting. Perhaps he’s changed his view about CHG. I guess we’ll wait for the adna paper he’s involved with
Btw Anthony seems slightly outdated in his view about early CWC dates
@Dragonhermit
I guess that David Anthony and Reich never studied ceramics lol, Sredny Stog Last Stage was called as Pre Corded cause Corded Wares style was saw there.
It suggest us that it came earlier as far as Yamnaya.
Western Euro Centrism made those assumptions better looking , as far as they didn't have any sense
Yamnaya being the First PIE is absurdism as far as thinking that PIE was a common material culture/group, several tribes from at least 2 well know material cultures were the Late Stages of Proto Indo European societies , Corded Ware and Yamnaya, both came from Sredny Likes + Eastern/South Stepped and Farmers from Eastern Euro. Sredny might been the most influence but even Khvalynsk and Progress might been Early Proto Indo European as the Sredny was.
If you still thinking that Indo European came from a single group , tribe or lineage, instead of one Cline of different tribes, some diverse material cultures and different sources that made it, then you probably misunderstood what Proto Indo European was.
" Telegin, Dmytro Yakovych (1973). Serednʹo-stogivsʹka kulʹtura epokhy midi (in Ukrainian). Kyiv, Ukraine: Naukova Dumka."
"Phase II ( middle 3rd millennium BC) is represented by the Sredny Stog complexes of the Deriivka-Moliukhovyi Buhor type that used corded ware pottery which may have originated there, and stone battle-axes "
It explains all, Corded Ware were Phase II Sredny that Expanded
If there really was a wide spread hidden R1a population among Yamnaya that didn't show due to status issues you'd expect it to either pop up as a minority Y-DNA among Yamnaya in later samples, as individuals will no doubt break the social barrier despite groups not doing such a thing, or in older samples, more or less as one sees with Bohemian CWC.
ISBA Abstract's 2023 - https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YruH2gc30bt5AfAbJMFA1za0LZwSH3XS/view
Various items of interest.
"Genomic analyses of Seleucid and Parthian period population in North Iran"
"Abstract: The Seleucids ruled the area of ancient Iran from 312 BC and were subsequently displaced by the expansion of the Parthians, who led a significant political and cultural empire in ancient Iran between 247 BC and 224 AD. The Parthians maintained an imperial state, which stretched from the northern flow of the Euphrates, in what is now central-eastern Turkey to the area of present-day eastern Iran. The Northern Iranian Khorasan's primary trade route, the Silk Road connected the Roman Empire (the Mediterranean Sea) with the Han Empire in China and made the Parthian territories a hub of commerce.
Various burial customs prevailed in this long-lasting empire, due to its vast extent and exceptional cultural diversity. Here we report on eleven ancient genomes from the Selucid-Parthian periods, gained via genome-wide SNP capture and shotgun sequencing methods. Sites as Vestemin (North of Iran, Mazandaran province), Liar-Sang-Bon (Amlash-Gilan-North of Iran) and Mersinchal (Mehdishahr-Semnan) are considered in this paper from the Caspian Sea area of North Iran.
Ancient DNA is especially scarce from the region and area, with the geographically closest reference data from the Iron Age layer of Hajji Firuz, Tepe Hasanlu and Dinkha Tepe from Northwestern Iran, and the Bronze Age Gonur Tepe in Turkmenistan. The new historical period genomes attest for rather limited connection to the Scythia and the steppe area north of Iran, and the dominance of the Iranian genetic ancestry, traced back to the Neolithic/Mesolithic population of the area. The additional 20-40% Anatolian Neolithic ancestry in their genomes well corresponds to the previously described South Eurasian Early Holocene genetic cline (Narasimhan et al. Science 2019), suggesting continuity in the basic population structure south of the Caspian Sea up to the historic times."
"Two sides of kinship structure in Bronze Age burial mounds of the North Caucasian Bronze Age"
"Abstract: Biological relatedness is closely interlinked with social kinship organisation and the exchange of mating partners. In social sciences, it is discussed as a crucial mechanism which shapes and maintains social relations in and between groups. Large burial mounds (kurgans), which are common form of funerary architecture in Bronze Age West Eurasia are highly and widely visible symbols in ancestral landscapes. Containing the graves of sometimes several dozens of individuals, they were understood as manifestation of genealogies and consequently as reflecting genetic or social kin relations over time.
However, these ideas have never been systematically tested. Improved archaeogenetic wet and dry lab methods now provide the opportunity to study many individuals from the same site, which in turn allow intra-site analyses of biological relatedness and inferences about kinship structures and social organisation.
Here, we present new genomic data from burial mounds the North Caucasus, which reveal a much more complex structure of biological relatedness or the lack thereof than anticipated previously.
These kurgans can be viewed as micro-transects through time in which the degree of genetic connectedness seems to correspond to the distinct genetic ancestry profiles found in this region at the time: Steppe-, and Caucasus-related ancestry. By comparing a number of case studies, we discuss examples of closely and remotely biologically related individuals, inbreeding and reduced effective population sizes, which provides the first insights into the social organisation of the cultural groups using these monuments. In particular, the lack of biological relatedness with certain temporal horizons is challenging the interpretation of the data as genealogies and calls for new models to understand the social structure of the different genetic groups."
"The Genetic Legacy of the Roman Imperial Rule in northern Italy"
"Abstract: During the Roman Imperial period, the extension of Mare Nostrum to the entire Mediterranean Sea allowed Rome to strengthen its cultural, political, and economic hegemony over the surrounding provinces. The tightened interaction with the east brought many migrants to the Empire’s capital. Supporting these historical accounts, a genomic time-transect in the city of Rome clearly documented a shift in genetic ancestry towards eastern Mediterranean populations during the Imperial period. A following study expanded on this finding by showing that the shift was not unique to Rome but also affected the central Italian region of Etruria. However, how much further north along the Italian peninsula this incoming ancestry spread remains to be addressed.
Here, we generated genome-wide data of 32 individuals from six sites in northern Italy archaeologically dated to the Imperial period. Principal Component Analysis reveals that all individuals fall on an admixture cline stretching from the placement of preceding Iron Age groups towards modern-day Near Easterners.
While this trend mirrors the results obtained for the city of Rome and Etruria, the proportion of eastern Mediterranean ancestry varies considerably. Most of the newly studied individuals derive three-quarters of their genetic profile from the local population and one-quarter from contemporaneous groups in the Near East. However, the latter contribution is around half of what was observed for central Italy at the same time.
Compared to present-day northern Italians, we could then model an additional 20% gene flow from northern European ancestries, possibly influenced by migrations into Italy during the Early Middle Ages. To conclude, while northern European ancestries left a similar genetic imprint into present-day populations from central and northern Italy, the demographic shift connected with the Roman Empire was diluted moving northward, but its genetic legacy still survives until today."
The only solution to continue linking R1b-L51>L151 with the IE (even if only the Italo-celtic branch) is the solution that Max Planck has sought, which roughly coincides with the alternative proposed by Davidski, i.e. the Ukrainian Neolithic>Sredni stog (forest steppe) where there is enough WHG to justify that excess in the early CWC (steppe fans should be grateful to Davidski for keeping the torch of R1-L51's link to Indo-European alive).
But as always, to prove this theory you have to find R1b-L51>L151 in that region. A few days ago Rocca wrote in this blog, that he has information about it, we will see if it is true, maybe more samples from the forest steppe will be published and some of them belong to this lineage. On the other hand, if the dating of the Nierdepoering sample is confirmed we would have L51 in Germany 1.000 years before in Bohemia and if it is not confirmed the researchers will have to continue looking in the Baltic, the Balkans or Ukraine.
1-For the naysayers, remind them that the name of the typical WHG cluster is called Villabruna, that this site is in the north of Italy, that this region can be considered as part of central Europe, that Villabruna is R1b-L754, that there are other WHGs in France with the same clade (Iboussieres), that the epigravetian of the Balkans and Italy moved northward (Baltic=tons of R1b-P297 & M73) & that R1b-L754 has not only been found in the WHGs, but also in the LBK (Germany) ergo it is evident that it followed the same path as other WHGs markers (C1a2; I2a, R1b-V88), i.e. they were incorporated into neolithic societies.
2-R1b-L754 is western (12,000 BC, epigravetian), there is no older R1b in the world, not even PH155 (which is the oldest sample of this lineage?, Iron Age?). It may be that R1 is Siberian or Central Asian because R2 has been found in Iran, but that R1b has its origin in Central Asia is a fairy tale. PH155 is not an ancestral marker of R1b-L754 and this lineage has nothing to do with western or central Asia. Likewise R1a has its origin in Eastern Europe (it seems that even the Indians have already accepted this)
3-Everyone should understand that the population movements were not only in the East-West direction, there are many examples of migrations in the opposite direction (i.e. from the Balkans, the Baltic and central Europe) to the steppes & Central-Western Asia-WHGs moved northeast and east (including Asia Minor) from Iberia, Italy and the Balkans, R1b-V88 in Ukraine has its origins in the Balkans, CT moved into the territory of the EHGs, mtDNA farmer markers=exogamy in neolithic Ukraine, Sredni Stog and Yamnaya, R1b reached Central Asia (Botai) from northern Russia and the Baltic, Afanasievo has mtDNA markers that have been found in the Baltic and EEFs, Chemurchek culture reached Mongolia and originates from Western Europe-France, Fatyanovo moved to the east, even Z2103 may have originated in the Balkans and become the dominant marker in Yamnaya thanks to a massive founder effect. To understand European genetics one must understand that there were hundreds and thousands of population movements in all directions, remember that there is life beyond the steppes except for those who only have steppe on the brain.
4-
@Virgin
Which R1b lineages are there among Amerindians?
Are there any samples of this marker in America before the arrival of Europeans in the 15th century?
What samples of R1b do you know in the British Neolithic?
At the moment there is no R1b-M269 in CT, there is only one sample in Smyadovo and it belongs to the Gumelnita-Karanovo VI culture.
@epoch
Yeah, but in Bohemia there's a sharp rise in GAC ancestry right after the appearance of R1a.
So these R1a males are coming in from somewhere else, like maybe from Poland or the forest steppe in Ukraine.
@DragonHermit
Perhaps they are matching Yamnaya with specific branches of dated Z2103 and IBD connections, with R1b-Z2109 Czech Corded Ware and Z2103 Derivka late phase samples. Any word from Anthony interview(paywall), if they have been testing the Z2103 Abashevo samples to see if they are the same branch as Yamnaya-Derivka late phase or Corded Ware. and if they share IBD segments with any of them?
Cope harder oldest r1a is found in asian region of russia.
@Druhyus
The oldest R1a samples are found in Ukraine and the European part of Russia you tard.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html
Cope and seethe you dumb troll.
"Y-chromosome analysis of Bronze Age populations from the territory of present-day Poland"
"The aim of this study was to determine the origin and genetic structure of male lineages from the Mierzanowice culture (2300-1600 BC), the Trzciniec culture (1900-1000 BC) and the Lusatian culture (1350-400 BC)...The Y-chromosome haplogroup was determined for 25 individuals. Most of the Bronze Age individuals belonged to R1a haplogroup subclades. There were also individuals belonging to haplogroup I2a and O2a-L465. The lack of these Y-chromosome lines identified in the younger Iron Age samples suggests at least some level of discontinuity with the Bronze Age populations."
I'm assuming the O is fairly late, mediated by Scythians (shows up in Xiongnu)?
I'm also not sure what "iron age" Poland is supposed to mean here. Given that it's part of the same research project, I'm assuming they mean Goths? Which is obviously a bit nonsensical to even analyze.
@EthanR
I'm assuming the O is fairly late, mediated by Scythians (shows up in Xiongnu)?
It's a mistake. I've seen this happen before, where R1a was misclassified as O.
Gaska wrote:
". . . At the moment there is no R1b-M269 in CT, there is only one sample in Smyadovo and it belongs to the Gumelnita-Karanovo VI culture."
My response:
You have been told numerous times already that Smyadovo (I2181) is a low coverage sample that could not be assigned a Y-DNA haplogroup beyond F, which is why it does not appear in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections or in its Time Tree.
But you keep repeating the untruth that Smyadovo was R1b-M269 because it's the best you've got. It's the best you've got because your point of view is just wrong, so there is nothing to support it.
Besides that, even if we accepted the erroneous idea that Smyadovo was R1b-M269, he had steppe DNA, as well, which totally shoots your argument down in flames.
The rest of your last post was just blather. You keep going on about Villabruna despite all that has been said to show that it does not mean what you want it to mean. You also periodically bring up Iboussieres, despite the fact that its Y-DNA haplogroup could not be confirmed, which is why almost no one but you ever mentions it, and why it too is not in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections and Time Tree.
There is no L754 in LBK, and it is extremely unlikely that NP548 from Niederpöring is as old as you claim. If it is R1b-L151, as the Da Silva pre-print says, remember that L151 is estimated to date back to about 3000 BC, not 5000-4500 BC. I won't repeat all the stuff we know about NP548 that we have already discussed.
Other things from ISBA:
"Inferring IBD segments in ancient DNA - What next?" Speaker: Harald Ringbauer - Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany
"Abstract: Recently developed methods can robustly identify long identical DNA sequences shared between pairs of ancient humans. These segments provide an ideal genomic signal for studying recent genealogical connections, as they must be co-inherited from a recent common ancestor, with recombination pruning the segments and thus acting as a rapid clock. Population genetic studies based on IBD segments have inferred the recent demographic history of present-day populations, including population size dynamics and geographic mobility. With the growing availability of aDNA samples, the study of IBD segments in ancient humans can offer an equally powerful opportunity to investigate past demography. To realize this potential, we present new computational tools designed to make demographic inferences from IBD segments in time-stratified aDNA data, allowing us to estimate population size dynamics, cross-coalescence rates between ancient groups, and geographic mobility patterns. We showcase the utility of our tools through a series of example applications to ancient DNA data.
For instance, we infer that a strong population bottleneck occurred in early Bronze Age Western Eurasia, followed by rapidly growing effective population sizes.
Moreover, we infer the intensities and time depths of genetic connections between various important ancient Bronze Age cultural groups such as Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers. Our findings demonstrate that our tools can generate new demographic insights into human population history."
"Using ancient biomolecules to reveal the social structure and behaviours of the Upper Palaeolithic Magdalenian at Gough’s Cave, UK" - "Speaker: William Marsh"
"Abstract: The human remains excavated from Gough’s Cave represents the largest deposit in Britain associated with the Upper Palaeolithic Magdalenian culture (dated to ~15k calBP). Evidence of anthropic modifications associated with processing of human remains post- mortem and cannibalism is prevalent across the 205 cranial and postcranial remains (MNI=6), with the most remarkable examples including three skull cups manufactured from cranial vaults. Prior biomolecular results have shown one individual to share ancestry with the genetic cluster associated with Magdalenian populations across western Europe, with two separate individuals showing bulk isotope signatures consistent with a terrestrial diet. Here, we expand these biomolecular methods onto a larger set of skeletal remains to further clarify the composition, ancestry, and diet of the group, which when combined with previous archaeological studies develop our understanding of the Magdalenian more generally. Compound specific isotope analyses support an omnivorous diet, with no measurable marine component. Of the six individuals sequenced from the cave, all show an autosomal genetic affinity to the GoyetQ2 cluster associated with the Magdalenian culture. Four show a second degree or higher degree of relatedness, with two separate close family groups identified. Both sexes are represented, which when considered alongside the presence of juvenile remains suggests group composition mirroring that seen in modern hunter gatherer groups. A low effective population size is inferred, along with a lack of close kin breeding, compatible with sexual behaviours that avoided close union despite the inferred high level of group relatedness. The skeletal elements for five sequenced individuals show evidence of cannibalism and post-mortem modification, indicative of endocannibalism and a kin-mediated funerary behaviour. Genetic results conform with the predicted group structure of the Magdalenian where small groups containing related individuals."
"High coverage genomes of two of the earliest Homo sapiens in central Europe" - "Speaker: Arev Pelin Sümer"
"Abstract: To date there is little genetic data available to characterize Homo sapiens spanning the Middle to Upper Paleolithic transition in Eurasia, and only one genome, that of the ~44,000-year-old Ust’-Ishim individual from Siberia, has been sequenced to high coverage (Fu, et al. Nature 2014). We present two high-coverage genomes from individuals found at two sites in central Europe that are approximately 230 km apart: one from Ilsenhöhle Ranis (‘Ranis’) in Germany and one from Zlatý kůň in Czechia (Prüfer, et al. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021). These individuals are among the oldest Homo sapiens known from Europe, and likely older than Ust’-Ishim, based on radiocarbon and molecular dating. We also sequenced low coverage genomes from four individuals from Ranis, dated to between 46,800 and 42,200 years ago. All Ranis genomes show the highest genetic similarity to the genome of Zlatý kůň rather than to any other individual from ancient or present-day populations. Interestingly, the two high-coverage genomes share long identical-by-descent regions, indicating that these individuals also lived close in time to one another. Despite having genome-wide heterozygosity levels similar to present-day Europeans, we detect long runs of homozygosity in the two high coverage genomes, suggesting that there was a recent reduction in population size and/or recent inbreeding among their ancestors. We also detected long tracts of Neandertal ancestry in both genomes that are best explained by a single pulse of Neandertal introgression - likely the major Neandertal introgression event shared among all non-Africans. We used the length distribution of these fragments to estimate when this introgression occurred."
"The Genetic Legacy of Ancient Gaul: Insights into Social Organization and Human Mobility during the Roman Empire" - "Speaker: Mélanie Pruvost"
"Abstract: Spanning three continents for over five centuries from 27 BCE to 476 CE, the Roman Empire was a vast multi-ethnic and multicultural empire. France, known as Gaul during this period, was an important province within the vast Roman Empire due to its strategic location, as it provided a link between the Mediterranean and Northern Europe. During Roman rule, Gaul flourished with a thriving economy and rich cultural life thanks to the construction of roads, aqueducts, and public works that connected different parts of the province and facilitated trade and communication, enabling unprecedented human mobility across the region.
This project analyzed genome-wide data from 170 individuals from 31 archaeological sites in present-day France, spanning the entire Roman Empire period. The genetic analyses, combined with archaeological and anthropological data, revealed various degrees of cosmopolitanism, some of which were associated with specific funerary practices. Although the genetic diversity was diverse overall" ? ", the high number of individuals analyzed allowed for the identification of a subtle regional structure. The continuity with Iron Age results suggests the lasting influence of previous populations. Despite the cultural heritage of Roman seen in the region’s art, architecture, language, and society, its impact on the genome of the Gaulish population appears modest. Through dense sampling of necropolises, this study provides insights into the social organization and human mobility of ancient Gaulish society"
"An Outbreak of the Stone Age Plague in a Large Extended Family" - "Speaker: Frederik Seersholm"
"Abstract: In Northern Europe, the period between 5,300 and 4,900 BP is characterized by decreasing population sizes, and is often termed the Neolithic decline. The cause of this population collapse is still widely debated, and several factors have been put forward as possible explanations, including the spread of an early variant of Yersinia pestis, the etiologic agent of the plague. Here we analyse ancient DNA from 112 Scandinavian individuals from the period immediately before and during the Neolithic decline. We correlate biological relations within multiple megalithic graves, with patterns of pairwise IBD sharing and genetic reconstructions of the most common human pathogens detected. We reconstruct three large pedigrees, the largest of which consists of 23 individuals spanning five generations. Furthermore, we find that Yersinia pestis was surprisingly abundant in the population, detected in 19% of all individuals analysed, and present in all three extended families. Taken together, our findings suggest the presence of widespread ancient plague epidemic at the Neolithic decline spanning a wide geographical area from Zealand, Denmark to north of Gothenburg in Sweden."
Some support for the LCA/EBA transition in North-Central Europe being linked to epidemic disease.
@a
He was pretty vague as to the specific samples. Just mentioned that *hopefully* we're going to get 2 Yamnaya-related papers by the end of the year.
@Davidski
My personal opinion on this matter is that the terms "Yamnaya"/"CW"/"Proto-CW" are made up ex post facto for archeological convenience and they were all essentially part of the same post-SS western steppe PIE ethnic group. It matters very little if the division between R1a/L51 and RZ2103 was geographic or social stratification. If they spoke the same language, had almost identical autosomal, and high IBD, I don't know why we even bother making these divisions. Maybe Reich, Lazaridis, Anthony, etc... are expanding the definition of "Yamnaya", but again who cares. Splitting hairs for no reason. There are more pressing issues in archeogenetics to discuss.
P.S. I've never bought into the rich or poor kurgan argument. The "poor" kurgans could have easily been the uncles/cousins of the leading clans. Something of a king/duke equivalency.
@DragonHermit
"If they spoke the same language, had almost identical autosomal, and high IBD, I don't know why we even bother making these divisions."
The distribution of L51 and Z2109 differ in some ways.
Advances in ancIBD computing power are only going to get better. In theory the same IBD links used showing that Yamnaya are connected to Afanasievo and Bell Beakers with Z2109+ and L51+ and one day might be used to determine IBD links between Dom2 horses in connection to Z2109 and L51; and why both R1b branches L51 and Z2109+ show signs of riding horses, as the paper below shows.
First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship
MARTIN TRAUTMANN et al.
Here, we report five Yamnaya individuals well-dated to 3021 to 2501 calibrated BCE from kurgans in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, displaying changes in bone morphology and distinct pathologies associated with horseback riding. These are the oldest humans identified as riders so far.
@Dragon Hermit,
".....why we even bother making these divisions. Splitting hairs for no reason. "
Brother, the thing is, for patrilinal societies, Y DNA is the most important division.
They can't be the same people if they have different Y DNA.
They certainly derive from a recent common ancestor. They belonged to the same family but they were not the same tribe.
I've got a terrible feeling that this Yamnaya paper by the David Reich Lab + David Anthony is going to be a bit of a disaster.
Kind of like a Yamnaya version of the Southern Arc.
"They can't be the same people if they have different Y DNA.
They certainly derive from a recent common ancestor. They belonged to the same family but they were not the same tribe."
For example not all ydna lines from, Derivka, Khvalynsk, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Abashevo, had burials like the ones found in Sintashta with domesticated Dom2 horse and war chariot or even the earlier Dom2 horses found in Yamnaya Turganik burials.
Being able to ride a Dom2 horse would have given a clan like Z2109 or p310 an advantage on the belt of grassland that extends 5,000 miles (8,000 km) from Hungary in the west through Ukraine and Central Asia to Mongolia in the east, raiding other pastural clans. Even if the first Dom2 horses were not not used directly in confrontational battle. A group of warriors from a specific ydna clan could dismount at night, set fire to a village or steal resources like domesticated livestock from a competing ydna clan required to survive winter.
First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship
Trade and cultural exchange as well as conflicts and migrations leapt with the increase in speed and range provided by horsemanship. Archeological, archeozoological, and paleogenetic research into the beginnings of horse domestication and the initial expansion of domesticated horses (Equus caballus) has recently seen much progress (1, 2), as has our understanding of the appearance of horse-drawn fast chariots with spoked wheels ~2000 BCE (3).
An ISBA about horses, although I think the conclusions may be challenging for such a level of autosomal data as they have:
"Genetic analysis of Late Copper Age to Bronze Age horses from the Carpathian Basin" "Speaker: Noémi Borbély"
"Abstract: In this study we present new genetic data on horse populations from the Late Copper Age to Middle Bronze Age Carpathian Basin. We report a new shotgun genome and six mitochondrial genomes dating from ~3600-1600 BCE, which were used to investigate the population structure of horses in the Carpathian Basin.
The results indicate that the local horse population remained largely unchanged throughout the investigated period.
In agreement with previous observations, Early and Middle Bronze Age horses formed a natural genetic cline from Anatolia to Northern Europe, with the Carpathian Basin samples situated in an intermediate position. The mitochondrial haplogroup distribution revealed two major local clusters (haplogroups A’D and Q), that are also intermediate between North and South.
We provide a newly sequenced shotgun genome of a near complete horse skull from Tompa archaeological site dated to 1870-1620 cal BCE, that showed traces for a special nose bit wearing. Genomic make up of this specimen showed affinity to other two published Hungarian Bronze Age horses, but with slight increase of steppe ancestry.
We performed several population genomic tests to infer the origin of this component. The results imply that the DOM2-like ancestry was most probably due to geographic cline rather than actual recent admixture, despite the presence of DOM2 horses among Bronze Age settlements from Central Europe a couple of hundred years earlier. We also show reduced population size for local stocks. Our results point to delayed replacement of the local horses with DOM2 breeds in the Carpathian Basin, revealing further bits of archaeologically documented horse keeping practices in the region."
Just like Yamnaya sites with R1b-Z2109 Hungary Bell Beaker sites with R1b-Z2109
"Considering the occurrence of haplogroup R in Bell Beaker cultural context in
northern part of Central Hungary (around Budapest) and whole genome evidence for DOM2
introduction in Czechia ~300-400 years prior Tompa1, as well as the possible modeling of
Tompa1 with minor DOM2 ancestry, we evaluated the origin of this component further,"
Zoltán Dicső et al,
Genomic refugium of pre-domestication lineages in the Bronze Age
Carpathian Basin
Sites in Hungary where horsekeeping related artifacts (antler cheek-pieces) were
recovered from the Central European Middle Bronze Age (2nd millennium BCE)
1 - Szob-Kálvária, 2 - Pákozd-Várhegy, 3 - Budapest-Lágymányos, 4 - SzázhalombattaFöldvár, 5 - Gerjen, 6 - Jászdózsa-Kápolnahalom, 7 - Tószeg-Laposhalom, 8 - FüzesabonyÖregdomb, 9 - Tiszafüred, 10 - Mezőcsát-Pástidomb, 11 - Köröstarcsa, 12 - Pecica
(Romania). Rhombus shaped marks denote the sampled sites (see Table 1 and Figure 2.),
red rhombuses are for whole genome data: a - Ordacsehi-Bugaszeg, b - KaposújlakVárdomb, c - Szűr-Cserhát, d - Dunaújváros-Kosziderpadlás, e - Pilismarót-Basaharc, f -
Budapest-Albertfalva, g - Tompa.
@a, I missed that this was already a preprint!
@Matt
In June of this year, Jaime Lira's doctoral thesis on the Iberian horse was published, the conclusions do not differ from those obtained by other Spanish geneticists.
"The continued presence of Haplogroup mtDNA-Lusitanian C in Iberia from the late Pleistocene to the Middle Bronze Age allows us to consider it as an exclusively Iberian Holocene haplogroup, which has been involved in the process of horse domestication in Iberia"
"Furthermore, its representation is significant among ancient Holocene populations, ranging from ~80% during the Bell Beaker chalcolithic or Early Bronze Age to 17% during the Pre-Bell Beaker chalcolithic. Furthermore, the individuals that have been generically considered as Chalcolithic or Bronze Age are all mtDNA-Lusitanian C-One of the most relevant aspects of this markeris its presence in exclusively Iberian or Iberian-derived present-day horses. As already mentioned in other sections, the breeds where Lusitano C has been detected are Pura Sangre Lusitana (n=2, Lopes et al., 2005), Criollo Argentino (n=1, Mirol et al., 2002), Marismeño (n=1, Royo et al., 2005), Garrano (n=1, Luís et al., 2006b) and Paso Fino de Puerto Rico (n=1, Luís et al., 2006b)".
"Furthermore, Iberian populations, from the Mesolithic-Neolithic to the Early Bronze Age, have been characterized by being homogeneous in the composition and variation of their haplogroups, suggesting a period of genetic continuity of at least 3600 years".
i.e. in the case that R1b-L51>L151 has its origin in the steppes, they did not bring their horses to Iberia. The domestication process was local at the beginning of the Bronze Age (El Argar culture).
@matt
Great work about Italy, all my paternal ancestry, except Y lineage(Polish on Middle ages) came from North Italy. As the article conclude, 20% AVG came from Central Euro Settlers, or east at Adriatic Costal area. Off course, not North Euro, probably Highly Boii-Like Lagonbards.
What the article seems to been wrong was about Roman influence. In fact Romans got a Hugh amount of ancestry to North Italy, however those Middle Eastern or West Asian profiles from Imperial Era weren't the Roman Elite, and as the social selections theory suggest us the elites from that time were the highest portion of our ancestry . Italy had 14 milion at Early Imperial to 3-4 milion after Justinian Plague, north was less inhabited so More people dying means less ancestryz , it don't mean that they weren't almost the same at imperial time, however elites were Local Pre Roman population + Patrician's and Equestrians.
Slaves were North African profile mostly, and Middle classes were West Asian Hellenistico profile, cause several eastern meds went to Italy during Early Imperial and mostly died without contribute to the ancestry as far as similar to how much they were.
It explains why Roman Later Antiquity had the Drift to Iron Age, considering rural were even more North African/Mena and there were no migration record to Italy from North Italy or similar profile to iron Age italians.in fact North Italy received several roman settlers cause Milan was the capital of western empire.
If you doubt the social selections theory just take a look at demographics, high classes had more access to material elements to keep their descendents alive , specially true during pandemics and famine.
One example that provides evidence was the low quantity of Y lineages that survived to this day, even if we look from 2 thousands ago.
3 billion of Males had nothing more than just hundreds of thousands male direct ancestors , even less.
I take mine line as example, R-Y2613 as example, we had more than 30 noble families as far as I know even more, from a same male to 2500 years ago , from Russia to Scottish Highlands , even at Venice and Greece , including one Rurikidean(fake common ancestor)Prince and some Fever Noble from Hungary , all from Southeastern Poland (probably white Croats). Don't know how one came to Italy but probably as Mercenary (I share tmrca with Russian prince from 1200 years ago FT62520).
Not rare or something special, everybody came from a Noble line, or mostly, cause nobility declined after black death and the broke of Medieval System, Are Urbanization, Professional Army, etc..meaning that rural nobility became less likely to got a high rank position, considering their infantil mortality was lower at Nobles and even all females had a bunch of Child's .
Everybody here probably came from a Noble Line, even who had a poor family (from modern ages) , and high ranks Romans, local elites and rich plebeians were probably the ancestor's of modern days Italians, considering that population was 14 milion and became 3-4 milion even after barbarian invasions.
I don't trust on Academics because they informed those sort of racional thinking and uses just Statical models, even if it is a better explanation than non reported migrations that could explain why 40% of Late Antiquity Rome was from a Source identical to Republic Romans + 60% Imperial, meaning that some population was very likely to contributes more to them. Elites, more Republican Like Italians, Local Pre Roman Elites + Patricians + Minor Greek, identical to North Italy profile, that could been explained not by less roman but less population, meaning that plebeians death would impact more the composition , then north Italians were the original Italic Profile like they are , similar to Original Romans, with minor West Asian/Middle Eastern and Central/East European extra contribution(that balanced equation).
I have medieval Slavic or Modern lineage but enjoy to be Roman , I hate those tries to nordify Italy , Lagonbards were more Celtic or Northwestblock than Germanic proper.
Off course, geoids, Saxons and Bavarians went too, as well as Ostrogothics and Franks, the second more Balkanic and Scythian than everything, but they were nothing more than 1/5 of Average Italian ancestry, probably more present on Cimbrian and Alpine Areas
For me it is funny how those North Italians want be Celtic or Germanic, Italians were literally the Romans, North Italian more the original Italic/Etruscan Profile and South Italic+Hellenistic(Greco-Anatolian+MENA Hellenistic), Italics were literally more related to Original Celtic Alpine than Modern Days Celtic were , from Urnfield Pronto Villanovan ancestry, even first Romans had Alpine/Provençal profile, with some minor Aegean Influence, it sounds like Western Agenda, Anglocentrism, trying to make Germanics something really special, even if we consider that those people always tried to been roman and the Germanic countries are more Celtic or Slavic than Germanic(Except Denmark, Sweden and North Germany/Netherlands). Everybody on Europe had Germanic ancestry , however it was very diluted.
Celtic and Slavic sources were probably the most influential.
Also R1a-Z284 was more common before the Scandinavia Viking Ages than Late Middle Ages/Modern, when slaves settlers introduced R-L21 and others to Norway and Denmark.
Most Vikings were I1 and R1a-Z284, I1 seems to had a more expressive founder effect after Iron Age, but Before it R1a-Z284 was the lineage related to Scandinavia Iron Age and R1b-U106/R1a-L664 to Jastorf, even if some R-U106 was present at Scandinavia.
R1a-Z284 and Viking influences were really related.
@Davidski I have some references from Brazilian modern pops, some have a high % of African Subsaaharian (>60%) I would ask you if you could run some of them cause only white Brazilians took a DNA test.
Also when those new North Italy samples came or if you have others north Italians coordinates(not those commonly used at particular G25 collections), some Brazilian Native(not on spreadsheet ), such as Guarani ,and could share it, I would appreciate a lot.
Another question, about those official samples that were(it not) at spreadsheet, using Dendogram to plot those that resemble Wich other sounds absurdism to you? I made it with Norwegian, for example, and tried to compare to Studies, looks ok , however is there a possibility that some profiles, from different areas, overlap Wich other and then form a fake profile? Meaning that their relations weren't real.
And Which distance would be good to catch the population?
I want to make it to Earlagen (some got Thuringian Profile, Franconian and Bavaria but some were out) but some sub groups were really different(one Hesse Like others Czech Like).
I don't recommend making synthetic population averages in the G25, if that's what you mean.
There's no way that you can get this right in most cases, because real world variation is never easy to predict unless you actually have some samples as examples.
Not exactly it, more about Using Dendogram to group official samples , for example Norwegian official Coords that have relationship, for gotten distinct profiles , one for Oppaland, other Tronderlag, Etc .
@gaska
I3019 England Neolithic R1b1a1b
I3035 same(more specific)
Also bullshit about classes, in fact we found R1a-M417 at Sredny , Bug Dniester, Dniepro Donets, Khvalynsk, etc .m.
We had a single ancestor from 5k BCE, we don't need more than one steppe.
In fact R-L151(not R-L51)wasn't found on steppe and even R-M269 came before Tripolli Contacts, we could attest it . Find one R-M269 or basal branch before Neolithic introduction by Tripolli Contacts, like you found R1a, I2 or others branches of R1b.
R1a was from Forest Steppe Zone, probably the place where the language that was the ancestor of what I m using now was first formed.
Bullshit about CWC on Czech Republic and relation with Class, you R1b wanna be superior, in fact Fatyanovo and Battle Axe were mostly R1a, they probably push west before that time.
Stop being egocentric, all R1a-M417 living share the same ancestor just before Corded Ware was born, we came from one greater ruler or your Females felt in love with our dicks, sounds ridiculous, Class explanation couldn't brought any R-L151 to steppe , probably low classes had some variations that weren't common to living males today.
R1a was brought to CWC on Czech and Poland MBA cause the R1a kicked R1b asses from Polish Forest and then they (R1b) formed Unetice culture .
Battle Axe, Single Grave , Middle Dnieper and Fatyanovo were R1a since the beginning
I should ask you to send me which sample had R1b-L151 on Pontic Steppe from Early Neo to Copper Age, since we could found R1b from LITERALLY everywhere on Europe during this time, but not a single from this branch and only post Tripolli had R-M269, considering R1b was more common on Balkans than Pontic Steppe.
Probably none of those lineage's were from Low classes, we have few lineage's living today, learn about social selections mate, it will explain you why you shouldn't consider it like a probably hypothesis, even if it could had some logic.
IMO Tripolli Early contact brought R-M269 to Steppe , but it was before Proto Indo European was totally formed, keep in mind that R-M269 TMRCA was LITERALLY at the same time span that Tripolli Raiders happened at steppe pre Neolithic society and introduced Farmers DNA's to Steppe, as well as replaced R1a from Lower Dnipro's Valley .
We don't have any sort of Argument to suggest some relation to R1b L151 and Yamnaya, imo they came from a single male line that was Born at Eastern Carpathians/Southeastern Poland, then went to Central-East Europe, formed some branches of Classical Corded Ware .
We found R1a from Copper Age Switzerland meaning that R1a-M417 and R1b-L151 probably came from the same source and R-Z1203 Yamnaya from another.
Not a single R1b moviment from anywhere to steppe was the greater founder of Proto Indo European,but their contact was fundamental to the origins of the population .
R1a was dominant from All Baltic Sea range, from Denmark to Fatyanovo, it was more related to North Profiles what makes geographical sense considering Middle Dnieper/Fatyanovo Group's
IMO R1a-Z283 was from Baltic Area or even Scandinavia, then went to Central East Europe and conquered other lands. Bell Beaker's were descendant from Corded Groups but some had Single Grave Contact.
This may explain why Germanic languages had Kentum and Satterm traits and 2 Indo European Sort of Goods(Aesier and Vanir).
Bronze Age and Iron Age Scandinavians were mostly R1a, with I1 growth due to Founder effects, what reduced gradually their incidence.
R1b-U106 might been related to North Beaker's groups and Northwestblock influence on Jastorf and Scandinavia, but even at Viking Age R1a-Z284 still more common than today.
The Slave system of vikings caused the absorption of one Scottish and Brythonic DNA , causing reduction to R1a on Scandinavia.
R1a-L664 was probably more common and got reduced by Social Sellection, but may been related to Single Graves.
@Davidski
I m making one list of Noble Families and Famous that are(or were) R1a, cause Maciamo Hay simple omitted a bunch and favor R1b lines, only on mine subgroup I found >30 lines , I guess that we will find a lot , specially from Poland, that had a great % of Nobles in their population even before Feudal (mostly) collapse.
Those guys always want to make our lineage secundary, when in fact we had Brahmins and Tribal Chieftains , several Great Scientists, Politicians, Monarchs.
I think that it is the greatest motivation to the Yamnaya Theory's Acceptance, Eastern Europe was the Homeland of Indo Europeans, the IE tradition always suggested that Elite Males wouldn't go abroad and conquest everywhere, in fact those who stayed on Eastern Euro were probably Elites and those who migrated was rivals that should been difficult to control.
Concepts like Koryos explain it , why should the dominant clan migrate earlier to Czech and the low continuous on the Homeland?
Considering both lineages couldn't came from Any Yamnaya source.
Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-M343 appears to have produced many branches over a span of approximately 4,000 years immediately following the MRCA of all extant R1b-M343. However, the branch that has produced R-M269 seems to have emerged from a bottleneck approximately 8,000 years after the conclusion of R1b-M343's early phase of diversification.
I do not see any example of pre-R-M269 (i.e. Y-DNA that is more closely related to every member of R-M269 than to any member of R-M73 but whose MRCA with known members of R-M269 predates the MRCA of all known members of R-M269) tabulated on FTDNA Discover's Time Tree.
Has a reliably determined case of R-P297(xM269, M73) never been found anywhere even among samples of ancient DNA?
@Virgin etc etc etc..
1-So, you don't know of any R1b samples among Amerindians before the European conquest, do you?
2-These R1b British neolithic samples are in fact three-I think we have already discussed these samples in this blog, two of them have dating problems and the other one has low coverage. Patterson should have redated those samples before publishing them. In any case, they join the group of controversial R1b-M269 in the European neolithic.
*I3035 (3.750 BC)-Fox Holes Cave, neolithic-HapY-R1b-U106>DF96>A7208
*I3019 (3.200 BC)-Cheddar, Totty Pot-HapY-R1b-M269
*I2611 (2.998 BC)-Tyne and Wear-HapY-R1b-L21>DF13>Z253>A11001
3-I am not going to comment on what you say about the origin of R1a and its relationship with IE, nor on your theory of the Roman elites & nobles, which I certainly find very amusing and entertaining.
4-Regarding your opinion about R1b-M269>L51>L151, I guess you haven't been following the discussion about these markers on this blog for the last few years but I have to highlight a great sentence you said
“R1a was brought to CWC on Czech and Poland MBA cause the R1a kicked R1b asses from Polish forest and then they (R1b) formed Unetice culture”
You will certainly be a protagonist in this blog for a long time, but don't worry if you think that R1a is the only lineage or main that spoke Indo-European, I might even agree with you.
@Ebizur
We have L754 all over Europe linked first to WHGs (Villabruna, Iboussieres) or Iron Gates HGs (Vlasac, Serbia) and then to certain neolithic cultures (LBK-Germany, Funnel beaker culture-Lundby Falster, Denmark, Gumelnitsa culture-Pietrele Magura Gorgana, Romania, Dereivka and Usatovo culture, Ukraine), and regarding R1b-P297 we have (all others that I know of are M73 or M269)
*MN2003 (8.534 BC)-Minino2, EHG-Sidelkino, Russia-HapY-R1b1a/1-P297
*I4630 (7.272 BC)-ZVEJ30-Zvejnieki II, Latvia_HG-HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b-M269, xY13202)
*Kivisaare3 (4.659 BC)-Kivisaare, Estonia, Baltic eneolithic-HapY-R1b-P297 (xY13202,M269)
*Tamula3 (3.718 BC)-Tamula, Estonia, Combed Ware culture-HapY-R1b-L754>P297 (xV88,V1636,M269)
@Ebizur
R-M269 dates 4400 BCE, L23 4100, only XANO30 from Myceneans had another branch, R-PF7562.
The earliest know R-L51 basal record was from PCW1000 Poland, around 2300 B.CE, several basal branches were found at Poland, with TMRCA dating 5700 YBP(3700 BCE), more than 1000 years GAP by Yfull even with the latest TMRCA estimation.
Clearly Unrelated to southern steppe, R-Z1203 and R-M12149(biggest branch) dates 3300 BC , with first around 2900 BCE, clearly R-L51 was expanded earlier than PIE but could not been found until 2300 BCE when corded Ware rise.
@Ebizur
R-L151 was the lineage related to Most Spread R1b found on Western Europe, had TMRCA from 2800 BCE and Earliest Know Individual from around 2500 BCE from Czech Republic (KO1002), being, in fact, earlier than R-L51 basal ( I was wrong at the Early assumption), meaning that it wouldn't came from Southern Steppe neither any source beyond Caucasus or Caspian Sea, probably it came from Southeast Poland , contact zone between forest Steppe, GAC and Tripolli, related to Yamnaya lineages just in time that Tripolli Raiders invaded steppe , Unrelated to any culture except Corded Ware , meaning it developed independently of Yamnaya's Culture.
R-L151TMRCA matches with the corded Ware Early stages/Late Sredny Stog and the arrival of the Classical Corded Profile , as well as R-M417 branches.
Also neither R-L23 basal was found, and strangely R1b-L151 was found first and from Czech itself, not a single intermediate earlier lineage from Eastern Euro, between those R-Z1203 and R-L151.
IMO R-L23/M269 might came from Balkans Farmers and or R-L51 was related to forest steppe southeastern Poland or it came from Farmer lineage that continuous at Central Eastern Euro, meaning a Globular Amphora absorbed or Late Tripolli
@Virgin you, Gaska and Heggarty are singing ftom the exact same hymn book:
1. Any R other than R-V88 can’t come from Neolithic farmers. Period. R1a is from forest Steppe, R1b is from Steppe. Indo-European speaking sister populations.
2. What Tripyan raiders on Yamnay? IIRC it was the other way around. Paleo-Balkans were prolly Yamnaya (Or Noruvoro-Danilevka) admixed with Tripolye.
3. The R1b clade in SGC and hence BBC is different from the one in Yamnaya, and its origin is a Corded. It’s a minority (rather than the overwhelming R1a) in that horizon and I’d be curious to know where it came from but your conclusions are nothing but something to light my BBQ on Independence Day :)
Turns out that both Botai and Tarim Mummies have much LESS East Asian aDNA than previously thought. Moreover, Botai has a considerable amount of Eastern European sourced EHG as well as R1b and R1b clades (although different than those of our forebears). Seems like Botai has a European introgression into it, even though this pop was NON-IE.
@Davidski
Sorry for flooding and sent wrong info(old reference panel)
I made some research, using late Ancients DNA data,most R1b, R1a and R2 until the Early Bronze Age (IE expansion) , and I secure that R1b found at steppe probably went between the Early Neolithic expansion from Anatolia, push northeast cause farming stock societies or even later by Trypillia raiders.
Also Progress Might been a good source for Early Indo-Anatolian settlements, probably pushed north cause Maykop invasion(Mesopotamian like society) and then return mixed with Sredny(Yamnaya).
Oldest R1a-M417 branched was found at Moldovia , likely Copper Age, mostly Comb Ceramic and Narva were R1b . R1b-M269 first appear with Yamnayas, meaning that the Lineage might been introduced or became power on Late Era.
German LBK, Iberia Cardinal, England Neolithic, Balkans and Italy all had R1b, but Baltics indeed. So or R-M269 came from Trypilla or Came from North Forest Steppe, R1b was a less common Neolithic European Haplo, R1a was rare and related to the Steppes and Border Areas .
Also one Neolithic Bulgarian R1a took my attention , R-M459 found at Bulgaria. As far as I saw, there were a region that not a single sample was found yet, from that time(Neolithic to Bronze Age) , probably where we should find the R1a hotspot, in the Middle Dnieper Area. Keep in mind that expansion means go away and abbandon the tribe, I doubt the Leaders must went to Koryos and travel abroad like Afanasievo , the elite's theory sounds nonsense to me, however I suspect that we had access to few samples from Specific Areas, can't answer everything.
R1b was common among Mesolithic and Neolithic Europeans, if we couldn't find where R-M269 came from then we should got more Ydna from Globular Amphora and Iron Gates, IMO.
Even cause Sredny R1b was the same that was found at Trypilla
@Andrze I agree , just go to this cause I want to find a explain that could solve the puzzle, the most common R1a and most common R1b couldn't be totally related to Indo Europeans before Corded Ware and it is something that makes me mind why. After studying more , cause I saw I had misunderstood something's and had access to inacurate(or old) data, then I cant even understand where on hell R-M269 came from , cause before Yamnaya there weren't any single connection to them , neither R1b Sredny , Progress or Khvalynsk, Caucasus had ni chance, Trypilla or North Steppe might been better in that case, even R1a became so rare that I start to doubt about my lineage , this Neolithic Bulgarian at a time that not a single R1a was found at steppe, several gaps on time . Is there a way the Carbon Data being wrong?
Could have been the Yfull TMRCa wrong? More distant than real TMRCA? It could help to solve some gaps
TheYtree currently has the following ancient DNA samples listed (cf. https://www.theytree.com/tree/R-P297):
R-P297(?xY13200, ?xCTS8627)
cta016_ERR4352061 (ancient DNA)
TU44 (ancient DNA from Kazakhstan)
ALN004.A0101 ERS6072386 1725+/-18ybp (ancient DNA from Kyrgyzstan, Alai / Nura I, II, Tuyuk II Burials #360/5)
RISE413 ERS699102 (ancient DNA from Armenia, mtDNA haplogroup T2c1f)
I4628 (ancient DNA from Zvejnieki, Latvia; Latvia_EN; 5302-4852 calBCE; mtDNA haplogroup U5a2d)
I4630 (ancient DNA from Zvejnieki, Latvia; Latvia_HG; 7465-7078 calBCE; mtDNA haplogroup U5a2c)
MN2003 (ancient DNA; mtDNA haplogroup U5a2)
PECH3 (ancient DNA from Pech Maho, Sigean, France; Second Iron Age 600-300 (E); mtDNA haplogroup V)
I7687 [low coverage] (ancient DNA from Gruta do Medronhal, Arrifana, Coimbra, Portugal; 1200–700 BCE; mtDNA haplogroup V)
VAD002 (ancient DNA from Valdescusa, Hervías, La Rioja, Spain; 1689–1528 cal BCE; mtDNA haplogroup J2b1a2)
R-P297 > R-CTS8627(?xM269)
I4626 (ancient DNA from Zvejnieki, Latvia; Latvia_EN; 5841-5636 calBCE; mtDNA haplogroup U2e1)
This would suggest that the East Baltic (e.g. Latvia) might currently be the strongest candidate for the region of origin of R-M269, but TheYtree appears to be extremely liberal with its calls for Y-SNPs in ancient DNA. The fact that basal branches of R-M269's sister clade, R-M73, have been found in specimens from precisely the same region also gives me pause; this could be seen to strengthen the case for an origin of R-M73 and R-M269 in the East Baltic, but it could also be seen to allow the possibility that these alleged cases of R-P297(?xY13200, ?xCTS8627) and R-CTS8627(?xM269) might in fact belong to some basal branch(es) of R-M73, and they might merely have been misclassified.
Furthermore, some basal branches of Y-DNA haplogroup R1a also have been found in hunter-gatherers from the same general region (Republic of Karelia, Vologda Oblast, etc.), so it seems plausible that early branches of R1b found in hunter-gatherer/Early Neolithic specimens in the East Baltic and early branches of R1a found in contemporaneous hunter-gatherer specimens in the area immediately to the east of the former could represent early (and now more-or-less extinct) northern offshoots of a pre-PIE population that has dwelt somewhere to their south, such as Ukraine. In other words, the actual ancestor of extant R-M269 may have dwelt precisely where proponents of the steppe hypothesis of PIE origin have suggested even if these ancient hunter-gatherer/Early Neolithic specimens from Latvia really did belong to R-P297(xY13200, xCTS8627) and R-CTS8627(xM269), respectively.
@ Ebizur
''Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-M343 appears to have produced many branches over a span of approximately 4,000 years immediately following the MRCA of all extant R1b-M343. However, the branch that has produced R-M269 seems to have emerged from a bottleneck approximately 8,000 years after the conclusion of R1b-M343's early phase of diversification.''
And moreover, this branching of PH155 and L754 occcurs from 20,000 bp, at end of the Ice Age. Therefore the brother clades must have settled a similar region during the Ice Age. The absence of pre-colonial R1b in America and the Q of Afontova Gora points to a egion west of the Yenesei
@ Gaska
''We have L754 all over Europe linked first to WHGs (Villabruna, Iboussieres) or Iron Gates HGs (Vlasac, Serbia) and then to certain neolithic cultures (LBK-Germany, Funnel beaker culture-Lundby Falster, Denmark, Gumelnitsa culture-Pietrele Magura Gorgana, Romania, Dereivka and Usatovo culture, Ukraine), and regarding R1b-P297 we have (all others that I know of are M73 ''
- WHG have ANE
- the only real Neolithic genomes with R1b are assimilated R1b-L754->V88 hunter-gatherers and a pre-Neolithic wave from the Balkans to Central Europe (whom you probelmatically clump all together into a Greater Vasconic theory)
- as others have stated, the LBK & British Neolithic R1b is a non-occurrrence. They're noon-C14-dated samples from parts of Europe rich in R1b in later periods.
- USatavo & Dereivka are in Eastern Europe and are very different to Neolithic central-western Europe.
@ Andrze
''Turns out that both Botai and Tarim Mummies have much LESS East Asian aDNA than previously thought.''
Certainly, WSHG (e.g. Tyumen) have Tagliente-WHG admixture, ~ can be modelled as 3-way admix of ANE (80% ) + ENA (10%) + WHG (10%). The occurrence of R1b-M73 in Botai speaks of migration from west to east.
However the Xiahoe horizon have no WHG admixture, suggesting their R1b-PH155 aprogenitor is from east of Urals
@Ebizur
I believe all of those Latvian HGs were derived for R1b-M73 and maybe a SNP or two downstream of it. They weren't P297*.
Rich S. wrote,
"I believe all of those Latvian HGs were derived for R1b-M73 and maybe a SNP or two downstream of it. They weren't P297*."
So, I suppose TheYtree must have missed some SNPs on the R1b-M73 branch in the case of I4628 and I4630, and they must have erroneously recognized a call for CTS8627 or some phylogenetically equivalent SNP as valid in the case of I4626. The latter pattern seems to be more typical for the curator(s) of TheYtree; I think they might be overly eager to classify ancient samples in the most derived subclade suggested by any positive call for any downstream SNP, no matter how weak their evidence for such a classification might be.
Their classification of I4626 as R-CTS8627(?xM269) is the most troubling to me. Could they really have not only mistaken some sort of postmortem DNA damage for an SNP on the R-CTS8627 branch, but also missed every SNP on the R-Y13200/R-M73 branch for which the I4626 specimen should be positive? Or is it possible that I4626 might actually be better classified as R-P297(xY13200, xCTS8627)?
@ RichS
I think you’re under-calling Smyadovo . It’s not Haplogroup F, that’s for sure
I thought Smyadovo received a higher coverage re-sequence?
Also, in Allentoft's 2022 preprint there are a number of Russian neolithic samples from the forest zone labeled R1b1a1.
Rob wrote:
"@ RichS
I think you’re under-calling Smyadovo . It’s not Haplogroup F, that’s for sure"
My response:
Maybe, but that's all Patterson et al have, and FTDNA's team, per Göran Runstrom, could not confirm a Y-DNA haplogroup for Smyadovo. Even if we ignore all that and accept that it was R1b-M269, it still had steppe DNA.
Smyadovo is a questionable sample that Gaska should quit citing as proof that R1b-M269 is a European Neolithic farmer lineage. Besides that, it has steppe DNA, so he should definitely leave it alone. Smyadovo is kind of like finding the remains of the descendant of a white mountain man buried among the Amerindians.
By the way, I don't think Smyadovo was simply F and no more, but the point is that we don't know what he was downstream of F. There is no proof he was R1b-M269. He could have been G2a, for all we know.
@ Ethan
The new seq from the Arc paper was 0.10x
Not great, but wouldn’t give a false macro-reading. I know people have said he’s at least somewhere along the line of P297/ M269
@Ebizur
As I told you in my last post the only samples relevant to this discussion that are R1b-P297* are MN2003 and I4630 and it seems that Yfull tree agrees with me. I have always thought that the most logical thing is to think of an origin of P297>M269 in the Baltic, since archaeologically the epigravetian culture recolonized northeastern Europe from its Balkan-Italian refuge. From there the EHGs of northern Russia reached Khvalynsk (V1636) following the course of the Volga River. However, the appearance of M269 in Smyadovo (4,500 BC) has complicated the situation.
*MN2003 (8.534 BC)-Minino2, EHG-Sidelkino, Russia-HapY-R1b1a/1-P297
*I4630 (7.272 BC)-ZVEJ30-Zvejnieki II, Latvia_HG-HapY-R1b1a/1a-P297 (xR1b-M269, xY13202)
Regarding the other two Baltic samples
I4626 (Zvejnieki, Latvia; Latvia_EN; 5841-5636 calBCE)- R1b-P297>Y13200>Y240021- is so far the earliest split in Y13200 clade, with only 6 derived SNPs, while for example VK531 , a LNBA sample from Norway, has 23 derived and only 3 ancestral SNPs
I4628 (Zvejnieki, Latvia; Latvia_EN; 5302-4852 calBCE)-R1b-P297>Y13200>Y240021
@Rob
Harvard/Reich lab resequenced I2181 for the Southern Arc paper. He has better coverage this time around (still low though), versus what Mathieson et al., 2018 had (0.103528 of 113471 SNPs vs 0.063 of 71542 SNPs).
Iosif Lazaridis (Harvard)-“I believe this is the oldest R-M269 currently known! Based on its coverage it could be ancestral for the two children nodes of R-M269 but no coverage. Sample-I2181, Mathieson et al. Nature (2018), Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier with Steppe ancestry from Smyadovo (4550-4455 calBCE) is “probably” R1b-M269 (xZ2103), but no calls for other branches”
Everyone knows that sample is M269, the Kurganists will have to deal with it or they may prefer to ban Reich and Lazaridis from this blog.
R1b-L754 & R1b-V88 from the Balkans-Italy migrated westward, northward and eastward. Where do you think V88 & L754 in Ukraine came from? from Siberia? The dates of these markers in Serbia are older than the Ukrainian ones (scandalously older if we talk about L754).
*I5235 (8.885 BC)-Padina-IG HGs, Serbia-HapY-R1b1b/1-V88>Y127541
*VSL004 (8.483 BC)-Vasylivka1, mesolithic, Ukraine-HapY-R1b1b-V88
*NEO677 (6.726 BC)-Vlasac-Mesolíthic-Serbia-HapY-R1b1a-L754
*I5892 (5.141 BC)-Dereivka, Grave 33-Mariupol, Sredni Stog-HapY-R1b1a-L754 (xL389)-
*MAJ009 (4.395 BC)-Majaky, cultura Usatovo culture, Ukraine-HapY-R1b-L754-Penske, 2.023
-And of course they were incorporated into the neolithic cultures of both the Balkans and central Europe-there are tons of V88 in Germany, Italy, Spain, etc, and L754 in the funnelbeaker culture (Denmark), LBK (Germany), Gumelnita culture (Romania)-We are also waiting for the paper with the Niederpöring (LBK) sample.
*PIE026 (4.458 BC)-Pietrele Măgura Gorgana, Gumelnita culture-HapY-R1b1-L754/PF6269
*NEO866 (3.507 BC)-Lundby-Falster, Funnel beaker culture, neolithic-HapY-R1b1a-L754
*XN191 (5.199 BC)-Stuttgart-Mühlhausen I-Male-HapY-R1b-L754
You should stop talking nonsense like “Greater Vasconic theory”, that makes me doubt your level of intelligence.
At least we agree on the west-east M73 migrations from the Baltic to central Asia.
@Rich S
Aren't you ashamed to write such nonsense, really? You are the only person in the world who thinks Smyadovo is F or G2a, Ha Ha Ha Ha
Your arguments that Villabruna is a dead line, that Iboussieres and ATP3 are not even R1b and that there is no L754 in LBK or FBC are just pathetic.You have only steppe on the brain
The fact that our ancestors and IE languages originated in Eastern Europe was proven beyond any reasonable doubt by 2018-2020.
Until Lazaridis, Heggarty and Gaska came along and started stirring up crap.
EthanR wrote:
"I thought Smyadovo received a higher coverage re-sequence?
Also, in Allentoft's 2022 preprint there are a number of Russian neolithic samples from the forest zone labeled R1b1a1."
My response:
On August 12th of this year I was looking for Smyadovo (I2181) in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections. When I couldn't find him, I asked FTDNA about Smyadovo. Göran Runstrom responded and told me FTDNA's team had looked at that sample but could not confirm its Y-DNA haplogroup. Here's what he wrote:
"It is a low coverage sample and we don't think there is enough evidence in the currently published data to confidently place it at R-M269. ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")
Hopefully it will be sequenced again in the future for some better clarity."
As I said, that was in August of this year.
Patterson et al also looked at I2181 for their paper, "Large-Scale Migration into Britain During the Middle to Late Bronze Age". They would not call it for anything beyond Y-DNA haplogroup F.
Even if we were to accept I2181 (Smyadovo) as R1b-M269, he had steppe DNA, as the authors of the paper it originally appeared in (Mathieson et al, 2018, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe") say on page 8:
"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years, but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it."
Pretty obviously, whether he was R1b-M269 or not (and we don't know for sure), Smyadovo was the descendant of steppe ancestors. If he was R1b-M269, then he was the Y-DNA descendant of steppe ancestors.
Gaska wrote:
"@Rich S
Aren't you ashamed to write such nonsense, really? You are the only person in the world who thinks Smyadovo is F or G2a, Ha Ha Ha Ha
Your arguments that Villabruna is a dead line, that Iboussieres and ATP3 are not even R1b and that there is no L754 in LBK or FBC are just pathetic.You have only steppe on the brain"
My response:
I never said I think I2181 (Smyadovo) is simply F or G2a. I said that I2181 is a low coverage sample that could not be confidently called for anything beyond F, which is why it does not appear in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections or in its Time Tree.
Speaking of "steppe on the brain", Smyadovo, regardless of his Y-DNA haplogroup, had steppe on the genome. I would be perfectly happy to accept him as R1b-M269. As a matter of fact, that is what I thought he was until FTDNA's Göran Runstrom told me that FTDNA cannot confidently confirm that, and then I found that Patterson et al could not call Smyadovo's Y-DNA haplogroup for anything beyond F.
But R1b-M269 for Smyadovo would suit me just fine, because if he was R1b-M269, that would pretty obviously make him the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe ancestor who only made it as far "west" as far eastern Bulgaria near the west coast of the Black Sea.
If Villabruna weren't a dead end, there wouldn't be a huge gap in time between him and the subsequent appearance of R1b-M269 in Europe west of the steppe. Of course, Villabruna could have some connection to the PF6323 lineage that V88 is on, but we don't know, because Villabruna could not be confirmed for L761, the next step downstream from L754.
Iboussieres cannot be called for any kind of R, which is why it too does not appear in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connection or its Time Tree.
ATP3 is a lousy, low coverage sample. It is not R1b-M269. The authors of the paper it originally appeared in could not call any Y-DNA haplogroup for it, and that's the way it remains in Reich's anno file. The only person who ever thought it was R1b-M269, besides you and a couple of other Basque-wannabe partisans, was Genetiker. He was behind the spurious M269 call way back when, which was shot down almost immediately by everybody else.
Try something new and think for a minute. If ATP3 were really M269, shouldn't other, better-quality M269 samples dating back to before the arrival of Beaker circa 2500 BC have appeared in Iberia by now? But they haven't, not a single one. That's because M269 did not arrive in Iberia until it was brought there, along with steppe DNA, by Beaker around 2500 BC.
There is no L754 in LBK or Funnel Beaker unless V88 or some related PF6323 lineage has been found in those cultures.
Here's another thing. If peninsular Europe were just lousy with L754 WHGs and, subsequently, L754 Neolithic farmers, why is it no one besides you has noticed? Why do none of the actual experts, Reich, Lazaridis, etc., say that? Why do they regard R1b-M269 as a steppe pastoralist lineage that didn't really start showing up in peninsular Europe in any numbers until the third millennium BC?
Could it be they are not Basque-wannabe partisans blinded by rabid ethno-nationalist prejudice?
Why is it FTDNA's Globetrekker map does not show L754 as originating in peninsular Europe (i.e., Europe west of the steppe)? Did the folks at FTDNA read what Davidski wrote about Villabruna probably belonging to a Y-DNA lineage that originated on the steppe? Maybe they did.
By the way, punctuating one’s posts with “Ha Ha Ha Ha” is the mark of a complete moron - or a teenage girl.
Most present-day Yakut males belong to N-M2103 (TMRCA 1,391 [95% CI 1,835 - 1,043] ybp according to FTDNA). Yana Young/Yana Medieval (1053 - 1259 CE) has been assigned to N-M2103 > N-M1991, so that sets a terminus ante quem for the arrival of Yakut ancestors in Yakutia. Some present-day members of N-M2103 self-identify as Evenk or Even, but one might explain those cases away as maternal transmission of ethnic identity despite having a Yakut forefather.
Looking back from the MRCA of N-M2103, the nearest known outgroup appears to be N-FT411801, which has been found in a couple Mongols in Hulunbuir. The MRCA of N-M2103 and N-FT411801 is N-M1993 (TMRCA 2,335 [95% CI 2,962 - 1,829] ybp according to FTDNA).
The next nearest known outgroup appears to be N-BY178126, which has been found in an individual from Kazakhstan, an individual from Uzbekistan, and a Han Chinese individual from Xichuan County, Henan. The MRCA of N-BY178126 and N-M1993 is N-M2016 (TMRCA 2,836 [95% CI 3,554 - 2,253] ybp according to FTDNA).
The third nearest known outgroups appear to be N-A9408 (TMRCA 3,478 [95% CI 4,413 - 2,725] ybp according to FTDNA) and N-MF36044/N-Y303259/N-FT144877 (TMRCA 3700 ybp according to 23mofang). N-A9408 is subdivided into two major subclades: N-Y77895 (TMRCA 3320 ybp according to 23mofang), which has been found in China (approximately 0.16% of the national male population, concentrated in Shaanxi, Shanxi, Henan, Hebei, and other provinces according to 23mofang) and Korea, and N-PH106 (TMRCA 2,547 [95% CI 3,310 - 1,941] ybp according to FTDNA), which has been found in early medieval Hungary and late medieval Turkey as well as in modern Turkey, Lebanon, Bulgaria, Croatia, Hungary, and Russia. N-MF36044/N-Y303259/N-FT144877 is very rare and has been found in a present-day Han individual from Jilin, a present-day Han individual from Zhenyuan County, Gansu, and a present-day individual from Hubei in addition to KD-16 (Middle Avar period Hungary, ca. 700 CE) and Burentogtoh 6365/I6365 (Early Iron Age, Slab Grave, 809 - 779 BCE, Khövsgöl Province, Mongolia) according to TheYtree, 23mofang, and YFull. The MRCA of N-M2016, N-A9408, and N-MF36044/N-Y303259/N-FT144877 is N-M2058 (TMRCA 3,589 [95% CI 4,385 - 2,929] ybp according to FTDNA).
Finally, there are a few scattered cases of N-M2019(xM2058): one from Estonia, one from Bhutan, perhaps ten from China according to 23mofang, and possibly the following ancient DNA samples: Kaba 16 (Early Avar, 600 - 700 CE, Kaba, Hungary), Karos 2-51 (Medieval Magyar, 895 - 950 CE, Karos, Hungary), Sharga Uul 2 (Medieval Mongol, 1300 - 1400 CE, Sukhbaatar, Mongolia). (FTDNA also has Burentogtoh 6365/I6365 from 809 - 779 BCE Khövsgöl Province, Mongolia assigned to N-M2019(xM2058), but FTDNA does not currently have N-MF36044/N-Y303259/N-FT144877 tabulated on their tree, and they might have missed or ignored M2058 or an equivalent SNP in the Y-DNA data for Burentogtoh 6365.) The TMRCA of N-M2019 is currently estimated by FTDNA to be 3,699 (95% CI 4,511 - 3,025) ybp.
Overall, I find the distribution of N-M2019 more difficult to interpret than the distribution of N-F4205. I suppose in a word one might describe it as appearing to have dispersed via the steppe at some point in time, but every branch other than the predominantly Yakut N-M2103 is quite rare. The MRCA of N-M2019 and N-L1026 according to FTDNA is N-CTS9239 (TMRCA 6,639 [95% CI 7,595 - 5,803] ybp), to which FTDNA has assigned the Y-DNA of the Kyordyughen 1 specimen (Late Neolithic Central Yakutia, 2832 - 2474 BCE). The mother clade of N-CTS9239 is N-M2005 (TMRCA 7,108 [95% CI 8,131 - 6,214] ybp), to which FTDNA has assigned the Y-DNA of the Kadalinka 3 specimen from Middle Neolithic Zabaikalsky Krai, 4690 - 4519 BCE), but N-CTS9239 and N-M2005 are also ancestral to N-F4205.
I guess N-M2019 also should have originated in some part of Siberia or Mongolia, but I cannot clearly discern how its early geographic distribution may have differed from that of N-F4205.
@Davidski
Could you make G25 coordinates out of those BuranKaya plink files?
https://ufile.io/f/y17mv
I know they are low coverage, but maybe you can make something out of the biggest one (BK3C is ~40k SNPs) or even the 2nd (BK3A merged is ~20k SNPs)
Thanks!
Not enough data.
@Davidski
ok that settles it.
Thanks
@Elbizar
I agree that it could be a candidate, however the clearly contact between Danubian Groups and Mesolithic/Late Neolithic Steppe Groups(depends on the sense you use) suggest us that those groups could either been the founder of some lineage or theirs migration could explain why some HG were kicked from Balkans to Dnipro Rapids.
Some basal and parallel lineages of R1b could been found at Steppe Neolithic/Early Neo, but not before it, and also Neolithic had clearly changed the Y profile of Steppe cultures. However, only non R-M269 could been found before the end of calcolithic, meaning that this Lineage,as founder earlier, could been from a Unsapled area, I mind North Forest Steppe Zone, either Northern than Derievka (something eastern), what we call Middle Dnipro , the same area that the first corded ceramic was found(Phase II Sredny). The classical IE probably wasn't the Indo Anatolian, as this group was the first to diverge, probably related to progress, like armenian and Urartian could been? IMO Bug Dniester already Spoken a sort of Archaic Proto Indo European, as well as Samara Don/Khvalynsk, as well as other Steppe cultures. David Anthony had this comprehension before those genetical studies, as we could see on The Language, the Wheel and the Horse, and I mostly agreed, except from some places, imo Northern groups, such as Comb Ceramic, had deeply connection to Archaic Proto Indo European, like Classical Celt and italic from Iron Age Urnfield . EHG probably was the founder of the first elements that later envolved into Archaic Proto Indo European then Proto Indo European .
That bullshit model that included IVC simple represent something that was Unrelated to IVC, in fact we already knew that Indo Anatolia diverge before 4000 BC and archaic Proto Indo European had, at least, 7.000 years or something like it.
Dnieper Donets was the first culture to resemble some elements of Proto Indo European, as well as Khvalynsk and progress, meaning that on that point we start to seen what is call Proto Indo European Dialects. Classical Proto Indo European was probably developed around the Late Copper Age, independently but more related to sredny groups, so Indo Anatolian wasn't classical PIE.
It could explain better.
Just keep in mind that Old Europe(included Trypilla) was the most advanced society on Europe at that time, and had substancial impact on PIE since the beginning of Dnipro Donetsk and cultural ties with Khvalynsk/Samara, etc..
Also Maykop wasn't PIE but had relations with trade and copper difusion indeed. Maykop was highly related to Mesopotamia.
Só PIE came from the edges of the most advanced Societies at that time. Like the Franks, barbarians on the borders of Roman Empire.
@Rich S.
As we should notice, the highest R1b related DNA was found on Carpathian basin since the Iron Ages, and mostly from Eastern Carpathian, same area that Trypilla came from, LBK had several parallel groups, more than you want I should say, and several low coverage, as you noticed, from Cardinal to Iron Gates, Trypilla, Narva, Kunda, Comb Ceramic, it was common as f, came from ANE expansion during LGM but wasn't related exclusively to Eastern Euro like R1a. Bug Dniester was probably R1a and I2a2, meaning that Archaic PIE first speakers were R1a and I2a2, some unrelated branches of R1b indeed, common among Khvalynsk and Progress, meaning that probably Late Neo)Neo contacts with Danubian Farmers or HG spelled from that area, was probably the founder effect of R1b-M269 ancestral line on steppe before copper metal working was introduced (at Single portions) there /the concept of Early Neolithic that eastern euros used.
LoL do you imagine that before yamnaya they simple had no language or were speakers of one unrelated language?
LoL PIE was a process of Linguistic evolution diverging to a common ANE language probably ,we can only imagine, but some related customs were found between Native Americans and PIE, since they shared ancestry up to 10-15K YBP. Probably ANE+ Unknown HG made the EHG, WHG(Villabruna profile) ,etc.. those group related to Dzudzuana Cave group(without Basal Eurasian influence) and was Unrelated to Gravettian (as far as we should notice) , the group that was the ancestor's of 2/3 ANE origin, I suspect it came from Anatolia(but I could been wrong about some proportion that I said).
EHG probably had spoken a sort of Para-archaic PIE language , we won't know it but we could imagine.
R1b being mostly WHG not EHG suggest us Indo European language was later related to them, thus not meaning that it wasn't PIE but wasn't the source of PIE, or do you think that Danubian Farmers spoke PIE?
Except by some older lineages, that weren't related to Yamnaya R-Z1203 or Corded R-L151 , probably came from Early Danubian Groups(Linear A for example), the ancestor's of Trypilla and Old Europe itself, Matriarcal, Neolithic, Mediterranean as Classical authors said.
Classical author's of Physical Anthropology said that corded Ware was the proto Indo European culture(proto Nordic), and came from the Mixture between Aurignacoid Phenotype and Kurganoid despigmentation, being a despigmented Mediterranean Aurignacoid, as some phenotypes were related to sedentarization of Hunter and Gathers, such as Alpine and Baltid, some suggested Alpine came from West Asian Sedentary individuals.
I know it was pseudo science, but in some degree wasn't fake at all.
Farmers were kore populated so could explain why low r1a was found at Southern steppe before first Neolithic practices were adopted lol, imo PIE was more Danubian Base farming than we excepted before , using yamnaya profile as source. Early Maybe corded was better profile, but neither was perfect , since none was the purest and it wasn't a homogeneous group at all
Earliest know R1a related to steppe was found at the first calcolithic contacts between PIE and Danubians, I guess that it suggest us it was already present at some groups of Steppe at Early Neolithic, we should get more samples from Middle Dnieper Area before assumptions, also R1a from Moldova just after Trypilla start to collapse suggest us that the first attacks probably came from this R1a-Related group it. R1b was already very common before Bronze Age, R1a not , even R-M269 was common among some areas until later copper age, R1a literally conquest everywhere, that bias conclusion that r1a simple became the most common at later stages was fake, Scandinavian Battle Axe and Baltic, as well as fatyanovo and even some Corded from Germany were earlier expanded than R1b-L151, specifically about Czech and Poland could been simple conquest from Baltic/Middle Dnieper groups or even Scandinavian.
Even unetice had R1a , r1b, in fact, was later Expanded into Western Euro during Bell Beaker Time, probably by a massive Founder effect. And probably became more common as the centuries passed, reducing R1a-L664 and Z284 incidence on Central Euro and Scandinavia , what happened in the last example during Jastorf era or even later, since R1a-Z284 was very common among Vikings, even I1 was probably a later founder effect . For me, except from Yannayas and Parallel Progress Related Indo Anatolians, r1a was probably the lineage related to Elites, then been replaced on Central Euro and Western by Eastern Beaker's or IE Beaker's groups, descendant from Mixed Corded Ware from Czech Republic and Atlantic Megalhitic-Rich Beaker's ,even we need more Globular Amphora samples cause first R-L151 was found on Czech Republic and wasn't common among Corded Wares from any other areas(Except Poland and Czech republic).
Considering low coverage r1b from LBK and Czech Neolithic and R-M269 probably came from First Neolithic Danubian Groups.
A point about Y-DNA haplogroup N that deserves repeating is that the split between North Asian subclades and East Asian/Southeast Asian subclades tends to be very thorough and fairly ancient.
Subclades of N-M231 in China in descending order of approximate frequency according to 23mofang:
N-M1819 (TMRCA 7520 ybp, 5375 members) 2.38% [Roughly "Sino-Tibetan" in distribution. Seems to have been very common among people in some sites attributed to the Zongri culture in Qinghai i.e. Upper Yellow River Neolithic.]
N-CTS582 (TMRCA 13720 ybp, 3356 members) 1.24% [Remnants of Early Neolithic people of Shandong? Now found mainly among Han Chinese, Manchus, and Mongols in China.]
N-F1101 (TMRCA 7890 ybp, 2742 members) 1.08% [Remnants of Early Neolithic people of Northwest China or the Sino-Mongolian border zone? Some have speculated that the royal family of Zhou may have belonged to the major subclade N-M128.]
N-F4063 (TMRCA 7070 ybp, 1976 members) 0.75% [Most basal branch of N-M46/N-Tat. Remnants of Early Neolithic people of Northeast China? Appears to peak in Koreans among present-day ethnic groups.]
N-MF14176 (TMRCA 13420 ybp, 1316 members) 0.51% [Nearest outgroup to N-M46/N-Tat. Present-day distribution seems to be limited to China.]
N-M2058 (TMRCA 4020 ybp, 470 members) 0.21% [Currently peaks in Yakut. Most members in China belong to a certain mainly Chinese and Korean subclade.]
N-F4205 (TMRCA 3490 ybp, 150 members) 0.07% [Currently peaks in Buryat. In China, this clade seems to be found in greatest proportion among ethnic Mongols, among whom it accounts for approximately 2.1% of all Y-DNA. However, those ethnic Mongol members of N-F4205 should account for only about 0.01% of the total population of males in the PRC, so the other approximtely 0.06% of males in the PRC who belong to N-F4205 should currently belong to other ethnic groups, such as Han.]
N-P43 (TMRCA 4530 ybp, 129 members) 0.06% [Currently peaks in Nenets and Nganasan. In China, this clade seems to be found in greatest proportion among ethnic Mongols, among whom it accounts for approximately 2.0% of all Y-DNA.]
The eight subclades of N-M231 listed above should account in total for about 6.30% of all Chinese males. 23mofang has estimated that N-M231 should account for about 6.43% of the Chinese national male population, so only about 0.13% of all males in China should belong to subclades of N-M231 besides the eight listed above. About one third of the 0.13% "Other N-M231" in China (or about 0.04% of all Chinese males) should belong to N-M2126(xM2058, F4205), and 23mofang's estimate of the TMRCA of N-M2126 is 7420 ybp.
Of the eight major subclades of N-M231 found in China, only the last three (N-M2058, N-F4205, N-P43) are typically found north of the Gobi Desert. The sum of 23mofang's estimates for those three subclades plus the 0.04% of Chinese males who should belong to N-M2126(xM2058, F4205) is only 0.38%, and many of those are in fact ethnic Mongols or Manchus:
Ethnic Mongols in China according to 23mofang
9/1521 = 0.59% N-M2058
32/1521 = 2.10% N-F4205
31/1521 = 2.04% N-P43
3/1521 = 0.20% N-M2126(xM2058, F4205)
75/1521 = 4.93% "Mongol/Siberian N" total
Ethnic Manchus in China according to 23mofang
5/2938 = 0.17% N-M2058
5/2938 = 0.17% N-F4205
8/2938 = 0.27% N-P43
11/2938 = 0.37% N-M2126(xM2058, F4205)
29/2938 = 0.99% "Mongol/Siberian N" total
As for the five major subclades of N-M231 in China that are not of obvious Mongol/Siberian origin or affinity, the most recent common ancestor of each with a Mongol/Siberian clade is as follows:
N-M1819 (2.38% of Chinese males) 20030 ybp (TMRCA of N1-F963)
N-CTS582 (1.24% of Chinese males) 20030 ybp (TMRCA of N1-F963)
N-F1101 (1.08% of Chinese males) 10250 ybp (TMRCA with N-P43 in N-L666)
N-F4063 (0.75% of Chinese males) 12810 ybp (TMRCA of N-M46)
N-MF14176 (0.51% of Chinese males) 16780 ybp (TMRCA with N-M46 in N-F2584)
So, most Chinese members of N-M231 belong to branches that have split with branches found north of the Gobi Desert more than ten thousand years ago, in the Paleolithic era (or possibly on the cusp of the Early Neolithic in the case of the split between N-F1101 and N-P43). Typically East/Southeast Asian branches of N-M231 should account for a total of about 6% of all Chinese males, whereas typically Mongol/Siberian branches of N-M231 should account for a total of only about 0.4% of all Chinese males. "Northern N" and "Southern N" are more sharply divided in regard to present-day distribution than "Northern C2" and "Southern C2," although the phylogenetic split between "Northern C2" and "Southern C2" is deeper than the phylogenetic split between "Northern N" and "Southern N."
@Davidski
I think those Dogon and Bambara samples I sent you a while back might be quite noisy and admixed. Maybe they should be removed from the sheets
I found these samples for the Bambara and many other African populations from Anthrogenica
https://pastebin.com/raw/0RULKzyu
Virgin wrote:
"@Rich S.
As we should notice, the highest R1b related DNA was found on Carpathian basin since the Iron Ages, and mostly from Eastern Carpathian, same area that Trypilla came from, LBK had several parallel groups, more than you want I should say, and several low coverage, as you noticed, from Cardinal to Iron Gates, Trypilla, Narva, Kunda, Comb Ceramic, it was common as f, came from ANE expansion during LGM but wasn't related exclusively to Eastern Euro like R1a."
I take it "Iron Ages" is a typo and you meant "Iron Gates". Anyway, that is obviously incorrect. The Carpathian Basin isn't an R1b hotspot, except maybe for some Z2103 from Yamnaya that settled and were buried there. You seem to keep implying, when you're not outright saying, that R1b-M269 came from Trypillia, but there is absolutely no evidence of that whatsoever. The Y-DNA we have from Trypillia is typical European Neolithic farmer stuff: G2a, I2, and C1. Trypillian skeletal remains are generally of the Mediterranean type typical of European Neolithic farmers: small in stature, gracile, and with long heads (dolichocephalic). That is not the case with most M269 remains, which have the taller, more robust skeletons of men of the Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Corded Ware, and Beaker cultures.
R1b-M269 is not a Neolithic farmer lineage and has never been found without steppe DNA. When it finally appears in peninsular Europe, it is always in steppe pastoralist cultures or steppe pastoralist-derived cultures. It pretty obviously is Eastern European in origin.
@Davidski
Hey could G25 coordinatese for these Thailand samples be made?
https://www.mediafire.com/file/zei6ui8kfq7ft3o/Thailand_Iron_Age.zip/file
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB59488
Virgin wrote:
". . . LBK had several parallel groups, more than you want I should say, and several low coverage, as you noticed, from Cardinal to Iron Gates, Trypilla, Narva, Kunda, Comb Ceramic, it was common as f, came from ANE expansion during LGM but wasn't related exclusively to Eastern Euro like R1a."
My response:
Sorry to address a second post to this, but it took a second look for me to realize some of what you seem to be saying. What was "common as f" among all those groups you named? Certainly not R1b-M269. There were V88 HGs at the Iron Gates (on a line separated from the line R1b-M269 is on by about 17,000 years), no R1b of any kind in Trypillia thus far (it is mostly G2a, with a little I2 and C1), none in LBK, and Narva/Kunda belonged to M73 subclades and were HGs, probably descendants of HGs who followed Russian river valleys to the Baltic. What R1b has been found in Comb Ceramic? None that I know of.
"[C]ommon as f" can only be applied to R1b when referring to its presence in steppe pastoralist and steppe pastoralist-derived Indo-European groups.
@ Norfern , crashdoc
Do you happen to have prepped (ind/geno/snp) files for Buran Kaya ?
@Ebizur
The N Question reduces to only two realities. One, N1b cannot realistically be used as evidence against the distribution of N1a. Two, the Han should have better maintained their northern distribution versus numerous retreats over the millennia which have allowed for a very significant percentage of the artificial divide between the "Siberian" and "Chinese" clades of N1a. I shouldn't have to add that N, O-M134 and O-M176 altogether appear to constitute a classic Northeast Asian trio in addition to however many clades of C2 and perhaps D.
@Norfern
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1LWY53iEyTv5mPsVnKCNANPu1KDOs8Zpq/view?usp=sharing
@Rob
See my post about 15 posts above yours for the link for BuranKaya
@Davidski Is it possible that Yamnaya is actually more related to Kostenki than to ANE?
Yamnaya isn't closely related to either Kostenki or ANE.
But in terms of deep phylogeny it's probably about equidistant from both.
@Rich S
I guess that you should see the new samples, also no Baltic HG/Narva/Kunda migration went to steppe during that era, but Iron Gates indeed, and it was well documented, also R1b became common upon steppe after Danubian Farmers had contact with Bug Dnieper. Not only older R1b were found there, in fact basal lines to that could been found, your ancestor just was too late to directly related meaning that he probably diverged from a minor lineage that wasn't found yet, but as it was more common than Baltic and became higher after Farmer contact, I keep this option as the most probably. You just couldn't directly relate their lineages to yours, but they had basal, cause you simple couldn't find the intermediare profiles of R-M269, not a single before Yamnaya, even r1b was uncommon before Neolithic Dnieper Donetsk, i suggest you to mind about it .
@davidski
Thanks for the coordinates, if you have something new about north Italians IA and could share with us, I m certain that Cisalpine Gauls resemble Iron Age Italics(cause they might been between Southeast Alpine Gauls, Austria La Tene and Helveti profile/Alsatian+Switzerland IA), and thanks the larping Pandania would stop.
My best friend is fully North Italian, and he fits well with Iron Age Italics DNA +Anatolian-(minor Phoenician) from Imperial Migrations and some minor Germanic. Italians must been more pride of been Romans than try to be like Northwest Europeans (Insular "Celts). Literally a offense to theirs ancestor's.
@Davidski considering the first IE line at Later Copper/Early Bronze Age Central European corded Was R1a , Scandinavian and Eastern Euro was totally R1a related, and r1b became more common after Eastern Beaker's/Unetice expanded , could several R-L664 lineages been simple extincted? Like lines that could been related to those groups, other branches indeed. How did they say that R1b was more common on first corded s only for Some Czech and Polish samples? Even single grave was R1a Rich, meaning that North Beaker's got more DNA from R1a influence than R1b. Considering 13k tmrca we had no motivation to assume that R1b wasn't Atlantic Megalhitic Iberian Beaker's . It was present on Cardinal pottery, if we could proves that it came from Iron Gates than we should, at least, considering that bell beakers came from those Basque Pré Europeans , as Quilles loves.
@ Crashdoc - Thanks
@ Ebizur
''A point about Y-DNA haplogroup N that deserves repeating is that the split between North Asian subclades and East Asian/Southeast Asian subclades tends to be very thorough and fairly ancient.''
I think your'e significantly over-estimating the split of Y-hg N, which is ~ 7000 BC, going by aDNA data points.
It's epicentre is undoubtedly Lake Baikal, and I even contemplate that that N-F2905 ("N4'' in Illumae) could be a migration from there to back toward Neolithic northeastern China (*)
All other sub-lineages of Y-hg N in China must be recent historic movements of northern peoples intergrating into Han Chinese
''I guess N-M2019 also should have originated in some part of Siberia or Mongolia, but I cannot clearly discern how its early geographic distribution may have differed from that of N-F4205.''
possible, but the sheer paucity of N-M2019 and other N lineages in relatively well sampled Mongolia makes this a challenging proposal. They appear to be singletons, drifting south from Baikalia and southern parts of central-eastern Siberia.
(*) in Deep terms, however, I would place the origins of N* in northeastern China. Somehow it made it's way to Baikalia, from where it expanded & hence underwent phylogenetic branching & expansion. Probably related to some post-LGM / pottery innovation migration evenet(s). Oddly by-passed much of central-east Mongolia & the Amur region.
@Virgin
I'm not sure what you're saying there exactly, but R1a and R1b-L51 were both present in early Corded Ware.
R1a was present in early Baltic and Polish Corded Ware, while R1b-L51 was present in early Bohemian Corded Ware.
Really early German Corded Ware hasn't been sampled yet, but my guess is that when it is it'll show both R1a and R1b-L51.
So I think it's safe to say that both R1a and R1b-L51 were present in the post-Sredny Stog/proto-Corded Ware homeland somewhere on the steppe, probably in western Ukraine.
Bell Beakers appear to be an offshoot of Upper Rhine Corded Ware, which is also called Single Grave culture.
I know that at least one yet to be published Single Grave culture sample from the Netherlands does indeed belong to R1b-L51.
I don't know what Carlos Quiles thinks about this, nor do I care.
#ISBA tweets leaking out, although I can't see any of the presentations whose abstracts really grabbed my attention, yet - https://nitter.net/search?q=%23ISBA10
Rob wrote,
"I think your'e significantly over-estimating the split of Y-hg N, which is ~ 7000 BC, going by aDNA data points."
What are these aDNA data points?
"All other sub-lineages of Y-hg N in China must be recent historic movements of northern peoples intergrating into Han Chinese"
On what grounds do you claim this? You are aware of the finding of N-CTS582 in specimens from the Paleolithic-to-Neolithic transition period in Shandong (Bianbiandong, Boshan, Xiaojingshan) and N-M1819 in specimens attributed to the Neolithic Zongri culture of the Upper Yellow River in Qinghai and in specimens attributed to the Neolithic Longshan culture in Henan (Pingliangtai), correct?
How would you explain the lack or extreme dearth of N-CTS582 and N-M1819 among present-day people dwelling north of the Gobi? For that matter, has any member of either of these clades ever been found in an archaeological specimen from north of the Gobi?
"possible, but the sheer paucity of N-M2019 and other N lineages in relatively well sampled Mongolia makes this a challenging proposal. They appear to be singletons, drifting south from Baikalia and southern parts of central-eastern Siberia."
What region would you propose for the origin of N-M2019 that would not overlap with my proposal ("Siberia or Mongolia")?
One must keep in mind that (mainly Yakutian) N-M2019 > N-M2058 > N-M2016 has a sister clade, N-A9408, that has split into a mainly Ugric (and steppe Turkic?) subclade (i.e. N-PH106) and a mainly Chinese and Korean subclade (i.e. N-Y71697) not long after the MRCA of N-M2058. Such a distribution should be consistent with an origin of N-M2058 in Siberia or Mongolia, places which lie between China and Korea on one side and the Urals on another. N-M2019 is not significantly older than N-M2058. The origin of N-M2019 might not be very far from Yakutia, for that matter.
@ Ebiuzr
''What are these aDNA data points?''
The ancient DNA evidence; read the paper, plot the site , date & clade. Analogue pencil & paper methodology :)
''You are aware of the finding of N-CTS582 in specimens from the Paleolithic-to-Neolithic transition period in Shandong (Bianbiandong, Boshan, Xiaojingshan) and N-M1819 in specimens attributed to the Neolithic Zongri culture of the Upper Yellow River in Qinghai and in specimens attributed to the Neolithic Longshan culture in Henan (Pingliangtai), correct?''
Do you really consider ~7000 bc as 'Paleolithic' ?
But yes I am, ftDNA have placed them all within N-Z4871,. As I said above, thats under N-F2905 ("N4'' in Illumae).
''How would you explain the lack or extreme dearth of N-CTS582 and N-M1819 among present-day people dwelling north of the Gobi? For that matter, has any member of either of these clades ever been found in an archaeological specimen from north of the Gobi?''
Both of those lineages are under 'N4'. So this is the only plausible 'Chinese' sub-branch
Then, we have the outclade 'N5' found in Baikal & Botai; N2 and N3 in Baikal, and regions north. I said i would ‘contemplate’ that as N4 tracing a movement from somewhere west + founder effect, with subsequent branching in situ in the northern Chinese river basins
''One must keep in mind that (mainly Yakutian) N-M2019 > N-M2058 > N-M2016 has a sister clade, N-A9408, that has split into a mainly Ugric (and steppe Turkic?) subclade (i.e. N-PH106) and a mainly Chinese and Korean subclade (i.e. N-Y71697) not long after the MRCA of N-M2058. Such a distribution should be consistent with an origin of N-M2058 in Siberia or Mongolia, places which lie between China and Korea on one side and the Urals on another. N-M2019 is not significantly older than N-M2058. The origin of N-M2019 might not be very far from Yakutia, for that matter.''
aDNA would be needed to rationalise that
So far, apart from N4, other N lineages in Mongolia & China (regardless of the Gobi) are LBA occurrences + younger
'What region would you propose for the origin of N-M2019 that would not overlap with my proposal ("Siberia or Mongolia")?''
For most of the sub-clades within, areas capable of giving Kolyma_mes related admixture
Mongolia does not qualify for this. And given that it is a completely different ecotone to the other, there's no point mincing our words.
OT How much irreversible damage - environment + physical- do you think the war on Ukraine is doing to potentially historic sites that would’ve been crucial to uncovering our forebears’ history and ethnogenesis?
@Virgin
"I m certain that Cisalpine Gauls resemble Iron Age Italics(cause they might been between Southeast Alpine Gauls, Austria La Tene and Helveti profile/Alsatian+Switzerland IA), and thanks the larping Pandania would stop."
The sample previously known as CHE_IA:SX18 is now labelled as Switzerland_EBA_2:TU905_SX18, so it seems to have been C14 dated to the EBA (?). In any case it shouldn't be used as a Swiss Iron Age specimen anymore.
What exactly the Cisalpine Gauls were like depends on two factors, both uncertain: 1. What the transalpine source populations were like, and 2. To what extent they admixed with local pops in Northern Italy.
The first point is problematic because there is still a dearth of Gaulish-Celtic La Tene specimens from France. The samples from Alsace may be Triboci, i.e. a Germanic admixed tribe. The samples from Occitanie are from the extreme south, as are the samples from Southeastern France. Hauts_de_France_IA2 is definitely Belgic, probably the Remi. And the samples from Lorraine_IA2 may be the Catalauni; the latter are of uncertain affiliation. Caesar didn't mention them in his book on the Gaulish war. They may have been either part of the Belgic Remi or of the Gaulish Lingones; archaeologically the former is more likely.
The second point is problematic, too, because we simply don't know.
At least there is a palpably Celtic individual from Etruscan Vetulonia:
Italy_Tuscany_Grosseto_Etruscan_oSteppe:VET005
Compared to modern populations, he's closest to French_Nord, while compared to ancient populations, he's closest to Slovakia_LIA_LaTene; in fact, this may be Boii. But how typical VET005 was for the average Cisalpine Gauls remains to be seen.
In any case, neither him, nor the Hallstatt Celts from Alsace are picked by Vahaduo to model modern Emilians:
Target: Italian_Emilia
Distance: 0.8231% / 0.00823118
34.6 Italy_IA_Republic.SG
22.6 Hungary_Langobard
16.4 Italy_IsolaSacra_RomanImperial.SG
14.0 Italy_Imperial.SG
7.2 Italy_IA_Republic_o.SG
5.2 Italy_Pompeii_Roman.SG
Virgin wrote:
"@Rich S
I guess that you should see the new samples, also no Baltic HG/Narva/Kunda migration went to steppe during that era, but Iron Gates indeed, and it was well documented, also R1b became common upon steppe after Danubian Farmers had contact with Bug Dnieper . . ."
My response:
I know Davidski answered you well, but you did address your post to me, so I will chip in my two cents.
First, I didn't say Narva/Kunda went to the steppe. I said those M73 HGs were likely descendants of Russian HGs who followed river valleys west or northwest to the Baltic. For example, R1b-P297 has been found in Minino, Vologda Oblast, Russia, well east of the Baltic, in a Russian Mesolithic HG dated to 8634-8393 BC, older than any of those Narva/Kunda samples (sample MN2003 from Posth et al, 2023). He wasn't M73, but he was P297, upstream of M73, and he predates any of that Baltic M73 stuff.
Next, please try to understand and remember that those Iron Gates HGs were V88, and V88 is on a line (PF6323) that separated from the line (L389) M269 is on about 17,000 years ago. That's a long, long time. The prefix "R1b" does not signify that two lines that separated that long ago are closely related and share the same historical and cultural trajectory. V88 went west and south well before the rest of R1b did. Some V88 even went to the Middle East and some of it even ended up among Chadic speakers in Africa. It's a whole different thing from the rest of R1b, with a whole different (and rather strange) story. Try not to be confused by it.
R1b has not been found among Danubian farmers, unless some V88 I don't know about has been found among them, which I doubt. So, R1b was not brought to the steppe by Danubian farmers. If you have followed ancient DNA, you understand that there is plenty of European Neolithic farmer DNA in the catalog by now. In terms of Y-DNA it is largely G2a, with some I2 and a few other non-R1b haplogroups that represent native European HGs who adopted farming and animal husbandry. Even V88 is relatively rare among European Neolithic farmers, although there are a few examples of it. You should also understand that, in terms of anthropology, most European Neolithic farmers belonged to what is called the Mediterranean physical type: they were small in stature, with gracile skeletons and long (dolichocephalic) skulls.
R1b-M269, on the other hand, on a line (L389), as I said, separated from the line (PF6323) V88 is on by about 17,000 years, has never yet appeared in the ancient record without steppe DNA. It is unknown among European Neolithic farmers. If Smyadovo (I2181), who was found among Neolithic farmers in eastern Bulgaria, was M269, which is not confirmed, remember he was classed as an outlier. He had steppe DNA, which means he was the descendant of steppe migrants. Think of it this way. If we found a body buried in North Dakota among Amerindians of the 19th century AD, and that body had Scots-Irish DNA and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-M222, would we then believe that R1b-M222 is an Amerindian lineage, or instead that a white man or the descendant of white people had lived and been buried among Amerindians? The answer is pretty obvious.
When R1b-M269 finally appears in the ancient record, it is always accompanied by steppe DNA and in steppe pastoralist and steppe pastoralist-derived cultural contexts, like Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Corded Ware, and Bell Beaker. The skeletons of those peoples were mostly not of the Mediterranean physical type. They were taller and more robust, and some of them, especially among the Beaker people, had broad (brachycephalic) skulls.
Your posts remind me of stuff I was reading back in about 2010 or so. You still seem to be laboring under the old R1b-from-the-west mythos, probably because you prefer that.
Rob,
The Bianbian Cave specimen is about 10,000 - 9,600 years old (7941–7605 cal. BC [95.4%]), and the archeology of the site suggests a reliance on hunting. Its context has been described precisely as "Terminal Paleolithic" or "Late Paleolithic" by certain authors and as "Initial Neolithic" or "Early Neolithic" by certain other authors. The TMRCA of extant members of N-CTS582 is 13720 ybp according to 23mofang or 12,186 (95% CI 14,613 - 10,148) ybp according to FTDNA. The TMRCA of extant members of N-M1819 is 7520 ybp according to 23mofang or 6,310 (95% CI 7,591 - 5,237) ybp according to FTDNA. The TMRCA of N-F2930, which is the MRCA of N-CTS582 and N-M1819, is 17490 ybp according to 23mofang or 15,041 (95% CI 17,603 - 12,847) ybp according to FTDNA.
You seem to have fallaciously taken the date of the Bianbian Cave specimen to be a terminus post quem for the appearance of Y-DNA haplogroup N (or N1b-F2930) in China proper. It would rather be appropriate to take it to be a terminus ante quem.
If you cannot point to an archeological specimen from North Asia that belongs to N1b-F2930 and that is at least as old as the Bianbian specimen, and you cannot point to a significant extant population of any subclade of N1b-F2930 in North Asia, then it would be logical to take the TMRCA of N1-F963 (20030 ybp 23mofang) to be terminus post quem and the date of the Bianbian specimen (7941–7605 cal. BC [95.4%]) to be terminus ante quem for the appearance of N1b-F2930 or pre-N1b in China.
"So far, apart from N4, other N lineages in Mongolia & China (regardless of the Gobi) are LBA occurrences + younger"
Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. As I have mentioned in a previous comment, three subclades of N1a that have significant distribution in present-day China have MRCAs with North Asian subclades of N1a in the period between 10,250 and 16,780 ybp, so it is quite likely that Terminal Paleolithic/Initial Neolithic specimens belonging to N1a also may be found somewhere in China eventually.
"For most of the sub-clades within, areas capable of giving Kolyma_mes related admixture
Mongolia does not qualify for this. And given that it is a completely different ecotone to the other, there's no point mincing our words."
So, you seem to have taken issue with my inclusion of "or Mongolia" coordinate to "Siberia" in my suggestion of the region of origin of N-M2019.
I think it should be clear from the context of my other comments in this thread that I have been grouping Siberia and Mongolia together vis-à-vis East/Southeast Asia (China, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.), and the fact is that Siberia and Mongolia are much more similar to each other in regard to climate (and, as I have been explaining, also in regard to subclades of Y-DNA haplogroup N) than either Siberia or Mongolia is similar to China proper, Korea, Japan, Vietnam, Thailand, etc.
@Simon_W
I guess that you re Joking, Cisalpine Gauls came with Urnfield Expansion branch Called Gollaseca, something continuous to Cagrenate, the Bellovesus myths also attributed their migrations from Southern Central Gaul, none would simple being more numerous than previous Etruscan + Gollaseca settlers, I certainly mind it . If you think that cisalpines were more northern shifted than all their borders then I guess that you can't use your brain properly so try to find a doctor, I suggest.
I guess that the model you sent just proved what I previous said, as well as mostly north Italians had more Iron Age DNA than Imperial Roman Hellenistic Like , and the region had a Anatolian Hellenistic profile like Imperial during Imperial times and mostly died without contribute to the next generations .
I underestimate the knowledge(specially about Italian History) of those who think that Cisalpine Gauls were more northern profile than France Southeast IA , Helveti Profile(Between Switzerland IA Raethic and Alsatian France East IA) and Austrian IA profile, as well as those who really thought that The region wasn't previous occupied by Etruscans and Celts(Gollaseca and Cagrenate). Off course, outliers may existed but they weren't the rule.
Doesn't matter the source of those settlers cause they were the minority and were assimilated, as well as all alpine and Gaul Celts weren't to distant to a Italic, like the original Celts were. The Belgae like elite migration to UK made those LARPers to assume they were Irish , in fact Irish are less Celtic than Iberians , and both spoke a Q Celtic , probably related to Urnfield Early Expansion or just a para-Celtic Bell Beaker lost language group with Minor Celtic Substractum.
Stop those trying of Nordify Italy or Celtic People, Alpine Noricum were closer to Southern French not Sweden or Irish, and Hallstatt culture came from Modern Days Austria, I understand your point of view but it came from Fetish not logic.
Obviously Elite Romans survived more and repopulated Italy, and those were more related to Iron Age Italians, being those Italics, Etruscans, Cisalpines, Veneti,Greeks , Phoenicians, late Antiquity Italy had 20 thousands people and had 2 million at 1th Century, obviously mostly Imperial Italians died without too much contribution, and Lombardy became the capital of Western Roman Empire during Germanic Migrations(Milan was the capital), the Elites migrated to Lombardy not to Rome, Imperial to LA changed just cause mostly people died.
Farmers were more North African profile during Imperial age, since they were slaves, and Urban exodus was recorded during Late Imperial Era, so no chance of Latifundia Slaves repopulating cities.
Germanic became the elites and ancient elites sometimes with a bunch of Child's, became the Middle classes cause they had to gave their lands to Germanics.
Study the Crysis of Third Century, then other late imperial events as well as Justinian wars and plague and then you will agree with me.
A friend of Mine, Fully North Italian
54.5% Hallstatt Celt + 43.5% Himera Greek Profile, simple representing Two Way Model between Urnfield Profile(mostly Lagonbardian were Boii like DNA) + Minor Anatolian-Hellenic and Hellenistic profile/Balkanic IA , simple what a North Italian was. Mostly ItaloCeltic and minor Aegean and IA Anatolian , off course Slavic, Illyrian, Phoenician , etc.. indeed but minor sources, as well as true Germanic contribution, considering that Lagonbards had more Boii Celt profile than Germanic proper.
I Got 94% Boii Celt + 6% Amerindian , but I m only half Northeast Italian and had more German-Iberian and French contribution
I guess that Veneto had more influence from Slavics than Germanic proper, since Lagonbards were more Celtic Like than Germanic . I m R1a from Veneto lol, unfortunately Slavics weren't the founders of Adriatic Veneti cause I should been even more proud about my lineage, but white Croat R-Y2613 seems good to me .
Several Polish mercenaries settler Venice, as well as Croatian traders, slaves were mostly castretated and limited to Venice City itself, there ware cities like Schiavon on Vicenza Hills that remark the Slavic settlers post Black Death(Venice lost 70% of their population, mostly serfs), indeed Cimbrian ,from Bavarian origin ,Settlers there, keep in mind that Bavariuc were indeed more Boii Celt like than Germanic proper , even before mixing with Vindecelian-Romans or Romanized Alpines(Raethic Italics or Ladin) .
Italy received a chunk of Germanic DNA from Mixed Germanics, as well as others Southern European countries. But Slavic influence was strong on everywhere beyond the Alps to the east, and tho explain why northeast Italy received several population.
The Venetian Marines were called Schiavonis, cause Balkanic Slavics prefer the Venetian influence than Ottoman, than fought with Venice against Ottoman rules. Off course, Venetian and Slavic relation was always good, considering Catholics, they usually shared the same enemy, except from Croatian inner elites that sometimes side with Hungarians .
@ Ebizur
''You seem to have fallaciously taken the date of the Bianbian Cave specimen to be a terminus post quem for the appearance of Y-DNA haplogroup N (or N1b-F2930) in China proper. It would rather be appropriate to take it to be a terminus ante quem.''
You're good at robotically listing %s in populations but have a poor grasp of context & understanding.
What I in fact commented was that- the early dispersal of N occurred at some point after the LGM (epipaleolithic, in western terminology), and then experienced a later range- expansion with diversification of subclades, and this occurred ~ 7000 bc (which for me sounds bizarre to refer to as paleolithic). Semantics aside, Hunter-gatherers existed well into the Neolithic
''Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence''
Instead of lame cliches, let's read the ancient data.
This shows that the pre-Bronze Age (neolithic, or 'paleolithic' according to you) individuals from the Liao and Yellow river basins fall under one specific lineage - N4; and all other early attesttations of N2, N3, N5 are to the northwest, around Baikal.
If new evidence modifies this, then fine. But this is what we have so far, and that all coincides with realistic historical events, such as 'Neolithicization' & Ceramicization of the regions in question. So, best not ignore the evidence
N-M231(xP43, TAT)
Russia Buryat 0/297 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Yakut 0/184 (Duggan 2013)
Mongolia Mongol 0/160 (Di Cristofaro 2013)
Khanty 0/112 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Ukrainians 0/96 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Central Yakut 0/92 (Fedorova 2013)
Kyrgyz 0/76 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Ulaanbaatar Khalkha 0/75 (Karafet 2018)
Kalmykia Derbet 0/69 (Balinova 2019)
Mari 0/68 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Belarusians 0/67 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Yakutia & Taimyr Dolgans 0/67 (Fedorova 2013)
Northern Yakut 0/66 (Fedorova 2013)
Outer Mongolian 0/65 (Xue 2006)
Tuva Mongush 0/64 (Damba 2018, N-M231(xL708, L666))
Kyrgyzstan Sart-Kalmak 0/61 (Balinova 2019)
Kalmykia Torgut 0/58 (Balinova 2019)
Vilyuy Yakut 0/58 (Fedorova 2013)
Yakutia Evenk 0/57 (Fedorova 2013)
Altai Kazakh 0/52 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Kalmykia Buzava 0/52 (Balinova 2019)
Nivkh 0/52 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Mongolia Torgut 0/47 (Balinova 2019)
Tatar 0/47 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Chukchi 0/46 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Tozhu Tuvan 0/46 (Balinova 2019)
Eskimos 0/43 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Mongolia Derbet 0/40 (Balinova 2019)
Udmurt 0/40 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Stony Tunguska Evenk 0/40 (Duggan 2013)
Komi 0/39 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Teleut 0/38 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Koryak 0/33 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Evenk 0/32 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Udegey 0/31 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Kalmykia Khoshut 0/28 (Balinova 2019)
Tompo Even 0/28 (Duggan 2013)
Tuva Oorzhak 0/27 (Damba 2018, N-M231(xL708, L666))
Ket 0/25 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Sakkyryyr Even 0/25 (Duggan 2013)
Yakutia Even 0/24 (Fedorova 2013)
Mongolia Tsaatan 0/23 (Balinova 2019)
Taimyr Evenk 0/18 (Duggan 2013)
Mongolia Khoshut 0/18 (Balinova 2019)
Kamchatka Even 0/15 (Duggan 2013)
Sebjan Even 0/14 (Duggan 2013)
Xinjiang Kalmyk 0/12 (Balinova 2019)
Yakutia Yukaghir 0/11 (Fedorova 2013)
Iengra Evenk 0/9 (Duggan 2013)
Berezovka Even 0/7 (Duggan 2013)
Russians 2/468 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Yakuts 1/225 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Tuvans 2/422 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Khakas 2/251 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Sagays 1/69 (Damba 2018, N-M231(xL708, L666))
Mongols 15/852 (Damba 2018, N-M231(xL708, L666))
Altai people 2/76 (Damba 2018, N-M231(xL708, L666))
Southern Altaians 5/134 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Northern Altaians 3/50 (Kharkov PhD thesis)
Ulaanbaatar Khalkha 1/14 (Bai 2018, N1b1-Z4784/CTS582)
If one pools the Yakut samples reported by Duggan et al. 2013, Fedorova et al. 2013, and Kharkov (PhD thesis), one obtains a figure of 1/625 N(xP43, TAT) among Yakuts. I think that one might justifiably ignore this Yakut singleton as a case of probable recent admixture or even as a case of genetic mistyping.
Ignoring that Yakut singleton, the northern limit of N(xP43, TAT) appears to be South Central Siberia (Khakassia, Altai, Tuva) and Outer Mongolia. This line is approximately congruent with the northern limit of the typically East/Southeast Asian haplogroups O-M175 and D-M174. One also should note that N(xP43, TAT), O-M175, and D-M174 are not particularly common in South Central Siberia and Outer Mongolia; they are just not practically absent from these regions, unlike the rest of northern Asia.
Frankly, I do not find the currently available evidence to be sufficient to support an origin of Y-DNA haplogroup N-M231 in southern East Asia (as argued by Rootsi et al. 2007 and Hong Shi et al. 2013) as opposed to an origin in North Asia. The apparent consensus regarding a southern origin of haplogroup N in academic papers is surprising to me. However, I also do not find the evidence for an origin of haplogroup N in North Asia to be overwhelming.
The case for a North Asian origin is much stronger when limited to certain subclades, such as N-F1419 (TMRCA 11,568 [95% CI 13,219 - 10,123] ybp according to FTDNA). But the earlier origin is obscure; I do not see how one can declare that the N-M46-bearing ancestor of N-F4063 must have migrated southward (to Northeast China, North China, Korea, or wherever) from North Asia rather than the reverse.
@Virgin
"Off course, Venetian and Slavic relation was always good, considering Catholics, they usually shared the same enemy, except from Croatian inner elites that sometimes side with Hungarians ."
In mediaeval times, Slavic pirates were literally an existential threat to Venice. In later times, there were many brutal and bloody incidents between Slavs and Venetians, beheadings and reprisals and such, eventually culminating in a war between Austria and Venice. I could go on. Of course Venetians did employ a massive amount of Slavic mercenaries, but to say that Venetian-Slavic relations were always good simply boggles the mind.
@Virgin
You can't derive all Cisalpine Gauls from the Golasecca culture, that's nonsense. The Golasecca culture were the Lepontii and adjacent minor tribes.
There definitely was a new Celtic invasion in the Latène era.
According to Livy some tribes migrated through southern France, but I wouldn't expect that they picked up substantial admixture along the way. They just migrated through.
The archaeological evidence suggests that the Etruscan culture wasn't completely wiped out in the north, but as I said, we don't know exactly to what extent they admixed genetically.
We can't know without samples.
I didn't suggest that Cisalpine Gauls were more northern shifted than, say, Austria_IA_LaTene; I simply pointed out that we don't know, because there are two factors involved here, both uncertain.
Some time ago I would have said that Gaulish Celts were Occitan-like and only the Belgae were Northern French- to Belgian-like. But as I pointed out, we don't have Latène samples from the Gaulish Celtic
core area. Even the samples from Lorraine may be Belgic rather than Gaulish.
You wrote:
"Helveti Profile(Between Switzerland IA Raethic and Alsatian France East IA)"
Jesus Christ! I just explained to you that the alleged "Switzerland IA Rhaetic" sample is now labelled as an EBA (Early Bronze Age) sample, so stop calling it an IA sample.
You wrote:
"Doesn't matter the source of those settlers cause they were the minority and were assimilated"
Yes, the source matters. And if they were a minority isn't known exactly; there's also the possibility that some part of the Etruscans and Umbrians preferred to flee. But in your anti-Padanian rage you don't need profane stuff like ancient DNA evidence, right?
And in stark contrast to what you believe I think, I do think that the Roman conquest may have entailed a complete population turnover. The Senones were supposedly annihilated in battle and the Boii had "disappeared", as Pliny expressed it.
@Virgin (continued)
You wrote:
"Stop those trying of Nordify Italy or Celtic People, Alpine Noricum were closer to Southern French not Sweden or Irish, and Hallstatt culture came from
Modern Days Austria, I understand your point of view but it came from Fetish not logic."
You obviously don't know me. If I have a fetish, it's the exotic, dark pigmented ancestry I've got from the central Romagna (my maternal grandfather). And I'm the last who would overstate the Northern ancestry of North Italians.
Rather, I was surprised when the evidence showed that northern, as well as central Italians do have non-negligible amounts of medieval Germanic admixture. I didn't expect that.
The reason I have Anglo-Saxons as my avatar is simply that Saxons and surprisingly Frisians seem to be the biggest populations in my very mixed ancestry. Together they seem to make up 30% of me. This is just what Vahaduo modelling suggests, and I have to accept it. But I would be equally glad if it showed that I was 30% Minoan, Egyptian or whatnot...
And BTW Hallstatt culture didn't originate in Austria, that's silly talk. The type-site is Hallstatt in Austria, but that doesn't mean the culture originated there.
You wrote:
"Obviously Elite Romans survived more and repopulated Italy, and those were more related to Iron Age Italians, being those Italics, Etruscans, Cisalpines,
Veneti,Greeks , Phoenicians, late Antiquity Italy had 20 thousands people and had 2 million at 1th Century, obviously mostly Imperial Italians died without
too much contribution"
I strongly disagree. The Imperial Roman ancestry in modern Italians is substantial. It is what pulls the Italian cline into the direction of the West Asian cline.
You wrote:
"Lagonbards had more
Boii Celt profile than Germanic proper." and "Bavariuc were indeed more Boii Celt like than Germanic proper , even before mixing with Vindecelian-Romans
or Romanized Alpines(Raethic Italics or Ladin) ."
Well, in the G25 both Baiuvari from Bavaria and Longobards from Hungary are closest to modern Dutch people. But there are many outliers, especially among the Longobards.
Compared to ancient samples, both Baiuvari and Longobards from Hungary are closest to a Viking sample from Denmark, probably of rather mixed origin, and second closest to the late Medieval sample from German Schleswig, which is indeed of mixed ancestry: IMHO about 2/3 old Germanic Saxon + 1/3 the Belgae-heavy Frankish blend.
Moving beyond N4/ N-F2905, we can observe N sublineages entering Mongolia after 2000 BC. E.g. in Monkhairkhan contexts, which was a novel horizon in Mongolia.
Also interesting is the Nc-TAT (P-83) which enters Upper XiaJiaDian culture in Long Tou Shan ~ 900 BC. This culture is thought to be due to northern influences, pastoralists of sorts, bringing Eurasian bronzes.
@Samuel Andrews
"Brother, the thing is, for patrilinal societies, Y DNA is the most important division.
They can't be the same people if they have different Y DNA."
SS/CW had different Y-DNA.
Like I said before, no one is claiming RZ2103 kurganites magically transformed into R1a. That's physically impossible. Simply that those open steppe RZ2103s STEMMED from the same population that the R1as also came from.
The only disagreement here is that the Harvard guys just think Sredny Stog was TOO EARLY for a multitude of reasons like language and IBD. Tocharian for example that split from early Yamnaya ~3300 BC is actually an archaic branch to core PIE. This would push back the ancestor to modern PIE languages to 3000 BC, and IBD also corroborates this.
@DragonHermit
Sredny Stog and Corded Ware aren't the same people. Sredny Stog is the distant ancestor of Corded Ware.
Also, Afanasievo is obviously more closely related to Yamnaya in terms of Y-DNA, genome-wide DNA and IBD than Corded Ware is.
Therefore, if (proto-Tocharian?) Afanasievo split from Yamnaya ~3,300 BCE, then Corded Ware split from Yamnaya earlier.
Ergo, the idea that Corded Ware isn't derived from Yamnaya, but rather Corded Ware and Yamnaya/Afanasievo are derived from the same post-Sredny Stog group makes perfect sense based on genetics.
This isn't a problem in terms of linguistics, because Afanasievo moved to Siberia, while Corded Ware and Yamnaya stayed in Europe and kept in contact with each other.
I doubt that you'll try to understand any of this, especially since you still think that someone here is arguing that Corded Ware is actually derived directly from Sredny Stog, but I'm just pointing this out for the others here.
@ David
Most people don’t really understand what Sredni Stog refers to. Even the specialists from the region have different interpretations of it, sometimes in the same work they same apparently self-contradictory claims
Proto-corded-Yamnaya (although somewhat clunky) might be a better term
@ Dragon Hermit
“Plus (DA) he's still talking of very concrete IBD proof that Yamnaya -> CW. Idk if he's referring the upcoming papers or the info we already have.”
Sounds like just another of his fanciful theories.
@Rich S
Look, the best genetic lab in the world, the ones you guys have sanctified and glorified for years, have shown that I2181 is M269, the opinion of Runstrom and FTDNA is the opinion of a private company, respectable but run by amateurs, and of course your opinion is an anecdote because you have no idea what you are talking about.
So stop whining, wash your wounds and accept once and for all that the first R1b-M269 was a neolithic farmer and that he also lived at a time when not only did IE not exist but also did not yet exist either in the Volga, the steppes, the Caucasus or the Ukraine, what some people now call “steppe ancestry”.
The rest of the samples we have already debated many times and we are not going to keep boring people; you believe that all R1b-L754>P297>M269>L51>L151>P312 that have been found, west of Ukraine, are junk samples (bad coverage, dead lines, identification errors, different genetic lines etc) and I believe that some of them have to be taken into consideration to try to find the origin of R1b-M269.
Our positions are irreconcilable and as I understand that your denialist stance only shows your desperation in the face of many samples that do not fit into your fairy tale narrative, the only thing I do when I read your comments is to laugh and as you do not hear me so I write HA HA HA HA HA HA so you can know that to me you are just a funny clown and I will continue to do so as long as you keep saying the nonsense you say
You have been living on another planet for so many years that you have believed your own lies, it doesn't matter, I hope you are here when the Kurgan theory finally explodes and of course that you behave like a gentleman, recognize your mistakes, ask for forgiveness and dedicate yourself to another more pleasant hobby for you. I'd rather be a complete moron or a teenage girl than a weasel like you.
Gaska wrote:
"@Rich S
Look, the best genetic lab in the world, the ones you guys have sanctified and glorified for years, have shown that I2181 is M269, the opinion of Runstrom and FTDNA is the opinion of a private company, respectable but run by amateurs, and of course your opinion is an anecdote because you have no idea what you are talking about . . ."
My response:
Of course, Family Tree DNA employs professional geneticists who are as qualified as any in the world. They will not call I2181's Y-DNA haplogroup, which is why that sample does not appear in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections or Time Tree. Patterson et al, from the same "best genetic lab in the world" you mentioned above, would not call it for anything beyond F, but none of that really matters.
Let's stipulate, just for fun, that Smyadovo (I2181) really is R1b-M269. You're still stuck with the fact that "the best genetic lab in the world" says he has steppe DNA, as Mathieson et al wrote on page 8 of the paper I2181 first appeared in, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe" (2018):
"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years, but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it."
Simply put, that means I2181 had steppe ancestors. Pretty obviously, given the weight of all the other ancient DNA evidence regarding R1b-M269, he was the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe migrant.
So, I am only too happy to make Smyadovo at least an honorary M269, even if his Y-DNA haplogroup cannot be called with any real certainty.
By the way, I am pretty happy that Family Tree DNA is really careful with its Y-DNA calls and won't put an ancient sample in Ancient Connections unless they are sure about its Y-DNA haplogroup. That means FTDNA's scientists seriously vetted the ancient samples in Ancient Connections, and we can rely on them, like those two R1b-P310 samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture, Shatar Chuluu 1 (SHT001/I6222 from C.-C. Wang et al, 2021 and Jeong et al, 2020) and Nileke 5-3 (C3341 from Kumar et al, 2022), and all the R1b-L51 Corded Ware and Beaker samples in Ancient Connections.
By the way, Reich & Co., don't currently have a Y-DNA haplogroup listed for I2181 (Smyadovo). They have his mtDNA haplogroup listed as HV, but I don't see a Y-DNA haplogroup anywhere.
https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/
I2181_enhanced I2181 21; BURIAL 29 tooth (molar) 2018 LazaridisAlpaslanRoodenbergScience2022 (higher coverage of previously reported individual from MathiesonNature2018) Direct: IntCal20 6458 42 4606-4447 calBCE (5680±30 BP, Beta-432803) adult , 25 Bulgaria_C_oSteppe Smyadovo (Northeast) Bulgaria 43.05777778 26.98361111 Repulldown on 3.2M snpset 1240K 6 0.103528 113196 60621 M n/a (no relatives detected) .. .. 33.376124 HV [0.933,0.98] .. .. ds.half,ds.half,ds.half,ds.half,ds.half,ds.half S2181.E1.L1,S2181.E1.L2,S2181.E1.L3,S2181.E1.L4,S2181.E1.L5,S2181.E1.L6 PASS mtcontam=[0.933,0.98]
I2181 I2181 21 (Smyadovo 21, BURIAL 29) tooth (molar) 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Direct: IntCal20 6458 42 4606-4447 calBCE (5680±30 BP, Beta-432803) adult , 25 Bulgaria_C_oSteppe Smyadovo (Northeast) Bulgaria 43.05777778 26.98361111 Repulldown on 3.2M snpset 1240K 4 0.063 70392 37364 M n/a (no relatives detected) .. .. 33.376124 HV [0.933,0.98] .. .. ds.half,ds.half,ds.half,ds.half S2181.E1.L1,S2181.E1.L2,S2181.E1.L3,S2181.E1.L4 PASS mtcontam=[0.933,0.98]
Does anyone have the link to the Anthrogenica replacement forum? I saw someone on Twitter post it but it looks like they deleted the tweet and my browser history didn't capture it.
@Rich S.
I noticed that some of the recent AADR releases seem to be missing Y-DNA, even for older samples.
In the Southern Arc excel sheet they do label I2181 R-M269.
Cy Tolliver wrote:
"Does anyone have the link to the Anthrogenica replacement forum? I saw someone on Twitter post it but it looks like they deleted the tweet and my browser history didn't capture it."
My response:
Here it is: https://genarchivist.freeforums.net/
EthanR wrote:
"@Rich S.
I noticed that some of the recent AADR releases seem to be missing Y-DNA, even for older samples.
In the Southern Arc excel sheet they do label I2181 R-M269."
Yeah, I know, but that AADR entry for I2181 calls it "I2181_enhanced" and says parenthetically that it is "higher coverage of previously reported individual from MathiesonNature2018", yet there is no Y-DNA haplogroup listed.
Taken together with the fact that Patterson et al would not call I2181 for any Y-DNA haplogroup beyond F, and FTDNA's team won't call its Y-DNA haplogroup and place it Ancient Connections and the Time Tree, that doesn't inspire a lot of confidence that I2181 (Smyadovo) was actually R1b-M269.
But, hey, let's say he was. He also had steppe DNA. If he was also R1b-M269, then pretty obviously he was the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe migrant.
Well, Patterson et al was published before the Arc paper. And I'll ask ftDNA to update their reading of Smyadovo,using the new, better coverage version
Whatever the case, he is not a 'neolithic farmer'. He was from the Chalcolithic, and we dont know what his profession was or what he ate. But it signifies that steppe people were intermixing with & assimilating into East Balkan Chalcolithic society, before the grand collapase. So he'd be a dead-end lineage
Rob wrote:
"Well, Patterson et al was published before the Arc paper. And I'll ask ftDNA to update their reading of Smyadovo,using the new, better coverage version
Whatever the case, he is not a 'neolithic farmer'. He was from the Chalcolithic, and we dont know what his profession was or what he ate. But it signifies that steppe people were intermixing with & assimilating into East Balkan Chalcolithic society, before the grand collapase. So he'd be a dead-end lineage"
My response:
I agree completely, and I thought he was R1b-M269 until Göran Runstrom from FTDNA told me otherwise. Like I said, if Smyadovo is R1b-M269, that's fine with me. It would just indicate that he was the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe migrant.
Gaska has also argued that Aesch25 is evidence that R1b-L51 is a European Neolithic farmer lineage, despite his 79.5% steppe DNA, because he was recovered from a megalithic dolmen with a bunch of G2a Neolithic farmers who had no steppe DNA.
And that one is in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections already.
Any port in a storm, I guess.
Well, I don't know what criteria are followed in the United States to decide the culture to which a site belongs, here in Spain when we find a skeleton in a dolmen in a collective burial it is usually a neolithic burial. Could it be an intrusion of the beakers? Yeah, it could be because some experts call them “grave robbers”, that is to say, in Germany, Spain, Switzerland and France, some few times, they used the old megalithic monuments of their ancestors.
But, the most important thing is that if they did so, they almost always buried themselves apart from the other skeletons (at the entrance of the dolmen, near the door, in a side niche, etc.) and are accompanied by typical grave goods of the Beaker culture.
This is not the case of Aesch25 & MX304 (Auvernier), the Swiss neolithic farmers buried in the dolmens of Aesch and Auvernier. None of them have grave goods and they are buried like the rest of the people, so nobody can relate them to the CWC or BBC.
A similar case is CL007 in Spain, the sample is L51 according to Villaba Mouco, was buried in a cave without grave goods belonging to the Beaker culture and his skull was treated in exactly the same way as the skull of other skeletons (HapY-H2-P96)-The archaeological dating is 3.300-2.300 BCE so it would be one of the oldest L51 in Europe, although in this case FTDNA has classified it as DF27 (so in any case, it would be the oldest of this lineage in Europe).
The same goes for the R1b (one of them M269) buried in Trou Al’Wesse, Belgium (3.270 BCE) where, next to the skeleton, ceramics of the Hoguette culture have been found.
And if we talk about Smyadovo, everybody should read the papers of the chief archaeologist of the excavation Stefan Chohadzhiev who described the Smyadovo cemetery (2.016), the excavator distinguished 7 building levels, dated back to the phases II and III of the Kodzhadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI cultural complex (KGK VI).
All these cases are archaeologically classified as neolithic farmer burials. It is curious that all the R1b found in continental Europe are WHGs (also Baltic HGs, or Iron Gates HGs) or Neolithic farmers buried in pits or dolmens. Of course we can rule out massive migrations or conquests and at best speak of solitary explorers who immediately renounced their culture and adopted the customs of the farmers.
And you know what? what is the possibility that these explorers were able to change the language of the European Neolithic societies? I can answer NONE
Population Genomics of Late Stone Age Western Eurasia
Project: PRJEB64656
The later Stone Age in Eurasia (c. 11,000 to 5,000 cal. BP) witnessed several large-scale migration events. These include the transition from foraging to farming facilitated by the spread of Neolithic people from the Middle East, permanently changing the culture, lifestyle, and gene pools of the regions they settled in. To investigate cross-continental differences in impact of these major demographic processes we shotgun sequenced 317 genomes of primarily Mesolithic and Neolithic origin. These were imputed alongside published data to obtain diploid genotypes from >1,600 ancient human genomes. This dataset enabled fine-grained population genetic inferences of these prehistoric events across Northern and Western Eurasia. This revealed a ‘Great Divide’ genomic boundary zone extending from the Black Sea to the Baltic. Mesolithic hunter-gatherers (HGs) were highly genetically differentiated east and west of this zone, and the impact of the neolithisation was equally disparate. Large-scale shifts in genetic ancestry occurred in the west, including an almost complete replacement of HGs in many areas, whereas no substantial shifts in ancestry happened east of the zone during the same period. Similarly, within-group genetic relatedness was reduced substantially in the west from the Neolithic transition onwards, while east of the Urals relatedness remained high until ~4,000 BP, consistent with a longer persistence of localised HG groups. The boundary dissolved when ancestry related to Yamnaya steppe pastoralists spread westwards into Europe and eastwards to Altai around 5,000 BP resulting in a second major cross-continental genetic turnover. This rapid transformation reached most parts of Europe within a 1,000-year span. The genetic origin and fate of Yamnaya have remained elusive but we demonstrate that HGs from the Middle Don region contributed ancestry to Yamnaya people. These later admixed with people from the Globular Amphora Culture to form the Corded Ware groups before expanding into Europe. Similar dramatic turnover-patterns occurred in western Siberia, where we report substantial new genomic data from a ‘Neolithic steppe’ cline spanning the Siberian forest steppe zones to the Lake Baikal region. The spatiotemporal dynamics of these prehistoric migrations were highly heterogeneous but each had profound and lasting effects on the genetic diversity of Eurasian populations.
Secondary Study Accession:ERP149848
Study Title:Population Genomics of Late Stone Age Western Eurasia
Center Name:Globe Institute
Study Name:Population Genomics of Late Stone Age Western Eurasia
ENA-FIRST-PUBLIC:2023-09-21
ENA-LAST-UPDATE:2023-09-21
www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB64656
files have not been posted yet
And regarding the famous “steppe ancestry” of I2181-Smyadovo, you just have to check the Lazaridis distal models.
BGR_C_Smyadovo:I2181
0.511-Barcin_Neolithic
0.207-Caucasus_HG
0.192-Iron_Gates_HG
0.090-Eastern_HG
0.000-Levant_PPNB
So, we have basically a neolithic farmer (>51%) with a strong WHG mix (>19%). The supposed steppe components are CHG (20%) and EHG (9%) then in the best of cases that lineage had already been in the Balkans for several generations. Besides, you have to take into account;
1-This autosomal composition is very common in the Balkan neolithic cultures bordering the steppes-In fact, in the Southern Arc paper there are Balkan samples with a higher percentage of EHG than I2181 such as I10785-Yunatsite (10% EHG) or I2431-Smyadovo (HapY-G2a2b-8.8% EHG) ERGO I2181 cannot even be considered an outlier and if it does, you should also consider sample G2a2b as such, even if this lineage has never been found in the steppes as is the case with M269.
2-Since the sample predates Yamnaya by more than 1000 years, you cannot use this culture to model Smyadovo because anachronistic models are useless, so what steppe cultures can we use? Khvalynsk, UKR_Neolithic or perhaps Progress_Eneolithic (although probably most of the available samples are more modern than Smyadovo-4,500 BC) - In any case which of these cultures would have a composition in which CHG doubled EHG? or which of these cultures has such high percentages of WHG?
3-IMO, the truly strange thing in Smyadovo is precisely that 20%-CHG. Where did it come from? It can't come from Ukraine or Khvalynsk, maybe Progress, but then, where did EHG go?
4-Any impartial observer would say that the origin of that R1b sample is the WHGs, since after all, the WHG component (19.2) doubles EHG (9.0) and we can certainly rule out the origin of this marker in Anatolia-EEF o Caucasus-CHG.
That is to say, classifying this sample as typical of the steppes is at the very least very very very risky.
The updated version of the allentoft paper, soon to be published, still makes the claim of CWC being Yamnaya derived:
"These later admixed with people from the Globular Amphora Culture to form the Corded Ware groups before expanding into Europe"
I wonder if this is just because of the previous study on IBD sharing or if they have any new data?
I also wonder when Pontus Skoglund will go public with the Ivory Bangle Lady DNA of Roman era Yorkshire, since he says on X that he has already analysed it. Every October she is celebrated as a great "black Briton" but I suspect she was not black.
@Gaska
Suppose we excavated the burial ground of a rural Vietnamese village dated from 1875 - 1975, found and tested numerous skeletons, and all but one of them had DNA typical of Vietnamese villagers, including whatever Y-DNA haplogroup or groups are typical of the Vietnamese. Let's suppose that the one exceptional skeleton had Western European DNA and belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-U152.
Are we to ignore the pretty obvious differences between that skeleton and the others and declare that R1b-U152 is a rural Vietnamese lineage, also ignoring all the other places and cultural contexts where U152 is much more common than it is in Vietnam, and the fact that R1b-U152 is exceptionally rare among the Vietnamese?
That is essentially the kind of thing you are asking us to do in the case of Aesch25 and the others you cite. You are asking us to ignore the glaring genomic differences between those samples and the typical European Neolithic farmers among whom they were buried. We are instead to just blindly and stupidly declare that R1b-M269 is a European Neolithic farmer lineage, despite the massive weight of the evidence that says otherwise and which everyone but you understands.
Good thing no one has assigned you to recover the remains of U.S. servicemen missing in action in SE Asia.
"Nothing to see here! If a skeleton is buried in a Vietnamese village cemetery, it must be Vietnamese!"
By the way, when is that new Allentoft paper supposed to appear?
Post a Comment