Friday, September 22, 2023
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
The scientists at the David Reich Lab are a clever bunch. But they're not always on top of things. And this can be a problem.
For instance, they fail to understand that the Caucasus has effectively stymied human gene flow between Eastern Europe and West Asia through the ages. That is, the Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to human gene flow.
Until they accept and understand this fact, they won't be able to accurately characterize the ancestry of the ancient human populations of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe, including the Yamnaya people.
In turn, they also won't be able to locate the Indo-Anatolian homeland.
Now, the Caucasus isn't a barrier to gene flow because it's difficult to cross, and, indeed, many human populations have managed to cross it since the Upper Palaeolithic. As a result, the peoples of the North Caucasus are today genetically more similar to the populations of the Near East than Europe.
In fact, the clear genetic gap between most West Asian and Eastern European populations through the ages is actually caused by the extreme differentiation between the mountain ecology of the Caucasus and the steppe ecology of the PC steppe.
That is, the Caucasus is ecologically so different from the PC steppe that it has been practically impossible for human populations to make the transition from one to the other.
Indeed, it's important to understand that there's no reliable record of any prehistoric human population successfully making the transition from the mountain ecology to the steppe ecology in this part of the world.
In other words, contrary to claims by people like David Reich and David Anthony, there's no solid evidence of any significant prehistoric human migration from the Caucasus, or from south of the Caucasus, to Eastern Europe by hunter-gatherers, farmers or pastoralists.
But, you might ask, how on earth did the Yamnaya people get their significant Caucasus/Iranian-related admixture if not via a mass migration from the Caucasus and/or the Iranian Plateau, as is often argued by the above mentioned scholars and their many colleagues?
Well, obviously, the diffusion of alleles from one population to another can happen without migration. All that is needed is a contact zone between them.
The ancient DNA and archeological data currently available from the Caucasus and the PC steppe suggest to me that there was at least one such contact zone in this area bringing together the peoples of the mountain and steppe ecoregions. This allowed them to mix, probably gradually and over a long period of time, by and large without leaving their ecoregions.
Once the Caucasus alleles entered the steppe, they were spread around by local hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who were highly mobile and well adapted to the steppe ecology.
Someone should write a paper about this.
See also...
The Nalchik surprise
Understanding the Eneolithic steppe
Matters of geography
571 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
@Davidski “ In other words, contrary to claims by people like David Reich and David Anthony, there's no solid evidence of any significant prehistoric human migration from the Caucasus, or from south of the Caucasus, to Eastern Europe by any hunter-gatherers, farmers or pastoralists.”
ReplyDeleteBut what about Steppe Maykop?
Steppe Maykop has Siberian admixture, so it didn't come from the Caucasus.
ReplyDeleteIt probably came from the Kazakh steppe, or somewhere from that direction anyway.
So it was a migration from one part of the Eurasian steppe to another.
A new Luwic(?) language appears to have been discovered. Sounds like it was spoken in North-Western Anatolia.
ReplyDeletehttps://phys.org/news/2023-09-indo-european-language-excavation-turkey.amp
I think this is a good theory on how CHG admixture entered the Steppe.
ReplyDeleteWang 2019
ReplyDeleteThe genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8
This paper shows that during the Eneolithic there are a distinction between populations in the northern Caucasus and in the Steppe.
@ Dave
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't exclude Epipaleolithic Caucasian hunters moving north, however. Local archaeologists seem faily convinced of this.
@ Ethan
Exciting find. More evidence in support of a NW route for IE in Anatolia
Any word on the status of “Genomic signals of continuity and admixture in the Caucasus” from Ghalichi Ayshin and Wolfgang Haak / MPI? Supposed to have 68 samples from 20 archeological cultures. This was presented in 2021. Seems like it could be relevant to understanding this interaction sphere between Ciscaucasia and the flat landers out on the Kuban steppe.
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/coming-soon.html
Also, looking at Nikitin’s last ARWA presentation, it would appear there are some ancient samples from kurgans on the western steppe reflecting a recent male mediated migration from the Caucasus, perhaps pre Maykop. I’m assuming some of these are the pre Yamnaya guys referenced by Anthony in his Razib Khan interview a couple years back.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteSome people are totally convinced that Iranian farmers moved all the way to the Don.
But there's no real evidence for a migration. At best, it was probably trade.
I’m still fascinated how PIE came to being. What HG tribes originally brought it over: Ukraine HG, Volga (Khvalynsk/Samara). Samuel, you claimed that it was the CHG rigg CHG rich pop who brought it over to Stedny, although the question may be if the very primal PIE speech was Eastern European or Caucasian.
ReplyDelete@Sam Elliott
ReplyDeleteI think Anthony et al. are jumping to conclusions based on some wrong assumptions.
This is similar to their claims about Khvalynsk, and the singleton Y-DNA J1 found there.
The J1 is probably an old EHG lineage and says nothing about any migration from the Caucasus or Iran, but it was turned into a smoking gun for the Iranian origins of Khvalynsk by some of these people.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete''Some people are totally convinced that Iranian farmers moved all the way to the Don.
But there's no real evidence for a migration. At best, it was probably trade.'
That obviously never occurred, as there is to date no evidence of farming in the northern Caucasus until 4500 BC, and these Meshoko groups have little directly to do with Iran N or even Shuvaleri Shomu (despite what Olympus Mon's nonsensical theories might wish)
But the case for epipaleolithic Caucasus hunters is appropriate, imo
Davidski wrote:
ReplyDelete"By the way, the new Allentoft paper also gets things wrong in this respect.
Fucking hopeless.
I'll say more about that when they finally release the data."
My response:
Is there some sort of pre-print of that paper available someplace?
Sorry for being out of the loop on that.
The Khvalynsk J1 (CTS1026) is on the same branch as Afanasievo J1 and is extremely distant to any South Caucasian/Iranian branches of J1. It had probably been in Eastern Europe for a very long time.
ReplyDelete@Rich
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/05/population-genomics-of-stone-age.html
Davidski wrote:
ReplyDelete"@Rich
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/05/population-genomics-of-stone-age.html"
My response:
Oh, I thought you all were talking about something completely new. Sorry to be a pest, but what's coming up with this paper that will be new?
I saw that Rob mentioned some Eneolithic samples from the Don River region. Are those new additions?
Again, I apologize for being behind the curve on this.
The Middle Don samples were in the preprint, but when the paper comes out we'll be able to test them here.
ReplyDeleteSo there's nothing really new over the preprint. It's just that we'll finally get to look at the data.
This sample is also interesting
ReplyDelete«genome of an Upper Palaeolithic (UP) skeleton from Kotias Klde Cave in Georgia, Caucasus (NEO283), directly dated to 26,052 - 25,323 cal BP (95%). In the PCA of all non-African individuals, it occupies a position distinct from other previously sequenced UP individuals, shifted towards west Eurasians along PC1 (Supplementary Note 3d). Using admixture graph modelling, we find that this Caucasus UP lineage derives from a mixture of predominantly West Eurasian UP hunter-gatherer ancestry (76%) with ~24% contribution from a “basal Eurasian” ghost population, first observed in West Asian Neolithic individuals19 (Extended Data Fig. 5A).»
There’s also a host of R1b-something foragers in Moscow basin
ReplyDelete+ an R1b ~ 3500 BC Omsk, making it the earliest R1 findspot east of the Urals
Here is an artistic reconstruction of a man from the Satanai grotto, aged about 6500BC, approximately from the area where Maikop samples were later found. Anthropologists describe it as similar to samples of European Gravette (Pavlov, Czech Republic) and samples from Kostenki.
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/a/y6pASu9
It seems to me it is similar to the Yamnaya samples
The Moscow basin foragers are likely dead ends
ReplyDeleteAccording to new C14 models, that population had become extinct even before Fatyanovids arrived there
@All
ReplyDeleteSome idiot named Ivanko just posted a comment claiming that Ukrainians and Crimean Tatars show high affinity to Caucasus populations.
I deleted the comment because it was so retarded.
Obviously, Ukrainians cluster strongly with other Europeans. In fact, Ukrainians and the Irish are genetically about equidistant from Caucasus populations.
On the other hand, Crimean Tatars have a lot of West Asian and East Asian ancestry, because they're derived from Turkic Asian migrants who came to Europe during the Middle Ages.
I'll continue to delete comments from these sorts of tards.
@ Vlad
ReplyDeleteAny academic links to that Gubs shelter man about context / weapons ?
Rob wrote:
ReplyDelete"There’s also a host of R1b-something foragers in Moscow basin
+ an R1b ~ 3500 BC Omsk, making it the earliest R1 findspot east of the Urals"
Okay, I'm confused (my wife would say I'm always confused). Is that info coming out in whatever updates will be available from the 2022 Allentoft paper? Better Y-DNA haplogroup resolution maybe?
@Rich
ReplyDeleteIt's in the preprint that I linked to.
@ RichS
ReplyDeleteLook at supplementary table
ID# NEO 178 -197 from Saktich
Lyalovo culture / local variant of CCC
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYes, but everything is old.
This is archaeology- https://bibliotekar.ru/3-1-74-paleolit/124.htm?ysclid=lmvivghx7t920452215
This is anthropology - http://sgma.alpha-design.ru/MMORPH/N-30-html/kharitonov/kharitonov.htm
Interestingly, Formozov correlates with the sites of the Imereti Valley from Georgia, just where all the Georgian samples of Dzudzuana, Kotias, etc. are located.
By the way, yes, the files bam have already been posted
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB64656
Favourite theory:
ReplyDeleteThe J1 and "old" southern ancestry in the steppe came from a post-LGM movement of coastal foragers from a south Caspian refugium. These foragers moved up the western Caspian shore (both now and then more habitable than the eastern shore) to the Volga estuary, where they got in contact with steppe foragers.
And remember that the Volga estuary was not a static location; when the Caspian sea level was at its highest and water was flowing out through the Manych spillway into (what would become) the Black Sea, the estuary was all the way up in the vicinity of the Samara bend.
The same forager population also contributed to Iranian HGs and later farmers as well as to CHGs, but they *were* not these populations. This was thousands of years before they came into existence.
@Angantyr
ReplyDeleteThis seems unlikely, because at Khvalynsk (near the Samara bend) we have two different groups, and the local group lacks significant CHG-related ancestry.
The group with the CHG-related ancestry came from the south (from near the Caucasus) only about ~5,000 BC or even later.
If admixture did happen only in a small contact zone near Caucasus, then that group must've completely severed itself from the EHG "reproductive network" as it moved north, or you would've diluted things way below the close to 50:50 admix ratio found in Yamnaya.
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteI never said that it was a small contact zone. It may have stretched along a large part of the North Caucasus and the Caspian coastline, and there may have been multiple contact zones like this.
But anyway, what really matters is the population density.
If these contact zones were in areas of relatively high population density, then it makes no difference if there was continuous contact with unmixed EHG in the north, because of the comparatively large numbers of people with southern ancestry.
Indeed, this is what we see at Khvalynsk, with EHG being diluted significantly as the steppe people rich in CHG ancestry pushed into the area.
Also, the admixture zone was in the south, which is where pastoralism developed on the steppe.
ReplyDeleteOf course, pastoralists would've had larger populations than the unmixed foragers in other parts of the steppe, thus raising the level of CHG where these groups met.
So a contact zone group that moved north may have simply had very high population size and absorbed smaller EHG populations, after it formed and moved? The population size difference would need to be very large if there wasn't a large dilution (e.g. a small dilution like you're going from 60% CHG 40% EHG to a mere 50% 50% rather than 80% 20% to 50% 50%).
ReplyDeleteThis is not just a matter of statistics.
ReplyDeleteIt's likely that groups with a lot of CHG not only outnumbered the EHG foragers that they came across as they expanded, but they may have wiped them out in many cases.
This is likely if the former were pastoralists, because they're territorial and prone to violence.
Take a look at the Sintashta/Andronovo expansion around the Urals.
There are all sorts of weird samples there that look like Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, and even Steppe Maykop, but they don't make much of an impact on Andronovo people, who still have the Sintashta genetic structure deep in Siberia.
Why do you think that is?
@Matt
ReplyDeleteCan you answer the question?
How do your stats contradict what we see with the Yamnaya and Andronovo expansions, in which these groups move into the territories of other types of groups, and yet they largely maintain their genetic homogeneity?
I think Angantyr and Rob arwnt too far off tbh. Here is my best bet:
ReplyDeleteAfter the LGM the caspian sea (much smaller than today) had a massive discharge due to melting glaciers, which caused a giant swathe of european russia to turn into a large pool, somewhat separating east europe from west siberia. You also had the manych-kerch spillway developing which flowed from the caspian to the black sea and separated a part of southern russia from further north, Here is an image:
https://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/chp%3A10.1007%2F978-3-031-12374-0_5/MediaObjects/420294_1_En_5_Fig41_HTML.png
The area south of that spillway likely housed hunter gatherers that came there from the south going by the bits of lithics they find there. There are archaeological connections between the crimea, caucasus and southern russia.
As these water discharges recede and natural barriers dissapeared, these populations then get mixed in with the people north of them. There is probably a stage in the mesolithic where this occurs explaining the small amounts of CHG in some EHGs as well as the old J clade seen. Later on during pottery neolithic foragers moved further northwards on the Volga as well, but these were likely somewhere inbetween the Khlokop Bugor samples (very similar to southern Khvalynsk) and Progress. I wouldnt really call them pastoralist though. Even at Khvalynsk tge function of animals seems to be value storage rather than a primary source of nutrition (dairy, meat, blood etc ).
The profile of steppe Maykop and Kumsay etc. Seemed to have formed in the north caspian during the eneolithic and spread both west and eastwards.
Also Allentoft's data is out so it seems we're eating soon!
@Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteThat's not a bad take. It's sort of like a giant contact zone scenario.
But I think we still need direct evidence from ancient DNA showing that someone from the Caucasus, basically unmixed CHG, pushed deep into the steppe.
I don’t think EHG can be modelled as a 2-way admixture of ANE + WHG, it requires something CHG-like. So there’s possibly CHG innately in EHG, a modest ~ 8% in Karelia but 15% in Samara HGs
ReplyDeleteThe % rise during Khavlynsk is probably as the southernmost EHG populations drifted north for ex due to aridity in the caspian shores or some cultural events which pushed them north
Iran N and CHG are very similar, because they both experienced a series of events which Natufians and AHGs did not, thus form an ‘outgroup’ and are described as “deeply divergent” (eg the 2015 west Asian / Lazarides paper), but in fact they’re not.
@Davidski, I think Sintashta/Andronovo and Yamnaya/Afanasievo are a bit different in that question; Yamnaya/Afanasievo who move out to the east seem to lead to quite admixed Chemurchek, while Sintashta/Andronovo not really. There probably was a big population difference with Sintashta/Andronovo and populations they admixed with I think, in that even the outliers are like 1/20 or something like this, maybe some differential fertility by admixed status too (at least in the recent Srubnaya group it looked like that might be the case).
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDeleteThe point is that this isn't just a numbers game. It's also about demographics and human behavior.
Groups of people don't always mix. Sometimes they kill each other instead.
And even when they mix, they don't do it evenly due to culture, language or some other social factors.
Plus, we actually have a case study from the steppe at Khvalynsk, in which CHG-related ancestry rises sharply and dilutes the EHG to around 50%. And this is right at the northern edge of the steppe around 4,500 BCE.
@All
ReplyDeleteAllentoft 2023 samples. We need the pop labels.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pHAqMPIRgfdXJuf9B4ZChOcJlBLhFe-/view?usp=sharing
Western Caucasus was a barrier but Eastern Caucasus was probably not a barrier.
ReplyDeleteThis is because genetically Western Caucasus populations are very different from Eastern Caucasus.
Western Caucasus : Georgians, especially western Georgian from Megrelia, Ajaria, Imereti have noise level to no steppe admixture. They have high CHG admixture.
Eastern Caucasus : Dargins and Avars have close to 50% Yamnaya admixture. Rest of their ancestry is more of less similar to Georgians.
Turkic tribes entered Caucasus through it's eastern parts too. This is also why Azerbaijan speaks Turkic today.
The mountain ecology is the barrier.
ReplyDeleteThe reason that there's ~40% Yamnaya ancestry in parts of the eastern Caucasus is because there are flatter areas there resembling the steppe.
And this is the route that Bronze Age steppe people took to get to the Near East, probably during a dry spell on the steppe.
@Davidski, sure but what I originally said was that they probably didn't mix much?
ReplyDeleteSome interesting samples hidden here.
ReplyDeleteNEO522 from the Dnieper 4100BC looks close to standard Sredni Stog-CWC-Yamnaya profile.
One of the Sredni Stog periphery individuals (NEO173) from the upper Don 4400BC seems to have a ton of Ukraine_N and a bit of CHG.
I'm not sure if all the dates from the excel file are correct though.
I would love to see higher quality reads on all of these I2 and R1b samples.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteThe J1 in ancient Russia is certainly from SW Asia.
This is the case for the J1 in Mesolithic samples and in Khvalynsk.
Yes, and humans came from East Africa originally.
ReplyDeleteThe point is that the J1 line in Khvalynsk has probably been in Eastern Europe since the Mesolithic if not earlier.
@Davidski “ On the other hand, Crimean Tatars have a lot of West Asian and East Asian ancestry, because they're derived from Turkic Asian migrants who came to Europe during the Middle Ages.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s Crimean Tatar having lots of Indo-European post-BA (mostly Slavic) that makes them closer to White populations, not the other way around.
Originally, Tatars had nothing in common with Corded-derived pops, until they heavily admixed with some.
From what I've seen, Crimean Tatars don't have much Slavic or any other European ancestry.
ReplyDeleteThey show quite a bit of variation, with some similar to Anatolian Turks and others much more Central Asian.
Where's the plink files for the new data?
ReplyDeleteHere's my take on these samples:
ReplyDeletehttps://pastebin.com/LvBYwJ5z
Fixed a couple samples
ReplyDeletehttps://pastebin.com/GjiVZmYf
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteThe CHG ancestry on the Steppe is not super distant.
If the CHG geneflow reached the Steppe in 8000 BC, that's not a super long time ago.
A couple more changes
ReplyDeletehttps://pastebin.com/BtqHtzzY
mtDNA is in part why I don't see it as super distant.
ReplyDeleteSteppe people had lots of CHG mtDNA which isn't really distantly related from mtDNA in other SW Asian populations.
For example, Yamnaya has lots of haplogroup H as do Neolithic Anatolians.
Haplogroup H is at least 30ky old but still.
@Chad
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1zHtsvq5J56zACTCkdj6paPiH-Kxm963T/view
Thank you!
DeleteTarget: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I0231
ReplyDeleteDistance: 2.9254% / 0.02925436
49.6 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2004
29.0 NEO113
13.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2001
8.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT118
Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I0357
Distance: 3.1443% / 0.03144274
40.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2004
28.4 NEO113
17.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:VJ1001
5.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT015
4.6 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT106C
3.6 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT118
Samuel Andrews wrote,
ReplyDelete"Haplogroup H is at least 30ky old but still."
On what have you based your estimate that mtDNA haplogroup H should be at least 30,000 years old?
I am more skeptical of anything related to mtDNA (e.g. phylogeny, TMRCA estimates, selective neutrality) in comparison to Y-DNA, but Behar et al. (2012) have estimated the TMRCA of all extant branches of mtDNA haplogroup H to be 12846.0 (SD 773.4) years, and YFull currently estimates the TMRCA of all extant branches of mtDNA haplogroup H to be 15300 (95% CI 15900 <-> 14600) ybp. I am simply curious about what your rationale for judging the TMRCA of haplogroup H to be significantly greater than those estimates might be.
@Ebizur,
ReplyDeleteMy rational is that Mhg H is not that far away from mHG R which is at least 50ky.
mHG H is comparable to U5 in terms of its position in the human mtDNA tree.
We have ancient DNA samples of U5 that are 30ky. So why can't H be 30ky?
On a side note.
ReplyDeleteIf you look at Yamnaya mtDNA and look at Neolithic farmer mtDNA.
At the basic level, it is the same.
They belonged to the same haplogroups. Different subclades of the same haplogroups.
Is anyone looking at the Y-DNA in the new Allentoft samples?
ReplyDeleteAnything close to M269 in the Russian foragers?
@Samuel Andrews & @Ebizur “On what have you based your estimate that mtDNA haplogroup H should be at least 30,000 years old?”
ReplyDeleteIsn’t H mtDNA an Anatolian marker, or did it arrive in Anatolia from elsewhere (Dzudzuana? Kostenki? Iron Gates? Fertile Crescent?).
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteYeah, because when different populations mix over a long time in an admixture contact zone, they mostly do it by swapping women (female exogamy).
Mtdna V and W are sort of a CHG feminine marker
ReplyDelete@Davidski and Rob
ReplyDeleteRe those Sakhtish samples: thanks. Looks like R1b-L754 is as far as they got with any of them.
I ran a few of the oldest R1b through Snipsa earlier.
ReplyDeleteRussia_Minino_Mesolithic:NEO536 (age -7,618 BC or -9,568 BP calc midpoints)
Result (82.4% 117 -0 +25): R-P297
R1b -> R-L754 -> R-L389 -> R-P297 (ISOGG: )
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic:NEO677 (age -6,726 BC or -8,676 BP calc midpoints)
Result (67.9% 145 -1 +64): R-V2219
R1b -> R-L754 -> R-V2219 (ISOGG: R1b1b)
Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic:NEO671 (age -6,709 BC or -8,659 BP calc midpoints)
Result (65.0% 65 -0 +35): R-V2219
R1b -> R-L754 -> R-V2219 (ISOGG: R1b1b)
Russia_Karavaikha_Mesolithic:NEO555 (age -6,327 BC or -8,277 BP calc midpoints)
Result (71.9% 626 -5 +224): R-Y13202
R1b -> R-L754 -> R-L389 -> R-P297 -> R-Y13200 -> R-Y13202 (ISOGG: )
Russia_Karavaikha_Mesolithic:NEO559 (age -6,318 BC or -8,268 BP calc midpoints)
Result (70.6% 445 -3 +173): R-Y13202
R1b -> R-L754 -> R-L389 -> R-P297 -> R-Y13200 -> R-Y13202 (ISOGG: )
@ Rich
ReplyDeleteftDNA & YFull need to look at them
@ Vlad- thanks
the mid-lower Don samples of Mariupol type from Golubaya Krinitsa c. 5200 bc (even with FWRE -> 5000 BC), have ~ 25% CHG
ReplyDeleteRussia_Lower_Don_Eneolithic:NEO113
CHG 24.0 WHG 5.0 EHG 71.0
Current version of Yleaf gets a little more granular.
ReplyDeleteSample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
NEO536.sort.rmdup.realign.md R-P297*(xR-Y13200,R-M269) PF6459;PF6472 7972738 13737 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
NEO677.sort.rmdup.realign.md R-Y127541 Y241017;Y244338 15238778 18287 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
NEO671.sort.rmdup.realign.md R-V2219*(xR-V88) PF6307;Y7789 7759883 9032 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
NEO555.sort.rmdup.realign.md R-Y13202*(xR-Y13204) Y13875;Y13199;etc. 97507282 79763 0.8125 1.0 0.8125 1.0
NEO559.sort.rmdup.realign.md R-Y13202*(xR-Y13204) Y13875;Y13883;etc. 65098135 54103 0.8333333333333334 1.0 0.8333333333333334 1.0
Rob wrote:
ReplyDelete"@ Rich
ftDNA & YFull need to look at them"
My response:
It would be nice if they would. I just got through bugging FTDNA about the Linderholm CW samples from SE Poland. I've been told they took a look at them and have added all of them except pcw110 to Ancient Connections, but I can't find them there yet. Maybe it will take a few days for them to show up.
Anyway, I suspect FTDNA has my picture on a dartboard now, since I've been such a pest.
@All
ReplyDeleteNeed a huge favor.
Can anyone label the Allentoft samples in this text file and also add geographic coordinates?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1049D8HTO79YGlf2vrHSlCANA38nLskLL/view?usp=sharing
Just noted the date 5200 BC for NEO-113 is R.E. corrected, uncorrected it was ~ 5500 BC
ReplyDeleteThat's a big deal.
@ Aim Small
ReplyDeleteare you using BAM data for the programme ?
can you look at
- NEO262 (4200 bc Ukraine) R1b
- NEO172 middle Don 4800 bc
- NEO179 Saktisch
- NEO83 Borovjanka XVII
please
About mtHG H, please ask YFull why they classified an Italian sample [YF067732] as H1-d* and not a possible hg MN*, seen that all the knot SNPs resulted (to them) failed, what didn’t happen in the original test.
ReplyDeleteAntonioli H1-d*. Not tested SNPs to YFull
310, 477, 2706, 3010, 5351, 7028, 7684, 7853, 8701, 9540, 10400, 10873, 11719, 11950, 12405, 12555, 13277, 14180, 14666, 14766-14783, 15301, 16519 = 61 SNPs for YFull, 39 as to me.
unfortuantely the Sredni Stog NEo262 from Ukraine is low coverage
ReplyDeleteUpdate fam file as requested. Coordinates are LAT, LONG in that order
ReplyDeletehttps://we.tl/t-TcItUWNrak
Agree with Ebizur , mtDna H looks like it spread with near eastern farmers (broadly)
ReplyDeleteYes, using the bam files as published. Not realigning nor generating new indices.
ReplyDeleteSample 179 only has 20 Y chromosome SNPs. Sample 083 wasn't available to download.
Sample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
NEO262.sort.rmdup.realign.md R-L754*(xR-P297,R-Y106006,R-BY59759,R-BY17643,R-Y204176,R-Y7771,R-V4746,R-FTA35720) PF6263 3634313 4358 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
NEO172.sort.rmdup.realign.md R-Y131375 Y131372 3242500 4615 0.75 1.0 1.0 0.75
NEO179.sort.rmdup.realign.md NA 31963160 303 0 0 0 0
NEO262
Result (58.7% 27 -0 +19): R-L754
R1b -> R-L754 (ISOGG: R1b1)
Extra: Y16082:A CTS1239:T Y12947/Z7152:A ZS4297:T Y24562:A Y8549:T M1818/YP1265:A A299/FGC15570:A Z6379/V2959:T Y95488:A CTS6605/M2214:A Z16470:A Y28646:T ZS2035:T S23992:T Z29000/Y11489:T FGC18422:T AM01838:A Y32319:T
NEO172
Result (71.1% 35 -1 +10): R-P297
R1b -> R-L754 -> R-L389 -> R-P297 (ISOGG: )
Extra: FGC2913:A Y21588:T A2639/YP2617/V1593:A Y8549:T BY21441:A Z3302:T L131:T Y2169/FGC4549:T Y27802/Z41475:A YP4076:T
@Aim Small
ReplyDeleteThanks for your work.
All previously published mesolithic R1b1 in Russia is P297+ (R1b1a1).
The new samples are too.
One final revision:
ReplyDelete-Two of the Spanish samples were actually Chalcolithic
-Split the Valencian and Asturian Mesolithic
-Grouped Iron Gates outliers away form the other samples
-One Early Neolithic Danish samples moved to Ertebolle
https://pastebin.com/TYfSGptD
NEO172 is very likely R-V1636 for BY21441 A. It is to verify the SNPs downstream P297.
ReplyDeleteI remember to you that only Italy gets all the 5 known haplotypes of R-V1636.
Seems that central & northern part of western Russian R1b was predominantly P297 variety, and R1b-V1636 in the Don-Volga-Caspian zone
ReplyDeleteStill a bit of a mystery how M269 entered the steppe/ Yamnaya
@ Aimsmall
thanks for scoping that out
@Davidski, can I ask for some old school f4 stats?
ReplyDeleteOf the form
f4 (Mbuti, Russia_UstIshim; Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283, X) and
f4 (Mbuti, China_Tianyuan; Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283, X)
where X is: TurkeyN, Turkey_Pinarbasi_HG, Georgia_CHG, Iran_N, Israel_Natufian, Russia_Progress_Eneolithic, Russia_Yamnaya, Russia_EHG, Loschbour, Serbia_IronGatesHG, Spain_ElMiron, Kostenki14, Yana, Amur14k, Brazil_Sumidouro, Morocco_Iberomaurusian.
Kind of interested here in question of whether NEO283 "has Basal Eurasian" or not.
@Matt
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1zknLbluB3NQLWM16wRnagwyZBzR7HStq/view?usp=sharing
Well, technically a Hunter-Gatherer population moving from the lowlands of modern Azerbaijan to the north side of the Eastern Caucasus would not have this problem of drastically differing ecology. And then the natural route from there is north-west toward the Pontic Steppe, because that direction has better climate and more rich ecosystem than the rather arid region around the Lower Volga.
ReplyDeleteI am not saying this happened (I frankly do not know) I am just saying that your argument in the post is not as strong against this hypothesis than against a direct migration from the mountain regions.
BTW, _I am not sure how Anthony ended up in that camp (if it is David Anthony we are talking about), in his trademark book the The Horse, the Wheel, and Language he seemed to say the Pontic-Caspian Steppe was mainly "neolitized" from west.
Re NEO538 i.e. BA NW Russia Minino Vologda Oblast 300 calBC U5a1d2b N1a1a1a1a2, is there a G25 result available? A member of the larger Nomad_Steppe_LateA group in Allentoft et al, including TianShan_2000BP, SteppeC_TianShan_2700BP_800BP, Kazakhstan_1000BP, Steppe_3500BP_1300BP and EurasiaN_2000BP_1000BP, NEO538 being in more spesific terms a member of the last subgroup i.e. EurasiaN_2000BP_1000BP.
ReplyDeleteCheers Davidski; could you please also do the same:
ReplyDeletef4 (Mbuti, Russia_UstIshim; Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283, X) and
f4 (Mbuti, China_Tianyuan; Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283, X)
where X is: Spain_MLN, Poland_GlobularAmphora, Russia_AfontovaGora3, Czech_EBA_Unetice, China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA, China_NEastAsia_Coastal_EN (labels as per the v54.1_1240k_public).
I think I've got a feel for where Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283 sits on these stats but would be useful just to get a few reference points for how known admixtures behave that sitting in the same stat set.
Also just looking at your standard outgroups, would it be possible for you to run off for me:
f4 (Cameroon_SMA, X; Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283, Turkey_N)
where X is:
Levant_N, Iran_GanjDareh_N, Iran_C_SehGabi, Georgia_HG, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Russia_WestSiberia_HG, Russia_Karelia_HG, Latvia_HG, Russia_Boisman_MN, Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP, Russia_Kostenki14, Russia_Yana_UP.SG, Morocco_Iberomaurusian.
Wondering if these would suggest that Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283 and Turkey_N are mostly a clade to these, and thus the difference between them is mostly attributable to extra genetic drift in Turkey_N, or if looks more like the differences in admixture come out quite large. Motivated by Georgia_Kotias_UP:NEO283 and Turkey_N having pretty similar sharing with Ust_Ishim and Tianyuan under the f4 Mbuti stats.
Sorry for asking, will chill on asking for any further stats.
@ Chad - how’s your book going. ?
ReplyDeleteIt's going well. I'm hoping to have all necessary statistical work done in the coming weeks. This new Kotias UP could make an interesting introduction to the formation of the Anatolian side of the farmers.
Delete@Rob,
ReplyDeleteYes, V1636 is interesting.
We have very few Meso/Neo DNA samples from Steppe/southern Russia. IMO, M269's ancestors will be found there when we get more samples.
M269 is under P297. So far all Meso P297 samples are in northern Russia/forest. But i don't see why P297 could not have also existed in southern Russia/Steppe.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteCan't do it. No computer for the next 24 hours.
@Slumbery
ReplyDeleteAgain, this is speculation with no direct evidence.
We really need to see some solid evidence, instead of the creative interpretations of distal formal stats that have become standard practice in ancient DNA papers.
I agree with you that it's strange that David Anthony has fallen for this sort of approach.
I'm not sure what exact scenario would permit this but the length of the Don River could serve as a reasonable conduit for P297>M269 to enter the steppe from the forest zone. It would still be a question of how and when it got there.
ReplyDeleteI'm very curious about whether any further reads are possible on the samples at Sakhtish II, the Sredni Stog samples near Lipetsk, the new Ukraine Neolithic (especially NEO522) and Middle Don samples. That will surely clarify things a bit.
Further to the CHG discussion above, this sample apparently dates to ~8600BC:
Target: Ukraine_Mesolithic:NEO501
Distance: 4.0025% / 0.04002466
73.0 Ukraine_Mesolithic
17.8 Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
9.2 Georgia_Kotias.SG
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteSorry to bug you about something that has very little to do with the Caucasus barrier (which I agree with you about, anyway, as with most things), but back on 16 September 2023, at 12:02 am, in a reply to Virgin, you wrote the following:
"I know that at least one yet to be published Single Grave culture sample from the Netherlands does indeed belong to R1b-L51."
I remember back in 2019 hearing rumors of a big Single Grave Corded Ware paper in the pipeline. Of course, then the Covid-19 pandemic rolled in, nearly killing my wife, and messing up just about everything else, as well.
Anyway, any new word on that Single Grave paper? Who is doing the work on it, if you know, and when is it likely to appear?
Thanks in advance.
@ Dave/ Slumberry
ReplyDeleteAll the CHG type sites are in the northwestern Caucasus. Some even see similar industries in Crimea. It could be due to poorer research or taphonymic biases that sites are poorly known in the northeast Caucasus.
These developed from ca. 18,000 calBP, so a long period window to allow for interaction with their neighbours to the north
see -> The Epipaleolithic of the Caucasus after the Last Glacial Maximum. L.V. Golovanova et al.
@Davidski, OK - if you could when you get your computer access back, that would be appreciated, but totally up to you, thanks.
ReplyDelete“Newly reported samples belonging to haplogroup R1b were distributed between two distinct groups depending on whether they formed part of the major European subclade R1b1a1b (R1b-M269)-Individuals placed OUTSIDE this subclade were predominantly from Eastern European mesolithic and neolithic contexts, and formed part of rare early diverging R1b lineages"
ReplyDelete"Two Ukrainian individuals belonged to a subclade of R1b1b (R1b-V88) found among present-day central and north Africans, lending further support to an ancient eastern European origin for this clade-Haplogroup R1b1a1a-M73 was frequent among Russian Neolithic individuals”
We already knew that there was no M269 in the Allentoft samples, neither in Russia, nor in Ukraine nor in Siberia.
There are only two cases of P297 in Minino (MN2003-8.534 BC, Posth, 2.023 & NEO536-7.618 BC, Allentoft), as the rest of R1b are M73 (Y13202-northern Russia) and V1636 (Volga), and as we also have P297 in the Baltic (I4630-7.272 BC, Zvejnieki), then M269 cannot be far away. How it reached the Balkans and then its descendants (Z2103) to the steppes is another matter.
There are only two L754 in Ukraine (Dereivka, Lysa Gora) the rest of the samples are overwhelmingly V88, I2a and R1a so patience and keep looking. R1b-M343 lineages may have thus brought WHG ancestry to the north Pontic steppe during the Mesolithic, either from south-eastern Europe or from the Swiderian culture.
And regarding Siberia, all samples are Q, then R left his homeland very early and left no trace in that region.
@EP
ReplyDeleteTarget: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I0231
Distance: 2.9254% / 0.02925436
49.6 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2004
29.0 NEO113
13.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2001
8.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT118
Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya:I0357
Distance: 3.1443% / 0.03144274
40.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2004
28.4 NEO113
17.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:VJ1001
5.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT015
4.6 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT106C
3.6 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia:VERT118
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Perhaps a link between R1b branches with V1636(PG2001&PG2004) and Z2109+, both found in Corded Ware(SGC) and Yamnaya, either by way of ydna or autosomal component.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/
But various online genetic genealogy communities are already studying in detail the Y-chromosome data from the BAM files. One interesting outcome is that both of the Eneolithic steppe males, PG2001 and PG2004, apparently belong to Y-haplogroup R-V1636 (see here). This extremely rare subclade of R1b has apparently also been found in an ancient individual from what is now Armenia associated with the Kura-Araxes culture: Armenia_EBA I1635.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/11/the-story-of-r-v1636.html
Who wants to bet against this map? Keep in mind that ART038 (~3000 calBCE) remains the oldest sample with the V1636 and R1b Y-chromosome mutations in the West Asian ancient DNA record. Ergo, there's nothing to suggest that V1636 or R1b entered Eastern Europe from West Asia.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/01/a-tantalizing-link.html
However, the results do make sense, because the earliest instances of R1b-V1636 are in three Eneolithic males from burial sites on the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe in Eastern Europe, which is precisely where one would expect to find the paternal ancestors of the SGC population. The SGC, of course, is the westernmost variant of the Corded Ware culture (CWC), and there's very little doubt nowadays that the CWC had its roots on the PC steppe.
@All
ReplyDeleteIf anyone's interested in those recent Hungarian Batthory samples...
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1uE32AYy5Y4ZGj-43naDW1a8xHJCh5XuS/view?usp=sharing
I've noticed that several of the new Ukraine_N samples (NEO503, NEO552) seem to show 5-10% more ANF admixture than previously released samples. These ones are located only a little bit more north, same time period.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"This sample is also interesting
«genome of an Upper Palaeolithic (UP) skeleton from Kotias Klde Cave in Georgia, Caucasus (NEO283), directly dated to 26,052 - 25,323 cal BP (95%). In the PCA of all non-African individuals, it occupies a position distinct from other previously sequenced UP individuals, shifted towards west Eurasians along PC1 (Supplementary Note 3d). Using admixture graph modelling, we find that this Caucasus UP lineage derives from a mixture of predominantly West Eurasian UP hunter-gatherer ancestry (76%) with ~24% contribution from a “basal Eurasian” ghost population, first observed in West Asian Neolithic individuals19 (Extended Data Fig. 5A).»"
Wow, that is pretty amazing! Pre-CHG sample before arrival of ANE.
What haplogroup did NEO283 carry?
Precisely the same argument could be used to explain the vastly different economy of the steppe pastoralists and the inhabitants of the BMAC or the indus valley. There is nothing similar, from the rites of cremation which are absent at Sintashta, to the way of life (settled agriculturalism vs nomadic pastoralism). Unlike in Europe, the archeological and anthropological record in India shows no signs of transition from the IVC to the post-IVC period. Traders are often males, and so it make sense that nomadic traders were men and it explains both the low proportion of overall ancestry in India and the slightly higher Y proportions. Nomadic traders also traversed longer distances explaining the asymmetry in the migration pattern.
ReplyDeleteHowever, there is a difference in the Caucuses. The ancestry shifts are almost entirely uni-directional over a very small geographic space. They all flow from the South to the North, with little to no ancestry percolating a few hundred miles south into Anatolia. This basically means this isn't a contact zone. This is a complete cultural and linguistic shift of Eastern Europeans by Central Asians from the South Caucuses.
@music lover
ReplyDeleteThis is evidence of an actual migration from Eastern Europe to South Central Asia.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html
And this is the only plausible linguistic link between the Indo-European speakers of Europe and South Asia.
Ergo, it's evidence of the Proto-Indo-Iranian migration from Europe to Asia.
David Reich and David Anthony have not provided such evidence for migrations into the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
You're living in the same fantasy as they are.
@MaxT
ReplyDeleteNEO283 appears to be a female. Here is what YLeaf, Snipsa, and WGSExtract have to reveal.
YLeaf 3.1
Sample_name Hg Hg_marker Total_reads Valid_markers QC-score QC-1 QC-2 QC-3
NEO283.sort.rmdup.realign.md NA 40051506 403 0 0 0 0
Snipsa
Result (100.0% 1 -0 +0): F
F (ISOGG: )
+ U2'3'4'7'8'9 G A1811G formed >20000 ybp, TMRCA >20000 ybp
Result ( 78.2% 43 -0 +12): U2'3'4'7'8'9
Extra: T310C G499A C4707T G4769A C6170T C7978T C8382T C8605T G9612A T14094C G14323A T16362C
Reference Genome: hg37w (Num), rCRS, 25 SNs
Map Avg Read Depth: 0.8x
Bio Gender: Female
File Content: Auto, X, Mito
File Stats: Sorted, Indexed, 2.6GBs
Theytree seems to think NEO166, which is an ambiguously labeled Sredni Stog sample near Lipetsk, is under R-P297 (R-Y13204). He's almost entirely EHG.
ReplyDeleteAnother interesting one is NEO522, the UKR_N outlier with what looks like Steppe ancestry, being marked I-L701.
Unfortunately they haven't looked at all the samples yet.
@Matt
ReplyDeletehttps://drive.google.com/file/d/1RVr_3WBL0Koaq83PKYYbuqs6B390suzX/view?usp=sharing
@ Matt what are your thoughts of those stats ?
ReplyDelete@Davidski,
ReplyDelete“Steppe Maykop has Siberian admixture, so it didn't come from the Caucasus.
It probably came from the Kazakh steppe, or somewhere from that direction anyway.
So it was a migration from one part of the Eurasian steppe to another.”
Regarding this message, although I don't want to refute its merit and in fact I believe it to be correct, I believe that it is refractory in not providing for a possibility in which the CHG-related ancestry we are (not personally me, being not too involved in Steppes people these days) looking for, could come from a more western (in a geographical sense) zone instead of from the eastern one (I imagine you are referring to WSHG-related people exhibiting Zagros-like; for this some Kelteminar samples would be useful). It is true that RUS_Maykop_Late MK5004 and SA6002 show, albeit in a negligible portion, the ancestry you allude to and which you would then impart to the western Steppes people you speak of: but I believe that the times do not match for the geneflow, and that, despite a well-known bridge between PC Steppes and the eastern prolonged area below the Irtyš and above the Syr Dāryā which culminates for example in pottery dispersals such as in Koshkino-Boborykino, even the source of CHG-related ancestry of the local WSHG-related appears after the same event in pre-/WSH related people; in fact the first WSHG-related showing a clear Zagros-like signal date back ~5,000–4,700 yBP but not earlier, positioning between Altai mts. and Tian Shan. Therefore, and this is highly speculative at least for me, I consider the hypothesis of a para-Kotias population in the peri-PC Steppes area between Kabardino-Balkaria and in any case below the Don to be valid. Even for ~6,500 yBP in the western area such as Anatolia, CHG-related phenomena emerge; I realize it is under geographical area and due to human movements that are totally differents compared to the case of the Steppes but it is to reinforce the fact that a similar CHG-related event occurs earlier even there than in central-southern Siberia (to propagate then westeard). After that, referring to RUS_Maykop_Late, certainly seems to work to draw a link from its little WSHG-related portion to the Steppes people proper, but I don't see how absolutely not considering the previous RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya, ~5,700 yBP, can't give us some more support on this question and if it had a role on the hypothetical CHG-related population I'm talking about. I would also add that it is from this precise Maykop that we then observe another parallel and confirmed phenomenon this time: that is, precisely its contribution in TUR_Arslantepe_LC which, although it is part of another world from the Steppes, on the one hand grants this "semi-permeability" of the Caucasus of having exceptions, and on the other hand that if it went south-west it could also head north or it could already find itself there in the contiguous form of that hypothetical population I'm talking about (be careful, it absolutely must not be RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya, the model can fail: I speak in terms of geography and dynamics not in terms of genomics). After that the eminently WSHG-related signal in both these new (but also those we already had) samples from the Don and RUS_Maykop_Late would be explained by other vicissitudes; but is not in priority hierarchical relation to our first problem to me. Let me know what you think, if you like, greetings
@EthanR
ReplyDeleteWhat does it mean “Theytree seems to think NEO166, which is an ambiguously labeled Sredni Stog sample near Lipetsk, is under R-P297 (R-Y13204). He's almost entirely EHG”?
To be downstream R-P297 doesn’t mean have something to do with R-P269. These are the western European, of the WHG, R-M73(xM478) that I have demonstrated 15 years ago have migrated to Asia not more than 7000 years ago as all the other hg R, perhaps included R-PH155 not older than this date in Asia, and we have to test the 3 Italian samples. In the tree there is only another unknown so far to me sample. This is another proof of the western origin of hg R1 (both a and b).
@Gio
ReplyDeleteOh how scary! Rathna, what a surprise! How are you? I don't know if you remember me but it doesn't matter. These are very uncertain times with few certainties, and I find your message as a true reassuring instead. You already understood years ago about our genetic genealogy, it is nice to read you especially in very uncertain times: Amicus certus in re incerta cernitur. From one of your siculo-ligurian compatriots, with affection
Nice , so I was wrong about Danubian-Farmers origins of R1b-M269, might been from Forest Steppe, like R-M417,thus Caucasian origins sounds an absurdism(paternal lineages were probably a better source for the First Patriarchal Society).
ReplyDeletePre-CHG or Pre LGM CHG was present not only on Caucasus mountains probably, but everywhere around the Black-Caspian Steppe, then mixed with ANE and WHG proper and mãe both EHG and CHG itself, with southern steppe being a intermediate form of those Sources. We should consider that the concept of CHG and EHG were simple arbitrary, since those populations were the only that we could use as sources from that time, and so was absolutely idiot to thought that their source always means migration proper, as we should expect intermediate profiles, as a Continuum like we saw on North Caucasus/Southern Steppe Zone during Early Neo/neo/meso(depends on concept) .
What I think that we will find is Southern Caspian HG, I think that Dzudzuana Rich population(Villabruna-Like+Basal) was different from Southern Caspian, maybe from AASI mixture or some unknown lineage . Epi-gravettian origins couldn't been found on Iranian Plateau, imo Iran Neo/Meso and CHG just resemble each other cause the admixture seems similar, but in fact they are two different sources, with Iran Neo been a sort of Basal-Rich+ANE+Minor WHG+Minor AASI or something like it , maybe as a result of pre-CHG contact with Basal Been
more related to Persian's Gulf as it was, or some unknown population that could been a god source for Iran Meso-Iran Neo Singularity, as we compare with CHG.
And steppe/IE clearly lack those signature from Iran Like origins, as well as any CHG-like necessarily from Caucasus(as we should notice several ranges of CHG-like admixture since Mesolithic), thus leading us to the final conclusion, Indo Europeans came from different groups between Southern Stepped and Forest Stepped, as well as Northern Borders(as we should agree that para-IE cultures might been related to Comb Ceramic and Others).
ReplyDeleteProgress Was a good source to Indo Anatolians, and theirs migration would match with the estimated range of Split between Indo Anatolians and other IE branches.
Before any maykop Botai-Related population went to steppe, their invasion could been a good reason for explain the Migrations that Progress Population did, some went to North steppe and mixture with "Sredny Stog II" and then we had the Perfect Yamnaya Like population(post Sredny).
A better explanation, and we don't need any other extraordinary explanation from a Fantastic Iranian Migration.
@Contropropaganda 2
ReplyDeleteHistory is a strange thing with its vicissitudes, and genetics the same. Perhaps you know that I am a 100% Tuscan, but a few Etruscan, overwhelmingly Roman, and my wife is from Sicily, as Roman pretty much as me, but with probably Norman uniparental markers (Y R-L21, mt K1c1f3). My grandchildren have a Flemish mother, I’d say 100% Frankish. Many said that I am a racist, only because I am an historian, among many other things, and know all what is to know. I thought that only similis cum simile was worth.
@Rob, due to also being away from computer since yesterday and only had a read through of them on my phone, which is not ideal for drawing conclusions, and writing them up. Will try and get you a response with some initial thoughts for critique/comment about 9-10 hours from now.
ReplyDelete@Gio
ReplyDeleteI remember you as chrY R1b1a2-L23-Z2110-FGC24408 with more than 80 SNPs, yes; I also remember that you certainly had to go through a lot of trouble in the blog and on the forum. I wanted to opt for YSEQ but then I chose the easy option with the "big Y" (I put lowercase because you called it "small Y") from FTDNA and with YFull, hoping if will I better see. I'm already sure I'm broadly speaking R1b1a1a2a1a2b from previous testing and YLeaf, while by the other half, I am mtDNA H3c1: I know a lot of discussion has been there in the past years about H3. Tal guaina tal coltello
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAbout the Bathory samples.
It is one thing that the family y-DNA is Germanic, but it is weird that the article explains the Germanic shift in their autosomal DNA with the Germanic origin of the family. All the samples are from 10+ generation after that origin. If they have a Germanic shift that must be because of marriages with Transylvanian German families later or a general Germanic shift of a part of Transylvanian nobility due to such intermarriages, not the root origin of the family.
At any rate, only two of the males are identified as members of the Bathory family.
But the more interesting part (for me) is that many of the samples have an Eastern pull (also noted by the article) that is possibly into the direction of the of the early 10th century Hungarian elite. It is not huge, but big enough to be visible on the G25 West Eurasian PCA. I did not think that the 16th century Transylvanian nobility still had that.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAs far as I know, Volga-Ural and Lipka Tatars have a genetic contribution of CWC and even Slavic, is there any difference from Crimean Tatars of the coast and the backland ?
How can you present something like that, total propaganda and has nothing to do with freedom of expression, Poland is portrayed in a totally false light
https://youtu.be/B_MHUcUfo4o?si=9yD9wruQbjxYG8Sq
@ Contropropaganda 2
ReplyDeleteIn the YFull tree your mt would be this, in fact your sample is JQ703410, but what a pity that you didn’t send your data to them.
H3c1a2a T16189C! formed 1100 ybp, TMRCA 1100 ybp
o id:YF090813
o id:JQ703410.1
o id:JQ704236.1
What are the current Suvorovo samples we have? I wonder if the chalcolithic Barcin samples could modeled with the neolithic Barcin samples and these.
ReplyDelete@Davidski, thanks again.
ReplyDelete@Rob, I don't have an insightful overall narrative to say about those stats, looking at them now, but a few observations:
- Z score for f4(Mbuti, Ust Ishim; Georgia_Kotias_UP, Y) and f4(Mbuti, Ust Ishim; China_Tianyuan, Y) are basically neutral (<1) for Turkey_N and CHG. That indicates that Georgia_Kotias_UP should, by the conventional model of Basal Eurasian, have the same amount of Basal Eurasian as Turkey_N and CHG (whether this model is still thought currently be most likely, I can't remember!). Turkey_Epipaleolithic (Pinarbasi) may have some slightly lower level of Basal Eurasian, but the Z score is within statistical signs of nothing significant.
- Few plots comparing these stats: https://imgur.com/a/mNMDgbS
- On a note unrelated to Georgia_Kotias_UP, it does seem odd to me the way that on these EHG is not between either the ANE related China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA/Russia_AfontovaGora_3 and Iron_Gates on these stats (seems to have less Basal Eurasian/Ust Ishim affinity than a cline between them), nor is an extension of the difference between CHG and Steppe_Eneolithic (so is Steppe_Eneo really between EHG and CHG on this?). I guess there may be some noise but it seems odd.
- The stats involving Davidski's standard outgroups seem to point to the differences between Turkey_N and Georgia_Kotias_UP being most obvious in a strong relationship of Turkey_N to other Near Eastern populations (Jordan PPNB, Iran SehGabi, GanjDareh, and to a lesser extent North African). That is kind of expected in some sense.
- Those stats: https://imgur.com/a/i1FDjVE
- Unlike the strong stat for f4(Cameroon_SMA, Iran_GanjDareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N), there doesn't seem like there is a strong relationship in the stat f4(Cameroon_SMA, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N).
That seems unexpected under any of the models where there was directional flow either of an ancestor of Turkey_N that to European HGs or vice versa where European HGs flowed into the ancestors of Turkey_N after splitting from a Georgia_Kotias_UP like population.
It's possible this could be masked out by some other geneflow though.
- It seems odd that the f4(Cameroon_SMA, Russia_Boisman_MN, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N) is quite significant at Z: 3.1, even though the stat with f4(Cameroon_SMA, China_Tianyuan, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N) is below significance (0.76). Indicating that Turkey_N is closer to modern East Asians, but for some reason not really Tianyuan.
Any ideas about what could be interesting to look at with this sample?
ReplyDeleteThe Srednestogovskaya, just further north from Vorzhneh and quasi contemporaneous to GK, seem to be be ~ 80% EHG, with minor portions of WHG & CHG
Also,more data from new paper ''Between fishing and farming: palaeogenomic analyses reveal cross-cultural interactions triggered by the arrival of the Neolithic in the Danube Gorges''
Possible terminal Paelolithic sample from Crimeai plots half -way between EHG & WHG, mtDNA U5a. Male , no Y DNA reported for that or any other samples
I have to apologize about Italian R-M73*. The person in the ytree of FTDNA is Vizzaccaro (R-FTB9219) and he is probably of Germanic medieval origin. Paolino and Mainenti are close linked and very far from him, and it would be interesting to get their WGS. I have notice from the web of a Tunisian probably linked to Sicily or Italy, but he could be also from medieval Vandals etc. So I am not certain that R-M73* is from old samples in Italy and so far no aDNA is found up there, only on Baltic, WHG, probably ancestors of the Asian R-M73-M478, but no proof so far that they came from the Alpine refugium.
ReplyDelete@ Matt
ReplyDeleteInteresting run down. Might be better to use AHG than Turkey_N? The latter has Iran and Natufian admixture
Basically, based on tree graph type analyses, there is an earlier outgroup “basal” Eurasian type of ancestry which contributed to Pinarbasi, Dzudzuana and presumable Kotias_UP. They also have ancestry from the population which led to Kostenki14.
I think ZK can act as an appropriate proxy for that in Trees, even if it’s not quite the same thing
Pinarbasi is closely related to Dzudzuana & form a clade
The post-Dz, post-Pinarbasi west asians have all sorts of non-Basal Eurasian and African admixture which makes interpreting F/D stats quite hard
@Steppe
ReplyDeleteI have just three steppe Crimean Tatar samples. But I know that there's a significant difference between different groups of Crimean Tatars.
Tatar_Crimean_steppe:Crimean_steppe1,0.091058,-0.016248,0.031678,0.002261,-0.007386,0.00251,0.008225,0.008077,-0.006545,-0.007289,-0.011042,-0.000899,-0.003271,0.000275,-0.007057,0.010475,0.014994,-0.008488,0.004274,0.002376,0.00025,-0.006801,0.000246,0.011327,0.000239
Tatar_Crimean_steppe:Crimean_steppe2,0.091058,-0.078196,0.035449,0.004199,-0.014156,-0.000279,0.00423,0.012692,-0.003272,-0.000911,-0.009906,-0.00015,0.004162,0.011973,-0.004614,0.001989,0.004172,0.00152,-0.001257,0.009755,-0.010856,0,-0.001972,0.00012,-0.000599
Tatar_Crimean_steppe:Crimean_steppe3,0.094473,-0.067025,0.036581,0.008075,-0.006463,0,0.005875,0.007846,-0.011658,0.001822,-0.017213,-0.003297,0.003717,0.007019,-0.005836,-0.009016,0.007823,-0.005068,-0.001006,0.00025,-0.004243,0.003833,-0.007025,0.000723,0.005987
I have no idea what the second part of your comment is about, but keep in mind that there's a lot of propaganda on Youtube and X, and it's not something that should be taken seriously or discussed here.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteOK, thanks , the topic doesn't belong here, but it knocked me off my pedestal a bit, but the mood in Germany is a bit tense, some claims from the Polish camp (bullshit) but whatever, it's true, the difference isn't very big, but Volga-Ural and Lipka -Tatars share some European ancestors CWC/ Slavic like the Crimean Tatars' ancestry is predominantly Sintashta/Andronovo and the Crimean Tatars of the coast have a greater Ottoman heritage, I also think phenotypically there is a small difference to Tatars of Crimea and the Eastern European Plain
@ crash doc
ReplyDeleteThe BuranKaya data files seem a bit funky./ values missing in 5th column of .fam file
Did they work for you ?
@Contropropaganda 2
ReplyDeleteI've read your comment a couple of times over, but I still don't understand the point you're trying to make about Steppe Maykop.
@Rob
ReplyDeletedid you manage to know the relationship between the Buran Kaya samples with Kostenki and possibly proto ANE ( the west eurasian side of ANE I mean )
@Matt
ReplyDeleteVery interesting stats!
" Unlike the strong stat for f4(Cameroon_SMA, Iran_GanjDareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N), there doesn't seem like there is a strong relationship in the stat f4(Cameroon_SMA, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N).
That seems unexpected under any of the models where there was directional flow either of an ancestor of Turkey_N that to European HGs or vice versa where European HGs flowed into the ancestors of Turkey_N after splitting from a Georgia_Kotias_UP like population."
I would not really call this unexpected, but more so confounded by the fact that that Turkey_N has Natufian/Iran_N-related admixtures that Georgia_UP lacks but at the same time having some actual Iron Gates-like ancestry (probably why I2 pops up in some ANF samples and some related mtDNA sub-branches of U8).This is why the stat equalizes so to speak in my view.
"- It seems odd that the f4(Cameroon_SMA, Russia_Boisman_MN, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N) is quite significant at Z: 3.1, even though the stat with f4(Cameroon_SMA, China_Tianyuan, Georgia_Kotias_UP, Turkey_N) is below significance (0.76). Indicating that Turkey_N is closer to modern East Asians, but for some reason not really Tianyuan."
I have a feeling this is due to the East Asian-related affinities in Iran_N, probably has to do with the branching order of East Asians somewhere around Iran/Central Asia. It might also (perhaps) has to do with the excess archaic of Tianyuan albeit I am not sure how to check this exactly, maybe adding Zlaty Kun or Ustishim as outgroups.
Things that imo would be interesting to check would be:
1) Whether AHG and Georgia_UP are symmetrically related to Iron Gates or WHG
2) Whether Georgia_UP shows any sign of that eastern affinity Iran_N does, or if it is closer to East Asians than Tianyuan
3) Whether CHG is closer to Pinarbasi or Georgia_UP (there is some evidence that Caucasus was depopulated at some point during LGM IIRC)
@Robb
What types of African admixtures do you mean for West Asian pops and which pops are affected by them? Would they be the Taforalt-like admixture in Natufians and the like?
ReplyDelete@Virgin
I don't quite understand your comments, please read carefully the published papers and analyze the BAM files. In any case, you know that Y13202 is downstream R1b-P297 but it is a distinct branch of M269 right?
To date, there is no Russian, Ukrainian or Siberian EHG that is M269. P297 is a typical marker of northwestern Russia and the Baltic, its descendants Y13200 advanced southward following the course of the great Russian rivers and survived until the cultures of Lyalovo and Volosovo but we do not know if it is the same path that M269 followed because this last lineage does not appear in the steppes but in the Balkans. There is also no M269 in the Ukrainian Mesolithic, Dniper-Donets (Mariupol cemeteries) or Sredni Stog, so the discussion about the origin of the M269 marker is more open than ever.
@Virgin said-"we don't need any other extraordinary explanation from a Fantastic Iranian Migration"
What do you think of that marker?
>West Asia
*SATP (11.305 BC)-Satsurblia, CHG, Georgia-HapY-J1b-Y6313>FT33726>FT34521
*SHA004 (3.294 BC)-Shahtepe, Caspian sea, chalcolithic, Iran-HapY-J1b-Y6313>Y19093>pre-ZS50
>Europe
*BUK004 (3.931 BC)-Gumelnita, Romania-HapY-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>ZS96>Y19093
*NEO163 (3.654 BC)-Vasilyevskiy kordon 17, Sredni Stog culture, Russia-HapY-J1b-Y6313
*LAZ017 (2.787 BC)-Lazarides, Aegina island, Greece-HapY-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>Y19093>ZS50>ZS58
*G31 (2.450 BC)-Perachora, Greece-HapY-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>Y19093>ZS50 (xM10096,BY119669)
*NST012 (2.413 BC)-Nea Styra, early Helladic, Euboea island-HapY-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>Y19093>ZS50
*KUK002 (1.163 BC)-Koukounaries, Paros, Mycenean, Greece-HapY-J1b-Y6313>Y6304>F1614
@Virgin “ leading us to the final conclusion, Indo Europeans came from different groups between Southern Stepped and Forest Stepped, as well as Northern Borders(as we should agree that para-IE cultures might been related to Comb Ceramic and Others).”
ReplyDeleteYou’re saying in essence that para-PIE were EHG like Combed Ceramic and Volosovo?
@Gio “ Perhaps you know that I am a 100% Tuscan, but a few Etruscan, overwhelmingly Roman, and my wife is from Sicily, as Roman pretty much as me”
ReplyDeleteRoman? What about Longobardian? Padanians and Toscans are at least 30% Germanic
As for Sicilians, they are Classical Greek, Saracene with lots of Norman, not Romans
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteRussia_EN_Srednestogovskaya is not Sredny Stog culture.
Apart from that, thanks, your ancient list of J1b clearly shows that it was not an Indo-European marker, but rather a non-Indo-European one.
This is also obvious from its modern distribution and frequencies.
@Matt “ - The stats involving Davidski's standard outgroups seem to point to the differences between Turkey_N and Georgia_Kotias_UP being most obvious in a strong relationship of Turkey_N to other Near Eastern populations (Jordan PPNB, Iran SehGabi, GanjDareh, and to a lesser extent North African). That is kind of expected in some sense.”
ReplyDeleteIsn’t it because PPNB was 50% Anatolian?
The Pequi’in population in Lazaridis 2018 was even more so (overwhelmingly Barcin-like), and was Ydna T, had alleles for blue eyes and even red hair
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe BuranKaya files that I shared behave indeed a bit strangely, they work but with the stats I've done with them up to now I think they are damaged/distorted a bit. Maybe the filtering process went badly, after all these were my first try, I'm still a newb taking raw data and making it into plink files. I did BuranKaya to learn and since no one else seemed to want to do them. I'm still trying to improve them. Will post again if I succeed in that direction.
As for the fifth column of the fam file, I simply left the sex undetermined, but you can put a "1" in them since we know they are males.
This is an interesting stat. CHG seems more related to Turkey_N then to Georgia_Kotias_UP.
ReplyDeleteCameroon_SMA Georgia_CHG.SG Georgia_Kotias_UP Turkey_N 0.001988 4.662 35684 34390 650747
@Davidski,
ReplyDelete"I've read your comment a couple of times over, but I still don't understand the point you're trying to make about Steppe Maykop."
thanks,
the question revolves around the fact that the CHG-related to the Don specimen could have been a local population with a bank on the Ciscaucasus but towards Europe since the Epipaleolithic, also the question revolves around that the semi-permeability often allowed a permeability (in fact, it can be seen a CHG-related ancestry from the middle to the Caucasus went to the south, and why couldn't it also go to the north? The orographic margin is approximately the same) and the question ultimately highlights that in Don sample the southern ancestry resembles Novosvobodnaya, instead of one which carries WSHG-like call. This second CHG-related with small western Siberia looks like the one in Yamnaya to me but not in the Don. I also fear that CHGification of what was on the Neolithic to Eneolithic Steppes is different from what happens afterwards, always involving a CHG-related source. That NEO113 is a nice specimen, the problem that many are already wondering is that with DATES bulk of the admixture between EHG & CHG/Iran-related component in Yamnaya kind of samples can be dated to between ~6,800 and ~6,300 yBP but not before and it seems like another event therefore. This is when IE languages, in the Steppes hypothesis at least, likely reached a culmination there and becames fixed. Target are Yamnaya_Samara + Afanasievo, Source1 as EHG and Source2 as CHG, Ganj_Dareh_N, SC_Asia_ChL. The admixture relevant for Yamnaya translates to ~6,816–6,298 yBP, 95% Confidence Interval and is an introgression of a CHG-related later than that event which had already been encountered on the Don, earlier.
Regards
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteIs it possible to contact you somewhere? I have to ask you for advice on some things you reported regarding chrY, thanks
@Rob, you could run those stats f4(Cameroon_SMA, X; Georgia_Kotias_UP, Pinarbasi_HG) as well, sure.
ReplyDelete@gamerzj: yeah, it is possible that there is an effect of complex admixture dampening some admix pulse signal from WHG (I think I mentioned that above).
Although that said, WHG seems like a more bottlenecked population than e.g. Iran_N, so I would be surprised if anything like equal levels of admixture from WHG+Iran_N led to a Z:~1 WHG score combined with a Z:~8 Iran_N score in the relevant f4 stats.
A model could be tested of:
Target: Turkey_N
pLeft: Georgia_Kotias_UP, Iran_N, Israel_Natufian, Serbia_IronGates_HG
pRight: Cameroon_SMA.DG, Russia_Kostenki14, Russia_Yana_UP, Russia_UstIshim, China_Tianyuan, Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1
(Natufian quality may be too low).
Using strictly pre-Georgia_Kotias_UP samples from Upper Paleolithic and Africa to see if Turkey_N can succeed as a model.
You could add to the pRight AR19K if you wished to test if there was some kind of relatedness specifically to East Asians mediated by IranN.
@Andrzejewski - yes, I think that kind of model could explain high stat for IranSehGabi and JordanPPNB, but stats for Iran_GanjDarehN and Morocco_Iberomaurusian may or may not be explained that way.
@ Crashdoc
ReplyDeleteAppreciate your help !
Your .fam file for Buranaya appears
4 BK3_C 0 0 0 -9
compared to for ex
Czechia_Bohemia_UP_HG ZKU002_noUDG.SG 0 0 2 1
Czech_Pavlov1 Pavlov1_d 0 0 1 1
Can the first '4' be replaced by a name before mergin ?
Ive not seen a value -9 before . It's usually 0, 1, & 2/ Any thoughts there?
@ Old Europe
Im still working & struggling a bit woth the merger for Buran Kaya.
@ Gamerz J
ReplyDeleteIBM works for Natufian; but Iran_N have affinitiy with IBM, Mota and even deeper Africans like Shum Laka. I think we need more Northeast African genomes
I think the southeast Asian affinitiy in Iran-CHG is Adnaman-Hoabinhian line
@ Matt
I can run all those with Dzudzuana & Pinarbasi if you suggest ?
Contropropaganda wrote:
ReplyDelete"@Gaska
Is it possible to contact you somewhere? I have to ask you for advice on some things you reported regarding chrY, thanks"
I guess P. T. Barnum was wrong. There's more than one born every minute.
Gaska? Advice?
@Contropropaganda 2
ReplyDeleteIn fact, it can be seen a CHG-related ancestry from the middle to the Caucasus went to the south, and why couldn't it also go to the north?
I'm not sure if that's a fact. It just seems like your assumption.
And even if it did happen, then there's no certainty that it would be comparable to a migration from the Caucasus to the steppe because of the uniquely extreme difference between these ecological zones.
This second CHG-related with small western Siberia looks like the one in Yamnaya to me but not in the Don.
Are you claiming that Steppe Maykop is related to Yamnaya, or at least that Yamnaya has the same sort of Siberian ancestry as Steppe Maykop? If so that's false on both counts.
That NEO113 is a nice specimen, the problem that many are already wondering is that with DATES bulk of the admixture between EHG & CHG/Iran-related component in Yamnaya kind of samples can be dated to between ~6,800 and ~6,300 yBP but not before and it seems like another event therefore.
DATES is probably a useful program, but its output is difficult to interpret correctly.
As far as I can remember, Nick Patterson's DATES estimate for the formation of Yamnaya from the mixture between CHG and EHG is ~4,100 BCE.
But, of course, this date is more in line with the admixture between the already Yamnaya-like Sredny Stog and Ukraine N in Ukraine.
So yeah, DATES picks up admixture events quite well, but it's usually a mystery what they mean exactly.
There doesn’t seem to be any evidence for a migration from Southern Caucasus or Middle East into the steppe before the limited influence of Majkop groups
ReplyDeletewhat we're in fact seeing is that WSHG-rich group migrated toward the north Caucasus steppe ~ 5000 bc and WHG-rich groups moved toward the Dnieper -Don region.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"IBM works for Natufian; but Iran_N have affinitiy with IBM, Mota and even deeper Africans like Shum Laka. I think we need more Northeast African genomes"
I don't have them handy but I do remember distinctly that in direct Dstats I've seen, Iran_Neo would show higher Z scores with African populations than Natufian/Levantines did. I always found that very interesting but I really doubt it's due to any actual African ancestry in Iran, but rather some very deep ancestry that somehow pulls them towards SSA?
Is it ever possible to model Africans (especially Mota or other ancient Africans) as having some sort of older Eurasian-ish ancestry (not post-Neolithic ancestry from MENA)?
@ Cy
ReplyDeleteYes I doubted that pull too, so tested it with Abdul Husein as well as Ganj Dareh, just to make sure it wasnt some kind of a genotype bias . Its present there as well, and present in CHG hunters too !
Some kind of NE Africa-> Gulf interaction comes to mind.
I dont see any Eurasian admixture in Mota or other pre-Bronze Age Africans apart from the obvious one in IBM
@All
ReplyDeletePlease note that there are many more G25 coords for the samples from the Allentoft paper on the way.
Many of the relevant files haven't appeared online yet.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWhat is magnitude of the of the African-edge into these pops? Is there any particular African source that works better than others?
@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteWhen I said that I am 100% Tuscan I did mean that my ancestors whom I know through ducuments are pretty much all Tuscans. I reached my Y until Signorino del Badia lived in Castelfiorentino at the beginning of 1300 and all the others I know were Tuscans. Of course you may say that my autosome should say something else, but 23andMe gives me 99.5% Italian and my wife from Sicily 97%. If I compare my data through MyTrueAncestry we are above all Romans, and I am a little Etruscans, found more in Western Northern Italy, Southern France and Iberia,, where probably the peoples linked to Etruscans migrated from the eastern Alps where we find the closest Rhaetians. Of course you may search deeper intakes, but you know that I believe a little in this research, and I used only the uniparental markers in my studies. Yes, I found that the uniparental markers of my wife from Sicily are probably Norman (R-L21, K1c1f3), as I have some ancestor, above all from the hamlet of Staffoli, a Longobardian place name, with a Longobard Y, but you should know that the same Longobards, already in Pannonia, were largely Romans and Iberians, not only from Northern Europe. In Sicily is all to discuss the supposed Greek or Arab intakes, because Arabs were expelled from Normans and deported in Apulia, and I prefer to follow the uniparental markers, even though they are worth a little for the autosome, but are more certain in their path. As Italy, after the fall of the Roman Empire, was peopled by the Italics of the countries and with a Germanic contribution that we find in the uniparental markers, but all peoples have an autosome which is the mix of all theirs intakes, and I don’t believe that all came from the Middle East (Ex Oriente lux) of from other places. And you should know that I am the theorist of an Italian Palaeolithic refugium, but they were 2 as some Italian geneticists demonstrated beyond all what I wrote about that. Certainly the oldest R1b1 is in Villabruna 14000 years ago, and I think much other.
@Davidski,
ReplyDelete“This second CHG-related with small western Siberia looks like the one in Yamnaya to me but not in the Don.”
“Are you claiming that Steppe Maykop is related to Yamnaya, or at least that Yamnaya has the same sort of Siberian ancestry as Steppe Maykop? If so that's false on both counts.“
No, not exactly, lacking direct confirmation of such pop; I am referring rather to the disillusioned observation that the WSHG-like input that is observed in Yamnaya given the time and area, seems to have arrived in the same time frame also for steppic Maykop. And this instead exonerated the other population portion of Maykop, Novosvobodnaya that is, which lacks this somewhat-WSHG. As for the other answers on DATES, thank you, I personally only used it in the presence of one person so I can't tell you with what exact criteria it was tested by Patterson, who may also have had his own idea. As for the first thing you said, it should be remembered that even the Steppes as an ecozone had some serious difficulties, and that a partial impermeability did not only come from the Caucasus when it was impenetrable but also from the Steppes on the Don which were both lived in (the two main genepools), frequented and descended towards the Caucasus in conjunction with the "contact zone". When we talk about these western steppic areas we overlook an important detail. The lifestyle of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers to Neolithic pastoralists in the winter on ukrainian and russian Steppes was difficult. In considering their choice of fuel and sustain, how they traverse the vast Steppes landscape on cloudy winter days with snow cover reaching up to 1 meter? And what about their strategies for surviving in dry years? It becomes evident that the common perception of the Steppes as an ecosystem is quite inaccurate. I'm suggesting that the traditional notion of the Steppes as an ecosystem inhabited by the "WSH" genotype is a misconception. At the start of summer, both groups migrated to the central Steppe from the russian and ukrainian forests as well as the northern Caucasus. For the remainder of the year, and sometimes for multiple consecutive years, the central ecosystem had no permanent residents; in fact, it was largely uninhabited. It wasn't until goats (and partly cattles) breeding advanced to modern levels that the Steppes population itself became modest in size, then the warming event or rather slight drying of the Caspian and warming of the Steppes occurs subsequently which always triggers some populations further west, but it was a done deal now. From my point of view, from the Caucasus they had as many chances to go north on the Don and near the Volga as those who lived seasonally in the Steppes could do to reach the contact zone of (or towards) the Caucasus. Let me know what you think, regards
Natufians are damaged and contaminated. Nothing else to read into here. It's the junk on the Natufians. You guys are missing the really important stats here. Ill share more tomorrow.
ReplyDelete@ Chad
ReplyDelete“Natufians are damaged and contaminated. Nothing else to read into here. It's the junk on the Natufians. You guys are missing the really important stats here. I’ll share more tomorrow.”
There’s a decent coverage non contaminated Natufian in the arc set
Basically a two-way mix of Caucasian MUP + Iberonaurisian , although the real population history might be more complex
Combined with the clues from Yhg E, I think such nihilistic claims are unwarranted
ReplyDelete@Contropropaganda
Of course, send here your email and I will get in touch with you
@ Contropropaganda 2
ReplyDeleteTry breaking up your comments using praragraphs
But whatever the case, there are some sweeping over-generalisations there
Late Paleolithic steppe hunters were at ease on the steppe , hunting horse, auroch and bison
Only with continued warming after 8000 bc there’s was a relative shift to fishing along rivers
Mobile Pastoralism eventually emerged with Yamnaya groups, and they’re obviously not from the Caucasus, but from well to the northwest. they even moved deep into the Caucasus region
Also, WSHG is already evident on the Piedmont steppe group, ~ 500 years earlier than steppe Majkop
At last Davidski/Andrzejewski published my letter, that is clear. Only the uniparental markers may be followed in their path. The autosome is the result of too many lines that probably the PC of Harvard get the key, but probably also the keyhole.
ReplyDeleteI don't know if you can have much admix from Africans in Iran N / Natufian / Turkey N / CHG when f4(African1, African2;Near East, non-African) come back insignificant. Are there any populations (aside from TAF/Iberomaurusian, or recent East Africans) for which this isn't so?
ReplyDelete@ Matt
ReplyDeleteHere is a qpAdm model for Iran_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
GEO_Dzudzuana_UP
Russia_AfontovaGora3
Laos_Hoabinhian.SG
Ethiopia_4500BP
best coefficients: 0.496 0.179 0.213 0.112
SE <0.05
TP: 0.229
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
China_Tianyuan
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
Czech_Vestonice
Belgium_UP_GoyetQ116_1
Russia_Sunghir1.SG
..so not much, a modest 10% it seems. Also comes up in qpGraph
ReplyDelete@Contropropaganda 2
ReplyDeleteYamnaya has the same sort of eastern ancestry as Progress Eneolithic ~4,200 BCE.
I don't think this is the same obvious Siberian/East Asian ancestry that Steppe Maykop has. I think the Siberian ancestry in Steppe Maykop arrived on the European steppe with Steppe Maykop well after 4,200 BCE.
But anyway, you're missing a significant point about NEO113, which is that this sample isn't from the steppe. It's actually from a burial site well north of the steppe in the Middle Don.
This suggests that steppe people with a lot more CHG ancestry than NEO113 were migrating north of the steppe and spreading this ancestry.
Ergo, it's likely that people like Progress Eneolithic lived on the steppe even before NEO113. Maybe as early as 6,000 BCE.
If so, Yamnaya is derived from these early Progress-like steppe people.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply, 2 questions on your models if you can, first is there evidence of this African ancestry in Pinarbasi/Anatolia_HG or Caucasus_UP and second is there any West Eurasian ancestry in Hoabinhians/Andamanese possibly?
It sounds implausible but you never know, so wondering if you happened to look into that?
@Davidski
Would it be correct to say that Progress/Yamnaya have a WSHG type of eastern ancestry but without the East Asian affinity? Least in G25 and qpAdm seems to work.
@gamerz_J
ReplyDeleteI don't know, but Steppe Maykop is significantly more East Asian than Progress and Yamnaya.
@Rob “ Also, WSHG is already evident on the Piedmont steppe group, ~ 500 years earlier than steppe Majkop”
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean?
@ Andrze
ReplyDeleteLets put it this way - the north Caucasian steppe Eneolithic from Progress & Vonuchka have the lowest amount of WHG in Eastern Europe, even less than earlier groups well to their northeast, such as Samra HG and Sidelkino.
This means they must have some form of additional eastern admixture which ended up in the northern Caucasus steppe zone, in addition to the high levels of CHG which they have.
The sources of this CHG & neo-ANE are separate, i.e, did not come from any singular migration, because no such populaiton fits the profile of being pure-ANE + CHG -rich.
Hence, the N.C steppe eneolithiic is a 3-way admixture of EHG, and ANE-rich groups such as WSHG, and CHG.
@Gio
ReplyDelete"At last Davidski/Andrzejewski published my letter"
LMAO, do you really believe they are the same person?
Anyways; what regards MyTrueAncestry, I didn't know it, but I did some googling, and judging from this thread its analyses are underwhelming. As Maciamo summed it up: It lacks reliability and is often very misleading.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/mytrueancestry-closest-modern-countries-to-ancient-ethnicities.40046/
The company doesn't disclose much about its methods. They seem to count the differences in SNPs between ancient individuals and the customer. But variants found in an ancient individual may be typical for its population or they may be not. Rare SNPs typical for specific ancient populations in theory might be valuable hints for determining fine scale ancestry of a given modern individual or population. But that's not what their method seems to be.
Global25 modelling is better, because it places ancient individuals and, what's better, averages of several individuals in a 25-dimensional space, where each dimension represents one of the 25 most important genetic clines worldwide, each including lots of SNPs. And it's really not hard to use. It shows that the true ancient Romans, the Latins and the Italics of central-western Italy were similar to modern-day northeastern Iberians, especially to Catalonians, ihabitants of Rioja and of Menorca. Mordern-day central Italians are pulled away from this place in the PCA by "Imperial Roman" admixture, that is, by the predominantly east Med blend found e.g. in the Isola Sacra sample from Imperial Age Rome.
That said, MyTrueAncestry partly also has misleading (e.g. Hellenic Roman) or even false population labels (e.g. Belgae from Alsace). And the prices for its more complete analyses are from outer space, truly beyond good and evil. Mind you, they don't do lab work, they just use your raw data that other companies have determined.
It's not nihilistic. I'm saving you guys time. I've been picking this apart for years. I've looked at each individual Natufian too. There's nothing above minor noise you encounter with ancient DNA.
ReplyDeleteOn a side note, think about this. Kotias is in far northern West Asia, with that much deep ancestry. Logic should tell you that down around Israel will already exist a population as deep or deeper than Natufians. That so-called African in your qpAdm is only covering deeper ancestry already present in West Asia, more than likely. It's nothing complex or exotic.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteYes of course they are significantly more East Asian, I am wondering whether you have any of that in Yamnaya or it's some older shared substratum for lack of a better term.
And then Rob is saying that WSHG are already present in the Piedmont Steppe group.
Reason I am focusing on these types of fine scale ancestry differences is that they might help clarify if Progress is really PIE (as opposed to more western groups such as Ukraine_N-like ones-or heavier on that component) although they are evidently hard to model.
@gamerz_J
ReplyDeleteProgress is just a proxy.
PIE or Indo-Anatolian was spoken in Sredny Stog culture in Ukraine.
@ Simon_W
ReplyDelete“LMAO, do you really believe they are the same person?”
It of course was what I thought from so long, but you know that I follow the scientific method: we may make hypotheses, but they have to be proved. And you should know that I, pretty much always, found the great part of nicknames, just when I found the one of Ken Nordtvedt. We were on Rootsweb in 2007. About others (Gaska, Dienekes Pontikos etc) I have no certain proof, only hypotheses. But Davidski published that my letter. He could deny, but he didn’t. The fact is that Andrzejewski answered a letter of mine that Davidski hadn’t published. So either Andrzejewski manages the blog with Davidski or they are the same person. And it is known how Davidski uses many nicknames, and Generalissimo is probably with Italian double s, and not of other neolatin languages.
About what you say about MyTrueAncestry of course they banned me form their forum, where a suspect Italian is in the board, thus I don’t use frequently it, but when I used that, the results seemed to me reliable, and the use of IBD is diffused also in the peer review papers, and of course I suspected that the people were the same. Why not the same Harvardians? You know that they aren’t enemies of money, and of course for doing that they need a great organization. I paid only 125 euro in a discount for the king level, and probably it was worth. I may upload 10 samples and they give me many tools I haven’t the PC and the programs for. My ancestry form 23andMe was done by Poznik, not the last arrived. I don’t know who there is now.
Hope that you look at the last hg IJK in YFull. Two samples in the Balkans separated more than 40000 years ago, but I don’t know if the exam was done until the terminal SNP. Unfortunately in the library where I am now in Pontedera (this was and is a “communist” town) we are not able to look at YFull, just for the war in Ukraine probably.
I thank Davidski and Rob for their input; I will look into it.
ReplyDelete@Gaska, you can find my email by clicking on my name displayed in the profile. I need to understand in detail a series of old things you had written,
regards
@Rob “ Hence, the N.C steppe eneolithiic is a 3-way admixture of EHG, and ANE-rich groups such as WSHG, and CHG.”
ReplyDeleteWhich may work for Steppe Maykop, but I doubt that WSH have had any WSHG
@gamerz_J
ReplyDelete"Would it be correct to say that Progress/Yamnaya have a WSHG type of eastern ancestry but without the East Asian affinity?"
That is what I am saying for years. In G25 nMontes, when modelled from more ancient populations, only Siberians + Steppe Maykop take East Asian source in the presence of AG3. None of the (pre-Uralic migration) European populations share that East Asian shift with the Siberians, other than Steppe Maykop.
There was an East Asian shift in Western Siberia _after_ the ancestors of the European groups already separated from them.
BTW, if Progress seems more eastern than Yamnaya, etc., it is because Steppe Eneolithic (PG2004, PG2001, VJ1001) has much less WHG-related ancestry than any EHG. And this not just because their high CHG, their WHG:AG3 ratio is much lower than in any EHG and Steppe EBA. That is why the WHG-rich Ukraine Mesolithic bends well with Progress while modelling Steppe EBA. (It does not means that the Progress samples are from an actual relevant ancestral population of course.)
Great shot from Dante Labs. Beyond the two samples of hg IJK, also an hg K2b*/P*/P-V1651* always from the Balkans, in Albania. Remember the recent paper that didn’t understand that two samples found weren’t recent hg R but hg P* or P1* in Poland (if I remember well).
ReplyDelete@Rob, re; that model, OK, but then what does the direct f4 stat look like for:
ReplyDeletef4(Cameroon_SMA.DG, Ethiopia_4500BP.DG; Iran_GanjDareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP)?
The equivalent for f4(Cameroon_SMA.DG, Ethiopia_4500BP.DG; Iran_GanjDareh_N, X) for the following populations is (order of Z score):
Turkey_N, Z: 2.43, 1050123 SNPs
Turkey_Epipaleolithic, Z: 2.29, 815047 SNPs
Spain_MLN, Z: 2.16, 1042707 SNPs
Russia_Afanasievo, Z: 1.64, 1045181 SNPs
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Z: 0.982, 1049935 SNPs
China_Tianyuan, Z: 0.831, 860301 SNPs
China_AmurRiverLPaleolithic_19k, Z:0.644, 670024 SNPs
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG, Z: 0.242, 1051361 SNPs
Georgia_CHG.SG, Z: -0.00673, 1049631 SNPs
Russia_Kostenki14, Z: -0.608, 1028916 SNPs
.........
I'm a little puzzled as to why Mota is able to donate in qpAdm when the Z score showing geneflow from Mota to Iran_Ganj_Dareh, to the exclusion of Cameroon_SMA, is 0 relative to Kostenki14, Ust_Ishim, Tianyuan, IronGates... I share some skepticism of Chad that this is just because whatever the real ancestry in the model lacks much differentiation in the outgroups?
Though for some odd reason there is such a score coming through at just below statistical sig when it comes to populations with Anatolian Neolithic ancestry.
Chad, is there anything you've come across that would explain this statistical pattern?
Alternatively with f4(South_Africa_2200BP.SG, Ethiopia_4500BP.DG; Iran_GanjDareh_N, X):
Spain_MLN, Z: 1.85, 617658 SNPs
Turkey_N, Z: 1.45, 622654 SNPs
Russia_Afanasievo, Z: 0.957, 619282 SNPs
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Z: 0.337, 622522 SNPs
Turkey_Epipaleolithic, Z: 0.17, 485782 SNPs
China_Tianyuan, Z: 0.0568, 505419 SNPs
China_AmurRiver_LPaleolithic_19k, Z: -0.504, 392475 SNPs
Georgia_CHG.SG, Z: -0.944, 622702 SNPs
Russia_Kostenki14, Z: -1.11, 608399 SNPs
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG, Z: -1.19, 623523 SNPs
@ Andrze
ReplyDelete''Which may work for Steppe Maykop, but I doubt that WSH have had any WSHG''
Piedmont steppe definitively do. We cannot get a passing model without WSHG.
It would be diluted in *actual western steppe herders*, who are more western.
@ Slumberyy
''That is what I am saying for years. In G25 nMontes, when modelled from more ancient populations, only Siberians + Steppe Maykop take East Asian source in the presence of AG3. None of the (pre-Uralic migration) European populations share that East Asian shift with the Siberians, other than Steppe Maykop.
There was an East Asian shift in Western Siberia _after_ the ancestors of the European groups already separated from them.''
That would imply that WSHG like Tyumen also have East Asian admixture
However that might be tempered by western back-flow from eastern Europe
some potentially useful stats
ReplyDeleteresult: Mbuti.DG China_AmurRiver_LPaleolithic Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Russia_Tyumen_HG 0.0402 0.005021 8.004 29390 27119 578545
result: Mbuti.DG China_AmurRiver_LPaleolithic Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA 0.0212 0.003965 5.336 32930 31565 644960
result: Mbuti.DG China_AmurRiver_LPaleolithic Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic1 -0.0056 0.004055 -1.372 32896 33264 651773
result: Mbuti.DG China_AmurRiver_LPaleolithic Russia_Tyumen_HG Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA -0.0196 0.004100 -4.787 32449 33749 671227
result: Mbuti.DG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Russia_Tyumen_HG 0.0163 0.005035 3.237 33768 32685 674551
result: Mbuti.DG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA 0.0083 0.003837 2.162 41268 40589 808763
result: Mbuti.DG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic1 -0.0175 0.004238 -4.132 41318 42791 817666
result: Mbuti.DG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG Russia_Tyumen_HG Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA -0.0064 0.004223 -1.518 37658 38143 766081
Can someone please check if NEO113 has R1a M417
ReplyDelete@Chad
ReplyDeleteWhat do you make of the African affinity of IBM? Does IBM have actual African ancestry or do you think it's not really African per se but something just deeper than Crown Eurasian?
@ Chad
ReplyDelete''It's not nihilistic. I'm saving you guys time. I've been picking this apart for years. I've looked at each individual Natufian too. There's nothing above minor noise you encounter with ancient DNA.''
But you've been looking at it with bad samples, so what's that worth ? not much :)
the new Natufian is > 0.1 x coverage, so very workable
And models fail without some sort of north Afrian admixture
''
On a side note, think about this. Kotias is in far northern West Asia, with that much deep ancestry. Logic should tell you that down around Israel will already exist a population as deep or deeper than Natufians. That so-called African in your qpAdm is only covering deeper ancestry already present in West Asia, more than likely. It's nothing complex or exotic.''
have to disagree there, because Im familiar with the time-slice settlement density of Israel (see Prof belfer-Cohen et al)
The early UP of the Levant might have become extinct, and the post-LGMgroups like Kebaran & natufian are a novel population formed by northern Ahmarian (hence th hihglyg derived "Europioid" lineages in western Asia like mtDNA U6 and Y-hg C1a) and northeast Africans, hence the Y-hg E
qpGraph, and qpAdm all support this as well
There's no additional 'ultra-basal' west asian. In fact, the homeland of the so-called 'basal Eurasian' is northwestern Asia, not Israel or the Gulf
From Pribislav:
ReplyDeleteNEO113; 5473-5222 BC; Golubaya Krinitsa, Russia; R1a1-M459 (xM198,YP1306)
NEO209; 5469-5222 BC; Golubaya Krinitsa, Russia; R1a1-M459
NEO185; 5209-4947 BC; Sakhtish IIa, Ivanovo oblast, Russia; Q1b1-L54>M1107>M930>pre-L804
NEO189; 3766-3541 BC; Sakhtish IIa, Ivanovo oblast, Russia; R1a1a-M459>M375>M198* (xM417,YP1051)
NEO194; 3761-3533 BC; Sakhtish IIa, Ivanovo oblast, Russia; R1b1a1-Y13200>Y13202>Y13204* (xM478,BY15590)
NEO164; 3791-3646 BC; Vasilyevskiy kordon 17, Russia; R1a1a-M459>M375>M198* (xM417,YP1051)
NEO166; 3774-3651 BC; Vasilyevskiy kordon 17, Russia; R1b1a1-Y13200>Y13202>Y13204* (xM478,BY15590)
NEO163; 3771-3536 BC; Vasilyevskiy kordon 17, Russia; J1b-Y6313 (xY6304,FT265222)
I don't think anyone has looked at any of the I2 from those sites, aside from NEO188 Sakhtish being I-Z161.
Could it be that what passed as ANE in both CHG/Iran_N and EHG is something completely different, since Yamnaya had something that was equidistant to both Mal’ta-Burrett and Kostenki?
ReplyDelete@ Matt
ReplyDeleteresult: Cameroon_SMA Ethiopia_4500BP.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N GEO_Dzudzuana_UP 0.0123 0.004998 2.471 10951 10684 231032
to elaborate, I dont think this flow necessarily came from Ethiopia, but i think some gene-flow from NAf to Near East in the Epipaleolithic is plausible. The microlithic character of tools has deeply southern origins
@Rob Do you find it plausible that Natufians spoke an Afro-Asiatic language as a result of the North African Iberomaurasian incursion into them at the same time that Sumerians retained their AHG/Barcin-related identity more or less intact while Elamites were Iran_N and their differences from LBK or Sumerians were extra ANE/WSHG?
ReplyDeleteresult: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic WHG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001262 -1.759 21638 22153 407667
ReplyDeleteresult: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic WHG Natufian -0.003050 -3.643 12115 12789 220995
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic WHG CHG.SG -0.004060 -6.656 38152 41024 707313
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic WHG Russia_Karelia_HG -0.002477 -4.033 34428 36094 672438
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic WHG GanjDareh_N -0.006823 -12.205 37201 41943 695012
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP Natufian -0.000975 -0.944 7593 7728 138238
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP CHG.SG -0.002439 -3.536 25638 26784 469747
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP Russia_Karelia_HG -0.001201 -1.621 23718 24240 433754
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP GanjDareh_N -0.004915 -7.519 24587 26816 453519
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Natufian CHG.SG -0.001436 -1.766 13341 13680 236280
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Natufian Russia_Karelia_HG -0.000096 -0.117 12953 12975 225487
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Natufian GanjDareh_N -0.004143 -5.710 12929 13903 235010
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic CHG.SG Russia_Karelia_HG 0.001720 2.960 42248 40959 748983
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic CHG.SG GanjDareh_N -0.002579 -5.430 41764 43782 782691
result: Chimp Turkey_Epipaleolithic Russia_Karelia_HG GanjDareh_N -0.004086 -7.100 39807 42797 731929
result: Chimp WHG Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.000903 -1.235 21785 22153 407667
result: Chimp Natufian Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.003582 -3.630 7098 7593 138238
result: Chimp CHG.SG Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001722 -2.611 24829 25638 469747
result: Chimp Russia_Karelia_HG Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001915 -2.549 22888 23718 433754
result: Chimp GanjDareh_N Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001971 -3.600 23693 24587 453519
result: Chimp Mota Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.000884 -1.380 12746 13005 293027
result: Chimp Kostenki14 Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.000183 -0.237 23941 24023 448444
result: Chimp Ust_Ishim.DG Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.000818 -1.207 24180 24564 469215
I think there is plenty of evidence of a population existing in Southern West Asia. There is lots of evidence for the ancestors of Natufians originating within West Asia. Any connection to Africa is more likely going the other direction, with some cultural connection and communication continuing from the Levant to NE Africa. The Kebaran is found east of the rift earlier than anywhere.
@Rob You’re raising an interesting and refreshing point which has never been brought up before: Piedmont being WSHG + EHG + CHG or something of that ilk. Now let’s explore a little bit deeper: CHG is allegedly Dzudzuana + ANE or WSHG; EHG is ANE + WHG (+ presumably a tad bit of CHG thrown in the mix).
ReplyDeletePutative Yamnaya, well before the 20% EEF admixture from GAC, Baden and/or Tripolye - was 50% ANE, from approximately 75% EHG source snd 35% CHG source. Thus, it there’s a 50:50 chance that PIE was an ANE language.
Notwithstanding, if according to what Davidski wrote, Yamnaya was on a half way point on the cline between Kostenki and Malt’a Burrett, or even had a component related to but distinct from both, then what was the actual Eastern European language spoken? Was it related to Volosovo or Combed Ceramic non-IE non-Uralic language families?
Now, let’s thicken the plot and surmise that Piedmont did have a considerable amount of WSHG admixture; does it portend a WSHG possible source for PIE, namely that our ancestors spoke something related to Botai, Kelteminnar, Steppe Maykop or whatever language that Tarim Basin Mummies might’ve spoken?
But what if PIE originated among the R1a1 carriers Forrest Steppe authochtones, i.e. Ukraine Neolithic. Could you entertain such a possibility, if not an outright probability?
Last bit not least, what is the role that farmer and forager cultures to the west played in the formation of PIE or its antecedents? Tripolye? GAC? Iron Gates? Bug Dniester? Perhaps Dnieper Donetsk?
@Rob
ReplyDeleteHere are improved BuranKaya files:
https://ufile.io/f/ic02h
@ Chad
ReplyDelete“ There is lots of evidence for the ancestors of Natufians originating within West Asia”
natufians are are late players, obviously from SW asia, from the earlier Kebaran. There’s no Natufian in northern Africa.
Y hg E is from northeastern Africa. How can we explain this away?
How is it that Natufians have completely divergent male lineages, and nothing like other west asians such as J, H and G ?
My honest belief is that we're missing a deep population tying in all West Asian Epipaleolithic populations. They share too much affinity, relative to Kotias. No one is 100% Kotias UP. It would be like calling WHG 100% Gravettian. Sure, you could make some poor model with weak outgroups, but anything robust in the pright and it falls apart.
ReplyDeleteThe previous stats tell us a population(s)related to Iran and Natufians is within Pinarbasi and some WHG. I think its one, deeper population.
ReplyDelete@All
ReplyDeleteThe G25 datasheet for Allentoft 2023 has been updated with lots more samples.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pHAqMPIRgfdXJuf9B4ZChOcJlBLhFe-/view?usp=sharing
But many samples are still missing.
Again, no labels. Sorry.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"The microlithic character of tools has deeply southern origins"
From where exactly/what particular culture?
@ Chad
ReplyDelete“Chad said...
The previous stats tell us a population(s)related to Iran and Natufians is within Pinarbasi and some WHG. I think its one, deeper population”
Sure, but we know that. That’s what Iosif stated in his paper- a population related to Dzudzuana or the older Kotias had widespread impact across Western Asia, and that shares something deeply with WHG as well.
What we’re now trying to untangle is what additional admixtures the regional variants underwent and how this makes them distinctive / unique.
Some ANF seems to show up for me when I try to model NEO204 and NEO209 of the Middle Don samples.
ReplyDeleteNEO210 also seems to want a lot of Ukr_N or something similar.
Rob, that's not what I'm saying. It's deeper than Kotias. Kotias is an offshoot with more UP Euro admixture. The deeper thing is older in West Asia. Kotias is mostly a dead end.
ReplyDelete@ crashdoc: you’re a legend; thanks
ReplyDelete@ Chad
ReplyDeleteAgree that Kotias has dual origins, but that something deeper was not hidden in SW Asia, as people believe
I don’t think Kotias UP is a dead end at all; populations like that persisted across the Caucasus and south caspian region. That can be seen by the continuity of Yhg J2 lineages , but acquiring new forms of admixture thus giving the impression of “replacement”
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1J1EhtWNuJ0JGFJh6adwLdYv1fnDcYBIQwYlRmcI1VKQ/edit?usp=sharing
ReplyDelete@ Cy
ReplyDelete''From where exactly/what particular culture?''
From the Mushabian of the Sinai & Negev desert. There is actually a technological 'turnover' between the Kebaran and Natufian, in situ.
This might correlate with a male-biased takeover of the Kebaran territory by late Mushabian/ Ramonian users, c/w with ~ 20-30% admixture in Natufians of a population with links to northern Africa, but with more proximal DNA, that degree might be greater, as well as Y-DNA shift to haplogroup E.
To quote
''The commonly assumed scenario for the Natufian sensu lato has been that it first emerged (directly from the Geometric Kebaran)..there are instances where Geometric Kebaran levels immediately underlie Natufian ones, the data appear to indicate a complete break between the two, e.g. at Hayonim terrace and el-Wad. Furthermore, we encounter marked discontinuities in techno-typological aspects of the material culture
(i.e. lithics, bone tools, groundstone utensils, etc.)
But, in contrast to Geometric Kebaran – Natufian discontinuity within the Mediterranean zone noted above, the Terminal Ramonian displays direct techno-typological continuity from the preceding Middle Epipaleolithic Mushabian and Ramonian entities [of the Sinai & Negev regions]...''
Ruminations on the Role of Periphery and Centre in the Natufian DOI: 10.1515/9781789201574-036
@Davidski/others; for the further Allentoft samples, I've labelled them up and looked to apply Norfern-Ostrobothnian's labelling conventions.
ReplyDeleteNewly Labelled (Matt): https://pastebin.com/Gtj6vEYL
Previously Labelled by NO and newly labelled: https://pastebin.com/RVBaj3RT
May need a further touch-up from NO to get them right and consistent with how he did it. (In some instances particularly I've just labelled things Neolithic/Mesolithic etc rather than specific culture label or site label).
Vahaduo plots showing these samples with labels I've used: https://imgur.com/a/XIZq5EI
Target: Poland_Strzyzow_Culture_oBS:poz794
ReplyDeleteDistance: 3.4783% / 0.03478328
32.8 S45
21.8 S11
15.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
11.8 S8
11.6 Russia_EN_Srednestogovskaya
6.8 Russia_LN_Volosovo
https://i.postimg.cc/4yB7Y4pt/screenshot-353.png
Kisapostag from Gerber paper S45, S11, S8