This direct evidence that most Corded Ware ancestry must have genealogical links to people associated with Yamnaya culture spanning on the order of at most a few hundred years is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Steppe-like ancestry in the Corded Ware primarily reflects an origin in as-of-now unsampled cultures genetically similar to the Yamnaya but related to them only a millennium earlier.This is basically a straw man argument, because it's easy to debunk. So why put it in the paper? Well, as far as I can see, to make the idea that the CWC is derived from Yamnaya look more plausible. This idea, that the CWC is an offshoot of Yamnaya, seems to be the favorite explanation for the appearance of the CWC among the scientists at the David Reich Lab. However, I'd say they're facing a major problem with that, because the CWC and Yamnaya populations have largely different paternal origins. That is, CWC males mostly belong to Y-haplogroups R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, while Yamnaya males almost exclusively belong to Y-haplogroup R1b-Z2103. Indeed, as far as I know, there are no reliable instances of R1a-M417 or R1b-L51 in any published or yet to be published Yamnaya samples. But it is possible to reconcile the Y-haplogroup data with the ancIBD results if we assume that the peoples associated with the Corded Ware, Yamnaya and also Afanasievo cultures expanded from a genetically more diverse ancestral gene pool, each taking a specific subset of the variation with them. This gene pool would've existed somewhere in Eastern Europe, probably at the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, at most a few hundred years before the appearance of the earliest CWC burials in what is now Poland. Moreover, the split between the CWC and Yamnaya populations need not have been a clean one, with long-range contacts and largely female-mediated mixing maintained for generations, adding to the already close genealogical links between them. Citation... Ringbauer, H., Huang, Y., Akbari, A. et al. Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA. Nat Genet (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01582-w See also... On the origin of the Corded Ware people
Wednesday, December 20, 2023
Dear Harald #2
The ancIBD method paper from the David Reich Lab was just published in Nature (open access here). It's a very useful effort, but the authors are still somewhat confused about the origin of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) population. From the paper (emphasis is mine):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
399 comments:
1 – 200 of 399 Newer› Newest»Even from the IBD it is clear that the CWC and Yamnaya are not exactly the same population
https://imgur.com/8132xMy
Yeah, Afanasievo and Yamnaya are more closely related to each other in terms of IBD and Y-DNA than either is to Corded Ware.
So Corded Ware must've largely split from Yamnaya before 3,000 BCE. That is, before Yamnaya proper actually existed.
in your opinion , which model shows the best result and accuracy ? IBD ADMIXTURE or qpAdm?which one is more truthful ? Or is there no difference?
that is, in your opinion, there is another population that existed long before Afanasieva , and was genetically similar to them , and gave genes for cwc afanasievo and pit grave ?this population was probably similar to the steppe Eneolithic
As far as I can see, all of the different methods point to the same conclusion:
But it is possible to reconcile the Y-haplogroup data with the ancIBD results if we assume that the peoples associated with the Corded Ware, Yamnaya and also Afanasievo cultures expanded from a genetically more diverse ancestral gene pool, each taking a specific subset of the variation with them.
This gene pool would've existed somewhere in Eastern Europe, probably near the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, at most a few hundred years before the appearance of the earliest CWC burials in what is now Poland.
Moreover, the split between the CWC and Yamnaya populations need not have been a clean one, with long-range contacts and largely female-mediated mixing maintained for generations, adding to the already close genealogical links between them.
https://ibb.co/YWdmrfg this is the picture I came across on the Internet modeling cwc
https://ibb.co/7SD9D20-pit grave
maybe geneticists like this theory that CWCs come directly from Yamnaya , maybe they deify Yamnaya people ?
We have been saying the same thing for years and the Harvardians are still determined to prove to us that they are not as smart as they think they are. Yamnaya is not the paternal ancestor of the CWC and the BBC.
You can look at the weak signal between the German-Czech beakers and Yamnaya-Afanasievo, even between Germany CWC and Germany BBC to understand that there is something very wrong about the so called steppe ancestry and that our friend Quiles (and with him hundreds of kurganist fanatics) was very wrong when they defended that the eastern BBs were direct descendants of Yamnaya.
I understand that recognizing a mistake of that magnitude after tens of published papers, thousands of dollars invested and tens of thousands of hours of work must be very hard, but in the end they will have to recognize that they were wrong with their new “steppe theory”.
IMO everything points to a CWC origin even further north than Davidski thinks, but time will tell who is right. The Yamnaya migrations reached Bohemia around 2.750 BC, there is still 250-500 years of margin to find the origin of those uniparentals, it is only necessary to look in the appropriate place, and that place is certainly not in the steppes
I'm still not sure both of you guys are saying anything that actually contradicts each other.
But anyway, I think it'll be interesting to compare this abstract to the other upcoming study from Ringbauer for which the abstract (or perhaps a talk) was provided at the recent ISBA (not yet preprint):
"Inferring IBD segments in ancient DNA - What next?" Speaker: Harald Ringbauer - Max Planck Institute for Evolutionary Anthropology, Germany
"Abstract: Recently developed methods can robustly identify long identical DNA sequences shared between pairs of ancient humans. These segments provide an ideal genomic signal for studying recent genealogical connections, as they must be co-inherited from a recent common ancestor, with recombination pruning the segments and thus acting as a rapid clock. Population genetic studies based on IBD segments have inferred the recent demographic history of present-day populations, including population size dynamics and geographic mobility. With the growing availability of aDNA samples, the study of IBD segments in ancient humans can offer an equally powerful opportunity to investigate past demography.
To realize this potential, we present new computational tools designed to make demographic inferences from IBD segments in time-stratified aDNA data, allowing us to estimate population size dynamics, cross-coalescence rates between ancient groups, and geographic mobility patterns. We showcase the utility of our tools through a series of example applications to ancient DNA data.
For instance, we infer that a strong population bottleneck occurred in early Bronze Age Western Eurasia, followed by rapidly growing effective population sizes.
Moreover, we infer the intensities and time depths of genetic connections between various important ancient Bronze Age cultural groups such as Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beakers. Our findings demonstrate that our tools can generate new demographic insights into human population history."
It seems likely to me that such a bottleneck visible in IBD will correlate with the bottleneck also visible in y-dna.
We will also see from this and the late (mid-late 4th millennium BCE?) Sredny-Stog which y haplogroups were quite prevalent in pre-Steppe EMBA groups and then were lost or reduced to low frequency due to chance during the bottleneck events (and I'm thinking the I2 clades here?), which is then compounded by additional founder effects in expansion to the west, and which ones were simply more at a low frequency to begin with (and thinking J clades due to long standing patrilocality?).
@ Matt
Maybe you can see if there's difference in IBD segments in women vs males, if that supports the model favoured here (i.e. larger segments shared amongst CWC - Yamnaya females).
''Sredny-Stog which y haplogroups were quite prevalent in pre-Steppe EMBA groups and then were lost or reduced to low frequency due to chance during the bottleneck events (and I'm thinking the I2 clades here?), ''
Not really lost, they're ~ 90% in Cernavoda, Usatavo, etc, which are post-4000 BC (i.e post-'Sredni Stog). So just moved west and vacated land for 'Yamnaya'
@Matt
I'm still not sure both of you guys are saying anything that actually contradicts each other.
In that quote he's basically saying that Corded Ware must be from Yamnaya because the IBD link between them is too strong for them to be separated at the Sredny Stog stage.
It seems likely to me that such a bottleneck visible in IBD will correlate with the bottleneck also visible in y-dna.
I think it's more likely that the Y-DNA founder effects were somewhat later than the IBD/genome-wide bottleneck because they were probably caused by different things. That is, rapid expansions vs low effective population sizes.
@Rob "Maybe you can see if there's difference in IBD segments in women vs males, if that supports the model favoured here (i.e. larger segments shared amongst CWC - Yamnaya females)"
"Amen", that is one of the keys to understanding the bottleneck in male uniparentals and the role played by exogamy in this process. If Ringbauer chose only female samples, he would be surprised at the length of shared segments.
@Matt, Rob, David,
This demographic male bottleneck that IBD Ringbauer finds is none other than that described by Monika Karmin et al. 2015 in: A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture,
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4381518/
If we take into account the first Corded Ware immigrants into Bohemia, we see a diverse Y-DNA group with R1a-M417, R1b-L51 and I2a. It is noteworthy that it does not include any R1b-Z2103. That points in the direction of a Yamnaya-like population origin for Corded Ware over a Yamnaya one. That said, we know of extreme cases of Y-DNA bottlenecks that skew results. For example, all Bell Beaker are R1b-P312. This erroneously led folks to rule out a link to Corded Ware. We also had a couple of years where we only had R1a samples from mid-late Corded Ware, which led some to rule out a Corded Ware origin for R-L51. So, it could also be that the right Yamnaya region with both R-L51 and R1a has not been sampled yet. Again, while probability favors Yamanaya-Like (e.g., Sredny Stog), I don't think Yamanaya-proper has been ruled out yet. That the authors failed to mention the Y-DNA discrepancy is a glaring mistake.
Such as Bell Beaker groups from Moravia and Hungary mixing with Yamnaya groups in the Tisza area or some mtdna haplogroups found in early CWC groups, Yamnaya and even Afansievo, perhaps David will soon realize that CWC and Yamnaya have a common source but culturally they are definitely different, since CWC/BB and their offshoots had rich graves and their society was responsible for educating the elite, in contrast to Yamnaya, which was more egalitarian and from an ecological point of view only settled steppe areas and remained steppe herders and CWC /BB and its offshoots also colonized other ecological areas and adapted and made it their own.
@Steppe... Bell Beaker migrated west-to-east into Hungary, so the direct correlation to Yamnaya is irrelevant in this conversation. Besides, by the time Bell Beaker made it to Hungary, the groups they came into contact with (Proto-Nagyrev & Somogyvár-Vinkovci) were already third generation derivatives of Yamnaya via the Mako and Vucedol Cultures.
@ StP
''This demographic male bottleneck that IBD Ringbauer finds is none other than that described by Monika Karmin et al. 2015 in: A recent bottleneck of Y chromosome diversity coincides with a global change in culture,''
The Bottlenecks are somewhat overstated. Karmin, then Zeng et al wrote about this. But they're conflating a series of events into one, which is obviously not the way to do it (i.e. greater familiariy with context & data would be a start). For one, Zeng ignored the Y-DNA -G2a- founder effect associated with Farmers in central Europe (but summed up all West Asia into an alleged 'diverse' pool), or I2a founder effect in Late Glacial expansions. GeoGenetics lead archaeologist is consistently jumping from 5500 to 2800 bc in his narratives, ignoring the 3,000 years in between.
So there a multiple things here : first is the relative founder effect of departing steppe clans into central Europe, the second is the pre-existing turnover dynamics in pre-steppe populations, third is secondary "in situ" founder effects of Bronze Age societies (such as the R1a-Z645 expansion), then late Bronze Age collapses, etc. These are all different things which cant be invented into a single narrative of 'steppe migrations' or pastoralist cultural behaviours.
And these above are all different still to the 'gluing' together of certain steppe groups between 5000 and 3000 bc in the steppe homeland.
Thanks for making this post
Another problem I see.
Is Harvard says the ancient DNA data supports the theory that Tocherian split before most other IE languages.
But it does not because.....
Afanasievo is more related to Yamnaya than Corded Ware is. If Afanasievo/proto-Tocherian split earlier then they should be less related to Yamnaya than Corded Ware.
@Rob, fair, but what actually are the dates for the samples labelled "Sredny-Stog" in Anthony's various presentations which are the only place these have been talked about yet? Were they earlier or even contemporary with the Ukraine Eneolithic 4500-3200 BCE samples from Penske 2023. I don't think we know but maybe we will next month.
Re; males and females, admixed males and females would not differ in numbers of segments on the autosome (whether that is admixture within Steppe_EMBA groups separated by a few hundred years or between much deeper splits like GAC-Steppe_EMBA). I think it might be the case that you might find "direct" movement of individuals by that method.
In either case, in theory, we would find X:Autosome discrepancies in IBD sharing. However, even though the paper here talks about investigating that, I don't have much confidence that we can detect such fine metrics. The X chromosome has such little data compared to considering genome-wide and is much more selectively constrained compared to the autosome (so you will find fewer of the selectively neutral differences on long standing variation that allow reconstruction at various levels). Even further this paper mentions that you can only do such reconstructions within female samples as the method relies on having a diploid genome and only females are diploid for X.
@ Sam
That’s correct. Tocharian is a flat split with other nuclear IE. The linguistic evidence is merely confused due to its relative isolation . That’s why adna trumps linguistics :)
Richard Rocca wrote:
If we take into account the first Corded Ware immigrants into Bohemia, we see a diverse Y-DNA group with R1a-M417, R1b-L51 and I2a. It is noteworthy that it does not include any R1b-Z2103. That points in the direction of a Yamnaya-like population origin for Corded Ware over a Yamnaya one. That said, we know of extreme cases of Y-DNA bottlenecks that skew results. For example, all Bell Beaker are R1b-P312. This erroneously led folks to rule out a link to Corded Ware. We also had a couple of years where we only had R1a samples from mid-late Corded Ware, which led some to rule out a Corded Ware origin for R-L51. So, it could also be that the right Yamnaya region with both R-L51 and R1a has not been sampled yet. Again, while probability favors Yamanaya-Like (e.g., Sredny Stog), I don't think Yamanaya-proper has been ruled out yet. That the authors failed to mention the Y-DNA discrepancy is a glaring mistake.
My response:
There is some interesting and significant support for what you wrote in those two R1b-P310 Afanasievo samples listed in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections as "Shatar Chuluu 1" (3320 - 2918 BC) and "Nileke 5-3" (2865 - 2576 BC). When it comes to autosomal DNA, they're virtually identical to Yamnaya, yet there they are, both of them L51>P310.
Why didn 't more than one Caucasian male gene be found in steppe cultures , not in the culture of corded ceramics? Did they exchange women?
@ Matt
'Sredni Stog' phase is usually taken to mean the period 5000 - 4000 BC. 5000/4700 is the broad beginning (or acceleration), and 42/4000 bc is taken as a lower boundary because that is when the 'collapse' of the Chalcolithic centres at Varna I-Gulemnitsa-Karanovo VI occurred, with knock-on effects across Europe & the steppe.
(e.g. Anthony '' Here we show that Khvalynsk was in use about 4500–4300 BCE, about 1000 years before the Yamnaya culture appeared, contemporary with Skelya and early Sredni Stog in the Pontic steppes and Varna I in the Danube valley.)
After ~ 4000 BC, a new epoch begins in the steppe interaction zone. Varna and Khvalynsk power centres were gone, and new players arose - Cucuteni C1, Maykop and Cernavoda. The Penske samples from Kartal, Mayaki, Usatavo which date between 4100 and 3500 bc fall in this 'post-Stog' period. The prevailing Y-DNA is I2a-L601 (related to Dnieper Neolilthic) but they are autosomally quite heterogeneous. Obviously, the Yamnaya-Corded Ware group are from neither of those groups, so the most plausible scenario is that they derive from some yet unsampled groups which existed somewhere between 4000 & 3000 bc.
I've been saying this since the first Yamnaya Y DNA came out in 2015. Glad the rest of you caught up eventually. Retards.
wEsTeRn yAmNaYa
@ Richard Rocca,
you are right, one can speak of post-Yamnaya groups
@ Rich
"There is some interesting and significant support for what you wrote in those two R1b-P310 Afanasievo samples listed in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections as "Shatar Chuluu 1" (3320 - 2918 BC) and "Nileke 5-3" (2865 - 2576 BC). When it comes to autosomal DNA, they're virtually identical to Yamnaya, yet there they are, both of them L51>P310".
As to YFull R-P310 formed 5700 years ago and the survived subclades separated 5100 years ago
R-L52YSC0000082/PF6540/MF40576 * YSC0001249/CTS10353/S1175/MF664926 * L52/PF6541/A19949/MF660847+3 SNPsformed 5700 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybpinfo
they are all in eastern and western Europe
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L52/
thus they had at least 400 years for going to Yamnaya and from up there to Afanasievo. For that I said that we need a deep exam of the SNPs at the P310 level for saying more. The samples found in Afanasievo may be a few R-P310, a dead end line, and not the ancestors of the western European ones. The same may be said for the R-L23-Z2103 line, which is also mine.
1-IBD segments can be helpful, but uniparental markers are sometimes more effective, because it is much easier to relate cultures thanks to them. It is undeniable that we can link Yamnaya to early CWC thanks to mtDNA and yet we cannot do so with male markers. It is also evident that the number of shared segments in females with identical mtDNA and separated by one or two generations has to be higher than among males with different markers.For example
mtDNA-I1a
Kirovograd Sugokleya, Yamnaya culture Ukraine- SUG2 (3.000 BC)
Stadice, CWC, Bohemia-STD002-HapY-R1b-L151 (2.777 BC)
mtDNA-H2b
Kurmanaevka III, Buzuluk, Yamnaya-Samara-I0441 (2.816 BC)
Droužkovice, CWC Bohemia-DRO001-HapY-Q1b2a (2.752 BC)
2-The early Czech CWC (3,000-2,760 BC) does not have an admixture of male markers of steppe origin. There are only R1b-U106 (2.896 BC) and R1b-L151 (2.893 BC), BUT Q-L742-Droužkovice (2.752 BC) R1a-M417-Plotisté nad Lebem (2.751 BC), and Z2103-Praha5-Malá Ohrada (2.519 BC) arrive in a second migration, 150 years (6-7 generations) later.
3-Ok, we can discard the stupidity that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 were lower class and had no right to be buried in Kurgans, but we cannot discard as origin of those markers a fraction of the Yamnaya culture not yet analyzed, or even a sister culture of Yamnaya located in the forest-steppe that separated from that culture 400-500 years earlier.
4-Then, if L51 and M417 are hidden in this hypothetical culture, I suppose they would travel together to the West, right?, then why the first one appears 150 years before the second one?, they did not travel together?, is it that they lived in different cultures? Why L51 only appears in Bohemia and does not exist in the rest of the regional variants of the CWC (Baltic, Poland, Germany, Russia, Denmark, Sweden, Switzerland etc), until hundreds of years later?
5-If you defend a joint migration, it would be logical to think that both markers share culture, burials, customs, etc., and we do not see that in the CWC, on the contrary, they seem to be two totally incompatible lineages. Moreover, R1a-M417, Q-L472 and Z2013 never crossed the Rhine river and never participated in the BBC defending that this culture is a branch of the CWC does not make sense with the genetic data we currently have.
@Rob, OK, you could well be correct about this, but it is not hard to find examples of folk talking about Sredny-Stog "ending" at 3500 BCE after being immediately replaced by Yamnaya (and whatever culture there is at this time they are content to call Yamnaya). (Which is different from a sort of notional model of "Sredny-Stog ends ~4000 BCE. Yamnaya starts at ~3300 BCE or even ~3000 BCE. What's intermediate, we have no name for").
For instance the paper this year by Mattila (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05131-3) -
"In addition, the Eneolithic individual from the lower Dnipro Valley region (Deriivka II cemetery) archeologically classified as Serednyostogivs'ka (Sredny Stog) horse keepers (ukr104, c. 5650-5477 cal BP) showed smaller level of allele sharing with other individuals from the same region (Fig. 3f). " (So this is ~3500 BCE).
So this is why I'm more interested in the question what are the dates involved and less interested in trying to assign to some terminology that is shadowy or not agreed on.
question
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0sxqiu0pf9ebrd/sfig_structure_16_admixgraph_deep.png?dl=0
The diagram shows that part of the ancestors (18%) associated with the Caucasus separated during the Ice Age and participated in the ethnogenesis of Eastern European hunters, mean all Eastern European hunters or only the part associated with the middle Don?
There are some odd things about the IBD results in general.
To mention 2 cases that stroke me as odd is sharing IBD between a Neolithic sample from Greece and a Late Neolithic sample from Switzerland about 4000 years apart in time (Nea3 and Aes18) and sharing of another Greek Neolithic sample with 2 Croatian samples the first one about the same age (6000 or so BC) but the other at least 1300-1500 years later (4500-4700 BC). What's more intriguing here is that they seem to have similar IBD sharing values (samples are Rev5 and I13948 and POP16).
I've noticed more "peculiar" pairs sharing IBD across a great distance in both space and time, does anyone here have an idea why that could be and perhaps whether a form of this is also seen re: CWC and Yamnaya (especially given their very recent shared ancestry)
Most of the weird IBD results are below 15cM but some below that still (around 13-12cM or so do seem legit as in they make sense archaeologically and genetically).
@Matt
"To realize this potential, we present new computational tools designed to make demographic inferences from IBD segments in time-stratified aDNA data, allowing us to estimate population size dynamics, cross-coalescence rates between ancient groups"
But if the results presented here are noisy (and they seem to be to some extent) how can we trust cross-coalescence rates and the like? Would they be using Markovian coalescent methods (or the like) on ancient DNA? I think this will probably work with high coverage genomes but will have a lot of noise on the sides. My impression at least.
@ Matt
'' OK, you could well be correct about this, but it is not hard to find examples of folk talking about Sredny-Stog "ending" at 3500 BCE after being immediately replaced by Yamnaya (and whatever culture there is at this time they are content to call Yamnaya). (Which is different from a sort of notional model of "Sredny-Stog ends ~4000 BCE. Yamnaya starts at ~3300 BCE or even ~3000 BCE. What's intermediate, we have no name for").''
It's not that Sredni Stog 'ends' ~ 4000 bc in any real (population or cultural) way, it's just that 4000 BC is a chronological benchmark due to the above-mentioned collapses. Pre-4000 BC is called 'early Sredni-Stog' or Skelia-Suvorovo-Novodanilovka horizon, after 4000 BC several distinctive sub-units have been defined (e.g. Repin, Dereivka, Lower Mikhailovka, Cernavoda, Kostantinovka, post-Stog/Kvitanya culture), although these are subject to their creators, and arent defined in a particularly consistent basis (e.g. Pottery - Deriivka; a burial pose - Kvitanya)
''For instance the paper this year by Mattila (https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05131-3) -
"In addition, the Eneolithic individual from the lower Dnipro Valley region (Deriivka II cemetery) archeologically classified as Serednyostogivs'ka (Sredny Stog) horse keepers (ukr104, c. 5650-5477 cal BP) showed smaller level of allele sharing with other individuals from the same region (Fig. 3f). " (So this is ~3500 BCE).''
This individual was initially dated to 4300 BC, however Mattila et al established a R.E. of 500 years, thus is now dated to ~ 3600bc. So I guess they ascribed it as 'SrediStog' by convention, but often Deriivka is classified as its own unit.
Whatever the case, new frameworks based on scientific dating and PopGen affinities would be optimal, and something which some papers in near future might offer.
Curisouly,' Deriivka late Eneolithic' is also where the R1b-M269 male with unusually high (?retained) levels of Ukr_N was found. So more male samples from the Deriivka 'horse-breeders' would be interesting.
I still read and enjoy this blog, but I am much more choosy about whose posts I respond to these days. Time is too precious to waste, and there are at least a couple of commenters here - rabid ethno-nationalists - who never produce anything worth reading. Both of them have been banned just about everyplace else.
thanks for the answer
@ Rich S
Gaska can’t accept R1b-L51 isn’t from Western Europe, you can’t accept that Smyadovo is likely R1b-M269. Half the vitamin D- deficient dementoid cult on pseudoGeneArchiver can’t accept that Finnic didn’t disperse with invisible winds due to their own ethnochauvanism. We can read there lectures by scientifically illiterate faker-analysts claiming that WHG come from Israel or Iran.
There’s BS everywhere, but at least here we have the best, and we can speak like Men instead of wimpy Betas over on the other place .
@ Rich S.
I was just going to answer your answer, when, going further, I found this answer of Rob:
"Gaska can’t accept R1b-L51 isn’t from Western Europe, you can’t accept that Smyadovo is likely R1b-M269. Half the vitamin D- deficient dementoid cult on pseudoGeneArchiver can’t accept that Finnic didn’t disperse with invisible winds due to their own ethnochauvanism. We can read there lectures by scientifically illiterate faker-analysts claiming that WHG come from Israel or Iran.
There’s BS everywhere, but at least here we have the best, and we can speak like Men instead of wimpy Betas over on the other place".
This answer is perfect, equable. I shouldn't have other to add, but you know, as you said, that I've been banned from everywhere, and very likely a reason there is in that.
I should post tons of books that say what I said about history, religion and also genetics. I am not alone. The question for you is that somentimes the concept of truth changes, and the victims become the executioners, and I think that they were so from the beginning... but you and your background are unable to understand that. Have you something to answer my positions not about ideology but in the scientific matter?
@Davidski
A bit different. I thought that the newest topic would be related to research on the genetic history of the Balkans from Roman times to Slavic migration. Nevertheless, I will ask you a few things related to the Z2103. In our research, we have 5 data on such Y DNA.
First, let me ask you a general question: Have you looked at these results? What are your opinions about them? How autosomal/ethnic do they look?
And a few more specific questions:
a. Sample I35014 from Croatia, dated to 1000 - 1200 AD. According to the authors, it is associated with Eastern Europe. Do you think so too? Recently we had Z2103-CTS7822 in the Wielbark sample from Pruszcz Gdański. Several hundred years passed until this sample from Croatia. Is it possible that this Ph2147 from Croatia is, for example, a Slavicized Wielbark? We know that the Wielbark culture occupied the areas of eastern and southern Europe. Could this person be a "descendant" of a migrant from the north? After all, after 6 or 8 generations, the traces of autosomal DNA in Northern Europe could have completely disappeared.
b. What do you think about sample I15552 from Serbia? It is dated to 380-410 AD. According to the authors, traces of the Balkans, Central and Northern Europe are visible here. How do you see it? Who do you think this man was?
c. What do samples I15551, I15515 and I26718 look like in your calculations? According to the authors, they are typically Balkan or Middle Eastern in nature. Could these differences among these Z2103 result from the fact that some of these people were e.g. local people from the Bronze Age (autosomal Balkans), some migrated with some eastern cultures (e.g. I26718), and others got here with Germanic tribes ( e.g. I15552)?
I am very irritated by the fact that Z2103 is still associated by many with Eastern Europe, and no one takes into account that in small quantities, but still since the CWC, this Y DNA has been present in Central Europe and probably migrated north. No one thinks that some Z2103 could have migrated east with the Wielbark culture... everyone always blindly assumes - aha, Z2103 is the norm in the Balkans. Or from the Levant. Eh...
@Rob
I really don't have a problem with Smyadovo being R1b-M269, if that's what he was. After all, he had steppe DNA, and his remains were recovered not far from the west coast of the Black Sea. Your opinions I respect, along with those of Davidski and most others here. I don't want to waste time on the two I mentioned because they are simply immune to reason. It's just not worth the aggravation.
Any news about the tooth from Nalchik? Have you found the one who dropped it yet?
Sorry guys, it's the Christmas/New Year holiday.
I won't be around much, but I'll still approve comments.
@ Dranoel
If I may answer your question, R-L23-Z2103 is my haplogroup. I have been writing about that from at least 15 years. My first position was that R1b, as to the known then STRs was linked with the Italian Refugium, above all in the Alpine zone. After, by chance, Villabruna 14000 years ago was found, but autosomically the same of Tagliente 2, I2a of 17000 years ago, thus I concluded that it migrated from the Siberian corridior to the Alps and some later subclades also to the Caucasus. My last hypothesis is that they entered the Caucasian languages and left their Siberian language ancestress of IE, probably remained among the brother haplogroupo R1a, remained eastermost, above all in eastern Europe.
The haplogroups R-CTS7822/Z2110 and R-PF7589 were at the base of my theory that the subclades of R1b1-Villabruna migrated after the Younger Dryas all around the Alps. The link of R-PF7589 with the zones around the Alps is always strong both through the survived samples of to-day and aDNA. R-Z2103 is massive in Yamnaya and from up there expanded all around, I don’t think that it came from Middle East but the other way around. About the specific R-Z2110 my hypothesis is that it went to Yamnaya from westernmost regions (central Europe, eastern Alps) what is more evident for R-PF7589 whose samples found in Mokrin came from the eastern Alps as was witnessed also from archaeology as I demonstrated many years ago.
Of course the samples of R-P310 found in Italy, put firstly in the FTDNA discovery tree and after taken away for the letter of your friend Rich S, need, I think, to be examined again. They were discovered in a paper innovative in its research and we know that what the Harvardians found in Italy was above all by chance as the unbelievable Villabruna (unbelievable by all… except me).
There never was any letter to FTDNA from me about any R-P310 samples in Italy. I don't know of any such samples that would be old enough for me to inquire about, and I have never asked FTDNA to remove samples they think belong in Ancient Connections. Take Smyadovo, for example. I innocently went looking for Smyadovo in Ancient Connections, fully expecting to find him under R-M269. When I couldn't find him, I asked about him at the FTDNA Big Y Facebook group. That's when Göran Runström of FTDNA told me that Smyadovo was a low coverage sample whose Y-DNA haplogroup could not be confirmed. I was merely told that. It was a NOT something I asked for. (And, btw, that's all I've ever said about Smyadovo, not that he wasn't R-M269, but simply that no one knows for sure.)
Recently I wrote FTDNA's Help Desk and asked them why Villabruna 1 was under R-L754 but not R-L761. I asked them if he was negative for L761 or just lacked coverage for it. They emailed me back and said that was an oversight on their part and that Villabruna 1 would appear under R-L761 at the next Discover update. Now he's there.
Now I wish I knew Villabruna 1's PF6323 and L389 status, but I don't want to bother FTDNA again so soon.
@ Rich S
And I yours. With regard to FtDNA, one can see their time tree function for any Haplogroup, but R1b-M269 doesn’t seem to show any ascribed ancient individuals. Any idea what’s going on ?
Maybe @ EthanR knows
@Rob
Gaska could accept that L51 has its origin in the steppes (eastern Europe is a much broader and debatable term) if someone presents convincing evidence, the problem is that we have been waiting for 15 years and they still have not found any sample that has been recognized as such by the international scientific community ergo currently that marker has its origin in Central Europe (Bohemia, and Switzerland).
Everyone also knows that Villabruna is R1b-L754>L761 and that it is this sample that gave rise to the WHG cluster & everyone in the world of European genetics except Mr. G.Runstrom knows that Smyadovo I2181 is a neolithic farmer of the Gumelnita Karanovo VI culture and that his male marker is R1b-M269. This has evidently been recognized by Harvard, although the credit for saying it for the first time must go to Arza who participates in this very blog.
Some rednecks have had to shut down AG so as not to leave traces of the hundreds of thousands of idiotic posts they've been publishing the last few years. Now they have created a similar forum to try to continue to control the official version of the steppe theory and propagandize their ideas, but they continue to participate here to insult and try to silence other opinions.
They are simply afraid because they have been wrong so many times that they cannot stand the ridicule they have made.
If anyone participates in the new forum, they will end up believing that R1b originated in Alaska and the BBC in Wisconsin because these knuckleheads cannot accept that R1b is Italian, the BBC Iberian, M269 Bulgarian (for the moment) and that their beloved Yamnaya is not the origin of anything but the steppe sink of R1b-M269.
For certain upstream clades the time tree doesn't seem to visually show any individuals but the ancient connections tab will detail samples. For example, the Afanasievo R-L52 individuals can't be found in the tree, only the ancient connections tab. For some samples with limited Y reads, I haven't been able to find them anywhere on the website (I was curious about both the Usatovo and Gaziantep R1b, although at this point I'm content that further reads aren't possible for them).
I'm not sure the higher coverage sequencing of Smyadovo was ever examined by them.
@ Ethan - thanks
@ Gaska - the BB thread over there is quite good. It doesn;t distort and follows the evidence carefully. The same can't be said for most of the other threads.
Rob wrote:
@ Rich S
And I yours. With regard to FtDNA, one can see their time tree function for any Haplogroup, but R1b-M269 doesn’t seem to show any ascribed ancient individuals. Any idea what’s going on ?
Maybe @ EthanR knows
My response:
You're right, but, honestly, I don't really know.
https://ibb.co/PDmkj2q
What to say to someone who writes: “certain ethno-nationalist morons” and “those same cretins”? That the same definition of “European Neolithic farmers” is due to the same Harvardians (whose we know their ideology and funds) that ended with their theory of the “Southern Arc” that not only me but all this blog dislikes, but not because we don’t like them, but because hg. R1b hasn’t been found so far in the Levant and Near East or Anatolia and also hg J reached those places from around the Caucasus and I think that it, with the brother hg I, was among the European hunter-gatherers. About that I gave tons of demonstrations. I know that Rich S, with these two last wars in due course, is a little nervous. I don’t know what he teaches, but I, beyond Italian, Latin and Geography, taught History for 40 years.
As I presume to deeply know not only the matters I taught but pretty much all the rest, I can say that Rich S, thus his mind, isn’t able to reply point to point to an argumentation, but through the general cathegory it belongs, thus I think that his problem is mental, not solvable if not through a long permanence in an asylum, and probably it won’t suffice.
@Davidski
Of course, completely understandable. After the holidays, I'll just copy these questions and ask you about them again :)
Taking this opportunity - Merry Christmas to everyone on the forum! Peace and health, because it will probably be useful to everyone and everywhere. Lots of interesting new genetic research next year! And may the New Year be more peaceful for the world.
@ Gio
Thank you for your answer, but it does not answer the questions I asked :) I know your opinion about Z2103, because I have seen your comments many times.
What is your opinion regarding sample Z2103 from the Wielbark culture in Pruszcz? How/when did this Y DNA come to Northern/Northwestern Europe?
Lazaridis distal model is perfectly valid for modeling such ancient samples (4,500 BC)-
Sample I2181-More than 50% of Anatolian farmers' blood (I don't know how anyone can think of calling this sample an anatolian farmer, we all know that in Wisconsin this is a symptom of steppe ancestry), and almost 20% of WHG (although it probably acquired that autosomal component in Alaska, not in the Balkans). The EHG component is 9% but all the samples from the Bulgarian Chalcolithic (4.600-4.200 BCE) show this component in different percentages between 1% and 10% (Yunatsite-I10785), so they are all technically outliers. What is really strange is that 20% of CHG because in the rest of the Bulgarian samples the maximum is 6%.
BGR_Smyadovo:I2181
51.10-Barcin_Neolithic
20.70-Caucasus_HG
19.20-SRB_Iron-Gates
9.00-Eastern_HG
0.00-Levant_PPN
BGR_Varna:ANI163
30.00-Barcin_Neolithic
22.70-Caucasus_HG
17.40-SRB_Iron_Gates
15.80-Eastern_HG
14.00-Levant_PPN
Merry Christmas to everyone who participates in this blog.
@ Dranoel
“@ Gio
Thank you for your answer, but it does not answer the questions I asked :) I know your opinion about Z2103, because I have seen your comments many times.
What is your opinion regarding sample Z2103 from the Wielbark culture in Pruszcz? How/when did this Y DNA come to Northern/Northwestern Europe?”
As I said above, the expansion of R-Z2103 from Yamnaya happened in many directions. Some subclades to central Asia and entered the Turkish (or others) pool and some came back westward with the Turkish migration. Others, the huggest R-Y4362 and R-L584, above all southward. Among R-Z2110 the most diffused subclade is R-CTS7556, ancestress of all the subclades, among them that you asked for, but the oldest samples are found just in places around the Alps (Belgium and Serbia), thus all the other subclades had many vicissitudes that have to be reconstructed case by case. I wrote a lot about the “Balkan cluster”: R-Z2705. The name and the discovery was of Argiedude’s and me. The subclade is diffused above all in the Balkans and above all in Albanian people, but their ancestor lived only 1600 years ago, and older samples, separated 3300 years ago, are in Italy and later in Iberia, thus we have to understand where their ancestor, 1600 years ago, did come from.
What about R-PH2147? The upstream subclade R-Y5587, separated 4600 years ago, finds the oldest separated samples in Italy and Bulgaria (R-Y255725). The subclade R-Y14300 has survived samples separated only 2300 years ago. Their origin has to be investigated in recent historic vicissitudes and we’d need the deepest data. The link with the Slavic pool is of course a possibility.
Merry Christmas Davidski and all of you.
prevalence of R-M269 among the peoples of the eastern Caucasus, the highest among the Tabasarans, a clear founder effect
https://ibb.co/f89cQRx
https://ibb.co/d0b27md
Does Yamnaya have r1b , is it from Eastern European hunters or from Caucasian shepherds ?
There are a number of things to recall about sample I2181, “Smyadovo”, especially when the obvious poverty of one’s point of view forces him to rely heavily on that single sample for support.
1. Lazaridis et al, the authors of the paper in which that sample first appeared, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe" (2018), said this about it:
"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B, D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years, but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it."
2. Sample I2181 is a low coverage sample whose Y-DNA placement cannot be determined. That is what FTDNA’s team has observed, which is why Smyadovo does not appear in FTDNA Discover’s Ancient Connections.
3. I2181 is listed in the 2022 Patterson et al paper, "Large-Scale Migration into Britain During the Middle to Late Bronze Age", as belonging to Y-DNA haplogroup F.
4. The 2022 Penske et al paper, “Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe”, also lists I2181 as Y-DNA F.
5. Reich’s AADR lists no Y-DNA haplogroup for I2181, Smyadovo.
If one wants to believe, on faith, that Smyadovo was R-M269 (and, at this point, that’s all it is – a belief), he must still contend with what Lazaridis et al wrote as quoted in item 1 above.
When one has nothing, he is sometimes forced to make stone soup, with wind pudding for dessert,
The significance of Smyadovo is what he tells us about East Balkan- Steppe social relations c. 4500 BC, not that R1b-M269 is from Bulgaria, or that I-2181 was himslf ancestral to the later, prolific downstream clades of R1b-M269.
I-2181 was genetically exotic, but his burial was 'local' & fairly un-noteworthy. This upturns the claims that individuals from the Khvalynsk-Volga network were raiding, or establishing themselves as leading "patrons".
But if you move a bit north of the Danube, the yet to be published Q1-individual from Csongrad was buried in 'barbarian'/steppe fashion, but then so was the Y-hg H2 'farmer' from Decea. That's why a new interpretative framework is needed, but so far the 'old experts' have offered little more than their own status quo, even though its sometimes at odds with the evidence.
@ Gaska
those models are too distally-formulated.
I-2181 can be modelled as ~ 65% Varna, 20% Progress, 15% Dnieper_N
@Rich S
Some important clarifications should always be stated about FamilyTreeDNA Discover and also about sample I2181 from Smyadovo.
Sample I2181 from Smyadovo shows derived for P280 and CTS9018/PF6484 and PF6452/YSC0000167. Only the first of those three are not possibly due to deamination since it is a C->G mutation. The other two are C>T and G>A respectively and is why they could be due to deamination but there is no question that all three show derived whether due to deamination or not. So it is not a belief system about those results. There is no other possible haplogroup based on the 887 ancestral results of other SNPs. Once the totality of the evidence is taken into consideration the results for CTS9018/PF6484 and PF6452/YSC0000167 are likely to not be caused by deamination. However, that is where the "belief" system start. The "belief" system is based on whether those derived results and the rest of the ancestral results are enough to believe that the derived results are due to deamination or not. It does have to do with whether or not it can be determined if the test showed those SNPs to be derived or not. The test did show them to be derived.
@Rich
I forgot to mention that FamilyTreeDNA Discover does not follow it's own advice of being conservative about results. They show a date for at least one Bronze Age specimen that was never directly C14 dated and was considered intrusive by the authors of the study that DNA sampled the specimen, due to Steppe autosomal DNA, and used the dating of the grave goods which was found in a Chalcolithic setting with other specimens that lacked Steppe autosomal DNA in their DNA results.
Is it really only two people left that post in the threads of this blog that don't understand that the lack of R-L23, or any of it's phylogenetic equivalents or subclades, in the thousands of tested specimens that are C14 dated to prior to 3000 BC, is strong evidence that R-L23, R-L51, or R-L52 did not originate in western Europe? Are they also the only ones that don't understand that SHT001 does not have to show ancestral for subclades of R-P310 to be included as a data point, along with other evidence, that R-P310 did not originate in western Europe and that no one ever insinuated that SHT001 is an ancestor of all R-P312 in western Europe and therefore the downstream SNPs are irrelevant? Are they really the ones with lack of critical thinking skills that otherwise would allow them to understand that correlation is not causation or that the sheer amount of evidence and the totality of that evidence proves that R-L23, R-L51, or R-L52 did not originate in western Europe?
Some are really overthinking this. There's clearly a sampling bias when it comes to kurgans and it's not representative of western steppe people.
Kurgans being like 99% RZ2103 clearly means a handful of patriarchal clans ruled over the open steppe region where kurgans are most common.
PIE people should have the same Y-DNA diversity Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk had since they literally come right after. We're not talking thousands of years later, but immediately right after. You don't get bottlenecked like this in 100 years.
khvakynsk ~ 4500 bc
Yamnaya ~ 3000 bc
Literally over a thousand+ years later
I was late to the discussion on the origins of Proto-Uralic languages, but wasn’t it our debater Jaasko Häkkinen who himself wrote this study?
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
“ However, Jaakko Häkkinen argues that the language of the Volosovo culture was not itself Uralic, but a Paleo-European substratum to Uralic, especially its westernmost branches, and identifies Proto-Uralic with the Garino-Bor culture instead.”
Jaska, you wrote that Uralic languages came from EHG, but I have the article’s link posted here to show you how you contradict yourself
Late PIE is a thousand years after Khvalynsk and Sredni Stog, so I'm not sure what you mean.
Also the issue cannot be resolved merely by Yamnaya kurgan sampling bias, as you still have to account for the relative paucity of I-L701 and R-Z2103 in Corded Ware.
And R-PF7562 failing to show up yet in either Corded Ware and Yamnaya lends further credence to some degree of regionalism.
re: Smyadovo discussion
I'm not sure why this an especially controversial issue, as the sample has significant Steppe and Ukraine forager ancestry.
Jaska used to write that Combed Ceramic, Volosovo and other EHG who were later completely replaced by our Fatnayovo Indo-European kin (Corded Ware descendants) were speakers of some non-Uralic non-https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=80-qgKBWuhU IE languages (most likely EHG), words like täšta or tähti for “star). These EHG languages were rich with consonant clusters and sybilants. That was a few years ago.
Now OTHO he advocates for a language replacement of his Uralic Siberian ancestors from Yakutia_LBA with that of these extinct EHG rich tribes…
Why is no one answering me 😪
I wouldn't ask so many questions, it's just that all the articles are in English. But no one has come up with a PDF yet. an editor with the ability to translate articles automatically
@ Dospaises
"Is it really only two people left that post in the threads of this blog that don't understand that the lack of R-L23, or any of it's phylogenetic equivalents or subclades, in the thousands of tested specimens that are C14 dated to prior to 3000 BC, is strong evidence that R-L23, R-L51, or R-L52 did not originate in western Europe? Are they also the only ones that don't understand that SHT001 does not have to show ancestral for subclades of R-P310 to be included as a data point, along with other evidence, that R-P310 did not originate in western Europe and that no one ever insinuated that SHT001 is an ancestor of all R-P312 in western Europe and therefore the downstream SNPs are irrelevant? Are they really the ones with lack of critical thinking skills that otherwise would allow them to understand that correlation is not causation or that the sheer amount of evidence and the totality of that evidence proves that R-L23, R-L51, or R-L52 did not originate in western Europe?"
I already answered your question in a recent letter here to Rich S and in all what I have been writing in these last 15 years.
The true question about R-Z2103 is that it expanded all over the world probably from Yamnaya around 5000 years ago but no doubt to me that the recent vicissitude of the hg R1b1 is 17000 years ago (at least) in the Alpine refugium, migration after the Younger Dryas all around, expansion from the Baltic of R-M73* etc etc. What should make us reflect is that all the descendants of R-Z2103 spoke later the language of the groups they introgressed in, there is no langugage linked to them and the idea that they spoke some Caucasian language of the Alpine region after that they entered the hg I (as Gaska supported first) is a possibility. The IE languages were more linked to hg R1a remained closer to the Uralic groups in eastern Europe or also around the Urals. Why the R-Z2103 expanded so largely and didn't maintain their language? The explication should be found in social reasons.
Anyway all the oldest haplogroups upstream R-Z2103 are in Europe and around the Alps, not elsewhere, thus that the Villabruna tribe is the ancestor is more and more believable.
after all, someone wrote here that an article about Nalchik 's tooth will be ready by the end of the year , is there any news ?
@Rob @Ethan
I can't even take some of you seriously. SS/Khvalynsk both end at 3500 BC. Why are you quoting the start date of those cultures? Yamnaya is literally the successor.
Downstream cultures being bottlenecked over thousands of years is nothing new. Spanish people are R1b-L51, yet the BBs come from CW who were heavily R1a.
The issue is when you think this bottleneck happened overnight, like with Yamnaya. This is dumb. It's a clear sampling bias and the kurganites are only a handful of leading PIE clans in the open steppe, and not the entire set.
@DragonHermit
Yamnaya is not the successor of Khvalynsk. It expanded from the west, rolled over Khvalynsk, and replaced it.
So Yamnaya is one of those downstream cultures that experienced a founder effect. So is Afanasievo and Corded Ware.
Moreover, Yamnaya is not a leading kurganite PIE clan. It's the population that expanded over the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
Afanasievo is the population that expanded across the Kazakh steppe into Siberia. Corded Ware is the population that expanded into the forests.
I can assure you that neither the Sredni Stog or Khvalynsk you are thinking of lasted from 4500 to 3500BC.
There are region-specific continuations of Sredni Stog but almost surely these did not harbour the same uniparental diversity as prior, if not on the periphery even incorporating local lineages like at vasilevskiy kordon.
As far as I can remember there is a significant temporal gap on the volga between Khvalynsk cemetery's use and Yamnaya. It's not terribly relevant anyway given the minimal overlap between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya/CWC's uniparentals.
Khvalynsk dates table 1
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/10.1515_pz-2022-2034.pdf
There’s not a single khvalynsk sample or site which dates to 3500 bc, or indeed beyond 4200 bc. Even with 2/3000 RE correction.
(apart from one obvious Yamnaya-era outlier)
In the appendix to the preprint Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages there is such information
RISE550.SG AllentoftNature2015 3335-2634 calBCE (4312±94 BP, IGAN-2880) Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya.SG Peschany-5 Peschany-5 (Rostov Oblast, Remontnenskiy District) Russia 460729 M n/a (no relatives detected) 50,564807 Lazaridis caller (12/6/2020) based on Yfull 8.09 running directly on the bam R-L51 R1b1a1b1a U5a1i
I doubt that RISE550.SG is actually L51 based on what I've seen. That just looks like Lazaridis doing a bit of experimenting.
But even if it's true, then it doesn't really change anything, because the overall paternal profiles of Corded Ware and Yamnaya are different.
RISE 550 is a sample with poor coverage, in the desperate search for L51 in the steppes everyone has checked this sample and it seems evident that like all other Yamnaya M269 it is Z2103, because is positive for Z8129/Y12537 which is a Z2103 equivalent.
Lazaridis "doing a bit of experimenting" says textually “and possibly in a Yamnaya individual (RISE550 from Peshany V in Kalmykia), but on the basis of only a single read from a G>A SNP (PF6535(5465148G>A:A))” -G>A substitutions are a common problem in ancient DNA
This way all they do is confuse people. That is, they have not yet found L51>L151 in Yamnaya, so keep looking.
We also have the LN Baltic Corded ware samples, which do not share the neolithic admixture of most corded ware samples but do share the uniparentals as well as the typical cultural aspects.
They at the very least complicate a model in which Corded Ware is the result of Yamnaya + GAC.
I ran the realigned BAM on SNIPSA and RISE550 appears to be resolvable upto R-BY3719 which is downstream of a subclade parallel to L51.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-BY3719/
I agree David, nothing is set in stone with that 5 year old sample.
L51 and just below level SNPs:
PF6535+ (3 out of 5 star reliability score on YFull)
L51-
PF6540-
L52-
PF6543-
L11-
M405-
SNP at the Z2103 level:
Z8129+ (3 out of 5 star reliability score on YFull)
Given the mixed results, it's impossible to tell if he is on the pre-L51 or pre-Z2103 branch.
@Davidski
the article by Morten E. Allentoft indicates that Eastern European hunters do not descend from the population of Western Europe, but that both Western European and Eastern European hunters have a common independent contribution from the Paleolithic population of Georgia like Dzudzuana and Kotias (Upper Paleolithic), you agree with the opinion of Morten E Allentoft?
@Арсен
It's just an abstract model that tries to explain reality in the context of the available data.
@Samuel Andrews
"Afanasievo is more related to Yamnaya than Corded Ware is."
That's because Afanasievo are literally unadmixed early Yamnaya migrants.
"If Afanasievo/proto-Tocherian split earlier then they should be less related to Yamnaya than Corded Ware."
Um, what? Corded Ware has mixed considerably with EEF outsiders. This would lessen the IBD hits.
@DragonHermit
Identity-by-Descent (IBD) is not an admixture analysis, it's a genealogical test.
So the GAC admixture in early Corded Ware cannot be used as an explanation for the weaker IBD links between early Corded Ware and Yamnaya relative to Afanasievo and Yamnaya.
Afanasievo and Yamnaya split before 3,000 BCE, and yet they're still more closely related than Corded Ware and Yamnaya.
The implications of this are clear, even if you argue that Afanasievo was derived from Yamnaya, which is debatable anyway because Afanasievo shows Y-DNA variation that is missing in Yamnaya.
@DragonHermit
Was it really that the people of the Yamnaya culture, moving from west to east, passing through all of Siberia, reaching Afanasyevo, did not meet anyone on the way, neither the same representatives of the Botai culture, nor Eastern European hunters, nor any peoples with genetic admixtures of the Eastern Asia?...
after all, genetically representatives of the Afanasyevskaya culture are no different from representatives of the Samara Yamnaya culture
or Yamnaya Kalmykia
@Davidski
Suppose it turns out that that tooth from Nalchik will be genetically close to the NEC peoples, and the fact that the first proto pie WHSG will be well modeled from him, that is, he will be a kind of intermediary between people from the NEC and the Yamnaya, can it be said that the Yamnaya culture is a mixture of Eastern European reindeer herders and Dagestan cattle breeders and shepherds? or will you also continue to say that It's just an abstract model that tries to explain reality in the context of the available data, that this is not the best model, that this is not the south pole, that we do not have enough data..?
@Арсен
You're making a lot of assumptions there even before seeing the Nalchik genome.
And to answer your earlier question, R1b-M269 isn't from Dagestan. It moved into Dagestan during the Catacomb period (after Yamnaya).
Yamnaya is from Ukraine, and so is R1b-M269 probably.
@Davidski
okay, let’s say where did all the Caucasian Y chromosomes go among the representatives of the steppe pastoralists? the only j1 was found in Afanasievets, which could also have been transmitted from earlier cultures of the Middle Don (sample NEO163), or Karelian reindeer herders.
If autosomal calculators had not been invented, we would be sure that the Indo-Europeans came from Siberia, from the ancient northern Eurasians
@Davidski
What about the Armenians? r1b came to them from the Balkans or from the Catacomb culture? their Indo-European language can be said to be the closest to the Yamnaya language? before the Yamnaya penetrated there they spoke Hurrito-Urartian languages and Proto-Udin (the southern branch of the NEC languages, or Lezgin)
@Арсен
The Caucasus-related ancestry in Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, Corded Ware etc. must have been largely female mediated, because obviously R1a, R1b, I2 and Q1 are all found in Eastern European hunter-gatherer populations and none of them are from the Caucasus.
Male admixture from the Caucasus on the steppe can be traced only with J1 and J2.
Armenian probably came from Catacomb.
I don't understand your comment about Indo-European being from Siberia. No one has ever seriously argued that Indo-European came from Siberia.
Indo-European is about 6,000 years old. That takes us back to Sredny Stog in Ukraine, and Yamnaya is derived from Sredny Stog. So there's no question about Yamnaya and Indo-European being from Siberia.
I don't have time for these sorts of discussions.
That’s exactly what you listed R1a, R1b, and Q1 except I2 is of Siberian origin. That’s why people would assume that Indo-Europeans are from Siberia
What did he mean by that
i dont know what's worse, Arsen's inane questions, or his photo-posts of semi-naked men from Dagestan.
@Арсен
There's no evidence that R1a and R1b are of Siberian origin. By far the oldest R1a and R1b samples are from Europe.
And Q1 is present in European hunter-gatherers, at a time when Indo-European wasn't spoken yet.
The only way you can argue that Indo-European is from Siberia is if Sredny Stog arrived in Europe from Siberia, and obviously that didn't happen.
@Rob
Why are my questions stupid for you? Too simple? Maybe because I don’t speak your native language, and I can’t read the articles in full? So I’ll clarify some points. Regarding naked men, the avatar is not a Dagestani, but a Georgian
@Rob, why are you pestering me, what do you want from me, I don’t understand. why are you always trying to prove that you are smarter than 2000 scientists who write articles. go play in the sandbox with the children. If I need anything, I will contact you.
@Davidsky The only information I found about the sredny stog was that this man lived approximately 4 thousand years BC, contained impurities of 80% wsh and 20 eef and haplogroup r1a z93, we only have one sample from there?
@ Arsen - it’s got nothing to do with what your native language is. you’re disingenuous in your questioning, you pretend you’re here to learn, but you talk over people. In the previous thread you were posting photos of guys, which is strange. You should learn the basics by reading papers (by “the thousands of scientists” you pretend to discuss), there are multiple translator apps, because you really are dumbing down the comments. Ok snowflake ?
@ Davidski
"I don't understand your comment about Indo-European being from Siberia. No one has ever seriously argued that Indo-European came from Siberia.
Indo-European is about 6,000 years old. That takes us back to Sredny Stog in Ukraine, and Yamnaya is derived from Sredny Stog. So there's no question about Yamnaya and Indo-European being from Siberia".
All true, but to say that IE was born 6000 years ago doesn't mean that it was born 6000 years ago from "nothing". Also IE had previous phases and when I said that it is probably linked with the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor it means that its oldest ancestors did come from up there, and the old link with the Uralic languages is the more evident, for that I am against the Gramkrelidze-Ivanov theory and the link with the Caucasian languages and of course against the "Southern Arc" theory by a genetic point of view. I also hypothesized that the brother hg R1b1 adopted a Caucasian language in the Alpine region and only R1a was the responsible of the diffusion of the IE. Of course we have to hypothesize that there were many different IE languages in so vast space, and that only the unified national language of one of these groups diffused the IE before its new dispersion and differentiation in a vast space of the historic times that we know. Thus to say that IE is a "Siberian" language could not be wrong. The question is how long ago, and, above all, which was the unified culture that expanded the IE that we may reconstruct now and we have to understand, if that culture was Yamnaya, why the hg up there was R-Z2103 which had to speak a Caucasian language and not R1a that we suppose was the hg of the IE diffusion. Of course we need many other data and interpretations.
@Арсен
New Sredny Stog samples from Ukraine that will be published soon are very similar to Yamnaya.
Sredny Stog was ancestral to Yamnaya.
@Davidski Thanks, I'm looking forward to it
Honestly, I didn't think that the r1 z93 was so ancient . on yfull, his age is only 5 thousand years old . and the sredny stog is a sample of 6 thousand years old .
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/ae/Eurasia_R1a_Z93.jpg
This Sredny Stog sample is wrongly dated. It's actually an Abashevo sample.
@ Arsen
With the R-Z93 descendants we already are at the Indo-European expansion above all of the satem languages, but upstream R-Z93 we have the oldest subclades undoubtedly in Europe, very likly eastern Europe, thus no more to say, I think. This sample id:I1819UKR [UA-23]age has been found in Ukraine formed 18200 years before present and separated 15100 ybp as to YFull.
@Gio ,as far as I remember, the distribution of r1a z93 it is connected with the spread of syntashta and srubnaya , which is why there are so many of it in Central Asia
@ Arsen
"@Gio ,as far as I remember, the distribution of r1a z93 it is connected with the spread of syntashta and srubnaya , which is why there are so many of it in Central Asia".
Of course they were the speakers of IE satem languages, in fact they were the charioteers who gave birth to the dinasties of Middle East, Egypt, Greece etc. In fact the Mitanni used a language close to sanskrit, the IE language of India. I thought that also my ancestors R-Z2110 were anong them (Tutankhamon was hg R1b and not R1a), but perhaps they didn't.
BY3719 and Z8129 are C>T mutations and PF6535 is a G>A mutation so they should be ignored since they also could easily be due to deamination.
I took a look at RISE550 and it shows to have a to have a lot of C>T and G>A false positives due to deamination. The only certain most downstream derived haplogroup based on the other mutations, that can't be due to deamination, is R-M269 based on 14 phylogenetic equivalents and numerous upstream SNPs in haplogroup R and other upstream SNPs.
@Arsen “ That’s exactly what you listed R1a, R1b, and Q1 except I2 is of Siberian origin. That’s why people would assume that Indo-Europeans are from Siberia
What did he mean by that”
Lolololo
Indo-European people and languages aren’t from Siberia, the Caucasus, Zagros Mountainn, West Asia, Armenia or you name it….
It’s from Eastern Europe, specifically from Ukraine
@Gio “ All true, but to say that IE was born 6000 years ago doesn't mean that it was born 6000 years ago from "nothing". Also IE had previous phases and when I said that it is probably linked with the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor it means that its oldest ancestors did come from up there, and the old link with the Uralic languages is the more evident, for that I am against the Gramkrelidze-Ivanov theory and the link with the Caucasian languages and of course against the "Southern Arc" theory by a genetic point of view. I also hypothesized that the brother hg R1b1 adopted a Caucasian language in the Alpine region and only R1a was the responsible of the diffusion of the ”
You’re spewing nonsense as usual. PIE dates back to SS in forest Steppe of Ukraine 6,500 ya; Uralic languages are dated to east of Ural 4kbp. No link had ever proven or will be proven between them. Even the Haplogroups are different (IE= R1b, R1a, I2 and lesser Q1a; Uralic = N3c3)
@Dospaises
BY3719 and Z8129 are C>T mutations and PF6535 is a G>A mutation so they should be ignored since they also could easily be due to deamination.
I took a look at RISE550 and it shows to have a to have a lot of C>T and G>A false positives due to deamination. The only certain most downstream derived haplogroup based on the other mutations, that can't be due to deamination, is R-M269 based on 14 phylogenetic equivalents and numerous upstream SNPs in haplogroup R and other upstream SNPs.
Yes, that's correct.
Someone should get in touch with Lazaridis and walk him through this.
I've been combing through the IBD supplement table and I've noticed it's exceedingly hard to find significant hits within West-Asia (perhaps due to large population sizes?), even among related populations like Kura Araxes.
Unsurprisingly, the Steppe Eneolithic samples have low level sharing with some Corded Ware and Afanasievo, but also one of the ROU_Bodrogkeresztur_C outliers, which is kind of cool.
If anything, Proto-Indo-Europeans are descended from a distal ghost population related to Kostenki14. All 3 founding clines/clusters- WHG, ANF/EEF and WSH are Augrinacian or Gravatian in its horizon. Besides, all these pops are related somehow in their derp ancestry: EEF = 50% WHG or Iron Gates and 50% Natufian-like; PIE has 20% EEF. And moreover, both EHG and CHG have a significant ratio of ANE, not to mention that ANE is proximal to the Velabruna cluster.
PIE can’t be a EHG, WHG, EEF one etc because all these broad horizons spoke unrelated languages even on their own cline. I’m pretty sure that Basque and Estruscan are 2 unrelated EEF languages. Volosovo and Combed Ceramic probably spoke unrelated “EHG” languages. Look at Native American languages, ranging historically between 300-500 unrelated languages as well as language isolates.
My theory which has never changed was that PIE in its earliest form rose among the Sredny Stog people 7,000 years ago, and that this language grew organically as a language isolate. Just like Yakutia LNBA started the Uralic languages and Cis-Baikal ANE rich mixed with East Asian Trans-Baikal developed the Yenisseyan languages.
Languages just develop once an ancestral component evolves into its own cultural horizon or package.
@CptSmrk
Would you explain how to run SNIPSA so I could can see if it has the mutation information as a table in one of the output files or as an option? It's important to be able to see if the SNPs are possibly due to deamination.
Dear friends, because this is how I consider you, at least those who really try to understand how things went, there are few things left to say. I don't understand Dospaises' reproach and why he considers the origin of R haplogroups linked to the recent inhabitants of the Iberian peninsula important and why he doesn't take into consideration Gaska's theories, which in my opinion are interesting. Why is one Spanish and one Basque? The weight of ethnic origin, which should not influence a scientific investigation, seems exaggerated to me. We have been discussing the origin of haplogroup R for years and we have achieved some small certainties. Gaska's hypothesis that the R-M269 haplogroup was linked to non-IE languages initially seemed interesting and noteworthy to me and I tried to frame it in my theory of the origin of everyone from Villabruna (but why does someone write "Velabruna"? It's a sloppy way of treating the Italian language). I don't know if we should see in Andrzejewski another Davidski, his less sociable side, but I don't understand this treating me like a spitter, because I'm not against his theories (above all I'm against Harvardians and I have explained why in a lifetime.) The connection of the IE language with the Uralic languages is ancient, very ancient, as with other so-called Nostratic languages, and what I said was only aimed at trying to understand the very intricate historical events of its formation. Then I also said that the oldest R1a at our disposal was found in Ukraine behind the YFull tree and the ancient DNA available.
@ Gio
There are some problems in your reasoning.
Firstly, R1b did not exapand not from an Alpine Refugium, indeed, there was no such thing as an ''Alpine Refugium'. The Carpatho-Balkan region might have been a focus for the secondary expansion of R12b-L754-> V88, but that's a slightly different thing.
Secondly, the idea of 'Nostratic Languages' is just wishful thinking, a sort of Biblical story and the human sentiment to neatly package things together. It was also popular in some Soviet scholarship, because it suited the ideology of Empire. The history of Eurasian language expansion is so complex that Nostraticism deprives languages / regions of their real history.
https://github.com/alinja/snipsa
It has a simple GUI. It also generates a txt file with SNPs.
@Andrzejewski ,You're also accusing Gio of talking nonsense)
@Davidsky Is the ratio of ehg and chg in the average stack the same as in the pit culture ? And are there any EEF in them?
@Davidski
"Identity-by-Descent (IBD) is not an admixture analysis, it's a genealogical test.
So the GAC admixture in early Corded Ware cannot be used as an explanation for the weaker IBD links between early Corded Ware and Yamnaya relative to Afanasievo and Yamnaya."
Afanasievo has shared IBD regions/hits with Yamnaya from BOTH their male and female ancestors, while CW has significantly reduced IBD regions/hits from females, due to GAC ancestry.
@ Rob
"@ Gio
There are some problems in your reasoning.
Firstly, R1b did not exapand not from an Alpine Refugium, indeed, there was no such thing as an ''Alpine Refugium'. The Carpatho-Balkan region might have been a focus for the secondary expansion of R12b-L754-> V88, but that's a slightly different thing.
Secondly, the idea of 'Nostratic Languages' is just wishful thinking, a sort of Biblical story and the human sentiment to neatly package things together. It was also popular in some Soviet scholarship, because it suited the ideology of Empire. The history of Eurasian language expansion is so complex that Nostraticism deprives languages / regions of their real history".
Rob, we know each other from so long, perhaps from the beginning of my letters about these arguments, and we exchanged also tons of private letters in fb. If we are free to discuss these arguments, we may continue to do that.
You know how I formulated my positions. I changed something in due course, of course, because I started from STRs and we have now much more data also about the same STRs.
I gave theories about all the R1b subclades. Out of doubt that the oldest R1b1 found so far is Villabruna 14000 years old, and also, probably, Les Iboussiéres 12000 years old in the border France/Italy. About R-V88 I was the first to say that it was from Italy or Europe. Then there was the pre-Harvardian theory of "Ex Oriente lux" and all supported an origin in Middle East. You say now that it came from central Europe, where we have, so far, the oldest aDNA, but many accept that the migration to Africa happened from Italy or Iberia. We'll see. The same for R-M73 expanded from Baltic to Asia, and don't forget that I said that R-V1636, found so far in eastern Europe and the Caucasus, has its 5 survived haplotypes in Italy whereas the other places get only one and anyway the oldest survived samples are in Italy and later in Iberia. I hope that also hg J linkeg to I is found in the Alpine or Cantabrian region older than Satsurblia 13000 years ago.
If the Nostratic theory was influenced from the Russian Empire is possible, but the great part of those linguists were Jews or partly Jews like Illich Svitych, and I know the Orel/Oryol books about Albanian etc etc. Glottology is my true passion...
Thus let's wait and rest friends.
@Davidski
I see that you are already on the forum again, so as previously announced, I will once again paste my questions asked before Christmas.
A bit different. I thought that the newest topic would be related to research on the genetic history of the Balkans from Roman times to Slavic migration. Nevertheless, I will ask you a few things related to the Z2103. In our research, we have 5 data on such Y DNA.
First, let me ask you a general question: Have you looked at these results? What are your opinions about them? How autosomal/ethnic do they look?
And a few more specific questions:
a. Sample I35014 from Croatia, dated to 1000 - 1200 AD. According to the authors, it is associated with Eastern Europe. Do you think so too? Recently we had Z2103-CTS7822 in the Wielbark sample from Pruszcz Gdański. Several hundred years passed until this sample from Croatia. Is it possible that this Ph2147 from Croatia is, for example, a Slavicized Wielbark? We know that the Wielbark culture occupied the areas of eastern and southern Europe. Could this person be a "descendant" of a migrant from the north? After all, after 6 or 8 generations, the traces of autosomal DNA in Northern Europe could have completely disappeared.
b. What do you think about sample I15552 from Serbia? It is dated to 380-410 AD. According to the authors, traces of the Balkans, Central and Northern Europe are visible here. How do you see it? Who do you think this man was?
c. What do samples I15551, I15515 and I26718 look like in your calculations? According to the authors, they are typically Balkan or Middle Eastern in nature. Could these differences among these Z2103 result from the fact that some of these people were e.g. local people from the Bronze Age (autosomal Balkans), some migrated with some eastern cultures (e.g. I26718), and others got here with Germanic tribes ( e.g. I15552)?
I am very irritated by the fact that Z2103 is still associated by many with Eastern Europe, and no one takes into account that in small quantities, but still since the CWC, this Y DNA has been present in Central Europe and probably migrated north. No one thinks that some Z2103 could have migrated east with the Wielbark culture... everyone always blindly assumes - aha, Z2103 is the norm in the Balkans. Or from the Levant. Eh...
@Davidsky, and the Indo-Europeans came to the Balkans and Greece, from Yamnaya or from the middle stack? It’s more logical to assume that from the middle stack, since it is closer to the Balkans? Anatolian languages are also associated with the middle stack?
@Davidski Do you agree that the earliest PIE form ever was formed with the formation of the “Steppe Component”, or “Western Steppe Herder” DNA, regardless of whether it was in Progress or the LDC? I’m starting to think that rather than Sredny Stog being the original PIE speakers, Proto-Proto-IE arose as soon as EHG and CHG-rich groups formed into something new. My notion is that it was a language isolate bearing no resemblance to neither original speech. Do you support that hypothesis?
Sorry guys, no time to get into discussions and answer questions.
@Davidski ,I'm sorry, I just noticed that sredny stog translates into English as the average stack , This is literally what it means
@CptSmrk
Did you understand my comments about deamination and why SNIPSA failed you and gave you a false result? Will you work with me in more detail so SNIPSA reports are no longer posted when SNIPSA doesn't know the difference between a proper analysis and a false positive due to deamination?
I have attempted to get SNIPSA to work but it isn't a simple app. There needs to be additional detailed instructions to get SNIPSA running. I am able to get most programs working but SNIPSA is a headache.
@Gio
The main issue is that the two of you are ignoring that out of the many hundreds of samples from Europe from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Ages and that prior to 3000 BC there is not a single specimen that is derived for R-L23 found in western Europe. That means there have been zero specimens from the Alpine region derived for R-L23. Not even in Bohemia until Corded Ware. In addition to that every single specimen ever found in Europe that is derived for R-L23 has Steppe autosomal DNA. These are two extremely important facts. They should not be ignored. Do you deny these irrefutable and fundamental facts?
@ Draneol
They all seem to branch out from BA - IA Balkan R1b-Z2106. Nothing unusual there.
You might just have to get over your prejudices
@Dospaises , most likely, the Mesolithic r1b in Europe is a hunter-gatherer from Siberia who accidentally came to Europe, probably hunted with some kind of animal
@ Arsen
''most likely, the Mesolithic r1b in Europe is a hunter-gatherer from Siberia who accidentally came to Europe, probably hunted with some kind of animal''
R1b has been in Europe since 14,000 bp, at least, more likely 20,000. By contrast, there has been no 'Mesolithic R1b found in Siberia.
You can't keep blaming google translate for your laziness & ignorance. You dont even need to speak English to look at data and figures from published work.
''middle stack" - haha
@Rob It's not my words that this man was from Siberia. I asked this question to one expert geneticist from social networks , he replied that this was a single manifestation, and it was from the ancient northern Eurasians.
about the average stack {средний стон}
https://ru.wikibrief.org/wiki/Sredny_Stog_culture
In the context of the modified Kurgan hypothesis from Maria Gimbutas, this pre-Kurgan archaeological culture could represent Urheimat (homeland) of the proto-Indo-European language.
@ Dospaises
"@Gio
The main issue is that the two of you are ignoring that out of the many hundreds of samples from Europe from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Ages and that prior to 3000 BC there is not a single specimen that is derived for R-L23 found in western Europe. That means there have been zero specimens from the Alpine region derived for R-L23. Not even in Bohemia until Corded Ware. In addition to that every single specimen ever found in Europe that is derived for R-L23 has Steppe autosomal DNA. These are two extremely important facts. They should not be ignored. Do you deny these irrefutable and fundamental facts?"
@ Арсен
"@Dospaises , most likely, the Mesolithic r1b in Europe is a hunter-gatherer from Siberia who accidentally came to Europe, probably hunted with some kind of animal".
Rob already answered to you:
"R1b has been in Europe since the late paleolithic, 14,000 bp. There is no Mesolithic R1b in any Siberian samples.
You cant keep blaming google translate for your stupidity & ignorance, you dont need to speak english to look at data & figures / R1b has been in Europe since 14,000 bp, at least, more likely 20,000. By contrast, there has been no 'Mesolithic R1b found in Siberia.
You can't keep blaming google translate for your laziness & ignorance. You dont even need to speak English to look at data and figures from published work.
''middle stack" - haha"
and he calls you a "stupid", word that I usually don't use, but my answer could be the same.
To Dospaises I say the same.
@ Arsen
obviously that guy isn't much of an expert if he/she doesn;t know basic facts. You should make an effort to learn the primary data for yourself, then you won't need ask 1,000 questions,
@ Dospaises
"@Gio
The main issue is that the two of you are ignoring that out of the many hundreds of samples from Europe from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Ages and that prior to 3000 BC there is not a single specimen that is derived for R-L23 found in western Europe. That means there have been zero specimens from the Alpine region derived for R-L23. Not even in Bohemia until Corded Ware. In addition to that every single specimen ever found in Europe that is derived for R-L23 has Steppe autosomal DNA. These are two extremely important facts. They should not be ignored. Do you deny these irrefutable and fundamental facts?"
I answered this specific question of yours many times, at least I express my opinion about the origin of the R-L23-Z2103 subclades. I never denied that its expansion happened from Yamnaya or nearby, but, as I said to Rich S, beteween the formation of the subclade and the presence in Yamnaya passed at least 400 years and the ancestor (because we have only 2 ancestors who had descent: R-M269* and R-Z2103*) he may have come from everywhere, and that all the upstream samples are in central or western Europe (and Villabruna 14000 years ago is the oldest yet) has to be taken into account for understanding the origin.
To be rigorous I should have written not as many think and write "R-L23-Z2103 and R-L23-L51" but "R-M269(xZ2103) and R-Z2103", because R-M269, in addition to the R-L23 subclade, also has the R-PF7562 subclade equally divided between a small subclade spread to the east and a massive R-PF7563 spread to the west with the oldest specimen found so far in Greece.
Especially for Rob
https://vk.com/wall-119964405_293383
Mr. Davidski, I came across this photo
https://ibb.co/8dkMg7L
it shows the proportions of various steppe populations including sredny stog, here it is not quite similar to the Yamnaya but more like Khvalynsk with an admixture of EEF, maybe these are autosomes of an erroneously dated sample with haplogroup r1a z93?
@Davidski
Sure :) Three times is a charm, so I'll try it after the New Year!
@Rob
I am far from prejudice - I try to be objective and evaluate everything coolly :)
You basically confirm what I'm writing about. Z2106 is dated to approximately 5300 YBP, which is even earlier than the yamnaya itself. It is obvious that Z2103 has a lot of its own Y DNA in and around the Balkans. But it is equally obvious in the light of new research that it already reached central and north-western Europe with the CWC and BB cultures, so the statement that "it spread throughout Europe with the Iron Age from the Balkans" is highly incorrect and untrue.
At least for those Z2103 from Central and NW Europe, the most obvious route is through Yamnaya in Hungary etc. This is best illustrated by the entry on this blog with the "BB highway". Recently, Davidski also mentioned that some Z2103 must have entered the area of Germanic cultures with some movements and then migrated with them, which is also indicated by recent research from both Poland and Hungary.
@ Dranoel
Its hard to know for 100% the ultimate fate of Z2103 in Polish and Czech Beaker, but I don’t see it as expanding with the beaker Highway. Most Z2106 remained centred in the carpatho-Balkan region well into the Iron Age
Which “Germanic cultures” have we seen Z2106 in so far ?
@ Arsen
“ https://vk.com/wall-119964405_293383”
Lol Some random Russian twitter guy who’s about as clueless as you. As I said, your problem is you don’t understand facts, you merely parrot things like a brainwashed person
@Rob
firstly, he is not Russian, but Pole. And he knows more about genetics than you, me and many who pretend to be geneticists here.
@Арсен
Especially for Rob
https://vk.com/wall-119964405_293383
This is nonsense.
@ Arsen
''firstly, he is not Russian, but Pole''
I said 'Russian twitter', not Russian passport or DNA.
'' And he knows more about genetics than you, me and many who pretend to be geneticists here.''
If he knew anything about genetics, he'd be abe to demonstrate somthing useful with qpADM and place it into a sensible historical context, rather than needing to copy/paste Heggarty
fallacious article.
So you clearly don't understand what you're referencing and who you're talking to, either because you're a Troll, or too stupid to understand reality.
@Davidsk and what about that screenshot that I threw?
It's just a very basic admixture analysis of some type, probably done with qpAdm, based on a few samples. So it can't be taken literally.
But Yamnaya looks very similar to Sredny Stog, which makes sense, because there are new Sredny Stog samples on the way that are basically identical to Yamnaya.
@ Arsen-
If Pre-PIE came from a CHG- rich population, it would either be CHG hunters from the mountain-forests, or Chalcolithic groups from South Caucasus (but not Kura-Araxes).
Kura-Araxes is a steppe influenced culture. It's basically the result of the kurgan tradition moving from Eastern Europe into West Asia. Here's a good paper on the topic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04681-w
So anyone claiming that Kura-Araxes brought Indo-European to the Eastern European steppe is a fucking idiot.
If Kura-Araxes was Indo-European speaking, then that's because it was steppe-influenced.
@Rob
"If Pre-PIE came from a CHG- rich population, it would either be CHG hunters from the mountain-forests, or Chalcolithic groups from South Caucasus (but not Kura-Araxes)"
oh, and you love the forest-steppes of Georgia. Yes, there is quite beautiful nature there, but I don’t think that they went further to the north. I think that before settling in the Caucasus, these Caucasian hunters split into two paths, when they came from Azerbaijan, part went along the Kura River and reached Georgia. The other part through the Caspian The passage was populated by the mountains and plains of the Northern Caucasus. And both South Caucasian and North Caucasian hunters took part in the Kura Araks culture. That is why they are a little steppe.
Isn't it amusing how Davidski diligently searches for any semblance of evidence to support the idea that Kura-Araxes was a "Steppe influenced" culture? He consistently emphasizes the minimal presence of Steppe ancestry in Kura-Araxes, disregarding the almost complete absence of Steppe Y-DNA and the archaeological insignificance of Steppe cultures in the formation of Kura-Araxes. Despite these facts, he fervently claims otherwise, displaying a misguided and intellectually unsound understanding of the topic. Such an erroneous, evasive, and intellectually deficient approach draws parallels with the Southern Arc theory.
Another amusing topic frequently discussed on this forum revolves around the extent of Steppe ancestry among Dagestanians, a subject somewhat linked to the preceding paragraph given that Northeast Caucasians, especially Dagestanians, are direct descendants of the Kura-Araxes culture. However, Davidski, with his somewhat flawed understanding of archaeology, consistently emphasizes the "violent collapse" of the Kura-Araxes culture, overlooking successor cultures like Ginchi and Kayakent-Khorochoi. While he attributes the Steppe ancestry and prevalence of Kura-Araxes lineages in Dagestan to a "founder effect," he consistently dismisses the widespread presence of Steppe mtDNA in the region, not to mention the straightforward fact that Dagestanians speak a Kura-Araxes language rather than an Indo-European tongue. The parallels between Davidski and Indians who attribute their z93 to a mere "founder effect" while disregarding other evidence are hard to ignore.
By all means, continue creating the tenth 'Dear Iosif' or similar threads, elevating your cortisol levels and expediting conclusions, rather than constructing a comprehensive, nuanced thread that eloquently and strongly presents your points. While you may be correct on certain aspects, be cautious not to succumb to the Dunning-Kruger effect.
Happy New Year.
@Arsen
Stop shitting up this forum too, you terminally online dullard.
@Rob
what the hell are the Chalcolithic groups from the southern Caucasus? have you completely forgotten about the Anatolian farmers? there are examples of the Chalcolithic of the southern Caucasus of Azerbaijan - the Leyla Tepe and Mentesh Tepe caves, both of which show a lot of Anatoli. they could not possibly have been groups that participated in the ethnogenesis of steppe groups
Rob
and by the way, I think that representatives of the Leila Tepe archaeological culture spoke proto-Nakh-Dagestan-Hurrit-Urartian languages.
Happy New Year! Wishing this is year when so many compelling abstracts become papers we can read.
...
Kura-Araxes = chain of influence via mutual influence between Maikop and Steppe?:
David Anthony, The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited (2023):
"In the North Caucasus Mountains, bordering the steppes to the south, the EBA begins with the mid-fourth-millennium BCE appearance of the Maikop culture and its impressive arsenical bronze metallurgy, the central culture of Chernykh’s Circumpontic Metallurgical Province (Chernykh 1992: 67–83), in which Yamnaya was included. Maikop was the extreme northwestern frontier of sites displaying material and technological links with the “Uruk expansion” trade network of the West Asian EBA/Late Chalcolithic (Kohl 2007; Kohl and Trifonov 2014). Korenevskii (2016, 2020) has argued that Mesopotamian/Iranian symbols such as the goat on the tree of life (a cosmological symbol with deep roots in Mesopotamia/ Iran) and paired bull-and-lion images (icons of Mesopotamian/ Iranian kingship, displayed in a region without lions) found in the monumental kurgan graves of the Maikop elite indicate that Mesopotamian socio-religious ideologies were introduced to the North Caucasus piedmont and perhaps to the steppes by Maikop warrior-chiefs; their elevation was linked with those ideologies as well as with the gold, silver, carnelian, and turquoise ornaments and bronze weapons they displayed.
According to Wang et al. (2019), the Maikop elite and ordinary people were genetically alike: local descendants of the Neolithic population that had migrated into the North Caucasus from Georgia about 4800 to 4700 BCE and remained connected genetically to Southern Caucasus/East Anatolian populations. Early Maikop material culture (ceramics, lithics, clay andirons) was deposited in two stratified Eneolithic settlements in the steppes of the lower Don River (Konstantinovka and Razdorskoe level VI), mixed with the late Sredni Stog material culture of the main occupation, probably in the mid-fourth millennium BCE. These sites testify to the occasional visits of early Maikop expeditions (in wagons?) as far north as the lower Don – without the luxury goods that distinguished Maikop chiefs. Maikop technologies, perhaps including wheeled vehicles (Reinhold et al. 2017), were then copied and diffused across the steppes, and these innovations were fundamental parts of the Yamnaya revolution. However, Maikop and Yamnaya mates were rarely exchanged, as these two populations, so deeply entangled in other ways, seemed to remain genetically largely apart (Wang et al. 2019)."
@Davidsky
I never had any idea in my head to connect Kura-Araxes with PIE, it’s not logical at all. What I think about Kura-Araxes is that this culture replaced the earlier Leila Tepe culture and in fact was a mixture hunters, shepherds of Dagestan, Georgia, and the Leila Tepe culture itself of the lowlands of Azerbaijan and Iran
@VakhaDuyev
Are you another smartass?
Isn't this a free forum? Anyone can register here to leave their opinion, including a smart guy like you and online dullard like me
In 2024, what genetic markers(IBD?) are going to be used to connect Corded Ware with Hittite and Tocharian?
@Rob
And BB with Z2103 from the Netherlands?
Okay, most of the Z2106 and even the Z2109 could have been built there. Maybe even part of the CTS7822 and all the way to the CTS9219. But this does not change the fact that we are talking about Y DNA operating in the period 3450 to 2250 BCA. These Y DNAs spread everywhere from Yamnaya, again - of course, largely in the Carpatho-Balkan center, but also further east... and further north.
We have Z2103 in BB and CWC in the Czech Republic and Poland, also in the Netherlands. So we know that they knew this route and were here already at the beginning of the Bronze Age. Then we have CTS7822 in Pruszcz Gdański in the Wielbark culture - a sample with a Danish autosome, so we know that its ancestors must have lived in southern Scandinavia for some time - the Goths are the Wielbark culture.
Later we have, for example, the Csongrad 3 sample, where researchers claim that it is a migrant from the north associated with the Goth movements (dated to 360-440 AD) and with Y DNA y18959.
In addition, we have the Alt-Inden sample CTS9219 from a Merovingian cemetery, ELW028 from Early Modern Germany, and VK535 described as Nordic MA from y Z2109. All this points to the potential fact that Z2103 has been present in this part of Europe since the Early Iron Age, albeit in a small percentage.
I know that in this part of Europe Z2103 is "insignificant and catchy", but it is there and it's probably only a matter of time until more samples appear.
Back to the subject of this thread, if you read carefully Ringbauer's paper, the obvious relationship between Baltic (Lithuanian_Neolithic) and early CWC in Bohemia is important (24/93 according table), while the signal between Lithuania_N with Yamnaya_Samara & Kalmykia is much weaker. These data confirm Papac's paper in detecting that northern signal (WHG) incompatible with a Yamnaya origin.
Mittnik´s Plinkaigalis242 sample (2,945 BC) shares IBD segments (12-16 cM) with many Bohemian samples among them at least 5 belonging to the early phase of this culture.
-PNL001 (2.896 BC)-Plotiště-HapY-R1b-U106
-STD002 (2.777 BC)-Stadice-R1b-L151
-DRO001 (2.752 BC)-Droužkovice-HapY-Q1b2a
-TRM006 (2.717 BC)-Trmice-HapY-R1a-M417
-VLI007 (2.792 BC)-Vlineves-mtDNA-U5a2/a
@Gio
"(because we have only 2 ancestors who had descent: R-M269* and R-Z2103*)"
What does that even mean? Who are you talking about? Maybe you should dual post your messages in English and Italian but stop leaving out sample IDs or names.
"all the upstream samples are in central or western Europe"
Which samples? You are just like the other guy. You don't cite samples or the results of the samples. At least make an attempt to make yourself look credible even if the evidence doesn't really support your hypothesis.
@Davidski “ Kura-Araxes is a steppe influenced culture. It's basically the result of the kurgan tradition moving from Eastern Europe into West Asia. Here's a good paper on the topic.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04681-w
So anyone claiming that Kura-Araxes brought Indo-European to the Eastern European steppe is a fucking idiot.
If Kura-Araxes was Indo-European speaking, then that's because it was steppe-influenced.”
No wonder how come so many customs in the Old Testament seem similar to Indo-European ones, especially among the Hurrians and the Jebusites.
@VakhDuyev “ Another amusing topic frequently discussed on this forum revolves around the extent of Steppe ancestry among Dagestanians, a subject somewhat linked to the preceding paragraph given that Northeast Caucasians, especially Dagestanians, are direct descendants of the Kura-Araxes culture. However, Davidski, with his somewhat flawed understanding of archaeology, consistently emphasizes the "violent collapse" of the Kura-Araxes culture, overlooking successor cultures like Ginchi and Kayakent-Khorochoi. While he attributes the Steppe ancestry and prevalence of Kura-Araxes lineages in Dagestan to a "founder effect," he consistently dismisses the widespread presence of Steppe mtDNA in the region, not to mention the straightforward fact that Dagestanians speak a Kura-Araxes language rather than an Indo-European tongue. The parallels between Davidski and Indians who attribute their z93 to a mere "founder effect" while disregarding other evidence are hard to ignore.”
Dagestani and other NEC peoples are at least 25%-50% WSH (Catacomb?). Look at Kadyrov’s profile, he looks like an identical reconstruction of Proto-Indo-Europeans.
@Matt “ Maikop was the extreme northwestern frontier of sites displaying material and technological links with the “Uruk expansion” trade network of the West Asian EBA/Late Chalcolithic (Kohl 2007; Kohl and Trifonov 2014). Korenevskii (2016, 2020) has argued that Mesopotamian/Iranian symbols such as the goat on the tree of life (a cosmological symbol with deep roots in Mesopotamia/ Iran) and paired bull-and-lion images (icons of Mesopotamian/ Iranian kingship, displayed in a region without lions) found in the monumental kurgan graves of the Maikop elite indicate that Mesopotamian socio-religious ideologies were introduced to the North Caucasus piedmont and perhaps to the steppes by Maikop warrior-chiefs; ”
So according to Anthony and Korenevskii, Sumerians were Iran_Chl?
@ Matt
''Kura-Araxes = chain of influence via mutual influence between Maikop and Steppe?'''
I dont see it as that. Simply put, K-A is an anti-steppe, anti-Majkop phenomenon.
It is a local CHG (?east CHG) resurgance against the 'globalised elites' (''Uruk" linked, but much more than that) of the Majkop phenomenon, with a quasi-egalitarian social network composed of Caucasian male clans. Initially thought to be pastoral, they were also agrarian. Also, some perspectives state that K-A 'invaded' central-east Anatolia, but that's not correct, rather central Anatolia provided an important adstrate to its emergence.
Genetically, K-A represents a relative nadir in steppe ancestry compared to the patchy but high levels of steppe Eneolithic seen in Areni_C and certain post-KA groups such as Bedeni-Markopti.
@ Arsen
''what the hell are the Chalcolithic groups from the southern Caucasus? ''
Meshoko-Darkveti, Sioni, Chaff-Faced Ware horizon, Leilatepe phenomenon.
How do you not know this ?
'' the Leyla Tepe and Mentesh Tepe caves''
LOL these are not 'caves', they are open village-based settlements. That's why they are called -tepe
''both of which show a lot of Anatoli. they could not possibly have been groups that participated in the ethnogenesis of steppe groups''
That's wrong, because you get your education from TikTok instead of properly understanding genetics. some Steppe Eneolithic individuals have Meshoko ancestry, which in turn has some form of Anatolian Farmer ancestry.
@ DranoelI
- interesting, I was particularly fascinated by the Hun-era Csongrad indivdual
Apparently this individual was carbon-dated to 6500BC?
Target: Turkey_Aktopraklik_LN.SG:AKT16.SG
Distance: 2.6143% / 0.02614257
85.4 Turkey_Barcin_LN.SG
7.4 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
4.0 Georgia_Kotias.SG
3.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
@ Dospaises
"@Gio
"(because we have only 2 ancestors who had descent: R-M269* and R-Z2103*)"
What does that even mean? Who are you talking about? Maybe you should dual post your messages in English and Italian but stop leaving out sample IDs or names.
"all the upstream samples are in central or western Europe"
Which samples? You are just like the other guy. You don't cite samples or the results of the samples. At least make an attempt to make yourself look credible even if the evidence doesn't really support your hypothesis.
If we look at the YFull tree, we should say that downstream R-L23* we have two subclades: R-L51" and R-Z2103". L51 is above all in central and western Europe; R-Z2103 seems have been expanded from Samara/Yamnaya, i.e. eastern Europe or Russia closer to the Urals. But the upstream R-M269* has another subclade (R-PF7562 and R-PF7562-PF7563). From that my analysis. All that brings more to western European regions for the origin and more if we add the oldest subclades beginning from Villabruna R1b1 14000 years ago in Italy. I know that people like you and Rich S (he is disappeared from the blog: what happened?) think that he was a dead end line. I don't think so, thus let's wait. I foresaw this presence many yeaers before he was, by chance, found from the Harvardians. I am not interested only in generics, but above all in history, above the history of thev Harvardian scientists.
@Rob as far as I know, the Steppe En did not have Anatolian mixtures
@ Arsen
“as far as I know, the Steppe En did not have Anatolian mixtures“
As per above, it’s practically nothing, but technically ~4%
@Rob 4 percent is 1 out of 25 ancestors was a farmer . in fact , nothing . He could have accidentally gotten in from anywhere
@ arsen
''He could have accidentally gotten in from anywhere'
Anywhere like Bosnia or Scotland ? That's absurd, even for a dullard Troll
It's from Meshoko-Darkveti farmers from Georgia, as per archaeology and stats
Meshoko might be too late to be relevant for Progress.
This might be a signal of something Nalchik-related.
Meshoko-Darkveti began ~ 5500 bc. It is the only group which began advancing over the mountains toward the north Caucasus with some sort of productive economy . That’s why some of the steppe Eneolithic & Nalchik will need it, and this is the quasi-PPN related signal mentioned in the abstract
The other option is Shuvaleri-Shomu, but they were far away; resigned to the river valleys in the south . From what I saw they were a Fail with qpAdm as well
@Rob ,Meshoko-Darkveti He had much more Anatolian origin , an average of 30 percent . Against your 4 in progress
@ Arsen
“Darkveti He had much more Anatolian origin , an average of 30 percent . Against your 4 in progress”
primary school level algebra:
“He” (Darkveti) had 30% ANF, Steppe Eneolithic have 12% Meshoko, -> steppe Eneolithic have ~4% ANF
@Andrzejewski
You've been here for over a decade, but one thing has never changed with you: your poor reading comprehension and your ability to present your erroneous misconceptions as solid facts, all with unwavering confidence. It's one thing to be interested in this field as a casual hobby and another to be involved in it for so long without learning or improving. It is evident that some people don't have the capacity to do that, and @Arsen seems to fit into that category.
Meshoko is indeed too late for this. I can think of two possible options for the "Southern Arc" signal, or call it what you will, in Steppe Eneolithic/Nalchik. Either it's from Chokh, since there is an archaeological affinity between Nalchik, Meshoko, and Velikent, as anachronistic as it may sound. Velikent might just imply a Dagestan Neolithic/Chokh affinity. Another option is from Sub-neolithic foragers from Abkhazia and southern Krasnodar, who might have admixture with Anaseuli culture.
@Rob In fact, there are enough ways for these 4 percent to make "progress"
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/27/Expansion_of_farming_in_western_Eurasia%2C_9600%E2%80%934000_BCE.png
To repeat, Darkveti isn’t too young, it dates to 5500 bc. Not that it really matters, but Darkveti-Meahoko has supportive evidence. Cf the nebulous, poorly dated Chokh cave site without confirmatory zoological studies. It’s probably not even a separate phenomenon.
@Dos paises said-“The main issue is that the two of you are ignoring that out of the many hundreds of samples from Europe from the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Ages and that prior to 3000 BC there is not a single specimen that is derived for R-L23 found in western Europe”
No, the main issue is that you are ignoring that,
1-Before Lopatino-I0429-3,128 BC (first Z2103) there is not a single specimen that is derived for R-L23 anywhere, neither in Western Europe nor in Eastern Europe, that is precisely the debate we have continuously because as long as L51>L151 is not found in the steppes or in the forest-steppe between 4,000-3,000 BC, we will continue to think that this marker is more likely to appear in the Baltic or even in the Balkans.
2-The obsolete argument of “steppe ancestry” has been explained to you dozens of times, all samples from mainland europe from year 3000 onwards are a mixture of WHG, EEF and Yamnaya in different percentages. Steppe ancestry is not an exclusive feature of the R1b marker (you remember that there are I2a-L699 in Yamnaya right?), there are many I2a, & G2a samples all over Europe with Yamnaya ancestry in the BB culture.
Anyone can argue that all R1b people are descended from WHG or EEF because they all have that component in their autosomal makeup, the problem is that some people only have steppe in their brains and pretend to convince everyone that the steppe ancestry is proof of a steppe origin of M269>L51>L151, when not only has not found a single sample of this lineage in that region, but also at the time when M269 appeared, this autosomal component did not even exist in Europe.
3-It is much more logical to think that all R1b descend from Villabruna because it is the oldest R1b-L754 we know, everything east of the Alps has its origin in that sample until we find an older sample (in western Europe, Russia, Ukraine or Siberia).
4-After Smyodovo I2181, and as long as we do not find some M269* somewhere, everything that happens east of Bulgaria in relation to the M269 marker has its origin in the Balkans (probably also Z2103 and its founding effect in Yamnaya-Afanasievo).
-Please remember that we have more than 80 male samples of Yamnaya-Afanasievo culture in Ukraine, Russia and even Bulgaria and all of them are Z2103 (except one L23*, one I2a-L699 & one V1636). There is not a single sample R1b-L51>L151 nor R1a-M417, which proves, that Yamnaya-Afanasievo does not represent the patrilineal origin of neither CWC nor BBC, the sooner you assimilate it the less mistakes you will make.
-P310 in Mongolia or China?-You must be kidding, we have already discussed these samples many times in this blog. You can believe what you want, but in my opinion that sample SHT001 is a contaminated (QUESTIONABLE_CRITICAL) and misdated sample that was qualified as R1b1a/1b-L773 by the geneticists who analyzed it. In general, the questionable samples should be excluded from all the analysis and if an exception is necessary, the reader should be made aware.
We know that steppe fans, after so many disappointments (Villabruna, Iboussieres, Smyadovo, ATP3, neolithic Belgium, Baltic HGs, Balkan HGs) can only resort to that sample from Mongolia to say that L51>L151>P310 originates from the steppes. Desperation has led them to accept a sample that the international scientific community has never taken into account. It doesn't matter that FTDNA (which is a private company) accepts it as a valid sample, they are just trying to keep alive a long dead steppe theory. Have you asked the Harvardians what they think?, I'm interested in hearing their opinion on the matter.
Any specimen found in China or Mongolia belonging to this marker will be related to the Chemurchek culture.
In any case, don't worry, I have been saying for years that if L51>L151 appears in any steppe culture (including Sredni Stog) we will accept it without problems.
Review Ringbauer's paper (IMO he has done an exceptional job on a very technically complicated issue), older samples R1b-U106 and L151 have IBD segments shared with Lithuania_Neolithic, perhaps this marker originates further north than people think.
@Gaska Where and when do you think a person with the r1b l23 mutation first appeared? and who do you think he was, an Eastern European hunter or a fully established steppe cattle breeder?
@VakhaDuyev “ You've been here for over a decade, but one thing has never changed with you: your poor reading comprehension and your ability to present your erroneous misconceptions as solid facts, all with unwavering confidence. It's one thing to be interested in this field as a casual hobby and another to be involved in it for so long without learning or improving. It is evident that some people don't have the capacity to do that, and @Arsen seems to fit into that category.”
Yep. You and Lazaridis are right. It’s me, Davidski and Rob who are incorrect here lol
@a
How are you going to tie anybody genetically to Tocharian? We have no known remains associated with Tocharian speakers: They were Buddhist and cremated.
We got what we have. It points to a Steppe/Yamnaya ancestry up to Chemurcheck.
@ Draneol
Btw
“ And BB with Z2103 from the Netherlands?”
Seems like a dead end lineage, just like all Dutch BB were locally replaced by the MBA. For some reason, it’s thought of as something special in the beaker world on the internet, for not compelling Reasons
A puzzle with a link to the Ringbauer IBD.
We got a divide in Dutch BB.
The Dutch model is based on Protruding Foot Beaker (PFB) a subset of SGC in specific the NE Dutch/NW Germany area.
We have only Dutch BB samples from the most western part of the Netherlands (the actual Holland), we have no samples from PFB.
Davidski figured out in the past that one of the Lech Valley samples Germany_Lech_BellBeaker:WEHR_1192SkA could be a PFB from the Northeast Dutch area. Some nowadays NE Dutch show a very close affinity to this sample.
Anyhow with regard to Ringbauer's IBD when I translate this into G25 I see that the PFB proxy- Germany_Lech_BellBeaker:WEHR_1192SkA- harbors lots of GAC. But the Dutch BB samples from the other Dutch area's have a way lot less.
Mark that the PFB- NE Dutch- hardly could have picked up EEF from their heartland because this was TRB-West, actual a mainly (proven) Ertebølle HG offshoot.
So a Dutch BB divide? Are the (Steppe) roots of PFB (SGC subset/ BB from the NE Dutch area differentiated from the (Steppe) roots of BB West Dutch?
See:
https://postimg.cc/k2Thm610
Give it a shot!
Dutch Funnelbeakers proven to be an offshoot of Ertebølle and thus mainly of HG descent... did I miss a new batch of samples or something? The only sample I know related to TRB-west is from Hildesheim and on the PCA it looked similar to Wartberg in terms of EEF vs HG.
Did I state this was based on DNA samples?
No, there is archeological evidence it was.
See the dissertation of Karsten Wentink. He states clearly that TRB-West is an Ertebølle HG offshoot. Ertebølle stuff replaces the Swifterbant stuff about 3400 BC in a short and radical timeframe en movement, so no acculturalization but colonization (his words).
https://www.sidestone.com/books/ceci-n-est-pas-une-hache
TRB West is not Hildesheim (much to southeastern), it's outmost NW Germany and NE Dutch.
Blatterhöhle samples are imho more accurat.
But back to topic: Ringbauer.
North-Dutch BB (PFB) follows the CW pattern, with high levels GAC. West- Dutch BB like all BB in Ringbauer's IBD (Germany, Czech) don't follow that pattern.
So different clans? Or....????
add to be correct the BB Dutch were not part of Ringbauer's research.
Some additional points IMO:
- All northern TRB and GAC are in some way descended from north European HGs in the male line (not just TRB West).
- I’m skeptical of the one-shoe-fits-all model for CWC & GAC. For ex; Swedish battle axe fit better with local TRB, in fact GAC fails with TRB in pRight. Their route might have come via a GAC poor zone in northeast Baltic (? at odds with IBD, or some rationalization needed)
- by “local replacement” of Dutch BB I mean the shift to U106-prominent Elp MBA group.
epoch said...
How are you going to tie anybody genetically to Tocharian? We have no known remains associated with Tocharian speakers: They were Buddhist and cremated.
We got what we have. It points to a Steppe/Yamnaya ancestry up to Chemurcheck
L23-L51-Z2109 evolution of R1b-wagon-R1a-chariot spoke wheel.
Tocharian and Indo_Iranian language both have 5 words for wagon. However I can find no evidence of physical wheels connecting R1a Sredny Stog and or R1a Corded Ware; even though we have spoked wheel burials in R1a Sintashta.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQmEQAS7Dtw
We don't know who the Tocharian speakers were, and if they are related to Chemurcheck or not. However the combination of R1b-L23-L51/z2109 found in Afanasievo culture(different metals like silver, iron, compared to R1a Corded Ware- boat axe culture) and in Netherland region(Bell Beaker culture). L23-L51/Z2109 wheel and or wagon burials- might be connected by way of IBD links to R1b-Z2103 in Sredny Stog -Hungary Yamnaya -Poland-Hungary Corded Ware/Bell Beaker -- all areas with L23-L51-Z2109.
@Weure
"See the dissertation of Karsten Wentink. He states clearly that TRB-West is an Ertebølle HG offshoot. Ertebølle stuff replaces the Swifterbant stuff about 3400 BC in a short and radical timeframe en movement, so no acculturalization but colonization (his words)."
How does Wentink's dissertation attest to the biological nature of the Funnelbeakers in the Netherlands? His topic does not deal with physical anthropology or genomic data, which are the points of evidence you'd need to make statements about the biological nature of the populations tackled. This is somewhat important because the thesis of Wentink predates the ancient DNA revoluation.
What Wentink states is this:
"he lack of tRB bog settlements in the netherlands would thus relect a diferent
economic strategy from that of the earlier period (Midgley 1992, 311). although acculturation will probably have occurred on some level, it does not explain the subsequent cultural homogeneity of the tRB on the one hand and the lack of local swifterbant inluences on the other hand. in fact, the material culture of the dutch tRB has more links with the danish ertebølle than with the indigenous swifterbant. his is relected for example by the presence of the highly characteristic tRB transverse arrowheads. although this tool-type is alien to the swifterbant culture it is typical for the ertebølle culture (Midgley 1992, 14)."
You find these transverse arrowheads in TRB sites in Sweden as well, where we do have samples from and these were majority EEF. This attests to Ertebølle influence on TRB as a whole, and what Wentink discusses is how the introduction of these materials in the Netherlands is indicative of a population moving from Germany into the Netherlands. All fine and well, but that does not imply that said population was largely of HG ancestry. Skeletal data and DNA can attest this however.
Blatterhohle neolithic layers do not have evidence showcasing part of the Funnelbeaker complex, whereas the Hildesheim sample is and also is geographically the most proximate to the Netherlands. Without further DNA evidence this individual is probably the best indication that you have for western TRB populations.
In any case, within Funnelbeaker context the only cases of very high hunter-gatherer ancestry (Ostorf, Tagermunde) come from sites where the respective populations were primarily hunter-fishers, and had a-typical archaeological complexes for Funnelbeaker standards. Sites where the Funnelbeaker populations were primarily agricultural tend to showcase a large component of EEF ancestry.
So I don't understand how you end up at the conclusion that Dutch Funnelbeakers would be mostly HG and thus cannot have been a source for PFB populations - based on the sample WEHR_1192SkA from southern Germany. On what basis did Davidski claim that this individual was genetically representative of Protruding Foot Beaker populations?
@Copperaxe,
No wisecrack, when I quote I quote well:
https://postimg.cc/4m8ztFBh
And you don't understand it well what I conclude:
When SGC came into NE Dutch/NW Germany about 2900-2850 BC it met TRB West.
So when the PFB proxy Lech BB sample shows 34% EEF I suppose indeed it's not from TRB West (because of their likely Blatterhöhle high HG). Ringbauer gives the answer SGC NE Dutch (ancestors) picked it already up in Eastern Europe: GAC.
But all the BB groups in the Ringbauer paper don't show affinity with GAC.....so CW groups show IBD affinity with GAC and the BB NOT.
Why?
@Weure
The Dutch model in relation to look for the origin of the BBC in the CWC is a joke, it is a long time ago that no European archaeologist accepts the Dutch dating as previous to those of the Tagus estuary.
The BB culture was a thalassocracy with a history of more than 750 years (at least in Iberia), multiple migrations occurred between the different BB domains, both in the western Mediterranean (Iberia, Sicily, Liguria, Sardinia, North Africa, Occitania), central>eastern Europe, as well as on the Atlantic coast (Portugal, Galicia, Brittany, Holland, British Isles, southern Scandinavia) and both sides of the Pyrenees. Both archaeology and genetics have demonstrated these migrations both female (exogamy with many mtDNAs shared between different regions, e.g. Iberia with Morocco, Hungary, Italy, Sicily, France, Sardinia, British Isles & Germany, e.g. Germany with Bohemia, Switzerland, Poland, France .....) and male (marker Df27 in Iberia, Occitania, Sicily etc..., marker U152 in Germany, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary).
@Weure
Regarding the Dutch BBs, we have to keep in mind that we only have a Dutch sample (I5478-Oostwoud, Frisia) which shares european neolithic mtDNA marker (X2b4) with many chalcolithic samples from Poland, Switzerland, Bohemia, England, Germany & France, That is, it has the same maternal origin as other contemporary samples from both the BBC and the CWC, so its autosomal composition cannot be very different from the rest of Beakers from both the western and the central european domain.
On the other hand, we still have nothing from the SGC or the local neolithic cultures but we do know or what the experts tell us; Fokkens-“Regions where the Vlaardingen culture is present, in the western and southern Netherlands, witnessed a different trajectory of transition to Bell Beakers than the central, northern and eastern Netherlands where the Single Grave Culture dominated”
“In other words, in my view there is no basis left for claiming that the origins of either the AOO or the Maritime Beaker in the context of the Dutch SGC”
@Gaska I came across this interesting photo
https://ibb.co/kDvF2SN
"A map of basal Y haplogroup R1b-L23, based on the data of 2.2 million men in the 23andme leak.
L23 is ancestral to most West European men, and is dated to 4100BC."
it seems that r1b l23 is of West Asian origin, isn’t it?)
@Rob
Of course, this Z2103 from the Netherlands may turn out to be an empty road. But this does not change the fact that, together with the other samples, they build a certain "context" and show a tendency. Since the CWC, in every archaeological period/era we have known some Z2103 from Central Europe or NW.
As for Y18959 from Hungary, it is indeed an interesting sample. Hence my questions to Davidski regarding these Z2103 from recent research. The presence of younger Y DNA below Z2103 in the Balkans may be of truly different nature and circumstances. Some, probably most of it, is local or eastern - but we must take into account the possibility of also Z2103 from the north :)
This relatively young trial, Ph2147, has been described as "Eastern European" and has been linked to Slavic movements. But we know that the Slavs occupied the areas of East Germanic cultures several centuries before this sample was dated... I wonder if genealogy can show whether it could be a descendant of these groups. Although after so many hundreds of years, there might be nothing left in his aDNA...
Post a Comment