A new
preprint at
bioRxiv by Kerdoncuff et al. makes the following, somewhat surprising, claim:
One of the individuals, referred to Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290) described above that was discovered with shell bangles showing affiliation with South Asia, has significant amount AHG-related ancestry, while a model without AHG-related ancestry provides the best fit for Sarazm_EN_2 (I4210) (Table S4.5).
First of all, the authors are actually referring to sample ID I4910 not I4210.
The aforementioned table, based on qpAdm output, shows that I4290 has 15.9% AHG-related ancestry and basically no Anatolian farmer-related ancestry. It also shows that I4910 has no AHG-related ancestry but 17.9% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry.
AHG stands for Andaman hunter-gatherer. The authors are using it as a proxy for South Asian hunter-gatherer ancestry.
However, I've looked at I4290 and I4910 in great detail over the years using ADMIXTURE, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and qpAdm. And I'm quite certain that they do not show any obvious, above noise level South Asian ancestry. Indeed, I'd say that if they do have some minor South Asian ancestry, then I4910 probably has more of it than I4290.
Kerdoncuff et al. used the following "right pops" or outgroups: Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, WEHG, EEHG, ESHG, Dai.DG, Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG, Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave and Israel_Natufian.
This means they mixed data that were generated in very different ways (DG, SG and capture) and included some poor quality samples. For instance, the highest coverage version of Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave offers just ~50K SNPs.
Mixing different types of data and relying on low coverage samples, even in part, often has negative consequences when using qpAdm. So I suspect that the above mentioned mixture results for I4290 are skewed by a poor choice of outgroups.
When I run qpAdm I try to stick to one type of data and avoid low quality singletons in the outgroups. This is the best qpAdm model that I can find for Sarazm_EN:
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Israel_Natufian
Levant_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Turkey_N
Russia_Karelia_HG
Russia_WestSiberia_HG
Mongolia_North_N
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Sarazm_EN
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.113±0.017
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.887±0.017
P-value 0.06392
Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290)
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.129±0.021
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.871±0.021
P-value 0.11019
Sarazm_EN_2 (I4910)
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.104±0.021
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.896±0.021
P-value 0.07427
Also...
Sarazm_EN
Andaman_hunter-gatherer -0.018±0.020
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.123±0.019
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.895±0.020
P-value 0.0298403
(Infeasible model)
Please note that Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset is made up of just three relatively high quality individuals: I8504, I12483 and I12487. That's because it's not possible to model the ancestry of Sarazm_EN using the full Geoksyur set, probably due to subtle genetic substructures within the latter.
Below is a PCA plot that, more or less, reflects my qpAdm model. I4290 and I4910 are sitting right next to each other in a cluster of ancient Central and Western Asians, and it's actually I4910 that is shifted slightly towards the South Asian pole of the PCA. Indeed, I can confidently say that there's no way to design a PCA in which I4290 is shifted significantly towards South Asia relative to I4910.
Citation...
Kerdoncuff et al.,
50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ∼2,700 Whole Genome Sequences,
bioRxiv, posted February 20, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.15.580575
See also...
The Nalchik surprise
A comedy of errors
553 comments:
1 – 200 of 553 Newer› Newest»@David it is great you made post on this, next thing they would stay these people spoke Proto IE. Like I said Harvard, Max Planck Ins and many others have become Woke/DEI merda and your seeing the results in papers now. It is citizen science which is the way now.
The Sarazm samples also are deficient in ANF but high in CHG, can you or Matt confirm this.
sample: Sarazm En:I4290
distance: 5.0558
Ganj_Dareh_N: 51.5
GEO_CHG: 30.5
Tarim_EMBA1: 18
Simulated_AHG: 0
Marmara_Barcin_N: 0
17% ANF!!!?
sample: Sarazm En:I4910
distance: 4.6638
Ganj_Dareh_N: 59.5
GEO_CHG: 23.5
Tarim_EMBA1: 15.5
Simulated_AHG: 1.5
Marmara_Barcin_N: 0
4910 has a SA shift ie 1.5-2% AHG
I like that these puzzles, disputes, and disagreements motivate scientists to more in-depth study of the subject, history, archeology, and genetics, and more advanced DNA sequencing machines are being developed.
I see nothing that would support AHG being in this individual. It is more likely that people like this moved into South Asia and there was an exchange network.
left pops:
TJK_C_Sarazm_I4290
IRN_GanjDareh_N
TUR_N
RUS_W_Siberia_HG
IND_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG
right pops:
Chimp.REF
ETH_4500BP
CAM_SMA
CZE_Bohemia_UP.SG
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_Yana_UP.SG
CZE_Vestonice16
BEL_UP_GoyetQ116_1
RUS_Kostenki14
RUS_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_MA1_HG.SG
LUX_Loschbour
GEO_Satsurblia.SG
MON_North_N
MOR_Iberomaurusian
TUR_Epipaleolithic
JOR_PPNB
best coefficients: 0.684 0.092 0.286 -0.062
Jackknife mean: 0.682836474 0.092308102 0.286036687 -0.061181263
std. errors: 0.052 0.031 0.025 0.029
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
0000 0 15 9.795 0.832451 0.684 0.092 0.286 -0.062 infeasible
0001 1 16 15.298 0.502923 0.607 0.117 0.276 -0.000
Here's the comment that I left for the authors at bioRxiv...
Hello authors,
It's extremely unlikely that there are any significant genetic differences between Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290) and Sarazm_EN_2 (I4210), and also unlikely that the former has significant South Asian ancestry while lacking Anatolian farmer ancestry.
The only significant difference between them is that I4290 is lower coverage. I suspect that this, coupled with your use of the very low quality Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave in the outgroups, might be the problem in your qpAdm analysis.
I4290 and I4210 appear to be very similar in all of the PCA, qpAdm and ADMIXTURE analyses that I've done. Indeed, they're close to each other in all of my PCA, including across many different dimensions, except of course the PCA that reflect different levels of coverage in the samples being run.
For instance, here's a PCA that looks specifically at differences in South Asian and Anatolian genetic affinities. As you can see, there's practically no difference between I4290 and I4210.
https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/b/R29vZ2xl/AVvXsEhWYtH1mXkaHDmVvdH8kVtv4qBb-W8nODBIB2Go7ostPQBCjXfOHjnJ9s417HEbvWWPmKvIc6W-s95H-EpLEkIELAxBN5l-tODTLZll2zhtow6Jif7f_ndYdKSMy8FaCVlT5RsbEwgiC9nKwmiBDLGCv6eYj4RaZTyKC_TlZ8aJ4qSE0Qc1VvIEmzog9TAk/s1600/Sarazm_PC1&2.png
It is possible that I4290 and I4210 both have some sort of minor South Asian-related ancestry, but if so, then this type of low level South Asian-related admixture was ubiquitous in Eneolithic/Chalcolithic Central Asia.
For more details please refer to this blog post and comments in which I show that both I4290 and I4210 can be modeled in qpAdm as mixtures between Botai Eneolithic and a subset of Geoksyur Chalcolithic samples.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2024/02/berkeley-we-have-problem.html
Also, there's a mistake in that quote from the supp info.
The authors are actually referring to sample ID I4910, not I4210.
But I went with I4210 in my comment at bioRxiv.
Good to enter the comment back into the peer review.
Where is even the qpWave analysis to check that these two individuals do not form a clade with a robust set of high-coverage outgroups (rank=0)?
Perhaps they got overly willing to draw an exciting conclusion if this sample is the so called 'Sarazm Princess' with the rich grave-goods ("On the woman's skeleton and around it, several thousands of various beads were found (from burned steatite, lapis lazuli, cornelian, turquoise and silver), which were used for decoration of clothes or simply to cover her body, and her hair was decorated by 49 massive gold beads. Her hands were adorned with bracelets made of seashells originated from the Indian Ocean which proves direct or indirect relationships with populations of the Hindus valley. The bracelets of the “great lady” are made from the shells of Turbinella pyrum L., the Sanskrit anka, the most important ritual shell in the Hindu religion, extensively worked for bracelets and trumpets in India since the 4th millennium BC. These mollusks live only in the tropical waters between the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Bengal where they are still harvested today. However it is rather interesting to notice that the pair of bracelets from Sarazm is from an even earlier period than any of those so far found in India. The accompanying artefacts also included a bronze mirror, bone awl, and two small schematic women's figures. The necropolis comprises four other burials (individual and double)")
CHG does improve the fit for that individual, but it is not a lot. Their profile, outside of the HG ancestry, resembles Tepe Hissar, Iran.
left pops:
TJK_C_Sarazm_I4290
IRN_GanjDareh_N
TUR_N
GEO_Kotias.SG
RUS_W_Siberia_HG
IND_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG
right pops:
Chimp.REF
ETH_4500BP
CAM_SMA
CZE_Bohemia_UP.SG
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_Yana_UP.SG
CZE_Vestonice16
BEL_UP_GoyetQ116_1
RUS_Kostenki14
RUS_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_MA1_HG.SG
LUX_Loschbour
GEO_Satsurblia.SG
MON_North_N
MOR_Iberomaurusian
TUR_Epipaleolithic
JOR_PPNB
best coefficients: 0.531 0.086 0.138 0.278 -0.032
Jackknife mean: 0.527054450 0.086524366 0.140171481 0.277764964 -0.031515261
std. errors: 0.090 0.030 0.069 0.024 0.032
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00000 0 14 6.351 0.956852 0.531 0.086 0.138 0.278 -0.032 infeasible
00001 1 15 8.133 0.918336 0.468 0.094 0.167 0.270 -0.000
Okay, 4910 likely doesn't have AHG either. There's really no need for AHG or even Anatolian. You can make an okay fit just going Iran, CHG and Siberia_HG.
left pops:
TJK_C_Sarazm_I4910
IRN_GanjDareh_N
TUR_N
GEO_Kotias.SG
RUS_W_Siberia_HG
IND_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG
right pops:
Chimp.REF
ETH_4500BP
CAM_SMA
CZE_Bohemia_UP.SG
CHN_Tianyuan
RUS_Yana_UP.SG
CZE_Vestonice16
BEL_UP_GoyetQ116_1
RUS_Kostenki14
RUS_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_MA1_HG.SG
LUX_Loschbour
GEO_Satsurblia.SG
MON_North_N
MOR_Iberomaurusian
TUR_Epipaleolithic
JOR_PPNB
best coefficients: 0.707 0.034 0.055 0.233 -0.029
Jackknife mean: 0.696948824 0.035296518 0.061600917 0.233421791 -0.027268049
std. errors: 0.132 0.031 0.090 0.023 0.038
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
00000 0 14 28.982 0.0105102 0.707 0.034 0.055 0.233 -0.029 infeasible
00001 1 15 30.330 0.0107852 0.640 0.043 0.092 0.225 -0.000
This kind of reminds me of the models of Iran Shahr I Sokhta BA2. There were simplified models with Iran plus AHG. The problem is, with a similar set up, they look like these individuals, but with very minor AHG. If memory serves me, a few of them may not have AHG, but all Siberian ancestry. I think these are a better fit for the "Indus Periphery" source population.
To me, the PCA shift is that one has Anatolian ancestry, while the other likely doesn't. Seems pretty straight forward. I agree with David fully here.
The only Centrale Asian sample which is closest to what they they were proximating for was this sample, this sample would have been sufficient. The more pathetic part is after 6 years they are recycling the same samples from 2018!! These universities have billions of dollars in funding. Merda!
sample: Shahr I Sokhta BA1:I11478
distance: 2.7975
Ganj_Dareh_N: 68.5
GEO_CHG: 14
Tarim_EMBA1: 9.5
Simulated_AASI: 7
Marmara_Barcin_N: 1
WHG: 0
@Chad The Anatolians multiplied incredibly fast , like rabbits
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4910
Distance: 3.8150% / 0.03815045
58.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
22.8 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
14.6 Georgia_Kotias.SG
3.8 Iraq_PPNA
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4290
Distance: 3.0362% / 0.03036233
49.2 Iran_GanjDareh_N
23.8 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
23.6 Georgia_Kotias.SG
3.4 Iraq_PPNA
Wonder what is missing......
Sarazm is a mixture between Botai-like foragers from the steppe and early farmers from Central Asia.
The reason it's difficult to model is that neither Botai nor any of the Central Asian Chalcolithic farmer groups that we have are exactly what is needed.
What we need are reference samples from Tajikistan from around 5,000 BCE.
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4910
Distance: 2.8520% / 0.02852009
70.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
15.0 Iran_GanjDareh_N
12.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
1.6 Georgia_Kotias.SG
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4290
Distance: 2.4007% / 0.02400731
53.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
16.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
15.2 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
15.0 Georgia_Kotias.SG
Can someone share Monjukli-Depe 4600bce coordinates.....
Target: TJK_Sarazm_En:I4920
P-Value: 0.1
64.7% ± 4.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
24.8% ± 2.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
10.5% ± 3.0 TUR_Barcin_N
https://pastebin.com/q7SP744K
Target: TJK_Sarazm_En:I4920
P-Value: 0.00000235
51.4% ± 8.8 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
28.6% ± 8.2 GEO_Kotias_Klde_HG
20.0% ± 2.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
https://pastebin.com/8F0gQMV5
Thanks
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur is preferred over Iran_C_TepeHissar which is preferred over IRN_Seh_Gabi_C, right?
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4910
Distance: 2.9307% / 0.02930655
82.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
9.8 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
8.2 TKM_Monjukli_Depe_N
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4910
Distance: 3.6719% / 0.03671911
48.4 TKM_Monjukli_Depe_N
34.2 Iran_C_TepeHissar
17.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4290
Distance: 2.8113% / 0.02811326
80.4 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
9.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
7.8 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
2.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Target: Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4910
Distance: 2.3134% / 0.02313403
54.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
37.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
7.8 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
There does appear some affinity for SiS_ba1 populations.......
don’t suffer from nonsense, Geoksyur is 500 years younger than Sarazm, stop using him as a source
Moscow universities have taken up the study of Morten E. Allentoft's articles , and the news is presented as if Moscow universities themselves had begun to study genetics
https://scientificrussia.ru/articles/genomy-drevnih-ludej-zapadnoj-evrazii-izucili-v-mgu
@Арсен
don’t suffer from nonsense, Geoksyur is 500 years younger than Sarazm, stop using him as a source
That's not how C14 dates work.
Geoksyur and Sarazm are contemporaneous.
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1:I11478
Distance: 1.7156% / 0.01715647
44.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
33.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
22.2 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
Got the direction wrong.....this sample has sarazm admixture....
you can take TepeAnau or parkhai as a source , here they are, judging by the dates, contemporaries of sarazm
@Арсен
Geoksyur, Anau, Parkhai and Sarazm are all contemporaneous Copper Age populations.
Based on the outgroups I used it's not possible to model Sarazm as part Anau or Parkhai, nor is there any evidence that Sarazm is ancestral to Geoksyur.
It's only possible to model Sarazm with a subset of the Geoksyur samples, and this is in line with gene flow going from west to east across Central Asia at this time.
Also, the purpose of my qpAdm model is not to prove that Sarazm is derived from Geoksyur, but to show that Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290) and Sarazm_EN_2 (I4210) are very similar.
We won't be able to model Sarazm realistically until we get samples from 8,000-4,000 BCE Tajikistan.
The water level in the ancient Caspian Sea was tens of meters higher than today due to paleoclimate changes
https://naked-science.ru/article/column/uroogo-iz-za-izmenenij
I used samples as a source, either older or the same age as Sarazm
https://postimg.cc/gw99LMsm
You're right, Davidski👍
Any idea, whether Sumerians were Iraq_PPNA heavy? Also modern Iranians carry a lot more of this ancestry than Iranian farmers of bronze age especially in the Eastern parts.
So I am wondering if elamites were possibly on this Iraq_PPNA heavy cline....
When I started to use the qpadm I was frustrated to learn that the choice of of right pops can affect the proportions.
Thanks for this post. At last it gives an idea how to choose the right pops.
If we have dataset obtained with different methods. Maybe the variable allsnps should be false? Would that help?
who is interested, the guy does a review of various ancient samples, shows approximately what these people looked like (hair color, eyes, skin, nose shape, eyes, etc.), as well as a mixture in various calculators, at my request he did a review on Sarazm
https://youtu.be/-ogsvguYXes?si=-uHCIWr3VsTWPyJO
@Aram
If we have dataset obtained with different methods. Maybe the variable allsnps should be false? Would that help?
I suspect that the only time that mixing data types in the right pops isn't a problem is if you use the same data type in the left pops (that is, either all capture, all SG, or all DG).
If you mix data types in both the right pops and left pops, then you're likely to skew the results, and allsnps:NO won't help you.
But from what I've seen probably a bigger problem is using very low quality singletons or even groups in the right pops. This creates a significant weak link in the qpAdm chain.
@Assuwatama,
1478 is meant to proximate for the kind of sample they were looking for , not how ancestral it was to Sarazm, its clearly a hybrid between Eneolithic Centrale Asians and some IP population, 8726 though listed as IP has similar scenario and can be modelled as half Centrale Asian easily and in the grave description was associated with graves from Kandahar/Mundigak.
sample: CG IVCp:IRN Shahr I Sokhta BA2 I8726
distance: 2.1612
Geoksyur_En: 20.5
CG_IVCp: 51
Sarazm_En: 28.5
How much will mixing types of data skew the result ? It might alter the representative individual or pop delivering an optinal model, but not the crux of the result.
Mixing data types can make some admixture appear that isn't really there.
I've seen this happen with Siberian ancestry in modern Europeans.
The Sarazm samples appear to be a mix of Central Asians with a Xiaohe BA related population that leans more to a AG3 + north East Asian mix. The Central Asian segment having two distinct components - I4290 with higher CHG type Middle East ancestry and I4290 with more autochthonous Shahr-i Sokhta related ancestry. From the historical perspective, relatives of Sarazm have been involved as middlemen in the movement of wheat from the Near East into China.
@davidski
I was wondering what if Irula like population did exist even in bronze age, so if I used it as a source will it be feasible? I am getting better distances that way fir SiS_ba2 samples....That way it seems SiS_ba2 is a mixture as follows....
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8728_enhanced
Distance: 4.2740% / 0.04274027
67.8 Irula
32.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8726
Distance: 3.4751% / 0.03475146
80.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
19.8 Irula
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11466_enhanced
Distance: 4.2812% / 0.04281187
56.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
43.6 Irula
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11459_enhanced
Distance: 4.6970% / 0.04696954
51.4 Irula
48.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11456_enhanced
Distance: 3.9291% / 0.03929062
53.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
46.2 Irula
Irula being 75% Onge related with minor IranN component.
@ Assuwatama
so we can use modern people as a source for Bronze Age people? because we are sure that the irulas were isolated? How are the Andamanese?
Many of the Bactria-Margiana Archaeological Complex ancient samples were Proto-Gedrosian origin (from an eastern Iranian-plateau Baluchistan), The migration waves (through different time era) from Baluchistan to BMAC regions were confirmed by many archaeologists’ studies.
==================================
I4910 tends to be within Gedrosian profile
Distance to: TJK_Sarazm_En:I4910*
0.08665417 Brahui:HGDP00045
0.08718839 Balochi:HGDP00096
0.08789137 Kalash:HGDP00323
0.08892896 Brahui:HGDP00011
0.08894101 Kalash:HGDP00328
================================
I4290 tends to be within Hindu-Kush profile
Distance to: TJK_Sarazm_En:I4290*
0.09490169 Kalash:HGDP00323
0.09773236 Kalash:HGDP00328
0.09901504 Kalash:HGDP00326
0.09946026 Brahui:HGDP00045
0.10141721 Brahui:HGDP00011
* These G25 PCA distance from an old data-sheet cords
=======================================================
References:
https://i.imgur.com/nZlxX3y.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/K0vdieX.jpg
https://periodica.org/index.php/journal/article/view/264/232
https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1141rev.pdf
I thought they can be a better proxy for onge related ancestry or ASI....
Using high AASI IVCp sample instead of Irula gives better distance for SiS_ba2 samples....
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8728_enhanced
Distance: 0.0000% / 0.00000000
100.0 IVC_high_AASI
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8726
Distance: 2.4605% / 0.02460514
35.8 IVC_high_AASI
31.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
28.4 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
4.4 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11466_enhanced
Distance: 3.0223% / 0.03022301
63.0 IVC_high_AASI
37.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11459_enhanced
Distance: 3.6335% / 0.03633513
74.8 IVC_high_AASI
15.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
9.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11456_enhanced
Distance: 2.5561% / 0.02556065
70.6 IVC_high_AASI
22.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
7.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
@Assuwatama
this one too? https://postimg.cc/HJxWMP1p
I wonder if the chokh mesolithic was somehow similar to the South Caspian Mesolithic, at least there is archaeological continuity there
https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Early-Holocene-sites-with-asymmetric-triangles-Trialetian-Caspian-and-Anatolian_fig4_361677362
@ Davidski “What we need are reference samples from Tajikistan from around 5,000 BCE.”
There is something like that, a relict late-Holocene population close by, whose signal shows up in some highland Taiks. Also in some Kazakhs. I don’t know if the data would be in a suitable form or not.
Yup, not opening.
There is a ~ 5000 bc sample from Tajik - TTK.
Target
Distance
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Indian_GreatAndaman_100BP.SG
Iran_GanjDareh_N
TTK
Turkey_TellKurdu_EC
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4290 0.03722231
25.8 0.0 47.4 24.4 2.4
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm:I4910 0.04520129
18.0 1.0 56.0 22.6 2.4
Average 0.04121180
21.9 0.5 51.7 23.5 2.4
I4290 just has some more Iran N ancestry, using Pinarbasi in authors set-up is nonsensical as it didnt exist in Anatolia at that time.
quick qpAdm for Sarazm (Combined)
left pops:
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Tutkaul1
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
Russia_Kolyma_M.SG
best coefficients: 0.517 0.236 0.217 0.029
std. errors: 0.055 0.017 0.044 0.013
tail prob 0.067
could probably tighten it up and get something more proximal which catches that norther Siberian edge
Full https://pastebin.com/QxPwbAhG
If you move Iran_GanjDareh_N from right pops to left pops you can get a lot of models to pass for Sarazm, and most won't be very accurate or realistic.
The trick is to find a model for Sarazm with both Iran_GanjDareh_N and Turkey_N in the right pops.
I dont think so. Not just any model will pass, but a specific combination only
You need Iran_N in PLeft as a foundational ancestor
And I have Tell Kurdu in pRight
You can't put Tell Kurdu in the right pops if you have Iran_GanjDareh_N in the left, because the latter is ancestral to the former, so this violates the rule that there can't be gene flow from the left pops to the right.
@ Rob
Could you please post the output for Progress = Golubaya Krinitsa + Darkveti-Meshoko + WSHG now... :))
I don't think Ganj Dareh is actually ancestral to Tell Kurdu, but they share ancestry.
But according to your suggestion, you wouldn't be able to use 'Turkey_N'' either, because that has "Iran_N" like ancestry compared to Pinarbasi.
The fact of the matter is there we're going to see a layering of Iran & CHG like populations, and some groups are going retain an archaic form of Iran N.
Anyhow, I swapped out Kurdu for "Turkey_N", and used Kouros' suggestion of Tarim
Crisp model , TTk no longer req.
Of course, the Tarim guys are 1000 years younger than Sarazm, but instructive
left pops:
Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG
best coefficients: 0.481 0.275 0.244
std. errors: 0.046 0.035 0.017
tail prob: 0.14
This follows the stats
- main attraction to Iran_N
- needs extra CHG, but smething Fertile crescent shifted
- needs eastern Central Asian
@ Gabru
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
MidDon_N
Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic
Russia_Tyumen_HG
best coefficients: 0.409 0.369 0.222
std. errors: 0.059 0.033 0.030
tail prob 0.000196442
https://pastebin.com/3bGDDKy6
@Assuwatama 👨🌾I don't know, both of my links worked for me.
drop the link to the instructions on how to use qpAdm
do I have to download gigabytes of data from samples of ancient samples to do this?
I've found that it's okay to have similar mixtures between left and right, but it needs to be outside of the cluster for your left target. This helps reduce standard errors. I'm not sure if words can be helpful here. I may have to post examples.
@Rob “ The Tarim guys are instructive.”
Well, there’s a turnaround.
@Rob
“I don't think Ganj Dareh is actually ancestral to Tell Kurdu,…”
------
I do agree with your thought regarding the region biogeographical ancestry (BGA) of the Ganj Dareh ancient samples which have no close affinities to the Zagros region genetic profiles although the remains were founded there, it’s more likely considered as another Proto-Gedrosian which originally originated in the eastern Iranian-plateau “Baluchistan” and migrated to the Zagros during the neolithic period.
There is an old post for Davidski about neighbors clustering titled “Global25 workshop 4: a neighbour joining tree”
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/global25-workshop-4-neighbor-joining.html
The tree hierarchy in this mentioned post should give an overview of the gene flow for each cluster.
-----
References:
https://i.imgur.com/b6ktIXd.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/ADDydIE.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/QNeYzh1.jpg
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aIU5nq208SPaK5WBpqtwQVQU8Th_WHdN/view
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep31326
https://doi.org/10.1101/059311
@Gedrosia
Hello, what does this diagram mean? Is it composed according to the type of haplogroup branches? what meaning does it carry?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1aIU5nq208SPaK5WBpqtwQVQU8Th_WHdN/view
Please comment separately on this point, I am a Lak and here the Laks are indicated in the diagram above CHG, what does this mean that the Laks do not have a direct origin from CHG?
https://i.postimg.cc/JzyB6C8D/Screenshot-7.png
let me know if the link doesn't work
@ Weeee
'' The Tarim guys are instructive.”
Well, there’s a turnaround.'
You appear to be confused about the nature of our previous debate.
You were claiming that the Tarim genetic profile was 'native ' to the Tarim or areas northeast. You were beguiled by the presence of NEA in their mostly ANE genomic profile. You took this to mean that they come from somewhere to the northeast of Tarim- Xinjiang, but perhaps missed that such as profile ( ANE + NEA) extended as far as western Kazakhstan during the Mesolithic. This is because there was an expansion of NEA ancestry thousands of years before Scythians and Huns.
Moreover, Native Americans, Afontova Gora-3, and all Holocene hunter-gatherers from Central Asia & Siberia lack any form of R1b until ~ 3300 BC (first appearing in Omsk region).
We should also note that Sarazm is from western Tajikstan, not northeast of the Tarim.
“You were claiming that the Tarim genetic profile was 'native ' to the Tarim or areas northeast.”
Native in the sense of late Holocene. And I said north. (Significantly further north, I think.) YOU presumed northeast. (Tbh, at times I wondered if you were visualising at a flat map with no longitude lines.
You were determined to insert your own presumptions and misreading into most of what I said and misquoted the rest of it,mwhen you weren’t fantasising over my “peepee”.
I could never get you to attend to what I WAS trying to communicate. Just like now.
So to your reply — for the record, I did not miss where else that population was present. This was yet another instance of you arguing with your own assumptions.
I repeatedly said they had formed a fairly homogenous populations spread right across CA by the Holocene. YOU kept talking about the east, to the extent that I began to wonder if you know what longitude lines are.
For what it’s worth, I think descendants of this same population (tthat Tarim1 were a relict descendant of) went much further west and then south (or vice versa) And then some made their way back east. And that this is why Botai, West Siberia Hunter Gatherer etc have so much in common with Tarim1.
Tarim1 were descended from those who just went south instead. There were regular pulses of warmer/wetter spells when the Tarim basin would have been less arid. They did become a bit of an island population, so there is drift. Some based on the south edge of the basin did seem to have some cultural contact with Himlayan populations.
There has been HG activity in Tarim since at least 5000 bc. The difficulty in finding HG dna in a desert the size if Pakistan is that they were boat people on seasonal rivers. But it’s a matter if time till they find some.
Their neighbours in the CA corridor generally, and in the Dzungar basi, were soon admixed with the newcomers: but Tarim1 burials do not have the admixture they brought. It changes very suddenly and clearly in the next layer up.
@Rob
Scythjans and Huns? WTF? I never mentioned any such johnny-come-lately types. They have nothing to do with Tarim1.
Again, you invented an argument out of thin air about whatever you ASSUMED. I might think — and attribute it to me.
My god, this happened to me yesterday as well, someone furious at me because he was once triggered years ago by someone with a similar screen name. You guys just keep inventing crap and projecting like crazy.
@Rib Native American with R1B? what an ABSURD strawman. Ventriloquising yet again. And abiut stuff from MONTHS ago, rather than respind to what I posted here. Just for the record: i said absolutely NOTHING about Native American YDNA whatever, let alone R1B.
I made a passing, casual remark that AUTOSOMAL connections with the Americas make sense for Tarim1 because in the VERY deep past they have AfontovaGora-like ancestry in common. It was by way of remarkjng that some went east, some went west and some went south: the ones who went south being the CA-corridor population that Tarim1 was the last unadmixed instance of.
Once again, you totally ignore what I did say — and resort to excavating and cherrypicking —and TOTALLY MISREPRESENTING a casual passing comment made months ago.
Every single post I have madehere is replying to your misreading, misconstruing, strawman argument.just like last time.
And alteady I see you are skim-reading months old posts to cherrypick a casual aside — and you managed to misrepresent that
I realise that of course you will never engage with the actual, simole I made in my initial post, and that you will instead find a turn of phrase to invent your own story from, in order to ridicule it.
You even invented a nationality for me so you could sneer at it. I would have thought you might have learned something from that.
I won’t reply to you any more unless you do engage in good faith.
Everyone else can take it as read that you’re doung your obsessive best to misrepresent my position. I’ve certainly learned that.
“ all Holocene hunter-gatherers from Central Asia & Siberia lack any form of R1b until ~ 3300 BC (first appearing in Omsk region).”
I guess I had to reply to this circular argument:at least it’s not pretending to be one of mine.
I naively thought the entire point of Davidski’s blogpost is — the dearth of CA DNA (of whatever kind) from appropriate candidate CA populations that’s any earlier than this.
I guess you also forgot these guys have their own peculiarly early take on r1B. (And possibly even r*.)
And that it is not seen either in WSHG, Botai, Afansievoor any candidate you offered.
@ Rob
Why is Tell Kurdu in right? Also you said TTK passes, could you please send that output if possible, P-Value seems trash for GK + DM + WSHG :(
@Арсен
Well, the diagram source was taken from the neighbors clustering post by Davidski and I’ve put the referred link for it, the mentioned post should be self-explanatory because Davidski explained every step and provided all the necessary tool and data links.
Briefly, the diagram was not about the haplogroup branches “Y-dna”, but it represents the ethnic cluster grouping in accordance to the G25 PCA values extracted from the “au-dna”, PCA models can provide a biogeographical ancestry (BGA) information which could trace an individual’s region origin. For more info about “BGA” methodology check the following study link:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-12903-0
----
As far as I know that the Laks people have a genetic profile within the Northeast Caucasian ethnic groups of the Dagestan region (Lakistan), the mentioned diagram hierarchy give an overview of the Laks grouping with Avars & Tabasarans which indicate that these clusters are sharing a common confined region zone, this has been confirmed by the reality actual settlement area.
https://i.imgur.com/Cst1nDz.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/Bdw0IcK.png
https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2015132
----
Regarding the “Geo-CHG” I’m not sure what you meant by “direct origin from CHG”, but for G25 PCA distance affinity there are other caucasian ethnic groups which much closer that the Laks.
https://i.imgur.com/spzs3sP.jpg
@ Gabru
''Why is Tell Kurdu in right? Also you said TTK passes, could you please send that output if possible, P-Value seems trash for GK + DM + WSHG :(''
Tell Kurdu is an examinable potential source of west asian ancestry in north Caucasian & steppe Eneolithic groups due to its location in eastern Anatolia. But it doesnt change things with or without it.
@ weee
The Tarim profiles match recently published HGs from the Omsk region, which is ~ 1400 km northwest
@Gedrosia
yes, thank you, I already understood everything myself and guessed) I had to suffer myself with this PAST program
@Davidsky
did I do everything right? maybe I made a mistake? Did I choose Tarofalt as the root correctly?
https://postimg.cc/mcWHxnw0
if link dont working
https://ibb.co/jWmFGBW
@ Gabru
''Tell Kurdu in right is making things wrong I think... Try to remove it and see the P-Value becomes better ;-;''
As per above, with or without TK, the model doesn't work
Changing one distal outgroup doesn't change outcomes. It's more relevant if you're playing off potentially proximal sources.
How to convert .bam to .bed file..?
@ Davidski
Did you see this? A new paper on Bahrain.
http://tinyurl.com/2u9ue65k
Summary
The harsh climate of Arabia has posed challenges in generating ancient DNA from the region, hindering the direct examination of ancient genomes for understanding the demographic processes that shaped Arabian populations. In this study, we report whole-genome sequence data obtained from four Tylos-period individuals from Bahrain. Their genetic ancestry can be modeled as a mixture of sources from ancient Anatolia, Levant, and Iran/Caucasus, with variation between individuals suggesting population heterogeneity in Bahrain before the onset of Islam. We identify the G6PD Mediterranean mutation associated with malaria resistance in three out of four ancient Bahraini samples and estimate that it rose in frequency in Eastern Arabia from 5 to 6 kya onward, around the time agriculture appeared in the region. Our study characterizes the genetic composition of ancient Arabians, shedding light on the population history of Bahrain and demonstrating the feasibility of studies of ancient DNA in the region.
Paper on late WHG from Brittany region came out today as well - https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2310545121
Some of the samples have extraordinarily high coverage.
Do you guys have any favoured abstracts from EAA 2024 btw?
One -
https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2024/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2600 - "Population changes in northern Italy from the Iron Age to Modern Times" - "This seemingly homogenous genetic profile among the Etruscan groups experienced a strong demographic shift during the Imperial period. As a result, most northern Italian individuals derive three-quarters of their genetic profile from the local Iron Age substratum and one-quarter from contemporaneous groups in the Near East."
Also dna from Herculaneum and Pompeii. Two papers find consanguinous marriages in Iron Age Italy.
@ Gabru
You would need to download the Allentoft data in bed/ bim/ fam format and merge that into your main set. You can also chose to only merge selected samples by creating a samles text file where those to be remove are listed. Then convert the merged file back into ind/geno/snp format to run (as per Dave).
@Carlos
Garbage sequences. Not enough data.
Ancient DNA connects large-scale migration with the spread of Slavic-associated culture
Today, speakers of Slavic languages comprise around one-third of the European population and inhabit nearly a half of the European continent. Yet, there is no consensus among historians and archaeologists how this present-day distribution is connected to the spread of Slavic-associated material culture in the fifth to sixth centuries over major parts of Eastern and Central Europe, as the evidence from the written and archaeological record is characterised by both continent-wide similarities as well as region-specific trajectories. Consequently, the question of to what extent this cultural and linguistic transformation also affected the genetic composition of the continent has been a subject of enduring debate. Here we present an extensive dataset of genome-wide ancient DNA data from several sites in Central Europe, dating between 400 and 1200 CE and spanning the relevant phase of cultural and linguistic transition. We demonstrate that the arrival of Slavic-associated material culture in the studied regions is associated with a substantial influx of genetic ancestry from a region in present-day northern Ukraine and Belarus. Comparing archaeological and genetic evidence, we find that this change in ancestry coincided with a change in social organization, characterised by an intensification of inter- and intrasite genetic relatedness and strong signals of patrilocality and -lineality.
------------------------
Genomic transect of Early Medieval Moravia and Slovakia uncovers population turnover
In the 6th century, a population labeled as “Slavs” appeared in Central Europe. According to historical records, a principality connected to these people later existed in Moravia and neighboring territories. However, the processes leading to the formation of this principality are still debated due to the limited number of written records in this region and period. This is connected to a general question concerning a possible demographic turnover in this and surrounding regions. The hypothesis is challenging to address due to the cremation burial rite in key periods of the turnover and an extremely low number of genetically studied Slavic-related inhumations predating 1000 CE.
To provide insights into a proposed population turnover between the 5th and early 8th centuries CE, we investigate Migration Period and Early Medieval genomic data from Czechia and Slovakia where such material is available. This chronological transect clearly identifies a genetic shift in the region. Our findings support the hypothesis that the observable change in the material culture in this period was propagated by a demographic turnover with a significant impact on the later genetic diversity of the region.
Importantly, we also present genetic data from the oldest known inhumation connected to the Prague material culture (in its earlier phases associated with Prague-type pottery) that already evidences this demographic shift and hence points at genetic continuity from the 7th to the 10th century CE, to the period clearly connected to the “Slavs”. In the later period, we show tight genetic connectivity of the sites allowing us to study social structure of the newly formed society, though there are also influences of genetic components present already in the region previously.
„What have the Romans ever done for us?” Multi isotope dataset from Late Antique and Early Medieval Slovenia
In recent decades, isotope research in bioarchaeology has described a very distinctive arc. A promising and revolutionary discipline in the early 2000s, it has gradually shown its potential over the past decades. However, as the technology became more mature by the 2020s, its limitations became increasingly apparent. In this process, in which isotope studies have sought links with archaeology and other bioarchaeological methods, the Central and Eastern European region has unfortunately only taken a limited part. In the present study, we aim to add to the hitherto modest knowledge base with more than 200 Sr and more than 300 C/N data from three Slovenian regions, namely the areas including Ljubljana and Celje and the Vipava River Valley, and to open new perspectives for joint paleogenomic, archaeological and cultural-historical interpretation.
Our results, although limited in themselves, combined with the results of genomic analysis, support a narrative that reconstructs the continued existence of the local population in the nearby highland settlements as the late Roman centres in present-day Slovenia were depopulated following the decline of Roman rule. On one side, evidence for this is provided by the homogeneity of human Sr data, the narrower local Sr baselines, which rather indicate a great difference in land use and nutrition habits than the arrival of new incomers. On the other side, the relatively large size of pedigrees with few unrelated individuals and the decline in genetic diversity support this reconstruction. Later, during the 9th and 10th centuries, the Sr isotopic distribution became more heterogeneous with some individuals yielding more various Sr signals and increased mobility, while a new northeast European genetic component appeared in the sites, supporting the appearance of new populations in the territory.
The Gothic tribes of East-Central Europe through the lens of archaeogenomic data.
The migrations of Goths and their consequences were undoubtedly one of the most significant events shaping European history in the Roman Iron Age. They have always attracted the attention of academics and history enthusiasts alike. These events are not only associated with major historic processes but are also believed to have been accompanied by significant cultural and demographic transformations.
In the territories of modern-day Poland, the Goths are associated with the Wielbark archaeological culture. The presence of stone structures (stone circles and pavements) on its commentaries in Pomerania region, in its early stages, is frequently interpreted as evidence of its Scandinavian origin, where the best analogies for such structures can be found.
Here, through the analysis of more than 300 genomes (including more than 100 newly reported) of individuals dated to the Roman Iron Age, we show that the majority of them differ significantly from earlier and later populations from East-Central Europe. However, that lack of predating, first millennium BCE, genomic data from the Pomerania region hinder our ability to pinpoint the moment this population arrived or formed in this region. Nevertheless, our data show that when the population expanded south-east, somewhere in the 3rd century AD, with minimal admixture with local populations. Similarly, later early medieval populations from East-Central Europe seem primarily represent a population of different origin with only a small degree of admixture form Gothic tribes associated with Wielbark culture.
@Davidski
I am not sure what you mean about the Bahrain Tylos samples being garbage. They are very high coverage and contain many hundreds of thousands of SNPs. If you just need them converted to GrCh37 or a format that makes it easier to convert to G25 please say so, and I will do that.
@The Archaeogeneticist
could you make a G25 out of them please?
@Matt
Where do I find the study about Etruscans and North Italians?
You wrote the wrong link.
Thanks in advance.
@Matt
"https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2024/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2600 - "Population changes in northern Italy from the Iron Age to Modern Times""
I'm curious about these samples. But in the abstract they have forgotten the Celtic intermezzo in the Padanian plain. Seems strange to model Imperial samples just with unadmixed IA Etruscans and Near Easterners only. But as it seems to work, this seems to suggest the nonrelevance of the Celtic groups, as I suspected before. But then, some of the "Etruscan" IA ancestry may be rather Republican Roman and other Italic.
ItaloSvedese, correct link:
https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2024/repository/preview.php?Abstract=3734
@Simon_W, no comments on your comment, but another abstract from the conference may be very tangentially related:
https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2024/repository/preview.php?Abstract=3734
"Kinship Patterns and Genetic Profile in the Late Iron Age Seminario Vescovile Necropolis (Northeastern Italy; 3rd – 1st centuries BCE)
Content:
The European Late Iron Age (4th-1st centuries BCE) is characterized by cultural exchanges favored by trade networks and human movements, including the southward movement of transalpine groups to the Italian Peninsula. Here, we investigate 92 individuals from the Northeastern Italian necropolis of Seminario Vescovile (SV, 3rd – 1st centuries BCE) through paleogenomic analyses (genetic sex determination and kinship analyses) to contribute to the understanding of their social organization and obtain a first insight into the genetic profile of the individuals from this funerary context.
We successfully analyzed the ancient genomes (via shotgun plus nuclear and mtDNA enrichment data) of 90 individuals from SV, including 42 non-adults. Genetic sex assignment revealed 50 females (XX) and 40 males (XY), with a higher frequency of female non-adults (~ 43%). While male Y-Chromosomal haplogroups are primarily represented by the main haplogroup R1b* (~ 73%), mtDNA haplogroups assignment showed high genetic variation in the maternal lineages, including besides typical European lineages (e.g., H* and U*), an African haplogroup (L1). This was found in a non-adult female whose funerary treatment does not deviate from that observed in the rest of the burial site. Additionally, kinship analyses identified 20 cases of close biological relationships (up to the 3rd degree). However, kinships do not follow any specific spatial patterning, as burials of closely related individuals are located in distant necropolis areas. Comparative analyses confirm genetic diversity among individuals from SV and no genomic affinity with present-day populations from the same geographic area.
Overall, our findings indicate higher mobility of females compared to males, suggesting possibly patrilocality. Furthermore, the absence of specific kinship patterns emphasizes the complexity of social structures of ancient Iron Age groups from Northern Italy. Moreover, we reveal that the Iron Age individuals have contributed little to the gene pool of today's North-Eastern Italians.
Paleogenetics, Late Iron Age, Northeastern Italy, Celtic groups, aDNA, Social organization"
@ItaloSvedese
Simply enter the title of the abstract into the searching mask.
There you are:
https://submissions.e-a-a.org/eaa2024/repository/preview.php?Abstract=2094
Preliminary G25 coords for the Tylos samples...
Scaled
BAH_Tylos_AS_EMT:ID001,0.084229,0.125926,-0.06939,-0.0646,-0.03139,-0.024542,-0.00235,-0.014538,-0.019225,-0.007472,0.001624,-0.003147,0.010704,-0.004817,0.001629,0.019225,0.006519,-0.000633,0.006913,-0.005253,-0.01672,-0.007666,-0.003328,0.001325,0.007065
BAH_Tylos_MH1_LT:ID001,0.087644,0.129988,-0.069767,-0.059109,-0.033237,-0.015339,-0.000705,-0.005077,0.003272,-0.005832,0.005846,-0.019333,0.02215,0.000688,0.001629,0.003182,-0.02047,-0.003294,-0.001508,-0.003627,0.006364,-0.001731,-0.002218,-0.002289,0.008023
BAH_Tylos_MH2_LT:ID001,0.083091,0.119832,-0.072784,-0.047158,-0.03416,-0.01004,0.000705,-0.001615,-0.010431,-0.009112,0.003085,-0.008692,0.017988,0.00578,0.005293,0.002917,-0.020079,0.004434,0.003771,-0.004252,-0.005241,0.001855,-0.00493,0.002771,0.010538
BAH_Tylos_MH3_LT:ID001,0.091058,0.132019,-0.072784,-0.075259,-0.035391,-0.016455,-0.00188,-0.008769,0.007567,0.000364,0.010555,-0.013938,0.024529,0.008395,0.000271,0.02254,-0.001173,0.013936,0.006536,-0.001751,0.00025,0.002226,-0.000493,-0.00012,0.00467
Raw
BAH_Tylos_AS_EMT:ID001,0.0074,0.0124,-0.0184,-0.02,-0.0102,-0.0088,-0.001,-0.0063,-0.0094,-0.0041,0.001,-0.0021,0.0072,-0.0035,0.0012,0.0145,0.005,-0.0005,0.0055,-0.0042,-0.0134,-0.0062,-0.0027,0.0011,0.0059
BAH_Tylos_MH1_LT:ID001,0.0077,0.0128,-0.0185,-0.0183,-0.0108,-0.0055,-0.0003,-0.0022,0.0016,-0.0032,0.0036,-0.0129,0.0149,0.0005,0.0012,0.0024,-0.0157,-0.0026,-0.0012,-0.0029,0.0051,-0.0014,-0.0018,-0.0019,0.0067
BAH_Tylos_MH2_LT:ID001,0.0073,0.0118,-0.0193,-0.0146,-0.0111,-0.0036,0.0003,-0.0007,-0.0051,-0.005,0.0019,-0.0058,0.0121,0.0042,0.0039,0.0022,-0.0154,0.0035,0.003,-0.0034,-0.0042,0.0015,-0.004,0.0023,0.0088
BAH_Tylos_MH3_LT:ID001,0.008,0.013,-0.0193,-0.0233,-0.0115,-0.0059,-0.0008,-0.0038,0.0037,0.0002,0.0065,-0.0093,0.0165,0.0061,0.0002,0.017,-0.0009,0.011,0.0052,-0.0014,0.0002,0.0018,-0.0004,-0.0001,0.0039
Suevi
I wonder how Krause "demonstrated" the arrival of the ancestors of the Central European Slavs from Belarus? After all, the text of his abstract shows that there are no Belarusian genomes from the 5th century. He talks about patrilineality, but it is the Slavic paternal lines that most clearly contradict the genetic origin of the Slavs from Belarus.
"An important theory about the Slavs may collapse. Scientists examined the lake of bones.
DNA research conducted by anthropologists from the University of Łódź on bones dating from approximately 1000-450 BC may challenge the current theory that the Slavs arrived in today's Polish lands only at the beginning of the second half of the first millennium AD.
Human remains, as well as many artifacts from the Bronze Age, were discovered in the village of Papowo Biskupie in the Chełmno Land by the Kuyavian-Pomeranian History Seekers Group.
In the last century, representatives of the Lusatian culture were considered Proto-Slavics. At that time, the autochthonous concept of the origins of the Slavs dominated, which talks about the continuity of the settlement of the Vistula and Oder basin. Today this concept is rejected, the allochthonous concept prevails, according to which the Slavs came to these lands from outside.
Anthropologists emphasize that when examining the bones of people of that time, they do not notice any significant differences in the morphological features of the skeleton, and now also in the analyzed DNA sequences, which could support the currently valid concept. This means that the allochthonous theory is beginning to falter, at least with respect to changes at the population level.
The people from whom these remains come do not differ significantly in genetic terms from people living in Poland, for example, in the early Middle Ages. This research may shake the current theory, according to which the Slavs came to present-day Polish lands only at the beginning of the second half of the first millennium AD."
https://tech.wp.pl/wazna-teoria-o-slowianach-moze-upasc-naukowcy-zbadali-jezioro-kosci,7000238238157312a
Not that I support Ambrons simplistic & erroneous autochthonist views about Slavs, but In general, Krause lacks talent for aDNA -history/linguistics fusions. Aside from his & Heggarty's comedy about PIE, more recently he was saying that Basque, Etruscan & Minoan all come from one Early Farmers. The latter 3 groups are obviously completely different. It's not appropriate to say theyre EEF and write some self-gratuiotous book about it
That kind of effort gives Jaaki the Hacki & his Gimp Co. on FraudArchiver their strawmanning about 'seeing language from the DNA"
@ Davidski and All
https://tech.wp.pl/wazna-teoria-o-slowianach-moze-upasc-naukowcy-zbadali-jezioro-kosci,7000238238157312a
have you already read this?
I'm a bit confused, maybe the samples are dated wrong, I can't imagine that Slavs have lived in what is now Poland since the Bronze Age! perhaps they were Baltic tribes that had a genetic affinity with Slavs anyway
Well, like I already said, Trzciniec culture people were very similar to Slavs.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/11/wielbark-goths-were-overwhelmingly-of.html
So Slavic-related peoples lived in Poland at least until the Wielbark Goths got there.
The key question is whether Poles are derived from this pre-Wielbark population that may have been Slavic speaking, or from a genetically similar Trzciniec-derived group from Belarus/Ukraine that only brought Slavic languages to Poland after the Iron Age.
The Slav-like Bronze Age “Poles” began to be driven out by Vatya-Welzin folk (=Pomeranians)
Long before Celts, Elbe-Germans & Goths arrived
Geography and chronology of Slavic dispersal in Central and Eastern Europe according to archaeogenetic data
Limited suitability of PCA, ADMIXTURE, and qpAdm methods of genetic analysis relying on allele frequencies for distinguishing many populations that were important historical actors in the Roman and Migration Period Europe can be overcome by the implementation of an approach based on autosomal haplotypes, “identity-by-descent” (IBD). Imputation of missing genotypes, phasing and IBD inference were performed for ancient Eurasians using the ancIBD method (Ringbauer et al. 2023). IBD links for subsets of these individuals are represented as graphs, visualized with a force-directed layout algorithm, and most clusters that were inferred in these graphs with the Leiden algorithm are in remarkable agreement with archaeological evidence, reflecting communities of distantly related individuals. Based on this approach, we identified a distinct population group that existed in Central and East Europe from the late 2nd century CE to the Medieval period. This group played a significant role in population processes and, from the 6th century onwards, was identified in written sources as the Slavs. Considering recent linguistic and archaeological advancements, it is plausible that this group included Slavic speakers from its early formation. Considering the results of other analyses based on allele frequencies (PCA, ADMIXTURE), a hypothesis for the origin and history of this population can be proposed: it was formed in close vicinity of the Eastern Baltic region and dispersed over Central, Eastern, and Central-South Europe in several waves of migrations. The earliest representatives of this population group were found along the wide arc from the Middle Danube to the Middle Volga that limits from the south the poorly sequenced area with the domination of the cremation ritual, in the context dated to the late 2nd-early 3rd century CE. The latest individuals of this IBD cluster were buried in the Medieval Slavic-associated context.
I think the Trzciniec culture contributed to Slavic ethnogesis and the Lusatian culture is related to the Urnfield culture
@Davidski
Trzciniec culture covered only eastern territories of today's Poland. And you forgot to mention that between Trzciniec culture and Wielbark culture we have a gap of ~2000 years when Poland was populated by Lusatian culture, Pomeranian culture, Oksywie culture, Przeworsk culture, etc. with severe depopulations between cultural changes.
@Davidski
Do they have partial steppe origin? Or are my eyes deceiving me?)
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH3_LT:ID001
Distance: 3.8759% / 0.03875902
39.4 Iran_N
32.4 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
25.6 Levant_Natufian
2.6 Russia_Afanasievo
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH2_LT:ID001
Distance: 3.0012% / 0.03001211
38.4 Iran_N
25.4 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
21.4 Levant_Natufian
10.8 Russia_Afanasievo
2.6 CHG
1.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH1_LT:ID001
Distance: 3.2989% / 0.03298921
36.4 Iran_N
28.0 Levant_Natufian
24.6 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
6.6 Russia_Afanasievo
4.4 CHG
Target: BAH_Tylos_AS_EMT:ID001
Distance: 3.1520% / 0.03152004
36.8 Iran_N
36.4 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
17.8 Levant_Natufian
5.4 CHG
3.2 Russia_Afanasievo
0.4 Ancient_American
For the territory of Eastern Poland, the central problem is the lack of IA samples outside of Wielbark Culture, to establish the baseline by the start of the common era (0 CE).
As the abstract noted above states: "Here, through the analysis of more than 300 genomes (including more than 100 newly reported) of individuals dated to the Roman Iron Age, we show that the majority of them differ significantly from earlierlack of predating, first millennium BCE, genomic data from the Pomerania region hinder our ability to pinpoint the moment this population arrived or formed in this region.".
Could isotopic analysis of genetic outliers found in other contexts help to resolve some of this (for example but not limited to the increasing number of genetically Baltic-like men found in mercenary graves in Italy and Greece)?
For territories that are placed to the west and south of Eastern Poland, it seems like the story is relatively clear now?
@ Matt
''For the territory of Eastern Poland, the central problem is the lack of IA samples outside of Wielbark Culture, to establish the baseline by the start of the common era (0 CE).''
That would be Przeworsk and Oksywie culture, which formed as 'Germanics' from Jutland & the Elbe region moved into Poland. How they interacted with preceding Pomeranian culture & Lauzits, isn't entirely clear. It's not clear what Pomeranians & Luzatians were like genetically, but we can already shape 2 main groups: a compnent continuing from Unetice (Lausitz) and Alpine-Carpathian groups rich in I2a and to a lesser degree G2a, rich in EEF/ WHG, & phenomenon of Urnfeldization. But this the EEF/WHG component decreased as Nordic circle groups with higher levels of steppe-ancestry enetered during the Roman Iron Age.
@Steppe
“I'm a bit confused, maybe the samples are dated wrong, I can't imagine that Slavs have lived in what is now Poland since the Bronze Age!”
Why are you confused? Why can’t you imagine it?
We all agree that languages in IE patriarchal societies should be linked to Y-DNA and some steppe/EEF/WHG components. Look at India.
R1a-Z645 was Indo-Slavic, R1a-283 was Balto-Slavic.
R1a-Z93 was probably also Indo-Slavic in the beginning. It is hard for me to believe that Fatyanovo was Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian languages are grouped with Balto-Slavic forming Indo-Slavic clade, but also are grouped with Greek and Armenian languages forming Graeco-Armeno-Aryan or Graeco-Aryan clade. If Fatyanovo spoke Indo-Iranian, then what genetic component in Fatyanovo was responsible for that Graeco-Aryan link?
Fatyanovo was genetically identical to Mierzanowice/Stzyżów/Iwno except that in Mierzanowice we have R1a-Z280.
In my opinion, Mierzanowice was Proto-Slavic.
Lusatian culture is derived from Trzciniec culture mixed with The Tumulus culture. Trzciniec culture is derived from Mierzanowice culture. The Tumulus culture is the descendant of the Unetice culture.
But Unetice culture is related to the Nitra group. The Nitra group, inhabiting southern Slovakia, not only precedes the Unetice culture chronologically, but is also strongly culturally related to it. The Nitra group is derived from Proto-Mierzanowice culture and is full of R1a-Z280. Unetice is also full of R1a-Z280. Very likely, eastern Unetice spoke Slavic related languages.
Lusatian culture is derived from two Slavic related cultures full of R1a-Z280 descendant from Mierzanowice culture.
Balts were living north-east of Slavs and were in contact with N1a rich Uralic groups.
no it was a false trail, it’s better this way
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH3_LT:ID001
Distance: 3.6083% / 0.03608254
30.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
27.8 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
27.8 Levant_Natufian
13.8 Iran_N
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH2_LT:ID001
Distance: 2.4670% / 0.02466973
50.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur (3100 BC)
24.0 Levant_Natufian
19.6 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
4.8 TKM_Geoksyur_N (3500 BC)
1.4 Iran_N
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH1_LT:ID001
Distance: 2.5867% / 0.02586706
49.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
30.0 Levant_Natufian
18.0 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
2.4 Iran_N
Target: BAH_Tylos_AS_EMT:ID001
Distance: 2.6837% / 0.02683731
49.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
30.4 Early_Anatolian_Fermer
19.8 Levant_Natufian
0.6 CHG
Matt
I don't know what you mean exactly, but for the area west of eastern Poland the situation is indeed clear. People there share identical genome segments in pairs from the Lusatian culture, through the Wielbark culture, to the Middle Ages. So there is no room here to speculate whether the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age population was displaced during the Roman period and replaced by a genetically identical population during the Middle Ages.
I think it won't get any better
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH3_LT:ID001
Distance: 2.1677% / 0.02167707 | R3P
61.2 Israel_C
36.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
2.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH2_LT:ID001
Distance: 2.0048% / 0.02004762 | R3P
46.6 Israel_C
43.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
9.8 Iraq_Shanidar_o
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH1_LT:ID001
Distance: 1.7507% / 0.01750705 | R3P
58.2 Israel_C
39.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
2.6 EHG
Target: BAH_Tylos_AS_EMT:ID001
Distance: 2.2180% / 0.02217968 | R3P
45.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
28.2 Turkey_TellKurdu_EMC
26.8 Jordan_PPNC
@ Ambron
''People there share identical genome segments in pairs from the Lusatian culture, through the Wielbark culture, to the Middle Ages''
Do you have access to some unpublished data showing strong IBD segment sharing between Goths, Luzatians and modern Poles ?
East Pole:
“R1a-Z93 was probably also Indo-Slavic in the beginning. It is hard for me to believe that Fatyanovo was Indo-Iranian. Indo-Iranian languages are grouped with Balto-Slavic forming Indo-Slavic clade, but also are grouped with Greek and Armenian languages forming Graeco-Armeno-Aryan or Graeco-Aryan clade. If Fatyanovo spoke Indo-Iranian, then what genetic component in Fatyanovo was responsible for that Graeco-Aryan link?”
There existed no Indo-Slavic clade. The shared innovations between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic, like satemization and the Ruki rule, are areally spread, because they are not the earliest sound changes in these branches.
On what basis are Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic “grouped” with Greek and Armenian?
East Pole:
“Balts were living north-east of Slavs and were in contact with N1a rich Uralic groups.”
Or the predecessors of modern East Balts acquired N1a before or after the arrival of the Uralic speakers in the region – you cannot just decide that these were contemporaneous events. N-L1025 is most frequent in Latvia and Lithuania, and it is dated in 750 BCE in FTDNA Discover. Its predecessor N-L550 rises Estonia up in the second place, and it is only slightly earlier, 850 BCE. YFull gives similar datings.
There is no actual spatio-temporal correlation between N-L550, arriving in Estonia from the east at that time, and the Finnic languages, arriving via the southeastern Daugava route centuries earlier, reaching Estonia directly from the south. As you already know, you cannot predict the language from the DNA.
The residents of Gidatl, known as Gidatlins, belong to the Caucasian anthropological type. Skulls excavated from ancient and medieval sites in the Gidatl Valley, including the Ginchin settlement (4th millennium BCE), the Gono burial grounds (3rd millennium BCE), Ginchin II (2nd millennium BCE), and Urada (9th-12th centuries CE), indicate an affiliation with the long-headed, narrow-faced Caspian type. This seemingly suggests a lack of direct continuity between modern Gidatlins and the ancient and medieval populations.
However, anthropological studies have determined that in the 14th century in Dagestan, the contemporary Caucasian anthropological type (Avars, Laks, Dargins) emerged through morphological transformations and the shift of facial and cranial features of the Caspian type due to isolation and prolonged practice of endogamous marriages. Therefore, the connection between modern Gidatlins and the populations of ancient and medieval sites is beyond doubt.
Another element contributing to the culture and ethnic identity is language. The Gidatlins speak a language belonging to the southern dialect of the Avar language. In turn, Gidatlin, Keleb, and Kahib languages represent dialects of the Gidatlin language. According to glottochronology, the fragmentation of the common Dagestan language unity occurred at the end of the 3rd millennium BCE. The division of the Avar language into dialects likely occurred in the 1st millennium CE, with the emergence of the Gidatlin, Keleb, and Kahib dialects from the southern dialect after the 14th century. This marks the beginning of the formation of the Gidatlin ethnographic group.
Therefore, the Ginchin settlement (4th millennium BCE) and the Gono burial ground (3rd millennium BCE) can be associated with the common Caucasian ethnic, linguistic, and cultural foundation. The Ginchin burial ground from the 2nd millennium BCE is linked to the disintegration of the common Dagestan ethnocultural foundation and the emergence of major ethnic subdivisions, including the Avars. The monuments from the 5th-13th centuries CE are presumably connected to speakers of the southern dialect of the Avar language. The formation of the Gidatlin community is dated to the 14th century, coinciding with the establishment of modern Gidatlin villages," concludes Omar Davudov.
“ There existed no Indo-Slavic clade.”
Jaski lacks understanding about linguistics and it’s Limitations
Linguistics is somewhat impotent in reconstructing fine grained structure . Only archaeogenetics can give that
Anyhow, it’s clear to anyone with half a clue that IndoAryans and Balto-Slavic form a clade beyond other IE groups
Rob, your total lack of comprehension about the topic is very amusing when combined with your delusional, hubristic self-confidence. :D Please, do embarrass yourself more often, will you?
@Jaakko Häkkinen
I think you might find this interesting. 'Ancient Migrations of Finno-Ugric Peoples' by Vladimir Volkov. It's a livestream in Russian, and it was released three days ago.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UFZH25s-Hs8
@ jaasko
''Rob, your total lack of comprehension about the topic is very amusing when combined with your delusional, hubristic self-confidence. :D Please, do embarrass yourself more often, will you?''
I comprehend you entirely, and see through you : you're a hack, your theory has been disproven & has no recourse, you have no clue about historical linguistics in general (in this case confusing secondary convergences with primary branching events), and are bitter about the fact that you have squirrel-like facial features.
Given that you have no idea about your native Finnic, you shouldn't be lecturing us on Indo-European. Spare your sermons for the pseudoscience peddlars at GimpArchiver
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH3_LT:ID001
Distance: 2.6220% / 0.02621951
50.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
36.0 Israel_Ashkelon_IA2
14.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH2_LT:ID001
Distance: 1.6995% / 0.01699545
39.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
24.8 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
18.2 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
18.0 Turkey_Hellenistic_o1
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH1_LT:ID001
Distance: 2.2021% / 0.02202083
31.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
26.2 Turkey_Hellenistic_o1
23.4 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
12.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
6.6 Israel_Ashkelon_IA2
Target: BAH_Tylos_AS_EMT:ID001
Distance: 2.3651% / 0.02365121
46.2 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
28.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
17.4 Israel_Ashkelon_IA2
8.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH3_LT:ID001
Distance: 2.0129% / 0.02012909
58.0 Israel_MLBA
14.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
12.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
11.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
4.2 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH2_LT:ID001
Distance: 1.5425% / 0.01542528
48.4 Israel_MLBA
36.8 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
14.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Target: BAH_Tylos_MH1_LT:ID001
Distance: 1.8816% / 0.01881558
40.6 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
40.2 Israel_MLBA
10.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
9.2 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
Target: BAH_Tylos_AS_EMT:ID001
Distance: 1.8603% / 0.01860322
44.6 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
28.2 Israel_MLBA
27.2 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
What are your takes on this sample?
Target: Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019
Distance: 1.7831% / 0.01783093
81.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
9.6 Russia_Afanasievo
9.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Some of the Swat_IA samples carry 10-20% Russia_Afanasievo ancestry in addition to Sintashta rich Dali_MLBA....
Can someone cross-Check?
Rob
These data were published last year in Dr. Borówka's doctoral dissertation and presented at a scientific conference in Chorzów.
Two Lusatian individuals from Kałdus and Boguszewo and three Gothic individuals from Weklice share the most IBS segments with medieval Poles - much more than with groups external from outside Poland.
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I12141
Distance: 1.8803% / 0.01880287
53.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
18.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
15.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
9.6 Russia_Afanasievo
3.8 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I10523
Distance: 1.9479% / 0.01947885
52.2 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
25.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
16.2 Russia_Afanasievo
4.6 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
2.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I12146
Distance: 2.3192% / 0.02319203
40.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
37.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
18.2 Russia_Afanasievo
3.4 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I12147
Distance: 2.7583% / 0.02758309
45.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
28.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
22.6 Russia_Afanasievo
3.2 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I12454
Distance: 2.0577% / 0.02057657
48.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
28.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
14.6 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
8.2 Russia_Afanasievo
Kinda gives a hint towards the sample found in Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA of Central asian origin.....Now whether such population was proto-Tocharian or Proto-Aryan....only time will tell.....
If Burushaski is really an old language then I think a slight possibility exists that Dali_mlba groups rather spoke proto-Burushaski and not the language of Sintashta...
Considering Burushaski largely derive from Swat_IA like population....
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I5397
Distance: 1.2176% / 0.01217604
58.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
18.6 Russia_Afanasievo
10.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
8.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
4.4 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
Target: Pakistan_Katelai_IA:I5396
Distance: 1.7638% / 0.01763779
43.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
34.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
11.6 Russia_Afanasievo
5.2 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
5.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
From Paulina Borowka's paper: "In the immediate vicinity of the Polish population, we can observe individuals identified as Ukraine_Viking (VK539 and VK540), originating from the Shestovitsa site (on the Desna River, a tributary of the Dnieper) in Ukraine (...) Based on the analysis carried out in this work, both of these individuals can be classified as the Slavic population clearly genetically refer to the "autochthonous" population represented by Polish individuals."
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-Y7928/
Distance to: UKR_Shestovitsa_VA:VK539
0.02344102 Swedish:GSM1884863
0.02596772 Swedish:GSM1884782
0.02709387 Swedish:Sweden15
0.02882424 Finnish_Southwest:HG00277
0.02961483 Swedish:GSM1884752
0.03005510 Swedish:Sweden8
0.03013257 Finnish_Southwest
0.03043960 Finnish_Southwest:HG00190
0.03051927 Swedish:GSM1884922
0.03066353 Swedish:GSM1884818
0.03071337 Swedish:GSM1884917
0.03135672 Swedish:GSM1884765
0.03144135 Swedish:GSM1884858
0.03237775 Swedish:Sweden3
0.03258541 Swedish:Sweden22
0.03333797 Finnish_Southwest:HG00337
0.03355565 Swedish:GSM1884775
0.03359966 Norwegian:GSM1550614
0.03375948 Swedish:GSM1884776
0.03385379 Finnish_Southwest:HG00310
0.03396000 Swedish:GSM1884861
0.03398625 Swedish
0.03398873 Swedish:Sweden19
0.03402991 Swedish:GSM1884785
0.03417348 Swedish:GSM1884877
Distance to: UKR_Shestovitsa_VA:VK540
0.02576870 Swedish:GSM1884775
0.02662797 Swedish:Sweden3
0.02819347 Swedish:GSM1884788
0.02828131 Swedish:GSM1884863
0.02909173 Swedish
0.02951309 Swedish:Sweden22
0.02955885 Swedish:GSM1884825
0.02976035 Swedish:GSM1884858
0.02984964 Swedish:GSM1884765
0.03001671 Swedish:GSM1884782
0.03031443 Swedish:Sweden6
0.03068384 Swedish:Sweden15
0.03096432 Swedish:GSM1884927
0.03126697 Danish:456
0.03176004 Swedish:GSM1884922
0.03183252 Swedish:GSM1884752
0.03209908 Swedish:GSM1884845
0.03216466 Danish:463
0.03217414 Swedish:Sweden8
0.03221775 Swedish:GSM1884917
0.03235347 Swedish:GSM1884785
0.03265916 Swedish:Sweden19
0.03278660 Swedish:GSM1884850
0.03284120 Swedish:GSM1884869
0.03304697 Swedish:GSM1884888
@Assuwatama
Wait, what is the age of those samples from Bahrain? I used a minimum age based on sources - 3500 years BCE
^^^ According to G25 (and Y-DNA) these samples are clearly not Slavic.
Margaryan et al. ancestry analysis:
VK539
Swedish-like - 34.8%
Finnish-like - 33.3%
Norwegian-like - 29.9%
Polish-like - 0.9%
Danish-like - 0.6%
British-like - 0.3%
Southern European-like - 0.2%
VK540
Norwegian-like - 41%
Swedish-like - 25.3%
Finnish-like - 16.7%
Polish-like - 14%
Danish-like - 2.3%
Southern European-like - 0.6%
British-like - 0.1%
Ran 4 different models for Kalash
Target: Kalash
Distance: 0.8197% / 0.00819677
35.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
33.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
19.8 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
11.2 Russia_Afanasievo
Target: Kalash
Distance: 1.4118% / 0.01411755
35.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
35.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
30.0 Russia_Afanasievo
Target: Kalash
Distance: 1.8345% / 0.01834544
44.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
29.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
26.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Target: Kalash
Distance: 0.9954% / 0.00995444
35.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
34.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
30.2 Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali
300bce-600ce I believe...
@Assuwatama
Damn it, I thought they were much older xd
@Assuwatama
“What are your takes on this sample?
Target: Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019
Distance: 1.7831% / 0.01783093
81.4 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
9.6 Russia_Afanasievo
9.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2”
----
These ancient outlier sample “ALA019” is more likely another “Proto-Gedrosian” individuals which has been migrated to “Fertile Crescent” region.
References:
https://i.imgur.com/0NxA6V6.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/tN9zQhl.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/8lU0gnG.jpg
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cell.2020.04.044
Suevi
Borówka:
"In the immediate vicinity of the Polish population, we can observe individuals identified as Ukraine_Viking (VK539 M and VK540 K), originating from the Shestovitsa site (on the Desna River, a tributary of the Dnieper) in Ukraine. This population, according to some authors, is a mixed population of people of Viking origin and local, Slavic. Researchers indicate its distant genetic similarity to the synchronous Swedish and British population (source: supplementary materials in Margaryan et al. 2020). According to the results of the IBS-UMAP analysis, the mentioned individuals are located between the Polish group of indigenous populations and the Vikings from Sweden (Sweden_Viking). This observation is also confirmed by Euclidean distances, indicating the closest Sweden_Viking population (x̅=1.15, Me=0.48)."
@Assuwatama
Target: Kalash
Distance: 0.7235% / 0.00723529 | R3P
65.0 Pakistan_Udegram_IA
18.4 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
16.6 Russia_Andronovo.SG
Target: Kalash
Distance: 0.4511% / 0.00451123 | R4P
46.2 Pakistan_Udegram_IA
24.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
15.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
14.4 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
Target: Kalash
Distance: 0.3862% / 0.00386235 | R5P
35.4 Pakistan_Udegram_IA
24.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
14.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
14.0 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
11.8 Pakistan_Gogdara_IA
@Assuwatama
Bad model, these samples from the Iron Age of Pakistan already contain elements of the Andronovo/Afanasyevo/Sintashta
@ambron
Those Polish Viking samples are significantly Scandinavian.
So no wonder that they share segments with the Wielbark Goths.
No matter. As long as we get at least a couple more Luzatians we’ll figure out the rest
I’m taking the Tollense guys as part Pomeranian
David
These Vikings are irrelevant here. It was Suevi who took their case. This is just one of many external groups used by the author in her analyses.
Rob
Tollense guys, in f3 statistics, share most common origins with modern Poles:
https://www.reddit.com/media?url=https%3A%2F%2Fpreview.redd.it%2Ffgjlayau2r711.png%3Fwidth%3D1080%26crop%3Dsmart%26auto%3Dwebp%26s%3De36fea78878543bc83e2e4c4d7341526662b198b
Huh, would've thought it would be Lithuanians and Latvians...
Some of these Turan_C samples showing Russia_Afanasievo ancestry?
Target: Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur:I8530
Distance: 2.2492% / 0.02249154
51.4 Iran_C_TepeHissar
23.2 Iran_GanjDareh_N
20.8 Russia_Afanasievo
4.6 Georgia_Kotias.SG
Here is an excerpt from the Petrosyan 2023 paper about the origins of Kura-Araxes culture. We wrote.
""The increase in the genes of Caucasian hunter-gatherers may be explained this way: the creators of the Kura-Araxes culture did not originate exclusively from the previous Neolithic farmers, but was a mixture of farmers living in the lowlands and Caucasian hunter-gatherers related population preserved in the mountains. This also explains their tendency to build settlements in high mountainous areas.""
Like in Europe where local WHG lineages resurged in Late Neolithic, it is possible to imagine that a similar process occured in South Caucasus. The Kura-Araxes is not a result of new migration from north or south but rather a resurgence of local hunter gatherers who learned pastoralism. Those hunter gatherers could have survived in high alpine regions and forests.
What was the genetic profile of those hunters is hard to say but it is quite possible there were not identic to CHG from West Caucasus and had a profile more close to Aknashen sample. J1-Z1828 can be the lineage of this hunters who shifted to pastoralism. Another important thing to keep in mind is that not all KA samples have high Caucasian ancestry. Some of them like Karnut outlier is more farmer shifted.
More ancient DNA is needed for better understanding this question, especially from Sioni culture which can be the earliest form of this resurgence.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
I believe that haplo N is not a native Uralic one. It is possible that the Uralic N's were Evenks assimilated in ancient times. In Finland and on the Kola Peninsula there are place names of Evenk origin. Siberian Uralic people and Evenks are very similar in genetics.
@ Ambron
We would need more specific testing and data to infer what degree of continuity exists
Trzciniec-Kisapostag cline
https://proza.ru/2023/11/12/1641
https://proza.ru/2023/11/14/1546
Jackpot:
“I believe that haplo N is not a native Uralic one. It is possible that the Uralic N's were Evenks assimilated in ancient times. In Finland and on the Kola Peninsula there are place names of Evenk origin. Siberian Uralic people and Evenks are very similar in genetics.”
Is this just a claim, or is there a linguistic study about the Evenk origin of these placenames? I am not aware of any such.
Evenk is a modern linguistic label for this population, but we know that all the Tungusic languages in Siberia are late newcomers within the last ~2000 years. Therefore, there were no Evenk or any Tungusic speakers in Northern Siberia at the time when the Siberian migration went to Kola Peninsula ca. 4000 years ago.
Also Siberian Uralic people are newcomers, who assimilated the earlier population, just like the Northern Tungusic people did. Therefore similar genetic traits are to be expected, when they live in adjacent regions.
@Jackpot
Sounds like bullshit.
There's no Evenk linguistic or genetic influence in European Uralic speakers.
Uralic Y-haplogroup N subclades have nothing to do with Evenks.
And there's no way that Hungarian Conquerors ever came into contact with Evenks.
It's interesting that despite recent claims made by Marxist academics, none of the major language families in Europe are actually from Western Asia.
- PIE is from Black Sea region
- Uralic is from Siberia
- even the EEF-rich stocks like Etruscan have proximate origins in Central Europe
- perhaps some paleo-Aegean idioms are from Anatolia.
Jackpots idea is nonsensical and is symptomatic of the Coping by jaako's disinformed sect on FraudArchiver. If they were genuinely interested in Uralic protohistory, they'd devle into why and how this great northern migration from Siberia came about.
Instead, they waste the limited IQ they possess to create fictions such as
"These aren't Uralics but are actually Evenks, Eskimos, Inuits, Aztecs.."
Just got new versions of the Tylos samples...
Scaled
Tylos:AS_EMT2,0.084229,0.126941,-0.068636,-0.064277,-0.03139,-0.030678,-0.005405,-0.013846,-0.015339,-0.006378,0.002273,-0.002698,0.010406,-0.007982,0.001357,0.02254,0.005476,-0.000127,0.005405,-0.006503,-0.012353,-0.008656,-0.00456,0.000723,0.007664
Tylos:MH2_LT2,0.084229,0.118817,-0.066373,-0.046512,-0.033237,-0.011992,0.00329,-0.001385,-0.01493,-0.007107,0.002436,-0.008842,0.020069,0.005092,0.002307,0.00411,-0.020861,0.002154,0.002891,-0.005878,-0.006613,0.000618,-0.005546,0.001325,0.007784
Tylos:MH_1LT2,0.086506,0.128972,-0.067127,-0.064277,-0.03139,-0.012829,-0.001175,-0.006692,-0.000614,-0.005103,0.003897,-0.014987,0.023637,-0.003441,0.001493,0.001856,-0.019558,-0.002787,-0.000754,-0.001501,0.007112,-0.001978,0.001232,-0.00241,0.00467
Tylos:MH_3LT2,0.087644,0.132019,-0.071276,-0.075905,-0.034468,-0.017849,-0.006345,-0.008077,0.004909,0.000364,0.008119,-0.016335,0.024083,0.003716,-0.000136,0.017634,-0.002086,0.011529,0.007668,0.001376,0.001996,0.003586,-0.002711,0.00012,0.003832
Raw
Tylos:AS_EMT2,0.0074,0.0125,-0.0182,-0.0199,-0.0102,-0.011,-0.0023,-0.006,-0.0075,-0.0035,0.0014,-0.0018,0.007,-0.0058,0.001,0.017,0.0042,-0.0001,0.0043,-0.0052,-0.0099,-0.007,-0.0037,0.0006,0.0064
Tylos:MH2_LT2,0.0074,0.0117,-0.0176,-0.0144,-0.0108,-0.0043,0.0014,-0.0006,-0.0073,-0.0039,0.0015,-0.0059,0.0135,0.0037,0.0017,0.0031,-0.016,0.0017,0.0023,-0.0047,-0.0053,0.0005,-0.0045,0.0011,0.0065
Tylos:MH_1LT2,0.0076,0.0127,-0.0178,-0.0199,-0.0102,-0.0046,-0.0005,-0.0029,-0.0003,-0.0028,0.0024,-0.01,0.0159,-0.0025,0.0011,0.0014,-0.015,-0.0022,-0.0006,-0.0012,0.0057,-0.0016,0.001,-0.002,0.0039
Tylos:MH_3LT2,0.0077,0.013,-0.0189,-0.0235,-0.0112,-0.0064,-0.0027,-0.0035,0.0024,0.0002,0.005,-0.0109,0.0162,0.0027,-0.0001,0.0133,-0.0016,0.0091,0.0061,0.0011,0.0016,0.0029,-0.0022,0.0001,0.0032
I limited it to 4 populations, not an ideal model, can't figure out where this EHG signal is coming from
Target: Tylos:MH_3LT2
Distance: 1.3086% / 0.01308645 | R4P
50.8 Israel_MLBA
26.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
20.2 Israel_C
2.4 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
Target: Tylos:MH_1LT2
Distance: 1.2861% / 0.01286057 | R4P
32.8 Israel_MLBA
29.4 Israel_C
28.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
9.0 Steppe_Pastoralist
Target: Tylos:MH2_LT2
Distance: 1.2285% / 0.01228541 | R4P
62.2 Israel_MLBA
20.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
12.4 Steppe_Pastoralist
4.6 Ancient_Dravidian
Target: Tylos:AS_EMT2
Distance: 1.5803% / 0.01580300 | R4P
42.8 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
33.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
15.8 Levant_ISR_C
7.8 Early_Levantine_Farmer
Target: Tylos:MH_3LT2
Distance: 1.4971% / 0.01497097
62.8 Israel_MLBA
17.6 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
11.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
8.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
0.6 Turkmenistan_IA.SG
Target: Tylos:MH_1LT2
Distance: 1.6934% / 0.01693448
54.4 Israel_MLBA
19.2 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
11.6 Turkmenistan_IA.SG
9.6 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
5.2 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Target: Tylos:MH2_LT2
Distance: 1.6347% / 0.01634695
41.4 Israel_MLBA
24.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
14.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
11.6 Turkmenistan_IA.SG
9.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: Tylos:AS_EMT2
Distance: 1.6987% / 0.01698748
45.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
29.4 Israel_MLBA
23.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
2.6 Turkmenistan_IA.SG
Try using Pakistan_IA population instead of SiS_BA2
Target: Tylos:MH_3LT2
Distance: 1.4639% / 0.01463865
63.2 Israel_MLBA
12.4 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
12.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
8.8 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
3.6 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: Tylos:MH_1LT2
Distance: 1.6940% / 0.01694029
47.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
39.6 Israel_MLBA
7.6 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
5.8 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
Target: Tylos:MH2_LT2
Distance: 1.5077% / 0.01507667
45.8 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
39.4 Israel_MLBA
14.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
Target: Tylos:AS_EMT2
Distance: 1.7124% / 0.01712440
46.8 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA
28.2 Israel_MLBA
25.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Were Israel_MLBA population Phoenician?
Rob
This data is part of broader work that is currently in preparation. However, I personally have no doubts about the biological continuity of the Polish population from the Trzciniec culture. All the more so because I consider the disappearance of the Trzciniec population and its replacement in the Middle Ages by another genetically similar population to be a very far-fetched concept.
@Jaakko Häkkinen
Martti Räsänen :
"According to K. Donner, the Western Evenks at one time made hunting expeditions far to the west, even reaching the Kanina Peninsula. Perhaps they moved even further to the west. Proof of this can be considered the name of Lake Imandra, located on the Kola Peninsula, which, apparently, comes from the word imandra found in the dialect of the Western Evenks on the Sym River and meaning “snow” (among other Evenks imanda, imanna). The name Imatra Falls may have the same origin, meaning "Snow Falls", and is given to the waterfall because of its white foam. Among these same Western Evenks, the words dunna, dunda “land, forest”, used by other Evenks, correspond to the word dundra, from which the term tundra was derived through the Russian language. I also think that the names of large water systems included in the toponymy of Finland, which cannot be explained on the basis of the vocabulary of Finnish, Sami or Indo-European languages, may be names that were used by the Evenks who came here. Thus, the names of such geographically close rivers as Kemi(joki) and Simo(joki) are found quite often in the north of the USSR. Perhaps these hydronyms are comparable with the ancient Turkic name of the Yenisei - Ket and the name of its large western tributary Sym, reminiscent of Simo."
@Davidski
Why did Lazaridis use samples from the Copper Age of Iran from Seh Gabi as the southern source for Steppe_MLBA in his article on the world's first farmers, even though he had access to the same KK1 and SATP samples? As northern samples, he used Yuzhnyy Oleni Ostrov Karelia and Samara.
Pannonian-Slavic
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/5b8tzcb2skqf4q89i77tg/Pannonian-Slavic.jpg?rlkey=n8gkrfqgi341crh0czo1mp1yl&dl=0
Trzciniec-slavic
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/yhizxthk8yiuqehntor21/Trzciniec-slavic.jpg?rlkey=9jxaryje2orf7m2d5914bax7s&dl=0
Pannonian-Slavic vs Balto-Slavic
Target: Slovakian:Slovakia118
Distance: 2.2855% / 0.02285513
65.0 Hungary_LBA_Halva
14.2 Baltic_EST_BA
12.8 RUS_Catacomb
6.8 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
1.2 GRC_Logkas_MBA
Target: Slovakian:Slovakia77
Distance: 1.7967% / 0.01796656
38.2 Baltic_EST_BA
36.8 GRC_Logkas_MBA
15.6 Hungary_LBA_Halva
6.8 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
2.6 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LBA
Target: Slovakian:Slovakia85
Distance: 1.6808% / 0.01680789
38.6 Hungary_LBA_Halva
27.4 Baltic_EST_BA
15.8 GRC_Logkas_MBA
13.6 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
2.4 RUS_Kura-Araxes_Velikent
1.8 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LBA
0.4 RUS_Catacomb
Target: Slovakian:Slovakia94
Distance: 1.8674% / 0.01867353
40.2 Baltic_EST_BA
36.2 GRC_Logkas_MBA
13.0 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
7.6 Hungary_LBA_Halva
2.2 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_LBA
0.8 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
Target: Slovakian:Slovakia96
Distance: 2.2065% / 0.02206549
35.2 Hungary_LBA_Halva
27.8 Baltic_EST_BA
26.6 GRC_Logkas_MBA
5.6 RUS_Kura-Araxes_Velikent
4.4 SWE_Ollsjo_BA
0.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
Am I the only Anti/Non-Kurganist in this chat currently other than Assuwatama?
@Gabru
Am I the only Anti/Non-Kurganist in this chat currently other than Assuwatama?
That's like asking if you're the only two people with a low IQ in this chat.
TCC and medieval Poles really don't look that alike under finer scale examination, including Y-DNA.
It would be like discounting Celtic migrations into England merely because in the broadest sense the IA population look similar to British Beakers, as they share the same macro-components just in different ratios. Albeit in the latter case, R-L21 remains fairly dominant. Can't say the same about Polish TCC I-L233.
Target: Tamil_Sri_Lanka
Distance: 0.6549% / 0.00654873
51.4 India_RoopkundA
26.0 Irula
22.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Sinhala
Distance: 0.5542% / 0.00554186
52.0 India_RoopkundA
27.2 Irula
20.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Vs
Target: Tamil_Sri_Lanka
Distance: 1.1073% / 0.01107334
51.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
45.6 Irula
2.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Target: Sinhala
Distance: 0.9071% / 0.00907131
50.6 Irula
47.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
2.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Which model is better?
@dancingfragments
Velikent in Slavic? You need another source related to the Caucasus, definitely not Velikent.
Jackpot:
“Martti Räsänen: ‘According to K. Donner, the Western Evenks at one time made hunting expeditions far to the west, even reaching the Kanina Peninsula. Perhaps they moved even further to the west. Proof of this can be considered the name of Lake Imandra, located on the Kola Peninsula, which, apparently, comes from the word imandra found in the dialect of the Western Evenks on the Sym River and meaning “snow” (among other Evenks imanda, imanna). The name Imatra Falls may have the same origin, meaning "Snow Falls", and is given to the waterfall because of its white foam. Among these same Western Evenks, the words dunna, dunda “land, forest”, used by other Evenks, correspond to the word dundra, from which the term tundra was derived through the Russian language. I also think that the names of large water systems included in the toponymy of Finland, which cannot be explained on the basis of the vocabulary of Finnish, Sami or Indo-European languages, may be names that were used by the Evenks who came here. Thus, the names of such geographically close rivers as Kemi(joki) and Simo(joki) are found quite often in the north of the USSR. Perhaps these hydronyms are comparable with the ancient Turkic name of the Yenisei - Ket and the name of its large western tributary Sym, reminiscent of Simo.’
Räsänen was an ancient Turkologist who still believed in Ural-Altaic relatedness. These old comparisons with Evenk are not credible.
1. Tundra comes via Russian from Kildin Saami tūndar, from Proto-Saami *tuontër ‘treeless hill, fell’, regular cognate of Finnic *tander : *tantere- ‘hard ground’.
2. Placenames are too easy to explain, because they lack meaning other than the referent itself. Therefore, similar-looking words can be found in every language of the world. A loanword layer is required to show that there truly were contacts between two languages, and only after that placenames should be considered.
3. Placenames like Kemi and Imatra have been compared to similar names in Northwestern Russia. It is possible that these come from the so-called x-language, which was a Uralic language related to Meryan. Pauli Rahkonen has considered these.
https://www.academia.edu/71938074/The_South_Eastern_Contact_Area_of_Finnic_Languages_in_the_Light_of_Onomastics
Samples from the Afanasevo appear more Caucasoid than those from the Yamnaya, even more so than the steppe Eneolithic. It's peculiar
@Ethan
TCC and medieval Poles really don't look that alike under finer scale examination, including Y-DNA.
Yes, overall. But a subset of the TCC does resemble Western Slavs, including in terms of very specific R1a lineages.
So the important question is whether Poles derive, at least in some significant way, from this sort of a subset of TCC.
This has to be either proven or debunked to the reasonable satisfaction of the serious, objective observers, and when that happens it'll be pretty much over except for a few crackpots.
@Арсен
Samples from the Afanasevo appear more Caucasoid than those from the Yamnaya, even more so than the steppe Eneolithic. It's peculiar
Most Yamnaya and Afanasievo samples are very similar and they form a clade/cluster.
Both Yamnaya and Afanasievo have more CHG-related ancestry than Khvalynsk overall, but clearly less than the Progress/Vonyuchka Piedmont Eneolithic samples, and even less than some of the new Khvalynsk samples.
@Davidski
yes, I know all that, I’m not talking about that, but about the fact that Afanasyev’s samples look as if they have more of a mix towards the Caucasus-Iran than the Samara samples
although, logically, moving east, they should have either not changed their gene pool, or if they changed it, it would have been towards EHG, I hope you understand my point
although this is all nonsense, Mr. Davidski, don’t pay attention, everything is within the margin of error .
they are very similar
why did I mention the Afanasyevites, because it is with the Afanasyevites that such short distances are obtained, not with the Yamnaya Samara Caucasus Kalmykia Ukraine Kazakhstan, not with the Catacomb, Srubnaya and others, namely with the Afanasyevites
maybe because the number of Afanasiev samples is greater and for each nation she chooses the appropriate Afanasiev sample?
https://postimg.cc/ykpJz3JM
@ Jaakko Hakkinen
I appreciated your answer and your link to Rahkonen, but even though his work undoubtedly merits to be studied, he is a “man of faith” and certainly the science needs the most powerful proofs and the least “faith”.
David:
"So the important question is whether Poles derive, at least in some significant way, from this sort of a subset of TCC."
In fact, this can be easily checked by pairwise comparison of identical DNA segments - IBD or IBS. I intend to encourage Polish geneticists to do so.
However, supposedly gedmatch.com. offers an amateur IBD segment comparison tool. I have no idea about the reliability of its results, but if someone used it, they can initially check the way of dividing IBD between TCC-Piast population pairs.
Gio:
“I appreciated your answer and your link to Rahkonen, but even though his work undoubtedly merits to be studied, he is a “man of faith” and certainly the science needs the most powerful proofs and the least “faith”.”
Well, his faith is not the problem here. It is the nature of placenames: they are too easy to explain from many different languages. Unless there are explanations which can be verified on the map, like similar lake names, one assumedly containing ‘upper’ or ‘big’ and another ‘lower’ or ‘small’, reminiscent of words with these meanings in the Uralic languages. But one element names like Imatra/Imandra, Kemi/Kama etc. remain always much more speculative.
@Jaakko Hakkinen
Of course, but we know very well what the "faith" made about genetics and "genetics of population" above all. I can not post here a screenshot, but look at the fb page about "Haplogroup R1b" and my last answers. All the question is active also in this blog.
https://www.facebook.com/groups/5488339316/posts/10160379344699317/?comment_id=10160380659004317¬if_id=1709502049026899¬if_t=feedback_reaction_generic&ref=notif
The Afanasievites are also great for Armenians, but for some reason the samples from the Neolithic of Armenia are not so suitable for the Armenians; eastern and central Anatolia of the late Eneolithic period are much better for them
https://postimg.cc/gwTdfj3k
This is modern dna but may be of interest to add the genotype data into the Global 25: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.27.582437v1 - "ROUA Database: 300 Human Genomes from the border of Ukraine and Romania" (I think you have to email them and they will tell you when their project is published, but will be open genotypes?)
...
@David, re: "Yes, overall. But a subset of the TCC does resemble Western Slavs, including in terms of very specific R1a lineages."
I guess that would be more compelling if that subset was from a particular region or place; if they're more like random people from the TCC, and building a model with them involves choosing particular samples, it seems less compelling.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/early-european-language-spread-by-word-not-sword-8ssm38qt3
https://i.postimg.cc/G2ksz7Y5/screenshot-389.png
Do you have any idea which DNA study they refer to?
OK, I thought it was something new but it was old, here is the article I referred to:
https://archive.is/rCqxD
@Matt
There's definitely substructure within the TCC, so it must be there for a reason, and that reason might be regional diversity that we're not aware of yet due to a lack of samples.
It might actually turn out that there was significant mobility within the TCC, and the Slavic-like TCC samples are derived from TCC groups east of Poland.
@Davidski
"From among 34 investigated individuals, only the woman from Gustorzyn in Kuyavia can be considered non-local. It seems most likely that she came from an area further to the South, possibly from the region of TCC settlements concentrated in the upper Warta River. Both the Sr and O signatures indicate her non-locality. The obtained results confirm the earlier hypotheses put forward by archaeologists, namely that mobility in the “Trzciniec” populations was small and limited to individual people or small family groups"
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0282472#sec020
Although these were from the more I-L233 dominant sites (Gustorzyn and Żerniki Górne). So perhaps other TCCs sites were different.
Something further east seem more harmonious with the other data we have anyway.
@Арсен
Even if it had, that's not the point.
The formative balto-slavic profile has to be west of the Dnieper, because that was originally Middle Dnieper culture zone, whic is Catacomb & Fatyanovo interface.
It seems some people aren;t aware of that, eg tha maps ph@ter creates, the zone of uncertainty needs to be shrunk by process of exclusion
EthanR
I don't know what data you mean.
The truth is that Slavic paternal lines began to appear collectively only in the second half of the first millennium BC. This was the effect of the demographic boom in the West Slavic population, as Rębała's research proves. At the time of the TCC, there were only a few paternal Slavic lines, so it is not surprising that they were dominated in the TCC population by L233.
Keep in mind that Trzciniec culture arose on basis of Mierzanowice culture and Strzyżów culture. Mierzanowice and Strzyżów populations were quite different from each other.
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/ajpa.24057
Hi, they have finally published the samples from the Seminario Vescovile (SV, Verona, North Italy 3rd-1st c. BCE), belonging to Cenomani Gauls.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB63352?show=related-records
Can we please have the g25 coordinates for them?
They are the first proper Cisalpine Gaul samples.
@Ambron
If we assume Balto-Slavic is a legitimate clade
-trzciniec dates to the very, very earliest range of of most estimates for when Slavic and Baltic split. I am more familiar with estimates dating to around the LBA.
-It would be mildly surprising, based on archeology and hydronyms, if East Balts derived from anything deep in Poland. Especially if a more moderate estimation of when Baltic and Slavic split is granted.
-If our sampling of Polish trzciniec is representative, and I-L233 is indeed the dominant paternal marker, it would be a bit surprising that it has close to zero presence in speakers of the daughter languages, or even ancient samples with Balto-Slavic drift dating later than trzciniec during the LBA/IA. For this to be plausible, you would need very aggressive and immediate founder effects in favour of the relatively diverse offerings of R-Z282 found in Balto-Slavs.
Instead, I-L233 seems to have somehow been absorbed into the Germanic lineage pool.
Somewhere around Polesia is more harmonious to the above points, very likely also participated in the phenomena that gave rise to Balto-Slavic drift, and coincidentally is essentially where Kyiv culture is later found. This area is still part of the TCC sphere.
I dont think there is a singular population, more of a cline which existed between Latvia & Moldovia, for ex. I doubt all of Balto-Slavic related groups emerged from Polesia.
Im not sure even of the exact role of Kiev culture in the more narrowly defined proto-Slavs. Probably significant but hard to say
EthanR
Polesie has long since been ruled out by linguists as a Slavic homeland, due to the old Baltic hydronymia prevalent there. So let's leave linguistic considerations behind and focus on the genetics of Poles.
Some facts:
Balto-Slavic drift originated from WHG, so it was not originally related to R1a lines, but I2a.
The autosomal Balto-Slavic individual from Iron Age Himera was L233, as was most of the Trzciniec population.
The currently known R1a diversity was absent until the second half of the first millennium BC, reflecting a long bottleneck of two major lineages - M458 and CTS1211.
This diversity only appears as a result of the demographic boom of the West Slavic population between the second half of the first millennium BC and the first half of the first millennium AD.
An increase in the frequency of given haplotypes in a population always comes at the expense of a decrease in the frequency of others, which is why today in the Polish population R1a lineages dominate over I2a, although the opposite used to be true.
@Ambron
Yes, it is true that Polesia is Baltic hydronymy zone but don't leave linguistic considerations. Slavic hydronymy zone is in forest-steppe zone of northern Ukraine, just south of Baltic one.
@Davidski
Is it possible to accept the Arkhangelsk Mesolithic sample PES001 as pure EHG? relative to it, samples from Karelia look like they are additionally mixed with ANE and WSHG
The presence of a layer of Baltic hydronyms doesn't discount a much older parent language from being there - that would be like discounting the PC Steppe as the PIE homeland because of Iranic toponyms.
Balto-Slavs have more R1a diversity than those lineages mentioned, and massive population booms tend to reduce diversity, not increase it.
I don't think you are accounting for what a very western and very early homeland would mean for Baltic.
Zarrr
“Irregular” Sound Substitutions in the Substrate Toponymy. New Constribution to the Chronology and Processing of the Linguistic Slavicization of the Historical Slavia Orientalis
"The paper deals with the problem of unexpected phonemic sequences encountered sometimes in East Slavic toponyms suspected of being borrowed from the extinct autochthonous Pre-Slavic languages of the Pripet and Upper Dnieper basins (and their vicinities), supposedly related to Balto-Slavic. These instances can be considered as exceptions to several Late Common Slavic sound laws (hushing spirants continuing IE palatovelars, as in Lithuanian, instead of whistling ones; the second palatalization of velars instead of the expected first one; velars not changed to affricates and / or spirants before the reflexes of the vocalisms *e, *ě or *ь), suggesting that the respective names were borrowed into East Slavic from local linguistic substrates after the sound laws in question had been completed. The most controversial issue are the apparently non-monophthongized diphthongs of various types (on, o etc. occurring before consonants), which do posit certain phonotactic problems.
The results obtained in the paper support the view, expressed by some archaeologists, that the linguistic Slavicization of these areas (including Volhynia), earlier considered as the geographical point of departure of Slavic even by some linguists, was a long and continuous process which was not completed before the end of the 1st millennium AD."
https://www.ejournals.eu/PKKS/2019/Vol-XV/art/15244/
"Geographical names are extremely helpful in giving evidence of early settlements and their inhabitants due to their solid anchorage in the landscape, even in the case of population changes. Through the investigation of these place names, information can be gathered not only on the name giver, but also on the settlers who took on the names later on. Therefore, it is considered that any linguistic investigation has to start from the river and place names of a region. The utilization of geographical names yields the following findings: - The centre of Old Slavic names is situated on the northern slope of the Carpathian Mountains, approximately between Bukovina and Krakow; it is based on a substrate of older, Indo-European hydronyms. - The expansion of the East Slavic tribes bypasses the Pripyat Marshes and extends further through Central Russia and especially to the North and the East. - West Slavic settlers reach their new settlement areas through migration from Bohemia and further on to Saxonia and Thuringia, and also through Western Poland to Brandenburg and Mecklenburg-Western Pomerania. - The migration of the South Slavs takes place in two big, yet separate flows, on the one hand through the Moravian Gate to Slovenia, Hungary and Croatia, and on the other hand on the Eastern edge of the Carpathian Mountains to Serbia and Bulgaria."
http://cejsh.icm.edu.pl/cejsh/element/bwmeta1.element.ojs-doi-10_17651_ONOMAST_60_15
who can share reliable coordinates of a person from Satsurblia?
@ Арсен
GEO_Satsurblia_HG:SATP,0.081953,0.09546,-0.101445,-0.002261,-0.09848,0.015339,0.032666,-0.004154,-0.159529,-0.105332,-0.001137,0.030273,-0.073141,-0.000275,0.057274,-0.011005,0.08814,0.003927,-0.03595,0.060154,0.07075,-0.020155,-0.005669,-0.04832,-0.001197
@Арсен
PES001 is probably the best EHG that I've seen.
It is ancient, one of the oldest.
10672 calBCE
If you compare it to WHG: Loschbour is only 6000 . Those from Karelia if I remember properly are later in time.
@Gabru
such large distances to late samples from Kotias due to low quality? or additional mixtures?
Distance to: GEO_Satsurblia_HG:SATP
0.10157920 GEO_Meso_Kotias_Klde:NEO281__BC_7773__Cov_unknown
0.10498759 Georgia_Kotias.SG:KK1_noUDG.SG__BC_7728__Cov_99.59%
0.17870306 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I1722__BC_4458__Cov_17.10%
0.18186112 Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic:I2056__BC_4516__Cov_64.23%
0.19179243 Russia_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001__BC_1888__Cov_63.85%
0.19184243 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2055__BC_4558__Cov_17.00%
0.19237647 Russia_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC002__BC_1800__Cov_59.14%
all sources are older than the Kotias samples
Target: Georgia_Kotias.SG:KK1_noUDG.SG__BC_7728__Cov_99.59%
Distance: 6.3631% / 0.06363113
65.0 GEO_Satsurblia_HG
18.2 Iran_GanjDareh_N
9.4 BEL_UP_Goyet
4.8 GEO_Dzudzuana_UP
2.6 RUS_Afontova_Gora_LUP
Target: GEO_Meso_Kotias_Klde:NEO281__BC_7773__Cov_unknown
Distance: 4.9712% / 0.04971157
62.2 GEO_Satsurblia_HG
21.6 Iran_GanjDareh_N
9.6 GEO_Dzudzuana_UP
3.4 RUS_Afontova_Gora_LUP
3.2 BEL_UP_Goyet
EthanR
I don't really understand what you're talking about, but I'm afraid you're not confident in the range of knowledge we're using in this discussion.
The Slavic branch is not the ancestor of the Baltic branch, so where the oldest Baltic hydronyms are, there were no Slavs before the Balts.
The greatest diversity of R1a occurs in the Polish population.
A mutation in the Y chromosome is a random event that is more likely to occur in a larger than a smaller population. Thus, the probability occurrence of mutations in ten male offspring is many times greater than in one. Similarly, ten rolls of the dice give many times greater probability of hitting a given number than one roll of the dice. It is enough to compare the huge R1b diversity in densely populated Western Europe with the relatively very low R1a diversity in sparsely populated Eastern Europe.
The parallel appearance of specific Slavic and Baltic innovations in distant dialectal areas of late PIE, considered by some linguists to be the Balto-Slavic stage, has no direct connection with each other.
Арсен
Target: Baltic_EST_BA
Distance: 0.4693% / 0.00469294
52.2 Balto-Slavic_HG
25.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.2 TUR_Barcin_N
6.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.4 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.2 LAO_Hoabinhian
0.2 MAR_Taforalt
0.2 WHG
Target: Ukrainian_Donetsk
Distance: 2.2232% / 0.02223195
32.6 Balto-Slavic_HG
29.8 TUR_Barcin_N
27.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
7.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.6 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
0.6 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
0.4 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Target: Russian_Smolensk
Distance: 1.9732% / 0.01973244
34.8 Balto-Slavic_HG
29.2 TUR_Barcin_N
28.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.2 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
Target: Belarusian
Distance: 1.8459% / 0.01845942
35.0 Balto-Slavic_HG
31.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
30.0 TUR_Barcin_N
2.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.2 CHN_Yellow_River_LN
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D_KeHrFghOo
I have been saying for so long that the closest language I found to Sumerian was Ladakhi as to the structure, i.e. a Sino-Tibetan language of Himalaya. This video that I see only now seems to give reason to me.
which article describes the sample from Romania I6184, the information I found indicates the age is 6-5 thousand years BC, it seems like an erroneous dating, otherwise I can’t explain it
I6184 6000-5300 BCE ROU_Trestiana_BA Trestiana Romania R-M417 R1a1a1 H15a1a1
Target: Romania_Mesolithic_Neolithic:I6184
Distance: 3.8059% / 0.03805936
55.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
22.2 Scandinavian_Hunter-Gatherer
15.4 Early_European_Farmer
7.2 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso:KK1
Distance: 6.7356% / 0.06735645
66.2 GEO_Satsurblia_HG
17.2 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
11.6 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
5.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso:NEO281
Distance: 5.2365% / 0.05236523
63.4 GEO_Satsurblia_HG
23.6 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
9.8 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
3.2 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
Post a Comment