Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages (McColl et al.) The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans (Lazaridis et al.) A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (Nikitin et al.)All of these studies are very useful, but there are some problems with each of them. Indeed, I'd say that the authors of the Lazaridis and McColl preprints need to reevaluate the way that they use ancient DNA to solve their linguistic puzzles. Once they do that their conclusions are likely to change significantly. I'm aiming to produce a couple of detailed blog posts about these preprints within the next few weeks. Afterwards I'll get in touch with the relevant authors to change their minds about some key things. Please stay tuned. See also... Indo-European crackpottery
Friday, April 19, 2024
It's complicated
Three important manuscripts appeared recently at bioRxiv, mostly dealing with the origins and expansions of proto-Germanic and proto-Indo-European populations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1,339 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 801 – 1000 of 1339 Newer› Newest»@Samuel Andrews It appears that you shut down your telegram forum 2 months ago?
@arza, ah, runtimes are more apples-to-apples then. Yeah, when you put it like that, I would be surprised if refinements of 0.2 proportion led to very large shifts in distances. There might be some improvement, but at that point any remaining projection bias or uncertainty might be enough of an issue that we couldn't be certain if the "true" fit is meaningfully better, anyway?
target "RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN"
left "RUS_MA1" "RUS_Amur_River_LPaleolithic"
weight 16.5% 83.5%
se 1.7% 1.7%
p 0.5397
target "RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA_kra001"
left "RUS_MA1" "RUS_Amur_River_LPaleolithic"
weight 15.5% 84.5%
se 1.9% 1.9%
p 0.7614
right = c('Mbuti.DG','RUS_Yana_UP','CHN_Tianyuan-Amur_River_Paleolithic','RUS_Sunghir','RUS_Kostenki14','MNG_Salkhit_UP','TUR_Pinarbasi_Epipaleolithic','TWN_Gongguan_3200BP','CZE_Bohemia_Zlaty_Kun_UP','CHN_Fujian_Qihe_Epipaleolithic','CHN_Guangxi_Longlin_Epipaleolithic'
Surprise...
To demonstrate how much these trees are reliable, already in this haplogroup U5b2b3, we have in the YFull tree these two samples from Italy classified U5b2b3c2 (AVH-1 and OL693237) that should have been separated 4800ybp and the samples are 10060 years old.
The sample ITTQ10, classified U5b2b3, is very close to another sample tested from Dantelab, that, through the mutation T11080C, should belong, as to the YFull tree, to the subclade U5b2b3-a3, formed 1150ybp and through this mutation the samples K1per13 from Hungary and YF066629 from Germany should get the MRCA only 1300 years ago.
But the question of course is far complex, because these samples
#56001801065192 Dante
A73G C150T A263G A517T A750G A1438G C1721T A2706G G2755A! T3197C A4769G C7028T A7768G A8860G G9477A T11080C A11467G A11653G G11719A A12308G G12372A A12634G T13617C A13630G A13637G T14182C C14766T A15326G T15905C T16224C 16270T A16318G
Individual 10 ITTQ10 U5b2b3
73G 150T 263G 310C 517T 750G 1438G 1721T 2706G 2755A! 3197C 4769G 7028T 7768G 8860G 9477A 11080C 11467G 11653G 11719A 12308G 12372A 12634G 13617C 13630G 13637G 14182C 14530C 14766T 15326G 15905C 16224C 16270T
either didn’t fix the mutation A2755G or had a back mutation (less likely because the mutation is very rare), they have between each other two mutations (A16318G and T14530C) and they lack the mutations T16362C and T16519C.
Unfortunately in these times is more and more difficult to make these analyses both through the “James Lick calculator”, Phylotree and the same YFull tree etc, but I may surely say that as to the mt-s it seems that all these Etruscan samples are deeply rooted in Italy and for very old times.
That the autosome of ITTQ11 belongs to the Baltic cluster is possible, but also that the Italian one is wider, and anyway the paper says that the Yamnaya presence is not high: “The model suggested proportions of 84–92% Italy Beaker and 8–26% additional YamnayaSamara (Steppe-related) ancestry” (Bagnasco et al. 2024), thus should be 8-16% and not 8-26%.
Bronze Age in Eurasia has been characterized by a period of human migrations, development of pastoralism, and development of metallurgy, among other processes. We generated genome-wide SNP data for 9 individuals associated with the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon. We also generated whole-genome sequencing data for 5 individuals from the site Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov in Russia, as well as genome-wide SNP data for 2 new individuals.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB74730
BTW recent claims on Iran being the "Hub' of Human dispersal is problematic (refer to Vallini et al).
To begin, Zagros UP sites are 5000 of younger than those of Central Asia & Central Europe, and 10,000 years later than IUP sites in the Levant (e.g. Boker Tachik).
Moreover, Iran was only populated for a few thousand years before being depopulated, with a 20,000 year gap until the Zarzian appears from somehwere.
Zagros IUP sites could have been East Asian like (Tianyuan related), for all we know.
The actual Eurasian hub could have been in the Near East, or even some part of northeast Africa
Re surprise: If and when Yakutia_LNBA is a mixture of pure East Asian Trans Baikal and Yakutia_MN, the latter being partly based on more western ANE type of features, also leading into Arctic groups, not much of a surprise here, I'd say. The smallish amount of ANE in the models is apparently based on earlier immigration from the Amur area already into future Yakutia_MN area. This older migration was however apparently still not based on paternal N, which seems to be the case in the younger migration, at least to some extent
Despite the admixture taking place in or around Yakutia, one of the closest ancient samples vs. Yakutia_LNBA is BTW still Xianbei, see Childebayeva et al. Now that you have time, how about checking how Uralo-Siberian the Avars were?
Here's an interesting sounding ENA abstract:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB73626
"Late Neolithic collective burial reveals admixture dynamics during the third millennium BCE and the shaping of the European genome" -The 3rd millennium BCE was a pivotal period of profound cultural and genomic transformations in Europe associated with migrations from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which shaped the ancestry patterns in the present-day European genome.
We performed a high-resolution whole-genome analysis including haplotype phasing of seven individuals of a collective burial from ~2500 cal BCE and of a Bell Beaker individual from ~2300 cal BCE in the Paris Basin in France. The collective burial revealed the arrival in real-time of steppe ancestry in France.
We reconstructed the genome of an unsampled individual through its relatives’ genomes, enabling us to shed light on the early-stage admixture patterns, dynamics and propagation of steppe-ancestry in Late Neolithic Europe.
We identified two major Neolithic/steppe-related ancestry admixture pulses around 3000/2900 BCE and 2600 BCE. These pulses suggest different population-expansion dynamics with striking links to the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker cultural complexes."
Data's up, so have at it people (preemptive thanks to teepan, Norfern-Ostrobothnian and any others).
Scandinavian Late Neolithic samples (I mentioned upthread, study relating to plauge) are also up: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB76142
There's a lot of files there.
Looks like there was a rich harvest of ENA uploads yesterday, as here's another new one:
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB70242 - "Paleogenomic data of Prehistoric Alps individuals"
"New insights into the genetic history of prehistoric populations in Eastern Italian Alps from Mesolithic to Middle Bronze Age and highlights of the importance of this region as a crossroads of human movements in prehistory." 98 files.
It is very likely that the sample tested by Dantelabs is this:
YF066629 Germany (Sachsen-Anhalt) / German R-BY195505 —— Hg38 .BAM Dante Labs 15X, 23.6 Mbp, 100 bp completed
He belongs to the Y hg R-S1194, typical of the central European Bell Beakers.
And another - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB64776 - "Geographic origin, ancestry, and death circumstances at the Cornaux/Les Sauges Iron Age bridge, Switzerland."
The 'Beakerization' of Paris basin has not been clear from archaeology. Not many Beaker sites, unlike the Rhine region for ex. Hope they have very detailed contextuals for the collective burials
@Rob, probably very important too. There's clearly genetic kinship links between these individuals, and possibly some with steppe ancestry and some without. Connections of the archaeology with the individuals will shed a lot of light on what exactly the nature of the community was.
RE: Queequeg
Avars were Turkic/Mongolic though? Why would you find Central Yakutia LN in them? And I do think Centeal Yakutia LN is kind of Kolyma Meso(ANE_28%) + additional Amur/East Asian, this kind of input may have brought Y-DNA "N" up there in Yakutia, but that's kinda old thing I guess. As you can see the model shows 14% ANE in Central Yakutia LN
@Rob, regarding the samples from the Paris paper, some are mentioned under haplotree's datasheet (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xfeK8HvVjkCY7mKj3WEKAjapAqltooWJMptY0nStKbo/edit#gid=1942507897) having appeared in a previous paper ("Ancient genomes from present-day France unveil 7,000 years of its demographic history"), but I cannot find them under that paper's ENA accession (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB38152) or in the paper itself, so it's curious.
Although the relevant site is mentioned in the supplement to the paper (17- Les Pointes et les Grèvottes “ZAC St Martin 1” (Breviandes, Aube) ). (https://www.images-archeologie.fr/Accueil/Recherche/p-13-lg1-notice-REPORTAGE-Une-sepulture-collective-datee-de-la-fin-du-Neolithique-a-Breviandes-dans-l-Aube.htm?¬ice_id=1824)
It's possibly the case that the samples were taken for mtdna only in that previous paper.
@Gio
New paper on the Etruscans, nothing new from what we already knew-"Analisi paleogenetiche su resti umani antichi. Gli Etruschi di Felsina e dintorni: evidenze genomiche dall’Etruria padana-Valentina Zaro (2.024)"
"La maggior parte dei campioni etruschi dell’area bolognese forma un cluster in corrispondenza dei moderni Spagnoli, soprapponendosi al segnale genetico già osservato per altre popolazioni italiane dell’età del Ferro (quali individui etruschi provenienti dall’Etruria classica, Latini e in parte Dauni e per i precedenti gruppi dell’età del Bronzo"
Someone should have explained to Herodotus the true origin of the Etruscans. Most of them can be perfectly modeled using the Broion specimens or the Italian Bell beakers from Parma. They belong to the western Mediterranean cluster like the Iberians and southern Gauls. Surprisingly also some mtDNA from central Europe and an African one.
As always the vast majority P312 and L2, which continues to complicate the official explanation that the BB culture spoke an Indo-European language.
Alright yeah, turns out Yakutia_LN = Yakutia_MN + Kuenga_River_N, given N1c there, sounds good. Has anyone actually checked whether Uralo-Yukaghir works with appropriate right populations? I'd expect Yakutia_LN signal to be common link... The new Rostov samples looks interesting on PCA
A professional scientific historian, geneticist, expert in the field of genetic genealogy, uses the data from Davidsky’s calculator to prove that the Rurik family are related to the Scandinavians, haha!
https://youtu.be/nzTLZaA9B2k?si=3mjsEuGyfYm6g3cE&t=1572
There is no doubt about it, but aren’t there more professional tools for this?
these samples from Bolshoy look like a mixture of EHG and KRA001 plus Asia, a million percent sure that they spoke Finno-Uralic languages
https://i.ibb.co/3ss2R7w/Screenshot-76.png
Gabru wrote,
"RE: Queequeg
Avars were Turkic/Mongolic though? Why would you find Central Yakutia LN in them? And I do think Centeal Yakutia LN is kind of Kolyma Meso(ANE_28%) + additional Amur/East Asian, this kind of input may have brought Y-DNA "N" up there in Yakutia, but that's kinda old thing I guess. As you can see the model shows 14% ANE in Central Yakutia LN"
I would assume that Queequeg must be curious about how well the presence of N-F4205, which is a branch of Y-DNA haplogroup N-CTS6967 > N-CTS3103 > N-Y6058 > N-B197, among the Pannonian Avars (and present-day Buryats) may be reflected in autosomal DNA in a comparison with "Uralo-Siberian" populations that likewise carry N-CTS6967, such as kra01 from ~4186 ybp Krasnoyarsk Krai or present-day Chukchis.
@ Gaska
I thank you for this information. As I said in a post of mine above, by examining the mt-s of the paper quoted by Matt, not only I said again that the mt trees are unreliable just for the question of the heteroplasmies and all the dates are unreliable (I wrote hundreds of letters to the same people of YFull, that I appreciated very much for its resistence against the FTDNA agendas, but they ended in banning me also from their blog, and from when I broke the collaboration with Marco Grassi, and pour cause, I had less access to their data, and the difficulties in using the "James Lick calculator", et pour cause because it was for free, and the same Phylotree and also many limits at 23andMe etc. rend my research more difficult), I remember you that I have been writing upon these arguments from 2007, in my bad English, and the fights against who wanted the Etruscans having come from Anatolia and all Italians having come always from elsewhere, and me to be a Jew and not the other way around (in MyTrueAncestry as to the the Erfurt 1350AD aDNA a Jew is the closests person to me), and was resumed in my mottos (levantinists-kurganists-levantinists, etc)... Just through MTA, the unique tool at my disposal even for a limited account (I always paid the less to use them) I soon understood that I had a little from Etruscans ans was a lot Roman, and the Etruscan pool, i.e. the eastern Alpine one, was more diffused in northern-western Italy, southern France and Iberia, just because those were the oldest migratioins. Thus nothing new to me too. I accepted your new proposal that hg R1b wasn't the carrier of IE language, probably of the ancestors' before the Alpine settlments around 17000 years ago, but more likely of the R1a brother group remained easternmost, of course all to be verified, but that merited to be done. What to say about what Rob says that hg I-M223, present in the Alpine region at least from 17000 years ago, is "Balkanic", when there wasn't Italy and the Balkans then but an unique land linked by the Adriatic land? Certainly I-M223 expanded from Italy in the Mesolithic, as probably hg R1b. Am I a nationalist for that? Me, who surely for my Y am a Yamnaya man, and all my sympathies are for the Siberian corridor...
Guys, G25 of ROT coordinates, interesting that Okunevo is being picked up...
https://files.catbox.moe/z1cfz1.jpg
@ Ebizur: Exactly, bearing also in mind that we have fex in Finland loads of men descending even from N-Y6058. And Gabru, we don't really know what language or languages the Avars spoke.
What does seima turbino mean?
@ Matt
''There's clearly genetic kinship links between these individuals, and possibly some with steppe ancestry and some without. Connections of the archaeology with the individuals will shed a lot of light on what exactly the nature of the community was.''
Yep, unlike Brittany, there is no confluent 'Beaker horizon' in the Paris basin.
Just a sort of 'soft change' amongst local Dolmen-using LN groups (Gord, SOM) 2500 BC. A difficult decline, decrease or more restricted access to the Megaliths, and then probably a
final change across the board to a beaker-derived EBA ~ 22/2000 BC
@ Gio
'' What to say about what Rob says that hg I-M223, present in the Alpine region at least from 17000 years ago, is "Balkanic", when there wasn't Italy and the Balkans then but an unique land linked by the Adriatic land? Certainly I-M223 expanded from Italy in the Mesolithic, as probably hg R1b. '''
you & Gaska need to work on your comprehension & geography
What I said was that the core of Y-hg I is the east carpathian region. That's different to the Balkans, which in itself cannot be treated as a monolithic block anyway
So yes, I-M223 entered Italy after 20,000 bp, then I-M423-M26 entered in the Copper Age.
R1b-L754 entered c. 15,000 bp. The idea of R1b-L754 expanding from Italy is not a feasible reality. The L754-V88 line also expanded from the East Carpathian region, just a few thousand years after I-M223. But you might at least be happy to hear that L754 was indeed 'born' in Europe.
My quick version of a Vahaduo check on the Seima Turbino samples from Childebayeva preprint: https://imgur.com/a/v9r5PGC
Samples from Bolshoy are just the same as from Lamnidis paper 6 years ago, so not much new to talk about there. Fairly tight cluster. (As far as the G25 version finds, looks like some combination of pre-Steppe_EMBA steppe_eneolithic with richer EHG/ANE components with Nganasan like Krasnoyarsk BA. But qpAdm might find differences.)
Rostovka samples are variable.
ROT002 looks mostly Nganasan like, but possible with some West Eurasian related ancestry - hard to say with this one as it's showing low level African related components in my distal model which is an indication of some compression/contamination/quality issue.
ROT004 is probably ANE/EHG/East Asian combo with a little some Sintashta/Steppe_MLBA? ROT016 more substantial Sintashta/Steppe_MLBA plus East Asian/Nganasan like. ROT015 is ANE plus East Asian, little to no other West Eurasian.
Have to qualify that my comments on the Rostovka are based on a distal model - you may find that the simple nearest population distances are more informative as G25-Vahaduo is probably less robust on distal models for various reasons (at least experimentally it seems so when I've done some distal models for Europe using WHG-ANF-Steppe).
@Matt
For the ROT samples I got the following
https://i.ibb.co/GswTNLL/Screenshot-79.png
merged some populations for better visual perception, such as Krasnoyarsk and Nefteprovod.BA, merged all Sintashta residents into a separate cluster, together with sintashta_o1, also merged WSHG with Okunyevo
Apparently a study from 2019 claims R1a-M198(immediate ancestor clade of R1a-M417) is found in "Lokomotiv_EN" aka related to Shamanka et al., Baikal groups, from 5500 BCE or so.
Also apparently 27% of Ekaterinovka samples from the study "Genetic origin of Indo-Europeans" are "R1b-V1636", that's the clade showing up in Progress, Vonyuchka, Berezhnovka, Khvalynsk typically. Another 27% of Ekaterinovka is "R1b-L754" aka the upstream clade of V1636, apparently it also seems to show up in Khvalynsk(not a surprise as Khvalynsk is made of Ekaterinovka + Progress however). Rest 46% of Ekaterinovka is downstream "Q-L56" that's kind of Q1b thing. The appearance of V1636 in probably a Samara culture site is interesting, not sure what to make out of it...
The oldest dates from Iran are about 42 KYA and youngest are from about 30 KYA so the gap is only about 10 thousand years and coincides with LGM. I suspect that the Zagrosians might have migrated either to the Caucasus, Caspian or possibly even given rise to the Kulbulakian in the east. Aghitu also slots nicely in between the gap from Baradostians to Zarzians. Although I suspect there was still some but limited human presence in the Zagros itself, possibly in it's less studied southern reaches.
@Gio
The (republican era) Romans were Iberian-like, too, just like the Etruscans. The abstract quoted by Gaska, to which you responded, just repeated this. What MTA probably compares you to, are what they call "Hellenistic Romans", that is, Romans with heavy admixture from the eastern Mediterranean, or in other words, Romans who were only partly descended from Italics.
From Pribislav:
LEPE18; 6200-5950 BC; Lepenski Vir, Serbia; Iron Gates_Neolithic; I2a2a1b1-L701 (xP78,Y5606)
Would be the earliest I-L701 sample (ukr111 from Dereivka is a data entry error in FTDNA's tree).
Another ENA entry - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB67196 -
"Isolation and female migration between Neolithic farmers and foragers on the Island of Gotland"
"Two genetically distinct archaeological groups, Neolithic farmers (4000 - 2600 BCE) and foragers (3300 – 2300 BCE) coexisted on the Island of Gotland for >500 years. Their interaction has long been debated, with some scholars suggesting that it was the same population practicing different ways of life. We generated and analyzed genome-sequence data of six individuals from the megalithic Ansarve burial (3500-2600 BCE) and investigated ancestry, admixture, and disease among both farmers and foragers on Gotland. The Ansarve individuals were genetically related to other European Neolithic farmer groups, demonstrating a different demographic history from the foragers on the island. They were also more closely related to each other, showing isolation on the island. The Ansarve genomes show some admixture with foragers, but this admixture happened mainly prior to their coexistence on Gotland. Interestingly, some of the forager’s genomes display recent gene-flow from female farmers, suggesting exogamy of farmer females into the forager communities on the island."
@ Norfern
''The oldest dates from Iran are about 42 KYA and youngest are from about 30 KYA''
LOL I see you're still stuggling with the concept of calibrated dates.
''Two lines of evidence have been invoked in support this argument: (a) at Shanidar the ~20,000 year gap that separates the Baradostian Layer C, dated between ~42,000–35,000 cal BP from the base of the Zarzian Layer B2, and (b) the late onset of the Zarzian at the two excavated type sites, Zarzi and Palegawra.'' (Eleni Asouti 2020)
The Baradostian is a very tight interval , and later than Obi Rahmat, Ust-Ishim or Bacho Kiro
Vallini's "Iranian Hub theory'' doenst hold up at present.
@ Ethan
“ LEPE18; 6200-5950 BC; Lepenski Vir, Serbia; Iron Gates_Neolithic; I2a2a1b1-L701 (xP78,Y5606)
Would be the earliest I-L701 sample “
Holy crap, so Gaska is finally right about something- pre-PIE comes from Serbia
@Gabru
Apparently a study from 2019 claims R1a-M198(immediate ancestor clade of R1a-M417) is found in "Lokomotiv_EN" aka related to Shamanka et al., Baikal groups, from 5500 BCE or so.
This study uses outdated methods that are susceptible to contamination. And it doesn't have C14 dates for the supposed R1a-M198 samples.
There's no evidence of R1a in Siberia at ~5500 BCE in any of the more recent papers.
And it makes no sense that there would be R1a near Lake Baikal at that time.
@ Simon_W
You know that the Harvardians tried to demonstrate that the Roman Empire people, above all in Rome and other towns of Italy, were largely mixed with people of other parts of the Empire, and that should demonstrate to the "levantinists-kurganists-levantinists", above all to their sponsors and funders, that the European Jews, who clearly descended from the Roman Empire Italian people, had huge intake of Old Jews, but the Erfurt 1350 Jewish aDNA demonstrated that they were 70% Italian, 15% from eastern Europe and 15% from northern Africa, Middle East, Iran but with no proof that their Middle Eastern intake were "Jewish". About Italian people other papers demonstrated that the people of the cities went above all extinct, and Italy was populated from the Iron Age people of the countries and some German intake (but you know that Longobards already in Pannonia were mixed with "Tuscans", i.e. people of "Italy"). Anyway I found many Longobard Y in Longobard hamlets of my zone and mostly Norman ones in the Sicily of my wife. That as to the uniparental markers, that permit a surer path, but the autosome is a mix where the little intake of the Y or the mt is a little worth, because I am as to 23andMe pretty much 100% Italian. About the close link I have with a Jew of Erfurt it could be due also to different components that converge, but the Y demonstrate other thing as I proved infinite times: look at the J-Y15223 of an important Jewish family, that came probably from the Caucasus or eastern Europe, but in the first millennium BC was deeply rooted in Italy. About my “Greek” component I have a link with “Greeks” of 4000 years ago, but because the old origin of Roman/Latin and Old Greeks are the same. After they had intake from Slavs, and also Venetians etc. I have that with Agamemnon’s, Ulixes’, etc, who probably descended like me from the charioteers of Yamnaya, but I am more and more convinced that the oldest origins are the Villabrunas.
Re this comment of Matt: "ROT002 looks mostly Nganasan like, but possible with some West Eurasian related ancestry - hard to say with this one as it's showing low level African related components in my distal model which is an indication of some compression/contamination/quality issue." The African indeed seems to be present in all outcomes based on the current coordinates, any possibility to check the coordinates? Now the result looks like a barbell based on Yakutia_MN and something African.
Very quick Vahaduo on the collective grave samples (PRJEB73626 - Late Neolithic collective burial reveals admixture dynamics during the third millennium BCE and the shaping of the European genome), thanks ilabv of genarchivist forum : https://imgur.com/a/x5Vhv7F
Most samples (BRE445A, BRE445B, BRE445C, BRE445D, BRE445E) are clearly low distance with some kinds of Atlantic farmer (most often France_LaClape_LN), consistent with their origin. Other samples show some steppe ancestry and often tend to have best overall match with later Iron Age. (Bell Beaker 2300 BCE sample will be SMGB54).
It'll be interesting to see if there actually are direct links between any samples with Steppe ancestry and those without, as could be implied by the abstract but is not necessarily so.
No minimally intelligent person can deny the importance of the Balkans in the formation and subsequent dispersal of many branches of I2a-M436>M223 because many of them have been found there-L701, Z161, Y6098, L801 & S2555-Regarding L701, it is a very early link between farmers and steppes and may help to explain the spread of pastoralism in Ukraine. Also no one can deny that steppe herders I2a-L699 have their origin in WHGs. But it is also very important not to forget that we are talking about the Balkan descendants of the Villabruna clan;
*RIP001 (14.745 BCE)-Tagliente2, Epigravettian, VILLABRUNA, Italy-HapY-I2a1b-M436
*ST5/ST3 (12.877 BCE)-San Teodoro, VILLABRUNA, Sicily-HapY-I2a1b-M436
*R7 (8.551 BCE)-Grotta Continenza, Italy-HapY-I2a1b/1-M436>M223
*DOG001 (7.608 BCE)-Doggerland, OBERKASSEL-WHG, Netherlands-HapY-I2a1b/1-M223
*I6754 (7.638 BCE)-Ogof-Yr-Ychen, neolithic, Wales-HapY-I2a1b/1-L460>M436>M223>Y3259
*FALKENSTEIN (7.161 BCE)-Falkensteiner Höhle, WHG, Germany-HapY-I2a1b/1a-CTS616
*UZZO40 (6.330 BCE)-Grotta dell Uzzo, Mesolithic_Sicily-HapY-I2a1b/1a2-CTS616>CTS10057
@Rob said-Holy crap, so Gaska is finally right about something- pre-PIE comes from Serbia-
He He, Gaska is finally right in saying that the Yamnaya men have their origin in the WHGs- Regarding the language spoken by the European hunter gatherers everything is yet to be proven, I believe they spoke a NO-IE language. How and when Yamnaya began to speak IE (if ever) is another story.
And remind you that you cannot give geography lessons to anyone and that the only thing you are right about is to recognize that I am right when I say that L754 is an epigravetian marker, that is, more Villabruna-WHG which is an unbearable nightmare for some kurgan fanatics..
Another comparison for PRJEB73626 (collective grave), comparing the differences in distance between Paris Basin samples against models of them with Afanasievo+IronGates+Turkey_N : https://imgur.com/a/scptTZl
Compared to the models, the real Paris Basin samples show closer distances to France and Spain Late Neolithic and Bronze/Iron Age samples. (To some extent for SMGB54 only this extends to Iron Age England, possibly just because that set is very large though).
(While the models, not too surprisingly, are relatively closer to SE Europe, not surprising given Iron Gates from Serbia is the HG population I chose for the models).
@Gio, Do you think all Ashkenazis are of local Italian and/or European origin and are not associated with the territory of modern Palestine Israel? well, they have a noticeably higher component responsible for their autosomal origin from the Levant, like their common ancestors from Erfurt, compared to the rest of the ancient samples from Italy they look as if they contain mixtures from the Middle East / Levant and Israel
@Arsen
Of course the question is complex and people wrote a lot about that. One of the fanatics of Anthrogenica, who brought a Greek nickname (that of one probably genetically linked to me and not to him, if not through his English mother), was glad if the "Jewish" percentage wasn't less than 30%, and already the Erfurt one foresaw 30% from northern Africa, Middle East and Iran, and someone thinks that the eastern European one is now 30% and not only 15%, and about that we have many proofs, for instance the introgression of the CCR5-delta32 mutation which reaches 50% in Lithuanian Jews, clearly not present in the Roman Empire and less in the Levant, and much other. Of course also some intake of Khazars has to be taken into account, not 100% as Arthur Koestler or even Noanm Chomsky thought, but some uniparental markers may be demonstrated. I know that they pretend also about your Caucasian ancestry, but probably also in this case the other way around happened. I had many proofs that European Jews (both Ashkenazim and Sephardim) descend from the Roman Empire ancestry of Italy, that of Rome that elsewhere went extinct in Italy, and the not Italian percentage came from that.
@Gio
No, anyway, no Eastern European or any other origin, be it 'Khazaria,' can explain why they are more drawn to the Levant than all other Europeans
Burial of two closely related infants under a “dragon stone” from prehistoric Armenia
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X24002293
Based on the related paper's spreadsheet it looks like all the Paris Basin individuals with Steppe ancestry are unsurprisingly from the Beaker period, and not anything earlier.
I assume the abstract is referring to LN Europe in general and the 3000BC admixture event between CWC and GAC being visible in these samples.
paris basin
https://i.ibb.co/rmGFdvJ/Screenshot-80.png
@Arsen
I think you should look at the uniparental markers to understand more than autosome. They are a little part of us, but they are easily traceble. The larg part of them in European Jews have a MRCA long after the diaspora, and also the few found in other Jewish communities out of Europe, that could be a demonstration of an origin in the Levant before the diaspora, could be entered the Jewish pool independently each subclade also of an unique haplogroup. Of course some uniparental marker could be old in Jews, but only the Jewish aDNA could demonstrate that. The samples I examined were introgressed in Europe (or could come from the Imperial Rome also from elsewhere) even though many people was ready to say that their family was a Jew converted for some lore in the family, as cristao novos etc, but one thing is to belong to the Jewish religion and another thing is to be genetically a Jew, what they pretend to validate their pretensions. Of course they say that the MRCA is due to the persecutions and that only a few lines survived. It is a hypothesis, and like all the hypotheses has to be demonstrated. And also about the autosome 23andMe classified the Ashkenazim as a subclade of the European pool. Give me an Y or an mt you think is old Jewish, and I'll send you my opinion. You may give me also yours, if you want.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01888-7 - "Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites in Central Europe" - "The early Iron Age (800 to 450 BCE) in France, Germany and Switzerland, known as the ‘West-Hallstattkreis’, stands out as featuring the earliest evidence for supra-regional organization north of the Alps. Often referred to as ‘early Celtic’, suggesting tentative connections to later cultural phenomena, its societal and population structure remain enigmatic. Here we present genomic and isotope data from 31 individuals from this context in southern Germany, dating between 616 and 200 BCE. We identify multiple biologically related groups spanning three elite burials as far as 100 km apart, supported by trans-regional individual mobility inferred from isotope data. These include a close biological relationship between two of the richest burial mounds of the Hallstatt culture. Bayesian modelling points to an avuncular relationship between the two individuals, which may suggest a practice of matrilineal dynastic succession in early Celtic elites. We show that their ancestry is shared on a broad geographic scale from Iberia throughout Central-Eastern Europe, undergoing a decline after the late Iron Age (450 BCE to ~50 CE)."
The paper on Celtic elites is also interesting "To gain insights into the possible sources of this Bronze Age EEF resurgence, we modelled the pooled Hallstatt individuals in qpAdm as a mixture of the Germany_Lech_EBA cluster, and a second source, for which we identify several potential proxies, all of them located in southwestern Europe, especially the Iberian Peninsula and Italy"
Apologies if this has been mentioned already (I find these ultra-long threads hard to follow), but any thoughts on the new Gretzinger paper?
Evidence for dynastic succession among early Celtic elites in Central Europe
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-024-01888-7
I'm wondering if the samples there are good enough to test for any La Tene or Hallstatt admixture into Ireland and Great Britain.
The evidence for matrilinearity in those Celtic samples is super interesting too by the way. Not something I would have expected. Apparently there's some precedent for female-line succession with the Picts?
@Gio
It seems to me that you just really want Jews to be Italians)
@Gaska
"The paper on Celtic elites is also interesting "To gain insights into the possible sources of this Bronze Age EEF resurgence, we modelled the pooled Hallstatt individuals in qpAdm as a mixture of the Germany_Lech_EBA cluster, and a second source, for which we identify several potential proxies, all of them located in southwestern Europe, especially the Iberian Peninsula and Italy".
Of course, what we have been saying for so long. Look at the discussion about the origin of Etruscans and the last about the same autosome from the eastern Alps to northern Italy to southern France to Iberia, and don't forget that I linked the Latin speakers with the pile dwellers of the Adriatic from linguistic reasons (the theory isn't mine but from the Italian Thirties of the XXth century).
These samples (R-CTS12972, R-PF6527, R-CTS12478) are the oldest R-M269* found so far. Helas, where the origin of R-M269* was!
@Arsen
"@Gio
It seems to me that you just really want Jews to be Italians)"
I have no desires, I have been searching for the truth. Others have desires. Stop in reading religious books and begin to study the scientific ones.
I gave a look at the GenArchivist forum to see if someone like Pribislav tested these three samples until the terminal SNP and found this post: "sample MBG016 is our first(?) ancient sample featuring ancient Ligurian ancestry even if the person may not have been born in ancient liguria itself, just that its probable the persons ancestor(s) came from there?". I don't know if he is right about that, but if that man is from Liguria it would be important to me, because I asked many times in the past that the bones of "Balzi rossi" and "Arene candide" were tested, because those bones, from the Francesco Mallegni collection, were given by Caramelli to the Harvardians for their labs funded in Florence (but only to test mt and not Y unfortunately). If I remember well some bones of theirs were tested and resulted hg I, of course the oldest ones. About Ligurians there are many mistakes, also about their language, called "Celtic", but they probably were an independent IE group, that probably migrated to Iberia too, and were linked to the Elymians of Sicily.
Sample from Bulgaria Varna ANI163, cultural layer - Bulgaria Varna Eneolithic3, refers to outlier samples.
age - 4711-4542 calBCE [4711-4550 calBCE (5787±30 BP, OxA-13688); 4686-4542 calBCE (5755±24 BP, MAMS-30944)], has a high steppe component for its period and location
Target: BGR_Varna_C:ANI163__Cov_33.66%
Distance: 4.0458% / 0.04045751 | R4P
36.8 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa
36.2 Bulgaria_MalakPreslavets_N
20.4 ROU_Dudeşti_N
6.6 RUS_Nalchik_En
perhaps it is dated incorrectly? since Yamnaya and Afanasevo are better suited for him than Golubaya_Krinitsa
@ Arsen
“ perhaps it (Varna) is dated incorrectly? since Yamnaya and Afanasevo are better suited for him than Golubaya_Krinitsa”
No the date is correct, the distances in your calculator models don’t mean anything, especially in the manner you use it.
Best fits would be Khvakynks/ Progress/ LCV
Thermoluminescence dating from Kaldar shows dating from all the way to 23000 BP to 29000 BP for the Baradostian layer of the site.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep43460
@Rob
firstly, they were in my sources, since they best represent the steppe, but I tried to take samples that were older than Varna, and not her contemporaries, and especially those that were not younger than her.
you can check it yourself
@Rob
Khvalynsk is also not suitable, at least in Vakhaduo, perhaps Cernavodă and ANI163 have a common source
Thus the three samples R1b are actually G-L497:
MBG016; 616-530 BC; Magdalenenberg, Germany; Hallstatt_IA; G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a-L497>Z1815>Y7538
MBG010; 616-530 BC; Magdalenenberg, Germany; Hallstatt_IA; G2a2b2a1a1b1a1a-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823
HOC004; 530-500 BC; Eberdingen-Hochdorf, Germany; Hallstatt_IA; G2a2b2a1a1b1a1-L497>Z1815>Y7538>Z1816>Z1823>Z726>CTS4803>S2808>BY46757>S23438
Of course I believe more in Pribislav than in the authors of the paper, papers that I broke in pieces many times in the past. G-L497 was thought an "Etruscan marker", certainly it came from the Alpine or nearby zone Etruscans came from. And before? All is in favour of the Caucasus around the Black Sea, but in my theory Etruscans were the agriculturalists from the Aegean zone, not necessarily Anatolia, and probably the large amount of their R1b came from the Alpine/central Europe zone. Anyway thanx to Pribislav.
The samples R1b1a1b of the paper I asked for are: LAN001, MGB003, MGB014. The samples checked by Pribislav are MBG016, MBG010, HOC004 that also the paper checked as G-L497. Thus I hope that Pribislav checks also the samples I quoted, and of course it would be important also the others.
Pribislav went deeper in the check than the authors of the paper:
G-S23438 has been found in a Tuscan of 1 thousand Genomes Project [NA20536], thus the link with Etruscans is likely.
The other expanded with the people who lived northern of the Alps, but the separation at 4500 years ago of the subclades could indicate the arrival of Etruscans up there probably with the agriculturalists from south (Balkans or Aegean Sea).
It is still somewhat surprising that the Celts of southern Germany, Austria, Bohemia and Hungary are so southern. The increased EEF and WHG percentages make them look very much like southern Gauls, Iberians and Etruscans and contemporary French, Belgians and Spaniards. The qpAdm results in Gretzinger are very very similar to those of Patterson, 2,021. The Romans showed no mercy to their French, Spanish and German kinsmen.
@Gaska
"The Romans showed no mercy to their French, Spanish and German kinsmen"
Tu quoque, Gaska!
I find only one person in the blogs I have been reading from 2007 that said that they were the Gauls to firstly humiliate Rome in 390BC, and Romans always remembered the Brennus' words: "Vae victis!".
@ Norfern.
They're differnt techniques, its hard to directly compare. The C14 cal. dates from same sight are still older than 35,000 bp. TL can give some wild results and are ultimatley indirect. The authors of yout quoted study reflect that in their wide confidence intervals.
There could have been younger settlement, and the TL layer is above the C14 layer, so it could be 32K or 30K. However, if you analyss like with like, all well contextualised, dates calibrated to a known standard point to a period 42-35,000 calBP. Its really not that surprising that there were discontinuities in the Zagros region, as there were in most parts of Eurasia. I'd be cautious against any overly continuitst perspective anywhere except for parts of eastern Asia & Australia-Papua.
BGR_C_o is part of those "CLV" migrations into West rushing via Black Sea Coast to create parallel elite group in "Suvorovo". I think - Suvorovo and Novodanilovka were Sredny elite cultures that did not have Ukraine_N initially if we go by Lazaridis models for MDA_Suvorovo_Giurgiulesti_En and HUN_Csongrad_C_2. . . . This bridge group between Novodanilovka and Suvorovo alongside Black Sea Coast and from Don began to move into Post-Mariupol territory where some mix of Ukraine_N and Ukraine_Trypillia_Verteba_Cave_C was probably present. . . . Slowly expanding and thus creating Srendy Stog by mixing with this group
Gaska said... "It is still somewhat surprising that the Celts of southern Germany, Austria, Bohemia and Hungary are so southern. The increased EEF and WHG percentages make them look very much like southern Gauls, Iberians and Etruscans and contemporary French, Belgians and Spaniards. The qpAdm results in Gretzinger are very very similar to those of Patterson, 2,021. The Romans showed no mercy to their French, Spanish and German kinsmen."
Hum... doesn't the Gretzinger paper show that, in this area of southern German, there was an admixture event/major turnover at the end of Hallstatt where the gene pool flips to Germanic? Hard to blame that on the Romans. The Romans would represent a resurgence of southern European ancestry in the core Hallstatt area.
@Gabru
As I understand it, you answered this for me, thanks for the detailed answer, for example, I didn’t know such details, and Rob doesn’t want to answer, he’s just being clever and calling everyone stupid
@Guy
The genetic affinity of the German Celts with the Iberian, Gauls and Etruscans increased at the end of Hallstatt (600-450 BCE), and that similarity is not only due to the increase of EEF in the Celts but also because in Iberia the percentage of steppe ancestry increased during the Iron Age thanks to the urnfield culture, i.e. the Celtiberians.
Obviously the Romans are not to be blamed for these genetic changes, I was only joking because after all the Romans conquered Hispania, Gaul and Germania and all those peoples were very similar to them genetically, i.e. they fought against their relatives
@Gio
Numantia Victrix-It took the Romans 7 years to conquer Gaul and 200 years to conquer Hispania. Vercingetorix and his friends were not as brave as Brennus. The worst humiliation of the Romans was the 50 years it took them to subdue the Arevaci and other Celtiberian peoples. Numantia defeated the consul Nobilior in 153 BC and the defeat was so great that the Roman legions never fought again on August 23rd, feast of the Vulcanalia. Then they made a pact with Claudius Marcellus and then defeated the consuls Quintus Caecilius Metellus in 143 BC and Quintus Pompey in 141 BC who had to make another peace treaty with the Numantines. In 139 BC the defeated was Marcus Popilius Lennas and in 137 BC Gaius Hostilius Mancinus who had to sign a new peace treaty considered by the Senate as the most shameful ever signed by Rome. Between 137 and 135 BC neither Marcus Emilius Lepidus Porcinus nor Lucius Furius Filo nor Quintus Calpurnius Pison resumed the war. 10 Roman consuls failed and only Scipio Africanus was able to subdue Numantia after more than a year of siege, most of the Celtiberians committed suicide and Numantia was razed to the ground. 1660 years later, in 1527, the Spanish tercios sacked Rome, and Captain Juan de Urbina, in memory of the Numantines, cut off the head of a statue of Scipio and took it to Numantia, where it is still buried.
Thank God we are all friends now
One thing about the Gretzinger paper that I would caution to, is that it's supervised ADMIXTURE still has the problems with coping with samples outside of the range that we know about.
For example, see all these: https://imgur.com/a/s87lAFT
It comes back telling you that ancient Greek samples as "Central West European" mixed with "West Asian" and things like this, or that Sintashta samples are "Western British Isles" mixed with "Baltic".
In reality, I don't think this is necessarily capable of localising the source of EEF resurgence very well, because its assigning excess EEF to the CWE cluster.
@Gaska
Are you saying current Iberians and Belgians are exactly similar?
@ Gabru
''"CLV" migrations into West rushing via Black Sea Coast to create parallel elite group in "Suvorovo". I think - Suvorovo and Novodanilovka were Sredny elite cultures that did not have Ukraine_N initially if we go by Lazaridis models for MDA_Suvorovo_Giurgiulesti_En and HUN_Csongrad_C_2.''
Yes but they are a dead end. They got whiped out even in their own homeland, and left no lasting legacy in the Hungary or Armenia, and their contribution to so-called Sredni -Stog and proto-Yamnaya-Corded was indirect via their daughters.
Moreover, so they might have been lingusitic creoles, thus highly unlikely to have been Indo-European because IE is a 'natural language' from the Dnieper-Don.
@ Gaska/ Guy
Are these the Halstatt kreis-fold you are talkinng about (being 'southern') ? Did they sample La Tene, and if so how do they compare. Becasue the latter are supposed ot be norther-shifted, from new centres of the Rhine-Moeselle ?
The one Novodanilovka sample we have (VIN1/I1430) does have UKR_N/GK2 ancestry and is the SS sample in the paper closest to Yamnaya on the PCA.
Likewise, the Smyadovo outlier has HG ancestry in excess of the other BGR_C samples. I don't think it can be modeled as PG2004+BGR_C.
The situation is likely more complicated than has been presented in the paper.
@ Ethan
''The situation is likely more complicated than has been presented in the paper.''
Schills are gonna schill
@Moesan-
I think your comprehension capacity is very limited but in any case you should try to read Gretzinger carefully-
“qpAdm modelling using distal sources-So far, we have shown that there is strong genetic similarity between Hallstatt and La Tène groups from western and central Europe, but also between those ancient groups and present-day western Europeans, especially French, Spanish, and Belgians”
You know how genetic distance works, don't you?
FST SGermany-EIA
0.00506-France
0.00539-Belgium
0.00555-Spain
0.00576-Germany
0.00624-Tuscany
0.00626-Italy
0.00643-Serbia
0.00761-Greece
0.00783-Ukraine
0.00811-Croatia
0.00825-Poland
0.01012-Estonia
0.01016-Albania
0.01292-Sardinia
0.01984-Georgia
Do you need any other explanation?
@Matt
CWE-Continental Western European (maximised in Spanish and French),
"To investigate the source of this EEF-enriched ancestry, we applied qpAdm and tested an two-way admixture model for SGermany_EIA, where on source is defined to be Germany_Lech_EBA and the second source iterates through 109 prehistoric and historic populations from Europe, especially covering central, southern, southwestern and western European populations. We note that most groups that produce a fitting p-value (p>0.01) are either located in France or on the Iberian or Italian peninsulas, suggesting a southwestern European origin of the introgressing EEF-enriched ancestry"
CWE-Continental Western European (maximised in Spanish and French)-Ansarve Megalithic (0.9989), Spain-Argar (0,9989), France-Mont Aimé (0.9989), Switzerland LN (0.9989), Italy-Broion (0,99146), SGermany-EIA (0.685402)
@Rob
Celts are very close to north Italians, Spaniards and French overall with high EEF admixture, they were NOT like Germanics or Balto-Slavs genetically-The Germanic and the Slavic expansion change the genetics of central europeans and made them plot more northern and north-eastern-The eastern La Tene samples are all over of the PCA, from Baltic-like to straightforward Mediterranean (a lot of the samples from Hungary and some from Austria and Czechia)
@Gaska
I appreciate very much your knowledge of History, and that reminds me when Maju did write that Latin language was diffused in Iberia not by Romans but by Iberians romanized etc etc during the "Reconquista". I had sympathy for Persians as an IE speaking people like us, but once a person in the blog reminded me the defeats that they inflicted to Romans without remembering the Roman victories and how Romans (actually hidden enemies as we have had during all our history) killed the greatest Roman "dux", Caius Iulius Caesar (had you notice of Alesia?) who was preparing a war against the Persians, and also the sympathy I had to them also for a common worst enemy, then and now, made me stop to consider him a "friend". I didn't blame Longobards, already largely mixed with "Tuscans" in Pannonia, and not to find Norman uniparental markers in my Sicilian wife. I am not with whom thinks that all the people had a common origin, that is even true, but with many caveats (I wrote tons of letters about the so called "out of Africa" and also the Shi Huang theory), thus we should consider all of them as "friends", even though I consider Jasmine Paolini (two Tuscan grandparents, one Polish and one Nigerian) and have sympathy for Yannick Sinner, an Italian of German descent, a clever boy beyond a great player (even though about the origin of people of Alto Adige/Sud Tyrol I would have many things to say)... but I believe in the categories of Carl Schmitt, there are "friends" and "enemies". My grandchildren are 25% Tuscans, 25% Sicilians, 50% Flemish, and I am very glad of them, and don't you say that Belgians are the same as Iberians or Italians. They are Franks, both in the uniparental markers and the autosome, but I, as a historian, don't forget that the Sacred Roman Empire saved Europe.
@ Gaska
''Celts are very close to north Italians, Spaniards and French overall with high EEF admixture, they were NOT like Germanics or Balto-Slavs genetically-The Germanic and the Slavic expansion change the genetics of central europeans and made them plot more northern and north-eastern-The eastern La Tene samples are all over of the PCA, from Baltic-like to straightforward Mediterranean (a lot of the samples from Hungary and some from Austria and Czechia)''
These are often coincidental similarities due to similar EEF/ EHG/ steppe ratios
Only a detailed look with qpAdm and Y-phylogeny will demonstrate the source(s) of southern admixture
And the point I was making is that these Alpine Celts collapsed and whilst the ''Gallic Celts'' from the Loire-Moselle-Rhine reigon rose to prominency. The eastern flank of the lat Tene extended toward Pomeranian / old Luzatian culture, hence there are occasional quasi-Baltoo-Slavic individuals
Supplementary Note 4: The formation of the Hallstatt Gene pool
General population genetic affinities
In general, the European PCA implies genetic similarity between the Hallstatt genomes from southwestern Germany and i) present-day genomes from France (Supp. Fig. 4.1b) as well as ii) Middle Bronze Age genomes from the Bavarian Lech valley in southern Germany and Iron Age genomes from France and the Czech Republic (Supp. Fig. 4.2). strong genetic affinity between Hallstatt individuals from southwestern Germany and present-day French can also be observed in formal F4 and FST statistics, as described in SupplementaryNote 5.
page 58
I finally merged and ran Nalchik NL122... Looks like it has TTK/WSHG input absent unlike Progress and Vonyuchka, very complicated, I think some Kelteminar was mediated into Azov-Caspian Steppe "CLV" people around after 4900 BCE then
@dear Gaska
I see your writing style has come very near to the global so amical and respectuous tone (atmosphere) of this blog : at a schoolyard level. BTW hare you under a medical treatment ?
Let’s come back to your argument :
I seems your representation of distances, whatever they could be, is a linear one : so you seem thinking (?) that that the order of these distances give us their respective proximity on an axis when in reality it give us their proximities to a unique target pop, on a plan and not on a line.
Two towns can be at the same distance of an third one, but on the opposite directions so their respective distances are the double, by example.
PCA’s are a bit different but no’t give too different results. On the diverse plottings I saw (amateur works it’s true), always La Tène and even western Hallstatt pop’s are close to the modern Belgians, themselves at the skirts of Western Germany, Northern France and South-East England, far enough from Spanish and Portuguese people, and with France in the middle. I never saw Iberians in contact with Belgians. All is relative : our respective « Europoids » distances are not so big at the continental and mondial level compared with other pop’s.
That said it seems that interpenetrations of diverse pop’s took place between Urnfields and La Tène, attracting « southwards » first continental Celts (more « northern » or ‘steppic’ spite not as much as the BB’s and what became the Islands Celts). I agree that since a long time, maybe since their not well known origin, Celts had an heavy occidental substratum of pop, and that Germanics saw the genomic making of proto-Germanics modified (middle IA?) by Scandinavian/Danish/Nether Saxony genomic input.
I had not read this new survey and I ‘ll do it. Now I am not sure of the depth and ancientess of the cultural homogeneity of the studied pop. I’ ll make my opinion after have wholly read it.
I know the pseudo geographic aspects of PCA's are kind of biased projections, but nevertheless they show how recpective genomic "distances" between all points are not the same of distances with the same target point.
"Widespread horse-based mobility arose around 2,200 BCE in Eurasia" (Published: 06 June 2024), by Librado et al.
Abstract:
"Horses revolutionized human history with fast mobility1. However, the timeline between their domestication and widespread integration as a means of transportation remains contentious2–4. Here we assemble a large collection of 475 ancient horse genomes to assess the period when these animals were first reshaped by human agency in Eurasia. We find that reproductive control of the modern domestic lineage emerged ~2,200 BCE (Before Common Era), through close kin mating and shortened generation times. Reproductive control emerged following a severe domestication bottleneck starting no earlier than ~2,700 BCE, and coincided with a sudden expansion across Eurasia that ultimately resulted in the replacement of nearly every local horse lineage. This expansion marked the rise of widespread horse-based mobility in human history, which refutes the commonly-held narrative of large horse herds accompanying the massive migration of steppe peoples across Europe ~3,000 BCE and earlier3,5. Finally, we detect significantly shortened generation times at Botai ~3,500 BCE, a settlement from Central Asia associated with corrals and a subsistence economy centered on horses6,7. This supports local horse husbandry before the rise of modern domestic bloodlines."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-024-07597-5
@Gabru
come on my friend, look for this TTK everywhere, I want to understand whether he penetrated independently into the Volga clin. or was he part of the north_CHG
@Moesan
First thing you should do is to read the paper on Celtic elites, then try to improve your reading comprehension and lastly stop asking stupid questions like the one in your previous post “Are you saying current Iberians and Belgians are exactly similar?”
What is your understanding of these words?-Gretzinger 2024-
“In general, the supervised ADMIXTURE results support the results of PCA, F4, and FST statistics, indicating a strong genetic similarity between Hallstatt and La Tène individuals from western and central Europe and present-day Spanish and French”-
"Interestingly, Bronze and Iron Age individuals from western and central Europe are dominated by the CWE component, maximised in ancient Iberians and Sardinians”
“When projected on the diversity of present-day Europeans by means of principal component analysis (PCA), we find the Iron Age individuals to be separate in genetic space from present-day Germans and falling closer to present-day French and other southern European individuals”
“The genetic affinity between our Hallstatt individuals from southern Germany and individuals from Bronze and Iron Age France is part of a broader genetic continuum spanning from Iberia to the Balkan peninsula, featuring a common genetic ancestry component”
“We modelled the pooled Hallstatt individuals in qpAdm as a mixture of the Germany_Lech_EBA cluster, and a second source, for which we identify several potential proxies, all of them located in southwestern Europe, especially the Iberian Peninsula and Italy”
And finally-“qpAdm modelling using distal sources-So far, we have shown that there is strong genetic similarity between Hallstatt and La Tène groups from western and central Europe, but also between those ancient groups and present-day western Europeans, especially French, Spanish, and Belgians”
The distances are not mine, they are from Gretzinger (supplementary information table)
In case you need help, they mean that the CLOSEST contemporary populations genetically to the Celts of southern Germany are the French, Spanish and Belgians do you understand?
No one has talked about the closeness or the genetic distance between these three countries, although it doesn't take a genius to understand that if all three are very close to EIA_SGermany _HAllstatt, they don't have to be very distant from each other either.
Try to deal with it, we contemporary Spaniards are more similar to the Celts of southern Germany than the Germans themselves. Do you understand that?
And of course I need mental treatment, I have been recommended to make an effort and answer posts as unintelligent as yours. I am sorry to say that because you have always been an educated man.
Following up a little more on the supervised ADMIXTURE runs in Gretzinger 2024.
I carried out a little exercise using the data in Supplementary Table 3.7, which gives all the proportions of their supervised ADMIXTURE (based on modern people) in ancients.
Following from this, since many of these samples are on G25, what you can do is use the proportion in a regression equation to "infer" where their ADMIXTURE components would sit on G25. I only used samples after 1500 BCE for this, because it just seemed like the ones before that would give really bad results as they're probably a very poor fit for the proportions.
Here's the pastebin of the G25 for these simulated/inferred components: https://pastebin.com/E9tZYiwu
Here's where they sit in PCA and in terms of distances from population averages: https://imgur.com/a/xRVwPRY
Observations:
1) The European components and also Southwest Asian components are fit by this regression pretty well to recorded populations in the ancient record. African and SAS component are fit pretty badly, reflecting that they're covering a lot of dissimilar ancestry probably? (E.g. SAS component inferred from these fits gives a lot of strange combination of ANE plus South Asian that is not really observed in adna record.) East Asian components are a little worse than West Eurasian.
2) The CWE component comes out pretty close to Iron Age Italy; WBI to Iron Age Scotland; CNE to England Saxon; NOR to Goths from Poland and Vikings; FIN to Finno-Ugric outliers in Viking and Iron Age Northern Europe; WAS to Armenia_IA; NEA to Iron Age Levant.
3) This view of things is evident in the PCA plots as well.
So I think I have reasonable confidence that the CWE ("Continental West Europe") is likely to land most similar in relative terms to Iron Age Italy / Present Day South France and Spain. But it's hard to know how accurate this inferencing is worth. So just a best guess.
Supervised Admixture is garbage.
It shouldn't be allowed in papers.
I think unsupervised admixture has a role in supporting qpAdm
@Arsen
Simple model for Nalchik NL122...
target "RUS_Nalchik_LN"
left "IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N" "GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso" "RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso" "TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N"
weight 15.1 27.1 25.9 31.9
se 3.0 3.0 2.2 2.4
p 0.143
Image:- https://files.catbox.moe/g5oqxt.jpg
Librado is truly braindead. Who decides all of a sudden "let's breed riding horses" if riding didn't exist as an activity beforehand?
He looks at the point of inflection on a graph and thinks it's the start of it.
Librado 2024 - "Widespread horse-based mobility arose around 2,200 BCE in Eurasia" -
"....Reproductive control emerged following a severe domestication bottleneck starting no earlier than ~2,700 BCE, and coincided with a sudden expansion across Eurasia that ultimately resulted in the replacement of nearly every local horse lineage. This expansion marked the rise of widespread horse-based mobility in human history, which refutes the commonly-held narrative of large horse herds accompanying the massive migration of steppe peoples across Europe ~3,000 BCE and earlier..."
@Gabru
Is this the best model for him? for such sources in Vahaduo the distance was 3.5 percent
@Matt
"which refutes the commonly-held narrative of large horse herds accompanying the massive migration of steppe peoples"
How in the fuck does that refute anything? Where did Sintashta get all their horses from? Did they pull them out of their ass? Anthony literally showed Sintashta horses derive genetically from Yamnaya horses (which derived from earlier CLV horses), and they were essentially like 95% genetically identical.
@ Dimwit Targaryen
“ Librado is truly braindead. ”
not that I care about the debate, but you & RichS's dithering hacks from FraudArchiver should low profile out here in the real world given how conginitively deficient & dishonest you all are (opf course, when a forum is run by a nobody charleton, the geese are going to follow suit)
- You were wrong about J2b2 'coming from Yamnaya' (J2b2 is from Makop-related Zhivotalovka-Volchansk)
- wrong about CW-related R1a being a Yamnaya underclass (R1a was found in the earlier, Usatavo)
- CLV is a dead end
- R1b-L754 isnt from Siberia, and certainly didnt arrive after 10,000 bc
- R1b- L23 ''isn't central to PIE''
- proto-Greeks aren't from Catacomb or exclusively Z2103 related
You're also a lame LARP
@ Gabru
“ finally merged and ran Nalchik NL122... Looks like it has TTK/WSHG input absent ”
thus old news
Also,
Earliest R1b-M269: Smyadovo, Bulgaria , with excess UkrN related ancestry
I trust the David Anthony/ closet Quilles cult will enjoy.
DragonHermit, without reading the paper, what they argue is that large horses herds did not accompany large migration to Western and Central Europe at circa 3000 BCE, but whatever horses lineages existed in the steppe would have been the base breeding stock for the events closer to 2300 BCE where there was rapid genetic selection and shortened generation time, leading to the large scale population growth and the export of horses somewhat separate from large migrations.
This would be compatible with Maier's suggestion of a small genetic flow from Pontic Steppe horses but that horses found in a CWC context had majority local ancestry ("There is a trifurcation of three deep lineages: a lineage maximized in Western and Central Europe (up to 100% of ancestry in a Late Paleolithic group from France, LP_SFR), a Western-Steppe-specific lineage (up to 55% in TURG), and a Tarpan-specific lineage (22% in Tarpan). Western and Central European horses, represented by LP-SFR, by the majority ancestry in horses found in the Corded Ware culture context (CWC), and by the majority ancestry in wild Neolithic Anatolian horses (NEO_ANA), contributed about half of the ancestry in the Western Steppe groups TURG, C-PONT, and DOM2. ... This scenario presents a parallel to the one observed in humans, with individuals associated with the CWC receiving admixture from Steppe pastoralists albeit in different proportions: ~75% for humans, versus ~20% in horses.").
@Gabru
Gabru said...
"...Image:- https://files.catbox.moe/g5oqxt.jpg"
why do you always post broken links? more than once I was unable to navigate through them, even with VPN turned on)
I came across a telegram bot version of qpAdm, and the first thing I did was model the Laks, look which model is better? did I choose the left and right populations correctly? I think I'm doing something wrong
https://i.ibb.co/k4TfW87/i.png
look and give a brotherly assessment, why is there so little CHG? After all, Dagestan is considered the peak of this component ,for example, in kaitags, 100 percent is J1a which is CHG
@Rob:
Just for your edification, the J2b sample from Zhiv’ Volchansk descends from Maykop and is unrelated to the J2b L283 Yamnaya sample from Crihana Veche, Moldova. So 2 completely unrelated branches here. The J2b Maykop boy from the kurgan in Moldova is under the following branch:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z42942/
This is the same branch as the 2 samples from Mentesh Tepe (Shulaveri Shomu).
The J2b L283 sample from Crihana Veche (Movila Gologan Kurgan) is described as incredibly robust (robust Proto Europoid) and at least 1.81 meters tall with exceptionally pronounced muscle insertions. One of the largest Yamnaya specimens to date. This sample (I10206) is modeled as 84% core Yamnaya, which makes sense since Core Yamnaya began to diversify around 3600-3500 BCE, which perfectly coincides with the many 3600 and 3500 BCE formed branches under J2b L283.
Possibly Mikhaylovka I or Kvityana Cultures may have been the source of J2b L283, with an earlier migration from the N. Caucasus in the 5th millennium BCE providing the initial vector to the territory between the Dnieper and Don Rivers.
@Arsen
target "RUS_Nalchik_LN"
left "ARM_Aknashen_LN" "GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso" "RUS_Karelia_HG"
weight 58.3% 16.2% 25.5%
se 4.2% 4.1% 2.3%
p 0.645
Image:- https://files.catbox.moe/nhdjn7.jpg
@Gabru ,I don’t know dude, maybe I’m the only one where your link doesn’t work, does anyone else have his links to the images he posts working?
I turn on and turn off the VPN, nothing changes, maybe this site somehow sees that I’m writing from Russia?
use normal image hosting sites, for example this one
https://imgbb.com/
You can register via Google
@Gabru
Since NL122 does not require admixture related to TTK or any similar AG3, it is possible that he was from Azerbaijan. The Azerbaijan HGs, those located north of the Kura River and south of the Samur or Rubas River, lived in a warmer and more favorable area, warmer than the North Caucasus. This is likely why people associated with the Shomutepe culture from the southern arc migrated to this region during the Neolithic period.
I believe that the hunter-gatherers of northern Azerbaijan did not have admixture related to TTK or similar groups. These are my thoughts.
@DragonHermit, though also note that in the open-access supplement to Librado 2024:
"Maier and colleagues developed Admixtools2, a computational tool that implements an optimization routine for automatically fitting admixture graphs to f3-statistics. They showcased their method's applicability by revisiting some previously-published admixture graphs, including the OrientAGraph population graphs originally reported by Librado and colleagues2.
Using their automated procedure, they found population models with eight migration edges, in which DOM2 contributed ~20% ancestry into CWC horses (|WR|= 3.38 SE). This high proportion of steppe-related horse genetic ancestry in animals that lived ~2,700 BCE in Europe could lend credence to the notion that horses may have accompanied past human migrations out of the steppe ~3,000 BCE, despite the results from other genomic analyses indicating otherwise.
We posit that this fundamental discrepancy could be attributed to the use of biased f3 values, occurring in the presence of population groups represented by a single pseudohaploid sample (pseudohaploid population groups).
In Librado et al. (2021), the population group TARP was pseudohaploid, comprised of the only Tarpan genome sequenced at the time, whereas two other groups (NEOANA and DONK) became represented by only a single pseudohaploid individual after Maier and colleagues modified the original group configurations.
In an effort to address this potential bias, we extend the panel of specimens, incorporating three additional donkey specimens, two NEOANA horses, and another Tarpan into their corresponding population groups.
Using AdmixTools2, we then found another graph that does not support gene-flow from DOM2-related horses into CWC horses (Extended Data Fig. 3b). Using the qpgraph_resample_multi function of the Admixtools2 package, we confirmed this new Admixtools2 graph as significantly better than that favored by Maier and colleagues (P < 1e-5)."
Also:
"To further characterize the CWC genetic makeup, we used qpAdm modeling65 (version 1520, within AdmixTools 7.0.2), and rotated all steppe and European horse populations, in addition to DOM2, as potential donors of ancestry to CWC (Table S2, allsnps = NO).
The CWC genomic makeup was successfully explained by a two-source mixture of populations located in close geographic proximity to the true CWC sampling location (P = 0.109), namely: the South ENEOCZE population form Czechia (32.4%) and the North FBPWC (Funnel Beaker/Pitted Ware horses) from Denmark (67.6%).
Both parental populations predate the arrival of Yamanya steppe pastoralists into their respective regions (Table S1). All the remaining two-way models were unfeasible or explicitly rejected (P < 0.01), including those considering steppe or DOM2 horses as donor (left) populations.
Allowing for a third population source returned a best model in which pre-Yamanya horses from Poland (Funnel Beaker, FBCPOL) also contributed ancestry to CWC horses (P = 0.38). Other 3-way qpAdm models were not rejected either, but returned negligible levels of steppe (<1.7%) or DOM2 (0.3%) introgression into CWC horses."
They also argue that there are no long IBD links between CWC and Yamnaya horses.
So it may be the case that the Corded Ware horses from Central Europe didn't have any ancestry from C-PONT horses at all.
@Matt
This whole paragraph reads like satire.
"In an effort to address this potential bias, we extend the panel of specimens, incorporating three additional donkey specimens, two NEOANA horses, and another Tarpan into their corresponding population groups.
Using AdmixTools2, we then found another graph that does not support gene-flow from DOM2-related horses into CWC horses (Extended Data Fig. 3b). Using the qpgraph_resample_multi function of the Admixtools2 package, we confirmed this new Admixtools2 graph as significantly better than that favored by Maier and colleagues (P < 1e-5)."
@ Sam Elliot
''Just for your edification, the J2b sample from Zhiv’ Volchansk descends from Maykop and is unrelated to the J2b L283 Yamnaya sample from Crihana Veche, Moldova. So 2 completely unrelated branches here. The J2b Maykop boy from the kurgan in Moldova is under the following branch:
The J2b L283 sample from Crihana Veche (Movila Gologan Kurgan) is described as incredibly robust (robust Proto Europoid) and at least 1.81 meters tall with exceptionally pronounced muscle insertions. One of the largest Yamnaya specimens to date. This sample (I10206) is modeled as 84% core Yamnaya, which makes sense since Core Yamnaya began to diversify around 3600-3500 BCE, which perfectly coincides with the many 3600 and 3500 BCE formed branches under J2b L283.
Possibly Mikhaylovka I or Kvityana Cultures may have been the source of J2b L283, ''
Fine about the phylogeny, but people tend to over-intepret 'paper phylogenetics' with real life. I.e. it is unlikley these two branches of J2b2 are 'totally unrelated' in population terms, because they both probably moved in with relatively 'recent' south Caucasian mobilists.
Looking in closer at I10206, the burial was disarticulated, typological attribution was presumed to be either Cernavoda or Yamnaya, and there is no C14 date to definitively assign him to the Yamnaya period.
The fact that he was tall, doesnt preclude him from being Caucasian in origin a few generations back
All these various lineages of J2-whatever* appear to have begun moving west of the lower Don after 3500 BC, before that confined to the Majkop sphere and the Kostnatinovka culture (eg Krivyanski site). In late phase Cernavoda/ early Usatovo, some Majkop-sphere males moved to the NWPR due to alliance with Cer-Ust chiefs, initially formed on the basis of matrimonial alliance, and trade in copper weapons & salt.
So the NWPR society became less agnatic, and in Usatovo there is a greater diversificaiton of male lineages. These groups collectively then moved into northern Balkans (& some via Sea to Anatolia), then in in their vacated lands the 'Yamnaya propper' expansion assoc. with monophyletic Z2103 (? from middle Don/ Repin).
So there are two *relevant/ extant* waves of steppe groups into the Balkans, after casting aside the precocious CLV wave : (1) pre-Yamnaya (I2a-L699, J2b) (2) post-3000 BC R1b-Z2103 & R1b-L151*, although boundaries were not absolute and they tended to meld in at the lower danube.
@ Sam Elliot
Just another thing, for the benefit of your edification, you were claiming based on your reading of TMRCAs, that j2b2 could have moved to the Steppe as early as the Ice Age. Does any of the volume of recent data support that contention ?
@Dragon Hermit, what specifically do you mean by that?
@Rob
Imagine a world where we have tight C14 dates and strontium matches for everyone
Finally -- North_Caspian_HG genome?
Target: RUS_Ural_River_HG:NEO100__BC_7977__Cov_unknown
Distance: 3.8042% / 0.03804236
79.8 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
16.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
2.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
1.4 GEO_Satsurblia_HG
Location:- https://i.ibb.co/c3x9Rh7/photo-2024-06-09-16-34-06.jpg
@Arsen, check this out
@Gabru
Finally! your links worked for me.
It's not like TTK, it's like EHG
@Gabru
use older ones
Target: RUS_Meso_Ural_River_Beach:NEO100__BC_7977__Cov_unknown
Distance: 3.2148% / 0.03214760 | R3P
48.0 RUS_Meso_Minino:NEO539__BC_8107__Cov_unknown
20.2 UKR_Meso_Vasilevka-I:NEO497__BC_8705__Cov_unknown
19.8 Russia_AfontovaGora3:AfontovaGora3_noUDG_d__BC_16086__Cov_23.09%
12.0 UKR_Meso_Vasilevka-I:NEO492__BC_8705__Cov_unknown
@Arsen, fine...
Target: RUS_Ural_River_HG:NEO100__BC_7977__Cov_unknown
Distance: 3.2656% / 0.03265587
60.2 RUS_Minino_HG:NEO539__BC_8107__Cov_unknown
14.8 RUS_Tyumen_HG:I1960__BC_6166__Cov_70.01%
11.4 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:MNN005.A0101__BC_8563__Cov_92.61%
8.4 RUS_Sidelkino_HG:MNN007.A0101__BC_8957__Cov_16.17%
4.0 RUS_Karelia_HG:I0211__BC_6500__Cov_12.48%
1.2 GEO_Satsurblia_HG:SATP__BC_11332__Cov_59.30%
@ Rob,
"proto-Greeks aren't from Catacomb"
Where are they from then?
@ Rob,
They’re defining CoreYamnaya as having formed around 4000 BCE between the Dnieper and Don Rivers with diversification beginning a half millennium later, specifically 3642 BCE, within 1 or 2 generations of the formation dates of the oldest branches of J2b L283…lots of diversification of this lineage occurring between 3600 and 3000 BCE before suddenly appearing in the Balkans.
Because I10206 is modeled as CoreYamnaya and with no Maykop, it’s likely this J2b L283 lineage was already present between the Dnieper and Don Rivers by 4000 BCE. So an arrival sometime during the 5th millennium BCE, but not earlier, is what this points to.
FYI, the burial is disturbed, hence the appearance of the skeleton being disarticulated:
“7.4.3.2 Grave 12:10 (individual ID 110206)
The grave was situated in the northeastern sector of the mound, 2.80 m away from the central landmark (R.C.), at a depth of 1.65m. The burial chamber, rectangular with rounded corners and slightly arched sides, was oriented east-west, measuring 1.25 × 1.80 m. Based on the characteristics of the filling of the pit, the arrangement of skeletal remains, and the location of the grave goods, it can be inferred that grave no. 10/M.10 was disturbed in ancient times. The skeletal remains were found scattered in different areas of the pit and at different depths.
It was deduced that the deceased was originally placed at the bottom of the pit, with the head oriented to the east. Traces from the plant layer covering the pit bottom were found near and beneath the skeleton. Grave goods: a flint arrowhead of elongated triangular shape with slightly convex sides and a concave base. The artefacts' length is 2 cm, width 1.4 cm, and thickness 0.5 cm.
The skeleton, lacking anatomical connection, is incomplete and poorly preserved. Traces of bright red ochre were identified on all its elements, particularly intense on the skull. Other taphonomic changes observed include cracking, exfoliation (aerial weathering), and marks left by rodent teeth.
Anthropological sex: male. Molecular sex: male, with an unusual Y-haplogroup J2b2a1 (J-L283).
Biological age at death: about 30 years (young adult). Pathologies: supragingival calculus; active porotic hyperostosis (cribra cranii). The skeleton is very robust, with extremely pronounced muscle insertions, with extensive enthesopathic changes on the humerus and femurs. The individual exhibits a very large skeletal stature, at least 181 cm. Traumas: a perimortem fracture in the middle third of the right clavicle. The burial must be attributed to Cernavodă-I or Yamnaya cultures.”
The J2b Yamnaya and J2b Maykop’s respective branches diverged from one another about 14,000 years ago. Regarding I2a L699, I do think the one interesting I2a L699 sample here is KTL001 from Kartal, Ukraine. Similar age as the J2b L283 sample from Crihana Veche, Moldova and also not far away. Perhaps indicative of post Mariupol groups moving west the eastern Balkans.
@ Tea
Or at least one from every site/ layer
@ Arsen
You've shown that EHG has a whole lot of EHG in it
@Rob
yes, that’s right, but I can’t offer anything better, Vahaduo cannot show the true sources in the population, the fact that there is 1 percent satsurblia or tyumen, this does not change the overall picture, that this Uralian is pure ehg
We have what we have, and for that, thank Davidski for his ingenious invention G25
@ A
“ proto-Greeks aren't from Catacomb"
Where are they from then ?”
It seems people want to believe that Greeks derive from the catacomb culture. This is a case of dancing around the data to make it fit into some alleged linguistic “Armenian-Greek clade”, which probably doesn’t exist.
But the catacomb culture period (2600-2200BC) is an absolute lull in steppe -> Balkan migrations , and we know that there is a population decline and regrouping of steppe populations at this time (because they had “spent” their expansion potential)
no new kurgans built after 2600, although there is a late wave after 2200Bc, which reutilised earlier kurgans, but this is linked with proto-Thracians & more broadly the relative shift from Catacomb to Srubnaya on the steppe.
We also know that steppe ancestry arrived to southern Greece by 2300 bc (Sarakinos). This means that the source of steppe ancestry in Greece is from that pre-26000 BC wave. Moreover, if we note the lineages around Albania & northern Greece - R1b-PF7562 and I2a-L699, they are even beyond ‘classic steppe Yamnaya’
@ Sam Elliot
As per above, i don’t think looking at TMRCAs is very relevant when the direct evidence points to late entry of J2b2
And the direct evidence needs to be looked at in a sequential manner.
Let’s assume the typological dating from CV is correct. Thus, the first J2b2 haplotype from Z-V context is an obvious outlier whilst the L283 fits within so-called core Yamnaya because it is much younger. Little wonder it has homogenised with the expansion of “classic Yamnaya “ Z2103 expansion , as did many of the I2a-L699 in the Balkans, because unlike the Volga or Caucasus zones, pre-existing lineage diversity was maintained.
Also, I wouldn’t worry about so-called “core Yamnaya” from Harvard. It’s hypothetical and rests on one female from Mikhailovka. In reality we still don’t know clearly how classic Yamnaya and proto-CW formed and fit within each other
@ Arsen
G25 can show the sources of EHG.
So if you want to compare all the EHGs, just use something like Tagliente, AfontovaGora, CHG, Barcin, Tyumen or even Amur Basin
So Daco-Thracian is generally hypothesised to have elements of Balto-Slavic and Albanian. Perfectly fits with Babino Culture, also known as "KMK" or "Multi-Cordoned Ware" being Proto-Daco-Thracian. The "Balto-Slavic" impression was likely brought by Fatyanovo-Abashevo migrants which defeated Catacomb-Poltavka coalition, thus mixing with Western Catacomb and forming Babino, while completly wiping out Poltavka and perhaps Eastern Catacomb. We don't see Indo-Iranian impression in Daco-Thracian but since the corpus is smaller it's not a good point to latch on personally
Is it true that Late Fatyanovo, Transition and Early Abashevo got hold over horse domestication, usage, cheek-pieces and cart from Catacomb-Poltavka, then subsequently evolved Catacomb "cart" into Sintashta "chariot". Catacomb-Poltavka were the original innovators that did everything on Steppe it seems like with Abashevans just borrowing things from them as they entered Steppe from Forests
Fatyanovo-Abashevo was obviously Proto-Indo-Iranian.
They're clearly related to modern Indo-Iranians, not to any Balto-Slavs.
I «believe» Fatyanovo-Balanovo-Abashevo-Srubnaya-Sintashta-Petrovka-Alakul-Andronovo-Fedorovo were linguistically most related to Balto-Slavic and spoke and "extinct" sibling/cousin branch of Balto-Slavic precisely. The Daco-Thracian thing was just and interesting observation I could see...
I'd call Fatyanovo-Abashevo pre-Indo-Iranian, with an input vector toward Daco-Thracian, perhaps after mixing in with late Catacomb. Its obvious kinship with Balto-Slavic populations explains their overall affinities, although Thracian is sparsely attested.
Indo-Iranian (propper) then developed east of the Urals, which is consistent evidence of strong contact with post-Samoyedic uralic languages & their eastern origins.
@Gabru
You believe nonsense.
Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta etc. are ancestral to Indo-Iranians.
There's no direct genetic relationship between them and Balto-Slavs.
@Davidski
Neither did I claim. What I said was Balto-Slavic branch is the "closest" to so-called "extinct" - Fatyanovan branch. We have no record of this Fatyanovan branch, just like we don't for Khvalynsk and those wiped out Final CLV groups. So to expect, Balto-Slavic could serve as a proxy Fatyanovan language, which was likely the 3rd descendant branch of Corded Ware with other 2 being as we already know (Germanic–Italo-Celic) and (Balto-Slavic)
Let me clear it out...
Middle Dnieper Culture (Proto-NWIE)
Splits into →
Western Corded Ware (Germanic–Italo-Celtic)
Eastern Corded Ware (Balto-Slavic)
Fatyanovo (Fatyanovan)
So in a sense naturally Balto-Slavic would be closest branch related to this "extinct and unattested" Fatyanovan branch. You just have to replace Indo-Iranian in the Kurgan hypothesis with appropriate extinct branch with wishful label and you'll get my point
Perhaps if I'm getting some archaeology wrong, so Western and Eastern Corded Ware had another stage of grouping while Fatyanovo split prior to them splitting?
Also to catch up with absence of "Eastern" input in Ural_River_HG and Nalchik_LN, I'd guess some Kelteminar groups pushed northwest-wards and reached North Caspian, then brought this "Eastern" affinity seen in Progress-Vonyuchka genetic samples. In that case it's obvious that Pre-Kelteminar impact "CLV" groups had even **higher** "South Caucausus" % (from Shulaveri-Shomu and Aratashen-Aknashen Agro-Pastoralists). . . . Perhaps "Nalchik NL122" is part of those Proto-CLV cline people which had "Eastern" affinity absent till somewhat 4900 BCE. Let's say, PG2001 prior to Kelteminar input becomes 36% South Caucausus while Nalchik as we know is already 55% South Caucausus. These Agro-Pastoralist folk likely brought Ovicaprid Domesticationz pottery , material culture into and xIndo-Europeanizing" Steppe and mixed with Kuban Steppe Hunter-Gatherers-Fishers creating Proto-CLV/CLV people. And then as we know, CLV → Sredny Stog and CLV → Khvalynskaya takes place
@Arsen, read above
@Gabru said...
"Is it true that Late Fatyanovo, Transition and Early Abashevo got hold over horse domestication, usage, cheek-pieces and cart from Catacomb-Poltavka, then subsequently evolved Catacomb "cart" into Sintashta "chariot". Catacomb-Poltavka were the original innovators that did everything on Steppe it seems like with Abashevans just borrowing things from them as they entered Steppe from Forests""
It will be interesting to compare Bell Beakers Eastern samples R1b-Z2103 form Hungary and Poland with R1b-Z2103 from Catacomb-Abashevo(3- Z2103, from main R1a-Z93 Pepkino-Pepkinsky burial mound from large scale warfare battle + potential one other-Metal worker? )-Sintashta 3 R1b-Z2103 samples.
some of the samples mentioned below video at 1:50 in Russian teleconference.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I06VYBuGVyY&list=PLQkG-cud5ICjn8ihKJyYCiAGIDSGjqZ9p&index=182
@Rob
What was Alberto's theory? Why isn't he active anymore and where can I find his stuff.
Second I believe Ind-Ir is not from Sintashta, but from NW Zagros(Max Planck Institute Jena-Leipzig), Scythians are instead from Turkmenistan_IA Yaz Culture
Yes Vasistha is a major influence and source
Middle Dnieper Culture isn't the source of Corded Ware and is instead a later expression contemporaneous with Catacomb culture.
@Davidski
If the Bichon person belongs to the WHG cluster, why is he so different from his brothers? in qpadm it is similar to the rest of WHG, but in G25 it distances itself enormously from them. This is not the perfection of G25, how does it work?
https://i.ibb.co/YDf1yZZ/photo-2024-04-17-05-18-22.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/314NXkX/Screenshot-82.png
maybe I have the wrong coordinates
@ Arsen
''If the Bichon person belongs to the WHG cluster, why is he so different from his brothers? in qpadm it is similar to the rest of WHG, but in G25 it distances itself enormously from them. This is not the perfection of G25, how does it work?
https://i.ibb.co/YDf1yZZ/photo-2024-04-17-05-18-22.jpg
https://i.ibb.co/314NXkX/Screenshot-82.png
''
Im not sure what 'G25 distance' means, I dont use it although I know people on the fora do. I guess it shows that Bichon is not super tight with other WHG
That's because it has more Goyet-Q2 related ancestry than other WHG
I think youve posted Gabru's model from FraudArvhvist which, although distantly true, doesn't pass with qpAdm in Admixtools 1 (ADMX 2 is rather dubious & I see no tail probs in that link)
Here is a passing & sensical model for Bichon
Switzerland_Bichon.SG
Italy_Tagliente_LPaleolithic
GoyetQ2a
best coefficients: 0.862 0.138
tail prob 0.3139
right pops:
Mbuti.DG
Kostenki14
China_Tianyuan
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Ethiopia_4500BP
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Bohemia_UP_HG
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Vestonice
Iran_GanjDareh_N
NEO283
Bacho_MUP
Fournol
Georgia_Kotias.SG
AfontovaGora3
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
China_AmurRiver_Mesolithic
Veretye_Mesolithic.SG
@Rob
thanks for the detailed answer
@ Rob,
Thanks. I was hoping you were going to give me the name of a culture. :)
Can someone do me a favor?
Target: Iranian_Fars:IREJ-T027
Distance: 1.6781% / 0.01678094
69.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
20.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
10.2 Armenia_IA
Does this model work on QPADM....I used only Ironage sources....
Iran_Hasanlu_IA is most likely Iranian speaking contrary to claims about them being proto-Armenian or non IE. Unless they learnt Iranic and later being passed down in the family....
Here is another model
Target: Iranian_Persian_Shiraz:SHII94
Distance: 1.6311% / 0.01631127
43.4 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
34.0 Israel_MLBA
18.0 Armenia_LBA
4.6 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG:I4280_noUDG
Distance: 1.4992% / 0.01499222
50.0 Syria_Ebla_EMBA
28.6 Armenia_LBA
21.4 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG:I4269_noUDG
Distance: 1.5389% / 0.01538855
35.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
33.0 Armenia_LBA
32.0 Syria_Ebla_EMBA
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG:I4233_noUDG
Distance: 2.3842% / 0.02384176
52.4 Syria_Ebla_EMBA
34.6 Armenia_LBA
13.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG:I4232_noUDG
Distance: 1.7886% / 0.01788644
41.4 Armenia_LBA
33.2 Syria_Ebla_EMBA
25.4 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG:I4100_noUDG
Distance: 2.0371% / 0.02037113
48.8 Syria_Ebla_EMBA
34.6 Armenia_LBA
16.6 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Target: Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG:I4099_noUDG
Distance: 1.8217% / 0.01821676
51.0 Syria_Ebla_EMBA
29.0 Armenia_LBA
20.0 Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o
Significant BMAC-SiS related ancestry announcing arrival of new group possibly speaking proto-Aryan (1500bce)?
This new group wasn't Gutian or Hurrian. Kassites? Seems unlikely but could be an interesting candidate...who else was moving into that region 2000-1500bce
Hasanlu_IA has Andronovo and was a West Iranic speaking group and culture primarily ancestral to Kurdish population of today
@ A
''thanks for the detailed answer
I was hoping you were going to give me the name of a culture. :)''
My pleasure. That's the thing - I don't think the answer are quite so straightfoward as 'culture' or haplogroup = language. That's why some archaeolgists coined the term 'Budjak culture', because it is an accumulation of steppe groups since 4000 BC, which then carved their own path in the Balkans.
This also means the association of Yamnaya with 'nuclear IE ' doesn't quite fit either, and Tocharians aren't necessarily the second split
Nope!
Hasanlu steppe ancestry is Yamnaya derived with R1b heavy paternal line...Yes Hasanlu is ancestral to Kurds primarily but is also a source population to other groups in Iran as well....
Target: Iranian_Persian_Fars
Distance: 0.9393% / 0.00939313
82.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
15.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
3.0 Armenia_IA
Target: Iranian_Persian_Khorasan
Distance: 0.8843% / 0.00884290
53.8 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
39.6 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
6.6 Armenia_IA
Target: Iranian_Persian_Shiraz
Distance: 1.0853% / 0.01085251
73.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
24.8 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
2.2 Armenia_IA
Target: Iranian_Persian_Yazd
Distance: 0.6667% / 0.00666683
73.0 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
20.0 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
7.0 Armenia_IA
Target: Iranian_Zoroastrian
Distance: 0.7655% / 0.00765504
74.6 Iran_Hasanlu_IA_noUDG
14.6 Pakistan_Katelai_IA
10.8 Armenia_IA
These Hasanlu_IA population then had saka admixture that brought R1a-z93 haplogroup into the region.
@Assuwatama
dude, don’t forget about Asia, don’t model as if it’s not there
Target: Iranian_Fars
Distance: 0.3723% / 0.00372277 | R4P
44.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
40.0 Syria_Ebla_EMBA
13.2 Estonia_CordedWare.SG
2.8 CHN_Gaoshan_LN
Target: Persian_Khorasan
Distance: 0.4023% / 0.00402268 | R4P
56.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
19.6 Israel_C
17.8 RUS_Fatyanovo_Yaroslavl_BA
6.0 CHN_Gaoshan_LN
Target: Yazidi
Distance: 0.2758% / 0.00275804 | R4P
38.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
25.4 Turkey_EBA
18.2 Israel_C
17.6 BGR_Boyanovo_EBA
Target: Zoroastrian_Iran
Distance: 0.4097% / 0.00409731 | R4P
47.0 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
19.6 Israel_C
18.4 Turkey_EBA
15.0 Russia_Afanasievo
@Davidski, then I have a question, we see how the Bichon-man distanced himself in G25 from the rest of the WHG cluster, why do you exclude something similar with the Dagestan Mesolithic and think that the same CHG, similar to the Georgian ones, lived there?
target "TKM_Monjukli_Depe_LN_C"
left
"TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N"
"IRN_Wezmeh_N"
"GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso_KK1"
"TJK_Tutkaul_EN"
weight 9.4 57.7 15.3 17.6
se 2.2 2.9 2.7 1.5
p 0.058
> right = c('Mbuti.DG', 'TUR_Pinarbasi_EpiP', 'IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N', 'RUS_MA1', 'RUS_AG3', 'GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso_NEO283', 'GEO_Satsurblia_HG', 'TUR_Boncuklu_N', 'CHN_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA', 'RUS_Koshkino_HG', 'ISR_Natufian_EpiP', 'RUS_Yana_UP')
---
target "TKM_Monjukli_Depe_LN_C"
left
"IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN"
"IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N"
"GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso"
"TJK_Tutkaul_EN"
weight 39.5 40.8 8.2 11.5
se 12.1 13.9 5.5 2.1
p 0.327
> right = c('Mbuti.DG', 'RUS_Karelia_HG', 'ISR_Natufian_EpiP', 'TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N', 'TUR_Pinarbasi_EpiP', 'RUS_AG3', 'GEO_Satsurblia_HG', 'RUS_Tyumen_HG', 'Onge.SG')
---
TKM_Monjukli_Depe_LN_C
NEO310
Latitude: 60.418
Longitude: 38.848
Monjukli-Depe, Turkmenistan
4800-4400 BCE
Y-DNA: L1a
mtDNA: H14
Reconstruction: https://files.catbox.moe/27yv73.jpg
Yes Yes
Turkey_Alalakh_MLBA_o is basically BMAC related person (Gonur + SiS_ba2 + Afanasievo)
Gonur + Turkey + Armenian + Israel is basically Hasanlu_IA with some Saka ancestry that arrived later.
@Gabru
Minor Steppe_mlba in Hasanlu_IA is via Swat_IA connections and is not a Steppe_mlba guy or girl from Andronovo bringing Iranian language into the region.
for anyone interested, an interactive map of archaeological sites in Russia, you can select a period, zoom in, zoom out on the map, etc.
https://home.archaeolog.ru/oanmap/
@David
Possibly, since these coordinates were not from Vahaduo, but from "The Moriopoulos Collection of G25"
"Nope!
Hasanlu steppe ancestry is Yamnaya derived with R1b heavy paternal line...Yes Hasanlu is ancestral to Kurds primarily but is also a source population to other groups in Iran as well...."
Hasanlu_IronAge is simplistically 25% Hasanlu_IronAge_outlier + 75% Hasanlu_MBA / Hasanlu_LBA_2 that Vasistha had also demonstrated in his "Southern Arc" blogpost. But the problem with his models is that he forces Hasanlu_IronAge_outlier to hypothetically have "Yamnaya" to cope with extra accompanying Steppe signal being shown alongside BMAC(which instantly points to our Yaz II Turkmenistan_IA). He forgets that Yamnaya stopped existing by 2200 BCE so no chance Yamnaya autosomal is time travelling in 1400 BCE. Coming on to it, Hasanlu_IA_outlier can be modelled as Turkmenistan_IA(Yaz II) + Parkhai-Sumbar_LBA(Namazga Period VI) + Hasanlu_MBA and is a very recent migrant from NE Iran Yaz-like sibling/sister culture with albeit lesser Steppe than Yaz. The presence of R1b in Hasanlu can he explained as a founder effect and this "R1b" was carried by Hasanlu_MBA(which is something 10% Catacomb and receives this from the Catacomb migration into Armenia). So in short, Hasanlu_IronAge has both Catacomb and Andronovo(Alakul, Tazabagyab). Catacomb present in 75% while Alakul present in 25%. Now here, I'd argue that "BMAC" in Yaz was the source of Iranic languages based on ample archaeological evidence from Vidale, Masson, Sarianidi but the Kurgan camp is free to think Tazabagyab(from Alakul) was instead the source of Iranic languages into Yaz and Parthia_LBA_EIA(sister culture of Yaz, primarily West Iranic while Yaz is East Iranic)
Another bluff Vasistha did was pretend Kurdish is 100% Hasanlu_IA and that claim also doesn't hold scrunity when checked. I used to believe and argue in favour of his theory about this part but no longer
target "Kurd.HO"
left "IRN_Hasanlu_IA" "TJK_Ksirov_H_Kushan"
weight 77.8% 22.2%
se 3.7% 3.7%
> right = c('ETH_4500BP', 'IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N', 'TUR_Pinarbasi_EpiP', 'GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso', 'RUS_MA1', 'TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N', 'UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA', 'RUS_Sintashta_MLBA', 'SYR_Ebla_EMBA', 'IRN_Seh_Gabi_C', 'MNG_Khovsgol_BA', 'CZE_Corded_Ware', 'ARM_EBA)
Hi, is there a reason the Gretzinger Häven, Mecklenburg-Vorpommern possible Warini samples [HVN001-HVN010] are no longer in the G25 list? Or just an inadvertent omission during an update?
I have them saved from an earlier report (though a couple [8 & 9] are missing from even that), but they aren't there now.
Can someone cross check on QPADM....
Target: Burusho:HGDP00444
Distance: 1.8977% / 0.01897683
72.4 Pakistan_Udegram_IA
15.6 Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA_o2
12.0 China_Xinjiang_Kalatasi_IA
Target: Burusho:HGDP00392
Distance: 2.3644% / 0.02364440
65.2 Pakistan_Udegram_IA
20.2 Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA_o2
14.6 China_Xinjiang_Kalatasi_IA
Target: Burusho:HGDP00388
Distance: 1.7858% / 0.01785842
70.2 Pakistan_Udegram_IA
17.4 Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA_o2
12.4 China_Xinjiang_Kalatasi_IA
Target: Burusho:HGDP00371
Distance: 1.9276% / 0.01927628
71.6 Pakistan_Udegram_IA
17.6 China_Xinjiang_Kalatasi_IA
10.8 Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA_o2
Some samples have this affinity for Bustan otlier
Target: Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA_o2:I11520
Distance: 2.1249% / 0.02124894
57.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
26.8 Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA
15.6 Russia_Afanasievo
@Rob
"In reality we still don’t know clearly how classic Yamnaya and proto-CW formed and fit within each other"
Can you stop with this nonsense? CW is clearly the vector for most extant PIE languages, but the other chunk has to be Yamnaya. Since CW can't account for all PIE languages, then the only other explanation is Yamnaya (or some specific subgroup of Yamnaya) has to be it. Tocharian/Afanasievo splits at 3400-3300 BC, so "proto-CW" and "Core PIE" has, by definition, to postdate it.
Now we have the whole PIE so to speak, and it fits perfectly with linguistics
CLV/Proto-Anatolian -> 4400 to 4000 BC
Tocharian/Early Yamnaya -> 3400 to 3300 BC
Core PIE/Late Yamnaya/Proto-CW -> 3100 to 2900 BC (The "European" portion of IE)
Eastern/Late CW/Proto-Sintashta -> 2800 to 2200 BC (The "Indo" portion of IE)
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB73826 - "Unveiling Hunnic Legacy: Decoding Elite Presence in Poland through a Unique Child's Burial with Modified Cranium" - "This study presents a double burial from Czulice indicating elements of the Hunnic culture. Individual I, aged 7-9, and Individual II, aged 8-9 with a skull deformation, were both genetically identified as boys. Individual II, who exhibited genetic markers of Asian ancestry, was equipped with gold and silver items. In contrast, Individual I displayed European ancestry. The application of strontium isotope analysis shed light on the origins of the individuals. Individual I was non-local, while Individual II was identified as a local, but also falling within the range commonly associated with the Pannonian Plain. Stable isotope analysis suggested a diet consisting of inland resources. Through radiocarbon dating, this burial was determined to date back to the years 395-418 CE, making it the earliest grave of its kind discovered in Poland. The analyses have provided new insights into the nature of the relationship between the Huns and the local inhabitants."
Have we G25d these young boys yet?
@ A
the other interesting thing is that proto-Armenians have a NW Balkan signal, the I2c-Z26399 which co-occurs with R1b-Z2013 is closest to Potocani _En (balaton Lasinja culture).
It's not even 100% clear how it ended up in Bronze Age Armenia, because that lineage is missing in Dnieper-Don N/En.
What specific haplotype of R1b-Z2103 do the Armenians fall under ?
@ Gabru
''Second I believe Ind-Ir is not from Sintashta, but from NW Zagros(Max Planck Institute Jena-Leipzig), Scythians are instead from Turkmenistan_IA Yaz Culture
Yes Vasistha is a major influence and source''
You cant have Balto-Slavic coming from post-CWC and Indo-Iranian from BMAC. It's nonsense.
Also, scythians dont come from Yaz culture, the Scythian comlex developed in Karasuk groups in Tuva and the Altai, that's why early Scythians and Saka have Khovsgol-related ancestry & no BMAC.
@Matt
POL_Czulice_395-418_CE:czu001,0.121791,0.133034,0.075801,0.070737,0.042469,0.017012,0.00188,0.011307,0.006749,-0.002369,-0.005196,0.004946,-0.013379,-0.013762,0.021444,0.025722,0.004433,-0.003294,-0.002891,0.008754,0.013102,0.000618,-0.002095,0.019882,-0.001197
This non-local is I1 and clusters with Scandinavians.
Haven't seen coordinates for the other but in the paper's PCA he resembles elite Hun samples.
@ Dragon Hermit
'''Can you stop with this nonsense? CW is clearly the vector for most extant PIE languages, but the other chunk has to be Yamnaya. Since CW can't account for all PIE languages, then the only other explanation is Yamnaya (or some specific subgroup of Yamnaya) has to be it. Tocharian/Afanasievo splits at 3400-3300 BC, so "proto-CW" and "Core PIE" has, by definition, to postdate it.'
Begging won't get you anywhere. It is my ethical duty to direct the truth.
So rather than schilling fake news, you should pipe down & learn. You can even still go on pretending your khalesi, the mother of Dragons, if it helps you Cope.
The point above is that we still don't understand how R1b-M269 and R1a-M17 (the foundational clans of early CWC and steppe Yamnaya) coalesced. IBD simply means they formed very strong social bonds between 3800 and 3300 BC. But we dont know where they were relative to each other in 4500 BC.
''CLV/Proto-Anatolian -> 4400 to 4000 BC
Tocharian/Early Yamnaya -> 3400 to 3300 BC
Core PIE/Late Yamnaya/Proto-CW -> 3100 to 2900 BC (The "European" portion of IE)
Eastern/Late CW/Proto-Sintashta -> 2800 to 2200 BC (The "Indo" portion of IE''
These vanilla/ pleb models are a bit of a Yawn.
We've been through the issue of CLV before - it has no independent existence after 4000 BC, anywhere. There is no steppe ancestry in eastern Anatolia, and the chronological prorgession of steppe ancestry in Anatolia goes barcin (3800) - isparta (3100) - Kaleyohuk (2200). Clearly NW to Central Anatolia.
Your R1b-V1636 is a sacrificed Uruk burial, the mesopotamian ancestry in Anatolia arrived in 5000 bc. Harvard's entire narrative is contrived.
Tocharian isn't the second split, and linguistics alone is an empty shell.
The second split after Anatolia are the Balkan IE languages, like Illyrian and Greek. This is clearly evident in the fact that they harbour pre-Yamnaya ancestry and lineages, such as J2b2, R1b-PF7562 & I2a-L699, although Yamnaya also contributed.
These are what I call the post-Budjak culture groups.
Then you have the third cluster - coming from CWC/Yamnaya. Tocharian is just one of these languages, and nothing special really apart from its unique location. It split of 3000 BC just as CWC started moving to Netherlands.
Curiously, apart from Tocharian, Yamnaya propper did not independently spawn any major language groups. Even Armenian comes from KMK, evident by the large contribution of central European "I2c'.
The rest (Italic, Celtic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Indo-Iranian) come from CWC in same way or form.
"You cant have Balto-Slavic coming from post-CWC and Indo-Iranian from BMAC. It's nonsense."
BMAC is only - Proto-Iranian(till 1750 BCE when it starts declining and hence Namazga VI is Proto-Eastern-Iranic that I think Vara also holds)
"Indo-Iranian" is Sialk-Zagheh and subsequently SE Iran Late Neolithic Complex of Gaz Tavileh, Atashi, Iblis, Tepe Yahya which contributes to Mehrgarh Period II which is ancestral to IVC Chalcolithic Cultures
"Also, scythians dont come from Yaz culture, the Scythian comlex developed in Karasuk groups in Tuva and the Altai, that's why early Scythians and Saka have Khovsgol-related ancestry & no BMAC."
Bullshit, all Sakas even Tagar has BMAC from earliest. Phylogenetically it's quite impossible for Sakas(Eastern Iranic) to he from anything other than Yaz Culture even in the Kurgan hypothesis, so I don't think it's much for debate
@ Gabru
''Bullshit, all Sakas even Tagar has BMAC from earliest. Phylogenetically it's quite impossible for Sakas(Eastern Iranic) to he from anything other than Yaz Culture even in the Kurgan hypothesis, so I don't think it's much for debate''
There is no debate because BMAC is irrelevant for proto-Scythians. They have either zero or <10% BMAC ancestry.
The only Saka which have relevant amounts of BMAC ancestry are the southern Sakae of Turkmenistan & Uzbekistan.
Sarmatians also have 20% BMAC ancestry, but obviously they're not from Bactria either, but got BMAC-ancestry from their Sake cousins at Winter camps
All old news, you're 5 years late to the party.
That 7% BMAC in Tasmola translates to 15% Turkmenistan_IA(Yaz II genome) and the population which impacted formation of Sakas would be TKM_IA + Final Andronovo remnants that were removed from Kazakhstan Tian Shan and around. Karasuk, Imren all these useless Northeast Andronovo cultures are dead ends which only contributed to Uyuk and Chandman other than in Khovsgol and Deer Stones culture and barely have any contribution in Sakas
@Gabru @Rob
Are you talking about these guys?
Target: Russia_Tagar.SG:DA6_noUDG.SG
Distance: 1.6700% / 0.01670012
61.6 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
30.2 Kyrgyzstan_TianShan_Saka.SG
8.2 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
Staying true to the title itself....It's complicated...
Tagar are a 3 way between Siberia_Lena_EBA Sintashta and TianShan_Saka....
That 25-30% Saka ancestry is the source of Iranian language....😌
If you use Seima_turbino instead of Siberia_Lena_EBA then some of the Tagar samples reach upto 45-50% TianShan_Saka ancestry.....
Anyway I tried running Qpadm through vbox on my system. It's not working. I have 3 gb ram Intel core i3 and windows 7....will it work if I directly install opensuse?
@Dave the Slothtopus
if you need, I can share the coordinates, but most likely they will be similar to yours, and there are also no 8 and 9 samples
Target: KGZ_Saka_Tian_Shan
Distance: 1.2655% / 0.01265511
46.4 TKM_IA
30.2 MNG_Munkhkhairkhan_MBA
23.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Target: MNG_Chandman_IA
Distance: 2.6178% / 0.02617846
40.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
27.2 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
17.6 TKM_IA
15.0 MNG_Munkhkhairkhan_MBA
Target: RUS_Tuva_Aldy_Bel_IA
Distance: 2.7416% / 0.02741628
39.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
35.4 MNG_Munkhkhairkhan_MBA
16.6 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
8.8 TKM_IA
Target: RUS_Tagar
Distance: 1.7519% / 0.01751874
66.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
23.8 MNG_Munkhkhairkhan_MBA
9.6 TKM_IA
@Assuwatama, there you go...
None of the Tagar , early western and even non-outlier Tasmola Saka need BMAC related ancestry with qpAdm.
Zero .
But even if they had 7%, no change
And of course, nobody ever claimed Scythians are from Bactria apart from thinly veiled OIT enthusiasts on the Web
Sarmatians, Sakas are from Yaz Culture. Bactria actually fell under Vakhsh(<Fedorovo<Andronovo) dominion and 'BMAC' was defeated in that part so you're point is nonsense.
Tasmola may be culturally scythian but you can't guarantee the language...unless there is hard evidence for it.
Target: Kazakhstan_Tasmola_EIA:SRK001
Distance: 1.0251% / 0.01025101
42.4 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
39.8 Mongolia_EIA_SlabGrave_1
11.0 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
6.8 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
Closest population to them are Tatars and Bashkirs...
The Genetic History of the South Caucasus from the Bronze to the Early Middle Ages: 5000 years of genetic continuity despite high mobility
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.11.597880v1
I think I have done everything correct...
But once I hit qpfstats -p parqpfstat.txt >qpfstatlog.txt and wait for a minute...I get killed response...
Any idea what's happening?
@ Gabru
“Sarmatians, Sakas are from Yaz Culture. Bactria actually fell under Vakhsh(<Fedorovo<Andronovo) dominion and 'BMAC' was defeated in that part so you're point is nonsense.”
No, sarmatians don’t come from Yaz, they just have modest levels of admixture from there
The common link of all Scytho-Sarmatian groups goes back to Andronovo , not BMAC
CW doesn’t come from MDC, Fatyanovo isn’t Balto-Slavic,
If you drop the insolent pajeetisms, you might learn more.
@ Rob
"Im not sure what 'G25 distance' means"
Provided all samples involved in the calculation have a sufficient number of SNPs and are within the space defined by the reference dataset, this distance should be proportional to the square root of the f2-statistic.
@ all
This is probably my last comment under this nickname, as I want to consolidate my online identities and focus on new projects.
I will switch to this profile: 11045408248287178465 (formerly "vahaduo").
@ Arza
Thanks, good luck. I didnt realise you're Mr Vahaduo !
An interesting model...
target "RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_LN_En"
left weight se
RUS_Nalchik_LN 40.7 ±8.6
RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso 27.4 ±4.2
GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso 13.1 ±6.0
TJK_Tutkaul_EN 18.9 ±3.0
p 0.108
> right = c('Mbuti.DG', 'LUX_Loschbour', 'RUS_Karelia_HG', 'TUR_Pinarbasi_EpiP', 'JOR_PPNB', 'RUS_MA1', 'GEO_Satsurblia_HG', 'SRB_Iron_Gates_Meso', 'RUS_Shamanka_N')
@Arsen, I think Nalchik and Dagestan Mesolithic was perhaps 40% Kotias + 60% Lebyazhinka while Kuban Mesolithic was perhaps 33-35% Kotias + 65-67% Lebyazhinka, what do you think?
Nalchik is like 49-56% Aknashen on qpAdm... So Nalchik Mesolithic may not either touch 40% Kotias really but less than 40% most probably. I guess that's all the Epipaleolithic or Mesolithic "CHG" that happened to be in Europe(past Caucausus Ridge). I wish Russian archaeologists had written something on Nalchik or material origins of Prikaspiiskaya rather than just saying it's from Lower Don(which is unlikely as CLV-type entered Lower Don in probably 5000 BCE)
@Arsen
Certainly hgs R1a and R1b did come from elsewhere, exactly where we are saying from. End of the OIT and the "Southern Arc" theory.
@Arsen
Remember that I broke in pieces the papers of Underhill et al. already 15 years ago only through the STRs values and the pretension that hg R1a did come from up there. That was false like the aDNA demonstrated later.
@Gio
my friend, I began to be interested in genetics for a maximum of 2-3 years, I don’t know what happened here before, especially 15 years ago
@Gabru
I don't know, I want to find out myself who was running through the mountains in the Mesolithic, whether it was PIE or Proto NEC, and what kind of admixtures they had. I think that initially Caucasian hunters split into northern and southern groups. The northern ones possibly received additional mixtures from Mesopotamia and/or the Zagros-Southern Caspian region. Archaeological data also shows the influence of the Satani Mesolithic in the northern Caspian region, and in the mountains of Dagestan, there are findings from the Caspian Mesolithic (Buynaksk and other foothill sites). I don't know, there is little data, and I don't want to make hasty conclusions.
@ Arsen
''https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.11.597880v1''
No chalcolithic :(
Curiously, a big impact of KMK (R1b-Z2103, I2c) in eastern Georgia too
Do you have your link to the screen shot of Sabine's talk with Sioni profile ?
@Arsen
This matter is old, not only recent within 2 or 3 years, and the questions of to-day were discussed also many years ago. The tentative to link hg R1 (both a and b) to Middle East is old, just for the prejudice that "Ex Oriente lux", and you should know who is interested with that. Underhill et al wrote many papers about the origin of R1a, that they thought demonstrated in Middle East, exactly in Iran. We had then only the STRs, and through them I wrote many times that he was wrong, and for that (and other things) I had been banned from pretty much all the logs active then. After we had what I called the "levantinists-kurganists-levantinists" theory of the Harvardians, and others, until the last theory of the "Southern Arc". We had also the first tests about the aDNA, which demonstrated not only that the oldest R1b1 is Villabruna, Italy, 14000 years ago, but also that the oldest R1a were all in Eastern Europe. We don't know if the expansion of the IE language is linked with hg R1 or others. It is possible that it was due to other hgs, but certainly R1a and R1b expanded from Europe. Perhaps you know that these hgs were never found in aDNA out of Europe, except perhaps R-PH155, but it could have migrated to Asia in these last 7000 years as certainly all the other old subclades and I am waiting that also about R-V1636 the last word is said. The oldest samples found 7000 years ago are 9000 years younger from its origin and only the finding of these samples could say the last word. I have to read this paper of Skourtanioti et al, but the samples posted demonstrates, probably, that once more no R1a and R1b could be born out of Europe, and the Harvardians funded million dollar to test more and more in Anatolia. Good luck!
@Rob
Here's everything I managed to screenshot, but it's impossible to make out anything, the quality is poor
https://i.ibb.co/x2ywqy5/Screenshot-39.png
https://i.ibb.co/XjdJN9j/Screenshot-38.png
https://i.ibb.co/Z1JFk8v/Screenshot-37.png
https://i.ibb.co/G5cj2JF/photo-2024-06-14-16-44-37.jpg
Surprising but G25 favours KMK/Babino/Multi-Cordoned Ware over Catacomb overall for Armenia_1995BCE(TVC) and Armenia_MBA or Armenia_MLBA
Also the likely TVC individual from Hajji Firuz
Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA:I4243__BC_2362
Distance: 1.7289% / 0.01728935
46.8 ARM_Karnut_EBA
36.2 MDA_Multi-Cordoned_Ware_MBA
17.0 RUS_Catacomb
@Gabru
How's that for a model?
Target: Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA:I4243
Distance: 1.1852% / 0.01185165 | R3P
38.2 Iran_HajjiFiruz_N
35.2 Russia_Afanasievo
26.6 France_HautsDeFrance_LN.SG
isn't it the most logical? When the overwhelming majority of the autosome is associated with the earlier Neolithic of the same area.
If anything, this sample from France is autosomal similar to Czech Corded Ware, and is approximately 2500 BC in age.
but you can imagine it like this
Target: Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA:I4243
Distance: 1.0692% / 0.01069188 | R4P
32.2 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
31.0 Turkey_Ikiztepe_LateC
26.6 Czech_CordedWare
10.2 Turkmenistan_EBA_Parkhai
Target: Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA:I4243
Distance: 1.2246% / 0.01224558 | R3P
57.0 Russia_Afanasievo
29.8 Turkey_Ikiztepe_LateC
13.2 TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
@Gio
I’m wondering about the R-V1636 branch, how it suddenly appeared in the early Eneolithic, and also suddenly disappeared during the early Bronze Age, where it was hiding all the time, what population they belonged to. I don’t think that R-V1636 comes from Europe, maybe it from Central Asia, associated with populations like Tutkaul, or the northern Caspian region, but the version with Tutkaul does not make sense since the Nalchik Chalcolithic almost did not have this admixture. Maybe these were EHG associated with the Caspian region, what do you think, huh?
@Gabru
Target: Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA:I4243
Distance: 1.4826% / 0.01482630
48.0 Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes_Karnut_o
21.8 Ukraine_BA_Catacomb.SG
18.2 Moldova_MBA_MultiCordonedWare
12.0 Russia_Steppe_Catacomb
Behold we have found a Gutian .....Just kidding 🤪
@Davidski
Is there a way to accurately quantify and distinguish Norse admixture from Anglo-Saxon admixture in England? I was under the impression that it’s pretty much not possible with the current testing technology we have, since both groups were so similar in ancestral terms.
Secondly, a particular Polish poster on Genarchivist has claimed that Poles have 0.8% Ashkenazi admixture on average, based on a review of 23andme results. Is this accurate or quite misleading? I thought that Ashkenazis have varying levels of German, Slavic, and even Baltic admixture depending on the subgroup, especially Litvaks (in the case of Baltic admixture) and others from the Pale of Settlement.
@ Arsen
Thanks for images.
RE: R1b-V1636, it is an EHG Volga-Caspian lineage, nothing to do with TTK, which is Y-hg Q-M242-M346. In fact, there is not a single Paleolithic or mesolithic sample from Central Asia or Siberia which is derived for R1b-L574.
I know some self-proclaimed R1b experts on FraudArchiver claim R1b-L754 arrived to Europe in the mesolithic, but they must be getting senile.
V1636 then almost disappears after 4000 BC, becuase LCV collapsed. Again old news.
People just do a poor job of following evidence
@ Gabru
''Surprising but G25 favours KMK/Babino/Multi-Cordoned Ware over Catacomb overall for Armenia_1995BCE(TVC) and Armenia_MBA or Armenia_MLBA''
Not much supririnsg about my being correct.
You also showed yourself with qpAdm the 30% weighted migration from Balkans to BA Anatolia
Game over man
@ Arsen
Also, v1636 almost disappeared after 4000 BC because the LCV -Khvalynsk cluster (from which they came) collapsed due to the migration of Uruk-Majkop folk which completely uprooted them. This has already been written about by European archaeologists
The problem is would KMK already form in Eastern Catacomb by 2600 BCE? We have full Catacomb/Poltavka genomes from Potapovka. Catacomb samples last till 2300 BCE in Kuban Steppe and around Piedmont. There's probably just Catacomb in Trialeti-Vanadzor Culture going by chronology
When did I find 30% impact from Balkans into Anatolia? Barcin_C is an outlier(Ilipinar from same Marmara district from same time has no Steppe as per you but one coping Mexican told me even that has). Isparta does not, Ovaoren does not, Assyrian_Colony_Period does not
Post a Comment