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 1001 – 1200 of 1339 Newer› Newest»Anyways G25 prefers Yamnaya over Andronovo for Indians so I don't think it has much scrunity to choose between KMK and Catacomb for TVC/LMC. There is also chances of Armenian Kura-Araxes being Armenian that I'm thinking
@Arsen
''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”.
@Rob 1
“Of course R-V1636 is from eastern Europe. There is to date not a single Mesolithic or Paleolithic R1b in Siberia or Central Asia. TTK is Y-hg Q
You must follow the evidence and not infect yourself with the laziness, stupidiy & lies propagated on FraudArchiver.
V1636 (almost) disappears in the Bronze Age because as I've been saying all along, LCV cluster disappears”.
@Rob 2
“RE: R1b-V1636, its from eastern Europe: Caspian-Volga zone.
No way it is from Central Asia, TTK is Q, and in fact there is not a single R1b from Paleolithic or Mesolithic Siberia or Central Asia.
I know some self-proclaimed R1b experts from FraudArchiver make up stories about R1b coming to E. Europe during the Mesolithic from Siberia, but they must be getting Senile”.
Of course with the data at our disposal now Rob interprets them rightly, but my analyses belong to more than 10 years ago (and in blogs deleted now, above all "Worldfamilies" and "eng-molgen" and I don't know if they are somewhere too, but I printed all what I wrote) when we had only the STRs, but that we lack so far samples from 16000 to 7000 years ago probably rends my analyses alive yet.
I found 5 different haplotypes of this subclade in Italy and only 1 sparsely elsewhere, and above all out of Italy we had then only the YCAII values = 23-23 and in Italy the ancestor 18-23, thus I thought that the origin were in Italy because 23-23 is a RECHloh of 18-23 and not the other way around. Of course new data from elsewhere and above all the aDNA changed the perspective, and there always is the possibility that some sample found in Italy had come from elsewhere even in Medieval migrations also from the Turkish pool or similar of peoples entered through the migration from eastern Europe to Asia beginning from 7000 years ago and later, but I think that we have to wait that all those 5 haplotypes from Italy are deeply tested to say the last word. Villabruna gave reason to me. We'll see about the linked old subclades.
"Game over man"
Old Hittite Period outlier with TVC proves nothing neither does Yassitepe Logkas admixed samples. Find Steppe archaeological presence in Bulgaria and Thrace before Ezero 3300 BCE then we'll see anything. Other wise Barcin_C lady obviously has CLV outlier input nothing more than that even Vasisth admitted that before. I see 3 tiers of special pleading for Anatolians:-
1. Steppe only in Barcin_C, Isparta, Old Hittite Period outlier, Old Hittite Period complete(?)
2. Harvard shady models about Steppe in Ovaoren, Assyrian Colony Period, Old Hittite Period
3. Steppe in most LateChL Anatolia clusters directly including prime important Camlibel Tarlasi LateChalcolithic cluster
@ Gabru
Cernavodă culture was established on lower Danube by 4000 bc, or just after
There’s Cernavodă pottery throughout Thrace by 3700 bc, although mounds didn’t start building up there until 3300 bc
You’d need to read regional experts for this.
There’s certainly Balkan/ steppe signal across inland western & central Anatolia. The key period is 4000-2500 bc
Vas’ theory, or whatever other disciples of Heggarty’s embarrassment exist, falls on it ‘s arse, because the “Iranian” ancestry in Anatolia is from PPN Syria, and this is different to the type in indo-Aryans, unless of course you’re now going to claim IA come from epipaleolithic Syria 🤣
@David Wesolowski and Simon Stevin
Modern DNA testing companies simply give you results on what segments of your DNA are similar to their own reference populations. This, especially for under-sampled groups like Eastern Europeans usually brings in odd or uncertain results such as Baltic, Balkan and rarely but sometimes Ashkenazi (which is usually >1%). This isn't to say that these tests can't be accurate or helpful, but as David pointed out they are not evidence and by no means overtly serious - they're for fun and are marketed as such.
I actually have some experience digging in Polish records while building family trees for friends and marriage between Jews and gentiles are quite rare, contrary to what some people seem to believe. Jews are quite easy to trace in records as for one, they only began taking permanent surnames in Poland after the later 1790s (most by 1810) and their forenames and surnames are quite distinct (with the exception of some forenames being simple Slavic/ German words). Gentiles can usually trace their records well past the 1790s in birth and marriage records whereas for Jews, many of them only formally begin around 1810, so it becomes easy to analysis when intermarriages did take place and where.
Most marriages between Jews and gentiles begin mostly around the 1850s, with most happening by the 1880-1890s and further. This isn't a surprise when more rural populations began moving into urban areas where Jews mostly lived. Even then, they were still quite the exception as Jews were allowed to live in their own communities under Polish law segregated from gentiles, with religious differences also being quite a barrier in all reality.
Another factor, as David pointed out is that Jews do indeed have input from Slavs (and of course Germans and other various groups), and this shouldn't come as a surprise. While there were social and religious barriers, Jews were still a large minority group in wherever they settled and thus, naturally picked up local admixture without impacting the actual general population. A good example of this is South Africa where, even with Apartheid and racial tensions, many Afrikaans people have ancestry from various slaves that were imported to the region during the colonial period and records indeed show this.
The only (traceable) groups I have found that has indeed left a genetic impact on the Polish population which records do show are German settlers. Ruthenians are a bit more difficult to trace and their impact genetically would be difficult to notice - with the possible exception of Belarusians in Podlaskie mediating N1c into Poland.
Regardless, taking DNA results from these companies as a serious representation of any ethnic group is silly when there's so many variables to take into account in regards to sampling, bias and other aspects. It's even more silly to take Genarchivist posters seriously if they're saying things like that.
@ Gabru
If you want to discuss special pleading, then refer to your own claims about Indo-Aryan.
But as far as Anatolia goes, then these are the facts:
- Cernavodă in fact appears at the lower Danube 4000 bc
- by 3600 BC, these is a Balkan/steppe signal in Barcin, in the Maramara
- by 3000 bc it’s across but patchily in inland western -central Anatolia
So the layout is there . More data will clarify things . The key period for sampling will be 4000-2500 bc, and it’s already in process
"because the “Iranian” ancestry in Anatolia is from PPN Syria"
Didn't you say the ancestry in Anatolia_LC is from Armenian Plateau just above? Changing colours faster than a chameleon
And I've investigated it already there is clear Armenian Plateau/South Caucasus/NW Zagros(Aknashen, Masis Blur, Mentesh, Polutepe, Hajji Firuz) input in Anatolia so had Vashisth/Ashish, get over this new cope you're basically licking up Harvard at this point
"- by 3600 BC, these is a Balkan/steppe signal in Barcin, in the Maramara
- by 3000 bc it’s across but patchily in inland western -central Anatolia"
Isparta_EBA does not and Yassitepe has Budjak/Yamnaya/Catacomb admixture from Albanians and Greeks in Logkas and Sarakenos Greece. So this point doesn't hold scrutiny. Barcin_C is an outlier(Ilipinar samples from same date and region do not unless they're Pre-4000BCE that I need to see)
@Gabru
check out these two models just for fun
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
Target: Iran_HajjiFiruz_BA:I4243
Distance: 1.2473% / 0.01247259 | R3P
57.0 Russia_Afanasievo
32.6 Turkey_Ikiztepe_LateC
10.4 Iran_HajjiFiruz_N
@North Goth
I of course think that this isn't the right way to answer this question. Ashkenazim (and also Sephardim) are, at 23andMe for instance, well defined clusters within the European population, and that is due to their oldest origin, i.e. the about 25000 people who migrated in the Middle Ages from Italy to the Rhine Valley. They were the descendants of the Roman Empire pool of the cities, above all Rome, and, as it was clear from the Erfurt 1350AD aDNA, they were 70% Italian, 15% from eastern Europe and 15 from Northern Africa, Middle East and Iran with no proof that they were "Jews" in origin. The percentage from eastern Europe (and also some from Khazars) grew up until about 30% as someone in this blog said, and the introgression of the mutation for CCR5delta32 in Lithuanian Jews is a clear proof.
After that, above all in Ashkenazim in France or in the US, there happpened other mix, clearly detectable in 23andMe for instance. I have many from Italians linked to me migrated in France or US. Some traits are actually false, because they are so old and not due to recent admixture. The same may be demonstrated about the uniparental markers, what I made during all my life until the most important Jewish family belonging to hg J-Y15223 and it may be an indirect proof that the most part of these lines has a MRCA in the Middle Ages and long after the diaspora.
@Gio
They are well defined clusters, but that doesn't mean they are immune misreading, especially when dealing with percentages at the noise level. I find it an odd take that Ashkenazi Jews were somehow not 'Jewish in origin', especially when, as you refer to Erfurt Jews, many show high levels of MENA admixture and sprinkles off East Eurasian ancestries.
Regardless, the primary crux of the answer was whether or not Poles have admixture from them and as David already said, using 23&me isn't evidence for answering such a question. Indeed, the lack of uniparental markers, admixture and records should already indicate their impact was minimal to none in the grand scheme. Even running a quick and dirty run with G25, the Natufian component, which is defining for Jewish groups is almost absent in Poles. But that's from my experience.
Link some papers in regards to the Ashkenazi origin somehow not being Jewish but rather Italian. I'll give it a read when I can.
@Arsen
I don't think they a proximal at all. Think about what entered in Hajji Firuz from outside and close to it. It was Catacomb/Multi-Cordoned Ware from Steppe which mixed with existing Hasanlu_MBA or Armenia_Kura-Araxes population.
@Gio
I wonder in what kind of research or scientific work it is stated that the people of Erfurt were not Jews or at least did not have any admixture from Israel, the Levant, and so on? Name those scientists so we can all have a good laugh together as a blog. Even looking at contemporary populations, the people of Erfurt are closely related to Yemenites, Samaritans (an indigenous people of the Levant/Israel), Palestinians, and other Middle Eastern peoples connected to the Natufian population. As i wrote to you, you cannot obtain Natufian admixture from East Africa, Eastern Europe, and so on, except from Natufia and Israel itself
@11045408248287178465, see you round! Thanks for everything you've done.
@EthanR, thanks.
Re; Poland, I think the best reference for the general population is Thousand Polish Genomes database (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35562925/), and there is no sign of unexpected structure linking Ashkenazi and Polish populations.
@North Goth
I think you should read carefully the paper about Erfurt 1350AD or at least the thread here [https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2024/01/romans-and-slavs-in-balkans-olalde-et.html], and of course the answer I published here a few days ago: "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".
About the papers you shouldn't ask me for them, because my theory of pretty much 20 years is just that the papers are funded and written just to demonstrate the other way around, and my 20000 letters about the argument, above all about uniparental markers, aren't in academic papers but in blogs deleted now or from which was deleted I, but you could find some of these theories also in this blog and its position about the "Southern Ark theory" that is the last landing of that. I suggest you also this last post of the same Davidski here that perhaps you lacked: "There's no real evidence that Poles have 0.8% Ashkenazi admixture. The results at 23andMe are not evidence of this. On the other hand, Ashkenazi Jews have significant Slavic ancestry, which means that in tests/analyses that have Ashkenazi genetic components some Slavic/Polish ancestry will always be confused for Ashkenazi ancestry. There's no way around this".
@Gio
I've read Davidski's recent post and my own post was in conjunction to his. Like I said, my post was mostly related to the lack of evidence in records (paired with DNA evidence) that the general Polish population did not intermarry with their Ashkenazi population to a large extent like people on Genearchivist think.
I've read through this blog a few times and I've seen both the Balkan post and that recent post you made of Ashkenazis a few days ago and I'm not convinced their origin is mostly from Roman Italics. If it's simply a theory with no practical evidence with the major weight being 'it's 20 years old' isn't very moving. I'll read on some of your earlier posts again, but I'm not very convinced. It does seem a bit desperate to have Ashkenazis to be a (mostly) Italian descended people.
Anyways, again, my posts were about the Polish population, so it's not too relevant to me regardless.
@ garbu
''Didn't you say the ancestry in Anatolia_LC is from Armenian Plateau just above? Changing colours faster than a chameleon''
Nope I have consistently doubted the Caucasus steppe/ model
If you're going to engage with Real Men, at least be honest & get basic facts straight.
''And I've investigated it already there is clear Armenian Plateau/South Caucasus/NW Zagros(Aknashen, Masis Blur, Mentesh, Polutepe, Hajji Firuz) input in Anatolia so had Vashisth/Ashish, get over this new cope you're basically licking up Harvard at this point''
Arm_N cannot be the source of the shifts in Anatlia, because they are first palpable in Buyukkaya, which dates to ~ 5800 BC, the same time as the Arm_N horizon.
The source therefore is a third zone 'X", which is none other than Mesopotamia, parallel to the Halaf, Hassuna horizon
The only site which does have actual south Caucasian ancestry is Arslantepe_EBA (post Uruk), due to the K-A intrusions
So rather than 'licking Harvard', the observation melts their claim that mesopotamian ancestry co-occurs with Cucasus-route CLV, because mesopotamian influx in fact began 2000 year earlier.
So you've misunderstood multiple aspects of the arguement.
'' So this point doesn't hold scrutiny. Barcin_C is an outlier(Ilipinar samples from same date and region''
That's not a problem at all. These were heterogeneous populations coming in from different directions.
''Isparta_EBA does not and Yassitepe has Budjak/Yamnaya/Catacomb admixture from Albanians and Greeks in Logkas and Sarakenos Greece. So this point doesn't hold scrutiny. ''
What is the 'scrutiny' of an amatuer OIT saleman who can't use real admixtools adequately worth ? :)
Claiming 'Yassitepe got steppe ancestry from Albanians' is cringe-level dumbass
@Noble Goth
“I've read Davidski's recent post and my own post was in conjunction to his. Like I said, my post was mostly related to the lack of evidence in records (paired with DNA evidence) that the general Polish population did not intermarry with their Ashkenazi population to a large extent like people on Genearchivist think.“
I’m guessing you mean “my post was mostly related to the lack of evidence in records (paired with DNA evidence) that the general Polish population did intermarry with their Ashkenazi population to a large extent like people on Genearchivist think”, not that there’s a lack of evidence that Poles did not intermarry. I presume this was a typo? Additionally, I’m guessing the same results hold true for Baltic peoples like Lithuanians? I believe Litvaks have non-negligible amounts of both Slavic and Baltic admixture, while Latvians and Lithuanians (like the Poles) have practically no Ashkenazi. Thank you, to both yourself and David for the detailed responses.
I5733 (Yassitepe) is 800 years older than Logkas, 450 years older than Sarakinos, and 200 years older than ALB_Çinamak_EBA.
The sample clusters with SW Anatolians dating 2000 years later (archaic_subgeometric sample set).
@Arsen and @Noble Goth
I think that what Davidski wrote in the quote of mine above is the solution of the question: "On the other hand, Ashkenazi Jews have significant Slavic ancestry, which means that in tests/analyses that have Ashkenazi genetic components some Slavic/Polish ancestry will always be confused for Ashkenazi ancestry. There's no way around this".
In 2010 I made deCODEme, among my various tests (also two "Full Genome": FGC and Dantelabs; and my results are in YFull for the uniparental markers and MyTrueAncestry for the autosome, but also 23andMe etc). At DNAForumns the experts found that I was more than 20% Ashkenazic and suggested me for a Bar Mitzvah. I gave the answer that also Davidski gave above, and lastly also from that blog I was banned.
My analyses were made above all through the uniparental markers, and I won all my fights: about Benassi, the J-Y15223 subclade and infinite others, both Y and mt, but I am above all a historian (and a poet) and I wrote a lot also about that. Who among you may understand Italian language should pay attention to this to understand what is happening in the world now, in economy, wars and also genetics:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NKHjxyHXO5g
@Simon Stevin
Sorry, yes that was a typo. I meant that the records and DNA evidence, such as admixture and uniparental markers do indeed show that the Polish population was not impacted by their Ashkenazi minority. In other words, Poles and Jews did not marry often and only began to mingle in the 1850s with industrialization pushing people into cities, although marriage remained rare. I would confidently say then yes, the average Pole does not have Ashkenazi ancestry and this doesn't surprise me. I would also assume this true for most Eastern Europeans, including Lithuanians.
"I5733 (Yassitepe) is 800 years older than Logkas, 450 years older than Sarakinos, and 200 years older than ALB_Çinamak_EBA."
Yassitepe receives Steppe around 3000 BCE from the same wave received by Albania, Northern Greece and related regions. No map shows Anatolian presence later on in Western Turkey fringes where Yassitepe is from
"No map shows Anatolian presence later on in Western Turkey fringes where Yassitepe is from"
I have no clue what the fuck this means but that's not true both historically (Arzawa, Seha) and genetically (CTG025 and the subgeometric set both show steppe ancestry in later Western Anatolia).
"Yassitepe receives Steppe around 3000 BCE from the same wave received by Albania, Northern Greece and related regions"
There's no evidence of this. Anatolia shares no Y-DNA with these regions until antiquity, yet shares with Bulgaria_EBA before this. The Lazaridis paper models both samples together with contribution from Bulgaria_C.
Target: TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_EBA:I5735__BC_2975__Cov_32.76%
Distance: 3.0119% / 0.03011942
65.4 TUR_Camlibel_Tarlasi_LC
21.2 GRC_Logkas_MBA
13.4 GRC_Peloponnese_EN
Target: TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_EBA:I5733__BC_2779__Cov_48.71%
Distance: 2.4427% / 0.02442676
58.6 TUR_Camlibel_Tarlasi_LC
22.2 GRC_Sarakenos_BA
10.4 UKR_Usatove_En
8.8 GRC_Koufonisi_Cycladic_EBA
"Matt said...
Re; Poland, I think the best reference for the general population is Thousand Polish Genomes database (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/35562925/), and there is no sign of unexpected structure linking Ashkenazi and Polish populations."
Why would you expect this structure to show up in a big picture study when we're talking about such small amounts of admixture? Ashkenazi Jewish segments are very well studied, very distinct and there's little possibility of a mistake, especially since these segments usually show up where you'd expect them, in Poles, Ukrainians, etc. Unless we want to go into 2010-era conspiracy theories about 23andMe falsifying results in order to "promote the diversity agenda" :)
By the way, a similar phenomenon is observed in modern Balkan people, where there's very small but geographically widespread admixture from Romani people. What people need to understand is that, from a population genetics perspective, there's no need for big, historically documented events of intermarriage to have happened for these small amounts of admixture to show up today. You just need relatively few individuals per generation "leaving the tribe" and mixing into the wider population. The mechanisms for that are many, people willingly or unwillingly abandoning their previous identity (e.g. conversions in the case of Jews), adoptions, NPE events, etc.
So, based on the new scientific work by Skurtanioti from Georgia on ancient DNA samples from this region, ranging from the early Bronze Age to the Iron Age, most of these ancient DNA samples originate from eastern Georgia. That is, the part of this territory that was under the influence of the Kura-Araxes culture. We have at least three male samples from this region that belonged to haplogroup J1-Z1842. Adding to the other samples from Armenia and Dagestan, we get 9 out of 12 samples belonging to this branch, meaning 75 percent of the Y-chromosomes belonged to this haplogroup.
However, as is known from this (https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/9/1780) last year's work by Anastasia Agdzhoyan and others, the homeland of the J1-Z1842 branch (or the same J1-Y3495) was precisely and unequivocally established, namely the central mountainous region of northeastern Caucasus. I quote:
"...We propose J1-Y3495 haplogroup’s most common lineage originated in an autochthonous ancestral population in central Dagestan and splits up ~6 kya into J1-ZS3114 (Dargins, Laks, Lezgi-speaking populations) and J1-CTS1460 (Avar-Andi-Tsez linguistic group)."
Here is the approximate location they determined for the progenitor of J1-Z1842.
https://i.ibb.co/xzdD66b/Origins-of-J1-Z1842.jpg
So, herders from the mountains came down, mixed with the local female population like Aknashen-Leila Tepe, and resulted in the "Kura-Araxes." Hence the increase in the Caucasian/Iranian component among the inhabitants of the Bronze Age Transcaucasia. However, I do not know if the steppe component in the Kura-Araxes is related to a mix like Areni or if it also came from northeastern Caucasus.
And one more question that some might not like: the untyped sample from Khvalynsk I6735, aged 5206-4935 calBCE (one of the oldest in the Volga-Cline region), also belonged to haplogroup J1, branch J-CTS1026. Is it possible that it also came from the northeastern Caucasus, from that area? Could they have brought herding to the steppe and given a Caucasian-Iranian component to the Volga region just as they added an additional Caucasian-Iranian component to the Kura-Araxes?
I forgot to mention that the new samples J1-Z1842 are from Eastern Georgia, dating to the Early Bronze Age. The age is specified as 3100 BCE.
@alex
There's no need to get emotional and sarcastic about this, or to make false claims that Ashkenazi segments/haplotypes are "very well studied".
No one here said that there was a conspiracy. The problem is a technical one.
The 23andMe haplotype analysis is highly ambitious and still experimental.
One of the problems is that Ashkenazi Jews are inbred and have a very low effective population size. This means that they'll produce a very powerful genetic cluster that will dominate haplotype analyses.
This genetic cluster contains about 15% of Slavic haplotypes, and despite the fact that some of these haplotypes are typically Slavic or Polish or Ukrainian, they are still classified as Ashkenazi-specific by 23andMe.
As a result, anyone who carries these typically Slavic haplotypes is likely to show some Ashkenazi admixture, even though they've never had any Ashkenazi ancestors.
This problem is much worse in analyses based on allele frequencies. For example, in ADMIXTURE tests that have Ashkenazi clusters, Poles and Ukrainians by and large show 5-10% Ashkenazi admixture.
Over the years I've had to explain to many dumbasses that they don't know how to interpret ADMIXTURE output and that this 5-10% Ashkenazi signal in Poles isn't real, but usually to no avail.
So don't be a dumbass.
The scientists at 23andMe have actually done quite well in mitigating this problem by using haplotypes instead of allele frequencies, but splitting relatively closely related West Eurasian clusters with an accuracy of more than 99% is still extremely difficult.
We'll need large databases of whole genomes (not just a few hundred thousand genotypes) as reference samples to do this properly.
Insane fits on G25 for Cernavoda and Usatove_En...
Target: UKR_Cernavoda_En
Distance: 1.0156% / 0.01015580
26.2 UKR_Trypillia_Verteba_Cave_C
22.2 RUS_Vonyuchka_En
15.4 BGR_C
11.0 RUS_Progress_En
11.0 RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
8.6 BGR_Varna_C
3.6 ROU_C
2.0 UKR_Trypillia
Target: UKR_Usatove_En
Distance: 0.9393% / 0.00939262
31.2 RUS_Vonyuchka_En
23.0 MDA_Trypillia_Late
15.0 ROU_Gumelnita_C
10.6 RUS_Progress_En
9.4 UKR_Trypillia
8.0 BGR_Karanovo_En
2.8 UKR_Sredni_Stog_Deriivka_En
Interesting note on horse domestication: The Standard of Ur in Sumer was made in 2600 BC and shows what looks at a first glance horses pulling wagons (those they seem closer to chariots in shape). This obviously predates Sintashta by a few hundred years. The explanation given is that these are not horses but some kind of "equids" like donkeys.
However, that is not disproving anything and simply interpretation, and given this intermixing of steppe people and Middle Eastern people we see genetically, this could very well be the first evidence of horse domestication we see in terms of paintings. We even see a human lying down by comparison and the animal is quite clearly longer than the human. Horses are about two and a half meters in length, while donkeys are like half of that.
Either way, these "equids" were eventually replaced by the superior Sintashta DOM2 horses, so using a replacement as a theory is fairly solid, since that is exactly what happened regardless of the provenance of those animals.
@Gabru
I wrote that Varna Bulgaria is connected with Cernavoda
is your Cernavoda averaged over all samples? if so, here's what I came up with
Target: UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
Distance: 0.7566% / 0.00756609 | R3P
45.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
42.0 Croatia_C_Lasinja
12.6 Bulgaria_MalakPreslavets_N
But I think that the five-population model looks more logical
Target: UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
Distance: 0.4162% / 0.00416223 | R5P
39.0 Germany_EN_LBK
25.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
13.4 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa
11.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
10.6 BGR_Varna_C
@DragonHermit
Though they could be Horses indeed, just Non-DOM2. I think Kunga(Onager-Donkey hybrid) were found to have pulled Mesopotamian war wagons? In that case, domesticated Horses in Mesopotamia that were not of DOM2/Yamnaya branch could also have pulled war wagons and wagons. There are Equus Caballus from SC Asia, IVC. Not sure about their findings in Anatolia and related regions
@Arsen
Think about proximal models that make sense. LBK didn't participate in formation of Cernavoda, even if it may work as a proxy but that's useless as we already have many Romania and Bulgaria EEF culture genomes that actually participated in formation of Cernavoda and others. G25 distances if fantastic for proximally valid sources sound convincing but not the same for non-proximal. I heard about Meshoko/Maykop contribution in Cernavoda, but I'm not sure
@alex
'You just need relatively few individuals per generation "leaving the tribe" and mixing into the wider population. The mechanisms for that are many, people willingly or unwillingly abandoning their previous identity (e.g. conversions in the case of Jews), adoptions, NPE events, etc.'
For a founders affect, yes, in most casual instances, no. You don't 'need a few individuals per generation' to impact a population of tens of millions, that just doesn't happen unless it's a founding population. When speaking of the Ashkenazi Jewish populations of Europe, you're dealing with a minority group which has, historically, been very tribal and clung onto their ethnic identities. This is no secret or new information. Jews have never outbred into the general Eastern European population to any large degree, and a 'few individuals' doing this won't alter an entire population in a few generations.
In the case of Poland, most of the population up until the mid-late 19th century were rurally based. Most ethnic minorities, especially Jews, would live in urban areas for economic reasons (and you can still see this pattern today in the modern world of minorities living in cities). Anybody who's spent time in Polish records can see a clear pattern of intermarriage between Jews and Gentiles in Poland mostly happening in the latter-half of the 19th century and only really starting in the middle of it. Even then, these interactions, from records, were still rarer than people seem to think and were also mostly around urbanized locations of economic utility.
Regardless, Davidski has already done a blog touching on Ashkenazi/ MENA ancestry being present in the general Polish population here: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2024/03/high-resolution-stuff.html
@Gabru
German LBK, this is the same Anatolian EEF only more European, what’s not logical there? Perhaps culturally there was no influence from LBK, but autosomal people who participated in Chernovoda could be similar to Europioid EEF
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-62524-y - "Geographic origin, ancestry, and death circumstances at the Cornaux/Les Sauges Iron Age bridge, Switzerland"
@Gabru
Worth noting, Mesopotamian cultures called horses "Donkeys/Asses of the mountains", implying the introduction of horses was down from the Caucasus.
David should be awarded the Nobel Prize in the category of science popularization. On Telegram, there are so many people using his calculators to determine their ancestry and the origins of ancient and modern peoples. They have created various bots based on his calculator. It's fantastic.
@ Arsen
''I wrote that Varna Bulgaria is connected with Cernavoda''
Connected how ? There is 500 year gap between them, and Cernavoda has ancestry from Tripilje instead.
I think the common ancestor that brought the steppe to both groups might be something like the first wave of herders from the Caucasus to the west. They may have spoken Hittite languages, if David's A-West theory makes sense. A 500-year difference is not that significant.
I think Suvorovo-Novodanilovka were Pure CLV indeed. Telegin considered them a separate culture from Mairupol Sredny Stog but Anthony thinks they are a 'wealthy and elite' class of Sredny Stog horizon
Two new Suvorovo samples with one low quality but the other high quality being Q1a testifies it. CLV subclades appearing in Cernavoda and Usatove_En are also from Pure CLV Suvorovo. Csongrad is also probably a Suvorovo/Novodanilovka migrant. These two elite units were connected via Black Sea coast, they skipped Trypillia and Dnieper-Donets admixture. Krivyansky Novodanilovka J2a sample is also CLV minus I guess Central Asian as per supplement
@ Arsen
''I think the common ancestor that brought the steppe to both groups might be something like the first wave of herders from the Caucasus to the west. They may have spoken Hittite languages, if David's A-West theory makes sense. A 500-year difference is not that significant.''
The CHG model is not a 'historically sane' theory, it's just a statistical construct based on the prevalence of CHG in the steppe acnestry created by obfuscating the entire population of western Asia into 1 genetic pool.
For sure, CHG were interesting folks, hunting boar and being survivors of an Ice Age, but when it comes to steppe dynamics, they didnt develop any of the package. In fact, the Caucasus itself was outisde the steppe package. CHG just contributed ancestry to the steppe and not Anatolia.
If, on the other hand, by Caucasus you mean north Caucasian steppe Khvalynsk-LCV folk, then one can understand the possibility, but it's not something that stands up to scrutiny. We see people on the web parroting Harvard's claims that these are the 'sacred glue', but they're not, it's just cherry picked analysis which ignores other components, namely the EHG-WHG of the Dnieper-Don region, and the EEF present in all steppe groups, incl Yamnaya, and western Anatolia.
As Dr Phil would say, you can't just stick feathers on a dog and call it a chicken.
@ Gabru
''I think Suvorovo-Novodanilovka were Pure CLV indeed. Telegin considered them a separate culture from Mairupol Sredny Stog but Anthony thinks they are a 'wealthy and elite' class of Sredny Stog horizon
Two new Suvorovo samples with one low quality but the other high quality being Q1a testifies it. CLV subclades appearing in Cernavoda and Usatove_En are also from Pure CLV Suvorovo. Csongrad is also probably a Suvorovo/Novodanilovka migrant.''
So why do Harvard & their fanboys ignore the large west-to-east migration in 5300 BC ?
We know why :) We also know why Soviet scholars tried to claim the Pit Grave culture came from the Volga region, and got completely debunked.
Anyhow. As per above, Csongrad man became extinct. The wealthy graves of Khvalynsk also extinct. Moreover, as much some people could wish it away, the R1b-M269 from Smyadovo isnt 'pure CLV', but has excess Ukr/ GK ancestry
But the key theatre is post 4000 BC, not early stray movements.
And post 4000 BC the elites were in the northwest Pontic region. By 4000 BC, LCV were refugees struggling for survival. They are irrelevant for the expansion of of PIE and PIA groups.
@Rob
I understand that this is from the same line of thought that Ashkenazi Jews were Italians. How can you try to spin it like this, presenting it as if Caucasian herders didn't participate in the steppe cluster, whether it was a male or female genetic contribution?
@ Arsen
''
I understand that this is from the same line of thought that Ashkenazi Jews were Italians. How can you try to spin it like this, presenting it as if Caucasian herders didn't participate in the steppe cluster, whether it was a male or female genetic contribution?''
Nonsensical analogy which misses the point on multiple levels. It would help if you understood English & basic genetic terminology- there is a difference between a 'cultural package' and 'genetic clusters'
I said CHG contributed ancestry to steppe, there's an entire paragraph there.
But actual CHG arent part of the steppe, and they did not really innovate anything, they neither introduced copper metallurgy, nor cows, nor wagons, nor are they part of the central core of I2a, R1b and R1a. Nor did they migrate to Anatolia.
If anything, the Dnieper-Don PIEs borrowed more from Euro Farmers and Majkop.
So how can you claim that Hittites come from the Caucasus ? You saw it on Telegram :)
@Rob said...
"So how can you claim that Hittites come from the Caucasus ? You saw it on Telegram :)"
damn, aren’t the Proto-Indo-Europeans, including the Hittites, related to the population of Progress and Vonyuchka? Don’t these two monuments belong to the North Caucasus? Weren't they herders? They’re not just connected, they’re adjacent to the Caucasus mountains, why don’t you catch the chain of my words, why should I put everything on sticks?
keep your taunts to yourself
@Rob said...
"..Btw why dont you & Gabru delve into Dravidians, Dagestanis, etc. Arent you interested in that ?"
That's exactly what I'm into, dude. Since I subscribed to this blog, I've been searching for hunter-gatherers from the North Caucasus who are directly connected to me and my ancestors. This is my primary goal. But since there is no data on these hunter-gatherers, I have to delve into related topics like the Yamnaya culture, the Steppe Neolithic, and so on. If they find the autosomes of these hunter-gatherers, it will solve the puzzles that are stuck in my head
@Rob
I can't understand why you're so quick-tempered. You write an aggressive comment, delete it, then rewrite the same comment in a milder form, delete it again, and finally, your comment becomes harmless as if you were never trying to offend anyone. In contrast, other people's comments seem like aggressive attacks against you. cunning
"Anyhow. As per above, Csongrad man became extinct. The wealthy graves of Khvalynsk also extinct. Moreover, as much some people could wish it away, the R1b-M269 from Smyadovo isnt 'pure CLV', but has excess Ukr/ GK ancestry"
Smyadovo_outlier is Sredny Stog Mariupol migrant. Suvorovo and Novodanilovka retained almost 100% CLV genetics(J2a Novodanilovka Krivyansky genome and Suvorovo Giurgiulesti are 100% CLV at best without TTK/Central Asian component), while Sredny Stog Mariupol admixed with Ukraine_N and Trypillia. Csongrad is also Pure CLV. Usatove_En and Cernavoda also have Pure CLV in them, not SS Mariupol(which contained Trypillia and Ukraine_N)
"And post 4000 BC the elites were in the northwest Pontic region. By 4000 BC, LCV were refugees struggling for survival. They are irrelevant for the expansion of of PIE and PIA groups"
Actually CLV contributed overwhelmingly in the formation of Sredny Stog Mariupol. Novodanilovka created SS Mariupol(admixed with Trypillia and Ukraine_N) and Suvorovo(100% retention). Though it's sad how CLV haplogroups disappeared in SS with exception to I2-L699 that somehow managed to survive
R1a-M417, R1b-M269 are either very very minor present in CLV, or they were from Lower-Middle_Dob_Meso(Golubaya Krinitsa) or they're from Dnieper-Donets Culture Herders(so-called Ukraine_N). Harvard thinks M417 is from Narva
@Rob
“Re the Volga theory, currently it’s a pseudoscience fanatically defended by morons like Dragon Hermit , Rocca , RichS , Alan,& other morons inc Fraudarchivist. They’re the USA amateur version of OIT , butthurt Mallory/ Anthony cultists spreading fake news about Europe”.
If, after the hypothesis of Gaska, actually hg R1b1 arrived in the Alps or nearby from 17000 to 14000 years ago and mixed with the Alpine and European hg I2a that spoke the Alpine Caucasian languages ancestors of the Sardinian and Basque and the ancestor of IE languages remained with the brother group of R1a easternmost, only a deep linguistic analysis could reconstruct the vicissitudes of these speakers, because they migrated to east as I2a (certainly from Mesolithic Italy) and many R1b1 subclades and we don’t know the languages they began to speak meanwhile. What a pity that Jaakko after my letter about Nostratic stopped to write here. Probably he is doing this work that only a linguist could be able to do.
@ Arsen
''damn, aren’t the Proto-Indo-Europeans, including the Hittites, related to the population of Progress and Vonyuchka? Don’t these two monuments belong to the North Caucasus? Weren't they herders? They’re not just connected, they’re adjacent to the Caucasus mountains, why don’t you catch the chain of my words, why should I put everything on sticks?
keep your taunts to yourself''
Well dont make silly & irrelevant analogies to Erfurt Jews, of course you're going to get pulled up.
No I dont think Hittites come from the north Caucasus, more like Moldova.
People, incl academics, are perpetually confusing between shared ancestry and direct filiation. They're different things. So as I said, PIE have CHG ancestry, but CHG weren't PIE.
@ Arsen
Nah I deserve a Nobel prize for putting up with you. Sit down and learn.
@ Gio
You know I dont believe in Nostratic. Eurasian languages are too diverse, they didnt come from one clever chimp
I don't have the permission yet...to share it...
What is your opinion @Gabru @Rob
Sohi (jat_sikh)
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA
Mbuti.DG
China_Tianyuan
Karitiana.DG
Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG
Ami.DG
Dai.DG
Turkey_N
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Russia_Kostenki14.SG
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Luxembourg_Loschbour.DG
best coefficients: 0.606 0.105 0.289
totmean: 0.606 0.105 0.289
boot mean: 0.611 0.112 0.277
std. errors: 0.093 0.178 0.264
fixed pat wt dof chisq tail prob
000 0 8 11.910 0.155261 0.606 0.105 0.289
001 1 9 13.704 0.133247 0.705 0.295 0.000
010 1 9 12.538 0.184634 0.563 0.000 0.437
100 1 9 53.169 2.71517e-08 0.000 -0.954 1.954 infeasible
011 2 10 83.259 1.14983e-13 1.000 0.000 0.000
101 2 10 545.416 0 0.000 1.000 0.000
110 2 10 162.027 1.23591e-29 0.000 0.000 1.000
best pat: 000 0.155261 - -
best pat: 010 0.184634 chi(nested): 0.628 p-value for nested model: 0.428008
best pat: 011 1.14983e-13 chi(nested): 70.721 p-value for nested model: 4.1154e-17
coeffs: 0.606 0.105 0.289
On G25 (Ror)
Target: Ror:Ror_10
Distance: 1.4817% / 0.01481737
55.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
24.0 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
20.6 Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA
Source of above qpadm
Source: Curious_Map6367
While I was on G25
Jat
Distance: 0.02222528
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 62
Sarmatian_IA 38
Jat
Distance: 0.02073012
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 66.4
Sintashta_MLBA 33.6
Both model works.....
3 way model
Jat
Distance: 0.01883960
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 64.3
Sarmatian_IA 17.1
Sintashta_MLBA 18.5
@Rob
"@ Gio
You know I dont believe in Nostratic. Eurasian languages are too diverse, they didnt come from one clever chimp".
I know that, but the link, if it is true, is very old, anyway the link with Uralic languages is more recent and I think out of any doubt, thus R1a (if this hg expanded IE languages after the separation from R1b1) lived close to Uralic peoples long before the most recent influences well known. The link is old. Look at the conjugation of the verbs in these two languages for instance.
@gabru
Can you check qpadm for Gujarati Brahmins
On G25 both models work
0.02061089
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 75.2
Sintashta_mlba 24.8
0.02132626
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2 72.0
Sarmatian_IA 28.0
Also you can try 3 way admixture....
Why are there such spaces and indents under some of my messages? Is this related to the AI translator?
Rob said...
"Moldova"
Answer the question, are the Hittites and Anatolian languages connected in any way with Progress and Vonyuchk? What the hell is Moldova? Don’t Anatolian languages have connections with Western Ukraine, Chernovoda, Usatov culture, etc.? Your spatial thinking is not working at all, sit down and listen)
this is not supposed to be done, but I give it as an example of how these two cultures, and that means the Hittites, are connected with the Caucasus, and the Ratlubs are the Avars of Dagestan
Target: UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
Distance: 0.6391% / 0.00639052 | R4P
48.4 Ratlub
19.6 Ukraine_N
17.4 Germany_EN_LBK
14.6 Ukraine_Eneolithic_o2
Target: UKR_Usatove_En
Distance: 0.7895% / 0.00789512 | R4P
51.2 Ratlub
30.2 Germany_EN_LBK
13.2 Ukraine_N
5.4 EHG
@ Assuwatama
I personally havent yet looked into modern populations, but makes sense.
But with
Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
Kazakhstan_Sarmatian_IA
You might want to level the playing field. ie use similarly aged populations rather than Sarmatians, which have ~ 85% Sintashta ancestry already. So you're just doubling up
Same with when you were modeling Tagar with Sakae.=, theyre no ancestral to each other, but parallel
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adl2468 - "Late Neolithic collective burial reveals admixture dynamics during the third millennium BCE and the shaping of the European genome"
They reconstruct three family groups from the collective burial; one of them contains a male with steppe ancestry who is the offspring of a grandmother with no steppe ancestry and a father with lots of steppe ancestry, and then the tree also contains his son and wife (again she has no steppe ancestry).
So you definitely see some actual admixture here between the steppe people and the local "French MN" like people in the collective burial, and its not like the collective burial just contains people who mixed with GAC back east.
@ Arsen
''Answer the question, are the Hittites and Anatolian languages connected in any way with Progress and Vonyuchk? ''
Has been answered multiple times.
Yes, Hittites + IEs have Vonuchka -related ancestry, but don;t necessarily come from there, as there is a 3000 year gap between the two.
English have Anatolian ancestry, but dont come from there
Simple concepts, even for an amatuer AI-translator Bot; you're obviously gas-lighting.
''What the hell is Moldova? Don’t Anatolian languages have connections with Western Ukraine, Chernovoda, Usatov culture, etc.? Your spatial thinking is not working at all''
Moldova is a country and historic region of Europe, next to Ukraine. Ask any 4+ year-old child.
The Cernavoda culture is centred around it
"Indo-Europeans and Kura-Araxes come from Dagestan" or whatever you said
Neither come from there. IE evidently evolved in the Dnieper-Don region, and K-A have ancestry from Georgian CHG and Armenian Farmers.
Dagestan was sparseley populated, not even CHG come from there. It was permanently colonized during the bronze age, by K-A from the south
''this is not supposed to be done, but I give it as an example of how these two cultures, and that means the Hittites, are connected with the Caucasus, and the Ratlubs are the Avars of Dagestan
Target: UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
Distance: 0.6391% / 0.00639052 | R4P
48.4 Ratlub
19.6 Ukraine_N
17.4 Germany_EN_LBK
14.6 Ukraine_Eneolithic_o2''
this is just bastardization of Dave's G25 for villager nationalism :)
@Rob
My run makes more sense...
Target: UKR_Cernavoda_En
Distance: 1.0156% / 0.01015580
33.2 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En
26.2 UKR_Trypillia_Verteba_Cave_C
15.4 BGR_C
11.0 RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
8.6 BGR_Varna_C
3.6 ROU_C
2.0 UKR_Trypillia
From Parasayan et al 2024 ("Late Neolithic collective burial reveals..."), the family tree and first generation admixtures allow us an opportuntity to test whether G25 will prefer to use the true, known parents to model the ancient child, over other sources.
Modelling G25 BRE445HI : https://imgur.com/a/MG5Yqyt
Modelling G25 BRE445FK : https://imgur.com/a/zROdSvq
(These were conversions to G25 provided by ilabv, of genarchivist).
G25 Vahaduo holds up surprisingly (to me) well in preferring to model the offspring with the true parents, in this case, with proportions pretty close to 50:50. The most problematic cases are:
1) Two versions of BRE445FK data were provided/computed and "BRE445FK" is modelled less well by his mother than "BRE445FK2". This may suggest BRE445FK is in some sense more accurately positioned?;
2) For BRE445HI, the preference of his mother and father to model him over Czech_Corded_Ware/Russia_Afanasievo plus Poland_Globular_Amphora is pretty robust... but introducing the Spain_MLN, as a competing Atlantic_Farmer slightly reduces his mother's share. (Adding in competing MN_Occitanie also has effects, oddly enough though Occitanie_MN has much less WHG ancestry).
So overall, it works surprisingly well to match the offspring as a mix of the true, known parents.
Reconstructing the position of the "missing" BRE445YY from the known BRE445FK/BRE445FK2 and his known mother BRE445A works pretty OK (although places "BRE445YY Inferred" a bit more south on the West Eurasia PCA than we would expect): https://imgur.com/a/n4deAAW
@Matt
Hello, I already posted a photo of the model for the new samples from the Parisian Basin, doesn’t this model look better?
https://i.ibb.co/rmGFdvJ/Screenshot-80.png
@ Gabru
I think that's more or less it in a nutshell, although somewhat overfitted. However, Cernavoda in fact are genomically heterogeneous although near-exclusively I2a-L699. Some have direct Majkop admixture, initially female-mediated, but then by 3400 (USatovo phase), we see genuine Caucasian & "Euro Farmer' Y-DNA coming in. Harvard, MPI and your new pals on GA would miss this because they dont understand uniparentals
@Gabru
no Gabru, your model is too complicated, confusing and not representative, and the distances are not so good, it would be better if they answered Rob for the Dravidians, he tried to hurt you with this, hit him hard)
@Rob said
""Indo-Europeans and Kura-Araxes come from Dagestan" or whatever you said"
no, I said that they are interconnected and overlap in many ways
There are connections between them anyway, the word “come from..” is too loud and pretentious a statement, even I don’t believe in such nonsense, but G25, and the Y chromosome of the Kura-Araxes says the opposite
@Arsen, in the models above, I'm comparing the actual genealogical relationships found in the paper here.
If the G25 model that you have generated is better than the ground truth, unfortunately it is still a false model because we have actual direct phased genomes that show that the particular individuals are the parents and offspring of each other (and likewise uniparental haplogroups).
It's certainly interesting that a model can be better than the ground truth revealed by those links, but, the real ancestry of the samples is still what is is in the paper, and not what we would get via the G25 model.
@Rob said
"..was sparseley populated"
It wasn't sparsely populated. Initially, at the beginning of the Mesolithic, the population density was likely low, but after the glaciers retreated and fields, meadows, and vegetation appeared, along with rapid and beautiful rivers and various wildlife, it began to be settled. After these people started practicing animal husbandry, the population grew very quickly, and an expansion of herders to the north and south began.
One thing that can be done with the data from the steppe-admixed family in Parasayan et al 2024, is that we can also compare back how models and back projections in G25, which we know to be correct from the actual genalogical links, compare to the ground truth: https://imgur.com/a/zAfbMK6
(I've included CBV95, even though he isn't related to any of these people, as an example of where we might expect a steppe admixed person with a similar ancestry to the unsampled BRE445YY to sit on the PCA).
So we can see here that:
1) a model of BRE445HI (which again we know to be correct) which use the true parents BRE445HI to estimate his position is slightly more "northeast" (EHG) oriented than we find the ground truth
2) while we also find that if we backproject from BRE445HI and BRE445FK using their known and sampled mothers, the position of the inferred fathers tends to be either "northeast" or "southwest" of what is true or likely positions, and this is particularly extreme if we go from BRE445HI and offset against his mother's (BRE445A) and grandmother's (BRE445E) positions.
This is kind of an unusual situation of having the positions for 1st generation admixture, across two generations, that we don't often (ever?) have before in G25. It illustrates that G25 is an amazing tool for investigating ancestry, but at the very fine scale, samples may not really project as a linear combination of their true parental genealogy (who we would know if we had them sampled, but in most cases we don't). So the best model in G25 is not necessarily always (or ever) to be the "true" model. (This reminds us to bear in mind Davidski's comments in the past about the risks of "overfitting"). There will be subtle compression or other issues that make a sample not sit exactly between their true parents.
One other element of Parasayan 2024; it provides some evidence of a male migrant from the steppe admixed community joining a non-steppe admixed community, and having a child with a woman from the community, that then reproduced with another female from the community, and their grandchild. The initial male is not included in the collective burial, however.
(That there was a joining of the community is inferred from the burial, but perhaps it could be questioned that the initial unsampled male BRE445YY ever joined the community?).
I think the paper suggests that this would explain why steppe ancestry would be rapidly diluted and so would rarely be found in MN Farmer ancestry contexts at this time.
But that's a bit strange, as wouldn't we still find evidence in the y-dna haplogroups (unaffected by serial dilution)?
However it does suggest that not all admixture was necessarily from females from MN Farmer ancestry contexts joining Steppe cultural groups?
But then we don't know if this burial represents a cultural outlier context, or occured somewhat frequently in the early period of 2700-2500 BCE.
Any thoughts?
@Matt
I show your post on twitter to Thierry Grange, Parasayan's co-author.
Here is his comment:
" This was analyzed very quickly. We had made the data public at the beginning of the month, but we provided the initial data, to ensure long-term sustainability. There are so many possible sources of error in the processing of old data that I don't know what to think about it (your analyse), without knowing what they did to get the set of genetic variants analyzed with G25. Are the differences related to G25, to upstream processing? "
He doest not know G25.
@ Arsen
'' but G25, and the Y chromosome of the Kura-Araxes says the opposite''
That's your imagination. All the evidence says that the northeast Caucasus was poorly populated and that modern NEC are recent founder effect from K-A falling under J1-Z1828 and high rates of endogamy.
@ Matt, JS
So these are essentially Beaker males but without the package, instead buried in family communal graves
Similar to some of this chimney burials in Belgium in the sense they deviate from stereotypes
First wave (Sintashta related)
Haryana-Uttar Pradesh
Second wave (BMAC-Sintashta)
Gandhara
Third wave (Sarmatian-Scythian)
Gujarat-Punjab
Why I say so....
UP and WB Brahmins prefer sintashta like source for steppe_mlba
Dardics prefer female mediated BMAC+sintashta
Gujarat Brahmins and Jats prefer Sarmatian like steppe ancestry
I could be wrong though. So take it with pinch of salt.....
@J.S. thanks for sharing; I don't really necessarily see it as any mystery to be solved, why an individual might not project exactly between their two real parents (or populations that represent them?) - it seems like it may just be an inevitable limitation at very fine scales. Thought it might just be something to note and bear in mind, since we rarely have any opportunity to do anything like this.
@Rob, in terms of the y-dna possibly, but there isn't actually an adult male who joined the community, nor multiple of them, but one man who is a son of a woman in the community, and also his son.
@J.S., if you are talking to Grange, one further question for him:
In the paper they suggest that there is a pulse of admixture between Corded Ware and LN farmers (Globular Amphora related) at 3000-2900 BCE, and then a hiatus in admixture until another major event at ~2600 BCE.
This would seem to me to predict that the average level of steppe ancestry in Corded Ware samples would not change from 3000-2900 BCE, and rather you would simply get a lower degree of variance.
That is, at closer to 3000-2900 BCE, you would see many samples with proportions close to 50% and proportions close 100%, then over time the variance would reduce and most samples would be close to 70%.
But it doesn't seem like this is what we see in figure 4 though; for Czechia transect, there are no samples between 3000-2800 BCE with a 50% proportion and the overall level tends to shift over time, rather than that levels stay constant while the variance reduces.
I appreciate that samples are small, but do these patterns not suggest more of a trend of continuous admixture?
The French paper is interesting and offers one of the few convincing explanations for the situation in France and Spain that is;
1-Abandon forever the theory of mass migrations originating in the steppes that reach the west.
2-Founder effect of R1b-L51, L52 & L151 in central Europe between 3,000-2,600 BC regardless of the exact geographic origin of this lineage.
3-Pioneer explorers, solitary men, all of them L51 or L151 (never P312) that are integrated in the western neolithic communities and are buried with their new families in dolmens, caves, mass graves etc, without grave goods that can relate them neither with the CWC or BBC nor of course with Yamnaya- We have already had many examples-Mont Falisse, Abri Sandron, Aesch dolmen, Auvernier dolmen, Burgaschisee, Cueva de las Lechuzas and now Breviandes.
4-Unlike in central Europe, where women of steppe origin are abundant, in France and Iberia they are very rare>Rapid disappearance of steppe ancestry in two-three-four generations by interbreeding with local women.
5-Origin of the BBC in the Tagus estuary, migration following the course of Iberian and French rivers by males (I2a-PF692, G2a2b) and females (Hegenheim, Maritime Mamma-2654 BC, dolmen des Peirières etc) without steppe ancestry.
6-Integration of the L51 & L151 lineages into the BBC and subsequent expansion of their descendants with steppe ancestry to the north, British Isles, Sicily, Italy and the eastern domain (Hungary, Bohemia & Poland, where BBC and CWC coexisted for 200-300 years).
Problems;
1-The French L151 samples are not very old (2453 BC), when we already have P312 both in Germany (Osterhofen) and Iberia (El Hundido), both belong to the BBC-El Hundido sample with Ciempozuelos pottery that only appears in Iberia and the south of France.
2-The Spanish sample can be perfectly modeled without using steppe sources, which means that P312 had to cross the Pyrenees around 2600-2550 BC. IMO P312 originated in western Europe from some lone explorer.
@Assuwatama
"Can you check qpAdm for Gujarati Brahmins"
Probably Nagar...
target Gujarati_A
left weight se
UZB_Kashkarchi_BA 29.4 2.0
IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_MedAASI 57.3 4.2
Irula.SG 13.3 3.0
p 0.08781986
I11456_enhanced, I11459_enhanced, I11466_enhanced
IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_MedAASI
@Assuwatama
None of those waves are correct
There were simply two consecutive waves of-
1. Pure Steppe(Vakhsh, Fedorovo, Andronovo, Sintashta, whatever)
2. Steppe + BMAC(represented by Turkmenistan_IronAge and Kyrgyzstan_Saka_o2), Eastern Iranic speakers that Vashistha(aka Ashish) proposed
Vashistha's theory will leave us as AASI-rich Tribals in Pre-Steppe input landscape, I don't subscribe to his Post-1000 BCE Steppe ancestry anymore
target Gujarati_A
left weight se z
UZB_Kashkarchi_BA 15.3 7.3 2.1
KGZ_Saka_o2 21.3 10.1 2.1
IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_HighAASI 63.5 3.9 16.2
p 0.2231819
MATT wrote: "But that's a bit strange, as wouldn't we still find evidence in the y-dna haplogroups (unaffected by serial dilution)?"
It's not impossible that woman migrated first. If women of steppes descent carried know-how and their presence was valuable. Foreign workers with technical advantages might be welcome. If they intermarried their male children would not have steppes y-dna.
"But then we don't know if this burial represents a cultural outlier context, or occurred somewhat frequently in the early period of 2700-2500 BCE.
That's always a possibility. Whole communities with fortuitous (for archaeologists) funeral practices could be outliers. It may be an explanation for why some HG types suddenly emerge for example. Their initial custom was to not bury their dead so we won't find them.
@ Matt
''in terms of the y-dna possibly, but there isn't actually an adult male who joined the community, nor multiple of them, but one man who is a son of a woman in the community, and also his son.''
Right, great evidence.
@ Gaska
This new evidene just means that some L51+ males went off track, so to speak, and became integrated with western EEF. But the link between L51 males & BB still holds.
The Tagus has nothing to do with BB origins, Im more convinced ever. The Pottery has little to do with Copos and everything to do with OAC/ Late CW ceramics. There is also a complete shift in copper, from uncommon female trinkets to high quality copper daggers and hallbeards, which link to Balkan Yamnaya technology.
That said, there is a pre-Beaker warrior / 'Copper Age stelae of western Europe' stratum, as noted by Jeneusse, even Gimbutas (her alleged 3300 BC wave into western Europe). These are Baden, Reedello guys, into which some of the Iberian tholoi form (I2a-M26, et al).
@Rob
Well, I have already told you that I am not going to try to convince you of anything, in time you will come to the same conclusion that we have come to. Look at what we see in the oldest BB sites in Iberia;
1-Portugal-Lusitanians start the adventure-Maritime beakers and BB package (wristguards, copper daggers, V-shaped perforated buttons, etc.).
I6601 (2.700 BC)-Bolores, Torres Vedras, Iberia-HapY-I2a1a/1a1-P37>CTS595>L158>Y3992
I11592 (2.700 BC)-Hipogeo de Bolores, Torres Vedras-HapY-I2a1a/2-M423>FGC41353>Y3104>L161
I1970 (2.500 BC)-Cueva Verdelha, Lisboa-HapY-I2a1b/1b-M223>Y3259>Y6098>S23680>PF692
NEO609 (2.381 BC)-Hipogeo de Sao Paulo2, Almada, Lisboa-HapY-I2a1a-CTS595
I4229 (2.335 BC)-Cueva da Moura, Torres Vedras- HapY-I2a1a/1a1a/1-P37>CTS595>Y3992>L160
CDM264 (2.250 BC)-Cueva da Moura,Portugal-HapY-I2a1a/2-P37>M423>Y3104>L161
2-Spain-Following the valley of the Tagus river to the Castilian plateau, the Pyrenees & Catalonia-The Castilian BBs share I2a markers with each other and with the Portuguese.Maritime beakers
I0826 (2.656 BC)-Cerdañola del Vallés, Catalonia-HapY-I2a1b/1-L460>M436>M223>Y3259
I1976 (2.459 BC)-Dolmen del Sotillo, Alava-HapY-I2a1b/2a-L460>M346>S2555>S2524>L38
I6587 (2.350 BC)-Humanejos, Madrid-HapY-I2a1b/1-L460>M436>M223>Y3259
I0460 (2.335 BC)-Dolmen del Arroyal, Burgos, Castile-HapY-I2a1b/1b-L460>M223>Y3259>PF692
I0458 (2.332 BC)-Dolmen del Arroyal, Burgos-HapY-I2a1b/1b-L460>M223>Y3259>PF692
I2467 (2.315 BC)-Dolmen del Sotillo, Alava-HapY-I2a1b/1-L460>M436>M223>Y3259
I6543 (2.212 BC)-Camino de las Yeseras Madrid-HapY-I2a1a/2-P37>M423
3-And now the P312 surprise with different pottery (Ciempozuelos)- We could think that this pottery has its origin in Central Europe, the problem is that it only exists in the south of France and Spain ergo either P312 invented this style (I don't think it is possible since there are ciempozuelos deposits 200 years before 2434 BC) or it was immediately incorporated to the Iberian BB culture. Then until the Iron Age everything in Iberia is P312>DF27.
EHU002 (2.434 BC)-El Hundido, BBC, Burgos-HapY-R1b-P312
EHU001 (2.413 BC)-El Hundido, BBC, Burgos-HapY-R1b-L51
I3238 (2.350 BC)-Cueva de la Paloma, Asturias-HapY-R1b-L23
Do you think that any Spanish researcher can seriously think that the BBC is an offshot of the CWC when in addition to the greater antiquity, we have different genetic markers, different ceramic styles, different grave goods etc etc etc. The German or Dutch CWC magically transformed themselves into the BBC?, learned the western sea routes?, changed their culture radically? No my friend, the few L151's and P312's that made it to the west joined the BBC, even a blind man could see it.
By the way, the oldest copper halberd found is in a BB deposit in Madrid (Humanejos) and is identical to one found in Hungary. Also the Hungarian BB marker coincides with the Iberian ones, so the conclusion is obvious, the Iberian migrations reached the eastern domain of the BBC. The proof is that the copper technology in Iberia was different from the rest of Europe, if you are interested in the manufacturing process I can send you a link.
@Livonia, I suppose that's scenario is possible on some level too.
...
One other thing I'd note about Parasayan's paper is the following:
" Furthermore, Late Neolithic individuals from southern France and Iberia group together and are clearly distinct from most samples from northern France , with the notable exception of the five female Bréviandes individuals with no steppe ancestry : A, B, C, D, and E (see fig. S16). The BBC individual SMGB54 is also associated with the southern France cluster. This association suggests that these individuals all have a stronger genetic link with southern than with local populations ."
"To substantiate the inference that the Late Neolithic ancestry of the BRE445 individuals was from southern origin, we performed a normalized haplotype donor test focused on Neo ancestry (Materials and Methods) using two reference donor populations from the same period, Late Neolithic, and geographic area, France: one is representative of northern France from the hypogea of Mont-Aimé (Marne), and one is representative of southern France, from the Rouquet cave (Hérault). In the haplotype donation analysis represented in Fig. 3B, we used as recipients, in addition to the Bréviandes 445 individuals devoid of steppe ancestry, two control individuals from the same sites of the reference populations but that were not included in the donor pools used, 1H04 from northern France and ROUQH from southern France, two Late Neolithic individuals from southwestern Europe from distinct sites, GBVPL from a southern France site near the Rouquet cave, and I5835, a Chalcolithic individual from the Atapuerca cave in northern Spain [Burgos].
The results show that the Bréviandes individuals share more alleles with the individuals from southern France than from northern France comparable to all other individuals from southwestern Europe tested (Fig. 3B). Thus, members of the Bre445 grave carry ancestry typical of southwestern Europe despite the northern France location of the grave."
So it seems like on the basis of haplotype clustering they are suggesting that the Bréviandes no steppe individuals may also represent some kind of south-to-north pulse in the late neolithic (post 3000 BCE?) from Iberia or Southern France. (Southwest France and Pyranees related?)
They argue in their conclusion then that:
"The integrated analysis of genomic data from this study with previously published genomes from other areas unveil that northward traveling MBB and collective grave users from southwestern Europe and southward-traveling AOO/AOC beaker–using steppe ancestry carriers met in northern France. We propose that this meeting led to the second major admixture pulse detected in this study. Therefore, we hypothesize that the BBC arose as a synthesis of cultural elements from the encounter in France of southwestern Chalcolithic MBB and collective grave users and northwestern AOO/AOC beaker users with single grave burial rituals, leading to an admixed group, in agreement with the proposal that both the CWC and the BBC arose through interaction and mixing of individuals with a migrant background and people with stronger local roots"
Another note from Parasayan 2024:
"Among the 38 steppe ancestry carriers from CWC, BBC, and Bronze Age Europe for whom whole genomes are available, 18 showed at least 20% excess of steppe ancestry on the X [log2(ratio) > 0.26], while 12 showed a similar depletion of steppe ancestry, and thus at least 20% excess Neo-ancestry on the X [log2(ratio) < −0.26], and the remaining 8 were balanced [−0.26 < log2(ratio) < 0.26] (Fig. 6 and table S11)."
So they find that actually more admixed individuals have an excess of steppe ancestry on the X-chromosome.
But, note that:
"Although there were more individuals with an excess of steppe ancestry on the maternal lineage, this excess was generally of smaller amplitude: Among these 18 steppe ancestry individuals, only 1 showed steppe ancestry that approached the level of excess observed for the individuals with high Neo ancestry: the male BBC individual SMGB54. He had a 2.4-fold excess of steppe ancestry on the X, reaching 86% on this chromosome, well above the 36% found on the autosomes, indicating that his maternal lineage had a higher proportion of steppe ancestry than his paternal lineage, although his Y chromosome showed characteristic steppe ancestry (R1b1a1b1a1a, also known as P310/PF6546/S129)."
So how can this combination be frequent, where you have steppe y-lineages, which indicate a founding male steppe generation, along with the excess of steppe ancestry on the X passed down more through females?
I think how this could come about is if a founding male generation from the steppe, either joining late neolithic communities or bringing in women from late neolithic communities, established itself in a region to the west as the new patrilocally dominant group and then brought in women back from the east, with more steppe ancestry, to marry their sons, who'd have less of it. That would reverse or level out the imbalances seen between X:A in children of the initial founding generation. This would have to happen in some systematic way, with more daughters in the new founding communities remaining unmarried / having fewer children though.
Anyway, this kind of phenomenon is why we may find different stories from the X and Y. The Y will tell us about sex bias in an initial founding generation, while the X will tell us how that worked out on average over all the generation since.
By the way, we have another DF27 in France.
SMGB54 (2.239 BCE)-St Martin Garenne-HapY-R1b1a/1b1a/1a2a-DF27
I suggest to the anti-Iberian gang that defends a German origin of this lineage and that have not yet learned that we have GBVPK (Pyrenean-Ciempozuelos pottery style-2380 BCE) in Narbonne, that is to say Aquitaine, Franco-Cantabrian region, to read carefully Parasayan
“The BBC individual SMGB54 is also associated with the southern France cluster. This association suggests that these individuals all have a stronger genetic link with southern than with local populations”
“Thus, SMGB54 might reflect both northward movement of his ancestors during the early stage of the BBC along the Atlantic coast followed by inland incursion along the river Loire and across the Gâtinais to the Seine valley”
“The highest excess of steppe ancestry on the X chromosome was found in the male BBC individual from the Parisian Basin, SMGB54, whose maternal X chromosome has more than 80% of steppe ancestry”
As the individual has 36% steppe ancestry it confirms that all his Yamnaya blood comes from his mother not from his father side, and that his origin is in the Iberian BB culture (his wristguard is identical to the Iberian style).
And in case anyone is not convinced, maybe those people who claim to be expert analyzers of BAM Files can take a look at EHU002 & CLL007
EHU002 (2.434 BCE)-El Hundido, Burgos, Castile-HapY-R1b1a/1b1a/1a2a/7-DF27>Z2559
CLL007 (3.300-2.300 BCE)-Cueva Lechuzas-HapY-R1b1a/1b1a/1a-L151>PF6542>DF27>Z195>FTC606
Important excerpts not yet posted:
The high amount of steppe ancestry introduced by this second admixture pulse is detected also in later Bronze Age individuals from western Europe who, like SMGB54, do not show further erosion of steppe ancestry. This observation let us infer that following the major second pulse, most individuals resumed their traditional mating preference for steppe ancestry carriers
The presence of admixture pulses between individuals with steppe ancestry and Neo-ancestry suggests that most steppe ancestry individuals preferentially interbred with individuals of similar ancestries and only rarely mated with Neo-ancestry carriers except during the pulse periods, thus preserving high levels of steppe ancestry for many generations.
The Rhine river, a natural environmental boundary and the western edge of the CWC zone, seems to have formed the contact zone where AOO/AOC beaker–associated practices from the Lower Rhine and the MBB-associated practices from the Upper Rhine met, blended, and spread further eastward at a high mobility rate (51, 56) [e.g., (14, 42, 44, 51, 56, 57) and references therein]. In central Europe, the BBC did not immediately replace the CWC but coexisted with it through a division of territories (30, 58). The BBC eventually replaced the CWC as far as Poland, but assimilated its funerary practices while catalyzing a shift from a herding to an agricultural economy (59).
This complexity is also observed in Bohemia during the subsequent BBC expansion between 2400 and 2000 BCE, where the R1b-P312 (R1b1a1b1a1a2), another derivative of the L151 lineage, became dominant in tandem with progressive erosion of the percentage of steppe ancestry (17). On the basis of the geographic distribution of L151 Y-haplogroups, Papac and colleagues (17) suggested that the R1b-P312 lineage originated around the Lower Rhine valley and expanded in association with the BBC, and thus that the BBC expansion into Bohemia was concomitant with an eastward migration from western steppe ancestry groups. These replacement waves of Y-lineages hint to changing male dominance patterns in groups whose movements are associated with cultural shifts.
The expansion of steppe ancestry in western Europe is less precisely documented since the distribution in time and space of genetically analyzed ancient individuals is patchy and uneven. Because of a denser dataset, the timing of the arrival of the steppe ancestry in present-day Switzerland has been estimated to have taken place around 2700 BCE, between 2860 and 2460 BCE, with a rapid increase upon arrival to ~60% followed by a decrease to 25 to 35% over the following 1000 years (70). Assuming no sampling bias, the steppe ancestry seems to have arrived slightly earlier in Switzerland than in northern Germany (5, 71), where it is detectable about 100 years later (70). Yet, not all individuals in Switzerland carried steppe ancestry, and even 1000 years after its arrival, there were still individuals without the corresponding signature. This pattern suggests limited admixture between carriers of steppe ancestry and local farmers with Neo-ancestry.
In the Iberian Peninsula, steppe ancestry arrived later and was detected in northern Spain around 2400 BCE (72) and in southern Spain around 2200 BCE (73). Here, BBC-associated individuals with and without steppe ancestry lived together for a few hundred years but ultimately steppe ancestry permeated into all genomes (15, 72, 73). Steppe ancestry arrived in the British Isles at a similar period, around 2450 BCE, and this arrival is associated with the spread of the BBC (15) and the introduction of Y-haplogroup R1b L21 (R1b1a1b1a1a2c1), derived from the P312 haplogroup (74).
FTDNA Discover now has the TMRCA of R-P312 as 2850 BCE. The oldest specimen proven to be R-P312 is downstream of R-P312 at R-U152 and is C14 dated to 2573-2310 BCE. So it is removed from the ancestor of all modern R-P312 males by about 300-500 years. All older specimens that have been published that are derived for upstream SNPs are from Switzerland, Germany, and central and western Europe. None are from western Europe.
We still have no idea where R-P312 was born. Parasayan et al. 2024 doesn't answer that question and doesn't provide clues the specimens aren't old enough.
R-U106 is only 100 years older than R-P312 and there is a R-U106 specimen from Bohemia that is c14 dated to 2914-2879 BCE which is very close to the estimated TMRCA of 2950 BCE by FTDNA.
We need a high coverage specimen c14 dated to about 2800-2700 BCE that is derived for R-P312. Until then we just don't know where R-P312 first appeared.
Parasayan 2024 proves yet again what we already knew. Steppe autosomal DNA entered western Europe with R-L151 subclades.
As additional specimens are sequenced and added to the databases the evidence continually points to those basic facts.
Parasayan 2024 does not dispute that and neither does the data from the study.
@ Gaska
''Well, I have already told you that I am not going to try to convince you of anything, in time you will come to the same conclusion that we have come to. ...
Do you think that any Spanish researcher can seriously think that the BBC is an offshot of the CWC''
Nor I you, but good to debate anyway
But surely, my friend, you understand that Spanish researchers are independent human beings with their own thoughts and views ? It's not like they have to 'tow the party line'. I know some of them personally, and read the subtext in some recent works.
It comes down to (a) is the evidence convincing and well argued (b) is person A , B, or C open enough to absorb new perspectives ?
''Spain-Following the valley of the Tagus river to the Castilian plateau, the Pyrenees & Catalonia-The Castilian BBs share I2a markers with each other and with the Portuguese.Maritime beakers''
Ive said it before, many of those in the list do not have Bell Beaker goods, they are simply individuals existing during the BB era, but labelled as "BB individual' in Olalde et al.
Some Do, of course, and that's where it gets interesting. Because now we are starting to see L51 guys without Beaker now too.
'' The German or Dutch CWC magically transformed themselves into the BBC?, learned the western sea routes?''
The Maritime Beaker is a misnomer. This was a land-borne migration Alfonso Alday Ruiz described it back in 2001.
For ex - the link between Brittany and Portugal was not from P to B, but from Southern France to P & B.
' We could think that this pottery has its origin in Central Europe, the problem is that Ciempozuelos pottery only exists in the south of France and Spain ergo''
That's because Ciempozuelos pottery is a regional, Iberian variety. It doesn't negate that the prototype was inspired from Corded Ware
For example, Ford is an American car, but Ford Fiesta is only popular in Melbourne. This does not mean Fords originated in Melbourne
''By the way, the oldest copper halberd found is in a BB deposit in Madrid (Humanejos) and is identical to one found in Hungary. Also the Hungarian BB marker coincides with the Iberian ones, so the conclusion is obvious, the Iberian migrations reached the eastern domain of the BBC. The proof is that the copper technology in Iberia was different from the rest of Europe, if you are interested in the manufacturing process I can send you a link.''
I know the study. One can miss the forest for the trees if we do not consider the big picture. Of course Hungarian and Spanish hallbeards are different- there were no factories for mass- production in 2500 BC. So different individuals, different composition of ores to make them. But the big picture is: nothing like that existed in Iberia before BB arrived, technologically & ideologically.
Davidski, how are you doing?
Busy.
@Rob
I have checked the deposits to see if they belong to the BBC-They are all Iberian I2a-BBs without steppe ancestry- Do you really think this has anything to do with the CWC?-Grave goods
-Cerdañola del Vallés (I2a-Y3259-2.656 BC)-“At UE5, two Bell Beaker vessels of maritime style were retrieved. The UE2 layer comprises fewer inhumations, and all of them were accompanied by typical Bell Beaker vessels: three in Maritime style, and two in epi-Maritime style. There were also numerous additional pieces of diverse typology. Over this layer, a final one, labelled UE3, contained two more skeletons arranged over riverbed pebbles with a Bell Beaker vessel of a regional style known as Pyrenaic".
-Cueva Verdelha, Portugal (I2a-PF692-2.500 BC)-“The decorated ceramics found in the site included: one maritime beaker vessel with stippled decoration, one beaker vessel with stippled linear decoration, two smoothprofile vessels with incised decoration, one shoulder vessel with stippled decoration, one large vessel with incised decoration, one Palmela bowl with stippled decoration, six Palmela bowls with incised decoration, one calotte-shaped beaker with stippled decoration and some unclassifiable vessels with incised decoration”
-Dolmen del Sotillo (I2a-L38-2.459 BC & I2a-Y3259-2.315 BC)-“6 silex arrowheads, 1 bone and 1 metal arrowhead (Palmela), several long blades and pieces of retouched blades, a metal awl, etc. Among the ceramics, there are incised-impressed beakers (Maritime & Ciempozuelos), a small vase with impressions of dots between grooves”.
-Humanejos (I2a-Y3259>PF692-2.389 AC)-“BB burial with two adult males, Maritime and Geometric Puntillate styles”
-Dolmen del Arroyal (I2a-PF692 & I2a-PF692-2.335 BC)-“Thus, the space of the chamber is divided into two distinct parts: a limestone floor (UE 28) on which the corpses are deposited and an area without cobblestones, lower, which serves as a space for the placement of offerings. Four complete vessels were found in this area: two bell-shaped vessels of international maritime style and two smooth bowls”
-Cova da Moura (I2a-L160-2.335 BC)-“In terms of material culture, Cova da Moura is by far the richest burial known in the region. Grave goods include limestone and bone idols, green stone pendants, gold artefacts, engraved slate plaques, bone, ivory, and variscite rabbit figurines, beads, and pre-Beaker and Beaker ceramics”
@Rob
Regarding halberds-
“Tomb No. 1 of Humanejos means the archaeological confirmation of the relationship between the Atlantic type copper halberds and the BB Culture, leaving obsolete old interpretations such as their origin in Ireland, Britain or Unetice”
“Nevertheless, this is the only archaeological parallel to the Humanejos discovery of an Atlantic halberd in a Beaker burial in Iberia. The only comparable reference outside Iberia comes from Hungary, at the Szigetszentmiklós Beaker cemetery in Budapest (Patay, 2013), where a clear Atlantic halberd, completely atypical for Central Europe, was found. Considering its rarity in this geographical area, Patay (2013) points to a probable western origin. As in Humanejos, this Hungarian halberd was also associated with Beaker pottery, a stone wristguard and a copper tanged dagger”
@ Gaska
Well, you haavent actually checked the data, you've just copy/pasted the SUpplement from the 2017 paper
By the way, on the topic of the X chromosome, does anyone know if ADMIXTOOLS 2 supports this feature?: https://github.com/DReichLab/AdmixTools/issues/49
Lamnidis: "The option "chrom: 23" to run qpAdm on the X chromosome, as well as the default behaviour of excluding SNPs on the X/Y chromosomes, are not described in the qpAdm README."
Or is this ADMIXTOOLS 1 only?
Also, using the data from Parasayan's Table S11, on the X:A Ratio of Steppe Ancestry and fitting over time with a spline: https://imgur.com/a/QePVsX1
It looks like earlier in the sequence, ratios are shifted in favour of more Steppe Ancestry on the autosome than X chromosome, however over time this evens out to being noisily distributed around 1:1. That would I think tend to favour the hypothesis that initial interactions were males with Steppe ancestry with females without (hence replacement, largely, of the y-chromosome haplogroup) but that over time the balance of reproduction did not favour males with > Steppe ancestry without females with < Steppe ancestry strongly, and so things generally balanced out over the whole period.
Very limited sample size tho!
Rob, are you still arguing with this delusional charlatan? As you know, the "old dates" for Iberian Bell Beaker are from mass burials (in Cerdanyola del Vallès there were 9,000!) where the layer of Bell Beaker use is unknown. A lot of dates are from charcoal, not human bone. Even in the Verdelha cave, the paper states the following: "Unfortunately, the location of the skeletons within the cave is unknown, as they do not appear on published plans. Doubts remain as to whether they can be included in any of the four identified and registered burial phases.". The truth is that there isn't a single Iberian Bell Beaker that can be absolutely identified as being older than the I1392 woman from Hegenheim, Alsace, dated to 2832-2476 calBC. She was buried in full Bell Beaker tradition and was a contemporary of the Corded Ware R-L151+ male buried just 5 miles away in Switzerland. One would have to be a real dipshit to believe that pottery with corded decorations, unknown in Iberia prior to Bell Beaker, wasn't something that wasn't transferred from Corded Ware to the woman in Alsace. Should I tell the charlatan that Corded Ware had corded decorations, or do you think that’s a little too obvious?
From FTDNA Facebook:
"New Branch Discovered Immediately Below R-M269
🌳 Family Finder customer learned about his intermediate Y-DNA haplogroup and then upgraded to Big Y-700. His unique result revealed a new major lineage directly beneath R-M269...
"My great-great-grandparents, were both Lebanese Maronite Christians immigrants that came to Argentina in 1882. They were winemakers, and came here to open their own vineyard, among several other businesses."
🦴 An ancient individual also belongs to the new subgroup. From the study, “Stable population structure in Europe since the Iron Age, despite high mobility” (Antonio et al. 2023), the remains of this man were dated to around the year 500 and found in Chhim, Lebanon."
Every time I am overjoyed when another new article comes out with a bunch of ancient samples, especially if these are samples from the Caucasus or not far from it!
Female lineages and changing kinship patterns in Neolithic Çatalhöyük
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.23.600259v1
EthanR said...
"My great-great-grandparents, were both Lebanese Maronite Christians immigrants that came to Argentina in 1882. They were winemakers, and came here to open their own vineyard, among several other businesses."
Perhaps this rare line got there from the steppe during the expansion of the Kura Araxes?
@death of Russia@
O Allah bless the scientific minds of European countries and all over the world! Especially Poland! and Davidsky should get it too! Bless NATO or any other military alliance that will kick russia's ass! amine
@Davidski
The papaer of Yancu et al. 2024 demonstrated ones more that no hg R1 (a or b) was present in aDNA in Anatolia and Middle East. The R1b sample in Lebanon is clearly of European origin as we already know. We'll study the sample, but I ask you to ban this stupid Italian/Iberian for being a provoker at the pay of known people et pour couse.
We find this sample in the FTDNA Haplotree. That he is a Lebanese living in Argentine may mean that his Y could come from everywhere, and in Argentine the most diffused Y is from Italy, more than the half of all the Y.
R-M269 > R-FTG713
FTG713, FTB8643, FTG714, FTG715, FTG716, FTG717, FTG718, FTG719, FTG720, FTG721, FTG722, FTG723, FTG724, FTG725, FTG726, FTG727, FTG728
It seems, from FraudArchiver, that his ancestor was named Josè Fortunato Lavaque, a Christian Maronite. A part the fact that "Fortunato" (lucky) is an Italian name, I'd say that Lavaque could be the Frenchizing of Italian "La Vacca". In Sicily my wife gets some relatives nanmed Lovoi, "the bull" etc etc.
@Matt
"I think how this could come about is if a founding male generation from the steppe, either joining late neolithic communities or bringing in women from late neolithic communities, established itself in a region to the west as the new patrilocally dominant group and then brought in women back from the east, with more steppe ancestry, to marry their sons, who'd have less of it."
Interesting theory. But why would they behave this way? Maybe a conscious decision to make sure that their clan would stay tall and muscular in the long term. Well just a possible answer, at any rate.
Rob, all those samples are “pure beakers·”, I don't understand why you try to deny the obvious. Now Parasayan is defending Sangmeister's reflux theory and maybe that is the explanation for Ciempozuelos pottery. P312 did not invent the BBC-
It has always been fun to see an American-Argentine redneck trying to give lessons in European archaeology. Come on macho man, explain to all of us how you came to the conclusion that Quedlinburg is DF27, we have been waiting for months.
@Simon_W: "Interesting theory. But why would they behave this way? Maybe a conscious decision to make sure that their clan would stay tall and muscular in the long term. Well just a possible answer, at any rate."
I would guess just because there aren't many women from EEF groups around that are prepared to or able to integrate, so you need to get partners from somewhere, and in these patrilocal exogamic groups, there's a preference to draw outside women in but from where you already have cultural connections. As the paper seems to argue, there would be preference for cultural in-groups.
Presumably women from the more admixed frontier would also have gone "back" via the same process (which would be expected to get us back to Steppe ancestry higher on A than X), but perhaps the reason this might be less represented over time is, the frontier experienced more population growth over time? Perhaps because of more land or prestige (not totally outside of speculation as for example the "King of Stonehenge" / "Amesbury Archer" having much more EEF ancestry than was typical in Britain of the time). It would be like you say and driven by some cultural ideal or preference in children though (maybe with material reasons behind that too like warfare or subsistence).
@Gaska
Interesting surname Parasayan, is he not Armenian?
Rob slipping, meds not dialed-in, delivers well-reasoned, patient response causing mild-mannered Rocca to step in to call dipshit a dipshit...
Gio
Latin American beauties Shakira and Salma Haik also have Lebanese roots, did you know about this? I would never have thought about this, I thought they were some kind of Mexican with Portuguese or Spanish roots.
Still, their common origin from ANF makes them look similar to each other
What is FraudArchiver. Why is it that when I Google this word, the only thing that comes up in Google is messages from the same blog of this post?
@Arsen
1) Many people in this blog call “GenArchivist” so or similar: Rob, Gaska etc
2) I wrote in that blog until 2013 or 14 and I had a thread at my disposal, “Rathna’s assessment of genetic material” or similar, and wrote about 1200 posts. I was banned then through a quibble of DMXX just for my ideas, that it seems that they are shared, at least in part, here now.
3) “GenArchivist” was born after the end of Anthrogenica, and, whereas before a person banned couldn’t read the post, it seems that it is permitted now (I don’t know until when).
4) About this (or these, because it seems that they are two) sample there is a thread where people, also like Rich S, are less fanatic now, in fact he wrote some sharing opinions.
5) Read what I wrote above: hg R1 (a and b) isn’t documented in aDNA neither in Anatolia, in Middle East or the Caucasus. Stop.
6) About Lebaneses and Phoenicians I wrote thousands of letters, about whom probably funded the research and the papers and how they failed in demonstrating a Phoenician heritage in Sardinia, Italy, the Mediterranean Sea, Iberia etc, so that National Geographic stopped to fund them.
7) That there are Lebaneses in Southern America is known, but that doesn’t mean anything about their true origin: they could be of many origins, and what is important is their DNA. The same I wrote from 20 years about European Jews.
8) I’d be more prudent than you about politics.
how I respect and love David in the good sense of the word! with the same force I hate the occupiers
And I have contempt and rejection for Rob, for his love for rusia
@Arsen
Believe they're talking about GeneArchiver, which is known for a few schizophrenic takes.
@Gaska:
Not that you would know how to read a BAM, but here is a screenshot of the Quedlinburg I0806 BAM at position 21380200, where the derived "A" mutation is found instead of ancestral "G". Position 21380200 is where the DF27 mutation is:
Mutation: https://i.postimg.cc/cCtTY2DF/2024-06-25-19-20-55.jpg
Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14317
Data repository: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB8448
Direct link to the BAM: ftp://ftp.sra.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/run/ERR769/ERR769637/I0806.390k.bam
As Rob has said many times, you are really, really bad at this.
@Rocca
Still the same old Richard from anthrogenica
Position 21380200?, now are you copying your Mexican friend or are you just joking?.
I thought that in the new forum you were trying to give an image of seriousness, but comments like this only show that you are trapped by your past.
Listen Richard, you currently have the same reputation reading Bams as Shakira, I0806 is a sample with very little coverage and does not have a single SNP downstream of DF27. Nobody in the international scientific community considers it as such, not even any of the private companies that reanalyze BAM FILEs
Y chromosome SNP calls of I0806 bam file with their corresponding haplogroups: I0806 belongs to R1b1a/1b1a/1a2b/1c2
P1:CTS4437/M1109,P1:CTS7194/PF5923/M1232,P1:F29/M5579/L821/PF5857, P1:F83/M1185/V1195/PF5861,
P1:M1190/PF5871 P1:M1263/PF5964 P1:PF5855 P1:Y45/M1208, P1a:P226/PF5879,
R:M651/PF6024/Y296, R1:P225/PF6128, R1:PF6120, R1b:L780/PF6105/YSC0000254, R1b1:A702,
R1b1a/1b:CTS7659/PF6470/FGC50, R1b1a1b:L265/PF6431,
R1b1a1b:L757/PF6488/YSC0000293/V3721, R1b1a1b:L777/YSC0000248, R1b1a1b:PF6495,
R1b1a/1b1a/1:PF6540/YSC0000082R1b1a/1b1a/1a2:P312/S116/PF6547/MF52579, R1b1a/1b1a/1a2b/1c2:Y67005
Genetic Homeland.com-Marker Index-SNPs-Marker Name-Y67005/Y126125 rs369136861
Position (hg38)-12518426-Pedigree-R1b-P312>ZZ11_1>U152>L2>Z49>S211/Z142
rs771819273>FT32075>CTS2819-rs765919066>Y32755-Marker [Y67005] coincident with [Y32775]
Our friend from Quedlinburg like the rest of his German colleagues is much more likely to be U152 than DF27.
Besides, now that we have an older sample in the Franco-Cantabrian region and we also have EHU002 I guess you will agree with me that the origin of this marker is not in Germany right?, the fairy tale has lasted 8 years and many people have been wrong for too long
Gasksa, embarrassing that in your desperate attempt to sound smart you do not know what the position for DF27 on reference genome hg19 is:
https://www.genetichomeland.com/dna-marker/chromosome-Y/S250
And the audacity to talk about low coverage when you shout like a child about ATP3 which has less coverage than I0806!
And finally, I0806 was scanned three times in three different studies and therefore there are 3 BAM files. The only one that had data at that position was derived for DF27.
And I'm still waiting for you to supply that Iberian Bell Beaker sample that is older than the woman from Alsace and not a pottery shard thrown into a mass grave used for thousands of years.
First off, I am friendly with everyone, in my own way. Tampoco soy monedita de oro.
Did you know that Mexicans can be Spanish citizens too?
As reported before I0806 has been sequenced twice. As is commonly found when specimens are sequenced more than once the subsequent sequencing aren't able to extract all of the same positions.
Most BAM files of ancient human specimens are uploaded with reference to the hg19 genome. Ybrowse and FTDNA have moved to hg38. If needed, liftover can be used at times to convert the positions when both aren't available from other source.
Position 21380200 is the hg19 position for DF27 and the BAM at the ENA shows a read for that position. This is undeniable and anyone that actually knows how to read BAM files can see this for themselves.
Y67005 is at FTDNA at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-Y67005/story which shows that it is not coincident with Y32775 but rather is downstream. It also shows that it is from 900 BCE. FTDNA has become the authority on the branches and date estimates since they have way more customers than YFull or any other company. They also seem to analyze more ancient specimens than YFull.
I0806 directly c14 dated to 2433-2147 calBCE. It is not possible for I0806 to have been derived for SNPs upstream of Y67005 since they are too new. It is possible to be derived for a SNP that just happens to be recurrent in that specific specimen and there are other possible causes for one-offs that aren't due to deamination. Most importantly he can't be proven to be U152.
The only way it will ever be proven where the first DF27 was born is by finding an ancient specimen from about 2700-2600 BC that has enough resolution to show the derived state of P312, DF27 and ZZ11 and to also show the ancestral state of all other P312 subclades. Then the results will be undeniable. The lack of reads for all of the other SNPs in I0806 is causing the debate.
I0806 isn't really important anymore anywaye results really don't matter since there are no many other specimens since the publication and analysis of I0806. There is RISE563 from Germany that FTDNA agrees is U152 and is dated to 2450 BCE. So the first DF27 is from at least that time period. https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-U152/classic even if there is skepticism of the time estimates. There is also PNL001 from Bohemia date to about 2900 BCE. It's only logical to think that R-P312 likely began somewhere between Bohemia and Germany. The paucity of R-P312 specimens, and subclades, between 3000-2500 BC makes it impossible to determine everywhere it has been before DF27 first mutated or where the first person with the DF27 mutation was born.
correction on the previous post - finding an ancient specimen from about 2700-2600 BC that has enough resolution to show the derived state of P312, DF27 and ZZ11 and to also show the ancestral state of all other P312 subclades won't prove where the first DF27 was born. It will only provide a clue to it possibly being in the region.
@ Gaska
''It has always been fun to see an American-Argentine redneck trying to give lessons in European archaeology. Come on macho man, explain to all of us how you came to the conclusion that Quedlinburg is DF27,''
I'm Argentine ? News to me. DF27 & Quedlinburg is irrelevant to the discussion. Your acid flashbacks are confused, try to be more honest with yourself
@ Janko Ravin
Perhaps Im getting soft, and my love of Iberia puts on rose coloured glasses, but it's actually useful to analyse disordered thought patterns
@ Arsen
''And I have contempt and rejection for Rob, for his love for rusia''
Bad day in ISIS'town ? At the end of the day, it doesn't matter whose ass you kiss (USA, Russia, Zelenskii), it won't change the fact that PIE isn't from your cave, nor are CHG.
Perhaps Dave likes having a pet monkey around, but Im not sure why he's intent on you ruining Eurogenes with your retarded cockroachery
Who's grandfather's ancestral town is PIE from then, Rob? Is it Davidski? Oh but that's PIIr...
No Rob, Rocca is Argentinian-American and Dospaises? I think he is Mexican-American probably of Basque paternal origin like me. Nothing to do with you-And for your peace of mind, you know much more about Iberia than the two of them combined.
Just because they are of Iberian origin does not mean we think alike, in fact we think very differently, I am European and they are American.
@Rocca
The only person who has been making a fool of himself for years is you, your comments on anthrogenica regarding Quedlinburg are recorded and everyone is a prisoner of his words. I remember the debate with Alex Williamson about I0806, do you remember it? -Even Shakira would do better than you
Regarding Hegenheim, that lady was H1@152, which has only been found in the Spanish and French neolithic. She is therefore a woman with origin in the western megalithic culture and the fact of having as grave goods BB pottery, would lead any person with common sense that the origin of this culture is local because the sample has 0% of steppe ancestry. However for a kurganist who only has steppe on the brain that becomes proof of the origin of the BBC in the CWC. It's simply amazing, don't you realize it's the exact opposite...or do you just don't want to deal with it?
I will try to explain it again, the BBC was a very heterogeneous culture genetically speaking, it has been demonstrated the existence of Iberian migrations to Sicily, Hungary, northern France, British Isles, Morocco, Liguria etc. .... The BBs were a thalassocracy, they dominated the maritime routes of the Atlantic and the western Mediterranean, and followed the course of the main Spanish and French rivers. The pottery is identical in all these regions, because they habitually practiced exogamy and it was the women who made the pottery, and that certainly does not exclude the possibility of backward migrations and that Sangmeister's reflux theory could make sense. Hegenheim is one more of those women who traveled hundreds and thousands of kilometers expanding their culture and customs.
The international maritime style does NOT have its origin in the CWC but in the Tagus estuary, and the Tagus is an Iberian river, isn't it? and do you know what the ceramic style of Hegenheim is?
“Le vase d’Hégenheim relève du décor appelé traditionnellement «international» ou «maritime»”
@Rocca
Hegenheim is 2,654 BC, I will only give you the data of some Iberian sites, do not be lazy and look for the papers where they have been published.
1-Cueva de la Mora, Somaén, Soria, Castile-Ciempozuelos style-2.780 BCE
2-Porto Torrao-Ferreira do Alentejo, Portugal-AOC-2.740 BCE
3-Leceia, Estremadura, Portugal-Maritime-2.739 BCE
4-La Pijotilla, Badajoz, Extremadura, Spain-CZM-2.730 BCE
5-Bauma del Serrat del Pont, Girona, Catalonia-Maritime, 2.705 BCE
6-La Atalayuela, Agoncillo, La Rioja, Castile-Ciempozuelos & Maritime-2.689 BCE
7-Buraco de Pala, Mirandela, Portugal-Maritime, 2.689 BCE
8-Castelo Velho, Portugal-AOC-2.686 BCE
9-Cotogrande, Pontevedra, Galicia-AOC, 2,664 BCE
If you were moderately intelligent, you would realize that in order to demonstrate a steppe origin of our lineage, you do not have to deny what is evident to everyone else.
That is to say, 100-150 years before this woman from Hegenheim, ALL styles related to the BBC had been documented in Iberia, and this culture encompassed the whole of the Iberian Peninsula-Galicia, Tagus stuary, Extremadura, Castilian plateau, Pyrenees, Catalonia & Aragon
@Dospaises-
Nadie ha dicho que fueras monedita de oro, I simply find it funny that Rocca has resorted to an analysis that I know you have done, which shows that he does not even trust his previous opinions.
@Dospaises said-"Did you know that Mexicans can be Spanish citizens too?"
I live in Spain and in the last 4 years thousands of Mexicans have landed here, many request Spanish nationality arguing their Spanish origin. Like the rest of Americans, everyone is welcome if they leave their bad habits there. Neither Mexico nor Argentina nor any Latin American country has a good image in Europe, but its people are different, apparently they are humble and hardworking. So if you have Spanish nationality, congratulations, you will be able to travel around the world boasting of being Spanish.
-Regarding Quedlinburg, it's obviously NOT DF27, don't dream about it because you know it's stupid to say it. As I said before, it is much more likely that it is U152-And yes, it is true that it is no longer important for the debate, but it has served to make many people wrong for 8 years.
Check the BAM FILES of EHU002 and CLL007, they are the oldest DF27 in Europe-Spanish researchers have demonstrated for many years that DF27 has its origin in the eastern part of the Pyrenees.
-RISE 563 is NOT U152, who says it FTDNA?? It is also a dubious sample. Be very careful with the MRCA of male lineages, the calculations are only approximations and some lineages are younger than they appear.
Mr. Rob, do you have any profile on social networks, I need to talk to you about something
@Gaska, why don't you show us a screenshot of the I0806 BAM file where it doesn't have a derived value for DF27?
@Arsen
target "RUS_Kura-Araxes_Velikent"
1 RUS_Unakozovskaya_En 0.401 0.145 2.76
2 RUS_Nalchik_LN 0.191 0.0911 2.10
3 ARM_Masis_Blur_LN 0.407 0.106 3.84
p 0.4555692
@Gabru
this is all interesting, of course, my friend, but there should be Dag_Neolithic cattle breeders and farmers as the main source, I think about 50 percent
@Gabru
You can imagine these two samples from Velikent like this
Target: Russia_Caucasus_KuraAraxes:VEK007__BC_2900__Cov
Distance: 2.1082% / 0.02108234 | R5P
35.4 Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes_Talin
24.4 TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
18.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
13.8 GEO_Meso_Kotias_Klde
8.4 Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya.SG
Target: RUS_Kura-Araxes_Velikent:VEK007-009__BC_2900
Distance: 1.5186% / 0.01518644 | R5P
30.6 Armenia_EBA_KuraAraxes_Talin
28.0 TUR_Ikiztepe_LC
20.8 GEO_Meso_Kotias_Klde
12.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
8.6 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
but it’s clear that it can’t be that complicated, maximum 2-3 sources
@Rob
I remember you said Alkhantepe_LC derives completely from Mentesh/Polutepe_LN. But it's quite distant from then on G25 distances, as much 0.05. While G25 framing shows this as best proximal model to me:-
Target: AZE_Alkhantepe_LC:ALX002__BC_3710__Cov_32.72%
Distance: 4.0986% / 0.04098607
38.4 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
32.6 AZE_Mentesh_LN
16.8 TUR_Tell_Kurdu_EC
12.2 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_EMBA
I also checked it on qpAdm and it doesn't detect further admixture. Does it mean Shulaveri-Shomu profile lasted till 3500 BCE in Azerbaijan Lowlands albeit Eastern from where Alkhantepe is from?
target "ARM_Areni_CA"
1 ARM_Masis_Blur_LN 0.668 0.0349 19.1
2 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En_PVGroup 0.332 0.0349 9.50
p 0.2167987
Areni Cave samples of presumably Sioni Culture have Darkveti-Meshoko input absent that Kura-Araxes carries. Are the archaeologists correct about Kura-Araxes not deriving from Sioni?
@Arsen
Ikiztepe_LC, Geoksyur_C, looks like something I need to test on qpAdm
@Gabru
I used to think that Ikiztepe_LC, samples from central eastern Anatolia, brought us Caucasian or rather NEC languages, and before that we had a primitive proto IE, which is why I thought there was a relationship between the Basque and NEC languages, through common Anatolian roots
@Gabru
Don't make it so complicated, buddy.
Target: Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LateC:ALX002
Distance: 3.0110% / 0.03011031 | R3P
45.6 Armenia_Aknashen_N
27.4 Iran_C_SehGabi
27.0 Jordan_PPNB
but a more interesting picture is if you compose 4 populations, in addition to other Middle Eastern ones, the European Neolithic is added, I came across a hypothesis on Wikipedia about the connection between the Bug-Dniester culture and the Shulaveri-Shomutepa culture, perhaps this is somehow connected
https://www.istorya.ru/book/safronov/safron_16.php
Target: Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LateC:ALX002
Distance: 2.8300% / 0.02829988 | R4P
50.6 Armenia_Aknashen_N
22.6 Jordan_PPNB
17.4 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
9.4 Hungary_MN_ALPc
Interesting that's exactly what I need so there is Dalma Culture input in Alkhantepe sample...?
"I used to think that Ikiztepe_LC, samples from central eastern Anatolia, brought us Caucasian or rather NEC languages"
NWC has links with Hattic, NEC has with Hurro-Uratian. It's possible Ikiztepe_LC made to Darkveti-Meshoko-Svobodnoe complex and brought NWC there or is responsible for Hattic hypothesised links in NWC. But I subscribe rather to North Caucasian hypothesis of Sergei Straostin and contacts of NWC with PIE albeit not to the point of linguistic clade of Pontic hypothesis
@Rob Nah, I love you, brother. And share that love for Iberia too. It stirs passions for sure.
@Gaska
This argument over the DF27 result of I0806 from the BAM file available at ENA is inane. It is very stupid to not see the result. It's even worse to continually argue about a specimen that has lost it's importance based on other specimens since it's publication and analysis. It's childish to continue on about it.
It's also childish to continue arguing about CLL007. It does not have direct c14 dating. No one knows within which century he was most likely from. He proves nothing without a more narrow date. Not only that. He is downstream of R-Z195 at R-FTC606. I'll be nice and help you with this one. he is at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-FTC606/story So his downstream SNP from R-DF27 makes him less important for trying to identify the region of the source of R-DF27.
EHU002 is younger than RISE563 which is from Germany and is U152. DF27 and U152 are closely related so they have the same direct paternal ancestor all the way down through P312 to ZZ11. They are descendants of R-L151 and R-P310. R-P310 TMRCA is 3350 BC. There are no ancient specimens in France or Spain that are derived for R-P310 prior to 2600 BC but there is in Switzerland, central Europe and Mongolia. There is nothing yet that provides proof of where the first R-DF27 was born but the evidence of the R-U152 close relative, and the location of the specimens derived for older SNPs in the direct paternal line all point to the first person with the R-DF27 mutation from Germany or close by based on Rise563. He is in the FTDNA site so you can look him up.
It's also childish to go about identifying people in posts by their nationalities and/or ethnicities. They don't matter at all. If you disagree with the data just point out that you disagree with it and why, like a mature adult. We will continue posting facts and countering misleading information until the scientists find the specimens that cause you to understand what we have been saying. We don't all say precisely the same things nor do all of us care about all of the details but there are important major details that we agree on based on data. One day you will have no choice other than to accept a lot of these details.
@Gabru
Translate
"...The analysis of the ceramic complex of the Shomu-Tepe culture in Central and parts of Western Transcaucasia led to unexpected results. All forms of this culture found analogies in the monuments of the Körös cultural-historical community, represented by the Criș, Körös, Starčevo, and Bug-Dniester cultures. The most precise parallels are found in the Körös-Criș monuments and its eastern offshoot, the Bug-Dniester culture.
Territorially, these monuments are located in nearby areas - Romania and Moldova. They include rare goblet-like vessels on stands (Fig. 80: 1, 6), biconical vessels (Fig. 80: 2, 7, 8), elongated jar-shaped vessels (Fig. 80: 3, 8) also on stands, biconical vessels without stands (Fig. 80: 4, 9); jar-shaped vessels with handles, one or two protruding handles; jar-shaped vessels with a spherical body and a pronounced stand (Fig. 80: 11, 14, 14a; 12, 15); bowls (Fig. 80) and sack-like vessels with flat bottoms (Fig. 80: 17, 26).
What is striking is that we took all the existing forms of the Shomu-Tepe culture (Munchaev, 1987) and all of them find analogies in the Bug-Dniester culture (Markevich, 1974a)..."
@Davidski
Do you know how much Baltic admixture Litvaks have in particular, and can this be distinguished from the Slavic and German admixture generally present in all Ashkenazis?
@ Gabru
''I remember you said Alkhantepe_LC derives completely from Mentesh/Polutepe_LN. But it's quite distant from then on G25 distances, as much 0.05. While G25 framing shows this as best proximal model to me:-''
There is subtle difference on Dave's G25/ PCA, but with qpAdm alkhantepe comes out as one way mix of LN
''Does it mean Shulaveri-Shomu profile lasted till 3500 BCE in Azerbaijan Lowlands albeit Eastern from where Alkhantepe is from?''
Possibly. Either that or a very similar population re-entered the regeion after a post-5000 lull
''Are the archaeologists correct about Kura-Araxes not deriving from Sioni?''
K-A is cultural phenomenon. Archaeologists have mostly debated about the origins of Red/Black pottery, which might actually have a central Anatolian inspiration; also which sites in the southern Caucasus is the earliest representation of K-A phenomenon.
@ Arsen
Sure, what's your email I can contact you
@Gaska
RISE563 is R-U152 based on the data within the 1GB BAM file at the European Nucleotide Archive at https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB9021
FTDNA found the same thing that I can see from the data. He is named Osterhofen 563 at the FTDNA site and can be seen at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-U152/classic where they show his c14 dating as c. 2450 BCE and at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-U152/ancient
There is absolutely nothing dubious about that file or the results from that file. If you think it's dubious post your own analysis of the BAM file.
The date estimates aren't off by 1,000 years. If they were they would have found ancient specimens with SNPs that would have proven a lot of the estimates wrong by many centuries. That hasn't happened because they aren't off by that much. They also show that there is a range for each of the estimates just like c14 dates of specimens have ranges. Most of us understand what ranges are and that date estimates of SNPs are based on an average and average mean that some mutations happened faster than others. The averages even out over the centuries. Even if the 900 BCE estimate was off by a full 1000 years, which it isn't, that would put Y67005 at 1900 BC which is still much younger than the c14 date of 2433-2147 calBCE for I0806. So the Y67005 result for I0806 is a recurrent SNP or due to something else but not because he is in the haplogroup you reported him to be in.
@Rob , mrarsg13@gmail.com
@ Gabru
Read this - The View from the North
The Emergence and Spread of the Chaff-Faced Ware oikumenè as seen from the Caucasus (ca. 4600-3500 BCE)
https://journals.openedition.org/paleorient/1675?lang=en#tocfrom2n2
So many Iberia lovers, no wonder, Spain is a wonderful country.
@Rob
There is something wrong with Alkhantepe though, doesn't seem to work as fine like Mentesh and Masis Blur on qpAdm. Yes I agree complete Shulaveri-Shomu profile may have existed in Azerbaijan Lowlands and also in Armenia because Areni also doesn't have Meshoko. Kura-Araxes is a cultural phenomenon, yes, but Kura-Araxes "Homeland" in Armenia and around is indeed a culture I believe, which derives ancestry from Late Sioni(Areni_CA + Masis_Blur_LN) and probably Meshoko(Unakovzskaya_En). From archaeological work I found Sioni is not hypothesised to be linear ancestor and some discontinuity is seen in origin of KAC.
@Rob
I thought Chaff-Faced Ware is also a cultural phenomenon like KAC? Interesting, yes CFW may be rooted in Dalma. But Dalma Culture also sees influx of ancestry
Seh_Gabi_C is 20-40% Seh_Gabi_LN + 60-80% Mesopotamia_PPN(Nemrik9, Mardin)
If Alkhantepe belongs to Leylatepe Culture, maybe Leylatepe preserved Shulaveri profile. While further West in Sioni, some Steppe ancestry entered. While in Dalma, some intrusive ancestry also entered
@Dospaises
Now I'm going to be the one to try to help you, because I don't know if you are really friendly or just trying to dissimulate.
First of all the childish behavior has been yours, after all you are the one who asked me if I knew that Mexicans could also be Spanish citizens, right? I don't care where you are from, unlike you, I know who I am and where my origins are.
You have an American mentality and for all of you, regardless of your origin, what Harvard, Anthony and FTDNA say is the word of God. For us, they are only opinions which are also often expressed by people whose knowledge about European prehistory is very limited.
You want some advice? if you haven't done it, try to read the papers that Spanish researchers have written about DF27, the eastern Pyrenean origin is beyond doubt, maybe if you stop thinking that everything FTDNA says is a dogma of faith, you could start to understand what is the true origin and the time of formation of the DF27 lineage.
@Dospaises
Regarding the Iberian samples we are discussing, the first thing you have to take into account is that your knowledge about Iberian archaeology is very very limited, maybe you are lazy and have not bothered to look for documentation on these samples, if you are interested I can help you.
1-CLL007- No need to help me, in a previous post I already said that it is Z195, FTDNA confirms it? well, it seems that their opinion coincides with ours.
I recommend that you read the report of the chief archaeologist of the excavation Don José María Soler-The sample analyzed by Villalba-Mouco is Lech11 (S-EVA-23563)-It was found in a multiple burial typical of the Iberian final neolithic (3.300-2.300 BCE)-In his exploration the archaeologist found under a central slab 4 skulls placed in a disorderly way and very close to each other. Their position was different and all of them were missing the mandible. No metal objects or anything that could relate the site to the Iberian BB culture.
That is to say, we do not need an exact dating to know that this sample belongs to the Iberian neolithic because we also have recent isotope analysis and CLL007 presents identical values to the rest of the samples, nothing makes us think that it grew outside the environment where it was found. In any case you can be calm because the preservation of the collagen is good and a special dating has been requested for this sample.
2-EHU002-It is officially dated 2,434 BCE, the second European P312 after Osterhofen-RISE563. I recommend you to be patient and reanalyze his bam file because it is positive for a snp under DF27, when you find it we can discuss
Thinking that DF27 has its origins in Germany because RISE563 is not only wrong, it is also nonsense, if that is your only argument it is better not to try to argue with you. We have a lot of information about EHU002-
Report of the archaeologist who excavated the site- “Tomb 1 was located in the corridor of the collective tomb, building an oval-shaped cist where a man over 55 years old and 1.83 tall was buried with a southeast-northwest orientation in a fetal position, left lateral decubitus with his arms flexed. and gathered against the chest with the hands next to the face. As funerary goods, a Ciempozuelos style bell-shaped glass, a copper Palmela point facing north, a bone point and a pyrite sphere found in nearby sites in the Sierra de la Demanda were deposited. The three individuals are brachycephalic with a wide or short jaw and present strong muscular impressions in the long bones that denote high physical activity in both the upper and lower extremities. Small enthesopathies have been identified in the articular facets of the ribs and osteophytes in the calcaneus, in the muscular insertion of the Achilles tendon, which shows the habitual walking through rugged areas. Despite the high age of the individuals, osteoarthritis processes are very mild. Also-
Strontium and oxygen isotopes to trace mobility routes during the Bell Beaker period in the north of Spain-L.A. Ortega (2.021)-The oldest individual (E450) with teeth formed during early childhood recording 87Sr/86Sr=0.712 values must have come from Zamora or the east of Leon region, since the regional geological materials have very similar strontium isotope values
Ergo, we have a tall (1,83 m), brachycephalic Df27, which never rode a horse, originating from the Castilian plateau, buried in the corridor of a neolithic dolmen, and belonging to the Iberian BB culture-Ciempozuelos pottery etc. Nothing to do with Germany or anything north of the Pyrenees.
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11456_enhanced
Distance: 1.8293% / 0.01829314
56.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
35.6 SAHG
7.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
This seems to be the only sample that isn't carrying any Iranian/CA farmer ancestry...
Another model with Turkey_N in source
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11456_enhanced
Distance: 1.8293% / 0.01829314
56.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
35.6 SAHG
7.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
There may or may not be negligible amounts of CA farmer ancestry in this sample...
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8728_enhanced
Distance: 1.1090% / 0.01109043
48.6 SAHG
41.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
9.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
These two samples probably represent the true nature of IVC population...If you remove other samples of IVCp while modeling Indians, BMAC ancestry increases substantially.(not for all though)
Now compare this to Dravidian tribes...
Target: Paniya:PY-9
Distance: 1.8819% / 0.01881865
81.0 SAHG
16.4 Iran_GanjDareh_N
2.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Gond:GD_01_20
Distance: 1.6925% / 0.01692460
70.2 SAHG
15.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
12.0 Laos_BA.WGC
2.0 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Irula:IL-26
Distance: 1.3773% / 0.01377274
70.0 SAHG
21.4 Iran_GanjDareh_N
4.4 Russia_AfontovaGora3
4.2 Laos_BA.WGC
Now compare SiS_ba2 8728 to Toda Dravidians...
Target: Toda:TOD002
Distance: 1.7404% / 0.01740440
44.2 SAHG
41.4 Iran_GanjDareh_N
9.2 Russia_AfontovaGora3
5.2 Turkey_N
Although very similar Todas do carry Anatolian farmer ancestry which is mostly missing in south Indian tribes....which means Toda dravidians have Northern admixture and not some relic IVC population...?
What is your opinion? (Open to all interested)
@Dospaises
I0806-Quedlinburg does not have any coverage for DF27, and no one but you and some of your anthrogenica friends consider him as such, and yet it is derived for a SNP below U152 (Y67005)
In any case, I have already told you that you are right to exclude this sample from the debate not only because it has very low coverage but also because the Narbonne sample has made it obsolete. It is a pity that so many people have dreamed for 8 years that the origin was in Germany, the truth always prevails and the oldest sample is in the eastern Pyrenees, that is to say the Franco-Cantabrian region. I was right and they were wrong again.
No wonder, they have gone so far as to say that the Sicilian Z195s (ignoring the archaeological context and the autosomal composition of the samples) do not have their origin in Iberia, and now they will say that the St Martin de Garenne sample has its origin in the Rhine or the Meuse, anything to try to exclude Iberia from the debate. No matter, their mistakes will be bigger and bigger and the final ridicule will be absolute.
Regarding RISE563 which is the SNP or SNPs that you have located downstream of U152? What is the criteria that FTDNA has used to include it as the oldest U152?
If you claim to be unbiased, behave as such.
@ Gabru
The way i read it is
- a significant migration of early Farmers from somewhere in the F.C. to the southern plains of Caucasus from 6000 bc onward
- migration of agriculture into western Caucasus is delayed until 4500 bc, and then only partial. Meshoko-Darkveti arise from these.
- a decline in Shu-Sho after 5300 bc, but some valleys remained settled, and drift into their own parocial 'cultures' (including Sioni in the northern valleys of the south Caucasian network), before amalgation into the 'CFW", where pottery became widespread.
- from CFW emerge the elites of the Leila Tepe-Majkop phenomenon.
I'll leave post-3000 BC events for another time, as K-A is a different group to Majkop, etc
-Migration from Mardin_PPN or Cayonu_PPN type population that contributed to formation of Shulaveri-Shomu, Aratashen, Hajji Firuz in Armenia Plateau circa 6500 BCE. 3-Way mix of Mardin_PPN + Ciftlik_N + KK_Meso_with_Wezmeh_N
-Decline is Shu-Sho around 5000 BCE, yes, but there is Alikemek-Kultepe Culture that stays from 5000 to 4500 BCE. Also Sioni may begin as early as 5000 BCE. By 4500 BCE some Steppe ancestry had penetrated Armenia evident from Areni_CA, but no Meshoko. I still don't get Leylatepe and Maykop? If Leylatepe 4500-4000 BCE was fully Mentesh(Alkhantepe_LC) and Shu-Sho profile, does that mean appearance of Shu-Sho ancestry in Maykop is its origin point?
-Yes, CFW spreads as network from Dalma Culture. But I doubt ancestry was carried alongside
These are pretty invalid models, a correct model I'm attaching below
target "IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8726"
left weight se z
1 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN 0.675 0.0333 20.3
2 TJK_Tutkaul_EN 0.176 0.0266 6.62
3 Onge.SG 0.149 0.0257 5.79
p 0.5276393
target "IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_MedAASI"
left weight se z
1 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN 0.525 0.0239 22.0
2 TJK_Tutkaul_EN 0.143 0.0187 7.67
3 Onge.SG 0.332 0.0177 18.7
p 0.6414565
target "IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_I8728_enhanced"
left weight se z
1 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN 0.397 0.0307 13.0
2 TJK_Tutkaul_EN 0.163 0.0233 7.02
3 Onge.SG 0.439 0.0234 18.7
p 0.9866528
@Rob
KAC "Homeland" aka True KAC origin? Is it Sioni, Meshoko? Consider that Sioni derives from Shu-Sho
What if I told that Isparta_EBA Steppe signal entered in LateChL prior to existence of Suvorovo let's say 4400 BCE and from PVGroup(Vonyuchka_En, PG2001) via the Eastern way of Armenian Plateau?
@Gaska
You are the person that started with identifying the location of where people are from. I used that facetious statement due to your behavior.
I am going to go with whoever has facts that I can rely on no matter where the person or people are from.
DNA results are based on facts. Not on where the person that analyzed the results is from. If there is data that disputes what has been reported you can post it. You are so broad and general in so many of your posts you don't even specify what the Spanish researchers supposedly published that supposedly contradicts certain data points without specifying the data points.
YFull is not from the American continent. They are the one that initially made public a formula for date estimates of the Y-DNA SNPs that includes ancient and modern specimens. A lot of what they have agrees with FTDNA. The main difference between YFull and FTDNA is that FTDNA has a lot more specimens. If I thought that everything that FTDNA says is dogma I wouldn't disagree with some aspects of FTDNA.
I almost missed your other comment. I do know where my origins are. Don't be so childish to think that I don't.
CLL007 is a waste of time until direct c14 dating is done. Nothing else matters about this specimen until then as far as the origin of R-DF27.
Are you scared to post the SNP under DF27 for EHU002? It probably wouldn't hold up to scrutiny and has to be the only reason that you don't post it.
The other data about EHU002 is wonderful and there are certain points I would never dispute. What you fail to understand is that I have been stating the origin of R-DF27 not the origin of EHU002. It's important for you to understand that distinction. There is nothing that I have said that should have caused you to be confused about that.
@Gaska
I can't believe you are still adamant that I0806 belongs to the haplogroup Y67005 under U152. The dating proves he does not. I don't care what other people have said without me seeing the data myself. I learned a long time ago how to look at positions in BAM files and did not need to rely on them to determine if it was true or not. They did not provide me instructions on how to do it. Some samples, even with low coverage, have enough data for a reliable result of their haplogroup. Others are just too low coverage for that. Not all ancient specimens degrade the sme amount on the same positions. You would understand this if you knew how to analyze BAM files and fastq files. I have even found data that was not ever published at the time I found that data but was published later.
Yes you should just stop arguing about I0806. It does not prove or disprove the location of where the first person with R-DF27 was born due to it's age. RISE563 and other R-P310 specimens are more useful since R-DF27 descends from R-P310.
GBVPK is too to use for the origin of DF27 and is Z195. There aren't enough DF27 and Z195 samples to prove the location of the origin of each.
The St Martin de Garenne specimen hasn't been analyzed by YFull and FTDNA yet and even if it had it is too young to use for the origin of DF27.
Your last question regarding RISE563, among other statements, shows that you still don't understand how to analyze BAM files and that you truly do not understand how the Y-DNA phylogenetic tree has been built and is still constantly being updated, nor do you understand the mutation rate. 2 of those items are easy to learn. At least make an attempt to learn to analyze BAM files. Surely someone would be willing to show you. Then you might understand what is really too low coverage and what is not.
@Davidski said...
@alex
There's no need to get emotional and sarcastic about this, or to make false claims that Ashkenazi segments/haplotypes are "very well studied".
The genetic variation in the R1a clade among the Ashkenazi Levites’ Y chromosome
Doron M. Behar et al., 2017
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5668307
Weird!
Target: Nihali:NIH2
Distance: 2.2039% / 0.02203936
57.2 SAHG
32.6 Onge
9.0 Iran_GanjDareh_N
1.2 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Nihali:NIH2
Distance: 1.8093% / 0.01809350
73.4 SAHG
12.6 Laos_BA.WGC
11.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
2.2 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Nihali:NIH2
Distance: 1.5740% / 0.01573970
66.0 SAHG
13.2 Onge
10.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
8.4 Laos_BA.WGC
1.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
G25 playing trickery. On odd occasions it's picking onge in Nihali sample....
@ Gabru
“ KAC "Homeland" aka True KAC origin? Is it Sioni, Meshoko? Consider that Sioni derives from Shu-Sho”
We don’t have propper Sioni samples yet. Areni C are unusual cave burials with different sets of pottery
KAC folk must come from a region high in CHG, but the pottery decoration might have been Anatolian in inspiration
“ What if I told that Isparta_EBA Steppe signal entered in LateChL prior to existence of Suvorovo let's say 4400 BCE and from PVGroup(Vonyuchka_En, PG2001) via the Eastern way of Armenian Plateau?”
We would need to see some steppe ancestry in eastern Anatolia, but there isn’t until proto-Armenians arrived ~ 2200 bc
Oldest attested languages in the Near East reveal deep transformations in the distribution of linguistic features
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.06.25.600575v1
@Gabru
Сould you check
Target: Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:VJ1001
Distance: 2.8246% / 0.02824587 | R5P
51.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0434__BC_4975__Cov_5.31%
19.4 Georgia_Kotias.SG:KK1_noUDG.SG
16.6 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346__Cov_unknown
12.2 Iran_GanjDareh_N:I1954
Target: Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2004
Distance: 2.6485% / 0.02648479 | R5P
62.6 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0434__BC_4975__Cov_5.31%
16.8 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346__Cov_unknown
12.4 Georgia_Kotias.SG:KK1_noUDG.SG
4.4 Iran_GanjDareh_N:I1954
3.8 TJK_N:TTK001.C0101__BC_6272__Cov_20.82%
Target: Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2001
Distance: 2.2399% / 0.02239879 | R5P
60.6 RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0434__BC_4975__Cov_5.31%
22.8 Georgia_Kotias.SG:KK1_noUDG.SG
8.6 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346__Cov_unknown
5.6 Iran_HajjiFiruz_N:I4351_noUDG
2.4 TJK_N:TTK001.C0101__BC_6272__Cov_20.82%
but I’ll say in advance that the Khvalyn sample I0434 is well suited for this calculation, others are not suitable, and as you can see, it has poor coverage
Seh Gabi sample?
Which one? Chalcolithic?
Those guys have a large amount of Anatolian farmer...How can they be a source? IVCp Anatolian farmer don't exceed 5%
@gabru
I really wonder the correctness of these softwares...
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8728_enhanced
Distance: 14.0374% / 0.14037416
51.6 Onge
25.8 Iran_C_SehGabi
22.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
Model doesn't even work on G25, if Seh_Gabi C and LN are same samples....
Life history and ancestry of the Late Upper Palaeolithic infant from Grotta delle Mura (southern Italy, 17 ka)
University of Florence
Abstract
At the end of the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM), a general climate improvement determined a period of great transformation, with new human expansions and changes in material culture across Europe. Despite recent works on social and population dynamics, the role of southern refugia and the biological aspects related to early life history of late Upper Palaeolithic individuals are still not well understood. This study presents a multidisciplinary, high temporal resolution investigation of an Upper Palaeolithic infant from Grotta delle Mura (Apulia, Italy) combining palaeogenomics, dental palaeohistology, spatially-resolved geochemical analyses, and direct AMS radiocarbon dating. The skeletal remains of the infant – Le Mura 1 – were directly dated to 17,079-16,990 cal BP. The results portray a biological history of the development, early life, health and death of the infant. They reveal mobility patterns during gestation, identify several phenotypic traits and a potential congenital disease, and indicate a high level of endogamy. Furthermore, they remark an early spread of the Villabruna-like components along the Italian peninsula, confirming a population turnover around the time of the LGM, and highlight a general reduction in genetic variability from northern to southern Italy. Overall, Le Mura 1 contributes to our better understanding of the early stages of life and the genetic puzzle in the Italian peninsula at the end of the LGM.
Interesting: “Furthermore, they remark an early spread of the Villabruna-like components along the Italian peninsula, confirming a population turnover around the time of the LGM, and highlight a general reduction in genetic variability from northern to southern Italy”
Unfiortunately it seems that the paper isn’t published yet, only the data
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB66279
Florence does mean Mr Caramelli and his misses.
It is possible that the Y was as Tagliente 2, but why not as Villabruna?
@Assuwatama
Yeah G25 is better than qpAdm? Are you serious? I seriously wonder the audacity to make bold claims from G25 that you do without proving them on qpAdm which you don't even know to use
@Arsen
I already did:-
target "RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En_PVGroup"
1 TJK_Tutkaul_EN 0.212 0.0365 5.81
2 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso 0.0995 0.0705 1.41
3 RUS_Nalchik_LN 0.533 0.0932 5.72
4 RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso 0.155 0.0500 3.10
p 0.09641273
target "RUS_Nalchik_LN"
1 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso 0.217 0.0660 3.28
2 ARM_Aknashen_LN 0.501 0.0595 8.41
3 RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso 0.283 0.0235 12.0
p 0.1855494
target "RUS_Progress_En_BPGroup_PG2004"
GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso 0.194 0.0542 3.57
ARM_Aknashen_LN 0.225 0.0447 5.04
RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso 0.382 0.0651 5.86
TJK_Tutkaul_EN 0.199 0.0811 2.46
p 0.2697625
@Assuwatama
The fact you're using Onge on G25 to run IVC is jokeworthy stick to running invalid and nonsensical G25 models that's all you can do
The fact that the Onge pass for ASI in qpAdm is the real joke.
The G25 is absolutely correct to reject such models.
"Davidski said...
The fact that the Onge pass for ASI in qpAdm is the real joke.
The G25 is absolutely correct to reject such models."
Not very smart. Onge is proxy for AASI on qpAdm and we seldom use Irula/Paniya which are 70 and 79% AASI(proxy Onge) respectively. To replicate the capturing of AASI on G25, AASI simulated coordinates are used. Assuwatama's model with Onge replaced with AASI simulation would be correct to some extent. qpAdm does not have "simulations" so we HAVE to use Onge and PASS it as it's proxy to capture AASI %. How do you even capture AASI on qpAdm without using Onge, lmfao? Quit dunking on qpAdm and using Lapa_Da_Santo in right pops for every model
@davidski
I have a question...On PCA
//
// PC, Explained variance, Cumulative variance
// PC1, 87.4%, 87.4%
// PC2, 7.4%, 94.8%
// PC3, 2.5%, 97.3%
// PC4, 1.3%, 98.6%
//
Is this enough or should I always aim for 92-96% range?
@Dospaises
Bla, bla, bla-If you do not know who are the Spanish researchers who have published on DF27 it means that your knowledge is very limited. You only have to google them. CLL007 is a late neolithic sample so it is very important and again, EHU002 is DF27, I have advised you to reanalyze the BAM File, if you do and find nothing, I will try to help you. We have Df27 in Narbonne, Burgos, Sicily and Alicante, take a map, join those points with straight lines and you will find the geographical origin of this lineage. I only asked you which is the SNP or SNPs that you or FTDNA have found in RISE563, if you don't want to share it with us I'm fine with that, but don't try to convince us that this sample is U152.
And my qpAdm model does just as fine on G25 anyways...
@Assuwatama
https://imgur.com/a/gVeD9xA
@Gabru
In short, she doesn’t need this Khvalynsk sample as a source?
@GASKA said "I0806-Quedlinburg does not have any coverage for DF27"
Let me post it a third time so people can continue to see you are a fraud that is intentionally ignoring the facts:
Direct link to the I0806 BAM: ftp://ftp.sra.ebi.ac.uk/vol1/run/ERR769/ERR769637/I0806.390k.bam
Study: https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14317
Mutation: https://i.postimg.cc/cCtTY2DF/2024-06-25-19-20-55.jpg
Data repository: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB8448
There it is, for all to download and check themselves. I0806 was scanned three times in three different studies and therefore there are 3 BAM files. The only one of the 3 that had data at that position had a derived for DF27.
@ Gabru
using qpAdm- badly in your case- doesn’t change the fact that you’re an ignorant charleton
@Gaska and others
just a remark: it would be interesting to have an old way typologic analysis (+ global metrics) of the diverse people qualified as BB's people as well as their global auDNA profiles, to see if some evolution emerged by time (and also if these phoenotypic profiles have some statistical links with auDNA)? The high statured brachycephalic people found here and there around Chalco in a lot of remote places of western Europe when they were totally absent of there before are maybe the sign of some intrusive people (the famous old "prospectors") who could have played a big role as spreaders of BB's potteries and artefacts in northern Europe what is not a proof they were the first productors of these styles.
All that above is kind of speculation or more questions than answers, but the fact is that this high statured ('dinaric'+ 'borreby'?) profile of morphology was the very dominant one among BB's of the south-central Rhine (Worms and around) and the dominant one among the British BB's people. The intrusive aspect of the first BB's in Neolitihic-like buryings could be explained by this previous mobile and not yet "rooted" aspect of first BB's?
@Assuwatama
Putting over 90% of the variance into PC1 won't necessarily make a better PCA.
Here's some samples from this study, one good coverage two pretty low coverage.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.abo4435
https://www.mediafire.com/file/kmis0wir2xpg96x/Guellil_2022.zip/file
@Gaska
A agreed with you many times and your fight often was mine, also that R1b1, arrived in the Alpine zone (14000 years ago Villabruna but probably, as I said, 17000 years as Tagliente 2, and we have now the sample from 17000 years ago from Apulia linked with that autosome), once separated from R1b, may have spoken the Caucasian language of I2a of the Alps (look at Sardinian and Basque as survived descendants), but about BB from Sicily I wrote many times that he matches my daughter-in-law (Flemish, 100% Frankish) and not me and neither my Sicilian wife from Western Sicily, thus probably this half Italian / half Iberian, a renegade for both, could be right, but what does it change about his being a renegade ? Nothing.
@Gaska
In the United States we have Ted Cruz, only 1/8 of Italian descent, but of course more Iberian from his Cuban extraction, who demonstrates that the possibilities to understand the facts and to be a descendants of the Romans isn’t linked to the Italian percentage. He is also 3/8 Irish, certainly nothing to do with Rome.
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/tzhUXcoZNak
These two persons in FraudArchivist discuss about what I have been writing from more than 15 years. Perhaps they will realize that I was right, with the Gaska’s contribute.
rmstevens2 Wrote:We know that not all R1b lineages can be or should be associated with the early Indo-Europeans, since the first Indo-Europeans date roughly to about 4500 BC, and obviously R1b-M343 predates that by a lot. For example, R1b-PF6323, whose most well known subclade is R1b-V88, does not appear to have any connection to the early Indo-Europeans. It was apparently the first R1b clade to move west into peninsular Europe, with Mesolithic HG samples found at the Iron Gates along the Danube border of Serbia and Romania (and samples from about the same time in Ukraine). V88 later turns up among Neolithic farmers in peninsular Europe well before the Indo-Europeans began to arrive (3rd millennium BC).
However, M73 is kind of odd, if it has no connection to the early Indo-Europeans, because the rest of the clades under L389 do have such a connection, at least the ones we know about thus far. (PF6323 is ancestral for L389.) Honestly, it wouldn't surprise me if M73 did turn up among ancient Indo-European remains at some point.
The spread of the Turkic peoples occurred well after that of the Indo-Europeans. They absorbed some formerly IE-speaking peoples, so the presence of M73 Tatars and other Turkic-speaking peoples is not evidence that there is not or cannot be any connection between M73 and the early Indo-Europeans. I'm not asserting there is such a connection, just that it would not surprise me.
Ebizur
There is a strong connection between R1b-BY14355 and Turkic peoples, including the ancient Xiongnu. BY14355 is under R1b-M343, parallel to L754. Any connection between BY14355 and its subclades and the early Indo-Europeans would surprise me.
One problem one would face if one hypothesized that the main extant branches of R-M73 (i.e. R-L1432 and R-Y20750) were originally some sort of Indo-Europeans who had been assimilated by Proto-Turks is that the Y-DNA of the BOT14 specimen (Botai culture, northern Kazakhstan, 5050 - 5450 ybp) has been assigned to R-L1432. Do we really want to claim that the people of the Botai culture were proto-Indo-Europeans or some very early branch of Indo-Europeans?
On the other hand, the Y-DNA of the BOT14 specimen belongs to R-L1432 but is basal to the MRCA of all extant members of R-L1432 by a fairly large margin; I suppose one could come up with a scenario according to which an early branch of R-L1432 had migrated eastward to northern Kazakhstan, become (or joined) the Botai people, and then gone extinct, whereas the direct ancestor of extant R-L1432 had remained in some location further west, becoming some sort of Indo-European prior to a later migration eastward and subsequent assimilation by Proto-Turks in the vicinity of the Altai.
@Assuwatama
Just realised my models mogs your so-called Geoksyur_En or Parkhai-Anau_En + AASI model even on G25 lol and replicates qpAdm values...
Target: IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_MedAASI
Distance: 2.5499% / 0.02549903
50.6 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
35.4 SAHG
14.0 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso_N
Target: IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_MedAASI
Distance: 2.7033% / 0.02703314
37.4 SAHG
34.8 TKM_Parkhai_En
27.8 TKM_Tepe_Anau_En
Target: IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2_MedAASI
Distance: 3.0135% / 0.03013515
37.2 SAHG
34.8 TKM_Geoksyur_En
28.0 TKM_Parkhai_En
@Arsen
In short, Khvalynsk needs PVGroup(PG2001, Vonyuchka) and BPGroup(PG2004) as source. It traces from Prikaspiiskaya Culture. You can also find it from G25
Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_En_published_&_unpublished
Distance: 2.1005% / 0.02100455
51.4 RUS_Progress_En2_PG2004
48.6 RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso
https://ibb.co/gdnZMzf
@Norfern
England_Saxon:EDI111,0.134311,0.13405,0.065619,0.044574,0.034468,0.016455,-0.000235,0.000692,0.005727,0.008747,0.002923,0.009591,-0.015015,-0.00867,0.027823,-0.008618,-0.017341,0.000633,-0.002388,5e-04,0.006988,0.002226,-0.005176,-0.004217,0.006586
Netherlands_EarlyModern:RIJ001,0.118376,0.133034,0.064488,0.027778,0.044624,0.01506,0.01034,-0.001385,0.002454,0.015308,-0.013316,0.004646,-0.002825,-0.001927,0.012622,0.003713,-0.011083,0.002534,0.000126,0,0.01148,-0.004822,-0.010353,0.003253,-0.010418
England_Saxon:EDI111,0.0118,0.0132,0.0174,0.0138,0.0112,0.0059,-0.0001,0.0003,0.0028,0.0048,0.0018,0.0064,-0.0101,-0.0063,0.0205,-0.0065,-0.0133,0.0005,-0.0019,0.0004,0.0056,0.0018,-0.0042,-0.0035,0.0055
Netherlands_EarlyModern:RIJ001,0.0104,0.0131,0.0171,0.0086,0.0145,0.0054,0.0044,-0.0006,0.0012,0.0084,-0.0082,0.0031,-0.0019,-0.0014,0.0093,0.0028,-0.0085,0.002,0.0001,0,0.0092,-0.0039,-0.0084,0.0027,-0.0087
@gabru
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8728_enhanced
Distance: 1.1090% / 0.01109043
48.6 SAHG
41.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
9.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11456_enhanced
Distance: 1.8293% / 0.01829314
56.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
35.6 SAHG
7.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8726
Distance: 2.2430% / 0.02243015
40.2 Iran_GanjDareh_N
36.0 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
20.6 SAHG
3.2 Russia_AfontovaGora3
The other two have something which even SehGabi can't resolve...
Thanks.
@Gabru
yes, but this Khvalynsk sample is older than the PVGroup samples
Noble Goth claimed "Poles and Jews did not marry often and only began to mingle in the 1850s" according to Polish records, "with most happening by the 1880-1890s and further." I have to partly disagree. Thousands of Frankist Jews converted to Roman Catholicism in Poland and Ukraine starting in 1759 and married people who were born Catholics and that explains why, when Poles receive estimates that they carry minor Ashkenazi ancestry, they usually get only 1 or 2 percent of it rather than a higher percentage like 6 or 12 which would have been consistent with an ancestor from the 1850s or later. On page 30 of my book "The Maternal Genetic Lineages of Ashkenazic Jews", I mentioned a case of "an Ashkenazic woman who, a baptismal record shows, became a Catholic in 1812."
Occasionally the direction of the introgression can be confirmed, whether through genealogy or through genetic analysis of haplogroups or genomes. One of the most obvious cases I encountered was when I studied the autosomal DNA of somebody who thought his entire ancestry was ethnic Polish from southeastern Poland. This person carries 5 triangulating segments in GEDmatch that are shared with Ashkenazi Jews. How can we tell that mutual Jewish ancestors connected this Pole with those Ashkenazim? The ultimate ancestor of one of their "Ashkenazi" segments had to have been Sephardic from the Iberian Peninsula because one of its carriers is a genealogically and genomically typical New Mexican Hispano who lacks Ashkenazic ancestry and we know that Sephardic Catholic Conversos settled in Mexico, Texas, and New Mexico in the Spanish colonial era and that several dozen Sephardic Jews settled in Eastern Europe. This segment cannot be explained by Polish-to-Ashkenazi introgression, although that did happen too.
Nevertheless, I agree with Noble Goth that "the average Pole does not have Ashkenazi ancestry", because the majority of them don't score any Ashkenazi. And I don't doubt that sometimes 23andMe's trace readings of 0.1% or 0.2% "Ashkenazi" that some Poles receive may either be false or explained by Poles who became Jewish (almost always before the 1700s). But not when the figure is 2.1%, as with that person with the Hispano match. That is too big to ignore.
For further reading, for example I recommend Adam Kaźmierczyk's article "Converted Jews in Kraków, 1650-1763" in Gal-Ed: On the History and Culture of Polish Jewry, volume 21 (2007), on pages 17-52. He gives specific examples of Jews who converted to Christianity in Poland even before the 1750s. Although another article I had read (I believe authored by either Paweł Maciejko or Magda Teter) documents that some of the female converts become nuns or otherwise joined Jesuit orders or convents or monasteries, and wouldn't have left descendants, that was not the case for all of them.
The majority of the Slavic DNA in Ashkenazim was already in place by the 1300s, as the 2022 study "Genome-wide data from medieval German Jews show that the Ashkenazi founder event pre-dated the 14th century" showed. Some Central European Jews already had impressive Slavic DNA proportions at that time and only 2 to 4 percent of new DNA got introgressed into Ashkenazim after the 1300s.
@Gabru
share the coordinates of SAHG, I’ll play around too
@Kevin Brooks
“The majority of the Slavic DNA in Ashkenazim was already in place by the 1300s, as the 2022 study "Genome-wide data from medieval German Jews show that the Ashkenazi founder event pre-dated the 14th century" showed. Some Central European Jews already had impressive Slavic DNA proportions at that time and only 2 to 4 percent of new DNA got introgressed into Ashkenazim after the 1300s”.
Is this “impressive Slavic DNA proportions” in 1350 AD among the 15% of Eastern European autosome?
And what about the 70% of “Italian”, more likely of the Imperial Rome?
And the other 15% from Northern Africa, Near East, Iran, but with no certainty that it was “Old Jewish”?
And when you spoke about Sephardic Jews, did you mean of Jewish religion or of Jewish DNA?
And do you think that the Y J2a-Y15223 of the Rothschild and of many “Italians” upstream is “Jewish” or introgressed from a person of the “Imperial Rome” even though before it came very likely from “around te Caucasus”? And do you think that those many Italians were Jews converted or the other way around happened?
Tocharian from Steppe... But Kumsay? Interesting alternate theory
Target: KAZ_Dali_EBA
Distance: 2.0328% / 0.02032832
63.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
23.6 KAZ_Botai_En
13.4 KAZ_Gregorievka-Sjolpan_EMBA
Target: MNG_Chemurcheck_Khovd_EBA
Distance: 2.4082% / 0.02408274
41.6 KAZ_Dali_EBA
37.2 RUS_Afanasievo
21.2 RUS_Okunevo_BA
Target: CHN_Dzungaria_Nileke_BA
Distance: 1.8862% / 0.01886205
37.8 RUS_Afanasievo
36.4 KAZ_Dali_EBA
25.8 RUS_Okunevo_BA
https://i.imgur.com/BeEOXEn.jpeg
@Arsen
SAHG:AASI_DMXX_North,0.00963832,-0.22142592,-0.25101047,0.20700565,-0.07321572,0.10921577,0.00789175,0.03891915,0.147141,0.12174285,-0.01706456,0.0138743,-0.02416641,0.03534626,-0.01860874,-0.04485596,0.03348487,0.00330606,-0.01193263,0.02780748,0.00906849,0.00048198,-0.00107838,0.01959068,-0.03209499
SAHG:AASI_DMXX_South,0.00275558,-0.21172637,-0.20507535,0.16364539,-0.03427554,0.06580224,-0.00790216,0.02927104,0.1315089,0.09542652,-0.00310936,0.00015816,-0.00532962,0.02403386,-0.04474331,-0.04010254,0.02371038,0.00205242,-0.00052311,0.04382888,0.00736782,0.02477185,-0.00992594,0.01865775,-0.01669652
@Gabru
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11456_enhanced
Distance: 1.8950% / 0.01895047 | R3P
54.0 Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG
34.6 SAHG
11.4 TJK_N
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11459_enhanced
Distance: 3.1686% / 0.03168564 | R3P
39.0 SAHG
38.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
23.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11466_enhanced
Distance: 2.9912% / 0.02991190 | R3P
42.2 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
34.8 SAHG
23.0 Iran_GanjDareh_N
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8726
Distance: 2.1812% / 0.02181226 | R3P
51.8 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
28.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
19.8 SAHG
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8728_enhanced
Distance: 1.1767% / 0.01176696 | R3P
48.2 SAHG
40.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
11.0 RUS_Denisova_UP
Denisova? is it possible?
@Assuwatama
I didn’t get anything better, I think there’s no point in increasing the number of source populations
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8728_enhanced
Distance: 1.0724% / 0.01072409 | R4P
47.8 SAHG
34.0 Iran_GanjDareh_N
9.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
8.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I8726
Distance: 2.1075% / 0.02107504 | R4P
40.2 Tajikistan_C_Sarazm
35.8 Iran_GanjDareh_N
19.6 SAHG
4.4 TJK_N
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11466_enhanced
Distance: 2.6638% / 0.02663752 | R4P
41.8 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
30.8 SAHG
22.0 Iran_GanjDareh_N
5.4 TJK_N
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11459_enhanced
Distance: 3.1124% / 0.03112390 | R4P
43.4 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA1
36.0 SAHG
18.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
2.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
Target: Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2:I11456_enhanced
Distance: 1.7772% / 0.01777151 | R4P
35.2 SAHG
31.4 Iran_GanjDareh_N
22.2 Iran_TepeAbdulHosein_N.SG
11.2 TJK_N
Post a Comment