Wednesday, February 5, 2025
G25 available again
To get your Global25 coords, please use the app HERE. The whole process usually takes a couple of days. Feel free to spread the word.
Note that the conversion of VCF, BAM, CRAM and/or fastq files is 30 to 50€ extra depending on the case. For enquiries please email teepean47 on g25requests@gmail.com.
104 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
Happy about this.
ReplyDeleteI think I will represent a lot of people if I say that we want a similar customer service for the improved version of G25. Many of us will be disappointed if it will forever remain for academic use only.
great design 👍
ReplyDeleteThe new test won't be available until the second half of this year.
ReplyDeleteAnd comparing the G25 coords with the results from the new test will be useful, so it won't be a direct replacement for the G25.
Are these G25 coords the same ones that were originally provided via Illustrative?
DeleteDavidski is it only for converting the DNA data G25 or is also autosomal results modern and ancient presented?
ReplyDelete@Steppe
Delete" or is also autosomal results modern and ancient presented?"
New tools for G25 will be available Soon™ (in the first half of the year).
This tool is just for converting private genotype files into G25 coords.
ReplyDeleteGood work Dave, Radio et al
ReplyDeletecould you provide the coordinates for Başur Höyük?
ReplyDeleteShould be here soon.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dropbox.com/scl/fi/0q39lrsynq7prjc7mm8gq/G25-Ancients.txt?rlkey=33i5tycf3nd6glv1w7z6dleco&e=2&st=tz5ppp6c&dl=0
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@EthanR
DeleteI got something like this, for a sample of the best coverage
Target: Turkey_Southeast_BaşurHöyük_EBA:SB710__BC_2950__Cov_23.34%
Distance: 1.2375% / 0.01237485 | R3P
43.6 Russia_Stavropol_EarlyMaykop_EBA
32.4 Iran_SehGabi_C.AG
24.0 Jordan_PPNB.AG
Or like this
ReplyDeleteTarget: Turkey_Southeast_BaşurHöyük_EBA:SB710__BC_2950__Cov_23.34%
Distance: 1.1188% / 0.01118841 | R3P
40.6 Iran_ShahTepe_BA.SG
39.6 Turkey_BlackSea_Ikiztepe_Chalcolithic.AG
19.8 Jordan_Baja_Late_PPNB.AG
Target: Turkey_Southeast_BaşurHöyük_EBA:SB731__BC_2950__Cov_9.75%
Distance: 2.5556% / 0.02555613 | R3P
47.6 Israel_C.AG
30.4 Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic_sibling.I2055_sibling.I2056.AG
22.0 Iran_GanjDareh_N_son.I1946_brother.I1947.AG
which one is R1b?
Looking at it and other samples further it's more like 75% Kura-Araxes.
ReplyDeleteThe SE Anatolia ChL/EBA samples (Arslantepe, BasurHoyuk, Sirnak) all have the same problem, where all their Steppe ancestry can be accounted for within the diversity of Kura Araxes. Central Anatolia BA is the same or higher Steppe (especially MA2203), and West Anatolia is consistently higher Steppe.
You'd expect the opposite to be the case if all the Steppe ancestry in Anatolia arrived from the east.
The "R1b" one is the 0.63% coverage one that didn't make the sheet.
ReplyDelete@EthanR
DeleteI just saw on Twitter that the coordinates for this sample were obtained by simulating from K12b. Wouldn't it be possible to get G25 directly from the genetic DNA file without these extra transformations and conversions through the intermediary K12b?
Taking the G25 for a spin to quick look at lingering debates: Slavs and Nordic I1 source
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/a/gDkiAQ4
Even with the new Trziniec , Luzatian data, the Szolad Slav ('Avar') seems to lie on a cline between Hungary BA and Baltic LBA
Looking at the Nordic PCA, one cline is a steppe- central Europe, whilst the I1 individuals seem pulled toward Ostorf and other WHGs, like Loschbour. Fairly clearly cut that I1 isn't from Finland (proxy Karelia HG)
I haven’t quite kept up with all the medieval stuff. Does anyone know any other more or less ‘ pure’ mediaeval Slav profiles amongst the samples coming in from East Germany, Avaria or amongst the Magyars ?
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteDistance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA011__AD_1099__Cov_65.29%
0.02201335 Belarusian
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA010__AD_1329__Cov_63.34%
0.01919806 Ukrainian_Sumy
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA009__AD_1206__Cov_66.36%
0.02058787 Ukrainian_Rivne
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA008__AD_1351__Cov_64.45%
0.02609658 Ukrainian_Rivne
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA007__AD_1209__Cov_44.62%
0.02738944 Russian_Smolensk
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA006__AD_1242__Cov_58.52%
0.01576844 Ukrainian_Sumy
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA005__AD_1214__Cov_73.63%
0.02140656 Ukrainian_Zhytomyr
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA004__AD_1338__Cov_65.33%
0.02734366 Lithuanian_PA
Distance to: Germany_MA_KrakauerBerg:KRA001__AD_1138__Cov_54.97%
0.02626587 Ukrainian_Rivne
@Rob
ReplyDeleteSpot on.
I1 Eastern Scandinavians prefer Ertebølle and/or Ostorf (which are Ertebølle guys with TRB admix) as their excess HG source. Southern Scandinavians have the same HG ancestry just at lower frequencies. We are talking minute differences between them.
McColl even suggests in the supplementary that the so-called ENS Beaker-derived cluster has Latvian HG ancestry as well.
They are creative storytellers but subpar at analysing the data soberly.
Vahaduo
ReplyDeletethank you then let me know when the Antique Calculator comes
@ Rob
ReplyDeletehow come you used a West Eurasian PCA for the Germanics and just a European for the Szolad Slav ?
@ SimonW
ReplyDeleteThanks.
The KrakauerBerg sit on the same cline but a tad shifted closer toward the Baltic BA samples, but still well 'south' of Baltic BA (this is probably old news to some folks)
@ Corded Slav
It depends on what you're looking at.
An intra-European PCA, such as the North Europe PCA will delineate clines and clusters for populations falling within the diversity of extant/ modern Europeans, eg for people interested in differentiating Celts from Germanics, as Dave has blogged about in greater detail.
Wrt Slavs, the Europe PCA shows (and with adding the Slavs from east Saxony) is
1. there might be a proto-Slavic cluster
2. the cluster doesnt seem to be synonymous with any preceding population, although that might change with time
3, the cluster falls between the Carpathian basin and East Baltic.
This might mean that proto-Slavs are a novel amalgamation of 2 or more groups, albeit within a relatively confined geography, which then expanded.
Then you hone in on individual site dynamics with IBD (e.g. some Slav areas remained more tribal in character, whilst some sites were more cosmopolitan 'proto-towns'.
But for the Nordic PCA we wanted to enquire as to the possible source of the I1-rich LNBA Nordics. If we use an intra-European PCA, the HGs will all bunched together off field. But a broader West Eurasian PCA will separate all the different HG subsets (pure WHG, vs Motala, vs Baltics, vs Karelian/ Fin EHG). The source regions for HG-rich admixture in Late Neolithic and Bronze Age can then be traced in a fairly unambiguous manner, as subsets from the main European LNBA cluster will literally point to it. For likely conclusion; see Asega's description.
@Davidski What is the difference between scaled and unscaled coordinates and below what number should the distance be for unscaled models. I bought my G25 coordinates and used both scaled and unscaled. The results and the distances were different. On scaled I got 8.5% East Asian and on unscaled i got 13% East asian (I am Turkish).
ReplyDelete@R7F00
ReplyDeleteScaled coords are optimized to produce results similar to those from raw data (you can compare scaled vs unscaled PCA to see the difference). They're more reliable.
R7F00
ReplyDeleteI also noticed that in unscaled the East Asian ancestry is higher for West Asians. The same is true for Steppe ancestry.
Great job the app.
ReplyDeleteConcerning the new improved G25 about which comments were made above. Is there a risk that it will replace the current G25 or they have different purposes?
So in the end we have Krivyanski (I2-L699 + R1b-M269?) type pop that can be considered earliest Indo-Anatolians, a mix of (UHG + EHG + CHG), WestCaucasus_N (Kartvel./NWC related), the first one being PPIA or something, closely related to Middle Don (Golubaya Krinitsa) Ceramic Mesolithic, except being more EHG shifted than them.
ReplyDeleteKrivyanski + TTK + UHG/Ukraine_N = SS_core (PIA) (R1b-M269 + I2-L699)
SS_core + Gumelnita + Maykop/Leylatepe = Usatove (PA) (I2-L699)
SS_core + Ukraine_N = SS_med (R1a-M417)
Steppe_En + Leylatepe/protoMaikop = Steppe_LateEn (R1b-V1636 + J2b-L283)
SS_core + Steppe_LateEn = Yamnaya_core (PIE)
SS_med + Yamnaya_core + GAC (Germ. I1) = CWC (PIE_A) (R1b-L51 & R1a-M417 & Germ. I1)
Yamnaya_core = Afanasievo (R1b-Z2103+)
Yamnaya_core = Catacomb_core (R1b-Z2103+, J2b-L283, Arm. I2c) (PIE_B)
Looking at the Zolotarevka (ZO1002) J2b L283 sample dated to ~4000 BCE, I would estimate that this lineage was at least present out on the Kuma Manych Steppe by about 5000 BCE (Steppe Eneolithic + Caucasus Eneolithic).
ReplyDeleteA bit of a head scratcher that Harvard did not focus more on this marker, as it neatly encapsulates their theory that CLV people contributed to the formation of early Yamnaya. With J2b L283, there is genetic continuity linking this marker with the direct linguistic offshoots of the Yamnaya in Albanian, Greek (Mycenaean) and Armenian and more distantly with the “Remontnoye” type profile that formed on the Manych Steppe. Of course, there are now several Yamnaya J2b L283 samples published from western and eastern Moldova, with one even coming from the “Genetic Origins of Indo Europeans” study, linking the western steppe (Ukraine, Moldova) with the Manych Steppe in the East to the Balkans in the west.
Hmm mr Gabru was absent for a long time I think during this time he was born with great ideas and theories
ReplyDelete@Aram
ReplyDeleteIt won't be an updated G25 but a different test, so it's hard to say how that will affect everything.
@Sam Elliott
ReplyDeleteDo you think people with a profile like Zolotorevka lived in the North Caucasus as early as 5000 BC? Do you mean Nalchik? But Zolotorevka has a different composition (Eneolithic steppe + Copper Age Azerbaijan) in contrast to Nalchik (Neolithic steppe + chg+Aknashen)
I think people with the Zolotarevka/Remontnoye type profile, which was a 50/50 mix of Eneolithic Steppe and Caucasus Eneolithic, was present between roughly Berezhnovka and the N. Caucasus as early as 5000-4500 BCE.
DeleteThe difference between J2b L283, a CLV lineage, and all other known CLV lineages, is that it’s the only CLV lineage that shows clear cut genetic continuity from the Pontic Caspian steppe to the Balkans, where it is found in early Albanian, Mycenaean Greek, and even Armenian speakers (RISE408 Sample from Lchashen Metsamor).
@Elliot
ReplyDeleteNo imo L283 is Maikop derived, not Kartvelian/NWC related "Caucasus_Eneolithic", Maikop and Remontnoye/Zolotarevka "Steppe_LateEn" are on a cline, Maikop = 65% Azerbaijan_C + 35% Steppe_En, Remontnoye/ZO = 50% Steppe_En + 50% Azerbaijan_C. The Krivyanski J2a is from Darkveti Meshoko admix, which also brought Kartvelian and NWC linguistic elements and influences on PIA
@Mr Funk
Appreciate it
I got to say, this is really great news. I much prefer my friend Teepean over the Illustrative guys for this service. As always many thanks to David for continuing to offer G25 conversions for ancient DNA, too. Whatever happens when David's upcoming new system goes live, I believe that the current G25 remains an awesome tool and hope it continues to be offered for years to come (much as the Eurogenes Gedmatch calcs remained very popular even after G25 superseded them).
ReplyDeleteIncidentally I've also updated my own curation of G25 averages (Moriopoulos Collection) for 2025. It's based on >40,000 individual samples. Links at Genarchivist in this post for those interested:
https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=1449
Do you know how the DeepAncestry coordinates from IllustrativeDNA were derived? They seem to be less accurate than G25
Delete@ Sam Elliot
ReplyDeleteAn unbiased appraisal of the data paints a picture almost in complete opposite to what you are describing. ZO102 dates to ~ 3800 BC, and as articulated in the suppl of the paper, those burials are founded in the early Majkop period, although problematically ascribed as 'Early Yamnaya' by the authors in their copy/pasting of Russian archaeological definitions. By contrast, the 'CLV' (sensu 4700 - 4000 BC) is strongly associated with R1b-V1636 (athough the entire definitiion invented by Harvard is wishy-washy and narrative-driven).
So rather than presenting Y-hg continuity with CLV, J2b2 is a hallmark of a profound discontinuity. But maybe future discoveries of J2b2 in 5000 BC steppe might vindicate your views(?)
The other problem is you dont seem to appreciate the geographic relevance of the Moldovan "Yamnaya' samples, which have been rightly re-defined as Budzhak culture by European archaeologists, as it differed from classic Yamnaya due to the greater diversity. In reality, classic Yamnaya from Hungary or the Ponto-Caspian steppe has 0 J2b2 samples.
All this points to a significant avoidance between R1b-Z2103 'Yamnaya' males and J2b2 Majkopians, although they seem to have been part of a broader interaction sphere
@ Anon_BGP
ReplyDeleteDid you end up getting a pass from Kriv._EN ?
J2b L283 is a completely separate lineage from Maykop as evidenced by the ancestral components that constitute the late steppe Eneolithic outlier genome, which is around a 50/50 split between steppe Eneolithic and Caucasus Eneolithic ancestry. Maykop are completely different.
ReplyDeleteThe key finding for J2b L283 amongst the Yamnaya (in addition to the ~4000 BCE Yamnaya kurgan burial from Zolotarevka, Russia) is the discovery of the Z597 branch amongst Late Yamnaya (Or Budzhak Yamnaya) in eastern Moldova on the Ukraine border. Most, but not all European J2b L283 lines, descend from this branch. This likely places the point of origin for the many Eneolithic J2b L283 branches just older than Z597 slightly east of the Lower Dnipro, or from the hypothesized Core Yamnaya homeland of the Lower Mikhaylovka Culture. Lower Mikhaylovka, specifically Mikhaylovka I, is dated to about 3600-3400 BCE, which corresponds with the many J2b L283 branches with formed/TMRCA dates of 3600 and 3500 BCE.
From the Supplementary section of the “The rise and transformation of Bronze Age pastoralists in the Caucasus”:
Z01002, BZNK-1041/1, kurgan 26, grave 4. Context information: Grave 4 is the initial grave and located in the centre of the mound. It is a single inhumation in crouched position on its left side, with the head in the west. The grave-pit is round-oval and was covered by stone slabs. The skeleton is covered by red ochre and below the skeleton organic matter was found. The burial equipment is a whetstone and a sulphur lump modelled in a round shape. Cultural affiliation & dating: a-typical, probably early or Pre-Yamnaya, MAMS-42369: 5029+22 BP (cal. BC 3936-3780, cal. BC 3947-3713), hb.
And…
“The founding grave is Yamnaya-associated grave 4 of mound shell 1 with a diameter of ca. 6.5-7 m. Two more graves date to the Yamnaya phase, while ten other graves are associated with different phases of Catacomb culture.”
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI've deleted qpAdm and all the files and commands, when I ran it passed as Nalchik + Golubaya Krinitsa Mesolithic / Middle Don. But the actual model might be Caucasus_Eneolithic/Darkveti Meshoko + (Ukraine_N + Satanay + Kotias)
Can someone run Core Yamnaya = SS_high + NV3003 + maybe Azerbaijan_C? Tbh I'm not convinced of Remontnoye/ZO admix, it's possible Late Novodanilovka also took incoming Maikop admix along with Steppe Eneolithic
ReplyDelete@Michalis Moriopoulos
ReplyDeleteGreat job
@Anon_BGP
ReplyDeleteTarget: Lak.HO
P-Value: 8.15e-1 / 0.815 || Pass = >0.05 & No Negative
Admixture proportions:
37.3% Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic.AG (SE: 0.0443)
33.8% Armenia_Aknashen_N.SG (SE: 0.0444)
28.9% Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic.AG (SE: 0.0238)
Is it okay?
Run Caucasus_KuraAraxes + Catacomb/Yamnaya/Afanasievo + Kazakhstan_Mediaeval_Nomad
Delete@ Sam Elliot
ReplyDeleteYou left out ''The excavations could reveal a chronological shift of the mounds starting from the Maykop period''.
A Yamnaya -related ''shell'', you say, wow that's strong affinities.
The fact that they have a different genomic affinity from core Majkop groups further south doesnt change the fact that they appeared with the emergence of Majkop, or that they can be modelled as deriving much of their non-EHG ancestry from it. And as the 14C dates range from 3900-3800 BC, im not sure why you are rounding it up to 4000 or 5000 BC
Majkop was a complex society with inherent diversity, different to the relatively 'flat' tribal structure of later Yamnaya. We shouldn't ignore the obvious chronological correspondences
ReplyDeleteIt's not clear to me after looking at the paper and supplement again that a Steppe_eneolithic and Maikop model is even tested for those individuals. Has anyone tried that independently?
ReplyDeleteIn any case, this isn't a real issue as there's evidence that different ancestry throughout the entire CLV cline reached the NW Pontic region during the eneolithic.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Sam Elliot
ReplyDeleteWhere is this J2b 'continuity' you're imagining ?
pre-4000 BC
Unakazovskaya 2055: J2a-Z7671
Unakazovskaya 2056: J2a-Z7671
'steppe eneolithic:
PG2001 -R1b-V1636
PG2004 R1b-V1636
JUG007 R1b-V1636
SNG001 R1b-V1636
KT6001 R1b-V1636
SNG001 R1b-V1636
I28683 R1b-V1636
Nalchik -1 R1b-pre-V1636
Nalchik 2 R1b-pre-V1636
------
post 3900 BC
ZO1002: J2b-L283
It's abundantly clear that j2b are recent migrants from Iran or Azerbajan
In G25, FWIW, only PG2001 and VJ1001 prefer Meshoko over Maikop (although in VJ's case I suspect it may be because of excess raw CHG as opposed to it being indicative of a particular south caucasian source). It's more or less consistent with Lazaridis' findings.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.postimg.cc/PfbX5k3B/1eca3adc8b12b58100ff74e6c67582a6.png
Source Steppe Eneolithic is PG2004+SH3001 as the ones without detectable southern ancestry. Note that this is the Ghalichi Nalchik sample which behaves differently, and also we obviously have many more Maikop samples than Meshoko.
Early Yamnaya (4000 BCE) J2b L283 are not recent migrants from Iran or Azerbaijan. That would be evident in the ZO1002 sample if that were the case. It is a classic Caucasus Lower Volga (CLV) cline sample, a 50/50 split of Caucasus Eneolithic and Steppe Eneolithic ancestry that was essential for the formation of Core Yamnaya between the Don and Dnipro Rivers. This admixture event is estimated to have occurred between 4100-3900 BCE, or the same age as the ZO1002 sample.
ReplyDeleteFast forward 1000 years, and there are multiple Yamnaya migrations containing J2b L283 streaming into the Balkans starting around 3000 BCE. This is where Core Yamnaya is thought to be responsible for language shift as admixture with local EEF groups begins to occur.
This is what I mean by genetic continuity. This connects J2b L283 to the CLV cline in the east (Manych Steppe) to the Lower Mikhaylovka Group along the Black Sea Steppe (Ukraine and Moldova) to Albanian, Greek (Mycenaean) and Armenian speakers. These are direct offshoots of the Yamnaya and their early languages.
There isn’t any R1b V1636 found amongst these early PIE speakers in SE Europe, whereas J2b L283 checks all the boxes.
https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1luwBVUlmGoqbj7yzO2tyKKIJlvh7mtQX&hl=en_US&ll=48.749927729634116%2C22.6271305&z=3
@ Ethan
ReplyDelete''In any case, this isn't a real issue as there's evidence that different ancestry throughout the entire CLV cline reached the NW Pontic region during the eneolithic.''
These are often very different groups which happen to share similar mixes of EHG, CHG, south Caucasus Farmer, & TTK ancestry.
At the very least, it can be split into 2 broad groups, the early Eneolithic phase, where V1636 clans dominated the north Caucasus region and Caucasian males were limited to the mountain flanks.
By contrast, a later Eneolithic phase sees a downfall of the V1636 clan dominance and a large push by disparate Caucasian-Iranian groups as far north as the lower Don. There is a cultural i>discontinuity , and new Majkop-style kurgans were opened, which differ to the earlier modest Nalchik-Progress mounds.
Things upturned again ~ 3000 BC when the Majkop social system collapse and Yamnaya pushed onto toward the Caucasus mountains.
Calling all these dynamics events unfolding over 1,500 "CLV' is simply dumb or intentionally disingenous, probably both, given the protoplasm of people making such claims
@ Corded
''Where is this J2b 'continuity' you're imagining ?''
There is none. Not only does J2b arrive after 3900 BC, but a host of other 'southern' lineages ranging from L, T1a, G2a, etc
In fact, there is some continuity but of different lineages, namely under J2a-M67 shared by Unazovkskaya and some Majkop males, and the handful of R1b-V1636 which survive.
"There isn’t any R1b V1636 found amongst these early PIE speakers in SE Europe"
ReplyDeleteR-V1636 appears in Cernavoda I and Bronze Age Greece.
J2b is South Caucasus marker, and it's actually present in Maikop afaik even a subclade related to L283. J2b has nothing to do with Kartvelian/NWC/NEC who derive from Meshoko-Darkveti cultural complex, who are in turn J2a, J1, G2a etc. To claim J2b-L283 has presence older than 4000BCE just falls apart because of above mentioned things. What we know is some Meshoko J2a did manage to get into Steppe as seen from Krivyanski but it didn't have any significant impact and probably died due to low frequency. CLV (Steppe Eneolithic) is irrelevant for SS and only relevant for Maikop, Steppe Maikop, Khvalynsk, Remontnoye/ZO, etc. SS derives from a western sibling (in Lower Don region) of Steppe Eneolithic
ReplyDeleteFalse. There has never been a subclade of, or any J2b L283 for that matter, discovered amongst the Maykop.
DeleteIf J2b L283 isn’t older than 4000 BCE on the Pontic Caspian steppe, how could it be found already in the middle of the Manych Steppe with a hybrid 50% Eneolithic Steppe/50 % Caucasus Steppe genome by 4000 BCE?
Sredny Stog genomes already have Aknashen ancestry from movements of CLV people.
The events are like this:-
ReplyDelete6200BCE : CHG escaping the intruding Mesopotamians and rushing towards Steppe due to 8.2 ky event
5200BCE : The newly formed CHG + Mesopotamia_PPN = "Darkveti-Meshoko" aka Kartvelian/NWC related folk migrate to Steppe northwards bringing linguistic influences, autosomal (Krivyan, KHB, Nalchik, Steppe_En) and J2a (Krivyanski)
4100BCE : A joint Maikop + Steppe Maikop invasion of CLV which leads to CLV's complete demise in their stronghold, new profiles form -
Remontnote/ZO (50% Steppe_En + 50% Azerbaijan_C)
Steppe Maikop (Kumsay) (50% Steppe_En + 50% Botai)
Core Maikop (30% Steppe_En + 70% Azerbaijan_C)
Then we see Maikop's short lived cultural dominance coming to an end as Meshoko again intrudes into Kuban region and admixes Maikop to give Novosvobodnaya/"LateMaikop" i.e. Core Maikop + Unakozovskaya, this profile in turn is most likely proto-North-Caucasian and it results in Velikent (NEC) and Late Kubano-Tersk (NWC) cultures
@EthanR
ReplyDeletealso among modern Armenians R1b V1636 is very rare, but it is found. Here is what the picture looks like for those R1b that are found among modern Armenians:
R1b-Z2103 – 87.8%
R1b-L51 – 6.3%
R1b-PF7562 – 4.8%
R1b-V1636 – 0.9%
R1b-PH200 – 0.2%
for the sub-branch Z2103 the following picture
L584 – 59.9%
Y4362 – 39.2%
Z2109 – 2.7%
@Anon_BGP
ReplyDeleteit may well be that the source of CHG for the steppe Eneolithic lived for a long time on nec, invents cattle breeding (with/without the participation of cattle breeders from northwestern Iran) and gradually descends to the plain, mixes with hunters from the western Caucasus - Satanay, and e expands in all directions, acquires additional mixtures from Central Asia, Ukraine, the southern Caucasus / Georgia, and so on
Caspian Sea reaches record low in 400 years
ReplyDeletehttps://noi.md/ru/nauka-i-it/kaspijskoe-more-dostiglo-rekordno-nizkogo-urovnya-za-poslednie-400-let
@ Anon
ReplyDelete''The events are like this''
That's a nice summary, I think you're pretty much on point. But if I were to comment for the sake of discussion :
''6200BCE : CHG escaping the intruding Mesopotamians and rushing towards Steppe due to 8.2 ky event''.
Glad to see you've accepted that was a early mini wave of CHG reaching the lower reaches of the Volga & Don. Im not sure they were really 'escaping' PPN-origin farmers. Like in Europe, early Farmers and native CHG hunters occupied distinct niches, so are unlikely to have come into resource-constrained conflicts.
''Core Maikop (30% Steppe_En + 70% Azerbaijan_C)''
I dont think Core Maikop have quite that high steppe ancestry if one accounts for CHG-rich Meshoko ancestry. Oss001, one of the more steppe shifted early Majkop individuals is approx 65% south caucasus Farmer, 20% Meshoko, 15% Khvalynsk.
Curiously, the 'Dolmen' individual from Marchenkova Gora has ~ 20% En_steppe ancestry. Being MLBA, it is perhaps not too surprising given the steppe ancestry in the so-called North caucasus MBA and Lola groups.
''Then we see Maikop's short lived cultural dominance coming to an end as Meshoko again intrudes into Kuban region and admixes Maikop to give Novosvobodnaya/"LateMaikop" i.e. Core Maikop + Unakozovskaya,''
The Majkop phenomenon existed for ~ 800 years, not too ''short''.
I dont think the shift to Novosvobodnaya is due to Meshoko per se, as culturally that complex ceased to exist. if you plug in maikop individuals on a G25 -based PCA, you might note that Novosvobodnaja and some Late Maikop (e.g. sa6002) plot more 'south' of Unakazovskaya.
This means that there was a relatively constant flow of migrants from the southern Caucasus toward the northwestern Caucasian mountain slopes between 4500 and 3300 BC. Some archaeologists classify Novosvobodnaja as a separate culture to (early) Maikop although most commonly it is seen as a late variant. This might mean that early Maikop relates to Ubaid and Leila Tepe networks, whilst Novosvobodnaja relates to the expansion of the Uruk sphere
We might get into the Caucasian MLBA and historic ethnolinguistic groups later ..
''J2b is South Caucasus marker, and it's actually present in Maikop afaik even a subclade related to L283''
Komsomolec 23 (KMM023, (cal. BC 3352-3109)
Although this individual is J-FT3464. More distnat cousins have been found in Hajji Firuz and Mentesh Tepe, but some would say that they are 'completely unrelated" LOL
Further, the concept of 'steppe Maijkop' should be extended to include all Maikop era kurgans as far as the Don (incl the ZO group), not just the Siberian-looking individuals.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe 10+ newer Core Maikop samples from Ghalichi 2024 are same as OSS001 (or 002 idr), that's why I said 30%. And it makes sense as Maikop is basically intruding Azerbaijan_C over a territory that Steppe_En occupied. Dolmen is low cov, but afaik it's related to KBD / Late Kubano Tersk Abkhazian-like NWC pop. I agree with J2b being Maikop, though I think Steppe Maikop is a wrong label, not sure if it's due to their burials but afaik their material culture is same as Kumsay/Mereke aka the genetic clone of Steppe Maikop.
Makes sense, therefore as early 'core Majkop 'and northern Majkop both have steppe ancestry, it means they are clinal and related .
ReplyDelete'Steppe majkop' isn't really a well-defined entity, it was just coined by Chernykh to refer to lower-status Majkop-type burials in areas north of the big kurgans like Klady and Majkop.
@Mr Funk
ReplyDeleteI learned recently that Iberian Neolithic Farmers were herding cattle 6000 years ago. Seems Steppe people had nothing special to offer with respect to cattle herding. Was probably introduced in the opposite direction, I.E. from EEF to the Steppe.
https://phys.org/news/2025-02-iberian-neolithic-herders-strategically-cattle.html
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0317723
Some observations on J-L283:
ReplyDelete1. The Zolotarevka sample almost certainly can, and should be modelled with a Maikop-related source. The similar Remontnoye samples also prefer Maikop to Meshoko in both G25 and qpAdm.
2. The "Core Yamnaya" profile develops by around 4000BC (using DATES). The South Caucasian source in Yamnaya is probably older than that, given the clinal relationship it shares with Sredni Stog which begins ~4400BC.
Despite Yamnaya being modelled as SShi+Remontnoye, this is what Lazaridis actually has to say about it:
"Therefore it is parsimonious to assume that the Core Yamnaya are descended from an unsampled Serednii Stih population (of even lower hunter-gatherer ancestry), rather than the alternative that a different admixture proportion led to their formation and coincidentally resulted in a mixed population at precisely the edge of the Serednii Stih cline."
This is further supported by samples like KST001 already existing by ~3850BC which is R-M269 and more or less cladal with Yamnaya.
3. This implies the formation of core Yamnaya likely precedes Maikop, pre-Maikop, and Zolotarevka. This implies a different South Caucasian source.
4. Post-mesolithic, J2b generally seems to have a more genetically "eastern" distribution (Mentesh-tepe, Hajji Firuz, Maikop) as opposed to a "western" orientation (more like Meshoko).
5. Both direct and mediated Maikop ancestry has been pouring into the NW Pontic since the eneolithic (Kartal_B cluster, a nearly full Maikop individual in Zhyvotylivka, etc).
6. The one published Moldovan Yamnaya J-L283 (I10206) is from 2700BC, and doesn't cluster with core Yamnaya because of excess Balkan/Western ancestry). The other is in preprint and is from 2500BC.
7. J-L283 does not appear in any other Yamnaya or Yamnaya-related context (SS, CWC, Afanasievo). We have hundreds of these samples.
All in all the evidence is most consistent with J-L283 being Maikop-related, and absorbed by incoming Yamnaya groups in the NW Pontic, as opposed to J-L283 entering SS/Yamnaya during the latter's initial formation.
J2B2-L283 was Core Yamnaya in 4000 BC, in addition to 3 other EBA steppe samples. Cut the b.s.
ReplyDeleteI know it breaks some of your little fantasies and "theories", but the empirical evidence is quite clear.
-There are no ancient J2b L283 Maykop samples at this time, despite robust sampling of many key Maykop sites.
ReplyDelete-There are currently 4 Yamnaya J2b L283 samples. That number will surely grow once they start sampling from the Koisug area on the Lower Don through Lower Mikhaylovka on the Lower Dnipro.
-Western Yamnaya J2b L283 (Both western and eastern Moldova) have zero Maykop ancestry. Crihana Veche I10206 was specifically modeled as 84% Core Yamnaya and 16% Trypillian ancestry. This sample and others like it were used to illustrate the likely transmission of Indo European languages on the western steppe.
-There are many Yamnaya samples from Moldova that have Maykop ancestry. None belong to J2b L283. There are, however, R1b Z2103 samples in the same general vicinity with upwards of 15% Maykop ancestry.
-Zolotarevka is indistinguishable from Remontnoye. They are approximately the same age at about 4000 BCE. This Remontnoye/Zolotarevka ancestry from the middle of the CLV cline (and the heartland of the Manych Steppe) constitutes about 25% of the Core Yamnaya genome starting between 4100-3900 BCE.
-80% of the Core Yamnaya ancestry comes from CLV folk, where logically J2b L283 had to be present between 5000-4000 BCE, probably closer to 5000-4500 BCE timeframe based on Zolotarevka, a late steppe Eneolithic outlier, modeled as a 50/50 split of Caucasus Eneolithic/Steppe Eneolithic ancestry. Based on Reinhold and Ghalichi, Caucasus Eneolithic is dated to about 4800 BCE, steppe Eneolithic 4500 BCE. That’s why I have my range finder set to 5000-4500 BCE for this particular lineage.
-The Late Steppe Eneolithic outlier genome is estimated to have formed around 4200 BCE. So no matter how you cut it, 4800 BCE, 4500 BCE, and 4200 BCE all predate Maykop.
-Most importantly, Reinhold and Ghalichi modeled early Maykop, late Maykop, and Maykop Novosvobodnaya as part of their recent study on the Caucasus. All are very different from the J2b L283 pre Yamnaya sample from Zolotarevka and the late steppe Eneolithic outlier genome. See their sankey diagram. It’s a game changer.
-The formation of Maykop, late Maykop, and Maykop Novosvobodnaya genomes all post date the formation of the late steppe Eneolithic outlier, ZO1002.
-Read the “The rise and transformation of Bronze Age pastoralists in the Caucasus” by Ghalichi/Reinhold. It’s a solid paper (maybe best I’ve ever seen) that does an excellent job of delineating who are Maykop and who are not Maykop based on ancient DNA sampling.
@Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware WomenFebruary 15
ReplyDeleteThanks for the information, no one argues that in Europe before the CWC there were cattle breeders, but this was not the main source of food.
@ Romulus
ReplyDelete''I learned recently that Iberian Neolithic Farmers were herding cattle 6000 years ago. Seems Steppe people had nothing special to offer with respect to cattle herding. Was probably introduced in the opposite direction, I.E. from EEF to the Steppe.''
Any 'farmer' society has the propensity to herd cattle. Domestic animals are part of the neolithic package, not just legumes and seeds.
Animal husbandry however seems to have been more limited in early Farmers, then became increasingly prominent over time as segments of the male population became devoted to the role. This is why painted pottery and worship of the mother goddess was already declining even before the steppe migrations.
As for how steppe hunters became steppe herders, it's a complex issue
@ Asega
ReplyDelete'I1 Eastern Scandinavians prefer Ertebølle and/or Ostorf (which are Ertebølle guys with TRB admix) as their excess HG source. Southern Scandinavians have the same HG ancestry just at lower frequencies. We are talking minute differences between them.
McColl even suggests in the supplementary that the so-called ENS Beaker-derived cluster has Latvian HG ancestry as well.
They are creative storytellers but subpar at analysing the data soberly.''
TBH, given that this team published the new Kulloba & Kaman-Kalehoyuk data, Im not going to complain, although the penny didnt drop for them on that issue either.
But it seems like there were a few pre-I1 lineages around northern and western Europe, and given the 'young' TMRCA of extant I1, it must have come from a group still in hunter-gatherer or 'sub-Neolithic' mode of subsitence. C.f. certain I2 lineages which seem to have a Neolithic expansion time as they
@ princess Dragon
You had no issue schilling for the claim that R1a was a Yamnaya servant class, but went silent after we learned that even R1b--M269 was sparse in the early Eneolithic steppe. You now prance around claiming that j2b2 is a Yamnaya lineage despite evidence to the contrary. You are free to use whatever pronouns you want, but don't castigate those who prefer to be realists, as you're clearly projecting. At least bring some intelligent analysis to the table rather than copy/pasting cliches
@EthanR
ReplyDeleteAfaik, Remontnoye is legitimate contributor and it makes sense, ZO (Remontnoye clone) has confirmed L283 and that's where it got into Yamnaya. What I'd like to speculate is if Remontnoye was fleeing away from Maikopians and Kumsayans, and if Remontnoye/ZO ended up assimilating into Serednii Stih and then this proto Mikhaylovka profile in Southern Ukraine started moving in all directions. Imo this makes more sense. Circa 3800BCE Remontnoye/ZO L283 + V1636 refugees start coming into Late Core Serednii, probably fleeing from their conflict with Maikop + Steppe Maikop, thede Late CLV refugees get assimilated and admix with Late Core Serednii and form Yamnaya profile, from Southern Ukraine 3800BCE Yamnaya profile starts expanding. Despite all the talk about Repin, that case has been dead even as per Anthony, the homeland is probably Mikhaylovka as some archaeologists do consider
@ Ethan R
ReplyDelete'''Post-mesolithic, J2b generally seems to have a more genetically "eastern" distribution (Mentesh-tepe, Hajji Firuz, Maikop) as opposed to a "western" orientation (more like Meshoko).''
This is further supported by the fact the Majkop individuals (across the board) have lower ANF ancestry than Georgia_N and Masis Blur*. This suggests that there was an additional 'wave' from a more eastern segment of the PPN sphere 4000 BC
* however, Aknashen has high levels of Iran_N and minimal ANF,
"J2B2-L283 was Core Yamnaya in 4000 BC, in addition to 3 other EBA steppe samples. Cut the b.s."
ReplyDeletePost their IDs then.
Oh wait you can't because they don't exist.
There aren't "many" Moldovan samples, eneolithic or Yamnaya. There's actually relatively few.
ReplyDeleteAny autosomal signal in the NW Pontic is going to be muted by at least two periods of dilution, given that the samples we have date to 2700BC and 2500BC.
And this is the one J-L283 published:
Distance to: Moldova_EBA_Yamnaya:I10206__BC_2700__Cov_21.09%
0.03954056 Moldova_BA
0.04243547 Moldova_MBA
0.04288438 Lithuania_LN
0.04598017 Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya.SG
0.04609748 Mongolia_Bayankhongor_EBA
0.04647725 Moldova_MBA_MultiCordonedWare
@Anon_BGP
ReplyDeleteCan you post Anthony's comments on Repin?
I don't find the Mykhailovka evidence convincing on its own (the sample is also poor coverage, cladal for both Steppe Eneolithic and Yamnaya). If the criteria is the first sample that is cladal for core Yamnaya, then KST001 may as well represent the homeland.
There isn't much evidence that Remontnoye contributed to Yamnaya in a second admixture event, as per the quote from the paper's supplemental. I'm not sure if it's geographically harmonious either given that by the mid third millenium BC, the lower Don seemed to be extremely Ukraine_N-rich (hence the continuation of Konstaninovka pottery and Don Yamnaya being modellable as Core Yamnaya+SSmed).
If something similar to Remontnoye contributed, this is likely something much older, and assisted in forming SS more generally.
@ Sam Elliot
ReplyDelete''Read the “The rise and transformation of Bronze Age pastoralists in the Caucasus” by Ghalichi/Reinhold. It’s a solid paper (maybe best I’ve ever seen) that does an excellent job of delineating who are Maykop and who are not Maykop based on ancient DNA sampling.
Its okay but not perfect. The most obvious flaw is their misattrubution of Majkop burials as 'early Yamnaya'. They didnt even quite nail the Neolithic samples, so that puts out the rest of their models
ZO1 is the same genomic cluster as Early Majkop OSS1, theyre basically the same population with slightly different ratios
OSS1
@EthanR
ReplyDelete🤔
Target: Moldova_EBA_Yamnaya:I10206__BC_2700__Cov_21.09%
Distance: 2.2259% / 0.02225863 | R3P
62.6 Czechia_EBA_CordedWare.AG
34.2 Russia_Afanasievo.AG
3.2 Russia_Ob_LN_KuznetskAltai.SG
Asian (Russia_Ob_LN) source, probably due to low coverage
@EthanR
ReplyDeleteKST001 is most probably 3700BCE outlier originally from proto Mikhayilovka in South Ukraine. Lower Don region was pre-4400BCE Krivyanski/KHB type and post-4400BCE NV3003 type (Kriv + TTK). It can't be Yamnaya homeland. The "Don Yamnaya" can also be reverse modelled as Core Yamnaya + Core Serednii, which I suspect is potentially a stray eastern sister branch of proto Mikhayilovka that received little to no Remontnoye/ZO refugee admix
@Sam
ReplyDeleteJ2b indeed has Southern (Shu-Sho, posr-ShuSho like Leylatepe (which gives Maykop)) orientation, rather than Western (J2a, J1, G2a, all clades dominant in Kartvelians, Abkhazo-Circassians, Nakh-Dags). Remontnoye/ZO is cline with and made of same two comps (Steppe_En + Azerbaijan_C) as Maykop, the difference being ZO is higher Steppe_En than Maikop. The new KMM Maykop sample also has J2b-L283 related clade. Everything points to Maykop and subsequently South Caucasian origin of L283.
@Anon_BGP
ReplyDeleteI remember you brought out Alkhan Tepe at 100 percent from the Aze_LN source, but in G25 in any case it shows a more southern admix
Target: Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LateC.AG:ALX002.AG__BC_3710__Cov_33.74%
Distance: 2.8063% / 0.02806329
67.4 Georgia_Shomutepe-Shulaveri_N
18.8 Iran_Luristan_PPN.SG
13.8 Jordan_PPNB.AG
perhaps this is the same influence of "ubayd"
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think
Target: Russia_Caucasus_Maikop.AG:OSS001.AG__BC_3632__Cov_37.00%
Distance: 2.6326% / 0.02632592 | R3P
60.8 Georgia_Shomutepe-Shulaveri_N:AO2001__BC_5814__Cov_51.14%
29.6 Russia_Stavropol_LateSteppe_Eneolithic_EBA_o:ZO1004__BC_3872__Cov_48.41%
9.6 Georgia_Kotias_Mesolithic.SG:KK1.SG__BC_7728__Cov_99.86%
interestingly, in late European farmers, WHG male chromosomes began to dominate (mostly I), which means there was no genocide of ANF over WHG 🤔
ReplyDeletehttps://x.com/nrken19/status/1891867233510395972
@Kitty
ReplyDeleteDo you know how the DeepAncestry coordinates from IllustrativeDNA were derived? They seem to be less accurate than G25
Just in case this question is also for me, I don't know the answer to it, and I'm not involved with IllustrativeDNA or their test.
@ Mr. Funk
ReplyDelete''What do you think....''
Try comparing OSS001, Zo1004, and other Majkop and north Caucasus Eneolithic individuals using an ancestral base of (1) Shulaveri, (2) CHG, (3) Khvalnysk (4) TTK, (5) Ukr N (6) Tripyllia
Target: Russia_Caucasus_Maikop.AG:OSS001.AG__BC_3632__Cov_37.00%
@Samsonian
ReplyDeleteYes, this is the original G25 that I ran for Illustrative for a time.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteG25 provides some non-intuitive results at times when asking it to distinguish between European farmers and Aknashen:
https://i.gyazo.com/4994777132d618f12a6d64b011744a89.png
Individual labels are from my own sheet, the averages are from Moriopolous.
@Rob
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ibb.co/xqQx52Dv/1739994829545.jpg
@EthanR
ReplyDeleteI used the William Anderson list because I like that everything is sorted by date and coverage. If necessary, you can remove the extra stuff.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Davidski Any details on the new tool? Will it be PCA based? How different will it be to g25? thx.
ReplyDelete@ Dragon Hermit - Ive seen what you do on forums- spreead nonsense about Balkans whilst boot-licking on the western R1b-M269 threads. Typical schiptard
ReplyDeleteSome more fun with the Moriopolous averages..
ReplyDeleteDistance to: Bulgaria_EBA_Yamnaya_o(I-L699).AG:Bul4.AG__BC_2945__Cov_32.81%
0.02913657 Ukraine_Eneolithic_Cernavoda_Kartal_(High_Steppe_Profile)_(n=4)
0.03865534 Albania_EBA_(n=1)
0.04084233 Serbia_Roman_Empire_Viminacium_Pirivoj_(Sarmatian-Mixed_Profile)_(n=1)
0.04096211 Hungary_IA_Scythian_Kesznyeten-Szeruskert_(High_Steppe_Profile)_(n=1)
0.04146557 Hungary_Late_Antiquity_Sarmatian_(Sarmatian-Mixed_Profile)_(n=23)
0.04192974 France_Late_Antiquity_Sarrebourg_(Sarmatian-Mixed_Profile)_(n=2)
0.04285583 Russia_Vladimir_Late_Medieval_(East_Asian-Mixed_Profile)_(n=1)
0.04412840 Hungary_Late_Antiquity_Hun_(Sarmatian-Mixed_Profile)_(n=3)
0.04425862 Ukraine_Eneolithic_Usatove_Revova_(n=1)
0.04439563 Serbia_Late_Antiquity-Early_Medieval_Hun-Avar_Kormadin_(Sarmatian-Mixed_Profile)_(n=1)
@EthanR similar mixtures
ReplyDeleteHmm
ReplyDeleteTarget: Bulgaria_EBA_Yamnaya_o.AG:Bul4.AG__BC_2945__Cov_32.81%
Distance: 1.6866% / 0.01686627 | R3P
42.2 Russia_Afanasievo.AG
31.6 Sweden_Fralsegarden_N.SG
26.2 Armenia_Areni1_Chalcolithic.AG
Target: Bulgaria_EBA_Yamnaya_o.AG:Bul4.AG__BC_2945__Cov_32.81%
Distance: 1.2604% / 0.01260393 | R4P
35.8 Russia_Afanasievo.AG
28.6 Germany_EN_LBK.AG
18.0 Armenia_Areni1_Chalcolithic.AG
17.6 Ukraine_Molyukhіv-Bugor_N
🤔So, I’m thinking about the situation that’s currently unfolding around Ukraine, and it seems to me that Russia either paid Trump a huge amount of money or promised him some percentage of oil revenues and other raw materials, both personally to Trump and to America, if Trump agrees to a deal where Ukraine hands over part of its territory to Russia, and in return, all sanctions on Russia’s export of raw materials are lifted
ReplyDeleteOtherwise, I don’t understand why Trump’s team is promoting clearly pro-Russian candidates in Europe, why Trump’s team is saying about Zelensky that he’s a dictator, but not saying anything about Putin? Why is there clear, active propaganda and lies on Twitter from all high-ranking American figures against Ukraine?
Now I understand how Trump is going to make America great again—at the expense of Russia’s natural resources. And Putin, in turn, will be able to sell the idea to his ‘deep nation’ that Russia won this war
How I respect Mr Davidski for the fact that he thinks correctly, sees everything in advance, for the fact that he is fair and for the bunch of genetic culators that he came up with.
ReplyDeleteTrump to matoł i ruska kurwa.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteTrump is a senile piece of shit. Him and Russia can go and fornicate.
ReplyDeleteEurope is about to send Ukraine 20 billion euros worth of weapons.
Ukraine will win this with or without the dumbass Americans.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteAnd how much of that will reach regular, suffering Ukrainians ? None
ReplyDeleteMost of it will go to weapons manufacturing, the rest is laundered by Zelenski & Co., and the rest to
“EU” ministers ( holding “numerous meetings” and move imaginary armies like during Hitler’s final days) who are far cheaper but still grossly overpaid.
These of course are the same ministers are destroying western & northern Europe, but now we are to expect to believe that they know what’s best for Eastern Europe
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteRegular suffering Ukrainians, as well as regular Poles watching next door, very much approve of that 20 bullion euros being used for ammo and weapons.