A paper dealing with the origin of Slavic speakers, titled
Ancient DNA connects large-scale migration with the spread of Slavs, was just published at
Nature by Gretzinger et al. (see
here).
The dataset from the paper includes eight fascinating ancient samples from Gródek upon the Bug River in Southeastern Poland. These individuals are dated to the so called Tribal Period (8th –9th centuries), and, as far as I know, they represent the earliest Slavic speakers in the ancient DNA record.
The really interesting thing about these early Slavs is that they already show some Germanic and other Western European-related ancestries.
In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots below, three of them cluster near present-day Ukrainians, while the rest are shifted towards present-day Northwestern, Western and Southern Europeans. The plots were produced with the excellent
Vahaduo G25 Global Views tool using the data
here.
These results aren't exactly shocking, because the people who preceded the early Slavs in the Gródek region were Scandinavian-like and associated with the Wielbark archeological culture. In other words, they were probably Goths who also had significant contacts with the Roman Empire.
However, it's not a given that the ancestors of the Tribal Period Slavs mixed with local Goths. It's also possible that they brought the western admixture, or at least some of it, from the Slavic homeland, wherever that may have been.
That's because the early Slavs who migrated deep into what is now Russia also showed Western European-related admixture. This is what Gretzinger et al. say on page 74 of their supplementary info (emphasis is mine):
The only deviation from this pattern is observed for ancient samples from the Russian Volga-Oka region, where we measure higher genetic affinity between present-day Southern/Western Europeans and the SP population compared to the pre-SP population (Fig. S17). This agrees with the pattern observed in PCA and ADMIXTURE that, in contrast to the Northwestern Balkan, Eastern Germany, and Poland-Northwestern Ukraine, the arrival of Slavic-associated culture in Northwestern Russia was associated with a shift in PCA space to the West, a decrease of BAL [Baltic] ancestry, and the introduction of Western European ancestries such as CNE [Continental North European] and CWE [Continental Western European].
Thus, it's highly plausible that the Tribal Period Slavs from Gródek were very similar, perhaps even practically identical, to the proto-Slavs who lived in the original Slavic homeland. Hopefully we won't have to wait too long to discover whether that's true or not. More Migration period and Slavic period samples from the border regions of Belarus, Poland and Ukraine are needed to sort that out.
On the other hand, most of the post-1000 CE individuals from Gródek are shifted closer to present-day Balts. This is probably due to admixture from nearby Baltic-speaking populations. At the time, Baltic speakers still occupied much of northern and eastern Poland.
I'm still going through the Gretzinger et al. paper and I'll probably have a lot more to say about it in the near future.
However, unfortunately, I've already spotted a silly mistake in the supplementary info that will probably have some very annoying consequences for us on this blog. On page 109 the authors make the false claim that South Asian ancestry is present in a wide range of ancient Eastern European and Central Asian populations from the Bronze Age to the Scythian period.
Furthermore, Sycthian groups from Ukraine show varying fractions of South Asian ancestry (between 5% and 12%), a component present in many ancient individuals from Moldova (e.g. Moldova_IA, Moldova_LBA and Moldova_MBA), Ukraine (Ukraine_Alexandria_MBA and Ukraine_BA_Catacomb.SG), Western Russia (e.g. Russia_EarlySarmatian.SG, Russia_MLBA_Potapovka, or Russia_MLBA_Sintashta) and the Caucasus (Russia_Caucasus_LBA_Dolmen and Russia_North_Caucasus_MBA) but (nearly) absent in the SP genomes from Central and East-Central Europe (<5%) (Fig. S42b).
All ancient and present-day South Asian populations carry what is commonly known as Ancestral South Indian (ASI) ancestry, while all of the above mentioned ancient groups lack it. Ergo, it's impossible for these ancients to have actual South Asian ancestry.
What happened is that Gretzinger et al. created a genetic component in ADMIXTURE based on present-day South Asians. However, South Asians today have very complex ancestry from several different sources, including early pastoralists from the North-Pontic steppe in Eastern Europe and early farmers from Central Asia and what is now Iran. As a result, the groups that share significant amounts of alleles with South Asians via these sources also show so called South Asian ancestry in the Gretzinger et al. analysis.
Unless this problem is corrected we're likely to see some nutjobs online using this paper to claim all sorts of nonsense about the origins of ancient Eastern Europeans and Central Asians, especially the Sintashta people and Scythians.
See also...
High-resolution stuff
Leo Speidel & Pontus Skoglund
555 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 555 of 555@Rob
you can use ADMIXTURE to get an idea what you're looking at but I would use qpAdm or qpGraph to get a more proper idea.
@GioielloTognoni > @LuisAldamiz
Ahah, Maju! I'll read and study the video and the letters https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S0L7HQFEF5w, but are you or not Gaska?
@Rob The Kura-Araxes culture arose based on local South Caucasian farmers, who mixed with hunter-gatherers. These local South Caucasian farmers had Natufian admixture as their basis, meaning that Natufian admixture in the South Caucasus was present at least since the Neolithic. Natufian admixture was brought by populations similar to Çatalhöyük, Tepecik, Tell Kurdu. It is present in samples from Aknashen, Masis Blur, Aruchlo, Mentesh Tepe, Leyla Tepe, etc. Accordingly, it is also present in early samples of Kura-Araxes from Armenia. But for some reason, when we try to model Ginchi through these same proxies like CHG, EHG, etc., when adding Natufian admixture, the model is rejected.
@LuisAldamiz
@GioielloTognoni - Not sure who or what is Gaska but I'm not that person or thing. I'm indeed Maju in terms of blogging.
@GioielloTognoni
@LuisAldamiz I thank you for your ready answer. I followed you many years ago and for many years I lost you. Meanwhile Basques were represented by Gaska. What a pity that you don't know him, because it seems that we, with Davidski and Rob, won our fight for genetics (and linguistics too, perhaps).
@ Shomu
''he Kura-Araxes culture arose based on local South Caucasian farmers, who mixed with hunter-gatherers. These local South Caucasian farmers had Natufian admixture as their basis, meaning that Natufian admixture in the South Caucasus was present at least since the Neolithic. Natufian admixture was brought by populations similar to Çatalhöyük, Tepecik, Tell Kurdu. It is present in samples from Aknashen, Masis Blur, Aruchlo, Mentesh Tepe, Leyla Tepe, etc. Accordingly, it is also present in early samples of Kura-Araxes from Armenia. But for some reason, when we try to model Ginchi through these same proxies like CHG, EHG, etc., when adding Natufian admixture, the model is rejected.'
Because there is no need for extra Natufian over whatever Natufian-like ancestry is present in Catalhoyuk or Tepecik. So a model with Natufian in Left will obvously 'fail', coming out with a negative coefficient.
If on the other hand, you try to model south Caucasians ancients without Anatolian Farmers and instead use Natufian, it'll also fail because it is just not accurate enough and cannot stand in place of 'Anatolian Farmers'.
I have a slightly different theory, okay
@Rob
What additional Natufian admixtures are we talking about, if I'm talking about decomposition into basic components CHG EHG Iran ANF, literally these 4 components are enough to get Ginchi, when adding Natuf the model doesn't pass, ANF does not have additional Natufian admixtures. It's just Barcin, 100 percent EEF.
I posted the link above when I wrote about Natuf
https://x.com/bherciwehri/status/1984718372844548355
@Davidski
There's some other fun stuff in the new paper, like them modelling Yassitepe as something absurd like 50% Bulgaria_C, and ignoring the fact that there already is Steppe ancestry in that component.
It's fascinating how Maju and Gaska, even though not being the same person, have a very similar style of debating, as if they were peeled from one egg. And frankly I didn't expect that Maju has such a posh British accent.
@ Ethan
''There's some other fun stuff in the new paper, like them modelling Yassitepe as something absurd like 50% Bulgaria_C, and ignoring the fact that there already is Steppe ancestry in that component.''
But with the exception of the R1b Smyadovo outlier, the core set of 'Bulgaria -C' are just Bulgaria N + Ukraine or lower Danube HG; ~ 95% + 5%
Modelling them with so-called ''steppe'' instead of Dneper HG fails
The terminological problem however - this 'lower Danube' HG ancesty is itself from the steppe and can be called 'near steppe ancestry' (as in near-eastern vs far eastern), but in their dishonest manipulation of the narrative, ''Harvard'' nazified the term 'steppe'' to only refer to north Caucasus steppe, because they had a Story to create
@ Shomu
''What additional Natufian admixtures are we talking about, if I'm talking about decomposition into basic components CHG EHG Iran ANF, literally these 4 components are enough to get Ginchi, when adding Natuf the model doesn't pass, ANF does not have additional Natufian admixtures. It's just Barcin, 100 percent EEF.
I posted the link above when I wrote about Natuf'''
EEF are European Early Farmers, not Barcin, and EEF have ~ 5% extra WHG
Anatolian Farmer likes Tepecik & Catalhoyuk do have Natufian ancestry, as shown above.
There isn't any mystery or dilemma here.
@Rob
I see ~3-5% Berezhnovka or SShi ancestry when excluding the Steppe-rich individual. The existence of the Steppe-rich individual makes it more likely the signal is real.
Amazing if true, but I1a2a1a1d1a1a1b1 equates to I-Y21452/I-Y21451 whose TMRCA is dated to the 600s CE which indicates that it is likely a contaminated sample... Any Swedes or Finns involved in the study? What team is conducting this study?
@Davidski How can I reach you? I've got a very interesting VCF file I would like to email you for addition to the official Global25 modern database.
It consists of a consolidated sample of 96 Northern Somali individuals from the northeastern Puntland region of Somalia (mostly Majerteen Darod clan). The samples were originally in CEL raw genome format and were taken from this study: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/biostudies/ArrayExpress/studies/E-MTAB-8331?query=E-MTAB-8331
I've analyzed these Northern Somali/Puntland samples using both Vahaduo and ADMIXTURE. They are quite different from the southern Somali, Kenya Somali, Ethiopian, Eritrean and Northern Sudanese samples in the G25 database.
For starters, these Northern Somali samples from Puntland have more non-African ancestry than the other Horn and Northern Sudanese samples. They average about as much non-African ancestry as the North African samples (~85%). However, the actual ancestral components that these Northern Somali individuals bear are rather different from those carried by the North Africans.
These Northern Somali/Puntland samples have as their core heritage a mixture of North African (~25% of Capsian and Iberomaurusian elements), South Asian (~25% of India_RoopkundA and Pakistan_SaidhuSharif_H elements), and Steppe genome components (~25% of Moldova_LBA element). Additionally, they have minor Sub-Saharan African admixture (~15% of Dinka_1 element) and minor East Asian admixture (~10% of China_Guangxi_Huatuyan_Ming element).
Here is a typical example:
Target: Somali_North_Puntland:D05
Distance: 0.8568% / 0.00856776
29.0 India_RoopkundA
26.0 Capsian
24.8 Moldova_LBA
15.0 Dinka
5.2 China_Guangxi_Huatuyan_Ming.SG
https://i.postimg.cc/pVKkBbsX/Vahaduo-Single-Northern-Somali-Puntland-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/DZrs1F7W/Vahaduo-Multi-Northern-Somali-Puntland-1.jpg
In PCA space, all of these Northern Somali/Puntland samples cluster closely together, in a position parallel to but separate from the North African samples. Distance analysis on Vahaduo also shows that all of these Northern Somali/Puntland individuals are statistically nearest to North African individuals.
https://i.postimg.cc/4NNtHrqR/Vahaduo-Distance-Northern-Somali-Puntland-1.jpg
I converted all of these samples into G25 coordinates using the Eurogenes K36 calculator on Genoplot. Below are some of those coordinates. You can test them out on Vahaduo to see what I mean:
Unscaled/raw:
Somali_North_Puntland:A08,-0.006378,-0.00581,-0.011323,0.001796,-0.005004,0.001721,-0.005361,0.002903,0.029581,-0.008341,0.000369,-0.005271,0.006794,-0.007848,0.012747,-0.009126,0.004065,-0.009472,-0.016866,0.009116,-0.004969,-0.014476,0.008601,-0.001577,0.003173
Somali_North_Puntland:B06,-0.007459,-0.006194,-0.009864,0.003994,-0.005816,0.001219,-0.006681,0.002903,0.03051,-0.008396,0.003141,-0.005472,0.009081,-0.009955,0.011052,-0.010634,0.004909,-0.01034,-0.021957,0.010875,-0.009617,-0.017873,0.012089,0.001162,0.003257
Somali_North_Puntland:C07,-0.006668,-0.005367,-0.008247,0.001269,-0.004679,0.002725,-0.003489,0.00247,0.021807,-0.011688,-0.003449,-0.003003,0.003834,-0.010754,0.013042,-0.006411,0.002991,-0.007578,-0.015593,0.005038,-0.005369,-0.01391,0.010467,-0.001328,0.000334
Scaled:
Somali_North_Puntland:D09,-0.0676,-0.0507,-0.0305,0.0086,-0.011,0.0099,-0.0108,0.0057,0.0512,-0.0219,0,-0.0081,0.0106,-0.0142,0.0181,-0.0117,0.0021,-0.012,-0.02,0.0055,-0.0041,-0.0163,0.0134,-0.0009,0.0027
Somali_North_Puntland:E10,-0.0856,-0.0612,-0.0361,0.0093,-0.0098,0.0081,-0.0109,0.0099,0.0612,-0.0137,0.0014,-0.0064,0.0084,-0.0124,0.0163,-0.0156,0.0016,-0.013,-0.0277,0.0107,-0.0044,-0.0219,0.0145,-0.001,0.0008
Somali_North_Puntland:F11,-0.0883,-0.0549,-0.0386,0.0012,-0.0059,0.0061,-0.0129,0.0082,0.0704,-0.0166,0.0043,-0.0101,0.0134,-0.0109,0.0169,-0.0151,0.0041,-0.0147,-0.0268,0.0101,-0.0038,-0.0213,0.0147,0.0007,0.002
@Davidski I also investigated these Northern Somali/Puntland samples for phenotype alleles. Intriguingly, every sample I examined carried genetic variants coding for straight hair, light hair (mostly red hair), light skin and light eyes. This can be confirmed on YSEQ's Phenotype Predictor, which uses the standard HIrisPlex system. These Northern Somali/Puntland individuals also possessed the Europe-specific AA lactase persistent genotype at the rs4988235 SNP of the MCM6 gene (better known as the TT genotype on the minus strand orientation).
What's more, all but one of the 31 Northern Somali/Puntland individuals I examined for haplogroups belonged to R1b-DF13, the Celtic-associated paternal lineage. The other person fell under the more upstream R1b-L21 clade. So apparently, R1b lineages in Africa are not just limited to the R1b-V88 carriers of the Chad Basin.
In terms of mtDNA, of these 31 samples, all that had good matches belonged to the same H2a2a1 maternal haplogroup.
This Y-DNA haplogroup assignment can be confirmed by changing the modal haplotype below into FTDNA format (as already done in the bottom-most row), and then pasting that into YSEQ's Clade Finder:
rs104894976 → M343 (haplogroup R1b)
rs104894972 → M269 (haplogroup R1b1a1a2)
rs104894965 → L151 (haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1)
rs104894971 → L11 (haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a)
rs104894977 → P310 (haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1)
rs2058276 → P312 (haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1a)
rs1865680 → L21 (haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1a1)
rs2032624 → DF13 (haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1a1a)
rs104894976 G>A,C,T
rs104894972 C>G,T
rs104894965 C>T
rs104894971 C>T
rs104894977 G>A
rs2058276 T>A,C
rs1865680 A>G
rs2032624 C>A
rs104894976 Y 2655248 AA
rs104894972 Y 2655361 TT
rs104894965 Y 2655436 TT
rs104894971 Y 2655592 TT
rs104894977 Y 2655641 AA
rs2058276 Y 2668456 CC
rs1865680 Y 6868118 GG
rs2032624 Y 15026424 AA
rs104894976+, rs104894972+, rs104894965+, rs104894971+, rs104894977+, rs2058276+, rs1865680+, rs2032624+
M343+, M269+, L151+, L11+, P310+, P312+, L21+, DF13+
The mtDNA haplogroup assignment can be confirmed using James Lick's website tool.
Overall, this looks to be a population of foreign origin that was assimilated into the Cushitic groups of the Horn and Nile Valley. When or how exactly this occurred is difficult to tell at the moment, but future aDNA testing should provide clues.
@Scott
You can send me the African samples to my eurogenesblog gmail account.
But they have to be in a single set of Plink files, not separately and not in VCF files.
@ EthanR ''I see ~3-5% Berezhnovka or SShi ancestry ''
Might be G25 overfitting, and probably a tad too late for BGR_C
Plus, look at the samples from Far East Turkey such Kurdu & the Tigris region
@Gio-
I have already told you many times that I am not Maju and I do not know that man. Neither he nor I represent the Basques because, among ourselves, there is no single opinion regarding the genetic origin of the Basques or the linguistic origin of Euskera. The most prestigious Spanish linguists continue to advance in the study of Iberian, and it is becoming increasingly evident that Basque and Iberian have a very distant common origin. This linguistic Basque-Iberianism coincides absolutely with genetic Basque-Iberianism because, as you all know, the Basques are identical to the Iberians of the Iron Age and the Proto-Iberians of the Bronze Age. The linguistic, archaeological, genetic, and anthropological advances do not coincide with Harvard's official theory of a paternal origin of the Basques in the steppes, and since we only want to know the truth, we will only accept that version when the evidence presented is irrefutable. At the moment, our paternal origin is in the WHGs of the Villabruna cluster, and if anyone believes otherwise, they will have to prove it (we have been waiting 10 years for an R1b-L754 older than Villabruna to appear in Ukraine, Siberia, China, Mongolia or Massachusetts).
As for myself, I am Basque on my father's side and Galician on my mother's side, and therefore I am proud to be Spanish, but I am not so foolish or conceited as to think that I speak on behalf of all my compatriots.
To understand what I am saying, you can think of Carlos Quiles or Alberto, other Spaniards who manage (or managed) genetic websites. Their opinions are completely opposite to mine but what you can be sure of is that all of us are completely honest, and that while we are passionate about defending our theories, we are also capable of publicly acknowledging our mistakes. I don't think others can boast of such honesty.
Managed to get something out of this sample from Sudan
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25384-y
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB53198
https://www.mediafire.com/file/zz3fz24gqkt07v5/W%2Ang_2022.zip/file
@Gaska
Of course, it was just a casual conversation with Maju. The fact is, I found him by chance, after many years, posting in a YouTube video with his real name, and I couldn't miss the opportunity to contact him. You told me that you are not Maju, but I hadn't had the chance to ask Maju himself. I corresponded with him on his blogs many years ago: he's a leftist, the opposite of me, and he was also a bit aloof and arrogant at times, but I recognized the genuineness of his ideas. He gave a detailed answer on linguistics and genetics, although I'm not convinced by his theory that R-P312 comes from Iberia. Where is the evidence in ancient DNA? And on other things, he winks a bit at our Caucasian friends and also at the "Southern Arc theory" so as not to disturb the sacred cow of Harvard. And then, if it's true that Iberia has had contact with Italy over time, the migrations in the opposite direction were numerous, starting with that of Zilhao 7500 years ago, which probably brought R-V88 to Iberia and perhaps to Africa, either from Iberia or from Italy itself. You know how I think about R1b: the furthest west we've found it is in the Alpine region, not only Villabruna but Les Iboussiéres. Yes, the Villabruna cluster (14000 but perhaps already 17000 ybp) is common with I-M223, as far as I know it has only been found in Italy between 20000 and 10000 years ago, perhaps the most solid proof of expansion from Italy after the Younger Dryas. Yes, I1 was probably the dominant Paleolithic haplogroup in Iberia. It seems that even at Arene Candide and Balzi Rossi, which I had been asking to be tested for a long time, they only found haplogroup I, as in Remedello. I considered Quiles a hard worker, and I don't believe he's posting under a pseudonym now. I certainly wasn't against him, and I didn't quite understand why he declared himself defeated. I'm not even opposed to the haplogroups of the Siberian corridor, from which mine perhaps also originates, certainly not to R1a, a brother haplogroup, but not even to the Ugric-Finnic language group, which I consider the closest from prehistory to the Indo-European one. Connecting genetics and languages is a very difficult task, and I'm too old to attempt a thorough study of it. I remain convinced that Basque, like ancient Sardinian, are surviving languages among the Paleolithic European hunter-gatherers, haplogroup I, like the related haplogroup J in the Caucasus with the Caucasian languages. It's not difficult for me to accept that R1b1 in the Alpine region spoke a Basque-Caucasian language and left Indo-European to the R1a haplogroup that remained further east. It's difficult for me to think that my R-L23-Z2103 in Yamnaya spoke Indo-European. There is no evidence of this in its expansion towards the Caucasus, the Middle East and the Levant, or in the later return towards the Baltic, Central European, and even the Italic world. It's possible, although not certain, that my ancestors were among the Latin-Romans more than 3000 years ago.
Basques and Iberians definitely have a very distant common origin and Basques are similar to the Iberians of the Iron Age and the Proto-Iberians of the Bronze Age. Villabruna is ancestral for all R-P297 phylogenetic SNPs even though Villabruna is younger than those SNPs. Minino 2-3 MN2003 from Vologda is derived for R-P297. NV3003 has the highest number of derived SNPs phylogenetically equivalent to R-M269. Absolute proof of the region where the first R-L23 person lived when it first appeared is non-existent and Villabruna only highlights that he wasn't in the direct lineage of the R-P297 people that existed during his lifetime.
@Dospaises
of course, but I linked Villabruna (certainly 14000 ybp, but very likely his tribe was up there already 17000 ybp) to I-M223. The same autosome, the same expansion. So far, for what I know, I-M223 was in Italy and only in Italy between 20000 and 10000 Years ago. To find one sample of one tribe, in this case Villabruna, doesn't say everything about all the men of his tribe, developed within 7000 Years (17000-10000 ybp). When you find a closer ancestor of R-L23, which is also my ancestor (R-L23-Z2103), let me know that.
@Dospaises-
I have tried to explain what we think on many occasions, and what I say is irrefutable.
-The oldest R1b found to date is in Italy, not in Siberia or the steppes. Is that so difficult to understand? When an older sample appears, we will accept it without any problems, but for now, our origin is in Villabruna (I'm sorry if that upsets you, but that's the way it is).
-Regarding P297 in the Baltic and northern Russia, where do you think they come from? Siberia, Mongolia? Don't make me laugh. Only if you know the prehistory of Europe can you develop credible theories. In this case, Epigravettian technologies are related to the formation of the Swiderian>Kunda and Butovo cultures, ergo the early successful expansion of R1b-P297 may be associated with the spread of Epigravettian (Villabruna-R1b-L754) & post-Swiderian cultures in north-eastern Europe, linked thus to the north-eastern Technocomplex (Kunda, Veretye & Butovo cultures) as demonstrated by the samples found in the Baltic (Zvejnieki-7272 BCE) and northern Russia (Minino2-8534 BCE). Samples from the Kunda and the succeeding Narva cultures show an ancestry intermediate between WHG (70%) and EHG (30%).
-The R1b-M269 branch formed 11300 BCE, TMRCA 4400 BCE, consists of 100+ SNPs and took over 7,000 years to be fully form so, even if Smyadovo or Nevinnomyssky, were valid samples and positive for a M269 equivalent SNP, it could be that they were a dead-end branch that was not fully formed. The exact geographic origin of the R1b-M269 marker, remains to be determined.
However, Villabruna and other data show that the ancestor of P297 was also in Europe, let alone M269. The absence of R in eastern asia and R1b-P297 in Siberia before the Bronze Age reneg Sibero-fantasmoid narratives, some even deflecting further to sayng, well PIE is anyway from East or southeast Asia because P* is from there, allegedly. These are popular amongst north American genealogists / Yamnaya enthusiasts, the OIT squad, & some East Asian anthros. Unfortunately, their reasoning & resolution is hasn't really evolved beyond Ma'lta and is further clouded by their misunderstanding of ANE and ENA historical geography. This extends to even more serious and otherwise well-meaning Paleo-analysts.
So whatever happened with P297, M269, Yamnaya & CW was intra-European re-shuffling similar (but in reverse) to the story of I2a-M423, for example.
The Yamnaya culture is too young to be the origin of R1b-M269 or upstream markers, that's why I always say that the steppes are not the origin but the sink of R1b. Only R1b-V1636 in the Khvalynsk culture and R1b-Z2103 in Repin-Yamnaya appear to have originated in the steppes. Everything points to an ultimate origin in the WHGs, not the EHGs, because R1a has not yet appeared in Yamnaya. The same could be said of Yamnaya mitochondrial markers: one-third originate in the southern Caucasus, one-third in the cultures of old Europe (also ultimately originating in Anatolia), and one-third in WHGs and EHGS. How do you think the different branches of R1b or I2a arrived in the steppes? I can explain it to you.
1-Some from the Baltic;
I4630 (7272 BCE)-ZVEJ30-Zvejnieki II, Latvia_HG-R1b1a1a-P297>Y13200
NEO560 (5955 BCE)-Karavaikha, Burial20, Mesolithic_Russia-R1b1a1a-M73
I20559 (3003 BCE)-Afanasieva-Gora, Afanasievo-Yenisei -R1b1a1a-Y13200-Lazaridis, 2024
I6731 (2999 BCE)-Leschevo3, EBA_Samara_Yamnaya, Russia-R1b1a1a-Y13200-Lazaridis, 2024
ZVEJ4, (5721 BCE)-Zvejnieki, I4551, BHG, Latvia-I2a1b1a2-CTS10057
I3712 (5444 BCE)-Vilnianka, N_Ukraine-I2a1b1a2-CTS10057
IV3008 (2781 BCE)-Ipatovo, Caucasus Catacomb, Russia-I2a1b1a2-CTS10057
2-Others from Scandinavia
STG001 (3857 BCE)-Steigen, Scandinavian HGs, Norway-I2a1a2-M423>V6473
I32497 (2800 BCE)-Kamyshta, Khakassia, Afanasievo-I2a1a2-M423-S2770>V4673
3-Others from the Balkans;
I5235 (8885 BCE)-Padina-BHG, Serbia-R1b1b-V88
VSL004 (8483 BCE)-Vasylivka1, mesolithic, Ukraine-R1b1b-V88
I5401 (6888 BCE)-Hajdučka-Vodenica, Serbia-I2a1b2-L460>>M436>S2555-Mathieson, 2018
I27994 (5557 BCE)-Yasynuvatka, burial55, Neolithic_Ukraine-I2a1b2-S2555
LEPE18 (6075 BCE)-Lepenski Vir, Iron Gates_Mesolithic Serbia-I2a2a1b1-L701
I3715 (5560 BCE)-Vilnianka, Zaporizhia oblast, N_Ukraine-I2a1b1a2a1-L701
4-Others from Italy
VILLABRUNA (12105 BCE)-Villabruna, Epigravettian, Italy-R1b1a-L754>L761
I8952 (2795 BCE)-Mokro-Chaltyrsky, Don_EBA_Yamnaya-R1b-L754>L761
So until you find L23 and L51>L151 in the steppes that are old enough to prove that our paternal origin is in Russia or Ukraine, we will continue to believe that R1b-P312 and its descendants have absolutely nothing to do with the steppes on the paternal side.
My post was centered on main topics. One was an agreement. Another was a fact that can't be denied and still has not been disproven, because it can't. Villabruna is not a descendant of the R-P297 people that lead to R-M269 and eventually R-L23 even though Villabruna lived at the same time as R-P297 people. So Villabruna does not prove or disprove anything about the location of origin of R-P297or R-M269 or R-L23.
The location of origin of R-L23 will be near impossible to prove due to many factors including DNA damage, small population size and so on.
The location of origin of R-M269 will also be difficult to prove but once there are specimens older than 5000 BC derived for several of the R-M269 SNPs there will be evidence of where they existed. It's not until then that anything definitive can be said other than locations it's been found since then such as NV3003 with the caveat that NV3003 is younger and ancestral for R-L23.
If any of the specimens are going to be repeatedly used for evidence of the lineage that lead to R-L23 the oldest is obviously MN2003. Villabruna does not change that because Villabruna is not relevant to that lineage.
This is objective data. Serious discussions can't advance until this is accepted. There has to be a baseline. Distracting from a statement, with many other statements, made about Villabruna or the facts surrounding Villabruna or MN2003 does not change the facts about them. Phylogeny and 14C dating matters especially when the dating is sufficiently different than other specimens that are purportedly pertinent but really aren't.
@ Gaska
"The exact geographic origin of the R1b-M269 marker, remains to be determined".
Perhaps you know that I studied, upon the few STRs to our disposal 20 Years ago, above all R-L23-Z2103, R-PF7589, but also R-PF7562. Already the fact that the SNPs marked PF (my friend Paolo Francalacci, the author of the great paper upon the Sardinians, 2013-2015, that I studied very deeply, did mean that the origin had something to do with Sardinians, i.e. the oldest "Italians", thought then from Anatolia, we don't know why, because the other way around might have happened: I-M26 is 40% of Sardinians, and hg I is the haplogroup of the WHGs.
R-PF7562 is a little branch of R-M269 as to R-L23, but its expansion seems have happened from the Southern Balkans and the Aegean Sea.
I tested by chance a few friends of mine already pretty much 20 Years ago: R-Z2110 me, R-PF7563-PF7566 (Fabrizio Federighi), R-CTS9219 (Giorgio Tognarelli), R-U152 (probably, Alberto Malvolti). The tests were firstly made through the SMGF of the Mormons, now in the FamilyFinder of he FTDNA. In the papers, through not more than 17 markers, I found 5 different haplotypes of R-V1636 in Italy.
@ Dospaises
''Villabruna is not a descendant of the R-P297 people that lead to R-M269 and eventually R-L23''
I think you mean to say ancestor
But you're missing the point, don't go down the SNP rabbithole without synthesing the evidence adequately.
If you want to talk about facts, there are many
- The ancestor of P297 is also derived for L754, like Villabruna.
- P297 is attested in Meoslithic east Europe
- L754 has an Ice Age bottleneck, then expansion after 20kybp
- there is no L754 in Epipaleolthic or Mesolithic individuals from Siberia, East Asia or the Turan region
- the epigravettian in italy, balkans and Russia-Urkaine are obviously linked
culturally & genetically
Hence, the ancestor of L23/ M269 cannot come from 'possibly anywhere', but only somewhere in Europe, most likely east Europe.
Maybe we don;t know what street address it was born in , but maybe we will one day too. No point being nihilistic and overly polemical.
So the expansion of M269 in the early Bronze Age is as we said - a reshuffling within Europe.
@ Gaska
"If any of the specimens are going to be repeatedly used for evidence of the lineage that lead to R-L23 the oldest is obviously MN2003. Villabruna does not change that because Villabruna is not relevant to that lineage".
Of course your reasoning is right. We all accept that. But you should consider all the questions: above all the agendas of the farms which make the tests or write the papers, who funds them, and why above all. I talked about that during all my life. The haplotypes that I found in the papers or all the data in YHDR etc aren't in your data. Now we have a mass of data from China, and they too have their agendas, and I took in great consideration the ideas of Huang Shi about he origin of the same human gender. I am not against anyone who uses the scientific method.
@Dospaises
No, indeed, the epigravettian R1b samples we have in western and central Europe are not descendants of R1b-P297, it is exactly the opposite: R1b-P297 descends from R1b-L754 because, unless I am mistaken, the sequence is as follows: R1b-L754>L761>L389>P297. As you should know, Villabruna is not L754 but L761, which is only one marker away from your beloved Minino.
How can you say that Villabruna is not relevant when it is the only R1b-L754>L761 ancestral of P297 that we have not only in Europe but in the whole world? Saying that undermines the credibility of your reasoning. If the only possible ancestor of P297 is in the west, what makes you think that an older one will appear in Siberia or China? Can you share your ideas with us? Following your reasoning, we should disregard Mal'ta–R1b-M207 in Siberia because we only have one sample and we don't know if it is ancestral to R1 and R2 or if it is a dead line. Its relationship with the Gravettian culture could mean that it is a European hunter who went to Siberia to spend the summer hunting mammoths, taking advantage of the rise in temperatures and then returned home to the Balkans.
Kurganists have been using absurd excuses for years to try to hide their failure: lack of analyzed samples, R1b-L23 and R1a-M417 poor peasants with no right to be buried in the kurgans, DNA damage, etc. The geographical origin of L23* is not impossible to determine; we just need to look in the right places and at the right time. One thing is certain: we will not find it in Siberia.
NV003 is not only excessively modern, it is a specimen found in the Maykop culture, which can lead to misconceptions about its origin. You should not forget the Smyadovo specimen, which according to Harvard-Lazaridis is the oldest M269 we have.
I don't know if, given your reasoning, you can afford to be concerned about objective data or seriousness in discussions. My advice is that you study the north-eastern Technocomplex and then try to find out the origin of P297 in Minino
I think people are saying that Y-haplogroup P* is "deeply' East Eurasian, not that R1b-L754 is eastern
@Rob
"''Villabruna is not a descendant of the R-P297 people that lead to R-M269 and eventually R-L23''
I think you mean to say ancestor"
Villabruna lived after all of the R-P297 SNPs had already developed. Villabruna is ancestral for the R-P297 SNPs that have coverage. That means he is not a descendant of the people that belonged to R-P297. This is a very important point and needs to be well understood.
@Rob
It would have been impossible for Villabruna to have been an ancestor of R-P297 people because he lived after their SNPs came into existence.
@Gaska
"No, indeed, the epigravettian R1b samples we have in western and central Europe are not descendants of R1b-P297, it is exactly the opposite: R1b-P297 descends from R1b-L754 because, unless I am mistaken, the sequence is as follows: R1b-L754>L761>L389>P297. As you should know, Villabruna is not L754 but L761, which is only one marker away from your beloved Minino. "
Villabruna is negative for R-P297 SNPs that he has coverage of. Those SNPs already came into existence in humans before Villabruna was ever born. Therefore he is not a descendant of those people and he is not an ancestor of R-M269 people. A huge disservice with FTDNA is that they do not mention ancestral/negative SNPs of major haplogroups downstream of the derived/positive SNPs. Those important ancestral/negative SNPs.
@Rob
"Hence, the ancestor of L23/ M269 cannot come from 'possibly anywhere', but only somewhere in Europe, most likely east Europe.
Does Gaska agree with that statement, especially the last part?
I never stated or inferred that the ancestor of L23/ M269 can come from 'possibly anywhere'
@Gaska
If you learn to analyze BAM files you will see that an extremely large percentage of them do not have coverage for R-L23 even when they have coverage of downstream SNPs. Once I realized that I accepted that finding R-L23* people will be very difficult. They would have to have been a small group since there are only 3 phylogenetic equivalents counting R-L23 which FTDNA has calculated to have occurred in a 100 year period and even in that period R-L23 itself would have had to have been the first, not the second or third, to have occurred in that group of SNPs. Otherwise it is an even shorter period and smaller group of people. It's very rare to find specimens that are C14 dated to within two centuries of when their SNPs first occurred. I really don't care if you accept the difficulty of finding an R-L23* specimen from close to the period that it first came into existence. 10 years have passed since the studies of 2015 were published and many other since then and still no specimens that are R-L23* and so far it isn't even because of the lack of coverage. But if there ever is a specimen that is possibly R-L23* there is a high percentage chance it won't have coverage of R-L23.
@ CordedWare
''I think people are saying that Y-haplogroup P* is "deeply' East Eurasian, not that R1b-L754 is eastern'''
No entirely true, there is a group of North American haplo-hobbyists who are insistent that the R1b-L754 in Italy is an exticnt, rogue individual, and all other R1b & R1a just trotted in from Siberia c. 11,700 BC, just prior to Veretye HG and others of the horizon appeared. Even though there has no R1b yet foudn in mesolithic Siberia, because 'absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence''. It's basically scientific heresy.
Further, the majority of people in general are confusing the genetic concept of ENA and the geographic concept of Eastern Eurasia.
Again, this is a fault of vanilla-stream publications who chose to call this component 'Eastern NonAsian' prematurely, confusing docile normies.
But we know 'ENA' was in Balkans, west Siberia, heck it was even in western Europe. The only difference is that in western Eurasia, ENA became progressively diluted due to later migrations of early Humans, whilst in Asia it was essentially the one and only early Human migration and became entirely entrenched there and has persisted for 45,000 years.
There is no evidence that the Y-hg P* in Sibera came from an ''eastern Arc'' stretching from Andaman islands to China and up to Siberia, quite the contrary there is strong evidence that Upper Paleolithic East Asians migrated from Siberia to Mongolia and then further to the southeast.
@ Dospaises
''
Villabruna lived after all of the R-P297 SNPs had already developed. Villabruna is ancestral for the R-P297 SNPs that have coverage. That means he is not a descendant of the people that belonged to R-P297. This is a very important point and needs to be well understood.It would have been impossible for Villabruna to have been an ancestor of R-P297 people because he lived after their SNPs came into existence.
''
According to ftDNA, which I have confidence with, the time of emergence of P297 of 13,000 BC. This is an estimate of course, but its approx the same time as Villabruna. But even if we imagined a magic scenario where there are dozne of buried skeletons from Russia c. 13000 BC and found R1b+ males, you won't find P297. P297 expanded soon after 11000 BP/ 9000 BC.
But I suspect you might be missing my point because I have not stated that P297 bee-lined from Villabruna, or Italy in general. You should understand that I get these elementary clarifications. My main issue is against the views shared by some of your colleagues about the deeper affinities of R1b.
Although I am a strong supporter on the importance of Y-DNA, SNP-based/ phylogeny inferences should be interpreted cautiously, as with any other lines of evidence.
Eastern-Non African that should say (ENA)
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya_AG
left pops:
EHG_AG 0.342 ±0.0122
CHG_K 0.282 ±0.0199
Tajikistan_Mesolithic_AG 0.120 ±0.0120
ANF 0.102 ±0.0137
Iran_N 0.102 ±0.0192
WHG 0.0517 ±0.00571
right pops:
Ju_hoan_North.DG
CHG
EHG.SG
Italy_Epigravettian.SG
Iran_Wezmeh_N.SG
Turkey_Epipaleolithic.AG
China_Xinjiang_Xiaohe_BA.SG
Russia_Kostenki14_UP.SG
China_Tianyuan.AG.BY.AA
Russia_MA1_UP.SG
target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya_AG
chisq: 4.15
dof: 4
p-value: 0.386
@Dospaises
Heh heh, don't worry, we have people to check the BAM files of the samples we're interested in. You don't have to be a genius to do it.
Bla bla bla, you can do all the mental gymnastics you want with regard to L23*, but the truth is that they're looking in the wrong place.
And regarding Villabruna, it is pathetic to see your argument to downplay its importance for the R1b marker because 1-You can never deny that it is the oldest R1b we have, 2-You can never deny that in the absence of other older R1b, the origin of R1b is in the WHGs, and 3-Villabruna and Les Iboussieres are older than the R1b in northern Russia. There is nothing more to discuss.
I have already told you that in order to understand the absurdity of your argument, you have to use Mal`ta-R-M207. That sample is negative for the R1 and R2 SNPs that he has coverage of, and yet, as it is the oldest R* we have, everyone considers that lineage to be Siberian however, when we talk about Villabruna, it turns out to be irrelevant to the history of R1b. Please don't make me laugh..
It's still quite likely that K2b came from the Tianyuan related East Eurasian component in ANE given that K2b is found in Tianyuan and the haplogroups upstream of that aren't found among Upper Paleolithic West Eurasians.
The P in Yana is downstream of P* so when exactly P entered the ANS population is hard to say. But at the very least Q and R seem to have formed within ANS/ANE.
"It's still quite likely that K2b came from the Tianyuan related East Eurasian component in ANE given that K2b is found in Tianyuan and the haplogroups upstream of that aren't found among Upper Paleolithic West Eurasians."
The oldest available AMH specimens from Europe belong to K2a, which is a sister clade of K2b, though the former is, of course, slightly more closely related to N and O than any of those is related to the latter.
The only way you can model Yamnaya, Anatolians Farmers and Caucasus EN Farmers without Iran N in qpADM is to not have a CHG pop in right populations and if you include CHG in right populations they would need Iran N, this is problematic because you can literally model Kurds without Iran N and just CHG if you don’t include CHG in rights population
@Fcv
CHG (without index) on the right is Satsurblia, and CHG on the left with index K is Kotias
@Norfern
Sudan:KDR001,-0.193499,0.069056,0.02225,0.017765,0.021542,0.015339,-0.00846,0.007154,0.009408,0.004009,-0.006496,0,-0.008622,-0.013074,0.005157,0.010209,-0.003912,0.006841,0.002137,-0.011506,0.000374,0.010634,-0.003944,0.00012,-0.002395
Sudan:KDR001,-0.017,0.0068,0.0059,0.0055,0.007,0.0055,-0.0036,0.0031,0.0046,0.0022,-0.004,0,-0.0058,-0.0095,0.0038,0.0077,-0.003,0.0054,0.0017,-0.0092,0.0003,0.0086,-0.0032,0.0001,-0.002
“ It's still quite likely that K2b came from the Tianyuan related East Eurasian component in ANE given that K2b is found in Tianyuan and the haplogroups upstream of that aren't found among Upper Paleolithic West Eurasians.”
Or Tianyuan K2b is from same founder Pop as Siberian, with PR* evolving in Siberia and NO* in China
https://share.google/13DDsLpHlO5NS99zr
Another good article https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275162
A North China-> west movement is a late one c. 20kbp, limited to Biakal , as noted in LUP specimens from Baikal (e.g. Ust-Kyakhta 1) with Y-hg C(-F3447) and extra ENA shift
https://www.academia.edu/s/b749ff593a#comment_1477319
The real fallacy is your way of considering linguistics and genetics for political and not scientific purposes. The Turks of Anatolia are not Turks, even if they speak Turkish. The original Turkic genetics from the Altai is no more than 7%, and the Turkish language has nothing to do with the agglutinative languages of the Caucasus, except perhaps for a prehistoric link of the languages of the Siberian corridor that are framed in the Basque-Caucasian-Na-Dené group, just as Indo-European is in the Nostratic group. You have a nationalist president who seems to be genetically Caucasian, and I think that one day even the Russians will understand that their mortal danger is the internal Turkic-speaking Islam, as the Chinese have already understood for a long time (see the Uyghurs, who, incidentally, are half Europoid). I remind you that these are nuclear powers, and Russia alone has 6500. A scientific investigation would require analyses according to the scientific method, which you do not use at all in your linguistic ramblings. It is ridiculous a Basque who shares that, who descends both linguistically and genetically from the hunter-gatherers of Western Europe, haplogroup I1* and I2, like R1b1 (Villabruna) with I2a-M223, but also I-M453, who lived in the Alpine area from 14,000 years ago, but probably from 17,000, until at least 10,000 and the expansion of the Younger Dryas. I am, now with others like David Wesolowski and Robert George, the theorists: Gioiello Tognoni del Badia, mt K1a1b1e, Y R-L23-Z2103 of Yamnaya (Russian Federation).
@Rob
Both can be true and I suspect the Tien-Shan route may be the correct one for East Eurasian dispersal during the Initial Upper Paleolithic, or at least that of East Asians. Other East Eurasian populations, that is to say Australians/Melanesians and Andaman islanders may have gone through India instead.
But ANE has a majority West Eurasian component and I doubt that that is responsible for K2b.
@Ebizur
The individuals from Bacho Kiro and Oase branch with modern East Eurasians. With Upper Paleolithic West Eurasians I mean BK1653, Kostenki, Fournoul etc.
@Rob Yes, but even if you can use SATP in Left and Kotias in Right, they would still be modelled with Iran N and the only way they won’t model without Iran N if you don’t include CHG pop (Whether Kotias or SATP) in rights
@ Norfern
taking a look at this Историческая география и топография
памятников археологии https://archaeologie.pro/ru/archive/22/
Why might be the people associated with Turbalsy, Mazunino and Imenkovo cultures ?
@Rob
Mazunino people are likely some kind of para-Permians descending from the Tarasovo culture in the Pyanobor culture community. Mazunino culture would later develop into Bskhmutin culture in the Lower Belaya and Verkhneutchan culture in Udmurtia.
Imen'kovites seem to be a migration from the west of some kind although whether or not they descend from the preceding Kiev culture in the Middle Volga is up in the air since their sites do not geographically overlap. Genetically they seem heterogeneous but also with a Baltic character.
Turbasly culture I am unsure of, but the theory that they are a fusion of Late Sarmatians and Imendyashevo culture seems geographically convincing as they were pushed away by the Huns. Imendyashevo culture is a descendant of the Kara-Abyz culture which was also part of the Pyanobor cultural community.
"The individuals from Bacho Kiro and Oase branch with modern East Eurasians. With Upper Paleolithic West Eurasians I mean BK1653, Kostenki, Fournoul etc."
K2a also has been found in the specimens from Ilsenhöhle (a cave beneath Ranis Castle) in Thuringia, Germany and in the Ust-Ishim specimen.
The most recent common ancestor of haplogroup N-M231 and O-M175 should date to approximately the same era as the Ilsenhöhle/Ranis specimens, which are among the oldest AMHs in Europe.
The most recent common ancestor of QR-P226 and the Southeast Asian/Australasian P(xM1254) lineages likewise should have lived in roughly the same era as the Ilsenhöhle/Ranis specimens, but the MRCA of Q and R should be somewhat more recent.
You can subsume all these populations under an umbrella of "(genetically) Eastern Eurasian," "ENA," "Crown Eurasian," or whatever you would like to call them, but that does not negate the fact that the oldest currently available evidence of such people has actually been obtained from specimens discovered in Europe.
It is quite plausible that, as Rob seems to have suggested, the lineage leading to Y-DNA haplogroups R1a and R1b has been dwelling somewhere in Europe all along; there is no need for some incursion of males from (geographic) Eastern Eurasia to introduce Y-DNA belonging to haplogroup R1 to Europe.
Stumbled across a really good book on Huns & early Turk
https://www.susu.ru/sites/default/files/book/istoria_yuzhnogo_urala_tom_4.pdf
@Ebizur
The LRJ population is a deadend just as Bacho-Kiro and Oase are. I find it unreasonable for R to have always been in Europe given that Yana has P1 and Mal'ta has R* which given their genetic connection and chronology makes associating the development of R with ANE the most reasonable explanation. R1 might have already been in Europe among early EHGs and R1b and R1a probably originate there. But Q is very widespread among Native Americans and other ANE admixed populations, so that too puts QR in the east.
The Yana specimens are downstream of M45 and form a clade with QR vis-a-vis the Southeast Asian/Australasian types of P.
The MRCA of Q and R most likely has lived sometime before the Yana specimens have lived and died in Arctic Siberia, but age estimates are always uncertain, and the confidence intervals do overlap in this case, so it is possible that they might have been contemporaries. However, we really have no evidence that pins down the location of that MRCA of QR. I would caution against overemphasizing the significance of the predominance of Q-M346 > Q-L53 > Q-L54 > Q-CTS3814 > Q-CTS11969 > Q-M3 and Q-M346 > Q-L53 > Q-L54 > Q-CTS3814 > Q-Z780 among indigenous peoples of the Americas when considering the place of origin of the MRCA of QR; even ignoring R and considering Q on its own, most branches (including the most basal of them i.e. Q-L275) are actually quite western in distribution, though not necessarily exclusively European.
In other words, I do not think the fact that members of various lineages derived from P-M45 have inhabited or migrated through North Asia since at least the era of the Yana specimens (ca. 31.6 kybp) is strong evidence against a hypothesis of Y-DNA haplogroup R and R1 being indigenous to Europe.
@Norfern said "given that Yana has P1 and Mal'ta has R* which given their genetic connection and chronology makes associating the development of R with ANE the most reasonable explanation"
-That may be true, but you have to take into account not only male markers; mtDNA also tell us about the genetic relationship between Europe and Siberia thanks to the Gravettian culture.
mtDNA-U
Peştera Cioclovina Uscată, Romania-CIO001-CT (30653 BCE)-Posth, 2023
Dolni Vestonice, Gravettian culture-Vestonice43-IJ (27850 BCE)-Fu, 2016
Mal'ta, Siberia, Russia-MA1-R-M207 (22355 BCE)
mtDNA-U2'3'4'7'8'9
Yana river, Siberia, Russia-YANA1 & YANA2-P1-284-(27940 BCE)-Sikora, 2019
Grotta Paglicci, Gravettian culture, Italy-Paglicci108 (26396 BCE)-Fu et al, 2016
El Mirón cave, Solutrean culture-El Mirón14 (21000 BCE)-Gelabert, 2025
mtDNA-U2-
Markina Gora, Kostenki14-C1b-K281 (36076 BCE)-Seguin Orlando, 2014
Sunghir, Russia-Sunghir2, Sunghir3 & Sunghir4 (32610 BCE)-Sikora et al, 2017
Ostuni, Sª Mª de Agnano, Gravettian culture, Italy-Ostuni2 (26975 BCE)-Fu, 2016
mtDNA-U8
Bacho Kiro, Dryanovo, Bukgaria-BK-1653 (32565 BCE)-JJ.Hublin, 2020
Sunghir, Russia-Sunghir1 (31270 BCE)-Sikora et al 2017
Dolni Vestonice, Gravettian culture-DV13 (29140 BCE)-Fu et al, 2016
mtDNA-U5
Kozja Cave, Majdanpek, Serbia-KOZJA1-C1a2-V20 (29815 BCE)-AP.Sümer, 2025
Wachtberg, Krems, Austria-WA3 (29020 BCE)-Teschler-Nikola, et al. 2020
Ormesson Les Bossats, Gravettian culture-Fournol-ORM001 (28903 BCE)-Posth, 2023
In other words, we have the same people living in Siberia, and Europe between 35,000 and 20,000 BCE meaning that, just like U2'3'4'7'8'9, we can also have R-M207 in Europe from the beginning of this marker. Or did only women move around?.
@Gaska
"In other words, we have the same people living in Siberia, and Europe between 35,000 and 20,000 BCE meaning that, just like U2'3'4'7'8'9, we can also have R-M207 in Europe from the beginning of this marker. Or did only women move around?"
About 15 years ago, or more, when we discussed about the origin of Hg R (mine, I don't know if yours too), I knew that the oldest hgs could be found all over the world known then. I found R-M207* even in a tribe in Southern Africa. Of course it could be everywhee in the Old Continent, but isn't enough that a hg is 5000 Years old in a place, or 3000?
@Gaska
Given the ancestry composition of ANS and ANE it is likely most of their West Eurasian comes from a single influx. Those haplotypes could have simply been always present among the ancestral population but gone without sampling. We really can't say without further analysis of samples.
But what we do have plenty of at this point is Gravettian specimens and none of them are P in their y-DNA. Q generally has a broad ANE association, given samples like Kolyma and TTK001.
@Ebizur
I base my argument for R forming among the ANE in that we see the Yana individuals with an upstream branch of P and Mal'ta with a downstream R*, the general lack of further influx from any other population and the association of QR with ANE. We see R2 first pop up among Iran Neolithic which have ANE, we see Q subclades among ANE admixed Siberian populations and Native Americans, even making it into EHG populations and beyond in Mesolithic Europe. R1 might be an European lineage but we don't see R or anything upstream of that beyond K2 in Europe before ANE admixture shows up, even as faint as it is in cases like WHG.
@ Ebizur
have any genuine, post-Yana cases of Y-hg P (xR, xQ) been attested anywhere ?
@ Rob
I signaled more than one hg P* (perhaps P1*) in aDNA in Europe in some papers that were published then, but I should search for my posts and where. Probably I published that also here in "Eurogenes blog", because I write only in this blog Beyond many private letters, and I base everything upon my memory. I remember that, but not the details. But, as I wrote, the oldest hgs, i.e. in the aDNa or lines separated then but with an only little on survived, could be found everywhere, thus it is important to find where that line had many subclades until now.
How is a hypothetical origin of Y-DNA haplogroup R in a member of a population having so-called "ANE" autosomal affinity supposed to allow one to exclude any possibility of an origin of Y-DNA haplogroup R in Europe? Aren't specimens from Mesolithic Eastern Europe whose autosomal profiles have been grouped as "EHG" supposed to be descended in the main from populations of "ANE" autosomal affinity?
The situation of the Malta specimen is almost exactly like that of the earlier Yana specimens. It belongs to a lineage that is basal to the MRCA of R1 and R2, yet the estimated date of deposition of the Malta specimen is more recent than the estimated TMRCA of R1 and R2. The location of the Malta specimen's burial is not directly relevant to the location of members of R1. Is there evidence of R1 anywhere between 28 kybp (roughly the time of the R1+R2 MRCA) and 24 kybp (roughly the Malta specimen's lifetime)? Is there sufficient evidence of an absence of R1 in Europe during that time span?
Rob said,
"have any genuine, post-Yana cases of Y-hg P (xR, xQ) been attested anywhere ?"
No reliable case of P-M45(xR-M207, Q-M242) besides the Yana specimens has been discovered to date as far as I know.
There are several known cases of P-PF5850(xM45) among recent and present-day people in the Andaman Islands, the Philippines, etc., but these lineages are not closely related to P-M45; they have diverged from P-M45 around the same time as MS-Z31109 and K2a-M2308 (macro-NO) have diverged from P-M45.
BMAC related signal in Mongolia 2500bce
Target: Mongolia_EBA_Chemurchek_2:I12957__BC_2512__Cov_71.59%
Distance: 1.7702% / 0.01770203
53.0 Kazakhstan_Dali_EBA
28.6 Russia_Afanasievo
14.8 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
3.6 Russia_Shamanka_Eneolithic
@Ebizur
There was no ANE in Europe before the LGM, EHG are a mix of WHG and ANE. Way too young to be relevant for R*. Mal'ta is far closer and we see something not far removed from the true ancestral lineage to R1 and R2 temporally.
Anyways the ANS/ANE population truly ancestral to extant populations was in the east prior to the LGM as evidenced by EHG being more related to later ANE populations like AG or TTK and samples like Salkhit1 and Khaiyrghas-1. We don't see R or P among Gravettians, Solutreans or even the WHG admixed Magdalenians. What exactly was going on in Eastern Europe? Maybe it had some unique population, or an early incursion of ANE. But Kostenki, Sunghir and Burankaya lack R. We do have sites and specimens from Northeastern Europe, but they have gone without study so far. Could R and P be repeat incursions from some other population into Siberia? If so, what were they like autosomally? We don't see much autosomal change among ANS/ANE that isn't noise level. Was ANE already lurking in Northeastern Europe? If so, is the more EHG related ANE ancestry in younger samples a result of constant impulses from this region?
The evidence is not ironclad, but it's harder to argue in favor of Europe with negative or no evidence.
@Norfern-
Mal´ta buret itself is a site belonging to the Gravettian culture. Until the Venus figurines were found at this site, they had only been found at European sites, ergo the archaeological connection is also evident.
And there wasn't just a single influx, because you have to remember that prehistoric populations were nomadic, meaning they were constantly searching for resources to survive, and of course the conditions in Siberia weren't the most suitable at that time.
You may be interested in this paper; Genetic admixture between east and west european gravettian-associated populations in western Europe before the Last Glacial Maximum-P.Gelabert (2025)-“These data reveal previously undetected gene flow linking the ancestry of 34,000-year-old individuals from Sungir (Russia) to Gravettian individuals from Western Europe, challenging the prevailing model of population continuity from the Aurignacian to the Solutrean”, or this other one
-Beringia and the settlement of the western hemisphere-V.V Pitul'ko-“People in southwest Europe expanded eastward <38 ka and occupied the central east European plain 38–32 ka (e.g., Kostenki). Their earliest known representatives in northeast Asia (Ancient North Siberians-ANS) are found at the Yana River site complex in western arctic Beringia dating to ~34–32 ka. Younger representatives of the same lineage (Ancient North Eurasians-ANE) are found in southern Siberia during and after the LGM at Mal’ta (~24 ka) and Afontova Gora (~17 ka).
In other words, we cannot rule out any possibility. The genetic and cultural connection between Siberia and Europe is more than evident, and population mobility was so great that assigning an exact geographical origin to a uniparental marker is risky, to say the least, with the samples we currently have.
@Ebizur said-"How is a hypothetical origin of Y-DNA haplogroup R in a member of a population having so-called "ANE" autosomal affinity supposed to allow one to exclude any possibility of an origin of Y-DNA haplogroup R in Europe? Aren't specimens from Mesolithic Eastern Europe whose autosomal profiles have been grouped as "EHG" supposed to be descended in the main from populations of "ANE" autosomal affinity?.
AMEN
Although I would say that the ANE component is not only found in EHGs but also in WHGs (albeit to a lesser extent). In my opinion, the origin of R* and R1 in European territory cannot be ruled out. In fact, the oldest R1a is found in european Russia and R1b in Italy.
R2 is a mystery for me, although it is true that the Iranian samples are not very old.
@Rob
We may discuss about the autosome and how it is considered by MyHeritage, but this video is fundamentally true. The only advantage I get is that I understood everything without having studied Spanish in my life and I didn't follow this video by reading the translation in English, as I usually do, because it is even more difficult to me than to hear the spoken language.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxeqhUJPpI0
@Gaska
Ma'lta-Buret' is classified as being part of it's own distinctive archaeological culture. The venus figurines are interesting, although they are quite distinctive from West European ones.
Genetically speaking there is no Gravettian wave or anything like that among the ANE. Kostenki-Sunghir branch is entirely represented by C1 so far. They could have other haplogroups perhaps. But even if these East European Upper Paleolithic populations had a P1 precursor among them, why have it constantly re-enter Siberia when a more downstream branch forms? In such a scenario where R would develop in Europe exclusively, it would have to do so to reach Mal'ta and do the same for Q as well. Given the formation date of R1, I suppose a formation in Siberia but a diversification within Europe is likelier in a scenario where R develops among the ANE.
"Ruling out possibilities" isn't really my goal, I am simply trying to showcase why I find the Siberian placement to be so compelling.
@ All
I think that the true question, we should ask for, is, if the oldest haplotypes of pretty much all the hgs are diffused in great part of the world, like R-M207* I spoke about above, why of the R1b1 of Villabruna, and probably of Les Iboussiéres, in the Alpine zone haven't been found so far also elsewhere, and the first haplotypes downstream, also the probably Asiatic R-PH155, are found only about 2500 Years ago in aDNA, long after the probable expansion after the Younger Dryas, and also the origin of this subclade (about 10000 ybp) is younger than that. Also hg R2, which seems only in Southern Asia, Iran and perhaps India, is a subclade separated not more than 10000 Years ago [Ganj Dareh] as to the 15000 Years ago of its presumed origin. We have to think that R1b wintered in the Alpine region, R1a in eastern Europe, and R2 near the Caucasus like hg J. We could think that, whereas R1b1 expanded close to hg I (both M223 and M453), R2 might have expanded close to the oldest subclades of hg J, whereas Others expanded westward and to the Levant, in fact they didn't carry with them hg R2.The expansion of R-L23-Z2103 and R-L23-L51 happened many thousands of Years later. As we know, we cannot exclude that all these haplgroups were present in all these refugia and the surviving of one or another may have due to the genetic drift.
Norfern wrote,
"'Ruling out possibilities' isn't really my goal"
It should be your goal if you aspire to be a scientist.
Also, this is not a Russian forum; I would recommend focusing on distinctions that are relevant in the English language when communicating with people via written English.
Both C1 (C-F3393) and K2 (K-M526) are very ancient clades that date back to the beginning of the spread of AMHs bearing Upper Paleolithic culture(s) throughout Eurasia. Members of both clades also have entered Sahul. I do not find the fact that the Kostenki and Sunghir (shouldn't they be Kostënki and Sungir' to you?) specimens have been found to belong to Y-DNA haplogroup C1 to be strong evidence against a hypothetical presence of members of K2b > P-M45 in coeval populations of Europe. Please keep in mind that even more ancient members of K2a (K-M2308) have been found in sites further west in Europe than Kostenki and Sunghir.
Target: Russia_Mininо_Mesolithic.AG
Source Population Weight Std.Error Z-score
Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG 0.559 0.0238 23.5
Germany_LMagdalenian_Federmesser.AG 0.301 0.0172 17.4
Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG 0.140 0.0232 6.02
Model Fit:
χ² = 2.02 dof = 8 p = 0.981 Rank = 2
Target:Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG
Source Population Weight Std.Error Z-score
Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG 0.651 0.0262 24.9
Germany_LMagdalenian_Federmesser.AG 0.264 0.0175 15.1
Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG 0.085 0.0254 3.35
Model Fit:
χ² = 6.48 dof = 8 p = 0.593 Rank = 2
Target: Russia_Mesolithic_Veretye.SG
Source Population Weight Std.Error Z-score
Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP.AG 0.543 0.0236 23.0
Germany_LMagdalenian_Federmesser.AG 0.293 0.0159 18.5
Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG 0.164 0.0229 7.18
Model Fit:
χ² = 5.41 dof = 8 p = 0.713 Rank = 2
@Ebizur
Those K2a specimens are not autosomally West Eurasian. Anyways, the point you raised is exactly why I am not "ruling out" any possibility because that, based on the material we do have available, is unreasonable. That's why I am not trying to do that. I already raised a scenario, although based on zero evidence, since we have none, wherein P1 resides in Europe and in constant pulses expands out of there bringing R* to Mal'ta during the LGM, as well as Q at some point.
There is always the possibility, especially when we are dealing with a time period with such low sampling, that we are missing a lot of the haplotype diversity and whole sub-populations. Such a sub-population could be the Northeast European Upper Paleolithic sites, far more northern than Kostenki or Sunghir. There is always the possibility that even among the well sampled populations, like the Vestonice or Fournoul populations, there were other completely undetected haplogroups, and even the faintest scenario where in fact the ancestral lineage to R1 always resided in Europe.
But given the evidence we do have so far, we have a P1 clade in Yana, R* in Mal'ta, bunch of Q subclades (although no Q* yet) in Siberia and ANE related populations and R1b first showing up in an already ANE admixed Villabruna. On the other hand, if you can call it counterevidence, we have C1 and I dominating among Aurignacians and Gravettians. So make of that what you will.
Lastly, I am not Russian. I am Finnish. But that is not at all relevant to this discussion.
Rob, where do you put origin of Scythian sphere? I yesterday was thinking about archaeogenetics again after long time and thought Aral origin (Tazabagyab + Alakul remnants) makes sense. Scythian branch (here Northern Iranic) could split before Western Iranic (Arch Dehistan) & Central/Eastern Iranic (Yaz). I propose that Sarmatians were Proto-Scythian profile, located earliest 1000 BCE around Aral. The Tazabagyab+Alakul Proto-Iranic remants who stayed back in Steppe became Proto-Scythians, and acquire some Yaz admixture as back migration when Yaz was expanding. Could explain Eastern affinity of Scythian. This seems the most sound explanation. Ties with haplos, cultural elements and lifestyle. I think Amirabad culture maybe this Proto-Scythian. Sargary being related to it. Begazy probably half Fedorovo-like/Cherkasul + half Khovsgol/DSKC. Begazy + Amirabad + Yaz back migration = Sarmatian profile. Sarmatian + Yaz = Dahae. Sarmatian + Begazy = Tasmola-Arzhan Saka. Sarmatian + Chust = TianShan Saka. Sarmatian + some western components = Alan/textbook Scythian.
Curiously, Tazabagyab also strikes as most likely location of Airyanem Vaejah.
Proto-Iranic may be split into general classification of Scythianic (Dahaean, Scytho-Sarmatian, Khotanic, Tasmolan, Massagetaean), Eastern/Central Iranic (Avestan, Bactrian-Sogdian-Chroasmian), Western Iranic (Parthic, Persic, Medianic)
What do you think
@ Ashish
As 'modern scholars' point out- the Scythian complex is a multiregional phenomenon, with several distinctive 'Scythian groups', although they certainly shared ancestry and culture. There are several distinctive groups within this complex- notably the Sarmatians, Tagar group, central-east Kazakh - Altai - Tuva (Tasmola- Aldy Bel) group, Black Sea steppe (Herodotus' 'historical Scythians), and Sakae propper (southern central Steppe / Tian Shan)
The overrinding is Srubnaja-Andronovo ancestry, followed by Khovsgol, then BMAC, then various, more circumscribed western (Halstatt, Thracian, Komarov, Koban, etc) influences on Herodotus' Scythians.
The Begasy-Dandabai phenomenon is interesting (probably an accentuation of Taldysay_MBA2 type profile, which in turn derives from Tazabagyab), but it didn't continue into the Scythian period.
And that in turn is all a little bit different to the concept of Proto-Iranian
Norfern wrote,
"I am not Russian. I am Finnish. But that is not at all relevant to this discussion."
I have never suggested that you were Russian; I have stated that this is not a Russian forum. I guarantee you that greater than 90% of English speakers have no idea what the apostrophes in your transcription of Mal'ta-Buret' are supposed to indicate because English speakers do not make a phonemic distinction between palatalized and non-palatalized versions of consonants. On the other hand, English speakers do make a meaningful distinction between "its" and "it's."
As for your partiality for the hypothesis of a Siberian origin of Y-DNA haplogroup R, I think it is fine for you to express your opinion as long as you present it as such. However, I would prefer to see more rigorous scientific investigation and less bloviating on the basis of weak evidence or mere emotion (and not only in regard to the question of the origin of Y-DNA haplogroup R).
👇https://www.wsj.com/tech/biotech/genetically-engineered-babies-tech-billionaires-6779efc8
Whatever the case, there is a discontinuity in SIberia between Paleolithic and Mesolithic. There was widespread flooding due to thawing of the glacial lakes. The Mesolithic SIberians are different people with extra east Asian affinities, but some in west Siberia might have European admixture, e.g. the R1b-M73 seen in Omsk region.
@Ebizur
What's the problem with that transliteration? Wikipedia uses it.
Yana1 and Yana2 have upstream P subclades to Q and R and are autosomally related to MA1 who has R*. They are however not the immediate ancestors and Q and R already existed after 3 thousand years or so after Yana individuals according to YFull. So R already existed for a few thousand years before MA1. However, MA1 has no major influx of autosomal ancestry from other populations although we can assume there is more complexity to its relationship with the Yana individuals which do showcase some elevated affinity to Tianyuan despite not having that much more East Eurasian ancestry. Native Americans as far as I know show no preference over AG3 or MA1 although I have to check that, implying that their ANE ancestry derives from a unique source that split off before the ancestors of MA1 or AG3 did. I used to think TKK001 was purely ANE considering some f4 stats involving Ust Ishim vs it and other Eurasians, but given previous qpAdm models it seems to have Iran N ancestry although the ANE part seems rather closely related to the ANE in Iran N. The ANE in EHG seems to be closely related to the ANE of AG3. So all in all it seems to me that autosomally speaking there is a westward increase in relation to EHG with ANE populations before they receive additional EHG ancestry as seen in WSHG. This would make sense to me in a scenario of westward movement to Eastern Europe of ANE ancestry.
In fact earlier you raised why having R in an ANE individual matters when you have R among Mesolithic Europeans. Well given that the ANE in EHG is closer to that of AG3 than that of MA1, it would imply that one cannot derive this ANE ancestry in Eastern Europe from the Upper Paleolithic locally which may also be the case for the R subclades.
I was thinking Begazy-Dandybai could be the source of Khovsgol/DSKC + Andronovo mixed input seen in whole of Scythian World. Begazy-Dandybai is remant Andronovo with some DSKC material influences, which makes it possible they were mixed. Afaik, full Andronovo samples from that region don't exist after 1300BCE, so there is indeed gap in sampling time frame. I suspect Sargary and Amirabad also received some Khovsgol admix alongside, and this could've given a profile similar to Sarmatian without Yaz. After Yaz back migration, this Sarmatian profile became source of Proto-Scythian migrations.
Would be interesting to determine the differential affinities of MA 1 versus afontova. Eg if Afontova have increased affinities to west, east, or south, might hint where ANE took refuge during the LGM.
So I was actually wrong, it seems that Native Americans and all Siberian populations for that matter prefer AG3 over MA1. Perhaps these do not represent two distinct populations in the real sense, but rather two stages of the same population? So that AG3 is simply the more drifted version of MA1. Even if they were two distinct populations, AG3 seems to displace MA1 entirely.
https://pastebin.com/h0mDy4Sz
Some other interesting stats
Chimp.REF Chile_WesternArchipelago_Ayayema_5100BP.SG China_AmurRiver_19KYA.AG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.000412 0.000622 0.662 0.508
Chimp.REF USA_Ancient_Beringian.SG China_AmurRiver_19KYA.AG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG -0.0000400 0.000586 -0.0681 0.946
Chimp.REF Russia_LenaRiver_UP.SG China_AmurRiver_19KYA.AG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.000390 0.000710 0.549 0.583
Chimp.REF China_AmurRiver_Mesolithic.AG China_AmurRiver_19KYA.AG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.00611 0.000525 11.6 3.00e-31
Chimp.REF Russia_Kolyma_Mesolithic.SG China_AmurRiver_19KYA.AG Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.00140 0.000595 2.35 0.0190
Perhaps Native American Amur like ancestry derives from a population that split before NE56 (Amur 19KYA) drifted into the Devils Cave/Amur Neolithic like genotype? Kolyma seems admixed with a later wave of Devils Cave like ancestry.
An interesting qpAdm run I got.
Ancient Beringian = Kolyma+Lena River UP
USA_Ancient_Beringian.SG Russia_LenaRiver_UP.SG 0.816 0.126 6.47
USA_Ancient_Beringian.SG Russia_Kolyma_Mesolithic.SG 0.184 0.126 1.46
Ayayema 5100BP = Kolyma + Ancient Beringian
Chile_WesternArchipelago_Ayayema_5100BP.SG USA_Ancient_Beringian.SG 0.625 0.160 3.90
Chile_WesternArchipelago_Ayayema_5100BP.SG Russia_Kolyma_Mesolithic.SG 0.375 0.160 2.34
https://pastebin.com/PTgQxzJb
@Norfern
I have already referred to the archaeological similarities between Siberia and Europe; you shouldn't deny something that is obvious to almost everyone. Not only the Venus figurines, Mal'ta consists of semi-subterranean houses that were built using large animal bones to assemble the walls, and reindeer antlers covered with animal skins to construct a roof that would protect the inhabitants from the harsh elements of the Siberian weather. These dwellings built from mammoth bones were similar to those found in Upper Paleolithic Western Eurasia, such as in the areas of France, Czechoslovakia, and Ukraine. Malta belongs to the Gravettian culture, or if you prefer, based on its dating, the Epigravettian culture. And you know which culture Villabruna belongs to, right?.
And with regard to genetics, in addition to the mitochondrial markers I have already mentioned, I believe the latest data we have is from Allentoft, 2024, who used qpAdm to model ANE as 35% East Eurasian and 65% West Eurasian, so someone from the West contributed to the first R-M207, don't you think? Therefore, I repeat, we cannot rule out an origin of R* in Europe, even if an origin of P1 in Asia is ultimately proven.
@Gaska
I do not deny the West Eurasian connections of ANE. We can place the precursor of P in Yana to the West Eurasian component hypothetically, but I would derive the R in MA1 from the same ancestor as the P in Yana from the same migration wave and not repeated migration waves, be it from the West or East Eurasian ancestry. We do not see any additional West Eurasian ancestry in MA1 beyond noise level. So what I am implying here is that R formed within the ancestral population to MA1 which derives almost entirely from the same population as Yana.
Archaeologically however, Yana doesn't seem ancestral to MA1, but it most likely derives from the same migration wave.
Malta dates to the Gravettian. Sadly we do not have a high coverage version of Kostenki12, as that would be a rather interesting sample representing the eastern Gravettians. Gravettians as it turns out were genetically heterogeneous and represent several different populations, although there was geneflow among them.
Yes, R1a and R1b were northern Eurasians before they mixed with the Epigravets.
MA-1 belongs to a unique branch of U seemingly
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fnature12736/MediaObjects/41586_2014_BFnature12736_MOESM282_ESM.pdf
Page 42
I checked DCP1 in Jameslick and it didn't share any of these markers, but it is also U with extra markers.
https://datadryad.org/dataset/doi:10.5061/dryad.41ns1rnj1
@ Norfern - why are Finns, esp. some 'lingiusts' such as FinnGreek (waiting for his tremendous publication) & Jaapi H., still in 2025 trying to connect Samoyeds with Tagar culture ? It just the same nonsense as CW-Uralic, Kopytaki culture being proto-Uralic. Surely even even a basic understanding of the last 10 years of data understand informs us that Tagar people cannot have anything to do with Samoyedic speakers or Uralic speakers.
I get that there is an issue with their existential psyche of some of your compatriots and just a aspy fixation with their low-IQ theories, but you should help them out instead of molly-coddling. Thoughts ?
@Rob
My understanding is that the Minusinsk basin works areally speaking considering South Samoyedic, Turkic contacts et cetera. However, it is not the only plausible region to explain what we see with Samoyedic and proto-Samoyedic. Tagar is simply what fits areally or in certain cases as a migration wave associated with Cherkaskul culture, although that seems to be unfounded in archaeological terms these days. A steppe migration into the area doesn't work either way due to the fact that it would not match the environment proto-Samoyedic existed in, as it would have lost several tree names deriving from proto-Uralic.
@Norfern
Fair enough, we all have to wait for more samples
Norfern wrote,
"Well given that the ANE in EHG is closer to that of AG3 than that of MA1, it would imply that one cannot derive this ANE ancestry in Eastern Europe from the Upper Paleolithic locally which may also be the case for the R subclades."
It does not imply any such thing. "ANE" and "EHG" are not supposed to be separate populations; "EHG" is supposed to be in the main a subset of the descendants of "ANE."
It is quite possible that the most recent common ancestor of the Y-DNA of the MA-1 specimen and R1'2 may predate the Yana specimens; FTDNA currently estimates the TMRCA of R1'2 to be 28,117 (99% CI 34,324 - 22,711) ybp, whereas the Yana specimens are estimated to have died about 31.6 kybp. Ancestors of MA-1 and the Yana specimens may have migrated to eastern Siberia at roughly the same time as part of a single migration wave, with MA-1 happening to belong to a lineage that was slightly more closely related to the R1 lineage that would prosper in Europe.
The Afontova Gora specimens should be roughly contemporaneous with Q-CTS11969 (TMRCA 15,082 [99% CI 18,488 - 12,128] ybp according to FTDNA, TMRCA 15450 ybp according to TheYtree), who is the most recent common ancestor of Q-L804 (found in Mesolithic and Neolithic specimens from European Russia as well as among present-day Northern Europeans) and Q-M3 (the predominant Y-DNA haplogroup among indigenous Americans). So, people in northern/eastern Europe and indigenous Americans have shared ancestry dating to around the same time as (or even slightly more recent than) the lifetimes of the Afontova Gora specimens. However, the Y-DNA of the Afontova Gora 2 specimen has been assigned to Q-NGQ11 (TMRCA 15,897 [99% CI 20,241 - 12,252] ybp), which is ancestral to a different Mesolithic/Neolithic European Russia branch (Q-FTH117), the Q-M120 branch of East Asia, and the Q-B143 branch of Kolyma 1, "Paleo-Eskimos" from the North American arctic, and ancient and present-day individuals from Chukotka and Kamchatka. The most recent common ancestor of the Y-DNA of Afontova Gora 2 and Q-CTS11969 is Q-MEH2 (TMRCA 26,595 [99% CI 32,375 - 21,548] ybp according to FTDNA).
IIRC, Afontova Gora 3 is a female belonging to the unusual and poorly characterized mtDNA haplogroup R1b, and the two Afontova Gora specimens are not even particularly similar to each other autosomally, so an alleged autosomal affinity between EHG and Afontova Gora 3 vis-a-vis MA-1 does not necessarily have anything to do with a hypothetical post-Yana/MA-1 eastward migration of bearers of Y-DNA haplogroup Q through Siberia. However, I do think one needs to keep in mind how recent the shared ancestry between indigenous Americans and Europeans is; the TMRCA of Q-CTS3814, which subsumes American Q-Z780 in addition to European Q-L804 and American Q-M3, is currently estimated by FTDNA to be 15,653 (99% CI 19,155 - 12,610) ybp. This shared ancestry is definitely more recent than the Yana specimens, most likely more recent than the MA-1 specimen, and it may date to around the same era as the Afontova Gora specimens.
AfontovaGora2 is also R1b mtDNA haplogroup. I'm going to check if it shares any private markers with AfontovaGora3.
Autosomally AG2 seems to be closer to AG3 than to MA1.
Chimp.REF Russia_AfontovaGora2_UP Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP Russia_MA1_UP.SG -0.00354 0.00120 -2.94 0.00327
ANE have some undescribed population structure so the relationship is probably not as simple as that.
There is definitely geneflow between Eastern Europe, Siberia and the Americas during the Mesolithic.
Here's how Karelia HG stacks up against ANE samples vs MA1
1 Chimp.REF Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.SG Russia_Denisova_UP Russia_MA1_UP.SG -0.00372 0.000874 -4.25 2.09e- 5
2 Chimp.REF Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.SG Russia_AfontovaGora2_UP Russia_MA1_UP.SG -0.00188 0.000876 -2.15 3.18e- 2
3 Chimp.REF Russia_YuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.SG Russia_AfontovaGora3_UP Russia_MA1_UP.SG -0.00582 0.000886 -6.57 5.13e-11
Seems like AG2 and AG3 share (16519C)
Y-haplogroup R was certainly missing in Europe until the ice age, but it will be interesting to see what the earliest representative of R1 in post-Ice Age Europe looks like, it might show aninteresting twist.
R , and the 'western' branches of Q Ebizur mentioend might have harboured in west Siberia or the Aral-Tian Shan space; in turn explaining the fixation of R2 in the Iran plateau and R1 in Europe, with R1b-Ph155 perhaps being a remnant in central Asia.
@ Norfern
''My understanding is that the Minusinsk basin works areally speaking considering South Samoyedic, Turkic contacts et cetera. However, it is not the only plausible region to explain what we see with Samoyedic and proto-Samoyedic. Tagar is simply what fits areally or in certain cases as a migration wave associated with Cherkaskul culture, although that seems to be unfounded in archaeological terms these days. ''
The view that Samoyeds migrated north only in the 19th century is a myth, and an untrue one at that. Quite the contrary, it is one group of (southern-forest) Samoyeds who migrated south.
The latter movement has nothing to do with Tagar or Cherkaskul, the entire postulation is nonsense. Tagar are even more 'western' and solidly R1a-Z93 than Kazakh Sakae
Rob wrote,
"Y-haplogroup R was certainly missing in Europe until the ice age"
Do you mean "until the beginning of the Last Glacial Maximum" or "until the end of the Last Glacial Maximum"?
@ Ebizur
"Do you mean "until the beginning of the Last Glacial Maximum" or "until the end of the Last Glacial Maximum"?"
Certainly since 14000 ybp (Villabruna) but probably 17000 as Tagliente 2 hg I2, because at the autosomal level they were the same. Of course I think that hg R1-s were the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor.
@ ebizur
“Do you mean "until the beginning of the Last Glacial Maximum" or "until the end of the Last Glacial Maximum"?”
A series of sites begin appearing in the Volga-Ural region with close affinity to contemporary sites in central-Western Siberia.
They have been C14 dated to begin circa 23,000 BP. This is right in the middle of the LGM
@ Ebizur
Yes, men carrying the Y-chromosome mutation R were present in Europe, because WHG has a small percentage of ANE ancestry that migrated to the Balkans through the Volga–Don corridor, and then to Italy, where they mixed with the remnants of Upper Paleolithic European populations who had survived the Ice Age there — and this happened immediately after the end of the LGM.
Now I am 100% sure when the EHG population formed. It happened no earlier than 14,000 years ago (12,000 BC) and no later than 12,000 years ago (10,000 BC).
Abbas Bunzawi
November 12 @ 9:31pm
Good morning... I would like more information about this mutation.
Gioiello Tognoni
Your Y haplotype, R-V88, was born in Europe, very likely in the Alpine refugium where we found Villabruna 14000 years ago, but the oldest aDNA has been found in Central Europe. It migrated to Africa about 7500 years ago, firstly into the Sahara, the Geeen Sahara, and after it expanded all around, until the Arabian peninsula, thus your Y is "African" or Arab now.
This image is for Abbas Bunzawi. Here he may look at when his Y migrated to Africa very likely from Italy or the Iberian peninsula. It reached the Iberian peninsula through the Zilhao migration from Italy about 7500 years ago.
IN145401 bunzawi Nigeria R-V6503 Big Y-700
13 24 15 11 13-15 12 12 13 14 13 30 17 9-10 11 12 27 14 20 29 12-12-15-15 11 11 21-23 15 17 18 18 33-36 12 12 12 8 15-16 8 10 11 8 10 11 12 21-24 14 10 12 10 15 8 13 23 19 12 12 11 13 11 13 12 13 34 15 9 16 11 25 26 21 14 11 12 12 10 9 13 11 10 11 11 31 12 14 24 13 11 11 22 15 20 13 24 12 12 15 25 12 24 19 11 14 18 9 12 11
Abbas, in the Nile Project it could be interesting to test this sample:
BP40562 بن قاسم الافلاج Saudi Arabia R-M173 Y-DNA12
13 25 16 11 11-14 12 12 10 14 11 31
because it could be linked to the Y of Tutankhamun just for DYS439=10.
Of course this haplotype could be R1a too: 13 25 16 11 11-14 12 12 10 14 11 31
Rob wrote,
"A series of sites begin appearing in the Volga-Ural region with close affinity to contemporary sites in central-Western Siberia.
They have been C14 dated to begin circa 23,000 BP. This is right in the middle of the LGM"
Thanks for clarifying what you have meant.
Circumstantially, the Volga-Ural region around the middle of the LGM is a decent hypothetical region of origin for R1-M173.
Is there any direct evidence of the Y-DNA of males of the populations who have created these sites in the Volga-Ural region or their contemporaries who have created the sites in central-western Siberia?
How about direct evidence of the Y-DNA of their male contemporaries elsewhere in Europe (Southern Russia, Ukraine, the Balkans, Central Europe, France)?
@ Ebizur
unfortunately, there is no aDNA from anything east of Poland for the period of we are discussing. There is in fact over a 20,000 year gap between Sungir samples and the earliest EHG. As we know, the two populations are completely different, meaning that there was a population replacement - or two - in eastern Europe, between 34000 (Sungir) and 11,000 bp (Peschenitsa, Sidelinkno, etc).
Worse still, from my reading (and inquiring with a few local archaeologists from Russia & Ukraine), I have not really encountered any evidence of burials that might bring hope to bridge the sampling gap in east Europe. Maybe Crimea might have something, but obviously this is far removed for the question of early ANE-/ Y-hg R rich Siberian folks arriving in the Volga-Ural region. There are also a couple of "Gravettian' burials from Kostenki which are a bit younger than Sungir, but they'll probably be like Sungir- Kostenki 14 (or perhaps with some extra ''Balkan' UP).
I have seen an abstract of a new sample from Balkans (MPI), younger than current publicaitons which is Vestonice / Mueirii -like and Y--hg C1-something, and then there is a sample from Romania c. 14,000 BP. This has been analysed by Harvard and the poster suggested it was ''AHG-like''. The YDNA wasn;t published, but i have a feeling it'll be R1b. naturally, we should wait for the publication. I presume there is not issue with sharing this info because the respective authors have made public their abstracts..
If true, we have 2 x R1b-L754 samples from Italy & Balkans c 14,000 BP, but nothing earlier. And little hope for data from eastern Europe,, unless there is some cool new find from the western Urals.
So we are left to make some educated guessing as to how R1b arrived in Europe.
- R/ R1 entered Volga-Ural c. 23,000- 20000 BP
- the 'time of formation' for L754 is c. 17000 BP
- an early L754-> V88 moved into northern Balkans and nth Italy
- the main expansion of P297 is later, c. 11,700 BP, when north East Europe became habitable during the Holocene.
- V1636 moved toward the lower Volga region,
etc
- there was an early
For the Siberian-like sites in the Volga-Ural -
THE PALEOLITHIC OF NORTHEASTERN EUROPE: NEW DATA (P Pavlov)
For C14 dating of these sites - ''Geo-archaeological investigations of Palaeolithic sites along the Ural Mountains e On the northern presence of humans during the last Ice Age''
Regarding Western Siberia - it remained inhabited during the LGM, the problem was later c. 15,000 BP, when the landscape literally melted.
There is virtually no habitation for several thousand years until new, east-Asian admixed mesolithic groups came from the East.
@Rob
The epigravettian WHGs spread from the Balkans to the Italian Alps around 21000 BCE and from there migrated westward, mixing with the western Solutrean (Iberia-MLZ005-20821 BCE) to form the Franco-Iberian Magdalenian culture. To the north, the WHGs reached central Europe (Germany, Oberkassel-OKL001-11945 BCE), where they mixed with the Solutrean-Magdalenian populations that were repopulating that region from the southwest after the LGM. EHG populations in eastern Europe are a mixture of Villabruna-Oberkassel and ANE ancestries, that is why we have P297 & M73 in the Butovo culture (Russia) and in the Baltic region.Siberia, Scandinavia, and northern Russia cannot be the origin of any uniparental marker considered European simply because they were uninhabitable. Therefore, common sense tells us that the Balkans, Italy, and Iberia were refuges until the north could be recolonized.
Regarding R1b, the rumors from Romania could be true, but in any case, we already know that the origin of R1b-V88 is in the Balkans, and we have another R1b-L754 in Romania.
ROM061 (7538 BCE)-Ostrovul-Corbului, IGHGs, Romania-Mattila, 2023-R1b1a-L754-HARVARD
It is only a matter of time before other L754s appear in both the Balkans and central-western Europe. For me, the interesting debate is the participation of male lineages originating in the WHGs in the formation of steppe cultures, because this would radically affect the linguistic debate, since at the moment everything points to the fact that Siberian and Russian markers barely participated in the Yamnaya culture.
@ Gaska
Even in the Balkans there are gaps in settlement, or at least dynamic fluctuations. So it's not quite like Franco-Iberia, which was more or less permanently settled between 40000 bp and the mesolithic, And even permnanet settlemnet doesn;t exclude genetic shifts
So the question is - did R1b-P297 expand from the Balkans or somewhere in east Europe- which also was settled furing the Ice Age, at least the central-southern regions., and then how did M269 get into the steppe.
@ Norfern
btw - I have concerns about Valter Lang's model for Baltic-Finnic, etc. He seems to simply assume that the fortified settlements in the East Baltic LBA come from the Dnieper-Dvina region, when there is no compelling evidence for it. Certainly, the aDNA of Baltic LBA folk looks like the most parsiminous explanation is that they are Narva + CWC.
The quesion of Tapiola ware is also ambiguous, because archaeologists variously propose Netted Ware to have expanded from Karelia , on the one hand, or the Volga region, on the other. ie there is no clear consensus. What do you think Netted Ware represents ?
It very well could be multiple waves of migration and cultural diffusion happening here. Some such as imitated Textile Ware seems to be previous pottery traditions adopting the textile impression method. The specific dispersal of Textile Ceramics to the Baltics probably needs further study, although if the division to SW and NE "Tapiola" wares holds up it seems like a dispersal route from the Volga seems more likely here.
The issue however is that issue however is, if it were not for Y-hg N1a appearing in IA Estonia, there would be no evidence of any 'Siberian' admixture in Estonia, let alone 'multiple waves'.
By contrast, Vologda, Udmurtia, Bolshoi and even Levanluhha clearly possess it. This suggests that there was probably just one, rather northern, migration route.
I dont think Netted Ware or 'Akazino axes' have much to do with the expansion of western Uralic
@Rob
To be fair Tarand graves are exclusively coastal in their early stage, which means that if these are Finnics arriving to the area, then they must have arrived from somewhere else. If this area was already the Baltics, Southeast Estonia and Northeastern Latvia could work. OTOH there's also Ingria. A wildcard would be a cross gulf-of Finland migration from the north I suppose.
@ Davidski
Have you had a chance to examine the 4000BP Kadruka sample on Vahaduo? That ancient Sudanese individual seems to have considerable Steppe ancestry.
In 2023, the researcher Abigail Breidenstein did a Zoom interview, where she revealed that some Meroitic and Christian era specimens excavated in Sudan bore mtDNA haplotypes that are most similar to modern Northern European individuals:
https://i.postimg.cc/nLYvvHYj/breidenstein2023-kwieka-2.webp
https://i.postimg.cc/HLBrYj9w/breidenstein2023-ghazali-5.webp
If this Kadruka result is correct and not a product of low coverage, it means that there were Steppe carriers in Northeast Africa who lived almost during the same time period as the Yamnaya culture bearers. These Steppe carriers also do not appear to have possessed any accompanying Caucasus Hunter-Gatherer, Iran Neolithic or Anatolian Neolithic admixtures.
This challenges the claim that Steppe ancestry first arose in Anatolia or the Caucasus and subsequently spread from there. It instead seems to support your argument that Steppe ancestry originated and developed in Europe, from where it would later expand.
Outline of Out of India😀
https://x.com/VedveerArya3/status/1990085990979936399?s=20
@Scott
Almost definitely contaminated
@ Norfern
I meant to say southwestern Netted ware doesn't seem to bring Siberian ancestry to Estonia (Not Netted ware as a whole).
Curiously, can model Estonia_IA as Estonia BA 85% + Levanluhta 15%
@Rob
Maybe right. Lang seems to classify Asva as part of the Tapiola Ware although textile impressions are pretty rare in the pottery style, most of the pots are actually smooth. Maybe he only means the textile impressed pots in Asva as opposed to the entire ceramic tradition.
Anyhow, the problem with Levänluhta as a source is obviously chronology. But perhaps it does represent an older genotype than that?
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
The authors of the Kadruka study indicate that they put into place safety precautions to ensure that their results were minimally affected by DNA contamination.
They observed that at the 25 read length filter cutoff, there was an AuthentiCT contamination rate of just 0.1%:
https://i.postimg.cc/Zns9vSj5/Kadruka-negligible-contamination.jpg
Hence, the scientists continued their downstream analyses using that 25 bp read length filter:
"We find that at a length cut-off of 30 bp, 47.3 ± 2.4% of retrieved aDNA is likely of modern-human contaminant origin (Table 1). In comparison, a length cut-off of 25 bp yielded 4,680,356 mapped reads with 0.1 ± 0.3% contamination (Table 1). Together with the results from SpAL, we consider 25 bp a safe cut-off length for this library. Thus, we continued our downstream analyses with a 25 bp read length filter, ending up with 231,040 sequencing reads after mapping, from which we derived 3,336 pseudo-haploid allele calls on 1240 k SNP positions (Table 1)."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-022-25384-y
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41598-022-25384-y/MediaObjects/41598_2022_25384_MOESM1_ESM.docx
@ Norfern
True, Levanluhta is anachronistic, but it contains something similar to the group which mixes in with EstBA to form EstIA- namely additional/ non-local post-CW + WHG-EHG + Yakutia ancestry.
Mezshovskaya works here, and when we merge the MininoIA & Pyanbor, they might work too
Ultimately, we are left with what what this Blog proposed a few years ago - BOO represents a northern extreme of early west Uralic, and maybe there was a later minor 'Fino-Permic' inflow, but i'm less convinced by this
@Scott
3,336 SNPs would not have yielded any coordinates.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Genetic calculators that produce simulated Global25 coordinates, such as Genoplot's Eurogenes K36, typically only use 1000-10,000 SNPs. So G25-compatible coordinates can indeed be generated from just a few thousand markers.
From experience, though, because of their very low marker counts, these calculators are only decent at identifying the dominant ancestral component an individual carries. They often get the other, secondary ancestral element(s) wrong.
Official Global25 coordinates are better since they check their target samples for overlapping SNPs against a reference panel of over 1 million SNPs. However, because 23andMe, Ancestry, LivingDNA and other commercial genomic firms only test ~500,000 SNPs on average, the marker overlap with G25's reference panel will typically be ~200,000-300,000 SNPs.
Ergo, the most optimal and accurate solution is to directly analyze an individual's raw genome data.
When I examined the Northern Somali/Puntland samples mentioned earlier (96 high coverage samples that each typed ~920,000 SNPs), almost all of these individuals belonged to the Y-DNA haplogroup R1b-DF13 and the mtDNA haplogroup H2a2a1. Correspondingly, they also predominantly carried non-African ancestry (~75%). This is based on ADMIXTURE analysis of their raw genome files against the 1000Genomes reference panel. Furthermore, most of the non-African heritage these individuals possessed appeared to consist of a western Europe-derived Steppe component:
https://i.postimg.cc/Dysp18nL/ADNTRO-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/DZ8B0zxZ/Genomelink-1.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/13sB6BWm/osmanandjonasson2023-2.webp
Given this, I think with better sample coverage, it is possible that some of the ancient Kadruka individuals could have a similar ancestral makeup. They too may bear considerable Steppe ancestry, and may not actually sit on the Levantine Natufian cline like the Cushites of the Pastoral Neolithic and the medieval Nubians of Kulubnarti, Sudan.
@Scott
Yeah I know but I used different quality settings to get better coverage but as it turns out that results in contaminated sequences. In G25 3K is not going to work really. Sometimes the data just contains modern sequences overwhelmingly. You can sometimes use even low coverage data for broad level analysis but in G25 that results in funky behaviour like noise. I know that you can filter out contaminated sequences using some tools but I haven't had much luck with that, tried it on the Borsuka UP sample.
@ Davidski - ''This early Slavic data is very cool. I've been immersed in it for the past week and it's nice to have that feeling again about ancient DNA.
I will do a new blog post about it very soon.'
Any updates on this ?
@ Rob - speaking of Uralic - you'd enjoy this https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=87&page=22
Biological anthropologist Katharina Fuchs studies, with full responsibility and reverence, the remains of an ancient human in Western Germany who lived in 5000 BC and belonged to the LBK culture.🥰
https://www.science.org/do/10.1126/science.zm6a4qc/files/_20251120_nf_vrable_digsitekaterina.jpg
@Rob
Early in the Holocene, as the climate of the Caucasus became warmer and more humid, almost the entire western and central Caucasus, up to Chechnya, became covered with dense broad-leaved forests (oak, hornbeam, beech, hazel), and the floodplains of the Terek, Sunzha, and Argun turned into swamps. Human presence there was minimal.
Such landscapes were disastrous for early Neolithic hunter-gatherers: dense forests made it nearly impossible to see wild ungulates (aurochs, deer, boar), their main prey; there were no open pastures for the first domestic sheep and goats; and hoe-based agriculture in wet forests was practically impossible without axes and controlled burning.
The only territory in the North Caucasus where numerous Mesolithic and Neolithic sites have been found—and which remained free of forests—was the eastern Caucasus. This is the true source of the steppe CHG.
There's a pretty large number of "candidate proto/pre Uralic" samples now, but it looks to me like the only appropriate profiles (as in, low or zero Steppe_MLBA, WSHG, Turkic ancestry) found west of the Urals, that could contribute to modern Finnic populations, are the Davydovskoye IA samples and the Minino singleton.
@ Ethan R
we need to analyse properly . In the original publication Levalutha were modelled as WHG, Yamnnaya, EEF< Nganasan, which is not very useful for where we're at now
btw which is the Davydovskopye sample ?
@ CordedWare
It's too early in the day for me to read through low-level cringe on GA
@ Shomu
The entire world warmed up at the start of the Holocene. The continuity of forests in western Georgia is what facilitated the continuity of hunter-gatherers, HGs require a stable climate to continue whatever their adapted lifestyle suited
Maybe there were numerous sites in Kobustan region , but there are also documented in western Caucasus. https://adnaera.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/12/ImeretiCultureSites-e1544420625570-1.jpg
But the evidence shows the opposite - lower levels of CHG in early Farmers from eastern Caucasus (classic Shuvaleri), and huge rise in Darkveti-Meshoko, and then KAx
@Rob
Sorry, they are the ones from this paper (BOL001 to BOL009):
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222018267
They are of course too late to be the actual ones responsible, though.
A good Telegram channel — the admin is a linguist who studies the Armenian language and demonstrates that Armenian has a strong Nakh-Daghestanian substratum, on top of which the Proto-Indo-European language was later layered.
https://t.me/xizaxling
@Davidski Am I understanding it correctly that genetic scientists managed to sequence the DNA of the Neanderthal Denisova25, dated to 200,000 years ago, at 100%? At least, it appears in the list as having full coverage.
3/5 KuraAraxes males from Armenia are J1-CTS1460.
Dagestan 20% and Chechnya 15% are under this lineage.
This lineage tmrca is 3750bce
Hard to tell if these were NE caucasian related speakers in KuraAraxes or Hurro-Urartian speakers...or perhaps Hurro-Urartian and NE caucasian are related languages...This lineage is also present in Hasanlu_MBA.
Or maybe Hurro-Urartian speakers eventually got absorbed by NE caucasian speakers just like L1a2-M357 lineages with 800CE tmrca...
Also 14.5% Jews on FTdna are under R1a-Z93 subclade R1a-Y2619 but tmrca is 700CE...
Another interesting model is this
Target: Mongolia_Arkhangai_XiongnuEarlyMedieval_3:TUK001__AD_327__Cov_75.79%
Distance: 1.6158% / 0.01615777
69.2 Achaemenid Selecuid Parthian (300bce)
30.8 Russia_Voronezh_Scythian
@Ash 😃👍
https://x.com/Sulkalmakh/status/1996144455372382600?s=20
Facial reconstruction of a 5,100-year-old Afanasievan from Mongolia with Yamnaya-like auDNA
He carried Y-DNA haplogroup J1a2b and mtDNA U5a1. His maternal lineage, associated with European hunter-gatherers, was widespread among Indo-Europeans. His paternal lineage, J1a2b, has been previously detected in the Khvalynsk culture; a downstream of this haplogroup also dominates the Y-DNA of the Kura-Araxes culture, possibly suggesting a dispersal of J1a2b from the Caucasus into the Steppe, where a related branch persisted and became the main haplogroup of the Kura-Araxes culture.
Project: PRJEB83268
Ancient DNA from human remains from the archaeological site of Nahal Yarmuth 38, Israel; dated from the Middle Pre-Pottery Neolithic B (MPPNB) to the Pottery Neolithic (PN).
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB83268
Some more examination of Sredni Stog samples:
https://i.gyazo.com/22cb7cc735ec32755dc42b5aa69d9a07.png
Kind of makes it look like the culture started with relatively minimal direct ANF/Aknashen ancestry, and this increased gradually over time, perhaps via marriage networks.
Here's a somewhat similar graph but focused on how much Barcin there is vis a vis Berezhnovka-like ancestry:
https://i.gyazo.com/5abfa1b98a1e55b64654618b77b00bfc.png
I included Yamnaya for comparison and, at least as far as G25 is concerned, it doesn't really look like how Lazaridis has characterized it? Yamnaya just looks like what you'd expect the eastern-most Sredni Stog groups to look like (i.e. Repin). Roughly the same amount of ANF/Aknashen, but with lower Ukraine_N, obviously.
@MrShomu The researchers achieve 23.6 fold coverage on Denisovia25 genome. So on average, 23.6 calls per position, but with much variation. But 23.6 is almost medical quality sequencing. Kudos to the MPI team.
An interesting post by Aram Polyan (a member of this blog) about the origins of the Maykop culture
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1KGtL99acp/
(99+) Discussion: Generative adversarial networks reveal Carian, Elder Futhark, Old Hungarian and Old Turkic script relationships - Academia.edu
https://x.com/Sulkalmakh/status/1996144455372382600?s=20
Gioiello Tognoni: Y R1b-L23-Z2103-FGC24408-FGC24444 etc 5300 ybp at Yamnaya, 14000 ybp at Villabruna (Italy).
Dawidloglu
You should do post on
- The end of the Dutch BB origins theory
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/dutch-beakers-like-no-other-beakers.html?m=1
@ norfern
Did you once write somewhere that you had a better heart coverage file of AG-3 ?
https://www.mediafire.com/file/znmn0u9lk6fkpau/AncientNorthEurasians.zip/file
@EthanR
Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya.AG
P-value: 0.83315
Source Weight SE Z
Steppe_Encolithic_BPgroup.AG 71.11% 2.09% 34.03
Ukraine_N.AG 13.13% 1.38% 9.53
Armenia_MasisBlur_N.AG 15.76% 1.43% 11.04
Right Pops:
Ju_hoan_North.DG, Papuan.DG, Onge.DG, Tajikistan_Mesolithic.AG, Russia_VuzhniyOleniyOstrov_Mesolithic.AG, Georgia_Satsurblia_LateUP.SG, Turkey_Central_Boncuklu_PPN.AG, Israel_Natufian.AG, Iran_GanjDareh_N.AG, China_AmurRiver_N.AG, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic.AG
@ Ethan thanks for list;
@ Norfern thanks for file . What is coverage like for AG3 ?
"Rob said...
Dawidloglu
You should do post on
- The end of the Dutch BB origins theory"
Can you elaborate?
@ Slothopus
As you know, in academia the (problematic) Iberian model is still drominant, but in the genosphere the Dutch model is prominent, in that BB might have emereged from a CW group in the lower Rhine
However, according to the Olalde preprint ''Long-term hunter-gatherer continuity in the Rhine-Meuse region '', dutch Corded Ware were outliers to 'core CW' due to high levels of TRB ancestry.
IMO BB were distinctive to CW from the outset and formed in the upper Danube-upper Rhine region. It is only BB east & north groups who have more typical CW cultural profile
Post a Comment