The Yassitepe challenge

This is about the only successful qpAdm model that I can find for the pair of Early Bronze Age (EBA) females from Yassitepe, Turkey, using a decent set of outgroups and markers. I wouldn't take it too literally, but it does suggest a potentially significant level of European ancestry, including some steppe ancestry, in these Yassitepe individuals.

TUR_Aegean_Yassitepe_EBA
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN 0.565±0.054
ROU_N 0.387±0.041
RUS_Progress_En 0.048±0.022
P-value 0.103248
Full output

If anyone reading this can find a better, more convincing solution then I'd love to see it. Feel free to share it in the comments below.

Obviously, both of the Yassitepe samples are from the recent Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper. Their EBA dating suggests that they might be relevant to the debate over the origins of Anatolian speakers, such as the Hittites and Luwians.

See also...

Dear Iosif, about that ~2%

The precursor of the Trojans

The great shift

Here's a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring some of the ancients from the recent Saag et al. paper at Science Advances. To see an interactive version of the plot paste the Global25 coordinates here into the relevant field here.

Note that the Fatyanovo culture agropastoralists, who are rich in Y-haplogroup R1a and steppe ancestry, cluster with present-day Eastern Europeans. On the other hand, the Volosovo culture singleton sits near the European hunter-gatherer cline that no longer exists.

This Volosovo individual belongs to Y-haplogroup Q1a. However, most of the Volosovo males whose genomes are soon to be published belong to Y-haplogroup R1b.

Thus, in much of Eastern Europe during the Bronze Age, agropastoralists rich in R1a and steppe ancestry replaced hunter-gatherers rich in R1b and with no steppe ancestry. Of course, that's not where the story ends, but I'll get back to that later this year.

By the way, the relatively high coverage Fatyanovo Y-chromosome sequences are being analyzed at YFull. You can check out the results here.

See also...

Domestic horses were introduced into Anatolia and Transcaucasia during the Bronze Age (Guimaraes et al. 2020)

Over at Science Advances at this LINK. This is a very important paper because it basically eliminates West Asia as the source of the modern domestic horse lineage, which leaves the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe as the only viable option.

It also corroborates the linguistic theory that the Proto-Indo-European homeland was located on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. That's because the horse is a key animal in the Proto-Indo-European pantheon, and it appears in Indo-European mythology in intricate roles. This suggests that the speakers of Proto-Indo-European weren't just familiar with the horse but also managed to domesticate it. From the paper:

Abstract: Despite the important roles that horses have played in human history, particularly in the spread of languages and cultures, and correspondingly intensive research on this topic, the origin of domestic horses remains elusive. Several domestication centers have been hypothesized, but most of these have been invalidated through recent paleogenetic studies. Anatolia is a region with an extended history of horse exploitation that has been considered a candidate for the origins of domestic horses but has never been subject to detailed investigation. Our paleogenetic study of pre- and protohistoric horses in Anatolia and the Caucasus, based on a diachronic sample from the early Neolithic to the Iron Age (~8000 to ~1000 BCE) that encompasses the presumed transition from wild to domestic horses (4000 to 3000 BCE), shows the rapid and large-scale introduction of domestic horses at the end of the third millennium BCE. Thus, our results argue strongly against autochthonous independent domestication of horses in Anatolia.

Guimaraes et al., Ancient DNA shows domestic horses were introduced in the southern Caucasus and Anatolia during the Bronze Age, Science Advances 16 Sep 2020: Vol. 6, no. 38, eabb0030, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abb0030

See also...

Warriors from at least two different populations fought in the Tollense Valley battle

I can't get the genotype data from the Burger et al. paper. The lead authors, Joachim Burger and Daniel Wegmann, aren't replying to my emails.

But they were gracious enough to release the BAM files for each of their samples, and these files can be converted to genotype data. So I've included ten of the Tollense Valley warriors (DEU_Tollense_BA) in the Global25 datasheets (see here).

The claim in the paper that these warriors "represent an unstructured population" is absolutely false and extremely naive.

Below are a couple of Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots produced with Vahaduo Global25 views. The samples are labeled according to their Y-chromosome haplogroups. To see interactive versions of the same plots, paste the Global25 coordinates from the text file here into the relevant fields here.

These warriors are not a single unstructured population, because they cover too much ground in the above plots for that to be possible. It's clear to me that they represent at least two different groups from Central Europe and surrounds.

Of course, this would be a lot easier to work out if Burger et al. cared to supply more information about each of the warriors, such as their attire, weapons, circumstances of death, and so on. It's a complete mystery to me why this wasn't included in the paper, and the authors are refusing to talk to me, so it's unlikely that I'll ever be able to get it from them.

In the absence of such crucial archeological and anthropological data, I don't want to speculate too much, and get overly creative, but here are a couple of possible scenarios to explain the ancient DNA results:

- this may have been a battle between two Central European armies, one rich in Y-haplogroup R1b and the other rich in Y-haplogroup I2a, as well as their allies or hired help, including warriors from Eastern Europe belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a

- or perhaps it was an invasion from the east by warriors rich in Y-haplogroup R1a, and it was a success, with the local armies, rich in Y-haplogroups R1b and I2a, losing the battle and suffering most of the casualties.

I'm sure that one day someone will attempt to undertake a decent multidisciplinary study of this epic battle, and we'll at least have a rough idea about what happened. Or not.

Citation...

Burger et al., Low Prevalence of Lactase Persistence in Bronze Age Europe Indicates Ongoing Strong Selection over the Last 3,000 Years, Current Biology, Available online 3 September 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.08.033

See also...

Genetic and linguistic structure across space and time in Northern Europe

Low prevalence of lactase persistence in Bronze Age Europe (Burger et al. 2020)

Over at Current Biology at this LINK. Unfortunately, this is the long-awaited Tollense Valley battle paper. Despite the obvious presence of some very interesting genetic substructures among the Tollense Valley warriors (see here), the authors have the audacity to claim that these individuals represent a "single unstructured Central/Northern European population".

One of the warriors, labeled WEZ56, belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a and shows an exceedingly Balto-Slavic-like genome-wide genetic structure. But none of this is even mentioned in passing in the paper. Indeed, according to Burger at al., WEZ56 is best classified as belonging to R1, even though the R1a classification is quite secure based on the raw data that the authors posted online.

Be extremely wary of what you read in this paper, and anything else that these scientists have published in the past and will publish in the future. Below is the paper summary:

Lactase persistence (LP), the continued expression of lactase into adulthood, is the most strongly selected single gene trait over the last 10,000 years in multiple human populations. It has been posited that the primary allele causing LP among Eurasians, rs4988235-A [1], only rose to appreciable frequencies during the Bronze and Iron Ages [2, 3], long after humans started consuming milk from domesticated animals. This rapid rise has been attributed to an influx of people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe that began around 5,000 years ago [4, 5]. We investigate the spatiotemporal spread of LP through an analysis of 14 warriors from the Tollense Bronze Age battlefield in northern Germany (∼3,200 before present, BP), the oldest large-scale conflict site north of the Alps. Genetic data indicate that these individuals represent a single unstructured Central/Northern European population. We complemented these data with genotypes of 18 individuals from the Bronze Age site Mokrin in Serbia (∼4,100 to ∼3,700 BP) and 37 individuals from Eastern Europe and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe region, predating both Bronze Age sites (∼5,980 to ∼3,980 BP). We infer low LP in all three regions, i.e., in northern Germany and South-eastern and Eastern Europe, suggesting that the surge of rs4988235 in Central and Northern Europe was unlikely caused by Steppe expansions. We estimate a selection coefficient of 0.06 and conclude that the selection was ongoing in various parts of Europe over the last 3,000 years.

Burger et al., Low Prevalence of Lactase Persistence in Bronze Age Europe Indicates Ongoing Strong Selection over the Last 3,000 Years, Current Biology, Available online 3 September 2020, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2020.08.033

See also...

Warriors from at least two different populations fought in the Tollense Valley battle

The Abashevo axe did it (Mednikova et al. 2020)

Open access at the Journal of Imaging over at this LINK. From the paper, emphasis is mine:

A massive bronze battle axe from the Abashevo archaeological culture was studied using neutron tomography and manufacturing modeling from production molds. Detailed structural data were acquired to simulate and model possible injuries and wounds caused by this battle axe. We report the results of neutron tomography experiments on the bronze battle axe, as well as manufactured plastic and virtual models of the traumas obtained at different strike angles from this axe. The reconstructed 3D models of the battle axe, plastic imprint model, and real wound and trauma traces on the bones of the ancient peoples of the Abashevo archaeological culture were obtained. Skulls with traces of injuries originate from archaeological excavations of the Pepkino burial mound of the Abashevo culture in the Volga region. The reconstruction and identification of the injuries and type of weapon on the restored skulls were performed. The complementary use of 3D visualization methods allowed us to make some assumptions on the cause of death of the people of the Abashevo culture and possible intra-tribal conflict in this cultural society. The obtained structural and anthropological data can be used to develop new concepts and methods for the archaeology of conflict.

...

Human skeletal remains from excavations of the Pepkino burial mound bear many traumatic wounds on the skulls and postcranial bones (Figure 4). The primary hypothesis is that young men of the Abashevo culture fell at the hands of enemies, which were the representatives of another tribe or culture [14,16]. After their discovery in the XX century, the skulls of killed people of the Abashevo culture were restored using anthropological paste, including beeswax.

...

A simple explanation for obtaining such injuries is the conclusion that the victim stood face to face with their assaulter and tried to back away from the battle axe, but fell and received other lethal wounds. The superficial trauma by the battle axe as well as serious damage to a bone structure and deep cracks in the skull are visible in the upper part of the model.

...

The comparison of the real bronze axe with the model obtained from molds indicates their complete identity and the belonging of these axes from different archaeological sites of the Abashevo culture to the same cultural group. This conclusion may indicate intra-cultural conflict among the Abashevo people. As a final note, the presented results of quite diverse imaging methods indicate a new direction in the archaeology of conflicts and the applicability of 3D modeling methods to identify both weapons technologies and the specifics of the use of these weapons to injure humans.

Citation...

Mednikova et al., The Reconstruction of a Bronze Battle Axe and Comparison of Inflicted Damage Injuries Using Neutron Tomography, Manufacturing Modeling, and X-ray Microtomography Data, J. Imaging 2020, 6(6), 45; https://doi.org/10.3390/jimaging6060045

See also...

Latest on Sintashta-Petrovka chariots (Lindner 2020)

Open access at Antiquity at this LINK. As far as I can tell, several individuals from the graves analyzed in this paper are in my ancient DNA dataset and the Global25 datasheets. Sample I1064 from the Kamennyi Ambar 5 cemetery comes to mind. Here's the abstract:

In Eastern Europe, the use of light vehicles with spoked wheels and harnessed horse teams is first evidenced in the early second-millennium BC Sintashta-Petrovka Culture in the South-eastern Ural Mountains. Using Bayesian modelling of radiocarbon dates from the kurgan cemetery of Kamennyj Ambar-5, combined with artefactual and stratigraphic analyses, this article demonstrates that these early European chariots date to no later than the first proto-chariots of the ancient Near East. This result suggests the earlier emergence of chariots on the Eurasian Steppe than previously thought and contributes to wider debates on the geography and chronology of technological innovations.

See also...

The mystery of the Sintashta people

Armenians vs Georgians

Armenians and Georgians are ethnic groups that live side by side in the south Caucasus, or Transcaucasia. By all accounts, they've both been there since prehistoric times and they're very similar in terms of overall genetic structure.

However, they speak languages from totally unrelated families: Indo-European and Kartvelian, respectively. How did this happen and might the answer lie in the small genetic differences that do exist between them?

To investigate this issue, I ran a series of qpAdm formal mixture models of present-day Armenians and Georgians using tens of ancient reference populations. To come up with as straightforward and meaningful results as possible, I constrained myself to two-way models. I then discarded the runs that produced "tail probs" under 0.1 and retained less than 400K SNPs. Only a handful of models passed muster, including these two:

Armenian
Mycenaeans_&_Empuries2 0.233±0.041
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.767±0.041
chisq 18.422
tail prob 0.142151
Full output

Georgian
Globular_Amphora 0.071±0.025
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.929±0.025
chisq 18.419
tail prob 0.142266
Full output

At the most basic level, the results suggest that both Armenians and Georgians are overwhelmingly derived from populations of Bronze Age Transcaucasia associated with the Kura-Araxes archeological culture, albeit with minor ancestries from somewhat different sources from the west. As far as I can see, when using more than 400K SNPs and a wide range and large number of outgroups (or right pops), neither Armenians nor Georgians can pass perfectly for any one ancient population in my dataset.

The best proxies for the minor but significant western ancestry in Armenians are Mycenaeans of the Bronze Age Aegean region and Greek colonists from Iron Age Iberia (Empuries2). Obviously, and perhaps importantly, these are both attested Indo-European-speaking groups. On the other hand, the very minor western ancestry in Georgians is best characterized as gene flow from Middle to Late Neolithic European farmers rich in indigenous European forager ancestry. It's practically impossible to say what language or languages these farmers spoke. How about something Kartvelian?

In any case, for me, the perplexing thing about present-day Armenians is that they harbor very little steppe ancestry. By and large, no more than a few per cent. Compare that to the currently available samples from what is now Armenia dating to the Middle to Late Bronze Age, which show ratios of steppe ancestry of up to 25%. For now, I'm guessing that what we're dealing with here is the classic bounce back of older ancestry layers that has been documented for different parts and periods of prehistoric Europe.

See also...

Early chariot drivers of Transcaucasia came from...

Catacomb > Armenia_MLBA

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Map of pre-Corded Ware culture (>2900 BCE) instances of Y-haplogroup R1a (updated)

Below is a map showing the global distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a prior to the expansions of the R1a-rich Corded Ware culture (CWC) people and their descendants across Europe and Asia from around 2900 BCE. I'll be updating this map regularly and using it to help me narrow down the options for the place of origin of R1a, and also to counter the misinformation about this topic that has appeared in print and online over the years, including in many scientific publications and popular websites such as Wikipedia.

Incredibly, as far as I know, there are just six reliably called instances of R1a in the now ample Eurasian ancient DNA record dating to the pre-CWC period. To put this into perspective, consider that R1a is today the most common Y-haplogroup in much of Europe and Asia. How did that happen I wonder? However, please note that I chose to base the map only on samples sequenced with the capture and shotgun methods, rather than the PCR method, which is susceptible to producing contaminated results and no longer used in major ancient DNA studies.

See also...

Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health

The Poltavka outlier

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

An exceptional burial indeed, but not that of an Indo-European

Not too many people have been buried sitting on wagons. The most famous case is that of an Early Bronze Age man who, considering his injuries, may have died in a high-speed crash - high-speed for its time anyway - on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe.

It's likely that this guy was one of the very first wagon-drivers in human history, because his four-wheeled wooden model is dated to 3336-3105 calBCE, which makes it the oldest wagon discovered thus far. His genotype data, under the label Steppe Maykop SA6004, were published recently along with Wang et al. 2019.

Early wagons are very important for a couple of reasons: they revolutionized human transport and warfare, and they're often closely associated with the prehistoric expansions of Indo-European languages.

So I'm pretty sure that many of you must be thinking right now that wagon-driver SA6004 was an early Indo-European, or even a Proto-Indo-European! I bet that's what Wang et al. thought too, considering the conclusion in their paper. But, alas, the chances of this are slim to none.

Steppe Maykop samples show rather peculiar genetic structure considering their geographic origin, with a large proportion of their ancestry deriving from a source closely related to western Siberian hunter-gatherers (aka West_Siberia_N in the ancient DNA record). Indeed, SA6004 basically looks like a 50/50 mix between West_Siberia_N and Piedmont_Eneolithic. Here's a map with all of the relevant details.

Thus, clearly, the Steppe Maykop population wasn't ancestral or even directly related to the steppe and steppe-derived groups generally regarded to have been Indo-European speaking, such as those associated with the Yamnaya, Corded Ware, and Bell Beaker cultures. That's because these groups lack any discernible West_Siberia_N-related ancestry.

It also wasn't ancestral or directly related to any present-day or currently sampled ancient Indo-European speaking populations, again because these populations basically lack West_Siberia_N-related ancestry.

On the other hand, Yamnaya, Corded Ware and other closely related groups show an exceptionally strong genetic relationship with Indo-European speakers, especially those from across Northern Europe, which experienced massive migrations from the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the late Neolithic period, and hardly anything from elsewhere since then.

Case in point, the samples from Wang et al. labeled Yamnaya Caucasus were recovered from the same area of the Pontic-Caspian as their Steppe Maykop samples, and yet, take a look at this linear model based on outgroup f3-statistics. Steppe Maykop does show high genetic affinity to Indo-European speakers (no doubt mediated via its Piedmont_Eneolithic-related ancestry), but, unlike Yamnaya Caucasus, it also shows unusually high affinity for a West Eurasian population to Native Americans and Siberians. The relevant datasheet is available here.

So the only way that the Steppe Maykop population was Indo-European-speaking, was if it inherited its Indo-European speech from its Piedmont_Eneolithic-related ancestors. And even if it was Indo-European-speaking, it probably spoke an extinct Indo-European language not closely related to any extant Indo-European languages. In other words, the possibility that Steppe Maykop passed on its language to Yamnaya, along with its wagons, is close to zero. More likely, Yamnaya stole a few wagons from Steppe Maykop, and the rest is history.

See also...

The Steppe Maykop enigma

On Maykop ancestry in Yamnaya

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Maykop: a multi-ethnic layer cake?

Let's speculate about the linguistic affinities of the currently available ancient populations from the Caucasus and surrounds. I put together a series of outgroup f3-stats to help things along. They're available for download here.

Maykop
Georgian 0.258224
Abkhasian 0.257899
Latvian 0.257376
Swedish 0.257301
Turkish_Trabzon 0.256996
Basque_Spanish 0.256589
Chechen 0.256514
Icelandic 0.256418
Norwegian 0.256325
Lezgin 0.256272
Irish 0.256227
Tabasaran 0.256092
Italian_Bergamo 0.25605
English_Cornwall 0.256032
Polish_East 0.255991
Scottish 0.255955
Adygei 0.255913

Steppe_Maykop
Latvian 0.261845
Russian_North 0.26145
Estonian 0.260355
Finnish 0.260211
Lithuanian 0.260072
Udmurd 0.259804
Ingrian 0.259663
Surui 0.259637
Vepsa 0.259608
Karelian 0.259532
Karitiana 0.259482
Russian_West 0.259397
Russian_Central 0.259274
Wichi 0.259106
Saami 0.258982
Komi 0.258945
Icelandic 0.258854
Swedish 0.258814
Mordovian 0.258604
Irish 0.25859

Eyeballing the stats might be enough to get a general impression about what they mean, but to understand them properly it's necessary to get technical with something like PAST3 (see here). That's because f3-stats pick up shared genetic drift from all drift paths, and don't especially focus on more recently shared ancestry. This can often lead to confusing outcomes.

Below are a few examples of linear models based on my f3-stats. Note that many Indo-European speakers, especially from Northern Europe, are foremost attracted to ancient samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. On the other hand, non-Indo-European speakers, from such far flung locations as the Caucasus and Iberia, show relatively stronger affinity to ancient samples from Anatolia and the Caucasus. Moreover, Uralic speakers show elevated affinity to ancient hunter-gatherer samples from Eastern Europe and Siberia. Makes sense, right?

Based on these and other data, I'd say that Maykop and the culturally related Steppe Maykop were something of a multi-ethnic polity, with many near and far related languages spoken by its people, including perhaps Kartvelian, Northwest Caucasian, Yeniseian and Indo-European. But it seems to me that Proto-Indo-European was spoken by steppe foragers turned pastoralists just outside of the Maykop zone. And I'm quite sure that after the Maykop collapse various early Indo-European groups pushed across the Caucasus and deep into the Near East. Just take a look at the f3-stats and linear model for Hajji_Firuz_BA to see what I mean.

See also...

An exceptional burial indeed, but not that of an Indo-European

The Steppe Maykop enigma

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

The Steppe Maykop enigma

Who were the Steppe Maykop people exactly? Their ancestry must surely rank as one of the biggest surprises served up by ancient DNA to date.

I always thought that they'd turn out roughly like a mixture between populations associated with the Kura-Araxes and Yamnaya cultures (mostly because their territory was located sort of in between them). Nope, that wasn't even close. This is where they cluster compared to Kura-Araxes and Yamnaya samples in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of world-wide genetic variation: the Global25.

To explore the ancestry of the Steppe Maykop people in more detail I ran a couple of unsupervised Global25/nMonte tests, using basically every ancient population in the (scaled) Global25 datasheet that seemed chronologically sensible and even remotely relevant. I narrowed things down to these two mixture models.

Steppe_Maykop
Geoksiur_Eneolithic,11.2
Piedmont_Eneolithic,44.4
West_Siberia_N,44.4
distance%=1.5161

Steppe_Maykop
Piedmont_Eneolithic,46.6
Sarazm_Eneolithic,10.4
West_Siberia_N,43
distance%=1.6408

But, you might say, Global25/nMonte isn't a published analytical method and it doesn't run on formal statistics, the meat and potatoes of ancient DNA papers. OK then, let's try the same models with the qpAdm software, which is a published method and does run on formal statistics, using exactly the same samples.

Steppe_Maykop
Geoksiur_Eneolithic 0.100±0.032
Piedmont_Eneolithic 0.433±0.053
West_Siberia_N 0.467±0.028
chisq 19.155
tail prob 0.159096
Full output

Steppe_Maykop
Piedmont_Eneolithic 0.429±0.051
Sarazm_Eneolithic 0.119±0.033
West_Siberia_N 0.452±0.026
chisq 18.090
tail prob 0.202699
Full output

They're basically identical. Importantly, my models must reflect reality at some level, because otherwise I wouldn't be able to produce a pair of essentially identical results using such vastly different statistical methods. So the pertinent question is what do these results actually mean?

It seems unlikely to me that we're dealing here with a highly complex three-way mixture process, involving populations from such far flung locations as western Siberia and southern Central Asia. Rather, I suspect that Steppe Maykop was the result of a two-way mixture between Piedmont_Eneolithic (the population that lived before it on the steppe north of the Caucasus) and someone just a little bit more easterly. I'm guessing that the latter was the (as yet unsampled) population associated with the Kelteminar archeological culture.

By the way, please note that Piedmont_Eneolithic is made up of samples from two different locations on the Piedmont steppe, and I occasionally treat them as separate populations labeled Progress_Eneolithic and Vonyuchka_Eneolithic (for instance, see here).

Update 28/02/2019: Below is a PCA focusing on West Eurasian genetic variation. Overall, the position of Steppe Maykop relative to Geoksiur_Eneolithic, Piedmont_Eneolithic and West_Siberia_N appears to reflect my nMonte and qpAdm models. However, as per our discussion in the comments, one of the Steppe Maykop individuals (the most southerly one in the PCA) probably also has recent ancestry from the Caucasus.

See also...

An exceptional burial indeed, but not that of an Indo-European

Maykop: a multi-ethnic layer cake?

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Catacomb > Armenia_MLBA

It's now clear, thanks to ancient DNA, that Transcaucasia and surrounds were affected by multiple, and at times significant, population movements from Eastern Europe during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age periods. Based on the ancient samples from what is now Armenia, I'd say that this process peaked during the Middle Bronze Age. But who exactly were the people who perhaps swarmed south of the Caucasus at this time?

The most likely suspects are the various groups that occupied the southernmost parts of the Pontic-Caspian steppe throughout the Bronze Age. They were associated with the so called Catacomb, Kubano-Tersk and Yamnaya archeological cultures. Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) that compares samples from these cultures with those from Middle to Late Bronze Age Armenia (labeled Armenia_MLBA). The relevant datasheet is available here.

Note that Armenia_MLBA forms a cline that appears to be stretching out towards the Catacomb, Kubano-Tersk, Yamnaya and other Bronze Age steppe groups, and this suggests that it harbors significant and probably recent steppe-related ancestry. But PCA plots based on just two dimensions of genetic variation can be misleading at times, so let's check this out with some formal mixture models using qpAdm.

Armenia_MLBA
Catacomb 0.234±0.028
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.766±0.028
chisq 10.723
tail prob 0.826248
Full output

Armenia_MLBA
Kubano-Tersk 0.254±0.030
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.746±0.030
chisq 13.535
tail prob 0.633284
Full output

Armenia_MLBA
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.768±0.028
Yamnaya_Kalmykia 0.232±0.028
chisq 14.454
tail prob 0.564954
Full output

Armenia_MLBA
Kura-Araxes_Kaps 0.762±0.029
Yamnaya_Caucasus 0.238±0.029
chisq 15.916
tail prob 0.458816
Full output

All of these models are statistically very sound, and even though I ranked the results by "tail prob", there's nothing in the output that clearly points to any one of the southern steppe groups as the obvious source of the steppe-related ancestry in Armenia_MLBA. But, interestingly, Catacomb tops the ranking, and it probably also makes the most sense based simply on Carbon-14 chronology. So, for now, I'm going with Catacomb.

I didn't get a chance yet to investigate this issue in detail with the Global25. Does it contradict the results from my PCA and qpAdm analyses? If anyone reading this would like to take a close look that'd be great. Feel free to post your findings in the comments below. And if the answer is indeed Catacomb, then what language did these Catacomb-derived migrants, or perhaps invaders, speak? If not proto-Armenian then what?

By the way, please be aware that the Kubano-Tersk samples in my analyses are the same individuals as those featured in Wang et al. 2019 under the label "North Caucasus".

See also...

Early chariot drivers of Transcaucasia came from...

Likely Yamnaya incursion(s) into Northwestern Iran

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

The mystery of the Sintashta people

During the Middle to Late Bronze Age, the steppes southeast of the Ural Mountains, in what is now Russia, were home to communities of metallurgists who buried their warriors with horses and the earliest examples of the spoked-wheel battle chariot.

We don't know what they called themselves, because they didn't leave any written texts, but their archaeological culture is commonly known as Sintashta. It was named after a river near one of their main settlements; an elaborate fortified town that has also been described as an ancient metallurgical industrial center. Another of their well known settlements, very similar to Sintashta, is Arkaim, pictured below courtesy of Wikipedia.

Sintashta is arguably one of the coolest ancient cultures ever discovered by archaeologists. It's also generally accepted to be the Proto-Indo-Iranian culture, and thus linguistically ancestral to a myriad of present-day peoples of Asia, including Indo-Aryans and Persians. No wonder then, that its origin, and that of its population, have been hotly debated issues.

The leading hypothesis based on archaeological data is that Sintashta is largely derived from the more westerly and warlike Abashevo culture, which occupied much of the forest steppe north of the Black and Caspian Seas. In turn, Abashevo is usually described as an eastern offshoot of the Late Neolithic Corded Ware Culture (CWC), which is generally seen as the first Indo-European archaeological culture in Northern Europe (see here).

Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring 38 Sintashta individuals from the recent Narasimhan et al. 2018 preprint. Note that the main Sintashta cluster overlaps almost perfectly with the main CWC cluster. The relevant datasheet is available here.

Moreover, many ancient and present-day South and Central Asians, particularly those identified with or speaking Indo-Iranian languages, appear to be strongly attracted to the main Sintashta cluster, forming an almost perfect cline between this cluster and the likely Indus Valley diaspora individuals who show no evidence of steppe ancestry.

This is in line with mixture models based on formal statistics showing significant Sintashta-related ancestry in Indo-Iranian-speakers (for instance, see here), and high frequencies of Y-haplogroup R1a-Z93 in both the Sintashta and many Indo-Iranian-speaking populations.

Some of the Sintashta samples are outliers from the main Sintashta cluster, and that's because they harbor elevated levels of ancestry related to the Mesolithic and Neolithic foragers of Eastern Europe and/or Western Siberia. This is especially true of a pair of individuals who belong to Y-haplogroup Q. However, this doesn't contradict archaeological data, which suggest that the Sintashta community may have been multi-cultural and multi-lingual. Indeed, it's generally accepted based on historical linguistics data that there were fairly intense contacts in North Eurasia between the speakers of Proto-Indo-Iranian, Proto-Uralic and Yeniseian languages.

Thus, it appears that there's not much left to debate because ancient DNA has seemingly backed up the most widely accepted hypotheses about the origin of Sintashta and its people, and their identification mainly as Proto-Indo-Iranian-speakers.

However, a sample from a Sredny Stog II culture burial on the North Pontic steppe, in what is now eastern Ukraine, has complicated matters somewhat. This individual, known as Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561, not only clusters very strongly with the most typical Sintashta samples, but also belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-Z93. On the other hand, none of the CWC remains sequenced to date belong to this particular subclade of R1a (although, obviously, they do belong to a host of near and far related R1a subclades).

I've never seen anyone worth reading propose that Sintashta might derive from Sredny Stog II instead of Abashevo. And no wonder, because Sredny Stog II was long gone when Sintashta appeared in the archaeological record.

But if CWC remains continue to fail to produce R1a-Z93, while, at the same time, the steppes of eastern Ukraine and surrounds are shown to be a hotbed of R1a-Z93 from the Sredny Stog to the Sintashta periods, which I think is possible, then ancient DNA might well force a serious re-examination of how the awesome Sintashta culture and people came to be.

See also...

Steppe admixture in Mycenaeans, lots of Caucasus admixture already in Minoans (Lazaridis et al. 2017)

Over at Nature at this LINK. Why is the presence of steppe admixture in Mycenaeans important? And why does it matter if the Minoans already had a lot of ancestry from the Caucasus or surrounds? Because Mycenaeans were Indo-Europeans and Minoans weren't. I'm still reading the paper and will update this entry regularly over the next few days. Below is the abstract and, in my opinion, a key quote. Emphasis is mine.

The origins of the Bronze Age Minoan and Mycenaean cultures have puzzled archaeologists for more than a century. We have assembled genome-wide data from 19 ancient individuals, including Minoans from Crete, Mycenaeans from mainland Greece, and their eastern neighbours from southwestern Anatolia. Here we show that Minoans and Mycenaeans were genetically similar, having at least three-quarters of their ancestry from the first Neolithic farmers of western Anatolia and the Aegean [1, 2], and most of the remainder from ancient populations related to those of the Caucasus [3] and Iran [4, 5]. However, the Mycenaeans differed from Minoans in deriving additional ancestry from an ultimate source related to the hunter–gatherers of eastern Europe and Siberia [6, 7, 8], introduced via a proximal source related to the inhabitants of either the Eurasian steppe [1, 6, 9] or Armenia [4, 9]. Modern Greeks resemble the Mycenaeans, but with some additional dilution of the Early Neolithic ancestry. Our results support the idea of continuity but not isolation in the history of populations of the Aegean, before and after the time of its earliest civilizations.

...

The simulation framework also allows us to compare different models directly. Suppose that there are two models (Simulated1, Simulated2) and we wish to examine whether either of them is a better description of a population of interest (in this case, Mycenaeans). We test f4(Simulated1, Simulated2; Mycenaean, Chimp), which directly determines whether the observed Mycenaeans shares more alleles with one or the other of the two models. When we apply this intuition to the best models for the Mycenaeans (Extended Data Fig. 6), we observe that none of them clearly outperforms the others as there are no statistics with |Z|>3 (Table S2.28). However, we do notice that the model 79%Minoan_Lasithi+21%Europe_LNBA tends to share more drift with Mycenaeans (at the |Z|>2 level). Europe_LNBA is a diverse group of steppe-admixed Late Neolithic/Bronze Age individuals from mainland Europe, and we think that the further study of areas to the north of Greece might identify a surrogate for this admixture event – if, indeed, the Minoan_Lasithi+Europe_LNBA model represents the true history.

Lazaridis, Mittnik et al., Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans, Nature, Published online 02 August 2017, doi:10.1038/nature23310

Update 03/08/2017: This is my own Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of the Minoan and Mycenaean samples, which are freely available at the Reich Lab website here. The Armenian angle for the eastern admixture in Mycenaeans looks forced. The trajectory of this admixture obviously runs from Northern or Eastern Europe to the Minoans. If it did arrive from Armenia, then realistically only via a heavily steppe-admixed population. Right click and open in a new tab to enlarge:

Update 05/08/2017: Much like Lazaridis et al., I ran a series to qpAdm analyses to find the best mixture model for the Mycenaeans. However, just to see what would happen, unlike Lazaridis et al., I didn't group any of the archaeological populations into larger clusters based on their genetic affinities. The three models below stood out from the rest in terms of their statistical fits.

Mycenaean
Minoan_Lasithi 0.786±0.049
Sintashta 0.214±0.049
taildiff: 0.96574059
chisq: 6.030
Full output

Mycenaean
Corded_Ware_Germany 0.210±0.043
Minoan_Lasithi 0.790±0.043
taildiff: 0.961238695
chisq: 6.198
Full output

Mycenaean
Minoan_Lasithi 0.791±0.043
Srubnaya 0.209±0.043
taildiff: 0.950419642
chisq: 6.558
Full output

So it's essentially the same outcome as the one obtained by Lazaridis et al., because Sintashta and Srubnaya are part of their Steppe_MLBA cluster, while Corded Ware is part of their Europe_LNBA cluster, and it's these clusters that, along with Minoan_Lasithi, provided their most successful mixture models for the Mycenaeans. But it's nice to see Sintashta at the top of my results, because it fits so well with the long postulated archaeological links between Sintashta and the Mycenaeans (for instance, see here).

By the way, here's what I said back in May when the Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint came out (see here). So things are falling into place rather nicely.

The same paper also includes the following individual from present-day Bulgaria dated to the start of the Late Bronze Age (LBA), which is roughly when the Mycenaeans appeared nearby in what is now Greece:

Bulgaria_MLBA I2163: Y-hg R1a1a1b2 mt-hg U5a2 1750-1625 calBCE

This guy is the most Yamnaya-like of all of the Balkan samples in Mathieson et al. 2017, and, as far as I can see based on his overall genome-wide results, probably indistinguishable from the contemporaneous Srubnaya people of the Pontic-Caspian steppe. He also belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-Z93, which is a marker typical of Srubnaya and other closely related steppe groups such as Andronovo, Potapovka and Sintashta. So there's very little doubt that he's either a migrant or a recent descendant of migrants to the Balkans from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

See also...

A Mycenaean and an Iron Age Iranian walk into a bar...

Main candidates for the precursors of the proto-Greeks in the ancient DNA record to date

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...