Berkeley, we have a problem

A new preprint at bioRxiv by Kerdoncuff et al. makes the following, somewhat surprising, claim:

One of the individuals, referred to Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290) described above that was discovered with shell bangles showing affiliation with South Asia, has significant amount AHG-related ancestry, while a model without AHG-related ancestry provides the best fit for Sarazm_EN_2 (I4210) (Table S4.5).

First of all, the authors are actually referring to sample ID I4910 not I4210.

The aforementioned table, based on qpAdm output, shows that I4290 has 15.9% AHG-related ancestry and basically no Anatolian farmer-related ancestry. It also shows that I4910 has no AHG-related ancestry but 17.9% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry.

AHG stands for Andaman hunter-gatherer. The authors are using it as a proxy for South Asian hunter-gatherer ancestry.

However, I've looked at I4290 and I4910 in great detail over the years using ADMIXTURE, Principal Component Analysis (PCA), and qpAdm. And I'm quite certain that they do not show any obvious, above noise level South Asian ancestry. Indeed, I'd say that if they do have some minor South Asian ancestry, then I4910 probably has more of it than I4290.

Kerdoncuff et al. used the following "right pops" or outgroups: Ethiopia_4500BP.SG, WEHG, EEHG, ESHG, Dai.DG, Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG, Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave and Israel_Natufian.

This means they mixed data that were generated in very different ways (DG, SG and capture) and included some poor quality samples. For instance, the highest coverage version of Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave offers just ~50K SNPs.

Mixing different types of data and relying on low coverage samples, even in part, often has negative consequences when using qpAdm. So I suspect that the above mentioned mixture results for I4290 are skewed by a poor choice of outgroups.

When I run qpAdm I try to stick to one type of data and avoid low quality singletons in the outgroups. This is the best qpAdm model that I can find for Sarazm_EN:

right pops:
Cameroon_SMA
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Israel_Natufian
Levant_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Turkey_N
Russia_Karelia_HG
Russia_WestSiberia_HG
Mongolia_North_N
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

Sarazm_EN
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.113±0.017
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.887±0.017
P-value 0.06392

Sarazm_EN_1 (I4290)
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.129±0.021
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.871±0.021
P-value 0.11019

Sarazm_EN_2 (I4910)
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.104±0.021
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.896±0.021
P-value 0.07427

Also...

Sarazm_EN
Andaman_hunter-gatherer -0.018±0.020
Kazakhstan_Botai_Eneolithic 0.123±0.019
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset 0.895±0.020
P-value 0.0298403
(Infeasible model)

Please note that Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur_subset is made up of just three relatively high quality individuals: I8504, I12483 and I12487. That's because it's not possible to model the ancestry of Sarazm_EN using the full Geoksyur set, probably due to subtle genetic substructures within the latter.

Below is a PCA plot that, more or less, reflects my qpAdm model. I4290 and I4910 are sitting right next to each other in a cluster of ancient Central and Western Asians, and it's actually I4910 that is shifted slightly towards the South Asian pole of the PCA. Indeed, I can confidently say that there's no way to design a PCA in which I4290 is shifted significantly towards South Asia relative to I4910.

Citation...

Kerdoncuff et al., 50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ∼2,700 Whole Genome Sequences, bioRxiv, posted February 20, 2024, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2024.02.15.580575

See also...

The Nalchik surprise

A comedy of errors

Crazy stuff

I'm hoping that 2022 is the year when this problem is finally straightened out. Over to you David Reich, Nick Patterson, Iosif Lazaridis, David Anthony, Wolfgang Haak, Johannes Krause and colleagues.

See also...

An early Iranian, obviously

The Hajji Firuz fiasco

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

Against the conventional wisdom

I've read some very strange theories over the years trying to explain who was responsible for the so called Caucasus/Iranian-related ancestry in the Yamnaya people.

Proto-Indo-European speaking farmers from what is now Iran? How about Uruk invaders from Mesopotamia? No, wait, they were migrants from India who spoke Sanskrit. Haha.

Nope, it seems that hunter-gatherers rich in this type of ancestry lived north of the Caucasus already during the so called Pottery Neolithic or even the Mesolithic. That's the impression that I'm getting from watching the clip HERE.

This is basically also the idea that I gradually developed at this blog during the last few years, following common sense and logic, but totally against the conventional wisdom in regards to this topic. For instance, see here...

But here's my prediction: Steppe_EMBA only has 10-15% admixture from the post-Mesolithic Near East not including the North Caucasus, and basically all of this comes via female mediated gene flow from farming communities in the Caucasus and perhaps present-day Ukraine.

Modeling Steppe_EMBA

Of course, I could've done better with many of the details in my posts, like the dates and archeological links. But hey, at least I was smart enough to ignore the conventional wisdom.

I can't wait for the new ancient samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe that David Anthony featured in his talks recently. Once I have them we'll be able to work out the details here for ourselves.

See also...

Ahead of the pack

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

A final note for the year

I feel like I've spent a good part of 2019 banging my head against a thicker than average brick wall.

Much of this feeling is tied to the controversy over the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya people, and my often futile attempts to explain that their origin cannot be sought in what is now Iran, or, indeed, anywhere outside of Eastern Europe.

This post is my final attempt to lay out the facts in regards to this topic. Next year I'll have better things to do than to argue the bleeding obvious.

Below are two graphs from a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on relatively high quality ancient human genotype data from the Caucasus and surrounds. They include two typical Yamnaya individuals from burial sites north of the Caspian Sea. I made the graphs with the Vahaduo Custom PCA tool here. The relevant datasheet can be downloaded here.

Here's what I'm seeing:

- the Yamnaya individuals sit on genetic clines made up of hunter-gatherers native to the Caucasus and various parts of Eastern Europe, including a trio from the southernmost part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (labeled Steppe_Eneolithic), with whom they form a distinct cluster

- the samples from the Caucasus and the Iranian Plateau form very different clusters, so there's no support here for the ancient Caucasus/Iranian grouping that is often haphazardly invoked in scientific literature

- there's no indication that the Yamnaya and/or Steppe_Eneolithic groups experienced recent gene flow, or, for that matter, any gene flow whatsoever, from what is now Iran.

Of course, analyses based on formal statistics suggest that the Yamnaya population harbors minor western ancestry that is missing in Steppe_Eneolithic. In fact, I was first to argue this point (see here). So let's add a couple of ancient farmers from Western Europe to my PCA to see how they affect the graphs. The relevant datasheet is available here.

Yep, the Yamnaya pair appears to be peeling away very slightly, but deliberately, from the Steppe_Eneolithic individuals towards the part of the plot occupied by the farmers.

Admittedly, I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but even with my fairly average sleuthing abilities, I'm pretty sure I know how the Yamnaya people came to be. They formed largely on the base of a population very much like Steppe_Eneolithic somewhere deep in Eastern Europe, well to the north of the Caucasus, and nowhere near the Iranian Plateau.

See also...

A note on Steppe Maykop

On the surprising genetic origins of the Harappan people (Shinde et al. 2019)

The long awaited paper with ancient DNA from the Indus Valley Civilization (IVC) site of Rakhigarhi has finally arrived. Courtesy of Shinde et al. at Current Biology:

An ancient Harappan genome lacks ancestry from Steppe pastoralists or Iranian farmers

The bad news is that the paper features just one low coverage IVC genome, and it belongs to a female, so there's no Y-haplogroup. However, importantly, this individual is very similar to genetic outliers from Bronze Age West and Central Asia known as Indus_Periphery. So much so, in fact, that they could easily be from the same gene pool.

This, of course, gives strong support to the idea that Indus_Periphery is a useful stand-in for the real IVC population (see here).

Surprisingly, despite being largely of West Eurasian origin, the IVC people possibly didn't harbor any ancestry from the Neolithic farmers of the Fertile Crescent or even the Iranian Plateau.

That's because, according to Shinde et al., their West Eurasian ancestors separated genetically from those of the early Holocene populations of what is now western and northern Iran around 12,000 BCE. In other words, well before the advent of agriculture.

This surely complicates matters for those arguing that Indo-European languages may have arrived in the Indian subcontinent with early farmers via the Iranian Plateau. The more widely accepted theory is that Indo-European languages spread into South Asia with Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes. See here...

Update 05/09/2019: I had a quick look at the ancient Rakhigarhi individual with qpAdm, just to confirm for myself that she was indeed largely of West Eurasian origin and practically indistinguishable from Indus_Periphery. The genotype data that I used are freely available here.

IND_Rakhigarhi_BA
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 0.711±0.065
Onge 0.232±0.067
RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.057±0.059
chisq 13.251
tail prob 0.0392147
Full output

Indus_Periphery
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 0.674±0.015
Onge 0.237±0.014
RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.090±0.012
chisq 14.877
tail prob 0.0212326
Full output

Indus_Periphery
IND_Rakhigarhi_BA 0.946±0.074
Onge 0.054±0.074
chisq 10.358
tail prob 0.169152
Full output

This does appear to be the case, although it's also obvious that my models are missing something important because their statistical fits are rather poor. I'm guessing the main problem is trying to use the Onge people of the Andaman Islands as a proxy for the indigenous foragers of the Indian subcontinent.

See also...

Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health

Did South Caspian hunter-fishers really migrate to Eastern Europe?

The idea that most of the Near Eastern-related ancestry in the ancient populations of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe is, one way or another, sourced from the territory of present-day Iran is a fairly popular one nowadays (for instance, see here). It might turn out to be correct, once there are enough relevant samples to test it properly, but in my opinion the chances of this are slim.

My skepticism is based on literally hours of analyses with the currently available ancients from the Caucaso-Caspian region, like, for instance, the admixture graphs below featuring foragers and early farmers from Russia, Georgia and Iran. The relevant qpGraph and dot files are available here.

Note that the further I move away from Eastern Europe in these graphs when looking for the source of the southern ancestry in the Eneolithic population from the southernmost part of the PC steppe (Piedmont_En), the more difficult it is for me to create a statistically sound model. What might this tell us about the provenance of this so called southern ancestry?

See also...

The PIE homeland controversy: August 2019 status report

Some myths die hard

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