Tripolje, Dereivka, and the Sredni Stog phenomenon (guest post)

This is another guest post by an anonymous contributor. Again, I don't necessarily agree with the author, but is he wrong? Feel free to let me know in the comments below.

The definition of Sredni Stog phenomenon (SSP) varies and is often a loosely applied term to refer to pretty much any individual in the Dnieper and Don regions between the ‘Neolithic’ and Yamnaya periods.

In order to elucidate the SSP, some brief remarks on the preceding Mariupol phenomenon are warranted. Understanding the Mariupol horizon is fairly straightforward – its development was catalysed by an intrusion of groups from somewhere west of the Dnieper, ~ 5500BC. The ‘proto-Mariupol’ group were genomic and economic ‘hunter-gatherers’, lacking any discernible EEF admixture, and with Y-hg I-L702 uniparental ‘trace-dye’. The Mariupol phenomenon predominantly impacted the lower reaches of the Dnieper and Azov steppe (Lower Dnieper- Azov group, ‘LDA’), but extended toward the Don, Volga and even the Kuban steppe in an attenuated form. The elevated levels of “Ukr N’ in Golubaya Krinitsa and the Y-hg I2a-L702 individual at Berezhnovka attest to this movement. The Mariupol phenomenon is associated with the development of formal cemeteries, linking them with Late Neolithic mixed farmer/HG groups in the northeast Balkans. Individuals were buried in a ‘supine straight-legged’ inhumation, with grave goods such as boar-tusk pendants for select males and adorning shell beads for females. This might signal the emergence of gender-differentiation in burials and the rise of local leaders or ‘chiefs’.

Data sets treat the ‘Neolithic’ in Ukraine as a monolithic phenomenon, however it is important to note that Dereivka stands apart – it is 200km north of other “Ukraine_N” sites such as Volnienski, Igren and Vovnigi, beyond the ‘Dnipro bend’. Moreover, male individuals from Dereivka are overwhelmingly assigned to Y-hg R1b-V88 and the burial pose (N-S) at Dereivka deviates from the more common E-W orientation seen elsewhere. Quite a few of the published ‘Sredni Stog’ individuals are from Dereivka, and often earlier than 4500BC, and N. Kotova assigns them to the Dnieper-Donets culture. Moreover, the recently published middle Don individuals, such as those from Golubaya Krinitsa and Vasilyevsky Cordon -17, are also not Sredni Stog, but can be thought of as ‘partially Mariupolised hunter-gatherers’. In another example, the (undated) ‘Sredni Stog’ individual I27930 from Igren was assigned to Y-hg Q and he can be modelled as a 2-way mix of EHG & WHG. This individual is actually from the Mesolithic.

So what occurred during the Sredni Stog period? In contrast to the Mariupol phase, the population dynamics associated with SSP are complex: at least three external flows can be highlighted (i) the advance of Tripolje communities from the Carpathians to the Dnieper (ii) arrival of South-Caucasian/CHG agro-pastoralists in the north Caucasus, and (iii) arrival of ‘central Asian’ populations in Volga-Caspian region (represented by “TTK individual’); in addition to intra-steppe shifts and flows. Notwithstanding, the ‘ideological background’ of SSP is rooted in the Mariupol horizon. The stereotypical SSP burials features individuals buried on their back, but increasingly with legs up-flexed. And we see the beginnings of kurgan constructions, which vary from stone cairns to soil-thrown barrows. Most are buried in simple pits, however some have more complex ‘catacomb’ pits.

What happened in the Dniester-Dnieper-Don region during the SSP? We can begin by orientating ourselves with a PCA to observe two main clines developing. One cline develops between ‘Ukr_N and EEF and a second cline pulls toward Lower-Volga Caucasus groups. The first cline mostly comprises of ‘Farmers’ from Tipolje and ‘hunter-gatherers’ from Dereivka. The second cline consists of individuals from Dereivka and the lower Dnieper-Azov group pulling toward Lower Volga-Caucasus groups.

Admixture analysis with qpAdm reveals 3 groups within the 2 broad clines. The first group can be thought of as ‘core Sredni Stog’. These individuals are 2-way mixes of ‘Ukr_N’ and ‘Steppe Eneolithic’ (sometimes Progress works, sometimes Remontoye or Berezhnovka). They are both males and females. In our examples, the females are from Kopachiv Yar (4000 BC) and Dereivka (3500BC). The males come from Dereivka (4300BC), Moluykhiv Bugor (4000BC), Vynohrado (4000BC); they are all derived for Y-hg I2a-L703+. These results represent a blending of social networks between the LDA and various lower Volga-Caucasus groups, and the subsequent expansion by LDA further West. The terminus ante quem of 4300 BC matches the corrected dating of the Kuban steppe sites such as Progress & Vojnuchka.

Another subset comprises of individuals from Dereivka and Verteba cave who situated on an ‘Ukr-N’ < - - > EEF cline. Many of the earlier Dereivka individuals are almost 100% Ukr_N. Verteba cave Tripolje can be modelled as 80% EEF + 20% Ukr_N. One individual from Dereikva (I3719) falls outside the Dereivka <-> Tripolje clin, as he plots further ‘south’ with Balkan-LBK farmers. Consistently, he comes out as ~100% EEF with qpAdm. Dating to ~4700BC, he precedes the arrival of Tipolje groups to the region by hundreds of years. FtDNA have assigned him to I2-Z161- FTH81, which is distinctive to the LDA haplotypes and is phylogenetically linked to a Czech LBK individual.

A third group consists of individuals with more complex 3-way ancestries, consisting of EEF, Ukr-N and Steppe_En and/or Maikop. These come from late Dereivka and late Tripolje groups, in archaeological literature often termed as ‘Soldanesti’, ‘Zhivotilovksa-Volchansk’, Cernavoda (Kartal). Once again, the males from Soldanesti and Cernavoda derive from LDA-related Y-hg I2a-L703 in some shape or form.

Conclusions:

1) Firstly, we note that the Dereivka group was subject to early EEF influence, as soon as eastern LBK groups reached Ukraine after 5000BC. However, their main interaction occurred with the younger, Tripolje group, which expanded toward the Dnieper after ~ 4300 BC.

2) In the LDA group we observe patrilineal continuity. These clans created expansive social-networks. They initially mixed with groups from the lower Volga-Caucasus area. Some then moved west, and ‘took over’ the Tripolje region and acquired high levels of EEF.

3) As a third conclusion, we can reject the commonly held notion that Tripolje was ‘conquered by Yamnaya pastoralists’. Our analysis instead highlights that their core structure fragmented as they became intertwined with powerful networks to their west (Trpolje) and east (Sredni Stog). The ‘take-over’ was due to the expansion of LDA/ SS groups. Mixed groups emerged such as Cernavoda and Soldanesti, which retained Tripolje ancestry and some cultural traditions. By the time Yamnaya groups reached the Dniester forest steppe, Tripolje had been long gone.

See also...

‘Proto-Yamnaya’ Eneolithic individuals from Kuban steppe c. 3700 BC ? (guest post)

‘Proto-Yamnaya’ Eneolithic individuals from Kuban steppe c. 3700 BC ? (guest post)

This is a guest post by an anonymous contributor. I don't necessarily agree with its findings, but I think it's a good way to get the ball rolling here again. Feel free to let me know what you think. Please note, however, that any comments that show mental instability will be blocked. No more crazy talk on this blog.

In order to understand who Yamnaya people were, one must first define ‘Yamnaya’. We will adopt a strictu sensu view (e.g. Anthony, Heyd) encompassing burials dating 3200-2600 BC, with a characteristic body position, mound construction, and copper artefacts. These complexes can be linked to a core group of people whose autosomal make-up is quite homogeneous throughout their wide geographic range. Moreover, almost all males belong to Y-haplogroup R1b-M269-Z2103. In this light, ‘core Yamnaya’ does not represent a ‘proto-Indo-European’ population, as commonly proclaimed, but a group which contributed to several post-PIE population-language complexes, such as Tocharian, Armenian and some Paleo-Balkan languages. However, historical linguistics is not the focus of this post.

Archeologists had linked Yamnaya to earlier complexes such as Khvalynsk, Repin and/or Mikhalivka. Given that cultural markers such as pottery and burial customs can be borrowed and copied, ancient DNA can offer a more objective assessment of population origins. However, the cacophony of clusters, clines and other statistical constructs in publications can be confusing. A more rationalized approach is required, and one way is to co-analyse phylogenetically linked individuals across space and time. Apart from a lower-quality individual from Smyadovo (Bulgaria c. 4300 BC), the earliest attestation of R1b-M269 is in two individuals from the Kuban steppe (Stavropol region) c. 3700 BC -NV3003 and KST001 (Ghaliachi et al 2024). However, Y-hg R1b-M269 is missing in currently sampled Kuban steppe and north Caucasian males from the preceding period (5000-4000 BC). Males of the ‘Kuban steppe 4500bc’ group (Progress, Vojnucka, Sengeleevskiy, etc) are instead derived for the phylogenetically divergent Y-hg Rb-V1636. Males from the Nalchik cemetery are also derived for Y-hg R1b-V1636, or related haplotypes, although they were buried in a ‘Caucasian Farmer’ pose and heavily infused with such ancestry, but probably also had a burial mound thrown above. We do not know when the R1b-V1636 clans entered the northern Caucasus region, or from where, but they appear to have been attracted by trade with North Caucasian Famer (~Eneolithic) groups- termed as ‘Meshoko-Zamok’, ‘Chokh’, etc, in literature. Curiously the Nalchik group has minimal Central Asian (“TTK-related”) ancestry, whilst the Kuban steppe group has high levels. This suggests that TTK-related ancestry arrived after R1b-V1636 dominant EHG clans entered the North Caucasus region, but other scenarios are possible. Lastly, two ‘Meshoko culture’ males from Unakozovskaya have been assigned to Y-hg J2a-L26.

A shake-up occurred in the north Caucasus after 4000 BC. As we know, this corresponds to the emergence of the Majkop phenomenon, catalysed by renewed migrations from the south. These were not ‘Uruk migrants’ as sometimes proposed - the Uruk phenomenon occurred several hundred years later and was a south Mesopotamian phenomenon. Instead, these newcomers emerge from southern Caucasus- north Mesopotamian ‘Late Chalcolithic’ groups. They brought with them multiple West Asian lineages, such as Y-hg T, L2, J2a-, J2b, G2. Over time they mixed with preceding north Caucasian Eneolithic groups, culminating in the Novosvobodnaja phenomenon.

The emergence of Majkop as a new socio-cultural complex broke down the previous system dominated by Y-hg R1b-V1636 clans. The Majkop sphere consisted of a ‘core’ of heterarchical chiefs buried in elaborate kurgans near the Mountains, and a dynamic northern ‘frontier’ in the steppe lands (as far as the lower Don) between 4000 and 3000 BC. At least 3 ‘‘Majkop periphery’ genetic groups can be defined; in fact all these groups can be termed ‘steppe Majkop’:

1- Group with western Siberian/ north central Asian ancestry (the ‘genetic steppe Majkop’ as defined in Wang et al, 2023)
2- The South Caucasian/north Iranian ‘Zolotarevka’ group
3- The R1b-M269 duo.

Regardless of their lineages and genomic affinities, these individuals were often buried in kurgans which over time formed groups. These were not continuations of pre-4000 BC kurgans, but the communities instead made a conscious choice to build new kurgans after 4000 BC, adding to the idea of discontinuity. But once built, these kurgan clusters continued to be developed for hundreds of years, into the Yamnaya period. This does imply ethnic homogeneity or continuity, just a ‘continuity of place’. Without a direct attestation of a phylogenetic ancestor, and guestimating from their (non-identical) genomic profile, we are left to speculate that Y-hg R1b-M269 individuals moved down from somewhere in the Volga-Don interfluve. Perhaps amongst groups utilizing Repin pottery, but if so, they did not continue its use in their new contexts. By 3000 BC, the Majkop system collapsed. Yamnaya groups and their ‘Catacomb’ descendants took control of the north Caucasus region, having benefitted from years of trade/ exchange and knowledge gathering. Whether Yamnaya actually descend from individuals like KST-1 or NV3003 remains to be seen, however these are the closest leads we have. Certainly, we can model Yamnaya as deriving from KST-1 (88%) + Dnieper_N (12%), but we should be cautious when using singular individuals as ‘sources’.

See also...

The PIE homeland controversy: December 2024 open thread

The PIE homeland controversy: December 2024 open thread

It seems like we're getting close to the moment when Iosif Lazaridis has to finally admit that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland was located in Eastern Europe, and also that the ancestors of the Hittites and other Anatolian speakers entered Anatolia via the Balkans.

Let's discuss.

However, please note that comments from total morons, trolls and/or mentally unstable people will not be approved.

See also...

Indo-European crackpottery

The Nalchik surprise

If, like Iosif Lazaridis, you subscribe to the idea that the Yamnaya people carry early Anatolian farmer-related admixture that spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus, then I've got great news for you.

We now have a human sample from the Eneolithic site of Nalchik in the North Caucasus, labeled NL122, that packs well over a quarter of this type of ancestry (see here). Below is a quick G25/Vahaduo model to illustrate the point (please note that Turkey_N = early Anatolian farmers).

Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 2.1934% / 0.02193447
60.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
26.2 Turkey_N
13.0 Georgia_Kotias

On the other hand, if, again like Iosif Lazaridis, you subscribe to the idea that the Indo-European language spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus in association with this early Anatolian farmer-related admixture, then I've got terrible news for you.

That's because NL122 is apparently dated to a whopping 5197-4850 BCE (see here). This dating might be somewhat bloated, possibly due to what's known as the reservoir effect, because the Nalchik archeological site is generally carbon dated to 4840–4820 BCE.

However, even with the younger dating, this would still mean that early Anatolian farmer-related ancestry arrived in the North Caucasus, and thus in Eastern Europe, around 4,800 BCE at the latest. That's surprisingly early, and just too early to be relevant to any sort of Indo-European expansion from a necessarily even earlier Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus.

This means that NL122 effectively debunks Iosif Lazaridis' Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. Unless, that is, Iosif can provide evidence for a more convoluted scenario, in which there are at least two early Anatolian farmer-related expansions into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus, and the expansion relevant to the arrival of Indo-European speech came well after 5,000 BCE.

I haven't done any detailed analyses of NL122 with formal stats and qpAdm. But my G25/Vahaduo runs suggest that it might be possible to model the ancestry of the Yamnaya people with around 10% admixture from a population similar to NL122.

Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.4123% / 0.03412328
72.6 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
18.2 Ukraine_N
9.2 Nalchik_Eneolithic

However, I don't subscribe to the idea that the Yamnaya people carry early Anatolian farmer-related admixture that spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus (on top of what is already found in Progress Eneolithic). Based on basic logic and a wide range of my own analyses, I believe that they acquired this type of ancestry from early European farmers, probably associated with the Trypillia culture. For instance...

Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.2481% / 0.03248061
80.2 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
13.6 Ukraine_Neolithic
6.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia
0.0 Nalchik_Eneolithic

Another way to show this is with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) that highlights a Yamnaya cline made up of the Yamnaya, Steppe Eneolithic and Ukraine Neolithic samples. As you can see, dear reader, there's no special relationship between the Yamnaya cline and Nalchik_Eneolithic. The Yamnaya samples, which are sitting near the eastern end of the Yamnaya cline, instead seem to show a subtle shift towards the Trypillian farmers.

Indeed, I also don't exactly understand the recent infatuation among many academics, especially Iosif Lazaridis and his colleagues, with trying to put the Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus. Considering all of the available multidisciplinary data, I'd say it still makes perfect sense to put it in the Sredny Stog culture of the North Pontic steppe, in what is now Ukraine.

Please note that all of the G25 coordinates used in my models and the PCA are available HERE.

See also...

The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow

Dear Harald #2

The ancIBD method paper from the David Reich Lab was just published in Nature (open access here). It's a very useful effort, but the authors are still somewhat confused about the origin of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) population. From the paper (emphasis is mine):

This direct evidence that most Corded Ware ancestry must have genealogical links to people associated with Yamnaya culture spanning on the order of at most a few hundred years is inconsistent with the hypothesis that the Steppe-like ancestry in the Corded Ware primarily reflects an origin in as-of-now unsampled cultures genetically similar to the Yamnaya but related to them only a millennium earlier.

This is basically a straw man argument, because it's easy to debunk. So why put it in the paper? Well, as far as I can see, to make the idea that the CWC is derived from Yamnaya look more plausible.

This idea, that the CWC is an offshoot of Yamnaya, seems to be the favorite explanation for the appearance of the CWC among the scientists at the David Reich Lab.

However, I'd say they're facing a major problem with that, because the CWC and Yamnaya populations have largely different paternal origins. That is, CWC males mostly belong to Y-haplogroups R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, while Yamnaya males almost exclusively belong to Y-haplogroup R1b-Z2103.

Indeed, as far as I know, there are no reliable instances of R1a-M417 or R1b-L51 in any published or yet to be published Yamnaya samples.

But it is possible to reconcile the Y-haplogroup data with the ancIBD results if we assume that the peoples associated with the Corded Ware, Yamnaya and also Afanasievo cultures expanded from a genetically more diverse ancestral gene pool, each taking a specific subset of the variation with them.

This gene pool would've existed somewhere in Eastern Europe, probably at the western end of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, at most a few hundred years before the appearance of the earliest CWC burials in what is now Poland.

Moreover, the split between the CWC and Yamnaya populations need not have been a clean one, with long-range contacts and largely female-mediated mixing maintained for generations, adding to the already close genealogical links between them.

Citation...

Ringbauer, H., Huang, Y., Akbari, A. et al. Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA. Nat Genet (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01582-w

See also...

On the origin of the Corded Ware people

The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow

The scientists at the David Reich Lab are a clever bunch. But they're not always on top of things, and this can be a problem.

For instance, they fail to understand that the Caucasus has effectively stymied human gene flow between Eastern Europe and West Asia through the ages. That is, the Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to human gene flow.

Until they accept and understand this fact, they won't be able to accurately characterize the ancestry of the ancient human populations of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe, including the Yamnaya people.

In turn, they also won't be able to locate the Indo-Anatolian homeland.

Now, the Caucasus isn't a barrier to gene flow because it's difficult to cross, and, indeed, many human populations have managed to cross it since the Upper Palaeolithic. As a result, the peoples of the North Caucasus are today genetically more similar to the populations of the Near East than Europe.

In fact, the clear genetic gap between most West Asian and Eastern European populations through the ages is actually caused by the extreme differentiation between the mountain ecology of the Caucasus and the steppe ecology of the PC steppe.

That is, the Caucasus is ecologically so different from the PC steppe that it has been practically impossible for human populations to make the transition from one to the other.

Indeed, it's important to understand that there's no reliable record of any prehistoric human population successfully making the transition from the mountain ecology to the steppe ecology in this part of the world.

In other words, contrary to claims by people like David Reich and David Anthony, there's no solid evidence of any significant prehistoric human migration from the Caucasus, or from south of the Caucasus, to Eastern Europe by hunter-gatherers, farmers or pastoralists.

But, you might ask, how on earth did the Yamnaya people get their significant Caucasus/Iranian-related admixture if not via a mass migration from the Caucasus and/or the Iranian Plateau, as is often argued by the above mentioned scholars and their many colleagues?

Well, obviously, the diffusion of alleles from one population to another can happen without migration. All that is needed is a contact zone between them.

The ancient DNA and archeological data currently available from the Caucasus and the PC steppe suggest to me that there was at least one such contact zone in this area bringing together the peoples of the mountain and steppe ecoregions. This allowed them to mix, probably gradually and over a long period of time, by and large without leaving their ecoregions.

Once the Caucasus alleles entered the steppe, they were spread around by local hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who were highly mobile and well adapted to the steppe ecology.

Someone should write a paper about this.

See also...

The Nalchik surprise

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

Matters of geography

The story of the Khvalynsk people

I'm totally serious when I say that this video is more objective, informative and accurate than any peer-reviewed paper published to date when it comes to the genetic origins of the Khvalynsk people.

However, that's not to say it's perfect. I think it misses some important details. See here...

The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow

Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

Indo-European crackpottery

I've now had the chance to read and digest the following two papers in Science about the origin of Indo-European languages:

Language trees with sampled ancestors support a hybrid model for the origin of Indo-European languages, Heggarty et al.

The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe, Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al.

The Heggarty et al. paper is pure fluff. It offers nothing useful or even remotely interesting.

For instance, the authors derive some Indo-European languages in Europe from Anatolian farmers and others from Caucasus hunter-gatherers (see here). This is not just exceedingly far fetched, but also obviously forced.

Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Krause, you should be deeply ashamed of yourselves.

I've already commented extensively about the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper (for example, see here). But the one thing I need to add is that this paper is what it is due to the inherent bias of some of the lead authors to push the Indo-Anatolian homeland into West Asia. I won't even bother mentioning their names, because we all know who they are.

See also...

Crazy stuff

Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight

The story of R-V1636

Dear Sandra, Wolfgang...a problem

In their recent paper, titled Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe, Penske et al. make the following claim:

By contrast, Yamnaya Caucasus individuals from the southern steppe can be modelled as a two-way model of around 76% Steppe Eneolithic and 26% Caucasus Eneolithic/Maykop, confirming the findings of Lazaridis and colleagues 47. This two-way mix (40% + 60%, respectively) also provides a well-fit model (P = 0.09) for the Ozera outlier individual, consistent with the position in PCA and corroborating an influence from the Caucasus.

Err, nope.

The Ozera Yamnaya outlier, a female dated to 3096-2913 calBCE, is, in fact, a ~50/50 mix between standard Yamnaya and Late Maykop. It's a result that is totally unambiguous.

There are a number of ways to demonstrate this fact. For example, with the qpAdm software that was also used by Penske et al., except with different outgroups or right pops. Please note that in my dataset the Ozera outlier is labeled Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o.

right pops:
Cameroon_SMA
Levant_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Iran_C_SehGabi
Georgia_HG
Turkey_N
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Russia_WestSiberia_HG
Russia_Karelia_HG
Latvia_HG
Russia_Boisman_MN
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop 0.554±0.031
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 0.446±0.031
P-value 0.00109868 (FAIL)

Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Russia_LateMaykop 0.512±0.035
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 0.488±0.035
P-value 0.462447 (PASS)

I can also do it with the Global25/Vahaduo method. And you, dear reader, can too, by putting the Target and Source Global25 coords from the text file here into the relevant fields here.

Target: Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Distance: 2.9292% / 0.02929202
50.6 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
49.4 Russia_Caucasus_LateMaykop
0.0 Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop
0.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic

Moreover, here's a self-explanatory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot that illustrates why my Late Maykop/Samara Yamnaya combo is much better than the reference populations used by Penske and colleagues. It was done with the PCA tools here.

I'm pointing this out for two main reasons. First of all, this is a fairly obvious mistake that should've been avoided, especially considering the level of expertise and experience among the authors (such as Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Krause).

Secondly, it's important to understand that the Ozera outlier comes out almost exactly 50% Samara Yamnaya because the standard Yamnaya genotype already existed well before she was alive, and thus she cannot be used to corroborate any sort of influence from the Caucasus in the formation of the mainstream Yamnaya population.

As for the Yamnaya Caucasus individuals, I don't know why Penske et al. attempted to model their ancestry as a group, because they don't form a coherent genetic cluster. RK1001 and ZO2002 are fairly similar to standard Yamnaya samples, while RK1007 and SA6010 resemble Eneolithic steppe samples from the Progress burial site. This is what happens when I try to reproduce the Penske et al. model with my outgroups.

Russia_Caucasus_EBA_Yamnaya
Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop 0.187±0.019
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 0.813±0.019
P-value 4.15842e-06 (HARD FAIL)

Oh, and Penske et al. modeled the ancestry of mainstream Yamnaya as a three-way mixture with Steppe Eneolithic, Caucasus Eneolithic/Maykop and Ukraine Neolithic (or Ukraine N). They succeeded, but with my outgroups it's another hard fail.

Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop 0.177±0.017
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 0.706±0.026
Ukraine_N 0.116±0.014
P-value 4.73919e-07 (HARD FAIL)

Admittedly, proximal models aren't easy to get right. And if you throw enough outgroups into a model, a large proportion of plausible models will fail. But I'm somewhat taken aback by these poor statistical fits.

In my opinion, mainstream Yamnaya doesn't harbor any Caucasus ancestry that wasn't already present on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Eneolithic or even much earlier (see here). But ultimately this problem can only be solved with direct evidence from ancient DNA, so let's now wait patiently for the right samples.

Citation...

Penske et al., Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe, Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06334-8

See also...

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

Dear Harald...

I've started analyzing the Identity-by-Descent (IBD) data from the recent Ringbauer et al. preprint (see here). Unfortunately, it'll take me a few weeks to do this properly, so I won't be able to write anything detailed on the topic for a while.

Meantime, this is the comment that I left for the authors at bioRxiv (at this time it's still being approved, but it should appear there within a day or so, possibly along with a reply from the authors):

Hello authors,

Thanks for the interesting preprint and data. However, I'd like to see you address a couple of technical issues and perhaps one theoretical issue in the final manuscript:

- the output you posted shows some unusual results, which are potentially false positives that appear to be concentrated among the shotgun and noUDG samples. I'm guessing that this is due to the same types of ancient DNA damage creating IBD-like patterns in these samples. If so, isn't there a risk that many or even most of the individuals in your analysis are affected by this problem to some degree, which might be skewing your estimates of genealogical relatedness between them?

- many individuals from groups that have experienced founder effects, such as Ashkenazi Jews, appear to be close genetic cousins, even though they're not genealogical cousins. Basically, the reason for this is reduced haplotype diversity in such populations. Have you considered the possibility that at least some of the close relationships that you're seeing between individuals and populations might be exaggerated by founder effects?

- thanks to ancient DNA we've learned that the Yamnaya phenomenon isn't just an archeological horizon, but also a closely related and genetically very similar group of people. Indeed, in my mind, ancient DNA has helped to redefine the Yamnaya concept, with Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b-Z2103 now being one of the key traits of the Yamnaya identity. So considering that the Corded Ware people are not rich in R1b-Z2103, and even the earliest Corded Ware individuals are somewhat different from the Yamnaya people in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, it doesn't seem right to keep claiming that the Corded Ware population is derived from Yamnaya. I can't see anything in your IBD data that would preclude the idea that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were different populations derived from the same as yet unsampled pre-Yamnaya/post-Sredny steppe group.

See also...

Dear Harald #2

On the origin of the Corded Ware people

Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let me tell you about Yamnaya

Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. recently claimed that the Yamnaya people of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe carried "substantial" ancestry from what is now Armenia or surrounds.

However, this claim is essentially false.

Only one individual associated with the Yamnaya culture shows an unambiguous signal of such ancestry. This is a female usually labeled Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917. The "o" suffix indicates that she is an outlier from the main Yamnaya genetic cluster.

Unlike I1917, typical Yamnaya individuals carry a few per cent of ancient European farmer admixture. This ancestry is only very distantly Armenian-related via Neolithic Anatolia (see here).

It's difficult for me to understand how Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. missed this. I suspect that they relied too heavily on formal statistics and overinterpreted their results.

Formal statistics are a very useful tool in ancient DNA work. Unfortunately, they're also a relatively blunt tool that often has problems distinguishing between similar sources of gene flow.

There are arguably better methods for studying fine scale ancestry, such as Principal Component Analysis (PCA).

Below is a somewhat special PCA featuring a wide range of ancient populations that plausibly might be relevant to the genetic origins of the Yamnaya people. Unlike most PCA with ancient samples, this PCA doesn't rely on any sort of projection, so that all of the actors are interacting with each other and directly affecting the outcome.

Here's another version of the same plot with a less complicated labeling system. Note that I designed this PCA specifically to differentiate between European populations and those from the Armenian highlands, the Iranian plateau and surrounds.

And here's a close up of the part of the plot that shows the Yamnaya cluster. This cluster is made up of samples associated with the Afanasievo, Catacomb, Poltavka and Yamnaya cultures. All of the individuals in this part of the plot are closely related, which is why they're so tightly packed together. The differentiation between them is caused by admixture from different groups mostly from outside of the PC steppe.

The Yamnaya cluster can be broadly characterized as a population that formed along the genetic continuum between the Eneolithic groups of the Progress region and Neolithic foragers from the Dnieper River valley (Progress_Eneolithic and Ukraine_N, respectively). However, this cluster also shows a slight western shift that is increasingly more pronounced in the Corded Ware samples. This shift is due to the aforementioned admixture from early European farmers.

Indeed, the plot reveals two parallel clines extending west from the Progress samples. One of the clines is made up of the Yamnaya cluster and the Corded Ware samples, and pulls towards the ancient European farmers. The other cline includes Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917 and pulls towards samples from the Armenian highlands and surrounds.

Being aware of these two clines and knowing how they came about is important to understanding the genetic prehistory of the PC steppe and indeed of much of Eurasia.

At some point, probably during the late Eneolithic, a Progress-related group experienced gene flow from the west and became the Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations. Sporadically, admixture from the Armenian highlands and the Iranian plateau also entered the PC steppe, giving rise to people like the Steppe Maykop outliers and Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera_o:I1917.

Unfortunately, this sort of PCA doesn't offer output suitable for mixture modeling, basically because the recent genetic drift shared by many of the samples creates significant noise.

However, to check that my inferences based on the plot are correct I can create composites with specific ancestry proportions to see how they behave. In the plot below Mix1 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic and 20% Iran_Hajji_Firuz_N, Mix2 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic and 20% Armenia_EBA_Kura_Araxes, while Mix3 is 80% Progress_Eneolithic, 15% Ukraine_N and 5% Hungary_MN_Vinca (Middle Neolithic farmers from the Carpathian Basin).

Obviously, we can't get Yamnaya by mixing Progress_Eneolithic with any ancients from the Armenian highlands or the Iranian plateau. On the other hand, Mix3 works quite well, at least in the first two dimensions. In some of the other dimensions genetic drift specific to Ukraine_N pulls it away from the Yamnaya cluster, but this is to be expected.

By the way, the plots were created with the excellent Vahaduo Custom PCA tool freely available here. It's well worth trying the interactive 3D option using my PCA data. The relevant datasheet is available here.

See also...

Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight

The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow

Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight

Almost a decade ago scientists at the David Reich Lab extracted DNA from the remains of three men from the Khvalynsk II cemetery at the northern end of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe.

These Eneolithic Eastern Europeans showed significant genetic heterogeneity, with highly variable levels of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) and Near Eastern-related ancestry components.

As a result, the people at the David Reich Lab concluded that the Eneolithic populations of the PC steppe formed from a relatively recent admixture between local hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern migrants.

Unfortunately, this view has since become the consensus among scientists working with ancient DNA.

I say unfortunately because there's a more straightforward and indeed obvious explanation for the genetic heterogeneity among the samples from Khvalynsk II. It's also the only correct explanation, and it doesn't involve any recent gene flow from the Near East.

Here it is, in point form, as simply as I can put it:

- EHG is best represented by samples from Karelia and Lebyazhinka, which are modern-day Russian localities in the forest zone and on the border between the steppe and the forest-steppe, respectively

- Khvalynsk II is also located on the boundary between the steppe and the forest-steppe, and very far from the Near East

- so the genetic structure of the people buried at Khvalynsk II does represent an admixture event

- however, this admixture event simply involved an EHG population from the forest-steppe and a very distantly Near Eastern-related group native to the steppe (that is, two different Eastern European populations).

I've written this blog post because I think David Reich, Nick Patterson, Iosif Lazaridis and colleagues should finally admit that they didn't quite get this right. And it'd be nice if they could put out a paper sometime soon in which they set the record straight.

See also...

The story of R-V1636

Who wants to bet against this map? Keep in mind that ART038 (~3000 calBCE) remains the oldest sample with the V1636 and R1b Y-chromosome mutations in the West Asian ancient DNA record. Ergo, there's nothing to suggest that V1636 or R1b entered Eastern Europe from West Asia.

See also...

A tantalizing link

How relevant is Arslantepe to the PIE homeland debate?

The Kura-Araxes people deserve better

When discussing the Kura-Araxes culture and its people it's important to understand these key points:

- there is Eastern European steppe ancestry in Kura-Araxes samples, and if you're not seeing it then you're not looking hard enough

- Armenian Kura-Araxes samples are mainly a mixture between three different groups currently best represented in the ancient DNA record by ARM_Areni_C, IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C and RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En

- ergo, most of the steppe ancestry in the Kura-Araxes population of what is now Armenia must have been mediated via local Chalcolithic groups like ARM_Areni_C

- Kura-Araxes samples show Mesopotamian-related ancestry, and this mustn't be ignored.

Oh, you don't believe it because you just read a big paper in Science claiming otherwise?

Well, the authors of that paper, Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., used distal mixture models to study the ancestry of their Kura-Araxes samples, and such models can miss important details.

Consider these three proximate mixture models for a relatively high quality and very homogenous Kura-Araxes sample set from the aforementioned paper. They were done with the qpAdm software

ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
ARM_Areni_C 0.239±0.068
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.379±0.068
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.382±0.054
P-value 0.285122 (Pass)
Full output

ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.569±0.051
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.363±0.058
RUS_Progress_En 0.068±0.020
P-value 0.20306 (Pass)
Full output

ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.531±0.060
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.469±0.060
P-value 0.0132579 (Fail)
Full output

Some caveats apply. For instance, the pass threshold (P-value ≥0.05) is arbitrary. But the point is that the models look much better with steppe-related and steppe reference populations (ARM_Areni_C and RUS_Progress_En, respectively).

Moreover, the unique and vital Darkveti-Meshoko population is represented by just one individual. I also have the genotypes of his brother and sister, but relatives aren't allowed in these sorts of tests.

Including a singleton in the analysis means that I can't use the inbreed: YES option, which apparently can be a bad thing. Nevertheless, these models do look very solid.

Indeed, I can also model ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber as practically 100% RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya, perhaps with some excess ARM_Areni_C-related input.

ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
ARM_Areni_C 0.094±0.087
RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya 0.906±0.087
P-value 0.284259 (Pass)
Full ouput

This makes good sense, because RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya can also be modeled solidly as a mixture between IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C, RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En and RUS_Progress_En.

RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.614±0.056
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.307±0.064
RUS_Progress_En 0.080±0.022
P-value 0.141468 (Pass)
Full output

I don't know whether the genetic relationship between ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber and RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya shown in my model is due to Maykop ancestry in the former. It might just be a coincidence in the sense that the same or similar processes led to the formation of both groups. Feel free to let me know your thoughts about that in the comments.

The fact that the Kura-Araxes people harbored steppe ancestry might be very important in the debate over the location of the so called Indo-Anatolian homeland. For instance, it's possible that the proto-Anatolian language spread from the North Caucasus into Anatolia via the Kura-Araxes culture.

But, admittedly, such a solution doesn't have strong support from historical linguistics data, which suggest that the Indo-Anatolian homeland was located in what is now Ukraine and that Anatolian speakers entered West Asia via the Balkans:

Indo-European cereal terminology suggests a Northwest Pontic homeland for the core Indo-European languages

See also...

R-V1636: Eneolithic steppe > Kura-Araxes?

Dear Iosif...Yamnaya

But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?

Dear Iosif...Yamnaya

Even though the Yamnaya culture probably originated in what is now Ukraine, the earliest Yamnaya samples currently available are from the modern-day Samara region of Russia. They mostly date to around 3,000 BCE. I can analyze their ancestry using Principal Component Analysis (PCA) data.

Target: RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
Distance: 3.2816% / 0.03281581
81.0 RUS_Progress_En
14.4 UKR_N
4.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Late
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya

The above results show exactly zero ancestry from West Asia. Admittedly, both RUS_Progress_En and HUN_Vinca_MN are European ancients with significant West Asian-related ancestry. However, this ancestry is very distantly West Asian-related, and, for instance, it almost certainly has no relevance to the Indo-Anatolian homeland debate.

The Afanasievo culture of Central Asia is regarded to have been an early offshoot of the Yamnaya culture. A good number of Afanasievo samples are available, so let's have a look if their results match those of the Yamnaya folks. And indeed they do, since BGR_C is very similar to HUN_Vinca_MN.

Target: RUS_Afanasievo
Distance: 3.4055% / 0.03405499
84.0 RUS_Progress_En
11.4 UKR_N
4.6 BGR_C
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Late
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya

To try this at home, stick the PCA data in the text file here into the relevant fields here and cranck up the "Cycles" to 4X. You should see exactly zero ancestry from West Asia every time.

I can, more or less, reproduce these results with tools that are routinely used in peer reviewed papers. Below is a table of mixture models produced with the qpAdm software. I set the pass threshold to P ≥0.05, which is an arbitrary value, but the pattern is clear. The full output from each qpAdm run is available here.

Importantly, qpAdm needs to be fed the relevant "right pop" outgroups to be able to discriminate accurately between reference populations.

right pops:
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
Levant_Natufian
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
HUN_Starcevo_N
HUN_Koros_N
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
Iberia_Southeast_Meso
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
RUS_Boisman_MN
MNG_North_N
TWN_Hanben
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

So, for instance, if one were to use in this role the modern-day Mbuti people, as opposed to, say, the ancient hunter-gatherers of Shum Laka, one might find that many models look statistically better than they should. And then one might also find that the Yamnaya samples carry significant West Asian ancestry.

Actually, I'm not opposed to the idea of some West Asian ancestry in Yamnaya. Indeed, considering the extraordinary mobility of the Yamnaya people and their Eneolithic predecessors on the Pontic-Caspian steppe, it would be unusual if they didn't come into close contact and mix, to some degree, with their neighbors from West Asia.

However, based on everything I've seen, from uniparental markers to different types of autosomal genetic tests, it's clear to me that there's no substantial West Asian ancestry in any Yamnaya samples, except for an outlier female from modern-day Ozera, Ukraine (see here).

Admittedly, ancient DNA does have a habit of throwing curveballs, so I'm eagerly awaiting new Eneolithic samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, particularly those associated with the Yamnaya-like Sredni Stog culture, to help finally settle this issue.

Believe it or not, a contact recently sent me a supposedly unpublished female sample from a ~4,200 BCE Sredni Stog burial in modern-day Igren, east central Ukraine. So what the hell, let's assume for the time being that this sample is genuine. This is how Miss Sredni Stog behaves in my PCA mixture test.

Target: UKR_Sredni_Stog
Distance: 4.0769% / 0.04076877
75.6 RUS_Progress_En
17.8 UKR_N
6.6 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
0.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 BGR_C
0.0 BGR_Dzhulyunitsa_N
0.0 HUN_Vinca_MN
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_N
0.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Late
0.0 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya

Wow, just wow. Have we actually found Miss Proto-Yamnaya? What does qpAdm have to say in the matter?

UKR_Sredni_Stog
HUN_Vinca_MN 0.034±0.028
RUS_Progress_En 0.796±0.045
UKR_N 0.170±0.034
P-value 0.41088

Again, this is an excellent match with the results from my PCA test, especially if we take into account the standard errors. However, with qpAdm it's also possible to model this individual's ancestry as part West Asian.

UKR_Sredni_Stog
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN 0.056±0.039
RUS_Progress_En 0.761±0.061
UKR_N 0.183±0.036
P-value 0.465667

As I pointed out above, it's plausible for such people to harbor some West Asian ancestry, but I'm very sceptical that this is really the case here, despite the rather solid qpAdm statistical fit. That's because UKR_Sredni_Stog is not a high quality sample, and, from my experience, qpAdm often has problems analyzing fine scale ancestry in singletons or even small groups that show excess DNA damage and/or offer much less than a million markers.

See also...

Dear Iosif, about that ~2%

But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?

But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?

A paper in Science co-authored by around 200 scientists from some of the world's top academic institutions surely must mean something, right? Not necessarily.

In this short blog post I'll try to explain, as simply as I can, why the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper doesn't get us any closer to solving the riddle of the so called Indo-Anatolian homeland.

However, it must be said that the paper does include many interesting and valuable samples. I'll be using six of these samples, labeled TUR_C_Gordion_Anc, to argue my case.

The TUR_C_Gordion_Anc sample set is from Gordion, the capital of ancient Phrygia, and thus, in all likeliness, it represents Phrygian speakers.

Phrygian is an Indo-European language and the leading hypothesis is that it originated in the Balkans.

In terms of fine scale ancestry, TUR_C_Gordion_Anc can be reliably divided into two genetic clusters. In the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) below these clusters are labeled TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1 and TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2.

Note that TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1 is obviously pulling away from TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2 towards samples from the Balkans. I've used ancient samples from what is now North Macedonia, labeled MKD_Anc, to represent the Balkans. To see an interactive version of the plot, paste the PCA coordinates from here into the relevant field here.

Visually, this is not an especially dramatic outcome, but it's an incredible result nonetheless, because it shows that even a few ancient samples can help to solve an age old mystery.

Across many dimensions of genetic variation, the shift in the PCA from TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1 to TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2 represents about 20% admixture from the Balkans, and about 8% from the Eastern European steppe. That's plenty enough to corroborate the linguistic hypothesis that the Phrygians originated in the Balkans, and that some of their ancestors came from the steppe. The mixture models below were done with the tools here.

Target: TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1
Distance: 1.6634% / 0.01663373
40.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
22.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
21.8 MKD_Anc
13.6 Levant_PPNB
1.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.4 Han

Target: TUR_C_Gordion_Anc1
Distance: 1.7109% / 0.01710904
40.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
37.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
12.4 Levant_PPNB
8.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.4 Han

Target: TUR_C_Gordion_Anc2
Distance: 2.0293% / 0.02029339
51.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
26.8 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
17.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
4.6 Levant_PPNB

Surprisingly, Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. didn't have much to say about this topic. This quote basically sums it up:

However, in individuals from Gordion, a Central Anatolian city that was under the control of Hittites before becoming the Phrygian capital and then coming under the control of Persian and Hellenistic rulers, the proportion of Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry is only ~2%, a tiny fraction for a region controlled by at least four different Indo-European–speaking groups.

I have no doubt that Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. can run a very decent PCA, and then blow it up to a size big enough to show that the Gordion samples represent two genetically somewhat distinct groups. I'm also sure that, if they really try, they can locate significant levels of proximate and relevant European ancestry in some of these samples.

They don't have to use my methods; they can use any methods they like. My point is that they won't find much if they're just looking for genetic signals from the Upper Paleolithic or Mesolithic.

Now, considering the way that the Phrygian question was treated by Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., despite the fact that they managed to sequence a few likely Phrygian speakers from none other than the Phrygian capital, let's not pretend that their paper brought us any closer to understanding the genetic origins of Anatolian speakers or pinpointing their ancestral homeland.

In order to even try to solve these problems with ancient DNA, we need a wide range of samples from Hittite, Luwian and other key sites where Anatolian languages were spoken. And then we must analyze them properly.

I'm guessing that Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. went out of their way to get such samples, but for one reason or another they failed. If so, that's OK, but I have a feeling that even if they got them, they wouldn't know what to do with them, because at best these samples would only show ~2% Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry. Haha.

For what it's worth, I believe that the ancient data in the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper point to the North Pontic steppe as the Indo-Anatolian homeland, and I'll lay out my arguments in an upcoming blog post.

See also...

Dear Iosif...Yamnaya

Dear Iosif, about that ~2%

Dear Iosif...

Dear Iosif #2

Dear Iosif #3

Dear Iosif #3

Back in 2016 I made this prediction about the origins of the Yamnaya people (Steppe_EMBA):

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.

The relevant blog post is still here. Looking back, my analysis is a bit sloppy and I didn't articulate my ideas too well. But that was a pretty good prediction for its time, and I believe it still has a chance of being confirmed, more or less.

On the other hand, the widely publicized hypothesis that the Yamnaya population is a ~50/50 mixture between indigenous Eastern European hunter-gatherers and Near Eastern or West Asian migrants never looked right to me. So I'm glad that it's now dead and buried.

Those of you not up to date with this topic, all you need to know is that the Yamnaya genotype existed in Eastern Europe at least a thousand years before Yamnaya, and, moreover, the Yamnaya people are largely derived from Eastern European foragers already rich in Near Eastern-related ancestry. The relevant ancient genomes are on the way (for instance, see here).

Nevertheless, the narrative that waves of Near Eastern migrants moved into prehistoric Eastern Europe, leading to the emergence of the Yamnaya culture and even the Proto-Indo-European language, is still being pushed by some notable scientists working with ancient DNA.

My hope is that, considering the latest revelations about the genetic origins of the Yamnaya people, these scientists can embrace a more nuanced view. How about something like this?

- people moved around, and they were especially mobile on the Eastern European steppe from the Eneolithic onwards

- when they made contact they sometimes mixed, so there was admixture between far flung steppe groups

- since population densities on the steppe were low until the Yamnaya period, minor admixture that entered the steppe during the Neolithic and Eneolithic wasn't dilluted easily.

See also...

Dear Iosif #2

But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?

Dear Iosif, about that ~2%

Dear Iosif...Yamnaya

Dear Iosif #2

In my last blog post I made a mistake in my interpretation of this quote from Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., because it confused the crap out of me:

However, the complete lack of association of R-haplogroup descendants and EHG ancestry in either Armenia or Iran is consistent with either a massive dilution of EHG ancestry in these populations resulting in the dissociation of Y-chromosome lineages from autosomal ancestry over time, or with a scenario in which R-M269 was not associated with substantial EHG ancestry to begin with.

I thought they meant that they couldn't find any Eastern European hunter-gatherer (EHG) ancestry in samples from Armenia or Iran bearing Y-chromosome R1b-M269.

Of course, they did find EHG ancestry in these individuals, it's just that they couldn't establish an association specifically between this type of ancestry and Y-haplogroup R1b.

That is, males with Y-haplogroup R1b in Armenia, Iran and everywhere else generally show about the same level of EHG ancestry as their ethnic kin with other Y-haplogroups.

But so what? Why mention this when discussing the origins of R1b-M269, when it has absolutely no value in this context?

Y-haplogroups aren't linked directly to autosomal DNA, and Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. are obviously aware of this (hence their point about the potential massive dilution of EHG ancestry).

In regards to the origins of R1b-M269, and the provenance of West Asian R1b-M269, the really powerful observation is that R1b-M269 shows up rather late and suddenly in the West Asian ancient DNA record along with EHG and steppe ancestry.

That, and the fact that Eastern Europe is an ancient R1b hotbed (while West Asia a desert), means there's virtually no chance that R1b-M269 is native to West Asia. In other words, there was no R1b-M269 in West Asia until the steppe people brought it there from north of the Caucasus.

See also...

Dear Iosif...

Dear Iosif #3

But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?

Dear Iosif, about that ~2%

Dear Iosif...Yamnaya

Dear Iosif...

Update 29/08/22: Dear Iosif #2

...


I'm skimming through the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. paper that just came out at Science. And I feel like someone punched me in the face.

Nevertheless, I'll try to be diplomatic. Suffice to say, for now, that there's some rather strange stuff in this paper.

The main problem is that the authors are attempting to study fine scale ancestry with a somewhat rough distal model. As a result, they miss important details.

For instance, this quote is from the paper's supplementary PDF file, freely available here.

However, the complete lack of association of R-haplogroup descendants and EHG ancestry in either Armenia or Iran is consistent with either a massive dilution of EHG ancestry in these populations resulting in the dissociation of Y-chromosome lineages from autosomal ancestry over time, or with a scenario in which R-M269 was not associated with substantial EHG ancestry to begin with.

Obviously, EHG means Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer. But why focus on EHG? Surely, this makes little sense when looking at the genetic prehistory of West Asia, because no one ever argued that this region was settled by EHG populations. It was widely settled by Yamnaya-related groups, with already heavily diluted EHG ancestry, during the metal ages.

OK, so the authors are actually aware about the potential dilution of EHG ancestry, but they don't really do anything about it.

If we're looking at the origins of West Asian R1b-M269, and using its association with autosomal DNA components as a guide, then we should be focusing on Yamnaya-related ancestry.

For instance, here's a fine scale ancient ancestry model based on Principal Component Analysis (PCA) data. It shows the ancestry proportions of two relatively high coverage Iron Age males from two different sites in Iran from the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. dataset. Both belong to R1b-M269 and both show significant Yamnaya-related ancestry.

Target: IRN_HajjiFiruz_IA:I2327_all
Distance: 2.2930% / 0.02292994
39.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
24.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
18.2 Levant_PPNB
12.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
4.4 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
1.2 Han

Target: IRN_Hasanlu_IA:I4232_all
Distance: 2.5179% / 0.02517895
26.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
25.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
24.4 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
15.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
7.6 Levant_PPNB
0.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2

As a control, here's an earlier, Chalcolithic sample bearing Y-haplogroup J2b from the same region. Not surprisingly, this individual totally lacks the Yamnaya-related signal.

Target: IRN_HajjiFiruz_ChL:I4241_all
Distance: 2.7938% / 0.02793782
32.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
25.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
23.6 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
18.2 Levant_PPNB

Overall, these results make perfect sense. I could probably locate very minor signals of EHG ancestry in the Iron Age samples, but that would be more difficult and much less certain, so I won't bother.

Soon I'll be able to rerun these analyses with Bronze Age samples from Dagestan and surrounds. That should bump up the levels of Yamnaya-related ancestry and improve the statistical fits (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

Disappointingly, Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. go so far as to suggest that R1b-M269 may have originated in West Asia.

However, considering the scores of ancient Eastern European populations rich in R1b-M269 and many near and far related subclades of R1b, this makes no sense whatsoever.

Indeed, contemplating nowadays that R1b-M269 might be native to West Asia, where R1b only starts showing up in the ancient DNA record during the Copper Age, is about as stupid as claiming that gravity doesn't exist.

Largely due to their distal model approach, Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. also argue that the Indo-Anatolian homeland was located in what is now Armenia and surrounds. I'm far from convinced that this solution will stand the test of time.

In terms of the more widely accepted theory that the Indo-Anatolian homeland was located on the Pontic-Caspian steppe in Eastern Europe, the most important samples in the paper are the three Bronze Age individuals from Yassitepe in western Anatolia. That's because they're from a region that is traditionally seen as the entry point of Indo-Anatolian speakers into Anatolia from the European steppe via the Balkans.

Interestingly, individual I5737, dated to 2035-1900 calBCE or the Middle Bronze Age, belongs to Y-chromosome haplogroup I2a-P78, which surely must be a signal of European ancestry. I see this as a significant result.

Here's how the trio from Yassitepe look in my fine scale ancient ancestry model. Minor Yamnaya-related ancestry does show up, although, admittedly, it might just be noise in individual I5735.

Target: TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassitepe_MBA:I5737
Distance: 2.7507% / 0.02750748
58.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
20.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
9.2 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
5.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
3.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.6 Levant_PPNB

Target: TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassıtepe_EBA:I5733
Distance: 2.7969% / 0.02796887
52.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
27.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
8.6 Levant_PPNB
6.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
6.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: TUR_Aegean_Izmir_Yassıtepe_EBA:I5735
Distance: 3.1270% / 0.03127009
36.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
32.4 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
26.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.8 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
1.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.0 Levant_PPNB
0.6 MAR_Taforalt

This isn't much, especially considering it's already late 2022, but it's better than nothing. Fortunately, more samples from Bronze Age western Anatolia are on the way (wink, wink, nudge, nudge).

However, I'm not done with the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al. dataset yet. I'm planning to spend much more time on this blog in the coming weeks and months and will be using their samples in a wide range of analyses.

Citation...

Iosif Lazaridis, Songül Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., The genetic history of the Southern Arc:A bridge between West Asia and Europe, Science 377, eabm4247 (2022)

See also...

Dear Iosif #3

But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?

Dear Iosif, about that ~2%

Dear Iosif...Yamnaya

David Reich on the origin of the Yamnaya people (!?)

Harvard's David Reich is doing a talk next month about the genetic history of West Asia and nearby parts of Europe. This is a quote from an online abstract of the talk (found here).

The impermeability of Anatolia to exogenous migration contrasts with our finding that the Yamnaya had two distinct gene flows, both from West Asia, suggesting that the Indo-Anatolian language family originated in the eastern wing of the Southern Arc and that the steppe served only as a secondary staging area of Indo-European language dispersal.

If this is actually what David Reich is going to claim then I'd say his team has a lot of work to do before they put out their paper on the topic.

First of all, Yamnaya did not have two distinct gene flows from West Asia. I don't even know what that means exactly, but there's no way that this statement is correct no matter how one interprets it.

In fact, the Yamnaya population formed on the Pontic-Caspian steppe from earlier groups native to this part of Eastern Europe, such as the people associated with the Sredny Stog culture.

That is, there were no migrations from West Asia into Eastern Europe that can be claimed to have been instrumental in the emergence of the Yamnaya population. On the other hand, Yamnaya may have been significantly influenced by cultural impulses from West Asia, but this is nothing new.

In terms of deep population structure, the Yamnaya genotype can be described as a mixture between Eastern European and West Asian-related genetic components. However, these Asian-related components were already in Europe thousands of years before Yamnaya came into existence.

Indeed, soon to be published ancient DNA shows that hunter-gatherers very similar to the Yamnaya people, packing quite a lot of West Asian-related ancestry, lived in the Middle Don region (just north of the Pontic-Caspian steppe) well before 5,000 BCE (see here).

So, did the West Asian ancestors of these Middle Don hunter-gatherers speak Proto-Indo-European, or, as David Reich calls it, Indo-Anatolian? Keep in mind that most linguists put the birth of Indo-Anatolian around 4,000 BCE, which is actually the Sredny Stog period.

Moreover, in underlining Anatolia's supposed impermeability to exogenous migration, David Reich is arguing against things that no one worth their salt ever claimed. That's because the spread of Indo-Anatolian speakers into Anatolia has never really been described by archeologists and linguists as a massive migration, but rather as an infiltration into lands already heavily populated by the Hattians (for instance, see here).

We may have already seen the genetic evidence of this infiltration in the presence of steppe Y-chromosome haplogroup R-V1636 in a Chalcolithic burial at Arslantepe (see here and here). Let's wait and see what else crops up over the next few years as many more ancient Anatolian genomes are sequenced by David Reich and colleagues.

See also...