Musaeum Scythia on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon

A few weeks ago bioRxiv published two preprints on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon (see here and here).

I can't say much about these manuscripts until I see the relevant ancient DNA samples, and that might take some time.

However, for now, I will say that both preprints really need to emphasize the profound impact that the Sintashta-related early Indo-Iranian speakers had on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon. This, of course, would require Wolfgang Haak and friends to pull their heads out of their behinds and admit that the proto-Indo-Iranian homeland was in Eastern Europe, not in Iran.

At the same time, it's likely that the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon originated deep in Siberia, and its inception was probably most closely associated with the West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (WSHG) genetic component. It's important that the preprints emphasize this too.

Moreover, I can't see any convincing arguments in either preprint that the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon was mainly associated with proto-Uralic speakers, or even that it was an important vector for the spread of proto-Uralic. So there's not much point in forcing the Uralic angle on studies focused on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon. Indeed, what we also need is an archaeogenetics paper dealing specifically with the proto-Uralic expansion.

Apart from that, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that Musaeum Scythia has already written a fine blog post about these preprints:

Genomic insights into the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon

See also...

Finally, a proto-Uralic genome

The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time

Slavs have little, if any, Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry

Uralians of the Sargat horizon

Many years ago, well before the start of the ancient DNA revolution, someone made the very clever inference that the N-Tat Y-chromosome marker was closely associated with the expansion of Uralic languages.

Since then, N-Tat has been renamed several times over, to the point that I no longer know what it's called, but the aforementioned inference has turned into a very solid consensus backed up by a wide range of studies focusing on modern and ancient DNA.

Nowadays, Y-haplogroup N-L1026, a subclade of N-Tat, is seen as the main genetic signal of the Uralic expansions, along, of course, with Nganasan-related genome-wide genetic ancestry.

A recent paper at Science Advances by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. featured the first ever genome-wide samples from the Sargat horizon, which is an Iron Age archeological formation in western Siberia normally associated with the Ugric branch of the Uralic language family. Surprisingly, and disappointingly, the authors failed to investigate this widely accepted connection.

If we go by the Y-haplogroup classifications in the paper, which may or may not be the smart thing to do, at least two of the Sargat horizon males belong to N-L1026, and one also to the more derived N-Z1936 subclade, which has been found in the remains of Hungarian Conquerers from Medieval Hungary. Of course, Hungarian is an Ugric language generally thought to have been introduced into the Carpathian Basin by the Hungarian Conquerers who originally came from western Siberia.

That's probably enough to corroborate the association between the Sargat horizon and the spread of Ugric/Uralic languages, but let's also take a quick look at the autosomal DNA of these Sargat individuals. Firstly, here's a Principal Component Analysis (PCA), based on Global25 data and produced with the Vahaduo G25 Views online tool. The results are self-explanatory.

Interestingly, I can't get a decent statistical fit when I try to reproduce the four-way qpWave/qpAdm model done by Gnecchi-Ruscone et al., probably mostly because my right pops or outgroups are different. This suggests to me that there's something important missing in their model.

Sargat_IA
MNG_Khovsgol_LBA 0.203±0.045
RUS_Ekven_IA 0.183±0.044
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.545±0.014
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.068±0.013
chisq 16.805
tail prob 0.0186971
Full output

So how about if I replace RUS_Ekven_IA with kra001, the oldest Nganasan-like individual in the ancient DNA record (see here), and MNG_Khovsgol_LBA with KAZ_Mereke_MBA, to add a more local stream of ancestry?

Sargat_IA
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.135±0.017
kra001 0.301±0.007
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.499±0.023
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.066±0.015
chisq 8.872
tail prob 0.262001
Full output

That's a better statistical fit and also, I'd say, a more realistic model, at least in terms of distal ancestry proportions. Note that Nganasan-related ancestry makes up 30% of the genome-wide genetic structure of the Sargat samples, which again corroborates the view that Uralic languages were spoken within the Sargat horizon.

Update 28/04/21: This is the best qpAdm model that I could find for Sargat_IA, at least in terms of the chisq and tail prob. It shows that the Sargat population was in large part very similar to that of KAZ_Pazyryk_IA.

Sargat_IA
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.032±0.016
KAZ_Pazyryk_IA 0.698±0.016
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.236±0.021
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.034±0.014
chisq 2.023
tail prob 0.958561
Full output

It's missing kra001, because KAZ_Pazyryk_IA packs enough kra001-related ancestry for the job.

KAZ_Pazyryk_IA
KAZ_Mereke_MBA 0.144±0.018
kra001 0.429±0.008
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 0.378±0.026
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.049±0.018
chisq 8.899
tail prob 0.259983
Full output

The fact that KAZ_Pazyryk_IA can be modeled with significant kra001-related ancestry isn't surprising, considering that its territory was located in Siberia. However, my model doesn't necessarily prove that the Sargat population was largely or even partly of Pazyryk origin. Indeed, N-L1026 hasn't yet appeared in any Pazyryk remains.

See also...

The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time

First taste of Early Medieval DNA from the Ural region

Hungarian Conquerors were rich in Y-haplogroup N

More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

It was always going to be this way

On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time

A whole lot of nonsense was posted online, often by people who should've known better, after I claimed that kra001 was a solid proxy for a proto-Uralic genome (see here).

For those of you who still don't get it, below are three Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plots featuring Uralic speakers and other present-day Eurasians. Kra001 is also there. These graphs are based on genotype data not reprocessed Global25 data. The relevant datasheet is available here.

Compared to my previous PCA with kra001, here I included a bigger range of East Eurasian populations to help mitigate the effects of extreme genetic drift in some of the Siberian groups, at least on the first few Principal Components (PCs). Moreover, kra001 wasn't projected onto PCs computed with modern-day samples, so he was free to influence the outcome of the PCA.

Note the east to west clines made up largely of Uralic speaking groups on the first two plots. These plots are based on PCs 1/2 and 1 /3, respectively. The third plot, based on PCs 1/4, is more complex and thus more difficult to interpret, but it also manages to isolate many of the Uralic populations from the others.

The Uralic-specific clines do intersect with the clines and clusters formed by the other linguistic groups. However, based on the three plots, the Yeniseian-speaking Kets are the only Asian group that can plausibly be confused for Uralic speakers.

Importantly, apart from the Kets, kra001 is the only Asian individual who shifts his position on all three plots as if he were a Uralic speaker. This might well be a coincidence, and we'll never know what language was spoken by kra001, but it does suggest to me that his genome is a solid proxy for a proto-Uralic genome.

See also...

First taste of Early Medieval DNA from the Ural region

The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?

Fresh off the sledge

Finally, a proto-Uralic genome

Obviously, genes don't speak languages, people do. But sometimes it's possible to associate a linguistic group with a very specific genetic signature.

A while ago many of us in the blogosphere spotted an uncanny connection between the Uralic language family, Y-haplogroup N-L1026 and Nganasan-like genome-wide genetic ancestry.

As a result, we expected a Nganasan-like population rich in N-L1026 to eventually appear in the ancient DNA record, probably somewhere in Siberia and in burials from a likely proto-Uralic archeological culture. This hasn't happened yet, but we now have direct evidence that such a population must have existed somewhere deep in Siberia as early as the Bronze Age.

Kra001, whose genome was published recently along with Kilinc et al., belongs to a pre-N-L1026 lineage and, at least in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, could well be from a population directly ancestral to present-day Nganasans. Of course, the Nganasan language is part of the Samoyedic branch of Uralic.

Below is a series of Principal Component Analyses (PCA) featuring kra001. He's labeled RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA, after the location and age of his burial. Note the obvious Uralic cline running across the plots. That is, from west to east. Kra001 is positioned at the end of this cline very close to a small cluster of Nganasans. To see interactive versions of the plots, paste the Global25 coordinates here into the relevant field here.

Admittedly, there's no way of knowing whether this individual spoke proto-Uralic or not. Indeed, he may have spoken something totally unrelated. The important point is that the very specific genetic signature shared by almost all present-day Uralic speakers, except perhaps Hungarians, is now finally represented in the ancient DNA record. And I can reveal to you that we'll soon be seeing many more ancients very similar to kra001 in upcoming papers.

See also...

The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time

The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?

Fresh off the sledge

Looking forward to a post-Covid world

I was hoping that the Covid-19 pandemic wouldn't have an immediate impact on the publication of ancient DNA papers and new data, but considering how much things have slowed down in this respect, it seems that I was fooling myself.

So let's take a break until early next year, and then see what happens.

Trust me, we've got a lot to look forward to in the post-Covid-19 world. Based on what I've heard from various sources, here are some predictions about what we might see:

- the search for the Proto-Indo-European homeland will shift west to the North Pontic steppe

- on the other hand, the search for the Proto-Uralic homeland will move deep into Siberia

- the key role of the Single Grave (westernmost Corded Ware) culture in the population history of Western Europe will finally get some attention

- following on from the above, Y-haplogroup R1b-L51 will be revealed as a Single Grave marker

- the idea that the Pontic-Caspian steppe was colonized by migrants from Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age will be forgotten, and, ironically, we'll instead learn that there was a significant influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Mesopotamia

- Old Kingdom Egyptians will come out less Sub-Saharan African than present-day Egyptians.

I probably shouldn't blab everything out, so that's all you're getting from me for now. You'll just have to wait for the rest until next year, or perhaps even the year after that.

See also...

Ancient ancestry proportions in present-day Europeans (to be continued)

This year has already been massive in all sorts of ways, including for new data and software releases. So I'm thinking it might be time to update many of the analyses that were featured at this blog a while ago.

Let's start with the classic hunter vs farmer vs herder mixture model for present-day European populations. The rules of the game are as follows:

- run the latest version of qpAdm using qpfstats output

- use transversion sites and 1240K capture data

- pick a set of diverse and chronologically sound outgroups

- for a model to be successful the p-value must reach 0.01

- tweak the left pops in models that are clearly underperforming

- follow high end scientific literature, logic and common sense

Obviously, the reason that I decided to limit my analysis to markers from transversion sites is to mitigate problems associated with modeling the ancestry of modern, high quality samples with relatively low quality ancients. One of these problems appears to be qpAdm assigning faux East Asian/Siberian admixture to present-day Europeans (for instance, see figure 4 here).

My starting reference populations and outgroups are listed below. In qpAdm terminology the former are known as the "left pops", while the latter as the "right pops". Most of these samples are freely available at the David Reich Lab website here.

left pops:

HUN_Koros_N_HG
TUR_Barcin_N
UKR_Yamnaya

right pops:

CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
Levant_Natufian
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
CZE_Vestonice16
BEL_GoyetQ116-1
Iberia_ElMiron
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
MNG_North_N
RUS_Ust_Kyakhta

As you can see, I picked a wide variety of right pops. But I chose most of them specifically to be able to differentiate the three streams of ancestry - from ancient hunters, farmers and herders - that are the focus of my analysis. I also intentionally avoided using samples in the right pops that may have experienced gene flow, including cryptic gene flow, from the populations in the left pops.

I somewhat speculatively earmarked HUN_Koros_N_HG, from the Early Neolithic Carpathian Basin, and UKR_Yamnaya, from the Early Bronze Age North Pontic steppe in what is now Ukraine, to represent the hunter-gatherer and pastoralist streams of ancestry, respectively.

That's because I expected HUN_Koros_N_HG to be the best proxy for the hunter-gatherer ancestry that was initially absorbed by the early farmers who fanned out from the Aegean region across much of the European continent, and of course it made sense to choose a steppe pastoralist population that was located close to Central Europe where such groups first made the biggest impact outside of the steppe.

Interestingly, HUN_Koros_N_HG and UKR_Yamnaya did prove to be among most effective choices for the types of ancestries that they represented. For instance, UKR_Yamnaya generally produced much stronger statistical fits than a very similar set of Yamnaya samples from the Caspian steppe (more precisely, from the Samara region in Russia). However, this might well be an artifact, due to very specific characteristics of these few ancient individuals. Larger sample sets would be welcome, especially from Yamnaya sites in Ukraine.

Below, dear audience, is a spreadsheet featuring the preliminary results. Click on the image to view and/or download the spreadsheet. The general rule is that the higher the tail prob, or p-value, the more likely it is that the ancestry proportions are close to the truth (a tail prob of well below 0.05 is usually a strong indication that something isn't right). For a detailed look at each of the qpAdm runs, feel free to consult the zip file here.

Note, however, that many of the European groups in my burgeoning genotype dataset are yet to make an appearance in the spreadsheet. That's because their models with the standard left pops showed p-values well under 0.01, which essentially meant that they failed, and I'm still trying to make them work.

But round one has certainly revealed some fascinating stuff. For instance, except for Hungarians and Estonians, none of the Uralic-speaking groups can be modeled successfully in the standard three-way model.

However, I managed to significantly improve the statistical fits in their models by adding a Siberian population, RUS_Baikal_BA, to the left pops. This is unlikely to be a coincidence, because the Proto-Uralic homeland was almost certainly located in or very near Siberia. Iain Mathieson please take note.

Saami
HUN_Koros_N_HG 0.134±0.043
RUS_Baikal_BA 0.270±0.015
TUR_Barcin_N 0.081±0.026
UKR_Yamnaya 0.515±0.058

chisq 19.865

tail prob 0.0108571

Full output

See also...

Yamnaya-related ancestry proportions in present-day Poles

The BOO people: earliest Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record?

N-L1026 is the Y-chromosome haplogroup most closely associated with the speakers of Uralic languages. Thus far, the oldest published instances of N-L1026 are in two Siberian-like samples dating to 1473±87 calBCE from the site of Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov (BOO), located within the Arctic Circle in the Kola Peninsula, northern Russia.

So does this mean that the BOO people were Uralic speakers? I'm now thinking that it probably does, even though, as the scientists who published the BOO samples a year ago pointed out, they predate most estimates of the spread of extant Uralic languages into the Kola Peninsula (see Lamnidis et al. here).

Hundreds of ancient human samples from across Eurasia have been sequenced since last year. In fact, thousands if we count unpublished data. But only a handful of them belong to N-L1026.

Indeed, as far as I know, the next oldest instance of N-L1026 from Europe after those at BOO is still in an Iron Age sample from what is now Estonia published earlier this year as 0LS10. Of course, this individual was in all likelihood an early west Uralic (Finnic) speaker (see Saag et al. here).

Moreover, consider these comments by Murashkin et al. in regards to the BOO site (referred to as KOG in their paper, available here):

Most of the bodies had been buried in wooden, boat-shaped, lidded caskets, which looked like small boats or traditional Sámi sledges (Ru. kerezhka).

...

The morphological characteristics of the skull series of the KOG are not like those of any other ancient or modern series from the Kola Peninsula, including the Sámi people. Instead, the series shows closer biological affinities with ancient Altai Neolithic and modern, Ugric-speaking Siberian groups (Moiseyev & Khartanovich 2012). It has earlier been suggested that modern Ugric-speaking Siberians, together with Samoyeds and Volga Finnic populations, share some common morphological characteristics that indicate their common origin (Alekseyev 1974; Bunak 1956; Gokhman 1992).

...

Based on the materials from the grave field, we can argue that there were direct or indirect contacts between the inhabitants of the Kola Peninsula and southern and western Scandinavia (Murashkin & Tarasov 2013).

Thus, the BOO people may have spoken an early west Uralic language related to Sami languages. It's also possible that they are in part ancestral to the N-L1026-rich Sami people.

Another intriguing thing about these mysterious ancients is that individual BOO003 belongs to the rare mitochondrial haplogroup T2d1b1. Now, this clearly is not a lineage native to Europe or indeed any part of North Eurasia. Its ultimate source is probably West or Central Asia. So how did this pioneer polar explorer end up with such an unusual and exotic mtDNA marker, and might the answer be an important clue about the origins of the BOO people?

The most plausible explanation is that the ancestors of BOO003 were associated with the Seima-Turbino phenomenon, which stretched from the taiga zone to the oases of what is now western China along the Ob-Irtysh river system, and probably facilitated cultural, linguistic and genetic exchanges between the populations of North Eurasia and Central Asia.

In other words, considering all of the clues, it would seem that the BOO people came from some part of the Ob-Irtysh basin, which might thus be the best place to look for the population with the oldest and phylogenetically most basal N-L1026 lineages. And if we find that, then we've probably found the proto-Uralians and their homeland.

Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on Global25 data featuring the earliest likely Uralic speakers in the ancient DNA record. It was produced with an online PCA runner freely available here. EST_IA includes the above mentioned 0LS10, while FIN_Levanluhta_IA is largely made up of Saami-related samples from western Finland. See anything interesting? Feel free to let me know about it in the comments below.

See also...

Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions

It was always going to be this way

More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions

The academic consensus is that Indo-European languages first spread into the Baltic region from the Eastern European steppes along with the Corded Ware culture (CWC) and its people during the Late Neolithic, well before the expansion of Uralic speakers into Fennoscandia and surrounds, probably from somewhere around the Ural Mountains.

On the other hand, the views that the Uralic language family is native to Northern Europe and/or closely associated with the CWC are fringe theories usually espoused by people not familiar with the topic or, unfortunately it has to be said, mentally unstable trolls.

The likely close relationship between the CWC expansion and the early spread of Indo-European languages was discussed in several papers in recent years (for instance, see here). This year, we saw the first ancient DNA paper focusing on the transition from the Bronze Age to the Iron Age in the East Baltic, including the likely first arrival of Uralic speech in what is now Estonia.

Published in Current Biology courtesy of Saag et al., the paper showed that the genetic structure of present-day East Baltic populations largely formed in the Iron Age (see here). It was during this time, the authors revealed, that the region experienced a sudden influx of Y-chromosome haplogroup N, which is today common in many Uralic speaking populations and often referred to as a Proto-Uralic marker. Little wonder then that Saag et al. linked this genetic shift in the East Baltic to the westward migrations of early Uralic speakers.

The table below, based on data from the Saag et al. paper, surely doesn't leave much to the imagination about what happened.

Unfortunately, I have to say that the genome-wide analysis in the paper was less informative than it could have been. The authors focused their attention on rather broad genetic components, and, as a result, missed an interesting fine scale distinction between their Bronze Age and Iron Age samples. The spatial maps below, based on my Global25 data for most of the ancients from Saag et al., show what I mean. The hotter the color the higher the genetic similarity between them and present-day West Eurasian populations.

Note that the Bronze Age (Baltic_EST_BA) samples are most similar to the Baltic-speaking, and thus also Indo-European-speaking, Latvians and Lithuanians, rather than the Uralic-speaking Estonians, even though they're from burial sites in Estonia. On the other hand, the Iron Age (Baltic_EST_IA) samples show strong similarity to a wider range of populations, including Estonians and many other Uralic-speaking groups.

See also...

It was always going to be this way

Fresh off the sledge

More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N

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...

On the trail of the Proto-Uralic speakers (work in progress)

Historical linguists have long posited that Fennoscandia was a busy contact zone between early Germanic and Uralic languages. The first ancient DNA samples from what is now Finland have corroborated their inferences, by showing that during the Iron Age the western part of the country was inhabited by a genetically heterogeneous population closely related to both the Uralic-speaking Saami and Germanic-speaking southern Scandinavians.

The samples were sequenced and analyzed by two different teams of researches, and their findings published recently in Lamnidis et al. and Sikora et al. (see here and here, respectively).

This is how most of these ancients, whose remains were excavated from the Levanluhta burial site dated to 300–800 CE, behave in a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on my Global25 data. Levanluhta_IA are the Saami-related samples, while Levanluhta_IA_o is an Scandinavian-like outlier. Baltic_IA is an Iron Age individual from what is now Lithuania from the recent Damgaard et al. paper (see here). Note the accuracy of the Global25 data in pinpointing their genetic affinities and also the trajectory of the Levanluhta_IA cluster, which seems to be "pulling" towards Levanluhta_IA_o.

The Saami and Levanluhta_IA are clear outliers from the main Northern European cluster. There are two reasons for this: excess East Asian/Siberian-related ancestry and Saami-specific genetic drift. However, this eastern admixture and genetic drift are shared in varying degrees by other North European populations, especially those that also speak Uralic languages, and this is why they appear to be "pulling" towards the Saami/Levanluhta_IA clusters in my PCA. Thus, what this suggests is that the expansion of Uralic languages across Northeastern Europe was intimately linked with the spread of Siberian-related ancestry into the region.

This idea has been around for a long time and is now becoming even more widely accepted (see here). However, Lamnidis et al. also featured samples from a likely pre-Uralic (1523±87 calBCE) burial site at Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov in the Kola Peninsula, present-day northern Russia, and, perhaps surprisingly, found that they showed even more Siberian-related ancestry than Levanluhta_IA. So what's going on?

I'm confident that this discrepancy can be explained by multiple waves of migrations from the east into Northeastern Europe, possibly before, during and after the time of the people buried at Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, by pre-Uralic, para-Uralic and/or Proto-Uralic-speaking populations.

Consider the following qpAdm output, in which Levanluhta_IA is just barely modeled successfully as a two-way mixture between Levanluhta_IA_o and Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov. The statistical fit improves significantly with the addition of Glazkovo_EBA as a third mixture source. This is an ancient population from near Lake Baikal dated to 4597-3726 BC from the aforementioned Damgaard et al. paper.

Levanluhta_IA
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov 0.468±0.036
Levanluhta_IA_o 0.532±0.036
chisq 19.129
tail prob 0.0854706
Full output

Levanluhta_IA
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov 0.241±0.092
Glazkovo_EBA 0.162±0.059
Levanluhta_IA_o 0.597±0.046
chisq 7.756
tail prob 0.734966
Full output

For the sake of being complete, I also tested whether Levanluhta_IA_o could be substituted by other similar ancient samples from the neighborhood, including those associated with the Battle-Axe and Corded Ware cultures. There's not much to report; qpAdm returned poor statistical fits and/or implausible ancestry proportions (for the full output from my runs, see here). Baltic_IA did produce a statistically sound model, but with excess Glazkovo_EBA-related ancestry. I also had to drop Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov from the analysis to make things work, which suggests to me that the result shouldn't be taken too literally.

Levanluhta_IA
Baltic_IA 0.677±0.034
Glazkovo_EBA 0.323±0.034
chisq 8.547
tail prob 0.741095
Full output

So as far as I can see, the western ancestry in Levanluhta_IA is likely to be mostly of Germanic origin, and thus Indo-European, meaning that it's logical to look east, perhaps far to the east, for the source of its Uralic ancestry. This might seem like a complicated and uncertain task, considering that Levanluhta_IA could well be at least a thousand years younger than the first entry of Uralic speakers into Fennoscandia. However, take a look what happens when I substitute Glazkovo_EBA with a variety of Uralic-speaking populations from around the Ural Mountains, which is where the Proto-Uralic homeland is generally considered to have been located.

Levanluhta_IA
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov 0.210±0.091
Khanty 0.283±0.090
Levanluhta_IA_o 0.507±0.035
chisq 7.007
tail prob 0.798532
Full output

Levanluhta_IA
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov 0.193±0.098
Levanluhta_IA_o 0.495±0.035
Mansi 0.312±0.100
chisq 7.884
tail prob 0.7237
Full output

Levanluhta_IA
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov 0.300±0.065
Levanluhta_IA_o 0.337±0.072
Mari 0.363±0.121
chisq 8.393
tail prob 0.677705
Full output

Levanluhta_IA
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov 0.238±0.084
Levanluhta_IA_o 0.553±0.036
Nenets 0.209±0.067
chisq 7.210
tail prob 0.78181
Full output

Levanluhta_IA
Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov 0.302±0.069
Levanluhta_IA_o 0.324±0.081
Udmurt 0.373±0.135
chisq 9.195
tail prob 0.60393
Full output

All of these models look great, and easily rival the best model with Glazkovo_EBA. Moreover, they make good sense in terms of linguistics. The only problem is that they're anachronistic, because the Uralic-speaking reference populations are younger than Levanluhta_IA. So I can't be certain that they reflect reality without corroboration from ancient DNA. It might turn out, for instance, that a Glazkovo_EBA-like population was already present somewhere deep in Europe before or during the time of Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov, while no such population existed around the Ural Mountains until the time of Levanluhta_IA.

By the way, it might be important to note that the present-day Finnish samples in my dataset can't be modeled as a mixture between Levanluhta_IA and Levanluhta_IA_o. But they can be modeled as a mixture between Baltic_IA and Levanluhta_IA. I don't know which part of Finland they're from exactly; probably all over the place, so it'd be useful to test regional Finnish populations to see how they behave in such models. Of course, Finns aren't Saamic speakers, they're Finnic speakers, and they're probably the result of a more recent Uralic expansion into Fennoscandia than the one that gave rise to the Saami.

Finnish
Baltic_IA 0.671±0.076
Levanluhta_IA 0.329±0.076
chisq 14.114
tail prob 0.293508
Full output

Damgaard et al. didn't report the Y-haplogroup for Baltic_IA, but the word round the campfire is that this individual belonged to N1c, which is today the most common Y-haplogroup among Uralic speakers. Obviously, we need a lot more ancient DNA to sort all of this out, but things are already looking pretty much as expected. Stay tuned for new posts in this series following the publication of more ancient DNA relevant to this fascinating topic.

See also...

How did Y-haplogroup N1c get to Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov?

The Uralic cline in the Global25

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

Corded Ware people =/= Proto-Uralics (Tambets et al. 2018)

A new paper on the genetic structure of Uralic-speaking populations has appeared at Genome Biology (see here). It looks to me like the prelude to a forthcoming paleogenetics paper on the same topic that was discussed in the Estonian media recently (see here). Although not exactly ground breaking (because it basically argues what I've been saying at this blog for years, like here), it's a very nice effort all round and must be read by anyone with an interest in this topic. From the paper, emphasis is mine:

Background The genetic origins of Uralic speakers from across a vast territory in the temperate zone of North Eurasia have remained elusive. Previous studies have shown contrasting proportions of Eastern and Western Eurasian ancestry in their mitochondrial and Y chromosomal gene pools. While the maternal lineages reflect by and large the geographic background of a given Uralic-speaking population, the frequency of Y chromosomes of Eastern Eurasian origin is distinctively high among European Uralic speakers. The autosomal variation of Uralic speakers, however, has not yet been studied comprehensively.

Results: Here, we present a genome-wide analysis of 15 Uralic-speaking populations which cover all main groups of the linguistic family. We show that contemporary Uralic speakers are genetically very similar to their local geographical neighbours. However, when studying relationships among geographically distant populations, we find that most of the Uralic speakers and some of their neighbours share a genetic component of possibly Siberian origin. Additionally, we show that most Uralic speakers share significantly more genomic segments identity-by-descent with each other than with geographically equidistant speakers of other languages. We find that correlated genome-wide genetic and lexical distances among Uralic speakers suggest co-dispersion of genes and languages. Yet, we do not find long-range genetic ties between Estonians and Hungarians with their linguistic sisters that would distinguish them from their non-Uralic-speaking neighbours.

Conclusions: We show that most Uralic speakers share a distinct ancestry component of likely Siberian origin, which suggests that the spread of Uralic languages involved at least some demic component.

...

Recent aDNA studies have shown that extant European populations draw ancestry form three main migration waves during the Upper Palaeolithic, the Neolithic and Early Bronze Age [2, 3, 45]. The more detailed reconstructions concerning NE Europe up to the Corded Ware culture agree broadly with this scenario and reveal regional differences [65–67]. However, to explain the demographic history of extant NE European populations, we need to invoke a novel genetic component in Europe—the Siberian. The geographic distribution of the main part of this component is likely associated with the spread of Uralic speakers but gene flow from Siberian sources in historic and modern Uralic speakers has been more complex, as revealed also by a recent study of ancient DNA from Fennoscandia and Northwest Russia [68]. Thus, the Siberian component we introduce here is not the perfect but still the current best candidate for the genetic counterpart in the spread of Uralic languages.

Citation...

Tambets et al., Genes reveal traces of common recent demographic history for most of the Uralic-speaking populations, Genome Biology, (2018) 19:139 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13059-018-1522-1

See also...

Big deal of 2019: ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions