‘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

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

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 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?

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...

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...

The PIE homeland controversy: February 2022 status report

I think we'll see the emergence of two main competing proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland theories over the next few years:

- a homeland in the Eneolithic North Caucasus, and the spread of Anatolian languages into West Asia with Maykop-related ancestry

- a homeland in the North Pontic region, possibly within the Eneolithic Sredny Stog archeological culture, and the spread of Anatolian languages into West Asia via the Balkans.

Both theories have support from ancient DNA. Some of it has already been published (for instance, see here).

At this point, I can see myself firmly in the North Pontic camp, even if it turns out that North Pontic-related ancestry only made a fleeting impact on Bronze Age Anatolia.

After all, there's no direct relationship between genes and languages, so to prove that Anatolian languages came from the North Pontic, there's no need for North Pontic-related ancestry to persist in Anatolia, as long as we have solid evidence that people with this type of ancestry moved there at the right time.

In my mind, for now, the Maykop culture provides an excellent explanation for non-Indo-European influences in PIE, and there's no need to make it Indo-European speaking, let alone PIE speaking.

See also...

The PIE homeland controversy: June 2021 status report

Para-Turbo-Balto-Slavic?

I'm seeing increasing numbers of Bronze and Iron Age samples from Central Europe and surrounds with this peculiar set of traits:

- shared genetic drift with present-day Balto-Slavic speakers to the exclusion of most other Europeans

- and yet, an unusually low level of Yamnaya-related steppe ancestry

- so much so, in fact, that they're often outside the range of modern European genetic variation.

As far as I can tell, currently the best examples of this unusual population are HUN_Mako_EBA_o:I1502 (Mathieson et al. Nature 2015) and HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat_o1:I18241 (Patterson et al. Nature 2021). Both are from the Carpathian Basin in what is now Hungary.

I ran a series of qpAdm mixture models to try and learn more about their origins. The most robust outcomes, out of about 50 different attempts, are these:

right pops:
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
TUR_Barcin_N
Iberia_Southeast_Meso
UKR_Meso
England_Meso
RUS_Karelia_HG
RUS_West_Siberia_HG
MNG_North_N
TWN_Hanben
BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

HUN_Mako_EBA_o
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.149 ∓0.028
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.613 ∓0.028
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.238 ∓0.029
chisq 10.836
tail prob 0.370463
Full output

HUN_EIA_Prescythian_Mezocsat_o1
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.186 ∓0.028
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.592 ∓0.027
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.222 ∓0.029
chisq 12.492
tail prob 0.253499
Full output

Combining the two genomes produces a very similar result:

HUN_EBA-EIA_o
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.160 ∓0.023
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.612 ∓0.023
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.227 ∓0.023
chisq 14.653
tail prob 0.14524
Full output

Importantly, when I move RUS_Karelia_HG from the right pops to the left pops, to test whether HUN_EBA-EIA_o really has steppe ancestry, as opposed to closely related hunter-gatherer ancestry, I still get a very similar outcome:

HUN_EBA-EIA_o
Baltic_LTU_Narva 0.158 ∓0.027
POL_Globular_Amphora 0.605 ∓0.033
RUS_Karelia_HG 0.014 ∓0.038
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 0.223 ∓0.053
chisq 10.461
tail prob 0.234171
Full output

So these largely Globular Amphora-related individuals do harbor as much as a quarter of steppe ancestry, which is to be expected considering the massive genetic turn-over that most of Europe experienced just before their time as a result of population expansions from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Nevertheless, this is ~20% less steppe ancestry than in the present-day populations of the region, and it clearly shows in any decent Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of West Eurasia. For instance:

At the same time, the relatively close genetic relationship between these ancients and present-day Balto-Slavic speaking populations shows up in fine-scale intra-European PCA.

The origins and implications of this population are still a mystery to me. I don't think it's native to the Carpathian Basin. Indeed, my qpAdm models suggest that it may have moved into this region from somewhere to the northeast, because its ancestry is best modeled with ancient groups from present-day Lithuania, Poland and Russia.

I'm adamant that these people weren't Balto-Slavic speakers, and certainly not proto-Slavs. Rather, I suspect that much like the Welzin warriors of Bronze Age North-Central Europe, they were closely related to a contemporaneous group that eventually gave rise to proto-Slavs. At best, they may have somehow contributed to the ethnogenesis of Balto-Slavs.

By the way, using the Global25 to model their ancestry is highly problematic, because of the strong Balto-Slavic genetic drift that affects some of the dimensions. So be careful when you try it, or better yet, don't try it at all, and stick to formal stats in this particular instance.

See also...

Tollense Valley Bronze Age warriors were very close relatives of modern-day Slavs

On the origin of the Corded Ware people

There's been a lot of talk lately about the finding that the peoples associated with the Corded Ware and Yamnaya archeological cultures were genetic cousins (for instance, see here). As I've already pointed out, this is an interesting discovery, but, at this stage, it's difficult to know what it means exactly.

It might mean that the Yamnayans were the direct predecessors of the Corded Ware people. Or it might just mean that, at some point, the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations swapped women regularly (that is, they practiced female exogamy with each other).

In any case, I feel that several important facts aren't being taken into account by most of the interested parties. These facts include, in no particular order:

- despite being closely related, the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were highly adapted to very different ecological zones - temperate forests and arid steppes, respectively - and this is surely not something that happened within a few years and probably not even within a couple of generations

- both the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations expanded widely and rapidly at around the same time, but never got in each others way, probably because they occupied very different ecological niches

- despite sharing the R1b Y-chromosome haplogroup, their paternal origins were quite different, with Corded Ware males rich in R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 and Yamnaya males rich in R1b-Z2103 and I2a-L699

I suppose it's possible that the Corded Ware people were overwhelmingly and directly derived from the Yamnaya population. But right now my view is that, even if they were, then the Yamnaya population that they came from was quite different from the classic, R1b-Z2103-rich Yamnaya that spread rapidly across the steppes.

Indeed, perhaps what we're dealing with here is a very early (proto?) Yamnaya gene pool located somewhere in the border zone between the forests and the steppes, that then split into two main sub-populations, with one of these groups heading north and the other south?

I do wonder what David Anthony would say if he was made aware of the above mentioned facts? Then again, perhaps he's already aware of them, and simply chose to ignore them when formulating his latest theory about the origin of the Corded Ware people?

See also...

The PIE homeland controversy: June 2021 status report

Archeologist David Anthony has made several appearances online recently to promote his theories about the origins of the Corded Ware and Yamnaya cultures and peoples.

In a clip on Youtube he reiterated his theory that the so called Iranian-related ancestry in the Yamnaya people actually came from what is now Iran, and, more precisely, that it was carried by hunter-gatherers who travelled relatively rapidly from the South Caspian region into the Volga Delta in what is now Russia.

It's still a complete mystery to me as to why a group of hunter-gatherers from the South Caspian would undertake such a migration, instead of, say, expanding their range gradually over thousands of years, first into the Caucasus and eventually into Eastern Europe.

But there's a more serious problem with Anthony's theory: it contradicts the currently available ancient DNA. That's because the so called Iranian-related ancestry in the Yamnaya people is most closely related to the Kotias and Satsurblia hunter-gatherers from what is now Georgia, and these hunter-gatherers form a separate clade from the earliest samples from what is now Iran. For instance, see here and here.

Also, in a podcast on Razib's blog, Anthony doubled down on his theory that Y-chromosome haplogroup R1a was closely associated with Yamnaya plebs who were excluded from Kurgan burials, and, as a result, their remains haven't yet been sampled.

At least this theory isn't yet contradicted by ancient DNA, but it's more complicated and less parsimonious than my theory, which posits that R1a, or rather R1a-M417, was simply a very rare lineage in the Yamnaya population, and that it only became a common and widespread marker thanks to the Corded Ware expansion (see here).

Intriguingly, my understanding is that there are several unpublished R1a samples from the Caspian and Volga steppes at Harvard's David Reich Lab that have been classified by its scientists as Yamnaya outliers. Of course, Anthony is collaborating on at least one major paper with this lab (see here).

Ergo, I strongly suspect that Anthony's theory is in part based on these Yamnaya outliers. However, I also believe that these samples are wrongly dated and probably represent Scythians and/or Sarmatians. I'll be able to look into that if they're ever published.

Speaking of the David Reich Lab, its leading scientists, David Reich and Nick Patterson, have also made appearances online recently, on Youtube and Razib's blog, respectively, to reveal that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples aren't just very similar genetically, but in fact close cousins.

This is a very interesting finding. Apparently it's based on a relatively high level of Identity-by-Descent (IBD) segment sharing between Corded Ware and Yamnaya samples, but that's all I know. I'm guessing that the relevant paper is coming soon (that is, within the next five years).

However, the long-standing question that the readers of this blog want to see answered is not whether the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples are close cousins, but whether Yamnaya migrants founded the Corded Ware culture. The obvious way to prove that they did is to find at least one ancient population unambiguously classified as part of the Yamnaya horizon that is rich in the typically Corded Ware Y-haplogroups R1a-M417 and R1b-L151.

See also...

On the origin of the Corded Ware people

The PIE homeland controversy: January 2019 status report

The PIE homeland controversy: August 2019 status report

That old chestnut: Northeast vs Northwest Euros

In the last comment thread reader Greg put forth this question:

David, when are you going to explain the genetic discrepancy between Northeastern and Northwestern Europeans? You know, the one that people believe is due to Baltic Hunter-Gatherer admixture, whereas you believe it is due to genetic drift? You ought to make a post about this issue at some point, because a lot of people are wondering what's causing the differences.

Well, Greg, this issue has been discussed to the proverbial death here and elsewhere. In fact, there were two posts and rather lengthy comment threads on the same topic at this blog just a few months ago. See here and here.

Nevertheless, it seems that a fair number of people are still befuddled, so I'm going to try to explain this one last time, as briefly as a I can using just a handful of f4-stats.

Admittedly, Northeast Europeans generally do pack higher levels of indigenous European hunter-gatherer ancestry than Northwest Europeans. This is especially true of Balts, who show more of this type of ancestry than even Scandinavians in practically every type of analysis.

The f4-stats below back this up unambiguously. Note the significantly positive (>3) Z scores, which suggest that Latvians and Lithuanians harbor more Baltic hunter-gatherer-related ancestry than Norwegians and Swedes.

Chimp Baltic_HG Norwegian Latvian 0.001301 7.114
Chimp Baltic_HG Swedish Latvian 0.001017 4.205
Chimp Baltic_HG Norwegian Lithuanian 0.001023 7.341
Chimp Baltic_HG Swedish Lithuanian 0.000763 3.408

Greg, I know what you're thinking: the naysayers are right! But wait, because there's a twist to this tale. Check out these f4-stats:

Chimp Baltic_HG Norwegian Belarusian 0.000265 1.934
Chimp Baltic_HG Swedish Belarusian 0.000152 0.7
Chimp Baltic_HG Norwegian Polish 6.4E-05 0.519
Chimp Baltic_HG Swedish Polish -0.000235 -1.074

Please note, Greg, that none of the Z scores reach significance, which means that these Northwest Europeans and Slavs are symmetrically related to Baltic_HG. They're also symmetrically related to other relevant ancient groups such as the Yamnaya steppe herders. This, of course, suggests that they harbor very similar levels of basically the same ancient genetic components.

Chimp Karelia_HG Norwegian Belarusian 0.000136 0.844
Chimp Karelia_HG Swedish Belarusian 7.9E-05 0.32
Chimp Karelia_HG Norwegian Polish -4.7E-05 -0.304
Chimp Karelia_HG Swedish Polish -0.000134 -0.54

Chimp Yamnaya_Samara Norwegian Belarusian -0.000134 -1.085
Chimp Yamnaya_Samara Swedish Belarusian -6.6E-05 -0.34
Chimp Yamnaya_Samara Norwegian Polish -0.000225 -1.995
Chimp Yamnaya_Samara Swedish Polish -0.000311 -1.574

Chimp Barcin_N Norwegian Belarusian -0.000335 -2.809
Chimp Barcin_N Swedish Belarusian -0.000284 -1.491
Chimp Barcin_N Norwegian Polish -0.000222 -2.057
Chimp Barcin_N Swedish Polish -0.000318 -1.662

Chimp Baikal_N Norwegian Belarusian 0.000186 1.3
Chimp Baikal_N Swedish Belarusian -7E-05 -0.33
Chimp Baikal_N Norwegian Polish -4.6E-05 -0.351
Chimp Baikal_N Swedish Polish -0.000477 -2.277

Interestingly, pairing up Ukrainians with English samples from Cornwall and Kent produces similar outcomes. But that's because most ancient ancestry proportions in Europe show a closer correlation with latitude than longitude.

Chimp Baltic_HG English_Cornwall Ukrainian 0.000282 2.242
Chimp Baltic_HG English_Kent Ukrainian 0.000225 1.748

Chimp Karelia_HG English_Cornwall Ukrainian 0.000323 2.175
Chimp Karelia_HG English_Kent Ukrainian 0.000239 1.634

Chimp Yamnaya_Samara English_Cornwall Ukrainian -6.6E-05 -0.569
Chimp Yamnaya_Samara English_Kent Ukrainian -0.000112 -0.977

Chimp Barcin_N English_Cornwall Ukrainian -0.000519 -4.641
Chimp Barcin_N English_Kent Ukrainian -0.000598 -5.232

Chimp Baikal_N English_Cornwall Ukrainian 0.000385 2.874
Chimp Baikal_N English_Kent Ukrainian 0.00036 2.836

Now, Greg, if at least in terms of genetic ancestry, Latvians, Lithuanians, Belarusians, Poles and Ukrainians all qualify as Northeast Europeans, then what makes them different, as a group, from Northwest Europeans? Do you believe that the key factor is admixture from Baltic hunter-gatherers? Or is it genetic drift?

Of course, considering all of the f4-stats above, logic dictates that it must be relatively recent genetic drift.

Keep in mind, however, that this only applies to Balto-Slavic speaking Northeast Europeans without significant Uralian ancestry. Overall, Uralic speakers have a more complex population history, and indeed genetic differences between them and Northwest Europeans are in large part due to somewhat different ancestry proportions and also Siberian admixture.

See also...

So who's the most (indigenous) European of us all?

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

Perhaps a hint of things to come

It's still a mystery how the Hittites and other Anatolian speakers ended up in the Near East. However, the leading theory is that their ancestors migrated from the steppes of Eastern Europe to western Anatolia via the Balkans sometime during the Copper Age.

Consider the qpAdm mixture models below, made possible thanks to some of the ancient samples published recently along with Skourtanioti et al. 2020. The key ancients are described in a text file available here.

TUR_Barcin_C
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN 0.471±0.094
RUS_Vonyuchka_En 0.148±0.040
TUR_Barcin_N 0.381±0.069
chisq 12.874
tail prob 0.116261
Full output

TUR_Barcin_C
RUS_Vonyuchka_En 0.107±0.029
TUR_Buyukkaya_EC 0.893±0.029
chisq 12.107
tail prob 0.207331
Full output

I'd say it's quite clear now that TUR_Barcin_C harbors minor ancestry from the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe. The reason this isn't widely accepted yet is because demonstrating it convincingly hasn't been possible without a proximate Anatolian ancestry source for TUR_Barcin_C, precisely like TUR_Buyukkaya_EC.

Admittedly, though, the statistical fits in my models aren't all that great. I suspect the problem lies with RUS_Vonyuchka_En, which is likely to be a rather poor stand in for the people who brought steppe ancestry, and possibly early Anatolian speech, to western Anatolia.

So let's see what happens when I try a more proximate reference for the steppe ancestry in TUR_Barcin_C. How about Yamnaya_BGR, an individual of mixed Balkan and steppe origin from what is now Bulgaria?

TUR_Barcin_C
AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN 0.518±0.075
TUR_Barcin_N 0.203±0.056
Yamnaya_BGR 0.279±0.067
chisq 10.602
tail prob 0.225269
Full output

TUR_Barcin_C
TUR_Buyukkaya_EC 0.749±0.058
Yamnaya_BGR 0.251±0.058
chisq 9.687
tail prob 0.376414
Full output

That's a little better. Unfortunately, the problem now is that the models are anachronistic, because TUR_Barcin_C is about a thousand years older than Yamnaya_BGR. Clearly, we need more Copper Age samples from the western edge of the PC steppe, the eastern Balkans, and especially northwestern Anatolia.

The Principal Component Analysis (PCA) below effectively illustrates why my qpAdm models work. It was produced with Global25 data using the Vahaduo PCA tools freely available here. Note that TUR_Barcin_C is shifted away from the essentially perfect cline formed by AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN, TUR_Barcin_N and TUR_Buyukkaya_EC towards samples from ancient Eastern Europe, including Yamnaya_BGR.

See also...

Steppe invaders in the Bronze Age Balkans

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

Archeologist David Anthony has teamed up with Harvard's David Reich Lab to work on a paper about the Eneolithic period on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

A couple of other labs are also preparing papers on similar topics, and they've already sequenced and analyzed many of their ancient samples (for instance, see here). However, I don't have a clue when these papers will be published. My guess is that we'll have to wait a year or so.

Needless to say, knowing what happened on the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe and surrounds during the Eneolithic is crucial to understanding the origins of the present-day European gene pool. It's also likely to be highly relevant to the debate about the location of the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland.

In this blog post I'll explain what I've learned about the Eneolithic peoples of the PC steppe based on already published data.

If we ignore Steppe Maykop samples, the currently available Eneolithic individuals from the eastern part of the PC steppe form an essentially perfect cline in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of ancient West Eurasian genetic variation.

The cline runs from the Mesolithic hunter-fishers of the Eastern European forest zone to those of the Eneolithic sites of Progress 2 and Vonyuchka in the North Caucasus foothills. Let's call this the Khvalynsk cline, because three of the samples are from a burial site in the Volga River valley associated with the Khvalynsk culture. The relevant datasheet is available here.

The reason that these samples form the cline is because they carry different ratios of admixture related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) from what is now Georgia. Moreover, the Khvalynsk individuals appear to be relatively recent mixtures between sources rich and poor in this type of ancestry.

I also marked a Maykop cline on the plot. This cline is made up of individuals associated with the Maykop and Steppe Maykop cultures from the Caucasus Mountains and nearby parts of the PC steppe, respectively. The Maykop culture is dated to the Early Bronze Age (EBA) period, but the PC steppe was still part of the Eneolithic world at the time.

The Maykop cline is more complicated than the Khvalynsk cline, because some of the Maykop individuals carry genetic components that the others lack. These genetic components are closely related to the aforementioned CHG, as well as Anatolian Neolithic farmers (ANF) and Western Siberian hunter-gatherers (WSHG).

Note that the two clines intersect, but this isn't because any of the Khvalynsk cline samples harbor Maykop-related ancestry. It's largely because the Steppe Maykop individuals carry high levels of Vonyuchka-related ancestry.

So unless we're dealing here with a remarkable string of coincidences, then the Vonyuchka hunter-fisher must be a decent proxy for the people who spread significant levels of CHG-related ancestry north of the Caucasus.

The important question, therefore, is where and when exactly did this population form? And it's a question that the authors of the aforementioned upcoming papers should be aiming to answer comprehensively.

In my view, it was the result of interactions between the hunter-fishers of the North Caucasus and the southernmost parts of the PC steppe during the Neolithic period, perhaps around 6,000 BCE, just before significant ANF-related ancestry spread across the Caucasus during the Eneolithic. That's because the Progress 2/Vonyuchka samples lack ANF-related ancestry, or at least an obvious signal of it, and are dated to ~4,200 BCE. And when I say Neolithic in this context, I don't mean the Near Eastern type of Neolithic with well developed farming, but rather the local type of Neolithic still based on hunting and fishing.

Now, obviously, the people of the Corded Ware and Yamnaya cultures were the children of the Eneolithic PC steppe. So you might be wondering how they fit into all of this. I still don't know, and apparently neither do the scientists at Harvard (see here). However, I'd say that the Maykop cline isn't relevant to this question. The Khvalynsk cline might be relevant, but even if it is, this doesn't necessarily mean that the Yamnaya people are by and large derived from the Khvalynsk people.

Here's the same PCA plot as above, but this time with early Corded Ware and Yamnaya samples also highlighted. Note that, apart from a few outliers, they form a rather tight cluster that is shifted slightly away from the Khvalynsk cline, but probably not in the direction of the Maykop cline.

A couple of the Yamnaya outliers are shifted towards the "eastern" end of the Khvalynsk cline, and thus near the Progress 2/Vonyuchka samples. This isn't surprising because these Yamnaya individuals are from burial sites close to the North Caucasus and probably harbor significant levels of local ancestry.

The most extreme Yamnaya outlier, from a site in what is now Ukraine, is clearly shifted towards the Maykop cline, and even towards the Caucasus Maykop cluster. However, this is a female with no grave goods and she may have been a foreign bride or captive, possibly from a late Maykop settlement. It's also possible that her 3095-2915 calBCE dating is wrong.

I'm pretty sure that when we find out why the Yamnaya cluster is so deliberately shifted away from the Khvalynsk cline, we'll also discover how the early Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations formed. For now, I strongly suspect that this has something to do with gene flow from the western edge of the PC steppe and the ethnogenesis of the Sredny Stog culture, which was located just west of the Khvalynsk culture.

By and large, the PC steppe is still seen by historical linguists and archeologists as the most sensible place to put the PIE homeland.

However, a theory that the PIE homeland was located somewhere south of the Caucasus, and that instead the PC steppe was the late or nuclear PIE dispersal point, has gained popularity in recent years, largely thanks to the apparent lack of PC steppe ancestry in a handful of samples from Hittite era Anatolia. In this scheme, the Maykop culture took PIE into Eastern Europe and the Yamnaya culture subsequently spread late/nuclear PIE from the PC steppe, while Proto-Anatolian, the ancestor of Hittite, was introduced into Anatolia from the east along with Maykop-related ancestry.

This is possible, in the sense that almost anything is possible, but it doesn't strike me as the most parsimonious interpretation of the facts.

Even before ancient DNA, it was known that the Maykop culture colonized parts of the PC steppe, at least for a short time, and probably had contacts with the Yamnaya people and/or their antecedents. But it was generally seen as the vector for Caucasian and other non-Indo-European influences in PIE.

Moreover, not only were the Maykop and Yamnaya populations of fundamentally different genetic origins, but apparently the Yamnaya people didn't absorb any perceptible Maykop ancestry as they expanded into the North Caucasus region at the tail end of the Maykop period.

That's really difficult to explain if we assume that these groups were close linguistic relatives, and much easier to reconcile with the assumption that they were derived from different worlds culturally and linguistically.

Another important question is what happened to the Steppe Maykop people, because right now it looks like they vanished almost without a trace, essentially as if they were pushed out or even erased by the Yamnaya expansion. If they were indeed pushed out or erased, then it's likely that their language was as well.

As for the lack of PC steppe ancestry in Hittite era Anatolians, I honestly can't see this is as a significant obstacle to a PIE homeland on the steppe, especially if we consider that the most widely accepted Indo-European phylogenies show the Anatolian family as the most basal node.

In the opinion of the vast majority of experts, it's the most basal node because the Proto-Anatolian speakers were the first to leave the PIE homeland. And if they were indeed the first to leave the homeland, then why should we expect their descendants to harbor significant ancestry from the homeland? In my view, such an assumption would contradict the most widely accepted Indo-European phylogenies.

See also...

The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux

In recent years you may have read academic papers, books and press articles claiming that the Early Bronze Age Yamnaya culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe was founded by migrants from the Caucasus, Mesopotamia or even Central Asia.

Of course, none of this is true.

The Yamnaya herders and closely related groups, such as the people associated with the Corded Ware culture, expanded from the steppe between the Black and Caspian seas, and, thanks to ancient DNA, it's now certain that they were overwhelmingly derived from a population that had existed in this region since at least the mid-5th millennium BCE (see here).

So rather than being culturally advanced colonists from some Near Eastern civilization, the ancestors of the Yamnaya herders were a relatively primitive local people who still largely relied on hunting and fishing for their subsistence. They also sometimes buried their dead with flint blades and adzes, but hardly ever with metal objects, despite living in the Eneolithic epoch or the Copper Age.

As far as I know, this group doesn't have a specific name. But in recent scientific literature it's referred to as Eneolithic steppe, so let's use that.

It's not yet clear how the Yamnaya people became pastoralists. Some scholars believe that they were basically an offshoot of the cattle herding Maykop culture of the North Caucasus. However, the obvious problem with this idea is that the Yamnaya and Maykop populations probably didn't share any recent ancestry. In fact, ancient DNA shows that the former wasn't derived from the latter in any important or even discernible way (see here).

On the other hand, Yamnaya samples do harbor a subtle signal of recent gene flow from the west that appears to be most closely associated with Middle to Late Neolithic European agropastoralists (see here). Therefore, it's possible that herding was adopted by the ancestors of the Yamnaya people as a result of their sporadic contacts with populations living on the western edge of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Eneolithic steppe is currently represented by just three samples in the ancient DNA record, and all of these individuals are from sites on the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe (two from Progress 2 and one from Vonyuchka 1).

As a result, it might be tempting to argue that cultural, if not genetic, impulses from the Caucasus did play an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya and related peoples. However, it's important to note that the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe was the southern periphery of Eneolithic steppe territory.

Below is a map of Eneolithic steppe burial sites featured in recent scientific literature. It's based on data from Gresky et al. 2016, a paper that focused on a specific and complex type of cranial surgery or trepanation often practiced by groups associated with this archeological culture (see here).

Incredibly, one of the skeletons from Vertoletnoe pole has been radiocarbon dated to the mid-6th millennium BCE. My suspicion, however, is that this result was blown out by the so called reservoir effect (see here). In any case, the academic consensus seems to be that the roots of Eneolithic steppe should be sought in the Lower Don region, rather than in the Caucasus foothills (see page 36 here).

Considering that nine Eneolithic steppe skulls from the Lower Don were analyzed by Gresky et al., I'd say it's only a matter of time before we see the publication of genome-wide data for at least of couple of these samples. Indeed, the paper's lead author is from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, which is currently involved in a major archaeogenetic project on the ancient Caucasus and surrounds. Unfortunately, the study is scheduled to be completed in about four years (see here).

But whatever happens, the story of Eneolithic steppe deserves to be investigated in as much detail as possible, because it obviously had a profound impact on Europe and its people.

In my estimation, at least a third of the ancestry of present-day Northern Europeans, all the way from Ireland to the Ural Mountains in Russia, is ultimately derived from Eneolithic steppe groups. It's also possible that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, the two most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroups in European males today, derive from a couple of Eneolithic steppe founders. If so, that's a very impressive effort for such an obscure archeological culture from what is generally regarded as a peripheral part of Europe.

See also...