Since David has not posted, here they are…
The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe:
By sequencing 727 ancient individuals from the Southern Arc (Anatolia and its neighbors in Southeastern Europe and West Asia) over 10,000 years, we contextualize its Chalcolithic period and Bronze Age (about 5000 to 1000 BCE), when extensive gene flow entangled it with the Eurasian steppe. Two streams of migration transmitted Caucasus and Anatolian/Levantine ancestry northward, and the Yamnaya pastoralists, formed on the steppe, then spread southward into the Balkans and across the Caucasus into Armenia, where they left numerous patrilineal descendants. Anatolia was transformed by intra–West Asian gene flow, with negligible impact of the later Yamnaya migrations. This contrasts with all other regions where Indo-European languages were spoken, suggesting that the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia, with only secondary dispersals of non-Anatolian Indo-Europeans from the steppe.
A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia:
Literary and archaeological sources have preserved a rich history of Southern Europe and West Asia since the Bronze Age that can be complemented by genetics. Mycenaean period elites in Greece did not differ from the general population and included both people with some steppe ancestry and others, like the Griffin Warrior, without it. Similarly, people in the central area of the Urartian Kingdom around Lake Van lacked the steppe ancestry characteristic of the kingdom’s northern provinces. Anatolia exhibited extraordinary continuity down to the Roman and Byzantine periods, with its people serving as the demographic core of much of the Roman Empire, including the city of Rome itself. During medieval times, migrations associated with Slavic and Turkic speakers profoundly affected the region.
We present the first ancient DNA data from the Pre-Pottery Neolithic of Mesopotamia (Southeastern Turkey and Northern Iraq), Cyprus, and the Northwestern Zagros, along with the first data from Neolithic Armenia. We show that these and neighboring populations were formed through admixture of pre-Neolithic sources related to Anatolian, Caucasus, and Levantine hunter-gatherers, forming a Neolithic continuum of ancestry mirroring the geography of West Asia. By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia.
I haven’t read the supplements, so no major comment from me, except for one: the Greece-focused paper confirms using phenotypic prediction that West Eurasians have been getting lighter-complected since the late Neolithic/Bronze Age. I have no idea why, but some Nazis are offended by this reality and cherry-pick data, but trust me, I open up all the supplements to look at the HIRIS-plex predictions.
Re; pigmentation, East Eurasia will probably show the same pattern of being much less brown than the ancestors were in the early late upper paleolithic and neolithic, once that’s better characterised, e.g. https://www.researchgate.net/publication/362005818_A_Late_Pleistocene_human_genome_from_Southwest_China – “By utilizing the published aDNA data, we reconstructed the spatial-temporal distribution of an East Asian-specific variant (OCA2-His615Arg) that contributes to skin lightening. It turned out that all the Late Pleistocene individuals (e.g., MZR, Tianyuan, Amur-33K, Amur-19K, and UKY) lack the derived allele (OCA2-615Arg). The first presence of the adaptive allele (OCA2-615Arg) was in Liangdao 2 – 7.5 kya from coastal southern China, and it quickly elevated to medium frequency (25.67%, 29/113), mainly in coastal East Asia, and then spread to northern East Asia ~3,500 years ago, and finally became dominant (~60.00%) in current East Asians“. East Asian lightening probably more polygenic though.
I saw in the supplement here, they noted that Bell Beakers in their sample set had lighter pigmentation than Corded Ware and noted this to be in contrast to the cline of steppe ancestry, providing some other evidence of a rapid selective event.
When this large Anglo-Saxon paper with hundreds of samples is released soon, might be interesting to see if there is any hirisplex contrast between England_IA and the Anglo-Saxon groups, which is another stereotype idea like is tested in this paper where there is likely to be a some blend of basically truth and exaggeration.
Interesting that they note that the Griffin Warrior has no steppe ancestry.
Seems like there’s kind of an unusual bit of perhaps chancey outcome that so far, for most high status warrior burials that some people have expected to show steppe ancestry, they tend to have less of it than average or none:
– “King of Stonehenge”, the Amesbury Archer, the richest burial at the Stonehenge Complex: Had less steppe ancestry than average for Britain at the time and was a recent migrant from the Alps.
– The Varna Man, the richest burial at Varna (and the oldest known burial evidence of an elite male): No steppe ancestry, although some trace steppe ancestry or something related to it was found in other samples.
– The Tomb of the Warrior at Gonur: No steppe ancestry, only some in others in the encampments around the city.
– The Eagle Warrior in Pylos, here: No steppe ancestry (though I would caution the sample is low SNPs).
– The Sanuali “Chariot” Burial, although this is anyway at the wrong time to have any steppe ancestry: Per Nirja Rai’s presentation, no steppe ancestry.
– The founding Steppe Maykop grave of the Ipatovo Kurgan: Ancestry from Maykop to the south that was lacking in others in the steppe.
(Some of these early burials have horrible snp counts tho).
It seems like these early high status burials quite often have no steppe ancestry or less steppe ancestry than is typical for their environment. Perhaps this indicates that its the southern people that are really doing the wealth accumulation at this time, and the groups with more biological steppe ancestry, although they’re expanding a lot, don’t tend to be the ones where this is going on? In any case doesn’t fit with the idea of people with steppe ancestry moving in and then establishing hierarchies and wealth, but rather this is broader and deeper.
I thank you very much for the links. I’ll study very carefully all the matter and hope we’ll know next if Lazaridis is actually Dienekes Pontikos with whom I exchanged hundreds of letters and if my suspect that Dienekes used with me another nickname whose Y was a J2 coming from Chioggia, Italy, that he hoped to be Greek, but hg J is very old in Italy as in Greece, secondary only to the Caucasus, but my hg R is older in Villabruna, and certainly Latin, I think, came from the pile dwellers of the Adriatic.
One quote I found strange that seems to be in Lazaridis Greeks paper was: “Present-day Iranians do have R-Z93 Y chromosomes (25) or the more general upstream R1a-M17 ones [observed in every one of 19 diverse populations from Iran (26), as well as in present-day Indians (27), and modern Iranians almost completely lack R1b Y chromosomes ( less than 1% frequency)]. Thus, it appears that R1a haplogroup Y chromosomes represent a common link between ancient and modern Indo-Iranians, whereas R1b haplogroup Y chromosomes (to which many of the Hasanlu males belonged) do not. “
But the paper by Victoria Grugni in 2012 suggested higher frequencies of R1b (than less than 1%) in Western Iran – https://www.researchgate.net/figure/Frequencies-of-the-main-Y-chromosome-haplogroups-in-the-whole-Iranian-population-inset_fig1_229427983 – which seems to be where you’d expect it if there was some continuity…
“suggesting that the homeland of the Indo-Anatolian language family was in West Asia, with only secondary dispersals of non-Anatolian Indo-Europeans from the steppe.”
It does no such thing. This is an absurd conclusion. Language shift driven by elite dominance with only minor demic impact (and mostly 2000 BCE and later) is a much better supported hypothesis.
@Matt “most high status warrior burials that some people have expected to show steppe ancestry, they tend to have less of it than average or none”
People with steppe ancestry may have had high social class by birth in a moderately social class divided society, while high status warriors may have attained that status via merit as a warrior displayed during life that allowed otherwise low status people to come out on time. Also particularly high status burials may have been a means of conspicuous consumption by which families of upwardly mobile “new rich” heroic warriors who came from humble low status families cemented their social class ascension.
“By analyzing Pre-Pottery and Pottery Neolithic populations of Anatolia, we show that the former were derived from admixture between Mesopotamian-related and local Epipaleolithic-related sources, but the latter experienced additional Levantine-related gene flow, thus documenting at least two pulses of migration from the Fertile Crescent heartland to the early farmers of Anatolia.”
So by Mesopotamia-related do they mean similar to the 2019 paper’s CHG/Iran-like ancestry? Because the Levantine related gene flow mention later on sounds like the Levant (PPNB/Natufian) admixture into Anatolia during the ceramic period as described in the 2019 paper. Is there anything new in that regard?
” I have no idea why, but some Nazis are offended by this reality and cherry-pick data”- speaking of Nazis, they probably mad because they lost to Coon yet again.
“Coon took the Nordics to be a partially depigmented branch of the greater Mediterranean racial stock.[28] This theory was also supported by Coon’s mentor Earnest Albert Hooton, who in the same year published Twilight of Man, which stated: “The Nordic race is certainly a depigmented offshoot from the basic long-headed Mediterranean stock. It deserves separate racial classification only because its blond hair (ash or golden), its pure blue or grey eyes”.[29][28]
Coon suggested that the Nordic type emerged as a result of a mixture of “the Danubian Mediterranean strain with the later Corded element”. ” – from wikipedia.
@Matt
In the case of the Varna man, people around him barely had any steppe ancestry at least in his time AFAIK. You said trace, so I assume it means just above trivial.
“In any case doesn’t fit with the idea of people with steppe ancestry moving in and then establishing hierarchies and wealth, but rather this is broader and deeper.”
Sounds more like people of a simple society who break the existing status quo. This image is being solidified at least since 2018 especially since Wang et al showed close to no Maykop input into steppe, thus sealing away any chances of the last realistic link that the genesis of steppe people could have had with a major center of wealth and complex society.
I’m sure the nazis as you call them will find new and entertaining ways to deny this all. It will be fun to watch – not as much fun as my fellow indians when the narasimhan paper came out, but we’ll see some entertainment nonetheless.
Jokes aside – it really does look like we have a reasonable understanding of where Pre-PIE or Indo Anatolian came from.
Reading the paper – the authors suggest that Indo European possibly served as some sort of ‘lingua fraca’ in Southeastern Europe. They also say “It appears that the steppe-descended speakers who introduced early Indo-European language to the area did not run roughshod over the native inhabitants, as they did in what is now Germany, and in Britain, where 90 percent of the native population was replaced by steppe-descended peoples.”
I suspect some sort of similar integration with IVC elites is what happened in South Asia as well.
David is at work:
Blogger Davidski said…
Guys,
Basically, this paper isn’t worth reading. But the samples are interesting.
I’m going to clear my weekend schedule and get to work on them.
The G25 coords should be available within a day. I’ll post them here first.
August 25, 2022 at 6:33 PM
From a first sight it seems that also Lazaridis & Co start from the YFull tree, we all are working on from so long through our tests and our critics. I spoke a lot of the failures of those trees, above all the mt one. No knowledge of the heteroplasmies to understand the haplogroups, but also the Y has many failures, that it should be thought from the beginning. I don’t know if Lazaridis is Dienekes, but he actually thinks having something to teach us?
“I don’t know if Lazaridis is Dienekes”
They aren’t.
@DaThang, I think there may have been a few people with more, but it those samples may have now been struck through contamination. Not sure. I think a few of those samples were struck through contamination.
The possibility of multiple layers of ancestry in the steppe group, as in this paper, adds some complexity there too about what we mean around steppe. (Though the full analysis in the supplement suggests there’s a lot less here than is conclusive than the abstract indicates! I need to read this and have some judgement on it, and a non-paywalled version of the paper may be decisive.).
@ohwilleke, it’s possible there’s still some correlation with overall steppe ancestry to be found in societies that are post-3000 BCE. It does seem to me that it’s not visible in these particular very prominently advertised burials. Either the ones before large scale movements of steppe ancestry into a particular region (where warrior elite burials were suggested to be indicative of an IE speaking elite that established the first hierarchical societies in something like Gimbutas ideas of IE introducing inegalitarianism and warrior culture) (e.g. Varna or the Gonur Warrior). Or the people after the established shifts in ancestry in an area (Griffin, the Archer). A large set of less ostentatious burials with more even gender balance, like you (I think?) suggest might reveal something more.
It seems more likely that if there is a broad correlation, it would be through patrilineal steppe ancestry than autosome. For one, maybe there’s too much opportunity for the most socially surgent groups and the subgroups that push the frontier most to admix more heavily and then turn their gaze back and are powerful over their less admixed relatives. E.g. Amesbury is possibly more admixed because he’s from the Alps which is further south into the frontier of movement forward, and the south probably a region with both more people and resources than further north, and so had the clout to move into Britain and demand this place as a position of burial? He’s still got that steppe patriline, but his overall ancestry is lower in steppe than typical in Britain at the time.
(As an aside, like I’ve said before, this sort of turnabout dynamic might also tend to dilute the indication of the X:A ratio as an indicator of initial sex bias admixture. If a steppe group admixed heavily with EEF in a male biased way, to the point they had the steppe y but almost total EEF ancestry on their chromosomes, but then turned around and mixed in a male biased way with the less EEF, more steppe admixed groups further from the frontier of admixture, we’d see the y dna signal stay but might lose the X:A ratio signal).
West Europe is not a very good test case for that sort of idea of patrilineal steppe ancestry being associated with status though, because the previous y-dna just gets replaced so much. Maybe the Balkans and Italy will show more.
@ohwilleke
“I don’t know if Lazaridis is Dienekes”
They aren’t.
I thank you. Very likely you know him better than me, but what about my opinion that he is anyway a front man of Reich, Harvard and its funders? Of course we need a great work about this paper, case by case, and many are
making that, but it needs time. What do you think that anyway these “positions” are ready to be accepted from who believes in them before, above all who thinks that the “truth” is in a “book” (Bible, Kuran etc) and not in
the long procedures of the science and its methods, and that is functional to the strategies based on the control of media above all in the case of a war in due course about whose origins people may get very different
explications? Interesting the previous post of Razib Khan about “Science must respect the dignity and rights of all humans” where the “truth” is at the level of a “faith” and not of the science and its methods.
Blogger Davidski said…
@Modas Califa
The Indo-Hittite family arises from the South Caucasus and somehow influences the Yamnaya culture. Within linguistics, is there any evidence for this?
No, it’s bullshit.
@Mohan, re; “lingua franca” IMO mobility will be the key to understanding IE. Sometimes that meant mobility to move in when other societies had collapsed and to replace them, like in Britain. Sometimes it meant being very mobile so having a good set of language and customs to use as a baseline for regional communication and integration, as more likely in Balkans. Many would know a bit of Indo-European because they were quite mobile and then likely to drop the old language? Sometimes both. Iran seems more the Balkans than Britain, while I’d guess India is intermediate but much more like the Balkan case of more survival and local elite co-option.
The case of Anatolian might be the extreme of a model where IE becomes the base through high mobility and second language learning, if it the standard model is right that it came from the west. I think there’s less evidence for “elite” models across the Balkans and Anatolia for reasons that most visible elite graves don’t seem to have indications that way, though there is some R1b at Pylos in Greece (not just the Griffin Warrior there).
In fact initial elite dominance of IE men might be most likely in Iberia, where theres lower evidence of IE language survival.
Obviously, I guess the idea of IE as, in some places, spreading because of its networking advantages to existing people in an era where that really mattered for getting bronze and winning wars, that’s clearly a bit Anglo-Saxon, as has a slight analogy to the rise of English as having many speakers as the 21st century networking language.
But I think it is anticipated by and follows what David Anthony suggested would explain IE in SE Europe; recruiting chiefs into a network with clear guest-host and patron relationships that make long distance culture possible.
So if razibs talking to Anthony and the podcasts not done, be interested to see if Anthony feels it provides any validation for his case there. (As opposed to elite dominance / replacement models).
The discussion in the “Eurogenes blog” is interesting, they say what I have been saying from so long and I resumed in the formula “levantinists-kurganists-levantinists”:
Wise dragon said…
I personally don’t buy this Yamnaya were part Natufian/Levantine part which is being pushed by Lazaradis.
There are many people who literally worship geneticists and think they are always right and everybody who questions them is either an idiot or has an agenda.
Blogger gamerz_J said…
@Rob
Does Meshoko provide a better fit that Trypillia farmers? I am not sure that’s settled. And what if this “Levantine” we are seeing is due to some type of Iran_N in Progress (or Iran_N-like) or a more basal (perhaps less EHG) version of CHG?
Regarding Natufians and Barcin, well it’s obvious Barcin has some Natufian-like ancestry, but imo a lot less than what they suggested (up to 43%!!) unless by Natufian they mean Kebaran-like… Feldman et al (2019) had a lot more Pinarbasi for example and Lazaridis himself had ANF as mostly Dzudzuana-like. Natufians had additional affinities with Taforalt. Barcin should almost certainly have European HG ancestry as well.
@Matt
I think most of West Asia, by the Late Neolithic at least, had both Iran_N and CHG. Hence why it’s hard to differentiate between them. In one of their papers they understood that in the other they focused on CHG a lot more than they should have and I think that’s what CopperAxe is criticizing.
“I don’t think they’ve really got the goods on confirming that the wave that enriched Anatolian in Yamnaya/Sredny is from WA rather that SE Europe”.
Probably the best way to check this is if Yamnaya have WHG and lack Levantine. Not sure what’s the best method to do that, but if they do have WHG and lack Levant it’s 100% from Europe, if they don’t have WHG and have Levant it’s ofc 100% from West Asia. In this paper they argue for the latter scenario but I noticed they found higher amounts of Levantine ancestry across all pops they tested, compared to earlier papers at least.
August 26, 2022 at 3:24 AM
@Matt
“@DaThang, I think there may have been a few people with more, but it those samples may have now been struck through contamination. Not sure. I think a few of those samples were struck through contamination.”
More steppe ancestry in Varna at the same time as Varna man? Isn’t he like from before 4000 BC (generally between 4600 BC- 4200 BC)? The Cucuteni-Trypillians with some steppe-like ancestry like Pocrovca and the vertebrae were all from after 3500 BC. Different times. Or are you talking about other pre-4000 BC samples? The details are crucial here.
As for Gonur, well, that may be more of a spatial separation- those in the cities belonging to the BMAC civilization, those outside not belonging to it. And so instead of rising in a steppe society background, this would be a person from a non-steppe society who happens to live close to steppe society people who like outside his backyard. Do you have more info on the spatial distribution in Gonur which would debunk this/clarify this?
*who live outside his backyard.
“what about my opinion that he is anyway a front man of Reich, Harvard and its funders?”
He’s a very independent thinker challenging or diverging from Reich on many occasions and has been dormant for some time. He often complained about lack of access to data that Reich et al would have. He reads the literature and draws conclusions like the rest of the us in the peanut gallery instead of in front row seats.
“The case of Anatolian might be the extreme of a model where IE becomes the base through high mobility and second language learning,”
Also worth noting that most Anatolian languages are only attested post-Hittite as analogs to the Romance languages from Latin. A few are pre-Hittite but its less. And, it isn’t as if Hittite was preceded by an illiterate culture. There’s plenty of pre-Hittite written documents in Hattic that don’t allude to large dominant Anatolian language speaking communities all over or show substrate influence from Anatolian languages. If anything the substrate influences run the other direction.
@ohwilleke, in fact I received on my smartphone some twitters of his in which he seemed Gioiello Tognoni or Davidski more than an Harvardian… unfortunately I wasn’t able to download them. Then? End of the game. They said: end of the arc theory.
An old Italian song said: “La storia, appena cominciata, è già finita”.
Some quotes from the Supplements:
“We comment on Anatolia (n=163, and n=114 prior to the Roman period). Of these pre-Roman samples, no RM269 was found”.
“Anatolian languages are thought to stem from the first split of the Indo-European phylogeny, and thus they may be descended from a part of the ProtoIndo-European community prior to the appearance and wide dispersal of the R-M269 lineage from the Eurasian steppe”.
We are questioning from so long about the origin of R-L23-L51 from the “steppes” or from some place closer to the Alps, and anyway the oldest R1b1 found so far is Villabruna, Italy, 14000 years ago, and R-V88, R-M73 etc are older in Europe (Northern Europe or the Balkans but from the Alpine refugium before, I think) and I am waiting that what I wrote about R-V1636 older in Italy is checked.
“Proto-Indo-European originated in the Near East (including the Caucasus region which was genetically an extension of the Near East during the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age) in a population devoid of EHG ancestry”.
Ahahahah, is the same Lazaridis of the twitters who wrote that?
“Where did the R-M269 founder live? The early presence of this lineage in steppe samples and its association with steppe ancestry in many of its descendants may suggest that the R-M269 founder belonged to a population with EHG ancestry”.
“R-P297(xM269) chromosomes are found in huntergatherers from the Baltic as well as in a hunter-gatherer from the Samara region of Russia”.
“Yet, the data are equally consistent with a scenario in which the R-M269 founder did not have EHG. It is a challenge for future archaeogenetic
research to pinpoint the origin of the R-M269 lineage”.
Please, inform Lazaridis about Villabruna 14000 years ago and Les Iboussiéres 12000 years ago.
@DaThang, one sample was at Varna with thought to be enriched steppe related: ANI163, but she was struck now as Bulgaria_Varna_C_contam. The Varna samples which are uncontaminated and high coverage are in the main sample: ANI160 and ANI159-ANI181.
The other samples that Mathieson’s paper identified with some steppe related ancestry are only I2181 (Smyadovo (Northeast) outlier), not from Varna and I1927 Verteba Cave, no longer present in Reich Lab anno file. So not a lot of people contemporary to the time.
@Matt
There’s a lot in these but some first things I noticed, especially with the inclusion in G25.
Since we had discussed those later steppe groups in the past, including this culture, did you notice the one Multicordoned Ware sample? Apparently half-way between Steppe_EBA and Steppe_MLBA groups, though with R1b. Hope we get more from there since it’s the turning point for the western part of the PC steppe.
Those steppe-rich Armenian samples seem to be a bit more in cline with the Kuban-Tersk south Catacomb groups than with Yamnaya/Catacomb proper to me with a first look. Did you have a look at them yet? I’m curious what you think about that and if those southern steppe groups are a good/better proximate source. They mention the R1b in the two related Mycenaean individuals is the same as that of a Lysogorskyja individual which I assume is the RUS_Kubano-Tersk:LYG001 sample. Nice finding of a relationship between the two though I assume the Mycenaean one goes back to the common Yamnaya source.
In G25 one of the more steppe-rich/less Minoan-like samples from the paper’s PCA (from central Greece) seems to shift towards Logkas-like/mixed Balkan groups rather than Yamnaya despite their distal modelling (since Iron Gates poor) making them apparently suggest a more purely Yamnaya-like admixing population. I’m generally curious why they didn’t try more proximal modelling too though I’m still going through the papers.
Also, nice to see those early Balkan outliers finally. Obviously they generally suggest against the possibility in the steppe-related paper, instead preferring a southern Indo-Anatolian homeland, but maybe those early outliers do have something to do with the Anatolian branch after all and we still haven’t sampled their migration into the area.
To be fair to them, they do hedge their bets in the main text in various parts from what I notice with their arguments about a potential southern homeland, e.g. in one part “The individuals from Armenia and Arslantepe lack any detectible Eastern hunter-gatherer autosomal ancestry (Fig. 6C), which is maximized in the Khvalynsk individuals, an observation that provides some evidence for a southern origin for the R-V1636 haplogroup (we caution, however, that the haplogroup occurs earlier in several sites in the north, which could be consistent with an alternative scenario in which male migrants from the steppe introduced it into Southern Arc populations during the Chalcolithic, but their autosomal genetic legacy was diluted by the much more numerous locals)”
Their main argument seems to be that a steppe-related intrusion into Anatolia can’t be detected with their methods, unlike the surrounding regions where it’s much more visible, per the abstract we saw before. I didn’t notice any new arguments overall.
It’s unbelievable how these Harvardians trait the things. About R-V1636, I have been writing about from 15 years, and demonstrated that only Italy gets the known so far 5 haplotypes whereas all the other places only one, they write:
“The individuals from Armenia and Arslantepe lack any detectible Eastern hunter-gatherer autosomal ancestry (Fig. 6C), which is maximized in the Khvalynsk individuals, an observation that provides some evidence for a southern origin for the R-V1636 haplogroup (we caution, however, that the haplogroup occurs earlier in several sites in the north, which could be consistent with an alternative scenario in which male migrants from the steppe introduced it into Southern Arc populations during the Chalcolithic, but their autosomal genetic legacy was diluted by the much more numerous locals)
I know that everyone criticized my method based on the presence of haplogroups in to-day population, but that was
only what we had at our disposal then, but I secceded in all my theories:
1) R1b1 Villabruna 14000 years ago
2) R-V88 from Italy or at least Europe and not Middle East
3) R-M73 older in Europe than in Asia
4) R-PF7589 from the Eastern Alps and not Eastward
etc etc.
They say to look at the YFUll tree (with all its incongruences), but about R-V1636 it demonstrates that the oldest survived haplotypes are in Italy and Iberia, separated 6600 years ago (don’t mind the fake Jewish one very recently introgressed, as usual).
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V1636/
@Gioiello Tognoni
R is ultimately from North Asia/Siberia. I am not sure what you are trying to prove or what agenda you have.
@Jason
I ask you what are you trying to prove and which is your agenda. First of all I use my real name and surname, my mt is K1a1b1e (basal haplotype in Tuscany and Americans of Tuscan origin), Y R-L23-Z2110-FGC24408-FGC24396-FGC24444.
Autosomally I am a Roman, even though Tuscan from at least 1300, but Etruscans are more in North-West Italy until iberia.
In Centtral Asia Mal’ta boy is a dead end line. The oldest found so far is Villabruna, Italy, 14000 years ago, and the second at Les Iboussiéres (border France/Italy) 12000 years ago.
R-V88 is older in Europe and migrated to Africa much later. R-M73* was in the Baltic before migrating to Asia, and so on.
You may see also in this paper of Lazaridis et al. that no R1 has been found in Middle East or Anatolia.
Perhaps the unique old R1b in Asia is R-PH155, but we need other samples. All the others, R1a and R1b, were due to the migration Eastward of the Yamnaya people or close to Yamnaya in Easterrn Europe.
I’d be glad to know your name, surname, nationality, and of course your genetic data. I check all them for free.
@GT – Where I live there’s a law against what you just did.
@John Massey
If GT is for Gioiello Tognoni (you haden’t either the courage to write my name and surname), tell me what is against the laws of your country in what I wrote or disprove even one point of that. It seems to me you are not only with no knowledge, but even no courage.
@GT – Where I live, it is a criminal offence to pump people for their personal information.
Probably your country is also the country of the “cancel culture”, which isn’t mine. To ask our “identity” is fundamental for knowing the “agenda” of someone. I gave my “identity” just because I was indicted to have got an “agenda”. That the other make the same. But the true question is about the merit of what I wrote. Disprove that.
No, cancel culture is really not a thing here. I was just pointing out that you were being intrusive, to the point that here it would be considered criminal. I don’t give a damn about what you wrote; you’re just some blowhard nobody on the Internet.
Again, you think to have every right to offend me (“you’re just some blowhard nobody on the Internet”) but don’t disprove any point of what I wrote. I think I may say not only that you are “some blowhard nobody”, but even a presumptuous (from Latin).
@Forgetful, you raise some interesting points, I’ll try and get back to you on that.
@Matt
I can’t find any of the following on global25: ANI163, ANI160, I2181, I1927
Target: BGR_Varna_C:ANI159-ANI181
Distance: 2.0087% / 0.02008712
84.0 TUR_Barcin_N
8.6 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
7.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
ANI159-ANI181 has some Yamnaya-like ancestry in this model. I will assume the ones I can’t find are at least comparable and not lower. That makes it 5 samples that you have mentioned.
Question: What is the number of samples from the same place and time as these samples do not have steppe ancestry? If it is much more than 5 (or indeed any other total number of steppe ancestry samples from that place and time), then we aren’t really looking at a steppe society, so the situation of Varna man climbing ranks in a steppe influenced society as mentioned by someone else up in the comment section wouldn’t make sense.
@DaThang
FWIW, if we use even more Mesolithic proxies, some of the Yamnaya-like drops in favor of those though doesn’t completely disappear (maybe some 5% remaining). In the supervised ADMIXTURE in the 2018 Mathieson et al. paper the Varna samples came from, ANI159-ANI181 didn’t have any of the yellow Yamnaya, only the red and green HG-related components so I’m a bit skeptical either way about it.
The “golden man” ANI152 has some of the yellow there at low levels so it might be the case for him.
The one that clearly has a lot of steppe-related ancestry is ANI163 but, as Matt mentioned, that’s a problematic sample per Harvard’s annotation: “data were later found to lack characteristic ancient DNA damage raising the possibility that contamination explains why this individual appears to be an ancestry outlier; a subset of the co-authors of Mathieson et al. 2018 are actively looking into this and will publish corrected information after the issues are fully understood” and it behaved kinda unexpectedly for the region at that time in G25 when it was included there in the past as well.
I think the only other so far is the sample I2181 which seems legitimate, both in what it looks like autosomally and in apparently being radiocarbon dated. But yes, those early intrusions appear potentially less relevant and perhaps assimilated into local societies rather than something more influential long-term. I’ll mention here again also the relatively early, 3910-3644 calBCE, sample I2788 from Hungary that might have a little steppe-related admixture as well and shifts in an interesting way compared to the others in his set; seemingly somewhat more towards the steppe direction than the HG direction. It’s an interesting question though, considering the potential early separation of Anatolian from the rest though ohwilleke would disagree about that, and hopefully it will be clarified more in the future. All of the other relatively early ones I can think of (e.g. other Smyadovo, Ezero, Kran samples) come from that later period. There are some others with very broad dating that includes early periods but also very suspicious autosomal ancestry, kinda Scythian-Sarmatian-looking so they might very well belong to the later eras.
The Griffin warrior also has potential Minoan ties considering the abundance of Minoan-related artifacts though that wouldn’t be weird in general for Mycenaean society. He might be a local Helladic individual that hadn’t acquired any steppe ancestry yet but both interpretations are possible. Ohwilleke’s general interpretation of the cases Matt mentioned might be plausible too.
@DaThang
I2181 = 4606-4447 calBCE
@Forgetful
Ohwilleke’s interpretation makes sense with the griffin warrior. On the other hand the same wouldn’t be the case for Varna man. Lastly, regarding goner, what period is the rich grave from? Is it from the main BMAC period or afterwards? If afterward, then Ohwilleke’s interpretation applies to it. But if it is from during the BMAC period then he’d be from the BMAC non-steppe society and it wouldn’t apply to him.
*Gonur
@Forgetful: “Those steppe-rich Armenian samples seem to be a bit more in cline with the Kuban-Tersk south Catacomb groups than with Yamnaya/Catacomb proper to me with a first look. Did you have a look at them yet? I’m curious what you think about that and if those southern steppe groups are a good/better proximate source. They mention the R1b in the two related Mycenaean individuals is the same as that of a Lysogorskyja individual which I assume is the RUS_Kubano-Tersk:LYG001 sample. Nice finding of a relationship between the two though I assume the Mycenaean one goes back to the common Yamnaya source.”
I’m really not sure how easily if we could prove the exact source it one way or the other. The Armenian groups are quite complex to all visualise together even on the G25 Vahaduo plot.
As a very quick test, doing a three-way model with the Global_25 (presuming Kura-Araxes, allowing in Armenian_Neolithic ancestry and a rotating steppe source): https://imgur.com/a/6zOjJvF
I can’t see clearly that the Late Kubano Tersk produces a better fit, but the averages are based on different numbers of samples which may favour Yamnaya_Samara (larger sample sizes have are more solid projection).
All very rough though. Perhaps integrating these samples into a qpAdm model would get more decisive.
Btw, for the individuals who are found in Armenia who are consistent with having no steppe ancestry under this model, there is only, ARM_Dzori_Gekh_LBA I17183 dated 1500-1380 calBCE who is male and seems to be the only individual from that site, has J1a2a1a2d2b2b2~. Although there are a number of haplogroups even in the relatively steppe rich samples from Armenia in addition to R1b1a1b1b and the presence of some I2a2b.
Also much later we see I18164, female from ARM_Black_Fortress_LBA, and here’s her unusual archaeological description: “A female warrior was discovered in grave N 37 in Black Fortress necropolis (Khudaverdyan, 2012, 2014). The fracture of the left ulna was a parry (“night-stick”) fracture at about 7.6 cm from the distal end of the ulna. The left-sided predominant fracture means that during the combat, the woman had been most likely exposed to direct blows to the defensive shield (the power transmitted from the end of the shield to the ulna), or direct blows when the forearm was used to ward off the blow (Khudaverdyan, 2012, 2014; Kricun, 1994; Pretty and Kricun, 1989). Here skeletal remains are consistent with the assumption of her being a horsewoman.”. It may be a bit of a leap to get to her being a warrior rather than someone who rode horses and was in a battle, but its still interesting to see this description coincide with her outlying status. Her G25 PCA position is very southern compared to others in Armenia – https://imgur.com/a/UNdxJQA (which might be surprising; if I’d mentioned this unusual “horsewoman” burial and suggested that she was a genetic outlier, I expect many people’s first expectation would be the steppe or Central Asia).
Also, on your mention of the turning point on the Western Steppe and MCW sample, the authors put in a large excerpt in their paper around the steppe turnover: https://imgur.com/a/1xOY5yz . That makes the possible connection with the abandonment of the steppe by R1b-Z2103.
One thing this doesn’t mention though is the role of people with West Siberian ancestry reemerging here. Wang et al showed that the Steppe Maykop profile or something like it appeared in the Caucasus after the Yamnaya/Catacomb, in the time frame they’re talking about, in the form of a Lola Culture individual, and this also seems confirmed by Ayshin Ghalichi’s abstract as not an outlier (https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/coming-soon.html – “During the Bronze Age, we found in Steppe Maykop individuals a genetic link to West Siberian hunter-gatherers, a component that is absent from Yamnaya, North Caucasus and Catacomb groups, but reappears in Bronze Age individuals associated with the Lola culture.”).
This also connects to the fact that the Potapovka Culture, which is again, like MCW, a “hinge”, is highly variable between West Siberian/Sintashta/Yamnaya, including Yamnaya like individual I7670 (see: https://imgur.com/a/FCYvkS4). So there’s the role of Central Asian in the “Great Steppe Upheaval” as they term it. That might explain why the MCW sample shows some admixture between Yamnaya and other clusters (probably Sintashta related?). This might have been a time when populations were low on the steppe with much outmigration, and individuals sought partners outside the normal marriage networks.
@Matt
Thanks for the response. Yes, looking at it a bit more I’m not sure we can tell which source necessarily works better though I notice they bring up that issue of intermediate admixture north of the Caucasus in the previous page of the discussion you linked about the turnover on the steppe. In general I’m still not sure why they don’t seem to have tried proximal models, as daunting a task that would have been with all these very different populations, though I haven’t gone through everything yet by any means so maybe they give a decent explanation to that question. Would have been interesting to see what they came up with.
Here’s a pastebin with some intra-Armenian rough groupings I saw at first glance and some surrounding populations: https://pastebin.com/WvQGKfNW
That group of “outliers” (excluding I13035 which is explicitly referred to as an outlier in their annotations and seems to have something more clearly Upper Mesopotamian or Levantine-like in him at greater amounts) looks somewhat like the preceding Kura Araxes groups but maybe not exactly.
At least a few of the non radiocarbon dated samples seem misdated too. They mention that clearly about a Byzantine-dated by archaeological context sample that appears Neolithic autosomally (I10429) but some others appear a bit suspicious too. Perhaps most clearly from the ones I saw are I18721 and I18723 from the HRV_Bezdanjaca_BA set – modern-like with high levels of that “Balto-Slavic drift”.
@gigolo moronogni
You sound like a lunatic and your paternal lineage originates from upper paleolithic north asians.
I never denied that probably my haplogroup descends from the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor, but I know that there is the question of Bacho-Kiro 30000 years ago in Europe. But I, in difference to you, not only as a “gigolo” loved wonderful women, but I know who my fathers were.
@Forgetful, thanks for the labels and analysis.
The projection to Caucasus-Near East PCA on Vahaduo suggests that maybe I18247, I19343, RISE412, I8273, I19350 might also be subtle outliers in proportions of the different Near East related components? https://imgur.com/a/fbZ64C8
@Matt
Fairly interesting deviation in the Near Eastern PCA for those. There must be a more complex kind of situation going on there at least for some then, not just Kura-Araxes like input for the ‘local’ admixture. The explicitly named, by the paper, outlier in the more Kura-Araxes like, less steppe-rich set that I named ARM_MLBA-EIA_outliers with a first look also seems to shift towards that general direction in that PCA compared to the rest in that set.
Thanks for the look.
@Matt
I also wonder if some in the ARM_MLBA-EIA_outliers set might represent more of a mix between ARM_MLBA-EIA and something like the AZE_Caucasus_lowlands group than Kura-Araxes like ancestry but that might be harder to disentangle?