PDA

View Full Version : The genomic history of southeastern Europe-Mathiesen et al



Pages : 1 [2]

Alan
16-05-17, 14:59
I found a model I did few months ago when deciphering composition of Hungarian BA. I couldn't get it right without lots of Caucasian admixture. Here is one with 15% of Chalcolithic Armenian. Also it works well with Anatolian Chalcolithic, because they were quite similar.
So, first 3 are the source with proportions at the top, 4th is the composed model, and 5th actual Hungarian Bronze to compare how close I got. Almost a perfect match!



0.5


0.35


0.15









M325047
KO1




M536324
I1658

Modeled






Hungarian, h-g
7.7 kya

NE7 Hungary

Armenia EBA

BA Hungary

BR1 Hungary


Run time
9.43

Population

Run time
8.22

Run time


Population


S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0

S-Indian
0.27

S-Indian
0.0405

S-Indian
0


Baloch
0

Baloch
0

Baloch
25.53

Baloch
3.8295

Baloch
3.15


Caucasian
0

Caucasian
19.04

Caucasian
56.75

Caucasian
15.1765

Caucasian
14.73


NE-Euro
80.37

NE-Euro
16.69

NE-Euro
4.79

NE-Euro
46.745

NE-Euro
46.18


SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0

SE-Asian
0.2


Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
0

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
0

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.53

Papuan
0

Papuan
0

Papuan
0.265

Papuan
0.18


American
0

American
0

American
0

American
0

American
-


Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
0

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
18.59

Mediterranean
56.18

Mediterranean
5.88

Mediterranean
29.84

Mediterranean
31.73


SW-Asian
0

SW-Asian
7.96

SW-Asian
6.45

SW-Asian
3.7535

SW-Asian
3.33


San
0

San
0

San
0

San
0

San
-


E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
0

E-African
-


Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
0

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.5

W-African
0.11

W-African
0.33

W-African
0.338

W-African
0.48



The Caucasian in this calculator is based on modern samples from the Caucasus and not to be confused with CHG. Otherwise good finding there.

holderlin
16-05-17, 16:04
Then their dating is wrong because they mention 5500-4800 BCE for Dereivka and Sredny Stog is 4500-3500 BCE. Any none of the three Dereivka samples have anything to do with Yamna. They belong to R1*, R1b1* and I2a2. None of these could be ancestral for R1b1a1a2a (L23). In fact there wasn't even any P297 in Neolithic Ukraine like those found in Mesolithic Latvia. It's just a coincidence that the Mesolithic/Neolithic Ukrainian also possessed some R1b lineages. But in fact Yamna R1b-L23 or Z2103 is close to the African R1b-V88 than to R1* or R1b1*. At least both L23 and V88 descend from L754.

Dereivka is THE Sredny Stog site. Without it you wouldn't have much of a Sredny Stog, and the range is fine. As far as I know Sredny Stog is known from as early as 5500BC.

I'm looking at the autosomes of both Sredny Stog and Yamnaya Ukraine. Yamnaya Ukraine would be the earliest example of EEF influx into steppe, but it's rooted in Sredny Stog which show this influx into a different substrate. The material culture of Sredny Stog is identical to Khvalynsk. Have you seen comparisons of the artifacts?

And they don't even list any Y HGs for the Yamnaya Ukraine samples, so we don't know yet.

Angela
16-05-17, 16:54
How bout Ust-Ishim being listed as R1a1a1b?Weren't they contacted and it was a typo?

Kelmendasi
16-05-17, 16:55
Maciamo could you update the J2b2 history please as you say that it hasn't been found in Europe but in fact it was during this study?

Kelmendasi
16-05-17, 16:56
Edit: I see that it has been updated lol sorry

Angela
16-05-17, 17:25
Some of the modelers insist it's pure CHG, which would have to have been hiding out for thousands of years somewhere totally unchanged. Patterson, at least, seems to have the patience to occasionally sift through all those nonsense posts on Eurogenes. I would bet he's seen the discussions, and yet he's one of the authors of this paper and the paper very clearly says:

"

The Anatolia Neolithic to Anatolia Bronze Age shift is driven by changes in CHG and Iran Neolithc ancestry not by migration from Steppe populations that have EHG ancestry
















An increase in CHG/Iran_N in Chalcolithic Anatolia is mirrored by a similar shift in the Balkans Chalcolithic, but not in Central Europe or Iberia Middle Neolithic"




I would place more faith in the people who created some of these algorithms than people who just try to use them, even the ones who are well intentioned. Either way, it's a highly "Basal Eurasian" component.

The Lazaridis paper is the one which formulated it as a mix of EHG and something like Iran Chalcolithic, so perhaps the new Lazaridis paper will clarify matters.I wonder if Patterson would be so polite if he knew that Eurogenes goes on sites like Biodiversity and calls their work excrement...nice.:useless: Read Patterson's CV and his accomplishments. How does Eurogenes' knowledge of statistics and these programs, many of them created by these people, compare?

Angela
16-05-17, 17:49
My model doesn't need it to explain, but I doubt it is a complete model, and I would be surprised if there was no steppe admixture in Balkans, even only through mixing Yamnaya with CT culture. I'm almost sure the researches included all CHG which came through Balkans also as Steppe admixture.
I wish I could check all the samples they introduced now in GedMatch admixtures.


Sorry, I just notice a mistake. This above admixture modeling is for RB2. Which is late Bronze Age in Hungary. RB1 is with low caucasian and looks like 40/60 EEF/WHG, no baloch no steppe. Later we see some Baloch showing and jump in Caucasian, though all of them are fairly similar, with Anatolian/Armenia influance. The big change came in Iron Age with invasion from NE, the steppe arrived. Baloch and NE Euro like in CW/Unetice like, and lower Med. Thracians?



F999933
BR2, J-M67
M681225
BR1

M631469 RISE349

M974598
RISE374 and 373
F999929
IR1, N-M231


Hungary, Ludas-Varjú-dűlő,
3.3kya

EBA Hungary
1,980–2,190 BC
Hungary MBA [2034-1748 BC] T2b3 -
Maros Hungary [1866-1619 BC] T2 G2a-P287>P15>PF3178
IR Hungary
900 BC


Run time
15.13

Run time
10.55

Run time
3.16

Run time
5.26

Run time
6.96


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
3.15

Baloch
-

Baloch
5.64

Baloch
-

Baloch
14.83


Caucasian
14.73

Caucasian
5.45

Caucasian
13.81

Caucasian
18.58

Caucasian
15.12


NE-Euro
46.18

NE-Euro
56.15

NE-Euro
38.22

NE-Euro
39.65

NE-Euro
43.91


SE-Asian
0.2

SE-Asian
0.49

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
2.97


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.18

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
-

American
2.03


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
31.73

Mediterranean
34.48

Mediterranean
34.63

Mediterranean
40.09

Mediterranean
21.14


SW-Asian
3.33

SW-Asian
3.1

SW-Asian
3.94

SW-Asian
0.98

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0.17

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.15

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.48

W-African
0.3

W-African
3.75

W-African
0.39

W-African
-




So BR1 with little or no steppe, and BR2 which can be modeled with Anatolia Ch or Armenia Ch instead of steppe? Does anyone have d based stats for these samples, or Admixture based on actual ancient samples? We'd also need some with Anatolia Ch etc in place of steppe and the fits for all of them.

holderlin
16-05-17, 19:23
Weren't they contacted and it was a typo?

OK didn't get that.

Alpenjager
16-05-17, 20:01
Karsdorf Map
8680

Malak Preslavets Map
8681

The highest EHG+WHG percentage belonging to the Early Balkan Neolithic is a T1a1a individual from Malak Preslavets with 35%
The lowest EHG+WHG from Malak Preslavets is a G2a2b2a individual with 0%

This show extreme differences among individuals from a same settlement in a same time period.

Angela
16-05-17, 20:20
The highest EHG+WHG percentage belonging to the Early Balkan Neolithic is a T1a1a from Malak Preslavets with 35%
The lowest EHG+WHG from Malak Preslavets is a G2a2b2a with 0%

This show extreme differences among individuals from a same settlement in a same time period. If you look at the whole Balkans in Admixture theres very little sharing of genetic material in the Neolithic. There weren't many hg there to begin with. Where there were some communities there was a little admixture.

I have to correct something I said upthread. I said there was a sex bias in favor of hg women in the early Neolithic. There wasn't.

"In the Balkan Neolithic there is no evidence of sex bias using ancestry estimates obtained from qpAdm (Z=-0.65 where a positive Z-score implies male hunter-gatherer bias), nor in the LBK and Iberian_Early Neolithic (Z=-0.24 and 1.04). However, in the Middle Neolithic and later populations, this effect reverses. In the Balkan Copper Age there is weak evidence of bias (Z=1.77) but in Iberia and central Europe Middle Neolithic there is clear bias is in favor of male hunter-gatherer ancestry (Z=2.98, and 2.77 in Iberia Copper Age and central European Middle Neolithic). This result is independently supported by uniparental markers (Figure 3C). Proportions of typically hunter-gatherer mitochondrial haplogroups (haplogroup U)are low in all populations and within theintervals of genome-wide ancestry proportions.

The merging of hunter-gatherer and farmer populations was a dynamic process that unfolded over thousands of years, and proceeded in a profoundly different way in different parts of Europe. Our analysis shows that in some places – for example at Malak Preslavets in Bulgaria – there was extensive mixing between hunter-gatherers and farmers, likely driven by the high local hunter-gatherer population density. In other places–in particular in western, central and northern Europe–hunter-gatherers and farmers lived in close proximity for long periods of time with minimal mixture . When they did finally mix, we find evidence that the hunter- gather admixture was male-biased, implying a different dynamic. Farming was initially unable to expand widely in central and northern Europe because early farming techniques were only suitable for specific regions within the loess belt of the northern European plain. 431 Thus, northern and central European hunter-gatherers were protected from the demographicimpact of farming migrations, resulting in persistent frontiers between farmers and hunter gatherers."

Angela
16-05-17, 22:36
So BR1 with little or no steppe, and BR2 which can be modeled with Anatolia Ch or Armenia Ch instead of steppe? Does anyone have d based stats for these samples, or Admixture based on actual ancient samples? We'd also need some with Anatolia Ch etc in place of steppe and the fits for all of them.To be clear here, we're talking about possible CHG from the Balkans reaching up to Bronze Age Hungary, perhaps with a big new infusion of WHG. This is not Bell Beaker.

Angela
17-05-17, 02:01
@ LeBrok, Bicicleur,

We were talking about the composition of Yamnaya:


"Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said...
It's great to see the data already being analyzed and I hope it will be useful in your analyses!

I just wanted to leave a brief comment that the model of Steppe_EMBA as a mixture of EHG+CHG is rejected (Table S7.11), while that of EHG+Iran_ChL is not. Note that in Table S7.11 we are modeling Steppe_EMBA and the references with respect to 13 outgroup populations (the set O9ALNW), not all of which are included in the TreeMix graph.

It is possible for some models to succeed with a particular set of outgroups (both EHG+CHG and EHG+Iran_ChL are feasible with only the O9 set of outgroups; Table S7.10), but for some of them to be rejected when additional outgroups are introduced (Table S7.11). As we mention further down, that doesn't mean there is no CHG-related ancestry in Steppe_EMBA as we can model it as a 3-way mixture involving CHG as one of the sources. What it does mean, however, is that CHG+EHG cannot be the only sources, as this model is rejected (Table S7.11). A further test of our overall model is that when we withhold Iran_ChL as a source, and infer mixture proportions by intersecting the EHG->Steppe_EMBA and Levant_N+Levant_BA clines (p. 134), we get fairly reasonable agreement (mixture proportions).

We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis.

Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled."

I don't think they've found the specific population (s), or they hadn't at that time.

In the subject paper Mathiesen uses CHG + Iran Neolithic as the formulation for the group that moved into Anatolia and then into the Balkans in the Chalcolithic and then even more so in the Bronze Age. Now that may be the population only for this migration westward. The Reich Lab formulation for the group that mixed with the EHG to create Yamnaya may still be where Lazaridis left it, may be closer to this Mathiesen formulation, or may have changed based on samples they've discovered but not released. I just don't know.

Ed. Just X out the last paragraph. Mathiesen is saying the combination that went into the Balkans is the same as what went onto the steppe.

From the paper:

"In eastern Europe we document the appearance of CHG/Iranian Neolithic ancestry north of the Black Sea, and its eventual extension as far north as the Baltic. In some ways, this expansion parallels the expansion of Anatolian farmer ancestry into western Europe although it is less dramatic, and several thousand years later. These expansions set up the two, largely separate, populations in western and eastern Europe that would come together in the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age to form the ancestry of present-day Europe."

I would think Lazaridis would agree, but we'll have to wait for his new paper. Maybe they've found a new and slightly different Iranian farmer population.

LeBrok
17-05-17, 05:16
@ LeBrok, Bicicleur,

We were talking about the composition of Yamnaya:


"Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said...
It's great to see the data already being analyzed and I hope it will be useful in your analyses!

I just wanted to leave a brief comment that the model of Steppe_EMBA as a mixture of EHG+CHG is rejected (Table S7.11), while that of EHG+Iran_ChL is not. Note that in Table S7.11 we are modeling Steppe_EMBA and the references with respect to 13 outgroup populations (the set O9ALNW), not all of which are included in the TreeMix graph.

It is possible for some models to succeed with a particular set of outgroups (both EHG+CHG and EHG+Iran_ChL are feasible with only the O9 set of outgroups; Table S7.10), but for some of them to be rejected when additional outgroups are introduced (Table S7.11). As we mention further down, that doesn't mean there is no CHG-related ancestry in Steppe_EMBA as we can model it as a 3-way mixture involving CHG as one of the sources. What it does mean, however, is that CHG+EHG cannot be the only sources, as this model is rejected (Table S7.11). A further test of our overall model is that when we withhold Iran_ChL as a source, and infer mixture proportions by intersecting the EHG->Steppe_EMBA and Levant_N+Levant_BA clines (p. 134), we get fairly reasonable agreement (mixture proportions).

We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis.

Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled."

I don't think they've found the specific population (s), or they hadn't at that time.

In the subject paper Mathiesen uses CHG + Iran Neolithic as the formulation for the group that moved into Anatolia and then into the Balkans in the Chalcolithic and then even more so in the Bronze Age. Now that may be the population only for this migration westward. The Reich Lab formulation for the group that mixed with the EHG to create Yamnaya may still be where Lazaridis left it, may be closer to this Mathiesen formulation, or may have changed based on samples they've discovered but not released. I just don't know.

We've learned a lot but we have a long way to go.
Thanks Angela for posting it! I'm happy that not only I rejected EHG-CHG model for Yamnaya. I can live with Iran Chl, as a source, though I like Iran Neolithic better for my Yamnaya model. I wonder if they've tried modeled it with IN and was rejected?
It is a nail to the coffin of cultural spread of farming, as many guys (farmer haters) dream of.
Confusion is understandable because CHG and Iran Farmer are closely related, though one would think this should be recognized by researchers more easily than for us. More confusion will continue when calculating Steppe influence in BA Balkans, due to inflow of CHG/Iranian Farmer genes through Anatolia, which will be confused with part of BA Steppe admixture also containing Iranian Farmer.

Angela
17-05-17, 05:46
Thanks Angela for posting it! I'm happy that not only I rejected EHG-CHG model for Yamnaya. I can live with Iran Chl, as a source, though I like Iran Neolithic better for my Yamnaya model. I wonder if they've tried modeled it with IN and was rejected?
It is a nail to the coffin of cultural spread of farming, as many guys (farmer haters) dream of.
Confusion is understandable because CHG and Iran Farmer are closely related, though one would think this should be recognized by researchers more easily than for us. More confusion will continue when calculating Steppe influence in BA Balkans, due to inflow of CHG/Iranian Farmer genes through Anatolia, which will be confused with part of BA Steppe admixture also containing Iranian Farmer.

I was just in the process of editing the post above. You may be right about it being Iranian farmer for the Reich Lab. Mathiesen is saying the combination that went into the Balkans is the same as what went onto the steppe.

"In eastern Europe we document the appearance of CHG/Iranian Neolithic ancestry north of the Black Sea, and its eventual extension as far north as the Baltic. In some ways, this expansion parallels the expansion of Anatolian farmer ancestry into western Europe although it is less dramatic, and several thousand years later. These expansions set up the two, largely separate, populations in western and eastern Europe that would come together in the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age to form the ancestry of present-day Europe."

I would think Lazaridis would agree, but we'll have to wait for his new paper. Maybe they've found a new and slightly different Iranian farmer population.

Promenade
17-05-17, 05:52
Mesolithic SHG from Stora Forvar, StF11, was I1 as well.

Do you have a source for this? Looking at the Skoglund study it seems they only tested his mtdna.

LeBrok
17-05-17, 05:58
I was just in the process of editing the post above. You may be right about it being Iranian farmer for the Reich Lab. Mathiesen is saying the combination that went into the Balkans is the same as what went onto the steppe.

"In eastern Europe we document the appearance of CHG/Iranian Neolithic ancestry north of the Black Sea, and its eventual extension as far north as the Baltic. In some ways, this expansion parallels the expansion of Anatolian farmer ancestry into western Europe although it is less dramatic, and several thousand years later. These expansions set up the two, largely separate, populations in western and eastern Europe that would come together in the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age to form the ancestry of present-day Europe."

I would think Lazaridis would agree, but we'll have to wait for his new paper. Maybe they've found a new and slightly different Iranian farmer population.The combination might be the same. I think the devil will be in figuring out the proportions and ratios of admixtures. Instead of clear pictures, the plot thickens. :)

holderlin
17-05-17, 06:08
Yes you are right. Now I also see that Vovnigi and Derevka are the most likely candidates for PIE.
These people from the Vovnigi and the Dereivka probably ancestors of all the existing Indo-European peoples.
http://s019.radikal.ru/i644/1705/b6/8ed96e825fbe.jpg

CW and BB (geneticly and partly culturaly in BB case) probably come from there. And even the historical Hittites, which some researchers derive from the Sredniy Stog. And languages we are speaking now, began to disintegrate precisely there and in those times. The rest of the vast territory of possible PIE languages ​​(as the eastern yamnaya), did not have offspring of historical IE speakers. Therefore, we can not say in what language they spoke, although their cultural characteristics were identical to IE.

The source of these burials Vovnigi and Derevka is somewhere on the Popovo-Zvejnieki mesolite line.
Apparently, there began process of absorbing EEF genes, which are presented in CW.
Probably, they took women as trophies during the devastating raids on the neighboring Tripolye and the killing of their population.

Therefore, the people of Corded Ware:
-the presence of EEF genes
-pronounced horizontal profiling of the face in the upper part (more pronounced than in their Mesolithic ancestors)
-prevalence farmer-Middle Eastern mtDNa in all descendants of CW in Europe.
- burial form as "tower of silence" among the Iranians, has its roots in the Tripolye and possibly introduced by the Trypollian women in Indo-European culture (although, it could be just borrowing)

Also worth noting, from here probably there is an old confusion among paleoanthroologists, who indicates that people of CWC are often metrically similar to the Mediterranean.

Looks like it to me, as far as we can tell at this point.

Interesting connections. I had only read about the "Mediterranean" types in Sredny Stog and CWC, which of course supported the Balkan interface etc.

I do think that Yamnaya is eventually Indo-Iranian, at least around Samara and further East. Indic speakers (ANI) are descended Yamnaya (or afanesevo), but some Iranian speakers are descended from Yamnaya, and others are descended from MLBA_steppe. So we know that Yamnaya, at least in the East was eventually speaking Aryan, which diverged into various Iranian dialects that may or may not have taken on a LBA_steppe structure from Western sources.

But as you say, it does look like the vast majority of IE languages can be traced back to this initial Steppe/Balkans interface.

So this was a dynamic process. Something like this:

We have some form of PIE by the Eneolithic on the steppe (Iron Gates, Baltic?) during which time we see an influx of CHG. Anatolian is formed shortly after this time and begins to separate in the West, maybe in Ukraine, maybe in the Balkans proper, who knows, but early on in the West. We see continual influx of steppe admixture from the East while it receives an influx of CHG, which eventually shows its influence especially in the metallurgical styles. In the West Italo-Celtic separates. The developing bronze age steppe begins to envelop the Baltic and continually pushes against the Balkans diluting or pushing out WHG/Iron gates, which yields Yamnaya Ukraine. Germanic separates in the West. The BA steppe begins to speak Indo-Iranian which expands East while the West begins to speak Balto-slavic. Indo-Iranians in the West who are adjacent to the proto-corded ware/Yamnaya Ukraine Balto-slavic speakers are continually mixing with proto-corded ware/Yamnaya Ukraine while maintaining their linguistic identity. This is ongoing as Corded Ware develops in the West and Poltovka develops in the East. Eventually you have Iranian speaking LBA_steppe that looks an awful lot like corded ware. During this time Greek separates in the West.

Something like that.

Angela
17-05-17, 06:26
I was just in the process of editing the post above. You may be right about it being Iranian farmer for the Reich Lab. Mathiesen is saying the combination that went into the Balkans is the same as what went onto the steppe.

"In eastern Europe we document the appearance of CHG/Iranian Neolithic ancestry north of the Black Sea, and its eventual extension as far north as the Baltic. In some ways, this expansion parallels the expansion of Anatolian farmer ancestry into western Europe although it is less dramatic, and several thousand years later. These expansions set up the two, largely separate, populations in western and eastern Europe that would come together in the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age to form the ancestry of present-day Europe."

I would think Lazaridis would agree, but we'll have to wait for his new paper. Maybe they've found a new and slightly different Iranian farmer population.Eurogenes has always strongly objected to the CHG/Iran Chalcolithic formulation for Yamnaya. He came up with a EHG/CHG/some kind of Near Eastern farmer? combination that supposedly worked. He's also not happy with this CHG/IRANIAN farmer formulation. One of his objections apparently is that IR farmer has Basal Eurasian and that...

"Mesolithic and Neolithic Eastern Europeans rich in R1a and R1b don't carry any Iran_N ancestry, because they have 0% Basal Eurasian admixture."

I must be missing something, because if they have CHG and we know CHG has lots of Basal, how can they not have Basal?

holderlin
17-05-17, 06:33
Eurogenes has always strongly objected to the CHG/Iran Chalcolithic formulation for Yamnaya. He came up with a EHG/CHG/some kind of Near Eastern farmer? combination that supposedly worked. He's also not happy with this CHG/IRANIAN farmer formulation. One of his objections apparently is that IR farmer has Basal Eurasian and that...

"Mesolithic and Neolithic Eastern Europeans rich in R1a and R1b don't carry any Iran_N ancestry, because they have 0% Basal Eurasian admixture."

I must be missing something, because if they have CHG and we know CHG has lots of Basal, how can they not have Basal?

I think some of this confusion is the fact that EHG itself seems to have admixture from something (Baloch) that's ancestral to Iranian Neolithic presumably from MA-1 or AG. It confuses calculators because Iranian Neolithic is like 1/2 Baloch and 1/2 Kotias (CHG). It could be that the Baloch in EHG doesn't share basal eurasian with CHG? I dunno.

Sile
17-05-17, 07:53
The highest EHG+WHG percentage belonging to the Early Balkan Neolithic is a T1a1a individual from Malak Preslavets with 35%
The lowest EHG+WHG from Malak Preslavets is a G2a2b2a individual with 0%

This show extreme differences among individuals from a same settlement in a same time period.

I read that Malak Preslavets is on the danube river , the period when it was inhabited was from 6100BC - 4800BC . they found many many bird skeletons as the area was a bird migrational nesting place.

The Thracian took it over in the bronze and iron age and renamed with ....unsure what and it was a boat making place

The Roman built a fort on or near this town called Candidiana

From most of what I read on the net, it seems a place where steppe people met anatolian people over many centuries............maybe it was a trading place ........my opinion.

Interesting that the T1a1 youth ( young teenager is what I was told ) had the 35%

bicicleur
17-05-17, 08:52
Thanks Angela for posting it! I'm happy that not only I rejected EHG-CHG model for Yamnaya. I can live with Iran Chl, as a source, though I like Iran Neolithic better for my Yamnaya model. I wonder if they've tried modeled it with IN and was rejected?
It is a nail to the coffin of cultural spread of farming, as many guys (farmer haters) dream of.
Confusion is understandable because CHG and Iran Farmer are closely related, though one would think this should be recognized by researchers more easily than for us. More confusion will continue when calculating Steppe influence in BA Balkans, due to inflow of CHG/Iranian Farmer genes through Anatolia, which will be confused with part of BA Steppe admixture also containing Iranian Farmer.

Do I understand correctly that Mathieson distinguishes Iran Neo from Iran Ch in his admix analyses in this paper?
To simplify, Iran Neo + CHG went west into Anatolia & the Balkans, while Iran Ch + CHG crossed the Caucasus into the steppe.
I would think, if it is Iran Ch + CHG the expansion should have initiated later than 7.5 ka, the onset of the copper age. IMO Khvalynsk and Dnjepr Donets witness these first movements into the steppe.
Pure CHG to expand into the steppe or already populated areas elsewhere would seem unlikely and I've always understood that this was a simplification of the reality.
It would be very interesting if we had Maykop DNA to compare with this Iran Ch.
And I wonder about the Kumptepe samples : do they match Iran Neo + CHG?

It is very good that Laziridis reminds us once again about the restrictions of admixture models, which always simplifies the reality which may be hidden beyond the limits of the model.

Apsurdistan
17-05-17, 09:33
Do you have a source for this? Looking at the Skoglund study it seems they only tested his mtdna.

Hah, the elusive I1. Again it seems like this haplogroup so far unless they start to find some ancient dna... is either very young, or really old and was isolated from pretty much everybody for a long, long time.

Alpenjager
17-05-17, 13:22
I read that Malak Preslavets is on the danube river , the period when it was inhabited was from 6100BC - 4800BC . they found many many bird skeletons as the area was a bird migrational nesting place.

The Thracian took it over in the bronze and iron age and renamed with ....unsure what and it was a boat making place

The Roman built a fort on or near this town called Candidiana

From most of what I read on the net, it seems a place where steppe people met anatolian people over many centuries............maybe it was a trading place ........my opinion.

Interesting that the T1a1 youth ( young teenager is what I was told ) had the 35%

I think he was younger than teenager, according to his photo. Sadly, the upper half of the adult individual disappeared.

MarkoZ
17-05-17, 14:41
I must be missing something, because if they have CHG and we know CHG has lots of Basal, how can they not have Basal?

I'm not entirely sure how accurate this is given that the 'Basal Eurasian' component seems to be a bit speculative still (at least when it comes to the exact details), but didn't Lazaridis point out that the Swedish Motala cluster already had significantly more BE than the WHGs?

At least that seems to be the case here (~10% in the Motala cluster):

http://i.imgur.com/ozKHTk7.png

I'd think that the more eastern-shifted hunters carried even more of the BE component. In the Samara HG it's 17-18% BE already.

LeBrok
17-05-17, 17:37
I think some of this confusion is the fact that EHG itself seems to have admixture from something (Baloch) that's ancestral to Iranian Neolithic presumably from MA-1 or AG. It confuses calculators because Iranian Neolithic is like 1/2 Baloch and 1/2 Kotias (CHG). It could be that the Baloch in EHG doesn't share basal eurasian with CHG? I dunno.Yes, EHG and Iranian Neolithic/CHG have ancient connection, (one common ancestor), through Baloch/Gedrosia, which could have happen right after LGM. They never met since, till Neolithic. Caucasian admixture, so high in CHG and IN, showed up rather late in the area. It either came from farther south, or was developed in CHG during long isolation and deep bottlenecking, perhaps secluded in one of Caucasian valleys. That's why it didn't have time or a chance to penetrate into Steppe in any decent numbers, till Neolithic of course. Making it very obvious that it came with Iranian Farmers/Herders rather than CHG hunter gatherers.
If it comes to basal eurasian, I'm lost with this ghost.

berun
17-05-17, 21:29
To look at the possibility to assign to CHG the origin of PIE I have tried to get some essential info from the messy data about the orange admixture (steppe component) found in the Balkan samples:

- 3 women labeled as Peloponnese_Neolithic buried in a cave display some 5-15% steppe. Date provided is 5000-3200. Some daggers were found, and that is just against the Neolithic concept... a true Neolithic woman buried in other cave of the Peloponnese (I2318) dates of the Final Neolithic (4000 BC) and has 0% steppe.
- I2215 has a 10% steppe, is the unique individual buried in a Cris Culture cemetery with steppe component (1 of 9). Date 5600 BC.
-I4918 has a 5% steppe, this woman was found in a Chalcolithic burial, but in the exel file this sample is labeled as Starcevo_EN and dated to 6000-5300. Another nonsense.
- I2181 has a 25% steppe, was found in a chalcolithic burial and it's dated to 5600-3000... a long timespam, but in the excel it's dated to 4500 and his Y-DNA is R.
- Varna samples have different percentages of steppe admixture, a sample Y-DNA is R, the necropolis is dated to 4600-4300.
- the Trypillie samples found in Verteba cave are assigned to the Cucuteni-Tripolie culture, but such culture had unkown burial techniques so they must be outliers. They show some 5% steppe component, but I1927 had 30%, it is considered an outlier dated to 3600-2900, his Y-DNA was G2a.
- The Bronze Age samples (3200-1200 BC) display the steppe component in diverse percentages, except I2510; the case is that even if such sample is labeled as Bronze Age, in the supp info it is labeled as Chalcolithic and dated by 2800 BC, with Y-DNA G2a, and being his tomb disturbed by an Early Bronze Age pit...

berun
17-05-17, 21:40
My bet: herders from actual Kurdistan spread towards the Balkans around 4500 after learning advanced metalurgy from their Mesopotamian neighbours.

Alpenjager
18-05-17, 02:59
The sample I2532 (Cotatcu) reported as "Young Female" is wrongly linked to G2a2b2b in the Supplementary Table 1.

berun
18-05-17, 06:38
With so much losely treated data, it's difficult to get a picture from that, by that it's allways better to check by oneself, that could change what the paper states about intermitent steppe occurrence in the Balkans

halfalp
18-05-17, 10:40
Whats the difference between CHG / Iran_Neolithic and CHG / Iran_Chl ? If neolithic iranians went to steppe, so maybe CHG / iran_Chl is more like Steppe_EHG / Iran Neolithic with a reflux in iranian in chalcolithic / bronze age.

Alan
18-05-17, 11:41
Whats the difference between CHG / Iran_Neolithic and CHG / Iran_Chl ? If neolithic iranians went to steppe, so maybe CHG / iran_Chl is more like Steppe_EHG / Iran Neolithic with a reflux in iranian in chalcolithic / bronze age.

Iran_CHL has Anatolian/Levant_Neo and CHG admixture.

MarkoZ
18-05-17, 15:01
My bet: herders from actual Kurdistan spread towards the Balkans around 4500 after learning advanced metalurgy from their Mesopotamian neighbours.

I think newer findings suggest that the spread of early metallurgy would have happened from the highlands to the lowlands. This is what Christopher Thornton suggests in The Emergence of Complex Metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: Escaping the Levantine Paradigm (2009). He suggest the eastern half of the Elburz might have had a important part in the development of early copper and tin bronze than the Zagros range. See, for example, The Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age metallurgy of Tepe Hissar, northeast Iran by the same author.

It would be interesting to see if Iran_CHL admixture follows the spread of metallurgy. Though this still wouldn't offer a convincing explanation as to why it happened, since copper knives and such are probably worse than their equivalent tools made of flint if I'm not mistaken.

Angela
18-05-17, 15:15
I think newer findings suggest that the spread of early metallurgy would have happened from the highlands to the lowlands. This is what Christopher Thornton suggests in The Emergence of Complex Metallurgy on the Iranian Plateau: Escaping the Levantine Paradigm (2009). He suggest the eastern half of the Elburz might have had a important part in the development of early copper and tin bronze than the Zagros range. See, for example, The Chalcolithic and early Bronze Age metallurgy of Tepe Hissar, northeast Iran by the same author.

It would be interesting to see if Iran_CHL admixture follows the spread of metallurgy. Though this still wouldn't offer a convincing explanation as to why it happened, since copper knives and such are probably worse than their equivalent tools made of flint if I'm not mistaken.I've read papers that say the same.

What it had going for it is that it was new, shiny, and rare-a perfect prestige item.

berun
18-05-17, 16:06
The date around 4500 BC is linked with the expansion of the Gumelnitsa-Karanovo Culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gumelni%C8%9Ba%E2%80%93Karanovo_culture) in the Eastern Balkans (the Varna Culture is thought to be a variant). The Mother Goddess is not very appealing to IE peoples...

By the way I have checked what was going on in Anatolia by then (from Ancient Turkey):


Influences associated with post-Vinca horizons (ie, Maritsa, Pre-Cucuteni and Gumelnitsa) are also apparent at a number of central Anatolian sites such... Whether evidence comes through excavations or field surveys, the chronology of central Anatolia remains a major obstacle.


Ceramics from Hoca Cesme II show new influences, namely the introduction of barbotine pottery also known as "surface roughened" in southeastern Europe.


... enabled later metalsmiths to produce items that were significantly larger and more complicated than was possible by simple cold hammering.

LeBrok
18-05-17, 16:31
Whats the difference between CHG / Iran_Neolithic and CHG / Iran_Chl ? If neolithic iranians went to steppe, so maybe CHG / iran_Chl is more like Steppe_EHG / Iran Neolithic with a reflux in iranian in chalcolithic / bronze age.Iran Chalcolithic carries more Caucasian and SW Asian, and less Baloch/Gedrosia and less S Indian. Obvious mixing with CHG and Levant.

LeBrok
18-05-17, 16:39
I've read papers that say the same.

What it had going for it is that it was new, shiny, and rare-a perfect prestige item.Plus it can be resharpened almost countless times and much easier to hold in hand when working with it, and maybe easier to carry around and use for self defence too. It was not as sharp as microliths, but much more versatile.

berun
18-05-17, 21:41
Well, time ago, the people that used to think that copper weapons were beautiful but quite useless, as the Neolithic people with their stone axes, wanished after checking the harm that can receive from a cutting edge.

Francisca (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisca)throwing axe (a kind of Frankish tomahawk)

and some videos about their fashion uses.


https://youtu.be/oTAdg82xhH0

even a mean woman can beat an enemy from her seat.

berun
18-05-17, 21:43
https://youtu.be/xWnu-h406nE?list=PLkr5YU9ZLNpN-PNX2tR1WtmGDrbYbiOZe

MOESAN
19-05-17, 23:38
The highest EHG+WHG percentage belonging to the Early Balkan Neolithic is a T1a1a individual from Malak Preslavets with 35%
The lowest EHG+WHG from Malak Preslavets is a G2a2b2a individual with 0%

This show extreme differences among individuals from a same settlement in a same time period.

this shows that we need some minimal numbers of tested remnants before building too hasty theories - in a stable well sampled and localized pop 5 persons are enough for auDNA average (advantage upon uniparental Haplos)- but at times when people or tribes were moving on and elites mating here and there, 5 auDNA could be very little: we see the high enough variations among German BB's by example which "cover" a good bit of Europe on PCA's-

Atlantische
22-05-17, 11:53
It's pretty interesting that I1927 sample tested as a G-L42 scored a highest Yamnaya % in autosomal genetics of all Cucuteni-Trypillian samples.

By the end of the 6th 151 millennium BCE, agriculture had reached eastern Europe, in the form of the Cucuteni-Trypillian complex in the area of present-day Moldova, Romania and Ukraine, with densely settled “mega-sites” in Ukraine housing hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of
people. After around 4000 BCE, these societies further transformed, the tell settlements were largely abandoned, and there is archaeological evidence of contact with nomadic pastoralist populations from the Eurasian steppe. However, the population movements that accompaniedthese events are not immediately evident from the archaeological record and remain largely unknown.

In a few individuals from southeastern Europe, we find evidence of steppe-related ancestry far earlier (defined here as a mixture of EHG and CHG similar to the genetic signature of individuals of the later Yamnaya; Figure 1B,D). One individual (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dates to 4711-4550 BCE, one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dates to 4550-4450 BCE, and a third individual (I1927) from Verteba cave, associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian complex, dates to 3619-2936 BCE. These findings push back by almost 2000 years the first evidence of steppe ancestry this far West in Europe, demonstrating the resumption of genetic contact between southeastern Europe and the Steppe that also occurred in the Mesolithic.

http://i.imgur.com/T1fQatc.png
http://i.imgur.com/6RQdndI.gif

halfalp
25-05-17, 13:55
Are the authors linking the Iron Gates HG with Lepenski Vir ?

MOESAN
25-05-17, 22:09
[QUOTE=MOESAN;508674][QUOTE=bicicleur;508424] Could you elaborate more on the physical distinction? I'd appreciate that. Thanks.

Helas I've not indexes and metric measures bout them: not too big differences I suppose, on a general plan: 'mediterraneanlike' with in common: dolichocephaly (72-73 in "pure" types, high supra-auricular skull, developped frontal, light enough skeletons, low stature (1m58/1m62); I'have no skull for any of them, only written descriptions, but it seems the types are easy to discriminate; more pedomorphic among 'danubians' << Catal Höyük, broad enough skeletal nose, even higher skulls, frontalized faces, but narrow; the other 'mediterraneans' seemed shorter faced, but narrow too, with a linear skull vault after a vertical frontal too, and a very lowered occiput; this is typology pointing to most typical individuals (Charles, Riquet); but in metric global surveys established about global pop, the 'danubians' of the first times kept on distinguishible from other 'mediters' (Pinhasi): 'danubian' here would be taken as early Farmers of Catal Höyök and from the first settlements of N-Greece and Balkans roughly said - at the individual levels, the input of the descendants of these 'danubians' in Parisian Bassin (Middle Late Neolithic) were still distinguishible from the Post-Cardial Chassean 'mediters' come up from Provence to Switzerland and North France through Rhône and Saône Valleys

MOESAN
25-05-17, 22:17
It seems some MN and LN of Catalonia presented the 'danubian' tendancy, according to old scholars (no full text at hand) - so small rather dolicho people from "South-East" but not exactly the same ones. Sorry I cannot tell very more - the question is: some different and typical external details can develop upon a very similar auDNA makeup and some differences in auDNA total makeup could stay without evident trace on external aspect as always - knowledge needs every kind of tool, whatever the hyerarchy one can put within these tools -

Angela
25-05-17, 22:23
It appears that mass hysteria has already set in. If the rumor mill is correct as to what the next papers will show, I can't even imagine the coming reaction.

MOESAN
25-05-17, 22:33
Coon danubians:
CephIndex 73,7 - height.length ind: 75,1 - height-Breadth Ind: 101,9 - height index mean: 88,5 (the usefull one!)
ind facial sup: 51,9 'rather low: so broad enough superior face compared to other 'meds' of any kind - orbital ind: 79,5: rather low for true 'meds' here again - high space between base of skeletal nose and superior teeth - COON supposed they could have had rather concave noses snub noses - the "Rubanés" people seem having kept some of these traits, attenuated, if I don't mistake (even less measures) - I stop here, this is not an anthropo thread - I beg the pardon of other users -

MOESAN
25-05-17, 22:52
It's pretty interesting that I1927 sample tested as a G-L42 scored a highest Yamnaya % in autosomal genetics of all Cucuteni-Trypillian samples.

By the end of the 6th 151 millennium BCE, agriculture had reached eastern Europe, in the form of the Cucuteni-Trypillian complex in the area of present-day Moldova, Romania and Ukraine, with densely settled “mega-sites” in Ukraine housing hundreds, and perhaps thousands, of
people. After around 4000 BCE, these societies further transformed, the tell settlements were largely abandoned, and there is archaeological evidence of contact with nomadic pastoralist populations from the Eurasian steppe. However, the population movements that accompaniedthese events are not immediately evident from the archaeological record and remain largely unknown.

In a few individuals from southeastern Europe, we find evidence of steppe-related ancestry far earlier (defined here as a mixture of EHG and CHG similar to the genetic signature of individuals of the later Yamnaya; Figure 1B,D). One individual (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dates to 4711-4550 BCE, one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dates to 4550-4450 BCE, and a third individual (I1927) from Verteba cave, associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian complex, dates to 3619-2936 BCE. These findings push back by almost 2000 years the first evidence of steppe ancestry this far West in Europe, demonstrating the resumption of genetic contact between southeastern Europe and the Steppe that also occurred in the Mesolithic.

http://i.imgur.com/T1fQatc.png
http://i.imgur.com/6RQdndI.gif

thanks: could you precise me the meaning of colours here?
5 is not too much but they have all a "farmer" Y-haplo, for the most Y-G2a - in classical anthropo I red people in Trypillia show rather 'mediter' looks but with noticeable "proto-European" input, for the most females - it seems Y-I2a (ad maybe some Y-R1b) made its/their way a bit later, or at the mergins of the CTC strongholsd, rather Carpathians immediate surroundings? AS a whole CTC seems having developped in plains rather than in mountains, spite metals needs?

LeBrok
26-05-17, 04:42
It seems some MN and LN of Catalonia presented the 'danubian' tendancy, according to old scholars (no full text at hand) - so small rather dolicho people from "South-East" but not exactly the same ones. Sorry I cannot tell very more - the question is: some different and typical external details can develop upon a very similar auDNA makeup and some differences in auDNA total makeup could stay without evident trace on external aspect as always - knowledge needs every kind of tool, whatever the hyerarchy one can put within these tools -
That could be great, as I can see BA Hungarian influence in Iberian genetics of late BA. To bad I have only one sample to play with, and not the best quality either.

Shetop
26-05-17, 16:37
It appears that mass hysteria has already set in. If the rumor mill is correct as to what the next papers will show, I can't even imagine the coming reaction.

Could you tell us what is the rumor saying?

Atlantische
26-05-17, 17:55
thanks: could you precise me the meaning of colours here?
5 is not too much but they have all a "farmer" Y-haplo, for the most Y-G2a - in classical anthropo I red people in Trypillia show rather 'mediter' looks but with noticeable "proto-European" input, for the most females - it seems Y-I2a (ad maybe some Y-R1b) made its/their way a bit later, or at the mergins of the CTC strongholsd, rather Carpathians immediate surroundings? AS a whole CTC seems having developped in plains rather than in mountains, spite metals needs?
Gray Anatolian Neolithic
Blue WHG
Red EHG
Orange Yamnaya

MOESAN
26-05-17, 19:48
Gray Anatolian Neolithic
Blue WHG
Red EHG
Orange Yamnaya

Thanks, it was what I thought, but I preferred be sure, for the most concerning EHG and WHG, I could not extrapolate with too much certainty.

MOESAN
26-05-17, 20:08
It seems Eurogenes blog found a survey about 2 women from N-W Iberia and 6 (all men?) of Romania, all Mesolithic except one in Eneolithic among the "Romanians" -

MOESAN
26-05-17, 20:14
That could be great, as I can see BA Hungarian influence in Iberian genetics of late BA. To bad I have only one sample to play with, and not the best quality either.

Here under an abstract very "light" (I cannot have the full paper) but it shows the links supposed by some ones between Polada and East Catalunya and it appears that some phenotypes in La Polada shewed also some 'danubian' physical heritage - all these cultures were partly local but had cultural/material inputs from Central Europe -

RESUMEN

Un molde lítico para puñales fue localizado en un contexto funerario fechado mediante C14 en c. 1850 cal ANE en el asentamiento de la Edad del Bronce de Camp Cinzano (Vilafranca del Penedès, Alt Penedès, Barcelo-na). Se estudian la tipología y materia prima del molde y las características del artefacto metálico moldeado en el, relacionándolas con la metalurgia del II milenio del nordeste de la Península Ibérica. Se exponen los escasos paralelos de moldes para puñales existentes en la Penín-sula Ibérica y en el Mediterráneo Occidental, así como las posibles razones de su ausencia en el registro arqueo-lógico. Los datos sugieren dos lugares de origen para el molde estudiado, el Levante ibérico y el norte de Italia (grupos de Polada). Esta última zona mantiene mayores relaciones e interacciones en el ámbito metalúrgico con el nordeste de la Península Ibérica.
ABSTRACT
The Bronze Age settlement of Camp Cinzano (Vila- franca del Penedès, Alt Penedès, Barcelona province) yielded a riveted dagger stone mould in a funerary con-
text C14 dated to c. 1850 cal BC. We examine the char
-acteristics of the mould (typology and raw material) and the metal artifact found at the site and relate them to the metallurgy of the 2
nd
Millennium BC in the Northeastern
Iberian Peninsula. We present the few comparable dag
- ger moulds existing in the Iberian Peninsula and the
Western Mediterranean and discuss the possible reasons
for their rarity in the archaeological record. The data indicate two possible places of origin for the mould studied: the East coast of the Iberian Peninsula and Northern Italy (the Polada group). The latter is an area which exhibits greater interaction and relationships with the Northeastern Iberian Peninsula in the metallurgic sphere.
Palabras clave
: Molde de fundición; Arqueometalurgia; Difusión tecnológica; Crisol con perforación para el en-mangue; Crisol con pie macizo; Edad del Bronce; Pre-historia Reciente; Mediterráneo Occidental.
Key words
: Casting mould; Archaeometallurgy; Techno-logical diffusion; Socketed crucible; Pedestal base cru-
cible; Bronze Age; Late Prehistory; Western Mediterra
-nean.

1. CAMP CINZANO. ESTRUCTURAS ARQUEOLÓGICAS, MATERIALES Y CRONOLOGÍA1.1. El asentamiento

bicicleur
26-05-17, 21:00
It seems Eurogenes blog found a survey about 2 women from N-W Iberia and 6 (all men?) of Romania, all Mesolithic except one in Eneolithic among the "Romanians" -

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/34116-More-genomes-from-Mesolithic-Romania-and-Spain-(Gonzales-Fortes-et-al-2017)

Angela
26-05-17, 21:01
It seems Eurogenes blog found a survey about 2 women from N-W Iberia and 6 (all men?) of Romania, all Mesolithic except one in Eneolithic among the "Romanians" -Maciamo posted a link to it and summarized it in a much clearer way. Unfortunately, I'm away from home and on a tablet, and I can't seem to post any links to anything.

epoch
28-05-17, 13:01
@ LeBrok, Bicicleur,

We were talking about the composition of Yamnaya:


"Iosif Lazaridis (Broad) said...
It's great to see the data already being analyzed and I hope it will be useful in your analyses!

I just wanted to leave a brief comment that the model of Steppe_EMBA as a mixture of EHG+CHG is rejected (Table S7.11), while that of EHG+Iran_ChL is not. Note that in Table S7.11 we are modeling Steppe_EMBA and the references with respect to 13 outgroup populations (the set O9ALNW), not all of which are included in the TreeMix graph.

It is possible for some models to succeed with a particular set of outgroups (both EHG+CHG and EHG+Iran_ChL are feasible with only the O9 set of outgroups; Table S7.10), but for some of them to be rejected when additional outgroups are introduced (Table S7.11). As we mention further down, that doesn't mean there is no CHG-related ancestry in Steppe_EMBA as we can model it as a 3-way mixture involving CHG as one of the sources. What it does mean, however, is that CHG+EHG cannot be the only sources, as this model is rejected (Table S7.11). A further test of our overall model is that when we withhold Iran_ChL as a source, and infer mixture proportions by intersecting the EHG->Steppe_EMBA and Levant_N+Levant_BA clines (p. 134), we get fairly reasonable agreement (mixture proportions).

We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis.

Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled."

I don't think they've found the specific population (s), or they hadn't at that time.

In the subject paper Mathiesen uses CHG + Iran Neolithic as the formulation for the group that moved into Anatolia and then into the Balkans in the Chalcolithic and then even more so in the Bronze Age. Now that may be the population only for this migration westward. The Reich Lab formulation for the group that mixed with the EHG to create Yamnaya may still be where Lazaridis left it, may be closer to this Mathiesen formulation, or may have changed based on samples they've discovered but not released. I just don't know.

Ed. Just X out the last paragraph. Mathiesen is saying the combination that went into the Balkans is the same as what went onto the steppe.

From the paper:

"In eastern Europe we document the appearance of CHG/Iranian Neolithic ancestry north of the Black Sea, and its eventual extension as far north as the Baltic. In some ways, this expansion parallels the expansion of Anatolian farmer ancestry into western Europe although it is less dramatic, and several thousand years later. These expansions set up the two, largely separate, populations in western and eastern Europe that would come together in the Final Neolithic and Early Bronze Age to form the ancestry of present-day Europe."

I would think Lazaridis would agree, but we'll have to wait for his new paper. Maybe they've found a new and slightly different Iranian farmer population.

Broushaki et al mentioned:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.full


However, our analyses suggest that Neolithic Iranians were unlikely to be the main source of Near Eastern ancestry in the Steppe population (table S20), and that this ancestry in pre-Yamnaya populations originated primarily in the west of SW-Asia.

Lazaridis et al modeled Anatolian as 30% Levant_N, 30% Levant and 40% WHG. It modelen Iran_CH als Iran_N + Levant_N.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2016/06/16/059311.DC1/059311-1.pdf

So if we find that Iranian neolithic did not leave ancestry to Yamnaya but Iranian neolithic + Levant neolithic did we are left with two options:

1) The ultimate PIE homeland is the Levant
2) The Iran_Ch admixture in Steppe in Lazaridis is a proxy for something else.

No ad hominem, call for authority and smear campaign is going to change this simple argument.

MOESAN
28-05-17, 14:47
Why a mix of "Levant" and "Iran" neol in Iran CHalco would be born by force in Levant ONLY? it 's almost sure the osmosis took place on the two directions, or maybe rather from Iran places to Levant places (some Y-J's ancient colonisations southwards, but I lack knowledge about the first apparitions of Y-J in far South).

epoch
28-05-17, 15:52
Why a mix of "Levant" and "Iran" neol in Iran CHalco would be born by force in Levant ONLY? it 's almost sure the osmosis took place on the two directions, or maybe rather from Iran places to Levant places (some Y-J's ancient colonisations southwards, but I lack knowledge about the first apparitions of Y-J in far South).

That is due to the way Lazaridis et al created their model, using what they call the "Four": Levant_N, Iran_N, WHG, EHG. Quite extensively explained in the Supplementary Info, chapter 7.

Bergin
28-05-17, 19:32
E1b1b1a1b1:CTS3287:14801129A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS5291:16189080T->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS5527:16345952A->G; E1b1b1a1b1:CTS7273:17396160C->T;
E1b1b1a1b1:L618:15339697T->C;




So this is a fragment from the Croatian cave. Apparently I am not yet capable of interpreting the data by myself.

I suppose the last line means that it is positive for the L618 mutation. (Or does it mean the opposite?)

-So how can one check if it is E V13? (is it?)
-The CTS5856 I can't find downstream. Does it mean that this is a new variety of V13 or it is L618 V13*?

Please give me a hand to understand.

Angela
28-05-17, 19:51
Broushaki et al mentioned:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.full



Lazaridis et al modeled Anatolian as 30% Levant_N, 30% Levant and 40% WHG. It modelen Iran_CH als Iran_N + Levant_N.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2016/06/16/059311.DC1/059311-1.pdf

So if we find that Iranian neolithic did not leave ancestry to Yamnaya but Iranian neolithic + Levant neolithic did we are left with two options:

1) The ultimate PIE homeland is the Levant
2) The Iran_Ch admixture in Steppe in Lazaridis is a proxy for something else.

No ad hominem, call for authority and smear campaign is going to change this simple argument.

Please point out where I smeared someone. Also, you are citing Broushaki et al are you not? Somehow, that isn't an appeal to authority?

I have never treated you with anything other than respect and collegiality. You have some nerve talking about ad hominen attacks.

Stop by again when your logic button is turned on and you can conduct yourself with a modicum of manners.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension too.

"We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis.

Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled." "

epoch
28-05-17, 20:41
Please point out where I smeared someone. Also, you are citing Broushaki et al are you not? Somehow, that isn't an appeal to authority?

I have never treated you with anything other than respect and collegiality. You have some nerve talking about ad hominen attacks.

You have and I will return the honour. It is Davidski and the results he presents that is being considered an unreliable source - Words like "nonsense" are used - when he actually is a reliable source. Or the crowd at Anthrogenica, for that matter [1].


Stop by again when your logic button is turned on and you can conduct yourself with a modicum of manners.

You might want to work on your reading comprehension too.

"We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis.

Overall, our admixture analysis rejects several possible models (such as EHG+CHG) and thus puts constraints on what may have happened, and also proposes some models that are more resilient to rejection (such as EHG+Iran_ChL+CHG). But, by no means should these be regarded as the final word or unique solutions, but rather as one possible way that the data can be modeled." "


I am quite sure that Lazaridis is quite content with his result because he doesn't present an archaeological case but a model for admixture. The chapter 7 of the Supp Info extensively explains how and why. They model the world with four sources and make a very good case why they do. It probably is not proper ancestry but that is not what they want to prove. They simply want to clarify where samples are in those four dimensions.

But since Anatolian is not one of their dimensions this model can clearly mask a European farmer influx. Lazaridis won't comment on that because his model isn't meant to figure that out.

[1] The Eastern-European farmers David was talking about were the Baltic neolithics which indeed don't have any Basal. A few responses furthermore it becomes clear.

Angela
28-05-17, 21:34
You have and I will return the honour. It is Davidski and the results he presents that is being considered an unreliable source - Words like "nonsense" are used - when he actually is a reliable source. Or the crowd at Anthrogenica, for that matter [1].



I am quite sure that Lazaridis is quite content with his result because he doesn't present an archaeological case but a model for admixture. The chapter 7 of the Supp Info extensively explains how and why. They model the world with four sources and make a very good case why they do. It probably is not proper ancestry but that is not what they want to prove. They simply want to clarify where samples are in those four dimensions.

But since Anatolian is not one of their dimensions this model can clearly mask a European farmer influx. Lazaridis won't comment on that because his model isn't meant to figure that out.

[1] The Eastern-European farmers David was talking about were the Baltic neolithics which indeed don't have any Basal. A few responses furthermore it becomes clear.

You're going to be sorry you brought this up publicly, Epoch. It's called "opening the door". I hope you're a law abiding type, because unless the attorneys in your part of the world are all incompetent, you'd be destroyed on the witness stand.

Mr. Eurogenes has smeared himself over and over again. I've been in this hobby for ten years, which you obviously have not. He was a notorious poster on Stormfront and forumbiodiversity among others. Some helpful crashes and some massive scrubbing means that most of his posts are gone. He does the same on Eurogenes in case you haven't noticed. Unfortunately for him, I and quite a few others took dozens of screenshots. He routinely posted the most vile, anti-Semitic, anti-Near Eastern, anti-southern European racist/Nordicist rants imaginable. There were other matters I'm not at liberty to discuss because I don't possess the screen shot myself, but the aggrieved site was notified about the discussed activity.

Now, while that doesn't mean that his entire "work" product is incorrect, it does mean that he's an "impeached" witness, which means, for the un-initiated, that his work has to be carefully analyzed to make sure that he isn't cherry-picking or distorting data to support his agenda. Of course, he makes that difficult to do because he used to rarely publish his methodology so other people could try to replicate the results. If you knew that a paper on climate change was authored by a group paid by an oil company, you wouldn't give the paper extra scrutiny because of that very fact? Give me a break.

In my opinion, an opinion to which I am entitled btw, all he ever does is interpret the data in a way to support his own agenda. Every time a paper comes out he spews out data all showing how he's right and the academics are wrong, until the next paper shows he isn't right, and then the rigmarole starts all over again. Meanwhile, you aficionados just waste hours and days following the false trail. I God damn guarantee you that when the genomes are released, he'll find some way to make the CHG in the Varna female disappear, and somehow try to prove the dates on the steppe are wrong too. Can't you see how predictable he is? I said here a couple of years ago that his wrong predictions could fill the phone directory of a small city. You won't find the proof though, because not only posts but whole threads have been scrubbed. I haven't changed my mind since.

And yes, I think a lot of what he writes is nonsense, and puerile, vacuous, uninformed nonsense at that. Some Sarmatians in the service of Rome are responsible for a 0-7% autosomal change in "Yamnaya" in the Levant? There were blonde cowboys of the steppe in early Yamnaya? They rode into the fastness of the Caucasus to steal women? Are you serious? This is the Conan the Barbarian comic book version of the Pontic steppe origin of IE. I could fill the self-same directory with more nonsense of this sort.

I have a perfect right to this opinion as well. If it hurts your feelings that I believe this about your hero, I'm sorry, but it is what it is. I have a right to express it. Unless, of course, you want to join him in threatening me not to "make waves", or I'll "be sorry", as he did on this very Board? That's the kind of thing a thug does. Skinhead thugs do it routinely. If he's upset, it's too damn bad. If he ever does that again, if he ever bothers me again, I'll send the whole damn trove of screen shots to the Reich Lab and every other major Lab in the world, and maybe some task forces on hate groups. Maybe I should have done it already. I'm the wrong person to threaten.

The academics who occasionally post on his site should know the history and reputation of the person who created it and perhaps think twice about it.

You're fond of options, it seems. Well, I have some for you.

1. You're new and naive.
2. You're willfully blind
3. You share his orientation.

I've always liked you, so I'll opt for number one.

Now, you already made me half an hour late for my barbecue, and I'm getting yelled at. The discussion is closed so far as I'm concerned. Believe what you wish. You're entitled to your opinion, even if I think it's wrong. You're not entitled to tell me I can't express my own.

@Fire-Haired,
Spare us all and just respond with a ditto after Epoch's post, ok?

epoch
28-05-17, 22:05
You're going to be sorry you brought this up publicly, Epoch. It's called "opening the door". I hope you're a law abiding type, because unless the attorneys in your part of the world are all incompetent, you'd be destroyed on the witness stand.

I am all but the law abiding type. But that is seriously offtopic.



Mr. Eurogenes has smeared himself over and over again. I've been in this hobby for ten years, which you obviously have not. He was a notorious poster on Stormfront and forumbiodiversity among others. Some helpful crashes and some massive scrubbing means that most of his posts are gone. He does the same on Eurogenes in case you haven't noticed. Unfortunately for him, I and quite a few others took dozens of screenshots. He routinely posted the most vile, anti-Semitic, anti-Near Eastern, anti-southern European racist/Nordicist rants imaginable. There were other matters I'm not at liberty to discuss because I don't possess the screen shot myself, but the aggrieved site was notified about the discussed activity.

Wayback machine?


Now, while that doesn't mean that his entire "work" product is incorrect, it does mean that he's an "impeached" witness, which means, for the un-initiated, that his work has to be carefully analyzed to make sure that he isn't cherry-picking or distorting data to support his agenda.

How can you cherrypick D-stats?


Of course, he makes that difficult to do because he used to rarely publish his methodology so other people could try to replicate the results. If you knew that a paper on climate change was authored by a group paid by an oil company, you wouldn't give the paper extra scrutiny because of that very fact? Give me a break.

In my opinion, an opinion to which I am entitled btw, all he ever does is interpret the data in a way to support his own agenda. Every time a paper comes out he spews out data all showing how he's right and the academics are wrong, until the next paper shows he isn't right, and then the rigmarole starts all over again. Meanwhile, you aficionados just waste hours and days following the false trail. I God damn guarantee you that when the genomes are released, he'll find some way to make the CHG in the Varna female disappear, and somehow try to prove the dates on the steppe are wrong too. Can't you see how predictable he is? I said here a couple of years ago that his wrong predictions could fill the phone directory of a small city. I haven't changed my mind.

Well, show the predictions and where they went wrong.


And yes, I think a lot of what he writes is nonsense, and puerile, vacuous, uninformed nonsense at that. Some Sarmatians in the service of Rome are responsible for a 0-7% autosomal change in "Yamnaya" in the Levant? There were blonde cowboys of the steppe in early Yamnaya? They rode into the fastness of the Caucasus to steal women? Are you serious? This is the Conan the Barbarian comic book version of the Pontic steppe origin of IE. I could fill the self-same directory with more nonsense of this sort.

I have a perfect right to this opinion as well.

You have. But unless you come up with the Stormfront stuff I call it smear. And come to think of it, even if you can you'd still have to refute the proposed idea with data, not with the posters history.


If it hurts your feelings that I believe this about your hero, I'm sorry, but it is what it is.

The day has yet to break where my feelings are hurt because of online stuff. I keep online life and personal life well separated. Only in the latter my feelings may possibly get hurt. Even then it happens sporadically. Furthermore, I have no heroes.


I have a right to express it.

You do.


Unless, of course, you want to join him in threatening me not to "make waves", or I'll "be sorry", as he did on this very Board? That's the kind of thing a thug does. Skinhead thugs do it routinely. If he's upset, it's too damn bad. If he ever does that again, if he ever bothers me again, I'll send the whole damn trove of screen shots to the Reich Lab and every other major Lab in the world, and maybe some task forces on hate groups. Maybe I should have done it already. I'm the wrong person to threaten.

I have no idea what you're on about.


The academics who occasionally post on his site should know the history and reputation of the person who created it and perhaps think twice about it.

You're fond of options, it seems. Well, I have some for you.

1. You're new and naive.
2. You're willfully blind
3. You share his orientation.

I've always liked you, so I'll opt for number one.

Now, you already made me half an hour late for my barbecue, and I'm getting yelled at. The discussion is closed so far as I'm concerned. Believe what you wish. You're entitled to your opinion, even if I think it's wrong. You're not entitled to tell me I can't express my own.

Maybe you're right and he's a hideous person. I don't know. But this is exactly what I was talking about. However, let us put David aside: Did you notice I made my case without his input, but with the presented data?

Should you respond within minutes: Go to your BBQ. It is more important.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 22:19
Broushaki et al mentioned:
http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.full



Lazaridis et al modeled Anatolian as 30% Levant_N, 30% Levant and 40% WHG. It modelen Iran_CH als Iran_N + Levant_N.

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2016/06/16/059311.DC1/059311-1.pdf

So if we find that Iranian neolithic did not leave ancestry to Yamnaya but Iranian neolithic + Levant neolithic did we are left with two options:

1) The ultimate PIE homeland is the Levant
2) The Iran_Ch admixture in Steppe in Lazaridis is a proxy for something else.

No ad hominem, call for authority and smear campaign is going to change this simple argument.

I believe that these are distinct possibilities but I have the faint suspicion that 1) isn't the scenario you actually favor. So what do you think this particular admixture might mask? A migration from the Danube into the steppe?

epoch
28-05-17, 22:31
I believe that these are distinct possibilities but I have the faint suspicion that 1) isn't the scenario you actually favor. So what do you think this particular admixture might mask?

First, we have had our quarrels before and you did not prove to be very reliable there (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33695-Mediterranean-Europe-major-source-of-European-Neolithic/page3?p=507232&viewfull=1#post507232). Now, that may have been a flaw. We all make them. But your faint suspicions are exactly that: Yours.

It could mask, exactly as David said, incoming farmer admixture. CT for instance.

EDIT: O, and Marko, I never got you to state a theory on what exactly admixted into WHG for its M.E. affinity. But your hinting at Iran is most certainly wrong. D-stats prove that.

How Fu et al show affinity:

Iraqi_Jew.



Mbuti Iraqi_Jew K14 Villabruna 0.0038 7.8 1125277
Mbuti Iraqi_Jew K14 Bichon 0.0037 7.9 1669947


More D-stats with old samples: Levant



Mbuti Levant_Neolithic Kostenki14 Villabruna 0.0464 8.951 710555
Mbuti Levant_Neolithic Kostenki14 Bichon 0.0310 5.932 806519

Now with Iran. Older samples show less affinity:



Mbuti Iran_Neolithic Kostenki14 Villabruna 0.0137 2.493 716391
Mbuti Iran_Neolithic Kostenki14 Bichon 0.0156 2.841 823008
Mbuti Iran_Neolithic Kostenki14 Loschbour 0.0113 2.056 815524

Mbuti Iran_ChL Kostenki14 Villabruna 0.0271 6.144 807309
Mbuti Iran_ChL Kostenki14 Bichon 0.0238 5.342 965639
Mbuti Iran_ChL Kostenki14 Loschbour 0.0234 5.421 957873

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:03
First, we have had our quarrels before and you did not prove to be very reliable there. Now, that may have been a flaw. We all make them.

Since you're getting into quarrels again, this time with another member who is known to interpret data soberly and objectively, did it occur to you that maybe the fault is on your part?

I think I showed exactly why your ideas were outlandish. So I'm still waiting for your refutation of Fu et al., whose data you never addressed. Instead you you constantly went off tangent and resorted to bickering when actual data was presented.


It could mask, exactly as David said, incoming farmer admixture. CT for instance.

Perhaps it could, but since I share Angela's distrust of this person due to previous experiences I'll wait for confirmation from a peer-reviewed publication. If you don't understand why people don't consider blogs and forum posts reliable sources, especially if they are known to put a very predictable spin on the data, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's quite ridiculous to expect others to try to disentangle often undisclosed methodologies presented by amateurs when they don't offer much beyond what's already in the papers.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:11
First, we have had our quarrels before and you did not prove to be very reliable there (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33695-Mediterranean-Europe-major-source-of-European-Neolithic/page3?p=507232&viewfull=1#post507232). Now, that may have been a flaw. We all make them. But your faint suspicions are exactly that: Yours.

It could mask, exactly as David said, incoming farmer admixture. CT for instance.

EDIT: O, and Marko, I never got you to state a theory on what exactly admixted into WHG for its M.E. affinity. But your hinting at Iran is most certainly wrong. D-stats prove that.

How Fu et al show affinity:

Iraqi_Jew.



More D-stats with old samples: Levant



Now with Iran. Older samples show less affinity:

I'm not hinting at anything. The authors mention Kotias-Satsurbalia sans BE as a source, which is exactly what I told you. Why do you think they see Near Eastern affinity in Villabruna? It would be really helpful if you at least tried to understand their point.

epoch
28-05-17, 23:12
Since you're getting into quarrels again, this time with another member who is known to interpret data soberly and objectively, did it occur to you that maybe the fault is on your part?

I think I showed exactly why your ideas were outlandish. So I'm still waiting for your refutation of Fu et al., whose data you never addressed.

The D-stats. Which, mind you, do not refute Fu et al. They refute your interpretation of it.


Instead you you constantly went off tangent and resorted to bickering when actual data was presented.

There is a link to a post of me that is an answer to you. You confidently explain to me why Fu et al did not include Bichon in the Villabruna group. Except the paper did.



Perhaps it could, but since I share Angela's distrust of this person due to previous experiences I'll wait for confirmation from a peer-reviewed publication. If you don't understand why people don't consider blogs and forum posts reliable sources, especially if they are known to put a very predictable spin on the data, I'm not sure what to tell you. It's quite ridiculous to expect others to try to disentangle often undisclosed methodologies presented by amateurs when they don't offer much beyond what's already in the papers.

Ad hominem fallacy.

epoch
28-05-17, 23:13
I'm not hinting at anything. The authors mention Kotias-Satsurbalia sans BE as a source, which is exactly what I told you. Why do you think they see Near Eastern affinity in Villabruna? It would be really helpful if you at least tried to understand their point.

D-stats I posted. Read them.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:19
The D-stats. Which, mind you, do not refute Fu et al. They refute your interpretation of it.

I have no interpretation.



There is a link to a post of me that is an answer to you. You confidently explain to me why Fu et al did not include Bichon in the Villabruna group. Except the paper did.

I confounded Miron and Bichon after a long and pointless exchange following a minor point about skeletal affinities. Big deal. I hereby apologize.


Ad hominem fallacy.

Explaining why a non-peer-reviewed source is unreliable isn't an ad hominem fallacy. Don't be ridiculous.

epoch
28-05-17, 23:25
I have no interpretation.

OK. What is it then? You have shares in Iran?



I confounded Miron and Bichon after a long and pointless exchange following a minor point about skeletal affinities. Big deal. I hereby apologize.



Explaining why a non-peer-reviewed source is unreliable isn't an ad hominem fallacy. Don't be ridiculous.

But you don'y explain, but CLAIM it is unreliable. You don't explain a thing, actually

EDIT: D-stats I posted. Read them. Respond to that

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:28
D-stats I posted. Read them.
That's not what they base their interpretation on. In section 12 of the extended data their findings are treated at length.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:30
OK. What is it then? You have shares in Iran?




But you don'y explain, but CLAIM it is unreliable. You don't explain a thing, actually



It's amateur work and not peer-reviewed. Period.

epoch
28-05-17, 23:36
That's not what they base their interpretation on. In section 12 of the extended data their findings are treated at length.

Marko, what I did was swap the Iraqi_Jew in the D-stat they actually present in that very section 11 - that is the proper section - for Natufians and Iranians in order to see how much of it remains if old samples - that weren't available back then - are used.

epoch
28-05-17, 23:37
It's amateur work and not peer-reviewed. Period.

So are your responses.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:40
Marko, what I did was swap the Iraqi_Jew in the D-stat they actually present in that very section 12 for Natufians and Iranians in order to see how much of it remains if old samples - that weren't available back then - are used.

What does that have to do with the affinity to the Kotias-Satsurbalia cluster they convincingly demonstrate?

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:41
So are your responses.

Yes, and I hope everyone is aware of that.

MarkoZ
28-05-17, 23:47
Let's spell it out again.

Their findings:


The Satsurblia Cluster individuals from the Caucasus dating to
~13,000–10,000 years ago2
share more alleles with the Villabruna
Cluster individuals than they do with earlier Europeans, indicating that
they are related to the population that contributed new alleles to people
in the Villabruna Cluster, although they cannot be the direct source of
the gene flow. One reason for this is that the Satsurblia Cluster carries
large amounts of Basal Eurasian ancestry while Villabruna Cluster indi-
viduals do not2
(Supplementary Information section 12; Extended Data
Fig. 4). One possible explanation for the sudden drawing together of
the ancestry of Europe and the Near East at this time is long-distance
migrations from the Near East into Europe. However, a plausible alter-
native is population structure, whereby Upper Palaeolithic Europe har-
boured multiple groups that differed in their relationship to the Near
East, with the balance shifting among groups as a result of demographic
changes after the Glacial Maximum.

And hence their interpretation:


One scenario that could
explain these patterns is a population expansion from southeastern
European or west Asian refugia after the Glacial Maximum, drawing
together the genetic ancestry of Europe and the Near East.

Fire Haired14
29-05-17, 01:42
@Angela,

Let's say you're right David posted racist stuff at site like Stormfront. That doesn't mean the DNA analysis he posts is unreliable. He uses the same tools as any other genome blogger. He can't fabricate the results those tools give him. He can only give bogus interpretations.

Angela
29-05-17, 04:25
@Epoch,
What a pity; you're definitely a two or a three. The discussion is over.

holderlin
29-05-17, 05:06
Jesus
.
.
..
.
.
.
.

epoch
29-05-17, 06:58
Let's spell it out again.

Their findings:



And hence their interpretation:

D-stats? Comment?

MarkoZ
29-05-17, 11:27
D-stats? Comment?
I see you're avoiding Fu's thesis again, which is elevated affinity to the Kotias-Satsurbalia cluster starting with Villabruna. Since you don't address this issue at all and since there's always some degree of uncertainty with ancient DNA, I think it's time you provided some evidence to support your alternative hypothesis of Aurignacian differentation and subsequent backmigration.

I think those statistics-d models are completely expected, but unless you offer some evidence I have to assume that your intent is malicious and won't get into another pointless and lengthy debate.

halfalp
29-05-17, 12:59
"We try to be cautious in our interpretation of the admixture models, because of three factors: (i) we don't know the geographical extent of populations like "CHG" or "Iran_ChL" so admixture from Iran_ChL does not imply admixture from geographical Iran or CHG from the geographical Caucasus, (ii) we do not have samples from many places and it's very likely that slightly different mixtures than the sampled populations existed elsewhere, (iii) it is possible that the actual history of admixture may be more complex than the simplest parsimonious models identified by the analysis. I think this is one of the most important point. In milleniums, influx or reflux of an admix-like population can go in different geographic area.

holderlin
29-05-17, 18:47
@Epoch,
What a pity; you're definitely a two or a three. The discussion is over.

What does this mean?

holderlin
29-05-17, 19:04
I don't know why even a white supremacist would care that Villabruna has an elevated affinity for CHG compared to older paleo european populations. It boggles my mind.

Villabruan, El Miron, Goyet, and Kostenki were soooooooooo long ago. Everything was different. Europe would have barely been recognizable to people today, from the landscape and Fauna to the people.

The "Northern European Phenotype" is something that developed in around 2000BC.

Aaron1981
30-05-17, 00:50
One of the R1b-Z2103 males was a carrier for blonde hair, and I believe one of the older papers had a BB male positive for a red haired SNP. Both were reported in the actual paper, so this isn't a third party character running low quality data. Just a FYI, not that anyone asked. I believe a R1b-U152 Roman age Briton was also a blonde too.

Angela
30-05-17, 15:49
Something I don't get is the vast majority of Sardinians wouldn't pass as white. But the vast majority of Basque could pass as British or German or whatever. Basque have a high frequency of rs16891982(90%+) which could mean that SNP is what makes the difference.

You've been on this site for years. You know we have an anthropology section. You know we're supposed to limit such discussions, if people really feel compelled to even have a discussion about who looks "whiter" to that section. You further know we're supposed to stay on topic in threads. You want to explain to me why you started such a discussion here on a thread discussing a paper like this?

If you want to continue this discussion, start a thread in the appropriate section and everybody can copy and paste their comments there if they want to preserve them. I am no longer going to go through this and do all this clean up work for you people when you should all know better.

After an appropriate amount of time, these off topic posts will all be deleted.

For the record, people who have never traveled, never seen different groups of people "in the flesh" to think they're qualified to make judgments about what different groups look like is ridiculous. That's over and above what it says about people that they sit around thinking about who looks "whiter". Or, for that matter, who thinks that "whiteness" in America is still defined by how Germanic someone looks.

epoch
30-05-17, 16:18
I see you're avoiding Fu's thesis again, which is elevated affinity to the Kotias-Satsurbalia cluster starting with Villabruna. Since you don't address this issue at all and since there's always some degree of uncertainty with ancient DNA, I think it's time you provided some evidence to support your alternative hypothesis of Aurignacian differentation and subsequent backmigration.

I do address it. With D-stats. Back when Fu et al came out Satsurblia was about the only old enough sample for comparison. We have more now. That is why I posted the D-stats, which swap Satsurblia with ancient Middle-Easterners. It shows that whatever affinity there is, it is with Natufians, not Neolithic Iranians. The Chalcolithic Iranians do show it however, which is understandable because they have some of the Natufian admixture. See Lazaridis 2016.

Lazaridis 2016 modeled Satsurblia as a small amount of WHG + EHG (Itself a mixture of Mal'ta and WHG) + Iran neolithic.

But even more surpising is that the D-stats with Natufians don't differ all that much from those with Iraqi_jews, who certainly don't have a straight unadmixted decent from Natufians. So whatever admixture it is, it must be very old.



I think those statistics-d models are completely expected, but unless you offer some evidence I have to assume that your intent is malicious and won't get into another pointless and lengthy debate.

My intent is malicious? How on earth can one be malicious in proposing a theory for a paleolithic admixture?

Angela
30-05-17, 16:22
Any extended discussion of paleolithic admixture is better taken to the appropriate thread gentlemen.

Cato
31-05-17, 00:25
Some nuggets:

Globular Amphora is 75% farmer and 25% HG, like Iberian Neolithic...no steppe.



I find this part very interesting. Before this study was released i thought that GAC, but also Eastern TRB, were already "Yamna-like", obviously they were not...so the Steppe invasion did actually took place (at least in the north), i must admit i was very skeptical

JajarBingan
08-08-17, 22:03
Are there any updates on when this one will get released?

halfalp
13-08-17, 16:12
I wonder if the founder effect of I2a farmers of globular amphores full of EEF, can be also explain with the steppe hypothesis where maybe J pastoralists have been absorb by local R1b HG.

MOESAN
17-08-17, 22:49
Y-I2a2 seemingly was dominant if not lone among ALPc culture people of Hungary (6th-5Th Millenium - along some rare Y-G2a and other Y-I) and I2a2 was dominant also among Ukraina Neolithic people (in fact rather HG's poorly accultured); we could suppose Steppic tribes pushed Ukrainan people towards Poland but they had rather HG's mt-DNa, when GAC of Poland had rather "Neolithic" mt-DNA like ALPc; but GAC are about 2000 years later. Apparently some physically "proto-europeans" similar to the Steppic HG's entered into Hungary before the reported first I-E Steppes introgression there; they were absorbed later: could they have been dominantly early kurganized steppes "Neolithics" males who took Neolithic females there and survived, largely modified in a new mixed culture who extended close to Poland surroundings? or in fact the mix was already made since a long time (ALPc) with local Y-I2a2 present in Nth Balkans Mesolithic?
the Derivka Sredny Stog people were for the most Y-R1b1a with a few Y-I2a2 (joined to them?); could their clan pushed "Neolithics" of Ukraina towards West (for a part)? Very unclear to me to date.
What I feel is that the HG's and the Steppes partly nomadic herders had more male clannic rigidities than the sedentary agricultors and their successors and the Y-lineages among them were more exclusive. Only a feeling.

blevins13
02-10-17, 23:07
All I can say is Wow!
See:
http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2017/05/09/135616.full.pdf

This is the abstract.

"Farming was first introduced to southeastern Europe in the mid-7th millennium BCE - brought by migrants from Anatolia who settled in the region before spreading throughout Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between the first farmers and the indigenous hunter-gatherers remain poorly understood because of the near absence of ancient DNA from the region. We report new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 204 individuals-65 Paleolithic and Mesolithic, 93 Neolithic, and 46 Copper, Bronze and Iron Age-who lived in southeastern Europe and surrounding regions between about 12,000 and 500 BCE. We document that the hunter-gatherer populations of southeastern Europe, the Baltic, and the North Pontic Steppe were distinctive from those of western Europe, with a West-East cline of ancestry. We show that the people who brought farming to Europe were not part of a single population, as early farmers from southern Greece are not descended from the Neolithic population of northwestern Anatolia that was ancestral to all other European farmers. The ancestors of the first farmers of northern and western Europe passed through southeastern Europe with limited admixture with local hunter-gatherers, but we show that some groups that remained in the region mixed extensively with local hunter-gatherers, with relatively sex-balanced admixture compared to the male-biased hunter-gatherer admixture that we show prevailed later in the North and West. After the spread of farming, southeastern Europe continued to be a nexus between East and West, with intermittent steppe ancestry, including in individuals from the Varna I cemetery and associated with the Cucuteni-Trypillian archaeological complex, up to 2,000 years before the Steppe migration that replaced much of northern Europe's population.""

Interesting


Sent from my iPhone using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

halfalp
07-10-17, 14:57
So are they definitely positioned that baltic, balkanics and north pontics R1b HG are very likely parents ? ( without the evidence of r1b related haplogroup ). And so are R1a from karelia and dereivka related to each others ? What is the real genetic distance for all those groups ?


And what is the genetic ratio of both mesolithic baltics and balkanics, Baltic shows WHG related haplogroups like U5b and I2, but also R1b, is this R1b considererd EHG marker ? or a fusion of both and some others genetics incomes or archaisms ?

But most interesting i think, are those balkanics HG, what are their ratio of WHG - EHG admixtures ? Do they are some CHG or even Basal Eurasian markers ? And to what proportions... MY GOSH so many questions...

Genetiker
21-02-18, 04:44
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:

Y-SNP calls from ancient Southeastern Europe (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-southeastern-europe/)

Trojet
23-02-18, 06:06
I just looked at sample I4331 J2b2a-L283 Veliki Vanik, Bronze Age Dalmatia, ~1600 BCE. I'm showing him as: Z628+ Z2507+ Y15058+ CTS9215+ and Z40053- Z38241- and the rest of downstream informative SNPs no calls. So looks like fully developed J-CTS3617 aka J-Y15058 at YFull, and likely negative for all downstreams: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z2507/

Sile
23-02-18, 07:19
I'm posting Y-SNP calls here:
Y-SNP calls from ancient Southeastern Europe (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/21/y-snp-calls-from-ancient-southeastern-europe/)
R-V88 appears in many places..........is this marker the first of the R1b!? in europe
The T-M184 is the filthy rich coastal black sea bulgaria ................over 1000 gold pieces found in the grave ..........1000 years younger than the 2 x T1a in Malak bulgaria ( not very far away )

lnikol
25-02-18, 11:00
The "mythological" genomic literature in early 21st century makes us ask many questions like yours. There are many branches of science with a period "baby in the cradle", but the ancient genomics is too long in this cradle. So, when you see this model of merging of hunter-gatherers and farmers, you need context. The context of Maluk Preslevets is an Early Neolithic village with intramural graves - cemetery. What "hunter-gatherers" means is unclear. This may mean that the population of Maluk Preslavets was documented with haplogroups which match the haplogroups of the hunter-gatherers. This may also mean that part of the population of Maluk Preslvets had hunter-gatherers ancestry, not that they were in Early Neolithic hunter-gatherers. In other words, they would be descendants of Lepenski Vir culture or something like it.
The general problem, however is, that geneticists who have been lately publishing ancient genomic data are completely lost in their own limitations, selective use of data for generalization, dependence on computer programs with quationable algorithms ... . Especially the repeated with "genetic data" outdated theory of M. Gimbutas. Pit Grave Culture neither had the philosophy nor the strategy to invade and change the world. These were pastoral households, who ran from the barbarous periphery of Europe (the Russian steppes) to have seen and to integrate with the advanced civilization (the European Golden Bronze Age). How is possible even for a second somebody to think that this culture can have any serious impact on Corded Ware Culture or Bell Beaker Culture? After the last "hit" of the "steppe ancestry" of British population, somebody with strong voice needs finally just to say: Stop! Think. The world is not full with idiots, but with thinking people.

holderlin
26-02-18, 19:38
Alright, so V88 came from Europe? Does anyone contest this?

Angela
26-02-18, 23:16
Alright, so V88 came from Europe? Does anyone contest this?

I don't know how anyone could, nor do I know of anyone who continues to contest it. Things are more complicated than imagined. In my experience, they usually are.

Olympus Mons
26-02-18, 23:48
Alright, so V88 came from Europe? Does anyone contest this?

They are the unsung heroes of 2018 that nobody cares about. They were everywhere and even the dispersal into sub Sahara africa happen in the last 5500 years. So many papers where they rock and nobody cares...

Ygorcs
27-02-18, 00:50
Is there any appreciable sign of WHG or WHG-like admixture in all or at leaST MOST the African lands that have a significantly higher then average presence of R1B-V88? If not, how come they left no autosomal impact at all despite their apparently "Kurgan-like" expansion - rapid Chalcolithic/Bronze Age expansion through pastoralism mainly - in much of North and North-Central Africa? Or maybe their WHG had already become very depleted and replaced through dozens of generations by a much more EEF profile?

holderlin
27-02-18, 05:01
I don't know how anyone could, nor do I know of anyone who continues to contest it. Things are more complicated than imagined. In my experience, they usually are.

I just remember some strange theories about it, and I didn't see it definitively assigned to all those Ukraine Neolithic and Iron Gates samples until recently.

There is something special about the Steppe-Balkans interface from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age.

holderlin
27-02-18, 06:41
Is there any appreciable sign of WHG or WHG-like admixture in all or at leaST MOST the African lands that have a significantly higher then average presence of R1B-V88? If not, how come they left no autosomal impact at all

Because it's been like 400 generations.


Or maybe their WHG had already become very depleted and replaced through dozens of generations by a much more EEF profile?

Yes, but more like SSA.

Angela
27-02-18, 06:42
Is there any appreciable sign of WHG or WHG-like admixture in all or at leaST MOST the African lands that have a significantly higher then average presence of R1B-V88? If not, how come they left no autosomal impact at all despite their apparently "Kurgan-like" expansion - rapid Chalcolithic/Bronze Age expansion through pastoralism mainly - in much of North and North-Central Africa? Or maybe their WHG had already become very depleted and replaced through dozens of generations by a much more EEF profile?

This isn't an area of special interest to me, so I may not be up to date, but I know that in this paper from the end of 2016, they give this date for R1b-V88 in Chad: "Chad R1b-V88 Y chromosomes coalesced 5,700–7,300 years ago."

Marc Haber et al: "Chad Genetic Diversity Reveals an African History Marked by Multiple Holocene Eurasian Migrations"http://www.cell.com/ajhg/fulltext/S0002-9297(16)30448-7

It was discussed here:
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33130-EEF-gave-Africa-R1b-V88

I would think even a couple of hundred years spent in the Near East/Levant, and then time in Africa marrying only local women would get rid of any autosomal trace of WHG.

holderlin
27-02-18, 06:53
Oh OK I see. An updated version was published in Nature in the last few days. Forgive me I'm slow.

How bout that small bit of steppe in Peloponnese Neolithic?

Alpenjager
27-02-18, 19:07
There is a paper about the Tubus in Chad. I think that I have never posted about in this forum. This is of interest for T1a and R1b-V88 both found in Ancient Balkans (Mesolithic-Early Neolithic) and Tubu people. Remember that the oldest T1a found in the Balkans have close to 40% Balkan HG autosomal DNA (the highest of his settlement).

The Tubus "The Rock people" in Haber et al.
Interesting results from Tubus show the following YDNA composition:
West Eurasians
34% R1b-L754 (xP297) likely V88
31% T1a-M70
1% J1
Africans
33% E1b several subclades

Most interestingly the authors found this about Tubus: "We also find the Eurasian haplogroup T in Toubou and Ethiopians with Toubou having a high frequency (31%) of their studied males belonging to this haplogroup. Interestingly, the only instances of this haplogroup in examined ancient populations are in the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) population which we found to be the most significant reference for the Eurasian ancestry in Toubou and the Ethiopians."

And also that the closest autosomal modern non-African reference population to the Tubus are the Sardinians!
This mean that Tubus retain, at least, 26-30% of autosomal LBK-like DNA from their Early Balkan Neolithic ancestors.
Would be very interesting to see How will works when adding as reference Mesolithic Balkan populations and Early Neolithic Preslavets found in the last Mathiesen et al paper.

These too lineages found in Mesolithic Balkan HG and Early Balkan Neolithic with the highest Balkan HG have not been found together only among Tubu population from (Borku, Ennedi and Tibesti) northwest Chad, but also are found together in Tuaregs from Burkina Faso and Fulbe from Northern Cameroon. However when looking into East Africa, R1b is virtually stuck in Sudan while T1a1a is found until "the gates" of South Africa.
According to a Tubu individual "range from H and HV to L2 and L3e on the maternal side" So, again T1a found together with descendants of R0 mtDNA.

9800

Angela
27-02-18, 21:14
There is a paper about the Tubus in Chad. I think that I have never posted about in this forum. This is of interest for T1a and R1b-V88 both found in Ancient Balkans (Mesolithic-Early Neolithic) and Tubu people. Remember that the oldest T1a found in the Balkans have close to 40% Balkan HG autosomal DNA (the highest of his settlement).

The Tubus "The Rock people" in Haber et al.
Interesting results from Tubus show the following YDNA composition:
West Eurasians
34% R1b-L754 (xP297) likely V88
31% T1a-M70
1% J1
Africans
33% E1b several subclades

Most interestingly the authors found this about Tubus: "We also find the Eurasian haplogroup T in Toubou and Ethiopians with Toubou having a high frequency (31%) of their studied males belonging to this haplogroup. Interestingly, the only instances of this haplogroup in examined ancient populations are in the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) population which we found to be the most significant reference for the Eurasian ancestry in Toubou and the Ethiopians."

And also that the closest autosomal modern non-African reference population to the Tubus are the Sardinians!
This mean that Tubus retain, at least, 26-30% of autosomal LBK-like DNA from their Early Balkan Neolithic ancestors.
Would be very interesting to see How will works when adding as reference Mesolithic Balkan populations and Early Neolithic Preslavets found in the last Mathiesen et al paper.

These too lineages found in Mesolithic Balkan HG and Early Balkan Neolithic with the highest Balkan HG have not been found together only among Tubu population from (Borku, Ennedi and Tibesti) northwest Chad, but also are found together in Tuaregs from Burkina Faso and Fulbe from Northern Cameroon. However when looking into East Africa, R1b is virtually stuck in Sudan while T1a1a is found until "the gates" of South Africa.
According to a Tubu individual "range from H and HV to L2 and L3e on the maternal side" So, again T1a found together with descendants of R0 mtDNA.

9800

Or from their mostly Near Eastern ancestors. There are numerous papers showing that the inmixing West Eurasian ancestry into Africa was "Sardinian" like. It all means the same thing, I think, which is people who were mostly EEF autosomally.

Promenade
27-02-18, 22:29
The source of Eurasian ancestry in Toubou and Ethiopians is likely separate since the Eurasian ancestry in Luxmanada is specifically described as lacking ancestry from Farmers from Anatolia (So EEF/Sardinian like groups).

Is there any evidence of Natufian like ancestry in LBK? The ultimate source of haplogroup T could be somewhere near the Levant.

IronSide
27-02-18, 22:45
The source of Eurasian ancestry in Toubou and Ethiopians is likely separate since the Eurasian ancestry in Luxmanada is specifically described as lacking ancestry from Farmers from Anatolia (So EEF/Sardinian like groups).
Is there any evidence of Natufian like ancestry in LBK? The ultimate source of haplogroup T could be somewhere near the Levant.

Any Natufian like ancestry in Neolithic Europe is from their origin in Anatolia, 34% of Anatolian farmers ancestry is Levant Neolithic like, that would mean 22% Natufian. Most Natufian signals in Southern Europe is from this source.

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

holderlin
27-02-18, 22:51
Any Natufian like ancestry in Neolithic Europe is from their origin in Anatolia, 34% of Anatolian farmers ancestry is Levant Neolithic like, that would mean 22% Natufian. Most Natufian signals in Southern Europe is from this source.

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

Was just going to post this. Shows up in admixture and formal stats.

Govan
27-02-18, 23:03
Tubus have Berber admixture , this explain their mtdna H , possible ydna T1 and genetic affinity to Iberian/Sardinian farmers. It's mostly those in Chad neighbouring Chadics have higher Rv88 , those in Libya much less, more E1b1b. In the Sahel , populations are so mixed to each other that both Chadics and non-Chadics show Rv88. However Eurasian ancestry is all seperate thing together it generally appears significantly only in pastoralists groups ( Toubu , Fulanis , Bagaras) while most Chadic-speakers with maximum R1b are compact sendatary populations.

Angela
28-02-18, 00:36
Any Natufian like ancestry in Neolithic Europe is from their origin in Anatolia, 34% of Anatolian farmers ancestry is Levant Neolithic like, that would mean 22% Natufian. Most Natufian signals in Southern Europe is from this source.

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

So we've been saying here since the paper came out, but you'll never convince some people. Some of it may also have been part of later migrations. Mycenaeans had about 5% additional Levant Neolithic I think. Other groups may have had more.

IronSide
28-02-18, 01:04
So we've been saying here since the paper came out, but you'll never convince some people. Some of it may also have been part of later migrations. Mycenaeans had about 5% additional Levant Neolithic I think. Other groups may have had more.

Everyone in West Eurasia received admixture from the four (WHG, EHG, Natufian, IranNeo), everyone received Natufian, and everyone received WHG and EHG, even in the Middle East, geneflow has always been bidirectional, this reduced the genetic differentiation overtime.

You can see Fst values decrease over time in each region for all four most differentiated Holocene populations, its interesting that in the Eurasian Steppe and the Levant, relatedness to EHG and Natufians decreased in favor of the other components.

https://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v536/n7617/images/nature19310-sf4.jpg

Alpenjager
28-02-18, 01:43
The source of Eurasian ancestry in Toubou and Ethiopians is likely separate since the Eurasian ancestry in Luxmanada is specifically described as lacking ancestry from Farmers from Anatolia (So EEF/Sardinian like groups).

Is there any evidence of Natufian like ancestry in LBK? The ultimate source of haplogroup T could be somewhere near the Levant.

The unique T found in the ancient Levant is T1(xT1a) = T1b. This is found in PPNB not in Mesolithic Levant together with an increased EEF influx into the Levant populations not previously found in Mesolithic Natufians. So it is believed that this T1b branch came from further North. Eastern Black sea or Aegean sea. T1b is not found in Ancient remains from Europe, only T1a, so this Neolithic lineage in PPNB is not ancestral to those found in Europe.

Ygorcs
28-02-18, 02:19
Tubus have Berber admixture , this explain their mtdna H , possible ydna T1 and genetic affinity to Iberian/Sardinian farmers. It's mostly those in Chad neighbouring Chadics have higher Rv88 , those in Libya much less, more E1b1b. In the Sahel , populations are so mixed to each other that both Chadics and non-Chadics show Rv88. However Eurasian ancestry is all seperate thing together it generally appears significantly only in pastoralists groups ( Toubu , Fulanis , Bagaras) while most Chadic-speakers with maximum R1b are compact sendatary populations.

If that "Berber admixture" has really closer genetic affinities to Iberian and Sardinian farmers, then they definitely also mixed with the European or maybe (I think this is less probable) Northern Near Eastern (Northwest Anatolian?) immigrants.

The native Berbers were certainly much older than the later big mixing between Anatolian_Neolithic and Levant_Neolithic that would've made their Near Eastern ancestors more related to Sardinians, since they have some minor but important Ancient Subsaharan African ancestry, their autosomal and Y-DNA makeup "smells" much more of Neolithic Levant (then without much EEF-like admixture), and since Proto-Berber is very divergent in relation to Semitic and probably was already evolving in North Africa by the mid to late Neolithic, possibly even earlier than 4,000-4,500 BC.

I find it much more likely that the Proto-Berbers themselves were totally Levant_Neolithic plus some Subsaharan African already dwelling in North Africa, and then they mixed a lot with European_Neolithic newcomers, while some groups (present-day Chadic speakers, especially the nomad pastoralists) migrated further and/or developed through relative isolation their own genetic makeup and distinctive linguistic identity (maybe they were the ones who mixed with the "other", probably earlier Near Easterners in North Africa, the Chadic speakers - I say "earlier" because Chadic is much more divergent and glottochronologically much older than others in comparison with the Afro-Asiatic languages near the Levant).

Promenade
28-02-18, 03:14
The unique T found in the ancient Levant is T1(xT1a) = T1b. This is found in PPNB not in Mesolithic Levant together with an increased EEF influx into the Levant populations not previously found in Mesolithic Natufians. So it is believed that this T1b branch came from further North. Eastern Black sea or Aegean sea. T1b is not found in Ancient remains from Europe, only T1a, so this Neolithic lineage in PPNB is not ancestral to those found in Europe.

Thanks for the info guys, any idea how Natufian ancestry entered East Africa relatively recently without introducing any EEF or CHG ancestry as well?

Angela
28-02-18, 04:15
The Ewan Calloway paper of 2015 had to be corrected. The "European farmer like ancestry" did not spread throughout Africa.
This is about the original uncorrected paper. It's fine except for when they talk about expansion, and when they talk about Neanderthal in Africans.

Bottom line, it moved into the Horn of Africa 9,000 years ago, before there was large scale mingling with more Iran Neo people in the ancient Near East.

See:
https://www.nature.com/news/first-ancient-african-genome-reveals-vast-eurasian-migration-1.18531

That wasn't the last such migration, however.

Hodgson et al:2014
"Early Back to Africa Migration into the Horn of Africa"
http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393

We're talking of waves of migration.

"Populations in the Horn of Africa (HOA: Ethiopia, Eritrea, Djibouti, and Somalia) have substantial non-African ancestry [11] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Levine1)–[15] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Non1). The most recent genomic studies estimate 30–50% non-African ancestry in the Cushitic and Semitic speaking populations of the HOA resulting primarily from admixture around 3 ka [16] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Pagani1), [17] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Pickrell1). This timeframe corresponds to the estimated time of origin of the Ethiosemitic languages [18] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Kitchen1) and there are some carved inscriptions in South Arabian scripts associated with temple ruins and ritual items in South Arabian styles dated to the early first millennium BCE in the north Ethiopian highlands [19] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Cerulli1)–[23] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Robin1). These linguistic and archaeological connections have been cited in the recent population genomic studies to support a hypothesis of high levels of non-African migration into the HOA around 3 ka.However, more recent archaeological research shows that non-African influences in the HOA were limited and transient. Of the early first millennium BCE inscriptions in non-African scripts complete enough to identify a language, only a small proportion are written in a non-African (South Arabian) language - the majority are written in indigenous proto-Ge'ez [24] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Phillipson1). In the HOA, architecture with non-African (primarily South Arabian) elements is entirely monumental or ritual [25] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Fattovich1) and ritual items with exclusively non-African elements are rare [26] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Manzo1). There are few to no indications of non-African material culture in everyday objects: the ceramics and lithics found outside of the ritual context are almost entirely indigenous with clear local precedents [24] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Phillipson1), [25] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Fattovich1), [27] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Fattovich2). While earlier scholarship conceived of a South Arabian origin D'MT polity with sovereignty over much of the northern HOA, it is now clear that this polity, if it ever existed at all as an integrated state [24] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Phillipson1), was geographically restricted to the regions around Yeha and Aksum in what is now the Tigray region of Ethiopia [25] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Fattovich1). Artifacts with non-African features are effectively absent in the material culture (ritual or otherwise) of contemporaneous populations in the Eritrean highlands on the Asmara plateau (the “Ancient Ona”) [25] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Fattovich1), [28] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Curtis1), [29] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Schmidt1). Prior to the first millennium BC, the archaeology of the HOA is less well studied, but what is available shows no substantial non-African material culture beyond trade relations [25] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Fattovich1). Taken all together, the archaeological data could be consistent with limited non-African (primarily South Arabian) migration into the north Ethiopian highlands at the outset of the first millennium BCE, but cannot support large-scale population movements from any foreign population.
Archaeological data indicate trade between the HOA and Arabia by at least 8 ka [30] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Boivin1), [31] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Khalidi1) and genetic analyses of mitochondrial and Y chromosome data suggest much earlier migrations into the HOA. Mitochondrial data are suggestive of as many as three waves of prehistoric non-African migration into the HOA. First, HOA populations carry several unique M1 lineages of the otherwise South and East Asian mitochondrial haplogroup M [13] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Passarino1), [32] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-QuintanaMurci1)–[34] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Olivieri1). Many of these HOA M1 lineages have deep roots, diverging from M1 representatives elsewhere 20–30 ka [34] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Olivieri1)–[36] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Pennarun1). Second, representatives of N1a and N2a in the HOA diverged from their most closely related haplotypes in the Middle East and the Caucasus 15–20 ka [37] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Fernandes1). Third, in the Eurasian mitochondrial HV1 and R0a lineages there are several sub-haplogroups (HV1a3, HV1b1, R0a2b, R0a2g) that are found in both the HOA and the Arabian Peninsula. Within these shared sub-haplogroup lineages, the HOA and Arabian haplotypes are distinct, suggesting that the migration that brought these lineages into the HOA happened soon after the sub-haplogroups began to diversify at 6–10 ka [38] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-ern1), [39] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Musilov1).
Y chromosome data are also suggestive of at least two episodes of non-African migration into the HOA prior to 3 ka. First, HOA populations carry E-M78 Y chromosomes at high frequencies [40] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Cruciani1), [41] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Cruciani2). E-M78 originated in northeastern Africa around 19 ka with a descendant lineage (E-V32) unique to the HOA that arrived by at least 6 ka [41] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Cruciani2). Because northern African populations in this timeframe are inferred to have substantial non-African ancestry [42] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Arredi1), [43] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Henn1), the expansion south of E-M78 could have introduced non-African ancestry into the HOA prior to 6 ka. Second, some HOA populations carry moderate to high frequencies of T-M70 (previously K2-M70) Y chromosomes [44] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Sanchez1)–[46] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Plaster1). The T haplogroup originated in the area of the Levant approximately 21 ka and the T-M70 sub-haplogroup was present in northeast Africa by at least 14 ka, possibly arriving in the HOA as early as 5 ka [44] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Sanchez1), [45] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Mendez1), [47] (http://journals.plos.org/plosgenetics/article?id=10.1371/journal.pgen.1004393#pgen.1004393-Luis1)."

AdeoF
28-02-18, 04:57
If that "Berber admixture" has really closer genetic affinities to Iberian and Sardinian farmers, then they definitely also mixed with the European or maybe (I think this is less probable) Northern Near Eastern (Northwest Anatolian?) immigrants.

The native Berbers were certainly much older than the later big mixing between Anatolian_Neolithic and Levant_Neolithic that would've made their Near Eastern ancestors more related to Sardinians, since they have some minor but important Ancient Subsaharan African ancestry, their autosomal and Y-DNA makeup "smells" much more of Neolithic Levant (then without much EEF-like admixture), and since Proto-Berber is very divergent in relation to Semitic and probably was already evolving in North Africa by the mid to late Neolithic, possibly even earlier than 4,000-4,500 BC.

I find it much more likely that the Proto-Berbers themselves were totally Levant_Neolithic plus some Subsaharan African already dwelling in North Africa, and then they mixed a lot with European_Neolithic newcomers, while some groups (present-day Chadic speakers, especially the nomad pastoralists) migrated further and/or developed through relative isolation their own genetic makeup and distinctive linguistic identity (maybe they were the ones who mixed with the "other", probably earlier Near Easterners in North Africa, the Chadic speakers - I say "earlier" because Chadic is much more divergent and glottochronologically much older than others in comparison with the Afro-Asiatic languages near the Levant).

I really do understand that even in my admixture it makes sense and shows that

Promenade
28-02-18, 05:35
Bottom line, it moved into the Horn of Africa 9,000 years ago, before there was large scale mingling with more Iran Neo people in the ancient Near East.


If this were true it means that a west Eurasian like people existed somewhere in the Horn of Africa or further north relatively isolated for millennia before they spread out since the Ethiopian hunter gatherer from around 2500bc lacked any west Eurasian ancestry as do all the other ancient east africans. Autosomally it does not even appear until around 1200bc with Luxmanda in Tanzania, so a large group (mind you Luxmanda was modeled as over 1/3rd Natufian) of people harboring Natufian ancestry must have spread across east Africa some time between 2500 and 1200bc, very likely introducing Pastorilism and Chushitic languages.

Alpenjager
28-02-18, 11:17
If this were true it means that a west Eurasian like people existed somewhere in the Horn of Africa or further north relatively isolated for millennia before they spread out since the Ethiopian hunter gatherer from around 2500bc lacked any west Eurasian ancestry as do all the other ancient east africans. Autosomally it does not even appear until around 1200bc with Luxmanda in Tanzania, so a large group (mind you Luxmanda was modeled as over 1/3rd Natufian) of people harboring Natufian ancestry must have spread across east Africa some time between 2500 and 1200bc, very likely introducing Pastorilism and Chushitic languages.


As we know T-M184 is the most widespread Eurasian lineage in East Africa, I will give you some details. T1a1a2 in Northern Somalis belonging to Dirs and Garhajis (perhaps also other Isaaq Tribes) belongs to a T1a1a2 subclade most probably coming from Arabian Peninsula Red Sea coast. But this lineage doesn't seems to match those found further south and west in Africa. So there should be at least two different T-M184 waves into East Africa If not more. This mean, that there should be different Eurasian autosomal influxes.

Angela
28-02-18, 22:31
We were discussing the Balkan Bronze age samples and the Iron Age one as well on the thread about the Varna "King".

Based on the pca, Eastara posted the following, which looks correct to me.

"As far as I can see Varna are the red outlined orange squares and probably only Varna outlier, who has more Yamnaya [compared to the other Varna samples] falls over the Tuscans. In fact the Balkan Bronze age (blue filled red circles) is all over the Tuscans.''

(As one of our posters pointed out, the coverage of the Varna "King" is poorer than that of Varna outlier, so we don't know if the "King" might have had more "steppe", but imo it's more likely he didn't, as most of it seems to arrive in the Bronze Age. Perhaps, as well, there is some ambiguity in the dating and the Varna Outlier should be dated later.)



This is from a poster on another forum who sees Vucedol as close to modern North Italians, but doesn't see Balkan Bronze Age as close to modern Tuscans.

"Using the Global25 data, I relabelled the samples with the more precise culture labels from Mathieson's paper and then placed them on a Neighbour Joining Tree with local populations: https://imgur.com/a/tm6ce

Results: A few of the Croatian Vucedol and EMBA / LBA samples sit with North Italians (Bergamo) while most Balkans_BA from Bulgaria sit either with early Neolithic or in a "no man's land" between Sardinians and North Italians. https://imgur.com/a/tm6ce

(Certainly no where near enough WHG rich Middle Neolithic ancestry to sit too near to the Basques.) One Bulgarian sample (I2165) is probably by chance sitting fairly near recent Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians.

We'd probably reasonably expect the Croatians of this time to tend to be North Italian like (it's not too far from Bergamo to Croatia and closer than to Bulgaria?), until they get more admixture from whatever expanding genetic wave links Baltic BA / Balts / Slavs / Hungarians.

Judging from the position of the Bulgaria_IA, the Bronze Age Bulgarians would need more Mycenaean/Anatolia_BA-like ancestry to get to there, and then more of the Balt-Slav / Baltic BA type ancestry to get to present day position."


So, what to make of it? Just a difference because of different methodology? Even just in terms of PCAs, I think Northern Italians are quite a bit "north" of Vucedol, and closer to Balkan Bronze Age, and Balkan Bronze Age is indeed pretty close to Tuscans. The Balkan Iron Age sample is pretty close to Mycenaeans, which are close to Southern Italians/Sicilians. The Balkan one looks more "western" but equally "south".https://i.imgur.com/mmmda1S.png


Of course, this doesn't mean all of Northern Italy never changed since that era. There could have been meanderings back and forth. Interesting none the less.

Ownstyler
01-03-18, 07:17
When you keep using terms like "more northern" or "more western" are you referring to the typical genetic profiles of northern and western Europe today, one specific point in time, or whatever time the sample comes from? I think it would be more useful to use specific populations like WHG, Scandinavians, Minoans, etc.

bicicleur
01-03-18, 09:58
We were discussing the Balkan Bronze age samples and the Iron Age one as well on the thread about the Varna "King".

Based on the pca, Eastara posted the following, which looks correct to me.

"As far as I can see Varna are the red outlined orange squares and probably only Varna outlier, who has more Yamnaya [compared to the other Varna samples] falls over the Tuscans. In fact the Balkan Bronze age (blue filled red circles) is all over the Tuscans.''

(As one of our posters pointed out, the coverage of the Varna "King" is poorer than that of Varna outlier, so we don't know if the "King" might have had more "steppe", but imo it's more likely he didn't, as most of it seems to arrive in the Bronze Age. Perhaps, as well, there is some ambiguity in the dating and the Varna Outlier should be dated later.)



This is from a poster on another forum who sees Vucedol as close to modern North Italians, but doesn't see Balkan Bronze Age as close to modern Tuscans.

"Using the Global25 data, I relabelled the samples with the more precise culture labels from Mathieson's paper and then placed them on a Neighbour Joining Tree with local populations: https://imgur.com/a/tm6ce

Results: A few of the Croatian Vucedol and EMBA / LBA samples sit with North Italians (Bergamo) while most Balkans_BA from Bulgaria sit either with early Neolithic or in a "no man's land" between Sardinians and North Italians. https://imgur.com/a/tm6ce

(Certainly no where near enough WHG rich Middle Neolithic ancestry to sit too near to the Basques.) One Bulgarian sample (I2165) is probably by chance sitting fairly near recent Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians.

We'd probably reasonably expect the Croatians of this time to tend to be North Italian like (it's not too far from Bergamo to Croatia and closer than to Bulgaria?), until they get more admixture from whatever expanding genetic wave links Baltic BA / Balts / Slavs / Hungarians.

Judging from the position of the Bulgaria_IA, the Bronze Age Bulgarians would need more Mycenaean/Anatolia_BA-like ancestry to get to there, and then more of the Balt-Slav / Baltic BA type ancestry to get to present day position."


So, what to make of it? Just a difference because of different methodology? Even just in terms of PCAs, I think Northern Italians are quite a bit "north" of Vucedol, and closer to Balkan Bronze Age, and Balkan Bronze Age is indeed pretty close to Tuscans. The Balkan Iron Age sample is pretty close to Mycenaeans, which are close to Southern Italians/Sicilians. The Balkan one looks more "western" but equally "south".https://i.imgur.com/mmmda1S.png


Of course, this doesn't mean all of Northern Italy never changed since that era. There could have been meanderings back and forth. Interesting none the less.

IMO there were multiple incursions from the steppe into the Balkans, and even more into the Carpathian Basin, but not many yet by the time of the 'Varna king'
Vucedol is one of them, and I believe some of it ended up into northern Italy as well
the Carpathian Basin was a transit room between the steppe and northern Europe and northern Italy as well
it was probably Unetice who first controlled the whole amber trade route from the Baltic till the Carpathian Basin where others took over toward the Aegean
they were traders who tried to get hold of the trade routes by force, in the same tradition as the Bell Beaker people

zanipolo
01-03-18, 10:17
The unique T found in the ancient Levant is T1(xT1a) = T1b. This is found in PPNB not in Mesolithic Levant together with an increased EEF influx into the Levant populations not previously found in Mesolithic Natufians. So it is believed that this T1b branch came from further North. Eastern Black sea or Aegean sea. T1b is not found in Ancient remains from Europe, only T1a, so this Neolithic lineage in PPNB is not ancestral to those found in Europe.

what can be T1b ? as xT1a = T1a1, T1a2 and T1a3

Angela
01-03-18, 13:46
When you keep using terms like "more northern" or "more western" are you referring to the typical genetic profiles of northern and western Europe today, one specific point in time, or whatever time the sample comes from? I think it would be more useful to use specific populations like WHG, Scandinavians, Minoans, etc.

I was referring to the PCA directly below my comment.

Angela
01-03-18, 13:50
IMO there were multiple incursions from the steppe into the Balkans, and even more into the Carpathian Basin, but not many yet by the time of the 'Varna king'
Vucedol is one of them, and I believe some of it ended up into northern Italy as well
the Carpathian Basin was a transit room between the steppe and northern Europe and northern Italy as well
it was probably Unetice who first controlled the whole amber trade route from the Baltic till the Carpathian Basin where others took over toward the Aegean
they were traders who tried to get hold of the trade routes by force, in the same tradition as the Bell Beaker people

Yes, I think that's right. Depending on the analysis, into Tuscany as well.

davef
01-03-18, 15:49
We were discussing the Balkan Bronze age samples and the Iron Age one as well on the thread about the Varna "King".

Based on the pca, Eastara posted the following, which looks correct to me.

"As far as I can see Varna are the red outlined orange squares and probably only Varna outlier, who has more Yamnaya [compared to the other Varna samples] falls over the Tuscans. In fact the Balkan Bronze age (blue filled red circles) is all over the Tuscans.''

(As one of our posters pointed out, the coverage of the Varna "King" is poorer than that of Varna outlier, so we don't know if the "King" might have had more "steppe", but imo it's more likely he didn't, as most of it seems to arrive in the Bronze Age. Perhaps, as well, there is some ambiguity in the dating and the Varna Outlier should be dated later.)



This is from a poster on another forum who sees Vucedol as close to modern North Italians, but doesn't see Balkan Bronze Age as close to modern Tuscans.

"Using the Global25 data, I relabelled the samples with the more precise culture labels from Mathieson's paper and then placed them on a Neighbour Joining Tree with local populations: https://imgur.com/a/tm6ce

Results: A few of the Croatian Vucedol and EMBA / LBA samples sit with North Italians (Bergamo) while most Balkans_BA from Bulgaria sit either with early Neolithic or in a "no man's land" between Sardinians and North Italians. https://imgur.com/a/tm6ce

(Certainly no where near enough WHG rich Middle Neolithic ancestry to sit too near to the Basques.) One Bulgarian sample (I2165) is probably by chance sitting fairly near recent Bulgarians, Serbs, Romanians.

We'd probably reasonably expect the Croatians of this time to tend to be North Italian like (it's not too far from Bergamo to Croatia and closer than to Bulgaria?), until they get more admixture from whatever expanding genetic wave links Baltic BA / Balts / Slavs / Hungarians.

Judging from the position of the Bulgaria_IA, the Bronze Age Bulgarians would need more Mycenaean/Anatolia_BA-like ancestry to get to there, and then more of the Balt-Slav / Baltic BA type ancestry to get to present day position."


So, what to make of it? Just a difference because of different methodology? Even just in terms of PCAs, I think Northern Italians are quite a bit "north" of Vucedol, and closer to Balkan Bronze Age, and Balkan Bronze Age is indeed pretty close to Tuscans. The Balkan Iron Age sample is pretty close to Mycenaeans, which are close to Southern Italians/Sicilians. The Balkan one looks more "western" but equally "south".https://i.imgur.com/mmmda1S.png


Of course, this doesn't mean all of Northern Italy never changed since that era. There could have been meanderings back and forth. Interesting none the less.

Where did you get that map from? It wasn't in the paper. It doesn't look like the lazaridis pca, I guess it's because only one sample was used from each population.

bicicleur
01-03-18, 17:58
can anyone tell me where this sample comes from :
Ukraine Copper Age 2890–2696 R1b1a1a2a2b-BY3293
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i5884/

I5884

I can't find it

Angela
01-03-18, 18:46
Bicicleur, do you have the share link to the official paper and results?

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778.epdf?author_access_token=Excrz6Qcnz87w 42wWJ_OYNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ocwc6BFhOBP_PrIMTaNo6 HF9MqIhGvUxTzV0X17SCT-DMk0nxhNkasZOyo4D_4jMicB1GvUKizVSR-LMRmndg0

https://i.imgur.com/J13DmBJ.png

Pax Augusta
01-03-18, 19:21
can anyone tell me where this sample comes from :
Ukraine Copper Age 2890–2696 R1b1a1a2a2b-BY3293
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-i5884/

I5884

I can't find it

Supp. Info and Supplementary Data

https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

holderlin
01-03-18, 19:29
I have a nagging suspicion that Hittite will be R1b-V88, if we ever sequence any known Hittite samples.

Alpenjager
01-03-18, 20:14
what can be T1b ? as xT1a = T1a1, T1a2 and T1a3

T1b is the only other known lineage downstream T1 together T1a.

IronSide
01-03-18, 20:59
I have a nagging suspicion that Hittite will be R1b-V88, if we ever sequence any known Hittite samples.

Anatolian IEs are a mystery, given their languages archaic features that they don't share with other IE members, they occupy a "basal" position and therefore separated first.

Also, the differences between Anatolian languages are significant, linguists, therefore, predict that they shouldn't be the product of a Middle Bronze Age migration as was thought before, but were present in Anatolia at least earlier by a millenium or more.

We have a sample from BA Anatolia and all he has is more Iran/Caucasus admixture, no Steppe. As to what subclade of R1a or R1b they should have, no subclade fits their strong historical presence in Anatolia as well as their earlier separation from other IEs (Z2013 is excluded by this rule), except R1b-PF7562, however it doesn't have a high frequency in Anatolia.

Maybe they weren't R1 after all ?

Yetos
01-03-18, 21:43
Anatolian IEs are a mystery, given their languages archaic features that they don't share with other IE members, they occupy a "basal" position and therefore separated first.
Also, the differences between Anatolian languages are significant, linguists, therefore, predict that they shouldn't be the product of a Middle Bronze Age migration as was thought before, but were present in Anatolia at least earlier by a millenium or more.
We have a sample from BA Anatolia and all he has is more Iran/Caucasus admixture, no Steppe. As to what subclade of R1a or R1b they should have, no subclade fits their strong historical presence in Anatolia as well as their earlier separation from other IEs (Z2013 is excluded by this rule), except R1b-PF7562, however it doesn't have a high frequency in Anatolia.
Maybe they weren't R1 after all ?


+1

I like the way and expression that you present it.

It is near my believes also.

holderlin
02-03-18, 00:18
Anatolian IEs are a mystery, given their languages archaic features that they don't share with other IE members, they occupy a "basal" position and therefore separated first.

Also, the differences between Anatolian languages are significant, linguists, therefore, predict that they shouldn't be the product of a Middle Bronze Age migration as was thought before, but were present in Anatolia at least earlier by a millenium or more.

We have a sample from BA Anatolia and all he has is more Iran/Caucasus admixture, no Steppe. As to what subclade of R1a or R1b they should have, no subclade fits their strong historical presence in Anatolia as well as their earlier separation from other IEs (Z2013 is excluded by this rule), except R1b-PF7562, however it doesn't have a high frequency in Anatolia.

Maybe they weren't R1 after all ?

Yep, and I've long held that PIE was spoken at the interface between the Balkan farmers and the Ukrainian steppe by 5000BC at the latest.

Given how archaic Hittite is it would have needed to be a very early departure, prior to the formation of the PIE that all other IE languages are descended from, which was probably formed by 3500BC from the steppe-Balkan interface to the Volga (Perhaps to the Urals).

Looking at all that V88 in neolithic Ukraine (and Iron Gates-ish) makes me wonder about the likely hood that early departing Anatolian speakers included alot of V88 men. This also fits nicely with the generally accepted association of cattle stock breeding with PIEs and V88.

That's all. Just a hunch, presuming that modern distributions don't correlate. It could be that there are little descendants of Hittites in Anatolia today.

I think those Anatolian BA guys were J2a(?), and they weren't in any Hittite context.

holderlin
02-03-18, 00:25
Also I think the Hittites were big on cremation, so it may prove difficult to find known Hittite elite male remains.

It may be easier to find these samples in Egypt, if we were to assume that during the New Kingdom wars some enemy Hittites found their way to Egypt, died, and reside in a labeled tomb. But if this were the case they would have likely gave them the respect of their customary cremation. Who knows.

But there's gotta be some Hittite remains somewhere that we can sequence.

Ygorcs
02-03-18, 01:47
Yep, and I've long held that PIE was spoken at the interface between the Balkan farmers and the Ukrainian steppe by 5000BC at the latest.

Given how archaic Hittite is it would have needed to be a very early departure, prior to the formation of the PIE that all other IE languages are descended from, which was probably formed by 3500BC from the steppe-Balkan interface to the Volga (Perhaps to the Urals).

Looking at all that V88 in neolithic Ukraine (and Iron Gates-ish) makes me wonder about the likely hood that early departing Anatolian speakers included alot of V88 men. This also fits nicely with the generally accepted association of cattle stock breeding with PIEs and V88.

That's all. Just a hunch, presuming that modern distributions don't correlate. It could be that there are little descendants of Hittites in Anatolia today.

I think those Anatolian BA guys were J2a(?), and they weren't in any Hittite context.

Or even other clades of R1b, why not? I think the evidence points increasingly to the possibility that the earliest R1b steppe peoples (M269) may have acquired it originally in the western portions of the Pontic-Caspian steppe relatively near to the Balkans & Caparthian, in interactions with mixed ANF-WHG cultures that neighbored them and brought innovations. It must not be only a coincidence that R1a prevails in much of the steppe and then we see an increasing number of R1b, right to the east of where R1b has been found even in populations with roots dating to the Mesolithic. I don't mean that they already got necessarily R1b-M269 from the western peoples, but maybe its immediately ancestor clade which migrated into the westernmost steppe early on and eventually developed right there, possibly in some southern/southwestern part of the Pontic-Caspian area. Sredny-Stog, for instance, AFAIK is noted for its clear and close contacts with the Neolithic Carpathian/Northeast Balkan area, and many in the past have associated the earliest forms of PIE culture with Sredny Stog, even though when it later appears fully formed it diffuses from the eastern steppe and with much more CHG, probably after intense cultural and genetic contacts with the cultures of the Caucasus/Caspian. I don't know, this is still little more than speculating or "well informed guesses" at best. lol

davef
02-03-18, 07:54
Where did you get that map from? It wasn't in the paper. It doesn't look like the lazaridis pca, I guess it's because only one sample was used from each population.
Could someone help me with this?

bicicleur
02-03-18, 16:11
Bicicleur, do you have the share link to the official paper and results?

See:
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778.epdf?author_access_token=Excrz6Qcnz87w 42wWJ_OYNRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ocwc6BFhOBP_PrIMTaNo6 HF9MqIhGvUxTzV0X17SCT-DMk0nxhNkasZOyo4D_4jMicB1GvUKizVSR-LMRmndg0

https://i.imgur.com/J13DmBJ.png

no, I didn't,
thx Angela

do you also know whether there are more new samples apart from this I5884?

Angela
02-03-18, 18:04
no, I didn't,
thx Angela

do you also know whether there are more new samples apart from this I5884?

I don't have a list of the new versus the old, no, sorry.

Angela
02-03-18, 18:07
Could someone help me with this?

I think that's from "Matt" over at Eurogenes, but I got it second hand, so I'm not sure.

I'm going to try to hunt it down. I don't want to misattribute it to anyone.

holderlin
02-03-18, 19:12
Or even other clades of R1b, why not? I think the evidence points increasingly to the possibility that the earliest R1b steppe peoples (M269) may have acquired it originally in the western portions of the Pontic-Caspian steppe relatively near to the Balkans & Caparthian, in interactions with mixed ANF-WHG cultures that neighbored them and brought innovations. It must not be only a coincidence that R1a prevails in much of the steppe and then we see an increasing number of R1b, right to the east of where R1b has been found even in populations with roots dating to the Mesolithic. I don't mean that they already got necessarily R1b-M269 from the western peoples, but maybe its immediately ancestor clade which migrated into the westernmost steppe early on and eventually developed right there, possibly in some southern/southwestern part of the Pontic-Caspian area. Sredny-Stog, for instance, AFAIK is noted for its clear and close contacts with the Neolithic Carpathian/Northeast Balkan area, and many in the past have associated the earliest forms of PIE culture with Sredny Stog, even though when it later appears fully formed it diffuses from the eastern steppe and with much more CHG, probably after intense cultural and genetic contacts with the cultures of the Caucasus/Caspian. I don't know, this is still little more than speculating or "well informed guesses" at best. lol

Yes, M269 is the usual PIE suspect. I do agree that bronze age steppe R1b lines could very well have come from Iron gates or the Baltic Mesolithic, and steppe R1a lines could have come from around the Baltic as well. In fact I've long held that PIE in some form could have been spoken from around the Vistula to the Urals during the Mesolithic. Some pre-farming form, but of course pre-farming would defy the definition of PIE, so it's hard to talk about without people getting annoyed. That and you have the issue of glaciers in the way.

I've always talked about Sredny Stog on here as an important phenomenon for PIE. Sample I6561 from a latter Sredny Stog layer is essentially the first Corded Ware genotype, which also came to cover the entire steppe by the late bronze age and this sample predated Yamnaya by at least 500 years. I think PIE was spoken by 4000-5000BC at the latest in the Ukraine and Volga/Don river systems, and that Yamnaya was already speaking Indo-Iranian.

The fact that most ancient steppe Iranian samples and also modern Ancestral North Indians are descended from Yamnaya and not LMBA steppe is strongly supportive of Yamnaya speaking Indo-Iranian, if not conclusive. Sample I6561 is evidence of likely IE speaking genotypes before Yamnaya, which also supports this. If this is true, and you apply the linguistics, then you must conclude that Anatolian was being spoken in a more narrow region before Yamnaya. Continuing with this line of reasoning when looking at the archaeology we need to find the most likely culture and I think Sredny-Stog fits on account of being the earliest example of Steppe mixing with the Balkan farmers to acquire the broader farming lexicon.

If all of this is true, in light of the Neolithic Ukraine Y-HG calls, then Anatolian speakers are likely to have brought V88 with them. The reason I brought it up is because it's very opposed to widely held notions about V88 before this paper.

People on here and elsewhere had some weird theories about V88. It was treated as some special farming/stock breeding R1b line that popped up in the same magical middle eastern R1b fatherland that has been suggested on here before. I believe Anatolia or the Iranian Plateau was the proposed magic R1b fatherland theorized from modern R1b distributions, which have yet to be supported by any shred of ancient DNA.

LATGAL
02-03-18, 19:33
I think that's from "Matt" over at Eurogenes, but I got it second hand, so I'm not sure.

I'm going to try to hunt it down. I don't want to misattribute it to anyone.

You could always just ask me, instead.:laughing: That's just Eurogenes' dat file that I ran in Past3 myself, after group-labeling a few relevant populations. So credit goes to Eurogenes really, I only did the easy part.

LATGAL
02-03-18, 19:37
Oh OK I see. An updated version was published in Nature in the last few days. Forgive me I'm slow.

How bout that small bit of steppe in Peloponnese Neolithic?

That's just the separate stream of Caucasus-Iran via Anatolia really, of the kind we find in the later Balkans (especially prominent in Minoans-Mycenaeans and Krepost) and the Sicilian Beaker too, you can kinda tell in some of the Ks in the unsupervised run.


So we've been saying here since the paper came out, but you'll never convince some people. Some of it may also have been part of later migrations. Mycenaeans had about 5% additional Levant Neolithic I think. Other groups may have had more.

The Mycenaeans could be modelled without Levant. Anatolia_BA was modelled with like 7% though from what I recall. All of modern Southern Europe has some Levant in varying amounts it seems so I think it's of later/other post-BA provenance.

Eastara, btw, seems to have made the mistake of taking the projected PCA a bit too literally. In the other non-projected PCA the pic you posted is from, Varna outlier with its apparently very high steppe falls somewhere close to modern Central-East Europe. Nowhere near Tuscans who are much closer to the EEF-heavy (even more so than modern-day Italians and Southeast Europeans who all seem to have more steppe and Iran/Levant) on average BA, IA and Mycenaean samples. I also have a feeling the last three are going to be more of the norm, of course.

Angela
02-03-18, 20:53
You could always just ask me, instead.:laughing: That's just Eurogenes' dat file that I ran in Past3 myself, after group-labeling a few relevant populations. So credit goes to Eurogenes really, I only did the easy part.

Now, how could I ask you, LatGal, since I didn't remember that it was you who provided it? :)

Sorry about that.

It's amazing to me, I must say, that amateurs can do PCAs that aren't projected, while academics from the finest labs in the world, can't, according to the amateur community.

Now, if this is the most "correct" version:

ItalyNorth (modern), is very far "north" of Vucedol, contrary to what Matt saw with neighbor joining tree? It's even further north than Balkans Bronze Age, which makes sense, perhaps, given first millenium BC Gallic migrations and the Langobard influence.

Tuscans are just a bit south and east of Balkan Bronze Age, toward Albanians and Greek Peloponnese.

Balkan Iron Age is just a bit north of Mycenaeans.

Southern Italians, Sicilians, etc. are actually a bit "north" of Mycenaeans.

That ties in with this comment from "Matt":

"Matt:
"From visual analysis, it looks like to get to Sicilians, the easiest ancient model is Mycenaean+Central_European (though this may or may not be most historically and linguistically sensible). For Balkans it's Mycenaean+Slavic. The Balkans BA populations don't seem quite right as ancestral without extensive Anatolia_BA like ancestry.

To get to the Mycenaeans themselves, it seems like Tepecik_Ciftlik+Balkans_BA or Anatolia_BA+Balkans_BA either work, depending on whether we pick more or less Anatolian-like Balkans_BA."

As I've also been speculating for years, Southern Italians and Sicilians, however it happened, are closer "genetically", if not "ancestrally" to the Mycenaeans than are the mainland Greeks, to the usual vituperative denial by the usual suspect(s), of course.

As to when this shift to more "Iran Chl like/Iran Neo" ancestry began, I notice that the more responsible and objective posters have the grace to admit that they missed some signs that the shift might have begun very early indeed. (The others either ignore it or pretend that they knew that all along.)

We didn't miss it here. I noticed the more "CHG" like ancestry in Otzi as soon as his genome was analyzed.
https://i.imgur.com/oXruAcW.png

Since then I have consistently said that his Copper Age genome showed that there might have been different waves of the Neolithic which might have carried more of that ancestry. I also speculated that genomic material similar to that which created the Minoans might have continued on into southeastern Europe and perhaps Italy.

Now, voila!

Roy King: The late Neolithic Peloponnese samples are shifted toward BA Anatolia and Chalcolithic Anatolia with presumptive CHG input. The earlier Neolithic sample from the Peloponnese aligns with the early Greek Neolithic samples. The later samples are about 4000 BCE in dating and also cluster with Minoan Crete samples. The one Minoan--I9130--who is G2a in Y chromosome looks like the Early Greek Neolithic samples; the rest cluster with the late Peloponnese and the late Anatolian (Chalcolthic/BA) samples. The data strongly suggest a movement circa 4000 BCE from Anatolia to mainland Greece, perhaps associated with J2a1 and the pre-Greek substrate languages (-ss- and -nth1 toponyms)."

Otzi, of course, is dated to around 3000 BCE. Plenty of time for that ancestry to have made it even to the Alps.


Now, did some also arrive with the Bronze Age? Absolutely. Did some arrive later? Probably. I just don't know how much, and neither does anyone else.

As for "Levant" showing up, some of it may be more recent. However, "Levant" ancestry was a big part of Anatolian farmer ancestry, and some modeling shows it in Anatolia Bronze Age for example, so it could have entered then.

What some people are doing, trying to model Sicilians with Nordic Bronze Age, for example, of all things, is going to force the algorithm to add some additional "Levantine" to the mix. The insanity that goes on with some of this modeling is beyond belief, imo. I saw someone tried to model Sicilians with Tunisian Jews. I can't imagine why, unless it was to try to prove that Sicilians are Jews or North Africans. They're neither. However, similar proportions of the same kind of ancestry means that some Jews and Sicilians cluster together, which any PCA will show. If you put Tunisian Jews, who are just Sephardim with a bit of North African, into the mix, you're going to come up runs that are just going to lead to really false conclusions.

LATGAL
02-03-18, 22:14
Their relative positions on the PCA are clearer here (https://i.imgur.com/YFapcU6.png). Sicilians seem primarily slightly northeastern compared to Mycenaeans, which speaks to roughly "equal" amounts of further steppe and near eastern ancestry in Sicilians. But position based on just the first two PCs can be potentially misleading since it basically shows you the relative amounts of HG vs Basal and ANE vs non-ANE. In other analyses, it's clear that part of the Anatolia_N in Southern Europe has been apparently replaced by a bit of the very related Levant_N, and that sort of ancestry seems to show a peak in Sicilians/Calabrians, with Cretans close to them. The recent Sarno study was interesting in that regard too and shows something similar. I'm speaking here of the extra Levant that can't be defined as part of the Anatolia_N. "Exact percentages" won't be resolved until we get proximal samples though, like you said.

On the other hand, most of the more important and plentiful Caucasus in Southern Europe seems to already be quite old in most of it, which indeed quite a few people didn't seem to be expecting. Nonetheless, near eastern ancestry increasing in all of Southern Europe since the Bronze Age (or even the Iron Age for at least parts of it) is an almost definite yes for me at this point but I'll gladly change my mind if future samples speak against that. But it's clear that Sicilians don't seem to be quite the 'near-easternized' population some people were expecting compared to ancient uber-steppe(?) Southern Europe. They're rather more ANE/eastern, like the rest of Southern Europe.

As for the ss/nth toponyms, I have brought that up in the past too in relation with Italy where they seem to exist as well (and more towards the center and south IIRC, in fact) and wondered if it weren't part of a later non-IE migration from Anatolia that affected both the Balkans and Italy.

Falco
02-03-18, 22:58
Their relative positions on the PCA are clearer here (https://i.imgur.com/YFapcU6.png). Sicilians seem primarily slightly northeastern compared to Mycenaeans, which speaks to roughly "equal" amounts of further steppe and near eastern ancestry in Sicilians. But position based on just the first two PCs can be potentially misleading since it basically shows you the relative amounts of HG vs Basal and ANE vs non-ANE. In other analyses, it's clear that part of the Anatolia_N in Southern Europe has been apparently replaced by a bit of the very related Levant_N, and that sort of ancestry seems to show a peak in Sicilians/Calabrians, with Cretans close to them. The recent Sarno study was interesting in that regard too and shows something similar. I'm speaking here of the extra Levant that can't be defined as part of the Anatolia_N. "Exact percentages" won't be resolved until we get proximal samples though, like you said.

On the other hand, most of the more important and plentiful Caucasus in Southern Europe seems to already be quite old in most of it, which indeed quite a few people didn't seem to be expecting. Nonetheless, near eastern ancestry increasing in all of Southern Europe since the Bronze Age (or even the Iron Age for at least parts of it) is an almost definite yes for me at this point but I'll gladly change my mind if future samples speak against that. But it's clear that Sicilians don't seem to be quite the 'near-easternized' population some people were expecting compared to ancient uber-steppe(?) Southern Europe. They're rather more ANE/eastern, like the rest of Southern Europe.

As for the ss/nth toponyms, I have brought that up in the past too in relation with Italy where they seem to exist as well (and more towards the center and south IIRC, in fact) and wondered if it weren't part of a later non-IE migration from Anatolia that affected both the Balkans and Italy.

Maybe that extra Levant could be related to a movement of Anatolian BA mixture into the area, since they seem to score an additional 7% Levant_N? It's possible this group could have went through Greece as well before reaching southern Italy/Sicily, but later migrations from the north diluted it, unlike in Sicily.

Also, in a new study of Y-DNA and surnames from southern Italy/Sicily, Boattini (who I believe was a co-author of last year's Sarno paper) makes reference to the time periods and admixtures in question; I pointed them out here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35350-Surnames-and-Genes-in-Sicily-and-Southern-Italy?p=533649&viewfull=1#post533649). They seem pretty sure it was a Bronze Age movement, at least for now.

Angela
03-03-18, 01:30
Maybe that extra Levant could be related to a movement of Anatolian BA mixture into the area, since they seem to score an additional 7% Levant_N? It's possible this group could have went through Greece as well before reaching southern Italy/Sicily, but later migrations from the north diluted it, unlike in Sicily.

Also, in a new study of Y-DNA and surnames from southern Italy/Sicily, Boattini (who I believe was a co-author of last year's Sarno paper) makes reference to the time periods and admixtures in question; I pointed them out here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35350-Surnames-and-Genes-in-Sicily-and-Southern-Italy?p=533649&viewfull=1#post533649). They seem pretty sure it was a Bronze Age movement, at least for now.

Yes, I think that's definitely a possibility for at least part of it.

davef
03-03-18, 01:43
Maybe that extra Levant could be related to a movement of Anatolian BA mixture into the area, since they seem to score an additional 7% Levant_N? It's possible this group could have went through Greece as well before reaching southern Italy/Sicily, but later migrations from the north diluted it, unlike in Sicily.

Also, in a new study of Y-DNA and surnames from southern Italy/Sicily, Boattini (who I believe was a co-author of last year's Sarno paper) makes reference to the time periods and admixtures in question; I pointed them out here (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/35350-Surnames-and-Genes-in-Sicily-and-Southern-Italy?p=533649&viewfull=1#post533649). They seem pretty sure it was a Bronze Age movement, at least for now.
This is what I've been speculating myself and makes a ton of sense. Yes nobody knows for sure what went on but this scenario is very logical.

Angela
03-03-18, 02:31
Their relative positions on the PCA are clearer here (https://i.imgur.com/YFapcU6.png). Sicilians seem primarily slightly northeastern compared to Mycenaeans, which speaks to roughly "equal" amounts of further steppe and near eastern ancestry in Sicilians. But position based on just the first two PCs can be potentially misleading since it basically shows you the relative amounts of HG vs Basal and ANE vs non-ANE. In other analyses, it's clear that part of the Anatolia_N in Southern Europe has been apparently replaced by a bit of the very related Levant_N, and that sort of ancestry seems to show a peak in Sicilians/Calabrians, with Cretans close to them. The recent Sarno study was interesting in that regard too and shows something similar. I'm speaking here of the extra Levant that can't be defined as part of the Anatolia_N. "Exact percentages" won't be resolved until we get proximal samples though, like you said.

On the other hand, most of the more important and plentiful Caucasus in Southern Europe seems to already be quite old in most of it, which indeed quite a few people didn't seem to be expecting. Nonetheless, near eastern ancestry increasing in all of Southern Europe since the Bronze Age (or even the Iron Age for at least parts of it) is an almost definite yes for me at this point but I'll gladly change my mind if future samples speak against that. But it's clear that Sicilians don't seem to be quite the 'near-easternized' population some people were expecting compared to ancient uber-steppe(?) Southern Europe. They're rather more ANE/eastern, like the rest of Southern Europe.

As for the ss/nth toponyms, I have brought that up in the past too in relation with Italy where they seem to exist as well (and more towards the center and south IIRC, in fact) and wondered if it weren't part of a later non-IE migration from Anatolia that affected both the Balkans and Italy.

From the link to which you sent me, you're basing that conclusion on the Sicilian Beaker sample. That may indeed be the case. On the other hand using that sample might not be accurate for the reasons I stated above.

Also, not everyone interprets the data in the same way:
"Matt:
"From visual analysis, it looks like to get to Sicilians, the easiest ancient model is Mycenaean+Central_European (though this may or may not be most historically and linguistically sensible). For Balkans it's Mycenaean+Slavic. The Balkans BA populations don't seem quite right as ancestral without extensive Anatolia_BA like ancestry.}

As for some people not seeing that the "CHG" like ancestry could have started arriving in Europe very early, it seemed to me that for years I was the only one seeing that it could have been like that. Oetzi's genome alone should have been enough of a clue, along with archaeological evidence. You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see that the more densely populated regions of southern Europe might not have been as impacted by the Indo-Europeans as Central Europe with its numerous population crashes, or the far northeast and Britain, which were barely populated. The fact that people didn't, might in some cases mean just not knowing very much about Italian or Greek or Balkan pre-history, but some people denied it because it didn't fit their preferred narrative.

Concerning the "Levantine" admixture, I have never denied that some of it may be pretty recent. It's possible that more of the "Moorish" influx into Sicily came from the Middle East than has seemed probable from the historical evidence, although that wouldn't explain the data for Calabria. Likewise, for some strange reason, it may be that Rome decided to send all of its Near Eastern slaves to Sicily, although it makes no sense to me. Also, again, it wouldn't explain the numbers in mountainous Calabria. However, I don't know the total percentage, much less how much is "recent", whether it's a little or a lot, and neither does anyone else. What I have objected to is that people have pretended that they do know, and often for very suspect motives.

I don't know to what "other" analyses you refer, but if it's similar to the analyses that posited so much of this "CHG like" ancestry was also "recent", then I wouldn't be very impressed. Modeling modern Sicilians with Unetice, for example, makes no sense to me. Whatever "Indo-European" from Central Europe made it to Sicily after traversing the entire peninsula and then crossing to the island would have been heavily diluted by the time it arrived. Extra "Levant" is obviously going to have to be added in modeling like that. As to Sarno et al, Falco's post is informative.

Going back for a moment to Vucedol, I find this interesting:
Vucedol distance%=2.267
"Remedello_BA:RISE489" 36.85
"Yamnaya_Samara:I0443" 29.5
"Anatolia_BA" 16.75
"Beaker_Sicily:I4930" 12.45
"Greece_Peloponnese_N:I3920" 3.55
"Levant_N" 0.9

1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Italian_Tuscan:NA20505 2.979706
Italian_Bergamo:HGDP01152 4.094883
Balkans_BA 4.120439
Italian_South:ITS7 4.281019
Italian_South:ITS7 4.281019
Sicilian 4.417910
Greek 5.438889


Vucedol is closer to Tuscans than I am going by this, and by some lights, I'm half Tuscan. :)

These are interesting too:

Beaker_Sicily
Tiszapolgar_ECA 39.4 %
Armenia_EBA 23.1 %
Greece_Peloponnese_N:I3709 19.6 %
Remedello_BA 15.1 %
Anatolia_BA 2.8 %

Beaker Northern Italy :I2478
Beaker_central Europe 48.1%
Remedello 51.9%

Beaker NI: I2477
Remedello 61.5%
Tizaapolgar ECA 37.9%

Btw, has anyone ever told you that your writing "voice" is very similar to that of "Agamemnon" on anthrogenica. Very strong resemblance, imo. :)

@Davef,
Don't fall into the Sikeliot trap. Not much difference in terms of "northern" ancestry between some mainland Greeks and Sicilians.

davef
03-03-18, 03:19
Angela, it's cool, I'm not subscribing to his ideas at all. Falco never said anything about how big the difference was (or how big the dilution was) nor do I deny that a number of Greeks from the mainland are very close to Sicilians and South Italians.

There was little or no "dilution" in the more southern areas of mainland Greece. The further south, the less dilution.

Angela
03-03-18, 03:40
Just trying to clarify.

I want to make sure that incorrect data isn't even inadvertently transmitted.

davef
03-03-18, 04:43
Just trying to clarify.

I want to make sure that incorrect data isn't even inadvertently transmitted.

Im totally cool with that

LATGAL
03-03-18, 13:13
No, I was not basing that conclusion on the Vucedol sample. I was providing a PCA that highlights both Sicilians and Mycenaeans (the four dots under them).

A continuing connection with an Anatolia_BA-like population (that's something I kept saying too about the Balkans and Italy before we got the Anatolia_BA or Mycenaean samples, based on archaeological and potential linguistic associations) for much or even most of this kind of ancestry seems plausible (but it'd still post-date and/or is missing from the samples we currently have in 'modern' amounts) but it doesn't seem like it can account for all the ancestry, considering the Levant/Caucasus ratios, especially prominent in Sicily, parts of Iberia, Crete etc. You need something more southern than that as well, North African or Levantine, which as I said seems much less extensive compared to the earlier, purely Caucasus ancestry but it's there.

Matt is perfectly right that on the PCA made up of the first two PCs, you seem to need something central-northwestern in much of Italy and northeastern in the Balkans to get to modern positions. But this visual approximation also doesn't give you all the info, just the relative ratios of ANE and HG, since both areas also seem like they have some further near eastern ancestry in other analyses. Might not end up being the case but that's what it plausibly seems like to me right now. Also, Sicily, the Aegean and Iberia have further ties to the Levant and North Africa already back in the Iron Age so much of this kind of ancestry might be quite old indeed.

Falco
03-03-18, 15:54
Angela, it's cool, I'm not subscribing to his ideas at all. Falco never said anything about how big the difference was (or how big the dilution was) nor do I deny that a number of Greeks from the mainland are very close to Sicilians and South Italians.

There was little or no "dilution" in the more southern areas of mainland Greece. The further south, the less dilution.


Just trying to clarify.

I want to make sure that incorrect data isn't even inadvertently transmitted.

Right, should've clarified re the N-S cline in mainland Greece, but I was merely speaking in general terms. No intentions of misdirection here.

bicicleur
04-03-18, 09:27
K = 14 admixture analysis of ancient Southeastern European genomes

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/k-14-admixture-analysis-of-ancient-southeastern-european-genomes/

The Mesolithic samples from Serbia and Romania are made up almost entirely of the dark blue Western European hunter-gatherer component.

The Mesolithic and Neolithic samples from Ukraine are made up of a mix of the dark blue component and the medium blue Eastern European component.

The Mesolithic samples from Latvia are made up mostly of the dark blue component, with smaller amounts of the medium blue component.

The Neolithic samples from Southeastern Europe are made up mostly of the light blue early European farmer component, with varying amounts of the dark blue component.

One of the samples from the Late Copper Age Varna culture of northeastern Bulgaria, ANI163, has a significant amount of the medium blue component.

Another Late Copper Age sample from Bulgaria, I2181, also has a significant amount of the medium blue component.

None of the samples from the Late Neolithic and Copper Age Trypillia and Globular Amphora cultures in Ukraine and Poland show significant amounts of the medium blue component.

The sample from the Early Bronze Age Ezero culture of Bulgaria also doesn’t show a significant amount of the medium blue component. Another Early Bronze Age sample from Bulgaria, I2165, does show a significant amount of the component, however.

Two of the Pit Grave samples from Ukraine are similar to the Pit Grave samples from Russia, while the third, I1917, shows a bit more of the light blue component and more of the pine green component.

The one Pit Grave sample from Bulgaria has significantly more of the light blue component than the Pit Grave samples from Russia have.

Two of the samples from the Copper Age Vučedol culture in Croatia have significant amounts of the medium blue component, while the third, I2792, does not.

The five most recent samples from Bulgaria and Croatia also have significant but varying amounts of the medium blue component. The earliest of the five, I2163, shows the most, making it similar to Corded Ware samples, while the latest of the five, I5769, shows the least, making it similar to the four available Bronze Age Mycenaean samples.

bicicleur
04-03-18, 09:43
allthough the colours don't represent exact WHG/EHG/EEF etc. , the conclusions are more or less the same as in the papers

berun
04-03-18, 11:54
The Mesolithic and Neolithic samples from Ukraine are made up of a mix of the dark blue component and the medium blue Eastern European component.
difficult so to believe that the CHG component in Yamnayans (the other half being EHG) was the result of Maykop women mating IE blondish charioters, I think that women have not the power to substract yet DNA components, in this case 2/3 of WHG in mesolithic and neolithic Ukranians.

bicicleur
04-03-18, 13:45
difficult so to believe that the CHG component in Yamnayans (the other half being EHG) was the result of Maykop women mating IE blondish charioters, I think that women have not the power to substract yet DNA components, in this case 2/3 of WHG in mesolithic and neolithic Ukranians.
maybe you shouldn't look for mesolithic or neolithic Ukraine as a source of Yamna, look at Khvalynsk instead
the CHG admixture began already during Khvalynsk copper age (1 out of 3 has it) and Yamna/Afanasievo got some more
there is still some 700 years gap between Khvalynsk and Yamna

furthermore Y-DNA wise mesolithic or neolithic Ukraine seems to be the R1b-V88 or R1b-V1636 branch, not the R1b-M269 branch

berun
04-03-18, 17:39
with Khvalynsk I have the same problem with DNA extracting vampires, in this case the red for Amerindian/far siberian

berun
05-03-18, 10:00
and for Yamna the case is worst, as it was R1b-Z2103, not the R1a which appears in clear IE cultures to me as CW, Sintashta or Andronovo. It was a time were it was hoped to find the IE bros in Ukraine, but autosomal is not for it.

bicicleur
05-03-18, 12:47
with Khvalynsk I have the same problem with DNA extracting vampires, in this case the red for Amerindian/far siberian

the red is present in Yamna and Afanasievo, but less than in Khvalynsk
at least the Khvalynsk samples show that the elements in Yamna were allready present on the steppe at least 700 years prior to Yamna

I guess the red has something to do with the arrival of Q1a and pottery from Siberia

bicicleur
05-03-18, 12:50
and for Yamna the case is worst, as it was R1b-Z2103, not the R1a which appears in clear IE cultures to me as CW, Sintashta or Andronovo. It was a time were it was hoped to find the IE bros in Ukraine, but autosomal is not for it.

yes, origin of R1b-L51 still is a mystery

also, meso/neolithic steppe seems to be more R1b-V88 or R1b-V1636
R1b-P297, ancestral to R1b-M269 and R1b-Z2103 seems to be more Baltic

Olympus Mons
05-03-18, 14:18
and for Yamna the case is worst, as it was R1b-Z2103, not the R1a which appears in clear IE cultures to me as CW, Sintashta or Andronovo. It was a time were it was hoped to find the IE bros in Ukraine, but autosomal is not for it.

Berun, Off topic... but have you seen this??? Watch around minute 21
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OieDukk2Sw

(sorry guys, but in spanish. And the kind (Galego) that even I Portuguese can understand effortlessly.)

berun
05-03-18, 23:20
Interesting that Galicians are more different than Basques. But understable, the region is in a corner which allows only herding. The Cardial people was not going there, and few Celts and Romans would end there. Basques are in the way and are mixed with Celts and Francos (French colonists).

9818

Olympus Mons
05-03-18, 23:43
Interesting that Galicians are more different than Basques. But understable, the region is in a corner which allows only herding. The Cardial people was not going there, and few Celts and Romans would end there. Basques are in the way and are mixed with Celts and Francos (French colonists).

9818

Berun.
But he says that the Portuguese are the same. And actually Portuguese and Galicians have those same characteristics. Your argument would not apply to Portuguese.

Lets wait on it being published in Nature.

berun
06-03-18, 00:45
I put Galicia and the northen half of Portugal in the same niche. The autosomal map by the way ressembles that of the Reconquista.

9819

berun
06-03-18, 01:03
and the spread of the romance languages from the north

9820

Salento
06-03-18, 06:53
From my end (side), Most of the Attachments have an Invalid Error Message.

holderlin
07-03-18, 03:43
No one is still trying to say that EHG stole women from CHG people to make Yamnayan PIEs anymore. Jesus.

Yes, of course Iranian Neolithic has already begun to spread into Anatolian farmers and into the Balkans before the bronze age. We know this was happening in Anatolian at the very least from that massive paper on the world's first farmers.


One thing that caught my eye is the relatively large chunks of East Asian in some of the Balkan farmer samples. Anyone else notice this?

I would venture to say that's significant for this period

https://i.imgur.com/eP434bX.png

davef
07-03-18, 05:04
I second that! It's really strange that farmers would score any East Asian

holderlin
07-03-18, 05:28
I second that! It's really strange that farmers would score any East Asian

Seriously, that Koros sample is like 13% Indigenous East Asian Islander(indigenous Taiwan/Philippines/Lapita culture). There's also a BA Minoan sample with a lot, which of course is pushing me towards outlandish maritime theories.

*EDIT*

OK there's a Corded Ware CA sample with around 6% and in all the strange cases I point out it comes with Amerind or Siberian, which is almost certainly steppe.

And guess what. This is why the authors are assigning these samples with steppe, and I would now have to agree.

*EDIT 2*

Yeah that's definitely steppe. Only one culture on the sea. Not that that's not enough especially with the small sample size but probably not a Maritime thing(?)

eblashko
24-03-18, 20:59
can anyone tell me where this sample comes from :
Ukraine Copper Age 2890–2696 R1b1a1a2a2b-BY3293

I5884

Hi everyone,
I'm having a very novice issue interpreting this "SNP call" in the genetiker link for sample i5884 above (I can't add the actual link because I don't have enough posts). I was wondering why indeed this sample was assigned BY3293 as its terminal SNP. From my understanding, a SNP call is a way to tell which SNPs a sample sequence has against a reference sequence, but BY3293 is just one of the many divergent SNPs in bold for this sample from many branches from the L23 tree.

Maybe I'm missing something and someone on this forum would be kind enough to explain it to me.
Thanks in advance