PDA

View Full Version : 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes



bicicleur
09-05-18, 19:53
For thousands of years the Eurasian steppes have been a centre of human migrations and cultural change. Here we sequence the genomes of 137 ancient humans (about 1× average coverage), covering a period of 4,000 years, to understand the population history of the Eurasian steppes after the Bronze Age migrations. We find that the genetics of the Scythian groups that dominated the Eurasian steppes throughout the Iron Age were highly structured, with diverse origins comprising Late Bronze Age herders, European farmers and southern Siberian hunter-gatherers. Later, Scythians admixed with the eastern steppe nomads who formed the Xiongnu confederations, and moved westward in about the second or third century BC, forming the Hun traditions in the fourth–fifth century AD, and carrying with them plague that was basal to the Justinian plague. These nomads were further admixed with East Asian groups during several short-term khanates in the Medieval period. These historical events transformed the Eurasian steppes from being inhabited by Indo-European speakers of largely West Eurasian ancestry to the mostly Turkic-speaking groups of the present day, who are primarily of East Asian ancestry.

it's behind a paywall :

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2

Pax Augusta
09-05-18, 20:12
The full paper can be read here


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2.epdf?referrer_access_token=wnP1RQD_DNmmwA0N_alFd tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ny6sANquWuUwCaHKs0i-6vx0EbZupPVMe5EOU3mInKrCSbM2irk3xTQ97TnAYamC63PnUZ VpYb94MX3odSK-KSqEj2-Rh422nFI3WGCBoK8ISzxcLVbQD-em6SKCunmRGIC5Kcqz3ERpcGvkEJLosJvoxqwEdrA0CbkJazlg r9Wdgqm129hefsdFZexCdVbJDZ_sMIVLgW_qRuT51YtlPt




Supplementary info is available as well.

Pax Augusta
09-05-18, 20:38
Another couple of studies on similar subject. This published today on Science from the same author of the previous one, Peter de Barros Damgaard


The first horse herders and the impact of early Bronze Age steppe expansions into Asia

Peter de Barros Damgaard,

Science 09 May 2018:
eaar7711
DOI: 10.1126/science.aar7711


"Abstract

The Yamnaya expansions from the western steppe into Europe and Asia during the Early Bronze Age (~3000 BCE) are believed to have brought with them Indo-European languages and possibly horse husbandry. We analyze 74 ancient whole-genome sequences from across Inner Asia and Anatolia and show that the Botai people associated with the earliest horse husbandry derived from a hunter-gatherer population deeply diverged from the Yamnaya. Our results also suggest distinct migrations bringing West Eurasian ancestry into South Asia before and after but not at the time of Yamnaya culture. We find no evidence of steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolia from when Indo-European languages are attested there. Thus, in contrast to Europe, Early Bronze Age Yamnaya-related migrations had limited direct genetic impact in Asia."


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/05/08/science.aar7711



And this published earlier on Science.

Ancient genomes revisit the ancestry of domestic and Przewalski’s horses

Charleen Gaunitz
Science 06 Apr 2018:
Vol. 360, Issue 6384, pp. 111-114
DOI: 10.1126/science.aao329

"Revisiting the origins of modern horses

The domestication of horses was very important in the history of humankind. However, the ancestry of modern horses and the location and timing of their emergence remain unclear. Gaunitz et al. generated 42 ancient-horse genomes. Their source samples included the Botai archaeological site in Central Asia, considered to include the earliest domesticated horses. Unexpectedly, Botai horses were the ancestors not of modern domestic horses, but rather of modern Przewalski's horses. Thus, in contrast to current thinking on horse domestication, modern horses may have been domesticated in other, more Western, centers of origin.


Abstract

The Eneolithic Botai culture of the Central Asian steppes provides the earliest archaeological evidence for horse husbandry, ~5500 years ago, but the exact nature of early horse domestication remains controversial. We generated 42 ancient-horse genomes, including 20 from Botai. Compared to 46 published ancient- and modern-horse genomes, our data indicate that Przewalski’s horses are the feral descendants of horses herded at Botai and not truly wild horses. All domestic horses dated from ~4000 years ago to present only show ~2.7% of Botai-related ancestry. This indicates that a massive genomic turnover underpins the expansion of the horse stock that gave rise to modern domesticates, which coincides with large-scale human population expansions during the Early Bronze Age"


http://science.sciencemag.org/content/360/6384/111

Angela
09-05-18, 20:55
Fascinating stuff.

Botai people were not Yamnaya like, and their horses had limited impact on modern domesticated horses. So, where were the ancestors of modern horses first domesticated, and by whom?

Also, still no "steppe" in Bronze Age Anatolia, and a different view of the impact of "steppe" peoples in India.

It's going to require careful reading, but promises to be very, very, interesting. Thank you, gentlemen.

CrazyDonkey
09-05-18, 21:35
In your third post, you've linked to the second article twice. First link should be:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/05/08/science.aar7711?rss=1

Pax Augusta
09-05-18, 21:55
In your third post, you've linked to the second article twice. First link should be:

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2018/05/08/science.aar7711?rss=1

Thanks, CrazyDonke.

Milan.M
09-05-18, 22:20
Interesting,in my present opinion Huns were confederation of Finno-Ugric and Iranic Xionites.Like the later Avars also called Varchionites from the Ugric Uar tribe near Aral sea Kazakhstan and Xionites,thus the name Varchionites.Some of them will form also the related Hephthalite or Sveta Huna,white Huns in India.Turkic expansion happened after this,or maybe this "Huns" migrated from their pressure.I hope genetic can clarify this better.

holderlin
10-05-18, 04:37
OK so what's new?

I think the population movements on the steppe from the early bronze age through the middle ages was what everyone expected: Bronze age steppe mixing with Siberian and East Asian to form the Turkic groups that expanded beginning with the Hunnic migrations, which were later enveloped by Mongols. There are some interesting finer points, like pre- and post- Yamnaya steppe making contributions to South Asia, but not Yamnaya itself. And also the mechanism of admixture between Scythians and East Asians to form these Turkic tribes is really cool to see.

holderlin
10-05-18, 05:15
Why are these supplementary tables all on separate Excel files? C'mon people.

Maciamo
10-05-18, 07:44
Their analysis showed a slow and steady west-to-east shift in the genetic makeup of the people who populated the Eurasian steppe—a massive expanse stretching from Hungary and Romania in the west to Mongolia and northeast China in the east.

According to the data, the steppe population changed "from being of mainly western Eurasian genetic ancestry to... east Asian genetic ancestry," said Eske Willerslev of the University of Copenhagen, who co-authored two of the studies.

"It's also changing the steppe in terms of being Indo-European speakers to becoming Turkish-speaking people."

The Indo-European language group gave rise to modern-day tongues such as English, French, German, Russian, Hindi, and Persian, while Turkish is part of the Turkic language group thought to have originated in east Asia, including Mongolia.

From about 800 to 200 BC, the Eurasian steppe was dominated by the Scythians, a group of Iranian-speaking mounted warriors, the researchers said.

These were thought to have originated from Bronze Age farmers of western "European" ancestry.

Yet today, "the people living in central Asia and western Asia are really of Asian descent," said Willerslev. "We wanted to understand how this happened."

The Scythians, they found, were "absorbed and replaced" by Huns spreading westward out of Mongolia, "killing all the people they met but also mixing with them".

We already knew all this from Y-DNA and mtDNA. As often these days ancient autosomal DNA only confirms what we had known for years in terms of how and when ancient people intermingled with one another. Reading Willerslev's interview it sounds to a lay audience (to whom this kind of summary is intended) that they are the ones who discovered that there was a shift in the Steppe population from a mainly Western Eurasian to a predominantly Eastern Eurasian one from 2500 BCE to 1500 CE. I had the same impression reading David Reich's book. He kept saying how he and his team's analysis of ancient DNA completely rewrote prehistory as nobody expected that:

- the Indo-European migrations came from the Steppe and replaced so many lineages across Europe (even though that was obvious through the replacement of Mesolithic and Neolithic Y-DNA lineages by R1b-L23 derived clades)

- a separate migration contributed Mongolian-like DNA to Na Dene speakers not found in most other Native Americans (even though it was clear that the Na-Dene carried a more recent Y-haplogroup C2b in addition to the pan-American Q1a).

- the Polynesian expansion spread quickly Austronasian lineages (Y-DNA O1) across the Pacific islands, but was followed by a more recent expansion of Papuan people to islands like the Fiji (even though every anthrpologist knew that Fijians were hybrid of Austronesians and Papuans and modern Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA confirmed that this was the case without ancient DNA being needed).

And so on for almost every chapter...

I find it very intellectually dishonest for scientists to claim that they were the ones discovering something when all they did was corroborate what was already known from other studies in similar fields (modern DNA or ancient Y-DNA and mtDNA in this case) or other fields (archaeology, anthropology, linguistics). Science does not evolve in a vacuum. People influence each others' ideas all the time. It's not because they have access to the most advanced ancient DNA technology at the moment that their ideas are new or contradict the pre-existing paradigm.



It's a bit sad that these professional geneticists aren't making good use of ancient genomes. This study only seems to care about confirming the west to east shift in Steppe populations, a shift that we already knew about. What would have been more interesting is analysing the genomes of all these samples for disease risks, physical traits (height, pigmentation...), fitness, immunity and even genes associated with traits of character (e.g. DRD4 allele associated with novelty-seeking adventurousness, very interesting in the context of nomadic tribes and migrations). It's beyond me why they waste such opportunities. There are after all 75 co-authors to this paper and they get paid for it. It's not like they don't have the resources! We amateurs often do deeper analyses in our free time (in addition to full time jobs). It's also strange that they prefer to waste their time with outdated and pretty useless PCA analysis, Fst values and QpAdm modelling. In my opinion they are using these tools just because they exist and they are expected to use them to make their paper look more "scientific" (the false impression that adding some maths makes a paper more serious or more correct). I get that they were trained like this and cannot easily go against the system, but that's nevertheless a waste of time that would be better spent doing more interesting analyses to really recreate a sense of what historical people were like based on the traits that can be extrapolated from their genomes.

Maciamo
10-05-18, 08:32
DA111 and DA112 are Hallstatt samples! That's gold. I would really like to see the autosomal analysis for these samples. Unfortunately they are not listed in their K7 admxitures.

It's disappointing that the Y-DNA resolution of most samples in this paper is so low. C'mon, why stop at R1 when it makes a huge difference to know if they are R1a or R1b!

Alpenjager
10-05-18, 09:44
DA111 and DA112 are Hallstatt samples! That's gold. I would really like to see the autosomal analysis for these samples. Unfortunately they are not listed in their K7 admxitures.

It's disappointing that the Y-DNA resolution of most samples in this paper is so low. C'mon, why stop at R1 when it makes a huge difference to know if they are R1a or R1b!

So, actually we have a Elite indivudal belonging to G2a2b2a1b-L497
And a ¿non-Elite? R1b individual as I understand from the data.

Alpenjager
10-05-18, 10:33
DA125, T1a3a1a1-Y13279, is the oldest or one of the two oldest samples 1738 yBP belonging to the Kang-Sogdians.

Kang-Sogdians belongs to T1a3a1a1-Y13279 (1 sample) + R1a-S23592 (2 samples)

10107

10108


T1a3a1a1-Y13279 is found in modern Kazakhstan (Predicted) and among Pathans (Predicted)as well as in Europe (Confirmed)and Irak (Confirmed).

Pax Augusta
10-05-18, 10:38
Ancient Eurasian Steppe selected Y and mtDNA haplogroups and Gedmatch IDs



https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Rja6ZyjQrz3UK7_HTagkzczoOFjwcXOGdNOm9FC3Rik/edit#gid=0

Pax Augusta
10-05-18, 11:33
DA111 and DA112 are Hallstatt samples! That's gold. I would really like to see the autosomal analysis for these samples. Unfortunately they are not listed in their K7 admxitures.

It's disappointing that the Y-DNA resolution of most samples in this paper is so low. C'mon, why stop at R1 when it makes a huge difference to know if they are R1a or R1b!

DA111's kit on Gedmatch is Z302274. DA112 hasn't been uploaded yet.



DA111
111
ERS2374359
HallstattBylany (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hallstatt_Culture)
Europe
2758
R-P312
R-P312 (http://yfull.com/tree/R-P312)
H6a1a (http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/h6_genbank_sequences.htm)
Z302274
2,671,374,961
2.6
595279
49.67%





puntDNAL K12 Ancient Oracle results:

puntDNAL K12 Ancient Oracle

Kit Z302274

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
Anatolian_NF
41.3


2
European_HG
37.97


3
Caucasus_HG
20.35


4
Sub-Saharan
0.39



Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
Alberstedt_LN_I0118
9.11


2
Halberstadt_LBA_I0099
9.45


3
Unetice_EBA_I0117
9.58


4
Nordic_LN_SG_RISE97
10.56


5
Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549
12.87


6
BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN_I0059
12.88


7
Vatya_SG_RISE479
13.15


8
Hungary_BA_I1502
13.62


9
Bell_Beaker_Czech_RISE569
14.93


10
BattleAxe_Sweden_SG_RISE94
16.52


11
Potapovka_I0419
17.12


12
Srubnaya_I0430
18.51


13
Corded_Ware_Estonia_RISE00
18.91


14
Srubnaya_I0232
21.3


15
Corded_Ware_Germany_I0103
21.82


16
Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386
22.5


17
Sintashta_MBA_RISE395
23.14


18
Corded_Ware_Germany_I0104
23.5


19
Andronovo_SG_RISE505
24.2


20
Iberia_M_ I0406
28.06



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

88%
Unetice_EBA_I0117
+
12%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0745
@
2.25


2

87.9%
Unetice_EBA_I0117
+
12.1%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0746
@
2.29


3

88.3%
Halberstadt_LBA_I0099
+
11.7%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0745
@
2.6


4

88.2%
Halberstadt_LBA_I0099
+
11.8%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0746
@
2.68


5

75%
Sintashta_MBA_RISE395
+
25%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0745
@
3.83


6

74.8%
Sintashta_MBA_RISE395
+
25.2%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0746
@
3.92


7

84.8%
Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549
+
15.2%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0745
@
3.92


8

78.7%
Unetice_EBA_I0117
+
21.3%
Iberia_EN_I0412
@
3.92


9

76.6%
Srubnaya_I0232
+
23.4%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0745
@
3.92


10

78.8%
Unetice_EBA_I0117
+
21.2%
Remedello_BA_SG_RISE489
@
3.97


11

76.4%
Srubnaya_I0232
+
23.6%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0746
@
4.01


12

84.7%
Bell_Beaker_Germany_I1549
+
15.3%
Anatolian Neolithic_I0746
@
4.02


13

79.2%
Halberstadt_LBA_I0099
+
20.8%
Remedello_BA_SG_RISE489
@
4.05


14

76.8%
Unetice_EBA_I0117
+
23.2%
Iceman_MN_SG
@
4.06


15

76.5%
Unetice_EBA_I0117
+
23.5%
Epserstedt_MN_I0172
@
4.07


16

57.9%
Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386
+
42.1%
Iberia_Chalcolithic_I0300
@
4.07


17

79.1%
Halberstadt_LBA_I0099
+
20.9%
Iberia_EN_I0412
@
4.09


18

56.1%
Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386
+
43.9%
Epserstedt_MN_I0172
@
4.1


19

76.9%
Halberstadt_LBA_I0099
+
23.1%
Epserstedt_MN_I0172
@
4.14


20

59.5%
Sintashta_MBA_RISE_386
+
40.5%
Remedello_BA_SG_RISE489
@
4.14




puntDNAL K10 Ancient Oracle results:

puntDNAL K10 Ancient Oracle

Kit Z302274

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
WHG
48.56


2
ENF
29.24


3
CHG
22.2



Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
German_South
3.37


2
Utahn_white
3.65


3
English_South
4.72


4
Croatian
5.27


5
Irish
5.61


6
Czech
5.62


7
German_North
6.25


8
French
6.36


9
Scottish_West
6.86


10
Hungarian
7.23


11
Icelandic
9.28


12
Norwegian
9.57


13
Ukrainian
11.06


14
Spanish_Northeast
13.02


15
Bulgarian
13.78


16
Italian_North
14.8


17
Belarusian
15.09


18
Spanish_Southwest
16.14


19
Finnish
17.87


20
Basque_Spanish
17.9



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

83.9%
Utahn_white
+
16.1%
Basque_Spanish
@
1.28


2

84.9%
German_North
+
15.1%
Sardinian
@
1.44


3

68.1%
German_North
+
31.9%
Spanish_Northeast
@
1.53


4

59.8%
French
+
40.2%
Icelandic
@
1.62


5

61.7%
Icelandic
+
38.3%
Italian_North
@
1.65


6

77%
Irish
+
23%
Basque_Spanish
@
1.81


7

60.7%
French
+
39.3%
Norwegian
@
1.91


8

86.6%
Czech
+
13.4%
Sardinian
@
2.02


9

76.5%
French
+
23.5%
Lithuanian
@
2.04


10

75.1%
German_North
+
24.9%
Basque_Spanish
@
2.07


11

73.1%
German_North
+
26.9%
Spanish_Southwest
@
2.09


12

69.2%
Icelandic
+
30.8%
Tuscan
@
2.11


13

71.2%
Czech
+
28.8%
Spanish_Northeast
@
2.17


14

52.1%
French
+
47.9%
Scottish_West
@
2.18


15

84%
Scottish_West
+
16%
Sardinian
@
2.24


16

70.5%
Icelandic
+
29.5%
Italian_South
@
2.25


17

78.2%
German_South
+
21.8%
Icelandic
@
2.26


18

61.1%
Norwegian
+
38.9%
Italian_North
@
2.28


19

75.7%
Czech
+
24.3%
Spanish_Southwest
@
2.28


20

81.2%
English_South
+
18.8%
Basque_Spanish
@
2.32




HarappaWorld Oracle results:

23 April 2013 - Oracle reference population percentages revised.

Kit Z302274

Admix Results (sorted):



#
Population
Percent


1
NE-Euro
47.54


2
Mediterranean
39.85


3
Caucasian
7.22


4
Baloch
3.92


5
SW-Asian
0.8


6
W-African
0.66



Single Population Sharing:



#
Population (source)
Distance


1
french (hgdp)
7.6


2
utahn-white (1000genomes)
9.61


3
british (1000genomes)
9.88


4
utahn-white (hapmap)
11.18


5
n-european (xing)
11.28


6
orcadian (hgdp)
12.34


7
spaniard (behar)
15.77


8
spaniard (1000genomes)
16.46


9
hungarian (behar)
16.49


10
slovenian (xing)
17.75


11
spain-basc (henn2012)
21.42


12
italian (hgdp)
21.98


13
basque (hgdp)
22.92


14
ukranian (yunusbayev)
23.9


15
romanian-a (behar)
25.34


16
belorussian (behar)
27.24


17
bulgarian (yunusbayev)
27.31


18
tuscan (hapmap)
29.56


19
russian (behar)
29.6


20
mordovian (yunusbayev)
29.62



Mixed Mode Population Sharing:



#

Primary Population (source)
Secondary Population (source)
Distance


1

56.5%
basque (hgdp)
+
43.5%
russian (behar)
@
3.21


2

54.4%
basque (hgdp)
+
45.6%
belorussian (behar)
@
3.43


3

58.2%
spain-basc (henn2012)
+
41.8%
russian (behar)
@
3.68


4

56.1%
spain-basc (henn2012)
+
43.9%
belorussian (behar)
@
3.79


5

51.1%
basque (hgdp)
+
48.9%
ukranian (yunusbayev)
@
3.99


6

52.8%
spain-basc (henn2012)
+
47.2%
ukranian (yunusbayev)
@
4.45


7

68.9%
n-european (xing)
+
31.1%
basque (hgdp)
@
5.04


8

67.5%
n-european (xing)
+
32.5%
spain-basc (henn2012)
@
5.23


9

56.8%
slovenian (xing)
+
43.2%
basque (hgdp)
@
5.47


10

60.4%
spain-basc (henn2012)
+
39.6%
lithuanian (behar)
@
5.53


11

58.6%
basque (hgdp)
+
41.4%
lithuanian (behar)
@
5.56


12

80.3%
utahn-white (hapmap)
+
19.7%
sardinian (hgdp)
@
5.61


13

55.1%
slovenian (xing)
+
44.9%
spain-basc (henn2012)
@
5.78


14

80.3%
n-european (xing)
+
19.7%
sardinian (hgdp)
@
5.85


15

83.8%
utahn-white (1000genomes)
+
16.2%
sardinian (hgdp)
@
5.88


16

83.2%
british (1000genomes)
+
16.8%
sardinian (hgdp)
@
5.89


17

70%
utahn-white (hapmap)
+
30%
basque (hgdp)
@
5.92


18

56.7%
basque (hgdp)
+
43.3%
mordovian (yunusbayev)
@
5.93


19

68.6%
utahn-white (hapmap)
+
31.4%
spain-basc (henn2012)
@
6.03


20

74.9%
utahn-white (1000genomes)
+
25.1%
basque (hgdp)
@
6.11

Maciamo
10-05-18, 13:50
Thanks, Pax! That's all I needed!

So Hallstatt Celts are most similar to modern South Germans, French and South English (and presumably also Belgians who plot right in the middle of these three populations but aren't listed).

The list of haplogroups from GEDMatch is great. I wonder why the authors of the paper didn't bother to list the deep clades in the supplementary information. That's not professional at all on their part.

Maciamo
10-05-18, 14:58
A few things of note from the GEDMatch list:

- Two Alanic samples from the Caucasus belonged to Q1a2-YP4000 (now found in Siberia, Poland and Chechnya), Q1a2-L330 (Mongolic/Turkic branch found among the Kazakhs) and R1a-Z93 (S23592, now found among the Poles, Chechens, Bashkirs, Tatars, Kazakhs, Altaians). Previous Alanic samples from the North Caucasus belonged to G2a (probably local Caucasian) and R1a-Z93.

- The Alanic Q1a2-YP4000 is a direct descendant of the Q1a2-YP4004 found in the Bronze Age Glazkov culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazkov_culture) in the Baikal region. This clade is also found among modern Tatars. The other Q1a2-L330 was also found in that culture as its YP1102 subclade (found among modern Kazakhs). Hence the Alans were of partial Hunnic descent, despite being an Iranian tribe.

- Sarmatian Huns had R1a-Z93 and Q1a2-YP771 (now found in Slavic Russians and Hungarians).

- Tian Shan Huns carried Q1a1-L715 (now found in the North Caucasus (Kabardins), Poland and Hungary) and Q1b2-YP755 (now found in Pakistan and NW India), but also N1c, R1a-Z93 (YP1456, now found among the Bashkirs, Kyrgyzs and Altaians) and oddly also a number of Middle Easter lineages such as E-V22 (Central Europe, Arabian peninsula, Azerbaijan and NE China near Korea) and L1a1 (Y31213, found in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia)

- Tian Shan Saka predating the Tian Shan Huns already carried R1a-Z93 (Z2125), Q1a2-L330 (the same as in Bronze Age Baikal and in the Caucasian Alans) and J2a1-Y13534 (found in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Western Europe).

- Tagar Scythians possessed R1a-Z93 (Z2125) and Q1a2-L933 lineages. The latter is now found in Kerala (southern tip of India!), Yemen, Georgia, Turkey, Czechia and Britain! Apart from the slightly older Indian sample, all have a TMRCA between 5000 and 6000 years, so probably of Steppic origin. It's amazing how far the Scythians migrated and, above all, how wide their geographic reach was, leaving descendants from southern India to Britain and from Siberia to Yemen. And that's just for Siberian Scythians! (as Q1a2 wasn't found in Central Saka or European Scythians).

- Central Scythians (Saka) belonged to R1a-Z93 (YP1456), Q1b2-YP4500 (same as in Tian Shan Huns) and E-M123 (Y31991, now found in Poland, Bulgaria, Lebanon and Qatar)

- The four XiongNu samples only carried O3 and Palaeolithic branches of R1b (not of Indo-European origin).


Overall the two dominant lineages of the Scythians, Huns and Alans appear to have been Q1a and R1a-Z93. These are the only two haplogroups that constantly show up in every culture from every region and period. There is also surprisingly little difference between the Scythians and the Huns. On the other hand, the XiongNu and Mongols carried completely different haplogroups (C2b, O3 and R1b-L278), which means that the Huns were in fact not of XiongNu/Mongol descent as most people thought, but of almost purely (Altaian) Scythian descent.

What is amazing is that almost all the branches of Y-haplogroup Q1a, except the Amerindian, Scandinavian and Levantine/Jewish ones, have been found among the Huns. I was therefore right in my assumption made about 7-8 years ago that the Huns (and explained in my haplogroup Q page (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml)) were the ones who spread most of the Q1a1 and Q1a2 lineages.

Milan.M
10-05-18, 15:19
A few things of note from the GEDMatch list:

- Two Alanic samples from the Caucasus belonged to Q1a2-YP4000 (now found in Siberia, Poland and Chechnya), Q1a2-L330 (Mongolic/Turkic branch found among the Kazakhs) and R1a-Z93 (S23592, now found among the Poles, Chechens, Bashkirs, Tatars, Kazakhs, Altaians). Previous Alanic samples from the North Caucasus belonged to G2a (probably local Caucasian) and R1a-Z93.

- The Alanic Q1a2-YP4000 is a direct descendant of the Q1a2-YP4004 found in the Bronze Age Glazkov culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glazkov_culture) in the Baikal region. This clade is also found among modern Tatars. The other Q1a2-L330 was also found in that culture as its YP1102 subclade (found among modern Kazakhs). Hence the Alans were of partial Hunnic descent, despite being an Iranian tribe.

- Sarmatian Huns had R1a-Z93 and Q1a2-YP771 (now found in Slavic Russians and Hungarians).

- Tian Shan Huns carried Q1a1-L715 (now found in the North Caucasus (Kabardins), Poland and Hungary) and Q1b2-YP755 (now found in Pakistan and NW India), but also N1c, R1a-Z93 (YP1456, now found among the Bashkirs, Kyrgyzs and Altaians) and oddly also a number of Middle Easter lineages such as E-V22 (Central Europe, Arabian peninsula, Azerbaijan and NE China near Korea) and L1a1 (Y31213, found in Lebanon and Saudi Arabia)

- Tian Shan Saka predating the Tian Shan Huns already carried R1a-Z93 (Z2125), Q1a2-L330 (the same as in Bronze Age Baikal and in the Caucasian Alans) and J2a1-Y13534 (found in the Middle East, North Africa, South Asia and Western Europe).

- Tagar Scythians possessed R1a-Z93 (Z2125) and Q1a2-L933 lineages. The latter is now found in Kerala (southern tip of India!), Yemen, Georgia, Turkey, Czechia and Britain! Apart from the slightly older Indian sample, all have a TMRCA between 5000 and 6000 years, so probably of Steppic origin. It's amazing how far the Scythians migrated and, above all, how wide their geographic reach was, leaving descendants from southern India to Britain and from Siberia to Yemen. And that's just for Siberian Scythians! (as Q1a2 wasn't found in Central Saka or European Scythians).

- Central Scythians (Saka) belonged to R1a-Z93 (YP1456), Q1b2-YP4500 (same as in Tian Shan Huns) and E-M123 (Y31991, now found in Poland, Bulgaria, Lebanon and Qatar)

- The four XiongNu samples only carried O3 and Palaeolithic branches of R1b (not of Indo-European origin).


Overall the two dominant lineages of the Scythians, Huns and Alans appear to have been Q1a and R1a-Z93. These are the only two haplogroups that constantly show up in every culture from every region and period. There is also surprisingly little difference between the Scythians and the Huns. On the other hand, the XiongNu and Mongols carried completely different haplogroups (C2b, O3 and R1b-L278), which means that the Huns were in fact not of XiongNu/Mongol descent as most people thought, but of almost purely (Altaian) Scythian descent.

What is amazing is that almost all the branches of Y-haplogroup Q1a, except the Amerindian, Scandinavian and Levantine/Jewish ones, have been found among the Huns. I was therefore right in my assumption made about 7-8 years ago that the Huns (and explained in my haplogroup Q page (https://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_Q_Y-DNA.shtml)) were the ones who spread most of the Q1a1 and Q1a2 lineages.
Huns most probably do not descent from the Xiongnu,which are Turkic or Mongolic most likely,as i mentioned Huns were rather a confederation of Iranic Xionites and Finno-Ugric peoples,like the Avar "Varchionites" later were confederation of Uar (Finno-Ugric) and Xionites (Chionites) that's why were labeled Varchionites by ancient authors,known as Sveta Huna in India.Even Procopius connects European Huns with Huns that conquered northern India.

IronSide
10-05-18, 15:38
Ancient Eurasian Steppe selected Y and mtDNA haplogroups and Gedmatch IDs
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Rja6ZyjQrz3UK7_HTagkzczoOFjwcXOGdNOm9FC3Rik/edit#gid=0

There is an I2c2 in the list, DA31, he is not from the Steppe but from the Caucasus !!! Lchashen Metsamor culture, I2c2 today is predominantly Caucasian and Aegean.

And the Y-full age estimates have changed !! the subclade used to date from 4000 ybp, but now its 3300 ybp, DA31 is actually 3200 years old, maybe that's my ancestor :)

Information on Lchashen Metsamor culture (http://www.armeniapast.com/prehistory/bronze-age/).

bicicleur
10-05-18, 15:48
The full paper can be read here


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2.epdf?referrer_access_token=wnP1RQD_DNmmwA0N_alFd tRgN0jAjWel9jnR3ZoTv0Ny6sANquWuUwCaHKs0i-6vx0EbZupPVMe5EOU3mInKrCSbM2irk3xTQ97TnAYamC63PnUZ VpYb94MX3odSK-KSqEj2-Rh422nFI3WGCBoK8ISzxcLVbQD-em6SKCunmRGIC5Kcqz3ERpcGvkEJLosJvoxqwEdrA0CbkJazlg r9Wdgqm129hefsdFZexCdVbJDZ_sMIVLgW_qRuT51YtlPt




Supplementary info is available as well.

do you have the links to the supplements?

IronSide
10-05-18, 15:51
do you have the links to the supplements?

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Milan.M
10-05-18, 17:48
The thing that brought most military victories to the Huns was mounted archery,my hypothesis is that they also used the stirrups which enabled them to be very stable on their horses while shooting.According to Roman general Belisarius cited by Procopius mounted archery and use of bow was why Romans lost many wars,they later hired Hun mercenaries in the Gothic wars, Goths are said to fight on horseback but with sword and spear.
While is certain that Avars introduced the stirrups to Europe,for the Huns has yet to be proven.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Avars_hungary_7-8th_cAD_iron_stirrups_IMG_1186.JPG/636px-Avars_hungary_7-8th_cAD_iron_stirrups_IMG_1186.JPG

The stirrup, which gives greater stability to a rider, has been described as one of the most significant inventions in the history of warfare, prior to gunpowder.

Same tradition and military tactics followed by the Turks and Mongols proved very superior for that time.

Promenade
10-05-18, 17:49
So there may have been Steppe Ancestry (but possibly it is just EHG because of an absence of CHG) as early as the late 4th millennium in Namazga Tepe but it does not appear in the rest of BMAC until more than a thousand years later? Also BMAC was rejected as an ancestral source of modern South Asians but Namazga isn't? I wonder if they had used the samples from Narasimhan et al it would have been rejected in favor of Indus Periphery and other populations

holderlin
10-05-18, 19:15
There is an I2c2 in the list, DA31, he is not from the Steppe but from the Caucasus !!! Lchashen Metsamor culture, I2c2 today is predominantly Caucasian and Aegean.

And the Y-full age estimates have changed !! the subclade used to date from 4000 ybp, but now its 3300 ybp, DA31 is actually 3200 years old, maybe that's my ancestor :)

Information on Lchashen Metsamor culture (http://www.armeniapast.com/prehistory/bronze-age/).

This is awesome. Good for you!

holderlin
10-05-18, 19:18
Huns most probably do not descent from the Xiongnu,which are Turkic or Mongolic most likely,as i mentioned Huns were rather a confederation of Iranic Xionites and Finno-Ugric peoples,like the Avar "Varchionites" later were confederation of Uar (Finno-Ugric) and Xionites (Chionites) that's why were labeled Varchionites by ancient authors,known as Sveta Huna in India.Even Procopius connects European Huns with Huns that conquered northern India.

They were definitely a confederation, but I have a list of names of Hunnic chiefs and they definitely contain Turkic speakers. So I do think that "Huns" were at least in part a result of mixing with Xiongnu, which I'm pretty sure the paper also shows.

Ygorcs
10-05-18, 19:44
Also, still no "steppe" in Bronze Age Anatolia, and a different view of the impact of "steppe" peoples in India.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but is it really a "different view", one incompatible with that presented by the Reich et al. South Asian paper? I mean, this new study states that the Yamnaya "proper" migrations didn't affect South Asia, but there were West Eurasian-related migrations before and after Yamnaya. Doesn't that correlate perfectly well with the hypothesis presented by "the" South Asian preprint that there was West Siberian ancestry (I assume it had more West Eurasian affinity, right?) before the arrival of "BA steppe" ancestry, and that this steppe ancestry only came much later than the Yamnaya period, probably with later eastern offshoots Andronovo? As far as I understood the basic claims in both studies, I think both views fit each other well.

Sile
10-05-18, 20:25
DA125, T1a3a1a1-Y13279, is the oldest or one of the two oldest samples 1738 yBP belonging to the Kang-Sogdians.

Kang-Sogdians belongs to T1a3a1a1-Y13279 (1 sample) + R1a-S23592 (2 samples)

10107

10108


T1a3a1a1-Y13279 is found in modern Kazakhstan (Predicted) and among Pathans (Predicted)as well as in Europe (Confirmed)and Irak (Confirmed).

Results for this sample above
.
Gedrosia K12 Oracle
.
Admix Results (sorted):
.
# Population Percent
1 SINTASHTA_STEPPE_HERDERS 36.17
2 EARLY_EUROPEAN_FARMERS 20.93
3 CAUCASUS 16.27
4 BALOCHI 13.25
5 INDO_TIBETAN 3.56
6 SUB_SAHARAN 2.73
7 SW_ASIAN 2.59
8 E_SIBERIAN 1.82
9 S_INDIAN 1.62
10 W_SIBERIAN 1.07
.
.
Finished reading population data. 87 populations found.
12 components mode.

--------------------------------
.
Least-squares method.
.
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Norwegian @ 27.047358
2 Tajik_Pomiri @ 29.613884
3 Greek @ 30.204453
4 Russian @ 30.475681
5 Turkmen_Afghan @ 32.066235
6 Turks_Istanbul @ 33.265747
7 Uzbek @ 33.983425
8 Finnish @ 35.916382
9 Sicilian @ 36.177418
10 Turks_Aydin @ 36.290226
11 Uzbek_Afghan @ 36.405033
12 Tajik_Afghan @ 36.703457
13 Kurds_C @ 37.516556
14 Turks_Balikesir @ 37.872124
15 Kurds_N @ 38.548668
16 Estonian @ 38.995659
17 Pashtun_Afghan @ 40.051208
18 Lithuanian @ 40.209137
19 Kurds_E @ 40.435959
20 Kurds_F @ 40.643627
.
Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Norwegian +50% Tajik_Pomiri @ 7.165861
.
.
Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Norwegian +25% Tajik_Pomiri +25% Turkmen_Afghan @ 6.523515
.
.
Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Estonian + Kurds_E + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.565871
2 Finnish + Kurds_E + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.669582
3 Estonian + Iranian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.710850
4 Kurds_E + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.742424
5 Estonian + Kurds_N + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.769520
6 Finnish + Kurds_N + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.815739
7 Iranian + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.837358
8 Kurds_E + Norwegian + Russian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.848020
9 Kurds_N + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.856154
10 Kurds_E + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.862832
11 Kurds_N + Norwegian + Russian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.877268
12 Kurds_SE + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Turks_Istanbul @ 5.915348
13 Kurds_C + Norwegian + Russian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.915402
14 Estonian + Kurds_SE + Norwegian + Turks_Istanbul @ 5.935220
15 Kurds_N + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.940321
16 Estonian + Kurds_C + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.944089
17 Finnish + Kurds_C + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.959805
18 Kurds_SE + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Turks_Aydin @ 5.968935
19 Estonian + Kurds_N + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.973429
20 Estonian + Kurds_E + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.999063

holderlin
10-05-18, 22:14
The thing that brought most military victories to the Huns was mounted archery,my hypothesis is that they also used the stirrups which enabled them to be very stable on their horses while shooting.According to Roman general Belisarius cited by Procopius mounted archery and use of bow was why Romans lost many wars,they later hired Hun mercenaries in the Gothic wars, Goths are said to fight on horseback but with sword and spear.
While is certain that Avars introduced the stirrups to Europe,for the Huns has yet to be proven.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/6/6b/Avars_hungary_7-8th_cAD_iron_stirrups_IMG_1186.JPG/636px-Avars_hungary_7-8th_cAD_iron_stirrups_IMG_1186.JPG

The stirrup, which gives greater stability to a rider, has been described as one of the most significant inventions in the history of warfare, prior to gunpowder.

Same tradition and military tactics followed by the Turks and Mongols proved very superior for that time.

It's hard for me to believe that no one thought of the stirrup before this.

It would be like inventing a motorcycle and not thinking of pegs to rest your feet for thousands of years. I almost can't buy it on this on this analogy. Wtf.

Azzurro
10-05-18, 23:08
There is an I2c2 in the list, DA31, he is not from the Steppe but from the Caucasus !!! Lchashen Metsamor culture, I2c2 today is predominantly Caucasian and Aegean.

And the Y-full age estimates have changed !! the subclade used to date from 4000 ybp, but now its 3300 ybp, DA31 is actually 3200 years old, maybe that's my ancestor :)

Information on Lchashen Metsamor culture (http://www.armeniapast.com/prehistory/bronze-age/).

Congrats Ironside :) and thanks for the link!

Maciamo
11-05-18, 19:30
I have split the long discussion about the origins of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36126-Where-did-the-Anatolian-branch-of-Indo-European-originate) to avoid mixing it with this paper's main topic, which is the west to east shift in ancestry in the Eurasian Steppe between 2500 BCE and 1500 CE.

I also started a new thread for the other study mentioned by Jovialis: Ancient hepatitis B viruses from the Bronze Age to the Medieval period (https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/36127-Ancient-hepatitis-B-viruses-from-the-Bronze-Age-to-the-Medieval-period)

davef
11-05-18, 19:47
Results for this sample above
.
Gedrosia K12 Oracle
.
Admix Results (sorted):
.
# Population Percent
1 SINTASHTA_STEPPE_HERDERS 36.17
2 EARLY_EUROPEAN_FARMERS 20.93
3 CAUCASUS 16.27
4 BALOCHI 13.25
5 INDO_TIBETAN 3.56
6 SUB_SAHARAN 2.73
7 SW_ASIAN 2.59
8 E_SIBERIAN 1.82
9 S_INDIAN 1.62
10 W_SIBERIAN 1.07
.
.
Finished reading population data. 87 populations found.
12 components mode.

--------------------------------
.
Least-squares method.
.
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Norwegian @ 27.047358
2 Tajik_Pomiri @ 29.613884
3 Greek @ 30.204453
4 Russian @ 30.475681
5 Turkmen_Afghan @ 32.066235
6 Turks_Istanbul @ 33.265747
7 Uzbek @ 33.983425
8 Finnish @ 35.916382
9 Sicilian @ 36.177418
10 Turks_Aydin @ 36.290226
11 Uzbek_Afghan @ 36.405033
12 Tajik_Afghan @ 36.703457
13 Kurds_C @ 37.516556
14 Turks_Balikesir @ 37.872124
15 Kurds_N @ 38.548668
16 Estonian @ 38.995659
17 Pashtun_Afghan @ 40.051208
18 Lithuanian @ 40.209137
19 Kurds_E @ 40.435959
20 Kurds_F @ 40.643627
.
Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Norwegian +50% Tajik_Pomiri @ 7.165861
.
.
Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Norwegian +25% Tajik_Pomiri +25% Turkmen_Afghan @ 6.523515
.
.
Using 4 populations approximation:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Estonian + Kurds_E + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.565871
2 Finnish + Kurds_E + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.669582
3 Estonian + Iranian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.710850
4 Kurds_E + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.742424
5 Estonian + Kurds_N + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.769520
6 Finnish + Kurds_N + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.815739
7 Iranian + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.837358
8 Kurds_E + Norwegian + Russian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.848020
9 Kurds_N + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.856154
10 Kurds_E + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.862832
11 Kurds_N + Norwegian + Russian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.877268
12 Kurds_SE + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Turks_Istanbul @ 5.915348
13 Kurds_C + Norwegian + Russian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.915402
14 Estonian + Kurds_SE + Norwegian + Turks_Istanbul @ 5.935220
15 Kurds_N + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.940321
16 Estonian + Kurds_C + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.944089
17 Finnish + Kurds_C + Norwegian + Tajik_Pomiri @ 5.959805
18 Kurds_SE + Lithuanian + Norwegian + Turks_Aydin @ 5.968935
19 Estonian + Kurds_N + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.973429
20 Estonian + Kurds_E + Norwegian + Uzbek_Afghan @ 5.999063
This guy is everything

MOESAN
11-05-18, 20:09
agree with your #10 post, Maciamo - helas...

MOESAN
11-05-18, 20:19
It's hard for me to believe that no one thought of the stirrup before this.

It would be like inventing a motorcycle and not thinking of pegs to rest your feet for thousands of years. I almost can't buy it on this on this analogy. Wtf.

it's surprising but Celts had no stirrup (according to my readings): they only had specific "horned" saddles; and the Gaulish Celtic cavalry was better than the Roman one; someones say it's only when Romans took with them Germancis cavalry that they won their cavalries oppositions against Celts -

Milan.M
11-05-18, 20:19
They were definitely a confederation, but I have a list of names of Hunnic chiefs and they definitely contain Turkic speakers. So I do think that "Huns" were at least in part a result of mixing with Xiongnu, which I'm pretty sure the paper also shows.
If you have extensive list of names you can post them.One however can not deny or see important cultural trait like cranial deformation which at first was practiced by the Kushans,then we have the Huns who brought this in Europe to the Goths,Gepids etc,however i can not find this to be practiced among the Xiongnu or Turks.

Then as i mentioned my hypothesis for the stirrup was also likely first seen in the Kushans,Kushan divinity with stirrup.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/AdshoCarnelianSeal.jpg/800px-AdshoCarnelianSeal.jpg

Stirrup in my hypothesis was also adopted by Huns,however there might be Turkic peoples in the Hunnic confederation,but this important things should be noticed.

However archeologicaly for now we know that Avars brought stirrup in Europe.

Sile
11-05-18, 20:32
This guy is everything

I used Gedrosia K12 because it was done by the person who does the admixtures for geneplaza

johen
11-05-18, 21:45
If you have extensive list of names you can post them.One however can not deny or see important cultural trait like cranial deformation which at first was practiced by the Kushans,then we have the Huns who brought this in Europe to the Goths,Gepids etc,however i can not find this to be practiced among the Xiongnu or Turks.


Actually the deformation culture is really important to understand nomad, which is always ignored in archaeologists. As far as I know, the elongated skull culture started in afanasievo, catacomb, and some okunevo. It continued in scythian, sarmatians and Hun of which only elite group had the deformed heads. Of course they shave their heads except one single long braid which seems to mean sunray like aryan "sikha." So bare head might mean "sun". I think the sihka is R1a-z93 connection.

Genetically the relationship among scythian, Hun and Xioungnu was well explained in the following post;




Overall the two dominant lineages of the Scythians, Huns and Alans appear to have been Q1a and R1a-Z93. These are the only two haplogroups that constantly show up in every culture from every region and period. There is also surprisingly little difference between the Scythians and the Huns. On the other hand, the XiongNu and Mongols carried completely different haplogroups (C2b, O3 and R1b-L278), which means that the Huns were in fact not of XiongNu/Mongol descent as most people thought, but of almost purely (Altaian) Scythian descent.

holderlin
12-05-18, 07:29
If you have extensive list of names you can post them.One however can not deny or see important cultural trait like cranial deformation which at first was practiced by the Kushans,then we have the Huns who brought this in Europe to the Goths,Gepids etc,however i can not find this to be practiced among the Xiongnu or Turks.

Then as i mentioned my hypothesis for the stirrup was also likely first seen in the Kushans,Kushan divinity with stirrup.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/e/e0/AdshoCarnelianSeal.jpg/800px-AdshoCarnelianSeal.jpg

Stirrup in my hypothesis was also adopted by Huns,however there might be Turkic peoples in the Hunnic confederation,but this important things should be noticed.

However archeologicaly for now we know that Avars brought stirrup in Europe.

Yeah I'm fine with your stirrup theory. And cranial deformation evidence. All good.

Most of these tribes by this time had some East Asian and Siberian admixture along with some Turkic speakers. They were mostly Iranian in the West and increasingly East Asian in the East as we moved into the Middle Ages. Of course the Iranians were the original gangsters. We all know that.

The issue with the Huns is that they were entirely illiterate but we have a ton of names from correspondences with Romans using Roman scribes on both sides.

They were very much a confederation with a bunch of Germanic tribes joining them, so there is of course a bunch of German names but we don't care about those.

Below are the most likely classifications

Iranian Names

something-manos - Iranian - "Massaget" spear man in the Byzantine army, 540 AD

Ama-bazuka - Old Iranian - Hun Chieftain in the Caucasus, 500 AD

Balas - Persian - Commander of six hundred Massaget auxiliaries, all mounted archers, in Belisarius' army in 533 AD

Xorz-aman - Ossetic - "Massaget" bodyguard of Belisarius

Xorz-amond - Ossetic - "Massaget" bodyguard of Belisarius

Sturak - Persian (the Roman scribes had actually changed his name to the Greek Styrax because it sounded better to them) - Caucasian Hun Leader, led the war with Glones against the Sabir, 500 AD

Glones - Persian (Grecized) - Caucasian Hun Leader, led the war with Sturak against the Sabir, 500 AD

Zabergan - Persian - Leader of the Kutrigur Huns, 555 AD

Zarmihr - Persian - "Massaget" in the Byzantine Army, 549 AD

Turkic Names - Apparently these were a ***** to figure out, the few listed are very likely to be Turkic

Altyev - Kazakh - leader of Hun auxiliaries in Byzantine army, 530 AD

Ataqam - Turkish - A Hun of noble birth, 433 AD

Basiq - Some kind of Turkic. Didn't specify. - Hun Leader, 395 AD

Bairika - Didn't specify

Dangiziq (or something like that) All Turkic languages - A son of Atilla - This one Priscus heard pronounced at Atilla's court. Isn't that crazy? That I'm sitting here recounting a Hunnic chieftain name that some Byzantine Diplomat heard before dinner 2000 years ago.

Elmingir - Tunguz

Aruvkahn - Qaraqalpak girl's name - Atilla's wife

Sandal - Mamluk - Ruler of Utigur, 555 AD

Zol-bon - Mamluk - Commander of Hun auxiliaries in Byzantine army, 491 AD


*EDIT* made the main groups bold faced

holderlin
12-05-18, 07:31
it's surprising but Celts had no stirrup (according to my readings): they only had specific "horned" saddles; and the Gaulish Celtic cavalry was better than the Roman one; someones say it's only when Romans took with them Germancis cavalry that they won their cavalries oppositions against Celts -

It must have had something to do with how they trained the horse, or else it's hard to reason with. Perhaps they used their legs more to manipulate them.

bicicleur
12-05-18, 11:48
if I understand well the Damgaard counterdicts the recent Laziridis paper on the subject of the ASI cline formed in IVC

Laziridis describes ASI cline as AASI + Iranian Farmer + West Siberian HG,
while Damgaard says IVC period in India is AASI + Namazga CA, and Namazga CA as Iranian farmer + EHG (and absence of CHG)

bicicleur
12-05-18, 12:05
so, Anatolian and Aegean bronze age would not come from Iran Neo, but from CHG,
and what about Khvalynsk EN and Yamna? is it EHG + Iran Neo, or is it EHG + CHG, or EHG + Iran Neo + CHG?

Promenade
12-05-18, 13:55
if I understand well the Damgaard counterdicts the recent Laziridis paper on the subject of the ASI cline formed in IVC

Laziridis describes ASI cline as AASI + Iranian Farmer + West Siberian HG,
while Damgaard says IVC period in India is AASI + Namazga CA, and Namazga CA as Iranian farmer + EHG (and absence of CHG)

I noticed this too, one paper mentions Namazga as an early source of "west Eurasian" ancestry, but it seems like the other paper makes it clear they actually introduced EHG ancestry with them. Despite this I think Namazga CA is just a proxy for an Iran Neo rich population since Damgaard didn't have other samples from the Turan or Indus to explain this ancestry in South Asians. Iran_Neo probably entered South Asia as early as Mehrgarh so Namazga CA is way too young to have been the primary source of this ancestry.

If the rest of the BMAC didn't contribute to the genetic legacy of South Asia I highly doubt Namazga CA did, but then again it's possible the canals at Shortugai were inspired by Namazga technology and Namazga is known to have traded with the IVC and introduced certain millets to them. That being said I really don't think Namazga CA had any large contribution to modern South Asians, they might be picking up on ancestry basal to Namazga from the Jeitun culture or earlier, the same cultures that were interacting with Mehrgarh and probably had Iran Neo ancestry without any EHG.

bicicleur
12-05-18, 14:14
I noticed this too, one paper mentions Namazga as an early source of "west Eurasian" ancestry, but it seems like the other paper makes it clear they actually introduced EHG ancestry with them. Despite this I think Namazga CA is just a proxy for an Iran Neo rich population since Damgaard didn't have other samples from the Turan or Indus to explain this ancestry in South Asians. Iran_Neo probably entered South Asia as early as Mehrgarh so Namazga CA is way too young to have been the primary source of this ancestry.

If the rest of the BMAC didn't contribute to the genetic legacy of South Asia I highly doubt Namazga CA did, but then again it's possible the canals at Shortugai were inspired by Namazga technology and Namazga is known to have traded with the IVC and introduced certain millets to them. That being said I really don't think Namazga CA had any large contribution to modern South Asians, they might be picking up on ancestry basal to Namazga from the Jeitun culture or earlier, the same cultures that were interacting with Mehrgarh and probably had Iran Neo ancestry without any EHG.

I agree, the IVC population was the result of local HG + many immigrations of Iranian herders since 9 ka.
Yet I'm surprised there is also some EHG in it, albeit non-steppe CA/EBA.

And yes, IVC is way older than both BMAC and Namazga CA, so both can only be proxies, nothing more.

A. Papadimitriou
12-05-18, 16:32
if I understand well the Damgaard counterdicts the recent Laziridis paper on the subject of the ASI cline formed in IVC
Laziridis describes ASI cline as AASI + Iranian Farmer + West Siberian HG,
while Damgaard says IVC period in India is AASI + Namazga CA, and Namazga CA as Iranian farmer + EHG (and absence of CHG)

I wonder how a model like Iranian Neolithic + EHG + East Asian would work..

MOESAN
13-05-18, 00:06
It must have had something to do with how they trained the horse, or else it's hard to reason with. Perhaps they used their legs more to manipulate them.

more soupleness on the horse, more possiblity to hide on one side of it before reappearing and shouting or striking?
Only hypothesis. I'm not found of horses, only on pictures!

MOESAN
13-05-18, 00:13
Just a general observation: all these scholars papers use different basic reference elements for their admixtures, even when they keep the name, the basis is not completely defined the same way: boring!

Milan.M
13-05-18, 00:40
Yeah I'm fine with your stirrup theory. And cranial deformation evidence. All good.
Most of these tribes by this time had some East Asian and Siberian admixture along with some Turkic speakers. They were mostly Iranian in the West and increasingly East Asian in the East as we moved into the Middle Ages. Of course the Iranians were the original gangsters. We all know that.
The issue with the Huns is that they were entirely illiterate but we have a ton of names from correspondences with Romans using Roman scribes on both sides.
They were very much a confederation with a bunch of Germanic tribes joining them, so there is of course a bunch of German names but we don't care about those.
Below are the most likely classifications
Iranian Names

something-manos - Iranian - "Massaget" spear man in the Byzantine army, 540 AD
Ama-bazuka - Old Iranian - Hun Chieftain in the Caucasus, 500 AD
Balas - Persian - Commander of six hundred Massaget auxiliaries, all mounted archers, in Belisarius' army in 533 AD
Xorz-aman - Ossetic - "Massaget" bodyguard of Belisarius
Xorz-amond - Ossetic - "Massaget" bodyguard of Belisarius
Sturak - Persian (the Roman scribes had actually changed his name to the Greek Styrax because it sounded better to them) - Caucasian Hun Leader, led the war with Glones against the Sabir, 500 AD
Glones - Persian (Grecized) - Caucasian Hun Leader, led the war with Sturak against the Sabir, 500 AD
Zabergan - Persian - Leader of the Kutrigur Huns, 555 AD
Zarmihr - Persian - "Massaget" in the Byzantine Army, 549 AD
Turkic Names - Apparently these were a ***** to figure out, the few listed are very likely to be Turkic
Altyev - Kazakh - leader of Hun auxiliaries in Byzantine army, 530 AD
Ataqam - Turkish - A Hun of noble birth, 433 AD
Basiq - Some kind of Turkic. Didn't specify. - Hun Leader, 395 AD
Bairika - Didn't specify
Dangiziq (or something like that) All Turkic languages - A son of Atilla - This one Priscus heard pronounced at Atilla's court. Isn't that crazy? That I'm sitting here recounting a Hunnic chieftain name that some Byzantine Diplomat heard before dinner 2000 years ago.
Elmingir - Tunguz
Aruvkahn - Qaraqalpak girl's name - Atilla's wife
Sandal - Mamluk - Ruler of Utigur, 555 AD
Zol-bon - Mamluk - Commander of Hun auxiliaries in Byzantine army, 491 AD
*EDIT* made the main groups bold faced
Perhaps a mixed horde and clans,the very ruling elite of Attila seem Turkic or not Indo-European at least,also his son names like Diengizich,Ellac and Ernak.Let me add more names;
Sinnion given Persian etimology,he was veteran of Vandal war,leader of Kutrigur Huns.Chinialon also Kutrigur,Zabergan another Kutrigur you mentioned it.I think Kutrigur is connected with personal Bulgar name "Kotrag" one of their kings.We can continue with Bulgar names as Hunnic descendants:Gostun,Bezmer,Asparukh(classified as Iranian) Tervel,Sevar,Kormisosh,Vinekh,Sabin,Telets,Umor,Ku ber,Kardam,Pagan,Telerig,Kormesiy,Batbayan,Omurtag ,Krum etc.At least some seem Indo-European.

Brennos
13-05-18, 12:04
So, actually we have a Elite indivudal belonging to G2a2b2a1b-L497
And a ¿non-Elite? R1b individual as I understand from the data.

In the supplementary informations is written that for Bylany the skeletal remains are supposed to belong to noble immigrants, whereas the burnt remains to locals. So, the P312 guy was an lite Celt. Next to the burial site there was a Celt manor, so it is possible that the people buried there were the lords of that manor.

Milan.M
13-05-18, 13:31
So, actually we have a Elite indivudal belonging to G2a2b2a1b-L497
And a ¿non-Elite? R1b individual as I understand from the data.
Even if that is the case considering that Hallstatt begin with outside influence this is not surprise. Likely the Iron age begin in Koban from where with "Thraco Cimmerian" culture spread in Hallstatt and Europe.

ToBeOrNotToBe
31-05-18, 18:36
Thanks, Pax! That's all I needed!

So Hallstatt Celts are most similar to modern South Germans, French and South English (and presumably also Belgians who plot right in the middle of these three populations but aren't listed).

The list of haplogroups from GEDMatch is great. I wonder why the authors of the paper didn't bother to list the deep clades in the supplementary information. That's not professional at all on their part.

Looks pretty similar to the French and German component from 23andme, however I suspect that the Hallstatt-like admix in the Southern Benelux sort of area isn't mostly directly Hallstatt, but just very similar (broadly "purer" Celtic admix, like with the Insular Celts, plus some Neolithic Central European admix).

The only place that seems to be truly the descendents of the Hallstatt culture, perhaps even significantly "pure", is in Alemannic areas, ESPECIALLY around Basel (it's that red haired area in NW Switzerland on your red hair map), which is actually redder than Eastern England which is very weird to me.

My paternal line (I1) probably (! - though it definitely is not from conversion/whatever within the last few hundred years as it would have shown up autosomally) comes from one of these guys during the original Ashkenazi settlement in the Rhineland, which is cool to me, as I have massive admiration for the cultural achievements of (mostly) Southern Germanics, so there's that.

I wonder how much post-Hallstatt and la Tene Germanic admixture there really is in Switzerland in particular...

Sile
31-05-18, 20:15
Looks pretty similar to the French and German component from 23andme, however I suspect that the Hallstatt-like admix in the Southern Benelux sort of area isn't mostly directly Hallstatt, but just very similar (broadly "purer" Celtic admix, like with the Insular Celts, plus some Neolithic Central European admix).
The only place that seems to be truly the descendents of the Hallstatt culture, perhaps even significantly "pure", is in Alemannic areas, ESPECIALLY around Basel (it's that red haired area in NW Switzerland on your red hair map), which is actually redder than Eastern England which is very weird to me.
My paternal line (I1) probably (! - though it definitely is not from conversion/whatever within the last few hundred years as it would have shown up autosomally) comes from one of these guys during the original Ashkenazi settlement in the Rhineland, which is cool to me, as I have massive admiration for the cultural achievements of (mostly) Southern Germanics, so there's that.
I wonder how much post-Hallstatt and la Tene Germanic admixture there really is in Switzerland in particular...
Germanic ?...you mean gallic-celts ..........I do not recall any germanic people south of the danube ( unless mercenaries) before or during the Roman period.
celts control central and south germany in the bronze and early iron ages with their capital mostly likely near frankfurt
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glauberg.
.
another important town was
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heuneburg

Angela
03-06-18, 18:10
Well, for anyone interested in using the Damgard et al samples, you might want to consider this comment posted by Kurd:

"Notice to anyone using the Damgaard samples or other aDNA samples. There are many samples with coverage issues, and many which are complete outliers to the populations they are identified with.

Whether you are a blogger, researcher, or hobbyist, it’s IMPERATIVE that you take a couple of days to identify and remove those problem samples the datasets, otherwise analysis can get screwed (results not making sense) up whether using f3s, f4s, qpAdm, or ADMIXTURE, by those problem samples.

I have myself spent the past few days doing just that, and have removed dozens of samples with the goal of having the most accurate dataset out there BEFORE starting analysis.


Edit: qpAdm is extremely tricky to use (Patterson will be the 1st to tell you that). Results greatly vary based on the selection of rt pops. Even I’m not very comfortable in using it. Thus no one should rely solely on qpAdm to reach any conclusions. F3s and f4s are much safer to use and base conclusions on."