101 Ancient Eurasian Genomes Available Online

Samples I didn't know where going to be in this study....

>Remedello culture from Italy. The oldest is from 2908-2578 BC and the youngest is from 2134-1773 BC. SOme are male, so we'll get Y DNA.
>Late Bronze age Montenegro.

The rest are Armenian, a shit load of samples from Russia ranging Yamnya-Iron age, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Unetice, LN/BA Scandinavia, LN/BA Hungary. Stuff we've mostly already seen or have a good idea what the results will be.

The Remedello in Italy were chosen because they're suppose to be the earliest IEs of Italy, who gave rise to Italics(got that from Wikipedia), etc. I would rather have Pre-IE DNA from deep in Italy. A good guess is the males will turn out R1b-U152.

Samples are from Remedello I (3400-2800 BC)
 
i could only read some fragments here and there

it seems R1 was replaced by J2 in Armenia and the steppe with the onset of the iron age
maybe that's why we did not find J2 in neolithic and bronze age Europe

i see only 1 E1b : baArm
the spread of E-V13 is still a mystery

it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?
 
it would have been helpfull to know the subclades of the I2 individuals
I2 = I2* , or test for subclades failed?

I'm particularly interested in this. Both Yamna and Italy are just a little out of the range of the highest modern diversity of I2, so it's not an easy guess.
 
J2 both in Iron Age Russia and Altais. This is clearly the geographic distribution of the Scythians during the Iron Age. I have said it in the past already.

Scythians were a mix of R1a*, J2, J1b and some other Haplogroups such as R1b/R2 LT*, G just like any other Indo_Iranic tribe. It gets obvious if you look at the Haplogroup distribution of modern Indo_Iranic speakers. It can't be "acculturated" Haplogroup if it exists among all branches of the Indo_Iranic family.

The Bronze Age individual might have been one of them.
 
Bronze Age Sintashta seems closer to West and EVEN South Europe than East Europe nd BrArmenia.

However with Andronovo it's a different case. This is closer to BrArmenia and East Europe.


Man ancient DNA is so confusing.
 
From the paper

During the 4th millennium BC, large mega settlements of up to 400 hectares with populations in the ten thousands, known as the Tripolje Culture 2, 9, emerged in the western forest-steppe, bordering the steppe. By the middle of the 4th millennium BC, it seems that such large populations could no longer be sustained and the mega-sites gradually collapsed and were left. The Tripolje populations expanded into the steppe 10 where they encountered Maikop groups and adopted individual burials under barrows and metallurgy. Horse domestication and the development of wheeled vehicles, in the style of later prairie wagons, took place to support a mobile pastoral lifestyle.."
 
From the paper
Are they saying that Yamna is mixture of Cucuteni/Tripojie farmer? Or is it in West Yamna and East Yamna was mixed with Caucasian/Maykop framer? Or these farmers were genetically identical/Armenian like?

Man ancient DNA is so confusing.
Yep, they started traveling and mixing big time, lol.
 
J2 both in Iron Age Russia and Altais. .
They needed to expend earlier. It is so ubiquitous in South Europe and defused in all Europe to justify huge Iron Age expansion through all Europe especially the south. I still think they should be find in bronze age or even copper. I guess by Iron Age they ended up in Russia.
 
Are they saying that Yamna is mixture of Cucuteni/Tripojie farmer? Or is it in West Yamna and East Yamna was mixed with Caucasian/Maykop framer? Or these farmers were genetically identical/Armenian like?

As far as I have understand, they say a Maikop population was living on the Steppes, those domesticated Horses, invented the wheel, had Kurgan burials etc. and than Cucuteni/Tripojie culture had a "population explosion" and started to migraate to the Steppes mixing and adopting into the local Maikop groups. Going by that

It seems they have this theories.

1. PIE descend from Maikop culture.

2. PIE descend from the invading CT culture

3. PIE is a hybrid of the Maikop and Neolithic CT culture.
 
They needed to expend earlier. It is so ubiquitous in South Europe and defused in all Europe to justify huge Iron Age expansion through all Europe especially the south. I still think they should be find in bronze age or even copper. I guess by Iron Age they ended up in Russia.

Not as far as Altais. And stiill no sign of J2 during Neolithic. All J appear in connection with Bronze to Iron Age (Indo European) expansion,


By the way Iron Age Russian in this case is actually Siberia. The two samples are from just North of Kazakhstan and the Altais. basically the territory known to us as early Scythia.
 
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but

Using the same "WHG" samples and early farmer samples as Lazaridis and Haak, how do they get to the fact that even early European Neolithic farmers are 50% WHG? I know Lazaridis said the "WHG/UHG" in these people could range from a few percent to 45% but they said any exact figure would have to wait for a Near Eastern early Neolithic farmer. This group doesn't have one does it? So, how do they model that? Is it in the formal stats section? It looks like they just decided to use the Bedouin. I know Lazardis struggled with whether the Bedouin (and which group of Bedouin, with what % of SSA) were a good proxy.

The same thing applies to the "southern" component in Yamnaya. Do they attempt to define it anywhere? I also don't get how the Yamnaya can be half "modern Armenian like" in Lazaridis terms but have no Near Eastern farmer ancestry. Even according to this group's own admixture chart modern Armenians have Yamnaya ancestry and the Neolithic farmer ancestry that went to Europe.

If these "Caucasus" people who mixed with the more northern "steppe" like people (?) to create Yamnaya weren't farmers, were they still of the same general type of ancestry, .i.e. largely of this type of "Basal" Ancestry mixed with some sort of South Eurasian, but weren't part of the Neolithic revolution? But then how does Maykop fit into all of this?

In order to make sense of this doesn't it seem that we really need a Maykop genome? I mean, they talk about all the culture coming through Maykop, the kurgans, the metallurgy, I think they even said the wheel and wagons if I remember correctly, but who were the Maykop people? Are we meant to assume they were the same as the people on the steppe or different? Did they mix?

I'm also confused by their references to CT spreading east onto the steppe. Wouldn't the people of the CT have been European Neolithic farmers? So, why is there no signal of them in Yamnaya? Is it because most of the Yamnaya samples are from the eastern areas? Was it different in the western areas?

I also don't get why they keep talking about this massive influx of genes at least into certain places in Europe when at the most the admixture charts show about, what, 20%?

It doesn't seem to hang together, but maybe it's because I just skimmed it. When I get up tomorrow, all our European members will have figured it all out, yes? :)

Oh, and why did they pick Remedello for the first appearance of the Indo-Europeans in Italy? Ever since it turned out that Oetzi, who was from a related culture, was G2a, it seemed pretty clear, I thought, that Remedello wouldn't be it. The only reason it used to be mentioned as such, I think, is because there was an attempt to link all metallurgy with the Indo-Europeans. Well, maybe they didn't have samples from a later period. Maybe it will turn out that the older scholars were right, and the Italic languages came to Italy from the Balkans, and via the Adriatic.
 
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but

Using the same "WHG" samples and early farmer samples as Lazaridis and Haak, how do they get to the fact that even early European Neolithic farmers are 50% WHG? I know Lazaridis said the "WHG/UHG" in these people could range from a few percent to 45% but they said any exact figure would have to wait for a Near Eastern early Neolithic farmer. This group doesn't have one does it? So, how do they model that? Is it in the formal stats section? It looks like they just decided to use the Bedouin. I know Lazardis struggled with whether the Bedouin (and which group of Bedouin, with what % of SSA) were a good proxy.

That explains why someone with inside information said Armenians are 30% European H&G. Using modern Bedoins as proxy for ENF is absolut nonsense. They also seem to simply put all UHG ancestry under WHG. Not taking into account that EEF is mostly UHG + Basal Eurasian.



Another contradiction in the paper is, that they say "The Caucasus component in Yamna seems to be of native Steppe origin and doesn't come from the South of the Caucasus". Just to say in another statement. "Yamna is based on Maikop groups who merged with incoming CT people". And from where did those Maikop groups come?
 
All I've had time to do is read the text in the Supplementary Info and look at a few of the admixture chars and the yDna, so maybe that's why I'm confused, but

Using the same "WHG" samples and early farmer samples as Lazaridis and Haak, how do they get to the fact that even early European Neolithic farmers are 50% WHG? I know Lazaridis said the "WHG/UHG" in these people could range from a few percent to 45% but they said any exact figure would have to wait for a Near Eastern early Neolithic farmer. This group doesn't have one does it? So, how do they model that? Is it in the formal stats section? It looks like they just decided to use the Bedouin. I know Lazardis struggled with whether the Bedouin (and which group of Bedouin, with what % of SSA) were a good proxy.

The same thing applies to the "southern" component in Yamnaya. Do they attempt to define it anywhere? I also don't get how the Yamnaya can be half "modern Armenian like" in Lazaridis terms but have no Near Eastern farmer ancestry. Even according to this group's own admixture chart modern Armenians have Yamnaya ancestry and the Neolithic farmer ancestry that went to Europe.

If these "Caucasus" people who mixed with the more northern "steppe" like people (?) to create Yamnaya weren't farmers, were they still of the same general type of ancestry, .i.e. largely of this type of "Basal" Ancestry mixed with some sort of South Eurasian, but weren't part of the Neolithic revolution? But then how does Maykop fit into all of this?

In order to make sense of this doesn't it seem that we really need a Maykop genome? I mean, they talk about all the culture coming through Maykop, the kurgans, the metallurgy, I think they even said the wheel and wagons if I remember correctly, but who were the Maykop people? Are we meant to assume they were the same as the people on the steppe or different? Did they mix?

I'm also confused by their references to CT spreading east onto the steppe. Wouldn't the people of the CT have been European Neolithic farmers? So, why is there no signal of them in Yamnaya? Is it because most of the Yamnaya samples are from the eastern areas? Was it different in the western areas?

I also don't get why they keep talking about this massive influx of genes at least into certain places in Europe when at the most the admixture charts show about, what, 20%?

It doesn't seem to hang together, but maybe it's because I just skimmed it. When I get up tomorrow, all our European members will have figured it all out, yes? :)

Oh, and why did they pick Remedello for the first appearance of the Indo-Europeans in Italy? Ever since it turned out that Oetzi, who was from a related culture, was G2a, it seemed pretty clear, I thought, that Remedello wouldn't be it. The only reason it used to be mentioned as such, I think, is because there was an attempt to link all metallurgy with the Indo-Europeans. Well, maybe they didn't have samples from a later period. Maybe it will turn out that the older scholars were right, and the Italic languages came to Italy from the Balkans, and via the Adriatic.

I wrote that model of Lazaridis et al is imprecise/imperfect. I tried to use some mild words. I have stated that conclusions based on this model can be wrong. This model has inconsistencies and approximations, and it will certainly be replaced by a better and more robust models.

...
EEF is hybrid component, ENF is based component, mixed European/Near Eastern Early Farmers

I supposed EEF will be replaced with ENF when scientists have more data.

Using modern Bedoins as proxy for ENF is absolut nonsense.

And I think so. Scientists should sequence a genome from Neolithic Near East, and we will know.

We'll know of more ancient European meta-populations as it will be many more studies and many more genomes are sequenced from across Eurasia and Northern Africa.
 
I am just having a thought now. If Lith/Lat have 0 farmer ancestry whatsoever, should I call my grandpa and tell him to quit what he is doing, since he is genetically incapable? ;)
 
J2 both in Iron Age Russia and Altais. This is clearly the geographic distribution of the Scythians during the Iron Age. I have said it in the past already.

Scythians were a mix of R1a*, J2, J1b and some other Haplogroups such as R1b/R2 LT*, G just like any other Indo_Iranic tribe. It gets obvious if you look at the Haplogroup distribution of modern Indo_Iranic speakers. It can't be "acculturated" Haplogroup if it exists among all branches of the Indo_Iranic family.

The Bronze Age individual might have been one of them.

there is no J2 whatsoever found amognst the bronze age individuals, Indo-Iranain seems to be exclusively R1
iron age Scythian J2 seems very likely
ultimately iron age J2 was replaced by Turkic and Mongolian N1c and C2 (no skelletons analysed yet)
 

This thread has been viewed 175519 times.

Back
Top