Bronze Age Bulgarian sample

[Arame]

From Davidski's blog

----------
Indeed, in regards to the Balkans being something unique during the Bronze Age, I also don't think so. This is where a Bronze Age Bulgarian clusters on the usual type of West Eurasian PCA (just west of Tuscans)...



Source:

http://docslide.us/science/decoding-...equencing.html

So Bronze Age Bulgarians weren't all that different from Bronze Age Hungarians, just more southern.

That sample does clearly have some ANE, because it's shifted east of Sardinians, but it obviously doesn't look very Balkan. That's probably because it lacks the West Asian proper admixture that arrived in southeastern Europe during the Iron Age and early Medieval period.

For comparison, a similar type of PCA featuring a variety of other ancient samples:

[Angela]

From Davidski's blog

----------
Indeed, in regards to the Balkans being something unique during the Bronze Age, I also don't think so. This is where a Bronze Age Bulgarian clusters on the usual type of West Eurasian PCA (just west of Tuscans)...



Source:

http://docslide.us/science/decoding-...equencing.html

So Bronze Age Bulgarians weren't all that different from Bronze Age Hungarians, just more southern.

That sample does clearly have some ANE, because it's shifted east of Sardinians, but it obviously doesn't look very Balkan. That's probably because it lacks the West Asian proper admixture that arrived in southeastern Europe during the Iron Age and early Medieval period.

For comparison, a similar type of PCA featuring a variety of other ancient samples:

I don't know who said the Bronze Age people from the Balkans were all that different from Bronze Age Hungarians. I certainly didn't. In fact, I could speculate that perhaps even people in Bronze Age Greece (if you don't consider that the Balkans) and perhaps even people in certain parts of Bronze Age Italy were pretty similar. If the abstract of the upcoming paper on the ancient Etruscans has been interpreted correctly, the Etruscans weren't all that different. (To the best of my recollection, as well as plotting near modern southern Europeans, they appeared to be pretty close to Montenegrin Bronze Age samples?) Perhaps, during the Bronze Age, large swathes of southern Europe (and some areas in central Europe) were pretty similar, or at least their elites were, because after all we're getting samples only from those kind of burials. I think that's an extremely important consideration, by the way. We do have some poor quality Iron Age samples from the Balkans where the elites were slightly more similar to central Europeans and the lower classes were still pretty "Sardinian" like. I'm aware those samples were of poor quality, so hopefully more and better preserved samples will clarify matters.

As to the "ANE" shift in these Bronze Age samples, I think we can at least say that it is less than is present in modern day eastern Europeans. In terms of the Balkans and the rest of southern Europe, I think we could speculate that:

1) gene flow from the steppe areas into the Balkans was rather minimal, more of an elite migration model versus a massive demic replacement, or

2) the Anthony Kurgan model is wrong in terms of migration patterns as well as in other particulars, and the Indo-Europeans who went into the Balkans were not an EHG/"Teal" mix, but closer to a more strictly "Teal" population, i.e. ancient Near Eastern farmer mixed with ANE of uncertain origin, with only minimal WHG. It's not that this migration pattern hasn't been posited before. There have certainly been scholars who proposed that the flow of Greek, Armenian, etc. might have moved from the Caucasus along the northern coast of Anatolia, and Greek moved from there into the Aegean. Time will tell, I suppose. (In considering these movements of genes and languages, it would be helpful if the differences between the languages of "Anatolia" itself are kept clear. The earliest "Anatolian" is on a different branch, in my opinion, and may have a very different migration history from the other Anatolian languages. Or, it may not. In terms of the modern age people of the Balkans, it suggests to me that perhaps the Balkans wee subject to more gene flow from Slavic speaking peoples during the early medieval period than I had initially considered feasible.

That actually helps to explain the Tuscan results as well. On PCAs like that of Gamba et al, and partially on your first posted PCA as well, the results can be interpreted as showing that the Tuscans are just very slightly north and quite a bit eastern shifted Sardinians. The northern shift could come mostly from "Indo-European" gene flow from the north (Tuscans are pretty close to northern Italians, closer than other "central" Italians, and have a lot of U-152) The eastern shift might be from such an EEF/ANE population, as well as a smaller part of the northern shift.

As to the Bronze Age Hungarians, they are quite a bit different from other Bronze Age central Europeans from my understanding (?), which indicates either that there was a denser population of Neolithic peoples in that area who survived, or, and perhaps this is more likely, they were impacted by slightly different "Indo-Europeans", perhaps "Indo-European" Corded Ware people who scooped up and incorporated a lot more WHG and were more EHG initially than the first group which migrated into the area of modern Hungary. Of perhaps it's not a question of "or" but "and/or".

All of this has implications for the definition of "Indo-European" peoples. I thought the genetics was supposed to clarify the issue, but I personally have less clarity now than I did before. If we go by the Anthony criteria of the people on the Pontic Caspian steppe from 4,000 to 3,000 BC who had the particular set of cultural hall marks associated with them, and spoke a particular language, then these were the Yamnaya people, a mix of EHG and "modern Armenian" like or Teal people. However, I am beginning to doubt that this specific group provided the populations who actually moved into Europe, Anatolia, the east, India, etc. So, perhaps we should be talking about the "Indo-Europeanized" people who brought that demic and language change?

(My comments are based on the first PCA you provided. I have much less confidence in the second one. If nothing else, by every other measure of which I'm aware, Oetzi is much closer to modern southern European populations, as is Gok, than would appear from that schematic. I think I'll wait for the upcoming papers from the Reich group.)

Anyway, these are my current speculations. As more data emerges, perhaps it will become clearer.

[Fire Haired14]

@Angela,

BTW, everyone from Western Anatolia-Italy was probably basically the same in 3000-4000 BC.

[Angela]

@Angela,

BTW, everyone from Western Anatolia-Italy was probably basically the same in 3000-4000 BC.

Fire Haired, you've made vast generalizations before about Italian genetic history only to be proved wrong. A little caution might be in order when you hear these things from people who haven't really thought it through.

As to this particular claim, before about 3000 BC, and probably later, virtually everyone in southern, central and northwestern Europe was pretty similar, I think (i.e. Remedello versus other MN sites), except for those hunter gatherer groups on the fringes beyond the borders of Neolithic farming settlement (particularly in northeast and far eastern Europe), so that isn't anything particular to Italy.

The changes in those areas occurred with the "Indo-European" migrations. Those peoples may have been different genetically depending on their particular path of migration and what genetic signatures they picked up along the way. Those migrations might also have been the catalyst for the incorporation of some of these remnant hunter-gatherer groups. I am, and have for a while, been speculating that the "Indo-European" influence into Italy arrived from two different directions, one from north of the Alps, and one mediated by the early proto-Greeks, Cretans etc., or at least by migrations from that direction, and that there would have been some differences genetically between these two groups. Therefore, I suspect that there may have been a north/south cline in Italy even in the mid-to-late Bronze Age which only became greater with the Celtic migrations into the North and the Greek migration that settled areas of the south, both of which occurred in the Iron Age.

So, I would say, of course, that we need to wait for ancient samples, but I suspect that even in the mid-to-late Bronze Age there might have been variation in Italy. What the genetics were like in the Near East, specifically Anatolia, and then even more specifically in western Anatolia in that mid Bronze Age time period, I don't know. Certainly, if we look at Anatolians today, they are quite different. What they were like in the mid Bronze Age depends on how much additional gene flow they had picked up by that time from the direction of Saudi Arabia, and how different it might have been from the feeder populations of the early Anatolian Neolithic, and how much ANE had made its way to western Anatolia by that time. Approached in another way, one could ask how much "Indo-European" gene flow there was even into western Anatolia versus how much had reached Greece and Italy.

I think another reason for caution is that we don't know if these elite Bronze Age people anywhere were totally representative of the mass of the population.

It's interesting to look at this in the context of the Iron Age as well. I'm actually more comfortable speculating that the people in western Anatolia were probably pretty similar to the people of peninsular Greece and therefore of southern Italy in the Iron Age, but that's because the Greeks settled both parts of southern Italy and the western most parts of Anatolia.

Cavalli Sforza recognized that years ago.

His PC4:


Just as a reminder of the others:




Pretty good for just blood groups. To some degree, I think people are just reinventing the wheel, although certainly a lot of detail has been added, and it's now backed up by ancient dna.

[Fire Haired14]

@Angela,

I was just making the point that we can now extend EEF territory as late as 3000 BC East of Hungary into Turkey. That's important because it confirms there wasn't ANE anywhere near Italy or the Balkans in the Neolithic. And that New peoples arrived in Italy and the Balkans after the Neolithic and made a sizable impact(based on 8%+ ANE scores, and new comers had at most 35%).

Please keep posting your ideas on who, when, and where.

However it went down I think all the ancestors in 2,500 BC where probably living in native region(Whether it be Balkan or Italy), Central-East Europe-Balkan, and Near East.

Davidiski who somehow constantly gets information no other posters have says:

Based on that talk on the Kumtepe genome given recently, it doesn't sound like Late Neolithic Western Anatolians were much different from Copper Age Southern and Central Europeans.

[Angela]

@Angela,

I was just making the point that we can now extend EEF territory as late as 3000 BC East of Hungary into Turkey. That's important because it confirms there wasn't ANE anywhere near Italy or the Balkans in the Neolithic. And that New peoples arrived in Italy and the Balkans after the Neolithic and made a sizable impact(based on 8%+ ANE scores, and new comers had at most 35%).

Please keep posting your ideas on who, when, and where.

However it went down I think all the ancestors in 2,500 BC where probably living in native region(Whether it be Balkan or Italy), Central-East Europe-Balkan, and Near East.

Davidiski who somehow constantly gets information no other posters have says:

Krefter, I think we have to be careful with the sample locations and most particularly with the DATES.

Kumtepe is 6700 years old, or from around 4700 BC. I think that if it's virtually identical to the early European farmers that tells us that EEF=ENF. (From what I understand there's only a difference of a couple percent?) If the rumors are true, and that is the case for all or most of the genomes from the Neolithic Near East, then that tells us that the early farmers only absorbed a tiny percentage of European specific WHG once they got to Europe. If we then compare the EEF with the MN samples we'll know how many hunter gatherers were absorbed from the Early Neolithic to the Mid Neolithic and Copper Age.

I frankly don't understand the quote that based on the Kumtepe genome, we know that late Neolithic Western Anatolians weren't much different from Copper Age Southern and Central Europeans. I thought the similarity was with the early Neolithic European farmers. It was my understanding that MN and late Neolithic/Copper Age central and southern Europeans had absorbed some WHG over and above the UHG that was already part of the genome of the farmers when they were still in the Near East. Isn't that correct? I thought you were saying in another thread that they had absorbed a lot of it, although I disputed that. So, how can this statement be correct? Are there studies or analyses that show that Kumtepe is the same as Remedello or Central European Copper Age samples?

Over and beyond those questions, how can the Kumtepe sample tell us anything about the genetic signatures in western Anatolia in the late Copper Age, much less the Bronze Age around 2500 BC when Kumtepe dates to 4700 BC? That's a difference of 2000 years! Your original statement was that "everyone from Western Anatolia-Italy was probably basically the same in 3,000-4000 BC." I don't see how you get from the Kumtepe (4700 BC) sample's similarity to early Neolithic farmers to this statement about European farming populations in the Copper Age/Bronze Age transition and western Anatolia samples from around the same time ( 3200 BC )being virtually identical. We don't have a sample from that time period in western Anatolia, unless you're saying that one is included in the upcoming Lazardis paper and it has been shown to be the same as Copper Age European samples. That would indeed be news, but I would want to see it in black and white, with the appropriate stats in the paper before I start speculating like that.

If that were the case, and if it is further the case that the MN and Copper Age European farmers had absorbed some signficant amount of WHG since the Early Neolithic, then where did the western Anatolian farmers get their additional WHG, enough to now make them similar to European Copper Age peoples? From the samples from the Armenian Bronze Age, I think it's unlikely it came from the east, don't you? So, would we be looking at some minor gene flow from the steppe into Copper Age Central Europe, Italy and the Balkans, and also into western Anatolia at the same time? Would that fit the timeline for the first wave? If it does, we're talking about really minimal gene flow from that first wave, aren't we? Could that then be the movement which brought with it the "Anatolian" languages (not Armenian)?

Should this actually be true (that Copper Age central and southern Europeans were very similar to western Anatolians from the same time period), then it would probably mean that the ANE in the Near East today didn't arrive that far west until later.

Anyway, Krefter, this is way too much speculation for me without a paper in front of me with all the relevant samples and stats. Still, I think I have the logic right whatever the paper will show.

I would, however, point out that we already knew there wasn't ANE, or at least significant ANE in Italy even in the Copper Age, because we have the Remedello sample. Of course, we don't have any other Copper Age samples from Italy, so ancient dna may yet surprise. We also already knew that there was a change in Italy during the Bronze Age. Othewise, we wouldn't have U-152 levels of 60% in some regions of northern Italy, and we wouldn't be speaking an Indo-European language.

[Fire Haired14]

I didn't know Kumtepe was from 4700 BC. Anyways, Bronze age Bulgarian doesn't seem very far away from SE Euros today. ANE of the form today could have arrived already. But it's just a PCA.

[LeBrok]

From Davidski's blog

----------
Indeed, in regards to the Balkans being something unique during the Bronze Age, I also don't think so. This is where a Bronze Age Bulgarian clusters on the usual type of West Eurasian PCA (just west of Tuscans)...



Source:

http://docslide.us/science/decoding-...equencing.html

So Bronze Age Bulgarians weren't all that different from Bronze Age Hungarians, just more southern.

That sample does clearly have some ANE, because it's shifted east of Sardinians, but it obviously doesn't look very Balkan. That's probably because it lacks the West Asian proper admixture that arrived in southeastern Europe during the Iron Age and early Medieval period.

For comparison, a similar type of PCA featuring a variety of other ancient samples:

Keep in mind that when Bronze Age happened people were not mixed as well us today. Mixing of Neolithic population and Bronze Age newcomers took a very long time 1-2 thousand years deep into Iron Age. In Bronze age samples we will find most villages still typical EEF Neolithic folks, and some individuals partially mixed with newcomers (with some WHG and ANE), and also some elite/rules, villages, which going to look genetically like CW and other IE, very rich in WHG and ANE admixtures. It was a long process, not an event.

[Arame]

Fire Haired

I think this Bulgarian sample is much closer to Iron Age rather than to 3000-4000 BC.

[Vallicanus]

Krefter, I think we have to be careful with the sample locations and most particularly with the DATES.

Kumtepe is 6700 years old, or from around 4700 BC. I think that if it's virtually identical to the early European farmers that tells us that EEF=ENF. (From what I understand there's only a difference of a couple percent?) If the rumors are true, and that is the case for all or most of the genomes from the Neolithic Near East, then that tells us that the early farmers only absorbed a tiny percentage of European specific WHG once they got to Europe. If we then compare the EEF with the MN samples we'll know how many hunter gatherers were absorbed from the Early Neolithic to the Mid Neolithic and Copper Age.

I frankly don't understand the quote that based on the Kumtepe genome, we know that late Neolithic Western Anatolians weren't much different from Copper Age Southern and Central Europeans. I thought the similarity was with the early Neolithic European farmers. It was my understanding that MN and late Neolithic/Copper Age central and southern Europeans had absorbed some WHG over and above the UHG that was already part of the genome of the farmers when they were still in the Near East. Isn't that correct? I thought you were saying in another thread that they had absorbed a lot of it, although I disputed that. So, how can this statement be correct? Are there studies or analyses that show that Kumtepe is the same as Remedello or Central European Copper Age samples?

Over and beyond those questions, how can the Kumtepe sample tell us anything about the genetic signatures in western Anatolia in the late Copper Age, much less the Bronze Age around 2500 BC when Kumtepe dates to 4700 BC? That's a difference of 2000 years! Your original statement was that "everyone from Western Anatolia-Italy was probably basically the same in 3,000-4000 BC." I don't see how you get from the Kumtepe (4700 BC) sample's similarity to early Neolithic farmers to this statement about European farming populations in the Copper Age/Bronze Age transition and western Anatolia samples from around the same time ( 3200 BC )being virtually identical. We don't have a sample from that time period in western Anatolia, unless you're saying that one is included in the upcoming Lazardis paper and it has been shown to be the same as Copper Age European samples. That would indeed be news, but I would want to see it in black and white, with the appropriate stats in the paper before I start speculating like that.

If that were the case, and if it is further the case that the MN and Copper Age European farmers had absorbed some signficant amount of WHG since the Early Neolithic, then where did the western Anatolian farmers get their additional WHG, enough to now make them similar to European Copper Age peoples? From the samples from the Armenian Bronze Age, I think it's unlikely it came from the east, don't you? So, would we be looking at some minor gene flow from the steppe into Copper Age Central Europe, Italy and the Balkans, and also into western Anatolia at the same time? Would that fit the timeline for the first wave? If it does, we're talking about really minimal gene flow from that first wave, aren't we? Could that then be the movement which brought with it the "Anatolian" languages (not Armenian)?

Should this actually be true (that Copper Age central and southern Europeans were very similar to western Anatolians from the same time period), then it would probably mean that the ANE in the Near East today didn't arrive that far west until later.

Anyway, Krefter, this is way too much speculation for me without a paper in front of me with all the relevant samples and stats. Still, I think I have the logic right whatever the paper will show.

I would, however, point out that we already knew there wasn't ANE, or at least significant ANE in Italy even in the Copper Age, because we have the Remedello sample. Of course, we don't have any other Copper Age samples from Italy, so ancient dna may yet surprise. We also already knew that there was a change in Italy during the Bronze Age. Othewise, we wouldn't have U-152 levels of 60% in some regions of northern Italy, and we wouldn't be speaking an Indo-European language.

Well written, Angela.

I believe R1b came from Western Asia between the Caucasus and Zagros mountains.

[Fire Haired14]

Keep in mind that when Bronze Age happened people were not mixed as well us today.

mtDNA confirms Steppe came in as tribes/families. East Europeans are more mixed than Corded Ware, but they're basically the same as Unetice. After 2000 BC in some regions there wasn't anymore mixing between EEF/WHG and Steppe.

[MOESAN]

I don't devine what principal thoughts are supported here by someones concerning these Bulgarian BA people
concerning the 'A'PCA I read it as follows:relatively closer to today Western Mediterraneans than to today Eastern Meds and Near-Easterners: compare the axes Sardinian/Armenian and Spain/Bedawin... somewhat more "eastern" than Sardinians and Spanyards but very far from ANE rich populations (Steppes and Caucasus) even farther from them than Toscans and North Italians: as I don't believe Copper and Bronze came with Southwestern Europeans (!), they rather came from Eouth-East, it push me to think (not new!) ANE was surely very rare in Near-East and even in Caucasus at these periods, before I-Eans and Turcs;
by the way, this very southern condition of Bulgarian BA is not surprising knowing Bronze reached Europe by different ways; somone could suggest they were EEF (partly WHGized) acculturated; but I think the sepultures were the elite ones and that we have here Bronze "importers" came from outside Europe (Anatolia?) and not local people, at this time. Perhaps I'm "opening an open door" here?

[Angela]

Someone has told me that the ancient sample is actually that of an Iron Age Thracian. Could someone confirm that?

If it's true, that adds a further level of complexity.

If by the Iron Age, Thracians plot this way, this far west, and this far south, then either 1) the Indo-European migrants into these more southern areas were just an elite group (a more densely populated area in the late Neolithic/Copper Age, versus a more depopulated area in certain parts of central and certainly very northern and eastern and northeastern Europe?), or 2) the Indo-European or Indo-Europeanized group that moved into the Balkans, Greece, etc., was very different autosomally from the Indo-European or Indo-Europeanized group that went into more northern areas.

Does that seem reasonable?

Well, perhaps there's another possibility...Has anyone resequenced the Bronze Age sample from the study that had the 3(?) Iron Age Bulgarians? If they have (or even if they haven't, if this Iron Age sample is also not resequenced), it would be interesting to see it on the same PCA with the Iron Age Thracian, if that's who this is...

If the Bronze Age sample plots further north and east than the Iron Age sample, that might mean that from the Bronze to the Iron Age some additional gene flow came from the southeast, perhaps bearing more sophisticated metallurgy, as I think Moesan is implying. However, isn't that belied by the fact that this sample plots so far west?

Or, perhaps LeBrok is onto something and it just took time for the "mixing" to take place. After all, in that older study with these four ancient Bulgarian samples, we also had an Iron Age person who was still very Oetzi like.

This is what makes all these analyses of migrations so difficult. We're only dealing with elite graves in many cases. We're lucky in this particular case that we have a sacrificial victim who was probably not from an elite background.

I also think it's interesting how different this sample is from the modern samples from, say, Bulgaria. Now, the easy analysis would be to say that modern Bulgarians are shifted north and somewhat east of the Thracian sample because of the Slavic invasions. However, the amount of the influence would depend, wouldn't it, on whether the majority of the people in Iron Age Bulgaria were like the Iron Age Sardinian like sample, like the Iron Age Thracian sample plotted here, or like the perhaps slightly different Bronze Age Bulgarian sample. How would we ever know?

By the way, does anyone know where the Albanians would plot in that first PCA? I don't see them.

@Fire-Haired,
I'm not doubting that there was a migration of "eastern" peoples into parts of "non-eastern" Europe around 3000 to 2500 BC. I'm just starting to doubt whether they were really "steppe" Yamnaya Indo-Europeans genetically. I also think it's pretty clear that these "eastern" origin peoples didn't have the same impact in southern Europe, whether southwestern, central or southeastern, that they did in, especially, northern Europe (whether northwestern, or northeastern).

I also do agree that these people brought some of their women with them. How many, though? Some clades of U5 already existed in the west. How much new U5 and U4 came along, bearing in mind that the combination of all clades of those lineages barely reaches 20% anywhere in Europe? U2e barely reaches 1 to 2% so its barely relevant. Then we can look at all the other clades. H1 and H3 have a huge presence in Europe today. How much was on the steppe or the forest steppe or the far northeast? There are other European Neolithic specific mtDna lines.

In order to get some sort of estimate for how male mediated the migrations were, I think you have to sort out all the Pontic Caspian steppe and EHG/SHG mtDna and compare it to frequencies for Europe as a whole. There are also bound to be some regional differences.

By the way, have you been comparing your tallies with the general picture seen by Brandt, Haak et al for the transitions in central Europe?



Brandt et al:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4039305/

[Fire Haired14]

@Angela,

This Thracian is really confusing. I'm going to ask Davidski to analysis the Low Coverage Bronze age Montenegrin.

I investigated Steppe-mtDNA frequencies at my Blog(See here).

Haplogroups found at 40-60% in Yamnaya/Catacomb and 2.6% in Early Neolithic farmers, are as high as 30% in Volga/Ural, 20% in East Europe, 15-18% in the Balkans.

U5a and U4 look like the main lineages introduced by Steppe folk. H1+H3 look like Neolithic/Mesolithic markers. They were popular in Neolithic farmers and rare in Yamnaya/Catacomb. Only a few H subclades can be identified with HVR1+HVR2 coverage. There are probably H clades mostly of Steppe-decent which would raise the frequency of Steppe mtDNA.

I found studies which did control-region testing of H and there is regional variation. H, X, N2, and N1 are the only haplogroups I haven't found big differences between West Asia and Europe in because of low coverage. The variation I'm finding isn't always West Asia vs Europe, because I assume that's how it goes. I can't find major differences within West Asia and Europe. I guess I need Fully-sequenced mtDNA for that.

[Sile]

Someone has told me that the ancient sample is actually that of an Iron Age Thracian. Could someone confirm that?

If it's true, that adds a further level of complexity.

If by the Iron Age, Thracians plot this way, this far west, and this far south, then either 1) the Indo-European migrants into these more southern areas were just an elite group (a more densely populated area in the late Neolithic/Copper Age, versus a more depopulated area in certain parts of central and certainly very northern and eastern and northeastern Europe?), or 2) the Indo-European or Indo-Europeanized group that moved into the Balkans, Greece, etc., was very different autosomally from the Indo-European or Indo-Europeanized group that went into more northern areas.

There are 4 thracian samples, the one they talk about is known as 192.1 , he is from 800BC as is ydna of H1b1-Z14031 ( in the past known as H-F3 ) and mtdna of U3b..................he is not the contaminated one K8 ,which they think was a sycthian from around 450BC

Sample P192-1 was found at the site of a pit sanctuary near Svilengrad, Bulgaria, excavated between 2004 and 2006. The pits are associated with the Thracian culture and date to the Early Iron Age (800–500 BC) based on pottery found in the pits

Sample T2G2 was found in a Thracian tumulus (burial mound) near the village of Stambolovo, Bulgaria. Two small tumuli dating to the Early Iron Age (850–700 BC) were excavated in 2008. A canine tooth from an inhumation burial of a child (c.12 years old) inside a dolium was used for DNA analysis.

Sample V2 was found in a flat cemetery dating to the Late Bronze Age (1500–1100 BC) near the village of Vratitsa, Bulgaria. Nine inhumation burials were excavated between 2003 and 2004. A molar from a juvenile male (age 16–17) was used for DNA analysis.

Sample K8 was found in the Yakimova Mogila Tumulus, which dates to the Iron Age (450–400 BC), near Krushare, Bulgaria. An aristocratic inhumation burial containing rich grave goods was excavated in 2008. A molar from one individual, probably male, was used for DNA analysis.


admixture of 192.1 see below
K12b

• 45.82% Caucasus
• 26.87% Atlantic_Med
• 21.68% North_European
• 2.36% Sub_Saharan
• 2.01% Northwest_African
• 1.26% Siberian
  
  all the above samples come from this paper
  
  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3824117/

[Aaron1981]

There are 4 thracian samples, the one they talk about is known as 192.1 , he is from 800BC as is ydna of H1b1-Z14031 ( in the past known as H-F3 ) and mtdna of U3b..................he is not the contaminated one K8 ,which they think was a sycthian from around 450BC

If their entire assertion that he's contaminated due to his partial west European looking genome, then I suspect it's a baseless allegation.

[Sile]

If their entire assertion that he's contaminated due to his partial west European looking genome, then I suspect it's a baseless allegation.

The only sample they note as being contaminated is sample K8

also
IIRC, T2G2 sample is mtdna of HV .............HV is found in abundance in north-East Italy

[Angela]

Then this 192.1 sample is the one that was at the time labeled as still being rather "Sardinian like"?

Well, he's eastern shifted, but he is indeed as far south and maybe a bit further south than the Sardinians.

However, he was a sacrificial victim wasn't he? So, what are the odds that he was a member of an elite group?

It seems to me that getting that Bronze Age Bulgarian resequenced, (as well as the Thracians) would be very important. From what I remember, the Bronze Age one was rather "French like" wasn't he?

I'll re-read the paper as soon as I get a chance.

[Angela]

By the way, Sardinians are 70.5 Atlantic Med and only around 20.5 Caucasus.

If someone can quickly lay their hands on the K12b results for Oetzi and Stuttgart that would be helpful. This guy doesn't look like an early European farmer to me. He has a lot of Caucasus, but substantial amounts of Atlanto-Med and Northern European as well.

Just quickly eyeballing the spreadsheet for modern populations, I don't see anything similar.

Has anyone run the Yamnaya samples and the Bronze and Iron Age Armenians through this? How about that J2 Bronze Age Hungarian?

[Arame]

This is the admixture graphs from Allentoft 2015.
Montenegro sample is also available.

[MOESAN]

@Angela,

This Thracian is really confusing. I'm going to ask Davidski to analysis the Low Coverage Bronze age Montenegrin.

I investigated Steppe-mtDNA frequencies at my Blog(See here).

Haplogroups found at 40-60% in Yamnaya/Catacomb and 2.6% in Early Neolithic farmers, are as high as 30% in Volga/Ural, 20% in East Europe, 15-18% in the Balkans.

U5a and U4 look like the main lineages introduced by Steppe folk. H1+H3 look like Neolithic/Mesolithic markers. They were popular in Neolithic farmers and rare in Yamnaya/Catacomb. Only a few H subclades can be identified with HVR1+HVR2 coverage. There are probably H clades mostly of Steppe-decent which would raise the frequency of Steppe mtDNA.

I found studies which did control-region testing of H and there is regional variation. H, X, N2, and N1 are the only haplogroups I haven't found big differences between West Asia and Europe in because of low coverage. The variation I'm finding isn't always West Asia vs Europe, because I assume that's how it goes. I can't find major differences within West Asia and Europe. I guess I need Fully-sequenced mtDNA for that.

Please, don't take this as a "tackle"; where did you find mtH1 and H3 were so common everywhere in Neolithic? Maybe I missed something? More recent discoveries? Thanks for answer.

[Fire Haired14]

Please, don't take this as a "tackle"; where did you find mtH1 and H3 were so common everywhere in Neolithic? Maybe I missed something? More recent discoveries? Thanks for answer.

Of the Neolithic Hs tested for H1 nearlly 50% have it.

[Sile]

Of the Neolithic Hs tested for H1 nearlly 50% have it.

the only H1 I can recall from brotherton 2013 paper to haak 2015 paper are

KC553983(HAL39) Brotherton Haplogroup H1e 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G3010A C3107N A4769G G5460A A8860G
A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N A16564N
C16565N
G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

KC553985(DEB21) Brotherton Haplogroup H1j 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G3010A C3107N T4733C A4769G A8860G
A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N A16564N
C16565N
G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

KC553986(KAR6a) Brotherton Haplogroup H1bz 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G1719A G3010A C3107N A4769G A8860G
C14380T A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N
A16564N
C16565N G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N
this one is Ydna of T1a and is from 5200BC in central Germany

which other H1 are there?

[Fire Haired14]

the only H1 I can recall from brotherton 2013 paper to haak 2015 paper are

KC553983(HAL39) Brotherton Haplogroup H1e 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G3010A C3107N A4769G G5460A A8860G
A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N A16564N
C16565N
G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

KC553985(DEB21) Brotherton Haplogroup H1j 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G3010A C3107N T4733C A4769G A8860G
A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N A16564N
C16565N
G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N

KC553986(KAR6a) Brotherton Haplogroup H1bz 23-APR-2013
G1N A2N T3N C4N A5N C6N A7N G8N G9N T10N
C11N T12N A263G A750G A1438G G1719A G3010A C3107N A4769G A8860G
C14380T A15326G T16519C G16558N A16559N C16560N A16561N T16562N C16563N
A16564N
C16565N G16566N A16567N T16568N G16569N
this one is Ydna of T1a and is from 5200BC in central Germany

which other H1 are there?

All my ancient mtDNA data is at my blog: mtdnaatlas at blogspot. There's a link at the top right which says "Link to all my Data".

[Sile]

All my ancient mtDNA data is at my blog: mtdnaatlas at blogspot. There's a link at the top right which says "Link to all my Data".

Ok

All the three I presented a Neolithic and all are registered in Genbank