Ancient genomes from Caucasus inc. Maykop

[Ygorcs]

Samara was labeled L278 so at the beginning of the phylogenetic tree.

Isn't it possible that they just lacked enough genetic data in the sample to be more precise than that? Even the earliest R1b of the Villabruna cluster 14,000 years ago was already downstream of L278, L754, how likely is it that the Samara people still carrieed L278* (unless it just happened that they found an exceptional outlier)?

 

[Cpluskx]

Native American languages, most of whom must derive from the same language family or a couple of language families, range from polysynthetic to fusional and agglutinative.The boundaries between one typology and the other one are not insurmountable, they are rather fluid.

But still mostly agglutinative.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Does the Areni-1 sample I1634 have much Anatolian farmer ancestry? If not, it maybe suggests that it came to the Caucasus before Maykop. If it does have Anatolian farmer ancestry, it suggests the arrival of CHG on the Steppe is too early to be related to PIE.

EDIT: It has a large chunk of Anatolian farmer ancestry, for some reason better modelled as EEF. Am I right in saying Yamnaya has some EEF, but Eneolithic Steppe has none? In any case, the EHG is surely maternal with Armenia ChL.

 

[Pip]

Does the Areni-1 sample I1634 have much Anatolian farmer ancestry? If not, it maybe suggests that it came to the Caucasus before Maykop. If it does have Anatolian farmer ancestry, it suggests the arrival of CHG on the Steppe is too early to be related to PIE.

EDIT: It has a large chunk of Anatolian farmer ancestry, for some reason better modelled as EEF. Am I right in saying Yamnaya has some EEF, but Eneolithic Steppe has none? In any case, the EHG is surely maternal with Armenia ChL.

If I recall, Areni does have Anatolian, and Yamnaya has very little.
Areni is striking in that it models as the second largest contributor to Ezero, which itself models as the second largest contributor to R1b Bell Beaker.

 

[halfalp]

@Pip Why exactly did you negatively respond to my Samara HG message?

 

[Ygorcs]

But still mostly agglutinative.

Exactly the same case with North Eurasian languages if PIE is one of them: mostly, but not all agglutinative. In any case, fusional and agglutinative languages are not worlds apart. Fusional languages tend to appear merely by agglutinative languages "collapsing" their morphemes into one only morpheme carrying all the meanings that previously two or three different morphemes had. It's more a gradual transformation from one typology to the other, not a strictly separate category.

Besides, I maintain that, given EHG being mostly WHG-like, ANE having been overwhelmed by East Asian ancestry, and many other genetic transformations since the Middle Paleolithic in North Eurasia, there is just no evidence that all language families of that region must all derive from ANE languages (that is, if - and that's a big if - ANE people all spoke the same language family).

 

[Pip]

@Pip Why exactly did you negatively respond to my Samara HG message?

Sorry, when was this? I don't remember doing it.

 

[johen]

Afanasievo kurgan

http://johnhawks.net/weblog/hawks/travel/anthropologist-and-the-kurgans-2012.html

So smart Anthony tried to say that the afanasievo were from Repin, which is not the East. The East would be a place where M73 with horse, CHG and Q1a with the oldest wagon and EDAR gathered around before bronze age: south east Ural, sintashta zone.

https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...-best-fit-analysis/page13?p=565319#post565319

Did the afanasievo people enter Mongolian steppe or not? problem is Shatar chuluu culture.

Molecular evidences of paleogeographical ancestry of neolithic proto-mongolians and their craniofacial reconstruction


Abstract


To give thumbnail sketch of genetic lineage, physical appearance and dietary life of Neolithic proto-Mongolians, two individuals excavated in Dunguljin, Dornod, Eastern Mongolia and Shatar chuluu, Bayankhongor, Western Mongolia were examined for haplotypes/haplogroups of mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) and Y chromosome, craniofacial features and carbon/nitrogen stable isotopic signatures. Physical anthropological analysis revealed that Eastern and Western individuals were Mongoloid and Caucasoid, respectively, and were all males by amelogenin-based sex determination. Eastern individual belonged to mtDNA haplogroup D4e5b and Y haplogroup C2 whereas Western individual was affiliated to mtDNA haplogroup N1a1a1a and Y haplogroup R1b, indicating that Eastern and Western individuals had Mongoloid and Caucasoid origins given their patrilineal and matrilineal lineages. In addition, HIrisplex estimation for alleles of pigment-associated SNP markers showed that both individuals had brown eyes, black hair and light brown skin. Interestingly, combining results of HIrisplex estimations and computerized 3D modelling based craniofacial reconstruction, Western proto-Mongolian revealed mixed physical appearance between Mongoloid and Caucasoid, although his patrilineal and matrilineal origins were all Caucasoid. His brown eyes and black hair may imply that alleles of genes determining eye and hair colors were not mutated to reveal light-colored eyes and hair in Neolithic proto-Mongolians. Carbon and nitrogen stable isotopic values of bone collagen were -16.6‰ and 12.8‰ in Eastern Mongoloid and -18.6‰ and 11.3‰ in Western Caucasoid, respectively. This may indicate that the staple diets of Neolithic proto-Mongolians consisted of C3/C4 mixed plant foods with small proportion of C4, mainly millet, and high amount of meat sources, presumably including freshwater fishes. This investigation clearly indicates that Eastern and Western parts of the Mongolian Plateau were occupied by individuals with Mongoloid and Caucasoid genetic lineages, respectively, but were not mixed in their genetic makeups. However, difference of their physical appearance was not so apparent compared to that in modern Asian and European.


Open Access http://www.riss.kr/link?id=T14428880

http://www.ranhaer.org/forum.php?mod=viewthread&tid=38530&extra=page=1

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

What do you think that means? I don't know if I understood your point (or the map's legend) well, but the Leyla Tepe vs. North Caucasian kurgans look like they are separated by a strong genetic barrier...

We don't have Leyla-Tepe genomes, so I'm withholding judgement. I used to think it was the source of Yamnayan CHG, but I'm not sure given it likely had ANF.

The map is just to show that penetration of the Caucasus goes through Ossetia, and that perhaps not by coincidence those Nalchik (=Steppe Eneolithic, seemingly spread Kurgan culture to rest of Steppe) samples were based around that area.

 

[MOESAN]

I 'm afraid some ancient Y-DNA findings were not good enough to provide all useful SNP's. It's not the first time.
So "archaic" Y-R1b in Steppes and before in Samara HG's ...?

 

[markod]

I 'm afraid some ancient Y-DNA findings were not good enough to provide all useful SNP's. It's not the first time.
So "archaic" Y-R1b in Steppes and before in Samara HG's ...?

Pre-R1b-M478 in Samara. Quite removed from what we're intereested in.

 

[markod]

So much for all those old models. Barely any EHG in Yamnaya and Hajji Firuz admixture is just about zero:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rf5MWJaCE-rkW_9WEiLDdmzTbjpy_7v_njROaO9LvCo/edit?usp=sharing

Yamnaya/CWC increasingly look like immigrants.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

So much for all those old models. Barely any EHG in Yamnaya and Hajji Firuz admixture is just about zero:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rf5MWJaCE-rkW_9WEiLDdmzTbjpy_7v_njROaO9LvCo/edit?usp=sharing

Yamnaya/CWC increasingly look like immigrants.

Wdym barely any EHG in Yamnaya, where is that coming from?

 

[markod]

Wdym barely any EHG in Yamnaya, where is that coming from?

Just speculation, but the confounding variable might have been native Ukranian and Baltic admixture.

The confusion about the CHG component in EHG should have been a red flag already IMHO. It's very difficult to pick those components apart once they have coalesced and stablelized

 

[halfalp]

So much for all those old models. Barely any EHG in Yamnaya and Hajji Firuz admixture is just about zero:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1rf5MWJaCE-rkW_9WEiLDdmzTbjpy_7v_njROaO9LvCo/edit?usp=sharing

Yamnaya/CWC increasingly look like immigrants.

Can you explain the results of those sheets? CWC cannot have 0 WHG and EHG and 0.5% Yoruba or 1.2% of Levant_Neo. That is virtually impossible.

 

[Megalophias]

The WHG is contained mainly in Globular Amphora, the EHG mainly in Progress Eneolithic.

 

[markod]

Can you explain the results of those sheets? CWC cannot have 0 WHG and EHG and 0.5% Yoruba or 1.2% of Levant_Neo. That is virtually impossible.

Why? CWC is just north Caucasian Steppe with additional local ancestry, esp. GAC which had lots of Mesolithic ancestry.

 

[halfalp]

Why? CWC is just north Caucasian Steppe with additional local ancestry, esp. GAC which had lots of Mesolithic ancestry.

If you consider WHG and EHG are real entities and not just offshoots of CHG. Then it's mathematically impossible. We are changing terminology for nothing here. So modern Baltic people with high WHG, is in fact just GAC ancestry and not WHG. Also the GAC paper of 2017-2018 speaks about 100% EEF wich itself only countains little WHG. So taking the terminologies of your sheets, Yoruba and Levante_Neolithic represent Basal Eurasian, then. Also why if WHG is picked up by GAC, why is there a distinction between GAC and Barcin wich is virtually the same ancestry, and not a distinction between GAC and WHG?

 

[markod]

If you consider WHG and EHG are real entities and not just offshoots of CHG. Then it's mathematically impossible. We are changing terminology for nothing here. So modern Baltic people with high WHG, is in fact just GAC ancestry and not WHG. Also the GAC paper of 2017-2018 speaks about 100% EEF wich itself only countains little WHG. So taking the terminologies of your sheets, Yoruba and Levante_Neolithic represent Basal Eurasian, then. Also why if WHG is picked up by GAC, why is there a distinction between GAC and Barcin wich is virtually the same ancestry, and not a distinction between GAC and WHG?

I'm equally suspicious of CHG as anything more than a transient population. For those Steppe samples I think the source population will most likely be in the east.

Afaik the Mesolithic Huto cave samples already were intermediate between CHG and EHG. Probably not eastern enough though.

 

[halfalp]

I'm equally suspicious of CHG as anything more than a transient population. For those Steppe samples I think the source population will most likely be in the east.

Afaik the Mesolithic Huto cave samples already were intermediate between CHG and EHG. Probably not eastern enough though.

The problem is that EHG needs WHG and CHG needs EHG. So here i dont know what i'm talking about, but exactly how could WHG be in East Caspian? The EHG needed in CHG cannot be ANE itself, because it's already in Iran_Neo. Also, remember ourselves that Dzudzuana is not directly related with CHG, but is highly related with Anatolian and Levante Neolithic. It looks like the ancestor of CHG, but not CHG proper have to come from Eastern Europe and get BA ancestry South of the Caucasus at some point. We are probably talking here about something that old as Epigravettian in North Caucasus.