New conference on Bronze Age mobility in Europe

[A. Papadimitriou]

What they call 'Iran-related' is probably CHG and they are talking about predominately EEF groups with CHG admixture similar to the 'Minoans'
and what they call 'Steppe-related' is just 'Steppe-like' and partially so.

They could have used labels like 'Aegean-related' and 'Central-Europe-related'. They would have been less wrong.

I don't know who downvoted me but they are wrong.

By the way, the Dzudzuana paper showed that ANE-like ('Siberian HG and Eastern non-African') populations had affected Caucasus and Iran more than 10000 years ago.

The difference is there seems to be a minor Onge affinity in Iran N and a Tianyuan affinity in CHG.

But there is no reason to call CHG 'Iran related', if it came to existence as a result of the admixture of a 'Basal' group with an ANE-rich one inside the Caucasus.

*Anatolian Neolithic like groups existed in 'Near East' ca 26ky ago they say

They write:
"Finally, we can model CHG and samples from Neolithic Iran (Iran_N) as deriving their ancestry largely (~58-64% using qpAdm and ~45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe."

 

[markod]

I don't know who downvoted me but they are wrong.

By the way, the Dzudzuana paper showed that ANE-like ('Siberian HG and Eastern non-African') populations had affected Caucasus and Iran more than 10000 years ago.

The difference is there seems to be a minor Onge affinity in Iran N and a Tianyuan affinity in CHG.

But there is no reason to call CHG 'Iran related', if it came to existence as a result of the admixture of a 'Basal' group with an ANE-rich one inside the Caucasus.

*Anatolian Neolithic like groups existed in 'Near East' ca 26ky ago they say

They write:
"Finally, we can model CHG and samples from Neolithic Iran (Iran_N) as deriving their ancestry largely (~58-64% using qpAdm and ~45-62% using qpGraph) from a Dzudzuana-like population, but with ancestry from both ‘Deep’ and ANE sources, thus proving that ANE ancestry had reached Western Eurasia long before the Bronze Age Eurasian steppe migrations that carried further westward into mainland Europe."

Iran_Neo seems to have a stronger eastern affinity (ENA) than CHG, EHG and even ANE itself. I would bet that the Caucasian and Siberian populations had no part in its formation. The Fst-distances:

 

[Angela]

Iran_Neo seems to have a stronger eastern affinity (ENA) than CHG, EHG and even ANE itself. I would bet that the Caucasian and Siberian populations had no part in its formation. The Fst-distances:

I agree. CHG is essentially Iran Neo with some Anatolian Neolithic and a bit of EHG.

It's just too bad that their preferred narrative doesn't fit the facts in this particular case.

It is irrelevant that the "dated" Iran Neo sample is younger than the "dated CHG sample.

Davidski's last ditch efforts to save his thousands and thousands of incorrect threads and posts are not going to be successful.

BOTH Iran Neo and CHG contain "Basal Eurasian". That component DID NOT move from north to south.

I just love how they project their own constant interpretation of the data in light of their own preferences for a "Northern or Eastern European" centered narrative onto Southern Europeans who, according to them, push for a "southern" origin of PIE. The only reason I can imagine for "pushing" for a connection to the IE people would be if you valued that connection. This Southern European doesn't give a damn about being descended from IE speaking people, and I could care less where and how the admixture happened. I'm an agnostic. I don't even see how it matters whether or not the first place where PIE was spoken was north of the Caucasus or south of it.So what if it started out south of the Caucasus. How does that change the fact that a different people from "north" of the Caucasus with 60% EHG started the spread to far flung corners of Eurasia? Why does a portion, and a minor portion, of the story coming from south of the Caucasus trigger them in this way?

I just happen to have spent my life having to support my conclusions with a chain of evidence (facts) connected by reason. I wasn't about to change my mode of operation when it came to population genetics. I also pride myself on my integrity and honesty. The kind of shenanigans which go on in this hobby are disgusting, imo, and I would never engage in that kind of shady behavior. I'll gladly compare my analyses through time with theirs. It's crystal clear who was playing fast and loose with the facts, and who was more often flat out WRONG. The mistakes in those threads and sites would, as I once said, fill the phonebook of a significant city.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I agree. CHG is essentially Iran Neo with some Anatolian Neolithic a bit of EHG.

It's just too bad that their preferred narrative doesn't fit the facts in this particular case.

It is irrelevant that the "dated" Iran Neo sample is younger than the "dated CHG sample.

Davidski's last ditch efforts to save his thousands and thousands of incorrect threads and posts are not going to be successful.

BOTH Iran Neo and CHG are "Basal Eurasian" heavy. That component DID NOT move from north to south.

I just love how they project their own constant interpretation of the data in light of their own preferences for a "European" centered narrative onto Southern Europeans. This Southern European doesn't give a damn about being descended from IE speaking people, and I could care less where and how the admixture happened. I just have spent my life having to support my conclusions with a chain of evidence (facts) connected by reason. I wasn't about to change my mode of operation when it came to population genetics. I'll gladly compare my analyses through time with theirs. It's crystal clear who was playing fast and loose with the facts, and who was more often flat out WRONG. The mistakes in those threads and sites would, as I once said, fill the phonebook of a significant city.

Yeah, he actually seems scared about this upcoming conference! Reich was right, the homeland of PIE is in West Asia - and even though these people wouldn't have looked like e.g. Armenians, it drives Davidski mad. Hopefully the story of L51 becomes clearer within the next year, I don't know why this process takes so long.

I do just want to clarify though, when I say PIE, I'm usually referring to the homeland of R1b L23 - because the homeland of PIE speech itself can only really be implied. It could easily be the case that the native Steppe folk spoke PIE, and that the minority founders of Yamnaya coming from the Caucasus simply adopted the speech of the locals.

 

[markod]

Reich was right, the homeland of PIE is in West Asia - and even though these people wouldn't have looked like e.g. Armenians, it drives Davidski mad. /QUOTE]

If we consider Yamnaya LPIE, the earliest IEs were likely darker pigmented than present day Armenians.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Reich was right, the homeland of PIE is in West Asia - and even though these people wouldn't have looked like e.g. Armenians, it drives Davidski mad. /QUOTE]

If we consider Yamnaya LPIE, the earliest IEs were likely darker pigmented than present day Armenians.

I know that's what the data currently says, but it just doesn't sit right. Armenia Chalcolithic was pale (and blue-eyed and one was red-headed), it seems weird that Yamnaya would be a lot darker - especially when groups that we know came from Yamnaya were light-skinned.

I presume there's an issue with detecting pigmentation from aDNA, because of the ridiculous lack of red hair. If the Bell Beakers are the main ancestors of people from the British Isles, why are none of those samples red-haired?

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

New video (first four minutes are spent sucking Reich off, just skip it): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=990052wQywM

Two seconds in, and political motivations are already making a comeback Davidski will call conspiracy for sure, can't wait

 

[markod]

I know that's what the data currently says, but it just doesn't sit right. Armenia Chalcolithic was pale (and blue-eyed and one was red-headed), it seems weird that Yamnaya would be a lot darker - especially when groups that we know came from Yamnaya were light-skinned.

I presume there's an issue with detecting pigmentation from aDNA, because of the ridiculous lack of red hair. If the Bell Beakers are the main ancestors of people from the British Isles, why are none of those samples red-haired?

If GAC is any indication, many farmer groups in northern Europe might have been super-depigmented already - I'm particularly thinking about the nordic megalithic cultures. I suppose that's where the coloring of Europeans could have come from.

A while ago I'd looked up pictures of ordinary Russians from Kargopol who seem to be the subpopulation with the absolute peak of Yamnaya ancestry and they weren't very light as far as I could tell. Closer to Ukrainians or Romanians than to Swedes.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

If GAC is any indication, many farmer groups in northern Europe might have been super-depigmented already - I'm particularly thinking about the nordic megalithic cultures. I suppose that's where the coloring of Europeans could have come from.

A while ago I'd looked up pictures of ordinary Russians from Kargopol who seem to be the subpopulation with the absolute peak of Yamnaya ancestry and they weren't very light as far as I could tell. Closer to Ukrainians or Romanians than to Swedes.

I'm not saying Yamnaya were blonde supermen, but as dark as Armenians seems super doubtful to me, given groups like the Tocharians we know for sure were light-skinned and often red-haired.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Definitely the take-away screenshot so far from this Reich talk:

Skip to just after 30 minutes if you don't want to hear about things like Neanderthals.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Iran_Neo seems to have a stronger eastern affinity (ENA) than CHG, EHG and even ANE itself. I would bet that the Caucasian and Siberian populations had no part in its formation. The Fst-distances:

Do you want to explain what do you mean exactly? Do you agree with how Angela interpreted your post?

Personally, I am considering the possibility that distinct ANE-rich (what they label 'Siberian and Eastern non-African') groups had influenced Iran and the Caucasus (a northern route and a southern one).

What does more Eastern affinity really means? Maybe just bigger impact?

-- I'm not interested in Yamnaya btw.

Using the label 'Iran-related' is motivated by an agenda they have. Why not 'Georgia-related' or 'Azerbajan-related' and whatnot.

 

[markod]

Do you want to explain what do you mean exactly? Do you agree with how Angela interpreted your post?

Personally, I am considering the possibility that distinct ANE-rich (what they label 'Siberian and Eastern non-African') groups had influenced Iran and the Caucasus (a northern route and a southern one).

What does more Eastern affinity really means? Maybe just bigger impact?

-- I'm not interested in Yamnaya btw.

Using the label 'Iran-related' is motivated by an agenda they have. Why not 'Georgia-related' or 'Azerbajan-related' and whatnot.

Yes, the evidence is in agreement with Angelas interpretation. Take a look at modern Basal affinities:

This type of ancestry seems to have arrived in Iran via the Persian Gulf. Combined with Villabruna and ENA from the East it gives rise to Iran_Neo. Ancestral Iran_Neo migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus and mixed with some type of EHG & ENF to form CHG.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Reich's talk was just a recap, nothing new even hinted about. They still also think that Bell Beaker = Steppe + European Neolithic...

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Yes, the evidence is in agreement with Angelas interpretation. Take a look at modern Basal affinities:

This type of ancestry seems to have arrived in Iran via the Persian Gulf. Combined with Villabruna and ENA from the East it gives rise to Iran_Neo. Ancestral Iran_Neo migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus and mixed with some type of EHG & ENF to form CHG.

The evidence are the modern affinities?

 

[markod]

The evidence are the modern affinities?

Well the BE enrichment in present day Iran probably isn't a result of recent Moroccan Berber immigration, considering the absolute peak of BE in ancient samples is found in Mesolithic HotuIII.

 

[Angela]

Yes, the evidence is in agreement with Angelas interpretation. Take a look at modern Basal affinities:

This type of ancestry seems to have arrived in Iran via the Persian Gulf. Combined with Villabruna and ENA from the East it gives rise to Iran_Neo. Ancestral Iran_Neo migrated up the Zagros range into the Caucasus and mixed with some type of EHG & ENF to form CHG.

This is all documented in the various papers from the Reich Lab as well. Now, when that movement across the Caucasus to the steppe happened, and what yDna they carried and what language they spoke are still all open questions imo. Too many issues remain for me for any absolute certainty.

I have no idea why anyone would want to call it anything but Iran related since that was the launching point into the Caucasus (and then beyond) of the component which eventually mixed with EHG to create the Indo-Europeans of the steppe.

 

[A. Papadimitriou]

Well the BE enrichment in present day Iran probably isn't a result of recent Moroccan Berber immigration, considering the absolute peak of BE in ancient samples is found in Mesolithic HotuIII.

I don't understand your thought process. What proves that CHG derives from Iran_N? Both partly descend from Dzudzuana like populations (Villabruna+'Basal') with extra 'Deep' ancestry and 'Siberian HG and Eastern non-African' ancestry too (modeled as AG3+Onge for Iran_N, AG3+Tianyuan for CHG)

Either way, I don't really care. There is an agenda behind the label 'Iran-related'. No one uses labels like Ukraine-related for example. We should use then 'Italy-related' for Villabruna, 'Turkey-related' for Anatolian_N etc.

 

[markod]

I don't understand your thought process. What proves that CHG derives from Iran_N? Both partly descend from Dzudzuana like populations (Villabruna+'Basal') with extra 'Deep' ancestry and 'Siberian HG and Eastern non-African' ancestry too (modeled as AG3+Onge for Iran_N, AG3+Tianyuan for CHG)

Either way, I don't really care. There is an agenda behind the label 'Iran-related'. No one uses labels like Ukraine-related for example. We should use then 'Italy-related' for Villabruna, 'Turkey-related' for Anatolian_N etc.

I mean for ENA ancestry to get to Georgia it has to move through Iran. Consistent with this ENA affinity is higher in Iran_Neo than in CHG.

 

[Angela]

For crying out loud, are we supposed to call it that geographic formation called a plateau now located in the country now known as Iran so as not to trigger people who can't stand the idea that a component present in the steppe and in a lot of Europeans started out south of the Caucasus?

Get a grip, people.

 

[Ygorcs]

Yeah this is a good point which Angela also said. Is the scenario that Markod mentioned a feasible way for such a population to pick up EHG?:
"My guess is that even if they came from Anatolia, they would have come via the steppe regions of Bulgaria to mainland Greece and the Peloponnese. Drews in his new book sees Greco-Armenian develop in the Trialeti culture, and that's the general route he outlines."

I think that is possible, it makes sense at least. On the other hand, Greek and Armenian have lots of linguistic affinities to Indo-Iranian and probably also had affinities with Daco-Thracian (though we will ne er know for sure to which extent). So if Indo-Iranian is really associated with the mainly Z93 cultures of the northern steppe, Sintashta and Andronovo, and also maybe Srubnaya, it would be hard in my opinion to sustain that Graeco-Armenian represent a branch of an "originally Iran-Neo Transcaucasian PIE", separate from the branch that would have migrated north into the Pontic-Caspian steppe (that would certainly have happened during the Cha,colithic at the latest, since Steppe Eneolithic already had a lot of CHG/Iranian-related ancestry). I mean, otherwise we would have to presume that Greek, Armenian and the steppe branches like Indo-Iranian preserved their closer than average affinities for some 2,000 years. So, in my opinion the ultimate homeland of Graeco-Armenian was probably not that far from the homeland of Indo-Iranian and Daco-Thracian. They were probably late migrants from the same sociocultural region (not necessarily neighbors, far less the very same tribes, of course).