A dynamic 6,000-year genetic history of Eurasia’s Eastern Steppe

jose luis

Regular Member
Messages
134
Reaction score
58
Points
28
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.03.25.008078v1

Abstract
The Eastern Eurasian Steppe was home to historic empires of nomadic pastoralists, including the Xiongnu and the Mongols. However, little is known about the region's population history. Here we reveal its dynamic genetic history by analyzing new genome-wide data for 214 ancient individuals spanning 6,000 years. We identify a pastoralist expansion into Mongolia ca. 3000 BCE, and by the Late Bronze Age, Mongolian populations were biogeographically structured into three distinct groups, all practicing dairy pastoralism regardless of ancestry. The Xiongnu emerged from the mixing of these populations and those from surrounding regions. By comparison, the Mongols exhibit much higher Eastern Eurasian ancestry, resembling present-day Mongolic-speaking populations. Our results illuminate the complex interplay between genetic, sociopolitical, and cultural changes on the Eastern Steppe.
 
Interesting paper, thanks jose luis. There are three new Afanasievo samples, a female with mtDNA A, one male R1b(R-P311) which is not surprising but also one J1a(J-CTS5368). So we have Afanasievo males with dominant R1b but also minor haplogroups like Q1a2 (3 samples) and J1a ( 1 sample). According to David Anthony there are Q1a1b and J1 in Khvalynsk and Q1a2 in Eneolithic Piedmont so both(J1 and Q1a2) survived till Afanasievo but were not a marker for high status or prestige.
 
Interesting paper, thanks jose luis. There are three new Afanasievo samples, a female with mtDNA A, one male R1b(R-P311) which is not surprising but also one J1a(J-CTS5368). So we have Afanasievo males with dominant R1b but also minor haplogroups like Q1a2 (3 samples) and J1a ( 1 sample). According to David Anthony there are Q1a1b and J1 in Khvalynsk and Q1a2 in Eneolithic Piedmont so both(J1 and Q1a2) survived till Afanasievo but were not a marker for high status or prestige.

When damgaard paper was published, the other forum members thought that neolithic baikal people looks like mongols b/c the paper also said that the neolithic people was replaced by east asian. However their skulls are paleo type like american indian. It means the neolithic people are totally different from east asian.
damgaard-south-asia.jpg


see the R1b guy.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...oning-Seima-Turbino/page2?p=599698#post599698
 
When damgaard paper was published, the other forum members thought that neolithic baikal people looks like mongols b/c the paper also said that the neolithic people was replaced by east asian. However their skulls are paleo type like american indian. It means the neolithic people are totally different from east asian.

This paper called the neolithic baikal people ANA (Ancestral Northeast Asian) and yes they said this population is different from East Asians.



Is this the reconstruction of the R-P311 male ? He looks very "Yamnaya" to me. R-P311 is the westeuropean clade downstream of R-L23. So I think it is very likely that westeuropean R1b might be in Late Repin.
 
Is this the reconstruction of the R-P311 male ? He looks very "Yamnaya" to me. R-P311 is the westeuropean clade downstream of R-L23. So I think it is very likely that westeuropean R1b might be in Late Repin.

I think so. Why do you think he looks like very yamna people. As far as I know yamna skull is caucasoid. But I think he makes people confusing. Some people think that he is southern chinese. I think he resembles jomon.
 
I think so. Why do you think he looks like very yamna people. As far as I know yamna skull is caucasoid. But I think he makes people confusing. Some people think that he is southern chinese. I think he resembles jomon.

He looks caucasoid to me and the link to the second picture you posted also says that he is of the caucasoid type. He has a slightly amerindian look but is still very close to the other Yamnaya reconstructions I have seen. I think this slightly pseudoamerindian/jomon look is from the EHGs, especially the EHGs from the Volga River were described as Uraloid. So EHG(Uraloid)+CHG/IRAN(Caucasian/Near Eastern) would be exactly that look from the reconstruction.
 
He looks caucasoid to me and the link to the second picture you posted also says that he is of the caucasoid type. He has a slightly amerindian look but is still very close to the other Yamnaya reconstructions I have seen. I think this slightly pseudoamerindian/jomon look is from the EHGs, especially the EHGs from the Volga River were described as Uraloid. So EHG(Uraloid)+CHG/IRAN(Caucasian/Near Eastern) would be exactly that look from the reconstruction.

First of all, I am not an expert.

The yamna has three types of skull from broad face to gracile. In Russian paper, EHG generally has a strong caucasoid factor with mongoloid factor of upper facial flatness.

I think the R1b guy skull resembles the blow skull of scythian, of which admixture makes people confusing. I think that is a paleo type like cromagnon, jomon, and american indian. This kind of paleo type survived even at the iron age of scythian and chandman in altai while in europe it disappeared by gracilization of farmers.

R1b guy:
http://www.ranhaer.org/data/attachment/forum/forumid_97/18090913406bf47745e1a5b03e.jpg.thumb.jpg


europeo-mongoloid type, male lugovi cemetery anayino culture (p147):

9k=

9k=

https://www.jstor.org/stable/44310233?seq=1#metadata_info_tab_contents

9k=
 
First of all, I am not an expert.

The yamna has three types of skull from broad face to gracile. In Russian paper, EHG generally has a strong caucasoid factor with mongoloid factor of upper facial flatness.

Sounds close to Uraloid. There are EHGs with Proto-Europid type but most of them are from more western and northwestern regions, maybe because of admixing with WHGs. The EHGs who admixed with CHG/Iran to become Khvalynsk and later Yamnaya were all of the Uraloid type according to this statement by a Russian palaeoanthropologist :

Source: https://indo-european.eu/2018/05/ha...from-the-samara-region-dated-ca-4250-4000-bc/
In his report, A. A. Khokhlov introduced the scientific circle to the still unpublished data of the new Eneolithic burial ground Yekaterinovskiy Cape, which combines both the Mariupol and Khvalynsk features, and is dated to the fourth quarter of the V millennium BC. All samples analyzed had a Uraloid anthropological type, the chromosome of all samples belonged to haplogroup R1b1a2 (R-P312/S116), and to haplogroup R1b1a1a2a1a1c2b2b1a2. mtDNA to haplogroups U2, U4, U5. In the Khvalynsk burial grounds (first half of the IV millennium BC), the anthropological material differs in a greater variety. In addition to the Uraloid substratum, European wide-faced and southern European variants are recorded. To the samples are added haplogroup R1a1, O1a1, I2a2 to mtDNA T2a1b, H2a1.

The broad face type is probably the result of admixing, the gracile southeuropean type the original CHG/Iran type.
The autosomal difference between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya is that CHG/Iran is higher in Yamnaya so we would see less Uraloid and more gracile types.



Back to the R1b guy. He is 100% Afanasievo with no atDNA from an eastern eurasian source. According to one link of your post he is caucasoid (sample MN0137):
http://www.ranhaer.org/data/attachment/forum/forumid_97/180909134059b429e3c3e0b7a2.jpg.thumb.jpg

The facial reconstruction we have is also made of out sample MN0137.
The later samples from the region which are not part of Afanasievo have ANA(Ancestral Northeast Asian) DNA. Like the Scythians and others.
 
Celestial Türks:

NOM001 M U7a3a R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93)
TSB001 M H14b J1a (J-CTS5368)
UGU001 M D2 J2a (J-L559; J-M410)
ULI002 M B4c1a2a J2a (J-L559; J-M410)
ZAA002 M C4a2a1 C2b1a1b1 (C-F3830)
ZAA004 M D4b1a2a1 C2b1a1b1 (C-F3830)
ZAA007 F D4l2 -

Orkhon Uighurs:

OLN001.A F D4 -
OLN001.B M B5b1a Q1a1 (Q-F1215; Q-F1096)
OLN002 F T1a1 -
OLN003 M T1a1 R1b1a2 (R-PF6505; R-M269)
OLN004 F H4a1a1a -
OLN005 M H6b R1b1a2a2 (R-Z2105; R-CTS1078)
OLN007 M D4 C2e1a1a (C-F3864; C-M407)
OLN008 F D4i -
OLN009 F J1b1b1 -
OLN010 M G3a3 R1b1a2a2 (R-Z2105; R-CTS1078)
OLN011 M B5b2a R1b1a2a2 (R-CTS1078)
OLN012 F D4j10 -
ZAA001 F A24 -

Xiongnu:

SKT007 M C4 Q1a2a1c (Q-L334; Q-L330) early Xiongnu

JAG001 M F1b1f - earlyXiongnu_rest
SKT002 M G2a1e R1b (R-M343) earlyXiongnu_rest
SKT004 F U2e1a1 - earlyXiongnu_rest
SKT005 M F1b1f R1b1 (R-M415; R-P25_1) earlyXiongnu_rest
SKT006 M G2a1e R1 (R-P236; R-M173) earlyXiongnu_rest

AST001 F I1a - earlyXiongnu_west
SKT001 F U5a1i - earlyXiongnu_west
SKT003 F I1a - earlyXiongnu_west
SKT008 M H Q1a2a1c (Q-L334; Q-L330) earlyXiongnu_west
SKT009 M I1a R1a1a1b (R-Z647; R-Z645) earlyXiongnu_west
SKT010 F I1a - earlyXiongnu_west
SKT012 M C4a1a4a J2a1h2 (J-L25) earlyXiongnu_west

BRL002 F HV6 - lateXiongnu_sarmatian
BUR001 F T2b - lateXiongnu_sarmatian
BUR002 M U2e1 E1b1b1a1b2 (E-V22; E-L677) lateXiongnu_sarmatian
BUR003 M J2b1a2a R1a1a1b (R-Z647; R-Z645) lateXiongnu_sarmatian
BUR004 F G2a5 - lateXiongnu_sarmatian
DUU001 F D4b1a2a1 - lateXiongnu_sarmatian
HUD001 F K1a19 - lateXiongnu_sarmatian
NAI001 M K1a12a1a J2a1h2 (J-L25) lateXiongnu_sarmatian
NAI002 / NAI003 M C4a2c1 R1a1a1b1 (R-Z283) lateXiongnu_sarmatian
TMI001 F J2b1a2a - lateXiongnu_sarmatian
UGU005 M U4a1 R1a1a1b2a2a (R-Z2123) lateXiongnu_sarmatian
UGU006 M Z1a J1 (J-M267) lateXiongnu_sarmatian
UGU010 M - R1a1a1b2a2a (R-Z2123) lateXiongnu_sarmatian

ATS001 F C4a1a - lateXiongnu_han
BAM001 F D4j3 - lateXiongnu_han
BRU001 M D5b1b2 J1a2b (J-P58) lateXiongnu_han
EME002 F B5a2a1b - lateXiongnu_han
SON001 M D4 NO (NO-M2308; NO-M2313) lateXiongnu_han
TUH001 M B5a2a1a C2b1b1 (C-M86) lateXiongnu_han
TUH002 M B5a2a1a J2a (J-M410) lateXiongnu_han
YUR001 M D5a2a1 N1 (N-L735) lateXiongnu_han

Khitans:
ULA001 M Y1a J2a2 (J-L581) Khitan
ZAA003 F F2a - Khitan
ZAA005 M D4c1b1 J2a (J-L212; J-M410) Khitan


p.s
i will try to look for the late medieval mongolian data ....
( they have 4 cases of y haplogroup D which we don't see in previews cultures in mongolia )

6.jpg


7.jpg
 
This paper called the neolithic baikal people ANA (Ancestral Northeast Asian) and yes they said this population is different from East Asians.




Is this the reconstruction of the R-P311 male ? He looks very "Yamnaya" to me. R-P311 is the westeuropean clade downstream of R-L23. So I think it is very likely that westeuropean R1b might be in Late Repin.

Looks like Repin = R1b-M269.
They came from the north, they were not Khvalynsk but mingled with them.
 
Looks like Repin = R1b-M269.
They came from the north, they were not Khvalynsk but mingled with them.

I agree with the first, we will find the most important suclades in Repin.
But why do think Repin comes from the North ? From Khvalynsk to Yamnaya you need more CHG/Iran. Khvalynsk is on average 20-30% CHG/Iran while in Yamnaya it is more like 45%. Also Yamnaya is much more homogeneous than Khvalynsk.
If Repin is from the north, when and where did it get extra CHG/Iran ancestry ?
 
I agree with the first, we will find the most important suclades in Repin.
But why do think Repin comes from the North ? From Khvalynsk to Yamnaya you need more CHG/Iran. Khvalynsk is on average 20-30% CHG/Iran while in Yamnaya it is more like 45%. Also Yamnaya is much more homogeneous than Khvalynsk.
If Repin is from the north, when and where did it get extra CHG/Iran ancestry ?

Earliest Repin is in Don-Volga area 5,95 ka. From there they expanded in Khvalynsk area.

R1b-M269 is derived from R1b-P297 which is detected in mesolithic Volga-Baltic Sea area.
TMRCA 6,4 ka.
They were a small EHG tribe, but admixed with Khvalynsk who were a EHG/CHG mixture in different proportions since 6,5 ka.
 
Earliest Repin is in Don-Volga area 5,95 ka. From there they expanded in Khvalynsk area.

R1b-M269 is derived from R1b-P297 which is detected in mesolithic Volga-Baltic Sea area.
TMRCA 6,4 ka.
They were a small EHG tribe, but admixed with Khvalynsk who were a EHG/CHG mixture in different proportions since 6,5 ka.

Yes I also think R1b-P297(Samara-EHG) R1b-M269 and their subclades are originally from the EHGs.
But I would disagree that Repin culture came from the north because they need extra CHG/Iran which they couldn't pick up in regions north of the steppe. Repin is located on the Don River just north of the pre-maikop people and I think that there they got their extra CHG/Iran. Repin would be very close to the Eneolithic Piedmont samples we have, especially Vonuichka.

Old statement (2007) by David Anthony about Repin:

Source:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Horse,_the_Wheel,_and_Language
Repin culture (Don) and late Khvalynsk culture (lower Volga):[51] the Repin culture developed by contact with the late Maikop-Novosvobodyana culture (Lower Don),[52] which penetrated deeply into the Lower Volga steppe.[53] Anthony also believes that Repin was highly significant to the establishment of the Afanasevo culture in eastern Siberia, c. 3700–3300 BCE.[54
 
Yes I also think R1b-P297(Samara-EHG) R1b-M269 and their subclades are originally from the EHGs.
But I would disagree that Repin culture came from the north because they need extra CHG/Iran which they couldn't pick up in regions north of the steppe. Repin is located on the Don River just north of the pre-maikop people and I think that there they got their extra CHG/Iran. Repin would be very close to the Eneolithic Piedmont samples we have, especially Vonuichka.

Old statement (2007) by David Anthony about Repin:

Source:
https://www.wikiwand.com/en/The_Horse,_the_Wheel,_and_Language

maybe not, but no R1b-M269 has been confirmed in the pontic steppe prior to Yamna
we have R1b-V1636 north of the Caucasus, and the Samara HG was R1b-P297*
 
Off topic but I am curious if anyone here can answer some of my questions regarding the genetic dynamics of the Eurasian Steppe. I found Narasimhan et al. 2019 quite confusing. It seems that there were Siberian Hunter Gatherers that had East Asian ancestry (ESHG), and then there were those that didn’t, those being the WSHG. I’m guessing the arrival of East Asian related ancestry in Siberia and Central Asia occurs around the time of Botai, or roughly around the late neolithic and early cooper age. Steppe Maykop like WSHG, also doesn’t have that ESHG/East Asian component. I would guess that the distant, deeply divergent, common ancestry of East Eurasians, South Eurasians, and ANE, can help explain the occurrence of mtDNA C in some European remains such as the C1f/C1g in mesolithic Karelia, or even the C1e in modern Iceland. C1f has even been found in Scotland and Italy. C4 and C5 have been found in Scandinavia, France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Scotland, Ireland, and England. To my knowledge, mtDNA haplogroup C4a was discovered back in the early 2010s or so, in samples from the Catacomb Culture. Potapovka posses some C as well, with C1 making an appearance. MtDNA C1 is also very common in Native American populations. There is also the issue of the EDAR genes in SHG and Steppe Maykop. May have something to do with this distant, ancient common ancestry.
 
Last edited:
According to some sources, some sample is labeled as R1b-P310, so R1b-L51 even siding with a J1 individual. Also those 2 samples come from the extreme east boundaries of Afanasievo.
 
Off topic but I am curious if anyone here can answer some of my questions regarding the genetic dynamics of the Eurasian Steppe. I found Narasimhan et al. 2019 quite confusing. It seems that there were Siberian Hunter Gatherers that had East Asian ancestry (ESHG), and then there were those that didn’t, those being the WSHG. I’m guessing the arrival of East Asian related ancestry in Siberia and Central Asia occurs around the time of Botai, or roughly around the late neolithic and early cooper age. Steppe Maykop like WSHG, also doesn’t have that ESHG/East Asian component. I would guess that the distant, deeply divergent, common ancestry of East Eurasians, South Eurasians, and ANE, can help explain the occurrence of mtDNA C in some European remains such as the C1f/C1g in mesolithic Karelia, or even the C1e in modern Iceland. C1f has even been found in Scotland and Italy. C4 and C5 have been found in Scandinavia, France, Italy, Greece, Germany, Slovakia, Poland, Scotland, Ireland, and England. To my knowledge, mtDNA haplogroup C4a was discovered back in the early 2010s or so, in samples from the Catacomb Culture. Potapovka posses some C as well, with C1 making an appearance. MtDNA C1 is also very common in Native American populations. There is also the issue of the EDAR genes in SHG and Steppe Maykop. May have something to do with this distant, ancient common ancestry.

ESHG was around lake Bajkal, but it was replaced by WSHG during EBA which coincides with Okunevo
appearantly, Okunevo and Bajkal are very similar, both WSHG and Q-L330
 
Interesting and thanks for the reply. There has been quite a bit of chatter over the recent paper published on the genetics of ancient/prehistoric Eastern Eurasians. On both Anthrogenica and Eurgoenes, I have seen many claim that Y-DNA K and it's descendant Y-DNA P, are products of proto-East Asian populations. They say the same for ANE and its ancestor ANS. I am of the opinion that more ancient DNA needs to be published and/or discovered before we can make such claims. I do remember a while ago, as in a few years ago, when it was thought that all Y-DNA Q in Europe was the product of the Huns, or that R1b originated in Iran/Anatolia/Middle East, due to the more upstream subclades and paragroups surviving there. I do not believe it is in the best interest of accuracy, to base ancient migrations and genetics on modern populations and modern haplogroup frequency. We have Y-DNA K2a* appearing in Ust'-Ishim in Western Siberia as well as in Oase-1 in Romania, and K2b in Tianyuan man of upper paleolithic China. Tianyuan also has some kind of affinity to the Aurignacian sample Goyet Q116-1, more so than any other individual from West Eurasia. Goyet belonged to Y-DNA C1a as well as mtDNA M. Tianyuan man also lacks Denisovan ancestry if I am not mistaken. I believe we may be dealing with a very ancient population structure, one that may have diverged into separate directions but absorbed different populations and therefor, became somewhat differentiated from one another, similar to the various Indo-European speaking populations that formed throughout Eurasia after the WSH migrations from the Steppes of Eastern Europe. There may have been a common population of sorts similar to Uts'-Ishim living in South Asia/Central Asia, and at some point there was a branching off, in which some of these groups migrated westward, northward, and others into Southeast Asia. To me this seems plausible considering Yana and ANE lack the Denisovan ancestry, as does Tianyuan. The oldest K2 samples we have are also in Europe and Western Siberia, followed by Northern China, not Southeast Asia. It could be a Tianyuan like population branched off from the main group, and was responsible for the initial dispersal into Southeast Asia. The part that I find confusing is the basal P clades in Southeast Asia, maybe this has to do with the relationship between Ancient South Eurasians, and ANS/ANE. We really need more data to clear the waters on this. I also do not know the age of some of these studies, so are they even sure if these individuals really belong to said basal clades? One of the latter papers "Jomon Genome sheds light on East Asian population history," stated that there was no Southeast/East Asian admixture into MA-1.
 
When damgaard paper was published, the other forum members thought that neolithic baikal people looks like mongols b/c the paper also said that the neolithic people was replaced by east asian. However their skulls are paleo type like american indian. It means the neolithic people are totally different from east asian.
damgaard-south-asia.jpg


see the R1b guy.
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/threa...oning-Seima-Turbino/page2?p=599698#post599698

Those EMBA(Afansievo) really mixed a lot with East Asians. They are more East Eurasian than Botai.
 
WSHG was 20% East Eurasian no? Even as far as Maykop, Isn't that 20% ENA what distinguishes from them just being on a EHG-ANE cline?
 

This thread has been viewed 14337 times.

Back
Top