Eupedia Forums
Site NavigationEupedia Top > Eupedia Forum & Japan Forum
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 61

Thread: Massive paper on Stone age Europe and Eurasia. New HG ancestry in Steppe herders

  1. #1
    Regular Member etrusco's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-01-17
    Location
    lombardy
    Posts
    114


    Country: Italy



    10 members found this post helpful.

    stone age eurasia

    STONE AGE EURASIA


    https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1...05.04.490594v1

    Allenthoft & Willerslev et. al. 2022, Biorxiv.

    Abstract:

    The transitions from foraging to farming and later to pastoralism in Stone Age Eurasia (c. 11-3 thousand years before present, BP) represent some of the most dramatic lifestyle changes in human evolution. We sequenced 317 genomes of primarily Mesolithic and Neolithic individuals from across Eurasia combined with radiocarbon dates, stable isotope data, and pollen records. Genome imputation and co-analysis with previously published shotgun sequencing data resulted in >1600 complete ancient genome sequences offering fine-grained resolution into the Stone Age populations. We observe that: 1) Hunter-gatherer groups were more genetically diverse than previously known, and deeply divergent between western and eastern Eurasia. 2) We identify hitherto genetically undescribed hunter-gatherers from the Middle Don region that contributed ancestry to the later Yamnaya steppe pastoralists; 3) The genetic impact of the Neolithic transition was highly distinct, east and west of a boundary zone extending from the Black Sea to the Baltic. Large-scale shifts in genetic ancestry occurred to the west of this "Great Divide", including an almost complete replacement of hunter-gatherers in Denmark, while no substantial ancestry shifts took place during the same period to the east. This difference is also reflected in genetic relatedness within the populations, decreasing substantially in the west but not in the east where it remained high until c. 4,000 BP; 4) The second major genetic transformation around 5,000 BP happened at a much faster pace with Steppe-related ancestry reaching most parts of Europe within 1,000-years. Local Neolithic farmers admixed with incoming pastoralists in eastern, western, and southern Europe whereas Scandinavia experienced another near-complete population replacement. Similar dramatic turnover-patterns are evident in western Siberia; 5) Extensive regional differences in the ancestry components involved in these early events remain visible to this day, even within countries. Neolithic farmer ancestry is highest in southern and eastern England while Steppe-related ancestry is highest in the Celtic populations of Scotland, Wales, and Cornwall (this research has been conducted using the UK Biobank resource); 6) Shifts in diet, lifestyle and environment introduced new selection pressures involving at least 21 genomic regions. Most such variants were not universally selected across populations but were only advantageous in particular ancestral backgrounds. Contrary to previous claims, we find that selection on the FADS regions, associated with fatty acid metabolism, began before the Neolithisation of Europe. Similarly, the lactase persistence allele started increasing in frequency before the expansion of Steppe-related groups into Europe and has continued to increase up to the present. Along the genetic cline separating Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Neolithic farmers, we find significant correlations with trait associations related to skin disorders, diet and lifestyle and mental health status, suggesting marked phenotypic differences between these groups with very different lifestyles. This work provides new insights into major transformations in recent human evolution, elucidating the complex interplay between selection and admixture that shaped patterns of genetic variation in modern populations.


    Our study comprises the largest genomic dataset on European hunter-gatherers to date, including
    329 113 imputed hunter-gatherer genomes of which 79 were sequenced in this study. Among them, we
    330 report a 0.83X genome of an Upper Palaeolithic (UP) skeleton from Kotias Klde Cave in Georgia,
    331 Caucasus (NEO283), directly dated to 26,052 - 25,323 cal BP (95%)
    . In the PCA of all non-African
    332 individuals, it occupies a position distinct from other previously sequenced UP individuals, shifted
    333 towards west Eurasians along PC1 (Supplementary Note 3d). Using admixture graph modelling, we
    334 find that this Caucasus UP lineage derives from a mixture of predominantly West Eurasian UP
    335 hunter-gatherer ancestry (76%) with ~24% contribution from a “basal Eurasian” ghost population,
    first observed in West Asian Neolithic individuals29 336 (Extended Data Fig. 5A).
    Models attempting to
    337 reconstruct major post-LGM clusters such as European hunter-gatherers and Anatolian farmers
    338 without contributions from this Caucasus UP lineage provided poor admixture graph fits or were
    339 rejected in qpAdm analyses (Extended Data Fig. 5B,C). These results thus suggest a central role of
    340 the descendants related to this Caucasus UP lineage in the formation of later West Eurasian
    341 populations, consistent with recent genetic data from the nearby Dzudzuana Cave, also in
    Georgia30 342
    .
    We replicate previous results of broadscale genetic structure correlated to geography in European hunter-gatherers after the LGM17 347 , while
    348 also revealing novel insights into their fine-scale structure. Ancestry related to southern European
    349 hunter-gatherers (source: Italy_15000BP_9000 BP) predominates in western Europe.
    This includes
    350 Denmark, where our 28 sequenced and imputed hunter-gatherer genomes derive almost exclusively
    351 from this cluster, with remarkable homogeneity across a 5,000 year transect (Fig. 3A). In contrast,
    352 hunter-gatherer individuals from the eastern and far northern reaches of Europe show the highest
    353 proportions of Russian hunter-gatherer ancestry (source: RussiaNW_11000BP_8000BP; Fig. 2B,
    354 D), with genetic continuity until ~5,000 BP in Russia.
    Ancestry related to Mesolithic hunter355 gatherer populations from Ukraine (source: Ukraine_10000BP_4000BP) is carried in highest
    356 proportions in hunter-gatherers from a geographic corridor extending from south-eastern Europe
    357 towards the Baltic and southern Scandinavia.
    Swedish Mesolithic individuals derive up to 60% of
    358 their ancestry from that source (Fig. 2C). Our results thus indicate northwards migrations of at least
    359 three distinct waves of hunter-gatherer ancestry into Scandinavia: a predominantly southern
    360 European source into Denmark; a source related to Ukrainian and south-eastern European hunter361 gatherers into the Baltic and southern Sweden; and a northwest Russian source into the far north,
    before venturing south along the Atlantic coast of Norway31 362 (Fig. 2).
    These movements are likely to
    represent post glacial expansions from refugia areas shared with many plant and animal species32,33 363 .



    Interestingly, two herein reported ~7,300-year-old imputed
    383 genomes from the Middle Don River region in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Golubaya Krinitsa,
    384 NEO113 & NEO212) derive ~20-30% of their ancestry from a source cluster of hunter-gatherers
    385 from the Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Fig. 3). Additional lower coverage (non386 imputed) genomes from the same site project in the same PCA space (Fig. 1D), shifted away from
    387 the European hunter-gatherer cline towards Iran and the Caucasus.
    Our results thus document
    388 genetic contact between populations from the Caucasus and the Steppe region as early as 7,300
    389 years ago...




    From approximately 5,000 BP, an ancestry component appears on the eastern European plains in
    425 Early Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists associated with the Yamnaya culture and it rapidly spreads
    across Europe through the expansion of the Corded Ware complex (CWC) and related cultures20,21 426 .
    427 We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as a
    428 mixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle Don
    429 River region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus
    430 (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 4).
    Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, who
    431 already carry ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknown
    432 proximal source
    for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes. The individuals in
    433 question derive from the burial ground Golubaya Krinitsa (Supplementary Note 3). Material culture
    434 and burial practices at this site are similar to the Mariupol-type graves, which are widely found in
    435 neighbouring regions of Ukraine, for instance along the Dnepr River. They belong to the group of
    436 complex pottery-using hunter-gatherers mentioned above, but the genetic composition at Golubaya
    437 Krinitsa is different from the remaining Ukrainian sites (Fig 2A, Extended Data Fig. 4).




    Individuals associated with Neolithic
    470 farming cultures from Denmark show some of the highest overall hunter-gatherer ancestry
    471 proportions (up to ~25%), mostly derived from Western European-related hunter-gatherers
    472 (EuropeW_13500BP_8000BP) supplemented with marginal contribution from local Danish groups
    473 in some individuals (Extended Data Fig. 7D; Supplementary Note 3f). We estimated the timing of
    the admixture using the linkage-disequilibrium-based method DATES48 474 at ~6,000 BP. Both lines of
    475 evidence thus suggest that a significant part of the hunter-gatherer admixture observed in Danish
    476 Neolithic individuals occurred already before the arrival of the incoming Neolithic people in the
    477 region (Extended Data Fig. 7), and further imply Central Europe as a key region in the resurgence
    478 of HG ancestry.



    The second continental-wide and CWC-mediated transition from Neolithic farmer ancestry to
    497 Steppe-related ancestry was found to differ markedly between geographic regions. The contribution
    498 of local Neolithic farmer ancestry to the incoming groups was high in eastern, western and southern
    Europe, reaching >50% on the Iberian Peninsula (“postNeol” set; Extended Data Fig. 4, 6B, C)34 499 .

    500 Scandinavia, however, portrays a dramatically different picture, with a near-complete replacement
    501 of the local Neolithic farmer population inferred across all sampled individuals (Extended Data Fig.
    502 7B, C). Following the second transition, Neolithic Anatolian-related farmer ancestry remains in
    503 Scandinavia, but the source is now different. It can be modelled as deriving almost exclusively from
    504 a genetic cluster associated with the Late Neolithic Globular Amphora Culture (GAC)
    505 (Poland_5000BP_4700BP; Extended Data Fig. 4).
    Strikingly, after the Steppe-related ancestry was
    506 first introduced into Europe (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP), it expanded together with GAC-related
    507 ancestry across all sampled European regions (Extended Data Fig. 7I).
    This suggests that the spread
    508 of steppe-related ancestry throughout Europe was predominantly mediated through groups that were
    509 already admixed with GAC-related farmer groups of the eastern European plains.




    The Neolithic transition also
    610 marks a considerable rise in frequency of major effect alleles associated with light hair
    pigmentation79 611
    , whereas polygenic score predictions for height are generally low throughout the
    612 first millennium of the Neolithic (Funnel Beaker epoch), echoing previous findings based on a
    smaller set of individuals45,80 613 .



    . The most recent individual
    618 in our Danish dataset with Mesolithic WHG ancestry is “Dragsholm Man” (NEO962), dated to
    619 5,947-5,664 cal. BP (95%) and archaeologically assigned to the Neolithic Funnel Beaker farming
    culture based on his grave goods81,82 620 . Our data confirms a typical Neolithic diet matching the
    621 cultural affinity but contrasting his WHG ancestry. Thus, Dragsholm Man represents a local person
    622 of Mesolithic ancestry who lived in the short Mesolithic-Neolithic transition period
    and adopted a
    623 Neolithic culture and diet.

  2. #2
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    Thanks for sharing.
    Damn, this paper is huge and I don’t have any free time to read it.

  3. #3
    Regular Member Stefano's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-22
    Location
    Lombardy
    Posts
    62

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a2a1a2b3b

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Italy



    Thanks.
    I'm particulary curious about this.

    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    2) We identify hitherto genetically undescribed hunter-gatherers from the Middle Don region that contributed ancestry to the later Yamnaya steppe pastoralists; their fine-scale structure. .

  4. #4
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    19-01-18
    Posts
    193

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    I1a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H5a1a

    Ethnic group
    Germanic
    Country: Germany - Niedersachsen



    “Genome imputation and co-analysis with previously published shotgun sequencing data resulted in >1600 complete ancient genome sequences offering fine-grained resolution into the Stone Age populations „

    The paper says it is based on imputation, so I will not take the results serious.
    Imputation needs a base in modern samples, because there are not thousands of ancient samples available.

    Even with modern people, imputation stays a kind of scam and cannot be used for specific SNPs that are disease related or associated with physical or metabolic traits. All traist will be created based on the associated population in the Imputer database and does not show individual differences and cannot simulate populations that where never sequenced before.
    My experience with Imputation is very bad.

    This is the downfall of ancient DNA research as I often was afraid of. Cheap cost, low quality DNA, big papers.

  5. #5
    Moderator Pax Augusta's Avatar
    Join Date
    23-06-14
    Location
    Ara Pacis
    Posts
    1,777


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: Italy



    2 members found this post helpful.
    This paper is huge indeed, and more than 300 samples of ancient DNA bring us a lot of new information but at the same time there are some really ridiculous charts in this paper and some statements reek of eugenics. Genetic testing is a powerful tool, but many geneticists are still not up to it. I still have to read it carefully though.

    Last edited by Pax Augusta; 06-05-22 at 17:04.

  6. #6
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    Concerning the steppe part of this paper:

    Interestingly, two herein reported ~7,300-year-old imputed genomes from the Middle Don River region in the Pontic-Caspian steppe (Golubaya Krinitsa, NEO113 & NEO212) derive ~20-30% of their ancestry from a source cluster of hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Fig. 3). Additional lower coverage (non imputed) genomes from the same site project in the same PCA space (Fig. 1D), shifted away from the European hunter-gatherer cline towards Iran and the Caucasus. Our results thus document genetic contact between populations from the Caucasus and the Steppe region as early as 7,300 years ago...

    From approximately 5,000 BP, an ancestry component appears on the eastern European plains in Early Bronze Age Steppe pastoralists associated with the Yamnaya culture and it rapidly spreads across Europe through the expansion of the Corded Ware complex (CWC) and related cultures. We demonstrate that this “steppe” ancestry (Steppe_5000BP_4300BP) can be modelled as a mixture of ~65% ancestry related to herein reported hunter-gatherer genomes from the Middle Don River region (MiddleDon_7500BP) and ~35% ancestry related to hunter-gatherers from Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000BP) (Extended Data Fig. 4). Thus, Middle Don hunter-gatherers, who already carry ancestry related to Caucasus hunter-gatherers (Fig. 2), serve as a hitherto unknown proximal source for the majority ancestry contribution into Yamnaya genomes. The individuals in question derive from the burial ground Golubaya Krinitsa (Supplementary Note 3). Material culture and burial practices at this site are similar to the Mariupol-type graves, which are widely found in neighbouring regions of Ukraine, for instance along the Dnepr River. They belong to the group of complex pottery-using hunter-gatherers mentioned above, but the genetic composition at Golubaya Krinitsa is different from the remaining Ukrainian sites (Fig 2A, Extended Data Fig. 4).
    In my opinion, the burial ground of Golubaya Krinitsa looks like the western-most spread of the EHG-CHG/Iran mating network in 5300BC (Neolithic), because neighbouring sites from Ukraine do have a different genetic composition, even though the material culture and burial practices are similar to the Mariupol-type graves.

    Y-DNA from the Middle Don is R1a and I2a, just like Sredny Stog:
    NEO113 Golubaya Krinitsa Russia CentralEasternEurope Russia_Neolithic_MiddleDon 50.073 39.878 thisStudy 7,423 7,172 7,298 direct XY R1a R1a 0.11 0.983 0 4.1.3.2.2 MiddleDon_7500BP Europe_15000BP_4000BP HG_EuropeE

    NEO212 Golubaya Krinitsa Russia CentralEasternEurope Russia_Neolithic_MiddleDon 50.072 39.894 thisStudy 7,475 7,311 7,393 direct XY I2a I2a1b1a2 3.18 0.996 0 4.1.3.1.1.1 MiddleDon_7500BP Europe_15000BP_4000BP HG_EuropeE

  7. #7
    Advisor Angela's Avatar
    Join Date
    02-01-11
    Posts
    21,268


    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: USA - New York



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Thus we reach the magic 50% Caucasus/Iran in the steppe people, and the presence of Basal Eurasian. Some will no doubt not be happy with that conclusion.

    Likewise, they firmly place the LP gene uptick "before" the arrival of the steppe people, and the appearance of blonde hair to the Neolithic transition.

    They also claim to be able to pinpoint the source of the farmer ancestry in steppe invaders in admixture with GAC, which always seemed likely.

    That Willerslev is involved does give me pause.

    I have to read the whole thing carefully.


    Non si fa il proprio dovere perchè qualcuno ci dica grazie, lo si fa per principio, per se stessi, per la propria dignità. Oriana Fallaci

  8. #8
    Elite member
    Join Date
    10-12-15
    Posts
    904


    Country: Canada



    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    Concerning the steppe part of this paper:.
    In my opinion, the burial ground of Golubaya Krinitsa looks like the western-most spread of the EHG-CHG/Iran mating network in 5300BC (Neolithic), because neighbouring sites from Ukraine do have a different genetic composition, even though the material culture and burial practices are similar to the Mariupol-type graves.
    Y-DNA from the Middle Don is R1a and I2a, just like Sredny Stog:
    "And they also found one J1 here:
    NEO163 Vasilyevskiy kordon 17 Russia CentralEasternEurope Russia_Neolithic 52.9 40.03 thisStudy 5,721 5,486 5,604 direct XY J1 J1 0.23 0.990 0 4.1.1.2.1.2 DonRiver_5800BP_5300BP Europe_15000BP_4000BP HG_EuropeE"

    I think the R1a seems to be related with karelian R1a with mt DNA C and yDNA J. EHG were buried in the supine position, but SS in the supine and flexed leg position like yamna.

    Recent studies of ancient mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) lineages have revealed the presence of East Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups in the Central European Neolithic. Here we report the finding of East Eurasian lineages in ancient mtDNA from two Neolithic cemeteries of the North Pontic Region (NPR) in Ukraine. In our study, comprehensive haplotyping information was obtained for 7 out of 18 specimens. Although the majority of identified mtDNA haplogroups belonged to the traditional West Eurasian lineages of H and U, three specimens were determined to belong to the lineages of mtDNA haplogroup C. This find extends the presence of East Eurasian lineages in Neolithic Europe from the Carpathian Mountains to the northern shores of the Black Sea and provides the first genetic account of Neolithic mtDNA lineages from the NPR.

    During the Neolithic, the North Pontic Region (NPR) was home to major prehistoric cultural conglomerates, among them—the Dnieper-Donets cultural complex (DD). The DD culture has been studied in approximately 200 sites in Ukraine and Byelorussia, including settlements and large collective cemeteries of the Mariupol-type (M-t).1 The main feature of M-t cemeteries is inhumation burial in the supine position. This burial rite differs from most local Mesolithic burial traditions and is characteristic of the ‘Euro-Siberian’ zone of extended burials, which are found from Lake Baikal and the forest and forest-steppe zones of the East European Plain to the northern part of Central Europe and Scandinavia.2, 3
    The distinct burial tradition of Neolithic populations of the NPR as well as their anthropological characteristics suggests an influx of external population sources. We set out to quantify the extent of gene flow into the NPR during the Neolithic. Recent advances in mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) analysis have revealed global patterns of neutral marker variation that appear to correlate with the geographic origin of the source population.4, 5 To elucidate the maternal genetic lineages of the population that constructed the M-t cemeteries, we undertook a genetic analysis of ancient mtDNA extracted from specimens from two Neolithic NPR cemeteries2


    https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2...0-6fe8245e2732

  9. #9
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,589

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Very much looking forward to those (UP) Caucasian samples!

  10. #10
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-04-21
    Posts
    39


    Country: United Kingdom



    CHG admixture existed in Pontic Caspian region more than 5000 BC (Eneolithic). Don HG, a Ukraine_Meso and CHG mix, discovered on the Don River

  11. #11
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by Diictodon View Post
    CHG admixture existed in Pontic Caspian region more than 5000 BC (Eneolithic). Don HG, a Ukraine_Meso and CHG mix, discovered on the Don River
    There is already a thread about this paper:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...097#post647097

    But where do they model or say that it is a Ukraine_Meso mix ? Ukraine_Meso has way to much WHG:

    Target: UKR_Meso
    Distance: 4.3532% / 0.04353210
    69.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
    31.0 WHG

    It's funny because when modeling with Middle Don, there is no WHG in Europeans. If Middle Don is really that WHG heavy, it is not a good proxy for steppe ancestry.
    See my post here:https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post647104

  12. #12
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-04-21
    Posts
    39


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    There is already a thread about this paper:
    https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...097#post647097
    But where do they model or say that it is a Ukraine_Meso mix ? Ukraine_Meso has way to much WHG:
    Target: UKR_Meso
    Distance: 4.3532% / 0.04353210
    69.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
    31.0 WHG
    It's funny because when modeling with Middle Don, there is no WHG in Europeans. If Middle Don is really that WHG heavy, it is not a good proxy for steppe ancestry.
    See my post here:https://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...l=1#post647104
    Don't know. Should have used a more EHG proxy. Still its Interesting to see how far Iranian descent groups like CHG, BMAC, Zagros Farmers, Eastern Iranian pastorialists etc. From Steppes of Russia that had great impact in Nothern Europe to East African pastorialists who carried lactose persistant genes that orignate in West Asia (tho their eurasian ancestry is mostly Levant Neolithic) to Bronze age Anatolians who carried Zagros ancestry and spread it across the balkans and Med. HotuIII cave people would be proud of their progeny as they had changed world history

  13. #13
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-04-21
    Posts
    39


    Country: United Kingdom



    That being said. I don't think Don HG played a major role in Steppe pastoralist formation. I still think Steppe Eneolithic was formed more to the east. Don HG just only shown how far CHG spread could have spread. But this paper seemed to have suggested that yamnaya is 2/3 Don HG

  14. #14
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    Yes, this paper suggests Yamnaya is 2/3 Middle Don HG but the same could roughly be said about Khvalynsk if someone would model them as ancestor to Yamnaya. The thing is we need additional CHG/Iran in Middle Don and Khvalysnk to reach the levels we see in Yamnaya. The Y-DNA also doesn't match.

  15. #15
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-04-21
    Posts
    39


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    Yes, this paper suggests Yamnaya is 2/3 Middle Don HG but the same could roughly be said about Khvalynsk if someone would model them as ancestor to Yamnaya. The thing is we need additional CHG/Iran in Middle Don and Khvalysnk to reach the levels we see in Yamnaya. The Y-DNA also doesn't match.
    Also it does not fit with what we see in the archeological record. Its clear the steppe population had technological diffusion from the south that give it a technological lead over other groups. The spread of the pastoral economy and the usage of Arsenic bronzeware coupled with ceramic types and pattern usage and the presence of foreign items in archeological sites shows that steppe folks clearly had important interactions with southern groups

  16. #16
    Regular Member etrusco's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-01-17
    Location
    lombardy
    Posts
    114


    Country: Italy



    1 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Anfänger View Post
    Yes, this paper suggests Yamnaya is 2/3 Middle Don HG but the same could roughly be said about Khvalynsk if someone would model them as ancestor to Yamnaya. The thing is we need additional CHG/Iran in Middle Don and Khvalysnk to reach the levels we see in Yamnaya. The Y-DNA also doesn't match.

    The non caucasian part ( georgia Upper paleolithic and georgia mesolithic) of Middle Don HG in the paper in fig. 2 is clearly labeled as ukraine mesolithic. Middle Don HG were likely the easternmost tail of the ukranian HG that populated the north pontic steppe. Obviously since we must follow the Y line these ukranian HG provided the typical PIE Y dna like R1a and I2 which were present in ukraine since the mesolithic. The smydovo ( Bulgaria) sample that is R1b M269 dated at around 45000 BC shows that eastern ukraine harbored also the right type of R1b. The smydovo sample can be modeled IIRC as EEF/Middle Don mix.
    So the long quest of the PIE origin is finally over. PIE were a mix of WHG/EHG that inhabited the north pontic region since the mesolithic. This is in full accordance with the linguistic criteria of PIE. Since PIE had agricoltural terminology and since the Dneper/ Donets foragers ( all WHG/EHG) were the only steppe populations that switched to agropastoralism around 4500/5000 BC ( time of PIE formation).
    Game over.

  17. #17
    Regular Member etrusco's Avatar
    Join Date
    29-01-17
    Location
    lombardy
    Posts
    114


    Country: Italy



    Quote Originally Posted by Diictodon View Post
    Also it does not fit with what we see in the archeological record. Its clear the steppe population had technological diffusion from the south that give it a technological lead over other groups. The spread of the pastoral economy and the usage of Arsenic bronzeware coupled with ceramic types and pattern usage and the presence of foreign items in archeological sites shows that steppe folks clearly had important interactions with southern groups


    Nope

    from the Kotova paper

    The contacts of the Eastern European steppe people with the Balkan population during the transition period from Neolithic to Eneolithic

    This article is devoted to cultural contacts of steppe population and Balkan people about 5300–4800 BC. Numerous imports (adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells, pots, plates from the bone and nacre, pendants from the teeth of red deer), radical changes in the cultural traditions (new type ornamental compositions, flexed inhumations, stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove) and imitation of pottery have been fixed for the Late Neolithic in the Eastern European steppe. Acquaintance with first metal and strong western impact caused the formation of the new Sredniy Stog culture.

  18. #18
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    The non caucasian part ( georgia Upper paleolithic and georgia mesolithic) of Middle Don HG in the paper in fig. 2 is clearly labeled as ukraine mesolithic. Middle Don HG were likely the easternmost tail of the ukranian HG that populated the north pontic steppe. Obviously since we must follow the Y line these ukranian HG provided the typical PIE Y dna like R1a and I2 which were present in ukraine since the mesolithic. The smydovo ( Bulgaria) sample that is R1b M269 dated at around 45000 BC shows that eastern ukraine harbored also the right type of R1b. The smydovo sample can be modeled IIRC as EEF/Middle Don mix.
    So the long quest of the PIE origin is finally over. PIE were a mix of WHG/EHG that inhabited the north pontic region since the mesolithic. This is in full accordance with the linguistic criteria of PIE. Since PIE had agricoltural terminology and since the Dneper/ Donets foragers ( all WHG/EHG) were the only steppe populations that switched to agropastoralism around 4500/5000 BC ( time of PIE formation).
    Game over.
    In short I have these points:
    1. Middle Don needs 35% additional CHG/Iran it is alone not the proximal source for Yamnaya. Additional CHG/Iran has to come from sites more to the East and South.
    2. There is barely any WHG in Yamnaya nor in Steppe Eneolithic.
    3. Middle Don eats up all of the WHG in modern Europeans, there must be something very wrong with this proxy.
    4. The Y-DNA doesn't match.

    Do you have anything to say about these points ?

  19. #19
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    21-04-21
    Posts
    39


    Country: United Kingdom



    Quote Originally Posted by etrusco View Post
    Nope

    from the Kotova paper

    The contacts of the Eastern European steppe people with the Balkan population during the transition period from Neolithic to Eneolithic

    This article is devoted to cultural contacts of steppe population and Balkan people about 5300–4800 BC. Numerous imports (adornments from copper, cornelian, marine shells, pots, plates from the bone and nacre, pendants from the teeth of red deer), radical changes in the cultural traditions (new type ornamental compositions, flexed inhumations, stone in graves and above them, pits with alcove) and imitation of pottery have been fixed for the Late Neolithic in the Eastern European steppe. Acquaintance with first metal and strong western impact caused the formation of the new Sredniy Stog culture.
    The Cucuteni Tripolye culture did use much metallurgy though they had very sophesticated lithic culture. Steppe population obveriously did interacted with Neolithic SE European cultures looking at their 10% Anatolian farmers but balkan/Cuceteni cultures were not the only cultures they interacted with. Steppe bronzeware seem to have Caucasus roots who in turn got it from Transcaucasian/Zagrozian groups. Arsenic bronze making had it roots in West Asia.

    "The earliest artifacts so far known coming from the Iranian plateau, in the 5th millennium BCE, and are smelted from native arsenical copper and copper-arsenides, such as algodonite and domeykite" Thornton, C. et al (2002). "On pins and needles: tracing the evolution of copper-based alloying at Tepe Yahya, Iran, via ICP-MS analysis of Common-place items". Journal of Archaeological Science. 29 (12): 145160.

    Arsenic bronze tool making was found in the Cacasus Piedmount, with similar Iranian techniques. Later balkan bronzewares are different

  20. #20
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    Btw, Dnieper-Donets foragers were largely replaced by Sredny Stog according to Anthony et al. 2022 in the Eneolithic.

  21. #21
    Regular Member Stefano's Avatar
    Join Date
    16-02-22
    Location
    Lombardy
    Posts
    62

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a2a1a2b3b

    Ethnic group
    North Italian
    Country: Italy



    3 members found this post helpful.
    Quote Originally Posted by Pax Augusta View Post
    This paper is huge indeed, and more than 300 samples of ancient DNA bring us a lot of new information but at the same time there are some really ridiculous charts in this paper and some statements reek of eugenics. Genetic testing is a powerful tool, but many geneticists are still not up to it. I still have to read it carefully though.

    These are indeed really strange charts.
    Also why is Uk divided in small areas and france and italy are taken as one? They have far more internal diversity than UK.
    And egypt and italy the same steppe admixture? ridiculous. The farmer in north africa is suspiciously high too.
    How can geneticist and academics produce such results? unbelievable

  22. #22
    Regular Member
    Join Date
    25-12-21
    Posts
    682

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    J2B2-L283/Z638

    Country: United States



    So, what's the consensus? I was excited by reading the abstract, but it seems they were bsing.

  23. #23
    Advisor Jovialis's Avatar
    Join Date
    04-05-17
    Posts
    7,589

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b1a1b2a2a
    MtDNA haplogroup
    H6a1b7

    Ethnic group
    Italian
    Country: United States



    Quote Originally Posted by Jovialis View Post
    Very much looking forward to those (UP) Caucasian samples!
    Maybe someone can finally make an interesting new calculator using the UP Caucasus samples as a component with other contemporaneous samples.

  24. #24
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    2 members found this post helpful.
    Razib Khans opinion on this preprint:
    https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2022/...-of-the-danes/

    The comments are also interesting.

  25. #25
    Regular Member Anfänger's Avatar
    Join Date
    07-04-18
    Posts
    343

    Y-DNA haplogroup
    R1b-Z2103
    MtDNA haplogroup
    U7a4

    Ethnic group
    Iranian
    Country: Germany



    Quote Originally Posted by enter_tain View Post
    So, what's the consensus? I was excited by reading the abstract, but it seems they were bsing.
    Guess we have to wait till the samples are published to reach a consensus on these issues. I am particularly interested in the Middle Don HGs and the UP Kotias Klde samples.

Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •