New conference on Bronze Age mobility in Europe

[Ygorcs]

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.

Well, isn't it just as likely that CHG and Iran-Neo are just two extremities in a cline that formed a specific "Eastern West Asian" cluster of populations that simply had a similar genetic history in previous millennia since the LGM or even earlier? I also happen to find it really suspicious that Iran-Neo is actually representative of the genetic structure of the entire Iranian Plateau. There must have been other "Iranian-like" populations but with relatively different percentages of admixtures and of additional foreign influences. CHG may have been one of many "Iranian-like" populations, one with stronger EHG and Anatolian-like influences.

 

[Ygorcs]

I checked on MDLP K11 by the way, the only four populations that came up with any significance were WHG, EHG, Iran-Mesolithic and Neolithic (which makes sense - I'm assuming Neolithic is something like ANF, but it doesn't really matter).

Here's the two Bell Beaker samples I have on GEDmatch from Germany, both well East of the Rhine (so, if anything, their Eastern ancestry would be enhanced from mixing with Corded Ware):

I find this kind of analgsis pretty cpnfusing, not even mentioning this weird label "Neolithic" (Neolithic what? Anatolia? Europe? Levant?). Also confusing is the blending of Neolithic with Mesolithic and even Paleolithic admixtures. I think only a much more chronologically and geographically proximate set of proxy populations could be at least a bit clarifying. Iran-Neolithic was not the same as Iran-Mesolithic, BA steppe was not the same as EHG. I somehow guess that the pretty inflated WHG would be less prevalent using Chalcolithic populations of Europe and West Asia. Some ancestry, especially if it came from Anatolia, Caucasua and the Levant, may be assigned to the closest hunter-gatherer West Eurasian population, and the least admixed seems to be WHG. Maybe I am just rambling, but what I wanted to say is just that this model does not seem to be very useful for me. Also did you check if it has a really good fit? Not all such analyses are anywhere close to the truth. The algorithms just try to make their best considering the comparative sources it was given.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I find this kind of analgsis pretty cpnfusing, not even mentioning this weird label "Neolithic" (Neolithic what? Anatolia? Europe? Levant?). Also confusing is the blending of Neolithic with Mesolithic and even Paleolithic admixtures. I think only a much more chronologically and geographically proximate set of proxy populations could be at least a bit clarifying. Iran-Neolithic was not the same as Iran-Mesolithic, BA steppe was not the same as EHG. I somehow guess that the pretty inflated WHG would be less prevalent using Chalcolithic populations of Europe and West Asia. Some ancestry, especially if it came from Anatolia, Caucasua and the Levant, may be assigned to the closest hunter-gatherer West Eurasian population, and the least admixed seems to be WHG. Maybe I am just rambling, but what I wanted to say is just that this model does not seem to be very useful for me. Also did you check if it has a really good fit? Not all such analyses are anywhere close to the truth. The algorithms just try to make their best considering the comparative sources it was given.

I saw elsewhere the Bell Beakers were WHG heavy, and I just tried to confirm that with this admittedly super primitive testing. I'll see if this is backed up by all of the calculators or not.

 

[Ygorcs]

I think we have to keep in mind that the academics seem to be seeing two migration waves hitting south east and south central Europe in the same general era, i.e. perhaps late Neolithic to Chalcolithic to early Bronze Age. One is "Iran dna" heavy without EHG, and one is steppe, which would include EHG. The first one deposited at least J2a from what we know from the Mycenaeans. We would expect some form of R1b or R1a from the steppe one, most probably R1b in my opinion, no matter what Davidski might think, but the ancient dna will tell us.

We know the direction of flow of the "Iran" like dna. The remaining question is the route of the steppe ancestry. If it came down from the steppe via the Balkans, it fits. It also explains the steppe levels in the Bronze Age Balkans. To support that it came from Anatolia we would have to find EHG at that time in Anatolia, whether or not the route was directly from Anatolia or it followed the Drews scenaritherwise, if the EHG was picked up only in the Balkans, what we would be seeing in Greece would only be a sort of "pseudo" steppe.

If Proto-Greek/Early Greek IE expansion was a part of the spread of Iran_Neo ancestry in the Meditteranean area, considering that many linguists have often considered that Greek shares innovations with Armenian and Indo-Iranian and looks like a "late departure" from the IE homeland, I would favor a scenario where Iran_Neo probably diluted with ANF or EEF-like admixture picked up throughout the South Caucasus, Anatolia and Southeastern Europe, and later it met a EEF+Yamnaya-related population in the eastern Balkans (more or less like that early BA J2b2 sample with 30% steppe Johanne Derite mentioned earlier in this thread).

Such a demographic formation, with Iran-Neo absorbing the local IE language and adding their own contributions as a superstrate (much like English eventually prevailed over its Norman French conquerors), would explain the "weird" situation of Mycenaeans having only little steppe ancestry, carrying Iran_Neo ancestry too, having a big majority of EEF (two EEF-enriched peoples coming together), and speaking a IE language that is no "archaic relic" very unrelated to arguably "northern" languages like Indo-Iranian and even Balto-Slavic, so probably not a branch that had split from its northern sisters too many centuries before their Aegean expansion. If ancient Greeks had not only J2a, but also some of that Z2103, J2b and Z93 we see there nowadays that would also fit this hypothesis (well, speculation in fat) of mine well, too.

Mycenaeans were just the brothers of Minoans that, unlike them, mixed with more northerly peoples of partial steppe origin and shifted their language, maybe because they expanded through a different route and under other circumstances (like some Vikings shifted to Romance or even Celtic, while others maintained their Norse language and culture).

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I find this kind of analgsis pretty cpnfusing, not even mentioning this weird label "Neolithic" (Neolithic what? Anatolia? Europe? Levant?). Also confusing is the blending of Neolithic with Mesolithic and even Paleolithic admixtures. I think only a much more chronologically and geographically proximate set of proxy populations could be at least a bit clarifying. Iran-Neolithic was not the same as Iran-Mesolithic, BA steppe was not the same as EHG. I somehow guess that the pretty inflated WHG would be less prevalent using Chalcolithic populations of Europe and West Asia. Some ancestry, especially if it came from Anatolia, Caucasua and the Levant, may be assigned to the closest hunter-gatherer West Eurasian population, and the least admixed seems to be WHG. Maybe I am just rambling, but what I wanted to say is just that this model does not seem to be very useful for me. Also did you check if it has a really good fit? Not all such analyses are anywhere close to the truth. The algorithms just try to make their best considering the comparative sources it was given.

Here's the MDLP K11 fitting for the sample (the second one - most other Beaker samples seem to have more EHG) that seems to have potentially less Corded ancestry - interestingly, it essentially perfectly fits with my theory (besides the fact that this calculator doesn't have Iron Gates), but maybe that's an actual coincidence:

Kit Num: T644357
Threshold of components set to 1.000
Threshold of method set to 0.25%
Personal data has been read. 20 approximations mode.
Gedmatch.Com

MDLP K11 Modern 4-Ancestors Oracle

This program is based on 4-Ancestors Oracle Version 0.96 by Alexandr Burnashev.
Questions about results should be sent to him at: [email protected]
Original concept proposed by Sergey Kozlov.
Many thanks to Alexandr for helping us get this web version developed.

MDLP K11 2xOracle and OracleX4

Admix Results (sorted):

#	Population	Percent
1	WHG	48.31
2	Neolithic	25.16
3	EHG	15.02
4	Iran-Mesolithic	10.58

Finished reading population data. 161 populations found.
11 components mode.

--------------------------------

Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Nordic_LBA @ 10.658375
2 Nordic_IA @ 11.699083
3 Nordic_BA @ 14.643268
4 Unetice_EBA @ 15.031625
5 British_IronAge @ 15.061828
6 British_AngloSaxon @ 15.223454
7 Nordic_LN @ 15.403898
8 Unetice_MBA @ 15.907064
9 Nordic_BA @ 16.450525
10 Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice_Poland @ 16.527868
11 Bell_Beaker_Czech @ 17.542713
12 Corded_Ware_Estonia @ 17.548342
13 Nordic_MN_B @ 17.656504
14 Sintashta_MBA @ 17.984547
15 BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN @ 18.033144
16 Bell_Beaker_Germany @ 18.537273
17 Halberstadt_LBA @ 18.704523
18 British_Celtic @ 18.832851
19 Alberstedt_LN @ 19.248013
20 Nordic_BattleAxe @ 19.972923

Using 2 populations approximation:
1 50% Anatolia_Chalcolithic +50% Motala_HG @ 8.273349


Using 3 populations approximation:
1 50% Bockstein_Mesolithic +25% Kotias_CHG +25% Spain_EN @ 1.147321


Using 4 populations approximation:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
1 Bockstein_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 0.499392
2 BerryAuBac_Mesolithic + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
3 Bichon_Azillian + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
4 Continenza_Paleolithic + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
5 Hungary_HG + Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
6 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LaBrana_Mesolithic + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
7 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
8 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Motala_Mesolithic @ 0.803128
9 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Iberia_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 0.854850
10 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Motala_HG @ 0.873600
11 Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Rochedane_Epipaleolithic + Spain_EN @ 0.901911
12 Iboussieres39 + Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Spain_EN @ 1.035136
13 Iberia_Chalcolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Villabruna_Epigravettian @ 1.111671
14 Chaudardes1_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + Luxembourg_Mesolithic + Starcevo_EN @ 1.119851
15 Baalberge_MN + BerryAuBac_Mesolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
16 Baalberge_MN + Bichon_Azillian + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
17 Baalberge_MN + Continenza_Paleolithic + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
18 Baalberge_MN + Kotias_CHG + LaBrana_Mesolithic + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
19 Baalberge_MN + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Mesolithic @ 1.135796
20 Baalberge_MN + Kotias_CHG + LesCloseaux13_Mesolithic + Swedish_Motala_Mesolithic @ 1.135796

Done.

Elapsed time 0.4864 seconds.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Actually, it probably is a coincidence to be honest.

 

[halfalp]

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.

For going from Anatolia to Georgia you need to pass from Iran?

 

[markod]

For going from Anatolia to Georgia you need to pass from Iran?

No East Eurasian ancestry in Anatolia :wink: Surely whatever makes Iran_Neo closer to Han than other West Eurasian samples came from the East.

That's why I don't get why people would object to the Iranian label: it's merely the place where those diverse ancestries converged, Iran_Neo didn't spring from the ground. Nowadays isolated groups like the Kalash or the Baloch seem to be closer to Iran_Neo than modern Iranians.

 

[halfalp]

No East Eurasian ancestry in Anatolia :wink: Surely whatever makes Iran_Neo closer to Han than other West Eurasian samples came from the East.

That's why I don't get why people would object to the Iranian label: it's merely the place where those diverse ancestries converged, Iran_Neo didn't spring from the ground. Nowadays isolated groups like the Kalash or the Baloch seem to be closer to Iran_Neo than modern Iranians.

I fought ENA was Early Neolithic Anatolian. Never mind.

 

[Cpluskx]

Btw Reich here calls them Iran farmers not Iranian-related )
https://ibb.co/56g07jj

 

[bicicleur 2]

Btw Reich here calls them Iran farmers not Iranian-related )
https://ibb.co/56g07jj

the screenshot says Iran farmers, so it is not CHG
there is very often confusion between both
Iran farmers are actually Zagros Mts herders 9 - 10 ka

 

[berun]

@Angela, I have not found the graph about ancient Sardinians being more attached to early farmers with WHG ancestry, instead what I have found is a recent 3 way admixture graph for modern Sardinians, being some 90% EEF, 5% steppe and 5% WHG... I guess that again there is lumping, in this case with the newly found Aegean ancestry of BA Sardinians which was mainly EEF plus CHG.

 

[Angela]

@Angela, I have not found the graph about ancient Sardinians being more attached to early farmers with WHG ancestry, instead what I have found is a recent 3 way admixture graph for modern Sardinians, being some 90% EEF, 5% steppe and 5% WHG... I guess that again there is lumping, in this case with the newly found Aegean ancestry of BA Sardinians which was mainly EEF plus CHG.

This is what I meant, Berun. Bear in mind that the Sardinian samples used in almost every genetic analysis are the HGDP ones from the isolated mountain plateau, not the western coastal cities with a bit of "other" ancestry. Some early PCAs were able to pick it up, even using only two dimensions. You can see that they are shifted left or west in the direction of WHG. They also overlap with the northern farmers, who were about 20% WHG.

You can also see it in ADMIXTURE when they drill down into the different areas of Sardinia. This is from Chiang e al using whole genomes, which is going to be more accurate. As you get away from that highland plateau, the "Yamnaya" increases.

Top half are the most isolated communities. In the coastal communities you're going to have the migration from the mainland, i.e. U-152. It would have been nice if they'd used more references, but this is at least more accurate than what we had before. Doubtless, some of the more minority ancestry, i.e. Punic, extra "Iran Neo" is going to get dumped into the closest of the three reference samples, or split up amongst them, but I doubt there was much of it.

Ed. Sorry, this is from Chiang et al Supplementary material.

 

[berun]

In the PCA Sardinians overlap with EEF, which had around 5% WHG as maximum, it is in Middle Neolithic and Chalco that WHG increases as Megalithic societies start to expand.
And yes, the autosomal graph will dump this newly found Aegean migration, BB would be dumped into EEF as they didn't came with steppe, Phoenicians and their cheap working force (Lybians) who knows how to recognize them, even so, Y chromos in Sardinia are weird.

Nuoro is also in this kind of mountain island inside Sardinia.

 

[Cato]

Another upcoming paper says that there is some steppe in ancient Sardinia..so probably it is a problem of location of the samples..if they are from the interior they could be 0% steppe as some modern Sardinian population if they are from the western coast with the plains and the mines i expect some steppe as in modern Sardinians..i doubt that the 5-10% steppe is all Roman (there was only one roman colony in Porto Torres). Medieval colonists were also restricted in the main cities

Utilizzando Tapatalk

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

Another upcoming paper says that there is some steppe in ancient Sardinia..so probably it is a problem of location of the samples..if they are from the interior they could be 0% steppe as some modern Sardinian population if they are from the western coast with the plains and the mines i expect some steppe as in modern Sardinians..i doubt that the 5-10% steppe is all Roman (there was only one roman colony in Porto Torres). Medieval colonists were also restricted in the main cities

Utilizzando Tapatalk

What timeframe is ancient? Do you have a link to that abstract? I presume it isn't Reich as that said only Iran ancestry was new.

 

[Angela]

In the PCA Sardinians overlap with EEF, which had around 5% WHG as maximum, it is in Middle Neolithic and Chalco that WHG increases as Megalithic societies start to expand.
And yes, the autosomal graph will dump this newly found Aegean migration, BB would be dumped into EEF as they didn't came with steppe, Phoenicians and their cheap working force (Lybians) who knows how to recognize them, even so, Y chromos in Sardinia are weird.

Nuoro is also in this kind of mountain island inside Sardinia.

Take a look at the PCA again. Sardinians overlap only with the Skoglund farmer sample. That's from far northern Europe and has 20% WHG. The Sardinian samples are shifted away from Stuttgart, which is the LBK sample and only had about 5% WHG. The shift is in the direction of the hunter-gatherers.

The ydna makes sense in that context. The I2a lineages are from the later more admixed farmers, and the U-152 from late arriving mainlanders.

They've actually done a good job with the Sardinians.

 

[Ygorcs]

In the PCA Sardinians overlap with EEF, which had around 5% WHG as maximum, it is in Middle Neolithic and Chalco that WHG increases as Megalithic societies start to expand.
And yes, the autosomal graph will dump this newly found Aegean migration, BB would be dumped into EEF as they didn't came with steppe, Phoenicians and their cheap working force (Lybians) who knows how to recognize them, even so, Y chromos in Sardinia are weird.

Nuoro is also in this kind of mountain island inside Sardinia.

I doubt "urban" immigrations like those of Phoenicians and their Libyan associates left much or even any non-negligible impact in most places, including Sardinia, except where they really colonized the lands extensively. Cities were demographic sinks in antiquity, they usually tended to decrease and not increase their genetic impact over time, and that must have been especially true in the case of port cities, even more exposed to epidemics. And slaves, especially slaves in urban areas, must have left even less genetic contribution on the long term.

 

[ToBeOrNotToBe]

I doubt "urban" immigrations like those of Phoenicians and their Libyan associates left much or even any non-negligible impact in most places, including Sardinia, except where they really colonized the lands extensively. Cities were demographic sinks in antiquity, they usually tended to decrease and not increase their genetic impact over time, and that must have been especially true in the case of port cities, even more exposed to epidemics. And slaves, especially slaves in urban areas, must have left even less genetic contribution on the long term.

True, but that isn't always the case - with urban immigration during the Roman period, mass (mainly Syrian and Jewish) immigration into Southern Italy left a huge presence that is clearly seen today in both modern phenotype and autosomal genetic admixture. I would have thought Sicily would have a lot of Greek and Phoenician ancestry too, but I agree that the impact of Mediterranean colonists tends to be overstated.

 

[Angela]

^^Fascinating. Please provide evidence (with actual numbers) to support your case why they would have gone only to southern Italy/Sicily, and why, moreover, they would have outnumbered all the Gauls and Germanics and Britons and Pannonians who were enslaved. You know, bills of lading, anecdotes about how they sent certain ethnicities only to certain areas. Goodness, nice big, brawny men were perfect for the latifundia. Seriously, I really would be interested to see something like that. If it's not available I suggest we wait for the ancient dna which should be out shortly.

Also, add classical history to the subjects in which you need to do a lot of reading. Southern Italy was as much an area of Greek migration as Sicily. Please refer to the posts upthread and the following map for the Iron Age before you take your deep dive into the books.

I really don't know where all this genetic material could have gone given the mainland Greeks and the Southern Italians/Sicilians only differ in about what, ten percen of their genome?

Trying to get under my skin, TBONTB? First I would have to care, and second it would have to be worthwhile data. Again, wrong on both counts.