PDA

View Full Version : Ancient DNA from Romania



Fungene
03-05-2018, 01:37 AM
Dem bones—Romanian version: a wish list of samples for ancient DNA research.

We now have autosomal analyses for some ancient DNA samples from Romania, twelve in Mathieson 2018, and four more in Gonzales-Fortes 2017.
That ‘s not much, but it’s a start.

It would be nice to see research projects that systematically sample available remains from Romania up to the Medieval period. This would allow one to make inferences about population structure.

What information is currently available that would help map out available remains?

The following source is a handy reference work listing sites that have yielded remains from the Early Neolithic to the Middle Eneolithic:
Cătălin Lazăr (ed.) 2012. The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania. (ISBN 978-606-537-135-4).
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Catalin_Lazar/publication/259742743_The_Catalogue_of_the_Neolithic_and_Eneol ithic_Funerary_Findings_from_Romania/links/5694b01608ae3ad8e33b9143/The-Catalogue-of-the-Neolithic-and-Eneolithic-Funerary-Findings-from-Romania.pdf

It covers funerary finds up to the middle eneolithic, but does not include the transition period to the Bronze Age (Horodiştea-Folteşti-Cernavoda II, Coţofeni, Cernavoda III, Baden cultures.)

There is no comparable catalog for the transition and later periods. And even for the earlier periods Lazăr’s compilation covers, there have been, in the meantime, more recent finds.

To get more information, one will have to slog through thousands of records in the “Repertoriul Arheologic National,” http://ran.cimec.ro.

When I have time, I hope to occasionally post what I find in this online collection. Anyone else is invited to pitch in. Lots of good stuff in there. Some reading knowledge of Romanian needed. Not hard for anyone familiar with Romance languages.

One can always wish that someone will develop a long-range research program that will help shed some light on population patterns in this part of Southeastern Europe.

eastara
03-09-2018, 11:07 AM
I don't know if you are aware about this study about mtDNA analysis from the fortress Capidava, on the Dannube in Dobruja, 10th century.
http://www.ibiol.ro/proiecte/PNII/GENESIS/2014/IoanaRusu.pdf

Somebody posted preliminary findings about 4 predicted haplogroups, however now 9 ( 5 partial and 4 full genomes) are downloaded in Genbank. Not sure if a study "Maternal DNA lineages at the gate of Europe in the 10th century" will be published soon.

1. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M6 D-loop, partial sequence; mitochondrial /haplogroup="H"
301 bp linear DNA
MF597782.1 GI:1273481831

2. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M6 D-loop, partial sequence; mitochondrial /haplogroup="H"
382 bp linear DNA
MF597781.1 GI:1273481830

3. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M3 D-loop, partial sequence; mitochondrial /haplogroup="R0a"
302 bp linear DNA
MF597780.1 GI:1273481829

4. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M3 D-loop, partial sequence; mitochondrial /haplogroup="R0a"
382 bp linear DNA
MF597779.1 GI:1273481828

5. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M17 mitochondrion, partial genome /haplogroup="H5e1a1"
16,569 bp linear DNA
MF597778.1 GI:1273481814

6. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M15 mitochondrion, partial genome /haplogroup="H13a1a3"
16,568 bp linear DNA
MF597777.1 GI:1273481800

7. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M11 mitochondrion, partial genome /haplogroup="N9a9"
16,568 bp linear DNA
MF597776.1 GI:1273481786

8. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M9 mitochondrion, partial genome /haplogroup="N9a9"
16,552 bp linear DNA
MF597775.1 GI:1273481772

9. Homo sapiens isolate CAP-M2 mitochondrion, complete genome /haplogroup="V1a"
16,569 bp circular DNA
MF597774.1 GI:1273481758

It is evident that the preliminary predictions, based on HVR1 only, do not match the full mtDNA genome analysis. It is very hard to make any ethnic or migratory conclusions, something similar was the Bulgarian study about the old Bulgars.
From those with full mtDNA, there are 2 N9a9, which is a typical East Asian haplogroup. H13a1a3 is found in Caucasus and Iran, but also in Poland. H5e1a1 is found in Poland and Russia, one ancient Magyar was H5e1.
Regarding the Capidava remains, the fortress was a few centuries a part of the Bulgar empire, however from 915 the plain from Danube to the Carpathian mountains was lost to the Pechenegs. A little later Dobrudja was mainly Cuman domain. Capidava was rebuilt by the Byzantines in 10th c. when the Bulgarian empire fell under their rule, but finally destroyed by the Pechenegs again in 1026 and abandoned after that.

Fungene
03-10-2018, 06:16 AM
I don't know if you are aware about this study about mtDNA analysis from the fortress Capidava, on the Dannube in Dobruja, 10th century.
http://www.ibiol.ro/proiecte/PNII/GENESIS/2014/IoanaRusu.pdf
.
Yes, I was aware of this poster. Thanks for pointing it out and for the additional commentary.
I was not quite sure what to make of it (the poster, not your commentary.) And why Capidava, or fortresses, after all? I think the real advantage of aDNA, especially autosomal, is in what it will be able to tell us about ordinary people. But for that, there needs to be patient collection of data. There is still much work to be done. Nevertheless, of course, we don't want to forget about the information already obtained.

Fungene
03-10-2018, 03:40 PM
something similar was the Bulgarian study


It would be really interesting if you could point us to Bulgarian reports of possible samples to test for ancient DNA, and perhaps summarize some of the information for us. Very few of us, yours truly included, have access to this information because of the language barrier. I would be looking forward to that.

Fungene
03-10-2018, 08:29 PM
Here and the next few posts are visualizations of the locations of funerary finds (most containing human remains), prior to the period of transition in Romania, by modern counties. The information on which the maps are based is culled from Cătălin Lazăr (ed.) 2012. The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania, referenced in the first post in this thread.

First, a map of findings from all periods, from Early Neolithic to Middle Eneolithic (ca. 6600-3700 BCE)
22033

Following the divisions in the Catalogue, and the dates provided:

Early Neolithic (6600-5500 BCE): Map of Funerary Findings from the Early Neolithic in Romania
22034

Fungene
03-10-2018, 08:33 PM
Still based on
Cătălin Lazăr (ed.) 2012. The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania

Middle Neolithic (5500-5000 BCE): Map of Funerary Findings from the Middle Neolithic in Romania
22035

Early Eneolithic (5000-45000 BCE): Map of Funerary Findings from the Early Eneolithic in Romania
22036

Fungene
03-10-2018, 08:39 PM
Finally,

Middle Eneolithic (4500/4600-3800-3700 BCE): Map of Funerary Findings from the Middle Eneolithic in Romania
22037

Also, because people tend to like Cucuteni culture (although I like ‘em all), I have also made a map of the funerary findings of the Cucuteni culture in Romania. They are from the following counties:
Bacău, Botoșani, Covasna, Iași, Neamț, Suceava, and Vaslui

22038

(and yes, there are bones to be sampled from Cucuteni culture)

Fungene
03-10-2018, 08:53 PM
Just a small comment that can be made from perusing Cătălin Lazăr (ed.) 2012. The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania.
It appears that archaeological finds have typically been dug up fortuitously, usually as a result of roadwork or other building projects.
Often artifacts and remains have been destroyed in the process. The advent of new, non-destructive imaging techniques are sure to be of great help.

eastara
03-10-2018, 11:33 PM
You can find most of the ancient samples on the site Ancestral Journeys, it shows also the study they are taken from. Here are the Medieval samples.
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/medievaldna.shtml
The Bulgarian study was contested even with the choice of samples. Only Nojarevo could be attributed to the old Bulgar, Tuhovishte is from a much later period and Southern Bulgaria, the Bulgars probably never settled there except for military garrisons in the fortresses. Monastery of Mostich were buried with Christian rituals, so there is no archaeological proof if they were Bulgars or locals.
No East Asian haplogroups were found, but as they were predicted on the basis of HVR1 only, this is not very precise.

Fungene
03-11-2018, 12:16 AM
You can find most of the ancient samples on the site Ancestral Journeys.
Yes, thank you. That certainly needs to be added to one's database.
It would be nice to hear about human remains archeological research has uncovered in Bulgaria, from the Early Neolithic to the Middle Ages, for which we do not yet have aDNA. That would help in making inferences (one day, when we have enough data) about population structure across time.
Is there a Bulgarian online database, similar to the Romanian “Repertoriul Arheologic National”?

eastara
03-11-2018, 03:16 AM
I am not aware of centralised archaeological database in Bulgaria
Balkan Neolithic and to certain extend Bronze periods are already more or less clear from the study "The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe". It is obvious that modern Balkan people are not identical to those early samples.
I have heard many Bulgarian Thracian samples have been sent to the same scientists and probably will be published soon. Unfortunately Western labs are ready to test samples for free for their own projects only and late Medieval history on the Balkans is of no interest for them.
The Bulgarian Academy of Science recently bought a new sequenator for its DNA research and promised to test more local samples. However the first stage will be mtDNA only, which proved not to be very useful. Later with more experience they will probably move to NGS.

Fungene
03-11-2018, 04:52 PM
Information on autosomal aDNA from Romania in one convenient place

Samples from the Early Neolithic

Dates for aDNA samples, as well as haplogroup assignments are from
- Mathieson 2018, “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe,” Supplementary Data, and Supplementary Information (where there is incompatibility, the information from the Excel Spreadsheet, the Data, was chosen over the Supplementary Information)
- Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017, “Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi-generational Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Lower Danube Basin, “ Supplemental Information.

The samples are I2532, I2533, I2534 in Mathieson 2018 and GB1_Eneol, classified as Eneolithic in Gonzáles-Fortes but as Starčevo-Criş in Lăzar’s Catalogue (Catalogue is referenced in the first post in this thread.)

Cârcea-Viaduct, Starčevo-Criş Early Neolithic
I2533 / ROM29 in Mathieson 2018, Supplementary Info.
Female
5484-5372 cal BCE, J1c5
Cârcea II, Dolj, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #6, p. 26.

Coțatcu, Starčevo-Criş Early Neolithic
I2532 / ROM1 in Mathieson 2018, Supplementary Info.
Male
5715-5626 cal BCE, K1a2, G2a2b2b
Coțatcu, Buzău, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #10, p. 27.

Măgura Buduiasca, Starčevo-Criş Early Neolithic
I2534 / TEL1 in Mathieson 2018, Supplementary Info.
Female
6061-5985 calBCE, K1
Măgura, Teleorman, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #22, p. 32.

22047

22048

Extended Data Fig. 2, Mathieson, 2018. Supervised admixture analysis.
Grey: Anatolian Neolithic
Pink: Western Hunter-Gatherer
Green: Eastern Hunter-Gatherer
Yellow: Yamnaya Samara


Gura Baciului, Cluj, classified as Eneolithic
Female
GB1_Eneo, in Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017
5,377 ± 77 cal BP, K1a4a
Gura Baciului, Cluj, in Lăzar, Catalogue, #20, pp. 31-32, classified as Starcevo-Cris, Early Neolithic

22049

Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017, Fig S3B. Admixture for all ancient individuals.
Yellow: Anatolia Neolithic



Back to Mathieson 2018 for the Middle Eneolithic

Urziceni-Vamă, Satu Mare, Middle Eneolithic, Bodrogkeresztúr

I4088 / URZI16
Female
4331-4076 cal BCE, K2a

I4089 / URZI48
“The sample … belongs to an adult individual discovered in grave no. 48 from 2014.”
Male.
3761-3645 cal BCE , J1c, C1a2a
Urziceni-Vamă, Satu Mare in Lăzar, Catalogue, #125, pp. 160-161 (for information up to 2012).

22050
Extended Data Fig. 2, Mathieson, 2018. Supervised admixture analysis.
Grey: Anatolian Neolithic
Pink: Western Hunter-Gatherer
Green: Eastern Hunter-Gatherer
Yellow: Yamnaya Samara

All told there is autosomal information for ancient samples from the Neolithic to Eneolithic from the following areas:

22051

The only cultures sampled are Starčevo-Criş (mostly) and Bodrogkeresztúr. (Why?)

When I find some time, I will collect similar information for the Mesolithic samples.

Fungene
03-11-2018, 11:35 PM
All information on autosomal aDNA from Romania in one convenient place

Samples from the Mesolithic

Dates for aDNA samples, as well as haplogroup assignments are from
- Mathieson 2018, “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe,” Supplementary Data, and Supplementary Information (where there is incompatibility, the information from the Excel Spreadsheet, the Data, was chosen over the Supplementary Information)
- Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017, “Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi-generational Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Lower Danube Basin, “ Supplemental Information.

The samples are I4607, I4655, I5411, I5436, I4081, I4582, I5408 in Mathieson 2018 and OC1_Meso, SC1_Meso, SC2_Meso in Gonzáles-Fortes 2017.

From Mathieson 2018:
Schela Cladovei, Mehedinţi –Mesolithic

I4607 / SCCL_46
Male
7340-6640 cal BCE, U5a2, I2

I4655 / SCCL_50
Male
7060-6570 cal BCE, K1, R (R:M764:21263029G->A)

I5411 / SCCL_12
Male
7000-6300 BCE, U5a1c1, R1b1a (xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)

I5436 / SCCL_43
Female
7451-6698 cal BCE, U5a2

Ostrovul Corbului, Mehedinţi- Mesolithic

I4081 / OSTCOR1a+1b / ROM47
Male
7580-7190 cal BCE, H13, R1b1a

I4582 / OSTCOR32
Female
7021-6473 cal, BCE, K1

I5408 / OSTCOR24
Male
6000-5000 BCE, K1c, R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)

22062

Extended Data Fig. 2, Mathieson, 2018. Supervised admixture analysis.
Grey: Anatolian Neolithic
Pink: Western Hunter-Gatherer
Green: Eastern Hunter-Gatherer
Yellow: Yamnaya Samara


From Gonzáles-Fortes, 2017:

Ostrovul Corbului- Mehedinţi- Mesolithic

OC1_Meso
Male
8,704 ± 269 cal BP, K1 + 16362, R1b

Schela Cladovei - Mehedinţi –Mesolithic

SC1_Meso
Male
8,814 ± 261 cal BP, U5b2c, R

SC2_Meso
Male
U5a1c, R1

22061
From Fig S3B. Admixture for all ancient individuals.


For the Mesolithic, the following area was sampled:
22060

Fungene
03-12-2018, 01:10 AM
Repertoriul Arheologic National (RAN)

http://ran.cimec.ro

As of February 2018, RAN provided the following statistics concerning the number of archaeological sites in Romania (one would have to scour each record for reports of human remains and references to publications)


Paleolithic: 348
Mesolithic: 29
Neolithic: 1835
Eneolithic: 1969
Bronze Age: 3942

Iron Age: 91
Halstatt period: 1503
La Tčne period: 2335
Geto-Dacian period: 37

Greek period: 16
Roman period: 3101
Greco-Roman period: 17
Post-Roman period: 95
Hellenistic period: 72
Late Antiquity: 1

Roman-Byzantine period: 123
Byzantine period: 27
Migration period: 1549
Medieval period: 4738

Prehistory [unspecified]: 518
Antiquity [unspecified]: 25
Modern period [unspecified]: 553
Contemporary period [unspecified]: 24
Unspecified: 162
Unknown: 1792

eastara
03-12-2018, 05:11 AM
This is ineresting, but rather overwhelming, when you are not sure what to search for.
Just found the site Ariadne - Explore the digital resources and services that ARIADNE has brought together from across Europe for archaeological research, learning and teaching.
http://portal.ariadne-infrastructure.eu/
It seems it includes archaeological sites from 16 European countries, which are searchable by map and keyword.

Fungene
03-12-2018, 11:07 AM
This is a great resource, thanks.
I used Ariadne's browse-by-map capability. Very nice. You can zoom in on an area of interest.
I just checked some references pertaining to Romania. They point back to ciMEC, which hosts RAN.
There seems to be a nice variety of things for Bulgaria.
So many interesting things to look at ...

eastara
03-15-2018, 12:18 PM
The Capidava study is published:

Maternal DNA lineages at the gate of Europe in the 10th century AD
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193578

Fungene
03-15-2018, 03:43 PM
The Capidava study is published


The Eurasian steppe reaches into Romania, near to the mouth of the Danube. Capidava is a fort on the Danube, and the small group of individuals that is the focus of the study is a group of migrants. Forts have an obvious military function.

This study provides information exclusively about mitogenomes, but we are at are least getting to see data at higher resolutions in five of the nine reported results.

In comparison with contemporary populations, the studied group of individuals “showed the lowest genetic distances from present-day Slavic populations from Eastern Europe (BLR, UKR, RUS, SVN, and SVK).” This remark is based on high-resolution mitochondrial data for samples M2: V1a; M5: H13a1a3; and M17: H5e1a1.
But some individuals from the Capidava population, M9 and M11: N9, show a close relation with contemporary individuals from the Tubalar ethic group in the Republic of Altai and from the Kyrgyz ethnic group.
So, this small group of migrants was predominantly Western Eurasian with a minority from Central Asia. Just as one would expect. It is a good thing for a study to provide expected results.

Note that the study chose to examine residents of a fort, which has military functions and is useful to incursions implying the use of armed force. So parts of the statements in the conclusion are a bit ambiguous: “The Capidava medieval sample analyzed here displays a very high haplogroup/haplotype diversity, which in conjunction with the very large difference when compared to the local modern population may indicate a very dynamic genetic environment: intense local population turnover.”

Perhaps what the authors meant was that because of migrations, there was a very dynamic genetic environment. Everybody can agree with that. Inferring that there was a very intense local population turnover because the contemporary population in Dobruja is not Belarusian, Russian, etc. is a stretch.

A more general comment, not specific to this study: of late, studies seem to gravitate toward perceived elites, whether it be Lombards, women with deformed skulls, occupants of forts, or “conquerors.” Perhaps it is thought that this will generate more interest?
We will need a lot more data from a greater diversity of individuals. The sobering conclusion in the Capidava study shows that the authors are aware of the work that remains to be done: “In the age of NGS technology, a critical mass of data has to be reached in order to permit future more thorough phylogenetically, phylogeographically and demographically informative comparisons.”
Hear, hear.

Fungene
03-15-2018, 06:45 PM
More on the people from 10th century Capidava: a health report

Whatever their social status, the individuals at Capidava led a harsh life. Physically, they seemed to be quite challenged. 4/11 of the samples had periosteal inflammation, which comes from repetitive physical activity.

That was the least of their problems. Almost half had linear enamel hypoplasia, due to physiological stress in childhood. Over 25% had porotic hyperostosis, or spongy cranial vault bones. This is caused by iron deficiency anemia and malnutrition. Pretty much all of the samples had lousy teeth.
Some of the women seem to have been particularly unfortunate. M8 (mtDNA U3a,) who was around 16-24 years old at time of death, not only had periosteal inflammation, but also a rib fracture and a cranial lesion, both of which had healed prior to death. M1 (U5a1c2a,) 38-48 at time of death, also had a healed fracture of the humerus.
Was their health atypical for incoming steppe migrants? Was this group particularly unsuccessful in making a life in new surroundings? Can we even answer this question at this stage?

All information from:
Rusu et al. 2018. “Maternal DNA lineages at the gate of Europe in the 10th century AD.” PLoS ONE. S1 Table. Information regarding the osteological and pathological analysis of the samples.

eastara
03-16-2018, 12:25 AM
It seems the authors are not willing to make a statements who were the buried people in Capidava. They mention only "Within this area, one can find tracks marking the passage of multiple populations (e.g. Greeks, Romans, Byzantines, Pechenegs, Tatars, etc.)".
However Тhe direct radiocarbon dating performed on the M4 human bones placed the remains at 880 and 990 cal. AD
So those remains are shifted more around mid 10th centuries while this fortress was a part of the Bulgar Empire. Note it is on the South side of Danube and not in the land lost to the Pechenegs to the North. Byzantines came only around 1000AD, when the Bulgarian Empire fell completely under their rule and the fortress rebuilding was probably around that time.
All the burials are with Christian tradition. This definitely excludes the Pechenegs and Russians, who were defiant Pagans around that time. It is too early for Cumans, Tartars, etc. So the only option is they were Bulgars or subjects of the Bulgarian empire.
Why are they not related to the previous study about old Bulgars? I have listed our objections regarding the Nesheva/Karachanak study above - bad choice of samples, which reflect probably only the local subjects, but not the Bulgars themselves.

Fungene
03-25-2018, 05:26 PM
It seems the authors are not willing to make a statements who were the buried people in Capidava.
... the only option is they were Bulgars or subjects of the Bulgarian empire.

A few more bits of information: according to the archaeological report the authors reference — Pinter et al. 2011. “Preliminary Research in Capidava Medieval Necropolis (Topalu com., Constanţa County).”Pontica — M3 (Female) and M4 (Male) were the only individuals who had grave goods, small bronze objects in both cases (ring, buttons.)

M3 was buried with a bronze ring bearing a pentagram, a symbol indicating she was probably a Bogomil.
M3 and M4 were both, according to Rusu et al., R0a2’3 and the authors of the genetic study suggest M3 and M4 were perhaps maternally related. That’s about as far as they go in speculating about these two samples.

Although M3 and M4 were the only ones in the group to have grave goods, they both had all the medical conditions mentioned in my previous post (to which you can add osteoarthritis, which I had omitted.) They clearly relied on a diet of grains, not fish or meat — One wonders from whom they were getting provisions.

That's about all we know about these individuals. Do they look like Bulgars to you?

eastara
03-25-2018, 10:49 PM
A few more bits of information: according to the archaeological report the authors reference — Pinter et al. 2011. “Preliminary Research in Capidava Medieval Necropolis (Topalu com., Constanţa County).”Pontica — M3 (Female) and M4 (Male) were the only individuals who had grave goods, small bronze objects in both cases (ring, buttons.)

M3 was buried with a bronze ring bearing a pentagram, a symbol indicating she was probably a Bogomil.
M3 and M4 were both, according to Rusu et al., R0a2’3 and the authors of the genetic study suggest M3 and M4 were perhaps maternally related. That’s about as far as they go in speculating about these two samples.

Although M3 and M4 were the only ones in the group to have grave goods, they both had all the medical conditions mentioned in my previous post (to which you can add osteoarthritis, which I had omitted.) They clearly relied on a diet of grains, not fish or meat — One wonders from whom they were getting provisions.

That's about all we know about these individuals. Do they look like Bulgars to you?

We still don't know what the original Bulgars looked like genetically. However for e few centuries they could have mixed with the locals at least on the maternal side, or this is the original population from Roman times. People must have in mind that the border along the Danube has been protected by Roman castles and legions. In later times, when a part of the Eastern Roman Empire, most were with Anatolian, and not local origin. Thus, Roman generals and emperors born in the Balkans should not be always presumed with local origin.
In Early Middle ages all fortresses and towns North of the Balkan mountains(except some on the Black sea coast) were destroyed and deserted. After they became a part of the Bulgar Empire some have been rebuilt.

Fungene
05-17-2018, 07:56 PM
We now get samples from Romania showing up in papers. Nice.
The Wang et al. “The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus” preprint at BioRxiv is interesting for a variety of reasons.

Here is one relevant to this thread: Fig. 2d (below), which shows some prehistoric individuals projected onto modern Western Eurasian populations. For the moderns, the tan pentagons are for Romanians and the tan stars represent Moldavians.
Just a short comment about the symbols: Moldavians cluster closer to Bulgarians than Romanians do in this diagram. I have never seen that in any PCA of modern European populations, so perhaps the symbols in this PCA got mixed up. Now, because the symbols for Romanians and Moldavians cluster together, the possible mix-up doesn’t really matter for the main observation, which is this.

In drawing a line from Romania Eneolithic (full orange dots) to Yamnaya Samara (full dark green diamonds), one tracks right through the Romanian-Moldavian cluster.* The orange dots represent I2532, Coțatcu, close to Râmnicu Sărat, and I2533, which is Cârcea Viaduct, southeast of Craiova.
That’s something like the story of admixture in Romania in the blink of an eye. Sure, it’s more complicated. It’s just that this PCA gives us a good clue about what’s a good direction to look in and what’s a waste of time. Why am I saying this? Listening to the noise in Romanian media (sometimes helped along by some Romanian researchers) one would have expected Romanians to cluster with central Europeans, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, or Avars. Well, I guess not.
* Can’t comment yet on Yamnaya Hungary (downward-pointing full, dark-green triangles); the samples haven’t been published yet.
23236

Fungene
05-18-2018, 11:46 AM
[QUOTE=Fungene;396305]
Wang et al. “The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus” preprint at BioRxiv.
...
Fig. 2d ... which shows some prehistoric individuals projected onto modern Western Eurasian populations. For the moderns, the tan pentagons are for Romanians and the tan stars represent Moldavians.
[QUOTE]
"Moldavian" is the term used by the authors. They may have meant "Moldovan."
Bulgarian is represented by tan upward-pointing triangles.
23248

Fungene
05-18-2018, 12:38 PM
[QUOTE=Fungene;396305]
Wang et al. “The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus” preprint at BioRxiv.
...
Yamnaya Samara (full dark green diamonds)
...
QUOTE]

About Yamnaya Samara: Using Globular Amphora as a stand-in for Anatolian farmer-related ancestry [Anatolian Neolithic + Western Hunter Gatherer], the paper estimates that the contribution of farmer-related ancestry to Yamnaya Samara is 13.2% with a standard error of 2.7%.
Likewise, for Yamnaya Hungary, it would be 17.1%, with a standard error of 4.1% (438-442).

eastara
05-18-2018, 02:18 PM
It looks Bulgarians, Romanians and Moldavian form one cluster. However there are Romanians closer to Croats and Bulgarians closer to Greek and Albanians.
I also wondered about the Moldavians, they are closer to the Greeks, while Moldavians are in fact mixed with Ukrainians. Haven't they mixed up the Gagauz from Moldova with Moldavians? In the previous study "137 ancient human genomes from across
the Eurasian steppes" people had the wrong impression Bulgarians took part in the analysis as one dot looks like over Bulgaria, but in fact the samples are Gagauz from Moldova. Only reading carefully the study is revealed also that the dot over Jordan are in fact Cherkess refugees from the Caucasus and not local Arabs.

https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

Fungene
05-18-2018, 03:47 PM
I also wondered about the Moldavians, they are closer to the Greeks, while Moldavians are in fact mixed with Ukrainians. Haven't they mixed up the Gagauz from Moldova with Moldavians?

They could have mixed up the Gagauz with Moldovans. For the moment, I don't seem to find an analysis that compares them directly. Do you have a link, or could you post a graph?

EDIT: somehow I doubt that that the "Moldavians" are relabelled Gagauz. It is more likely someone swapped symbols representing two populations.



In the previous study "137 ancient human genomes from across
the Eurasian steppes" people had the wrong impression Bulgarians took part in the analysis as one dot looks like over Bulgaria, but in fact the samples are Gagauz from Moldova.
https://static-content.springer.com/esm/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41586-018-0094-2/MediaObjects/41586_2018_94_MOESM1_ESM.pdf

I don't see any sample identified as being from Moldova, Romania, or Bulgaria in the supplement or in the Excel spreadsheet available online. Maybe you could help?

Fungene
05-18-2018, 04:04 PM
It looks Bulgarians, Romanians and Moldavian form one cluster. However there are Romanians closer to Croats and Bulgarians closer to Greek and Albanians.

Looks like one stray Croat sample.
2014: Croats close to Hungarians, not really Romanians.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

Fungene
05-18-2018, 04:37 PM
I don't see any sample identified as being from Moldova, Romania, or Bulgaria in the supplement or in the Excel spreadsheet available online. Maybe you could help?

OK: 12 Gagauz in the info on the present-day dataset spreadsheet for "137 ancient...".
and, of course, plenty on Gagauz by Onur Dincer here: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10471-Gagauz-people&p=300529&viewfull=1#post300529 and comments by Eastara

eastara
05-19-2018, 05:08 AM
Looks like one stray Croat sample.
2014: Croats close to Hungarians, not really Romanians.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

I meant there are outlier Romanians, closer to Croats (in fact Hungarians, but they are missing from the above plot).

Here is the admixture analysis from "Standing at the Gateway to Europe" and it is clear that Romanians stand a fraction North compared to Bulgarians, and Gagauze a fraction south of the Bulgarians. Don't know how a Moldavian looks autosomally, but judging from the abundance of haplogroups I2a Dinaric and R1a they should be slightly North from the Romanians ( at least in Wallahia). So don't feel confident the brown star there are real Moldavians,while the Romanians look OK

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/figure/image?size=large&id=info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0105090.g002

Fungene
05-19-2018, 12:39 PM
We'll see if the authors correct the error in the preprint.There is an error of some kind. Nevertheless, it is a very minor point. I might take up "137 Ancient Human Genomes" in the Gagauz thread, a bit later in the day (but not in this thread.)

Fungene
05-19-2018, 02:58 PM
A few comments on "137 Ancient Human Genomes" and the Gagauz here https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10471-Gagauz-people&p=397775#post397775

Dorkymon
05-19-2018, 08:44 PM
We now get samples from Romania showing up in papers. Nice.
The Wang et al. “The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus” preprint at BioRxiv is interesting for a variety of reasons.

Here is one relevant to this thread: Fig. 2d (below), which shows some prehistoric individuals projected onto modern Western Eurasian populations. For the moderns, the tan pentagons are for Romanians and the tan stars represent Moldavians.
Just a short comment about the symbols: Moldavians cluster closer to Bulgarians than Romanians do in this diagram. I have never seen that in any PCA of modern European populations, so perhaps the symbols in this PCA got mixed up. Now, because the symbols for Romanians and Moldavians cluster together, the possible mix-up doesn’t really matter for the main observation, which is this.

In drawing a line from Romania Eneolithic (full orange dots) to Yamnaya Samara (full dark green diamonds), one tracks right through the Romanian-Moldavian cluster.* The orange dots represent I2532, Coțatcu, close to Râmnicu Sărat, and I2533, which is Cârcea Viaduct, southeast of Craiova.
That’s something like the story of admixture in Romania in the blink of an eye. Sure, it’s more complicated. It’s just that this PCA gives us a good clue about what’s a good direction to look in and what’s a waste of time. Why am I saying this? Listening to the noise in Romanian media (sometimes helped along by some Romanian researchers) one would have expected Romanians to cluster with central Europeans, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, or Avars. Well, I guess not.
* Can’t comment yet on Yamnaya Hungary (downward-pointing full, dark-green triangles); the samples haven’t been published yet.
23236

Those pentagons are for Romanians, since the Romanian samples seem to be copied from Lazaridis.

https://media.springernature.com/m685/nature-assets/nature/journal/v536/n7617/images_hires/nature19310-sf1.jpg

Those Moldovans are looking really sketchy though. Some of them look too South-shifted even for Romanians.
In any case, they are supposed to be shifted closer to Central Europe than the Romanian average. Basically around the coordinates of the leftmost Romanian, who clusters with the Croats. I share with a couple on 23andme and they have a similar admixture distribution to mine.

Fungene
05-19-2018, 10:53 PM
I share with a couple on 23andme.

That's a good topic for the Romanian 23andme thread!

Fungene
05-23-2018, 05:52 PM
We now get samples from Romania showing up in papers. Nice.
..Wang et al. “The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus” preprint at BioRxiv..

... Fig. 2d (below), which shows some prehistoric individuals projected onto modern Western Eurasian populations. For the moderns, the tan pentagons are for Romanians and the tan stars represent Moldavians.
Just a short comment about the symbols: Moldavians cluster closer to Bulgarians than Romanians do in this diagram.

...In drawing a line from Romania Eneolithic (full orange dots) to Yamnaya Samara (full dark green diamonds)


Looking at Supplementary Figure 1 at
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347.figures-only: The population identified as Moldavian really is very similar to Bulgarians. Perhaps they meant Macedonian instead of Moldavian?

Also, looking at Figure 2d more closely, Samara Eneolithic (upward-pointing dark-grey triangles) would be a better choice than Yamnaya Samara. The Samara Eneolithic samples are I0433, I0434, and I0122, 5200-4000 BCE, Khvalynsk II. Closer temporal proximity to the Romanian Eneolithic samples. Cârcea is 5484-5372 calBC. (Supplementary Data 2).

Fungene
06-01-2018, 08:24 PM
A common statement one runs across repeatedly is that there are no human remains to be sampled from Cucuteni culture. So here is a list of available remains from Cucuteni culture in Romania. (Moldova is sure to have at least as much.)

See here:
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Catalin_Lazar/publication/259742743_The_Catalogue_of_the_Neolithic_and_Eneol ithic_Funerary_Findings_from_Romania/links/5694b01608ae3ad8e33b9143/The-Catalogue-of-the-Neolithic-and-Eneolithic-Funerary-Findings-from-Romania.pdf

This is Cătălin Lazăr (ed.) 2012. The Catalogue of the Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania. (ISBN 978-606-537-135-4).

Descriptions, usually short, of the finds are given in the catalog.
The catalog was published in English in order to make the information more accessible.

The following are sites identified as related to Cucuteni. The listings are all from Chapter 9, “The Index of Funerary Finds from the Middle Enelolithic”:

6. Ariușd
Commune: Vâlcele
County:Covasna
Toponymic:-
Latitude / Longitude: 45°46'40.54590" N, 25°40'38.35477" E

11. Bodești
Commune: Bodești
County:Neamț
Toponymic:Frumușica
Latitude / Longitude: 47°01'33.94178" N, 26°25'31.50693" E

25. Cernatul de Sus
Commune: Cernat
County:Covasna
Toponymic:-
Latitude / Longitude: 45°58'41.24013" N, 26°00'39.11156" E

34. Costești
Commune: Costești
County:Iași
Toponymic:-
Latitude / Longitude: 47°14'08.70260" N, 26°55'58.86044" E

37. Cucuteni
Commune: Cucuteni
County:Iași
Toponymic:Cetățuia
Latitude / Longitude: 47°17'15.04995" N, 26°55'47.75610" E

46. Doboşeni
Commune: Brăduț
County:Covasna
Toponymic:Borvizoldual-Hegyarka
Latitude / Longitude: 46°07'28.93544" N, 25°35'30.21632" E

49. Drăgușeni
Commune: Drăgușeni
County:Botoșani
Toponymic:Ostrov
Latitude / Longitude: 48°01'08.17744" N, 26°48'20.24144" E

59. Girov
Commune: Girov
County:Neamț
Toponymic:-
Latitude / Longitude: 46°57'10.76911" N, 26°30'11.51681" E

63. Grumezoaia
Commune: Dimitrie Cantemir
County:V aslui
Toponymic:-
Latitude / Longitude: 46°33'20.18655" N, 28°02'09.82936" E

67. Hăbăşeşti
Commune: Strunga
County:Iași
Toponymic:Holm
Latitude / Longitude: 47°09'22.94274" N, 26°57'28.73770" E

74. Liveni
Commune: Manoleasa
County:Botoșani
Toponymic:-
Latitude / Longitude: 47°59'27.31414" N, 27°03'27.48625" E

76. Mărgineni
Commune: Mărgineni
County:Bacău
Toponymic:-
Latitude / Longitude: 46°35'10.44084" N, 26°51'07.52344" E

80. Mihoveni
Commune: Şcheia
County:Suceava
Toponymic:Cahla Morii
Latitude / Longitude: 47°40'44.80120" N, 26°10'57.50876" E

96. Poduri
Commune: Poduri
County:Bacău
Toponymic:Dealul Ghindaru
Latitude / Longitude: 46°28'57.70478" N, 26°31'39.29362" E

108. Scânteia
Commune: Scânteia
County:Iași
Toponymic:Dealul Bodeştilor
Latitude / Longitude: 46°55'08.15663" N, 27°34'40.68984" E

123. Traian-Dealul Fântânilor
Commune: Zănești
County:Neamţ
Toponymic:Dealul Fântânilor
Latitude / Longitude: 46°49'57.63536" N, 26°34'02.43199" E

130. Vorniceni
Commune: Vorniceni
County: Botoșani
Toponymic:Pod Ibăneasa
Latitude / Longitude: 47°58'56.81904" N, 26°39'22.95523" E

For those who can read Romanian, there is plenty of reading material to follow up on from the references given.

Keep in mind that, even though the work published by Romanian archaeologists is fascinating, archaeological studies in Romania are underfunded. There is probably a lot more to be found, described, and analyzed (this applies not only to remains from Cucuteni culture.)
Perhaps more of this will be made available in English.

Dorkymon
06-07-2018, 11:41 PM
We now get samples from Romania showing up in papers. Nice.
The Wang et al. “The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus” preprint at BioRxiv is interesting for a variety of reasons.

Here is one relevant to this thread: Fig. 2d (below), which shows some prehistoric individuals projected onto modern Western Eurasian populations. For the moderns, the tan pentagons are for Romanians and the tan stars represent Moldavians.
Just a short comment about the symbols: Moldavians cluster closer to Bulgarians than Romanians do in this diagram. I have never seen that in any PCA of modern European populations, so perhaps the symbols in this PCA got mixed up. Now, because the symbols for Romanians and Moldavians cluster together, the possible mix-up doesn’t really matter for the main observation, which is this.

In drawing a line from Romania Eneolithic (full orange dots) to Yamnaya Samara (full dark green diamonds), one tracks right through the Romanian-Moldavian cluster.* The orange dots represent I2532, Coțatcu, close to Râmnicu Sărat, and I2533, which is Cârcea Viaduct, southeast of Craiova.
That’s something like the story of admixture in Romania in the blink of an eye. Sure, it’s more complicated. It’s just that this PCA gives us a good clue about what’s a good direction to look in and what’s a waste of time. Why am I saying this? Listening to the noise in Romanian media (sometimes helped along by some Romanian researchers) one would have expected Romanians to cluster with central Europeans, Lithuanians, Ukrainians, Russians, or Avars. Well, I guess not.
* Can’t comment yet on Yamnaya Hungary (downward-pointing full, dark-green triangles); the samples haven’t been published yet.
23236

They apparently deleted the supplementary material with the info on tested moderns, but as I remember all their samples from Moldova come from a village in Stefan Voda.
The problem with that is that this district would have been passed by the Gagauz and other Turkics on their way to Bugeac. You can see that from like half of the toponyms in Stefan Voda, which don't mean anything neither in Romanian nor Ukrainian. These are Crocmaz, Caplani, Carahasani, Alava, Talmaza and Copceac. Copceac (Kipchak?) in particular is interesting, because in Gagauzia, in the village of the same name (https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copceac,_G%C4%83g%C4%83uzia), 95% of the population identified as Gagauz, while in Stefan Voda's version (https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copceac,_%C8%98tefan_Vod%C4%83) 99% chose Moldovan/Romanian. So, they might actually be of mixed origin down there, which makes sense given the location.
Another example is Carahasani. There 99% of the population again identified as Moldovan/Romanian during the census. Looking at the records about the founders of the village, it is clearly stated that in the 18th century this was a Tatar village, which was situated South of the "Turk's valley" (another indicator). Later on the village became Romanian, though I guess that rather than being resettled, most people just assimilated into the culture.

http://dictionar.casata.md/index.php?l=ro&action=viewdictionar&id=543

Fungene
06-08-2018, 12:36 AM
Thanks for your comments. Who are "they"?
In any case, please look at my previous comment:
"Looking at Supplementary Figure 1 at
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/earl...7.figures-only (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347.figures-only): The population identified as Moldavian really is very similar to Bulgarians. Perhaps they meant Macedonian instead of Moldavian?"
Do take a look at that Supplementary Figure 1. One has to magnify it considerably in order to see anything. But whatever is labelled "Moldovan" in Wang 2018 is most definitely very Balkan and not Turkic.
The whole thing is rather a side issue, although, to be sure, interesting.

eastara
06-08-2018, 07:56 AM
Yes, the Moldavians from Stefan Voda ( I see in South East Moldova) also feature in the study Characterizing the genetic history of admixture in Inner Eurasia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/23/327122
In the Supplementary data the plots are a little smudged, but it seems the Moldavians are over the Gagauz and some are even further Eastward shifted similar to some Turks. Most of Moldova until 300 y.a was Tartar land, so some admixture at least on the maternal side is quite possible.

Fungene
06-08-2018, 01:38 PM
We'll see if the authors correct the error ...

Thanks all, and that means Eastara and Dorkymon. Mystery solved! The Wang et al. Moldovans must be the new Moldovans introduced in Zheong et al. 2018

This should really be in a thread about contemporary Romanians and Moldovans, but since it can help interpret the graph in Wang et al., I’ll include the following comments in this thread.

All information from Zheong et al. 2018. "Characterizing the genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia"
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/05/23/327122.full.pdf

Zheong et al., Table S1. lists ten new samples, all from Căplani village in Ștefan Vodă District, Moldova: MOL-005, MOL-008, MOL-015, MOL-024, MOL-058, MOL-064, MOL-065, MOL-066, MOL-067, MOL-069.
I don’t know why one would want to take all ten samples from just one village, but no matter.

These are different from the nine new Gagauz samples from Moldova. There is a Gagauz thread on this board, and those samples are best discussed there.

The first illustration is from Zheong et al., Fig. S1. “PC1 separates western and eastern Eurasian populations…. PC2 separates eastern Eurasians along the north-south cline and also separates Europeans from West Asians.”

All the southeastern European samples are coded in red (in red: Rom for Romanian and Mld for Moldavian)

https://i.imgur.com/d4OKErX.png

The second illustration is from Zheong et al., Fig. S2. PC3 is intended to separate the West Asians (top) from the Europeans (bottom).

https://i.imgur.com/sqeuLIr.png

The Căplani Moldovans are indeed looking very Southeastern European.
No surprise: Romanians and Moldovans cluster with Europeans.

As to Tatars, Dimitrie Cantemir mentions specific locations inhabited by Tatars and their movements. He ought to have known. https://bibliotecapemobil.ro/content/scoala/pdf/Descrierea_Moldovei_-_Dimitrie_Cantemir.pdf

Fungene
06-08-2018, 01:53 PM
Dorkymon: Awesome 23andme stuff! I am assuming you got the respective individuals' consent. If so, could you also post the information to the Romanian 23andme thread that you started?
BTW, you are becoming a celebrity. Googling for information, I found your 23andme collection being quoted in a website that contains the word "Khazar...". Oh, well, that's the internet for you.

Dorkymon
06-08-2018, 02:40 PM
I am assuming you got the respective individuals' consent.

Nope, because I wouldn't get anywhere if I did. But I am keeping all the private info in secret, so there isn't any harm done.

J Man
06-09-2018, 12:34 AM
It would be very interesting to see results of medieval Vlachs from around the Balkans. Hopefully one day some samples will be tested.

Fungene
06-09-2018, 01:04 PM
Nope

LOL! You're one of a kind, Dorkymon!

Fungene
06-09-2018, 05:00 PM
The point of my initial post about ancient and modern DNA relevant to Romanians got lost in a tangle of side branches. So, this post puts the main points of some the previous ones together and adds just a few more notes suggested by Zheong et al. 2018.

The relevant information, in addition to samples from Romania discussed earlier in this thread, is from:

Wang et al. 2018. “The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus.”
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2018/05/16/322347.full.pdf
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347.figures-only

Jeong et al. 2018. “Characterizing the genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia.”
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/23/327122
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/23/327122.figures-only

First, interesting information from Wang et al. 2018 “The Genetic Prehistory of the Greater Caucasus”


Fig. 2d shows some prehistoric individuals projected onto modern Western Eurasian populations. For the moderns, the tan pentagons represent Romanians.

https://i.imgur.com/7angaZF.png
https://i.imgur.com/iXaoNrm.png

In drawing a straight line from Romania Eneolithic (full orange dots) to Samara Eneolithic (upward-pointing dark-grey triangles), one tracks right through the Romanian-Moldavian cluster. The orange dots represent I2532, Coțatcu, close to Râmnicu Sărat, and I2533, which is Cârcea Viaduct, southeast of Craiova, mentioned in earlier posts in this thread.
The Samara Eneolithic samples are I0433, I0434, and I0122, 5200-4000 BCE, Khvalynsk II. Not bad temporal proximity to the ancient Romanian samples. Cârcea is 5484-5372 calBC.

Fig. 2 in Wang 2018 is a good way to convey something like the story of admixture in Romania in the blink of an eye needed to take in a picture.
Sure, there are always more sub-plots to a story. It’s just that this PCA gives us a good clue about what’s a good direction to look in, what’s just a wild goose chase, and –- to be frank, what is just plain dumb. Sorry. I said it.
This commentary is meant to be of general interest, but it is also targeted at some of the weird stuff I see online, some of it even coming from sources written in Romanian. Some of it is based on older research, but most of it is riffing on historical sources without proper assessment of credibility. I am generally polite, but that material truly does tax one’s patience.

Let’s continue with Zheong et al. 2018.

Zheong et al., Fig. S1.: In this figure, PC1 represents the western Eurasian vs. eastern Eurasian dimension; PC2 separates eastern Eurasians “along the north-south cline and also separates Europeans from West Asians.”

https://i.imgur.com/h8CXZ9C.png
https://i.imgur.com/JFuClRE.png
This is the color code for the modern populations:
https://i.imgur.com/5j8Iaqq.png
South Eastern European populations, including Romanians, are coded red.
South Western European populations are dark blue. This includes Italian and Spanish.
European populations coded purple include Belarusian, German, French, Irish, Polish, Ukrainian.
Populations coded teal blue include Karelian, Ket, Russian, Saami, Selkup.
Populations coded light green include Chechen, Circassian, Georgian.
Populations coded grey include Chuvash and Tatar.

Yes, Romanian samples are in the red blob.

Zheong et al., Fig. S2. PC3 is intended to separate the West Asians (top) from the Europeans (bottom).
https://i.imgur.com/qxlkEYs.png

Notice the relation of ancient populations, Sintashta, Andronovo, Yamnaya Samara, Afanasievo to modern populations.
Sintashta, Andronovo are closest to Europeans coded purple (Ukraine, etc.). Of all the ancient steppe populations represented, Sintashta appear closest to Romanians. Sintashta had more European Neolithic Farmer admixture than Yamnaya Samara did. And now we know that Yamnaya Samara already had significant European Middle Neolithic admixture.
Indeed, using Globular Amphora as a stand-in for Anatolian farmer-related ancestry [Anatolian Neolithic + Western Hunter Gatherer], Wang et al. estimate that the contribution of farmer-related ancestry to Yamnaya Samara is 13.2% with a standard error of 2.7%.
Yamnaya Samara and Sintashta are later populations than the Samara Eneolithic mentioned above.

Don’t we just like science? And it just keeps getting better, in the sense that the data seem to be painting an ever-more coherent picture. At this stage, we should not be expecting major surprises about the genetic make-up of Europe. The surprises –-for some-- are behind us. People still have some digesting and adjustment to do. But for Romanians, the news is interesting. In fact, it is very good. I am amazed at the reticence and mistrust that Romanians show toward genetic research. They are not doing themselves a favor.

Yes, well, the upshot. Here’s a highly technical recommendation: follow the red blob, you’ll find modern Romanians in there. The blob is at the end of a path indicated by a cline linking middle-Neolithic-Eneolithic populations. Is geography destiny? That’s too complicated an issue to be addressed here. Romania is geographically closer to, say, Ukraine than Greece is. That's got to affect admixture to some degree. Did I tell you something you didn’t already know? But you won’t find Ukraine (or Chuvashia for that matter) in the red blob. Enough deep thoughts for the moment.

Fungene
06-09-2018, 05:37 PM
It would be very interesting to see results of medieval Vlachs from around the Balkans. Hopefully one day some samples will be tested.
Interesting comment. Vlach is a very ambiguous term. It would probably be contextualized in different ways depending on archaeological finds.
As to what the results could be, I think at this stage, we should not expect any surprises. Anything southeastern European, by and large.
But I'm with you, I always like to see more samples tested.

Dorkymon
06-09-2018, 10:29 PM
The interesting thing for me here, which aDNA finally managed to unravel with the recent samples, is the following.

When looking from Central Europe towards the East, the gradual increase in EHG and HG-like ancestry in general seems to sidestep Romania.
You'd expect Romanians to have more EHG for a logical genetic continuum, but that's not the case.

In the past, this led me to hypothesise that maybe the reason for that lies in a possible Iron Age or even Medieval migration from deep down in the Balkans towards the Carpathian basin. As such, the EHG-rich natives were infused with an excess of Farmer-like admixture.

However, now the picture becomes clearer. It seems that Romania Eneolithic was pretty much full Anatolian Farmer. Ukraine Neolithic was almost full EHG.
In Hungary, although the Hungarian Neolithic was almost full Farmer too, they are in the perfect place to have been influenced both by Corded Ware (via the Northern European plain expansion) and Bell Beaker cultures. These migrations brought extra HG-like ancestry.

By the way, we've got samples from Cucuteni-Tripoli who slowly start to pull North, however some of them are still strongly in Farmer territory. One of them even seems like a first generation Tripolye/Yamna Ukraine mix.
Yamna Bulgaria is already mixed and due to this is clearly separated from those Yamna in Ukraine and Russia.
If there were more indigenous people in the Carpathian basin than the migrating Yamna then through the mixing over time, I guess the population on that plot would move Southeast due to absorbing slightly more Farmer input. And this is kind of how you could arrive at the Romanian cluster on the map.

The next curiosities for me are the Dacians, Cumans, medieval Vlachs from deep down in the Balkans and medieval Romanians.

Especially I'd like to see the Dacians, considering that they are supposed to be a mix between Tripolye/Globular Amphora-related people and Yamna.


It is generally proposed that a proto-Dacian or proto-Thracian people developed from a mixture of indigenous peoples and Indo-Europeans from the time of Proto-Indo-European expansion in the Early Bronze Age (3,300–3,000 BC)[60] when the latter, around 1500 BC, conquered the indigenous peoples.[61] The indigenous people were Danubian farmers, and the invading people of the BC 3rd millennium were Kurgan warrior-herders from the Ukrainian and Russian steppes.[62]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#Origins_and_ethnogenesis

Frescoes (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thracian+frescoes&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqpumB1MfbAhXQa8AKHe_rAdIQ_AUICigB&biw=1863&bih=990#imgrc=AJO3MExhOPfCNM:)

J Man
06-10-2018, 12:18 AM
Interesting comment. Vlach is a very ambiguous term. It would probably be contextualized in different ways depending on archaeological finds.
As to what the results could be, I think at this stage, we should not expect any surprises. Anything southeastern European, by and large.
But I'm with you, I always like to see more samples tested.

I should have been clearer haha....By Vlach I mean Pre-Slavic Romance speaking inhabitants of the Balkans many of whom were shepherds.

eastara
06-10-2018, 05:56 AM
Yes, genetics clearly supports the theory the Romanian Vlach initially came from South of the Danube. Practically Romanians from Wallachia, Bulgarians, Gagause, Macedonians and now Moldavians are one genetically.
The common denominator is the Medieval Bulgar Empire, in fact old Wallachia was culturally and genetically a part of Bulgaria, which managed to remain semi independent on the Balkans, because was in the periphery of the Ottoman expansion towards Europe.

Fungene
06-10-2018, 01:48 PM
The interesting thing for me here, which aDNA finally managed to unravel with the recent samples, is the following.

When looking from Central Europe towards the East, the gradual increase in EHG and HG-like ancestry in general seems to sidestep Romania.
You'd expect Romanians to have more EHG for a logical genetic continuum, but that's not the case.

In the past, this led me to hypothesise that maybe the reason for that lies in a possible Iron Age or even Medieval migration from deep down in the Balkans towards the Carpathian basin. As such, the EHG-rich natives were infused with an excess of Farmer-like admixture.

However, now the picture becomes clearer. It seems that Romania Eneolithic was pretty much full Anatolian Farmer. Ukraine Neolithic was almost full EHG.
In Hungary, although the Hungarian Neolithic was almost full Farmer too, they are in the perfect place to have been influenced both by Corded Ware (via the Northern European plain expansion) and Bell Beaker cultures. These migrations brought extra HG-like ancestry.

By the way, we've got samples from Cucuteni-Tripoli who slowly start to pull North, however some of them are still strongly in Farmer territory. One of them even seems like a first generation Tripolye/Yamna Ukraine mix.
Yamna Bulgaria is already mixed and due to this is clearly separated from those Yamna in Ukraine and Russia.
If there were more indigenous people in the Carpathian basin than the migrating Yamna then through the mixing over time, I guess the population on that plot would move Southeast due to absorbing slightly more Farmer input. And this is kind of how you could arrive at the Romanian cluster on the map.

The next curiosities for me are the Dacians, Cumans, medieval Vlachs from deep down in the Balkans and medieval Romanians.

Especially I'd like to see the Dacians, considering that they are supposed to be a mix between Tripolye/Globular Amphora-related people and Yamna.



https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dacians#Origins_and_ethnogenesis

Frescoes (https://www.google.co.uk/search?q=thracian+frescoes&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiqpumB1MfbAhXQa8AKHe_rAdIQ_AUICigB&biw=1863&bih=990#imgrc=AJO3MExhOPfCNM:)

There are still many interesting things to find out. But by now it's looking like there never was a radical population turnover in southeastern Europe in the Bronze Age similar to what northern Europe experienced.
Small-scale infiltration from the steppe began a couple of centuries earlier than previously estimated, according to Mathieson et al 2018 (the Varna outlier, ANI 168 is a case in point).
For southeastern Europe, the story of admixture coming from the east was probably one of pulses, wavelets, and dribbles extending well into historical times, which is why people remember them. The net effect yields a smooth gradient of steppe admixture in modern populations of southeast Europe, which rises from south to north, and then increases noticeably north of Moldova. This is information we have become familiar with since Lazaridis 2014. Since then, the picture has become more precise, while gaining in breadth and coherence.

BTW, it is mostly the work that has been published since 2014 that is the basis for the better calculators we are so fond of using in this discussion board. So in discussing calculator results, we implicitly buy into the gradient described as something real.

Examining a cross-section of human remains from various periods in a systematic way would give us a sense of how the admixture in southeastern Europe occurred. One could think of dropping ink with an ink dropper into a glass of water. Looking at the distribution of the ink in the glass, one could reconstruct, to some extent, the timing and quantity of the ink. I’m interested in the water. The ink has to have something to mix in with. That’s what we lose sight of. By the Eneolithic, the water, so to speak, for the area that interests us, is itself already a mixture of Western Hunter Gatherers and Western Anatolian Farmers.
That admixture also occurred gradually, and the movie of how it occurred would also be interesting to reconstruct, as there were several incoming strands of Anatolian farmers. The details of that population movement is also awaiting examination.
Reading material from Romanian archaeologists gives fascinating insights. I can read reports by Turkish archaeologists only in translation. Ozdogan’s work is essential.

As for what we have of archaeological sites and remains from Romania, one can get a sense of what is at least registered and to some extent documented by consulting the National Archaeological Record of Romania (RAN). Sites, even recorded sites, are being destroyed as we speak, not necessarily through bad intent, but mostly due to indifference and lack of understanding. And what is recorded is probably a very small part of what is still underground. Most discoveries are accidental. Unfortunately, the literature in English is negligible, which might give the impression that there is nothing there.

“Dacian,” “Vlach” and other such terms are vague and ambiguous. That is, it’s not exactly clear what they mean, and they can be used in different ways in different contexts. I tend to think that they are not important. But if one does think they are important, one way to go about making sense of them in genetic terms (because this is what Anthrogenica is about and why we are here) would be to attempt an exercise in genetic, historical, and archaeological correlation. An example of this is the study of the Longobards.

As for Cumans, of course they were traipsing around. Neagu Djuvara, a Romanian historian who just recently died, made a name for himself by claiming that they ruled the present territory of Romania for 1000 years. Before that, there were Dacians for 2000 years. And that’s it. Some genetic studies from Romania, and there are not many, reference this for historical background. I can see maybe this might be influencing some of your views?
Think of it this way. ISIS is pretty similar to the Cumans of yore. Imagine one thousand years from now historians from outer space reconstructing the history of modern Iraq in the following way: there were Americans, and then ISIS ruled. The end. That’s pretty much Djuvara right there. He is our historian from outer space.
Now, this is not a history thread. So I want to stick close to evidence from ancient DNA.

Fungene
06-10-2018, 02:02 PM
I should have been clearer haha....By Vlach I mean Pre-Slavic Romance speaking inhabitants of the Balkans many of whom were shepherds.

Same answer. But I am not the right person to ask what is a Vlach shepherd. I really don’t know.

Here's what I mean.
You can have fun with the National Archaeological Record of Romania.
their website is http://ran.cimec.ro

If you want to, you can try this out, select “Period”; then in Select keywords, choose "Epoca medievală" (4761 this is the number of records for the medieval period).
You will get pages of rows. Look down the column entitled “Site Type”; scroll through rows identified as “descoperie funerară”
You can double click on the numerical identifier of relevant rows. There are pages and pages to go through (48, at 100 records/page).

I doubt “Vlach shepherd etc.” is an archaeological descriptor, but one never knows.

Now, there might be individuals buried who were shepherds. I don’t remember reading any report that mentions this. But there are thousands of reports out there, and I look at these sorts of things only as a hobby in my spare time.

Tell us if you find a pre-Slavic Romance-speaking etc.
I'm not trying to be flippant. If I were to say that "pre-Slavic etc. etc." is a construct, it would sound like egghead mumbo-jumbo. But if you actually try to go through the steps of trying to identify one such individual, you'll see what I mean.
And..., if you can actually identify one, then somebody can eventually start on the work of correlating aDNA, historical reports, and archaeology, and you will have contributed to that project.

This is what RAN looks like:
https://i.imgur.com/05IUxJR.png

Fungene
06-10-2018, 03:30 PM
Yes, genetics clearly supports the theory the Romanian Vlach initially came from South of the Danube. Practically Romanians from Wallachia, Bulgarians, Gagause, Macedonians and now Moldavians are one genetically.
The common denominator is the Medieval Bulgar Empire, in fact old Wallachia was culturally and genetically a part of Bulgaria, which managed to remain semi independent on the Balkans, because was in the periphery of the Ottoman expansion towards Europe.

Thanks for your comments. Please look at some of my answers above. Here are just a few additional points.

I a short paragraph, you’ve succeeded in recapitulating a view, which when expanded and applied to Romanians, is called the Roesler thesis, although it was actually developed by an Austrian adventurer, Franz Joseph Sulzer, in 1781. Attributing it to Roesler, who at least held a post in a university, gives it a more respectable veneer.
I suggest you go ahead and read Sulzer. Perhaps you have. My eyes glazed over after about 50 pages. The gothic script probably didn’t help. I would much rather spend time with truly ground-breaking ideas, the studies of ancient population genomics that have gained steady momentum since 2014.

Eastara, I am guessing that you are Bulgarian. Has it ever occurred to you that the story you just recounted for us makes a hash of Bulgarian prehistory and stands in the way of understanding Bulgarian history? Where did all these people who are Bulgarians come from? From what I can see from you brief intervention, it appears that in the Beginning of Times were the Bulgars. But we know the Bulgars were not native to the area. Why do Bulgarians have a bit less steppe admixture than Romanians? It can’t be because of the Bulgars, who came in from the Eurasian steppe. The most reasonable answer is geographical distance. Bulgaria is bit further away south from where the Bulgars initially made their way. That’s not rocket science.

Where does the southeastern European in southeastern Europeans before the Bulgars show up come from? The usual Sulzerian-type answer is that there were a bunch of shepherds who were leftovers from Roman colonies, and Roman colonization was more intense south of the Danube than north of it. So that southeastern admixture in Bulgarians would be due to Romans. But this just would just beg the question: where did the Romans get their southeastern European admixture from?

And of course, to draft an answer to that question, one has to realize that the picture you are drawing is based on views from a time in which people had absolutely no clue about the existence of the southeastern European Neolithic and Eneolithic and its impact on the development of the Bronze Age.

Now, Sulzer and Roesler were pandering to the political needs of the Habsburg Empire (nobody can get away with raising the charge of ethnic baiting here; I am part Austrian.) More important for us is the total lack of knowledge of the archaeology of southeastern Europe their view conveys. They couldn’t possibly have known about the relevant archaeological facts. These facts begin to be uncovered toward the end of the nineteenth century. And it is not until the advent of carbon14 dating that people finally understood what they were looking at (although some Romanian archaeologists in the 1960s had figured out the Western Anatolian connection by comparing what they saw in Romania and reports of finds at Demircihoyuk. But I am digressing.)

Your answer begins and ends with Bulgars. Everybody in southeastern Europe (leaving aside Greeks and Albanians) looks like Bulgarians because there was once a medieval Bulgarian empire. But the Bulgars were not southeastern Europeans. They were probably very similar to some of the Eurasians sampled in Damgaard et al. 2018. “137 ancient genomes….” And the individuals sampled in Damgaard et al. had variable levels of southeastern European (Balkan) admixture to begin with. By the Iron Age (actually before that), many among these incoming populations from the steppe had southeastern European admixture. Where did they get it? From the Balkans, before they got to the Balkans. How could that be? They got it from individuals carrying southeastern European admixture who had spread into Eurasia (voluntarily or not.)
You see, if one were to identify the DNA of an actual Bulgar, and that is something that has not yet occurred, as far as I know, you need all the facts that have been accumulating since 2014 about ancient populations in order to even make sense of what that Bulgar aDNA would be.
This is one of the reasons I think that ancient DNA is making not a small difference, but a huge difference. Ancient DNA together with archaeological studies is a powerful combination. Some old conceptions based on the literary interpretation of texts will have to be recast.
I think we should all be excited about seeing things in a different light.

eastara
06-11-2018, 02:23 PM
Fungene, my view is no way chauvinistic and by Bulgar Empire I don,t mean nowadays Bulgarian and Romanians are direct descendant from the old Bulgars who came from the steppes. Just the opposite, I am at odds with some other Bulgarians claiming we got little from them genetically. However you must agree Bulgarians and Romanians are closer than with some other neighbors like Ukrainians and even Hungarians. It is also highly unlikely people North of the Danube spoke Latin in Early Medieval times. Those skills must have come from somewhere South at later time. This was the age of the First Bulgar Empire, most of which actually was North of the Danube. When the Bulgars came to the Balkans most of their subjects were in fact Vlachs, i.e. speaking Vulgar Latin. They were not shepherts, but farmers and used the stability of the Empire to move North to the plains around d Danube, which were almost depopulated during the earlier Barbarian raids.
During that time they also acquired the official culture of the Bulgar Empire. Although based on the Greek Orthodoxy, the implementing of the Old Slavonic and Cyrilic alphabeth as church and official language was preserved in Romania until 19 c. In fact very few old non church documents written in Old Bulgarian are preserved in Bulgaria, people learn it from the archives of Vlad Dracula and other Wallachian princes. So where was this tradition coming from if not the times of old Bulgaria.

Fungene
06-11-2018, 02:40 PM
Fungene, my view is no way chauvinistic and by Bulgar Empire I don,t mean nowadays Bulgarian and Romanians are direct descendant from the old Bulgars who came from the steppes. Just the opposite, I am at odds with some other Bulgarians claiming we got little from them genetically. However you must agree Bulgarians and Romanians are closer than with some other neighbors like Ukrainians and even Hungarians. It is also highly unlikely people North of the Danube spoke Latin in Early Medieval times. Those skills must have come from somewhere South at later time. This was the age of the First Bulgar Empire, most of which actually was North of the Danube. When the Bulgars came to the Balkans most of their subjects were in fact Vlachs, i.e. speaking Vulgar Latin. They were not shepherts, but farmers and used the stability of the Empire to move North to the plains around d Danube, which were almost depopulated during the earlier Barbarian raids.
During that time they also acquired the official culture of the Bulgar Empire. Although based on the Greek Orthodoxy, the implementing of the Old Slavonic and Cyrilic alphabeth as church and official language was preserved in Romania until 19 c. In fact very few old non church documents written in Old Bulgarian are preserved in Bulgaria, people learn it from the archives of Vlad Dracula and other Wallachian princes. So where was this tradition coming from if not the times of old Bulgaria.

Of course, the issue is not chauvinism.
The main points for the moment are these:
- to understand what Romanians and Bulgarians have in common, we have to go far beyond medieval times. This is where ancient DNA comes in. We need to take in the picture that is afforded by the collection of results about aDNA that has been accumulating over the recent past.
- to even understand what we will see once we get medieval Bulgar DNA, we will need the same aDNA evidence, up to and including medieval times.
As to the latter point: we can even turn it into game. You might want to start a a new thread: guess which samples from Damgaard 2018 the Bulgars are most likely to resemble!

eastara
06-12-2018, 05:59 AM
Of course, it is important to understand the prehistoric migrations, however Balkan people are preoccupied with events 2000 and more years ago, but don,t know where his grandfather came from.

Fungene
06-12-2018, 12:46 PM
Of course, it is important to understand the prehistoric migrations, however Balkan people are preoccupied with events 2000 and more years ago, but don,t know where his grandfather came from.

Well, the main point of this thread is to tie in commentary to ancient DNA evidence in some fashion, or to suggest archaeological evidence that could be usefully combined with aDNA.

What you said about Bulgarians you know believing that modern Bulgarians are predominantly Bulgars is interesting (at least, I think that is what you were implying in a previous post-- I could be wrong.)
Perhaps you might ask them to play the Damgaard 137 genomes from Eurasia guessing game. Just as an aside, do you have any opinion on the subject? Meaning, what would you expect the Bulgars to be, genetically?

eastara
06-12-2018, 07:15 PM
Well, the main point of this thread is to tie in commentary to ancient DNA evidence in some fashion, or to suggest archaeological evidence that could be usefully combined with aDNA.

What you said about Bulgarians you know believing that modern Bulgarians are predominantly Bulgars is interesting (at least, I think that is what you were implying in a previous post-- I could be wrong.)
Perhaps you might ask them to play the Damgaard 137 genomes from Eurasia guessing game. Just as an aside, do you have any opinion on the subject? Meaning, what would you expect the Bulgars to be, genetically?

No, I am claiming Bulgarians are largely descending from local Balkan population before the Barbarian invasions in early Middle ages. There definitely must be some Slavic admixture but not more than 20-30%. Also some recent steppe, but is it from the Bulgars or later Cumans, Pecheneg, Tartar and Turk is hard to distinguish. Latest DNA studies show East Asian connection both autosomally and haplogroups in the steppe invaders, which is missing in the current population. Possibly those lineages died out as not suited to the Balkan climate, diseases, etc. They never encountered malaria before, for example.

Fungene
06-12-2018, 07:27 PM
No, I am claiming Bulgarians are largely descending from local Balkan population before the Barbarian invasions in early Middle ages. There definitely must be some Slavic admixture but not more than 20-30%. Also some recent steppe, but is it from the Bulgars or later Cumans, Pecheneg, Tartar and Turk is hard to distinguish. Latest DNA studies show East Asian connection both autosomally and haplogroups in the steppe invaders, which is missing in the current population. Possibly those lineages died out as not suited to the Balkan climate, diseases, etc. They never encountered malaria before, for example.
At this stage, it would be very helpful to provide greater precision. There is much to draw on: recent papers on aDNA and the information in the supplements, especially, but also for modern individuals, calculator results and results from commercial sources, such as LivingDNA or 23andme; or also information gleaned from Eurogenes' Global 25 and Kurd's calculators for comparisons with ancient populations.
There is plenty to entertain ourselves with.

Dorkymon
06-13-2018, 08:19 PM
or also information gleaned from Eurogenes' Global 25 and Kurd's calculators for comparisons with ancient populations.
There is plenty to entertain ourselves with.

Speaking of entertainment, I tried to produce some fits with Global 25 based on my admixture. The models might make sense for this region overall.

----------------------------------------------
1) Neolithic and Yamnaya migration

Input references
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1sg35KGlR8JRhXwOmQ_BpvoOK9RhL0o7UFg6-6kZVtIs/edit?usp=sharing

If you want to play around with this model, feel free to drop the Japanese and Eskimo references. Han eats them up anyway when the degree of penalisation is forced to 0 to account for intra-regional overlap (pen=0).


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Yamnaya_Samara:I0357 Yamnaya_Samara:I0370 Yamnaya_Samara:I0231
15.16141 16.43888 16.62792
Yamnaya_Samara:I0443 Yamnaya_Samara:I0444 Balkans_N:I2529
16.64321 16.76355 16.78688
Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 Balkans_N:I0634
17.63493 17.72987

[1] "distance%=4.0061"

Dorkymon

Yamnaya_Samara 48.2
Balkans_N 44.2
Iron_Gates_HG 4.6
Japanese 1.8
Eskimo_Naukan 0.8
Han 0.4


----------------------------------------------
2) Bronze Age (IN: Trypillia, Globular Amphora; OUT: Balkans Neolithic)
Since Trypillia:I926

https://i.imgur.com/nFeCBLW.png

is not really representative of the average and that's the only one I have, the following have been considered as Trypillian in order to get closer to the actual average as seen in Mathieson et al. 2018.
Our extra Trypillians are these 2 samples from Balkans_BA:

https://i.imgur.com/5QHFAi3.png
https://i.imgur.com/b15CwPp.png

Input references
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Pn6QnM1JWK2FWSAaOR5_yYAivszQa9oD0fNCV1on9yA/edit?usp=sharing


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Trypillia:adapted_I2175 Trypillia:adapted_Bul6
11.31006 11.41893
Trypillia:I1926 Yamnaya_Samara:I0357
12.96256 15.16141
Globular_Amphora:I2441 Trypillia:adapted_I1109
15.50558 16.04360
Yamnaya_Samara:I0370 Yamnaya_Samara:I0231
16.43888 16.62792

[1] "distance%=3.6477"

Dorkymon

Trypillia 58.4
Yamnaya_Samara 36.6
Han 2.6
Iron_Gates_HG 2
Onge 0.2
Pima 0.2


We can do better.


----------------------------------------------
3) Bronze Age (IN: Balkans_BA (minus I2163, who's like 3/4th Yamnaya), Poland_BA (minus I6537, which skews towards Balkans_BA); OUT: Trypillia, Globular Amphora)

We will run the script only with pen=0 in order to prevent the overlap between closely related groups (here Balkans_BA and Poland_BA).

ANI163 from Varna has been adapted into the Balkans_BA group in order to compensate for the clearly outlying I2163. ANI163 looks more logical, when compared with the rest of Balkans_BA.

https://i.imgur.com/rVo9p05.png
https://i.imgur.com/1m3u3yw.png

Input references
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1RiQ0Bqlj9Gmzz9ugN1QW3yVd6Jg5q9A8KIZIHZdbpf0/edit?usp=sharing


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Balkans_BA:adapted_ANI163 Balkans_BA:I2165
5.639317 5.890353
Balkans_BA:I4332 Balkans_BA:I4331
7.405923 7.531860
Balkans_BA:I3313 Balkans_BA:I2520
8.371998 9.196043
Poland_BA:I6531 Poland_BA:I6579
9.435305 9.956505

pen=0

[1] "distance%=2.4347"

Dorkymon

Balkans_BA 80
Yamnaya_Samara 14.6
Han 4.8
Poland_BA 0.6

There's too much East Asian at pen=0, so the model can still be improved upon. Moving on.


----------------------------------------------
4) Bronze Age (IN: Yamnaya Ukraine (the one that's modelled as 100% steppe in Mathieson et. al 2018); OUT: Yamnaya Samara, Poland_BA, Han (I ran them separately and those that had even the smallest trace of non-East Asian/Siberian where removed)

https://i.imgur.com/xjQTETE.png

Input references
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jsT1S43Vm6ENNFZnj-Ak3IgPfDJWoYs89g0no2CAEho/edit?usp=sharing


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Balkans_BA:adapted_ANI163 Balkans_BA:I2165
5.639317 5.890353
Balkans_BA:I4332 Balkans_BA:I4331
7.405923 7.531860
Balkans_BA:I3313 Balkans_BA:I2520
8.371998 9.196043
Balkans_BA:I2163 Balkans_BA:I2176
10.163270 10.969873

[1] "distance%=3.4018"

Dorkymon

Balkans_BA 92
Yamnaya_Ukraine 4.8
Han 1.4
Pima 1.4
Onge 0.4

pen=0

[1] "distance%=2.5128"

Dorkymon

Balkans_BA 80.2
Yamnaya_Ukraine 15.4
Han 4.4


Hmm, it looks better now that it's ~3% East Asian/Siberian. The run without regularisation (pen=0) still overfits the Han with at least 1.5% more. Let's add Hungary_BA to see if anything changes.


----------------------------------------------
5) Bronze Age (IN: Hungary_BA)

We will run the script only with pen=0 in order to prevent the overlap between closely related groups (here Balkans_BA and Hungary_BA).

Input references
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1gH7FmXNXt5dj6qUSta_NIUy22jjjpAf4b7p3ZBzqurM/edit?usp=sharing

pen=0


Balkans_BA:adapted_ANI163 Balkans_BA:I2165
5.639317 5.890353
Hungary_BA:I1504 Hungary_BA:I7043
6.671139 6.864227
Balkans_BA:I4332 Balkans_BA:I4331
7.405923 7.531860
Balkans_BA:I3313 Hungary_BA:I7041
8.371998 8.479207

[1] "distance%=2.4796"

Dorkymon

Balkans_BA 70.4
Yamnaya_Ukraine 15.4
Hungary_BA 9.6
Han 4.6


Still overfitted for Han at pen=0, so the following model is the winner for me:


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Balkans_BA:adapted_ANI163 Balkans_BA:I2165
5.639317 5.890353
Balkans_BA:I4332 Balkans_BA:I4331
7.405923 7.531860
Balkans_BA:I3313 Balkans_BA:I2520
8.371998 9.196043
Balkans_BA:I2163 Balkans_BA:I2176
10.163270 10.969873

[1] "distance%=3.4018"

Dorkymon

Balkans_BA 92
Yamnaya_Ukraine 4.8
Han 1.4
Pima 1.4
Onge 0.4

PS: Look at MyHeritage from my signature. Coincidence?

----------------------------------------------
Bonus: 23andme vs nMonte
Just for the sake of curiosity, I'll run an overfitted model with all the moderns from Global 25 PCA_scaled at pen=0. Then I will combine the individual results into regions, following 23andme's nomenclature. After that, I will take my Broadly European bit from 23andme and try to break it down into regions, by following the proportions from nMonte. Let's see what we get.

Input references
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1IZ2NeaqZKWR60YVqLF-cUD-xIQXfkF-h/view?usp=sharing

pen=0


[1] "1. CLOSEST SINGLE ITEM DISTANCE%"
Moldovan:747_R01C02 Montenegrin:Montenegro7
2.723537 2.832282
Bosnian:Bosnian_14 Moldovan:747_R02C02
2.917600 2.958859
Hungarian:NA15207 Bosnian:Bosnian_13
2.965516 3.357705
Romanian:A362 Croatian:Croatia_Cro26
3.453939 3.454474

[1] "distance%=0.5865"

Dorkymon

Montenegrin,40.4
Russian_Kursk,15.8
Ukrainian,9.8
Macedonian,9.2
Belgian,7.4
Mordovian,5.8
Albanian,4.8
Greek,3.2
Han_NChina,2
Mongolian,1.4
Hungarian,0.2


Country to region
[1] "distance%=0.5865"

Dorkymon

Southeast European 57.8
Northeast European 31.4
Northwest European 7.4
Northeast Asian 3.4


Compared to:

23andme
South Euro 53.5% (41.8% Balkan)
East Euro 22.4%
Northwest Euro 7.3%
Ashkenazi 0.3%
Broadly Euro 14.7%
East Asian 1.8%


23andme (Broadly European broken down according to nMonte vs nMonte)


South Euro 63.0% 57.8%
East Euro 26.4% 31.4%
Northwest Euro 8.5% 7.4%
Ashkenazi 0.3% N/A
East Asian 1.8% 3.4%

Fungene
06-13-2018, 08:47 PM
Awesome!
You might want to post this in "Romanian test and calculator results--your comments", since you are analyzing a modern individual--yourself-- in term of ancients.
I will link to your post in that thread.

Dorkymon
06-13-2018, 08:54 PM
Awesome!
You might want to post this in "Romanian test and calculator results--your comments", since you are analyzing a modern individual--yourself-- in term of ancients.
I will link to your post in that thread.

I completely forgot about that thread. :biggrin1:

Fungene
06-15-2018, 08:18 PM
Because Moldova was part of the former Soviet Union, it was included in this study:
Triska et al. 2017. “Between Lake Baikal and the Baltic Sea: genomic history of the gateway to Europe.” https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0578-3

32 Moldovan individuals were sampled. I did not find where in Moldova they were from.

First: Yet one more visual representation of the difference in population structure between Moldovans, on the one hand, and their northeastern neighbors: Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians.
LBK Farmer and Mal’ta are included for comparison.

This is from the article: unsupervised analysis with ADMIXTURE using 6 ancestral populations, Fig. 2.
https://i.imgur.com/Xi1hHwb.png
While the body of the article makes no mention of the Moldovans, it says this of the European populations: “Ukrainians and Belarusians have almost identical proportions of the two ‘European’ components and have virtually no ‘Asian’ admixture.”
You can compare them to Moldovans in Fig. 2.
Asian genetic ancestry is represented by:
Beringian: light green
East Siberian: dark blue
East Asian: pink
Central Siberian: light blue

Second, and the reason this information is placed in this thread: The study states that, “We also confirmed that modern European population [sic] is an amalgamation of ancient European Hunter-Gatherers with Neolithic Farmers.”
It also finds that “Neolithic Farmers’ genetic influence is present in a wide range of modern Eurasian populations (…to the Altay mountains in the East). East of Altay the signal fades.”
This is supported by f3 values in their Supplementary Table 9. Populations that are the least related to the Neolithic Early European Farmers are Yakut, Tuva, and Buryat. Among the populations in the study with closest relation to the Neolithic Farmers? There is a little red dot for Moldova in b. Other European populations not included in the study are also shown in Fig. 8, for comparison.https://i.imgur.com/ZSIpZii.png
“Fig. 8 f3 values to estimate (a) Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer, (b) Neolithic Farmer,(c) Caucasus hunter-gatherer, and (d) Mal’ta (Ancient North Eurasian) ancestry in modern humans.”

Moldovans have less ANE than Ukrainians and Belarusians; and apparently less EHG than northern Europeans (UK, Germany, Belarus, Ukraine).

What “Between Lake Baikal…” tells us is consistent with what we are seeing in other studies. Don’t we like consistency?
This is something to remember for the broader picture, to be added as background to some of the previous posts in this thread: the Neolithic Farmers’ genetic influence reached out to the Altay mountains, courtesy of mobile steppe herders. The latter, upon their return in later waves or wavelets, carried this genetic package back with them.

Fungene
06-21-2018, 03:38 PM
Here is a list of links to reading material that is needed for constructive discussion. It is not exhaustive. Most of the work on the Palaeolithic is missing. Only material published since 2014 is included. For the most recent publications, the list is current as of June 2018.

The links below are to primary sources, articles or preprints. Especially important are the links to supplemental information. They are typically available from the main page for an article. Sometimes I have included direct links to the supplements.

Ancient samples are all from these studies. If you have ever wondered what those samples and names for ancients in any calculator mean, then these are the sources you want to consult.

If you would like to, please contribute by indicating the publications that you think are absolutely essential reading (with a star, or any other way.)

Ancient DNA (many of these sources are essential reading):

Allentoft et al. 2015. Population genomics of Bronze Age Eurasia. Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14507
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/278327861_Population_genomics_of_Bronze_Age_Eurasi a

Broushaki et al. 2016. Early Neolithic genomes from the eastern Fertile Crescent. Science. http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2016/07/13/science.aaf7943.full

Damgaard et al. 2018. 137 ancient human genomes from across the Eurasian steppes. Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/325047876_137_ancient_human_genomes_from_across_th e_Eurasian_steppes

Gonzales-Fortes et al. 2017. Paleogenomic Evidence for Multi-generational Mixing between Neolithic Farmers and Mesolithic Hunter-Gatherers in the Lower Danube Basin. Current Biology.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30559-6

Haak et al. 2015. Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14317
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Datasets_files/nature14317.pdf

Jones et al. 2015. Upper Paleolithic genomes reveal deep roots of modern Eurasians. Nature Communications. https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912.pdf

Kılınc et al. 2016. The Demographic Development of the First Farmers in Anatolia. Current Biology.
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Lazaridis et al. 2014. Ancient human genomes suggest three ancestral populations for present-day Europe. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature13673
http://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reichlab/Reich_Lab/Datasets_files/2014_Nature_Lazaridis_EuropeThreeAncestries.pdf

Lazaridis et al. 2016. Genomic insights into the origin of farming in the ancient Near East. Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature19310
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/06/16/059311.full.pdf

Lazaridis et al. 2017. Genetic origins of the Minoans and Mycenaeans. Nature (article available at https://www.researchgate.net/publication/318862250_Genetic_origins_of_the_Minoans_and_Mycen aeans).

Lipson et al. 2017. Parallel palaeogenomic transects reveal complex history of early European Farmers. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature24476
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/11/01/114488
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Eszter_Banffy/publication/314281092_Parallel_ancient_genomic_transects_revea l_complex_population_history_of_early_European_far mers/links/58d13696458515520d5831fc/Parallel-ancient-genomic-transects-reveal-complex-population-history-of-early-European-farmers.pdf

Martiniano et al. 2016. Genomic signals of migration and continuity in Britain before the Anglo-Saxons. Nature Communications.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms10326.pdf

Mathieson et al. 2015. Genome-wide patterns of selection in 230 ancient Eurasians. Nature. https://www.nature.com/articles/nature16152
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4918750/

Mathieson et al. 2018. The genomic history of southeastern Europe. Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317094992_The_Genomic_History_Of_Southeastern_Euro pe

Narasimhan et al. 2018 Preprint. The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/03/31/292581

Olalde et al. 2018. The Beaker phenomenon and the genomic transformation of northwest Europe. Nature.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25738
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317094996_The_Beaker_phenomenon_and_the_genomic_tr ansformation_of_Northwest_Europe

Omrak et al. 2016. Genomic Evidence Establishes Anatolia as the Source of the European Neolithic Gene Pool. Current Biology. https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822(15)01516-X

Wang et al. 2018. Preprint. The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347


Modern DNA:

Triska et al. 2017. Between Lake Baikal and the Baltic Sea: genomic history of the gateway to Europe. BMC Genetics. https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0578-3

Jeong et al. 2018. Preprint. Characterizing the genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/23/327122
Jeong et al. has comparisons with ancient steppe populations

And also for comparisons with Western Balkans:
Kovacevic et al. 2014. Standing at the Gateway to Europe- The Genetic Structure of Western Balkan Populations Based on Autosomal and Haploid Markers. PLoS One.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0105090

Fungene
07-15-2018, 08:29 PM
Most of the information below is from Damgaard et al. 2018. “137 Genomes…”
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
But we also got a sneak preview of a new calculator based on the information in Damgaard et al. that Anthrogenica’s Kurd is preparing to roll out.
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14661-Upcoming-K36-Bronze-Iron-Age-Calculator-GenePlaza/page5
Neither of these sources of information is about the Balkans, but they contain, indirectly, relevant tidbits. We use what’s available.

There’s always been plenty of talk about barbarians streaming in and all that sort of thing. We can now get a closer look at some individuals, which gives us a more fine-grained picture of the genetics behind some of the population movements that affected the Balkans.

From the Supplement to Damgaard et al. 2018. “137 Genomes…”:
“The Scythians that settled in Hungary belonged to tribes migrating from the Black Sea to the Poltava and Kiev regions. The reign of the Scythians in the Hungarian territory ended with immigration of the
Celts.”

The samples discussed were found at a short distance from Romania, and most of them show local admixture:

From Supplementary Table 3.7.1 D-stats, we can say that Hungarian Scythians are genetically shifted toward Europe_EN in comparison with Tian Shan Saka, Central Saka, Tagar, and even Andronovo.

Here is a bit more detail on the samples, combined with some information from Anthrogenica Kurd’s latest (and at the time of writing, not yet available) calculator:

Iron Age Scythians in Hungary (from various Supplemental Spreadsheets and Supplementary Information):

Coordinates 47ş33'34, 20ş42'29; about 130 km west of Oradea

DA191, H2a2, Female
Tiszaszolos- Czalanyszeg
-536 to -526 calAD;
*Balkans_BA: 33.10%

Next 4:
Coordinates 46ş20'40, 20ş09'45; about 67 km west of Nădlac

DA194, Female
Sandorfalva ‚Äě Eperjes
-408 to -369 calAD
*Balkans_BA: 0%

DA195, H+16311, Female
Sandorfalva ‚Äě Eperjes
-756 to- 727 calAD
*Balkans_BA: 11.96%

DA197, Male/R1
Sandorfalva ‚Äě Eperjes
-506 to -505 calAD
*Balkans_BA: 16.9%

DA198, H7a, Male/NA
Sandorfalva ‚Äě Eperjes
-508 to -498 calAD
*Balkans_BA: 40.13%

*according to Kurd’s K36 calculator:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14661-Upcoming-K36-Bronze-Iron-Age-Calculator-GenePlaza/page5

Kurd’s calculator results are consistent with the stats from Damgaard showing that the Hungarian Scythians had affinity to Europe_EN, from which Balkans_BA would have derived part of their admixture.

All except one of the IA Scythians buried less than 130 km away from present-day Romania had a good dose of Balkans _BA admixture, from 12% to a whopping 40%. The 40-percenter is male.

There is also a sixth sample, which archaeologists had identified as Scythian, but is actually from the 13th century AD:

Coordinates: 47ş33’25, 21ş00’55, about 130 km west of Oradea
DA199, Hung Med, Female
Arkus, Äě Koveshalom
H1ba
1224-1264 calAD,
*Balkans_BA: 10.72%

This 13th century individual packs a respectable 11% Balkans_BA admixture, still according to
Kurd’s K36 Bronze Age-Iron Age calculator.

One more tidbit about the Scythians. This is in comparison with the Sarmatians, from the Damgaard et al. 2018. Supplementary Information.
It looks like the Sarmatians were more eastern-shifted than the Hungarian Scythians: “the Sarmatians of the Late Iron Age are genetically shifted towards present day South Siberian hunter-gatherers and Altaians as compared to the Hungarian Scythians. The relevant D-statistic is D(BHG_BA, Mbuti; Sarmatians, Hungarian Scythians)=0.03; Z= 11.09. Thus, the neighbouring Hungarian Scythians and Sarmatians were clearly genetically distinct.”

Fungene
08-25-2018, 05:10 PM
Data is from Wang et al. 2018. The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus. Biorxiv. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347

It’s nice to see samples from Romania used in recent papers. It would be nice to have more and from different periods. No samples, no analysis and interpretation of data.

Below are most results concerning Romania EN from the supplementary files. EN stands for Early Neolithic.
What is Romania EN? It is based on two samples,
I2532 Coțatcu, 5715-5626 calBCE, K1a2/G2a2b2b
I2533 Cârcea, 5484-5372 calBCE, J1c5

The supplementary tables in Wang et al. 2018 contain information that allows us to make inferences about gene flow from Romania EN, or a population similar to it, into various populations of the steppe and Caucasus.

The theme of this post is, in part, the gradual spread of Early European Farmer (EEF) admixture, including from individuals like Romania EN, throughout Eurasia. It makes one think about what the prehistory and history of the Eurasian steppe might have been had steppe populations not been able to replenish their numbers by drawing on EEFs.

This is interesting because Romanians, for the most part, are used to thinking of steppe admixture as spreading westward. But the interaction also pulled EEFs into Eurasia, although one presumes (for reasons I don’t have space to go into here) not as independently organized social groups. It is probably steppe groups, not farmer societies of southeastern Europe, that developed a patrilineal segmental organization. Social scientists of the 1960s who had identified this form of organization in the ethnographic record characterized it as ideally suited for predation and taking control of previously occupied territory (Marshall Sahlins. 1961. The Segmentary Lineage: An Organization for Predatory Expansion.) That is the work that Zeng et al. 2018 recently drew on (Cultural Hitchhiking and Competition… https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-04375-6).

At the end of the post, I will briefly discuss what, if anything, these results mean for Nadja Kotova’s recent (2018) suggestion that it is Hamangia culture, on the Romanian and Bulgarian coast, that had the greatest impact on neighboring steppe cultures and that its influence spread as early as 5300-4800 BCE.

Here are some items from Wang et al. 2018, Supplementary information.

First, from Supplementary Fig. 5:
There is no significant result showing that Samara Eneolithic is different from EHG [Eastern Hunter Gatherer] with respect to having Romania EN-type admixture (and EHG most certainly didn’t have it).

In Supplementary Fig. 6, Wang et al. 2018 then look at gene flow from various sources into several steppe groups in comparison with Samara Eneolithic.
What is Samara Eneolithic?
The samples from Samara in Fig. 2, for instance, these:
I0122, Khvalynsk II, 5200-4000 BCE, Volga River, Samara; H2a1/R1b1a
I0433, Khvalynsk II, 5200-4000 BCE, Volga River; Samara, U5a1i/R1a1
I0434, Khvalynsk II, 5200-4000 BCE, Volga River, Samara; U4a2orU4d/ Q1a

I am going to order the comparisons by sample dates (oldest first), where available. I do this because most of us, including me, have not memorized all the various samples, their dates, and provenance, yet this information is important to understand the bearing of the data produced. (The lists are not meant to be exhaustive.)

Wang et al. found that there is affinity for Romania EN over Samara Eneolithic in the following:

Ukraine Eneolithic
I4110, Dereivka I, 3634-3377 calBCE, J2b1, categorized as outlier (is in Fig. 2 PCA)
I6561, Alexandria, 4045-3974 calBCE, H2a1a/R1a1a1, categorized as outlier (is in Fig. 2 PCA)
I5882, DereivkaI, 3264-2929 calBCE, U5a2a
I5884, DereivkaI, 2890-2696 calBCE, U5a2b/R1b1a1a2a2

Yamnaya Ukraine
I2105, Shevchenko [Dnieper], 3300-2700 BCE, T1a1
I3141, Shevchenko, 3300-2700 BCE, H15b1

Yamnaya Samara
I0231, Ekaterinovka, Southern Steppe, Samara, 2921-2762 calBCE, U4a1aorU4a1d/ R1b1a1a2a2
I0370, Ishkinovka I, Eastern Orenburg, Pre-Ural steppe, Samara, 3300-2700 BCE, H13a1a1/ R1b1a1a2a2
I0444, Kutuluk, Kutuluk River, Samara, 3335-2882 calBCE, H6a1b/ R1b1a1a2
I0429, Lopatino, Sok River, Samara, 3339-2918 calBCE, T2c1a2/ R1b1a1a2a2
I0438, Luzkhi I, Samara River, Samara, 3021-2635 calBCE, U5a1a1/ R1b1a1a2a2

Yamnaya Bulgaria Outlier (this one’s a no-brainer)
Bul4, Nova Zagora, Mednikarovo, 3012-2900 calBCE

Yamnaya Caucasus
RK1001, Rasshevatskyi1, Russia, 2879-2673 calBCE, U5a1d/R1ba2
SA6010, Sharakhalsun6, Russia, 2884-2679 calBCE, U51g
RK1007, Rasshevatskyi1, Russia, 3328-3018 cal BCE, T2a1

Yamnaya Hungary
I2762, I2772, I2362, no information

North Caucasus (all calBCE)
LYG001, Lysogorskaya 6, Russia, 2863-2581, H12a1a2/R1b1a2
MK5009, Marinskaya 5, Russia, 2884-2636, R1a1a/R1b1a2
GW1001, Goryachevodskiy 2, 2881-2671, Russia, U2e1b/R1b1a2a2
RK1003, Rasshevatskiy 1, 2899-2702, Russia, R1a1a

Sintashta
RISE386.SG, Bulanovo, Russia, 2298-2045 calBCE, J1c1b1a/R1a
RISE391.SG, TanabergenII, Kazakhstan, 2120-1887 calBCE, N1a1a1a1
RISE392.SG, StepnoeVII, Russia, 2126-1896 calBCE, J2b1a2a/R1a1a1b

Potapovka
I0418, Utyevka, Samara River, Samara, 2125-1769 calBCE, T1a1
I0419, Utyevka, Samara River, Samara, 2200-1900 BCE, U2e1h/R1a1a1b
I0246, Utyevka, Samara River, Samara, 2469-1928 calBCE, C1/R1

Srubnaya
I0234, Rozhedestveno1, Samara, Russia, 1850-1600 BCE, I1a1
I0430, SpiridonovkaII, Samara, 1850-1600 BCE, H3g/R1a1a1b2a2a
I0424, UvarovkaI, Samara, 1850-1600 BCE, T2b4/R1a1a1b2

Andronovo
RISE500.SG, Kytmanovo, Russia, 1727-1511 calBCE, U2e2
RISE505.SG, Kytmanovo, 1746-1626 calBCE, U4a1b
RISE512.SG, Kytmanovo, 1446-1298 calBCE, U2e1/ R1a1a1b

But the results for the following are not significant:

Eneolithic steppe
PG2004, Progress2, Russia, 4233-4047 calBCE, H2/R1b1
PG2001, Progess2, 4336-4178 calBCE, I3a/R1b1
VJ1001, Vonyuchka1, Russia, 4332-4238 calBCE/T2a1b

Steppe Maykop Outlier
SA6013, Sharakhalsun6, 3355-3105 calBCE, I5b/R1

Steppe Maykop
IV3002, Ipatovo3, Russia, 3331-2885 calBCE, X1’2’3/?
SA6013, Sharakhalsun, Russia, 3355-3105, I5b/R1

Afanasievo
RISE509.SG, Bateni, Afanasievo, Russia, 2887-2677 calBCE, T2c1a2
RISE510.SG, Bateni, Afanasievo, Russia, 2851-2468 calBCE, J2a2a
RISE511.SG, Bateni, Afanasievo, Russia, 2909-22679 calBCE, J2a2a

Yamnaya Kalmykia
RISE546.SG, TemrtaIV, Russia, 3000-2400 BCE, U5a1d2b/R1b1a1a2
RISE550.SG, PeshanyV, Russia, 3334-2635 calBCE, Ua51i/R1b1a1a2
RISE553.SG, Ulan, Russia, 2849-2143 calBCE, T2a1a/I2a2a1b1b

Poltavka
I0371, Grachevka, Sok River, Samara, 2872-2583 calBCE, U2d2/ R1b1a1a2
I0126, Kutuluk, Kutuluk River, Samara, 2867-2486 calBCE, H6a2/ R1b1a1a2a2
I0440, Lopatino, Sok River, Samara, 2887-2666 calBCE, I3a, R1b1a1a2a2

Catacomb
RK4001, Rasshevatskyi1, Russia, 2541-2203 calBCE, Ua51i/R1b1a2
SA6003, Sharakhalsun6, Russia, 2474-2211 calBCE, U2e3a/R1b1a2
MK3003, Markinskaya3, Russia, 2577-2476 calBCE, U4a2

Late North Caucasus
KBD001, Kabardinka, Russia, 2196-1977, I4a/R1b1a2
KBD002, Kabardinka, Russia, 2188-2026, W1+199

Lola
NV3001, Nevinnomiskyi3, Russia, 2116-1925 calBCE, R1b/Q1a2

For the most part, the significant results do not involve the Caucasus. That too is interesting. Perhaps, as the authors point out in the main text, an as-yet unsampled population relevant to the Caucasus might give more telling comparative results.

Coming back to results that are statistically significant: By the 4th millennium BCE, there is evidence of gene flow from Romania EN or populations similar to Romania EN into the steppe, even before Sintasha, Potapovka, Srubnaya, and Andronovo. The new elements here are that the spread of EFF occurs earlier than thought and the data now includes samples from Romania EN.

But what about even earlier population movements affecting Ukraine and areas further east, out to the Lower Don and the Sea of Azov? Nadja Kotova has recently been floating the idea that steppe societies from Sredny Stog out to Khvalynsk Early Eneolithic got their first taste of EEF metals and other coveted goodies mostly from Hamangia rather than Tripolye*.

Hamangia culture covered eastern Romania. Kotova believes that the level of interaction was quite extensive and she implies that it involved more than the acquisition of artifacts. She pushes the dates of contact between EEFs in Hamangia and steppe populations to 5300-4800 BCE. The picture she sketches seems to be that western influence —meaning EEF influence —first spreads to Sredny Stog culture in Ukraine, which then spreads it to the Azov-Dnieper culture around 4950-4800 BCE. (Note: Hamangia III is dated about 4850-4650 BCE by various authors; Hamangia II is around 4950-4850 BCE.)

Hamangia would probably be like Romania EN admixed with local hunter-gatherers, as far as one can tell from mixed burials seen in the area where Hamangia flourished (Raluca Kogălnicianu. 2007. Hamangia-Anatolia: Difference and Resemblances at the Level of Funerary Practices. Arheologia Spirtiualității Preistorice in Ținuturile Carpato-Ponto-Danubiene. Constanța).

So far, the record from aDNA doesn’t help to assess Kotova’s proposal. There would have to be evidence of EEF admixture in Ukraine Neolithic. That is not one of the populations that Wang et al. 2018 tested. There is evidence of EEF gene flow in Ukraine Eneolithic and the sites sampled, such as Dereivka, are relevant. But Ukraine Eneolithic is too late to do much good for Kotova’s hypothesis, although Ukraine Eneolithic is earlier than Yamnaya.

Nothing excludes interaction without admixture, but Kotova seems to be implying a level of interaction that would call for admixture. By the mid-fifth millennium, some groups from the Pontic steppe knew exactly where to go looking for the metals they coveted, and by around 4600 BCE, there is clear, albeit spotty, evidence of steppe admixture in Varna (Mathieson et al. 2018).

In any case, to get a better picture of population interaction and test the Hamangia hypothesis, more samples from the eastern part of Romania would be needed.

In fact, for those who are almost exclusively interested in the movement of steppe populations, this would be a good reason to broaden the collection of samples. Of course, I am interested more in what others would consider the background, or the canvas on which steppe migrations drew a path. For me, the EEF populations and their history of admixture is the foreground. What remains true for everybody is that one can’t get a sense of the movement of populations through time without a more systematic and broader collection of samples. Perhaps we will get there, eventually.

Coming back to the opening theme: One can still ask what-if questions. What would the prehistory and history of the Eurasian steppe have been had steppe groups not been able to draw on neighboring EEF populations? To what extent did the EEF input—probably mostly female-mediated— fuel the expansion of steppe societies? Most likely, quite a bit.

*Nadja S. Kotova. 2018. “The Contacts of the Eastern European Steppe People with the Balkan Population during the Transition Period from Neolithic to Eneolithic.” In Vassil Nikolov and Wolfram Schier (eds). Der Schwartzmeerraum vom Neolithikum bis die Früheisenzeit (6000-600 v. Chr.): Kulturelle Interferenzen in der Zirkumpontischen Zone und Kontakte Mit Ihren Nachbargebieten. Prähistorisches Archäologie in Südoseuropa, Bd. 30, Rahden/Westf.: Leidorf.

Dorkymon
08-28-2018, 07:03 PM
moved to: https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6563-The-Origin-of-Romanians-(Vlachs)&p=473587&viewfull=1#post473587

Dorkymon
08-28-2018, 09:26 PM
https://i.imgur.com/Xi1hHwb.png
While the body of the article makes no mention of the Moldovans, it says this of the European populations: “Ukrainians and Belarusians have almost identical proportions of the two ‘European’ components and have virtually no ‘Asian’ admixture.”
You can compare them to Moldovans in Fig. 2.
Asian genetic ancestry is represented by:
Beringian: light green
East Siberian: dark blue
East Asian: pink
Central Siberian: light blue


Moldovans have less ANE than Ukrainians and Belarusians; and apparently less EHG than northern Europeans (UK, Germany, Belarus, Ukraine).

Having looked at the supplementary table 2, I will also add that:

Out of 37 Moldovan samples, only 3 lack the East Asian component.
The average is 2.1% and the median is 1.8%.

For the Central Siberian component, present in 15/37, average - 0.6%, median - 0%.

East Siberian, present in 32/37, average - 1.5%, median - 1.6%.

Beringian, present in 23/37, average - 0.8%, median - 0.8%.

Total East Asian + Siberian + Beringian, present in 37/37, average - 5%, median - 5.1%



Comparison

East Asian

Belarusian: 19/34, 0.6%, 0.3%

Ukrainian: 26/36, 1.3%, 1.5%

Moldovan: 34/37, 2.1%, 1.8%

Central Siberian

Belarusian: 29/34, 1.4%, 1.6%

Ukrainian: 31/36, 1.8%, 1.4%

Moldovan: 15/37, 0.6%, 0%

East Siberian

Belarusian: 23/34, 1.2%, 1.3%

Ukrainian: 25/36, 1.1%, 1%

Moldovan: 32/37, 1.5%, 1.6%

Beringian

Belarusian: 24/34, 0.8%, 0.5%

Ukrainian: 23/36, 0.8%, 0.6%

Moldovan: 23/37, 0.8%, 0.8%

Total East Asian + Siberian + Beringian

Belarusian: 34/34, 4%, 4.1%

Ukrainian: 36/36, 5%, 4.4%

Moldovan: 37/37, 5%, 5.1%

Fungene
08-28-2018, 09:30 PM
RE: Y-haplogroup distributions: Where's the ancient DNA?

Dorkymon
08-28-2018, 09:34 PM
RE: Y-haplogroup distributions: Where's the ancient DNA?

Actually, I have a better thread already.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?6563-The-Origin-of-Romanians-(Vlachs)

Fungene
08-28-2018, 11:13 PM
Having looked at the supplementary table 2, I will also add that:



OK, I think I see what you are trying to do. You are using ADMIXTURE to assign numerical values to some of the Ks that you then add up.
But, if I understand Patterson et al. 2012 correctly, one can’t use ADMIXTURE to make inferences about admixture proportions. ADMIXTURE is used only to get a preliminary sense of population substructure.
Triska et al. 2017 do provide some formal statistics. But they only use the three-population test (see Table S4). And Moldovans don’t even show up in any of the f3 statistics, either as target or source, which is one reason the article doesn’t discuss Moldovans.

Patterson et al. 2012
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/230837578_Ancient_Admixture_in_Human_History

(BTW, but not really a topic for this thread, there was an official Russian, and later Soviet, policy of Russification of what is today called Moldova in the 19th century, and again, in the 20th. This also had an impact on the historical province of Moldavia. That has got to have left a significant mark on population genetics.)

Idwaajeden
08-29-2018, 12:38 AM
Because Moldova was part of the former Soviet Union, it was included in this study:
Triska et al. 2017. “Between Lake Baikal and the Baltic Sea: genomic history of the gateway to Europe.” https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0578-3

32 Moldovan individuals were sampled. I did not find where in Moldova they were from.

First: Yet one more visual representation of the difference in population structure between Moldovans, on the one hand, and their northeastern neighbors: Ukrainians, Belarusians, Russians.
LBK Farmer and Mal’ta are included for comparison.

This is from the article: unsupervised analysis with ADMIXTURE using 6 ancestral populations, Fig. 2.
https://i.imgur.com/Xi1hHwb.png
While the body of the article makes no mention of the Moldovans, it says this of the European populations: “Ukrainians and Belarusians have almost identical proportions of the two ‘European’ components and have virtually no ‘Asian’ admixture.”

No, false study that you quoted. I don’t know where Russian science for this study got their samples (maybe next time they clarify origin of samples) but their is not specific enough data provided for this graphs to have any significance or validated. I viewed this study myself already.

As person with 3/4 grandparents eastern Galicia 1/4 Russian empire (Ukraine and Moldavia the groups in question) quote "virtually no East Eurasian admixture in Ukrainians, Moldavians" I can confirm this false

There is usually low amounts East Eurasian admixture around 5% or less, but there is ofcourse individual cases where can be double digit % or much higher. These place have a complex history and some genetic mixing as any other place. It will be challenge to confirm this linear theory of Ukrainian, Moldavian genetic structure with only 32 samples. I have access to many Ukrainian, Moldavian samples or mixed Moldavian samples

Fungene
08-29-2018, 01:17 AM
As person with 3/4 grandparents... I can confirm this false

Thanks for your comments.

Just a reminder:
“the reason this information is placed in this thread: The study … also finds that ‘Neolithic Farmers’ genetic influence is present in a wide range of modern Eurasian populations (…to the Altay mountains in the East). East of Altay the signal fades.’”

And, in fact, the point has been developed through formal statistics in Wang et al. 2018 and also Narasimhan et al. 2018, which I have not yet had time to comment on (the latter study uses samples from Romania EN and Romania Chalcolithic.)

As for your observations, in general, it is best to distinguish between anecdotal evidence and scientific studies.

I started out getting DNA tests on a lark, but found that there is a real treasure trove of insight that stands behind these tests. The really important things are what we are learning from population genomics, not tests and calculators intended for personal use. I enjoy the commercial and amateur tests and calculators. The best ones take heed of the research. So should we all.

I ignore research that seems to gerrymander evidence to fit a political agenda, and unfortunately this kind of research does exist.
I don't believe that a finding that Neolithic Farmers' genetic influence extends through Eurasia west of the Altai promotes any political agenda.

Idwaajeden
08-29-2018, 01:50 AM
Thanks for your comments.

Just a reminder:
“the reason this information is placed in this thread: The study … also finds that ‘Neolithic Farmers’ genetic influence is present in a wide range of modern Eurasian populations (…to the Altay mountains in the East). East of Altay the signal fades.’”

And, in fact, the point has been developed through formal statistics in Wang et al. 2018 and also Narasimhan et al. 2018, which I have not yet had time to comment on (the latter study uses samples from Romania EN and Romania Chalcolithic.)

As for your observations, in general, it is best to distinguish between anecdotal evidence and scientific studies.

I started out getting DNA tests on a lark, but found that there is a real treasure trove of insight that stands behind these tests. The really important things are what we are learning from population genomics, not tests and calculators intended for personal use. I enjoy the commercial and amateur tests and calculators. The best ones take heed of the research. So should we all.

I ignore research that seems to gerrymander evidence to fit a political agenda, and unfortunately this kind of research does exist.
I don't believe that a finding that Neolithic Farmers' genetic influence extends through Eurasia west of the Altai promotes any political agenda.

Ok, but I am not comment on Neolithic Farmers, your Russia study has corrupted statistics already. I am speaking regarding Ukrainian, Moldavian samples they are inaccurate.

Neolithic farmer admixture being brought east far as Altai, I not quoting this part

Fungene
08-29-2018, 02:00 AM
Ok, but I am not comment on Neolithic Farmers, your Russia study has corrupted statistics already. I am speaking regarding Ukrainian, Moldavian samples they are inaccurate.

Neolithic farmer admixture being brought east far as Altai, I not quoting this part

Send your comments to the authors.
Keep in mind that Russians have no interest in doing what you are suggesting. If there were to be any bias it would be to show the opposite, meaning that there is no difference between Moldovans and Russians.
Please also consult numerous other studies, which are consistent with what this study shows.
I am going to reserve future comments to issues that are in some way related to ancient DNA, just to stay on topic.

Idwaajeden
08-29-2018, 02:14 AM
Send your comments to the authors.
Keep in mind that Russians have no interest in doing what you are suggesting. If there were to be any bias it would be to show the opposite, meaning that there is no difference between Moldovans and Russians.
Please also consult numerous other studies, which are consistent with what this study shows.
I am going to reserve future comments to issues that are in some way related to ancient DNA, just to stay on topic.

They have interest in our people that is why they corrupting the statistics, as far as they can reach our history is complex

Who are you to tell me you know more about my people than I know or Russian statistics is valid? When I have access to all the samples in question.

Administrator
08-29-2018, 01:08 PM
[ADMIN]

Several uncivil posts removed per Section 3.10 of our Terms of Service:-



3.10 Certain standards of quality control will be enforced to ensure a productive forum atmosphere. Invectives and posts devoid of substance (e.g. threads or replies consisting solely of inflammatory content or triviality) will be considered junk postings and deleted. Breaches in basic forum etiquette include (and are not limited to) cross-posting different threads, consecutive posting in existing threads and reviving old threads whose course of discussion has long since expired ("necro-bumping").


Please avoid personalizing these discussions or casting negative aspersions towards fellow members.

Thanks for your cooperation.

Fungene
08-29-2018, 02:04 PM
They have interest in our people that is why they corrupting the statistics, as far as they can reach our history is complex

Who are you to tell me you know more about my people than I know or Russian statistics is valid? When I have access to all the samples in question.
This thread is devoted to discussion of primary research that in some way involves ancient DNA.

Fungene
09-02-2018, 05:09 AM
A few words on the relation between Ukraine Neolithic and Hamangia. We don’t have any data on this. But there is a Ukraine Neolithic outlier, sample I3719, dated 4949-4799 calBCE, H1/I2a2a, from Dereivka I, the largest Mariupol-type burial site.

He is described in Mathieson et al. 2018* as having “entirely northwestern-Anatolian-related ancestry.”
We can see that I3719 plots near Balkans_Neolithic in the Global 25 PCA, courtesy of ph2ter
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?13393-Davidski-s-Global-25-nMonte-results/page134&p=473142#post473142

That’s about as close as we get to finding support for Kotova’s Hamangia thesis, given the samples available.
* “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe.” https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

Fungene
09-02-2018, 08:48 AM
Was the occupant of Grave 102 (I3719) at Dereivka I an individual from Hamangia culture or thereabouts? Could be.

He is buried without grave goods (Telegin and Potekhina. 1987. Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations in the Dnieper Basin, Chapter 1.) You can also see an illustration of the burial site (Fig. 13, p. 20).

Perhaps we might in future compare I3719 with samples taken from Hamangia culture. They are listed in the Catalogue of Neolithic and Eneolithic Funerary Findings from Romania, p. 72ff. I should say, samples to be taken, one day.
https://www.academia.edu/11647409/C._A._Laz%C4%83r_ed_._The_Catalogue_of_the_Neolith ic_and_Eneolithic_Funerary_Findings_from_Romania
or
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/259742743_The_Catalogue_of_the_Neolithic_and_Eneol ithic_Funerary_Findings_from_Romania

BTW, the Cernavoda I cemetery, referenced in Catalogue, is where the famous statuette of the Cernavoda Thinker was found.

Fungene
09-03-2018, 12:02 PM
A few more odds and ends gathered from reading Telegin and Potekhina (1987)

Hamangia culture had first been identified in D. Berciu’s 1955 “Une civilisation Néolithique récemment découverte en Roumanie: la civilisation de Hamangia.”* (The full reference to this and other publications concerning Hamangia can be found in Lăzar’s Catalog.)

Telegin and Potekhina (1987)** thought that the supine-type burials found in Hamangia had a direct analogy only with Mariupol-style burials in the Pontic steppe (194). They even thought Hamangia pottery borrowed its stylistic features from the Dnieper Basin (185). This implies that they believed the Hunter Gatherer individuals in Hamangia came directly from the Pontic steppe.

It’s possible they believed this because, at the time, they weren’t thinking in terms of a distinction, obvious to us now, between Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG) and Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG). I am perhaps wrong about this, but I see that distinction being clearly articulated for the first time in Haak et al. 2015***. It required the prior recognition of Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry. That’s a very recent development. (Anyone is invited to correct the information here. I’m interested in any claim that can be documented.)

So, in the space of 60 years since Berciu’s publication, our understanding of HGs and their relation to EEFs (Early European Farmers) has changed substantially.

None of the individuals buried in accordance with HG practices in the area and time that Hamangia culture thrived were sampled. But we can make a guess and conclude that they were WHGs and that they probably had some EHG admixture, given what we can see from supplementary table 3.1.1 in Mathieson et al. 2018.****

That’s far from making Hamangia an outpost of the Dnieper HG cultures. In fact, Kotova 2018 reverses the direction of influence.

One more note: The Ukraine Neolithic outlier (buried in Dereivka I) doesn’t seem to have much HG admixture given his position in the Global25 PCA.

* Bucharest, Editions de l'Académie de la République Populaire Roumaine

** Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations of the Dnieper Basin, BAR International Series 382

*** “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14317

**** “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

Edit: for those stumbling on this post, Hamangia is an Early European Farmer (EEF) culture

euasta
09-03-2018, 03:18 PM
Interesant cred.
https://ro.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comuna_Topana,_Olt
"Topana face parte din zonele Munteniei care au fost intens locuite de daci. Pe valea Ciorâca au fost descoperite 61 de morminte datând din a doua jumătate a secolului al III-lea e.n."
Oare exista pe undeva date mai multe despre asta? I-o fi pasat cuiva ? Arheologilor, geneticienilor?...

Fungene
09-03-2018, 05:43 PM
Interesant cred.

Yes, it is interesting. It should show up in Repertoriul Arheologic Național, the online database of archeological sites in Romania, http://ran.cimec.ro

Currently, RAN is not responding. First time that has happened in my experience.
Please let us know whether you can access the site.

But these links are working:
https://www.cimec.ro/Istorie.html
https://www.cimec.ro/Arheologie.html

euasta
09-03-2018, 06:51 PM
CIMEC merge la mine dar nu vad nimic in Topana ci la vreo 4-5 km departare la Chilia --> Cred ca despre asta este vorba. http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=126932.01 ( Epoca romană (sec. III) Cultura dacilor liberi )
Si o alta asezare mai timpurie, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=128338.01 (sec. II - I a. Chr.) Cultura geto-dacică.
Astea sunt exact in zona de unde se trag majoritatea alor mei. :)

etrusco
09-03-2018, 07:49 PM
A few more odds and ends gathered from reading Telegin and Potekhina (1987)

Hamangia culture had first been identified in D. Berciu’s 1955 “Une civilisation Néolithique récemment découverte en Roumanie: la civilisation de Hamangia.”* (The full reference to this and other publications concerning Hamangia can be found in Lăzar’s Catalog.)

Telegin and Potekhina (1987)** thought that the supine-type burials found in Hamangia had a direct analogy only with Mariupol-style burials in the Pontic steppe (194). They even thought Hamangia pottery borrowed its stylistic features from the Dnieper Basin (185). This implies that they believed the Hunter Gatherer individuals in Hamangia came directly from the Pontic steppe.

It’s possible they believed this because, at the time, they weren’t thinking in terms of a distinction, obvious to us now, between Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG) and Western Hunter Gatherers (WHG). I am perhaps wrong about this, but I see that distinction being clearly articulated for the first time in Haak et al. 2015***. It required the prior recognition of Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) ancestry. That’s a very recent development. (Anyone is invited to correct the information here. I’m interested in any claim that can be documented.)

So, in the space of 60 years since Berciu’s publication, our understanding of HGs and their relation to EEFs (Early European Farmers) has changed substantially.

None of the individuals buried in accordance with HG practices in the area and time that Hamangia culture thrived were sampled. But we can make a guess and conclude that they were WHGs and that they probably had some EHG admixture, given what we can see from supplementary table 3.1.1 in Mathieson et al. 2018.****

That’s far from making Hamangia an outpost of the Dnieper HG cultures. In fact, Kotova 2018 reverses the direction of influence.

One more note: The Ukraine Neolithic outlier (buried in Dereivka I) doesn’t seem to have much HG admixture given his position in the Global25 PCA.

* Bucharest, Editions de l'Académie de la République Populaire Roumaine

** Neolithic Cemeteries and Populations of the Dnieper Basin, BAR International Series 382

*** “Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature14317

**** “The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe.”
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

Edit: for those stumbling on this post, Hamangia is an Early European Farmer (EEF) culture


The influence of the balkan-carpathian cultures ( mostly from Romania) on the cultural ethnogenesis of the "steppe" has been immense. I quote some papers:

https://www.academia.edu/9450078/STEPS_TO_THE_STEPPE_OR_HOW_THE_NORTH_PONTIC_REGION _WAS_COLONISED

on the possible origin of the typical "steppe" marker: the kurgans:

https://www.academia.edu/1870168/Rassamakin_Y.Y._2011._Eneolithic_Burial_Mounds_in_ the_Black_Sea_Steppe_From_the_First_Burial_Symbols _to_Monumental_Ritual_Architecture._In_S._Muller-Celka_ed._._Ancestral_Landscapes._TMO_61_Maison_de _l_Orient_et_la_M%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9e_Lyon_293-306

On contacts between Romanian cultures and steppe peoples:

https://www.academia.edu/5066547/M_Videiko_Tripolye-pastoral_contacts_facts_and_character_of_interacti ons_4800-3200_BC_Baltic-Pontic_Studies_1994_vol.2_5-28

The real cultural border was not between old europe and the steppe but between the steppe/ forest zone west of the Don/ Dneper dominated by the farmers and the " caspian steppe" which was a nomadic kind culture. I think the PIE language and cultural package was born west of the Dneper in the world of the farmers. PIE vocabulary was not one of a nomadic population.

Dorkymon
09-03-2018, 08:57 PM
Sugerez sa cititi paragrafele despre paleolitic - evul mediu din "Marea istorie ilustrata a Romaniei si a republicii Moldova" (https://carturesti.ro/carte/marea-istorie-ilustrata-a-romaniei-si-a-republicii-moldova-78448915?p=1&t=c_quick-search&s=Marea+istorie).
Autorii acopera toate epocele si prezinta informatia foarte sec, fara tendinte nationaliste. De abia am ajuns la neolitic si pana aici au facut trimiteri si la studiile ADN. Asa ca par sa fie bine informati.
E folositor pentru cei care nu prea sunt familiarizati cu cercetarile arheologice din regiune. De exemplu eu consumam majoritatea informatiei de pe wiki pana acum, fiindca nu gasisem o resursa romaneasca centralizata.

Nu voi posta copii scanate din material, din respect fata de munca autorilor, dar treptat voi rezuma unele parti de-a lungul timpului si voi incerca sa combin cu unele calculatoare.

Fungene
09-04-2018, 02:32 PM
CIMEC merge la mine dar nu vad nimic in Topana ci la vreo 4-5 km departare la Chilia --> Cred ca despre asta este vorba. http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=126932.01 ( Epoca romană (sec. III) Cultura dacilor liberi )
Si o alta asezare mai timpurie, http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=128338.01 (sec. II - I a. Chr.) Cultura geto-dacică.
Astea sunt exact in zona de unde se trag majoritatea alor mei. :)

OK, got it. Had to lower safety settings on my browser temporarily. Don’t like to do that.

Under “Categorie,” one would have to look for sites classified as “descoperie funerară”
There are five in Vălcea.
There are three entries for Costeşti, dating to the Halstatt period. Necropola Ferigile de la Costesti is only about 10 km west from Rămnicu Vălcea; around 50 km from Topana.
About 169262.03 and 169262.04: “Tot materialul descoperit la Ferigile se află la Muzeul Judeţean Argeş.”
169262.03: 28 graves
169262.01: 197 graves, osteological analyses of 80 individuals. Many grave goods. Does not state where these are held today. Perhaps also in Muzeul Judeţean Argeş.
Quite a few articles about this find.

Have you visited Muzeul Judeţean Argeş?

126932.01 (http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=126932.01) and 128338.01 (http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=128338.01) are both categorized as "locuire civile", so no bones...

"exact in zona de unde se trag majoritatea alor mei."
Have you been to these sites? Would be nice to have pictures.

euasta
09-04-2018, 07:02 PM
Am gasit si in Olt cateva.
http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?cat=30&Lang=RO&crsl=2&csel=2&clst=1&lpag=100&campsel=cat&Ojud=2&Oloc=2&nr=9
Ciudat este ca ran asta imi pare ca nu da deloc coordonatele precise ale locurilor descopeeririlor...
Iata aici un exemplu convingator... http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=135333.01 Daca te uiti pe harta sa vezi unde este te apuca groaza!...
Daca te duci pe teren gasesti doar.... balarii in mod sigur.
Nu am fost la Arges la muzeu, dar cand mai trec prin zona Topana o sa ma intersez sa vad daca stie cineva ceva precis.
p.s.
Pentru delectare... oameni si spiritul locuitorilor de acolo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQz7t8W9smk torcatoare foarte batrana inca se descurca singura.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yQ7rPispDM&t=428s Biserica datata din anul !549 la care bunicul a fost dascal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_Xxr0xYgsI desigur Calusul. :)

Fungene
09-05-2018, 05:35 PM
The influence of the balkan-carpathian cultures ( mostly from Romania) on the cultural ethnogenesis of the "steppe" has been immense. I quote some papers:

https://www.academia.edu/9450078/STEPS_TO_THE_STEPPE_OR_HOW_THE_NORTH_PONTIC_REGION _WAS_COLONISED

on the possible origin of the typical "steppe" marker: the kurgans:

https://www.academia.edu/1870168/Rassamakin_Y.Y._2011._Eneolithic_Burial_Mounds_in_ the_Black_Sea_Steppe_From_the_First_Burial_Symbols _to_Monumental_Ritual_Architecture._In_S._Muller-Celka_ed._._Ancestral_Landscapes._TMO_61_Maison_de _l_Orient_et_la_M%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9e_Lyon_293-306

On contacts between Romanian cultures and steppe peoples:

https://www.academia.edu/5066547/M_Videiko_Tripolye-pastoral_contacts_facts_and_character_of_interacti ons_4800-3200_BC_Baltic-Pontic_Studies_1994_vol.2_5-28

The real cultural border was not between old europe and the steppe but between the steppe/ forest zone west of the Don/ Dneper dominated by the farmers and the " caspian steppe" which was a nomadic kind culture. I think the PIE language and cultural package was born west of the Dneper in the world of the farmers. PIE vocabulary was not one of a nomadic population.

Thanks for your comments, and the papers you linked to. They should be broadly read.
Indeed the interactions of peoples and cultures is fascinating, and ancient DNA can give us a new angle on old issues. I am following developments in Pontic-Caspian and Central Asian aDNA only indirectly, insofar as they are relevant to the Balkans. The reason for this is that there are already plenty of threads focusing on steppe populations, the PIE homeland issue, and northern European ethnogenesis.

But I can pen a few short comments. Just by dint of geography many of the early interactions with steppe cultures occurred among EEF communities in what are now Bulgaria, Romania, Moldova, and parts of Ukraine. So absolutely, they are important.

There appears to be wide agreement that differences in technological know-how and innovation between the EEFs and neighboring steppe populations in the fifth millennium BCE were steep, perhaps even the most extreme in the world at that time (for instance: Chernykh, 1992. Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR).
Manzura (your first link) presents the interaction between the two cultures as being a dialogue, a “real cultural exchange.” He appears to be drawing on claims of early technological proficiency among neighboring steppe populations* and makes assumptions about EEF social organization (that they were chiefdoms.) Both these points might hinder achieving a better understanding of the interactions between the two, at the time, very divergent cultures. They produce the impression, which Manzura promotes, that groups from the neighboring steppe and EEFs were in a benign partnership.

There is no doubt that, culturally, the spread of innovations was from EEFs to their neighbors to the northeast. But we would need eventually to bring in social organization in order to fill in the blanks. We already have one study integrating ethnographic characterizations of social organization and aDNA (Zeng et al. 2018). I think that as we have more studies that synthesize genomics and anthropology with archaeology, we will get a clearer picture of the interaction.

The most recent paper you linked to, Rassamakin’s, points out the influence EEF culture exercised and the fact that EEFs had more developed technological know-how. But nothing this article says actually shows that EEFs were the source of burial mounds (“kurgans”), only that the technological know-how they possessed and probably their labor were instrumental in the development of monumental burial architecture among a “certain stratum of the early pastoral population.”

As someone only distantly following debates about the PIE homeland, for the moment, I don’t see anything in these papers and in recent aDNA studies that points to an origin among EEFs. That would get us back to the Anatolian hypothesis.

* The third link (Videiko’s paper) overemphasizes technological and horticultural know-how and innovation in early steppe populations. Some of the claims Videiko makes have been shown to be false.

Fungene
09-06-2018, 05:26 PM
Am gasit si in Olt cateva.
http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?cat=30&Lang=RO&crsl=2&csel=2&clst=1&lpag=100&campsel=cat&Ojud=2&Oloc=2&nr=9
Ciudat este ca ran asta imi pare ca nu da deloc coordonatele precise ale locurilor descopeeririlor...
Iata aici un exemplu convingator... http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?codran=135333.01 Daca te uiti pe harta sa vezi unde este te apuca groaza!...
Daca te duci pe teren gasesti doar.... balarii in mod sigur.
Nu am fost la Arges la muzeu, dar cand mai trec prin zona Topana o sa ma intersez sa vad daca stie cineva ceva precis.
p.s.
Pentru delectare... oameni si spiritul locuitorilor de acolo:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BQz7t8W9smk torcatoare foarte batrana inca se descurca singura.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5yQ7rPispDM&t=428s Biserica datata din anul !549 la care bunicul a fost dascal.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O_Xxr0xYgsI desigur Calusul. :)

I like those video clips! I am going to comment at greater length later.

Coming back to the Ferigile necropolis, I also found this:
http://www.muzeul-judetean-arges.ro/sectiile-muzeului/istorie/expozitia-permanenta
This museum is in Pitești (I need to visit!)

“ În cadrul expoziţiei Secţiei de Istorie sunt prezentate unelte aparţinând culturii de prund, piese eneolitice descoperite în aşezările gumelniţene de tip tell de la Teiu, Popeşti şi Zidurile, ceramică, arme şi piese de harnaşament din inventarele funerare ale mormintelor din necropolele hallstattiene târzii de pe Valea Topologului.”

Somebody might have mixed up Valea Ciorâca and Valea Topologului. Valea Topologului is near Tigveni, (lots of online links connecting Tigveni and Necropola Ferigile) so not far from Topana.
Doesn’t say where the human remains are held.

These sites are not easy to find. In part, it's because of the problem posed by thieves.

euasta
09-06-2018, 06:48 PM
Fungene, Daca am avea si noi un sector de cercetare arheologica avansat poate ca acum am sti mult mai multe si despre ADN-ul locuitorilor vechi de aici. dar ... e ca la noi...! :(
Exista o lege ce protejeaza locatiile unde s-au facut descoperiri arheologice. La distanta de 100 pana la 500m de limita locatiilor astea nu ai voie sa te atingi de nimic, nu mai zic sa sapi spre exemplu... Dar nimeni nu cred ca stie perimetrele respective de vreme ce nu sunt marcate in nici un fel.

Fungene
09-06-2018, 07:39 PM
Fungene, Daca am avea si noi un sector de cercetare arheologica avansat poate ca acum am sti mult mai multe si despre ADN-ul locuitorilor vechi de aici. dar ... e ca la noi...! :(
Exista o lege ce protejeaza locatiile unde s-au facut descoperiri arheologice. La distanta de 100 pana la 500m de limita locatiilor astea nu ai voie sa te atingi de nimic, nu mai zic sa sapi spre exemplu... Dar nimeni nu cred ca stie perimetrele respective de vreme ce nu sunt marcate in nici un fel.
Actually, Romanian archaeologists have published very interesting work. When I have time, I will try to post links. Lots of stuff available online (even more not available online...)
I am not sure about the administration of the finds...
With the cuts in the science budget that were announced (I just know what is reported in the news), don't expect aDNA testing too soon. Even apparently non-controversial things, like testing the alleged remains of Mihai Viteazul, raised religious objections. I don't see why.

euasta
09-06-2018, 08:44 PM
Actually, Romanian archaeologists have published very interesting work. When I have time, I will try to post links. Lots of stuff available online (even more not available online...)
I am not sure about the administration of the finds...
With the cuts in the science budget that were announced (I just know what is reported in the news), don't expect aDNA testing too soon. Even apparently non-controversial things, like testing the alleged remains of Mihai Viteazul, raised religious objections. I don't see why.

Poate ca arheologii incearca sa isi faca treaba in particular, dar se pare ca in general e ca la noi... ca in mai toate domeniile.
Legislatia e stufoasa si nu ma pricep dar zona de protectie fata de locatiile descoperirilor cred ca deriva din art.2 de aici http://www.cdep.ro/pls/legis/legis_pck.htp_act_text?idt=13516

Alain
09-21-2018, 06:17 AM
Genetic affinities among the historical provinces of Romania and Central Europe ...
https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/.../ ...
7 Mar 2017 ... BMC GeneticsBMC series – open , inclusive and trusted2017 18:20 ... the second millennium BC named Dacians in Transylvania and ...

J1 DYS388=13
09-21-2018, 07:50 AM
Dead link.

Alain
09-21-2018, 09:04 AM
Dead link.

WHY??

J1 DYS388=13
09-21-2018, 09:08 AM
I don't know.
Page not found
Sorry, the page you requested is unavailable. The link you requested might be broken, or no longer exist.

Alain
09-21-2018, 09:12 AM
I don't know.
Page not found
Sorry, the page you requested is unavailable. The link you requested might be broken, or no longer exist.

please do not hesitate to contact Google Romanian mtDNA east asian then you will find the link or I will post it altogether

J1 DYS388=13
09-21-2018, 09:16 AM
please do not hesitate to contact Google Romanian mtDNA east asian then you will find the link or I will post it altogether

https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0487-5

Alain
09-21-2018, 09:19 AM
https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0487-5

Thank you :)

Tomenable
09-21-2018, 11:21 AM
I wonder how much of ancient Dacian ancestry do modern Romanians have.

Alain
09-21-2018, 11:39 AM
I wonder how much of ancient Dacian ancestry do modern Romanians have.
I think the Romanians are a mixture of pre-Slavic population (mostly Dacians, Geten, Celts, Scythian ...) and Slavic population and East Germanic tribes contributed to, good question how high the proportion of Dacians is?

Fungene
09-21-2018, 05:50 PM
Last time I looked, Cocos et al. 2017 (the article you reference) and the Hellenthal et al. 2014 study are the top Google search results for Romanian genetics. So I am not surprised you mention it.
Neither study provides evidence from ancient DNA. They use modern DNA to make inferences about ancient population movements and distributions. The Hellenthal et al. article and accompanying website does this explicitly, the Cocos et al. article, does this almost, but not quite, explicitly. Meaning, the data it presents actually does not explicitly address the issue of past populations distribution and movements. Only the interpretative commentary in the text does.
We have the unfair benefit of hindsight, but by now it is clear that, in order to make inferences about past populations, nothing takes the place of actual evidence from ancient DNA. And ancient uniparental markers are part of the picture, but they don’t substitute for autosomal analyses of ancient DNA.
The Hellenthal et al. study shows at least one thing: no amount of statistical cleverness applied to modern DNA can replace the kind of evidence that is really needed. Romanians news sources like to reproduce the big orange balloon from Lithuania (Lithuania!) pointing toward Romania, which is supposed to show that Romania was massively colonized by Lithuanians. Meanwhile, they omit to look at the retrodiction Hellenthal et al. make about northwest Europe, which is that no population movement occurred at all. There is a good reason why these backward predictions are, for the most part, politely ignored in current papers. Studies based on ancient DNA are showing quite different patterns.
The Cocos et al. paper references the Hellenthal study as supporting its conclusion. Its conclusion is that all parts of Romania except the western part are Slavic. The western part (they mean mostly Transylvania) is central European. Again, this is based on modern mtDNA. Cocos et al. expand on these points by briefly discussing a map of Romania showing the paths by which populations spread into Romania. They imply that the pattern should hold for autosomal DNA. Different parts of the paper seem to have been written by authors with different outlooks, but overall, the conclusion is the west has affinity with central Europe, the rest, with Slavic populations. How are we to square the conclusion in Cocos and al. with, for instance, the conclusion in Karachanak-Yankova et al. 2017, according to which Slavs are heterogeneous and show uniparental genetic diversity?

We can glean an answer to these questions from the Cocos et al. study, looking not just at the main article, but also the supplemental information.
We see two plots of genetic distances between populations based on mtDNA haplogroup frequencies (hypervariable regions) of modern populations. One figure is in in the paper, the other in the supplement. The one in the paper, Fig. 2, illustrates that Transylvania (western Romania) plots between Austria and Greece; the other traditional regions plot between Ukraine and Hungary (Dobrudja is not really a historical province of Romania.) As far as I can tell, Greece is not in central Europe, but Hungary is. When a larger complement of populations is examined, in Figure S1 in the supplement, Transylvania plots near Italy South and Scotland, while southern Romania (Wallachia) now plots close to Greece and Italy Centre. All of the latter form a cluster with Slovenia, Croatia, and Poland.
Taking both figures and information mentioned above into consideration, the most reasonable conclusion is that we can’t infer a pattern. Part of the reason might be due to the way mtDNA got shuffled around (meaning through social patterns of exchange, whether across central Europe, eastern Europe, or southern Europe). The only way we will be able to figure out if there is a pattern or not is by sampling across regions and time.
We will just have to work our way forward from ancient DNA to understand population dynamics in southeastern Europe, including Romania. The Cocos et al. study provides us with over 700 samples of modern mtDNA. That is good to have.
I my opinion, a study that fails to demonstrate a pattern gives us worthwhile and important information. That’s how I see the real value of the Cocos et al. study.

euasta
09-21-2018, 09:14 PM
Anyway, this is not the case here, but I think that the composition of haplogroups of a large population can change radically even in the short time when interacting with a much smaller population, giving the impression that the much smaller population replaces the most numerous population, if we only analyze haplogroups.

oz
09-30-2018, 08:13 AM
Anyway, this is not the case here, but I think that the composition of haplogroups of a large population can change radically even in the short time when interacting with a much smaller population, giving the impression that the much smaller population replaces the most numerous population, if we only analyze haplogroups.

Seems to me like the more isolated and the smaller a population is the more that population is prone to founder effects. If you look at the regions that historically had a greater diversity of migrations and bigger populations you see more diversity and more even distribution of haplogroups, like in the Balkans, Anatolia, Mesopotamia. Those regions had some of the oldest civilizations as well. China and India also have old civilizations and big populations but they're more isolated with geography and natural barriers.

Fungene
10-04-2018, 04:15 AM
Published today: Krzewinska et al. 2018. Ancient genomes suggest the eastern Pontic-Caspian steppe as the source of western Iron Age nomads.
http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

In case some were wondering where Srubnaya [Srubnaya, Andronovo (Alakulskaya)], Scythians, Cimmerians, and Sarmatians would plot with respect to modern Romanians in a PCA, below is Figure S3, from the Supplementary Materials.
This is the PCA with modern populations. Cimmerians, Scythians, and Sarmatians are represented by triangles, while Srubnaya-Alakulskaya are represented by pentagons.
I added a black dot • for modern Romanians. According to other studies, the closest populations included in this PCA would be Bulgarians and Croatians. So the dot for Romanians is positioned between these two populations.
I am also putting the information in this thread because a dozen or so of the Scythian and Cimmerian samples are from what is now the Transnistrian border zone with Moldova, so not too far from Romania.

https://i.imgur.com/qHT2vNV.jpg

eastara
10-04-2018, 01:45 PM
It is interesting, that a group of Scythians falls actually over present Greeks and Albanians. There is another over present Central Europe, but most are in no man land between Europeans and Caucasus/Anatolia.

Fungene
10-04-2018, 02:46 PM
It is interesting, that a group of Scythians falls actually over present Greeks and Albanians. There is another over present Central Europe, but most are in no man land between Europeans and Caucasus/Anatolia.

Krzewinska et al. do identify a Central Cluster of three Scythians (scy301, scy304, scy311—p. 3/12 of the paper) all from Glinoe, Transnistrian border zone of Moldova. These three are from the 4th-2nd century BCE. (And they are part of the cluster that hovers above Greeks in the PCA.)

According to the authors, this Central Cluster has genetic affinities to present-day Bulgarian, Greek, Croatian, and Turkish populations—and one might presume, also Romanians, if they had been included.

Looking at the heat maps based on f3 statistics (the data is in Excel spreadsheets), the genetic affinities of these three Scythians from Glinoe appear to be all over Europe, and show up in some surprising places, like Basque country for scy304. Overall, their affinity for northern European populations appears to be stronger. Their affinity for southern Europeans is probably be due to their mixing with descendants of EEF populations.

https://i.imgur.com/QXZRTSU.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/ASiPz3Y.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/9vcj5WK.jpg

oz
10-05-2018, 05:17 PM
Interesting how the 301 and 311 have a red dot in Croatia and less red in Bulgaria while 304 shows opposite. Also it looks like the authors didn't include Bosnia, Serbia and Romania I guess because they fit in between Croatia and Bulgaria?

Fungene
10-07-2018, 01:56 PM
...(And they are part of the cluster that hovers above Greeks in the PCA.)

Correction: the post above mixed the Central Cluster and the Southern Europe Cluster.

Fungene
10-07-2018, 02:04 PM
Interesting how the 301 and 311 have a red dot in Croatia and less red in Bulgaria while 304 shows opposite. Also it looks like the authors didn't include Bosnia, Serbia and Romania I guess because they fit in between Croatia and Bulgaria?

Here is an answer to your question. The populations that show up in the stats are just those in the dataset the authors used.
To illustrate, here is a sampling of what the f3 stats for the 48 top populations that share drift with Scy304 look like, since you mentioned Scy304
https://i.imgur.com/ZD4EZGj.jpg
Scy304 (and some of the other Glinoe Scythians, although I have not looked at all of them) shares drift with most modern European populations. I would guess that Romanians would be somewhere in the list of 48 or so, but I don’t know this.
Scy304 (and Glinoe Scythians) shares more drift with northern Europeans, but not exclusively so.

Looking at Fig. 3 in the main article, almost all Scythian samples have what the authors labeled “Neolithic and Modern Near East” ancestry (what a strange category). The exception is what the authors think might be an outlier, Scy332.

The Glinoe Scythians have more of this Neolithic etc. ancestry than the Srubnaya, which tells us something about what the local populations from which they were picking it up were like into the 2th century BCE. And that’s the main point for this thread.

Fungene
11-03-2018, 04:08 AM
Getting lucky with Global 25 nmonte runner, version 1.2.

http://185.144.156.77:3000

The results below are available to anyone free of charge.

The combination Balkans Chalcolithic, Romania Hunter Gatherer, and Yamnaya Ukraine gives us the best fit so far for modern Romanians.

https://i.imgur.com/QqSk1qF.jpg
and sometimes,
https://i.imgur.com/RzEAFwB.jpg

A fit of around 2.20

It so happens that Balkans Chalcolithic includes a couple of samples from Romania, and sample I4089 on its own gives us a surprisingly good fit in a model that includes Romania HG and Yamnaya Ukraine:

https://i.imgur.com/1ACdbMi.jpg

In some iterations, this model gets a fit of 2.35.

Assuming Yamnaya Ukraine is about 16.6%* Early European Farmer (EEF), this would be around 68% EEF and 32% steppe (CHG + EHG above Romania HG).

* Wang et al. Supplementary table 18, The genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347.figures-only

Sample I4089 is from Urziceni (3761-3645 calBCE; J1c/C1a2a)

From Mathieson et al. Supplementary information, “The genomic history of southeastern Europe,” pp. 30-31:
“The Urziceni-Vama site is situated in northwestern Romania on a terrace of the Pârâul Negru creek, in Satu Mare county. On the occasion of the construction of the Urziceni Duane and of a Duty-Free shop, rescue excavations discovered several graves belonging to the Bodrogkeresztúr culture (Middle Eneolithic – second half of the 5th millennium BC), which form part of a necropolis. So far, 68 graves have been excavated. The graves have rectangular or oval-oblong or irregular pits and contain skeletons deposited in crouched position, on the right or the left side, and oriented East-to-West. Over 75% of the graves contained inventory that was particularly rich (e.g. gold and copper items, many ceramic pots, obsidian and flint tools).”

A discussion of the find in English is in Tezaure arheologice din judeţul Satu Mare / Gindele Robert, Liviu Marta, Virag Cristian. - Satu Mare : Editura Muzeului Sătmărean, 2014 http://www.muzeusm.ro/carti2015/tezaure.pdf, pp. 3-8.
This is the page on Urziceni in RAN:
http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=urziceni-urziceni-satu-mare-situl-arheologic-de-la-urziceni-vade-ret-vama-cod-sit-ran-139269.01

The lone Romanian Hunter Gatherer is sample I2534, a female from Măgura Buduiasca (6061-5985 calBCE; K1/-).
Măgura Buduiasca is about 80 km southwest of Bucharest. In the supervised ADMIXTURE analysis, it has a high proportion of EHG [Mathieson et al. 2018. The genomic history of southeastern Europe (Extended Data Figure 2)] https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

More in Supplementary information:
“The Măgura Buduiasca site is in southern Romania, on the Teleorman River lower terrace, 10 km Northeast from the town of Alexandria (Teleorman County). Excavations began in 2001– following fieldwork that discovered evidence of different Neolithic materials, revealing a large flat settlement. These investigations confirmed the following Neolithic stratigraphy: Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş), Middle Neolithic (Dudeşti culture), and Late Neolithic (Vădastra culture), implying a time span between c. 6100 and 5200 BCE. The Neolithic occupation is overlapped in some areas by remains from later occupations (e.g. Bronze Age, Iron Age, Migration Period, and Middle Age)” pp. 28-29.

RAN information: http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=magura-magura-teleorman-situl-arheologic-de-la-magura-buduiasca-teleor-003-cod-sit-ran-153259.03

The description leads one to think that I2534 is from Criș culture, whereas the ADMIXTURE analysis in Mathieson et al. 2018 shows this sample to be a Hunter Gatherer.


Yamnaya Ukraine is I2105, 3300-2700 BCE, Shevchenko.

The other samples from the Balkans Chalcolithic that yielded a distance under 3.0 with a similar model are: I2425, Sushina (2.5514; 4679-4450 calBCE; T2c1b/-); I0781,Yunatsite (2.67; 4528-4371 calBCE; K1a/-); I2509, Dzhulyunitsa (2.7165; 4452-4354 calBCE; K1a2/-); I2424, Smyadovo (2.7187; 4448-4260 calBCE; U4a/-); I2431, Ivanovo (2.7849; 4725-4605 calBCE; N1b2/G2a2b2a1a1c1a).
All of these locations are in Bulgaria. Ivanovo is around 36 km south of Giurgiu; Dzhulyunitsa, 116 km; Sushina, 166 km, Smyadovo, 153 km.

A model with Protoboleraz_LCA+Romania HG+Yamnaya Ukraine is also not bad (2.5546):

https://i.imgur.com/cbvlLGC.jpg

Two of the Protoboleraz_LCA samples, I2790 and I2791 yield fits of 2.6289 and 2.6821 respectively. Protoboleraz are from the Carpathian basin to the west of the Carpathian mountains. The samples were found around 170 km west of Oradea. They are:
I2790 (3762-3636 calBCE; N1a1a1a3/-)
I2791 (3658-3384 calBCE; U5a1c1/I2c)



Interpretation:
Ethnographer Henri Stahl and historian-archaeologist Victor Spinei had concluded that the forested slopes of the Carpathian chain is where communities practicing subsistence horticulture combined with stockbreeding found refuge in the face of repeated incursions of steppe pastoralists.
Some of these isolated communities survived into the beginning of the 20th century. Henri Stahl provided a detailed ethnographic analysis of their agricultural practices and social organization. Victor Spinei examined the interaction between agricultural communities and steppe pastoralists with a special emphasis on Moldavia from the 9th to the 13th centuries. Spinei based his views on a study of archaeological sites. Both Stahl and Spinei avoided limiting themselves to earlier approaches, which were exclusively founded on textual commentary of ancient and medieval sources (Herodotus, etc.) and loose discussions of toponyms and hydronyms.

The best hypothesis that is suggested by archaeologically and chronologically realistic Global 25 models is that from the late Chalcolithic onward, communities practicing subsistence agriculture sough refuge in the forested slopes of the Carpathian mountain range. Those from the east would have been retreating in the face of repeated incursions coming in from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. Those from the west would have been avoiding exposure to reflux movements of steppe pastoralists occupying the Carpathian basin. These communities would have been forced out of the plains, where they stood no chance of surviving.
After the Chalcolithic, one would expect some ebb and flow in the movements of communities practicing subsistence agriculture into terrain more favorable to horticulture, depending on the incursions from the steppe into low-lying areas. Forested areas on mountain slopes are not attractive to steppe pastoralists. The latter would have spread into low-lying areas and followed river valleys to gain control over communications and the exchange of goods, from which they could extract tribute or taxes. Few mountain passes were accessible to them.
Overall, the general trends in interactions with steppe incomers that Spinei and Stahl outlined seem plausible and appear to be compatible with the evidence that is building up from ancient DNA. The fits for Urziceni and several of the Chalcolithic Balkans individuals make sense under their scenario. So does the fit for a model with Protoboleraz_LCA.

Both Stahl and Spinei have been translated into English:

Henri H. Stahl. 2008. Traditional Romanian Village Communities, Cambridge University Press. This is a summary of his work from 1958 to 1965.

Victor Spinei. 2009. The Romanians and the Turkic Nomads North of the Danube Delta from the Tenth to the Mid-Thirteenth Century, Brill.

Fungene
11-03-2018, 04:23 AM
The Neolithic in Global 25 nmonte Runner
http://185.144.156.77:3000 (http://185.144.156.77:3000/)

I also found unexpectedly decent fits with Balkans Neolithic.

A model with Balkans_N +Romania Hunter Gatherer +Yamnaya Ukraine gets a fitness score just under 3.0:

https://i.imgur.com/4F9o9cU.jpg

A model with only sample I2532, from Coțatcu, provides a pretty good fit, 2.878, given we are now into the Neolithic:

https://i.imgur.com/H4NDHTQ.jpg

Information on sample I2532 from the supplement to Mathieson et al. 2018. The genomic history of southeastern Europe.
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778

p. 28: “The Coțatcu site is located in eastern Romania (Buzau county), about 15 km from the town of Ramnicu Sarat, on a terrace of the Coțatcu creek. The archaeological remains from the site belong to the Early Neolithic (Starčevo-Criş culture), Eneolithic (Gumelnița culture), and Bronze Age (Monteoru culture). Several archaeological excavations were carried out here between 2006 and 2010, but the research was focused on the Eneolithic habitation.The Early Neolithic settlement is overlapped partially by the Eneolithic tell that belong to the Gumelnita culture. The Starčevo-Criş occupation is characterized by several pits, material agglomeration in natural depressions, a few houses (affected by erosion process of the terrace), and an inhumation. The material culture includes many pottery sherds, flint tools, stone axes, figurines, and animal bones.”

“I2532 / ROM1,
The sample included in the current study (lower left M1) belongs to a young female (15-18
years old) discovered in grave no. 1 from the extremity of the settlement. The individual was
deposited in crouched position on her left side, oriented North-to-South, without grave
goods."

The dates for I2532 are 5715-5626 calBCE, and the sample is categorized as male in the spreadsheet (K1a2/G2a2b2b)

The RAN information link is here:
http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?descript=cotatcu-podgoria-buzau-situl-arheologic-de-la-cotatcu-cetatuia-cod-sit-ran-48708.01
For a link to an image of I2532: http://ran.cimec.ro/sel.asp?imgid=43693
(also reproduced in Mathieson et al. 2018 Supplementary Information)

euasta
11-03-2018, 03:45 PM
4725-4605 calBCE; N1b2/G2a2b2a1a1c1a).
(...)
5715-5626 calBCE, K1a2/G2a2b2b
Thank you Fungene!
My Y-DNA is G2a2b2a but I do not know any concrete data about a grandfather or uncle from 250-300 generations ago... who lived not far from where I live now. :)
Probably G2 was 6,000-8,000 years ago, very widespread or even major in the area?

euasta
11-03-2018, 09:27 PM
Niste date interesante cred si de la vecinii mai din sud, aici http://dnagenealogy-bg.org/mybb/printthread.php?tid=634

4725-4605 calBCE Ivanovo Mt -N1b2 Y - G2a2b2a1a1c1a
4711-4530 calBCE Varna Y- G2a2b2b
4685-4499 calBCE Varna Y- G2
4683-4406 calBCE Varna Y- CT
4551-4374 calBCE Varna Y- R1
4550-4455 calBCE Smyadovo Mt- HV15 Y - R
4545-4450 calBCE Smyadovo Mt- K1a26 Y - R1b1a
4450-4264 calBCE Sushina Mt -K1 Y - CT
3400-1600 BCE Beli Breyag Y- I2a2
3400-1600 BCE Beli Breyag Y - I
3338-3025 calBCE Smyadovo Mt- U1a1 I2a2a1b
3336-3028 calBCE Dzhulyunitsa Mt- H Y - H2
3328-3015 calBCE Smyadovo Mt- K1c1 Y- I2a2a1b1
3020-2895 calBCE Merichleri, Mt -T2f Y- I2a2a1b1b
3012-2900 calBCE Mednikarovo Y- I2a2a1b1b
2906-2710 calBCE Dzhulyunitsa Mt - H4a1 Y- G2a2a1a2
1750-1625 calBCE Merichleri, Mt - U5a2 Y - R1a1a1b2

9500-6200 BCE Padina Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
9221-8548 calBCE Padina Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
8753–8351 calBCE Padina Serbia I2a1
8703–8246 calBCE Padina Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
8240-7940 calBCE Vlasac Serbia I
7300-6000 BCE Hadučka Vodenica Serbia I2a2
7300-6000 BCE Hadučka Vodenica Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1,xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
7100-5900 BCE Vlasac Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
6655-6225 calBCE Vlasac Serbia I2
6500-6250 calBCE Vlasac Serbia I
6355-5990 calBCE Hadučka Vodenica Serbia I2a2a1b2
6222-5912 calBCE Lepenski Vir Serbia R1b1a
6200-5900 BCE Vlasac Serbia I2a2a1b
6200-5900 BCE Vlasac Serbia I2a2a
6200-5900 BCE Vlasac Serbia I2a2a1b2
6200-5900 BCE Vlasac Serbia I2a2a1b2
6061-5841 calBCE Padina Serbia R1b1a(xR1b1a1a,xR1b1a1a2)
5979-5735 calBCE Govrlevo, Sopi_te, Skopje Macedonia G2a2b2b1
5604-5376 calBCE Gomolava, Hrtkovci, Vojvodina Serbia G2a2a1
4710-4504 calBCE Gomolava, Hrtkovci, Vojvodina Serbia G2a2a1a
4605-4460 calBCE Gomolava, Hrtkovci, Vojvodina Serbia G2a2a1a

si o harta interesanta, http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/report-2017-ancient-revised.pdf

Dorkymon
11-03-2018, 10:26 PM
I also played with Global 25 and I'll leave these here for processing for now.
I'll come back to discuss the results later.

https://pix.toile-libre.org/upload/original/1541283773.png

https://pix.toile-libre.org/upload/original/1541283912.png

Dorkymon
11-03-2018, 10:31 PM
Sugerez sa cititi paragrafele despre paleolitic - evul mediu din "Marea istorie ilustrata a Romaniei si a republicii Moldova" (https://carturesti.ro/carte/marea-istorie-ilustrata-a-romaniei-si-a-republicii-moldova-78448915?p=1&t=c_quick-search&s=Marea+istorie).
Autorii acopera toate epocele si prezinta informatia foarte sec, fara tendinte nationaliste. De abia am ajuns la neolitic si pana aici au facut trimiteri si la studiile ADN. Asa ca par sa fie bine informati.
E folositor pentru cei care nu prea sunt familiarizati cu cercetarile arheologice din regiune. De exemplu eu consumam majoritatea informatiei de pe wiki pana acum, fiindca nu gasisem o resursa romaneasca centralizata.

Nu voi posta copii scanate din material, din respect fata de munca autorilor, dar treptat voi rezuma unele parti de-a lungul timpului si voi incerca sa combin cu unele calculatoare.

My rough notes on the overview of the XII - IV centuries BC from the book.



Thracians
Language: Satem branch of IE, related to Balto-Slavic and Iranic families

Ceramic vases characteristic to the East-Balkanic area were found in the VII B2 level from Troy. Dated to around XII BC, they confirm the migration of people from the Balkans to the Near East.

By XII BC Thracians divide into ethnic groups and distinct tribes.

During LBA, in the region of the future Dacia, populations from the steppes, bearers of the Noua and Coslogeni cultures, settled in.
Economy of cattle breeding

Noua and Coslogeni are derived from Sabatinovka; evolved until IA.

Iron objects intra-Carpathic region - one of the oldest (axes, knives, daggers) in this region.
Metallurgy is supposed to have been introduced from South - Greece or East - Cimmerians via Armenia, Caucasus and the steppe.
IA objects show connections to Mycenaean Greece.
They were either traded or appeared due to individual mobility.

By X - VIII BC, region of modern Romanian territory was roughly divided in 2: Gava-Holihrady (grooved ceramics) - North, Babadag, Cozia-Brad - South (incised and printed ceramics)

Gava-Holihrady believed the ancestors of the Dacians, Babadag and Cozia-Brad -- Getae and Moesians.
Due to the uniformity of the materials and the forms of the manifestation.

Both influenced Basarabi culture, arose in VIII BC, combined both ceramic designs, created spiral and geometric motifs. Also shaped by Illyrian elements.
Pastoral type of economy, based on transhumanism.
Formed ties with North Pontic Greek colonies.

In Wallachia, Basarabi transitioned to the Ferigile-Barsesti culture.
Characterised by kurgan burials with incineration. Funerary inventory shows Scythian elements, as well as Illyrian and South Thracian.
These are considered the Getae.

Scythian groups in Transylvania represented by warriors who imposed their authority on local communities. Borrowings and influences happened on both sides.
Will disappear gradually during V BC.
Around middle of V BC, in the necropolis from Baita, Mures, Scythian burials transit to the local incineration style, while the inventory retains the usual Scythian elements. Hence, their assimilation was happening in full swing by then.

Next century characterised by Illyrian influences.

Sigynnae lived to the West, in the basin of Tisa. Iranic Thracians of Scythian provenience, similar clothing to that of the Medes. Identified as the Szentes-Vekersug culture. Evolved until the arrival of the Celts in IV BC.

Near Carei-Satu Mare, local communities were not ruled by outsiders. Sanislau-Nir, characterised by necropoles with burials of urn incineration style, no Scythian artefacts.
Apart from usual vases worked by hand, 20-30% worked by the wheel. Likely transfer of know-how from North Pontic Greek colonies.

Getae V - III BC
Under authority of the Odrysian Kingdom in V BC - IV BC.
According to Tucidide, the Getae are neighbouring the Scythians with whom they share the same weapons and are all mounted archers.
After the death of Alexander the Great, the Thracian domain rebelled against the new diadochi - Lysimach. The Getae, who lived in Wallachia and Northeastern Bulgaria were led by Dromichaites.
Sboryanovo in Bulgaria, believed to be the Getic residence of Dromichaites. The architectural elements, together with the paintings suggest strong ties with the Greek world. Balkan_IA_5769 is 150km away from there, in Dzhulyunitsa.

Most common iconographic themes: men riding horses, hunting scenes, men and women riding war chariots, sacrifices, winged feminine divinities, hierogamy, animal fights, animal processing, fantasy animals, mythical heroes (Herakles).

Kurgans started to disappear around III BC. The phenomenon indicates the dissolution of the aristocracy, determined by societal transformation.
As the political power of the aristocracy weakened, Celts and Bastarnae managed to settle in the region.

Fungene
11-04-2018, 12:50 AM
Niste date interesante cred si de la vecinii mai din sud, aici http://dnagenealogy-bg.org/mybb/printthread.php?tid=634



si o harta interesanta, http://www.jb.man.ac.uk/~mcdonald/genetics/report-2017-ancient-revised.pdf

Yes, these are all from Mathieson et al. 2018. One needs the sample IDs to identify the individuals in the Mathieson et al. 2018 spreadsheet, or in other sources, such as Wang et al. 2018.
I included also the RAN (Repertoriul Arheologic Național) pages for the samples I discussed, because Mathieson et al. 2018 draw on the material to which RAN links, which are the archaeologists' original papers and notes. These are Romanian archaeologists.
The MacDonald maps are based on Jane Manco's database. I am not sure if her site, "Ancestral Journeys," is still being maintained

Fungene
11-04-2018, 01:28 PM
Thank you Fungene!
My Y-DNA is G2a2b2a but I do not know any concrete data about a grandfather or uncle from 250-300 generations ago... who lived not far from where I live now. :)
Probably G2 was 6,000-8,000 years ago, very widespread or even major in the area?

LOL! Nobody has that kind of paper trail.
G2a2b2a?
There’s a bunch in Barcin. It shows up in Balkans Neolithic and Chalcolithic, but also LBK, Trypillia, Baden, Tiszapolgar, Protoboleraz, Minoan Crete. Take a look at Wang et al. 2018, Supplementary Data 2 file, https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347.figures-only
But that’s about all I can say, as I don’t follow Y-haplogroups as intensely as many people do. You would know more.

Fungene
11-04-2018, 01:46 PM
Just a note; I checked what a model for modern Sardinians looks like in Global 25 nmonte Runner, with Barcin, WHG, and Yamnaya Samara (a frequently used combo). This is what it looks like:

https://i.imgur.com/y5ci3AI.jpg
The fit is OK. But 7.5% Yamnaya Samara could be a tad on the high end.
Compare with Figure S10, Supplementary Material, Population history of the Sardinian people https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2016/12/07/092148.DC1/092148-1.pdf

Global 25 might be a bit generous in ascribing steppe mixture. Not a big deal. Its strong point is giving people a tool to play with different models and build up a sense of what is a workable model and what isn't.
You still have to have information about the samples and their archaeological context to produce something that is meaningful, but no tool is going to eliminate the need to be informed.

Dorkymon
11-04-2018, 02:25 PM
http://pix.toile-libre.org/upload/original/1541341482.png

Fungene
11-04-2018, 04:40 PM
The Moldavian Scythians and the Hungarian Scythians are useful, but only indirectly relevant to this thread. They were herder/raiders, and what they gained from their raids were also individuals from neighboring populations. The samples from just west of Oradea in the 5th century BCE and in the Transnistrian border region of Moldova in the 2nd century BCE tell us that there was a population that must have been more southern than they were.
How can we tell? The Glinoe Scythians have more EEF than the Srubnaya:
https://i.imgur.com/UIDjq1W.jpg

Krzewinska et al. 2018. Ancient genomes suggest… http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

EEF is labeled Neolithic and Modern near east populations (a bizarre combination, but for some reason, the authors thought combining ancient and modern was a good idea.)

Likewise, the Hungarian Scythians have more EFF than Steppe MLBA individuals, here coded in light blue:
https://i.imgur.com/JrdPVK6.jpg
Damgaard et al. 2018. 137 ancient genomes… https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2

And we have an accidental Scythian, DA199, who is really a medieval Hungarian. To the archaeologist who reported the find the several decades ago, she was apparently indistinguishable from the classical Scythians. The archaeologist was convinced this was one of Herodotus’ Scythians.
Our accidental medieval, DA199, is a bonus.

What we can infer is that there was a population in our current autosomal black hole east of Oradea and west of the current Transnistrian border area of Moldova that was a source of EEF mixture higher than in Steppe MLBA and Srubnaya, and that it was an ongoing source of such mixture.

Now, Kzrewinska et al. think that some of that southern mix came from Greek ports on the Black Sea (6/13). They have in mind the individuals from what they identify as a southeastern cluster, scy192, scy197, scy300, scy305, and perhaps the central cluster, scy 301, scy304, scy311 (3/5). The authors nevertheless think EEF mixture in the Glinoe Scythians presents “a clear uptake from the locals.”
The Greek contribution must have been small. As Lukasik et al. 2017 point out in “Warriors die young: increased mortality in Early Adulthood of Scythians from Glinoe, Moldova, fourth through second centuries BC,” “populations defeated by Scythians were mainly farmers” (23/49). Who were these farmers? The people to the southwest of the Glinoe Scythians.

Moreover, according to Lukasik et al., Scythian warriors led short, violent lives, and their reproduction rate was low. Hence the need to incorporate individuals from neighboring populations just to maintain their numbers. Lukasik et al. even interpret Thracian swords in Scythian burials as a possible indication that the Scythians recruited Thracian fighters (27/49). https://www.journals.uchicasgo.edu/doi/10.1086/694576

We don’t really know what happened to ordinary tribe members if the male leadership was killed off. Did some of them return to their home farming communities? Did they get traded off to the victors? I don’t know that there is an answer to these questions.
There is currently not much reason to think Romanians are descended from Glinoe or Hungarian Scythians. We might envision cases in which some individuals returned to home communities and brought back with them offspring harboring higher Steppe mixture.
On the whole, a more likely scenario is that Glinoe and Hungarian Scythians and modern Romanians share common ancestries, but that the Scythians are dead-end populations. Their lifestyle (high mortality due to combat and low reproduction) would have been the factors that led to their demise. As Lukasik and others have pointed out, Scythians did not become farmers. The farmers in our autosomal ancient DNA black hole are the people we want to find out more about. More things will fall into place once (or if) we get more information about them.

Fungene
11-04-2018, 05:48 PM
There is no particular reason to pick DA195; it's from the same location as DA194, DA197, DA198, and it is not in Romania.
We could do this all day long:

https://i.imgur.com/Ak2R167.jpg
compared to:
https://i.imgur.com/4OmKGTo.jpg
But Romanians aren't Austrians, and this does not prove that they are.
More important, these two models don't show that Austrians and Romanians are both descended from a bunch of Scythians.
Looking at what primary sources tell us about archaeological context and way of life really is important.

Fungene
11-04-2018, 07:18 PM
I also played with Global 25 and I'll leave these here for processing for now

Thanks for doing this. Don't forget to include the fitness score for each model, since it is important to assessing it (also it is better not to incorporate guesses in the labeling of the samples)

Dorkymon
11-04-2018, 09:19 PM
There is no particular reason to pick DA195; it's from the same location as DA194, DA197, DA198, and it is not in Romania.


Contemporary borders are there just for guidance when it comes to ancient DNA and they are from around Szeged, which is some 30km away from the border.
Those Protoboleraz samples were 6 times farther than that, which is a reasonable distance in my opinion, but I'm just highlighting the hypocrisy of the argument.
The Romanian Eneolithic sample (https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0960982217305596-gr1.jpg) from the same period in Central Romania (3500-3300BC) was completely different from the Protoboleraz (3900-3600BC) and that's the only sample we have.

As for those Scythians, try modelling them in the web monte or just check their fits and you'll find your answer.
Like all the Iron Age nomads that were found to date, it becomes clearer with each new paper that even if they are from the same site, they can be highly divergent from one another. DA195 looks like a better fit for the region judging by how the modern distributions are arranged.

Is that a fair assumption? Nope, both yours and mine are guesstimates at best. The base IA population for Romanians could have been either:


Significantly more South-shifted, like the Balkan_IA_5769, in which case the following eras should have brought Northern admixture to balance it until the modern proportions (Celts, Bastarnae, Slavs and what not)
More North-shifted, at least among the royals and it's unknown how much the gene flow has affected the locals
Or relatively similar to current distributions, like DA195 or Germany_Medieval_ACD_NW54, presuming that they heavily admixed with local folk.



I lean towards the 1st scenario, but we simply don't know yet.

For most Bulgarians, the 1st scenario works the best, but in the case of Romanians, these analyses are still in the realm of guessing without actual samples.

euasta
11-04-2018, 09:40 PM
LOL! Nobody has that kind of paper trail.
(...)Of course, just genetic trail. :cheer2:

Fungene
11-04-2018, 10:47 PM
There is no doubt that the model with all Hungarian Scythians has a better fit. That's just too bad for the point you were trying to make.
As some have pointed out, the problem with nmonte is that one can end up chasing samples and overfitting.
We can use Scythians and produce models for most Europeans, and fool ourselves into believing that the Scythians are the fount of all things Europe.
Best policy is to bone up on primary sources.
Of course we still need more samples. And that goes for Bulgarians too.

If you go over carefully what I posted, you will see that I first produced models with all samples in Balkans Chalcolithic, and likewise, with all samples in Protoboleraz. I then identified models with selected individuals that also produced fitness scores under 3.0. All of this information is interesting. I spent more time recounting details of the context of the finds located in Romania, because they are directly relevant to this thread.

The models I experimented with in previous posts are novel in the sense that no one had thought of running them or at least posting them, and, what's more significant, their interpretation was inspired by a reading of Stahl and Spinei, as well as a whole slew of archaeologists. Nothing beats primary sources.

BTW, I have posted only a very small portion of the models I ran, and limited myself to discussing only models with fitness scores below 3.0. I also do not make up the identity of samples, but follow closely the information provided by archaeologists.

It is best not to make wild guesses, such as this or that Scythian sample is Geta, Dacian, or Bulgar. There is published material on the Glinoe Scythians and their lifestyle. Again, nothing beats primary sources. Using them can make the difference between a wild guess and a hypothesis to be tested. Also, an inference from evidence (as in my previous post on the Scythians) is not the same thing as a guess.

This thread is meant to be informative to guests. My general outlook is that there is a wealth of material to be plumbed. RAN points us in the right direction. That together with genetic studies, especially ancient DNA studies, will lead to novel insights. I think this is exciting. Professionals in Romanian universities should be doing this. It is a pity they are not. Maybe they will. In the meantime, our business as amateurs is to cobble together relevant information and to not add to the mass of misinformation and disinformation that is already floating online.

Fungene
11-07-2018, 06:46 PM
A few more comments in reference to Cocoș et al. 2017 (Genetic affinities among the historical provinces...https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-017-0487-5) to complement post #102 in this thread.

Ethnographer and social historian Henri H. Stahl is a source of all kinds of interesting facts. And this is only from the summary of his work, Istoria socială a satului Românesc. Reedited, Paidea, 2015. (Translated as Traditional Village Communities, Cambridge University Press, 2008 [1980]).

Here are some facts that could be relevant to making sense of modern Romanian mtDNA: Some population displacement occurred during the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries due to the devastations of war. The greater part of this flow was between Wallachia, Moldavia, and Transylvania. Farmers would find refuge in forests and mountainous areas, and, instead of returning to their home village when it was safe to do so, they would migrate to a different village. Some Romanian farmers even fled beyond the borders into Ukraine or other regions of the Balkans, and also some people moved into Romania from the rest of the Balkans (Traditional Village Communities, pp. 199-201).

Such movements would probably tend to jumble up mtDNA. We don't have an estimate of the magnitude of this population churn. What I infer from Stahl is that it was enough to disturb the system of taxation, tithe-collection, and corvée that was in place at the time.

An interesting fact that Stahl also brings up is that in traditional Romanian villages, marriages to parties outside the village were frowned upon (p. 43), so, for the greater part of the population, exogamy would not have been a major factor in the distribution of mtDNA.

If, as I think, the Cocoș et al. 2017 study really does not show any specific pattern in the distribution of modern mtDNA in Romania, it would be consistent with the population movements of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries that Stahl brings to our attention. I think that is actually a point in favor of the Cocoș et al. study. In spite of their stated conclusion, what their data really shows is compatible with social history. It’s too bad Cocoș et al. got their history from Djuvara—as one can see from their references—instead of Stahl.

Dorkymon
11-11-2018, 11:43 AM
They could have mixed up the Gagauz with Moldovans. For the moment, I don't seem to find an analysis that compares them directly. Do you have a link, or could you post a graph?

EDIT: somehow I doubt that that the "Moldavians" are relabelled Gagauz. It is more likely someone swapped symbols representing two populations.



I don't see any sample identified as being from Moldova, Romania, or Bulgaria in the supplement or in the Excel spreadsheet available online. Maybe you could help?

From "Bronze Age population dynamics and the rise of dairy pastoralism on the eastern Eurasian steppe" (http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2018/10/31/1813608115)

The cyan emphasis is mine. The Moldovans that they have are indeed more Southerly than their Romanians.
That begs the question then. What's up with the Global 25 Moldovans who are all more North-shifted compared to Romanians from Romania?
The Romanians look ok as some seem to overlap with Bulgarians, while the rest are slightly more North-shifted. This is consistent with the Global 25 samples.

https://i.imgur.com/Ju4b3E7.png


Use what works best for you.

Hey, just copying you here in case you know why there's this striking difference between your Global 25 Moldovan samples and those from the academia.

Fungene
11-11-2018, 01:25 PM
This is meant for Generalissimo?

Just a few words here:
The Moldovans in Zheong et al. 2018. "Characterizing the genetic history of admixture across inner Eurasia" (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/bior...27122.full. pdf) are from Căplani in Ștefan Vodă District, Moldova.

Zheong et al., Table S1. lists these ten new samples: MOL-005,MOL-008, MOL-015, MOL-024, MOL-058, MOL-064, MOL-065, MOL066, MOL-067, MOL-069.
[this information is in post #41, this thread]

Ștefan Vodă is surrounded on three sides by Ukraine.
Just guessing, but samples from the area might have been chosen because it was expected they would reflect Ukrainian influence. They don’t. That’s just how it is.

Russification didn't have a uniform impact on what is now Moldova. (BTW, more Ukrainian than Russian colonists were brought in under the Tsarist Russification policy. Data from a 19th century census can be found in a previous post, http://www.diacronia.ro/ro/indexing/details/A19931/pdf.)

Dumidre
11-19-2018, 08:24 PM
I think the Romanians are a mixture of pre-Slavic population (mostly Dacians, Geten, Celts, Scythian ...) and Slavic population and East Germanic tribes contributed to, good question how high the proportion of Dacians is?

I might add the Romans and others from the Roman occupation...

Fungene
11-19-2018, 11:13 PM
I might add the Romans and others from the Roman occupation...

Romans? Yes, well no one quite knows what impact Roman occupation had on population structure. David Reich’s team is working on 1000 new samples from Iron Age and Roman Britain.* One of the issues they are apparently looking into is what effect Roman presence may have had on the population of Britannia, which the Romans occupied for a little over 360 years. They occupied parts of Dacia for a little over 160 years. We shall see if anything relevant for Dacia can be inferred by analogy with the upcoming Reich study on Roman Britain.
* https://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43712587

Fungene
12-02-2018, 01:31 AM
More Global 25; this time with Maps.

Green denotes tighter model fit; the more intense the green, the better the fit.

Continuing with some of the Chalcolithic models with good fit for modern Romanians in post #111.

The model with the Chalcolithic sample from Urziceni (I4089):
https://i.imgur.com/b7CAkCS.jpg
gets this map:

https://i.imgur.com/w4050xp.jpg

The most intense green is for Romania, followed by Bulgaria, then Turkey.

It is more intuitively right (the most intense green is for Romania) in comparison with the map for the model with all samples from the Balkans Chalcolithic:

https://i.imgur.com/u9gtOt1.jpg
which is this:

https://i.imgur.com/yCRWUSj.jpg

Fungene
12-02-2018, 01:38 AM
For the model with the Neolithic sample from Coțatcu (I2532):

https://i.imgur.com/EAlaLhU.jpg
we get:

https://i.imgur.com/sBVia6r.jpg

For the model with all samples from Balkans Neolithic:

https://i.imgur.com/6Rri0ZW.jpg
The map is:

https://i.imgur.com/AAbOSIT.jpg

Visually, the model restricted to Coțatcu yields a better result for modern Romanians.

Dorkymon
12-06-2018, 03:16 PM
More Global 25; this time with Maps.

Green denotes tighter model fit; the more intense the green, the better the fit.

Continuing with some of the Chalcolithic models with good fit for modern Romanians in post #111.

The model with the Chalcolithic sample from Urziceni (I4089):


Nice model, I know that the closest fit is not the priority for you here, but I'll just mention that using the Romanian:Average creates the illusion of a closer fit than the actual average, if you were to average the fits for each individual. I've done that just for testing purposes, with the same settings as in the web nMonte (double check if in doubt).



[1] "distance%=4.0563"

Romanian:Dorkymon

Balkans_ChL,50
Yamnaya_Ukraine,43.3333333333333
Romania_HG,6.66666666666667


[1] "distance%=3.4425"

Romanian:A306

Balkans_ChL,50
Yamnaya_Ukraine,39.1666666666667
Romania_HG,10.8333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.9924"

Romanian:A325

Balkans_ChL,59.1666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,40
Romania_HG,0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=2.8838"

Romanian:A343

Balkans_ChL,59.1666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,40
Romania_HG,0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.4312"

Romanian:A362

Balkans_ChL,56.6666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,40.8333333333333
Romania_HG,2.5


[1] "distance%=2.8122"

Romanian:A374

Balkans_ChL,55
Yamnaya_Ukraine,42.5
Romania_HG,2.5


[1] "distance%=3.0345"

Romanian:G408

Balkans_ChL,58.3333333333333
Yamnaya_Ukraine,39.1666666666667
Romania_HG,2.5


[1] "distance%=2.7382"

Romanian:G421

Balkans_ChL,63.3333333333333
Yamnaya_Ukraine,35.8333333333333
Romania_HG,0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.0607"

Romanian:G428

Balkans_ChL,61.6666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,38.3333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.5869"

Romanian:G429

Balkans_ChL,60.8333333333333
Yamnaya_Ukraine,39.1666666666667


[1] "distance%=3.2194"

Romanian:G434

Balkans_ChL,58.3333333333333
Yamnaya_Ukraine,39.1666666666667
Romania_HG,2.5




Without counting me, the average of these 10 Romanians is 3.2 vs 2.1 for the Romanian:Average with pen=0 and 2.3 with pen=0.001 (your case). Also, don't use the penalty, because you are comparing 3 or 4 very different populations. The penalty is meant for populations who are hard to distinguish between (e.g. Irish and English), so the calculator will artificially attempt to pull towards the closest single distance fit.


Also, just a heads up, as you realise there's also minor ancestry present in Romanians and, ignoring me, 4/10 absorb some pure East Asian ancestry when it is introduced. Now obviously, the reference is completely irrelevant, geographically speaking, but we simply don't know how this type of ancestry spread in Romania in the 1st place. Did it stuck after being introduced by Scythians? Is it from Cumans, Bulgars, perhaps Mongols or Tatars? There are more questions than hard data when it comes to this.



[1] "distance%=3.601"

Romanian:Dorkymon

Balkans_ChL,49.1666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,40.8333333333333
Romania_HG,6.66666666666667
Naxi (East Asian proxy),3.33333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.4425"

Romanian:A306

Balkans_ChL,50
Yamnaya_Ukraine,39.1666666666667
Romania_HG,10.8333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.9924"

Romanian:A325

Balkans_ChL,59.1666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,40
Romania_HG,0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=2.8838"

Romanian:A343

Balkans_ChL,59.1666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,40
Romania_HG,0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.337"

Romanian:A362

Balkans_ChL,56.6666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,39.1666666666667
Romania_HG,2.5
Naxi (East Asian proxy),1.66666666666667


[1] "distance%=2.7858"

Romanian:A374

Balkans_ChL,55
Yamnaya_Ukraine,41.6666666666667
Romania_HG,2.5
Naxi (East Asian proxy),0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=2.9768"

Romanian:G408

Balkans_ChL,58.3333333333333
Yamnaya_Ukraine,38.3333333333333
Romania_HG,2.5
Naxi (East Asian proxy),0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=2.7382"

Romanian:G421

Balkans_ChL,63.3333333333333
Yamnaya_Ukraine,35.8333333333333
Romania_HG,0.833333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.0607"

Romanian:G428

Balkans_ChL,61.6666666666667
Yamnaya_Ukraine,38.3333333333333


[1] "distance%=3.5869"

Romanian:G429

Balkans_ChL,60.8333333333333
Yamnaya_Ukraine,39.1666666666667


[1] "distance%=3.1443"

Romanian:G434

Balkans_ChL,57.5
Yamnaya_Ukraine,37.5
Romania_HG,3.33333333333333
Naxi (East Asian proxy),1.66666666666667

Fungene
12-06-2018, 03:37 PM
using the Romanian:Average creates the illusion of a closer fit than the actual average, if you were to average the fits for each individual.
[/code]

What illusion? Each model has a fitness score. Averaging fitness scores across different models does not produce an interpretable magnitude.

Fungene
12-06-2018, 03:39 PM
the closest fit is not the priority for you here

[/code]

Strange comment.

Dorkymon
12-06-2018, 03:46 PM
What illusion?

The illusion of a tighter fit for that model.



Each model has a fitness score.

You don't say, we also call it a "fit" around here.



Averaging fitness scores across different models does not produce an interpretable magnitude.
I didn't bring different models into this discussion, so I don't see how this makes any sense. I've reproduced the test for each individual with the same model that you have introduced (i4089 + Yamnaya_Ukraine + Romania_HG).

Dorkymon
12-06-2018, 03:49 PM
Strange comment.

Well, it certainly isn't, as you've said it yourself on the previous 2 pages.
Otherwise you'd focus on the Iron Age and work with the available Scythians and Balkans_IA from Northeastern Bulgaria.
You're just reading this in isolation.

Fungene
12-06-2018, 04:53 PM
I have a long post on Scythians and also one that includes tips on relevant historical reading. We don't have samples from Romania past the Chalcolithic. And we can easily get the appearance of a tight model with overfitting.
More on some of these issues when I have time.
Also, just a few short comments: we should, by-and large, look at more recent events (russification, transfer of populations, eg.Tatars by Ottoman empire) for the issue that seems to be of preeminent concern to you. The introduction in medieval times of some minorities, such as Szeklers, is also relevant.
Djuvara and Boia are popular, but simply can't stand up in comparison with the work of Stahl and Spinei. What wealth of information, especially the endnotes and footnotes!
I have to say, reading Stahl's Contributii la Studiul Satelor Devălmașe Românești, originally published in 1958, reedited 1998, is an absolute must (including the endnotes; amazing material; one can see how shoddy Djuvara and Boia are in comparison.) This is a third recommended reading, but first in order of importance.
The nMonte stuff, as Poi recently wrote, is meant for good fun.

Fungene
12-06-2018, 05:07 PM
Some of your comments look desperate. Reread what I have written carefully.

Fungene
12-16-2018, 06:03 PM
A multidisciplinary team led by archaeologist Volker Heyd and geoscientist Heikki Seppä is conducting field research and collection of ancient samples in Romania, Bulgaria, Hungary, and Serbia. The project is funded by a grant from the University of Helsinki. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/language-culture/another-erc-advanced-grant-secured-for-the-university-of-helsinki-archaeologists-to-collaborate-with-natural-scientists

The good news: Samples of ancient DNA from Romania will be collected; the less good news for this thread: there is only interest in sampling remains from Yamnaya burial mounds. The research team will be using “the methods of funerary archaeology, landscape archaeology and remote sensing” to identify burial mounds that have been destroyed.

In “Yamnaya Groups and Tumuli west of the Black Sea.” 2012, Heyd noted that 100 of these mounds had been excavated in Romania. Most of the findings from southeastern Europe are still unpublished. He anticipated drawing up a comprehensive study in order to gain a better understanding of the movement of the Yamnaya through Europe. Hence the research project.
This article also provides a brief description of the regions in Romania in which tumuli to be investigated are found. It also points out the need to distinguish Yamnaya burials from the burials of earlier incoming groups from the north Pontic steppe, although these are in smaller numbers.
Heyd gives an outline of his view on the interaction of peoples on p. 545, in which he points out that the Yamnaya occupied (without evidence of settlement) regions favored by previous infiltrations from the north Pontic steppe and kept away from regions not suitable to reliance on pastoralism. https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3493

Heyd estimates the Yamnaya population to have been in the tens of thousands, not millions. https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/language-culture/professor-volker-heyd-how-a-wave-of-migrants-became-the-foundation-of-modern-europe-5000-years-ago, and describes it as a slow infiltration process up until 2950 calBCE, when it turned into a current of immigration (“Yamnaya Groups and Tumuli west of the Black Sea.” 2012, p. 548)

Some of the geomapping methods the interdisciplinary team will use could probably also be profitably used to explore regions in which populations moving away from the Yamnaya are likely to have found refuge. They are easy to spot in the map below, from Volker Heyd. They are the blank regions surrounded by the areas in red in the map:

https://i.imgur.com/S8FdIxe.jpg

https://www.helsinki.fi/en/news/language-culture/another-erc-advanced-grant-secured-for-the-university-of-helsinki-archaeologists-to-collaborate-with-natural-scientists

These are regions that would be difficult to negotiate for groups traveling in carts. Their topography probably also makes them difficult even for some modern research methods.

Perhaps, one day, there will be a research project investigating a wider variety of terrains. This is desirable because sampling from a wider variety of areas and periods is likely to give us a higher-resolution picture of the movements of populations across time in southeastern Europe.

But at least, once data from Heyd’s project is available, we should be able to see how his team’s samples stack up in comparison with the estimate of Early European Farmer mixture in Yamnaya Ukraine and Yamnaya Samara in Wang et al. 2018. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2018/05/16/322347. Supplementary Table 18.

Fungene
12-16-2018, 07:38 PM
Interesting new information concerning not human bones, but animal bones. Helpful for interpreting the way of life of the Early European Farmers, or some of them, at least. Locations studied include Foeni-Salaș and Sânandrei. Vršac is just south of border in Serbia.

Gaastra et al. 2018. “Gaining traction on cattle exploitation: Zooarcheaological evidence from the Neolithic Western Balkans.” Antiquity 92 (366).
Open access at: https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/antiquity/article/gaining-traction-on-cattle-exploitation-zooarchaeological-evidence-from-the-neolithic-western-balkans/4D7976886FE66AF19A956ADA45FAA376

The article suggests that domestic cattle were used for traction from the earliest period of the Neolithic in southeastern Europe (Starčevo-Criș), and argues that traction should be understood in a wide sense, as use of cattle to pull loads, not necessarily for ploughing. The authors call this “light” traction.
Domesticated cattle use for light traction was inferred from subpathological remodeling of bone to domestic cattle. The kind of remodeling noted, to the hind limbs of domestic cattle, had in earlier studies been found to pertain to the motion and strain of traction. Both male and female cattle were used for traction in the early Neolithic.

The study puts the use of cattle for traction earlier than previously believed. Criș culture is around 5800-5300 BCE. I don’t believe David Anthony, in The Horse, The Wheel, and Language (2007), attributed knowledge of animal traction to Criș culture.

Dorkymon
01-02-2019, 10:04 PM
More Global 25; this time with Maps.

Green denotes tighter model fit; the more intense the green, the better the fit.

Continuing with some of the Chalcolithic models with good fit for modern Romanians in post #111.

The model with the Chalcolithic sample from Urziceni (I4089):
https://i.imgur.com/b7CAkCS.jpg




I'd also like to contribute with a late Iron Age/Early Medieval model, on the basis of the available data and some speculation.
I have also found in my models with "base" components that Romanians are roughly 56-60% farmers, 40%+ steppic.

However, since Romania was extensively travelled and settled after that period, I wanted to look into a later model.

Balkans_IA were taken as proxies for the local population
Baltic_IA for the migrating Slavs
Nganasan for the Siberian bits

https://i.imgur.com/JdTrgIB.png?1

https://i.imgur.com/vzDsqo2.png?1

P.S.: This Iron Age model also works for the Moldovan:Average, who gets 2.6 vs 3.1 with the Chalcolithic model + Nganasan proxy. However, both still fail for me, at around 3.8, so my ancestry must be a bit more complicated than this.


So, at the end of the day it's essentially a 60/40 split anyway.

However, those Y-DNA markers like I2-CTS10228 and R1a-M458/Z92/CTS1211 are looking quite specifically Slavic thus far, hence I believe that there was a strong settlement of Slavs among the Romanians, as shared by the modern Romanian school on the formation of the Romanians and Romanian language.

https://i.imgur.com/eEPK67Z.png

Extracts (https://carturesti.ro/carte/marea-istorie-ilustrata-a-romaniei-si-a-republicii-moldova-78448915) (in Romanian; will be deleted soon)


https://i.imgur.com/dBkXMwi.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/G9rNPjB.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/5EDSdlg.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/7BEb1BH.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/cKKFAb2.jpg

https://i.imgur.com/tZad6EX.jpg