PDA

View Full Version : Genetic Genealogy & Ancient DNA in the News (DISCUSSION ONLY)



Pages : 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 [17] 18 19 20 21 22 23 24

Michalis Moriopoulos
11-10-2020, 08:12 AM
Genomic Insights into the Demographic History of Southern Chinese

Multiple phylogenetic analyses support that the earliest living branching among East Asian-related populations is First Americans (~27,700 BP), followed by the pre-LGM differentiation between Northern and Southern East Asians (~23,400 BP)

This is a fairly bold claim. I've been under the impression for a while now that the East Asian ancestors of Amerinds were a Northern East Asian lineage, meaning that the Southern East Asians split off before that. Maybe this paper is right, but I try not to get too attached to any phylogeny considering how much I've seen them change from paper to paper.

TigerMW
11-10-2020, 04:06 PM
..
Which came first: Climate changes or social and economic changes?
I think I know what they are going to try to detect, but directly and plainly the answer is not in doubt. The Earth, the Sky and the land and water existed for eons before humans and human economies. The climate was never static. It was always changing as the planet aged and the solar system (the Earth's environment) impacted it.
Therefore climate change has existed as long as the Earth existed. To what extent humans affect climate given our population is another more specific question.

Kristiina
11-10-2020, 04:56 PM
Genomic Insights into the Demographic History of Southern Chinese

Multiple phylogenetic analyses support that the earliest living branching among East Asian-related populations is First Americans (~27,700 BP), followed by the pre-LGM differentiation between Northern and Southern East Asians (~23,400 BP)


This is a fairly bold claim. I've been under the impression for a while now that the East Asian ancestors of Amerinds were a Northern East Asian lineage, meaning that the Southern East Asians split off before that. Maybe this paper is right, but I try not to get too attached to any phylogeny considering how much I've seen them change from paper to paper.

Am I right that they did not include Papuans and Australians in their analysis? Inclusion of these earliest splits may change the picture. However, the archaic mixture into these populations makes this task more difficult.

Michalis Moriopoulos
11-11-2020, 12:57 AM
Am I right that they did not include Papuans and Australians in their analysis? Inclusion of these earliest splits may change the picture.

Indeed, that part of the picture remains frustratingly obscure. If there is a strong basal East Eurasian contribution to Jomon, Southern East Asians, and Tibetans, one would expect the Australasian side of the phylogeny to be explored more fully. Instead they just include Andamanese, so it's hard to be confident about what's happening there without Australian, Papuan, and even AASI references to constrain the model. They didn't include Tianyuan in their Qpgraph either. I understand the only ancient Australasians on hand are those Hoabinhians, but present-day Australians and Papuans are distinct enough to serve as stand-ins here for potentially more basal ancestry (and we have archaic references so that shouldn't be a problem). The last time Australasian phylogeny was explored was in Narasimhan, which suggested the split between Australo-Melanesian, AASI, and Andamanese/Hoabinhian was nearly a trifurcation.

The admixture graph in this new paper suggests an early split between Andamanese and a second clade. This second clade eventually splits in two, with one branch becoming ancestral to Hoabinhians (as suggested by the fact that it contributes significantly to MSEA_N) and the other branch becoming ancestral to the Australasian substrate in Jomon, Tibetan Plateau, and Southern East Asians. It's all very interesting, but like I said before, can't get too attached to these things since the models are constantly in flux.

Psynome
11-11-2020, 02:56 AM
Regardless of the more distal phylogenies given in the Wang paper, I found it to be a minor milestone in the resolution of the linguistic urheimats of east and southeast Asia.

Their geographic placements of Austronesian, Kra-Dai, Hmong--Mien, and Austroasiatic homelands satisfactorily explain both their current ranges and the genetic and linguistic evidence of early contacts between them and other language families like Sino-Tibetan.

In addition, it is not addressed in the paper, but the evidence presented of the input of a Fujian Neolithic type population into the Shandong Neolithic provides support for a hypothetical origin of the Japonic proto language ancestor in this region, given the noted cultural and linguistic connections between Japonic and Austro/Tai speaking cultures, and the evidence of the spread of rice cultivation from this region to the Korean peninsula. I'd say it's time for an in depth study on the prehistory of Japonic and Koreanic language communities that synthesizes aDNA, archaeological, and linguistic evidence.

Michalis Moriopoulos
11-11-2020, 04:31 AM
You're right-- I'm only griping because of how maddeningly little is known about the deep history of East Eurasians. This paper is really focused on Southern China, and as such is really great. It helps consolidate a lot of material which most of us already knew or suspected into one study (i.e., that Hmong-Mien, Kra-Dai, Austroasiatic, and Austronesians share a common Southern East Asian origin). And I hope the new genomes are released publicly and converted to G25 coordinates.

Pribislav
11-11-2020, 09:25 PM
O, I just saw KremsWA3 was not assigned a Y-DNA in Fu et al. This paper, with David Reich as coauthor, does however.



Genetiker also called for I:

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-krems-wa3/

All three samples are pre-I. KremsWA3 had only 5 SNPs covered in Fu et al. 2016, 4 derived and 1 ancestral. I2483 (one of the newly sequenced twins) has 51 SNPs covered at I level, 24 are derived, 24 are ancestral and 3 SNPs have both derived and ancestral reads.

EDIT:

I2484 (the other twin) has 13 SNPs covered at I level, 7 derived, 5 ancestral and 1 with mixed reads.

Ryukendo
11-11-2020, 11:06 PM
All three samples are pre-I. KremsWA3 had only 5 SNPs covered in Fu et al. 2016, 4 derived and 1 ancestral. I2483 (one of the newly sequenced twins) has 51 SNPs covered at I level, 24 are derived, 24 are ancestral and 3 SNPs have both derived and ancestral reads.

EDIT:

I2484 (the other twin) has 13 SNPs covered at I level, 7 derived, 5 ancestral and 1 with mixed reads.

Excellent, is this the first pre-I we have from UP Europeans and Russians? IIRC the Y's have come out mostly C for groups like Kostenki, Sunghir, or am I wrong?

Pribislav
11-11-2020, 11:21 PM
Excellent, is this the first pre-I we have from UP Europeans and Russians? IIRC the Y's have come out mostly C for groups like Kostenki, Sunghir, or am I wrong?

You're right, these should be the first ones. Well, at least the first with sufficient coverage. Pavlov1 and Vestonice43 are probably also I but have awfully low coverage.

Ryukendo
11-12-2020, 02:16 AM
You're right, these should be the first ones. Well, at least the first with sufficient coverage. Pavlov1 and Vestonice43 are probably also I but have awfully low coverage.

Nice! So it seems like we have I and C with pre-WHGs, plus a touch of R1 with Villabruna.

EDIT: If you think about it, R1b-v88 also appears in Neolithic farmers and penetrates Northern Africa at an early date. This plus the R1 in the HGs of the Balkans and the clear affinity of the Villabruna cluster with the West Eurasian ancestry in the Middle East, and also the EHG and ENA connection, makes for a nice picture of population contacts associated with R1 in the Eastern European and Mediterranean area, in all likelihood associated with the Villabruna cluster at some level.

Kristiina
11-12-2020, 09:45 AM
I have recorded that somebody would have analyzed Paglicci133 as yDNA I1 with yleaf. He is mtDNA U8c.

Paglicci133 was found in a layer (23C2) whose chronology can be derived from the occurrence of tephra Codola elsewhere dated to around 33,000 years ago. Moreover this layer is located between layer 23A (Early Gravettian) with a date of 33,110-31,210cal BP (UTC-1415: 28,100 ± 400 14C) and layer 24A1 (Aurignacian) with a date of 34,580-31,860cal BP (UTC-1789: 29,300 ± 600 14C).

However, this information should be verified as I do not know where it comes from and the same sample has also been analyzed as C.

Pribislav
11-12-2020, 10:38 AM
I have recorded that somebody would have analyzed Paglicci133 as yDNA I1 with yleaf. He is mtDNA U8c.

Paglicci133 was found in a layer (23C2) whose chronology can be derived from the occurrence of tephra Codola elsewhere dated to around 33,000 years ago. Moreover this layer is located between layer 23A (Early Gravettian) with a date of 33,110-31,210cal BP (UTC-1415: 28,100 ± 400 14C) and layer 24A1 (Aurignacian) with a date of 34,580-31,860cal BP (UTC-1789: 29,300 ± 600 14C).

However, this information should be verified as I do not know where it comes from and the same sample has also been analyzed as C.

Both Genetiker and kolgeh reported him as C1-F3393 (Z3998+) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-F3393/). But it's also a very low coverage sample (~0,041), so I wouldn't give too much importance to it.

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-paglicci-133/ (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-paglicci-133/)

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
11-12-2020, 01:14 PM
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-020-01372-8


Ancient DNA reveals monozygotic newborn twins from the Upper Palaeolithic

Maria Teschler-Nicola, Daniel Fernandes, Marc Händel, Thomas Einwögerer, Ulrich Simon, Christine Neugebauer-Maresch, Stefan Tangl, Patrick Heimel, Toni Dobsak, Anika Retzmann, Thomas Prohaska, Johanna Irrgeher, Douglas J. Kennett, Iñigo Olalde, David Reich & Ron Pinhasi

Communications Biology volume 3, Article number: 650 (2020) Cite this article

15 Altmetric

Metrics details

Abstract

The Upper Palaeolithic double burial of newborns and the single burial of a ca. 3-month-old infant uncovered at the Gravettian site of Krems-Wachtberg, Austria, are of paramount importance given the rarity of immature human remains from this time. Genome-wide ancient DNA shows that the male infants of the double grave are the earliest reported case of monozygotic twins, while the single grave´s
individual was their 3rd-degree male relative. We assessed the individuals´ age at death by applying histological and µCT inspection of the maxillary second incisors (i2) in conjunction with C- and N-isotope ratios and Barium (Ba) intake as biomarker for breastfeeding. The results show that the twins were full-term newborns, and that while individual 2 died at birth, individual 1 survived for about 50 days. The findings show that Gravettian mortuary behaviour also included re-opening of a grave and manipulation of its layout and content.


I made I2483 & I2484 vcfs and plink .beds.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/tkt2ynhrnuunssh/paleolithic_austria.zip/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ym3eir9ttvw53fz/paleolithic_austria_vcf.zip/file

I2483 seems to have about 200 K coverage on 1240K, at least that's what I got from annotating the sample.

epoch
11-12-2020, 04:29 PM
All three samples are pre-I. KremsWA3 had only 5 SNPs covered in Fu et al. 2016, 4 derived and 1 ancestral. I2483 (one of the newly sequenced twins) has 51 SNPs covered at I level, 24 are derived, 24 are ancestral and 3 SNPs have both derived and ancestral reads.

EDIT:

I2484 (the other twin) has 13 SNPs covered at I level, 7 derived, 5 ancestral and 1 with mixed reads.

Since these are twins they should have the same haplogroup, so you could combine the results. Does that come up with something interesting? E.g. are the 7 derived of I2484 also among the derived ones from I2483?

epoch
11-12-2020, 04:30 PM
I made I2483 & I2484 vcfs and plink .beds.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/tkt2ynhrnuunssh/paleolithic_austria.zip/file
http://www.mediafire.com/file/ym3eir9ttvw53fz/paleolithic_austria_vcf.zip/file

I2483 seems to have about 200 K coverage on 1240K, at least that's what I got from annotating the sample.

Can you combine them? They are haploid twins, so should be 100% genetically similar.

epoch
11-12-2020, 04:40 PM
You're right, these should be the first ones. Well, at least the first with sufficient coverage. Pavlov1 and Vestonice43 are probably also I but have awfully low coverage.

It gives some evidence that I could have originated from Gravettians. By the way: The Fu et al paper called YDMA I for Paglicci133 (Extended Data Table 1) and doesn't call KremsWA3 at all.

EDIT: That list has more reported YDNA's that I have seen called differently everywhere else. Oase-1 as F for instance.

Nibelung
11-14-2020, 10:42 PM
So I finally looked after reading a lot more about the Bjarmians and their descendants should turn up primarily N-Z1939 and N-PF5246, probably the "two kinds of Bjarmians" mentioned in the 1100s Latin History of Norway. In the first case Z1939 is the only clear match for the Bjarmians settled in modern Troms in the 1200s as mentioned in the Hakonar saga because the clade has some presence both around there and approaching the White Sea today. In the second case it looks like the Hame people could have been expanding east before recorded in the second millennium and there's been some scholarship they could have gotten to Bjarmaland too so N-PF5246 would not disagree with that argument. It's just not present in Norway.

Pribislav
11-14-2020, 11:57 PM
So I finally looked after reading a lot more about the Bjarmians and their descendants should turn up primarily N-Z1939 and N-PF5246, probably the "two kinds of Bjarmians" mentioned in the 1100s Latin History of Norway. In the first case Z1939 is the only clear match for the Bjarmians settled in modern Troms in the 1200s as mentioned in the Hakonar saga because the clade has some presence both around there and approaching the White Sea today. In the second case it looks like the Hame people could have been expanding east before recorded in the second millennium and there's been some scholarship they could have gotten to Bjarmaland too so N-PF5246 would not disagree with that argument. It's just not present in Norway.

Could Bjarmians be related to Permians (Komis and Udmurts)? Look at the upper right corner of the map:

41175

Nibelung
11-15-2020, 01:46 AM
Could Bjarmians be related to Permians (Komis and Udmurts)? Look at the upper right corner of the map:

41175

I believe they are semi-distantly in the trade-related root in addition to the ancestry. Probably they also encountered each other with some frequency together with the peoples of Yugra. Apparently a lot of the furs the Bjarmians traded they may have obtained further east. Also I just read Permians did once reach west of the Northern Dvina.

rms2
11-15-2020, 06:08 PM
Still wondering (a lot) when the long-rumored papers on Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine (more specifically, the Netherlands) and on genomes of the Eneolithic steppe (more than one paper in that latter category, apparently) will appear.

As I recall, I first started hearing about them in September of 2019. Surely at least one of them should be about to pop.

Meanwhile, in terms of ancient DNA, I feel like I am watching grass grow or paint dry.

J Man
11-16-2020, 01:48 AM
Still wondering (a lot) when the long-rumored papers on Single Grave Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine (more specifically, the Netherlands) and on genomes of the Eneolithic steppe (more than one paper in that latter category, apparently) will appear.

As I recall, I first started hearing about them in September of 2019. Surely at least one of them should be about to pop.

Meanwhile, in terms of ancient DNA, I feel like I am watching grass grow or paint dry.

I feel the same way about watching the grass grow and paint dry.

Alain
11-16-2020, 04:34 AM
It is remarkable how the Austronesian language originates from the Fujian Province via Taiwan to the Maiila Archipelago and its subgroups like Malayo-Polynesian which in turn is divided into two main groups, West-Malayo-Polynesian and Central-East-Malayo-Polynesian and extends from the east to Easter Island - to Madagascar (Indo-Pacific Area) and thus shows great migration of the Austronesian-speaking peoples and also the good navigational art of the Polynesian seafarers and their furthest advance north to the Hawaiian Islands and to the East also do not exclude contacts to South America.Great study of language families and their genetic relationships and distribution areas (Genomic Insights into the Demographic History of Southern Chinese)

Nibelung
11-16-2020, 09:29 PM
So I've now examined the case of the Kylfings (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kylfings), a people I admit I forgot, and I am almost certain they cannot be associated with the Para-Karelians. There's no Karelian tradition I know of involving Constantinople or their distant Magyar relations (at least once arrived in Europe). The name Kylfing it turns out shows up on three runestones in Uppland and one not far away in Sodermanland. They were either a distinct group of the Swedes from those calling themselves and being called Varangians, or they were partly Germanicized Kvens. Just maybe the Votic association pans out but I believe the phonetic resemblance to Kaleva is accidental.

Nibelung
11-22-2020, 04:11 AM
Not exactly a mythological digression, instead important. Agricola in the 16th century claiming Väinämöinen and Ilmari were deities of Häme versus Ukko (Ylijumala) belonging to the Karelians appears to some extent verified, or with Ilmari somewhere in between at least in terms of function, but probably in person belonging to Häme. Y6058 give us Väinämöinen and most of Finnic Ilmari, Z1936/Z1927 Ukko Ylijumala and no doubt most of Jómali of the Bjarmar. Ukko does have overlap on the L550 Estonian side but is associated and with more extensive tradition in mainly Z1936 territory in Finland. That Vaino and Ilmari in their Häme conceptions became so popular nationwide across Finnic Fennoscandia and have their later principal sources in Karelia seems to obscure earlier Häme expansion in the region. No doubt the later contributions have been multidirectional but we're talking of origins.

The devastating news heard across Northern Europe is that Väinämöinen the Enchanter God is not Karelian but from Häme with probably Kven and Para-Rurikid family.

Ukko Ylijumala has respectable contribution from Thor but would otherwise appear to be the Z1927 creator/war/doom god. Actually I rather liked the others. Where it all splits up under TAT who knows. Maybe the Yakut have the answer.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
11-22-2020, 09:31 AM
Perm actually comes from Komi Perem or Perym as far as I know.

Nibelung
11-22-2020, 12:51 PM
Not exactly a mythological digression, instead important. Agricola in the 16th century claiming Väinämöinen and Ilmari were deities of Häme versus Ukko (Ylijumala) belonging to the Karelians appears to some extent verified, or with Ilmari somewhere in between at least in terms of function, but probably in person belonging to Häme. Y6058 give us Väinämöinen and most of Finnic Ilmari, Z1936/Z1927 Ukko Ylijumala and no doubt most of Jómali of the Bjarmar. Ukko does have overlap on the L550 Estonian side but is associated and with more extensive tradition in mainly Z1936 territory in Finland. That Vaino and Ilmari in their Häme conceptions became so popular nationwide across Finnic Fennoscandia and have their later principal sources in Karelia seems to obscure earlier Häme expansion in the region. No doubt the later contributions have been multidirectional but we're talking of origins.

The devastating news heard across Northern Europe is that Väinämöinen the Enchanter God is not Karelian but from Häme with probably Kven and Para-Rurikid family.

Ukko Ylijumala has respectable contribution from Thor but would otherwise appear to be the Z1927 creator/war/doom god. Actually I rather liked the others. Where it all splits up under TAT who knows. Maybe the Yakut have the answer.

Partly misplaced by Agricola would really be Rahko/Rahkoi, given as a Häme god of Northern Finland but who appears reconstructable as close to the Karelian divinity of time Raako. I know of a paper on the way proving this. Agricola's not at fault because Viena is probably the source for Rahko/Rahkoi and obviously he didn't mean any harm. What I don't like is all this gives the Para-Karelians a darker vision of the world as opposed to the clearly friendlier pair of Vaino and Ilmari. While Ukko himself seems for the most part kindly traces do remain of his willingness to inflict violence and one remembers the Magyars.

Potential sources for transmission of Thor-related material to the Karelian world include via Häme, the Kvens or Lapps, and also more direct exposure to Norwegian tradition via Bjarmaland. That said Thor also reaches Estonia whenever initially, and Eastern Swedish or Bothnian I1 would be transmitting enough of Para-Germanic tradition entire to Finland and the Baltic. If there's any influence in Finland from the actual Baltic Perkunas then Y6058 experienced it on the way and the Karelians got it indirectly.

Nibelung
11-23-2020, 08:48 PM
Partly misplaced by Agricola would really be Rahko/Rahkoi, given as a Häme god of Northern Finland but who appears reconstructable as close to the Karelian divinity of time Raako. I know of a paper on the way proving this. Agricola's not at fault because Viena is probably the source for Rahko/Rahkoi and obviously he didn't mean any harm. What I don't like is all this gives the Para-Karelians a darker vision of the world as opposed to the clearly friendlier pair of Vaino and Ilmari. While Ukko himself seems for the most part kindly traces do remain of his willingness to inflict violence and one remembers the Magyars.

Potential sources for transmission of Thor-related material to the Karelian world include via Häme, the Kvens or Lapps, and also more direct exposure to Norwegian tradition via Bjarmaland. That said Thor also reaches Estonia whenever initially, and Eastern Swedish or Bothnian I1 would be transmitting enough of Para-Germanic tradition entire to Finland and the Baltic. If there's any influence in Finland from the actual Baltic Perkunas then Y6058 experienced it on the way and the Karelians got it indirectly.

Given that N-Z1925* and Z29767 so far as I can tell are only found in Northern Sweden, and Y20920* can be found in North Trondelag in addition to Finland, I'm going to describe an uninterrupted presence of Z1928/Z1936 in Fennoscandia since Bolshoy times as significantly possible to even probable. Would we classify it as Saami? Hard to say. There's much division in the linguistic community on what was spoken in the White Sea region including the Northern Dvina before the arrival of Karelian later, but a branch of something you might call Para-Saami is one possibility, and I would argue it would have been closer to the ancient South Saami which has left many loans in the (Finnish-)Karelian and Russian. There might also have been something with at least some superficial resemblance to South Estonian spoken in the White Sea region.

Z1928 could very well call the White Sea region its homeland. As far as the Finnic-Saamic spectrum both I believe should be viewed as hybrids of the various Finno-Ugrian dialects in the macroregion, with the primary division explained by the non-Indo-European and obviously non-Uralic Saami substrate that may not have been as lexically or structurally pronounced in some of the ancient southeastern dialects, once spoken on the Great Lakes too. Z1925* or closely enough related Para-Bolshoy people would have spoken something closer to Proto-Finno-Ugrian than either later Finnic or Saamic. Could they have had at least a bit of contact with early Bronze Age Scandinavians? I don't see why not. Any important influence of Uralic on Germanic would probably need to wait for the arrival of L550 in Uppland many generations after the first appearances of Z1928/Z1925 in Fennoscandia. A downstream clade that's at least visibly North Saami is Y22091.

etrusco
11-24-2020, 09:33 AM
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.23.394502v1?ct=

Abstract
While the Neolithic expansion in Europe is well described archaeologically, the genetic origins of European first farmers and their affinities with local hunter-gatherers (HGs) remain unclear. To infer the demographic history of these populations, the genomes of 15 ancient individuals located between Western Anatolia and Southern Germany were sequenced to high quality, allowing us to perform population genomics analyses formerly restricted to modern genomes. We find that all European and Anatolian early farmers descend from the merging of a European and a Near Eastern group of HGs, possibly in the Near East, shortly after the Last Glacial Maximum (LGM). Western and Southeastern European HG are shown to split during the LGM, and share signals of a very strong LGM bottleneck that drastically reduced their genetic diversity. Early Neolithic Central Anatolians seem only indirectly related to ancestors of European farmers, who probably originated in the Near East and dispersed later on from the Aegean along the Danubian corridor following a stepwise demic process with only limited (2-6%) but additive input from local HGs. Our analyses provide a time frame and resolve the genetic origins of early European farmers. They highlight the impact of Late Pleistocene climatic fluctuations that caused the fragmentation, merging and reexpansion of human populations in SW Asia and Europe, and eventually led to the world's first agricultural populations.


It seems they found another WHG ( Iron Gates) with R1b1. I just wonder if it is as the Lepenski Vir samples a R1b V88 or his brother R1b L389.

RCO
11-24-2020, 12:12 PM
Table 1 - Archaeological and genetic information on the newly-sequenced genomes.
345
Individual Period
(culture)
Site Country Age
(cal. BP)
Mean Depth
(X)
Genetic
sex
Haplogroups
mtDNA Y
VLASA7 LM Vlasac Serbia 8764-8340 15.21 XY U5a2a I2
VLASA32 LM Vlasac Serbia 9741-9468 12.65 XY U5a2a R1b1
AKT16 EN Aktopraklık Turkey 8635-8460 12.25 XX K1a3 ⎯
Bar25 EN Barcın Turkey 8384-8205 12.65 XY N1a1a1 G2a2b2a1
Nea3 EN Nea Nikomedeia Greece 8327-8040 11.57 XX K1a2c ⎯
Nea2 EN Nea Nikomedeia Greece 8173-8023 12.51 XX K1a ⎯
LEPE48 TEN Lepenski Vir Serbia 8012-7867 10.92 XY K1a1 C1a2b
LEPE52 E-MN Lepenski Vir Serbia 7931-7693 12.37 XY H3 G2a2b2a1a1c
STAR1 EN (Starčevo) Grad-Starčevo Serbia 7589-7476 10.55 XX T2e2 ⎯
VC3-2 EN (Starčevo) Vinča-Belo Brdo Serbia 7565-7426 11.22 XY HV-16311 G2a2a1a3~
Asp6 EN (LBK) Asparn-Schletz Austria 7575-7474 12.11 XY U5a1c1 G2a2b2a3
Klein7 EN (LBK) Kleinhadersdorf Austria 7244-7000 11.30 XX W1-119
Dil16 EN (LBK) Dillingen-Steinheim Germany 7235-6998 10.60 XY J1c6 C1a2b
Ess7 EN (LBK) Essenbach-Ammerbreite Germany 7050-6900 12.34 XY U5b2c1 G2a2b2a1a1
Herx EN (LBK) Herxheim Germany 7164-6993 11.46 XX K1a4a1i ⎯
LM, Late Mesolithic; EN, Early Neolithic; TEN, Transformational/Early Neolithic; E-MN, Early-Middle Neolithic; LBK, Linearbandkeramik

bibiloni
11-24-2020, 05:53 PM
Is it possible to knos if the R1b1 Serbian Late Mesolithic sample is related to Villabruna?

Kristiina
11-24-2020, 05:56 PM
I had a look at this new paper: The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of Europe

If I have understood correctly their models (e.g. suppl material S53-S55), they use no Basal in their trees. Wezmeh Cave (WC1) from Iran, Balkan WHG and Western WHG (Loschbour & Bichon) all derive from the same Upper palaeolithic root population. Moreover, it looks like in their model Anatolians separate from the Wezmeh line ca 20 kya. This is quite new model to me.

etrusco
11-24-2020, 07:03 PM
Is it possible to knos if the R1b1 Serbian Late Mesolithic sample is related to Villabruna?

In term of genome wide ancestry Villabruna and Iron Gates are similar, they both are WHG but Serbian Mesolithic has a tad more ANE/EHG in it IIRC. The real question is if the Iron Gates is a R1b V 88 ( more likely)or is R1b L 389 and downstream ( less likely).

Pribislav
11-24-2020, 07:30 PM
In term of genome wide ancestry Villabruna and Iron Gates are similar, they both are WHG but Serbian Mesolithic has a tad more ANE/EHG in it IIRC. The real question is if the Iron Gates is a R1b V 88 ( more likely)or is R1b L 389 and downstream ( less likely).

Iron Gates HGs are R1b-V2219 (xV88) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V2219/). VLASA32 from this paper is L754 (xL389,V88), so most likely V2219 like the others we have so far. If he turns out to be V2219- he could be patrilinealy related to Villabruna (see here) (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20216-Eneolithic-steppe-DNA&p=663973&viewfull=1#post663973).

alchemist223
11-24-2020, 08:11 PM
Are BAM files coming out soon?

etrusco
11-24-2020, 08:14 PM
Iron Gates HGs are R1b-V2219 (xV88) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V2219/). VLASA32 from this paper is L754 (xL389,V88), so most likely V2219 like the others we have so far. If he turns out to be V2219- he could be patrilinealy related to Villabruna.

I knew the iron gates are R1b v 88. I was referring to the new discovered sample. Agree that most ikely he will turn out to be like the other samples

Michalis Moriopoulos
11-24-2020, 08:27 PM
If I have understood correctly their models (e.g. suppl material S53-S55), they use no Basal in their trees.

Razib asked Lazaridis and Excoffier about that on Twitter:


no mention of 'basal eurasians' @iosif_lazaridis

(looked in supplements too)


No need for it...


I haven't read the supplements yet (not as fast as you), but in the model of Fig. 3 there is no Ust'Ishim or Eastern non-Africans which would bring up the asymmetry. Certainly the model in which Loschbour and Iranian farmers are a simple split 23kya can't be taken at face value.

rms2
11-24-2020, 10:06 PM
I knew the iron gates are R1b v 88. I was referring to the new discovered sample. Agree that most ikely he will turn out to be like the other samples

You probably already know this, but for others who may not, V88 is downstream of V2219: R1b-M343>L754>V2219>V88.

So, V2219xV88 samples, like V88 samples, are not on the same line as most of the rest of European R1b, which is downstream of L389 and thus V2219-.

VladimirTaraskin
11-25-2020, 03:42 AM
Iron Gates HGs are R1b-V2219 (xV88) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-V2219/). VLASA32 from this paper is L754 (xL389,V88), so most likely V2219 like the others we have so far. If he turns out to be V2219- he could be patrilinealy related to Villabruna (see here) (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20216-Eneolithic-steppe-DNA&p=663973&viewfull=1#post663973).

Could it be that between L754 and V2219 there will be a subclad that will be ancestral to both V2219 and Villabruna, Vlas32? Or will it be the third line originating from L754 along with L389 and V2219?

Kristiina
11-26-2020, 07:36 PM
Re: Post‐last glacial maximum expansion of Y‐chromosome haplogroup C2a‐L1373 in northern Asia and its implications for the origin of Native Americans

There are new more accurate assignments of many ancient C samples. Their differ in part from the assignments published in the academic papers and by amateurs. The most surprising assignment is classification of NEO239 to C2a2-MPB373/L1373 (ISOGG 2019).

NEO239 is a 5500 BC old genome from the Neolithic site of Devil’s Gate Cave in Primorsky Krai. The rare C2a2 branch in South America that has been detected in 10 kya old sample CP19_brazil also belongs to this line.

Megalophias
11-26-2020, 08:12 PM
The supplementary information (https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajpa.24173) to the above paper is available.

The most surprising to me was that UKY001 (the 14 000 year old from the Russia-Mongolia border) was a very early branch of North American C2b1a1b-P39. So if these assignments are correct (presumably they know what they're doing) both the American branches of C2 have ancient Old World relatives.

There are many interesting ancient DNA haplogroup calls here (see Figure S1 and Table S1). Old Bering Sea Ekven samples I7340 and I7341 (I think same as NEO249 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/C-F3918/) and NEO253) are C2b1a1c-B77 (Karmin C3g), closely related to a modern Koryak. Baikal EN (Kitoi) IUO001 and DA357 belong to an early branch of the same haplogroup.

Baikal BA (Glazkovo) GLZ001 and GLZ002 belong to C2b1a5-B79 (Karmin C3i, not on YFull), again somewhat distantly related to modern Koryaks.

4 Chinese Xianbei were under C2-Y10420, and a Rouran sample under C2-F9721.

A modern Hui from Gansu, northwestern China, forms a new primary branch of C2b1a1a-F1756.

The abstract notes that the TMRCAs support a post-LGM migration of Amerindian ancestors to the Old World (I don't know if they discuss the possibllity of a major back-migration instead). But we already knew that from haplogroup Q - though the academic papers seem to ignore this.

PS reading further they didn't have the data for the ancient Jeong et al Mongolian samples so those were all just placed where they were in the original paper, not updated. Detailed calls are given in the text file.

NEO239 is assigned to C2b2-MPB373 based on positive BY119182 - 2 reads, but transition SNP and close to ends of fragments. So this is maybe doubtful.

UKY001 is assigned to C2b1a1b-pre-P39 based on Z30541+, Z30574+, and a bunch more negative, with upstream SNPs supporting it. Looks pretty good?

Pribislav
11-26-2020, 08:22 PM
Re: Post‐last glacial maximum expansion of Y‐chromosome haplogroup C2a‐L1373 in northern Asia and its implications for the origin of Native Americans

There are new more accurate assignments of many ancient C samples. Their differ in part from the assignments published in the academic papers and by amateurs. The most surprising assignment is classification of NEO239 to C2a2-MPB373/L1373 (ISOGG 2019).

NEO239 is a 5500 BC old genome from the Neolithic site of Devil’s Gate Cave in Primorsky Krai. The rare C2a2 branch in South America that has been detected in 10 kya old sample CP19_brazil also belongs to this line.

Not that surprising. :)


Also, NEO239, the only male sample from Devil's Gate, can be assigned only to C2-M217>L1373 (TMRCA ~14000 BC). He has 5 derived SNPs at that level, with no derived calls for any downstream subclade. Of notable negatives, he has 3 ancestral SNPs at F1756 level, 6 ancestral SNPs at F1918 level and 6 ancestral SNPs at M48 level.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14218-The-first-horse-herders-and-the-impact-of-early-Bronze-Age-steppe-expansions-into-Asi&p=592461&viewfull=1#post592461 (https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?14218-The-first-horse-herders-and-the-impact-of-early-Bronze-Age-steppe-expansions-into-Asi&p=592461&viewfull=1#post592461)

Pribislav
11-27-2020, 02:29 AM
UKY001 is assigned to C2b1a1b-pre-P39 based on Z30541+, Z30574+, and a bunch more negative, with upstream SNPs supporting it. Looks pretty good?

It doesn't look good. UKY001 has 11 ancestral SNPs at F3918 level, so he can't possibly have any genuinely derived SNPs at P39 level.



Shotgun BAM indeed had more SNPs covered, and UKY001 indeed is pre-F3918, but now has 16 SNPs covered out of total 23 at that level (5 derived and 11 ancestral), so he is ~33% derived instead of previously reported ~50%. I merged the calls from all 3 BAMs (1 x shotgun and 2 x 1240K):

SK1079/Y10421/Z18161/B473+ A>T (3T)

Y10441/FGC28955/Z18155/F13514+ G>A (3A)

F3918+ A>T (1T)

FGC28853+ C>G (1G)

FGC28928/F12618/Z18160/Y10435+ T>C (1C)

FGC28885/F11414- T>C (5T)

F9317/FGC28828- C>A (3C)

FGC28943- A>C (2A)

FGC28876/F11235- T>C (2T)

F9202/FGC28825- C>A (2C)

F8894/FGC28813/Y10418- G>A (1G)

FGC28838- G>A (1G)

FGC28903- G>A (1G)

F14021/FGC28972- G>A (1G)

FGC28839- T>C (1T)

FGC28923- A>G (1A)

Megalophias
11-27-2020, 03:38 AM
It doesn't look good. UKY001 has 11 ancestral SNPs at F3918 level, so he can't possibly have any genuinely derived SNPs at P39 level.
Are you sure those SNPs are actually at the F3918 level? Karmin et al don't have any C2-P39 samples, but they do have a Koryak C2-B77, sister to C2-F1756/B78.

UKY's positive SNPs B473, F3918, Y10435, and F13514 are all placed at the C2-B473/F3918 level by Karmin et al. UKY's negative SNPs F11414, FGC28943, F11235, FGC28838, F14021, FGC28839, and FGC28923 are all placed at the C2-F1756/B78 level by Karmin et al. (They didn't cover the rest.)

There are a couple of C2-P39 individuals in the FTDNA C Project, they are positive for B473, F3918, F13514, and F12618, and also for FGC28813 (which is not listed by Karmin et al), but unfortunately none of the other SNPs were included; I don't know whether that means they were negative, or just not covered. They are positive for BY762/Z30541 and Z30574.

Boreas
11-28-2020, 06:01 PM
Given that N-Z1925* and Z29767 so far as I can tell are only found in Northern Sweden, and Y20920* can be found in North Trondelag in addition to Finland, .

The Mid-Nordic Platau at the east-west watershed between Middle Norway and Northern Sweden produces some large rivres that connects the Botnic Bay and the Botnic Ocean - where the Kvens/Kylvings/Kolbjager had their epicentre - with regular connections out west - to Lofoten in the north and Nord-Trondelag in the south. The latter being the major trade-route between the IE Norwegians and the FU Finns.

The oldest verifications of oraganized trade along the river encircling the Botnic Ocean are no less than 8.OOO yrs - reaching both Lofoten and the White Sea. At this time the Slate-culture of the North--East (EHG?) would produce tanged, pressure-flaked arrowheads, different from the flint/quartsite-culture with less tanged arroweheads. The SW corner of this (arctic) slate-culture corresponds quite exactly to the SW corner of the Asbestos-ceramics as well, besides the following Seimo-Turbino-culture that spanned from the many coppermines of Scandinavia to the exceptional copper-mines of Ural, with Carelia and the Gulf of Finland as key areas.

Sailing north the Norwegians could reach the White Sea and the Bjarmer, who used Dvina as a short-cut to Volga and the exotic trade with Cental Asia. According to the Norse Sagas the Bjarmer shared language with the Carelian and the Kvens. In danish sources they are all refered to as "Finns".

Progressing from mesolithic slate-culture of the 'Komsa-culture'- to the neolithic asbestos-culture and the bronze-age Seima-Turbino horizon they all border their contemporary neighbours, to Scandinavian Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze-Age - at the transport-zone using the Mid-Nordic Platau to connect the Atlantic produce to the Baltic trade-zone. Thus your discovery of y-dna N1 in Nord-Trondelag is a significant piece of the Fenno-Ugric puzzle.

41438

Pribislav
11-28-2020, 09:49 PM
Are you sure those SNPs are actually at the F3918 level? Karmin et al don't have any C2-P39 samples, but they do have a Koryak C2-B77, sister to C2-F1756/B78.

UKY's positive SNPs B473, F3918, Y10435, and F13514 are all placed at the C2-B473/F3918 level by Karmin et al. UKY's negative SNPs F11414, FGC28943, F11235, FGC28838, F14021, FGC28839, and FGC28923 are all placed at the C2-F1756/B78 level by Karmin et al. (They didn't cover the rest.)

There are a couple of C2-P39 individuals in the FTDNA C Project, they are positive for B473, F3918, F13514, and F12618, and also for FGC28813 (which is not listed by Karmin et al), but unfortunately none of the other SNPs were included; I don't know whether that means they were negative, or just not covered. They are positive for BY762/Z30541 and Z30574.

They are at F3918 level in YFull, but I haven't noticed earlier that YFull doesn't have any actual P39 samples in their tree. The lack of P39+/F1756- samples makes it impossible for them to properly separate SNPs between F3918 and F1756 levels. So I checked UKY001 again, this time including P39-level SNPs from FTDNA Block Tree. And it turns out you were right, all derived SNPs are at F3918 level in FTDNA Block Tree, while all ancestral are at F1756 level. Furthermore, UKY001 has 61/94 SNPs covered at P39 level, 6 of them derived and 55 ancestral, so UKY001 indeed belonged to one early split within clade P39. Which makes perfect sense considering the authors of the Yu et al. paper modeled UKY001 as a mixture between a northeast Asian lineage and a sister group of the Native American clade. Derived SNPs are:


BY1677+ G>T (1T)

BY18400+ A>C (1C)

BY18409+ G>A (2A)

Z30532/BY728+ A>C (1C)

Z30541/BY762+ G>A (1A)

Z30574+ C>A (1A)

Megalophias
11-29-2020, 06:14 PM
Thanks Pribislav! That seems to settle it.

Does anyone know why there's no P39 samples on YFull tree? I remember a few years ago a member here was planning to submit his to YFull, but I guess he never did. The FTDNA C-P39 Project says they have 16 BigYs. Surely they didn't just run out of money - I would happily donate the cost for one or two of them, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Pribislav
11-29-2020, 07:54 PM
Thanks Pribislav! That seems to settle it.

Does anyone know why there's no P39 samples on YFull tree? I remember a few years ago a member here was planning to submit his to YFull, but I guess he never did. The FTDNA C-P39 Project says they have 16 BigYs. Surely they didn't just run out of money - I would happily donate the cost for one or two of them, and I'm sure I'm not the only one.

Well not quite. :)

I was in a rush yesterday, so I didn't arrange all SNPs in my spreadsheet before posting here. The following part of my previous post is incorrect:


And it turns out you were right, all derived SNPs are at F3918 level in FTDNA Block Tree, while all ancestral are at F1756 level.

There are three SNPs that are at F3918 level both in YFull Tree and FTDNA Block Tree, and are ancestral in UKY001:

F9317/FGC28828- C>A (3C)

F8894/FGC28813/Y10418- G>A (1G)

FGC28903- G>A (1G)

These ancestral calls clearly contradict derived calls at P39 level, so this matter requires further inspection. I'll send an email to YFull with all the necessary information first thing in the morning.

As for why are there no P39 samples in YFull, I'm sure it has something to do with FTDNA admins "strongly advising" members of the P39 project not to upload to YFull.

Megalophias
11-29-2020, 08:15 PM
As for why are there no P39 samples in YFull, I'm sure it has something to do with FTDNA admins "strongly advising" members of the P39 project not to upload to YFull.
Lol, sinister Russians gonna steal your precious bodily fluids? Can't be having competition.

Pribislav
11-29-2020, 10:32 PM
There is a lot of aDNA damage in both BAM files (shotgun and 1240K), reflected in false negatives at almost every upstream level (M217, L1373, F1699), so it could also be the case with these three ancestral SNPs at F3918 level. IMO assignment of UKY001 to subclade P39 is legitimate (four of six derived SNPs are transversions).

Nibelung
11-30-2020, 05:06 AM
The Mid-Nordic Platau at the east-west watershed between Middle Norway and Northern Sweden produces some large rivres that connects the Botnic Bay and the Botnic Ocean - where the Kvens/Kylvings/Kolbjager had their epicentre - with regular connections out west - to Lofoten in the north and Nord-Trondelag in the south. The latter being the major trade-route between the IE Norwegians and the FU Finns.

The oldest verifications of oraganized trade along the river encircling the Botnic Ocean are no less than 8.OOO yrs - reaching both Lofoten and the White Sea. At this time the Slate-culture of the North--East (EHG?) would produce tanged, pressure-flaked arrowheads, different from the flint/quartsite-culture with less tanged arroweheads. The SW corner of this (arctic) slate-culture corresponds quite exactly to the SW corner of the Asbestos-ceramics as well, besides the following Seimo-Turbino-culture that spanned from the many coppermines of Scandinavia to the exceptional copper-mines of Ural, with Carelia and the Gulf of Finland as key areas.

Sailing north the Norwegians could reach the White Sea and the Bjarmer, who used Dvina as a short-cut to Volga and the exotic trade with Cental Asia. According to the Norse Sagas the Bjarmer shared language with the Carelian and the Kvens. In danish sources they are all refered to as "Finns".

Progressing from mesolithic slate-culture of the 'Komsa-culture'- to the neolithic asbestos-culture and the bronze-age Seima-Turbino horizon they all border their contemporary neighbours, to Scandinavian Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze-Age - at the transport-zone using the Mid-Nordic Platau to connect the Atlantic produce to the Baltic trade-zone. Thus your discovery of y-dna N1 in Nord-Trondelag is a significant piece of the Fenno-Ugric puzzle.

41438

I don't mean you any harm but what? I don't give the slightest academic damn but I've thrown some sympathy towards these outside-side Z1936 people from a contextual standpoint. One recalls less some "spectacular discovery" than the immediate need to produce basic explanation/pontificate on the matter before people lose it. There was really a puzzle? It's usually about crowd/spaz control in any narrative. No mystery.

In any event there's no direct suggestion the Bjarmar and Kvens had anything to do with each other, besides some of the Häme possibly making their way to Bjarmaland. Karelians are the recoverable geographic link, although towards what I'm not certain. Uralic unity? Yeah. Just about as nowhere a concept as the end of the world.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
11-30-2020, 08:42 AM
I don't mean you any harm but what? I don't give the slightest academic damn but I've thrown some sympathy towards these outside-side Z1936 people from a contextual standpoint. One recalls less some "spectacular discovery" than the immediate need to produce basic explanation/pontificate on the matter before people lose it. There was really a puzzle? It's usually about crowd/spaz control in any narrative. No mystery.

In any event there's no direct suggestion the Bjarmar and Kvens had anything to do with each other, besides some of the Häme possibly making their way to Bjarmaland. Karelians are the recoverable geographic link, although towards what I'm not certain. Uralic unity? Yeah. Just about as nowhere a concept as the end of the world.

I think the link between Finnics and Bjarmians is through the Toiman Chudes and Vepsians. Perhaps the coast of Viena Karelia was riddled with trading spots between Karelians and Bjarmians.

Nibelung
11-30-2020, 12:08 PM
I think the link between Finnics and Bjarmians is through the Toiman Chudes and Vepsians. Perhaps the coast of Viena Karelia was riddled with trading spots between Karelians and Bjarmians.

I was not in any way disparaging the Kvens, whom I assume were closer to a mixture of L1022 and Bothnian/Finnish I1, with the language spoken uncertain, probably somewhere between pre-sound shift Germanic and Para-Finnic. Tracing only L1022 in Northern Fennoscandia outside of Finland they appear to have focused mainly on Sweden. In Finland no doubt most of the Kvens' altogether overlap was with Häme although we don't know how much they participated in the Väinö mytho-ritual revolution. As far as the Z1936 para-group in fact I'm a bit tired of the audience obsessing, but recently I've not found as much literature on the others, which is due we must admit mainly to the Norse obsession with Bjarmaland and Novgorod having so much to do with the Karelians. Oh and where the Kalevala was recorded obscuring great Para-Finnic influence on the collected traditions.

davit
11-30-2020, 12:14 PM
I was not in any way disparaging the Kvens, whom I assume were closer to a mixture of L1022 and Bothnian/Finnish I1, with the language spoken uncertain, probably somewhere between pre-sound shift Germanic and Para-Finnic. Tracing only L1022 in Northern Fennoscandia outside of Finland they appear to have focused mainly on Sweden. In Finland no doubt most of the Kvens' altogether overlap was with Häme although we don't know much they participated in the Väinö mytho-ritual revolution. As far as the Z1936 para-group in fact I'm a bit tired of the audience obsessing, but recently I've not found as much literature on the others, which is due we must admit mainly to the Norse obsession with Bjarmaland and Novgorod having so much to do with the Karelians. Oh and where the Kalevala was recorded obscuring great Para-Finnic influence on the collected traditions.

Dumb question but what was in the Northern parts of the the Nordic countries before N1c?

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
11-30-2020, 12:18 PM
Dumb question but what was in the Northern parts of the the Nordic countries before N1c?

Steigen had I2a1b 4000-3800 BCE
VK531 had R1b1a1 2600-2300 BCE
Most likely some R1a and maybe Q-L54 with EHGs.

davit
11-30-2020, 12:35 PM
Steigen had I2a1b 4000-3800 BCE
VK531 had R1b1a1 2600-2300 BCE
Most likely some R1a and maybe Q-L54 with EHGs.

Thanks. I suspect more I2 before those time periods. Where is VK531 from exactly?

Kristiina
11-30-2020, 01:01 PM
J1 is also a possibility as it is the oldest haplogroup among modern Finns and it was found in mesolithic Karelia:

41467

Bygdedweller
11-30-2020, 01:25 PM
What exactly is the consensus on when Finno-Ugrics and N1c arrived in Scandinavia? I know they were most likely present in the Kola peninsula and Finland before they arrived in Norway/Sweden, but I've heard wildly different takes on this. Anyone care to clarify?

Nibelung
11-30-2020, 01:52 PM
I'd tone it down about the Mesolithic Karelian fantasy because everything suggests the Z1936 phenomenon is routinely innovative. Your perceptions shouldn't turn on a dime like this once you've imagined an opportunity to attack has been provided. I was taking the time to cover the less well covered. It tends to be the case that accomplished people focus for a reason and I'm not going to grant you a dismissal of the Scandinavian accounts or of Novgorod.

Riverman
11-30-2020, 01:57 PM
What exactly is the consensus on when Finno-Ugrics and N1c arrived in Scandinavia? I know they were most likely present in the Kola peninsula and Finland before they arrived in Norway/Sweden, but I've heard wildly different takes on this. Anyone care to clarify?

The most likely population movements and cultural groups associated with the spread of Finno-Ugrians in Europe are the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and the Ananyino culture:

The Bronze Age proper can be regarded to have begun only when the Seima-Turbino Culture (ca. 1600-1200 BC) of the Volga and Kama regions gradually extended its influence into Northern Fennoscandia.
There are six finds of Seima-type bronze celts: two from Lapland (Inari, Rovaniemi), two from Central Finland (Pielavesi, Laukaa) and two from the province of Satakunta in Western Fin-land (Noormarkku, Nakkila). There is also a Swedish find of a Seima celt from the Uppland region. These artefacts do not seem to be pre-sent in the area of textile-impressed ceramics, which seems to indicate the White Sea route as their direction of arrival (Salo 1981 254). This route is clearly indicated by the distribution of a newer type of arrowhead also belonging to this stream of cultural influences.



The majority of the finds can be dated to the period of the Ananyino Culture from ca 800 to 400 BC (Carpelan 1975 a) the central area of which was in the Volga-Kama region. This culture had a definite influence especially in the northern parts of Fennoscandia in the area of asbestos-tempered ceramics, but there are also finds of related artefacts from Southern Finland and as far as Uppland in Sweden. In its final stages the culture was familiar with the use of iron.


Despite these developments contacts with the east never broke off completely. Throughout the Iron Age eastern artefacts, especially brooches can be found as far as the northern parts of Scandinavia.


Influences from the White Sea area to North-ern Fennoscandia are reflected mainly in arte-facts. In pottery influences are few. It can be assumed that the contacts were upheld by trad-ers from the east and they do not seem to have been connected with any movements of popula-tion. Despite this, the contacts may have had their influence on language as well as other areas of culture. The spread of the Finnish term vaski, meaning copper and bronze would seem to fit into this period, regardless of its route of introduction into Finnish (Salo 1981 33, Taavit-sainen 1982 45-46). Also the visits of traders may have led to the interchange of genes.

http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA3_51.pdf

I think there was a relative continuity with an influx and dominance of elite warriors and traders from the East. That's why the ceramics didn't change as much, because they were produced by local women and even the local males didn't completely disappear, but being only partially replaced and were disadvantaged.

Alain
11-30-2020, 02:38 PM
The most likely population movements and cultural groups associated with the spread of Finno-Ugrians in Europe are the Seima-Turbino phenomenon and the Ananyino culture:








http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA3_51.pdf

I think there was a relative continuity with an influx and dominance of elite warriors and traders from the East. That's why the ceramics didn't change as much, because they were produced by local women and even the local males didn't completely disappear, but being only partially replaced and were disadvantaged.

True, the Ananyino culture had extensive trade contacts to the Black Sea region (Scythians) and the eastern areas of Siberia (Saka) and the Caucasus and it was timely with the spread of the Finno-Ugric peoples into Northeast Europe , although there could already be a Seima-Turbino phenomenon in consideration pull. For example, from the Iron Age, we have a genetic input in Estonia of Finno-Ugrian peoples that has been largely CWC_Baltic since the Bronze Age.

Nibelung
11-30-2020, 03:43 PM
So you're telling me most west of the Urals Z1936 = Ananyino and they had their own separate trade relationship with the Scythians? That's going to get at least some Iranian into the Proto-Bjarmar-Karelians-Vepsians and one would think an additional stratum of loans to the Indo-Aryan Andronovo-leaning main one presumably for and from the other L392 block.

Oh and Ananyino is definitely it. Thank you, everyone. There are early branches of Z1934 still right there in Tatarstan. What's up with the Caucasus influence, though? That must be via the Scythians' various connections. I'm most surprised the group actually went through the central Urals but they did have to begin parallel to the Ugrians somewhere.

Check the Russian wikipedia (Ananyino culture) for the links. 7th/6th century BC there is an addition from the Urals to the early Iranian/Scythian+Colchian Ananyino culture of very Mongoloid people, obviously Finno-Ugrian and the men averaging 5'2 to 5'5, bringing their own distinctive archaeology. They must have been mainly Z1934. At some point significant outflow from Ananyino altogether began to happen and within a few centuries of Z1934's arrival much of the culture was gone, perhaps also due to conflict with other Iranians/Scythians.

I believe there is a claimed additional layer of Indo-Iranian in Lappish but this has recently been contested. See Sampsa Holopainen (2018b), "Indo-Iranian loanwords confined to Saami?" . There might be a few but I've looked at the list now and I don't know about Ananyino influence on Lappish. Maybe for Finnic?

Ryukendo
12-10-2020, 08:29 PM
From the Analysis of Minatogawa Whole Mitochondrial DNA Sequence [in Japanese]
by MIZUNO Fuzuki (水野 文月) and GOJOBORI Jun (五條堀 淳)
TRENDS IN THE SCIENCES 25(2), 2_38-2_41, 2020

{ 港川人のミトコンドリアDNA全塩基配列からわかること
水野文月・五條堀 淳
学術の動向 2020.2 pages 38-41 }

https://doi.org/10.5363/tits.25.2_38
https://ci.nii.ac.jp/naid/130007865037/

It seems that Google Translate could not translate the text well enough from Japanese to English. Please point out any errors in the following rough summary and add details if you can read Japanese. I am also sorry for not exactly sure if this had already been posted before in the forum.

Site: Minatogawa (港川), Okinawa (沖縄), Japan
Date of MtDNA full-sequence sample: about 19000 years ago
MtDNA haplogroup: M*
Conclusion: Not a direct ancestor of Jomon and modern Japanese people

Amazing! Minagotawa man is one of the most famous ancient East Asian human samples.
Seems like they found M* with very few mutations from the root.
A translation of three sections of the text:




。。。主な分析方法は、PCR(Polymerase Chain Reaction)法をもちいたDNA増幅の後、塩基配列をサンガー法によって読み取ることであった。。。

...The main analysis method is PCR (Polymerase). After DNA amplification, Sanger sequencing was performed...

。。。我々は港川1号のミトコンドリアDNAの全長配列を決定した。港川1号がどのようなミトコンドリアD NAハプログループを持つのかという点は、日本列島における旧石器時代と縄文時代の人類集団の連続性を明ら かにする上で、非常に重要である。解析の結果、港川1号のミトコンドリアDNAは、マクロハプログループM に属することが分かった。前述の通り、ハプログループMはさらに細かい系統に分類することができる。縄文時 代の人骨でも(あるいは弥生時代の人骨でも)、そのミトコンドリアDNAはハプログループの細い分類のいず れかに属する。しかし、港川1号のミトコンドリアDNAはいずれの細かい分類にも当てはまらず、マクロハプ ログループMのミトコンドリアDNAと結論された(図2の★)。。。。

...We determined the full-length sequence of the mitochondrial DNA of Minatogawa No. 1. The subclade of Minatogawa No. 1 is very important in clarifying the continuity of the human population in the Paleolithic and Jomon periods in the Japanese archipelago. As a result of the analysis, it was found that the mitochondrial DNA of Minatogawa No. 1 belongs to the macrohaplogroup M. As mentioned above, haplogroup M can be further subdivided. The mitochondrial DNA of Jomon (or Yayoi) human bones belongs to one of the subdivisions of the haplogroup. However, the mitochondrial DNA of Minatogawa No. 1 did not fit into any of the detailed classifications, and was concluded to be the mitochondrial DNA of macrohaplogroup M* (★ in Fig. 2)....

。。。現代日本人集団に見られるミトコンドリアDNAの中には、縄文時代の人骨のミトコンドリアDNAに近 いものがあるが、港川1号のミトコンドリアDNAに近いものは見つからなかった。このことから、少なくとも 港川1号のミトコンドリアDNAの解析の結果からは、縄文時代人がもつミトコンドリアDNAとの同一性は見 られなかった。弥生時代の人骨のミトコンドリアDNAでも同様に、現代日本人集団では近いミトコンドリアD NAは見られるが、港川1号のミトコンドリアDNAに近いものは見つからなかった。。。。

...Some mitochondrial DNA in the modern Japanese population is similar to the mitochondrial DNA of the remains of the Jomon period, but no mitochondrial DNA similar to that of Minatogawa No. 1 was found in modern Japanese. no identity with the mitochondrial DNA possessed by Jomon people was found, at least from the results of analysis of the mitochondrial DNA of Minatogawa No. 1. Similarly, mitochondrial DNA similar to the modern Japanese population was found in human bones of the Yayoi period, but no mitochondrial DNA similar to that of Minatogawa No. 1 was found....

。。。現代日本人集団以外の現代人集団の中にも、港川1号のミトコンドリアDNAに近いものは見つからなか った。また、現代人のミトコンドリアDNAの多様性から、ハプログループM系統の祖先型が推定されているが 、港川1号が持つミトコンドリアDNAはこの祖先型にかなり近いことが分かった。ハプログループMの系統の ミトコンドリアDNAは広くアジア系集団に見られるが、このことから、港川1号がアジア系集団全体の祖先で あるというのは、港川1号の年代(19,000年前)からは考えづらいことである。一方で、港川1号のミト コンドリアDNAがハプログループM系統の祖先型にかなり近いことから、港川1号の年代は現在理解されてい る年代よりも遡る可能性がある(人骨そのものをもちいての測定がされていない)。。。。

...Outside the modern Japanese population, nothing close to the mitochondrial DNA of Minatogawa No. 1 was found in any modern human population. In addition, the ancestral type of the haplogroup M strain is presumably inherited from the ancient diversity of mitochondrial DNA in modern humans, and it was found that the mitochondrial DNA of Minatogawa No. 1 is quite close to this ancestral type. The mitochondrial DNA of the haplogroup M lineage is widely found in Asian populations, and from this, it is possible that Minatogawa No. 1 is ancestral to the entire Asian population; but, this is difficult to reconcile with the age of Minatogawa No. 1 (19,000 years ago). On the other hand, since the mitochondrial DNA of Minatogawa No. 1 is quite close to the ancestral type of the haplogroup M strain, the age of Minatogawa No. 1 may be older than currently thought (direct dating using bone material has not been done)...



Usually PCR is not very reliable, but this sequence is almost certainly genuine given its uniqueness. They need to get the autosomes! Perhaps it will turn out to be a representative of the Onge/Hoabinhian half of Jomon-type populations.

alchemist223
12-10-2020, 08:37 PM
Amazing! Minagotawa man is one of the most famous ancient East Asian human samples.
Seems like they found M* with very few mutations from the root.
A translation of three sections of the text:



Usually PCR is not very reliable, but this sequence is almost certainly genuine given its uniqueness. They need to get the autosomes! Perhaps it will turn out to be a representative of the Onge/Hoabinhian half of Jomon-type populations.

Are they releasing a BAM file from this sample?

Ryukendo
12-10-2020, 08:46 PM
Are they releasing a BAM file from this sample?

I don't see any place where they talk about it

alchemist223
12-10-2020, 08:49 PM
I don't see any place where they talk about it

Darn. I don't understand why they do all of this good work on ancient samples, prepare a study, etc. and not try to release as much information as possible. Maybe they are privy to something I do not know.

Ryukendo
12-10-2020, 08:59 PM
From what I can see, this is not the final place where this result would be published; the journal strikes me as a general-audience publication meant to publicise flagship projects from the Japan Science Support Foundation instead of something geared toward genetics.

The Shikariabe Jomon genomes were published first in Japan before an international publication with release of the genomes, so they perhaps are waiting for the same thing; in fact I won't be surprised if they try to get auDNA as well, either themselves or in collaboration with a foreign lab.

ybmpark
12-11-2020, 05:34 AM
I am sure that it is not near the root of M. The researchers are probably a bit amateurish. They probably have found additional private mutations but since they don't match any known downstream from M they thought it was near the root.
Otherwise he is older than 50K or so and his physiology does not match that age. Getting Y DNA would be tantalizing.

davit
12-11-2020, 06:18 AM
Amazing! Minagotawa man is one of the most famous ancient East Asian human samples.
Seems like they found M* with very few mutations from the root.
A translation of three sections of the text:



Usually PCR is not very reliable, but this sequence is almost certainly genuine given its uniqueness. They need to get the autosomes! Perhaps it will turn out to be a representative of the Onge/Hoabinhian half of Jomon-type populations.

If he is near the root of M and with M being oldest in SE Asia what does that say about the coastal migration theory and the settlement of Asia? And how the heck did M1 end up associated with North Africans or West Eurasians?

VladimirTaraskin
12-11-2020, 06:53 AM
On the topic of coastal migration and the role of Japan in it, this Preprint is also interesting. it can be assumed that dogs are descended from domesticated Japanese wolves, and not from Eurasian wolves.

https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(20)31101-9.pdf#disqus_thread

davit
12-11-2020, 08:29 AM
On the topic of coastal migration and the role of Japan in it, this Preprint is also interesting. it can be assumed that dogs are descended from domesticated Japanese wolves, and not from Eurasian wolves.

https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(20)31101-9.pdf#disqus_thread

Japanese dogs or all dogs?

Ebizur
12-11-2020, 09:18 AM
On the topic of coastal migration and the role of Japan in it, this Preprint is also interesting. it can be assumed that dogs are descended from domesticated Japanese wolves, and not from Eurasian wolves.

https://www.cell.com/iscience/pdf/S2589-0042(20)31101-9.pdf#disqus_threadThat is not what is stated in the paper:


Using this method we estimated that the Honshū wolf genome can be partitioned into a 52%
contribution from Pleistocene wolves, 47% contribution from dogs, and a 1% contribution from
present-day Eurasian wolves. Furthermore we detected a 15% contribution from the Honshū wolf to
the Japanese/Korean dog breed cluster, but found no evidence for haplotype sharing between the
Honshū wolf and Chinese dogs (Fig. 3c). As explained above, the inference of shared ancestry in
highly admixed and ill-defined populations such as wolves and dogs is computationally challenging,
and the inclusion of more Honshū wolf genomes is necessary to obtain more statistically sound
estimates of gene flow between dogs and the Honshū wolf. That being said, a previous
mitochondrial study also documented the introgression from the Honshū wolf to some Japanese
dogs (Ishiguro, Inoshima and Shigehara, 2009).

Discussion
The results of our analyses show that the recently extinct Honshū wolf is not in the same
phylogenetic clade as present-day Eurasian wolves and that only insubstantial gene flow occurred
between present-day wolves and the Honshū wolf. We therefore deem it unlikely that the habitat of
Honshū wolves was an LGM refugium for the common ancestor of modern wolves and dogs, as the
colonization of Japan by the Honshū wolf is estimated to predate the LGM.
However, we made the unexpected discovery that the Honshū wolf specimen we sampled
can be best described as a hybrid between Pleistocene wolves and Japanese dogs. Until now,
Pleistocene wolves were thought to have gone extinct around the beginning of the Holocene, but
the strong genetic affinity between Honshū wolves (Canis lupus hodophilax) and Pleistocene wolves
suggests rather that the Japanese archipelago had been a refugium for Pleistocene wolves for
thousands of years, where their descendants only went extinct about 100 years ago.

They think that the tested Honshu "wolf" specimen is actually a half (Japanese/Korean) dog, half basal wolf (more closely related to Pleistocene canid specimens from Siberia than to a clade that contains extant wolves and dogs) mutt.

Kristiina
12-11-2020, 10:40 AM
This is the tree diagramme from the paper:

41645

However, I recall from our previous dog discussion that according to the recent paper on ancient dogs in the world the affinity between dogs and Eurasian wolfs is due to geneflow from dogs to Eurasian wolfs and not because they would be as closely related as presumed in the model above. Correct me if I do not remember this right.

VladimirTaraskin
12-11-2020, 01:22 PM
That is not what is stated in the paper:



They think that the tested Honshu "wolf" specimen is actually a half (Japanese/Korean) dog, half basal wolf (more closely related to Pleistocene canid specimens from Siberia than to a clade that contains extant wolves and dogs) mutt.



A tested wolf is a wolf that lived 100 years ago. But the fact that the Pleistocene wolf is not related to dogs is a fact. Dogs are related to a wolf that lived in isolation in the Pleistocene. Such a wolf, for example, could be this Japanese wolf or another wolf that lived on the island of Honshu. This is the most important thing. And the fact that then the wolves mixed with dogs does not change much. Moreover, one of the wolves (dogs?) buried at the Yana site is an extinct species of Japanese wolf.

Esther J. Lee et al. Ancient DNA Analysis of the Oldest Canid Species from the Siberian Arctic and Genetic Contribution to the Domestic Dog, May 27, 2015

davit
12-11-2020, 01:29 PM
A tested wolf is a wolf that lived 100 years ago. But the fact that the Pleistocene wolf is not related to dogs is a fact. Dogs are related to a wolf that lived in isolation in the Pleistocene. Such a wolf, for example, could be this Japanese wolf or another wolf that lived on the island of Honshu. This is the most important thing. And the fact that then the wolves mixed with dogs does not change much. Moreover, one of the wolves (dogs?) buried at the Yana site is an extinct species of Japanese wolf.

Esther J. Lee et al. Ancient DNA Analysis of the Oldest Canid Species from the Siberian Arctic and Genetic Contribution to the Domestic Dog, May 27, 2015

I would guess the Yana site wolf/dog is ancestral to the Japanese one if such a relationship even exists.

VladimirTaraskin
12-11-2020, 01:31 PM
I would guess the Yana site wolf/dog is ancestral to the Japanese one if such a relationship even exists.

If this were the case, the Siberian Pleistocene wolves would then be related to this wolf/dog from the Yana site, but this is not the case.

Kristiina
12-11-2020, 03:48 PM
IMO, there is one interesting passage regarding EDAR in the new paper "Population genomics of East Asian ethnic groups":https://hereditasjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s41065-020-00162-w#additional-information

EDAR has a variety of pleiotropic effects, including sweat gland density, incisor shoveling, and mammary gland ductal branching. A nonsynonymous V370A mutation in the EDAR gene has been reported to have elevated derived allele frequency in North and East Asians and associate with “East Asian phenotypes. Further studies have confirmed the EDAR gene harbors a strong selective sweep signal that is associated with an increase in the number of active eccrine glands during the LGM. FADS genes encode rate-limiting enzymes for the biosynthesis of long-chain fatty acids and underwent positive selection in multiple populations, including EA [22, 23]. A recent study on the high-altitude environment of the Beringia proposed an alternative hypothesis that the selective context for EDARV370A acted on the allele’s effect of increasing ductal branching in the mammary gland instead of sweat gland density in EA populations and this intertwined with selection on the FADS gene [40]. Under the condition of extremely low UV radiation during LGM, people in Arctic Beringia may experience vitamin D deficiency, which leads to reduced absorption of calcium, and compromised immunological and adipose tissue function.

In conclusion, selection for polymorphisms in the FADS gene cluster and for EDARV370A may result from the intertwined advantage in transmitting nutrients from mother to infant through breast milk in the low UV environment.

bibiloni
12-11-2020, 07:25 PM
Fichera, Alessandro (2020) Archaeogenetics of Western Europe: the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield.

"(...) within the Neolithic group I observed two genetic clusters. (...) The second, less numerous genome-wide cluster revealed admixture from a Pontic-Caspian Steppe related population, further indicated by the presence of Y-chromosome R1b-M269."

R1b-269 in Belgium during the Neolithic? WHAT?

etrusco
12-11-2020, 08:03 PM
Fichera, Alessandro (2020) Archaeogenetics of Western Europe: the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield.

"(...) within the Neolithic group I observed two genetic clusters. (...) The second, less numerous genome-wide cluster revealed admixture from a Pontic-Caspian Steppe related population, further indicated by the presence of Y-chromosome R1b-M269."

R1b-269 in Belgium during the Neolithic? WHAT?

In the paper he says that samples examined include also ones from the late neolithic period, which coincides with the presence of R1b M 269 from the east. Quote:

Here I report the first genome-wide analysis of one Mesolithic and 32 Middle to Late Neolithic Belgian individuals.

Dewsloth
12-11-2020, 09:03 PM
Fichera, Alessandro (2020) Archaeogenetics of Western Europe: the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield.

"(...) within the Neolithic group I observed two genetic clusters. (...) The second, less numerous genome-wide cluster revealed admixture from a Pontic-Caspian Steppe related population, further indicated by the presence of Y-chromosome R1b-M269."

R1b-269 in Belgium during the Neolithic? WHAT?


Restricted to Repository staff only until 11 March 2022

Gosh, that's helpful.

alan
12-11-2020, 09:46 PM
I wouldnt get excited. Just sounds like confused terminology. I very much doubt Pontic Caspian autosomal DNA carrying M269 men teleported to Belgium from Russia in the Mesolithic-Neolithic transition

alan
12-11-2020, 09:56 PM
In northern Europe in places like Denmark the term Neolithic can be used to include the CW period, the beaker era and even part of the post-beaker era. I think the Dutch use the term late Neolithic for the CW era too. I'm not familiar with Belgian terminology but as its part of the NW European plain like Denmark and Holland it wouldnt surprise me if they also used the term late Neolithic to include CW. It also used to not be unknown for the beaker period in Britain to be included as late Neolithic. The terms copper age/Chalolithic/Eneolithic etc have become more used in Britain and Ireland to cover c. 2500-2200BC than they once were. Prevously late or final Neolithic was common. Its particularly confusing that places like Denmark call everything up to the Nordic Bronze Age Neolithic.

rms2
12-12-2020, 02:23 PM
Yeah, as etrusco pointed out, the abstract included the term Late Neolithic.

rms2
12-12-2020, 02:28 PM
Fichera, Alessandro (2020) Archaeogenetics of Western Europe: the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic. Doctoral thesis, University of Huddersfield.

"(...) within the Neolithic group I observed two genetic clusters. (...) The second, less numerous genome-wide cluster revealed admixture from a Pontic-Caspian Steppe related population, further indicated by the presence of Y-chromosome R1b-M269."

R1b-269 in Belgium during the Neolithic? WHAT?

I wonder if that's one of the papers that includes R1b-L51 Single Grave Corded Ware.

Can't read it until 2022.

epoch
12-12-2020, 04:23 PM
I wonder if that's one of the papers that includes R1b-L51 Single Grave Corded Ware.

Can't read it until 2022.

IIRC there is no known CWC burial known from Belgium. Just some battle axes. But I could be wrong.

EDIT: Undisputed CWC burial, that should have been.

epoch
12-12-2020, 04:27 PM
In northern Europe in places like Denmark the term Neolithic can be used to include the CW period, the beaker era and even part of the post-beaker era. I think the Dutch use the term late Neolithic for the CW era too. I'm not familiar with Belgian terminology but as its part of the NW European plain like Denmark and Holland it wouldnt surprise me if they also used the term late Neolithic to include CW. It also used to not be unknown for the beaker period in Britain to be included as late Neolithic. The terms copper age/Chalolithic/Eneolithic etc have become more used in Britain and Ireland to cover c. 2500-2200BC than they once were. Prevously late or final Neolithic was common. Its particularly confusing that places like Denmark call everything up to the Nordic Bronze Age Neolithic.

Both Belgian and Dutch archaeologists use the tern late Neolithic. Sometimes also called Final Neolithic.

alan
12-12-2020, 07:54 PM
Both Belgian and Dutch archaeologists use the tern late Neolithic. Sometimes also called Final Neolithic.

Im not sure just how late they extend the term Neolithic. Certainly the Danes seem to even use it for post-beaker times even after 2000BC. I tend to avoid using period names c. 3000-2000BC because the terminology drastically varies and is of course out of sync across Europe because copper, bronze and iron use arrived at very different times depending on area. Best to just use dates IMO or it causes confusion.

Angantyr
12-12-2020, 08:33 PM
Im not sure just how late they extend the term Neolithic. Certainly the Danes seem to even use it for post-beaker times even after 2000BC. I tend to avoid using period names c. 3000-2000BC because the terminology drastically varies and is of course out of sync across Europe because copper, bronze and iron use arrived at very different times depending on area. Best to just use dates IMO or it causes confusion.

In Scandinavian terminology, the Bronze Age begins ~1800 BCE, and the reason is of course that there's no (signifiicant amounts of) metals before that time.

Single Grave/Battle Axe counts as Middle Neolithic.

rms2
12-13-2020, 12:59 AM
IIRC there is no known CWC burial known from Belgium. Just some battle axes. But I could be wrong.

EDIT: Undisputed CWC burial, that should have been.

You could be right, but it seems to me there must be something more of CW in Belgium than just some battle axes.

I've read that Corded Ware extended into Belgium. As an example, here's a quote from a recent paper (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.02.184507v1.full) that has nothing to do with Belgium, but mentions it in describing the geographic extent of the culture.



The Corded Ware Culture (CWC) was spread on a wide area, reaching Tatarstan in the East, the southern parts of Finland, Sweden and Norway in the North, Belgium and Netherlands in the West, and Switzerland and Ukraine in the South17–19.

Echo
12-13-2020, 01:30 AM
Im not sure just how late they extend the term Neolithic. Certainly the Danes seem to even use it for post-beaker times even after 2000BC. I tend to avoid using period names c. 3000-2000BC because the terminology drastically varies and is of course out of sync across Europe because copper, bronze and iron use arrived at very different times depending on area. Best to just use dates IMO or it causes confusion.

Yep as, all those periods are labeled Neolithic. Middle Neolithic and Late Neolithic.

I guess the rightful terminology is Chalcholithic/Copper Age but that's more a Mediterranean thing.

jose luis
12-13-2020, 05:53 PM
I am not sure about your question, but one reason why it is not mentioned in "The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia" could be that "The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia" proposes a different model for the settlement of Americas. They argue against a simple and unitary Beringian standstill model and a rapid expansion to America. Instead they claim that groups with a different ancestry combination formed already in Asia and reached Beringia/Alaska independently.

"Using a new admixture graph model-comparison approach resistant to overfitting, we show that Ancient Beringians do not form the deepest American lineage, but instead harbor ancestry from a lineage more closely related to northern North Americans than to southern North Americans. Ancient Beringians also harbor substantial admixture from a lineage that did not contribute to other Native Americans: Amur River Basin populations represented by a newly reported site in northeastern China."

"We hypothesize that SNA ancestors were the first to move to Beringia towards the end of the isolation period, NNA ancestors were the second, and ancestors of Ancient Beringians (an NNA sub-group) were the last to migrate into North America, and thus interacted more with the ARB group ancestors spreading from other refugia at the same time."

I take advantage of the publication of this paper "Post-last glacial maximum expansion of Y-chromosome haplogroup C2a-L1373 in northern Asia and its implications for the origin of Native Americans" to say that, despite converging with the paper "The genomic formation of First American ancestors in East and Northeast Asia "continues to have in their references the" Y Chromosome Sequences Reveal a .... ", in fact this paper that does not mention" Y Chromosome Sequences Reveal a .... "has in the references the papers of Beringian standstill since 2007, the founders of this hypothesis are in references 4 and 6. Also the paper "Archaeogenomic Distinctiveness of the Isthmo-Colombian Area" published after that which does not include the "Y Chromosome Sequences Reveal a ...." despite defending the plural origin of the first Americans, not only includes "Y Chromosome Sequences Reveal a ...." in the references, but also mentions it in the main text.

alan
12-13-2020, 10:42 PM
Davidski just said L51 has been found in pre-beaker CW in Belgium, Holland and Germany. From memory its also been found in Czech and Switzerland too in CW. So, it looks to me like L51 was widespread, if perhaps patchy/minority in CW throughout northern and the parts of central Europe accessible from the major northern rivers that penetrate into central Europe. Its not yet been noted in any pre-beaker sample on the Lower to Mid Danube which again speaks of a northern route whereby the Danube would most likely only be reached from the rivers to its north or west in its Upper reaches.

If you think about it, you could say that a hypthetical northern L51 CW route west followed by use of the Rhine, Elbe etc to penetrate into central Europe (perhaps even reaching the upper Danube - though that is not proven yet) does kind of prefigure the core of the European steppe beaker network which was focused on the Rhine, Elbe, Upper Danube etc. Who knows? Perhaps the roots of some of the P312 beaker network was set up in the CW era and explains why the P312 major subclade geographical patterning was already very defined from the get-go in bell beaker. Sort of seeded at widespread nodal points while remaining in mutual contact but taking a few centuries to grow into significant clans and tribes. By nodal points I mean key points in the trade and interaction network - including Rhine, Western Alps, Upper Danube, Elbe etc. Furholt's map of interconnections between CW groups is interesting as it shows networking. https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZ4qP4npbBU-n97L7PUp9JkBRfKHNZme80tA&usqp=CAU

When you look at the Dutch group and ignore the geographically implausible link with Lithuania, its got links primarily with NW, Germany, Schleswig Holstein and NE Germany as well as Switzerland. The latter is interesting in that not only does it seem that the Lower Rhine had L51 derived CW but so did Switzerland. Switzerland also has links with the Czech area where a fairly early L51 CW guy was found. So, perhaps Furholts CW interaction map included an network involving the Rhine, Upper Danube and Elbe in which L51 was involved. By L51, I mean L151,

Alternatively bell beaker is the work of just one of those groups (Rhine?) expanding c. 2500BC through a centuries old CW network at the expense of others.

CopperAxe
12-13-2020, 11:49 PM
Not really ancient DNA related but I need to rant somewhere about this article.

Chariotry and Prone Burials: Reassessing Late Shang China’s Relationship with Its Northern Neighbours (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-020-09142-4)

I really find their reasonings strange. Because of a shared occurence of prone burials this indicates that the Slab Grave culture was who introduced China to charioteering?

Did they forget that Chinese has Tocharian borrowings related to chariot technology?

Is there even any evidence for chariots usage being common, widespread or even practised by the elites of the Slab Grave culture? The only evidence they give are petroglyphs from Karasuk and DSKC sites which display chariots, not from actual Slab Grave sites.

The timing seems off because Slab Grave begins around the same time as we see the chariots in Anyang appear, but the SGC really got going during the iron age. But that suggests that the chariots were adopted earlier as these were all locally crafted and locally used, therefore predating the Slab Grave phenomenon as a whole.

Ryukendo
12-14-2020, 01:03 AM
Not really ancient DNA related but I need to rant somewhere about this article.

Chariotry and Prone Burials: Reassessing Late Shang China’s Relationship with Its Northern Neighbours (https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-020-09142-4)

I really find their reasonings strange. Because of a shared occurence of prone burials this indicates that the Slab Grave culture was who introduced China to charioteering?

Did they forget that Chinese has Tocharian borrowings related to chariot technology?

Is there even any evidence for chariots usage being common, widespread or even practised by the elites of the Slab Grave culture? The only evidence they give are petroglyphs from Karasuk and DSKC sites which display chariots, not from actual Slab Grave sites.

The timing seems off because Slab Grave begins around the same time as we see the chariots in Anyang appear, but the SGC really got going during the iron age. But that suggests that the chariots were adopted earlier as these were all locally crafted and locally used, therefore predating the Slab Grave phenomenon as a whole.

This is a really great paper! Super interesting.

About chariot burials, they're considered spectacular finds due to being just very rare in general and often associated with powerful elites (in fact I don't think there is a single one known from Mongolia of this age), and given the small number of burials uncovered in the cultures they are talking about and the fact that chariot use doesn't necessarily imply chariot burial, the chances are not great that we would find them. In fact by the standard of "recovery of Chariots=route confirmed" I don't think we would know the route chariots took to many places in Eurasia in general.

The authors also tie it more to the Ulanzhuuk-Tevsh group and not necessarily slab grave (they make the point that graves with slabs in later cultures are a legacy of the slab grave influence on the Eastern Steppe), and the Ulanzhuuk samples we have now have a lot of West Eurasian ancestry.

The authors argue for their case pretty well--the next thing to do would be to sample all these prone individuals and see how they differ.

Silesian
12-14-2020, 01:16 AM
While we're waiting to see if SGC results are related to Afanasievo, and or the horse dna from Xiahoe is related to horse remains from Corded Ware: does anyone know if Polishgenes blog is planning on doing an in depth write up on R1b Corded Ware found in Poland?

rms2
12-14-2020, 02:25 AM
While we're waiting to see if SGC results are related to Afanasievo, and or the horse dna from Xiahoe is related to horse remains from Corded Ware: does anyone know if Polishgenes blog is planning on doing an in depth write up on R1b Corded Ware found in Poland?

Perhaps you'd care to explain?

davit
12-14-2020, 08:29 AM
While we're waiting to see if SGC results are related to Afanasievo, and or the horse dna from Xiahoe is related to horse remains from Corded Ware: does anyone know if Polishgenes blog is planning on doing an in depth write up on R1b Corded Ware found in Poland?

Obviously the Xiahoe horse remains will be related to Corded Ware given that Xiahoe is Andronovo derived.

Kristiina
12-14-2020, 08:38 AM
There is an ancient DNA paper "Ancient DNA Evidence Reveals that the Y Chromosome Haplogroup Q1a1 Admixed into the Han Chinese 3,000 Years Ago" which discusses the yDNA and the burial position of burials in Hengbei dated to ca 1000 BC. Hengbei is not far from Anyang and it is also mentioned in this new paper. Several individuals in Hengbei are buried in prostrate position. If we argue that prostrate burials belong to northerners who also introduced the chariot, their yDNA are the following: 7xQ1a1, 1xN, 1xO*, 1xO3a, 2xO3a3, 1xO2a

Ulaanzukh samples in the recent paper on Mongolian DNA were all Q1a1 except for one G2a2b2*-FGC249 and almost all of them were autosomally ANA. For example all of them seem to carry EDAR according to the Excel file on phenotype. They are dated to a period between 1447-1209 calBCE.

41709

As you see most of Ulaanzuukh are ANA, some outliers/outlier are DSKC.

This old article gives a lot of information on the subject in English: Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot Into China - I hope it is not outdated.

According to the article above by Shaughnessy, the first time that chariots are recorded to have been used is when they were used by the enemies of Shang, Gongfang from Shanxi, in a battle dated to ca 1180-1150 BC. The battle was fought between Fen and Yellow rivers very close to Hengbei site.

Alain
12-14-2020, 10:10 AM
The chariot was certainly mediated by Sintashta - and their expansion of the Andronovo cultural horizon, as well as the delivery of suitable horses later, the Chinese made their own productions of chariots, but at the beginning they needed suitable people "steppe people" who passed this knowledge on Anyang was certainly a cosmopolitan place with many influences, which has driven China's development in terms of war techniques.

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 03:04 PM
This is a really great paper! Super interesting.

About chariot burials, they're considered spectacular finds due to being just very rare in general and often associated with powerful elites (in fact I don't think there is a single one known from Mongolia of this age), and given the small number of burials uncovered in the cultures they are talking about and the fact that chariot use doesn't necessarily imply chariot burial, the chances are not great that we would find them. In fact by the standard of "recovery of Chariots=route confirmed" I don't think we would know the route chariots took to many places in Eurasia in general.

The authors also tie it more to the Ulanzhuuk-Tevsh group and not necessarily slab grave (they make the point that graves with slabs in later cultures are a legacy of the slab grave influence on the Eastern Steppe), and the Ulanzhuuk samples we have now have a lot of West Eurasian ancestry.

The authors argue for their case pretty well--the next thing to do would be to sample all these prone individuals and see how they differ.

But if we compare the evidence, what we have in the west is several complete chariot burials, a lot more burials including chariot related gear such as psalies and basically the gradual transition from carts to chariots. In addition, we have petroglyphs and depictions of chariots quite early on.

That just does not appear in the Eastern steppes. According to this article (https://www.academia.edu/32167380/A_Bayesian_chronology_for_early_domestic_horse_use _in_the_Eastern_Steppe), the spread of "horse culture" across Mongolia was around 1200 bc. Now the pathway is quite obvious: Karasuk > DSKC > Ulaanzuukh. And with Karasuk/DSKC we do see chariot petroglyphs but we have no idea to tell if these petroglyphs represented contemporary experiences or tales of the ancestors and I don't think we ever will.

It does seem like in between 1500-1000 bc the meta of horse culture was starting to shift away from charioteering. Perhaps even a bit earlier, considering this potentially new evidence of horse riding amongst Central Asian Andronovo. (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X2030211X?via%3Dihub)

In the Iranian Altai region you can gradually trace the development from agropastoralist charioteers to nomadic horsemen. So if the eastern steppe had an introduction of "horse culture" around 1300 bc or so, the source would've been a society that was already switching towards horse riding, albeit gradually. Given that we have practically no evidence of chariots in those areas, but we do of horse riding gear, this might be why the evidence is very scant.

Furthermore a chariot is not like a bronze knife, various factors are involved in the adoption of chariots. You need the expertise and craftmanship to make a wagon that isn't crappy. If they are for battle they have to be perfect right? Imagine having a cheap chariot falling apart because you rode over a pebble. You also need well-trained horses. I'd argue even better trained than regular horses for riding. The Kikkuli text from Mitanni comes to mind.

With all these extra steps involved I think a timespan of horse culture introduction in the eastern steppes by 1300-1200 bc leading to a complete understanding and adaption of charioteering techniques leading to the introduction of it at Anyang by 1250 bc is a little unlikely. At the very least I do not see it as the most parsimonious explanation.

And the prone burials are not what I'd consider strong evidence. Even if we find out that the prone burials are due to genetic relation, the evidence for those people being the pathway to China charioteering is still missing. I know some older articles proposed these were sacrifical victims.

I'd propose quite a different pathway for chariot introduction in China.

I think that the very least, the direct Indo-European to non-Indo-European transferal of chariots must've occured before the meta started to shift on the steppes. So 2000-1500 bc to give a rough window of time. I'm not sure of he adoption of chariots by the Shang dynasty came directly through western mercenaries and merchants, I think it's more likely they got it from their immediate neighbours, some of which were connected through trade networks to Xinjiang, where both Tocharian and Indo-Iranian entities would have lived in that time gap.

If we take the Shang Dynasty oracle bones, the Gong or Gongfang were significantly more acquianted with chariots and horses. As was Zhou. Some of the oracle bone inscriptions mention chariots and horses as spoils of wars after a battle with the gongfang. I know some researchers have associated the Gong with the archaeological material cultures in southern Shaanxi and Northwestern Henan. Although I've seen more northern points of origin proposed as well. Anyways, travel a bit to the west of the region I described and you enter in a region which seemed to actually have trade contacts with Indo-European associated material cultures inbetween 2000-1500 bc, perhaps even earlier. Shimao, Qijia culture etc. With Qijia (2000-1600 bc) we have pretty solid evidence for the presence of domesticated horses, ovicaprids and seima turbino weaponry. I think it's likely the cultures in these areas were ancestral to the Qiang, although my pre-historic knowledge of that region is inadequate. At the Tianshanbeilu site in eastern Xinjiang we have a presence of people very likely related to them in the early bronze age.

But there is an argument that there was direct contact though, if you consider these potential loanwords:


Chariots and chariot gear
(1) Chin. jifl sheng 'chariot (with four horses)' < EC zyingll < OC ^Ljmgs/
* Längs
Toch. B klenhe, Λ klank 'vehicle, Skt. yäna-, vähana-, Toch. AB hlänk- 'to
ride, travel (by vehicle)', PIE *kleng- (cf. Modern German lenken 'to
guide, conduct', Wagenlenker'chunoteer').

The Chinese word is clearly a derivative of cheng (same character) 'to mount, ride (in a chariot)' < EC zying, which may be reconstructed äs OC *Ljing/*L3ng (äs this word is not attested among the rhymes of the Shijing, it is not discussed in Baxter's book). The symbol of the notation *L in Baxter's reconstruction refers to an unclear initial */-cluster which yielded EC 231-. It has been pointed out to me by several participants of the Conference, however, that this cluster can hardly be OC *kl-. The reconstruction of the Old Chinese initial */-clusters is not easy. Baxter (232ff.) essentially follows Bodman (1980: 108-13, 143-145, 168-171), who assumes *2-clusters of two types for Proto-Chinese (a stage intermediate between Proto-Sino-Tibetan and Old Chinese). In one type, written **Kl-, medial **/behaves like medial *r, so that */- clusters of this type had presumably already merged with *r-clusters by the Old Chinese period. In the other type, written with a hyphen äs **K-l, the vocalism appears to be unaffected by the medial *£ but the cluster shows a dental reflex (*k-l- > t-, *kh-l- > ih-, *g-l- > d-). The phonetic difference between the two types is unknown. What is more imporlant for our purpose is that the phonetic realization of the second type of the *Z-cluslers in Old Chinese is also unclear. At any rate, it does not seem unreasonable to assume that, at the time of borrowing, Old Chinese no longer had initial *kl-, so that the Tocharian initial cluster was replaced by the phonetically closest equivalent.

(2) Chin. gü & 'nave of a wheel' < EC kmuk < OC *kok/*kok
Toch. B kokale, A kukäl 'chariot', PIE *ku'ek'"lo- 'turning point, wheel'
(Skt. cakra-, OE hweohl'v/heel', Gr. κύκλος 'ring, circle, wheel', Lith.
hählci'i 'neck', etc.).

The original meaning of the Tocharian word is undoubtedly 'turning point, wheel'. The semantic correspondence with the Chinese word may seem rather loose, but in the Indo-European languages 'wheel', 'nave of the wheel', 'navel', and 'wagon' are often expressed by the same word, cf. Toch. B hele 'navel < turning point' (PIE *k'"ol(H)o-) next to Gr. πόλος 'turning point, axis', Olr. cul 'chariot', and, probably, OCS kolo, gen.sg. kolese 'wheel'.
If this comparison is meaningful, the o in OC *kok/*kök clearly points to the Tocharian provenance.

(3) Chin. /;/ ^ 'spokes of a wheel' < EC pjuwk < OC *pjilt/*pak
Toch. B pwenta (pl.) < PToch. *p9to- < *puH- 'spokes of a wheel', cf. Skt.
pavi- 'felloe' < *peu(ll)-i-.
According to Bodman (1980: 125ff), OC *-k may reflect both *-k and *-?: "by the time of the Ödes, glottal stop had already merged with OC -k äs we can teil by poetic rhyming". It is therefore conceivable that *- ? reflects an Indo-European laryngeal.

(4) Chin. giu $L 'wheel-axle ends' < EC kwijX < OC *k"'rjuf/*Ka'rui
Chin. kui li 'thoroughfare' < EC gwtj < OC *g»r)u/*g"ru
Toch. B kwarsär, A kursär 'league, mile; vehicle, means of salvation',
translating Skt. yojana- and prayojana-< PToch. *lfärsär.

The Tocharian word is likely to be related to Lat. currus 'chariot', cursus 'course', etc. (for a discussion of the Indo-European
reconstruction see Hilmarsson 1996, s.v. kwarsär). The position of -rof the Chinese words is unexpected, but it must be borne in mind that the Old Chinese syllable probably had no final -r.


"We may conclude that the Chinese knew how to yoke an ox, but were unfamiliar with the more elaborate gear of the battle chariot and spoked wheels (cf. Shaughnessy 1988: 189-237 with further references) ."



Tocharian Loan Words in Old Chinese:
Chariots, Chariot Gear, and Town Building (https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/1887/2683/1/299_040.pdf)


Although it is also possible these were wanderwords that entered into Old Chinese. But what is more likely, Tocharian chariot wanderwords entering into the Chinese language by way of northerners from eastern Mongolia or by westeners which lived in proximity to the Tarim Basin?

Oh and by the way I don't see a lot of West Eurasian ancestry in the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave samples. Atleast not any Sintashta/Afanasievo derived West Eurasian ancestry, but there is some ANE by way of Okunev/Glazkovo types.

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 03:07 PM
There is an ancient DNA paper "Ancient DNA Evidence Reveals that the Y Chromosome Haplogroup Q1a1 Admixed into the Han Chinese 3,000 Years Ago" which discusses the yDNA and the burial position of burials in Hengbei dated to ca 1000 BC. Hengbei is not far from Anyang and it is also mentioned in this new paper. Several individuals in Hengbei are buried in prostrate position. If we argue that prostrate burials belong to northerners who also introduced the chariot, their yDNA are the following: 7xQ1a1, 1xN, 1xO*, 1xO3a, 2xO3a3, 1xO2a

Ulaanzukh samples in the recent paper on Mongolian DNA were all Q1a1 except for one G2a2b2*-FGC249 and almost all of them were autosomally ANA. For example all of them seem to carry EDAR according to the Excel file on phenotype. They are dated to a period between 1447-1209 calBCE.

41709

As you see most of Ulaanzuukh are ANA, some outliers/outlier are DSKC.

This old article gives a lot of information on the subject in English: Historical Perspectives on the Introduction of the Chariot Into China - I hope it is not outdated.

According to the article above by Shaughnessy, the first time that chariots are recorded to have been used is when they were used by the enemies of Shang, Gongfang from Shanxi, in a battle dated to ca 1180-1150 BC. The battle was fought between Fen and Yellow rivers very close to Hengbei site.

I think I read a comment (perhaps by Ryukendo) here which stated that there already was Q1a in Neolithic Chinese samples, therefore it might not be necessary to explain these Q1a samples by way of northern barbarians migrating south. But on the other hand, seems possible given the historical background of Zhou.

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 03:22 PM
Obviously the Xiahoe horse remains will be related to Corded Ware given that Xiahoe is Andronovo derived.

Unless the bronze steppe chronology has recently changed, Xiaohe is too old to be Andronovo derived, the earliest dates seem to be around 2200-2000 bc.

And the whole CWC horse situation might be tricky as we have very few CWC horses to begin with. The southern neighbours of Fatyanovo/Abashevo were the Catacomb and Poltavka cultures, and that might be where the Andronovo horse is traced too. Who knows? In all likelihood all these horses were all related anyways as they came out of the same Pontic steppe region.

davit
12-14-2020, 03:26 PM
Unless the bronze steppe chronology has recently changed, Xiaohe is too old to be Andronovo derived, the earliest dates seem to be around 2200-2000 bc.

And the whole CWC horse situation might be tricky as we have very few CWC horses to begin with. The southern neighbours of Fatyanovo/Abashevo were the Catacomb and Poltavka cultures, and that might be where the Andronovo horse is traced too. Who knows? In all likelihood all these horses were all related anyways as they came out of the same Pontic steppe region.

Well it seems unlikely Xiahoe is Afanasievo derived given the dominance of R1a in the samples we have so far from Xiahoe.

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 03:36 PM
Well it seems unlikely Xiahoe is Afanasievo derived given the dominance of R1a in the samples we have so far from Xiahoe.

I agree. It's not like Afanasievo or Andronovo are a must however. Andronovo more or less represents the large scale habitation across the Eurasian steppes and Central Asia, but likely before the Andronovo horizon developed you had migrants going into different places. They were essentially setting up small colonies all over as trade was a big deal back then.

What we know is that the Xiaohe did not have R1a-z93 but Z93-. Perhaps this was just a poor result of the research but if it was legit maybe this was an archaic Indo-iranian subclade, or maybe it is Tocharian related after all? i think the former is more likelier than the latter but that is because I don't really think of Xiaohe as a good Tocharian candidate anyways, even when ignoring the genetics.

Alain
12-14-2020, 03:44 PM
Thank you, great arguments from you, but Karasuk was also influenced by Andronovo from a genetic point of view from a study from 2009. The idea of ​​the chariot spread in a flash from the steppes to China and the Orient (Mitanni / Andronovo / BMAC), but it is understandable that one needs capable people with knowledge of chariots and good horse dressage, but people can also learn a lot of things quickly, the know-how for the chariot came surely and not unlikely, I think about two ways: First, merchants from the Eastern Iranian (Sogdia) area and the Tarim basins and mercenaries who came from the Andronovo Horizont and other cultures from this area would be well rewarded in Chinese services, one should consider that the Andronovo Horizont was not purely homogeneous in all areas but also had East Asian influences and consider the Sintashta and Andronovo Culture was just like that on the other side of the steppe CWC a very intrusive cultural complex which was very expansive and mobile but because contact with other cultures and influences not excludes.

davit
12-14-2020, 04:13 PM
I agree. It's not like Afanasievo or Andronovo are a must however. Andronovo more or less represents the large scale habitation across the Eurasian steppes and Central Asia, but likely before the Andronovo horizon developed you had migrants going into different places. They were essentially setting up small colonies all over as trade was a big deal back then.

What we know is that the Xiaohe did not have R1a-z93 but Z93-. Perhaps this was just a poor result of the research but if it was legit maybe this was an archaic Indo-iranian subclade, or maybe it is Tocharian related after all? i think the former is more likelier than the latter but that is because I don't really think of Xiaohe as a good Tocharian candidate anyways, even when ignoring the genetics.

Good point. Was Xiahoe the site the first pants were found (not sure if those were an Tocharian or Iranian invention?)?

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 04:16 PM
Thank you, great arguments from you, but Karasuk was also influenced by Andronovo from a genetic point of view from a study from 2009. The idea of ​​the chariot spread in a flash from the steppes to China and the Orient (Mitanni / Andronovo / BMAC), but it is understandable that one needs capable people with knowledge of chariots and good horse dressage, but people can also learn a lot of things quickly, the know-how for the chariot came surely and not unlikely, I think about two ways: First, merchants from the Eastern Iranian area and the Tarim basins and mercenaries who came from the Andronovo Horizont and other cultures from this area would be well rewarded in Chinese services, one should consider that the Andronovo Horizont was not purely homogeneous in all areas but also had East Asian influences and consider the Sintashta and Andronovo Culture was just like that on the other side of the steppe CWC a very intrusive cultural complex which was very expansive and mobile but because contact with other cultures and influences not excludes.

Karasuk is esssentially just eastern Andronovo, but they are distinct enough to have their own archaeological designation.

Aside from that I think you are spot on here with the traders, but you can also consider mercenaries. In how many Indo-European cultures do we see young men going out of their homeland by way of warbands, going who knows where to do who knows what and returning as grown men, wealther and their metal tested? Particularly, in a time and era where most people had never seen chariots or horse riders before. The Near East around 1900 bc sounds like a time and place where an experienced charioteering sellsword could've made some serious money.

I'd imagine given the horse trade and metal trade that was going on in Eurasia, merchants and traders from Central Asia were playing an important role and were making a killing, in the Bronze Age even.

This is why I think that it is Tocharian which seems to have been a source of early IE loanwords in Old Chinese, as opposed to archaic Indo-Iranian. Assuming both lived in the region and could've had contacts with Sinitic speakers.

Before we had google translate being able to speak a common language was essential for trade. In the Tarim Basin it was very common for people to have bilnguial or trilingual even, and a big reason was because of all the trade going on from all directions. So possibly, we could have a situation where the language of trade and commerce in the western regions was Tocharian. Particularly if Tocharian speakers were there first, or were the main people involved in cross-regional trade.

Imagine this. You're an Indo-Iranian horsebreeder living in the Eastern Tian Shan, and you figure you go make your luck in the east. You travel through the Hexi corridor, and now you find yourself interacting with people you can't understand. But one of them knows a little Tocharian and so do you, so you're able to converse, haggle and make a deal.

Ryukendo
12-14-2020, 04:20 PM
All good points CopperAxe, but just one thing: some of the highest members of the Shang nobility were buried prone. As this paper mentions one of the most elite males (亚長, Ya Chang) from the same site that produced the burial of the famous lady Fu Hao was buried prone, and he had if anything even richer grave artifacts and a higher relative status (as inferred in terms of features such as size, positioning of the tomb) than those of the luxurious Fu Hao (who was at some points in her life a female general, an extremely powerful individual). The Hengbei paper gives the inferred social status of the prone burials and they are spread across the social hierarchy as well. The interesting thing the authors point out is that prone burial is orthogonal to social status, i.e. anyone from the lowest to the highest could be buried in this way, that it has a strong correlation with other burial features that come from the Steppe, a strong correlation with buried artifacts from the "Northern arc" and is strongly overrepresented among charioteer sacrifice victims; the temporal distribution also suggests a sudden appearance and high frequency of prone burial coinciding with the appearance of chariots and a great decline afterward. Also, there is no contradiction between the fact that these people arrived with Charioting technology from the Steppe and were employed in a specialised military capacity and the fact that they were sacrificial victims, given the long tradition of comitatus-suicide in Steppic groups (e.g. after Tang Taizong died his inner circle of Turkic generals committed suicide to accompany him!) the tradition of guards and fighters dying may even be voluntary and imported from the steppe! The archaeologists propose an ethnic explanation for prone burial which is quite interesting that we may perhaps validate with autosomal studies. Or perhaps its something like an ethnic/mercenary importation and subsequent transmission by a hereditary caste, or subsequent adoption/transmission by recruited members of the general population, or a mix--i.e. dilution by local ancestry through intermarriage and local recruitment, with all of these cases accompanied by a fixation of the steppic burial customs in a occupational category and drift from a purely ethnic marker.

The paper about the Hengbei (https://sci-hub.se/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.22604) site that Kristiina quotes gives a list of burials, their social status, their burial position and the Y-DNA: out of 11 Q1a1 individuals 6 are buried prone (54%) and 16 non-Q1a1 individuals 5 are buried prone (31%), this is not strong evidence for anything but just as special pleading some ethnic correlation could still exist if there was some combination of local recruitment and intermarriage, and Q1a1 has also been recovered from Neolithic northern China so the Q1a1 group may also be split between the Sinitic-related and Northern-related individuals.

We could look more into this: were these putatively ethnic burial features and artifacts that the authors draw attention to associated with the Tarim area as well? What about the physical anthropology of the chariot operators, where they Europoid? (There's already anthropological studies of West Eurasian skeletons at Anyang, lemme dig them up)...

Kristiina
12-14-2020, 05:35 PM
I do not think that the etymologies proposed by Lubotsky are conclusive evidence of the origin of these Old Chinese words in Tocharian. I can propose an alternative etymology for them.

For nr 1 Chin. shèng 'chariot (with four horses)' < OC *Ljigs,
The construction seems to be very uncertain. I cannot see it here: https://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl/gnis?t=chariot
Instead, I see t.qʰa {[t.qʰ](r)A} which reminds me of this Altaic word:
Manchu toχoro ‘wheel’, Evenk tojrog ‘circle’, tokor ‘spin’, Nanai toxoriqõ ‘pulley’
Chuvash togъn, Bashkir tuɣɨn ‘wheel hoop’
Khalka toxir ‘curved’, ‘bent’

For nr 2 gü 'nave of a wheel' < OC *kok/*kok
Proto-Turkic *kök, *köken ‘hinge’, ‘nail’, ‘peg’ (https://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?single=1&basename=%2fdata%2falt%2faltet&text_number=1128&root=config)
Khalka xögnö ‘a string with a loop for binding animals’
Evenk kūkta ‘oarlock’
Old Japanese kug(j)I ‘nail’, ‘peg’, ‘hook’

For nr 3 OC pək ’spokes of a wheel’ (https://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl/gnis?t=wheel)
Khalka böglö- ‘stop up’, ‘bar’
Evenk bōk- ‘stop up’, ‘bar’
Uyghur pok ‘plug’

For nr 4, Chin. gui 'wheel-axle ends' < OC *kwrjuʔ (https://stedt.berkeley.edu/~stedt-cgi/rootcanal.pl/gnis?t=wheel)
Tibetan khor-lo ‘wheel’
Japanese kuruma ‘cart’, korogaru ‘roll’, kairo ‘circle’
Korea kurǔda ‘roll’
Ainu kiru ‘spin’, karip ‘ring’

For nr 5, Chin zhōu ‘carriage pole’ OC *trju
Korea tori ‘cross-beam’
Old Japanese túrígí ‘ceiling beam’
Evenk turga ‘prop’, ‘support’
Chuv tərev, Bash teräk, Yak tirēbil ‘prop’, ‘support’

I have used Tower of Babel for the Altaic etymologies: https://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/main.cgi?flags=eygtnnl

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 05:41 PM
All good points CopperAxe, but just one thing: some of the highest members of the Shang nobility were buried prone. As this paper mentions one of the most elite males (亚長, Ya Chang) from the same site that produced the burial of the famous lady Fu Hao was buried prone, and he had if anything even richer grave artifacts and a higher relative status (as inferred in terms of features such as size, positioning of the tomb) than those of the luxurious Fu Hao (who was at some points in her life a female general, an extremely powerful individual). The Hengbei paper gives the inferred social status of the prone burials and they are spread across the social hierarchy as well. The interesting thing the authors point out is that prone burial is orthogonal to social status, i.e. anyone from the lowest to the highest could be buried in this way, that it has a strong correlation with other burial features that come from the Steppe, a strong correlation with buried artifacts from the "Northern arc" and is strongly overrepresented among charioteer sacrifice victims; the temporal distribution also suggests a sudden appearance and high frequency of prone burial coinciding with the appearance of chariots and a great decline afterward. Also, there is no contradiction between the fact that these people arrived with Charioting technology from the Steppe and were employed in a specialised military capacity and the fact that they were sacrificial victims, given the long tradition of comitatus-suicide in Steppic groups (e.g. after Tang Taizong died his inner circle of Turkic generals committed suicide to accompany him!) the tradition of guards and fighters dying may even be voluntary and imported from the steppe! The archaeologists propose an ethnic explanation for prone burial which is quite interesting that we may perhaps validate with autosomal studies. Or perhaps its something like an ethnic/mercenary importation and subsequent transmission by a hereditary caste, or subsequent adoption/transmission by recruited members of the general population, or a mix--i.e. dilution by local ancestry through intermarriage and local recruitment, with all of these cases accompanied by a fixation of the steppic burial customs in a occupational category and drift from a purely ethnic marker.

The paper about the Hengbei (https://sci-hub.se/https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/ajhb.22604) site that Kristiina quotes gives a list of burials, their social status, their burial position and the Y-DNA: out of 11 Q1a1 individuals 6 are buried prone (54%) and 16 non-Q1a1 individuals 5 are buried prone (31%), this is not strong evidence for anything but just as special pleading some ethnic correlation could still exist if there was some combination of local recruitment and intermarriage, and Q1a1 has also been recovered from Neolithic northern China so the Q1a1 group may also be split between the Sinitic-related and Northern-related individuals.

We could look more into this: were these putatively ethnic burial features and artifacts that the authors draw attention to associated with the Tarim area as well? What about the physical anthropology of the chariot operators, where they Europoid? (There's already anthropological studies of West Eurasian skeletons at Anyang, lemme dig them up)...

if prone burials had no association with class, should we be so sure it was directly linked to northern steppe influence? Because I'd imagine that many of the nobles buried in prone would've been from China rather than Mongolia. Or do we have a historical basis for the Shang Dynasty having that many northerners in their society, including amongst their elites? It is more with the Zhou where you have the whole outer barbarian thing going on right?

I just read one article which argued it might be gender related as it is mostly male over female, but if it's from a foreign influence and related to military, you'd expect the occurences to be male dominated. Burial traditions can change quickly and rapidly, like how Tumulus - Urnfield - Hallstatt goes from Kurgans to cremations and back to Kurgans in some cases.

What about the association with prone burials, and northern arc knives in all bronze age Chinese sites? If the tradition went across ethnic lines doesn't that already suggest that the vast majority of people buried prone would've had no burial goods or atleast no fancy bronze knives? Or is there a general correlation between steppe knives and prone burials?

I did find out something potentially relevant here about the Qijia culture, apparently at the Mogou cemetery most of the burials were prone as well. And Seima-Turbino weaponry, which is essentially what those northern arc type weapons were derived of were present in Qijia culture sites. Pretty much the same type of knives at Anyang. So I'm not even sure if Ulaanzuukh has a monopoly on being a prone burial+steppe knives donor region given that a combination of these two existed in other regions too.

Now I'm not proposing that the existence of prone burials and steppe knives at Anyang and other cemeteries is by way of the Qijia culture, but I think that if the Ulaanzuukh loses their exclusivity on being the vector of these two, then the argument provided becomes a bit weaker in my opinion.

Unrelated, but one thing which I find interesting is that in Japan during the Kofun period, the same time horses are introduced, you suddenly get burial mound-esque tombs, stele which look suspiciously similar to balbals, other statues with pointy hats and you have the appearance of a 'white horse cult' a quintessential element of Indo-European cultures. Perhaps other myths too, like one where a storm god slays a serpent perhaps. Now the chances of these being direct Indo-European influences are pretty slim but it is interesting how this complete package more or less came included with the entry of horse riding into Japan.

Alain
12-14-2020, 05:52 PM
One can partly draw a parallel with Egypt of the 15-17 dynasty and the Shang dynasty in relation to the chariot, only the big difference is that Egypt was culturally at the top and only that in its full bloom in terms of script, religion and state The problem was that Egypt was not as open to foreign influences and new technologies as China and that Egypt did trade but were not up to date with regard to war technologies and you noticed that when the Hyksos moved into the country with the chariot and China, for example, has it Made very ingeniously and let yourself be inspired by foreign cultural influences and technologies and brought the right people into the country and of course learned a lot and quickly (quickly switched to own production) and not open your blinkers like the Egyptians. Learning from one another is a very important aspect

Ryukendo
12-14-2020, 06:18 PM
if prone burials had no association with class, should we be so sure it was directly linked to northern steppe influence? Because I'd imagine that many of the nobles buried in prone would've been from China rather than Mongolia. Or do we have a historical basis for the Shang Dynasty having that many northerners in their society, including amongst their elites? It is more with the Zhou where you have the whole outer barbarian thing going on right?

I just read one article which argued it might be gender related as it is mostly male over female, but if it's from a foreign influence and related to military, you'd expect the occurences to be male dominated. Burial traditions can change quickly and rapidly, like how Tumulus - Urnfield - Hallstatt goes from Kurgans to cremations and back to Kurgans in some cases.

What about the association with prone burials, and northern arc knives in all bronze age Chinese sites? If the tradition went across ethnic lines doesn't that already suggest that the vast majority of people buried prone would've had no burial goods or atleast no fancy bronze knives? Or is there a general correlation between steppe knives and prone burials?

I did find out something potentially relevant here about the Qijia culture, apparently at the Mogou cemetery most of the burials were prone as well. And Seima-Turbino weaponry, which is essentially what those northern arc type weapons were derived of were present in Qijia culture sites. Pretty much the same type of knives at Anyang. So I'm not even sure if Ulaanzuukh has a monopoly on being a prone burial+steppe knives donor region given that a combination of these two existed in other regions too.

Now I'm not proposing that the existence of prone burials and steppe knives at Anyang and other cemeteries is by way of the Qijia culture, but I think that if the Ulaanzuukh loses their exclusivity on being the vector of these two, then the argument provided becomes a bit weaker in my opinion.

Unrelated, but one thing which I find interesting is that in Japan during the Kofun period, the same time horses are introduced, you suddenly get burial mound-esque tombs, stele which look suspiciously similar to balbals, other statues with pointy hats and you have the appearance of a 'white horse cult' a quintessential element of Indo-European cultures. Perhaps other myths too, like one where a storm god slays a serpent perhaps. Now the chances of these being direct Indo-European influences are pretty slim but it is interesting how this complete package more or less came included with the entry of horse riding into Japan.

All great arguments, I agree that the case isn't that strong for Northern through Inner Mongolia vs Western through Hexi corridor route. The distributional observations the authors make are fascinating though and the hypothesis that this relates to ethnicity is quite novel and easily testable through genetics, I haven't seen arguments of a Kikkuli-type introduction of chariotry into China before--at least not one so connected with archaeological data. The thing I'm a bit skeptical about is the involvement of direct Andronovans in the process, AFAIK they were amply buffered from the Central Plains by cultures with East Asian genetics in Mongolia and the Eastern Tarim basin.

I just looked up the Hengbei dating and its from the Zhou and not the Shang period, presumably we will get more conclusive results from prone graves right at the time when chariots were introduced. Hope this results in a frenzy of sampling!

Its also interesting the pt that Kristiina raises, that the first record in Shang chronicles is of use by enemy states in the North (note its Guifang--鬼方, not Gongfang, they're usually classified with the Di 狄, a generic term for Northern Barbarians that were not Steppe nomads, note also the surname of ruling clan in the Peng State is Gui 鬼, the term Fang 方 just means party or cardinal direction--party as in groups of people), more evidence of this secondhand transmission.

About the ethnicity of the elites of society, during Shang times there were multiple clans ruling different assortments of power centres--the Zhou ruling clan in fact started out as vassals of the Shang and intermarried with the Shang for over two centuries. This social system of multiclan elites persisted into the early half of the Zhou period, the Zhou enfeoffed some Shang descendants to some of the city-states, e.g. Guzhu 孤竹 and Song 宋--the state where Confucius was born. The Zhou and Shang differed in many aspects of their non-material culture, e.g. the gods they worshipped and the burial practices, and the Zhou extensively intermarried with Qiangic clans, so there is at least some scope for multi-ethnic elites in that period. The question of multi-ethnicity within single cities is more questionable though, once again this could be solved using aDNA data.

Kristiina
12-14-2020, 06:27 PM
With all these extra steps involved I think a timespan of horse culture introduction in the eastern steppes by 1300-1200 bc leading to a complete understanding and adaption of charioteering techniques leading to the introduction of it at Anyang by 1250 bc is a little unlikely. At the very least I do not see it as the most parsimonious explanation.


According to Shaughnessy, the first battle in which chariots were used took place between Shang and Gongfang [correctly Guifang] ca 1180-1150 BC. It did not happen in Anyang but in Shanxi in the area between the Yellow River and Fen River. This is not the first time that chariots appear in the Chinese history. The first stage is recorded in inscriptions depicting king's use of a chariot in hunting. A Hittite text from ca 1700 BC seems to be the first depiction of chariots in warfare. The oldest Sintashta horse burial with wheel pits and horse cheekpieces is dated to 1970–1770 cal BC using the human bone.



If we take the Shang Dynasty oracle bones, the Gong or Gongfang were significantly more acquianted with chariots and horses. As was Zhou. Some of the oracle bone inscriptions mention chariots and horses as spoils of wars after a battle with the gongfang. I know some researchers have associated the Gong with the archaeological material cultures in southern Shaanxi and Northwestern Henan. Although I've seen more northern points of origin proposed as well. Anyways, travel a bit to the west of the region I described and you enter in a region which seemed to actually have trade contacts with Indo-European associated material cultures inbetween 2000-1500 bc, perhaps even earlier. Shimao, Qijia culture etc. With Qijia (2000-1600 bc) we have pretty solid evidence for the presence of domesticated horses, ovicaprids and seima turbino weaponry. I think it's likely the cultures in these areas were ancestral to the Qiang, although my pre-historic knowledge of that region is inadequate. At the Tianshanbeilu site in eastern Xinjiang we have a presence of people very likely related to them in the early bronze age.


I doubt that trade and ovicaprids are very relevant in this. As for Seima-Turbino, I would like to point out that Tianshanbeilu in Xinjiang (ca 2000-1300 BC), which was an important metallurgical centre, has yielded 5 x N1 and 1 x C-M130 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25546319/), i.e. not the same yDNA as Xiaohe.

Ryukendo
12-14-2020, 06:34 PM
Some great analysis of the complicated ethnic situation in Zhou China and possible relationships between the elites of the Hengbei site (who ruled the Peng 倗 state) and the Guifang can be seen here. (http://www.sinits.com/Publications/Khayutina_Peng_tombs_final.pdf) This article cites the Chinese language literature extensively, nice!

Another quick comment: now that we have samples from a bunch of sites in the Northern Chinese borderlands, its looking like the ancient Di 狄 people have autosomal genetics not that different from other ethnicities of the central plains, did not make this connection before. If e.g. the protohistoric accounts of Xiongnu, Xirong etc. having descent from 狄 generally or more specifically from elites of sedentary statelets like Yiqu 義渠 have some basis in reality we should see some autosomal spillover from Neolithic genetic components into a predominantly Mongolia_N background on the Eastern Steppe with the onset of the late Bronze and Iron Age, and if that doesn't exist then this is just a mythical claim.

Kristiina
12-14-2020, 06:54 PM
I just looked up the Hengbei dating and its from the Zhou and not the Shang period, presumably we will get more conclusive results from prone graves right at the time when chariots were introduced. Hope this results in a frenzy of sampling!


This is what the paper says: [Hengbei] has a large number of graves (1,300), and according to inscriptions found on sacrificial vessels unearthed at the site, the graves likely belonged to a vassal state of the Zhou Dynasty ruled by the Peng clan (Fig. 1). The site dates back to approximately 3,000 years ago, a key transitional period during the rise of the Han Chinese.

According to Wikipedia, the military control of China by the royal house, surnamed Ji, lasted initially from 1046 until 771 BC for a period known as the Western Zhou and the political sphere of influence it created continued well into the Eastern Zhou period for another 500 years. This should mean that Hengbei is associated with the early period of Zhou.

J Man
12-14-2020, 06:56 PM
Some great analysis of the complicated ethnic situation in Zhou China and possible relationships between the elites of the Hengbei site (who ruled the Peng 倗 state) and the Guifang can be seen here. (http://www.sinits.com/Publications/Khayutina_Peng_tombs_final.pdf) This article cites the Chinese language literature extensively, nice!

Another quick comment: now that we have samples from a bunch of sites in the Northern Chinese borderlands, its looking like the ancient Di 狄 people have autosomal genetics not that different from other ethnicities of the central plains, did not make this connection before. If e.g. the protohistoric accounts of Xiongnu, Xirong etc. having descent from 狄 generally or more specifically from elites of sedentary statelets like Yiqu 義渠 have some basis in reality we should see some autosomal spillover from Neolithic genetic components into a predominantly Mongolia_N background on the Eastern Steppe with the onset of the late Bronze and Iron Age, and if that doesn't exist then this is just a mythical claim.

When do you think the Y-DNA J2a that is present among a number of ancient Xiongnu samples arrived among them?

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 07:05 PM
According to Shaughnessy, the first battle in which chariots were used took place between Shang and Gongfang [correctly Guifang] ca 1180-1150 BC. It did not happen in Anyang but in Shanxi in the area between the Yellow River and Fen River. This is not the first time that chariots appear in the Chinese history. The first stage is recorded in inscriptions depicting king's use of a chariot in hunting. A Hittite text from ca 1700 BC seems to be the first depiction of chariots in warfare. The oldest Sintashta horse burial with wheel pits and horse cheekpieces is dated to 1970–1770 cal BC using the human bone.



I doubt that trade and ovicaprids are very relevant in this. As for Seima-Turbino, I would like to point out that Tianshanbeilu in Xinjiang (ca 2000-1300 BC), which was an important metallurgical centre, has yielded 5 x N1 and 1 x C-M130 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25546319/), i.e. not the same yDNA as Xiaohe.

Why would Tiangshanbeilu have the same Y-dna as the Xiaohe if I implied they were either natives or migrants from the east? I think there was some western mtdna though.

Ovicaprids are certainly relevant because of how they were introduced and spread through China. A material culture having sheeps and goats around 2000 bc in China implies they have trade with cultures in the west because they weren't around.

I genuinely do not understand how can you look at the archaeology of bronze age Eurasia and then conclude that trade played no big role in the dispersals of technologies, animals and items ultimately originating in the west.

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 07:33 PM
All great arguments, I agree that the case isn't that strong for Northern through Inner Mongolia vs Western through Hexi corridor route. The distributional observations the authors make are fascinating though and the hypothesis that this relates to ethnicity is quite novel and easily testable through genetics, I haven't seen arguments of a Kikkuli-type introduction of chariotry into China before--at least not one so connected with archaeological data. The thing I'm a bit skeptical about is the involvement of direct Andronovans in the process, AFAIK they were amply buffered from the Central Plains by cultures with East Asian genetics in Mongolia and the Eastern Tarim basin.

I just looked up the Hengbei dating and its from the Zhou and not the Shang period, presumably we will get more conclusive results from prone graves right at the time when chariots were introduced. Hope this results in a frenzy of sampling!

Its also interesting the pt that Kristiina raises, that the first record in Shang chronicles is of use by enemy states in the North (note its Guifang--鬼方, not Gongfang, they're usually classified with the Di 狄, a generic term for Northern Barbarians that were not Steppe nomads, note also the surname of ruling clan in the Peng State is Gui 鬼, the term Fang 方 just means party or cardinal direction--party as in groups of people), more evidence of this secondhand transmission.

About the ethnicity of the elites of society, during Shang times there were multiple clans ruling different assortments of power centres--the Zhou ruling clan in fact started out as vassals of the Shang and intermarried with the Shang for over two centuries. This social system of multiclan elites persisted into the early half of the Zhou period, the Zhou enfeoffed some Shang descendants to some of the city-states, e.g. Guzhu 孤竹 and Song 宋--the state where Confucius was born. The Zhou and Shang differed in many aspects of their non-material culture, e.g. the gods they worshipped and the burial practices, and the Zhou extensively intermarried with Qiangic clans, so there is at least some scope for multi-ethnic elites in that period. The question of multi-ethnicity within single cities is more questionable though, once again this could be solved using aDNA data.

I think that Gansu, the hexi corridor should at least be one of the regions where you could have genuine trade activity from Andronovans, but anything beyond that and it becomes significantly less likely the further you go, and that I still quite a long way from Anyang. That being said it is not impossible though, given how mobile individuals can be and they were basically the world's most mobile people with their horse-centric culture. If anyone could do it it be them right?

I think that ultimately a sort-of Kikkuli type introduction is going to be necessary to tranfer the knowledge how to create, maintain and operate a chariot. It requires some finesse. Also how to train the horses to be appropriate for charioteering of course. You know the whole give a man a fish versus teaching a man how to fish thing. Although I think Beckwith had a lot of nonsense in his book about Central Asia, but I do think that he is right in that the logistics behind chariot trade are a bit complicated. To a degree it is going to involve horsebreakers or mercenaries. But at which point would the necessity of these "first introducers" being Andronovo be gone? The Tarim Basin, Gansu, Shaanxi, Anyang? Hard to say.

By the way, doesn't Fang generally imply enemy in oracle bone inscriptions? Like Guifang meaning Gui, the enemies.

parasar
12-14-2020, 07:35 PM
The Baigetuobie cemetery: New discovery and human genetic features of Andronovo community’s diffusion to the Eastern Tianshan Mountains (1800–1500 BC)
Show all authors
Jiangsong Zhu, Jian Ma, Fan Zhang, ...

First Published December 7, 2020 Research Article

https://doi.org/10.1177/0959683620970260

Article information

No Access

Abstract

Andronovo has been regarded as one of the most powerful cultures in Central Asia, which reflected frequent cultural interflow, people migration, and technique diffusion on the Bronze Age Eurasian steppes. In the past decade, many new discoveries in Xinjiang, such as Adunqiaolu and Jartai, have drawn broad attention to the communication of the Andronovo culture in the central Tianshan Mountains. However, systematic study is still insufficient on the communication and influence of the Andronovo culture or the “Andronovo phenomenon” along the Tianshan Mountains. Based on our comprehensive investigation of tomb structure, funeral rituals and assemblages, this article reclassifies relevant Andronovo remains in Xinjiang into five categories. Two categories represented by the Xiabandi cemetery and the Adunqiaolu show clear resemblance to those at Semirech’ye in all aspects, which indicated people in these regions may have maintained close and consistent interaction. Other three categories in the Kuokesuxi and Tangbalesayi cemetery have different tomb structures and funeral rituals from those typical discoveries of the Andronovo cultures in Central Asia in spite of the their similarity in pottery and bronze ornaments, which can be considered as the result of product exchange or technical communication, rather than population migration. New discovery of the Baigetuobie cemetery with evidence of tomb structure, dating, and human genetic features in the Balikun grassland suggested that there might be a small group of people, probably came from the central Tianshan Mountains or Semirech’ye or further west, had migrated to the Eastern Tianshan Mountains about 1600 BC, which was likely facilitated by the relatively warm and humid environment. They had preserved their traditional tomb architecture and were not active in cultural interaction and population fusion with people of Hami Oasis in the south. Due to some reason unknown, people of Baigetuobie had faded away from Balikun grassland after a short time.

Courtesy Arza at Eurogenes:
https://i.postimg.cc/xCcBcmDG/Baigetuobie-f3.png


Also:
"We found that the M25 individual is projected closely to the western steppe herders (WSH), like Andronovo_LBA, Sintashta_MLBA, Srubnaya_LBA, and Fedorovo_MLBA, which suggesting the single one excavated from Baigetuobie cemetery in the Eastern Tianshan Mountain shared obviously genetic affinity with WSH populations. The direct visual evidence of the PCA plot was further confirmed by the outgroup-f3 statistics in the form of f3 (Mbuti.DG; X, BGTB), where X was represented by world-wide populations, top signals were observed with Eastern European Hunter-gatherer (EHG) and WSH populations, such as Poltavka, Srubnaya_LBA, and Fedorovo_MLBA, revealed significant allele sharing between M25 and other western steppe-related populations"

"We retrieved almost complete mtDNA sequences for M25 with an average coverage of 116x, found that M25 carried an explicit western Eurasian haplogroup belonging to K1b."
https://indo-european.eu/2020/12/early-andronovo-intrusion-in-the-tianshan/

CopperAxe
12-14-2020, 07:35 PM
When do you think the Y-DNA J2a that is present among a number of ancient Xiongnu samples arrived among them?

I'd say it predates the Xiongnu and is the result of late bronze age/early age Indo-Iranian interactions in these regions. BMAC > Indo-iranians around the IAMC > Altai (enters iron age steppe genepool) > Iranian steppe nomads > Xiongnu.

RCO
12-14-2020, 08:05 PM
What would be the most interesting fact in the paper they didn't mentioned - the Y clade.


Courtesy Arza at Eurogenes:
https://i.postimg.cc/xCcBcmDG/Baigetuobie-f3.png


Also:
"We found that the M25 individual is projected closely to the western steppe herders (WSH), like Andronovo_LBA, Sintashta_MLBA, Srubnaya_LBA, and Fedorovo_MLBA, which suggesting the single one excavated from Baigetuobie cemetery in the Eastern Tianshan Mountain shared obviously genetic affinity with WSH populations. The direct visual evidence of the PCA plot was further confirmed by the outgroup-f3 statistics in the form of f3 (Mbuti.DG; X, BGTB), where X was represented by world-wide populations, top signals were observed with Eastern European Hunter-gatherer (EHG) and WSH populations, such as Poltavka, Srubnaya_LBA, and Fedorovo_MLBA, revealed significant allele sharing between M25 and other western steppe-related populations"

"We retrieved almost complete mtDNA sequences for M25 with an average coverage of 116x, found that M25 carried an explicit western Eurasian haplogroup belonging to K1b."
https://indo-european.eu/2020/12/early-andronovo-intrusion-in-the-tianshan/

Kristiina
12-14-2020, 08:08 PM
Why would Tiangshanbeilu have the same Y-dna as the Xiaohe if I implied they were either natives or migrants from the east? I think there was some western mtdna though.

Ovicaprids are certainly relevant because of how they were introduced and spread through China. A material culture having sheeps and goats around 2000 bc in China implies they have trade with cultures in the west because they weren't around.

I genuinely do not understand how can you look at the archaeology of bronze age Eurasia Xinland then conclude that trade played no big role in the dispersals of technologies, animals and items ultimately originating in the west.

I meant to say that in my opinion the elements of material culture and spiritual beliefs as detected in the first charioteer burials in China and their relationship with similar elements in neighboring cultures are more relevant to the origin of chariot in China than ovicaprids in Xinjiang.

However, for the sake of completeness, it should be mentioned that DSKC (Deer Stone-Khirigsuur Complex), 1500–1000 BC, also kept ovicaprids, and Ulaanzukh was influenced by DSKC as one individual in Ulaanzukh was autosomally DSKC-like.

41717

https://d-nb.info/1218595701/34

davit
12-14-2020, 11:09 PM
What would be the most interesting fact in the paper they didn't mentioned - the Y clade.

Maybe it is a R1a-Z93- ie an ancient Russian (kidding).

parasar
12-15-2020, 12:23 AM
Maybe it is a R1a-Z93- ie an ancient Russian (kidding).
A Shanyu?
DA39, CGG_2_016445, XiongNu 92, Arkhangai, Grave #1, “aristocrat”, Mongolia_XiongNu
DA39 - Region: Mongolia
Period: Xiongnu
Population label: XiongNu

"DA39 has no reads for the two R-Z93 SNPs, bue's not either R-Z283 or R-Z94, and is ancestral for most of the R-Z93 subclades.

His mtDNA is N9a2'4'5'11, which is found in Japan and China.

DA39: Y: R-L645 (Z280- Z94-) mtDNA: N9a2'4'5'11...
Using 1 population approximation:
1 Hezhen @ 7.253376
2 Xibo @ 8.164757"
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-mystery-of-sintashta-people.html

Silesian
12-15-2020, 12:59 AM
Obviously the Xiahoe horse remains will be related to Corded Ware given that Xiahoe is Andronovo derived.

Obviously. Do you think Deriivka-Ukraine sample I5584 is related to the makers of Kurgan stelae like Kernosovkkiy idol, with a horse? Or Yamnaya-Afanasievo-Poltavka-Catacombe-Eastern Bell Beaker, group?

VladimirTaraskin
12-15-2020, 05:17 AM
Can Tarim mummies be R1a1a1b1-Z283>Z282>Y17491>YP4858 ? After all, in Western Mongolia there is NAI002 with such a subclades. There is also a ZAM001 with the same incomprehensible M198. There's also an M4 with an incomprehensible Z645. Approximately the same DA39 with an incomprehensible Z645. There is also the same incomprehensible I8507. Kokcha_BA. R1a-M417. In the same area, there are no less paradoxical samples. For example, I4773, Andronovo, R1a-YP4141-YP4132*, which was still in the Neolithic in Ukraine.
In this case, it is clear why the Czechs are close. One subclade of R1a-YP4858 went to the East together with Z93.

Kristiina
12-15-2020, 08:42 AM
According to Shaughnessy, the first battle in which chariots were used took place between Shang and Gongfang [correctly Guifang] ca 1180-1150 BC. It did not happen in Anyang but in Shanxi in the area between the Yellow River and Fen River. This is not the first time that chariots appear in the Chinese history. The first stage is recorded in inscriptions depicting king's use of a chariot in hunting. A Hittite text from ca 1700 BC seems to be the first depiction of chariots in warfare. The oldest Sintashta horse burial with wheel pits and horse cheekpieces is dated to 1970–1770 cal BC using the human bone.

I doubt that trade and ovicaprids are very relevant in this. As for Seima-Turbino, I would like to point out that Tianshanbeilu in Xinjiang (ca 2000-1300 BC), which was an important metallurgical centre, has yielded 5 x N1 and 1 x C-M130 (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25546319/), i.e. not the same yDNA as Xiaohe.

Production of chariots for war purposes required a lot of resources: plenty of able workforce, timber, metal working. It is not a surprise that they were used by kings who had a better access to resources. I doubt that a handful of people living in the semi-deserts of Xinjiang with very little timber were the experts in this field even if they were Indo-European speakers.

However, I revisited the article "Tianshanbeilu and the Isotopic Millet Road: reviewing the late Neolithic/Bronze Age radiation of human millet consumption from north China to Europe". It looks like the male lines of N1 and C* on this site came from South Siberia. This passage is of particular interest:

The discovery of bronze drills and curved-backed bronze knives suggest these originated from the Okunevo culture (2500–1900BC) of south Siberia, while the short bronze sword, sun-dried mudbrick and the solid wooden wheel were possibly from the Sintashta-Petrovka culture (2100–1800BC) of the South Ural region [4]. As presented in Fig.1e, some of the earliest gold artifacts in Xinjiang, a pair of earrings, were also found in tomb M325 (individual not studied) and these are representative of the type recovered from the steppe areas of Eurasia.

Source: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/314237964_Tianshanbeilu_and_the_Isotopic_Millet_Ro ad_Reviewing_the_late_NeolithicBronze_Age_radiatio n_of_human_millet_consumption_from_north_China_to_ Europe

Silesian
12-15-2020, 02:10 PM
Comparing Xiaohe/Corded Ware pottery with different styles. It's not really new, but an old classic shows (@42:30 )point based pottery found in Ukraine---- J.P.Mallory, Youtube- "The problem of Tocharian origins"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_tqVQHwFw
Point based pottery, millet Sredny Stog culture ?
Just in case anyone is interested in seeing examples--- comparing different styles of point based pottery-Corded Ware, Xiaohe etc.......
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/globalization-in-prehistory/whats-the-point-globalization-and-the-emergence-of-ceramicusing-huntergatherers-in-northern-eurasia/73961C8D65FD4D3AED9861F68969BB4E/core-reader
One - What’s the Point?: Globalization and the Emergence of Ceramic-using Hunter-gatherers in Northern Eurasia

1.4 Hunter-gatherer pottery in western Eurasia: (a) Ertebølle Pottery, (b) Neman Pottery (Lysaya Gora), (c) Narva Culture, (d) Saraisniemi Pottery, (e) Sperrings Pottery, (f) Early Northern Comb Ware (Nerpich’ya Guba), (g) Early Bug-Dniester Culture (Sokol’tsy), (h) Early Dniepr-Donets Culture (Bondarikha II), (i) Sursk Culture (Stril’chya Skelya), (j) Middle Don Culture (Savintskoe), (k) Upper Volga Culture (Torgovishche), (l) Elshanka Pottery (Ivanovka), (m) Vis I, (n) Kama Neolithic (Khutorskaya), (o) Koshkinskaya Pottery, (p) Sumpanya Pottery (Sumpan’ya IV).

VladimirTaraskin
12-15-2020, 06:17 PM
41751

Roaring
12-15-2020, 07:27 PM
Does anybody has information on this study?

Demographic processes in Estonia from Bronze Age through Iron Age to Medieval times

Metspalu et al.

N3 and R1a are the two most common Y chromosome haplogroups among modern Estonians. R1a appears with Corded Ware culture but the arrival of hg N has not been determined. To this end we have extracted and studied aDNA from teeth of 18 individuals bracketing the changes in the material culture in the end of the Bronze and early Iron Age. We find N3 in Iron Age but not in Bronze Age. Due to the small sample size we cannot refute the existence of hg N in the latter. In genome wide analyses the Bronze Age and especially Iron Age samples appear very similar to modern Estonians implying population continuity. Christianization (13 cc AD) established a new elite of West European origin, which presumably had an impact on the genetic structure of the local population. To investigate this we extracted DNA from teeth of 35 individuals, who have been uncovered from both rural (considered local Estonian population) and town (likely of West European origin) cemeteries of Estonia. We compared the low coverage genomes with each other and with relevant modern and ancient Estonian and other European populations. We find that there is a clear discontinuity between the elite and common people, where the former group genetically with modern German samples and the latter with modern Estonians. We do find three individuals of mixed genetic ancestry. But importantly we do not see a steady shift of either local population strata, which suggests limited contact between the elite and the common people.

It's from eurogenes blog https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/smbe-2018-abstracts.html and i failed to find anything on it in the web. I'm mostly interested in Baltic Germans.

Angantyr
12-15-2020, 07:45 PM
Does anybody has information on this study?

Demographic processes in Estonia from Bronze Age through Iron Age to Medieval times

Metspalu et al.

N3 and R1a are the two most common Y chromosome haplogroups among modern Estonians. R1a appears with Corded Ware culture but the arrival of hg N has not been determined. To this end we have extracted and studied aDNA from teeth of 18 individuals bracketing the changes in the material culture in the end of the Bronze and early Iron Age. We find N3 in Iron Age but not in Bronze Age. Due to the small sample size we cannot refute the existence of hg N in the latter. In genome wide analyses the Bronze Age and especially Iron Age samples appear very similar to modern Estonians implying population continuity. Christianization (13 cc AD) established a new elite of West European origin, which presumably had an impact on the genetic structure of the local population. To investigate this we extracted DNA from teeth of 35 individuals, who have been uncovered from both rural (considered local Estonian population) and town (likely of West European origin) cemeteries of Estonia. We compared the low coverage genomes with each other and with relevant modern and ancient Estonian and other European populations. We find that there is a clear discontinuity between the elite and common people, where the former group genetically with modern German samples and the latter with modern Estonians. We do find three individuals of mixed genetic ancestry. But importantly we do not see a steady shift of either local population strata, which suggests limited contact between the elite and the common people.

It's from eurogenes blog https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/smbe-2018-abstracts.html and i failed to find anything on it in the web. I'm mostly interested in Baltic Germans.

This sounds a lot like Saag et al. 2019, The Arrival of Siberian Ancestry Connecting the Eastern Baltic to Uralic Speakers further East (https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2019.04.026), although that paper doesn't have 35 Medieval and later individuals.

razyn
12-16-2020, 06:56 PM
41751

Just to save others the bother -- I applied this AM, and the space (limited to 100, on a Zoom platform) is full.

VladimirTaraskin
12-16-2020, 08:00 PM
Just to save others the bother -- I applied this AM, and the space (limited to 100, on a Zoom platform) is full.

I wrote to the organizers that the limit is too small. maybe they'll increase it

Wing Genealogist
12-20-2020, 09:21 PM
Placing Ancient DNA sequences into reference phylogenies: Martiano pre-print https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(TITLES-ABSTRACTS-ONLY)&p=730101&viewfull=1#post730101

Good news/bad news: They still use the ISOGG nomenclature, but at least they clearly stated they are using the 2019/2020 ISOGG version accessed in March of 2020.

Good news/bad news: The paper stated they have created a dataset of 2,014 ancient DNA remains and have used their skills to refine the haplogroup for these results. The pre-print states this dataset will be available at a download site: Zenodo.org, but it apparently is not yet available. My fear is this dataset may not become available until this paper is peer-reviewed and published, which can take a year or more.

pmokeefe
12-20-2020, 09:44 PM
Placing Ancient DNA sequences into reference phylogenies: Martiano pre-print https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?97-Genetic-Genealogy-amp-Ancient-DNA-in-the-News-(TITLES-ABSTRACTS-ONLY)&p=730101&viewfull=1#post730101

Good news/bad news: They still use the ISOGG nomenclature, but at least they clearly stated they are using the 2019/2020 ISOGG version accessed in March of 2020.

Good news/bad news: The paper stated they have created a dataset of 2,014 ancient DNA remains and have used their skills to refine the haplogroup for these results. The pre-print states this dataset will be available at a download site: Zenodo.org, but it apparently is not yet available. My fear is this dataset may not become available until this paper is peer-reviewed and published, which can take a year or more.

It might be worth checking out their github https://github.com/ruidlpm/pathPhynder
In particular the data folder https://github.com/ruidlpm/pathPhynder/tree/master/data

RCO
12-20-2020, 10:17 PM
At least they have recognized that they were completely out of date and lost their acuity in the analysis of the Y chromosome. Hopefully they will start using this methodology in all new papers.

VladimirTaraskin
12-21-2020, 06:56 AM
I understand that another R1b-L52 was found?

I6312 Gonur.1.BA 2500-1600 BCE MtDNA R2 Y-DNA R1b1a1b1a1.

Table S1: List of published samples of unresolved haplogroup assignments reanalysed with pathPhynder.


Placing ancient DNA sequences into reference phylogenies
Rui Martiniano, Bianca de Sanctis, Pille Hallast, Richard Durbin

R.Rocca
12-21-2020, 01:51 PM
I understand that another R1b-L52 was found?

I6312 Gonur.1.BA 2500-1600 BCE MtDNA R2 Y-DNA R1b1a1b1a1.

Table S1: List of published samples of unresolved haplogroup assignments reanalysed with pathPhynder.


Placing ancient DNA sequences into reference phylogenies
Rui Martiniano, Bianca de Sanctis, Pille Hallast, Richard Durbin

I wouldn't be too sure. That sample is a very, very low DNA sample.

pmokeefe
12-27-2020, 07:30 PM
Was Queen Charlotte Black? (https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/27/bridgerton-queen-charlotte-black-royals/)
By DeNeen L. Brown in the Washington Post
Here’s what we know.
‘Bridgerton,’ the new Netflix series from Shonda Rhimes, has renewed interest in the British royal family’s possible African ancestry.


Historian Mario De Valdes y Cocom argues that Charlotte was directly descended from a Black branch of the Portuguese royal family: Alfonso III and his concubine, Ouruana, a Black Moor.

In the 13th century, “Alfonso III of Portugal conquered a little town named Faro from the Moors,” Valdes, a researcher on the 1996 Frontline PBS documentary “Secret Daughter,” told The Washington Post in 2018. “He demanded [the governor’s] daughter as a paramour. He had three children with her.”

According to Valdes, one of their sons, Martín Alfonso, married into the noble de Sousa family, which also had Black ancestry. And, thus, Charlotte had African blood from both families.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlotte_of_Mecklenburg-Strelitz#Claims_of_African_ancestry
The wife of Alfonso III is named differently on Wikipedia, but I'm assuming it's the same person referred to in the article?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Madragana
Wikipedia helpfully includes a chart showing the 15 generations in between Madragana and Queen Charlotte, the Wikipedia article goes onto say:

However, it is far from clear that Madragana's family was of recent African origin, nor is it likely that, even were she African, Madragana's negligible contribution to Charlotte's genetic makeup would have caused the Queen alone, among all of Madgarana's descendants at this number of generations' removed, to display distinctive African features.


The Washington Post article did present this more skeptical view:

Some scholars in England dismissed the evidence as weak — and beside the point.

“It really is so remote,” the David Williamson, former co-editor of Debrett’s Peerage, the guide to Britain’s barons, dukes and duchesses, marquises and other titled people, told the Globe. “In any case, all European royal families somewhere are linked to the kings of Castile. There is a lot of Moorish blood in the Portuguese royal family and it has diffused over the rest of Europe. The question is, who cares?”


This article is a little remote from the usual more high-browed discussions in this thread, but hopefully it's still of interest to some readers.

Is there any actual DNA evidence of African origin in European royal families? Aside from well-known modern cases like Meghan? Portugal might be a good place to look?

Psynome
12-30-2020, 05:46 PM
[URL="https://www.washingtonpost.com/history/2020/12/27/bridgerton-queen-charlotte-black-royals/"]

Is there any actual DNA evidence of African origin in European royal families? Aside from well-known modern cases like Meghan? Portugal might be a good place to look?

If Y haplogroup E1b1b left Africa later than the main OOA event as seems to be the case, then you can consider it African. Any European royals with this relatively common Y-hg can be considered to have African ancestry.

I don't know of any current royals confirmed to have it, but Napoleon apparently did, which means that his brother's son, emperor Napoleon III of France, did as well, and all other Y chromosome bearing descendants from that line.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jmbr/article/view/10609

Hawk
12-30-2020, 05:51 PM
If Y haplogroup E1b1b left Africa later than the main OOA event as seems to be the case, then you can consider it African. Any European royals with this relatively common Y-hg can be considered to have African ancestry.

I don't know of any current royals confirmed to have it, but Napoleon apparently did, which means that his brother's son, emperor Napoleon III of France, did as well, and all other Y chromosome bearing descendants from that line.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jmbr/article/view/10609

Depending on which context you say that. Napoleon's Y-DNA was rather Middle Eastern Natufian E-M35, labelling as just African is too vague.

Riverman
12-30-2020, 06:02 PM
If Y haplogroup E1b1b left Africa later than the main OOA event as seems to be the case, then you can consider it African. Any European royals with this relatively common Y-hg can be considered to have African ancestry.

If you go by that, every European has "African ancestry", because the "African" influence which came with E1b1b spread and mixed into the European gene pool as a whole, not just in those carrying the specific haplogroup. Also, we don't know yet when E1b1b left Africa, where it lived before it entered Europe, how and when exactly it did enter the continent. But everything considered, its possible it was coming either back to Africa in a massive back migration, while the bulk remained in the Near East, or it migrated latest in Natufian times into the Near East and about 10.000 to 8.000 years ago into Anatolia and Europe. That's quite a time span.

davit
12-30-2020, 06:05 PM
If Y haplogroup E1b1b left Africa later than the main OOA event as seems to be the case, then you can consider it African. Any European royals with this relatively common Y-hg can be considered to have African ancestry.

I don't know of any current royals confirmed to have it, but Napoleon apparently did, which means that his brother's son, emperor Napoleon III of France, did as well, and all other Y chromosome bearing descendants from that line.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jmbr/article/view/10609

I agree. We should highlight the African ancestry of royals but also other E1b guys like Hitler.

Psynome
12-30-2020, 06:17 PM
It's true that this isn't fully resolved yet so I'd say it's enough to leave the matter of E1b1b's geographic origin aside for now.

In any case the claims the Queen Charlotte was Black are very flimsy, and don't hold up to serious scrutiny, so that can be safely dismissed.

Grossvater
12-30-2020, 06:55 PM
I don't know of any current royals confirmed to have it, but Napoleon apparently did, which means that his brother's son, emperor Napoleon III of France, did as well, and all other Y chromosome bearing descendants from that line.

http://www.ccsenet.org/journal/index.php/jmbr/article/view/10609

I can't remember where I saw it, but I believe DNA testing has been done on male-line descendants of Napoleon III (wrong side of the sheets). The test showed that Napoleon III's father was not Napoleon's brother.

Kale
12-30-2020, 08:25 PM
Hey sorry I know this is in the wrong place but I can't create threads or edit posts because of cloudflare's undying hatred of anyone trying to use the internet.

Has anyone had success with the new Admixtools2 using R?
I tried the shiny browser version but no options are available until a dataset is loaded (can't import F2's from elsewhere?). I try to load a dataset and the screen fades (like it's thinking) but never does anything.

Tried the command line way, using the commands...

prefix = 'C:/Users/User/Desktop/Dataset/qpgraphset'
my_f2_dir = 'C:/Users/User/Desktop/Dataset/F2'
extract_f2(prefix, my_f2_dir, pops = c("Denisova.DG", "Neanderthal.DG", "Mbuti.DG", "Dinka.DG", "Mende.DG", "Mota.SG", "South_Africa_2000BP.SG", "Cameroon_ShumLaka_8000BP.DG", "Taforalt", "Loschbour.DG", "Onge.DG"), maxmiss = 1)

It seems to try but wants more RAM than I can give it.
The maxmem function is supposed to limit memory usage but any value I input seems ignored and exceeded.
The cols_per_chunk function is also supposed to limit memory usage but it doesn't jive, any value I specify instantly returns the error...
Error in extract_f2(prefix, my_f2_dir, pops = c("Denisova.DG", "Neanderthal.DG", :
!is.null(pops2) is not TRUE
Without even trying to compute anything.

My dataset is very lean, 150 individuals, .bed is only 44.6mb, surely it can't take that much RAM, what am I doing wrong?

theplayer
12-31-2020, 12:29 AM
I had the same issues as you with the memory issue. I also tried changing maxmem and cols_per_chunk to no avail.

After trying for a long time(in the beginning trying to calculate F2 stats for literally all populations in https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data-compiled-published-papers before I realised that wasn't going to work...(I'm new to this)) I had success with the following code:


setwd('C:/Users/User/Desktop/FULL')
library(admixtools)
library(tidyverse)


if (TRUE) {
afdir = 'A8'
f2dir = 'B8'
populations=c('Primate_Chimp','Macaque','Marmoset' ,'Altai_Neanderthal.DG','Denisova.DG','DenisovaNea nderthalMix.SG','Goyet_Neanderthal.SG','LesCottes_ Neanderthal.SG','Mezmaiskaya1_Neanderthal.SG','Mez maiskaya2_Neanderthal.SG','Spy_Neanderthal.SG','Vi ndijaG1_Neanderthal.SG','Gorilla','Orangutan','Hre f.REF','French')

extract_afs('v42.4.1240K_HO', afdir, maxmiss = 0, pops=populations)

numchunks = length(list.files(afdir, 'afs.+rds'))
for(i in 1:numchunks) {
for(j in i:numchunks) {
afs_to_f2(afdir, f2dir, chunk1 = i, chunk2 = j)
}
}
}


And then running the browser app selecting directory C:\Users\User\Desktop\FULL\B8

Mnemonics
12-31-2020, 02:06 AM
Hey sorry I know this is in the wrong place but I can't create threads or edit posts because of cloudflare's undying hatred of anyone trying to use the internet.

Has anyone had success with the new Admixtools2 using R?
I tried the shiny browser version but no options are available until a dataset is loaded (can't import F2's from elsewhere?). I try to load a dataset and the screen fades (like it's thinking) but never does anything.

Tried the command line way, using the commands...

prefix = 'C:/Users/User/Desktop/Dataset/qpgraphset'
my_f2_dir = 'C:/Users/User/Desktop/Dataset/F2'
extract_f2(prefix, my_f2_dir, pops = c("Denisova.DG", "Neanderthal.DG", "Mbuti.DG", "Dinka.DG", "Mende.DG", "Mota.SG", "South_Africa_2000BP.SG", "Cameroon_ShumLaka_8000BP.DG", "Taforalt", "Loschbour.DG", "Onge.DG"), maxmiss = 1)

It seems to try but wants more RAM than I can give it.
The maxmem function is supposed to limit memory usage but any value I input seems ignored and exceeded.
The cols_per_chunk function is also supposed to limit memory usage but it doesn't jive, any value I specify instantly returns the error...
Error in extract_f2(prefix, my_f2_dir, pops = c("Denisova.DG", "Neanderthal.DG", :
!is.null(pops2) is not TRUE
Without even trying to compute anything.

My dataset is very lean, 150 individuals, .bed is only 44.6mb, surely it can't take that much RAM, what am I doing wrong?


I think you might have pop2 value not set to NULL you should try running this full command and see if it works





extract_f2( pref, outdir, inds = NULL, pops = NULL, blgsize = 0.05, maxmem = 4000, maxmiss = 0, minmaf = 0, maxmaf = 0.5, pops2 = NULL, outpop = NULL, outpop_scale = TRUE, transitions = TRUE, transversions = TRUE, auto_only = TRUE, keepsnps = NULL, overwrite = FALSE, format = NULL, adjust_pseudohaploid = TRUE, cols_per_chunk = NULL, verbose = TRUE )

Kale
12-31-2020, 03:58 AM
I had the same issues as you with the memory issue. I also tried changing maxmem and cols_per_chunk to no avail.

After trying for a long time(in the beginning trying to calculate F2 stats for literally all populations in https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data-compiled-published-papers before I realised that wasn't going to work...(I'm new to this)) I had success with the following code:


setwd('C:/Users/User/Desktop/FULL')
library(admixtools)
library(tidyverse)


if (TRUE) {
afdir = 'A8'
f2dir = 'B8'
populations=c('Primate_Chimp','Macaque','Marmoset' ,'Altai_Neanderthal.DG','Denisova.DG','DenisovaNea nderthalMix.SG','Goyet_Neanderthal.SG','LesCottes_ Neanderthal.SG','Mezmaiskaya1_Neanderthal.SG','Mez maiskaya2_Neanderthal.SG','Spy_Neanderthal.SG','Vi ndijaG1_Neanderthal.SG','Gorilla','Orangutan','Hre f.REF','French')

extract_afs('v42.4.1240K_HO', afdir, maxmiss = 0, pops=populations)

numchunks = length(list.files(afdir, 'afs.+rds'))
for(i in 1:numchunks) {
for(j in i:numchunks) {
afs_to_f2(afdir, f2dir, chunk1 = i, chunk2 = j)
}
}
}


And then running the browser app selecting directory C:\Users\User\Desktop\FULL\B8

Hmmm.... here's the output of that.

i Reading metadata...
Warning: 1 parsing failure.
row col expected actual file
150 pop embedded null 'C:\Users\User\Desktop\Dataset\qpgraphset.ind'

i Reading part 1 out of 100...
i Reading part 2 out of 100...
i Reading part 3 out of 100...
i Reading part 4 out of 100...
i Reading part 5 out of 100...
i Reading part 6 out of 100...
i Reading part 7 out of 100...
i Reading part 8 out of 100...
i Reading part 9 out of 100...
i Reading part 10 out of 100...
i Reading part 11 out of 100...
i Reading part 12 out of 100...
i Reading part 13 out of 100...
i Reading part 14 out of 100...
i Reading part 15 out of 100...
i Reading part 16 out of 100...
i Reading part 17 out of 100...
i Reading part 18 out of 100...
i Reading part 19 out of 100...
i Reading part 20 out of 100...
i Reading part 21 out of 100...
i Reading part 22 out of 100...
i Reading part 23 out of 100...
i Reading part 24 out of 100...
i Reading part 25 out of 100...
i Reading part 26 out of 100...
i Reading part 27 out of 100...
i Reading part 28 out of 100...
i Reading part 29 out of 100...
i Reading part 30 out of 100...
i Reading part 31 out of 100...
i Reading part 32 out of 100...
i Reading part 33 out of 100...
i Reading part 34 out of 100...
i Reading part 35 out of 100...
i Reading part 36 out of 100...
i Reading part 37 out of 100...
i Reading part 38 out of 100...
i Reading part 39 out of 100...
i Reading part 40 out of 100...
i Reading part 41 out of 100...
i Reading part 42 out of 100...
i Reading part 43 out of 100...
i Reading part 44 out of 100...
i Reading part 45 out of 100...
i Reading part 46 out of 100...
i Reading part 47 out of 100...
i Reading part 48 out of 100...
i Reading part 49 out of 100...
i Reading part 50 out of 100...
i Reading part 51 out of 100...
i Reading part 52 out of 100...
i Reading part 53 out of 100...
i Reading part 54 out of 100...
i Reading part 55 out of 100...
i Reading part 56 out of 100...
i Reading part 57 out of 100...
i Reading part 58 out of 100...
i Reading part 59 out of 100...
i Reading part 60 out of 100...
i Reading part 61 out of 100...
i Reading part 62 out of 100...
i Reading part 63 out of 100...
i Reading part 64 out of 100...
i Reading part 65 out of 100...
i Reading part 66 out of 100...
i Reading part 67 out of 100...
i Reading part 68 out of 100...
i Reading part 69 out of 100...
i Reading part 70 out of 100...
i Reading part 71 out of 100...
i Reading part 72 out of 100...
i Reading part 73 out of 100...
i Reading part 74 out of 100...
i Reading part 75 out of 100...
i Reading part 76 out of 100...
i Reading part 77 out of 100...
i Reading part 78 out of 100...
i Reading part 79 out of 100...
i Reading part 80 out of 100...
i Reading part 81 out of 100...
i Reading part 82 out of 100...
i Reading part 83 out of 100...
i Reading part 84 out of 100...
i Reading part 85 out of 100...
i Reading part 86 out of 100...
i Reading part 87 out of 100...
i Reading part 88 out of 100...
i Reading part 89 out of 100...
i Reading part 90 out of 100...
i Reading part 91 out of 100...
i Reading part 92 out of 100...
i Reading part 93 out of 100...
i Reading part 94 out of 100...
i Reading part 95 out of 100...
i Reading part 96 out of 100...
i Reading part 97 out of 100...
i Reading part 98 out of 100...
i Reading part 99 out of 100...
i Reading part 100 out of 100...
i
! 1058740 SNPs remain after filtering. 961289 are polymorphic.
i Merging chunk 1 out of 2...
i Merging chunk 2 out of 2...
i
Error in gzfile(file, mode) : cannot open the connection
In addition: Warning message:
In gzfile(file, mode) :
cannot open compressed file 'B8/block_lengths.rds', probable reason 'No such file or directory'
>


Hmm... this may be the root of the problem here.
So I take some fstats I generated before and attempt to load them with the f2_from_precomp function.
Same error code, it can't find block_lengths.rds (because it doesn't exist, was something supposed to make it?). Question is if it already has the F-stats why does it need block length info?


I think you might have pop2 value not set to NULL you should try running this full command and see if it works





extract_f2( pref, outdir, inds = NULL, pops = NULL, blgsize = 0.05, maxmem = 4000, maxmiss = 0, minmaf = 0, maxmaf = 0.5, pops2 = NULL, outpop = NULL, outpop_scale = TRUE, transitions = TRUE, transversions = TRUE, auto_only = TRUE, keepsnps = NULL, overwrite = FALSE, format = NULL, adjust_pseudohaploid = TRUE, cols_per_chunk = NULL, verbose = TRUE )




That blows up the RAM too, even with maxmem set to 1000 (I'm assuming that's megabytes right?)

Mnemonics
12-31-2020, 04:52 AM
Hmmm.... here's the output of that.

i Reading metadata...
Warning: 1 parsing failure.
row col expected actual file
150 pop embedded null 'C:\Users\User\Desktop\Dataset\qpgraphset.ind'

i Reading part 1 out of 100...
i Reading part 2 out of 100...
i Reading part 3 out of 100...
i Reading part 4 out of 100...
i Reading part 5 out of 100...
i Reading part 6 out of 100...
i Reading part 7 out of 100...
i Reading part 8 out of 100...
i Reading part 9 out of 100...
i Reading part 10 out of 100...
i Reading part 11 out of 100...
i Reading part 12 out of 100...
i Reading part 13 out of 100...
i Reading part 14 out of 100...
i Reading part 15 out of 100...
i Reading part 16 out of 100...
i Reading part 17 out of 100...
i Reading part 18 out of 100...
i Reading part 19 out of 100...
i Reading part 20 out of 100...
i Reading part 21 out of 100...
i Reading part 22 out of 100...
i Reading part 23 out of 100...
i Reading part 24 out of 100...
i Reading part 25 out of 100...
i Reading part 26 out of 100...
i Reading part 27 out of 100...
i Reading part 28 out of 100...
i Reading part 29 out of 100...
i Reading part 30 out of 100...
i Reading part 31 out of 100...
i Reading part 32 out of 100...
i Reading part 33 out of 100...
i Reading part 34 out of 100...
i Reading part 35 out of 100...
i Reading part 36 out of 100...
i Reading part 37 out of 100...
i Reading part 38 out of 100...
i Reading part 39 out of 100...
i Reading part 40 out of 100...
i Reading part 41 out of 100...
i Reading part 42 out of 100...
i Reading part 43 out of 100...
i Reading part 44 out of 100...
i Reading part 45 out of 100...
i Reading part 46 out of 100...
i Reading part 47 out of 100...
i Reading part 48 out of 100...
i Reading part 49 out of 100...
i Reading part 50 out of 100...
i Reading part 51 out of 100...
i Reading part 52 out of 100...
i Reading part 53 out of 100...
i Reading part 54 out of 100...
i Reading part 55 out of 100...
i Reading part 56 out of 100...
i Reading part 57 out of 100...
i Reading part 58 out of 100...
i Reading part 59 out of 100...
i Reading part 60 out of 100...
i Reading part 61 out of 100...
i Reading part 62 out of 100...
i Reading part 63 out of 100...
i Reading part 64 out of 100...
i Reading part 65 out of 100...
i Reading part 66 out of 100...
i Reading part 67 out of 100...
i Reading part 68 out of 100...
i Reading part 69 out of 100...
i Reading part 70 out of 100...
i Reading part 71 out of 100...
i Reading part 72 out of 100...
i Reading part 73 out of 100...
i Reading part 74 out of 100...
i Reading part 75 out of 100...
i Reading part 76 out of 100...
i Reading part 77 out of 100...
i Reading part 78 out of 100...
i Reading part 79 out of 100...
i Reading part 80 out of 100...
i Reading part 81 out of 100...
i Reading part 82 out of 100...
i Reading part 83 out of 100...
i Reading part 84 out of 100...
i Reading part 85 out of 100...
i Reading part 86 out of 100...
i Reading part 87 out of 100...
i Reading part 88 out of 100...
i Reading part 89 out of 100...
i Reading part 90 out of 100...
i Reading part 91 out of 100...
i Reading part 92 out of 100...
i Reading part 93 out of 100...
i Reading part 94 out of 100...
i Reading part 95 out of 100...
i Reading part 96 out of 100...
i Reading part 97 out of 100...
i Reading part 98 out of 100...
i Reading part 99 out of 100...
i Reading part 100 out of 100...
i
! 1058740 SNPs remain after filtering. 961289 are polymorphic.
i Merging chunk 1 out of 2...
i Merging chunk 2 out of 2...
i
Error in gzfile(file, mode) : cannot open the connection
In addition: Warning message:
In gzfile(file, mode) :
cannot open compressed file 'B8/block_lengths.rds', probable reason 'No such file or directory'
>




That blows up the RAM too, even with maxmem set to 1000 (I'm assuming that's megabytes right?)

Super odd, RAM shouldn't be an issue, if the operation wants more RAM it should just split up populations into chunks an compute them in manageable chunks. Are you running 64 bit R?

Edit: Are you running R studio as an administrator, sometimes if you aren't you don't have permissions to create the archive which can cause it to fail.

Kale
12-31-2020, 05:36 AM
32-bit R, my comp is 32-bit. Running R as admin same thing.
I think the crux of the problem is something was supposed to make block_lengths.rds but decided not to.

theplayer
12-31-2020, 01:15 PM
I get that exact error if I forget to create a folder for f2dir. For some reason the folder for afdir gets automatically cretated but you have to create one for f2dir manually.
There are probably other ways to get that same error though I suppose.


Regarding pops2 I believe the error message is saying that it needs to be something other than NULL, so it's the opposite: pops2 should not be set to NULL(which I assume is the value if you don't specify it)

So I tried to set both pops and pops2 equal to the same 'populations' and it worked.
Setting cols_per_chunk=1 took a long time(and I believe took less memory) compared to when it was set to cols_per_chunk=10; no errors.



setwd('C:/Users/User/Desktop/FULL')
pref = 'v42.4.1240K_HO'
outdir = 'Test'
populations=c('Cameroon_SMA_published','Yoruba','M alawi_Fingira_2500BP_all_published','Malawi_Hora_9 000BP_all','South_Africa_2000BP.SG','Ju_hoan_North ','Chimp.REF','Mbuti','Mende','Dinka.DG','Ethiopia _4500BP_published.SG','Biaka','Kenya_EarlyPastoral N','Morocco_Iberomaurusian','Cameroon_SMA_publishe d','Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG','China_Tianyuan','Russia_ Kostenki14.SG','Tanzania_Zanzibar_1300BP','Altai_N eanderthal_published.DG','Somali')

extract_f2( pref, outdir, inds = NULL, pops = populations, blgsize = 0.05, maxmem = 4000, maxmiss = 0, minmaf = 0, maxmaf = 0.5, pops2 = populations, outpop = NULL, outpop_scale = TRUE, transitions = TRUE, transversions = TRUE, auto_only = TRUE, keepsnps = NULL, overwrite = FALSE, format = NULL, adjust_pseudohaploid = TRUE, cols_per_chunk = 1, verbose = TRUE )

DMXX
12-31-2020, 02:39 PM
Hey sorry I know this is in the wrong place but I can't create threads or edit posts because of cloudflare's undying hatred of anyone trying to use the internet.


We've had a CloudFlare bug report thread up since August:

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21346-CloudFlare-Bug-Reporting-Thread-(08-14-20)

Please provide us with details there if you can.

We can't address issues if our community doesn't make us aware of them.

I invite (and encourage) everyone experiencing any issues to reach out to us there.

Kale
12-31-2020, 05:29 PM
I get that exact error if I forget to create a folder for f2dir. For some reason the folder for afdir gets automatically cretated but you have to create one for f2dir manually.
There are probably other ways to get that same error though I suppose.


Regarding pops2 I believe the error message is saying that it needs to be something other than NULL, so it's the opposite: pops2 should not be set to NULL(which I assume is the value if you don't specify it)

So I tried to set both pops and pops2 equal to the same 'populations' and it worked.
Setting cols_per_chunk=1 took a long time(and I believe took less memory) compared to when it was set to cols_per_chunk=10; no errors.



setwd('C:/Users/User/Desktop/FULL')
pref = 'v42.4.1240K_HO'
outdir = 'Test'
populations=c('Cameroon_SMA_published','Yoruba','M alawi_Fingira_2500BP_all_published','Malawi_Hora_9 000BP_all','South_Africa_2000BP.SG','Ju_hoan_North ','Chimp.REF','Mbuti','Mende','Dinka.DG','Ethiopia _4500BP_published.SG','Biaka','Kenya_EarlyPastoral N','Morocco_Iberomaurusian','Cameroon_SMA_publishe d','Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG','China_Tianyuan','Russia_ Kostenki14.SG','Tanzania_Zanzibar_1300BP','Altai_N eanderthal_published.DG','Somali')

extract_f2( pref, outdir, inds = NULL, pops = populations, blgsize = 0.05, maxmem = 4000, maxmiss = 0, minmaf = 0, maxmaf = 0.5, pops2 = populations, outpop = NULL, outpop_scale = TRUE, transitions = TRUE, transversions = TRUE, auto_only = TRUE, keepsnps = NULL, overwrite = FALSE, format = NULL, adjust_pseudohaploid = TRUE, cols_per_chunk = 1, verbose = TRUE )



Interesting yes, f2dir did have to be created manually for afs_to_f2, that helped.
However there's something still off about afs_to_f2. It says it writes 1 F2 statistic at a time to disk, and it appears to do just that, but I'm still having RAM overload.
The RAM usage drops after writing each individual file but not back to the level it was at before it started writing the file, so it creeps up and up and eventually (actually rather quickly) I run out.

I'm ready to give up trying to write the F2's in R. It takes 7 minutes (and only 750mb or so of RAM) for me to create an 11-pop matrix on the old Linux command line version. I just want the fancy automated visualized qpgraph with the new version.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
12-31-2020, 06:33 PM
How does the "shiny" GUI work? It says that the 1240K snp file is too large and doesn't load the data folder for me.

theplayer
12-31-2020, 07:43 PM
I believe you are supposed to select the .ind file("Select .ind or .fam file") to load the population and then select the .geno file path.
But it won't work for that dataset, since it is too big, to just calculate the F2 stats inside the shiny app, the populations won't even show up for me since there are to many(1875) probably.

Or if you have calculated F2 stats before you can load that folder instead of creating a new one.




On an unrelated note apparently you now need some kind of password to access https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data-compiled-published-papers for some reason?

Kale
01-01-2021, 04:55 PM
On an unrelated note apparently you now need some kind of password to access https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data-compiled-published-papers for some reason?

That's fixed now thankfully.

pmokeefe
01-01-2021, 08:45 PM
Sorry, probably wrong place to post this!
Reposted here:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22605-Massive-migrations-from-Steppes-to-Bronze-Age-India-was-indeed-a-myth&p=733539&viewfull=1#post733539

Waldemar
01-08-2021, 09:42 AM
Google translate: In the town of Gać in the Podkarpacie region, archaeologists managed to discover a well-preserved skeleton of a child from the Roman period, i.e. from the 2nd century AD. The discovery will allow for isotope and DNA tests that will determine not only how old the child was, but also what it ate where it came from and where it travelled.

https://www.rmf24.pl/nauka/news-gac-kolo-przeworska-niezwykle-odkrycie-archeologow-z-pierwsz,nId,4971867

JoeyP37
01-08-2021, 03:23 PM
If it is a male child, please be L1029, please be L1029, please be L1029

Brent.B
01-09-2021, 01:59 PM
Google translate: In the town of Gać in the Podkarpacie region, archaeologists managed to discover a well-preserved skeleton of a child from the Roman period, i.e. from the 2nd century AD. The discovery will allow for isotope and DNA tests that will determine not only how old the child was, but also what it ate where it came from and where it travelled.

https://www.rmf24.pl/nauka/news-gac-kolo-przeworska-niezwykle-odkrycie-archeologow-z-pierwsz,nId,4971867

Exciting!

Strange though... przewosk culture typically practiced cremation burials. Do we have any more information about the skeleton? Maybe something that could explain why it was inhumed?

R.Rocca
01-09-2021, 02:25 PM
Exciting!

Strange though... przewosk culture typically practiced cremation burials. Do we have any more information about the skeleton? Maybe something that could explain why it was inhumed?

There were probably some prerequisites that could only be attained by reaching adulthood before the cremation ritual could be applied. Maybe that is the case with this child as well. During the Urnfield period in Central Europe, it was common for adults to get cremated but many children were not.

Waldemar
01-09-2021, 02:37 PM
Google translate: In the town of Gać in the Podkarpacie region, archaeologists managed to discover a well-preserved skeleton of a child from the Roman period, i.e. from the 2nd century AD. The discovery will allow for isotope and DNA tests that will determine not only how old the child was, but also what it ate where it came from and where it travelled.

https://www.rmf24.pl/nauka/news-gac-kolo-przeworska-niezwykle-odkrycie-archeologow-z-pierwsz,nId,4971867

Google translate:

The research was carried out for a very long time, since 2008. What else did you manage to find in the final?

The first surprise was that there are still many of these tombs discovered by us - untested by Professor Hadaczek. So far, we have discovered 100 of them. Karol Hadaczek has discovered 180 of them, so it is a huge cemetery compared to other cemeteries from this period. As expected, almost all of them are cremation graves, but the discovery of two skeletal burials was a great discovery.

What could it mean that these people were buried like this?

The answer to this question is yet to come. First of all, this year we discovered a very well preserved skeleton grave of a child with very well preserved teeth, which gives us the opportunity to, for example, conduct isotope tests.

So what, what will they tell us?

They will let us say, among others a lot about this child's diet. Was this diet varied, was it a plant diet or a meat diet, was it balanced - that is, was there a time when the child was starving, for example. It can also tell us about possible migrations and movements. Because a different concentration of the oxygen isotope occurs at the seaside, different in the mountains.

You also mentioned the discovery of another skeleton.

Yes, we also discovered the skeleton of a 30-year-old woman. Her burial was distinguished not only by its form, i.e. the fact that it was a skeleton burial, but also by its equipment. We found many relics there, the body was placed in a wooden box which was covered with a mound embankment.

Does this mean that she was someone important in this community, or is it hard to say yet?

I think she was special because such a burial required a lot more work. Besides, the monuments we found in this tomb are slightly different from those found in crematory tombs. So she could be someone special, she could also come from a different social group. We know that in the neighboring culture, the Wielbark culture, the dominant form of burial was skeleton burial.

What can we even say about the social group that lived there after what you've discovered?

We are surprised by the scale of imports, i.e. items that were obtained from the territory of the Roman Empire. This proves that this population has long-range contacts with the areas to the south.

MitchellSince1893
01-09-2021, 05:31 PM
...During the Urnfield period in Central Europe, it was common for adults to get cremated but many children were not.
That’s good to know as I think my own paternal line probably had an Urnfield history...thought I was SOL for ever expecting samples from this culture.

Brent.B
01-09-2021, 05:41 PM
You also mentioned the discovery of another skeleton.

Yes, we also discovered the skeleton of a 30-year-old woman. Her burial was distinguished not only by its form, i.e. the fact that it was a skeleton burial, but also by its equipment. We found many relics there, the body was placed in a wooden box which was covered with a mound embankment.

Does this mean that she was someone important in this community, or is it hard to say yet?

I think she was special because such a burial required a lot more work. Besides, the monuments we found in this tomb are slightly different from those found in crematory tombs. So she could be someone special, she could also come from a different social group. We know that in the neighboring culture, the Wielbark culture, the dominant form of burial was skeleton burial.

What can we even say about the social group that lived there after what you've discovered?

We are surprised by the scale of imports, i.e. items that were obtained from the territory of the Roman Empire. This proves that this population has long-range contacts with the areas to the south.

so the 2nd sample may be a bit of an outlier compared to the rest of the culture?

I also wonder if the child grave found is related/located close to this 30 year old woman’s grave. Like, is the older woman mother of the child? Or did these inhumations arise separately from each other?

epoch
01-10-2021, 09:53 AM
Very interesting preprint.

Genome-scale sequencing and analysis of human, wolf and bison DNA from 25,000 year-old sediment

Abstract

Archaeological sediments have been shown to preserve ancient DNA, but so far have not yielded genome-scale information of the magnitude of skeletal remains. We retrieved and analysed human and mammalian low-coverage nuclear and high-coverage mitochondrial genomes from Upper Palaeolithic sediments from Satsurblia cave, western Georgia, dated to 25,000 years ago. First, a human female genome with substantial basal Eurasian ancestry, which was an ancestry component of the majority of post-Ice Age people in the Near East, North Africa, and parts of Europe. Second, a wolf genome that is basal to extant Eurasian wolves and dogs and represents a previously unknown, likely extinct, Caucasian lineage that diverged from the ancestors of modern wolves and dogs before these diversified. Third, a bison genome that is basal to present-day populations, suggesting that population structure has been substantially reshaped since the Last Glacial Maximum. Our results provide new insights into the late Pleistocene genetic histories of these three species, and demonstrate that sediment DNA can be used not only for species identification, but also be a source of genome-wide ancestry information and genetic history.

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.08.425895v1?ct=

In this paper yet another hint that Ostuni 1 has a special place among the Gravettians.

F4(Dzudzuana2,X;SAT29,Mbuti) with Z score in bold:

Dzuzuana2 Villabruna SAT29 Mbuti -0.004202 0.004553 -0.29 1954
Dzuzuana2 Ostuni1-HG SAT29 Mbuti -0.001887 0.007509 -0.251 1369

Ostuni 1 also showed affinity to Anatolian HG, as can seen in Pic 3 from that paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-019-09209-7/figures/3

EDIT: Although admittedly the F4-stats in the paper have Zscores almost never over 2.5 so perhaps we shouldn't conclude too much from it.

VladimirTaraskin
01-10-2021, 11:43 AM
Registration for the UH PalaeoPopGen webinar series
Welcome to the Uppsala-Hacettepe Palaeogenetics and Population Genetics 2021 webinar series. Registration is required due to limited capacities of our Zoom meeting. Registration will be closed in case the maximum capacity would be reached.

Please provide your information if you want to receive the Zoom link for the next seminar. The link will be sent during the days before the webinar. Your information will be used for that purpose only and will be deleted after the webinar series.

Webinars scheduled so far (all times are Central European):

Jan 27th 11:00 - Flora Jay, University of Paris-Saclay "Unsupervised machine learning methods for visualizing or generating population genetics data: applications to ancient DNA and to large present-day human datasets"
Feb 23rd 10:00 - Anders Bergström, The Francis Crick Institute "Origins and genetic legacy of prehistoric dogs"


Please contact Gülşah Merve Kılınç (gulsahhdal 'at' gmail.com) or Torsten Günther (torsten.guenther 'at' ebc.uu.se) for questions.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScthsOSeLeTUOa9BpzFL-FDF5A3P6JFjbQd1G0IE3KhIv23Fw/viewform

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-11-2021, 04:23 AM
^ I completely disagree, and I don't think the finding is controversial or even sensational. Northern Euros may be light-haired/eyed on average compared to other West Eurasians, but they still have very variable pigmentation. Colin Farrell, Catherine Zeta Jones, Victoria Beckham, Andrea Corr, Charlotte Faichney, Rose Byrne, Famke Janssen, and thousands of other very brunet Northern Europeans are descended of Beakers like Ava. They may be outnumbered by fairer types, but they've always existed.

I'd like to make a possible correction to this old post. I was surprised to find out today that Catherine Zeta Jones might actually be 1/4 Mediterranean. Her father's mother may have been from northern Greece:


ZETA-JONES: Yes. Zeta is my grandmother's name, who is of north Greek origin. But Zeta is a Greek name. And everyone thinks that I just put Zeta in to spice up Catherine Jones. And that's completely untrue.

Another version of the transcript contradicts this and makes it seem like she was saying her grandmother was not actually Greek but just had a Greek name:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090211014521/http://infoworld.koreanblog.com/entry/Everyones-Sweetheart-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-Oct-2001

So who knows-- maybe the record will be set straight.

EDIT: Looking into it deeper, it looks like the second transcript is accurate. Yay, I guess she's a Brit after all.

epoch
01-11-2021, 07:07 AM
I'd like to make a possible correction to this old post. I was surprised to find out today that Catherine Zeta Jones might actually be 1/4 Mediterranean. Her father's mother may have been from northern Greece:



Another version of the transcript contradicts this and makes it seem like she was saying her grandmother was not actually Greek but just had a Greek name:

https://web.archive.org/web/20090211014521/http://infoworld.koreanblog.com/entry/Everyones-Sweetheart-Catherine-Zeta-Jones-Oct-2001

So who knows-- maybe the record will be set straight.

EDIT: Looking into it deeper, it looks like the second transcript is accurate. Yay, I guess she's a Brit after all.

Just consider how many people have the surname "Black" in England or "de Zwart" in the Netherlands. It always had to do with hair colour.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
01-11-2021, 09:32 PM
Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancient northeast Asia (https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/2/eabc4587)
Gülşah Merve Kılınç, Natalija Kashuba, Dilek Koptekin, Nora Bergfeldt, Handan Melike Dönertaş, Ricardo Rodríguez-Varela, Dmitrij Shergin, Grigorij Ivanov, Dmitrii Kichigin, Kjunnej Pestereva, Denis Volkov, Pavel Mandryka, Artur Kharinskii, Alexey Tishkin, Evgenij Ineshin, Evgeniy Kovychev, Aleksandr Stepanov, Love Dalén, Torsten Günther, Emrah Kırdök, Mattias Jakobsson, Mehmet Somel, Maja Krzewińska, Jan Storå, and Anders Götherström

Abstract
We present genome-wide data from 40 individuals dating to c.16,900 to 550 years ago in northeast Asia. We describe hitherto unknown gene flow and admixture events in the region, revealing a complex population history. While populations east of Lake Baikal remained relatively stable from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age, those from Yakutia and west of Lake Baikal witnessed major population transformations, from the Late Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic, and during the Bronze Age, respectively. We further locate the Asian ancestors of Paleo-Inuits, using direct genetic evidence. Last, we report the most northeastern ancient occurrence of the plague-related bacterium, Yersinia pestis. Our findings indicate the highly connected and dynamic nature of northeast Asia populations throughout the Holocene.

https://www.mediafire.com/file/ui0s5wgsrv8f18n/Kilinc_2021.zip/file
https://export.uppmax.uu.se/uppstore2018029/share/Kilinc_2021_HO_merged.tfam
The files on Human Origins SNPs. My upload has them in rsids.

Norfern-Ostrobothnian
01-12-2021, 06:47 AM
https://www.mediafire.com/file/ui0s5wgsrv8f18n/Kilinc_2021.zip/file
https://export.uppmax.uu.se/uppstore2018029/share/Kilinc_2021_HO_merged.tfam
The files on Human Origins SNPs. My upload has them in rsids.

If one wants these for 1240K, SNP calling needs to be made.

Kristiina
01-12-2021, 02:02 PM
Regarding Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancient northeast Asia,
is anyone able to confirm how to interprete the KITLG results: Data file S5

42494

In both there is variation between A and G. According to the Supplementary material, G means EDAR and A means non-EDAR and in the table only two BA samples, irk040 (3701–3533 calBCE) and irk017 (3335-3210 calBCE) carry A instead of G. However, this information is not given with KITLG.

EDIT: It seems that G means the blond allele and A is ancestral,
see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4704868/

J Man
01-13-2021, 02:41 PM
Regarding Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancient northeast Asia,
is anyone able to confirm how to interprete the KITLG results: Data file S5

42494

In both there is variation between A and G. According to the Supplementary material, G means EDAR and A means non-EDAR and in the table only two BA samples, irk040 (3701–3533 calBCE) and irk017 (3335-3210 calBCE) carry A instead of G. However, this information is not given with KITLG.

EDIT: It seems that G means the blond allele and A is ancestral.

It makes one wonder if the KITLG blond allele originated in one person thousands of years ago and hence anyone that carries that allele got it from that one ancestor?

davit
01-13-2021, 02:50 PM
It makes one wonder if the KITLG blond allele originated in one person thousands of years ago and hence anyone that carries that allele got it from that one ancestor?

From an ANE population?

madaleninha
01-13-2021, 07:38 PM
Regarding Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancient northeast Asia,
is anyone able to confirm how to interprete the KITLG results: Data file S5

42494

In both there is variation between A and G. According to the Supplementary material, G means EDAR and A means non-EDAR and in the table only two BA samples, irk040 (3701–3533 calBCE) and irk017 (3335-3210 calBCE) carry A instead of G. However, this information is not given with KITLG.

EDIT: It seems that G means the blond allele and A is ancestral,
see https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4704868/

KITLG is the name of the gene, and that gene has numerous SNP's. The SNP in this table, rs4590952, is not linked to the blonde hair, but to the testicular cancer.

madaleninha
01-13-2021, 07:41 PM
The SNP associated with blonde hair, in KITLG gene is rs12821256.

rozenfeld
01-14-2021, 05:06 AM
https://www.academia.edu/44892216/Anthony_2021_Migration_nomads_from_the_east_IEMA_S UNY_Buffalo

David W Anthony in press 2020

Migration, ancient DNA, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes.

In Daniels, Megan (ed.), Homo Migrans: Modeling Mobility and Migration in Human History. Albany: SUNY-Press, IEMA Distinguished Monograph Series.

In Europe the spectre of nomads from the steppes invokes an image of mass migration by a faceless horde of savage warriors. Western archaeologists abandoned the faceless migrating horde decades ago as a usually imaginary and substantively worthless explanation for culture change, but Marija Gimbutas’s conception of the Kurgan Culture kept this image alive in archaeological debates about Late Neolithic cultural shifts long after it had disappeared in other contexts. Recent studies of ancient DNA revealed large-scale, long-distance migrations from the steppes in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age that have prompted some to ask the uneasy question of whether Gimbutas was right. This essay places the recent DNA discoveries and the debate about nomads from the steppes in its historical context; and pleads for a processual approach to migration quite different from the single-event, conquest model of Gimbutas.

madaleninha
01-14-2021, 08:55 PM
Human population dynamics and Yersinia pestis in ancient northeast Asia
Gülşah Merve Kılınç, Natalija Kashuba, Dilek Koptekin, Nora Bergfeldt, Handan Melike Dönertaş, Ricardo Rodríguez-Varela, Dmitrij Shergin, Grigorij Ivanov, Dmitrii Kichigin, Kjunnej Pestereva, Denis Volkov, Pavel Mandryka, Artur Kharinskii, Alexey Tishkin, Evgenij Ineshin, Evgeniy Kovychev, Aleksandr Stepanov, Love Dalén, Torsten Günther, Emrah Kırdök, Mattias Jakobsson, Mehmet Somel, Maja Krzewińska, Jan Storå, and Anders Götherström

Abstract
We present genome-wide data from 40 individuals dating to c.16,900 to 550 years ago in northeast Asia. We describe hitherto unknown gene flow and admixture events in the region, revealing a complex population history. While populations east of Lake Baikal remained relatively stable from the Mesolithic to the Bronze Age, those from Yakutia and west of Lake Baikal witnessed major population transformations, from the Late Upper Paleolithic to the Neolithic, and during the Bronze Age, respectively. We further locate the Asian ancestors of Paleo-Inuits, using direct genetic evidence. Last, we report the most northeastern ancient occurrence of the plague-related bacterium, Yersinia pestis. Our findings indicate the highly connected and dynamic nature of northeast Asia populations throughout the Holocene.


Someone noticed that Khaiyrgas-1 is contemporary with AfontovaGora3, the region is very close, but genetically they are so different ?...

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-14-2021, 09:04 PM
Someone noticed that Khaiyrgas-1 is contemporary with AfontovaGora3, the region is very close, but genetically they are so different ?...

This is to be expected. ANE might have been important in the whole of eastern Siberia during the time of Yana, but it looks to have been replaced by Proto-American East Asians later on, who later mixed with ANEs related to Afontova more than Yana. The new Siberia paper didn't include a qpgraph, but it seems pretty likely that Khaiyrgas is a more ANE-admixed cousin of Kolyma and Ust-Kyakhta (also Proto-American East Asians).

rms2
01-14-2021, 11:54 PM
https://www.academia.edu/44892216/Anthony_2021_Migration_nomads_from_the_east_IEMA_S UNY_Buffalo

David W Anthony in press 2020

Migration, ancient DNA, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes.

In Daniels, Megan (ed.), Homo Migrans: Modeling Mobility and Migration in Human History. Albany: SUNY-Press, IEMA Distinguished Monograph Series.

In Europe the spectre of nomads from the steppes invokes an image of mass migration by a faceless horde of savage warriors. Western archaeologists abandoned the faceless migrating horde decades ago as a usually imaginary and substantively worthless explanation for culture change, but Marija Gimbutas’s conception of the Kurgan Culture kept this image alive in archaeological debates about Late Neolithic cultural shifts long after it had disappeared in other contexts. Recent studies of ancient DNA revealed large-scale, long-distance migrations from the steppes in the Late Neolithic/Early Bronze Age that have prompted some to ask the uneasy question of whether Gimbutas was right. This essay places the recent DNA discoveries and the debate about nomads from the steppes in its historical context; and pleads for a processual approach to migration quite different from the single-event, conquest model of Gimbutas.

Enjoyable paper. Somewhat behind the times in that Anthony does not seem to be aware of the recent spate of R1b-L51 discoveries in Corded Ware.

This, from page 14, sounds promising.



We need data from many more Yamnaya individuals and regions in order to determine where the migration process began, or whether migrants came from all regions. That much-needed data collection and analysis is now under way.

parasar
01-15-2021, 02:28 AM
Enjoyable paper. Somewhat behind the times in that Anthony does not seem to be aware of the recent spate of R1b-L51 discoveries in Corded Ware.

This, from page 14, sounds promising.

Also this I think is incorrect: "pleads for a processual approach to migration quite different from the single-event, conquest model of Gimbutas"
Gimbutas had proposed "The Kurgan Expansions" in three waves.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&pg=PA339

Dieu
01-15-2021, 02:39 AM
This is to be expected. ANE might have been important in the whole of eastern Siberia during the time of Yana, but it looks to have been replaced by Proto-American East Asians later on, who later mixed with ANEs related to Afontova more than Yana. The new Siberia paper didn't include a qpgraph, but it seems pretty likely that Khaiyrgas is a more ANE-admixed cousin of Kolyma and Ust-Kyakhta (also Proto-American East Asians).

I don't understand, Yana is like 30 000 years old and afontova gora is 15 000 yo. What has yana do with all of this ? AF is supposed to be descendant of groups closely related to Yana if i understand correctly.

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 09:32 AM
I don't understand, Yana is like 30 000 years old and afontova gora is 15 000 yo. What has yana do with all of this ? AF is supposed to be descendant of groups closely related to Yana if i understand correctly.

Yana is the oldest ANE lineage we have, but the ANE ancestry seen in Amerinds and Siberians is apparently more closely related to Malta and Afontova Gora. Yana doesn't seem to have left much in the way of descendants. In other words, the Proto-Americans didn't mix with early Yana-like ANE but with later ANE from the west. The only reason I brought it up at all is because Eastern Siberia was taken over by Proto-American East Asians moving in from the south at some point after Yana lived, so it's not surprising to see a lot of Proto-American ancestry on the Lena near Lake Baikal 17,000 years ago. That's exactly when I'd expect it to be there. And Khaiyrgas has more ANE ancestry than its relatives to the east, in line with geography and its proximity to AG3.

davit
01-15-2021, 11:54 AM
Yana is the oldest ANE lineage we have, but the ANE ancestry seen in Amerinds and Siberians is apparently more closely related to Malta and Afontova Gora. Yana doesn't seem to have left much in the way of descendants. In other words, the Proto-Americans didn't mix with early Yana-like ANE but with later ANE from the west. The only reason I brought it up at all is because Eastern Siberia was taken over by Proto-American East Asians moving in from the south at some point after Yana lived, so it's not surprising to see a lot of Proto-American ancestry on the Lena near Lake Baikal 17,000 years ago. That's exactly when I'd expect it to be there. And Khaiyrgas has more ANE ancestry than its relatives to the east, in line with geography and its proximity to AG3.

So was Yana a northeastern outpost of an ANE population located to the southwest?

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 12:31 PM
So was Yana a northeastern outpost of an ANE population located to the southwest?

It would be parsimonious to assume that's the case, sure. Speculative map of migrations in Northeast Asia from Ning et al (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.12.336628v1):

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

Khairgyas-1 would fit into the third frame down on the left.

rms2
01-15-2021, 12:37 PM
Also this I think is incorrect: "pleads for a processual approach to migration quite different from the single-event, conquest model of Gimbutas"
Gimbutas had proposed "The Kurgan Expansions" in three waves.
https://books.google.com/books?id=tzU3RIV2BWIC&pg=PA339

If one reads Gimbutas (and I'm not saying Anthony did not), he will realize that characterizing what she believed as some sort of "single event" (or three single events) is a gross over simplification.

Kristiina
01-15-2021, 12:53 PM
We must also keep in mind that already at the time depth of 30,000 years ago ANE population represented by Yana and Eastern Eurasian population represented by Salkhit were mixed:

42583

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 01:06 PM
Indeed. It should also be mentioned the East Eurasian stuff in Yana, Salkhit, and arguably MA1 and AG3 is in my opinion from a more basal East Eurasian lineage than the Proto-American lineage that came into the area later.

davit
01-15-2021, 01:09 PM
Indeed. It should also be mentioned the East Eurasian stuff in Yana, Salkhit, and arguably MA1 and AG3 is in my opinion from a more basal East Eurasian lineage than the Proto-American lineage that came into the area later.

Tianyuan would fit.

Kristiina
01-15-2021, 02:41 PM
It is also interesting to note that the same Siberian population that gave rise to modern Siberians, Native Americans and mainstream East Asians carried mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C'Z and D and developed EDAR, probably in order to adapt to the environment.

Three UP mtDNA haplotypes that have been detected came extinct in Siberia, i.e. Salkhit N*, Yana U2’3’4’7’8 and Malta1 U*. Tianyuan B* seems to have been more succesful even if this exact haplotype is not exactly ancestral to modern B.

etrusco
01-15-2021, 02:42 PM
https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?study=ERP121113

The Cycladic, the Minoan, and the Helladic (Mycenaean) cultures define the Bronze Age (BA) of Greece. Urbanism, complex social structures, craft and agricultural specialization, and the earliest forms of writing, characterize this iconic period. We sequenced six early to middle BA whole genomes, along with 11 mtDNA genomes, sampled from the three BA cultures of the Aegean Sea. The Early BA (EBA) genomes are homogeneous and derive most of their ancestry from Neolithic Aegeans, contrary to earlier hypotheses that the Neolithic-EBA cultural transition was due to massive population turn-over. EBA Aegeans were shaped by relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians. In contrast, Middle BA (MBA) individuals of northern Greece differ from EBA populations in showing ~50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. Such gene flow events during the MBA contributed towards shaping present-day Greek genomes.

Dieu
01-15-2021, 02:45 PM
Yana is the oldest ANE lineage we have, but the ANE ancestry seen in Amerinds and Siberians is apparently more closely related to Malta and Afontova Gora. Yana doesn't seem to have left much in the way of descendants. In other words, the Proto-Americans didn't mix with early Yana-like ANE but with later ANE from the west. The only reason I brought it up at all is because Eastern Siberia was taken over by Proto-American East Asians moving in from the south at some point after Yana lived, so it's not surprising to see a lot of Proto-American ancestry on the Lena near Lake Baikal 17,000 years ago. That's exactly when I'd expect it to be there. And Khaiyrgas has more ANE ancestry than its relatives to the east, in line with geography and its proximity to AG3.

Yes but if Khaiyrgas-1 is contemporary with AfontovaGora3, it mades much more sense that it's more closely related to malta and afontova gora than yana. let just say That Yana was a close cousin of the population leading to Malta and AG3.

leorcooper19
01-15-2021, 02:47 PM
https://trace.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/Traces/sra/?study=ERP121113

The Cycladic, the Minoan, and the Helladic (Mycenaean) cultures define the Bronze Age (BA) of Greece. Urbanism, complex social structures, craft and agricultural specialization, and the earliest forms of writing, characterize this iconic period. We sequenced six early to middle BA whole genomes, along with 11 mtDNA genomes, sampled from the three BA cultures of the Aegean Sea. The Early BA (EBA) genomes are homogeneous and derive most of their ancestry from Neolithic Aegeans, contrary to earlier hypotheses that the Neolithic-EBA cultural transition was due to massive population turn-over. EBA Aegeans were shaped by relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians. In contrast, Middle BA (MBA) individuals of northern Greece differ from EBA populations in showing ~50% Pontic-Caspian Steppe-related ancestry, dated at ca. 2,600-2,000 BCE. Such gene flow events during the MBA contributed towards shaping present-day Greek genomes.

Can anyone find any more information on this paper? Even a supp file?

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 03:15 PM
Not sure if those MBA samples are from Greek contexts, but if they are, it's not surprising. Northern Greece would not have been part of the Aegean palatial civilizations of the Minoans and Mycenaeans anyway.

altvred
01-15-2021, 03:26 PM
Can anyone find any more information on this paper? Even a supp file?

The only thing I managed to find was the same submitted data, only on the ENA.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB37782

There isn't a Center Name in the project description, so no idea who even published this study...

Pribislav
01-15-2021, 03:39 PM
Pta08; 2849-2621 BC; Petras; Greece; Minoan_EBA; G2a2b-L30>CTS574>CTS2488>P303>L140>PF3346>PF3345* (xZ6779,CTS342,L497) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L140/)

Kou01; 2464-2349 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; J2a1a-L26>Z6064>Z6055>Z6057>Y7013>Y7010>Y13128>Z36834* (xZ36800) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z36834/)

Kou03; 2832-2578 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; (female)

Mik15; 2890-2764 BC; Manika; Greece; Helladic_EBA; (female)

Log04; 2007-1915 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)

Log02; 1924-1831 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)

leorcooper19
01-15-2021, 03:41 PM
delete

Kristiina
01-15-2021, 03:54 PM
It is also interesting to note that the same Siberian population that gave rise to modern Siberians, Native Americans and mainstream East Asians carried mtDNA haplogroups A, B, C'Z and D and developed EDAR, probably in order to adapt to the environment.

Three UP mtDNA haplotypes that have been detected came extinct in Siberia, i.e. Salkhit N*, Yana U2’3’4’7’8 and Malta1 U*. Tianyuan B* seems to have been more successful even if this exact haplotype is not exactly ancestral to modern B.

Moreover, I would like to mention that those mainstream East Asian haplogroups that are not shared with Native Americans seem to have a connection either with Jomon or Tibetans or Onge-related paleo populations of the south:
N9a -> N9b has been detected in Hokkaido, Tohoku and Kanto Jomon, N9a6 in modern Orang Asli of Malesia
M12’G -> G1b has been detected in Hokkaido Jomon and M12 is currently found in Australia and Sri Lanka
M7 -> M7a has been detected in Hokkaido Jomon, M7b'c in Kanto Jomon
M10 -> M10 has been detected in Kanto Jomon
M9’E --> M9 is one of the oldest haplogroups in Tibetan highlanders
Moreover, 19 kya old Minagotawa man from Japan is also mtDNA M.

R9’F is not present in Native Americans, but it is present in modern and ancient Siberians, e.g. in Ust'-Belaya II Angara river I7759 Mos82 7160-6910 calBP F1d and Early Neolithic SW Yakutia Matta-1 N2a 4895-4725 calBCE F1d.

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 03:56 PM
Pta08; 2849-2621 BC; Petras; Greece; Minoan_EBA; G2a2b-L30>CTS574>CTS2488>P303>pre-L140 (PF3337+, L140-) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L140/)

Kou01; 2464-2349 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; J2a1a-L26>Z6064>Z6055>Z6057>Y7013>Y7010>Y13128>Z36834 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z36834/)

Mik15; 2890-2764 BC; Manika; Greece; Helladic_EBA; (female)

Log04; 2007-1915 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)

Log02; 1924-1831 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)

Kou03; 2832-2578 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; (female)

I wonder if Logkas is from Corfu.

Principe
01-15-2021, 04:06 PM
This is an extremely interesting find, I was not expecting J-Z36834 to be one of the markers of the Cycladic Culture, but it is not a complete and total surprise either since the Mycenaean we have is under J-Z6057 and likely the same branch (quality of the Mycenaean sample was not great), so here begs the question, since J-Y13128 its father branch has already been found in Neolithic Croatia and Hungary, was this sample a local Neolithic survival branch or did some of J-Y13128 stay in Anatolia and moved into Greece via Cycladic Culture, also at least it seems the Mycenaean J-Z6057's origin is solved, he was the descendant of the local Cycladic Culture.

Really exciting to see Ancient Greece be represented more

Hopefully we get more very soon.

Kale
01-15-2021, 04:10 PM
Genomic Steppe ancestry in skeletons from the Neolithic Single Grave Culture in Denmark
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244872

The Y-chromosome haplogroup of Gjerrild 5 was determined as R1b-V1636 (R1b1a2)


For all that confidence that we'll find R1b in Western Single Grave, we get a V1636... lol

Johnny ola
01-15-2021, 04:11 PM
Not sure if those MBA samples are from Greek contexts, but if they are, it's not surprising. Northern Greece would not have been part of the Aegean palatial civilizations of the Minoans and Mycenaeans anyway.

I agree,thought these samples are a little bit early for the aegean civilizations.What we can say for sure,it is that steppe people started migrating to balkans quite early.

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 04:12 PM
Indeed, Principe, nice to have these.


Kou01; 2464-2349 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; J2a1a-L26

Why, hello there, old friend. :D

Principe
01-15-2021, 04:14 PM
Indeed, Principe, nice to have these.



Why, hello there, old friend. :D

Yup indeed, and its nice to see it is still common in its modern descendants :thumb:

J Man
01-15-2021, 04:16 PM
This is an extremely interesting find, I was not expecting J-Z36834 to be one of the markers of the Cycladic Culture, but it is not a complete and total surprise either since the Mycenaean we have is under J-Z6057 and likely the same branch (quality of the Mycenaean sample was not great), so here begs the question, since J-Y13128 its father branch has already been found in Neolithic Croatia and Hungary, was this sample a local Neolithic survival branch or did some of J-Y13128 stay in Anatolia and moved into Greece via Cycladic Culture, also at least it seems the Mycenaean J-Z6057's origin is solved, he was the descendant of the local Cycladic Culture.

Really exciting to see Ancient Greece be represented more

Hopefully we get more very soon.

This is quite interesting for sure...Also didn't the later "Sea Peoples" of the Greek Dark Ages likely originate in the Cyclades?

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 04:17 PM
I agree,thought these samples are a little bit early for the aegean civilizations.What we can say for sure,it is that steppe people started migrating to balkans quite early.

Yeah, but they might represent what Northern Greece was like during the heydey of the BA Aegean civs. Actually the fact that they are so early is a good sign. They might represent what the Proto-Greeks were like before moving south. We might be able to better discern the nature of the steppe component in ancient Greeks in general using these two ladies. It is too bad they're both female. It'd be nice to see some R1b Greeks in the Bronze Age record.

Johnny ola
01-15-2021, 04:23 PM
Yeah, but they might represent what Northern Greece was like during the heydey of the BA Aegean civs. Actually the fact that they are so early is a good sign. They might represent what the Proto-Greeks were like before moving south. We might be able to better discern the nature of the steppe component in ancient Greeks in general using these two ladies. It is too bad they're both female. It'd be nice to see some R1b Greeks in the Bronze Age record.

Ye, i will agree that these samples might represent the proto-Greco-Phrygian and Macedonian people.I hope David to do his magics and upload any aviable sample to G25.Has anyone inform him?He is prolly sleeping now xD.:)

Principe
01-15-2021, 05:08 PM
This is quite interesting for sure...Also didn't the later "Sea Peoples" of the Greek Dark Ages likely originate in the Cyclades?

From the most strictly conservative sources, the 2 confirmed so far Sea Peoples are from Crete and Lukka (Lycia in Anatolia). All the others are still pending confirmation.

J Man
01-15-2021, 05:23 PM
From the most strictly conservative sources, the 2 confirmed so far Sea Peoples are from Crete and Lukka (Lycia in Anatolia). All the others are still pending confirmation.

Neither of those samples have been tested correct?

Principe
01-15-2021, 05:30 PM
Neither of those samples have been tested correct?

Well we know have 4 Minoan samples, as for Lycia, zero to date.

J Man
01-15-2021, 05:39 PM
Well we know have 4 Minoan samples, as for Lycia, zero to date.

Ahhh I see ok...I don't think that the Minoans were Sea Peoples though.

Principe
01-15-2021, 05:51 PM
Ahhh I see ok...I don't think that the Minoans were Sea Peoples though.

It wasn’t the Minoans, it was people from Crete, around Bronze Age collapse Crete was a Minoan and Mycenaean mix, but indirectly it would be the Minoans descendants.

altvred
01-15-2021, 09:57 PM
So...

I converted two of the samples from this mysterious new Bronze Age Greece study, Kou01 and Kou03, into 23andMe format txt files.

If anyone wants to try and use them on Gedmatch or some calculator then here is the link

LINK (https://www.dropbox.com/sh/bq0kfk3sug838ca/AAD-lw4u0bJk5aST5Mv_1BPxa?dl=0)

Ajeje Brazorf
01-15-2021, 09:59 PM
The Greek samples sorted by read count:



219,847,620
Mik15


216,468,743
Log02


211,500,916
Log04


194,405,131
Pta08


138,884,690
Kou03


108,651,773
Kou01


64,161
MIK08


48,252
XER05


23,794
PAL05


22,844
PEL04


21,328
XER07


19,743
PAL04


14,646
PEL02


13,384
XER02


12,609
PEL03


5,556
AGI02


4,455
XER01

mauors
01-15-2021, 11:18 PM
From what I was able to gather, "Logkos" aka Λογκά Ελάτης should be a site along the Haliacmon river, couldn't really find where.

altvred
01-15-2021, 11:29 PM
Pta08; 2849-2621 BC; Petras; Greece; Minoan_EBA; G2a2b-L30>CTS574>CTS2488>P303>pre-L140 (PF3337+, L140-) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L140/)

Kou01; 2464-2349 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; J2a1a-L26>Z6064>Z6055>Z6057>Y7013>Y7010>Y13128>Z36834 (https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z36834/)

Kou03; 2832-2578 BC; Koufonisi; Greece; Cycladic_EBA; (female)

Mik15; 2890-2764 BC; Manika; Greece; Helladic_EBA; (female)

Log04; 2007-1915 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)

Log02; 1924-1831 BC; Logkas; Greece; Helladic_MBA; (female)

23andMe format autosomal files for each sample

Pta08 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4iax6bqie7w2kry/Pta08_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Mik15 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8nykmptidscpbnd/Mik15_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Log02 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/40b9yt6k8ukhx9i/Log02_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Log04 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/fpu97ymhr5amiau/Log04_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Kou01 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/f43xb88lfw2u39d/Kou01_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Kou03 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7xtpet5d5xt5nf/Kou03_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Helves
01-15-2021, 11:33 PM
This paper deserves it's own thread, don't you think? Finally something interesting again.

Sorcelow
01-15-2021, 11:50 PM
Here is Log02 in Eurogenes K13. Obviously, we should take these results with a grain of salt considering that these modern calculators arent designed to accurately model ancients, but its interesting nonetheless.

Kit ZK5342256

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 25.42
2 West_Med 24.46
3 East_Med 23.63
4 Baltic 12.25
5 West_Asian 9.54
6 Red_Sea 2.29
7 Oceanian 1.21
8 Amerindian 1
9 Sub-Saharan 0.18

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Tuscan 3.68
2 North_Italian 7.17
3 West_Sicilian 8.01
4 Greek_Thessaly 8.14
5 Italian_Abruzzo 8.55
6 Central_Greek 11.05
7 East_Sicilian 11.74
8 Bulgarian 13.02
9 South_Italian 13.1
10 Romanian 13.81
11 Ashkenazi 14.7
12 Spanish_Extremadura 15.58
13 Portuguese 15.61
14 Spanish_Andalucia 16.3
15 Spanish_Murcia 16.68
16 Spanish_Valencia 16.89
17 Spanish_Galicia 16.92
18 Serbian 17.06
19 Spanish_Cataluna 17.56
20 Spanish_Castilla_Y_Leon 17.83

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 61.4% North_Italian + 38.6% Central_Greek @ 2.35
2 60.8% Central_Greek + 39.2% Spanish_Valencia @ 2.55
3 66.4% Central_Greek + 33.6% Southwest_French @ 2.59
4 83.5% Tuscan + 16.5% Bulgarian @ 2.7
5 64.9% Central_Greek + 35.1% Spanish_Cantabria @ 2.82
6 63.4% North_Italian + 36.6% East_Sicilian @ 2.83
7 61.9% Central_Greek + 38.1% Spanish_Cataluna @ 2.84
8 77% Tuscan + 23% Greek_Thessaly @ 2.9
9 53.7% North_Italian + 46.3% Greek_Thessaly @ 2.92
10 85.7% Tuscan + 14.3% Romanian @ 2.92
11 91.5% Tuscan + 8.5% Moldavian @ 2.96
12 67.9% Greek_Thessaly + 32.1% Spanish_Andalucia @ 3.01
13 95.4% Tuscan + 4.6% Erzya @ 3.07
14 92.7% Tuscan + 7.3% Croatian @ 3.07
15 94.4% Tuscan + 5.6% Ukrainian @ 3.1
16 95% Tuscan + 5% Ukrainian_Belgorod @ 3.11
17 96.5% Tuscan + 3.5% MA-1 @ 3.11
18 80.5% North_Italian + 19.5% Cyprian @ 3.11
19 95% Tuscan + 5% Southwest_Russian @ 3.12
20 94.4% Tuscan + 5.6% Ukrainian_Lviv @ 3.13

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-15-2021, 11:59 PM
From what I was able to gather, "Logkos" aka Λογκά Ελάτης should be a site along the Haliacmon river, couldn't really find where.

Could be, found this article:

https://www.archaiologia.gr/blog/2016/02/29/%CF%84%CE%B9-%CE%B1%CF%80%CE%BF%CE%BA%CE%B1%CE%BB%CF%8D%CF%80%C F%84%CE%BF%CF%85%CE%BD-%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CE%BC%CF%85%CE%BA%CE%B7%CE%BD%CE%B1%CF%8A%CE%BA%C E%BF%CE%AF-%CF%84%CE%AC%CF%86%CE%BF%CE%B9-%CF%83/

Looks like it's in Macedonia, near Elati.

Aspar
01-16-2021, 12:04 AM
Here is Log02 in Eurogenes K13. Obviously, we should take these results with a grain of salt considering that these modern calculators arent designed to accurately model ancients, but its interesting nonetheless.

Kit ZK5342256

Some small segments shared between me and this sample:


Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
9 137,408,717 137,852,506 3.2 174

Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
20 8,285,108 9,571,800 3.1 405

Sorcelow
01-16-2021, 12:06 AM
And here is Log04:

Kit PJ5245899

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 27.02
2 East_Med 18.4
3 West_Med 18.01
4 Baltic 17.23
5 West_Asian 13.6
6 Amerindian 2.35
7 Red_Sea 1.55
8 Siberian 0.83
9 East_Asian 0.5
10 Oceanian 0.3
11 Sub-Saharan 0.13
12 South_Asian 0.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Romanian 7.48
2 Bulgarian 8.13
3 Greek_Thessaly 10.06
4 Serbian 10.51
5 Tuscan 11.3
6 North_Italian 11.43
7 Italian_Abruzzo 12.55
8 West_Sicilian 14.83
9 Central_Greek 15.15
10 East_Sicilian 16.47
11 Moldavian 16.84
12 Hungarian 17
13 Portuguese 17.03
14 French 17.17
15 Spanish_Extremadura 17.68
16 Spanish_Galicia 18.02
17 Austrian 18.06
18 Spanish_Cataluna 18.32
19 West_German 18.32
20 Spanish_Murcia 18.65

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66% Central_Greek + 34% Swedish @ 3.57
2 66.3% Central_Greek + 33.7% Norwegian @ 3.69
3 62.7% Italian_Abruzzo + 37.3% East_German @ 3.75
4 62.6% Central_Greek + 37.4% North_German @ 3.75
5 58.1% Italian_Abruzzo + 41.9% Hungarian @ 3.77
6 59.6% Italian_Abruzzo + 40.4% Austrian @ 3.9
7 75.2% Greek_Thessaly + 24.8% Irish @ 4.04
8 50.9% Austrian + 49.1% South_Italian @ 4.05
9 64.8% Central_Greek + 35.2% North_Dutch @ 4.06
10 64.7% Central_Greek + 35.3% Danish @ 4.06
11 55% Central_Greek + 45% West_German @ 4.07
12 75.6% Greek_Thessaly + 24.4% West_Scottish @ 4.16
13 52.4% South_Italian + 47.6% East_German @ 4.19
14 54.7% Central_Greek + 45.3% Austrian @ 4.2
15 65.1% Central_Greek + 34.9% Orcadian @ 4.23
16 73.3% Italian_Abruzzo + 26.7% Southwest_Finnish @ 4.24
17 74.8% Greek_Thessaly + 25.2% Orcadian @ 4.25
18 65.7% Central_Greek + 34.3% Irish @ 4.26
19 66.2% Greek_Thessaly + 33.8% West_German @ 4.26
20 71.7% Italian_Abruzzo + 28.3% North_Swedish @ 4.29

Ebizur
01-16-2021, 12:08 AM
From what I was able to gather, "Logkos" aka Λογκά Ελάτης should be a site along the Haliacmon river, couldn't really find where.Elati, Kozani, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elati,_Kozani) Western Macedonia.

Aspar
01-16-2021, 12:10 AM
And here is Log04:

Kit PJ5245899

Even more with this one:



Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
8 17,550,787 18,950,578 3 770

Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
12 24,547,906 26,345,206 3.2 575

Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
15 28,183,354 29,559,600 3.7 156

Chr B37 Start Pos'n B37 End Pos'n Centimorgans (cM) SNPs
17 76,648,982 77,327,096 3.6 248
17 77,478,072 78,272,814 3.6 199

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 12:15 AM
Elati, Kozani, (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elati,_Kozani) Western Macedonia.

You're right; I mistook it for the one in Thessaly. It's definitely in Macedonia.

altvred
01-16-2021, 12:25 AM
Eurogenes K13 component breakdown


SampleEast MedWest MedNorth AtlanticWest AsianRed SeaBalticEast AsianSiberianAmerindianOceanianSub-Saharan
► Kou0144.1334.3110.227.144.21000000
► Pta0843.3734.688.227.136.3600.240000
► Mik1541.438.3212.871.765.64000000
► Kou0338.1530.3111.6415.523.4700000.60.3
► Log0223.4724.7625.499.512.3512.24000.921.190.07
► Log0418.5617.9127.3413.631.5217.420.220.872.320.21 0

If anyone wants to use this with vahaduo/nMonte



Kou01,44.13,34.31,10.22,7.14,4.21,0,0,0,0,0,0
Pta08,43.37,34.68,8.22,7.13,6.36,0,0.24,0,0,0,0
Mik15,41.4,38.32,12.87,1.76,5.64,0,0,0,0,0,0
Kou03,38.15,30.31,11.64,15.52,3.47,0,0,0,0,0.6,0.3
Log02,23.47,24.76,25.49,9.51,2.35,12.24,0,0,0.92,1 .19,0.07
Log04,18.56,17.91,27.34,13.63,1.52,17.42,0.22,0.87 ,2.32,0.21,0

Vasile
01-16-2021, 12:30 AM
And here is Log04:

Kit PJ5245899

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 27.02
2 East_Med 18.4
3 West_Med 18.01
4 Baltic 17.23
5 West_Asian 13.6
6 Amerindian 2.35
7 Red_Sea 1.55
8 Siberian 0.83
9 East_Asian 0.5
10 Oceanian 0.3
11 Sub-Saharan 0.13
12 South_Asian 0.08

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Romanian 7.48
2 Bulgarian 8.13
3 Greek_Thessaly 10.06
4 Serbian 10.51
5 Tuscan 11.3
6 North_Italian 11.43
7 Italian_Abruzzo 12.55
8 West_Sicilian 14.83
9 Central_Greek 15.15
10 East_Sicilian 16.47
11 Moldavian 16.84
12 Hungarian 17
13 Portuguese 17.03
14 French 17.17
15 Spanish_Extremadura 17.68
16 Spanish_Galicia 18.02
17 Austrian 18.06
18 Spanish_Cataluna 18.32
19 West_German 18.32
20 Spanish_Murcia 18.65

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 66% Central_Greek + 34% Swedish @ 3.57
2 66.3% Central_Greek + 33.7% Norwegian @ 3.69
3 62.7% Italian_Abruzzo + 37.3% East_German @ 3.75
4 62.6% Central_Greek + 37.4% North_German @ 3.75
5 58.1% Italian_Abruzzo + 41.9% Hungarian @ 3.77
6 59.6% Italian_Abruzzo + 40.4% Austrian @ 3.9
7 75.2% Greek_Thessaly + 24.8% Irish @ 4.04
8 50.9% Austrian + 49.1% South_Italian @ 4.05
9 64.8% Central_Greek + 35.2% North_Dutch @ 4.06
10 64.7% Central_Greek + 35.3% Danish @ 4.06
11 55% Central_Greek + 45% West_German @ 4.07
12 75.6% Greek_Thessaly + 24.4% West_Scottish @ 4.16
13 52.4% South_Italian + 47.6% East_German @ 4.19
14 54.7% Central_Greek + 45.3% Austrian @ 4.2
15 65.1% Central_Greek + 34.9% Orcadian @ 4.23
16 73.3% Italian_Abruzzo + 26.7% Southwest_Finnish @ 4.24
17 74.8% Greek_Thessaly + 25.2% Orcadian @ 4.25
18 65.7% Central_Greek + 34.3% Irish @ 4.26
19 66.2% Greek_Thessaly + 33.8% West_German @ 4.26
20 71.7% Italian_Abruzzo + 28.3% North_Swedish @ 4.29

I have one question , this should be more like proto- ancient Macedonian sample ? Because Celtic ?

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 12:35 AM
I have one question , this should be more like proto- ancient Macedonian sample ? Because Celtic ?

Finds from the Logkas in Elati are associated with Mycenaeans (see the link I posted a few posts ago, it's in Greek but you can translate), but these are too early for that. This area is very much the fringe of palatial influence, I'd say.

Sorcelow
01-16-2021, 12:40 AM
It would be interesting to see how these samples plot in relation to the BGR_IA and Mycenaean samples we have.

Vasile
01-16-2021, 12:47 AM
Finds from the Logkas in Elati are associated with Mycenaeans (see the link I posted a few posts ago, it's in Greek but you can translate), but these are too early for that. This area is very much the fringe of palatial influence, I'd say.

Yeah that's why I said proto, its too early, Elati (Thessaly) historically would be on the edge of south Macedonia? Btw I have similar K13 and mixed mode.

# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 27.02
2 East_Med 18.4
3 West_Med 18.01
4 Baltic 17.23
5 West_Asian 13.6
6 Amerindian 2.35
7 Red_Sea 1.55
8 Siberian 0.83
9 East_Asian 0.5
10 Oceanian 0.3
11 Sub-Saharan 0.13
12 South_Asian 0.08

ME
# Population Percent
1 North_Atlantic 23.22
2 East_Med 22.3
3 West_Med 19.62
4 Baltic 19.51
5 West_Asian 11.94
6 Red_Sea 2.37
7 South_Asian 0.78
8 Oceanian 0.25

Johnny ola
01-16-2021, 12:49 AM
Finds from the Logkas in Elati are associated with Mycenaeans (see the link I posted a few posts ago, it's in Greek but you can translate), but these are too early for that. This area is very much the fringe of palatial influence, I'd say.

MBA-LBA transition is when Greco-Phrygians,Thracians Macedonians etc started to arrived in the balkans.These samples with the very high steppe profile are definitely some type of IE group that contribute later to the ethnogenesis of Mycenaeans,Thracians,Macedonians,Mygdones and even IE Anatolians i would say.There is not any other explanation.Now if this specific profile took place also later at the IA period thats an other story and i cannot know.

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 12:50 AM
23andMe format autosomal files for each sample

Pta08 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/4iax6bqie7w2kry/Pta08_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Mik15 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/8nykmptidscpbnd/Mik15_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Log02 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/40b9yt6k8ukhx9i/Log02_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Log04 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/fpu97ymhr5amiau/Log04_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Kou01 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/f43xb88lfw2u39d/Kou01_wgs.txt?dl=0)

Kou03 (https://www.dropbox.com/s/y7xtpet5d5xt5nf/Kou03_wgs.txt?dl=0)

I normally don't get to browse ancient DNA in this format, so this is very accessible to me since I regularly explore my own raw data in txt files like this. I like to search for SNPs and see what I can find.

While I wait for David's magic, I did a quick phenotype search on these samples for fun. I searched for rs16891982 (skin/hair color-associated SNP on SLC45A2) and rs12913832 (eye color SNP on HERC2) since these are pretty straight-forward and well-known.

rs16891982 (https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs16891982)
(C;C) - generally non-European, but if European, 7x more likely to have black hair
(C;G) - if European, 7x more likely to have black hair
(G;G) - Generally European; Light skin; Possibly an increased risk of melanoma

Pta08 Minoan (C;G)
Kou01 Cycladic (C;C)
Kou03 Cycladic (C;C)
Mik15 EBA Helladic (G;G)
Log02 MBA Helladic (C;C)
Log04 MBA Helladic (G;G)

rs12913832 (https://www.snpedia.com/index.php/Rs12913832)
(A;A) - brown eye color, 80% of the time
(A;G) - brown eye color
(G;G) - blue eye color, 99% of the time

Pta08 Minoan (A;A)
Kou01 Cycladic (A;A)
Kou03 Cycladic (A;A)
Mik15 EBA Helladic (A;A)
Log02 MBA Helladic (A;A)
Log04 MBA Helladic (A;A)

Pretty much what'd you'd expect on those fronts. I also happen to be C;G on rs16891982, which I think in Europe is probably only common in the Mediterranean.

Dorkymon
01-16-2021, 01:02 AM
Because I like Eurogenes K13 since there are many more modern samples



Target
Distance
Anatolia_EBA
Bulgaria_Calcolithic
Bulgaria_EBA
Bulgaria_Thracian
Early_Slav
Greece_EBA
Greece_MBA
Greece_Minoan
Greece_Mycenaean


Greek_Andros_Island
2.62803651

33.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
8.2
0.0
46.3
0.0
12.0


Greek_Cyclades
0.92064725

33.7
0.0
0.0
13.1
10.9
0.0
41.7
0.0
0.6


Greek_Western-Thrace
1.58179692

19.7
19.3
0.0
0.0
14.5
0.0
41.1
5.4
0.0


Greek_Thessaly
0.53262591

19.9
0.0
0.0
9.2
34.9
0.0
30.4
0.0
5.6


Greek_Istanbul
2.62085867

45.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
26.9
0.0
28.0
0.0
0.0


Greek_Dodecanese
1.23665537

58.1
0.0
0.0
8.8
9.1
0.0
24.0
0.0
0.0


Greek_Central
0.44479538

36.2
0.0
1.1
0.0
27.1
0.0
22.2
0.0
13.4


Greek_Peloponnese
0.55505402

28.8
0.0
1.5
0.0
33.8
1.1
19.2
0.1
15.5


Greek_Symi_Island
2.36093435

45.2
0.0
0.0
2.0
0.0
0.0
18.9
0.0
33.9


Greek_Northeast
0.37485523

26.1
0.0
1.0
14.2
33.4
3.8
18.7
2.8
0.0


Greek_Crete
0.70779201

53.4
0.0
0.7
0.0
21.2
0.0
17.9
0.0
6.8


Greek_Ionia
0.79143756

41.3
0.0
2.4
6.4
22.5
0.1
17.7
0.0
9.6


Greek_West_Macedonia
0.43887840

27.3
2.7
0.0
19.3
31.8
0.8
15.7
2.4
0.0


Greek
0.48253371

26.0
0.0
1.8
6.9
34.9
1.6
14.4
7.6
6.8


Greek_West
1.10828236

20.7
0.3
0.0
0.0
35.0
0.0
12.9
14.3
16.8


Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.40012067

23.0
2.4
3.2
1.8
38.1
3.6
11.5
13.6
2.8


Greek_Chios
0.75897987

63.5
0.0
0.0
0.0
12.7
0.0
9.7
0.0
14.1


Bulgaria_average
0.44890428

22.0
0.0
10.4
0.0
54.8
0.0
5.6
6.0
1.2


Greek_North_Aegean
0.80573416

47.6
0.0
0.0
15.4
18.4
0.0
3.4
0.0
15.2


Greek_Athens
0.49701491

35.2
3.0
6.4
13.6
27.5
0.0
3.2
0.6
10.5


Greek_Cappadocian
4.38752763

87.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
9.8
0.0
2.3
0.0
0.0


Greek_Caucasus
15.09855383

96.8
0.0
0.0
0.0
3.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0


Greek_Cypriot
2.54346801

76.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
6.5
16.6
0.0
0.0
0.0


Greek_Eastern-Macedonia
0.89388251

28.8
5.6
0.0
11.6
40.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
13.9


Greek_Eastern-Thrace
0.98839987

29.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
44.9
26.1
0.0
0.0
0.0


Greek_Macedonia_Thrace
1.17214854

50.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
40.0
0.0
0.0
1.7
7.6


Greek_Northern-Thrace
2.75407455

21.1
0.0
0.0
0.0
55.5
0.0
0.0
23.4
0.0


Greek_Trabzon
13.47460341

95.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
4.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0





Greece_MBA:Greece_MBA_Log02,25.42,12.25,24.46,9.54 ,23.63,2.29,0,0,0,1,1.21,0,0.18
Greece_MBA:Greece_MBA_Log04,27.02,17.23,18.01,13.6 ,18.4,1.55,0.08,0.5,0.83,2.35,0.3,0,0.13
Greece_MBA:Greece_MBA_Mik15,14.45,0,36.91,0.55,41. 8,6.29,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
Greece_EBA:Greece_EBA_Pta08,9.49,0,35.59,5.30,43.7 2,5.89,0,0,0,0,0,0,0
Greece_EBA:Greece_EBA_Kou01,1.93,0,38.2,7.85,47.38 ,2.78,0,0,0,0,0,0.84,1.20


Greece_Minoan:I0070_Greece_Minoan_Lassithi_4000_yb p,8.26,0.00,36.65,8.59,41.54,4.71,0.00,0.00,0.00,0 .00,0.25,0.00,0.00
Greece_Minoan:I0071_Greece_Minoan_Lassithi_4000_yb p,9.32,0.00,36.96,7.70,41.32,4.45,0.00,0.00,0.00,0 .00,0.25,0.00,0.00
Greece_Minoan:I0073_Greece_Minoan_Lassithi_4000_yb p,8.10,0.00,39.75,7.43,44.19,0.53,0.00,0.00,0.00,0 .00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Greece_Minoan:I0074_Greece_Minoan_Lassithi_4000_yb p,7.12,0.00,38.22,7.49,43.48,3.08,0.00,0.00,0.00,0 .00,0.60,0.00,0.00
Greece_Minoan:I9005_Greece_Minoan_Lassithi_4000_yb p,13.38,0.00,35.43,8.11,38.53,4.55,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Greece_Mycenaean:I9006_Greece_Mycenaean_3287_ybp,8 .75,3.24,32.05,13.71,37.05,3.81,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.8 0,0.58,0.00,0.00
Greece_Mycenaean:I9010_Mycenaean_1351_bc_,10.52,2. 73,31.92,8.82,36.83,8.03,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.86, 0.00,0.30
Greece_Mycenaean:I9033_Mycenaean_1352_bc_M_,18.69, 1.27,31.47,12.51,27.61,2.03,0.00,0.87,0.24,0.00,0. 87,3.47,0.98
Greece_Mycenaean:I9041_Greece_Mycenaean_3250_ybp,2 0.11,0.00,30.28,9.34,35.01,3.56,0.00,0.00,1.40,0.0 0,0.00,0.30,0.00


Anatolia_EBA:MA2210_Anatolia_EBA.SG_4700_ybp,3.30, 0.00,18.98,26.27,42.49,7.52,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0. 35,0.01,1.06
Anatolia_EBA:MA2212_Anatolia_EBA.SG_4700_ybp,2.83, 0.00,27.28,20.95,39.52,8.68,0.00,0.41,0.00,0.00,0. 00,0.33,0.00
Anatolia_EBA:MA2213_Anatolia_EBA.SG_4700_ybp,6.21, 0.00,22.22,24.88,38.23,8.16,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0. 13,0.00,0.17


Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2423_Bulgaria_Late_C_6388_yb p,17.54,0.31,47.40,0.00,31.60,2.65,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.50,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2424_Bulgaria_Late_C_6304_yb p,18.23,2.21,41.94,0.00,33.80,3.82,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2425_Bulgaria_Late_C_6515_yb p,26.87,0.00,40.70,0.00,32.43,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2427_Bulgaria_Late_C_6340_yb p,14.26,1.69,42.89,0.00,36.95,4.21,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2430_Bulgaria_Late_C_6448_yb p,25.03,0.00,38.98,0.00,30.42,5.57,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2431_Bulgaria_Middle_C_6615_ ybp,21.46,3.01,39.50,0.00,33.28,2.74,0.00,0.00,0.0 0,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2509_Bulgaria_C_6353_ybp,17. 01,0.00,43.94,0.00,34.88,4.17,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_Calcolithic:I2519_Bulgaria_C_6242_ybp,17. 95,0.00,40.47,0.00,35.28,6.30,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00, 0.00,0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_EBA:I2520_Bulgaria_EBA_5132_ybp,23.15,16. 12,30.59,0.13,25.02,3.53,0.00,0.35,0.00,0.00,1.12, 0.00,0.00
Bulgaria_EBA:I2510_Bulgaria_EBA_4758_ybp,17.43,0.0 0,44.89,0.00,34.76,2.91,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0 .00,0.00


Bulgaria_Thracian:I5769_Bulgaria_IA_2600_ybp,24.62 ,3.48,30.00,9.21,28.33,4.36,0.00,0.00,0.00,0.00,0. 00,0.00,0.00


Early_Slav:AV1_Hungary_Avar_1361_ybp,29.17,40.22,1 1.71,8.24,7.15,0.06,1.56,0.00,0.48,0.97,0.27,0.00, 0.17
Early_Slav:I4137_Czech_Early_Slav_dup.I4137.SG_123 5_ybp,30.89,37.94,12.04,8.95,5.72,0.86,0.00,0.00,2 .09,0.47,0.11,0.93,0.00

alexfritz
01-16-2021, 01:11 AM
any promising leads on the source of the 'steppe' influx?
inside Italic_IA the source turned out to be non-Beaker but smth. Russia_Afanasievo.SG, Russia_Late_Sarmatian.SG type stuff coming via the Balkans (HRV_), though IA; same here but earlier? ult. a broader second steppe wave and cognate

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 01:24 AM
any promising leads on the source of the 'steppe' influx?

Can't wait to see that explored. The Homeland map (http://homeland.ku.dk/) has Danubian Yamnaya in the Balkans from 2950-2600 BCE. The Beli Breyag EBA Bul8 sample has a wide date range of 3400-1600 BCE. There's also the Bulgaria_BA I2510 sample (2906-2710 calBCE). There's also the Yamnaya Bulgaria outlier (3012-2900 calBCE) with farmer admixture. But then again, we also have the Bulgaria_MLBA I2163 sample (1750-1625 calBCE) with R1a and presumably Corded Ware ancestry. So who knows what we'll find with these guys? Also interested in seeing what their non-steppe ancestry is like. These should all be important clues.

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 01:29 AM
Well, for what it's worth:

42594

We should probably try more proximate sources, so you guys have at it.

Sorcelow
01-16-2021, 01:33 AM
Well, for what it's worth:

42594

We should probably try more proximate sources, so you guys have at it.

Do you have the coordinates to provide?

Ajeje Brazorf
01-16-2021, 01:37 AM
delete

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 01:38 AM
You put Levant-rich references in there. Lebanese Christian and Levant_BA North together.

These are the refs I used in the second run:

Anatolia_N,0.1175998,0.180118,0.0035312,-0.101158,0.0510443,-0.0483875,-0.0043582,-0.0069334,0.0362287,0.0807473,0.0079718,0.0118803,-0.0234545,0.0004691,-0.0419807,-0.0101913,0.0233091,0.0019866,0.0136954,-0.0097489,-0.0142249,0.0057723,-0.0041232,-0.0031658,-0.0043437
Natufian,0.020488,0.1431895,-0.0377125,-0.1387295,0.030775,-0.079484,-0.025616,-0.0175375,0.114329,0.002005,0.0332085,-0.0222555,0.076486,0.002133,0.0153365,0.009016,-0.0154505,-0.001014,-0.02206,0.040832,0.001497,0.0001235,-0.003636,-0.0044585,0.006287
CHG,0.091058,0.102568,-0.083344,-0.00323,-0.08617,0.020638,0.024911,-0.001846,-0.128236,-0.074717,-0.006333,0.023979,-0.054856,0.004404,0.026601,-0.03275,0.02386,-0.013429,-0.022249,0.034767,0.033815,-0.007048,0.006532,-0.025787,-0.002036
Iran_N,0.0455292,0.0660095,-0.1518855,0.0026648,-0.1250232,0.0204982,0.0170972,-0.0017305,-0.0814005,-0.0579968,0.0004465,-0.001611,0.0072845,-0.0087735,0.0294512,0.0567152,-0.005248,0.0084882,0.007259,-0.037018,0.0075492,-0.0286258,-0.010322,-0.0404578,0.0265842
Iberomaurusian,-0.189857,0.0814452,-0.0242866,-0.085595,0.027636,-0.0552202,-0.0705968,0.0184146,0.155397,0.003499,0.0209156,-0.0318316,0.0747168,-0.0513334,0.0711988,-0.0363032,0.0052676,-0.066106,-0.1424162,0.0389938,-0.0376836,-0.1255322,0.0730118,-0.0137606,0.0164534
Yamnaya_Samara,0.1259169,0.0887318,0.0428032,0.116 4425,-0.028236,0.045529,0.0036719,-0.002279,-0.0558095,-0.0715732,0.0009742,-0.0003934,-0.0019885,-0.025529,0.0362032,0.0160764,-0.0005869,-0.0012038,-0.0038966,0.0149446,-0.0022928,6.19e-05,0.0112925,0.0189332,-0.0039516
Loschbour,0.133173,0.106631,0.20176,0.192186,0.164 338,0.055778,0.00611,0.036922,0.096535,0.02278,-0.020786,-0.016186,0.024975,-0.007432,0.065824,0.063643,0.008084,0.006714,-0.013324,0.065281,0.120038,0.019166,-0.059405,-0.175687,0.022992
Yoruba,-0.6300625,0.0625011,0.022113,0.0167079,0.0005035,0 .0124741,-0.044417,0.0477673,-0.0488813,0.0327694,0.0046205,0.0007904,0.0230561, 0.0009509,0.0125232,-0.0096067,0.0070763,0.0004491,0.006022,-0.00299,0.0015542,0.0023156,-0.0017592,-0.0004711,-0.0004246
Dinka,-0.577083,0.0507765,-0.0003773,-0.0075098,-0.0053855,-0.0016735,-0.0176848,0.0204222,0.081145,-0.0969495,-0.02107,0.022742,-0.0383172,-0.0011698,0.0101452,-0.021347,0.0186125,-0.0094382,0.0241968,-0.0241678,0.002402,0.003308,0.001479,0.0009038,0.0 096995
Han,0.0206952,-0.4507105,-0.0082967,-0.0651579,0.0780846,0.0374475,0.0029055,-0.004804,-0.0150232,-0.0031146,-0.0495875,-0.0070573,0.0072707,-0.0081072,-0.0043305,0.0012535,0.0017542,-0.0008638,-0.0020455,-0.0102206,0.0122397,0.0069582,0.0141063,-0.0012925,-0.0022315
Corded_Ware_DEU,0.1298723,0.1110989,0.0568699,0.08 87606,0.0040622,0.0337179,0.001034,0.0025616,-0.0280402,-0.0395815,0.0003734,0.0023378,-0.0068234,-0.0095647,0.0240903,0.0072393,-0.0146682,0.0042188,-0.0020237,0.0046773,0.0029074,0.0013601,0.0060884, 0.0183278,8.38e-05
Bell_Beaker_NLD,0.1284778,0.1228792,0.0626964,0.07 32402,0.024543,0.0242984,0.0004994,0.003346,-0.0082066,-0.0132576,-0.0051356,0.0029222,-0.0081208,-0.014588,0.0251934,0.0100105,-0.0060466,-0.0022011,0.0012412,0.0072378,0.005849,0.0026894,0 .0002158,0.0061454,-0.000464

The first run I didn't include Corded or Beaker.

Also, here's a PCA:
42596

alexfritz
01-16-2021, 01:38 AM
Can't wait to see that explored. The Homeland map (http://homeland.ku.dk/) has Danubian Yamnaya in the Balkans from 2950-2600 BCE. The Beli Breyag EBA Bul8 sample has a wide date range of 3400-1600 BCE. There's also the Bulgaria_BA I2510 sample (2906-2710 calBCE). There's also the Yamnaya Bulgaria outlier (3012-2900 calBCE) with farmer admixture. But then again, we also have the Bulgaria_MLBA I2163 sample (1750-1625 calBCE) with R1a and presumably Corded Ware ancestry. So who knows what we'll find with these guys? Also interested in seeing what their non-steppe ancestry is like. These should all be important clues.

they mentioned abit on that in the abstarct
derive most of their ancestry from Neolithic Aegeans + relatively small-scale migration from East of the Aegean, as evidenced by the Caucasus-related ancestry also detected in Anatolians

sounds abit like the 2017 Minoans

Pribislav
01-16-2021, 01:40 AM
Pta08; 2849-2621 BC; Petras; Greece; Minoan_EBA; G2a2b-L30>CTS574>CTS2488>P303>pre-L140 (PF3337+, L140-) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-L140/)

L140- was a false call. Pta08 also has derived calls at PF3346 and PF3345 levels, and ancestral calls at all downstream levels, so he is L140>PF3346>PF3345* (xZ6779,CTS342,L497) (https://www.yfull.com/tree/G-PF3345/).

L140 level: Y324/Z3351+ A>T (2T); PF3347/CTS12891+ A>G (1G); CTS12570+ C>T (2T); PF3337/Z764+ G>T (1T); Z767+ G>A (1A); CTS796+ T>G (2G); Y307/Z3268+ A>G (2G-1A); Y88836? G>A (2T)

L140>PF3346 level: Z3065+ A>T (2T)

L140>PF3346>PF3345 level: PF3345+ G>T (4T)

L140>PF3346>PF3345>Z6779 level: FGC959- A>C (4A); S22146/Z6779/FGC7568- G>A (1G)

L140>PF3346>PF3345>CTS342 level: CTS342- G>T (1G); CTS2821- G>A (2G); Z3049- T>C (4T)

L140>PF3346>PF3345>L497 level: 33 ancestral SNPs

Johnny ola
01-16-2021, 01:52 AM
David has shared them.

Preliminary G25 coords...

Scaled

Cycladic_EBA:Kou03,0.108132,0.159438,-0.02225,-0.07106,0.013233,-0.032351,-0.00517,-0.006231,0.000409,0.045377,0.005359,0.015586,-0.022299,-0.002477,-0.024565,0.003713,0.026468,0.00076,0.007416,-0.006878,-0.008859,-0.001484,0.002218,-0.001084,-0.006227
Helladic_EBA:Mik15,0.108132,0.173656,-0.000754,-0.08721,0.03139,-0.031236,-0.00658,-0.006692,0.026793,0.064876,0.002761,0.008842,-0.019326,0.00234,-0.03108,-0.0179,0.008214,0.004561,0.00817,-0.016383,-0.009733,-0.000124,-0.001849,0.00735,-0.002515
Helladic_MBA:Log02,0.117238,0.153345,0.01961,-0.019057,0.02739,-0.013945,-0.00235,-0.003461,0.003068,0.025878,-0.000162,0.005695,-0.015015,0.000275,-0.014251,-0.012596,-0.005476,0.00152,0.00264,-0.002126,-0.010357,0.000989,0.006286,-0.000602,-0.002754
Helladic_MBA:Log04,0.117238,0.140143,0.027907,-0.001292,0.01908,-0.000837,-0.00611,-0.002308,-0.007158,0.008565,0.003735,0.015137,-0.01219,0.001514,-0.003664,-0.010342,-0.004042,-0.002407,0.009553,-0.014007,-0.011605,0.003462,0.004067,0.007109,-0.00491

Raw

Cycladic_EBA:Kou03,0.0095,0.0157,-0.0059,-0.022,0.0043,-0.0116,-0.0022,-0.0027,0.0002,0.0249,0.0033,0.0104,-0.015,-0.0018,-0.0181,0.0028,0.0203,0.0006,0.0059,-0.0055,-0.0071,-0.0012,0.0018,-0.0009,-0.0052
Helladic_EBA:Mik15,0.0095,0.0171,-0.0002,-0.027,0.0102,-0.0112,-0.0028,-0.0029,0.0131,0.0356,0.0017,0.0059,-0.013,0.0017,-0.0229,-0.0135,0.0063,0.0036,0.0065,-0.0131,-0.0078,-0.0001,-0.0015,0.0061,-0.0021
Helladic_MBA:Log02,0.0103,0.0151,0.0052,-0.0059,0.0089,-0.005,-0.001,-0.0015,0.0015,0.0142,-0.0001,0.0038,-0.0101,0.0002,-0.0105,-0.0095,-0.0042,0.0012,0.0021,-0.0017,-0.0083,0.0008,0.0051,-0.0005,-0.0023
Helladic_MBA:Log04,0.0103,0.0138,0.0074,-0.0004,0.0062,-0.0003,-0.0026,-0.001,-0.0035,0.0047,0.0023,0.0101,-0.0082,0.0011,-0.0027,-0.0078,-0.0031,-0.0019,0.0076,-0.0112,-0.0093,0.0028,0.0033,0.0059,-0.0041

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 01:54 AM
I'd like to see David explore the issue of steppe ancestry in those Logkas samples with formal analysis because I'm not confident Vahaduo is up to the task of distinguishing the source here (Yamnaya/Steppe EMBA versus Corded/Steppe MLBA).

Sorcelow
01-16-2021, 01:56 AM
Here are some two way models for the Longos samples. It's interesting that they arent picking up much west asian ancestry like the Mycenaean samples do; I guess that came to northern Greece at a later date.

Log02:

"53.1% HUN_Starcevo_N + 46.9% RUS_Afanasievo" "0.0216"

Log04:

"54% HUN_LBK_MN + 46% RUS_Catacomb" "0.021"
"41.4% Corded_Ware_DEU + 58.6% Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2" "0.0232"

Dorkymon
01-16-2021, 01:59 AM
Target: Helladic_MBA:Log04
Distance: 2.4194% / 0.02419401
52.2 UKR_N_o
45.8 Yamnaya_UKR
1.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.8 GEO_CHG
0.0 Baltic_LVA_HG
0.0 IberomaurusianMAR_Taforalt
0.0 Indian
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 Nganassan
0.0 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
0.0 West_African
0.0 WHG

Helves
01-16-2021, 01:59 AM
The lack of any CHG/Iran_N in the two Steppe-rich samples makes me think that they were very recent arrivals to present day Greece. Considering the earlier sample from the Cyclades scoring even more CHG/Iran_N than the Minoans.

Johnny ola
01-16-2021, 01:59 AM
Distance to: Helladic_MBA:Log04
0.03533605 Greek_Thessaly
0.03745346 Gagauz
0.03778287 Greek_Macedonia
0.03797783 Italian_Northeast
0.03881694 Albanian
0.03883212 Italian_Piedmont
0.03909755 Bulgarian
0.03948434 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.03986721 Romanian
0.04068575 Macedonian
0.04069586 Swiss_Italian
0.04078406 Italian_Veneto
0.04141950 Rumelia_East
0.04155838 Italian_Liguria
0.04218237 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.04228890 Italian_Lombardy
0.04322381 Italian_Bergamo
0.04355271 Italian_Tuscany
0.04545280 French_Provence
0.04654212 Montenegrin
0.04671440 Serbian
0.04741006 Italian_Marche
0.04846524 Greek_Peloponnese
0.04964819 Italian_Umbria
0.04992537 Italian_Aosta_Valley

Distance to: Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.02523331 Greek_Thessaly
0.02642431 Italian_Tuscany
0.02680568 Italian_Piedmont
0.02711457 Italian_Lombardy
0.02791138 Italian_Marche
0.02845305 Italian_Liguria
0.02943631 Albanian
0.03011735 French_Corsica
0.03103996 Italian_Umbria
0.03223088 Greek_Macedonia
0.03232640 Italian_Bergamo
0.03374879 Italian_Lazio
0.03421376 Greek_Peloponnese
0.03432588 Greek_Central_Macedonia
0.03546127 Swiss_Italian
0.03594062 Italian_Veneto
0.03611853 Italian_Abruzzo
0.03699253 Italian_Molise
0.03787082 Italian_Trentino-Alto-Adige
0.03938887 Italian_Apulia
0.03939264 Rumelia_East
0.04241476 Greek_Izmir
0.04333878 Greek_Laconia
0.04359595 Italian_Northeast
0.04365836 Italian_Basilicata

Distance to: Helladic_EBA:Mik15
0.07595865 Sardinian
0.08271601 Italian_Calabria
0.08298441 Italian_Jew
0.08382109 Italian_Campania
0.08448195 Sicilian_East
0.08480988 Italian_Apulia
0.08615882 Italian_Basilicata
0.08638623 Romaniote_Jew
0.08725117 Sephardic_Jew
0.08735623 Maltese
0.08789993 Italian_Lazio
0.08808007 Greek_Dodecanese
0.08892301 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.08937307 Italian_Abruzzo
0.09007834 Greek_Kos
0.09016055 Sicilian_West
0.09072775 Italian_Molise
0.09122491 French_Corsica
0.09179614 Greek_Laconia
0.09226700 Greek_Crete
0.09300389 Italian_Umbria
0.09325521 Tunisian_Jew
0.09328802 Italian_Marche
0.09437571 Moroccan_Jew
0.09453804 Greek_Izmir

Distance to: Cycladic_EBA:Kou03
0.05204134 Greek_Kos
0.05385652 Greek_Dodecanese
0.05680599 Italian_Calabria
0.05856668 Italian_Campania
0.05971432 Romaniote_Jew
0.06059452 Italian_Jew
0.06078801 Italian_Basilicata
0.06180311 Greek_Crete
0.06216075 Italian_Apulia
0.06230512 Cypriot
0.06317933 Ashkenazi_Germany
0.06476211 Greek_Central_Anatolia
0.06480381 Sephardic_Jew
0.06506609 Sicilian_East
0.06632712 Greek_Izmir
0.06704354 Maltese
0.06706089 Italian_Abruzzo
0.06824511 Italian_Molise
0.06931194 Greek_Laconia
0.07018232 Italian_Lazio
0.07288819 Italian_Umbria
0.07298538 Ashkenazi_Belarussia
0.07331913 Greek_Cappadocia
0.07365125 Ashkenazi_Poland
0.07366501 Ashkenazi_Lithuania

Michalis Moriopoulos
01-16-2021, 02:01 AM
^ I also did pop average and individual distances:

42597

Vasile
01-16-2021, 02:01 AM
deleted

xripkan
01-16-2021, 02:06 AM
I found this model interesting

Target: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
Distance: 1.9590% / 0.01958990
63.1 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
21.1 Helladic_MBA:Log04
15.8 Helladic_MBA:Log02

Distance to: Iberia_Northeast_Empuries2
0.04871891 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.06362479 Helladic_MBA:Log02
0.09261906 Helladic_MBA:Log04

Helves
01-16-2021, 02:08 AM
Very good fits by using only these samples



Helladic_MBA:Log02,0.117238,0.153345,0.01961,-0.019057,0.02739,-0.013945,-0.00235,-0.003461,0.003068,0.025878,-0.000162,0.005695,-0.015015,0.000275,-0.014251,-0.012596,-0.005476,0.00152,0.00264,-0.002126,-0.010357,0.000989,0.006286,-0.000602,-0.002754
Helladic_MBA:Log04,0.117238,0.140143,0.027907,-0.001292,0.01908,-0.000837,-0.00611,-0.002308,-0.007158,0.008565,0.003735,0.015137,-0.01219,0.001514,-0.003664,-0.010342,-0.004042,-0.002407,0.009553,-0.014007,-0.011605,0.003462,0.004067,0.007109,-0.00491
Slavic:HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2,0.134311,0.126941,0.081 458,0.065569,0.035391,0.033746,0.00987,0.005769,0. 004704,-0.02278,-0.002436,-0.005395,0.01219,0.020643,-0.015201,-0.003845,0.005867,0.004561,0.008673,5e-04,0.001497,-0.00272,0.013804,-0.007109,0.002634
TUR_Alalakh_MLBA,0.0970122,0.1472908,-0.0604988,-0.090117,-0.0156477,-0.0341748,0.0015728,-0.0050412,-0.00306,0.0125111,0.006408,-0.0047555,0.0086109,0.004912,-0.0113588,0.0070272,-0.0005767,0.0018711,0.0047668,-0.002535,0.0021548,0.0038048,-0.0040007,-0.0040968,0.0005988


Target: Greek_Macedonia
Distance: 1.1393% / 0.01139303
51.0 Helladic_MBA
25.2 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
23.8 Slavic

Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 1.1318% / 0.01131767
69.6 Helladic_MBA
18.6 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
11.8 Slavic

Target: Greek_Dodecanese
Distance: 1.2083% / 0.01208303
55.6 TUR_Alalakh_MLBA
44.4 Helladic_MBA

Johnny ola
01-16-2021, 02:13 AM
Guys one of them scoring something north african lol.And the Aegean/Cyclades sample has steppe admixture.


Target: Helladic_MBA:Log04
Distance: 3.2149% / 0.03214909
52.6 TUR_Barcin_N
45.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.6 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
0.2 WHG

Target: Helladic_MBA:Log02
Distance: 2.7289% / 0.02728924
48.6 TUR_Barcin_N
33.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
15.8 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
2.2 WHG
0.4 MAR_EN

Target: Helladic_EBA:Mik15
Distance: 2.3962% / 0.02396191
53.8 TUR_Barcin_N
38.2 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
6.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.2 MAR_EN
0.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Target: Cycladic_EBA:Kou03
Distance: 1.8214% / 0.01821442
75.2 TUR_Barcin_N
11.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
9.4 GEO_CHG
4.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.2 MAR_EN