Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 77

Thread: Saka, Scythians, Sarmatians & Huns: Overview (G25 Data)

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Administrator
    Posts
    3,258
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA
    D4j5*

    England

    Lightbulb Saka, Scythians, Sarmatians & Huns: Overview (G25 Data)

    Briefly, this thread will review the differing admixture proportions between the various Eurasian pastoral nomad samples we currently have from the Iron Age and Classical periods based on Eurogenes G25 data and poi's excellent nMonte runner (remember to donate to its' upkeep!). This can be considered an extension of Kulin's assessment here.


    Method
    The ref pop choices are self-explanatory (note that Afanasievo is interchangeable with Yamnaya Samara here). I usually refrain from using more than six ref pops in G25 nMonte simulations, but the breadth of the territory covered does necessitate a somewhat large number. All of these populations are distinct from one another. I've elected to use only one non-ancient as a ref pop (my qpAdm-guided AASI simulation from Pakistan-Afghanistan) for obvious reasons (we don't have any predominantly AASI aDNA just yet).

    The original iteration of this run had a ref pop source for CHG. However, most of the target samples didn't require it (<1%) and only two or three registered anything above 1% (<2%). Ergo, there doesn't appear to have been any significant gene flow from the Caucasus into the Eurasian steppes during the Iron Age to Classical period based on our current samples.

    A second iteration using just the Hovsgol Mongolian BA samples as an East Eurasian source was attempted. While the fits worked very well for everyone else, certain Hun and "Nomad_IA" samples produced substandard fits (>5) and scored 100% Hovsgol BA. Inspecting the check fit demonstrated that those samples seemed to pair fairly well with modern Tungusic-speaking groups. I performed a quick test to discern which of these populations was the least West Eurasian (below in spoilers; cycle=1k, batch=500, pen=def). This suggests an additional East Eurasian source that's present in modern Tungusic speakers played a role in the ethnogenesis of these groups. They aren't a simple expansion of Hovsgol BA westwards. I elected to use the Oroqen (0% W. Eurasian, lowest fit) as a result.

     

    Code:
    	Sample	Details	Fit	Map	Eskimo Naukan	Han	RUS Sintashta MLBA	TKM Parkhai EBA	USA Ancient Beringian
    1	Evenk:Average		21.77 	Open Map	68.4	31.6	0	0	0
    2	Mogush:Average		12.2149 	Open Map	37.8	46.8	14.8	0.6	0
    3	Oroqen:Average		11.1891 	Open Map	29.6	70.4	0	0	0
    4	Tuvinian:Average		13.0665 	Open Map	38.8	47.6	13.4	0.2	0
    5	Ulchi:Average		12.5751 	Open Map	38.6	61.4	0	0	0


    Results
    Please see below.

    Code:
    Sample				Fit	Botai	Hovsgol BA	Oroqen	Globular Amphora PL	Afanasievo	Sintashta	Sim AASI NW By DMXX	Parkhai EN
    Hun_Tian_Shan:Average		2.0889	5.2	27.8		4.6	2.2			16		36.8		2.6			4.8
    Hun_Tian_Shan_o:Average		2.9309	0	67.4		25.6	0.2			0.6		5.6		0.2			0.4
    KAZ_Hun-Sarmatian:Average	2.5186 	0	52.4		46.8	0			0.2		0.6		0			0
    KAZ_Nomad_HP:Average		3.6153 	0	57.2		41.2	0.4			0.2		1		0			0
    KAZ_Nomad_IA:Average		2.8719 	12	16.8		2.6	2.4			25		33.8		2.2			5.2
    KAZ_Nomad_Med:Average		2.8806 	0	60.6		10.6	1.4			8.6		16.4		1			1.4
    KGZ_Nomad_Med:Average		3.725 	0	60.6		34	0.4			1		3.4		0			0.6
    RUS_Nomad_Med:Average		2.4454 	0	37.8		6.8	3			0.8		47.8		0.6			3.2
    Saka_Kazakh_steppe:Average	1.6451 	1.2	49.8		3.6	2.4			15.4		24.6		0.4			2.6
    Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o1:Average	3.2748 	0.8	8.2		1.6	0			18.6		57.2		2.6			11
    Saka_Kazakh_steppe_o2:Average	3.3434 	0.2	9		1.8	0			17.4		65.6		0.8			5.2
    Saka_Tian_Shan:Average		3.0204 	3	16		4	1			29.8		37.6		2.2			6.4
    Saka_Tian_Shan_o:Average	2.6643 	10.8	26.6		5	3			3.6		44.8		1.8			4.4
    Sarmatian_KAZ:Average		2.0229 	0	8.4		1.4	3			38		43		0.2			6
    Sarmatian_RUS_Casp_ste:Average	1.5573 	2	9		2	2			29		48.6		0.4			7
    Sarmatian_RUS_Pokrovka:Average	1.5593 	0.6	7.8		1.8	0			31.2		52.6		0.6			5.4
    Sarmatian_RUS_Urals:Average	1.6352 	1.6	7.4		2.8	2.2			26		53.8		0.6			5.6
    Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA:Average	1.9364 	4	51.6		3	1.8			14.4		23		0.4			1.8
    Scythian_HUN:Average		2.8199 	0	0		0	42.4			0		57.4		0			0.2
    Scythian_MDA:Average		4.9562 	0	1		0.2	45.2			0		45.8		0.4			7.4
    Scythian_MDA_o2:Average		2.8724 	0	0		0	18.8			0		81.2		0			0
    Scythian_UKR:Average		3.0679 	0	0.4		0.6	16.6			0		80.8		0			1.6
    Scythian_Zevak_Ch_IA:Average	2.954 	0	44.6		4.6	3.4			12.4		30.6		0.8			3.6
    Analysis
    • Botai persists sporadically around the Tian Shan, but the highest value is seen in a Kazakh nomad.
    • Hovsgol BA is present in most of the samples. The frequency varies wildly. There isn't an obvious relationship between the Hun vs. Saka assignment and the observed frequency. Those Scythians from the European steppe (Hungary, Ukraine, Moldova) lack this form of ancestry.
    • Oroqen-like ancestry largely mirrors the pattern seen from the Hovsgol BA component.
    • Trace surplus EEF (Global Amphora) is located east of the Urals (0-3%). It forms the majority of the non-steppe ancestry in the European Scythians. The "Moldovan_outlier2" sample is so because it contains less GA and more MLBA steppe relative to the others. However, it's identical to the Ukrainian Scythian.
    • Afanasievo ancestry is truly "Afanasievo" in those samples from East-Central Asia. Here, we see it reach a maximum of 29% in the Saka Tian Shan average. A moderate presence exists in the Kazakh steppe (Saka, Hun). The non-Hun Sarmatians register plenty, but this is probably persistent ancestry from the EMBA period. The European Scythians score none.
    • Sintashta is, unsurprisingly, the primary component across most of the Scythian and Saka individuals. It reaches a maximum in the European Scythians (though it's not possible to determine from this run whether that's strictly true).
    • My AASI simulation is picked up in a handful of the East-Central Asian samples (approaching 3% in some). It seems to correlate with Iranian-Turanian agriculturalist admixture, and we know AASI was present in South-Central Asia around the Bronze Age onwards. As expected, absent everywhere west of the Kazakh steppe.
    • Parkhai_EN is present in a handful of East-Central Asian samples. Curiously, it's picked up in two of the European Scythians (the Moldovan reaches up to 8%).


    All thoughts welcome.
    Last edited by DMXX; 05-04-2019 at 11:54 AM. Reason: correction to sentence in method RE: CHG

  2. The Following 28 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Просигој (05-04-2019),  agent_lime (05-06-2019),  Alain (05-14-2019),  anglesqueville (05-04-2019),  Arame (05-07-2019),  Awale (05-08-2019),  Drewcastle (05-04-2019),  Garimund (05-08-2019),  Hando (05-06-2019),  Kopfjäger (05-04-2019),  Kulin (05-06-2019),  Megalophias (05-07-2019),  NiloSaharan (05-03-2019),  oz (05-12-2019),  palamede (05-04-2019),  parasar (05-04-2019),  pmokeefe (05-08-2019),  poi (05-06-2019),  Power77 (05-06-2019),  prashantvaidwan (05-06-2019),  Pribislav (05-06-2019),  Psynome (05-03-2019),  rms2 (05-04-2019),  Ruderico (05-06-2019),  Ryukendo (05-06-2019),  szahel (05-04-2019),  Táltos (05-10-2019),  Targum (05-03-2019)

  3. #2
    Administrator
    Posts
    3,258
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA
    D4j5*

    England
    Repeated the same procedure for all the individual Medieval Turkish samples from the steppe (Kimak, Karluk, Karakhanid). At work right now, but will post the outputs when I return home.

    They were largely a mixture of Hovsgol-Oroqen and Sintashta, the ratio of which was around 30-50% vs. 30-40% from memory. Botai was registered but not significant. Somewhat more Iranian-Turanian agriculturalist ancestry is present relative to the Tian Shan samples. They also scored a pinch of extra EEF.

    Afanasievo ancestry appeared consistently, though at lower levels than what was observed in the Tian Shan samples. The significant showing made by Afanasievo in these samples neatly accompanies the linguistic evidence of multiple Tocharian loanwords in Turkic. The general decrease in Afanasievo-like ancestry from the EMBA steppe period onwards in E-C Asia suggests that they simply melted into the surrounding populations in an irregular fashion over time.

    Those of us who've insisted for years (such as yours truly) that the the first Turks had to have been a West-East Eurasian intermediary population based on the physical anthropological and historical data appear to have been correct on that call.

    It looks to me like the Medieval Turks were an (again) irregular mixture of a group similar to the "Scythian" Zev_Chik site and a more Sintashta and Iranian agriculturalist-rich population. The Kangju look like ideal candidates for that. I might have a go at modelling them later on as well.

    The above has implications with respect to modelling Turkish, Azerbaijani, Turkmen and other related groups. Clearly, using East Asians as a catch-all for the sum East Eurasian admixture and reverse-calculating the values in "elemental" models is no longer sensible, because...
    1) "Han" or "Nganassan" do not serve as reliable proxies for Botai admixture
    2) The amount of East Eurasian admixture varies substantially between the five Medieval Turks examined

    I also assessed the Medieval Ottoman Turkish samples - One of them (ID ...95, with whom I share mtDNA with) was up to 90% Kimak-Karakhanid-Karluk-like, with the remainder being West Asian. The other was predominantly Anatolian overall.

    G25 is great for modelling purposes and for revealing overall trends, so I'd expect these qualitative inferences to mostly match any formal stats-based assessment of these groups, though the proportions are likely to differ. Just pointing that out in advance.

    Stay tuned!

  4. The Following 7 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Amber29 (05-06-2019),  Garimund (05-08-2019),  Hando (05-06-2019),  pmokeefe (05-08-2019),  Power77 (05-06-2019),  prashantvaidwan (05-06-2019),  Táltos (05-10-2019)

  5. #3
    Registered Users
    Posts
    142

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    .
    Those of us who've insisted for years (such as yours truly) that the the first Turks had to have been a West-East Eurasian intermediary population based on the physical anthropological and historical data appear to have been correct on that call.
    Just to be clear, you are referring to to the first groups to be historically recorded as Turks--Gokturks and onward, is that right?

    I suspect that proto-Turkic speakers probably were a mainly Baikal HG-like east Eurasian population, but mixed with Afanasievo and Sintashta derived peoples beginning in the Bronze age and with other groups like Iran related farmers through the Iron age and during historical times. Would you agree with that scenario?

  6. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to Psynome For This Useful Post:

     Awale (05-08-2019),  DMXX (05-06-2019),  palamede (05-06-2019),  parasar (05-06-2019)

  7. #4
    Administrator
    Posts
    3,258
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R2a*-M124 (L295-)
    mtDNA
    D4j5*

    England
    Quote Originally Posted by Psynome View Post
    Just to be clear, you are referring to to the first groups to be historically recorded as Turks--Gokturks and onward, is that right?

    I suspect that proto-Turkic speakers probably were a mainly Baikal HG-like east Eurasian population, but mixed with Afanasievo and Sintashta derived peoples beginning in the Bronze age and with other groups like Iran related farmers through the Iron age and during historical times. Would you agree with that scenario?
    Correct - By "first Turks", I refer to those who were historically attested.

    I also agree with your proposition. Early influence from IE speakers looks likely to me.

  8. The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to DMXX For This Useful Post:

     Awale (05-08-2019),  Hando (05-06-2019),  Psynome (05-06-2019),  Ruderico (05-06-2019)

  9. #5
    Registered Users
    Posts
    6,376

    Quote Originally Posted by Psynome View Post
    Just to be clear, you are referring to to the first groups to be historically recorded as Turks--Gokturks and onward, is that right?

    I suspect that proto-Turkic speakers probably were a mainly Baikal HG-like east Eurasian population, but mixed with Afanasievo and Sintashta derived peoples beginning in the Bronze age and with other groups like Iran related farmers through the Iron age and during historical times. Would you agree with that scenario?
    I would agree based on where they were initially located 1085 miles east of Loulan to the west of the Wei lands.

    "In the suburb Wen-I, to the north-east of the city of Lo-Yang, was the dwelling of Sung-Yun of Tun-hwang who, in company with the Bhikshu Hwei Säng, was sent on an embassy to the western countries by the Empress Dowager (Tai-Hau) of the Great Wei dynasty to obtain Buddhist books. This occurred in the eleventh month of the first year of the period Shén kwei (517-518 A.D.) They procured altogether 170 volumes, all standard works, belonging to the Great Vehicle. First of all, having repaired to the capital, they proceeded in a westerly direction forty days, and arrived at the Chih Ling (Barren Ridge), which is the western frontier of the country. On this ridge is the fortified outpost of the Wei territory. The Chih-Ling produces no trees or shrubs, and hence its name (Barren). Here is the common resort (cave) of the rat-bird. These two animals being of different species (chung), but the same genus (lui), live and breed together. The bird is the male, the rat the female. From their cohabiting in this manner, the name rat-bird cave is derived. Ascending the Chih-Ling and proceeding westward twenty-three days, having crossed the Drifting Sands, they arrived at the country of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun.
    Along the road the cold was very severe, whilst the high winds, and the driving snow, and the pelting sand and gravel were so bad, that it was impossible to raise one's eyes without getting them filled. The chief city of the Tuh-kiueh-'hun and the neighbourhood is agreeably warm. The written character of this country is nearly the same as that of the Wei. The customs and regulations observed by these people are mostly barbarous in character (after the rules of the outside barbarians or foreigners). From this country going west 3500 li, we arrive at the city of Shen-Shen [Loulan]. This city, from the time it set up a king, was seized by the Tuh-kiueh-hun, and at present there resides in it a military officer (the second general) for subjugating (pacifying) the west. The entire cantonment” amounts to 3000 men, who are employed in withstanding the western Hu."


  10. The Following 5 Users Say Thank You to parasar For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-15-2019),  Garimund (05-08-2019),  Hando (05-10-2019),  palamede (05-07-2019),  spruithean (05-06-2019)

  11. #6
    Junior Member
    Posts
    9
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by DMXX View Post
    Afanasievo ancestry appeared consistently, though at lower levels than what was observed in the Tian Shan samples. The significant showing made by Afanasievo in these samples neatly accompanies the linguistic evidence of multiple Tocharian loanwords in Turkic

    There is no Tocharian loanwords in Proto Turkic language.The proposed loanwords debated years ago.

    Also Tocharians aka Tarim mummies both autosomally and paternally distinct from Afanesievo. Tocharian were paternally R1a and autosomally Corded Ware but Afanesievo R1b and Yamnaya. Afanesievo was a dead lineage and Tocharians clearly derived from a Corded ware populations just like other modern IE peoples.

  12. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Curious one For This Useful Post:

     Coldmountains (05-21-2019),  spruithean (05-21-2019)

  13. #7
    Moderator
    Posts
    647
    Sex
    Location
    Sarai-Batu
    Ethnicity
    Bengali
    Nationality
    Canadian
    Y-DNA
    J2b2a
    mtDNA
    A11-a*

    Canada Bangladesh Jammu and Kashmir India Pakistan Sri Lanka
    Quote Originally Posted by Curious one View Post
    There is no Tocharian loanwords in Proto Turkic language.The proposed loanwords debated years ago.

    Also Tocharians aka Tarim mummies both autosomally and paternally distinct from Afanesievo. Tocharian were paternally R1a and autosomally Corded Ware but Afanesievo R1b and Yamnaya. Afanesievo was a dead lineage and Tocharians clearly derived from a Corded ware populations just like other modern IE peoples.
    Where did you obtain the autosomal data for Tocharians/Tarimians?

  14. #8
    Junior Member
    Posts
    9
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Kulin View Post
    Where did you obtain the autosomal data for Tocharians/Tarimians?

    I didn't see a direct result of a Tocharian gedmatch. However, we know the phenotypes of Afanesievo and Tocharians.First one had swarty features just like Yamnaya,but the Tocharians had fair features as same as Corded Ware and other EEF+IE peoples.

  15. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Curious one For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-21-2019),  Coldmountains (05-21-2019)

  16. #9
    Moderator
    Posts
    927
    Sex
    Y-DNA
    R1a-Z93
    mtDNA
    H28 (UA/GAC)

    Quote Originally Posted by Curious one View Post
    There is no Tocharian loanwords in Proto Turkic language.The proposed loanwords debated years ago.

    Also Tocharians aka Tarim mummies both autosomally and paternally distinct from Afanesievo. Tocharian were paternally R1a and autosomally Corded Ware but Afanesievo R1b and Yamnaya. Afanesievo was a dead lineage and Tocharians clearly derived from a Corded ware populations just like other modern IE peoples.
    Even in the tarim basin Tocharians did not leave such a big genetic legacy. It seems late Tocharians were heavily mixed with East Iranics and later replaced by Uyghurs and Karluks. Tocharians did not play an important historical role in this region and outside of the tarim basin it is hard to find any tocharian influences.

    I would say that early Tocharians were similar to Afanasievo and R1b but later they were heavily mixed with Iranics in my opinion but we need more ancient dna to prove that
    Y-DNA: R1a> R-M417> R-Z645> R-Z93> R-Z94> R-Y3 (Sredny Stog culture)> R-L657> R-Y4(Andronovo)> R-Y6> R-Y5> R-Y920* (Pashtun)

  17. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Coldmountains For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-21-2019),  Curious one (05-21-2019)

  18. #10
    Junior Member
    Posts
    9
    Sex

    Quote Originally Posted by Coldmountains View Post
    Even in the tarim basin Tocharians did not leave such a big genetic legacy. It seems late Tocharians were heavily mixed with East Iranics and later replaced by Uyghurs and Karluks. Tocharians did not play an important historical role in this region and outside of the tarim basin it is hard to find any tocharian influences.

    I would say that early Tocharians were similar to Afanasievo and R1b but later they were heavily mixed with Iranics in my opinion but we need more ancient dna to prove that
    Yes Tocharian did not play significant roles beyond Tarım basin.Even most Tocharian cultural elements derived from Chinese and Indo-Aryan civilizations.

    But you are wrong about genetic influence of Tocharian into Uighurs. Many Uighurs obtain their phenotypical features from Tocharian(Red-blond hair,fair skin,Caucasoid structure) also a lot of R1a in Uighurs came from Tocharians.
    Last edited by Curious one; 05-21-2019 at 08:04 PM.

  19. The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Curious one For This Useful Post:

     Alain (05-21-2019),  palamede (05-22-2019)

Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Are the Scythians/Sarmatians Iranic?
    By Brent.B in forum Ancient (aDNA)
    Replies: 206
    Last Post: 04-24-2019, 03:43 PM
  2. Replies: 123
    Last Post: 01-24-2019, 09:15 PM
  3. Q-L938 Huns?
    By kharrington in forum Q
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 12-12-2018, 07:40 PM
  4. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 10-06-2018, 04:59 AM
  5. [Split] Origins of the Saka
    By pegasus in forum History (Ancient)
    Replies: 20
    Last Post: 07-11-2015, 01:52 AM

Posting Permissions

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