I've been playing around with the new qpAdm program and the Haak et al. dataset over the past few days and managed to come up with what I think are some very promising results. For instance, the Yamnaya genomes from the Samara Valley and surrounds fit rather well as 0.514 Samara hunter-gatherer + 0.486 Georgian (std. errors 0.032, chisq 3.890).
This is an interesting outcome, mainly because Georgian is a Kartvelian language, and linguistics data suggest that the early Indo-Europeans - presumably the Yamnaya nomads or their ancestors - were in close contact with Proto-Kartvelian speakers. Moreover, even though the Yamnaya males tested to date all belong to Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b, which they probably inherited from their hunter-gatherer ancestors, because the Samara forager also belonged to this haplogroup, some of their mtDNA lineages appear to be derived from the Caucasus and/or nearby areas of the Near East.
However, the main problem with this analysis is that it's attempting to model an ancient population as a mixture of a modern one. Indeed, my estimate is that present-day Georgians harbor around 20% of the so called Ancient North Eurasian (ANE) component, which probably arrived in the Caucasus from the Eurasian steppe (see here). If so, then the qpAdm run might be overestimating the non-steppe admixture in the Yamnaya genomes by at least 10%. Nevertheless, I'm quite happy with this result as I await ancient DNA from the Caucasus and Near East.
By the way, I also pretty much nailed the Corded Ware sample: 0.73 Yamnaya + 0.27 Esperstedt_MN (std. errors 0.060, chisq 2.621). Admittedly, an identical result for the same genomes was reported months ago at the ASHG 2014 conference (see here), but that's OK, because it means I'm on the right track.
qpAdm is easy to run, but the quality of its output heavily reliant on the outgroup or "right set" of populations picked by the user. As far as I can see, the following ten populations (a subset of the "magic set" of 15 from Haak et al.) produce the most robust outcomes when analyses are limited to West Eurasian groups.
BiakaWhy do they work so well? I really have no idea, but through simple trial and error I found that some of the others from the "magic set", in particular the Ami, produced much poorer results.
Bougainville
Chukchi
Eskimo
Han
Ju_hoan_North
Karitiana
Mbuti
Ulchi
Yoruba
I'll probably end up posting a whole catalog of qpAdm output in the comments section below over the next couple of weeks. I'm open to suggestions about the models to test and how to improve my runs.
Citation...
Haak et al., Massive migration from the steppe was a source for Indo-European languages in Europe, Nature, Advance online publication, doi:10.1038/nature14317
See also...
Yamnaya's exotic ancestry: The Kartvelian connection
215 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 215 of 215”Sisus” does not have much cognates within Uralic languages apart from Finnic languages. Only Mordvine has a cognate word ”śezəm” pith of tree. If there is a connection between sisu and sishu, the logic could be the following, stomach > child or side, rib > child
Hungarian gyermek, gyerek gyomor = stomach
Basque haur hera= gizzard (in Spanish the same word (molleja) is related to ”fleshy part” (molla)
Mordvine pakša peke = stomach
Russian rebjonok rebró = rib
Greek paid(ak)i pagidi = side
I do not know the existing etymologies of the Mordvine or Greek words, so this comparison is just mine and for this purpose.
As you see, I am interested in semantic relationships between words and geographic expansion of word roots.
I am sure that you are also aware of other similarities between Dravidian and Uralic languages.
And I do not know the existing etymology of the Basque word either. The Russian etymology is confirmed and the Hungarian word is of unknown etymology.
Kristiina,
On Dravidian-Uralic relations here an interesting one though the source is not very conventional
http://www.scribd.com/doc/194650820/Tyler-Proto-Dravido-Uralian-1986
And about sishu and sisus i think its simple and better to think the words are unrelated:).
@Nick
If you please kindly answer:
1. Do you think the South Asian Type component(s) that appeared in Yamnaya and CWC Samples can simply be a result of Basal type Ancestry or A signal of Migrations of people having such ancestry?
2. What will be your expectations from Samples of Maykop? Do you think they can show more South Asian affinity?.
@Kristiina
On Sanskrit Sishu it appears a convincing IE belonging exists-
http://starling.rinet.ru/cgi-bin/response.cgi?root=config&morpho=0&basename=%5Cdata%5Cie%5Cpiet&first=1&off=&text_proto=&method_proto=substring&ic_proto=on&text_meaning=&method_meaning=substring&ic_meaning=on&text_hitt=&method_hitt=substring&ic_hitt=on&text_tokh=&method_tokh=substring&ic_tokh=on&text_ind=&method_ind=substring&ic_ind=on&text_avest=&method_avest=substring&ic_avest=on&text_iran=&method_iran=substring&ic_iran=on&text_arm=&method_arm=substring&ic_arm=on&text_greek=&method_greek=substring&ic_greek=on&text_slav=&method_slav=substring&ic_slav=on&text_balt=&method_balt=substring&ic_balt=on&text_germ=&method_germ=substring&ic_germ=on&text_lat=&method_lat=substring&ic_lat=on&text_ital=&method_ital=substring&ic_ital=on&text_celt=&method_celt=substring&ic_celt=on&text_alb=&method_alb=substring&ic_alb=on&text_rusmean=&method_rusmean=substring&ic_rusmean=on&text_refer=&method_refer=substring&ic_refer=on&text_comment=&method_comment=substring&ic_comment=on&text_any=Fraenkel+990+f&method_any=substring&sort=proto&ic_any=on
Thank you for that link! I skimmed through it, and I must say that the list of morphological similarities between Dravidian and Uralic languages is much bigger than that between Uralic and Yukaghiric or Uralic and Eskimo languages and the overall grammatical structure is very similar. The morphological similarities between Turkic/Mongolic and Uralic languages are also obvious. The most striking similarity between Dravidian and Uralic languages is the existance of a similar negative conjugation, i.e. a negative verb that is inflected for person and number. It is very rare in Eurasia, but seems to be found in Western Armenian and a few other Caucasian and Southeast Asian languages and Udihe.
On the other hand, the Uralic second person ”t” should be related to IE ”t” and and the Uralic plular ”t” could be related to IE ”s” (However, also plural ”k”, which is found in Dravidian, is reconstructed to Proto-Uralic). Both ”t”’s seem to be missing in Dravidian.
In general, it can be said that the morphological similarities between the Uralic and Yukaghiric languages and the Uralic and Eskimo languages are usually shared with IE languages (personal pronouns, interrogative pronoun ”what/who”, demonstrative pronouns).
As for the dual, Bomhard (?) has said that ”Greenberg reconstructs a Eurasiatic dual marker *KI(N). The evidence he adduces for this formant is spotty. Nonetheless, I believe that he may ultimately be right. It looks like we are dealing here with an archaic word for the number 'two', which shows up in Egyptian as 'other, another' and which is preserved in relic forms here and there in other Nostratic daughter languages as a dual formant.”
If yDNA N was moving in Kazakhstan area (in addition to China :-)), it could explain the above similarities, provided that Dravidian languages were spokend in Central Asia at the same time.
As for your last post, who knows! However, the area is very restricted and the meanings are not comletely clear:
Lithuanian: šišavà (ostlit.) 'Ansammlung kleiner Kinder'
Lettish: sisis 'Räuber, Mörder; kleines Kind', pl. siši 'Marodeure, Parteigänger; Letten, die im angrenzenden Litaien wohnen'
Kristiina,
Are you talking about Negative verb conjugations??
''If yDNA N was moving in Kazakhstan area (in addition to China :-)), it could explain the above similarities, provided that Dravidian languages were spokend in Central Asia at the same time.''
Yeah:)
'' the area is very restricted and the meanings are not comletely clear''
I agree and i will dig to find more convincing stuff!
BTW Do you have the book on Nostratic which can be a factor really in describing such peculiar similarities -
//A Comprehensive Introduction To Nostratic Comparative linguistics: With Special Reference
To Indo-European
By
Allan R. Bomhard// ??
Bomhard’s text seems to be available here: https://archive.org/stream/BomhardAComprehensiveIntroductionToNostraticComparativeLinguistics_201402/Bomhard%20-%20A%20Comprehensive%20Introduction%20to%20Nostratic%20Comparative%20Linguistics_djvu.txt
Caldwell’s book ”Comparative Dravidian grammar” is also interesting in this regard. I do not know what this Scythian language is what he is talking about, but he says the following:
”In the Scythian languages, every verb has a negative voice or mood as well as an affirmative. The Scythian negative voice is generally formed by the insertion of a particle of negation between the theme and the pronominal suffixes; and this is as distinctive of the Drâvidian as of the Turkish and Finnish languages. The regular combination of a negative with a verbal theme is a peculiarity of the Scythian family of tongues.”
He goes on saying that as ”‘al' or ‘il’ is the isolated particle of negation in the oldest Tamil dialect, and being still used in various verbal combinations, l conclude that ‘a' the verbal sign of the negative, has been softened from ‘al”. Whatever opinion we entertain respecting the derivation of ‘a' from ‘al’, the widely extended affinities of al âl or êl; the prohibitive or negative imperative particle, are deserving of notice. The prohibitive particle of the Sântâl, a Kôl dialect, is ‘âlâ;’the Finnish prohibitive also is ”älä.”
In fact the finnish negative morphemes are ”e” (E-n tule = I will NOT come) and ”ÄLÄ” (älä tule = do not come)
Moreover, he notes that ”what is the origin of this Tamil prohibitive suffix ‘aRka‘? It is derived from ‘al' (pronounced ‘aR' before ‘k'), the particle of negation, and ‘ka; which is identical with ‘ka’ or ’ga’, a sign of the Tamil infinitive, optative, or polite imperative, apparent in such words as ‘vâṛga; may (he, thou, you, they,etc.) flourish.”
And here we have again an interesting similarity with the Finnish language as the Finnish optative is formed with ”k”: tulkoon = may he come.
(http://gretil.sub.uni-goettingen.de/gretil_elib/Cdw856__Caldwell_ComparativeGrammarDravidian.pdf)
@Nirjhar007
1. Relationship between
Yamnaya and South Asia very interesting. but South India has
ANI and I think no HG. North India
is more complicated.
2. Maikop. Don't know and won't
guess!
NIck
Kristiina,
'' The prohibitive particle of the Sântâl, a Kôl dialect, is ‘âlâ;’the Finnish prohibitive also is ”älä.”
In fact the finnish negative morphemes are ”e” (E-n tule = I will NOT come) and ”ÄLÄ” (älä tule = do not come)''
On Kol and Santal yes i confirm that from first hand observations! and as you know they belong to Munda family not of Dravidian:)
Thank you so much for the last link i find it very useful!!
Nick,
''1. Relationship between
Yamnaya and South Asia very interesting. but South India has
ANI and I think no HG. North India
is more complicated. ''
I understand.
''2. Maikop. Don't know and won't
guess! ''
And Why should guess? it was a stupid question of me :P as you guys will conduct aDNA analysis there sooner or later.
About India yes if you guys are intending to do aDNA study then i think this chap will be someone to contact with-
http://deccancollegepune.ac.in/Resume_PDF/Archaeology_Other_Staff_Shinde.pdf
Cheers...
@Nick Patterson,
Thank you for the note about the "outgroup case". I will read your paper in detail.
Three more for Yamnaya...
Yamnaya
Samara_HG 0.496
Afghan_Pashtun 0.504
std. errors: 0.055 0.055
chisq 29.390
p-value for nested model: 1.85278e-11
Yamnaya
Samara_HG 0.459
Tajik_Pomiri 0.541
std. errors: 0.046 0.046
chisq 36.252
p-value for nested model: 2.88225e-15
Yamnaya
Samara_HG 0.535
Iranian 0.465
std. errors: 0.031 0.031
chisq 3.500
p-value for nested model: 1.81274e-22
I suspect the Neolithic ancestors of Yamnaya and Georgians came from Iran, where the farmers were more basal than in Anatolia.
I would too. R1b in Samara was found with MtDNA H6a1b. I WANT to know much more about MtDNA H6a1 as it seems she expanded with Yamnaya Culture. MtDNA H6a1a was found in a Corded WRe site in Esperstedt Germany. However, I would like to know was H6a1 a Steppe forager OR came up through the Caucasus. Perhaps was in from the Maykop Culture. Jen V
Me too! My MtDNA really expanded with the Yamnaya Culture but....... Did she come up from the Caucasus, perhaps from to the Iranian Plateau to the Maykop Culture OR did she migrate west from the Asian Steppes. With more research and studies maybe we will know. Jennifer Vibbert
Post a Comment