search this blog

Monday, November 13, 2017

Who's your (proto) daddy Western Europeans?


Considering the increasingly large numbers of paleogenomic samples being released online nowadays, it's no longer practical for me to try to highlight most archaeological cultures and even genetic clusters in my Principal Component Analyses (PCA) of the ancient world. Thus, from now on, I'll be focusing attention in such PCA on the main population shifts that have led to the formation of the modern-day West Eurasian gene pool and genetic substructures, like on the PCA plot below, which includes the new Lipson et al. 2017 data (available at the Reich Lab here).


The relevant PCA datasheet can be gotten here. By grouping several hundred ancient samples into just nine clusters, I'm attempting to highlight four key processes and resulting genetic shifts in Europe, the Near East and Central Asia:

- European forger populations mixing with genetically much more southern early farmers of Near Eastern origin, mostly during the Neolithic, bringing about the total disintegration of the Europe to Siberia Hunter-Gatherer cline

- "Old Europeans" getting overrun and largely absorbed by Y-haplogroup R1-rich Kurgan pastoralists from the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Eneolithic and Bronze Age, leading to the formation of at least one major new cline from the Bronze Age steppe into post-Kurgan expansion Europe

- the ancient Near East "imploding" or becoming significantly more compact in terms of genetic structure, likely due to a variety of major population expansions from the chalcolithic onwards from the eastern and western parts of the Fertile Crescent, as well as probably the Caucasus and Europe (note how the post-Neolithic western Asian cluster stretches out towards Europe)

- fully nomadic and very wide ranging pastoral and warrior cultures dominating the entire Eurasian steppe during the Iron Age, leading to the emergence of progressively more East Asian-admixed populations from west to east across the Eurasian steppe

An interesting outcome of the denser sampling from space and time in West Eurasia is that Y-haplogroup R1b, once so elusive in the ancient DNA record, is now popping up all over the place. The new Lipson et al. dataset, for instance, includes two R1b "Old Europeans" from Blatterhole in Germany dated to the Middle Neolithic. Below is the same PCA as above except with all of the ancients belonging to R1b marked with an X. The two Blatterhole samples are sitting in the largely empty space between the European/Siberian Hunter-Gatherer cline and most of the "Old Europe" cluster. The relevant PCA datasheet is available here.


So it may seem that we're back to square one in the long running effort to pinpoint the origin of Y-haplogroup R1b-L51, which encompasses almost 100% of modern-day Western European R1b lineages, and thus probably ranks as Europe's most common Y-haplogroup. But at this stage I'd say no, because R1b-L51 is a subclade of R1b-M269, of which the oldest sample comes from the Bronze Age steppe. In fact, as can be seen in the above PCA, this sample is sitting in exactly the right spot to be one of those pastoralists who overran "Old Europe", or at least a very close relative thereof.

Or am I wrong? Feel free to let me know in the comments.

I didn't bother creating a similar plot of ancient samples belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a, because, unlike R1b, this marker is still non-existent in samples from outside of Eastern Europe and Siberia dating to before the late Neolithic. And I doubt that this is simply due to a lack of the right ancient material. Moreover, the recent discovery of Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, which encompasses almost 100% of all modern-day R1a lineages on the planet, in a North Pontic steppe sample belonging to the Eneolithic Sredny Stog culture means that it's game over for the naysayers as far as the steppe origin of most modern-day R1a lineages is concerned (see here and here).

In other words, if you're still hoping to see R1a, and especially R1a-M417, pop up in non-steppe derived ancient individuals in, say, such far away places as South Asia, then you'll probably be waiting forever.

For the linguistic implications of all of this, see...

Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...

Update 15/11/2017: After a couple of days of messing around with the Lipson et al. dataset, I'm certain that Late Copper Age sample Protoboleraz_LCA I2788 shows significant steppe-related admixture. This is the only sample from Lipson et al. with such an obvious signal of steppe-related input that had enough data to be analyzed individually by me with PCA and D-stats.


For the time being, amongst the best proxies for this signal appear to be Yamnaya_Samara and Samara_Eneolithic. But it's likely that the real source of the admixture is yet to enter the ancient DNA record, or at least my dataset. When it does, it'll probably be an Eneolithic pastoralist population from the North Pontic steppe.


Yamnaya_Samara also gives the best statistical fit as the single source population in qpAdm (see here). It's an important result, because it suggests that steppe peoples very similar to Yamnaya were already expanding on and out of the steppe as far back as ~3500 BCE, and perhaps a few hundred years earlier.

259 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 259 of 259
Olympus Mons said...

@Chad
that is why you’re cognitively impaired.
In your mind it makes sense that the guy that most promotes Shulaveri Shomu would not know that Aratashen is in Armenia. Right? In your supreme intelligence that makes sense.
There isn’t something in your brain advising you that it would not make any sense?
I sometimes really pity you.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Hey, your words. It is you that comes in here spouting off about S-S, when you don't have the slightest clue about it. Someone could spend 5 minutes on Google Scholar and be more knowledgeable than you. You can keep talking trash, because that is all you have. You don't ever come with facts, or anything remotely considered scientific or accurate.

See below for example:

Blogger Olympus Mons said...

@Chad.
You are talking about people that dressed,eat, made pottery, made houses ,lived in diferent settlements in the same geography.

Different architecture, diferent way of live in the same place means diferent people dumb ass.

Stop being such a beta for Davidski.

November 18, 2017 at 1:39 AM
Blogger Olympus Mons said...

.... The only Shulaveri dna we have is in aratashen, arknashen which yield mtdna I1, H2, H15. And since are early SS its good. However the shulaveri were actually in georgia and Azerbaijan. Not really armenia!!

Armenia CHL mentioned are Y dna L1A most likely from south Iran so I figure not very representative of the armenia (and much less geirgia) Adna.

Pure genius.. LOL Hey, just checking again. How did that African R1b thing turn out for you? Was I right all along, through all your trash talking? That's what I thought. Run along son.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Sites outside of the Kura Valley, like Aratashen and Aknashen/Kha-turnakh in the
Ararat Plain of Armenia, are also associated to the SSC due to similarities in their architecture and material culture (Badalyan et al., 2007, 2010)

http://www.academia.edu/download/38600623/Lyonnet_etal2015QI.pdf

http://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_2008_num_34_2_5258

http://www.academia.edu/download/44881874/LyonnetEtal_QuaterInt_2016.pdf

Just as a beginning...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FV83DgAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA98&dq=shulaveri-shomu+armenia&ots=JQ40vZ_eAP&sig=QRun2v0WyWKepdoNUu4cOy6MpCQ#v=onepage&q=shulaveri-shomu%20armenia&f=false

https://f.hypotheses.org/wp-content/blogs.dir/3148/files/2016/03/Badalyan2010_AknashenTUBA-AR.pdf

Chad Rohlfsen said...

https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Seiji_Kadowaki/publication/303006906_Chipped_Stone_Technology_of_the_Earliest_Agricultural_Village_in_the_Southern_Caucasus_Haci_Elamxanli_Tepe_the_Beginning_of_the_6_th_Millennium_BC/links/5735217808aea45ee83b154d.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/download/41008205/Badalyan_Chataigner_Kohl_2004_obsidian.pdf

http://www.academia.edu/download/36382248/Palumbi_et_al_obsidian_tempered_pottery.pdf

Ric Hern said...

So did R1b M269 split in two around the Carpathians with R1b L51 migrating along Southwestern Ukraine and into Hungary from the North through Slovakia and then up the Danube and down the Elbe towards Denmark ?

Maybe the Globular Amphora expansion forces them out of Southwestern Ukraine ?

Aram said...

Davidski

Wasn't there a Yamna sample close to Rostov?

https://www.google.com/maps/d/viewer?mid=1TYJrkLXUap0Ip-8EIeTH-uzN4V8&hl=en_US&ll=46.360374228851%2C35.530589288890724&z=4


Rob

There are other reasons also. For example the presence in Steppe EMBA such a mitogenomes like R0a1 or J2a2a. Their ultimate origin is in Levant. J2a2 was found there. So I have hard time to imagine a Meshoko herder having such a mtdna.

Aram said...

Btw mitogenic lineages like I1a1, I2,I3 clearly expanded from Steppe. Georgians have lower I than Armenians. But the highest levels of I are in Dagestan.

Rob said...

Aram
See table 22.2 in the link I just sent you
At present- it seems Dagestan was settled after Nw Caucasus. So it's hard to see it as a linking corridor

Davidski said...

@Aram

Those are the Yamnaya_Kalmykia samples. Some of them aren't from Kalmykia though.

They have the highest levels of CHG among the Yamnaya, but the difference between them and the Yamnaya_Samara isn't dramatic.

One of the Ukrainian Yamnaya outliers, a female from Mathieson 2017, probably has much more CHG than Yamnaya_Kalmykia, but she also has some EEF. This sample isn't yet available online.

Grey said...

Matt
"Sample results show that, as a first approximation, Euro HG would be tall "

interesting stuff - makes me wonder if it could have been something as simple as this which led to increasing WHG over time

Matt said...

Cheers Guy.

By the way, I tried regressing on the EuropeK6PCA from Davidski's posts on the Tollense battlefield as well (supplemented the Grasgruber data with 4x assumptions for male height- Basque 178cm, Montenegrin - 183cm, Sardinian - 172cm, Komi - 177cm; Montenegrin and Sardinian taken from real world data, Basque and Komi matched to Spanish and Russian respectively).

Graphed against the results from regressing on Global10: https://i.imgur.com/HYx9XvK.png

That produces outcomes more like the basic regressions on ancestry values within Europe a la Mathieson's data, with a taller Yamnaya and shorter MN_Europe than expected from Global10 values.

But I would have less confidence in this than the Global10 regression - the ratio of populations and height scores to variance in dimensions is much less and populations are closer in dimensions, so I would think it's harder to extrapolate beyond that to ancients, with noise from nutrition and recent selection. (My impression is also that the G10 regression matches closer to the consensus of scores reported by Martiniano and Berg where WHG+EHG slightly taller than present day Northern Europeans, Yamnaya roughly=present day CEU (Berg)/ancient Anglo-Saxon/Iron Age British (Martiniano), rather than much taller.)

Davidski said...

Here's an qpAdm model for Protoboleraz_LCA I2788. Yamnaya_Samara is the best fitting source for the ~17% eastern ancestry. The standard errors are pretty low as well.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NzB8bdmg8xPLDt7gP-Fi4u0rcxDHcJXE/view?usp=sharing

But just in case I'm going to ask whether this might be one of the contaminated samples that wasn't marked as such in the public dataset.

Matt said...

@Grey, I don't know if that alone could be the cause and it does seem like relatively small size difference in this model, but part of the story maybe, (could be some different reasons - warfare obviously, but also maybe slightly larger body size just being a general advantage to survival in cooler climates or others?).

Incidentally, as another point if you or Guy are interested, the Grasgruber 2016 paper (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1570677X16300065) also included some models of height which tried to predict height based on intake of proteins and SES and some other variables, without really considering population structure at all. These are in their Table 5.

Funnily enough these models, once tuned sufficiently by Grasgruber, actually worked fairly well at predicting observed height!

From these predicted scores they calculate residuals with the observed height. So e.g. Belarus observed: 177.5, Belarus predicted: 175, Residual -2.5 (Belarusians 2.5 cm shorter than predicted based on SES+consumption variables).

In theory, the residuals should then be the genetic part, so I placed these residual values into a regression with Globe10 to see what the result was.

Not so good!: https://imgur.com/a/h0Ln3

It's basically just noise. Essentially, unlike the raw observed scores that can be fairly well predicted through the structure of the Globe10, the residuals from Grasgruber's nutrition+SES model cannot.

So why is this the case? My guess about why this is so, is that Grasgruber may have unintentionally recapitulated the genetic population structure through their variables. That is, population with similar ancestry tend to have fairly similar SES (e.g. the European economic region has mostly converged together), and more than that, they tend to have fairly similar diet. So once you put these together, you may just end up matching related population quite closely.

Their model may just be predicted height because it inadvertently correlates with genetic structure, which explains much of height. It may be overfit to producing pop genetic structure and produce spurious nutrition correlations as a result.

This is not to say that nutrition doesn't matter (see the Dutch growth in height for an instance), but it may work out better to start with a genetic model, then introduce nutrition variables one by one to see if they increase fit (for instance, in slight line with your interests Grey, does milk consumption add information on height?).

I guess you could argue it the opposite way as well - that the genetic model only works because it recapitulates nutrition and SES, but I find that less tenable (in light of the observed genetic height scores for WHG, for instance, and because it doesn't seem credible that *none* of the variance is population genetic...) Either way, it's only possible to look at this because of cool, fairly high resolution models of genetic variation and structure like Davidski has built.

Olympus Mons said...

@Chad…
Again, isn’t there in your brain something signaling that I have off course read all those papers and dozens more? Weird. Anyway won’t discuss Shulaveri with you. It would be like debating politics with a 4 year old.
Now, R1b north Africa? – Thanks for asking. Really good. Have you missed pre-Ptolemaic Egyptians with increased Eurasian admix, have you missed latest adna papers of North Africa Into Europe and vice-versa population movements during at least Chalcolithic? You spent so much time in this and missed the obvious conclusion that extensive population movements must have existed from Eurasia into north Africa and from North Africa into Europe (and the other way around) during the heavy pastoral north Africa phase? The obvious conclusion that population movement from Eurasia moved on both side of the Mediterranean into Europe if Gibraltar was not a barrier?
Just because north Africa environment is a graveyard for archeological and specially aDna, it does not mean it was not there. And talking about being there, has anyone found L51 recently? With so much poking around icy Europe Adna friendly and nowhere close to finding it, how does that decrease the chances of them coming from North Africa into Europe you cognitively impaired mental dwarf? Not that cognitive bias is infrequent here. This is a cesspool of it.
Notes:
If someone talks about chalcolithic move of just Europe into North Africa at the high of 5.9 Kiloyear event and peak of birth of Sahara at time of vast population disappearing in there… is a idiot!
If anyone takes Iberia samples caves and calls it Iberian Bell beakers is a double idiot.
If someone thinks that pastoral way of live would rather cross rivers and mountains than take a north African highway of vast grass fields is a ….

Chad Rohlfsen said...

You must not have read them if you think S-S wasn't in Armenia. Anyway, it's clear to everyone you have no knowledge of anything you speak; which is why you go straight to insults instead of data or academic work to support you. You're not worth any more of my time this week. You proved my point.

Davidski said...

I checked with the Reich Lab. Protoboleraz_LCA I2788 doesn't appear to be contaminated in any serious way, and the steppe-related admixture signal is probably real.

Grey said...

Matt
"I don't know if that alone could be the cause and it does seem like relatively small size difference in this model, but part of the story maybe"

yes, seems unlikely unless the height difference was also somehow correlated with health?

Ric Hern said...

So the Steppe people was part of the Bronze Age Danubian Complex like the Archaeology suggested. So Cernavoda was the beginning of this Steppe expansion ? So between 3800 BCE and 3500 BCE the Proto-Western -Indo-Europeans started their migration ?

Is this why the Wheel pops up in Central Europe during this period ? Is this why the Tabiano Horse reached Central Europe as early as 3300 BCE ?

Ric Hern said...

Could this early expansion explain why Celtic and Italic share Archaisms not found among other Indo-European Languages of Central and Western Europe ?

Archaeologists was tempted previously to put the origin of Proto-Italo-Celts in the Baden Culture. Maybe this Proto-Boleraz sample was just the Medicine needed to medicate the doubts ?

Rob said...

Ric
Your comments are funny / naive
Boleraz is still "old European". Some admixture from the western steppe in one individual doesn't mean they're celts

Rob said...

Amuhow, despite what dave claims, the admixture isn't from Yamnaya

Davidski said...

Obviously, I never claimed it was from Yamnaya. This is impossible, since Yamnaya is younger than Boleraz.

But the admixture is from a steppe population very, very similar to Yamnaya.

Rob said...

YEs, the steppe, sure.
But more like the Majkop-Kemi Oba - Usatavo trajectory, which is actually distinguishable by its slightly higher ANF/ WHG to EHG/ CHG make-up, which i suggested at the very start of the protracted debate

Davidski said...

The admixture source is very similar to Yamnaya. I said this at the start. Nothing more to say right now.

Olympus Mons said...

@Chad,
Aaarrrrgghththtth! - Aratashen and Arkanashen are the only two noteworthy sites of the Shulaveri south of lesser Caucasus, in Armenia, and north of lesser Caucasus (ie Georgia, Azerbaijan) there are over 30 much, much larger than the ones in Armenia!
Aratashen early phase is important because it was clearly the arrival of the Shulaveri people in the region. However later phases, not that later, already see intrusions (so, maybe admixing) with people/culture from Kul tepe in Nakhchivan and even south, Halaf, Samara, etc.
Shulaveri Aratshen was “overrun” still in 6th millennia BC! Armenia was in the corridor of people, unlike the vast Shulaveri people stuck between lesser and greater Caucasus where they were left more isolated by over a millennia.
Anyway Arkanashen (unlike Aratashen) never was a centuries old occupied settlement. It looks like it was occupied at periods by eastern cultures (iranic). by the beginning of 5th millennia it was already Sioni and Kura-araxes a lot of centuries later.
So, the central question is: If the Shulaveri were so many, and even their settlements were replaced so rapidly by different architectures, pottery, settlement preferential location and even way of live…. Where did they go!
On the onset of such a vast dispersal of people, what other events unfold?

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
Never answer the question of SSC people from Balkans.
No, no papers that I’ve seen. But up until recently archeo papers were always very local. Everyone assumed Shulaveri was local or "iranic" because of sheep... until Adna showed that their sheep, and cattle, was Anatolian type and very different than the domesticates in North Iran... So they came from west.

Shulaveri always had more domestic cattle (Bos) than the rest of the region (as well as horses). That separate them from the rest. And they clearly share traits with Fikirtepe (which had a staggering volume of Cattle (35%).
reading conoly 2012 et al it’s clear that there was a corridor of people from that went from Iron gates to places like Ho
It really looks like some of the people at Iron gates (the ones liking Oval huts) shared traits with Ovocora gorata (Bulgaria) , cultures in Romania and fikirtepe at south shores of black sea. Follow the map and you end up in Shulaveri. Not a big leap.
Anyway conoly et al 2012 connects cattle context from Ovčarovo Gorata, to fikirtepe to Halula even to north Israel (Hogoshim) by domestic cattle volume as a trait. I just added SSC.
Anyway, just follow Obsidian fanatics and you also have the same connections.
And most important. Follow Spelt! By 5600bc, which were the two only cultures where Spelt as found? – Shulaveri and Vinca.

www.researchgate.net/publication/232701410_Species_distribution_modelling_of_ancient_cattle_from_early_Neolithic_sites_in_SW_Asia_and_Europe

supernord said...

This admixture in Protubolerazian is from the Sredniy Stog culture of the places Csongrad in Eastern Hungary and Deci Muresului in Northern Romania. These places disappeared with the disappearance of the Sredniy Stog culture, but they weakened the trail was still evident in Protubolerazian . This is not a new influence of Cernavoda, otherwise it would have been stronger.

These settlements were probably the cause of the destruction of old cultures Tiszapolgar type and started a new type Boleraz-Baden, but Badenian it's all old Europe. Badenians are not Indoeuropeans.


To this Protubolerazian I2788 is the closest to Yamnaya Samara I0441 of Yamnay samples.

Rob said...

@ supernord

Do you really think a handful of Sredni Stog surveyors caused the destruction events. ?

Rob said...

@ OM
Thanks

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

If you didn't see the "Proto" in front of my comments about the Celts and Italics then please read again.....

Ric Hern said...

@ supernord

Yes Badenians was not all "Old Europe". And that portion that was not is what I refer to. I think the portion that was not was R1b people pushed out of Southwestern Ukraine. They ended up migrating up the Danube from Hungary and down the Elbe to Denmark...

R1b people seems to have adopted much more from other cultures and almost lost their Steppe identity which makes it harder to trace their migration towards the West. I get the feeling that they tried to fashion themselves as Middle Men in the trade....

Rob said...

@ Ric

Ive not come across any theories placing the origin of Baden culture in SW Ukraine.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

I did not say that Baden originated in the Ukraine. What I basically said is there was a migration and integration into Baden that is why some Archaeologists see Baden as Indo-Europeanized towards the end....

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Does this sample predate the start of Maykop ? If they are the same age then CHG in the Steppe clearly predate the Maykop formation ? So Steppe admixture was widely spread earlier than Yamnaya and Sredny Stog looks like the most likely candidate responsible for this early spread.

Romulus said...

@Matt

Have you considered adding any of the Paleo Europe samples to your dataset?

Would be interesting to see where pre-WHG plots. Aurignacian and Gravettia skeletons were all measured to be quite tall, about 6ft.

Matt said...

@Romulus, I can't really put in any samples through the regression equation based on who don't have Global10 scores if I don't have the Global10 scores for them, and unfortunately, I think the Sunghirs are the only European UP that there are Global10 for in the data file I downloaded.

A regression based on moderns does look to predict that the Sunghirs and Ust Ishim would both have *genetically* fairly short stature compared to WHG (for Sunghir 173 cm / 5'8" compared to 183cm / 6'0"), however note that the whole method here is based on correlations within moderns. Most of UP Europeans, esp. early ones, share less drift with Europeans than WHG, so they fall more central on the PC dimensions and so end up being predicted to have short height. This method probably cannot tell you much about any samples who aren't ancestral to present day peoples, and so don't peak any of the PCA dimensions in Global10. The same method will probably work OK once we have samples for fairly recent ancient ancestors East Eurasians and South Asians (but not work for Tianyuan, for'ex).

That said, Berg 2017 does predict K14 / Vestonice to have genetic height scores about the same level as GIH/PJL/Levant_N/Iran_N, at 174 cm. That's slightly at odds with the tall stature reported at 6'0", though not with these estimates which gives a male height of 5'8" http://www.hormones.gr/pdf/Stature_europeans.pdf / http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/ajpa.20950/epdf.

Indeed, part of Berg's paper is estimating that genetic level selection for taller height took place in WHG, making them different from UP people who were genetically no taller or shorter than is typical for other ancient West Eurasians (Iran_N, Levant_N, etc.).

It may be harder to estimate height among UP people as they'd again be less related to present day people in any panel, so the scores for present day West Eurasians might not generalise as well. It may be hard to estimate from skeletons as well...

Matt said...

Re: height again, re-ran that regression on the Grasgruber data with a control for distance from the equator: https://imgur.com/a/PYYdI

Finds largely what you'd expect to find; West and East African genetic structure predicts tall height relative to latitude, similar to European structure, while short height relative to latitude is predicted by Siberian and to a greater extent South Asian or paleo-South African (Khoisan-like) genetic structure.

This is going to be some composite of the more advanced "global north" and actual selection on latitude that may unpick into its components as (if) nutrition and disease burden equalises...

Davidski said...

The new paper on the Globular Amphora people and the spread of Indo-European languages will be published today at this link.

https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2017.1540

I'll start a new thread for it later this week. Meantime feel free to discuss it here.

If you haven't yet seen the abstract for the paper, it's at this link...

https://figshare.com/collections/Supplementary_material_from_Genome_diversity_in_the_Neolithic_Globular_Amphorae_culture_and_the_spread_of_Indo-European_languages_/3928333

Davidski said...

By the way, keep in mind though, that Globular Amphora samples have already been analyzed in the Mathieson et al. preprint, so I'm not sure what new insights this new paper can offer?

Here's what I said about them...

Globular Amphora people starkly different from Yamnaya people

Samuel Andrews said...

You guys I can give you the mtDNA spin for everything. I know labels like K1a or H5 means nothing to you and mtDNA seems to be completly useless. I've been able to find regional variation pretty well. Also, with all the data I have it's very easy to put the evidence together and see how it points towards for a very specific geographic origin, time of migration, that type of stuff.

We don't have enough Globular Amphora mtDNA to say much yet. 16 samples. Very importantly, H1b has popped up three times (3 out of 16). In modern data, I consider H1b a pan-European lineage but it only reaches appreciable frequencies in Eastern Europe (2-5%). One Globular Amphora person had H1b2 which today only appears in eastern Europe (Baltic and Slavic speakers).

Another form of H which appears in Globular Amphora; H28a, also only appears in eastern Europe (Baltic and Slavic speakers). A very specific form of U5b in Globular Amphora; U5b2b1a1, is in England, Norway, Ireland, Belarus, Ukraine, Russia, Romania, and Spain.

Davidski said...

@Samuel

Bell Beaker Blogger seems to have a theory that Bell Beakers derive their R1b from WHG-rich Middle Neolithic West-Central European males, and their steppe admixture from Corded Ware females.

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com.au/2017/11/maternal-genetic-makeup-of-iberian.html

How plausible is this from an mtDNA perspective given the current samples we have available?

Also, have you made any progress in pinpointing the origin of the southern ancestry in Steppe_EMBA groups?

Chad Rohlfsen said...

If Beakers were V88, he might have something. It's kinda ridiculous to divorce L51 from Z2103. 2003 dies hard in some circles.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"How plausible is this from an mtDNA perspective given the current samples we have available?"

No. Northern Bell Beaker does show a good amount of Steppe mtDNA but still has a sizable majority of farmer mtDNA.

An indirect way to demonstrate northern Bell Beaker wasn't a Corded Ware female-MN farmer male mix is showing the difference in mtDNA between Irish and Andronovo-later Sycthians and the lack of typical farmer mHGs in Asia.

"Also, have you made any progress in pinpointing the origin of the southern ancestry in Steppe_EMBA groups?"

No, because I haven't been able to find a lot of availble data from the Caucasus (and Middle East in general). Like, how you've pointed out, I think some of the data from Yamnaya and AFanasievo is EEF origin. There's a few "young" mtDNA lineages mostly found in Europe and SC Asia which are good canidates for mHGs from Steppe's southern ancestry: H13a, T1a1, J1b1a.

Samuel Andrews said...

Leak about Genomes from Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, 1500 BC and 18th ad (Saami). Many years ago the mtDNA from these samples was sequenced.

Bolshoy Oleni Ostro.

https://twitter.com/TCLamnidis/status/932925959019393024

Were the U4, U5a, C5, Z1a rich Karelians early Finno-Urgics? Did Finno Urgic emerge in a Asian-EHG mixed population? Excess SHG in Saami must be somehow related to these recent (1500 BC) Asian-EuroHG mixed Karelians.

Samuel Andrews said...

Also, a poster on Iron age Finland DNA.

https://twitter.com/TCLamnidis

Olympus Mons said...

@Samuel Andrews,
Mtdna : I1, H2+152 and H15a1 at 5500BC,

What can you say about these? any thoughts?

EastPole said...

Globular Amphorae article is published

http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1867/20171540

Olympus Mons said...

@EastPole,
Its out... and nobody wants to talk about it! Lol.

Nirjhar007 said...

''nuclear (six individuals typed for 597 573 SNPs) and mitochondrial (11 complete sequences) DNA from the GAC appear closer to those of earlier Neolithic groups than to the DNA of all other populations related to the Pontic steppe migration. Explicit comparisons of alternative demographic models via approximate Bayesian computation confirmed this pattern. These results are not in contrast to Late Neolithic gene flow from the Pontic steppes into Central Europe. However, they add nuance to this model, showing that the eastern affinities of the GAC in the archaeological record reflect cultural influences from other groups from the East, rather than the movement of people.'' http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/284/1867/20171540

Olympus Mons said...

Nirjhar007,
GAC was exactly the same as Iberian Chalc and sharing the same I2a2 as the Chalcolithic Portuguese samples.

...What are they saying in the paper about bell beakers?

Olympus Mons said...

...From paper. Interesting.

"and we ran some preliminary analyses on it. In the neighbour joining (NJ) tree inferred from the ϕST pairwise distances estimated for this subset, the Early Bronze Age people, represented by the Srubnaya culture, appear connected with the eastern Corded Ware peoples, and also close to the Yamna. The GAC samples are clearly separated from those populations, and show instead a closer relationship with the western, Late Neolithic, Bell Beaker population (electronic supplementary material, figure S12)."

Matt said...

The GAC paper doesn't honestly look very good. f3 sharing is closest with Neolithic farmers, and they clade with Bell Beakers when put into a comparison with *only* *them* and steppe groups with less EEF ancestry than Central European BB? Ya really? And that's before getting into the unusually run PCA, ADMIXTURE, etc. analyses...

It seems like it tells us less about the GAC samples than we learn from incidental detail in Mathieson's and Olalde's papers!

Davidski said...

Yeah, I'm not making a thread about that paper. I'll just wait for the genotype data from Mathieson before I say anymore about GAC.

Colin Welling said...

http://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com.au/2017/11/maternal-genetic-makeup-of-iberian.html

How plausible is this from an mtDNA perspective given the current samples we have available?


Davidski, Ive already explained many times why this cannot be. The amount of yamanaya admixture, the time frame, the homogeneity of these beakers. None of could happen with your theory, or inquiry.

There was massive explosion of bell beaker people across Hungary, Czech Republic, Germany, and the British Isles in a matter of a few hundred years. This massive population did not develop from a sliver of land at the BB/CW border in just a few hundred years. So the population size of the beakers already says that your scenario makes no sense. Furthermore, the Northern Bell Beakers scattered across Hu, Cz, Ger, and Br/Ire were extremely homogeneous. It takes time for a population to homogenize to the degree that the bell beakers were. What you are suggesting is that two very distinct populations mated for a few generations then produced a highly homogenized population. Again, not feasible. Finally, Even when a MN european man and a CW woman mate, their offspring would only be 3/8 yamanaya, not 4/8 yamnaya. So to make this weird concoction you would need the hybridized offspring (who are 3/8 yamnaya) to wait around in said borderland in order to mix with another full CW woman before any BB offspring have at least 1/2 yamnaya. Again, this is just silly.

The obvious is that the bell beaker genetic signature was created earlier than 2500BC and/or over a larger area, such as the length of the Danube.

Now, I dont know if the L51 lineage traces back to the steppe or if it was just hanging out in the balkans with WHG before becoming associated with yamnaya dna by admixture. My strong opinion is that the L51 lineage did trace through the steppe because thats where we find its close brother, thats where the genetic shift came from, and thats where populations tend to vacate.

Ric Hern said...

@ Colin

As far as I could see is that Davidski mentioned the Proto-Boleraz sample which looks very much like later Steppe Yamnaya. So Yamnaya like people stretched from Samara to Hungary as early as 3800 BCE. So nothing is written in stone yet...

Davidski said...

@Colin Welling

Davidski, Ive already explained many times why this cannot be. The amount of yamanaya admixture, the time frame, the homogeneity of these beakers. None of could happen with your theory, or inquiry.

That's not me, it's the Bell Beaker Blogger.

And I do think that this ship has sailed, but until L51 is found on the Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age steppe, the issue will be revisited many times here and elsewhere I'm sure.

Rob said...

@ Ric

"As far as I could see is that Davidski mentioned the Proto-Boleraz sample which looks very much like later Steppe Yamnaya"

The Boleraz sample does not look like Yamnaya. I think you mean to say is David suggests that it has small amount of admixture from something Yamnaya -like.

Olympus Mons said...

Colin,
We can assume that Chalcolithic people, did not have children at age 30. They probably died not much later than age 30!
So, probably had children at age 15. So would have grand children by the age of 35! So, in one century there would be the round 6th/8th generations. If something was happening at the beginning of copper age and there was rooming groups of males in Europe (apparently a logic accepted if Yamnaya males, so valid for others) and we have indications if not solid data that BB and CWC and Unetice and so forth had some sort of exogamy backed even by misogyny while rooming around Europe, tell me, in your opinion, how a MN man descendants (either from Balkans or Iberia) moving up a river (elbe and Rhine) full of CWC women and as a 7th generation would those descendants look like in terms of admixture?
And that would be one , one, century. We have gaps of 10 centuries between samples. At the end of Bronze age most Europe was a lot more Homogeneous in terms of genetics, so people that started at the copper age moving, kept rooming around for a very long time.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 259 of 259   Newer› Newest»