Search This Blog

пятница, 17 мая 2019 г.

Fresh off the sledge

As things stand, the closest individual to a Proto-Uralic speaker in the ancient DNA record is arguably OLS10 from an Iron Age tarand grave in what is now Estonia. I say that because:



— isotopic data suggest that OLS10 wasn’t born where he died, and considering his elevated Siberian ancestry relative to earlier and most contemporaneous Baltic ancients, he was very likely a migrant to the Baltic region from the east
— the tarand grave tradition appears to be specifically a Finnic (west Uralic) phenomenon that probably spread from the Volga-Oka region, which is just west of where most people place the Proto-Uralic homeland
— OLS10 belongs to Y-chromosome haplogroup N-L1026, a paternal marker that is especially closely associated with Uralic-speaking populations and probably only appeared in the East Baltic region during the Bronze Age-Iron Age transition



You can find more background info about OLS10 and other relevant samples in Saag et al. 2019 (see here). This is where he sits in my Principal Component Analyses (PCA) focusing on fine scale Northern European genetic diversity. The relevant datasheets are available here and here, respectively.





Note that OLS10 doesn’t cluster strongly with any ancient or modern populations. To investigate this in more detail I ran a series of two-way qpAdm analyses, testing tens of ancient individuals and populations as potential admixture sources. These two models stood out above the rest in terms of their statistical fits, chronology and overall plausibility.



Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10
Baltic_EST_BA 0.826±0.045
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1 0.174±0.045

chisq 12.527
tail prob 0.564048
Full output
Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10
Baltic_EST_BA 0.683±0.102
RUS_Mezhovskaya 0.317±0.102

chisq 13.811
tail prob 0.463864
Full output



Please note that RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1 isn’t representative of the Sintashta culture population as a whole. It’s a group of the most extreme genetic outliers among the Sintashta samples, and they may or may not have been Uralic speakers (see here). Interestingly, the Mezhovskaya culture population is generally associated with the Ugric branch of the Uralic language family.
I was also able to closely replicate these results with the Global25/nMonte method; down to almost one per cent. However, the statistical fits (distances) are poor, probably because the reference populations aren’t the real mixture sources. This is in line with the fact that their Y-haplogroups are Q1a, R1a and R1b, rather than any type of N.



Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10
Baltic_EST_BA,83.8
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1,16.2

distance%=4.7955
Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10
Baltic_EST_BA,69.8
RUS_Mezhovskaya,30.2

distance%=3.5783



I do realize that two Bronze Age samples from Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov, Kola Peninsula, belong to N-L1026, but adding them to my mixture models doesn’t help. Little wonder, because the Kola Peninsula lies within the Arctic Circle, and I’m pretty sure that OLS10 and his N-L1026 came from somewhere just north of the mixture cline marked on the map below. Unfortunately, I can’t test this directly yet due to the scarcity of ancient samples from this region.



See also…
It was always going to be this way
On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
Uralic-specific genome-wide ancestry did make a signifcant impact in the East Baltic

Source


Комментариев нет:

Popular last month