What’s Maykop (or Iran) got to do with it? #2

For the past few days I’ve been trying to copy and also improve on the qpGraph tree in the Wang et al. preprint (see here). I’ve managed to come up with a new version of my model that not only offers a better statistical fit, but, in my opinion, also a much more sensible solution. For instance, the Eastern Hunter-Gatherer node now shows 73% MA1-related admixture, which, I’d say, makes more sense than the 10% in the previous version. The relevant graph file is available here.

Samara Yamnaya can be perfectly substituted in this graph by early Corded Ware samples from the Baltic region (CWC_Baltic_early) and a pair of Yamnaya individuals from what is now Ukraine. This is hardly surprising, considering how similar all of these samples are to each other in other analyses, but it’s nice to see nonetheless, because I think it helps to confirm the reliability of my model.

And yes, I have tested all sorts of other Yamnaya-related ancient and present-day populations with this tree. They usually pushed the worst Z score to +/- 3 and well beyond, probably because they weren’t similar enough to Yamnaya. But, perhaps surprisingly, Bell Beakers from Britain produced a decent result (see here).
See also…
On the genetic prehistory of the Greater Caucasus (Wang et al. 2018 preprint)
Another look at the genetic structure of Yamnaya
Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but…

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.