search this blog

Monday, December 18, 2017

Corded Ware as an offshoot of Hungarian Yamnaya (Anthony 2017)


David W. Anthony has just posted a new paper at his Academia.edu page titled Archaeology and Language: Why Archaeologists Care about the Indo-European Problem (see here).

It's not only an interesting discussion about why the search for the Indo-European homeland is still such a big deal, but also a useful, almost up to date, summary of the fascinating stuff that ancient DNA has revealed about the genetic history of Europe, with a special focus on the origin of the Corded Ware people, who are generally accepted to be the first Indo-European-speaking population of Northern Europe.

Now, I say it's an almost up to date summary, because Anthony seems fairly certain that the Corded Ware people were descendants of the Yamnaya people, rather than just their close relatives. He uses archaeological and ancient DNA data to argue that Yamnaya migrants moved from the North Pontic steppe to the eastern Carpathian Basin (present-day Hungary), and then onto what is now southern Poland to give rise to the proto-Corded Ware population.

I probably would've said this was a highly plausible scenario before I saw the ancient DNA results from the latest preprint of Mathieson et al. 2017, an ancient genomics paper in the works focusing on Southeastern Europe (see here). But now that I've seen those results, I feel that Anthony's proposal might be outdated.

One of the samples in that preprint is from a pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic burial on the northern edge of North Pontic steppe, in what is now eastern Ukraine, labeled Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561. This individual not only strongly resembles the Corded Ware people in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, but also belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417, which is a paternal marker probably no older than the Eneolithic and intimately associated with the Corded Ware expansion. Currently, as far as I can see, he's by far the most likely candidate in the ancient DNA record to belong to a proto-Corded Ware population.

Keep in mind also that not a single instance of R1a-M417 has yet been found among a wide range of prehistoric individuals from the Carpathian Basin. On the other hand, Olalde et al. 2017 (see here) did manage to catch one Early Bronze Age (EBA) Bell Beaker from the region belonging to R1b-Z2103, which is the paternal marker currently most strongly associated with Yamnaya.

Below is a map of Central and Eastern Europe ca. 3000-2000 BCE from Anthony's paper, edited by me to show the burial location of Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561. If we assume that his descendants or close relatives were the proto-Corded Ware population, then looking at this map, it seems unlikely to me that they would've taken the Carpathian Basin route before expanding into Northern Europe. Rather, I'd say that they would've fanned out across the north directly from the steppe, perhaps along those northward-pointing river valleys? And I suspect that they may have still been a pre-Yamnaya group as they migrated out of the steppe, just as Yamnaya was forming somewhere to the east.


But hey, Anthony might be right, and I might be way off. Indeed, perhaps Anthony based his theory, to an extent, on soon to be published Yamnaya samples from the Carpathian Basin? If such genomes have been sequenced, and at least one belongs to R1a-M417, then it's game over as far as the origin of the Corded Ware people is concerned, and I'll welcome the surprise.

See also...

Early Baltic Corded Ware form a genetic clade with Yamnaya, but...

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

403 comments:

1 – 200 of 403   Newer›   Newest»
Rob said...

Anthony's scenario is supported by archaeology, which has long been known actually
The problem with your route is that there is somewhat of a "no man's land" between the NW border of Yamnaya and early CWC monuments in south Poland. And as I had mentioned, this was actually an area into which GAC expanded from Central Poland, which was perhaps only later cohabited then gradually replaced by CWC coming from *the north*, to then come to share a border Yamnaya via secondary reproachment

Rob said...

Im of course not wholly excluding your scenario.
Btw none of Hungarian Yamnaya has yet been published. They could theoretically be R1b and R1a..

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

If Sredny Stog was made up of different cultural elements who shared some not all innovations and resembled some Corded Ware traits,isn't it possible that R1b peoples carried some Corded Ware traits to the Carpathian Basin and there adopted so much of the local Culture that it lost its original Corded Ware like traits almost completely ?

Synome said...

I'd love for the Danubian Yamnaya samples to be published soon. They're a keystone of Gimbutas' and Anthony's theories about the IE migrations into Europe. If nothing else, I expect them to settle the Beaker debate once and for all. If they are the origin of Corded Ware too, that would be truly remarkable.

Dmytro said...

"If such genomes have been sequenced, and at least one belongs to R1a-M417, then it's game over as far as the origin of the Corded Ware people is concerned, and I'll welcome the surprise." This would also be a premature conclusion before the evidence from the Dnipro basin and immediately westward thereof rolls in. Especially interesting would be the Yamna burials synchronous with the eastward expansion of the Globulars since these populations stopped and deflected the expansion (along with the Late Trypilian peoples of Sofiivka et al. who were slowly acculturating with pre-Yamna and Yamna). No harm at all in waiting a bit.

Ryan said...

This is more about the image than the post - remind me, what do we know about the Mako culture?

Matt said...

I actually found this a surprising post, as I guessed the source of your skepticism wrong. Isn't more of an issue the presence of Corded Ware samples which lack EEF admixture? (I believe in the Baltic region in one of the recent papers?)

Hungary generally seems difficult for any Yamnaya+EEF combinations which cropped up in Central Europe, either Corded Ware or Unetice/Bell Beaker - the predominant EEF of Hungary CA that are so far densely sampled in the transect do not seem sufficiently WHG. (Same as they were for Jean Manco's idea of Central European Bell Beaker arising from Vucedol+Steppe?)

I guess for Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 specifically, I suppose I have a bias to generally prefer a good bit of continuity of at least Central European EEF, and I guess I also don't really tend to think the Corded Ware proportions of EEF+WHG+Steppe are so unusual a combination to only happen once, so I would not place too much confidence on Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 representing an early proto-Corded Ware pop. But I can't say it is definitely wrong.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Yes, I suppose I should have mentioned somewhere that if the proto-CWC people moved north from the steppe along the river valleys, then that could easily explain the existence of early CWC both with and without EEF admixture.

Davidski said...

@Ric

If Sredny Stog was made up of different cultural elements who shared some not all innovations and resembled some Corded Ware traits, isn't it possible that R1b peoples carried some Corded Ware traits to the Carpathian Basin and there adopted so much of the local Culture that it lost its original Corded Ware like traits almost completely?

Don't know. Too hypothetical.

Rob said...

@ Matt
I disagree with your analogy, because the Vucedol scenario (actually first postulated by Maria Gimbutas) required cultural and genetic admixture
This path suggested by Anthony (actually known for years due to the lockenringe link) doesn't require local admixture .
Just take a look at a map of Yamnaya in Hungary. In 27/2600 BC, it's all east of Tizsa on its own.
But given the gaps in samples, its hard to have a strong opinions either way

EastPole said...

@Matt
“I also don't really tend to think the Corded Ware proportions of EEF+WHG+Steppe are so unusual a combination to only happen once, so I would not place too much confidence on Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 representing an early proto-Corded Ware pop.”

I wrote about it before:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-genomic-history-of-southeastern.html?showComment=1505895246777#c4975759546917768221

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-genomic-history-of-southeastern.html?showComment=1506060604577#c3839922991527525496

Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 with R1a-M417 comes from Dereivka culture where first corded ware pottery and stone battle-axes were used. It was a proto-Corded Ware culture IMO.

John Johnson said...

First off, let me just say that the Kurgan theory has always made the most sense in the PIE debate.

However, why bother listening to anything Anthony says let alone almost any archaeologist on this matter? Why do I say this? If anyone actually read Anthony's 2007 book on PIE and remembers correctly, in that book he said Corded Ware was not due to a 1 to 1 migration of Yamna guys establishing themselves of the North European plane. Rather, he invoked some weird theory known as 'patron-client' to explain it where Corded Ware represents a convergence or influence of language from Yamnaya and not directly descended genetically from it and overemphasizes the role of the Usatovo culture on CWC's formation. He then regurgitated this nonsense in the Journal of Indo-European studies to explain pre-proto-Germanic.

Wrong.

Just like he was wrong about the Dereivka stallion (it turned out to be Scythian....not derived from Sredny Stog).

Anyway he's not the only airhead in archaeology. The worst was some of the stuff that came out in the 90's that came off as anti-migrationalist like Alasdair Whittle's book from 1996. Here, he proclaimed that viewing Corded Ware as derived from a Yamna migration was nothing short of misguided. It was almost like assigning a moral judgement on the situation and shows how wrong various trends in archaeological thought can be.

Now with the advent of aDNA we can see how wrong these guys were but nonetheless they were able to publish crap that confused people in the past and illuminated just how little they could properly interpret the archaeological record. The real old stuff before guys like Anthony and Whittle that came out eons ago that freely discussed migration was more on the point that those two buffoons.

Just check out Gimbutas and Childes...they knew their stuff well and only had pots and grave sites to go by. All aDNA is doing is adding the hard science to what the old guard knew all along.

Karl_K said...

Still not super clear, but remember that the most likely routes don't apply to actual history. We have no idea what the human barriers were at the time, besides geography.

Davidski said...

@EastPole

Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 is not from Dereivka or even from a site associated with the Dereivka culture. He's from Alexandria near the Donets River. Take a look at this map.

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/33/3c/57333c0609d0e31b273fc437db3a83ab.jpg

The coordinates for this sample in Mathieson et al. are way off. The authors had the wrong Alexandria, but the mistake is now being fixed.

Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 is from Sredny Stog or a related archaeological culture.

@John Johnson

In regards to Anthony's patron-client theory, he may have been right to some degree, although also keep in mind that he was forced to work in a heavily anti-migrationist climate, so I guess he had to come up with some way for Indo-European languages to spread without migrations. Apart from that, everyone makes mistakes, or at least doesn't get things exactly right, so using terms like air head is a bit too much.

@Karl_K

Right, but irrespective of any geographic arguments, if there's no R1a-M417 in Hungarian Yamnaya after a good number have been sampled, then the Carpathian Basin route will look like a dud.

Rob said...

I didn't quite understand Dymytro's comment, but i doubt the Dnieper route leads to anything
That area was still GAC, and the earliest steppe culture is MDC, which only dates after 2600 BC.

EastPole said...

@Davidski
“Ukraine_Eneolithic I6561 is not from Dereivka or even from a site associated with the Dereivka culture. He's from Alexandria near the Donets River.”

Alexandria/Oleksandriya is Dereivka culture:

https://s9.postimg.org/j4di6nmxr/screenshot_314.png

“Corded ornamentation was observed for the first time in the steppe area between the Dnieper and the Don rivers in the Sredniy Stog culture monuments of the early Eneolithic Age. Artefact ornamentation was represented by imprints of a coiled cord [Kotova 2008]. Classic ‘corded’ ornamentation appeared in the Middle Eneolithic in the monuments of the Dereivka culture and the lower layer of the Mykhailivka settlement.”

Classic ‘corded’ ornamentation was also found in Alexandria/Oleksandriya where we now have R1a-M417 which is the site of Dereivka culture:

https://s26.postimg.org/xe0xolwsp/screenshot_287.png

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/13138/1/BPS-15-6_N_S_Kotova%20THE%20FIRST%20CORDED%20CERAMICS%20ORNAMENTATION%20OF%20ENEOLITHIC%20STEPPE%20AND%20NEOLITHIC%20FOREST-STEPPE%20CULTURES%20PP_75-109.pdf


https://s9.postimg.org/ftp56e76n/screenshot_313.png

Davidski said...

@EastPole

Ah, OK, in that case Dereivka it is.

Chetan Vit said...

@John Johnson Anthony admits that mistake in this article. We didn't have the ancient genomes then so I think he can be excused for that.

Dmytro said...

"That area was still GAC, and the earliest steppe culture is MDC, which only dates after 2600 BC. "

Actually the dominant GAC sites are found considerably to the west of the Dnipro basin. There are indeed some GAC items closer thereto, but they are surrounded by Yamna sites. Nor does GAC dominate north of the Stuhna (which is the Yamna-influenced Sofiivka area until c. 2700 BCE). As for MDC, its earliest burials are in the Cherkasy region, and they are "inserts" into earlier Yamna kurgans. Generally, the Yamna and Yamna-type westward push across the lands of classical Trypilia has been poorly studied by archaeology. Perhaps this is due to the false perception created by some erroneous Kyiv lab readings which seem to suggest that classical Trypilia survived until 2700 (!!) in the older areas of Maidanets et sim....

Rob said...

@ JJ

* book he said Corded Ware was not due to a 1 to 1 migration of Yamna guys establishing themselves of the North European plane. Rather, he invoked some weird theory known as 'patron-client' to explain it where Corded Ware represents a convergence or influence of language from Yamnaya and not directly descended genetically from it and overemphasizes the role of the Usatovo culture on CWC's formation. '

Most people thought CWC evolved form TRB or GAC. That's a minor quibble
But IMO the major issue with the kurgan theory is that it fails to appreciate what actually brought about the rise of the kurgan culture. This was not a native steppic development, even if R1a an R1b are themselves form E.E.

John Johnson said...

@Davidski

While I am sympathetic to the difficulties some had in writing during the time of 'anti-migration' which was a real trend 20 some years ago in archaeological thought, I would have had more respect for Anthony if he didn't cow-tale to that type of thinking, which unfortunately he did. Kristian Kristiansen on the other hand did not and his work is still excellent to this day as an archaeologist. He clearly wrote that the Single Grave Culture variant of the CWC was due to a migratory factor. Many older archaeologists said CWC was steppe derived as well.

I'm afraid to say that type of thinking tainted Anthony's thought in regards to parent-client theory for CWC development/origins. Reich himself clearly, stated the 1:1 relationship of migration and CWC in that one lecture. It was the BBC that Reich again commented on as displaying elements of convergence and how its development was not completely due to migration as the aDNA illuminated. Also, there is the matter that an archaeologist by nature is supposed to be able to interpret the material culture correctly. Like I was saying before, the old guys could do this well. But Anthony and the like fell into the typical chaotic thinking of the 90s. Really, one could say the archaeological thought got worse while the older people like Childe and Gimbutas made way more sense. Some modern writers involved in all this really just come dangerously close to re-writing them.

Ergo, I'd wait to see what the aDNA has to say on the matter before giving Anthony any type of credit. He's made way too many technical errors before and his track record of interpreting material remains from past horizons and drawing accurate conclusions is just not there.

Grizzlor said...

So it might not be a coincidence that I1 was found in Neolithic Hungary and it came along Corded Ware r1a to Scandinavia?

Chetan said...

@John Johnson Anthony's patron-client mechanism may not have been totally unfounded. This does seem to have played a role in the steppe group's early migrations into the Balkans and later into Southern Europe. Perhaps also in the case of the Indo-Aryans in the BMAC and Mittani. IE society did have elaborate social structures and rituals for establishing and conducting patrol-client relationships.

But what Anthony and others underestimated was the direct migration effects of the Yamnaya folk into the plains of northern Europe. There the population was smaller and the steppe folk completely overlaid the existing populations. In the Baltic region, even agriculture was brought only with the Corded Ware so you get an idea about how scarcely populated these regions were prior to the arrival of CW.

Samuel Andrews said...

If anything Hungarian Yamnaya donated R1b P312 into northern Bell Beaker or it brought an unsuccessful R1b Z2103 lineage. Yamnaya=R1b L23, ???=Corded Ware & and R1a M417.

John Johnson said...

@ Chetan

I think referring to Anthony as merely underestimating steppe genetic introgression at this point as to explain CWC origins is being a bit to kind to him. This was someone who repeatedly downplayed any migratory role in the CWC's development on the North European Plane. Again read his book and consult JIES to see what he says about pre-proto-Germanic.

Patron-client is almost certainly not the primary mechanism by which IE would have spread within the CWC and at this point is pretty misleading. In a lecture that Kristian Kristiansen gives, he explains how Yamna guys basically took the preceding culture's women (TRB in this situation I presume) as wives. Explains why preceding cultural elements from TRB persist in CWC well. I can't find the lecture but its on youtube somewhere. With a little searching you can find it.

Now granted, we have other non R1a and R1B haplotypes that survive today in Europe that show other male lineages as well as autosomal traits that were non-steppe but their mere persistence does not say anything about patron-clientage directly. I would be very careful in assuming the patron clientage model works for pre-historic societies that were non-state centered as Anthony would like as to believe. Remember, he is drawing analogies to the Roman Empire, essentially a state system to prehistoric ones as to why patron-clientage may work. That is not really an apples to apples comparison...


Also, considering the implications that the CWC has for the development of Kentum IE languages, inaccurately describing the process is by no means a small matter. So saying that CWC, an archaeological culture where samples analyzed have so far produced evidence of considerable steppe derived aDNA, as coming from TRB, a population with more of a Neolithic farming population genetic signature as previously sampled is no small quibble to the debate.

It really comes down to doing ones job well here and if you look at all the technical errors Anthony amassed, such as the Dereivka sallion actually being Scythian, dismissal of migration for IE's developing CWC while invoking patron-clientage, I'd highly recommend looking into other archaeologists who actually excavate on the North European plain to understand CWC origins/development better.

To further drive home the point, years ago I met Anthony at a conference and while he has done excavation and what not, he admitted to me that by no means understands the archaeology of the North European plain well during the mid to late Neolithic. I would highly recommend Kristiansen's work here to gain a better understanding of what's going on within the CWC but also consult the Baltic-Pontic archaeological book series. They are good.

Matt said...

@Rob, yeah, if Anthony's proposed scenario (and I should probably read it) is no (significant) admixture within Hungary by Hungarian Yamnaya with Hungarian CA populations, then mine is not a relevant objection in this case. Though still questions to me as to whether it is more parsimonious to expect WHG rich EEF groups elsewhere along his route where admixture may have happened; no data yet.

Either way, also consider Corded_Ware_LN in Germany do not seem to be a stabilised group in terms of admixture proportions (per Olalde, like Bell_Beaker_Central_Europe and unlike the Dutch Beakers; British Beakers mostly like Dutch Beakers but slightly choppier). So I don't know if that casts doubt on Corded_Ware as a stablised blend either pre-Yamnaya or contemporaneous with Yamnaya - it seems like it would be hard for them to be so genetically diverse in admix proportions if they've been panmictic for any even reasonably sized subset of that time. (Consider within population variance rather than just median proportions?).

Chetan said...

@John You said "considering the implications that the CWC has for the development of Kentum IE languages"

But I don't think CW was the progenitor of the IE Centum languages except possibly pre Germanic. Both Italic and Celtic languages were spread by the Bell Beakers which most likely came from Yamanaya Hungary. Pre Greek came from the steppes later and not in any way related to the CW. The languages which came from the CW culture would have been pre-Balto Slavic and pre Germanic but of course pre-Germanic was then overlaid with a Bell Beaker kentum superstrate.

We don't know which dialects were initially spread by the Corded Ware culture (centum or satem?). That would require us to know the precise time of satemization. But since Satemization seems to have started from the Indo-Iranian dialects in which it is complete, I presume that initially all the CW cultures spoke centum dialects and later only the eastern part ancestral to Balto-Slavic underwent satemization.

Rob said...

@ Matt

Agree. I think the differences in CWC admixture patterns could be related to time. The earliest German CWC (a female mtDNA T1) was almost wholly 'steppe' in Haak's original ADMIXT. I suspect the pattern might repeat itself in Scandinavia, Baltic, and Poland with more samples. Essentially, the MNE admixture increasing with time, as the major contemporaenous groups in central Europe really were quite distinctive people and remained so for a while. Social admixture was limited & guarded initially, but increased with time. During the Bronze Age, you also see a lot of haplogroup I in Europe with steppe ancestry, even the the non-Black Sea I2a2a1b variety.

This all suggests that CWC brought women with them, and did not simply go around taking other groups wives. In fact, this was perhaps limited initially , but became more prominent with time, and this was bidirectional, even if R1 groups became predominant in some parts of Europe.

John Johnson said...

@ Chetan

I think you pretty much answered your own question at the end. Yeah I don't think you can separate CWC from any type of implications it may have had or related to regarding Kentum IE languages. Especially given its westward location and overall positioning.

Despite my sharp criticisms of Anthony regarding the archaeology of the North European Plane around the time of the CWC, he does in his book make an interesting observation about Greek and Indo-Iranian revolving around the common phrase "Imperishable Fame" which persists in heroic poetry of Indo-Aryan and Mycenean Greek traditions. He dated Proto-Greek's split from the steppe at around the time of the Catacomb culture in order to account for why both groups having this same concept/term in their poetry - "Imperishable Fame". So with that reasoning, you're looking at 2800–2200 BC for this to have occurred. Its brought into question just how complex IE migrations may have been in relation to their proper linguistic developments.

Satemization as I always heard and understood, and you even pointed out, occurs much later in regards to IE linguistic time depth theory among Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic is actually incompletely 'Satemized' as I've always understood. So in theory, Balto-Slavs straddled the early Satem and Kentum IE realms in prehistory in order for this to have occurred.

For a while now, Satemization has had a date of 2000 BC or so to have full crystalized among I guess pre-Proto-Indo-Iranian (or Proto-Indo-Iranian?). Relevant cultures were always cited as Andronovo, Sintashta etc. for where this would have occurred but this may be different now as if I recall correctly from reading here its Srubna and Poltavka cultures that have the R1a lineage related to present day Indo-Iranian people.

PIE as I came to know, had velars more like Kentum IE languages in that they were 'hard' ones whereas Satem shows a softening of those very sounds. So theoretically, Kentum IE languages preserve more archaic velars than the Proto-Indo-Iranian and would have preserved such by splitting away, in this case and theoretically further west from where-ever the Satem group was firmly entrenched somewhere in Eurasia.

Davidski said...

Ah, interesting. Lots of N1c from Early Iron Age Sargat mounds in Western Siberia...

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/321071660_Kinship_Analysis_of_Human_Remains_from_the_Sargat_Mounds_Baraba_forest-steppe_Western_Siberia

No idea what the subclades are.

Davidski said...

@John Johnson

Relevant cultures were always cited as Andronovo, Sintashta etc. for where this would have occurred but this may be different now as if I recall correctly from reading here its Srubna and Poltavka cultures that have the R1a lineage related to present day Indo-Iranian people.

Andronovo, Sintashta and Srubna all carry R1a-Z93, which is the R1a clade that dominates in South Asia. One of the Poltavka samples, a western-shifted outlier, also belongs to this clade.

The main potential complication is that South Asians are better modeled as part Yamnaya and Poltavka than the above, and to date, Yamnaya and Poltavka samples belong to R1b. But this might be resolved in a couple of ways when more data come in, for example...

Through time AND space?

Samuel Andrews said...

@David,

You should make a separate thread for that paper. Y DNA N1c alongside mostly west Eurasian mtDNA including three U5a1(s) and one EEF (?) derived N1a1a1a.

Kristiina said...

@Samuel

I checked the distribution of the only non west Eurasian mtDNA, C4a2c1, on Ian Logan. The result is very interesting:
C4a2c: Rao2009-6 and Rao2009-7 -> should be from India; one Bargut, one from Pamir
C4a2c1: many Rao 2009 samples, should be from India, one Pamir.

C4a2 itself looks like a South-Siberian haplotype while C4a1 is again well represented in Pamir.

http://www.ianlogan.co.uk/sequences_by_group/c4a_genbank_sequences.htm

Shaikorth said...

@Kristiina
Both C4a1 and C4a2 are present in the Hungarian conquest period samples.
https://www.nature.com/articles/srep33446

Rob said...

@ Dymytro
The Kiev lab has in the past tended to overestimate dates, not underestimate them.
What does typological dating suggest ?

Rob said...

Clues on the takeover of southern Iberia by "men from southern Russia" (?)

http://cadenaser.com/emisora/2017/11/17/radio_murcia/1510906585_606724.html

Alberto said...

@Rob

Thanks for the link. From the audios, they explain that this belongs to a large mtDNA study of the Iberian Peninsula between 5500-2000 BCE. But specifically from the samples belonging to El Argar culture they are in the process of doing nuclear DNA analysis.

They advance that the few males they have from the sites of La Bastida and La Almoloya, they show that males came from outside, originating in the P-C steppe, moving to Western Europe, British Islands and from there arriving to Galicia (NW Iberia) and finally reaching the South East, where El Argar culture is placed.

They confirm it's mostly men mixing with local women. But things must have been complex from a cultural point of view. For example, the C14 dates from the wall of La Bastida are from 2200 BC. And that wall is designed in a new and advanced way, with no parallels in the rest of Iberia or Western and Central Europe. The closest model to it is in Troy and others in the Levant.

At the same time, the oldest burials are from women. And overall the burials also resemble Eastern Mediterranean traditions (large jars -Pithoi- under the house floor).

It seems we'll still have to wait for the results to be published, since genome-wide analysis is underway. But very interesting to know that R1b was already there.

Rob said...

Yes that makes sense - an Atlantic arrival of proto-Basque speaking R1bs

Alberto said...

Yes, if El Argar was R1b that's another clue pointing to R1b bringing Ibero-Vasconic languages to Western Europe. Mediterranean Iberia didn't speak IE until the Roman times.

Chetan said...

@David What do think about this theory? There was a north-south split between R1a- z280 and z93. That is, R1a-Z645 was native to the Pontic Steppes and its subclade z280 either migrated north with or spread with the CWC. That would put z93 on the steppes after 3000 BC from where it could migrate to India and Greece (Mycenaean). The only problem I see with it is that there are no / very few R1a samples from Yamnaya steppe culture. And some z93 occurs in CW as well isn't it?

Chetan said...

@Davidski I checked Greece's paternal haplogroups and z93 is practically confined to the former Turkic areas so the likelihood of a bronze age influx is lower. If the Mycaeneans were R1a z93, then their genetic impact in Greece seems to have been minimal.

jv said...

Thank you! I’m a fan of Gimbutas( pre-Goddess theory books) Gimbutas knew there was a western migration into the Srubna Culture long before Archaeogenetics.

jv said...

I’m also a fan of Hartwick College Dr. Anthony!

jv said...

@ Rob, Agree. CWC men brought the women from the PC Steppe. First mtDNA H6a1b in Europe Samara Russia approximately 3000 BCE. Then in Esperstedt, Germany mtDNA H6a1a in approximately 2300 BCE. If some mtDNA lineages in Europe are Steppe, like mine, of course the women migrated!

Davidski said...

@Chetan

You're making too many incorrect assumptions.

For example, just because a paternal marker of an elite group is now very rare in a population, doesn't mean that this elite group did not contribute significant genome-wide ancestry to that population.

And there's no Z93 in Corded Ware sampled to date. Z93 appears to dominate the entire Eurasian steppe, at least among the Kurgan elites, from about the Middle Bronze Age. This happens either due to migration onto the steppe from the forest steppe, via chariot complex groups like Abashevo, and/or due to a set of Z93-rich clans taking over the steppe at an elite level.

Arza said...

originating in the P-C steppe, moving to Western Europe, British Islands and from there arriving to Galicia (NW Iberia) and finally reaching the South East, where El Argar culture is placed

Koch presented the same scenario for a spread of "Atlantic cist tradition":
https://youtu.be/Ub5izFOdtDs?t=58m11s

Chetan said...

@Davidsky So do you think R1a M417 diversification took place in the CW forest steppe culture and a group of z93s migrated back to the steppes replacing the R1b lineages?

Davidski said...

Don't know yet. Need to see more samples.

Rob said...

"This happens either due to migration onto the steppe from the forest steppe,"

But I though R1a is and can only be from * the steppe*.
Only people "with agendas" point out facts, like people moved on and off the steppe all the time

Rob said...

Also i find it funny that Ric Hern has an Indian twin

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

What ? Where ?

Ric Hern said...

99 % of R1b Men in Western Europe speak Indo-European Languages and Somehow 1% is important ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

Whahahaha !!! I didn't realise that you missed my unintelligent discussions..Heheheeeh. I'm truely moved.

Rob said...

Ric, Did you finally get the joke ?
You're ok mate.

Davidski said...

@Rob

But I though R1a is and can only be from * the steppe*.
Only people "with agendas" point out facts, like people moved on and off the steppe all the time


Well, it's a fact that almost 100% of the R1a in the world today comes from a population that lived on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "people moved on and off the steppe all the time".

Rob said...

@ Dave

"Well, it's a fact that almost 100% of the R1a in the world today comes from a population that lived on the Pontic-Caspian steppe."

Sure, I too think that modern Z645 expanded from the steppe, or at least the forest -steppe. That was not my point.

"On the other hand, I wouldn't go so far as to say that "people moved on and off the steppe all the time".

Yes and no. I don't propose that random, distant populations just turned up all the time.
On the other hand, the herding of their animals required movements between summer and winter pastures, which took the to different parts of the steppe, or around it. This facilitated exchange with different group. Moreover, the patterns were different for every group. Yamnaya, Majkop, Balkan pastoralists, Catacomb, and distinct sub-groups like East Manych had different pace of mobility and herding practices. It meant that they were probably distinctive clan groups. At some point, it seems, they also went on distant migrations as far as Afansyevo (which I still find a little mind boggling).

BB-L151 and CWC-M417 are 2 offshoots of this process of interaction since 4500 BC at least, distinctively steppic. My gut feeling is that CWC went around the Carpathians perhaps (although difficult to trace objectively) and BB actually the way Anthony above described, although you could rotate that 90' A/C, and have BB up the Danube and CWC from Tisza into south Poland.

AWood said...

A movement from Britain to Galicia, then onto SE Iberia doesn't make a lot of sense unless a whole lot of DF27 suddenly turns up in ancient UK which doesn't seem likely at this point. Deeper analysis of the Olalde results may prove otherwise though. However, a movement from the mouth of the Rhone, the peak of DF27 in France (as per earlier research) to eastern Iberia might be a little more realistic around 2200 BC or later.

Also, if anyone looks at the Y phylogeny under DF27, you will notice there are several major founding lineages, unlikely they all arrived at the same time. It's like suggesting M458+ arrived with Z284+ even though both might exist in the same populations.

Chetan said...

@Rob It's very unlikely that CW had an origin in Hungary. Not only is there no R1b in Yamana Hungary, but the geography makes it difficult to imagine a quick spread like what happened. Nay, CW migrations most likely took place from east of the Carpathians.

The BB evidence is not yet conclusive, but if I had to place my bet, it is the BBs which are derived from Yamna Hungary. R1b, geography everything points to that. But obviously in the case of BB, the mechanism of spread was more complicated than a simple one-to-one replacement. Perhaps Anthony's patron-client systems had a role to play here.

Chetan said...

Sorry *Not only is there no R1a in Yamana Hungary

Davidski said...

Hungarian Yamnaya hasn't been sampled yet.

So far there's only one very Yamnaya-like Hungarian Beaker with R1b-Z2103, but he's not from a Kurgan.

Rob said...

@ Chetan, yeah you're thinking of the rest of non-Yamnaya Hungarians.
But as I said, via Hungary is my less likely option intuitively.

harhar har said...

Isn't Anthony the guy that called Corded Ware Proto-Germanic?

rozenfag said...

So it seems we won't get anything new before New Year. Sad.

Anthony Haken said...

Are the N1c samples possibly early Samoyedic expansion?

Chetan said...

Maybe some R1a will turn up when they sample it. Although that still doesn't prove Hungarian origin of CW since m417 is in Ukraine as well. Guess we have to wait

Rob said...

Dave

Do you know what is what in these files ?

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/SAMN06046900

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/view/SAMN06046901

in terms of chronology . Which is Wielbark and which is EMA. Some interesting calls.

Kristiina said...

@Anthony "Are the N1c samples possibly early Samoyedic expansion?"

Probably not. Samoyeds are mostly N1b (VL67), ie. the eastern N1b branch. This sargat line seems to be under Z1936, so it could be L1034. Ugrians (Khanty, Mansi, Hungarians) have Z1936/L1034, so considering the geography, these people could have spoken Proto-Ugric.

Also Nenets and Nganasans have small amounts of Z1936, so men belonging to this line could have been the very first Uralic speakers.

Arza said...

@ Rob

Gniezno

SAMN06046900 Gnie_1
SAMN06046901 Gnie_2

Select columns > Sample title

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/data/warehouse/filereport?accession=PRJNA354503&result=read_run&fields=sample_accession,secondary_sample_accession,fastq_bytes,sample_title&download=txt

Some interesting calls.
Something more than generic R1b?

Rob said...

@ AWood

"A movement from Britain to Galicia, then onto SE Iberia doesn't make a lot of sense unless a whole lot of DF27 suddenly turns up in ancient UK "

if that's what the data actually shows, then it is what it is
Perhaps you're presuming that modern pattterns of R1b subclades in Western Europe were fixed in the BB period, but maybe they weren't until MLBA or even later.

Davidski said...

@Rob

No idea. I haven't looked into that.

But those files were uploaded by Figlerowicz's group. One of the guys from that group posted in the comments here a while back. You should try and get in touch with them and ask.

AWood said...

@Rob

Based on the aDNA we have so far from UK (L21+), that's what it shows unless deeper resolution of Olalde proves differently.

I guess we will need to wait for the paper and how exactly Galicia is even relevant to the discussion or what the authors are trying to say here. I hope it's not been suggested as the route simply because of a sample being R1b, or closely related to Celtic cultures. The most successful lineages in Iberia today peak in the south of France, not the north west where L21+ likely pushed into ancient Britain, and then spread to Ireland.

Richard Rocca said...

@ AWood

"A movement from Britain to Galicia, then onto SE Iberia doesn't make a lot of sense unless a whole lot of DF27 suddenly turns up in ancient UK"

If Low Countries Bell Beaker is an offshoot of Dutch Corded Ware (Das Dutch Model), then a North Sea route could be possible. Remember that Olalde's data has some P312 samples and neither DF27 nor U152 were called using their method.

Anthony Haken said...

@Kristiina

Thanks, if thats the case what do you propose the rest of L1026+ spoke?

Kristiina said...

@Anthony
Yes, in fact, according to yfull, its age is 4700 years and that places it to c. 2700 BC. Proto-Uralic is nowadays rather estimated to have existed c. 3000 BC and not earlier, therefore L1026 may indeed have been a Proto-Uralic marker. Of course, my judgement depends on where the ancient L1026 is found and how old it is proven to be. However, it could be found in the Volga forest area in the Yamnaya time frame.

Anthony Haken said...

@Kristiina
My mind keeps going back to the ancient N1c found with the R1a on the Russia-Belarus border. It dates to right around the tmrca of L1026 but its location and correlated culture doesn't relate to the mainstream prot-Uralic urheimat if I recall correctly.

Anthro Survey said...

Speaking of David Anthony---I was hoping there'd be an audiobook version for his "Horse, Wheel and Language", so you can imagine my shock upon discovering that no such thing exists.

Maybe some of us could take the initiative in changing this(by lawful means)? :-)

Rob said...

@ Anthro
Listening to archaeology whilst driving the car is taking an obsession a bit too far ?

Anthro Survey said...

@Rob

Not for me. :D Besides, it's not like it's dry listing of archaeological findings. The former are discussed in the context of linguistics & accepted dynamics of pre-historic and historic eras.

Besides, times have changed and there is an emerging market for material pertaining to the spread of Indo-European languages and cultures associated thereof.

Anthro Survey said...

@Rob

Oh, did you show BellBeakerBlogger that "migrants from "southern Russia to Iberia" article yet? The line made me lol, but we can't expect much from those working in generic media outlets when it comes to aDNA findings. Remember the article headline about ancient Egyptians having "origins from Europe and Turkey"?

Rob said...

I know I was joking. No I haven't mantioned to him personally . Can't wait for the study, or the new version of Olalde paper with more samples, incl possibly from Sion.

Samuel Andrews said...

When I click on anthrogenica an error message. Is it the same for everyone else?

Dave the Slothtopus said...

Yes, Sam. Anthrogenica seems to be down for unknown reasons. They mentioned earlier that there was some planned maintenance, but last time they needed to shut it down temporarily, there was at least a notice page explaining things, so maybe it's something worse this time.

Right now all I want for Christmas is Anthrogenica back ... and the Olalde paper finally published ... and Bronze Age finds for DF19, DF99 and L238 ...

Anonymous said...

@ Dave the Slothtopus

Last time there was a crypto mining script hidden somewhere. You may have noticed that it took quite some CPU once you loaded the page.

Dave the Slothtopus said...

Right. Last time with the script, they had a splash page up explaining why they were temporarily down. This time, not even that :(

Samuel Andrews said...

Good. I'm actually really happy Anthrogenica is down. Hopefully, someone hacked it or something. 90%+ of the posters are decent people. I've got nothing against you guys. It's just the moderators. They are arrogant conceited snobs. I think they smell their own farts every time they post. Yeah, a lot of the people they ban are nut jobs but some aren't. Plus, they an creepy sense of superiority and intolerance for "trolls" and "racists."

Anonymous said...

@Richard Rocca

There have been some very sea worthy boat finds from the Bronze Age from England. We also now know that English Bronze Age people originated mostly from the Dutch Bell Beakers. These people must have come there somehow. It may be a bit of a stretch but I think this is at least some evidence for Bell Beaker folk being able to sail the seas.

Anonymous said...

@Dave the Slothtopus

It's a PHP error message. Something seriously broke, breaking the entire sites webserver. Hence no nice splash page, as its ability to serve any page went down the drain :-)

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews I agree with you, though, keep in mind that it's a PC forum. So, it's not like David's blog. Anyway, they're too sensitive when it comes to race, but they also root out the ignorance of some people.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews By the way, if the Swat samples do end up having some Iran Neolithic/Chalcolithic and ASI ancestry (ASI is very unlikely), would you consider them European? Even though they mixed in Asia with West Asians... Think carefully, lol.

I estimate them to be similar to Kalash, though, with 75 to 80% Steppe DNA, and 20 25% Neolithic Iranian farmer DNA. Would they be European or "White" in your view? Be honest, here.

Arkaim said...

@Shahanshah of Persia
White is a shit term and means nothing. Does White means English-clustering? European-clustering? Caucasian-clustering?

But well, Steppe_MLBA clustered with Nordics and Bronze Age Central Europeans to an extent, so they were the same.
People should relax and realize that there were 4 European peoples since the end of the Ice Age:
WHG, SHG, EHG - Were they White? There wasn't even the "White genotype" for comparison at their time, but they were Europeans.
EEF - Were they White? Again, Whites didn't even existed.
Steppe - Were they White? Same thing.
Today Europeans - There are those whoe are, there are those who aren't. What's your definition?

Now, to the hypothetical question of Steppe_MLBA ganining Iran_N genes, would they be White?
I don't have the answer, but they would still be mainly Europeans, like Russians, or people of the Volga-Ural, just another flavour, another layer of European.
Now, there's a limit to what people may consider acceptable admixture, varying from 0% to who-knows%, and many don't consider people like the Russians as Europeans.

My personal take on that, specially because the Iran_N/CHG component is part of Europeans today, and was part of Yamnayas in their days, I would consider that this mix wouldn't affect the Steppe peoples status as Europeans.
Gaining ASI admixture would be another story though, as it's outside the Caucasian and European spectrum (I don't judge so harsh the Russians having it also because of all the ANE admixture of yore, but still.)

Onur Dincer said...

Speaking of Whiteness, I saw the PCA plot below on Twitter.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X3tfJVLCJjTVXvxOZYURcfrTFm3io-PF/view?usp=sharing

It is one of the Douglas McDonald plots, but the circles and the info were added later by another European guy. The Turks in the PCA are probably from the Behar et al. 2010 study. The Behar et al. 2010 Turks are from interior Anatolia and in general do not have that high (above 10%) Mongoloid scores, so it is easily understandable why they are positioned inside the white circle, which is meant to represent Whites. I'd say that the extent of the white circle makes sense racially speaking. The yellow circle, which is meant to represent Caucasoids in general, be them White or not, on the other hand, is enormously wide as it includes obviously mixed race thus non-Caucasoid peoples such as Ethiopians, Indians, Uyghurs and Hazaras.

As for Europeanness, it is something more geographical than racial compared to Whiteness, which is entirely racial (or related to genetic clustering to be more specific). Not all Europeans are White and not all Whites are from Europe. I cluster with European Whites in PCA plots and in other genetic clustering tools, whether worldwide or West Eurasian-focused, but that does not mean that an Armenian who does not cluster with European Whites in West Eurasian PCA plots or other genetic clustering tools is not White, because in worldwide PCA plots and other genetic clustering tools that Armenian will obviously cluster with European Whites in addition to non-European Whites.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim Saying that Europeans today and Steppe MLBA are the same people is not factually correct. I have seen you post on Amren before, on a article about Iranians and Indians and how "Aryans civilized the mixed-race mutts of Iran and India", when in actuality, both the Steppe people and native Iranians were Caucasoids, so they were not really mixed race. And now, I see you here. Let me get things straight, you wrote that the Sintashta and Andronovo were exactly the same as Europeans, not true! They were certainly European, though, they at the most are 60 to 70% similar to modern day Eastern and Northern Europeans, not 100% similar. Similarity still matters my friend. I am not here to call you out, obviously. But, let me remind you that a few, I won't name them, Europeans think that all West Asians are not "White", and only "Whites" did everything for everyone. As the Amren article clearly highlighted, anyone with Iranian DNA of any sort is mixed race, therefore, the Aryans who entered Iran and India, no matter if they had 50% or 70% Steppe, they were mixed race, according to this logic, and would cluster even further away from Europeans and closer to West Asians. Most of these people who I shall not name, do not consider Tatars or Bashkirs White, and now, all of a sudden, when the DNA comes out, they're White? Obviously, Caucasus Hunter Gatherer was Iran-derived, but nonetheless, they were not Neolithic Iranians. Therefore, they had those bad "Asiatic" genes which led to their downfall, right? For that reason, they would not be European, no matter how Steppe derived they were, as long as they had 20% Neolithic Iranian DNA, which I am certain, the Swat samples will. This is not about race, as we are al Caucasoids, for the most part. Iranians are 95% Caucasoid, and high caste South Asians are between 80 and 90% Caucasoid (though, with ASI admixture). The article you proudly commented on made it clear that Caucasoids with brown skin are mixed race, therefore, even though the Aryans were fair, they mixed with the brown skinned Neolithic Iranians prior to entering India, so they were mixed, though pure Caucasoid. Saying, that "they were just like us." is a wrong statement because many people, again those ones, do not accept it today, and they should not accept it, if it happened back then, period! Also, who said that they were Steppe MLBA? South Asians are best modeled as Yamnaya for a reason! They were probably Yamnaya like, not like Steppe MLBA, and Steppe MLBA does not = modern Nordic. 70% similarity is not 100% pure master race similarity. I respect David enough to not go further into this, but please tone down. Now you accept the Iran_N component but reject modern Iranians, Armenians, Georgians? Yeah right! South Asians I understand because of the ASI factor, which was likely absent in the Vedic Aryans, but Iranians and Georgians? Those Asiatic genes are not wanted because Europeans are a pure people, so Iranians are just mixed mutts, right?

"Wouldn't affect the Steppe peoples status as European". FYI, David has made it clear that the Yamnaya had CHG genes, not Iran Chalcolithic or Iran Neolithic, therefore, your argument has no grounds. The Vedic Aryans and early Iranians (excluding Sarmatians) will end up being non-European Caucasoids, with a heavy European influence. End of story! Even Sarmatians are more like Tatars and less like Nordics, and they were pre-BMAC Iranics.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dincer Hey bro, there's no point in arguing with anyone here. Some of these people consider Iranians and Turks mutts because of the minor East Asian DNA both populations have (5% for Iranians, 5 to 20% for Turks). They see South Asians, Iranians, and Turks in the same boat. Okay, South Asians I understand, but Iranians and Turks? If they do not consider these populations White or European or whatever, then they have no right to include any later Steppe derived population with native Iranian farmer DNA as White/European, no matter how much they want to. Our Asiatic genes are bad, so we are not Europeans, let's leave it at that. Many of these people are just as stubborn as the Indians who reject Aryan invasion, and the Afrocentrists who still believe that they built Egypt and North Africa. You're not going to get to them, no matter how much evidence you show time and time again.

About Behar, the study was flawed. Even Behar Iranians had around 1 to 10% African DNA, and were probably taken from the deep south. Most Iranians have 0% African DNA, and only about 5% East Asian/Onge combined. Therefore, we are largely the same people. Behar's did not pick the best samples. Indians, Pakistanis, etc., are all on the fringes of Caucasoidness, the upper caste ones at least, still deriving a significant part of their ancestry from the Steppe peoples, even more so than some Europeans. But they are mixed, no doubt.

You're right, even Iranians! Iranians and Turks always cluster together, but none of these types of people will accept them as White because of the bad "Arab" and "Asiatic" genes. In reality, David has made it clear multiple times that the majority of Iranians have no detectable Arab ancestry, and that Turks are at most 10% East Asian on average, but there's no point in arguing bro. Some people never get it!

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim You can keep adding flavours to Europeaness when it comes to great progenitors of ancient civilizations, but when it comes to their descendants, it's "you must be of pure European descent, no exceptions!". I have no problem accepting any Steppe derived people as European or mostly European/Caucasoid, but the problem here is with those folks over at Amren, not us. Anyway, flavours of Europeaness, as you have put it, are only relevant where ancient civilizations are concerned. Ancient Egyptians=Europeans, Vedic Aryans=Eruopeans, Ancient Persians=Europeans, Babylonians, Assyrians, etc.=European, but when it comes to their descendants, then not European, because, god forbid, those bad Asiatic genes cause pollution of our pure genome! This is a type of talk I do not like, and I will leave it at that. I do not like it because it is somewhat hypocritical, sorry mate.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Shanhanshah Persia,
"I estimate them to be similar to Kalash, though, with 75 to 80% Steppe DNA, and 20 25% Neolithic Iranian farmer DNA. Would they be European or "White" in your view? Be honest, here."

I'd consider them mixed. A Bronze age European group who migrated into SC Asia and mixed with the people there. Like how I consider Corded Ware a Steppe group who migrated into northern Europe and mixed with the people there. But after 1,000 years or how many years Corded Ware's decendant's genetic label becomes "northern European.".

When discussing ancient populations I define genetic Europeaness or genetic Middle Easternerss or whatever mostly by geography and genetic affinity to populations of their era not affinity to modern populations.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews Thanks for clarifying, I appreciate it. Again, I respect Europeans, and do not deny the European connection to these people who arrived in Asia from the Corded Ware/Yamanya horizon. I care enough to acknowledge a European origin for the Proto-Indo-European languages and the cultural heritage of the Vedic Aryans. But realistically speaking, by the time they reached India they had to be mixed, and thanks for accepting them as such. It is sort of hypocritical for some people to add "flavours of Europeaness" whenever it suits their personal agendas, but when it doesn't, then it's "you must be of 100% White European ancestry, no EXCEPTIONS!". Then they go a step further to claim that their descendants are mixed race mutts and have no, absolute 0, connection to their ancestors (a ludicrous claim for the most part). This is the type of hypocrisy I dislike, very much. It's as bad as Indian nationalists denying the Aryan Invasion or Afrocentrists claiming to somehow be direct descendants of Ancient Egyptians. The role of the Steppe and CW culture in the formation of these peoples' identity cannot be denied, but there was almost certainly admixture later on in Central Asia, which would have made these Aryans distinct from their cousins in Europe! :) Thanks again, appreciate it for clarifying. And I am in no way denying the connection of these people to Yamnaya or Bronze Age Steppe populations! Just pointing out some hypocrisy here.

Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

I am not familiar with the recent discussions in the comment sections of this blog as I have not been following them for months until today even if I have read all the blog articles of David, so I won't comment on them for now. For now I will just make a clarification about Turks. Anatolian Turks do indeed cluster genetically with Iranians and also with Armenians, Assyrians and the other peoples of Anatolia and the adjacent lands to its east, but Balkan Turks do not since they cluster with other Balkan peoples instead. In a similar vein, Balkan Greeks cluster with other Balkan peoples, but not Anatolian Greeks, who instead cluster with Anatolian Turks, Armenians, Assyrians, Iranians, Georgians, etc. See this PCA plot:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9n4j3PQ81RcU0FkYXhLSl9UeVU/view?usp=sharing

Arkaim said...

@Shanhanshah Persia
What's Amrem? Stop speaking nonsense, I only post on Eurogenes and I'm not even European.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dincer Thanks mate, appreciate that, and I knew that. Though, thanks for sharing the PCA. Turks from Bulgaria are very similar to other Bulgarians, and the Turks from East Thrace, seem to have a decent chunk of Northern European ancestry as David proved a while ago. :) I appreciate it mate.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arkaim,
"White is a shit term and means nothing. Does White means English-clustering? European-clustering? Caucasian-clustering?"

Because whites don't descend from a single genetic line going back 30,000 years doesn't mean the term white means nothing. Europeans have "recent" links with the Middle East but are still distinct.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim I am not going to get into it, for obvious reasons and I respect your privacy, but you know what I am talking about. Anyway, I respect you enough not to say anything. Just be careful mate. Just don't be hypocritical when it comes to these things.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews Yes, I agree! Well said, Europeans are a distinct population from Middle Easterners, Caucasians, and other Caucasoids. This is certainly true, no doubt.

Arkaim said...

You're insane, and you still didn't answer me.
And what about my privacy? This is a fake account.
Nonetheless, Steppe_MLBA clusters with Europeans of their time, this is a given, I don't know why you're so upset about it.
Today Europeans though are farther away from them - but I would argue that Steppe_MLBA peoples were even more Europeans than Europeans today because they had greater amounts of WHG and EHG than the EEF-shifted present population.

Arkaim said...

Define "White" in genetic terms, with a PCA in mind.

Onur Dincer said...

@Samuel Andrews

Because whites don't descend from a single genetic line going back 30,000 years doesn't mean the term white means nothing. Europeans have "recent" links with the Middle East but are still distinct.

Yes, there is some genetic distinction between European Whites and non-European Whites as David showed in this blog article in an easily digestible way:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com.tr/2017/06/matters-of-geography.html

It seems that during the Scythian and Sarmatian times the boundary between Europe and Asia was different from today genetically (but also geographically) in the steppe part of the Europe-Asia boundary zone.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim

"You're insane, and you still didn't answer me."

You don't want me to say anything, do you?

"And what about my privacy? This is a fake account."

Okay, cool.

"Nonetheless, Steppe_MLBA clusters with Europeans of their time, this is a given, I don't know why you're so upset about it."

It does, and how am I upset about this? Europeans of THEIR time, not modern Europeans. They are close, but not 100% similar. And, the Vedic Aryans were likely Yamnaya derived not Sintastha or Andronovo derived, David has made this clear a million times, now. By the way, the Vedic Aryans probably picked up admixture from the Ferghana Valley prior to arriving to India, so they were not even Yamnaya, let's just wait for the Swat samples and see who is correct. As for Iranics being Sintashta, that's not confirmed because both Scythians and Sarmatians were Yamnaya not Sintashta, and only time will tell who is who and what was what, but even the Iranics who migrated to Iran probably had some Chalcolithic and Neolithic Iran-like admixture from Yaz and BMAC respectively. It is not likely that they were Steppe MLBA, though heavily derived from either it or Yamnaya (most like Sintashta and Andronovo). They were nonetheless likely mixed with Chalcolithic Iranians, as I have said, and thus, sorry to break it to you, not European!

"Today Europeans though are farther away from them - but I would argue that Steppe_MLBA peoples were even more Europeans than Europeans today because they had greater amounts of WHG and EHG than the EEF-shifted present population."

True, though EEF were indeed a European population, not Near Eastern due to WHG admixture.

"Define "White" in genetic terms, with a PCA in mind."

I am not going to define it, I do not care. The people who care, certainly only see the modern European cluster as White, not the modern Europeans in the Yamnaya cluster or the remaining clusters.

Onur Dincer said...

@Arkaim

Define "White" in genetic terms, with a PCA in mind.

I already tried to do that in this comment:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.tr/2017/12/corded-ware-as-offshoot-of-hungarian.html?showComment=1513991931880#c152576134322465506

But let's see what others have to propose.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dincer Most people do not belief in there existing such a thing as non-European Whites, and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that they consider ancient non-European Whites to be European Whites because of the history, culture, and prestige associated with them, but when it comes to modern non-European Whites, you have to be "100% of European descent, no EXCEPTIONS!". They do not even accept the 100% pure Caucasoid Armenians and Georgians, for that matter. Personally, to me I respect European White enough to say that we should keep to ourselves and not get in the each others' way, if you know what I mean. But I cannot stand the hypocrisy of some of these types.

Scythians and Sarmatians would barely be considered White today. It doesn't matter if they were blonde or blue eyed or any of that. They cluster even further away then Tatars, and thus, cannot be considered European. I consider them mostly European, though the traditional definition used by some people for Whiteness is that you must be of "100% pure European descent, no exceptions!". Going by this definition, Scythians and Sarmatians were not White. It was though, I would agree it you on that. :)

Arkaim said...

You don't want me to say anything, do you?
Go on, say it, I don't even know what you're talking about or why you're ranting against me.

About your paragraph about Aryans. When have I said anything about Andronovo or Shintashta? And I already said something above about Yamnaya getting more Iran_N admixture, it doesn't really "bother" me, if that's what you think. Again, the Iran_N/CHG component is already part of the Yamnaya, there's nothing extraordinary happening there.

let's just wait for the Swat samples and see who is correct.
Who is correct? I agree that before entering India, there was an encounter with the Harappans, who would probably be a Iran_N population.
This is also obvious by the extra CHG admixture that the populations of the region have.
I don't disagree with any of that.

I am not going to define it, I do not care.
Then don't answer it, I asked Samuel.
But well, White is not appliable to Genetics, as, for instance, the British being the core Whites by default, people such as the French, German and Nordics are more often than not considered Whites, while being further away from the English than, say, the Irish, which are not considered White by any means.
So, White is a useless term genetically.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur David divided Europe and Asia a while back, here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQelZhUGYtN1g1VnM/view. Personally, I wouldn't consider someone who was 40% Iran Chalcolithic, yet on the European side, to be European, that just not me. Even modern Nordic-Iranian mixed today would cluster in the same spot, and no one considers them White. David's distinction is rather arbitrary. For me, Europeaness ends after the last Yamnaya sample (so, Tatars and Sarmatians are not White). If IVC samples end up clustering closer to the European side, I wouldn't consider them European if they were 20% Neolithic Iranian. Overall, I somewhat agree with David, though for some people, only the European cluster today represents Europeans, everyone else is not White!

Arkaim said...

I saw your post, but still, it encompasses populations not deemed as White, so it's too broad for the term.
And as I explained above - the Irish are not considered White, while Austrians or French, the Swiss are.
White is not a genetic term.
"European" should be used, and then Southern/Northern/Western/Eastern, etc to describe it better. Or call for the descendency, such as Iberian, Germanic, Latin, Slav, etc

Arkaim said...

But White is not a Genetic term (was my post deleted?).
People like the Irish, who are closest to the British are not considered White, while the French are.
The correct choice is to use European and then add the ancestry: Germanic, Slav, Italian, Iberian, Balt, Finn, Greek, etc
For instance, in the list above, only the Germanics would be deemed White, no other population.
Heck, Davidski is Polish, right? He wouldn't be considered White.
Again, White is an useless term.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Go on, say it, I don't even know what you're talking about or why you're ranting against me."

I do not want to say anything other than the fact that I saw you posting on a controversial forum a while back about how the Aryans "were just like us!", and you also included an image of the Arkaim site from a textbook or something, it was drawn by a computer program. Anyway, you said a few things which I won't go into. You know what you said, and I am not ranting against anyone. I respect you enough to not say anything, please just leave it at that.

"About your paragraph about Aryans. When have I said anything about Andronovo or Shintashta? And I already said something above about Yamnaya getting more Iran_N admixture, it doesn't really "bother" me, if that's what you think. Again, the Iran_N/CHG component is already part of the Yamnaya, there's nothing extraordinary happening there."

Yes, there is! Firstly, CHG does not equal Iran Neolithic. Secondly, it does because it'll pull the Aryans away from Europeans and closer to the Kalash, and hopefully, far away from Nordics. Anyway, another thing here is that the BMAC might have played a major role in the formation of the Iranics, possibly not the Vedic Aryans or Mitanni Aryans. In any event, the Iranics and Aryans who entered India were not the same as the ones on the Steppes, though heavily derived from them, and they were probably closer to S/C Asians, not Europeans. This is my main point, here.

"Who is correct? I agree that before entering India, there was an encounter with the Harappans, who would probably be a Iran_N population."

I am not talking about the Harappans, I am talking about the inhabitants of Ferghana Valley, who most certainly were not Europeans, but likely either Neolithic or Chalcolithic Iranians, and the Vedic Aryans must have somewhat mixed with them. The Swat samples likely did not even come into contact with any Harappans until they attacked the IVC. There might have also been minor BMAC influence on them, though we cannot be certain until we see the samples.

"This is also obvious by the extra CHG admixture that the populations of the region have.
I don't disagree with any of that."

Okay, good.

"But well, White is not appliable to Genetics, as, for instance, the British being the core Whites by default, people such as the French, German and Nordics are more often than not considered Whites, while being further away from the English than, say, the Irish, which are not considered White by any means. So, White is a useless term genetically."

Yeah, it definitely is, no doubt!






Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim

"But White is not a Genetic term (was my post deleted?)."

No, I just replied. It's not a genetic term.

Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Most people do not belief in there existing such a thing as non-European Whites, and that doesn't bother me. What bothers me is that they consider ancient non-European Whites to be European Whites because of the history, culture, and prestige associated with them, but when it comes to modern non-European Whites, you have to be "100% of European descent, no EXCEPTIONS!". They do not even accept the 100% pure Caucasoid Armenians and Georgians, for that matter. Personally, to me I respect European White enough to say that we should keep to ourselves and not get in the each others' way, if you know what I mean. But I cannot stand the hypocrisy of some of these types.

I agree that we should keep to ourselves even if we are all White technically. But there should be some balance in that. There is not much of a genetic difference between neighboring White countries most of the time, so I see no reason not to tolerate intimate relations between the peoples of the neighboring or at least genetically close White countries in most cases, this is especially true within Europe.

Scythians and Sarmatians would barely be considered White today. It doesn't matter if they were blonde or blue eyed or any of that. They cluster even further away then Tatars, and thus, cannot be considered European. I consider them mostly European, though the traditional definition used by some people for Whiteness is that you must be of "100% pure European descent, no exceptions!". Going by this definition, Scythians and Sarmatians were not White. It was though, I would agree it you on that. :)

I think only those Scythians and Sarmatians with little to no Mongoloid scores (say, 10% or less) can be considered White. The eastern ones with high Mongoloid scores are obviously non-White and would be considered exotic-looking by White or even general Caucasoid standards.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim

https://www.ancient-code.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/238eb93193bafcbd5dd7e3b1916f2e40f4151f3d.jpeg

See this picture? Look familiar... Yeah, this is what I am talking about, the image you posted on that site, but I am not going to get into what you said. Anyway, Zoroaster probably did not live at this site, since it dates to 2,000 BCE. Though, this is probably where Proto-Indo-Iranic religion developed. Also, quite possibly, it was where the Iranic languages began to develop. Anyway, Zoroaster was probably heavily Steppe, but he had to have some West Asian DNA. Also, the Iranics who entered Iran were probably somewhat mixed by that point, and there was likely BMAC influence, also. Though, not saying that BMAC contributed to all of their beliefs, not likely. There was probably little BMAC influence on them, and the little there was, was probably genetic.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"I agree that we should keep to ourselves even if we are all White technically. But there should be some balance in that. There is not much of a genetic difference between neighboring White countries most of the time, so I see no reason not to tolerate intimate relations between the peoples of the neighboring or at least genetically close White countries in most cases, this is especially true within Europe."

True, true. Mind the minor grammatical errors, I am in a rush. But thanks for the reply, I somewhat agree with you. It's just that the modern situation has made things difficult, to say the least.

"I think only those Scythians and Sarmatians with little to no Mongoloid scores (say, 10% or less) can be considered White. The eastern ones with high Mongoloid scores are obviously non-White and would be considered exotic-looking by White or even general Caucasoid standards."

I agree, but even those Sarmatians are closer to, say, Tajiks and Yaghnobis than to most mainland Europeans. On David's PCAs at least, that's what it looks like. But you have a valid point. I would say that they Whiteness was in between European Whites and non-European Whites.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dincer "their" not "they" in the last sentence.

Arkaim said...

First, I'm not White, nor European, so I'm not in boogey forums saying boogey things.
Second, If anything, The Aryans when acquiring more Iran_N ancestry would be hanging in a bridge between Europe and North Caucasus.
Nothing wrong with that. Also note that the PCA starts going "down" when reaching the Caucasus all the way to India and Papuans, so, the Aryans would diagonally go to that direction.
Again, I don't see any problems with that.

About that image you posted, I first saw it here in the blog comments, and I created my account with that in mind, that's it for me.

Also, just to further my argument: "White" is such a bad term that it, in the layman's view, says that people all the way from Sardinia to Russia are the same.
To the Middle Eastern posters here, that would be like saying that the region's people, from the Bedouins to Chechens are all the same.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"First, I'm not White, nor European, so I'm not in boogey forums saying boogey things."

99% you are, since you admitted it on that other forum. And no, I didn't just dream all of this up, I saw your name and am 100% sure it was you. I am not going to get into it because I respect everyone here.

"Second, If anything, The Aryans when acquiring more Iran_N ancestry would be hanging in a bridge between Europe and North Caucasus."

Neolithic Iranians do not in the least bit cluster with people from the Caucasus, what are you smoking?

"Nothing wrong with that. Also note that the PCA starts going "down" when reaching the Caucasus all the way to India and Papuans, so, the Aryans would diagonally go to that direction."

Okay, it goes towards East Asians not Papuans. The Ancestral South Indians were genetically closer to East Asians than Australian Aborigines.

"Again, I don't see any problems with that."

Good, just stick to one narrative because I have seen you time and time again post about how the modern Nordics and ancient Aryans are 100% the same.

"About that image you posted, I first saw it here in the blog comments, and I created my account with that in mind, that's it for me."

I saw you post it on the other forum and saved it. Again, let's not talk about it because we both know what I am talking about. And I respect your privacy and don't want to cause or create commotion.

"Also, just to further my argument: "White" is such a bad term that it, in the layman's view, says that people all the way from Sardinia to Russia are the same."

Yes, it is! Too bad many people do not realize this.

"To the Middle Eastern posters here, that would be like saying that the region's people, from the Bedouins to Chechens are all the same."

Yeah, exactly!


Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

I agree, but even those Sarmatians are closer to, say, Tajiks and Yaghnobis than to most mainland Europeans. On David's PCAs at least, that's what it looks like. But you have a valid point. I would say that they Whiteness was in between European Whites and non-European Whites.

But the Sarmatians on David's PCA plot all cluster on the European part of that plot, those Scythians who cluster on the Asian part (notice that they cluster closest to South-Central Asians among the populations on the Asian part) cluster there obviously because of their high Mongoloid scores, if not for their high Mongoloid scores they would all cluster on the European part of the plot as is clear from their Caucasoid component ratios (look at their particularly low Basal-rich component scores).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQelZhUGYtN1g1VnM/view

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1tFAa7oxWpcNN-OdMMjBdb4NeWKG7EkpKMzZJVW2_MME/edit#gid=1829029512

Arkaim said...

Stop smoking, I'm not the person you think I am.
I'm Brazilian, and don't know about any forum.
About the PCA, just look here and see what I meant, you got it all wrong:
http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/PCA/Eurogenes_Ust-Ishim_PC_plot_1-2-3_with_East_Asians.html

Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

David divided Europe and Asia a while back, here: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQelZhUGYtN1g1VnM/view. Personally, I wouldn't consider someone who was 40% Iran Chalcolithic, yet on the European side, to be European, that just not me. Even modern Nordic-Iranian mixed today would cluster in the same spot, and no one considers them White. David's distinction is rather arbitrary. For me, Europeaness ends after the last Yamnaya sample (so, Tatars and Sarmatians are not White). If IVC samples end up clustering closer to the European side, I wouldn't consider them European if they were 20% Neolithic Iranian. Overall, I somewhat agree with David, though for some people, only the European cluster today represents Europeans, everyone else is not White!

I strongly disagree with these comments of yours. David's PCA plots (and not only the one you shared) clarify what is European-type White and what is not clearly and populations such as Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Poltavka, Potapovka, Srubnaya, Sintashta, Andronovo and low-Mongoloid-scoring Scythians/Sarmatians are obviously European-type Whites by genetics even if not typical for TODAY's Europeans.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dincer

"But the Sarmatians on David's PCA plot all cluster on the European part of that plot, those Scythians who cluster on the Asian part (notice that they cluster closest to South-Central Asians among the populations on the Asian part) cluster there obviously because of their high Mongoloid scores, if not for their high Mongoloid scores they would all cluster on the European part of the plot as is clear from their Caucasoid component ratios (look at their particularly low Basal-rich component scores)."

Yeah, they do, and I am not denying that. But they are genetically closer to Tajiks and Yaghnobis than almost all Europeans! If they were European, then why are not they close to the European Sicilians, and are closer to the Asian Tajiks and Yaghnobis? No one is denying that they were European, and heck, I am not denying it either. It's just some nuts who would consider them European but not Tatars or Bashkirs, and I do not like this hypocrisy. For me, they are European, but for most Europeans, they would not be European. You do know what I am saying, right? I am not saying that they are not Europeans, all I am saying is that it depends on the modern definition of European.

"I strongly disagree with these comments of yours. David's PCA plots (and not only the one you shared) clarify what is European-type White and what is not clearly and populations such as Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Poltavka, Potapovka, Srubnaya, Sintashta, Andronovo and low-Mongoloid-scoring Scythians/Sarmatians are obviously European-type Whites by genetics even if not typical for TODAY's Europeans."

Of course, I do not disagree at all, but they are on the edge of Whiteness, and are not the same as the people from mainland Europe. But yeah, the Steppe MLBA ones are undoubtedly Europeans.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim

"About the PCA, just look here and see what I meant, you got it all wrong:
http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/PCA/Eurogenes_Ust-Ishim_PC_plot_1-2-3_with_East_Asians.html"

I do not see a tilt towards Papuans, I see a tilt towards East Asians. Papuans are not even on the PCA! :D

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim Okay, maybe it wasn't you. Though, I am still certain it was. Anyway, cool. :)

Again, this is between me and you. Not anyone else.

Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

It seems we have quite different definitions of European and White. Firstly, European is a somewhat fuzzy term that can be used geographically or genetically (and also culturally) based on the context. White, on the other hand, is an exclusively genetics/race-based term (even though some might misapply it and those misapplications may be used to give justification to those who say that White is an entirely cultural concept). I divide Whites into two main clusters: European Whites and non-European Whites (here I use European more in a genetic sense). If a White clusters with the bulk of European Whites, then he is a European (or European-type) White irrespective of where he is from; and if a White clusters with the bulk of non-European Whites and particularly with Near Eastern Whites, then he is a non-European (or non-European-type) White irrespective of where he is from. The EMBA and MLBA Steppe populations clearly cluster close to modern European Whites (especially to the northern ones) and away from modern non-European Whites, so they are European-type Whites. This is very easy to see. I do not understand why you ignore this fact when defining them racially.

As for Tatars and Bashkirs, they have too high Mongoloid scores to be called White by the scientific standards of biological race. They can be called mixed-race. If they did not have so high Mongoloid scores, they would be called European (or European-type) Whites based on my definitions. Geographically they are from Europe and the bulk of their ancestry is also from Europe, so they are Europeans even if not White Europeans. I hope I have made myself clear now.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dencir

"It seems we have quite different definitions of European and White. Firstly, European is a somewhat fuzzy term that can be used geographically or genetically (and also culturally) based on the context. White, on the other hand, is an exclusively genetics/race-based term (even though some might misapply it and those misapplications may be used to give justification to those who say that White is an entirely cultural concept). I divide Whites into two main clusters: European Whites and non-European Whites (here I use European more in a genetic sense). If a White clusters with the bulk of European Whites, then he is a European (or European-type) White irrespective of where he is from; and if a White clusters with the bulk of non-European Whites and particularly with Near Eastern Whites, then he is a non-European (or non-European-type) White irrespective of where he is from. The EMBA and MLBA Steppe populations clearly cluster close to modern European Whites (especially to the northern ones) and away from modern non-European Whites, so they are European-type Whites. This is very easy to see. I do not understand why you ignore this fact when defining them racially."

When did I deny that they were White? Obviously, Steppe EMBA and MLBA are White and do cluster closer to Nordics, I didn't say anything to the contrary.

"As for Tatars and Bashkirs, they have too high Mongoloid scores to be called White by the scientific standards of biological race. They can be called mixed-race. If they did not have so high Mongoloid scores, they would be called European (or European-type) Whites based on my definitions. Geographically they are from Europe and the bulk of their ancestry is also from Europe, so they are Europeans even if not White Europeans. I hope I have made myself clear now."

Volga Tatars only have around 10% Mongoloid genes on average, I don't know what you're on about.

Anyway, I never denied that Steppe EMBA or MLBA were White, all I said was that the post-BMAC Iranics and Vedic Aryans probably were not White due to their admixture with Chalcolithic and Neolithic Iranians, respectively. Stop putting words into my mount.

Sometimes I cannot stand Turks with Pan-Turk agendas (not pointing at you). Most of them do not even realized that no such thing as a "Turkic people" exist genetically speaking. Anatolian Turks are not Turks, Azeris are most certainly not Turks, Turkmen and Uzbeks are not Turks either. The only Turks are Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, but even they have 30% West Eurasian ancestry, minimum. So, no Turkic race exists. Uyghurs are also not Turks. The only real Turks are the Yakut peoples.

Good day to you!

I somehow got the vibe that you were hinting at the fact since the original Iranic speakers were mostly European peoples, then Iranians are not Iranic. When, in truth, this could not be further from the reality. Next time, think before you say something.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dencir Meanwhile, we have proof of Iranians and Iranic people existing. There is a 95% continuity in Iran since the Iron Age, and 75% since the Chalcolithic, and it doesn't matter what the Proto-Iranians were, Iranic identity was not solidified until the post-BMAC Iranics migrated to Iran. We recognize our unique Indo-European and Elamite heritage. Turks on the other hand consider there only to be one Turkic people, and disregard any other parts of their heritage. Azeris consider themselves to be pure Turkic. Such a shame, you Turks do not even know who your forefathers were.

rozenfag said...

They are teasing us again: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/who-built-the-indus-valley-civilisation/article22261315.ece

The only new(?) thing is: "The research is expected to be published in a leading international journal in a month or so, and is awaited by the scientific community around the world with a kind of anticipation that is rarely witnessed. " But I remember that a year ago they also said that the publication will be soon and it didn't happen.

Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

When did I deny that they were White? Obviously, Steppe EMBA and MLBA are White and do cluster closer to Nordics, I didn't say anything to the contrary.

Anyway, I never denied that Steppe EMBA or MLBA were White, all I said was that the post-BMAC Iranics and Vedic Aryans probably were not White due to their admixture with Chalcolithic and Neolithic Iranians, respectively. Stop putting words into my mount.


I thought you were referring to the EMBA populations when you wrote "Personally, I wouldn't consider someone who was 40% Iran Chalcolithic, yet on the European side, to be European, that just not me." Sorry if I misunderstood that part.

Volga Tatars only have around 10% Mongoloid genes on average, I don't know what you're on about.

They have close to 20% Mongoloid scores on average.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1Oz6P5-SVEJciPX1TciGe-zoqA5JtOGIMG7nh-rCOj0c/edit#gid=804264822

Sometimes I cannot stand Turks with Pan-Turk agendas (not pointing at you). Most of them do not even realized that no such thing as a "Turkic people" exist genetically speaking. Anatolian Turks are not Turks, Azeris are most certainly not Turks, Turkmen and Uzbeks are not Turks either. The only Turks are Kazakhs and Kyrgyz, but even they have 30% West Eurasian ancestry, minimum. So, no Turkic race exists. Uyghurs are also not Turks. The only real Turks are the Yakut peoples.

Good day to you!

I somehow got the vibe that you were hinting at the fact since the original Iranic speakers were mostly European peoples, then Iranians are not Iranic. When, in truth, this could not be further from the reality. Next time, think before you say something.

Meanwhile, we have proof of Iranians and Iranic people existing. There is a 95% continuity in Iran since the Iron Age, and 75% since the Chalcolithic, and it doesn't matter what the Proto-Iranians were, Iranic identity was not solidified until the post-BMAC Iranics migrated to Iran. We recognize our unique Indo-European and Elamite heritage. Turks on the other hand consider there only to be one Turkic people, and disregard any other parts of their heritage. Azeris consider themselves to be pure Turkic. Such a shame, you Turks do not even know who your forefathers were.


Getting into a pissing contest with you on the ancestry of the Turkic-speaking and Iranic-speaking peoples was not my intention. I do not understand how you got that impression from me. Maybe you have not read my comments in this blog and other blogs before (I was very active here and in other genetics blogs until a few months ago). Also it is not my problem if an Turk or Azeri ignores some or most of his ancestry, I am fairly objective when it comes to genetic/racial matters.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Rozenfag I can guarantee you, 100%, that it will be released very, very, soon. But the title is sort of misleading. The people who built the Indus Valley Civilization were probably already considerably mixed with the natives by the late Harappan period. The Neolithic Iranian founder stock was probably distinct from what we will get in this upcoming study (mostly ASI, with minor Neolithic Iran admixture). Some samples might have high Iranian farmer ancestry, who knows. But, the civilization was undoubtedly built by the Iranian farmers. Now it's just a matter of time before we see how the Harappans looked like before the Aryans arrived to smite the Dasyu. Should be interesting.

Onur Dincer said...

I thought you were referring to the EMBA populations when you wrote "Personally, I wouldn't consider someone who was 40% Iran Chalcolithic, yet on the European side, to be European, that just not me." Sorry if I misunderstood that part.

Let me clarify, in some models the CHG part of the ancestry of the EMBA populations is represented by Iran Chalcolithic, that is why I thought you were referring to the EMBA populations.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"I thought you were referring to the EMBA populations when you wrote "Personally, I wouldn't consider someone who was 40% Iran Chalcolithic, yet on the European side, to be European, that just not me." Sorry if I misunderstood that part."

No worries, mate. I understand, thanks for clarifying.

"They have close to 20% Mongoloid scores on average."

Alright, thanks for sharing. I appreciate it! :) I thought they would be much less, because they do not look 20% Asian.

"Getting into a pissing contest with you on the ancestry of the Turkic-speaking and Iranic-speaking peoples was not my intention. I do not understand how you got that impression from me. Maybe you have not read my comments in this blog and other blogs before (I was very active here and in other genetics blogs until a few months ago). Also it is not my problem if an Turk or Azeri ignores some or most of his ancestry, I am fairly objective when it comes to genetic/racial matters."

Alright, sorry mate. I am new here, just started commenting at the beginning of this month. Thanks for clarifying things with me, sorry. I did not know anything about your previous posts and made a bad assumption this time, again I am very sorry. Let's put things behind us! :)

Best wishes for the holidays! On a side note, I enjoyed your input but got a bit upset when I thought that you were implying that modern Iranians are somehow not Iranic. Anyway, sorry again.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"Let me clarify, in some models the CHG part of the ancestry of the EMBA populations is represented by Iran Chalcolithic, that is why I thought you were referring to the EMBA populations."

Yeah, I know. No worries mate, it's all good. Those calculators are obviously wrong.

Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Certainly I do not deny or counter the identity of any people, sorry if I gave that impression. I do not have a strong opinion about how were Iranics and Indo-Aryans genetically when they arrived at the Iranian Plateau and South Asia respectively. We will see when their ancient DNA results are published anyway.

Happy holidays to you as well mate!

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dencir You're right, we shouldn't start speculating. We will know the truth, soon enough! :)

Thank you!

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dincer And it's alright, I shouldn't have made that mistake. Please forgive me.

FYI, I am not stupid and know what the pre-IVC Harappans looked like. I am a bit biased towards the Aryans/Iranians having some Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iranian DNA respectively. Though, I know that it's not good to speculate. I am confident with my predictions about them having around 20% of non-Steppe DNA mainly from pre-Indo-European Iranian populations.

Strandloper said...

I cant believe you people are arguing over who is "white" and who is not!! Pathetic

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Strandloper No one's arguing over who is white and who is not. The argument here is in regards to something else. You would have noticed if you read through our arguments. And what's wrong with being White/European? It's OKAY to be White.

Onur Dincer said...

@Shahanshah of Persia (or should I say "Prince of"? :) )

Thank you for the clarifications on your view of the Iranic and Indo-Aryan past.

I agree that we should drop the race subject, which was a side issue, and focus on the main topic.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Onur Dencir Thanks mate, no problem! Yeah, we should. I am very excited for these upcoming results. They should prove three things.

1) Vedic Aryans were not "indigenous" to India.
2) Late Harappans were mainly ASI due to generations of inbreeding with the natve Tribals.
3) The genetic composition of the Aryans before their attack on the Indus Valley Civilization.

I am looking forward to these results, and David has also hinted that the BMAC results will be included as well. It should be interesting to see.

Chetan said...

@Shahanshah "Late Harappans were mainly ASI due to generations of inbreeding with the natve Tribals"

A mixture of ASI and some Middle Eastern component I would say. Iran Neolithic or something.I think of Harappa as like BMAC but with a stronger South Asian ASI component.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Chetan Yes, I agree with you. Though, David has pointed out that the BMAC could have been mainly a Chalcolithic Iranian. In any event, I think originally the Harappans were Neolithic Iranians, but overtime there was an infiltration of the Harappan civilization by Tribals from the south, or ASI, and because of this there was a severe decline by the late Harappan period, at which point, only the cities with the best societal organization survived. There was indeed a great reduction of settlements from the Mature to Late Harappan periods.

Also, personally, I find it hard to believe that South Indian tribals could have built the Indus Valley Civilization, as they were living in India for 60,000 years, yet only the arrival of the Neolithic Iranian farmers drastically changed the scene in the Subcontinent. The IVC was declining, likely, due to the infiltration of society by Tribals, and an attempted assimilation. I will just leave it at that.

Chetan said...

@Shahanshah "Also, personally, I find it hard to believe that South Indian tribals could have built the Indus Valley Civilization, as they were living in India for 60,000 years"

Yes unlikely but can't be ruled out. But those living near the Punjab region certainly were incorporated into an agricultural civilization that came from Iran/Middle East. It seems that every major innovation in history began with a specific group/group(s) of people and spread with migration where they were adopted by other groups. The exception is the early Chinese who seem to have developed agriculture on their own.

Davidski said...

Holy shit people. From now on you can only discuss three things in this thread...

1) Corded Ware as an offshoot of Hungarian Yamnaya

2) The aDNA from the Sargat mounds in western Siberia

3) The supposedly upcoming Indus Valley aDNA paper and Joseph's article

No more discussions about what it takes to be white or politics.

Santosh said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

"...but overtime there was an infiltration of the Harappan civilization by Tribals from the south, or ASI, and because of this there was a severe decline by the late Harappan period, at which point, only the cities with the best societal organization survived."

As far as I am aware, there were fairly established non-Harappan neolithic traditions (even if inspired in some fundamental and other aspects by the Indus Valley Neolithic) in the Indian northwestern, western and the south-central regions by 4000-3000 BC. Beginning from about 4000 BC in Rajasthan, Gujarat, etc. and by 3000 BC in the south Deccan. The Southern Neolithic agricultural complex (2800 BC - 1000 BC) in south Deccan has a fairly good chance of having been developed by the indigenous south Indians if the theory that it was overrun later by the megalith-building/otherwise Dravidian-speaking barbarians is correct. The Southern Neolithic people, who at the very minimum had a good chance of having a very significant indigenous Indian genetic component if not fully indigenous Indian from the get go, domesticated four crops in the peninsula in a likely primary fashion- two pulses and two millets, so they were not that simplistic of a people. Many indigenous/neolithic-Iran-mixed Indians all over India were cattle-rearing and food-producing by that period and were well on their way to civilisation in its classical sense quite independently of the IVC which did not bother much about India anyway, being at the stage of village cultures at that time. By contrast, Koragas are currently a Dravidian-speaking "tribe" and 70% or so of their paternal lineages are Iranian L1a. Chenchus and Todas also the same. Also, in India, the "tribals" and the "civilised" had long evolved a system of mutual economic dependence and trade and this system is one of the reasons posited for the existence of at least some pockets of "tribals" still today in India, in academia.

The hypothesis that the pre-Neolithic First Peoples of India were the reason the IVC collapsed is not widely considered in academia either- there is a whole list of likely better factors posited to explain why the IVC collapsed exactly at the time it did (which also coincides with an extra-arid period in the world).

Shahanshah of Persia said...

"As far as I am aware, there were fairly established non-Harappan neolithic traditions (even if inspired in some fundamental and other aspects by the Indus Valley Neolithic) in the Indian northwestern, western and the south-central regions by 4000-3000 BC. Beginning from about 4000 BC in Rajasthan, Gujarat, etc. and by 3000 BC in the south Deccan. The Southern Neolithic agricultural complex (2800 BC - 1000 BC) in south Deccan has a fairly good chance of having been developed by the indigenous south Indians if the theory that it was overrun later by the megalith-building/otherwise Dravidian-speaking barbarians is correct. The Southern Neolithic people, who at the very minimum had a good chance of having a very significant indigenous Indian genetic component if not fully indigenous Indian from the get go, domesticated four crops in the peninsula in a likely primary fashion- two pulses and two millets, so they were not that simplistic of a people. Many indigenous/neolithic-Iran-mixed Indians all over India were cattle-rearing and food-producing by that period and were well on their way to civilisation in its classical sense quite independently of the IVC which did not bother much about India anyway, being at the stage of village cultures at that time. By contrast, Koragas are currently a Dravidian-speaking "tribe" and 70% or so of their paternal lineages are Iranian L1a. Chenchus and Todas also the same. Also, in India, the "tribals" and the "civilised" had long evolved a system of mutual economic dependence and trade and this system is one of the reasons posited for the existence of at least some pockets of "tribals" still today in India, in academia."

Okay, thanks for letting me know. Also, Chenchus have a high amount of R1a, last I heard, It was actually used by Out of India theorists for a while as "evidence" of the indigenous Indian theory, but not anymore lol. The ancestor of the Chenchus was probably a single Steppe herder who migrated south to live a life of isolation, and likely had many offspring with the native women.

Can you link the articles? Thanks. I would like to read the studies for myself.

"The hypothesis that the pre-Neolithic First Peoples of India were the reason the IVC collapsed is not widely considered in academia either- there is a whole list of likely better factors posited to explain why the IVC collapsed exactly at the time it did (which also coincides with an extra-arid period in the world)."

I know it's not considered, but what's wrong with speculating?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Joseph's article has some ludicrous theories. The first, third, and fourth one cannot be correct. Also, aren't tribals and natives basically the same, in regards to South Asia. So... I am 90% sure that the IVC was founded by Neolithic Iranians, and the arrival of the Tribals north caused their collapse. The Vedic Aryans being native to IVC theory is bogus. We all know that as well!

How's the vacation, mate? Having fun with the kangaroos and Koalas?

Anthro Survey said...

Alright, time to drop my two cents.

For the sake of this discussion, let us focus on the meaningful INNATE or INHERITED factors associated with the term.

Race theorists of old attempted to classify individuals strictly on the basis of their facial/cranial typologies, with the intuitive assumption that look-alike groups always shared a lot of phylogeny. Another assumption of many of these theorists was that 3-4 "cardinal races" existed since time immemorial and simultaneously radiated from a single node. Lineage mixing indicated by dashed lines on modern population genetics cladograms was almost unthinkable and races were treated much like, say, foxes, wolves and coyotes are in their phylogeny.

We should exercise caution in using terms like Mongoloid, Caucasoid, Negroid----especially in the context of BACK-PROJECTING modern cranio-facial variation correlated with populations modal for real ancestral lineages onto those ancestries. In other words, saying that ENA="Mongoloid admixture" or basalEurasian="Caucasoid admixture" is not always correct.

As a matter of fact, I can bet my bottom dollar that earliest ENAs did NOT resemble most modern-day ENA-rich Mongoloid populations of East Asia, but instead were more comparable to Onge, Papuans or Filipino Negritos. The set of traits corresponding to and allele frequencies governing Mongoloid skull/face likely arose in a subpopulation(or two) of ENAs 1000s of years ago. They came to be nearly fixed across the region thanks to bottlenecking/drift and/or selective processes. Perhaps the relevant alleles were first present in archaic ANEs, only to be passed on to and amplified in ENA-rich north Asian populations?

The utility of using what people call "sub-races" in gauging an INDIVIDUAL's ancestry is very limited at best, on the other hand. Does a Nordic-looking Macedonian have more ancestry with a random Danish dude than with his own "Armenid/Assyrid/Dinarid"-looking first cousin? :-) Old race theorists seemed to think so because the notion of variable gene linkage did not exist. We know this isn't the case and mixing can result in novel allele combinations---say, thalassemia and blue eyes.
So, with regard to cranio-facials, mixing results in a populations displaying both novel types as well as those found in ancestral populations. (Note that drift/bottlenecking and/or dominant/recessive dynamics can result in a 50-50 hybrid population bearing stronger resemblance to one of its ancestors. I suspect this is the case in eastern Persian speakers).

Let's not forget that modern definition of phenotype refers to the combined set of ALL product-coding alleles, not only of those governing shape of face/head. The more alleles we compare, the more confident we can be about ancestral relationships. Again, the only reason cranio-facial similarities(or any other handful of traits) are important is because they are assumed to correspond to ancestral affinity. Otherwise, they'd be as meaningful as two people sharing the same birthday and certainly NOT worth basing any kind of consciousness movement on. :D

Santosh said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

"Okay, thanks for letting me know. Also, Chenchus have a high amount of R1a, last I heard, It was actually used by Out of India theorists for a while as "evidence" of the indigenous Indian theory, but not anymore lol. The ancestor of the Chenchus was probably a single Steppe herder who migrated south to live a life of isolation, and likely had many offspring with the native women."

I just want to mention that the percentage of R1a lineages in Chenchus is ~25% so they may not be having a single recent Indo-Aryan ancestor-they likely have layers of Indian, Dravidian, Indo-Aryan, etc. paternal ancestries.

"Can you link the articles? Thanks. I would like to read the studies for myself."

https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/722b/a3478080f96ea43607036d34449f1bb190a3.pdf for an overview of the Southern Neolithic. Also, http://www.academia.edu/972264/Finding_Plant_Domestication_in_the_Indian_Subcontinent
Please also follow the University College London research on that culture from http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~tcrndfu/web_project/home.html; you may also go through the archaeobotanical and other work of archaeologist Dorian Fuller http://www.homepages.ucl.ac.uk/~tcrndfu/archaeobotany.htm

About the non-Harappan cultures of Rajasthan, Gujarat, etc. like Ganeshwar-Jodhpura cultural complex, Ahar-Banas culture, Padri-Anarta cultural tradition, etc., I'm not much knowledgeable; you may consult relevant chapters of books like "The Ancient Indus Valley- New Perspectives" by Jane McIntosh, "Connections and Complexity: New Approaches to the Archaeology of South Asia", etc. and they may have the first hand sources of knowledge about these cultures listed in them.

Regarding the continued existence of the foraging economy in India, I seem to have mainly picked up what I got in this paper which is only very indirectly related to it- http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1040618211002989
The existence of foragers by no means implies their unbroken genetic continuity from remote prehistoric times- there have been instances when people switched economies multiple times in the past. But the point that I wanted to make was that at least some of the savvy seen in modern day Indian foragers may have existed in the foragers of that remote periods too. Of course that required the involvement of the pastoralists and agriculturists of all kinds from neolithic Iran/Mesopotamia (in the case of much of mainland India) and neolithic India to develop, and I do not dispute that.

"I know it's not considered, but what's wrong with speculating?"
Nothing.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid are good in terms of modern classifications because people belonging to those categories more or less cluster together, unless they're of mixed heritage. This leads me to believe that there's a lot of truth to these divisions. Obviously, I agree with most of the rest of your comment, though, I won't say anything, out of respect for David. He doesn't like it when his blog turns into a race war, lol.

@Santosh

Most of this is based on speculation and I find it hard to believe. Also, Chenchus don't have recent Aryan ancestors, I never claimed. They probably had a founder effect, though. Anyway, the Aryan invasion happened, get over it!

Anthro Survey said...

I should add that MODERN Europe is not an arbitrary geographic designation as it would have been 9 or even 6 KYA. It does not seamlessly transition into that of the modern Middle East, despite existence of certain "bridge" populations like Calabrese and Ashkenazi Jews. Firstly, there wasn't much contact with the ME after 6000BC in the West and after ~5000BC east of Dnieper. IE: drift----not only w/regards to those 100000 non-coding SNPs, but functional genes, as well. Secondly, EEFs and early steppe were hybrids of ANFs/CHGs and WHG/EHG, respectively. Thirdly, modern Europeans are largely and, specifically, the product of metal age Beaker-like hybrids of NC-Europe acquiring additional EEF admixture in Iberia, S. France, Italy, Balkans and Britain, to some extent. (Parts of the Balkans and S.Italy had some substantial flow from the ME after ~2500BC but that's kinda specific to them). This mixing as well as the parallel processes taking place in the ME were accompanied by a plethora of cultural and phenotypic phenomena that are, more or less, idiosyncratic to modern day ME and Europe.

A 2D PCA captures the underlying processes formative to Europe and, generally, assumptions are safe to make for West Eurasia, but position info alone can betray significant differences. Peruvians and Kyrgyz cluster in a similar spot(on 2D) given shared ancestry on a fairly DEEP level, yet it would be silly to place them in the same boat. In the same way, it would be somewhat silly to call a hybrid of Assyrians and a hypothetical WHG survivor enclave as "essentially Tuscans or Albanians".

SO:
Does genetic variation exist?
Absolutely.
Is genetic variation often highly discontinuous, with abrupt changes across a given geographic zone?
Most definitely.
Are there often characteristic phenotype frequencies correlated with such clusters/spectra?
You bet.
Are strong feelings of "brotherhood" or "racial solidarity" justified on high degree shared recent ancestry and corresponding cultural affinities?
I believe that it's only natural.
Can such sentiments be justified based on certain perceived facial similarities ALONE---if we take a randomly assorted group of folks?
Not so much.

Anthro Survey said...

@Shah

Yes, for sure, though key word is 'modern'. Even then, drift differences between modern SSA populations comprised of their respective SSA lineages(basal to all OOA branches) can be as great as between ENAs and West Eurasian HGs 10KYA and then some. Granted, photo IDs don't always readily reflect this(though other aspects like musculature, metabolism, etc. will differ).

Santosh said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Speculation? But some reasonable speculation such as the one you engaged in, in your post about the role of indigenous Indians in the collapse of IVC, is also quite good only, no? (That that speculation, if it was indeed that, was reasonable in the least I believe, because it is done in the academia) Also, everything was speculation in those? There is now physical evidence becoming available that horsegram was indeed domesticated in the Deccan (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-017-05244-w). It is a fact that the IV people got their copper from the Aravalli hills and it is very reasonable if not likely that the indigenous people played an important role in controlling the IV people's access to it.

And whenever in this holy holocene did I mention anything such as that I did not believe in the Indo-Aryan Migration? Since I believe in IAMT, I need not "get over" anything I think lol.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Anthro Survey Did you see my other reply on the other thread? Anyway, I agree with most of what you have said. On a side note, how related are Subsaharan Africans and all other humans? Is it true that they are far, far, far away from us? I would assume so.

@Santosh Yes, the Tribals played a role in the downfall of the IVC because they were primitives, genetically speaking, and when they mixed with them, it caused their civilization to collapse. Also, obviously it's not discussed in Academia, because it's NOT Politically Correct! And, it was an invasion, not some peaceful migration. It was a full on invasion with chariots and horses. :)

Onur Dincer said...

@Shah

Joseph's article has some ludicrous theories. The first, third, and fourth one cannot be correct.

I also find the second theory much more plausible than the other three, though I think that Harappans likely spoke another Near Eastern-derived language family than Dravidian.

Also, aren't tribals and natives basically the same, in regards to South Asia.

Tribals in South Asia usually constitute the most native element in the places they live except Munda speakers (well, at least part of them) and the speakers of most other East Asian-origined languages in South Asia.

So... I am 90% sure that the IVC was founded by Neolithic Iranians,

Or rather by people with Neolithic Iranian origins, but certainly not exclusively so, South Asia was always populous enough to transform the genetics of its invaders through admixture (and transformed itself too if the invaders were populous too).

and the arrival of the Tribals north caused their collapse.

Interesting theory. It can be tested via ancient genomes.

The Vedic Aryans being native to IVC theory is bogus. We all know that as well!

Seems so, though one can never be 100% sure until seeing ancient DNA results from the IVC. But we can say the same thing for many other theories.

Caucasoid, Mongoloid, Negroid, and Australoid are good in terms of modern classifications because people belonging to those categories more or less cluster together, unless they're of mixed heritage. This leads me to believe that there's a lot of truth to these divisions. Obviously, I agree with most of the rest of your comment, though,

Agree with all of these.

I won't say anything, out of respect for David. He doesn't like it when his blog turns into a race war, lol.

Yeah, plus this subject is detracting us from the main subjects of this thread.

Most of this is based on speculation and I find it hard to believe. Also, Chenchus don't have recent Aryan ancestors, I never claimed. They probably had a founder effect, though.

The founder effect theory can easily be tested via modern Chenchu genomes (including the haplogroups).

@Anthro

I should add that MODERN Europe is not an arbitrary geographic designation as it would have been 9 or even 6 KYA...

I agree with most of what you say in your this and the following comment.

@Shah

Yes, the Tribals played a role in the downfall of the IVC because they were primitives, genetically speaking, and when they mixed with them, it caused their civilization to collapse. Also, obviously it's not discussed in Academia, because it's NOT Politically Correct! And, it was an invasion, not some peaceful migration. It was a full on invasion with chariots and horses. :)

Yes, you can be fairly sure about the existence of political correctness in the academia, too many people complain about it. Like I said above, your IVC downfall theory is interesting and deserves testing via rigorous examination of ancient genomes from the IVC and its environs.

Anonymous said...

@Chetan

"Both Italic and Celtic languages were spread by the Bell Beakers which most likely came from Yamanaya Hungary."

That's quite a claim. And also I suppose not supported by the data, as the Olalde paper claimed the farmer admixture in Bell Beakers was most likely either Funnelbeaker or GAC.

Mark B. said...

"Anthony seems fairly certain that the Corded Ware people were descendants of the Yamnaya people, rather than just their close relatives."

So if the founders of CW aren't Yamnaya themselves, where are they in the archeological record? Yamnaya is big- so we see them - and fits the bill genetically and archeologically at least to some degree. How likely is it that some other group, 'we know not whom' did the deed? There's a difference between 'it's possible' and 'it's probable.' I'm not trying to argue the point here - I lack the knowlege to do so. But just on a weigh-the-evidence-today basis, and with a gun to my head, I'll always go with the most likely suspect first.

John Johnson said...

Let me try and help steer this conversation back to Yamna/Corded Ware....

I noticed a few people here astutely drawing connections to this Sub-Carpathian Yamna group and BBC. In a word, YES, and Gimbutas in her Kurgan Wave III draws these connections and how this Yamna group of the Sub-Carpathians does indeed lead to BBC in part (see the JIES monograph entitled 'Kurgan Culture and the Indo-Europeanization of Europe' for more detail). Matter a fact I believe a 'recent' writer basically rewrites Gimbutas here as 'Stelae People'.

Few archaeologists actually consider this Yamna group as genetically related to the initial formation of CWC as far as I know. Read Sulimirski's 'Prehistoric Russia' book from 1970 where he refers to this Yamna group as the 'Sub-Carpathian Barrow Graves'. Like Gimbutas, he describes this group as distinctly Yamna driven from steppes. However he makes keen note that the burial right differs from that of CWC. Genuine Corded Ware pottery does indeed appear in this group however so does Globular Amphora types and also FBC. A final and critical point to make and take note of here is Sulimirski's words considering the composite of this Yamna group:

'The sub-Carpathian group, including its north-west Podolian extension, was probably founded by the end of the third millennium. The main contributors to its formation were the Corded Ware people of the forest zone east of the Oder and Vistula, who founded pastures for their cattle in this then rich grassland, and the Yamnaya people advancing westwards and presumably mingling with them. The custom of burying the dead in shafts under barrows was probably taken over the latter.'

John Johnson said...

So basically the CWC to this interpretation was actually synchronious to this group and hence the sub-Carpathian Yamna group, which Anthony here would like us to believe, could not be directly responsible for the genesis of CWC. Its very important to to make note of how Sulimirski differentiates the burial right between to the two groups. Often times in archaeology you will have pottery types from all over that will mix and mingle within a prehistoric group. Ergo, for defining groups, archaeologists have a saying: 'burial right first, pottery if nothing else'.

Many publications constantly pointed out how the Yamna burials differed from the CWC. Still, there have been similarities cited to the Yamna culture and this can be read in the Baltic-Pontic series which is relatively recent research dealing withe the hard excavation evidence found on the North European plane, often times by those excavating or who specialize in analyzing the material remains of this aforementioned area. Ergo, Yamna may have something to do with CWC genesis but rather from a different direction.


A final publication plug I will make here is Furholt's 2014 work on CWC totality. Furholt here actually makes something useful here in this publication: a map displaying the inter-relationships among the various CWC groups. Google it and find it as I can't seem to be able to post the link here.

When you do, note how there are no relationship lines drawn to anything below the Carpathians which we'd expect otherwise if the material remains of the CWC actually lent explicit evidence to actually being derived from this group. He also noted in his 2003 publication, that the earliest dates for CWC are in the east of its extent, certain groups found in present day Poland, and that he was getting c14 dates as early as 3200 BC here. Anthony in his 2007 book gives dates for Yamna Danubian migration from about 3100-2800 BC. So there is at the least, a 100 year difference in the genesis of these two groups according to what was published within the last decade.

Furholt like Anthony though, cow-taled to anti-migrationalism as well. In his 2003 article, he was open minded to migration as a key factor in CWC development. While in 2014, he took a tone similar to Whittle's, practically painting it as a misguided notion.

*Sigh*, archaeologists and archaeolgical thought over the past 20-30 years.....

DMXX said...

Hi all. DMXX here (one of the Anthrogenica admins).

The forum is temporarily down as part of a scheduled update. This was announced ahead of time on 18th December and was reiterated again just before the 500 error message popped up on 20th December (that's from my tinkering).

We'll be back up by or before Christmas Day, so I'll hold off on the festive well-wishes!

Arkaim said...

@Shahanshah of Persia
I posted the wrong one. Here's the correct one:

http://www.open-genomes.org/analysis/PCA/Eurogenes_Global_K10_PC_plot_1-2-3.html

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Arkaim Nope! They're still facing Southeast Asians, Batak and Agta/Aeta are genetically closer to Southeast Asians than they are to Papuans. If you zoom out you can see that there's a huge difference between Batak, Agta/Aeta and Australians, Papuans, and the Bougainville/Kosipe samples.

Batak: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Batak

Sorry, they don't look Australoid.

Agta/Aeta: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aeta_people

Again, they don't look Australoid, sorry to break it to you.

Davidski said...

@Mark B

So if the founders of CW aren't Yamnaya themselves, where are they in the archaeological record?

The Corded Ware-like R1a-M417 sample that I put on Anthony's map is from the Oleksandriya site mentioned in these links. East Pole pointed this out in his comment above.

https://s26.postimg.org/xe0xolwsp/screenshot_287.png

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/bitstream/10593/13138/1/BPS-15-6_N_S_Kotova%20THE%20FIRST%20CORDED%20CERAMICS%20ORNAMENTATION%20OF%20ENEOLITHIC%20STEPPE%20AND%20NEOLITHIC%20FOREST-STEPPE%20CULTURES%20PP_75-109.pdf

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@David Wait, so.... Yamnaya did not found the Corded Ware? Does this also mean that Afansievo, Sintashta, and Androvonvo were not Corded Ware derived?

EastPole said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

“Yamnaya did not found the Corded Ware? Does this also mean that Afansievo, Sintashta, and Androvonvo were not Corded Ware derived? “

No, Sintashta and Andronovo were Corded Ware derived:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:From_Corded_Ware_to_Sintashta.jpg

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@EastPole True, but since they mixed with the BMAC people and people of the Ferghana valley and had partial influence from them, could they really be considered Europeans?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@EastPole I meant, not Sintashta or Andronovo, but the Vedic Aryans and Iranics who entered Iran.

EastPole said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

“True, but since they mixed with the BMAC people and people of the Ferghana valley and had partial influence from them, could they really be considered Europeans?”

“I meant, not Sintashta or Andronovo, but the Vedic Aryans and Iranics who entered Iran.”

I don’t think Vedic Aryans and Iranians were Europeans. They mixed with BMAC and became Indians and Iranians. But it is really difficult to tell exactly what happened, where and when. We can only speculate.
Slavonic and Indo-Iranian languages have common Indo-Slavonic origin which which was probably spoken by early Corded Ware people or maybe even by Late Sredny Stog Dereivka population.

https://s7.postimg.org/jhiotcuop/screenshot_308.png

Great linguists Oleg Trubachyov stresses uninterrupted origin of Slavonic language:

“Currently, there is an objective tendency to deepen the dating of ancient Indo-European dialects. This also applies to Slavonic as one of the Indo-European dialects. However, the question now is not that the history of Slavonic may be measured by the scale of the II to III millenniums B.C. but that we can hardly date the ‘emergence’ or ‘separation’ of proto-Slavonic or proto-Slavonic dialects from Indo-European dialects because of the proper uninterrupted Indo-European origin of Slavonic.
The latter belief is in line with the Meillet’s indication that Slavic is an Indo-European language of archaic type, vocabulary and grammar of which has not experienced shocks in contrast to, for example, the Greek (vocabulary)”
Trubačёv, O. N. 2003. Ėtnogenez i kul’tura drevnejščix slavjan: Lingvističeskie issledovanija.
Moskva: “Nauka”.

Usually mixing with other populations results in abrupt change of the language.
That change in case of Indo-Iranians probably occurred as a result of mixing with BMAC people.
Another theory claims that the change occurred when Corded Ware mixed with Poltavka (Yamnaya) and created Sintashta culture and as a result Sintashta and Andronovo were already Indo-Iranian speakers.

Ric Hern said...

So if Corded Ware was not Yamnaya derived then it could only mean that they had a common ancestor before Archaeologicaly distinct Yamnaya and Corded Ware evolved. This could be Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk or earlier ? At least, I think that is what the Genetics suggest...This will also mean that the CHG admixture is older than the Archaeological distinct Yamnaya....?

Ric Hern said...

Could this also suggest that R1b L51 had very little to do (or nothing) to do with the Cultural Yamnaya expansion and that it spread with a Pre-Yamnaya group from the Steppe that was only related through a common ancestor of Yamnaya ? Could this mean that Proper Yamnaya only spread into the Balkans but no further ?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ric Hern,

Yamnaya and Corded Ware must come from a common source.

@Everyone,

I should have an mtDNA site or blog up by the first week of January. I think it'll give new insights, new theories on European mtDNA for the first time after a decade of the same ole stuff. mtDNA really is a lot less straightforward than Y DNA but if you dig enough you'll find patterns.

Btw, the high frequencies of U4b1a in Ukraine HGs is really significant. U4b1a can be found everywhere in Europe, in Iran, the Caucasus, in Siberia, and SC Asia. Modern U4b1a phylogeography suggests it all derives from a single source from the last 10,000 years. The high frequency and derived subclades of U4b1a in Ukraine HGs confirm that source originated somewhere around Ukraine.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@EastPole As more and more evidence is released, I am convinced, that the old Steppe elite model is undoubtedly true, there is not a shred of doubt about it. I have personally seen this phenomena myself, specifically in regards to South Asia, where the Brahmin elite has more Steppe admixture than any other population, perhaps with the exception of a few Northwest Indian tribes (Jatts and Gujjars). Anyway, I have now become a believer in the old Aryan model, which is no longer popular, but should indeed be, for it is the truth. The only thing I disagree with is in regards to West Asian Indo-European civilizations. I do believe that the Vedic Aryan and Achaemenid elites were heavily Steppe derived, though not wholly of Steppe origin, and likely had around 20% Neolithic Iranian DNA. The Steppe pattern also likely holds true for Europe, and the recent study on ancient Mycenaeans was a disappointment for this reason. Anyway, one thing is certain and that is that modern nationalism should not be based on some long, forgotten, glorious past. Indeed, in the case of the Greeks, this is the truth! We all know that most Greeks are just descendants of Slavic and Albanian migrants, there is no disputing the reality here. The Ancient Hellenes, the ones responsible for the glory of Athens and Sparta, largely went extinct even before the Roman conquest. With the Roman conquest, many slaves became freemen, and from this, the so-called "Ancient Greeks" were born. Over time, it was the descendants of these slaves, who were largely native to Greece, but mostly of Early European farmer stock, who were more or less assimilated by the Slavs before the assimilation of the Slavs themselves. Then, between the 13th and 18th centuries, hundreds of thousands of Albanians migrated to Greece and population the regions depopulated by the Ottoman and Venetian wars. To me, no real Ancient Greeks exist today, and probably no real Ancient Italians exist for the reasons mentioned above.

In regards to Iran, we cannot say the same. Iran has largely remained the same since the Chalcolithic, though, the founding stock of Iranian civilization, the Medes and Persians, are long gone. I acknowledge that the original Iranic speakers who entered Iran were likely more than 50% Steppe derived, though they were no more than 80% Steppe derived in my opinion. Regardless, I do think that the BMAC played a major role in the formation of the Indo-Iranian identity, but perhaps your hypothesis could not be far off either. We will just have to wait for more DNA samples.

One thing is clear though, people are not who they claim to be or who they would want to be, and a lot of genetic changes have happened in many populations since the ancient period. Any thoughts?

P.s. Mind the minor grammatical errors, I am very busy these days and usually in a rush.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Shahansah of Persia,
"We all know that most Greeks are just descendants of Slavic and Albanian migrants, there is no disputing the reality here. The Ancient Hellenes, the ones responsible for the glory of Athens and Sparta, largely went extinct even before the Roman conquest"

Greeks are admixed but this is conclusion is too strong. Imo, it is safe to assume modern Greeks to a large extent, probably mostly, descend from ancient Greeks.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews Nope, they don't. Again, what Ancient Greeks? The heavily Steppe influenced elites or the slave populations? Spartans themselves never numbered more than 9,000. The true Athenians in total never numbered more than 50,000. Many of the Greek cities were decimated by the Persian, Macedonian, and Roman invasions. The Macedonians destroyed Thebes and slaughtered the cities inhabitants, the Romans slaughtered the populations of both Corinth and Athens. Even Roman politicians thought little of the Greeks and reminded them how most of their ancestors were slaves, especially in regards to Athens. The Ancient Greeks were probably long gone by the time the Romans arrived, and all that was left was the descendants of the slave populations. These so-called "Ancient Greeks" were as Greek as the modern day Chamar populations in India are Vedic Aryan. I think that the modern Greeks do have some ancestry from these people, perhaps as much as 30 to 50%. But anyway, these slaves were not representative of the original Hellenes, who were obviously a different people. While, these slaves were native to the region, they nonetheless were not the same people as their conquerors. By the way, I am not just making these comments randomly, all of the historians, since the ancient era, agree that Greece always experienced massive population shifts. When Westerners went to Greece in the 19th century, they were shocked to see the state of the "Greeks". In fact, many noted that the majority of Attica's population was Arvanite speaking, likely descended from recent Albanian migrants. Indeed, Athens was an Albanian and Turkish town for most of the Ottoman period. Also, do not forget the fact that most of Greece's cities were Hellenized after independence, from originally Slavic names.

Modern Greeks have little in common with the ancient Hellenes. I am sorry to say. Anyway, I should not have gone into this tangent to begin with. Though, I think that the majority of the evidence we have suggests that modern Greeks are not all that Greek after all.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Shahansah of Persia,

I can't trust conclusions made from historical data from which multiple conclusions on genetics can be made. I can only trust ancient DNA or very convincing lines of evidence from
modern DNA. Plus I think you're looking at this issue from a bias emotional perspective.

The logic of my argument is pretty simple...Modern Greeks are Greeks, their ethnic group, their language directly decends from the ancient Greeks. They are literally a continuation of the ancient Greeks. It'd be quite suprising if a people group retained their identity, language, and remained in their homeland but mixed so heavily with foriegnersthat their ethnic decendants mostly decend from foreigners.

"But anyway, these slaves were not representative of the original Hellenes, who were obviously a different people. While, these slaves were native to the region, they nonetheless were not the same people as their conquerors. "

What differnce does it make if these slaves were Greek?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Samuel Andrews

"I can't trust conclusions made from historical data from which multiple conclusions on genetics can be made. I can only trust ancient DNA or very convincing lines of evidence from modern DNA. Plus I think you're looking at this issue from a bias emotional perspective."

Modern evidence shows that Greeks are 30 to 50% Slavic, as confirmed by David. Heck, Mycenaeans seem to show the same amount of similarity, if not more, to Sicilians, Albanians, and Cypriots than they do to Greeks.

"The logic of my argument is pretty simple...Modern Greeks are Greeks, their ethnic group, their language directly decends from the ancient Greeks. They are literally a continuation of the ancient Greeks. It'd be quite suprising if a people group retained their identity, language, and remained in their homeland but mixed so heavily with foriegnersthat their ethnic decendants mostly decend from foreigners."

That's exactly my point. Most modern Greeks descend from Albanian and Slavic migrants who were Hellenized by the so-called "First Hellenic Republic". You can look this up yourself. Most of Greece was occupied by Albanian speaking Christians and Slavs. They did not retain their language multiple times and had to be Hellenized on multiple occasions.

"What differnce does it make if these slaves were Greek?"

It doesn't really. But I was jsut proving the hypocrisy of some Greeks and their firm belief that Greece has remained 100% pure since the days of Pericles.

Chetan said...

@epoch2013 It just seems more likely considering the geography and genetics of Celtic and Italic populations. But yes you are right. It's far too early to pronounce a final judgement on the question or on any of the questions about the IE migrations. Except the homeland problem which is closer to being resolved.

Grey said...


"It is a fact that the IV people got their copper from the Aravalli hills"

this may not be relevant to the discussion but lactose tolerance in India is concentrated in that region

https://thewire.in/24181/mapping-the-consumption-of-milk-and-meat-in-india/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aravalli_Range

Rob said...

@ Shahnasah

Obviously you neither understand the Myceneans paper, nor general prehistory.
Stop falsifying the illustrious history of a region, which you are completely ignorant about, in order to promulgate your nonsense steppe-tard theories.

Chetan said...

@Samuel Andrews "Yamnaya and Corded Ware must come from a common source."

They must have at least been closely related populations by the recent genetic studies. But starting around the Late Bronze Age, there was a decline in R1b lineages on the steppe and a corresponding increase in R1a which appears to have come from the northern CW along with archaeological traits like cord decorations. How do you explain the seeming non presence of the two lineages together. That is a perplexing question

Palacista said...

Certain posters makes me wish for an ignore feature.

Salden said...

>steppe-tard

R1a came from India am I right?

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Rob The Mycenaean paper does not necessarily mean that the modern Greeks are descended from the ancient ones. All it means is that modern Greeks have similarities with ancient Greeks, and so do Sicilians and Albanians. If most modern Greeks are descended from Albanians, then it could explain the "continuity". Anyway, this is off-topic. Let's just stop the discussion.

AWood said...

No papers in time for Midwinter? Extremely disappointed.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski I wanted to ask you, it's not relevant to the discussion, but is there evidence of significant Albanian input into the Greek genome? I have read that most Greeks were Albanians before independence, even on some of the islands. They even occupied the village of Marathon and much of Attica. Is there any truth to the great replacement of the Hellenic genome by the Slavs and Albanians? Do modern Greeks have any genetic connection to the ancients? Thanks.

Davidski said...

@Chetan

How do you explain the seeming non presence of the two lineages together. That is a perplexing question.

Both R1a and R1b are found in the Khvalynsk (Samara_Eneolithic) sample set.

The Khvalynsk men

They're also both found in Sredny Stog, and even though the R1b lineage is from an outlier sample in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, I wouldn't be surprised if both R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 are eventually shown to be lineages derived from the same Eneolithic steppe population, such as Sredny Stog or Khvalynsk.

And the fact that Corded Ware is so heavy in R1a and Yamnaya in R1b, isn't perplexing at all, considering the patrilocal and patrilineal nature of early Indo-European societies. Anthony points this out in his paper: "They had a kinship vocabulary most compatible with patrilineal, patrilocal lineages" (see page 47).

@Shahanshah of Persia

Do modern Greeks have any genetic connection to the ancients?

I'd be very surprised if they didn't. There is a lot of Slavic admixture in Greece, probably in double figures in most of the country, and there might be a lot of Albanian ancestry too, although this is very difficult to measure, but I can't believe that all of Greece was totally repopulated since the Mycenaean times.

Rob said...

@ Salden

Say what ? Relevance ?

@ Shah

Modern Greeks can be modelled
70% Mycenenan
30% early Slav (RISE 568)

Of course it'll be more suble than that
But your ideas of class apartheid related to steppe admixture are just your fantasy.
The spin ignorant steppe devotees pull was that Mycenaeans will have tons of steppe admixture which was diluted during Middle Ages. Of course, anyone with half a brain could see the bullcrap , because anyone with half a brain knew that the last significant admixture jnto Greeks was large Slavic . I remember debating that with dave
Now that theory has eroded due to evidence, you lot are now Hoping Iron Age greeks will bring the miracle you desire.
It won't
And there'll be no / little R1a

Davidski said...

@Rob

No one has ever mentioned Iron Age Greeks here except you just now.

We were discussing the origins of proto-Greeks, not the Greeks of early history. This is why I repeatedly pointed out the importance of more Mycenaean samples, especially those from the elite shaft graves with steppe-like grave goods.

That's not to say that I don't find Iron Age Greeks interesting. I certainly do, but I don't much care how they turn out or whether they have any R1a.

Davidski said...

And why would anyone claim that steppe ancestry in Greeks eroded during the Middle Ages, since that's when the Slavic migrations affected Greece?

You're confusing Greece with Southern Italy here.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Okay, thanks for letting me know. I appreciate it! Also, merry Christmas! I wanted to ask, why would the Albanian admixture be hard to determine? Couldn't it be determined through studies on Y-DNA? Furthermore, were the Classical Greeks more Steppe derived than the Mycenaean ones? They must have been. I do not believe that Greeks got most of their Steppe DNA from Slavs. It's just not possible.

@Rob Not my fantasy, it's the reality and was the reality in the past. If it's my fantasy, then how come we find stark evidence of it in India? Upper caste Indians have an insane amount of Steppe, even more than Southern and some Central Europeans. Don't you know that Brahmins from the north have around 40% Yamnaya DNA on average and Jatts (warrior caste) have around 42%. Even some warrior castes like Rajputs and Gujjars have around 36 to 38% on average? Where do you think this Steppe ancestry came from? Did it just appear magically out of the blue? It must have, right? Why do the Brahmins have the most Steppe in regards to their subjects in 90% of the north and 100% of the south? Why do some warrior castes have more Steppe ancestry than even Southern Europeans? Is this a coincidence? I am 100% convinced that the Steppe elite model was very much real, and that the early elites of Sparta, Rome, and Mycenae were all heavily Steppe derived and they sought to preserve this element from the start. Even in Iran this was probably true up until the late Parthian era.

The Mycenaean study was flawed, 100%! Also, the Crete Armenoi sample has the most Steppe. More Ancient DNA will prove that the elite was indeed Steppe derived. Also, Athenians probably were not, but Spartans and some other Greek clans were. The Patricians were too! All will be revealed my friend. They were even ashamed to admit that the Armenoi sample was legitimate, and just explained it off as being "contaminated" and low resolution, whatever that means.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Yeah, I definitely agree with you on these latest two replies to rob. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the elite in the Kurgan-like burials were heavily Steppe derived. The most recent study was just a sham, and it does not explain the whole story. Like, that Steppe must have come from somewhere, it just didn't come out of the blue. It doesn't work like that, and Steppe ancestry did not just magically appear overnight between the Minoan and Mycenaean periods. More samples from the ancient Mycenaean burials will indeed unveil the truth.

On a side note, how was Steppe in Southern Italy diluted in the Middle Ages? I thought it was before that, no? I know that in Sicily it was certainly diluted due to the three centuries of Islamic rule. However, I always assumed that in Southern Italy the transformation was due to the importation of North African and Middle Eastern slaves.

Rob said...

Lol the Mycenaeans study was flawed
Please , what are your credentials ? What samples have you gathered and analysed
You Noobs crack me up
The funny thing is you're not even trolling
You actually believe your own bullcrap

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

I wanted to ask, why would the Albanian admixture be hard to determine? Couldn't it be determined through studies on Y-DNA?

Because Albanians and Greeks are both southern Balkan populations, so it's hard to say whether the ancestry they share is due to ancient similarity or recent admixture. Y-DNA might be useful to some degree here, but only at very high resolution, so I'm not even sure whether such an analysis is yet worthwhile.

Furthermore, were the Classical Greeks more Steppe derived than the Mycenaean ones? They must have been. I do not believe that Greeks got most of their Steppe DNA from Slavs. It's just not possible.

There's no reason to believe for now that Classical Greeks had more steppe ancestry than Mycenaean Greeks.

The most likely scenario is that Mycenaean Greeks varied significantly in terms of steppe ancestry levels, depending on their social status and geographic origin, which would easily explain that post-Mycenaean Crete Armenoi outlier.

And it's likely that during the Iron Age there was a bounce back in local ancestry, pushing down the levels of the Bronze Age steppe ancestry across the board in Greece. Ancient DNA has shown that this kind of thing happened a lot. It happened in post-Corded Ware Northern Europe too to an extent.

So yeah, it's possible that in most parts of Greece today most of the steppe ancestry there is derived from Slavs.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski You know what's funny, this article suggests that Indo-European languages came from the Caucasus or Armenia, through Anatolia, despite the evidence to the contrary?

http://www.sciencemag.org/news/2017/08/greeks-really-do-have-near-mythical-origins-ancient-dna-reveals

It says:

"The results also show it is possible to get ancient DNA from the hot, dry landscape of the eastern Mediterranean, Renfrew says. He and others now have hope for getting DNA from groups such as the mysterious Hittites who came to ancient Anatolia sometime before 2000 B.C.E. and who may have been the source of Caucasian ancestry in Mycenaeans and early Indo-European languages in the region."

LOL!

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Davidski Alright, thanks for answering my inquiries, appreciate it! And you are certainly correct in your interpretation, here. I guess we will just have to wait for new evidence. Hopefully, there should not be any personal biases involved on part of the researchers.

In regards to your first reply, thanks for clarifying that for me. About your second reply, I always thought that ancient Greek art hinted at some sort of predominant Steppe element among the elites, but you could be right. I guess we will have to wait and see.

Shahanshah of Persia said...

@Rob You're a noob. You even denied the Steppe hypothesis in the past, and are still praying that it's not true. Well, too bad for you! Even if the Greek results do not show much change in the later eras, it won't change the reality that the origin of Greek culture was on the Steppes, not in Greece.

Davidski said...

@Shahanshah of Persia

Renfrew misinterpreted the conclusions of the Mycenaean paper by Lazaridis et al., because he failed to note that the paper argues strongly for both steppe and Caucasus influences in Mycenaeans, rather than just Caucasus influence. And of course, the Minoans and final Neolithic Peloponnese samples already had Caucasus admixture.

But that happens a lot, so interpretations of papers in the media shouldn't be taken too seriously. Focus on the origin paper, which isn't flawed, even though I think that the authors did force the Armenian model by using Anatolia_N samples from western Anatolia in the model. Ideally I think they should have used the youngest Peloponnese Neolithic samples.

Davidski said...

Guys, just remember that it's Christmas time!

Or I'll have to stick on moderation for a whole fucking week.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 403   Newer› Newest»