search this blog

Friday, December 20, 2019

A note on Steppe Maykop


I'm reading a new book titled Dispersals and Diversification: Linguistic and Archaeological Perspectives on the Early Stages of Indo-European (see here). One of the chapters is authored by archeologist David Anthony, in which he makes the following claims:

A previously unknown genetic population actually was identified in Wang et al. (2019), but it was a peculiar relict-seeming group related to Paleo Siberians and American Indians (Kennewick) that had survived isolated somewhere in the Caspian steppes or perhaps in the North Caucasus Mountains. The Maykop people did admix with this previously isolated Siberian/Kennewick population in graves labeled "Steppe Maykop" in Wang et al. (2019).

But this just makes it clearer that a cultural choice motivated the Maykop people to exclude marriages with Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya people specifically, even while exchanges of material goods, ideas, technologies continued. Neither the Maykop nor the North Caucasus/Siberian/Kennewick population can be the source of most of the CHG [Caucasus hunter-gatherer] ancestry in Yamnaya. In order to narrow down when and where CHG ancestry entered the steppes, we must widen our geographic frame beyond the Caucasus.

Unfortunately, this is way off the mark. Especially unsound is his inference that the CHG-related ancestry in the Yamnaya population may have come from beyond the Caucasus.

In fact, the chances that the Steppe Maykop people were derived from a relict Siberian/Kennewick-related group that survived into the Maykop era in the Caspian steppes or the North Caucasus are exactly zero.

The real story was surely more complicated. In my opinion, it initially involved the migration during the Eneolithic or earlier of a people rich in CHG ancestry from the southernmost steppes into the Volga Delta and surrounds, and then the back-migration during the Early Bronze Age (EBA) of their descendants with around 50% admixture from Central Asian foragers. If so, these foragers were very similar to indigenous West Siberians and also relatively closely related to Native Americans.


I don't know why such an exotic people migrated into the North Caucasus steppes to form the bulk of the Steppe Maykop population, but I'm certain they did, and one interesting possibility is that they were recruited by Maykop chiefs to create a buffer zone against hostile Yamnaya-related groups trying to push into the Caucasus, possibly from the lower Don region.

Of course, the same ancient northward migration of the CHG-rich population that may have eventually given rise to the Steppe Maykop people might also explain the deep origins of the Yamnaya people.

The key sample in all of this is VJ1001 from the Wang et al. paper. This female comes from an Eneolithic (4332-4238 calBCE) kurgan burial in the North Caucasus steppes. But despite her early date, she's genetically very similar to most Yamnaya individuals. And she's also a perfect proxy for half of the ancestry of three out of the six Steppe Maykop individuals. Here's a mixture model that I put together using the Broad MIT/Harvard software qpAdm:

RUS_Steppe_Maykop (3/6)
RUS_Eneolithic_steppe_VJ1001 0.452±0.023
RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.548±0.023
chisq 7.494
tail prob 0.874914
Full output

Indeed, these Steppe Maykop samples don't harbor any Maykop ancestry. They're simply a two-way mixture between a population closely resembling VJ1001 and another one similar to hunter-gatherers from Tyumen, West Siberia.

Importantly, a couple of Steppe Maykop-related populations were inadvertently discovered by Narasimhan et al. northeast of the Caspian Sea in what is now Kazakhstan. One of these groups is labeled Kumsay_EBA, after the location of its cemetery. It's roughly contemporaneous with Steppe Maykop and basically identical to the aforementioned Steppe Maykop trio.

KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
RUS_Eneolithic_steppe_VJ1001 0.440±0.022
RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.560±0.022
chisq 10.573
tail prob 0.646513
Full output

I suppose it's possible that Kumsay_EBA represents the migration of Steppe Maykop people into the Kazakh steppes. But even if this is true, then there had to have been an earlier migration of a group from the Kazakh steppes or West Siberia that mixed with the VJ1001-related natives of the North Caucasus steppes to give rise to Steppe Maykop.

I'm assuming that the Yamnaya-like VJ1001 and her people were the indigenous population of the North Caucasus steppes because there are no indications that they or their ancestors migrated there within any reasonable time frame from anywhere else, and certainly not from as far afield as, say, what is now Iran.

The other three Steppe Maykop individuals, who are genetic outliers in varying degrees from the main Steppe Makyop cluster, show variable levels of Maykop ancestry, with an average of about 50%. But they too harbor significant VJ1001-related ancestry. So despite the fact that there was some irregular mixing between the Maykop and Steppe Maykop peoples, this is not what created the typical Steppe Maykop genetic profile.

RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o
RUS_Eneolithic_steppe_VJ1001 0.234±0.074
RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya 0.461±0.046
RUS_Tyumen_HG 0.305±0.033

chisq 7.378
tail prob 0.831667
Full output

And, of course, it should be obvious by now that the ancestry of the vast majority of Yamnaya individuals is better modeled without any input whatsoever from the Maykop or Steppe Maykop samples.

In fact, early indications are that the Yamnaya people flooded into Steppe Maykop territory from the north and completely replaced its population (see here). Despite this, in Dispersals and Diversification archeologist Kristian Kristiansen makes the following claim: "steppe Maykop expanded north, leading to the formation of the Yamnaya Culture and Proto-Indo-European". Not a chance in hell Professor.

See also...

A final note for the year

The PIE homeland controversy: August 2019 status report

Some myths die hard

An exceptional burial indeed, but not that of an Indo-European

264 comments:

1 – 200 of 264   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

Here's some more stuff from Anthony's chapter in that book:

- there's plenty of R1b1a in Khvalynsk samples, but no mention by Anthony of any R1b-M269, which is in line with my info, and obviously makes it tricky to directly link Yamnaya males to Khvalynsk, but Anthony didn't pick up on this detail

- he says that at least five Khvalynsk males belong to Q1a1b, and some of them are from very rich graves

- other Y-haplogroups in the Khvalynsk samples include R1a1, J1 and I2a2a

- he potentially links the J1 to a recent influx of CHG-related ancestry into the steppes, which may or may not be correct considering that there's earlier J1 in Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers (EHG) from way up north in Karelia.

I feel obliged to add that the oldest, yet to be published instances of R1b-M269 are actually in foragers from the Russian forest zone some distance west of Khvalynsk. The relevant site is described in this paper...

Сhronology of early Neolithic materials of the site Sakhtysh IIa (Central Russia)

So it's possible that Yamnaya males came from somewhere to the west of Khvalynsk and totally replaced the descendants of Khvalynsk males in the Samara region. This would be in line with the autosomal genetic structure of Yamnaya, which shows signals of western admix, including some farmer ancestry and elevated Western Euro hunter-gatherer (WHG) ancestry relative to the Eneolithic samples from the Caspian steppe.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

''I'm assuming that the Yamnaya-like VJ1001 and her people were the indigenous population of the North Caucasus steppes because there are no indications that they or their ancestors migrated there within any reasonable time frame from anywhere else,''

CHG-rich people might have been moving into eastern Europe during the LUP; however this was a discontinuous process. I still think it the bulk of it moved between 6000 & 5000 BC, however as it turns out, theyr not very instrumental to PIE genesis. I'd call them 'genomic donors' but culturally peripheral

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob "CHG-rich people might have been moving into eastern Europe during the LUP; however this was a discontinuous process. I still think it the bulk of it moved between 6000 & 5000 BC, however as it turns out, theyr not very instrumental to PIE genesis. I'd call them 'genomic donors' but culturally peripheral"

For someone who touts that PIE was a WHG language, why am I not surprised? :D

Romulus said...

Steppe migration should be renamed as the Forest Steppe migration since that is where they actually came from.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “If so, these foragers were very similar to indigenous Western Siberians and also relatively closely related to Native Americans.”

So now Steppe Maykop, Botai and Kelteminer are similar to Innuits or Na Dene? I thought that Native Americans are an admixture of 2 distinct Baikal populations: ANE/WSHG close to Yenisseyan and a BHG population close to Devils Gate/Ulchi/Magadan

Rob said...

@ Andrze
What cultural package did CHG bring ?
Although it’s a rhetorical question (given your caliber) feel free to answer it

Ric Hern said...

@ Romulus

I agree. The obvious connections of Indo-European with Trees and specifically species that can not be found East of the Don/Volga to Caspian Sea area and Northern Black Sea Coastal areas and Grassland Steppe for me points also to the Forest Steppe...

Pine trees and mountains said...

"- he potentially links the J1 to a recent influx of CHG-related ancestry into the steppes, which may or may not be correct considering that there's earlier J1 in Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers (EHG) from way up north in Karelia."

I very much doubt that the Karelian J who is dated to 6000 BC and has no or close to no CHG input has the J from a recent migration of a CHG-high people. Karelia is not just very far from the Caucasus but also from the Eneolithic Steppe territories. What I think is more probable is that CHG and Iran N have J from the ANE or ANE-like ancestry, and the original haplogroup of Iran N was perhaps G (both G2 and G1) since we have such samples in Iran with only very tiny ENF ancestry, not to mention that Pinarbasi was haplogroup C and the G domination in ENF had to do with some invasion from the East, most likely something Iran N related with a founder effect as ENF had no J. So the J in Karelia might have come from an ANE or ANE-related source because CHG reaching Karelia somewhen 7000-6000 BC is just incredibly hard to believe for me when it is possible that this is the date CHG even reached the North Caucasus Steppe.

Rob said...

@ KG

it’s northern Mesopotamia not Iran ; the Fertile Crescent A’s has long been described

“related with a founder effect as ENF had no J”

There are a few J2a

Huck Finn said...

Steppe Maykop and Kumsay_EBA style of sample should make a perfect proxy for a Proto Uralic speaker, if I'm right, having a reasonable amount of West Siberian but not just that. BOO, on the other hand, not because it is too East Siberian. That being said, it may be that there were many groups like that and the one speaking Proto Uralic was the one residing say in Kama river valley.

AuckeS said...

Is it possible that Seima Turbino aDNA was similar to that of Steppe Maykop/Mereke/Kumsay/Lola/Dali and a bunch of other Sintashta and Srubnaya outliers?
With KAZ_Mereke_MBA or related pop in Baltic_EST_IA:0LS10_1 being essentially a proxy for Seima Turbino?

I also wonder whenever Steppe Maykop truly vanished from the Caucasus/Caucasus steppes, Lola aDNA from the Caucasus Steppes falls within the Steppe Maykop cline. You later see a similar input in Armenia with the Lchashen samples.

Target: ARM_Lchashen_MBA
Distance: 1.4384% / 0.01438426
64.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
17.6 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
9.4 GRC_Mycenaean
8.4 Levant_ISR_C

Target: ARM_Lchashen_MBA
Distance: 1.5494% / 0.01549434
63.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
20.2 RUS_Lola
9.8 Levant_ISR_C
6.6 GRC_Mycenaean

The Lchashen I2 yDNA is also present in Ossetia, which I think is related to Koban and possibly Trialeti cultures, who imo should harbor a good amount of Steppe Maykop/Lola ancestry.

Rob said...

@ Huck Finn
“That being said, it may be that there were many groups like that and the one speaking Proto Uralic was the one residing say in Kama river valley.”

But can you please remember that Rivers don’t speak languages

Huck Finn said...

@ Rob: Volga-Kama is from linguistic point of view a very good candidate for the Proto Uralic urheimat. Narasimhan et al, on the oher hand, have proved that there was WSHG in that area. This may sound complicated to you, but we are indeed able to combine the results of these two scientific approches.

Rob said...

@ HF

Tbh I don’t even read your comments

“This may sound complicated to you””
Hehe indeed your comments are pretty high level. Must take quite some effort to cut n paste your golden cliches

Huck Finn said...

@ Dear Rob: it is obvious that don't read a lot. Have a nice day.

a said...

Here is what makes perfect sense that has not been addressed, since no data has been provided. I predict that Anthony and Kristiansen will both be proven wrong when Yamnaya and Corded Ware Sintashta BellBeakers will be shown to be R1a/b and I2 and share the same evolutionary geographical microbiology traits, like the evolutionary adaption to a steppe dairy diet.

a said...

Rob, microbiome within the human species has adapted to its environment.I predict that microbiology genes will be of great value when used together with fauna and flora linguistics.

a said...

Rob compare the bacteria from the steppe known as Yersinia Pests versus the Bulgarian Co-evolved evolutionary successful bacteria within the human gut on Yamaha Corded Ware Bell Beaver Sintashta populations. We are just beginning to understand that one human microbiome does not fit all geographic locationso. Bad luck for the one size fits all crowd.

epoch said...

Maybe I read this wrong, but considering the fact that David Anthony recently stated:

"This partial description of the genetic data, if it stands, suggests that Maikop was not the source of most of the CHG that amounts to half of Yamnaya ancestry. This is because CHG was already in the steppes long before Maikop, and it was in an unadmixed form. This older introduction of CHG into the steppes is less compatible with the Maikop-NWCaucasian-Yamnaya-PIE connection, but it is what is indicated by the emerging genetic data."

and:

"If the CHG element in Yamnaya came from a non-admixed CHG population of this kind, they could have walked into the steppes from northwestern Iran/Azerbaijan at any time before about 5000 BC — before admixture with Anatolian Farmers began."

I think he means the scope of our search for the geographic origin of the CHG admixture needs to be widened beyond the Caucasus. He advocates a group of foragers in the lower Volga delta here:

https://www.academia.edu/39985565/Archaeology_Genetics_and_Language_in_the_Steppes_A_Comment_on_Bomhard

Rob said...

@ a

“Rob, microbiome within the human species has adapted to its environment.I predict that microbiology genes will be of great value when used together with fauna and flora linguistics.”

Interesting. How exactly ?

Davidski said...

@epoch

There weren't any CHG foragers in the lower Volga Delta.

"Eneolithic steppe" from Wang et al. are the CHG, or rather CHG-rich, foragers we're looking for. So we've already found them and it's a mystery to me why Anthony hasn't accepted that.

To make matters worse, he seems to be using Steppe Maykop to argue that CHG entered the steppe from Iran via the eastern Caucasus, by claiming that the Siberian/Kennewick-related ancestors of Steppe Maykop may have been the indigenous peoples of the North Caucasus and/or Caspian steppes.

If so, that's bonkers.

a said...

Rob you have very special microbiome-skin,mouth,gut,(reproductive tract women) Evolutionary science shows us that we have an ongoing beneficial mutual symbiotic relationship-(like your mtdna. )When you were born you lr immune system was kick started be your maternal mtdna and the bacteria in your mother's reproductive tract as well as breastfeeding. Nature evolution provided a means of progess of beneficial bacteria. While males were provided food for these bacteria, like hunting wooly mammoth or picking dates. Each "culture" has evolved and progressed to its region. We do not have a full understanding of the progression of genes from 26 000 year Georgian samples to Caucasus hunter gatherer let alone the microbiome profile. We do know that isotopes in Maykop and Yamaha show differences in diet which translate to differences in the human microbiome-skin.

a said...

Sorry for the poor quality of post I will switch over to a regular keyboard later as a opposed smartphone keyboard.

Ric Hern said...

So Lower Don to Middle Volga and East Black Sea region and not the Lower Volga and West Caspian...

Vladimir said...

Very interesting hypothesis. The absence of many data complicates the construction of a reliable theory. The search circle, as I understand it, now shifts from the Northern (Ukrainian) coast of the Black sea to the Eastern coast in the area between the Black and Azov sea and the Caspian sea (let's call it the North Caucasus steppes). Christiansen speaks of Hittite samples and the absence of a steppe component in them? It's probably from the unpublished?

Davidski said...

Don't worry, there will be steppe ancestry in Bronze Age Anatolians when enough of the right ones are sequenced.

Keep in mind that we're looking for a genetic trail of a migration from the steppe into Anatolia, and not necessarily any lasting impact.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob maybe their language?

EastPole said...

@ Davidski

What does Anthony say about mating networks? Which one he links with PIE? I guess, if he is in line with Kristiansen, it should be CHG.

@Andrzejewski

”For someone who touts that PIE was a WHG language, why am I not surprised?”

So you are thinking along the line of Anthony i.e. that mating networks like WHG can be associated with PIE.
I am not sure about it. WHG probably contained many language families.
I think it is possible that PIE comes from Central-Eastern Euro HG, something between WHG and EHG, that R1a rich group of HGs which started mixing with CHG rich steppe groups coming from the East and South and with EEF coming from the West.

Davidski said...

@EastPole

It seems there's a preview of Anthony's article at Google Books.

LINK

But please don't copy paste the text here.

Andrzejewski said...

@EastPole “So you are thinking along the line of Anthony i.e. that mating networks like WHG can be associated with PIE.”

No. I think that it either came with EHG or CHG. Slim chance it’s from either EEF or WHG. I was refuting Rob for thinking so

a said...

Okay Rob@
Here is an example of where we are at in the genetic field; using the invasive Anoplophra glabripennis[aka Asian Longhorn Beetle] as an example. With a unique specialized microbiome it is able to convert wood to food. If introduced to Europe or North America it could have potential devastating consequences on trees like Maple[Maple syrup production], etc.....
R1a/b microbiome in a similar way evolved on the in a specific region with beneficial bacteria against a backdrop of potential pathogens. With mutual beneficial symbiotic type evolution some R1a and R1b became [even more] extremely (effective)[positive tweaks in their microbiome-Bell Beaker-Sintashta for] in their new habitats. How do we know this evolution took place, of say R1a microbiome ? When someone travelling from R1a rich population in Eastern Europe to R1a rich population in India, he may encounter difficulty with water and or food, while an indigenous R1a from India would not, even though the paternal R1a is rooted and originated in Eastern on the steppe.

A rhetorical cryptic Tangential question as to the unique evolutionary basal human and animal/vegetation microbiome zones within Europe[Bell Beaker-Corded Ware zones] using the above ALB as an example.

Would you waste energy producing carbon gas transplanting the inevasive ALB[Asian longhorn beetle]to Europe[cold environment] knowing that it's microbiome[specialized bacteria] will be signaling it's brain to look for an alternate optimal food source outside of it's native Asian habitat?

JuanRivera said...

Also there's CHG ancestry in Sidelkino HG (~5%) and it goes up in Samara HG (~7%). The Yana paper showed Basal Eurasian in Karelia HG, and given that Karelia HGs are the least CHG-admixed EHGs, Sidelkino HG and especially Samara HG should be having higher levels of Basal Eurasian. Linking ANE-derived north eurasian populations to Paleosiberians and Indigenous Americans (while ignoring Iran_N's and CHG's own ANE ancestry) doesn't make sense, and Paleosiberians are neither a linguistic nor a genetic group (Kets are most likely Kolyma_Meso-like descendants that admixed heavily with neighbors, Yukaghirs are Baikal-like, whereas Eskimo-Aleuts have Indigenous American admixture, and Chukotko-Kamchatkans and Nivkhs have traces of steppe ancestry, which is not typical for their area and slightly link them genetically to steppe-admixed populations in Europe and Asia).

Archi said...

Of course, the Steppe Maikop could be connected with the Dene-Caucasian macrofamily, especially with Kets and Burushaska. Perhaps, they were the ones who brought the North Caucasian languages to the Caucasus. There are many variants and it is still unclear.
One thing is clear: CHG in Yamnians is a Caucasian component, not Iranian.
Kristiansen, of course, speaks nonsense.

epoch said...

Am I right to conclude that the Botai samples also fit in this Central Asian forager clade?

Archi said...

@Davidsky
"- he says that at least five Khvalynsk males belong to Q1a1b, and some of them are from very rich graves"

There's no need to talk about rich graves in Eastern Europe at all. As if Anthony doesn't know that in Eastern Europe the wealth of graves had nothing to do with social status. He knows very well that the wealth of graves there was determined only by the age and sex characteristics, the rich graves were children's graves, as well as male and female graves in maximum physical and sexual strength, for men it is 25-35 years. The rest of the ages were poor. Old people (>40) were buried in poverty graves in general, they were not respected people, they were of no significant for the tribe.

Huck Finn said...
"Volga-Kama is from linguistic point of view a very good candidate for the Proto Uralic urheimat."

It is imposible linguistically. It is proven.

AuckeS said...

@Lvciano

ANE in Northeast Caucasians likely comes from Catacomb, mostly.
https://postimg.cc/8F06jpTG

Andrzejewski said...

@Lvciano @AuckeS “
@Lvciano

“ANE in Northeast Caucasians likely comes from Catacomb, mostly.
https://postimg.cc/8F06jpTG”

Is it possible that Catacomb contributed towards the ethnogenesis of Sintashta? Or most likely that of the Cimmerians?

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski past poster @dragos was right all along about the western origin of PIE in interaction with Balkan/forest Steppe groups I guess

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“It seems there's a preview of Anthony's article at Google Books.

LINK”


Unfortunately pages 40-53 are not accessible so I don’t know what the final story is and which mating network #1, #2, #3 or #4 he considers PIE and why.

I am mostly interested in real IE mating network, i.e. the one which really links India and Europe by language, religion, Y-DNA, mtDNA and autosomal DNA. And it seems to be Balto-Slavic-Indo-Iranian Corded Ware culture mating network.
All the rest like Khvalynsk or Yamnaya or Maykop does not look convincing at this stage, but as I said I haven’t read Anthony’s article to the end. If there is something valuable there people sooner or later will start talking about it, but so far Internet seems quiet.

Archi said...

@ EastPole

The Corded Ware is Core PIE culture. Core PIE means that this is culture all PIE except Hettite-Luwians and Tocharians.

Matt said...

You know what I think of Steppe_Maykop already tbh. Mixed West-Siberian+Piedmont_En groups drawn into Maykop via metallurgical networks that reached into South-Central Asia (as per affiliation of metallurgical materials). No need for them to be recruited as any kind of mercenary or buffer against a Maykop who had a hostile relationship with Pontic-Caspian steppe groups (and there is some trade etc likely with these groups).

Re; Sakhtysh IIa, If those are the sites in this Figure - https://tinyurl.com/rmlpzy4 - then that's interesting, though:

- R1b-M269 itself is estimated late Upper Paleolithic in date and may have been dispersed in many unsampled patterns and with many lineages which are dead or low frequency today.
- These sites in any case aren't really very close to the Ukraine or Balkan forest-steppe border, so that doesn't really do much for the hypothesis that WHG in the forest steppe border in Ukraine had lineages that led to Yamnaya (all the samples that are actually from the Ukraine are R1b-M269 negative, of course). Whatever the language affiliation Yamnaya thought to have.
- Seems like those sites should still be well within "EHG territory" (spanning at least from Karelia -> Samara, though samples sparse).

AuckeS said...

@Andrzejewski

"Is it possible that Catacomb contributed towards the ethnogenesis of Sintashta? Or most likely that of the Cimmerians?"

I'm not sure, I'm not too familiar with later Steppe populations. Far as I know Catacomb were mostly (90%+) Yamnaya and were R1b.

a said...

You know that the human microbiome contains specimens not known to us; as they cannot survive outside the host. As to what function they play in their hosts native environment is at best an educated guess. As co-evolution between 20-25k human-genes and the roughly 2-/+ kg of evolving microbiome[estimated at 2-10 times larger] material has not been addressed, how can you be so sure of your assumptions?
In short if you don't know "who you are, and how you got here" in the fine detail, how do you expect to tell someone else who they are and how they got to where they are,[archaeogenetic history]
Microbiome: Gut Bugs and You | Warren Peters | TEDxLaSierraUniversity
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IDqMB6C1uys

vAsiSTha said...

If assertions are to be made based on single samples, then Swat IA is best modeled as Indus periphery (4/11) + molaly_lba

vAsiSTha said...

@ if curd is not available to make new curd, we use chillies or lemon juice.

Open Genomes said...

If VJ1001 is the key to Yamnaya's ancestry, then we have to look at the autosomal cluster to which VJ1001 belongs:

VJ1001 and the "Steppe Maykop outlier" cluster on the Global25 Ward's distance-squared clustering tree

Notice that at the top, in red, VJ1001 clusters closely with Progress Eneolithic PG2001 and the Steppe Maykop outlier AY2001, but slightly more distantly with I11527 and I11526 from Aigyrzhal in Bronze Age Kyrgyzstan and I1783 from Bronze Age Gonur in BMAC. This cluster is most closely related to the large Yamnaya-Afanasievo cluster.

It would seem that the West Siberian Neolithic-like component among these people originated further east, perhaps in the Kelteminar culture as has been suggested previously.

If they are Yamnaya-like, but without the West Siberian ancestry, then that would place the origins of Yamnaya further north along the Volga where they could have mixed with a CHG population, but not in the Volga delta further east. Yamnaya-like ancestry would not have originated in Ukraine.

vAsiSTha said...

Btw, these late maykop and maykop_novosvobodnaya have a combined 20pc ancestry of geoksyur_en and shahr i sokta BA1 as per vahaduo. will do qpadm testing soon once i incorporate these samples into input files. results pasted here. https://imgur.com/4RNNibj

MK5001 & MK5004 with y haplogroup L have upwards of 20% ancestry from shahr-i-sokta, nothing from geoksyur.


Davidski said...

@EastPole

On page 46 Anthony just says that the most likely place for the archaic PIE (Indo-Hittite) homeland is the Volga-Caucasus steppes east of the Don.

Davidski said...

@Matt

The buffer zone theory to explain Steppe Maykop is compatible with the fact that Yamnaya replaced Steppe Maykop, and not just the culture but also the population.

It seems to me that the shift from Steppe Maykop to Yamnaya was a hostile takeover.

Gabriel said...

@Andrzejewski

No because Cimmerians so far have R1a, but not R1b. The Scythian calls were mostly flukes.

Leron said...

If proto-IE developed near the Caucasus I’d expect a lot more IE influence to Caucasian languages but they are relatively minimal. Meanwhile the borrowings into Uralic point to a far more northerly location, but how much in terms of east or west direction is yet not clear.

Andrzejewski said...

@Leron “If proto-IE developed near the Caucasus I’d expect a lot more IE influence to Caucasian languages but they are relatively minimal. Meanwhile the borrowings into Uralic point to a far more northerly location, but how much in terms of east or west direction is yet not clear.”

No. Borrowing into Uralic point to Sintashta, and much later than the Eneolithic, ie to the Bronze Age.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi
@ EastPole

“The Corded Ware is Core PIE culture. Core PIE means that this is culture all PIE except Hettite-Luwians and Tocharians”

Maybe Hittite-Luwians are from Poltava and Armenians are from Catacomb?

As for Tocharians, aren’t they ultimately from Andronovo?

Andrzejewski said...

@Gabriel “No because Cimmerians so far have R1a, but not R1b. The Scythian calls were mostly flukes.”

So are Cimmerians related to Indo-Iranians then?

Vladimir said...

According to the logic that is outlined in this work under the Hittites ideal subclades R1b-PF7562. But about tohar they write that they separated later. According to their tohara logic it is R1b-Z2103. But in work «

https://www.cell.com...9822(19) 30771-7
Ancient Genomes Reveal Yamnaya-Related Ancestry and a Potential Source of Indo-European Speakers in Tianshan Iron Age" is defined as the Tocharians:

• M15-1: R-PH200
https://yfull.com/tree/R-PH200/

• M012: R-PH155
https://yfull.com/tree/R-PH155/

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski said...
" Maybe Hittite-Luwians are from Poltava and Armenians are from Catacomb?
As for Tocharians, aren’t they ultimately from Andronovo?"

Does Poltava mean the Poltavka (Potavkinskaya) culture? There is not any hypothetical connection between the Poltavka culture and Anatolia. Armenians connects with the KMK (Babino) culture. Connection Andronovo to Tocharians is outdated speculations that have not any evidence.

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski "So are Cimmerians related to Indo-Iranians then?"

Archaeologically, the Cimmerians were no different from the Scythians at all, they had the same thing as the Scythians.

Lee said...

do you mean like a tracer dye?

why could it not go the other way?

Hmmm?

Synome said...

I think Anthony may be right about the origin spot of archaic PIE, but the picture becomes messy after the first big expansion of the steppe component because of founder effects, Y bottlenecks and back migration so that the earliest PIE communities get overwritten by later more prolific PIE groups who are the ones that contributed to CW etc.

Andrzejewski said...

Anthony just confirmed my long held suspicions that PIE was a CHG language at its core

EastPole said...

@Davidski
“Despite this, in Dispersals and Diversification archeologist Kristian Kristiansen makes the following claim: "steppe Maykop expanded north, leading to the formation of the Yamnaya Culture and Proto-Indo-European". Not a chance in hell Professor.”

I think that Kristian Kristiansen has lost touch with reality. On page 157:

“These new findings correspond well with our premise that early Yamnaya groups in the western steppe already spoke a later version of PIE. The Yamnaya and later Corded Ware/Bell Beaker groups mostly belonged to the original centum group while the slightly later Fatjanovo,and Abashevo groups to the north between the Baltic Sea and the Urals. belonged to the satem group of pre-Baltic before the Andronovo migrations into central Asia (Allentoft et al. 2015 : Figure 1).”

There is absolutely no evidence that Corded Ware spoke centum language. Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages correlate with R1b and Bell Beakers.

Chad said...

I think it is Maykop admixture. U7b mtDNA, which is West Asian and not Central Asian. and Maykop goods in the grave. They could be 25% Maykop.

Archi said...

Andrzejewski said...
"Anthony just confirmed my long held suspicions that PIE was a CHG language at its core"

Anthony cannot confirm that there no.


Archi said...

@EastPole "Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages correlate with R1b and Bell Beakers."

There's no evidence that Bell Beakers spoke any Indo-European language. There's only evidence that categorically denies it. Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages originate from the Urnfield culture, which ultimately dates back to the CWC from R1b that were included in this culture.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi @EastPole “There's no evidence that Bell Beakers spoke any Indo-European language. There's only evidence that categorically denies it. Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages originate from the Urnfield culture, which ultimately dates back to the CWC from R1b that were included in this culture.“

Would you agree that the Nordic Bronze Age was created from a merger of CWC and either BBC or Urnfield elements? That would shut up critics who like to hype up the theoretical assumption yet unproven of Germanic non-IE substrate (EEF, WHG).

Gabriel said...

@Archi

What’s the evidence that Germanic originated in Urnfield?

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski

Copper Corded Ware/Battle Axe Sweden Bergsgraven [ber1] 2620–2470 calBCE M R1a-Z283 xM458, Z91, Z284
Copper Corded Ware/Battle Axe Sweden Viby [RISE94] 2621-2472 calBCE (4025±30 BP, OxA-29033) M R1a1a1b [Reported as R1a1] M459; Low coverage [*KSDA reads S224/Z645+, Z649+, Z651+]

Corded Ware/Nordic MN Denmark Kyndelose [RISE61] 2650-2300 BC including reduction for high marine signal; 2851-2492 calBCE (4071±27 BP, OxA-28296) F R1a1a1b1a3b1 [Reported as R1a1a1] Page7+; [*Tagankin adds: CTS8401+, Z281+]

Copper Corded Ware/Battle Axe/Nordic LN Sweden Lilla Beddinge 56 [RISE98] 2275-2032 calBCE (3736±32 BP, OxA-28987) M R1b1a1a2a1a1 M405 / S21/ U106


Bronze Nordic BA Denmark Sebber skole [RISE47] 1499-1324 calBCE (3153±26 BP, OxA-28258) M R1b1a2 M520+, PF6438+ [*Tilroe adds: xP312, xA2150]
Bronze Nordic Late Bronze Age Denmark Trundholm mose II [RISE276] 794-547 calBCE (2525±25 BP, OxA-30485) M R1b1a2 L265+, PF6500+


Archi said...

@Gabriel "What’s the evidence that Germanic originated in Urnfield?"

I've shortened the phrase here, for the Germanic maybe there is also Nordic BA. But in any case, Urnfield was involved in its formation, nobody knows the details of this process and it is of course discussed.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi @Gabriel “I've shortened the phrase here, for the Germanic maybe there is also Nordic BA. But in any case, Urnfield was involved in its formation, nobody knows the details of this process and it is of course discussed.”

Well, at least we ruled out and eliminated the drivel that Germanic has 33%< non-IE components from farmers and foragers, as used to be the leading hypothesis by revisionist geneticists with an agenda to distance Germans from anything Indo-European, for obvious reasons

EastPole said...

@Archi
R1a-Z645 split into R1a-93 and R1a-283 about the time CWC originated and started to expand:

https://i.postimg.cc/m2LBZJXf/IEtree-R1a-TMRC.jpg

It means that R1a-Z645 was Indo-Slavic, i.e. all common elements in Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages were present in the language of population which started to expand with R1a-Z645. Populations with R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z283 evolved separately and didn’t mix. It means that R1a-Z283 was proto-Balto-Slavic and R1a-Z93 was proto-Indo-Iranian. It happened soon after 3000 BC. You cannot fit any other language between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian, they are just too close, too similar. Neither Balto-Slavic nor Indo-Iranian was centum R1a-Z645 was not centum and Corded Ware was not centum. Kristiansen is wrong.

Archi said...

EastPole "R1a-Z645 split into R1a-93 and R1a-283 about the time CWC originated and started to expand"

It doesn't mean that CWC consisted only of R1a-Z645, exactly no.

Copper Corded Ware Poland Obłaczkowo [poz81] 2880-2630 calBCE M R1a-M417 xZ645

Naturally, there were also many German R1a-L664. There were R1a-M417 and R1a-M17 in general. R1a-L664 is not a language of Satem, it's a proto-German Centum. and other Centum proto-languages.

https://s019.radikal.ru/i602/1602/93/737e7a159e02.png

R1a-Z645 it not only Balto-Slavic branch, but also Indo-Iranian and Scandinavian.

EastPole said...

@Archi
What you are saying is of course possible but at the same time hard to believe. R1a was not very successful in Western Europe. It is not easy to believe that unsuccessful males managed to change the language of huge population so early in history i.e. before organized groups like kingdoms emerged. Maybe you have a theory why R1b masses of Western Europe took the language of small group of R1a males from Eastern Europe. And why do you assume that this group of R1a males from Eastern Europe was so drastically different from similar and contemporary males living in Eastern Europe. I think that it is more probable that their language, religion and culture were similar to those of East European groups, at least were not more different from Balto-Slavic groups than Indo-Iranians were.

Archi said...

@ EastPole "What you are saying is of course possible but at the same time hard to believe. R1a was not very successful in Western Europe. It is not easy to believe that unsuccessful males managed to change the language of huge population so early in history i.e. before organized groups like kingdoms emerged. Maybe you have a theory why R1b masses of Western Europe took the language of small group of R1a males from Eastern Europe."

It is definitely without options. There were no Indo-Europeans in Western Europe before the Urnfield culture. In Western Europe Indo-Europeans are Celts who are from the Hallstatt culture, Italics who are from the Proto-Villanova culture, Lusitani who are from the Spanish branch of the Urnfield culture. Other Indo-Europeans before the Great Migration of Nations were not there at all.

Aniasi said...

@davidski,

Could you say more about these Central Asian foragers? I would be interested in anything on them, as you mentioned, in a post a long time back, that they haven't been a major component in later C A populations.

EastPole said...

“Interactions between earliest Linearbandkeramik farmers and central European hunter gatherers at the dawn of European Neolithization”


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56029-2

Rob said...


@ East Pole

''R1a was not very successful in Western Europe.. why R1b masses of Western Europe took the language of small group of R1a males from Eastern Europe''

Atlantic LBA koine following lead of Urnfield
Anyway; there was R1b-M269 in Central Europe

Rob said...

More like equal partners, actually. The isles were major suppliers of tin; innovators in sword design

Ric Hern said...

Wasn't there some cremated in urns in Britain a few centuries before the Urnfield became popular on the Continent ?

I think the Middle Bronze Age solidified Indo-European in Western/Northwestern Europe and later Cultures basically were fashion trends spreading among related peoples...

Ric Hern said...

I see a good early connection and interaction between the peoples between the Elbe and Rhine rivers and Britain and Ireland. From the Early to the Late Middle Bronze Age at least maybe even continuing into the Urnfield...

Ric Hern said...

After the Urnfield it seems to me Central European Hallstatt seems to have thoroughly grasped onto the idea of being the Middleman in trade between the Northern Extremities like Britain and Northern Germany and the Mediterranean...that is maybe why it took so long for chariots to reach Britain compared to for instance the Bronze Swords which spread like Wildfire over a very extensive range earlier...(Ireland, Britain, Netherlands, Romania, Greece)

Bob Floy said...

"There's no evidence that Bell Beakers spoke any Indo-European language. There's only evidence that categorically denies it. Italic, Celtic and Germanic languages originate from the Urnfield culture, which ultimately dates back to the CWC from R1b that were included in this culture."

Definitely have to agree with Archi on this one, at least about Italic and Celtic. The Bell Beaker=centum IE idea dosen't look very strong anymore.

Ric Hern said...

@ Bob Floy

I think we can not ignore the interactions between the Rhine/Elbe and Britain/Ireland since the Early Bronze Age all the way into the Urnfield...

Putting all the Bell Beakers under one umbrella is also not sensible...

The Centum/Satem thing is also not something carved in stone. Early IE Languages could have been somewhere in the Middle of the two...basically just like Agglutinative and Non-Agglutinative can both be featured within one Language.

Ric Hern said...

@ Bob Floy

If Mycenaean Greek was Centum then how can it be linked to the Urnfield which evolved several centuries later ?

Simon Stevin said...

I am an amateur in this field of study and a bit of a hobbyist, though I try to educate myself as best I can, and this blog has been a source of some of that education, so thank you for that Davidski. Though as of late I am a little confused as to what WSHG (Western Siberian Hunter Gatherer) is. Is it a more evolved form of ANE or is it an EHG/ANE mix? In the paper "The formation of human populations in South and Central Asia" (September 2019), they mention a separation of Siberian hunter gatherer populations, WSHG and ESHG (Eastern Siberian Hunter Gatherers). If someone could further elucidate on this particular subject, it would be of much help to me.

Davidski said...

@Simon

Is it a more evolved form of ANE or is it an EHG/ANE mix?

I'm actually not up to speed with how the experts view the WSHG currently, but I'd describe it as EHG with elevated ANE ancestry and ESHG (or East Asian) admix.

As far as I know, the Botai people are basically the same population.

Bob Floy said...

@Ric
"I think we can not ignore the interactions between the Rhine/Elbe and Britain/Ireland since the Early Bronze Age all the way into the Urnfield..."

No, and I'm not suggesting that we should.

"Putting all the Bell Beakers under one umbrella is also not sensible...

Agreed, what I really mean is that I don't think those Beakers who colonized western Europe mid 3rd century BC were speaking Celtic or Italic, I think it came later, with the Urnfield expansions.

"The Centum/Satem thing is also not something carved in stone."

Agree.

"If Mycenaean Greek was Centum then how can it be linked to the Urnfield which evolved several centuries later ?"

Urnfield dosen't have to be the sole source of centum IE languages, indeed, I wouldn't guess that it is. Obviously we don't have the whole picture yet.

Ric Hern said...

@ Bob Floy

So basically if Centum existed 1600 BCE and we see very extensive traderoutes during this period with swords linking areas as far apart as Ireland, Romania and Mycenaean Greece, Kentum could also have been spread as far and wide and Bell Beaker can not be excluded since it was spread almost as far and overlapping with this range in many places.

Interesting is that Tumulus C near Kromsdorf was proposed by some to have have links with Ireland and we know about the Bell Beaker presence at Kromsdorf earlier...

Archi said...

The stages of development of the Indo-European society in Europe can be shortly described as follows:

1. The conquest of the Homeland - CWC. IE come from Eastern Europe to Central Europe no later than the beginning of the 3rd millennium BC.

2. Depression - Unetice. Part of IE come out from Central Europe to Eastern and Asia - Sintashta, Babino, Abashevo -> Andronovo, Srubnaya. The Hittite-Luwians, they are not from CWC, go to Anatolia and Greece.

3. Reconquista - Tumulus. IE conquer the lost territories, simultaneously assimilating the remnants of local BB. Greeks from the Babino culture conquer Greece, forming the Mycenae Civilization.

4. Conquista - Urnfield. IE conquers all of Europe and India and Iran. Armenians conquer the Armenian highlands.

Bob Floy said...

"those Beakers who colonized western Europe mid 3rd century BC"

Meant to write 3rd millennium BC, sorry.

@Ric

No doubt the earliest Italo-Celtic speakers were very closely related to those Beakers, I'm not disputing that. But I'm pretty sure that the consensus among linguists has Proto-Celtic being way too young to have been spoken by the BBC, their respective time frames don't add up. Throw in the revelations from this year's big Iberia paper, and the case for Italo-Celtic=BBC looks very weak to me.

Rob said...

Unetice is heavily CWC based; but with carpathian (Slovak-Hungarian) impetus
TC is a BB derived group expanding back east
Urnfield is Carpatho-Cimmerian
Mycenaeans don’t seem to relate to Babino/ KMK.

Archi said...

"Unetice is heavily CWC based
TC is a BB derived group expanding back east
Urnfield is Carpatho-Cimmerian
Mycenaeans don’t seem to relate to Babino/ KMK."

As always, nothing but nonsense.

Rob said...

Keep digging bud :)

Ric Hern said...

@ Bob Floy

Let's wait and see what France delivers. But yes I did not say Italo-Celtic = BBC.

All I responded to is the "Definitely have to agree with Archi on this one, at least about Italic and Celtic. The Bell Beaker=centum IE idea dosen't look very strong anymore." There is still a lot of genetic evidence to consider before we can rule out Bell Beaker from the Indo-European framework.

I personally don't think a 40% replacement in Spain equals a 90 % replacement in the Isles....

Ric Hern said...

@ Bob Floy

We can not exclude Bell Beakers from potentially being Kentum simply because Celtic and Italic are Kentum unless you think Mycenaean Greek originated from Italic, Celtic or Italo-Celtic...

Archi said...

@ East Pole

I added TMRCA to that picture with subclasses of R1a and IE languages and times of division of languages.

https://i.ibb.co/tKzfKjx/IE-with-TMRC.png


Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"I'm actually not up to speed with how the experts view the WSHG currently, but I'd describe it as EHG with elevated ANE ancestry and ESHG (or East Asian) admix."

Western Siberian HGs and Botai though are much more excess ANE than they are EHG.

Romulus said...

“Interactions between earliest Linearbandkeramik farmers and central European hunter gatherers at the dawn of European Neolithization”


https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-56029-2




Looks like they may have found M269 in Germany 5500 B.C., in an individual with no Steppe.

Archi said...

"Looks like they may have found M269 in Germany 5500 B.C., in an individual with no Steppe."

And why are the most interesting samples always damaged or not fully tested?

Lvciano said...

Out of topic but let me ask... if Ponto Caspian Sarmatians and Scythians were mainly Z2103, can we say that they descend from Yamnaya and thus conclude that this culture spoke a language very similar to Andronovo Indo-Iranian (ie. late PIE dialects) so as to be easily linguistically converted?

Romulus said...

@Archi

It's really unfortunate that they couldn't get better coverage. Varna man originally had a poor y hg assignment like this but it's clear he is T now.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Lvciano, The main feature about Pontic Caspien Scythians/Sarmatians is they have Asian admixture which hadn't ever existed in Europe before. Specifically, they are closely related to Scythians who lived in Southcentral Asia near modern tajikstan. This Asian ancestry included both East Asian stuff and "SouthCentral Asian Neolithic" stuff.

What this means is, Iranian-language in Pontic Caspien probably an import from Asia to Europe. Even though ultimately Indo Iranian, ancestor of Iranian, was from Pontic Caspien Europe. So, they were a back migration in Europe. They admixed with some of their cousins in Europe including ones with Yamnaya R1b Z2103+ ancestry. But, Iranian language isn't from Yamnaya.

a said...

@Lvciano. I suggest you have a look or ask someone familiar with, Digor and or Iron- Ossetian ydna project. They are one of the few groups that speak Iranian in Alania, aka Northern Ossetian.

Archi said...

@Lvciano " if Ponto Caspian Sarmatians and Scythians were mainly Z2103"

They weren't Z2103. See

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bnVJujBs_bQu_dqSVi_dSXUuz9gNIYFX_XlqRrz92mo/edit#gid=0

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15533-Ancient-genomes-of-Srubnaya-Cimmerians-Scythians-and-Sarmatians(Science-2018)&p=539749&viewfull=1#post539749

a said...

Sarmatians R1b-z2209+
Only a few areas have ancient Sarmatian graves.
Since water is needed for pastoralism and viticulture,placing it is interesting.

Nesite-watar
Tocharian-war
German-wator

Pastoralist and viticulture cultures are also near the oldest R1b-z2109 Sarmatian burials.
PIE -water-wodr

Archi said...

@a "Sarmatians"

chy002 Cherniy Yar Late Sarmatian 65 - 220 CE XY T1a1 R1a R-Y52

tem002 Temyaysovo Late Sarmatian 125 - 240 CE XY D4q R1a R-FGC48758

tem003 Temyaysovo Late Sarmatian 130-320 CE XY U5b2b R1a R-YP3920

Nomad_Hun-Sarmatian Central steppe Halvay, Kurgan 3, 3A, Kostay [DA27, CGG_2_015429, KS61] 349-368 cal AD (1641 ± 33 BP, UBA-31149) M R1a1

a said...

@Archi those are also Sarmatians. However R1b-Z2209+ Sarmatians are related to Sintashta R1b-Z2109+ and Csepel 2109+Hungary Bell Beakers.

Archi said...

@a "However R1b-Z2209+ Sarmatians are related to Sintashta R1b-Z2109+"

We have only an one case of R1b-Z2103 in Sarmatians and one in Sintashta, but these cases are not related to Sarmatians and Sintashtins, but are related to the fact that this is connected to region of Bashkiria! In Bashkiria, the peak R1b-Z2103 is still present. It's just a local substratum.

"Csepel 2109+Hungary Bell Beakers."

This is irrelevant to Sarmatians.


Moesan said...


It is definitely without options. There were no Indo-Europeans in Western Europe before the Urnfield culture. In Western Europe Indo-Europeans are Celts who are from the Hallstatt culture, Italics who are from the Proto-Villanova culture, Lusitani who are from the Spanish branch of the Urnfield culture. Other Indo-Europeans before the Great Migration of Nations were not there at all.

How can people be so sure ?
I think Celtic, Italic, Lusitanian and Ligurian + others (less caracterized : IE western Languages are evolutions of previous IE languages, with surely at work partial sedentism (cristallization) and trade interactions. They were there before as were the IE northwestern corner dialects seemingly before Celtic and Germanic there. Celtic and Italic took the place of others in their expansion, but were formed on the same manure. Look at Lusitanian, not-Etruscan Rhaetic, even Venetic, not well caracterized IE dialects of W-Europe. And the IE names of rivers allover.
Would not be BB's (of North and Central Europe) the promotors of these western Europe dialects? Genetically, the changes are minor after BB's in NW Europe, it seems the only one could be a slight pre-Steppic (EEF>/WHG) genetic reinforcement and subsequent partial levelling (the case for the Celts).
Urnfields seems linked to an increase in population and new believings but it could be internal. It was rather a puzzling set of moves onto every directions in central Europe before to concern the very western Europe where it took a clearer aspect. Coon thought Urnfields had been a period of mixings rather than one of true new genetic apports. (in Baviera, it seems men had new swords but it was the female who were cremated!: so, new contacts and matings)
Urnfields surely send Celtic into Iberia, and post-Urnfield Italics into Italy, but these cultures had already had their genesis in Central Europe upon a Late BB basis, I think. I dont speak here of the first BB of SW-Iberia (2900 BC). These northern BB's as you know were almost all of them Y-R1b-P312 and so on. What doesn't prove their ancestors were among the PIE speakers at first, other question.
BTW I doubt strongly Lusitanian is linked to Urnfields !

a said...

@Archie
Maybe to the R1a steppe Sarmatians. However to the R1b z2109 steppe Sarmatians and R1b-Z2109 Afansievo and by extension Yamnaya horses, the horse genetic from Csepel might be of interest.

Archi said...

@Moesan "I think Celtic, Italic, Lusitanian and Ligurian + others (less caracterized : IE western Languages are evolutions of previous IE languages, with surely at work partial sedentism (cristallization) and trade interactions. I doubt strongly Lusitanian is linked to Urnfields !"

Ligurian language is not an IE language. Lusitanian was very close to Celtic and Italic languages. But it was not Celtic. It couldnot appears in Iberia before expansion the Urnfield culture thin branch. Lusitanian was language of the few people.

We exactly know that in Iberia only non-IE occupied before Celtic (except few Lusitanians). South-west of France occupied Aquitanian (Euskara) language.

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

I still say that there were different factors at play in Northwestern Europe compared to Southwestern Europe...So throwing all Bell Beakers into one camp does not make sense.

Rob said...

Lusitanian might have been a pre-Germanic Nordic IE with secondary celtisms

Ric Hern said...

We see the Cimbri and Teutons migrating relatively unopposed through Gaul. My guess is that there were migrations like these prior to Roman and Greek records throughout Europe...maybe not whole cultures relocating but enough to make a difference in some areas.

Ric Hern said...

@ Romulus

Interesting is also the MtDNA Haplogroup U5a1b accompanied by the Hunter Gatherers. We see U5a1b in Ukraine Neolithic also...

TLT said...

@knowledgable geneticist

The J in Iran HGs and CHGs has a common ancestry going back to over 18,000 years ago. If this is from ANE then it would push back the mixture far too back in time.

mzp1 said...

Centum IE shares a lot with NW Caucasian Languages, Labiolevars for instance, and also skewing towards greater consonant use. These are the biggest differences between Indo-Iranian and the Centum languages. Wile Uralic seems to be more Iranian influenced from the East, NWC seems to share exactly those things with the Centum languages that pull them away from Indo-Iranian.

https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=iFe3BwAAQBAJ&pg=PA197&lpg=PA197

I think there was a strong 'Caucasian' influence on early European IE resulting in the spread of the Centum languages. They must have spread out from a point of contact, to Greece in the South and Germanic in the North, and look connected to R1B and Bell Beaker.

Archi said...

@mzp1 "Centum IE shares a lot with NW Caucasian Languages, Labiolevars for instance"

Nonsense, the labiovelars were at PIE. Only in the Satem languages they were not preserved but there are theirs traces, and in Centum languages they were preserved. Otherwise, in the Satem languages the palatovelars were preserved, and in Centum languages they were not preserved.

Moesan said...

@Archi:
It's true that the Ligurian language IE origine is debated, according to theories. I'm tempted to see in it an old form of IE with a strong not-IE substratum. The phonetism is supposed rather Celtic-like.
Concerning IE appearence in Iberia, I read the rivers toponymy in N-E Iberia was IE, not Iberian. It's true Iberians reached there relatively late.
More than a scholar seem linking a layer of non-Celtic but yet IE hydronyms in the whole western Europe to the BB's area.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

Yep...

Target: RUS_Tyumen_HG
Distance: 3.9922% / 0.03992182
78.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3
11.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
10.2 RUS_Shamanka_N

Target: KAZ_Botai
Distance: 3.4644% / 0.03464386
69.6 RUS_AfontovaGora3
17.2 RUS_Shamanka_N
13.2 RUS_Karelia_HG

JuanRivera said...

Tocharian and Hittite are centum too, and have labiovelars or traces of them. Satem languages also have traces of labiovelars.

Archi said...

@Moesan

It's all wishful thinking.

Simon Stevin said...

@Samuel Adnrews
So are there WSHGs that do not have East Asian admixture? In VM Narasimhan 2019, they seem to make that distinction. I remember reading from one of the posters on here that Steppe Maykop dervies its ANE from an older source separate from Botai.

Davidski said...

@Simon Stevin

I remember reading from one of the posters on here that Steppe Maykop derives its ANE from an older source separate from Botai.

Steppe Maykop is a mixture between Eneolithic steppe, which has a lot of ANE, but also a population closely related to West Siberian HGs, which are mostly ANE. So it has ANE that is native to the North Caucasus steppes, but also from a more distant Siberian-related source.

But Botai is very similar to those West Siberian HGs. Similar enough, I think, to also say that half of the ancestry of Steppe Maykop is derived from a Botai-related population.

Check out this PCA...

Steppe_Maykop_West_Eurasia_PCA

vAsiSTha said...

Caucasus saw good inflow from Turan.
qpAdm for Caucasus_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya (4 samples)
allsnps set to YES

outgroup: "Mbuti.DG","Ust_Ishim.DG","Kostenki14.SG","Russia_MA1.SG","Han.DG","Onge.DG","Papuan.DG","Georgia_Satsurblia.SG","Czech_Vestonice16","Karitiana.DG","Iberia_ElMiron","Ethiopia_4500BP.SG","Natufian","Ganj_Dareh_N"

Chisq: 8.438 Tail: 0.6736
CHG_Kotias(1 sample) - 0.231 (SE 0.032)
Anatolia_N (23 samples) - 0.40 (SE 0.023)
Geoksyur_En (22 samples)- 0.369 (SE 0.037)

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Caucasus saw good inflow from Turan.

Nope.

Maybe some, but what you're mostly seeing there is gene flow from Iran into the Caucasus and Turan.

vAsiSTha said...

@ davidski

google "geoksyur pottery in maykop" and go to first book result. book by Mariya Ivanova.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha
It's not from Turkmenistan, but to Turkmenistan and Maikop from the Middle East.
This is not how models are made, they do not prove anything in this form.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Mute point anyway, since...

- the territories of Maykop and Geoksyur were eventually overrun by steppe or steppe-derived groups

- Yamnaya has nothing much to do with Maykop, and is only partly related to Steppe Maykop via the pre-Maykop Eneolithic steppe, so it doesn't sit on the Maykop > West Siberia cline, see here...

Steppe_Maykop_West_Eurasia_PCA

Gabriel said...

@Davidski

He probably would’ve argued that the Turan wave affected steppe groups anyway.

Andrzejewski said...

@Simon @Davidski "
Steppe Maykop is a mixture between Eneolithic steppe, which has a lot of ANE, but also a population closely related to West Siberian HGs, which are mostly ANE. So it has ANE that is native to the North Caucasus steppes, but also from a more distant Siberian-related source.

But Botai is very similar to those West Siberian HGs. Similar enough, I think, to also say that half of the ancestry of Steppe Maykop is derived from a Botai-related population."

I'm riveted by the question whether Botai has any relations with Kett and other languages/genetics with the Yenisseyan family, and how they all relate to anything American Indian.

Vladimir said...

but these could not go to Anatolia and become Hittites?

I5876 Dereivka I Ukraine_Mesolithic 7040-6703 calBCE R1a
R-YP4141: YP4145+, YP4184+
R-YP5018: YP5056+, YP5022-, YP5049-, YP5054-, Y22681-
R1a>YP4141>pre-YP5018

AuckeS said...

Regarding Caucasus Maykop,
Is there any correlation between Pontics, Maykop ancestry and haplogroup L?
They seem to pack quite a bit of Maykop ancestry.

Target: Greek_Trabzon
Distance: 1.6691% / 0.01669060
32.4 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
27.8 Anatolia_Barcin_C
23.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
13.4 Levant_ISR_C
2.8 RUS_Maykop_Late
0.2 Mongolian

Target: Georgian_Laz
Distance: 1.6382% / 0.01638178
29.4 Anatolia_Barcin_C
21.2 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
18.8 RUS_Maykop_Late
14.4 GEO_CHG
11.0 Levant_ISR_C
5.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan

Target: Armenian_Hemsheni
Distance: 1.5905% / 0.01590549
21.6 RUS_Maykop_Late
18.6 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
18.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
14.8 Anatolia_Barcin_C
14.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Talin
12.0 Levant_ISR_C

https://imgur.com/a/WV4mqjV
Maykop is closest to Georgians and Abkhaz, but they don't have as much Iran_N, especially Abkhaz and other Northwest Caucasians who almost have no Iran_N ancestry.
OSS001 is also a very weird sample. Perhaps it represents what early Maykop(Leyla Tepe?) were like prior to mixing with North Caucasian natives, like Darkveti-Meshoko?

Rob said...

@ Archie


"Looks like they may have found M269 in Germany 5500 B.C., in an individual with no Steppe."

And why are the most interesting samples always damaged or not fully tested?”

It’s noy interesting
If it was real; it’d be G2a like 97% of LBK
The read of R1b came from a non-degraded segment; meaning it’s a modern contaminant
But I’m sure you know that; because your an expert :)

Arza said...

@ Rob
The read of R1b came from a non-degraded segment; meaning it’s a modern contaminant

Not exactly. There is a very high chance that in this case it's a contamination, but if you'd compare damage restricted sequences with regular ones in cases, when contamination was suspected, but damage restricted data confirmed authenticity of aDNA, you'd see that damage restriction removes also valid aDNA reads. Damage patterns are probably very uneven. But I’m sure you know that because you're an expert.

Rob said...

“ but these were mostly carried on long sequencing reads ..: none of which had evidence of ancient DNA damage, so we believe some or all of them to be due to low levels of contamination”

Ric Hern said...

If that sample is R1b which is probably unlikely, it could maybe be linked to Ukraine Neolithic with the hords of U5a1b accompanied by R1b that were found there....maybe a Neolithic admixture somewhere else with migrants splitting in two different directions and arriving at Derievka almost at the same time as those arriving in Austria...

But yes, let's wait and see.

Rob said...

@ Arza

“Not exactly. ...(six) long winded ..expert..”


Not actually my niche, so I simply read the paper

“ but these were mostly carried on long sequencing reads ..: none of which had evidence of ancient DNA damage, so we believe some or all of them to be due to low levels of contamination””

Explains it better than your self-gratuitous monologue

vAsiSTha said...

Steppe_Eneolithic is the most likely source for formation of Yamnaya_Samara & western_steppe_emba

Ran qpAdm for Steppe_Eneolithic (3 samples). allsnps:YES like the setup in Wang 2019 paper.
Used Wang 2019 right pops
"Mbuti.DG","Ust_Ishim.DG","Kostenki14.SG","Russia_MA1.SG","Han.DG","Onge.DG","Papuan.DG","Italy_Villabruna","Czech_Vestonice16","Karitiana.DG","Iberia_ElMiron","Ethiopia_4500BP.SG","Natufian","Ganj_Dareh_N"

EEHG (3 samples) - 0.443 (se 0.021)
CHG (2 samples) - 0.557 (se 0.021)
chisq 37.19 tail: 0.0002
not a great model, no clue how Wang gets p-value of 0.0301 for CHG + EEHG. Z scores also suggest model needs more Ganj_Dareh_N

Right pops is not great, needs differentiaton between CHG & east/West Iran.
So added Georgia_Satsurblia 11000bce to right pops. CHG changed to Georgia_Kotias for source.

CHG+EHG fails spectacularly with chisq 92 and tail in the order of 10e-14

Added geoksyur_EN as source. Model is accepted.
chisq 18.567 tail: 0.0693
EEHG: 0.467 (se 0.019)
Georgia_Kotias: 0.205 (se 0.03)
Geoksyur_EN: 0.328 (se 0.032)

Changed geoksyur to sarazm_EN as source, as sarazm is oldest in the region.
chisq 21.803 tail: 0.0259
EEHG: 0.405
Georgia_Kotias: 0.193
Sarazm_EN: 0.402










Archi said...

@vAsiSTha you models are fully wrongs because "Ganj_Dareh_N" is not outgroup, and "Italy_Villabruna" maybe also. EHG cannot be 40% CHG - 0.60% - it is absolutely calculation error.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi, you don't know what you are talking about. QpAdm would not run if the names were wrong. These are names from my .ind eigenstrat file, if you know what that means.

There is no calculation error, because it is not manually done by me. This is qpAdm output.

Archi said...

fvAsiSTha you don't understand anything about using these tools, you don't understand anything at all, you don't understand what the parameters are for and how to set them correctly (I wrote to you what you were wrong about, but you don't understand the essence of these parameters) and that the program swears at you showing the results of probabilities =0.

tail p < 0.05 means the error model always absolutely.

vAsiSTha said...

@ archi

are you 12? Italy_Villabruna in the paper and Villabruna points to the same sample in my eigenstrat file. same for Iran_Ganj_Dareh_Neolithic. Ganj_dareh_n in my eigenstrat file points to the same samples.

Also, type like a normal person so people can understand. I know exactly what tail prob and chisq implies and how the model has to be read.

"tail p < 0.05 means the error model always absolutely." this is not always true. Also, kotias + EEHG + geoksyur_En model has tail prob above 0.05. im done debating with a kid.

vAsiSTha said...

Added Anatolia_N & Tyumen_HG to rightpops to see if it rejects the model. it does not.



Steppe_Eneolithic

Rightpops: "Georgia_Satsurblia.SG","Anatolia_N","Tyumen_HG","Ust_Ishim.DG","Kostenki14.SG","Russia_MA1.SG","Han.DG","Onge.DG","Papuan.DG","Italy_Villabruna","Czech_Vestonice16","Karitiana.DG","Iberia_ElMiron","Ethiopia_4500BP.SG","Natufian","Ganj_Dareh_N"

EEHG: 0.474 +- 0.017
Georgia_Kotias: 0.207 +- 0.03
Geoksyur_EN: 0.319 +- 0.032

chisq: 17.893
Tail prob: 0.1616

full output pasted here: https://pastebin.com/XbVyRnAg

Archi said...

fvAsiSTha you are little unreasonable child that breaks a toy without understanding how it works! Once again, you do not know at all what is rightpops, what they are for and what values should stand there. And these are outgroups - they should not be part of a group with leftpops: target and sources.
Ganj_Dareh_N and Georgia_Satsurblia is grouped with Geoksyur_EN and CHG and Georgia_Kotias.

JuanRivera said...

Any information on the vague RUS_Baikal_N, RUS_Baikal_EBA and RUS_Baikal_MA samples? All model very strangely.

Jatt_Scythian said...

When are the Usatavo samples coming out? Interesting that R1a-Z93 is found so south in the dry steppe while R1b-M269 is found in the forest zone? Does that mean Crimean Yamnaya should also be R1a-Z93?

Also interesting that in addition to R1b-Z2103 R1b-P312 and R1a-Z280 were found among Scythians/Cimmerians.

Romulus said...

Merry Christmas Davidski, Rob, Samuel, and everybody else too.

Arza said...

Sneak peek (published in May) into an unpublished data from the Reich Lab:

I11950 F U4a1 Thailand Bronze Age Ban Chiang 900 - 300 BCE
I11952 M T2b Slovakia Early Bronze Age Blatné 2200-2000 BCE
I11954 M T1a1 Romania Bronze Age Glăvăneşti 3500-3000 BCE
I11958 U .. Yemen Iron Age Kharibat al-Ahjur ~1000 BCE
I11956 U .. Yemen Iron Age Al-Makhdarah 1190-800 BCE
I14457 M J1d3a Pakistan Late Bronze Age-Early Iron Age Katelai 1000-800 BCE
I14459 F R2b Turkmenistan Neolithic Geoksiur 5000-2000 BCE
I14461 M C4 Russia Eneolithic Fofonovo 6000-3000 BCE
I14463 M D4j1 Mongolia Bronze Age Bayankhongor, Ulziit sum, Maanit uul 1000-0 BCE
I14492 F K1c2 England Romano British Peugeot Garage 43-410 CE


https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/654749v1

Ric Hern said...

@ Romulus

For you also a Merry Christmas and to everybody else.

Samuel Andrews said...

"I11954 M T1a1 Romania Bronze Age Glăvăneşti 3500-3000 BCE"

This is the oldest T1a1 yet. T1a1 is found later in Afanasievo, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Andronovo, etc. Today, it is the European variant of T1a. Other T1a variants exist in Middle East.

It spread with "Steppe people", but I wonder if it originated in Southeast Europe Copper Age and was picked up by early Steppe people. Or maybe, this sample from Romania has Steppe maternal lineage.

Aram said...

Some remarks on comments here.

+ IE left a serious impact on at last one Caucasian language. And it is the Kartvelian. It was noted by many linguists. Klimov who was a kartvelologue dedicated a special book on this issue. And the main reason why a Georgian scholar Gamkrelidze proposed PIE from Near East was this influence. There is a influence from a non satem ( kerda for example) language and can be easily explained with Catacomb migrants to South Caucasus and North Iran.

+ Greeks almost certainly are not from KMK. Imho Greeks were already present in Greece at 2200/2000 BC. It is quite possible that destructions in Western Anatolia ~2000BC were caused by Greeks who invaded there from Europe. Later they were known as Ahhiyava in Hittite texts. Btw in Roman paper there was a sample from Greece dated at 3500-2300BC with plenty steppe. More than later Myceneans had. If this sample is genuine this means that there wasn't any massive migration from Steppe to Greece after 2300BC

Davidski said...

@Aram

Btw in Roman paper there was a sample from Greece dated at 3500-2300BC with plenty steppe.

What? Which sample?

Aram said...

Davidski

It was in supplements in Admixture part I will check it it was S10 picture. I misexpressed. There was no sample just an admixture picture.

Aram said...

Figures S10,11,12 in pages 51-53. It is in Copper Age part.

Davidski said...

@Aram

Thanks, I missed that.

Yeah, if that's not an error then they must have unpublished samples from Copper Age Greece and these samples have a lot more steppe ancestry than Mycenaeans.

Aram said...

+ I doubt that I2c2 found in Armenia is from Catacomb and Trialeti Vanadzor. It is quite possible that there was a two streams of migration to Armenia. One was from Catacomb that I said earlier was probably speaking a centum language affiliated to Gutians. And little bit later but no later than 1500BC there was a second migration the true Proto Armenians who bring the I2c2 and some other branches of R1b Z2103. Those Proto Armenians were already satem because they had interactions with Srubnaya culture in the north. KMK is good candidate for Armenians and maybe Thracians. I have serious doubts that Thracians are a dialect of Indo Iranian.
As for Hurrians it is very easy to demonstrate that they are not from Steppe. And Hurrians were present in Near East before any Z2103 migrants entered Near East.

Aram said...

There are archaologic theories that after Catacomb culture there was a migration from Carpathian region to Steppe. And not the inverse. If that is true then I2c2 probably entered into Steppe after 2200 bc and moved to East and then to Armenia. The presence of Mycenean style in KMK can be explained by migrations from Balkanes. Ancient name of river Kuban is Vardanes/ Uardanes. Similar names are found in Armenia. A tribe Verdi-uri is attested in Urartian texts in Sevan region were I2c2 is found.

Vladimir said...

"The question of the development of Budzhak culture is closely related to the promotion of the Northern black sea tribes of catacomb culture, radiocarbon Dating of monuments of which really showed the greatest antiquity of its Eastern part in Kalmykia and Donetsk region, and later group in Dnepro-Bugsky (Chernykh, Orlovskaya, 2004, p. 15-29; Pustovalov, 2005). We first noted the penetration of the tribes of the catacomb culture West of the Dniester up to the territory of Romania, that is, on the territory of the Budzhak culture (Shmagliy, Chernyakov, 1971, p. 60-66). The direct contact of this group of catacomb culture with the selected “Ingul catacomb culture” was established (Shaposhnikova, Bochkarev, Sharafutdinova, 1977, p. 29-36; Bratchenko, Shaposhnikova, 1985, p. 415-417), as well as the synchronous existence of monuments of Budzhak and catacomb cultures in the North-Western black sea region (Toshchev, 1991, p. 96). In the historical interpretation of the noted archaeological realities, we can assume the gradual subordination of the population of the Budzhak culture by the catacomb tribes, who under the pressure of the catacombs moved to the territory of the Danube plains, entering into close contacts with the tribes of the early bronze age of this region, and even mutual ethno-cultural assimilation took place". (Chernyakov I. T. Institute of archaeology of the Academy of Sciences of Ukraine). Look at the subclade R1b-Z2110 from which countries it consists: Bulgaria, Romania, Greece, Albania, Montenegro, Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Italy, Spain, Portugal.

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“Yeah, if that's not an error then they must have unpublished samples from Copper Age Greece and these samples have a lot more steppe ancestry than Mycenaeans.”

Yes, but it looks like not IE steppe. No WHG there. It is too early for Mycenaeans.

Davidski said...

@EastPole

It's not yet certain who brought proto-Greek to Greece and when exactly.

But it looks like an Eneolithic steppe/Yamnaya/early Corded Ware-like population showed up in Greece during the Copper Age.

EastPole said...

@Davidski

“It's not yet certain who brought proto-Greek to Greece and when exactly.
But it looks like an Eneolithic steppe/Yamnaya/early Corded Ware-like population showed up in Greece during the Copper Age.”

It is not even certain that proto-Greek was brought to Greece because there are theories that Greek dialects originated locally from various influences, not proto-Greek. According to this theory IE were arriving to Greece gradually in small groups in the beginning and there by various convergence and divergence processes Greek dialects emerged:

https://i.postimg.cc/dVJ965n1/screenshot-57.png

"Ethnic Identity in Greek Antiquity" By Jonathan M. Hall, p.169


Corded Ware could be responsible for many similarities Greek has with Slavic unless it is later Hyperborean influence. It looks very complex but there are many Slavic words in ancient Greek.

For example in the days of Plato also other names for „Zeus” like “Ζήν” or “Ζῆνα” were popular.

https://i.postimg.cc/yNb52Mrn/screenshot-58.png

Cratylus 396A

https://i.postimg.cc/3NW0wbXL/screenshot-60.png

http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus:text:1999.04.0057:entry=*zeu/s

But Greek. “Ζήν” = Polish “Dzen” ‘day’, the same pronunciation and meaning. There are plenty of such words or Slavic etymologies for Greek words.

Archi said...

@Aram "Greeks almost certainly are not from KMK. Imho Greeks were already present in Greece at 2200/2000 BC. It is quite possible that destructions in Western Anatolia ~2000BC were caused by Greeks who invaded there from Europe. Later they were known as Ahhiyava in Hittite texts."

This is impossible, there was no Greek in Greece until 1600 BC, linear writing was not created for the Greek language. There was no Greek culture. Before that there lived Luwians related to Anatolia, the Greek substrate toponyms are Luwian. Ahhiyava is not Greeks, it is definitely, word Achaean means nothing according to Greek, so it is definitely an exonym.

"If this sample is genuine this means that there wasn't any massive migration from Steppe to Greece after 2300BC"

It doesn't mean that at all.

"And little bit later but no later than 1500BC there was a second migration the true Proto Armenians"

An unfounded statement taken from the air. There's no reason to take Armenians out before the Mushki invasion.

"The presence of Mycenean style in KMK can be explained by migrations from Balkanes."

It's not possible. In KMK it's from 2200 BC, in Mycenae after 1600 BC. It is firmly established that the "Mycenae style" in Babino and Sintashta was much earlier than anywhere else, it exactly appeared here in the steppe/the Uralic forest-steppe.

@Davidski
"It's not yet certain who brought proto-Greek to Greece and when exactly."

It did not happen before 1600BC, linear writing was not created for the Greek language. Who brought the Greek language to Greece (Peloponnese) is known - it was Achaeans.

"But it looks like an Eneolithic steppe/Yamnaya/early Corded Ware-like population showed up in Greece during the Copper Age."

At best this were Luwians, their substrate names are everywhere in Greece and the archaeological culture of that time is associated with Luwians.

@EastPole
"It is not even certain that proto-Greek was brought to Greece because there are theories that Greek dialects originated locally from various influences, not proto-Greek.

Corded Ware could be responsible for many similarities Greek has with Slavic unless it is later Hyperborean influence. It looks very complex but there are many Slavic words in ancient Greek. But Greek. “Ζήν” = Polish “Dzen” ‘day’, the same pronunciation and meaning. There are plenty of such words or Slavic etymologies for Greek words."

Enough with the childish amateurism with wordplay and spreading all kinds of outdated nonsense.

Pine trees and mountains said...

"A tribe Verdi-uri is attested in Urartian texts in Sevan region were I2c2 is found."

This is interesting. -uri ending in Georgian signifies descent. A lot of clans (now surnames) In North-Eastern Georgia still have -uri and-uli endings.

Archi said...


I2c2 highly likely to be local in general, originating derived directly from local yet Neolithic Anatolian.

Neolithic Turkey Barcın [I1096 / BAR26 / M10-76] 6500-6200 BC M I2c


There is no reason to assume their connection to the Armenian migration since it is in Anatolia.
I2c2 I-Y16649 formed 16400 ybp, TMRCA 16400 ybp

EastPole said...

@Archi
"Enough with the childish amateurism with wordplay and spreading all kinds of outdated nonsense."

Please, stop trolling my posts. Theories of your beloved NSDAP-professor Porzig are outdated nonsense.

Archi said...

@EastPole Porzig is not NSDAP-professor. Porzig wrote linguistical studies in 1950s! Those studies are acknowledged classical. you are writing NSDAP-nonsens.

EastPole said...

@Archi
About your beloved Porzig:

„From 1925 ord. Professor of comparative linguistics and classical philology at Bern. In 1935 he was dismissed for political reasons (as Nazi) and returned to Jena as Professor.”

https://whowaswho-indology.info/4850/porzig-walter/

Archi said...

@EastPole There was no Nazi in the 1950s! Your loved Werner von Braun was a supreme member of NSDAP and SS.

Rob said...


@ Archi

“There is no reason to assume their connection to the Armenian migration since it is in Anatolia.
I2c2 I-Y16649 formed 16400 ybp, TMRCA 16400 ybp”

Armenia isn’t Anatolia
I2c in western Anatolia is from Balkan
Epigravettian.
There is no I2c in Neolithic Armenia. It’s Bronze Age & later

Rob said...


@ East Pole

“It is not even certain that proto-Greek was brought to Greece because there are theories that Greek dialects originated locally from various influences, “

Archaeogenomics mandates only a specific scenario. First migration 3300 BC; another 2200

@ Arame

What culture can you hypothesis Kartvellians with ? Eg Colchian BA ?

Archi said...

@Rob

Don't twitch. I wrote that I2c2 is local in origin in Anatolia/Near East most likely, not that I2c isn't from Europe. When I2c infiltrated Anatolia no matter and unknown, its spread in the Near East is unknown.

"Archaeogenomics mandates only a specific scenario. First migration 3300 BC; another 2200"

That's a lie. Archaeogenomics doesn't prescribe anything at all.

Gabriel said...

@Aram

What culture do you think is the most likely candidate for proto-Greeks?

Rob said...

@ Archie

''Archaeogenomics mandates only a specific scenario. First migration 3300 BC; another 2200"

That's a lie. Archaeogenomics doesn't prescribe anything at all.''

Well, archaeology suggests a movement of people from Boleraz-Cernavoda horizon sometime after 3500 BC; and now we are seeing glimpses of steppe-ancestry in Greek Eneolithic.
Then there is a movement related to Cetina c. 2200 BC down the Adriatic-Ionian coast.
This is in addition & separate to the migrations from Anatolia.
The facts are alligning, but not for your theory. Maybe Arza can console you ?

''Don't twitch. I wrote that I2c2 is local in origin in Anatolia/Near East most likely, not that I2c isn't from Europe. When I2c infiltrated Anatolia no matter and unknown, its spread in the Near East is unknown.''

There is no need for nihilism if we are educated. There is not likely to be I2c east of West-Central Anatolia during/before the Neolithic, & its appearance in Armenia is due to different processes.

Archi said...

"That's a lie."
Rob said...
Archaeogenomics
December 26, 2019 at 1:31 PM

Rob said...
archaeology
December 26, 2019 at 2:44 PM

Where is there genomics?

"Well, archaeology ... The facts are alligning"

These are not facts, they are a set of meaningless things that have nothing to do with Greek archaeology and genetics. This set of meaningless doesn't prove anything. It doesn't prove anything at all relation Greece.

But the proven fact of archaeological changes in Greece after 1600BC associated with the emergence of chariots, the Black Sea type of burials from the KMK, weapons, spears of which are only in the KMK and Sintashta, helmets made of boar canines that were used only in the KMK, Mycenaean style that existed only in the KMK and Sintashta and so on, all this just accurate archaeologically proves.

Rob said...

Mycenaeans had extensive trade networks by 1600 BC. Egyptians goods; Nordic amber, Sintashta chariots; Trialeti swords, etc

Archi said...

Until 1600BC, there were no Mycenaeans at all. There was no trade, nobody traded with the Northern Black Sea, nobody traded with Sintashta, there was no amber in Greece before Mycenae.

Rob said...

@ Archi


''nobody traded with the Northern Black Sea''

Nobody ?! That's a pretty strong claim

'' there was no amber in Greece before Mycenae.''

it was already present 1900-1600 BC period

Archi said...

@Rob
It's just a funny book. "The Etruscans traded in amber as early as 1500 BCE" The Etruscans 1500 BCE! )))

The accuracy of the dating is still there, you wrote wrong as always, it says "ca."! because there is no dating. YOU HAVE ALWAYS WRITING the untruth, it says (ca. 1900-1600 BCE) to indicate the Middle Helladic Period, and the time is the end of this period, which extends to 1550BC, when there are already Mycenae and Pylos and came the Achaeans.

"The earliest true amber from Greece was from Mycenae and Pylos at the end of the Middle Helladic Period (ca. 1900—1600 BCE)."

Aram said...

Archi

Most of NW Anatolians were overrun by migrations from East. Most of Y dna there are dead end things. And farming to Armenia came from south not from west. I2c2 level was positive in one sample from Unetice Esp4. With more sampling in Carpathian region it will surely pop up there. I2c was mostly found in Hungary Protoboleraz, ALPc. I think it could be also in Trypolie.

As for Mushkis I advise You to read more recent things. Archaeologically the pottery that appears in Mushkian regions in EIA has Eastern origin.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3642931?seq=1

Aram said...

Rob

Colchian BA is too late for the break up of Kartvelian. Proto Kartvelian is no later than 2400BC so it is a MBA. Colchian starts at 1500 BC. Imho their deep origins are Western Georgian Eneolithic. At MBA Samtavro could be a Kartvelian. Colchian culture can be linked with Megrelo Laz branch. But Colchian culture almost certainly was a multiethnic place. It overlaps with Kashkian regions.Some steppic infiltrations are also possible.

Aram said...

Archi

Btw how You know that Ahhiyava is not Greek. You have expertise in Hittite cuneiforms. Many scholars today agree that it was a Greek expansion to Anatolia.

Archi said...

@Aram
" And farming to Armenia came from south not from west."

What's farming got to do with it?????

"I2c2 level was positive in one sample from Unetice Esp4."

I2c simple!
Bronze Unetice? Germany Esperstedt [I0116 / ESP 4] 2134-1939 calBCE (3650±32 BP, MAMS-21495) M I2c PF3827+, L597+, M438+

"I2c was mostly found in Hungary Protoboleraz, ALPc."

It's the density of testing only, the main thing is that it was found in those single samples that were from Anatolia! It's a fact.

"As for Mushkis I advise You to read more recent things. Archaeologically the pottery that appears in Mushkian regions in EIA has Eastern origin.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/3642931?seq=1"

Nobody knows what it says, but it is a fact that it says that rough moulding pottery made without a pottery wheel there appears from the West, from Europe! It's written fact.

"Many scholars today agree that it was a Greek expansion to Anatolia."

There are no arguments there, even the place of this Ahhiyava is not even roughly known, it's just known west of the Hittites.

Pine trees and mountains said...

Aram

First of all, why do you think Kaskians weren't related to Colchians. It is known that Zan tribes lived very far West before heavy Greek colonisation began. So far West that they bordered the Leukosyrians who were a branch of Cappadocians bordering the Black Sea. The Macrones and Machelones who were most likely one tribe or at least had the same endonym, were described as significantly distinct from Cappadocians by Xenophon and other ancient Greeks, but Xenophon is the most trustworthy cause he actually travelled there. He also described a tribe of Mossynichoi, whose ethnonym here is very similar to the modern Svan self-designation Mushvan (choi being the Greek suffix).

If Kaskians are related to Hattians, then definitely they cannot be Zan i.e. Kartvelian, but if they aren't then who can they be related to if not Hattians? Would Kaskians speak Hittite? Doubtful, they were like a group of native partisans taking shelter in the mountains or living there in the first place and just defending from Hittites. Not to mention there were significant cultural differences between Hittites and Kaskians, because they had a really hard time signing truces due to the tribal nuances of the Kaskians (they were very decentralized politically but militarily united).

Hittites themselves had a lot of Hattian elements, and it is very highly possible that Hittites were more similar to Hattians than Kaskians to Hattians. Kaskians, I think, were a mix of Karto-Zan or perhaps even Zan invaders and Hattians. Another scenario is that Kaskians were just the descendants of the Maykop who, fleeing from NC, most likely due to conflicts with Yamna-related cultures, settled in Western Georgia and then went into North-East Anatolia as well. Highest frequency of haplogroup L in the Caucasus and NE Anatolia is among modern Laz and Hemshins, who both cluster very close to each other, if I remember correctly both are closer to each other than to their respective "macro-nations" (Georgians and Armenians). That L could very well be from Maykop immigrants.

Question is, however, what culture was there in Western Georgia and Eastern Propontis prior to Maykop. Do you think it was Darkveti-related? What culture was in Western Georgia in MBA too? Right before Colchis. Only issue with the Maykop theory is that Colchis doesn't seem to be very similar to Maykop in terms of material culture, but that can be explained by Maykop actually not settling in Colchis, skipping it and going for NE Anatolia directly.

Rob said...


@ Arame
I see; Colchian BA might be too late
But not sure it’s spread from west Georgia to east ?

Btw I recall that South Caucasus I2c is nested with Central European. It’ll be interesting to see how it got there; and I don’t think the I2c in proto-Armenian so far is a fluke

@ Archie

“It's the density of testing only, the main thing is that it was found in those single samples that were from Anatolia! It's a fact.”

But you don’t understand that there was a population replacement in Copper age Anatolia
So the BA-IA I2c in Armenia can’t come from a 6000 BC ghost

Archi said...

@ Rob
"But you don’t understand that there was a population replacement in Copper age Anatolia
So the BA-IA I2c in Armenia can’t come from a 6000 BC ghost"

You're the one who doesn't understand that your fantasies aren't interesting. You can't know what could and couldn't be, and you don't have the facts.

Rob said...

@ Archie

If your fantasies revolve around aDNA; then you really need to get out more

The shift in Anatolia was known even before aDNA - “Seen as a whole, the evidence indicates an intricate pattern of general discontinuity, re-adjustment and limited persistence of earlier practices after
~4300 BC”. (Clarke et al, 2016)

Moreover; as Arame pointed out; Armenian neolithic is completely different to west Anatolia, coming from Hassuna and Halaf

Archi said...

@Rob "If your fantasies revolve around aDNA; then you really need to get out more

The shift in Anatolia was known even before aDNA - “Seen as a whole, the evidence indicates an intricate pattern of general discontinuity, re-adjustment and limited persistence of earlier practices after
~4300 BC”. (Clarke et al, 2016)

Moreover; as Arame pointed out; Armenian neolithic is completely different to west Anatolia"

It means nothing but your imagination, there was also a change of traditions between the Eneolithic and Bronze Age in the Balkans, but it did not lead to a change of population. You think too much of what can and cannot be and you are never right.

I did not write that the I2c2 came to Armenia in Neolithic, this was invented by you, I wrote that the I2c2 could be from Anatolia, and there are facts of I2c stay in Anatolia in Neolithic. And the time of the migration can be any, at least a firmly established fact, that in the period of the Dark Ages of the 12th-9th centuries BC the whole of Central Anatolia was completely depopulated, the people from it all fled apparently to the east.

Rob said...

@ Archie

“It means nothing but your imagination”

No. It was accompanied by several hundred year settlement hiatus . Of course you haven’t understood the aDNA , either, which shows how distinct Barcin chalcolithic is to preceding Neolithic

Aram said...

KG

I never said that Kaskians were IE people. Imho the most realistic scemario is that they were related to Hattians. What I said is that the Kashkians who are attested in LBA live in places where Colchian culture was present. And if Kashkians were not Kartvelians then this mean that attributing Colchian culture exclusively to Zan is not correct.
Xenophone is good. But how many tribal or personal names You can attribute securely to Kartvelians in Hittite texts?
As for that L in Pontic region it is L1b. L in Maykop was L2. L1b do not need to be from North. And his age is too young to call him Kaskian. The TMRCA is 2900 year. Long after Kaskians are mentioned. Quite ironically it is possible that L1b expansion is responsible for Kaskians disparition. In Urartian texts Khalitu ( Chaldes ) is mentioned in that region.

As for Hemshines their main Y dna is G1 who's age is very young 1200 ybp. Which means it was introfuced by them. The L is substratic and is not their native y dna. The same is true for Pontic Greeks and pontic Turks. Who also autosomally are close to Laz and Hemshines.

Aram said...

Gabriel

I don't know from what culture Greeks originated. What I am seeing is that the Mycenean samples we have do not give impression that they invaded recently from Steppe. They have low steppe and are quite homogenous. Recent invasion is like the Vucedol samples but not the Mycenean ones.

Rob

Well in EBA in Eastern Georgia we have Kura -Araxes. It is possible that Kartvelians were present in KA but they didn't came with KA. Because KA moves more northern and the Y dna we have from Velikent J1 has excellent correlation with NEC people. So NEC people from KA looks good. We have even archaeological trail from KA to Guinchiskaya culture which is linked to NEC.

Before KA we have Sioni and Shulaveri in East Georgia. Hmmm..

There are also linguidtic reasons to place them in West. They have good lexical parallels with Hattian. So Kartvelians had intense contacts with Hattians. They use a prefix for plurial form like Hattians.While Hurrian has no single prefix.
The only problem is that between Anaseuli Eneolithic and LBA Colchian there are gaps in West Georgia.

Aram said...

Archi

Veli Sevin's paper is discussed by many archaeologists. Not everyone agrees. But no one says that grooved ware is from West Anatolia. Muller propose East Anatolian origin some even link it with Andronovo but no one with West Anatolia Iron Age.

KG

I think autosmally most of West Georgia and Pontic region was like Darkveti Meshoko. But haplogroups. We are in complete darkness.
Also migrations from Maykop. I don't know. The branch of Q, L2 , T1a3 are so rare today. Don't give impression that they have successful expansion.

AuckeS said...

I agree that Georgian KAC wasn't Kartvelian. The core region of Kartvelians has always been Western Georgia (one of the few places in South Caucasus without any notable KAC presence). Kartvelian expansion to what is now East Georgia can be attributed to the Shida Kartli culture, a MLBA culture.

But the timeline in West Georgia between EBA and LBA/EIA(Colchian culture) is poorly researched. And as @Aram previously pointed out Kartvelian has an interesting affinity to PIE (this applies not only to Georgian but also to Zan and Svan, and Svan diverged 4kya, shortly prior to Shida Kartli culture, and remained isolated ever since). You had steppe rich samples in South Caucasus in MLBA, so I can understand Georgian having a PIE substrate because they expanded to East Georgia during a possible peak IE presence in the Caucasus, but then why does Svan-Zan also shares an affinity to PIE, considering that Georgians had little presence in KAC, and were relatively isolated throughout EBA-MLBA? Kartvelian also has more affinity towards PIE than any other native language in the Caucasus. http://loanwords.prehistoricmap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Bj%C3%B8rn-2017-Foreign-elements-in-the-Proto-Indo-European-vocabulary.pdf

That's why I'm thinking that Maykop had a possible Kartvelian presence. Maykop had contacts with various Steppe people like Steppe Maykop, Yamnaya and Usatovo, and autosomally the best candidate for Maykop are Georgians and NEC (especially Chechens and Ingush prior to steppe input). Maykop was also Iran_N rich, while NWC usually don't have any Iran_N.
https://imgur.com/a/WwRJXsE

Meshoko were Northwest Caucasian speaks imo, (not sure about Darkveti since we don't have samples from that region) in Wang et al they modeled Meshoko as half Anatolia_C, hence where the possible NWC-Hattian likeness may come from. Pricked Pearls Pottery culture (Meshoko) then gradually became Dolmen culture. Dolmen were the most likely candidates of NWC speakers. However things can get a bit complicated because the earliest Maykop sample didn't have as much CHG as later samples did, and Maykop Novosvobodnaya had some possible links with Darkveti-Meshoko. If DM were Kartvelian speakers then they could have left a linguistic trace in Maykop Novosvodnaya.

Archi said...

@Aram "I don't know from what culture Greeks originated. What I am seeing is that the Mycenean samples we have do not give impression that they invaded recently from Steppe."

We don't have a single Achean. There are only slaves that no one in the IE Greeks will write down, and a Minoan dynasty. The most interesting thing is that it was in Crete where the Achaeans showed up. The study of Lazaridis is very bad, biased, you can't draw conclusions from it.

"But no one says that grooved ware is from West Anatolia. Muller propose East Anatolian origin"

I didn't write anywhere about Western Anatolia, you wrote it yourself. I have written about Anatolia in general, about Central Anatolia in particular, which includes a part of Eastern Anatolia. Therefore, your argument about Western Anatolia disappears as senseless.

@Rob "It was accompanied by several hundred year settlement hiatus . Of course you haven’t understood the aDNA , either, which shows how distinct Barcin chalcolithic is to preceding Neolithic"

This is not true, no complete change in the population of genetics shows, on one female sample, which is all the more similar to Armenians, you make unreasonable assumptions that there was a complete extinction of the previous population. There is no coverage of the territory or Y-haplogroups(!) of this population. Therefore, your statement is unscientific, there is no evidence of the extinction of the previous population in Chalkolith. Of course you haven’t understood the aDNA. Therefore, your categorical statements are simply unscientific.

Romulus said...

We have Mycenean aDNA and it is very Minoan.

vAsiSTha said...

So I went through the supplements of Wang 2019.
Main paper has Fig 4(a) showing eneolithic_steppe as CHG+EHG with p value 3.015E-02. This test(the setup) and its result is nowhere to be found in the supplement whereas others can be found. I have contacted the author for clarification. If you find something, please let me know.

I have since downloaded the eigenstrat files again, remerged them, and run fresh qpAdm. results are same. CHG+EHG fails for eneolithic_steppe.

Models which work:

Eneolithic_steppe

Khvalynsk_EN: 66%
Kotias.SG: 18%
Parkhai_EN: 16%
p-value: 0.84
No nested model works, all pvalues below 0.01.

Eneolithic_Caucasus
Kotias.SG : 40%
Anatolia_N: 37%
Parkhai_EN: 23%
p-value: 0.89

Steppe_Maykop:
Eneolithic_Steppe: 56%
WSHG: 44%
p-value:0.08

Steppe_Maykop_Outlier (2 samples)
Eneolithic_Steppe: 65%
Hajji_Firuz_C: 35%
p-value: 0.22






Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

It looks like your outgroups are garbage.

Eneolithic_steppe
Khvalynsk_En 0.521
Kotias 0.563
Parkhai_En -0.085 infeasible
chisq 31.378
tail prob 0.000959052
Full output

In fact, there's no evidence that Eneolithic_steppe is a recently mixed population, apart maybe from some minor gene flow from the north.

The only way to model its ancestry successfully is with complex qpGraph models by creating proxy nodes that are near and far related to real populations.

Matt said...

In general you will get the best models with Steppe Maykop by treating
AY2003, SA6001, SA6004

as one group that can be modeled by Piedmont_En + WSHG
AY2001, IV3002, SA6013

either individually or as another group that can modeled between the above group and a Copper / Bronze Age Caucasus source.

Two-way models for "Steppe Maykop" with Piedmont_En + WSHG will fail if you include the full 6.

Visually in Vahaduo Custom PCA (G25 data): https://imgur.com/a/JK8mmkk (using https://vahaduo.github.io/custompca/)

Datasheet for visual: https://pastebin.com/mc2knMJH

Davidski said...

As per my Global25 datasheets...

Steppe_Maykop samples that can be modeled as Eneolithic_steppe + WSHG are these:

RUS_Steppe_Maykop:AY2003
RUS_Steppe_Maykop:SA6001
RUS_Steppe_Maykop:SA6004

The samples that need variable levels of Maykop and perhaps some Turan ancestry are these:

RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o:AY2001
RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o:IV3002
RUS_Steppe_Maykop_o:SA6013

Rob said...


@ Archie


''This is not true, no complete change in the population of genetics shows, on one female sample, which is all the more similar to Armenians,''

We have been talking about Anatolia. Do you know what day it is ?

''you make unreasonable assumptions that there was a complete extinction of the previous population. There is no coverage of the territory or Y-haplogroups(!) of this population. ''

We have quite a few data from central & west Anatolia . Thus in addition to the genome-wide shifts (that is actually old news for everybody here except you), we have a Y-DNA picture too:
Neolithic G2a2a, plus some I2c, C1a
Copper-Bronze: J1, J2a1, G2a2b + ??


''Therefore, your statement is unscientific, there is no evidence of the extinction of the previous population in Chalkolith. Of course you haven’t understood the aDNA. Therefore, your categorical statements are simply unscientific.''

You don't have the slightest clue about science or facts. You just concoct old-wives tales and waste giga-space

E.g. 1 Barcin (Gerritsen et al)''Excavations reveal that there was a hiatus in occupation thereafter (after LN), spanning two millenia''

Eg. the Troad. (Blum 2017) ''While the first half of the era is comprehensively characterized by the inventories of Aşağı Pınar 5–2, Hoca Çeşme I, Kumtepe IA, Beşik-Sivritepe and Gülpınar, the period between 4500 and 4000 BC still appears as a major chronological gap or lengthy occupational hiatus''

Even in Catalhoyuk, the major site in central Anatolia, occupation ends by 5000 bc

Archi said...

@Rob "Neolithic G2a2a, plus some I2c, C1a
Copper-Bronze: J1, J2a1, G2a2b"

It is not true.

Neolithic Turkey Barcın [Bar31] 6419-6238 BC M G2a2b

Neolithic Turkey Barcın [I0708 / BAR6 / L11-439] 6221-6073 calBCE (7285±30 BP, PSUAMS-2103) M J2a



It is known that after the fall of the Hittite Empire, the Western Luwian languages moved to Eastern Anatolia.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 264   Newer› Newest»