search this blog

Thursday, February 13, 2020

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux


In recent years you may have read academic papers, books and press articles claiming that the Early Bronze Age Yamnaya culture of the Pontic-Caspian steppe was founded by migrants from the Caucasus, Mesopotamia or even Central Asia.

Of course, none of this is true.

The Yamnaya herders and closely related groups, such as the people associated with the Corded Ware culture, expanded from the steppe between the Black and Caspian seas, and, thanks to ancient DNA, it's now certain that they were overwhelmingly derived from a population that had existed in this region since at least the mid-5th millennium BCE (see here).

So rather than being culturally advanced colonists from some Near Eastern civilization, the ancestors of the Yamnaya herders were a relatively primitive local people who still largely relied on hunting and fishing for their subsistence. They also sometimes buried their dead with flint blades and adzes, but hardly ever with metal objects, despite living in the Eneolithic epoch or the Copper Age.

As far as I know, this group doesn't have a specific name. But in recent scientific literature it's referred to as Eneolithic steppe, so let's use that.

It's not yet clear how the Yamnaya people became pastoralists. Some scholars believe that they were basically an offshoot of the cattle herding Maykop culture of the North Caucasus. However, the obvious problem with this idea is that the Yamnaya and Maykop populations probably didn't share any recent ancestry. In fact, ancient DNA shows that the former wasn't derived from the latter in any important or even discernible way (see here).

On the other hand, Yamnaya samples do harbor a subtle signal of recent gene flow from the west that appears to be most closely associated with Middle to Late Neolithic European agropastoralists (see here). Therefore, it's possible that herding was adopted by the ancestors of the Yamnaya people as a result of their sporadic contacts with populations living on the western edge of the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

Eneolithic steppe is currently represented by just three samples in the ancient DNA record, and all of these individuals are from sites on the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe (two from Progress 2 and one from Vonyuchka 1).

As a result, it might be tempting to argue that cultural, if not genetic, impulses from the Caucasus did play an important role in the formation of the Yamnaya and related peoples. However, it's important to note that the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe was the southern periphery of Eneolithic steppe territory.

Below is a map of Eneolithic steppe burial sites featured in recent scientific literature. It's based on data from Gresky et al. 2016, a paper that focused on a specific and complex type of cranial surgery or trepanation often practiced by groups associated with this archeological culture (see here).


Incredibly, one of the skeletons from Vertoletnoe pole has been radiocarbon dated to the mid-6th millennium BCE. My suspicion, however, is that this result was blown out by the so called reservoir effect (see here). In any case, the academic consensus seems to be that the roots of Eneolithic steppe should be sought in the Lower Don region, rather than in the Caucasus foothills (see page 36 here).

Considering that nine Eneolithic steppe skulls from the Lower Don were analyzed by Gresky et al., I'd say it's only a matter of time before we see the publication of genome-wide data for at least of couple of these samples. Indeed, the paper's lead author is from the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut, which is currently involved in a major archaeogenetic project on the ancient Caucasus and surrounds. Unfortunately, the study is scheduled to be completed in about four years (see here).

But whatever happens, the story of Eneolithic steppe deserves to be investigated in as much detail as possible, because it obviously had a profound impact on Europe and its people.

In my estimation, at least a third of the ancestry of present-day Northern Europeans, all the way from Ireland to the Ural Mountains in Russia, is ultimately derived from Eneolithic steppe groups. It's also possible that R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, the two most frequent Y-chromosome haplogroups in European males today, derive from a couple of Eneolithic steppe founders. If so, that's a very impressive effort for such an obscure archeological culture from what is generally regarded as a peripheral part of Europe.

See also...


1,260 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 1260   Newer›   Newest»
vAsiSTha said...

@epoch Tibetan Plateau from around 3,700–3,500 cal bp to the present."

This is 1700-1500bce, not 3500bce

Anonymous said...

@Unknown said... "The Anatolians, Greeks and Italians do not have steppe ancestry either."

Well, how much can you repeat this profane nonsense. Not a single Hetitto-Luwian was tested, not a single Achaean was tested. The Italians, Greeks and Mycenaeans have a steppe component.

epoch said...

@vAsiSTha

Yes, you are right, my bad. However, it states that the adaptation started in the 7th millennium. The point is that no matter what, there was wheat in an Afanasievo related area. And Afanasievo is contemporaneous to Yamnaya.

Ric Hern said...

Wonder how the Upper Volga/Don regions fit into the expansion of the Lower Don Eneolithic ? Thinking specifically how R1b L51 came into the picture...?

vAsiSTha said...

@epoch you are overreaching a lot. Here is Mallory from 2015

"The problem is that this “solution,” no matter how attractive archaeologically, does not resolve the linguistic aspects of the issue: the Tocharians must have carried not only domestic cereals into the Tarim Basin but the inherited Indo-European vocabulary associated with agriculture as well. If the Eurasian steppe trajectory could not itself deliver domestic grains to the Tarim Basin, it also fails to support its identification with the ancestors of the Tocharians. The Proto-Tocharians cannot have inherited their language from a distant steppe homeland in the Pontic-Caspian and then adopted both domestic plants and the Indo-European names for them (shared throughout the Indo-European world) later along the way. They must have carried both the plants and the Indo-European names for them(Mallory 2012, 149–152)."

mzp1 said...

IE traditions tend to place a kind of prestige on cattle rearing above and beyond any value placed upon agriculture. The earliest layers of literature speak of a cattle based economy supported by craftmanship (metalworking and carpentry), with little mention of organised agriculture.

This worked ok with the Kurgan Hypothesis as it matched the economy of the Steppe nomads. However, this does pose a problem if we are looking for IE peoples in the pre-Bronze age and South and East of the Caucuses.

Cattle domestication happened in the Indus Valley (Bos Indicus) and Mespotamia (Bos Taurine, European cattle), however it is possible there were independent domesticates in South Central Asia from local wild Eurasian aurochs, later supplanted with the Taurine type. Sheep, Pigs and Agriculture from Europe are also Near East-derived so if we can push European-IE far back enough there are good arguments for it coming from that area.


We are left with the problem of particularly Wheel and Horse terms in IE (PIE?) which are archeologically attested much later. However, Equid bones have been found in earlier levels at ANAU. The question then is how far back can Academia be open to the existence of the wheel and use of horses without archeological evidence. The fact is no one knows if nomads were using horse-drawn chariots in 5,000BC, all the academics have given us is Terminus Ante Quem dates (Sintashta chariots etc) which are not really useful.

It's possible that nomads developed small-scale, sophisticated technology (chariots) prior to the spread of large-scale agriculture, and we only see a re-emergence of that technology, on a much larger scale, later on. Otherwise these may need to be considered as later borrowings due to close cultural contact between adjacent and little-differentiated IE peoples. Either way, it looks like aDNA and our earliest horse/chariot finds give us conflicting arguments for the date and location of PIE.

I think the domestication of Taurine cattle in the Near East is due to IE influence. It would be more difficult to get Indian cattle to Central Asia than from Mespotamia, so pastoralism (IE) may have spread in a limited capacity out from India to Central Asia, until a better source of cattle was found and domesticated in the Near East.

Ric Hern said...

@ mzp 1

There are genetic papers showing when Bos Indicus cattle spread into the Middle East from the Indus Valley. That was only around 4200 years ago.

Bos Taurus reached Europe during the earliest spread of the Neolithic. Cattle MtDNA Haplogroup T3 became most dominant and reached Northern China where it also became most dominant during the time Afanasevo arrived...So a spread from the Balkans and or Eastern Central Europe towards the East looks like the most likely scenario.

The Balkans had Metallurgy and Cattle and is right on the doorstep of the Steppe without any significant Geological Barriers.





Ric Hern said...

@ mzp 1

Regarding the spread of Pig domestication it is also clear that the original domesticated pigs genetic importance almost evaporated into oblivion in Europe. Domesticated European pigs DNA are dominated by local Wild Boar Genes.

Ric Hern said...

What is also interesting is that the Genetic spread and split of people into Southern and Central Europe also reflect in the split of Neolithic cattle lineages who accompanied them and is even evident today...

epoch said...

@vAsiSTha

And that is exactly why this is such a nice find.

Matt said...

FrankN:Still, for geographical reasons, but also when it comes to burial customs, I tend to think that "Eneolithic Piedmont", "Zamok" and "Nalchik Cemetary" represent the same cultural and genetical unit - Herders (possibly at the transition towards cereal farming), originating from the Lower Don, with typical "Steppe" aDNA enhanced by some E. Caucasian CHG, tradewise and also genetically connected to Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog).

It seems possible that you could have an Eneolithic population in the E. Caucasus with slightly higher CHG ratio than Darkveti-Meshoko, then contributes to ancestor of the Eneolithic Piedmont populations / samples.

Using a large (50) set of outgroup f3 samples as columns through Vahaduo, slightly improves fit of PiedmontEn to be modelled as 28:17:37:18 of Darkveti:CHG:EHG:West_Siberia_N (over 44:44:12 CHG:EHG:West_Siberia, over 43:57 CHG:EHG). Darkveti itself models in the same framework as 34:52:5:9 of Barcin:CHG:EHG:Iran_N.

Very small increase in fit, of course, so there is reason on grounds of simplicity to prefer the simple two-way fits (or taking these as populations that may have branched slightly from true ancestor), and because the two way fit involves actual known populations, and not a hypothetical. Wang's paper seems to have precluded Steppe_EBA as two-way fit of Maykop+EHG of course, but I don't know that it precluded the possibility of all geneflow from the Caucasus in the Eneolithic all together.

old europe said...



@epoch and vAsiSTha

in order to solve the agricoltural problem in PIE you must find sign of agricoltural activity in the Don- Caspian steppe since this is the relevant place most of you consider the homeland. Traces of agricolture in Afanasievo are useless because that region is (and could never be) the homeland.
Besides it is not even clear that Afanasievo is linked with tocharian. More likely candidates are Sintashta Andronovo.

The only reason why Afanasievo could have been an agricoltural population is
the presence of the Sredni Stog which in Afanasievo is around 36%.

old europe said...



.....but obviously Sredni Stog brings us back to the westernmost part of steppe and the link with the agricoltural societies of the balkan/carpathian region

Leron said...

Ric Hern: Steppe people weren’t carrying cows across the continent. It’s most likely that they spread from farm to far, and it happened along the agricultural belt, from Central Asia and into China.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski 

Regarding R1b M269.

"Forest > Forest Steppe > Sredny Stog > Yamnaya & Corded Ware" 

According to this previous post. Did R1b L51 have anything to do with the Eneolithic Steppe ? Or did they split to the West from Sredny Stog while Eneolithic Steppe split towards the East from Sredny Stog ?


Ric Hern said...

@ Leron

Go do a bit of reading and come back to me on that one.

I'm talking about both Human and Cattle Genetics and Scientific Papers which confirms this spread. In other words not sucked out of my thumb.





Ric Hern said...

Wonder if there will be some surprises in the region between the Volga and Oka Rivers dating back to the Early Mesolithic ?

FrankN said...

Matt: Some Meshoko element in Zamok/Piedmont is certainly imaginable. However, interestingly, the obsidian found at Meshoko originated from Paravani (S. Georgia), not from the much nearer Baksan source (some 30 km S. of Progress, across the mountain). Baksan Obsidian was traded over long distances during the Eneolithic, as evidenced by one specimen found in Lysa Gora on the Middle Dniepr, next to some Azov-Dniepr pottery. So, apparently, trade relations between Meshoko and Zamok/Piedmont weren't particularly intensive.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/266794298_The_Neolithic_Obsidians_From_Southeastern_Ukraine_First_Characterization_and_Provenance_Determination

What I personally find intriguing is that Arm_CA fares so poorly as a source.

Ric Hern said...

It almost seems as if some R1a and R1b clads rained down the rivers from the Northern Forest and Forest Steppe into the Steppe at different times. Maybe that is why we did not find related clads near each other yet...all the relatives were playing hide and seek in the forest zone. Heheheeh...

Andrzejewski said...

@All what do you think about the PIE's laryngeal theory?

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

Is it possibly a CHG-influence on an EHG language?

epoch said...

@Rob

"How can Tocharians have retained *PIE for cereals by borrowing it from a foreign culture"

Afanasievo was contemporary to Yamnaya. Both Yamnaya and Afanasievo are expansions of PIE peoples. The earliest attestment of wheat in the Xinjiang cave was roughly at the same time as the earliest attestment of steppe people in the area.

epoch said...

@Rob

"But post-Andronovo groups made it to Tarim basin
And we know that they come from the western Steppe & have EEF & knee agriculture
"

That's another possible vector of transfer of terms. My actual point is that the original idea that we have a major issue with PIE-root derived terms in eastern IE languages when we don't see evidence for agricultural practices in these until 2000 BC is being debunked. Either with what you state above or with a very early wheat find in an Afanasievo context. We now have two possible transfer routes.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Quit acting like a weasel.

I'm guessing your original intention was to debunk this claim in my blog post, right?

So rather than being culturally advanced colonists from some Near Eastern civilization, the ancestors of the Yamnaya herders were a relatively primitive local people who still largely relied on hunting and fishing for their subsistence.

So did you debunk it with the data from Nalchik? Nope.

First of all, like I said myself, there is evidence of domesticates in the Eneolithic Caucasus, and Nalchik is in the Caucasus. So much so, in fact, that it's surrounded by very big fucking mountains.

It makes no difference whether you or anyone else sees it as part of Eneolithic steppe, since it's not on the steppe, and so it doesn't debunk my claim that the people on the actual steppe were by and large hunters and fishers.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

"It makes no difference whether you or anyone else sees it as part of Eneolithic steppe, since it's not on the steppe, and so it doesn't debunk my claim that the people on the actual steppe were by and large hunters and fishers."

Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk were only hunters and fishermen? I'm in shoke.


Davidski said...

@Archi

Where did I mention Sredny Stog or Khvalynsk? I was talking about the steppe groups between the Lower Don and the Caucasus.

If you're in a "shoke" now, you might have a stroke when you learn that these people basically just hunted wild horses and went fishing.

They weren't pastoralists by any stretch of the imagination, and they were a world apart from the cattle herding Yamnaya.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

“ Rob, and I will certainly take you up on the Neolithisation issue if still allowed to do so here).“

Yes please; Of course I’m interested ! And I’m sure everyone else is too, as long as you get to the point ;)

Anonymous said...

@@Davidski "Where did I mention Sredny Stog or Khvalynsk? I was talking about the steppe groups between the Lower Don and the Caucasus."

Because Sredniy Stog or Khvalynsk is also Eneolithic steppe. Between the Lower Don and the Caucasus were also sites of these cultures.

Yamnaya is the Bronze Age, but the cattle herding in the steppe since the beginning of Eneolithic at least.



Davidski said...

@Archi

There are no Sredny Stog or Khvalynsk sites between the Lower Don and the Caucasus.

Those sites have been grouped under the Orlovka culture in the past, but that was a long time ago, and I'm trying to take a fresh look at everything, especially with data from modern analyses.

So unless you can produce some modern data to back your claims there were pastoralist groups living between the Lower Don and the Caucasus during the Eneolithic, then shut up.

Anonymous said...

"Those sites have been grouped under the Orlovka culture in the past, but that was a long time ago, and I'm trying to take a fresh look at everything, especially with data from modern analyses."

Why go after people who know more than you on this issue? The Orlovka culture is the Neolithic culture, which has nothing to do with the Eneolithic.

"There are no Sredny Stog or Khvalynsk sites between the Lower Don and the Caucasus.
So unless you can produce some modern data to back your claims there were pastoralist groups living between the Lower Don and the Caucasus during the Eneolithic, then shut up."

It has been known for a long time and there is nothing new in it.

https://i.ibb.co/VWFX0bc/image.png

Davidski said...

@Archi

I don't accept that map. It looks weird, with Sredny Stog settlements north of the Don and supposed Sredny Stog burials as far south as the eastern North Caucasus.

And it contradicts every other source I've looked at, which suggests that Sredny Stog was located north of the Lower Don.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski
"I don't accept that map. It looks weird, with Sredny Stog settlements north of the Don and supposed Sredny Stog burials as far south as the eastern North Caucasus."

It's just your problem. There are no other sources, because they do not deal with Sredniy Stog culture, and Russian and Ukrainian scientists (Kotova) are engaged in it.

Davidski said...

@Archi

It's not my problem.

I'm actually not interested in archeological definitions used by various authors. You should go to a different blog or forum if you want to discuss things like that.

Can you provide some useful information based on modern analytical techniques about these so called Eneolithic steppe sites?

You know, like something from the last 10 years that is based on science?

Anonymous said...

@@Davidski "I'm actually not interested in archeological definitions used by various authors. You know, like something from the last 10 years that is based on science?"

All that I write is based only on science, if you are not interested in it, then these are only your problems, and if you are interested, read their description of the Kotova, Early Eneolithic in the Pontic Steppe. 2008.

Davidski said...

@Archi

In fact, there's very little substance in what you and FrankN usually post.

Most of the stuff is outdated by at least by 10 years.

Show us real evidence of pastoralism on the Eneolithic steppe between the Lower Don and the Caucasus, not a paragraph from an old book claiming the presence of sheep, goats or whatever.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski "Most of the stuff is outdated by at least by 10 years."

You know, in archaeology, not much changes in 30 years, so in 10 years, almost nothing becomes obsolete. The 2008 book is not outdated in any way, all the same is published this year.
Archaeology is not genetics, there is a completely different rate of life, views change only after new excavations.

Davidski said...

@Archi

Can you actually provide reliable, modern data as evidence that the Eneolithic groups living between the Lower Don and the Caucasus were foremost pastoralists rather than hunters and fishers?

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

Research is conducted entirely for culture, fishing for the Sredniy Stog culture in general is recorded only for the settlement itself on the Sredniy Stog island on the Dnieper river.

Kotova 2008 "Thus on the basis of materials of the Early Eneolithic monuments the
complex economy of Sredniy Stog population can be reconstructed. It included
agriculture with the cultivating of wheat, barley, millet, vetch ervilia and,
perhaps, pea, as well as cattle-breeding with the breeding of cattle, sheep,
goat, pig and horse. Hunting also played an important role in the life of
Sredniy Stog population, who hunted on saiga, donkey, aurochs, red deer, hare,
badger and otter. Prestigious economy developed in the Sredniy Stog society as
well as prestigious and economically profitable exchange, which strengthen the
ties not only between the Sredniy Stog communities, but also improved relations
of steppe population with the outside world."

You simply do not know much about archaeological issues. The Dereivka culture south of the Don already has no monuments, but you extrapolate the Dereivka culture to the earlier time of the Sredniy Stog culture.

Davidski said...

@Archi

It included agriculture with the cultivating of wheat, barley, millet, vetch ervilia and,
perhaps, pea, as well as cattle-breeding with the breeding of cattle, sheep,
goat, pig and horse.


Wow. Impressive if true.

But can you back this up with another, more recent source than Kotova 2008 that actually has modern data of some sort?

And if so, can you show us the results for any Eneolithic sites located between the Lower Don and the Caucasus?

Rob said...

Here is one, although it focusses on Dnieper region rather than Don-Kuban

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-020-01014-4?fbclid=IwAR1yltF4-gXHjmXKsUiB5DVvBKnKA9cpIlJvy01vjT_0LY1p2ZsGdKYa1BQ

In short: ''It is important to note that fishing was pivotal in terms of subsistence strategies from 10,200calBC onwards in this region, and that despite assertions that climate influenced the timing and adoption of agriculture in Ukraine, regional variation and asynchronicity must be taken into account. In the Dnieper Region we see continuity in fisher-hunter-forager lifeways through to at least c. 3500calBC, when areas of Ukraine to the west of the Dnieper have already developed some degree of pastoralism, with associated agricultural activity.''

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

Long-term settlements of this culture are only on the Don and a little on the Dnieper border, in other places only burials, the population was very mobile. And in the pre-Caucasus, many burials were attributed to the Khvalynsk culture, but Kotova disputes this. Accordingly, all pet animals are only from settlements, there are controversial points, the Kotova believes that the horse was not wild, but domesticated.

Davidski said...

@Archi

Well I'm not going to accept the views of Kotova without corroboration from other sources and from modern data.

If you can show me evidence of widespread domesticated animals, such as horses, on the Eneolithic steppe from the Lower Don to the Caucasus then that would be awesome. But you haven't even come close to doing that yet.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski
"If you can show me evidence of widespread domesticated animals, such as horses, on the Eneolithic steppe. But you haven't even come close to doing that yet."


I'm not going to do it, I wrote "there are controversial points, the Kotova believes that the horse was not wild, but domesticated." She argues, but not me.

The economy of the hole culture was cattle breeding.

Davidski said...

@Archi

The economy of the hole culture was cattle breeding.

Can you show me a recent paper on the topic. Something like this?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-020-01014-4?fbclid=IwAR1yltF4-gXHjmXKsUiB5DVvBKnKA9cpIlJvy01vjT_0LY1p2ZsGdKYa1BQ

Why doesn't this paper mention anything about cattle breeding in eastern Ukraine?

Anonymous said...

@Davidski "Why doesn't this paper mention anything about cattle breeding in eastern Ukraine?"

Because the Neolithic of Yasinovatka on the Dnieper has no relation to the Eneolithic of the Sredniy Stogy culture. Here everything is much simpler, full of pet animal remains have been preserved.


Davidski said...

@Archi

I found something recent about the rise of pastoralism in southeastern Ukraine. The dates listed here don't appear to match your claims.

The lipid residues revealed that ruminant dairy products were exploited by the communities of the steppe from the Mid-Eneolithic period (MikhailovkaI site). This suggests that these communities were pastoralists possessing a sophisticated knowledge of animal domestication. According to the zooarchaeological record for this site, animal husbandry became the primary subsistence strategy in the 4th millennium BC. At first, the livestock consisted mainly of sheep and goats, with a shift to cattle only detected with appearance of the Yamnaya culture (3100 BC onwards).

Differing modes of animal exploitation in North-Pontic Eneolithic and Bronze Age Societies

Davidski said...

@All

Is there any reliable, preferably recent lipid residue and zooarchaeological data for the Eneolithic from the steppes between the Black and Caspian seas?

Anyone?

rozenblatt said...

@Davidski Something like this?
DIET AND CHRONOLOGY OF NEOLITHIC-ENEOLITHIC CULTURES (FROM 6500 TO4700 CAL BC) IN THE LOWER VOLGA BASIN
https://ipae.uran.ru/sites/default/files/publications/users/Vybornov%20et%20al.pdf

Davidski said...

@roznefag

Thanks, so domesticates (goats and sheep) appeared in the Volga Delta and north of there in 5200-4700 calBCE with the Cis-Caspian culture. But the earliest cattle appeared with the Khvalynsk culture, probably in 4700-4400 calBCE, if we take into account reservoir effect.

The interesting question is where did these domesticates come from?

However, in any case, the area I'm more interested in is well to the southwest of the sites studied in this paper.

Davidski said...

I can't see any dates for cattle bones in this paper.

But sheep bones from the Khvalynsk burial are dated to 4447–4417 calBCE. At Oroshaemoe, which I think is a Cis-Caspian culture site, they're dated to 4724–4557 calBCE. See table 5.

So it looks like sheep were definitely being herded in the north Caspian area as early as the spread of the human North Caucasus Piedmont steppe genetic ancestry, or even earlier.

Rob said...

Hold on; they say “ Based on the new results, we can date the Cis-Caspian culture to the interval from ca. 5200 to 4700 cal BC.”, but the sheep bone dates to 47-4500 BC. (?)

Davidski said...

Reservoir effect?

Sheep don't feed on fish.

Rob said...

Haha maybe they do
Oroshaemoe has both Caspian and Khvalynsk culture layers . So bone could actually be from Khvalynsk layer

vAsiSTha said...

@epoch
"Either with what you state above or with a very early wheat find in an Afanasievo context. We now have two possible transfer routes."

Tongtian cave is not afanasievo context. Quit overreaching.

The inner Asian mountain corridor is extremely important and ancient route. Not only did oxus people/material reach tarim through this route before 3000bce, post 2000bce the east kazakh people from junggar plains reached swat as well. And post 500bce, sakas from that area reach south Asia as well. Onge admizture is also seen on that route going northwards post 1500bce. Buddhism reached Tarim from Pakistan/afghanistan using this road, which became known as the silk road. So the south has always had a strong cultural & material impact on tarim, from 3200bce to 700ce

epoch said...

"Tongtian cave is not afanasievo context. Quit overreaching."

http://www.kaogu.cn/en/News/New_discoveries/2017/1226/60553.html

"For the past two years’ excavation, it reflected that the deposition in Tongtiandong Cave was thick and the most in-depth spot was 3 meters below the surface. The excavated area contained 14 stratums, which were classified into four groups.

Pottery, bronze ware, iron ware and millstones were found in the stratum of the early Iron Age and the Bronze Age, mainly belonging to Afanasievo Culture and Karasuk Culture.
"

vAsiSTha said...

@epoch
wheat has been found in the oldest layer at the site, no afanasievo contact was seen at that layer. your bias is making you clutch at straws.

If you want to claim that afanasievo people at least saw or heard of wheat in their cultural lifetime, of course they did.
Did they then invent PIE words for agriculture which ended up all across eurasia, absolutely not.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

"The interesting question is where did these domesticates come from?"

Cattle spread most probably along the Forest Steppe towards the East. Cattle need more water than sheep and goats and mostly prefer Semi-Forested areas. Cattle MtDNA Haplogroup T3 became prominent in Europe early on and with the arrival of Afanasevo near Northern China also became prominent there. So going by this it is most probable that Cattle spread from the Balkans and or Eastern Central Europe to Khvalynsk.




Davidski said...

@Ric

I think this is one of the important questions that finally needs to be settled with ancient DNA, because right now there are still several possible solutions in regards to where Khvalynsk and Yamnaya got their cattle: 1) East-Central Europe, 2) Balkans 3) Caucasus, 4) two or more of these places.

This thesis, embargoed for another three months, might be informative in this context, but I doubt it.

http://www.tara.tcd.ie/handle/2262/82803

However, maybe it will solve the sheep puzzle...

Finally, the demonstration of genetic structure in sheep indicates geographic structure similar to that of modern breeds existed in the ancient Eurasian sheep population, while tentative conclusions are formed regarding subsequent sheep migrations post-Bronze Age.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Interesting. Thanks.

For cattle my bet is on Moldova and parts of Forest Steppe Ukraine near the Upper Bug and Dniester Rivers as origins...






zardos said...

The contacts with the Bug-Dniester related cultures in the West is decisive and imho not that interesting because its so clear in SSC. But of course, the final proof is still good to have.
More interesting to me is from where and when sheeps and goats came the the lower Don area and how this relates to human migrations.

vAsiSTha said...

Theres difeinitely non CHG iran component in Progress & Vonyuchka samples on top of EHG and CHG. Look at the improved fits. qpAdm also agrees.

Target,Distance,GEO_CHG,RUS_Khvalynsk_En
RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001,0.05073303,41.8,58.2
RUS_Progress_En:PG2001,0.04235550,39.2,60.8
RUS_Progress_En:PG2004,0.04674645,30.0,70.0
Average,0.04661166,37.0,63.0

Target,Distance,GEO_CHG,RUS_Khvalynsk_En,TKM_Geoksyur_En
RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001,0.03418978,18.8,53.2,28.0
RUS_Progress_En:PG2001,0.03194835,21.8,57.2,21.0
RUS_Progress_En:PG2004,0.03867468,14.4,66.0,19.6
Average,0.03493760,18.3,58.8,22.9

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

This is what you're seeing...

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1c8gUMYnQ2QtCkPKxI-sLez67Il2QwBUA/view?usp=sharing

Not admixture from Iran, but a shift away from CHG. So the algorithm is forced to compensate.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

"I found something recent about the rise of pastoralism in southeastern Ukraine. The dates listed here don't appear to match your claims."

This statement of yours does not match both texts.

ЭThe lipid residues revealed that ruminant dairy products were exploited by the communities of the steppe from the Mid-Eneolithic period (MikhailovkaI site). This suggests that these communities were pastoralists possessing a sophisticated knowledge of animal domestication. According to the zooarchaeological record for this site, animal husbandry became the primary subsistence strategy in the 4th millennium BC. At first, the livestock consisted mainly of sheep and goats, with a shift to cattle only detected with appearance of the Yamnaya culture (3100 BC onwards)."


vAsiSTha said...

@davidski
This is what Matt said in a previous post (emphasis mine), and I agree with him because that is what all methods show. Now you need to tell us how a pop more related to ganj dareh than expected (vahaduo and qpAdm gives more% to geoksyur than CHG even) appears north of CHG and the caucasus mountains, very close to the EHG area, 3 millenia after CHG. Travel from east of caspian seems like a very good bet.

"But the reason why Darkveti doesn't work is because if you combined with Khvalysnk, the f3 affinity it would give to Ganj Dareh is too low, not that the affinity to Koros_N / Barcin_N would be too high.

There doesn't seem to me to be any way to square that circle without a population that is neither Ganj Dareh / CHG, but is related to both."

Anonymous said...

@vAsiSTha "If you want to claim that afanasievo people at least saw or heard of wheat in their cultural lifetime, of course they did. Did they then invent PIE words for agriculture which ended up all across eurasia, absolutely not."

Understand, all the steppe people knew agriculture, they knew grew and wheat it since at least the early Eneolithic. Simply because of the unprofitability of this process, they switched to pure cattle breeding, and later to pure nomadism, but even the pure steppe people of Aryans still grew barley, because they also had to have supplies for the winter. Scythians of the Pamirs also grew millet.



Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

There doesn't seem to me to be any way to square that circle without a population that is neither Ganj Dareh/CHG, but is related to both.

Yes, that's more or less correct. But your explanation for it doesn't work, because with decent enough outgroups your three-way models are total fails.

You can see the reason for it HERE.

The Caucasus is one of the major genetic borders in West Eurasia. So of course there's no CHG in Eneolithic steppe. It's something that is only distantly related to CHG.

Try and get your melon around that. Surely it's not too difficult.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi said
"the pure steppe people of aryans" its hard to take you seriously man

From Mallory
" As Anthony remarks in this symposium, there is really no serious evidence for arable agriculture (domestic cereals) east of the Dnieper until after c 2000 BCE (see also Ryabogina & Ivanov 2011; Mallory, in press:a). This means that there is also no evidence for domestic cereals in the Asiatic steppe until the Late Bronze Age (Andronovo etc). From the perspective of the Pontic-Caspian model, the ancestors of the Indo-Iranians and Tokharians should not cross the Ural before c 2000 BCE at the very earliest"

".. but if there was little or no agriculture east of the Dnieper, then how can we describe the eastern archaeological cultures of the Don (Repin), Volga (Khvalynsk) or the entire Don-Ural region (Yamnaya) as Indo-European if they lacked arable agriculture? That the steppe populations exploited wild plants such as Chenopodium and Amaranthus is well known and while this might explain the ambivalence of some of the cereal names to reflect a specific cereal type (rather than just ‘grain’) we would still need to explain why the semantic variance among cognate words is largely confined to ‘wheat’, ‘barley’ and ‘millet’ as if at least one of these was the original referent (and not some wild grain)."

Anonymous said...

@vAsiSTha

Are you friends with your head? Arians is Sintashta after 2100 BC, Andronovo after 2000 BC.

vAsiSTha said...

@Davidski, sure the 3 way model with Geoksyur isnt great, but its much better than CHG+EHG which is a miserable fail. the proportions are in line with what vahaduo gives.

left pops:
Steppe_Eneolithic
Georgia_Kotias.SG - 0.162 +- 0.032
Geoksyur_EN - 0.234 +- 0.033
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN - 0.604 +- 0.016
chisq 17.4 tailprob 0.0148 result file

A 4 way model which works

left pops:
Steppe_Eneolithic
Georgia_Kotias.SG - 0.105 +- 0.037
Geoksyur_EN - 0.192 +- 0.034
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN - 0.589 +- 0.017
Caucasus_Eneolithic - 0.114 +- 0.042
chisq 10.44 tailprob 0.107 result file

Anonymous said...

@vAsiSTha

Are you friends with your head? Arians is Sintashta after c. 2100 BC, Andronovo after c. 2000 BC.

Understand that from the early Eneolithic period, the Sredniy Stog culture grew both 'wheat’,' barley’ and ' millet’, but in small quantities, and subsequent cultures refused to grow cereals at all, Yamnaya did not grow them at all. This is due to the fact that the cultivation of cereals is unprofitable in the steppe, but PIE all cereal names were known, and even Arias knew PIE the name of barley and the term arable land.

epoch said...

@vAsiSTha

"This means that there is also no evidence for domestic cereals in the Asiatic steppe until the Late Bronze Age (Andronovo etc)."

Again, that changed. Despite your protestations we have now a connection of wheat and barley with Afanasievo and Karasuk. There is no conclusive evidence maybe for the earliest find, but there are wheat and barley samples from ~5200 y BP, ~5100 y BP, ~4900 y BP, ~4300 y BP, 4000 y BP and ~3600 y BP. So not just the oldest layer.

See supp table 1.

Ric Hern said...

Apparently the Romanov Sheep Breed which developed around the Upper Volga split from other Primitive Northern European Short Tailed Sheep very early...in other words the Viking expansion can not explain its origins...

Andrzejewski said...

Herodotus described the Colchis people as dark skinned just like Egyptians, so maybe the lack of EHG and WHG might’ve played a role in them not passing as Europeans

FrankN said...

Dave: Frank (..) I'm guessing your original intention was to debunk this claim in my blog post, right?

"So rather than being culturally advanced colonists from some Near Eastern civilization, the ancestors of the Yamnaya herders were a relatively primitive local people who still largely relied on hunting and fishing for their subsistence."

Not at all. I meant my opening statement seriously! I fully aggree that we aren't talking about "culturally advanced colonists from some Near Eastern civilization". We might think about Meshoko in these terms, but that's a complete different story in Terms of material culture and DNA, that doesn't have anything to do with Yamnaya ancestry.

We may discuss, how "largely [they] relied on hunting and fishing for their subsistence" - I think a single isotopic analysis from just one Nalchik individual isn't sufficient for any final conclusion. However, so far the Piedmont hasn't delivered anything resembling grain storage pits, or cattle perches (as Svobodnoe has), so it is IMO fully justified to assume a substantial hunting-fishing element in their subsistence (btw. supported by the substantial fraction of equids in the bone assemblage that - for all we know now the Steppe during the Eneolithic - were not yet domesticated.)

I only take some issue with the term "primitive". I think that doing brain surgery with quite some precision and apparently good survival rates of the treated reflects quite a level of cultural advancement - an advancement not expressed in cattle heads and stone walls, but nevertheless an advancement. But that's about the only thing where I feel your thread opener might require review.

FrankN said...

Rob, Dave: Here some recent papers as concerns pastoralism in SE Ukraine:

Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute 2012: Domesticated cattle from Starobelsk I (Donetsk basin), AMS-dated 5971-5736 cal BC
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274574252

Geiger 2017 (p.49): Domesticated cattle from Vovigny, Middle Dniepr, ca. 5,500 BC (I1732/ I1738) [There are other papers that have largely ruled out reservoir effects for the Dniepr Rapids area].
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323541381_Wetland_Archaeology_and_Prehistoric_Networks_in_Europe_NEENAWA_International_Scientific_Conference_September_15th-18th_2017_eds_Y_Morozova_P_Shydlovskyi_-_Kyiv_-_Kaniv_2017

Kotova, Anthony e.a. 2017: Cow mandible from the second-lowest layer of the Razdolnoe site on the upper Calmius, directcly AMS-dated to the 56th century BC, and an ovocaprid distal tybia from the preceding layer.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324908729_N_Kotova_D_Anthony_DBrown_SDegermendzhi_P_Crabtree_Excavation_at_the_Razdolnoe_site_on_the_Kalmius_river_in_2010

An older archeozoological analysis is Benecke 1997
http://sciencepress.mnhn.fr/en/periodiques/anthropozoologica/25-26/etudes-archeologiques-sur-la-transition-du-mesolithique-au-neolithique-dans-la-region-du-nord-de-la-mer-noire

One of the various sites for which Benecke confirmed the presence of domesticated cattle, ovocaprids and pigs is Mateev Kurgan I (Neolithic layers). Acc. to Tsybrij e.a. 2018, that layer has yielded an AMS date (charcoal) of around 6,100 BC "although more 14C dates would be needed to refine the chronological position"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/322254304_Radiocarbon_chronology_of_Neolithic_in_the_Lower_Don_and_North-eastern_Azov_Sea

Acc. to Benecke 1997, the share of domesticated animals rose from below 10% in Sursk I to nearly 40% in Sursk II-IV, and 75% in Sredny Stog I (Kotova has higher figures, as she counted equids as domesticated, while Benecke considered them as hunted).

Based on these findings, the Sursk Culture (from ca. 6,000 BC on) is now regarded as earliest herding culture east of the Dniepr - a trait taken over by the subsequent Dniepr-Donetsk/ "Mariupol" communities.

FrankN said...

cont'd:

The prevailing opinion (e.g. Anthony 2007) used to be that Herding reached the Dniepr from Anatolia via the Balkans (Starcevo-Criş) and ultimately the Bug-Dniester Culture.
However, recent research in Ukraine has constantly pushed back dates for the appearance of domesticated cattle East of the Dniepr to now ca. 6,000-5,800 BC (even earlier, if the Mateev Kurgan date can be trusted). At the same time, it has become clear that the early Criş culture stayed confined to the Carpathian Basin, and only arrived in the upper valleys of the Seret and Prut about 5800–5700 BC. IOW - in all likelyhood, Herding commenced earlier in Eastern Ukraine (Sursk, Dnieper-Donetsk) than in the West (Bug-Dniester).

Moreover, there yet lacks an archeological credible path for Bug-Dniester - Sursk contacts. Essentially, the area between the Bug and Dniepr is void of any archeological findings for the first half of the 6th mBC. In addition, the assumed trail would have landed further north on the Dniepr, at Buz'ki (near Cherkassy). Recent research (Kovalchuk 2018), however, has failed to demonstrate the presence of any domesticated animals at Buz'ki for the 6th mBC.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/323232319_Animal_remains_from_Neolithic_settlements_of_the_Middle_Dnieper_area_Ukraine

As such, the idea of a "Neolithisation from the South" (i.e. the Caucasus) is gaining renewed interest. See, e.g. the map in Lemmen/Gronenborn 2017
https://arxiv.org/abs/1702.06977

A key argument here is that, while Caucasian (Shulaveri-Shomu) farming has so far only yielded AMS dates from 6,000 BC onwards, the lowest levels of Arashten have not yet been excavated, and it is expected that they may date to as early as 6,600 BC. If true, and if these layers yielded evidence for the presence of livestock, this could push back the timeframe for Caucasian farming far enough that it could become a credible origin for Herding further north (e.g. transmitted via Chokh, Dagestan).

Ultimately - here I am fully with you, Dave - we will need animal aDNA to solve the riddle. It is already well documented by now that Caucasian Neolithic pigs and goats belonged to different mtDNA hgs than Anatolian/ Balkan ones, and apparently a similar finding will be presented for sheep.
[For goats, see https://science.sciencemag.org/content/361/6397/85)

Rob said...

@ FrankN

The odd cattle bone in Ukraine by 5000 BC fits within the appearance of LBK in western Ukraine
We have aDNA from Vovnigi- which you focus on the 4 yo 7% rise in CHG.

Again, the papers outline - ''To the north Caucasus, agriculture spread from the
central and southern Caucasus, where it existed during the Shulaveri-Shomutepe Culture, dated to the 6–5th millennia calBC (Lisitsina, Prishchepenko 1977; Lisitsina 1978; Nebieridze 1978; Lisitsina 1984). Irrigation channels were found at the Arukhlo–I, Imiris-gora, Chakh-tepe, Kiul-tepe and Alikemek-Pepesi sites (Korobkova 1999). The sites with
domesticated animal and plant remains that have seen the best investigation of archaeobotanical data are the Aratashen and Aknashen Neolithic sites in Armenia, where the majority of radiocarbon dates fall into the period of the first half of the 6th millennium calBC (Hovsepyan 2004; Hovsepyan, Willcox 2008). Early cultivars started to spread north, reaching the northern territories of the Caucasus probably only during the early metal period around the 5th millennium calBC.''

So what's new here ? Meshoko pig farmers from 4500 BC brought cattle and sheep in 5000 BC Ukraine ? I agree only animal aDNA will solve this problem, but your grasp of human population history is rather imaginative

FrankN said...

Rob: "Those Dates are probably too old; esp if based on charcoal"

Well, I think I have made pretty clear that I myself (and apparently even Tsybrij) am quite sceptical about 6,100 BC Mateev Kurgan date. But otherwise, you can neither say about Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute, nor about Anthony that they apply AMS dates uncritically. To the opposite: It was Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute who revealed the presence of a systematic reservoir effect in the order of ca. 300 years in the Donetsk Basin, and Anthony has been instrumental in revealing similar effects for the Samara area.

For the Dniepr, see Lillie e.a. 2008, who estimates a human (but not herbivore) reservoir effect around 250 y. for the (E-)Neolithic. My understanding is that this effect was already considered in the dates of the UA_Neo samples given by the respective study, but I may err here.
DOI: 10.1016/j.jas.2008.09.005

"Nothing really supports the caucasus corridor theory"

I aggree! At the moment, it is just the least unlikely among all theories.
The Balkan fails chronologically. Neolithic Central Asia may be ruled out because it didn't have domesticated pigs. And Kotova's hypothetical path directly from the Danube along the Black Sea Coast poses the problem that Crimea, according to all studies I have seen, didn't commence with herding or farming before the first half of the 4th mBC.

Mr. J said...

@FrankN,

The link that you provided about domestic goats in the Caucasus does not seem to work.

I found this study from 2016 though.


https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/06/160613090635.htm

Rob said...

@ FrankN


I'm sure you are aware that Starcevo in the northern Balkans existed by 6200 cal BC. LBK had reached western Ukraine by 5300 BC
So if domestic animal bones are confirmed in the rest of Ukraine by 5000 BC, your suggestion is that sequence 'fails chronologically', and instead the parsiminous explanation is that it was brought in via the north Caucasus, where the earliest (at present) attestation of domesticates is 4500 BC

There's something problematic with your logic.

Gill said...

So if Steppe_EN is like 48% WSHG-like according to that treemix graph which shows 48% influx into Progress_EN from the Sarazm/Karelia/Tyumen root, and then Steppe_Maykop is that plus another ~50% WSHG-like, is Steppe Maykop almost 75% WSHG-like?

Davidski said...

@Gill

There's no evidence of any WSHG input in Eneolithic steppe. You're reading the graph wrong.

Eneolithic steppe has elevated ANE-related ancestry. That's what's causing the admixture edge to be shifted to the base of the shared WSHG/EHG node.

FrankN said...

Rob - I remember we had this discussion privately before. I think your assessment is overly influenced by the situation on the Lower Don, for which the presence of domesticated animals (aside from dogs) may indeed be questionned. But this isn't about the Lower Don, it is about SE Ukraine. And here, the evidence is overwhelming now (not provided by no-names, but by highly reknowned researchers, and with another piece of evidence added every on or two years) that one must accept it.

You talk about "outdates sources". To then come with a quote [source missing] citing research from 1977(!) to 2008 about "probable" datings. I mean - this is really outdated, considering the massive excavations that have occured in the Caucasus in the context of recent oil and gas pipeline constructions.

I think I can see what irritates you - and myself also: The introduction of farming was typically associated with massive genetic shift: On the Balkans and through the Mediterranean, in India (the "Iranian" element), in all likelyhood also in Thailand. If Meshoko actually, as proposed by Trifonov, originated in Colchis, and as such Meshoko aDNA may serve as a proxy for the Colchian Neolithic, we are also talking about some 50% population replacement there during the shift to farming some time during the 6th mBC (possibly over 50% when assuming that incoming ANFs were rather Tepecik-like, as such already incorporating some CHG). And then, between Dniepr and Donets, we shall find a transition from HGs to herders (albeit not farmers) w/o significant genetic change?

Well, that's exactly what it looks to have been like! But the thing is: It is not that difficult for a hunter to become a herder - anthropology provides lots of examples for such successful conversion from Lappland and Siberia down to South Africa. You use the same skills (observing and ultimately mainpulating animals) and tools and techniques (capturing, butchering, food preparation etc.), and at some point in time, all herding cultures evolved out of selective hunting. So, at second sight, it isn't that surprising that HGs may adopt herding via imitation, w/o massive external demic influence.
The cultural shift from hunting (-fishing) to cereal farming is in contrast far more radical, and much less likely to have arisen internally. It almost certainly involves a substantial demic element. Even in that case, however, Eneolithic Ukraine seems to stand out. I mean - it obviously required (genetic) interchange with farming cultures to the West for Sredny Stog II to adopt cereal farming. But sizewise, these 20 or so EEF percent in SS II are nothing compared to the EN Balkans, or the rise in EEF ancestry during the Ertebölle - TRB transition.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

Unfortunately, you don't understand the issues and tangentialise about irrelevant side-points like Thailand. Likewise, Ertoboelle is completely different issue.
Let's stick to the topic at hand.
There are notable but subtle swings & markers of connection in Neolithic Ukraine. If you can focus on 4% CHG rise, surely you can appreciate those, so there's no point in outlining them.
Nobody has stated there was an EEF migration to the steppe. This is old news since 2015, which most people understand. But there doesn't have to be, exactly because some ideas and cattle were brought from the West to the steppe by hunter-incipient-pastoralists long-accustomed to roaming between the Tizsa & Dnieper
Anyhow, I find discussion with you unbeneficial. In fact, your circumlocutive style is quite irritating.

FrankN said...

Mr. J: For me the link works. Don't know what is the issue at your location.
For a workaround, try an internet search for "Kevin G. Daly" "Ancient goat genomes reveal mosaic domestication in the Fertile Crescent".

Hope this helps to solve your problem.

FrankN said...

Rob: What is your theory, then

Gill said...

@Davidski

So how much of Steppe_Maykop is ANE?

Davidski said...

@Gill

I don't know. You would first have to precisely define ANE and then go about measuring it with formal stats.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

Currently your argument for (major?) subsistence and genetic changes during the Eneolithic on the steppes north of the Caucasus rests on a quote that there were at least some domesticated sheep and goats at Nalchik, which is practically in the Caucasus Mountains, and may or may not have been closely associated with the Eneolithic steppe population to the north.

So I ask you again, politely, do you actually have any evidence that the Eneolithic steppe people weren't by and large hunters and fishers with long standing roots in the Don-Caspian steppe?

Please try and be as succinct as possible with your answer. A simple no will suffice.

FrankN said...

Dave: You find me irritated!

"Currently your argument for (major?) subsistence and genetic changes during the Eneolithic on the steppes north of the Caucasus rests on a quote that there were at least some domesticated sheep and goats at Nalchick

1. I don't remember having said or quoted anything about goats at Nalchik. I did quote Gimbutas 1963 on the presence of sheep bones there, a fact she herself apparently took from Kruglov, Piotrovsky and Podgaetsky 1941. I also stated in this context that her "1963 publication is, expectably, in many ways outdated". Whether that also applies to those sheep bones is beyond my knowledge - I don't have access to that publication from 1941.

2. I also believe to have made pretty clear that
(i) the archeological documentation available in English about the whole area along the Nalchik - Pjatigorsk road (E50), on which Progress and Vonyushka are located, is rather thin, and
(ii) my intention wasn't about proving anything to anybody - including you - but to share the meagre information I was able to collect with anybody interested.

3. When it comes to subsistence, I consider Shishlina e.a. 2009 as authorative, unless we get better and more recent sources. That paper introduces the "Steppe Neolithic" as earliest pastoralists in the area, and backs up the claim with a single isotopic analysis from Nalchik. I have clearly stated that I feel more analyses are required. Unfortunately, we don't have any more. If you want't to question Shishlina's conclusions, go ahead - but don't blame the messenger..

4. I have also provided a link to Reinhold & Korobov 2007 (note that S. Reinhold from the DAI is a co-author of Wang e.a. 2019 paper), according to which human settlement in the Kislovodsk Basin only started in the Eneolithic. It has remained unclear to me whether she considers Progress (Stavropol Region) as part of that basin, but Vonyushka certainly is. As such, we are - at least when it comes to Vonyushka - apparently dealing with recent immigrants. I am not sure whether immigration into a previously uninhabitated region meets your understanding of "genetic change". If so, my main argument for genetic change doesn't relate to sheep and goats, but to a publication from a reknowned archeologist who has co-authored the study in question here.

Hope these clarifications suffice for the moment.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

As such, we are - at least when it comes to Vonyushka - apparently dealing with recent immigrants.

So what's your model currently?

The people at Vonyushka migrated recently into the region from where? Central Asia? Then why aren't there any populations like that east of Caspian steppe?

I'm pretty sure that if the Vonyushka people were recent migrants into the North Caucasus steppes then they mostly came from the Lower Don or nearby. And I reckon they were hunter-fishers who, at best, may have kept a few sheep and goats.

Rob said...

I think the issue is that Frank thinks that CHG people brought pastoralism to the steppe. But they were just huntergatherers also.
He finds it difficult to accept that steppe hunters could become pastoralists after a couple of thousand years of contact & exchange with EEFs, adapting EEF animal husbandry to their specific needs into what became known as steppe pastoralism

Mr. J said...

@Rob,

By chance do you know when agriculture and domesticated animals spread into the western Georgia in the Caucasus where the Kotias type of people lived?

Rob said...

@ mr J

Where did Kotias type people live ? By the “Neolithic” in the Colchian foothills, Caves and mountain highlands
But the reason why western Georgia was a Hunter-gatherer zone is the preservation of glacial-type forests
The introduction of agriculture into western Georgia has been a debated topic. Acc to this paper

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1563011013000585


“ The first evidence of a producing economy comes from sites like Odishi. Fully Neolithic sites, then, are those that have been attributed to the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age: Sameli Klde, Samertskhle Klde, Dzudzuana, Sagvardzhile which are clearly somewhat later than eastern Georgian sites such as Shulaveri and Shomutepe.”

We are left back with - Meshoko -Darkveti arent the appropriate match for “steppe CHG”; and it’s late spread further north was quite late

FrankN said...

Dave: Now, let's get substantial!
"Do you actually have any evidence that the Eneolithic steppe people weren't by and large hunters and fishers with long standing roots in the Don-Caspian steppe?"

No need to argue about a substantial hunting-fishing element in the economy of Zamok/Piedmont - it surely existed! But they apparently also had a herding component in their economy. Would be strange if not, since genetically related Khvalynsk and SS II were at least herders. We at best may argue about the relevance of each component - fruitless IMO.

Main points are the "long standing roots in the Don-Caspian steppe". How to delineate the "Don-Caspian Steppe"? What means "long standing roots" time-wise?

Don-Caspian steppe: In your opinion Nalchik doesn't lie there. Others may differ, but that's beyond the point here. The point is to come to some mutual understanding between both of us (or not). So, Nalchik lies at an elevation of 512m a.s.l, surrounded by hills (mountains) of up to 800, in some cases above 1.000 m elevation, and is apparently not part of the Don_Caspian steppe as you understand the term. Let's take it from this [implicit] definition: Kislovodosk (810 m. a.s.l, surrounding elevations above 1.000 m a.sl.) would fall out, similarly the Baksan obsidian sources at Sajukovo (above 600m, surrounding elevations partly above 1,000 m) with its rich Mesolithic findings, and - of course - in Daghestan Neolithic Chokh (ca. 1,500 m a.s.l.) and Eneolithic Ginchi. That leaves us a/o with Kalmykia. Now, acc. https://www.chnt.at/the-mapping-of-the-archaeological-sites-of-the-republic-of-kalmykia-russian-federation/ „Currently in Kalmykia archaeological evidence from the Late Neolithic (IV millennium BC) to Medieval periods comes exclusively from burial-mound sites, the so-called kurgans and only a few settlements“. IOW- for the Eneolithic, Kalmykia is also out, and seems to have been as uninhabitated as the Kislóvodsk Basin. On the Novosvobdnoe Culture alongside the Kuban I have commented before: IMO recent, CT-related immigrants – I stand to be corrected by incoming aDNA or other material. That reduces the „Don-Caspian steppe“ essentially to areas along the lower and middle Don.

FrankN said...

Now, actually, I feel there is no big dissense between both of us in the assumption that the „steppe“ ancestry that ultimately colonised the Elbrus piedmont, and contemporarily was instrumental to the establishment of both the Sredny Stog and the Khvalynsk Cultures reached there from the Lower and Middle Don. So, the main question is: How long standing were their roots there? You have so far remained oblique in this respect. My opinion is: We are talking about the bearers of the Pre-Caspian culture here, who arrived sometimes around 5,000 BC on the Lower Volga, to then process further to the Middle/Lower Don.

Evidence? Very little. The Pre-Caspian culture stands out for (a) a herding-hunting-fishing economy that distinguishes itself from Anatolia/ Levante/ Europe/ Caucasia by the absence of any evidence for pig--breeding (a feature also documented for Khvalysnk), and (ii) quite specific lithics, most importantly „heavy duty tools“, and bifacially retouched, triangular and/or leaf/fish-shaped points. Bifacially-retouched „leaf-shaped“ points will certainly require another, specific postings, since the figure prominently in Gimbutas' Kurgan theory. When it comes to those „heavy duty tool“ (that IMO strongly resemble 5th mBC specimen from Usbekistan), Tsybrij. e.a. 2018 IMO deserves attention: „Kremennaya III is located near Kremennaya II, at a low hypsometric level. (..) New tools appeared: polished flint heavy duty tools and arrowheads. (..) Four radiocarbon dates were made on animal bones, also revealing different periods of occupation at this site: the end of the 7th to the first half of the 6th millennium BC, and during the 5th millennium BC.“ Yeah – and if they had been a bit more specific on these radiocarbon dates, we might eventually even have been able to figure out whether these „flint heavy duty tools and arrowheads.“ - obviously related to the Pri-Caspian Culture - travelled from the Volga to the Don, or the other way around.
I think the route was from the E. Caspian via the Volga to the Lower Don to the Piedmont, essentially because the lithics have no match in the Pontic-Caspian Steppe before ca. 5,000 BC, but a more detailed rationalising will certainly require more space.
As such, to answer your question: I believe the Eneolithic steppe people were hunter-herder-fishers that were present around the Middle-Lower Don from ca. 5,000 BC onwards, but of ultimately E. Caspian descent. Otherwise, you will need to define the terms „Don-Caspian steppe“ and „long-standing roots“ more precisely before I can answer precisely your question.

Mr. J said...

@Rob

So then the introduction and spread of Neolithic agriculture and domesticated animals into the Kotias Klde area of western Georgia happened quite late compared to other parts of the South Caucasus correct?

Sorry for all of the questions I am just curious to learn about this.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

I'm pretty sure that the CHG-related ancestry, essentially a sister clade of CHG, spread into the Kuban and Don-Caspian steppes from the northwestern Caucasus before the spread of Anatolian ancestry across the Caucasus.

There may also have been minor pulses of admixture from the eastern Caucasus into the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe that shifted the genetic structure of the largely hunter-fisher populations there away from the CHG > EHG cline.

This is the most parsimonious solution based on genetics, archeology and geography.

Vladimir said...

@Davidski This would be consistent with the linguistic hypothesis, but there is a problem with Y haplogroups. CHG is represented by a large proportion in steppe samples to be represented only by women. But in Transcaucasia there are no ancient Y haplogroups characteristic of the steppe. Maybe haplogroup T?

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

Hunter-gatherers often practice female exogamy (bride swapping) with their neighbors to reduce inbreeding. So it's possible that this is what happened whenever it was that the CHG-related and EHG-related populations mixed to produce the Eneolithic steppe population.

However, if this mixture happened during the Mesolithic and it involved fairly small populations, then the typically southern Y-haplogroups may have been lost due to drift over time.

I don't think Y-haplogroup T is an ancient steppe marker. It probably arrived in the North Caucasus during the Maykop period.

Rob said...

@ Mr J

Not at all. Yes - apparently, according to from what Ive skimmed. But it's not something Ive devoted a huge amount of research into.

Davidski said...

@zardos

You said that goats were kind of important. Have you read this?

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.01.14.905505v1.full.pdf

Is it relevant/informative?

Vladimir said...

"Approximately at the turn of the VI/V – the beginning of the V Millennium BC, the demographic situation changes radically with the appearance of the Western
Caucasus of the Eneolithic darkveti-meshoko culture. Probably,
this process had the character of re-colonization in the conditions of
warm and humid climate of the middle Holocene and associated with it
distribution of broad-leaved forests along the Eastern coast of the Black sea (from SE to NE), as well as settlement in the same direction of the population, the economic basis of which was the breeding of pigs on a natural food base. In the V Millennium BC, this culture moved to the foothill plain (Svobodnoe), went beyond the Western Caucasus (Nalchik burial ground, Castle), and even manifested itself beyond its borders (Novodanilovka culture)."
(MOUNTAINS AND PLAINS: A MODEL OF THE CULTURAL DEVELOPMENT OF THE WESTERN CAUCASUS IN THE V-III THOUSAND BC.
Victor A. Trifonov
Institute of history of material
cultures of the Russian Academy of Sciences, Saint Petersburg,
Russia, 2015 year)

Davidski said...

The Darkveti-Meshoko samples that are available have too much Anatolian ancestry (~30%) to be relevant to Eneolithic steppe, which doesn't appear to have any Anatolian ancestry.

zardos said...

@Frank: I love to read your comments, but oftentimes you seem to play the advocatos diaboli by presenting interesting, but just less likely alternative scenarios.

It seems the steppe people in part adopted intensive animal husbandry for social reasons and for selling animals to their trading partners. This is very obvious in the elite burials with lot of metal objects later. I even think they started as outsourced cowboys for BDC/TCC.
They controlled the steppe and they bred cattle for themselves and their trading partners alike for processed goods in particular.
Actually I believe that this contacts intensified and that the large TCC settlements relied on "beef from the steppe" to feed the townspeople properly.
Obviously any conflict would have favoured the steppe side.
We need to analyse animal remains in the West, pretty sure in the late peaceful phase whole herds were brought by steppe pastoralists.
And of course I still think horse domestication and riding is old.

As for Surskaja, thats clearly the link and I think its pretty obvious we deal with Western Neolithic people.

And I agree with David about the NW Caucasian route. R. yar is not younger and we have nothing from the submerged littoral zone. That will be key.

zardos said...

@David: We need the completely reconstructed migration path into Europe. But I have little doubt that goats were introduced from South of the Caucasus and spread by the same people which built R. Yar and came via the Western Caucasus.

This needs to be proven of course. The paper gives hints. The timing is suspicious if accepting older dates for the Lower Don.

old europe said...


A study about Romanian ancient dna



https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5483232/

old europe said...



In this study they found other 4 R1b samples. But it is not clear which type R1b V-88 or R1b P297.....or maybe R1b M-269

Anonymous said...

@zardos

"They controlled the steppe and they bred cattle for themselves and their trading partners alike for processed goods in particular.
Actually I believe that this contacts intensified and that the large TCC settlements relied on "beef from the steppe" to feed the townspeople properly.
Obviously any conflict would have favoured the steppe side."

No livestock sales have been recorded, and it is pointless. Moreover, TCC with the steppe traded minimally, most likely the exchange was for political reasons, TCC was not interested at all for the steppes, they simply had nothing to take, they received copper from another source, and nothing else interested them. Of course, to think that cattle in the steppe was bred for trading partners is simply ridiculous.

Andrzejewski said...

@Avistha “Davidski, sure the 3 way model with Geoksyur isnt great, but its much better than CHG+EHG which is a miserable fail. the proportions are in line with what vahaduo gives.


You keep forgetting the EEF component in Yamnaya so it’s not just EHG/CHag cline

zardos said...

@Archi: We see hints for trade with tge steppe in TCC all around. Including pottery. Whether cattle was traded is no question. The question the quantity and importance.
What do you think the later elite burials in the borderzone look like?
They traded for metal prestige objects and there was an established trading route before the collapse of TCC.

Anonymous said...

@zardos

Kotova "So, the study of the monuments shows, that the contacts of steppe and
Tripolye population could be fixed from the beginning of Tripolye A and become
the most intensive in the B I and B I-II periods. The influence of Tripolye on
the Sredniy Stog ceramics traditions was minimal and manifested, mainly, among
the population of the most west region – the steppe Dnieper basin. In its turn,
the Tripolye population borrowed traditions of making ceramics with shell
inclusions, triangular strokes, short and middle comb imprints as a result of
prolonged contacts with the steppe neighbors.

There is a point of view about mutually beneficial cooperation (Даниленко,
Шмаглій 1972) or exchange, which existed between the Tripolye and steppe
population (Телегин 1985, 2000; Рассамакин 1997; Мовша 1998, etc). It is
possible, that the distribution of ceramics with the steppe traces in the
Tripolye culture was related to the marriages with the Sredniy Stog women
(Палагута 1998; Видейко 1999). Those women continued making their usual vessels,
adapting them to the Tripolye economy (for example, making the flat bottom and
stocky proportions). This suggestion explains the singleness of ceramics with
shell inclusions in the period A and gradual increase of its quantity during
period B I with the prevailing of typical Tripolye pottery on the settlements.
Perhaps, the numbers of Sredniy Stog women and their descendants in the Tripolye
communities during period A were very small and gradually increased during B I
and B I-II periods. According to the prevailing of coarse pottery with shell
inclusions in the southernmost Tripolye settlements, I can suggest, that the
greatest number of the Sredniy Stog women lived there."



Anonymous said...

@zardos

"In the end of period A and during B I period of the Tripolye culture the
close contacts between the Sredniy Stog and Tripolye population are traced in
southern regions of the forest-steppe in the Dniester and South Bug basins and
the Dnieper-South Bug interfluve. Perhaps, conjugal ties become the most
frequent exactly in that time and caused the distribution of pottery with
Tripolye influence at the Sredniy Stog sites in the steppe Dnieper basin and the
coarse ceramics with a shell inclusions and drawn-stroke ornamentation at the
Tripolye settlements.
Strange as it may seem, the Tripolye population was more interested in
contacts, than the steppe inhabitants. They were newcomers, which gradually
moved to the east through the forest-steppe area, occupying lands, which were
settled by the Bug-Dniester and Kievo-Cherkassy Neolithic population. The
Tripolye population needed allies and peaceful relations with the neighbors,
especially with those, whose territories were unnecessary for them. Among such
neighbors were the bearers of Azov-Dnieper and Sredniy Stog cultures, who
occupied other natural-climatic zone, which was useless for the Tripolye
population during the Early Eneolithic. Even during the Later Eneolithic and
Early Bronze Age they occupied only the steppes in the South Bug basin and to
the west of it, staying out of the territories of the Sredniy Stog descendants.
Steppe inhabitants were interested in those contacts, first of all,
because it received the copper and tools from them. That metal was obtained
through the mediation of Tripolye population and as the result of immediate
visits to centers of metallurgy and metalworking of the Balkan-Carpathian
metallurgical province. Perhaps, conjugal ties made a pass through the Tripolye
territory easier and guaranteed help during exchange expedition. It explains the
fact, that ceramics with the Sredniy Stog influence is known practically at all
settlements of forest-steppe Dniester basin in the end A and B I periods of
Tripolye, while in the basin of South Bug and Bug-Dnieper interfluve this
pottery was found rarely, in spite of fact, that this regions is closer to the
steppe Dnieper basin, where the Sredniy Stog population lived. The Dniester
basin was the important region and the route of the exchange expeditions of
steppe population, which went to the Lower Danube or Transylvania for the metal.
Therefore it was very important to have relatives there."

Anonymous said...

@zardos

"According to the burials of the first period of Azov-Dnieper culture,
which were related to the Sredniy Stog culture, I can reconstruct the following
situation. The Azov-Dnieper population had children funeral clothes and grave
goods, which differed from the adult inventory and clothes. First of all,
children had richly decorated funeral costumes, which included rare kinds of
beads and pendants. But, there were no tools in their grave goods. Teenagers,
aged 10-17, were similar to the children in the case of inventory and clothes
adornments. According to the similarity of the grave goods of men and women in
the age of 17-20 and 20-35 years I can suggest, that they became adult for about
17 years. Materials of the Neolithic cemeteries obviously demonstrated the
specifics of social status of people, who were married and thus guaranteed the
reproduction of community. They were accompanied with the different inventory
and were dressed in the decorated clothes. Perhaps, women burials without
adornments on the clothes fix the unequal position of women in the childbearing
age. Women, who were older, than 35 years, and the majority of men of that age
had also no adornments (Котова 1994; 1997; Котова, Тубольцев 1999).

All mentioned regularities have been also traced in the Sredniy Stog
burials. Comparing burials of children and adults (Table 24), we can see, that
they didn’t differ in the main categories of artifacts. But, if some separate
adornments (one pendant, one or two beads) accompanied the burials of adults,
than children had more richly decorated clothes, which included large numbers of
beads, pendants and bracelets. Ceramics is typical for the children burials (the
burial 7 in kurgan 5 of Mukhin 2, khutor Popov, burial 15 of Igren cemetery,
burials 7 and 9 of Decea Muresului and burial 2 of Giurgiulesti). It was
encountered twice as rarely among the burials of adults. But children burials
were accompanied with the flint artifacts, especially tools, more rarely, than
adult."

Anonymous said...

@zardos

"The Early Eneolithic burials with the symbols of power are especially
interesting for the researchers. Only one burial with the stone mace in the
Mariupol cemetery and burial in Lugansk with the bone finial were found on the
main Sredniy Stog territory. Perhaps, the copper hummer from the ruined burial
of Petro-Svistunovo was also the symbols of power. All other burials with maces
and scepters were situated in Northern Caucasus and to the west of the South
Bug. Y.Y.Rassamakin considered burials with the symbols of power as the burials
of patriarchal chiefs (Рассамакін 1997). But I think, that the use of term
“leader” would be more correct. Sredniy Stog culture did not reached the level
of chiefdom in its social development and it is testified by its burials data.
took place. According to the ethnographical data, their participants were
especially composed from the men, who had high social status, and the leaders of
villages headed those expeditions (Шнирельман 1998, с.341).

Taking into account, that the decoration of funeral clothes of men in the
age of 17-35 years and the absence of decorations in the burials of men, who
were older than 35-40 years, was typical for the Neolithic steppe inhabitants,
which was ancestor of the Sredniy Stog population, while there was no
decorations in the Sredniy Stog burials, which belonged to the men, who were
older than 40 years, I can suggest, that exactly men, who were older than 40
years, were buried without adornments, but with the maces.
It was typical for the late-clan community, that the status of leader was
acquired in the mature age. First at all, leadership was provided by the
personal qualities: physical health and strength, intelligence, organizational
talent, good knowledge of mythology, magical rites, etc. Successful exchange
also proved special majesty of leader (Шнирельман 1998, с.112). But the burials
with maces and decorated clothes in Mariupol, Decea Muresului and Giurgiulesti
cemeteries allow me to suppose, that even men in the age of 30-35 years could
become leaders in the individual cases. This supposition is testified the
anthropological determination of the skeleton of the burial 4 of Giurgiulesti
with symbol of power and richly decorated costume. It belonged to the 20-25-
year-old man. Perhaps, during the Early Eneolithic leadership was connected with
the active prestigious and economically profitable exchange related to the long
distance expeditions, participation in which was difficult to a men of senile
age."

The burials with the symbols of power on the main territory of this culture are
very rare, and they are situated in the same area of cemetery as the burials of
other members of clan, without any distinguished features, such as special place
of burial, size or burial constructions. All these features were typical for the
burials of significant persons in the societies, which didn’t reach the stage of
chiefdom (Крадин 1995).
It is necessary to note, that two Sredniy Stog burials with symbols of
powers outside the main cultural territory had complicated funeral construction.
The burial 4 of Giurgiulesti was made in pit with ledges and depth about 5 m.
Pit construction included stones and wood roof. The burial 7 in kurgan 1 of
Suvorovo had stone cromlech. It is possible that under the influence of the
Tripolye and Gumelnitsa cultures with more advanced social ctructure the Sredniy
Stog population began to emphasize the high status of leader complicated funeral
construction, especially on the territory of the Tripolye and Gumelnitsa
cultures.
Not numerous anthropological definitions and archeological materials allow
us to imagine functions and age of the Sredniy Stog leaders. The burials with
the symbols of power dominated on those territories, where exchange expeditions

Leron said...

There seems to be 3 “Greater CHG” components. The classic Caucasus CHG, a more western Anatolian infused CHG that traveled along the Taurus and Anatolian coast, and a more divergent Oxus “Eastern CHG”. All these contributed to different Steppe populations at one point or another. Caucasus CHG spread broadly but didn’t go north as deep as the Eastern CHG.

zardos said...

I knew that text and I agree with everything but the idea of symbolic "exchange expeditions". Its simply too much for this.

There is a regularity: The rich burials are in the borderzones while trade contacts with a stable, higher cultured neighbour on the East and the West were still active.

Of course you can assume such expeditions and "exchange", but my interpretation is that this was effectively trade. Like the fortresses and weapons were not mere symbols, this too has a hard socio-economic background.

There might have been conflicts between different steppe clans for a direct access to the centres. And both TCC and Maykop could outplay them until that system collapsed and they were overrun by more evolved tribal alliances from the steppe.

However, this can be investigated and proven/disproven. They should really look at trade and food sources too for uncovering such networks.

Anonymous said...

"There is a regularity: The rich burials are in the borderzones while trade contacts with a stable, higher cultured neighbour on the East and the West were still active. Like the fortresses and weapons were not mere symbols, this too has a hard socio-economic background."

No, it was not even a symbol of power, it was just a sign of a merchant, it was issued even to Tripolyans and Balkanians, from the Steppians to local leaders as a sign that trade was being conducted with them and there was a contract. Of course, this was a pure exchange, there was no money, and high-quality Donetsk flint was exchanged for copper. These burials are rich not because rich people are buried there, but because merchants carrying goods are buried there.

zardos said...

Similarly the idea of the major TCC settlements just collapsing because one study found a "lack of central places" is similarly naive. A system which was stable for so long in multiple places usually crumbles due to external shocks even if the internal deficits were decisive for the outcome.

zardos said...

Who spoke about money? Material trade/exchange of course.

Rob said...

“Merchants “ don’t think so
These were gifting & exchange between “ great men”

Anonymous said...


Еxactly they were merchants, they traveled for copper over long distances, and the prestigious exchange of gifts existed only between border neighbors, it was not a trade, it was gifts for political reasons, including so that traders could pass through the territory. What is clearly visible.



zardos said...

@Rob: That's the kind of symbolic interpretation which is not completely wrong, but was just part of an interaction to form larger trade & exchange networks.
How anybody can believe that in this time and context no well established traderoutes of vital importance existed is beyond me.
We know them from elsewhere and all the evidence points to the fact. We need just more studied material and aspects, like tracking down the food supply for the large settlements of TCC.

zardos said...

@Archi: Yes, that is true as well. But real trade took place too. The steppe pastoralists were no passive bystanders.

Anonymous said...


Еxactly they were merchants, they traveled for copper over long distances, and the prestigious exchange of gifts existed only between border neighbors, it was not a trade, it was gifts for political reasons, including so that traders could pass through the territory. That is clearly visible.

Long-distance trade has been around for a very long time, already 30,000 years ago, people in Indonesia/Melanesia floated to distant Islands for obsidian.



vAsiSTha said...

Davidski said
"The Darkveti-Meshoko samples that are available have too much Anatolian ancestry (~30%) to be relevant to Eneolithic steppe, which doesn't appear to have any Anatolian ancestry."

Incorrect, meshoko makes the fit better with acceptable tail prob in qpadm as shown below. added it precisely because the gendstats of the model without meshoko said that minor anatolian ancestry was needed. Anatolia_N and PPN both were in the right pops.

left pops:
Steppe_Eneolithic
Georgia_Kotias.SG - 0.105 +- 0.037
Geoksyur_EN - 0.192 +- 0.034
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN - 0.589 +- 0.017
Caucasus_Eneolithic - 0.114 +- 0.042
chisq 10.44 tailprob 0.107

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

I can't reproduce your statistical fits with my outgroups.

And I know for a fact based on a wide range of analyses that Darkveti-Meshoko has nothing to do with Eneolithic steppe.

Anonymous said...

@zardos "But real trade took place too."

What is real trading? In those days, no one traded just like that, only traded what was not in place, and in the copper age it was only copper, well, in general, metals (gold). There were no trading operations like a cow for a pot. The steppe people bought only copper, sold flint, and no one would sell them copper for goats. This is evident from the fact that those who did not have a flint deposit did not have copper.

@vAsiSTha "model without meshoko said that minor anatolian ancestry was needed. Anatolia_N and PPN both were in the right pops."

That's why you have erroneous models.



vAsiSTha said...

@Archi
you should keep shut when you know diddly squat.

@davidski plz post your result. My 3 way model gives exact %s that vahaduo gives. tail prob isnt great, even vahaduo distance was a high 3.5%.
Adding an anatolian source makes it all better in qpAdm.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

If you pick a decent set of outgroups you'll see that Darkveti-Meshoko is actually rejected in favor of a two-way CHG/EHG model.

Of course the CHG/EHG model doesn't really work either. But nothing really does, because currently there are no ancient samples to make this model work.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1PtVxhXAes9kHCF-7UzN_mf9VjGMy3NyS

allsnps: YES

https://drive.google.com/open?id=188JlPXr1owuB2FlVpSNgkjgOvLrmx-gr

Samuel Andrews said...

Here's an theory about Corded Ware's origins...

Corded Ware wasn't founded by a SINGLE Steppe tribe/clan. It was founded by many who all decided to migrate into Central/North Europe. R1a Z280, R1a L664, R1a Z93, R1b L51, and more.

So, imo Corded Ware must have come from a hotbed of many different Steppe clans who in 4th milenium BC, and then all decided to leave their homeland in 3rd millenium BC. Maybe, this was Sredny Stog.

We know R1a Z93 is in Sredny Stog & Ustaovo. David says there are reports of unpublished R1b L51 and R1b Z2103 in Sredny Stog. Possibly, all "Steppe" Y DNA comes from Sredny Stog which would put it at the top for rankings as possible PIE homeland.

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews I think Cucuteni Tripolye had at least something to do with the ethnogenesis of Sredny Stog. Perhaps WHG-rich mostly-Anatolian aDNA GAC were involved in CWC’s

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

"We know R1a Z93 is in Sredny Stog"

This is definitely a mistake. R1a-Z93 Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664 * Z93/F992/S202 * FGC77882 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp!, whereas Sredniy Stog is dated before 6200 ybp! R1a-Z93* is in Italia.

I am absolutely sure that this burial in Alexandria belongs to the Srubnaya culture, it is not in the list of Eneolithic burials, in Alexandria there are burials of the Srubnaya culture.

"Corded Ware wasn't founded by a SINGLE Steppe tribe/clan."

A baseless statement.

" It was founded by many who all decided to migrate into Central/North Europe. R1a Z280, R1a L664, R1a Z93,"

The ancestor for them is definitely derived from the CWC: R1a-Z645 Z645/S224/PF6162/V1754 * Z650/CTS9754/PF6206/M750/V3726 * Z647/S441/PF6158 +5 SNP sformed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp.

@fAsiSTha you should keep shut when you know diddly squat.

Davidski said...

Yeah, when the ~3,500 BCE R1a-Z93 Usatovo samples from Ukraine and Bulgaria are published you'll be claiming they're Srubnaya too.

Hehe.

Anonymous said...

Andrzejewski said... "I think Cucuteni Tripolye had at least something to do with the ethnogenesis of Sredny Stog."

You are completely wrong thinking, the Cucuteni Tripolye and Sredniy Stog were not even neighbors, they were very far from each other and began to make contact late and in very limited areas.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski "Yeah, when the ~3,500 BCE R1a-Z93 Usatovo samples from Ukraine and Bulgaria are published you'll be claiming they're Srubnaya too."

Late Usatovo after ~3000BC is possible.

FrankN said...

Dave: "I'm pretty sure that the CHG-related ancestry, essentially a sister clade of CHG, spread into the Kuban and Don-Caspian steppes from the northwestern Caucasus"

There was an EP expansion out of Colchis into the N. Caucasus and beyond (Kuban), archeologically discussed and called "Imeretian Culture" in Golovanova e.a. 2014
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/260888422_The_Epipaleolithic_of_the_Caucasus_after_the_Last_Glacial_Maximum

However, it is unlikely that this Colchian expansion became ancestral to the CHG side of "steppe" ancestry:

1. We already have Imeretian Culture aDNA, namely Satsurblia. If directly ancestral to the Steppe CHG, it should fare better in G25 models. Moreover, according to Damgaard e.a. 2019, the population ancestral to the "Steppe CHG" split from Colchian HGs some 20kya, while the bulk of AMS dates for the North Caucasian EP only falls around 12-14,0000 BC (the Bolling-Alleröd Interstadial).

2. None of the EP/Mesolithic sites in the N. Caucasus displays any continuity into the Neolithic (all data acc. to Golovanova e.a. 2014, unless named otherwise; additional site descriptions can be found in Golovanova/Doronichev 2020: "Environment, Culture and Subsistence of Humans in the Caucasus .." [avail. as Google book]):

- Mezmaiskaya cave (some 30 km SW of Kamenomostski [Meshoko]): Uppermost level dated to ca. 6,700 cal BC, sterile afterwards;

- Gubs Gorge sites (ca. 40km E of Meshoko): Neolithic hiatus. See, e.g. http://nep2014.com/stone_age/gubs/: "In 2006 E.V. Belyaeva discovered the Chygai Rockshelter. This multilayer site contains Eneolithic [Meshoko], Mesolithic and Upper Paleolithic cultural layers."

- Baranakha 4 (Kuban basin): A medieval level, followed by EP finds; no Neolithic

- Badynoko (Baksan Gorge, ca. 50km S. of Progress II): Layer 5 AMS-dated to 4,330 +- 130 BP, layer 7 to 6,500 BC. Layer 6 „has yielded only rare flakes, flake fragments and a few helix shells“ (Golovanova e.a. 2020, p. 194).
(See also https://www.researchgate.net/publication/338487630_Psytuaje_rockshelter_-_A_new_site_documenting_the_final_of_the_Epipalaeolithic_in_the_north-central_Caucasus_Russia_Journal_of_Archaeological_Science_Reports_2020_httpswwwsciencedirectcomsciencearticl for another example of EP/Mesolithic presence near Progress w/o apparent continuation into the Neolithic).

Another important, multilayer site is Tsmi in N. Ossetia, at the junction of the Ossetian Military Road to Colchis and the Transcaucasian Highway to S. Ossetia. hat connects North and South Ossetia via the Roki pass/ tunnel. For its strategic location, Tsmi can provide us with a good idea of what was passing when through the Central Caucasus.
The lowest level at Tsmi is Mesolithic (ca. 6.4 kya). Then follow two Neolithic levels (5.9-5.7 ky BC), and finally, after some sterile sections, Chalcolithic level 4 (ca. 3,6 ky BC, Kura-Araxes pottery). So, again, a hiatus after 5.7 ky BC. [Rostunov e.a. 2009 (in German), https://www.researchgate.net/publication/283140713].

So, apparently, N. Caucasia was virtually uninhabitated prior to the arrival of the Meshoko and the Zamok/Piedmont people. If Colchian-derived EP/Mesolithic populations gave rise to Steppe aDNA, they must have done so further north, i.e. on the Lower Don. This takes us back again to the questions of which genetic profile had R.Yar, and, most importantly, to the Pre-Caspian Culture, from which acc. to recent Russian research Khvalynsk originated.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

I've already told you that model in the Damgaard paper isn't valid, because it assumes that Yamnaya is a two-way mixture of CHG and EHG related sources, when clearly it's at least a three-way mixture.

You can't accurately date the split between CHG and the CHG-related ancestry in Yamnaya if you lump another component into the equation, because that will blow out the date.

Vladimir said...

@Samuel I think you're basically right. Of course, a lot of nuances about the role of previous, subsequent, and neighboring cultures will be revealed. For example, the Khvalynsk-SSC period (5000-4000 BC) can be a consolidation period of R1a-M417 and R1b-M269. And the post-SSC period (after 4000 BC) is the period of disintegration into the subclades listed by you and not only them, but also R1b-PF7562, R1b-Z2103, too. And R1b-PF7562 is probably Hittite.

FrankN said...

An interesting publication appears to be Fedyunin 2018 (in Russian), https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/epoha-mezolita-v-mezhdurechie-dona-i-volgi-geografiya-pamyatniki-kultury
Since I don't speak Russian, I have tried to figure out his messages via Google Translate. I'd be grateful for any Russian speakers for cross-checking what I report below!
First of all, he states (emphasis is mine):
„The author of this work in 2006 in the monograph "Mesolithic Monuments of the Middle Don" all available monuments were audited and concepts of the existence of the Mesolithic era on Don [2]. In particular, there was a lack of grounds for upholding the theory of "genetic continuity" between the late Mesolithic and early Neolithic Forest-Steppe Don Basin [24]“ (p. 142 bottom right). Instead, he appears to speak out in favour of a „ genesis of the Middle Don Neolithic in the Mesolithic of the Northern Caspian or Central Asia“ (ibid.). More specifically, he constructs a backwards chain from the Middle Don Neolithic to the „Late Mesolithic of the Northwest Caspian represented by the materials of the "Harbin" group of sites [36. C. 273]. It is characterized by the microlithoid nature of the industry, the use of flat retouching in secondary processing, predominance of end scrapers, PPK, geometric microliths, plates with beveled retouched ends, incisors on broken blanks in industries (Fig. 10). The author discovers analogies to the indicated materials in the North-Eastern Caspian region (Istai culture).
Istai IV is briefly mentionned in Anthony 2007, a somewhat more extensive discussion can be found in Yanko-Hornbach e.a. (ed.) 2007: „The Black Sea Flood Question“, p. 351 ff. We seem to be dealing here with the Caspian depression between the Volga and Ural rivers, but I couldn't yet find a map that displays Istai.
Well, so far, so good. Interesting now, from Fedyunin 2018: „The complexity of the cultural-genetic issues of the Mesolithic of the steppe zone between the Don and Volga rivers is due to a small number of "reliable" sources, and poorly developed problems of diagnostic signs of cultures, characterized by an abundance of geometric microliths. Curious developments in the Mesolithic region of the North-East Caspian, where, based on a combination of finds of individual types (segment / parallelogram) the same Kalgan and Istai groups of monuments were distinguished [60, 61]. (..)
[P.M. Koltsov] finds rather extensive analogies to the studied collections in the monuments of the Caucasus, Ciscaucasia, Crimea, the Northern Caspian and Western Asia [36. S. 239]. Genesis of the Mesolithic of the Northwest Caspian Sea P.M. Koltsov connects with the sites of the Caucasus: the Mesolithic layer of caves Kvachara, Yashthva. (..) A.M. Komarov assumed the existence of all the groups of monuments identified in the North Caspian region in the framework of a single “seroglazovskoy” industrial tradition [61. S. 17]“ (p. 146).
Now, Kvachara cave near the Black Sea coast is usually listed together with Kotias Klde as an example of the Colchian Mesolithic (the Mesolithic Darkveti Culture, not to be mistaken with Trifonov's ill-constructed Eneolithic „Darkveti-Meshoko“). Whenever the „Steppe CHG“ split from Colchian HGs – I think KK1 should do better in G25 models if the EHG-CHG genetic merger took place somewhere between the Volga and the Ural river during the 7th mBC as a consequence of a long-distance „out of Colchis“ migration.
But for now, I wouldn't rule out the possibility that the apparent disappearance of „Imeretian“ settlers from N. Caucasia might reflect a migration into the Volga-Urals interfluve, followed by a millenium of admixture with EHGs (WSHGs?) there, and subsequent back-migration. It's not my favourite scenario – I still think that a S. Caspian LGM refugium, and subsequent northward migration of „eastern“ (Caspian) CHG along the Caspian coast has more speaking for it – still it is a scenario worth considering.

Davidski said...

@FrankN

There is no eastern Caspian CHG. There's only CHG from the Caucasus and then there are related clades in Iran that spread out into Central Asia during the Neolithic.

This should be clear to everyone now, including you and David Anthony.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/02/did-caucasus-hunter-gatherers-ever-live.html

FrankN said...

Otherwise, I would love to see aDNA from Rassypnaya VI. The site lies some 185 SE of Rostov-on-Don, on the "Trepanation Trail" that seems to run from the Rostov area into Vonyushka and Progress II, and appears to be the southernmost location with a solid Neolithic archeological record.
Tsybryi e.a. 2018 assign it to the "Caspian-Ciscaucasian cultural area", whatever that assignation means. They just state in this respect "The Caspian-Ciscaucasian cultural group includes material from Kremennaya II and III, Rassypnaya VI and Lagutinskaya, as well as finds from the basins of the steppe rivers of the Rostov oblast (Tsybrij 2008.60). The stone items are similar to material from the Northern Ciscaucasian, North-Western and Northern Caspian area. The pottery is not abundant."

FrankN said...

Dave: "There is no eastern Caspian CHG." What makes you so sure? We don't have any aDNA from the E. Caspian yet. And - even when risking to repeat myself: Iran_Hotu might well reflect the S. Caspian Neolithic (i.e. incursion of farmers from the Central Zagros), as was explicitly stated by the authors of the study that supplied the respective aDNA.

Ultimately, we all need to wait for more aDNA that may eventually provide clarification. Until then, any speculation is legitimate. Authorative statements, such as yours above, however, lack any base.

Let me add a few things in this context:

1. I don't have any issues with your statement about "[CHG-]related clades in Iran that spread out into Central Asia during the Neolithic." I even think that Neolithic, CHG-related "out of Iran" expansion reached the Indus Valley and was ultimately instrumental to the emergence of the IVC.

2.a) The recent goat (a)DNA studies, while unfortunately not covering E. Europe and as such not helpful when it comes to clarifying the origins of pastoralism in SE Ukraine and in the "Steppe", clearly demonstrate that Central Asian goats originate from domestication in the S. Caspian basin, and not in the Zagros. As such, the relevance of the S. Caspian basin for the Neolithisation process shouldn't be underestimated.
2.b) The studies furthermore demonstrate the Levantine origin of Caucasian (Shulaveri-Shomu) goats - a fact that aligns well with a Levante_N element showing up in G25 models of Meshoko. The apparent absence of any Levante_N contribution to "Steppe" DNA, OTOH, speaks IMO against any connection of it to the Caucasus Neolithic (possibly including so far poorly documented Chokh/ Daghestan).

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said
"If you pick a decent set of outgroups you'll see that Darkveti-Meshoko is actually rejected in favor of a two-way CHG/EHG model."

sure, I can replicate your 3 way model with your outgroups. Result

However, with the same outgroups, this model works well
left pops:
Caucasus_Eneolithic: 0.093 +-0.047
EEHG - 0.481 +-0.018
Geoksyur_EN - 0.426 +-0.042
tailprob 0.046 Result

No CHG is needed with your rightpops, geoksyur is chosen over CHG. Also see Result of the 4 way model with CHG as 4th source.

So is there no CHG in Steppe_en? of course not. your right pops cannot differentiate between CHG and iran.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Two points:

1) a tail of 0.046 makes for a very poor model, and indeed currently in scientific literature the cut off for successful models is 0.05

2) you didn't use the same outgroups as me, because you substituted Kolyma with Shamanka.

You can get Kolyma here and stop making excuses...

https://sid.erda.dk/cgi-sid/ls.py?share_id=HXY5UYsqQU;current_dir=genotypes/1240k;flags=f

vAsiSTha said...

@FrankN said
"I even think that Neolithic, CHG-related "out of Iran" expansion reached the Indus Valley and was ultimately instrumental to the emergence of the IVC."

No, the iran component in IVC was first to split, and date of the split is >12000years. it has existed in the area since before paleolithic.

Rob said...

@ Frank
Are there any sheep / goat bones from Pre-Caspian culture ?

Rob said...

“ No, the iran component in IVC was first to split, and date of the split is >12000years. it has existed in the area since before paleolithic.”

That’s a ballsy claim without even chalcolithic aDNA

FrankN said...

Rob: "Are there any sheep / goat bones from Pre-Caspian culture ?"
Yep, see e.g. Vybornov e.a. 2015, https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/42.3

Acc. to that paper, they account for around 33% of the bone assemblage at Kurpezhe-Molla, and 17% at Oroshamoye I. Other relevant animals included Saiga antelope, wild ass, Tarpan, and Aurochs. So far, I am not aware of any domesticated cattle, nor domesticated pig, reported for Pre-Caspian sites.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

Sure. But as I pointed out; the offered C14 date on the sheep bone falls within Khvalynsk culture period; and indeed Oroshamoye has 2 layers, raising possibly of mis-contextualisation. No animal bone dates for Kurpezhe-Molla,

FrankN said...

Rob: So what - aside from concluding that we all could do well with some more research about the Pre-Caspian Culture...

vAsiSTha said...

Rob said "That’s a ballsy claim without even chalcolithic aDNA"

I just said what the Rakhigarhi paper by Shinde and Harvard team said. you can read the paper https://www.cell.com/cell/pdf/S0092-8674(19)30967-5.pdf
or just click on link to see the tree.

FrankN said...

vAsiSTha: That Shinde/Harvard tree of course assumes that the Iran_Hotu sample is Mesolithic (ca. 9,000 BC). If it was Neolithic, which might well have been the case, the whole timeline is reduced by some 3,000 years, and accords to the archeologically suggested Sang-e-Chakmak (6,500 BC)->Jeitun (late 7th mbC) ->early Indus valley Neolithic (around 6,000 BC) sequence.

Rob said...

@ vAsiSTha

Obviously ive read the paper.
But the way you stated it, it sounded like you wholeheartedly agree with it, or have made your own deductions on the matter too.
I don't think 'CHG' existed before 25000, and from my impression of it being a composite of UP elements, to claim it has been in NW India since before the paleolithic just doesn't sound very grounded


Rob said...

@ FrankN

''So what -''

If you wish to talk big game, then you should be able to scrutinize data (whether aDNA, or archaeology), and stop twisting facts about the European neolithic

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0197214

FrankN said...

Rob: So what?
I neither have any idea why you start getting ad hominem, nor what prehistoric farmers in the Great Hungarian Plain have to do with all this.

Vladimir said...

@Rob.Article 2019 on the diet of Samara culture:
NEW DATA ON THE CHRONOLOGYAND DEVELOPMENT OF CATTLE BREADING DURING THE ENEOLITHIC AND EARLY BRONZE AGE IN THE SOUTHERN URAL REGION
Abstract. Introduction. The article considers the features of cattle breeding and consumption of meat products in the Eneolithic cultures (the Samara culture) and the Early Bronze Age cultures (the Repin stage of the
Pit Grave culture) on the territory of the Southern Urals (the Samara Trans-Volga region). The paper specifies the chronology of these cultures on the base of radiocarbon dating. The main site for the study was Turganik
settlement located in the Southern Ural region (Orenburg region). Methods. More than 800 m2 of the settlement area was excavated. There were six paleosoil layers. Four upper layers were empty, without artifacts. The sixth
layer contained Eneolithic finds. The fifth layer contained finds of the Early Bronze Age. The archaeozoological collection was analyzed in accordance with the methodological scheme developed by E.E.Antipina. For radiocarbon dating collagen was treated from bone samples on the base of the standard procedure and radiocarbon activity was measured by Quantulus 1220 low background scintillation counter. Analysis and Results. As a result
32 radiocarbon dates were obtained on animal bones and on organics from pottery of different types from different cultural layers of Turganik settlement. The Eneolithic complex includes ceramics, flint and bone tools.
The paper specifies the finds of developed and later stages of the Samara culture. The artifacts of the second stage of the Samara culture were dated to 4900–4500 cal BC. The artifacts of the later stage belong to the period
of 4300–3800 cal BC. We suggest that from the Early Eneolithic local people practiced cattle breeding without agriculture. Hunting played a secondary role and fishing was poorly developed. Beef was the main food in the
people’s diet during the Eneolithic period. The Early Bronze Age assemblage includes ceramics of the Repin stage of the Pit Grave culture, stone macro-tools, flint arrowheads, items made of bones and copper, slags and
scarps of copper ore. The technological analysis supported that ceramics belong to the Pit Grave culture. The layer age is from 3800 to 3300 cal BC. During the Repin stage the role of sheep breeding was increased and
consumption of sheep meat prevailed in comparison with the Eneolithic period. This is an evidence of the transition to the nomadic form of stock breeding.

Citation. Morgunova N.L., Roslyakova N.V., Kulkova M.A. New Data on the Chronology and Development of Cattle Breading During the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age in the Southern Ural Region. Vestnik Volgogradskogo
gosudarstvennogo universiteta. Seriya 4. Istoriya. Regionovedenie. Mezhdunarodnye otnosheniya [Science Journal of Volgograd State University. History. Area Studies. International Relations], 2019, vol. 24, no. 3, pp. 17-36. (in Russian). DOI: https://doi.org/10.15688/jvolsu4.2019.3.2

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/novye-dannye-o-hronologii-i-razvitii-skotovodstva-v-eneolite-i-rannem-bronzovom-veke-yuzhnogo-priuralya/viewer

Vladimir said...

and The sample of bones from the 6th layer of EE is 2,282 fragments, of which 1,086 are defined to the form (47.6 %). The sample consists of mammalian bones (98.7 %), birds, fish, and reptiles. Mammalian bones belong to domestic (83.2 %) and wild (16.8 %) animal species (Fig. 3). Domestic species are represented by the bones of cattle (hereinafter-cattle) (Bos taurus), horses (Equus caballus), small cattle (hereinafter –
Mrs) (Ovis/Capra) and dogs (Canis familiaris).
The collection from the Turganik settlement identified the bones of a sheep (Ovis aries) and a goat (Sarga hircus).
The osteological spectrum of domestic ungulates is dominated by the bones of Mrs (49.4 %) and cattle (42.0 %). Horse bones make up 8.6 % (Fig. 4). Scattered dog bones are isolated. It is possible that horse bones may come from a wild horse that may have been hunted by an ancient population. However, the fact that the inhabitants of the settlement bred cattle and small cattle throughout its existence suggests that they may have kept a horse in the household.
Among the hunting species in the collection are: Tur (Bos primigenius), elk (Alces alces), saiga (Saiga tatarica), boar (Sus crofa ferus), bear (Ursus arctos), wolf (Canis lupus), Fox (Vulpes vulpes), badger (Meles
meles), beaver (Castor fiber) and marmot (Marmota sp.). Of the 182 bones, 135 belong to the beaver.
The vast majority of animal bones are kitchen remains, as evidenced by numerous traces of artificial impact on the bones that were left in the process of cutting the carcass and its disposal: cuts with a sharp blade, cuts, cuts, traces of breaking bones, biting by dogs. Burned and calcified bones are also common.
To estimate the share of different types of domestic ungulates in the meat diet of the population during the Eneolithic period the number of animal bones was translated
in the ratio of volumes of meat products. To do this, the number of bones of each species was multiplied by a coefficient equal to the multiplicity of the weight of different species of animals in relation to a single sheep carcass. The coefficient was selected taking into account the age composition of the animals and their size. As a result, it turned out that the basis of the meat diet of the inhabitants of the settlement was beef. Less often they ate sheep and goat meat. The proportion of horse meat in the diet was insignificant.
Thus, the analysis of sufficiently mass materials from the EE layer for the first time allowed us to clearly record the prevailing role of cattle breeding in the economy of the population of the Samara culture.

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

If this is true...

The paper specifies the finds of developed and later stages of the Samara culture. The artifacts of the second stage of the Samara culture were dated to 4900–4500 cal BC. The artifacts of the later stage belong to the period of 4300–3800 cal BC. We suggest that from the Early Eneolithic local people practiced cattle breeding without agriculture. Hunting played a secondary role and fishing was poorly developed. Beef was the main food in the
people’s diet during the Eneolithic period.


Then cattle breeding was practiced north of the Caspian without any associated human gene flow from Central Asia, the Caucasus, or anywhere else, because the Samara culture people were basically like Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

''what does Great Hungarian Plain have to do with all this.''

That article illustrates in a table for you that domesticated goats, sheep, & cattle animals were present by 6000 BC in the Carpathian basin, with specialised animal husbandry by 5000 BC.

I.m sure you're aware that Koros culture stretched from the Carpathian basin to Prut-Dniester region. Koros-Cris, ALPc, Dnieper-Donets, Sredni-Stog, post-Stog, etc share lineages & hunter-gatherer ancestry from ECE - eastern Europe. After 5000 BC, some of those lineages appear in Samara valley too; whislt the local ones remain predominant. This is a hunter-gatherer network spreading domesticates amongst other things

@ Vladimir

Thanks. Makes sense in light of above. Seems that domesticates arrived in Samara valley ~ 4700 BC, that would be the same time as Caspian steppe (c. 4700 BC)

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said

"Two points:

1) a tail of 0.046 makes for a very poor model, and indeed currently in scientific literature the cut off for successful models is 0.05

2) you didn't use the same outgroups as me, because you substituted Kolyma with Shamanka."

As if its going to make a major difference. anyway i added kolyma to the right pops.

Nothing changes much. in the 4 way model, CHG % is about 0 and all iran component is from Geoksyur. https://pastebin.com/04KUBRfq

Meshoko is a non trivial 8.8% in the 3 way model without CHG. tail prob 0.022. https://pastebin.com/6mpEVSb7

"cut off for successful models is 0.05" sure a higher number than the threshold decided is better. Many papers just list the models with highest p values. Narsimhan used 0.01 threshold.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

These models don't prove anything except that Eneolithic steppe is very difficult to model properly because there are no proximate sources available yet, and maybe they never will be.

You seem obsessed and unable to think straight.

vAsiSTha said...

@Rob said
"I don't think 'CHG' existed before 25000, and from my impression of it being a composite of UP elements, to claim it has been in NW India since before the paleolithic just doesn't sound very grounded"
before paleolithic ended is what i meant, did not claim >25000 existence, although it is indeed possible.

Laziridis preprint states IranN = Dzudzuana + AG3 + Mbuti + Onge. Also models Anatolia_N as 100% Dzudzuana. Whereaas CHG being so proximal in location to dzudzuana is just like IranN and is not high in dzudzuana%.

So, it is highly likely that IranN is at least as old as Satsurblia 11kbce. Which makes iran component in IVC even older.

Vladimir said...

@Rob/After 5000 BC, some of those lineages appear in Samara valley too;

This is unlikely. By 5000 BC, the diet of the Samara culture includes meat of domestic animals. Obviously, this is not a new diet, it is already a developed stage of consumption of pet meat. In addition, there is no Western WHG in Samara culture. So these are obviously local EHG skills.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

You should check how old those Geoksyur samples are.

They're about a thousand years younger than Eneolithic steppe, so there's no way they can be ancestral to Eneolithic steppe.

Andrzejewski said...

One thing that amazes me here is that the proportion of Progress is much higher than of Khvalynsk in these models: https://www.quora.com/Why-were-the-most-old-European-languages-replaced-by-Indo-European-languages-though-there-is-no-evidence-that-huge-amounts-of-Indo-Europeans-migrated-to-Europe

vAsiSTha said...

"You should check how old those Geoksyur samples are.

They're about a thousand years younger than Eneolithic steppe, so there's no way they can be ancestral to Eneolithic steppe."

Obviously I know. when we get older samples from the region, theyre going to fit even better.

Matt said...

Quick examination of the topic using a set of outgroups from a large matrix of f3 stats Davidski ran for me previously.

Regression of f3 stats for a set of outgroups on Piedmont_En (both Progress samples+Vonyuchka sample) against 51% EHG+49% EHG (which seemed to me the best fitting proportion): https://imgur.com/a/Gm6Zc4L

I've run the regression twice, first without some populations that probably are descendants of the founding Steppe_En population and then with them.

You can see that there is a lot of private drift particular that Piedmont_En shares with the descendants (or its "nephews and nieces"), but there are also some offsets where Piedmont_En shares more drift with some populations like Sarazm_En, Shahr-i-Sohkta_BA, Levant_N, AG3, Seh_Gabi_Chl than the regression on CHG+EHG would suggest, while sharing slightly less drift with Euro_HG.

That suggests that Piedmont_En may have some ancestry that is phylogenetically related to West_Siberia_HG and Anatolian/Levant_N relative to the EHG+CHG compound.

Another plot just comparing the average vs the difference to see without the complexity of the regression slightly varying the slope: https://imgur.com/a/RCztkhE

(Quick repeats with proportions EHG:CHG 56:44 from Davidski's qpAdm model, which doesn't change anything too much - https://imgur.com/a/A1yN80c).

Using the full set of f3 outgroups, including the descendants, and running a fit through Vahaduo with Piedmont_En as target and DVM, CHG, EHG, Ganj_Dareh, and West_Siberia as source: https://imgur.com/a/AniOtRn

Same vahaduo experiment including Geoksiur_En as a source as well: https://imgur.com/a/Ca0rovi

Same vahaduo fits above, eliminating descendents of Steppe_En: https://imgur.com/a/hU7CkGF

Pastebin of datasheet: https://pastebin.com/1nUXcx3n

I'm not sure method this is correct or why it differs from qpAdm. But yes, it does not seem to me so clear whether Steppe_En is a population that is like CHG+EHG, with some separated from those two (is that what the combinations of other related populations mean?). Or if it really is "just" a more complex composite of populations about at the Eneolithic (some south / east of caucasus, some to the north), with a founder effect of its own.

What seems more for sure is as Davidski says, Piedmont_En / Steppe_En is a founding population of the later steppe with its own distinctive drift, and later populations aren't a composite of any culture like Maykop or even Darkveti with EHG hunters.

vAsiSTha said...

@matt

the EHG + Meshoko + Geoksyur + WSHG model fails in qpAdm for lack of enough CHG. model passes if you remove CHG from right pops.

from your final vahaduo paste, WSHG is too low, so can be ignored. CHG being 0 seems erroneous as per qpadm. So we are left with CHG + Geoksyur + EHG + minor Meshoko

vAsiSTha said...

Then again, if CHG is eating up Geoksyur, then additional WSHG may be required.. so maybe it cant be ignored, i will test it out.

Matt said...

qpAdm seems better at being sensitive to CHG ancestry I guess. It makes sense that having CHG in the right pops would change the level of sensitivity.

With the f3+Vahaduo method I am using, I can't really have CHG in column and row (maybe could've if Davidski had run the matrix with Satsurblia and Kotias separately, but...) however the outcomes are more sensitive to CHG when there are Piedmont/Steppe Ens descendents in the columns.

Samuel Andrews said...

PG2004 is signifcantly closer to Yamnaya than other Steppe Eneolithic samples. What's the significance of this?

Samuel Andrews said...

Is vAsiSTha not using CHG as a reference pop?

Sarah said...

"Davidski"-"I don't think Y-haplogroup T is an ancient steppe marker. It probably arrived in the North Caucasus during the Maykop period."

The Steppe Maykop outlier IV3002 belonged to Y-haplogroup T. If Y-haplogroup T arrived in the North Caucasus during the Maykop period (or maybe a bit earlier during the Shulaveri-Shomu period), where did it originally came from at the beginning of the Holocene period? Could Neolithic members of T be natives of the Northern Mesopotamian and Eastern Anatolian regions? Did they belong to the Ubaid and Halaf cultures which expanded North into the Caucasus, South into the Levant and West into the Balkans during the end of the Neolithic revolution period(bringing with them a kind of the Anatolia_N component)?

If Y-haplogroup J is native to the Caucasus, being the main representative of the CHG component, where is Y-haplogroup G native to? Is Y-haplogroup G the main representative of the Iran_N component? And what about Y-haplogroup L, of which region are they natives during the beginning of the Holocene period?

vAsiSTha said...

Is vAsiSTha not using CHG as a reference pop?

Here's the problem with modeling this.

If test model does not have chg as a source, then check result with chg in right pops and then without. If model fails in 1 but passes in 2, it likely means that you are missing a chg rich source.

If model does have chg as source (left pop), then you can't use chg in right pops. In this case most of the time you get output wherein geoksur % is high while chg being minimal (this is what matt is getting, and what I got with davidski right pops). Or you get some % in both but with high STD errors.

So 3rd option is which is what I use to try and differentiate between chg and Iran/geoksur. Instead of chg, use kotias as a source and add satsurblia in right pops. Using this, kotias % is never 0, neither is geoksur %, and STD errors are reduced to acceptable levels of 0.05 and below. I don't know how correct this splitting of the 2 chg samples into left and right pop is, but seems like the only way to differentiate. If there has been some addition geneflow between satsurblia and kotias, then the modeling would be perfectly acceptable, however if satsurblia and kotias are just drifted apart samples without additional geneflow, then it could be problematic.

FrankN said...

Rob: I suggest you to acquaint yourself with recent publications about the Cris and Bug-Dniester Cultures.
Start with Reingruber: The Beginning of the Neolithic Way of Life in the Eastern Lower Danube Area, in Reingruber e.a. (ed.) "Going West?" (Google Books): She states that for the dark paint, the finds from the Moldavian Plateau should be placed at the end of the Cris culture (Phase IV), to be dated around 5,500 BC or slighty later (p. 97).

Then, proceed with Haskevych/Kunikita 2019:
https://www.academia.edu/41374347/New_AMS_dates_from_the_Sub-Neolithic_sites_in_the_Southern_Buh_area_Ukraine_and_problems_in_the_Buh-Dnister_Culture_chronology

"The set of 11 new AMS dates has given a wide scatter of their values within the entire period outlined by the previous BDC dates. Moreover, the two results of the second quarter of the 7th millennium BC are beyond it and may potentially be the oldest dates of the culture. However, analysis of the samples from the aspect of carbon content, their susceptibility to the influence of the FRE, correspondence to the stratigraphy of the sites and typology of materials detected only six more credible dates. Their order on
the timeline coincides with generally accepted ideas about the sequence of existence of the different BDC pottery types. The youngest is the vessel of the Savran type from Shumyliv-Cherniatka that gave two dates, which fall into the range of 4723–4491 cal BC, when the Trypillia culture bearers already populated the region. Two vessels of the Samchyntsi type from Bazkiv Ostriv gave three dates within the range of 5288–4847 cal BC, which corresponds to their finding next to fragments of fine ‘music-note’ bowls
of the LBPC. The vessel of the Skybyntsi type from Bazkiv Ostriv gave the oldest plausible date of 5621–5514 cal BC, which corresponds to the age of the Cris monuments in neighbouring Moldova.
"

IOW: BDC (and Cris outside the Carpathian basin) date to the 56th cBC at earliest, which is a couple of centuries later than AMS dates for domesticated animals in SE Ukraine.

FrankN said...

Rob: "the Samara culture people were basically like Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers."
Not sure. We only have the Samara_HG, of uncertain cultural association (no accompanying artefacts), who, if in fact representing the Samara culture, dates to an early phase and the northern edge of the Culture.
The shift to pastoralism happened chronologically later, and is so far best documented in the South (Orenburg District). We don't know anything about their genetic profile - but we know that a good millenium later, it was "steppe like" (Yamnaya).

Now - another question to you (and anybody else): How many documented cases of domesticated pigs in Pre-Caspian, Samara and Khvalynsk assemblages are you aware of? Plus (to make it easier): How important were wild boars in the respective bone assemblages?
KK1 people were specialised boar hunters (some 80% of the bone assemblage, the remainder was mostly brown bear) - a tradition that apparently influenced later Colchian/ Meshoko practices with strong reliance on pig breeding. And in SE Ukrainian assemblages, domesticated pigs make up a minor yet visible element. As such, if there is little wild boar/ no domesticated pigs in the Khvalynsk etc. assemblages, it provides a clue where they got their domesticated animals from.

Rob said...

@ FrankN

Yes . Starcevo 6000 BC; Romanian 6000 BC , Moldovan Cris 5600 BC . Again what’s the issue ?
Which AMS dates for domesicates are there for 6000 BC in Ukraine ?
Stop twisting facts just to support your mass-plagiarised essay on “CHG to the steppe”

Rob said...

@ FrankN

“ Rob: "the Samara culture people were basically like Eastern Euro hunter-gatherers”

I didn’t say that. You’re confused as usual

@ Vladimir

“ This is unlikely. By 5000 BC, the diet of the Samara culture includes meat of domestic animals. Obviously, this is not a new diet, it is already a developed stage of consumption of pet meat. In addition, there is no Western WHG in Samara culture. So these are obviously local EHG skills”

What you deem “likely “ is irrelevant. All the more so given that we in fact already know there is, because Anthony has published so
So you’re obviously behind the 8 ball.

FrankN said...

Rob: "Which AMS dates for domesicates are there for 6000 BC in Ukraine ?"

See my comment further above:

Motuzaite-Matuzeviciute 2012: Domesticated cattle from Starobelsk I (Donetsk basin), AMS-dated 5971-5736 cal BC
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274574252

Kotova, Anthony e.a. 2017: Cow mandible from the second-lowest layer of the Razdolnoe site on the upper Calmius, directcly AMS-dated to the 56th century BC, and an ovocaprid distal tybia from the preceding layer.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324908729_N_Kotova_D_Anthony_DBrown_SDegermendzhi_P_Crabtree_Excavation_at_the_Razdolnoe_site_on_the_Kalmius_river_in_2010

Kotova e.a. 2017: Bone of domesticated ox from Kamyana Mohila I, Layer 7 (Sursk Culture), directly AMS-dated (Poznan) to 5,960 +- 30 calBC
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/324389041_Preliminary_results_of_excavations_at_the_multilayer_Kamyana_Mohyla_1_site_2011-2012

All three date to before Cris appeared outside the Carpathian basin.
 

Rob said...

@ vasosthata


Laziridis preprint states IranN = Dzudzuana + AG3 + Mbuti + Onge. Also models Anatolia_N as 100% Dzudzuana. Whereaas CHG being so proximal in location to dzudzuana is just like IranN and is not high in dzudzuana%.

So, it is highly likely that IranN is at least as old as Satsurblia 11kbce. Which makes iran component in IVC even older.”

Sorry, but none of that makes any sense

Rob said...

@ FrankN
Well Hungary is quite a bit closer than Hotu cave. And the fact you cherry pick the lowest published date from Kris and the highest possible cattle bone (which is burnt and therefore altered to be older) . So In fact they’re of similar age; and the older dates overall are west to east
You then claim that the more likely from a yet to be discovered place in the south Caspian with no data no dates ; and the transit zone in the Caspian - the earliest possible dates so far are c. 4600 BC
Your position is an antithesis to facts ; which is why you have to distort things

Matt said...

@vAsiSTha, although I cannot use CHG in both the row and column under the f3 outgroup setup with real data values as given, I can estimate a value for a close relative as close as Satsurblia and Kotias are to each other, from some previous D stats between Kotias and Satsurblia and a large number of populations.

Including that as a column does shift results away from Geoksiur_Eneo / Darkveti_M and into the CHG, but still seems to suggest that Piedmont_En does not have 0% Barcin related ancestry, more like 75% as much as Darkveti - something like 7% rather 35% (or a "southern ancestor" with about 14%, a similar level as Geoksiur seems to have?).

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Obviously I know. when we get older samples from the region, theyre going to fit even better.

No they won't.

Geoksyur_En are the descendants of an early wave of West Eurasian migrants into Central Asia.

These people weren't native to Central Asia.

FrankN said...

Rob: "Hungary is quite a bit closer than Hotu cave." Eh? Who spoke about Hotu cave? It might have had a role in goat domestication, but this is about cattle (cows).

"you cherry pick the lowest published date from Kris.." I think, you mean Cris. Anyway. I took the academic consensus on the appearance of Cris outside the Carpathian basin, supported by recent AMS datings - a dating btw you yourself used in your preceding comment.

"..and the highest possible cattle bone.." In fact, I gave you three of them, and there is a couple more of such dates that I had listed further above. Pls, do your homework - this is really getting annoying!

" ..which is burnt and therefore altered to be older." How does burning alter the C14 content? That would be new to me. If you have a scientific paper at hand discussing such effects, go ahead and post it - I am always eager to increase my knowledge...

"You then claim that the more likely from a yet to be discovered place in the south Caspian with no data no dates" No, re-read my comments! When it comes to cattle, I explicitly ruled out the S. Caspian/ Central Asia, because alongside the cattle, in SE Ukraine also appeared domesticated pigs, which were unknown in N. Iran/ Central Asia prior to ca. 4,000 BC. The thinking here (e.g. Lemmen/Gronenborn 2017) goes towards E. Caucasia, more specifically Arashten, from where domesticated cattle is attested by at least 6,000 BC.

"And the transit zone in the Caspian - the earliest possible dates so far are c. 4600 BC" You seem to forget about Neolithic Chokh/ Dagestan. Moreover, regressions of the Caspian Sea, e.g. the one following the 8.2 ky event, would have exposed some areas along the W. Caspian shore that are currently underwater and as such archeologically poorly explored.
Last but not least: Any transfer of animal husbandry to East of the Dniepr requires some form of water transport - South of Kiev, the Dniepr is over one km wide, and I can't imagine hypothetical Bug-Dniestr cattle just swimming across it. In Azerbaijan, we have evidence of larger boats from the Gobustan rock paintings. Can you say the same about Neolithic Hungary/ Romania?

vAsiSTha said...

@Matt, sounds about right. Here are few of my qpAdm results. Im using Khvalynsk as source instead of EEHG because it makes setting the right pops easier, I can then use EEHG in right pop.

Georgia_Kotias.SG: 0.155 +- 0.036
Caucasus_Eneolithic: 0.075 +- 0.042
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN: 0.578 +- 0.016
Geoksyur_EN: 0.192 +- 0.034
chisq 13 tailprob 0.205
Model without caucasus_en also works with kotias going up to 19% and geoksyur to 22% as geoksyur also has some anatolia_N. https://pastebin.com/LrbmtuYi

Georgia_Kotias.SG : 0.118 +- 0.037
Caucasus_Eneolithic: 0.124 +- 0.037
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN: 0.542 +- 0.018
Sarazm_EN: 0.216 +- 0.037
chisq 10 tailprob 0.41
This is a great model with high tailprob, but does not work without caucasus_en as sarazm has 0 anatolia_N. https://pastebin.com/eU9a5q5t

Georgia_Kotias.SG: 0.151 +- 0.037
Caucasus_Eneolithic: 0.067 +- 0.043
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN: 0.583 +- 0.016
Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1: 0.198 +- 0.037
Also works without caucasus_en as SiSBa1 has some anatolia_N. https://pastebin.com/wFGXbNQr

Seh_Gabi_C model isnt great. https://pastebin.com/CpdnrnLf

Seh_Gabi_LN also fails in comparison https://pastebin.com/HUbvxCzU

Rightpops used pretty much covers Eurasia & africa - Mbuti.DG, Russia_AfontovaGora3, EEHG, WEHG, Anatolia_N, Russia_Shamanka_EN.SG, Onge.DG, PPN, China_Tianyuan, Russia_MA1_HG, Ust_Ishim.DG, Georgia_Satsurblia.SG, Ganj_Dareh_N, WSHG

Rob said...

@ FrankN

“You seem to forget about Neolithic Chokh/ Dagestan.”

I don’t forget anything. We need modern studies from Chokh. Again your claims are dubious

“ Located on the northeastern slope of the Greater Caucasus Mountains, the site of Chokh has produced two Mesolithic layers (E-D) and one Neolithic layer (C) (Amirkhanov, 1987), attributed to the eighth to seventh and the sixth millennia bc, respectively. However, no radiocarbon dates were available.”

In fact; the “Neolithic “ layers from Chokh might be chalcolithic , as per the rest of north Caucasus

“ we have evidence of larger boats from the Gobustan rock paintings. Can you say the same about Neolithic Hungary/ Romania?”

Not boats ; your theories need planes which time travel
It’s a good thing cows have legs

Simon_W said...

@Archi

"Not a single Hetitto-Luwian was tested, not a single Achaean was tested."

I don't know what problem you have with the Achaeans, but the meaning of the name Achaean is twofold: 1. The inhabitants of the landscape Achaia on the northwestern Peloponnese; 2. in Homer's Iliad Achaians, besides Danaians and Argives, is a generic term for the Bronze Age Greeks fighting Troy.

And the Mycenaean DNA samples we have seen so far are not all from one place. They are not all from Mycenae. They are from four different places: Two in the Peloponnese, one on Attica, and one from Crete. So they are rather Bronze Age Greek samples than Mycenaean samples, in the sense of Mycenaeans from Mycenae. (Needless to say that the term Mycenaean culture refers to mainland Bronze Age Greek culture rather than to the culture of the city of Mycenae only.)

You have claimed before that the language of our Mycenean samples has been Minoan rather than Greek, even though Minoan is attested exclusively on Crete. And the Mycenaeans have used Linear B to write down a language that is undoubtedly archaic Greek.

Simon_W said...

@Andrzejewski

"Just like Basque and Etruscan may both be Bell Beaker languages but they are unrelated to each other."

Etruscan in all likelihood wasn't a Bell Beaker language. We have seen Etruscan DNA by now. It's quite distinct from North Italian Bell Beaker DNA. It has much less WHG than either North Italian Bell Beakers or Latins. The difference probably isn't a coincidence.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

You've got things backwards again.

Khvalynsk has ancestry from a Vonyuchka-like population, not the other way around.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1K_6ueUsrGmgBC5KyucfGqeZMy_WNZnL0

Andrzejewski said...

Two things:

1. Do you agree with Anthony 2019 that male EHG + WHG mated with CHG + EEF/ANF females to produce “Western Steppe Herders”?

If so, do you agree that PIE was in all likelihood an EHG language?

2. How come models give Progress more percentage than to Khvalynsk when modeling certain BA CWC and BBC German and Dutch populations?

FrankN said...

I wonder if someone (Matt?) can construct a "steppe ghost" that could have provided ancestry to all of Zamok/Piedmont, Khvalynsk, SSII and Yamnaya, presumably from a location near the Lower Don.

Anonymous said...

@Simon_W

"You have claimed before that the language of our Mycenean samples has been Minoan rather than Greek, even though Minoan is attested exclusively on Crete. And the Mycenaeans have used Linear B to write down a language that is undoubtedly archaic Greek. "

It is lie, I've never claimed that, show us where you think I claim to claim such nonsense. You're making this up to defame me. I was just claiming that there was Greek in the Mycenaean civilization, and before that it wasn't there, Linear B letter wasn't created for the Greek language.


"I don't know what problem you have with the Achaeans, but the meaning of the name Achaean is twofold: 1. The inhabitants of the landscape Achaia on the northwestern Peloponnese; 2. in Homer's Iliad Achaians, besides Danaians and Argives, is a generic term for the Bronze Age Greeks fighting Troy."

You write some nonsense as if you didn't see what I wrote "The Italians, Greeks and Mycenaeans have a steppe component.". There were dozens of different tribes of non-Indo-European origin living in the Mycenaean civilization, we know this very well from Greek authors, the Indo-European tribe in it is called the Achaeans.


"And the Mycenaean DNA samples we have seen so far are not all from one place. They are not all from Mycenae. They are from four different places: Two in the Peloponnese, one on Attica, and one from Crete. So they are rather Bronze Age Greek samples than Mycenaean samples, in the sense of Mycenaeans from Mycenae."

You're talking nonsense, under the Mycenae all refer to the inhabitants of the Mycenae civilization, which was in the Peloponnese, and that's what the cited study is about. It's your personal fiction that someone by Mycenae means the people of the city of Mycenae, who no one has ever tested at all, because you know nothing at all, but just fantasize about delusional purposes.


"(Needless to say that the term Mycenaean culture refers to mainland Bronze Age Greek culture rather than to the culture of the city of Mycenae only.)"

This again shows that you don't know anything at all, but fantasize. The Mycenaean culture belongs to the Peloponnese peninsula, not to the continent.

Andrzejewski said...

That’s probably what an EHG language like the one spoken by Baltic HG/Narva or Combed Ware sounded like:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Finno-Ugric_substrate

Mr. J said...

@All

The Colchis area of Western Georgian where the Mesolithic Kotias people and their descendants lived never developed any agriculture or domesticated any animals of their own in situ did they?

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

PG2004 is significantly closer to Yamnaya than other Steppe Eneolithic samples. What's the significance of this?

There's definitely some interesting genetic substructure within the Eneolithic steppe trio that probably goes beyond their ratios of northern EHG-related ancestry.

I think it's possible that Vonyuchka VJ1001 best represents the local population from the North Caucasus foothills, while PG2004 might have recent ancestry from the north, maybe even from the Lower Don.

FrankN said...

"The Colchis area never developed any agriculture or domesticated any animals of their own in situ did they?"

The final verdict on pigs is still out. Selective hunting, as documented at Kotias Klde, is usually considered a pre-stage of domestication. And Meshoko certainly had a focus on pig-breeding (more than 50% of the total bone assemblage in the eponymous settlement).
Similarly, the origin of flax domestication hasn't yet been determined with certainty, and the SE Black Sea, i.e. Colchis and surrounds, is still among the candidates. Dzudzuana has delivered the earliest evidence of human flax use - 30,000 years ago, and Colchis was known as a major linen producer in the middle ages.
According to Roman authors (Pliny?), cherries originate from the SE Black Sea, from where the Romans brought them to Europe.
Last but not least, "wine" is considered a borrowing from Kartvelian hvino, and was in all likelyhood domesticated in the Caucasus, but the exact location is yet unknown (aside from Colchis, E. Georgia and Armenia also have good claims).

But yeah - when it comes to cereal agriculture, Colchis is/was too humid. After all, cereals are grasses, i.e. steppe plants..

When and how Colchis adopted agriculture is poorly known. By the mid 6th mBC, key "Neolithic" sites such as Anaseuli were still aceramic and lacked indications of agriculture. From what I could gather, the transition occured sometime during the second half of the 5th mBC in a process that spread from NW Anatolia along the Black Sea Coast northwards.

Vladimir said...

@Rob/ "The earliest ceramics are recorded on the monuments of the bug-Dniester culture (BDK). It was a big surprise that early ceramics were older than those of the Starchevo-Krish culture, despite the prevailing views in the archaeological literature on the secondary nature of BDK in relation to the Starchevo-Krish culture (Zaliznyak T. A., 2013. P. 250). It is possible that the question should be raised about the possibility of the appearance of the oldest BDK ceramics under the influence of an unknown third center of ceramic production. Probably, we should allow the possibility of direct influence on the traditions of material culture of Ukraine of the traditions of the region of "dark-faced polished dishes" of Cilicia and Northern Syria, where we find elements of ornamentation (balossi restelli, 2006. P. 170. PL. 6. 8) Starchevo-Krish and bug-Dniester ceramics. This circumstance suggests that the Starchevo-Krish and bug-Dniester cultural traditions could be formed not in some relationship, but in parallel, and in the bug-Dniester interfluve such a process began earlier. This fact does not negate the claim that cultural interaction with the Starchevo-Krish culture did take place. It is important that specific Starchevo-Krish features appear in the southern bug basin only in the 2nd and 3rd quarters of the VI Millennium BC. That is, not at the earliest stage of development of the Krish-Starchevo culture."Absolute dates of Neolithic cultures on the territory of Ukraine. Manko V. A., 2016
http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/vagnejshije-izdanija/pdf/C142016.pdf

Vladimir said...

bid. Available dates for ceramic deposits originating from layer 20 of the Rakushechny Yar culture show that the beginning of the development of the ceramic Neolithic on the Lower don (Timofeev et al., 2004. P. 76) occurred synchronously with a similar process on the territory of Greece, where K. Perle relates the appearance of the oldest ceramic complexes to the second quarter of the VII thousand BC (Perles, 2004. P. 98-108)

Rob said...

@ Vladimir
Thanks for the link
But What’s your point ? We’re not talking about ceramics. The early steppe pottery horizon lacked domesticates, even if one accepts the problematic Kiev lab dates which Frank cherry-picked, and this is widely known.
In Eastern Europe, Asia and even the Fertile Crescent; these elements appeared asynchronously. Central - Western Europe is in fact an anomaly
Hence, think you’re a tad confused; so you’re just copy/ pasting random paragraphs now

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski said
You've got things backwards again.

Khvalynsk has ancestry from a Vonyuchka-like population, not the other way around.

Lol. Literally anything Iran related works as source for Khvalynsk using your right pops. Geoksyur, CHG also works well on top of Samara_HG.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 1260   Newer› Newest»