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   401 – 600 of 1260   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

So what?

All you're doing again is making the formal stats and deep ancestry proportions fit your crazy model. That's all you ever do.

The Eneolithic steppe foragers and part time sheep farmers had nothing to do with Central Asia, except that Central Asia was populated from the west by groups distantly related to them.

Reality check you moron: CHG and the Anatolian farmers were from West Eurasia not Central Asia. Geoksyur_En was also ultimately from the west.

If any aDNA lab ever publishes anything like what you're proposing they'll be laughed at for the next ten years.

vAsiSTha said...

hahaha. your models literally prefer turan ancestry over CHG for steppe eneolithic. dont be so cocky.
Anyone can simply go to vahaduo/nmonte and see steppe_en affinity for a turan population.

Whats laughable is your qpAdm modeling so far without using allsnps. see what researchers say about that.

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?

Matt said...

@vAsiSTha, yes I can see why you'd use Khvalynsk_EN in those models to keep as large a sample set of EHG as possible in the pright. And it is justifiable in the sense that the dates are earlier (earlier comment in this thread about lack of direct carbon dating notwithstanding).

Still, it does make what your models show a bit more ambiguous to interpret, as e.g. people could argue that fitting using Khvalysnk allows the models to smooth over certain things.

I would've thought that using some populations with close to maximal EHG might be "good enough" for the pright, so you can get EHG into the pleft? For example Ukraine_Meso and Latvia_MN I'd guess to be pretty close enough to EHG to allow qpAdm to reach similar results, even if it is only like 75-80% EHG. (To be honest I think even SHG and Ukraine_N might be enough, as it seems like that in f3). Similar with WSHG, I know it may not be perfect practice to put Botai in the pright, but it may be OK as a compromise to get WSHG in the pleft.

It's not quite like CHG where it looks like the true level (as opposed to composite of Iran_N+Barcin+EHG) really craters after Darkveti (from CHG to Darveti -> 50% decline in CHG, then >50% decline again to Maykop, Kura-Araxes and NC_MBA (20-36%), and the related populations I'd expect to be hard to use to infer anything in qpAdam.

I don't know qpAdm in detail enough so this might be wrong though.

vAsiSTha said...

@matt
In qpAdm, we cant use a population in left pop which is a source for a population in the right pop.
Eg botai can't be used in right pop with wshg in left pop as botai= wshg + east asian. The other way round is acceptable.

Matt said...

@vAsiSTha, I don't think qpAdm is that sensitive to assumptions about which populations are sources or ancestral, for'ex, you can use WHG in pright and El_Miron and Iron_Gates in pleft, even though it is not clear what the actual ancestral source relationship of these populations is, phylogenetically and they're all points on a cline. But it's quite OK for you not to run with those models if you would like, it will just leave you open to some inclarity about what exactly you are showing.

Matt said...

Off topic: Another recent Baysian phylogenetic cognacy paper - https://academic.oup.com/jole/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jole/lzz010/5736268?searchresult=1 - Turkic 2100 years before present. Method produces outcomes agreeing with historical estimates.

Vladimir said...

@Rob/ I'm not trying to argue anything. Of course, in archaeology there is a concept of transferring skills without migration of the population, but the transfer of such global skills as: - agriculture, animal husbandry, ceramics, metallurgy, in those times when there were no communications, without migration of the population, it seems unlikely to me. Therefore, I try to combine the transfer of fundamental skills with population migrations, that is, with changes in the genetic composition, both at the genome-wide level, and at the Y-hr and Mth level. In this context, the penetration of animal domestication skills from Starchevo culture to Samara culture should be accompanied by migration of the population and, accordingly, changes in the genetic composition of the population, in this direction in the period plus or minus 5000 BC. That is, the genetic composition of the population of Starchevo culture should move in the direction of Samara culture, which is also not noted. In this regard, I have doubts about the correctness of the concept of the movement of livestock skills from Starchevo to Samara.

Ric Hern said...

@ Vladimir

We already see mixture along the Danube of Early Farmers and Hunter Gatherers...so the transfer of knowledge into the Hunter Gatherer population already started there. No need for any genetic contact further down the line...think about it. Farmer takes Hunter Gatherer wife who learns how farming works. She go visit her Hunter Gatherer family and transfers the knowledge. And there you have it.

vAsiSTha said...

@ Matt
Sure, this is what works using Wang's right pops + added Pinarbasi and satsurblia for more sensitivity to those 2 ancestries. Right Pops below.

Mbuti.DG
Ust_Ishim.DG
Russia_Kostenki14
Russia_MA1_HG
Han.DG
Onge.DG
Italy_Villabruna
Czech_Vestonice16
Iberia_ElMiron
Ethiopia_4500BP.SG
Karitiana.DG
Natufian
Pinarbasi
Ganj_Dareh_N
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG

Target- Steppe_Eneolithic
EEHG: 0.476 +- 0.017
Geoksyur_EN: 0.291 +- 0.031
Georgia_Kotias.SG: 0.232 +- 0.03
chisq 15.27
tailprob 0.2266
https://pastebin.com/S0USSuUL

Extra Anatolian is not needed

Coldmountains said...

@Archi
The Z93 in Sredny Stog is unlikely related to Srubnaya because it belonged to a R1a clade absent in Srubnaya and the later steppe. More likely Usatova and Sredny Stog was rich in Z93 and basal Z645.

Vladimir said...

@Ric Hern/ Possible, but unlikely. It seems to me a promising hypothesis, almost told by Davidski, that animal husbandry skills come from CHG across the Western Caucasus to the Lower don and Northern Caspian regions. And in parallel to Starchevo via the Bosphorus. If, of course, we take it as an axiom that animal husbandry originated in Asia Minor.

Arza said...

@ Coldmountains

I6561 doesn't represent Sredni Stog. At best it's a genetic outlier. And there is no Z93 in Usatovo.

Matt said...

Sure, Geoksiur can probably provide enough Anatolian+West Siberian related ancestry in that scenario.

Anonymous said...

Coldmountains said...
"The Z93 in Sredny Stog is unlikely related to Srubnaya because it belonged to a R1a clade absent in Srubnaya and the later steppe. More likely Usatova and Sredny Stog was rich in Z93 and basal Z645."

What nonsense, tell me the checked terminal SNPs and the checked missing underlying SNPs of the Alexandria sample.

Between Z645 and Z94, there are only three SNPs that appeared within a maximum of 300-400 years, which is half as much as the Usatovo culture existed. It is absolutely impossible for Sredniy Stog to have a Z93 (R-Z94 have only two SNPs), it is one and a half thousand years older. Autosomal, the Alexandria sample also does not differ from the Srubnaya culture,of course it may belong to some ancestral Srubnaya population, this burial does not have any attribution. Him dating is a bug.

Coldmountains said...

@Archi

I checked it and aaronbee on anthrogenica too. We used different methods and in both cases I6561 was Y3+. Yfull generally underestimates the age of clades by 10-15%. So the age of it itself is not very surprising and this fits well the Z93 in Usatova.

Vladimir said...

Logically, the sample I6561 R1a-Y3 is the Konstantinovka culture. According to some Russian archaeologists, the Volsk - Lbischevo culture and possibly the Abashevo culture emerged from it. From which the Sintashta culture emerged.

Anonymous said...

Coldmountains said...
"I checked it and aaronbee on anthrogenica too. We used different methods and in both cases I6561 was Y3+."

Srubnaya for Y3+ has not been checked. So if it is not contamination (???!!!), all the speculation that it is Sredniy Stog is delusional, it is definitely the culture of the circle Srubnaya, maybe Babino, Abashevo, Potapovka and the like. It's just that the burial sites of the Srubnaya culture are there.

"So the age of it itself is not very surprising and this fits well the Z93 in Usatova."

It's only rumor.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza, Archi

You guys are using circular logic here. "yfull says R1a Z93 can't be as old as Sredny Stog therefore it is a Srubnaya site not Sredny Stog" Yfull isn't perfect!

Your go to is, when you see an ancient DNA result you didn't predict just say it is fake.

Do you really think, Harvard scientists would confuse a Srubnaya burial as a Sredny Stog burial? They talk to knowledgable archeaologists before sampling ancient DNA. It was a Sredny Stog burial no question about it.

I bet there were also Scythian burial snear the Sredny Stog site, and Medieval burials. There's lots of burials in lots of places. But Archeaologists know how to differentiate them according to time period. This was a Sredny Stog burial.

The fact we are now getting reprots of R1a Z93 in Ustavo is even more evidence this Sredny Stog R1a Z93 is legit.

Coldmountains said...

Srubnaya was checked for Z2124 and often positive for it and this excludes Y3. Maybe Y3 or even L657 will be found in Srubnaya in future publications but than it would be still a minor marker there. Abashevo on the otherside could be rich in Y3+ at least we have no evidences against that for now. Contamination is unlikely because Y3+ is very rare in Europe it exists among ethnic Ukrainians and one Cossack belonged to it but this is the only Y3+ sample in Europe i am aware of.

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

"Do you really think, Harvard scientists would confuse a Srubnaya burial as a Sredny Stog burial? They talk to knowledgable archeaologists before sampling ancient DNA."

It's lie. Don't be ridiculous, Harvard scientists knew absolutely nothing about this burial, they even thought it was Alexandria in Western Ukraine, which they insisted on! They did not communicate at all with any of the archaeologists, it is a fact.
YFull is more accurate than the isolated radiocarbon date which appeared from nowhere. The fact that radiocarbon measurements are often wrong is known to all, it happens that from one sample different laboratories get dates more than a thousand years the difference.
You're disgrace themselves by your statement.

"It was a Sredny Stog burial no question about it."
You're an ignorant fantasist, that's a fact.

Anonymous said...

ALEXANDRIA

This complex monument, including multilayer settlement and cemeteries, is
situated near village Alexandria in Kupjansk district of Kharkov oblast. It is
located on the sandy terrace of left bank of the Oskol (fig.41: 1). Most of the Eneolithic burials were made on low terrace hills without kurgan mounds. S. N. Bratchenko and L. F. Constantinescu attributed 29 burials to the Eneolithic era. They formed separate groups, confined to natural hills. However, only burials with inventory can be regarded with certainty as Eneolithic. The height
of cape above surrounding flood-lands is about 4-5 meters. D.Y.Telegin excavated
1200 square meters in 1955-1957 (Телегин 1959).

D.Y.Telegin distinguished four cultural layers at that settlement: the
Neolithic, the Early and Late Eneolithic, the Middle Bronze Age (Телегiн 1973,
c.15). Study of the collections and field reports has shown the following
stratigraphy (fig.41: 2; Котова 2003):
1. Sand with soil from trenches of the second world war.
2. Black humus sand with materials of the Middle Bronze Age (about 20 cm).
3. Gray-brown sand without archeological finds (about 20 cm).
4. Coal-black sand (about 35 cm). The materials of the Repinskaja culture
of the Early Bronze Age were found in its upper part. The Neolithic and
Eneolithic materials, which have been divided only typologically, were located
in the lower part of that sand.
5. Gray-ash sand (about 80 cm). There were separate finds of flint and
ceramic fragments.
6. Light yellow sand began at the depth of 1,85 m.
The Eneolithic pottery of that settlement was made of clay with shell
admixture and could be distinguished into two groups (Котова 2003). The first
group consists of 20 pots, which are typical to ceramics of the Dereivka culture
of the Middle Eneolithic. It was located in the northern part of cape, which was
the furthest from the flood-lands.

Davidski said...

@Arza

There is Z93 in Usatovo samples, from Ukraine and Bulgaria. It's not just a rumor.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski "There is Z93 in Usatovo samples, from Bulgaria. It's not just a rumor."

Usatovo is placed in Bulgaria!:-! my eyes rolled out and my jaw dropped to the floor.)(


Davidski said...

@Archi

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/270577479_Das_Grab_982_und_die_Protobronzezeit_in_Bulgarien_-_In_H_Todorova_ed_Durankulak_Band_II_Tail_1_Sofia_2002

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

There is not a word about the Usatovo culture in Bulgaria. It says that in one burial mound belonging to layer CII according to Tripolye chronology, a dagger belonging to the Usatovo type, as they call it, was found. This can be approximately up to 2500 BC, and even later.

Anonymous said...


Theoretically, of course, it could be, this is just 5 kilometers from the border with Romania. But it looks weird, there's not a single radiocarbon date.

Rob said...

@ Archi

What can you say about the 'Pivkha' culture ?

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

'' Of course, in archaeology there is a concept of transferring skills without migration of the population, but the transfer of such global skills as: - agriculture, animal husbandry, ceramics, metallurgy, in those times when there were no communications, without migration of the population, it seems unlikely to me. Therefore, I try to combine the transfer of fundamental skills with population migrations, that is, with changes in the genetic composition, both at the genome-wide level, and at the Y-hr and Mth level. In this context, the penetration of animal domestication skills from Starchevo culture to Samara culture should be accompanied by migration of the population and, accordingly, changes in the genetic composition of the population, in this direction in the period plus or minus 5000 BC. ''


But i have just outlined that the common denominator is the hunter-gatherers themselves, not EEF, but in any case there is female -mediated EEF admixture in the western steppe, all the way to east Ukraine. It then got to Samara by chain system, not mass immmigration which are supported by uniparental markers.
lastly, by the time pastoralism *realy takes hold* in the Samara steppe, there was a population shift there, from groups with elevated WHG & EEF ancestry (Yamnaya c.f. Progress & Khvalynsk). This is proven by aDNA, carbon dates, and isotopes.
So, I'm not sure if you're ignoring the explanation offered, or not understanding it. The mass-migration of Anatolian farmers into Balkans-Central-western Europe is different to the what happened in the steppe. No cookie-cutter models required

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Whats laughable is your qpAdm modeling so far without using allsnps. see what researchers say about that.

Not my problem.

Even most 12 year olds know that when running an experiment you need to focus on the variable that you're testing.

If you're running stats for different populations using different markers and different numbers of markers then you're introducing new variables into your analysis.

So of course qpAdm analyses based on the same marker set are going to be more reliable than those with the allsnps flag, as long as there are enough markers to produce a decent marker set.

A said...

Another million comments and we'll get to the bottom of this indo-european problem, guys and gals.

mzp1 said...

Not necessarily...I think we need to give the Anatolian Hypothesis a bit more respect, as it might be a part of the solution.

Lvciano said...

Just learned Okunevo can be divided into Yenesei and Tuva. The later being more europoid with pre adronovian affinities ( afanasiev ? ). Do we have samples for these sites? Also is seems some fedorov groups had afanasiev craniometric similarities... So we have some possibilities to derive Tocharian from Afanasievo.

Davidski said...

There's no genetic evidence of Afanasievo ancestry in any Andronovo groups, so the cranial similarities, if real, are probably just a coincidence.

Vladimir said...

@Rob It would have been like this if Harvard hadn't produced these results. The Anatolian component appears only in the period around 3000 BC But the appearance of the CHG component in the area of 5500 BC fits perfectly with the time of domestication in the steppe

https://abload.de/img/iir_mfa6ns5v.png

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

There's not much CHG in the Samara region until the Khvalynsk culture appears there.

In fact, there are quite a few samples from the Samara culture period coming soon and, as far as I know, they don't have much CHG. They're basically like the Samara_HG I0124 sample that has been available for a while.

Matt said...

Speaking of which, assume everyone's read excerpt from Anthony's recent chapter where he talks about levels of CHG at Volga Cemeteries, including 5% at one: https://imgur.com/a/RklpL5C

Wouldn't totally take his proportions at face value, as he's probably talking about site averages and not ranges, and his proportions for the "Sredny Stog" sample* seem a little excessively derived from Piedmont_En** by about 10-15%. But mostly close to what we know and still interesting. The composition of y-dna groups is also of interest as a sneak peak.

*Assuming that it is, and not looping back into the upthread argument of whether it is or not; I agree it is not a good idea to rely on a single sample of unclear burial status / attribution, etc.

**Also leaving aside that I think the composition of Piedmont_En is a little more complex when you get right down to it, with potentially some low level contributions beyond a strict CHG+EHG model from Anatolians + West Siberians + potentially Iran_N related populations.

Davidski said...

There's no M269 or Z2103 in Khvalynsk, so I don't know if that sneak peak is all that useful, because he obviously implies that Yamnaya males are paternally derived from Khvalynsk.

Matt said...

Hmm... I don't know if he does imply that they actually are descended from Khvalynsk* but he certainly does seem to be suggesting what were frequent, where. Frequency and diversity are informative, provided they're at a date and time to be most informative (not just differential preservation).

*which seems impossible to say given you've got a founder effect from a small group and lots of persistent diversity.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt @Davidski The samples that Igor posted on Quora showed that the amount of Khvalynsk ancestry was dwarfed by that of Progress. I wonder why.

Davidski said...

@Matt

M269 and Z2103 are found elsewhere at the time, so it's curious that they're not found in the Khvalynsk samples, and keep in mind that Yamnaya shows a signal of western ancestry that is missing in Khvalynsk.

Matt said...

Tbh lack of Western ancestry is a lesser problem with Khvlynsk relative to excessive EHG anyway.

Davidski said...

Not really, since at least one of the Khvalynsk samples had the correct proportions of CHG and EHG. So one could argue that this was the type of Khvalynsk sub-population that was somehow more successful demographically than others.

But the presence of M269 and Z2103 west of Khvalynsk, plus the western ancestry in Yamnaya, point to a migration from the west that gave rise to Yamnaya in the area. I'm guessing that may have had something to do with the Repin culture, sheep and a more mobile form of pastroralism.

Matt said...

Nah, sample with similar proportions wasn't exactly the same, and had Q.

vAsiSTha said...

Those 5 Q1a1b males in khvalynsk are interesting. Didnt expect such a high number.

Matt said...

Interesting to see a little cluster yeah, and we will see if the paper indicates any autosomal relatedness signals between them or a expanding y-dna subclade. It can be hard to distinguish closely related sub haplogroups alone on capture data if they are not well represented today.

It seems plausible that a cluster at Khvalynsk could capture transition between hunter-gatherers with deep diverging y-dna relative (e.g. as Progress) slow population growth exchanging male and female partners over long distance, and Yamnaya / CW / etc. where groups cluster on recent patrilineal ancestor, probably from sudden growth in population size and bias to only seek female partners outside the group, when sought at all.

mzp1 said...

I think Anatolian farmers were the western-most IE speakers when they expanded in the Neolithic, taking a package of settled agriculture and domesticated cattle all over Europe and East in Central Asia. They were unable to maintain the use of the wheel in their Anatolian homeland, due to insufficient access to skilled craftsmen, due to greater distance from the Herder-Hunter-Gatherer IEs of West/Central/South Asia and the Steppes. Hence, Hittite uses the IE word for Wheel, Cakra/*kʷekʷlo, to mean Donut. They do however, as part of Anatolian, have all IE words for Agriculture.

The drive for cattle results in early IE settlements and cattle domestication in the region from Northern Iran to Anatolia, coming from the East. Anatolia, being the Western-most region, loses much of it's IE character, being further away from the concentration of IE culture towards the East. Anatolian farmers move North and Westward into Europe but their languages are mostly replaced by later Bronze Age IE migrations. But this later IE activity did not take the Anatolian route to Europe, instead going through the Caucuses, so we are left with Anatolian as a pocket of the earliest divergent IE language.

The Near-Eastern IEs involved in the Neolithic transition were early and less-connected than later IEs from the East, so their language diverged the most. This is the shift from an IIr type language to Centum IE, a diverged IE linguistic continum from Anatolia to the Zagros.

In the Neolithic there is a political struggle between the innovative agricultural settlements (Anatolian and Iran_N ancestry) and the pre-existing IE, Conservative, Herder-Hunter-Gatherers, as the Neolithic moves Eastwards and begins it's economic dominance there. This is reflected in the legend of Jamshid (Yama) and the great flood in Iranian History. The Vara is meant to be the farming settlement, the flood is due to being settled (deliberately) in flood plains, the two of each kind of animal and plant, refers to agriculture and animal husbandry, and also an allusion to beginnings of Marriage between individuals, whereas in the Herder-Hunter-Gatherer societies women would have been kept collectively in the group, without individual male 'ownership' of women. Prior to the creation of the settlement, we are told, the world was overpopulated with men and herds, this is what we would expect of Herding as it does not allow for population growth relative to agriculture. Greater competition for grazing land and greater violence, while the peaceful, possibly slave-like agriculturists, are expanding and growing. Jamshid is also credited with the discovery of wine, and with agriculture (as shown), so we can see that this refers to related West-Asian settlements of the type of Haji Firuz moving Eastwards and disrupting the culture and dominance of the original IE Herders there. This explains Anatolian ancestry in Central Asian farming settlements.

The earliest layers of IE in IIr testify to the struggle to maintain the free, clean and pure way of life of the cattle herder vs the onlsaught of the hard-working, tax-paying, caste-divided, polluted, but economically plentiful culture of the foreign-derived farming society.

The Anatolian Hypothesis, The Kurgan Hypothesis, Greco-Aryan, OIT are all correct to some extent. Indo-European expansion is too complex and layered for it to be explained by a single expansion ala Big Bang. Instead, ADNA is showing us Anatolian, Iran_N, EHG etc are all deeply related going back to the Chalcolithic and with more data we see it is getting more complex and interrelated, not simpler, as many were looking for. We just have more data now then ever, from different disciplines, and if anything we can see that our initial theories were too simple for the data that is now coming up. We were confined to producing simple explanations back then as we just did not have the data we now have available.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

It's not hard to guess from whom you have this information and it's obvious that's not an ordinary rumour. But it doesn't mean that this information is correct. Just remember how the haplogroup assignment looked like in the Narasimhan et al. preprint.

Are you sure that they were talking about Usatovo Bulgaria and not some other samples?

Some early R1a is rather expected there. Malak Preslavets I2215 (6070-5990 calBCE, officially P1) is derived for F2215 (R1a1) and ancestral for PF6376 (R1b1b).

Do you know how Usatovo and Single Grave look like autosomally?

Anonymous said...


I completely agree with Arza, there are just a terrible number of errors in the definition of haplogroups in the preprints, let's remember at least the hell that is in Krzewińska 2019.


Davidski said...

@Arza

They're Usatovo burials from very specific sites in Bulgaria and Ukraine. The lineages go well beyond Z93.

My information is from a couple of different sources. You'll just have to wait for the rest. But don't tell me that there's no Z93 in Usatovo.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Nah, sample with similar proportions wasn't exactly the same, and had Q.

I0434 has the correct enough CHG/EHG proportions to get to Yamnaya when coupled with minor western ancestry.

Yamnaya: home-grown

And what about the Q? You just made the claim that Yamnaya Z2103 might be from Khvalynsk based on a sample set of Khvalynsk males that were xZ2103 and even xM269.

I don't know if there's no M269 or Z2103 in the latest Khvalynsk set, but there were a fair few samples from Khvalynsk and Samara sites a few months back, and they were all xM269/xZ2103.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski, what kind of Z93 does Ustaovo have?

Arza said...

@ Samuel Andrews

Hmm. I'll try to guess.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z2122/

Anonymous said...


All this is very, very strange, if Usatovo had R1a-Z93+, then in all subsequent cultures of the Balkans R1a-Z93+would be predominant, fatal population change there was not, all the time there is continuity with the previous population. Although the population is changing there, it is not changing by total extinction, but by adding a new one to the old one. Therefore, the Monteoru and Wietenberg cultures must be R1a-Z93+, because they come from Usatovo. I would not be surprised if the source again confused everything, and thought the Babino culture the Usatovo.

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

Can't remember and don't really care anymore.

There are also R1a and R1a-Z93 samples from the Caspian steppe, some that look like Yamnaya, but they weren't radiocarbon dated. Maybe they have been since then.

We just have to wait until all of these samples are finally revealed before trying to make sense of them. I hope it doesn't take years, but who the hell knows.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

In those places, the Yamnaya did not replace anyone, it existed separately. It does not have continuous monuments there, it has episodically separate monuments there, and it did not violate the continuity of cultures there.


Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"Can't remember and don't really care anymore."
"We just have to wait until all of these samples are finally revealed before trying to make sense of them."

I get that. Because, we all know guessing future ancient DNA results is like pulling a number out of a hat. There's usually no way to know what will turn up.

But, the kind of Z93 Ustavo had is important to know. If it is the subclade Z2124 that could mean it is directly ancestral to Srubanya, Sintashta, Andronovo. Maybe they belong to the Indian varient of Z93 which would mean their ancestral to the Aryans who went to India. Maybe they are a dead end, a member of the same family who went extinct.

Samuel Andrews said...

It's important Ukraine, Romania Yamnaya is R1b Z2103. First of all it is evidence Yamnaya was an ethnic groups. Second it confirms Corded Ware and Bell beaker are not descended directly from Yamnaya.

Davidski said...

Well, it seems like my prediction was correct. Yamnaya is basically all R1b-Z2103 and I2a-L699.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/hungarian-yamnaya-predictions.html

I don't know yet how R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 made it out of the steppe and into Corded Ware.

Ryan said...

@David - I thought the rumour was L51 wasn't from the steppe, but rather the Baltic area?

Davidski said...

There's no L51 in any of the ancient samples from the East Baltic.

So far there are a couple of possible cases of L51 from the forest and forest steppe in Russia and Ukraine.

a said...

I3499, Vucedol, 2884-2666 calBCE=aka Gen 72 shares the same branch/phylogeny Yersinia Pestis as RK1001.C0101, Yamnaya Caucasus, 2879-2673.



page 968 table 2--

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317095227_The_Stone_Age_Plague_1000_years_of_Persistence_in_Eurasia



Yamnaya-I0443 L23+Y410?negative Z2105+

a said...

Bell Beaker I2787[ skull ]connected to Yamnaya and maybe Khvalynsk R1b with high steppe component-R1b-Z2109+ compared to a Bell Beaker[I2741] with I2a and low steppe component.
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2017/07/szigetszentmiklos-cemetery-santas-six.html

Rob said...

I think, going back quite far, the Volga-Kama region was the 'base' for R1b, from where they split & moved on


@ 'a'
''Bell Beaker I2787[ skull ]connected to Yamnaya and maybe Khvalynsk R1b with high steppe component-R1b-Z2109+ compared to a Bell Beaker[I2741] with I2a and low steppe component.''

Theres I2a1a in BB-Hungary with low/ no steppe but also I2a2a1b with as much steppe as R1b-Z2013.

Matt said...

@Davidski, point that if the correct y-dna haplogroup is required, the Khvalynsk sample with closest to correct Piedmont/Steppe_En ancestry (with further top of up Piedmont/Steppe and also *Anatolian* ancestry) still lacks that.

If R1b-M269 is present elsewhere, we will need to look at the autosomal composition of those samples to determine if they are likely to be a source or recipient, and at what time.

...

On thread topic of Steppe_EBA haplogroups, Narasimhan's paper apparently found 3/14 Afanasievo as Q1a2, which was more than I thought.

a said...

It will be interesting to see if I2a or R1b-Z2109+samples from Szigetszentmiklós township on Csepel Island have red hair and or blonde hair genes. Also if they are related to the same branch of R1b that might have had newly discovered grain finds in Afanasievo. Or connected to the 4 burials[graves-100,127,139,55] in Khvalysnk having multiple animal grave offerings,containing horse,cattle,sheep. Or the same burial grounds as Progress 2001- R11b-V1636 and the region with wagon burials. I guess we just have to wait and see.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Point that if the correct y-dna haplogroup is required, the Khvalynsk sample with closest to correct Piedmont/Steppe_En ancestry (with further top of up Piedmont/Steppe and also *Anatolian* ancestry) still lacks that.

In fact, my point was that we can, in theory, get Yamnaya from Khvalynsk, if we assume that dense sampling of the Khvalynsk Y-DNA hasn't yet been able to pick up the M269 that existed in a Khvalynsk sub-population rich in CHG ancestry, like individual I0434.

Of course, I don't believe that this is the case, but it's a possible scenario for now, which is something that you denied.

If R1b-M269 is present elsewhere, we will need to look at the autosomal composition of those samples to determine if they are likely to be a source or recipient, and at what time.

It is present elsewhere, quite a distance west of Khvalynsk territory, but the autosomal composition of these samples isn't exactly crucial.

That's because, in the absence of M269 in the Khvalynsk and nearby samples, these are still very valuable data points which suggest that M269 may have arrived in Khvalynsk territory from somewhere in the west.

On thread topic of Steppe_EBA haplogroups, Narasimhan's paper apparently found 3/14 Afanasievo as Q1a2, which was more than I thought.

Yes, but how did Afanasievo, with its minor Euro farmer ancestry, get to the Altai?

Obviously, it didn't fly there, but moved east across territory potentially rich in Q1a2.

Also, by the way, from memory there's Q1a2 in the same population west of Khvalynsk that has the early M269. Haha.

Matt said...

From somewhere to the west of Khvalynsk? Sure. Probably not somewhere to the east of it, after all.

Davidski said...

Yeah, like from an as yet unsampled pop from the Lower Don for instance. And I say that even though I know that the early M269 is in Volosovo, far to the north of the Lower Don.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski

"Narasimhan's paper apparently found 3/14 Afanasievo as Q1a2, which was more than I thought. Yes, but how did Afanasievo, with its minor Euro farmer ancestry, get to the Altai?"

These are the latest specimens, the Okunevians' invasion.

"Of course, I don't believe that this is the case, but it's a possible scenario for now, which is something that you denied. If R1b-M269 is present elsewhere, we will need to look at the autosomal composition of those samples to determine if they are likely to be a source or recipient, and at what time."

The closest population to Yamnians according to anthropology is in the burial ground of Khlopkov Bugor of the Khvalynsk culture, but not in Khvalynsk cemeteries. It is possible is that R1b-Z2103 from Dzhangar of Kalmykia, where in the Neolithic was its own archaeological culture connected with Crimea, but in the Eneolithic this area was visited by Novodanilovsky type, which may be connected with Khlopkov Bugor.


a said...

Interesting looking at some Samara Yamnaya skulls, one can see the cleft chin[unique genes, where bones don't totally fuse together found in some Europeans] https://www.zmescience.com/science/news-science/fourth-tribe-yamnaya-042543/.

The monk [Tocharian] fresco from Bezekik 9-10th ce, clearly shows a cleft chin.

Interesting word for face in Tocharian A- Akmal[Ak=eyes+mal=nose].

MaxT said...

@Archi

Q1a2 was found in Eneolithic steppe samples, Afanasievo likely got it from them. See Anthony..https://i.imgur.com/RgMVCem.png

"The samples from the North Caucasus steppes came from three Eneolithic graves at Progress-2 and Vonyuchka, both dated about 4300-4100 B. These three males were very similar genetically to Khvalynsk males - they showed a mixture of EHG/CHG ancestry and Y-chromosome haplogroups R1b1 and Q1a2."

He also said this about Q1a1b found in Khvalynsk.

"The Q1a1b males were linked to the north, where this haplogroup is found in ancient samples from Siberia, the Altai Mountians, and across the forest zone to the Baltic."

It looks like Q was also part of early EHG groups. It's possible that in further north EHG-type ancestry that SHG had was more Q-relate maybe? Considering SHG had 'shovel-shaped incisors'and i vaguely remember SHG paper saying that it could be mediated by EHG-related ancestry. Do any of the identified EHG skulls have shovel-shaped incisors?

Rob said...

If I’ve understood the confusing nomenclatures, Haplogroup Q1a in Afanasievo isn’t the same one as Neo-Eneolithic Samara- Caspian
Moreover, the GW ancestry of the incoming component doesn’t seem to be from the west, but rather east-of-Botai. I’d guess somewhere Altai-Yenesei basin. As per the studies, some 10-15% Afanasievo ancestry remained, as did some cultural attributes. So I’ve modified my view; but it’s still a pretty major shift

Anonymous said...

@axT

"Q1a2 was found in Eneolithic steppe samples, Afanasievo likely got it from them."

You're wrong, the Eneolithic Steppe has nothing to do with this. The Afanasievo culture is the closest relative of the Yamnaya culture, there are no Q1a2 in the Yamnaya culture, so there were no Afanasievo culture either. It is a medical fact that these later samples, which are on the border of the Afanasievo and Okunevo cultures, are actually Okunevians (invaders).

Anonymous said...

Compare

Afanasievo:

Last R1b1a1a2a2: (Only R1b1a1a2a2), 2858-2505, 2866-2579 calBCE

First Q1a2: 2878-2636, 2837-2498, 2617-2472 calBCE

Okunevo:

Last R1b1a1a2a2: 2859-2350 cal BC, ~2300 BC

Only Q1a2: 2573-2348 cal BC, etc! except single Q1a1b1 2138-1915 cal BC

MaxT said...

@Rob

Thanks, what Q-clad does it belong to? There are several Q clads in British Isle, I wonder if it's steppe related?

@Archi

Thank you. I agree, Yamnaya did not have them but my guess about Afanasievo was based on Anthony's source.

vAsiSTha said...

The khvalynsk q1a1b1 are the oldest found in that subclade from what I see in the database.
All other Q1a's are to it's east, with the oldest being from ancient amerindians.

Anonymous said...

@vAsiSTha

Oldest Q1a2 in Europe is in Latvia Mesolithic Zvejnieki [I4550 / ZVEJ3] 6000-5100 BCE M Q1a2

In Khvalynsk is Q1a without additional specification.

Anonymous said...

You see, you have to be very careful in defining culture. For example, in the same burial grounds Usatovo and tested Mayaki there are layers belonging to the Middle Bronze Age, it seems, to Babino culture. There are even bone horse harness elements. So it's the Usatovo Graves, but in fact there are layers from a very different time.

Not to mention the fact that, keeping in mind the history with Alexandria, which in general by ignorance was put into the Western Ukraine, it may be a completely different Usatovo, which is located in Russia and belongs to the Abashevo culture.

There is one detail here, Telegin immediately said that this burial in Alexandria is the most atypical of all graves in Alexandria, it is the latest of all graves and unique, it has no analogues in this cemetery. This was collectively buried people with rhombus legs with a northward orientation, and there are no ceramics and almost obligatory for Eneolithic flint knives, anthropologically they are also different from all the others, none of these properties are no in other burials in Alexandria, all this makes this burial sharply different from all others.
Its interesting and unique feature is that it is the only one with arrows from which these people were killed, that is, these people died as a result of the war.
On the listed properties this burial is similar to Abashevo, so it was buried in Abashevo culture. It seems that this burial is just the only burial of the Abashevo culture in Alexandria, although Abashevo itself in Alexandria is unknown.

Jorge Escalante said...

>Wonder if these North Caucasus groups have direct Yamnaya input going by their phenotype? Considering light eyes/hair was more common in late steppe groups while early steppe groups overwhelmingly had dark eyes/hair.

That is patently false.

Mike said...

I'm bit confused. These early R-M269 came from lyalovo or volosovo layer ?

Davidski said...

Early Volosovo.

Davidski said...

@All

Here's another TreeMix graph with Vonyuchka_En. This time featuring 20 ancient genomes. Feast your eyes on this...

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1lZMITaTa5AhG6bujB25oDuaBPuXgga8U

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

With 'CHG genetics' I was referring to 'Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps' which represents most of the Steppe genetics and is now very common in Georgia, Armenia and other countries in the Caucasian region. The relevant issue for me is that there is more 'Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N' and 'IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N' genetics in the Steppe genetics than the ANE genetics. Which is evidence that the people of the Steppes were the result of a mixture between ANE and populations of the Caucasus. Nothing new so far.

Davidski said...

Here's another version, this time with Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1 added, and with Botai_En instead of Sosonivoy_HG.

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1xW8-2XEnGyXDD8JSEXOzvS5IkZdt7Jfd

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

None of the ancient steppe populations up to the end of the Bronze Age, except the Steppe Maykop outliers, have any ancestry from Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps, IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N or Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N.

It seems to me that you're confused.

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

When I put Yamnaya_RUS_Samara in 'Targed' the result is:

42.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
30.2 WHG
18.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
7.2 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP

And when I put 'RUS_AfontovaGora3' the result is:

31.0 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
30.6 WHG
28.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
9.8 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara seems to be a mix between a population similar to 'RUS_AfontovaGora3' with a Caucasian population close to 'Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps'

I shouldn't use 'CHG' to refer to Kura-Araxes genetics, this was a mistake, but 'kura Araxes' genetics seems to be strong in the steppe's genetic signal.

When you run the genetic distances between 'Data' populations,
The 'base' population closest to 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara' is 'Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps' and 'IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N'.

Distance to: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.22716531 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.28141093 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.31560778 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
0.33822432 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.33830372 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
0.36044761 Levant_PPNB
0.37744914 WHG
0.44380177 Jarawa
0.52214552 MAR_Iberomaurusian
0.59089947 Nganassan
0.60141484 Han
0.62340738 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.67760302 ETH_4500BP
0.73717410 Dinka
0.75289727 Gambian
0.77674681 Yoruba

Henrique Paes said...

Even modern Europeans who have steppe genetics are related to Kura araxes when you deconstruct the components of the 'steppe'.


Distance to: Swedish:Sweden10

0.15162558 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.21457927 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
0.21959771 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.22476054 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.26667037 Levant_PPNB
0.31518091 WHG
0.33592855 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.38337868 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
0.46321456 Jarawa
0.48291124 MAR_Iberomaurusian
0.61305969 Han
0.61363601 Nganassan
0.66316749 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.67454433 ETH_4500BP
0.73456632 Dinka
0.74802591 Gambian
0.77345657 Yoruba


Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes

"I shouldn't use 'CHG' to refer to Kura-Araxes genetics, this was a mistake, but 'kura Araxes' genetics seems to be strong in the steppe's genetic signal."

You are wildly mistaken, your erroneous models have 0 probability. You should use EHG and CHG otherwise this is a mistake.

I checked.



Henrique Paes said...

@Archi


I'm using Global25 as a tool. 'EHG' is nothing more than the name for a mix. The steppe population distanced itself from more Siberian 'EHG' populations such as 'RUS_AfontovaGora3' by mixing with Caucasian populations. I presented the data and you can test it right now at Global25. Good luck.

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

Global25...

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 3.1948% / 0.03194780
82.8 RUS_Progress_En
11.2 UKR_N
6.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes 'EHG' is nothing more than the name for a mix. The steppe population distanced itself from more Siberian 'EHG' populations such as 'RUS_AfontovaGora3' by mixing with Caucasian populations. I presented the data and you can test it right now at Global25.

You are deeply mistaken. You do not understand anything about the origin of components and just invent some fables. EHG is the true component, not your fabricated fiction. Your models are deeply flawed, even from a historical, temporal, and archaeological point of view. So don't fabricate it up.

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes

In general, it is simply ridiculous to use for modeling, as a reference, the population that was after the target population, especially if the rest are selected from the Paleolithic-Early Neolithic from very far away.

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

The elements I mentioned continue to appear in 'RUS_Karelia_HG'

51.6 WHG
21.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
19.0 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
4.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
3.4 Nganassan

All I did was point out the elements behind 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara' (a lot IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N and Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps) The 'RUS_Karelia_HG' has fewer 'Caucasian' elements than Yamnaya_RUS_Samara, but RUS_Karelia_HG is not the best is not the best reference for steppe populations as a whole

Yamnaya_RUS_Samara best represents the steppe population that migrated to central and western Europe. So much so that it took the 'Caucasian elements' to modern European populations.

This is what happens when you test a modern European population by removing 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara' from source (revela os elementos por trás de 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara'.

Target: German:German10
Distance: 9.6581% / 0.09658089
40.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
29.4 WHG
25.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.6 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
2.0 Nganassan

Distance to: German:German10
0.19460016 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
0.20267069 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.20635687 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.24482107 Levant_PPNB
0.32491625 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.33854115 WHG
0.37527559 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
0.45152606 Jarawa
0.47070858 MAR_Iberomaurusian
0.60620971 Han
0.60835084 Nganassan
0.65744404 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.66082656 ETH_4500BP
0.72067136 Dinka
0.73407146 Gambian
0.75978010 Yoruba

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes

"The elements I mentioned continue to appear in 'RUS_Karelia_HG'
51.6 WHG
21.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
19.0 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
4.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps"

This is complete crazy nonsense. You don't even know the basic basics, absolutely any sample can be presented in thousands of similar erroneous ways. They are physically impossible, but you don't understand it because you don't understand anything at all.

Henrique Paes said...

@Archi

Deny that EHG was made up of a mixture between WHG + ANE + Caucasian elements (Caucasian elements mainly mainly in the southern steppes )
is deny reality. The steppe population that migrated to the rest of Europe was far from being a 'pure' mix between WHG and ANE.

Henrique Paes said...

@Archi

You are 'so smart' that you didn't notice that when I add an apopulation to the 'target' I remove it from the 'source'. Precisely to deconstruct the elements and not refer to something over the same thing.

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes

"Deny that EHG was made up of a mixture between WHG + ANE + Caucasian elements (Caucasian elements mainly mainly in the southern steppes )
is deny reality."

You do not understand, absolutely pure components do not exist in nature, all are a mixture of other earlier components, WHG and CHG are also mixtures. EHG is the same pure component as WHG and CHG, and ANE is not allocated at all, it is a declaration. So your fiction is delusional erroneous fiction is just for the purpose of deceiving, coming up with something that is not there.

Ebizur said...

a wrote,

"Interesting word for face in Tocharian A- Akmal[Ak=eyes+mal=nose]."

In what way do you suppose that to be interesting or remarkable?

It appears very ordinary to me.

cf.Japanese 目鼻 me-hana (< me "eye(s)" + hana "nose")

1. Eye(s) and nose.
2. Face. Facial features. (A person's) looks.
3. The outline of a thing. A rough outlook or characterization.

Henrique Paes said...

This is what happens when you load a modern European population by removing 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara' from the source. The elements behind 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara' appear again in dismembered form.

Target: German: German10
Distance: 9.6581% / 0.09658089
40.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
29.4 WHG
25.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.6 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
2.0 Nganassan

I'm not making anything up. All modern scientific articles recognize the 'Caucasian' genetic element as part of the steppe mix

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes "You are 'so smart' that you didn't notice that when I add an apopulation to the 'target' I remove it from the 'source'."

You are so not smart, it is a fact, that you do not understand that your 'source' Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps was on average later than your 'targets' Yamnaya_RUS_Samara and even more so RUS_Karelia_HG. Honestly, you need to turn your brain on.

Henrique Paes said...

" You do not understand, absolutely pure components do not exist in nature, all are a mixture of other earlier components, WHG and CHG are also mixtures. EHG is the same pure component as WHG and CHG, and ANE is not allocated at all, it is a declaration. So your fiction is delusional erroneous fiction is just for the purpose of deceiving, coming up with something that is not there. "

Are you sure you read what I say? I never claimed that there is a 'pure element', you who argued in the sense that EHG would be an 'independent element' when I mentioned the mixtures involved in the 'formation' of EHG. From the beginning, I have been defending the mixture theory, never 'purism'. You chose to ignore the genetic relationship / proximity between the steppe and the Caucasian, I don't. I don't care if the Indo-European language originated with or without the influence of the Caucasian, I am not part of the identity dispute and I am only citing scientific facts cited in any scientific article on the subject. It is a fact that there was a genetic mixture between the EHG and the Caucasian population. Whether genetic contact justifies cultural changes I cannot say, but it did exist. End. Have a good night.

Lvciano said...

What's your point? Everyone knows Eneolithic Steppe cultures have a CHG-like component and later these populations from the steppe acquired some EEF.

Given your limited sources of choice it's certain that some near eastern of trans caucasian pop. would be picked.

Henrique Paes said...

@Archi

"You are so not smart, it is a fact, that you do not understand that your 'source' Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps was on average later than your 'targets' Yamnaya_RUS_Samara and even more so RUS_Karelia_HG. Honestly, you need to turn your brain on."

The time issue does not change anything in this case and you know it. By the way; the temporal question is in favor of what I am saying.

Make a comparison between 'RUS_AfontovaGora3' and 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara'. The northernmost populations of western Russia maintained more ANE, while the steppe populations had less ANE and more Caucasian elements. The geographic and genetic issue is obvious

Henrique Paes said...

@Lvciano

Saying the obviousness that the steppe population had ancestry related to Caucasus populations is nothing new, but saying obviousities still causes 'controversy'. It seems that some people want to believe in an EHG free of Caucasian cultural or genetic influences. When in fact we all know that the steppe population that moved to the rest of Europe did have many Caucasian and even Iranian elements.

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

This is what happens when you test a modern European population by removing 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara' from source.

Target: German:German10
Distance: 9.6581% / 0.09658089
40.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
29.4 WHG
25.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
2.6 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
2.0 Nganassan


This model is statistically very poor, which means that it doesn't reflect reality.

You need Yamnaya or a closely related population there to model the Germans correctly. Kura-Araxes doesn't work.

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

Saying the obviousness that the steppe population had ancestry related to Caucasus populations is nothing new, but saying obviousities still causes 'controversy'.

There was a very strong genetic border between the steppe and the Caucasus already during the Eneolithic.

Genetic borders are usually linguistic borders too

The Caucasus really doesn't have anything directly to do with the ancestry of present-day Europeans. The idea that it does is just a myth being propagated by people who are lying or who don't understand the data, like you.

Vladimir said...

@Henrigue Paes “The time issue does not change anything in this case and you know it.”

The question of time, in my opinion, changes everything and can point to the opposite process to what you assume. In particular, a relatively large number in the population saramango the Caucasus and Turkey subclades R1b-V1636, R1b-PF7562, R1b-Z2103, R1a-YP4141, the presence of these subclades in the ancient steppe samples and their absence in the ancient samples from the Caucasus and Anatolia may indicate population movements from the steppe to the South Caucasus.

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

I admire your work, but my jaw dropped when you indicated Rus_Karelia as a reference. Karelia is in the far north west of Russia with Finland. It is obvious that there will not be much influence from Kura Araxes or anything very Caucasian there. Karelia is far from the open steppes, but it is curious that even there the data is like this:

Target: RUS_Karelia_HG:I0061
Distance: 19.7553% / 0.19755283
51.4 WHG
21.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
19.0 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
5.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
3.4 Nganassan

Without a doubt Yamnaya_RUS_Samara is a better reference for the Yamnaya culture.


Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 15.3465% / 0.15346470
42.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
30.0 WHG
18.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
7.4 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
1.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
0.6 Nganassan

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

Your models are total fails. Look at the huge distances.

Now look at the distance in my model.

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 3.1948% / 0.03194780
82.8 RUS_Progress_En
11.2 UKR_N
6.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

Henrique Paes said...

Even when we add 'RUS_Karelia_HG' to Source: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara continues to have high levels of affinity with Kura Araxes.

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

58.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
37.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N

Samuel Andrews said...

@Henrique Paes, The lower the distance the better the model. Your model gets a distance of 15.3. David's model gets a distance of 3.2. So, David's model is much better.

If you try modelling Yamnaya with Kura-Araxes, CHG, Karelia_HG, and Balkans_N. Yamnaya will score 0% Kura-Araxes.

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski

Adding nearby populations that already have assimilated elements masks the broader relationships. Your selection is biased. It may please anyone who wants to affirm beliefs, but in all scientific articles the question of mixing with Caucasian populations is a fact (In the steppes that is where the subject matters, not in Karelia or other convenient regions.)

Henrique Paes said...

@Davidski


Want an example with a shorter distance? Great!

Target: Yamnaya RUS_Samara
Distance: 6.6587% / 0.06658721
58.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
37.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_

Do you still think the distance is too big? Cut the value for Kura Aranxes in half and it remains relevant.

Davidski said...

@Henrique Paes

This is the latest scientific publication dealing with the ancestry of Yamnaya.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-08220-8

The model that I posted is close to the model that the authors of the paper found to be the best solution for Yamnaya.

Henrique Paes said...

I believe that no one here doubts that the Germans are related to Yamnaya. I will make comparisons and compare the distances (%)

Target: German:German10
Distance: 15.6368% / 0.15636766
100.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 22.7165% / 0.22716531
100.0 KuraAraxes_ARM_Kaps

Target: Yamnaya RUS_Samara
Distance: 6.6587% / 0.06658721
58.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
37.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_

Different distances, but generally similar. It is impossible to treat Kura Araxes' relationship with Yamnaya irrelevant.


Davidski said...

Yamnaya is not directly related to Kura-Araxes.

The relationship between them is indirect and mostly mediated via populations that split thousands of years ago.

Kura-Araxes might have some minor ancestry from the Eneolithic steppe, and that's about as close as we get to a link with Yamnaya.

Henrique Paes said...

See what happens when you replace 'Yamnaya_RUS_Samara' with 'RUS_Karelia_HG'. The system becomes better at distinguishing EHG from Kura Araxes and shows how Yamanaya took 'Kura Araxes' to Europe.

Target: Swedish:Sweden10
Distance: 6.6426% / 0.06642609
39.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
34.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
14.0 WHG
12.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

Exactly half the value for Kura aranxes as I had predicted earlier:

Target: Yamnaya RUS_Samara
Distance: 6.6587% / 0.06658721
58.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
37.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_

For me this is the end of any doubt. I thank you for your attention and wish you good night.


vAsiSTha said...

@davidski
why does your tree not show WSHG admixture into ancestor of Sarazm and geoksyur?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Why does your tree not show WSHG admixture into ancestor of Sarazm and geoksyur?

It does show it via a subtle shift by Sarazm and Geoksyur towards WSHG relative to Ganj Dareh etc.

Not all admixture events in TreeMix are shown as mixture edges. This depends on the samples used in the analysis and the number of mixture edges allowed by the user.

Henrique Paes said...

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 16.9067% / 0.16906716
100.0 RUS_Karelia_HG

16% between Yamnaya_RUS_Samara and RUS_Karelia_HG. Yamnaya had other genetic influences in addition to EHG and we know which ones were.

vAsiSTha said...

So allow more mixture edges

vAsiSTha said...

@henrique
Please stop showing models with more than 5% distance. Or even better, more than 3% distance.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

I'm not all that interested in Sarazm or Geoksyur because they're not relevant to European population prehistory.

Henrique Paes said...

Another strange thing:

Target: Swedish: Sweden10
Distance: 4.6835% / 0.04683484
47.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
34.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
17.6 WHG

Target: Swedish: Sweden10
Distance: 21.9598% / 0.21959771
100.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps

Target: Swedish: Sweden10
Distance: 22.4761% / 0.22476054
100.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N

Target: Swedish: Sweden10
Distance: 21.4579% / 0.21457927
100.0 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N

It is not strange that 'Swedish:Sweden10' is always less distant from 'Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N' and 'Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps' than from Barcin N when compared individually. The same is true on a large scale

Distance to: Swedish:Sweden10
0.15162558 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
0.21457927 Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
0.21959771 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.22476054 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.26667037 Levant_PPNB
0.31518091 WHG
0.33592855 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.38337868 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
0.46321456 Jarawa
0.48291124 MAR_Iberomaurusian
0.61305969 Han
0.61363601 Nganassan
0.66316749 BRA_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
0.67454433 ETH_4500BP
0.73456632 Dinka
0.74802591 Gambian
0.77345657 Yoruba

Henrique Paes said...


It was funny that you pointed out the great distance without realizing that I was calling attention to the same thing (which should not happen in the context I was putting, in fact: it shows that the 'great distance' is possible between obviously related groups. I drew attention to something that makes sense in context.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski Lol, if the obvious admixtures are not being shown in your tree, then it is useless.

You're just managing the settings to see what you wish to see.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

If the obvious admixtures are not being shown in your tree, then it is useless.

They are being shown. I just explained that.

But my sampling strategy is focused on analyzing Vonyuchka_En, so I would need to pick a different set of samples to create a tree that reveals more obvious details about Sarazm or Geoksyur.

In any case, I'm not here to educate you. Set up TreeMix and run the graphs that you want to run.

a said...

Ebizur said...
a wrote,

"Interesting word for face in Tocharian A- Akmal[Ak=eyes+mal=nose]."

In what way do you suppose that to be interesting or remarkable?

It appears very ordinary to me.

cf.Japanese 目鼻 me-hana (< me "eye(s)" + hana "nose")

1. Eye(s) and nose.
2. Face. Facial features. (A person's) looks.
3. The outline of a thing. A rough outlook or characterization.

I find it anything but ordinary. For example compare Jomon culture and how they expressed their facial/body type in their art.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6c/Dogu_Miyagi_1000_BCE_400_BCE.jpg

And Yamnaya warrior culture--
Kernosovskiy idol, a Yamnaya kurgan stelae dated to the third millenium bc.
https://www.reddit.com/r/IndoEuropean/comments/ea4p4f/the_kernosovskiy_idol_a_yamnaya_kurgan_stelae/

Anonymous said...

@Henrique Paes "Are you sure you read what I say?"


You say nothing but nonsense and nothing but foolishness and untruth. You're wrong about everything because you don't understand anything and your goal is to deceive everyone in order to put your deception in ears. You haven't counted anything and don't understand what is counted, I counted a lot and unlike you I know the subject. You're just lying frankly, making up a straightforward lie about the components, absolutely all your claims are false. All you're writing is crazy nonsense.

Lvciano said...

@Henrique Paes
"
the obviousness that the steppe population had ancestry related to Caucasus populations is nothing new, but saying obviousities still causes 'controversy'. It seems that some people want to believe in an EHG free of Caucasian cultural or genetic influences. When in fact we all know that the steppe population that moved to the rest of Europe did have many Caucasian and even Iranian elements.
"

If I am not mistaken, Mesolithic and Neolithic populations from Caucasus and Iran are ANE rich, like EHG ( muh ancestors *_* ). So you try to model EHG rich populations with this limited set, of course the algorithm will choose them as source. It doesn't mean Steppe people descend from them ( but from something in common probably thousands and thousands years ago ). The statistic will be very poor of course.

Lvciano said...

Nothing strange. Swedish will be closer to CHG rich populations. Which doesn't mean it derives from those populations or CHG proper.

Lvciano said...

Let's say I try to model anyone here with Chimpanzee and Banana genomes . Everyone will be 100% Chimp probably so I just discovered de very "strange" fact that no one wants to talk about: we are descended from Donkey Kong.

This is the kind of reasoning @Henrique Paes has.

Ric Hern said...

It will be interesting to see if Early Volosovo had some CHG-like Ancestry.

Arza said...

@ Ric Hern

You can check it on your own as they are already in the G25.

Baltic_LVA_MN:I4435
Baltic_LVA_MN:I4436
Baltic_LVA_MN:I4554

Samuel Andrews said...

Some of the Kurgan burials are in Steppe land near the Caucasus mountains, which is outside where Sredny Stog lived and is in the territory near where Progress Eneolithic genomes are. And they lived around the same time.

STARONIZHESTEBLIEVSKAJA, Cemetary.
KOMAROVO, kurgans. In North Ossestia. .

Davidski said...

@Arza

You can check it on your own as they are already in the G25.

Baltic_LVA_MN:I4435
Baltic_LVA_MN:I4436
Baltic_LVA_MN:I4554


How'd you work out that these samples are associated with the Volosovo culture?

Samuel Andrews said...

I found a great archeaology book for understanding the Early Eneolithic Pontic Caspien.

https://www.academia.edu/19575239/Early_Eneolithic_in_the_Pontic_Steppe

It gives descriptions of many Sredny Stog burials. Sredny Stog is always dated to 4500-3500 BC. But this paper describes burials with obvious Steppe Kurgan customs radiocarbon dated to 4800 BC. He labels them as Sredny Stog

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews
"Sredny Stog is always dated to 4500-3500 BC."

It's an untruth. Don't be ridiculous. Did you even see Table 17?
I've referenced this book many times.

"Some of the Kurgan burials are in Steppe land near the Caucasus mountains, which is outside where Sredny Stog lived "

You haven't even seen the Sredniy Stog map in Fig.1. You haven't even looked through the book superficially.

Davidski said...

That's Kotova's paper from 2008. It's very speculative IMHO.

Many of the sites she analyzed didn't have radiocarbon dates or correct radiocarbon dates (reservoir effect) back then.

Also, we really need ancient DNA samples from those sites to be able to say anything precise about the relationships between the populations living there. Pottery can be traded or copied.

The part about the Nalchik cemetery starting on page 118 is interesting though. The people at that site may have been a mixed steppe/Meshoko cultural group.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski "That's Kotova's paper from 2008. It's very speculative IMHO."

This is not an paper, this is the book. Kotova is not speculative, she is accurate. The reservoir effects for both Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk were measured, they do not exceed 200-300 years.

Kotova is the main and most authoritative expert in the world on Sredniy Stogy. In addition to some of the usual statements for Ukrainian archaeologists, such as that in the Sredniy Stog culture, the horse was domesticated (this is a very controversial point) and that some burial grounds in the Ciscaucasus are not Khvalynsk, but Sredniy Stog (it's hard to distinguish them there), she is accurate.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,"Kotova is the main and most authoritative expert in the world on Sredniy Stogy."

Great. Now, I know whose name to search to find info on Eneolithic Steppe. Maybe, her papers record who the ancestors of "Steppe people" were.



Davidski said...

Kotova talks about eastern and western Sredny Stog variants.

These are likely to be associated with different populations.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

When you corrected Sam that you didn't mean that they are exactly like Latvia_HG you've practically revealed everything. Earlier (or about the same time) Archi was linking Volosovo to (IIRC) Latvia. In the G25 Latvia_MN is generally a better source for steppe than Karelia_HG. Plus these three EHG-rich samples were newcomers and thus they represent some external population. Not that hard to connect the dots.

Rob said...

Kotova's new paper, with major revision of dating of Neolithic cultures in Ukraine
'Revisiting the neolithic chronology of the Dnieper steppe region with consideration of a reservoir effect for human skeletal material.''

From ~ 7500 to 5500 BC. Pretty big change.


@ Sam

''her papers record who the ancestors of "Steppe people" were.''

The ancestors of the mythical 'steppe people' are the Reich lab, who invented the simplistic notion

Davidski said...

@Samuel

I'm afraid that Kotova's paper needs to be seriously re-written, using more radiocarbon dates as well as revised radiocarbon dates, isotopic data, and obviously ancient DNA.

Anonymous said...

Rob said...
"From ~ 7500 to 5500 BC. Pretty big change."

Rob's always lying,

Table 6. Old and new ages for the Azov-Dniepe1* and Surskoy Culture
Azov-Dnieper
Culture
Period la
Pericxl lb
Period 2
Surskoy Culture
Period I
Period 20
Period 2b
Period 3
Old dates
6300/6200-5900
5900-5750
5750-5200
5200-4750
CalBC
Dates adjusted for the reservoir effect
6300/6200-5900
5900-5750
5750-4900
4900-4700



@Davidski said...
I'm afraid that Kotova's paper needs to be seriously re-written, using more radiocarbon dates as well as revised radiocarbon dates, isotopic data, and obviously ancient DNA.

There is nothing special to review, because the reservoir effect was lost for Sredny Stog and it is 100 years maximum, these people mainly fed on cattle, it does not have a reservoir effect, only in the area of the Dnieper also fish.

N Shishlina1 • V Sevastyanov2 • E Zazovskaya3 • J van der Plicht4 RESERVOIR EFFECT OF ARCHAEOLOGICAL SAMPLES FROM STEPPE BRONZE AGE CULTURES IN SOUTHERN RUSSIA Radiocarbon, Vol 56, Nr 2, 2014,
"Eneolithic Culture
Only one pair of dates is presently available, i.e. cow and human bones from the Eneolithic Khvalynsk
Cemetery II, grave 10. The offset is 220 14C yr. We assume that other 14C dates of human bones available for this culture also would show this apparent age. The average value of the δ15N ratio in human bone collagen from the Khvalynsk humans is +13‰ (Shishlina et al. 2012a). This provides the size of the reservoir effect correction (Shishlina et al. 2009). People belonging to this culture consumed quite a lot of aquatic food. Stable isotope data available for five human bones confirm this statement (Shishlina 2008).

The consumption of freshwater fish by the local Eneolithic population of the adjacent Dnieper Basin in Ukraine also causes apparent ages of dated humans from the Molukhov Bugor burial ground. The reservoir effect correction for this case is 110 14C yr (Lillie et al. 2009)."

Davidski said...

@Archi

These stable isotope data are shown in Table 2, and plotted in Figure 2. The data show that the Eneolithic populations had a diet based on river products. This is confirmed by catfish (Silurus glanis) bones and special fishing tools (hooks and harpoons) found at Eneolithic sites (Agapov et al. 1990).

https://www.rug.nl/research/portal/files/14453889/2009RadiocarbonShishlina.pdf

Palacista said...

Lvciano, said: Let's say I try to model anyone here with Chimpanzee and Banana genomes . Everyone will be 100% Chimp probably

I can assure you some posters are completely bananas.

Anonymous said...

@Davidski "the"


You specifically omitted that here we are talking about the Caspian populations such as the Steppe Maykop and the Khvalynsk culture, especially, about Yamnaya and Catacomb, and not about Sredniy Stog.

"Paleoecology, Subsistence, and 14C Chronology of Caspian Steppe491 Paired 14C dating of human, sheep, and cow bones from the Eneolithic Khvalynsk graves was used in order to quantify the size of reservoir effect. The human bone from Khvalynsk II, grave 10, is 220 yr older than contemporaneous cow bone from the same grave. The date of a ring made of ungulate bone from Khvalynsk I, grave 147, is the same as for the cow bone. For this grave, the reservoir effect appears to be about 275 yr.

The chronology of the Steppe Majkop culture is so far only based on 14C dates of human bones and1 bead made of animal bone (Shishlina 2008). Paired dates for the Steppe Majkop culture are not yetavailable.

Paired dating of Yamnaya culture human bones and wood (Fraxinus, Ulmus, Acer) from the same grave show the reservoir effect for the bones: Mu-Sharet-1, k. 5, g. 3, 195 yr; Mandjikiny-1, k. 14,g. 12, 265 yr; and Mandjikiny-2, k. 11, g. 2, 270 yr. To investigate the reservoir effect in human bones, paired samples of wood, plant mat, and human bones taken from 4 Steppe North Caucasus burials were dated. Two such pairs have been obtained(see Table 8). The data from Zunda-Tolga-3 show a difference of 90 yr. The difference between 14Cdates of shell and animal bone appears larger than 4000 yr, which is obviously impossible and needs to be explained by further investigation. Table 8 also shows 3 examples of paired 14C dates of terrestrial and human bone samples from the same graves of the Early Catacomb culture. The difference between a pin made from an ungulate bone and human bone is 220 yr (Temrta V, k. 1, g. 2); between human bone and a sheep bone, 490 yr (Temrta V, k. 1, g. 3); and between human bone and sheep, 185 yr (Mandjikiny-1, k. 54, g. 6). Thepin came from the primary grave, and the sheep bone from the secondary grave. A fourth paired dating concerns wood and sheep bone from Temrta I"



"Archi said...

The reservoir effects for both Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk were measured, they do not exceed 200-300 years.
"

February 23, 2020 at 4:52 PM

Davidski said...

@Archi

Can you actually show me some isotopic data from Sredny Stog remains?

Anonymous said...

On 2014 year
"The consumption of freshwater fish by the local Eneolithic population of the adjacent Dnieper Basin in Ukraine also causes apparent ages of dated humans from the Molukhov Bugor burial ground. The reservoir effect correction for this case is 110 14C yr"

In Sredniy Stog, they ate fish only on the Dnieper river, the rest of them almost did not eat it, they were steppe dwellers and cattle breeders. In Khvalynsk, fish was eaten, but it was only in third place after livestock and hunting products.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob @Samuel Andrews “The ancestors of the mythical 'steppe people' are the Reich lab, who invented the simplistic notion”

Why don’t we just refer to them as “Western Steppe Herders” or by acronym, “WSH”?

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski @Archi @Sam “Kotova talks about eastern and western Sredny Stog variants.

These are likely to be associated with different populations. “

Sredny Stog I was completely replaced by SSII, the latter one being an Indo-European population, (likely descendants of Vonyuchka or Progress-like one). I think Ukraine HG was a mixture of EHG and WHG and was the original SSI

Anonymous said...

@Andrzejewski "Sredny Stog I was completely replaced by SSII, the latter one being an Indo-European population"

And here Sredny Stog I? There is no question about it at all, it is not a culture, but a layer of the Dnipro-Donetsk culture on Sredniy Stog island. We are talking about something completely different, in Sredniy Stog culture really stands out several groups that were burying in different ways, but as for the variants, it's just that the Eastern version is older than the Western one, Sredniy Stog culture spread from East to West, from the Don to the Dnieper.

"(likely descendants of Vonyuchka or Progress-like one)"

Impossible.


Ric Hern said...

If Early Volosovo only developed near the Koika +-3300 BCE, could they somehow be related to the Eneolithic Steppe population ? If their date are so late, how could they have interacted with Sredny Stog ? Or did an Eneolithic Steppe population migrate up the Don to the Volga/Oka region ? Or was Volosovo much older ? This whole R1b M269 from the Forest is confusing....





vAsiSTha said...

Sardinia, sicily paper is out https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-020-1102-0#Sec19

Samuel Andrews said...

And a new paper on ancient DA in Sardinia.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6

vAsiSTha said...

couple of J's and 1 J2b frm hajji_Firuz_C in siciliy and sardinia bronze age

Anonymous said...


This is just an official release of the paper. J2b2a1 appeared in Sardinia in 3319-3078 calBP this is the Sardans who arrived on the island as part of the Sea Peoples after the campaigns in Egypt.

Copper Iran Hajji Firuz [I4241 / F10 B1 S3] 6016-5899 calBCE (7080±30 BP, PSUAMS-2163) M J2b
Copper Iran Hajji Firuz [I4349 / F11 4 merged with F11 B3 3] 5887-5724 calBCE (6915±40 BP, PSUAMS-2126) M J2b
Bronze MBA North Caucasus Russia Kudachurt [KDC001.A0101 / kurgan 14, grave 218, BZNK-301/1] 1953-1776, 1971-1777 cal BC (3548±23BP, MAMS-110560, 3554±23BP , MAMS-110561) M J2b

Bronze Croatia Veliki Vanik [I4331 / VV1] 1631-1521 calBCE (3305±20 BP, PSUAMS-2257) M J2b2a
Bronze Canaanite Lebanon Sidon [burial 63] 1600 BC M J2b...
Bronze Late Bronze Age Armenia Norabak [RISE408] 1209-1009 calBCE (2908±32 BP, UBA-27939) M J2b...

Arza said...

@ Ric Hern
This whole R1b M269 from the Forest is confusing....

Yeah, confusion is a good word...

Rob said...

@ Archi

“Rob’s always lying “


In her original paper Kotova date the Neolithic (Sursk etc) to 7500 BC
Pg 110 https://html1-f.scribdassets.com/7j3n8e7hkw4ik1ic/images/114-b0ccfb854b.jpg
“The first stage of neolithisation dates to 8th millennium Bc)


New date ~ 5500 BC, with eneolithic from 4700

https://www.academia.edu/41543019/Revisiting_the_neolithic_chronology_of_the_Dnieper_steppe_region_with_consideration_of_a_reservoir_effect_for_human_skeletal_material
That’s a huge change

Shishlina’s work is different material different author. You lack basic education; and are just a butt-hurt chauvinist with the mistaken belief that you’re somehow relevant

Anonymous said...

@Rob
"In her original paper Kotova date the Neolithic (Sursk etc) to 7500 BC"

Shamefull idioto lier, there is not BC!!! but BP!!! I don't know where you got this picture from, but 7500 BC dates these dates never existed in nature at all for Sursk culture.

You clearly especially cut off the word "BP" from the table image, which was clearly in the table title, in order to once again deceive everyone, because you do not write anything but lies, offend with your shameful rudeness.

See Kotova. Chronology and Periodization of the Surskaja Neolithic Culture, 2011 before calculation of reservoir effect.

"We have a series of 14C dates for some Surskaja sites and cemeteries (Table 1). Surskoy Island 2 was the most ancient among dated sites (ca. 6200–6000 BC) (Fig. 3; 4). Semenovka 1 and Kamennaja Mogila 1 were younger (ca. 6050–5800 BC) and they included some sherds with elements of the 1a period of the Azov-Dnieper culture (Fig. 7: 1–4; Kotova 2003, Fig. 3: 3). The Kislevy 5 site existed around 5700–5600 BC (Fig. 8–10). The lower level of Razdolnoe has the youngest dates (ca. 5400 BC) (Kotova 2003, Fig. 77)."

See 7500 BP BP BP BP!!!!!! in all dates from the Sursk culture

https://i.ibb.co/kgNVj7s/image.png

7500 BP = 5550 BC!!!

You lack basic education, conscience and brains.

Samuel Andrews said...

Rob, "But my point was that the narrative construction by Harvard one of homogenising all these people as “the descendants of Yamnaya “ ; which is obviously false"

They're not the descendants of Yamnaya, but they are the descendants of a nearly identical population who descended from the same recent common ancestors as Yamnaya did. Why not put them all under the same category as "Steppe people"?

Davidski said...

@All

The following pops have been added to the Global25 datasheets:

ITA_Sardinia_EBA
ITA_Sardinia_ECA
ITA_Sardinia_EMA
ITA_Sardinia_LCA
ITA_Sardinia_MA
ITA_Sardinia_N
ITA_Sardinia_Nuragic
ITA_Sardinia_Punic
ITA_Sardinia_Roman_Imperial

Same links as always...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html

Please let me know if there are any errors. More western Med ancients will be added as soon as their genotypes are posted online.

Ric Hern said...

Interesting but not surprising is that R1b M269 only arrived in Sardinia after the Nuragic Period...

Kristiina said...

@ a and Ebizur

That kind of a compound word with the meaning 'face' is not restricted to Tocharian A and Japanese. I have found exactly the same construction in Kabardian and a somewhat different costruction in Udmurt.

Kabardian:
na 'eye'
pa 'nose'
naapa 'face'

Udmurt:
ɨm 'mouth'
nɨr 'nose'
ɨm-nɨr 'face'

Samuel Andrews said...

The distance between ancient Sardinia and Iberia_EN is on average @2.8. That's really close.

Ancient Sardinians are basically identical to Early Neolithic Iberia. Looks like they are from the exact same population.

As, I've said for a long time we have to treat Iberia, France, British Neolithic as a separate Anatolian lineage from the rest of Neolithic Europe.



vAsiSTha said...

When is Reich lab going to post updated merged 1240k dataset? last time they did was in feb 2019.

Rob said...

@ Archi

''Shamefull idioto lier, there is not BC!!! but BP!!! I don't know where you got this picture from,''

An apt summary of yourself.
As per above, pg 112-113. https://www.academia.edu/12883247/Neolithisation_in_Ukraine



''7500 BP = 5550 BC!!!''

LOL. It's not a straightfoward conversion of 'minus 2000 years'
Kotova previously uncalibrated dates; Calibration gives 6500 BC or 8300 cal BP.

Rob said...

@ Sam

“ They're not the descendants of Yamnaya, but they are the descendants of a nearly identical population who descended from the same recent common ancestors as Yamnaya did”

I don’t think the evidence supports that ; but I understand why people think it does

Ric Hern said...

As this stage it is either R1b M269 coming from the Northern Forest into Sredny Stog and splitting up with R1b L51 migrating from there to the West and more direct Yamnaya Ancestors going to the East forming the Eneolithic Steppe in the Lower Don. Or a group from the Lower Don migrated up the Don to the Volga/Oka and later down the Dnieper to Sredny Stog...?

Anonymous said...

@Rob
"LOL. It's not a straightfoward conversion of 'minus 2000 years'
Kotova previously uncalibrated dates;"

LOL, shame, LOL shame

Learn to read!

You're an uneducated stupid who can't even read. Calibration always occurs from BP to cal dates! BP is the date that all radiocarbon laboratories in the world give out! They are uncalibrated always! BC = BP-1950 always! Calibrated dates are always indicated by the prefix cal! that differs theirs from conventional dates. you have disgraced yourself with your brainlessness, and you are writing the instructive nonsense of an uneducated dilettante. You know absolutely nothing.

"Calibration gives 6500 BC or 8300 cal BP."

6500 BC is uncalibrated date (=8450 BP)! calibrated date is 6500 cal BC = 8450 cal BP!

Programs does the calibration. Therefore 7500 BP = 5550 BC after calibration is ~6300 cal BC!

I wrote to you this previous, but you don't understand always. Learn to read.

Table 6. Old and new ages for the Azov-Dnieper and Surskoy Culture
Azov-Dnieper
Culture
Period la
Surskoy Culture
Period I
Old dates
6300/6200-5900 CalBC
Dates adjusted for the reservoir effect
6300/6200-5900 CalBC

Not BC not BP, but CalBC!

https://www.academia.edu/41543019/Revisiting_the_neolithic_chronology_of_the_Dnieper_steppe_region_with_consideration_of_a_reservoir_effect_for_human_skeletal_material

Andrzejewski said...

@Samuel Andrews “The distance between ancient Sardinia and Iberia_EN is on average @2.8. That's really close.

Ancient Sardinians are basically identical to Early Neolithic Iberia. Looks like they are from the exact same population.

As, I've said for a long time we have to treat Iberia, France, British Neolithic as a separate Anatolian lineage from the rest of Neolithic Europe.“

Are you saying it because they are Cardial Pottery and not LBK/Körös-derived, or are you staying it based on their relatively high (17%) WHG lineage?

Andrzejewski said...

Stating

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “They're not the descendants of Yamnaya, but they are the descendants of a nearly identical population who descended from the same recent common ancestors as Yamnaya did”

I don’t think the evidence supports that ; but I understand why people think it does”

I agree with @Sam here: Yamnaya was almost exclusively R1b-M269 whereas Corded Ware to its adjacent west is overwhelmingly R1a1, you know, like Sredny Stog. Even @Archi would agree with me on this!

Andrzejewski said...

@Ric Hern “Interesting but not surprising is that R1b M269 only arrived in Sardinia after the Nuragic Period...”

I had previously read that Eneolithic Sardinians, just like their brethren from Greece, Anatolia and mainland Italy received a non-Steppe influx of CHG, just before the WSH made their deep imprint and mark. Could it be a Kura-Araxes like population that transformed the population of Eneolithic Greece prior to its Indo-Europeanization, along with the onset of Hatti and Hurrian languages of Anatolia? Something akin to CHG-rich EEF/ANF swigging all the way from the Caucasus through Anatolia, and into Southern Europe?

Leron said...

@Andrewjewski: I previously mentioned about 3 branches of a “Greater CHG”. One that migrated west along the sea and foothills of mountains, and mixed with Anatolian. The classic CHG that stayed within Transcaucasia and a more distant branch in Central Asia/Oxus. I don’t have anything formal to make this conclusion but from hints gathered through testing various models.

zardos said...

@David: Are you doing an article about the West Mediterranean and Sardinian results? You wrote something about R-V1636 and its possible association with Anatolian IE. In the supplement are 4 individuals from 700-300, one E-618 and two V1636 if I'm not mistaken, fourth is a female.
Can you look at their autosomal profile and how they compare with earlier/later samples?

Anonymous said...

@zardos.

"West Mediterranean and Sardinian results? You wrote something about R-V1636 and its possible association with Anatolian IE. In the supplement are 4 individuals from 700-300, one E-618 and two V1636 if I'm not mistaken"

Who are you writing this about? Where did you see R1b1a2 anywhere?

Anonymous said...


R1b1a1a2a1a2a1 arrived in Sicily no later than 2400-2200 calBC, which once again proves that R1b1a1a2a1a is non-Indo-Europeans, at this time Indo-Europeans in Sicily is nonsense.


zardos said...

It's in the supplement here:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-14523-6#MOESM1

Anonymous said...

@zardos

Where did you see R1b1a2-V1636? It's not there.

zardos said...

I don’t know when they came to Sardinia, but its the first time in the records for that Island for this variants of R and E. Not present before, then two in the same phase?
Could be just a coincidence, but the autosomal profile could be interesting to check.

Anonymous said...

@zardos

R1b1b2a is V88>V2197.

zardos said...

R1b1a1b is it. Look at 47-50

Anonymous said...

@zardos

R1b1a1b1 is L23. They arrived to Sardinia estimated at 800 BC. See times!


Falcon said...

Eneolithic Steppe VS Moderns

PCA plot : https://imgur.com/sUp5R4H

Closest living population to Eneolithic steppe appear to be natives of Vogla from Russia/Ukraine.

Europe/North Caucasus/Central Asia all pull towards steppes samples during Bronze Age. While Iran/South Caucasus/Near East pull towards Levant instead.

zardos said...

You seem to be right, my fault, was going after ISOGG2017, should have looked at 2019...
https://isogg.org/tree/ISOGG_HapgrpR.html
That makes them less impressive, even though the appearance is still as noted.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,"R1b1a1a2a1a2a1 arrived in Sicily no later than 2400-2200 calBC, which once again proves that R1b1a1a2a1a is non-Indo-Europeans, at this time Indo-Europeans in Sicily is nonsense"

People also used to think it was nonesense to say Indo European was spoken in Britain in 2200 BC. But, then ancient DNA changed that. Now, it's very likely Indo European was spoken in the British in 2200 BC.

This R1b P312 rich site from Sicily is interesting. Because it was bviously was a group of Bell Beaker people who sailed to Sicily from somewhere in mainland Europe. It's very likely they spoke Indo European, because it's very likely Bell beaker spoke Indo European. End of story.

They may have or may have not left a permanent imprint on Sicily. They may have disappeared after a hundred years.

John Thomas said...

No no no.

Don't get Gaska started!

Anonymous said...

@Samuel Andrews

"But, then ancient DNA changed that. Now, it's very likely Indo European was spoken in the British in 2200 BC. "

Impossible, until the arrival of the Celts of the Hallstatt culture in the British Isles was not spoken in Indo-European languages.

It's a scientific fact.

"Because it was bviously was a group of Bell Beaker people who sailed to Sicily from somewhere in mainland Europe. It's very likely they spoke Indo European, because it's very likely Bell beaker spoke Indo European. End of story."

Impossible, They didn't speak Indo-European. Bell beakers weren't Indo-Europeans absolutely exactly.

It's a scientific facts. End of game.


Samuel Andrews said...

@Andre, Anciet Sardinians and Neolithic Iberians decend from the same Anatolian population. A different Anatolian population than the rest of European farmers decended from. Other European farmers decended from people similar to Barcin Anatolia Neolithic. This has nothing to do with WHG.

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

Please show us how you can extract Language from DNA. Or otherwise the written evidence of 4200 years ago that will prove your point.

Anonymous said...

@Ric Hern

It's known from history. You're saying that if facts contradict your paradigm, it's worse for facts. Ancient DNA says that R1b1a1a2a1a was where no Indo-Europeans were, it's known for certain. You conclude that this is the worse for the facts is to adjust the results to a predetermined answer.

zardos said...

@Samuel: How close Cardial and LBK were related is one thing, another is that all of them got caught by a HG lineage dominated movements which preceded IE. Even Sardinia.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

“ agree with @Sam here: Yamnaya was almost exclusively R1b-M269 whereas Corded Ware to its adjacent west is overwhelmingly R1a1, you know, like Sredny Stog.


How do you know where M269 and M417 was were in 5000 BC ; let alone I2a2
So how can you say they were originally one population. Just because populations lived on the steppe or near the steppe doesn’t mean they’re all the same initially; & in fact we know they weren’t

Rob said...

@ Archi

''Not BC not BP, but CalBC!''

Clown, there is only calBC, no uncal BC.

''You're an uneducated stupid who can't even read.''
Its funny that an onion -farmer with the eloquence of a 3 year old teaches people here science

Samuel Andrews said...

Mallorca_EBA, Balearic Island single sample is 40% Yamnaya.
One of the Sicily EBA samples 2100 BC, has 40% Yamnaya. The others have 22%.

This says a lot.

Samuel Andrews said...

Main Sicily EBA cluster has 10% Yamnaya. But still.

«Oldest ‹Older   401 – 600 of 1260   Newer› Newest»