I'm posting a new entry about the upcoming Corded Ware/Yamnaya paper because the last entry (see here) now has over 400 comments which aren't easy to load for many people.
One of the authors of this eagerly awaited paper, Nick Patterson of the Broad Institute, briefly joined our discussion. Nick's contribution is much appreciated. He wasn't able to reveal a great deal, because the manuscript is in submission, but he did make a couple of interesting points:
- the paper will feature Y-haplogroup results from the Yamnaya culture, represented by nine samples in all, including seven males
- the population with Near Eastern ancestry that mixed with the Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHG) on the Russian steppe to form the Yamnaya pastoralists by 5,000 YBP was also "rich" in ANE
- ancient DNA from the Caucasus, Iran and India is probably necessary to work out how the Indo-Europeans got to India, but the paper won't feature such data
It's nice to hear that Y-haplogroups aren't being ignored. My opinion is that they're at least as important as genome-wide data when tracking the movements across vast space and time of highly patriarchal and patrilineal groups like the ancient Indo-Europeans.
Indeed, we already know that the Slavic, Baltic and Norse-specific R1a1a1b1, defined by the Z282 mutation, is the sister clade of the Indo-Iranian-specific R1a1a1b2, defined by Z93. Thus, if the Yamnaya males were found to belong to these or upstream markers, this would suggest that they were the paternal ancestors of many Balts, Scandinavians, Slavs and Indo-Iranians, and correlate very nicely with the linguistic and archeological "steppe hypothesis" of Indo-European origins.
In fact, even if analyses based on high density genome-wide data suggest that Indians don't harbor any genome-wide European ancestry, we'd still have to accept the likelihood of gene flow - albeit perhaps very indirect gene flow - from the European steppe to India because many Indians belong to R1a1a1b2.
The second point made by Nick is perhaps surprising, but at least for me not totally unexpected. That's because we've already known for a while that the Yamnaya genomes can be successfully modeled as half Karelian EHG and half present-day Armenian (see here), and according to my own estimates Armenians carry an average of 15.5% ANE.
The fact that these Armenian-like, ANE-rich newcomers dampened the genome-wide affinity to ANE-proxy MA-1 on the Russian steppe might look like a contradiction, but not if we remember that the higher the Near Eastern ancestry the lower the genome-wide affinity to MA-1, and also consider that the steppe foragers probably carried a lot more ANE than the newcomers.
Actually, as far as I know, all of the Yamnaya samples in this study come from the Samara Valley, which is some distance north of the Caspian Sea near the southern Urals. So it makes senses that the pseudo Armenians who turned up there more than 5,000 years ago were not like the Neolithic farmers of Western and Central Europe, who lacked ANE.
I'd say that this as yet unidentified group (wild guess: immediate ancestors of the Repin culture people?) was the result of an admixture event, or perhaps a series of admixture events, with ANE-rich foragers somewhere on the steppe south of the Samara. If so, I won't be surprised if it turns out that R1a only appeared in the Samara Valley after their arrival.
In any case, it looks like even after this paper comes out, we'll still need a lot more ancient DNA from across Eurasia to help map out the early Indo-European dispersals with any confidence.
Update 11/02/2015: Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe (Haak et al. 2015 preprint) .
499 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 499 of 499Maju
My pointing out the Cucuteni-Tripolye culture has nothing to do with the social commentary you talk of.
I am talking about a very specific region of the world- Eastern Europe. I am NOT saying Tripolye people invaded Ireland, India or Iberia; or somehow spread their cultural model or 'world view', pan -spermia or uni-spermia; for if I did, i'd be creating the same unfounded construct as those which blindly follow the Kurgan model
I have no emotive reason to talk about the C-T; i am neither MOldavian, nor Ukraininan, no someone who has some ineffable connectivity to the peaceful, matriarchal, 'gracile' famers of "Old Europe".
Similarly, the archaeologists who have pointed out the centrality of CT did so independently of any discussion on the "IE question". Rather, they did so out of an analysis on the archaeology of Bronze Age Eastern Europe; removed from question of langauges, invasions, or Chengis Khan.
But i do appreciate you're in touch with bias and chauvanism; and perhaps you can reflect on you're very own biases - 'out of Iberia' bell-Beaker ideology :)
@ maju
"@Mike: "In fact, nothing to do with Yamnaya at all "picking up", but rather a post-Cucuteni expansion".
There's no such thing in terms archaeological."
As per to Chad, your ignorance of fact does not = 'does not exist'.
Mike, you if you listen to evidence, why are you so agianst the Kurgan hypothesis?
Eastern Euros went into west Europe during the bronze age and caused a genetic shift. There's no disputing this.
This is consistent with the Kurgan hypothesis. Samara Yamna fits very nicelly as the pop who did this.
Is it random Southwest Euros(especially Sardinians and Basque) resemble west Euros right before eastern intrusion the most, and are or were recently non-IEs?
Is it random Corded ware can be fit as 73% Yamna, had R1a, and is seen as ancestral to Balto-Slavs?
Is it random Andronovo had similar mtDNA to CWC and Yamna, and Y DNA R1a?
It doesn't matter how much about archaeology you know, you're clearly in denial.
Sometimes the answer doesn't give your brain cramps, sometimes it's simple.
Perhaps.
But how do you know the similarity of the genetics of Corded Ware, Yamnaya and Andronovo was not pre-existing ? Are you 100% sure it is due to the Kurgan expansion ?
What was the genetic picture of Samara, the Black Sea , central Asia, and eastern European plain in the Neolithic (ie before the presumed IE invasions ) ?
Was Andronovo Z-280 ?
''Was Andronovo Z-280 ? ''
That is something that David should answer but my thinking is that is not probable.
@ Krefter
"why are you so agianst the Kurgan hypothesis?"
I'm not. However, I think it has weakness in many of the reductionist explanations it employs. But I am certainly no advocate of Neolithic or Palaeolithic models either ! I have nothing against it from a (broadly) chronological perspective.
Simply, I am subjecting the most popular theory to detailed scrutiny.
Actually Sites like Arkaim clearly Show BMAC influence!
-http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html
''The fact that there was trade with BMAC suggests that Bactria-Margiana merchants and metallurgists went north in search of metal sources and maybe of a better climate, in that period of aridification at the end of the third millennium, and started to colonize that region with their fortified settlements with their perpendicular streets, inner square and concentric walls (see here). These fortresses remind of the late BMAC sites of Gonur Depe, Sapalli Tepe, Jarkutan and Dashly-3, which are now dated to the Middle and Late Bronze Age (2500-1700 BC, Sapalli and Dashly-3 are dated more precisely 2200-2000 BC), then are contemporary and even earlier than Sintashta. I remark this, because Kuzmina and Mallory (p.34) accept the parallelism between Jarkutan and Arkaim in the south Urals, and connect them with the Avestan vara, but in order to support the view that Arkaim is the model, showing the influence of the northern steppe cultures on the Bactrian farmers: an exemplary case of invasionist reversal, particularly strange since the Bactrian fortifications represent rather the northern outposts against the steppe warriors, who are not generally supposed to teach sedentary people how to make buildings! On the other hand, they recognize that BMAC objects are found in Sintashta-Petrovka sites (see here).
Arkaim displays also the use of unburnt bricks and irrigation ditches.''
Voila!
@ Alberto
Sorry to say this, but the article you posted was actually quite terrible.
Firstly, the vast, vast majority of haploid lines are extinct today. Ust-Ishim and Tianyuan have no haploid descendants, and Kostenki has none in his part of the world. It is both expected and uninformative that no haploid evidence of the few instances of neand introgression exist.
The presence of a few percents of neand ancestry in everyone cannot be taken to prove 'the superiority of hybrids' as much as the adaptive value of a few neand alleles to sapiens in Eurasia. To say that there was only one introgression from that is a non-sequitur; there could be multiple introgressions with alleles from each time. The distribution of neand introg. in the human genome is not consistent with mere dilution; also the fact that different Eurasians retain different parts of the neand ancestry testifies to either multiple introgression or differential selection as the main drivers.
The 50% neand HLA cannot be used as evidence of universal ancestry from a 50% neand hybrid, or that a single 50% neand exterminated everyone, because HLA is under extremely strong selection due to its roles in immunity, and alleles pre-adapted to primate pathogens in Eurasia can be expected to spread after introgression extremely quickly. The argument is very confused: 50% neand HLA may testify the the existence of a 50% neand ancestor of everyone by pure arithmetic, but this is obviously untrue because the autosome is not 50% neand, so pure arithmetic is obviously not the right mechanism to explain anything.
Lastly, the arguments for monocentric origin apply to speciation, not to hybridisation and gene flow, so that argument doesn't even apply.
Mike,
The R1a (Z93+ and Z93-) rich populations that showed up in south Siberia, the Mongolian Altai and Tarim Basin during the Bronze Age all appear to be intrusive, at least in part, from the western steppe, both in terms of DNA and archeology.
This correlates very well with the phylogeny and dating of R1a clades based on full Y-chromosome sequences from modern samples. So there's no point looking for more complex angles unless something surprising turns up that overturns all of the evidence we've seen to date.
@ Davidski
Wwhy aren't there Kalash, or for that matter more South Asian pops, in the West Eurasia k8?
@David: I remember that (not sure why I didn't comment back in the day, probably too stressed) but your criticism there is limited to accessory aspects that do not seem to change the overall conclusions in any obvious way.
"the authors failed to include two well known and very important R1a subclades in their analysis: the Northwest European-specific R1a-CTS4385 and the East and Central European-specific R1a-Z280. As a result, the former is lumped with R1a-M417* and the latter with R1a-Z282*. In fact, Z280 is shown to be above Z282 in the topology of R1a-M420 (see Figure 1 here), which is plain wrong."
How does this change the fact of upstream R1a* and R1a1* paragroups being effectively restricted to Iran & Kurdistan? If anything there could be some lesser changes on the interpretation how the European branch(es) moved around. Z93 is still an "uncle" of Z282 (i.e. brother of Z283, not discussed in Underhill but descendant of M417 anyhow).
Maybe there's some difference at M417 level? CTS4385 is still not listed in ISOGG (not by that name at least) so I'm not sure of what are you talking about but it seems from your words that Underhill interprets it as a branch of M417* (branch A in my map, branch B would be Anatolian).
"However, these are very closely related subclades, sharing the Z645 mutation"...
Sure but all R1a are very closely related subclades per fig. 5 of Underhill 2014. In my very stretched "recalibrated" estimate, R1a-L657 (root) and R1a-Z93 are separated by some 1000 years, so in the other (more compact) estimates it's just a matter of centuries.
There's nothing else. There's nothing that justifies your Eurocentric emphasis
David you could of course be right
But ; i point out again; that the Z93- guys could also be 280 -ve. Whatever the case ; it's all points to central asian direction and not EE.
The "archaeological proof" of Afanaievo intrusion into Tarim is poorly argued; and far from a well rounded explanation. Probably, many peoples moved into the Tarim from different areas. If you had to look for a major role, I'd look toward the "Inner Asian mountain corridor" running from north of the Hindu Kush
@Mike:
"I am talking about a very specific region of the world- Eastern Europe".
Precisely: CT is best described as being Balcanic or Central European (as far as I recall Transylvania-Moldavia are the core regions, it's LBK-derived no doubt), even if some of its eventual expansion reached to the Dniepr. In this case your "very specific region" becomes particularly blurry. Anyhow, it has no known relation with Kurgan cultures other than, as I said before, being one of the victims of their expansion (actually it survived for long but in permanent recession).
"perhaps you can reflect on you're very own biases - 'out of Iberia' bell-Beaker ideology"...
Sure. I appreciate that criticism as one I could do myself. I won't deny I may have biases and I do not argue even that biases are useless if properly contrasted: contradictory well rationalized biases can produce fruitful debate, if people don't just cling to them against the evidence and is able to reach beyond them.
Anyhow I have for example dropped the simplistic Paleolithic Continuity model when evidence became clear enough against it. I don't have any qualm about that and I had been pondering alternative scenarios since almost a decade ago. See this article of August 2008 in which I already considered an alternative option for R1b expansion within Megalithism, something that back in the day did not seem as reasonable as it seems today with all the genetic but also archaeological new data.
How much in that is my bias and how much is just facts of R1b actual "geostructure" (and mtDNA H's too)? I am not the best one to judge myself surely (I try hard to be self-critical, I swear) so it's up to others to judge. Be merciless but stick to the facts please.
Maju,
You keep missing the point that R1a-Z93 is an excellent marker of Kurgan-derived expansions into South Asia. The only people who know what R1a is and don't get this yet are those with very obvious denial issues. At some point you will realize your mistake. Best of luck with that.
rk,
South Asians, Amerindians and some Siberians have a habit of skewing the ANE proportions for all of the other samples, so their numbers in each ANE analysis need to be limited. If I stick a couple of Kalash into this dataset, I'll just get a Kalash-specific cluster and none of the ANE estimates will match those arrived at with f4 stats.
@Krefter:
"Eastern Euros went into west Europe during the bronze age and caused a genetic shift. There's no disputing this."
I have to object to this, at least the way it's stated. Central Euros may have gone into West Europe (West of the Rhine) and Italy in the Bronze and Iron Ages and the exact extent of their genetic impact still requires careful research and evaluation.
What you may mean is that Eastern Euros went into Central Europe in the late Chalcolithic and produced some sort of genetic shift. Again quantifying it is problematic with the data available but there must have been at least something of that, yes. The resulting population, 1000 or 2000 years later, after due admixture, also affected Western Europe and Italy to some extent.
It's not as simple as you put it: there's lot of "devil" in the details, "devil" that must be understood and treated with due care. Else we may fail to understand the process in its millennia-long nuanced complexity, what would be a pity.
"I got interested because I wanted to be descended of Attila-types".
Really?! Well, in any case, I believe that we can learn from all these explorations is, very succinctly, that we all owe somewhat to very varied types of ancestors: Paleolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers (none of whom were surely hippy-dippy enough, even if they were no doubt much more egalitarian than we are used to), Attila the Barbarian types and their many slaves later on as well, and even the fascinating and mysterious "not-so-completely-extinct" Neanderthals. It's a rich and ethically complex inheritance, much as history and prehistory are.
It's a bit as with chimpanzees vs bonobos. We like it or not, we are equally distant and equally close to both species.
Mike,
I'm not saying that only the Tarim Basin R1a (Z93-) lineages are recent arrivals from the western steppe. I'm saying that all of the Bronze Age R1a lineages so far dug up in Asia are recent arrivals from the western steppe.
I'm saying this because...
- R1a-Z282 and R1a-Z93 are very closely related, and their full sequences suggest that both expanded very rapidly after the Neolithic
- the mtDNA of the ancient Asian R1a rich samples includes European-specific sequences and is similar to that of the Yamnaya and Catacomb samples from the western steppe
- light or mixed pigmentation of most of the ancient Asian R1a rich samples
- mainstream archeology
- mainstream linguistics
- lack of any coherent arguments against this conclusion
"You keep missing the point that R1a-Z93 is an excellent marker of Kurgan-derived expansions into South Asia".
Except for the serious problem that its "geostructure" does not fit that model at all. Z93* of Altai are terminal branches with roots further south, other sublineages of Central Asia follow that pattern as well. Who is in denial here?
Please go through the Z93 tree in detail (I believe that the best source for that is Underhill 2014) and double check. I did back in the day and it's clear like water: Z93 in Asia expanded from South to North, with even on lineage expanding from India to Central Asia. These patterns do not fit the Kurgan expansion in any way I can discern.
And IMO it's a pity, because I like anyone else, like simple clear explanations but in this case nope. The only explanation I can find is Neolithic expansion.
Maju,
Even the last Underhill paper, which really does suck donkey's rump, shows that most of the basal splits in Z93 are located in the south Siberia/western Altai region, where the ancient Andronovo and Altai R1a/R1a-Z93 samples come from.
How did you miss this Z93* map?
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n1/fig_tab/ejhg201450f3.html#figure-title
After that, the most interesting places for Z93 are around the inner Asian corridor. Umm...that's probably how Z93 moved down from the steppe into the Hindu Kush and beyond.
There's nothing remarkable about South Asia, or even Iran, as far as Z93 is concerned. Most Z93 lineages there are below Z95, and also look like they experienced massive founder effects.
It is high time for you to get in sync with this information Maju.
@ Davidski
Since ADMIXTURE clusters do not tell us that a population without a particular component has none of that component, just that it has a minimum of that component in the dataset, don't you think that the WHG signal in South Asians might be swallowed up? Perhaps some of the positions here in this blog have been reached too early.
Nevertheless, your previous ADMIXTURE estimates for ANE, e.g. the K7, were interesting. Could you post their links again?
rk,
My ADMIXTURE runs focusing on ANE are supervised, with no South Indian specific clusters, and very few South Asians in the dataset, so I don't think their WHG is being swallowed up.
There is indeed WHG-like admixture in the K8 Near Eastern component, which South Asians carry, but that's not the WHG we're looking for, because it doesn't come from Europe. The levels of the European WHG appear to be accurate across the board, because the K8 output produces a PCA of West Eurasia very similar to those done with genotype data, and also synthetic samples made from the WHG allele frequencies cluster with Loschbour and La Brana-1.
The problem with the K7 WHG is that it's clearly mixed. I know this because synthetic samples produced with the WHG allele frequencies from the K7 cluster too close to Near Eastern samples on a plot of West Eurasia, and too far from Loschbour and La Brana-1.
The full K7 spreadsheet is somewhere in the comments section at the link below.
http://bga101.blogspot.com.au/2014/09/eurogenes-ane-k7.html
David;
If by "mainstream archaeology' you mean Mallory's "In Search of the Indo-Europeans' (1989), then yes. I on the other hand, refer to work written this millenium, and by scholars who have done actual field work in central Asia. Slight difference.
@ Maju
" have to object to this, at least the way it's stated. Central Euros may have gone into West Europe (West of the Rhine) and Italy in the Bronze and Iron Ages and the exact extent of their genetic impact still requires careful research and evaluation. "
Agree. We should not make bold, precisionless statements which have little substantive arguement or explanatory meaning ( to repeat myself ad nauseaum
@ Maju
"Precisely: CT is best described as being Balcanic or Central European (as far as I recall Transylvania-Moldavia are the core regions, it's LBK-derived no doubt), even if some of its eventual expansion reached to the Dniepr. In this case your "very specific region" becomes particularly blurry. Anyhow, it has no known relation with Kurgan cultures other than, as I said before, being one of the victims of their expansion (actually it survived for long but in permanent recession"
Unfortunately, for every thoughtful statement you make, you follow it up (or precede it) by something off the mark.
Your statement is meaningless. No shit that Trioplye must have somehow derived from the balkan Neolithic- whether a classic demic diffusion or mere cultural borrowing, or some combination thereof. But to call it a wholescale Balkanic culture is to deny agency to those communities in the east Carpathian -Kiev region which had an active choice as to how to construct their material world. They were not just passive receptors. Just think back to what you yourself said about language and *choice*.
But that's beside the point.
Moreover, youre simply wrong about the lack of reciprocity between CT and Yamnaya. Late Cucuteni type pottery has been foudn in Yamnaya contexts, as well as various types of adnormenets. Mound burials and ochre have on the other hand been found in Trioplye and in the Balkans. Moreover, the late C-T phase had a shift toward pastoralist economy. Its final disintegration was due to population pressure and internal conflicts, which necessitated expansion into new ecotones; viz the steppe.
The yamnaya did not invade CT, or cause its downfall. Ive already pointed out, and you seem to have missed it, that the fall of "Old Europe' began from the Neolithic cultures of northern Serbia, then **later* collapsed in Romania, Hungary and Ukraine. The coincidence of the collapse of the Balkan cooper centres coincided with the rise of Majkop, and its rise to pre-eimnence as the loco-regional metallurgical centre.
the yamnaya peoples were mere intermediaries, affected by both poles; not invaders.
Mike,
But modern and ancient DNA data are in agreement with Mallory. So how did he manage to line that up back in 1989? Or is it just a happy coincidence?
If so, I'm still waiting for coherent arguments against my conclusion that the vast majority of R1a found in Asia is from the Copper Age western steppe.
Claiming that this is not a complex enough conclusion isn't an argument.
@ Davidski
Thanks.
The massive drop in WHG from central asia to Afghanistan+Indus is very difficult to explain.
As this also implies almost no autosomal contribution from Yamnaya to Kalash+Pashtun and everyone south of them, this also raises the issue of what ADMIXTURE is detecting when it produces Europe+Caucasus component elevation in Upper-caste Indians and Kalash+Pashtuns, as opposed to Gedrosia-like component elevation, which can simply be attributed to higher ANE.
Tajik Pomiris and Upper Caste Indians from north India show around 10% of WHG in the K8.
Tajiks and Pashtuns from Afghanistan show a few per cent, sometimes up to 10%, while Pashtuns from Pakistan only a couple per cent.
I don't know what all of this means, but anyway this is what a graph of Loschbour vs Stuttgart f3 stats looks like for South and South Central Asia, also featuring Armenians.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQMkNod1ZNZldvUHc/view?usp=sharing
I don't have to disprove a thesis which doesn't even have any proof !
Neither the ancient DNA nor modern phylogeny supports what you claim it does , currently at least
@ Davidski
Thanks!
Which upper caste indians are you referring to? I've tried looking but they don't seem to be there in the K8.
That graph is very interesting, but would be far more if it were a graph of Loschbour vs. Malta, because ANE also increases affinity to Loschbour, while WHG itself localises the affinity specifically to Europe. Could you do this?
rk,
For what it's worth, a Haryana Jatt scored 8% WHG for West Eurasia K8. That is within Tajikistani Tajik range (both actual ethnic Tajiks from Tajikistan, and Pamiri peoples). This individual's "NE Euro" score for HarappaWorld is slightly lower in comparison to other Haryana Jatts (16%, while most others are around 18%, and one individual is 21%). So, other Haryana Jatts are probably more around 10% WHG.
It's quite interesting that these agriculturalist groups (under the Jatt rubric) in northern India have such high WHG levels (by non-European standards). What's more interesting is that Brahmins from the same region aren't going to score similar WHG percentages, so it's something specific to these north Indian Jatts (Punjabi Jatts don't show elevated WHG, only those from Haryana, Uttar Pradesh, and Rajasthan, judging from the samples at Harappa Ancestry Project, and also based on the fact that a Sikh Punjabi Jatt scored only 1% WHG for West Eurasia K8).
rk,
Those Indians aren't in the public spreadsheet. They're people I tested privately. They all come from Punjab or nearby. The highest WHG so far among them is 10%.
I'll post that Loschbour vs. Mal'ta graph later today.
Mike,
We're just going over the same stuff again, but I'm willing to bet you haven't even looked over any of the ancient DNA data from Central Asia and south Siberia.
Ahh, OK, not from Punjab, but from near Punjab.
@ Davidski
Thanks!
@ Sein
You seem to know a lot about the WHG situation in India. I dunno, but its highly perplexing to me that Kalash and Tajiks score so low, while some groups south of them score so high.
Could you give us a bit of an overview as to which populations in India are high in WHG, e.g. Haryana Jatts and Uttar Pradesh Brahmins?
Do the history of the Jatts suggest remnants from the Indo-greeks? Or perhaps the pronounced endogamy of India resulted in higher WHG levels among the higher castes?
@David
'' If so, I'm still waiting for coherent arguments against my conclusion that the vast majority of R1a found in Asia is from the Copper Age western steppe.''
There is no doubt that you are in denial the 100s of facts that i represented to you showing easily that Indo-Europeans were present in Asia from Chalcolithic and how they effected the Northern Regions is obviously for that reason avoided.
Your childish attitude to prove Kurgan in Asia is only going to end with a cry that you have to endure.
''Even the last Underhill paper, which really does suck donkey's rump, shows that most of the basal splits in Z93 are located in the south Siberia/western Altai region, where the ancient Andronovo and Altai R1a/R1a-Z93 samples come from.''
So what? That again shows Asia as the Origin Of Z93 Mutation + SC Asian aDNA is coming....
''After that, the most interesting places for Z93 are around the inner Asian corridor. Umm...that's probably how Z93 moved down from the steppe into the Hindu Kush and beyond.''
Again bogus no data available for such scenario on the contrary data suggest Eastern Europe Experienced Scythian-Sarmatian invasions which can be the ACTUAL reason for their Z-93! even via archaeology BMAC can be seen as the Pre-cursor of Arkaim, Andronovo rise as i depicted before, Take that!!!
''There's nothing remarkable about South Asia, or even Iran, as far as Z93 is concerned. Most Z93 lineages there are below Z95, and also look like they experienced massive founder effects.''
There is NOTHING remarkable in your idea which is stale and stinks of Dogmatism....
@RK
''Do the history of the Jatts suggest remnants from the Indo-greeks?''
No historical references show that they are of Scythian Stock.
but I'm willing to bet you haven't even looked over any of the ancient DNA data from Central Asia and south Siberia."
I can't claim the expertise you possess, but my understanding is that :
* we have R1a from Bronze Age samples from the steppe - not yet sub-typed
* from the Tarim, some are Z-93+, some Z-93 -ve. But those Z-93 -ve one aren't necessarily Z-280 +ve
* this leaves the possibility that those not yet typed (whether the steppe or Tarim) could be Z-280 +ve. But could be Z-93 +ve also (apart from those already testing -ve). Or they could be neither, but some nbow extinct sub-clade
* modern perspective, we have the obvious fact that Z-93 is nested within an otherwise European distribution of R1a. But , as Maju pointed out, there is the issue of deeper diversity within R1a itself, not to mention the parasimanous point of origin for R1*.
* so at best, R1a-Z93, if indeed moved from EE to C-SA, was some kind of a 'reconquista'.
rk,
Here's that graph.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFVGlRb1BRakhQY3M/view?usp=sharing
It's interesting to note the relatively low drift shared between both MA-1 and Loschbour with South Indians.
Something is depressing their stats, but it can't just be their Onge-like ENA/ASI ancestry. I'm guessing it's also the pseudo-Sub-Saharan ancestry they have which shows up in the K8.
Mike,
Don't ignore the mtDNA and archeological evidence that goes along with the R1a rich samples from Bronze and Iron Age Asia.
Also, the only marker that is relevant in this context is R1a-M417 or R1a1a1. In fact, I'd narrow it down to R1a-Z645, because 99% of European and Asian R1a falls under this relatively young Indo-European-specific subclade.
So called basal R1a* lineages of different kinds are found all the way from the UK (due to oversampling, but they're there nevertheless) to Tibet. These markers don't tell us much except maybe point to a possible place of origin of R1a. But that's a long shot when based on modern DNA, because people moved around a lot in the past, and many populations just disappeared, especially on the steppe.
Understood. Look, you might well be proven right 'beyond reasonable doubt' soon lol
@ Davidski
There doesn't seem to be a consistent pattern. Upper castes appear to have no more WHG than their ANE level would suggest.
Could you do a series of plots with these pops with one axis the 1) MA-1 and 2) Loschbour stats and the other axis the 3) % of East_Euro+North_Sea+Baltic and 4)% of West_Asian in Eurogenes K13? Just to see if there is a trend.
"Something is depressing their stats"
Agree. It is highly weird to see that they have lower stats than armenians for Loschbour, when the tree topology we have suggests that they should have higher.
I suspect the Basal Eurasian really is paraphyletic, and that ANE, WHG and East Asian are the furthest branches of a thick bush. The model we have breaks down in S+C Asia and Middle East prob for that reason.
Reich and Patterson believe, as reported in the Harvard Gazette, that the Yamnaya have too much WHG to be ancestral to Armenians and Indians.
http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2014/12/the-surprising-origins-of-europeans/
Instead they believe that the Yamnaya got their language from their “Near Eastern” ancestors and not their EHG ancestors. In the Harvard talk they speculated that the “Near Eastern” ancestors of the Yamnaya were the Maikop people. They must believe that the Maikop also contributed to the ancestry as well as the language of Armenians and Indians.
This is somewhat reminiscent of Dienekes's “Womb of Nations” idea.
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2011/12/womb-of-nations-how-west-eurasians-came.html
The evidence may instead support an Indian origin for the Indo-European languages and genes. The following is a quote from the Lazaridis paper.
“K=15 shows the appearance of a component, maximized in the Kalash, that becomes the most predominant signal in Indus Valley and Caucasus populations. It is also prominent in the rest of South Asia, Central Asia, Near East and in diminishing strength in Europe. It is absent in Sardinians, Basques, and all ancient Europeans, although it is present in MA1. This component also does not appear in North and East Africa (except for Egyptians and Tunisians) where other West Eurasian admixture is observed. This is consistent with MA1 related population having contributed some ancestry to present-day Europeans not accounted for by West Eurasian Hunter Gatherers and Early European Farmers. The presence of this component in the Near East contrasts with its absence in Stuttgart, consistent with the widely shared negative f3(Near East; Stuttgart, MA1) statistics (Table 1) indicating that present-day Near Easterners have been affected by gene flow not present in early Near Eastern migrants into Europe.”
I am well aware that Admixture components need to be interpreted with caution. But the simplest explanation is that Kalash-like people took the Indo-European languages to Europe as well as ANE to the Middle East. An objection to this notion is that the Kalash have some ASI and Europeans and Middle Easterners apparently do not.
But now we have evidence from Davidski's calculation of f3 values that Europeans and Middle Easterners have some ENA.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/07/f3-stats-100-present-day-populations.html
Europeans:
f3(Greek;Dai,French_Basque) -0.000365561 0.000151607 -2.41124
f3(East_Sicilian;Dai,French_Basque) -0.000569748 0.000184245 -3.09234
f3(Tuscan;Dai,French_Basque) -0.000432676 0.000151683 -2.8525
f3(Portuguese;Dai,French_Basque) -0.000915428 0.000242182 -3.77992
f3(Bulgarian;Dai,French_Basque -0.00118302) 0.000144746 -8.17306
f3(Romanian;Dai,French_Basque) -0.00125626 0.000141042 -8.90695
f3(North_Italian;Dai,French_Basque) -0.0002888 0.000159868 -1.80649
f3(West_Sicilian;Dai,French_Basque) -0.000558259 0.000196153 -2.84604
Middle Easterners:
f3(Assyrian;Dai,Sardinian) -0.00059462 0.000194433 -3.05822
f3(Ashkenazi;Dai,Sardinian) -0.000297346 0.000155065 -1.91756
f3(Armenian;Dai,Sardinian) -0.000435056 0.000143102 -3.04019
f3(Cyprian;Dai,Sardinian) -0.000721083 0.000160358 -4.49671
f3(Druze;Dai,Sardinian) -3.8934E-005 0.00017135 -0.227219
f3(Sephardic_Jewish;Dai,Sardinian) -0.00134829 0.000154977 -8.69989
@David
''Don't ignore the mtDNA and archeological evidence that goes along with the R1a rich samples from Bronze and Iron Age Asia.''
What Archaeological Evidences??? can you give us 1?
Most of the Mtdna can be explained as of Asian Origin.
''Also, the only marker that is relevant in this context is R1a-M417 or R1a1a1. In fact, I'd narrow it down to R1a-Z645, because 99% of European and Asian R1a falls under this relatively young Indo-European-specific subclade.''
Iran and probably Nepal also has basal R1a-M417 Mutations....
''So called basal R1a* lineages of different kinds are found all the way from the UK (due to oversampling, but they're there nevertheless) to Tibet. These markers don't tell us much except maybe point to a possible place of origin of R1a. But that's a long shot when based on modern DNA, because people moved around a lot in the past, and many populations just disappeared, especially on the steppe.''
I Agree of the technical value BUT that has no help for Steppe Hypothesis so sorry...
@Balaji
Hi!
'' They must believe that the Maikop also contributed to the ancestry as well as the language of Armenians and Indians.''
See this for SC Asian and Iranian contribution to the Maykop Phenomenon-
http://dienekes.blogspot.in/2013/05/origins-of-maykop-phenomenon.html
Balaji,
Armenians and Indians don't need WHG to speak Indo-European languages, just like South American Indians don't need WHG to speak Spanish, Australian Aboriginals to speak English, or Chinese in the Russian Far East to speak Russian. The list goes on.
Yes, Nirjhar
For decades the 'sudden' rise of the Majkop phenomenon has been deemed as 'mystery'. Long thought that it was due to the expansion of Mesopotamian colonies trade for metal ore toward the Caucasus region, there was a lack of clear evidence for contacts with Mesopotamia.
More recently, some archaeologists have argued for explaining Majkop in terms of some connection with central Asia.
Balaji, Patterson, and others
Have you been ignorant for 6 years of Keyser 2009? DNA taken from pre-historic Indo Iranian cultures came up with Yamna-type mtDNA and R1a-Z93-haplotypes.
Add to this they had a higher amount of R1a than anyone today(suggesting they did not absorb it from locals) and similar results have been found in Sycthians, who we know were Indo Iranians.
How can you explain Sycthians in central Asia, if Indo Iranian languages spread east from west Asia?
I don't understand why many people act as if the Sycthians and Andronovo never existed(and their DNA samples).
Indo Iranian-languages are a south-west Asian phenomenon today, because the ones from northern Asia went extinct(linguistically), but that doesn't mean they never existed.
Archaeology traces the origin of Indo Iranains to Yamna. Maju agrees to this.
There's simply no way around this. Indo Iranians did not have to replace a large amount of the native pop like IEs did in Europe. There are plenty examples of where language spread, but few genes did.
Once R1a-S224*(xZ93, Z282) comes out of Yamna, if any of you still say Davidski's theory has no evidence.......
Before Laz 2013 came out people in a similar way argued Y DNA I has nothing to do with Mesolithic Europe, well.....
I'm tired of people going for the underdog theory simply because it's the underdog theory, not because of evidence.
Mike, Maykop was Strongly influenced by SC Asia and Iran Just see the Dienekes Post-
''The foreign objects in the North Caucasus reveal no connection to the upper reaches of the Euphrates and Tigris or to the floodplains of Mesopotamia, but rather seem to have ties to the Iranian plateau and to South Central Asia.''
It alll starting to Fit PIE in Iran-SC Asia>Maykop>Eastern Europe....
Yes, Ive read that paper and similar.
If Majkop was early IE(bringed R1b and R1a north?), Indo Iranian still is from Yamna and R1a-S224 is most likly a Yamna marker(even if its ancestor was from Majkop). Antolian, Armenian, and Balkan IE languages are up for grabs I guess though, but so is Yamna.
Where IE in Yamna came from doesn't matter, what matters is who made IE widespread, and Yamna is the best candidate.
not really, Krefter
If IE was already in central Asia, then who cares about Yamnaya apart from its own local significance.
Fact is, there is nothing special about Yamnaya. Sorry.
@Krefter
''Have you been ignorant for 6 years of Keyser 2009? DNA taken from pre-historic Indo Iranian cultures came up with Yamna-type mtDNA and R1a-Z93-haplotypes.''
You are the one who is ignorant to the facts that Andronovo-Arkaim Etc are strongly influenced by Indo-Iranian BMAC! Just see above as i referenced! about the Y-DNA its no doubt Z-93 which is Asian!!
Mtdna is also mostly of Asian Origin if I'm not Wrong.
''Add to this they had a higher amount of R1a than anyone today(suggesting they did not absorb it from locals) and similar results have been found in Sycthians, who we know were Indo Iranians.''
No idiot Scythians were part of the Indo-Iranian group but not aryans who depicted them as Turanians, Sairimas the nomadic people of barbarian lifestyle!.
''I don't understand why many people act as if the Sycthians and Andronovo never existed(and their DNA samples).
Indo Iranian-languages are a south-west Asian phenomenon today, because the ones from northern Asia went extinct(linguistically), but that doesn't mean they never existed.
Archaeology traces the origin of Indo Iranains to Yamna. Maju agrees to this. ''
Lack of knowledge that you have see this detailed description on Aryans-
http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html
''There's simply no way around this. Indo Iranians did not have to replace a large amount of the native pop like IEs did in Europe. There are plenty examples of where language spread, but few genes did. ''
Your argument is laughable just see the prominent link on the issue then you will understand:).
''I'm tired of people going for the underdog theory simply because it's the underdog theory, not because of evidence.''
READ!
"not really, Krefter
If IE was already in central Asia, then who cares about Yamnaya apart from its own local significance.
Fact is, there is nothing special about Yamnaya. Sorry."
It at least was similar genetically to the early IE ancestors of Euros and central-south Asians.
I can't wait till Reich's paper comes out, maybe then you'll stop with this.
Stop with what ? Picking the numerous gaps which still exist ?
Reichs' paper will not be the revolution that you think.
With more than half Eurasia not even sampled, it'll be hardly the end of discussion.
@Krefter
''It at least was similar genetically to the early IE ancestors of Euros and central-south Asians.''
Digest the fact that Indo-Europeans were intrusive in Europe and they came from cultures like Maykop!
End Of Story....
Nirj
You don't have to resort to ad hominems. This is friendly discussion and healthy debates.
"Digest the fact that Indo-Europeans were intrusive in Europe and they came from cultures like Maykop!"
Whilst I agree that the role of central Asia might be understate,d, Im not sure i'd be so definitive of the clear picture you suggest. Call me negative. But language expansion at the end of the day obeys no laws, genetically, archaeologically, or whatever. It is a function of human behaviour, which is ultimately not reducible to a law.
Mike,I Understand and i will be more subjective from now on.
David, PLEASE post a new post!!!
''Whilst I agree that the role of central Asia might be understate,d, Im not sure i'd be so definitive of the clear picture you suggest. Call me negative. But language expansion at the end of the day obeys no laws, genetically, archaeologically, or whatever. It is a function of human behaviour, which is ultimately not reducible to a law.''
There always a better explanation Mike surely when we look at Kurgan and its ''credibility'' in Asia and with more Asian aDNA from Iran and India it will get more scientific as it already getting with Anthropological,Archaeological data:)...
@David: You've read my blog entry on the matter, you know that I didn't miss that map. What I did was to look at the fine haplotype detail in Z93* (see supp. information fig. 2), concluding that:
Z93* has three apparent distinct branches stemming from West Asia (incl. Caucasus) and another one from South Asia/Altai (1).
As for the rest of Z93:
· Z95* has two apparent distinct branches:
→ A small one with presence in West Asia and Southern Europe
→ Another one (pre-M780?) stemming from South or West Asia
· M780 has clear origins in South Asia (incl. most Roma lineages)
· Z2125 also appears to originate in South Asia, even if it has a greater spread outside it, notably to Central Asia
· M580 and M582 appear related and surely originated in West Asia.
West Asia is the origin! If you look at the STR haplotype detail, there's no room for misunderstanding. I'm hallucinating that you are ignoring all that, really.
Frequency is not basal diversity, i.e. hierarchically sorted diversity. Misunderstanding these issues: frequency, raw diversity and (the often less obvious) structured or basal diversity is a rookie error. But you are no rookie at all, David, please!
@Balaji: interesting remarks by Patterson and Reich, thanks. However we must recall that they are not archaeologist/prehistorians, so, in spite of being obviously after something serious, I believe they are missing key details.
First of all Maikop is not ancestral to Early Yamna. Both cultures seem "sisters" and descending from Khvalynsk (and hence surely Samara). Second, Nihjar made a very good point earlier, by suggesting a different ethno-cultural pathway via the (largely unknown) Yangelsk culture of the SE Urals, which seems to derive from Jarmo. IF Yangelsk influenced Samara/Khvalynsk (I can't judge this for lack of data) we have a good candidate for this West Asian origin that seems so apparent in Y-DNA R1a.
Now, a claim for an Indian origin of (pre-proto-ante-)IE languages seems totally unjustified, among other reasons because R1a did not stem from India nor Pakistan but from further West in Asia. Also an strict correlation R1a-IE is almost certainly wrong. There could be upon a time R1a-dominated Dravidians and R1a-dominated anything else. We just do not know enough to be reasonably certain but it's clearly possible and plausible.
There's a reason people have been arguing over the Proto-Indo-European homeland for a couple of hundred years now.
Mostly looking in the same set of places - South Caucasus/North Iran and South Central Asia were both popular theories in the 19th century - and both revived by modern scholars.
We just don't have enough information yet to say. We can see material connections between archaeological cultures, and genetic affinities between populations, but we can't tell which connections coincided with language shifts, and frequently we cannot resolve the order and direction of influences either.
In any case there was all kinds of interesting stuff going on in Central Asia and Iran during the Chalcolithic, with connections to the Early Harappan in Pakistan, cultures in E Iran, mining colonies in Tajikistan, trade with the Near East, etc. Also in the right general time and place for early R1a and maybe R1b, going by present evidence.
It is tempting to think this has something to do with the Indo-European expansion, but it is difficult to see how it would lead to the known distribution of IE dialects. Especially the affinity between Greek and Indo-Iranian to the exclusion of Anatolian.
@Nirjhar, what is the positive evidence of Indo-Europeans being present in South Asia since the Neolithic that you keep talking about? (Please don't just link me to a rambling long-winded blog post.)
@Nirjhar: Maikop is less important that often attributed (again for some sort of mystic clout it gets). Maikop is in essence ancestral to the Anatolian branch (Hittites, Luwians...), via Kura-Araxes, and arguably, maybe only, to the extinct Catacomb culture that partly replaced Yamna in the steppe but that left no cultural descendants.
Armenian is Phrygian and Phrygians originated in the Balcans. Indo-Iranian is not related to Maykop either.
STRs only tell part of the story. What do the SNPs say?
If you're asking me, Chad, STRs only were only considered within the SNP structure, i.e. to shed light on the otherwise unclear downstream hierarchy. That's the correct use of STR "trees": always within the SNP-defined structure. Even then there may be some uncertainty but all the subhaplogroups with Z93 point to the same apparent origin: an arch between the Caucasus and India centered in Iran (and never to the North). That all point in the same direction must mean something, more so when that is also the direction that the overall SNP structure of R1a points to.
Davidski have you started working on your Yamna-R1a victory post yet?
The spoils of the victory will be bragging rights.
If no R1a is found, victory for Maju, Matt, Nir, Balaji.
I wouldn't be too surprised if they do find R1a?
"I wouldn't be too surprised if they do find R1a?"
I sent an email to Laz simply asking if any of the Yamna males had R1a. I don't understand why they have not mentioned Y DNA in leaks.
If there is no R1a found, I'll be surprised, but all it shows is something complex with R1a is going on. Of course if no R1a is found in 7 samples that doesn't rule out the possibility Yamna had some and that they played a role in its spread.
Either way there's no disputing eastern peoples similar to Yamna made a signifcant post-Neolithic genetic impact on Europe, which has been pretty much the only thing they've leaked for the last half year or so.
"If no R1a is found, victory for Maju...".
Please do not put words in my mouth, Krefter. I never said that R1a is not to be found in Yamna. Judging on Afanasevo and other data, it's very probable that R1a was there indeed. What is less clear is how much of it was carried westward and if those carried lineages actually originated in Yamna or in some random punks they adopted in their march.
What I say, following Underhill, is that Kurgans do not seem anymore as the origin of R1a but rather a secondary vehicle and probably only in Europe (Z282).
@Maju
''First of all Maikop is not ancestral to Early Yamna. Both cultures seem "sisters"''
It had EEHG-WHG type ancestry from the start no doubt there but again....
'' we have a good candidate for this West Asian origin that seems so apparent in Y-DNA R1a. ''
Yes but since it a bit old it may be not related to the IE Intrusion which happened around 3000 BC.
''Now, a claim for an Indian origin of (pre-proto-ante-)IE languages seems totally unjustified, among other reasons because R1a did not stem from India nor Pakistan but from further West in Asia. Also an strict correlation R1a-IE is almost certainly wrong. There could be upon a time R1a-dominated Dravidians and R1a-dominated anything else. We just do not know enough to be reasonably certain but it's clearly possible and plausible.''
Iran-SC Asia is not totally India is it Maju? Iran Which is of West Asian Part where PIE started from Zagros-Zarzian horizon and it reached quite early in SC Asia as per the Data is concerned from various fields, about Dravidians carrying R1a well that is apparently Wrong Please don't play the Brahui Card again and in South India The Dravidians who carry the R1a are also of the Indo-Aryan Origin!.
''Maikop is less important that often attributed (again for some sort of mystic clout it gets). Maikop is in essence ancestral to the Anatolian branch (Hittites, Luwians...), via Kura-Araxes, and arguably, maybe only, to the extinct Catacomb culture that partly replaced Yamna in the steppe but that left no cultural descendants.''
Maykop IE came to E Europe from 3000 BC that is now almost confirmed and Maykop already had strong SC Asian-Iranian Influence confirmed by Archaeology, Catacomb Cultures burial ritual had roots in South-Western Turkmenistan from the early 4th millennium (Parkhai cemetery) again pointing to an ancient Asian (Indo-European) Influence!
MayKop was influenced and populated by Iranian Indo-Europeans as Giacomo has dealt with in the Sequel of his 1st Part on PIE the only reason it is not published yet is the Upcoming European aDNA data from E Europe and SC Asian aDNA also from Rakhigarhi.
''Armenian is Phrygian and Phrygians originated in the Balcans. Indo-Iranian is not related to Maykop either.''
Trust me their language structure is more reliable which contradicts your suggestion.
Krefter
''If no R1a is found, victory for Maju, Matt, Nir, Balaji.''
There was already an intrusion from West Asia to E European area around 6000 BC so there is a chance that R1a was already there!
But it doesn't mean Indo-Europeans also!
In case of SC Asia it also happened around once in 6000 BC and later around 4500 BC from Iranian area which more fits the Indo-European time frame like the 3000 BC migration from Maykop to Samara/Yamnaya area.
@Nirjhar: you speak nonsense to me in your last comment. I'm talking archaeology and you reply with very generic, confusing and probably wrong (but why bother checking) one-liners about genetics.
We know nothing of the genetics of Maykop as of now but we know something of the archaeology and its relation with other cultures: both Maykop (NE Caucasus)and Early Yamna (Lower Volga-Don) appear to descend from Khvalynsk, then follow separate courses. In my interpretation of IE genesis Maykop (which is behind Kura-Araxes) is at the root of the Anatolian branch.
@Maju
''both Maykop (NE Caucasus)and Early Yamna (Lower Volga-Don) appear to descend from Khvalynsk, then follow separate courses.''
Maju how is the origin relevant here first tell me.
Maykop had strong Iranian-SC Asian Input which Brought more ANE and R1a also but it is not of SC-Asian Iranian Origin as i remarked by saying it had EEHG-WHG type ancestry from the very start! Kurgan dating also confirms that it is contemporary of Yamnaya.
However wikis here is unaware of Khvalynsk to be the ancestor of Maykop itself but only to Yamanaya so give your reference.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khvalynsk_culture
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maykop_culture
@Nirjhar: This is my interpretation of the early phases (c. 5500-2400 BCE) of Kurgan expansion: http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html
I understand that the basic split of Indoeuropean is apparent since very early on: after a more or less unitary phase before c. 4000 BCE at the Volga/North Caucasus (Khvalynsk), we see a sudden expansion and cultural differentiation:
1. Afanasevo (Altai) → Tocharian
2. Maikop → Kura-Araxes → Anatolian
3. Yamna →→ Andronovo → Indo-Iranian
4. Balcanic kurgans →→ several languages, notably Greek but surely also Armenian and Albanian.
5. Baalberge →→ Corded Ware → what I call "Western IE" which includes Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Celto-Italic
Most of these branches (but almost certainly not #1) had some sort of secondary interactions, what explains surely different degrees of apparent divergence and some irregularities like the centum/satem variations, but the fundamentals were already there some 3500 years BCE. We must not forget that at that time they were mere dialects just as early romances began as (and still largely are) mere dialects of Vulgar Latin.
Of course you don't have to believe in what I deduce but there's no way you can say something like "Maykop had strong Iranian-SC Asian Input" and pretend to be right: there was almost certainly nothing that could yet be called "Iranian" yet, just a dialect that eventually would evolve into proto-Indo-Iranian and then, only then, into Iranian.
"wikis here is unaware of Khvalynsk to be the ancestor of Maykop"
Wikipedia is not perfect. In any case the extension of Khvalynsk towards the North Caucasus is clearly described and includes the area where Maykop would later be found. If you think that I'm wrong considering one ancestor of the other, please explain me why.
Lets discuss-
''1. Afanasevo (Altai) → Tocharian''
Afanasavo originated By the 4th Millennium BC it is too old to be connected with Tocharians.
''2. Maikop → Kura-Araxes → Anatolian''
Make it SC Asia-Iran->Maykop->Samara+Kura-Araxes-Anatolian.
''3. Yamna →→ Andronovo → Indo-Iranian''
Make it BMAC->Andronovo+Arkaim
The Archaeology confirms BMAC influence on Andronovo and Arkaim culture also should be noted that The predominant physical type of Andronovo people was the so-called Pamir-Ferghana type( Pre-Scythian type) according to Kuzmina and Mallory,which is more massive than the eastern Mediterranean typical of the farmers of South Central Asia, but was included by G.F. Debets in the Indo-Afghan type, which belongs to the Indo-Mediterranean race.
About Yamnaya its Stock-breeding was not an invention of the Yamnaya people. They learnt it from the west Siberian tribes, their eastern neighbours, and, if so, it was of Central-Asiatic, Iranian derivation again!.
See- Prehistoric Russia, p.130,
''4. Balcanic kurgans →→ several languages, notably Greek but surely also Armenian and Albanian.''
I think Greeks came from the Anatolian area and Armenian is Asian rooted as their linguistic structure agree for example they still have traces of the Voiced Aspirates a Basal PIE feature mostly intact in Indo-Aryan Still also Greek has traces of it though there is much more but not needed to be shown at the moment.
I agree with NO. 5.
''there's no way you can say something like "Maykop had strong Iranian-SC Asian Input" and pretend to be right: there was almost certainly nothing that could yet be called "Iranian" yet, just a dialect that eventually would evolve into proto-Indo-Iranian and then, only then, into Iranian. ''
I termed SC Asian-Iranian input as there is data for that as you know-http://dienekes.blogspot.in/2013/05/origins-of-maykop-phenomenon.html
Giacomo also showed that the continuity of Indo-Iranian Sphere goes back to Neolithic period in Asia i.e. Iran, India.
''Wikipedia is not perfect. In any case the extension of Khvalynsk towards the North Caucasus is clearly described and includes the area where Maykop would later be found. If you think that I'm wrong considering one ancestor of the other, please explain me why''
Wikipedia depicts the Major theories while excluding the Minor or Unpopular theories anyway again Maju it don't matter if Khvalynsk originated (please give the link on that proposal) Maykop as it was also handsomely influenced by Iran-SC Asian culture whom had Indo-European origins.
There's also influence of West European genetics and culture on Central European Kurgans, from Funnelbeaker influence on Baalberge to Bell Beaker influence on the post-Corded Ware complex scenario. Doesn't seem enough to scrap their core culture and language. I guess the same happens in the BMAC-Andronovo relation, which I know with less detail. The key question is that, before the "Andronovization" of BMAC in its last phase, BMAC was unrelated to Kurgans and hence I see no reason to imagine it Indoeuropean, much less or a not-so-extremely-differentiated branch as is Indo-Iranian.
You are going around the fundamentals, probing the flanks of the argument instead of addressing it at the core.
I also see no archaeological chance of (Mycenean) Greek originating in Anatolia: the Greek penetration was N-S (not across the Sea) on a previous very old layer (Dimini-Rakhmani, related to Vinca) which can be tracked to Tell Halaf and related sites in West Asia, and which was certainly pre-IE ("Pelasgian", maybe related to Tyrsenian?) Another issue is which of the various IE cultures existing already further North in the Balcans (Cotofeni, Vucedol, Ezero) is at the origin, something I've never seen explained to full satisfaction but in any case there's no detectable Anatolian flow in Greek Bronze Age genesis, if anything this would be an adstrate element owing to Minoans, Troy, etc.
Greek is in no way related to Anatolian but, if anything, to other European IE languages (weakly but the tendency does exist: just browse a handful or two of different IE trees).
In any case, you are discussing the terminal branches not the core.
And, nope, you're not going to persuade me by appealing to Wikipedia alone. It's just a quick reference like all encyclopedias. Anyhow it does not say that Maikop did not originate in Khvalynsk, it just says nothing about its origins (obviously a failure of that article).
Baalberg is mixed between TRB and late Lengyel/ early Baden. How is that IE speaking?
AFAIK Baalberge shows kurgans ("mounds" or "barrows" in some literature - but barrows that are reused by Corded Ware anyhow), which become more common later on. It's almost directly ancestral to Corded Ware (via Luboń and Globular Amphorae, with only lesser influence of Catacombs). That does not mean it lacks other influences but they don't seem to be the culture of the dominant elites of Halle (and eventually of the whole culture).
See for example HERE.
Re-use of previous burials was done by Beaker and Corded Ware. It doesn't mean that they came from those people. I don't see any possible steppe influence. If they have zero ANE in that region of Germany before 3000BCE, it's probably just local and Carpathian Neolithic influence. There is no Kurgan influence in Lengyel or Baden, so there cannot be any in Baalberg, which ended 600 years prior to CO1's sample. (3400vs2800BCE)
The oldest Corded site is in Kujawy, Poland, in 3000-2900BCE. That's 400-500 years after Baalberg ended and a good distance away.
Lengyel or Baden do not build Kurgans. Furthermore, even elites seem absent. Baden seems to have been a very powerful and influential culture for many centuries, and hence some sort of polity, but when we search for signs of a ruling elite, as we can find in Baalberge or even in clearly Danubian-influenced pre-IE cultures like Karanovo-Gumelnita, we find nothing. Hence my conclusion is that they were some sort of tribal confederacy like the also semi-urban Iroquois. Instead Baalberge appears as the first elitist culture of Central Europe, so it's not just the kurgans.
Note: I'm not saying that elitism is a trait exclusive of IEs (it obviously also evolved elsewhere) but it is another trait to add to the quite obvious and persistent kurganization of burial practices.
Baalberge and successors anyhow did have some important other influences: their local Danubian substrate, the Funnelbeaker adstrate from the North and West and the strong Baden influences from the south. At some point the successor cultures seem to even losing some of their Kurgan personality to these influences (I interpret that Baden defeated Baalberge in Moravia and forced to their reorganization as two distinct weaker polities (one at the Saale, the other at the Vistula), which were strongly influenced by Baden then) but, first, the expansion of Luboń towards Kiev (in replacement of Danubian influence) and, later, the Catacomb influence that seems to spark the Corded Ware genesis, reinvigorating the Western or NW IEs into a new and definitive expansion.
This underlines that Corded Ware people (even the elites themselves) could not be anymore just the same as Yamna or other steppe IEs but a first level of dilution, both genetic and culturally, into Central-Europeanness. The novel Catacomb-like influence never seems to show up outside Cujavia, so these late immigrants from the steppe were also assimilated.
As for long barrows and such, they have deeper roots. Many megalith groups had them. Basically, they were "houses of the dead". They appear around 4000BCE in Britain too. There are the chambered and un-chambered type. TRB used a lot of un-chambered barrows. I think that is where we should look, instead of some Kurgan influence, when none appears to have reached Germany prior to 3000BCE, and Hungary before 2800BCE.
Those barrows were built by Gok2 like people. There's nothing kurgan-like about them.
Addendum: Baalberge expanded quickly from its core area of the Saale: to Northern Moravia (but not Bohemia, as appears in some imprecise maps) and, critically, to Cujavia in Poland (near modern Warsaw), where, as in the Saale, there was an isolated LBK substrate element. They also expanded into Brandenburg, which previously shows no signs of inhabitation (too thick forest apparently, which was partly cleared under Baalberge).
When the Baalberge phase ends, it loses Moravia to Baden (hence my theory of war) and is split into two different cultures or groups: Salzmünde at the Saale and the sequence Sarnowo-Wiórek-Luboń in Cujavia. They remain separated at first by remnants of LBK in Posnania, etc. and, as I said before, clearly show some cultural influences from Baden, although they retain a clear distinctiveness.
It is the Cujawia group which is most dynamic and, by the time of Globular Amphora already reunifies with or absorbs the Saale group. Then come Corded Ware, where again Cujavia seems central.
So, yes, Cujavia is central but only after the first episode of Baalberge, where the Saale basin is the core area.
Alternatively you can believe that Corded Ware is purely a Catacomb-derived phenomenon but then... why don't we see anything Catacomb-like except in Cujavia itself and instead it is clearly a "reformed" continuation of Globular Amphorae (which in turn is continuation of Luboń, etcetera until Baalberge)?
I see what you're saying, but none of those are Kurgan cultures, or have any type of ANE ancestry. Barrows come from Megalith/TRB people. That whole Boleraz/Baden/Danubian influence is more people that lack ANE. We can't put any of their ancestors in the Pontic or Samara region.
I think Catacomb and Corded are different. Catacomb likely has influence from northern Corded folks, but more influence from the East and the Caucasus.
How can you know anything about the "ANE ancestry" of the Baalberge-GA-CW sequence? We know nothing other than the rather ambiguous plot leaked via Krefter, in which the pooled LNE/EBA (which cultures does that label include and how they behave individually?) appear very similar to CW, albeit slightly more westernized. I suspect LNE/EBA are probably Bell Beaker + Unetice (so nothing directly relevant) but we'll see in due time.
PS- If you're thinking MNE, that's almost certainly Rössen, as it shows almost no difference withe ENE/EEF (initial LBK).
They wouldn't say no ANE in Germany before 3000BCE if they didn't have samples that covered until that time.
There is a good difference between ENE and MNE. MNE has the hunter bounce back. Those should be about identical to Gok2 and CO1, and cover up until 3000BCE.
"They wouldn't say no ANE in Germany before 3000BCE if they didn't have samples that covered until that time".
I think they would, honestly. People are either careless or tend to read too much on the data according to whatever scheme they have in mind. You may perfectly have a key 1000 years gap and happily say that. I wouldn't but I'm a well known detail maniac, most people are less detail obsessive.
But in due time...
500 HO!:)
Maju,
'' I guess the same happens in the BMAC-Andronovo relation, which I know with less detail. The key question is that, before the "Andronovization" of BMAC in its last phase, BMAC was unrelated to Kurgans and hence I see no reason to imagine it Indoeuropean, much less or a not-so-extremely-differentiated branch as is Indo-Iranian. ''
No don't you see?
1.the Skeletons of Andronovo is of Pamirian Indo-Afghan origin not European.
2.The Structure of Andronovo,Sintastha,Arkaim is Based on the Structure of BMAC and not vice Versa!
3.Tons of BMAC materials are found in those culture OTOH they fail to give any such remarkable donation!
All agree to the scenario that Arkaim,Andronovo,Sintastha was populated by BMAC people bringing the the rise that those cultures got! which is contradictory for the steppes and normal if we simply see as the Influence of the pre-cursor sedentary culture like of BMAC!
The Andronovization happened when BMAC faded and the nomads got the chance to come south for shelter but it of mild character by no means that can account for a miraculous cultural change of Dense and Archaic Indo-Iranian population Of BMAC and SSC!
Focus on this passage by Benedetti-
''Hints of a northward movement from the Southern Central Asian oases are also in Ferghana, a region rich in tin deposits, because there has been found a store of bronze and silver objects of southern origin (op. cit., pp.243-244). It is remarkable that Bactrian camels are among the animals bred in the Andronovo cultures succeeding Sintashta culture (they are dated 1800-1000 BC), and camels were domesticated in Turkmenistan at least in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC (see here); they had an Indo-Iranian name (*uštra-), which was borrowed into Finno-Ugric and Turkic languages. The predominant physical type of Andronovo people was the so-called Pamir-Ferghana type according to Kuzmina and Mallory (see here), which is more massive than the eastern Mediterranean typical of the farmers of South Central Asia, but was included by G.F. Debets in the Indo-Afghan type, which belongs to the 'Indo-Mediterranean race' (see here). Moreover, skulls of the Andronovo cemetery at Muminabad on the Zeravshan are assigned to the Eastern Mediterranean type, among the funerary objects there were mirrors with handle typical of the BMAC, found also in the Andronovan cemeteries of Ferghana and Semirech'e, and under the Krasnoe Znamya kurgan near the South Urals. Also in the Tautara cemetery on the northern slopes of the Karatau chain, near the Syr Darya, the pottery includes forms imitating the commercial vessels produced in the southern oases. At Kokcha in Khorezm, along the lower Amu Darya (Tazabagyab culture, second half of the 2nd mill. BC) we have vessels typical of Namazga VI, and other objects of southern origin: pins with double-spiral head, earrings with cones, and clay figures.''
Tazabagyab was heavily influenced by BMAC and their people were ultimately of BMAC-SSC type just that their lifestyle was nomadic but heavily dependent on Sedentary cultures.
''And, nope, you're not going to persuade me by appealing to Wikipedia alone. It's just a quick reference like all encyclopedias. Anyhow it does not say that Maikop did not originate in Khvalynsk, it just says nothing about its origins (obviously a failure of that article).''
Ok but at least give me a SINGLE reference from anywhere which speaks Khvalynsk as the Originator of Maykop
!.
''Lengyel or Baden do not build Kurgans.''
On Kurgan See my Proposal what should we see that for example the tumuli or barrows are typical of the Kurgan cultures are also found in other cultures: the Mongols, the Turks (Kurgan is a Turkic word), the Japanese, the Etruscans, Megalithic cultures of Ireland and Portugal, the Native Americans. I would not say the Kurgans are connected with PIEs. Maybe the Kurgan IEs adopted the idea of the tumulus from other cultures, or they developed autonomously. There are tumuli also at Se Girdan in Iran, it is not clear if it is before or after Maykop... In South Asia, there are at Dholavira, with the inner wheel like later Stupas... so, barrows can be developed in different cultures and periods, when there is the will to celebrate the burial of a special individual.
The bottom line on Kurgan tumulus is that they were erected by various cultures,not restricted to IE.Tumulus were present even in pre-IE Europe,such as this one http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tumulus_Saint-Michel in neolithic France....
@Nirjhar: unlike others I don't care where the skeletons or their DNA comes from when considering culture, language and ethnicity. Moroccans or Sudanese are less related to "true" Arabs than Iranians are but they speak Arabic and feel Arabic, and that's all what's needed to make them Arabs, except for some erudite anthropological analyses maybe.
I say: Andronovo was the root of Indo-Iranian, no matter if they were all assimilated.
Now, something I was just discussing elsewhere is that with all that ANE and now also some West Asian elements (it seems) in Yamna, the IE inflow into Europe seems less and less European and more loosely Central Asian (even if admixed near the root with Eastern Paleoeuropeans, EHG). So relax, early IEs may well have been largely Asian and that may be the reason why you see all that in Andronovo: they were all the time at the IE root, just that they have been less researched and/or less included in the IE genesis equation.
Now please explain me this, please: "2.The Structure of Andronovo, Sintastha, Arkaim is Based on the Structure of BMAC and not vice Versa!" How is that possible at all, if they had so different origins (Andronovo originates to the NW of Central Asia, at the Volga-Ural, and BMAC appears at the southern extreme)? And also how is it even real? Who and how claims that other than you?
Your claims are so erratic and ill-structured, with no references usually, that I find hard to believe you on this, more so when I've read otherwise.
Hi!
lets try to settle this before we reach 500;).
''unlike others I don't care where the skeletons or their DNA comes from when considering culture, language and ethnicity. Moroccans or Sudanese are less related to "true" Arabs than Iranians are but they speak Arabic and feel Arabic, and that's all what's needed to make them Arabs, except for some erudite anthropological analyses maybe. '' Science show that Andronovans had Asian origin as per their body is concerned;) and i'm sure they are all of Y-DNA R1a Z-93 or some older Mutation but no way Eastern European with Z-280s.
''I say: Andronovo was the root of Indo-Iranian, no matter if they were all assimilated. ''
I say: Andronovans were Pre-Scythians Iranian nomads who were heavily influenced by Aryan BMAC and they are depicted in Avesta as Turanians and Sairimas(Pre-Sarmatians?) of Turan which was north of BMAC exactly where Andronovo was.
They Interacted with West Eurasians and acquired the West Asian Specific Mtdna when BMAC invaded Steppes and influenced the Pre-Existing R1a bearing Andronovo type Iranian Nomads to create cultures like of Andronovo,Sintastha,Arkaim etc it created a confusion.
'' early IEs may well have been largely Asian and that may be the reason why you see all that in Andronovo: they were all the time at the IE root, just that they have been less researched and/or less included in the IE genesis equation. ''
If i understand you correctly then i completely agree! Asia was the IE Root and Steppes were from archaic times inhabited by Scythian type Indo-European nomads of Iranian origin and when we suddenly see appearances of Sedentary influenced cultures of Arkaim,Sintastha which are contradictory of the lifestyle in Steppes we can easily depict them as the influence from people of sedentary civilization like of BMAC which also has Archaeological and Anthropological support-http://new-indology.blogspot.in/2013/02/indo-iranians-new-perspectives.html
Maju,
Here's the German samples that should be included. Thanks David! I couldn't find the list.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/suppl/2013/10/10/342.6155.257.DC1/Brandt.tablesS1-S17.xls
We are not "settling" anything. We discuss, agree or disagree, chew on the data and arguments being thrown and wait for the next occasion on the hope that there is more data that clarifies things a bit.
"If i understand you correctly then i completely agree! Asia was the IE Root"...
If you would understand me correctly, you would not even discuss what is Asia and what is Europe, much less on such an undefined "border" as the one North of the Caspian Sea. Just like South Asia is a subcontinent, so is Europe (a bit larger and with a more complex coastline but otherwise the same), and just as the exact limit of South Asia is ill defined except at the Himalaya, the exact border of Europe is ill defined except at the Mediterranean. At least five states overlap the conventional Europe-Asia border, in some cases very dramatically: it's totally arbitrary!
You like it or not, is it conventional or not, Europeans are Asians (a subset of a subset of Asians). However Asia (or Eurasia) is very diverse, lacking ethnocultural unity of any sort, so I see no point in your "Asianism". But if it comforts you somehow... if it makes you feel that the Kurgan model becomes less "Eurocentric" or "colonialist", well... whatever.
@Chad: I've seen those tables before, they correspond to some older study, not sure which. Are you sure that the samples are the same?
The German samples in the new Reich paper are from the same collection.
They cover the period from the early Neolithic to the middle or late Bronze Age. So there's a very good chance that the Baalberge group is covered, although I have doubts about GAC.
The new study also includes samples from Hungary, Russia and Spain from the same time frame.
@Maju
''We are not "settling" anything. We discuss, agree or disagree, chew on the data and arguments being thrown and wait for the next occasion on the hope that there is more data that clarifies things a bit. ''
of course and while doing that we also filter out the dogmas...
''If you would understand me correctly, you would not even discuss what is Asia and what is Europe, much less on such an undefined "border" as the one North of the Caspian Sea. Just like South Asia is a subcontinent, so is Europe (a bit larger and with a more complex coastline but otherwise the same), and just as the exact limit of South Asia is ill defined except at the Himalaya, the exact border of Europe is ill defined except at the Mediterranean. At least five states overlap the conventional Europe-Asia border, in some cases very dramatically: it's totally arbitrary!''
Thanks for the lesson:).
''You like it or not, is it conventional or not, Europeans are Asians (a subset of a subset of Asians).''
OK.
'' Asia (or Eurasia) is very diverse, lacking ethnocultural unity of any sort, so I see no point in your "Asianism".
Indo-Iranian has great unity covering the most biggest area compared to other IE Language groups and also has archaic archaeological cultural roots associated with them throughout Asia.
End of Story.
Hello Everybody,
My name is Mrs Sharon Sim. I live in Singapore and i am a happy woman today? and i told my self that any lender that rescue my family from our poor situation, i will refer any person that is looking for loan to him, he gave me happiness to me and my family, i was in need of a loan of S$250,000.00 to start my life all over as i am a single mother with 3 kids I met this honest and GOD fearing man loan lender that help me with a loan of S$250,000.00 SG. Dollar, he is a GOD fearing man, if you are in need of loan and you will pay back the loan please contact him tell him that is Mrs Sharon, that refer you to him. contact Dr Purva Pius,via email:(urgentloan22@gmail.com) Thank you.
BORROWERS APPLICATION DETAILS
1. Name Of Applicant in Full:……..
2. Telephone Numbers:……….
3. Address and Location:…….
4. Amount in request………..
5. Repayment Period:………..
6. Purpose Of Loan………….
7. country…………………
8. phone…………………..
9. occupation………………
10.age/sex…………………
11.Monthly Income…………..
12.Email……………..
Regards.
Managements
Email Kindly Contact: urgentloan22@gmail.com
Post a Comment