Over a year ago, using the D-stats/nMonte method of mixture modeling (see
here), I noticed that Yamnaya did not appear to be simply a two-way mixture between Eastern European and Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers (EHG and CHG, respectively), but the result of a much more complex process:
Using the most plausible reference samples currently available - almost all of them older than Yamnaya, and thus unlikely to skew the results with Yamnaya admixture - reveals the following models for the two Yamnaya sets from Kalmykia and Samara, respectively.
Yamnaya_Kalmykia
Khvalynsk 57.7
Kotias 28.3
Hungary_EN 12.9
Ulchi 1.1
AfontovaGora3 0
Anatolia_Neolithic 0
Karelia_HG 0
Loschbour 0
MA1 0
Motala_HG 0
distance%=1.9125 / distance=0.019125
Yamnaya_Samara
Khvalynsk 56.75
Kotias 26.4
Hungary_EN 10.85
Karelia_HG 4.4
Loschbour 1.6
AfontovaGora3 0
Anatolia_Neolithic 0
MA1 0
Motala_HG 0
Ulchi 0
distance%=2.1354 / distance=0.021354
Very interesting but hardly surprising. Essentially what we're seeing there is potentially very strong genetic continuity from the Eneolithic to the Early Bronze Age on the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. In other words, from Khvalynsk to Yamnaya.
However, at some point between the Eneolithic and the Early Bronze Age, the steppes saw a major influx of extra CHG, represented by the ~27% of Kotias-related admixture. Considering the relevant uniparental data, with lots of Y-HG R1b and no Y-HG J among Yamnaya males, I'd say this CHG came with women.
Also, the relatively high admixture related to early Hungarian Plain farmers (Hungary EN) is a fairly curious detail that has not been reported before. If real, it probably represents gene flow from the Neolithic and/or Chalcolithic Balkans to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Again, in all likelihood it mostly came with women, perhaps from Tripolye-Cucuteni and/or Varna communities.
The reason I mention this now is because I can reproduce basically the same model using the updated qpAdm methodology described recently in Lazaridis et al. 2017, which relies on a relatively large number (≥16) of ancient genomes/populations as outgroups (see
here), and, in my experience, causes many formerly successful models to fail miserably (the taildiff dives from >0.05 to <0.05). Note that in my dataset Khvalynsk is now labeled Samara_Eneolithic, Kotias as CHG, and Hungary_EN as Hungary_N.
Yamnaya_Kalmykia
CHG 0.334±0.044
Hungary_N 0.115±0.031
Samara_Eneolithic 0.550±0.032
taildiff: 0.419775785
chisq: 13.368
Full output
Yamnaya_Samara
CHG 0.267±0.040
Hungary_N 0.130±0.027
Samara_Eneolithic 0.603±0.030
taildiff: 0.300777879
chisq: 15.106
Full output
Here's a formerly successful model in which Steppe_EMBA (a grouping which includes Afanasievo, Poltavka, Russia_EBA and Yamnaya) is posited as a mixture between EHG and Chalcolithic farmers from the Zagros Mountains in what is now Iran. It clearly fails when I use CHG as one of the outgroups.
Steppe_EMBA
EHG 0.544±0.020
Iran_ChL 0.456±0.020
taildiff: 0.00279643007
chisq: 31.553
Full output
vs.
Steppe_EMBA
CHG 0.310±0.034
Hungary_N 0.121±0.023
Samara_Eneolithic 0.568±0.025
taildiff: 0.50194795
chisq: 12.316
Full output
Now, tight statistical fits are great, but they don't always reflect reality, especially when fine scale genetic structure is being tested. So does my model have any support from archeology? In other words, does archaeological data show continuity between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya (Pit-Grave culture)? According to
Morgunova and Turetskij 2016 it does. Emphasis is mine:
Abstract: The aim of the paper is to provide the research results concerning the Pit-Grave culture sites of the south Ural region, which is a part of the Volga-Ural interfluve. The Pit-Grave culture developed mostly out of the Khvalynsk Eneolithic culture at the turn of the 5th–4th millennium cal BC. People of the Sredny Stog and forest-steppe Eneolithic cultures from the Middle Volga region also influenced the Pit-Grave culture. The paper considers the radiocarbon data (more than 120 dates), specifies the periodization of the Pit-Grave culture of the Volga-Ural interfluve, singles out the three stages of its development. The chronology of the culture is determined 3900–2300 cal BC. The authors provide new information about the Pit-Grave economy. Paleopedology, palynology, anthropology, metallography, ceramic technical, and technological analyses were used together with archaeological methods to make a more detailed description of the culture.
...
A number of steppe Eneolithic features remained at the Repin stage. The cultural continuity between the Pit-Grave, Khvalynsk, and Sredny Stog Eneolithic cultures was proved by the following features: skeletons in crouched supine position with bent legs to the left or to the right, heads at the eastern sector of burials, ochre coverage with high or low density, multiple burials, egg-shaped ceramics with neck and crushed shell impurity. Technical and technological analysis of pottery was another evidence demonstrating the pottery continuity between the Khvalynsk and Repin traditions (Vasilyeva 2002; Salugina 2005). Big soil burial grounds were substituted by individual burials under the barrow. The spread of local production copper articles was a distinctive feature of the Pit-Grave culture. This was the phenomenon, which archaeologists consider to be the beginning of the Early Bronze Age in steppe of Eastern Europe.
Morgunova N. and Turetskij M.,
Archaeological and natural scientific studies of Pit-Grave culture barrows in the Volga-Ural interfluve,
Estonian Journal of Archaeology, Vol. 20, Issue 2, doi: 10.3176/arch.2016.2.02
See also...
Another look at the genetic structure of Yamnaya
again thanks a lot!
ReplyDeletein other words nothing new
ReplyDeleteKhvakynsk begins after 400o BC which is when CHG begins to appear in the steppe
If you model Yamnaya in EHG and ChG, the input of former is 50-55%
It's also important to note that modelled Yamnaya here using the one outlier Khvalynsk who packed cHG and was haplogorup Q, instead of the other 2 which had little ChG. (not mentioned in your summary)
Your model should also consider that the admixing population ("women") would themselves contain considerable amounts of EHG, and not be pure CHG.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWho says that Khvalynsk begins after 4000 BC?
Latest dates are here...
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/essential-reading-paleoecology.html
It's written in the very paper you linked
ReplyDelete"allowed to describe the cultural continuity from the Khvalynsk-Berezhnovka stage till its decline in the Catacomb period. Radiocarbon dating confirmed the three-stage periodization of the Volga–Ural Pit-Grave culture; it included the Early, Developed and Late stages. Thus, the Pit-Grave culture existed in the period from the beginning of the 4th millennium BC till the beginning of the last quarter of the 3rd millennium BC"
Of course, Morgunova isn't correct to lump everything into "Pit Grave" culture, but that's a side issue
Shishlina makes similar conxlusions, pointing out the reservoir effects contained in fisher-foragers from the Volga.
I'm sure you're familiar with her work, as you often quote her, but leave out the part where she writes of a migration from Caucasus to steppe
The paper says that the Pit-Grave culture, which includes Repin and Yamnaya in their terminology (not Khvalynsk), started around 3,900 BC.
ReplyDeleteNope it says Khvalynsk.
ReplyDeleteKhvakynsk 42/4000 BC
Repin 3600
Yamnaya 32/3000 BC
This is what the abstract says. Clearly, they argue that Pit-Grave developed out of Khvalynsk.
ReplyDeleteThe Pit-Grave culture developed mostly out of the Khvalynsk Eneolithic culture at the turn of the 5th–4th millennium cal BC. People of the Sredny Stog and forest-steppe Eneolithic cultures from the Middle Volga region also influenced the Pit-Grave culture.
And they date the early stage of Pit-Grave, which they call Repin, to 3,900 BC. They also say this...
Comprehensive research of the Ural Pit-Grave sites thus provided a lot of new data concerning the chronology of the culture stages, allowed to describe the cultural continuity from the Khvalynsk Berezhnovka stage till its decline in the Catacomb period.
Which means that Pit-Grave began from Khvalynsk as Khvalynsk entered its Berezhnovka stage. So nowhere in the paper does it say that Khvalynsk began after 4,000 BC, and that's because this is impossible.
So Maykop is a bit too late to have had a significant genetic impact. So then the only other explanation would be that some CHG could have been present in the Northern Caucasus before the formation of Maykop.
ReplyDeleteThis brings me to the potential Spilway between the Black Sea and the Caspian Sea that dried up at +-6000 bC. which could have been a barrier between Steppe and Native CHG peoples....So the admixture could have started after 6000 bC. already but not be detectable further North until Yamnaya.
@ Dave
ReplyDelete\
"Thus, the dates obtained for human bone may show an apparent age of 2–3 centuries due to the reservoir effect; they are older than terrestrial samples, which are not affected by this effect. After applying a reservoir effect correction for the steppe Eneolithic period, the time interval for the Caspian steppe Eneolithic population has now changed to 4300–3800 cal BC."
With Repin to 3600 BC -> , and Yamnaya "An approximate reservoir correction for the regional Yamnaya culture would be 200 yr; thus, the time interval for this culture would now be 3000–2350 cal BC"
Of course, 43/4200 BC corresponds with the arrival of Meshoko, followed by Majkop in Caucasus.
But the key point worth highligting is that the haplogroup Q individual even as late as 4000 BC was the exception, the other two males from Khvalynsk had minimal CHG, which means that the CHG arrival was just beginning c. 4000-3800 BC. Even by 3600 BC (Dereivka) it was in process.
Again, it synchronises with appearance CHG in Anatolia and Greece, but might be coincidental
But the level of CHG increased from Khvalynsk to Yamnaya due to an increase in mobility, because there's no evidence of any migration per se from the Caucasus to the steppe at this time. If there was such a migration, like into Crete that created the Minoans, then we'd see some healthy frequencies of Y-hg J on the Bronze Age steppe.
ReplyDeleteThere seems to be a migration from Derievka (Sredny Stog) into Khvalynsk. Sredny Stog seems to have been more Semi-nomadic than Khvalynsk which makes Sredny Stog a more likely candidate to have recieved significant CHG admixture initially. And from Derievka the spread to the Volga...
ReplyDeleteSredny Stog surely was in direct contact with Cucuteni Tripolye who used wheeled vehicles. Central Europe (Poland) already used wagons and oxen at least as early as 3500 bC....
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
ReplyDelete"But the level of CHG increased from Khvalynsk to Yamnaya due to an increase in mobility, because there's no evidence of any migration per se from the Caucasus to the steppe at this time. If there was such a migration, like into Crete that created the Minoans, then we'd see some healthy frequencies of Y-hg J on the Bronze Age steppe."
That's a little presumptious and perhaps misunderstands events. Because (i) you'd need to sample the correct communities - likely specific islands of colonists during the 3800-3000 BC period (2) we don't actually know which haplogroups were in North Caucasus at this time. By 3000 BC, a further round of social change led to distinctive local founder effects, like Z2013 in NW Caspian, I2a2 in NE Balkans and M417 in north.
Certainly, the "Turkish wives" theories proposed in an earlier thread seems laughable (the poor guy is probably upset about something).
My late answer to George from the other thread.
ReplyDelete-----
George
I see. The sword is the last argument of IE-s.:)
But for some reasons it didn't worked in Levant despite the fact that it was ruled by IE-s (Persians,Greeks, Romans) for more than 1000 years. It didn't work for Ottomans also. No much Arabs shifted to Turkish. But IE-s shifted to Turkish.
How is that?
PS btw the correct way to say would be that Turks and Mongols were Mongoloid IE-s. And not the inverse.
PPS Note my question is not about eternal PIE homeland. But rather why some shifts happen easily while others not.
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteNumber of Mid Neolithic/Chalcolithic Balkan genomes=62.
Number of Mid Neolithic/Chalcolithic Steppe genomes=3.
That's a huge sampling bias. If we had more ancient Steppe genomes the oldest example of Steppe ancestry would be found. Don't be shocked if genomes dating to 5000 BC on the Steppe show mixed EHG and CHG ancestry.
Now look at this.
I0434. Y DNA Q1a. Identical to Yamnaya. 5200-4000 BC.
And here's all the Balkan outliers who have been reported to have a *minority* of Steppe ancestry.
I2181. Y DNA R. Bulgaria. 4550-4455 BC.
ANI163. Bulgaria. 4711-4542 BC.
I1927. Ukraine. Trypilla. 3619-2936 BC.
Not much of an age difference.
Also, you know Armenia Chalcolithic (4350-3700 BC) can technically be modeled as part Steppe?
No more "Balkan Chalolithic is the earliest incident of Steppe ancestry" bull shit. You want reality to be more complex than it actually is. I guess you think pushing for complex theories makes you smarter than everyone else.
@ Sam(un)wise
ReplyDeleteThat's ok, I'll repeat it for you coz I know you're a bit slow.
As i said, there are issues with reservoir effects of the Khvalynsk samples (because of a high fish diet)
So they don't date to 5200-400o Bc, but rather 4200-3600 BC, perhaps even later.
Yes, the Varna woman dates to 4300 Bc, so she just happens to be the earliest person with CHG/ EHC "steppe" admixture, to date.
"Also, you know Armenia Chalcolithic (4350-3700 BC) can technically be modeled as part Steppe?"
Only an ignorant, agenda-driven person would model Armenian Chalcolithic (4000 BC) on Yamnaya (2800 BC) (outside experimentation)
* "No more "Balkan Chalolithic is the earliest incident of Steppe ancestry" bull shit. You want reality to be more complex than it actually is. I guess you think pushing for complex theories makes you smarter than everyone else. "
Well, I certainly know more than you, but thats not really saying much; and that's certainly where it is at the moment.
Armenia chalc as part steppe....this here at eurogenes is so good as a comic relief. Specially since the ancient greece adna come out.
ReplyDeleteI don't think Armenia Chalc is part Steppe. All I was saying was that yes there were people in Bulgaria with CHG and EHG ancestry(Steppe) 6,000 years ago but there were also people in Armenia with CHG and EHG ancestry(Steppe) 6,000 years ago. I mentioned this because Rob thinks EHG and CHG in Bulgaria Chalc means Yamnaya is from Bulgaria or something like that.
ReplyDelete10,000 years ago there could have been people with a roughly similar EHG/CHG ratio as Yamnaya. It doesn't mean anything. What matters is which EHG/CHG hyprids sprouted Yamanya and the Steppe admixture we see in LNBA Europe.
@ Sam
ReplyDelete"I mentioned this because Rob thinks EHG and CHG in Bulgaria Chalc means Yamnaya is from Bulgaria or something like that."
That's not what I stated and I've corrected you 100s of times. In fact, you even don't know what you're saying. You're just saying words, epochs and cultures which you know nothing about.
If my comments are too difficult to decipher, then just ignore them and instead discuss with people on your wavelength, there's plenty around, so don't worry
Models for Samara_Eneolithic+Armenia_Chl would be cool. How much CHG / Barcin_N / WHG does Samara_Eneolithic take?
ReplyDeleteAlso how does these models behave with CHG, Samara_Eneolithic, Barcin_N and KO1 used as pLeft?
I guess, I still doubt that these models show a definitive male biased admixture though. There are a couple other plausible possibilities for J absence.
Could have be present, but marginalized by later massive derived R1b-M269 star-like expansion founder effects among Yamnaya which we already see as present in our sampling. J is from a population which at most probably contributed about 50% of the autosomal to earliest Steppe_EMBA; disappearance to low frequences of G2 happens in West European MN farmers with what appears to far less local HG admixture (depending on more sampling of Caucasus+early Southern steppe). Sex biased admixture may not be necessary.
(Probably irrelevant given the founder effect above, but for all we know, J may not have even been present at high frequencies in the earliest migrants from Caucasus to the steppe. Perhaps they were even some early branching forms of L2 or R1b M478, frequent among ancient Armenian samples we have so far...).
@Matt
ReplyDeleteArmenia_ChL
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFOVZGSE9yd2hwTU0/view?usp=sharing
Samara_Eneolithic
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFVzR6RlZneWtDeTA/view?usp=sharing
Steppe_EMBA
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B8XSV9HEoqpFRTZEa2ZIS3JiNnM/view?usp=sharing
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteWhat could "Steppe" in Chalcolithic Ukraine and Bulgaria mean other than Steppe people began mingling with EEF people before Corded Ware? It doesn't change much.
The Steppe phenomenon in Europe was R1a and R1b carrying people identical to Yamnaya that swarmed the European continent. Yes sure everyone wasn't Bell Beaker or Corded Ware and sure Slavs may have been a Corded Ware rebound (doubt it) but by and large everything can be summed up by saying R1b/a Steppe people rushed into Europe.
The Balkan Chalcolithic outliers don't change this. They really aren't that signifcant or groundbreaking.
ReplyDeleteYamnaya and its CWC offshoots only "swarmed" Northern Europe, and subsequently / by extension Western Europe.
The Bulgarian and Balkan Yamnaya probably consisted of local Chalcolithics mixing with those from Ukraine, and defined by a paucity of R1.
And that's not even getting into Greece, Anatolia etc
It really is far more nuanced than the average Joe thinks, Complex dynamics etc
I'm not saying this just to trigger you
As I said, you won't begin to understand until you learn the basics and then the specifics and then apply the genetics. I'd say you'd need 10 years of study
@ Davidski, cheers. If Samara_Eneolithic models 19 : 81 CHG:EHG, then
ReplyDeleteSteppe_EMBA as
* 57 : 31 : 12 of Samara_Eneolithic, CHG, Hungary_N -> 46 : 42 : 12 of EHG, CHG, Hungary_N.
* 51.5 : 35.5 : 7 : 6 of Samara_Eneolithic, CHG, Barcin_N, KO1 -> 45 : 41, 7 : 6 of CHG, EHG, Barcin_N, KO1.
Armenia_Chal as:
* 60 : 20 : 20 Tepecik_Ciftlik_N : CHG : Samara_Eneolithic -> 60 : 24 : 16 Tepecik_Ciftlik_N : CHG : EHG
Tepecik_Ciftlik_N has working models in Lazaridis 2017 as 67 : 24 : 9 Anatolia_N, CHG, Levant_N per Lazaridis 2017.
So Armenia_Chal as 40 : 39 : 16 : 6 of Anatolia_N, CHG, EHG, Levant_N. More EHG than Peloponnese Mycenaeans.
Are numbers in Iberia_Chalcolithic still at roughly 20 : 80 WHG : Barcin_N?
@ Matt / Dave
ReplyDeleteCan you do similar breakdowns for Armenia EBA ?
Because the level of EHG there would help exclude/ maintain possible its role in EHG admixture in Myceneans .
Just like R1b never failed to surprise us, I think there will still be some surprises on their way, maybe regarding R1a....
ReplyDelete@david
ReplyDeleteYou need a demographically significant pulse of EHG and yamnaya / cw uniparentals in Greece post 3000 bc to bolster a "steppe = Greek theory"
But you now have a small diffuse HG signal in mycenea that could be even be older than Minoan (unless you have better temporal samples to prove a pulse)
and a Balkan z93 who transferred Greek language to mycennea by telepathy
Yes again, thank you! CHG women entering the PC Steppe would include MtDNA H13a, H6a & H2a1 in my opinion. I'm not familiar with CT MtDNA lineages but wouldn't they for the most part be European Neolithic Farmer?
ReplyDeleteEver notice all the burials/settlements that contain R1a/b; that are either beside each other[or close proximity, and or stratified on top of one another?
ReplyDelete1)Ukraine_HG1=I1819, 9200–8600 BC; I1733,/ I1734, I1763, Mesolithic, 9000-7000
2)Khvalynsk-I0122,/ I0433, 4700 BC
3)I0124, Samara HG,Russian Mesolithic, 5650-5555BC/Poltavka-I0432,2900-2500 BC
4)Poltavka/Sintashta-settlements/graves like@Kuisak
5)R1a/R1b from an early Mongolian tomb/1130–1250 AD+/-
6)Europe Corded Ware/Bell Beaker
Looks like a fairly sensible model with good integration with archaeology which is critical to a narrative that makes sense. Also, there is anthropological evidence of patrilocality in the culture.
ReplyDeleteBut, the CHG plus EEF is awfully high to originate in foreign wives only. It would almost exclude intraculture marriage which seems unlikely. Yes, you can accumulate over generations, but still. It would be interesting to see some X-chromosome data on this hypothesis.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteNothing's really changed for the European Neolithic and Copper Age pops.
@Rob
Mycenaeans weren't modeled as part Armenia_EBA, they were modeled as part Armenia_MLBA or Armenia_ChL, because the latter two Armenian groups have clear levels of steppe input. Indeed, the best model I can get for Armenia_EBA is CHG + Tepecik, with little or no steppe or EHG input.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/08/the-iron-age-iranian.html
@andrew
Here's a little something that I put together a while ago, but it's based on very limited data.
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-iQZs58irkP8/WZoLINtZBtI/AAAAAAAAF_o/9D4a8tKSPtUxZQo-fXPpl5OGBQuKysTvQCLcBGAs/s1600/Yamnaya_X.png
@ David
ReplyDelete"Mycenaeans weren't modeled as part Armenia_EBA, they were modeled as part Armenia_MLBA or Armenia_ChL, because the latter two Armenian groups have clear levels of steppe input. Indeed, the best model I can get for Armenia_EBA is CHG + Tepecik, with little or no steppe or EHG input."
I suspect, Armenia EBA has too little steppe. I suspect Armenian MLBA might be too late.
BTW: Armenian Chalcolithic doesn't have "steppe" because it precedes any actual 'steppe' on the steppe. So it probably is a source for the southern admixture in steppe, but not perfectly.
The steppe admixture in MLBA Armenia is patchy individually variable, as documented archaeologically by the appearance of late-variety Kurgans in a few areas south of the Armenia.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteArmenia_ChL is dated to the same period as Khvalynsk: 4350-3700 BCE.
It does show a strong signal of genome-wide admixture from Khvalynsk, and one of the individuals also belongs to mtDNA U4a. That looks like a steppe lineage.
ReplyDelete2 of the 3 Khvalynsk Eneolithics are essentially pure n simple EHG's, meaning the haplogroup Q man is the odd one out. You keep trying to sweep that under the carpet.
In essence, between 4000-35000 BC, only 2 of 4 steppe Eneolithics look toward being *on the way* toward a Yamnaya profile. Given the varna woman (4300 BC), and Kumtepe (3600 BC) which also have "steppe" admixture, it means that the ultimate source of all this wasn't the steppe, but the Caucasus. So 'steppe' admixture is actually a misnomer. The driving force was Caucasian groups migrating to steppes, Balkans, and Anatolia , driving social change.
So your model is a false construct., but I think you know that anyway.
Also, U4 isn't a "steppe" lineage. It's found in Balkans, Baltic, Ukraine, Russia.
@Rob
ReplyDelete2 of the 3 Khvalynsk Eneolithics are essentially pure n simple EHG's, meaning the haplogroup Q man is the odd one out. You keep trying to sweep that under the carpet.
They're not pure EHGs. They do have 15-20% CHG admixture.
The interesting thing about the Q guy is that he was very similar to Yamnaya, which means Yamnaya-like people already existed on the steppe at least around 4000 BC, which is something that you keep ignoring.
The Iran_ChL/Caucasus related admixture began spreading across the Near East already during the early Neolithic, and it came from different sources, so it can't be linked to exactly the same phenomenon in all the places that it eventually reached.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete"The interesting thing about the Q guy is that he was very similar to Yamnaya, which means Yamnaya-like people already existed on the steppe at least around 4000 BC, which is something that you keep ignoring.'
The only one ignoring is you, with your myopic analyses.
As I said "In essence, between 4000-35000 BC, only 2 of 4 steppe Eneolithics look toward being *on the way* toward a Yamnaya profile. Given the varna woman (4300 BC), and Kumtepe (3600 BC) which also have "steppe" admixture, "
Can you see that ? I said 2 of 4 Steppe Enolithics (incl Dereivka) have the CHG, sure you can argue the other 2 had 10%, whatever.
But i appreciate your panic. The fact that Khvalynsk doesn;t date to 5000 BC has just collapsed your false construct.
i think it's time you man up and start calling it Caucasus Eneolithic admixture, not 'steppe'.
This is me panicking.
ReplyDeleteSo far so good for the Kurgan hypothesis
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYou're free to challenge the steppe theory. However, you need to do this with sound arguments and less aggression. Badgering people who don't agree with you isn't going to work.
More importantly, can you please not stray from the truth to the extent that you did here?
2 of the 3 Khvalynsk Eneolithics are essentially pure n simple EHGs
Khvakynsk begins after 4000 BC which is when CHG begins to appear in the steppe
What's the point?
The point is there from c. 4000 BC there was widespread movement of a CHG rich population into Europe, having previously been absent.
ReplyDeleteThis was coupled with the introduction of a new form of agro-pastoralism not previously evident in EE, as well as metallurgy.
And no this, was not due to wife stealing, nor does it have anything to do with Mesopotamia or Egyptian.
Your tacky deflection threads and tabloid style titles only take away from your credibility
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe point is there from c. 4000 BC there was widespread movement of a CHG rich population into Europe, having previously been absent.
But didn't this happen well before 4000 BC, considering that Khvalynsk is older than 4000 BC and the three Khvalynsk individuals show a range of 15-50% CHG admixture?
Here's the image from the relevant paper. The dates given are intervals, not rough starting points for each culture.
ReplyDeletehttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-ECJX9xEcxeE/Vg9wZE61fzI/AAAAAAAADhY/k7tGHkHBXFE/s721/Eurasian_Caspian_Steppe_Table_1.png
The entire Khvalynsk period is dated roughly to 4300-3800 BC. That means it began around 4300 BC and ended around 3800 BC.
ReplyDelete- Khvalynsk, Eneolithic, 4300–3800 cal BC
- Steppe Maikop, Early Bronze Age, 3800–3000 cal BC
- Yamnaya, Early Bronze Age, 3000–2450 cal BC
- Afanasievo, Early Bronze Age, 2900-2500 cal BC
- Early Catacomb, Early Bronze Age, 2600–2350 cal BC
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2015/10/essential-reading-paleoecology.html
Right, so it averages out to 4000 BC, and if the admixture was partial and uneven, it means it was just beginning.
ReplyDeleteAnd if you want to have a hiatus between Repin (3600BC) and Khvalynsk, that's fine.
I was just being generous to you
Anyhow, you forgot Meshoko-Svobodnoe (c.4200 BC) .
@Rob
ReplyDeleteRight, so it averages out to 4000 BC, and if the admixture was partial and uneven, it means it was just beginning.
It doesn't matter. The important point is that this admixture event began ~1000 years before Yamnaya.
So Yamnaya was not the result of a migration of a CHG-rich population into Khvalynsk territory.
And if you want to have a hiatus between Repin (3600BC) and Khvalynsk, that's fine.
I was just being generous to you
There can't be any hiatus in reality, because Repin and Yamnaya mostly derive from Khvalynsk.
Indeed, the paper I posted argues that Repin began around 3900 BC.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteSo Yamnaya was basically the leveling out period of already previously admixed CHG ?
Corded Ware only show that it was 75% Yamnaya related and the German Bell Beakers only 50%. Maybe this picture didn't look very different in the Western Pontic Caspian Steppe earlier on. If anything the the CHG contribution could have been less to the West and more to the East ?
Does Corded Ware have an equal amount of EHG and CHG that could link it directly to Yamnaya ?
@ Dave
ReplyDelete"There can't be any hiatus in reality, because Repin and Yamnaya mostly derive from
Khvalynsk"
There may or may not be
Certainly, your models aren't proof of wither
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteSo what you are basically saying is that there was a gradual increase of CHG from at least as early as Khvalynsk to Yamnaya ?
So basically a thousand years of gradual admixture and not a sudden "Boom and there you have it" kind of scenario.
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteI don't follow all these discussions, but, as you are a friend and frequently you asked me about some questions, you wrote:
"And of course, the ChG / EHG population not only migrated to the steppe, but Anatolia, Balkans etc They might have come from South of the Caucasus, and were probably the PIEs".
Thus we should find in the aDNA of Iran or India what hasn't been found so far; some R1b older than the European ones: Villabruna 14000 ya, Iberia 7100 ys, Balkans and eastern Europe from 9000 to 4000 ya and so on.
We are here.
And I can not see the connection between Y-DNA Q and J. If that Q in Khvalynsk have Higher CHG where did he get it from ? The Urals ? Or did Maykop suddenly become Q carriers ?
ReplyDeleteApparently that Q individual did not hold a position of high status. What could this mean for other high CHG percentage carriers ?
ReplyDelete@Ric
ReplyDeleteThe earliest Corded Ware individuals from the East Baltic are identical to Yamnaya, with no obvious signal of EEF-related ancestry (although no obvious signal doesn't mean they didn't have it, as my models of Yamnaya with Hungary_N show).
"And of course, the ChG / EHG population not only migrated to the steppe, but Anatolia, Balkans etc
ReplyDeleteThey might have come from South of the Caucasus, and were probably the PIEs"
But Y-DNA shows that most lineages of PIE men originate on the Steppe, unless there was R1[a/b] south of the Caucasus 4000 BC. Y-DNA Q isn't all that incompatible to an ANE rich population as it is common among American Indians, another ANE rich population. IIRC it is the same as a Greenland sample, bu correct me if I'm wrong.
So a gradual increase of CHG related ancestry over a thousand years does not go hand in hand with a sudden Shift of Language or actually any significant language change at all...
ReplyDelete@Arza
ReplyDeleteYou won't get sound results like that because of the different numbers and varying quality of the markers used.
You should never isolate low quality individuals and compare them to larger, higher quality pools of individuals.
What you need to do is to maximize the number of markers to a few hundred thousand in each of the test sample sets, and even then run some straight f-stats comparisons to make sure that your models make sense.
@Ric
ReplyDeleteSo a gradual increase of CHG related ancestry over a thousand years does not go hand in hand with a sudden Shift of Language or actually any significant language change at all...
Absolutely. It's a pointless exercise considering the data we already have.
By the way, the idea that Mycenaeans have ancestry from Armenia_ChL or Armenia_MLBA is also special pleading, based on unrealistic assumptions about the nature of the pre-Mycenaean population on the Greek mainland.
Thanks David.
DeleteObviously, in that last comment I'm referring to the Peloponnese Neolithic samples, which are probably going to result in a higher Sintashta-related score in the Mycenaeans than what we have now.
ReplyDeleteDamn, I totally overlooked this.
ReplyDeletenumsnps used: 79764
BTW this Hungary_N in Yamnaya solves the incompatibility between "Indians prefer Yamnaya" and EastPole's influences of farmers religion in both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian.
Rob: There may or may not be. Certainly, your models aren't proof of wither
ReplyDeleteYep, if I understand correctly, Davidski's saying that a) the Samara Enenolithic Khavalynsk could be ancestral to Yamnaya, b) gradual rather than pulse admixture is perfectly plausible and c) that this would be consistent with the archaeological record as he sees it between these areas of the steppe, and not any more southern areas.
Genetically, of course it's just as possible that the Yamnaya could even have been a wholesale transplant from elsewhere.
Assuming Yamnaya has two sides, with these models, if Side A is Samara_Enenolithic then per models Side B could be
* 40% from a 66 : 33 - CHG : Hungary_N (or Barcin_N?)
* 60% from a 52 : 26 : 22 - CHG : EHG : Hungary_N (mostly CHG, some EHG, some Anatolian; a bit like a population if you cline extend from Armenia_Chal away from Anatolia)
(I think a gradualist model where no language change because of a gradual inclusion of speakers from elsewhere is really a less speculative "steppe up" from the whole kind of "admixture was between CHG and EHG and was sex biased and that's why the Indo-European language derives from a Mesolithic language on the steppe" thing.)
There are some interesting bits in the paper linked in the post about the burial types. I always wondered why the typical position of the deceased in the steppe (supine position with bent knees, as opposed to the "farmers" lateral crouched position) never made it out of the steppe. CWC and BBC didn't use the supine position, but the lateral one, resembling more the Maykop-Iran type than the steppe type. But the paper has some clarification about it:
ReplyDelete"The skeleton position provided the basis for the classification of inhumations. Three main ceremonial groups (CG) were singled out: I CG – supine position of bodies with knees bent to the right; II CG – skeletons in the right lateral crouched position; III CG – the extraordinary burials (bodies in prone or sitting positions, with separate skull, or cenotaphs)."
I CG was used in Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog and represent an earlier phase with few grave goods ("I CG grave goods were scanty". But during the Yamnaya period there is a shift:
"Population represented in the I CG burials in the Ural region was not as numerous during the Pit-Grave period as II CG. Apparently, the first group was in a subordinate situation. According to anthropologist A. A. Khokhlov, the representatives of I and II ceremonial groups belonged to different anthropological types, I CG – to the Northern European, II CG – to the Southern European type (Khokhlov 2006, 102)."
So indeed during the Yamnaya period the lateral position became predominant, and apparently it's associated with a genetic shift to a more southern population. We'll need a more fine grained sampling of all the steppe and surroundings to understand this process. The Yamnaya-like Q1a guy from the Khvalynsk period (but probably not belonging to that culture) also gives some clues about such population existing in parallel to the Khvalynsk one. If so, we'll just need to find where.
@ epoch2013: But Y-DNA shows that most lineages of PIE men originate on the Steppe, unless there was R1[a/b] south of the Caucasus 4000 BC.
ReplyDeleteThere probably were R1b south of the Caucasus prior to 4000 BC, but that said in my opinion, the steppe still remains the most likely candidate for the specific sublineages we see (based on where the EHG and Samara Eneolithic R1b samples are in the tree).
Still, that doesn't tell us too much about language by itself. Some MN cultures in Western Europe were mostly I2, looks like from HG - I'm not sure they were speaking a WHG language.
Yamnaya probably get 40-60% of their ancestry from some population living somewhere on the steppe. R1b of the appropriate subtype has had a strong founder effect appearing to drive it to 100% in them. It's not like it's improbable that a lineage from 40-60% of the ancestry could be the one to have that founder effect, even if they had no special cultural continuity in founding the population.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteThe important question is why none of the Y-haplogroups that experienced founder effects in steppe and steppe derived groups during the Bronze Age look like they came from south of the steppe? They're all typically Eastern European.
I'm sure someone somewhere has already come up with some kooky ideas as to why this might be so, but there's really no practical explanation for it if males from south of the steppe regularly made it onto the steppe.
Think about this: no J1, J2, G2 etc. in Andronovo, Corded Ware, eastern Bell Beaker, Khvalynsk, Poltavka, Potapovka, Sintashta, Srubnaya, Unetice or Yamnaya.
@rob
ReplyDeleteWhy the S. caucasus and not the N. caucasus. Also are you suggesting proto-greek took a southern route from the Caucasus to the balkans?
The bigger a population the more likely it is to import food. Smaller populations with excess produce could benefit from it by supplying the bigger population with food. Maybe exchanged for brides ?
ReplyDelete@Matt
ReplyDelete"Still, that doesn't tell us too much about language by itself. Some MN cultures in Western Europe were mostly I2, looks like from HG - I'm not sure they were speaking a WHG language."
And we may consider the oddity that Carib Indians routinely kidnapped Arawak women and for a while men spoke Carib and women spoke Arawak languages. To me - I'll repeat I'm merely an amateur - that suggests that a maternal origin of PIE is a possibility, even if (far?) less likely than a paternal origin.
It's just that a number of people seem to want to persuade us the Kurgan hypothesis is dead. That seems to me nonsense.
@Ric
ReplyDeleteI've been thinking about that as well. If there was a decent bride swap between a tiny population and a large population the latter may hardly change while he former is heavily impacted. See Aboriginals or American Indians versus Australians/American whites.
Low population density on the steppe prior to the Yamnaya and Catacomb periods is a very likely factor. I already covered this in some depth...
ReplyDeleteA plausible model for the formation of the Yamnaya genotype
@Arza , not really. Otherwise you would expect 5% EEF ,they score 0 to trace.
ReplyDeleteIt seems there seems to be variation among Yamnaya, like that outlier.
The supposed lack of EEF in Yamnaya is just an inference based on ADMIXTURE output, so it doesn't mean anything.
ReplyDeleteThat's because ADMIXTURE clusters are based on modern populations, and they're usually complex composites of ancient populations, so it's likely that the southern ADMIXTURE-derived cluster that makes up about 50% of Yamnaya ancestry does contain EEF ancestry.
Thus, based on ADMIXTURE, all we can really say is that Yamnaya doesn't have EEF beyond some amount that isn't showing up via ADMIXTURE, but not that it lacks EEF ancestry. In fact, as per my qpAdm models, Yamnaya seems to have by and large about 10% EEF input.
I guess your smarter than Lazaridis David. So it seems the Balkans plays a bigger a part of the Yamnaya story, than one would expect . But wouldn't that mean part of the CHG could have come via the Balkans as well because by the Eneolithic , CHG seems to be in Southern Europe with Proto Greek populations like the Minoans.
ReplyDeleteAlso if Khalvynsk people are 20% CHG and only got an additional 7-10% as per your models , thats dramatically different from the 50% CHG, such EHG like populations were suppose to get as per Lazaridis.
@Rami
ReplyDeleteThere's probably a reason why Hungary_N is being picked as the EEF-related ancestry in Yamnaya in my tests, and that's because Yamnaya moved onto the Hungarian Plain (which obviously is not in the Balkans), mixed with the locals there as per the Olalde Beaker paper, and then some of these mixed individuals may have moved back as far as Samara.
And I can't see Lazaridis modeling Yamnaya as 50% CHG anywhere. Do you know why that is? I'd say it's because the model fails, due to the fact that Yamnaya is more western than a straight two-way mixture between CHG and EHG can account for. And this is why Lazaridis was modeling Yamnaya as EHG/Armenian back in the 2015 paper and EHG/Iran_ChL in the 2016 paper, because both Armenians and Iran_ChL have minor EEF/Anatolia_N-related ancestry.
So the moral of the story here is that I'm smarter than you.
EEF-like mtDNA has popped up in Yamnaya and Afanasievo: T2b, T2a1b, J2b1, H1. Plus, the Y DNA I2a2 in Yamnaya could be EEF.
ReplyDeleteDid Bug-Dniester evolve into Globular Amphora ? Or did Bug-Dniester migrate to the East ?
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Why the S. caucasus and not the N. caucasus. Also are you suggesting proto-greek took a southern route from the Caucasus to the balkans?"
I said "possibly", I'm not strongly attached
And I have always felt (yes "felt" because one cannot indefinitely prove linguistics) that Greek came from the north (ie the Black Sea area ultimately), I just don't agree wiht the MBA steppe version of events due to non-plausability
But I remain open, although a southern route is less favoured to me, despite the fact that the immediate movement into Greece prior to attestation of mycenean is **from the east**.
But back to Caucasus- if you want to chase kurgans, then its the Leila-Tepe horizon 400oBC, of which Majkop is a northern extension, which spills into the steppe and Europe via a series of satellite colonies.
If the big chief was at Majkop, lesser ones venture out, amalgamating with locals before "disappearing" (although some putative Caucasus markers might be found yet).
@ Epoch
ReplyDelete"But Y-DNA shows that most lineages of PIE men originate on the Steppe, unless there was R1[a/b] south of the Caucasus 4000 BC. Y-DNA Q isn't all that incompatible to an ANE rich population as it is common among American Indians, another ANE rich population."
No I do t think R1a and R1b is from Armenia either. But they're not the be all and end all, If our assessment depends solely on them, then that's genetic genealogy, not a synthesised population genetics, archaeology & historical linguistics.
As a fun question, can you prove to me what language Yamnaya spoke ? Rathlin ?
Because we have a good idea what language those greek specimens spoke, and the Goths from Poland
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteSo why do some Linguists point towards a connection between PIE and Uralic/Kartvelian ?
"Also, the relatively high admixture related to early Hungarian Plain farmers (Hungary EN) is a fairly curious detail that has not been reported before. If real, it probably represents gene flow from the Neolithic and/or Chalcolithic Balkans to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. Again, in all likelihood it mostly came with women, perhaps from Tripolye-Cucuteni and/or Varna communities."
ReplyDeleteThat seems like a huge assumption to make with very little to support it. There was undoubtedly R1b and I2a present in the Hungarian Neolothic (likely increasing in frequency over time), so I don't think you could tell if there was a male influence from there.
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteYes, understanding all the stuff that went on and not focusing only some stuff is good. But, but the biggest Steppe pulses and arguable IE pulses were done by people carrying R1b and R1a and therefore it is ok to focus Steppe migration and IE languages on R1b and R1a.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"As a fun question, can you prove to me what language Yamnaya spoke ? Rathlin ?
Because we have a good idea what language those greek specimens spoke, and the Goths from Poland."
Can we really proof Wielbark are the Goths? I mean these questions can be repeated for a lot more. But certainly do see the point of that question and I cannot prove it.
As a fun question back: What would be sufficient as proof? This seems to be a comparison of likelihoods. How much likely is enough to consider proof.
The Goths being Wielbark has he convenience that Roman authors placed to Goths at a point near the Weichsel that yielded a culture that fits the bill. Would you consider something like that "proof"?
Well Yamnaya and Khvalynsk certainly lived in an area between where Uralic and Kartvelian are spoken today and where spoken throughout recorded history.
ReplyDeleteWe know that PIE can be linked to Proto-Uralic and Proto-Kartvelian but was not either of the two.
@epoch2013 - "As a fun question back: What would be sufficient as proof? This seems to be a comparison of likelihoods. How much likely is enough to consider proof."
ReplyDeleteAs a great Canadian (Jean Chretien) once said (in reference to WMD in Iraq):
"A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven."
@rob
ReplyDeleteLinguistic evidence largely disfavours a homeland in the south caucasus and for now there is no genetic that would rule out a PIE homeland on the steppe and infact lends some support to such a theory. I think Late Bronze age Greeks having low amounts of 'steppe ancestry' and the lack of evidence of r1a or r1b is hardly bothersome. Indo-Europeanization of different regions may have involved different process - massive migrations in some, smaller migrations of an elite in some and just assimilation of non IEs in others.
the bottom line is this.
ReplyDeletethere is a new post 4000 BC CHG/anatolian component in Greece, balkans and the steppe. Its not a single pulse but the demographic impact in all these regions is large. out of the 3 IE is attested in Anatolia and Greece.
In contrast the Steppe impact in Greece is small we don't know even know if its a pulse.
The steppe impact in Northern Europe is large, but the language is unknown.
@postneo - There was probably two pulses - one mixed EHG/CHG, the other just CHG.
ReplyDeleteI think we can be fairly confident that CWC and its derived cultures were IE speaking. The glove fits too perfectly. The original Bell Beakers in Iberia pretty much certainly did not speak IE. The areas that fell under the later central European Bell Beakers' sway is less certain - I'd argue that linguistic continuity with the earlier Beakers is most likely, but I'd argue that R1b had continuity with at least some earlier Beakers too, which puts me in the minority here.
@Ryan
ReplyDelete"As a great Canadian (Jean Chretien) once said (in reference to WMD in Iraq):"
Who am I to dispute such a splendid explanation? Let's say it is too much Iraqi WMD related to be useful to us, however ;)
Maybe Bell Beaker is where Q-Celtic R1bs shifted to become a VSO language....
ReplyDelete"Your tacky deflection threads and tabloid style titles only take away from your credibility"
ReplyDeleteThis is so spot on it's hilarious.
@Ryan
ReplyDelete"I think we can be fairly confident that CWC and its derived cultures were IE speaking. The glove fits too perfectly"
To test the Steppe hypothesis, We need a "ring of credibility" for Europe ... earliest attested(not assumed) IE and Non-IE. Then we see which of these historical populations have DNA samples.
Does not matter if its too late to be relevant to the Steppe hypothesis. At least, It will demarcate between actual and assumed and bring a lot of clarity.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteLet's see what I wrote
"The point is there from c. 4000 BC there was widespread movement of a CHG rich population into Europe"
I know your the alleged stats / maths guru, so help me out- is 4000 BC one thousand years before 3000 BC ? Thanks in advance
As I've already patiently explained to you, Khvalynsk starts around 4300BC, and all Khvalynsk samples have some CHG admixture. So your claim that a CHG rich population entered the steppe only after 4000BC obviously isn't backed by the data.
Also, archaeological data show that Yamnaya derives from Khvalynsk.
So Maykop looks redundant here, and indeed Maykop mtDNA suggests that it could not have contributed the southern maternal ancestry that we see in Bronze Age steppe groups, because the haplogroups don't match.
A few mito genomes from Maikop (or Maykop)
Of course, I'm just pointing out the bare facts here. It seems to me that you need a new theory, and I'd say that any neutral, reasonable people reading this thread would have to agree. But I'll leave that up to you.
"Considering the relevant uniparental data, with lots of Y-HG R1b and no Y-HG J among Yamnaya males, I'd say this CHG came with women."
ReplyDeleteCouldn't R1b men come from the southern Black Sea coast and/or Southern Caucasus with an autosomal admixture entirely shifted toward a majority of CHG after hundreds or thousands of years there? Considering how a people overwhelmingly dominated by R1b is in fact overwhelmingly EEF in their autosomal admixtures, as is the case of the Basques, I wonder if migrating R1b men from the Southern Caucasus (maybe even speakers of [pre-]Proto-Northwestern Caucasian or [pre-]Proto-Kartvelian) could be part of a heavily CHG people.
After all, even nowadays some of the highest diversity of R1b subclades is found in Anatolia/South Caucasus, and AFAIK most (all?) of the pre-Bronze Age R1b found in Eastern Europe doesn't belong to th main clades that spread from the steppe. Why and how can we exclude the possibility that not all R1b was autosomally EHG-majority and not CHG-majority?
@Ygor
ReplyDeleteCouldn't R1b men come from the southern Black Sea coast and/or Southern Caucasus with an autosomal admixture entirely shifted toward a majority of CHG after hundreds or thousands of years there?
This is a low probability model considering the presence of both R1a and R1b in Eastern European foragers with 0% Near Eastern ancestry, and the high frequency of R1b in prehistoric Eastern Europe.
At the same time, there's no direct evidence from ancient DNA that R1b was even present in Anatolia or the South Caucasus before the Bronze Age.
There's no R1b in any ancient samples from the Near East dating to before the Bronze Age.
@ Jinjansu
ReplyDelete"Linguistic evidence largely disfavours a homeland in the south caucasus and for now there is no genetic that would rule out a PIE homeland on the steppe "
Please present the said evidence
@ Epoch
ReplyDelete"Can we really proof Wielbark are the Goths? "
Well they have found associated Germanic inscriptions
But you can call them elephants if it makes you feel better
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteWhere will you put the Proto-Kartvelian speakers during the time of PIE ? Where did they come from ?
In my mindseye I can only see a direct connection between Proto-Kartvelians and Maykop. Kartvelian is not PIE however there were some influence between the two but nothing that points to a common origin.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteAll of the Khvalynsk samples have at least 15% southern ancestry.
An obvious sign of a bad theory is when one has to stretch the truth to accommodate it.
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteUnless Some Proto-Kartvelians were displaced towards the North by Maykop then Maykop could have had very little direct influence on PIE.
@ Ric
ReplyDelete"Unless Some Proto-Kartvelians were displaced towards the North by Maykop then Maykop could have had very little direct influence on PI"
I'm not quite following. Where have you (or anyone) established the linke between Modern Kartvelian and Majkop ?
Didn't you say that Maykop influenced the Steppe people ? Well the only Linguistic influence in the Caucasus region on PIE came from Proto-Kartvelian. And I specifically said Proto-Kartvelian.
ReplyDelete@ Dave
ReplyDelete"An obvious sign of a bad theory is when one has to stretch the truth to accommodate it"
Like claiming that CHG admixture began in 5200 BC ?
You're absolutely right
Check mate
@davidski
ReplyDeleteAll of the Khvalynsk samples have at least 15% southern ancestry.
So there was no change in southern ancestry from khvalynsk to yamnaya?
Anthony puts the Anatolian split from PIE around 4200.Khvalynsk is around the same time as Sredny Stog.Of course we don't know where that split occurred.
ReplyDeleteWondering because if the PIE homeland is the PC steppe than Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog might be PIE and how that fits with Anatolian
ReplyDelete@ Rob
ReplyDeleteSo if Maykop was not Proto-Kartvelian speakers then who were the Proto-Kartvelians who influenced PIE ?
The only answer left then will be that Proto-Kartvelians predate the Maykop Culture in the Northern Caucasus which would explain the CHG in Proto-Indo-Europeans/Khvalynsk.
@ Ric
ReplyDeleteYou do realise that Kartvellian is focussed in southwest of the Caucasus
The Majkop culture had nothing to do with that region. The connection between Majkop and the south was mediated via the south**east** coridor. Azerbaijan etc
@Rob
ReplyDeleteSo, from CHG, there are actually 5 major non-directly linked languages in your model? (Kartvelian, Elamite, Sumerian, Harappan and IE).
How can all this come from one population living in a small area when they're not even related? (Apart from IE+Kartvelian theories).
It's nonsense.
Nothing confirms perfectly, but nothing argues angainst the Kurgan either.
Off topic: Some people tried to virtue-signal about Myceneans being "the least close things to Nordics", alluding to "Nordicist" theories of Ancient Greece.
Not defending either side, I still must say that the biases of these people blinded them to the bigger picture: the "Steppe" is what the "Nordicists" call the "Nordics" and they were preciley the ones who made Minoan-like peoples become Mycenean - they probably had an elite rule too. So their arguments "holds", specially because Nordic_MN, Nordic_LN, Nordic_BA and Nordic_LBA were very close genetically to Steppe_MLBA.
Also, don't forget that a second wave of Steppe is attested to have happened in Greece, which are the Dorian Invasions, so there's still more to this puzzle.
And yet Proto-Kartvelian influenced PIE. So if Maykop like you implied had nothing to do with Kartvelian how then did Proto-Kartvelian visa versa influence PIE ?
ReplyDelete@ JohnP
ReplyDelete"So, from CHG, there are actually 5 major non-directly linked languages in your model? (Kartvelian, Elamite, Sumerian, Harappan and IE)."
IT seems you have a rather simplistic understanding of genetics and linguistics.
To you "CHG" is one homogenous component; which it isn;t.
Why should these languages be linked ? "CHG" admixture is actually numerous separate things at seperate times at separate places, co-occurring - moreover- with other component mixes. It doesn't represent one biblical nation.
@ Ric
ReplyDelete"And yet Proto-Kartvelian influenced PIE. So if Maykop like you implied had nothing to do with Kartvelian how then did Proto-Kartvelian visa versa influence PIE ?"
Well youve answered your own question.
If Kartvellian is from the south, how did it influence PIE, and vice-versa ??
@postneo
ReplyDeleteSo there was no change in southern ancestry from khvalynsk to yamnaya?
Well one of the (low status, probably murdered) Khvalynsk individuals had about as much southern ancestry as Yamnaya.
So people basically like Yamnaya already existed on the steppe during the Khvalynsk period. All that seemed to have happened into the Yamnaya period is that their genotype became the typical one on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"You don't understand anything!"
What do you know about me, really? I know much about you, this whole discussion here proved you a close-minded sophist, literally trying to defend your arguments with rethoric, not data.
When you actually use your data, is biased, "stretched" like David pointed.
Well, bear in mind that even Kostenki14 had a pre-CHG admixture (although small), along with pre-EHG too.
That place, the Steppe, (now I'm truly speculating, I'll say my opinion like it is, an opinion, instead of trying to push it as truth, like you do), already had a Yamnaya/Khvalynsk population historically, but with much more "outsider" admixture, which only got dilluted with time.
@ AlBUndy
ReplyDelete"Wondering because if the PIE homeland is the PC steppe than Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog might be PIE and how that fits with Anatolian"
Yep so Sredny-Stog is a broad term to capture the steppe Eneolithic exchange system which orbited around the Eat Balkan Copper centres. It began c. from 4500BC, with a probable trajectory west to east (pace Gimbutas). It last of all reached the Volga (KhvalynsK) and the north Caucasus region; at which point the Meshoko fort - builders appeared, probably 'from the south'.
After the collapse of the Balkan centres c. 42/4000 BC, the westernmost aspect of Sredni Stog (known as the Suvorovo or horse-sceptre horizon) also disappears, and for a couple of hundred years there's an impoverished, kurgan-less existence on the steppe, which slowly again gains momentum through the steppe chiefs' interplay between 2 new centres - CT & Majkop.
I won't go into Anatolia for now.
@ JohnP
ReplyDeleteWell I said you know little any you do
Great point about Kostenki though.
That proves that CHG was native to the steppe, and that CHG can only be associated with Egyptians
I feel enriched
Typical behaviour of modern stupids: trying to play the smartass with sarcasm and passive-aggressivness.
Delete"Nice arguments" though.
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteDid you actually look at the Map where Kartvelian Languages are spoken ? Kartvelian Languages basically borders Adygea. What precisely prevented them from migrating along the Western Caucasus and Eastern Black Sea ?
Well JohnP, you're the one who began with stating someone you've never interacted with's theory was ;nonsense' So you're a hypocrite and a blowass.
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments.Important point you make about CHG which you've made before.Different groups different places different things going on
ReplyDelete@ Ric
ReplyDeleteAnd you know that to be the case for 4000 BC how ?
Rob is very smart. In fact, he knows that Kartvellian languages have only been spoken by people in the Southwest of the Caucasus for over 5000 years, and that the Maykop Culture could have had nothing to do with that language family, as they were not there in that region over 5000 years ago when they were all speaking it there.
ReplyDeleteQuite simple.
Whahahaha !!! Thanks Karl.
DeleteLet's wait for the revised Mathieson et al. 2017 preprint. I have a hunch that it might offer more samples than the initial version, including new Yamnaya samples.
ReplyDelete@Davidski Do you think we'll seen any R1a in Maykop?What are you expecting mostly J and G?
ReplyDelete@Al
ReplyDeleteNo chance of R1a in Maykop.
I'm thinking mostly J, G and some divergent type of R1b like in Armenia_EBA.
@ KarlK
ReplyDelete"Rob is very smart. In fact, he knows that Kartvellian languages have only been spoken by people in the Southwest of the Caucasus for over 5000 years, and that the Maykop Culture could have had nothing to do with that language family, as they were not there in that region over 5000 years ago when they were all speaking it there."
Well, NWC is thought to be very ancient in the north, and NEC a recent arrival.
I never claimed Kartvellian was stuck in one place for 5000 BC.
So the onus is on you to prove it correlation with Leila Tepe - Majkop.
I;m all ears.
Yo guys, you do realize that Kartvelian is not a very ancient language family? At least in the Caucasus. It probably dates to something like 4000-45000 years there - hardly more.
ReplyDeleteAnd have a look at its homogeneity - there are only four languages with only one of them being really super-divergent (Svan). lazy and Mingrelian are like Russian and Ukranian while Georgian and the former two - like German and English.
MEANWHILE East Caucasus has NEC family that features tons of languages that are on Italic-Slavic level of difference. Srsly the common ancestor for those is estimated to have been spoken not earlier than like 6 thousand years ago
I think most people are aware of the fairly low internal diversity of the extant Kartvelian languages. However, the fact that an extant group of languages or dialects has low internal diversity is not evidence that that language has been introduced recently from a territory external to its present range; one dialect may have simply expanded over the whole of the present territory of the language while assimilating or replacing more divergent but related dialects that are now not clearly recognizable as containing some deeply divergent elements (in the case of assimilation) or extinct (in the case of replacement). Dravidian, Japonic (Japanese-Ryukyuan), and Basque languages are other examples that could be listed alongside Kartvelian. The Eskimo languages may have a similar history (recent expansion of one dialect mainly at the expense of divergent but related dialects that are now extinct), but in their case there was also the Aleut language isolated in the Aleutian Islands to hint at a presence of the ancestor of the Eskimo languages in the general region prior to the recent expansion of the Inuit languages/dialects.
ReplyDeleteThe fact is that a recent common ancestor of any extant linguistic group only provides a possibility of a recent introduction from a faraway land; it does not provide proof of such.
Thanks George
ReplyDeleteSo where did it come from ?
@George,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the info. Much Appreciated.
@Rob,
Big fucking deal you have read lots of books relating to the discussion and maybe even learned stuff in college relating to it. When everyone has aviablity to the same data that background doesn't matter much. Whether someone is right or wrong in that circumstances is determined by logical thinking abilities but mostly luck.
So stop acting like a complete asshole. You're not superior to everyone here and everyone who dis agrees with you isn't a retarded loser.
http://youthworktoolbox.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/02/Snobbery1.jpeg
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete"@Al
No chance of R1a in Maykop.
I'm thinking mostly J, G and some divergent type of R1b like in Armenia_EBA".
Of course we aren't able to say if some R1b haplotype of the European hunter-gatherers in their migration to eastern Europe from west (mostly) or northern-west did reach South Caucasus. The samples found so far in aDNA are all very recent and come above all from Southern Russia. Of the oldest R1b haplotypes:
R-PH200 is very recent, separated 7300 ago from R-M335 (the sample on YFull is Italian) with MRCA at 5800ya, and some rare PH200 or M335 may be found.
It doesn't seem that R-V88, largely present in the Balkans (from the Italian Refugium I think), has reached the Caucasus.
R-L389 is present around the Caucasus in the YCAII=23-23 haplotype, now we know not derived from Western European (above all Italian) one with YCAII=18-23 (the ancestor of all the subclades). Some sample could be found.
R-M73, largely present in Eastern Europe beyond Western one with the subclade R-M73*, survived in two haplotypes very likely in Central Asia with the migration Eastward from Samara, etc etc
Did you mean some of these samples?
Also the R-L23-Z2103 subclades in the Caucasus seems derived from Samara or due to more recent migrations... Thus I am curious to see if some sample will be found and of which type. But R1b is present above all in Armenians, and I think derived from its Balkan/Indo-European component, thus very recent.
@ JohnP
ReplyDelete" losing an internet argument must be your deathwish, your type is very common to deal with, with all this narcissism, insecurities, approval-seeking.
I'll leave you now, NOTHING can convince you, reading this thread.'"
Sounds like the autistic shrieking of a hypocrite.
Let's see what I have stated on this thread:
(1) I correctly stated the commencement of Khvalysnk
"Khvakynsk 42/4000 BC "
Thereby correcting errors made by others above, eg Sam "I0434. Y DNA Q1a. Identical to Yamnaya. 5200-4000 BC."
I really do not see this as win/ lose, unlike you and your kind.
But the reality is I am right.
(2) About the PIE, linguistics, etc at large, here is what I wrote
"I said "possibly", I'm not strongly attached"
"Please present the said evidence"
"And I have always felt (yes "felt" because one cannot indefinitely prove linguistics) that Greek came from the north (ie the Black Sea area ultimately)"
Yes, I think your summary is on point. The sheer narcissism and approval-seeking is beyond belief. I'll seek help.
You on the other hand spewed vitriol and got his panties in a twist when I returned the favour of sarcasm, going on your high-horse rant.
Yes, goodbye Johnny boy
@ Sam
ReplyDeleteThanks for the photo. The resemblance is uncanny.
You're quite right about the internet with its ubiquity to resources these days.
So maybe you should capitilise on such resources.
But, no, I don't think that "everyone who dis agrees with me is a loser".
I actually don't diverge too widely with what most people think, and only debate about certain 'hard facts' which can be and are worth debating about, liek dates, culture, geography - you know, the basics, which you're going to use the internet about.
Other matters which are more open to debate are just that, and have never criticised anyone for holding contrary opinions.
You on the other hand, seem to go into convulsions every time I question any aspect of the 'simple' versions of history you like. Well, that's your bad, because not only am I right to, but it mostly stems out of your misunderstanding (because I'm not really debating the basic/ obvious tenets with which anyone vaguely familiar with the subject, and is reasonable, would agree with).
Now I heard you're going to be a teacher, is that how you're going to react to your pupils.
God help USA
R1b-L51 and derived lineages likely spread from western Ukraine along with (some) G-P303 from Maykop.
ReplyDeleteThanks David.
ReplyDeleteThis is a confirmation of what I'm thinking from some time now: a progressive admixture from different nearby populations, and homogeneization in the core population over centuries. It goes well with patrilocality and females mobility (even if mitochondrial continuity has been found in the Western part of the Pontic Steppe, which in itself seems to point to progressive process).
Given the Minoans and Antolians genomes, it is becoming clearer and clearer that CHG has little to do with PIE, and that IE in Anatolia were probably late comers, as guessed initially by archeologists. The Anatolian branch is the key to understand IE diffusion in Southern Europe, and the origin of PIE. Next step to full clarity will be to find some Anatolian IE genome, and it could be difficult.
@ Folker
ReplyDelete"IE in Anatolia were probably late comers, as guessed initially by archeologists"
Linguists & archaeologists point to this happening c. 4000-3000 BC.
@JohnP
ReplyDeleteTypical behaviour of modern stupids: trying to play the smartass with sarcasm and passive-aggressivness.
Rob is doing a great job warding off the willfully obtuse. You should try understanding what he is saying.
@AlBundy
Anthony puts the Anatolian split from PIE around 4200.Khvalynsk is around the same time as Sredny Stog.Of course we don't know where that split occurred.
Anthony should stick to archaeology.
"a progressive admixture from different nearby populations, and homogeneization in the core population over centuries."
ReplyDeleteWhat "core population" ? Where did that core population live ?
And why did this group of men decide only to breed with Caucasus women, and not Balkan women to the west ? ( because we see a distinct CHG rise after 42/4000 BC, with no corresponding EEF rise)
Were the Balkan chicks ugly ?
And how is it that, despite the extreme patrilocality, several male "clans" (Z2103, L21, M417, I2a2a, J2a, J2b) could all get a piece ?
Respectively and Humbly to all, your student Rob
J2a and J2b didn't get a piece on the steppe.
ReplyDeleteBut EEF did rise on the steppe. There's a Yamnaya female from Ukraine with unusually high southern ancestry, including both EEF and CHG. And then of course there's the expansion across the entire steppes of Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, all rich in EEF (but also rich in R1a, rather than any EEF Y-HGs).
So it's the same thing as on the Caspian steppe, except instead of mostly CHG, there's a lot of EEF involved: we see southern ancestry moving onto the steppe mostly with women, but still lots of EHG remaining, and indeed with the Y-DNA being mostly EHG-derived.
@david
ReplyDelete"All that seemed to have happened into the Yamnaya period is that their genotype became the typical one on the Pontic-Caspian steppe."
That's called an increase.
That's called an increase.
ReplyDeleteThanks, that's very reassuring. But how do you know it wasn't in fact a leveling out?
"leveling out" typically means means a strong localized pulse diffusing and spreading.
ReplyDeleteI don't see the problem , you yourself said that these were caucasus females, so stick to one story.
"there's the expansion across the entire steppes of Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, all rich in EEF"
thats later, what about afanasievo where they similarly rich in EEF?
One point to keep in mind in connection with this segment's title is that the Morgunova paper focuses almost exclusively on the Yamna in the Volga-Ural intefluve and has very little to say about Yamna in other areas of the steppe except to suggest that investigators might want to double check their current calibrated Ca dates... Ural Yamna may well have developed out of Khvalynsk but theYamna between Danube and Don did not nor does Morgunova claim that it did. And no speciзl "influence" status is claimed for Ural-VolgaYamna either. The interesting point seems to be that there was high mobility from east to west and vice versa. The overall Yamna horizon seems to be the result of this mobility.
ReplyDeleteGood points Dmytro. But what would you make of the alleged "Repin migration" from middle Dnieper (south) forest-steppe east (& west) ?
ReplyDeleteI'm not too familiar with all the archaeological literature on this issue. I have read papers suggesting that Repin spread westward up to the Dnipro creating a bit of a mixed PostStog - Repin area east of the river. I don't know that it spread any further. Rassamakin thinks there was no Repin left as classical Yamna bloomed. And the ceramics of eastbound Afanasievo looks suspiciously Repinesque to my untrained eye.
ReplyDeleteIt's a bit hard to call the rise in CHG to Yamnaya a 'levelling out'.
ReplyDeleteEg Yamnaya_Kalmykia:RISE546
"Samara_HG:I0124" 44.65
"Kotias:KK1" 39.45
"Latvia_HG:ZVEJ32" 7.9
"Ukraine_HG1:StPet2" 7.45
Whilst:
Samara_Eneolithic:I0122
"Samara_HG:I0124" 83.8
"Kotias:KK1" 14.9
"Paniya" 0.9
"Nganasan" 0.25
Samara_Eneolithic:I0433
"Samara_HG:I0124" 89.7
"Kotias:KK1" 6.3
"Latvia_HG:ZVEJ32" 2.1
"Nganasan" 1.9
Samara_Eneolithic:I0434
"Samara_HG:I0124" 67.85
"Kotias:KK1" 18.65
"Iran_Hotu:I1293" 13.5
"Villabruna:I9030" 0
If you level those Eneolithics out you get ~ 13, not 40.
They key being that haplogroup Q I0434 individual.
Now I detect in my runs either Iran Hotu or Afantova. I.e. something eastern.
Hhm. maybe it is something more central Asian than Caucasus, which would go with his Y Haplogroup.
(Im not suggesting these are definite results)
@Atrior I agree.I also think more highly of Mallory as do you.Being wrong is really good sometimes if it points you in the right direction.
ReplyDeleteAnatolian did not come from Yamnaya right? The dates,however speculative,don't fit.
ReplyDeleteAl
DeleteNobody has proposed Anatolian comes from Yamnaya
In fact, nobody has proposed anything coherent or which has stood test of time/ re-periodisation
Both Ringe / Anthony and Garrett/ Chang have the split c.4500 BC
https://m.imgur.com/account/PeteMicheals/images/GvznXRH
http://dienekes.blogspot.com.au/2015/02/strong-linguistic-and-archaeological.html?m=1
Recapping dates
Khvalynsk 4300-3800 BC
Repin etc 3800 BC
Yamnaya 32/3000-25000 BC
Al - The dates fit fine for Anatolian coming from Yamnaya.
ReplyDeleteIf those dates are right then it's not even close.Khvalynsk or Sredny Stog going down to Anatolia?Folker and others are pushing a later date.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteIt is not the same thing to say that Anatolian IE languages were spoken already in Anatolia before 3000 BC rather than in the last centuries before 2000 BC. In the last decades, there was a promotion ouf an early entry in Anatolia from some scholars, before 3500 BC. Some hittitologists (like Freu) remain in favor of an arrival in Anatolia after 2500BC. The Bulgarian Yamna (3100/2500 BC by C14) fit pretty well in that prospect, given their arrival near the Bosphorus before 3000 BC, and their disappearance around 2500BC with coexistance with locals without domination of the area.
The "core population" would obviously be living in the Pontic Steppe and EHG rich. Right in the middle of a rich EEF rich zone (Balkans) and a CHG rich zone (Caucasus), given the rise in admixture.
Please note that it does not exclude the presence of Caucasus introgressive groups in the Steppe. But uniparental markers are showing a limited contribution, contrary to autosomal analysis, so it goes well with a progressive admixture process through a selective mobility, and the homogeneity of the Steppe related populations means a high mobility of those groups. Or at least of some individuals.
Point taken, I don;t think we can 'prove' anything, i just follow the evidence of linguists, I am not to argue with them.
ReplyDeleteAlso Melchert
"Contrary to earlier views, there has now developed a consensus among linguists that entry of Indo-European speakers into Asia Minor was much earlier than previously assumed. See Melchert (2003a: 23-6) with references to Carruba (1995), Oettinger (2002a) and others, and also Lehrman (2001: 116-7) and Yakubovich (2010: 6-7). The gist of the argument is that the attested degree of differentiation of the IE Anatolian languages such as Hittite and Luvian already by the beginning of the second millennium requires at a minimum that their divergence from Proto-Anatolian began by the middle of the third millennium. It may easily have begun as early as the end of the fourth."
(The Position of Anatolian; Berkeley)
Again, I cannot ignore this, given the wealth of corroborative settlement/ archaeological, genetic, even climactic evidence.
To your other point: "The "core population" would obviously be living in the Pontic Steppe and EHG rich. Right in the middle of a rich EEF rich zone (Balkans) and a CHG rich zone (Caucasus), given the rise in admixture."
I don't think I've ever argued against this, have I, although I await final affirmation.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI don't think you understand the calculus behind Chang and Garrett datation. The margin of error is, at best, of several centuries, sometimes it means a variation of 1000 years.
aDNA is a revolution for Archeology as a whole. All theories must be revised in light of those new data. In that prospect, the hard facts are that a population very similar to Yamna contributed a large number of BA populations, in Europe, but also in Middle East, in Central Asia and probably in South Asia.
The ethnogenesis of this population was almost complete around 3500 BC in the Pontic Steppe.
Now, I'm agree that they were not Yamna per se, but is it the point? Call them Steppe EMBA it you like.
The main point is that IE diffusion seem more and more connected to this population. Mycenians where IE, and this admixture makes the difference with the non IE Minoans (who were very similar to previous populations in mainland Greece).
Now we'll see what Anatolia will show.
@ Folker
ReplyDeleteI understand fine that linguistic data is approximation, not something concrete, nor do the splits neatly coincide with physical separation.
But when multiple linguists Come up with similar conclusions, it's hard to ignore, but sure,
I have no issue with a figure of 3500 BC, it tend to agree.
And it depends how one models Minoans and Myceneans.
The main difference isn't only the the small steppe admixture, but the relative greater degree of west Asian. But as I said I lean toward a Pontic homeland for European IE, but a very specific version
@ Davidski: Think about this: no J1, J2, G2 etc. in Andronovo, Corded Ware, eastern Bell Beaker, Khvalynsk, Poltavka, Potapovka, Sintashta, Srubnaya, Unetice or Yamnaya.
ReplyDeleteI would think that they're all mostly descended from Yamnaya+admixture. If Yamnaya had already had that founder effect that cleaned out their y diversity, then nothing much to explain.
@Davidski - So it's the same thing as on the Caspian steppe, except instead of mostly CHG, there's a lot of EEF involved: we see southern ancestry moving onto the steppe mostly with women, but still lots of EHG remaining, and indeed with the Y-DNA being mostly EHG-derived.
ReplyDeleteAgain David, you haven't addressed how you could tell if EEF Y-DNA introgressed from a group dominated by I2 and R1b. Large swaths of Europe from Germany to the Ukraine to the Balkans were inhabited by people with high frequencies of R1b and I2a by the middle/late Neolithic. You dismiss on nothing more than an assumption.
Also:
Think about this: no J1, J2, G2 etc. in Andronovo, Corded Ware, eastern Bell Beaker, Khvalynsk, Poltavka, Potapovka, Sintashta, Srubnaya, Unetice or Yamnaya.
There is G2 in Eastern Beakers. E09538 from Germany was G2a2a1a2a1a. There's also an H2 Eastern Beaker from Hungary. I thought there was a minor J lineage that seems to have a similar distribution to R1a too? I'm not sure why you frame things in absolutes here, or why you engage in debates with people who think PIE came from the moon or whatever. In doing so I feel you ignore more interesting questions on the margins.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteI would think that they're all mostly descended from Yamnaya+admixture. If Yamnaya had already had that founder effect that cleaned out their y diversity, then nothing much to explain.
Although what you're arguing is not that an Yamnaya founder effect cleaned out their Y-haplogroup diversity, but that there was a purge of specifically southern Y-haplogroups (after a supposedly profound admixture even from the south) that by chance left only the three typically ancient Eastern European haplogroups: I2a, R1a ad R1b.
That borders on a miracle, I'd say.
@Ryan
ReplyDeleteAgain David, you haven't addressed how you could tell if EEF Y-DNA introgressed from a group dominated by I2 and R1b. Large swaths of Europe from Germany to the Ukraine to the Balkans were inhabited by people with high frequencies of R1b and I2a by the middle/late Neolithic. You dismiss on nothing more than an assumption.
I was referring specifically to Steppe_MLBA groups, which, based on current sampling, only show R1a.
Davidski: that by chance left only the three typically ancient Eastern European haplogroups: I2a, R1a ad R1b.
ReplyDeleteOh, actually I thought it cleared out everything but the Yamnaya R1b, and then the I2 and R1a were introduced by other contacts with the Yamnaya R1b group later on.
Obviously, either way though, there was a massive founder effect in the Yamnaya group we see. The R1b / R1a is not coming in from a bunch of R1 that differentiated back in the Mesolithic.
The R1b / R1a is not coming in from a bunch of R1 that differentiated back in the Mesolithic.
ReplyDeleteDuring the Eneolithic, in Khvakynsk and related groups that gave rise to Yamnaya, Corded Ware, Sintashta, etc.
But if a southern population that included a high proportion of males also gave rise to all of these steppe groups with R1a, R1b and I2a, then what happened to their Y-haplogroups?
Sorry, isn't that the same question as upthread again? Feels like we'd be looping it?
ReplyDeleteI mean, what happened to I0434 Khavlynsk's Q1a or I0211 Karelia HG's J1, if not a founder effect?
Are you suggesting that Corded Ware and all the rest with R1a are just Baltics/East Central Europeans with local R1a and CHG admixture via Yamnaya?
ReplyDeleteSo their paternal ancestry insn't from the stepppe, from, say, Khvalynsk and an R1a-rich Yamnaya group?
But if it is, then we're looping it, because you're not answering the question.
I mean, what happened to I0434 Khavlynsk's Q1a or I0211 Karelia HG's J1, if not a founder effect?
ReplyDeleteQ1a may always have been a very low frequency native marker there. And I0211 is irrelevant, as it's not from the steppe.
Corded Ware's R1a probably introgressed to the Corded Ware group from some encounter between R1b rich Yamnaya with another group on the steppe with EHG (or Ukraine_HG) group and then underwent a founder effect replacing R1b with R1a, would be my best guess. Does that answer what you're looking for?
ReplyDeleteDavidski: I0211 is irrelevant, as it's not from the steppe.
ReplyDeleteOK, though in which case I0061 Karelia_HG EHG with early R1a1a1 from the same site should also be irrelevant.
Corded Ware's R1a probably introgressed to the Corded Ware group from some encounter between R1b rich Yamnaya with another group on the steppe with EHG (or Ukraine_HG) group and then underwent a founder effect replacing R1b with R1a, would be my best guess. Does that answer what you're looking for?
ReplyDeleteNope, it doesn't, because the encounter you posit yourself is on the steppe, where southern ancestry was present independently and earlier than Yamnaya.
So what happened to the southern Y-haplogroups? And if you invoke steppe-wide strong founder effects as the explanation, then, again, why did these only purge southern Y-haplogroups?
OK, though in which case I0061 Karelia_HG EHG with early R1a1a1 from the same site should also be irrelevant.
ReplyDeleteWhy would it be directly relevant to Corded Ware?
Davidski: So what happened to the southern Y-haplogroups? And if you invoke steppe-wide strong founder effects as the explanation, then, again, why did these only purge southern Y-haplogroups?
ReplyDeleteRandom chance. Every steppe group apart from what looks like one specific branch of R1a splitting 3000 BC and R1b splitting 4000 BC was also purged. Two lucky males' lineages survived.
Dave I've already explained to you the answer, several times. There's a clear anthropological explanation that's been found since the 70s
ReplyDeleteWe're also forgetting that I2a1b is found on the steppe, which has a complex axplanation in itself.
ReplyDeleteAnd the male samples we have are from the Caspian and Bulgaria only.
Random chance. Every steppe group apart from what looks like one specific branch of R1a splitting 3000 BC and R1b splitting 4000 BC was also purged. Two lucky males' lineages survived.
ReplyDeleteYou mean at least three, right? R1a, R1b and I2a.
Look, the relatively sparse sampling is already picking up low frequency paternal markers on the post-forager steppe, like Q ad I2a, so any southern haplogroups that entered the steppe were also, from the onset, low frequency.
I never said that no southern males ever made it onto the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe. What I said was that overall they were in the minority, and the data thus far agrees with this.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteIf you ever want to explain something to me, then don't ever again stretch the truth like you did here, because if you do, I won't be reading your posts here or anywhere. Deal?
ReplyDeleteGet over it . Saying CHG admixture occurred after c.4000 BC isn't 'stretching the truth', especially when other parties thought 5200 BC.
So you stretched yours more ..
ReplyDelete
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThis is you stretching the truth, or rather bullshitting outright.
2 of the 3 Khvalynsk Eneolithics are essentially pure n simple EHGs
Khvakynsk begins after 4000 BC which is when CHG begins to appear in the steppe
4000 BC is a good average of 4300-3800 BC
DeleteI bet the one Khvalynsk who packs ChG will come back dating to c. 37/3600 BC
And yes, I'd call when an individual only has 6% CHG as "essentially EHG".
Rob, does 4300BC come before or after 4000BC?
ReplyDelete@Davidski I was referring specifically to Steppe_MLBA groups, which, based on current sampling, only show R1a.
ReplyDeleteAh gotcha. Yah, R1a does seem pretty damned specific to EHG. I'm not sure IE had a monopoly on EHG lineages, but they seem to have at the least stamped out the competition.
Davidski: You mean at least three, right? R1a, R1b and I2a.
ReplyDeleteThis is the Yamnaya_Bulgaria_outlier? Where else on the post-Yamnaya / post-EBA steppe has I2a? I'm talking about the post-Yamnaya steppe survivors in the bit you quote, not what the situation was before that.
(The "lucky males" I'm mentioned were the specific guys at around 4000-3000 BC that replaced all the other local males - https://static-content.springer.com/image/art%3A10.1007%2Fs00439-017-1773-z/MediaObjects/439_2017_1773_Fig7_HTML.gif. Not the original progenitors of the whole R1a and R1b clades at 22000-18000 BC).
I never said that no southern males ever made it onto the Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe. What I said was that overall they were in the minority, and the data thus far agrees with this.
I'm saying male lineages were possibly in proportion to southern admixture, prior to a Yamnaya founder effect; not necessarily exactly like if you have 40% southern admixture, you have 40% male southern y haplos, but perhaps 20% or 30%. Not 0%.
Then founder effect takes male southern y haplos to 0%, and also take to 0% all the local steppe y haplos which don't descend from that one R1b M-269 male living at that time.
In Samara Eneolithic it could've been that male southern haplos were at 7-20% or something. It's not like we couldn't miss that with, I think, 3 male samples.
I'm really just saying that the founder effect makes it hard to say that this didn't happen. Could have been sex biased admixture, just how do we know what actually happened before the lucky man's R1b founder effect swept all before it?
This is the Yamnaya_Bulgaria_outlier? Where else on the post-Yamnaya / post-EBA steppe has I2a?
ReplyDeleteUlan_IV RISE552 belongs to I2a.
So we have R1a, R1b, I2a and Q1a on the post-forager steppe, but no typically southern haplogroups.
Rather worrying for any theory that posits a large scale migration of southern males onto the Eneoithic/Bronze Age steppe, don't you think?
I don't think a "large migration of males" is needed, and it needn't be exclusively "southern", it could be from due east also
DeleteWhat happens is a few "outsider" families migrated and became the core of new commuhities, but were in fact a small minority. The Yamnaya period saw heightened competition in which only certain males succuueded per region.
Same thing was happening in Northern Europe between regular EEF and WHG.
@Davidski - Rather worrying for any theory that posits a large scale migration of southern males onto the Eneoithic/Bronze Age steppe, don't you think?
ReplyDeleteI think people who subscribe to either an Armenian or Anatolian urheimats for IE would consider R1b a southern lineage so this argument will fall on deaf ears until we have more sampling.
How about Southern Females liked Fur Coats and Southern Males did not like a breeze under their kilts ?
ReplyDeleteNorthern Males surely were more adapted to the Northern Climate since they have been living there for thousands of years before Southern Males arrived.
ReplyDeleteMaybe it depended on the lifestyle ? Northern Males surely wound have been outdoors mostly hunting and herding long distances and women were mostly near the Campsites or dwellings.
So when Southern Males arrived they had to do the same as Northern Males with bodies that used more feul to stay alive because they were not adapted completely to the cold. This could have efected their fertility rates.
Women maybe didnt have this problem in such a severe way because they did not venture far from their dwellings.?
I also think that Southern Males could have been more exposed to diseases like pneumonia etc. out in the open.
ReplyDeleteAlthough the Irish Myths are Myths they curiously mention some of the earliest settlers being wiped out by diseases and plaques....
Ulan_IV RISE552 belongs to I2a.
ReplyDeleteSo we have R1a, R1b, I2a and Q1a on the post-forager steppe, but no typically southern haplogroups.
Rather worrying for any theory that posits a large scale migration of southern males onto the Eneoithic/Bronze Age steppe, don't you think?
Nah, not really with one sample only, though should be worth them trying to sample around that UlanIV context to understand how the sample came not to have the typical R1a and R1b specific subtypes.
The Q1a found is of course from whichever groups introgressed into Karasuk, I think?
@Rob
ReplyDeleteEstimates of southern ancestry in the Khvlaynsk men are here. Nowhere close to 6%.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/the-khvalynsk-men-2_16.html
@Matt
You're going to need some positive evidence to back your claim of southern men on the steppe, otherwise it didn't happen.
There are no samples (at least yet) and I will happily admit to this.
ReplyDeleteIf we ever get samples of like, 20 Samara Eneolithic males, and they show neither a founder effect (the extant ones don't) and not even 10% (2) of any southern lineage, I'll probably rethink in favour of upping the probability of a sex biased migration or geneflow.
Same if they managed to get a sample of some 10 or so pre-Yamnaya stage where they'd autosomally taken shape, but the mega founder y effect we see hadn't happened, and there's still an absence of southern lineages in 2-4 samples.
(And that's probably about it for this line of conversation).
@ David
ReplyDeleteWhy are you not bringing up your previous D stat runs with X chromosomes vs Autosomes to substantiate your point about sex-biased admixture? We already see Mathieson et al use this procedure in their supplementary materials.
Inferences based on the X aren't very reliable yet for most ancient samples because of the lack of data. There are simply not enough markers to say that the Yamnaya X is overwhelmingly southern, even though it does appear that way for now.
ReplyDelete@P Piranha, just as a curiousity, http://imgur.com/a/C4GXi. Assuming the admixture ratios that Mathieson et al 2017 found with their 7 population outgroups and a similar ratio of HG:non_HG in Steppe_EMBA, and overall HG of 47% (from above models) then ancestors of Steppe_EMBA would be male HG 73.8% and female HG 20% (and male non-HG 26%, female non-HG 80%).
ReplyDeleteNot impossible by any means, if data quality eventually seems to show this.
(Just like I say I don't know think the y chromosome haplogroup sample number is all that useful *yet* in telling us about this, considering effect of founder effects, but I don't want to restart that whole bit, given I can't bring any positive data.).
(The 14 population outgroup models they use tend to have slightly less variation in HG between X and autosome, as do the low HG early Neolithic and southeast samples).
@ P_Piranha, in case you're still reading, as you mentioned Mathieson 2017, I thought I'd have a go at using the mtdna haplogroups vs the autosome to estimate male / female contribution (which is one of the methods they use): http://imgur.com/a/pv0Fn.
ReplyDeleteIn theory mtdna should be more useful than the y, as less suspectible to founder effects (though not immune!) and we have it in both males and females, so we have 2x the sample size. Plus mtdna should get around the confounded of patrilocality more.
First two are for MN Europe and the Steppe EMBA using the best guess autosomal and the mtdna from Mathieson's supplement table, where I've called them as Steppe / WHG / Near East (some like Krefter who is very interested in mtdna might be able to make better calls, as I've mostly gone with a rough U = HG schema). Then the others alter these assumptions.
You can get really big changes in the admixing sex ratios with very small changes in the estimates of autosome and mtdna, so whether steppe have 60% autosome EHG or 47% autosome EHG and 30% steppe mtdna or 40% steppe mtdna can together give big changes in the inferred level of male steppe ancestry.
@matt
DeleteA study bas been published recently (february 2017) by Nikitin et al. JHB 2017 62 (605-613) on mt lineages in western Pontic Steppe, and they concluded to an overall continuity in the Eneolithic/EBA.
Thanks for the analysis Matt, always appreciate your efforts. I still agree with you that without very intensive sampling this kind of thing is hard to infer. Hopefully the next batch of genomes from the Steppe are shotgun-sequenced so that the sex chromosomes are as well known as the autosomals.
ReplyDeleteI continue to think that two episodes of sex-biased admixture in opposite directions can wreak havoc with estimates using uniparentals. E.g. in Europe male-biased admixture from WHG into EEF, then female-biased admixture from EEF into Europe_LNBA gives a very small WHG mtDNA contribution to modern Europeans. Its possible that there was male-biased admixture of R1 into North Caucasians and a reverse movement back onto the Steppe which would explain some of the discrepancies between mtDNA Near Eastern percentage and autosomal Near Eastern percentage. Certainly it will explain the missing % of Y-dna inferred to have arrived on a near-eastern autosomal background.
Rob is super good with dates. He knows that 4300BC came before or after 4000BC.
ReplyDeleteNice try Davidski.
@ P Piranha: Interesting model - are you thinking of the initial male biased EHG->Caucasus expansion as in a Mesolithic timeframe or a more Khvalynsk MCA timeframe?
ReplyDeleteI'm interpreting your idea with the latter as something like: Khvalynsk like groups expand south into the Caucasus, picking up Caucasus (EEF-CHG) ancestry mainly through females, but keeping R1 y-dna from the patriline... then these groups reflux back onto the steppe, with new ideas and technologies that let them flourish and dominate in the steppe environment, not picking up many steppe males, but picking up a fair few steppe females.
One of the advantages of this that I could see would be this could be to explain the R1b bottleneck / founder effect in Yamnaya, with all males (except Ulan IV) from one very specific clade - first a y-bottleneck with males going south, then another y-bottleneck with them coming north. So we can resolve this without needing a social structure model (aka "Kings of the Stone Age").
In this model, I'd guess the initial movement would have something to do with Anatolian, who separate off early but still preserve a herding lifestyle living in the Central Anatolian Steppe that allows them to respond to later developments like chariots. While LPIE languages (defined as all later branching languages than Tocharian, however they're structured) would come from the Yamnaya stage.
Though of course no evidence so far, at all!
@Matt
ReplyDeleteUlan IV is not an exception, because the Bulgarian Yamnaya has the same lineage, which looks like it came from Ukraine.
Indeed, if you look at the map in Fig 1 here, you'll see why Ulan IV was somewhat different from the rest of the Kalmykia "Yamnayans".
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/271587800_Catacomb_culture_wagons_of_the_Eurasian_steppes
@Davidski: I'll remember that for future reference.
ReplyDeleteDavidski: Ulan IV was somewhat different from the rest of the Kalmykia "Yamnayans".
Possibly from another community than represented by Kalmykia and Samara Yamnaya and Poltavka sites?
Found it interesting that he had a "seafood diet":
Stable isotope data help to cast light on the life of the man buried in Ulan IV. Values of δ13C and δ15N for bone collagen indicate that for at least the last 10–20 years of his life seafood predominated in his diet. He may have lived permanently in a maritime area, most likely the Azov Sea or Black Sea coastline, or have spent long periods there, resulting in an isotope signal different from that of steppe people. The man died at an advanced age and was buried alongside people with very different diets (Shishlina 2011).
Nine representatives of the West Manych Catacomb culture, i.e. men, women and children, including newborns, were buried in two kurgans at Ulan IV. Kurgans 3 and 4 appear to have been used by one group of relatives as a family necropolis. All its members roamed across the steppe, as confirmed by stable isotope data (Table 2).
Two men are to be excluded, however, since seafood predominated in their diet. The grave of one of these contained the wagon described here, and the other was accompanied by pearls. The man from burial 15 must have led a life different from that of his community and have participated in military campaigns to faraway lands.
Though nothing special or different was going on with him autosomally was there?
Though nothing special or different was going on with him autosomally was there?
ReplyDeleteHe has the highest ANE to WHG ratio amongst all of the Yamnaya sequenced to date.
If anyone is wondering which study Volker is talking about, its this one:
ReplyDeleteMitochondrial DNA analysis of eneolithic trypillians from Ukraine reveals neolithic farming genetic roots
Thanks Volker. Interesting grammar in the title.
@ Matt
Yep, a slow movement into N Caucasus and then a fast one into the Steppe is possible. A male mediated sex-biased admixture from Hunter gatherers into farmers is the opposite of the usual pattern in ethnography, but that might be because all the farmer-forager frontiers we have in modern times are in the Tropics and Subtropics. It might be the opposite in Temperate areas, as we see in aDNA in Europe. In the Lengyel culture Hukelova from Edinburgh Uni has found possible HG male inhumations in Neolithic farming contexts with prestigious hunting paraphernalia under conditions of food stress.
That said there's still reason to think this isn't the best explanation. Pastoralisation from a sedentary, farming lifestyle is not impossible, but is certainly unusual. I know of only one case: the Cossacks. Pastoralisation of HGs from diffusion of animals from farmers with limited gene flow has happened independently multiple times in North American great plains and South American pampas, and now from aDNA we know the Khoikhoi herders went through this as well. Maybe aDNA will show that South Indian initial neolithic, which was pastoral, also happened like this.
@P Piranha
ReplyDeleteNo, wrong publication. I was referring to "Subdivisions of haplogroup U and C encompass mitochondrial DNA lineages of Eneolithic-Early Bronze Age Kurgan populations of Western North Pontic Steppe" by Nikitin, Ivanova,Kiosak.... published the February 2d 2017. Search Nature or Journal of Human Genetics.
@ Folker, thanks for that link, though I note they only have 12 samples so potentially more noise than in the 28 listed in Mathieson's supplement? They state "In the 12 successfully haplotyped specimens, 75% of mtDNA lineages consisted of west Eurasian haplogroup U and its U4 and U5 sublineages".
ReplyDeleteI'm a bit wary about applying a 75% steppe female contribution to an autosome of 47:53 EHG:NearEast, because it would imply very low fractions of male EHG ancestry in the steppe culture (roughly 20% only), without some complex mechanism at work (founders or some patterned sex bias as P Piranha talks about).