Four years after the publication of the seminal ancient DNA paper
Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe by Haak et al., we're still waiting for some of its loose ends to be finally tied up with new samples. In particular...
- if the men of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) were, by and large, derived from the population of the Yamnaya culture, then where are the Yamnaya samples with R1a-M417, the main CWC Y-haplogroup?
- if the men of the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) were also, by and large, derived from the population of the Yamnaya culture, then where are the Yamnaya samples with R1b-P312, the main BBC Y-haplogroup?
- and, most crucially, if R1b-L51, which includes R1b-P312, and is nowadays by far the most important Y-haplogroup in Western Europe, arrived there from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, then why hasn't it yet appeared in any of the ancient DNA from this part of Eastern Europe or surrounds, except of course in samples that are too young to be relevant?
I'm certainly not suggesting that, in hindsight, the said paper now looks fundamentally flawed. In fact, I'd say that it has aged remarkably well, especially considering how fast things are moving in the field of ancient genomics.
But those loose ends really need tying up, one way or another. It's now time.
So someone out there, please, let us know finally if you have the relevant Yamnaya samples. And if you don't, that's OK too, just tell us what you do have. Indeed, it'd be nice know a few basic details about the thousands of samples that have been successfully sequenced in various labs and are waiting to be published. A lot of people would appreciate it.
See also...
Corded Ware as an offshoot of Hungarian Yamnaya (Anthony 2017)
Hungarian Yamnaya > Bell Beakers?
Late PIE ground zero now obvious; location of PIE homeland still uncertain, but...
1,027 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 1027 Newer› Newest»“Mammoth_Hunter
You clearly don't understand the ancient DNA data. There was clear movement of Steppe MLBA ancestry past the Urals into the Altai,”
Im awareness of that - Moving East
Your claim is that Yamnaya lies on a non-“European” / Asian cline. The eastern components in EHG arrived in the late Palaeolithic
Everything after is west to east. Yamnaya Samara is more western than Samara HG.
Again; this is simple stuff
Would be a good idea to search for ancient DNA in the gaps said above. It would solve several questions, such as who/how were the Kemi-Oba people, the people of the Lower Don, the people of Kairshak and if Khvalynsk has West Siberian ancestry (or other source with high ANE), among others.
And from what culture do the Ukraine_N samples come from?
I don't know if people have understood well the consequences of decoupling the Yamnaya culture from both the spread of the IE Language and the haplogroups R1b-L51 and R1a-M417. If we consider Yamnaya as a descendant of Repin (3.900-3.300 BC), Mikhaylovka (3.600-3.000 BC) and Kemi-Oba (3.700-2.200 BC), that means that these cultures would also be out of the game. And of course, the Maykop culture (3.700-3.000 BC) whose uniparental markers (at least the masculine ones) are not even related to the Yamnaya culture, has been absolutely ruled out.
This leaves the old theory of Gimbutas practically reduced to ashes because remember that according to her;
Wave I- Coexistence of Kurgan I and the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture. Repercussions of the migrations extend as far as the Balkans and along the Danube to the Vinča culture in Serbia and Lengyel culture in Hungary-NO intrussion of IE languages in Western/Northern Europe
Wave II- Originating in the Maykop culture ???? FALSE and resulting in advances of "kurganized" hybrid cultures into northern Europe around 3000 BC (Globular Amphora culture, Baden culture, and ultimately Corded Ware culture)- FALSE because GAC and BADEN don't even have a drop of steppe blood-FIRST intrusion of Indo-European languages into western and northern Europe.
Wave III-Expansion of the Pit Grave culture beyond the steppes (3.000-2.800 BC), with the appearance of the characteristic pit graves as far as the areas of modern Romania, Bulgaria, eastern Hungary- We already know that Z2103 reached the Balkans, Hungary and Poland at its maximum expansion limit and that it does not exist in Western Europe then Z2013, neither is the dispersion factor of IE.
What do we have left? the CWC, which was essentially a heterogeneous culture of the Stone Age, with at least a dozen regional variants, ideologically very different and technologically very far of the BB culture. If you add to this that the CWC is mostly R1a and the BBC is mostly R1b-P312, the linguistic connection between the two is an absolute fantasy.
This is the obvious demonstration that we were not wrong when based on the genetic continuity of Iberia (R1b-P312/Df27) we said that it was absolutely impossible for BB culture to speak an IE language.
@music lover
"It actually perfectly supports the IE tree."
What kind of tree do you support?
you just don't know what you're writing about.
"CW and Sintashta are sister groups based on the derived Y chromosomes and similar autosomal ancestry."
Do not carry nonsense, they are not sister groups, just complete Sintashta derived from CW.
"The earliest sample with the characteristic mix of ancestry autosomal and Y chromosome is in Samara."
Which has nothing to do to the Yamnaya culture.
"The Yamnaya are the ONLY group capable of explaining the early branching of Tocharian"
it's not true. You just know absolutely nothing and give wishful thinking.
"and now with the radio carbon date from Hajji Firuz show clear evidence of moving south of the caucuses in the Late Bronze Age."
This sample is the Early Iron age, don't be fooled. The time the Catastrophe of the Bronze Age.
"Like I said before, care to throw out any other suggestions based on the CURRENTLY available data. Or do you need to fabricate unpublished data that will never exist to support your claim."
Judging by inadequacy @music lover is Carlos Quelles.
Now it seems that in a few weeks or months we will have R1b-L51 in Eastern Europe. They no longer even talk about the steppes, nor advance dates, nor talk about what cultures can be related to this lineage but seem absolutely convinced of this statement. Of course, it will be a great pleasure to hear their explanations about
1- Which was (or were) the culture where that lineage has appeared
2- That culture spoke an IE language?
3- How R1b-L51 arrived in Central and Western Europe?
4- Truly did they travel with the CWC?
5-If they traveled together and have the same origin why there is that apparent difference in the percentages of autosomal steppe signal?
6- How did R1b-L51 get out of the CWC and create the BB culture without taking their travel companion R1a with they?
7-If those lineages traveled together (or even if they did not) but but somehow they ended up sharing the same culture why in nearby deposits of both cultures in contact areas, in some graves does R1b appear and in others R1a?
I guess the explanations will be convincing, of course they have a difficult road ahead.
@Gaska
This leaves the old theory of Gimbutas practically reduced to ashes because remember that according to her;
The scheme of Gimbutas is only scheme of Gimbutas. The Kurgan theory was created by Childe, and his scheme was different than scheme of Gimbutas, and it is now supported by science. The role of Gimbutas is that it became a propaganda Kurgan theory.
From Mallory's Encyclopedia of Indo-European Culture on what I think is the earliest known instance of the Corded Ware culture:
"The Middle Dnieper culture is an eastern variant of the Corded Ware cultural horizon (c 3200-2300 BC) and was situated primarily in the north Ukraine between the other Corded Ware regional groups and the forest-steppe and steppe zone cultures. The culture is known from over two hundred sites, primarily tumulus barrows, some of which have been inserted into earlier Yamna burials and the cultural substrate is seen to be both Yamna and late Tripolye."
So the earliest instance of CWC buried in earlier Yamnaya burials and showed signs of a Yamnaya cultural substrate. This seems pretty interesting, especially since our host mentions R1a west of Samara. So maybe a part of Yamnaya still was R1a. Do we have known Yamnaya samples from that area?
@Archi
In what sense is Childe's scheme now supported by science?
@music lover
"Switzerland is in the European Economic Area"
No, it isn't. :D
In December 1992 50.3% of the Swiss voters rejected joining the European Economic Area. As a substitute Switzerland has thereafter negotiated several bundles of bilateral treaties securing its access to the European markets.
@Gaska "In what sense is Childe"s scheme is now supported by science?"
Child's scheme is very simple - IE originate from the South Russian steppes from where they spread to Anatolia through the Balkans (Troy) and to the CWC from where they spread everywhere. The main marker of this distribution he saw battle-axes, and partly, ceramics; Gimbutas called it Kurgan theory, in that she saw the main marker, in the future, she built her fancy scheme stages that it was invented in continue many years.
Childe denied belonging to the BBC to IE and IE was not elevated to the Yamnaya culture, he had the Yamnaya culture was one of the IE cultures in the steppe.
@Archi
So he was basically right
Has anyone thought of deducing the makeup of Kelteminar from the Central Asian/West Siberian portion of Steppe Maykop?
@Matt
Yes, the wagon argument indeed is very convincing. We can't just push things back to Sredny Stog, just for our convenience. Apart from Anatolian, that is.
I've been saying Yamnaya is overrated for a long time. EastPole & Andre have also been saying this for a long time. This logic behind our position is simple. Corded Ware is the big player not Yamnaya.
Kurgan/Indo Euroepans lived in patrilineal ethnic groups. Culture correlates with ethnic group. Different Kurgan cultures carried different Y DNA.
Almost all Yamnaya so far are R1b Z2103. Therefore, the Yamnaya culture/ethnic group was basically only R1b Z2103. They didn't carry R1b L51 or R1a M417. Therefore, Yamnaya isn't the ancestor of the Kurgan people who took over Europe in the 3rd millenium BC.
If I remember correctly, at first Davidski dis agreed with this. He thought eventually R1a M417 would pop up in Yamnaya.
Sredeny Stog in 4000 BC is confirmed to carry R1a M417. They are the ancestor of Corded Ware not Yamnaya.
But where were Corded Ware's ancestors living 3000-3500 BC? It is unknown. But, what is known is they weren't living in Yamnaya territory. Maybe, in 3500-3000 BC R1a M417 was already living in Central Europe near Globular Amphora.
In my opinon, Genome data from Corded Ware indicates Central Europe served as a launching pad for Corded Ware into the east, west, and north.
The oldest Corded Ware sample in Baltic states are 100% Steppe. But, all later Baltic samples carry Globular ancestry meaning they arrived from Central Europe. Also, baltic BA, looks like a Corded Ware Germany/Poland+Baltic hunter gatherer mix. This again points to Central Europe as a "homeland" for Corded Ware.
Corded Ware in Russia, which eventually became Sintashta, arrived from Central Europe. This is why Sintashta is identical to Corded Ware Germany/Poland.
@ Samuel Andrews
Exciting times.
I'm thinking in the future Eurogenes can make some custom calculators for certain groups. For example R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103>Z2109+can be used for a autocthonous zone" Pontic–Caspian steppe." A calculator with R1b samples from Yamnaya and Progress and Samara region.
Another calculator for shared ancestral Indian-European speaking groups from Sintashta to Sri Lanka,and or the people of Ireland-Spain-Italy to Sri-Lanka[southern India] with the midpoint of Slavic-Sintashta. No more debating PIE every ones happy :)
@music lover
Poltavka outlier was a recent migrant from the west to Samara. This was obvious back in 2016.
The Poltavka outlier
Clearly, this individual is closely related to Ukraine Eneolithic I6561, and you'll see more examples of this R1a-rich population from other important pre-Yamnaya sites on the steppe far to the west of Samara.
@David - It's a weird structure when you think about it. R1a populations are surrounded by R1b populations.
@Ryan, with regard to later Corded Ware that is a fairly reasonable observation if meant that way, but I don't know if I would extend it to suggesting that Sredny Stog II was a R1a-M417 population as such as of yet.
We only have the one sample and the only other Eneolithic population (although really a shared cemetary) which we have represented at Khvalynsk seems to have some diversity, and EHG certainly bears a fairly high level of diversity (Ukraine N bears some diversity likewise, possibly structured by site), and then what we see later is the effect of non-equally distributed founder effects. It is possibly premature to think of "Sredny Stog = R1a-M417" at this point.
(You can see this fairly vividly in Kivisild figure from his paper: https://imgur.com/a/QwBgY7v. Yamnaya Z2103 splits from Western European L11 at about 6.5kya, then the R1a represented by most Corded Ware samples, which did not leave descendents today, splits from those which did about 5.85kya. There are lots of founder effects going on at this time).
Yeah, expect other Y-haplogroups as more Sredny Stog II samples come in, including R1b.
Maybe some I2 and even Q1a too.
When we sample the gaps in the steppe as well as expand sampling of already sampled areas, we're going to see surprises.
Archi
If Childe’s theory places PIE in south Russia; then science has proven him wrong
10 years ago; some high functioning genius said that the forest zone of EE was the refuge for lineages; which at times moved out into the open steppe; after interaction and acculturation from farmer groups; like CT. I wonder if he’ll be proven correct ?
@Mammoth_Hunter said... "If Childe''s theory places PIE in south Russia; then science has proven him wrong."
No, science has proven nothing of the sort. Do not invent, PIE can be in the South of modern Russia.
But in Childe's time, Southern Russia was the territory of the Russian Empire/USSR, modern Russia and Ukraine, the steppes meant the steppe and the forest-steppe.
I don't think Yamnaya is overrated at least with regards to the Greco-Armenian-Indo-Iranian branch of IE.
Haven't we found R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya? And in Poltavka?
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-32143.html
In my opinion R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93+ are both associated with Indo-Iranians as we saw from Scythian samples.
So either
1. Indo-Iranians were a mixed R1b and R1a population with much more of the latter which made it to Central/South Asia.
2. R1b steppe cultures such as Catacomb and Poltavka were Indo-Iranified early on by Abashevo.
@ Jatt_Scythian
"Haven't we found R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya? And in Poltavka?"
In the Yamnaya culture there is no R1a-Z93. Poltavka_outlier is most probably Volsk-Lbischeian.
"In my opinion R1b-Z2103 and R1a-Z93+ are both associated with Indo-Iranians as we saw from Scythian samples."
In the Scythian samples no R1b-Z2103, there were errors of determination of haplogroups and cultures attribution error which does not Scythian.
"1. Indo-Iranians were a mixed R1b and R1a population with much more of the latter which made it to Central/South Asia."
No. (Proto-)Indo-Iranians were not mixed out with R1b.
"2. R1b steppe cultures such as the Catacomb and Poltavka were Indo-Iranified early on by Abashevo."
The Catacomb and Poltavka was not Indo-Iranian cultures, they were both completely replaced Babino culture and Srubnaya culture, and the Poltavka culture died in result war violence.
@Mammoth: The influences of the steppe are, on all levels, to strong for an independent development.
But we should keep in mind that more than once hunter-gatherer lineages took farmer and even pastoralist groups over, especially if they had the advantage of the terrain and "the victims" were bold enough to move into this, for them, unfavourable terrain.
And after having taken the wives and getting used to the more advanced technology and culture, they were even able to strike outside their original habitat.
I always wondered about two issues the most with Yamnaya and Corded Ware: The physical and cultural differences.
Culturally, the CW people were in some respects more advanced, but in others they appear just very backward, conservative, even less cultivated.
Was this because of environmental influences, a plague, the lack of resources or did they never have it?
Probably they never had it, but they were borderland people which really just adopted what they needed and could effectively use in their clans and ignored the rest, even if they knew it first hand from their neighbours.
What they used they seem to have done pretty well and with skill, but what they lacked is also worth too note.
If I have to imagine Yamnaya moving into the forest steppe with what they got, I get different result than CW as it was.
@ Zardos
“Culturally, the CW people were in some respects more advanced, but in others they appear just very backward, conservative, even less cultivated.
Was this because of environmental influences, a plague, the lack of resources or did they never have it?
Which plague ? The plague issue has been overhyped
When CwC advanced through Europe; LBK was long gone. CWC encountered groups like late TRB & GAC; who themselves were expanding across ranges and lived in small homesteads.
So as far as then european plain goes; it’s a gradual fusion of various kin-based societies; with CWC providing the lasting building block of major cultural components. Later “factions” like BB & Unetice operated within this sphere; & had the choice of using the same template or adding and changing things as they saw fit ; in an attempt to construct their own identify
@music lover “
@Mammoth_Hunter
You clearly don't understand the ancient DNA data. There was clear movement of Steppe MLBA ancestry past the Urals into the Altai, well past the Bronze Age and of East Eurasian ancestry well past the Urals deep into the heart of Eastern Europe after the Iron Age by the Scythians, Sarmatians and Huns.”
Yes! Indeed!
All the way to the Magadan, Nivkh, Chukchi and Kamatchatdals. Steppe ancestry extends all the way in minor proportions to the Bering Sea. Scythians, Sarmatians, Cimmerians and Proto-Turks are obviously male Europeans R1a mixed with East Asian women.
@archi “The Catacomb and Poltavka was not Indo-Iranian cultures, they were both completely replaced Babino culture and Srubnaya culture, and the Poltavka culture died in result war violence.”
Poltavka and Catacomb might’ve been the ancestors of Anatolians and/or Phrygians/Armenians. We will never know
@Jatt_Scythian
There's no R1a-Z93 in Yamnaya or Poltavka. The sample you're thinking of was an obvious migrant from the west.
The Poltavka outlier
And, by the way, Eupedia? LOL
Anatolians likely don't have Catacomb or Poltavka. Armenian, though, may descend from the language spoken by those cultures.
“If I have to imagine Yamnaya moving into the forest steppe with what they got, I get different result than CW as it was.”
It seems their limit was the southern forest steppe; maybe the odd individual in south Poland
Later cwc expanded over some of yamnayas territory; acquired their kurgans
How does it perfectly support the IE tree? Indo-Iranian is linguistically closer to Greco-Aremenian and prbably Thraco-Dacian if it was still alive. I agree Proto Indo Iranians were probably genetically identical to Corded Ware and Proto Balto Slavs.
@Davidski
I'm still expecting some R1a in NW Yamnaya. I never disagreed that R1a came from the west and namely non Yamnaya cultures ie Corded Ware. But it seems it was probably Iranifying the R1b/I2a population in the dry steppe as we see a mixture of R1a, R1b and I2a in Scythians and the like.
Either way Proto Turks aren't an R1a group. They absorbed R1a groups but Proto Turks carried East Eurasian lineages.
The Turkic genocide of Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Saka and Tajiks (who used to occupy most of Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, Northern Afghanistan and Kashgar in China) is pretty sad. The glorious cities of Merv, Samarkand and Bukhara are just a relic of their past gory.
I wonder how those groups would phenotypically and genotypically look if they were around today.
@ Davidski
Do you have tajiks from Uzbekistan samples in any of your analyses?
Instead, for Anatolian, it is either Steppe Maykop or more likely 3rd millenium BCE Western Anatolians (such as Kumtepe_N_Low_Res).
@Mammoth: "Which plague ? The plague issue has been overhyped"
It was more of a rhetorical question and yes, the plague and climatic influences too being much less of an issue for that case. The plague was much more widespread and older anyway.
TRB-GAC too was the result of HG lineages overtake, CW was just more competitive, but they moved in a similar direction if taking LBK as a reference.
But the CW people had contacts to, in some respects.
...technologically more advanced cultures South of them. That's what I meant.
@ Zardos
Early TRB (If taken as Baalberg phase) has a stronger classic farmer element; late TRB is the h-g spill-over
Overall; TRB is a network of different groups
GAC, on the other hand, follows lineage -linearity & has elements of pastoralism. I don’t think it’s native to Northern Europe; or from TRB
Archi wrote,
"I repeat, we do not know anything about the Tocharians themselves, there is no data on their archaeology cultures that associated to them, nothing can be traced from anywhere now. Now there is no data, so now no hypothesis can be rejected and it is impossible to say that there is no continuity between anyone. Anybody can't see anything, there's no data.
As I recall, the local Tarim's population has a Z2103, if I'm not mistaken."
Some samples of present-day inhabitants of the Tarim Basin (Uyghurs) have contained moderately high proportions of Y-DNA haplogroup R1b (e.g. 12/66 = 18.2% R1b in the Hammer & Karafet team's Uygur sample according to Karafet et al. 2018), but there is little that would suggest a direct connection to even the R1b Y-DNA of specimens associated with the Yamnaya or Afanasievo cultures, let alone present-day Western European R1b:
Uygur (Karafet et al. 2018)
3/66 = 4.5% R2a-M124
1/66 = 1.5% R1a1a1b1a-Z282
14/66 = 21.2% R1a1a1b2-Z93
7/66 = 10.6% R1b1-L278(xR1b1a1a-P297) [These Y-chromosomes most likely should belong to R1b1b-PH155, R1b1a2-V88, or R1b1a1b-V1636.]
3/66 = 4.5% R1b1a1a1-M73
2/66 = 3.0% R1b1a1a2a-L23(xR1b1a1a2a1a-P311) [These Y-chromosomes most likely should belong to R1b1a1a2a2-Z2103 or R1b1a1a2a1b-Z2118.]
So if it is present among modern Uyghurs at all, Yamnayan/Afanasievan R1b-Z2103 is probably less common among them than typically Turko-Mongol R1b-M73 or circum-Himalayan (Hunnic? Tocharian?) R1b-PH155.
@All
What IE languages do you think do NOT ultimately descend from Corded Ware?
The Anatolian branch.
Davidski, I have asked and although they have not specified anything, one of those responsible for the genetic analysis of El Argar culture said that they were clear that the lineage of that culture (obviously P312/Df27) has remote origins in northern Russia???. Not in the steppes, or in the Yamnaya culture or anything like it. The possibility of having freed ourselves forever from the nightmare of the omnipresent Yamnaya culture is wonderful. I imagine the faces of many people in Anthrogenica, surely now everyone starts to deny Yamnaya as if it were the plague. They have been wasting time and saying stupidities about the origin of BB culture, the IE language and P312 for at least 6 years.
Truly interesting times are coming, because sooner or later we will understand how P312 ended up in Germany and how there is no trace of L51 in the east. No doubt he had to move quickly to leave no trace in Russia.
Bob
I don’t see why Anatolian won’t also have ancestry from Romania / west Ukraine (aka the PIE homeland).
@Sam Andrews said-"Kurgan/Indo Euroepans lived in patrilineal ethnic groups. Culture correlates with ethnic group. Different Kurgan cultures carried different Y DNA.Therefore, Yamnaya isn't the ancestor of the Kurgan people who took over Europe in the 3rd millenium BC"
I guess that with these terms- "Kurgan/Indoeuropeans", "Kurgan people", you will be referring to the haplogroup Y-R1a, because if everything is confirmed, R1b-L51 has absolutely nothing to do with either the Yamnaya culture or the Kurgans, or Gimbutas, or with the IE language, or with the CWC, or with nothing that the Kurganists have been defending during these years.
@Gaska
I have asked and although they have not specified anything, one of those responsible for the genetic analysis of El Argar culture said that they were clear that the lineage of that culture (obviously P312/Df27) has remote origins in northern Russia???
I'm impressed, you've got some very useful contacts there.
And yeah, as you know, my opinion is that the Beakers with P312 didn't come from Yamnaya, but rather somehow expanded via the Corded Ware culture. Let's see how that works out.
@Mammoth hunter
It seems to me like Anatolian may come from a slightly different world than the other branches, and I also suspect that we may see Z2103 whenever we get real Hittite or Luwian samples. But this is just my gut feeling, I could well be wrong.
I wouldn't be too confident in the Romanian theory, if I were you.
According to linguistic and genetic data, the homeland of PIE is rather the forest steppe (forest) of the Volga-Don region to north of Samara and Alexandria, where were the maximum EHG and maximum R1a.
Archaeology and anthropology know that this population is actively distributed in the Black Sea-Caspian steppes, to the Don and Lower Volga, in Mesolithic and Eneolithic to the Dnieper.
West of the Dnieper has never been the ancestral home of IE, it's exactly.
@Davidski
Whatever happens, everything that comes will be wonderful. I will never hear of arguments like Buzdhak culture, there is L23 in Yamnaya then L51 too, western Yamnaya has been little studied genetically, the steppe riders conquered Europe, the BB culture derives from the Yamnaya culture....... I have ordered several bottles of champagne to celebrate.You are all invited
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0oF13OyvBYs
If you are curious, this is how I think the BB culture spoke at least in Iberia.
self-consumer said...
@All
"What IE languages do you think do NOT ultimately descend from Corded Ware?"
Trying to speculate what language lines up with a specific snps might not be as useful as matching elite graves with inventory/language.
In terms of Yamnaya elite graves they were almost exclusive ydna R1b-Z2109+ with a a few ydna I2.
A bare minimum for R1b-Z2109+/I2 Yamnaya/Afansievo genetic component in elite graves can be matched with grave goods like wagon, copper, silver, gold[Western Yamnaya grave goods-hair rings-Eastern Yamnaya solid copper cludgel type weapon]
Perhaps some one with a knowledge of Corded Ware elite and Bell Beaker Elite L51+ Sintashta elite[chariots] [since all of them, more or less can now be lumped together] can chime in on the difference-contrast to Yamnaya. It would be interesting to get an inventory of elite grave goods.
"A bare minimum for R1b-Z2109+/I2 Yamnaya/Afansievo genetic component in elite graves."
There were no elite graves in these cultures, there was no elite.
"Perhaps some one with a knowledge of Corded Ware elite and Sintashta elite."
There was no elite in these cultures, there was a division by occupation, warriors and non-warriors.
There wasn't an elite burials in Sintashta quite, in CW some archaeologists are trying to see.
Personal differences in burials are not related to belonging to the elite, but with personal differences in the occupations of buried people.
Archi said...
"A bare minimum for R1b-Z2109+/I2 Yamnaya/Afansievo genetic component in elite graves."
There were no elite graves in these cultures, there was no elite.
"Perhaps some one with a knowledge of Corded Ware elite and Sintashta elite."
There was no elite in these cultures, there was a division by occupation, warriors and non-warriors.
There wasn't an elite burials in Sintashta quite, in CW some archaeologists are trying to see."
Personal differences in burials are not related to belonging to the elite, but with personal differences in the occupations of buried people."
Im trying to find out grave goods in the context of elite as defined below.
"wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society." to set the autosomal traits between cluster L51+ Corded Ware-Sintashta and Yamnaya be defining grave goods. You need to spend energy and a language + group of people to gather material and specific items for a burial. In the case of Yamnaya/Afansievo/Catacombe R1b-Z2109+ 5000+\-YBP wagons,and or copper, silver, gold[precious metals]domesticated/undomesticated animals, dog, horse sheep cattle etc......
In political and sociological theory, the elite (French élite, from Latin eligere) are a small group of powerful people who hold a disproportionate amount of wealth, privilege, political power, or skill in a society. Defined by the Cambridge Dictionary, the "elite" are "those people or organizations that are considered the best or most powerful compared to others of a similar type." [1]
@a Here's those the elite in these cultures was not. There was no division between elite and non-elite, which means there was no elite.
Archi said...
@a Here's those the elite in these cultures was not. There was no division between elite and non-elite, which means there was no elite."
I think R1b might have been human sacrifice by R1a for example, the bog body, RISE276, may have been a human sacrifice.
Human sacrifice for elite burial R1a Sintashta
'In one recurring myth in the Rig Veda, for instance, the divine Ashvin twins seek a magical drink made by another god. A human fire priest knows the secret of the drink but has been sworn not to tell. The Ashvin twins cut off his head and replace it with the head of a horse. The priest then speaks through the horse’s head and is able to divulge the secret of the drink. At one of the Sintashta sites, says Anthony, a grave was found with a human sacrifice on top. Now, this is unusual in itself, he says. But this guy had his head cut off and replaced with the head of a horse."
@ Bob
Thanks for the advice ;)
But I know what I’m talking about
@Mammoth_Hunter
"GAC, on the other hand, follows lineage -linearity & has elements of pastoralism. I don’t think it’s native to Northern Europe; or from TRB"
The genetic continuity seems to be significant between them based on the currently available samples. People can shift their economic focus in time without big population replacements.
That is not to say that they represent a full population continuity in every single place.
Looking at the nMonte results I' guess that they grew out from a regional subgroup of TRB and associated cultures + some mixing from the Carpathian Basin. It is possible that the latter group brought in an ecosystem focused more on animal husbandry, but the majority of the population is probably from TRB et al.
GAC also seems to be HG shifted compared to TRB, but the area of the "TRB-horizon" contained much more HG-rich populations too (like Blatterhohle), so that can be local in the context of TRB-region too.
@ Slumbery
“The genetic continuity seems to be significant between them based on the currently available samples. People can shift their economic focus in time w..””
Which lineage continuity do that have with TRB. ?
Their autisomes are multimodal . Cattle burials are definitely a Baden feature
@a "elite burial R1a Sintashta"
There were no elite burials in the Sintashta culture.
@Mammoth_Hunter You're beyond help. You know nothing, but you imagine.
There is simply no way neither for Corded Ware alone nor for Yamnaya alone to have been PIE-speaking. All data indicate taht these were closely related populations speaking different Post-Late PIE dialects, so when looking for a hypothetical Late PIE source, we should direct our attention towards the pre-Yamnaya populations on the steppe, with Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog being the two best candidates for the moment.
Both Anatolian and Tocharian are lacking the wheeled wagon vocubalary. The Tocharian and Anatolian words for "wheel" derive from a PIE lexeme (*h2werg-), which is different from the corresponding words attested in languages descending from Late PIE (where the word for wheel is derived from either *kwel- or *Hrotós). Also, Tocharian does not share the Late PIE-derived words for wagon, axle and thill, so the only Tocharian word indicating the shared vocabulary for wheeled vehicles is kokale/kukäl (chariot), showing analogy to a Greek word for wheel (kúklos), which, however, doesn't seem to be enough to claim that Tocharian and Late PIE diverged only after 4000 BC. Thus, it seems almost certain that not only Archaic PIE (Proto-Indo-Hittite) but also Early PIE (ancestral to Tocharian and Late PIE) were spoken before 4000 BC, and most likely before 4500 BC.
Corded Ware was associated mostly with R1a-M417 and likely ancestral to both the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian speaking populations, while the Post-Late PIE dialect spoken in Yamnaya was associated with R1b-Z2103 and most likely ancestral to populations speaking Greek, Armenian and Albanian (plus Daco-Thracian, Mycenaean and Phrygian, when counting the extinct languages that are currently known to us).
Another group of Post-Late PIE languages, including Italo-Celtic and possibly Germanic, seems to descend from a Post-Late PIE dialect spoken by the R1b-L51 people. As for now, it is hard to say how this group was related to Corded Ware and Yamnaya and when exactly their ancestors moved from Eastern to Central Europe. Also, it is not clear how and where that ancestral R1b-L51-rich population contributed to the emergence of the Bell Beaker culture and whether the R1b-U106 folks were still part of that group at that very time.
@Mammoth_Hunter
There are not enough high resolution samples to reliably estimate the continuity of uniparental markers between them (especially not from TRB), so I was talking about autosomal / genome-wide ancestry. And yes, it is multimodal, I also suspect significant Carpathian Basin ancestry that is in agreement with Baden cattle burials. However significant is not majority. The TRB population was not replaced only mixed.
(Also the increase of HG ancestry is hard to stick to the Carpathian Basin.)
The Carpathian Basin autosomal ancestry is difficult to estimate, because I think Baden had some TRB ancestry from earlier in turn. They were not that super-different.
@Michał
I appreciate your insights, but things move quickly in this area, and you're saying things that I would've said a year or two ago, but no longer.
One of the problems with your assumptions is that Z2103 is found in steppe populations other than Yamnaya, and you'll be seeing it pop up in many more pre- and post-Yamnaya samples. So how do you know that the language spoken by Yamnaya was ancestral to Greek or Albanian, when the Z2103 in Greeks and Albanians might be from other steppe or steppe-derived populations?
And, of course, there's no reason why Z2103 should be tied to the same language family in Yamnaya, Catacomb, Dereivka, Babino, Vucedol etc.
As for the question of the origins of L51, P312 and U106, I'm guessing you're aware of my view that they were somehow involved or caught up in the Corded Ware expansions, so if that pans out, then it will seriously leave Yamnaya out in the cold.
OT: Browsing around found a new paper abstract I hadn't heard about before:
https://ucris.univie.ac.at/portal/en/publications/adna-and-kinship-in-french-atlantic-facade-megalithic-monuments(a7529150-c7e1-4f92-bef7-705d3f73591f).html - aDNA and Kinship in French Atlantic Façade Megalithic Monuments
Abstract: Megalithic tombs are often the common burial place of numerous individuals. Their excavations have often revealed many skeletons, commonly very commingled, making the independent analyses of the individuals within challenging. However, the recent advances in ancient DNA recovery methods have allowed the analyses of individual skeletal elements, potentially shedding light on who was buried in these monuments. One important question pertaining to Megalithic tombs is why particular groups of individuals were buried together in distinct monuments.
Here, we present preliminary analyses of three Neolithic Atlantic Façade, French Megalithic monuments: Bougon F0 (n=9), Champ Chalon (n=33), Xanton-Chassenay (n=22). By sequencing the genome of multiple individuals from each, it has been possible to recover some of their familial relationships.
In each of these monuments, siblings and/or parents have been found, suggesting that kinship played an important role in the decision to bury individuals in the same monument. Furthermore, present analytical methods only allow the detection of close relatives, making familial ties with the other individuals a possibility. Further genomic analyses will help to put these individuals in a broader context further identifying their geographic origin.
@Michał
"Thus, it seems almost certain that not only Archaic PIE (Proto-Indo-Hittite) but also Early PIE (ancestral to Tocharian and Late PIE) were spoken before 4000 BC, and most likely before 4500 BC."
Both Tocharians and Anatolians knew the wheel and the cart, so they could only separated from the rest of the Indo-Europeans after these things had been invented. Well, that these words are they different from other Indo-Europeans and in other Indo-Europeans there are three words for wheel!
Therefore they had diverged after 4000 BC.
"Corded Ware was mostly associated with R1a-M417 and likely ancestral to both the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian speaking populations, while the Post-Late PIE dialect spoken in the was associated with Yamnaya R1b-Z2103 and is most likely ancestral to populations speaking Greek, Armenian and Albanian (plus Daco-Thracian, Phrygian and Mycenaean, when counting the extinct languages that are currently known to us)."
These peoples are associated with the Babino culture (and its derivatives) which took the place of Yamnaya-Catacomb cultures. The Babino (Multi-Cordoned Ware) culture comes from Corded Ware which captured the substrate Catacomb culture.
@Davidski, Michal
Working just from the Chang linguistic tree and our current genomic evidence, I would agree with Davidski that there are very few existing languages that are likely to be derived from Yamnaya itself, maybe Tocharian and Albanian.
Greco-Armeno-Phrygian would be more likely to descend from a post Yamnaya culture on the PC steppe, like KMK.
Tbh, on the subject of that tree, dates-wise, Garret+Chang's tree seems to get charged by the Planck group with compressing many dates that we know about. E.g. Romance break up around 700 AD? Less for for some subgroupings. Or Scots-Gaelic and Irish at 1500 AD. Where Bouckaert's tree more correctly rightly identifies the break ups of these around 0 AD and 1000 AD.
So it may be that to solve the problem of what they believe to be a wrongly identified state of diglossia in ancient attested languages (which they believe caused by low level homoplasy - systemetic repetition of lexeme derivation between unrelated languages), they've actually introduced a bigger problem and gone wrong in rates, and this is what supports the "steppe date" in their tree.
IMO, having looked at Heggarty's criticism of Chang's tree dates (roughly as above), I would be more supportive of being circumspect about that tree, whether or not it drives us to support the other phylogenetic trees.
@ Archi
what is the linguistic evidence which enables you to know that PIE language emerged exactly from the Don-Volga forest steppe ?
That's some high level linguistics
Archi said...
@a "elite burial R1a Sintashta"
"There were no elite burials in the Sintashta culture."
I don't understand why it is hard to believe that there were successful males.
Try looking at it in terms of success wealth/resource male, able to have many male offspring in a certain amount of time, in a certain region.
If you look at it in terms of successful R1a-M417 lines, a few stand out around 5000 TMRCA range according to yfull. R1a-M417 is also dated as being older than R1b-Z2103+
R-M417+
R-M417 PF7532/F3398 * CTS5648/M695 * F3166/M763+29 SNPsformed 8600 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybpinfo
R-L664 L664/S298/CTS7083 * Y2895 * Y2896+7 SNPsformed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 3900 ybpinfo
R-Z645 Z646/CTS6596/M713/S346 * Z645/S224/PF6162/V1754 * Z650/CTS9754/PF6206/M750/V3726+5 SNPsformed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybpinfo
R-Z94 Z95/F3568 * Z94/F3105/S340formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybpinfo
R-Z2124 Z2121/S3410 * Z2124formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybpinfo
R-Z283 Z662/CTS11197/PF6225 * Z283/S339/PF6217formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4900 ybpinfo
Compared to a breakdown of branches of R1b-Z2103+[Yamnaya/Afansievo are dominated by R1b-Z2108-Z2109 line.
R-Z2103 Y4371/Z8128/M12149 * S20902/Z8130 * CTS9416+7 SNPsformed 6100 ybp, TMRCA 5500 ybpinfo
R-Y13369 FGC14586/Y13370 * FGC14589/Y13369 * FGC39469+3 SNPsformed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5100 ybpinfo
R-Y4364 Y4363/M12160 * Y4369 * Y4367/A368/M589+10 SNPsformed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 4500 ybpinfo
R-Z2106Y12538/Z8131 * Z2106formed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5500 ybpinfo
R-Z2108Z2109/CTS1843 * Z2108formed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5500 ybpinfo
R-Y14415Y14416 * Y14415 * Y14421+1 SNPsformed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5300 ybpinfo
R-Z2110S12460 * Z2110/CTS7822 * S17864formed 5500 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybpinfo
If I'm missing any relevant R1a lines in this time frame maybe you could add them in.
@ Matt
Linguists cant even definitvely agree about the exact relevance of the Wheel.
Some propose are relativey flat tree
Some disagree with 4500 BC & point to 2500 BC.
The most objective manner to evaluate hypotheses is by understanding how it ocurred via the people themselves. aDNA will demonstrate it all and therell be no room for debate.
In that way, we dont need to rely on someones interpretation of Herodotus.
Here are some models on BA Armenians: ARM_Lchasen_MBA: (RM_Areni_C+Anatolia_Isparta_EBA+IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C+RUS_Catacomb, 1.8433, ARM_Areni_C 9.17% Anatolia_Isparta_EBA 10.83% IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 53.33% RUS_Catacomb 26.67%)
ARM_MBA: (ARM_Areni_C+Anatolia_Isparta_EBA+IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C+RUS_Catacomb, 2.0234, ARM_Areni_C 6.67% Anatolia_Isparta_EBA 13.33% IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 49.17% RUS_Catacomb 30.83%)
ARM_LBA: (Anatolia_Kaman-Halehoyuk_MLBA+IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA+RUS_Sintashta_MLBA+ARM_Lchasen_MBA, 2.607, Anatolia_Kaman-Halehoyuk_MLBA 10.83% IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA 10% RUS_Sintashta_MLBA 7.5% ARM_Lchasen_MBA 71.67%)
@ Slumberry
''There are not enough high resolution samples to reliably estimate the continuity of uniparental markers between them (especially not from TRB''
Yes, I am reminded of that, despite the fact we actually do have quite a few TRB (I2a1b, I2c, C1a; H2a2).
Im also reminded that its unlikely that I1 is from mainland Europe.
I was also reminded that Sintashta represents a continuity from Poltavka.
But it usualy turns out to be correct.
''I was talking about autosomal / genome-wide ancestry. And yes, it is multimodal, I also suspect significant Carpathian Basin ancestry that is in agreement with Baden cattle burials. However significant is not majority.''
I agree that the overall autosomal ancestry is not Carpathian. But of course the confounding issue is that Late Eneolithic 'Carpathian ancestry' has a significant TRB-ancestry.
''The TRB population was not replaced only mixed.''
I did not say it was replaced. I would not make such statements without first being aware that TRB existed as late as 2400 BC in some areas; so it was not replaced by GAC c. 3000 BC. Quite the contrary, GAC represented another, alternative system alongside later TRB groups, as outlined in my original statement
Matt
BTW - the issue of chronolgy is also solved by aDNA. Anything which requires PIE to be too old cannot be sustained. All the data shows how much shifting occurred in regions.
What type of R1a was found in the Tarim? I know the authors said they were Z93-. These mummies are more likely to be Tocharians than Afansievo in my opinion. They are in the right time, place (east of Indo-Iranian languages) and with the right lineage (non Z93+ R1a).
How could Mallory and Kuzmina have been so wrong about Catacomb and Poltavka since they attributed them to be Indo-Iranian. At the very least they were Iranified cultures speaking Iranian languages.
Also isn't R1b-M73 a WSHG lineage?
And what do people make of the N1a in Sintashta? How come it never made its way to Central/South Asia? And how come we have I2a in Central/South Asian samples but none to little in modern Central/South Asians?
Note that Corded Ware isn't all R1a. There's an I2a in Czech Corded Ware.
@Mammoth_Hunter
PIE lived in the area of large spread of bear and trees of middle zone, there is a forest vocabulary in PIE, but no a steppe. PIE knew about existence of mountains (Ural), but not had mountain vocabulary, so as lived far from mountains. PIE knew marsh, but not distinguished between marsh and sea, believing that they are variety one and the same. PIE lived at the junction of EHG and CHG, which can only be in the Volga-Don region.
Synome
"Greco-Armeno-Phrygian"
Even only because of putting Greek and Phrygian in one group is a big reason to delete this tree from existence and go back to school again.
To put Albanian, Armenian, Greek as a base of IE languages is some kind of sickness, they are complete outliers here and had some marks of IE due to adopting if you get how far you are from the reality.
Phrygia is a country in Asia Minor, but its inhabitants are Balkan migrants. This is evidenced by Herodotus -VII.73, Strabo -12.8.3, Pliny-V.xli.145 and Stefan Byzantine-Ethnic, Βρυκαι. Herodotus also explains that in ancient times the name of the Phrygians was a Brigi - VII.73. Not all of them migrate to Asia Minor. Part of the brigade remains in Thrace and causes a great deal of headache for the Persians (during the Darius march), destroying much of their troops - VI.45.
Although the Thracian origins of the Phrygian originate from several sources and are clear, in the 20th century influential people tried to enforce the belief that the Phrygian were not Thracian. The denial of the Thracian origin of the Phrygian is made in order to save the status quo. It is a dogma that the Greeks are the creators and spreaders of culture in Antiquity.
Of course you can stick to the dogmas if that's your orders or money income.
Here's the best model for Mycenaeans so far:
GRC_Mycenaean: (GRC_Minoan_Lassithi+GRC_Pelopponense_N+UKR_Catacomb+HUN_Baden_LCA, 2.1002, GRC_Minoan_Lassithi 56.63% GRC_Pelopponense_N 25.83% UKR_Catacomb 15% HUN_Baden_LCA 2.5%)
Blogger Jatt_Scythian said...
"What type of R1a was found in the Tarim? I know the authors said they were Z93-. These mummies are more likely to be Tocharians than Afansievo in my opinion. They are in the right time, place (east of Indo-Iranian languages) and with the right lineage (non Z93+ R1a).
How could Mallory and Kuzmina have been so wrong about Catacomb and Poltavka since they attributed them to be Indo-Iranian. At the very least they were Iranified cultures speaking Iranian languages."
Are you aware of the grave goods of Xiahoe R1a, grave goods like [copper/silver]- Metallurgy, horses, wagons ,pottery type and agriculture grains?
Compare them with the grave goods of Afansievo R1b-Z2109+
skip to 50min into lecture- compare R1a and R1b Z2109+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AQmEQAS7Dtw
So, Mycenaeans also have Catacomb ancestry. Overall, that means that the Greco-Armenian hypothesis has some genetic support.
“PIE lived in the area of large spread of bear and trees of middle zone, there is a forest vocabulary in PIE, but no a steppe. PIE knew about existence of mountains (Ural), but not had mountain vocabulary, so as lived far from mountains. PIE knew marsh, but not distinguished between marsh and sea, believing that they are variety one and the same. PIE lived at the junction of EHG and CHG, which can only be in the Volga-Don region.””
That’s not really scinece is it. That’s like linguistic clairvoyance . I know there are some linguists and indoneuropeanists who recite this garbage; but they’ve obviously morons
And who said PIE emerges exactly from CHG / EHG border ? Apart from you and Andrezcejewski ?
Let’s look at some facts instead - how can PIE emerge imma zone where pastoralism and kurgans only appears with Yamnaya ?
@a "I don't understand why it is hard to believe that there were successful males.
Try looking at it in terms of success wealth/resource male, able to have many male offspring in a certain amount of time, in a certain region."
What? You probably do not understand what elitism and egalitarianism. The division between elitism and egalitarianism has nothing to do with personal success, it is cultural. In an elite society, elitism is inherited and reflected in the material culture (burial, construction), the elite is a hereditary concept (there are a non-elite and leaders/kings/richers). Success doesn't matter in elite cultures.
In egalitarian cultures only personal success plays a role, all burials are equal, no personal success is inherited. The difference in the graves in them is only in what occupation the deceased was engaged in and how much he achieved success in this occupation. So, in Sintashta there are no leaders/kings/elites, where all graves are the same (тo rich no poor).
In CW also, there is all the difference is in how the dead have succeeded in heroic deeds in life, no elite burials.
@Mammoth_Hunter "It's not exactly scintigraphy, is it?"
I have reprinted linguistic facts from a scientific linguistic source, and your groans do not interest me.
"It's like linguistic clairvoyance . "
It's PIE lexical.
"I know there are some linguists and Indonesians who read this garbage; but they are clearly morons"
This can be said about you.
"And who said that the pie goes exactly out of the chg / EHG border ? But you and Andreevskogo ?"
That's all.
"Let's look at some facts instead - how can an IMMA zone arise where cattle and barrows only appear with a pit ?"
Barrows appeared long before the Yamnaya culture, they were found in the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk cultures.
@Synome
When knowing the commonly accepted positions of both Albanian and Tocharian in the IE tree, it is simply impossible to believe that these two langauges descend from one ancestral Proto-Albanian-Tocharian language spoken in Yamnaya.
@Archi
By 2000-1500 BC every population in the Near East knew the wheel, yet it doesn't mean that they all spoke a language descending from a Proto-Indo-Hettite dialect. Also, the Anatolians and Tocharians used a very different word for wheel when comparing them with populations speaking the remaining IE langauges that all descended from Late PIE, thus from a language spoken only after the Anatalion and Tocharian languages diverged from the branch ancestral to all remaining IE languages.
You mean the Armenians descend from the Babino culture? I strongly doubt this. There is no doubt that the Late Yamnaya people who stayed on the steppe were very strongly influenced by the Corded Ware-derived populations moving in the NPC steppe, and this could have been the major reason why ancient Greek and Sanskrit share so many similarities, so some linguists were confused by this and classified Indo-Iranian and Graeco-Phrygian as more closely related to each other than to Balto-Slavic, while in fact this only seems to reflect the relatively late interactions between the not-so-distantly related Post-Late PIE dialects spoken on the steppe in the Post-Yamnaya period. A very similar mechanism was likely engaged in modifying the Yamnaya-derived languages (Dacian and Thracian?) by the Iranian-speaking people from the North Pontic steppe.
@Davidski
I must admit I don't understand your objections. First, if Z2103 is found in a Pre-Yamnaya population on the steppe, how will it discredit my assumption that the Yamnaya folks spoke a Late IE dialect (let's call it Greaco-Armeno-Daco-Thracian)? Also, if Z2103 is found in some neighbors of Yamnaya after this culture expanded west and east, how will it make my scenario implausible? There were of course some Yamnaya-descending populations rather than Yamnaya itself that were repsonsible for spreading both Z2103 and IE languages to such destinations like Albania or Greece, yet this doesn't make their Yamnaya origin less important.
Additionally, I find it almost impossible to believe that it was exclusively some Corded Ware-derived waves of people that were initially responsible for spreading very different IE branches (including Tocharian, Anatolian and some Late PIE-derived branches, like Albanian, Greek and Armenian) in different directions, as this does not fit neither the IE tree nor the Y-DNA data we have. In other words, there is absolutely no correlation between the genetics and linguistics when assuming that only Corded Ware was associated with PIE.
What are the Corded Ware-derived Y-DNA lineages that are supposed to be associated with the Anatolians, Tocharians, Greeks, Albanians and Armenians in your scenario? Do your choices make any sense from the phylogenetic and linguistic point of view? When exactly those ancestral populations are supposed to have left your hypothetical Corded Ware-relatd PIE homeland?
Finally, I am not sure if this is what you propose, but are you suggesting that there were some non-Yamnaya Corded Ware-derived Z2103 lineages that were responsible for spreading the IE languages south of the Corded Ware territory? If so, what specific Z2103 lineages would you have in mind?
Modern Albanians are overwhelmingly Scythian_HUN, and we have no Thracian nor ancient Albanian genomes, so it's hard to establish to which IE populations and languages they're most closely related to.
@Mammoth_Hunter
"I was also reminded that Sintashta represents a continuity from Poltavka."
Sintashta is definitely not a continuity from Poltavka, I'd even say that they had not more than noise level ancestry directly from Poltavka and I frankly do not understand what is your motive when you suddenly start to talk about unrelated things.
I simply have an agnostic stance about the TRB -> GAC uni-parental markers (generally uni-parental, not just YDNA). Based on autosomes the GAC population incorporated a part of the earlier TRB population, not just put up a paralel existence with some gene-flow. We agree that the LN Carpathians had TRB ancestry (I mentioned that), so it is difficult to estimate the ratio of genome-wide ancestry for GAC, but I think that GAC had more TRB ancestry that what could have come "back" from the south.
"Yes, I am reminded of that, despite the fact we actually do have quite a few TRB (I2a1b, I2c, C1a; H2a2)."
Sure it is not exactly a stellar match to GAC to say the least, but neither the Carpathian samples. These late Neolithic farmers apparently had diverse YDNA and that is why a more dense sampling is needed. You could be right, but the uni-parental data is inconclusive for now. (I do not talk about male lineages specifically.)
@Michał
My point was that you can't link Yamnaya linguistically to any Indo-European speaking groups via Z2103, because Z2103 wasn't exclusively a Yamnaya lineage. And even if the Z2103 in some Indo-European groups ultimately came from Yamnaya, this doesn't mean that their languages did also.
Indeed, it's generally agreed that Armenian spread into the south Caucasus from the Balkans well after Yamnaya was gone. So even if many of these hypothetical Proto-Armenians carried Z2103 lineages ultimately derived from Yamnaya, they may have got their language from somewhere entirely different. But anyway, ancient DNA tells us that they may have carried I2c.
Early chariot riders of Transcaucasia came from...
And I never claimed that Corded Ware spoke archaic PIE, nor that it spread Anatolian languages to Anatolia.
But I suspect that a kurgan group from the western edge of the steppe closely related to Corded Ware was somehow involved in this process.
Most clades of Z2103 have modern representatives in former Corded Ware and Bell Beaker territories. Most of the major Z2103 clades have modern representatives in both former Corded Ware and Bell Beaker territories. However, a pitfal of modern DNA is that we don't know what were the distributions in ancient times.
Linguistically Albanian is neither Satem nor Centum, though it does have Satem form in many instances, as linguists like Pedersen, Kretschmer, Budimir, and Demiraj argued that it conserved the "three way opposition" which in most IE dialects was reduced to a double opposiion voiced / voiceless. Albanian and Luwian have this feature, which some linguists use to argue that the oldest IE stratum was also like this, neither centum nor satem. It would make the Satem dialects more conservative, after the full retaining of the three-way system, and the Centum dialects the most innovative. Martin J. Kummel is writing about this possibility (Konsonantenwandel, 2007).
The comments about the scythian hun by Juan Riviera are not factually correct, as is the Slavo-Macedonian Natsunoname who believes his bulgarian dialect is nto bulgarian but Mycenaean, who are actually thracians apparantly... Best to take any statements from that guy with a grain of salt.
@Archi
It is true that other contemporary cultures were not elitist, but regarding the BB culture, a kind of family elitism is clearly visible, because next to tombs with important grave goods (metal weapons, tools, v perforated buttons, wristguards) there are tombs that have nothing but a ceramic vessel or nothing at all. This means that some individuals or rather family groups were rich enough to dispense with goods that were undoubtedly very scarce (ivory, copper, cinabar etc ...) because they could easily replace them. But the important thing is that we have proof that this kind of family elite was not only linked to R1b-P312 because I2a are also buried in graves with much richer offerings.
Another interesting aspect that I don't know if it has been studied in other cultures is the cenotaphs- That is, offerings made to the dead but without the corpse. Obviously it was people who disappeared without their body being recovered (exploring, sailing, fighting, hunting or fishing)-In some cases the offerings are very important
And regarding the hereditary aspect of elitism, we know some children's graves buried with small wristguards and small beautifully decorated vessels and tombs of teenagers with very rich grave goods (copper weapons...). No doubt they were children of leaders of their communities, because they didn't have time to do heroic feats
In any case, associating elitism with language, seems to me as difficult as associating lineages or autosomal components with languages.
Scythian_HUN isn't genetically a Scythian. It is instead an acculturated local individual.
@Michał "You mean the Armenians descend from the Babino culture?"
Yes, that's so consider. And on this strong evidence not only archaeological, but linguistic and. Matter of fact. the Greco-Armenian IndoIranian languages is not monofilled branch, but language Union, resulting from a strong collaborative contact in which he developed a lot of language features specific to those languages, absentee in other IE languages. Such contact could only be between II Sintashta-Petrovka (satem) and the Greco-Phrygian (kentum) in KMK (Babino), which is well traced by archaeology.
Armenian (satem) goes back to the language from the heir of Babino culture, maybe from the Srubnaya culture or more western. Armenians/Muski were part of Sea peoples.
Dacia-Thracians (satem) are not considered by anyone as a branch of the Yamnaya culture, it is clear that they are a later offshoot of KMK or Srubnaya culture like Sabatinovka.
@Juan Riviera
Ah right, I retract my objection to the Scythian_HUN comment.
@ Mammoth_Hunter
"I was also reminded that Sintashta represents a continuity from Poltavka."
Absolutely impossible. There is not anything the Poltavka culture in the Sintashta culture.
@archi “According to linguistic and genetic data, the homeland of PIE is rather the forest steppe (forest) of the Volga-Don region to north of Samara and Alexandria, where were the maximum EHG and maximum R1a.“
Do you have a link to a study?
@Mammoth Hunter “That’s not really scinece is it. That’s like linguistic clairvoyance . I know there are some linguists and indoneuropeanists who recite this garbage; but they’ve obviously morons
And who said PIE emerges exactly from CHG / EHG border ? Apart from you and Andrezcejewski ?
Let’s look at some facts instead - how can PIE emerge imma zone where pastoralism and kurgans only appears with Yamnaya?”
I didn’t say that! I suspect that PIE had lots to do with interaction with an EEF border communities. Sredny Stog was already close to 20% EEF.
Archi said...
@a "I don't understand why it is hard to believe that there were successful males.
Try looking at it in terms of success wealth/resource male, able to have many male offspring in a certain amount of time, in a certain region."
What? You probably do not understand what elitism and egalitarianism. The division between elitism and egalitarianism has nothing to do with personal success, it is cultural. In an elite society, elitism is inherited and reflected in the material culture (burial, construction), the elite is a hereditary concept (there are a non-elite and leaders/kings/richers). Success doesn't matter in elite cultures.
In egalitarian cultures only personal success plays a role, all burials are equal, no personal success is inherited. The difference in the graves in them is only in what occupation the deceased was engaged in and how much he achieved success in this occupation. So, in Sintashta there are no leaders/kings/elites, where all graves are the same (тo rich no poor).
In CW also, there is all the difference is in how the dead have succeeded in heroic deeds in life, no elite burials.
If what you say is true then Yamnaya are very different, from Bell Beaker, Sintashta and Corded Ware. Yamnaya success was sometimes very violent among in group competition. That is why in a number of Yamnaya elite burials-they had signs of battle wounds[head/skull wounds etc....] In terms of display of wealth they also varied. Some kurgans displaying solid copper clubs[elite chieftain], some displaying metal molds[trade], some pottery[Repin 1 and 2 overlap Yamnaya], and some wagons-or parts of wagons[Placidol-Pontic–Caspian steppe-Altai] . Another difference beside violent competition[in group] and kurgan inventory, was the energy they put into their defense and housing. Sintashta-Arkaim were built as fortifications with moats. It has been suggested that there are very few if any settlements of Yamnaya, and they may have actually destroyed dwellings-[destructive].
@Davidski
This may explain the conundrum you gave copied bellow.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/cultural-hitchhiking-and-competition.html
- if the men of the Corded Ware culture (CWC) were, by and large, derived from the population of the Yamnaya culture, then where are the Yamnaya samples with R1a-M417, the main CWC Y-haplogroup?
- if the men of the Bell Beaker culture (BBC) were also, by and large, derived from the population of the Yamnaya culture, then where are the Yamnaya samples with R1b-P312, the main BBC Y-haplogroup?
- and, most crucially, if R1b-L51, which includes R1b-P312, and is nowadays by far the most important Y-haplogroup in Western Europe, arrived there from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, then why hasn't it yet appeared in any of the ancient DNA from this part of Eastern Europe or surrounds, except of course in samples that are too young to be relevant?
@a "If what you say is true then Yamnaya are very different, from Bell Beaker, Corded Ware, Sintashta and. Yamnaya success was sometimes very violent among in group competition. That is why in a number of Yamnaya burials of the elite-they had signs of battle wounds[head/skull wounds etc....] In terms of display of wealth they also varied. Some kurgans displaying solid copper clubs[elite chieftain], some displaying metal molds[trade], some pottery[Repin 1 and 2 overlap Yamnaya], and some wagons-or parts of wagons[Placidol-Pontic–Caspian steppe-Altai]"
There is no elite in Yamnaya graves, all burials of the pit are very poor and do not contain any attribute of elite. Wounds are in every culture, they are not a sign of the elite. All discern there are not concluded to wealth, and confined to the fact that the person had in life, someone that was an arrow, someone the club, someone pottery, one of the archaeologists calls the Yamnaya grave culture of the elite. Graves with wagons or their parts, of which few, has no wealth, they are just as poor, above them there are not even mounds. It is established that these are visiting strangers who just died in a foreign land and they were buried with what they had, with a wagon. They are not even men, but women with children.
Mammoth Hunter: Linguistic data and structure will be explained by linguistic models (whatever those may be); they won't be explained by gesturing at genetic parameters and implying that because there were lots of population movements, there must have been particular favored scheme of language movements. The language data are primary and the genetic data add support.
Slumbery: Sintashta is definitely not a continuity from Poltavka, I'd even say that they had not more than noise level ancestry directly from Poltavka and I frankly do not understand what is your motive when you suddenly start to talk about unrelated things.
I think we will need further samples to truly understand this; as I've said before, the Potapovka series that we have which is transitional in time (if not place, being from a broader array of sites than our Sintashta samples), between the Poltavka series we have and the Sintashta series we have, are quite diverse in affinity to MLBA vs EMBA (and also Central Steppe EMBA), and the Corded Ware sequence we have over time in the Baltic changes over time in its ancestry (and CWC is somewhat different in the level of steppe ancestry between series from Poland, Czech, Germany as well).
It may be coincidental that Sintashta can be modeled (autosomally in terms of broad y clade) almost entirely by CWC Germany, and they may actually be a mix of groups with more EEF ancestry with some ancestry from Poltavka. Y founder effects are also common at this time, which may go some way to explaining absence of R1b-Z2103.
The archaeological work does suggest influence from Poltavka / Catacomb.
@Jatt_Scythian
I believe this is just luck on the "I2a". There is I2-M223, we need to be specific here, and you can even get even more specific with an exact subclade which is found on the steppes/Yamnaya, but also in western-central Europe. There is a small minority of men in modern Pakistan, where I have seen this branch pop up, but it's low frequency, it's most likely from the same group of people from the steppes in ancient times. Likewise, there is a minority of Z2103 in Pakistan/India today, but it happened to not be found in the study, but it was probably there in ancient times. You're looking at a game of luck, and possibly some indication of which groups were successful in passing on the YDNA, and which were not. In the case of some steppe groups that brought I2-M223, and probably Z2103 as well, did not leave much of an imprint in South Asia. Therefore, there is probably some unsampled group of remains which is responsible for the Z93 distribution today. It's doubtful that it has anything to do with those few Swat burials.
@Matt "The archaeological work does suggest influence from Poltavka / Catacomb."
No there was no influence of the Poltavka culture, the influence of the Catacomb culture was, it has got spread widely and besides, by that time, was absorbed by the KMK. KMK had very a huge influence onto the Sintashta culture, the influence of the Catacomb traditions occurred through it.
Catacomb culture had a huge influence on the Poltavka culture, essentially Poltavka pottery is from the Catacomb culture.
@Matt
"I think we will need further samples to truly understand this; as I've said before, the Potapovka series that we have which is transitional in time (if not place, being from a broader array of sites than our Sintashta samples), between the Poltavka series we have and the Sintashta series we have, are quite diverse in affinity to MLBA vs EMBA (and also Central Steppe EMBA), and the Corded Ware sequence we have over time in the Baltic changes over time in its ancestry (and CWC is somewhat different in the level of steppe ancestry between series from Poland, Czech, Germany as well).
It may be coincidental that Sintashta can be modeled (autosomally in terms of broad y clade) almost entirely by CWC Germany, and they may actually be a mix of groups with more EEF ancestry with some ancestry from Poltavka. Y founder effects are also common at this time, which may go some way to explaining absence of R1b-Z2103.
Well, he Poltavka and Catacomb population was not just rooted out and evaporated. For example Scrubnaya apparently absorbed some as they have more than Sintashta (and I assume that their root population was similar to Sintashta) and yes, in Andronovo we see some more Yamnaya-heavy people. However the Sintashta founder group in average had no excess Yamnaya-related ancestry above Corded Ware.
It is of course possible that they started with more EEF and then it got balanced by assimilation of Poltavka groups, but I find it less likely. Sintashta developed from an eastern offshoot of Corded Ware and to find similar groups with more EEF ancestry we have to as far as Bronze Age West-Central Europe (for example the Beaker guys or Unetice). At least with the currently available samples. Let's just say that it is the more complicated model and in the absence of opposing evidence I choose the simpler one.
@Matt cont.
Now, it is not like I would terribly surprised if the more complicated model would be true in the light of more data and the existing diversity of the Sintashta samples can be interpreted this way.
I actually just run some nMontes on the extremes of that diversity.
"sample": "RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:Average",
"fit": 1.8232,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 68.33,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 31.67,
"sample": "RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0942",
"fit": 5.292,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 64.17,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 35.83,
"sample": "RUS_Petrovka_MLBA:Average",
"fit": 4.0683,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 64.17,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 35.83,
"sample": "RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089",
"fit": 2.204,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 68.33,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 31.67,
Now, this do not seem to such a big variation considering that I1942 is noted as "36% above group average", while I1089 as 15% below group average. However they have a completely different reaction to Dereivka as a reference:
"sample": "RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089",
"fit": 1.8543,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 60,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 24.17,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 15.83,
"sample": "RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0942",
"fit": 5.292,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 64.17,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 35.83,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 0,
"sample": "RUS_Petrovka_MLBA:Average",
"fit": 4.0683,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 64.17,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 35.83,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 0,
"sample": "RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I1089",
"fit": 1.8543,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 60,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 24.17,
"UKR_Dereivka_I_En2": 15.83,
Also the entire model does not seem to work for the samples that appear to be the most western. Like something is missing here. And it is not WSHG-related or CHG-related ancestry, I checked those.
I am not sure what this mean. Maybe Kuzmina was right in her work titled The Origin of the Indo-Iranians and Sintashta was was not an unity (at least at the beginning), but different groups were drawn there by the copper mines and fought for the resources.
However the difference that sets apart these samples does not seem to be a significant difference of Yamnaya-related ancestry that would hint a possible Poltavka assimilation.
@Mammoth Hunter
"Thanks for the advice ;)
But I know what I’m talking about"
Well that's good to know. I'm going to be open minded and assume that you're not Romanian.
"I was also reminded that Sintashta represents a continuity from Poltavka."
The Sintashta-like Poltavka guy is an outlier.
@Santosh Rajan
This may explain the conundrum you gave copied bellow. http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/05/cultural-hitchhiking-and-competition.html
Yes it might, but I think that depends on the ancient DNA results.
If M417, L51, P312 and U106 are missing from more and more Yamnaya samples, but they show up in steppe and steppe-derived groups other than Yamnaya, then I think the logical thing to do is to come up with a new framework in which Yamnaya is just one of the players in the massive migration from the steppe, and probably not the most important one.
@David
"the logical thing to do is to come up with a new framework in which Yamnaya is just one of the players in the massive migration from the steppe, and probably not the most important one."
This has been the case for awhile, though, hasn't it?
I guess it may have been obvious to some, but to me it started off as an anomaly that has recently grown into a major problem, and now needs to be resolved in some way, before yet another big paper comes out claiming that Yamnaya basically explains everything in this context.
I dunno, for me, as more and more samples came in, and there's no L51, the Yamnaya idea seemed more and more shaky. Then we get this Sredny Stog guy who could pass for Sintashta, centuries before Yamnaya proper even existed, and, yeah...now I'm not even sure why Yamnaya was thought to be the best candidate for the PIE homeland in the first place, or why it was assumed that Corded Ware must have been derivative, rather than just closely related somehow. Clearly whatever actually happened was a hell of a lot more complicated than any of us thought.
is there any literary or evidence from excavated script that Yamnaya or corded ware spoke IE? whats the earliest such evidence?
Now, you know very well that neither Yamnaya or Corded Ware left any written records. You also know why they've been associated with PIE.
@vAsiSTha
Is there any literary or evidence from excavated script that Yamnaya or corded ware spoke IE? whats the earliest such evidence?
Typical newbie argument.
Obviously, early Indo-Europeans didn't know how to write, so they didn't have any scripts. Only the Indo-European groups that eventually came into contact with literate non-Indo-European societies had scrips. Duh!
One solid piece of evidence that suggests Corded Ware was Indo-European is that it's the only plausible link between Balts, and their highly conservative Indo-European speech, with Indo-European speaking South Asians.
There are no other plausible, realistic ways to connect these groups.
@ Bob Floy
now I'm not even sure why
Because at the beginning it seemed that Yamnaya was a very recent EHG-CHG mix. In such case any sample that would show Steppe_EMBA ancestry would have to be derived from Yamnaya.
At that time the "steppe component" seemed to be a powerful genetic marker as specific as Y-DNA.
Now we know that CHG-like admixture in this region is way older and it's even theoretically possible to have different steppe groups with "steppe DNA" that don't share any recent history with each other, e.g. groups that were formed as independent mixes of CHG-like and EHG-like ancestors.
@Arza
"Because at the beginning it seemed that Yamnaya was a very recent EHG-CHG mix"
I know, but archeologists had pegged Yamnaya long before this.
Looking at the huge array of related steppe cultures, it's hard to see why now.
@Davidski
Historically, it was deduced from the archeological continuity of cultures.
Slavic language has more accurate grammatical and phonetic connections with Indo-Iranian than Baltic language. The Proto-Slavic grammatical structure is more archaic than the Proto-Baltic.
@Archi
Pretty sure that Baltic languages are more archaic.
@Bob Floy "Pretty sure that Baltic languages are more archaic."
Not in grammar. Only in phonetics.
@ Bob
Oh.
Maybe because until recently archaeologists and linguists were able to push their favourite BS theories without any fear that they will be scientifically verified? Yamnaya was simply "cool" for them, just like any other myths they've created.
Pretty sure that Baltic languages are more archaic.
One of the myths mentioned above.
@ Archi
Only in phonetics.
Probably not even there.
@Arza
Yeah, Yamnaya had been the favorite PIE homeland to archeologists for quite awhile, that's why the results from the "massive migration" study were so heavily anticipated when that came out, and why everyone was so puzzled by the particular R1b clade that turned up, it was the wrong one. We know why the steppe has always been a point of focus, but I'm not sure why Yamnaya, and not some other steppe culture. A lot of other erroneous things were claimed about Yamnaya years ago, they had invented the wheel(lol), so on and so forth. Looking back now it's hard to see why.
@Slumbery, looking the internal variation is not a bad idea but this signal can erase quite quickly with time. I guess my thinking here is that we have a shadowy window on the Sintashta founder group from looking at internal variation in the populations, since the Sintashta is dated 2100-1800 BCE, and our adna samples are largely dated to around 1800 BCE.
E.g. see in sequence - https://imgur.com/a/I3mUnMV (there are a very few of the y which have been revised since I made this though!).
If you go by the dates BP in Narasimhan's supplement the average is 1850 BCE, and earliest seems to be 1903 BCE. Some are potentially earlier.
There's not much in the data bridging when our Catacomb samples fade out at around 2300 BCE, and when the Sintashta and Petrovka samples pick up at 1950-1850 BCE, other than the Potapovka samples, who show diverse affinities and are from multiple sites (diverse within them all being fundamentally steppe like).
Most of the Sintashta samples are only from one site at the Urals, and there are lots of first-degree relatives, and likely undetected second degree relatives that they don't remove, but pick up quite a lot of outliers with different ancestries though which would be local to that area (and somewhat different from Poltavka). (Most of the outliers from this site seem to be children, but then, so are most of the main cluster - "The remains of about 130 individuals (predominantly subadults) were discovered.", which is a common feature of this period). Proportionately the number of outliers does not seem unusual compared to most sites they have sampled.
(As they state also "All these ancestry outliers were not obviously correlated to any archaeological features of the cemetery and the direct dates that we obtained were in the range of other individuals from the cemetery. The fact that these genetic outliers were interred simultaneously in the same grave pits with individuals from the main cluster of Sintashta individuals highlights the genetic heterogeneity of Sintashta communities that were nevertheless organized as single social groups.")
@arza, it will be interesting to see how diverse the CHG like ancestry ratios in the Khvalynsk 30 are. Maybe some will even be more CHG than the Piedmont 3? Or perhaps they will all have less.
@vAsiSTha said...
is there any literary or evidence from excavated script that Yamnaya or corded ware spoke IE? whats the earliest such evidence?
No writing, however there is actual evidence from kurgan burials that
Yamna culture were the first to utilize covered 4 wheel wagons on the steppe.They must have achieved this at a relative early date since Afansievo-3300 BC. had the same technology.
Sanskrit---
यान n. yāna wagon
छादित वाहन n. chādita vāhana covered wagon [Rly.]
Archi
''Barrows appeared long before the Yamnaya culture, they were found in the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk cultures.''
-> 'It is also interesting to note that complex monumental architecture is absent from the Northern Caspian area and the Lower Volga.'' [1]
Point 2:
''The clearest trend to emerge from the Samara Valley stableisotope data is the marked difference between the Eneolithicand the Bronze Age. This is interpreted as indicating a
substantially greater contribution of freshwater fish and no detectable C4
input in the diet of most individuals inthe earlier population, in contrast to a lower contribution of fish and a greater influence of wild C4 plants, primarilyvia grazing stock, in the later population. The timing ofthis shift can only be viewed in broad terms at this stage, pending a program of further AMS 14 C dating. The earliest Bronze Age individual comes from the site of Lopatino I, dating to 3339 to 2918 cal BC (95.4 percent confidence,), with stable isotope values (pastoralist] already typical of the Bronze Age group as a whole. The latest Eneolithic individuals attributed to the Eneolithic lack directradiocarbon dates but are placed in the period around 4000 to 3500 cal BC, with stable isotope values typical of that period as a whole''
This is science. Forget paleolexis
Kurgan cultures developed around the Dnieper & just west of it.
''No there was no influence of the Poltavka culture,''
Yes i thats my point. That was the claims of Slumberry
“Greco-Armeno-Phrygian would be more likely to descend from a post Yamnaya culture on the PC steppe, like KMK.“
At best a superstate
Greeks aren’t from KMK
In fact; the Z2103 in Armenia would be from Hurrian context ; whilst I2c is IE
@ Slumberry
''Sure it is not exactly a stellar match to GAC to say the least, but neither the Carpathian samples''
Did you look ? And have you thought that it might soon sure up in future studies ?
I4914 Iron Gates - northern Serbia - I2a2a1b2 (GAC lineage)
@ Matt
'' Linguistic data and structure will be explained by linguistic models (whatever those may be); they won't be explained by gesturing at genetic parameters and implying that because there were lots of population movements, there must''
I just outlined that linguists can't decide on exact tree typology, and its actually irrelevant for the big picture
They can also debate about the age of a language until the cows come home and use “statistics”, but if they propose a language is X thousand years old; but there was a complete population & cultural shift at X-2 Kya; then obviously their “statistics” are wrong. (Casting aside that the entire excercose is rather dubious)
So if you're suggesting to dimiss archaeogenomics- which studies the very real human actors which mediate the cultural & language shifts - a science - over your belief in 'linguistic statistics' , then thats just silly, but it certainly explains why why you propose that Basque is 9000 yers old - a rather comical proposition given that there was 4 population shifts between 5000 BC and 2000 BC in the region in question- whilst at the same time rejecting the very best tangible links between Vasconic & Baseque with an arm wave. Along the same vein, you proposed that I-A spread with R1b-Z2103 c. 3000 BC; but we now know that Z2013 reaches Iran in the Iron age. Whoops
@Arza said -"Oh-Maybe because until recently archaeologists and linguists were able to push their favourite BS theories without any fear that they will be scientifically verified? Yamnaya was simply "cool" for them, just like any other myths they've created"
Not only cool, there is also a lot of ideology and economic interests-Researchers must share and interpret the data obtained honestly. If, on the contrary, what you do is choose certain data or force some of them to fit in the theories that your bosses tell you that they have to square, the result is that 95% of the genetic papers in Europe (last 5 years) begin referring to the massive migration of the Yamnaya culture in mainland Europe-The damage is already done, rectifying is very difficult and it will probably take years to resolve the situation. The Western press has published thousands of articles talking about Yamnaya culture as the original of Western Europeans and making jokes about why Neolithic women preferred Yamnaya riders.
A perfect example is the Olalde's paper on BB culture in Europe- The Iberian origin of this culture bothered them to square their theory and since they could not deny it without making a fool of themselves internationally, they chose to deny any type of genetic exchange between Iberia and the rest of the European BB regions. To prove this, Olalde used the most surprising and wrong argument he could use.
"In central Europe, steppe-related ancestry was widespread and we can exclude a substantial contribution from Iberian Beaker-complex associated individuals. These results contradict initial suggestions of gene flow into central Europe based on analysis of mtDNA and dental morphology. In particular, mtDNA haplogroups H1 and H3 were proposed as markers for a Beaker-complex expansion originating in Iberia, yet H3 is absent among our Iberian Beaker complex-associated individuals”
The reasoning is surprising- In the samples we have analyzed (aprox 30 skeletons) we have not found H3, ERGO there was no genetic exchange between Iberia and the rest of Europe-
Well, H3 has been found in 7 neolithic and 6 chalcolithic Iberian sites (2 of them BB burials). It is older in Iberia than anywhere else in the world and has been found in BB sites in Germany, the Czech epublic and Sardinia-What can we think? - Hasty conclusions?, Lack of preparation?, lack of knowledge of Spanish genomic databases? neglect?
The result was thousands of post by amateur geneticists and thousands of press articles saying that the mystery of the BB culture had been solved because the Iberian culture was exported but there was no genetic exchange. Wonderful right?
Now it seems that L51 is not only not in Yamnaya but its origin has absolutely nothing to do with the steppes, so the Yamnaya culture has been totally ruled out - Can you find a better way to make a fool of yourself? No wonder there is people trying to find explanations and solutions
But there must be a logical explanation for the appearance of R1b-L51 in Europe? If not Eastern Europe, then Africa
Vasco-Ibero-Etrusco-Uralo-aR1bins
:)
@Mammoth Hunter
Another of the funny consequences of this controversy is the language issue. If R1b-L51 is truly in Northern Russia, first it will be necessary to check its antiquity and its origin (because in my opinion the Baltic Countries or Scandinavia cannot be ruled out). If it turns out that it is sufficiently old so that it is not possible to link it with IE language then surely someone is willing to affirm that he acquired the IE (and the steppe ancestry) by his contact with some steppe culture. If this were so, it would turn out that L51 / P312 changed language again in Iberia (2,500 BC) beginning to speak Iberian/Basque/Tartessian and in Italy (2,000 BC) beginning to speak Etruscan. We have been fighting against all kinds of fantasies but this will undoubtedly win the prize of honor.
And regarding Davidski's conviction that at some point L51 joined the CWC to reach Central Europe, we could also conclude that this lineage reached this region on its own and that when the CWC arrived some L51 were incorporated. We'll see because at the moment we can only speculate.
@Mammoth_Hunter
"This is science. Forget paleolexis
Kurgan cultures developed around the Dnieper & just west of it."
Pray for your untruth. Science you will not cancel, the first mounds appeared in the southern part of the Volga-don region in the Eneolithic. It is a fact that no Dnieper and especially to the West of it to the Kurgan cultures has no relation, the Dnieper was a deep periphery.
I won't forget anything because we cannot forget the scientific evidence, unlike you, which everyone forgets and ignores in favor of prоpoganda his politicized ideology.
@Mammoth Hunter, archaeogenetic and archaeological patterns will be compatible with many language dispersal pattern models, so unless you get more and better linguistic models to test against genetics (and in many cases it will be dubious that you will get any data that can test), you will be at risk of making up scenarios whole cloth.
Regarding "turnover" models that suggest Celtic, for instance, diverged from other IE at, say 2500 BCE (which is where Bouckaert's model does time the split, with Italic-Celtic at 3000 BCE), are not overruled by a suggestion that the region where they are attested today underwent complete population turnover after this (though in this case and with this timing it happens they didn't, as far as we can see), but simply suggest that the split happened in a different place.
Basque is not 9000 years old (what does this even mean to you?) and I have never said this, but it may well have been diverging from Iberian for 7000 years, if the two are related at all. Probably not 4500 years anyway, given how little headway there has been in reconstructing a genetic relationship between them. And there is certainly little to no evidence for a wider Vasco-Iberian outside SW Europe.
Sredniy Stog is not such a North. It is the latitude of Frankfurt am main, Luxembourg, Cherbourg and Penzance
@Vladimir
What makes you think that L51 has been found in Sredny Stog samples?
Mammoth Hunter: By the way, as I can remember your theory is, perhaps in somewhat simplified terms, that pIE was ultimately spoken in the Copper Age Balkans, then expanded from there via Corded Ware into Central Asia (and ultimately West and South Asia), and various other relatively late cultures into Western Europe and Anatolia? Or is that not the idea?
If so, that gives an upstream question of how the language got to the Copper Age Balkans.
I gather that you favour that this was ultimately from local East Balkan hunter gatherer people (the descendents of "Mammoth Hunters"?), not the HG people of the steppes. If so that seems difficult on the grounds of their very small influence of autosomes and y and even mt (no doubt explainable with enough epicycles of cultural transfer "known" through archaeology).
If not, and the language ancestor is then ultimately from Anatolia, and it seems like another modified version of the Renfrew hypothesis of IE from Anatolia, only with a long "hiatus" and much more language transfer from HGs initially in the spread across Europe, along the routes of dispersal (explaining Basque, etc.)
@Vladimir
"But there must be a logical explanation for the appearance of R1b-L51 in Europe? If not Eastern Europe, then Africa"
))) Eastern Europe is not only the Steppe, but other territory exists there like Baltics (Narva culture is R1b), Forest, Polesie, Dniepr-Donets culture (is R1b), etc.
If you take the region, Sredniy Stog almost unique combination of culture, resulting from the mixing of the population pastoral Khvalynsk culture on the population of the Dnieper-Donets culture., which consisted of hunters with elements of agriculture. This is known from both archaeology and anthropology. Dnieper-Donets culture was very closely related to the cultures of pit-comb ceramics, anthropologically the population in them was similar. I would say that the logical version is the penetration of shepherds L51 in the environment of hunters and farmers R1a-Z645.
@Vladimir
Thanks. You might be onto something there.
@ Vladimir
Sredniy Stog does not originate from Khvalynsk culture, it come from Don river. The Dnieper-Donets did not have R1a.
@ Matt
''By the way, as I can remember your theory is, perhaps in somewhat simplified terms, that pIE was ultimately spoken in the Copper Age Balkans, then expanded from there via Corded Ware into Central Asia (and ultimately West and South Asia), and various other relatively late cultures into Western Europe and Anatolia? Or is that not the idea?''
No it's not.
The multiple lines of suggest that IE emerged in the key interaction zone between a certain group of Eneolithic ''farmers'' (actually the earliest pastoralists) and hunter-gatherers in the western forest-steppe. For some reason, some people interpret this as a Balkan hypothesis, ut its not ; and is in fact nothing new. One just needs to refer to specialised works from the region (real arachaeologists, not western ''Indo-Europeanists'').
Now some people, e.g. Archie, can claim black-n-blue that the original Aryans are R1a people from the Dnieper-Don region, just as Carlos Bullshitos will claim that M269 are 'the original PIE', but that's little short of mythology, uninteresting & in all probability, they're both wrong
As for Celtic, no offence, Im very bored of debating this with you. I know what I know, and Im not going to change my mind on that.
Sredni Stog is a Pre-Kurgan archeological culture with evident relations with Cucuteni farmers (Inhumation in flat grave, not tumuli) and with CWC (corded ware pottery and stone battle axes)-
What makes you think that L51 were shepherds? Do you know what culture they come from?
Davidski,how do you think, based on the evidence so far, does R1b-Z2103 fit into the IE migrations?Was Yamna ever an IE speaker?Or how did R1b spread to Western Europe?Just your opinion.
@Mammoth_Hunter "Archie can claim black-n-blue that the original Aryans are R1a people from the Dnieper-Don region"
I didn't write, and nothing like this say about the Aryans. I know that you do not know anything about any topic, shamefully imagining things and it is perfectly visible to everyone else. You're just a screamer.
@Davidski
In a post a while ago you showed on a PCA that Baltic CWC was situated a tad more towards German CWC compared to the Kalmykia and Samara Yamnaya samples. We now have Ukraine Yamnaya samples, and while they apparently are all female I'm still curious if they fit more with Baltic CW compared to Eastern Yamnaya.
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/early-baltic-corded-ware-form-genetic.html
Does Ukranian Yamnaya look more related to CWC than Samara Yamnaya?
@Roidrage
How do you think, based on the evidence so far, does R1b-Z2103 fit into the IE migrations? Was Yamna ever an IE speaker? Or how did R1b spread to Western Europe? Just your opinion.
R1b-Z2103 was a common marker in several major steppe and steppe-derived groups, so it was definitely involved in the early IE migrations. But it's impossible to say whether it was present in the PIE gene pool from the very start. Possibly not.
I don't know if Yamnaya was an IE speaking culture. There's no direct evidence that it was, and the indirect evidence from ancient DNA suggesting that it was seems to be evaporating.
In regards to the spread of R1b-L51 to Western Europe, I think this happened via the Corded Ware culture, one way or another. More Corded Ware samples are needed, especially from Western Europe, to properly test this theory.
@Gaska "Sredni Stog is a Pre-Kurgan archeological culture with evident relations with Cucuteni farmers (in flat Inhumation grave, not tumuli) and with CWC (corded ware pottery and stone battle axes)- "
During the Sredniy Stog did not bury in mounds, they had only just invented, of course CWC did not exist. Ties with Tripolye of course were, but very very weak. Still, the Western border of Sredniy Stog is the Dnieper, to the West it spread only a narrow strip along the Black sea to the Balkans, and the Eastern border of Tripolye was the Dniester, with the spread to the Southern Bug. They hardly ever bumped into each other.
@Mammoth_Hunter
Manzura has long been outdated and he did not investigate the origin of the mounds, he described only the territory of the Ukraine and he was not interested in what is happening outside the territory of the Ukraine, he did not get attached to the time and described everything in bulk, confusing mounds and stone graves. He confused times and cultures. No one is guided by him because his works are useless.
@ Archie Sredniy Stog does not originate from Khvalynsk culture, it come from the river. The Dnieper-Donets did not have R1a.” Formally Sredniy Stog arose from the Culture of the Lower don. But she was already pastoralist. Even have a concept of the existence of Khvalynsk-Sredniy Stog cultural-historical community, they were so for archaeologists alike. I think the l51 line. was: Khvalynsk, the Lower don - Repino - Sredniy Stog. And Z2103 Khvalynsk-Yamnaiy
@Vladimir
In Khvalynsk there was R1b-V1636, neither L51 nor Z2103. R1b-V1636 hasn't spread anywhere.
In the Sredniy Stog everything was much more complicated, the Lower Don culture itself had complex relations with the Middle Don culture, which at the same time spread to Dnieper.
Archie
Where are carbon dates for “the earliest “ kurgans in Volga region ?
@Archie As for the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, it came most likely from the middle Volga culture through the middle don culture. After meeting with the alien population from the Lower don part of the population of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture went to the North. Apparently they took part in the formation of the culture of Pit-comb ceramics. Genetics Dnipro-Donetsk culture is not investigated, but I think that this is R1a
@Vladimir "Lower don - Repino - Sredniy Stog"
It is impossible. Repino was mush later the Sredniy Stog.
@Vladimir "Genetics Dnipro-Donetsk culture is not investigated, but I think that this is R1a"
No. Genetics Dniper-Donetsk culture was investigated very beautiful. Dereivka I in most it is the Dnieper-Donetsk culture of Mariupol community. It is R1b, I2a (I2a may be Azov-Dnieper culture).
@ Matt
Btw mammoth -hunting was a phenomenon north - in the Plain from north-central Europe to Russia, Siberia , America
Different ecosystem further south
@All
The linchpin of the IE theory is Tocharian. ANY model proposed supporting the steppe theory (regardless of which steppe group you think are the original PIE speakers, or at least late PIE speakers) has to be able to move ancestry across huge geographic areas past the Altai mountains at around 3000BCE prior to the separation of the lineages moving into Eastern and Central Europe. As it stands, the Yamnaya > Afanasievo connection is the only one capable of doing that. So without beating around the bush, I'd like the community and particularly @Davidski to deal with this. If it so happens that Sredny-Stog or groups further West were the original PIE speakers and Yamnaya was a dead end, why do we see populations rich in Anatolian farmer related ancestry as late as 2700BCE in Globular Amphora populations in Eastern Ukraine? We also have lots of data from prior to that all over Ukraine and Central/Eastern Europe none of which have the right ancestry type to affect regions much further East at the time depth required to explain Tocharian. Any R1a related migration nests Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian with Tocharian which is also at odds with what virtually all linguists believe.
@Vladimir The mounds came earlier than the Repino culture.
@music lover Carlos Quiles
"PIE speakers) has to be able to move ancestry across huge geographic areas past the Altai mountains at around 3000BCE prior to the separation of the lineages moving into Eastern and Central Europe. As it stands, the Yamnaya > Afanasievo connection is the only one capable of doing that."
You're one of those brazen propagandists who deliberately write untruth to brainwash. You especially ignore the Tarim mummies with their European culture and R1a. About which you have already written many times.
"Globular Amphora populations in Eastern Ukraine? "
There was no the Globular Amphora culture and populations in the Eastern Ukraine.
"Any R1a related migration nests Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian with Tocharian which is also at odds with what virtually all linguists believe."
Do not put your personal fictions into mouths of linguists.
@Mammoth_Hunter
If Tocharian is R1a, it MUST based on the ancient DNA data be nested along with Indo-Iranian AFTER the split with Balto-Slavic. It would violate even the most basic sound laws like the Ruki shift.
@ music lover said...
"If Tocharian is R1a, it MUST based on the ancient DNA data be nested along with Indo-Iranian AFTER the split with Balto-Slavic. It would violate even the most basic sound laws like the Ruki shift."
This is full nonsense. What's the connection between R1a and the Ruki shift? No way. Everything you write is an unscientific nonsense.
@music lover
The link between Afanasievo and Tocharian hasn't been proven yet. It's just an idea that fits well with the generally accepted IE phylogeny.
Ning et al. claimed recently that they corroborated this link with ancient DNA, but the R1b they found in the Iron Age eastern Tianshan wasn't Z2103 or even M269. It was something specific to Huns and also related to the R1b in Botai people.
And I'm totally perplexed why you're claiming that unadmixed Globular Amohora farmers lived in eastern Ukraine around 2,700 BCE? That's idiotic.
Eastern Ukraine was largely populated by Yamnaya at this stage, although in some regions there were still pockets of older populations with very high ratios of local hunter-gatherer ancestry. Refer to Mathieson et al 2018.
But by that time, the Corded Ware people were spreading into Central, Northern and Western Europe, while their relatives, the Usatovo people, were in the eastern Balkans.
See, Yamnaya isn't necessary, unless you're the sentimental kind and you just like having it around for old times sake.
The phylogeny of the IE languages and R1a fit together perfectly.
http://s019.radikal.ru/i602/1602/93/737e7a159e02.png
@Davidski
I meant Globular Amphora in Central Ukraine and HG ancestry in Eastern Ukraine. The point is that we already have data from Ukraine and further west and it would be extremely bizarre if suddenly a new type of ancestry consistent with the typical makeup of Yamnaya (which are an extremely complex ancestry type rich in Iranian farmer-related ancestry) suddenly turned up in Central Ukraine. The Ning et al paper despite the issues with the Y chromosome data suggest that the autosomal ancestry fits well with the Afanasievo rather than Andronovo. The Eastern Ukraine Yamnaya samples you refer to are directly radio carbon dated to a good 600 years after the first appearance of that ancestry type in Samara.
Yet again, you deviate from the question at hand. Can you name a single sample from anywhere in Ukraine, prior to 3000 BCE that can help explain ancestry movement into the Tarim Basin. You can keep searching for sentiments sake. You will not find it, not now or ever.
@music lover
The Iron Age Tianshan samples from Ning et al. don't really have any Afanasievo ancestry.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/08/a-surprising-twist-to-shirenzigou.html
Apart from that, you don't appear to be clued in enough about what's coming up, so I'll let you go for now until after the next big paper or two.
@music lover Carlos Quiles
"I meant Globular Amphora in Central Ukraine"
don't delirium, there's never been any Globular Amphora culture in Central Ukraine. In general, very few globetrotters never went beyond Western Ukraine (Volyn).
@Brad Pitt "Tutankhamun had haplogroup R1b1a2-M269. :)"
It is unscientific rumor.
@Davidski
The Ning et al samples need to be properly investigated. I haven't run qpAdm models on them myself, but your models appear to integrate extremely disparate ancestries in both time and space - far too disparate to make any historical sense. In particular, the combination of Botai and Sintashta are creating a very Yamnaya like population. Botai is simply a population extremely rich in ANE ancestry sort of like Tyumen Hunter Gatherers, and adding that to Sintashta basically titrates the ancestry to be in line with Yamnaya/Afanasievo.
The second issue with your models is the insane number of outgroups many of which are correlated. I think simple tests such as keeping Ning's outgroups and sources and throwing RUS_Sintashta_MLBA on the right (along with their outgroups) and keep Yamnaya and Han on the left need to be done first. This should be an easy thing to check to see if the Shirenzigou samples share additional drift with Steppe_MLBA or not.
Finally, one thing that is clear from just the admixture plots is the lack of Anatolian farmer related ancestry in the Shirenzigou samples. This is a clear indicator that the samples lack Steppe MLBA ancestry. Moreover the authors claim they can fit simple 2 way models involving Yamnaya/Afanasievo using Han as the other source but cannot using any Steppe MLBA source. I think this to me is pretty good evidence if not totally convincing. The modeling could have been more thorough and tested other possibilities but as it stands I think they present a pretty parsimonious explanation.
Music Lover
You’re conflating a linguistic tree with Y phylogeny; it’s anthrololigxally very naive. I haven’t seen any significant understanding of the issues in your treatment
Mammoth Hunter: The multiple lines of suggest that IE emerged in the key interaction zone between a certain group of Eneolithic ''farmers'' (actually the earliest pastoralists) and hunter-gatherers in the western forest-steppe. For some reason, some people interpret this as a Balkan hypothesis, but its not
Ok, but if this is the case, still my question; is the language in your view then ultimately from the Eneolithic farmers, and thus most likely ultimately from Anatolia (and a variant of an Anatolian hypothesis), or from the Ukrainian HGs (and *close* to a variant of a steppe hypothesis, but one that de-centres the Volga-Ural and Pontic-Caspian steppe in the development of its Indo-European pastoral society)?
As for Celtic, no offence, Im very bored of debating this with you. I know what I know, and Im not going to change my mind on that.
Yeah, I find equally dull and I don't have any real interest in debating it with you either and really doubt I'd change your mind.
It's really for the purpose of the wider audience to point out that if there is a specific claim that Bouckaert and similar "old" dating IE trees show introductions of languages which would contradicted by absolute population replacements - and its not clear which language we are referring to - then the only absolute pop replacement (or close to it!) I know of in the lit is Britain. So I'm guessing you're referring to this, and at least in the case of Celtic, I am noting there is not actually a contradiction when you look at the date on their tree (not that Bouckaert's tree insists that a language splitting at a particular time must have done so where it is currently attested).
Btw, returning to your comment that: Along the same vein, you proposed that I-A spread with R1b-Z2103 c. 3000 BC; but we now know that Z2013 reaches Iran in the Iron age.
It's correct that we now don't have a BA Z2103 in Iran, though we still do have steppe ancestry in the form of I4243 (at 2326 BC, earlier than most of the Steppe_MLBA sequence, certainly than in Central Asia), and it would be interesting if we could find any of her male counterparts at this time (there must be some) and see what's going on with them (do they bear R1b-Z2103, a more local haplogroup, or what?). We don't know that Z2103 only arrives in Iran with the Iron Age, rather our samples which show steppe ancestry only in the Iron Age, or female.
But with the change of dates, it does still mean that in the Iron Age we now have 2 for 2 Iron Age Iranian steppe admixed male samples with R1b-Z2103 (F38 at Hasanlu IA and I2327 at Hajji Firuz IA).
There is no need for this to necessarily be correlated with any language (we have discussed the issues of timespan from Yamnaya, above), but it is of interest in light of Ryukendo's report of R1b-Z2103 in a Mycenaean grave and the finding of RISE397 - Armenia LBA/IA R1b-Z2103. No R1a detected in those regions and at those times, yet.
@Mammoth_Hunter
I'm using the autosomal ancestry which moves East (along with R1a Y chromosomes) as the real indicator. As it currently stands, there is no way to bring the genetics of any population West of Samara further East (which is required for the spread of IE to these places) without having Indo-Iranian and Tocharian split AFTER the split of Balto-Slavic. Unless of course you, @Davidski and others on this blog believe that IE was spread either by (a) cultural diffusion alone or (b) by the Anatolian hypothesis.
This remains an open challenge to the bloggers on this thread as well as the main poster. Provide a SINGLE sample prior to 3000 BCE west of Samara that can possibly explain the relationship between Indo-Iranian and Tocharian.
@music lover
Show us at least one real Tocharian to begin with! We demand this from you! Until then, don't delirious.
@ M_L
I already provided a link, and a/p points to Matt - the tree 'shape' is subject to debate (but such questions are beyond my main interest).
I have in previous threads explained why that there might have been a flat IE dispersal through central-south Asia, which yet also accounts for similarities b/w Balto-Slavic & Indo-Iranian otherwise missing in Tocharian, making it seem that it is an earlier split.
Does it not interest you that Andronovo got closer to Tarim basin than Afansievo ?
@Mammuth_Hunter
We have simple sound rule data to ground Tocharian as an earlier split. Tocharian is a kentum language without the ruki shift. There's no way you can argue for a position of Tocharian within Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic. The Yamnaya/Afanasievo connection to Tocharian also fall very neatly in line with this fact explaining why Tocharian alone in the East appears to be an early split of PIE as well as being Kentum/non-ruki and lacks shared most of the vocabulary for wheels and so on. Together with the data from Ning et al, suggesting Steppe EMBA as the source population for IA Xinjiang, the evidence is extremely tight I think.
@Mammoth Hunter
"Did you look ? And have you thought that it might soon sure up in future studies ?
I4914 Iron Gates - northern Serbia - I2a2a1b2 (GAC lineage)"
That sample is very old and there was plenty of time for the lineage to get to GAC territory a long time before the formation of GAC + we do not even know where was the birthplace of the lineage to begin with. At any rate it is missing from the Late Neolithic / Chalcolithic South-Central Europe (from Baden and from earlier groups living in the later Baden territory). In other words it is exactly as frequent in the Carpathian Late Neolthic as in the TRB (as far as current samples go). It could come up later, but has not come up yet.
We can close this discussion with this fro now and there is not a huge difference between our opinions anyway. You seem say the TRB YDNA was mainly replaced by new lineages from the South in GAC. Maybe you are right. I do not say it impossible or unlikely or anything like that, but I think that the data is inconclusive and the _partial_ autosomal continuity of TRB into GAC makes it possible that uniparental markers had mixed origin too.
In the recent Magdalenian continuity paper the authors noticed some El Miron and GoyetQ2 ancestry in a part from Europe's farmer samples. Most in MN Iberian farmers, some in GAC, French and British farmers, but absolutely none in SE European farmers.
We're talking roughly 3%, but it was within error bounds and with p-values over 5%.
@music lover "the evidence is extremely tight I think."
Only in your imagination. Naturally, there is no evidence of what you are saying.
Even if we imagine that these people did not come with the Xiongnu and not with the Iranian real Tochars, whose genetics both they resemble,
then there is always the fact that they could take over the language from the Tarim mummies' people who are from Europe and have R1a, and who arrived there before the hypothetical Afanasievans, whose traces no one can find at all in Xinjiang.
Not to mention the fact that if Afanasievans spoke Proto-Tokharians, it means only that Yamnayans spoke Proto-Tokharians and nothing else.
I think the PC steppe was crucial for the formation of PIE, but the focus on Yamnaya may be an artifact of the Haak study using Yamnaya to proxy the ancestry in CW, when we now have evidence that this type of ancestry was formed prior to the Yamnaya culture itself.
We've discussed the importance of populations of the Volga-Don steppe here before. What impact might they have had on the cultures to their west--cultures like Sredny Stog that likely were the ancestors of the Corded Ware culture?
I know folks here have many criticisms of David Anthony's work, and he was clearly mistaken about some important things (mass migration), but I'd like to present a purely archaeologically based argument from his book from the chapter on Sredny Stog:
"The origin of the Sredni Stog culture is poorly understood, but people from the east, perhaps from the Volga steppes, apparently played a role[...]Round-bottomed Sredni Stog shell-tempered pots were quite different from DDII pots of the Early Eneolithic, which were sand-tempered and flat-based[...]The round-based pots and shell temper seem to reflect influence from the east, from the Azov-Caspian or Volga regions, where there was a long tradition of shell-tempered, round-bottomed, everted-rim, impressed pottery beginning in the Neolithic and continuing through Eneolithic Khvalynsk.
Sredni Stog funeral rituals also were new. The new Sredni Stog burial posture (on the back with the knees raised) and standard orientation (head to the east-northeast) copied that of the Khvalynsk culture on the Volga."
If we're looking for a way to get some eastern R1b into a R1a rich Dniepr region population that gave rise to Corded Ware, this seems like a good candidate to me.
andrew said...
"R1b and R1a seem to well sorted for there not to have been some sort of cultural or political division between ancient populations in which one or the other was predominant, perhaps different languages."
my guess(es)
1) i'm assuming when the Black Sea was lower that large areas of what is now sea used to be wetlands and the division was ecological i.e. R1a lived on the steppe itself while R1b were wetlands foragers around the Black Sea (possibly extending along the rivers to the Baltic) and then something happened (sea level rise?) which lead them to move west along the rivers thus bypassing the R1a steppe territory.
2) from it's location i've always thought Samara itself most likely started as a trading colony (copper from Kargaly?) so the people buried there might have come from a trader population - and the initial spread of the missing R1b will be connected to that trade in some way.
(or 3) long before Yamnaya they were mammoth hunters stretching from Britain to the Pontic steppe but after they killed off the western branch of mammoth only the edges of their population distribution living near wetlands survived the extinction (i.e Doggerland (west edge ) and Black Sea (east edge) and then when the eastern branch of mammoth migrated west it was R1a mammoth hunters from the east who followed them (cos by then the ex mammoth hunters were adapted to their new wetlands environment - but although that makes a cool story iirc it doesn't fit the dna data).
so (sadly) discounting option (3) my guess is the missing R1b will be found either 1) in the Kargaly valley or 2) underwater in the sunken regions around the coast of the Black Sea.
@myself
"and the initial spread of the missing R1b will be connected to that trade in some way."
meant to be "may be connected to that trade...", not "will be"
@Juan, one interesting thing we find as we've had WSHG populations - who are a continuation of ANE, largely - emerge is that we don't seem to be getting a lot of basal R or any divergent R, mostly the same R1 that we see elsewhere. Mal'ta boy was divergent, but WSHG not. So there is homogenisation of R in th Upper Paleolithic, despite continuity of some structure.
@synome, the sets of y-dna from Ukraine so far are not rich in R1a: https://imgur.com/a/3f5sv6q ... but there is for sure no reason why one region at a particular right time and place not covered so far could not be.
In my plot directly above, last in the Ukraine_En sequence above, I5884 is an interesting sample; L23 Z2103, from Derivka, Ukraine, similar autosomal composition to the Alexandrian sample, date range median 2793 BCE in Narasimhan's paper.
Actually slightly later than Yamnaya Ukraine found 200 years earlier at Shevchenko not far to the southeast and east, or the Yamnaya Ukraine Ozera found at about the same place as I5884, 200 years earlier. I5884 not like Yamnaya or Corded Ware Germany or the Vucedol Croatia Z2103 from the same time. Later sample fallen into an earlier layer?
What makes Sredni Stog NOT a root PIE population with Yamnaya-Afanasievo as the Proto-Tocharian branch while CWC for the rest of the non-Anatolian IE languages?
@Archie I would focus on the Mesolithic and Vasilevka, where found R1a, R1b and I2a. Of course, you can work with dates. But archaeology and anthropology also point to three sources of formation of the population of the Dnieper-Donetsk and sredniy stog. The source of R1b is in Samara or related to her culture, I2a is pushed out of the Tripolye culture population of bug-Dniester culture, and R1a ? They couldn't be autochthons. Donetsk Mesolithic culture? An early version of pit-comb pottery?
@Davidski
While we spent a few weeks, months or years waiting for confirmation of L51 in deep eastern Europe, northern Russia or where rumors want to place him, we could also talk about what they have found in the papers of Bohemia, Switzerland......
@Vladimir
"I would focus on the Mesolithic"
I'm sorry, but Neolithic is a giant period, there was a Neolithic period between Mesolithic and Eneolithic.
"The source of R1b is in Samara"
Unreasonable statement. Villabruna helps you remember. Narva, Mesolithic Dnieper,...
"They couldn't be autochthons. Donetsk Mesolithic culture?"
Anthropology says that the Mesolithic population of the Ukraine disappeared in the Neolithic, which is fully confirmed by genetics.
@ archie
Where are those carbon dates from Volga kurgans ?
Names, Sites ?
chop chop
@Vladimir
"The source of R1b is in Samara or related to her culture"
The oldest known R1b is from a WHG sample 9,000 years before Samara.
@Gaska
While we spent a few weeks, months or years waiting for confirmation of L51 in deep eastern Europe, northern Russia or where rumors want to place him, we could also talk about what they have found in the papers of Bohemia, Switzerland.
I don't know much about these papers. What have you heard about them?
@Gaska
"we could also talk about what they have found in the papers of Bohemia, Switzerland......"
Ok, let's talk about it.
We're waiting.
Mammoth_Hunter said...
"@ archie
Where are those carbon dates from Volga kurgans ?
Names, Sites ?
chop chop"pffff
Oldest kurgan 4891–4694BC is placed in Tipki, north-west border of Stavrapolye and Kalmykiya.
etc.
@ Archie
What is your source for that alleged date ? What are the Oxcal number ?
Kryvyi Rig cemetery, burial 3; 495o BC (just west of Dnieper)
(Rassamakin)
All lines of evidence confirm Kurgan cultures developed in west Ukraine.
Kalmykia , Volga etc are not IE
They are Caucasians & extinct people
Mammoth_Hunter said...
" Nope
Oldest kurgans are in NW Black Sea region ; as per specialists"
Nobody believes your words, because they are unfounded and you are always deceiving, always you are disgraced yourself by your ignorance and fantasies and screaming propaganda. Your are full layman.
I'm not going to answer you anymore because it's useless.
@archi “Anthropology says that the Mesolithic population of the Ukraine disappeared in the Neolithic, which is fully confirmed by genetics.”
Which population was replaced by which?
Are you referring to Sredny Stog I being replaced by SS II?
@music lover
There's no Afanasievo ancestry in the Shirenzigou samples. They're like the Tianshan Huns and Sakas, except with more East Asian ancestry.
And they share the same unusual R1b subclade with the Huns.
You suck at this.
@Bob Floy said Ok, let's talk about it. We're waiting.
You don't know anything at all?
@Davidski-
There are surprises in the III Millennium, we may better understand the origin of the BBs.I'm surprised you don't know anything
@Gaska
"You don't know anything at all?"
About the studies you're referring to?
No, I don't. Tell me, or post a link.
@archi “Anthropology says that the Mesolithic population of the Ukraine disappeared in the Neolithic, which is fully confirmed by genetics
R1a, R1b and I2a were naked and Neolithic Darievka. Replaced by what population?
The same anthropologists say that " the Dnieper-Donetsk culture
— named for the site of the first discovery in the Dnieper and Northern Donets, is widespread also in Ukrainian and Belarusian Polesie in the Neolithic (genetic basis of local Mesolithic), in the future, media of the Donetsk-Dnieper culture in Nadporozhe, sea of Azov and the Donets Seversky was forced out, and partially assimilated by the tribes of seredniy stiğ culture and together with them could be one of the components of the addition of the old pit culture; in the Northern parts of the culture had a strong influence of the tribes of the pit-comb ware, and the Dnieper, Volyn and started to settle in Tripoli tribes. Hypothesis that the Dnieper-Donets culture has become one of the components trinecky culture of the bronze age»
@Gaska
I'm surprised you don't know anything.
I suspect that you may be referring to this...
- the Swiss Corded Ware samples with steppe ancestry are dated to earlier than the German Corded Ware samples with steppe ancestry
- R1b pops up in Bohemia in pre-Corded Ware samples
If so, I don't think that either of these things is a game changer. The first one is just a sampling artifact, and the second is only important if the R1b is P312 or M269.
@ Gaska
Could you at least be so kind to provide us with some Dates for that Switzerland samples ? How do they compare with the TMRCA and Origins of those subclads ?
@Davidski
Yeah, regarding the CWC, Haak has to start rethinking his claims or looking for new deposits to analyze
Regarding Bohemia, it is P312 but I don't know the exact date-In the same way that I am skeptical about L51 in Northern Russia, until I have access to the papers I will try not to speculate about it.
@Ric
https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/D5D7E53CF4D353B057E1860777B34E48/S0033822219000961a.pdf/multiple_radiocarbon_dating_of_human_remains_clarifying_the_chronology_and_sequences_of_burials_in_the_late_neolithic_dolmen_of_oberbipp_switzerland.pdf
It is a Neolithic dolmen with collective burials, but on paper they have analyzed more deposits, so for now we do not know where the steppe ancestry is.
@Gaska
As far as I know, the earliest P312 in Bohemia shows up in samples with steppe ancestry.
@Davidski
You know there is P312 in Bohemia, the steppe ancestry is the least important, the important thing is the dates and that is not linked to the CWC. If so it is the last nail of Yamnaya's coffin-It is a matter of common sense
@Vladimir
Neolithic Dereivka I has not R1a.
The population of the Dnieper-Donetsk culture does not continue the Mesolithic population.
@Gaska
I can't say that I know more than you about this, but your claim that the earliest P312 in Bohemia isn't linked to the Corded Ware doesn't sound right to me at all. Let's wait and see. Hopefully the paper doesn't take too long.
Post a Comment