It's been obvious for a while now that the Corded Ware culture (CWC) and its Scandinavian variant, the Battle Axe culture (BAC), originated on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. However, Malmstrom et al. drive the point home in a new open access paper at
Proceedings B [
LINK]. From the paper, emphasis is mine:
The Neolithic period is characterized by major cultural transformations and human migrations, with lasting effects across Europe. To understand the population dynamics in Neolithic Scandinavia and the Baltic Sea area, we investigate the genomes of individuals associated with the Battle Axe Culture (BAC), a Middle Neolithic complex in Scandinavia resembling the continental Corded Ware Culture (CWC). We sequenced 11 individuals (dated to 3330–1665 calibrated before common era (cal BCE)) from modern-day Sweden, Estonia, and Poland to 0.26–3.24× coverage. Three of the individuals were from CWC contexts and two from the central-Swedish BAC burial ‘Bergsgraven’. By analysing these genomes together with the previously published data, we show that the BAC represents a group different from other Neolithic populations in Scandinavia, revealing stratification among cultural groups. Similar to continental CWC, the BAC-associated individuals display ancestry from the Pontic–Caspian steppe herders, as well as smaller components originating from hunter–gatherers and Early Neolithic farmers. Thus, the steppe ancestry seen in these Scandinavian BAC individuals can be explained only by migration into Scandinavia. Furthermore, we highlight the reuse of megalithic tombs of the earlier Funnel Beaker Culture (FBC) by people related to BAC. The BAC groups likely mixed with resident middle Neolithic farmers (e.g. FBC) without substantial contributions from Neolithic foragers.
...
By contrast, the CWC individuals from Obłaczkowo in Poland (poz44 and poz81) show an extremely high proportion of steppe ancestry (greater than 90%), which is different from the later CWC-associated individuals excavated in Pikutkowo (Poland) [23], but similar to some other CWC-associated individuals from Germany, Lithuania, and Latvia [2,8,31]. Interestingly, these individuals with a large fraction of steppe ancestry have typically been dated to more than 2600 BCE, making them among the earliest CWC individuals genetically investigated. This observation, i.e. early CWC individuals resembled (genetically) Yamnaya-associated individuals, while later CWC groups show higher levels of European Neolithic farmer ancestry (Pearson's correlation coefficient: −0.51, p = 0.006) (figure 2), suggests an initial dispersal that occurred rapidly.
See also...
I remind you of the connection between the R1a tree and the Indo-European language tree
ReplyDeletehttp://s019.radikal.ru/i602/1602/93/737e7a159e02.png
Everything is confirmed by linguistic theory.
Is there a mistake in the map in Figure 1 of the paper? It shows the LN oll010 having zero EEF ancestry, but that can't be correct?
ReplyDelete@Angantyr
ReplyDeleteThey also got the ancestry proportions for RISE61 wrong. Way too little steppe.
what language did these bring into scandinavia?
ReplyDeleteInteresting is the Yellow dots near the Dark Green Dots. And Light Brown dot near the Yellow....So Poland like the migration route for R1b Steppe. However, which of those Poland samples are R1b and which I2a because some of the places is not far from Northeastern Poland ?
ReplyDeleteSo the R1a guy had up to 90% Steppe Ancestry...and it looks like R1a first migrated up the Dnieper and then from the Baltic/Northeastern Poland Southwestwards towards the Alps.
ReplyDeleteIf R1b is in the CW material horizon and my theory of a mountain affine Southern branch which was split from the main CW networks early on is correct, if you are lucky there will be more than single individuals only in Southern Poland, at the border to Slowakia.
ReplyDeleteRather look for the Carparthians and Slowakia for the ultimate origin, but in Poland not South of the line of Wroclaw - Lodz - Radon - Lublin.
North of that no or only scattered individuals by chance.
Compare with the Gorals in modern Poland. The best chances for Poland will be in the very same places for the same reasons.
The fully developed BBC didnt succeed as well in the wider, open terrain of the East in later times. I doubt their predecessors with less advantages did.
Thats the only explanation for them to be so difficult to find: They took a different path and specialisation.
And nobody should overreact to a single sample of Corded R1b in the North. It means nothing.
Only clans matter and they moved through the mountains.
And only the direct ancestors of BB paternal lineages matter truly. Because if a splinter group moved North and became a dead end, it doesnt tell you too much about BBs ultimate origins.
ReplyDeleteOnly the successful group is key, and they didnt jump between the Baltic and Carparthians by chance and without a plan, with or without CW pots.
@ zardos
ReplyDeleteIndeed that seems to be the case but there were at least 3 R1b samples, but where precisely from because there were also 3 I2a samples and I can not find where were who in that mentioned areas. Were they mixed up or concentrated in certain areas ?
zardos/ Option is quite plausible. They needed to get around the strong cultures that stood in their way. And this could only be done along the Northern Carpathians. Ukrainian Volhynia-Krakow-Ostrava-Brno-Vienna-up the Danube-Bavaria-Zurich. Apparently in the center of Poland was R1a-L664. But R1a-Z645 apparently went to the Baltic. On the way apparently broke off Z94 (Fatyanov), and Z283 arrived in Scandinavia and from there already got to the Netherlands and Germany. As a variant, the Z92 remained on the southern shore of the Baltic.
ReplyDelete@zardos
ReplyDelete"Only clans matter and they moved through the mountains."
What makes you think that? Nobody sees any BB movement through the mountains, nobody connects BB with the mountains. On the contrary, everybody sees the BB movement only by sea or rivers.
@natsunoame
"Those trees you've posted confirm only the opposite and the absence of a bond between R1a /by itself/ and PIE."
It is not true, there is a full and absolute confirmation of the full coincidence of both trees. Exactly, even the fact that all the linguists claim that the Germanic proto-language came from the confluence of two different dialects - one belonged to the Italo-Celtic group, the other to the Balto-Slavic-Albanian-Armenian group.
https://c.radikal.ru/c25/1908/56/b82d2c6369ef.png
The same mixture of two closely related dialects had experienced the Proto-Slavic language even before the collapse of the Balto-Slavic Union.
etc.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteI think what zardos meant was some of the Ancestors of Bell Beaker peoples...
But yes I think they migrated down the Elbe most probably by boat to the Low Countries. If they were part of Usatovo then they maybe were settled in the Carpathian Mountains very early on and acquired more Non-Steppe ancestry in that area early on....so looks more like distant relatives of Corded Ware separated by 300 plus years rather than directly involved in the Early formation of distinct Corded Ware...
Still think that that Salzmünde Tabiano Coloured horse was brought there by R1b guys....
ReplyDelete@Archi: And the BB got the Copper from the rivers only too? Yes, they were often close to the water and used it for transport, but thats not all.
ReplyDelete@natsu: Homeland doesnt matter, what matters is if you can defend your tribe and provide for it.
Central Asia was as IE as Germany, Scandinavia or Poland, but the IE people moved on or were eventually defeated, annihilated or survive in the form of small admixture at best.
Yes, IE steppe people came as far as Mongolia and China, but they were not able to succeed.
Should not make you wonder, Huns and Mongols made it to Central Europe in a similar way, they learned from the Scythians after all.
@Ric Hern
ReplyDelete"I think what zardos meant was some of the Ancestors of Bell Beaker peoples..."
I don't understand this, if there is no information about Beakers' ancestors, how can we talk about their sharp difference from Beakers?
If there is data that Beakers were distributed only along the seas and rivers, how can we conclude that their ancestors were only in the mountains?
Maybe they traded very early on up and down the river systems like Bug, Dniester or especially the Vistula and Elbe. 300 years is enough time to learn the ins and outs of boats especially if you are surrounded by all kinds of people who were maybe didn't take it well when you moved through their territory...?
ReplyDeleteTiefbrunn and Esperstedt are close to mountainous regions with later BB colonies too btw. River too of course. Kyffhäuser region was peculiar in the time of Unetice too and is known for its human sacrifices.
ReplyDeleteJust in case there is more to find there, it might be interesting to connect.
Looks like R1b guys learned very early on how to establish colonies rather than one connected stretch of land to build an empire....mmm...
ReplyDeleteThat they used the mountains, higher altitudes more than CW proper doesnt mean they actually lived in the mountains in their majority, but rather in the adjacent areas.
ReplyDeleteAnd especially in more Alpine regions you will definitely use the river systems for transport, even more so if you first mine, then process and finally sell Copper to far away places.
Actually you will try to secure the water path and scare away people which might try to RAID your convoys.
So you will have fortified places or allies established along the trade route in backward territory in particular.
The Danube and the Rhine were exemplary in this respect. They led an enterprise and clans.
But a lot of their resources and strongholds were on the mountains and close by.
"Looks like R1b guys learned very early on how to establish colonies rather than one connected stretch of land to build an empire....mmm..."
ReplyDeleteThat's why some preferred to speak of a phenomenon rather than a classic culture. But that was nonsense.
They just picked what they wanted and were, in the weaker West, able to hold it. In the East only as long as their networks were healthy and flourishing. Than they collapsed under the pressure of new people. But they retreated to their strongholds in the mountains in part, like Straubing and Adlerberg.
@Daviski
ReplyDelete"They also got the ancestry proportions for RISE61 wrong. Way too little steppe."
Well, if I dare to use G25 nMontes as standard vs. their qpAdm, then they underestimated its WHG ancestry too.
"sample": "Nordic_MN_B:RISE61",
"fit": 2.3853,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 54.17,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 35,
"DEU_Blatterhohle_MN": 10.83,
And GAC is something like 1/3 WHG already, while Blätterhöhle is at least half.
I used populations much closer in time, because nMontes is supposedly weaker in greater time depths, but stepping back to the same references the paper uses leads to perfectly consistent results:
"sample": "Nordic_MN_B:RISE61",
"fit": 2.6928,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 55,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 30,
"WHG": 15,
I wonder what causes the difference from the paper.
So were the early Polish CWC samples ~90% Steppe EMBA or ~90% Steppe eneolithic? (assuming that these are different values) What would be both the steppe EMBA and steppe eneolithic proportions in BAC, later CWC, Sintashta and Andronovo?
ReplyDeleteThe steppe Eneolithic/Yamnaya like component is supposed to be that high in the early samples, it decreased in all succeeding populations you mentioned.
ReplyDelete@TLT
ReplyDeleteThey apparently used Yamnaya as a reference for steppe, so Eneolithic. According to the paper, above it is said that some results are weird.
Zardos. Your version, I think, could satisfy and Gaska. By this logic the advance parties moved on, with a common language not yet formed. IE can in CWC was the language of international communication. When the vanguards got far ahead, like the Basques, they forgot the enemy, as they had no need of him. And the Celts, for a long time lingered in the environment of the CWC, already by the beginning of their settlement spoke the same language. The same thing happened to the Etruscans. And the Italians, like the Celts, have long lived surrounded by CWC and also learned IE.
ReplyDelete@ Vladimir
ReplyDeleteThere is still the proposed 3500 BCE plus possibility of PIE origins which puts it at the Common Ancestor of both Corded Ware and Yamnaya. This means that many Cultures with roots at the Lower Don and migrating through the Derievka area could have been Indo-European Speakers...So Usatovo could have been Indo-Europeans also.
Ric Herb. Yes, but there are concepts, in particular, Bomhard, that IE is like an artificial language that combines elements of the Uralic and Caucasian languages
ReplyDeleteSounds almost like crazy Carlos' theory. We aren't off to a good start.
DeleteUsatovo and especially Cernavoda will be IE I'd say, Yamnaya and BBC we don’t know, maybe, but don’t have to with the current information.
ReplyDeleteCWC and Cernavoda seem to be indispensable imho.
@Davidski "Well, the main Corded Ware marker is obviously R1a-M417, but R1b-L51 is also a Corded Ware marker, and so is I2a2a to a lesser degree.
ReplyDeleteBell Beakers were basically an offshoot of Corded Ware. The only thing that remains to be learned is which Corded Ware group they came from exactly.
Everyone will have to accept this sooner or later. Maybe even early next year."
What I can't wrap my head around is why CWC/BAC is 90% R1a1 while Bell Beaker is
almost wholly R1b. It's as if the offshoot of CWC or BAC that was to become the BBC had to be (of all possibilities!) from a very minor BAC or SGC haplogroup.
Andrejewski. The CWC was certainly a Union of tribes, not a single tribe. These tribes could coordinate their actions, but acted independently
ReplyDelete@Vladimir Are we underestimating the rate of WHG throughout every single population sampled?
ReplyDeleteRegarding the BBC phenomenon: is it a done deal to assume that all following Western European tribes that came after them: Halstatt, Unitece, LaTenne etc. are predominantly descendant from Bell Beakers or is there any other explanation in play, as in a ghost population rich with R1b?
ReplyDelete@Vladimir "Ric Herb. Yes, but there are concepts, in particular, Bomhard, that IE is like an artificial language that combines elements of the Uralic and Caucasian languages"
ReplyDeleteOutdated and obsolete! First, all common cognates between IE and PU are a one way street from Indo-European to Uralic; second, PU was quite late in appearance, and the first contacts between Proto-Uralic to any IE language date to contacts with Sintashta. Not to mention, that the PU was originally east of the Urals and nowhere near the Don-Volga confluence which was the PIE cradle.
Andrejewski. I, too, as the wondered, that if IE this language haplogroup I. But then arises not solved question about Indo-Iranian languages. All the same, the Union of tribes R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 is more real
ReplyDelete@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteIt looks more like a split near Derievka with R1a migrating Northwest and R1b L51 migrating directly West and meet up again near Southwestern Poland. When did R1b reach Denmark and the Netherlands ? 2800 BCE/2700 BCE ? If so then they had to migrate very fast if they only started after the Corded Ware reached Poland or Most Likely they were already West of the Corded Ware with a relatively similar Culture when Corded Ware moved into Poland...
@Archi the funny thing about Quiles is him asserting that R1a1-M417 Corded Ware people spoke a....URALIC language. That's why I don't take him seriously
ReplyDelete@Ric Hern "It looks more like a split near Derievka with R1a migrating Northwest and R1b L51 migrating directly West and meet up again near Southwestern Poland. When did R1b reach Denmark and the Netherlands ? 2800 BCE/2700 BCE ? If so then they had to migrate very fast if they only started after the Corded Ware reached Poland or Most Likely they were already West of the Corded Ware with a relatively similar Culture when Corded Ware moved into Poland..."
ReplyDeleteDo you think that R1a and R1b tribes were already speaking some sort of a very primitive Pre-Pre-Proto-Proto-whatever-Indo-European BEFORE the split between R1a and R1b occurred?
Andrejewski. This if you Ural consider language Fino-Ugric, haplogroup N. But with this haplogroup confusion not less than with R1b-L51. Its history is more or less clear from 2000 BC with the culture of mesh ceramics of the Volga region. As she there engulfed with the East at all not understandable. There is suspicion on Seymino-Turbinsky phenomenon, that they flew on Siberia as wind and not fact, that Fino-Ugric they brought with the East, not borrowed on path.
ReplyDelete@zardos "That they used the mountains,"
ReplyDeleteNo one sees them using the mountains. Simply, there CW in the mountains did not live, and BB lived along the borders of CWC.
Usatovo has nothing to do with the BBC, nothing to do with it. Usatovo is associated with the Hittito-Luwians, but not with the BB.
@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteNope. I think only certain tribes near the Lower Don Spoke Early PIE. If these tribes had both certain subclads of R1a and R1b then those clads are responsible for the formation. Anything earlier than the formation of the Steppe Componant or not directly linked to its formation I think is extreme speculation. Anything coming Later is divergence from the Original
So it rules out Khvalynsk or Samara but keeps open Vonyuchka or Piedmont_EN?
Delete@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteOf course, Bomhard is absolutely wrong, and there was no such fantastic union between the Urals and North Caucasus. He mistakenly, erroneously and utterly wrongly and totally groundlessly classifies any similarities between the North Caucasian languages and the Indo-European languages as the influence of the North Caucasian languages, while this is either archaism or the influence of the Pra-Indo-European language on the Pra-North Caucasian language.
But the Pra-Indo-European language is closely related to the Pra-Uralic at an older ancestral level - the Nostratic languages. Nobody denies this kinship now.
@Slumbery
ReplyDeleteI thought that Yamnaya was EMBA/EBA and that eneolithic would be something like Khvalynsk.
@TLT, "Steppe Eneolithic" kind of is hard to classify because it depends on how we are classifying groups who lived in the Western Steppe that may have had some Barcin and WHG ancestry, which is unknowable / a question mark at this point.
ReplyDeleteBut if we are talking about the groups like "Piedmont_Eneolithic" from just north of the Caucasus and the "Khvalynsk_En" samples from Khvalynsk cemeteries in the north at the Volga inter-fluve, the populations who are just composites of EHG+CHG, in theory...
Then one way to look at this is to go to Davidski's 2017 - "qpAdm tour of Europe: Mesolithic to Neolithic transition" http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/01/qpadm-tour-of-europe-mesolithic-to.html - and add together CHG+EHG. (Although this may be slightly outdated, so proportions may be slightly different.)
If you to that then CHG+EHG is: Yamnaya = 80%, Poltavka = 79%, CW Germany (later) = 55.8%, Srubnaya = 52.6%, Unetice = 42.5%, "Bell Beaker Germany" = 38.5%, Hungary Bronze Age = 17.4%.
(Modern people are difficult to compare exactly, because some CHG will be coming independently to them, probably for all populations except far NW and NE Europe, although the levels are probably quite low by the time it gets to Central Europe.)
@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteI think the split between R1a and R1b is too distantly in the past. Eg. I can not see Villabruna Speaking anything close to or even very distantly Indo-European like. I see it this way: 1 or 2 words does not make a dictionary. So even if there are 20 or even 200 similarities between different Ancient Families it is still very far from similar because 99% of the Languages is different.
Language Union (German. Sprachbund (German term proposed by Trubetskoy, used in many languages without translation) — a special type of community of languages that arose as a result of contact and convergent development. The concept of language Union was first explicitly formulated By N. S. Trubetskoy in the article "the tower of Babel and the confusion of languages" (1923)
ReplyDelete@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteI read about a comparison of PIE to Modern Indo-European Languages and percentages according to similarities. Can not remember where but they compared something like 2000 words. Todays languages only retained between 25 and 40 % that can be linked to the reconstructed PIE. So in arguably 6000 years Indo-European Languages lost between 60 and 75%. What will happen in the next 6000 years ?
@TLT
ReplyDeleteThe paper I linked to above is open access. You can have a look how the authors estimate the levels of steppe ancestry in their samples.
They use Yamnaya as the reference population, so the early Corded Ware samples are 90% + Yamnaya, not Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk or whatever else.
In the next 100 years, everyone will speak vulgar English, as once vulgar Latin became Italian, Spanish and Romanian :)
ReplyDelete@Matt:
ReplyDeleteYeah the EHG vs CHG combination wouldn't be consistent which could pose a problem. How about this question- how much EHG does:
-Khvalynsk
-Piedmont
-Yamnaya
-Early CWC
-Late CWC
-Battle Ax Culture
-Sintashta
-Andronovo
have? (with different EHG type of ancestries like Karelia, Samara .etc just being grouped under EHG in general). I suspect that Andronovo has more EHG than Sintashta does (while Sintashta has more WHG).
And do Latvians have the most amount of EHG proper ancestry today (from all sources combined)? (I remember seeing this qpAdm breakdown which gave Latvians the most steppe eneolithic + Narva ancestry).
@Davidski what do you think about it?
ReplyDelete@Archi “Of course, Bomhard is absolutely wrong, and there was no such fantastic union between the Urals and North Caucasus. He mistakenly, erroneously and utterly wrongly and totally groundlessly classifies any similarities between the North Caucasian languages and the Indo-European languages as the influence of the North Caucasian languages, while this is either archaism or the influence of the Pra-Indo-European language on the Pra-North Caucasian language.
But the Pra-Indo-European language is closely related to the Pra-Uralic at an older ancestral level - the Nostratic languages. Nobody denies it”
Nostratic is a failed idea. The language families in Eurasia may be related in deep time but the evidence is lacking. The proponents find cognates everywhere but the specialists in each family do not. A case of distance lending enchantment to the view.
Delete@TLT
ReplyDeleteWell, the transitional period between Neolithic and Bronze Age is a bit muddy for me, but I think Yamnaya cannot be called Bronze Age, or just EBA at the end, so not EMBA. Middle Bronze Age on the Steppe is Sintashta. Eneolithic is exactly the name of the transitional period, so it fits.
Regardless, the paper measured steppe ancestry with Yamnaya as a reference as usual. We don't really have anything better in CWC context, because pretty much that is the only steppe culture sufficiently sampled from the right time. Anything post-Yamnaya cannot be ancestral (or it even has CWC ancestry).
@Archi: Where did I claim that Usatovo is linked to the BBC? I did not.
ReplyDeleteCorded Ware seem to have favoured open, flat land for pastures and slash and burn simple agriculture.
BB used more advanced techniques for most parts of their life. I'm sure they used higher altitudes and more hilly, forested terrains in comparison, because thats where they did best even after their dominance was gone and larger networks collapsed.
You mind telling me where they got their Copper from?
And whats the Lech Valley to you? Norddeutsche Heide?
I consider it a mountainous habitat and they had to adapt to higher altitudes because of the mining business. The workers need food.
@TLT
ReplyDelete"I suspect that Andronovo has more EHG than Sintashta does (while Sintashta has more WHG)."
Andronovo is much bigger Geographically than Sintashta and much more diverse, especially towards the end, so it is difficult to make a comparison like this. But if we must, then the Andronovo core founder groups are pretty much identical to Sintashta. As for the others: southern admixed groups had less EHG than Sintashta, while heavily assimilated groups with older P-C steppe ancestry probably had more.
"And do Latvians have the most amount of EHG proper ancestry today (from all sources combined)? (I remember seeing this qpAdm breakdown which gave Latvians the most steppe eneolithic + Narva ancestry)."
Modern Baltic speakers have the most European HG (WHG + EHG combined) ancestry, but if it is only EHG, some Uralic speaking groups in the north probably beat them.
At 20 000 years a Solitary R1b Group could have changed into at least 2 distictly different Language families with only internal linguistic changes...
ReplyDelete@zardos "Where did I claim that Usatovo is linked to the BBC? I did not" It was not for you, it's got a lot of separation blank lines in it.
ReplyDeleteThe BBC is not tied in any way to the mountains, look at the BBC distribution map. That they found themselves in the valley of Lech just by chance, in other places they do not live in the mountains. There is no association of BBC and mountains.
------
Sintashta is not from the Middle Bronze Age, but is MLBA or LBA, the very beginning of the Late Bronze Age, we can say that the LBA in the steppe began with Sintashta.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteLanguage families aren't linked to specific Y-haplogroups, they're just associated with them indirectly.
But usually each language family is associated with a couple or more phylogenetically distinct Y-haplogroups, like R and I.
So there's no way to know what the situation was 20,000 years ago, and no way to use Y-chromosome phylogeny to learn about the dispersals of prehistoric languages, because there's no way to directly link the mutations on the Y-chromosome to specific languages.
And that's in part why Carlos' efforts are so crazy and hopeless.
@Slumbery:
ReplyDeleteThe qpAdm breakdown in question gave Latvians more steppe + Narva than the Uralic populations, but the Uralics had a WSHG component. I guess the WSHG component might have been confused as EHG in the past, thus giving an impression that the Uralic affinity to EHG is due to apparently high EHG ancestry (as opposed to WSHG ancestry which would raise this affinity).
Regarding EHG in MLBA, pretty much all of the global25 runs that I have seen (which include various EHG groups as input) give Krasnoyarsk more EHG than Sintashta, then again it was the poverty version of global25 (and I didn't have a WHG input group listed because, well 4 input limit). Probably the Afanasievo admixture in Krasnoyarsk is real? (I also recall seeing this inofraphic from https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/322347v1 which gives 40.8% EHG to Andronovo.SG and 30.2% EHG to Sintshta; furthermore the Narasimhan paper indicated that MLBA east was more EHG than MLBA west and MLBA west was more WHG than MLBA east- isn't Krasnoyarsk-Andronovo geographically east of Sintashta?)
@Slumbery “Modern Baltic speakers have the most European HG (WHG + EHG combined) ancestry, but if it is only EHG, some Uralic speaking groups in the north probably beat them.”
ReplyDeleteAren’t Uralic groups Baikal_HG with 60% European? I can’t see how the EHG would be > Latvians.
@Ric Hern “I read about a comparison of PIE to Modern Indo-European Languages and percentages according to similarities. Can not remember where but they compared something like 2000 words. Todays languages only retained between 25 and 40 % that can be linked to the reconstructed PIE. So in arguably 6000 years Indo-European Languages lost between 60 and 75%. What will happen in the next 6000 years ?”
ReplyDeleteWould you attribute it to a strong substrate from Anatolian Neolithic farmer languages and/or WHG forager languages for that lost vocabulary?
@TLT
ReplyDelete"The qpAdm breakdown in question gave Latvians more steppe + Narva than the Uralic populations, but the Uralics had a WSHG component. I guess the WSHG component might have been confused as EHG in the past, thus giving an impression that the Uralic affinity to EHG is due to apparently high EHG ancestry (as opposed to WSHG ancestry which would raise this affinity)."
No, some Uralic speakers in the boreal forest zone have direct EHG ancestry that come from the remnants of EHG that still pretty much persisted there when Uralics started to spread and diversify.
But please note that I never said all Uralics, I said some. Like Karelians.
As for Latvia have more Steppe + Narva: Narva is mainly WHG, even if it is somewhat EHG shifted compared to the WHG reference.
The WSHG confusion could be a problem, but then that will be a problem for even defining EHG. EHG is pretty much a cline between WHG and something similar to AG3 and the three EHG reference samples are not the same point on the cline. Karelia HG is eastern shifted compared to the Samara region samples.
@Andrzejewski
"Aren’t Uralic groups Baikal_HG with 60% European? I can’t see how the EHG would be > Latvians.
Definitely not true in this form. There is no European Uralic group that have aníwhere near 40% BHG ancestry. Also we are comparing different European ancestries here, so "European" is a meaningless category in this context. EHG is an European ancestry for example.
@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteNot just that but internal changes without outside influence as well. You just need an relatively isolated group of people with a Grandfather that speaks with a lisp and Grandchildren who imitate him to see how fast a language can change. Heheheeh.
ReplyDelete“ remind you of the connection between the R1a tree and the Indo-European language tree
http://s019.radikal.ru/i602/1602/93/737e7a159e02.png”
Haha. What nonsense
PIE is from WHG with EEF
@JuanRivera
ReplyDeleteIt's a search under the lantern. -> "If this place is not examined, it means there is nothing there."
@TLT
ReplyDeletenMontes is not the right tool to make a cross-fire of deep ancestries like this, so the exact percentages are not reliable, but still, this is what G25 nMontes says about WSHG in Karelians:
"sample": "Karelian:Average",
"fit": 5.9631,
"RUS_Sidelkino_HG": 53.33,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 30.83,
"WHG": 6.67,
"GEO_CHG": 5.83,
"RUS_Shamanka_N": 3.33,
"RUS_Tyumen_HG": 0,
"sample": "Karelian:Average",
"fit": 5.2929,
"RUS_Karelia_HG": 49.17,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 31.67,
"GEO_CHG": 8.33,
"WHG": 7.5,
"RUS_Shamanka_N": 3.33,
"RUS_Tyumen_HG": 0,
Since Karelia HG is eastern shifted compared to Sidelkino, using Karelia increases WHG and this, in turn, increases CHG, because WHG does not have CHG ancestry, but EHG does.
Even with Karelian HG, EHG ancestry is probably being over-estimated, but you can still see that it is hardly WSHG being confused to EHG.
@Slumbery
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of the EHG-WSHG thing. I have seen people make decent fits for EHG by just using mesolithic Ukraine + WSHG (I did not come up with this). What do you think of this?
https://pastebin.com/fbX1TyEe
EHG being 56.7% Ukraine mesolithic + 43.3% WSHG-like. Leading to something interesting or just smoke and mirrors?
@JuanRivera
ReplyDelete"Samara HG is also southern-shifted relative to the two other groups of EHG."
Yes, more specifically it has an elevated CHG ancestry over Sidelkino, suggesting that the CHG ancestry that coming up in later steppe populations already started to spread on the steppe that early (Samara is pretty far from the Caucasus).
@TLT
ReplyDelete"Speaking of the EHG-WSHG thing. I have seen people make decent fits for EHG by just using mesolithic Ukraine + WSHG (I did not come up with this). What do you think of this?
https://pastebin.com/fbX1TyEe
EHG being 56.7% Ukraine mesolithic + 43.3% WSHG-like. Leading to something interesting or just smoke and mirrors?"
There was a gradual transition between WHG and "ANE" in the entire of Eastern Europe and Ukraine Mezolithic is one point on that cline, while WSHG is another more eastern point on the same cline. (Give or take. It is probably off a bit, because it has some BHG ancestry AG3 lacked.) So I can perfectly imagine that you can mix out EHG from Ukraine Mezolithic + WSHG with a tolerable fit, but this not mean that EHG was born this way. All EHG reference samples are older that the WSHG samples to begin with and Sidelkino is older than Ukraine Mezo too.
You can observe this cline in G25 nMontes (populations west to east):
"sample": "SRB_Iron_Gates_HG:Average",
"fit": 3.1237,
"WHG": 87.5,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 7.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 2.5,
"GEO_CHG": 2.5,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 0,
"sample": "ROU_Meso:Average",
"fit": 5.7427,
"WHG": 70,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 20,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 5,
"GEO_CHG": 5,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 0,
"sample": "UKR_Meso:Average",
"fit": 5.8304,
"WHG": 51.67,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 40,
"GEO_CHG": 5.83,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 2.5,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 0,
"sample": "RUS_Sidelkino_HG:Average",
"fit": 5.3398,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 60.83,
"WHG": 33.33,
"GEO_CHG": 3.33,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 2.5,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 0,
"sample": "RUS_Tyumen_HG:Average",
"fit": 4.1866,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 90,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 9.17,
"WHG": 0.83,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 0,
"GEO_CHG": 0,
@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteTo see how fast a Language can change without much external influence you should go listen to dialects within a specific Language. I suggest listening to dialects in the Netherlands/Dutch or even Sweden. This will give you an idea.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteInteresting post. However I favour a forest steppe origin of CWC/ R1aM417 x Z93
The earliest monuments of CWC might be missing due to the expansion of GAC through the region
@Mammoth_Hunter
ReplyDeleteI don't understand the continuing fascination with the forest steppe, since it's been obvious for a long time that the only place where the early Corded Ware population could have originated was somewhere on the steppe, and even somewhat close to the Caucasus.
There is no way that CWC/M417 are from the forest steppe, as appealing as this might seem.
It’s the only feasible explanation
ReplyDeleteThe forest steppe is the homeland. The steppe is a place ventured to when conditions are right, and even then this was precarious, as can be seen by constant territorial & cultural shifts & lineage attrition there
I doubt we’ll see any R1a in Yamnaya (that’s early enough to be significant or real)
The fact that early CWC is claimed to be too Yamnaya -like / too little MNE means that it’s not from a pre-Yamnaya steppe group either
Myou shouldnt let Carlos’ F-U theory detract from the relevance of the forest steppe
We need samples from the Lower Don culture before anything else, because SSC/Dereivka and Yamnaya might be both descend from this very group. In the West SSC/Dereivka split into 2 or more new groups we might even associate with founding tribes for CW, CW/BB, Cernavoda/Usatovo.
ReplyDeleteThat way ALL POSSIBLE candidates, including the most likely predecessors of the Anatolian branch and even Yamnaya, could be derived from the Lower Don culture.
It might be wrong, but research should go in that direction to prove/disprove it.
Though honestly, what other viable options are left? The Lower Don culture is the single best candidate for the origin of all related steppe branches and therefore PPIE.
Zardos
ReplyDelete“Though honestly, what other viable options are left? The Lower Don culture is the single best candidate for the origin of all related steppe branches and therefore PPIE.”
You silly Yamnayists willl never learn
The steppe is a population sink
@SlumberY:
ReplyDeleteI know that WSHG (N) is more recent, but what if EHG was eventually formed in a multi-step process from a mixture of a Ukrainian WHGs (slightly mixed with ANE) + a WSHG-like population (ANE + Baikal-like recent east Asian ancestry though this shouldn't be very high, maybe 10%), with the series of the steps being completed in the early mesolithic.
Ad hominem again?
ReplyDeleteThe steppe was not always a sink and what's most important: The typical steppe genetic signature developed indeed on the steppe, in an area where EHG met CHG in the right proportion and we have cultural influences from more advanced cultures. The Lower Don was the place to be.
Also, the big leap forward happened indeed in the West, both culturally and demographically, in a situation in which the culturally more developed Neolithic cultures were weak and the then steppe wide spread PPIE population from the Lower Don was able to move in and take important areas.
Its then, only then, they jump on the forest steppe on the one hand and further into Neolithic territory on the other, with the first split taking place and the Northern forest steppe group became CW, the Southern Cernavoda/Usatovo. If BB were indeed from the same CW root, they might have been somewhat in between but more on the CW side, they moved directly West rather than North.
Does anyone know about the origins of sintashta architecture? Those fortified towns don't seem to have any precursors in corded ware or other steppe cultures. They seem to come out of nowhere.
ReplyDelete@ Zardos
ReplyDelete''The steppe was not always a sink and what's most important: The typical steppe genetic signature developed indeed on the steppe, in an area where EHG met CHG in the right proportion and we have cultural influences from more advanced cultures. The Lower Don was the place to be.
Also, the big leap forward happened indeed in the West, both culturally and demographically, in a situation in which the culturally more developed Neolithic cultures were weak and the then steppe wide spread PPIE population from the Lower Don was able to move in and take important areas.
Its then, only then, they jump on the forest steppe on the one hand and further into Neolithic territory on the other, with the first split taking place and the Northern forest steppe group became CW, the Southern Cernavoda/Usatovo. If BB were indeed from the same CW root, they might have been somewhat in between but more on the CW side, they moved directly West rather than North.''
Not really. You don;t really undestand what your talking about. You're just hopelessly seeking a compromise for your failed Yamnaya hypothesis
@Mammoth_Hunter
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about the PIE homeland for me and I don't care what Carlos Quiles thinks.
The idea that Corded Ware came from the forest steppe is irrational, and this is why it has absolutely no backing from the scientists working in this area.
This has got to tell you something about how certain it is now that Corded Ware expanded from the steppe.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete''The idea that Corded Ware came from the forest steppe is irrational, and this is why it has absolutely no backing from the scientists working in this area.''
I used the term 'homeland' as to refer to where R1 lineages were concentrated & replenished from . Which scientists said CWC is from the steppe. ? The main archaeologist from the paper in this post doesn't say anytign about CWC being from the steppe
Right.
ReplyDeleteYou derive CW from SSC/Dereivka? Y/N
If yes, what is your proposed ancestor for SSC/Dereivka?
If no which archaeological culture do you propose as a predecessor of CW?
I think the latest almost fully steppe early CW samples finally sealed the deal, but I'm curiosity how you will enlighten the "silly Kurganists" with your wisdom.
@Mammoth_Hunter
ReplyDeleteWhich scientists said CWC is from the steppe?
Are you serious?
They're even often saying it's directly from Yamnaya.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete''
They're even often saying it's directly from Yamnaya.''
oh you mean David Reich ? Who cares what he thinks
To be honest, I'm less and less interested in the PIE homeland debate because it seems to encourage irrational behavior. The only thing I'm interested in here are rational arguments.
ReplyDeleteThe claim that Corded Ware came from the forest steppe doesn't qualify as a rational argument, simply because early Corded Ware samples resemble the Eneolithic population of the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe more than any other apart from Yamnaya.
There is no way that a population like that from the Piedmont steppe lived anywhere in the forest steppe until the Corded Ware expansion.
To consider such a thing seriously is to behave irrationally.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete''The claim that Corded Ware came from the forest steppe doesn't qualify as a rational argument, simply because early Corded Ware samples resemble the Eneolithic population of the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe more than any other apart from Yamnaya.
'
I understand what the autosomal genomic ancestry of early CWC suggests, but you in turn need to understand the entire gammut of anthropology not just autosomal data
''There is no way that a population like that from the Piedmont steppe lived anywhere in the forest steppe until the Corded Ware expansion.''
Could that be because you aren't aware of the extreme mobility around the steppe, and that populations from the Piedmont zone were arriving in the forest steppe, and mixing with various resident groups ?
@ Zardos
''but I'm curiosity how you will enlighten the "silly Kurganists" with your wisdom.''
That's what been the effort. But as you've demonstrated, its like talking to a brick wall. So until you can actually scrutinise & generate data yourself, stop pretending you know what youre talking about.
''I think the latest almost fully steppe early CW samples finally sealed the deal,''
As I said in previous thread, maybe CWC & Yamnaya -steppe form a clade, but I don;t know why you pretend this seals any deal & what deal that is.
@Mammoth_Hunter
ReplyDeleteBut do you actually have any evidence that those early Yamnaya-like Corded Ware individuals came from the forest steppe, rather than just the assumption that high mobility in and around the steppe opens up such a possibility?
Considering the samples we have already from the steppe/forest steppe boundary in Ukraine, how are you actually seeing a population like Piedmont Eneolithic living anywhere in the forest steppe?
Where do you have this ancestral component all scientists that matter named "steppe" before the Lower Don culture? Give names and places or quite talking so arrogantly at all.
ReplyDeleteAnd it was seen like that by a long list of archaeologists too, they, even I, we all underestimated the actual genetic impact it had, thats all.
But the principle direction of the cultural spread was known by all experts which knew their stuff.
Now that we have all the solid evidence, you come up with steppe ancestry being what, an invention?
When asked what you propose instead you just come up with circular reasoning and ad hominem. To me thats unfair and trollish behaviour.
So come up with your genius alternative or quit it.
If you consider the steppe a complete sink with Yamnaya as the only true steppe element and its a dead end, you have little space for anything ancestral to have formed. Even less so if the whole West was influenced by Neolithic groups, but early CW had not much more of that ancestry than Yamnaya.The forest steppe too had neither the cultural nor the genetic ingredients to produce the predecessor of SSC and Yamnaya. You argue into nothing.
ReplyDeleteIts about acculturated steppe clans and they came from the Lower Don most likely.
But come up with your superiour solution from the nomansland. And since you always demand proper sources, better name great researchera supporting your speculation.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete''But do you actually have any evidence that those early Yamnaya-like Corded Ware individuals came from the forest steppe, rather than just the assumption that high mobility in and around the steppe opens up such a possibility?''
Of course I do.
There is an entire series of Yamnaya-like cultures in the forest-steppe, often called the Budzhak group, specifically the forest-steppe variant.
The CWC groups formed when Alexandria -like forest-steppe groups admixed with the very mobile Progress-like groups in the forest-steppe ecotone, and then moved north toward Baltic & Poland. This neednt be the exact scenario, but somethinkg like it played out.
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
"RUS_Progress_En" 43.55
"UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En:I6561" 41.55
"UKR_N" 10.7
"RUS_Samara_HG" 4.2
d:3.2%
''Considering the samples we have already from the steppe/forest steppe boundary in Ukraine, how are you actually seeing a population like Piedmont Eneolithic living anywhere in the forest steppe?''
Because they moved there, as per above.
You said who argues for CW being from the steppe and it suffices their ancestry did, because it wasnt aliens flying clones westward, but people which walked.
ReplyDeleteBut you made it worse in the last comments:
"
Could that be because you aren't aware of the extreme mobility around the steppe, and that populations from the Piedmont zone were arriving in the forest steppe, and mixing with various resident groups ?"
So what, thats what I was saying all along except you can dispose the big mixture of the Lower Don folk, because it didnt took place.
Because if a big mixture would have taken place, the obvious similarity with more than 90 percent identity to Yamnaya in early CW much later and further West would have long gone.
That's why it sealed the deal.
@ Zardos
ReplyDelete''You said who argues for CW being from the steppe and it suffices their ancestry did, because it wasnt aliens flying clones westward, but people which walked.''
Okay. Now youre making about as much sense as Archie
You just changed your line of arguments while being pushed to it. You were just provocative for the sake of it. Now, out of a sudden, you accept "they moved" from the steppe (1) to the forest steppe (2).
ReplyDeleteSo what was the fuzz about? Calling other people names and trying to confuse readers? Nobody said Yamnaya any more, but Lower Don or Piedmont steppe as the ultimate, earlier origin.
@Mammoth_Hunter
ReplyDeleteYeah, there was a late Eneolithic migration from the steppe into the forest steppe, and eventually into Central and Northern Europe that gave rise to Corded Ware.
I'm not really a fan of the Yamnaya is everything solution, as you know, and I think we're dealing here with a pre-Yamnaya Pit-grave population.
I honestly don't care how this fits into the PIE homeland debate. I'm more interested in my deep ancestry in this case.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete'''I'm more interested in my deep ancestry in this case.''
And that's fine. So aren't you interested in specifics ? I though you dedicated your last couple of posts
@ Zardos
''''Nobody said Yamnaya any more, but Lower Don or Piedmont steppe as the ultimate, earlier origin.''
It's old news now that Progress Eneolithic- although imparting major autosomal admixture, did not lead to any lineages which correlate with IE -speaking groups. Quite the contrary, they can all be found in pre-Yamnaya cultures in the forest -steppe of Ukraine, as well as adjacent EEF-rich Eneolithic groups to its West.
I’m not saying this because I’m “anti-steppe” (whatever that means; and I’m a Russophile) ; it’s just what the data seems to demonstrate
Looking at the supplemental materials -
ReplyDeleteOne of the Neolithic Funnel Beaker individuals is very blond and blue eyed. The early CWC Poland individuals are dark haired and eyed as are the BAC samples. The late CWC individual from Estonia is fairer than the earlier CWC individuals. The Megalithic individuals are also fairer than early CWC and BAC.
Small sample size but interesting. Chalk one up for the idea that blond hair became fixed in the farmers.
@Tone Various people within population: Barcin, WHG, CHG and EHG had all a variety of hair and skin colors and shades. GAC had swarthy individuals, some WHG like Cheddar Man were dark at the same time that SHG, Narva and Erteboelle (assimilated into Funnel Beaker) were very light. It might eventually and ultimately turn out that many Steppe people had blond hair and blue eyes!
DeleteIt’s just not very comfortable for many folks to admit it because of WWII and its atrocities...
@Davidski @Ric Hern @Mammoth Hunter Can we agree that the original PIE homeland was somewhat close to the North Caucasus foothills, and that it could explain the CHG-rich admixture? Something like Piedmont_EN? More and more I’m starting to associate PIE with a CHG language. And it seems that the CHG component in Steppe populations in getting increasingly stronger from Sidelkino to Samara to Khvalynsk to Repin and ultimately to Yamnaya with 53% CHG, thus indicating that CHG spread into the Steppes most likely took place in the Mid-Neolithic rather than in the Post-LGM.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone agree?
I don't agree, because as soon as some steppe ancestry pops up in Bronze Age Western and/or Central Anatolia, and it will pop up there eventually, it's game over.
ReplyDeleteThe reason being is that the Caucasus has never been seen as a plausible PIE homeland based on a wide range of data, not just ancient DNA, except by a minority of linguists, most of whom come from there.
So, naturally, CHG is also out of the game, except the type of CHG that is found on the steppe as part of steppe ancestry.
@TLT
ReplyDelete"I know that WSHG (N) is more recent, but what if EHG was eventually formed in a multi-step process from a mixture of a Ukrainian WHGs (slightly mixed with ANE) + a WSHG-like population (ANE + Baikal-like recent east Asian ancestry though this shouldn't be very high, maybe 10%), with the series of the steps being completed in the early mesolithic.
Well, in the absence of samples it is only speculation, but I do think that the initial EHG formation happened in the Upper Paleolithic, when climate became warmer and the Caspian retreated too.
Also I don't see the BHG ancestry apparent in WSHG in any EHG populations. It should be detectable, because the EHG reference groups would be majority WSHG in that model, so a 10% BHG admixture in WSHG would be well above noise level in EHG. I think initial EHG formed before that ancestry reached West Siberia. (Some later population movements in both direction notwithstanding.)
@ Andrze
ReplyDelete'' Can we agree that the original PIE homeland was somewhat close to the North Caucasus foothills,''
There doesnt seem to be a whole lot happening there until the mid 5th century, so its hard to make a case for a terra deserta being the emrbyonic PIE homeland. Although the details are still not known somehow CHG made it north of the Caucasus probably via late hunter-gatherer networks. It was something of a red-herring, and to his credit Davidski pointed it out a while ago. So it essentially hitched-along for the ride.
If we want to equate PIE with the emerging kurgan cultures, then further west is where to look, and this is anthropologically water-tight, hence my inpatience at having to continually explain it.
Now, one can still debate where R1a-M417 originally came from, and how pre-pre-pIE links in with Yeneisian, but I'll leave that to you (& in any case, even WHG have some ANE admixture)
@Davidski "I don't agree, because as soon as some steppe ancestry pops up in Bronze Age Western and/or Central Anatolia, and it will pop up there eventually, it's game over.
ReplyDeleteThe reason being is that the Caucasus has never been seen as a plausible PIE homeland based on a wide range of data, not just ancient DNA, except by a minority of linguists, most of whom come from there.
So, naturally, CHG is also out of the game, except the type of CHG that is found on the steppe as part of steppe ancestry."
I have never said that PIE originated in the Caucasus, I did mention that I believe it ultimately came from a Piedmont_EN population just north of there. I added that it explains why Steppe people are rich in CHG: my theory is that it spread from there (Piedmont_EN) into Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog.
Some blogger here commented that the increase from Sidelkino -> Samara -> Khvalynsk -> Yamnaya from 5% to ultimately 53% indicates that the CHG spread was fairly recent, i.e. during the Neolithic and not the epipaleolithic times. Do you agree?
@Mammoth_Hunter "There doesnt seem to be a whole lot happening there until the mid 5th century, so its hard to make a case for a terra deserta being the emrbyonic PIE homeland. Although the details are still not known somehow CHG made it north of the Caucasus probably via late hunter-gatherer networks. It was something of a red-herring, and to his credit Davidski pointed it out a while ago. So it essentially hitched-along for the ride."
ReplyDeleteI'm talking about and referring specifically to "Piedmont_EN".
@Mammoth_Hunter "If we want to equate PIE with the emerging kurgan cultures, then further west is where to look, and this is anthropologically water-tight, hence my inpatience at having to continually explain it."
CWC is likely a direct descendant of Sredny Stog (II). SSII is an amalgam of Ukraine_Meso with other groups containing "Steppe ancestry" (my theory is some R1b PIE speaking tribe in Piedmont_EN) with a large (up to 20% if not more) of Barcin-like farmers, most likely candidates would be Cucuteni-Tripolye (85% Barcin, 15% WHG/Iron_Gate HG).
A poster named @Drago used to argue in favor of PIE developing in the western zone as a result of interaction with farmer languages (CTC, GAC?) but it's too early to trace any linguist influence to any farmer language at this state.
@ Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteI personally think that the CHG found in Steppe populations split very early on from the Caucasus (Late Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic) as can Archaeologicaly be seen at Kammenaya Balka and other areas near Stavropol etc. With this in mind and several thousand years of separation from the Caucasus groups I think their Language/s had at most 10% in common with Neolithic Caucasus Groups if anything at all. So like I said 1 or even 200 words doesn't make a dictionary...
That's not the point here. But nevertheless. Read about the formation of the Abashevo culture (Z93) and that's what came across. The place where the future Indo-Iranians faced a future in Western Europe. Gradually, a growing number of evidences for the formation of Abashevo antiquities on the Northern periphery of Yamna cultural and historical community, a kind of intermediate territory between the massifs of the population of the catacomb community in the South and partly East (which is associated with and poltavchanka antiquity), fatyanovo community (including Balanovsky and monuments) in the North, the middle Dnieper culture in the West (Krainov, 1972a, p. 36, Fig. 13). It is primarily on the territory of forest-steppe along the don and the adjacent southern areas of the Middle Volga region.
ReplyDeleteIt is here that the allocation of a kind of proto-Abashev monuments is planned: the early layer of the Sokolsky settlement near Lipetsk (Pryakhin, 1976a, pp. 59-60, Fig. 13), the earliest burial under the Vvedensky mound (Sinyuk, Kileynikov, 1976, p. 161, Fig. 2,1; p. 162, Fig. 3.12, pp. 165, etc.). Hence, there are known cases of finds characteristic of the abashevites of the oldest visloobushnyh axes, typologically close to the axes of the catacomb population (Korenevsky, 1976, p. 30), the oldest forged spearheads with an open sleeve, etc.
Finally, in the areas of Don known Eneolithic monuments such as Repin farm, ceramics which has a number of proto-abashevskih features: the tendency to bell-shaped, shell admixture in the dough, ornamentation drawn and wavy lines, etc. (Pryakhin, 1977, p. 124-127).
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteRead about the formation of the Abashevo culture (Z93) and that's what came across. The place where the future Indo-Iranians faced a future in Western Europe.
Unfortunately, this sounds like bullshit.
And it would even sound like bullshit if I wasn't aware of new ancient DNA results from the North Pontic steppe and the Balkans, but since I'm aware of these results, then my bullshit meter is now off the dial.
@Andzrej, it doesn't seem to make any sense to derive later CWC samples in Europe (like CWC Germany or the middle period Baltic CWC) from Sredny-Stog II, when we can derive them directly from the early Corded Ware samples in the Baltic and Poland, who are close to forming a clade with Yamnaya (as Davidski also lays out in this post), with contributions from local people which fit with the temporal trend.
ReplyDeleteWhy would we skip over the immediate populations ancestors we can see as moving into EEF territory in favour of a single sample one thousand years earlier with no clear direct connection? No reason to.
Also the Trypillian samples we have probably don't best fit as "85% Barcin, 15% WHG/Iron_Gate HG" either, but as being similar to Balkans/Hungary Copper Age with some elements from either Ukraine Neolithic, and "Piedmont Eneolithic", possibly both (not completely clear).
To be clear as well for purposes of thread, the Ukraine Neolithic not being well described as WHG-like really - mostly closer to EHG (though depends on method used!). If Trypillia samples are to be described as Copper Age EEF+anything, and we're avoiding studiously avoiding using EEF+Ukraine_N and Piedmont, they are probably better described as Copper Age EEF+EHG.
Graphically, using the West Eurasia 9 PCA data: https://imgur.com/a/iAhBDWZ
Davidski/ Most likely from the Balkans there will be data on z2124 Babino culture or even already Srubnaya culture. That is, according to radiocarbon Dating it should be no later than 2500 BC. If it is data older than 2500 BC, it will be a sensation, even for archaeologists
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteGet ready for a sensation then.
The most likely scenario seems to be a founding population like the Lower Don culture which expanded and dispersed early on. Since the R1a clan moved West, you wont find R1a soon after in the region .
ReplyDeleteWe habe no single sample from the Lower Don culture by now and those coming closest are still not close enough.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteThe most likely scenario seems to be a founding population like the Lower Don culture which expanded and dispersed early on. Since the R1a clan moved West, you wont find R1a soon after in the region.
I think this is true, and it's clearly a problem for the time being for the people who like to take ancient DNA results too literally.
But more samples will sort things out eventually, and apparently there are a lot of new samples coming soon.
Davidski/ "Since the R1a clan moved West, you wont find R1a soon after in the region.
ReplyDeleteI think this is true, and it's clearly a problem for the time being for the people who like to take ancient DNA results too literally".
The hypothesis, of course, is interesting, also shared by some Russian researchers, for example A. Klesov, but so far absolutely unsupported. When did you move, where did you move? As part of what culture? In the Neolithic or even Mesolithic? Where were they in Europe before the CWC?How did they get into Scandinavia? Where did you get 90% of the steppe component? I think it's much simpler. R1a is a culture of pit-comb ceramics, which occupied in the Neolithic all of European Russia from the Barents sea to the sea of Azov and from the Dnieper to the Urals and even beyond the Urals. These tribes never settled South of the forest-steppe. On the southern border of their range, they coexisted, starting from Khvalynsk, with R1b-M269 with the inhabitants of the steppe, who did not go North of the forest-steppe. And from there Khvalynsk-Lower don-Sredniy Stog-then the interaction of the population of early Ymnaiy, late Northern Tripoli and Western tribes of the pit-comb pottery culture gave rise to CWC.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteR1a is native to the Pontic-Caspian steppe. The oldest R1a samples are from the North Pontic steppe.
This is where the R1a-M417 ancestors of the Corded Ware people got their 90% + Yamnaya-like genome-wide ancestry.
The Pit-Comb pottery culture is not ancestral to Corded Ware. It was replaced by Corded Ware, and its R1a was replaced by the Corded Ware R1a-M417.
You should know this by now.
Davidski/ R1A in the Northern Pontic steppe is found in the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, which is part of the pit-comb pottery culture. I even read that the culture of pit-comb ceramics originated in the culture of Dnipro-Donetsk. That's exactly what I'm talking about. Yes, the CWC has replaced the culture of pit-comb pottery, but not the fact that by capture rather than evolutionary transition. All the more not fact, that all tribes R1a participated in CWC. I have very big doubts about Z93 and Z92.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteYou're obviously still confused.
The Corded Ware people and their R1a-M417 came from an Early Bronze Age steppe population closely related to Yamnaya.
@Vladimir: The way I see it IE might indeed be derived from DDC ultimately, but it was just one Southern group with increased CHG influence/admixture which developed culturally, probably in the Lower Don culture, and then expanded to replace the still backward remains of their DDC cousins which were a completely different people by then.
ReplyDeleteThere is no significant that other, "pure" DD people had a significant impact. They were replaced by the much more advanced mixed/Southern branch, of which CW was the main agent in former DD territory. They brought the HG people, especially their paternal lineages, to extinction.
Just look how rare to non-existent the Northern HG lineages we know about are. Most R1a around the World comes from the few successful clan chiefs which spread from the steppe.
davidski/ you are absolutely right! that's what I'm trying to prove. Beginning with the Khvalyn culture, the nearby tribes R1a-M417 and R1b-M269 began to mix. It's been 2,000 years ! By the time of the CWC, they already had, apparently, an inter-tribal Alliance, which allowed them to form a joint culture of the CWC and, apparently, IE. So much for 50% EHG and 50% CHG. Of course there were others, I2a, whose lands, Surskaya, Azov-Dnieper and partly Bugo-Dniester cultures, were captured by the Dnieper-Donetsk culture, and all of them were then captured by Sredniy Stog.
ReplyDeletezardos/ apparently so. Both clans lost side branches. The tribe R1a-YP1272 disappeared from R1a, although they were found on lake Onega. R1b, too, where the lost PF7562, which, mostly, now concentrated in Anatolia.
ReplyDelete@Davidski-The Corded Ware people and their R1a-M417 came from an Early Bronze Age steppe population closely related to Yamnaya.
ReplyDeleteIt is wonderful to stop hearing about Yamnaya culture as the origin of all European Prehistory. Now you just need to find that pre-Yamnaya ghost culture where M417 was hidden.
And by the way, could you ask your contacts again if in that mysterious culture there was also R1b-L51? or do you still think (like Spanish archaeologists) that its origin is in Northern Russia?
It seems to me that finding R1b-P312 in the CWC will not serve to clarify the origin of L51, and where it was in the III Millennium BC
You still don't know where and when R1b-L51 or rather L11/P310/P311/P312 joined the CWC?
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteSome of these pre-publication Y-haplogroup classifications won't work out, due to the low coverage of the samples and errors in the calls. They might even be published, but then get corrected after the BAM files are checked out.
However, as things stand, it seems to me that L51 originated deep in Eastern Europe, in the forest steppe or even the forest zone. Your contacts have obviously reached a similar conclusion after having a look at what's coming soon.
The L51 in Corded Ware samples is a somewhat different issue. I think that eventually L51 will be seen as a major Corded Ware marker, alongside R1a-M417.
And it's rather unlikely that L51 was picked up by the Corded Ware population in Central Europe or even in the Baltics. It looks like it came with early Corded Ware from the steppe or forest steppe.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteOK if I don't misunderstand you, L51 is a main marker of the CWC and migrated alongside M417 with the early Corded from the steppe or the forest steppe- And I suppose that they will therefore have the same origin, the same autosomal composition and speak the same language. I'm wrong? Then a group of L51 left the CWC and invented the BBC in Central-Europe and spread across Western Europe leaving their M417 brothers in Eastern Europe-
Is that the current vision you have of how events developed?
Is that joint migration you are referring the one that occurred between 2,900-2,600 BC? Or is it a previous migration that has not been detected?
Is R1b-P312 western or directly involved in that migration as part of the CWC?
Why do we have to discard the Yamnaya culture (3.300-2.600 BC) as a source of these migrations?
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteYeah, both M417 and L51 probably spread with the early Corded Ware population from the steppe, and P312 is likely to be originally a Corded Ware marker too.
I can't get more specific than that at the moment.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
I suppose you will say that because of the Bohemian leaks (P312-CWC) - You may get some unexpected surprise and above all remind researchers to review the BAM files and the dates before drawing hasty conclusions-
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteEven if some of these samples don't work out that won't change anything.
@Slumbery:
ReplyDelete>Also I don't see the BHG ancestry apparent in WSHG in any EHG populations. It should be detectable, because the EHG reference groups would be majority WSHG in that model, so a 10% BHG admixture in WSHG would be well above noise level in EHG. I think initial EHG formed before that ancestry reached West Siberia. (Some later population movements in both direction notwithstanding.)
Well I do remember the Dzudzuana paper modeling one EHG (Karelia) as having some (like a very small amount) of the Baikal-like ancestry under conservative estimates and gave a little bit of Baikal-like ancestry to all EHGs under speculatory estimates (this amount was even smaller and was probably within the single digit %). In all cases, the value seemed to be under 10% for the EHGs. This shouldn't be too surprising since according to the prehistoric Siberia paper by Fu et al, the Siberian region was inhabited at least partially by paleosiberians (sometime between 20,000 and 11,000 years ago) who were a mix of ANE + the east Eurasian ancestry of native Americans (which seems to be overwhelmingly ANE on the paternal and east Eurasian on the maternal side). So Siberia would have had populations with a little bit of recent east Asian-like ancestry as far back as the second half of the UP (post-LGM). This could explain the minor (less than 10%) of the Baikal-like ancestry that EHG had in the Dzudzuana paper.
@TLT “This shouldn't be too surprising since according to the prehistoric Siberia paper by Fu et al, the Siberian region was inhabited at least partially by paleosiberians (sometime between 20,000 and 11,000 years ago) who were a mix of ANE + the east Eurasian ancestry of native Americans (which seems to be overwhelmingly ANE on the paternal and east Eurasian on the maternal side). So Siberia would have had populations with a little bit of recent east Asian-like ancestry as far back as the second half of the UP (post-LGM). This could explain the minor (less than 10%) of the Baikal-like ancestry that EHG had in the Dzudzuana paper.”
ReplyDeleteNative Americans seem on the macro level as an admixture of MA1 population just west of Lake Baikal/start of Yenissey River who crossed the lake she mixed with a Transbaikal BHG population which was Ulchi-like. No one knows what language Ulchi (=“Devil Gate”) spoke originally because they switched to a Tungusic one along the way. That admixture somehow formed the ancestors of Chukto-Kamachatka and Magadan population, Nivkh, perhaps the Ainu and what not.
It’s almost hard to figure out whether the Inuit were more “pure” East Eurasian and Na-Dene were almost all ANE like the Kett. Also, in case other American Indian language families derived from an ultimate ANE source, it might or might not have evolved from Yenisseyan, Botai or Okunevo related source; it might even turn out that all these ANE languages were related 25,000 years ago, the time of Mal’ta Boy.
On the other hand, Native American languages DO sound on the phonology side very similar to EAST ASIAN languages per say (note the similarities to Japanese on words such as “Idaho”, “Iowa” and “Ohio”!
ReplyDeleteIt’s also a very interesting fact that Mal’ta Boy was found where he was found (just west of Lake Baikal) and was carbon-dated to 24,000 YBP. That fact tells us that his population was ancestral to any ANE populations that followed, it was exactly the nick of time just before they started spreading out up the Yenissey, across Lake Baikal and westbound.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteIn that you are absolutely right, Bohemia won't change anything.
1- We still do not find R1b-L51 in the steppes or in the forest steppe, or in Northern Russia or anywhere in Eastern Europe- I hope you're right and the researchers get us out of doubt soon
2- After having ruled out Yamnaya, we will still not know in what culture M417 or R1b-L51 originated
3-They will still not find P312/U106/Df27/U152/L21 in Eastern Europe. Obviously because they are all western markers
4-The oldest cases of R1-M343/L51 line, will remain those of Germany that all of us should know
5- There will still be older BB culture dates in Iberia
I suppose your Kurganist friends will be very happy to find P312 in the CWC, especially since anything is better than accepting Iberia's participation in this process. Please remind them that the Basques/Iberians neither speak nor have we ever spoken Indo-European languages and that this reality has been scientifically proven and that it can never be refuted. And also remind them that they have been ridiculous for years saying that the Yamnaya culture is the origin of all European Prehistory.
If they find early CW related R1b that would fit my model. If you expect a branch moving from the Carparthians westward along a mountaineous path, they will mach through Slovakia/Southern Poland (modern Goral territory) over the Sudeten and will reach Germany exactly in places like Esperstedt and Tiefbrunn.
ReplyDeleteSo this would fit a path along the mountains South of the Polish-Northern German Tiefland.
Obviously Bohemia-Moravia would be on the Trackball and being one of the most important positions to get.
Actually the path should be close to the former Czechoslovak state in the borders of pre-1938. You can see this as a direct continuation of the Carparthians into Southern Germany and the Alps topographically.
If that was the path and specialisation of the Southern CW branch which carried R1b, no wonder nothing was found in the Northern low lands so far.
1% of all R1b Males in Western Europe speaks Non-Indo-European. Somehow people do not hear the Indo-European Languages spoken around them...
ReplyDelete@ zardos
ReplyDeleteVery interesting idea.
@Gaska: They will find all predecessors of later steppe related R1 haplogroups in the DDC.
ReplyDeleteWe just need to find the population which made the first big leap forward and acquired the CHG ancestry before moving West for the 2nd cultural transition.
My best bet right now is (1st) Lower Don culture and (2nd) SSC/Dereivka related.
Also noteworthy: CW established huge networks in the North, as the BAC paper argued.
ReplyDeleteMost likely there were different such networks. One in the far North, around the Baltic.
But what of the Southern branch I talked about kept a network along the Czechoslovak state, Luke proposed?
They would have stayed in touch with the Carparthians and the Balkans and would have been able to block the Northern networks from new innovations!!!
That would open up all possibilities for the development of BBC in Central Europe and it would explain the advantage they had in comparison to the North.
By controlling Copper from the mountains and the knowledge from the South East they could change and keep their advantage from their Northern flatland cousins.
When the Carparthian-Balkan groups got in touch with Northern chiefs and Unetice formed, their network collapsed in CE, but not in the West.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteMay be, We have been looking for 5 years in the Yamnaya culture and now we have to look in the DDC. Ok we're in no hurry, we have a lifetime ahead
@Ric-
That 1% is enough proof to unlink R1b-P312 from IE, the best thing you can do is start to understand when your ancestors stopped speaking their Vasconic language and began to speak Celtic or any other IE language. At least we have been able to preserve our language for thousands of years, the rest of R1b is like a flock of sheep
Numantia victrix
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't be surprised if the origin of BB is connected with separate populations of Kelteminar, Dnieper-Donetsk or Pit-Comb cultures at the Baltic States. It is there that the combination of R1b and brachycephaly is observed.
Well, the way - to walk on the mountains is just some fantastic, this route does not indicate anything. Rather, by sea from the Baltic States or along the Vistula River from Polesie.
@Archi “I wouldn't be surprised if the origin of BB is connected with separate populations of Kelteminar, Dnieper-Donetsk or Pit-Comb cultures at the Baltic States.”
DeleteThey are all EHG (except for B.B.)
@Archi: If so, why do we have potential samples along my proposed route and not a single one from the much better sampled Northern flatland?
ReplyDeleteAlso, the BB brachycephaly was different and rather subdominant. One of the main reasons for its spread might have been a social signal, again contrary to CW, new adaptation, so selection and before all that inbreeding. They formed a network which was used for trade, cultural-technological transmission, military help and bride exchange.
The higher altitudes are notoriously undersampled anyway.
Thats why you have little of the Romano-Celtic population in Bavaria or the Vlachs in Romania and the Balkans, but mainly Germanic and Slavic burials respectively. But they were not gone, they just stepped up and mixed in later.
The primary reason for the typical BB type was inbreeding among people with the very same physical type.
Again, wherever they mixed indiscriminately, the numbers dropped drastically.
Thats one of the reasons old research did underestimate the impact in Iberia. The result of the mixture had BB traits, but the classic cranial shape became not widespread.
It also completely dropped in Unetice, even though a genetic input from BB is likely.
Only in their more isolated strongholds like Adlerberg it persisted.
Its like it is with blonde hair or blue eyes, it largely disappears in the mixed ones and becomes a minority element even in 50:50 admixture.
This too just underscores how close knit BB were and that they tried to preserved their uniqueness and distinguish themselves from others like a caste.
I wouldnt wonder if a typical specimen bride would have been more asked for in the elite. Looking at some wealthy burials, it seems so.
@TLT
ReplyDeleteEHG is unlikely to be a Mezolithic phenomenon, because Sidelkino HG is itself already dated at the very beginning of the Mezolithic and there is no reason to assume that it was the first of its kind. In fact there is a good reason assume that it was nowhere near to the first generation mixed population, as its WHG:Siberian ratio was apparently the same as the much later Samara HG, so a consolidated population already existed at the start of the Mezolithic.
And as for BHG ancestry: I can't see it when I model ANE with AG3, while WSHG very clearly shows it with the same reference. Now if AG3 was already eastern admixed compared to an earlier ghost population of ANE, then EHG is possibly so too and a test using AG3 as ANE would obviously not catch it. However the excess BHG in WSHG still remains, so the problem with WSHG + WHG = EHG remains the same.
zardos said...
ReplyDelete"If so, why do we have potential samples along my proposed route and not a single one from the much better sampled Northern flatland?"
It's a search under the lantern. -> "If this place is not examined, it means there is nothing there."
But even then you're wrong, you just don't notice you're uncomfortable.
Bell Beaker Poland Kornice [I6581 / HB0031] 2455–2145 calBCE (3825±35 BP, Poz-66185) M R1b1a1a2a1a2b1
Bell Beaker Poland Kornice [I6534 / HB0030] 2456–2149 calBCE (3830±35 BP, Poz-75936) M R1b1a1a2
Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4251, RISE1122 / Grave 7] 2431–2150 calBCE (3825±25 BP, PSUAMS-2321) M R1b1a1a2
Bell Beaker Poland Samborzec [I4253, RISE1124 / Grave 13] 2456–2207 calBCE (3850±20 BP, PSUAMS-2339) M R1b1a1a2
Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I5748, skeleton 575 (Jan) M22] 2579–2233 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C) M R1b1a1a2a1a2
? Poland Oblaczkowo [RISE1] 2865-2578 BC M R1b
See map of the BBC distribution.
Talking about brachycephalysis is a lot to fantasize about.
@Archi “See map of the BBC distribution.
ReplyDeleteTalking about brachycephalysis is a lot to fantasize about.”
Physical Anthropology is not really a reliable subject when it comes to alleged reconstruction. I’m sure that’s why @Davidski shuns away from discussing it on the blog
Poland Oblaczkowo [RISE1] 2865-2578 BC M R1b
ReplyDeleteClearly not a fully typed instance, and does not look like a return motion. Could be L51 ?
@Gaska
ReplyDelete"And also remind them that they have been ridiculous for years saying that the Yamnaya culture is the origin of all European Prehistory."
ALL European prehistory? Not very many of us ever thought that. Quite a lot happened in continental Europe from the Mesolithic up to the bronze age, lots of things that had nothing to do with the steppe. So only a few extremely narrow people, at most, ever thought that, nothing to worry about.
As for Yamnaya itself, yes, you're right; everyone can now stop focusing on it, and instead focus on it's sister culture which is just slightly to the west, is 70% or more identical, and shares a common origin. Positively-Earth shattering.
@Archi: "Talking about brachycephalysis is a lot to fantasize about."
ReplyDeleteOut of a sudden? You brought the Northern HG up, but they are not relevant. The increase of the CI in BB was mainly caused by the shortening of the cranium in a characteristic manner and this trait is subdominant.
This can be proven by the simple observation that it came up in a endogamous group (BB) and could only be seen as a dominant trait prmarily in the elite/free warriors/artisans/traders and higher status women as long as their networks were active. As soon as they mixed indiscriminately with different people, first to observe e.g. in Iberia, the cranial shape largely disappeared or drastically drops in the record. That's why you have such low rates in most post-BB cultures which didn't isolate themselves (exception: Adlerberg Culture).
That's the only reason its not reliable, the presence of some traits means more than its absence - like blue eyes it might be hidden in the mixture. In the past some even said BB disappeared, but now we know they didn't disappear, they survived genetically. Its just their most prominent trait which dropped in frequency quite drastically (e.g. German/Czech/Polish BB vs. Unetice in the same places) after the panmixture with the surrounding groups and newcomers.
Its also the reason why the steppe component further dropped in a lot of regions, because they didn't completely intermix before, but only after their caste like ethos and marriage pattern was gone. High status BB women travelled long distances and were highly sought after. This helped to keep up a unity of the ethnos. All recent studies prove this "exogamic-endogamic" pattern in the respective BB networks (there was more than one obviously). Yes, they took women from far away as wives, but the upper class mainly recruited from its own status group. Rather poorly equipped burials, quite often concubines or servants I would say, are less often typical specimen like those from the wealthy/typical burials.
"It's a search under the lantern. -> "If this place is not examined, it means there is nothing there.""
That's true, but it is true in both ways, for you and me alike. Also, I don't know for sure how they should have entered Western and Central Europe coming from the North East. Do you mind how they did circumvent BAC and the CE CW? Do you really, seriously propose they came from HG in the East Baltic region, went straight over the sea or through other CW networks, without leaving a trace, and suddenly appear on the Rhine and move downward to become the copper smith, traders and warriors we see? Its possible, things like that happened, but rather unlikely.
And the more finds we have from outside the Northern CW zone/networks, the less likely it is.
You realise how little sense that makes from the archaeological and cultural perspective, whereas a contact zone to the Carpathian-Balkan and secondarily Northern Italian cultures would be a perfect fit?
Where do you think they got their technological advantage from? Why did they appear on the Rhine first? This makes no sense at all. But ok, some strange things happened in prehistory. However, so far there is not enough evidence and a Southern route of CW related groups ancestral to BB is the most likely scenario. Coming from the Danubian system down the Rhine is much easier to accomplish then vice versa and the contacts to the South East might prove to be crucial for the whole cultural phenomenon.
@Bob Floy "As for Yamnaya itself, yes, you're right; everyone can now stop focusing on it, and instead focus on it's sister culture which is just slightly to the west, is 70% or more identical, and shares a common origin. Positively-Earth shattering. "
ReplyDeleteSo NOW CWC is only 75% Yamnaya lol.
I've always said that there must've been a long-term Neolithic interaction with various farmer (EEF, mostly Barcin-like) populations to its immediate west. Glad I've been vindicated :)
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteRISE1 is a very low coverage sample. More interestingly, the supp info from this paper mentions that poz44 - assigned to be a female sample - is from the same burial as RISE1.
"We note that RISE1 (48) is also described as the individual from Obłaczkowo feature E8-A. However, their genetic results differ from ours. They present this individual as a molecularly determined male that belongs to Y-chromosomal haplogroup (hg) R1b and to mtDNA hg K1b1a1 (48) while our results show this individual to be female, carrying a mtDNA hg U3a’c profile"
This is the second utter and complete mismatch between two samples from a same burial I know of, the first being the mtDNA from the Red Lady of El Miron, which initially was assigned H6, and then U5b by Fu et al.
@Andre; Sure there was interaction, but the admixture was about 10 percent when CWs core group and lineages were established. They just picked up farmer girls on the way to the West.
ReplyDeleteAnd like written in the BAC paper, bride exchange was practised most likely from one end to the other of this network. So FBC ancestry came to the East and North, was spread much further by CW than by FB before!
Also worth to notice that farmer girls were quite in demand it seems (attractive?), more so than HG ones.
Probably also because they were more civilised and had more useful skills.
Like producing pots and knowing agriculture.
Seems that was female transmitted in the North.
Epoch. Thanks. Yes, quite a dark story
ReplyDelete@zardos, not even "farmer girls" in the Baltic.
ReplyDeleteThe two early 'CW' females in the Baltic, I4629 (2882 BCE) and Plinkaiglais242 (2945 BCE), essentially look like they could be autosomally described as like Yamnaya with no additional EEF, just a small bit of extra Euro HG (but not near as much as late Baltic Corded Ware). Which would make sense with assumptions that there were no EEF people about in the Baltic, really, and these were new arrivals. Maybe each had one EuroHG grandparent 4 generations ago? (10%).
(HG girls may have been no less "in demand" than any others but in most regions there weren't many of them, if any. But in the Baltic and probably elsewhere in a broader NW European region, up to and including parts of Poland, Belarus and perhaps some parts of Russia there probably still were.)
The later samples Plinkaigalis 241, Gyavakarai1_10 BP and Kunila2 (2635 - 2460 BCE) have some EEF though, more like what is typical for the fairly late Corded Ware in Germany.
It looked dodgy on the basis of these earliest CW that there was an early CW culture which was 60-80% like Yamnaya, with the rest being mainly EEF. The new early samples from Poland in this paper just look to confirm what those early Baltic samples already told us.
@Matt: I know, completely agree, but one notion: The farmer component was "traded" in the networks in all directions, including the Baltic regions, while the local HG seems to have been picked up locally rather and stood there.
ReplyDeleteThat might have different reasons, but one seems to have been girls with farmer ancestry were quite mobile and sought after. If you think about it, it makes sense since they were probably more attractive (lighter and finer features), but also more civilised and skilled.
In a lot of premodern contexts, the skills of a bride were a major factor and Western farmer girls from the FB tradition surely had more skills to offer.
For the Baltic region with its underdeveloped economy they must have been like development helper. They surely were not just a solid worker for the husband, but a teacher for the women of the whole clan. Style, behaviour and practical skills.
@ zardos Your reasoning about brachycephalysis is pure fantasy. Too many letters. Just for the record, the Yamnians were also brachycrannic R1b. Brachycrannic is a dominant feature.
ReplyDelete"You realise how little sense that makes from the archaeological and cultural perspective, whereas a contact zone to the Carpathian-Balkan and secondarily Northern Italian cultures would be a perfect fit? "
Everything there in the northern path lies perfectly on the archeology, much better than in the southern path, which no one sees and has no idea how it could happen.
https://i.ibb.co/VHvcK6D/Bell-Beaker-Polish1.jpg
Only nonexistent people walk through the mountains. Your way is to cross a huge number of people nowhere leaving no traces on the mountains where even mountain goats do not go.
ReplyDelete@ Andrze
“I'm talking about and referring specifically to "Piedmont_EN".”
Yes I know. It only appears c 4500 BC
“of PIE developing in the western zone as a result of interaction with farmer languages (CTC, GAC?) but it's too early to trace any linguist influence to any farmer language at this state.”
Why not ? How do you know CHG was a more important substratum ?
You must still hold the old notion that EEF spoke Semitic
@Mammoth_Hunter “Why not ? How do you know CHG was a more important substratum ?
DeleteYou must still hold the old notion that EEF spoke Semitic“
Where have I ever said that?!
@Archi:
ReplyDelete"@ zardos Your reasoning about brachycephalysis is pure fantasy. Too many letters. Just for the record, the Yamnians were also brachycrannic R1b. Brachycrannic is a dominant feature."
Yamnaya was by and large not brachycranic, even on the contrary. But there were steppe people which were. This proves little for the examples I brought up, because what really matters for an inheritance pattern, as you might know, is what is dominant in the phenotype after mixture. The BB skull shape was not, its sudden disappearance after mixture with dolichocranic people proves it.
And I didn't say the BB lived exclusively in the mountains or lived predominantely there, but they moved along the mountains in the hilly terrain and most important: South of the Northern flatlands controlled by the R1a-networks.
I will have no problem to back down once the evidence is proving the opposite, but so far logic and facts favour a (relative to Polish-Northern German low lands) Southern route of expansion for a BB predecessor.
I'm happy to learn the opposite too, no problem. Just bring forward some proof. Might I remind you how that debate started:
"I wouldn't be surprised if the origin of BB is connected with separate populations of Kelteminar, Dnieper-Donetsk or Pit-Comb cultures at the Baltic States. It is there that the combination of R1b and brachycephaly is observed.
Well, the way - to walk on the mountains is just some fantastic, this route does not indicate anything. Rather, by sea from the Baltic States or along the Vistula River from Polesie."
So you have no idea how they should have come to the Alps, Danube and Rhine, but just speculate. And you use the argument the BB clans came up from some independent HG tribals up in the North, partly because there were brachycephals among them.
You didn't even realise that brachycranic skulls are not all the same. They have different shapes and inheritance patterns.
Yet alone you talk about HG clans ("Kelteminar, Dnieper-Donetsk or Pit-Comb cultures at the Baltic States", as you said) overtaking Corded Ware groups, moving right across all of Europe, through a lot of people and tribes and become the most advanced metallurgists of all of Europe North of the Alps out of a sudden. Just think about how much more likely that is in comparison to a route through/around the Carpathians directly heading westwards and keeping up a network to the Southern civilisations and Copper smiths in the Carpathians, Balkan and later also Italy and Iberia. They blocked the Northern CW clans from the direct trade and contact they profited from. That was their path to success. They didn't pull their cultural advancements out of a hat.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteStudy Yamnaya culture, Study anthropology of Yamnayans. Study BBC culture, Study BB anthropology.
I thought there was no need to explain that from the Vistula estuary to Jutland and the Netherlands (which are considered to be the oldest BBCs in Western Europe) there are solid BBCs. Distances there are scanty, and even not necessarily the way by sea, there have always been few people in Jutland and along the coast. It is believed that they have already spread from the Netherlands to the whole of Western Europe and further to the south of Central Europe.
Your way through all the mountains is fantastic, you didn't really paint it at all, just a set of words. You have not given any evidence, not a single argument in support of it. Like - all of him should be evaluated for originality and fantasy of the author. YOU HAVE ZERO ARGUMENTS.
This is not an argument at all about copper, since the Eneolithic in Eastern Europe began in 5000BC, so by 3000BC the whole of Eastern Europe had known copper processing for a long time, and in the south there was already the Bronze Age, and in its foundry version. Therefore, the backwardness of Western Europe has nothing to do with the fairly backward metallurgy of the BBC by the standards of Eastern and Southern Europe. In general, it is not clear how the BB did not pick up the Bronze Age by going south, because it is impossible if THE Yamnaya culture was long ago in the Bronze Age. The BBC had a very backward metallurgy by the standards of South-Eastern Europe.
That's true, by the standards of SEE and the NE they were backward, but not by the standards of Europe North of the Alps, like I said - could have added West of the Carpathians too, so West of the Carpathians and North of the Alps. Satisfied?
ReplyDelete@zardos
ReplyDeleteDid you walk the mountains? It's only in your imagination to walk the mountains easier than easy, but until recently it was a heroic act. In general, no one has ever heard of anyone walking on the mountains, they are usually crossed through the pass from valley to valley on the other side of the mountains.
The BBC in terms of metallurgy were no different from CWC.
Of course they didn't climb the mountains if they hadn't too, you are absolutely right and I never meant something else. Usually they will have used mountain passes, like the Prislop Pass: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prislop_Pass
ReplyDeleteThe strategically important Dukla pass:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dukla_Pass
And so on.
The real issue is that the Northern CW expansion was an enterprise and network apart, while there is plenty of space for a Southern route for other, distinct groups moving through mountain passes Westward.
Some of those passes were used and fortified by the Romans, large battles took place to secure the passages. This is not about climbing onto rocks for no reason. Its about strategic places and resources.
Whether BB was on a different level with their metallurgy? Well, I would definitely say so and in any case they had better access and more metal artefacts, that's for sure.
@Zardos: The farmer component was "traded" in the networks in all directions, including the Baltic regions, while the local HG seems to have been picked up locally rather and stood there.
ReplyDeleteYes, I think you're correct to note that farmer ancestry goes everywhere in CWC groups over time while enriched HG ancestry less so. Though again I would say about population size - likely that HG enriched groups had lower pop size.
And also note that there are fair few among the later Esperstedt German CWC (2500 -2050 BCE, approx 2250 BCE) who have high HG ratios, and among the later Polish CWC, two out of the three that are on the West Eurasia PCA, N47 and N49 (from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33067-w, approx 2250 BCE again) at least have HG ratios on the way to Baltic BA and Spiginas 2, and clearly different from a cline between CW and the Europe MN farmers.
See - https://imgur.com/a/QKC21RQ where I've marked out these two late Polish CWC samples
So I think there is still some movement of HG enriched CW related individuals about and broadly than in the Baltic alone, and during the third millennium BCE, just possibly there are fewer of them so they don't make such big demographic shifts. Possibly a low population size is why they might build up some specific drifts that combine and are detectable in later populations, after these groups come together more and have a population boom? Even if they form quite early.
I don't think what you suggest about different skills and strengths and reasons for selecting different wives is necessarily implausible though (it may be that early on more steppe partners were preferred for one reason by some persons in some circumstances, farmer partners by others, HG by a third). But it seems hard to really test and know what these people did and why they did, hence why I am harping in a perhaps milquetoast way on these ideas of simple demographic and climate stuff which seems easier to test.
Passes are used to pass through mountains to the valley. And therefore, they had to be in valleys like the Hungarian Plain, Bohemia, etc. 99.99% of the time. And in this case the mention of mountains is meaningless at all.
ReplyDelete@Davidski,
ReplyDelete"Yeah, there was a late Eneolithic migration from the steppe into the forest steppe, and eventually into Central and Northern Europe that gave rise to Corded Ware.
I'm not really a fan of the Yamnaya is everything solution, as you know, and I think we're dealing here with a pre-Yamnaya Pit-grave population."
But aren't Pit-Grave and Yamanya the same thing? If not, how are they different?
@Samuel Andrews “But aren't Pit-Grave and Yamanya the same thing? If not, how are they different?”
ReplyDeleteMaybe he meant to say “Pit Ware” or “Combed Ware”?
@Matt:
ReplyDelete"And also note that there are fair few among the later Esperstedt German CWC (2500 -2050 BCE, approx 2250 BCE) who have high HG ratios, and among the later Polish CWC, two out of the three that are on the West Eurasia PCA, N47 and N49 (from https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-33067-w, approx 2250 BCE again) at least have HG ratios on the way to Baltic BA and Spiginas 2, and clearly different from a cline between CW and the Europe MN farmers."
That's right, but it was noted here too: http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/search?q=kujawy
Like I wrote there, we have a case of a group settling down and doing their own local mixture with people which had, "by accident" higher WHG levels. Since they developed their own tradition in Kujawy, it was staying that way for quite some time.
Sure HG ancestry spread too, no doubt about it. But:
"I don't think what you suggest about different skills and strengths and reasons for selecting different wives is necessarily implausible though (it may be that early on more steppe partners were preferred for one reason by some persons in some circumstances, farmer partners by others, HG by a third). But it seems hard to really test and know what these people did and why they did, hence why I am harping in a perhaps milquetoast way on these ideas of simple demographic and climate stuff which seems easier to test."
Two comments:
1. Yes, such theories are harder to test, but its a huge problem if people don't consider such scenarios, just because they can't be proven easily in an empirical way and might sometimes be controversial. Because if you ignore these possible explanation, you come up with "the usual stuff" and what's "fashionable" right now, so you constantly hear about climate, diseases and at best social instability. But that's more often than not no real explanation at all.
2. Consider the situation in the Baltic region: The CW pastoralists were newcomers, they had their successful subsistence strategy and they could use natural food resources like the HG. But they were still in new territory and had, like elsewhere, a demand for fertile women.
So what would have been more obvious than taking Northern farmer girls with experience and letting them introduce their skills and techniques to supplement the animal products already present. Women did distribute important knowledge and techniques if being married far away. Whether they moved voluntarily or not, once they were in the new clan, they organised their new life as good as they could. So they copied styles from their new relatives, but interpreted it their own way - like pots and jewellery, but also more practical things and agriculture. I'm actually pretty sure about that. The mixed CW-FB groups were most likely the more adaptive agro-pastoralists and skilled farmer girls in high demand.
@Archi:
"And in this case the mention of mountains is meaningless at all."
No, because the mountainous environment provides a different way of life and modes of subsistence and defence, but also other material resources and not the least passages.
@Sam: "But aren't Pit-Grave and Yamanya the same thing? If not, how are they different?"
ReplyDeleteHe meant just Yamnaya and used both terms I'd say. What he wrote doesn't imply he meant them to be different, but just a people/culture before that cultural layer.
@Sam, this is for heads with my archaeological knowledge than I have but I will have a go at your question. As far as I can see the labels for these cultures are not totally agreed and the ranges of time spanned are not totally agreed upon.
ReplyDeleteDavid Anthony for'ex talks about "the early Yamnaya horizon which spread quickly across the Pontic–Caspian steppes between c. 3400 and 3200 BC" (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yamnaya_culture), while our samples for Yamnaya are mostly post 3150 BC, taking their median in their date ranges - https://imgur.com/a/NIZoIFM. Likewise - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhaylovka_culture - "Lower Mykhaylivka culture (3600—3000 BCE) is an early Yamna site of the late copper age of the lower Dnieper River, noted for its fortifications".
My assumption here is that Davidski simply means something along the lines of "Cultures which were on the Pontic-Caspian steppe and in some sense predecessors to the Yamnaya samples we have, dated post 3600 BCE (because this is the point after which wheeled vehicles are evident) and before the Yamnaya samples we have. Autosomally similar, with a wider distribution of y-dna variability.". Though he can say if this is anything close to what he is getting at - possibly the 3600 BCE bit is my unneeded addition, but it seems like a required constraint.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteThe early Pit-Grave culture, ~4,000-3,000 BCE, is still an Eneolithic culture and it's generally not seen as being interchangeable with the Yamnaya culture. Yamnaya proper starts around 3,000 BCE.
I'm pretty sure now that this chronological distinction will be reflected in ancient DNA, with R1b-Z2103 spreading across much of the Pontic-Caspian steppe with the expansion of Yamnaya proper.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteThe BBC's lifestyle was entirely connected to sea and rivers.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"The early Pit-Grave culture"
The Pit-Grave culture is simple translate from Russian the Yamnaya culture. There are No different between term of The Pit-Grave and Yamnaya. Separate Pit-Grave culture from the Yamnaya culture is not exists.
There are articles like this one by Russian researcher Morgunova that supports Davidski's equation of "Pit-Grave" in stages from 4000-2300, via an early stage equated with "Repin", a high classical stage associated with "Yamnaya", and then a late stage equated with "Poltavka" - https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/a26c/7db05f4cc932502cbb221cacca88d4e27652.pdf
ReplyDeleteSo it's not totally unconsensual use.
And there are a fair few cites for longer chronology of Yamnaya from 3600 BCE - 2600 BCE about as well. Dates and breaks not totally agreed upon. Talking about time and place probably more useful than labels?
@Andre
ReplyDelete"So NOW CWC is only 75% Yamnaya"
It always was. Not sure what you heard or from where, but that was the estimate from the "massive migration" paper of 2015, 70-75%, IIRC.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteBullshit.
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/16087
The Pit-Grave culture is divided into stages even in Russia, but only in Russia it's lumped with the Yamnaya culture, which everywhere else is dated to around 3,000 BCE.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteI've always said that there must've been a long-term Neolithic interaction with various farmer (EEF, mostly Barcin-like) populations to its immediate west. Glad I've been vindicated.
Bullshit.
Read the Battle Axe paper properly.
And some of Anthony’s dates for Yamnaya are problematic too; because he didn’t exclude outliers.
ReplyDeleteSo there’s no missing data
@Matt
ReplyDeleteIt is such a point of view that the Repino and Poltavkino cultures are just stages of Yamnaya culture. It is not accepted by many people. But Pit-Grave is still a full synonym for Yamnaya.
Point is, the beginning of Yamnaya is usually dated to ~3,000 BCE (not ~4,000 BCE). And this is also when R1b-Z2103 expands across the steppe.
ReplyDeleteR1a-M417 and R1b-L51 don't appear to have been part of this expansion.
The issue also is with transliteration into English. There’s (1) the Yamnaya (= pit-grave culture) and (2) various groups of other Pit Grave cultures
ReplyDelete@Davidski See ^^^
ReplyDeleteI know what they call culture in Russian. But you are mistaken. You think that all researchers have the same terminology - so no, there were old researchers who both Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk attributed to the stages of Yamnaya culture.
But in Russian it is impossible to separate Yamnaya from Pit-Grave because it is one and the same word.
What really matters is that Yamnaya is too late. A branch from the same tree but not the really important one.
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know about new samples from Southern Russia, Ukraine or White Russia being processed? Especially Lower Don, more from SSC/Dereivka would be really great news.
"other Pit Grave cultures" = other Yamnaya cultures - is absolutely fully equal. There's no difference.
ReplyDeleteBut the Yamnaya culture is the same.
@Archi: "The BBC's lifestyle was entirely connected to sea and rivers"
ReplyDeleteTheir expansions and preferred mode of transport were, but not their way of life in general.
Take the food they ate, their diet, it had little to do with the rivers and Sea even in comparison to their local predecessors afaik.
In the supplemental material for this paper it lists a male Funnel Beaker sample oll9 (also referenced as oll009) as belonging to Y-Haplogroup I1.
ReplyDeleteThe individual oll9, a Scandinavian Late Neolithic male from a megalithic tomb, may belong
to hg I1-M253. We found 10 mutations leading in this direction (L1085:2790726, T>C, 1 and
L1155:22191266, G>C, 1 for A0'1'2'3'4; V168:17947672, G>A, 1 for A1'2'3'4;
P108:15426248, C>T, 1 for A2'3'4; M42:21866840, A>T, 4 and P97:14886273, G>T, 1 for
A4=BCDEF; M168:14813991, C>T, 1 for CDEF; P14:17398598, C>T, 2 for F;
M522:7173143, G>A, 1 for IJKLT and finally M253:15022707, C>T, 1 for I1). We note that
I1-M253 is only supported by one read involving a C to T transition. However, ancestral
allele states for downstream I1-Z131 (Z131:5845252, G>A, 1) and for markers defining hg J
(P209:19179335, T>C, 2), M (P399:13563083, C>T, 2 and PR2099:16328755, C>T, 1), QR
(M45:21867787, G>A, 1), R1a (M420:23473201, T>A, 1 and M448:16520444, T>A, 1) and
LT (P326:8467290, T>C, 1) indicate that this individual likely does not belong much further
Um..This is big if true. But, Funnel Beaker isn't Late Neolithic, right?
ReplyDelete@Everyone,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the help answering my question about Pit Grave. I tend to think Corded Ware's ancestors left the Steppe of Ukraine because Yamnaya expanded into it. Basically, I think Yamnaya pushed them out into Central Europe.
The date is 1930–1750 B.C. for oll9.
ReplyDeleteFunnel Beaker is Late Neolithic, but so are CWC and BBC according to recent papers. They weren't using bronze till Unetice.
It's strange in their PCA Funnel Beakers cluster with farmers but in their admixture results they all show substantial steppe ancestry.
Notably, the oll007 individual from the megalithic site at Öllsjö (southern Sweden), who was not directly associated with any CWC-related artefacts but overlaps with CWC chronologically, clusters with individuals from CWC contexts, as do the two individuals with later dates (oll009 and oll010) from the same site.
ReplyDeleteThis means that Oll009 is not Funnel Beaker, becasue the Tomb was constructed during the Middle Neolithic which in Scandinavian culture-history is c. 3300 - 2800 BC.
ReplyDeleteIf this guys dates to c. 1900 BC, then he's a secondary deposit.
''oll009: Commingled human remains. A mandibular tooth (M1 sin) was sampled for
DNA. Tooth wear indicates that this individual was 17-25 years at the time of death.
This individual was dated to 1930-1750 BCE (95.4%) and thus belongs to the
Scandinavian Late Neolithic (table 1, table S1, Supplementary Section Radiocarbon
dating and stable isotope analyses).'
So still waiting for I1 in pre-2000 BC Sweden ;)
@Sam, it could've been like that if you have mostly exclusive male patrilineal structures for ex, in particular.
ReplyDeleteIt looks like on the steppe there is a fluctuation of climate - peaks of aridity around 1) approx 3500 / 3500-3000 BCE, which would correlate nicely with beginning of a pulse outwards and 2) 2200 BCE, which would correlate with the replacement of Late Catacomb with the extremely mixed set of samples in Potapovka Culture (and also considering entry of the Lola Culture individual) then more uniformly "Steppe_MLBA" set. This could influence pushes and replacements.
Getting more samples from 3700-3300 BCE will be key, particularly late Sredny Stog, Repin and Khvalynsk (will Repin show admix/outliers from Maykop / none? will they show diverse y or uniform Z2103 y? etc).
Given that there is no Z283 in Central Europe, which is only present in Scandinavia, and only CTS4385 is present in Central Europe, is it possible to infer primary CWC routes? CWC went to Europe from the conditional "area srednedneprovskoy culture", the original culture or cultures mass of names (late Sredniy Stog 2, ancient Yamnaiy, late Tripoli culture type: gorodkovsko-Volyn, Subcarpathian, Sofievskaya, or it is called Zhivotilovka or Derievka, even Kiev-Cherkassy still late Dnieper-Donetsk), so it is easier to say that this is the area of forest - steppe zone of modern Ukraine North of Dnepropetrovsk and to the line Brest-Gomel with the entry of some Western Russian regions Bryansk, Kursk, Orel, Kaluga in the period 3500-3000 BC. And CTS4385 went directly to the West, perhaps together with R1b-L51, and Z645 went to the North. Further Z93 separated on the way in modern borders of Russia (Abashevskaya culture and possibly Balanovskaya culture and perhaps even fatyanovskaya), and Z283 reached Scandinavia through modern Finland. Then Z284 remained in Scandinavia, and Z280 and M458 already through Denmark went to Germany and the Netherlands, interrupting the BBC and forming Unetice (M458) and Trzciniec (Z280).? Of course it is not excluded return movement Z280 East still as part of CWC and return to Belarus and Russia in the form of the largest Middle Dnieper culture
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteFirst the Usatovo culture appeared on the western edge of the steppe, and that's probably the same time that the ancestors of Corded Ware people moved out of the steppe to the northwest.
Then eventually Yamnaya expanded and moved through Usatovo territory. The two had a guest/host relationship according to Anthony.
So I don't know how it's possible for Yamnaya to be pushing anyone out?
The droughts seem to have affected the more exposed farmer communities minimum as much.
ReplyDeleteIn some areas of the steppe and close by it even looks to me as if the Neolithic farmers wete more weakened in the border regions than the pastoralists.
What might have increased on the steppe was the competition. So more pressure on the steppe and weakened farmer neighbours.
The climate was not the ultimate reason for anything, but it did provide one factor among others to change or accelerate developments.
The early farmer colonies were on the retreat in times of drought and the pastoralists followed on the foot.
Very interesting "The two had a guest/host relationship according to Anthony" could this be because their Laws were approximately the same, providing for such interaction ?
ReplyDelete@Ric: It might suffice that they knew each other and preferred a peaceful solution.
ReplyDelete@ zardos
ReplyDeleteYes. If there was a major draught or other crisis it seems then not to have reached the Usatovo area. Or Yamnaya made an impression some or other way on Usatovo in order for them to be accepted in a crisis situation....
ncidentally, U106 could go together with Z645 in Scandinavia, and made there together with Z280 M458 through Denmark to return in Germany. But P312 apparently went South route route or CTS4385 through Central Poland, or even further South through Krakow
ReplyDelete@Vladimir said...
ReplyDelete"Given that there is no Z283 in Central Europe, which is only present in Scandinavia, and only CTS4385 is present in Central Europe"
How do you know they're not in Central Europe? What are the fantastic statements?
"Further Z93 separated on the way in modern borders of Russia (Abashevskaya culture and possibly Balanovskaya culture and perhaps even fatyanovskaya)"
"Z94 (Fatyanov)"
How do you know that Balanovo/Fatyanovo/Abashevo are the Z93/Z94? How did you get such data?
Vladimir, You always write such fantastic statements and try to build some theories on your speculations.
What do you mean how do you know about Z283 and CTS4385? From published data. Fatyanovo-Balanovo-Abashevo data yet. But there is information that the results are already there, only not yet published. The hypothesis, by the way, is quite logical. There is nothing fantastic about it.
ReplyDeleteIndeed, Sintashta needs to come from those and they were tested. So it would just be the most likely course of developments.
ReplyDeleteFatyanovo-Balanovo - Abashevo - Sintashta.
"Thanks for the help answering my question about Pit Grave. I tend to think Corded Ware's ancestors left the Steppe of Ukraine because Yamnaya expanded into it. Basically, I think Yamnaya pushed them out into Central Europe."
ReplyDeleteNon-nomadic pastoralists R1b-Z2109+ are buried within R1a Sintashta burial plots. R1b-Z2109+ hammer-head pins are found with R1a-Z645 in Baltic. There was a dynamic that is not currently understood in terms of movement, other than R1b-Z2109+ where extremely mobile, as well as in historical contact with basal and extinct R1b[v1656- R1a-Q Khvalynsk} and in future into contact with major branches of R1a and R1b L51.
Imho there will be R1a-M417 in Yamna. In northern Ukraine close ro Middle Dniepr culture territory.
ReplyDeleteBtw Z2103 and M417 have the same TMRCA. So they started to expand in the same time and judging by this data they were speaking the same language. L51 could have moved with CWC.
This is practically endgame.
Vladimir said..
ReplyDelete"What do you mean how do you know about Z283 and CTS4385? From published data."
There is no such data!
"Given that there is no Z283 in Central Europe, which is only present in Scandinavia, and only CTS4385 is present in Central Europe"
Published data shows where they were found, but not where they are not!
"The hypothesis, by the way, is quite logical. "
Not logical.