search this blog

Monday, December 30, 2019

A final note for the year


I feel like I've spent a good part of 2019 banging my head against a thicker than average brick wall.

Much of this feeling is tied to the controversy over the ethnogenesis of the Yamnaya people, and my often futile attempts to explain that their origin cannot be sought in what is now Iran, or, indeed, anywhere outside of Eastern Europe.

This post is my final attempt to lay out the facts in regards to this topic. Next year I'll have better things to do than to argue the bleeding obvious.

Below are two graphs from a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on relatively high quality ancient human genotype data from the Caucasus and surrounds. They include two typical Yamnaya individuals from burial sites north of the Caspian Sea. I made the graphs with the Vahaduo Custom PCA tool here. The relevant datasheet can be downloaded here.



Here's what I'm seeing:

- the Yamnaya individuals sit on genetic clines made up of hunter-gatherers native to the Caucasus and various parts of Eastern Europe, including a trio from the southernmost part of the Pontic-Caspian steppe (labeled Steppe_Eneolithic), with whom they form a distinct cluster

- the samples from the Caucasus and the Iranian Plateau form very different clusters, so there's no support here for the ancient Caucasus/Iranian grouping that is often haphazardly invoked in scientific literature

- there's no indication that the Yamnaya and/or Steppe_Eneolithic groups experienced recent gene flow, or, for that matter, any gene flow whatsoever, from what is now Iran.

Of course, analyses based on formal statistics suggest that the Yamnaya population harbors minor western ancestry that is missing in Steppe_Eneolithic. In fact, I was first to argue this point (see here). So let's add a couple of ancient farmers from Western Europe to my PCA to see how they affect the graphs. The relevant datasheet is available here.



Yep, the Yamnaya pair appears to be peeling away very slightly, but deliberately, from the Steppe_Eneolithic individuals towards the part of the plot occupied by the farmers.

Admittedly, I'm no Sherlock Holmes, but even with my fairly average sleuthing abilities, I'm pretty sure I know how the Yamnaya people came to be. They formed largely on the base of a population very much like Steppe_Eneolithic somewhere deep in Eastern Europe, well to the north of the Caucasus, and nowhere near the Iranian Plateau.

See also...

A note on Steppe Maykop

285 comments:

1 – 200 of 285   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

These PCA were run with raw genotype data, not Global25 data.

But it's probably possible to reproduce them and build on them by re-processing Global25 data using the Source tab in the Vahaduo Custom PCA.

Sofia Aurora said...

We should also always remember guys that the Proto-Indoeuropeans existed from 4500 BC to 2500 BC roughly!

Thus i hope this new year to bring more samples from the entire proto-I.E. period and in an equal proportion from this 2000 years period!

Unless that happens there will always be that phenomenon of the "dedicated no-sayers" findind pretext after pretext in order to avoid admiting the obvious...

That the kurgan theory was the answer to the proto-I.E. origins

Aram said...

That extra EEF that Yamna has is probably via Sredni Stog.

Target: Yamnaya_UKR
Distance: 2.9443% / 0.02944328
56.2 RUS_Progress_En
31.4 UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En
9.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
2.6 UKR_Dereivka_I_En1
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
0.0 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.0 UKR_Trypillia

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 2.5851% / 0.02585141
59.6 RUS_Progress_En
22.4 UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En
15.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
3.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En1
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
0.0 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.0 UKR_Trypillia

Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
Distance: 2.8016% / 0.02801638
53.6 RUS_Progress_En
29.2 UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En
17.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Maykop
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En1
0.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
0.0 UKR_Globular_Amphora
0.0 UKR_Trypillia

Archi said...


D, Z, s

Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_N -0.026170984 -6.02495 0.0043438
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_LN -0.026942417 -5.41436 0.0049761
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_ChL -0.009127401 -2.64254 0.0034540
Mbuti.DG EHG CHG Iran_recent 0.001469850 0.31987 0.0045951
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_LN Iran_N -0.002434149 -0.45196 0.0053857
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_ChL Iran_N -0.016854386 -4.58599 0.0036752
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_ChL Iran_LN -0.014073125 -3.23540 0.0043497
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_N Iran_recent 0.030702635 6.36914 0.0048205
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_LN Iran_recent 0.029722712 5.30181 0.0056061
Mbuti.DG EHG Iran_ChL Iran_recent 0.014083963 3.47870 0.0040486

It is perfectly clear that CHG is much closer to Yamnaya than Iranian farmers. Therefore, the use of Iranian farmers in the text about Yamnaya creates a false impression.

Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_N -0.032651761 -9.90778 0.0032956
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_LN -0.030051322 -7.87958 0.0038138
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_HotuIIIb -0.026203181 -4.69495 0.005581
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_ChL -0.017181072 -6.51740 0.0026362
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara CHG Iran_recent -0.009159683 -2.52353 0.0036297
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_N -0.031994772 -8.71378 0.0036717
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_LN -0.031571172 -7.70066 0.0040998
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_HotuIIIb -0.023053164 -3.97537 0.0057
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_ChL -0.018901638 -6.61262 0.0028584
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia CHG Iran_recent -0.007807957 -2.03964 0.0038281

Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_HotuIIIb -0.009323583 -1.86785 0.0049916
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_LN -0.009754644 -2.87556 0.0033923
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_N -0.016487468 -5.59159 0.0029486
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_ChL Iran_recent 0.009338622 2.91241 0.0032065
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_ChL 0.009323583 1.86785 0.0049916
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_HotuIIIb 0.000000000 0.00000 1.0000
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_LN 0.001218970 0.16482 0.0073956
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_N -0.010709445 -1.79306 0.0059727
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_recent 0.017117877 2.54461 0.006727
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_LN Iran_N -0.007067214 -1.67005 0.0042317
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_LN Iran_recent 0.017324644 3.73795 0.0046348
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_N Iran_recent 0.024059571 6.02428 0.0039938
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Samara Iran_recent Iran_N -0.024059571 -6.02428 0.0039938
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_HotuIIIb -0.005512973 -1.05687 0.00521
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_LN -0.011225659 -3.10282 0.0036179
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_N -0.012707461 -3.90331 0.0032556
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_ChL Iran_recent 0.012538626 3.79766 0.0033017
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_LN -0.013180332 -1.72185 0.00765
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_N -0.014033094 -2.22286 0.00631
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_HotuIIIb Iran_recent 0.014916956 2.14297 0.0069
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_LN Iran_HotuIIIb 0.013180332 1.72185 0.00765
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_LN Iran_N -0.002245723 -0.48906 0.0045919
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_LN Iran_recent 0.022585938 4.70698 0.0047984
Mbuti.DG Yamnaya_Kalmykia Iran_N Iran_recent 0.024235606 5.81438 0.0041682

Matt said...

For info, those datasheets will produce strange outcomes if anyone tries to put them back into Vahaduo and re-process, as they're not eigenvalue scaled.

Matt said...

There's some interesting variation in this PCA where Darkveti Meshoko sample seems far closer to CHG in dimensions 3 and 4 than Areni_C_Armenia samples: https://imgur.com/a/i5o568k

andrew said...

You are great at analyzing and understanding the latest raw data.

If you want to convince people, though, you have to be better at spinning a narrative, presenting the data i a more simple way that peels away irrelevant details, and spelling out and citing the multi-disciplinary corroboration of the raw genetics that supports your case.

I think you are probably right. But, you don't make the case very clearly.

Ric Hern said...

Happy New Year

Sofia Aurora said...

HAPPY NEW YEAR FOLKS!!!

AND A PERSONAL WISH IF I MAY!

MAY THIS NEW DECADE BRING EQUALLY ASTONISHING FINDS TO THE WORLD OF HUMAN GENETICS AND BIOLOGICAL ANTHROPOLOGY AS THE LAST ONE!

And every hapiness and joy to Davidski for being here and holding the torch!

Many kudos David!

old europe said...


@ arame

I think the most reliable model of Yamnaya Samara is with Kvalinsk and Sredni Stog

roughly

Yamnaya Samara

60/65 Kvalynsk
35/40 Sredni Stog I5651

the data are here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1oQFP5kYKGd29os0yhu2SMXjg6SSx-4E0/view?usp=sharing

Davidski said...

@Matt

There's some interesting variation in this PCA where Darkveti Meshoko sample seems far closer to CHG in dimensions 3 and 4 than Areni_C_Armenia samples: https://imgur.com/a/i5o568k

Yep, Darkveti Meshoko shares a lot of very specific drift with CHG, so it looks like there was quite a bit of direct genetic continuity in the western parts of the Caucasus from the Upper Paleolithic to the Eneolithic.

Matt said...

But it's probably possible to reproduce them and build on them by re-processing Global25 data using the Source tab in the Vahaduo Custom PCA.

Taking you up on this (using PAST3) - https://imgur.com/a/12U1cGP

G25 data seems to show more or less the same dimensions, although possibly with FRA_MN and "Steppe" having more of a shared vector away from Near East.

(note I have reversed some of the raw dimensions so the similarities

Slumbery said...

@old europe

"I think the most reliable model of Yamnaya Samara is with Kvalinsk and Sredni Stog"

I have to disagree with you there, because I5651 has a way too much Anatolian Farmer ancestry for that. I don't say that Yamnaya does not have significant ancestry from the Pontic Steppe, but a two way model of I5651 + Khvalinsk cannot be the best. I5651 has something like 30% or more ANF, while Yamnaya has around 5%. That maxes out the ancestry represented by I5651 around 15%-20% at most in Yamnaya. (More if we assume a less farmer admixed Sredny Stog variation).

It is more likely a three way admixture of southern groups (like Progress and Vonyuchka), Khvalinsk and a Western group (mediated by Repin). The latter is the source of ANF ancestry in Yamnaya.

Something like this might be closer to reality, although I do not think it is the Ultimate Model:

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:Average",
"fit": 2.933,
"RUS_Vonyuchka_En": 45.83,
"RUS_Khvalynsk_En": 27.5,
"UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En": 26.67,

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:Average",
"fit": 2.5983,
"RUS_Progress_En": 58.33,
"UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En": 25.83,
"RUS_Khvalynsk_En": 15.83,


................

Also Happy New Year for everybody and thanks to Davidsky for his work. :)


Slumbery said...

@Davidski

This is something I should have brought up in one of the Germanic related topics, but those are pretty dead by now. Have you ever took a closer look at scy303, dubbed in G25 as Scythian_MDA_o? As far as it can be asserted from genetics, she was totally Germanic. The sample sits in core Germanic territory in your North European PCA and I also made nMonte runs and sure enough it behaves very alike to known Germanic samples.
What do you think?

old europe said...


@slumbery

I think you start with a wrong assumption: the level of EEF in Yamnaya is not 5% it ranges from 15 to 20 per cent but likely more 20 than 15

I5651 is basically half old european half steppe eneolithic

so it makes sense Sredni Stog in Yamnaya being close to 40 %

Slumbery said...

@old europe

But I did not just assume (I could even say you are wrong to assume that I just assumed), I tested before I wrote my comment. Granted it was only nMonte and probably not very accurate with this deep ancestry, but you have to show something solid to prove that the huge difference showed by G25 nMonte in the ANF ancestry of Yamnaya (~5%) vs. I5651 (~30%) is not real.

So, you assume Yamnaya is 20% EEF, based on what?

Also I tried your I5651 + Khvalinsk model in nMontes and the fit is _much_ worse than in the tree way models. In fact, even a two way Progress + Khvalinsk is a very significantly better fit. And unlike the deep ancestry proportion this is something that fits the capabilities of nMonte well.

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:Average",
"fit": 5.9593,
"RUS_Khvalynsk_En": 51.67,
"UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En": 48.33,

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:Average",
"fit": 3.7793,
"RUS_Progress_En": 70,
"RUS_Khvalynsk_En": 30,

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:Average",
"fit": 2.5983,
"RUS_Progress_En": 58.33,
"UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En": 25.83,
"RUS_Khvalynsk_En": 15.83,

Gaska said...


2020 is going to be more imteresting than 2019-Is there no one checking the Niedertiefenbach Bam Files?

Feliz Año-Happy new year-Urte Berri On

old europe said...


Sometimes truth lies between two extremes I'm maybe overestimating you are probably doing the opposite. Let us see the contribution of Sredni Stog ( I5651 and I4110) to various yamnaya variants:

As for Yamnaya and EEF from Wang paper:


We find that Yamnaya individuals from the Volga region (Yamnaya Samara) have 13.2±2.7% and Yamnaya individuals in Hungary 17.1±4.1% Anatolian farmer-related ancestry (Fig.4; Supplementary Table 18)– statistically indistinguishable proportions.

So far more than 5%.

Yamnaya_Samara

Dereivka_I_I4110 0.324±0.035
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.676±0.035
chisq 6.797
tail prob 0.976979
Full output

Afanasievo

Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.638±0.038
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.362±0.038
chisq 10.855
tail prob 0.818366
Full output

Yamnaya_Ukraine

Progress_Eneolithic_PG2001 0.655±0.073
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.345±0.073
chisq 12.676
tail prob 0.696277
Full output

Poltavka

Dereivka_I_I4110 0.324±0.038
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2004 0.676±0.038
chisq 12.895
tail prob 0.680437
Full output

Yamnaya_Caucasus

Khvalynsk_Eneolithic_I0122 0.086±0.054
Sredny_Stog_II_I6561 0.221±0.070
Vonyuchka_Eneolithic_VJ1001 0.693±0.101
chisq 13.113
tail prob 0.593562
Full output



and to sum it up

Steppe_EMBA

North_Pontic_Eneolithic_I4110-I656 0.313±0.027
Progress_Eneolithic_PG2001-PG2004 0.687±0.027
chisq 15.378
tail prob 0.497157
Full output

Rob said...

@ Old Europe
Cernavoda and Usatavo more interesting
I think of Yamnaya Samara as the rural in laws

Simon_W said...

Happy new year indeed, especially to the blog owner. Let's hope his blog will not suffer the fate of Dienekes' blog, which was once very popular also. And then all of a sudden… Something happened which essentially killed off his blogging activities. Ancient Swiss DNA data is on its way, there will be a lecture in Berne by Krause from Max Planck Institute on the genetic history of Switzerland on the 13th of May which I will be attending to.

Samuel Andrews said...

David Reich's 2018 ancient DNA book, Who We are and How We Got here. Says Yamnaya's Middle Eastern ancestry is "Iranian-related."

As does, Narasimhan 2018 The Genomic Formation of South and Central Asia.

These were two big publications of the Harvard lab related to Indo European stuff. Both say Yamnaya has "Iranian-related" ancestry. So, Davidski is right. This is really annoying, the experts seem stubborn about this "Iranian farmer" thing in Yamnaya

This is even though its Middle Eastern ancestry is clearlly more related to CHG, Caucasus hunter gatherers, than to ancient Iran. Anybody, could see this doing simple analysis of the ancient DNA.

Samuel Andrews said...

The whole thing about Proto-Indo Europeans being from the "Eurasian Steppe" not Eastern Europe. ANd the whole thing about the "Parallel history of two subcontinents" (Europe and South Asia) is another big miss interpretation of Indo European story being told by the Harvard lab.

It's a honest mistake obviously.

Davidski said...

@Simon_W

You mean this Krause?

Dead cat bounce

I've noticed he has a propensity to talk a bit of shit in his presentations, so keep that in mind.

Simon_W said...

LOL, yeah this one. But whatever he's going to tell, the data is on its way! ;-) I've already told a journalist of the Neue Zürcher Zeitung, who had believed that population genetics is some sort of pseudo-science, about this important event. He had claimed it's not possible to assign an individual to a specific population just by his DNA. Well that's the sort of nonsense you still keep reading in newspapers.

Gabriel said...

@Simon_W

Probably because they think that it’s discriminatory in some way or another. But why can’t they realize it’s not?

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel Andrews

Does a book not take long to write and even longer to get to print ? So even if it was published in 2018 it surely was written many years before when things were not as clear as in 2018....? Maybe most are Parroting along until the next book gets published.

Richard Rocca said...

Niedertiefenbach Bam Files...

No surprises. Poster artemv checked 18 of 25 males thus far and all belong to haplogoup I.

Ric Hern said...

Imagine if we were still stuck with conclusions of 2010 with nobody altering those perspectives in the meantime....so those books published in 2018 served their purpose of changing perspectives drastically and the ones of the future will change those of 2018.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ric Hern, Yes and Reich usually does a good job making conclusions.

Davidski said...

@Ric

It was obvious years ago that Yamnaya didn't have any ancestry from Iran.

Looking at a few mtDNA markers was enough to work that out.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/steppe-boys-farmer-girls.html

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Yes. Still don't know when he started writing the book...maybe a few years before 2016.

Ric Hern said...

At least we do not sit with Haplogroup R1b in Western Europe during the Paleolithic kind of scenario anymore...

Ric Hern said...

I imagine that it will be better to write a book when Genetics reaches some kind of Plateau. But at this stage I think we are still far from it.

Davidski said...

@Ric

Yeah, books are going to be outdated very quickly after they're published in fast moving and evolving scenes like ancient DNA.

But that's where modern communications and transport can be useful. Like e-mail, phones, planes and trains.

Can't these guys get together for a weekend and talk some things over?

Anthony's theory that CHG lived in Iran is just one problem here. Kristiansen seems to think that Steppe Maykop morphed into Yamnaya. I hope someone eventually explains to him that the Wang paper made a mistake by lumping Steppe Maykop and Yamnaya into one cluster, because they're not directly related.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Yes let's hope 2020 gives 20/20 Vision. Heheheeh.

Rob said...

@ Sam

“Yes and Reich usually does a good job making conclusions.”

Really, Which ones ?

Bob Floy said...

@Davidski

First off, happy new year.
Second,

"Anthony's theory that CHG lived in Iran is just one problem here. Kristiansen seems to think that Steppe Maykop morphed into Yamnaya. I hope someone eventually explains to him that the Wang paper made a mistake by lumping Steppe Maykop and Yamnaya into one cluster, because they're not directly related.

How could it be that these things are obvious to dedicated amateurs and bloggers, while these well-funded professionals are so confused about them? I still cannot wrap my head around this. The idea that they're all just reinforcing each other's incorrect beliefs just dosen't cut it for me.

Samuel Andrews said...

Reich discovered ANE before Mal'ta boy's ancient DNA was sequenced. In Lazardis 2013, when the first two key high coverage Mesolithic & Neolithic European genomes were published Reich and his team did a good job understanding what it meant. Back then, there were a lot of possibilities they had to test out and the conclusion they came turned out to be right: Europeans derive from three ancestors. It was very controversial back then to say Mal'ta boy was an ancestor of anyone but Native Americans.

ASI vs ANI for India. This was discovered with modern DNA.

Bell Beaker. To be able to show Bell Beaker represented migration from Eastern Eurppe into Western Europe not from Iberia, went against the grain of previous work.

They have acute understanding of BMAC, small number of Indus valley immigrants buried there.

Samuel Andrews said...

Generally, the Harvard lab has made a lot of discoveries. They always backup big claims that go against expectations with evidence. You can't be sure a different lab would have done as well interpreting the data. Also, David Reich's is the one who industrialized ancient DNA. Even if we dis agree with their conclusions of the data, it's possible we wouldn't have all this ancient DNA available if not for them.

Slumbery said...

@old europe

Might be, but the qpAdm results cited are unconvincing for your original case, because
- none of them test the I6561 + Khvalinsk scenario you advanced.
- there are no alternatives to compare. All we see that this model is not totally off, not that they are anywhere near the best.

So all these qpAdm results can tell us that Yamnaya probably had significant ancestry from the west, but that is a point we both agreed on at the beginning.

As for the Wang et. al. ANF ancestry ratios in Yamnaya: they used Globular Amphora and Iberia Chalcolithic as ANF. They tried to pick references that are close to what they assumed to be the actual source, but this means they used a combined ANF+WHG source. The results you cited are not proportions of actual ANF ancestry, but proportions of Globular Amphora ancestry in a hypothetical (Progress + Vonyuchka) + Globular Amphora model.
The qpAdm paralel of this nMonte test:

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:Average",
"fit": 3.59,
"RUS_Progress_En": 88.33,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 11.67,
"RUS_Vonyuchka_En": 0,

Just a side note, but even this unrealistic model is a much better fit than I6561 + Khvalinsk.
Nevertheless this nMonte result is within error range to their qpAdm.
I think however that this approach is prone to overestimate the ANF ancestry. Progress and Vonyuchka have a very AG3 shifted "EHG" ancestry. Their WHG:AG3 ratio is lower than that of Yamnaya (and much lower than that of the EHG reference samples, like Sidelkino or Samara HG). I can guess how qpAdm or nMontes balances that out when the other reference population is ANF+WHG...

In my earlier comment I wrote that I do not think nMonte is very accurate in a deep ancestry test (Barcin + Villabruna + CHG + AG3), but the difference in I6561 and Yamnaya ANF ancestry is too big for Yamnaya being 35-40% I6561. Possibly Yamnaya had ANF ancestry closer to 10%, that would elevate the cap (but not above 30%). However there are a lot of comparisons there now, including the qpAdm models written by you and based on those the I6561 + Khvalinsk is even deader in my eye than it was in the beginning of the discussion.

But again, I am pretty sure Yamnaya had ancestry from the west, what I criticized is the two way I6561 + Khvalinsk model.

Davidski said...

Obviously, that qpAdm model uses just one Khvalynsk sample, the one that is very similar to Progress_Eneolithic.

It's all presented in its proper context here...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/11/yamnaya-home-grown.html

Gaska said...

@Rocca said-Niedertiefenbach-No surprises. Poster artemv checked 18 of 25 males thus far and all belong to haplogoup I.

It was to be expected for their percentage of whg, but there are still 7 genomes left to analyze - There may be surprises

Regarding Reich/Harvard and his genetic successes, I don't think that in Europe he/they are a reference. He has to defend an ideological agenda and that is why his conclusions are often wrong (in the case of BB culture they are scandalously wrong and biased)

As always, the supporters of the steppe theory applaud that agenda when it suits them and run away like rabbits when they talk about Iranian ancestry.But the fault is yours for the sickly obsession for bringing everything from the steppes. You have to overcome the trauma of the failure of the Yamnaya culture, 2019 has shown that it was just a fable which has generated useless discussions for 5 years

@Davidski-Remember that my friends talked about M269 in northern Russia? it seems to be true and that Volosovo has a lot to say. However they talked about L51 and it seems that this haplogroup does not appear- I'm curious to check its origin

@Ric said-At least we do not sit with Haplogroup R1b in Western Europe during the Paleolithic kind of scenario anymore...

R1b has been in Western Europe since the epigravettian and the Villabruna cluster is indispensable to understand the genetics of modern Europeans-

The BBculture saved your collective L21 butts when the Iranian/Indoeuropeans was terrorizing mainland Europe

Davidski said...

@Gaska

There is one L51 in a Volosovo sample from Sakhtysh, but it's low coverage. A few others are just M269, and they're of much higher quality.

Gaska said...

@Davidski

Interesting times await us - If I remember correctly, the Volosovo foragers did not join the CWC path to the west because I believe they were exterminated by Fatyanovo-They could be an offshot of the Narva culture-

The link between R1b-M269/L51/P312 and IE is getting more and more complicated unless someone tries to defend an IE origin near Moscow

Davidski said...

@Gaska

I don't really know what happened, but there's definitely L51 in Corded Ware, and I'm not talking about ALT_4, the German sample that was published recently.

Archi said...

@Gaska
"If I remember correctly, the Volosovo foragers did not join the CWC path to the west because I believe they were exterminated by Fatyanovo-They could be an offshot of the Narva culture-
The link between R1b-M269/L51/P312 and IE is getting more and more complicated unless someone tries to defend an IE origin near Moscow"

No one has ever linked the origin of CWC to Volosovo because they have nothing in common. In general, Volosovo culture is not a local culture and its population is alien, mostly. Therefore, even if the PIE lived near Moscow, Volosovo could not relate to them in any way.

Rob said...

@ Slumbery
“Possibly Yamnaya had ANF ancestry closer to 10%”


You mean to say Yamnaya -Samara.

Gaska said...

@Davidski

Yeah,there are many people trying to save the "steppe theory" by linking P312 with the CWC, but even if you find more cases of this lineage in that culture, the problem would still exist and would be even harder to solve.

Because, if I don't misunderstand, you would have to demonstrate a joint migration from Eastern Europe and later a P312 back-migration to Hungary and Poland thanks to the BBC- In other words, M417 and P312 travel together and then P312 ignores or exterminates M417, invents or kidnaps a different culture and colonizes Western Europe alone-Perhaps the CWC despite its steppe ancestry is much more Central European in origin than people think because its archaeological relationship with the TRB is obvious

It would be better to temporarily forget the issue of the origin and diffusion of IE and its possible link to R1a-M417 and R1b-P312 and try to think only about the cultural and geographical origin of these lineages-

Now that everyone seems to have forgotten Yamnaya to make their models of steppe ancestry, someone should check what is the percentage of Khvalynsk, Sredni Stog, Steppe Eneolithic etc in the western Bbs of France, Italy, Sicily or Spain- You can check that it is literally ZERO in many cases and that they can be perfectly modeled without taking into account that steppe component

Ric Hern said...

What is also interesting is the domesticated European Pigs...They started out as fully Middle Eastern and ended up almost fully European Boar like genetically....

Gaska said...


@Archi said-Volosovo culture is not a local culture and its population is alien, mostly

Aliens from where? Do you know what the origin of Volosovo is? I am not an expert in Russian prehistoric cultures but it is clear that there may be a genetic relationship with the Narva culture

@Rob, I remember when you said-“Gaska-I think BB is from catacomb culture-And both are non –IE”

Could you explain to me how you came to that conclusion?

Regarding- "You’re rather confused-BB is the most steppe -derived group; more so than actual IEs"

No my friend, I am not wrong or confused, because the percentages of steppe ancestry are very different- Do you know the percentages in Sicily, Parma, Castile or Hungary? -They are simply ridiculous or non-existent

BBIberia_C-Baltic Narva-0, Baalberge-0, DEU_Blatterhole MN-25, France_MN.65,83, HRV_Vucedol-9,17, Globular-Amphora_Pol-0, RUS-Progress_Eneolithic-0, UKR_Sredny StogII_EN-0


Davidski said...

@All

Idiotic post by vAsiSTha removed.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, I provided new data to you (no M269 in German Copper Age samples) and David provided you with Volosovo L51 and M269. Instead of countering with ancient DNA proof (the only proof that matters) you once again come back with opinions. Care to provided actual proof??? If not, you are wasting your time and that of others.

Archi said...

@Gaska "Aliens from where? Do you know what the origin of Volosovo is? I am not an expert in Russian prehistoric cultures but it is clear that there may be a genetic relationship with the Narva culture"

With Narva there is a very strong connection, there is even a hypothesis about the origin of Volosovo from the Baltics, though not supported by the majority. Other connections are with Lyalovo, Kama and the Upper Volga. I've published a review on this subject, but it's been erased, I don't know why.

Hodo Scariti said...

@ Davidski

"There is one L51 in a Volosovo sample from Sakhtysh, but it's low coverage. A few others are just M269, and they're of much higher quality"

The big question is if the Fatyanovo-Balanovo were also M269 in majority (as you wrote that "few others" were volosovans with M269)...

Archi said...

@Larth Ulthes "The big question is if the Fatyanovo-Balanovo were also M269 in majority (as you wrote that "few others" were volosovans with M269)..."

For what reason? Fatyanovo is a CWC, it has nothing to do with Volosovo. CWC is R1a.

Gaska said...

@Archi-With Narva there is a very strong connection, there is even a hypothesis about the origin of Volosovo from the Baltics, though not supported by the majority. Other connections are with Lyalovo, Kama and the Upper Volga. I've published a review on this subject, but it's been erased, I don't know why.

Thanks Archi, it will be interesting to check the autosomal composition of those Volosovans-M269-Narva is 1,000 km west of Volosovo (30 days walking)

Gaska said...


Richard,how can you ask for evidence if you've been wasting your/our time with L51 in Yamnaya for five years without providing a single convincing proof?, and how can you say that you provide evidence when everyone knows that Niedertiefenbach's genomes have been public for more than a month

Remember "Delenda Est Yamnaya" you had to shut me up in anthrogenica and a year later your fanatic Kurganists friends continue to talk nonsense-People want to participate in free and honest debates not to hear opinions of airheads with only steppe in their brains-

Ryan said...

@David - what did the autosomal DNA for Volosovo look like? I imagine similar to other steppe foragers, but are there any excesses/deficits compared to contemporary foragers?

Rob said...


@ Gaska
Csepel is a different case; but anyway it’s not in Iberia
Everywhere else BB is a function of R1b/ central -north Europe (So you shouldn’t be complaining about Harvard; they’ve been kind to the Iberian origin hypothesis ; despite strong evidence to contrary)
Catacomb link ? Yeah it’s a possible link between east and central during middle phase cwc

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, you've been saying L51 will show up in Western Europe for 5 years and you are no where close. Your cop-out is that perhaps L51 will show up in Spain, or France or Germany or Switzerland etc, etc. Why don't you just play it even more safe and say it originated on planet Earth? Now you are saying that even if L51 shows up in CWC it will not be meaningful? You are delusional.

Gaska said...

@Rocca

I feel that I have to apologize for having to talk on this blog when I am sure that many people are tired of our genetic discussions. But on the other hand I think I can not allow you to lie - Everything is recorded Richard, and if people are curious everyone can read some of the threads in which we have participated. This is the first time I mentioned the Narva culture as a possibility for the origin of R1b-M296-

+ Anthrogenica-Oldest Steppe Bell Beakers-09/07/2.018-10:54PM-P1426- @Gaska-“Etrusco, you and other steppists need to explain why is L11/P312 missing from Ukraine (4.000-2.500 BC), when Latvia is full of R1b-P297 lines dating 7.000-5.000 BC- How exactly is it impossible for Baltic hunter gatherers to give rise to the R1b in Yamnaya culture or Bell Beaker culture? How might this be consistent (Latvian P297 samples), with Gimbutas hypothesis of people moving out from the steppe into Europe after 4.400 BC?-

As you are an expert in geography, surely you know where Latvia and the Baltic Countries are - of course very far from Iberia, France or Switzerland because it is in Eastern Europe, then it is absolutely a lie that I have always defended a western origin of L51 (Although I still believe it is a possibility) - You only use that argument because you are ashamed of your failure and you are so narcissistic that you are unable to admit that you were and you are WRONG- You could talk to your bosses at FTDNA, Harvard, or Anthrogenica and tell them that let me participate again in that forum, so everyone can have a different opinion and I can defend myself personally from your cowardly attacks and so we will not disturb the gentlemen who participate in this blog

Davidski said...

There's no M269 in any Narva samples, so I'm not sure why Narva is getting mentioned so much.

Gaska said...

@Rob-

I don't understand why you mention Csepel Island, but considering that they are the closest BBs to Yamnaya / Catacomb, how can you explain that they are more culturally and genetically different to those cultures than for example the Dutch Bbs? - Shouldn't it be the other way around? the closer to the steppes the more "steppist" they should be. However we know that the Hungarian Bbs descend from the Czechs and Germans and not from the yamnaya riders

@Rob said-They’ve been kind to the Iberian origin hypothesis ; despite strong evidence to contrary

I suppose you are joking, Olalde and Heyd had the mission of annihilating the possibility of an Iberian origin using absurd and unscientific arguments to demonstrate the steppe theory-However the genetic exchange and the BB migrations from Iberia existed, as Fernandes has shown in Sicily-There are hundreds of proofs and in a few months we will have many more-

You talked about a catacomb link, although I would like to know how you have reached the conclusion of an origin of BB culture in Eastern Europe (where exactly?)-We can discuss it quietly


Gaska said...

@Davidski

because there is a possibility that R1b-m269 has its origin in the Baltic Countries and because the relationship between Narva and Volosovo

Rob said...

@ Gaska

''Shouldn't it be the other way around? ''

because its not so simple. As ive been saying, the big paradox is that some of these East-Yamnaya-associated groups had the biggest impact in the far west of Europe. BBC package is just Yamnaya in western Europe. The steppe influences in Hungary & Balkans are more varied, and from earlier phases of steppe-farmer interaction.

''I suppose you are joking, Olalde and Heyd had the mission of annihilating the possibility of an Iberian origin using absurd and unscientific arguments to demonstrate the steppe theory''

Well, you don't follow historiography very well. Olalde is a young scholar with no pre-set path. From what I recall in his works, Heyd supported an Iberian origin of BB.
In any case, the received dogma of current geneticists and their collaborators is that BB spread from Iberia 'with ideas'; something which I disagree with because its fundamentaly wrong, and skews the rest of European history.

Ryan said...

@Rob - If BB was just Yamnaya in western Europe, Basque people would be speaking something Indo-European. A steppe origin for late Bell Beakers seems increasingly certain, but I wouldn't take for granted the possibility of meaningful genetic and cultural differences between steppe groups.

Archi said...

@Davidski "There's no M269 in any Narva samples, so I'm not sure why Narva is getting mentioned so much."

That the Narva culture is older than TMRCA M269 4400 BC is not yet a negation that M269 may be from Narva culture.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, you have been posting for years and the best you can come up with is a post from late 2018? Nice try. Either way, I'd like to corner you a little bit over here since you hold everyone to 100% accuracy when making educated guesses. Are you saying the Narva will have L51, yes or no? If not, pic another culture, any culture will do. If you don't pick one, you will show once again how big of a hypocrite/coward you are.

Rob said...

@ Ryan

''If BB was just Yamnaya in western Europe, Basque people would be speaking something Indo-European. ''

Not really. Firstly, we need to appreciate how big the steppe was (breadth wise it's as big as the rest of Europe); the variant sub-groups of Yamnaya, the co-synchronous non-Yamnaya steppe groups, etc; secondly, the divergent faits of BB groups post 2000 BC.
And I did highlight east Yamnaya there.

Gaska said...

@Rocca

It seems that you really want me to be wrong. I have already said many times that I am not a fortune teller and that I do not understand how there are people who try to impose their theories without having arguments to do so- I only try to look for arguments to face theories
that seem absurd and unscientific-I am amazed that many professional archaeologists and geneticists risk losing their prestige by following certain agendas - I suppose that as always, money will have something to do with these attitudes

Davidski said...

@All

L51 probably moved out of the steppe or forest steppe into Central Europe north of the Carpathians with early Corded Ware groups.

That's what all of the evidence that we have is showing, including the L51 in the published and as yet unpublished Corded Ware samples, as well as the significant Globular Amphora and TRB ancestry in early Bell Beakers.

The eastern cultural traits of the Bell Beakers can be explained by their heavy contacts with groups from the Danube region and the Balkans. I talked about this here:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-balkan-connection.html

No matter what any us is hoping to see, we'll all have to eventually accept reality, and that reality is looking like what I just described.

Samuel Andrews said...

@About Volosovo and Narva connection

Davidski has told me Volosovo was genetically similar to Latvia Baltic HGs not EHG. This is even though they lived in Russia. Before, we assumed all of Russia was EHG. But, not so.

Latvia Hgs are mostly WHG while EHG is mostly ANE. It's an important difference. They were pretty far from each other in the Mesolithic European cline.

It makes sense Volosvo is most similar to Baltic HGs considering Volosovo has the oldest R1b P297>M269 and that several R1b P297 (1 step behind M269) have been found in Baltic HGs. But, R1b P297>M73 has also been found in EHG. It's confusing.

There's a lot of different ways Yamnaya and Bell beaker got their R1b M269. Neither show lots of Latvia HG-like ancestry. So, it's very confusing trying to make sense of R1b M269 in Volosovo who were supposedly very western genetically (mostly WHG).

Davidski said...

@Samuel Andrews

I don't really know what the Volosovo people were like in terms of genome-wide genetic ancestry, but they seem related to the Latvian HGs in terms of archeology and uniparental markers.

I suppose they might be EHG with some extra WHG...or not.

Gaska said...

@Rob

What you call a paradox, I call it inability to prove your theory due to ignorance of what BB culture really was.

Regarding Iñigo Olalde, I think he has done a great job and I am proud that he is my countryman. He is young and has a lot to learn. He has obtained a lot of ancient samples for Harvard that would not have been so easy to obtain because Prof Reich has no prestige or influence in Spain-I recommend that you read his doctoral thesis, it will surely surprise you-

This does not mean that we cannot criticize their conclusions regarding the BB culture- I have already said many times that their main objective was to deny the genetic exchange between Iberia and the rest of Europe to ensure the steppe theory- To do this they had to attack many previous papers that ensured the similarity of mitochondrial haplogroups between German and Spanish BBs, and other papers that referred to the genetic influence of the Mediterranean domain (Besse) -And the most surprising thing is that their only argument is that in Iberia he did not find the frequent H3 mit-hap in the German Bbs. Well, Olalde did not study Spanish databases, because it has been found very abundantly since the Neolithic- Anyone who understands genetics can check what I am saying-

Regarding Heyd, you should reread his introduction to Olalde's paper and the rest of his work on BB culture-Like the vast majority of European archaeologists, he defends that there is a Pre-BB Package in Iberia before that culture spread throughout the rest of Europe - Tanged copper daggers, halberds, V perforated buttons, wristguards, ivory, gold etc. but he always defended the possibility of a later influence of the Yamnaya culture (Example-Sion-Switzerland) to try to justify the steppe migrations

Samuel Andrews said...

@All,
"I don't really know what the Volosovo people were like in terms of genome-wide genetic ancestry, but they seem related to the Latvian HGs in terms of archeology and uniparental markers.
"
Ok, I thought you were talking about genome-wide data. Latvia HGs had similar mtDNA to EHG: mostly U5a and U4. They're hard to tell apart using mtDNA. If, there was a bigger data base of EHG mtDNA maybe it would possible.

It would make more sense they were more like EHG, therefore could be modeled as the R1b M269+ ancestor of Yamnaya.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

Are you sure sure that it's not another "P312 in Khvalynsk" case?

Davidski said...

@Arza

Like I said, the L51 Volosovo sample is low coverage, but there are also much higher quality M269 samples from the same site.

Ric Hern said...

I think that little bit of CHG like ancestry in Villabruna should have been a hint to many...

Ric Hern said...

I think some early R1b in Europe followed the same path as the domesticated pigs of Europe. Originating somewhere else and while migrating and admixing loose their original genetic makeup rather thoroughly.

But what about those that did not migrate far from their place of origin ?

Ryan said...

@David - have you done any runs of those high quality M269 samples?

Davidski said...

I don't have those samples. They haven't been published yet.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Ric Hern,
"I think some early R1b in Europe followed the same path as the domesticated pigs of Europe. Originating somewhere else and while migrating and admixing loose their original genetic makeup rather thoroughly."

No, ANE ancestry is high in Mesolithic Eastern Europe and Scandinavia. Its high in most R1b carriers from Mesolithic Europe. Assuming Siberian ANE is the original carrier of R1b, ANE ancestry was still high in R1b carriers in Stone age Europe. It didn't wither away. Yamnaya & Bell beaker carried lots of ANE original R1b carriers too.

R1b spread deep into Europe by 15,000 years ago. So, by the time it spread into Western Europe with Bell Beaker it was already a primarily European haplogroup.

Ric Hern said...

@ Samuel

Yes. To be more clear I'm talking about the WHG and EHG split....

Rob said...

@ Davidski

'' They formed largely on the base of a population very much like Steppe_Eneolithic somewhere deep in Eastern Europe, well to the north of the Caucasus''

and where did Steppe Eneolithic form, with what ?

Davidski said...

@Rob

Steppe_Eneolithic is indigenous to the North Caucasus Piedmont steppe.

That's because it sits on a Mesolithic genetic cline that includes hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus and the steppe.

Darkveti-Meshoko almost sits on this cline too, which suggests that pure CHG groups lived in the northwest Caucasus until the Eneolithic.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

Maybe, but I dont think you can 'back-infer' on the basis of genomes alone, esp when there is a lack of habitation in the north Caucasus until 47/4500 BC.
There's also more to Progress/ Vonychka Eneolithic than barnyard CHG.

In fact, Progress, VOnychka etc have some structyre to them, suggesting that the process was still ocurring, but agree that this was ocurring in the North Caucasus somewhere

Davidski said...

@Rob

The only structure within Steppe_Eneolithic is the slightly variable level of ANE/EHG ancestry, which means that the North Caucasus Piedmont was being affected by gene flow from the north at this time.

But the base of Steppe_Eneolithic is CHG, rather than anything from Iran or Central Asia.

I just checked whether the Belt/Hotu samples from northern Iran show a closer relationship to Steppe_Eneolithic than the Zagros farmers in my PCA, and they don't. They're actually more distant.

CrM said...

@Davidski

Doesn't Steppe Eneolithic show signs of Iranian ancestry?

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 4.7048% / 0.04704844
49.4 RUS_Samara_HG
36.8 GEO_CHG
13.8 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 WHG

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Distance: 4.9890% / 0.04988986
57.2 RUS_Samara_HG
29.8 GEO_CHG
13.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 WHG

Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 4.6044% / 0.04604428
48.6 RUS_Samara_HG
33.8 GEO_CHG
17.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 WHG

That's up to ~18% Iran_N and ~14% ANE-rich Iran_N(Hotu), compare this with Darkveti-Meshoko which doesn't have this much Iranian-related ancestry.

Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056
Distance: 3.1290% / 0.03129030
67.4 GEO_CHG
25.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
5.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.4 Levant_Natufian
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 WHG

Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2055
Distance: 3.5601% / 0.03560148
63.8 GEO_CHG
23.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
5.6 Levant_Natufian
3.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
3.2 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 WHG

Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I1722
Distance: 3.4611% / 0.03461072
67.0 GEO_CHG
20.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
7.0 Levant_Natufian
5.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 WHG

Perhaps there was a mixed CHG/Iran_M/Iran_N population somewhere in Azerbaijan that followed the Caspian coast both North and South? With these East Caucasian CHG/Iran_N mixed populations being the main source of non EHG ancestry in Progress, while West Caucasian samples were mostly of pure CHG descent + Anatolia-related.
Even now East Caucasians have the largest Iranian-related ancestry in the Caucasus, and I'm not talking about Azeris solely, but Avars and other Dagestanis as well.

BMAC and Tepe Hissar also show signs of EHG and WSN ancestry, in my models the best source for their European ancestry is Progress. So essentially what I think is we're dealing with an CHG-Iran_N-EHG mixing ground, which started with a CHG+Iran_N mix in Azerbaijan and possibly North Iran, said population then migrated to North Caspian and ended up mixing with EHG-related populations. Then there either was a back migration, or some Steppe population was also present in Azerbaijan, which explains the EHG-like ancestry in Armenia_C.
https://imgur.com/a/j29EN4o

Davidski said...

@AuckeS

Doesn't Steppe Eneolithic show signs of Iranian ancestry?

No it doesn't. The algorithm is compensating for the lack of the perfect reference samples in your models.

My fine scale PCA clearly show that Steppe_Eneolithic falls on a cline made up of hunter-gatherers from the Caucasus and Eastern Europe. I also ran extra PCA to see how the Belt/Hotu samples would affect the outcomes, and nothing happened.

Also see here...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/08/did-south-caspian-hunter-fishers-really.html

Uniparental markers also fail to show any sort of Iranian ancestry in Steppe_Eneolithic, Yamnaya, etc.

It's all an illusion.

CrM said...

@Davidski

I see. But then why is there a Steppe-like signal in BMAC and Areni samples? I assume that Kelteminar would be mostly like WSN.

Davidski said...

@AuckeS

The Areni samples do have some ancestry from the North Caucasus and/or the steppe, and maybe even from Sredny Stog. You can see that in their mtDNA markers, a couple of which are typical of the Eneolithic steppe.

But that doesn't mean Steppe_Eneolithic has to be mixed.

BMAC has very complex ancestry, with both Sintashta-related and Kumsay_EBA-related influences, so unless you come up with the perfect models you're likely to pick up some noise.

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, so your hypocrisy is complete as you can tell others where L51 DIDN'T originate based on biased archaeological arguments but you can't say where it DID based on those same arguments. Looks like the only one who is afraid to be wrong is you.

Archi said...

@Davidski
"No matter what any us is hoping to see, we'll all have to eventually accept reality, and that reality is looking like what I just described."

You, too, will have to accept reality once your opinion about coming of R1b by part of CWC has been proven wrong.

Archi said...


"The large number of monuments of Voloso culture, good knowledge of them let identified territorial and temporal variations. So, there are five main options Volosovo cultural and historical community:
Upper Volga, West, Srednevolzhsky, Oksky and North-Western. Sakhtysh site, from which is interesting and enough representative anthropological material, they are connected with the Upper Volga community. Big part of the anthropological material relates to the development of Volosovo phase, early Valolosvo and late Volosovo are represented by single finds.

Relative to the origin of Volosovo, however, archaeologists do not have a single point of view.

Some hold opinions about her local origin on the basis of the upper Volga and Pit-Comb cultures, others link it Genesis with the Ural-Kama tribes (see in detail about this in [Krainov, 1987]). It should be said that most of the works in which the authors adhered to the hypothesis of Eastern origin Volosovians, refers to the 60-m-beginning 70s. However, thanks to research after 100 years, the discovery of the upper Volga culture, the study of stratigraphy of multilayer settlements, especially peatlands in the center Russian plain, identified a certain sequence in the change of cultures, which makes you want to think about the local development of Volosovo couture. So, directly above the Mesolithic slot, lie cultural remains of the Upper Volga early Neolithic culture, above them are located
complexes with Pit-Comb ceramics. In the upper horizons of this layer appears the thin rare-pit pottery with figural ornament of pit and comb pattern attributable to protovolosova phase of the late Neolithic period. Above this couture layer there is an early Volosovo complex with round-bottomed ceramics with shell admixture, then there are layers with developed late Volosov ceramics. The upper Volga and Volosovo culture bring together common elements in the ornament of vessels, the similarity of forms of bone and stone instruments. There is no denying the elements of culture patching-comb ceramics in addition Volosovo culture — ceramics renewalable culture has similarities with pit-comb ceramics.

Some of the features in Volosovo culture gravitate to the Baltic States. This shell admixture in ceramics, shading the outer surface of the vessels, some forms of bone tools, an abundance of amber jewelry. D. A. Krainov believes that such similarity can not be explained only by exchange, and more close connections are likely.
Anyway, the Genesis of the Volosovo culture it seems quite a complex phenomenon."

Archi said...


"In conclusion, it should be noted that anthropological materials confirm the complexity of the Genesis of the Volosovo culture. Its bearers in their appearance reveal features of kinship with the population living both to the West and to the East of the main area of distribution of this culture. The Western component is manifested in the form of Volosovians much stronger than the East."


Andrzejewski said...

@Archi what ethnicity were those Volosovo people? EHG/Pit Comb/Narva-related? Proto-Uralic? Ancient North Eurasians? Haakinen thinks that they are the source of non-IE non-Uralic substrate in Baltic and Finno-Ugric languages in Eastern Europe. Were they exterminated by Fanatayevo tribes and did they contribute to the creation of Sintashta?

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski "what ethnicity were those Volosovo people? EHG/Pit Comb/Narva-related? Proto-Uralic? Ancient North Eurasians? Haakinen thinks that they are the source of non-IE non-Uralic substrate in Baltic and Finno-Ugric languages in Eastern Europe. Were they exterminated by Fanatayevo tribes and did they contribute to the creation of Sintashta?"

They weren't IEs and Uralians. They had very strong connections with the Baltic, so at least for some of them the Narva may have ancestral culture. They disappeared with the arrival of the Fatyanovians almost completely, they had nothing to do with Sintashta in any aspect.

Arza said...

@ Davidski

You seem to really know a lot about the new samples from Russia and Ukraine... so... any news on the Slavic homeland? Have you heard anything that would help locate it finally?

Ryan said...

@David - I don't have those samples. They haven't been published yet.


Pity. If they show as essentially EHG my old idea of R1b-M269-from-WHG would be dead. Right now it's hanging by a thread.

I bet they will be unhelpfully inconclusive when they do come out though (ie somewhere intermediate on the WHG-EHG cline like SHG). Just because the universe doesn't like to make things easy.

If M269 came from a population similar to Latvian HG then maybe I wasn't entirely wrong. Except on geography - I figured the headwaters of the Danube was the jumping off point for at least R1b-L51.

Vladimir said...

It's weird. Volosovo culture can not be older than 3000 BC. It can't have R1b-M269 in it. Either there is something not fully typed, or something with dates. There can't even be L51 in Volosovo. Ideal For culture Volosovo L 52. The period of existence of M269 corresponds to the Upper Volga culture.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “They weren't IEs and Uralians. They had very strong connections with the Baltic, so at least for some of them the Narva may have ancestral culture. They disappeared with the arrival of the Fatyanovians almost completely, they had nothing to do with Sintashta in any aspect.“

You, me and Haakinen are on the same page. It seems like a EHG/East Baltic population was indigenous to European Russia (modern day Tatarstan), and apparently like Botai they were almost completely wiped out by the Indo-Europeans. I have however been fascinated by Haakinen’s theory that the Saami language and/or Latvian contain some pre-IE pre-Uralic Volosovo elements.

Andrzejewski said...

PS: I hope @Davidski also adds another “feature” with associations to physical anthropology. I can’t fathom the fact that the British Stonehenge lady reconstruction from a population that was allegedly exterminated by Beakers in England looks almost completely Mediterranean or even “Middle Eastern” compared to Ötzi who was according to Wang almost completely “Agean” but nonetheless he looks more “Alpine” or modern European. Assumptions such as that the Beakers were Brachythephalic (Alpine, Burreby?) compared to more dolichocephalic modern Euros. It also perplexed me how Yamnaya were described as being composed of 3 different physical types but they after all look almost identical to Classical Roman busts.

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski "EHG/East Baltic population"

The EHG population and meso-East Baltic population are completely different populations.


Ryan said...

@Andrzejewski - I can’t fathom the fact that the British Stonehenge lady reconstruction from a population that was allegedly exterminated by Beakers in England

I believe the current thinking is that the neolithic population mostly collapsed in Britain before the arrival of the Beakers.

EHG/East Baltic population

As Archi points out, the Latvian hunter-gatherers are about midway between Scandinavian Hunter Gatherers and vanilla WHG on David's PCA. They're nowhere near EHG. They could still be the source of a substrate in Finno-Volgaic of course. Just don't think they're interchangeable with EHG.

That's why seeing where Volosovo places is so interesting.

Vladimir said...

As I understand it, the steppe eneolite is L23, so M269 must be something that makes up the steppe eneolite. This is either an EHG of the Sidelkino type, or the same Mesolithic-Neolithic North Caucasian steppe. One of them is R1b-M269 and the other of R1a-M198. In the area of Sidelkino later formed Elshan culture, from which, according to one version, comes the Samara culture. So it is quite possible that EHG is R1b-M269. In this case, the steppes of the North Caucasus (the Eastern coast of the sea of Azov) may well be home to CHG, which is R1a-M198. Or maybe the other way around. But if we assume that EHG is R1b, then M269 should be looked for somewhere to the East or South-East of Samara. This is the southern Urals, the North-Eastern coast of the Caspian sea, or even Western Siberia.

Archi said...

@Vladimir "As I understand it, the steppe eneolite is L23, so M269 must be something that makes up the steppe eneolite."

What makes you think that?

"This is either an EHG of the Sidelkino type, or the same Mesolithic-Neolithic North Caucasian steppe. One of them is R1b-M269 and the other of R1a-M198."

What makes you think that?

"So it is quite possible that EHG is R1b-M269. In this case, the steppes of the North Caucasus (the Eastern coast of the sea of Azov) may well be home to CHG, which is R1a-M198."

Delusional nonsense.

"Or maybe the other way around."
Or maybe the other Or maybe the other Or maybe the other

"It's weird. Volosovo culture can not be older than 3000 BC. It can't have R1b-M269 in it."

You're always writing statements without knowing the question. In old Russian archeological texts the dates were given in NOT CALIBRATED dates (NOT CALINDARY dates), this was usually until the 2000s. Therefore, to the oldest Volosovo dating in uncalibrated dates of 5086 BP it is necessary to add about 800-1000 years to get approximate correct calendar dates.
For reference (Latvia more closely to Volosovo)
Latvia Zvejnieki, Burial 124 [I4627 / ZVEJ26 / Latvia_MN1] 4251-3976 calBCE (5280±55 BP, Ua-3639)
Spain Cova de Els Trocs [ELT006 / UE:1 C: 650 S:1 Nº Inv: 22404] 3945 - 3769 cal BC (5035 ± 23 BP, MAMS-16165)

Rob said...

@ Ryan

“ believe the current thinking is that the neolithic population mostly collapsed in Britain before the arrival of the Beakers”

The nature of farming changed; but I don’t think the population had collapsed. They had just built Stonehenge

Romulus said...

@Rob

There was a massive population decline in Britain before the arrival of beakers:

https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2014/09/neolithic-population-busts-study.html

also

https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms3486


The Neolithic societies had a "boom and bust" pattern. Their populations grew rapidly until they exhausted the local resources and subsequently collapsed. The pattern is the same everywhere in Europe.

Rob said...


How can it be “the same everywhere” when agriculture arrived in Britain 1000 years after Central Europe, and by a different population ?
Population Declined after an initial boom; but that’s relatively normal; and far from a “collapse”. Moreover; merely counting settlement numbers isn’t a very surefire way of determining population #; esp if people move toward bigger, more centralised settlements

Ryan said...

@Rob - "How can it be “the same everywhere” when agriculture arrived in Britain 1000 years after Central Europe, and by a different population ?"

Disease and climate are two options.

Romulus said...

Not chronologically the same time, but the same pattern. CT settlements grew so large that they collapsed upon themselves, the people in these giant settlements were primitive. They had no plumbing, get enough of them in one spot and they contaminate the rivers they depend upon for life, they all get sick and die off. That is just one trajectory too many people in one spot during the neolithic sets them towards disaster on. They abuse the local flora and fauna to extinction, once resources have dried up they start to fight with each other over the resources.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_cities_throughout_history

10,000 people shitting and pissing in the same river they drink from, throwing animal carcasses in it. Over time it would become such a toxic shithole it would collapse. This is still going on in many places across the world, and has been a constant throughout human history. Prior to this 10,000 people never lived in one spot, they had no idea how to plan for the future to avoid disaster.

Romulus said...

This is why Beakers were so much more successful, they follow a model like modern day Hutterites. Settlement grows in size to the point where there are too many people, they split and half go start a new settlement. This is exactly how the Goths explained their exodus from Scania in the historical record.

Rob said...

@ Ryan

''Disease and climate are two options.''

only in a local -regional perspective, not a Europe-wide epidemic.
As per above, these cycles occurred at different times, if they are even true.

Going deeper, the Fuller article in fact bases its conclusions on cereal impressions, not
a full set of burial & settlement indices, modelled in some manner (hence critiqued by Bischop) So it could reflect a change in practices and settlement mode

There's no sense in saying 'farming failed'. Farming never failed because there was no monomorphic 'European farmers'.

W.r.t to Central Europe specifically, when the decline in EEF ancestry began 1500 years before CWC; through a cycle of LBK, SBK, TRB, GAC; and each group had successively a more dispersed, lighter settlement pattern.

@ Romulus

Maybe, but I see the pressure from TRB then GAC as the main driver of C-T collapse

Andrzejewski said...

I am pondering about the source of non-IE non-Uralic substrate in Saami. If I recall correctly, Haakinen theorized that it was a Volosovo-related one.

Samuel Andrews said...

I'm creating a Youtube Channel about ancient DNA. I hope you all subscribe.

Davidski said...

@All

For the sake of being thorough, I also tested how a couple of the IRN_Seh_Gabi_C samples affected my PCA. They have more complex ancestry than the Iranian Plateau Neolithic samples, and so also the potential to confuse the outcome in such fine scale PCA.

Indeed, in the first graph based on dimensions 1&2 they appear to form a bridge between the Caucasus hunter-gatherers and Iranian Plateau Neolithic farmers. But this is an illusion due to their high levels of Anatolian ancestry, and when I plot dimensions 1&3 they are shown to be sitting way off the Eastern Europe > Caucasus Mesolithic cline that also includes Steppe_Eneolithic and Yamnaya.

Look for Iranian_Plateau_Eneolithic...

Ancient_pseudo-haploid_PCA3a

Ancient_pseudo-haploid_PCA3b

Ancient pseudo-haploid PCA3 datasheet

Vladimir said...

Archie, you are hopelessly out of touch with modernity. Now almost all cultures are radiocarbon dated. Narva with 3280 BC is also late for the M269. In Volosovo radiocarbon dates from 3180 BC to 2100. http://archsamara.ru/files/biblioteka/254.pdf .
Well, as for what makes you think, logic. If you have a different logic, then tell me

AWood said...

If the Moscow area were the spawning ground for M269 in the late stone age, then they must also be responsible for Yamnaya, either way you look at it. The move southwards to the steppes would have occurred before, or without the formation of the L51+ SNP. We see this among the Ukrainian Neolithic L23+ who is overwhelmingly EHG. If the Volosovo culture had among them L51+ male(s), I would be curious what other Y HGs were among the colonies besides M269+ if any? Were they also I2 like Narva? This could explain a western influence, and R1b being local or from further east in the Russian forests. From what I can gather, these people would have spoken paleo-European language as they did not speak IE or Uralic, who, based on the latest theories and evidence came much later with N1c. All this being said, there must be some missing link between eastern Corded Ware and this Volosov culture, as the latter apparently did not contribute to the ancestry of modern Europeans, let alone could it be responsible for 50% of the west-central European male population. Then again, I have a Narva mt HG, so what do I know.

AWood said...

*correction* Narva did not contribute much to modern populations. ( said did not contribute, which isn't entirely true for all Europeans)

Ryan said...

@AWood - Yamnaya and M269 don't have to have their origins co-located. One could have contributed to the other group.

John Thomas said...

Samuel Andrews,

Give us the handle of your YouTube channel so that we can subscribe.

weure said...

@ Andrzejewski 'PS: I hope @Davidski also adds another “feature” with associations to physical anthropology.'

In the case of the BB this is clear brachycephaly and a flat occiput (in earlier days Dinaric) are the major signs of the Bell Beaker phenotype, This was cultivated in a milieu of R1b P312 of the North Dutch/NW German BB, they were rooted in SGC. From there there was a flux to the Isles and the rest of continental Europe. This phenotype pops up everywhere these kind of BB were going to.....

Samuel Andrews said...

@John Thomas. Thanks for your interest. I'm in the process of creating the Youtube channel. I'll give a link to my channel in the comments section when I'm done.

Gaska said...

@Richard Rocce said-Gaska, so your hypocrisy is complete as you can tell others where L51 DIDN'T originate based on biased archaeological arguments but you can't say where it DID based on those same arguments. Looks like the only one who is afraid to be wrong is you.

What you call hypocrisy, I call it humility, common sense, reasoned thinking and search for reasonable arguments-Ultrakurganist fans like you are the modern Holy Inquisition, you have the power, the money, you control the media and you have been trying for five years to impose an absurd dogma without having enough evidence for it-Now when Yamnaya culture is dying, instead of apologizing for your unscientific and unfair behavior, you get carried away by resentment and continue to attack people who don't think like you-

So, I have to admit that I don't know what the exact geographical origin of R1b-M269 / L51 is, but if I can affirm the following

1-R1b is a typical WHG lineage with evidence in Europe since the Epigravetian-
2-Villabruna cluster R1b spread throughout Europe reaching France (Iboussieres-Mesolithic), the Baltic (Narva culture hunter-gatherers), the Balkans and Scandinavia
3-Whgs contributed decisively to the formation of German (TRB, LBK, Rossen, Baalberge), French (Michelsberg) and Spanish Neolithic cultures
4-We have VK531 (probably R1b-L51) in Scandinavia (2,400 BC) with zero steppe ancestry
5-The Latvian hunter gatherers are 70% WHG and 30% EHG with zero steppe ancestry
6-Now it seems that we have R1b-M269 in Volosovo, very far from the steppes, and this culture seems to be related to the Narva culture
7-The R1b lineages related to Yamnaya and other steppe cultures (Khvalynsk, Sredni Stog, Catacomb, Repin, MAykop) etc. are exclusively R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103

And knowing this data some enlightened as you and your friend Kurgan Stevens intend to make everyone believe that the swarthy dolichocephalus riders supposedly L51/P312 of the Yamnaya culture domesticated the horse, invented the wheel, perfected metallurgy, conquered mainland Europe thanks to their strength, and the plague, created the BB culture and arrived in Iberia where they stayed forever to sunbathe on the beaches of southern Europe-You will succeed sleeping your children with this fairy tale but I don't think you get a PhD in a University using those arguments-However, Yamnaya culture is not the source but the sink of R1b and you cannot even prove that it is the origin of IE

So, you are right, with my genetic and archaeological knowledge, I cannot say where L51 originated, but I am intelligent enough to understand that the steppe theory as it has been interpreted by the new Kurganists for five years is a fairy tale-




Archi said...

@Vladimir said... "Archie, you are hopelessly out of touch with modernity."

it's just a blatant lie. You have proved that you know nothing. You have written shameful lies, showing that you know nothing and use outdated sources, you have been caught on this lie, even your source writes about your mistake, so you blame your eternal mistakes profane others? by the source:
"Comparing the obtained dates with the data on the Volosov culture, L. A. Nagovitsyn selected values from 4990±50 to 3500±50 BP to establish the chronology of the eneolite and dated the eneolite of the Kama region within the III thousand BC (according to traditional chronology) or within the IV – first half of the III thousand BC (on a calibrated scale)."

"In Volosovo radiocarbon dates from 3180 BC to 2100. http://archsamara.ru/files/biblioteka/254.pdf ."
It is cheating. In this source is written from 5169 to 3670 BP. But for you 1720 BC date is too uncomfortable, you understand that it is impossible. You do not know the real dates of this culture and do not understand that in addition to Volosovo there was still protovolosovo, which has dates older than 5080 BP.

https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/lesnaya-polosa-volgo-kamya-na-rubezhe-neolita-eneolita/viewer , 2012 year.

" Narva with 3280 BC"

Shame. You don't even know the time of Narva culture and you're cheating on dates.

I wrote the truth and true information, unlike this visionary.

Slumbery said...

@Rob

"You mean to say Yamnaya -Samara."

That is what I used as an example, because old europe also used it, but there is not very much variation actually, other than the westernmost groups having local admixture that inflates their EEF ancestry.

If we stick to the model used by Wang et.al the results are the following. (I already explained why this is an over-estimation of EEF ancestry, but it should be OK for comparison within Yamnaya.)


"sample": "RUS_Afanasievo:Average",
"fit": 3.4239,
"RUS_Progress_En": 89.17,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 10.83,

"sample": "Yamnaya_KAZ_Karagash:Average",
"fit": 4.3914,
"RUS_Progress_En": 87.5,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 12.5,

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia:Average",
"fit": 3.672,
"RUS_Progress_En": 86.67,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 13.33,

"sample": "Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:Average",
"fit": 3.4449,
"RUS_Progress_En": 87.5,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 12.5,

"sample": "Yamnaya_UKR:Average",
"fit": 3.6771,
"RUS_Progress_En": 85,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 15,


As you can see the only core Yamnaya population that have more EEF ancestry than Samara is the Ukrainan one, so the western expansion border and even that is just barely. Yamnaya is in fact somewhat surprisingly homogeneous for its large range and not just in terms of its EEF ancestry.

Slumbery said...

@auckeS

Doesn't Steppe Eneolithic show signs of Iranian ancestry?

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 4.7048% / 0.04704844
49.4 RUS_Samara_HG
36.8 GEO_CHG
13.8 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 WHG


The main (but probably not the only) reason why you got this result because Progress has a much lower WHG:AG3 ratio that Samara HG and even significantly lower than Yamnaya Samara. So the algorithm have to source the extra ANE ancestry from somewhere and Hotu_HG - being more ANE shifted than any other CHG-Iran population - is the only source for that in your setup. Watch what happens if AG3 is added to your setup.

"sample": "RUS_Progress_En:Average",
"fit": 1.9209,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 64.17,
"GEO_CHG": 13.33,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 13.33,
"IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso": 6.67,
"RUS_Samara_HG": 2.5,

Hotu_HG is not completely eliminated, just decreased. However AG3 is really old and we do not know exactly how close it is to the source ANE population of EHG.

Rob said...

@ Slumberry

Yes, most of Yamnaya is quite homogeneous, even Ukraine Yamnaya, which makes sense because its a particular pulse of expansion, or one of Gimbutas' waves

Slumbery said...

@Daviski

The Areni samples do have some ancestry from the North Caucasus and/or the steppe, and maybe even from Sredny Stog. You can see that in their mtDNA markers, a couple of which are typical of the Eneolithic steppe.

I am not sure you are right about this. The weird thing about Armenia_Areni that it does not seem to have any WHG ancestry or just dis-proportionally low compared to what we would except from the Steppe.

A comparison in G25 nMontes:

"sample": "ARM_Areni_C:Average",
"fit": 3.9941,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 45,
"GEO_CHG": 35.83,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 12.5,
"Levant_Natufian": 6.67,
"ITA_Villabruna": 0,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 0,

"sample": "RUS_Progress_En:Average",
"fit": 6.3095,
"GEO_CHG": 45.83,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 41.67,
"ITA_Villabruna": 9.17,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 3.33,
"Levant_Natufian": 0,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 0,

"sample": "RUS_Steppe_Maykop:Average",
"fit": 4.2683,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 65,
"GEO_CHG": 27.5,
"ITA_Villabruna": 5,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 2.5,

"sample": "UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En:Average",
"fit": 7.8494,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 35,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 30.83,
"GEO_CHG": 19.17,
"ITA_Villabruna": 15,
"Levant_Natufian": 0,
"RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N": 0,

If the ANE ancestry of Armenia_Areni is ultimately rooted in steppe EHG, even in a very eastern version of EHG (like the what Progress has), I would expect at least some WHG ancestry to show up. But it does not. And including Hotu_HG in the test does not really change the picture, so it is not that a more ANE shifted Iran ancestry inflates AG3.

You can do this in qpAdm if have the time and interest, but just from this I'd say the autosomal structure of Armenia_Areni is more consistent with Central Asian ancestry or even an early Steppe Maykop related group, because they had so much AG3 that this 1/8 AG3 can be provided while WHG and East Siberian is pushed down into deep noise level. (If Steppe Maykop was Kalteminar related, these two are actually pretty much the same thing.)

Vladimir said...

That's what I'm talking about. "Comparing the obtained dates with the data on the Volos culture, L. A. Nagovitsyn identified values from 4990±50 to 3500±50 BP.”
R-M269 formed 13300 ybp, TMRCA 6400 ybp
R-L23 formed 6400 ybp, TMRCA 6100 ybp

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

The dates that you're citing for Volosovo aren't calibrated.

Archi said...

@Vladimir That's what I'm talking about. "Comparing the obtained dates with the data on the Volos culture, L. A. Nagovitsyn identified values from 4990±50 to 3500±50 BP.”
R-L23 formed 6400 ybp, TMRCA 6100 ybp"

You don't understand anything as usual, all dates are calendar, only archeologists have conventional dates that have nothing to do with reality, it's just a contract about the speed of radiocarbon decay, which has nothing to do with the real speed of decay. Roughly speaking, archeologists have 400 days in a year instead of 365 and there are no leap (bissextile) years, so it is generally accepted. All geneticists have normal calendar dates. So archeological 5000 BP is normal 6000 BP. But you don't have the brains to know this elementary thing known to everyone.

Rob said...

@ Romulus

Btw maybe giant settlements ended because the functional or symbolic role they played were no longer needed or relevant; but I’m not sure of it being mass dysentery

Slumbery said...

On Volosovo dating there is a rather new article (but behind paywall): https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19302585?via%3Dihub

It says:However, datings from secure contexts, with good quality (error ca. 50 years or below) and no probable FRE, place the beginning of Volosovo culture to the first half of the 4th millennium cal BCE, around 3700–3600 cal BCE.

It also says that on their main studied site (Sakhtysh) Volosovo dies out before or around the time when Fatyianovo-Balanovo arrives, but they are careful not to draw a firm conclusion from this for the entirety of Volosovo, because of the lack of reliable data from the wider range.

CrM said...

@Slumbery

"The main (but probably not the only) reason why you got this result because Progress has a much lower WHG:AG3 ratio that Samara HG and even significantly lower than Yamnaya Samara. So the algorithm have to source the extra ANE ancestry from somewhere and Hotu_HG - being more ANE shifted than any other CHG-Iran population - is the only source for that in your setup. Watch what happens if AG3 is added to your setup."

I see, I've replaced Samara with WHG + ANE and Hotu is almost gone in Progress, and is nonexistent in Yamnaya. However Vonyuchka still packs some Iran_N.
https://imgur.com/a/prZQUbF

Regarding Areni, one Areni sample picks some WHG ancestry, but it is noise-level.

Target: ARM_Areni_C:I1631
Distance: 5.4963% / 0.05496269
41.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
32.2 GEO_CHG
12.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3
7.8 Levant_Natufian
5.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.6 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N

It would be interesting if the ANE related ancestry in Areni and OSS001 comes from something related to Kelteminar or BMAC, it would also explain the linguistic connection between Caucasian languages and Burushaski.


Andrzejewski said...

@AuckeS “it would also explain the linguistic connection between Caucasian languages and Burushaski.“

I beg your pardon?

CrM said...

@Andrzejewski

Burushaski is an isolate, and I suspect was one of the BMAC languages.
There are some interesting similarities between Caucasian languages and Burushaski.

http://jdbengt.net/articles/(299)bengtson%20-%20BurshRoundtable.pdf


Andrzejewski said...

@AuckeS “Burushaski is an isolate, and I suspect was one of the BMAC languages.
There are some interesting similarities between Caucasian languages and Burushaski.”

And BMAC is Iran_N, correct?

I wonder where Dravidian languages came from: Iran HG pre-LGM or Onge-like natives

AWood said...

@Gaska,

Actually VK531, the guy who is EHG and was identified as having a Nordic skull, so I assume this is dolichocephalic. There is no evidence he was L51+, but ok, that's full on conjecture on your part.

@Ryan,

The point is that M269+ didn't arise twice, it either originated in the steppes or the forests. Now that it is among the hunter gatherers of the forests, one theory is that the hunter gatherers could have moved south to form Yamnaya. The only other alternative is that it was on the grassy flatlands and one group moved north into the forests, while the literal brother formed Yamnaya.

AWood said...

@Vladimir,

Nobody ever suggested the M269+ mutation arose in the Volosovo culture, just that it was found there. These dates don't have to line up. As long as M269+ is older than the culture it is found, everything makes logical sense.

old europe said...



@slumbery

which is the ratio of WHG-ANE in the Samara hunter gather?

Vladimir said...

@AWood. “The only other alternative is that it was on the grassy flatlands and one group moved north into the forests, while the literal brother formed Yamnaya.” “ Nobody ever suggested the M269+ mutation arose in the Volosovo culture, just that it was found there. These dates don't have to line up. As long as M269+ is older than the culture it is found, everything makes logical sense.”
The question is not only that by the time Volosovo was formed, M269 had disintegrated, but also that L23 was discovered in the steppe. But all movements according to archaeological data in those days were from South to North, and not Vice versa. That is, it must be some sort of visible culture, which in the Neolithic of the forest zone has moved to the steppe. The only thing that can be assumed is the culture of pit-comb ceramics. But then M269 in Moscow region, it is PCC, but not Volosovo. In particular, according to one hypothesis Volosovo originated from the Volga-Kama culture. So, I just agree with this alternative version of yours, but if there is Z2103 in the steppe, then there should be L51 in the forest-steppe. Why else do I think that M269 was in the steppe and not in the forest, because now PF7562 is located exclusively in the South, L23 is also found only in the steppe. But the P297 could well be somewhere to the North, maybe even in Siberia, because the M478 is now, as far as I know, most of all in the Russian Volga-Ural region. Although, I don't insist on anything, there are too many unknowns in this formula.

Gaska said...

Communist Manifesto by Marx and Engels (1979) starts by stating: “A phantom (or spectre) is haunting Europe, the phantom of communism"

Gordon Childe about CWC-“A wandering race of hunters and pastoralists. They appear as pre-eminently martial folk: yet, whether by plunder or trade, they were able to secure products of distant lands.… These conquering battle-axe wielders exerted a profound influence wherever they went.”

Harvard and company about CWC (2.015)-Massive migration from the steppe is a source for Indo-European languages in Europe

That means.“A phantom (or spectre) is haunting Europe, the phantom of CWC"

I hope genetics helps us overcome these old theories, with more dedication and new data

Slumbery said...

@AuckeS

I see, I've replaced Samara with WHG + ANE and Hotu is almost gone in Progress, and is nonexistent in Yamnaya. However Vonyuchka still packs some Iran_N.

It is notable though that Yamnaya strongly prefers Progress against Vonyuchka when both present in the same test run.


As for the Armenia Areni test run. Yes, that what I call a noise level of WHG ancestry. This WHG:AG3 ratio cannot be delivered by any classic steppe population, let alone an Ukrainan one. Some variation of Steppe Maykop from the North Caspian seems to be the best fit for this.

@Davidksi

When you talk about mtDNA matches between Sredny Stog and Armenia_Areni you probably mean U4a and H2a1.
However U4a could be Siberian or at least it was already present there before the time of Armenia_Areni. The reason it seems to be so exclusively European looking at the mtDNA of the samples in G25 is the sampling density bias in favor of Europe prior 4000 BC (the time of the Armenian samples). But for example this article refers to 5000 BC U4a samples from the upper-Ob region near the Altai mountains: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2019/05/31/656181.full.pdf

H2a1 is a bit tougher, but the Armenian sample is not identified as H2a1a like the Sredny Stop one, only H2a1 and that is very old and very wide-spread.




Slumbery said...

@old europe

Well, nMontes is admittedly not the best for this, but I presume for comparison it is OK.

You can see the difference here:

"sample": "RUS_Progress_En:Average",
"fit": 6.4231,
"GEO_CHG": 45.83,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 42.5,
"ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 7.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 4.17,

"sample": "RUS_Samara_HG:Average",
"fit": 7.2325,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 65.83,
"ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 24.17,
"GEO_CHG": 7.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 2.5,

For Progress 7.5:42.5 -> ~0.18
For Samara_HG 24.17:65.83 -> ~0.37

Samara HG is much more western than Progress. In other word Progress has a kind of EHG ancestry that is more ANE that Samara HG.

Archi said...

@Vladimir "The question is not only that by the time Volosovo was formed, M269 had disintegrated, but also that L23 was discovered in the steppe. But all movements according to archaeological data in those days were from South to North, and not Vice versa. That is, it must be some sort of visible culture, which in the Neolithic of the forest zone has moved to the steppe. The only thing that can be assumed is the culture of pit-comb ceramics. But then M269 in Moscow region, it is PCC, but not Volosovo. In particular, according to one hypothesis Volosovo originated from the Volga-Kama culture. So, I just agree with this alternative version of yours, but if there is Z2103 in the steppe, then there should be L51 in the forest-steppe. Why else do I think that M269 was in the steppe and not in the forest, because now PF7562 is located exclusively in the South, L23 is also found only in the steppe. But the P297 could well be somewhere to the North, maybe even in Siberia, because the M478 is now, as far as I know, most of all in the Russian Volga-Ural region."

You write banalities, all R1b to Europe came from Siberia, not later than the final Paleolithic.
But P297 hardly lived in Siberia, because L754 lived in Ukraine and west.

Mesolithic Ukraine Vasilyevka 2 [I1734 / StPet7] 7446-7058 calBCE (8190±60 BP, Poz-81129, date suspect because of poor quality collagen) M R1b1a (xR1b1a1a) [L754 / PF6269 / YSC0000022].
Mesolithic Latvia Zvejnieki [I4630 / ZVEJ30] 7465-7078 calBCE (8240±70 BP) M R1b1a1a (xR1b1a1a2)

Neolithic Mariupol Ukraine Dereivka I, Grave 39 [I5883 / S5883.E1.L1] father_or_son_of_S5878.E1.L1 5208-5003 calBCE (6140±25BP, PSUAMS-2827) M R1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2)

M269 with extinct branches could live in Volosovo.

About the movements, frankly, you don't know so much about archaeology that it's not up to you to talk about it.

The fact is, the population of Eastern Europe in Neolithic does not match that of Mesolithic and Eneolithic. The Eneolithic population is related to Mesolithic, but not to Neolithic.

https://image.ibb.co/gAVgLv/image.png.

The Neolithic population spreads from some local group, capturing the main territory of Eastern Europe, and then dies out in the Eneolithic, Volosovo is generally part of this Neolithic population.

Rob said...

@ AWood

“Nobody ever suggested the M269+ mutation arose in the Volosovo culture, just that it was found there. These dates don't have to line up. As long as M269+ is older than the culture it is found, everything makes logical sense.”

No real evidence for that other than belief that R1b-M269 is somehow central to eveything.
Yamnaya is a phase of development which began in the western steppe c 4500 BC. If M269 really is from Moscow; it means it arrived to the steppe sometime before 3500 BC and coopted the Caspian steppe from other groups (V3616, Q1a, J1, etc)
But there could have been M269 groups already on the Lower Don-Volga region

Vladimir said...

Archi. I admit, of course, all options. But I try to look for more plausible ones. Let's assume your statement that the entire population of the Volosovo culture died, it seems to me improbable. In Russia, even the population of Yamnaya culture Z2103 still live, which were under strong pressure from chariot cultures, and the population of Srubnay culture Z2124 has also survived. Therefore, the population of Volosovo should also be preserved in some quantity. Let's say in Russia about 2% of the population of the subclade I2a-M436, which could well be preserved from the Neolithic culture of the Upper Volga passed into the culture of Volosovo, then into the culture of Fatyanovo, then into the culture of Mesh ceramics and eventually into Ancient Russia. In Volosovo there was also a second component from the culture of pit-comb ceramics. According to one hypothesis, this component came from the Volga-Kama culture. The same component in the South-West reached the Dnieper-Donetsk culture. I used to think it was an R1a-M198. Now they say that it could be R1b. If it was L51, it would be quite logical. So they came from the steppe, from where L23 was found. But M269??? It turns out that they have not been in Samara culture or have already been??? Full-genome markers will be important here. As for the Mesolithic of Ukraine, as far as I know all R1b found there is V88, and the Mesolithic of Latvia is M478.

weure said...

@Gaska
'1-R1b is a typical WHG lineage with evidence in Europe since the Epigravetian-
2-Villabruna cluster R1b spread throughout Europe reaching France (Iboussieres-Mesolithic), the Baltic (Narva culture hunter-gatherers), the Balkans and Scandinavia
3-Whgs contributed decisively to the formation of German (TRB, LBK, Rossen, Baalberge), French (Michelsberg) and Spanish Neolithic cultures
4-We have VK531 (probably R1b-L51) in Scandinavia (2,400 BC) with zero steppe ancestry
5-The Latvian hunter gatherers are 70% WHG and 30% EHG with zero steppe ancestry
6-Now it seems that we have R1b-M269 in Volosovo, very far from the steppes, and this culture seems to be related to the Narva culture
7-The R1b lineages related to Yamnaya and other steppe cultures (Khvalynsk, Sredni Stog, Catacomb, Repin, MAykop) etc. are exclusively R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103

And knowing this data some enlightened as you and your friend Kurgan Stevens intend to make everyone believe that the swarthy dolichocephalus riders supposedly L51/P312 of the Yamnaya culture domesticated the horse, invented the wheel, perfected metallurgy, conquered mainland Europe thanks to their strength, and the plague, created the BB culture and arrived in Iberia where they stayed forever to sunbathe on the beaches of southern Europe-You will succeed sleeping your children with this fairy tale but I don't think you get a PhD in a University using those arguments-However, Yamnaya culture is not the source but the sink of R1b and you cannot even prove that it is the origin of IE.'

I must admit you are not without (admitted quite cynical) humor ;) This is a result of an overly focus on just one Y-DNA line. The more samples we get the complicated the picture can get. R1b or R1b L51/312 is not exclusive for the Yamna guys and their heirs. So it can pop up in more times and places with less or no connection to Yamna.....But that doen't exclude that R1b L51/ P312 is dominant among Yamna (and BB Northern Europe). So what's the problem here?

Archi said...

@Vladimir
Don't speculate on implausibility without understanding the point. For some reason, you are not surprised that the entire population of the giant Dnieper-Donets culture is extinct, and this was proved long before genetic research. All the more so the small population of Volosovo. There is no need to write about Yamnaya, its population is also extinct, having survived only in one place where there were neither Srubnaya nor Andronovo or chariot cultures, it is quite possible that it has nothing to do with Yamnaya population. Relict branches can certainly survive, otherwise we wouldn't know their SNP, but these are units.

"Full-genome markers will be important here. As for the Mesolithic/Neolithic of Ukraine, as far as I know all R1b found there is V88, and the Mesolithic/Neolithic of Latvia is M478."

It's not known, you're speculating.

Vladimir said...

@Archi. All these are the same assumptions. Russia is home to several million Z2103 and several million Z2124. It depends on what to compare. If with China, Yes, these are relict branches, and if, for example, with Austria, then this is half of the population of Austria.

Archi said...

@ Vladimir "Russia is home to several million Z2103"

It's not true, you're just a fantasist writing a falsehood.

"Z2124"

It's not really clear what it has to do with R1b? You're wrong, Z2124 isn't R1b, it's R1a of Srubnians/Andronovians -> Iranians -> Turks.

Vladimir said...

It's true. Now this can be checked by the project RussiaDNA in the FTDNA database

Archi said...

@Vladimir It is not true, R1b-Z2103 in Russia only in Bashkirs, and they are mainly of Burzyan family. Bashkir men have about 600 thousand, approximately only one third (<40%) of them have R1b-Z2103, i.e. it is approximately 200 thousand, and only in one place.
You are mistaken as always.

Vladimir said...

Archi, in Russia Z2103 at 2% of the population. That's 3 million people. In Bashkirs this is statistically significant, their Z2103 is about 30%. Perhaps 200 thousand, but the rest live in other regions. There are relatively many of them in the North Caucasus region.

Archi said...

@Vladimir Don't be nonsense, 600 thousand is all Bashkir men, all Bashkir men all over Russia have 700 thousand. 70 million men have in Russia,but they are not Bashkirs.
So don't make it up.

Vladimir said...

Z2103 is not only Bashkirs, just look at the fomilii in the project RussiaDNA, more than half of them are Russian surnames. Of course, this is not strictly scientific data, but nevertheless. The 2000 members of this FTDNA project are quite sufficient for a statistical sample. By the way, if you count R1a there, you will get about 50%. The fact that in Russia 45-55% of R1a can be read in any scientific publication. N1a in this FTDNA project is 15%. Approximately the same figure is given by all scientific bases for Russia. Therefore, I see no reason not to believe 2% of Z2103 on this basis for the Russian population.

Archi said...

@Vladimir Don't be ridiculous, even if half of Z2103 is not Bashkirs (bu many Bashkirs have surnames that are indistinguishable from Russians), it's another 200 thousand, i.e. Z2103 is no more than 400-500 thousand, but not 3 million! You can't even count, your mythical 2% of 70 million male can't give you 3 million!

Vladimir said...

Archi. Z2103 is not only Bashkirs, do not carry nonsense

Archi said...

Vladimir . Z2103 is mainly Bashkirs and it has not 3 million! do not carry nonsense

Vladimir said...

Archi. This is your erroneous assumption that mostly Bashkirs. From this erroneous hypothesis you draw an erroneous conclusion.

Archi said...

@Vladimir It's your prerogative to make erroneous assumptions, you're wrong about everything and always.

vAsiSTha said...

Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera Outlier is interesting.
qpAdm

Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera
Ukraine_Yamnaya - 0.541 +- 0.056
Armenia_C(Areni Cave) - 0.459 +-0.056
chisq 10.766 tailprob 0.463
Result

Ukraine_Yamnaya_Ozera
Ukraine_Yamnaya - 0.62 +- 0.047
Caucasus_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya - 0.38 +-0.047
chisq 13.088 tailprob 0.287
Result

A successful model for Areni Armenia_C below:

Armenia_C
Anatolia_N - 0.374 +-0.034
Caucasus_Eneolithic - 0.265 +-0.082
Geoksyur_EN - 0.225 +-0.051
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN - 0.136 +-0.014
chisq 14.31 tailprob 0.111
Result

Replacing Geoksyur with Kotias fails for Armenia_C. Result

Removal of Khvalynsk_EN also fails Result





Vladimir said...

Archi. Unlike you, I have at least some basis, this is the project RussiaDNA in the FTDNA database. But not only that. Here is a summary table of haplogroups for the peoples of the Caucasus. In accordance with it, we have the following: the Lezgins on Balanovsky 30% R1b, it is obvious that this is Z2103, the Avars on Balanovsky 15% R1b, the karachaevites on Kutuev 10% R1b, the Balkars on Kutuev 13% R1b, and so on. http://www.rodstvo.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=5048

Archi said...

Vladimir "Unlike you, I have at least some basis, this is the project RussiaDNA in the FTDNA database. But not only that. Here is a summary table of haplogroups for the peoples of the Caucasus. In accordance with it, we have the following: the Lezgins on Balanovsky 30% R1b, it is obvious that this is Z2103, the Avars on Balanovsky 15% R1b, the karachaevites on Kutuev 10% R1b, the Balkars on Kutuev 13% R1b, and so on. http://www.rodstvo.ru/forum/index.php?showtopic=5048"

You're a cheater, it says that R1b Lezgin has 22%, not 30%, while Lezgin has 250,000 men, that is, no more than 50,000. The rest is even smaller in number and percentage. It's not at all obvious that there's Z2103, but let's put it down. In total in the North Caucasus R1b is several less than in the Bashkirs. So no way your delusional 3 million will ever get, you do not have any base, only your own illusions.

Vladimir said...

Archi. So you agree that your statement that only the Bashkirs have Z2103 is a lie. So we will fix it. Further. 22% is on average according to Balanovsky, Kutuev and eupedia. And specifically at Balanovsky 30%. That's two.

Archi said...

@Vladimir sR1b subsubclades in the North Caucasus have not been determined what percentage of them Z2103 is unknown, so this is just your guess.
You falsify the results, you choose only those numbers that are convenient for you, and the oldest and the most inaccurate, from the works where the least tested. You're just lying all the time and that's what I agree with.

Vladimir said...

Archi. Speaking of the gene pool of the actual Russian, without other nationalities. Data from Wikipedia, but with reference to Balanovsky. Here, however, the subclades R1b-M269, but obviously 2/3 is Z2103. Take the North, center, and South of Russia. North: Pinega (Arkhangelsk region) 14% R1b-M269. Center: the forest zone. Roslavl (Smolensk region), 11% of R1b-M269. Center: forest-steppe zone. REP'yevka (Voronezh region) 5% R1b-M269. South: steppe. Kuban (Krasnodar region) 9% R1b-M269. https://ru.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%90%D0%BD%D1%82%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%BE%D0%BB%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%B8%D1%8F_%D1%80%D1%83%D1%81%D1%81%D0%BA%D0%B8%D1%85#

Archi said...

@Vladimir "Balanovsky. Here, however, the subclades R1b-M269, but obviously 2/3 is Z2103."

Balanovsky did not assumptions "obviously" Z2103. It's your delusional imagination. R1b at Russians is not Z2103, it's well known!

Vladimir said...

Archi. Do you think that all those of R1b-M269 are R1b-L51???? Lol...

Archi said...

@Vladimir "Do you think that all those of R1b-M269 are R1b-L51???? Lol..."

Lol Lol. It is well known by genographics projects. Sometimes there are other cases when the genus comes from Bashkiria, North Caucasus, South Ukraine/Balkans. There are relict cases always, otherwise we wouldn't know these subclades.

Vladimir said...

Archie. You're too stubborn. You don't want to admit even the obvious facts. OK. Let it be what you think is right for you. And for the rest I will say that in Russia R1b is about 5%. Of these, about 1% is R1b-M478, about 2.5% is R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51 about 1.5%.

Andrzejewski said...

R1b was somehow very common in Neolithic and Eneolithic Eastern Europe. I’m on the other hand more fascinated by the sudden rise of R1a1 with the emergence of the CWC.

vAsiSTha said...

"R1b was somehow very common in Neolithic and Eneolithic Eastern Europe. I’m on the other hand more fascinated by the sudden rise of R1a1 with the emergence of the CWC."
Kane & Abel type situation, or just coincidence. R1a as well as R1b was present in the EHG component. whats the best theory for R1a dominance in the BA?

Andrzejewski said...

@vAsiSTha “R1a as well as R1b was present in the EHG component. whats the best theory for R1a dominance in the BA?”

Corded Ware is my theory. The source of IE languages. Why and how is a mystery.

But R1a/R1b is not just EHG: ANE was prevalent all over Eurasia including in Botai, WSHG, Kelteminner, Steppe Maykop and of course - CHG was at least 35% ANE. It’s possible that R1b-M269 originated with Caucasus HG and that J1 and J2 were actually EHG markers (think Karelia HG). @Samuel Andrews can help us with this.

vAsiSTha said...

Oldest found J and descendents are from the south of caucasus(CHG) and central asia/iran.

Given that R1b was so widespread from west europe to east asia, R1a seems to have come from the south near caucasus region to Ukraine & samara region - - Ukraine_mesolithic, Karelia_HG to Khvalynsk_EN. Then somehow R1b came to dominate this region in the EMBA. Same happened in ukraine from mesolithic to neolithic.

Then I guess R1a guys got fed up, didnt want to give up the women anymore and ended up conquering the steppe, after away women from the ukrainian/polish globular amphora guys lol

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

The oldest R1a, almost from the Upper Paleolithic, is from north of the Black Sea you dickhead.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/09/y-haplogroup-r1a-and-mental-health.html

There's no evidence that R1a came from the Caucasus.

vAsiSTha said...

Dont be so touchy @davidski, i just gave a hypothesis, no need to break bangles over it. R1a tmrca is 15k-20kbce. do you have samples close to that date?

Whats the most likely region of spread of R2?

Davidski said...

R1a, R1b and R2 are all obviously from the north somewhere, since R and P1 are from Siberia.

Samuel Andrews said...

We need to be content with the number of ancient DNA samples from Iran we have right now. Because, pretty soon there will be no Iran left to speak of, If you know what I'm saying.

Archi said...

@Rob
"''the entire population of the giant Dnieper-Donets culture is extinct,''
Im not sure that's true. They probably moved elsewhere"

It has long been proved by anthropologists, the population of the Dniеper-Donets culture is so unique, it is not similar to any other type of people, which stands out among all its dissimilarity. Its type does not appear anywhere else, so they all died out, though this extinction was gradual. In theory, the last of the extinct people living in Belarus could have gone somewhere, but they were already so mixed with others by then that they could even become proto-BB, although this is pure speculation, but they are R1b and there are bell beaker cups.


Rob said...

I think that physical anthropology often got things correct; however with aDNA we can refine those findings
IMO; the overall evidence suggests that Dnieper -Donets had mixed fortunes ...

Ric Hern said...

How strong was the connection between Samara and Dnieper-Donets ?

Vladimir said...

And the Polish Stroke-Ornamented Ware Culture can't be that place where the population of Dnepro-Donetsk culture partially passed?

Ric Hern said...

Now I wonder if the expansion of R1b was basically a East to West during the Upper Paleolithic along the Forest Steppe with occasional penetration South along the Major Rivers (Volga, Don, Dnieper,Vistula) during the Late Paleolithic/Mesolithic...

Gaska said...

@weure said-But that doen't exclude that R1b L51/ P312 is dominant among Yamna (and BB Northern Europe). So what's the problem here?

The only problem is that I don't understand how you may have concluded that L51/p312 was dominant among Yamnaya, although I think I have found the solution to understand how it is possible that the shepherds of the steppes supposedly IE became Basque/Iberians absolutely non-IE-When the Yamnaya-CWC riders arrived in the Netherlands, they met a wizard who used his magic wand to change the dimensions of their skulls, their uniparental markers, taught them metallurgy, gave them the BB culture and he said to them: South of the Pyrenees there is a lot of wild and unexplored land, abundant hunting, wild horses that run more than the wind, productive farmland, great white sand beaches, oil, wine, beer and fruits, and many pretty girls-As expected, the P312/Df27 riders arrived in Iberia with their horses, weapons and because they were more handsome, tall and stronger than the Iberians, they conquered their cities, killed all the men and stayed with their women-But these women who in addition to being beautiful, were intelligent, got their new men to forget their IE language and adopt theirs even though it was a little more complicated and that's finally how we Basques Df27 have been able to preserve our Non-IE language

Then another magician who lives in the Pyrenees said: Wait a moment; the BB culture
and the whole BB package is much older in Iberia than in the Netherlands, it has been shown that our Dutch, French and English neighbors were still living in the Stone Age while we had been using arsenic copper for 500 years, there were large chalcolithic cities that traded with Asia, Africa and even reached the lost islands of the Atlantic Ocean, archaeologically, genetically and anthropologically Iberian migrations to other European regions have been demonstrated, there is no evidence of violent conquests or sudden cultural changes, and besides, nobody has yet shown that we have our origin in the steppes because they haven't found any of our ancestors buried there, so, why don't you keep looking before continuing to make a fool of yourselves?

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, please tell us the story of how the magician had a magic DNA editing machine that made the Copper Age haplogroup I2 men in Iberia and France into men with haplogroup L51? Or the one about the big bad American conspiracy where the bad men from Harvard were faking DNA results to show that men from eastern Europe replaced all western European male lineages during the Early Bronze Age. Idiot.

Gaska said...

@Mr Magic Rocca and friends

It seems that Mr Rocca, after collaborating for 5 years in the writing of the fairy tale about the transformation of Yamnaya riders into western P312, wants us to talk about an American conspiracy to demonstrate the total replacement of the Western Neolithic population- This is an even more beautiful and tender story because Harvard and company has become the great magician who tries to explain to humanity what our origins are, where the languages we speak come from, when and how the conquests and prehistoric migrations occurred and what our behavior should be in the face of this extreme generosity and his great genetic discoveries- And the most miraculous thing about that story is that they have been able to establish the history of mankind, analyzing a few hundred ancient genomes from countries they had never heard of, and totally ignoring the prehistory of Europe and the genetic databases that are managed in European countries-

But for these magical tales to reach public opinion, they need little wizards willing to do anything to convince their followers that they are right- And this is where Mr Magic Rocca and his friends, the guardians of Kurganist ultra-orthodoxy appears-Not wanting to believe that any research could have contradicted their own pet theory, the reviewer can rejected some papers and publish others with wrong chosen deposits and biased conclusions-

Finally, when a respectful person is banned so suddenly and with so little reason, it suggests to me that something is wrong, and that magicians have not come to solve our problems but to impose a truth that only they believe-

The great magician who tries to make his story come true only needs one thing; Provide convincing and sufficient evidence -That's all folks- Meanwhile we will talk when we can and laugh when we read stupid things like the ones you and your friends say in anthrogenica-

weure said...

@Gaska, posts are not people, so that Iberia BB could be earlier that Dutch BB has not per se genetic consequences.
Over and over have Davidski and others shown the genetics of Dutch BB in respect to Yamna and the other Beakers. Like I said for a folk is auDNA much more important than a single Y-DNA line, although a Y-DNA clade can be important too.
Regarding the Dutch BB, the hotspots of the SGC are congruent with the BB hotspots: above the Rhine in the NE part. So the most western outlier of the North European Plain.
So when you start the BB folk adventure in Spain/Iberia than you need indeed a magical miracle (beam me up Scotty) they had to jump over Northern France, Belgium and South Dutch to the North Dutch area, so over land they left no trace in these area's? And it is known that the stream beneath the Rhine mound is different, more connected to the Atlantic, than above the Rhine that is more North Sea/ Nordic connected. So they jumped from Spain to NE Dutch or peddled against the stream....huhuh biased wishful thinking. Don Quichotte from La Mancha.
So what's you story, apart from continues trying to debunk the SGC>BB overlap? What is your narrative about the spread of the Beaker folk?

Gaska said...

@weure

1-I don't know if you have read Beckerman's doctoral thesis on the introduction of the CWC in the Netherlands, it has helped me to clarify some doubts about it
2-It discards massive migrations, talks about conserving traditions of native Neolithic cultures and only admits migrations of small human groups (exogamy and also men)
3-We don't have a single ancient genome from the SGC
4-We only have one genome of the BB culture in the Netherlands, the rest of the samples analyzed by Olalde are from the Bronze Age-
5-That man has a typical CWC Mit-hap. so it is not very difficult to imagine where he acquired his steppe ancestry
6-I don't need any miracle to prove Iberian migrations to other European regions because many geneticists, anthropologists and archaeologists have already done it - You can read Haak, Brotherton, Fernandes (Sicily), Besse, Guilaine, Salanova, Guerra, Fitzpatrick, Cunliffe etc. ...
7-The Dutch model has long since been debunked, it doesn't need me to participate in the demolition
8-The BB culture in Iberia lasted 1,000 years, there were many migrations both to the north of the Pyrenees and to the south, and of course they sailed across the Atlantic facade and the western Mediterranean- Therefore many people, both men and women of different lineages moved in small family groups carrying their customs and traditions with them-
9-Did you know that Sicilian BBs-R1b-Df27 can only be modeled with Iberian BBs-R1b-P312/df27? -Do you need more proof of migrations?
10-They also practiced exogamy to renew his blood, establish alliances and avoid consanguinity problems
11-The mitochondrial lineages of the different European regions are surprisingly coincident with the Iberians (two exceptions-the Netherlands and Poland)
12-Neither the BB culture nor any other prehistoric culture was genetically uniform (not even the CWC) - In addition to P312 we also have G2 (Spain, Germany, Hungary), I2 (Spain, England, Hungary) and H (Hungary) in BB deposits-When we have 1000 BBs ancient genomes, you will see it much more clearly

SGC-BB overlap?We have AOO and CZM in Iberia 200 years older than the Dutch, it is time for you to accept it-

Archi said...

Gaska said... "The Dutch model has long since been debunked, it doesn't need me to participate in the demolition
SGC-BB overlap?We have AOO and CZM in Iberia 200 years older than the Dutch, it is time for you to accept it-"

That's not true. In Iberia, just dating is worse, the range of dating inaccuracy is higher there - 600 years! All dates tested of BBs there are approximately the same as the Dutch sample or younger. Therefore, there is not even close to any debunking of the Dutch theory. The problem of BBC formation and the influence of individual regions on its formation still remains. As for the Iberian mito, it is not Iberian, but a pan-European Neolithic one.

weure said...

Of course I have read it. This dissertation speaks not against an overlap between cw and bb, on the contrary!!!:

'1.2.2.6 End of the Corded Ware Culture and transition to the Bell
Beaker Culture
The end of the Corded Ware Culture and the transition to the Bell Beaker Culture
is also a much studied topic. In their influential 1976 paper, Lanting and Van der
Waals postulated that the development from Corded Ware to Bell Beaker must
have been continuous and that All Over Ornamented Beakers can be seen as the
link (Lanting and Van der Waals, 1976: p.4). Bell Beakers were thus seen as a local
development in the middle and lower Rhine regions, with roots in the Corded
Ware Culture, rather than having a foreign, Iberian, origin (Lanting and Van derWaals, 1976: p.4).
Brodie (2001, p.487) postulated the same area of origin for
the Bell Beaker pots, but also stated that copper working was an important new
technique that spread through Europe in a south-east to north-west direction.
Brodie suggested that beakers may have tagged along.
Besse (2004) compared Bell Beaker pottery with the ceramics from preceding
cultures for 80 sites in 11 countries. She concluded that in the southern part of
the Bell Beaker distribution area there is a clear dichotomy in the types present on
earlier Late Neolithic sites and on Bell Beaker sites (Besse, 2004: p.140-142). In
the northern and the eastern parts of the Bell Beaker distribution area, however,
many Bell Beaker types show a strong resemblance to older Corded Ware types
(Besse, 2004: p.137-140). Besse (2004: p.142) therefore concluded that in the
northern and eastern parts of the Bell Beaker distribution area, the Corded Ware
Culture played a major part in the origin of the Bell Beaker Culture, but that in
the southern part of the Bell Beaker distribution area the transition was more
radical. It should be noted that the Bell Beaker Culture was not fully adopted or
developed in all regions of the Corded Ware Culture; in Denmark, for example,
only few Bell Beaker characteristics are visible (Hübner, 2005: p.750). '

In the Dutch context the SGC hotspots are the BB hotspots. This shift went without a big break. No signs of immigration. Between TRB and SGC (about 2800 BC) there was a sharp break. A lot of signs of immigration

You must still enlighten me about the beam me up Iberian BB to North Dutch/NW German BB magical miracle....still fighting against the wind mills?

Gaska said...

@weure

Migrations-Salanova (2001) proposed on the basis of ceramic analysis that there were movements of people. According to Salanova (2001), the fact that Bell Beakers with high uniformity in decoration are found all over Europe and are used together with many different local forms is an indication of potters moving into an area as well as ongoing traditions

The pattern observed by Salanova (2001) fits the pattern observed on the Noord-Holland sites with Corded Ware ceramics and those with Bell Beaker ceramics, because at both types of sites, regional types as well as supra-regional types were used and likely produced. The start of the Bell Beaker period is often linked with an important new technology: copper working (Brodie, 2001, p.487). Brodie (2001, p.487) postulated that copper working spread throughout Europe in a south-east to north-west direction and that Bell Beakers vessels may have tagged along. This corresponds with Childe’s (1925: p.222, 1958: p.146) idea that the Bell Beaker people maintained communication and trade routes over large areas of Europe. Salanova (2001: p.100-101) proposes that Bell Beakers can be seen as an ideological instrument for consolidating the new economic alliances. Support for this hypothesis was found in the current study; the Corded Ware and Bell Beakers found in the study area can also be seen as a symbol for (new) economic relations.

Have you read what Beckerman says about the problem of lack of dating in the Netherlands and the problem about its reliability?

As I suppose you have also read Fokkens I am surprised that you continue defending the Dutch model because it is an old fashioned idea

You can also read Besse's paper on Swiss Bbs, because anthropological evidence shows that they come from the Mediterranean domain, that is Iberia


@Archi-

To ensure dating, the thermoluminescence technique is used, which is much more effective for the authentication of old ceramic wares, for which it gives the approximate date of the last firing- That's what we do in Spain and Portugal and the results are even older than the dating by C14, 200 years earlier than in the Netherlands- (2,800 / 2,750 BC, the oldest in the Tagus estuary, Galicia and Extremadura) - So for me this is a closed case-

I don't understand what you mean with the Iberian mito and the Pan Neolithic European one-

Where do you think the Bb culture originated?

And please, you may disagree with me, but don't say I lie because you show limited education and respect

Arza said...

@ Davidski
I'm asking because it looks like the Slavic homeland has been already found. Just look at this:

Poland_Corded_Ware_Proto_Unetice.SG RISE431.SG
P~ M1197
P~ M1191 negative
P1~ L268
R CTS7876
R L1225
R1 CTS3123
R1 M691
R1a~ CTS5936
R1a1~ CTS10847
R1a1~ CTS8710
R1a1~ M742
R1a1a~ F989
R1a1a1~ CTS5648
R1a1a1~ F3398

M_Poland_Unetice_EBA.SG RISE145.SG
P~ M1195
R1 M640
R1a1~ CTS11853
R1a1a~ CTS9690

Czech_Protounetice_EBA I5037
P1~ L536
R M651
R CTS7880
R1a1a~ F989
R1a1a1~ CTS10080

Czech_Protounetice_EBA I5042
P~ CTS216
P~ F344
P~ F556
P~ L82
P1 P239
R1 P238
R1a~ CTS5273
R1a1~ CTS3548
R1a1a~ CTS8797
R1a1a1~ F3551

Despite the low quality two samples clearly show the presence of the "Balto-Slavic drift":

Distance to: CZE_Protounetice_EBA:I5042
0.01850892 Russian:Russia3
0.01921380 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:I4110
0.01979596 Karelian:KAR-005
0.02012362 Lithuanian_VZ:LTG-751
0.02031625 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA:I1853
0.02065018 Finnish:HG00179
0.02065890 Finnish:GS000016894
0.02084874 Finnish:HG00178
0.02086001 Bell_Beaker_English:I6777
0.02113575 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0942

Distance to: CZE_Protounetice_EBA:I5037
0.02613618 England_CA_EBA:I2464
0.03056959 Lithuanian_RA:LTG-193
0.03114065 Polish:Polish16H
0.03231780 Ukrainian:UKR-1909
0.03238024 Ukrainian:UCH945_ukrainian_Tsherk
0.03265854 Lithuanian_PA:LTG-167
0.03278368 CZE_Early_Slav:RISE569
0.03286731 Polish:Polish7H
0.03323793 Lithuanian_PZ:LTG-1177
0.03344637 Ukrainian_North:GS000013755

Now I wonder what they have found e.g. here:

I11952 M T2b Slovakia Early Bronze Age Blatné 2200-2000 BCE

Arza said...

@ weure
BA Netherlands I4070 can be safely assigned to R-S263(xR-S265), at least according to the dataset provided by the Reich Lab. Belgae?

AWood said...

@Andrzejewski

I'd argue that CWC wasn't even the most significant expansion, Bell Beaker was more influential on the male Y and impact of Europe as a whole, with the exception of far northern and eastern Europe. Many of the lineages found in CWC are minority today, with Scandinavia harbouring the largest share today. (as one would expect)

We've seen paper after paper on Bell Beaker and how related lineages are still alive and well throughout a large chunk of Europe - Austria and westwards. No need to cover these branches of P312+ in more detail.

There is an argument that Slavic expansion was more impactful genetically, especially when you consider the geography these languages and people cover in Europe today and how quickly it happened. The lack of data for some of these lineages in aDNA should be telling and further prove the point. (ie: I2-M423 Dinaric branches, R1a-M558, M458)

Richard Rocca said...

@Gaska, the paranoid conspiracy theory always works best who don't like where 100% of the data is pointing. You are not very original in this regard as the biased nutjob Gioiello has been using it for more than a decade.

weure said...

@Gaska, I admire your Houdini capacity, but in the case of Beckerman you are wrong, with Fokkens too. What he states is that it's not Rhine Delta as a whole but specific NE Dutch (the Veluwe) as a breeding ground of the Beakers.
https://www.academia.edu/5507545/Background_to_Dutch_Beakers

No pasaran.

Archi said...

@Gaska, Let's leave electroluminescence on pots aside, it's a separate complex topic in no way connected with genetics, this is not the place where one can discuss such subtleties. We do not discuss individual hypotheses of the possible origin of individual forms of pots, we discuss the origin of people. I have written about the dates of the studied samples of people, so there is no priority of Iberia over the Netherlands.

I have already written that BBs' R1b definitely came from Eastern Europe, but not from Iberia. But they didn't come with CWC and they weren't part of CWC. You can see that the BBs are definitely tied to the seashore, and often to the rivers, it is their ethnic marker. Consequently, there are two possible hypotheses - North and South.
1. North. Along the coast of the Baltic Sea to the Netherlands. The starting point can be Narva culture (or later), then moving only along the coast, or Belarus (final DDC?), then moving either down the Vistula or the Odra.
2. Southern. Along the Black Sea coast and further up the Danube, probably from the Crimea. This way is complicated by the fact that they had to quickly swim along the Danube against the current up to the upper reaches of the Danube, from where they already get to the Netherlands and Iberia.
Indirect confirmation of each of these hypotheses can be found, but there are no direct ones.


@AWood "Many of the lineages found in CWC are minority today"

Name these lines found at CWC samples, and these samples, please.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza,
"Distance to: CZE_Protounetice_EBA:I5042
0.01850892 Russian:Russia3
0.01921380 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2:I4110
0.01979596 Karelian:KAR-005
0.02012362 Lithuanian_VZ:LTG-751"

Uh, well in West Eurasian PCA, Bell Beaker Britain & Unetice cluster closest to modern Eastern Europeans. This is because, Eastern European's Narva hunter gatherer ancestry pulls them east and makes them cluster with Bell Beaker/Unetice who had more Steppe ancestry. Technically in overall Mesolithic ancestry they are close to Eastern Europeans. But, I'm pretty sure there's no direct relationship between Unetice and modern Eastern Europe.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 285   Newer› Newest»