Monday, February 3, 2020
Did Caucasus hunter-gatherers ever live in what is now Iran?
Nope, they only lived in the Caucasus Mountains. See that's probably why they're called Caucasus hunter-gatherers, or CHG for short.
But what about the hunter-gatherers from the Belt and Hotu caves in northern Iran, you might ask? Well, what about them? They're not CHG, nor are they significantly more CHG-like than the early farmers of the Zagros Mountains.
To illustrate the point, below are a couple of TreeMix graphs. I'd say they're rather straightforward and self-explanatory.
However, please note that I combined the Belt and Hotu individuals into one sample to help keep the marker count at over 100K. Also keep in mind that CHG is represented by Kotias_HG.
See also...
A final note for the year
A note on Steppe Maykop
Did South Caspian hunter-fishers really migrate to Eastern Europe?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
268 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 268 of 268@Gaska
Quit talking out of your ass.
There's no evidence of any Iranian farmers or herders migrating into Eastern Europe. This is indeed someone's fantasy.
However, there is plenty of evidence of steppe people migrating deep into Europe during the Late Neolithic. And you can't do anything about this.
@Gaska
If you had anything resembling a viable theory of your own, you might be taken more seriously.
Anti-migrationist archaeologist tries to dispel the "problematic" interpretation of ancient DNA that in the case of Bell beaker, genes and culture go hand and hand.
Haunted by the Ghost of the Beaker folk?
https://portlandpress.com/biochemist/article/42/1/30/221979/Haunted-by-the-ghost-of-the-Beaker-folk
"....it has been claimed that there must have been a direct causal link between the demographic and cultural changes that happened in Britain during the 3rd millennium BC. This is a curious assumption that seems to echo the highly problematic approaches that characterized early forms of archaeology and resulted in the construction of a mythical ‘Beaker folk’. "
Sounds like it was written by Tumblr user. Do they talk about "body positivity" also?
Bell Beaker blogger covers it.
https://bellbeakerblogger.blogspot.com/2020/02/beaker-ghosts-carlin-2020.html
The benchmark of his argument, is that Iberian Bell Beaker is the same culture but different genes than Northwest Europe Bell beaker.
This claim was an important mistake made by Harvard geneticists. As Bell beaker blogger says, it was like Harvard handed an olive branch to anti-migrationist archaeologists....
"Harvard started this meme that the Beaker phenomenon was totally people not pots, but they leave this big olive branch to the archaeological community by offering Iberia as an example of cultural imitation. Sorry everyone, but that nice idea will explode as well in time. What happened between the LN and MBA Iberia was not imitation.
"
The Harvard team has been making a lot of embarrassing claims recently, haven't they...
@Andrzejewski
"Most scientist: Patterson, Damgaard, Lazaridis, Günter, Mathieson and Anthony pin the CHC introgression on ~7,000 years ago,"
Where you got this fantasy no one understands.
"which happened to be around the same time frame that Khvalynsk and Samara Cultures formed in today’s Tatarstan Russian Republic."
Where you got this fantasy no one understands. Nonsense, Samara culture in the Samara region, Khvalynsk culture in the Saratov region.
@Bob Floy, I think they're usually right. But, sometimes they make big mess ups. Archaeologists use anything Harvard says which remotely supports their genes never correlate with culture philosophy.
@Daviski
Thank you for the info and the link. There is one last thing that confuses me a bit though, I thought the ENA component in ANE was kind of a consensus, do you think that there can be alternative models that explain the affinity? People often tie it to the East Asian affinity observed in Fu et al,2016 from various opinions I have come across.
@Ryan
That was my impression too, but papers differ in their exact estimates
@JuanRivera
Is MA1 more East Eurasian than Yana or less? I thought less but could be wrong.
@Andrzejewski
I am a bit confused about the Lazaridis,2018 model.
I suspect Onge in Iran_N is more of a proxy for deep East Eurasian ancestry, likely carried over via the ANE or could it be additional gene flow?
PS. I am also unsure how much it actually impacted Europe as apparently many papers equate it to CHG for some reason.
@gamerz_J
I don't know. Deep ancestry isn't one of my main interests.
@Pine trees and mountains
"One of the dumbest things I have read in this thread."
Ok.
“The first metal objects discovered in the northern Caucasus come from settlements attached to the Meshoko culture. They include an undetermined object (Chernykh 1991) from the upper level 1 of Svobodnoe, a small ring and a knife blade from Skala (Formozov 1965) and 11 fragments of tools and ornaments (awl, bracelet, pendant) from Meshoko (Chernykh 1966). […]
Analysis of the metal artefact from Svobodnoe revealed that it was made of “pure” copper (Chernykh 1991). Chernykh considered this evidence for the use of copper ores free of impurities, argued to be typical of the copper deposits in the Carpatho-Balkan area (Chernykh 1992; Chernykh et al. 1991). Thus, he suggested that this object came from across the Black Sea (Chernykh 1991). [...] Chernykh’s hypothesis implied a west–east circulation that was later reinforced by the discovery of similar prestige objects over a vast area (including bone pearls, tusk pendants, very long flint blades, triangular stone arrowheads, bracelets and adzes in serpentine and zoomorphic sceptres) (Rassamakin 1999). In this exchange trade, the Skelya culture of the Pontic Steppe (north of the Black Sea) could have played an intermediary role. This culture does seem to have been a link between the entities of the Lower Danube (Suvorovo and Cernavoda I cultures), the Kuban region (including Svobodnoe, Meshoko, Myskhako and Zamok) and the wooded steppes of the Volga River (Khvalynsk). This vast territory coincides with the area of the Carpatho-Balkan metallurgical province (CBMP) as laid out by Chernykh et al. (1991). Furthermore, a certain chronological overlap exists between the period of these exchanges (ca. 4550–4100/4000 BCE) and the apogee of this CBMP, dated to ca. 4400–4100 BCE (Chernykh 1978a; see also Pernicka et al. 1997; Ryndina 1998). (p.585-586) [...]
The metallurgical processes, most likely originating in the Carpatho-Balkan area and already known during the preceding Meshoko culture, were probably further developed by the Majkop population. It seems that this western influence continued into the beginning of the Majkop phase, as suggested by the introduction of the socket and the metal pickaxe." (p.622-623)
'Ancient Metallurgy in the Caucasus from the Sixth to the Third Millenium BCE' (2014)
https://www.academia.edu/5789550/2014_-_Ancient_Metallurgy_in_the_Caucasus_From_the_Sixth_to_the_Third_Millennium_BCE
"Although similarities between the Varna culture and that of Ikiztepe on the central coastal region of the Black Sea strongly imply close ties between the northern Balkans and central Anatolia, the lack of similar evidence from the western parts of the Anatolian peninsula suggests a maritime connection through the coastal areas of the Black Sea rather than by way of a land route." (p.13)
'Eastern Thrace: the Contact Zone Between Anatolia and the Balkans' (2011)
https://www.docdroid.net/3VvoxrE/101093-at-oxfordhb-at-97801953761420130029.pdf
"longer voyages, beyond the Bosporus or along the Anatolian coast of the Black Sea, were probably unusual. However, such expeditions cannot be ruled out. A remarkable ‘hoard’ of decorative items, now part of the Burton Y. Berry collection at the Indiana University Art Museum, was bought on the antiquities market in the 1950s and was said to have originated from the area of Trabzon on the south-east Black Sea coast (Rudolph 1978; Rudolph et al. 1995). The hoard consists of a number of artefacts with striking parallels in the fifth millennium jewellery of the western Black Sea coast. Not merely the shapes and style of the items, but also the specific combination of materials (gold, carnelian, shell) show an unmistakable similarity to Varna (for comparisons see Todorova and Vajsov 2001)." (p.359)
'Early maritime trade along the western coast of the Black Sea' (2012)
https://www.academia.edu/2543543/Perilous_waters_early_maritime_trade_along_the_western_coast_of_the_Black_Sea_fifth_mill._BC_
@JuanRivera Do we even have any and/or enough ancient DNA from East Asia to make claims of "East Eurasian" ancestry in Iran Hunter Gatherers, Iran Neolithic Farmers, CHG, or Yana/ANE? Dealing with such deep ancestral elements and ancestries without the proper sampling and physical data leaves us with nothing but speculation and the great possibility of false positives. As for those C samples, I know that the mtDNA C1g (once reported as C1f) reported in Mesolithic Karelia EHGs, is confirmed but I have yet to read about mtDNA D/G being in Copper Age Iberia of all places. The paper you mentioned is from 2007, which leads me to question the accuracy of its calls. A paper so old is very likely to have misreported samples or produced outright contaminated ones. MtDNA C1e, C1f, C1g, C4 and C5 could have also been some of the original maternal lineages of ANE-related peoples. Those Ukrainian samples are probably more likely C, though I'm not sure at what time that paper came out, my guess is 2014, for I have seen those samples before on Eupedia.
There is significant East Eurasian in CHG and Ganj Dareh. The non-Pinarbasi and Iberomaurusian part is more like Native American level of East Eurasian rather than ANE. It can easily be seen where Chimp Yana Natufian Ganj Dareh is half as significant as plugging in Tianyuan instead. Just look at my blog for the graph.
@Chad
Those graphs can't prove anything specific like that. All they can do is very roughly point us in a certain direction.
Yeah, there's something East Asian-like in CHG and Ganj Dareh, and especially in the Belt/Hotu foragers. But no one's going to even come close to working what this is until we have many more Paleolithic genomes from West Asia and also finally from Central Asia.
It's clearly on the east Eurasian side of the tree. Dstats support the graph.
@A
Earliest metal in the Caucasus is from the Shulaveri Shomu culture, not Darkveti-Meshoko.
"Although Shulaveri-Shomutepe complex firstly was
attributed to the Eneolithic era, it is now considered as a material
and cultural example of the Neolithic era except the upper layers where
metal objects have been discovered as in Khramis Didi-Gora and Arucho I.[6][2]"
"The earliest metal objects are in arsenical copper and
come from Khramis Didi gora, levels VI and VII, and from
Aruchlo I. Their appearance coincides with a general deterio-
ration of the lithic industry and stone toolkit.49 Thus the latest
levels of these two sites can be considered Chalcolithic or at
least transitional between the Neolithic and the Chalcolithic."
Leilatepe predates Maykop, and they already had metallurgy which was introduced by Uruk migrants.
"Thus, local metallurgy in the Caucasus is initially documented together with the appearance of Uruk tradition’s carriers represented in the Southern Caucasus by Leilatepe tradition’s carriers or, in other words, the Leilatepe variant of the Uruk tradition, who migrated to this area. They brought here their own skills of metallurgy that can be dated back to the middle-beginning of the second half of the 4th millennium BC"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261979109_From_Neolithic_to_Chalcolithic_in_the_Southern_Caucasus_Economy_and_Macrolithic_Implements_from_Shulaveri-Shomu_Sites_of_Kwemo-Kartli_Georgia
http://museum.ge/files/G%20Gamyrelidze/PDF/Problems_of_Early_Metal_Age_Archaeology_of_Caucasus__&_Anatolia.pdf
@davidski-"I haven't heard anything specifically about Sumerians. But what I have heard about some new data fits the patterns that we've already seen in the ancient Near East. So my guess is that Sumerians will be very similar to Seh Gabi ChL but maybe with more Anatolian and Levant stuff."
Did you see unpublished data on the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Sumerian periods of Mesopotamia and surroundings(especially the Southern and Eastern parts of Turkey)? Was there any paternal similarity between Levant Chalcolithic and Mesopotamian Neolithic?
Did you see unpublished data on the Neolithic, Chalcolithic periods of Southern Caucasus(especially the regions of Armenia and Azerbaijan)? Was there any paternal similarity between the Levant Chalcolithic, Mesopotamian Neolithic and Southern Caucasus Neolithic/Chalcolithic?
@A @CrM “Leilatepe predates Maykop, and they already had metallurgy which was introduced by Uruk migrants.
"Thus, local metallurgy in the Caucasus is initially documented together with the appearance of Uruk tradition’s carriers represented in the Southern Caucasus by Leilatepe tradition’s carriers or, in other words, the Leilatepe variant of the Uruk tradition, who migrated to this area. They brought here their own skills of metallurgy that can be dated back to the middle-beginning of the second half of the 4th millennium BC"”
So Shuvaleri-Shomu is an expansion of Sumerians from Uruk into the Caucasus, right?
How come their influence doesn’t reflect in aDNA, language or cultures of modern day Caucasus anywhere?
@Andrzejewski
"How come their influence doesn’t reflect in aDNA"
We don't know Uruk aDNA yet, but I pointed out many times that Iran_C Hajji Firuz, be it through proxy or directly makes up an important part of Caucasian aDNA. There's also another fact that both Hajji Firuz and Leilatepe (Caucasian proto Kurgan culture) practiced ossuary burials, and some of the oldest evidence of wine making is attributed to Hajji Firuz and Shulaveri Shomu.
"language or cultures of modern day Caucasus anywhere?"
There are 3 native Caucasian languages, used to be 4. It is clear that at least several of them were brought by migrants.
@ Davidski
"The CHG-related ancestry in Steppe Eneolithic is definitely more related to CHG than to Ganj Dareh.
But it's not CHG."
Is it something between Dzudzuana and CHG ?
@CrM
According to the second paper you posted Shulaveri Shomu only used a small amount of native copper, not genuine metallurgy:
"A small quantity of little copper items (copperware) was found during the research of monuments of these traditions. The copperware represents largely very small copper items made supposedly through cold hammering. However, there are also separate items supposedly made using a more complex technology. However, they either date back to the very end of this epoch (Абибуллаев, 1982) or their stratigraphic position on a monument is under question. Given that no traces of hot hammering have been identified and that many of the existing discoveries were made through cold hammering, it is groundless to assert genuine local metallurgy in the Southern Caucasus in the said period of time."
http://museum.ge/files/G%20Gamyrelidze/PDF/Problems_of_Early_Metal_Age_Archaeology_of_Caucasus__&_Anatolia.pdf
The paper I posted (Courcier 2014) notes that in Shulaveri Shomu "Metal artefacts are rare and occur only in some settlements dated to the end of this period ... They mainly consist of ornaments like beads and small tools like awls and bradawls".
According to Chernykh (2014) The first 'metallurgical province' and the centre of metal production in the 5th millennium BC was in the Carpatho-Balkan region. In the Middle East there was native metal use and "limited production of primitive handmade copper goods". In the 4th millenium BC the 'Circum-Pontic metallurgical province' became the centre of production, and the Maikop culture had the richest elite burials.
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/isijinternational/54/5/54_1002/_html/-char/en
Kohl (2007) writes:
"The wealth of the metals - arsenical copper/bronzes and silver and gold artifacts - found in the Maikop "royal" kurgans is truly extraordinary, leading Chernykh (1992) to reflect on the "problem of gold" at this time. Indeed if we trace the occurrence of gold in the area of our concern, we see a conspicuous shift from north to south that continues through Middle Bronze times: the early Chalcolithic florescence of gold consumption in the Balkans, particularly in the Varna cemetery; the abundance of gold (and silver) objects in the Maikop kurgans of the northwestern Caucasus during the Early Bronze period; and the spectacular discoveries of precious gold and, to a lesser extent, silver objects in the monumental early kurgans of Transcausia and the famous hoards of Anatolia during the Late Early and Middle Bronze periods. Although accidents of discovery undoubtedly play a part here, the trend is unmistakable and must reflect underlying historical processes. For example, Avilova, Antonova, and Teneishvili (1999) calculate that approximately 7400 gold and 1000 silver artifacts have been found in Maikop-related kurgans in the northwestern Caucasus. These practically disappear in this area towards the middle of the third millennium, while at the same time the number of gold and silver artifacts in Anatolia and Transcaucasia (and, not incidentally, in Mesopotamia, such as at the Royal Cemetery at Ur) sharply rises (calculated at around 32,000 objects, ibid.). This shift reflects not only changes in the production and supply of precious metals, but also the movements of peoples with their leaders or chiefs south - across or around the Great Caucasus range"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pA1-3KfkpuwC&pg=PA78&lpg=PA78&dq=maikop+varna&source=bl&ots=hUBYkWOLd4&sig=ACfU3U3kQSSQCSapPiZ0dzP7irMhwRVjWA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjFouC3hsfnAhU1QRUIHUAsCeYQ6AEwBXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
@A
First, regarding Chernykhs theory:
"Chernykh (1966, 1972, 1978a, b), based on his research in south-eastern Europe, also proposed that only the copper deposits of the Carpatho-Balkan region were characterized by ores without impurities. On the basis of this assumption, he suggested that all objects of “pure copper” found in the Caucasus came from the Carpatho-Balkan region (Chernykh 1991, pp. 585–587, 1992, pp. 39–53). *This hypothesis, which is one of the foundations of his metallurgical province theory, has now come into question, given the existence of copper deposits without notable impurities in the Caucasus* (Cassard et al. 2009; see below)."
Regarding Shulvari Shomu metallurgy,
"Recent survey and cleaning work at Göy Tepe (Lyonnet et al. 2009c) seems to confirm this suggestion, as a vitreous slag with several small copper prills was found by chance in levels dated to the middle of the sixth millennium BCE. *This slag “cake”, composed of ore gangue and some metal prills, appears to be an intermediate product of the smelting process.* Analyses performed on this slag cake have shown that it has an alumino-silicate matrix with zinc impurities3(Table 22.2). According to other analyses made on another part of the sample, the matrix also contained copper (2.36 wt%) and nickel (0.79 wt%). Nickel and zinc could originate from thecopper ore, since these elements are often associated with copper in the deposits of the Caucasus (Cassard et al. 2009).In contrast, the analysis performed on the artefacts coming from Gargalar-Tepesi(bead) and Khramis Didi-Gora (bradawl and beads) has shown that they were bothmade from “pure” copper (Narimanov 1990, pp. 8–9; Tavadze et al. 1987, p. 46). If we follow Chernykh’s hypothesis, then these objects should be seen as imports fromthe Balkans. It is, however, more probable that they are local products."
And once again, early metallurgical evidence in the Caucasus,
"In the Neolithic level IId of Aratashen, dated to the beginnings of the sixth millennium BCE,several fragments of copper ores(malachite anda zurite) and 57 arsenicalcopper beads (Meliksetian 2009) were discovered (Badalyan et al. 2007, pp. 52–53)(Fig. 22.5). Close to Aratashen, at Khatunark, one fragment of copper ore (malachite) has been discovered in a level dated to the first half of the sixth millennium BCE5(Badalyan and Harutyunyan 2008). This artefact, together with those found at Aratashen, suggest the nascent emergence of metallurgy in the Ararat region already during the Late Neolithic."
@A
Maykop also had extensive trade networks, their metallurgy stems from Leilatepe, which were influenced by Uruk.
"The Maikop chieftan was buried wearing Mesopotamian symbols of power—the lion paired with the bull—although he probably never saw a lion. Lion bones are not found in the North Caucasus. His tunic had sixty-eight golden lions and nineteen golden bulls applied to its surface. Lion and bull figures were prominent in the iconography of Uruk Mesopotamia, Hacinebi, and Arslantepe. Around his neck and shoulders were 60 beads of turquoise, 1,272 beads of carnelian, and 122 golden beads. Under his skull was a diadem with five golden rosettes of five petals each on a band of gold pierced at the ends."
"The rosettes on the Maikop diadem had no local prototypes or parallels but closely resemble the eight-petaled rosette seen in Uruk art. The turquoise almost certainly came from northeastern Iran near Nishapur or from the Amu Darya near the trade settlement of Sarazm in modern Tajikistan, two regions famous in antiquity for their turquoise. The red carnelian came from western Pakistan and the lapis lazuli from eastern Afghanistan. Because of the absence of cemeteries in Uruk Mesopotamia, we do not know much about the decorations worn there. The abundant personal ornaments at Maikop, many of them traded up the Euphrates through eastern Anatolia, probably were not made just for the barbarians. They provide an eye-opening glimpse of the kinds of styles that must have been seen in the streets and temples of Uruk."
"Arsenical bronze tools and weapons were much more abundant in the richest late Maikop graves of the Klady-Novosvobodnaya type than they were in the Maikop chieftain’s grave. Grave 5 in Klady kurgan 31 alone contained fifteen heavy bronze daggers, a sword 61 cm long (the oldest sword in the world), three sleeved axes and two cast bronze hammer-axes, among many other objects, for one adult male and a seven-year-old child. The bronze tools and weapons in other Novosvobodnaya-phase graves included cast flat axes, sleeved axes, hammer-axes, heavy tanged daggers with multiple midribs, chisels, and spearheads. The chisels and spearheads were mounted to their handles the same way, with round shafts hammered into four-sided contracting bases that fit into a V-shaped rectangular hole on the handle or spear. Ceremonial objects included bronze cauldrons, long-handled bronze dippers, and two-pronged bidents (perhaps forks for retrieving cooked meats from the cauldrons). Ornaments included beads of carnelian from western Pakistan, lapis lazuli from Afghanistan, gold, rock crystal, and even a bead from Klady made of a human molar sheathed in gold (the first gold cap!)."
Copper Technologies can develop independently amongst neolithic societies which are used to firing and experimenting with materials. But it’s without a doubt that one of the most developed in West Eurasia during the emerging eneolithic was in Balkans. That Majkop metallurgy subsequently develops on the former eastern fringe of the CBMP can’t be a fluke; and “ Uruk migrants” don’t seem supported (as per above)
@Ric
Is it something between Dzudzuana and CHG?
It's hard to say, because we don't really know what types of populations precisely created the population from the Eneolithic North Caucasus Piedmont steppe.
We're only making the assumption that there were two populations and that they were CHG and EHG, or that they were closely related to CHG and EHG.
But what if there were three populations? Or what if the EHG-related population was significantly different from EHG because it had elevated ANE ancestry and/or already some sort of CHG-related ancestry?
As far as I can see, Matt just made the assumption that the EHG-related ancestry in Steppe Eneolithic was basically like EHG. And based on that he concluded that the CHG-related ancestry in Steppe ENeolithic wasn't CHG, but rather a population closely related to both CHG and Ganj Dareh N.
But what if his assumption was wrong?
@Rob
"and “ Uruk migrants” don’t seem supported"
Why not?
There's plenty of archeological evidence for it, even aDNA supports it, assuming that Ubaid/Uruk are mostly Iran_C-like.
https://i.imgur.com/TACa5aZ.png
So, realistically, when can we expect Mesopotamian aDNA? I know that it's basically a warzone, but there were previous expeditions and there should be some anthropological material in safe places. Also Northern Mesopotamia in in Turkey and relatively safe, and Elam would be interesting too. I've heard about yet unpublished aDNA studies from Ebla and Arslantepe, but they are not strictly speaking Mesopotamia.
@ CrM
As you stated, copper metallurgy was already present in Neolithic south Caucasus.
Then Majkop flourishes, which has nothing to match for it further south, so its hard to suggest that Uruk migrants brought such technology to the north Caucasus. It seems it was something localy innovative, but must have profitted from some neighbouring know-how
As per the reference you linked, the base of the Leila-Tepe horizon was local Chalcolithic East Anatolian-south Caucasus people, with some late Ubaid & other syncretic influences. The Uruk expansion (a different phenomenon to Ubaid culture) expansion really occurred in its late Phase, c 3300 BC, so it cannot explain Majkop, which dates to 3800 BC, and leila Tepe (c. 4200 BC)
The northern limit of Uruk -model expansion is Arslantepe.
Also, your models would be different if you included Tepecik as a source
Further, as Batiuk points out ''It has long been noted that the cultures of the Caucasus
produce some of the earliest examples of advanced copper metalwork. Although arsenical bronze working has been noted with ETC [=Kura-Araxes] sites, its inventory, especially for that of the earliest phases of the ETC sequence, is relatively poor when compared to the contemporary Maikop Culture, and the later Kurgan Cultures (Kavtaradze,2004). Despite the number of copper ores sources in the Caucasus (see Fig. 2), specific evidence directly linking metallurgy to the ETC is, in reality minimal, and additionally, somewhat problematical.''
In other words, developed metallurgy might have diffused from north Caucasus to south Caucasus & thence Mesopotamia
The earlier-perceived Uruk precedence was largely based on 'art history', and has been chellenged by carbon dates & other data
@Rob
What do you think Uruk and Ubaid aDNA will be like?
The earliest Maykop sample (more closely related to Leilatepe?), dated to about 3600 BC has more Iranian related component than previous Chalcolithic Caucasian samples, ie Areni or Darkveti, and Tepecik does not change that. Same can be seen in Kura Araxes. Maykop Novosvobodnaya is essentially like Maykop early sample (Leilatepe?)+Darkveti/local North Caucasians.
Maykop metallurgy being a mostly local development also makes sense, but as I pointed out before, Hajji Firuz and Uruk/Ubaid related cultures show multiple similarities with the Caucasian cultures, and they could have brought some techniques which helped kick start later Maykop metallurgy.
Maykop was also dependent on KAC ores and possibly metallurgists. If bulk of their metal came from KAC, then their metallurgy is either a continuation of a local Chalcolithic Caucasian traditions, or an Uruk-related influence.
https://i.imgur.com/oAZ9L33.png
@davidski-"I haven't heard anything specifically about Sumerians. But what I have heard about some new data fits the patterns that we've already seen in the ancient Near East. So my guess is that Sumerians will be very similar to Seh Gabi ChL but maybe with more Anatolian and Levant stuff."
Did you see unpublished data on the Neolithic, Chalcolithic and Sumerian periods of Mesopotamia and surroundings(especially the Southern and Eastern parts of Turkey)? Was there any paternal similarity between Levant Chalcolithic and Mesopotamian Neolithic?
Did you see unpublished data on the Neolithic, Chalcolithic periods of Southern Caucasus(especially the regions of Armenia and Azerbaijan)? Was there any paternal similarity between the Levant Chalcolithic, Mesopotamian Neolithic and Southern Caucasus Neolithic/Chalcolithic?
@Sarah
E-mail the Reich Lab and ask the people there. Let us know what they said.
@Chad
Would this East Eurasian part come from a Tianyuan-like population or would it be an Onge-like one?
@JuanRivera
Given the phylogeny of haplogroup R, I think reasonable that ANE had some East Eurasian ancestry.
@Simon Stevin
It shows up in multiple papers I have seen, what would be an alternative explanation? I remember Lazaridis,2016 suggested ANE in East Eurasians instead but apparently it is the other way around.
I recently came across a paper by Reich and Lipson,2017 that model Europeans as 25% East Eurasian, but from the same population that contributed to ANE. Not sure how accurate.
@JuanRivera
Sorry for another question but do you know how much of the Iran_N-like ancestry in Europe is actually Iran_N or rather CHG?
I am really confused as many papers suggest they are the same.
Furthermore, could population structure of some kind (such as the one reported for Iranian HGs in Narasimhan et al,2019) bias these estimates of ANE/ENA ancestry?
@All
I've just located another burial belonging to the same population as the Eneolithic steppe samples from Progress 2 and Vonyuchka 1, except it's older and located much further north.
It's likely that this is a Proto-Yamnaya burial and the skull is available. I'm guessing that it's already in a lab, and probably part of the new German study on the ancient North Caucasus.
I've got a blog post coming about this soon, probably later this week.
@ CrM
Yes but Iran chalcolithic itself shows marked shift cf the Neolithic
Anyhow; without preceding Neolithic data, it’s all too hypothetical at this stage
@Davidski
Good news! Do you know when that study is coming out?
@Rob, There are few samples in Iberia dating between Bell Beaker and Middle bronze age. We can't say FOR CERTAIN when the R1b transition happened earlier than the MBA. All we can say FOR CERTAIN is it was complete by the Middle bronze age. But, I'm sure it did happen before MBA like in 2300-2000 BC.
@Davidski,"I've just located another burial belonging to the same population as the Eneolithic steppe samples from Progress 2 and Vonyuchka 1, except it's older and located much further north."
"I've got a blog post coming about this soon, probably later this week."
That's exciting. Will the blog post include its DNA?
@CrM
“Regarding Shulvari Shomu metallurgy”
I tried looking for the Lyonnet (2009c) paper but couldn’t find it. As shown by the 2014 paper you posted, the question of whether Shulaveri Shomu actually had metallurgy (smelting) appears to be controversial.
"A small quantity of little copper items (copperware) was found during the research of monuments of these traditions. The copperware represents largely very small copper items made supposedly through cold hammering. However, there are also separate items supposedly made using a more complex technology. However, they either date back to the very end of this epoch (Абибуллаев, 1982) or their stratigraphic position on a monument is under question. Given that no traces of hot hammering have been identified and that many of the existing discoveries were made through cold hammering, it is groundless to assert genuine local metallurgy in the Southern Caucasus in the said period of time."
As noted, the only metal finds from Shulaveri are rare finds of small objects, e.g. beads and awls. Similar things are found in various other cultures that only used native copper and hadn’t developed smelting.
In contrast the evidence from the Balkans is overwhelming, including evidence for every stage of metal production as well as a much larger scale of production than anywhere else in the 5th millennium BC.
The Courcier (2014) paper you quoted (regarding Lyonnet 2009) mentions lots of different types of evidence but nonetheless concludes that:
“Our own research supports the idea of a local metal industry in the Majkop culture. The metallurgical processes, most likely originating in the Carpatho-Balkan area and already known during the preceding Meshoko culture, were probably further developed by the Majkop population. It seems that this western influence continued into the beginning of the Majkop phase, as suggested by the introduction of the socket and the metal pickaxe.”
adding
“We cannot exclude, however, that metallurgical technologies in the Majkop culture were also influenced by exchanges with the southern Caucasus, especially with the Sioni culture.”(p.622)
(The Sioni culture is dated from 4500 BC onwards, after Shulaveri Shomu)
Your second quote regarding Neolithic Aratashen only mentions use of native copper ore, similar to various other Neolithic cultures, and does not constitute genuine metallurgy in the sense of smelting and the associated production of metal artefacts.
Also research in Majkop areas has focussed on the elaborate barrows, with less attention to ores & mines.
It is possible, but seems odd that the K-A region produced all the metals, but couldn;t manage to show off any of it
@A
Smelting was done in Kul'tepe, but once again the dating is controversial.
End of the Shulaveri Shomu epoch marks the beginning of Sioni culture, which shows evidence of metallurgical processes.
These conclusions affect Maykop only, and metallurgy in the Caucasus existed before Maykop culture was formed. If North Caucasus was influenced by Carpatho-Balkan metallurgy (dubious for Meshoko, less dubious for Maykop, although Maykop metallurgy was heavily dependent on South Caucasus, as evidence implies), then South Caucasus shows multiple evidence of local development and Middle Eastern influence.
https://i.imgur.com/VjqYfBF.png
Here's another interesting thing that I noticed regarding Hajji Firuz.
Hajji Firuz belonged to the Dalma culture. Some Dalma materials were found in the Caucasus, according to "Ancient Metallurgy in the Caucasus From the Sixth to the Third Millennium BCE".
And apparently, Dalma also had links with Seh Gabi.
This also adds with urn burials being found in Hajji Firuz and Leilatepe, plus evidence of early winemaking in Hajji Firuz and Shulaveri Shomu.
"In a tomb of the upper level (Early Chalcolithic) at Alikemek Tepesi, three beadsand an awl were discovered (Makhmudov et al. 1974, p. 455). At Kul’Tepe I, sevenmetal artefacts (Fig. 22.8; Table 22.2) were found in the upper part of level I and in tomb 33 (Abibullaev 1965b, p. 67; Selimkhanov 1966, p. 226). The date of these objects is unclear because level I contains material dating both to the Neolithic (including pottery of the Halaf culture of northern Mesopotamia) and to the beginning of the Chalcolithic (related to the Dalma culture of north-western Iran)."
"The Dalma tradition is contemporary with 'Ubaid 3 and the first part of 'Ubaid 4 in Mesopotamia proper, west of the Zagros (1)."
"Dalma levels were excavated at Seh Gabi and Godin Tepe"
https://www.persee.fr/doc/paleo_0153-9345_1987_num_13_2_4427
As I mentioned before, when modeling KAC and other BA Caucasian samples on G25, IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C can take 50% of the model. Modern Armenians even cluster close to IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C.
@ CrM
"The Maikop chieftan… His tunic had sixty-eight golden lions and nineteen golden bulls applied to its surface.... Around his neck and shoulders were 60 beads of turquoise, 1,272 beads of carnelian, and 122 golden beads. Under his skull was a diadem with five golden rosettes of five petals each on a band of gold pierced at the ends."
————————
Varna:
“The significance of Varna is that it constitutes the earliest flowering of gold metallurgy in the world, dating to the start of the Balkan Late Copper Age, with over forty accelerator mass spectrometry dates between 4650 BC and 4450 BC. […] The majority of gold finds has no parallels anywhere else in Eurasia: such as the diadem from Tomb 3, appliqués often in the form of a bull, gold-plated axe shafts, the solid gold astragalus, and the penis sheath from Tomb 43. The copper finds include shaft-hole axes, awls, chisels, and beads. Beads are also made of Spondylus and Dentalium shells, as well as bone, marble, carnelian, and limestone. Marble rhyta, dishes, axes, and stylized figurines are found, the latter with metal earrings. Many carnelian beads have been faceted with millimetric precision, possibly using a lap-wheel. Obsidian and flint blades up to 16 inches (40 cm) in length were made using pressure-flaking techniques. The ceramics are typically decorated with geometric designs outlined in graphite.
Whereas part of the high status of these grave goods derives from their workmanship and aesthetic qualities, the distance over which they were exchanged provided additional value. Much of the gold, and the marble, derived from southeastern Bulgaria; the carnelian from much further away. Some gold came from Transylvania. The obsidian was from northeastern Hungary. Most of the copper and graphite came from central Bulgarian mines. Spondylus and Dentalium were from the Aegean, the honey-coloured flint from northeastern Bulgaria. Two of the polished stone axes were made of jadeite from quarries in the northwestern Alps, some 940 miles (1,500 km) distant. The richest graves contained symbols characteristic of different regional communities: the gold astragalus characteristic of northwestern Bulgaria, the gold-painted vase of central Bulgaria, and a marble figurine of southern Bulgaria. Not only do products and symbols underline Varna’s integration into wide-ranging exchange and ritual networks covering much of eastern Europe, but there are artifactual links connecting Varna to Atlantic Brittany and near-Caspian cemeteries on the Lower Volga - a total span of 2,100 miles (3,400 km).”
Oxford Companion to Archaeology, Vol 1 (2012), p.324.
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=xeJMAgAAQBAJ&pg=RA2-PA343&lpg=RA2-PA343&dq=varna+carnelian&source=bl&ots=3DlOj5Buap&sig=ACfU3U1vWCMKJ6kwAJit9hwWF4IhPa-N5w&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwih0pWXpsvnAhUYSxUIHS6dDmMQ6AEwGXoECAoQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
“Among the metal (gold and copper) and non-metal (minerals, rocks, pottery, pigments, bioobjects) artefacts in the Chalcolithic graves from Varna in Bulgaria are numerous beads of chalcedony (carnelian and agate) composition. … The nearest to the Balkan Peninsula sites with probable agate and carnelian deposits are the Crimea Peninsula, the Caucasus region, Asia Minor, the Arabian Peninsula (Yemen) and Egypt.”
https://www.academia.edu/1118945/Complex_faceted_and_other_carnelian_beads_from_the_Varna_Chalcolithic_necropolis_archaeogemmological_analysis
@A
Gold was extracted in South Caucasus.
"There centresearch carried out by the Deutsches Bergbau-Museumon the Bolnisi–Madneuli copper–gold district in Georgia has shown that the Sakdrissi gold deposit was already exploited during the second half of the third millennium BCE, and it is proposed that extraction there began even before 3000 BCE (Stöllner et al.2008; Hauptmann et al. in press)."
And South Caucasus was providing Maykop with ores and possibly metallurgists, seeing its long history of metallurgy.
https://i.imgur.com/oAZ9L33.png
@ CrM
But lets note - Haji Firuz c.f. Iran Neolithic is significantly shifted
This was discussed back in the day http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/07/economic-overhaul-population-shift-in.html
All sorts of multilateral admixture was going on amongst the highland West Asian groups between East Anatolia - Ubaid / north Mesopotamia - NW Iran. We don't have much samples to tease out these processes, suffice to say, despite the very similar autosomal signatures, K-A & Majkop were different groups (we can see that with Y-DNA too)
W.r.t. to Caucasian metallurgy, sure, the ores might have ceme from East Anatolia or S. Caucasus, but lets take a step back. Again, it is more than coincidence that after Varna collapses, a host of other metallurigcal centres appear - not only in north Caucasus, but Tiszapolgar in the Carpathian basin, Willow-leaf centre in Podlia, the Alpine - Italian one. All different , mind you, different genomic signatures, but indeed some kind og complex web nonetheless.
True, Hajji Firuz has more Anatolia than it has Iran_N, unlike Seh Gabi. I included this in one of the models that I posted. Hajji Firuz is also the oldest Iran_C sample, afaik.
You can model Seh Gabi as Hajji Firuz + Iran_N with a very good fit. Likewise you can model Hajji Firuz as Seh Gabi + secondary components (Anatolia, Levant, CHG etc). It would seem that HF is Iran_N + a lot of secondary components, while SG is Iran_N + less secondary components, those secondary contributors were possibly derived from the same group in both HF and SG, the difference is that HF mixed with them to a greater degree.
Teper Hissar is the weirdest one, and probably needs some Central Asian sources, maybe whatever BMAC had.
Maykop and KAC are obviously derived from the same ancestral population. Difference is Maykop mixed with North Caucasian natives and thus had a greater CHG admixture in its later stages (then they would mix with Yamnaya people in its final stages, looking at certain Maykop_Late samples). Their YDNA is actually pretty similar, they both have J clades (CHG and Iran_N related), KAC has G2b and Maykop G2a (Iran_C and East Anatolia related), Maykop also has LT (Iran_C related).
From what I gather, metallurgy in South Caucasus shows signs of independent development + influence from the Middle East(Uruk influence in Leylatepe?). Metallurgy in North Caucasus is influenced by South Caucasus (SSC-Sioni, Leylatepe?) + possibly Carpatho-Balkan influence (a theory that relies on an outdated hypothesis of Chernykh, nonetheless Meshoko does shows evidence of trading with European cultures). Maykop having a Carpatho-Balkan influence makes sense, but their Southern influence should not be underestimated.
https://i.imgur.com/Zm3fI54.png
@Davidski
"I've just located another burial belonging to the same population as the Eneolithic steppe samples from Progress 2 and Vonyuchka 1, except it's older and located much further north."
Makes me wonder if the Ancestors of Progress 2 and Vonyuchka 1 were responsible for the destruction of the Caucasus Forts....
How much older and how much further North ?
Regarding ENA in Hotu, it prefers Onge over Tianyuan:
"sample": "IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso:Average",
"fit": 22.9227,
"RUS_MA1": 58.33,
"Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG": 30,
"Onge": 11.67,
"CHN_Tianyuan": 0
and Simulated AASI over Onge:
"sample": "IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso:Average",
"fit": 19.5957,
"RUS_MA1": 45.83,
"Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG": 34.17,
"CustomGroup_Simulated_AASI": 20,
"Onge": 0
Interestingly even CHG shows some tendency in this case:
"sample": "GEO_CHG:Average",
"fit": 24.3014,
"Anatolia_Pinarbasi_HG": 48.33,
"RUS_MA1": 34.17,
"CustomGroup_Simulated_AASI": 17.5,
"Onge": 0
Though the fits are all bad because there is no proper basal Eurasian component, which would be important for CHG and Iran populations in general, but even more important for Hotu specifically. Who knows, maybe there might be much of the less AASI component when the extra amount of west Eurasian isn't being forced in without a basal Eurasian proxy.
@ Rob,
"W.r.t. to Caucasian metallurgy, sure, the ores might have ceme from East Anatolia or S. Caucasus, but lets take a step back. Again, it is more than coincidence that after Varna collapses, a host of other metallurigcal centres appear"
----
“During the fifth millennium BC the population of the region of Thrace and the Lower Danube developed the earliest known metallurgy based on mining. This led to significant socio-economic changes: development of trade, specialization in some types of production, and the earliest signs of socio-economic differentiation. The level of development of that culture is the highest at the time. During the fourth millennium the continuous development of the local cultures gradually stopped and new cultures appeared in their place, which were considerably simpler from a technological point of view. The system of cultures related to mining and metal production and called by E. N. Chernykh the Balkan-Carpathian Metallurgical Province ceased to exist. A new system of mutually related cultures occupying a larger territory was formed: the Circum-Pontic Metallurgical Province. This was a long process that took place during the fourth millennium. The centres of metallurgy of the fifth millennium were abandoned and a development of metallurgy based on mining began in Anatolia. The paper discusses the opportunities for tracing influences of the Balkans on Anatolia during the fifth and fourth millennia BC. It presents arguments in support of the hypothesis about a migration of population from the Balkans and in particular from the region of the Varna and Kodzhadermen-Gumelniţa-Karanovo VI cultures south and southeast towards Anatolia.”
‘Opportunities for tracing influences of the Balkans on Anatolia during the end of the fifth and the beginning of the fourth millennium BC’ ( Georgieva, 2014)
https://be-ja.org/index.php/Be-JA/article/view/112
@TLT
So could this be an Out-of India movement of peoples? I find it unusual only in the sense that the Narasimhan paper gave me the impression of low Onge-like/AASI ancestry outside of India until late.
Do you know if Hotu contribute to European populations? I am still struggling how much Iran_N is there in Europe.
In the Lazaridis paper, CHG got a good fit with Tianyuan instead of Onge using qpAdm.
New article about West African Ghost populations: https://amp.theguardian.com/science/2020/feb/12/scientists-find-evidence-of-ghost-population-of-ancient-humans
While everything is slow, another alternative method (other than Vahaduo and nMonte) to estimate admixture fractions of an ancient population using PAST3 and outgroup f3 stats (outgroup like using Mbuti for outgroup).
First build a datasheet where you have a set of columns for target populations at the left, followed by a set of right columns for source populations.
For example here: - https://i.imgur.com/mLslb92.png
Ireland_MN is the target, Koros_N and Iberia_NW_Meso are the source populations.
The rows are for populations computed for f3(Outgroup,Column,Row) and don't contain the populations in the columns.
Next, use you datasheet to run a Multivariate multiple linear model: https://i.imgur.com/3HUbBsn.png
And enter the number of target populations as dependent variables, in this instance 1 (Ireland_MN) - https://i.imgur.com/fWbbXQh.png
This will then output a model: https://i.imgur.com/k8lIeKe.png
The coefficients of your source populations (green) will then tell you the approximate proportions of each source population for your target population. In this case, Ireland_MN as 24.2% Iberia_NW_Meso and 75.8% Koros_N. (The constant is a very small, meaningless number that exists to "fine tune" and is essentially ignorable).
If your model is any good, the R^2 will be high, and superior models with have higher R^2.
Another example with a standard 4-way CHG, EHG, Koros_N, Iberia_NW_Meso model for Afanasievo: https://i.imgur.com/aUDRPnp.png (replicates a standard-ish proportion of CHG+EHG+Anatolian ancestry, with a WHG related Iberia_NW_meso coefficient that goes slightly negative).
(Another example is that this seems to reproduce 3-way Indus_Periphery+Sintashta+WSHG models for Swat_IA pretty much the way that you would expect, with Sintashta from from around 13-24%.
Although 4-way models with BMAC+Sintashta+Indus_Periphery+WSHG also work - with Sintashta fraction from 7-15% and BMAC of 2 - 29% also work and are slightly preferred, they aren't *much* better than the 3-way model (almost exactly the same R^2), and it does seem like Steppe_MLBA is a necessary new element while BMAC is not. Models with just IP+WSHG+Steppe_EBA+BMAC (or either) give visibly worse fits.)
You can prune down the rows to avoid redundancy, if you think too many rows increase signal to noise.
@ Rob,
“Haji Firuz c.f. Iran Neolithic is significantly shifted… All sorts of multilateral admixture was going on amongst the highland West Asian groups between East Anatolia - Ubaid / north Mesopotamia - NW Iran.”
There seems to have been an eastward, as well as southward movement of people carrying Y-DNA T-M184 or T1a and Anatolian ancestry, which appears to coincide with a spread of metallurgy.
T1a appears in an early Maykop grave (Ipatovo 3, IV3002) belonging to a “Steppe Maykop outlier”, and is dated 3628-3127 cal BCE.
T-M184 and T1a appear in Tepe Hissar, northeast Iran (I2512 and I2514), dated to 2916-2876 cal BCE, and 2472-2307 cal BCE respectively.
T-M184 appears in Gonur Depe, Turkmenistan (I1781), dated to 2009-1772 cal BCE.
Whilst it may be a coincidence, these dates show a chronological movement eastwards. Regarding metallurgy:
“It is interesting to consider the evidence for early metallurgy in Iran in comparison to contemporary source areas for copper, lead, and silver to the north and west (Transcaucasia and Anatolia) and east (western Pakistan and Central Asia). Perspectives on the technological comparisons that can be drawn between these regions vary greatly: while some scholars highlight regional technological differences (e.g. Yener 2000), others recognise, for example, potentially significant long-term similarities in the development of metallurgy across highland Anatolia and parts of Iran (Chernykh 1992; Chernykh et al. 2002; Avilova 2008; see also Pigott 1999b). […] The comparisons are clearest with Anatolia, where crucible metallurgy becomes commonplace in the fifth and fourth millennia BC […] recent publications (e.g. Chernykh et al. 2002; Avilova 2008) have expanded the discussion of material from the Near East and suggested that parts of Iran and what might be termed greater Mesopotamia were incorporated into the so-called “Circumpontic Metallurgical Province” by the fourth millennium BC. “ (p.281-282)
(‘Iranian metallurgy of the 4th millennium BC in its wider technological and cultural contexts’, Weeks 2013) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/317913175_Iranian_metallurgy_of_the_4th_millennium_BC_in_its_wider_technological_and_cultural_contexts
According to Narasimham et al 2019:
“Our analysis reveals a west-to-east cline of decreasing Anatolian farmer–related admixture in the Copper and Bronze Ages ranging from ~70% in Anatolia to ~31% in eastern Iran to ~7% in far eastern Turan”.
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6457/eaat7487.full
Anatolian ancestry is already present in earlier Neolithic samples from Iran however haplogroup T is absent before the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age, suggesting that there may have been another movement eastward in the Chalcolithic.
@ "A"
Thanks, agree with the comments.
It would be interesting to see how L1a fits into this (present in Armenia -Chalcolithic & Majkop)
@ CrM
The haji-Furz-type ancestry in majkop is already present in Chalcolithic Armenia, at the same levels ~ 40% . What seaparates them is the inversely proportional levels of steppe/Progress & ANF-ancestry. So I would agree that this leaves room for further movement , perhaps from NW Iran, although we're not sure how representative the Areni cave samples are for south - Caucasus chalcolithic as a whole. And with time, ''local'' CHG rises toward Late Majkop & MBA Caucasus.
What is curious is that modern NWC have little of that H-F ancestry, and instead a predominantly ANF & CHG profile. Im not sure what the explanation for that might be; could be from Darkveti, SHepsi -Dolmen type people, more recent population shifts from Anatolia to Western Caucasus ??
@A
I think it's possible that T derives in Anatolians from an Iran_N population that mixed with AHG. The Levant PPN sample that is T has the most Iranian ancestry (but still somewhat low) compared to the rest PPN (which are E). Then you see a dominance of T in Chalcolithic Levant samples(Ghassulians, also coincidentally very advanced metallurgists), which coincides with the increase of Iran_C related ancestry. It could be a simple case of founder effect, (or due to Iran_C and Levant PPN already carrying Anatolian ancestry) but the fact that L wasn't uncommon in Iranian related samples makes it possible that LT as a whole began as an Iranian marker.
https://imgur.com/a/hl71F3f
@Rob
West Caucasians are high CHG, medium Anatolia, low Iran. East Caucasians are medium-high CHG, medium Anatolia, medium-high Iran. Maykop falls closer to the East Caucasian cline. Dolmen Culture likely represents the West Caucasian cline. They replaced whatever was left of Maykop, and thus are the reason why NWC don't have much HF.
The West Caucasian cline that I mentioned likely was formed in isolation and wasn't affected by mixing with HF-like people.
https://i.imgur.com/OSjV1DO.png
@ CrM
Yep that the basic pattern, With Georgians in the middle .
What’s your view in Kartvelian ?
What are next ancient DNA papers in line? it's been very quite. When is Dzudzuana paper coming out?
@Rob
Yes, Kartvelians are pretty similar to Maykop in that regard. They are somewhere inbetween East and West Caucasian clines but lean closer to the West.
They can be Dolmen/some West Caucasian cline that mixed with KAC/Pre-KAC.
They can be mostly Maykop derived, autosomally one of the late Maykop samples is basically identical to Georgian_Imer. Maykop and Kartvelian YDNA hardly match however.
It's also possible that their Iranian and slight excess Anatolian ancestry comes from Anatolian Bronze Age. In that scenario they are simply Dolmen/some West Caucasian cline + Late Anatolia.
Colchian archeology is poorly studied. Dolmen culture seemed to have arisen in Abkhazia and then migrated further north deeper into Maykop lands.
Maykop Novosvobodnaya was likely formed as a result of mixing between proto-Dolmen/Meshoko/Pricked Pearls Pottery culture and Leilatepe.
Dolmen culture needs not to be derived from Maykop, but rather from a small pocket of tribes (ones that did not mix with Maykop/Leilatepe) that lived in southern NWC/Northern Colchis and then became the main inhabitants of NWC after the end of the Maykop culture.
Kartvelian language could have been spoken by some tribes that lived in Central and Southern Colchis, with an autosomal component that is similar to Dolmen and Darkveti-Meshoko.
Alternatevly, Kartvelian was spoken in Maykop. Kartvelian could have been brought to Colchis by Maykop migrants, but I dont't think that any archeological evidence supports this. aDNA does to some extend, as do linguistics, looking at certain similarities between Kartvelian and PIE. And as we know Maykop had contacts with various Steppe populations.
Obviously it's also possible that Maykop spoke NEC, HU or even a now dead language. There's also a case with Khinalug, it forms its own branch in NEC family, and I've seen a study (one that I can't seem to find unfortunately) in which it's argued that Khinalug used to be an isolate that was gradually NEC-ized due to neighboring influences. It may yet to play a role in this mess.
But overall it's hard to say without more ancient samples.
@CrM "Alternatively, Kartvelian was spoken in Maykop."
There is not the slightest evidence, there is only very strong evidence that Maykop was North Caucasian of language, there are very great coincidences in lifestyle, in particular, in metallurgy. This, in particular, is confirmed by a professional linguist specialist in the Caucasian and Anatolian languages Kassyan.
@Archi
How do you explain the similarities between Kartvelian and PIE?
I've heard of Kassian and his grandiose theories. There's a reason most linguists don't take proposed North Caucasian seriously. There's little evidence that NEC and NWC derive from the same ancestral language. They are too different from each other.
Kassian writes that Kartvelian could not be spoken in Maykop because Kartvelian lacks linguistic contacts with Semites, which makes no sense whatsoever in regards to Maykop-Kartvelian affinity, how does this debunks anything?
@CrM "How do you explain the similarities between Kartvelian and PIE?"
By ancient genetic kinship, all languages are kindred to each other, the only question is when these languages were divided. In this case, it happened a very long time ago, it is similarities very weak. The place of origin of the Kartvelian languages is more than unknown.
@ CrM
Yes I think we have shown that NEC & NWC are quite different groups
It might be that Majkop did not leave a language north of the Caucasian alps
If Svan is the oldest branch of Kartv. then perhaps it did move from a post -Darkveti group
Davidski, what explanation would you have for the consistent presence of Progress_En and/or Vonyuchka_En in the Chalcolithic and EBA aDNA samples from the northern part of West Asia (Armenia, North Iran - e.g. Tepe Hissar -, Caucasus - e.g. Maykop -, Anatolia_Barcin_C, Turkmenistan and Tajikistan)... but, perhaps tellingly, NOT in any aDNA sample to the south of those regions?
I used G25 to make several models with dozens of reference populations, including possible independent sources of CHG, ANE and EHG-like admixture, but the best fitting results consistently were those with Progress_En and Vonyuchka_En acting as a proxy for the "southern" part of the EHG-CHG genetic cline of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe in the Eneolithic and probably even before.
Do you think that's real or at least points to something real? That could at least explain neatly the presence of the Anatolian IE branch in a BA population with virtually no proper steppe ancestry, because it'd suggest that, first of all, IE was not at first brought to West Asia with a Yamnaya-like population (Progress and Vonyuchka had a higher CHG:EHG ratio) and it got established there and eventually spread with a population that already had only a few percents of steppe ancestry since the beginning, being mostly Iran_N and Neolithic Caucasian (CHG + ANF)-like. Indeed, the main movement in Anatolia between the Neolithic and the EBA involved a higher input from the east (Iran/Armenia).
Two examples:
- This one using just selected samples:
[1] "distance%=2.5069 / distance=0.025069"
IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
IRN_Wezmeh_N 36.10
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 31.00
GEO_CHG 13.10
Anatolia_Barcin_N 8.85
RUS_Progress_En 5.95
Anatolia_Kumtepe_N 3.10
HRV_Starcevo_LN 1.90
WHG 0.00
RUS_Karelia_HG 0.00
RUS_Samara_HG 0.00
MAR_EN 0.00
Levant_PPNB 0.00
RUS_Steppe_Maykop 0.00
KAZ_Botai 0.00
RUS_Khvalynsk_En 0.00
RUS_Baikal_EBA 0.00
RUS_Sosonivoy_HG 0.00
UKR_Trypillia 0.00
Simulated_AASIinPaniya 0.00
- This one using ALL the available Paleolithic, Neolithic and just a few Chalcolithic (where earlier samples do not exist) sapmples:
[1] "distance%=2.4006
IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N 35.55
IRN_Wezmeh_N 30.50
GEO_CHG 11.90
Anatolia_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N 11.50
RUS_Vonyuchka_En 7.10
ROU_N 3.45
@Ygor
We had a discussion about this here...
R-V1636: Eneolithic steppe > Kura-Araxes?
DAVIDSKI Said,
"If these groups are the same population, they why do they form distinct poles in PCA like here?
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-final-note-for-year.html
Keep in mind also that Kotias and Satsurblia are separated by thousands of years, and yet they always cluster very close to each other, but they never overlap with the Belt/Hotu/Zagros ancients."
One can give the impression of "distinct poles", in almost population, if your samples are limited in scope, and use high enough resolution. On global comparison CHG is clearly just West-shifted Iranian Neolithic. More importantly, almost all broad studies on ancient DNA suggest Neo-Iran as parent population - not CHG. https://twitter.com/hasn199ugggghh/status/1583057169536065536/photo/2
CHG and Neo Iran are two different populations. Iran Neo has East Asian-like ancestry that CHG lacks.
The fact that they are two different populations can be shown with any method that offers half decent resolution.
Haha.
Post a Comment