Tuesday, April 21, 2020
Aesch25
During the early 3rd Millennium BC much of Central and Northern Europe was being infiltrated by pioneer herders, often young men, from the east associated with the Corded Ware culture (CWC).
In some important ways, this expansion may have been very similar to the European colonization of the more remote parts of the Americas during the 16th and 17th centuries.
For instance, the European newcomers weren't always able to dominate the indigenous peoples, and, sometimes, instead of trying to impose their culture on them, they accepted theirs.
I suspect that Aesch25, an ancient sample from the recent Furtwängler et al. paper on the social and genetic structure of the prehistoric populations of the Swiss Plateau, represents a similar case.
Aesch25 wasn't buried with grave goods so he wasn't given a cultural context in the said paper. However, dated to 2864-2501 calBC, he's the earliest individual in this part of Europe with the originally Eastern European Y-haplogroup R1b-M269 and a CWC-like genome-wide genetic structure.
Indeed, the other fourteen samples from the same burial site, dated to more or less the same period as Aesch25, are overwhelmingly of local Neolithic farmer origin.
In any case, irrespective of his cultural affiliation and life story, Aesch25 represents an important data point in the search for the homeland of the so called Bell Beakers who spread across much of Europe during the Copper Age. That's because most Bell Beaker males belong to R1b-M269 and are very similar to Aesch25 in terms of overall genetic structure, apart from an excess of Neolithic farmer ancestry.
My view is that the Bell Beakers were an offshoot of the Single Grave culture (SGC), the westernmost variant of CWC. Of course, the SGC was centered on what is now northwestern Germany and surrounds, and didn't reach into the Swiss Plateau. However, in all likelihood it was founded by men closely related to Aesch25.
Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) based on Global25 data featuring Aesch25 and several other individuals from the Furtwängler et al. paper. To view an interactive version of the plot, copy paste the data from the text file here into the relevant field here, then press Add to PCA. Also, you should copy paste each population separately to make sure that they don't form one grouping in the PCA key.
Aesch25 can easily pass for a CWC individual from what is now Germany (DEU_CWC_LN). On the other hand, the CWC samples from the Swiss Plateau (CHE_CWC_LN) are clearly shifted "south" relative to the German CWC cluster, which suggests that they harbor more Neolithic farmer ancestry. Indeed, they all belong to Y-haplogroup I2, which is especially closely associated with Middle Neolithic European farmers.
MX265, from Singen in southwest Germany, is the only sample in the Furtwängler et al. dataset that belongs to Y-haplogroup R1a. This is a somewhat unexpected outcome, because R1a is, overall, the most common Y-haplogroup in CWC males (see here).
Another surprise is that this individual is dated to just 763-431 calBC, which is a period that overlaps with the Hallstatt and La Tene cultures in Central Europe. Considering that these cultures are often associated with early Celts, was this person perhaps the speaker of a long lost Celtic language?
See also...
Single Grave > Bell Beakers
Dutch Beakers: like no other Beakers
Hungarian Yamnaya > Bell Beakers?
Hungarian Yamnaya predictions
The Battle Axe people came from the steppe
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
911 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 911 Newer› Newest»@ mzp1
I don’t have anything against Garrett’s views , I was just making the point that if one is going to comment on linguistics- or indeed anything, they need to be well read and informed (rather than endlessly quoting one author)
But I don’t understand your point. Certainly, your previous view about Iranian being an EHG language is rather problematic
@Rob,
Proto-Indo-Iranian doesn't exist because it is not a sound or internally consistent concept. Additionally, it doesn't hold any additional structure not found in Sanskrit. A Proto-Indo-Iranian-Mythology or Grammar cannot be constructed because it will be the same as Sanskrit.
Proto-Indo-Iranian only exists to tie Indo-Aryan to Balto-Slavic to attempt to frame it as a European language.
Indo-Aryan -> Nuristani -> Iranian
@mzp1
"Indo-Aryan -> Nuristani -> Iranian"
Idiot, this scheme means that Iranian language is Indo-Aryan language.
It is now proven that Sanskrit phonetics is innovative. Now it is proved that in PIE three rows of consonants sounded completely different from Sanskrit. But profane people seeing the designations introduced at the beginning of the 19th century think that in PIE consonants sounded the same, although their designation is preserved only from tradition.
@Archie,
"Idiot, this scheme means that Iranian language is Indo-Aryan language."
LOL your such a fool you literally posted this just a few comments back...
"Don't be a shameful raving fool. The language of the Avesta and Rigveda is so close that some phrases coincide literally textually. "
You don't even know what you're typing from one comment to the next.
"Now it is proved that in PIE three rows of consonants sounded completely different from Sanskrit"
PIE is factually an imaginary hypothesis. You're clueless on this topic, you've added nothing to the discussion, no evidence or anything.
Go back to reading 5th grade comic-fiction like David Anthony. I'm done with you.
@mzp1
LOL
I'll translate for you the words that a la Dunning stated for you: "If you're fool, you can't know you're fool because there's no brain to know you're a fool... The skills you need to produce a right answer are exactly the skills you need to recognize what a right answer is." еspecially a man with Down's syndrome on his face.
Read https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
PIE, or (Sanskrit) didn't have 3 rows of consonents, because they didn't have labiovelars, only the Centum langauges have them in IE, and they are quite rare around the world. But you knw who else has them, Caucasian languages.
So tell us why did Indo-Aryan lose the labiovelars, I already told my theory that this is a Caucasian substrate?
Tell us why Indo-Iranian separated on the open steppe? I already told you they separated due to the large mountains in between South Asia and Oxus.
@mzp1
"PIE, or (Sanskrit) didn't have 3 rows of consonents, because they didn't have labiovelars, only the Centum langauges have them in IE, and they are quite rare around the world. But you knw who else has them, Caucasian languages."
Does everyone see that this person is so stupid that he doesn't know what three rows (series) of consonants are? He also made a video about it, shame! Pictures with rows of consonants brought without knowing what it is.
How tired of this troll, he turns all the themes to his own delirium, stupid trollites and senseless delirium. From his verbal diarrhea there is no passage, such persons to explain what or never possible.
Just answer the questions
So tell us why did Indo-Aryan lose the labiovelars, I already told my theory that this is a Caucasian substrate?
Tell us why Indo-Iranian separated on the open steppe? I already told you they separated due to the large mountains in between South Asia and Oxus.
You can refer to any linguist/historian you want. Your team is counting on you now that you set a challenge.
@mzp1
This is not a linguistic forum so there is no point in explaining it to you, especially since you will never understand because you have no ability to understand. It's just pointless to do it if you haven't even understood the T,D,Dh series of consonants over many years.
@ Mzp1
''Proto-Indo-Iranian doesn't exist because it is not a sound or internally consistent concept. Additionally, it doesn't hold any additional structure not found in Sanskrit. A Proto-Indo-Iranian-Mythology or Grammar cannot be constructed because it will be the same as Sanskrit.
Proto-Indo-Iranian only exists to tie Indo-Aryan to Balto-Slavic to attempt to frame it as a European language.
Indo-Aryan -> Nuristani -> Iranian''
Is there any further reading on this ?
@Mzp1,
"Yamna came from the West Asia. Who said Steppe MLBA came from Europe, we can make that closer to home, we have the required components."
And we're supposed to believe you when you say you are a scientific person.
@mzp
Steppe mlba component in South Asia definitely came from the steppe in the bronze age. Specifically, from the iamc corridor mixed with wshg and east asian. This is because of the whg component required in SPGT samples. It definitely did not bring in a shit ton of R1a males though as far as swat is concerned.
If Avestan and modern Slavic bind common archaisms, and modern Indo-Iranian and Baltic languages different separately innovations, it means that Indo-Slavic dialects had to be used earliest in today's Slavic territory. The language behaves conservatively in its cradle. This cradle should lie in Central Europe, because in Eastern Europe Slavic languages did not spread until the second half of the first millennium. Genes show the same thing.
Some similarities between Old Irish and Avestan are striking...Even Irish Myths and the Rig Veda. And Irish Myths and Lithuanian Myths etc. So at this stage the idea of PIE existance is realistic.
@Rob, unfortunately not that I'me aware of. But some of the stuff by Kazanas posted by Mayuresh is generally along those lines. I would read the 'All Inclusiveness of the Rigveda' that he linked to, it is useful for anyone here interested in PIE commonalities between different families in terms of Linguistics, Prosody and Myth.
@Vasistha,
I'm not against some Steppe migration into South Asia. However, as I've said before, the 30% or so level of admixture is too large. IAMC populations were small, even compared to Central Asia, and South Asia had a huge population at the time. Historically we dont have any evidence of such large genetic influx moving past the mountains in either direction.
I can only guess that the 30% or so postulated steppe admixture is actually related to the deep affinity of South Asians to ANE.
But fair enough if modern South Asians clearly have the WHG component, and it cannot be explained any other way, then that may be the best theory for now.
South Asians already had a PIE-like Cattle herding economy before and during the IVC so I am not sure what the the hypothesised newcomers could have brought with them that could give them such an advantage.
But as the models improve we will get a better understanding either way.
@Davidski
Are you going to add to G25 the aDNA French sample files?
@mzp1
"Historically we dont have any evidence of such large genetic influx moving past the mountains in either direction."
It's lie.
"I can only guess (sic!) that the 30% or so postulated steppe admixture is actually related to the deep affinity of South Asians to ANE."
It's profanation.
"South Asians already had a PIE-like Cattle herding economy before and during the IVC so I am not sure what the the hypothesised newcomers could have brought with them that could give them such an advantage."
It's lie.
@Vasishta,
It takes 3 days to walk from Tajikistan to Kashmir, then one is in South Asia. The Himalayan and Pamir mountains are a valuable ecological zone useful for human foraging. Early Human populations in these large mountain habitation zones would have facilitated genetic contact between Northern South Asian and Central Asian ANE-like populations.
What do the models reflect about these ancient contacts and how does this relate to the steppe admixture in Northern South Asia? Cos I hear a lot about the Steppe invasion from these geneticists but little about these deep and important contacts.
Currently there is a cline form Northern South Asia, through the Kalash, into the Tajiks and then somewhat into Central Asia. This cline should exist prior to any postulated steppe influx Where is it in the models?
Hello,
The following paper is worth reading whether or not one believes in the Out of India theory or not. After all linguistic evidence is soft evidence that can be molded to suit migrations out of almost anywhere over the vast territory where IE languages are spoken today. This is especially true for Eastern Europe and south/ south-central Asia. That is why we need hard evidence from archaeology and genetics.
https://www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_
Pay special attention to section 3 on the words for fire and the table just before section 5. As mzp1 has been arguing the position of Iranian languages is the lynch pin here. A hypothesis of an earlier Indo-Iranian stage PRESUPPOSES that PIE homeland could not have been in South/Central/or West Asia. The deal is, Indic and Iranian are similar enough to give an appearance of an Indo Iranian family but yet different enough to show that PIE--IIr-Indic-Iranian branching is not linguistically tenable. That is what Igor TB is trying to show above. The table just before section 5 shows that Avestan is closer to Old Church Slavonic than it is to Indic.
The discussion of the words for fire show that Iranian has so much in common with Greek a classical centum language! I think Igor's model fits much better with the linguistic data as has already been shown by Johanna Nichols and off late by Alexander Kozintsev. But my biases have never been hidden.
@mzp
The iamc corridor has been bidirectional since long
1. First contacts seen as ANE or wshg component in South Asia and Turan. It was already present in 4th mill bce is all we know.
2. 2nd contact is seen in turan admixture seen in dali_eba dzhunggar plains 2600bce along with wheat. This upward migration is earliest attested through wheat and barley seeds in tongtian cave of altai around 3200bce. Chemurchek culture of altai 2500bce has Turan admixture as well
3. Next is a dali_mlba component which is around 75pc Sintashta like in Swat. This migration started post 1750bce and bulk of it happened post 1500bce given lack of steppe from bmac. SPGT can be modeled as 55% local, 22% dali_mlba, 28% dzharkutan.
4. Punjabi jatt and khatri genes are very similar to those SPGT pops.
Tonoyan-Belyayev is not a linguist, just a translator. He's one of two Russian supporters of OIT. His words don't mean anything. The opinions of Johanna Nichols and Alexander Kozintsev are not accepted in the scientific world, because they have no scientific arguments, but are just a set erroneous of words.
@Vasistha,
Are you sure theres WHG in modern South Asian?
@mzp yes.
@Vasistha,
I'm not talking about that, I'm talking about a pre-Bronze age cline running from Northern South Asia, to the Oxus.
This is a cline and at some point, according to your model, there would necessarily be something like a 50/50 ANE/ASI population, because more recent steppe dna was not yet mixed in. So we want to know what this earlier cline looked like before any possible steppe admixture, because without that we don't knw whether the ANE and WSHG components were already there prior to the bronze age.
You cant say there was additional flow of steppe ancestry in South/Central Asia from bronze age steppe, if you don't know what the South/Central Asian population looked like prior. But we know there should be a cline, according to your model this would be a ANE/ASI cline. But we need to know what this looks like.
The reason the model is selection IAMC instead of the far more numerous and likely MLBA is because of the deep affinity of South Asians with WSHG, related to ANE, the same reason the model is selecting steppe ancestry at all, due to the long-standing affinity of South Asians with ANE.
You need to model these affinities fully before you can test for bronze-age admixture into South Asia, otherwise you wont actually know what your looking at and you could be mis-attributing ancestry.
@mzp
I have qpAdm modeled Swat for more than 3 months now. I am pretty certain of my results
The local swat population looked like I11459 ie indian iran_n + aasi + wshg, 0 Anatolian. I11459 is closer to aasi heavy i8728 than aasi light i8726.
Bmac pop had much lesser aasi and much more Anatolian. Most of north and northwest India was Iran heavy, aasi light as shown by rakhigarhi female 2500bce. Ani and asi are useless constructions now, no longer needed.
The swat models select steppe because without it, whg is too less and models fail.
As far as bmac is concerned we know that Indus periphery provided it ancestry due to aasi component in bmac.
We know what local swat natives look like because of the intersection of SPGT low steppe and spgt Cline with Indus periphery Cline. SPGT low steppe cluster being 7-8 samples with very low steppe admixture.
@Vasishta,
I think we maybe talking over each other. I don't know the data you are referring to in detail so to be honest I don't understand if we're even talking on the same point.
I am talking about a cline running from South Asia to Central Asia through the mountains that needs to exist prior to the bronze-age. I am just asking you what this would of looked like according to the models. I am not really following what you are saying about those samples because I haven't been following it that closely, that is all. I am really interested in your take of the below, in simple terms.
According to current genetic models, there is discontinuity between ASI and ANE, but if ASI inhabited Northern South Asia this should be a cline between ASI and ANE through the mountains north into the Oxus area. The fact that this cline is not established is the clear flaw in the models.
As far as I know, the model doesn't describe greater ANE, over ASI, in the Kalash, for example, compared to Punjabis or more Southern South Asians, prior to steppe-admixture.
Is it really possible AASI was light in Northern South Asia? Its there at close to 30% today even after the arrival of Indo-Aryans. How did it get there and what would that say about the Paleolithic and Mesolithic populations of SOuth Asia?
@Vasistha,
"Most of north and northwest India was Iran heavy, "
That's fine if it were the case. Then the cline would go Iran_N-like to ANE. I wanna know about this pre steppe (Southern South Asia -) Northern South Asia - Oxus cline prior to the supposed steppe influx. Because it looks like this cline of increasing ANE Northwards that should exist indigenously is just being represent by 'steppe dna'.
@mzp
There is no ASI pop in North India. Rakhigarhi 2500bc has 25pc onge like admixture. Rest being iran_N and wshg.
The onge like admixture is minimal in neighbours like bmac as well as shahr sokhta ba 1 locals. That tells us that an onge heavy population never existed up north in the chalcolithic. Heaviest onge sample of Indus periphery I8728 still has more iran_n than onge.
@jatt my hypothesis is that in 6000bce the population of Pakistan would have almost 0 aasi/onge. This is because chalcolithic neighbours to north and west have minimal aasi. Narsimhan states that admixture between iran_n and aasi in Indus periphery happened starting 5000bce.
@mzp so I don't understand what ane asi Cline you are talking about.
What existed in 3rd mill bce is a Turan to botai/chemurchek Cline, with intermediate pops like aigyrzhal and Dali eba.
To sum it up, there is no evidence that an aasi heavy pop existed in North India in the Neolithic. Such a hypothesis was presented by people here but rakhigarhi dna disproved it. Iran like ancestry did not stop existing on the border of Iran and south asia. It covered a large swathe of land in central Asia as well as northern south asia.
@Vasistha,
"so I don't understand what ane asi Cline you are talking about."
It is related to the WSHG you have in your models.
So Central Asia is ANE rich, north of the mountains from India. India is Iran_N like or ASI or whatever. But these populations are connected through the mountains and populations like the Kalash are geographically inbetween. Therefore, the earliest populations of those mountains should be a cline South Asian (ASI/Iran_N) heavy to the South and ANE (WSHG?) rich to the North.
I was asking about that cline that needs to exist because I have never seen it discussed anywhere.
@mzp1, it seems like you're trying to have it both ways with: "South Asia had a huge population at the time ... South Asians already had a PIE-like Cattle herding economy before and during the IVC".
You can't really argue at the same time there was a huge agricultural population (and therefore impact must have been small) and there was a small pastoral population that did not use agriculture (and hence pastoral cultural reconstruction without much or any agriculture makes sense).
Mzp
Yes, but in the bronze age the wshg rich people of central and eastern steppe were replaced by Sintashta ancestry. So dali_eba went from 80pc wshg 20pc Turan to about 10-20pc wshg, 75% Sintashta, rest east asian in dali_mlba.
So this ane to South Asia Cline did not exist in bronze age anymore. Then these folks migrated south.
It is worth noting that Dali burials are not kurgans but stone fenced cist burials.
@Vasistha,
I know, but that ANE to South Asia cline should still exist in South Asia, 'beneath' the later steppe admixture. Do you understand what I mean? The non-Steppe component of Kalash should have greater ANE than the non-steppe component of Punjabis for instance. We are using modern pops here because they are better sampled than ancient ones.
Matt,
"You can't really argue at the same time there was a huge agricultural population (and therefore impact must have been small) and there was a small pastoral population that did not use agriculture (and hence pastoral cultural reconstruction without much or any agriculture makes sense)."
Co-existence of agricultural and pastoral populations are known from modern and pre-modern Iran and South Asia.
"and hence pastoral cultural reconstruction without much or any agriculture makes sense"
This reconstruction is earlier than agriculture, which entered India quite late, but still earlier than the steppe entry. OIT would put Rigvedic Sanskrit prior to the Neolithic in South Asia, and the West Asian derived Neolithic seems to explain a lot of the change between early IA (Rigvedic) and later Hinduism.
So AASI came from Southern India? IS it related to ydna H or is ydna H related to Iran_N in your opinion?
@mzp
yes kalash should have more wshg(tyumen)
Target,Distance,Anatolia_Barcin_N,GEO_CHG,IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N,Paniya,RUS_Karelia_HG,RUS_Tyumen_HG
Kalash,0.02883763,10.2,10.4,35.6,22.2,10.0,11.6
Punjabi_Jatt,0.03042208,9.6,1.0,34.4,35.2,17.6,2.2
Khatri,0.02719223,10.2,3.4,33.6,36.4,8.8,7.6
Brahmin_Gujarat,0.02698657,6.8,0.0,28.0,50.2,12.4,2.6
Average,0.02835963,9.2,3.7,32.9,36.0,12.2,6.0
@jatt yes AASI is south east asian linked anyway and likely centred in east, SE and south india. only haplogroup i associate with aasi comfortably is F. I am unsure about rest, havent studied enough.
There is so little F in South Asia though (and isn't there more in South Asia than SE Asia-not sure about that though) and isn't F the ancestor of GHIJK which is predominantly West Eurasian?
I wonder how the old C5 plays into this. O2 is probably due to late austro-asiatic invasions.
mtDNA M might be the biggest vector for AASI ancestry in South Asia though imo.
@Vasistha,
That WSHG/ANE needs to be indepedendant of the 'steppe component' in Kalash. You haven't shown that in your output.
It needs to be shown clearly that the non-steppe ancestry of modern South Asians represents a cline of increasing ANE going Northwards.
This is the cline that steppe ancestry would have admixed into. If the models showing a cline of greater Steppe admixture South to North don't also show a cline of increasing ANE in the non-steppe component South to North then the model is invalid. I am not seeing this clearly in the literature anywhere.
Not sure if anyone else knows anything about this? Would be interesting to get ideas.
@mzp it is impossible to model moderns correctly without ancient dna of their non admixed ancestors.
that is why i seldom try to do it.
@Vasistha,
I understand, but do you understand the problem?
It's like this. Say your modelling South Asians using, for example, Onge, Iran_N and Steppe.
You will have a problem to determine the amount of steppe ancestry in different populations because you cannot account for the pre-steppe cline of increasing ANE as we go South to North and into the mountains.
Then, that pre-existing ANE contact is just getting bracketed into the Steppe component, and you are getting inflated steppe admixture in South Asian populations more related to ANE.
No one has separated out the earlier, greater ANE affinity of Northern South Asian populations, so their models that calculate later, bronze-age steppe admixture in South Asians are not valid.
"You will have a problem to determine the amount of steppe ancestry in different populations because you cannot account for the pre-steppe cline of increasing ANE as we go South to North and into the mountains."
The only accurate model for ancients is when you have the time transect samples from that same region so you can correctly identify proximal populations who later admixed. Swat region has these ingredients.
For south asian moderns, all models are only approximate, except maybe for pakistanis where we know what the ancients were like.
Any model with Onge as source for south asians is likely trash.
@mzp
"No one has separated out the earlier, greater ANE affinity of Northern South Asian populations, "
That could be because everything has been so centered on the OIT/AIT debate. Even if one took the time to separate that component, it probably will not be relevant to that debate anyway. Am I right?
@Mayuresh,
It all started with the early studies, which I suppose were working with the AIT as a presupposition, to remain consistent with the general viewpoint. They described South Asian ancestry using concepts like ANI, ASI and Steppe. The problem is they are looking at India as peninsula, but not considering the large mountain habitats as vectors for genetic continuity between ANE and South Asians. It leads to absurdisms such as there was no contact between ANE and Northern South Asians like Punjabis, Kalash and possible even Southern Tajik populations.
But we know today populations from Pamirs to South Asia are well-connected, and always were.
@mzp1
"But we know today populations from Pamirs to South Asia are well-connected, and always were."
There can be little doubt about that since it is a vast geographically continuous area. We have the testimony of the Rig Veda, the Avesta and other Indic texts for that. However, genetic research informed by ancient scriptures is considered religious fundamentalism. It is encouraging to see that researchers like Kozintsev are now seriously hypothesizing an east of Caspian homeland. Otherwise it was just the steppe theory and Renfrew's Anatolian farming hypothesis. Without knowing much about genetics, it seems that your suggestions are worth pursuing.
@mzp1
"None has separated out the earlier, greater ANE affinity of Northern South Asian populations, so their models that calculate later, bronze-age steppe admixture in South Asians are not valid."
That swat valley samples have bronze age steppe ancestry is 300% confirmed, just not directly from andronovo or Sintashta. I don't know how you can make statements like this without actually testing the data yourself.
@Mayuresh,
"fter all linguistic evidence is soft evidence that can be molded to suit migrations out of almost anywhere over the vast territory where IE languages are spoken today. "
There is one Indo European language family in South Asia: Indo Aryan.
In Europe, there are four different large IE families: Celtic, Italic, Germanic, Balto-Slavic.
In Europe, there are four other attested IE languages with no close relatives: Greek, Illyrian (Albanian), Thracian, Dacian.
Obviously, this distribution of IE languages doesn't mean IE originated in mainland Europe.
What I'm arguing it means, is no matter where you think IE homeland is, you have to admit IE expansions had more of an impact on Europe than any region in Asia.
A single group, the Indo-Iranias, explain most IE languages in Asia. This commoo ancestor is believed to have lived in the Bronze age.
On the other hand, the lingustic common ancestor of Germanic and Celtic or Germanic and Slavic (neighboring IE languages in Europe) lived in the Late Neolithic or Eneolithic.
Which at the very least, suggests expansions of IE languages occurred earlier in Europe than in most of Asia.
There's Anatolian and Armenian language in Middle East. Which, if added together with Indo-Iranian makes IE langauge diversity in Asia look comparable to IE language diversity in Europe.
But, originally Anatolian/Armenian and Indo-Iranian lived in different regions of Asia.
In ancient Western Iran there was a non-IE language spoken, until 800 BC when Iranian replaced it. It is assumed Iranian moved in from somewhere pretty far east such as Tehran or Afghanistan.
Based on this lingustic evidence, we can assume early Indo-iranian epicentre in Late Bronze age was in Afghanistan, Tehran, Pakistan pretty far away from where Anatolian speakers lived.
Moreover, Anatolian is the only Bronze age IE langauge in Southwest Asia. Iranian arrived in Southwest Asia the Iron age. Anatolian was all alone, with no lingustic relatives.
Anatolia is right next to Europe, makes a lot of sense to say their IE language came from Europe the region where IE languages are universal.
Based on lingustic evidence you can say......
There was a Late Neolithic, Eneolithic expansion of IE languages across most Europe which in later periods became Germanic, Balto-SLavic, Celtic, Italic, etc.
Later, in the Bronze age, there was an expansion of Indo Iranians (one specific IE group) in Central and South Asia.
Then, there's Anatolian who has been in Middle East since early Bronze age, is the most basal IE language, but is all alone with no relatives in MIddle East.
Then you have, to ask what is the common ancestry between Europe & Indo Iranian speaking parts of Asia?
Automatically, back in 2003 people noticed Y chromsome R1a M417. You see R1a M417 has ana ge estimate of 6,500yp by Y DNA experts. You see ancient DNA confirms R1a M417 originated in Eastern Europe.
Then you see, in 1800-1500 BC (Bronze age), a group of people from Eastern Europe with R1a M417 made settlements across Central Asia. And, that they contributed ancestry to modern South Asia, Iran, Afghanistan, Central Asia.
And then, you see there's No Eneolithic, Bronze age admix from Asia in most of Europe. I guess you guys think there is such admix in Yamnaya.
But, you see no examples of an expansion directly out of Asia in Eneolithic/Bronze age across Europe. But, you do expansion directly out of Europe into Central Asia in Bronze age.
@Vasistha,
I just believe ANE was huge and quite mobile in Central Asia so they would have left ancestry in South Central Asia that would have been mediated South into South Asia. Because your models do not account for this ANE, I think much of it is being bucketed as Steppe DNA.
It's a bit like Sarazm Eneolithic, which if I remember correctly was mostly WSHG, this is prior to the bronze age. This is what the local population should like, some type of ANE, and that should be mediated Southwards via contacts through Tajikistan.
So Between Sarazm Eneolithic and Punjab, there would be a cline with greater ANE in the North and Iran_N/ASI in the South.
SPGT is part of that Mesolithic cline, with little later admixture, it is just picking those later steppe samples because it needs to find the right type of ANE from somewhere, and the ANE that found it's way South historically would of been archaic.
These models seem to suggest there is little, if any, of this indigenous ANE in modern populations from the area. So that implies the entire Mesolithic population from Punjab to Sarazm was ASI or IRAN_N, and there was historically no ANE in South Central Asia. It doesn't make sense otherwise we would see more Iran_N in Central Asia in places like Botai and Sarazm_Eneolithc would be greater in Iran_N than ANE.
@mzp1
My models can pick up ANE perfectly in swat samples because of presence of ma1, wshg and ehg in the right populations. So did narsimhan.
There is no population in the pak and SC Asia region where wshg was not picked up.
I really don't understand your objection.
You guys say Yamnaya spoke IE, is the source of IE in Europe. Yet when, you see a 70% Yamnaya population migrate into Asia suddenly they are no longer IE and not related to IE in Asia?
Even though we know for a fact they contributed ancestry directly to modern IE speakers in Asia? Somehow IE in Asia comes from a different Asia?
@samuel
Whatever neat little model you have is not going to change the fact that 1500s BCE was the Mahabharata period after the Saraswati dried up. it's just too late for the formation of indo iranian. There are hundreds of other little archaeological evidences which I will not go into here.
Rather than made up PIE mythology, there is clear testable fact noted in the Mahabharata - that the Saraswati which is glacial and huge in the Vedic times is now dried up in the desert and reappears further down.
This has proven to be true in a dec 2019 paper which proves that Saraswati (which has the bulk of excavated Harappan settlements in it's basin) was glacial till 2500bce and became seasonal post that with it drying up in thar desert and reappearing in Pakistan.
So witzels claim of it being mythical is just BS.
The earliest PIE connection is through the Iranian component.
You say Tehran Eneolithic gave Yamanaya IE langauge. Even though there is scarce evidence for such ancestry in Yamnaya.
But, even if we accept Yamnaya has Tehran Eneolithic ancestry, there isn't even Tehran Eneolithic ancestry in South Asia to explain IE langauge there.
So, how can Tehran Eneolithic be the source of IE langauge, if you have no good evidence it contributed to Europe or South Asia?
@Samuel
"There is one Indo European language family in South Asia: Indo Aryan."
Well if we had to take a vote, out of some 550 IE languages nearly two thirds, yes two thirds are classified as Indo-Iranian. In fact linguists find it necessary to created a third Nuristani family because some languages simply don't fit the simplistic classification. This is a rather long video from Koenraad Elst
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOSeXBdDI_M
If you search Youtube for Koenraad Elst and Aryan invasion there are many more. Somewhere in those videos (may not be the one posted above) he argues that MOST recorded expansions of language families like Bantu for example have happened in one direction only. The IE expansions out of South Asia fit the pattern neatly.
Archaeology has already spoken about a total lack of new cultures coming into South Asia. In fact there is clear evidence of SSC links with BMAC and beyond in Iran and Turkministan.
https://www.brownpundits.com/2019/11/11/the-archaeological-evidence-for-oit-i/
Now we are waiting for the verdict from geneticist. Also please read the following article from the Greek Sankritist and a comparative linguist Nicholas Kazanas.
http://omilosmeleton.gr/wp-content/uploads/2018/01/RAI_Aug_2012.pdf
I am not really qualified to tackle the stuff you have posted about M417
"The earliest PIE connection is through the Iranian component."
Earlier, you said the Iranian component in South Asia is Mesolithic. Yet now you say it is recent enough to be the PIE connection between Yamanya and South Asia. Those two things can't be true at the same time.
@Vasistha,
So how do you know that that WSHG is not from the Meolithic? Maybe it's the ANE part of the pre-bronze age ASI/Iran-N - ANE cline from South Asia to Central Asia I am asking you about?
I am just interested in what you can tell me about the pre-bronze age populations between South Asia and Central Asia. Without that it's meaningless to talk about bronze age steppe admixture.
What can you tell me about the pre-bronze age population structure between South and Central Asia from your modelling? If you don't know then that's ok but then I wont be accepting any models that cant answer that question first.
I use Turan eneolithic in qpAdm only because we do not have older ancient samples. We need 5th mill bce Turan samples.
It is a fact that ehg+chg does not work for steppe eneolithic, it needs more iran_N. It is also a fact that wheat and barley spread into east Ukraine from SC Asia in 5th mill bce.
Anatolia_chalcolithic sees iran_N admixture. So does dali_eba and chemurchek in the altai. So that Iran like ancestry was spreading in all directions.
As far as basal R1a-M420 (xM198) is concerned, it's most dense in the east of Caspian today. https://indo-european.eu/maps/haplogroup-r1-m173-r2-m479/
If chaubey samples pass peer review and are published, he will show modern basal R1* and R1a samples and their children all the way to L657 in India as well.
@Samuel,
I'm very confident this is how it all happened.
First there were early IE Cattle Herders, before there was any Neolithic anywhere. They were in India and Central Asia. From Central Asia they spread out around the rest of Eurasia, some went through the Near East, past Anatolia and took early R1B into Western Europe.
Horses, Cattle, Wheel and Copper were all in use at this time, as these items are the earliest layer of IE, before farming. You only need an axe to make a cart.
As part of that route, some of these people settled down and began the development of farming in the Near East, possibly initially to feed Horses and/or Cattle with grains.
These guys were separated from the more connected Herding economy in the East, so lost the use of the wheel, hence Anatolian has the IE word for wheel, to mean Donut.
These guys were here for a long time and developed farming. Their language became Centum over time. At this point there were only 3 families, IA, Iranian and Centum. Eastern Centum was closest to Indo-Iranian therefore did not diverge as much as Anatolian, which was the most Western, which diverged the most, hence people think it is the first branching.
Anatolian farmers left for Europe going Westward after developing the Neolithic. They may have taken an IE language with them. Etruscan is hypothesised to be an IE language by some linguists, and also of the Anatolian branch.
Now to Yamna and Corded Ware. In the East there is complex interaction between the incoming farmers and existing pastoral society. In West Asia there is not as much land for farming compared to Europe, and there is greater population pressure because of this. As the farming settlements grow there is an increase in the population of CHG and Anatolian, as these are farmers. When there is an ecological problem and population pressure, these people need to find other ways of sustenence, so CHG increasingly becomes involved in ANE herding systems.
So it looks like the farming settlements in Western Iran and Djeitun are essentially causing a trickle of CHG into ANE herders moving around South/West Central Asia. Over time this builds up and that is how we explain the increasing CHG between Forest-Steppe EHG and Yamna. Later on this process also brings Anatolian into the steppes, so now we have Steppe-MLBA.
However, in Corded Ware, the Anatolian admixture may be related to the fact they practiced agriculture.
To explain the languages of Europe. There is much Iranian influence in the North East, mostly into Balto-Slavic and possibly into Germanic too. This is mediated by Scyhtians and EHG, from Central Asia. Otherwise, all the Euro languages are Centum and derived from South of the Caucuses. Because Corded Ware (I don't know about Bell Beaker) were agriculturist we can imagine that they brought an agricultural language with them from the South Caucuses.
Greek went directly West from the Near East, while the others took a different route, probably going East, then over the North of the Caucuses.
"What can you tell me about the pre-bronze age population structure between South and Central Asia from your modelling? If you don't know then that's ok but then I wont be accepting any models that cant answer that question first."
Sarazm 3500bce = Iran_N + minor CHG + 22% WSHG + 7% Anatolia_N
Parkhai 3000bce = Iran_N + minor CHG + 7% WSHG + 16% Anatolia_N
Tepe_Anau = Iran_N + minor CHG + 8.5% WSHG + 15% Anatolia_N
Aigyrzhal 2200bc = 36% Dali_EBA + 64% Sarazm
Dali_EBA = 80% Botai + 20% Sarazm
Shahr-I-Sokhta 3000bce = 81% Iran_N + 9% Wshg + 10% Anatolia_N
Chemurchek 2500bce = 32 Botai + 15 Geoksyur + 32 Afanasievo + 21 Okunevo
WSHG actually falls in Turan in 4th mill bce due to admixture of anatolia heavy, low wshg tepe hissar like pop. Sarazm being furthest is less touched by this.
@Vasistha,
The data is no good. There is Anatolian in the earliest samples from Sarazm Eneolithic. That Anatolian is a signature of the movement of farming from the Near East. Therefore, these samples do not tell us much about how the population looked before post-Neolithic migrations that are skewing the data. These look like foreign elements mostly.
Appreciate the post, I will look at it more closely if I can see anything else. It is helpful.
Basically, our samples are all skewed due to post-Neolithic migrations, there will be indeginous peoples there but they wont be found easily due to the bias in archeology towards data associated with large, farming settlements and their burial types.
The morons who are arguing that there was no Indo-Aryan immigration/invasion and that Yamnaya is not native to eastern Europe are just showing their inferiority complex and brutal resentment.Clowns!
@Mzp1,
"First there were early IE Cattle Herders, before there was any Neolithic anywhere. They were in India and Central Asia"
"Some went through the Near East, past Anatolia and took early R1B into Western Europe."
You're saying PIE were pre-Neolithic cattle herders in Southcentral Asia in 7000 BC, and that they carried the ancestor of R1b M269.
Then explain, why R1b1a was a very common (30-50% frequency) haplogroup in Mesolithic Central and East Europe.
Then explain, why the oldest R1b1a is in Italy (deep in Europe) dating 14,000yo.
Then explain, why R1b1a1a-P297, which is one steo behind M269, has been found in Mesolithic hunter gatherers in Latvia and Russia.
Then explain why, not one yHG R1b sample has been found in ancient Neolithic or Eneolithic IranNeo heavy pops.
@Mzp1, Basic archaeology says Andronovo has roots in Eastern Europe going back thousands of years. Ancient DNA confirms it.
There isn't one ounce of possibility Andronovo's ancestors came from Asia. There isn't one ounce of possibility their Anatolian farmer ancestry is from Asia.
@Samuel,
Adding to my earlier post.
This branching of Indo-Aryan in South Asia, Iranian to it's North around the Oxus, and Centum South of the Caucuses works because the relationships basically look like this, according to linguistic and other factors.
Indo-Aryan-Iranian
Iranian-Balto-Slavic
Indo-Aryan-Centum
Greek-Armenian-Indo-Aryan (Greek also has a bit of Iranian influence)
So there is little relationship between the Centum family as a whole and Iranian, though there are sporadic, peripheral contacts.
For the deepest layer of linguistic relationships, we can look at language timing. This is basically related to how syllables are timed, stressed and whether you have the distinction between long and short vowels.
There are basically three categories.
Mora-Timing: Strong distinction between long and short vowels.
Syllable-Timing: No distinction between long and short vowels. All syllabled of equal length.
Stress-Timing: Complete loss of timing. Syllable length is adjusted by stress.
Mora-Timing is necessary for the metres of IE Poetry, which itself is the foundation of the IE religion and literature.
Mora-Timing: Vedic Sansksit, Ancient Greek, Early Latin and Celtic.
Syllable-Timing: Earliest Avestan, Modern Greek and Romance Languages
Stress-Timing: Modern Persian, Balto-Slavic and Germanic Languages
As you go further in time and divergence from PIE, it basically goes from Mora, to Syllable, to Stress.
This further supports our view that Iranian separated from Indo Aryan separately from the Centum branches, and we can see the 3 branches. When Iranian separated from Indo-Iranian, it lost strict timing, hence languages influenced by it, Persian, Balto Slavic and possibly Germanic are all very much Stress-timed. Centum kept it's timing intact and hence it's descendants today are mostly syllable timed.
@Samuel,
But isn't R1B an ANE lineage? The fact that it is so far spread very early just proves my point that those lineages were very nomadic, and therefore probably Cattle herders very early. I'm not saying 14,000BC R1B was some form of IE but clearly those lineages were very dynamic, and that is associated with herding, not hunting, fishing or gathering.
That's a lot of WSHG in Central Asia. What paternal and maternal lineages can that be linked to?
@Mzp1,
Andronovo fit making it a mix of EHG, UkraineHG, ANE, Eneolithic/Neolithic SC Asia.
@5.2
Andronovo fit making it a mix of Yamnaya, Neolithic Europe.
@1.2
Southcentral Asia doesn't have the needed components to create Steppe MLBA.
@Samuel,
"Then explain why, not one yHG R1b sample has been found in ancient Neolithic or Eneolithic IranNeo heavy pops."
I don't think my argument results in R1B being CHG/Iran_N. R1B would be more of an ANE lineage. The reason they haven't been found is exactly because those settlements are Iran_N/CHG and not EHG/ANE. Because EHG/ANE in South West Central Asia were not farmers, CHG/Iran_N were, and hence aDNA samples are mostly skewed.
It seems that there were few Neolithic and Eneolithic settlements in the East populated by 'locals' to the extent that even the one, earliest Eneolithic settlement in Sarazm has Anatolian/Iran_N and little local WSHG ancestry. Just look at the samples posted above by Vasishta, most of them have little 'local' ANE in the form of WSHG. Those guys were not farmers, the farming population came from the West.
@Samuel,
You are fitting Andronovo using Yamna in the first, but not using Yamna in the fitting for the second version.
The only thing Europe can have not present in Asia would be WHG.
@mzp1,
WSHG from Central Asia migrated into Mongolia and Lake Bailkal Siberia in 3000-2000 BC. The East Asian WSHG mixed pops which resulted from this, carried mostly Y DNA Q1a. Which indicates Central Asian ANE (WSHG) carried Q1a not R1b/a.
I guess, technically we don't have a lot of ancient DNA data from Central Asia. Which gives you room to argue in 6000 BC Central Asian ANE did carry R1b.
But that is special pleading. We already know for a fact pops in 6000 BC in Europe, including where Yamnaya later lived, had lots of R1b. Makes a whole lot more sense to say therefore Yamnaya's R1b is native to Europe.
@mzp1,
Andronovo fit making it a mix of Yamnaya, Neolithic Europe.
@1.2
Andronovo fit making it a mix of Yamnaya, Eneolithic/Bronze age Middle East and Southcentral Asia.
@2.5
All of its Asian ancestry goes to Anatolian Bronze age. This is because Andronovo had ancestry from a near pure Anatolia Neolithic pop. When I take Anatolia Bronze age out, Andronovo's fit goes to @4.2
Populations with that much Anatolian ancestry never existed in Southcentral Asia. Southcentral Asia Eneolithic has minor Anatolian ancestry, less than Andronovo has.
The only way for your Asian origin for Steppe MLBA to work, is if Anatolians took a plane a flied to the Eurasian Steppe leaving no trace in Southcentral Asia or Caucasus or Iran or IRaq. Of course, this is impossible.
@mzp1,
In ancient DNA from Corded Ware, we literally witness the formation of pops identical to Andronovo. In 3rd millennum BC Central Europe, we see the formation of populations identical Andronovo carrying the same Y DNA R1a M417 as Andronovo.
The oldest Corded Ware samples are 90-100% Yamnayalike. Corded Ware samples from the main period of the culture, are 20-30% Neolithic European farmer and IDENTICAL TO ANDRONOVO.
Moreover, Corded Ware carried R1a M417 just as Andronovo did. Explain that.
Notice all the Corded Ware at the top of Andronovo's closest relatives. There's no denying Corded Ware formed in Europe. There should be no denying Andronovo came from Europe.
What are the chances, a pop identical to Corded Ware in Europe, formed independently in Asia?
Andronovo (samples with no Asian admix)
Sintashta_MLBA 0.009423991
CWC_Czech 0.017601122
Srubnaya 0.018185868
CWC_Swiss_early:Aesch25 0.027421103
CWC_POL_o:N47 0.027423076
CWC_Norse_Battle Axe_Sweden 0.027883829
CWC_POL_o:N45 0.031796353
Beaker_The_Netherlandsavg_nooutliers 0.032686161
CWC_Germany 0.034801286
CWC_DEU (minus outliers) 0.03622604
Beaker_Britain_no outliers 0.037084247
@Samuel,
One major difference between my theory and yours is that I can tell you what languages were spoken by thr different groups in the millenial around yamnya and you can't.
Your whole theory is based on one group, yamnaya. But you can't explain it's relationship to other groups like ehg or chg in terms of IE.
You don't even know how Yamnaya is related to corded ware in the IE tree. If I ask you many important questions like what caused the separation between centum and satem branches you can't answer. Or what happened to the ehg language in Europe.
So many important you can't answer and won't ever be able to, and this is after 100years of research and the latest in Adna, you don't even know how IA and Iranian separated. You are no closer than gimbutas.
It is all for just one simple reason. You are placing PIE far too late.
This is a summary of the theory I support.
5000 BC: Proto-Indo European spoken by hunter fishers turned pastorlists in Lower Don, Lower Volga region of Southern Russia.
5000-4000 BC: PIEs expand into Ukraine and Upper Volga Russia creating Khvalnsky and Sredny Stog.
4000 BC: Proto-Anatolian leaves the Steppe, migrates into Balkans, then into Anatolia.
2800-2300 BC: Multiple Indo European tribes, all speaking different dialects of IE, migrate into Central Europe and Western Europe creating Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. They spoke Late Proto-Indo European. They are the source of almost all IE languages other than Anatolian.
2300-2000 BC: Proto-Indo Iranians, who were one of the tribes who madeup Corded Ware, migrate deep into Russia creating Abashevo.
2000-1800 BC: Proto-Indo Iranians migrate into Central Asia creating Andronovo.
1800-1600 BC: Indo Aryans arrive in South Asia.
@Rob,
You're the dumbass, who tries to place the origin of Indo European in Balkan farmers.
You never give legit evidence, all you do is insult people's education. New flash: There's plenty of educated people with stupid ideas.
Just, like these Indocentrists and just like Gaska, all you do is speculate and imagine. You have no real ancient DNA evidence for your theories.
All of you, place the IE homeland outside the Steppe but you all say the Steppe is a secondary homeland. Funny, how none of you can deny the evidence for major expansions of IE out of the Steppe.
What you guys do is lach on to non-Steppe ancestry in Steppe and say their non-Steppe ancestors were the real IEs. The Indocentrists say Yamnaya's "Iran" ancestors were the real IEs. You say Yamnaya's Balkan farmer ancestors were the real IEs.
It's the same mistake made by both of you. Both of you are full of shit. What angers me is how blatantly dishonest you all are.
The Kurgan hypothesis is being backed up by real evidence nobody has to imagine.
@Samuel Andrews
I generally agree with you bit it remains to be seen if there was an Inso-Iranian migration from Central Europe deep into Russia given we already have R1a-Z93+ in Usatovo and Sredni Stog prior to Corded Ware and haven't found this lineage in Central European Corded Ware it seems extra complicated to try and fit a Central Europe to Eastern Europe migration. I think R1a Z93+ was always in Eastern Europe either in the steppe or forest steppe of Romania, Ukraine and Russia.
@samuel
the funniest in all this kurganist theory is that sanskrit is the oldest language with tomes of surviving archaic language preserved orally, based on which all of this IE study started. and now fools end up hypothesizing that it was the latest in the whole PIE tree just because they found 4 wheels of a chariot, some cheek pieces and buried horses. hahahahah
what is the oldest surviving literature from this andronovo area? ukraine?
@Sam,
The reason Yamna used Kurgan burials is due to wealth concentration brought about by the Neolithic. Also, Kurgans come from South of the Caucuses. Yamna Kurgan culture is just a result of Neolithic advancements but on the steppe.
The difference between Yamnaya and earlier herders is Kurgans and CHG ancestry both relating it to Neolithic. It is a massive and successful culture for that reason.
It's a kind of mongrel between pure ANE Iranian herders and CHG Centum farmers. It's a side affect of the interaction between two different cultures.
It's a side effect, it's not primary. Both the Neolithic and the older herding economy are more important and interesting.
Yamna is not bringing anything new. It's a meaningless assemblage of random concepts (Kurgans, Wagon burials, Ehg/Chg) taken from different ancient lineages that could only work on an empty space like the steppe.
You are not seeing the important bigger picture because it is more nuanced and not simplistic and popular like the steppe hypothesis.
Also, that 'theory' is crap, so much so I won't even bother with a rebuttal but I will help you make it more succinct...
2800-2300 BC: Basically everything important, it happened somehow.
I think that's pretty much what your saying but in fewer words.
And as far as theory of R1a in south asia being from andronovo is concerned, R-Y3 (R1a1a1b2a1), the parent of south asian L657, has formation and TMRCA date of 2600bce.
Out of 90 steppe mlba male samples covering 3rd and 2nd mill bce, not a single one is positive for R-Y3. Most of them are cousins of R-Y3. They belong to Z2124 subclade (R1a1a1b2a2).
@ Rob
What is your theory exactly?
the genesis of kurgan processes began where EEFs came into contact with fisher -foragers in EE, which is obviously not the Volga -Don
Some distinctive groups coalesced near that region. Then after 4000 Bc they began to expand out of the steppe. Whether or not these are PIE is a side-issue but this is the formulation of kurgan groups. I emploe any genuinely interested people to ignore the # Fake News narratives being peddled by Harvard, David Anthony & Copenhagen
NB: lower Don is a Majkopised group, so they’re just an Adstratum
So itll be funny seeing people change their narrative when the data comes out
Was R1a really part of the steppe migrations or is it an EHG haplogroup? In places where R1b is lower and R1a high, the ratio of EHG mixture to Yamnaya increases considerably.
Target: Estonian
Distance: 6.4371% / 0.06437105
32.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
30.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
26.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
10.2 WHG
Target: Polish
Distance: 5.5641% / 0.05564076
38.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
31.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
20.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
9.4 WHG
Target: Irish
Distance: 4.9301% / 0.04930071
49.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
36.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
13.8 WHG
Target: Spanish_Cataluna:HG01536
Distance: 3.1230% / 0.03122966
52.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
30.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.8 WHG
1.4 MAR_Iberomaurusian
Target: Italian_Lombardy:BGD31
Distance: 4.3140% / 0.04313973
61.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
33.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
4.2 WHG
0.8 MAR_Iberomaurusian
@Henrique Paes
Yes, obviously R1a was part of the steppe migrations, since it appears in early Corded Ware samples with Yamnaya-like genome-wide profiles, and it's also on the steppe during the Eneolithic where Corded Ware came from (also in yet to be published new data).
The idea that it was an EHG marker that somehow infiltrated early Corded Ware, and that modern Balto-Slavic R1a is derived from a Karelia HG-like population, is idiotic.
By the way, your Polish model is overfitted with hunter-gatherer ancestry, and it's breaking up the steppe signal in Poles to compensate for the lack of the right type of hunter-gatherer ancestry from the south Baltic.
I'm already reading the paper, and I was indeed intrigued, although I'm still skeptical of Robbeets' Transeurasian hypothesis.
@Sam Andrews said-Mzp1-Then explain, why R1b1a was a very common (30-50% frequency) haplogroup in Mesolithic Central and East Europe.Then explain, why the oldest R1b1a is in Italy (deep in Europe) dating 14,000yo.Then explain, why R1b1a1a-P297, which is one steo behind M269, has been found in Mesolithic hunter gatherers in Latvia and Russia.Then explain why, not one yHG R1b sample has been found in ancient Neolithic or Eneolithic IranNeo heavy pops.
It's funny that you use exactly the same arguments that I do. You do it to deny an origin of R1b-M269 in Iran and I do it to deny an origin of M269 in Russia or the steppes. We are not that far off though the final question should not be "Then explain why, not one yHG R1b sample has been found in ancient Neolithic or Eneolithic IranNeo heavy pops" but "Then explain why, not one yHG R1b-L51/P312 has been found in ancient Neolithic or eneolithic Steppe heavy pops"- Regarding the issue of the origin of IE I have no dog in that fight because as you know we don't speak an IE language and we are absolutely R1b-P312 (just like you)-It's not my problem if the CHG component in the steppes has its origin in the South Caucasus, in Iran or India, but I understand that people (including the Harvardians) are raising doubts about the origin and meaning of these migrations - It is clear that if the Kurganists are right, the culture responsible for introducing that steppe, Asian or Caucasian (whatever you want to call it) component into mainland Europe was the CWC, never the BBC which was an absolutely Western culture - Then, if it is an issue that concerns you, what you have to do is renounce that steppe origin and focus on all the cases of R1bL754/P297 and M296 in Western Europe that you seem to ignore so that your theory makes sense- As for speculating and imagining, it's also funny that you accuse others of doing so when the Kurganists have been trying to convince the world of your fairy tale for years –
Why do you only want to talk about Aesch 25 when you have two other Neolithic farmers buried in mass graves belonging to the Lüscherz culture in western Switzerland, which as you should know is linked to French chalcolithic cultures and the spread of the Grand Pressigny daggers- These men are R1b-M269 (Aprox 2.750 BC), they are not linked to the steppes and their origin is western (France)- What is left of the invasions and the massive steppe migrations? A R1b-M269 buried in a western neolithic dolmen with his relatives and without archaeological references that could link him even to the CWC- So the Kurganists can continue to be frustrated and insult all the people who do not think like them, but they can only convince those who are already fully convinced, never those who think independently and intelligently. France, the exploitation of the mines of Grand Pressigny, the BB culture and the Alps have much to say about the origin of M269/L51/P312, only the blind can fail to see this reality. SGC and the Dutch model?, is only a variant of the main Kurganist theory, and suffers from Yamnaya's main defect, i.e. to provide convincing evidence
Sam, it is also worth reminding our friends that R1a is more diverse in the main M417 lines in Europe (L664, Z284, Z280, M458), while in South Asia there is only Z93 (and below).
Everything is starting to make sense, the CWC-related migrations, the exogamy in the contact regions between the BBC and the CWC, the P312 massive founder effect in Western Europe, and the migrations related to BBC are enough to explain the appearance of steppe ancestry in mainland Europe. Surely the anthrogenica geniuses as "Magic" Rocca or "Sitting Bull" RMs2 continue to deny the reality when we have already found R1b-M269 in neolithic dolmens that demonstrate the disconnection of that lineage with the CWC and the steppes- Soon more cases will appear and then they will have to put the head underground as the ostriches do-
@ Sam
''You're the dumbass, who tries to place the origin of Indo European in Balkan farmers.
You never give legit evidence, all you do is insult people's education. New flash: There's plenty of educated people with stupid ideas.''
It's not an insult - its true- You are uneducated about Europe. You learn from DA And Harvard. You know nothing of genuine European scholarship
You then claim things i have never said. Apparently you lack the ability to understand that HGs lived in the northern Balkans, Carpathians, so forth.
My recommendation is you stick in your lane
"Sam, it is also worth reminding our friends that R1a is more diverse in the main M417 lines in Europe (L664, Z284, Z280, M458), while in South Asia there is only Z93 (and below)."
False. modern india has hardly been sampled so far. also 0 ancient males so far.
eastern india ganga region is hat needs to be sampled.
If and when Chaubey's samples get published, he will show presence of basal
R1*-M173 20 samples
R1a-M420 2 samples
R1a1a-M417 12 samples
R1a1a1b-M645 18 samples
R1a1a1b2 Z93 26 samples
R1a1a1b2a Z95 3 samples
R1a1a1b2a1 R-Y3/Y2/Y26 17 samples
L657 89 samples
and below
at that point all kurganist fantasies will crumble.
@vAsiSTha
despite the sammple size of over 1000 there is no R1a-Z280, L664 and almost all R1a is L657 and Z2124. So Chaubey rather shows how bottnecked South Asian R1a is. The diversity of younger L657 and Z2124 clades in South Asia don't make the R1a diverse there because they are all under Z93. Basal R1a clades can be also found in Yemen or Egypt so what? You need to get that modern day dna is useless here and only ancient dna can answer any questions but because of personal bias you try to ignore it and repeat again and again outdated stuff.
@coldmountains
You are R1a and you show your personal bias in each of your post. I haven't even tested my dna yet.
Get back to me when you find R-Y3 or L657 in steppe_mlba (hint: you won't)
@vAsiSTha
well you seem to be an ultranationalist with a "blood and soil" ideology similar in terms of ideology to 19-20th century "Nordists" claiming Indo-Europeans are from Germany and Germans are "pure". India was influenced by others and a lot of mixing happened there since Neolitic times (migration of Iran_Neolithic, Steppe/BMAC, Saka,..). That does not make Indians inferior and the same happened in Europe. That is why most people here are already tired of this ideological discussions, which are based on strawman arguments and pseudo-science
Again: get back to me when you find R-Y3 or L657 in steppe like you predicted back in 2015.
About purity: i am the one claiming that there is added bmac ancestry in south asia on top of steppe_oWshg ancestry, a fact denied by Vagheesh. Stop ad libs, its boring.
@vAsiSTha
It was already found and even if not Sintashta Z2124 is already (indirectly) proving that L657 was in Neolithic/Bronze Age Europe. But yeah this was all disproven by the R1a in Pre-Indo-European BMAC and India. Thanks for educating us.
@vAsiSTha
If and when Chaubey's samples get published, he will show presence of basal at that point all kurganist fantasies will crumble.
Well, I'm probably gonna laugh my ass off at Chaubey's conclusions when he eventually manages to get that idiotic paper published.
By the way, enjoy my past (but still current) efforts in regards to this issue...
Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health
"Z2124 is already (indirectly) proving that L657 was in Neolithic/Bronze Age Europe."
Hahahahaha. You get a 1000 out of 100 for this answer. Top level scholarship this.
@David
"By the way, your Polish model is overfitted with hunter-gatherer ancestry, and it's breaking up the steppe signal in Poles to compensate for the lack of the right type of hunter-gatherer ancestry from the south Baltic."
When northeastern European countries are modeled without 'Rus-Karelia' the models get worse and the ancestry of 'steppe' is artificially inflated - which is not the case in western countries like Ireland - and the distances get longer. I didn't even know any theory about the R1a being EHG, it just beat the doubt while I tested different models.
Target: Polish
Distance: 6.0529% / 0.06052917
50.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
33.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
16.0 WHG
Target: Polish
Distance: 5.5641% / 0.05564076
38.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
31.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
20.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
9.4 WHG
Target: Irish
Distance: 4.9301% / 0.04930071
49.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
36.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
13.8 WHG
The model holds best in Northeast countries when Yamnaya is not the only source for EHG-related ancestry. But I agree that the distance can be reduced with the emergence of new EHG genomes.
@vasitha,
Ancient DNA proofs R1a M417 originated Eastern Europe. Therefore South Asian R1a L657 is one way or another from Yamnaya-like pops from Eastern Europe.
10,000 BC: R1a* Ukraine.
4000 BC: R1a Z93 Ukraine.
3500 BC: R1a Z93 Romania.
It is impossible for R1a M417 to have existed in both Eastern Europe and Southcentral Asia so early. R1a M417's TMRCA is only 3400 BC accoridng to yfull.
The same effect is also seen in Bulgaria, Russia, Romania and even Bulgaria.
Target: Russian_Kostroma
Distance: 5.4581% / 0.05458067
33.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
30.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
27.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.4 WHG
3.0 Nganassan
Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 2.9995% / 0.02999507
54.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
22.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
6.4 GEO_CHG
2.0 WHG
0.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
When Rus-Karelia is not including the models they are inferior to the models that include Rus-Karelia. This happens in practically all of Eastern Europe:
Target: Russian_Kostroma
Distance: 6.3985% / 0.06398532
54.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
24.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
15.6 WHG
5.4 Nganassan
Target: Bulgarian
Distance: 3.2373% / 0.03237329
52.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
41.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.0 WHG
1.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA3
0.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.2 Levant_Natufian
It makes sense that there is more EHG ancestry in eastern Europe regardless of steppe migrations.
Target: Belarusian
Distance: 7.4371% / 0.07437127
53.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
29.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
17.8 WHG
Target: Finnish
Distance: 5.9858% / 0.05985767
53.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
22.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
18.8 WHG
4.8 Nganassan
Target: Belarusian
Distance: 6.6457% / 0.06645695
37.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
27.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
26.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
8.6 WHG
Target: Finnish
Distance: 5.2003% / 0.05200285
30.6 Anatolia_Barcin_N
30.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
26.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
9.8 WHG
2.6 Nganassan
@Henrique Paes
This effect has already been discussed several times in the comments here.
You're picking the wrong hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is producing inflated statistical fits and wrong ancestry proportions.
There is no Karelia HG ancestry in Eastern Europe except in the far north. If you pick something that isn't relevant, you'll get high fits and wrong results.
@David
"This effect has already been discussed several times in the comments here.
You're picking the wrong hunter-gatherer ancestry, which is producing inflated statistical fits and wrong ancestry proportions.
There is no Karelia HG ancestry in Eastern Europe except in the far north. If you pick something that isn't relevant, you'll get high fits and wrong results"
I do not doubt that better models can exist, but it is also a fact that the model that has only Yamnaya as a reference does not work in the northeast as the model that offers Yamnaya and EHG as references - which does not happen in Western Europe. Karélia may not be the best model, but everything indicates that there is an 'excess' of EHG in Eastern Europe that can inflate models that use only Yamnaya as a reference. Which makes perfect sense because the EHG was in Eastern Europe long before the steppe migrations, and certainly the steppe people mixed in with much more EHG in Eastern Europe than in the West.
@Henrique Paes
Belarusians, Poles and even most West Russians are mostly derived from Neolithic/Bronze Age population in Central-East Europe (Poland, Ukraine,..) where Karelia_HG-like populations not even existed. You need to use some SHG-like genomes and (Early) Corded Ware instead of Yamnaya.
@Coldmountains
"Belarusians, Poles and even most West Russians are mostly derived from Neolithic/Bronze Age population in Central-East Europe (Poland, Ukraine,..) where Karelia_HG-like populations not even existed. You need to use some SHG-like genomes and (Early) Corded Ware instead of Yamnaya."
I added 'SWE_Motala_HG' and 'SWE_Meso' to the model, but nothing has changed. Even in Sweden he continues to pull for Karelia.
Target: Polish
Distance: 5.5641% / 0.05564076
38.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
31.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
20.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
9.4 WHG
Target: Swedish
Distance: 4.6552% / 0.04655211
44.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
34.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
14.6 WHG
6.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
Wasn't the Sredni Stog sample Y3? The origins of R1a/R1b/PIE in Iran, India, Central or Western Europe are laughable. Also now we have a Western European in here trying to make R1a a non IE haplogroup too. What a fucking mess.
@Davidski
"There is no Karelia HG ancestry in Eastern Europe except in the far north."
You mean Estonia/Lithuania?
In Thessaly the model obtained an incredibly low distance and Karélia continued to appear when it never appears anywhere more western than Germany - Being much stronger in northeastern Europe.
Target: Greek_Thessaly
Distance: 2.3929% / 0.02392915
59.0 Anatolia_Barcin_N
29.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
3.6 GEO_CHG
2.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.4 Levant_Natufian
0.4 WHG
Gaska, where's all the Pre-2800 BC M269 you promised us France and Germany? How about in Switzerland and Iberia? Where are all the "surprises" you said we were going to have. You have a lot of nerve showing your face around these parts after you've been wrong at every turn. There is not a single person that agrees with your biased Basque fantasies. Time for you to get another hobby, because you absolutely suck at this one.
@Henrique,
You are clearly correct about the EHG in Europe, it is separate from that brought by steppe migrations. I asked a related question to Samuel which he cant answer.
"Or what happened to the ehg language in Europe. "
But Samuel is trying to derive all steppe EHG (Yamnya/Corded Ware) from the early EHG in Eastern Europe like Karelia HG, because they don't want to accept that both the EHG and CHG in Yamnya and Corded ware is separate to any EHG that was existing in Europe at the time, and came from the East.
They're so weak they don't understand anything.
The only argument in favour of a European origin for R1A in South Asia is some TMRCA nonsense, which is just speculation. R diversity is much more in South Central Asia than in Europe.
Jatt_Scythian, is just another boot-licker like I guessed from his name right from the beginning.
mzp1 said...
"They're so weak they don't understand anything."
It was written by a person with Down's syndrome who knows nothing, and understands nothing about letter combinations without knowing what they mean. There's a reason psychiatrists diagnosed you with Down's syndrome. How everybody is sick of this crazy troll who couldn't even finish primary school because of mental retardation.
And mzp is just another stupid, delusional, science denying loser with an inflated sense of self worth that the prick has done nothing to earn.
And R1a's diversity is clearly higher in Europe where we have ancient samples belonging to R1a(XZ645), R1a-Z283, R1a-Z93 and R1a-L664. But please tell us about the ancient Iranian R*, R1a and R1b samples. Stupid moron.
@Archi
Its not his fault he's a loser with an IQ below 70. We shouldn't attack him and Gaska for the way they were born.
Haha, Humanity will look back on this thread in the future wondering how once the mainstream narrative was so stupid, then they will see posts from Jatt_Scythian and Archie and wonder no more.
@Rocca-
Everyone remembers how you and your kurganist friends like “Mr Bean” Jdean, “Chiricaua” Razyn or “Borrico” Ruderico developed your fantastic theory of migrations originating in the Yamnaya culture. A year later you are all fervent supporters of an L51 origin in the CWC-Who had to change his mind? Aren't you tired of making fools of yourselves yet? You still swear that L51 is in Yamnaya because a sample of L23* appeared?- It is surprising that someone who is always wrong recommends others to find another hobby - I think you should learn a little more about Western European Chalcolithic and then maybe you will stop talking nonsense about BB culture and Iberia-
However I still say the same as 10 years ago i.e. R1b-L754 and P297 are typical lineages of the WHGs, M269 and L51 can appear in any neolithic culture of Central Europe (even in the Balkans/Baltic-4500-2800 BC), P312 is absolutely western and Df27 has its origin in Iberia. Besides, the BBC originated in Iberia, it never spoke an Indo-European language because in Iberia there's a clear genetic continuity between chalcolithic and the Iron Age, and there were iberian migrations related to this culture to all the other BB regions. Now we have found cases of M269-2.750 BC, buried in Neolithic dolmens and although you try to hide it, the truth is that sooner or later you will have to talk about them. This is the second time I've told you to remember this site-Valle de las Higueras (Huecas, Toledo)-
I've never understood the reasons for your membership in the Anti-Iberian Club which dominates anthrogenica, maybe it's the Stockholm Syndrome-From the rest of your friends no wonder they belong to that club because all their knowledge of anthropology comes down to Coon and their knowledge of genetics to the conclusions of the Harvardians-Stay safe
mzp is one of those dumbasses who thinks he's being edgy by going against the mainstream and what evidence based science tell us but he actually just looks like a fool. Humanity will place idiots like you in the stupid bin along with antivaxxers and climate change deniers.
@Gaska... Your hypocrisy knows no end. L51 is not from the steppe because it hasn't found there, but L51 is from Western Europe even though it hasn't been found there. Good luck with your new hobby, you biased hypocrite.
EHG in Baltic:
Baltic populations certainly seem to have significant excess European HG ancestry above what could be explained by European late Neolithic farmers + Yamnaya as references. But what is really EHG? It is just a point on the WHG - AG3 cline. What we can see there is probably some regional HG ancestry that was somewhere between WHG and EHG on the cline. Where? I run some G25 nMontes to get a rough estimation and I'd say that their excess HG ancestry is clearly much more western than any of the classic "EHG" populations (Sidelkino, Karelia, Samara).
Before I post the results of one of these test runs, please keep in mind that these are not meant to estimate ancestry ratios. Just comparisons between different populations under the same test conditions. I used a Yamnaya + Galobular Aphore basic mix, added BarcinN because the test population I picked as no-excess-HG comparison probably has excess of it and then tested how western the excess HG of Baltics on the WHG - AG3 cline.
"sample": "Hungarian:Average",
"fit": 3.3214,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 45,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 35,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 16.67,
"ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 3.33,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 0,
No excess HG for Hungarians, that Italian Mezolithic only comes up, because Globular Amphora is an imperfect reference and the algorithm separates some of it to Barcin + WHG.
"sample": "Lithuanian_PZ:Average",
"fit": 7.7423,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 55,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 30.83,
"ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 12.5,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 1.67,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 0,
"sample": "Estonian:Average",
"fit": 6.735,
"Yamnaya_RUS_Samara": 55,
"POL_Globular_Amphora": 35,
"ITA_Grotta_Continenza_Meso": 10,
"Anatolia_Barcin_N": 0,
"RUS_AfontovaGora3": 0,
Baltics do have excess European HG, but it is very western. It could be more western than Narva, but the uncertainty of this test is to high to say that with confidence.
@Henrique Paes
You're really not very good at this, even though it's pretty simple.
Target: Polish
Distance: 5.2282% / 0.05228229
42.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
34.4 Anatolia_Barcin_N
21.4 Baltic_LTU_Narva
2.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
Target: Polish
Distance: 4.9776% / 0.04977564
44.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Kalmykia
32.8 Anatolia_Barcin_N
22.4 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0 RUS_Karelia_HG
Target: Polish
Distance: 4.5544% / 0.04554407
50.6 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
31.2 Anatolia_Barcin_N
18.2 Baltic_LTU_Narva
0 RUS_Karelia_HG
This is your last warning. Stop trolling here.
@Rocca
My new hobby is going to be counting how many times you are going to change your mind in the next 5 years- As everything is recorded, each one will have to give explanations of their words and you will have a lot of work- Non biased Rocca?Don't make me laugh, you're incapable of correctly interpreting an archaeological site-Aesch25 has nothing to do with the CWC, and may be too old to be a BB intrusive burial in a dolmen, and yet you are able to claim that it came from the SGC??? Remember these words. Neolithic dolmen, brachicephaly, Alps, Grand Pressigny and BB culture, maybe you'll be able to remove some of the steppe from your brain and rethink what you thought ten years ago-
@Gaska
All of those M269 samples from the Swiss paper have a lot of steppe ancestry. Those that don't belong to other Y-haplogroups.
@Slumberry,
It's interesting if the Baltics have the excess EHG, because those languages also have some Sanskrit-like, what I consider archaic-Iranian, linguistic elements. This is why people often say Lithuanian is closest to Sanskrit etc. It could be due to early EHG.
This is the same type of early Iranian (with some IA-like elements) in Finno-Ugric. The migration and settlement of early EHG correlates well with the attestation of this early Iranian, IA-like, influences.
Baltic HG is not EHG. This is specific Baltic HG for which we do not have a proxy sample yet.
@mzp1
I can see some time-depth problem with explaining Lithuanian - Sanskrit parallels via EHG, but it is pointless to debate this in depth as genetic tests says there is no significant (above noise) direct EHG ancestry in modern Baltic populations.
I know from your many earlier posts that you severely disagree with this, but those linguistic parallels are probably the results of Balto-Slavic - proto Sanskrit (or ancient Indo-Iranian or whatever) areal contacts in the Eastern CWC and Lithuanian just happened to conserve them randomly.
I can even imagine that Baltic was originally the north-eastern branch of the Balto-Slavic dialect continuum and migrated west in the Bronze Age, possibly parallel with the more northern migration of Balti Finns. In that position ancient Balts could be the direct neighbors of north-eastern Abashevo and even western Sintashta.
This is what I see as most fitting with the data. Note that this is not an aspect of personal identity for me, I am not even native to an Indo-European language. As far as I emotionally care they could have come from the Moon.:)
@Slumberry,
That's ok. I just wanted to take the opportunity to point out the correlation as I saw it.
I know most people believe what you do, and this is not a linguistics forum, so I wont go deep into the problems with that theory (as described by Samuel) here.
@Rob: "NB: lower Don is a Majkopised group, so they’re just an Adstratum
So itll be funny seeing people change their narrative when the data comes out"
Any information you can share? Some Lower Don settlements look mixed, but a full scale Maykopian colonisation or what are you suggesting?
Is there any significant to R1a-Z93+ being found in Romania and R1b-L51+ (supposedly unpublished) being found near Moscow? Its the exact opposite of what everyone expected.
I don't suppose anyone knows anything more specific about Aesch25? The tomb was excavated in 1907. The remains were mixed and badly decayed, so that burial positions couldn't be determined. Most of the remains were found in the grave chamber, but some were apparently dug into the tumulus. Few objects were found: a few unidentifiable potsherds, some flint objects, two arrowheads, and pierced bear, dog, and boar tooth ornaments. I can't find any details. A fireplace had been used within the grave chamber. (This is all from the book in German that Rob linked - thanks Rob).
There is a series of radiocarbon dates on human bone from the 1990s that when calibrated run from 2617-2343 to 2448-2144 BC. Due to radiocarbon plateaux dates around these times are not very precise, but these should be later than the current paper's date for Aesch25, and certainly later than the main Aesch group individuals. I don't know how this happened - were they sampling individuals from different parts of the tomb, or was it a difference in sample treatments or something?
So nothing in the tomb itself pointing to Corded Ware or Bell Beaker. The only thing that would relate it to Bell Beaker is the 1990s dates, as Simon W suggested. Aes25's date range largely overlaps with Swiss Corded Ware (~2750-2400 BC by dendrochronology), and his genome wide profile fits that, even if we can't be sure he was really Corded Ware.
Gaska, I don't think it is really parsimonious to have EEF R1b men come out of the woodwork at the end of the Neolithic and insist on very specifically marrying Corded Ware women for some reason. Aes25 comes out around 70-75% Yamnaya and has EEF mtDNA X2b+226.
@Slumberry
"Baltics do have excess European HG, but it is very western. It could be more western than Narva, but the uncertainty of this test is to high to say that with confidence."
I think that was known for a while then, some European hunter-gatherer ancestry in the Baltics in excess of that in say western Europe, but that is different from a cline of pure EHG (in context) ancestry across eastern Europe, which I do not think exists, but messing around with nMonte popped up in some eastern Europeans.
Also, regarding the farmer ancestry in Europeans, is Barcin_N the best proxy? I have been using Barcin_N but not 100% sure.
Related and apologies if this has been discussed before, but there was this paper https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45746-3 that found some EHG ancestry in Lithuanians as well as SHG.
@capra internetensis
The Aesch25 was immediately identified as belonging to the BBC, it was buried by the BBC traditions, but not CWC.
The Romanian sample belongs to burials with ochre, these are very late burials which date from the pre-Bronze Age to the time of the Babino culture, a date in 3500-3000 BC is known to have been taken from the ceiling, sucked out of a finger when this burial was investigated in 1958. There is no radiocarbon dating for it, but from a nearby site from Moldova for similar burials with ochre dates are received concerning to the times of Babino culture, burials of this culture are also in this burial place in Romania.
@VasiSTha
"Any model with Onge as source for south asians is likely trash." What would be the alternative though?
Slumbery, imposibble scenario. Steppe MLBA does not have Baltic HG - Balto-Slavic drift. Balts created local HG from the southern Baltic, mixing with local populations derived from CWC. The vector of genetic and linguistic relationship between Balts and the Indo-Iranians were CWC-derived populations.
@Jatt: "Is there any significant to R1a-Z93+ being found in Romania and R1b-L51+ (supposedly unpublished) being found near Moscow? Its the exact opposite of what everyone expected."
Yes, because Sintashta is the result of a back migration of Corded Ware-like people with increased EEF ancestry and advanced technology. So the links to the Carparthian region could be real, whereas the R1b clans might come from an earlier expansion of steppe ancestry to the West.
@Capra Internetensis-
1-We have three R1b-M269 in Switzerland-Aesch25 (2,682 BC), MX304 (2,734 BC) and MX310 (2,721 BC)-All of them Neolithic farmers buried in collective graves.
2-The CWC in Switzerland is I2a, nothing to do with L51-
3-Regarding Asch25 it does indeed have a typical hap mit of western Neolithic farmers, but that is documented in that same dolmen 300 years before- Then, that man was not a newcomer, he was buried with his close relatives and with the same funeral customs-His steppe ancestry percentage is not as high as you say and he was evidently able to acquire it through exogamy. Its dating makes it very difficult for it to be a BB, although I previously thought that this was the most feasible explanation. In any case Archi is right archaeologically speaking the paper is a disaster (lack of interest or need to hide some data?)-The dolmen is typical of the Horgen culture that you all know has western influences -Then obviously this man was an EEF- In case he was a solitary explorer from the CWC or the BBC, it is evident that he immediately adopted the Horgen culture- As to the linguistic consequences, can anyone claim that one or more solitary explorers were able to change the language spoken by the EEF? - Doesn't make any sense-
4-Regarding Auvernier and Burgaschisee, MX·310 he is clearly a Neolithic farmer with a small percentage of steppe ancestry, and belonged to the Lüscherz culture, which is clearly related to the French Chalcolithic cultures (all his pieces of silex come from France, not from the steppes or from the CWC)
5-Finally MX304-Burgaschisee is another Neolithic farmer, who neither genetically, nor anthropologically, nor culturally has anything to do with the CWC-
It is evident to me that exogamy made the Central European R1b-L51/P312 extend that ancestry throughout Western Europe-In any case, all those who said that the BBC had its origin in the CWC will have understood that this is nonsense because if Aesch25 belonged to that culture, he certainly did not invent the BBC but became a farmer-
@Gamerz_J
"Also, regarding the farmer ancestry in Europeans, is Barcin_N the best proxy? I have been using Barcin_N but not 100% sure.
It is probably not exactly the right population, but as far as I know it is the best we have. In the time depth of around the start of European agriculture at least.
In less deep time actual European farmer populations of course work better, but the purpose of the above test was not the mapping of farmer ancestry sources in modern Europeans.
@ambron
"The vector of genetic and linguistic relationship between Balts and the Indo-Iranians were CWC-derived populations.
So, you agree with me in this part then. OK.
"Slumbery, imposibble scenario. Steppe MLBA does not have Baltic HG - Balto-Slavic drift. Balts created local HG from the southern Baltic, mixing with local populations derived from CWC."
Note that the part you argue against there started with "I can even imagine", not with something like "I am sure this is the truth". The version brought up by you certainly has the advantage of being less convoluted. But just for the sake of a friendly argument: that Baltic specific drift could be picked up by Baltic speakers when they arrived there and mixed with locals. The actual Baltic speakers could have been the minority in genome-wide ancestry.
Also note that I did not say anything that would imply that I think Balts are from Steppe MLBA, you misunderstood something. The idea is that the speakers of earliest Baltic are (or part of) Fatyanovo-Balanovo, so not the steppe, but the forest zone neighboring Abasevo.
I would not bet money on this scenario, but I would not say it is impossible either.
@ Zardos
“ Any information you can share? Some Lower Don settlements look mixed, but a full scale Maykopian colonisation or what are you suggesting?”
Majkopised I mean in closer contact with Majkop than other regions
The Konstantinovka culture in Lower Don
Also some actual colonisation from Majkop.
Plenty of literature for both aspects, but quick article + image here
“Western boundaries of extension of the Maikop culture”- Viktor Trifonov
Slumbery, it's about the direction of the vector arrow. In the Bronze Age, populations derived from CWC are shifting from west to east, not east to west.
@ambros
I do not think that was a law of physics. Just because big eastward expansions happened into the steppe it does not follow that there could be no westward migration elsewhere. I do not think it the exact same time anyway, but even if so, why not? Seriously, "there could not be a westward migration, because other CWC derived populations elsewhere migrated eastwards in the same _age_" is a weird argument.
Slumbery, the direction is determined by gene flow. If reverse flow occurs in ancient genomes at this time, then your scenario will be likely.
@ambros
I am going to go to sleep now and check any further answer only sometime tomorrow (even if they are posted before I post this), so just to make it clear: The simpler scenario, that is also more compliant with the linguistically estimated age of Baltic vs. Slavic divergence, is that early Indo-Iranian was connected to the common Balto-Slavic and Lithuanian kept more trace of that connection simply because it was more conservative in those specific parts and not because Balts had stronger connection with Indo-Iranian. If I were forced to choose, I'd bet on this against the Fatyanovo = early Baltic idea. So I was somewhat arguing with you just for sport and because I think weak arguments (like that "vector" thing) should be criticized even when they are supporting the right conclusion.
@Slumberry
Thanks, I was referring specifically to the time depth you had in mind, I will keep using that then.
@Rob: Thanks for the tip. If true, we will see how much of this resulted in genetic influences. Some of the burials he presents seem to be clear cases, but how far was this influence going?
Sorry some of you have the genetic distance of indus periphery individiduals from kashkarchi in fergana valley mlba?
And is true that overall north europeans are closer to " steppe mlba " than to east europeans ?
-srtmil
there might be some unknown population that bred with Yamnaya/Corded Ware to create Baltic-BA which then gave rise to Balts/east Slavs and that relic population is not shared with Sintashta, which results in worse fits for them compared to NW/northern Euros but the difference is very small.
and for indus periphery individuals if i remenber correctly norgewians and other north euros were the closest followed closely by north east euros and then uralic
@ Gaska
“ We have three R1b-M269 in Switzerland-Aesch25 (2,682 BC), MX304 (2,734 BC) and MX310 (2,721 BC)-All of them Neolithic farmers buried in collective graves”
Nope .
The R1b-M269 is a later deposit . It has different burial position and C14 is the youngest
It is an individual burial
@vAsiSTha
What do you suppose the native Paleolithic and Meolithic component of there Ganges Vplain was (particularly the Brahmaputra Valley-Assam?). I read that mongoloids were the first to populate Assam. And is there a reason why the South Asian population didn't populate this region and all the mountainous areas south of the Himalayas first?
@Mzp1, Rob
Everyone understands that Kurgan people adopted innovations, advancements that they learned from other regions. Everyone understands they transitioned from hunter gatherers to Pastorlists with metal due to foriegn influence.
This doesn't mean the people they learned those innovations from were the real Proto-Indo Europeans.
And, what exactly was the nature of foreign influence on Kurgan culture? Kurgan culture was not a full blown Neolithic farmer culture from the Balkans. Nor, was was not a full blown Neolithic culture from the Middle East.
If Proto-Indo Europeans came from Balkans or Middle East, there isn't good evidence for it in archaeology. One would expect to see much more similarities between Kurgan cultures and those cultures.
I expect, they'll turn out to be native hunter gatherers of Southern Russia who created a new more advanced culture based on things they learned from farmers in the Balkans.
''Everyone understands they transitioned from hunter gatherers to Pastorlists with metal due to foriegn influence.''
Yeah but thse transmissions were effected by hunter-gatherers from the Carpatho-Dnieper region.
This is not the same thing as 'Balkan (EEF) Farmers' so im not sure why you keep misquoting me repeatedly.
''I expect, they'll turn out to be native hunter gatherers of Southern Russia .''
The EHG/CHG signal formed in south Russia.; but not the kurgan culture (and by extension PIE, if we accept the Black Sea model).
EHG/CHG =/= PIE. It might be, but not a priori so
@Henrique Paes
It's obvious to anyone with even a basic understanding of the facts that Yamnaya-related ancestry doesn't differ much in Eastern, Central and Northern European populations.
And it's insane to suggest that one Polish person might have significant Karelia HG ancestry, while another none.
It's actually insane to suggest that there is any Karelia HG ancestry in Poland. Not only doesn't it make any sense, but it's contradicted by a variety of tests.
So all you're doing is taking advantage of the shortcomings of this test to push your personal agenda and troll.
I can only assume that you're either immature or mentally unstable.
@Samuel,
Your theory is just too simplistic and assumes the EHG guys were unique in speaking some form of IE at 5000BC. How do you know IE was not spoken elsewhere at the time?
If IE is the most widespread language family today it was also probably the same around 4,000BC, minus the impact of Corded Ware.
Yamnay, Afanasievo, Corded Ware are all forming around the same time. There is not clear single origin for them archeologically or genetically.
So they were just EHG Forest-Steppe, hunter-fishers with no complex political networks or connections with other cultures (according to you, I think), and then all of a sudden they are dominating CHG and with them separating into Corded Ware, Yamna, Afanasievo, all spread out, becoming super-advanced in agropastoralism, metallurgy, trade, politics, art etc.
You have too much complexity and structure in too little a physical space, all of late PIE structure in just corded ware-yamna, at the same time, you are giving too linguistic ancestry to a huge part of the world, Near East, Central Asia, South Asia.
You're condensing too much information into too little a space which results in two obvious problems.
1. You cannot expand that information back out in any reasonable way. Hence, your theory cannot explain the biggest branching events in IE, Centum/Satem, and Indo-Aryan/Iranian, amongts many other things. You just end up saying something like "it happened somehow". I already mentioned this to you.
2. You have no information about other regions which today speak IE languages. Iran, Central Asia and South Asia, you cannot tell us anything about what was happening there, because you have put all that information into your Yamna/Corded Ware continuum. You also have the problem of expanding it out in some plausible way, into Greece, Anatolia, Iran and South Asia, which is why you guys are so adamant about the 'Aryan Migration'.
You basically have a non-theory because the most important part is blank. It's easy to show that all the structure of late-IE cannot exist in a singular continuum like Early Yamna/Corded Ware. This is why there are zero actual breakdowns of this, mapping out explicitly the relationsips between the different families. No one has proposed it, because it cannot work. I dont want to go into detail about that here cos I dont think it will change your mind anyway.
You dont even think something as important as the Neolithic had anything at all to do with the biggest language family in the world today.
On the other hand, I give PIE a much earlier date, hence I can relate it to the two biggest economic developments in early human history, Herding (Animal Domestication, Wheeled Transport etc) and the Neolithic. And I can answer a lot more questions than can you and the many academics with your position.
An expansion of steppe into Europe is just an expansion of Eastern DNA Westwards, because EHG and CHG are both Eastern. There were numerous waves of Eastern expansions into Europe, cos most of Europe was under ice not too long ago. Whether you call it Steppe and try and force it to form past some boundary demarcating Europe and Asia is not that important.
@ Rob
"Yeah but thse transmissions were effected by hunter-gatherers from the Carpatho-Dnieper region."
Any specific cultures or culture you can point us to in this regard ? Was it a full package of ideas and innovations ?
mzp1 said...
"If IE is the most widespread language family today it was also probably the same around 4,000BC, minus the impact of Corded Ware.
...."
Bullshit all, you don't know anything about linguistics, you don't understand languages. Linguists have long ago proved that the PIE was a small language divided relatively recently.
https://i.ibb.co/tKzfKjx/IE-with-TMRC.png
All your reasoning is a form of pathological nonsense and verbal diarrhea. You don't know anything that is known to science, history, archaeology, anthropology, genetics, linguistics, and only brainless fantasize about the fact that she knows nothing.
" And I can answer a lot more questions than can you and the many academics with your position."
Who are you kidding? You know absolutely nothing and you have no right to lie to us and make us listen to your diarrheal nonsense.
EHG kept Cattle very early, before farming I am sure, but I need to double check, but I just saw it on Wikipedia, and read about it in some paper.
The Neolithic comes to South Asia very late, which is weird, compared to the expansion of the Neolithic in Europe, for instance. It doesn't even reach Central Asia, Tajikistan until Sarazm around 3,500BC, which is late, around the same time as the IVC begins in South Asia.
The Hakra Wares cultures points to a Cattle Herding economy in South Asia prior to the IVC. In Central Asia the earliest layers in the Avesta refer to a Cattle Herding Society. EHG was familiar with Cattle and Pigs, and I don't think it's so easy for real Hunter-Gathers to learn animal domestication that quickly. So EHG probably had some experience with Herding. Hence, they would be familiar and politically connected to a large, pre-existing Herding society, that existed in South and Central Asia, which is those places the Neolithic could not easily penetrate.
This is why EHG so easily combined with CHG and why Yamna and other steppe cultures were so successful and dynamic. They were not unconnected Hunter Gatherers (in the literal, not genetic sense) but were long associated with a widespread and important economic culture, and hence could politically navigate relationships with people like the BMAC and others.
@mzp1
Nice work so far. I think early linguists have created Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian based more on geography and ethnicity than any kind of linguistic criterion. When Antoine Meillet was asked where should one go to listen to the most archaic PIE his answer was to a village in Lithuania. That makes a lot of sense looking at Igor TB's in section 5.
https://www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_
After the extinct Anatolian and Tocharian branches Baltic would be the most archaic living branch on the archaic periphery. Italo Celtic never moved that far till very recent times. Iranians were expanding out both west and north. On the western side they went as far as satemizing Armenian but not far enough to satemize Greek. On the northern route they influenced Slavic heavily but again Baltic was out of their reach so to speak.
The one problem with this scheme is Germanic. Why did it not get satemized?
The answer could hinge on the language spoken by the BMAC as they were disintegrating. Igor hinself seems to be unsure whether to put it on the western or the northern route.
Looking at the picture below
https://www.academia.edu/36998766/Five_waves_of_Indo-European_expansion_a_preliminary_model_2018_
BMAC was spread out horizontally quite wide. So Germanic could have been at the western most end sneaking out quickly on the same route as Anatolian and Italo Celtic. This is where cattle genetics can play a key role. Looking at the words for cow
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/g%CA%B7%E1%B9%93ws
German Kuh and English cow
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Germanic/k%C5%ABz
are closer to the Greco Armenian variety than the Celtic bos variety.
mzp1 said...
"EHG kept Cattle very early, before farming I am sure, but I need to double check, but I just saw it on Wikipedia, and read about it in some paper. ...."
Treat for hallucinations. You use words and terms without knowing what they mean, it's just kindergarten, it turns out very funny.
"why Yamna and other steppe cultures were so successful and dynamic. They were not unconnected Hunter Gatherers"
The Yamnaya culture was the Hunter Gatherers' culture only in your inflamed imagination of a person who didn't finish primary school for the mentally retarded.
My last paragraph was not clear.
"This is why EHG so easily combined with CHG and why Yamna and other steppe cultures were so successful and dynamic. EHG were not unconnected Hunter Gatherers (in the literal, not genetic sense) but were long associated with a widespread and important economic culture, and hence EHG derived populations could politically navigate relationships with people like the BMAC and others."
@Mayur, thanks, I pinged a message to Igor to see if I can get him to answer some questions. I tried to read his paper but it was not easy, will try again tomorrow.
@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...
"I think early linguists have created Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian based more on geography and ethnicity than any kind of linguistic criterion."
Here before us is another hallucinating ignorant, quoting the delirium of another failure. How many people substitute knowledge for their ill inflamed imagination.
@mzp
"@Mayur, thanks, I pinged a message to Igor to see if I can get him to answer some questions."
You are most welcome. Combine the fire isogloss with the cow one and Igor has just about nailed it. I know he has been talking to Narsimhan.
@mzp "EHG kept Cattle"
If by EHG you mean Eastern Europe then pause the following at 23:06 and moo, cow is the biggest animal there.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP16l1PFoLA&t=1867s
And cattle spread from the Balkans to Khvalynsk and reached that area around 5000 BC. Ancient Cattle MtDNA DNA shows Cattle MtDNA Haplogroup T3 became very prominent in Europe during the Early Neolithic and what did they find in Afanasevo Cattle ? All MtDNA Haplogroup T3. And there you have it. Those cattle were probably Black since we see T3 dominates also in Modern Black Breeds of Korea and Japan...very similar to Welsh Black and Kerry cattle...
@Mzp1,
"Yamnay, Afanasievo, Corded Ware......were just EHG Forest-Steppe, hunter-fishers....and then all of a sudden they are dominating CHG."
This is a key dis agreement my camp has with your camp. We don't see them as EHG forest Steppe people. We think the CHG ancestry in Kurgan people is ancient. We think they had it back in the Mesolithic. We think they come from hunter gatherers in Southern Russia who had mixed EHG/CHG.
Read Wang 2018 if you haven't already. It proves by 4300 BC, and probably earlier, the Yamnaya genetic makeup already existed in the European Steppe. There is no need for new geneflow into the Steppe after 4300 BC to explain Yamnaya.
Our explanation for the emergence of pastorlism in Steppe, is it was adopted by local hunter gatherers in Southern Russia who had mixed CHG/EHG ancestry. We see no reason for a migration from the Near East to explain.
Ukraine hunter gatherers began to transition to pastorlism in 5000s BC even though they had no Near Eastern ancestry. Multiple hunter gatherer pops in Eastern Europe were making this transition. Coincidental the one with lots of CHG ancestry was the most successful.
@mzp1,
"all the structure of late-IE cannot exist in a singular continuum like Early Yamna/Corded Ware. This is why there are zero actual breakdowns of this, mapping out explicitly the relationsips between the different families. No one has proposed it, because it cannot work"
The Indo European language is younger than you think it is. Each of the breaks in the language family didn't happen as early as you think they did. There's no good evidence for exactly how old Indo European is. We know it isn't younger than 3,000 years or older than 10,000 years. But that's it.
I think almost all modern IE languages derive from the Corded Ware horizon.
Ancient Y DNA shows, Corded Ware was made up of multiple different Kurgan ethnic groups. Some carried R1b L151, some R1a L664, some R1a Z283, some R1a Z93 (not confirmed yet, but I'm confident Eastern Corded Ware had R1a Z93).
These different ethnic groups I think spoke different dialects of IE. These dialects of IE later formed into Balto-SLavic, Germanic, Celtic, Italic, Indo Iranian.
In David Anthony's 2007, he estimates that Late Proto-Indo European spoke the same language till 2500 BC (Corded Ware period). And that Proto Indo iranain split as a distinct language in 2000 BC.
It is not unbelievable that the bulk of modern Indo European languages have a common lingustic ancestor in 3000 BC. Or, were even mutually intelligible dialects until 2600 BC.
@mzp1,
"I give PIE a much earlier date, hence I can relate it to the two biggest economic developments in early human history, Herding and the Neolithic."
You talk about pre-Neolithic herders in Central Asia who you have no evidence from archaeology existed. There's no evidence they contributed ancestry to Yamnaya or to Europe or to South Asia.
You talk about them migrating into the Near East and helping create the Neolithic revolution. Even though we have Neolithic farmer DNA from the Midddle East. There's no evidence for what you claim in it.
On the other hand, my theory is backed up by ancient DNA evidence. We have proof that people of mixed CHG/EHG heritage from Russia, migrated into all the places which IE language exist (except Anatolia).
I have proof that a population identical to Corded Ware migrated deep into Central Asia and contributed ancestry to all modern Indo-Iranian speakers.
@Mzp1, Ashthia,
The "Iran" component probably has existed since 18,000 years ago, existed across a large range of Southwest Asia already in the Epipaleolithic.
Many different languages were spoken by "Iran" populations. For the "Iran" component to be the PIE connection, you have to have evidence that the exact same "Iran" population contributed ancestry to Europe and South Asia.
As of yet, you have no good evidence that is the case. It's possible but have no good evidence for it.
On the other hand, the Kurgan hypothesis has direct evidence of closely related pops, who are so related they could speak the same language, spreading in Eurasia.
Think about it. Yamnaya & Corded Ware Early were basically identical to each other. And we see pops, basically identical to Corded Ware Late, migrating deep into Central Asia in the Bronze age carrying R1a Z93 (I know, a brother branch to Indian R1a Z93 not a direct ancestor).
Slumbery, the actual scenario was presented by Sam, so it doesn't make sense to repeat the same.
The Fatyanovo culture developed on the northeastern edge of the Middle Dnieper culture around 2800 BC, probably as a result of a mass migration of Corded Ware peoples from Central Europe. Expanding eastwards at the expense of the Volosovo culture, the Fatyanovo people developed copper mines in the western Urals. From 2300 BC they established settlements engaged in Bronze metallurgy, giving rise to the Balanovo culture. Although belonging to the southeastern part of the Fatyanovo horizon, the Balanovo culture is quite distinct from the rest. The Balanovo culture contributed to the formation of the Abashevo culture, which in turn contributed to the formation of the Sintashta culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fatyanovo%E2%80%93Balanovo_culture
The genes show the same direction.
David, to save the comment section of this blog from disaster maybe you should follow Razib Khan and introduce Open Thread from time to time where fringe theories like OIT or R1b from Italy or Iberia etc. could be discussed and limit such discussions in other threads.
"What do you suppose the native Paleolithic and Meolithic component of there Ganges Vplain was (particularly the Brahmaputra Valley-Assam?). I read that mongoloids were the first to populate Assam. And is there a reason why the South Asian population didn't populate this region and all the mountainous areas south of the Himalayas first?"
@jatt
ganga mesolithic men and women were very tall (183cm males, 181cm females). so i doubt they had much aasi like ancestry (irula, paniya tribals are very short <160cm).
NE india (assam) should logically be closer to tianyuan or ancient SE asians in the paleolithic but cant know for sure.
@ambron
The TMRCA of Balto-Aryan Z645 is on Yfull 5000 ybp but based on other ancient dna results we can say that they it is probably underestimated by around 20% .We have already found Z93 in Sredny Stog around 4000 B.C and in Romania around 3000-3500 B.C so the TMRCA of Balto-Aryan Z645 is in my opinion around 5000 B.C what means that the R1a lineages of Balto-Slavs and Indo-Iranians diverged already in Sredny Stog and/or Khvalynsk. Definetly long before CWC emerged and also too early to explain the linguistic similarities between Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic languages.
So there must be again contacts between Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Balto-Slavs after Sredny Stog/Khvalnysk. Not sure if this contact zone was Fatyanovo–Balanovo or Middle Dnjepr but we can quite sure say that Indo-Iranians were in/around Abashevo and this contact zone could not be very far away from Abashevo. The lack of any Z93 in western Corded Ware also points to an origin of Indo-Iranians in the eastern part of CWC but i am not sure if Indo-Iranians are directly from CWC or just a parallel group, which was also heavily influenced by Yamnaya/Poltavka groups (Graeco-Aryan parallels)
Earlier i assumed that Fatyanovo–Balanovo was Z93 at least the eastern regions and that the contact zone between Proto-Balto-Slavs and Proto-Aryans was there but the rumours about R1b-P312 in Fatyanovo make everything much more complicated. Maybe Fatyanovo–Balanovo had Z280, P312 and Z93 but before we see numerous published results Fatyanovo–Balanovo is a very big mystery.
Coldmountains said...
"The TMRCA of Balto-Aryan Z645 is on Yfull 5000 ybp but based on other ancient dna results we can say that they it is probably underestimated by around 20% .We have already found Z93 in Sredny Stog around 4000 B.C and in Romania around 3000-3500 B.C ..."
I repeat, that burial in Alexandria was not a Sredniy Stog burial. That's a fact. Its dating is obviously erroneous, in terms of archaeological parameters it refers more to the Abashevo culture. The dating of a burial with ochre in Romania 3000-3500 was not made at all, it's an estimated dating. This burial may refer to the time of this burial site is the time of the Babino culture.
So, all your other assumptions cease to be valid.
@coldmountains
THat's the first I'm hearing of P312 in Fataynovo-Balanovo. If its true no way did this culture contribute to Abashevo.
@vAsiSTha
That's really tall much taller than modern South Asians (or most anybody for that matter).
But Assam is part of the Indo-Gangentic plains. Its a little different from the seven sister states. I mean by that logic Bangladesh should have been SE Asian like too (as opposed to AASI like). Why wouldn't the population of the Gagnetic Valley/Bangladesh extend east into the this part of the plains especially since we know Austro-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetans are late comers for the most part. Maybe they were AASI without any Austo-Asiatic and Sino-Tibetan affinities. Do you think they mostly carried y O like modern East Asians?
@Coldmountains "the rumours about R1b-P312 in Fatyanovo"
It's a rumor you made up.
@Archi
well i mixed up L51 with P312 but stil there are are a lot of rumours about L51 in Volosovo and Fatyanovo which unlikely are all false. The more interesting question is which other steppe clades existed in these cultures and if there was also some Z93 in the eastern regions.
@Coldmountains " a lot of rumours about L51 in Volosovo and Fatyanovo"
It's about L51 in Volosovo, but not Fatyanovo.
Perspectives from a Jeaniticist
First off, kudos to our esteemed host Mr (Dr) David Wesolowski, for passionately running this blog for almost a decade. Members of the general public, myself included, have been lurking around here for years soaking in knowledge from the spirited and occasionally (or should we say regularly?) abrasive debaters. All these years who would have thought a jeaniticist could contribute to this blog or should even be allowed entry here. But now that I have gate crashed this party some perspectives are in order.
Language mutates almost every day and a person can literally trade their language in half a generation without any noticeable change in genes or the material culture they surround themselves with. Perhaps that is why the origins of the word’s most successful language family namely the Indo-European family with over 550 languages and 2.5 billion speakers world wide have been contested so hotly for almost two hundred years.
Unfortunately, the earliest written records of this family do not go very far back compared to other large families. IE languages first appears in modern day Turkey and have been securely dated to 1500 BCE based on strong contextual evidences.
Pots and pans don’t speak. So what are we left with then: genetics. The mapping of the human genome and the consequent improvements in high resolution genetic have been the most extra ordinary achievements of modern science over the past 20 odd years. Naturally, geneticist have rushed into this debate with important contributions from what I call the Gray and Atkinson school out of New Zealand, and more recently the “Danish school” Haak, Kristianson and the Reich Lab at Harvard and the Max Planck people. One would think the answer would have been obvious by now, but not quite. So far these are the leading candidates for some or parts of the IE family
1. South of Caspian sea (the “Danes” and Reich lab)
2. North of Caspian Sea (Davidski)
3. East of Caspian Sea (The Russian academy represented by Kozintsev)
4. And lets now forget the OIT so well represented here by the resident experts Vasistha and mzp1.
I am a fan of R2D2, however after spending a significant time around here labels like R1a-Z93 and R1b-M51/P132 are great acid churners. Reading comments from Gaska from that famous Eurogenes thread on the Poltokova (?) outlier one gets an impression that the time depths of some of these key markers are so deep that genetics may not be the final adjudicator of this debate.
Archaeologist like Martin Furholt have already expressed uneasiness over the marrying of archaeology and geneticist. Recently published work by Kerttu Majander of the Max Planck Institute raises questions over the exact meaning of labels such as CHG, steppe ancestry and Iranian-N etc. Which ever way the debate goes, ultimately Satyameva Jayate or May the Truth Win!
@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar
1. It's not a leading candidate, it's personal freakish dreams of individuals.
3. The Russian academy does not accept latest Kozintsev's individual fantasies. Kozintsev has long been retired and engaged in individual writing, his work has nothing to do with The Russian Academy.
Correction:
Reading comments from Maju from that famous Eurogenes thread on the Poltokova (?) out
@Coldmountains
Volosovo I can see but not Fataynovo. I'd be surprised if that is anything other than purely Z280 or purely Z93.
So Gaska was Maju all along?
@mayuresh
I support the east of caspian model for now. Without ancient data from much of India, cant say much about OIT.
What i know for sure is that 1500bce steppe ancestry from eastern steppe/iamc did not originate sanskrit in india or bring about any major cultural change.
@Jatt_Scythian
Even if the L51 in Fatyanovo gets confirmed this does not mean that all West Euro L51 was directly from Fatyanavo. Else we would see more linguistic similarities between Indo-Iranian and Italo-Celtic for example. Rather it seems that most of the L51 in Fatyanovo-Balanovo was a dead end without historical descendants. But maybe U106 is from western Fatyanovo outside of the contact zone with Indo-Iranians and arrived later from the east than for example Bell Beakers who were already too early in Central Europe to be from Fatyanovo anyway in my opinion.
Still the total lack of any L51 among ancient and modern Indo-Iranians makes it at the first view hard to believe that Indo-Iranians lived once next to a L51 culture. Ancient Indo-Iranians had Balto-Slavic-like Z280 and Yamnaya-like R1b-Z2103 which is logical based on the linguistic affinities but untill yet no L51 was found. But this is not proving that there was never L51 among Indo-Iranians and especially late PIE groups had extremely bottlenecked Y-DNA so this is also not proving that there was no L51 next to Indo-Iranians.
@Vasistha,
"What i know for sure is that 1500bce steppe ancestry from eastern steppe/iamc did not ...bring about any major cultural change."
It's so self-evident even Archie can see it.
@Leron
"So Gaska was Maju all along"
Possibly, but I just got the names mixed up.
@Coldmountains "Even if the L51 in Fatyanovo gets confirmed"
there's not even a rumor that it is.
Cultural changes in India were huge with the arrival of the Aryans, it is a well-known fact.
@vaThara and mzp1 stop deceiving the people, no one will believe your deceptions except you.
@Vasistha
" support the east of caspian model for now. "
Thank you for the clarification and that does seem like the most scientific position today. However, Kozintsev is going to have a hard time finding a date at the IE-FU tango party imo.
Kozintsev's scheme is a personal invention of Kozintsev not supported by anyone in the scientific world, not based on any fact. He does not have a single scientific fact that somehow confirms the possibility of his scheme, to somehow save his reasoning, he fantasizes everywhere, he announces that the Kelterminar culture is Finno-Ugrian, and so on. As a professional physical anthropologist he can't make any arguments in support of his scheme from anthropology, because they just don't exist, they all disprove him.
Linear A is not Indo-European language.
Linear B wasn't invented for Indo-European language. It came later than Hittite scripts.
@Gaska
"Finally MX304-Burgaschisee is another Neolithic farmer, who neither genetically, nor anthropologically, nor culturally has anything to do with the CWC"
Where did you get that from?
Granted, the info on the archaeological context in the paper's supplement is very poor. But I did a quick google research.
This is an anthropological paper about the skeletal material from Burgäschisee:
https://www.academia.edu/17018794/Anthropologische_Bearbeitung_der_Skelettreste_vom_Burgäschisee
It's clear that MX304, the one with R1b, must be the individual called A 311 in this paper. Because of A 343 only the skull was recovered. And from A 312 the postcranial material can no longer be found. A 311 is the only one of the three where the femur, from which DNA was extracted, is still available. And indeed, according to anthropological analysis it's a male. By the way, these three individuals are not all from the same burial. In particular, A 343 was from a different place on the Burgäschisee, it was found in 1902 somewhere at the western shore of the lake. And this was the one, which, according to the excavator, was found in crouched position. The other two were discovered in 1943 in Seeberg, on the southwestern shore. An area overlapping with the Neolithic settlement Burgäschisee-Southwest. There is no information at all about the archaeological context of A 311 and A 312, absolutely nothing. But, A 311 was a male of about 20 years who was killed with an axe. He was a short, gracile, Mediterranean type, mesomesomorphic.
According to the qpAdm analysis in Supplementary Table 2, he had 30% Yamnaya though. That's perfectly compatible with him having got his yDNA from the steppe and yet being typologically farmer-like.
According to
https://www.iaw.unibe.ch/forschung/praehistorische_archaeologie/burgaeschisee_be/index_ger.html
the settlements on Burgäschisee have cultural layers from Cortaillod and/or Corded Ware.
Post a Comment