search this blog

Tuesday, June 16, 2020

Like three peas in a pod


One of the most interesting questions still waiting to be answered by ancient DNA is where exactly did the ancestors of the present-day European and South Asian bearers of Y-haplogroup R1a part their ways? Indeed, the answer to this question is likely to be informative about the place and time of the split between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian language families.

I was doing some reading today and discovered that the peoples associated with the Bronze Age Fatyanovo-Balanovo and Unetice archeological cultures shared strikingly similar metalwork, despite being separated by well over two thousand kilometers of forest and steppe. Apparently, this similarity is especially pronounced in the metalwork of the Unetice culture from what is now Slovakia (see Ancient Metallurgy in the USSR: The Early Metal Age, page 136).

S11953 is currently the only sample from Slovakia associated with the Unetice culture (Sirak et al. 2020). There are no Fatyanovo-Balanovo samples available yet. However, as far as I can tell, I0432 from Samara, Russia, should be a decent stand in (Mathieson et al. 2015).

Of course, both S11953 and I0432 belong to Y-haplogroup R1a. Moreover, S11953 belongs to a typically Balto-Slavic subclade of R1a, while I0432 belongs to a closely related subclade that is dominant nowadays among the Indo-Iranian speakers of Asia.

S11953 is younger than I0432, but this doesn't necessarily mean that his ancestors arrived in East Central Europe from deep in Russia during the Bronze Age. Indeed, the opposite is more likely to be true. That is, I0432 is probably the recent decedent of migrants from somewhere near the North Carpathians, because he shows elevated European Neolithic farmer ancestry compared to earlier ancients from the Samara region (see here).

Below is a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) showing how S11953 and I0432 compare to each other in the context of ancient West Eurasian genetic variation. Obviously, they're sitting in the same part of the plot, which suggests that they harbor very similar ratios of ancient genetic components and probably share relatively recent ancestry. The relevant PCA datasheet is available here.


I've also highlighted myself, Davidski, on the plot. That's because I share the same Balto-Slavic-specific subclade of R1a with S11953 and, in terms of overall ancestry, I'm similar to both S11953 and I0432. Moreover, I'm the speaker of Polish, which is a Balto-Slavic language. What are the chances that we're dealing here with a remarkable string of coincidences? Indeed, was the North Carpathian region perhaps the homeland of the language ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian?

However, please note that there's nothing unusual or remarkable about my ancestry. The vast majority of people of Central, Eastern and Northern European origin - that is, mostly the speakers of Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Celtic languages - would also land in this part of the plot.

See also...

On the doorstep of India

Y-haplogroup R1a and mental health

The mystery of the Sintashta people

419 comments:

1 – 200 of 419   Newer›   Newest»
Davidski said...

Page 136 from that book can be viewed HERE.

Awesome stuff!

Gabriel said...

Maybe the North Carpathians was the later CWC homeland, where the mixed CWC genotype formed? That’s why CWC looks so similar all over.

Davidski said...

Yes, it's possible, because Globular Amphora people were in that area, and they're the best fit for the farmer ancestry in Corded Ware people.

Jatt_Scythian said...

How does the southern stream of Z93 in Sredy Stog and Usatovo play into this?

Pretty cool either way. Sucks that no one Indo-Iranians that actually resemble their ancestors are around todaythough.

Davidski said...

How does the southern stream of Z93 in Sredy Stog and Usatovo play into this?

Hard to say. We have to wait to see what the subclade of R1a in Usatovo really is.

EastPole said...

Chernykh’s work may be outdated:
Metallurgy came to CWC from Tripolye culture. We also got our religion from TC. I see it like this:

https://i.postimg.cc/4y0H4qLC/CWC-metallurgy.jpg

“The study of the complex of metallurgical goods from the region between the rivers of the Vistula and Dnieper shows that from the end of the 4th mill BC a metallurgical centre had emerged in the Pre-Carpathian and Volhynia Regions, based on local deposits of copper [Klochko et al 2000; Kloczko et. al 2003] The centre was founded by metallurgists of the late Tripolye culture and migrants from central Europe From the early 3rd mill BC, that centre became the main producer of metal goods (the “willow leaf” metal complex) for the Corded Ware cultures between the rivers of the Vistula and Dnieper (Fig 22) The “willow leaf” metal complex includes the objects referred to above: “willow leaf” temple pendants and other pieces of jewellery, flax axes with flanges of the Dunakomlod-Sokal type, Stublo-type axes and daggers of the “Proto-Únětice” type The Carpathian-Volhynia centre had connections with the Carpathian basin and the Eastern Mediterranean Probably, the theory of the development of metallurgy in the late Neolithic – Early Bronze Age in Europe, in the form of the Circum-Pontic metallurgical province as defined by Evgenij Chernykh [1992], requires revision First, a new Carpathian-Volhynia centre emerges within the Circum-Pontic metallurgical province that served the Corded Ware cultures Second, the formation of the Circum-Pontic metallurgical province was determined primarily by direct immediate connections (most probably, maritime trade) of Central and Eastern European Regions with the Middle East and not the relations with the Caucasus, as suggested by Evgenij Chernykh”

Viktor Klochko, Liubov Klochko
“COMPLEx OF METAL GOODS BETWEEN THE VISTULA AND DNIEPER RIVERS AT THE TURN OF THE 4TH/3RD TO THE 3RD MILLENNIUM BC CONCEPT OF THE CARPATHIAN – VOLHYNIA “WILLOW LEAF” METALLURGY CENTRE”

https://repozytorium.amu.edu.pl/handle/10593/13218

Davidski said...

@EastPole

Chernykh’s work may be outdated.

It fits the ancient DNA evidence nicely.

Archi said...

@EastPole said...
"Metallurgy came to CWC from Tripolye culture. We also got our religion from TC."

No, this is a personal opinion Kolechkos only. CWC metallurgy goes back to the Balkan-Carpathian Metallurgical province, which already included Sredniy Stog and Tripolye. And most importantly Kolochkos' conclusions are based on the erroneous anti-scientific attribution of Usatovo to the Trypolye culture, which is just arrogance. They would also attribute Sredniy Stog to the Tripolye culture.

Archi said...

Blatné 33 Grave (Inv. No. 8498) [S11952.E1.L1] is the Proto Únětice Culture, not the Unetice culture. These are different cultures, the first later phase of the CWC (or post-CWC).

Davidski said...

The Proto Únětice and Unetice cultures are part of the same phenomenon broadly known as the Unetice culture.

Relative chronology of the Únětice culture in Czech Republic and Slovakia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unetice_culture#Chronology

Archi said...

@Davidski

As far as I remember in Proto Únětice it is not even always possible to decide whether it is a CWC burial or already Proto Únětice. Therefore, it is better to speak in this case about Proto Únětice, and not about Únětice.

In this case, this is important, because between Proto Únětice and Únětice there were strong changes and it is not a fact that their carriers were the same people.

Davidski said...

@Archi

First of all, this is not an archeological post about the Unetice culture. Proto Unetice and Unetice are close enough for my purposes.

Secondly, you'll soon see that this sample is very representative of the Unetice culture of Slovakia.

zardos said...

How are the current chances Unetice was formative for the Nordic Bronze Age and ancestral (no replacement, just an addition, probably including newly arriving haplogroups, probably I1) to Proto-Germanic?
The influence of Unetice on the NBA seems to have been very significant and important, with the collapse of Unetice coinciding with the rise of the NBA.

Davidski said...

I'm not aware of any I1 in Unetice samples. There is one R1b-U106 Unetice sample, so that could be used as an argument for Unetice influence in the Proto-Germanic population.

But R1b-U106 was already present around the North Sea and in Scandinavia before the earliest Unetice phase.

Archi said...

@Davidski

The Proto Únětice stands in the source. Yes?


Bronze Poltavka outlier Russia Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara [I0432 / SVP 42] outlier 2925-2491 calBCE (4180±84 BP, AA-12569) M R1a1a1b2a Z94 U5a1c

Almost certainly Volsk-Lbishchean that fought with Poltavkans. Volsko-Lbishche pottery in Poltavka culture everywhere and they were buried in Poltavka mounds. The Volsk-Lbyshche culture belongs to the circle of battle axe cultures.

Kuzmina truth clearly wrote that near Potapovka, kurgan 5, grave 8 belongs to the Potapovka culture.

Archi said...

The Fatyanovo culture is still very difficult to consider proto-Indo-Iranian, there is nothing Indo-Iranian or any connection with Sintashta. But the Volsk-Lbishche culture can be considered at least one of the proto-Indo-Iranian, in Sintashta there are types of weapons from this culture, and the type of settlement, fortified proto-city is the basis of both cultures, but in Volsk-Lbishche they are much older and primitive, which is natural, because this culture is ancient Sintashta.

Coldmountains said...

@Jatt_Scythian
Sredny Stog is not a southern stream it is older and ancestral to these groups. There is a sample from Romania from 3000-3500 b.c with basal Z93. Z93 was probably not rare in the region. But the later relevant clades for Indo-Iranians are from eastern Corded Ware.

Still even after Z94 and more specific clades will be found there you will have trolls saying that because not every clade under Z94 was found in Abashevo/Sintashta/Corded Ware Z93 must come from Siberia or South Asia. Just like many want to deny the Z94 and likely Y3 in Sredny Stog.

galadhorn said...

Wonderful! Thank you so much! How could I compare my auDNA with these two S11953 and I0432. Is it possible on GedMatch?

I have written something like this in Polish:

http://aldrajch.blogspot.com/2020/05/zeslawizowani-wenetowie-jak-pogodzic.html

I am sorry for using Carlos' maps :D They seemed to me to be useful for the purpose of that text. I am on your side! (y)

P. S. My genetics is described here: http://tolkniety.blogspot.com/2020/06/czego-mozna-sie-dowiedziec-z-badan.html

gamerz_J said...

Something a bit unrelated here, but trying out some models with Sintashta in Vahaduo. Does anyone know how low of a distance is an overfit? For example, should I prefer a distance of 0.03 rather one of 0.018?

Ryan said...

I would have thought Unetice (as the most plausible source of proto-Italo-Celtic) would be more Bell Beaker-like. Hrm.

@David - "I'm not aware of any I1 in Unetice samples. There is one R1b-U106 Unetice sample, so that could be used as an argument for Unetice influence in the Proto-Germanic population."

"But R1b-U106 was already present around the North Sea and in Scandinavia before the earliest Unetice phase."

Presumably a lot of that R1b-U106 is just from assimilated Celts (and Bell Beakers) anyways. There are Celtic place names as far east as Poland after all.

I'd swear I saw I1 Unetice samples too though. I'll see if I can find the source.

la señora bibiloni said...

"Indeed, was the North Carpathian region perhaps the homeland of the language ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian?"

FINALLY. YES.

Davidski said...

@Ryan

Western Unetice is rich in R1b-P312, while eastern Unetice in R1a-Z280, so...

Leron said...

I always suspected the origin of PIE would be somewhere around the Carpathian. It was a mystery why there was such a linguistic divide between Germanic-Celt-Italian versus Balto-Slavic, but when you realize the Carpathian cuts between the Danube basin and the Dniester, things make more sense.

John Thomas said...

Everyone is Polish - only they don't know it 😉

FrankN said...

Zardos: "How are the current chances Unetice was formative for the Nordic Bronze Age and ancestral to Proto-Germanic?"

As I see it, there are four potential candidates: One is certainly Unetice.

The second one are the Singen Groups in SW Germany (remember that LBA "Danish Princess" that by isotopic analyses had been shown to regularly have travelled to the Black Forest) [since we now have EMBA samples from SW Germany, someone might actually try a comparison with Unetice, and check how both relate to the handful of Nordic BA samples and/or some of the later Scandinavian samples published recently]. Recent archeometalurgical research points towards most of the Scandinavian (especially Danish) Copper during the MBA being sourced from Trentino and Tyrol via the Tumulus Culture (Brenner - Augsburg - Fulda - Weser/ Leine route).
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X19302470

A third candidate is Britain, which a/o supplied Cornish tin and Walisian copper to S. Sweden. IIRC, certain typically British EBA halberd variants have quite regularly been found in Denmark; British flanged axes were also not uncommon in Scandinavia 1700-1500 BCE.

Last but not least, a good part of Swedish EBA bronze axes consisted of copper from Cyprus and Laurion, which should have arrived there along a more easterly trail (Dniepr - Pripjat - Bug - Vistula; Mierzanowice Culture?). As such, we have evidence of an Eastern European EBA trade connection between SW Scandinavia and the Aegean (w. Scandinavia and Lithuania supplying amber to Mycenae and beyond), along which also culturally formative (and genetic) elements might have travelled.

https://www.waughfamily.ca/Ancient/Moving%20metals%20II%20provenancing%20Scandinavian%20Bronze%20Age%20artefacts.pdf

Apparently, all these relations played their role. aDNA might help to assign them priorities, at least as concerns genetic influence, but my hunch is that it may remain inconclusive in this respect.

Possibly, the whole question is asked wrongly: Instead of thinking of the EMBA SW Baltics as "periphery" that received "formative elements" from elsewhere, we might consider it as a center in its own right, the same way it was also central during the early Medieval (Vikings/ Varangians), the IA (Goths etc.) - consider also LN/EBA "flint daggers", the pivotal role for the Single Grave Culture (->SGBR Bell Beakers), the TRB Tiefstich expansion, comparatively high population densities already during Erteboelle, ultimately even the spread of the Ahrensburgian culture.
Such centrality aligns well with sourcing raw materials (copper) from diverse sources, and openess to all sorts of external cultural influences. [And, when thinking about "egalitarism" vs. "social differentiation", the Scandinavian turning point was certainly not the Nordic BA, but at latest the Flint Dagger Culture (Danish BB) with its huge long-houses after ca. 2350 BCA. The "warrior cult" element was certainly present already with the Battle Axe Culture; Salzmünde and Halle-Döhlauer Heide attest that the TRB-Tiefstich (Bernburg) expansion was also not always consentual and peaceful..]

Bottom line: Whatever language (Slovakian) Unetice spoke, it might probably have lent certain words to the Germanic Parental Language. But IMO, GPL and ultimately Germanic evolved somewhere between Jastorf (Lüneburg group of NBA) and Gothenburg in Single Grave (late PIE) - TRB Tiefstich (substantially HG-influenced EEF language, the latter possibly some form of pre/para- Hurro-Urartian) interaction, possibly receiving Semitic (pre-Punic) superstrate from/via the sailors running the LBA/ early IA show between Iberia, Cornwall and Sweden, plus a good dose of linguistic exchange with Finnic.

Ryan said...

@David - "Western Unetice is rich in R1b-P312, while eastern Unetice in R1a-Z280, so..."

So Western Unetice -> Urnfield / Proto-Italo-Celtic, and eastern Unetice -> Proto Balto-Slavic. Gotcha.

The samples I was thinking were I1 for Unetice were I2. So maybe Ilyrian and Thraco-Dacian in there too?

TLT said...

I0432 looks somewhat more Sintashta-like than S11953 does but both seem to have just a little bit more WHG than Sintashta does, meaning that both are more western Europe-shifted than the Sintashta average. S11953 more so than I0432 since it has the most EEF of the three datapoints.

the dude said...

Unetice is not only split into east and west by yDNA but it is also culturally split. Burials in the western part are clearly bell beaker derived in tradition while those in the east are of epi-CW type. Unetice is more of a technological network and IMO was at least bi-ethnic.

galadhorn said...

@Davidski, I cannot find it - what SNP Has this S11953 from today's Slovakia?

the dude said...

More and more, its becoming obvious that by the bronze and iron ages, archaeological cultures as typically defined are often really techno-zones (for want of a different phrase) and neither are mono-ethnic nor do they capture all of one ethnic/linguistic group. I think that is because the greater complexity of post-beaker societies didnt meant that the simple correlation of material culture and techniques with ethnic or linguistic groups no longer existed. You can clearly infer that in Unetice, Urnfield, Hallstatt C and I am sure many other cultures I have simply not read up enough on to comment.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@coldmountains

Thanks for the insight. There will always be idiots arguing for the origin of Z93 in Asia. I tend to ignore these morons. They tend to be super progressive when it comes to US politics and Hindu nationalists when it comes to Indian politics so I already can't stand them.

I had a few things I wanted to discuss with you about South Central Asian genetics. Do you mind If I shoot you an email?

Jatt_Scythian said...

Sredy Stog is pretty far west. I thought the argument was CW has its origins from groups around the Don.

Mike said...


This paper reports the results of zooarchaeological and archaeological studies of two Late Bronze Age horses from Kurgan 5 of the Novoil’inovskiy 2 Cemetery, Kostanay Region, the Republic of Kazakhstan. The study documents the key period in the development of horse utilization during the Bronze Age and elaborates on the chronology of this process by applying the radiocarbon dating. The conducted analysis ranges from field observations of how bones were situated in the ritual pit to the examination of bone pathologies and the investigation of associated cheekpieces. We conclude that the key horsemanship practices were already fully established during the Bronze Age, as horse remains demonstrate evidence for bridling, which can be linked to the utilization of bridles with cheekpieces and soft bits. If these horses were used for riding, the radiocarbon age of the complex (cal. 1890–1774 BCE) pushes the gradual shift from chariot to horseback riding towards the beginning of the 2nd millennium BCE.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352409X2030211X?via%3Dihub

Davidski said...

@galadhorn

I cannot find it - what SNP Has this S11953 from today's Slovakia?

Z283

Rob said...


Unetice is a departure from lineage- based tribal society to something of chiefdom; which is probably why we might start to see mixture of YDNA ; Eg U106; Z280, and I2c
The latter might be a driver for the shifts in burial rite (as summarised in “Past
societies. . a history of Polish lands..)
Seem like new forms of elite display following BB period; with the latter remains in place along the upper Danube, and in Western Europe, of course

So far; I don’t recall any I1; but it’s northern range hasn’t been sampled

Thus 22/2000 BC is a watershed period in (Indo-)Europe - Unetice; Sintashta; early Helladic, etc
All linked via complex patterns

Gabriel said...

@Ryan

But most Balkan I2 is Slavic in origin, so not sure why would you link it to Balkan peoples?

Rob said...

@ Gabriel

“ But most Balkan I2 is Slavic in origin, so not sure why would you link it to Balkan peoples?”

That’s modern Balkan I2
Bronze Age carpathian- north Balkans had a bigger variety of I2

Davidski said...

@the dude

Unetice is not only split into east and west by yDNA but it is also culturally split. Burials in the western part are clearly bell beaker derived in tradition while those in the east are of epi-CW type. Unetice is more of a technological network and IMO was at least bi-ethnic.

Maybe, but there's practically no difference between west and east Unetice in terms of genome-wide genetic structure.

Dudo said...

@Davidski

"Indeed, was the North Carpathian region perhaps the homeland of the language ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian?"

There seems to be an emerging consensus that the bronze-age genetic landscape of central Europe was established prior to the expansion of Slavs, which occurred mostly by acculturation

""As a result, the genetics of Slavic populations reflects largely the genetics of pre-Slavic populations and exhibit therefore only a weak correlation with the tree of Slavonic languages" Mallory et al. (2020) The Impact of Genetics Research on Archaeology and Linguistics in Eurasia. For a more thorough discussion see Koshniarevich,A, & Kassian, A. Genetics and Slavic Languages. (Brill Encyclopedia of Slavic Languages 2020) Available on Academia

And especially, proto-Balto-Slavic was essentially a pastoral or steppe (or forest-steppe) language, lacking agricultural terminology almost to the same degree as proto-Indo-European, (see Pronk T.C. & Pronk-Tiethoff S. (2018), Balto-Slavic agricultural terminology. In: Kroonen G., Mallory J.P., Comrie B. (ed.) Talking Neolithic.)

Davidski said...

@Dudo

There seems to be an emerging consensus that the bronze-age genetic landscape of central Europe was established prior to the expansion of Slavs, which occurred mostly by acculturation.

We'll have to wait and see how this emerging consensus stands up against ancient DNA evidence, particularly the signals of recent Slavic-specific founder effects in the Y-chromosomes of ancient and modern Slavs.

Davidski said...

Well, certainly, that Koshniarevich & Kassian paper is largely nonsense.

I find it alarming that people actually take it seriously.

Rob said...

“Acculturation tumbleweeds “
I mean, vast tracts of E Europe were depopulated prior the Slavic expansion .

Dudo said...

@Davidski

"Well, certainly, that Koshniarevich & Kassian paper is largely nonsense."

Could you, please, mention some examples what claims are nonsensical and why? It seems to be in line with Mallory et al. (2020) and a similar recent review paper by Lindstedt & Salmella ("Migrations and language shifts as components of the Slavic spread").


Anyway, do you think Pronk&Pronk-Tiethoff paper on the absence of agricultural terminology in Balto-Slavic is also nonsense?

Dudo said...

@Rob
"I mean, vast tracts of E Europe were depopulated prior the Slavic expansion ."

It depends, some areas seem to be fairly empty, for example in Poland, others less so. And there actually is evidence of _some_ population movements in the first Millenium AD including Slavs (but not exclusive to them) as indicated by analysis of the so called segments of identical descend (ibd).

Anyway, linguistics points to a small proto-Slavic homeland, which means, so this population decline you mention was surely an important factor in Slavic expansion. Especially if the early Slavs encountered a linguisticcaly fragmented population.

Rob said...

@ Dudo

Of course, language levelling & acculturation was invloved, in areas of north Belarus, Russia, where there is continuity of archaic Baltic & Baltic-Finn groups; and others - parts of Bohemia, western Poland, not to mentioned southern Balkans.

The area in 'the middle' shows more discontinuity after 450 AD; whilst at the same time being the zone to most likely be the linguistic homeland
So the task is to evaluate details of demography at time slices c/- archaeology & aDNA

Davidski said...

@Dudo

I'm not familiar with the Pronk&Pronk-Tiethoff paper, so I can't comment.

But I'm familiar with the Kushniarevich paper, and I promise you it won't stand up to ancient DNA evidence.

ambron said...

In proto-Unetice there is also something similar to Z645 in Łęki Małe.

Dawid, it's not so bad ... Scientific communities centered around Kushniarevich and Balanovski claim that the Slavic cradle was between the Danube and the Vistula.

ambron said...

David, I think we'll learn the most by comparing upcoming Y-DNA from Slovakia with Y-DNA from Welzin. I bet it will be CTS1211 in both cases.

Davidski said...

I don't know anything about the Y-haplogroups in the Welzin BA samples. But even if they show Balto-Slavic-specific lineages of R1a and I2, it'll be difficult to know what this means because the people there were soldiers or mercenaries, so there's no guarantee that they were locals.

Even if their isotopic ratios look local, that still won't prove that they were born anywhere close to the battle site or, say, within the borders of what is now Poland.

Archi said...

Leron said...
"I always suspected the origin of PIE would be somewhere around the Carpathian."

This does not make much sense as CWC stretches along the Northern Carpathians, essentially the entire CWC is at some distance from the Carpathians. If you walk between Eastern and Central Europe, you pass the Carpathians. CWC is Late PIE.

Archi said...

С. V. Kuzminykh, R. A. Mimokhod Radiocarbon Dates of the Pepkino Barrow and some issues of chronology of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture, 2016

"In our opinion, the Middle Volga Abashevo culture is the oldest culture in the Abashevo community. This view is consistently defended by OV Kuzmina. Let's add one more argument to that. Many researchers (V.F. Smolin, A.H. Khalikov, S.V. Bolshov, etc.) rightly note the coming nature of the Abashevo culture in the Middle Volga region. It appears here "with already established cultural determinants" (Bolsov 2003: 44; 2005: 111). We believe that the Middle Volga Abashevo culture was formed under direct impetus from the Carpathian-Balkan region and southern Germany. It is here that the cultures of the European Early Bronze Age have direct analogies not only to the majority of Abashevo ornaments (spiral pierces, spectacle pendants, spherical plaques with two holes), but also to the combinations of their arrangement in a suit (Matuschik 1996: Abb. 9, 1, 2). This set of matches is hardly the result of convergent development. The bright ceramic complex of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture, which flourishes suddenly and is only indirectly connected with the local preceding substrate, finds striking analogies both in morphology and ornamentation of Central European cultures, in particular, the Adlerberg group (a variant of the Unetice culture) (Gebers 1978: Taf. 33, 12, 35, 5, 48, 4, etc.). This western impulse is much clearer in the Middle Volga Abashevsk culture than in the Fatyanov-Balanov antiquities, whose roots are traditionally associated with Central and Northern Europe. The emergence of the Middle Volga Abashevo culture is most likely connected with the promotion of European groups in the Volga region. Thus, the Middle Volga culture of Abashevo, which has preserved the strongly pronounced Central European component in its appearance, is primary in the AbashevO community. In its derivatives from the Don-Volga Abashevo culture and the South Urals Abashevo culture this component has already been significantly levelled, although the last two cultures still retain the traditional ethnographic burial costume, and they belong mostly to the next horizon of chariot cultural formations".

But in fact, the Ural invasion of Unetice has been known since 1965, a whole burial ground of almost Unetice culture has been found in the Urals.

Archi said...

Generally speaking, in order to substantiate any theory of IE origin, the following territories and times need to be well-tested, and they seem to be not tested under conspiracy theory.

1. Eneolithic and Bronze Steppe of Eastern Europe (Lower and Middle Don, Volgians, Sredniy Stog, Dereivka, Konstantinovka, Repin, Catacomb, Babino, Abashevo, ... cultures).
2. Different CWC and post-CWC cultures. The CWC has been tested ten times worse than the BBC, and with worse accuracy.
3. Achaean (Mycenaean) and Dorian Greece.
4. Western and Central Anatolia 2000-1000 BC.

In Romania Z93 sample count is not dated at all, the numbers there are taken from the ceiling, in neighboring burials some similar to it generally dated to the Bronze Age.

EastPole said...

@Davidski
“One of the most interesting questions still waiting to be solved by ancient DNA is where exactly did the ancestors of the present-day European and South Asian bearers of Y-haplogroup R1a part their ways? Indeed, the answer to this question is likely to be informative about the place and time of the split between the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian language families.”

Indo-Iranian separated from Slavic by some sound changes for example ‘l’–> ‘r’

https://i.postimg.cc/BbKYVbnF/screenshot-132.png

Vedic Aryans used Slavic names like ‘Boleslav’ but with ‘l’ switched to ‘r’

Sl. ‘Boleslav’ –> Sk. ‘Bhurishrava’

https://i.postimg.cc/SRCmzFM6/Lakha.jpg

http://www.vedamsbooks.com/no55377/c...ian-indu-lekha

So it is really interesting where and why R1a tribes migrating east stopped to call themselves ‘Boleslav’ and started to call themselves ‘Bhurishrava’
Rhotacism is probably the result of mixing with people who could not pronounce ‘l’. Some languages in Asia do not have ‘l’ and pronounce ‘l’ like ‘r’. It is very unlikely that people who were genetically similar to Slavs suddenly stopped to use the name ‘Boleslav’ and started to use ‘Bhurishrava’.
We should look for some exotic admixture to explain this.


P.S.
In respect to what Dudo is writing here, I believe that this blog would be much more interesting if we stopped discussing BS with Indian or Western Euro nationalists. People who quote Hindutva or Mallory should be ignored. There is no much difference between Carlos Quiles and Academia Prisca., Mallory J.P, Brill Encyclopedia, Russell Gray and Paul Heggarty from Max Planck Institute and others who produce pseudoscience which do not agree with genetics and logic. People who follow BS and cannot explain their views with the help of genetics but rely on ‘authorities’ in linguistic pseudoscience only, should be discouraged from posting here IMO.

Archi said...

@EastPole
"Rhotacism is probably the result of mixing with people who could not pronounce ‘l’."

This is not a linguistic forum, and I try to avoid linguistic topics and friction about it. The Indo-Iranian languages have the sound of l, which is the result of Lambdaism d. > l., it's in Vedic and Scythian, Nuristan and so on. The Indo-Aryan ancestry l is also preserved in some words. Rhotatism is also characteristic of Western Indo-European languages.

In general, it is better not to reason in complex linguistic topics that are very difficult for superficial reasoning. It is necessary to have a lot of knowledge and serious training.

the dude said...

Davidski - maybe bi-ethnic isnt the word but the fact yDNA differs between west and east Unetice and the burials traditions also do does suggest that different male groupings held power in the two regions and that they reflected the male line difference by on the one hand reflecting beaker in the west and on the other hand reflecting epi-CW in the east. I'm not surprise that their overall genetics were similar because isnt that true of a much of Europe already in the later CW/bell beaker period. Also, the shared technology and material culture does of course show the areas were intimately interacting, probably with a gene-flow between them constantly on the go through alliance marriages etc.

Unetice's identical overall genetics and v similar cultures but different yDNA and perhaps dialects between east and west reminds me of Italy in the Iron Age where the Italics were almost all P312 while the few Etruscans were not but their overall genetics were practically identical. They also apparently both emerged out of the same proto-villanovian culture. I just think once a society is a bit more complex than clans, material culture is very easily spread across the borders of groups and therefore much trickier to infer population history, language etc than it was earlier. I think in those situations the yDNA tells you more because these people with recognisable graves are probably the movers and shakers of the society and holders of power. Back in the beaker era it seems almost entirely clans and in many areas the social structure just didnt permit any other males in. I think in the more complex societies of early bronze age post-beaker era like Unetice, typically a hereditary elite remains but the below it it wasnt a system of clans. That would permit diversification of male lineages within the society.

Mind you Unetice was a precocious culture that eventually crashed and burned. I suspect there was then a return to a more clan-like system and indeed a clan-like system may have never been replaced outside the unetice core area judging by the extreme dominance of beaker lineages continuing in most of western Europe right into the iron age. Or perhaps it wasnt a purely clan type society but the people you find in burials - the better off - simply never admitted many other male lines to the classes that would get classic burials

Samuel Andrews said...

@Leron,"I always suspected the origin of PIE would be somewhere around the Carpathian. It was a mystery why there was such a linguistic divide between Germanic-Celt-Italian versus Balto-Slavic, but when you realize the Carpathian cuts between the Danube basin and the Dniester, things make more sense."

Very interesting observation. I don't agree PIE is from Carthian, but yeah I would say your observation is due to Corded Ware being the source of most IE languages in Europe. And now we now also source for most IE languages in Asia.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

It's a little confusing to get what you're saying considering R1a Z93 and R1a Z283 split before Corded Ware. But I see you are saying.

But they didn't really split. They continued to live close to each other and speak the same language. As Corded Ware, they lived in Poland together for a while where they intermixed with Globular Amphora.

Around 2600 BC, they really split. Indo Iranian migrated east.

But they stayed in contact with each other, which is why Unetice (possibly pre-Balto Slavic) and Fatyanovo (pre-Indo Iranian) have similar metal work.

That's what you're saying?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

But.....Baltic Bronze age is ancestral to modern Balto-Slavs are they not? Or are they just ancestral to Balts? And do you think Baltic Bronze age in part derives from Unetice?

Davidski said...

@Samuel

I asked where exactly did the ancestors of the present-day European and South Asian bearers of Y-haplogroup R1a part their ways?

This of course has nothing to do with R1a lineage phylogeny, but the separation between two different groups of people, one rich in Z283 and the other in Z93.

The separation between these groups certainly happened well after R1a-Z645 split into Z283 and Z93, which means that at some point the group rich in Z93 lived near the Carpathians too.

Davidski said...

@Samuel

But.....Baltic Bronze age is ancestral to modern Balto-Slavs are they not? Or are they just ancestral to Balts? And do you think Baltic Bronze age in part derives from Unetice?

I never said that.

Neither Slavs nor Balts can be modeled as entirely of Baltic BA origin. They're more southern than that. It's obvious that even Balts have ancestry from near the Carpathians.

Samuel Andrews said...

Leron made cool insight before ancient DNA, that in around Carpthian basin is the highest diversity of IE languages. It's no coincidence.

It is due to Corded Ware. Germanic, Balto-Slavic, Italic, Celtic are all basal IE branches which broke off from Corded Ware.

The diversity centers in Carpthian Basin, because that's was the geographic center of Corded Ware territory.

There's also high diversity of IE languages in SOutheast Europe. Not only Greek/Albanian/Dacian, but also nearby Anatolian & Armenian. Next mystery, is figuring out which PC Steppe groups are linked to IE languages there.

vAsiSTha said...

The minor Indo Iranian similarities in balto Slavic are due to later Iranian influence in the PC steppe region.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

I know Slavs and Balts are significantly southern shifted compared to Baltic BA.

What I was asking do we all agree, Baltic BA is an important ancestor of Slavs and Balts and that therefore Balto-Slav languages evolved in Lithuania/Latvia not in Central Europe/Carpthian Basin.

I had gotten the impression it was a done case: Balto-Slavic languages come from Northeast not Central Europe.

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

Yfull has R1a-Z645 forming around 6000 ypb with TMRCa 5000 years before present but based on the ancient Romania Z93+ (5000 ypb) , Sredny Stog Z94+ and Poltavka_O Z2124+ (4000-5000 ybp) this dates are underestimated and Z645 forming around 7000 ybp sounds more realistic. So the Balto-Aryan Z645 formed rather in early Sredny Sto g stage maybe even slightly earlier.


EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha

„The minor Indo Iranian similarities in balto Slavic are due to later Iranian influence in the PC steppe region.”

It is not true. Read T. Burrow “The Sanskrit Language”

https://books.google.pl/books?id=cWDhKTj1SBYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q&f=false

and my post:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/on-doorstep-of-india.html?showComment=1523740548383#c6191530895381495941

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Abdrews

BA Balts sharing a lot of drift with modern day Balto-Slavs and mtdna makes it unlikely that they are not at least indirectly via a parallel group rather closely related to Balts and Slavs. We have not many genomes from Belarus, North-East Poland and North Ukraine so we tend to compare modern day Slavs with probably too northern ane too HG shifted East Euro BA groups. There is definelty some Central Euro genetic influx but probably not so high like many assume by just using Baltic BA groups as reference

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,
"This of course has nothing to do with R1a lineage phylogeny, but the separation between two different groups of people, one rich in Z283 and the other in Z93."

Ok, This is a unique theory, because people generally amuse once the Y DNA separates the groups separate completely from each other.

One could easily, argue to lump R1b L151 in there as well. They very well may have also lived in Carpthian for a while alongside early R1a Z93 and R1a Z280 groups.

Coldmountains said...

This kind of Balto-Slavic drift shared between modern day Balto-Slavs and Baltic BA is only found again the Iron Age among either Ukrainian/Hungarian Scythians or Central Europeans with Scythian Hungarian-like admixture.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ColdMountains, That makes sense.

Rob said...

carpathian region might have been a secondary dispersal point for already differentiated but still early IE languages

Rob said...

Although the earliest steppe dispersals hover ~ east carpathians

vAsiSTha said...

Meh, the names of rivers don, Danube, dnieper dniester are of Iranian saka origin. The daughter of which is modern ossetian.
Shows deep Iranian influence in the Slavic region, which remains till today.
Your ethnic pride makes you blind and you rely on shady proto proto pre proto construction,akin to a blind man showing another blind man how to see.
Questions for all of you
1. Where was R-L657 born?
2. If sredny stog 4000bce is R-Y3 and parent of indian aryas, why TF is it absent from all subsequent ancients and moderns in steppe?
3. Why is R-Y3 and children absent from all ancients in andronovo, east steppe, bmac, swat?
4. If R-L657 and R-Y3 are born in Europe, which cultures will you find it in? Predict it again, because you ppl were 100% wrong about finding it in andronovo.
You will be judged in the future based on your current predictions.

Davidski said...

Scythians have nothing to do with the close relationship between Baltic languages and Sanskrit.

And the fact that Balto-Slavs and Indians share Bronze Age paternal ancestry isn't a coincidence.

So there goes your whole argument.

Coldmountains said...

@vAsiStha
1.L657 was born in East Europe or the Volga-Ural region

2.Because most of the samples are either low quality, from the same sites/clans or later from an already Proto-Iranic stage.

3.Swat and BMAC having low steppe and low R1a-L657 is rather a good argumemt for L656 being rather associated with pastoralist and high steppe groups.

4. L657 and Y3 moved via Andronovo to South Asia. Dont come with bs about Botai and Afanasievo they are not even R1a. Or do you really think L657/Y3 was born in South Asia/BMAC? The parallel clade Z2124 was found in Poltavka_O 3000 b.C and just nearby Y3/L657 will be.

Dmytro said...

EastPole said...
"Rhotacism is probably the result of mixing with people who could not pronounce ‘l’. Some languages in Asia do not have ‘l’ and pronounce ‘l’ like ‘r’"

How about the reverse also? The most famous example= "Aryan" -> "Alan" ?

Archi said...

I'm not sure that under Unetiсе you need to understand a single culture, it all looks like a mosaic of many local groups, each of which pulls on the title of an independent culture, doubts that it is a single culture for a long time. The fact that there were different people, early and late Unetice was different there is little doubt. This community simply had its roots Unetice and had a community.

Bronze Corded Ware/ Proto-Unetice Poland Leki Male [RISE431] 2286-2048 calBCE (3762±27 BP, OxA-27967) M K(xLT) (R1a1a1?) M526, [R1a1a1 as Genetiker reads] T2e
Bronze Proto-Unetice Slovakia Blatné 33 Grave (Inv. No. 8498)[S11952.E1.L1/BLAT_33] 2200-2000 BCE M R1a Z283
Bronze Proto-Unetice? Czech Republic Moravská Nová Ves, gr. 27 [I5037 / RISE579, F0579] 2300–1900 BCE M R (R1a1a1?) K1a+150
Bronze Proto-Unetice?? Czech Republic Moravská Nová Ves, gr. 8 [I5042 / RISE584, F0591] 2300–1900 BCE M R1 (R1a1a1?) I4a


Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 59 [I7196] 2200–1700 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a1c1a
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 77 [I7197] 2200–1700 BCE M I2a1
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 84 (1) [I7199] 2200–1700 BCE M I2c1
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 94 [I7202] 2200–1700 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a2
Bronze Unetice Czech Republic Prague 5, Jinonice, Zahradnictví, Grave 97 [I7203] 2200–1700 BCE M R1 (R1a1a1?)
Bronze Unetice? Czech Republic Prague 8, Kobylisy, Ke Stírce Street, feature 515 [I4884] 1882–1745 calBCE (3480±20 BP, PSUAMS-2842) M I2c1

Bronze Unetice Germany Eulau [I0804 / EUL 57] 2137-1965 calBCE (3671±26 BP, MAMS-22821) M I2
Bronze Unetice? Germany Esperstedt [I0116 / ESP 4] 2134-1939 calBCE (3650±32 BP, MAMS-21495) M I2c
Bronze Unetice Germany Esperstedt [I0114 / ESP 2] 2131-1979 BC M I2a2b

vAsiSTha said...

Davidski but they don't share paternal ancestry, unless balto Slavs are also derived for L657. That's like saying R1a=R1b.

Cold mountains, I thought you would accept defeat with not a single R-Y3 or L657 in andronovo amongst 90 odd male samples. But I guess you will never learn.

Coldmountains said...

@vAdiSTha
lol why they should share specific BA clades. This is like saying Z2124 is not Indo-Iranian because it is absent in Nepal.



vAsiSTha said...

I have your post from 2015 predicting L657 rich andronovo.
I laugh whenever I think about it, just like I'm laughing now.

A said...

Does anyone know anything about the 'Torque Bearers' that appeared in Ugarit and Byblos 2100-1900 BC, with Bronze artefacts identical to those in central Europe, including from the Unetice culture...? Did they come from Europe, or from the Middle East or Caucasus?

“the archaeologist, Claude F.A. Scaeffer, made a remarkable discovery at Ras Shamra (Ugarit). He had no preconceived ideas about Phoenician influence in the West when he found in the middle strata of Ugarit bronze weapons and adornments which were characteristic for Central European Early Bronze. He believed, in 1939, that they witnessed the “coming of the first Europeans” to Ugarit. Ten years later… he came to a diametrically opposite conclusion… He found a specific population group in the Middle Ugarit I period (2100-1900), who had probably originated in the mountain countries to the north of the Fertile Crescent and possessed a remarkable skill in bronze metallurgy. Their distinctive wares consisted of three types of weapons: triangular daggers with hilts finished in crescents, spears with sockets, and flat axes with blades pierced by large “windows,” and specific ornaments: massive bronze neck rings (so-called “torques”), toggle-pins, and wire spirals. All these peculiar objects are also found, in the same assortment, in another main center of this group – at Byblos, and also, more sporadically, at Qatna, Megiddo, Sidon, Gezer etc. The same assortment of Bronze wares is found in numerous sites of Central Europe of Early Bronze”

https://archive.org/details/20200114hellenosemiticawithineedattachedmaps/page/n339/mode/2up

“Schaeffer has pointed out the amazing similarity of finds accross central Europe from France, Wurtemburg, Austria and Hungary to Ras Shamra (Ugarit) and Byblos, and discussed the presence of the ‘Torque Bearers’… Childe (1957): ‘the torque bearers might conceivably come from Central Europe’…

Schaeffer (1949) has pointed out the existence of the ‘torque bearers’ and their spread throughout Europe and the Levant.. during the Kultepe period c.2100-1950 BC tin bronzes first appear in the Levant. … At Ras Shamra and at Byblos during this period, the ‘torque bearers’ were present, and new types of weapons appear, which are quite different from those of the earlier copper age. Socketed spear heads, ribbed and broad-bladed daggers with rivets, duck-billed axes, and most significantly socketed axes identical to types from Hungary are found… Hurrians must have been present in northern Syria during the Kultepe period, while Tufnell (1965) has pointed out the possible presence of Beaker traders among the shaft tomb peoples.”

https://www.docdroid.net/TlFiGYA/the-problem-of-tin-pdf

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

Give us time

R-Y3 Y3/F2597/M727 * Y26/M780 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-Y2 Y2/M723 * Y27/M634/V1981 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4100 ybp
R-F1417 F1417 * BY32037/Y96112 * BY32043/Y106817+4 SNPs formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3100 ybp
R-Y147630 Y147603 * Y147630 * Y147871+16 SNPs formed 3100 ybp, TMRCA 1050 ybp
id:YF67482 RUS [RU-TA]
R-Y147543 Y147543 formed 1050 ybp, TMRCA 1050 ybp
id:YF17106 RUS [RU-BA]
id:ERS2478503 RUS [RU-BA]

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Davidski but they don't share paternal ancestry, unless balto Slavs are also derived for L657.

Many Balto-SLavs are derived for Z645, same as many Indians.

And the Z645 ancestors of Indians were still in Eastern Europe during the Early Bronze Age, part of the same population as the ancestors of Balto-Slavs.

Copper Axe said...

@vAsiSTha

Just out of curiousity, which populations do you think carried L657 or Y3 and when did it reach/develop in South Asia?

Jatt_Scythian said...

@Davidski
Do Balts also have something east of the Urals from their N1c ancestors too?

@wise dragons
African admixture in Mycenaean? These people have no shame. And I suppose the mods at anthrogenica are letting them do whatever they want to prove how progressive they are. What a shithow.

@vAsiSTha
The linguistic similarities are no just due to later Iranian influence. Nobody is buying that.t

R1a-Z93 originated in Eastern Europe. End of story. We just need to work out where exactly it originated.

Since you have some sort of anti-European complex I suppose you can take some weird pride in most people believing that R1a is ultimately an ENA lineage from SE Asia. That doesn't change the fact that it came to South Asia from Europe though.

Romulus said...

Glav_14 r1a from tripolye, as I have been saying.

Davidski said...

@Jatt_Scythian

Do Balts also have something east of the Urals from their N1c ancestors too?

Not really.

@Romulus

Just give it up. It's a hopeless theory.

Romulus said...

R1a z93 from Tripolye more accurately.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

id:YF67482 RUS [RU-TA]
id:YF17106 RUS [RU-BA]
id:ERS2478503 RUS [RU-BA]

These 3 moderns are from bashkir region and tatar region, as is clearly mentioned in yfull. These regions are turkic, not indo iranian speaking. These 2 regions also have a roma minority. bashkorto-stan and tatar-stan, stan being a PERSIAN suffix.

@jatt
i think L657 is probably very late (post 1500bce) and wont be found in europe.
R-Y3 will either be found in ganga plain/haryana bronze age or in Altai or both.
R1a has highest diversity in east india in the magadha, UP region so this region is very important and should be sampled. We also have multiple samples of basal R1* and R1a's in moderns from these region.
I think if they sample and analyze further they may be able to classify the R1* found in india into R1c or something.

vAsiSTha said...

Not @jatt
Meant for @copperaxe

Coldmountains said...

@vAsiSTHa
R1a in India is one of the least diverse and almost entirely just R1a-Z94. Especially East India is almost entirely just L657. Even if it would be diverse this would prove nothing and you having only arguments based on modern distribution is just showing how desperate you aee here.

vAsiSTha said...

Yeah man, even you are making assumptions only based on moderns because guess what, there's 0 male ancient dna from India bronze age and earlier
The 2 R1a s from roopkund are both just like irula, heavily aasi shifted. Surprising that the Steppe shifted males have 0 R1a, no?

You people claim to have settled the debate with 0 ancient dna from the most populous region of the world. That's why I can't take you seriously.

Romulus said...

Unetice ia not proto italo-celtic but more like proto Centum. Germanic crystalized in the Nordic Bronze age after centuries of importing metal works from Unetice.

vAsiSTha said...

and no, R1a is definitely not the least diverse because all the derived terminal SNPs till L657 have been found in moderns in india starting with R1*.
ie R1*, R1a, R1a1, R1a1a and so on. Which makes sense because R2 also belongs to this region.

So at best, the modern tree is intertwined, europe does not subsume south asia. What you have in your favour is tons of ancient european Dna which you bandy about because theres 0 from India.

Jatt_Scythian said...

R1a is not from Tripoyle. WTF?

It doesn't matter where those upstream clades are. I doubt they exist in India but even if they did that is not evidence they existed there thousands of years ago. THis was what led people to believe R1b came from the South Caspian which was proven wrong. Like I said these are ultimately ENA lineages so you have that going in your favor of denying European contribution to South Asia. But the science is not generally on your side.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Also didnt we find plenty of R2 in Iran and Central Asia?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

At the risk of your brain exploding from the extreme cognitive dissonance that you're showing, can you find it in yourself to answer this question honestly?

If the lack of ancient DNA from India is the only reason why we're not seeing as much ancient R1a in India as in Europe, then how come there's no R1a in the well sampled Central Asia before Andronovo?

That is, how is it possible for R1a to be native to Europe and South Asia, but not to Central Asia?

Matt said...

OT: some of Lara Cassidy's thesis at least now published in a paper : https://phys.org/news/2020-06-first-degree-incest-ancient-genomes-uncover.html

vAsiSTha said...

Leron, no Harappan walls were broken as their no indication of any sort of warfare in archaeological records.

If R2 got the ANE into Iran, why is there no R2 in the ANE region. You need to think this through.

Till 1500bce, there's hardly genetic evidence of andronovo mingling with BMAC, apart from couple of outliers. And of course no R1a.
Now if you believe that the main Vedic period was 1200-1000bce into the iron age then I have a bridge to sell you.

@davidski said
"That is, how is it possible for R1a to be native to Europe and South Asia, but not to Central Asia?"

1. Brahmins have at least 11 different haplogroups, R1a is not special. Max frequency of R1a (but not diversity) is in South of India with dravidian speakers and dravidian tribes like the chenchu.
2. It is entirely possible for 2 regions to be connected by R1a with almost nothing in between if the connection is old and through a migration of a small group of stragglers, whose lineages expanded later on in the migrated region. Eg the random Q1s and Js found in Samara region.

George said...

OFF TOPIC:

A new Neolithic Ireland paper by Lara Cassidy

A dynastic elite in monumental Neolithic society
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2378-6 Behind pay wall

From the ABSTRACT:
The nature and distribution of political power in Europe during the Neolithic era remains poorly understood. During this period, many societies began to invest heavily in building monuments, which suggests an increase in social organization. The scale and sophistication of megalithic architecture along the Atlantic seaboard, culminating in the great passage tomb complexes, is particularly impressive. Although co-operative ideology has often been emphasised as a driver of megalith construction1, the human expenditure required to erect the largest monuments has led some researchers to emphasize hierarchy—of which the most extreme case is a small elite marshalling the labour of the masses. Here we present evidence that a social stratum of this type was established during the Neolithic period in Ireland. We sampled 44 whole genomes, among which we identify the adult son of a first-degree incestuous union from remains that were discovered within the most elaborate recess of the Newgrange passage tomb.

Raw FASTQ and aligned BAM files are available through the European Nucleotide Archive under accession number PRJEB36854.

Copper Axe said...

@Leron

If anything, the walls Indra destroyed were those of the BMAC, circular forts and all. Etymology aside, Indra shares many features with other similarities so I don't see why it would be a BMAC god. Could be syncretism, could be an indepedent development, like Odin.

Copper Axe said...

@vAsiSTha

How can R1a-z93 clades both be present and native to South Asia and Eastern Europe, when we know the native populations were not related?

Also as Davidski mentioned, how is there no R1a in central Asia before that?

If the South Asian subclades were present in bronze age Baikal, then aren't you acknowledging that the subclades came from the Andronovo? Because the Andronovo culture was present there and the bearers of the relevant R1a haplogroups.

Now you can go full Gaska and ignore how haplogroup clades are related to each other, but we have a fairly clear view of how the R1a haplogroups ancestral to those in South Asia today eventually came there from western steppe herders. I cannot even understand how you deny this. I think deep down you don't though. That is the one thing I find so strange about some of you guys, you take such a deep pride in your ancestors yet are denying where your ancestors came from. Imagine your great grandson trolling on the internet how he does not descend from you, I'd be rolling in the grave.

Ryan said...

@Romulus - "Unetice ia not proto italo-celtic but more like proto Centum. Germanic crystalized in the Nordic Bronze age after centuries of importing metal works from Unetice."

Tocharian was centum.

Jatt_Scythian said...

On a related note did Indo-Iranians absorb WSHG in Siberia and the Kazakh steppe? Did Tocharians absorb whatever was in the Tarim prior to them?

Ryan said...

@Matt - Here is the paper. https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-020-2378-6

Supplemental are freely available. Lots of I2a both among Mesolithic and Neolithic Irish.

George said...

Off Topic;

A contribution from Svante Pääbo's Laboratory

A high-coverage Neandertal genome from Chagyrskaya Cave
https://www.pnas.org/content/early/2020/06/15/2004944117

From the Abstract:
We show that this Neandertal was a female and that she was more related to Neandertals in western Eurasia [Prüfer et al., Science 358, 655–658 (2017); Hajdinjak et al., Nature 555, 652–656 (2018)] than to Neandertals who lived earlier in Denisova Cave [Prüfer et al., Nature 505, 43–49 (2014)], which is located about 100 km away. About 12.9% of the Chagyrskaya genome is spanned by homozygous regions that are between 2.5 and 10 centiMorgans (cM) long. This is consistent with the fact that Siberian Neandertals lived in relatively isolated populations of less than 60 individuals. In contrast, a Neandertal from Europe, a Denisovan from the Altai Mountains, and ancient modern humans seem to have lived in populations of larger sizes. The availability of three Neandertal genomes of high quality allows a view of genetic features that were unique to Neandertals and that are likely to have been at high frequency among them. We find that genes highly expressed in the striatum in the basal ganglia of the brain carry more amino-acid-changing substitutions than genes expressed elsewhere in the brain, suggesting that the striatum may have evolved unique functions in Neandertals.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Striatum
"The ventral striatum, and the nucleus accumbens in particular, primarily mediates reward, cognition, reinforcement, and motivational salience, whereas the dorsal striatum primarily mediates cognition involving motor function, certain executive functions (e.g., inhibitory control and impulsivity), and stimulus-response learning;[2][3][4][35][36]"

TLT said...

@Leron

"This must be why Indra is highly celebrated in the Rigveda as a god of conquest, despite its BMAC origin."

LOOOOOOL, and what about Thor, Zeus and Perkunas? They came from BMAC as well? The sky father is most likely an EMBA Indo-European thing, the importance of whom was changed after interactions with neolithic European farmers which would have lead to the Thunderer as a cultural impression on MLBA Indo-Europeans. The notion of Indra being crucially linked to BMAC is bogus.

Ric Hern said...

What was the driving force or pull from Central Europe so far towards the East ? Certainly not a more favorable climate... Who occupied the most resource rich area in Central Europe ?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Of course everyone here knows that it's impossible for R1a to be native to South Asia if all of the R1a subclades ancestral to South Asian R1a are present in ancient Europe and there's no trace of R1a in Central Asia before Andronovo.

And the Q and J subclades in Samara are from West Siberia and the Caucasus, which border Eastern Europe.

So you have no arguments, like you never do.

Romulus said...

@Ryan

Tocharian is poorly understood and also irrelevant. A few commonalities amongst shreds of evidence is just a distraction. I could just as easily say Unetice was proto-italo-celto-germanic and who cares about Tocharian.

Ryan said...

@Romulus - " I could just as easily say Unetice was proto-italo-celto-germanic "

Then say that.

Copper Axe said...

@Leron

Take a crash course in philology, Indra is such an obvious Indo-European storm god.

Red haired - check
Warrior - check
Defeated a serpent - check
Specific poetic phrase which appears in Indo-European dragon slayer myths - check
Thunderbolt striking weapon - check

Also, I don't think elephants roamed in the BMAC, so I guess Indra must be an IVC god?

Keep in mind that the ancient Indo-Iranians were agropastoralists, and those need the blessing of the storm god to grow crops too.

In fact you had agriculture on the PC steppe since like 4500 bc.

vAsiSTha said...

@copperaxe
How can R1a-z93 clades both be present and native to South Asia and Eastern Europe, when we know the native populations were not related?

Because autosomal ancestry can be lost in single digits generations <300 years.
Similar to how karelia has J without any CHG/iranN autosomal ancestry. Or how some samples in Levant are R1b without any steppe related ancestry.
This may be hard for you to understand, but the R1a in swat and bmac is extremely low and not of the right kind, and the movement is female mediated. There are also no chariots or any record of invasion, or any indication of massive cultural change in the material artefacts.
So your male mediated chariot invasion is just BS, and now you have resorted to backtrack the outlandish claims with 'slow general migration'.
The Vedic period is pre 2000bce when the ghaggar was a perennial glacial river, and the Mahabharata is 2000-1500bce when the ghaggar had dried up in the desert. This is also when you find the warrior chariots next to kurukshetra, the land of Mahabharata war.

Not to mention that bmac has fire worshipping practices well before any major genetic impact of the steppe. And tons of other arch evidence from the regions which you would never bother to look because it suits your ethnic pride.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

You're the Indian Gaska.

I'm pretty sure you two suffer from the same mental issues. You should get tested.

epoch said...

@George

Yes, and she seems more related to the Neanderthal in that amazing F1 Denisovan-Neanderthal hybrid than the Neanderthals from Denisova itself.

ambron said...

The area covering Slovakia, southern Poland and western Ukraine fits genetically well into the Slavonic cradle. It lies in the autosomal center of the area of Slavic genetic variation. When we mix its genome with the Baltic genome - we get the Eastern Slavs (including the north-eastern Poles), when we mix with the Cypriot genome - we get the Southern Slavs.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ambron,

Not disupting your claim cuz I know nothing of Slavic ethnogensis. But, the Paleo Balkan ancestry in South Slavs doesn't resemble Cypriot who are Near Eastern population of mostly a Levantie population. They aren't close to Paleo Balkans. South Slavs Paleo Balkan ancestry is resembles Bronze age Crotia & Iron age Bulgaria, is almost only European but probably has some Near East admix possibly from Roman era.

vAsiSTha said...

Davidski and copperaxe,
Stfu and predict where R-Y3 and L657 will be found in bronze age.

Because you have been pathetic so far.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

One way or another L657 is from Bronze Age Eastern Europe, and its presence in South Asia is tied to the Sintashta-related ancestry in South Asians.

So quit acting crazy.

Coldmountains said...

@vAsiSTHa

well Y3 was likely already found and when L657 is finally found in the region you will contine this show by saying that only L657* is from East Europe and L657>Y6/Y7 is not from there because it was not found yet.

Please explain how Ror/Jatts are 40% steppe and rich in L657. But have no y-dna matches with later Saka and prefer in most models Sintashta/Pre-Saka Andronovo over Saka groups of the late Iron age.

Coldmountains said...

They are even more steppe than Pashtuns and many Tajiks.

Archi said...

Copper Axe said...
" @vAsiSTha
Just out of curiousity, which populations do you think carried L657 or Y3 and when did it reach/develop in South Asia?"

They were born out of the air like golems there. They have no ancestors anywhere else.)


@vAsiSTha
"These 3 moderns are from bashkir region and tatar region, as is clearly mentioned in yfull. These regions are turkic, not indo iranian speaking. "

So what? It's just a region where they live, not their origin, everyone living there now speaks Tatar, it does not mean anything, a change of language does not mean anything in the question of origin. You don't know where they came from or when they got there. They didn't come from India! Are you saying that they came from India?


In general, I'm tired of this endless fairy tale about Great India from the vAsiSTha , as soon as any topic so immediately pops up the vAsiSTha as a devil from a snuffbox and starts talking about untested India.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ColdMoutain,

Jats more Steppe than Pashuten? let me test this.

Samuel Andrews said...

@ColdMountains,

Wow you're right.

Jatt Punjabi: 27% Andronovo.
Jatt Pathak: 39% Andronovo

What is special about Jatt Pathak? This is big news.

Samuel Andrews said...

Ror: 38% Andronovo

Wow, why haven't I heard about this before. Indians, with actual high levels of Steppe ancestry. As most Indians have only around 12-15%.

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

They are pastoralists of the Indus region and probably a good proxy for Indo-Aryan ancestry further in the east. Urban Swat_IA had much less steppe and only had one female outliner sample with around 30-40% steppe but i suspect she came more from the southwest(Arachosia) because she had similar amounts of ASI and BMAC ancestry like modern day Arachosians. The sample is dated to 1000 b.c.

Swat and generally Gandhara are rather peripheral regions and Indo-Aryans not arrived from there deeper into the Indian subcontinent. Rather via Arachosia and the Gomal pass.

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews.

Indo-Aryans arriving in South Asia probably had around 40-50% steppe but their steppe ancestry seems to be mixed with WSHG stuff. So i would say they were closest to Turkmenistan_IA (50% BMAC/50% steppe) except the WSHG shift.

Samuel Andrews said...

New Cassidy study Found a man in Newgrange passage grave who is the son of a brother/sister union.

According to Irish mythology, Newgrange was created by a god who mated with his sister. And it is called incest hill.

Is it a coincidence ancient DNA found an inbred person inside "incest hill"? Razib Khan thinks the myth comes from real history.

https://www.gnxp.com/WordPress/2020/06/17/the-genetics-of-the-tuatha-de-danann/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=the-genetics-of-the-tuatha-de-danann

Samuel Andrews said...

@ColdMountains,

Jatts' non-Steppe ancestry is mostly from South Asia, correct? If so, wouldn't that mean Indo-Aryans were mostly Steppe when they arrived in South Asia.

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews
I checked it and it is mostly Sokhta BA2 ( South Asian-like)so this would rather means it were Steppe groups with minor BMAC admix who arrived in South Asia.

Coldmountains said...

@Samuel Andrews

Target: Jatt_Pathak
Distance: 1.4519% / 0.01451906
43.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
35.0 Steppe (Sintashta/Srubnaya)
16.4 BMAC
4.6 KAZ_Botai
1.0 MNG_North_N

Target: Ror
Distance: 0.7260% / 0.00726026
43.8 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
33.4 Steppe (Sintashta/Srubnaya)
17.2 BMAC
5.0 KAZ_Botai
0.6 MNG_North_N

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdfExtended/S0002-9297(18)30398-7

Vladimir said...

An interesting position of the Ukrainian archaeologist for the period of 3500-3000 BCE on the formation of archaeological cultures preceding the CWC, including between the Dnieper and the Don.


Larysa A. Spitsyna
PhD, research fellow of the Chalcolithic and Bronze Ages Department of the Institute of Archaeology, the National Academy of Sciences of Ukraine, spitsyna@iananu.org.ua
ROhaChyK aND RIEPIN CULTURES IN CIRCLE Of EaSTERN EUROPEaN CULTURES IN LaTE ChaLCOLIThIC aND EaRLy bRONZE aGES
analysis of the available source base makes it possible to determine the area of distribution, to trace the formation, and to outline the timeframe of Rohachyk and Riepin cultures. Rohachyk culture formed at a local ground (Nyzhniomykhailivka group of monuments and Dereivka culture) by the powerful influence of Late Trypillia culture. Some features of the material culture of Rohachyk traditions’ bearers evidence their contacts with the populations of the Crimea, Riepin culture, Late Maikop culture, as well as of more distant cultures, namely, Globular amphora and baden ones.
Investigation of possible components forming Riepin culture identified the Siverskyi Donets River region as the most likely area for this process. actually, it is here where cultures which traditions, to the author’s opinion, had a decisive influence on the process of the Riepin culture’s creation, were widely represented; they are Dereivka and Pit-Comb Ware cultures. In addition, the Riepin culture population borrowed some features from its’ neighbours. Trypillia and Rohachyk cultures populations are first among the latter. Some elements of the decoration on dishes evidence for contacts between Riepin and Globular amphora cultures populations.
Consequently, two phenomena, Rohachyk and Riepin cultures, are prominent among Eastern European antiquities in the Late Chalcolithic and the Early bronze age.
Rohachyk culture sites are known in the area between the Dnipro and buh Rivers, in the Dnipro River right bank lower region, and in the Crimea.
The bearers of the Riepin culture traditions occupied left bank of the Dnipro: Siverskyi Donets River region, the north- west area of the Sea of azov, and further to the east.

Archi said...

@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar

"This model is attested not only in the oldest Vedic prose texts but also in archaeology: the IA pastoralists over-lapped symbiotically with the population of the Painted GrayWare culture. It must be noted, however, that the PGW settlements were hardly inhabited by IAs themselves, who continued to be on the move with their cattle (Ārya-āvarta). Instead, the PGW villages and small market towns were occupied by the local post-Indus populations. Even a relatively late Brāhmaṇa text, the Jaiminīya Br., advises not tostay in a village, or at maximum for just one night (due to inherent‘pollution’), and when traveling through such dasyu(‘enemy’!) territory, one to take along a Kṣatriya: then theinhabitants‘would come smiling’."

M. WITZEL Early‘Aryans’ and their neighbors outside and inside India. Department of South Asian Studies, Harvard University, Cambridge, Indian Academy of Sciences, 2019
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12038-019-9881-7

Also it is necessary to remind that the Valley of Swat is filled with cremation burials since ~1300 BC. These are the Vedic Indo-Aryans.

vAsiSTha said...

Davidski I see that you are too cowardly to make a prediction after being completely wrong for years altogether.

vAsiSTha said...

@coldmountains
Please explain how Ror/Jatts are 40% steppe and rich in L657.

Please explain why rors, jatts, and whoever with a shit ton of steppe ancestry are not brahminincal castes who are invariably lesser in steppe component than these.
And north/NW South Asia is not the region with highest r1a frequency, nor diversity.

Copper Axe said...

I thought the steppe ancestry of the Rors and Jatts was common knowledge, but I haven't really thought further regarding the implications for the Indo-Aryan migrations.

Is Steppe+BMAC ancestry found in comparable rates amongst other Indo-Aryans, like in a 2/1.5 to 1 ratio (steppe to bmac) as we see with the Rors and Jatts?

If so, then is this a decent proxy (if we take away the Iran+AASI) for the makeup of the Indo-Aryans when they first reached South asia?

If not, could they have descended from a secondary wave where people did have significant bmac type ancestry, which then would by why it is not as present in other groups?

Or perhaps they just had better connections with central Asian peoples which had a good amount of BMAC ancestry.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

I see that you are too cowardly to make a prediction after being completely wrong for years altogether.

Only in your mind, and unfortunately you're one sick puppy.


vAsiSTha said...

@coldmountains
I hope you take into account the fact that the 4000bce R-Y3 you think has been found in sredny stog is likely due to ancient damage, as it is negative for R-Y2 (equivalent snp with R-Y3 as per isogg latest) and because it hasn't been found anywhere in Europe post that except for 3 in bashkir and tatar region and 1 likely Sephardic jew in Brazil.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski
I ask again
Where will R-Y3 and R-L657 be found in ancient samples. Will it be found in andronovo?
Make your prediction now, don't be a sissy.

gamerz_J said...

@VasiSTha

A bit unrelated perhaps but in your opinion which are the best populations to model Indian ancestry in Global25?

TLT said...

@Leron

The thunderur probably originated in the Anatolia with early farmers. However it didn't go from Anatolia/Levant -> India as you claim. That belongs to the same category as the Anatolian hypothesis.

The farmers went many places including Europe, EEF derived most of their ancestry from Anatolian farmers and EMBA steppe people acquired the thunderer from these European farmers. This explains why Indra specifically groups with the European group of thunderers. I know people used to like to shoehorn BMAC into steppe culture, but given how they were barely involved with one another beyond basic trade, the shoehorning seems completely unnecessary. On the other hand, there is a much greater relation between MLBA and neolithic (+copper age) European farmers- the first group derives something like 1/3rd of their ancestry from the second one and there are much closer versions of Indra in Europe than there are in the Levant because the correct causal relation does not involve the Levant.

The correct order is Anatolia -> Europe -> Steppe MLBA -> India.

Archi said...

@Copper Axe @vAsiSTha

Jats are Kshatriyas, why should they be brahmanas? They were so Kshatriyas that they betrayed the brahmanas and their faith. Rors are just an isolated caste, there are many castes in India that are isolated.

vAsiSTha said...

@gamerz
Shahr_i-Sokta BA2, Dali_MLBA/Zevakinskiy_LBA/Molaly_LBA, Dzharkutan1_BA/SiS_BA1, Irula/Yadav/Maratha for added AASI.

Copper Axe said...

@TLT

I don't see why the concept of storm deities need to have single point of origin, or why the Indo-European storm god should be linked to the Anatolian farmers, especially given that the storm god is reconstructed as a warrior and protector of cattle in Proto-Indo-European mythology.

Aside from that I fully agree with you, it is weird to state Indra was a BMAC god.

Coldmountains said...

@vAsiSTha
Y2 is not equal to Y3+ dont write about thing you have no clue about-
Y3* and Y2- was found in Brazil (YF19087)
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y3/

I6561 is definetly Z94 and even if he turns out to be Y3- the date and clade of I6561 would anyways make him anyways very close to early Y3+. Y3+ was definetly born either in Sredny Srog or next to it.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
Jatts havent been kshatriyas since the first records of them came up. Jatts might want to believe otherwise, but I dont.
"So close has become the connection of the Jatts with peasant-agriculture in the Punjab that, besides being caste-name, the word Jāt can mean an agriculturist and jataki similarly can mean agriculture. Ibbetson even expressed the opinion that there was a continuous influx into the ranks of the Jatts, as men of other castes took to agriculture and, in course of time, designated themselves Jatts by virtue of their profession. This duality in the use of the name of Jatt had already come about before the middle of the seventeenth century. While the author of the Daibstan-i-Mazahib (c.1655) in his account of Sikhism describes the Jatts as “the lowest caste of the Vaishyas,” he also states that “Jatt in the language of the Punjab means a villager, a rustic.” Clearly, the Jatts had already come to represent the typical peasants in the Punjab of that time."
http://apnaorg.com/articles/jatts/

This isnt about Jats and Rors, this is about all of NW india, kalash etc. All of them have higher steppe than brahmins. Gujjars, khatris & aroras (vaishyas/baniyas/traders, may or may not be kshatriyas originally), Kamboj etc.

TLT said...

@Copper axe

A thunderer represents fertility like the way lightening makes it easier for crops to grow, so a more basal thunderer figure would be more so associated with plant based agriculture (also more sedentary). But this isn't the case with the MLBA thunderer because while acquiring it, they altered it's nature to better fit the steppe lifestyle which didn't involve intensive farming, but it did involve a different kind of agriculture (food rearing strategy)- migratory pastoralism.

Archi said...

@Coldmountains
"Y3+ was definetly born either in Sredny Srog or next to it."

This is a completely erroneous opinion. Undoubtedly, Y3+ has already appeared either in Asia or in Abashevo.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha
"Jatts havent been kshatriyas"

This is all reasoning for the poor, because your history is full of gaps and you are making it up. Jats believe and considered themselves Kshatriyas, it does not matter who there fantasizes about them, because all your castes are purely local unsubstantiated fantasies.

Coldmountains said...

@Archi
again great arguments. Y3 is rather around 5000-6000 years old based on the Yfull estimate (5000 ybp) and the general tendency of Yfull to underestimate the age of clades by around 10-15%.

TLT said...

@vasista

Gujars have about as much as Brahmins do. Khatris and Kamboj have a little more by a few percent, but Rors have nearly 2x the ancestry. Some kind of an outlier population. I don't think that the Rors can be linked to any caste or varna rank since if they were a part of mainstream society, they would be more like the average or at least more like the Khatri results.

TLT said...

@Archi

As strange as it may sound to you, if Rors and Jatts were a part of the varnas to begin with as you suggest, it would be harder to explain the differences in comparison to the rest. There was mixing going on from 3500 years ago to 2000 years ago so for such an unevenness to persist in the mixing is strange to say the least. Unless they weren't a part of the majority of the mixing and remained separate throughout.

Dmytro said...

Vladimir:
Correct me if I'm wrong.
Does Spitsyna then suggest that by 3000 BCE Rohachyk and Riepin fuse to create Yamna?
(I remember reading something about Rohachyk in Kotova. Also (this from Rassamakin) about the fact that Yamna created its own ceramic styles, abandoning typical Riepinisms et al.).

Does she have anything more specific about the origination of CWC?

Archi said...

Coldmountains said...
" @Archi
again great arguments. Y3 is rather around 5000-6000 years old based on the Yfull estimate (5000 ybp) and the general tendency of Yfull to underestimate the age of clades by around 10-15%."

R-Y3 Y3/F2597/M727 * Y26/M780 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-Y2 Y2/M723 * Y27/M634/V1981 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4100 ybp
R-F1417 F1417 * BY32037/Y96112 * BY32043/Y106817+4 SNPs formed 4100 ybp, TMRCA 3100 ybp
R-Y147630 Y147603 * Y147630 * Y147871+16 SNPs formed 3100 ybp, TMRCA 1050 ybp
id:YF67482 RUS [RU-TA]
R-Y147543 Y147543 formed 1050 ybp, TMRCA 1050 ybp
id:YF17106 RUS [RU-BA]
id:ERS2478503 RUS [RU-BA]

Your evaluation
4600 + 4600*(10%-15%) = 4600 + 460(740) = 5000-5300BP = 3000-3300BC is not > 4300BC.

Archi said...

@ TLT

The isolation of the castes and tribes in India was always, there were all isolated from each other, there were naturally mixtures, but these were episodes, and isolation was the norm. Herodotus also wrote about it, about what different tribes in India and how they are not similar to each other.

Davidski said...

There's also R1b-Z2105 in Sredny Stog, and yet Yfull dates Z2105 to 5400 ybp.

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M12149/

gamerz_J said...

@VasiSTHa

Thanks!

"Irula/Yadav/Maratha for added AASI." Not Paniya?

Romulus said...

@Davidski

Since when is there P312 in Unetice?

ambron said...

Sam, I meant that the Cypriots are pulling the Southern Slavs away from the Western Slavs at the PCA.

Archi said...

Davidski said...
"There's also R1b-Z2105 in Sredny Stog, and yet Yfull dates Z2105 to 5400 ybp."

It is not in any way Sredny Stog, it is simply impossible, it is there Pivicha culture at best, almost synchronous the Yamnaya culture

Copper Pivicha? Ukraine Dereivka I, Grave 68 [I5884] 2890-2696 calBCE (4195±20BP, PSUAMS-2828) M R1b1a1a2a2 R1b1a1a2a2:CTS1078:7186135G->C; R1b1a1a2a2:Z2105:15747432C->A;

vAsiSTha said...

@TLT maybe an overfitted model, but just a representation to make a point

Sample Fit ShahrISokhta_BA2 Sintashta_MLBA Molaly_LBA Dzharkutan1_BA Dali_MLBA
Brahmin Gujarat:Average 1.9624 75.5 10.5 7.5 5 1.5
Kalash:Average 1.4222 44 12 14.5 22.5 7

Why arent the kalash culturally brahminical? and why are they dardic rather than sanskritic?
all their steppe components are more than that of gujarati brahmins?

Same Q for Pashtun.

Sample Fit ShahrSokhta_BA2 Molaly_LBA Sintashta_MLBA Dali_MLBA Dzharkutan1_BA
Brahmin Gujarat:Average 1.9159 75 7.5 7 5.5 5
Afghan Pashtun:Average 2.1943 19.5 32 12.5 0 36

Can you use these composition models to explain why some are iranic, some dardic, some sanskritic? Why is only one of these brahminical?
can you use your steppe % to predict what language will be spoken? and does the sintashta/steppe component predict caste? if not, why not? steppe component only predicts that the caste was originally from the north somewhere, thats it, as one would expect.
correlation != causation, and here theres no correlation either.



vAsiSTha said...

@gamerz
Paniya has added East/SE asian component from Munda austroasiatics. best to avoid.
For added AASI, you may also use some ancients like Saidu_sharif_outlier. Or the 2 R1as from Roopkund who are irula like, I6946, I6942. One of these is L657.

TLT said...

@Archi

Rors live in the heartland of north India and what used to be called Aryavratta. The isolation is common now but that only began something like 2,000 years ago. For them to be isolated during the mixing period, which was well over a millennium in duration mind you, is strange but it is what it is.

@vasista

Target,Distance,IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1,IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2,RUS_Sintashta_MLBA,S_AASI_Sim(Pulliyar)
Brahmin_Uttar_Pradesh,0.03273612,0.0,63.0,20.0,17.0
Khatri,0.01609315,25.6,40.4,24.2,9.8
Gujar_India,0.01518881,12.8,58.2,19.4,9.6
Gujar_Pakistan,0.01587522,19.6,53.4,21.0,6.0
Kamboj,0.01530447,36.2,23.6,26.8,13.4
Ror,0.01702358,6.8,48.2,40.2,4.8
Kalash,0.02746180,33.4,33.2,30.4,3.0
Average,0.01995474,19.2,45.7,26.0,9.1


Used a simulated AASI component instead of Paniya just to separate things but using Paniya instead wouldn't really affect the amount of steppe ancestry by more than 1%. So here is one with Paniya.

Target,Distance,IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1,IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2,Paniya,RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
Brahmin_Uttar_Pradesh,0.03218366,0.0,56.4,24.0,19.6
Khatri,0.01625570,25.6,36.6,13.8,24.0
Gujar_India,0.01580448,12.6,55.4,13.0,19.0
Gujar_Pakistan,0.01604338,18.8,52.4,7.8,21.0
Kamboj,0.01594696,37.4,17.0,19.4,26.2
Ror,0.01692210,7.2,45.8,7.0,40.0
Kalash,0.02687359,37.4,25.4,7.4,29.8
Average,0.02000427,19.9,41.3,13.2,25.7

I didn't say anything about languages so you are putting words in my mouth with that last part of your post. The point is that Rors look like what might as well be an AASI shifted Tajik, but they aren't a fringe tribe on the absolute periphery of south Asia like Pashtuns in Afghanistan or an isolated tribe like Kalash. And to add to this they have more steppe than these periphery and isolated populations do. Surely simple random noise cannot explain that.

My point is that the difference here isn't 6%, it is more like 20% and that too in the heartland of Aryavratta, not some forgotten periphery or a strange Dravidian-mixed Tajik tribe in the center of the Pamir Knot. The only explanation for this is that Rors and by extension Jats never were a part of the caste system or any precursor population to the caste populations and therefore they cannot really be any of the caste ranks, including Kshatriya. Strangely, this is in agreement with your own position but you still want me to confront you for supporting a compatible position.

gamerz_J said...

@VasisTha

"Paniya has added East/SE asian component from Munda austroasiatics. best to avoid.
For added AASI, you may also use some ancients like Saidu_sharif_outlier. Or the 2 R1as from Roopkund who are irula like, I6946, I6942. One of these is L657."

thanks, will keep in mind.

vAsiSTha said...

From what AG users tell me,they don't use these UP Brahmin samples as they are not correct.
You can find UP Brahmin samples of AG users from genoplot g25.
That's why I use guj brahmins who don't need extra aasi on top of Indus periphery, steppe and bmac/sisBa1.
And yes, brahmins all over have steppe because they are ultimately from the north and likely took wives from the north/NW and were preferred as husbands owing to caste. Kshatriyas and brahmins were also allowed multiple wives. Eg dhritarashtra took gandhari from Afghanistan as wife.

Vladimir said...

@Dmytro

She does not write anything about the origin of the CWC. Although there is a point of view that Repin culture is proto Yamnaya, but it does not support this point of view. I hi is an excerpt from her work to show that by 3000 BCE in the steppe zone of the Prut river to the don river and even further East and northeast is formed by a layer syncretistic archaeological cultures total which would correspond to A horizon of the CWC. Let's say on the right Bank of the Dnieper formed the population of the lower Mikhailovka culture, Dereivka culture and post Trypillya culture, i.e. WHG, EEF. On the left Bank of the Dnieper, the population of Konstantinovka culture, culture of pit-combed ceramics, Dereivka culture is formed, i.e. CHG, EHG c Dereivka there falls WHG and EEF. This I say to the fact that even if somewhere in the eneolite near the Carpathian mountains R1A-Z93 is found, which did not pass there from the Eastern Bank of the Dnieper, it will have an insufficient admixture of EHG, i.e. it will be similar to either the later Trypillia recently discovered, or the recently published R1b-L51 from southern Poland. To have an admixture such as poz81 is possible only and exclusively if it came from the area East of the Dnieper, which is rich in CHG and EHG, while having a small share of the ancestors of WHG and EEF. Nowhere and never West of the Dnieper, before the CWC, such a proportion of admixture as poz81, was not. Accordingly, the path of the CWC population with a steppe component, as in poz81, is possible only from the area East of the Dnieper through the area West of the Dnieper, or with an admixture of the population that came from the area located West of the Dnieper, for example, came from the Diryivka culture. And this is exactly what Spitsina writes about when talking about the Repin culture in which all these components were present and in the admixture that poz81 subsequently had.

TLT said...

@vasista

"From what AG users tell me,they don't use these UP Brahmin samples as they are not correct"

Nah they are fine. The reason why easterners need more AASI is because they mixed with more natives as the Indo-Aryans kept moving further east. Geneticists observing this have seen this as a feature as opposed to a faulty artifact. Eastern Brahmins having more steppe + AASI than westerners like Sindhis.

"And yes, brahmins all over have steppe because they are ultimately from the north and likely took wives from the north/NW and were preferred as husbands owing to caste."

Now here is a point where you can actually oppose me without looking like you are arguing against yourself. As far as I know, there is a lot of mtDNA M, specifically M, not referring to the other local lineages, in Brahmins.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/12881143/

Also, over here, there seem to be more Brahmin mtDNA Ms than Yadava (similar to Chamar) mtDNA Ms.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340918300143

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235234091830204X

Not to say that Brahmins have more of the local mtDNA (M + R + U2i .etc), but they do seem to have a little more M(xD, G, Q) than the lower caste. If you want to know where at least a subset of the women came from, you can try looking at the mtDNA M frequencies in India. I don't really know about the south Asian M distribution, so it might as well be Afghanistan.

vAsiSTha said...

Mtdna - Haryana Brahmins Freq
U 10
W 1
M 30
D 1
T 5
N 5
J 3
R 2
H 4
L 3
K 1
X 1
Total 66

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2352340918300143

5 T1a1 - surely from steppe
3 H1's - also probably europe
others i dont know.
M+R+U = 63%

TLT said...

@vasista

It is the M specifically, not the R or U2i. Look for south Asian hotspots of M. Based on a 1 minute search, which is not nearly enough, I see a hotspot in Kashmir for one of the subclades while in other cases there is no special hotspot in the north. But as I said, I haven't looked it up properly, so there can be other ones.

vAsiSTha said...

@tlt
What you see in the above paper is 17% mtDna haplogroups belonging to europe (only including T1a1,H1, 1 U2e, 1 X1b, 1 K2a5, others i am not sure and have no time to analyze) probably 15-20% steppe autosomal ancestry. There is also 1 european U2e here. so clearly not male biased, that is IF you consider the india specific R1a as an european marker, which has not been proven yet.

Dmytro said...

Vladimir:
Sorry for the ignorance. What is "poz81"? Where is it and has it been dated?

Vladimir said...

Sample poz81 is of basal hg. R1a-CTS4385* 2880-2630 BCE CWC Poland
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528

TLT said...

@vaasista
There plenty of different kinds of T in pre-steppe Shahr and south central Asia so that be from another source. Ultimately mtDNA U2e, U5 and U4 serve as decent proxies for steppe mtDNA lineages since they tend to not be confused with middle eastern H, J, K, T .etc. There is strangely no U5 or U4 and only 1 U2e in Haryana Brahmins, though the sample size was kind of small.

Though my post wasn't even about that, it was about there being more mtDNA M than non-Brahmins both in Maharshtra and Haryana which is peculiar. If the steppe migrants made marriage alliances with local elites leading up to the Brahminical class then M could have been an elite local mtDNA, so the mixed Iran + AASI population could have selected for local mtDNA somehow, didn't that Rakhigarhi mtDNA U2b grave belong to someone well off if not an outright important person?

Another interesting thing is the Roopkund steppe mtDNA being found in Dharkar-like samples but not in Brahmin ones. The native AASI mtDNA definitely had an elite vibe both in pre-Aryan and Aryan society.

Dmytro said...

Vladimir said...
"Sample poz81 is of basal hg. R1a-CTS4385* 2880-2630 BCE CWC Poland
https://royalsocietypublishing.org/doi/10.1098/rspb.2019.1528"

Thank you. I now get your basic point. You seem to have done a lot of studying on this issue. Do you or your sources have any notion as to why a CWC population originating basically from beyond the Dnipro should have initially settled much further West than expected? (As far as available evidence suggests). Was it because of resistance on the part of other groups (like GAC, Late Trypillia (Sofiivka), Usatovo)? I have read that the earliest CWC burials, apparently of the Middle Dnipro c., did not appear there until some centuries after the CWC of Poland and further West, and that they were actually secondary burials inserted into earlier Yamna kurgans in the Cherkas'ka obl. But maybe my information is now superseded(?) I'm not much of a geneticist but have a very open mind (though my info comes from archaeological and proto-historical literature). Never a dull moment (:=))

Rob said...

@ Vlad

‘Western’ archaeologists were kind of right - CWC formed in Central Europe . Not because there was no migration; but because the early migration was mostly just men in kurgans which otherwise look like Yamnaya ones

Jatt_Scythian said...

Is the AASI component in these runs fully ENA? On a related note where does the ENA in WHG/CHG come from?

Ryan said...

@Jatt_Scythian - "On a related note where does the ENA in WHG/CHG come from?"

Probably from ANE.

vAsiSTha said...

@tlt

T1a1, K2a5, N1a, X1b etc are definitely european, looking at the aDna database. T1a1's have also been found in the Swat paper and narsimhan made a special note to mention its steppe origin.

The maharashtra paper only has konkani coastal brahmins, theyre not representative and have not so clear origins. some say they have more recent geneflow from western asia/mediterranean through sea route. They are also known for some having green/blue eyes unlike any other brahmin community. so in maharashtra, if you spot someone like this, you can guess their community to high accuracy.

2015 paper on Uttarakhand population https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2015121?proof=true#Sec7
uttarakhand Brahmins have highest west eurasian mTdna at 23%. (West Eurasian specific haplogroups HV, I, T, U1, U2e, U7 and W). Removing U7 and W gives 18%.
Next highest is 5% in other castes of the region, including kshatriyas.

Kivisild 2003 https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(07)60541-2.pdf
"When compared with Indian caste populations, Chenchus and Koyas are characterized by the rarity of haplogroup U and, like tribal groups from West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, by the lack of western Eurasian lineage clusters HV, TJ, N1, and X. These four clades combined cover ∼60% of the western Asian mtDNAs in India. Their frequency is the highest in Punjab, ∼20%,
and diminishes threefold, to an average of 7%, in the rest of the caste groups in India (table 2)."
So european mtdna actually falls as you go south, along with falling steppe ancestry. Unlike R1a which has high freq in the south.

Regarding mtdna M, i have no much interest as of now because imo it has nothing to do with the IE question.

Vladimir said...

@ Dmytro.
This could be agreed if people in mounds with steppe admixture, but not yet CWC, appeared in Europe starting from at least 3500 BCE. But all that we see so far they appear there almost simultaneously with the CWC plus or minus 100 years. Moreover, the first to appear are absolutely certain haplogroups, such as CTS4385, which go the farthest and do not appear any more in the East. Then in Europe there are Z283. Those of them that go further all Z284 also no longer appear in the East. The m458s don't go very far, but they don't come back until the emergence of the Slavs. And only Z280, which goes very close, is supposed to have returned and formed the middle Dnieper culture 300-500 years after the first appearance of the CWC in Poland or Germany. And here a few questions arise. If these people, as a population, as Spitsyna writes, originated on the left Bank of the Dnieper, in fact in the area that will then be called the CWC culture of the middle Dnieper, and then there will be Sosnitskay culture, so maybe they did not go anywhere? Of course, the existing set of CWC inventory may have taken shape in Central Europe, but the population originated in Eastern Europe, if even more definitely East of the Dnieper and North of Pripyat. They already had the entire set of CWC and graves in barrows (Repino) and cordware (Dereivka) and battle axes (Sofiyevka) and triangular arrows (Konstantinovka). Some groups from this emerging population moved away earlier and did not accept the entire set, for example, the culture of Volsk-Lbishchevo or Babino. In some cases, this set was very simplified, for example, Fatyanovo or Abashevo. Apparently this happened because they were not in Central Europe, that is, where archaeologists considered the CWC set to be classic. Of course, I do not exclude that there may have been reverse migrations in the area between the Vistula and the Dnieper, but these are details. It could be not migrations, but borrowings between z280 tribes. One word migration, traceable to admixture was one and she was from the area East of the Dnieper in all directions in the far North-West CTS4385, in the far West L51, South-West M458, Z284 North, South Babino (Z94), East Fatyanovo (Z94). Z280 is gone not far to the West and North, ie remained almost on the spot. That is, the starting point from where this population, not yet CWC, began to diverge should be at 3000 BCE in the area along the Pripyat. At 3200 BCE on the Eastern Bank of the Dnieper, at 3500 BCE on the Upper don, at 4000 BCE on the Middle don. But the further back in time the population was less formed. Let's assume that the admixture of EEF and WHG appeared no earlier than 3500 BCE from the Dereivka and Sofiyivka tribes and other post-Trypillya and GAC-related i2a tribes that lived on the upper Dnieper. It is difficult to trace further. At what point did the share of EHG increase compared to Yamnaya? Probably at the moment of mixing with Volosovo or with the culture of pit-combed ceramics. At what point the R1b-L51 also joined is not yet clear.

Vladimir said...

@ Rob
‘Western’ archaeologists were kind of right - CWC formed in Central Europe . Not because there was no migration; but because the early migration was mostly just men in kurgans which otherwise look like Yamnaya ones

This is a theoretical argument. Actually, the disputes here with Gashka are also for this reason. Whether an archaeological culture always corresponds to a single population. In the situation with the BBC, it seems that some elements of culture arose before R1b-P312 entered it. In the context of the CWC, the population probably arose before the classic version of the CWC was formed, and not the entire population accepted it in full, let's say the Babino culture accepted it only partially.

Vladimir said...

Simply put, in a certain place near the Pripyat river, people with different skills met, who did not destroy each other, as it usually happened, but United their skills, which gave them the opportunity to populate half of the world.

Rob said...



“ This is a theoretical argument. ”

No it’s empirical
- earliest CWC complexes are in Poland and Podolia (2800 cal BCE); not some mysterious / non existent place further east
- the barrow graves of founding members of CWC are of Yamnaya tradition
- the cline leads to Dnieper -Don southern forest steppe

“ Actually, the disputes here with Gashka are also for this reason.”

Completely different & irrelevant. You’ve completely misunderstood the issue


“ in a certain place near the Pripyat river, people with different skills met”

This ^ is a completely theoretical Argument ; because there is no data behind it
And from what we know; it’s incorrect; because early CwC barrows are all monolineage R1a1; not different people

How did you manage to get everything upside down ?

Copper Axe said...

Sorry to ask this again, but if anyone could answer this for me I would be grateful.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/like-three-peas-in-pod.html?showComment=1592485973532&m=1#c2411646797940881678

"Is Steppe+BMAC ancestry found in comparable rates amongst other Indo-Aryans, like in a 2/1.5 to 1 ratio (steppe to bmac) as we see with the Rors and Jatts?

If so, then is this a decent proxy (if we take away the Iran+AASI) for the makeup of the Indo-Aryans when they first reached South asia?

If not, could they have descended from a secondary wave where people did have significant bmac type ancestry, which then would by why it is not as present in other groups?

Or perhaps they just had better connections with central Asian peoples which had a good amount of BMAC ancestry."

Vladimir said...

@Rob
Modern archaeologists consider this particular set to be a"CWC complex". But the population was not formed immediately by a "complex". The complex appeared gradually, some elements appeared with the addition of a new group with its own elements to the first group, some elements appeared in the very first group. That is, to draw a parallel between the formed complex and the formed population, in my opinion, is wrong.

Archi said...

@ Vladimir @ Dmitro
It's all just your personal speculation.

"And only Z280, which goes very close, is supposed to have returned and formed the middle Dnieper culture 300-500 years after the first appearance of the CWC in Poland or Germany. And here a few questions arise."

There are no such data, it seems, that the Middle Dnieper culture was closely related to Fatyanovo and Volsk-Lbishche culture about which we are known Z93/Z94.

"and then there will be Sosnitskay culture, so maybe they did not go anywhere?""graves in barrows (Repino) and cordware (Dereivka) and battle axes (Sofiyevka) and triangular arrows (Konstantinovka)."
"Some groups from this emerging population moved away earlier and did not accept the entire set, for example, the culture of Volsk-Lbishchevo or Babino. In some cases, this set was very simplified, for example, Fatyanovo or Abashevo."

You definitely write sets of words that you don't understand.

".... At what point did the share of EHG increase compared to Yamnaya? Probably at the moment of mixing with Volosovo or with the culture of pit-combed ceramics. At what point the R1b-L51 also joined is not yet clear."

Considering that you have never written anything correct yet, it's not clear to you absolutely everything.

"CWC was formed, and not the entire population accepted it in full, let's say the Babino culture accepted it only partially."

Don't write rubbish, the Babino culture is not CWC, it was after CWC (post-CWC and post-Catacomb), you have porridge in your head. The Babino culture has never been CWC, it's a synchronous of Sintashta and Abashevo, and it has same source.



@EastPole
"https://i.postimg.cc/2jvFZrMY/BS-II.png"

This picture https://i.ibb.co/9q4Fvkh/scale-2400-1.jpg from Anthony 2006 is wrong, Anthony mistook it, he just did not know archaeology.

1. the Abashevo and Sintastacht cultures are not of the Middle Bronze Age.

2. MBA (2800-2200BC) - When there were Poltavka, Catakombnaya, Late Yamnaya (Budzhak), then there was no Abashevo and Sintashta. At that time there were other cultures in those places, Volsk-Lbyshche, Ivanoburg ....

3. MLBA (2200-1900/1800BC) - When there were Abashevo and Sintashta, then there was no Poltavka, Catacomb, Late Yamnaya (Budzhak). At that time there were Babino/KMK and Potapovka cultures.


Rob said...

@ Vlad

The early horizon of CWC Male burials match that in the steppe during Yamnaya period
This was then followed by the addition of female burials in a sex-dichotomous manner. This is a middle European tradition.
This is all concordant with what we see at a genome-wide level, mtdna , Y-DNA
This is what I meant; not that R1a or steppe ancestry is from Central Europe

vAsiSTha said...

@tlt

https://www.jstor.org/stable/41466848?read-now=1&seq=8#page_scan_tab_contents

Mtdna of 4 punjabi castes

"Although the social ranks of the Jat sikhs and khatris are somewhat controversial, if it is assumed that they occupy a social rank between Brahmins & scheduled castes, then there is an inverse trend of freq of haplogroup M with social rank: Brahmins (25%), Jat Sikhs and Khatris (42.7%) and SCs (50%). These differences however are not statistically significant."

Dmytro said...

Vladimir said...
@ Dmytro.
"This could be agreed if people in mounds with steppe admixture, but not yet CWC, appeared in Europe starting from at least 3500 BCE (etc.....)"

Thank you very much for this useful summary of your views. The criticism of a certain know -it-all is basically irrelevant since that gentleman mixes everything up with uncontrollable ad hominems. Rob's comments on the other hand are also quite useful. I think the strength of your points (apart from other specifics) is simply the fact that we are all operating on the basis of very incomplete data (nobody's fault). Absence of evidence is of course not evidence, but neither is partial evidence a substitute for conclusive evidence.

A smaller point (or query). What is the status of the "out of East of Dnipro" migrants who headed towards the Baltic and further north (incl. Scadinavia eventually). I thought they were supposedly EEF-free? Is this still the current mainstream view?

Jatt_Scythian said...

There's ANE in WHG?

TLT said...

@vasista

-Firstly, there is no specific T1a1, it is 1 x T1a1'3 and 2 x T1a+152. Both of these lineages are found in not just Europe but also in the MENA region. T1a3 is even found in Shahr BA1. So this is not a definitive steppe lineage.

-Next up, 1 x K2a5. This one does look like it is more so European so I will grant you that.

- Next up N1a. This is a HUGE haplogroup, not a specific one, so huge that all of mtDNA I is just a specific subclade within it. There is absolutely no way it is limited to Europe or the steppe. It is found all throughout western Eurasia including MENA. So this is once again, not a definitive steppe lineage.

-Next up 1 x X2b (which you mistyped as X1b). It is found among both Europeans and middle easterners and even north Africans. Kind of hard to say, I am not leaning one way or the other for it being definitive or not being definitive. So I'll grant you this one as well.

"The maharashtra paper only has konkani coastal brahmins, theyre not representative and have not so clear origins. some say they have more recent geneflow from western asia/mediterranean through sea route."

Okay.

"2015 paper on Uttarakhand population https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg2015121?proof=true#Sec7
uttarakhand Brahmins have highest west eurasian mTdna at 23%. (West Eurasian specific haplogroups HV, I, T, U1, U2e, U7 and W). Removing U7 and W gives 18%.
Next highest is 5% in other castes of the region, including kshatriyas."

Why only remove U7 and W? You are including in the other group lineages which are plausibly a part of the pre-steppe south central Asian and even Shahr lineages (HV subclades, I subclades, T subclades, U1 subclades). Only U2e among them is definitely steppe. Not saying that the rest are definitely not steppe, but you can also certainly not place them in the definitive steppe group. It doesn't even need to be from the Iran components, a subset of them can also be from the later copper-bronze age Anatolian interactions as well passing through Iran, a bit of which was found in Shahr BA1 and BA2. Doesn't take many generations for those lineages to filter down even further until they are passed along without a strong hint of the original Anatolian ancestry.


"Kivisild 2003 https://www.cell.com/ajhg/pdf/S0002-9297(07)60541-2.pdf
"When compared with Indian caste populations, Chenchus and Koyas are characterized by the rarity of haplogroup U and, like tribal groups from West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, by the lack of western Eurasian lineage clusters HV, TJ, N1, and X. These four clades combined cover ∼60% of the western Asian mtDNAs in India. Their frequency is the highest in Punjab, ∼20%,
and diminishes threefold, to an average of 7%, in the rest of the caste groups in India (table 2)."
So european mtdna actually falls as you go south, along with falling steppe ancestry. Unlike R1a which has high freq in the south."

Most of the aforementioned lineages (HV, TJ, N1, X) aren't steppe specific and the majority of them would have come from the non-steppe ancestry (the IVCp and Shahr type of ancestries) so you are once again using the lineages which can be obfuscated between the 2 very different types of ancestry. You wouldn't be in this situation if you used U2e+U4+U5 instead.

tl;dr the majority of the west Eurasian mtDNA in India is likely from the non-steppe ancestry and this has been known for a while.

TLT said...

Addressing vasista's last comment:

I note that the paper is somewhat old, the samples sizes are sort of small, but that is fine, I don't have much of an issue with that. It does show that there really probably isn't much of a link between Brahmins and mtDNA M specifically.

The strange thing however is that they coupled H + U as 'Caucasian haplogroups' even thought most of the U in India is generally of the U2i (a+b+c) group which is rather indigenous. Depending on the subgroup, you could find some of the Anatolian -> Iran -> Shahr derived U1 and U3 as well but those are not very numerous, but also depending on the subgroup you could find plenty of U7 which would most likely be from the Iran component (x neolithic and even older Anatolians). In the Haryana Brahmin paper there was more U7 than U2i. So some part of the U in the old Punjab paper, maybe a considerable part, might be the non-U2i kind of U. However, regardless of it being U2i or U7, I am quite certain that at best only a small part of it would be U2e + U4 + U5. So it isn't really a Caucasian marker, more like Caucasian (mostly not steppe) + native marker.

The H as well depends a lot on the subclades so while that could be termed as the Caucasian haplogroup, it could be steppe + non-steppe Caucasian and the non-steppe Caucasian could have a complex origin as well, I for one think that it might as well be distantly from the Anatolian hunter gatherers since there is indirect evidence for Anatolian mtDNA input into southern Iran going back to like 14,000 BP in the form of HV. But of course this would mean that what we take as the Iran component (x anatolian ancestry) for the past few years actually had some background Anatolian in it all along. I think the same is also true for X, I, U1 and U3. For now I suspect that the original Iran lineages were R2 + W + U7. But I'll cut it off here, the longer I go on in this post the more off topic I will go.

Anyway, yeah, based on the paper that you have linked, even if all the H was from the steppe, the H + steppe U would still be under 10%.

BCBrendan said...

Concerning the original "three peas of a pod" PCA, wouldn't the Dutch Bell Beakers plot at least as close? How (will) Unetice p312 compare/relate to that in Dutch Bell Beakers? Just curious, and this is my first comment, so go easy on me.

Simon_W said...

@Copper Axe

"That is the one thing I find so strange about some of you guys, you take such a deep pride in your ancestors yet are denying where your ancestors came from. Imagine your great grandson trolling on the internet how he does not descend from you, I'd be rolling in the grave."

Yes, I've been having similar thoughts for many years now. It's for sure an honourable goal to honour one's ancestors. But in order to realise this aim you need an attitude that is defined by scepticism, caution and humility. Because otherwise you may risk to honour the false ones, which would be sad. You first have to make sure you know who your ancestors are. And nothing is more obstructive than the attitude that you know it for sure right from the beginning.

Of course, the ancestry of Basques and Indians is still predominantly non-steppic, even though their paternal lineages are from the steppe. So Gaska and vAsiSTha are not entirely wrong with their anti-steppe attitude, they're just wrong about the origin of their purely male line of ancestors, which is one line of many.

TLT said...

@Jatt_Scythian

Some WHGs, more so the eastern-ish ones north of central Italy, form a cline with ANE. Though this isn't true for all WHG. The purest ones are southern and central Italian ones who seem to not have any ANE or Magdalenian type of ancestry. Or at least that is how it stands in the current comparisons.

Jatt_Scythian said...

I mean I obviously wish there was more female Indo-Iranian ancestry in South Asia but there is no need to make stuff up like vasista is doing.

@TLT
Are there any uniparental markers that would account for ENA in WHG or does it go back to the intial y K2b/P mixture with the western side of ANE?

Jatt_Scythian said...

I believe only Pashtuns, Tajiks, and Northern Pakistanis have appreciable frequencies of U2e, U4 and U5.

Davidski said...

@BCBrendan

From the blog post...

However, please note that there's nothing unusual or remarkable about my ancestry. The vast majority of people of Central, Eastern and Northern European origin - that is, mostly the speakers of Balto-Slavic, Germanic and Celtic languages - would also land in this part of the plot.

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

“ This could be agreed if people in mounds with steppe admixture, but not yet CWC, appeared in Europe starting from at least 3500 BCE ”

Those are completely different mounds- earthen mounds of Baalberg type . They’re MNE

Vladimir said...

@Dnytro

As far as I know, the entire CWC population has EEF, which is why they differ from the steppe eneolite population. Another question is that someone has more than someone less. As I understand it, the EEF is greater for those groups that were located closer to Yamnaya. For example, the CWC R1b-L51 group from South-Eastern Poland has the same EEF as Yamnaya. The Scandinavian CWC has less EEF but more EHG. This is perfectly explained by my hypothesis. Yesterday Rob puzzled me with a thesis about a unique burial ritual for the CWC. I read about the recently discovered Eneolithic burial of Xizovo-6 in the Lipetsk region, this is the upper don, about the period 4500-3500 BCE. There at the same time lived in the same settlement and were buried in the same cemetery representatives of several completely different archaeological cultures, and according to completely different rituals. And if populations of stroke-ornamented pottery, comb-ceramics culture gums, buried lying on your back or stomach and pohrebeni poor, the representative of the Dereivka culture was buried lying on his right side and head to the West, ie on the ritual of the CWC, and this burial was very boheim on different items. Apparently migrated from the Dnieper to the don representatives of the culture Dereivka on the don were leaders, for example, in Xizovo-6 such a rich burial was one, and there are many poor burials on the back. Apparently, this is how the population was formed, which is called the steppe.

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

For example, the CWC R1b-L51 group from South-Eastern Poland has the same EEF as Yamnaya. The Scandinavian CWC has less EEF but more EHG.

Both of these statements are false.

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 419   Newer› Newest»