Who remembers kum4 from
Omrak et al. 2016? I'm pretty sure now that this individual packs a lot of ancestry from the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe.
If so, that's a big deal, because her Chalcolithic (or Late Neolithic?) burial was located at Kumtepe. That is, in the same part of Anatolia as the later settlement of Troy, which may have been founded by early Anatolian speakers from Eastern Europe (see
here).
The qpAdm mixture models below, featuring kum4 and the likely older kum6, also from Kumtepe, are based on qpfstats output. qpfstats is a new program from the David Reich Lab specifically designed to help analyze low coverage ancients (see
here). And kum4 is certainly that.
TUR_Kumtepe_N_kum4
RUS_Progress_En 0.383±0.114
TUR_Barcin_N 0.617±0.114
chisq 7.868
tail prob 0.247957
Full output
TUR_Kumtepe_N_kum4
IRN_Seh_Gabi_C 0.325±0.150
TUR_Barcin_N 0.675±0.150
chisq 14.736
tail prob 0.0224096
Full output
TUR_Kumtepe_N_kum6
RUS_Progress_En 0.121±0.042
TUR_Barcin_N 0.879±0.042
chisq 21.790
tail prob 0.00132149
Full output
TUR_Kumtepe_N_kum6
IRN_Seh_Gabi_C 0.283±0.059
TUR_Barcin_N 0.717±0.059
chisq 6.289
tail prob 0.391566
Full output
Indeed, kum4 and kum6 offer just ~10,000 and ~100,000 "valid SNPs", respectively (see
here). However, if nothing else, the results are clearly not random.
For one, because they fit the expected pattern, with the likely older individual lacking ancestry from the PC steppe (her model with RUS_Progress_En shows a weak statistical fit). Moreover, the qpAdm mixture ratios align almost perfectly with the results in my Principal Component Analysis (PCA) of ancient West Eurasian genetic variation. Coincidence?
See also...
Perhaps a hint of things to come
Alas, kum4 has neither normal dating nor haplogroups, even the gender is either defined or not.
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty funny that after all these years the only two (publicly available) samples from Copper Age western Anatolia are Barcin_C:I1584 and kum4.
ReplyDeleteMust be something wrong with the soil there. Otherwise I'd think it's some sort of conspiracy.
@Davidski
DeleteMay wanna check out this:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.30.179432v1
It has other variants to look at, this sample may have ancestors not from the steppe, but EHG rich from the Balkans like Lepensky Vir or Varna.
ReplyDeleteThere are CHG and EHG best of all shows ADMIXTURE.
Probably there is a major paper in long term preparation which follows the trail of samples from the Western steppe, around the Carparthians, into the Balkans and to Western Anatolia? I hope so. So many papers about the issue (I'm thankful for every single one!), but still no samples from the Lower Don culture, Cernavoda and Troy.
ReplyDeleteThat's close to missing the point...
@Archi
ReplyDeleteIn the PCA kum4 clusters on a cline between Progress_En and kum6. So you can't explain that with Lepensky Vir or Varna.
Global25 coords show the same thing.
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/#WestEurasia
@zardos
ReplyDeleteProbably there is a major paper in long term preparation which follows the trail of samples from the Western steppe, around the Carparthians, into the Balkans and to Western Anatolia?
Yes, apparently there's at least one, and it includes Copper Age and Bronze Age western Anatolian samples that probably have some sort of steppe ancestry.
I wonder how the Max Planck crew are going to explain that away? Their heads might explode.
They got samples from Ikitzepe(modern Samsun) and Arslantepe(modern Malatya) provinces.. kinda undeveloped regions with lower human development compared to western parts of modern Turkey.Not even one sample from Istanbul,Izmir and other rich provinces of western Turkey.They can easily solve the IE Anatolian hypothesis but it seems they dosn't want.The same goes for Ancient Macedonia.
ReplyDeleteBtw what is going on with Iosif Lazaridis?We should wait any paper in the future from him?As a Pontic Greek himself he should be more focused with Anatolian genetics thought.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteIt's pretty funny that after all these years the only two (publicly available) samples from Copper Age western Anatolia are Barcin_C:I1584 and kum4.
Interestingly, Barcin C (represented solely by TUR_Barcin_C:I1584) also has some steppe ancestry, though not that much.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a5byEejcptHST6X2L6Exb60uGXnyI6tZYI7HWG-EkkE/edit#gid=0
I welcome these upcoming circum-Pontic papers. If the steppe ancestry trail is demonstrated, then we should be able to lay alternatives to the Steppe PIE hypothesis to rest.
ReplyDeleteOf course that might be too optimistic, and we will instead see people (even prominent scientists) still arguing that PIE got to the steppe thru cultural diffusion or the CHG component coming from "Iran."
@Johnny
ReplyDeleteThey got samples from Ikitzepe(modern Samsun) and Arslantepe(modern Malatya) provinces.. kinda undeveloped regions with lower human development compared to western parts of modern Turkey.Not even one sample from Istanbul,Izmir and other rich provinces of western Turkey.They can easily solve the IE Anatolian hypothesis but it seems they dosn't want.The same goes for Ancient Macedonia.
Samsun is by far the most developed province of modern and Late Ottoman Pontus. Anyway, it does not matter how developed provinces are today for them to be sampled for ancient DNA. Those ancient DNA studies are always conducted through the active participation of major universities and most of them involve universities of the Western world too.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteI guess you’re suggesting the presence of some kind of steppe eneolithic ancestry rather than direct input from a progress-like population
@ Zardos
Yes the dating of Kum4 would correlate with late Cernavoda c.
@Johnny Ola,
ReplyDeleteI and many other people have been waiting for Lazaridis to finally release his Dzudzuana paper, but it's been almost two years since the original pre-print came out and there's no indication as far as I'm aware that the final version will come out soon. Which is a shame it's taken so long, because that's such an important sample from a previously unsampled time and place (Upper Paleolithic Caucasus!) that could help reveal a lot about West Eurasian phylogeny. I hope part of the delay can be attributed to the Reich team getting even more Upper Paleolithic DNA from the Caucasus/Middle East and having to integrate that information into their original findings from the 2018 pre-print. I'd be pretty let down if they release the paper and there's not much more analysis in it than what they already covered in the pre-print.
The site Kumtepe has a occupation hiatus. the second occupation is considered related to Troy and older. IIRC Kum4 is from Kumtepe B layer, but I somehow can't find datings or descriptions in the original paper.
ReplyDelete"Kumtepe A1 is represented by two samplesm of which Hd-17062 is considered an outlier. From Kumtepe A2 we dated three bone sa ples, which do not suffer from the 'old-wood' problem of charcoal. Together with the fourth sample (material not reported) they constrain this interval to 4805-4370 cal B.C,
The dates of Kumtepe B cluster between 3370 and 2910 cal B.C. The three samples of Kumtepe C appear slight;ly younger, with a minimum age of 2670 cal B.C. However, here we already touch the C14 age plateau as shown in Fig.1; hence, the true lower limit could be as high as 2900 cal B.C. (Gabriel 2000).
These dates document a much longer occupation of Kumtepe than perviously thought. Starting towards the end of the sixth millenium B.C (cemetery of A1) and continuing to the fifth millenium, we note a gap in the settlement for most of the fourth millenium (a hiatus phenomenon notes elsewhere in the Aegaen region; Maniatis and Kromer 1990; Manning 1995), based on the area excavated so far. The site is again occupied in the first centuries of the fourth millenium, and continues into the Late Bronze Aga (LBA; Kumtepe C)."
- Troia and the Troad: Scientific Approaches
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI think this is the paper that has details on both Kumtepe samples:
https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdfExtended/S0960-9822%2815%2901516-X
Dated: Kum6 (6,700 BP) and Kum4 (5,500–4,800 BP)
And a lot of site info in the supp info:
https://www.cell.com/cms/10.1016/j.cub.2015.12.019/attachment/afe5a00a-0d47-4e9d-9f3f-4d00952be365/mmc1.pdf
"Kum4 was found buried in Kumtepe IB2 layers (Grave 1), a thousand years later from the previous finds, still on the right side in a flexed position and with the head pointing south."
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteCan you say when is this paper going to get published?
I think that more Steppe ancestry is to be found both in Greece we mentioned in a previous thread and (at least western) Anatolia.
I could be wrong here but I think western Anatolia also has higher CHG component than Iran_N.
@Johnny Ola
Soon I'd say, I have heard he is working on it.
The google books link didn't work for me. Any hope of a quote or longer synopsis?
ReplyDelete@andrew
ReplyDeleteA while ago I found a PDF of that book somewhere online. You just have to do a Google search and it should come up.
All of us at this blog bought into the claims of the Southern Hypothesis to some extent.
ReplyDeleteEven Davidski, believed the CHG ancestry in the PC Steppe came from Eneolithic migrations straight from the Middle East. However, he and most here thought the EHG ancestors were the Indo European speaking side of their ancestry. So, we didn't believe this mean Indo European languages originated in the Middle East.
Anyways, looking back, we should have acknowledged that all Steppe DNA samples at the time came from Samara which is at the northern tip of the Pontic Caspien Steppe. So, that although CHG ancestry first appears there in 4500 BC, and seems to rise overtime till 3300 BC, this does not mean it arrived directly from the Middle East.
We should have considered unsampled populations in the southern part of the Pontic Caspien Steppe already had CHG ancestry thousands of years before 4500 BC, and that they were the ones migrating north into Samara. (I think Mesolithic populations in Southern Russia had mixed EHG/CHG ancestry, this is not confirmed yet, but it at least dates to the Neolithic).
Plus, we should have considered, archaeologically speaking there's no evidence of the migration of a sedentary farming population from the Middle East into the European Steppe. From an archaeological perspective, to say Yamnaya was founded by a Middle Eastern Eneolithic or Neolithic population doesn't make sense.
Disclaimer: I'm not saying anyone here thought Anatolian lanaguage came from Caucasus/Iran. Most here always thought it came from the Steppe. But, everyone here did agree with Harvard's conclusion in 2015 that Mideast ancestry arrived in the Steppe in the Eneolithic.
ReplyDelete@Samuel
ReplyDeleteEven Davidski, believed the CHG ancestry in the PC Steppe came from Eneolithic migrations straight from the Middle East.
I never believed that.
The closest I came to that is when I said that Yamnaya's southern ancestry might be from Neolithic farmers from Iran.
But I didn't argue that too strongly, and dropped it as soon as the CHG genomes came out.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteCheck this out, especially the second half.
The teal people: did they actually exist, and if so, who were they?
@ Onur Dincer
ReplyDeleteOfc modern Samsun is more developed than Ottoman Pontus rofl.We live in 2020.My whole point is that Western Turkey has by far richer cities and provinces.They can easily make researchers there and solve the IE anatolian hypothesis.After so many years and they haven't found anything related with Hittites?They should have clean the whole Hattusa site.
@ Cy Tolliver
ReplyDeleteThis might sounds a little bit hard but i don't care tbh.Lazaridis goes where the money goes.He is 2 years now in Israel and to Arabian states.He is getting sponsored from them becasue Semites are really curious about their origins,so they pushing money.It is a shame that Greece,a country with such a rich history to be the most unsampled state in Europe and not only.He is Pontic Greek as well.. and he should be more focused with Anatolian Genetics.I was waiting from him to make a research about Hittites or something related with Hattians-Hurrians or EBA-MBA-LBA Anatolia like his paper with Minoans and Myceneans.So,it is not only the Dzudzuana..witch i will agree with you it is an important issue that we all wanna know more.
@ David
ReplyDeleteAny thougts?
https://indo-european.eu/2020/06/slavs-in-the-making-history-linguistics-and-archaeology/
This guy is a really tryhard!!!
@Johnny Ola
ReplyDeleteCarlos is a troll and over the years he's become a parody of himself.
See here...
Indo-European crackpottery
@ David
ReplyDelete@ Archi
He looks motivated for good things but i will agree that he has a very anti slavo-baltic agenda.Well i am kinda bored with middle east genes lately and Anatolians.I want something european and more specific Slavic.Do we have any idea about upcoming Pomeranian and Przeworsk samples?Or any paper similar to Proto-Slavs and East Germanics?I am boring to death reading again about Hittites and Myceneans xD.I want somthinhg from eastern Europe..
What else is in the works besides
ReplyDelete1. Fataynovo-Balanovo
2. Ancient Egypt
What happed to the Usatovo Z93 stuff?
@Cy TOlliver
Does any source tell you that there will be more data from UP West Asia? Anything about data from UP North Eurasia, Central Asia or South Asia?
@Johnny Ola
ReplyDeleteSoon, soon, soon, soon, Very soon, as we're told, the paper on Welzin, which has long been tested, will come out. Let's hope it's still in our lives.
@Johnny Ola
ReplyDeleteI agree. I'm also curious on the origin of I2a-DIN. Some Slavic and Germanic DNA would be helpful.
@ Archi
ReplyDelete@ Jatt_Scythian
Very nice.I can't wait samples from Proto-Slavs.Another big achievement it is going to be Single-Grave.What you guys believe about it?
Single Grave is R1b-L51.
ReplyDeleteThere's a paper coming about that soon. One of the many that are coming soon, but not soon enough. Haha.
I am boring to death so i am playing a little bit with G25.These Hungarian individuals look very slavicized while others have a Germanic input.There were repopulations from Austro-Hungarian empire or something similar?I really doubt that these folks represent ancient Hungarians despite their limited to almost none Siberian admixture.Hungarians seems to be a new ethinic population that it took part during Austrian-Hungary ages to me.If i am wrong correct me.
ReplyDeleteModern Hungarians are mostly of West Slavic and German origin.
ReplyDeleteAncient Hungarians, those who brought Uralic speech to the Carpathian Basin, were very Siberian.
Can someone explain how suggesting CHG, Iran_N, or whatever they want to call it, as the original PIE speaking population is considered at all tenable? how many populations had/have such an ancestral component but never spoke an IE language, somehow only the ones with a detectable steppe ancestry do.
ReplyDeleteIt is implied by such statements PIE and its cultural driving force originated south of the Caucasus, in the Neolithic "cradle of humanity"...
but somehow, it only survived by its extension into a peripheral steppe area, whose inhabitants then redistributed it everywhere, it doesn't make sense. It seems like an even less likely version of the Anatolian hypothesis and I don't get why MPG and the like are so hung up on it.
@ David
ReplyDeleteAustrians also showing a slavic admixture.There were mixes probably during Austo-Hungarian Empire.Actually Slavs are everywhere.With exception western europe the rest parts have a Slavic admixture.From Estonia down to Greece the majority of Europeans have a slavic forefather.Even northeast Italy has a Slavic element..!
@LGK
ReplyDeleteCan someone explain how suggesting CHG, Iran_N, or whatever they want to call it, as the original PIE speaking population is considered at all tenable?
It's not at all tenable.
The major problem is that broad ancient components, like this Iran_N-related ancestry, are being taken far too seriously by people who should know better, like the scientists at Broad MIT/Harvard and Max Planck.
They're using this component, which is actually an abstract and a simplification of reality, as a "tracer dye" as it suits them.
I wrote about that here...
The tracer dye
There will be a reckoning for these transgressions I promise you that. :)
@David
ReplyDeleteThanks. Surely just on parsimony it would be the steppe culture that is given benefit of the doubt, so it is weird to see continued insistence it "could be" this element which apparently didn't give PIE to anyone else further south (and southeast, and southwest, where their descendants end up).
I suppose now we largely await characterization of verified Hittites, if they have steppe ancestry, its pretty much over.
Late last year there was announcement of a ~3500 year old skeleton in the important Hittite center at Sapinuwa, from which dna and radiocarbon work was to be conducted. IIRC it was a female, and the Hittites took over this place in the 1600sBC -
it could be a Hattian, but if the dating guideline is correct, too early to be a Kaska invader. So we'll see.
@David
ReplyDeleteI've read that Hungary was pretty devastated by the Turks during the Ottoman-Habsburg Wars of the 16th-17th centuries. Are modern Hungarians the result of Slavic/German settlers brought in to repopulate the country after it was destroyed by the Turks, or is it rather that the 10th-11th century Magyars imposed themselves on an overwhelmingly Slavic/German peasantry of the Carpathian basin and the locals adopted their language?
@Johnny Ola
Well, Lazaridis isn't exactly a free agent, he's part of David Reich's group at Harvard and presumably has to coordinate his interests with the rest of the group to an extent. And honestly, I hope him and others at Harvard or other labs are seriously poring over the Arabian Peninsula and the rest of the Middle East for aDNA, I think it's criminal we don't have any Upper Paleolithic data yet from the Levant, Iraq, Arabia, Iran, Egypt, etc. Though obviously you have the right to be interested in understanding the ethnogenesis of your people.
@Jatt_Scythian
Nah, no special sources unfortunately, just what I read on here, Anthrogenica, and couple geneticists/archaeologists I try to keep up with on Twitter. Actually, if you're interested in South Asia you should look up Michael Petraglia, he does a lot of work in both India and Arabia with a focus on Middle Paleolithic/Upper Paleolithic archaeology. He had paper on a UP archaeological sequence from Sri Lanka not too long ago. No human remains though, sadly.
@Johnny
ReplyDeleteOfc modern Samsun is more developed than Ottoman Pontus rofl.We live in 2020.My whole point is that Western Turkey has by far richer cities and provinces.They can easily make researchers there and solve the IE anatolian hypothesis.After so many years and they haven't found anything related with Hittites?They should have clean the whole Hattusa site.
I meant to say that Samsun has been the most developed city of Pontus since around the 18th century at least. Anyway, do not know the details of the ongoing ancient genome studies in Turkey. Just know that there are several ones ongoing, some including Hittite samples.
@Cy Tolliver
ReplyDeleteMuch of Hungary was depopulated during the Mongol raids, and then repopulated by Slavs and Germans.
Many of the people who died in the Mongol invasions were of course the knights and aristocracy, because they were the first to meet the Mongols on the battle field.
@ Cy
ReplyDelete“ No human remains though, sadly”
There human remains being studied from UP Sri Lanka
@Rob
ReplyDeleteHow so?
Haha . Don’t worry . It’s nothing against you chaps; it’s on the professional spin merchants
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDeleteAll I ask here - is it possible to explain your point of view in a reasonably layman friendly manner without resorting to conspiracy theories about academia?
@David,
ReplyDeleteAh, I forgot about the Mongol raids. I feel bad for the people living in the Carpathian basin, it has got to be the most consistently devastated region of Europe over the past 1500+ years. First Huns, then Gepids, Avars, Slavs, Franks, Magyars, Mongols, Turks. Poor bastards.
If the Hungarian language passed to the locals via elite transmission, then in the 13th century most of the elite gets killed off by the Mongols, the local people still maintained their old overlords language. I guess even with the old guard eliminated, whatever minor notables left among peasantry/middling class who filled the void had by that time been well-inculcateted with a sense of Hungarian identity and language, so there was no more shifting in ethnic or language affiliations, and no need to emulate another people's elite culture, they could just revive/carry-on with the Hungarian identity.
@Rob
You're right, there are human remains from Fa-Hien Cave (however I don't believe the recent paper from Petraglia that I was referring to found any new human skeletal material):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balangoda_Man
Do you know if anyone is actively trying to sequence any of these ancient samples from Sri Lanka?
@ Cy
ReplyDeleteHmm, Paleolithic from Middle East. Personally i am fine with some of the Natufian SAMPLE and later PPNB.I think Natufian is a combination of Iberimaurisian and Dzudzuana like population.It is nkt anything crazy left to see. E1b1 seems to play alone there before the Semitic migration.Personally I would love to see some samples and YDNA from Mesopotamia Neolithic and Chalcolithic periods. Ofc Sumer is going to be a great achievement but as David had mention to Anthrogenica they will come up between Iran Chalc and Levant EBA like the Ebla samples we got lately.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWhat do you think of this? The proportions in Progress and hints of Hotu ancestry.
Distance to: RUS_Progress_En
0.04893755 40.625CHG_6.25Hotu_3.125AG3_50KareliaHG
0.05007963 43.75CHG_6.25Hotu_50KareliaHG
0.05074917 37.5_CHG_6.25Hotu_50_KareliaHG_6.25AG3
0.05153463 43.75CHG_6.25AG3_50KareliaHG
0.05178733 50CHG_37.5KareliaHG_12.5AG3
0.05179522 50CHG_43.75KareliaHG_6.25AG3
0.05341160 50CHG_50KareliaHG
0.05412190 25CHG_25Hotu_50KareliaHG
0.05646237 50CHG_25AG3_25KareliaHG
0.06678868 25CHG_25Hotu_25KareliaHG_25AG3
0.07893653 50CHG_50AG3
Target: RUS_Progress_En
Distance: 4.8432% / 0.04843189
96.6 40.625CHG_6.25Hotu_3.125AG3_50KareliaHG
3.4 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 WHG
Target: RUS_Progress_En
Distance: 4.8271% / 0.04827140
91.4 40.625CHG_6.25Hotu_3.125AG3_50KareliaHG
3.2 RUS_AfontovaGora3
3.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
2.4 GEO_CHG
0.0 WHG
Distance to: RUS_Vonyuchka_En
0.04931634 43.75CHG_6.25Hotu_50KareliaHG
0.05164561 50CHG_43.75KareliaHG_6.25AG3
0.05221932 50CHG_50KareliaHG
0.05269646 50CHG_37.5KareliaHG_12.5AG3
0.05390143 40.625CHG_6.25Hotu_3.125AG3_50KareliaHG
0.05480447 25CHG_25Hotu_50KareliaHG
0.05919393 50CHG_25AG3_25KareliaHG
0.06059956 37.5_CHG_6.25Hotu_50_KareliaHG_6.25AG3
0.06084877 43.75CHG_6.25AG3_50KareliaHG
0.06600237 43.75_CHG_25Hotu_25KareliaHG_6.25AG3
0.07054744 25CHG_25Hotu_25KareliaHG_25AG3
0.08359880 50CHG_50AG3
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En
Distance: 4.4455% / 0.04445486
88.6 43.75CHG_6.25Hotu_50KareliaHG
9.6 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
1.8 GEO_CHG
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 WHG
@ Onur Dincer
ReplyDeleteIt is strange to me that Izmir and the Marmara regions are for so many years unsampled.More close to european culture,kinda rich provinces compared to other with a strong tourist attraction witch is making it easier for ancient DNA IMO.
@ Crm
ReplyDeleteI am modeling Areni,Velikent,Darketi Meshoko and some Maykop samples.They fit really good with Progress EN.Btw both Progress and Khvalynsk culture didn't left any genetic impact to Yamnaya and later steppe cultures,with exception Steppe Maykop.
@CrM
ReplyDeleteIt's just an artifact caused by the algorithm trying to get a better fit because you don't have the right reference samples.
There's no corroborating evidence of any population movements from the Hotu region into the European steppe.
ReplyDeleteTarget: Kura-Araxes_RUS_Velikent:VEK007-009
Distance: 2.9059% / 0.02905930
34.6 GEO_CHG
32.0 TUR_Barcin_N
21.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
9.0 RUS_Progress_En
3.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: ARM_Areni_C:I1634
Distance: 2.8718% / 0.02871781
43.0 TUR_Barcin_N
26.2 RUS_Progress_En
16.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
9.8 GEO_CHG
4.4 Levant_Natufian
Target: ARM_Areni_C:I1632
Distance: 2.3207% / 0.02320746
45.6 TUR_Barcin_N
21.4 RUS_Progress_En
18.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
10.2 GEO_CHG
4.8 Levant_Natufian
Target: ARM_Areni_C:I1631
Distance: 3.4515% / 0.03451494
37.8 TUR_Barcin_N
17.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
16.4 GEO_CHG
12.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
8.8 RUS_Progress_En
7.6 Levant_Natufian
Target: ARM_Areni_C:I1407
Distance: 2.5608% / 0.02560835
45.8 TUR_Barcin_N
23.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
20.0 RUS_Progress_En
9.4 GEO_CHG
1.6 Levant_Natufian
Getting some decent fits with Yamnaya_Caucasus not sure how accurate the model's can be!!!
ReplyDeleteTarget: Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus:ZO2002
Distance: 2.6711% / 0.02671107
58.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
35.2 RUS_Progress_En
4.6 TUR_Barcin_N
0.8 Levant_Natufian
0.6 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus:SA6010
Distance: 2.6034% / 0.02603438
54.4 RUS_Progress_En
40.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus:RK1007
Distance: 3.1467% / 0.03146695
72.8 RUS_Progress_En
19.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
4.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.8 WHG
1.2 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
0.6 Levant_Natufian
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus:RK1001
Distance: 1.6734% / 0.01673440
83.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
14.8 RUS_Progress_En
1.4 RUS_Baikal_N
0.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI never implied that there was a direct movement from Iron into the Steppe, what I think is that the early CHG population in the Steppe were slightly admixed with Hotu or something similar.
@Johnny
I don't think Velikent has direct admixture from Progress. It was probably something like Yamnaya Caucasus. Velikent is a proto-Northeast Caucasian, likely of some early Dagestani branch. Modern Dagestanis being 30-50% Steppe derived, you can see that the mixing process began at least in 2800BC.
One or two of the Meshoko samples definitely have some hints of Progress or something similar. Think it may be related to the "primitive" population that clashed with them.
@ Crm
ReplyDeleteCan you model Progress EN with more modern refrences?I mean don't use Hotu or AfontovaGora3.Do you seeing it being more western or eastern?There isn't some Iran N like admixture in it?
I admit it i can't modeling it xD
ReplyDeleteTarget: RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Distance: 5.2328% / 0.05232813
59.0 RUS_Samara_HG
28.0 GEO_CHG
13.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 4.7141% / 0.04714100
51.0 RUS_Samara_HG
35.0 GEO_CHG
14.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Distance: 5.0649% / 0.05064865
56.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
30.2 GEO_CHG
13.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 4.7302% / 0.04730181
48.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
37.8 GEO_CHG
14.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
"Aegean Coast, Sea of Marmara, and EskiÅŸehir/Porsuk Region
ReplyDeleteFurther towards the north, the Late Chalcolithic is defined by Kumtepe B. This material is clearly a forerunner of Troy 1. Surface finds have revealed a wide distribution along the northern and central Aegean coast. The southernmost finds so far have been made on Chios (Emporio) and in the Izmir area, but their relationship to other Anatolian cultural provinces is difficult to define. A number of radiocarbon dates from Kumtepe itself cover the second half of the fourth millenium B.C.E. (Gabriel 2000), but chronological depth of this tradition remains unclear."
-The Oxford Handbook of Ancient Anatolia
So we now can call this cultural province the entry point of Anatolian languages. Obviously a bold claim but can we see influences from this area in other parts of Anatolia later? In the early of later Bronze Age ?
@Johnny
ReplyDelete"with more modern refrences"
Like what? I was using AG3 because it seems Progress had slightly more ANE than your usual EHG, while lacking the Asian ancestry that is seen in Tyumen, and incidentally Hotu packs the most ANE among Mesolithic-Neolithic Iranian samples, so it could be an artifact. Here I use Abdul Hosein, a less ANE-rich Iranian sample.
Distance to: RUS_Progress_En
0.05086114 50KareliaHG_43.75CHG_6.25TepeAbdulHoseinN
0.05153463 50KareliaHG_43.75CHG_6.25AG3
0.05178733 50CHG_37.5_KareliaHG_12.5AG3
0.05179522 50CHG_43.75_KareliaHG_6.25AG3
0.05341160 50CHG_50KareliaHG
0.05852657 25CHG_25_TepeAbdulHoseinN_50KareliaHG
@ Crm
ReplyDeleteK fair enough.It looks quite ANE admixed and not only from 1 source.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteFrom 2015-2018, you were saying the origin of CHG ancestry in Yamnaya were marriage networks sent females from the Caucasus into the Steppe. You attributed their CHG ancestry to Eneolithic/Neolithic farmers like everyone else.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2015/10/near-eastern-admixture-in-yamnaya.html
You didn't attribute it to Maykop, as the Harvard lab did. You suggested it came in the Neolithic, long before Khvalnsky, which is sommething harvard never suggested. You are also the one who discovered it comes from the Caucasus not Armenia or Iran which was a big discovery you made before any CHG genomes published.
You have been pretty far ahead of the curve on the Indo European discussion, but no one including you had predicted Yamnaya's Middle Eastern ancestry originated in Steppe hunter gatherers.
Which was my point. All of us bought into the idea it arrived it originated in Farmers, and that even the transition from hunter gatherer to farmer in the Steppe was due to migration from the Caucasus.
*Correction I meant transition from hunter gatherer to pastorlists.
ReplyDeleteAnyways, part of the reason no one predicted CHG in Yamnaya came from hunter gatherers, is most had the assumption basal Eurasian came from early Middle Eastern farmers. So, we assumed there was no such thing as true Middle Eastern ancestry until the Neolithic, hence Yamnaya's Middle Eastern ancestry must be from Neolithic farmers.
I was one of the few, who said Middle Eastern variation dates before the Neolithic, this was based on mtDNA. But, obviously, I assumed Yamnaya's CHG ancestry came from Eneolithic farmers.
@ Samuel
ReplyDeleteWhere exactly do you believe is the meeting point between CHG and EHG?
@Johnny,
ReplyDeleteMy opinion is, CHG and EHG mixed with each other in Southern Russia back in around 8000 BC.
I think, Pre-Proto-Indo Europeans in Southern Russia were 55% CHG. I think they migrated north i 5000 BC. They mixed with populations further north in Russia and Ukraine, and by 4000 BC they were 40% CHG/60% EHG.
@Johnny
ReplyDeleteIt is strange to me that Izmir and the Marmara regions are for so many years unsampled.More close to european culture,kinda rich provinces compared to other with a strong tourist attraction witch is making it easier for ancient DNA IMO.
The western coastal areas of Anatolia are indeed the most excavated parts of Turkey, largely due to their economic value for tourism, so they should be the ones with the highest number of skeleton finds. But unfortunately those skeletons began to be sampled for DNA during the last few years and their sampling does not have any likely outcome on tourism, so their sampling depends on how much the major Turkish and foreign universities and institutions are interested and funded for ancient DNA research on them. Like I explained before, the specific locations of the skeletons found in Turkey is not an important factor influencing their being sampled since those studies are invariably performed principally by the major universities and institutions of Turkey and the world irrespective of the specific location of the skeleton found.
@Johnny,
ReplyDeleteIn regard to the exact location EHG and CHG mixed, it would be pretty far south in Russia close to the Caucasus mountains. CHG-rich populations probably didn't live north of Black sea until the Eneolithic.
@Onur
ReplyDeleteI know that Barcin_C has steppe ancestry. And it's probably more than your analysis shows.
Perhaps a hint of things to come
@Johnny
ReplyDeleteI am modeling Areni,Velikent,Darketi Meshoko and some Maykop samples.They fit really good with Progress EN.Btw both Progress and Khvalynsk culture didn't left any genetic impact to Yamnaya and later steppe cultures,with exception Steppe Maykop.
You should do your modelings using Tepecik Ciftlik N as a source population. Barcin N is largely irrelevant for populations east of Anatolia. There was never a Neolithic migration from the west of Anatolia to the Caucasus areas or nearby, Neolithic farmers from the more eastern regions of Anatolia like Tepecik Ciftlik N moved to those regions instead.
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1a5byEejcptHST6X2L6Exb60uGXnyI6tZYI7HWG-EkkE/edit#gid=0
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1-dExi7dxWVfM5p_fppGYRyNBXx0SBeBIDE0r78MpqKw/edit#gid=0
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yc_ibPzJMSIPWcbWEMBleK24dVIa3NJf/view?usp=sharing
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"I think, Pre-Proto-Indo Europeans in Southern Russia were 55% CHG. I think they migrated north i 5000 BC."
All facts are against it. The Indo-Europeans were closest relatives to the Siberian Uralic, both in language and genetics EHG with R1a. Culturally they were northerners, sledge dogs, buried with dogs, made elk-headed scepters, wooden dishes, corded ware which is a Siberian tradition, they had forest terminology, power of elk, wolf and bear. They received 40% CHG only when moving Southern Russia as an admixture of the local substrate and women exchange.
Not to mention that there is no migration to the North at that time. In general, archaeology and anthropology do not find migrations to the North from the Ciscaucasia.
Western Anatolia is connected with Luwians and despite them,later we got Lydians and Phrygians.We are going to see definitely samples with steppe autosomal in the future.But Barcin C and 017 individual from Ikitzepe are both good examples that during C/LC period we got movements probabaly from the west(balkans?).Thought the Ikitzepe(017) individual might get his steppe from a Maykop related source.
ReplyDelete@ Onur
ReplyDeleteI agree with you but using Tepecik Ciftlik N it eats the west asian and Levant components.I know that Barcin is very western shifted but using Tepecik Ciftlik N i cant estimate the CHG/Iran N and even Levant.
Southwest Russia in eneolithic was a population sink
ReplyDeleteThe most economical explanation for PIE is those hunter gatherers closest to EEF in the east; not uralians and their sled dogs
The data from Anatolia will prove it.
@ Ola
ReplyDelete“ They got samples from Ikitzepe(modern Samsun) and Arslantepe(modern Malatya) provinces.. kinda undeveloped regions with lower human development compared to western parts of modern Turkey”
In prehistory (Neolithic; Bronze Age) , eastern Anatolia was “more developed”
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI know that Barcin_C has steppe ancestry. And it's probably more than your analysis shows.
Perhaps a hint of things to come
It must be because Vonyuchka En has more CHG/Iran N-related ancestry than Yamnaya has.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Y-utv2aJ2slFhKn9wb_Q3dgJ_koiL8BT/view?usp=sharing
But how relevant is Vonyuchka En for the IE migrations?
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteDuring Bronze age Anatolia was more developed in the western and central parts.Regions were Hittites and Luwians formed kingdoms.Eastern anatolia is more connected with hurrians,urartians,colchians,mittani,assyrians etc.If we want to found out more about IE ancient anatolians we need samples from western and central anatolia.
@Johnny
ReplyDeleteI agree with you but using Tepecik Ciftlik N it eats the west asian and Levant components.I know that Barcin is very western shifted but using Tepecik Ciftlik N i cant estimate the CHG/Iran N and even Levant.
But then you are overestimating the actual CHG, Iran N and especially Levant N ancestry.
@Onur
ReplyDeleteIt must be because Vonyuchka En has more CHG/Iran N-related ancestry than Yamnaya has.
No, it's because the other reference samples I used were more appropriate.
But how relevant is Vonyuchka En for the IE migrations?
Not that relevant, but it has the classic steppe profile and is older than Barcin_C (Yamnaya is younger and so after the fact).
@ Johhny
ReplyDeleteI used quotation marks ' more developed' because it's a loaded term. What makes someone more developed is a somewhat theoretical question
Just because western Anatolia was the core of IE (I agree with you there), it doesn't mean it's more developed, although you of course are entitled to personally appreciate it more. In fact, what my point was, the Neolithic, and urbanization spread from East to West. But that doens;t necssarily make it better
@ Onur
ReplyDeleteIn my situation both me and my mother scoring Barcin and Tepecik Ciftlik N.I am not sure how accurate it is..
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThe most economical explanation for PIE is those hunter gatherers closest to EEF in the east; not uralians and their sled dogs
You mean hunter-gatherer populations such as Ukraine Meso and Ukraine N?
@ Cy
ReplyDeleteI saw this
https://www.shh.mpg.de/318101/Roberts-Humans-at-the-End-of-South-Asia
@Johnny
ReplyDeleteIn my situation both me and my mother scoring Barcin and Tepecik Ciftlik N.I am not sure how accurate it is..
But I guess you and your mother's Tepecik Ciftlik N is far higher than your Barcin N.
@ Onur
ReplyDelete''You mean hunter-gatherer populations such as Ukraine Meso and Ukraine N?''
Not necessarily quite that 'block-ish'. These were fluid netowrks which shifted every few hundred years until they expanded after 4000 BC. But all the relevant lineages seem to be there in those 2 entities you mentioned
@Rob
ReplyDeleteNot necessarily quite that 'block-ish'. These were fluid netowrks which shifted every few hundred years until they expanded after 4000 BC. But all the relevant lineages seem to be there in those 2 entities you mentioned
How and through which networks did their later descendants acquire their substantial CHG-like ancestry according to you?
Of course, Hittito-Luwian material will show the correctness of the Kurgan theory, we all know that Hittito-Luwian will have WSH, and not what the marginals fantasize. But the important thing here is that, as far as I understand, no inhumation burial sites that are reliably related to Hittito-Luwian have been found. In Central Anatolia, only extremely poor burials of the lowest social class and slaves have been found, all of them Hati. Elite are cremation burials. We can only hope for mixed marriages and childrens. As far as we can judge from the images, the Hati and the Hittites were very different from each other, the Hati were very nosy, and the Hittites were not, they were rather of the (Eastern) Pontic type.
ReplyDelete@Rob,
ReplyDeleteI'm done bickering with you. Peace.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteI will agree with you even if some scholars have mention that Hittites and Hattians were looking the same phenomically.But the long and hooked noses are kinda west asian trait that it can be found mostly in areas-regions with high CHG/Iran N admixture.And as a person with kinda long and very leptorihne nose i really doubt steppe populations brought this trait.It is obvious that our current samples from Anatolia are more related with Hattians,Hurrians,kaskians and pre-Hittite folks in general.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteIndeed most samples we got from Anatolia are Hattian,Hurrian,Kaskian etc.Mostly plebs or low caste.Hittites were something like the Indo-Arya folks similar to Mittani and maybe like Kassites who brought indoeuropean names.As for noses..people with high CHG/Iran N admixture are more likely to have a big,leptorihne and often hooked nose.And Hattians,Kaskians and Hurrians had definitely some decent CHG/Iran N admixture.Most Caucasians and Anatolians are very likely to have a big nose(inclunding me).I am wondering if it is related with ANE component.West Asian noses are very similar with those of native american folks...
Rob said:
ReplyDelete"I saw this
https://www.shh.mpg.de/318101/Roberts-Humans-at-the-End-of-South-Asia"
Early humans used bows and arrows to hunt in tropical rainforests 48,000 years ago, study says
https://edition.cnn.com/2020/06/12/world/bow-arrows-sri-lanka-cave-scn/index.html
@ Archi
ReplyDelete“ they were rather of the (Eastern) Pontic type. ”
Well they must have got their noses from their east Pontic mothers haha
@ Onur
ReplyDelete“ How and through which networks did their later descendants acquire their substantial CHG-like ancestry according to you?”
Began as early as 5000; but greatly accelerated after 4000 when old Europe collapsed
This is Sredni Stog and post-Stog
The main focus of the Black Sea hunter gatherers now shifted toward the north caucuses Piedmont. As we know. progress type people are the archetypal “steppe signature”, but their male lineages for some reason don’t appear to have been the ones that really expanded.
So it means that there are autosomal signatures suffused widely and was taken up by neighbours who then expanded the so-called steppe signature out of the steppe
@Rob
ReplyDeleteWhat do you make of the (apparent) lack of EEF in Afanasievo?
@All
what's this I read about Sredny Stog (Ukraine_Eneolithic Alexandria I6561 from Mathieson et al 2018) being somewhat contaminated and "Questionable", as of March this year?
@LGK
ReplyDeleteAfanasievo doesn't lack EEF. It has the same amount as Yamnaya, because it's practically identical to Yamnaya.
The idea that Yamnaya lacked EEF was wrong. I was the first one to point this out.
And I don't think there's anything wrong with I6561. Some people have apparently questioned the C14 dating.
In any case, there are more Eneolithic samples with R1a coming from the steppe, from Usatovo and from along the Don River very close to Alexandria.
@David
ReplyDeleteCool, when did the thinking on that change - after Mathieson samples?
Re: Alexandria. At a second glance the reference even got the sample number wrong, perhaps its author was just misinformed all round.
@LGK
ReplyDeleteSee here...
Ahead of the pack
Usatovo aka Usatovskaya being a part of the Tripolye culture, specifically late Western variant by archeological definition.
ReplyDeleteestimates for the end of Usatovo and of Tripolye CII in general should take into account
ReplyDeletethat there is little overlap between the Late Tripolye, Yamnaya and Globular Amphora
cultures. Objects of Usatovskaya origin are very rarely found within Yamnaya contexts,
which suggests a transition occurring no later than c. 3000/2900 BC (Patakova 1979;
Szmyt 2010; Zbenovich 1974).
I was right, you were wrong. 5 years.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteThe idea that Usatovo was part of the Tripolye culture is just one theory based on archeology.
Another theory is that Usatovo moved into Tripolye territory from the steppe and took over.
The second theory makes sense considering the ancient DNA from Usatovo that is coming soon, because there's a huge difference between Usatovo and Tripolye samples.
No. It's only considered a regional variant of the Tripolye culture in all of archeological literature. Local Steppe people who joined the Tripolye culture, asI have been saying 5 years, yes.
ReplyDeleteThe irony is almost too much to handle that you and other posters on this blog have been salivating over the idea of being descended from yamnaya invading and killing off the farmers for all these years, then in the end it turned out the farmers were your ancestors that were driven out of the steppe by the yamnaya and into the CWC zone. Primitive people with still no metal in 2800 B.C.. Hilarious.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteUsatovo people didn't "join" the Tripolye culture, they replaced it.
You'll see this very clearly, because there will be a big shift in the DNA to a more steppe-like profile.
That's also when kurgans started to appear in Tripolye territory.
Also, early CWC is basically identical to Yamnaya, with the same minor level of farmer ancestry.
ReplyDeleteYou know this, right?
"Took over" and lived amongst the rest of Tripolye from 3600 B.C. until 2900 B.C. (when the rest of Tripolye ceases to exist) and reappear in the CWC zone 2800 B.C.
ReplyDeleteQuite the dynamic invasion force. Strange move for them to "invade" the inhospitable, cold, depopulated North, which had already been vacated by GAC (who remained on the Steppe until 2350 B.C.) just as Yamnaya showed up. Yamnaya, who have no R1a, and just Z2103.
Why are people with pet theories so attracted to the comment section of this blog?
ReplyDeleteI'm surprised Carlos hasn't ever commented here.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteIt's not my personal theory that the early Corded Ware people were basically identical to Yamnaya people and that they came from the steppe (rather than from the Tripolye culture).
This is a well documented and accepted fact that has been covered in several major papers recently.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteDid you see this paper published yesterday?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-67445-0
"...In brief, it is apparent that distinctive mtDNA variants have been brought into the region by the ancestors of Umbri Plestini and preserved in some, perhaps more isolated, sub-areas. These ancestors reached Umbria coming from various population sources at different times during the Holocene, from early Neolithic farmers spreading across the Mediterranean to Bronze Age and Medieval connections with central-eastern Europeans, possibly including few nomadic groups (Yamnaya) from the Pontic-Caspian steppes..."
@Carlos
ReplyDeleteThere are Iron Age Umbrian samples coming soon and they have quite a bit of steppe ancestry.
Were Hattians plebs or low castes though? I was under the impression that the Hittites venerated Hattic language and their deities.
ReplyDelete"In Hittite there are many loanwords, particularly religious vocabulary, from the non-Indo-European Hurrian and Hattic languages. The latter was the language of the Hattians, the local inhabitants of the land of Hatti before being absorbed or displaced by the Hittites. Sacred and magical texts from Hattusa were often written in Hattic, Hurrian, and Luwian, even after Hittite became the norm for other writings."
The early Corded Ware people came from the Usatovo group of the Tripolye culture. The Usatovo group does not stop being part of the Tripolye cultural and material context because they have steppe genetics. They were highly autosomally related to the Yamnaya culture which ultimately replaced them. The Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures were not related paternally. The Corded ware people are the direct descendants of the migrating Usatovo group.
ReplyDelete@Romulus
ReplyDeleteNope, Usatovo and Corded Ware people shared R1a, but early Corded Ware people were much more like Yamnaya.
The similarity between the early Corded Ware people and Yamnaya is well documented in scientific literature, so you can't argue with this. It's a pointless cause.
@CrM
ReplyDeleteEven so, they probably did not afford much respect to the Hattian commoners. So on balance, poor quality, non-elite graves in Hittite-occupied Hatti contexts are more likely to represent non-Hittite people.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThese Usatovo samples do not have the Steppe Maykop ancestry found in that Romanian Z93 guy, right?
@Gabriel
ReplyDeleteThese Usatovo samples do not have the Steppe Maykop ancestry found in that Romanian Z93 guy, right?
I don't know, but I don't think so.
The Romanian Z93 sample looks like a badly dated Sarmatian to me.
Archi, do you have more knowledge about Welzin that you can share with us? Is their Y-DNA really Eastern European, as rumors suggest?
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteIs his exotic ancestry not rather Maykop/Mereke-like? Later Sarmatians/Scytians would have more East Asian and less WSHG-shifted ancestry. Also he is Z93+ but Z94- which is rather rare among later groups in the steppe most Sarmatians would velong to a clade under Z94>Z2124. Of course this is not proving much but he looks unusual for later Sarmatians/Scythians too. Maybe if misdated a Pre-Scythian Indo-Iranian/Cimmerian?
Distance to: ROU_BA:GLAV_14_Co
0.04266253 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.04296424 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.04581820 MNG_Afanasievo_1
0.04697995 KAZ_Kyzlbulak_MLBA2
0.04778608 RUS_Potapovka_MLBA
0.04868143 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
0.05018216 Sarmatian_KAZ
0.05137526 Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe
0.05139122 KAZ_Maitan_MLBA_Alakul_o
"sample": "Custom:Romania_BAS11955_scaled",
"fit": 1.5266,
"KAZ_Mereke_MBA": 38.33,
"RUS_Progress_En": 36.67,
"UKR_Globular_Amphora": 15.83,
"UKR_Sredny_Stog_II_En": 9.17,
"RUS_Tyumen_HG": 0,
@ LGK
ReplyDeleteAfansievo
What David said
But whether it’s 5 % or 9%; it doesn’t change anything ; because R1b-M269 were the very eastern wing; and their contact with EEF was only indirectly mediated by the westerly Bug-Dniester groups; Eg the appearance of I2a2 in Samara Neolithic
In fact it would be interesting to see what ancestral R1b-M259 looks like (if ever found) in, say, 4000 BC
People are taking steps signal way too literally, including the professionals. It’s become a a means to an end without understanding what it really represents. I think some guy called ANE-excavator made a pretty good critique about the approaches being taken quite some months ago
To be clear; within the steppe - the genesis of CHG/ EHG is not necessarily equatable with the genesis of PIE; in fact I think it’s difficult to claim so although it’s not theoretically impossible
ReplyDelete*outside the steppe* -there is a very clear correlation between steppe people and such ancestry - esp. in the 3000-2000 Bc period (but even here divergent methodology between papers & sometimes Neglect of cultural context has in the past produced some problematic conclusions)
And, the major spread of steppe ancestry to outside regions was due to a prolific expansion of the ‘eastern wing’, but IMO not the first one
Romulus said...
ReplyDelete"Usatovo aka Usatovskaya being a part of the Tripolye culture, specifically late Western variant by archeological definition."
This is not true, do not deceive. Usatovo is not a part of Tripolye culture from any plan, it is absolutely separate culture. All talk that Usatovo is Late Tripolye culture ended in the 80s of last century, when it was unequivocally proved that the funeral pottery of Early Usatovo related to the Tripolye culture is not pottery of the Usatov culture, but pottery seized by the conquerors from the Tripolye substrate. This pottery is only in the prestigious burials of Early Usatovo and it is few, in the late Usatovo Tripoli pottery at all, and the settlements it was not at all.
Except for funeral pottery in the early Usatovo imported from Tripolye in Usatovo culture absolutely nothing Tripolye.
Romulus said...
ReplyDelete"No. It's only considered a regional variant of the Tripolye culture in all of archeological literature."
Lies, absolute lies. Archaeological literature has long failed to consider it part of the Tripoli culture. All archaeologists, only sometimes Ukrainian archaeologists troll as they are simply obsessed with Tripillya culture. They are beggars and thus require funding.
@Romulus,
ReplyDeleteEarly Corded Ware is 100% Yamnaya-like. Which is 10% Farmer.
Tripolye people were 100% Farmer. Henceforth at most early Corded Ware is 10% Tripolye. It'd be really weird if Tripolye culture was succedded by a people who only traced 10% of their ancestry to the original Tripolye people.
Originally, your claim was that Early Corded Ware was 30% Farmer, 70% Yamnaya-like, and that the 30% came from Tripolye. You also cliamed Bell Beaker derives from Tripolye people who had 50% Steppe. This is not possible because we now know Bell Beaker comes from Corded Ware, who was...originally 100% Yamnaya like.
I'm not seeing anything backing up your claim Tripolye is the source of the IE migrations in Late Neolithic Europe.
Usatovo culture clearly represents the domination of Tripolye peoples by steppe migrants. There is a class divide when it comes to burials and it is not the cuceteni graves which are the upper echelon.
ReplyDeleteRomulus said
ReplyDelete"The Usatovo group does not stop being part of the Tripolye cultural and material context"
That's a lie, you know absolutely nothing, you just fantasize in order to cheat. Everything you write isn't true for someone who doesn't know anything.
CrM said...
"Were Hattians plebs or low castes though? I was under the impression that the Hittites venerated Hattic language and their deities."
We know a lot about the Hittites from the texts. We know that Hittite kings married Hattish princesses, because power in the country of the Hatts was transferred through the female line, and before coming to Anatolia, the Hittites had no kings. It was the Hattish mother who passed on the throne to her son. We know that the Hittites borrowed many of the religious rituals from the civilized Hattians (like Caesar participated in Cleopatra's rituals, borrowing religion is a frequent phenomenon). We know that the Hattians were a lower class, even their heads were forbidden to address the king, they had no right to vote even for requests.
We know the Hittites were buried by cremation, but the Hattians weren't. We know that the Hattian burials found in Central Anatolia are very poor, so the lower classes or children are buried there. On the other hand, cremation burials can be said that many of them were made with sacrificial animals such as horses and dogs.
According to https://books.google.com.au/books?id=gbfDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=alacahoyuk+elite+burial&source=bl&ots=wXgDoZ71pL&sig=ACfU3U0Y6vTc9tu8sJ5m1kELK6OAfy3shg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidxNnkn67qAhVhyDgGHQE9AvcQ6AEwAnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=alacahoyuk%20elite%20burial&f=true
ReplyDeleteCremation wasn’t used in central Anatolia
Copper Axe said...
ReplyDelete"Usatovo culture clearly represents the domination of Tripolye peoples by steppe migrants. There is a class divide when it comes to burials and it is not the cuceteni graves which are the upper echelon."
In the Usatovo culture there is a division into elite burials and ordinary ones. In this context it should be considered as two components of this people, because there are two different anthropological types of Steppe and Mediterranean.
Rob said...
ReplyDelete"According to https://books.google.com.au/books?id=gbfDDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA276&lpg=PA276&dq=alacahoyuk+elite+burial&source=bl&ots=wXgDoZ71pL&sig=ACfU3U0Y6vTc9tu8sJ5m1kELK6OAfy3shg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwidxNnkn67qAhVhyDgGHQE9AvcQ6AEwAnoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=alacahoyuk%20elite%20burial&f=true
Cremation wasn’t used in central Anatolia"
Learn to read, there about the Early Bronze Age. And we are talking about the Hittite time (Late Bronze Age). Well, at least you should read this Hittite Mortuary Practices http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:1111635/FULLTEXT01.pdf
It was the Hittites-Luwians who apparently brought the practice of cremation to Anatolia.
What is going on with these guys in Anthrogenica who trying all day to convince that many of the Armenian samples in G25 have outlier origins.What they doing is actually 100% wrong.I am not getting to position to argue with them,since the moderator team don't give a s...!!!
ReplyDeleteWho are they,to say who's outlier and who's not?
@ Crm
ReplyDeleteBoth Hattians and Hittites have influenced from each other.But the Indoeuropean influence is much stronger,thought i will agree with you that many words among Hittites have definitely some pre-Hittite roots.Anyway it is not just Hittites but during IA we got Prhygians,Lydians,Muski,Cimmerians and all of them have a connection with steppe.Tbh i started being more interested for IA samples than BA xD.
@ Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteAgree.Poor Tripolye and Globular amphora males!Imagine yourself being a male husband during those ages xD.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteOkay, ill look further into it.
@ Ola
you're a bit of a partisan there mate. aDNA is for genuine scholars. Not basement Crusaders. Settle down. There's a lot you dont understand
That the new program gives reduced standard errors for low coverage samples does not mean that the model is an optimal one.
ReplyDeleteSo I would give only 1% importance to results of any 10k snp samples.
A better calculation algorithm is no substitute for missing data.
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteIt's not really about reducing standard errors you fool. Read this very carefully...
https://github.com/DReichLab/AdmixTools/blob/master/qpfs.pdf
Yes it is about getting a good model
ReplyDeleteGIVEN the available snps you fool, by utilizing most of the available snps of the low coverage sample.
What if the 990k other missing snps paint a completely different picture of the sample. Ever thought that, idiot? Qpfstats do not magically generate the missing snps.
Rob said:
ReplyDelete"*outside the steppe* -there is a very clear correlation between steppe people and such ancestry - esp. in the 3000-2000 Bc period (but even here divergent methodology between papers & sometimes Neglect of cultural context has in the past produced some problematic conclusions)"
Putting *h₁éḱwos before the *weg'-h-o
or is it
ReplyDeletePutting the *weg'-h-o before the *h₁éḱwos
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteYou have to be more specific my friend and leave your puzzles.Also i am not accepting observations from you but only from David.I am partisan in what exactly?If it’s someone here who’s taking serious aDNA then its me.As for the Armenian issue with G25 is getting annoying af.There are not Armenian outliers in G25.They all plot in the middle of south caucasus and Mesopotamia.
The decline
ReplyDeleteThe end of the long history of Cucuteni-Tripolye is connected with the end of the Usatovskaya,
Kasperovskaya, Sofi evskaya and Gorodsk local groups (the end of the CII/γII stage). During this
period, a certain consolidation of the Tripolye cultural groups is observed, possibly conditioned
by the appearance (Early Bronze Age) of the Globular Amphora Culture communities (in the
northwest), and by the advance into the west of the Pit Grave Culture tribes (from the steppes
of the southeast). At the beginning of the third millennium cal BC, Tripolye as an ethno-cultural
phenomenon disappears from the historical arena. Its bearers dissolved amongst other ethnicities,
leaving no noticeable traces in the archaeological assemblages of Bronze Age sites.
House typology
What were the Tripolian houses like? Settlements consisted of either (in some cases both)
wood and clay ‘ground-houses’ (used here to mean houses built entirely above ground level),
or semi-sunken (deeply semi-sunken and shallowly semi-sunken) houses (similar to pit
houses). The early Tripolian tribes built two types of dwellings: the semi-sunken type, very
much resembling the mud huts that were quite common for the Neolithic Age, and the ground
type, which were of rather complex design. The ground-dwellings were rectangular in fl oor
plan. Often the buildings consisted of 1–3 rooms containing stoves built with thick clay walls
incorporating some wattling. Each house had one small (nuclear) family living in it. Semi-mud
and mud huts existed during all stages of Tripolye culture’s existence. It is possible that when
they arrived in a new place people initially built light ground-houses (the remains of which
have not been found) or deeply semi-sunken ones, and later switched to wattle and daub houses
for more prolonged use (Passek, 1938). In some Dniester-area settlements there were shallow
semi-sunken buildings that were later overlaid with wattle and daub ground-structures. In thlate stage, however, particularly at the end, the number of semi-sunken dwellings increased. In
Chapaevka, in the Dnieper region, only semi-sunken houses were built. The same is true for
settlements of the Sofi evskiy-type in the Dnieper region, and for the majority of the Usatovskiytype sites in the Black Sea region. In most cases, the co-existence of two types of dwellings in
one settlement corresponds to different stages of its development: the semi-sunken belonging
to the early stage, and the ground-houses to the subsequent stage
The Tripolye Culture
Giant-Settlements in Ukraine
Formation, Development and Decline -2012
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteSingle Grave is fully L51? Anything below that? Or Any other lineages like I2a or I1?
Also does Fataynovo have anything besides Z93?
Also what culture are those R1a from the steppe near the Don River attributed to?
ReplyDeleteWas Usatovo a dead end?
"I doubt Northern Beaker has any ancestry from Corded Ware. They're two different tribes represented by two different paternal lineages. Beaker's R1b P312 comes from Yamnaya-like people maybe even Yamnaya itself. So, the high Steppe in northern Beaker has nothing to do with Corded Ware-Yamnaya moved as far west as Hungary with Vucedol. This is confirmed by the Z2103 in Vucedol. It isn't too crazy to think Yamnaya or some relative moved as far west as Britain without mixing with Corded Ware. Considering R1b L151 came from the Steppe there's no need for Corded Ware admixture to explain their Steppe ancestry. It makes more sense Bell Beaker and Corded Ware are separate phenomenons like LBK and Cardial Ware"
ReplyDeleteDo any of you know who is the genetics genius who wrote these words on this blog a year and a half ago?
That same person now writes-"This is not possible because we now know Bell Beaker comes from Corded Ware, who was...originally 100% Yamnaya like"
Any smart person can understand that most partisans work in one direction and that they will never tire of making a fool of themselves. The funniest thing is that almost everyone still believes that kind of comments
Supporters of the Kurgan theory would be able to affirm that L51 is native to Mongolia or China as long as it does not accept reality and acknowledge mistakes, no wonder they want to ban us
2500 Reich genomes has allowed us to check many haplogroup Y assignments and there are interesting surprises. Maybe you should take a look.
Romulus is right a short time ago that all Kurganists dreamed of conquering old Europe by their ancestors, the horsemen of the steppes, and now it turns out that they share that farming ancestry with Western Europe.
interesting article:
ReplyDeletePopulation genomics on the origin of lactase persistence in Europe and South Asia
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.30.179432v1
"It is therefore reasonable to assume that the T allele arose somewhere in the Pontic Steppe and emigrated into Central Europe via the Yamnaya expansion in ca. 3000 BC.
...
Thus, it appears that LP in Europe and South Asia shares the early history of the expanding Steppe ancestry in the Bronze
Age, and offers strong selective advantages to its local bearers in lactose-relevant niche construction."
There's nothing of Tripolye in the Usatovo culture at all. The type of burial has nothing to do with Tripolye, the anthropological type has nothing to do with Tripolye, house-building has nothing to do with Tripolye, the economy is quite different - shepherd cattle breeding, has nothing to do with Tripolye, metal products have nothing to do with Tripolye, corded ware pottery - typically steppe, it is used everywhere and has nothing to do with Tripolye. Only in the early Usatovo and in the graves there is Tripolye pottery - it was a sign of luxury, in fact, it was a sign of wealth and mining, successful trade, maybe a successful capture of the bride from Tripolye. This was previously taken as a sign of origin, which was recognized as a mistake by all archaeologists, only some Ukrainian still cheat.
ReplyDeleteThe pots are not all archeology and not all signs of archeological culture.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI can quote you about 5 papers, every paper I can find on Usatovo. Every issue of Pontic studies. All describe Usatovo as sub group of Tripolye. A distinct group of steppe people with a unique culture, many steppe traits, and of course more steppe than farmer genetically, but part of the tripolye horizon and disappear with that horizon. That they lived in Tripolye houses in Tripolye settlements exemplefies the relationship. Your quotes about the burial customs are probably wrong. What are your comments based on, share it with me. I am open minded but every piece of published literature on the subject is aligned.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteYour quote about the Tripolye farmers being 100% EEF is just flat out false. Don't be a nuisance because you are stupid and forgetful.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61190-0
Even the older ones from the other paper had EHG.
Saying Corded Ware is "100 % Yamnaya" is also a complete lie. No paper on them ever described them as such. Just a slipperly slope of exaggerations here made by people out of excuses. They have more farmer ancestry and Y chromosome from Usatovo.
Fyi, I asked Narasimhan about the Zamanbaba_N sample and he said he is looking into it. If it was contaminated I would expect it to say so in the s/s as others do.
ReplyDeleteRomulus said...
ReplyDelete"That they lived in Tripolye houses in Tripolye settlements exemplefies the relationship."
They didn't live in Tripolye homes and settlements, don't imagine. To write such an unscientific heresy is nothing to know about Usatovo and Tripolye. It is that categorically neither houses nor settlements have any connection with Tripolye . I know what I write, but you don't understand what you write.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete""It is therefore reasonable to assume that the T allele arose somewhere in the Pontic Steppe and emigrated into Central Europe via the Yamnaya expansion in ca. 3000 BC. ... Thus, it appears that LP in Europe and South Asia shares the early history of the expanding Steppe ancestry in the Bronze Age, and offers strong selective advantages to its local bearers in lactose-relevant niche construction."
The same Lactase Persistence T allele (on the same haplotype background as Europeans) is also found in North African Berbers, and in the Fulani and Hausa, where it is associated with R1b-V88.
Romulus said..
ReplyDelete"Saying Corded Ware is "100 % Yamnaya" is also a complete lie. No paper on them ever described them as such. Just a slipperly slope of exaggerations here made by people out of excuses. They have more farmer ancestry and Y chromosome from Usatovo. "
Y chromosome from Usatovo of Corded Ware is your fantasies and lie.
You see, you're writing again on issues you don't understand, and categorical statements. The autosomes here were the early CWSs from Poland and the Baltic States. But you just don't know the subject, you accuse someone of lying, although you lie.
Target Distance DEU_LBK_N UKR_Globular_Amphora Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81 0.01470721 1.6 1.4 97.0
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629 0.02497338 6.0 0.0 94.0
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp 0.01505478 0.4 12.6 87.0
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242 0.01519865 0.0 11.6 88.4
Correct me if I'm wrong as im not too certain about this but...
ReplyDeleteD-stats are based on polymorphisms. To find a snp polymorphism in a population is dependant on the number of samples you have at that snp position.
Therefore, z-scores will always be closer to zero for low coverage, low n populations. D-stats are meant to be used with populations not individual samples.
I'm my experience d-stats are very powerful for certain analysis but in other cases other methods (pca etc) are more valid.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteAbove I quoted published literature on Usatovo house typology which directly contradicts that.
@Romulus,
ReplyDeleteI said Early Corded Ware is 100% Yamnaya-like. Which is 100% true. And I gurentee you that early Tripolye will turn out to be 100% Farmer.
Tripolye admixed with Steppe people, but they never would have reached the point of becoming 100% Yamnaya.
Your theory was based on the idea, Early Corded Ware had significant farmer ancestry. Turns out Early Corded Ware did not. So, you were wrong, it is time to own up to that, and stop being dishonest.
@Romulus,
ReplyDeleteYou are the same guy, who argued Bell Beaker comes from Tripolye because a few samples were admixed and therefore had vague similarities to the most farmer rich Beaker samples.
No, Bell beaker comes from Corded Ware, this is now an established fact. And Corded Ware does not come from Tripoly.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteWhat you're going to have to fall back on is, not only was Ustavo mostly Steppe, but that they were 90% Steppe when they created Corded Ware. I guess you could say well, some were 90%, some were 80% or 70%.
That's grabbing on straws.
@Romulus,
ReplyDeleteSure Tripolye wasn't 100% farmer, I was wrong on that.
But they were a originally a farmer population who then admixed with Steppe. To say they gave rise to Corded Ware doesn't work, because Early Corded Ware was only 10% farmer. Period. There's no wiggle room in this.
Steppe and Farmers admixed with each other earliest in Southeast Europe, but those early Steppe/Farmer admixed populations there are not the ancestors of Corded Ware. The farmer ancestry in Corded Ware comes from Central Europe (Globular Amphora).
The paper you linked, suggested farmer-Steppe mixing dates back earlier than thought, but they ignore was only occurring in Southeast Europe.
@ Mayuresh
ReplyDelete“ Putting *h₁éḱwos before the *weg'-h-o“
Haha hows that ?
@vladimir.
ReplyDeletethis may be of interest to you. http://mathii.github.io/2019/10/12/the-spread-of-the-european-lactase-persistence-allele
Iain mathieson's blog. emphasis (bolded) is mine
"One of the interesting things about the “European” persistence allele is that it is also relatively common in parts of South Asia (Gallego Romero et al. 2012). This is likely because the same haplotype was brought to South Asia through gene flow with relatives of the same Steppe populations that brought it to Europe. Looking at the data from Narasimhan et al. 2019 it seems that the allele appeared in South Asia much later than in Europe. Sampling is a bit limited, but its earliest appearance in data is around 2000 BP in Butkara and Swat. The present-day frequency of ~25% in some South Asian populations (e.g. 1000 Genomes PJL) suggests strong, recent selection perhaps similar to what we see in Iberia. In any case seems like selection on the alelle was in parallel in Europe and South Asia. It is probably not the case that the Steppe ancestry in South Asia was from a population that already had a high frequency of the allele."
Do we have any idea what it was pretty much the autosomal DNA of Ottomany and Coțofeni culture's?Mostly EEF with a decent amount of steppe?
ReplyDeleteNot sure i have ever seen the below paper discussed here before:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-61190-0
Gist of it is that steppe ancestry is indeed in CTC by 3500-3100BC (late period), though the authors seem to prefer "Mesolithic" for the relevant steppe source.
If I understand correctly - the Rob/Romulus perspective is that "steppe ancestry" was already in CTC(Tripolye) people well before its collapse and before it appears in CWC, and thus there is a "chance" that PIE spread out of this mixed eastern EEF - Steppe group, rather than more drastic expansion of later Yamnaya and their derived groups.
I guess it would depend on looking closely at the specific Y-DNA lineages belonging to the respective populations
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteYou have to stop arguing that Corded Ware is derived from Tripolye or I'll have to ban you. I don't tolerate insanity or trolling here.
Please make yourself familiar with the latest scientific literature on the topic, because this is your last warning.
I'll get you started with a link, and then it's up to you.
The Battle Axe people came from the steppe (Malmstrom et al. 2019)
I don't have anything left to say on the subject that this doesn't cover.
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/a/p1POVWK
Rob said...
ReplyDelete@ Mayuresh
“ Putting *h₁éḱwos before the *weg'-h-o“
Haha hows that ?
Nothing really. Just a badly placed joke trying to understand the following comment about the correlation/causation between ancestry and language.
"To be clear; within the steppe - the genesis of CHG/ EHG is not necessarily equatable with the genesis of PIE; in fact I think it’s difficult to claim so although it’s not theoretically impossible
*outside the steppe* -there is a very clear correlation between steppe people and such ancestry - esp. in the 3000-2000 Bc period (but even here divergent methodology between papers & sometimes Neglect of cultural context has in the past produced some problematic conclusions)
And, the major spread of steppe ancestry to outside regions was due to a prolific expansion of the ‘eastern wing’, but IMO not the first one"
The guys are right on this one. There are sharp differences between Usatavo & C-T.
ReplyDeleteSofievka, Gordinesti, Usatavo; are best described as post-Tripolje groups.
Seems like C-T cam under pressure from several directions- steppe, Baden, GAC
Of course, aDNA will clarify exact relationships ; ideally of flat & barrow burials
Romulus said...
ReplyDelete"Above I quoted published literature on Usatovo house typology which directly contradicts that."
You didn't quote anything. You just pulled out some text that had nothing to do with Usatovo, so don't cheat.
Samuel Andrews said...
"No, Bell beaker comes from Corded Ware, this is now an established fact."
There's no proof of that. There's only evidence of BB assimilation at CWC borders.
To end the relationship between Usatovo and Tripolye, it is necessary to clarify the only issue related to pottery. Indeed, in the early Usatovo burials there is pottery of the Tripolye type, it is in the burials, but is practically not used in the home, and its distribution is very interesting. The largest number of up to 30% of it is in the Kurgans, outside the kurgan burials of its 18%-6%-0% in different places. That is, before us is a clear sign that the steppes put this pottery in the barrows as a certain element of prestige, but they themselves practically did not use it, except for the possible use of its Tripolye women at an early stage of this culture.
ReplyDelete@Archi
ReplyDeleteWell we already have several Corded Ware samples with R1b-L51, and they’re just like other Corded Ware samples.
So how could they be assimilated Beakers, if they are just Corded Ware autosomally?
@Sofia Aurora
ReplyDelete"May wanna check out this: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.06.30.179432v1"
"An interesting caveat is related to Tuscans. Clearly,the present-day TSI is an outlier in terms of European LP, exhibiting an exceptionally low T allele frequency in a large sample. By comparing TSI genomes with other Europeans and Middle Easterners, Pardo-Seco et al. (2014)revealed that admixture took place between 1100 and 600 BC.Although this admixture event may have beenmuch older and even recurrent, it implies the partial eastern origin of the non-Indo-European Etruscans, ancestral to Tuscans in the Bronze/Iron Age."
@Gabriel
"So how could they be assimilated Beakers, if they are just Corded Ware autosomally?"
This is as it should be,they will not differ with a mixture of WSH+EEF, all such mixtures are identical.
https://i.ibb.co/hKGCKcb/WSH-EEFmixes.png
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteThe Corded Ware Poland R1b L51* (xL151, P312) is identical mix as R1a M417 in Poland, 70% Steppe and 30% Farmer.
Bell Beaker R1b P312 in Poland is 50% Steppe, 50% farmer. Plus, they have different type of R1b than earlier Corded Ware did in Poland.
So, there's no way the R1b L51* Corded Ware pop of Poland is assilimated Bell beaker. Because, Bell beaker had higher levels of farmer ancestry and a different type of R1b.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteI repeat, This is as it should be,they will not differ with a mixture of WSH+EEF, all such mixtures are identical.
https://i.ibb.co/hKGCKcb/WSH-EEFmixes.png
Bell Beaker derives from Single Grave/Corded Ware population from Northwest Germany/Netherlands. They had more farmer ancestry than most Corded Ware people. They belonged to R1b P312.
ReplyDeleteOther Corded Ware pops belonged to R1b L51 as well, but none belonged to R1b P312. R1b P312 emerged specifically in Northwest tip of Corded Ware territory. Most other R1b L51 lineages, like the one in Corded Ware Poland, went extinct. Except R1b U106, which emerged close to where R1b P312 did.
"Bell Beaker derives from Single Grave/Corded Ware population from Northwest Germany/Netherlands."
ReplyDeleteIt doesn't happen.
Such mixtures aren't identical. Corded Ware is mainly 70% Steppe, 30% Farmer. Bell beaker is mainly 50% Steppe, 50% Farmer. That's not identical.
ReplyDeleteThe R1b L51 in Corded Ware can't be assimilated Bell Beakers for this reason.
But more importantly all the R1b in Corded Ware is negative for R1b P312, which is the type of R1b all Bell Beakers belong to (except few examples of Z2103). So, no way is R1b L51* and R1b L151* assimilated Bell Beaker. It's the wrong type of R1b.
"Such mixtures aren't identical. Corded Ware is mainly 70% Steppe, 30% Farmer. Bell beaker is mainly 50% Steppe, 50% Farmer. That's not identical."
ReplyDeleteNo, you're wrong. The early BBC is exactly what I described. The early BBC from Switzerland proved it.
@ Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteYou'll be very disappointed in time. Everything I write comes true despite mass protests and shouts of insults at my address, independent research confirms everything I write. So for the Etruscans, despite the general rejection in Europe of the idea of their eastern origin, objective genetic research has to celebrate this fact.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteHow did the Single Grave Culture form ?
The Dutch model for Bell Beaker origins makes the most sense from am archaeological perspective in my opinion, and the genetic origin seems to corrobate with the archaeological elements. P312 perhaps from the Rhineland area and U106 from above. Although I am Dutch so heavily biased ofcourse. L51 in Single Grave confirms it more or less.
ReplyDelete@Archi
I appreciate your input on this dite but I think you are incorrect on this one.
Copper Axe said...
ReplyDelete"The Dutch model for Bell Beaker origins"
The Dutch model does not mean from the CWC.
Copper Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I5748, skeleton 575 (Jan) M22] 2579–2233 calBCE (3945±55 BP, GrN-6650C) M R1b1a1a2a1a2
Copper Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I5750, skeleton 230 Extra-M8] 2300–1900 BCE M R1b1a1a2a1a2
Copper Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I4068 / skeleton 228-M3] 2-3d_rel_I4073 2131–1951 calBCE (3655±20 BP, PSUAMS-2318) M R1b1a1a2a1a2
Copper Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I4069, skeleton 229-M4] 2188–1887 calBCE (3640±50 BP, GrA-6477) M R1b1a1a2a1a2
Copper Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I4073, skeleton 236-M13] 2195–1905 calBCE (3660±50 BP, GrA-15598) M R1b1a1a2a1a2
Copper Bell Beaker Netherlands De Tuithoorn, Oostwoud, Noord-Holland [I4074, skeleton 242-M14] 2-3d_rel_I4073_I4068 2278–1915 calBCE (3690±60 BP, GrA-15597) M R1b1a1a2a1a2
https://science.sciencemag.org/content/368/6498/1495
ReplyDeleteSled dog arctic adaptations go far back
Dogs have been used for sledding in the Arctic as far back as ∼9500 years ago. However, the relationships among the earliest sled dogs, other dog populations, and wolves are unknown. Sinding et al. sequenced an ancient sled dog, 10 modern sled dogs, and an ancient wolf and analyzed their genetic relationships with other modern dogs. This analysis indicates that sled dogs represent an ancient lineage going back at least 9500 years and that wolves bred with the ancestors of sled dogs and precontact American dogs. However, gene flow between sled dogs and wolves likely stopped before ∼9500 years ago.
Science, this issue p. 1495
Abstract
Although sled dogs are one of the most specialized groups of dogs, their origin and evolution has received much less attention than many other dog groups. We applied a genomic approach to investigate their spatiotemporal emergence by sequencing the genomes of 10 modern Greenland sled dogs, an ~9500-year-old Siberian dog associated with archaeological evidence for sled technology, and an ~33,000-year-old Siberian wolf. We found noteworthy genetic similarity between the ancient dog and modern sled dogs. We detected gene flow from Pleistocene Siberian wolves, but not modern American wolves, to present-day sled dogs. The results indicate that the major ancestry of modern sled dogs traces back to Siberia, where sled dog–specific haplotypes of genes that potentially relate to Arctic adaptation were established by 9500 years ago.
If someone hasn't read it yet
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dropbox.com/s/j4vygfk63elgmc1/1-s2.0-S2352409X20301486-main.pdf?dl=0
@ Vladimir
ReplyDeleteD1a2a1! someone got lost on their way home.
https://i.ibb.co/SnP8Rt5/Zhokhov-Dog-Figure-4.jpg
ReplyDeleteZhokhov sled dogs (9500BP) are at the root of all dogs, the most ancient dogs are similar to Zhokhov.
https://i.ibb.co/kQnTyC2/Zhokhov-Dog-Figure-5.jpg
The people who lived there had West Eurasian roots.
Mesolithic Russia Zhokhov, New Siberian Islands [C130L] 6000 BC UK/V?
Mesolithic Russia Zhokhov, New Siberian Islands [C130R2a ] 6000 BC U-K
Mesolithic Russia Zhokhov, New Siberian Islands [ED140, Oo23, Pp240] 6000 BC U-K
Mesolithic Russia Zhokhov, New Siberian Islands [Nn200] 6000 BC W?
Mesolithic Russia Zhokhov, New Siberian Islands [Nn220-1 and Nn220-2] 6000 BC U-K
Zokhov site next to Yana site.
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana1] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1 P-M45 U2'3'4'7'8'9
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana2] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1 P-M45 U2'3'4'7'8'9
The situation in the Single Grave territory is going to prove a lot more interesting than anyone here has predicted, including myself. Wait and see.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, the upshot is that Bell Beakers are derived from Single Grave. So Archi is wrong and he'll have to admit it sooner or later.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAll data suggests that Bell Beakers from the Netherlands moved to the Single Grave culture, which is why the two cultures converge at a later stage.
The SGC has a huge variety of funeral rites, many of them unrelated to the CWC rites.
It depends how the question is couched. Is BB from CWC? Yes & no. But I’ve not seen anybody quite get it 100%
ReplyDelete"The situation in the Single Grave territory is going to prove a lot more interesting than anyone here has predicted, including myself"
ReplyDeleteCan you give a hint here? Does it have to do with transitional periods from one culture to another, or does this relate to haplogroups?
You're not talking about I1 now are you? Is there an ETA on this paper?
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThe presence of L51, if true, in the SGC gives significant credence to the Dutch model, which is SGC > Bell Beakers, at least over here. Let's wait for the data, sounds exciting.
@ Palacista said...
ReplyDeleteD1a2a1! someone got lost on their way home.
Both he and apparently R1b-M269 are one of the first Scythians
TAH 002 D1a2a 1300-1400 BCE Square tomb (noble)
Jeong,2020
So little R1a in those ancient iranian speakers of the north caucasus. and in general, do definitive y-marker for these ancient ossetians.
ReplyDeleteDo we have AutDNA from Ottomany culture plss?
ReplyDeleteCopper Axe said...
ReplyDelete"The presence of L51, if true, in the SGC gives significant credence to the Dutch model, which is SGC > Bell Beakers,"
This is the English Wikipedia so preaches, but this does not mean that this is true.
David, if the situation in Single Grave is interesting, maybe we'll also see R1a there...
ReplyDelete@davidski
ReplyDeletesome questions
In may you wrote a post about the ukraine neolithic samples that was quite interesting to say the least but IIRC you ( since then ) never explicitly weighed in on the subject: do you belive that ukraine neolithic is the source population of the basic structure of PIE or not?
In modelling the CWC wouldn't be more interesting to break it up into three sources like
CWC= EEF+ Ukraine neolithic+Progress
I think to lump together everything that is not EEF into "steppe" is a little bit misleading.
With a 3 components every steppe cluster is highligted correctly IMHO
"Archi is wrong and he'll have to admit it sooner or later."
ReplyDeleteInconceivable!
@Vladimir "apparently R1b-M269 are one of the first Scythians"
ReplyDeleteThis has long been given out and discussed. This sample is not related to the Scythians, this haplogroup in the Caucasus since the Bronze Age, as it is written directly to you.
"TAH 002 D1a2a 1300-1400 BCE Square tomb (noble)
Jeong,2020"
Why are you giving the wrong dates? TAH 002 is Late Medieval.
It's very questionable to make inferences about the ancient Etruscans, drawing upon modern TSI. Like all central, southern and even some northern Italians Tuscans probably have various exoticj admixture dating to the time of the Roman empire. And in fact Tuscans have less Anatolia BA than central Italians from Umbria, the Marche and Latium, which in turn have less than south Italians and Sicilians. This is a well established fact, so the talk about Tuscans being more Middle Eastern than other Italians is nonsense.
ReplyDelete@Rob,
ReplyDeleteBell shaped Beakers comes from Portugal. They spread north into France. Then Bell beaker culture was created Single Grave Netherlands who copied the Bell shaped Beakers they saw in France.
@copper axe. Is suspect David is alluding to yHG I1 in Single Grave as well. Or maybe, another surprise.
ReplyDelete@Vladmir
ReplyDeleteIs that y D call real?
@Archi
I didn't realize we had DNA from the New Siberian Islands. Did they get any y dna? I' surprised West Eurasian lineages were still found in North Eurasia that late in history.
@Simon_W
ReplyDelete"It's very questionable to make inferences about the ancient Etruscans, drawing upon modern TSI. This is a well established fact, so the talk about Tuscans being more Middle Eastern than other Italians is nonsense."
You're just wrong, it shows once again that you don't know how to make models, ignoring facts and your categorical misstatements won't help you.
ReplyDelete@ Sam
“ Bell shaped Beakers comes from Portugal. They spread north into France. Then Bell beaker culture was created Single Grave Netherlands who copied the Bell shaped Beakers they saw in France.”
Yes that is more or less what most (but not all) literature reads
Looking very closely at the data, there is no support for it
The earliest Bell beakers in Portugal aren’t before 2450 bc
How is the sled dog and New Siberian Islands dna relevant(its interesting for sure)?
ReplyDeleteArchi thinks that R1a and Corded Ware came from Siberia. But this is again nonsense.
ReplyDeleteThe oldest R1a by far is in Eastern Europe, and there's no R1a in Asia before the Bronze Age, even in the new data of thousands of new samples.
Also, corded pottery wasn't invented in one place. It was used by different cultural groups and made in different ways.