I'd say that thanks to this preprint we're now a lot closer to solving
the mystery of the Sintashta people. Over at
bioRxiv at this
LINK. From the preprint:
Transition from the Stone to the Bronze Age in Central and Western Europe was a period of major population movements originating from the Ponto-Caspian Steppe. Here, we report new genome-wide sequence data from 28 individuals from the territory north of this source area - from the under-studied Western part of present-day Russia, including Stone Age hunter-gatherers (10,800-4,250 cal BC) and Bronze Age farmers from the Corded Ware complex called Fatyanovo Culture (2,900-2,050 cal BC). We show that Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry was present in Northwestern Russia already from around 10,000 BC. Furthermore, we see a clear change in ancestry with the arrival of farming - the Fatyanovo Culture individuals were genetically similar to other Corded Ware cultures, carrying a mixture of Steppe and European early farmer ancestry and thus likely originating from a fast migration towards the northeast from somewhere in the vicinity of modern-day Ukraine, which is the closest area where these ancestries coexisted from around 3,000 BC.
...
Interestingly, in all individuals for which the chrY hg could be determined with more depth (n=6), it was R1a2-Z93 (Table 1, Supplementary Data 2), a lineage now spread in Central and South Asia, rather than the R1a1-Z283 lineage that is common in Europe [38,39].
Saag et al.,
Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain,
BioRxiv, Posted July 03, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.02.184507
See also...
Like three peas in a pod
That was pretty good timing, eh?
ReplyDeleteLike three peas in a pod
@Davidski
DeleteDavid why are there still no sufficient number of genomes from individuals from the source area of Proto-Indoeuropeans sensu stricto?
To finally find out if the majority of PIEs were carrying Y-DNA hg R1a or R1b?
Any new articles or news that are to this direction?
Shit not too long ago someone was trying to tell me L51 came from Fatyanovo lol, no surprise it is mostly z93 as most of us would've predicted.
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting how many of these archaeological theories are correct. Fatyanovo pottery having GAC influence, now we know of their western origins due to aDNA. Fatyanovo leading to Abashev and to Sintashta, now shown by Y-dna.
Some samples are mentioned in the context of Kristiansen, is this about the new paper with L51 SGC?
There are many samples coming from Fatyanovo and Volosovo sites, so let's wait and see what turns up.
ReplyDeleteYeah I didn't expect a Northwest Russian hunter gatherer origin for R1b L51 to work out, even if Volosovo comes out R1b M269.
ReplyDeletemtDNA insights.
ReplyDeleteH5a1, H1b, J1c1b1a, K1c1, K1b1a1 these are key Farmer lineages shared between Fatyanovo, Bell Beaker, and Corded Ware. They for sure share some of the same farmer ancestry.
H1b, H5a1 documented only in Globular Amphora.
I1a1, N1a1a1a1, W6 these are key unique mtDNA links between Fatyanovo/Andronovo and Balto-Slavs.
Z93 this does not mean that they are proto-Indo-Iranians, only those who will have Z94 can claim to be proto-Indo-Iranians.
ReplyDeleteR-Z93 Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664 * Z93/F992/S202 * FGC77882formed 4900 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
id:YF07986 ITA [IT-SA]i
id:ERS256938 ITA [IT-CA]i
R-Z93*
R-YP5585 YP5586 * YP5585formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-YP5585*
id:YF11130IND [IN-MP]
R-YP5578YP5580 * YP5582 * Y24740+28 SNPsformed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 800 ybp
R-YP5578*
id:YF09468 AUS [AU-VIC]
id:YF07064 GBR [GB-CLD]
R-Y28816 Y28816formed 800 ybp, TMRCA 650 ybp
R-Y28816*
id:YF09462 ENG
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteYou should send the Mr. Underhill an email with a link to this Fatyanovo DNA. In 2015, he thought R1a M417 originated in Iran.
Underhill 2015.
https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg201450
What do you think about figure 1? It's on page 25 of preprint. They imply that Fatyanovo people went straight from Tripolye-Yamnaya boundary in Ukraine to Northwest. That seems weird since Fatyanovo have more EEF ancestry than Baltic or Central European CWC, at least if I am reading figure 4 (page 28) correctly.
ReplyDeleteArchi, shut the hell up, there's Z94 in other Fatyanovo samples that I've seen.
ReplyDeleteEven these ones might yet turn out to be Z94 when the BAM files are released.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteArchi said...
They have no Z94, we need a more precise definition. They wrote that the use ISOGG 2019....
July 4, 2020 at 3:05 AM
Early R1a
PES001 Peschanitsa 1 Arkhangelsk Russian Federation 61,2312 38,9093 Veretye WeRuHG Mesolithic 10728±59 10785–10626 UBA-41633 This study URM2 Male 45–50 Oshibkina 2006 920135543 66,40% 4,03 90,10 1,15 2,07 XY 14% 0,8% 0,92% U4a1 R1a5-YP1301 (under YP1272)
Now it is proved that the Mesolithic Veretye culture was R1a, it is related to R1a from the Mesolithic Onega culture. In Veretye, the Indo-European burial rite with dogs was used and there were sledges drawn by dogs.
This Fatyanaovo paper, shows why the Parallel history of Europe and India story line by Harvard doesn't work.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, Harvard will be more honest by saying the Indo Europeans impacted Europe more than India.
I mean, c'mon.
The ancestor of Indian R1a Z93, was living in Moscow. Literally in the place where R1a carrying Slavs live today. Yet, Harvard acts like this history is as relevant to Indians as it is to Slavs (or to Europeans in general).
Can we please just say, the Indo-Europeans who invaded India came from Eastern Europe, instead of saying they came from the "Eurasian Steppe." Austomally they weren't much different than modern Europeans, as Davidski as shown, and they literally came from Northwest Russia which is clearly within the borders of Europe.
I don't think Harvard, is afraid of seeming Eurocentric. They are honest scientists who have done an amazing job not being political with ancient DNA. This is just one area where they need to be more honest.
I know this is out of subject.. But Can someone light me What it was pretty much Ottomany's Auto DNA? We are talking about EEF with a decent amount of steppe and if it represent early 'Daco-Thracians'. Ty in advance!!!
ReplyDelete@Johnny, no one has ancient DNA from them yet. The only study which got ancient Southeast Europe DNA is Mathieson 2018.
ReplyDeleteMathieson 2018
The genomic history of southeastern Europe
https://www.nature.com/articles/nature25778
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteThere are striking parallels in the population prehistories of Europe and India.
Even considering that the Pontic-Caspian steppe was located in Eastern Europe, this is still true, because the rest of Europe was impacted by the people from this region in a very similar way to India.
So I don't have a quibble with Harvard over this issue. In fact, this is something that I pointed out in the comments at this blog before it appeared in scientific literature.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"The ancestor of Indian R1a Z93, was living in Moscow."
I have the same haplogroup with an American, but this does not mean that my ancestor is an American.
So much for Fatyanovo = Balts theory that is still popular this part of Europe..
ReplyDeleteAlso all Uralic folk having IndoIranian-ish loanwords of different sources/time intervals and having much younger BaltoSlavic ones limited to European part of FU makes somewhat more sense when Fatyanovo is not related to Balts.
ReplyDeleteI remind everyone not to look under the streetlight. Everyone saw R1a-Z93 in Moscow, and just forgot about the same time R1a-Z94:
Bronze Poltavka outlier Russia Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara [I0432 / SVP 42] 2925-2491 calBCE (4180±84 BP, AA-12569) M R1a1a1b2a Z94
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteThe Indo European invasion of India was probably very different than in Europe considering Indians have much less Steppe ancestry than Europeans do.
The IE invasions of Europe were almost as big the Neolithic migrations from Anatolia were. They upended the demographics of much of the continent.
In India, the IE invasion might have been more so elite takeover, political take over, not population turnover.
"I have the same haplogroup with an American, but this does not mean that my ancestor is an American."
ReplyDeleteArchi making sense. Unreal.
Z93/z94 doesn't mean shit. Find R-Y3/Y2/L657 in Moscow and then I will concede the paternal link.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteSome groups in northwest India have higher levels of steppe ancestry than many European populations.
But in any case there's no point fixating about autosomal ancestry proportions. The impact of these migrations on India was massive in several important ways.
@ Samuel
ReplyDeleteTy brother!
So we know now that two maps below are wrong:
ReplyDeleteFirst was produced by K. Kristiansen:
https://i.postimg.cc/cHwPW3z6/kristiansen-migrations.jpg
Second is from Wikipedia:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/5a/IE_expansion.png
So Old PIE theory is dead IMO.
I am not sure about their Figure 1.
Maybe something like this happened:
https://i.postimg.cc/Qdj69Py8/CWC-Z93y.jpg
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDelete"Z93/z94 doesn't mean shit."
It means that all the Indo-Aryans came from the Central European CWC after passing through Eastern Europe. Without options.
"Find R-Y3/"
Most likely they will find it in like Abashevo.
"L657 in Moscow and then I will concede the paternal link."
This mutation has already appeared most likely somewhere in Tajikistan.
The path is unambiguous, the only question in the exact succession of cultures, so that no distortions will not help you.
Interestingly, their qpAdm shows minus 16% WHG in fatyanovo, and they model it just as yamnaya + levant_N.
ReplyDelete@ Excellente, you were perceptive David. When will this samples be on G25?
ReplyDelete@ Samuel, Indo Iranians in Centrale and NW Sud Asia admix with Turan farmers so this population would have far greater impact on populace, in the same way Yamnaya did in Western Europe. How else R1a is so common there?
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteEarly Corded Ware doesn't have any ancestry from Tripolye. It's baiscally identical to Yamnaya.
Sredny Stog was also part of this Yamnaya-like cluster, as you shall soon see.
Tripolye just disappeared somewhere.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteInterestingly, their qpAdm shows minus 16% WHG in fatyanovo, and they model it just as yamnaya + levant_N.
Not that interesting. Just a crap model.
Fatyanovo is basically identical to the main Sintashta cluster. So is Abashevo. Wait and see.
@Kouros,
ReplyDeletegood point.
I think even if the Indo-Aryans were admixed they couldn't have impact as much as IEs did in most of Europe.
Steppe people in EU found the meminime EEF Groups.They humiliate them while in Central and South Asia they come in contact with probably more tough Groups without Being 100% Assilimated. What happened in British Isles for example cannot be found anywhere else.
ReplyDeleteFeminime**
ReplyDelete@Kouros,
ReplyDeleteI suppose Afghanistan (Pashuten) and much of North Pakistan has as much Indo European ancestry or more than Southern Europe does. Especially if you take into account, as you said, they were mixed when they arrived.
The high percentage in Jatts, at 35-40%, is really shocking.
@ Samuel
ReplyDeleteI think both Iberians and Italians Have a decent amount of steppe admixture. Even Mainland Greeks and Albanians Have enough.. thought it is more recent.
The appearance of a person of the lyalovo culture from the upper don, as it is now clear, EHG, without CHG
ReplyDeletehttps://www.dropbox.com/s/t0gqv4tkwgmx3vx/p167_195_2018_2Vasilyev_Smolyaninov_Borutskaya_Bessudnov.pdf?dl=0
Yeah, that's what I was trying to say. The assumption, is Steppe ancestry is only high in Northern Europe, but really it is pretty high everywhere.
ReplyDeleteThe ancient Greeks, were the only population in historical era Europe who had low levels at only 10-20% which is comparable to most Indians. But Davidski, says new ancient Greek genomes have higher levels.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteZ93 existed in 3000 B.C from Romania to the Urals and North Russia. Obviously many of them will be Z93- and even when we get hundreds of samples we will not find all modern day Z94+ clades, which are just a small bottle necked set of the Z93/Z94 in Bronze Age East Europe. Y3/L657 in Abashevo makes sense but L657 was unlikely born in South Centrak Asia. It is more than 4000 years old and this period Indo-Aryans would be somewhere in East Europe.
@ Samuel
ReplyDeleteDespite genes. Myceneans and Ancient Greeks were very much influenced by IE's in culture,religion,mythology,war tactics,male domination in society to almost every subject. UNLIKE the EEF society and also the later Minoan culture who looks gayish. The funny thing is that modern Europeans Have nothing to do in terms of culture with their forefathers..
It is impossible to tell whether the burial in Berendeyevo is Volosovo or Lyalovo, although more inclined to be Volosovo, but it means nothing.
ReplyDeleteIt was a pronounced Europoid, while it was EHG, it was not Laponoid.
"In a detailed anthropological study of the skeleton conducted by N.N. Mamonova with the participation of S.A. Sviridov, professor of the Department of Radiology at the hospital by them. Botkin, it was determined that the skeleton belonged to a man of the age 55-60 years old. The skull of a pronounced Europoid type without any
signs of methyssasia, mesochronous at the sign. The face is very wide and low,
в horizontal planes good profiled, orbital The department, on the contrary,
lightly flattened, nasal bones have, pretty big tilting angle abreast
of the profile, his forehead is receding. Dead was stunted; his height, computed by by formula Fully, was approximately 157.7 cm. No . pathological changes, which would lead to behind schedule of growth, bone not recorded.
Noted. only phenomena moderately expressed at deforming arthrosis and spondylosis, but on left clavicle - traces of long time ago fracture."
Judging by what Davidsky says, this map is also incorrect. The arrow should not come from the right Bank of the Dnieper but from the left and be a little North. Now I understand why in last year's article Anthony talks about the Dnipro-Donetsk culture as proto-Indo-European. Since the culture of pit-combed ceramics disappears, this is Q1, then only two options remain for R1b and R1a. The first is the culture of ringed ceramics that stretches from the Northern shore of the Caspian sea to the South-East of Poland and the culture of the lower don gradually rising up the don and the Dnieper. One of them is R1b, apparently the first, and the second is R1a.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"The arrow should not come from the right Bank of the Dnieper but from the left and be a little North."
You have the wrong opinion. They showed an arrow starting from the Dniester and the Carpathians, where the main array of Central European CWC ends. To the North in Belarus was not corded ware cultures and Rzucewo culture with which Fatyanovo apparently there is no connection.
Archie
ReplyDeleteDon't fantasize. They even have the southern bug was not covered, the arrow is located to the East. This is the border of Vinnytsia and Cherkasy regions. This is Central Ukraine. The Dniester is much to the West
@Parastais
ReplyDeleteThis paper shows place where R1a-Z93 originated, which is changing many things a lot(as previously the place of origin was thought to be somewhere near south of Ural mountains), but what it even has to do with them not being of Baltic material culture or speaking languages that can be classified as Baltic, based on hydronyms that are preserved in this area? Grammar of Slavic languages is simplified Baltic. If you know any Baltic language, it is easy to pick up any Slavic language without much of an effort, as all the core grammar rules are there already. The basics of language learning is learning structure of sentences first and words can be picked up later. Vocabulary has always been secondary and nowadays in any language there are many everyday words, that are picked from modern English.
FYI, Sanskrit has way more common words with Baltic, than Slavic - that has always been baffling, as there was no clear link to Baltic. Ar least Fatyanovo culture clears some of these questions.
Baltic culture originally was R1a and it was centered in Belarus(that's where biggest excavated wooden cities of Balts are located) and Balts has origins near source of R1a as well.
Bet kāpēc man par to ir jāstāsta latvietiem, kas varēja visu to izlasīt latviešu valodā kaut vai Gimbutienes grāmatā Balti par to cik tālu pletās baltu arheoloģiskās kultūras?
What is considered Baltic nowadays is remnant of mix of Baltic and very late FU N1a influx, which finalized when Germans came and fought in some cases total war, which resulted in settling more cooperative population from east.
History of FU spread is complicated, but it is not origin for Baltic people - even if some of them are speaking in Baltic languages nowadays.
Actually, absolute majority(more than 50%) of modern N1a males today are speaking Russian as their mother tongue - sum of Finnish N1a that are speaking Finnish and others who are speaking Uralic languages and also other languages(Chukchi, Yakut, Japanese, Inuit), including Belarusian, Ukrainian and Polish is not even half of numbers of N1a who are speaking in Russian. N1a has spread wide and far and in most cases it has not preserved its original language and culture. There are almost no N1a in modern Hungarian, so sometimes limiting a view can force to look on some of these issues from a different and much wider perspective.
This paper changes a lot in historical perspective, as it has been presumed, that it was later Baltic expansion to the east into Uralic speaking lands, but it seems to be much earlier migration, which happened at the same time, when ancestors of modern Balts moved to the north and ancestors of Fatyanovo culture also at the same time moved to their location and they all had single origin.
Parastais said...
So much for Fatyanovo = Balts theory that is still popular this part of Europe..
Also all Uralic folk having IndoIranian-ish loanwords of different sources/time intervals and having much younger BaltoSlavic ones limited to European part of FU makes somewhat more sense when Fatyanovo is not related to Balts.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteDon't fantasize. Southern Bug is not Central Ukraine. The Dniester is not much to the West.
The arrow begins exactly where I wrote, with the end of the Central European CWC (Sub-Carpathian group), and not with what is not the Dnieper, which you are fantasizing about.
@Archie
ReplyDeleteThe arrow begins between the southern bug river and the Dnipro river. To the Carpathian mountains from there as to the moon
@gL MH
ReplyDelete"This paper shows place where R1a-Z93 originated"
It does not show the place of origin, but shows only earlier distribution.
"Grammar of Slavic languages is simplified Baltic."
It's not true. And verbal system of Baltic languages in general is not Indo-European, but Finno-Ugric, it on an order of magnitude easier than Slavic languages.
"FYI, Sanskrit has way more common words with Baltic, than Slavic - that has always been baffling, as there was no clear link to Baltic."
It's not true. There are only specific similarities of cultural lexicon with Indo-Iranian which show that in antiquity Balts have contacted Iranians, but Slavs is not present.
"What is considered Baltic nowadays is remnant of mix of Baltic and very late FU N1a influx"
All Balts have 40-50 % N1a, Slavs in general it does not have in the percentage. Absolute quantity is not important, as it is only a question of modern quantity of the population and questions of assimilation and modern history.
Dear Davidski,
ReplyDeleteWould it be possible to write a summary of your conception of the origins of PIE, Proto-Balto-Slavic and Proto-Slavic for a beginner like me? These all new data are so wonderful. And I am a fan of your interpretations. Of course a "famous" Spaniard wrote about Fatyanovo immediately after you ;)
Richard
http://tolkniety.blogspot.com/2020/06/czego-mozna-sie-dowiedziec-z-badan.html
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteYou don't know what you're writing about, there's no Dnieper there. They mean the Carpathians and the border Sub-Carpatian cultures:
Sub-Carpatian cultures (to left)
https://arheologija.ru/wp-content/uploads/arheologicheskaya-karta.jpg
If you open the source and zoom in on the map, you will see that the arrow starts almost from Lvov, even slightly to the North.
@Archie. All Balts have 40-50 % N1a, Slavs in general it does not have in the percentage.
ReplyDeleteIn Russia, 15% of the population of N1a is about 23 million people, of which 10% is Y6058 (15 million) and 5% is Z1936 (8 million). 90% of them are Russian, and therefore Slavs
Awesome paper. OIT should have been dead a long time ago but its proponents will come up with some convoluted logic to explain this away.
ReplyDeleteEither way I'm surprised at the lack of y diversity. I would have expected some Z283+ and maybe some I and Q lineages too.
What's the lineage of the EHG found here?
Also it seems Razib Khan was right on pigmentation. These people were only 25% light eyed and 21% light haired. Skin color was mostly Intermediate skin Mixed/Unpredictable.
Also I guess this confirms though that light hair arose in an ANE population who transferred it to EHG (if the Western Russian Hunter Gatherer population is WHG).
@Archie
ReplyDeleteThe arrow begins with the Cherkasy region, calling this region Subcarpathian is the same as calling Berlin subalpine
If I have understand correctly, that @Davidski implies, that Fatyanovo R1a-Z93 variant is closest to source for Indo-Aryan R1a, then this changes also other things, like dates of Uralic people influx in this region, as there are no significant(is there any?) presence of N1a in Indo-Aryan.
ReplyDeleteI have read(in Russian, don't remeber the source) about some ancient(4000BC?) genocide going on in Volga basin(Kama river?), where many villages were massacred of people who were not Europeid looking, so if any mixing was happening between IE and Uralic, then that was not happening while they could identify each other so easily and only after a long time their relationship became more amiable after Uralic people became Europeid looking.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteYou cut texts by changing their meaning.
Archi said...
Absolute quantity is not important, as it is only a question of modern quantity of the population and questions of assimilation and modern history.
July 4, 2020 at 7:01 AM
Late assimilation. Americans are Anglo-Saxons. Americans have a lot of A, B. By your logic, the Anglo-Saxons had a lot of A,B.
@galadhorn
ReplyDeleteAll in good time. I reckon 6-12 months, and then we'll at least know the main parts of the story.
@gl
ReplyDelete"I have read(in Russian, don't remeber the source) about some ancient(4000BC?) genocide going on in Volga basin(Kama river?), where many villages were massacred of people"
You may have read about Volosovo. There, everyone fought with each other, everyone committed genocide against each other. This culture so mocked the dead, dismembered them, there were mass murders, beheading, they dehydrated the corpses, butchered people alive, in general, a real hell. It was everywhere in her.
ReplyDeleteIt seems the case of Anthony's Ukraine neolithic as the source of PIE is quite correct
Also the implication of the arrow could indicate Usatovo as the source also of the CWC ( western part). Something like Usatovo being LPIE
It seems that (as I predicted )the northern caucasus and the middle Volga are out of the big picture....
Vladimir said...
ReplyDelete"The arrow begins with the Cherkasy region, calling this region Subcarpathian is the same as calling Berlin subalpine"
You're wrong. Stop writing lies. And wipe your eyes.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAny idea when the bam files get published? I really want to see their exact Z93+ clades. Hopefully we get some Y3+ too
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteDo you have anything about Jatt mtdna? I personally think that the steppe component in Jatts was equally (or close to it) male and female mediated unlike the rest of South Asia (minus Northern Pakistanis and such). For example R1a only reaches a frequency of 41% among Punjabi Jatts and only 25% in Haryanavi Jatos (who are supposedly the most steppe admixed population in South Asia reaching that 35-40% admixture).
@old europe
ReplyDelete"It seems the case of Anthony's Ukraine neolithic as the source of PIE is quite correct"
No.
"Also the implication of the arrow could indicate Usatovo as the source also of the CWC ( western part). Something like Usatovo being LPIE"
No, they just drew an arrow so as to combine the direction from the Sub-Carpathian cultures and the Middle Dnieper cultures of CWC in the direction of Fatyanovo. Drawn just poorly, poorly visible, no Usatovo they do not assume. Usatovo is not even mentioned, nor is Trypolye.
See CWC on
https://arheologija.ru/wp-content/uploads/arheologicheskaya-karta.jpg
@Archi
ReplyDeleteArchangel city is located in the northernmost part of the Arkhangelsk Oblast, i.e. on the shore of the White Sea. However, the earliest sample in this analysis, PES001 Peschanitsa Arkhangelsk, RUSWeRuHG 10785–10626 cal BC Male XY U4a1 R1a5, seems not come from anywere close to Archangel city. The Arkhangelsk Oblast covers a very wide area from Kargopol to Archangel. The coordinates of Peschanitsa are these: 61.2312036141084°, 38.9093299001233°. This point is located on the Lake Lacha to the south from Kargopol.
PIE language is clearly connected with progress-like ancestry, that already shows up in Ukraine Neolithic though the lower don. The cultural and genetic vector here is quite clear.
ReplyDelete@Jatt_Scythian
ReplyDeleteAre you talking about the pigmentation of the Sintashta in light of the findings in Fatyanovo? I'm bot sure if pigmentation levels in 2800 bc are indicative of those in 2100 bc because it seems around then there was a positive selection event going on. Bell Beakers contemporary to the Sintashta quite bit lighter than the early Corded Ware as well.
@Archie
ReplyDeleteIt means that all the Indo-Aryans came from the Central European CWC after passing through Eastern Europe. Without options.
It is clear that these people were not in Central Europe, now it is clear even to a student by simply comparing dates. It's time to scrap this outdated concept
@Mike
ReplyDelete"that already shows up in Ukraine Neolithic though the lower don."
Where is shown?
The Lower Don is not Ukraine Neolithic, not even the territory of the Ukraine.
@mike
ReplyDeleteprogress like ancestry yelds none of the Y lines that carachterize IE clans (R1b M 269 R1a M417 and I2). These lines are all connected with the intermediate WHG/EHG population that we see in Ukraine neolithic.
Progress like ancestry is connected with exogamy network with Ukraine neolithic taking progress women.
Then it is obvious that expanding were strongly progress shifted due to this exogamy process.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeletePit-comb culture lasted in ukraine until middle-eneolithic at the time of the Dereivka culture, not to mention that it was the dominant culture in eastern Ukraine in the late neolithic, giving rise to mixed types of ceramics.
@Vladimir said...
ReplyDelete"It is clear that these people were not in Central Europe, now it is clear even to a student by simply comparing dates. It's time to scrap this outdated concept"
Who knows? Do not invent a clown, you clearly written that you are wrong. This is you writing nonsense that contradicts all the data and directly the paper, so do not be deceived.
It's not up to you to decide what's outdated.
@old europe
ReplyDeleteIf you were a little smarter you would already know that there is a great possibility that the main Indo-European lineages were not PIE speakers initially.
The EHG has very dark skin.
ReplyDelete@old europe
ReplyDelete"IE clans (R1b M 269 R1a M417 and I2). These lines are all connected with the intermediate WHG/EHG population that we see in Ukraine neolithic."
This is not true, there is no connection with Ukraine Neolithic. Yamnaya and CWC do not have this mixture. There is no R1a-M417 or R1b-M269 in Ukraine Neolithic. I2 is not relevant at all.
@ Old Europe
ReplyDeleteNice post and very helpful to understand all this mess in Steppe.Do you have any idea what yDNA 'Progress' individuals had?Also you mention a female exogamy,why males didn't had an impact there?
It's very hilarious I get threatned to be banned on the last post for saying Usatovo->CWC and in literally the next post you have an image pointing from Tripolye to Fatyanovo with Yamnaya disregarded inbetween. This is getting ugly for you.
ReplyDeleteRomulus said...
ReplyDelete"The EHG has very dark skin."
This is not true.
@ Rom
ReplyDeleteSource?
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteYou certainly have a wild imagination, or you're a total fucking idiot. Probably the latter.
Obviously I knew that post-early CWC (like Fatyanovo) had farmer ancestry in excess of what Yamnaya had, and pointed this out on many occasions, but this admixture is from Globular Amphora.
Romulus said..
ReplyDelete"Usatovo->CWC and in literally the next post you have an image pointing from Tripolye"
You interpret deliberately wrongly, you know in advance that you are deceiving. There is no word about Usatovo or Tripolye in the text or in the unsuccessful(!) image.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI wanted to say that they came from lower don.
The I2a2 in SWAT would support that the Fatyanovo had GAC admixture. Anyway I don't want to be banned but you have to see the irony here.
ReplyDelete@Archi, Johnny
The phenotypic data is in the last page of the pdf. It's just interesting as all the other EHGs had light skin. Cheddar man of the east.
There's no irony. I drew a map like this back in 2015.
ReplyDeleteThe Poltavka outlier
Romulus said...
ReplyDelete"The I2a2 in SWAT would support that the Fatyanovo had GAC admixture."
What does I2a2 have to do with Fatyanovo?
Show at least one sample of I2a2 in Fatyanovo!
What does Swat have to do with Fatyanovo?
Show GAC admixture in Fatyanovo.
@ Rom
ReplyDeleteI really doubt.They were light-skinned but hair-eyes were mostly brown.The same for CHG.
@Davidski (or anyone else who knows)
ReplyDelete"On the other hand, when comparing WeRuHG to the later Fatyanovo, we found that WeRuHG shares more with EHG-like populations, Western Siberian HG, ancient Iranians and modern populations from East Asia and Siberia, while Fatyanovo shares more with most ancient European and Steppe populations and modern populations from the Near East, the Caucasus and Europe "
Only skimmed it so far but what do they mean here? Is that extra ANE/ENA ancestry or does it reflect gradual dillution of ANE ancestry?
Did WeRuHG populations contribute to Yamnaya?
They're basically saying that Fatyanovo differs from WeRuHG because it has CHG and Euro farmer ancestry.
ReplyDeleteWeRuHG-related groups from the Lower Don contributed to Yamnaya. That's where most of Yamnaya's hunter-gatherer ancestry comes from.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"The ancient Greeks, were the only population in historical era Europe who had low levels at only 10-20% which is comparable to most Indians. But Davidski, says new ancient Greek genomes have higher levels."
I do not really believe that all ancient Greeks had such low levels of Steppe ancestry. Romans seem to have had low amounts as well but probably higher than Greeks.
A quarter of medieval estonian samples have intermediate to dark+black skin apparently, well colour me surprised!
ReplyDeleteI'm interested to see the data on which these phenotype predictions were based on. I don't think we should draw conclusions yet.
ReplyDeletePay attention to the humor:
Fatyanovo Fatyanovo Bronze Age 4141±33 2876–2620 cal BC
Fatyanovo Fatyanovo Bronze Age 4002±54 2840–2343 cal BC
Estonian Corded Ware EstCWC Neolithic 4090±35 2864–2495 cal BC
Neolithic vs. Bronze Age of Corded Ware aaaaah
@ gamerz
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you think Romans had low steppe admixture?The Roman paper and the samples we got from G25 shows a decent steppe admixture(BB like).What you expected to see?Ofc they were mostly of EEF roots but still their Steppe is quite good.I will agree that Ancient Greeks had limited(according to Lazaridis) 4–16% steppe but lets wait the upcoming samples as David mention some of them might have even more.
So what was the autosomal makeup of the people who contributed steppe ancestry to South//Central Asia in terms of EHG, CHG, WHG, EEF, WSHG and ENA?
ReplyDeleteThe paper shows 25% of estonian midle age samples beig dark ski ned, wich is hard to believe. I think we need something better than Hirisplex-s.
ReplyDeleteSome time ago Anthony wrote:
ReplyDelete“Finno-Ugric *orya, “slave,” therefore implies hostilities between forest-zone Uralic and steppe-zone Indo-Iranian”
Also Anthony was quoted as source for Wikipedia claiming Fatyanovo was Baltic based on hydronymy nearby.
However second turned out wrong, might as well that first one is wrong too. If there was a remnant of IndoIranian-ish folk around Fatyanovo then them (and not their more advanced and warlike steppe bros) could serve as unfortunate donors for slave loanword to advancing FinnoUgrians.
Also might be interesting to check whether Fatyanovo samples could serve as part of genetic cocktail of early FUs arriving into Baltics before 500 BCE.
Btw - do FU populations share any mtDNA with Fatyanovo?
Those western Russian HGs occupy very different places on the plot. They are also from 3 different periods of time, the R1a5 carrier being the most distant of the group. Any predictions about their autosomal composition? I think that the oldest one will be like EHGs (WHG + ANE) while the more recent ones will have both of the Anatolian/CHG and Neosiberian influence.
ReplyDeleteFrom the article:
ReplyDelete" The strongest connections for Fatyanovo Culture in archaeological material can be seen with the Middle Dnieper Culture20,54 spread in present-day Belarus and Ukraine55,56. Importantly, the territory of what is now Ukraine is where the most eastern individuals with European EF ancestry and the most western Yamnaya Culture individuals are from based on published genomic data26,57 (Fig. 1, Supplementary Data 1). Furthermore, archaeological finds show that LBK reached Western Ukraine around 5,300 BC58 and the Yamnaya Culture (burial mounds) arrived in Southeastern Europe around 3,000 BC and spread further as far as Romania, Bulgaria, Serbia and Hungary59. These findings suggest present-day Ukraine as the possible origin of the migration leading to the formation of the Fatyanovo Culture and of the Corded Ware cultures in general."
My previous readings concerning the Middle Dnipro culture is that it was one of the latest (if not the latest) CWC to be formed, via migrations from the west (where earlier CWC is allegedly well carbondated). If this is correct, how does one interpret the map? A large scale movement of CWC individuals from Central Europe some of which quickly reached the further northeast and are known as the Fatyanovo culture, while others remained south as the MDC? Or an initial establishment of MDC with a subsequent (Fatyanovo type) movement further north? And in any case given the dates for Fatyanovo, do we stay with today's science re MDC or do we need to redate it much more closely to the original CWC extensions than current views seem to hold?
the zip file in the supplementary material for this paper contains a very interesting html file worth checking out
ReplyDelete@Archi
ReplyDelete"It does not show the place of origin, but shows only earlier distribution."
It shows:
1) where Fatyanovo(that also includes Z93 among others) is located
2) where other cultures, that were Z283 are located
3) where other R1a and non R1a were distributed
4) it also shows place where R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z283 split
In current context origin of R1a-Z93 is pointing to Eastern Europe and not Asia, so pardon my English, but I meant exactly that: "This paper shows place where R1a-Z93 originated"
It would really help if that Supplementary map was accessible online somewhere(even as a picture), as that shows spread of Steppe and European Steppe ancestry population.
"It's not true. And verbal system of Baltic languages in general is not Indo-European, but Finno-Ugric, it on an order of magnitude easier than Slavic languages."
Well, if that is so, then I don't think, that you would have any problems in learning some calm and archaically nobly sounding Baltic language and gain some real knowledge about this topic. To be fair, I think, that main impact on how Latvian sounds was from German, as otherwise it would sound similarly to Lithuanian. Also, I don't find any similarities in Estonian or Finnish for that matter, but there are a lot of words that are similar to Slavic and even more so in ancient Prussian.
"It's not true. There are only specific similarities of cultural lexicon with Indo-Iranian which show that in antiquity Balts have contacted Iranians, but Slavs is not present."
Contacts would mean, that there was exchange in both ways. There are no known influences of Iranian languages in Baltic.
"All Balts have 40-50 % N1a, Slavs in general it does not have in the percentage. Absolute quantity is not important, as it is only a question of modern quantity of the population and questions of assimilation and modern history."
Russians differ from other Slavs considerably and there is even south/north divide among Russians, where northern Russians have up to 50% N1a - and that applies especially to those regions, which were populated by earliest Russians, so that does not have anything to do with modern history and recent and ongoing assimilations of Uralic people.
As for Balts - western regions of Latvia and Lithuania have significantly lesser % of N1a, so clearly even nowadays not all Balts have 40-50% of N1a, and not to mention, that prior arrival of Latvians-Lithuanians in Latvia and Lithuania no Balts had any N1a.
Hey Davidski!
ReplyDeleteSorry for interrupting the conversation, but is there anyway I can contact you?
I’m new to genetics and I got my G25 results, but I don’t know how to get an accurate model.
I’ve tried getting help on the Anthrogenica forum but I was banned there and other forums are barely active at all, so I think I have nowhere else to get help but here.
I need help, particularly on my results.
Thank you so much!
@Sam
ReplyDelete@Johnny
@gamerz
Much remains to be seen of what happened between the Mycenaean heyday and establishment of 1st millennium BC city-states, there are many people of central Europe, Italy and Sardinia/Corsica arriving in Greece in the late Mycenaean (mercenaries and traders) and then Sea Peoples (raiders) periods.
More significantly there is then a major linguistic reshuffle with Doric from the northwest becoming predominant, Mycenaean Greek has fled to Arcadia, to Ionian colonies in Anatolia, or to Cyprus, those remaining elsewhere are turned into Helot serfs by the Dorians and eventually disappear as distinct (linguistic, cultural) units.
Maybe these Dorians are a major source of E-V13 in modern Greece, some 6-700BC samples would do much to clarify.
After lots of colonies are established in Anatolia during the Geometric/Archaic periods, then Hellenized peoples from these areas (i.e. former Luwians) are subsequently coming "back" into mainland Greece.
So Middle Dnieper Culture > Fatyanovo if I read correctly. So where did R1b-L51 split from R1a-M417 ? Near the Lower Don, Middle Dnieper or near the Upper Don ?
ReplyDelete@old europe
ReplyDelete"It seems the case of Anthony's Ukraine neolithic as the source of PIE is quite correct"
No Anthony thinks it’s from Khvalnsk still
That’s because he doesn’t understand that it was wiped out by incoming groups from further west
I suspect his next model might focus on Progress; but that won’t work out because only progress females perpetuated
The most correct model is that of the Sherrats- PIE cane from Neolithicised hunter gatherers
(1) Dnieper Donets II and, secondarily, Forest steppe - Don. They acquired domesticates from Farmers and CHG / EHG ancestry from Progress females
@Thomas Spence
ReplyDeleteFrom what I've seen, your recent genetic ancestry is too complex to match your paper genealogy and to model accurately in detail.
So in terms of your genetic ancestry you need to focus on broader ancestral components, instead of ethnic groups, and if you're interested in your ethnic genealogy then you need to get into traditional paper genealogy.
Here's a page of G25 preset models to get you started.
Vahaduo tools for G25 custom calculators
You also need to read these blog posts carefully.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/11/modeling-your-ancestry-has-never-been.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/modeling-genetic-ancestry-with-davidski.html
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"I suppose Afghanistan (Pashuten) and much of North Pakistan has as much Indo European ancestry or more than Southern Europe does. Especially if you take into account, as you said, they were mixed when they arrived"
There are Iberian Roma with as much Yamnaya ancestry as the Spaniards, Portuguese, and Basques they live amongst. In fact, I think they might even have more of it in many cases.
There are South Asian groups with significantly more steppe ancestry (of either EBA or MLBA varieties) than what is found in Western Iranians, Armenians, and ancient Greeks.
@Samuel
"But Davidski, says new ancient Greek genomes have higher levels."
&
@gamerz
"I do not really believe that all ancient Greeks had such low levels of Steppe ancestry. Romans seem to have had low amounts as well but probably higher than Greeks. "
From Davidski:
"- Mesolithic Greeks are like Barcin farmers (or wrongly dated)
- Bronze Age samples range from quite a bit of steppe (clearly more than the current Mycenaeans) to basically none
- Iron Age/Hellenistic/Roman samples are also very heterogeneous, some clearly Anatolian"
So there you have it. I would hypothesize Greece saw its highest steppe influx during the Proto-Greeks' initial settlement, stabilizing to the Mycenaean average by the time Greek is first attested. So 10-20% is probably going to be the norm in subsequent periods as well. I'm more interested in finding out what KIND of steppe ancestry the Greeks had than how much (as it's already clear they didn't have much).
@Johnny Ola
"Despite genes. Myceneans and Ancient Greeks were very much influenced by IE's in culture,religion,mythology,war tactics,male domination in society to almost every subject. UNLIKE the EEF society and also the later Minoan culture who looks gayish. The funny thing is that modern Europeans Have nothing to do in terms of culture with their forefathers."
I don't know what's gotten into you lately but you sound like you've been watching too much Conan the Barbarian. Yeah, the people responsible for farming and the civilizations made possible by it were soooo lame, guyz.
@gL
ReplyDelete"In current context origin of R1a-Z93 is pointing to Eastern Europe and not Asia, so pardon my English, but I meant exactly that: "This paper shows place where R1a-Z93 originated""
Once again, this paper does not show the place of origin of R1a-Z93 at all, you are misinterpreting its text. It does not show Eastern Europe as the place of origin. We were not talking about Asia at all, because what R1a-Z93 did not happen in Asia it was proved a long time ago, there are earlier R1a-Z94 in Europe.
"4) it also shows place where R1a-Z93 and R1a-Z283 split"
It doesn't show a place, you're speculating about something that doesn't exist.
"Contacts would mean, that there was exchange in both ways."
It doesn't.
"There are no known influences of Iranian languages in Baltic."
You just don't know the linguistics, you don't know the results, but this is not a linguistics forum, so the topic you are talking about is simply incorrect. You have no idea how many there are.
"so clearly even nowadays not all Balts have 40-50% of N1a, and not to mention, that prior arrival of Latvians-Lithuanians in Latvia and Lithuania no Balts had any N1a."
Everyone has that percentage, even Prussians. A high percentage of N1a is in all areas where previously lived the Balts, where their hydronyms. Of course, the Balts got N1a long before they came to the Baltics, it can be seen from the area, dates and branches.
@Michalis,
ReplyDeleteDavidski never posted that stuff about ancient Greek DNA here. Where did you get it? Those are big spoilers. It is interesting news.
LOL yes the Minoans were very gay, not like the Greeks who never did anything gay at all.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacred_Band_of_Thebes
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteOn Anthrogenica, where we discuss this stuff all the time. I posted a list of samples that may show up in the near future and he replied with an awesome teaser:
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?15180-How-genetically-similar-are-Modern-Greeks-to-the-ancient-ones&p=678877&highlight=realistic#post678877
@LGK
"Much remains to be seen of what happened between the Mycenaean heyday and establishment of 1st millennium BC city-states, there are many people of central Europe, Italy and Sardinia/Corsica arriving in Greece in the late Mycenaean (mercenaries and traders) and then Sea Peoples (raiders) periods."
I doubt these will have made much of an impact, tbh. And I think the Dorians will look exactly like the Mycenaeans. I hypothesize what we'll see in Iron Age and Classical Greece is this: lots of people who look just like the Mycenaeans and Emporiotes, the same but with slightly more steppe or Thracian ancestry in Northern Greece (Macedonia, Thessaly and Epirus), a few Minoan-like holdouts in isolated areas, and possibly some Anatolian and Phoenician-mixed people in Southern Greece, Southwestern Anatolia, and the islands.
@LGK
"After lots of colonies are established in Anatolia during the Geometric/Archaic periods, then Hellenized peoples from these areas (i.e. former Luwians) are subsequently coming "back" into mainland Greece."
That is an interesting possibility. Phoenician contacts might have brought Levantine Neo ancestry to the Aegean early on, as well. We're just going to have to wait and see. The history of Near Eastern gene flow into Greece and Southern Italy is, imo, the most interesting unsolved mystery in the Mediterranean.
Anyway, enough about the Greeks (I guess people can't resist bringing us up). I'm loving this Fatyanovo paper. It's nice to see things coming together.
@Sam
ReplyDeleteIt appears to be a post by "Generalissimo" on anthrogenica, a "rumor" in response to a PLOS ONE paper apparently describing adna work on a range of Greek samples.
The links between some local groups of the Middle Dnieper culture and the Fatyanovo culture are large, but this does not mean that one came from another. The problem is that they are heterogeneous, and in general the problem is that there is no single Middle Dnieper culture, each local group is drawn to the archaeological culture. The problem is that the archeologists did not deal with it and the question about it remained unsolved, especially in the absence of radiocarbon dating.
ReplyDelete@ Johnny Ola Michalis Moriopoulos LGK Romulus Samuel Andrews ...
ReplyDeleteWhy discuss the Greeks again if no new data has appeared?
What does the paper about Fatyanovo have to do with the Greeks?
Is it possible to check your statements now?
So the next question is - what happened to these Z93 Fatyanovo people in the boreal zones of EE ?
ReplyDeleteHypothetically; in the MLBA the expansion of para-Baikalic, Hg N rich people impacted heavily;
Also at some point, an expansion of R1a-Z280 people to the east
@Rob
ReplyDeleteThey left for Central and South Asia before the N people came.
The interaction zone between groups rich in Z93 and N is actually in West Siberia.
Needless to say, looking forward to Seima-Turbino material. Wouldn't be surprised if Metspalu's lab has that in their sights next.
ReplyDelete@Michalis
ReplyDeleteGreek stuff is going to be awesome.
Also agree on the EEF stuff. Steppe IEs are cool but there's no reason to insult EEFs who domesticated animals and made it possible for an agro-pastoralist lifestyle to exist. Also yea EEF is the foundation of civilization as we know it. And obviously makes up the majority of ancestry in Europe.
@Davidski
I think some people still think Uralic was the language of northern EHGs. Is is still accurate to say y N and Uralics only made their impact west of the Urals in the late Bronze Age or early Iron Age?
----
Also are these Fataynovo males ancestral to Andronovo or not? I'm guessing they would be contemporaries with Abashevo who should be the ones ancestral to Andronovo.
@Jatt_Scythian
ReplyDeleteYes, the impact of N-rich early Uralic speakers on Northeastern Europe was rather late, and had nothing to do with Fatyanovo.
Fatyanovo and Abashevo were part of the same population that gave rise to Sintashta and Andronovo.
Btw, there is Z94 in Fatyanovo, so don't listen to Archi.
@Michalis
ReplyDeleteTime will tell. I'd say its at least plausible pre-invasion Dorians retained more steppe admixture than late Mycenaeans who had by then heavily assimilated/recruited Middle Helladic and even straight up Minoan people.
As for Phoenicians I honestly doubt they had much if any genetic impact whatsoever, seems this only happened in their actual colonies e.g. Sardinia, even though the cultural/artistic/religious influence is obvious.
The reason is that post-Mycenaean Greeks, while impoverished, were still setting out and founding colonies themselves with vigor, and from a military/naval view were likely not far outmatched by the Phoenicians outside of home.
Most NE ancestry in modern Greeks is no doubt Roman or later.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks. That makes sense. So the theory is still Iron-Age late. Does that fit what some linguists say about PIE being spoken near Proto Uralic or were they way off base?
I'm still perplexed by the lack of Q and I lineages. Were there no other lineages in EHG other than R1a and R1b and maybe a stray J here and there. What happened to the Q that was there in the forest steppe earlier on.
Anyways what's next on the agenda? Single Grave?
@Is that Q ANE or ENA shifted? Basically do you think that guys Q came with the migration of ANE R lineages or later Q lineages from mixed ANE-ENA people?
ReplyDelete@JuanRivera,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I guess Y DNA Q1a and R1a existed in Mesolithic East Europe. But, Central Europe only had R1b1a.
If things went differently, Q1a could have become a major Indo European lineage instead of R1a. Which would makes things interesting.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"They left for Central and South Asia before the N people came.
The interaction zone between groups rich in Z93 and N is actually in West Siberia."
What makes you say that N1c groups did not interact with Z93 in Fatyanovo? According to Parapola the Netted ware culture is the result of Fatyanovo-Balanovo recieving infleunce from Seima-Turbino groups.
I would assume this is the source of another layer of Iranian loan words in to west Uralic. The previous being Abeshevo-Andronovo mediated in Siberia.
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteWhat makes you say that N1c groups did not interact with Z93 in Fatyanovo?
If they did, then they would have to be present in this area, and as far as I know, there is no evidence for this in a good number of new samples.
Like I said, the interaction zone between Z93 and N1c peoples seems to have been east of the Urals.
I think that in Western Siberia, the N1a people interacted with the first detachments of the Andronovo culture, and there is even a syncretic Samus culture between them. This was before 2000 BC. When after 2000 BC N1a came to the Volga region, then they met the Abashevo tribes, perhaps they were other tribes than Andronovo or for some other reason, but relations here were more tense. So these are different periods and apparently different attitudes between the tribes
ReplyDeleteIt’s a bit odd they use Levant N in their qpADM models instead of Barcin or EEF
ReplyDeleteYeah, authors of ancient DNA papers never do good with qpADM.
ReplyDeleteAs recently said by Holopainen, Proto Uralic was before and in the fragmentation time frame in contact with both Pre and Proto Indo Iranic: "It thus seems that there are Proto-Iranian loanwords which were borrowed simultaneously into several early branches of Uralic, making it likely that Uralic had split into several branches by the time of these contacts. Also the fact that many of the Proto-Indo-Iranian loanwords either show a restricted distribution (such as West Uralic *waćara, *woraći) or irregular correspondences (*asVra, *śasra, *śi̮ta) can point to the conclusion that Proto-Uralic was fragmenting by the time when contacts with Proto-Indo-Iranian took place. The earlier, Pre-Indo-Iranian loanwords usually show a wider distribution and regular sound correspondences. Although the number of these earliest loans is quite small, based on their distribution and regular correspondences it can be assumed that the Pre-Indo-Iranian stage (after RUKI, *l > *r and the merger of velars and labiovelars but before the merger of non-high vowels) was concurrent with Proto-Uralic, with the changes leading to Proto-Indo-Iranian happening after the dispersal of Proto-Uralic." So, if we for instance assume that Proto Indo Iranic was Sintashta, the location of Pre Proto Indo Iranic will impact the location of Proto Uralic too. If not Ural area, then West Siberia nearby, I'd guess?
ReplyDeleteIs there any link or paper with WeRuHG's?
ReplyDeleteWestern Siberia is the Eastern Urals. Of course, the first contact was there. This is a very ancient contact 3000-2000 BC. The second contact was already in the Volga region, where logically some part of the population of Balanovo and Abashevo should have remained. These are closer times of 2000-1000 BC. The so-called “fatyanoid " culture, aka the Chirkov culture, aka pre-Netted ceramics, probably absorbed the remains of Balanovo and Abashevo, and the forest-steppe it long bordered on the Srubnaya culture.
ReplyDelete@ Vlad: sounds pretty good to me, however: If West Siberia then to what extent the local N's were of Neolithic West Siberian origin and in what way this feature is visible in the results?
ReplyDelete@ Juan
ReplyDelete“ There's a T2 in a WeRuHG.”
And K1 in Berendeyevo, which is not common in EHG or even typical WHG
Perhaps some low-level admixture from the south even
The K1 in the EHG sample is K1+16362. Which is noneexistet in Anatolian farmers, but popular in Balkan hunter gatherers.
ReplyDeleteSo, the K1 is of European hunter gatherer origin. K1 is a branched from mHG U, so for sure not Basal Eurasian.
I don't know how to explain the T2a1 in EHG. I'd like to see the raw data to see if it is legit.
ReplyDeletemtDNA T2 is for sure of Middle Eastern origin. So, this should be looked into.
I didn't understand why they used Levant_N to model qpAdm at all. There are better components.
ReplyDelete----
Berendeyevo is too late, the culture has clear links with the Baltic.
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDelete"According to Parapola the Netted ware culture is the result of Fatyanovo-Balanovo recieving infleunce from Seima-Turbino groups."
Who told you Parpola was right about anything? He writes his assumptions without relying on science.
When the Netted ware culture appeared, Fatyanovo was long gone, and the Seimas-Turbino disappeared even earlier, it has nothing to do with it at all.
Seems like quite a good diversity of Fatyanovo sites all coming up the same here, with no substructure. Would be a surprise if other sites were different, though outliers might turn up.
ReplyDeleteRe; more Greek samples, the other side of more Greek samples will be telling us more about when the population movement of later Anatolian ancestry happened into Greece, to the give rise to the later pools of Mycenaens and Minoans. This now seems very unlikely to have been the same movement as brought steppe related ancestry, simply because Anatolia did have have that sort of steppe ancestry at that time (or ever?). But may have been simultaneous, before, after etc.
Vladimir said... "The so-called “fatyanoid " culture, aka the Chirkov culture"
ReplyDeleteThere is no the fatyanoid culture. That is, Chirkovo is part of the fatyanoid cultures, but the fatyanoid cultures are not Chirkovo culture.
Btw, just trying to add credibility to my predictions.
ReplyDelete......Before 2018, I pushed that all Andronovo had farmer ancestry when some here thought some Andronovo were more Yamnaya-like. Narsihimin 2018 confirmed this
......I pushed that Andronovo's farmer ancestry comes entirely from Globular Amphora before anyone made a claim of where it came from.
......I pushed that Andronovo's homogenous gene pool stretched back very long. As we can see, Fatyanovo is homogeneous and the same Andronovo even they loved one thousand years earlier.
Some of the farmer mtDNA lineages in Fatyanovo come from Western European farmers ultimately which is quite amazing considering they mixed with farmers who lived in Eastern Europe. Of course those farmers were Globular Amphora, who was of part Western European origin.
ReplyDeleteFor example mtDNA J1c1b1 and K1b1a1 in Fatyanovo. Both, are first documented in Early Neolithic Spain & France. Neither show up in Early Neolithic Germany, Hungary, Balkans. Pretty obvious they come from West Europe.
One prediction which everybody got very wrong, is we exaggerated how much Steppe ancestry exists in SC Asia. Narshimin 2018 data showed us it is lower than we thought.
ReplyDeleteFor a while, we thought Kalash might have as much Yamnaya-like ancestry as Northern Europeans. Turns out Kalash are 30% Andronovo, which equals 21% Yamnaya. Ouch, we were pretty far off.
We didn't, and couldn't have been expected to, account for the ANE ancestry in Neolithic Southcentral Asia raised the predicted percentages of Yamnaya ancestry there.
Back in 2015, in David's models with the little ancient DNA which existed back then, Kalash came out 65% LNBA European.
ReplyDeletehttp://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2015/07/around-65-lneba-european-ancestry-in.html
Davidski said...
ReplyDelete"Btw, there is Z94 in Fatyanovo, so don't listen to Archi."
Archi said...
@Davidski
"Lots of Fatyanovo Z93 on the way."
Z94?
If Z93 only then this is not Indo-Iranians yet.
June 11, 2020 at 8:19 AM
Davidski said...
Very funny.
Of course they're Z94, it's just that some have missing data.
June 11, 2020 at 8:26 AM
"some have missing data"
The problem is that they all have "missing data". The table has not resulted in any Z94, not just some. At least they would have submit one.
@Sam, pretty sure I thought those models for SA with high fractions of steppe ancestry were likely wrong from the start.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete@rob
well not only EEF considered Levant N we have also the mixed WHG/EHG renamed
western russian HG which is quite correct on geographical terms ( because they were also in the westernmost part of russia ( DON- DONETS ) but a little bit misleading because WHG/EHG means specifically a whole bunch of Iron Gates ancestry
ReplyDeletewestern russia HG=
65% WHG
35% EHG
Western Russia HG samples are certainly not 65:35 WHG:EHG. They might be, on average 10:90 WHG:EHG, varying up 100 EHG and down to maybe 70. The f3 correlation with EHG, as a group, is essentially 1.
ReplyDeleteIt would be worth looking at them to see if any variance is attributable to CHG elements in the later Volosovo/Lyalovo sample.
ReplyDeletematt
https://www.eupedia.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=12238&d=1593863673
try to explain this figure then and many others all over genetics forum and papers show the same thing
look how much WHG is present in EHG-UKRAINE MESO and UKRAINE NEO
@Matt,
ReplyDelete"@Sam, pretty sure I thought those models for SA with high fractions of steppe ancestry were likely wrong from the start."
Fair enough.
There are quite a few Volosovo samples on the way from a couple of different labs.
ReplyDeleteI don't think they have any significant southern ancestry, apart maybe from a couple of outlier individuals, who might be part Fatyanovo or Yamnaya, not sure.
Most are R1b. It should be interesting to see which subclades exactly.
EHG , WHG are just heuristic labels . European HGs were on a cline; which is just generated by 4 or so processes; not just ‘ultra-WHG’ and ANE
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete@matt
scroll down this from GENETIKER also and looks again Uraine meso and Neo
https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/03/03/k-14-admixture-analysis-of-ancient-southeastern-european-genomes/
OE, I can't see your graphic as hosted on a forum I have no access to, but to take a typical model, Mathieson's paper on SE Europe found Ukraine Meso- to be roughly 75:25 EHG:WHG. All but perhaps one of the three WeRuHG are shifted well "East" of where Ukraine_M would be on PCA. There's no way they're even close to 65% WHG and the paper effectively treats them as a clade with EHG for a reason. But, we can test this again explicitly when the data is out. (However we define "WHG").
ReplyDelete@old europe
ReplyDeletewestern russia HG=
100% EHG
!!!
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteI agree, Mesolithic Europe was mostly simply on a cline. But, there were clusters with gaps in between. My opinon, is in human genetics, you'll rarely find perfect clean clines. There will always be some clusters with gaps between them.
So, far Russian hunter gatherers are homogeneous. Karlia, Samara, now Moscow spanning 5,000 years and lots of miles are all identical so far.
So, EHG might be a reliable cluster.
the trick is easy to discover
ReplyDeletethe mixing of WHG and ANE is called EHG and then WHG in eastern europe suddenly goes away.....easy isn't it?
It is like calling a dutch beaker for example a LNBA WESTERN EUROPEAN
ReplyDeletewhich is correct BTW but at the same time misleading in its ultimate origin
Get it?
old europe said...
ReplyDelete"the mixing of WHG and ANE is called EHG and then WHG in eastern europe suddenly goes away.....easy isn't it?"
This is just like saying that the mixture of EHG and Paleolithic Europe HG is called WHG/) EHG has a WHG admixture, but it is not a mixture of WHG and ANE.
@ old Europe
ReplyDeleteIn the Sikora paper; pre-EHG is modelled as ~ 20% CHG + 80% ANE
In the south of Eastern Europe; EHG mixes with eastern ‘WHG’ which probably are from the Prut-Dniesterian Molodovan industry
In NEE the WHG admixture came with ahrensburgians/ swiderians ; but their impact beyond the Baltic littoral was minimal
So, the descendants of ANE-Siberians were the prevalent element in Eastern Europe after the ice age; until ~ 5000 BC when some R1b-V88 & I2a2 pushed toward the Dnieper
All the earlier upper Paleo groups from Eastern Europe seem to Y Hg C
@ Sam
Yes EHG is more or less a clade because they’re a founder effect from post -Valdai colonisation of northeastern Europe
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"WeRuHG-related groups from the Lower Don contributed to Yamnaya. That's where most of Yamnaya's hunter-gatherer ancestry comes from."
Not from Karelia-like populations then? Did they have WSHG or NeoSiberian ancestry (some here said they did)? That part is not clear to me yet but thanks for your feedback so far.
@Johny_Ola
ReplyDelete"What makes you think Romans had low steppe admixture?The Roman paper and the samples we got from G25 shows a decent steppe admixture(BB like).What you expected to see?Ofc they were mostly of EEF roots but still their Steppe is quite good.I will agree that Ancient Greeks had limited(according to Lazaridis) 4–16% steppe "
Well only a few samples did, I am surprised none of the Imperial Era Romans did. Yes some have BB-like levels of Steppe ancestry, sorry I did not phrase that properly.
@Michalis Moriopoulos
Thanks for this, missed it somehow, these results would make a lot of sense. Very interesting to see a Barcin-like population in Greece during the Mesolithic but would also expect some CHG-like ancestry there as well.
Anyways won't write more on the Greeks here because it is off topic a bit. But again, appreciate the info.
How Far East did things like y I,C extend? What about EHG? What was between EHG and Yana?
ReplyDeleteThe Villabruna site shows ANE related admixture Witch means these populations were in contact for ages.Also if i am not mistaken it has R1b. So, WHG and EHG sharing together similar components.
ReplyDeleteI have already written that this data has put an end to the speculation that Balts- Slavs come from the Fatyanovo culture.
ReplyDeleteNow it's clear that this is about Trzciniec culture.
Let's summarize.
1. Proto-Unetice culture in the eastern part looks like proto-Slavic culture. By the way, it has connections with the Urals.
2. The Western Unetice culture looks at all as non-Indo-European, or very mixed with non-Indo-Europeans in culture.
3. There are strong doubts that the Unetice culture is unified at all, it could be a set of different cultures. There are strong arguments that the population of the Proto/Staro-Unetice culture and Western Unetice culture are different populations.
4. Trzciniec culture spreads from west to east after Fatyanovo culture, this is the Balto Slavs.
5. The Trzciniec community is divided into Trzciniec culture, Sosnitsa culture, and Komarovo culture. The western part of Trzciniec culture is proto-Slavs, Sosnitsa culture is definitely proto-Balts, Komarovo culture belongs rather to proto-Thracians or close to them peoples. The eastern part of Trzciniec culture will then move to the Balts, because of that the Proto-Baltic and Proto-Slavic will get closer again.
6. From the western part of Trzciniec culture is formed Lusatian culture, which is already divided with the proto-Baltic-Slavs. The Lusatian culture definitely took part in the Battle of Tollenze. We can say for sure that the proto-Slavs did not neighbor the Thracians or Iranians, but the proto-Balts neighbored both.
7. Under the influence of the Scythians of the Wekerzug culture, the Lusatian culture is being destroyed, at this time the Slavs may have borrowed several Scythian words.
8. Finally, the Slavs are formed from the fusion of the Lusatian culture and the Pomeranian culture. The Slavs knew both the mountains and the sea, unlike the proto-Balts, who knew neither the mountains nor the sea.
@Archi
ReplyDelete5 - that is pretty much mainstream idea on things, apart of usually Komarovo is assigned to proto-Slavs. But I don’t have my own formed opinion there.
6 - you are frequently repeating Balts neighboring Iranians and certain linguistic evidence. I can assure you that Baltistica - the source for Baltic linguistic studies lack any such articles on Baltic - Iranian cognates or influences. Or at least I could not find anything by simple search. This is minimum not mainstream. Therefore if you could provide a solid peer reviewed source to back up your claims, I would appreciate.
@ Parastais
ReplyDelete5. To Komorovo belong supporters of Gimbutas who see Slavs in Scythian farmers. There's no proof of that.
6. See Toporov.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteBalts and Slavs must exist in the same broader culture around 1500-1000 B.C. The linguistic similarties, shared drift and similar uniparental markers are pretty much pointing to this. For now the region between Central Poland and Central Russia is unsampled and we just have genomes from the most northern regions of the ancient Balto-Slavic cultural horizon, which dont have to be representative for earliest Balto-Slavs. Balt_LTU_BA is neverthless the closest ancient BA sample to early Slavs. Assuming that early Slavs formed in Belarus where HG substrates would be naturally lower and GAC substrates naturally higher we dont necessarily need a big migration from Unetice to explain the southern shif compared to BA Balts. The Fatyanovo genomes have pretty much shown that there was already a lot of Central Euro/EEF admixture in the Middle Dnjepr region long before Unetice or Iron Age Central Europeans.
Based on the published pca and admixture models. Fatyanovo even seems to a bit have more EEf than CWC in the Baltics and even Central Europe.
Slavs can be modelled as around 70% DEU_Welzin and 30% Srubnaya when removing the samples from the Baltics with strong Balto-Slavic drift. Slavs are definetly much too eastern to be mostly from DEU_Welzin or Late Bronze Age Central Europe/Iron Age Europe.
Target: HUN_Avar_Szolad:Av2
Distance: 3.5463% / 0.03546318
72.4 DEU_Welzin
26.8 Srubnaya
0.8 Scythian_Aldy_Bel_IA
Rather it looks like Slavs are mostly from CWC groups between the Vistula ans Middle Dnjepr region with LTU_Narva-like and later Iron Age admixture from Central Europe.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteApparently your info on 6 comes from Sedov’s work on Slavs. But the quote there is not from Toporov (also Топоров Балты Иранцы did not do much good in google) but rather from Trubachev. Will check on him.
@Coldmountains
ReplyDelete"Balts and Slavs must exist in the same broader culture around 1500-1000 B.C."
Balts and Slavs had to completely divide and live in unrelated cultures up to 1250 BC.
https://i.ibb.co/3NQh1wX/IE-with-TMRCA.png
In fact they are separated earlier, but form a kind of dialectal continuum. The fact is that in lexicostatistical date is the latest, in lexicostatistics there is such a feature that if languages are separated, but not very far away from each other, then after the secondary convergence they have a common basic vocabulary can jump by 5%.
"we dont necessarily need a big migration from Unetice to explain the southern shif compared to BA Balts."
Trzciniec culture in any case spreads from west to east, whether or not in its formation the Unetice culture accepted it really does not matter, it is important that the Proto-Unetice were related to the Proto-Slavs.
"lavs are definetly much too eastern to be mostly from DEU_Welzin or Late Bronze Age Central Europe/Iron Age Europe."
The Slavs are too Western to be Eastern. Using DEU_Welzin is incorrect, because it is not a population, there is a set of different populations from different parts of Europe, different clusters from different armies of Europe. So, together with the Proto-Slavic cluster, you take the Proto-German cluster, possibly Proto-Celtic cluster, and so on.
Parastais said...
ReplyDelete"Apparently your info on 6 comes from Sedov’s work on Slavs. But the quote there is not from Toporov (also Топоров Балты Иранцы did not do much good in google) but rather from Trubachev. Will check on him."
No, it's exactly Toporov Baltic languages.
Hi everyone,
ReplyDeleteI am curious about the R1a1a-Z93’s percentage in SWAT valley samples and its changes from the late bronze age to the iron age. Also, what was the Steppe contribution in SWAT samples from the oldest to the historical time period?
@princinfix
ReplyDeleteIt seems Z93 was quite low in the Swat Valley prior to Pashtuns immigrating in the Medieval period. The ancient Iron Age genomes from Swat are very low in it. I don't remember the frequency but definitely less than 20% and around 10% if i remember correctly. Neverthless they had around 10-20% Sintashta/Fayanovo steppe admixture. But Indo-Aryans who arrived in Swat in the Bronze Age would already have around 30-50 BMAC admix and around 0-10% WSHG admix so replacement by Indo-Aryans was around 20-40% I think.
@coldmountains
ReplyDeleteWhat were the uniparental makers in Iron Age SWAT? This was the place where they found I2 right?
@Jatt_Scythian
ReplyDeleteTypical clades for the region like J2, L1 and Q1b but also unusual stuff like E1 and I2a2. The I2a2 is from the Steppe.
Nevertheless Swat and generally northwest Pakistan don't look like the region anymore from where Indo-Aryans arrived in India. Rather it was a peripheral region with some kind of extra BMAC substrate/adstate. Indo-Aryans rather arrived via the Gomal and Bolan pass.
@Jatt_Scythian
ReplyDeleteIndo-Aryans arrived via Arachosia in South Asia.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteGot disappointed, was looking for sensational Baltic - Iranian parallels, got few words that seem to be somewhat meh with and “very likely Balts bordered Iranians to the South East” :)
@Coldmountains
ReplyDelete"It seems Z93 was quite low in the Swat Valley prior to Pashtuns immigrating in the Medieval period. "
The Pashtuns had nothing to do with this. The Vedic Indo-Aryans were only cremated, so that 1 sample R1a-Z94 before 800 BC is a miracle, perhaps the result of violence during the war. After that time, with the advent of the Buddhist epoch, among the Indo-Aryans there is a spread of inhumation.
@Parastais
ReplyDeleteThis is not a few words, but a fairly large list of words related to the cultural vocabulary. I already wrote that this is a cultural vocabulary that is borrowed. The Slavs don't have any such words.
@Huck Finn
ReplyDelete«sounds pretty good to me, however: If West Siberia then to what extent the local N's were of Neolithic West Siberian origin and in what way this feature is visible in the results?»
The period 3000-2000 BC is probably Odinskaya culture, Krotovo culture, Samusskaya culture of Western Siberia. I have not yet studied further.
MANIFESTATION OF SEIMINO-TURBINO TRADITIONS IN THE EARLY BRONZE AGE IN WESTERN SIBERIA (ODIN CULTURE)
The problem of interpretation of monuments with weapons of the seimino-Turbino type provokes serious discussions that continue from the moment of their discovery to the present. The issues of their cultural identity, Dating and duration of existence became the object of the greatest controversy. By the end of 80-ies of XX century, the prevailing view E. N. Chernykh and S. V. Kuzminykh, who proposed to consider the phenomenon resulting from the migration of some populations from Siberia to the West (Chernykh, Kuzminykh, 1989. P. 251, 252). The researchers emphasized the short duration of this event and the rapid progress of the seimin-Turbin traditions (Chernykh, Kuzminykh, 1989, P. 260).
Finds of a whole series of classic seimin-Turbin bronzes (spears, Celts) in closed complexes of cultures of Siberia of the early – developed bronze age (odinovskaya, krotovskaya) can shed light on this problem.
Odin culture was identified By V. I. Molodin in 2008. (Molodin, 2008). It is dated to the first half of the third Millennium BC on the basis of both radiocarbon analysis (Molodin et al., 2010) and stratigraphic observations (Molodin, 2012, Pp. 190, 191). Products of the seiminsko-turbinsky type are fixed on four monuments of the Odin culture: Preobrazhenka-6, Tartas-1, Sopka-2 and the settlement of Serebryanka-1. At the settlement of Serebryanka-1 in the lower priishimye, a foundry mold for making a miniature dagger of the NK–16 category was found (Matveev et al., 1995, P. 159. Fig. 25: 14). This fact may indicate the local production of items of the seimino-turbino circle.
Thus, on the monuments of the Odin culture of the middle Irtysh region and the Central Baraba, all the main categories of weapons of the seimin - SKO-Turbin type were identified: spears, Celts, daggers. To date, these are the earliest such finds. The time of occurrence of this complex should be attributed to the period of existence odincovskoe culture, i.e. to the first half of the III Millennium BC, Given the presence of products siemino-turbino appearance in the materials of krotovo culture, replaced adanowsky in the middle of the III Millennium BC, we can assume that the existence of the studied set of things lasted at least until the beginning of II thousand BC Apparently, the process of formation and distribution of items siemino-turbino circle took a significant period of time and was associated with the existence of several cultures of the bronze age Siberia.» The Novosibirsk University. A. A. Larochkin
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThis has nothing do with cremation as if they knew who is R1a and only cremated this people. Neither Kalash next to ancient Swat sites are rich in R1a and most of their R1a could be even from recent Nuristani admix because it is Z2124 and not L657 typical for Indo-Aryans.
R1a was generally not really high in Afghanistan and North Pakistan prior to Pashtun founder effects. Many Afghan Tajik subgroups just have freuquencies of R1a which are around 20-30%.
Proto-Indo-Aryans in South Asia were Ror/Jatt-like and no resembled Swat_IA which is too low in steppe to be ancestral to most modern day Indo-Aryans.
@Coldmountains
ReplyDelete"This has nothing do with cremation as if they knew who is R1a and only cremated this people."
It is a matter of religion, if you are a Christian, then you will not put corpses on trees as many nations have done. The Vedic religion only prescribed cremation.
"R1a was generally not really high in Afghanistan and North Pakistan prior to Pashtun founder effects."
It's just a personal assumption of yours that's not based on anything.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteMakes sense but I don't think there was any kind of migration or population replacement in Fatyanavo. There is continuity between Fatyanovo and Netted Ware.
N1c possibly arrived right after the dissolution of Fatyanovo (1900-1800BC) and interacted with its decendants?
Of course I don't know what you do about upcoming aDNA.
@Archi
"When the Netted ware culture appeared, Fatyanovo was long gone, and the Seimas-Turbino disappeared even earlier, it has nothing to do with it at all."
What are talking about??? S-T disappeared earlier than Fatyanovo? Netted Ware showed up way after?
Please provide your sources for these statements. I'm afraid you may have made them up.
@Archi
ReplyDeletePlease talk about things you have any clue about.
The point is that R1a is today only so high in some groups because of founder effects or/and a caste system. R1a in Swat is today among non-Pashtuns still low and was even lover in the Iron Age.
In Afghanistan R1a can be around 60-80 among some Pashtun tribes and among other Pashtun tribes around 10-20%. This pretty much shows that the frequency of R1a among Pashtuns is not natural and highly bottlenecked. Tajiks on the otherside are a diverse group of urban/agricultural people who were less effected by founder effects and show a more "natural" distribution of y-dna clades. R1a among Tajiks in Afghanistan and Tajikistan is mostly around 30% with some subpopulations having much more and some much less.
Swat_IA was peripheral to th Vedic and later Brahmanic civilization which at first had his center in the Haryana region and later in the Gangetic region.
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDelete"There is continuity between Fatyanovo and Netted Ware."
There's no continuity, what are you talking about? What a fantasy.
"I'm afraid you may have made them up."
I'm not made up anything, but you're imagining everything. You write just mistakes because you don't know any basic facts, but for some reason you're sure you know something at your level of ignorance.
@ Coldmountains
Please talk about things you have any clue about. I only write what I know strongly, and what I am absolutely sure of is that you write things about which you have no idea.
"The point is that R1a is today only so high in some groups because of founder effects or/and a caste system."
It's just a lie, a direct lie refuted by genetics, a variety of R1a-Z93 branches in the Hindus.
@Coldmountains
ReplyDeleteThank you for your informative reply. Can you suggest any link to a webpage or article where R1a-Z93 in Swat Valley samples from the Bronze age to Iron age has been discussed in detail?
@coldmountains
ReplyDelete"Swat_IA was peripheral to th Vedic and later Brahmanic civilization which at first had his center in the Haryana region and later in the Gangetic region."
This is not what the position of prominent steppe theorists was before Narsimhan. They strongly believed swat to be indo Aryan. It's quite convenient to disassociate it now after narsimhan.
2. Vedic civilization was strong till gandhara at the very least, Hindu texts are very clear about it.
3. There is no 'brahmanic' civilization. The civilization from then to today is mostly all vaidika, barring some modern innovations,with roots in the Vedas.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteNetted Ware formed 1900-1800BC over the area Fatyanovo previously occupied,
(Carpelan 2002 198; cf. Carpelan & Parapola 2001; 89)
See proper dating for Fatyanovo (2800-1900BC) here,
(cf. Krajnov 1987b; Chernykh 1992: 133–139; Bader & Khalikov 1987)
My "fantasies" come from peer reviewed academic papers your's seem to come straight from your head.
A certain well known science blogger is triumphantly trumpeting around the 'fact' that these Fatyanovo samples have alleles for 'dark skin' not to mention dark hair and dark eyes. For reasons best known to himself, this is very very big deal for him, and he can scarcely contain his crowing all about it.
ReplyDeleteAnyhow, this contradicts earlier results regarding Sintashta skin coloration, and generally smacks of dubiousness - if the samples autosomally resemble extant Northern and eastern Europeans, then we would, at the very least, expect phenotypical continuity.
@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteYour dating Netted Ware is a fiction, your links mean nothing because they are not authoritative. YYou haven't seen them and don't know what they say, but you took them from an unauthorized source.
In fact, there are all the oldest dates 200-300 years later. I use an authoritative source with all the dates. There was a gap between the disappearance of the Fatyanovo culture and the emergence of the Netted Ware culture when this zone was empty and was occupied by the so-called rare population of "fatyanoid" potteries.
@John Thomas
ReplyDelete"hat these Fatyanovo samples have alleles for 'dark skin'"
It's just that there are strange categories of skin color in this study. The last item includes all those who are "Unpredictable Intermediate".
Very Pale + Pale skin
Mixed/Unpredictable Pale-Intermediate skin
Intermediate skin
Mixed/Unpredictable Intermediate-Dark + Dark + Black skin
"John Thomas said...
ReplyDeleteA certain well known science blogger is triumphantly trumpeting around the 'fact' that these Fatyanovo samples have alleles for 'dark skin' not to mention dark hair and dark eyes. "
https://www.brownpundits.com/2020/07/04/the-arctic-home-of-the-aryans/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Arctic_Home_in_the_Vedas
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bal_Gangadhar_Tilak
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYes Archi you are very authoritative indeed. My sources are not despite citations in papers as recently as 2018. So would you kindly share your source then? I am interested in "fatyanoid" potteries. Are these from a new population? Or simply a continuation of Fatyanovo in which case your point moot.
@John Thomas
ReplyDelete"A certain well known science blogger is triumphantly trumpeting around the 'fact' that these Fatyanovo samples have alleles for 'dark skin' not to mention dark hair and dark eyes. For reasons best known to himself, this is very very big deal for him, and he can scarcely contain his crowing all about it."
Pffft. Let the butthurt flow through you, my son. Why don't you just say Razib if that's who you mean? Razib's reporting of the data is accurate. He even mentions in the same blog post that the "dark skin" seen in WHGs was probably Inuit-like, not SSA-like. He also says we have to be careful with these kinds of predictions in the first place since they're anchored to variation observed in modern people. That's as even-handed as it gets.
Metspalu's skin color calls have "unpredictable" in the descriptors for a reason. The safe conclusion to draw is that Fatyanovo weren't pink pale and weren't dark brown. They probably had a natural skin color in the range of modern Southern Euros and Northwest Asians, much like their Yamnaya and EEF ancestors. The very pale skin seen in their Northern Euro descendants today is the result of strong selective pressures that I guess began in the Copper Age, increased in the Bronze Age, and probably only reached modern frequencies in the Iron Age. That's what the Estonian transect in this study suggests anyway.
@John Thomas
"Anyhow, this contradicts earlier results regarding Sintashta skin coloration, and generally smacks of dubiousness - if the samples autosomally resemble extant Northern and eastern Europeans, then we would, at the very least, expect phenotypical continuity."
Right, which is why lactase persistence is found in ultra-high frequencies in their ancestors. Oh, wait, no, it's not-- not even fucking close. Lactase persistence and pigmentation are clearly very sensitive to selection. Northern Europeans are not genetic dinosaurs. They've evolved over time like everybody else has.
And if you've seen Razib's post on the Sintashta, the Fatyanovo samples reflect the same trends. It's clear that a significant fraction (25%) of these MLBA steppe people did indeed have light eyes and hair, but most of them were brown-eyed and dark-haired, just like their steppe and farmer ancestors were.
@John Thomas
ReplyDeleteEven if Fatyanovo were that dark, that does not mean the Sintashta were. Phenotypes can change a lot based on selection, and there are a good few centuries between Fatyanovo and Sintashta.
They had the genetic capacity to be light, so it would not be strange for it to increase over time in their population if it was selected for, since it was already inherent to their genetic structure. You don't need a change in autosomal structure for it to happen.
P.S we all know why this is so important to them hahahaha
http://tolkniety.blogspot.com/2020/06/czego-mozna-sie-dowiedziec-z-badan.html
ReplyDeleteCourtesy of Google translate:
"As you can see, we - the Slavs and the Balts - have in our genes about 50% of Indo-European admixture (much more than other Indo-European nations!).
Unfortunately, today such things work on many in such a way that they create a sense of chauvinism, a new form of racism (based on genetics) and "haplogrupomania", see hordes of so-called turbo lechites on the internet, who believe that Poles or Lechites are the basis of all culture and have better genes than any other nation, and other languages derive from Polish (really such pseudoscience hits the imagination of many. Unfortunately!). Haplogroup fever is cooled by an autosomal test. "
@Archi,
ReplyDelete“This is not a few words, but a fairly large list of words related to the cultural vocabulary“.
To Agri-cultural vocabulary (barley related words, disputable ‘sviests’ (butter) and for whatever reason a pidgeon).
In all those cases a proper attention was not paid to explain for nature (cognate or loanword), and in case of loanword a time/period of borrowing, direction of borrowing. Or maybe we are talking different articles. Can you give Russian name of your source, I will find it.
@coldmountains
ReplyDelete""Swat_IA was peripheral to th Vedic and later Brahmanic civilization which at first had his center in the Haryana region and later in the Gangetic region."
Swat - SuvAstu ("good ground/residence/dweeling") is mention in RV as IA territory
@Mayuresh
ReplyDeleteLol, what are you going on about? I've never even heard of "turbo lechites" and I've heard of just about everything. Sounds like you're just looking for a bogeyman.
If you're concerned about ethnic chauvinism, look no further than the scores of South Asian academics still living in denial about steppe migration into India. They are determined to keep everything important about Indian history "in house." That's WAY more of a problem than some Polish retards on the internet nobody's ever heard of or gives a fuck about.
@michalis
ReplyDeletewhich 'south asian' on this blog denies steppe migration into india?
I compared the haplotypes of Fatyanovoans with modern populations of Volga-Ural plus Estonians and Finns. On a general level, 12 haplotypes are shared with modern Volga Uralians, Estonians and Finns, 13 are not and 2 haplotypes rather represent movement from east to west. The two halotypes that are deeply rooted around the Urals and Western Siberia are U2e1b and U4a1b:
ReplyDeleteMytishchi Ivanovo oblast MOT001 U2e1b, Skomorokhovo Ivanovo oblast SKO001 U2e1b -> Nenets, Selkups, Mordvins
Ivanovogorsky Moscow oblast 2864–2496 calBC IVA001 U4a1b -> Komi-Zyrians, Komi-Permjaks, Finns, Tatars
U5a1 haplotypes started spreading eastward already during the Neolithic. It is not probable that numerous U5a1 haplotypes in Volga Ural are from Fatyanovoans in any significant amount: Nikultsino Yaroslavl oblast 2865–2500 calBC NIK002 U5a1a1 and Khanevo Moscow oblast 2859–2495 calBC HAN002 U5a1a1
The following haplotypes are shared with modern Volga Uralians: N1a1a1a2, I2a1, W1c, W6, H1b, H2a1, K1c1, T2b, T2a1a, H6a1a and H(2a2?).
Khaldeevo Yaroslavl oblast 2832–2473 calBC HAL001 N1a1a1a2, Timofeyevka Ivanovo oblast TIM002 N1a1a1a2 -> Chuvash, Bashkirs, Udmurts, Mordvin, Komi-Permjaks
Voronkovo Yaroslavl oblast VOR001 I1a1 -> Mordvins, Komi-Permjaks
Nikultsino Yaroslavl oblast NIK006 W1c -> Tatars, Bashkirs
Voronkovo Yaroslavl oblast 2878–2627 calBC VOR004 W6, Timofeyevka Ivanovo oblast 2833–2470 calBC TIM006 W6, Timofeyevka Ivanovo oblast TIM009 W6 -> Tatars, Bashkirs
Bolshnevo 3 Tver oblast 2829–2460 calBC BOL001 H1b -> Mordvins, Estonians
Voronkovo Yaroslavl oblast VOR002 H2a1 -> Maris, Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi-Permjaks, Finns, Tatars, Bashkirs
Timofeyevka Ivanovo oblast 2832–2473 calBC TIM008 K1c1 -> Finns
Goluzinovo Yaroslavl oblast 2575–2349 calBC GOL001 T2b, Nikolo-Perevoz Moscow oblast 2562–2299 calBC RDT002 T2b -> Udmurts (a lot of diversity), Komis, Mordvins, Besermians, Mansis
Nikultsino Yaroslavl oblast 2876–2620 calBC NIK004 T2a1a -> Maris, Tatars, Chuvash
Voronkovo Yaroslavl oblast 2573–2466 calBC VOR003 H6a1a -> Maris, Mordvins, Komi-Permjaks, Besermians, Estonians, Finns, Khanties, Tatars
Miloslavka Ivanovo oblast 2287–2047 calBC MIL002 H(2a2?) -> Maris, Mordvins, Udmurts, Komi-Permjaks, Komi-Zyrians, Udmurts, Nenets, Khanties, Mansis, Besermians, Finns, Chuvash, Bashkirs, Tatars
Excluding H6a1a, H(2a2?), T2b and T2a1a, these haplotypes do not reach a significant frequency in Volga-Ural. As T2a1a is frequent in Yamnaya, Afanasievo and in ancient Central Asia, it may have entered Volga-Ural via different routes during different time periods. H6a1a may have entered also via Sintashta or Scythians and T2b via Scythians and Balto-Slavs, while H2a2a may have been introduced from Altai as it is frequent in Okunevo and in ancient Western Siberia.
I am not aware of the remaining 13 haplotypes being present in Volga Uralians (excluding Russians).
Nikultsino Yaroslavl oblast 2834–2472 calBC NIK008A H5b
Nikultsino Yaroslavl oblast 2522–2298 calBC NIK003 H15a1
Bolshnevo 3 Tver oblast 2571–2345 calBC BOL003 H41a
Timofeyevka Ivanovo oblast TIM001 K1b1a1+199
Voronkovo Yaroslavl oblast 2840–2343 calBC VOR005 K2a5b
Nikultsino Yaroslavl oblast 2862–2466 calBC NIK007 U5a1b
Timofeyevka Ivanovo oblast TIM011 U5b2a1a+16311
Naumovskoye Yaroslavl oblast 2836–2469 calBC NAU002 U5b2a1a2
Miloslavka Ivanovo oblast 2624–2474 calBC MIL001 U5b2c
Nikultsino Yaroslavl oblast 2881–2581 calBC NIK005 J1c1b1a1, Bolshnevo 3 Tver oblast 2468–2211 calBC BOL002 J1c1b1a1; Volosovo-Danilovsky Yaroslavl oblast 2570–2299 calBC VOD001 J1c1b1a (excluding Tatars)
Timofeyevka Ivanovo oblast TIM010 T2a1b1, Naumovskoye Yaroslavl oblast 2836–2573 calBC NAU001 T2a1b1a (excluding Tatars).
Michalis:
ReplyDelete"If you're concerned about ethnic chauvinism, look no further than the scores of South Asian academics still living in denial about steppe migration into India."
Suffice it to say, a horse called OIT is also in this race.
@ Μιχάλης
ReplyDeleteMichali!You misunderstand me. I never mention that EEF and Minoans didnt created civilization. But the militaristic culture it is not something related with them. Myceneans and Ancient Greeks conquered the world because of their war-tactics and based to resist against invaders(Persians etc). The Minoan culture vanished because of Myceneans and we all know that Myceneans culturally were allens to them... even if genetically they were pretty much the same people. I think the great civilization of Ancient Greeks it is a combination of both EEF and also IE in Many subjects but here isnt the right place to discuss it.
@Michalis Moriopoulos
ReplyDelete“I've never even heard of "turbo lechites" “
“Turbo-Lechites” or “turbo-Slavs” are derogatory terms used towards people interested in Slavic and Polish history and not accepting everything that Western European Nazis have invented.
It is often used by people who show symptoms of self-hatred or Oikophobia.
The author of the blog http://tolkniety.blogspot.com/ is the fanatic follower of Tolkien, fascinated by Celtic and Germanic cultures and despising everything Slavic. So this explains why he uses derogatory terms “Turbo-Lechites”.
Such people are often left-wing fascists or left-wing Nazis and accuse others of Nazism etc.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDelete"Swat - SuvAstu ("good ground/residence/dweeling") is mention in RV as IA territory".
It would be interesting to know if SuvAstu is mentioned in the early or later hymns of RV.
On the other hand, Steppe ancestry is found in Swat valley, as estimation by Narasimhan et al 2019 show, between 1900 and 1500 BCE, earlier than skeletons of Swat Protohistoric Graveyard Complex.
@Carlos Aramayo
ReplyDelete"would be interesting to know if SuvAstu is mentioned in the early or later hymns of RV."
rv08.019.37
uta me prayiyor vayiyoḥ suvāstvā adhi tugvani |
tisṝṇāṃ saptatīnāṃ śyāvaḥ praṇetā bhuvad vasur diyānām patiḥ ||
And Syava too for me led forth a strong steed at Suvastu's ford: A herd of three times seventy
kine, good lord of gifts, he gave to me.
Nothing to take sides with a man who's just delusional knowing absolutely nothing.
"On the other hand, Steppe ancestry is found in Swat valley, as estimation by Narasimhan et al 2019 show, between 1900 and 1500 BCE"
It's a total error.
Regarding phenotypes obsession, it is simply identity politics rooted in personal insecurity, in many cases related to stigma of recent historical colonization or marginalization.
ReplyDeletePeople don't want to believe "white people" also invaded their country in past millennia, even though the context is totally and utterly different. Or for that matter to believe "brown people" once resided in now "white" countries.