Over at
bioRxiv at this
LINK. From the preprint:
The ancient Hungarians originated from the Ural region of Russia, and migrated through the Middle-Volga region and the Eastern European steppe into the Carpathian Basin during the 9th century AD. Their Homeland was probably in the southern Trans-Ural region, where the Kushnarenkovo culture disseminated. In the Cis-Ural region Lomovatovo and Nevolino cultures are archaeologically related to ancient Hungarians. In this study we describe maternal and paternal lineages of 36 individuals from these regions and nine Hungarian Conquest period individuals from today's Hungary, as well as shallow shotgun genome data from the Trans-Uralic Uyelgi cemetery. We point out the genetic continuity between the three chronological horizons of Uyelgi cemetery, which was a burial place of a rather endogamous population. Using phylogenetic and population genetic analyses we demonstrate the genetic connection between Trans-, Cis-Ural and the Carpathian Basin on various levels. The analyses of this new Uralic dataset fill a gap of population genetic research of Eurasia, and reshape the conclusions previously drawn from 10-11th century ancient mitogenomes and Y-chromosomes from Hungary.
...
Majority of Uyelgi males belonged to Y chromosome haplogroup N, and according to combined STR, SNP and Network analyses they belong to the same subclade within N-M46 (also known as N-tat and N1a1-M46 in ISOGG 14.255). N-M46 nowadays is a geographically widely distributed paternal lineage from East of Siberia to Scandinavia 33 . One of its subclades is N-Z1936 (also known as N3a4 and N1a1a1a1a2 in ISOGG 14.255), which is prominent among Uralic speaking populations, probably originated from the Ural region as well and mainly distributed from the West of Ural Mountains to Scandinavia (Finland). Seven samples of Uyelgi site most probably belong to N-Y24365 (also known as N-B545 and N1a1a1a1a2a1c2 in ISOGG 14.255) under N-Z1936, a specific subclade that can be found almost exclusively in todays’ Tatarstan, Bashkortostan and Hungary 17 (ISOGG, Yfull).
Csaky et al., Early
Medieval Genetic Data from Ural Region Evaluated in the Light of Archaeological Evidence of Ancient Hungarians,
bioRxiv, Posted July 13, 2020, doi: https://doi.org/10.1101/2020.07.13.200154
See also...
Hungarian Conquerors were rich in Y-haplogroup N
On the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
More on the association between Uralic expansions and Y-haplogroup N
Ancient DNA confirms the link between Y-haplogroup N and Uralic expansions
328 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 328 of 328@ Matt
Yes indeed illustratative, 20 isnt a viable Ne. Just the cemetery at Nalchik has 140+ burials.
Aside from genetics, you can try to infer paleodemographic modelling from site numbers or gender/ age mortality ratios in cemeteries.
The north Caucasus certainly sparsely populated before 5000 BC; and was a a place where people were moving into & mixing, then moving out or being replaced. It need not be huge absolute numbers, but this does not in fact mean they're inbred in ROH, because arriving groups were ancient and relatively outbred.
@Archi
This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
And you can already test it yourself, because Yamnaya ancestry is best modeled as EHG, CHG, Ukraine_N and a bit of EEF or Anatolian.
@Ebizur
I suppose, that the idea that Vladimir mentioned was based on K-M2308 presence in Baikal as "Ust'-Ishim man"(and "Oase 1" in Europe), however it does not mean that they were ancestors to all modern NO people, as there are no y-dna branches that are related to these early people, but they are remnants of earliest expanse of pre-NO population, which is now extinct early branch of K2a. Any new NO in these areas are of much more recent(~10 000 years ago, compared to 40 000 years ago) migrations from NE Asia.
However there also exists Tianyuan man found in northern China, so these early K2 clades were present in large ar4eas.
However common idea today is that later clades of NO and N and O haplogroups originated in Southern China/Burma(or generally in regions of Eastern side of Southern Himalaya), which is located north from southern China, but not north of modern China(in other words - Siberia. Same is about P* and P1, which originated in SE Asia and R and Q originated in Siberia.
There were some O1 and O2 movements in mainland China, but Taiwanese Austronesians originated from mainland China - Madagascarians also belong to O1, contrary to Pacific expansion, which was O2(and other clades) of local pre-Austronesian speaking population.
There is presence of O y-dna north of Yellow River basin in modern Mongolians and even more in Turkic and Tungusic speaking populations, which can't be called exclusively as exclusively "modern" population.
Davidski said...
" This isn't my opinion, it's a fact.
And you can already test it yourself, because Yamnaya ancestry is best modeled as EHG, CHG, Ukraine_N and a bit of EEF or Anatolian."
Good, modeling...
Target,Distance,RUS_Karelia_HG,GEO_CHG,TUR_Barcin_N,UKR_Globular_Amphora,UKR_Meso,UKR_N
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0444,0.04159074,66.0,26.2,7.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0429,0.04308190,64.0,32.6,3.4,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0438,0.04055656,59.8,38.4,1.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0357,0.03426266,59.6,30.6,9.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0439,0.04393979,59.0,30.4,10.6,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0443,0.04344710,59.0,35.8,5.2,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0370,0.04444410,57.8,36.4,5.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I7489,0.04629585,56.4,39.0,4.6,0.0,0.0,0.0
Average,0.04220234,60.2,33.7,6.1,0.0,0.0,0.0
@gL
"Same is about P* and P1, which originated in SE Asia"
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana1] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1 P-M45 U2'3'4'7'8'9
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana2] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1 P-M45 U2'3'4'7'8'9
As follows from this paper, the main inhabitants of Southern China (SE Asia) were C1, which is also shown in the pictures. Vladimir's other speculations are meaningless as always.
@Archi
Of course, much more relevant reference samples are on the way, but this will do for now...
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 3.2972% / 0.03297174
80.8 RUS_Progress_En
14.8 UKR_N
4.4 TUR_Barcin_N
Target: Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Distance: 3.1877% / 0.03187696
78.2 RUS_Progress_En
16.2 UKR_Meso
5.6 BGR_C
@rob
"It seems you're suggesting that these south-Caspian CHG groups were somehow pivotal, but they werent"
What I did was deny that progress/vonyuchka were chg+ehg.
What I gave evidence for is that these groups were chg+ehg+east of Caspian + minor darkveti-meshoko.
So in essence i downplayed the ancestry% of the group and emphasized the presence/affinity for east of Caspian ancestry.
Any of these 3 broad groups - chg, east of Caspian and ehg may have brought the culture over to steppe_en, through which it may have transmitted to yamnaya. This aspect is of course kore subjective.
But it is pertinent to add that by the mid 5th mill bce, east of Caspian had already developed both agriculture as well as animal domestication.
@ Onur Dincer
“See the latest archaeogenetic and archaeological research on the Vikings.”
And what will this research give me? You said there were plenty of "aggressive" Uralic-speaking groups, by the time of the Hungarian conquests (XI century), but the majority of samples in research are from the X-XI centuries. And there aren't many Finnish haplogroups.
“Read up on the Chudes, Merya, Muromians, Russian history (including the medieval Russian chronicles), archaeology, toponyms and also Russian genetics.”
You probably thought that the Russian Khaganate was in the North? Well, first of all, this is a phantom state. Second, if it were, it would be located in the South. As for the archeology, toponyms and genetics of Russians, this is a consequence of the mixing and/or assimilation of Finno-Ugric tribes by the Slavs. And this is significant in the North of Russia. Chudes, Merya, Muromians...The Chronicles mention them few times with events of a military character.
@ Vasistha
''What I gave evidence for is that these groups were chg+ehg+east of Caspian + minor darkveti-meshoko.'
Sure, Possible.
''Any of these 3 broad groups - chg, east of Caspian and ehg may have brought the culture over to steppe_en, through which it may have transmitted to yamnaya''
sorry, which 'culture' are you talking about ? What did they bring
@David: If looking at the Yamnaya samples, it seems they still have more CHG-related ancestry relative to EHG in comparison to Corded and even more so Bell Beaker.
To what can we attribute that decrease of CHG-related ancestry relative to EHG? Is this algorithms picking up additional WHG or the like as EHG-like? Or is it real EHG increase vs. CHG decrease for the Western steppe groups which were ancestral especially to Bell Beakers?
Or am I wrong on this altogether?
@zardos
The steppe population ancestral to Corded Ware had a higher level of EHG/Ukraine_N than Yamnaya Samara.
@rob
"sorry, which 'culture' are you talking about ? What did they bring"
From https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-35758-w
Published: 10 June 2019
Intensification in pastoralist cereal use coincides with the expansion of trans-regional networks in the Eurasian Steppe
"After the initial domestication of wheat (Triticum sp.) and barley (Hordeum sp.) in southwest Asia by 8,500 cal BC, these cultivars spread into the Iranian Plateau by 6000 cal BC and into Pakistan by c. 5500 cal BC12,13,14,15. In southern Central Asia, domesticated forms of barley and wheat identified in Jeitun cultural contexts in Turkmenistan suggests these cultivars had spread to western Central Asia around 6100 cal BC16,17. Domesticated wheat and barley were cultivated in the southern Caucasus by c. 6000 cal BC18,19 and were present in the northern Caucasus by c. 4500 cal BC20. Wheat and barley spread into eastern Ukraine by 4000 cal BC and into the Crimean steppe by 3400 cal BC."
Do note the timeline of spread of domesticated wheat and barley.
@David: What's the best proxy for "the real steppe ancestry" which made it to much of Eurasia?
Or are we still lacking the real source group completely? Was it just admixture upon a Yamnaya-like based by this small percentage (probably 3 percent?) of additional EHG?
@vAsiSTha
The stuff you cited doesn't have anything to do with Yamnaya.
For one, farming spread into the Pontic-Caspian steppe from the west, you know from the Balkans.
Secondly, the Progress-2 people weren't farmers. At best they kept a few goats.
Thirdly, Yamnaya people weren't farmers either, they were cattle herders. And their cattle came from the west too.
You're ridiculous. Haha.
@zardos
The best proxy is very early Polish Corded Ware.
@Davidski
You are using Eneolitic samples with a lack of EHG, so UKR_N appears to compensate for the lack of EHG. Here you are with the Eneolithic population, UKR_N appears there only as the error value.
Target,Distance,RUS_Khvalynsk_En,TUR_Barcin_N,GEO_CHG,RUS_Karelia_HG,UKR_Meso,UKR_N
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0444,0.02163200,92.0,8.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0429,0.02944620,87.6,4.0,6.0,0.0,2.4,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0438,0.02376428,84.2,2.0,13.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0439,0.02826831,84.2,10.8,5.0,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I7489,0.03013806,83.2,5.8,11.0,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0370,0.02787143,82.4,6.4,11.2,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0443,0.02867116,78.2,4.6,11.6,0.0,0.0,5.6
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0357,0.02036696,77.2,10.6,6.8,0.0,0.0,5.4
Average,0.02626980,83.6,6.5,8.2,0.0,0.3,1.4
Target,Distance | ADC: 0.5x, RUS_Khvalynsk_En,GEO_CHG,TUR_Barcin_N,RUS_Karelia_HG,UKR_Meso,UKR_N
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0429,0.03052375,96.8,2.0,1.2,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0444,0.02261481,95.6,0.0,4.4,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0439,0.02957194,92.0,0.6,7.4,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0443,0.03038909,91.2,7.0,1.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0438,0.02477929,91.0,9.0,0.0,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I7489,0.03134718,91.0,7.2,1.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0370,0.02918409,90.4,6.8,2.8,0.0,0.0,0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0357,0.02264445,90.2,1.6,8.2,0.0,0.0,0.0
Average,0.02763183,92.3,4.3,3.5,0.0,0.0,0.0
Davidski said...
"The steppe population ancestral to Corded Ware had a higher level of EHG/Ukraine_N than Yamnaya Samara."
Corded Ware had no Ukraine_N at all. Ukraine_N != EHG.
@Archi
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southeast_Asia
This classification is based on political map, but geographically physical SE part of Asia continent includes also Southern China, or as it was known before China conquered them - lands of Yue, so it depends on knowledge of geography, where Indonesia and Philipines are also part of Asia.
Just because nowadays P1 is so small, there has not been much of classification going on for branching, so technically in future there might be P1a* and P1b* branches, but currently Palaeolithic Yana river samples and SE Asian samples will both belong to P1 and origins of P1 is in SE Asia.
@gL
"origins of P1 is in SE Asia."
It's not an unfounded statement.
Pre-P in North Eurasia
Russia Ust'-Ishim, western Siberia [Ust_Ishim] 45530-40610 calBCE [46064-40920 calBCE (41400±1300 BP, OxA-25516); 46364-40844 calBCE (41400±1400 BP, OxA-30190)] M K2a* (pre-NO*)
Romania Peştera cu Oase [Oase 1] 39690-35630 calBCE [(34290+970-870 BP, GrA-22810), (>35200 BP, OxA-11711), (34950+900-890 BP, OxA-GrA combined 14C Age)] M K2a* (pre-NO*)
China Tianyuan Cave, Zhoukoudian cave system, Beijing [Tianyuan 1] 38170-36880 calBCE (34430±510 BP, BA-03222) M K2b
When looking at the samples from Central Europe, I get the impression that Bell Beakers might have additional EHG which both Yamnaya and Corded Ware didn't have. Is that possible or am I wrong?
@zardos
Beakers don't have additional EHG. They have additional Europe MN, and some of this was very rich in WHG ancestry. Think Blatterhohle MN-like.
@Archi
Are those people direct ancestors to modern people? Or are they only related to modern people?
Is there some idea going around, that 40 000 years ago people lived in some places and in most places they didn't, based on the preservation of DNA in some colder climate(and caves) more than in other regions, which are more pleasant to live and prosper, but with lesser ability to preserve those bones?
Just like today not many people are living in Arctic or in caves - even if there is a greater chance to preserve DNA material for future excavations.
@Davidski
This forager population from which early corded Ware and yamnaya pick up ancestry looks like a mix of UKR_N / UKR_Meso. Am I Right?
@Mike
Yes, basically identical to UKR_Meso.
But that's only one part of the mix, with the rest being something like Progress-2 and Europe MN.
@Ebizur
How does the Austronesian C1b relate to the C1b in India and in Kosenteki-14?
@Valdimir
Isn't true F*/K*/P* super rare? Are you also arguing similar to the paper that said West Eurasian y lineages were wiped out and West Eurasian was repopulated from the East? I think that paper has severe biases.
gL wrote,
"There is presence of O y-dna north of Yellow River basin in modern Mongolians and even more in Turkic and Tungusic speaking populations, which can't be called exclusively as exclusively "modern" population."
The presence of Y-DNA that belongs to haplogroup O-M175 in regions north of the Yellow River basin, Korea, and Japan appears to be marginal, and possibly even due in great part to the recent migration of Han Chinese into Manchuria.
Karafet et al. 2018 found the following in a sample of Khalkha from Mongolia:
1/75 O1a-M119(xP203)
1/75 O1b-P31*
1/75 O2a2-P201*
5/75 O2a2b1-M134
1/75 O2a1c-JST002611
9/75 = 12.0% O-M175 total
Karafet et al. 2018 also found the following in a sample of Uyghurs from Xinjiang:
2/66 O1a1a-P203
4/66 O2a2b1-M134
3/66 O2a1c-JST002611
9/66 = 13.6% O-M175 total
Ashirbekov et al. (2017) found the following in a pool of samples of Kazakhs from Kazakhstan:
9/1294 = 0.70% O-M175(xO2-M122)
9/1294 = 0.70% O2-M122(xO2a2b1-M134)
122/1294 = 9.43% O2a2b1-M134
140/1294 = 10.82% O-M175 total
However, a huge proportion of these Kazakh haplogroup O individuals belonged to the Naiman tribe: about two thirds of the sample of Naimans belonged to haplogroup O2a2b1-M134, and these Naiman individuals accounted for 102/122 = 83.6% of all sampled Kazakh members of haplogroup O2a2b1-M134. (The Naimans accounted for 105/140 = 75.0% of all sampled Kazakh members of haplogroup O-M175.)
In regions north of the Yellow River basin and west of Northeast China, the distribution of haplogroup O-M175 is quite sparse. It may be attributable to proto-historical founder effects in certain cases (e.g. the Naiman Kazakhs). I am not aware of any details regarding the subclades found among Khalkha Mongols and Uyghurs that should preclude their being descended from historical Chinese slaves or migrants.
@Draft Dozen and re: "And there aren't many Finnish haplogroups...You probably thought that the Russian Khaganate was in the North? Well, first of all, this is a phantom state. Second, if it were, it would be located in the South."
"Finnish" > You could even be a Russian but "South" >> You're an Ukrainian, right? Nothing wrong with that, of course. But, do I smell the everlasting Hohhols vs. Moskals dogfight here?
BTW in regards to interesting haplogroups, I think that the Avar N-B197 is one of those. Not "Finnish", as say a Russian would call a haplogroup related to the Uralic expansion, but however still desceding from the same N-L1026 root as for instance ancient Hungarian N-Z1936. So, what language(s) did those guys talk?
@davidski said
"For one, farming spread into the Pontic-Caspian steppe from the west, you know from the Balkans."
Lol, you are always too sure of yourself. either that or your brain just cannot process anything which doesnt suit your biases. Whatever you do, you will not be able to explain away east caspian affinity in the piedmont samples.
https://doaj.org/article/4bdde1d259874ef6b836ed2adbfb6a41
The earliest appearance of domesticated plant species and their origins on the western fringes of the Eurasian Steppe
"To conclude, the archaeobotanical investigationsconducted by the author have provided evidence that cereal cultivation began in eastern Ukraine and south-west Russia around the second half of the 5thmillennium calBC, as demonstrated by the analysis of pottery impressions from the Zanovskoe and Ra-kushechny Yar sites. The earliest evidence of cereal cultivation in eastern Ukraine and southwest Russia comes from the Sredny-Stog culture sites at Zanov-skoe and Rakushechny Yar, where cereals and their chaff impressions were identified by the author inthe layers dated to the second half of the 5th to the first half of the 4th millennium calBC. A variety of cereal species were identified from the grain and chaff impressions, comprising hulled and naked ba-rley, spelt wheat, probably flax, and broomcorn mil-let species.
The archaeobotanical and archaeological evidence has shown that the possibility cannot be excluded that the spread of cereal cultivation into the east-ern regions of Ukraine and south-western Russia may have arrived from the Caucasian corridor and the Eurasian steppe, but only during the Chalcolithic period."
Mike said...
"This forager population from which early corded Ware and yamnaya pick up ancestry looks like a mix of UKR_N / UKR_Meso. Am I Right?"
You're not right.
Davidski said...
"Yes, basically identical to UKR_Meso."
Identical to RUS_Karelia_HG, no UKR_Meso.
Progress-2 is a mixture that's close to RUS_Khvalynsk_En:I0434 (base to WSH). But Progress-2 has extra-CHG over WSH therefore it is not ancestral to WSH.
@ Vasistha
There’s been quite a few isotopic studies on the steppe populations, and it shows that the Khvalysnk & Samara population were essentially fishermen. They only started incorporating domesticates during the Yamnaya period, which was associated with the population replacement from the west.
The CHG populations around the southern steppe were hunters of wild game
I don’t know what you’ve read on Brown Pundits; But it’s not very factual
Does anybody know when the Dzudzuana genome is going to be published and if the paper will have more samples from Paleolithic Eurasia than just that one?
This talk about Ukraine mesolithic and neolithic populations lead me to look at them more closely than I had earlier. It looks like both have either equally low or equally non-existent amount of EEF and CHG ancestry, and both are different proportions of EHG + WHG. Ukrain mesolithic has more EHG and less WHG while Ukraine neolithic has less EHG and more WHG. Knowing this, I wondered if there was a measurable difference between the populations, and so I looked for it online. I came across a K Jacobs paper on Mesolithic and Neolithic Ukraine and according to the postcranial measurements, Ukraine Mesolithic (more EHG) had longer bones while Ukraine Neolithic (more WHG) had a higher bone circumference, and thus higher robustness.
So EHG = taller, WHG = more robust.
Rob:
"I don’t know what you’ve read on Brown Pundits; But it’s not very factual"
I saw you delete the anti Semitic comment against Reich. You need to delete this one also. Moderator please take note. Thank you.
@gL
"which are more pleasant to live and prosper"
Pre-Neolithic SE Asia
Hoabinhian Laos Pha Faen [La368] 7888 ± 40 cal BP M C
Hoabinhian Malaysia Gua Cha [Ma911] 4319 ± 64 cal BP M D
@ mayuresh
You’re spinning shit.
There’s some dubious claims on BP; which is obviously where Vasistha got his theories from. They going against the facts. So I’m not sure why you’re so offended. There’s no point criticising steppe fanatics when one is an OIT fanatic
@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar
If you link me to any racist comments that have been posted here I'll delete them and take the appropriate action against the commentator(s).
However, please keep in mind that I can't arbitrarily delete comments that some people find offensive but aren't clearly in breach of any rules or laws.
A lot of people find a lot of stuff offensive these days, especially in heated debates like we often get into here.
@Davidski,
Your linking Yamnaya to Ukraine hunter gatherers is a bit confusing.
When modelled with Progress-4, Yamanay you got 14% UkraineN. Which would mean it has very little Ukraine HG admix.
Yamnaya comes out ~80% Progress-4, yet you say its Progress ancestry came via female-mediate admixture as if UkraineHG forms the foundation of Yamnaay's ancestry. 80% can only be explained by large scale whole population migration.
@Samuel
I'm linking Yamnaya to the Dnieper region hunter-gatherers because the more appropriate reference population from the Don region isn't available yet.
When it becomes available, this will increase the level of that type of more western-shifted hunter-gatherer ancestry in Yamnaya, and particuarly in some Yamnaya groups, as well as in early Corded Ware.
Of course, this will still mean that there was a huge influx of CHG/Progress-related ancestry into the Don/eastern Ukraine region, but it seems to have been a very gradual process and it didn't have much, if any, effect on the native Y-haplogroups. So take from that what you will.
@Archi,
When compared to CHG, Yamanya's European hunter gatherer comes out as EHG. So, it is confusing how they have Ukraine hunter gatherer.
Their CHG-rich ancestor must have had very ANE-shifted EHG ancestry which when combined with Eastern UkraineHG looks like EHG.
Well there might have been a population shift in Ukraine. This is what the physical anthropology image which Archi continuously links suggests
It shows the people changed in some way, but the nature of this change needs to be understood (by someon who can is able to do so)
First it entailed drawing on Progress-like ancestry, then a departure of that original group with arrival of newer, eastern Post-Stog groups
@Davidski
Excuse my curiosity, is this research on the don only related to the Eneolithic, or does it also cover the Neolithic? It captures the period when the population from EHG / WHG began to turn into CHG/EHG/WHG or it remained outside the study, that is, somewhere more distant in the Neolithic or even Mesolithic?
@Vladimir
Most of these samples are from the Eneolithic, but some are said to be from the Neolithic.
In any case, they all basically date to around 5,000-4,000 BCE, irrespective of whether they're said to be from the Eneolithic or Neolithic, or how much CHG-related ancestry they have.
So we'll have to see how that's interpreted and presented exactly in the relevant papers, when they're finally published.
Thanks. I asked this because CHG may have been originally, let's say, from the Mesolithic, on the don. And EHG and WHG joined it. WHG is a population of the Starchevo type. EHG came from the Volga or the Caspian sea. Everyone thinks that CHG came last, or maybe not. This would explain the absence of Y markers of CHG, since only local women remained from CHG, and male Y haplogroups were replaced by more aggressive EHG or WHG migrants.
@Vladimir
CHG-related ancestry spread into eastern Ukraine, the Middle Don and Middle Volga as early as 5,000 BCE.
You'll see this reflected in the ancient DNA from these regions in the same way as in the Khvalynsk data, with some samples showing very little CHG and others a lot.
And yet the Y-haplogroups don't really change, except of course at sites associated with Steppe Maykop.
@ Vlad
“ WHG is a population of the Starchevo type”
No; starcevo are essentially Anatolian farmers with minimal WHG
There are ~ 4 different types of WHG
- Western with residual El Miron ancestry
- SHG: with some Karelia ancestry
- Eastern WHG who admixed into Ukraine meso
- basal WHG from Adriatic
@Davidski
With large sample sizes, it may be possible to establish a relationship between samples with a larger or smaller CHG and Y haplogroup. If, for example, the larger CHG shows R1a and the smaller R1b, then the CHG carrier will be R1a. If there is no such connection, then only the option of marriage exchanges remains.
@Rob OK, but are they all I2a?
@Davidski,
if this CHG-rich population who was moving around in 5000 BC was like Progress-4, then Yamnaya is overwhelmingly descended from them, and they'd be the best canidates of being the pre-proto Indo Europeans.
What would change this, is if this CHG-rich population had much less EHG than Progress-4, and that progress-4 is just one of many products of this 5000 BC admixture event.
@Davidski,
"but it seems to have been a very gradual process and it didn't have much, if any, effect on the native Y-haplogroups. So take from that what you will."
This is big deal.
Neolithic West European farmers were 70% Anatolian but had 100% WHG Y DNA. It could have been a similar thing for Sredny Stog, Yamnaya. Ukraine hunter gatherer Y DNA, but mostly South Russia CHG-rich ancestry.
@Vladimir
R1a definitely wasn't initially linked to heavy CHG, because there are R1a samples from the steppe with no CHG, a little CHG, and then eventually a lot of CHG.
Not sure about R1b yet. But it seems that the earliest subclade associated with a lot of CHG was R1b-V1636 in the North Caucasus steppe, while pre-M269 and M269 had a more northern range where CHG arrived later.
The fact R1b P297 is known in Latvia, Northwest Russia, Samara, Botai/Kazachstan is northern distribution. R1b M269 apparently is in Volosovo Northwest Russia. So, it would not be a surpise R1b M269 in Indo Europeans comes from Eastern Ukraine not near Caucasus.
I get it.
One could argue the CHG rich population brought R1a M417 to Ukraine, but if Neo/Eneo samples who lack CHG have R1a then still have R1a after CHG admix arrives, that of course suggests R1a M417 is of Ukraine hunter gatherer origin.
It is a big deal, if both R1b M269 and R1a M417 come from hunter gatherers in East Ukraine who represent minority of total ancestry of Proto-Indo Europeans. This brings up lots of questions .
@ Vlad
The WHG can be grouped at genome wide level clusters
Also on basis of different MtDNA patterns (U5b1; U5b2; U4; U5a) & different YDNA (I2a1; I2a2; I2c; R1b-V88) So forth
I won’t bore people with the details
Then this option is possible. R1b-L389 somewhere in the North of the Caspian sea is divided into R1b-P297, which goes to the Volga (Elshanka culture?) and R1b-V1636, which goes South, maybe even to the southern coast of the Caspian sea. R1a-M198 at this time is located in the lower don region (Rakushechniy Yar?). Then R1b-V1636 (CHG) comes from the South, possibly from the South of the Caucasus, to the lower don, where it mixes with R1a-M198. During this time, R1b - M73 separates from R1b-P297 and goes North and East. And then the mixed R1a-M417 is mixed with R1b-M269. The percentage of CHG in the impurity is thus reduced. As a result, the desired population is formed.
@Samuel
See the YFull update. In Latvia, there is a person with basalt subclades R1b-Y13200*. Clearly a descendant of the Latvian Neolithic R1b-P297.
Davidski said...
"I'm linking Yamnaya to the Dnieper region hunter-gatherers because the more appropriate reference population from the Don region isn't available yet."
Why wait for some Don? When there are direct ancestors of Indo-Europeans Karelia_HG, Samara_HG, Khvalynsk. Ignoring Samara_HG and Khvalynsk looks ideologically biased. Your dislike of Karelia is very visible, so you create bad artificial models that do not work. They are wrong because you knowingly ignore the right alternative. The truth is objective.
Archaeologists did not in vain associate Yamnaya culture with Khvalynskiy exactly because there are all its signs, including anthropological ones. One cannot only prove that the Yamnaya culture comes from Khvalynsk culture. Archaeologists and anthropologists have never in vain associated the Neolithic Ukraine with the Yamnaya culture, because there is nothing there that would be ancestral to the Yamnaya culture. Genetics confirms all this and proves how not to try to pass it off as anything else.
----
In Khvalynsk culture, there were pastoralists, fish were eaten by those who lived on the Volga River, in this they are no different from any European and Middle Eastern farmers who lived by the rivers or by the sea.
@Vladimir
"And EHG and WHG joined it. WHG is a population of the Starchevo type."
At last you learn population genetics, you write nonsense.
@Archi
You're so clueless, all I can do is laugh at you.
I'll show you something awesome when the time comes, hopefully soon.
But be careful, because your head might explode when you see it.
Vladimir sat down on his favorite ice skate again. Нe binds autosomal mixtures to Y-haplogroups. He writes some nonsense that any can't read or understand.
Y-haplogroups != autosomal components.
1. No one knows the northern boundary of CHG distribution in Mesolithic and Neolithic.
2. One should not forget about the marriage contacts, that the steppes were taken as wives from the CisCaucasus by archaeologists, and that the connection with the CisCaucasus was on the female line there. Look at the corresponding mtDNA.
@Archi
I understand everything Davidski writes perfectly. Judging by Davidski answers, he understands everything I write perfectly. You can't understand it because you probably have some concept of your own that the new data doesn't fit into.
@rob
Is that all you got given the papers I have quoted from established paleobotanists?
"I don’t know what you’ve read on Brown Pundits; But it’s not very factual."
I literally gave you links of the papers. read them. And for the record I detest razib, almost never open brownpundits lol.
@vAsiSTha
I'd be grateful if you could provide me and our audience here with actual evidence of crop cultivation at the following Eneolithic sites which have produced remains with significant CHG-related ancestry:
- Khvalynsk, Russia
- Progress-2, Russia
- Vonyuchka, Ukraine
I already know about the evidence of crop cultivation at Sredny Stog sites, but these sites were relatively close to the early farmers of western Ukraine and even the Balkans, so there's no need to assume that the people there got their crops from Iran or Central Asia, of all places.
Thanks in advance.
@Davidski
"- Vonyuchka, Ukraine"
Vonyuchka is Russia. It is close to Progress-2, Russia
You will see how the population of Ukraine changes in the Eneolithic, and that it does not continue Neolithic and Mesolithic Ukraine. By all parameters the population of the Eneolithic Don should be close to Khvalynsk.
@Draft Dozen
And what will this research give me? You said there were plenty of "aggressive" Uralic-speaking groups, by the time of the Hungarian conquests (XI century), but the majority of samples in research are from the X-XI centuries. And there aren't many Finnish haplogroups.
That the Vikings were far from ethnically and genetically homogeneous and included ethnic groups from the east of the Baltic Sea as well.
There were no Vikings among the Hungarian conquerors. The Hungarian conquerors are irrelevant to the Viking phenomenon.
You probably thought that the Russian Khaganate was in the North? Well, first of all, this is a phantom state. Second, if it were, it would be located in the South. As for the archeology, toponyms and genetics of Russians, this is a consequence of the mixing and/or assimilation of Finno-Ugric tribes by the Slavs. And this is significant in the North of Russia. Chudes, Merya, Muromians...The Chronicles mention them few times with events of a military character.
Even Kievan Rus', the existence of which you cannot deny, has Novgorod thus northern origins. The Chudes are from the north but the Meschera, Merya and Muromians are more southern peoples. In fact, most of what is now European Russia was still Finno-Ugric-speaking during the early centuries of Kievan Rus'.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sYN__57HdWE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W3CvfrmHpt4&t=3s
@Archi
By all parameters the population of the Eneolithic Don should be close to Khvalynsk.
It's not really. It's close to Yamnaya and early Corded Ware.
And obviously, I know that Vonyuchka is in Russia. That was a typo. I was thinking about Sredny Stog when I wrote that.
@Davidski
"It's close to Yamnaya and early Corded Ware."
It means being close to Khvalynsk, look I0434, and very very far from Neolithic Ukraine (and Meso).
@Archi
Like I said, I'll show you something awesome when the time comes, and also teach you something about genetic clines on the Eneolithic steppe.
@Archi
Objectively speaking, in the Eneolithic there was no influence of Khvalynsk (Volga region) on the don. There was an influence of the Lower don. There was an influence of Sredniy Stog, Dereevka. There are, of course, questions about the origin of the Neolithic culture of the middle don. There is a hypothesis about its origins on the middle Volga, there is a hypothesis about its origin in the North of the Caspian sea, and there is a hypothesis about its origin in the Caucasus. In any case, this is the early Neolithic. The only culture of the upper don strongly associated with the Volga ( with Elshanka culture) is the Karamyshevo culture and that is the upper don (Lipetsk region).
@Vladimir
You write about issues you don't know anything about. You don't know anything about topics and all your statements simply come from ignorance of archaeology, even on a superficial level. Not to mention genetics.
@ Vasistha
"I literally gave you links of the papers. read them.''
I have. And here is what they show:
Traces of wheat and barely show up by 3500 BC, yes - from East -> West. But they were not consumed much. As I said, most stepe populations until ~ 3300 BC, apart from certain individuals in the Ukraine steppe, remained fisher-hunter-gatherers. This is proven by isotopes, and this paper also confirms it !
These cereals were only assimialted into regular diet during the Iron Age, broadly Scythians, who owe a large amount of their genesis to the Altai region.
They say ''A substantial lag time between initial translocation and intensive consumption of cultivars is evidenced in both the carbonized seed record and the stable isotopic record in several regions of the E(urasian) S(teppe).
So -at present - there is no convincing data for agropastoralists moving east to west during the Eneolithic. The small amount of eastern grains are easily accounted by the contacts created by WSHs. And in reality, the definitive WSHs (Andronovo-Srubnaja) were even more 'western' than Afansievo. Of course, future data may modify this
And sorry if i mistook- there was an interesting post on B.Ps which attempted to synthesise the appearance of CHG with a simialr idea - eastern pastoralists. But it doesn;t quite work for the above mentioned reasons
@Rob
"As I said, most stepe populations until 3000 BC, apart from certain individuals in the Ukraine steppe, remained fisher-hunter-gatherers."
This is nonsense, if you do not eat cereals, it does not mean that you are a fisher-hunter-gatherers, it means that you are a cattle herder-pastoralist (strongly proven!). And fish was eaten by everyone everywhere in Europe or Asia who lived near rivers or the sea, including the most notorious farmers, no less those who lived near the Dnieper or Volga.
@ Archi
Its not nonsense. There are clear isotopic distinctions between Yamnaya & Khvalynsk, although Yamnaya also ate fish. But, apart from the odd feast or sacrifice, Khvalynsk remained F-H-Gs.
@ Archi
''This is nonsense, if you do not eat cereals, it does not mean that you are a fisher-hunter-gatherers, it means that you are a cattle herder-pastoralist''
clearly you misunderstood
They did not eat much cattle or sheep either. This is proven by isotopic human data. The odd sheep & cattle bone found in the Eneolithic Samara were isolated feasts & sacrifices
From Schulting et al (Samara valley project)
''The clearest trend to emerge from the Samara Valley stable isotope data is the marked difference between the Eneolithic and the Bronze Age. This is interpreted as indicating a
substantially greater contribution of freshwater fish and no detectable C4
input in the diet of most individuals in the earlier population, in contrast to a lower contribution of fish and a greater influence of wild C4 plants, primarily via grazing stock, in the later population.''
This is consistent with the aDNA data- a sweeping replacement by Z2103 clan pastoralists from somewhere further west
Rob said...
" Its not nonsense. There are clear isotopic distinctions between Yamnaya & Khvalynsk, although Yamnaya also ate fish. But, apart from the odd feast or sacrifice, Khvalynsk remained F-H-Gs."
This is a direct lie, as always.
@Archi: Khvalynsk was an offshot branch from the Lower Don which mixed with local foragers up the rivers. That's what made them different and they were more isolated from the centre of PIE/steppe evolution which remained further South and West. In this centre around the Don the Sredny Stog and Yamnaya came up and later replaced Khvalynsk almost completely.
This is not just proven genetically, but also archaeologically. Khvalynsk was, for the most part, a cousin and a dead end for the steppe evolution.
The genetic difference should be, if I'm right about this, that Khvalynsk has more EHG and probably even more exotic Eastern ancestry the more they migrated up the rivers, while those remaining West shifted slowly but steadily to the West. That's why Khvalynsk has the least Western, Yamnaya is in the middle and SSC with its descendents (Corded Ware, Cernavoda-Usatovo, Bell Beaker etc.) has the most of it. The real development happened all the time in the West.
Progress was the earliest offshot, Khvalynsk followed and Yamnaya the last one. Its only from then on the "real PIE" had formed and spread all known IE dialects, with the earliest coming from Cernavoda or a related "steppe Balkan" culture = Hittite/Anatolian.
@zardos
"Khvalynsk was an offshot branch from the Lower Don which mixed with local foragers up the rivers."
This is just your opinion, but not the opinion of archaeology.
"In this centre around the Don the Sredny Stog and Yamnaya came up and later replaced Khvalynsk almost completely."
See, you don't know what you're writing at all. The Sredniy Stog never replaced Khvalynsk, both cultures disappeared at the same time and did not spread to each other's territory. Yamnaya did not replace Khvalynsk, it appeared a thousand years later.
"This is not just proven genetically, but also archaeologically. "
This is not true, you are now writing just complete untruth passing off your fictions as supposedly an archaeological and genetic fact. Neither archaeology nor genetics proved anything of the sort.
"Khvalynsk was, for the most part, a cousin and a dead end for the steppe evolution."
Yamnaya was, for the most part, a cousin and a dead end for the steppe evolution.
"... Progress was the earliest offshot, Khvalynsk followed and Yamnaya the last one. Its only from then on the "real PIE" had formed and spread all known IE dialects, with the earliest coming from Cernavoda or a related "steppe Balkan" culture = Hittite/Anatolian."
You have some kind of mess in your head. There's nothing like that, Khvalynsk arose quite at the same time as the Sredniy Stog. Progress is a part of the Sredniy Stog-Khvalynsk community. What did Cernavoda have to do with anyone else nobody knows, just hypotheses.
@Davidski
These R1a samples comes from one or multiple sites?
@Mike
Same site and different sites.
@Rob "The odd sheep & cattle bone found in the Eneolithic Samara were isolated feasts & sacrifices"
Don't talk nonsense, Neolithic Samara is not Eneolithic Khvalynsk.You're just substituting concepts.
Here's from the same Shishlina "Paired 14C dating of human, sheep, and cow bones from the Eneolithic Khvalynsk graves".
Remains of sheep and domestic cows of Khvalynsk culture are many, it is strictly proved by archaeology, but there are not many fish, Khvalynsk sites are many, just Khvalynsk site itself stands exactly on the bank of the Volga River, all who live on the banks of the rivers those by definition catch fish.
Read O.G. Bogatova Definition of bone remains of animals from the II Khvalynsk burial site (1990) / Khvalynsk Eneolithic burial sites.
Cattle I = 9 4 I+II 25
Small cattle I = 98 29 I+II 171
There was a good article about the emergence of a productive economy in the steppe with tables from different cultures, but unfortunately, I can not now find its link, not kept.
You don't know archeology data, you just make it up.
@Archi: I could bring forth various quotations which prove my point if really necessary, but at first I want to clarify something, which might have been misunderstood:
"You have some kind of mess in your head. There's nothing like that, Khvalynsk arose quite at the same time as the Sredniy Stog. Progress is a part of the Sredniy Stog-Khvalynsk community. What did Cernavoda have to do with anyone else nobody knows, just hypotheses."
That's true, the Lower Don Culture was the first generation, Sredny Stog AND Khvalynsk were the 2nd generation, Khvalynsk is basically the same people moving East and up the rivers, mixing there with locals and staying culturally behind. That's what they are.
Sredny Stog on the other hand diversified and its from there, especially Dereivka and related groups, that Corded Ware related cultures emerge, including Cernavoda, Usatovo and Corded Ware Culture proper, subsequently Bell Beakers. Which ethnic groups are associated with which culture, and whether Cernavoda was Proto-Anatolian, is unsure, but quite likely in my opinion.
But that Khvalynsk was a hunter-fisher admixed offshot and dead end is not just my opinion, but seems to be proven now. The Western brother made it, the Eastern not so much. On the grand tree they are therefore just cousins to PIE, from the 2nd generation after LDC.
@zardos
"But that Khvalynsk was a hunter-fisher admixed offshot and dead end is not just my opinion, but seems to be proven now."
Absolutely nothing like that, it's only in your head, I don't know where you got it from.
"the Lower Don Culture was the first generation"
It's your opinion, in fact, the first generation of Onega/Veretie was equally likely.If there is anything else that connects the Lower Don culture with the Sredniy Stog culture, because it came from the Don, then you can't say that about Khvalynsk culture, here are no connections with the Lower Don culture.
There were complex processes there, on which the southern Neolithic cultures were not continued, but were replaced by new Eneolithic cultures that came from the north. The entire Neolithic tradition of southern pottery disappeared and was replaced by forest pottery from the north.
From Kotova:
"Similarity of the Khvalynsk ceramics with pottery of the Late Lower Don and Early Sredniy Stog cultures, as well as with separate vessels of the Orlovka culture allow me to assume, that its formation was connected with human migration about 5200-5150 BC, caused by gradual climate dryness. Probably, that aridity forced a part of the Early Sredniy Stog population from the steppe Don region to move in northern areas along valleys of the Don, Medveditsa and Volga."
"On the right bank of Volga the migrants met the local population of the Neolithic Orlovka culture, and probably assimilated its separate groups, as well as some southern groups of the Samara culture. As a result of those complicated processes the Khvalynsk culture was formed."
" A layer of the Khvalynsk culture at the Kombak-te site in the north-west of Pricaspian area is dated about 4880±192 BC. Probably, here the Khvalynsk population partly assimilated the native inhabitants - the population of the Neolithic Pricaspian culture."
Nadja S. Kotova, The contacts of the Eastern European steppe people with the Balkan population during the transition period from Neolithic to Eneolithic, in PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA - BAND 30.
The origin of Sredny Stog can be best related to the Lower Don Culture, from which it got most of its traditions. Most of the influences working on the development of the steppe people's culture came from the West. The whole ethnogenesis is not explainable without the Western Neoltihic influences working on the steppe people and their traditions. That's what it was about: They kept their core traditions, but adopted innovations, genetic and cultural influences from the Neolithic neighbours.
@davidski
"I'd be grateful if you could provide me and our audience here with actual evidence of crop cultivation at the following Eneolithic sites which have produced remains with significant CHG-related ancestry:
- Khvalynsk, Russia
- Progress-2, Russia
- Vonyuchka, Ukraine"
Vonyuchka is in Russia along with Progress & I have seen no archaeological reports on these sites (apart from that on skull trepanation), definitely not in English. If an english report is available, id like to read it. Afaik, only a few burials have been unearthed and I doubt many cereal remains will be found in such contexts. However, it is clear that progress people were fish eaters with upto 50-60% freshwater fish in diet (600 years reservoir effect). That does not preclude presence of imported or domestically grown cereals.
Chokh, Dagestan, Russia is 500km or so from these above 2 sites, north of caucasas mountains, and full fledged presence of cereals and sickles in the neolithic. from https://www.oxfordhandbooks.com/view/10.1093/oxfordhb/9780199935413.001.0001/oxfordhb-9780199935413-e-13
"In the Neolithic layer (C) at Chokh, a large stone building with a corridor-like entrance yielded abundant material (Amirkhanov, 1987). Continuity is obvious in the lithic material from the Mesolithic layers: scalene triangles still predominate and small blades become frequent. Grinding stones and pottery (mineral-tempered ware with flat bases) also appear, and a sherd decorated with two knobs evokes the Aratashen-Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture. Bone sickle handles decorated with incised diamond shapes closely parallel the culture of Sialk I (sixth millennium bc) on the Iranian plateau (Wechler, 2001).
Based on the presence of domesticated animals (sheep) and a large assortment of cereals, the excavator considers this site evidence of local domestication"
Now to Khvalynsk, the most interesting part. And i will quote from Anthony 2019.
"But before 4500 BC, CHG ancestry appeared among the EHG hunter-fishers in the middle Volga steppes from Samara to Saratov, at the same time that domesticated cattle and sheep-goats appeared."
"After 5000 BC domesticated animals appeared in these same sites in the lower Volga, and in new ones, and in grave sacrifices at Khvalynsk and Ekaterinovka. CHG genes and domesticated animals flowed north up the Volga, and EHG genes flowed south into the North Caucasus steppes, and the two components became admixed."
Anthony squarely puts the animal domestication in Khvalynsk on appearance of CHG like ancestry (which we know is not just chg). So why can Sredni Stog cereals not be from the south/south east?
The most interesting part
"The proportion of CHG in the Wang et al. (2018) bar graphs is about 20-30% in two individuals, substantially less CHG than in Yamnaya; but the
third Khvalynsk individual had more than 50% CHG, like Yamnaya."
We know that I0434 is not 50% CHG, but the excess chg like component is similar to that from east of caspian (iran_n + minor wshg).
Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_En_o:I0434
Distance: 3.8016% / 0.03801577
61.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
18.6 TJK_Sarazm_En
17.0 GEO_CHG
2.8 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 Shulaveri_Shomu_Mentesh
@Huck Finn
I thought there was no difference :) Now I know - the Finnish language, Finnic peoples.
South, because the term Khagan were Turkic and as an official title used only by Turkic nomads. The only way to adopt the term Khagan was the Khazar Khaganate, it is in the south.
@ Archi
“ Read O.G. Bogatova Definition of bone remains of animals from the II Khvalynsk burial site (1990) / Khvalynsk Eneolithic burial sites.
Cattle I = 9 4 I+II 25
Small cattle I = 98 29 I+II 171”
These are analogue hand counts. there is a reason why all the sites are being re-examined again with proper methods modern scientific analysis and international teams and everything being re-dated & human remains being analysed with isotopes to evaluate previous claims. This is been done in the lower Don culture and all of the Samara Valley. And they all contravene your claims
@Onur Dincer
"That the Vikings were far from ethnically and genetically homogeneous"
I knew it from the sagas. But this work did not strongly confirm "plenty aggressive Uralic-speaking groups, judging by Novgorod, Kuravanikha, Gnezdovo
"Even Kievan Rus', the existence of which you cannot deny, has Novgorod thus northern origins."
You have everything mixed up, Novgorod, Rus', Russian Khaganate. Rus' and Russian Khaganat are not equal, Russian Khaganate is phantom. If you follow the Primary Chronicle, when the tribes called Rurik, archaeologically Novgorod did not exist at that time. It was another place. The Primary Chronicle didn't mention Meschera. Chudes, Merya and Muromians paid tribute, so they took part in the campaigns several times. But no fundamental role. And most of what is now European Russia was not only Finno-Ugric-speaking during the early centuries of Rus', but also partly Baltic, partly Turkic. There are couple of inaccuracies in your link to the last video.
@vAsiSTha
There's no evidence for the migrations of any farmers from Iran, Central Asia or even Armenia into the steppe during the Neolithic or Eneolithic.
You're just imagining that there is and, unfortunately, you appear to be mentally unstable. That is, out with the fairies in la la land.
This is what explains CHG-related ancestry in the Eneolithic steppe.
The main common features of lithic industries on wide territories including North and South Caucasus, Crimea, Central Asia is the emergence of pressure technique and high/short trapezoids (transverse arrowheads). The above features appeared at about 8,5-10 k. cal BC in NW Caucasus. We can trace the development and transformation of the trapezoidal transverse arrowhead type in Neolithic industries with complete “package” including pottery and domestication.
https://meso2020.sciencesconf.org/325710
@Rob
"And they all contravene your claims"
This is a perfect untrue, nothing has changed, nothing is being examined again.No isotope research has changed anything, they all categorically write that Khvalynskaya culture is cattle breeders and they fed on livestock. And they are writing now. And they all contravene your claims All results remain valid because this article was published in 2010, I know for sure that your claims are wrong.
@ Archi
https://books.google.com.au/books/about/A_Bronze_Age_Landscape_in_the_Russian_St.html?id=KWmRDwAAQBAJ&redir_esc=y
''At Eneolithic Khvalynsk , domesticated sheep, goats and cattle appeared in funerary sacrifices... IN this volume, SChulting & Richards analysis of stable isotopes in the bones of Khvalynsk individuals show that their diet depended to a large extent on fish. Eneolithic domesticated cattle & sheep-goats might have been reserved for use as a ritual and feastint currency with the elevation of a new social rank..'
Thanks for coming . Now sing some poetry..
@ Vasistha
You're starting to sound like Archi. Please stop embarassing yourself
@ Draft Dozen: no problem. Kiev is a nice city.
@Rob
In your alleged quote, there is not a word about the fact that they were neither Fisher Hunter Gatherers nor Cattle Breeders. It mean, you're caught again.
We can't believe your words, it's proven, you haven't written a word of truth yet. Nobody cares what some unauthorized individuals hypothesize. It is proved beyond any scientific doubt that in Khvalynsk culture people were pastoralists, that they fed on livestock, that burials with cattle did not depend on any social rank. Yes, people in Khvalynsk site lived on the river bank, but there are no fish isotopes in other sites not on the river bank. Many fish were eaten and Yamnaya cattlemen, almost as much as in Khvalynsk, but this does not make them any hunter-gatherers.
@rob
Archi is right. The reservoir effect for khvalynsk is much lesser. Only about 250 years. Ie 20-30% of their diet was fish.
Read up.
^^^nor not-Cattle Breeders
Archi you can call them whatever you wish; the fact remains they’re diet was predominantly fish; and different markedly from later Yamnaya ; who seem to have replaced them .
Vasistha - CHG came via hunter-gatherer networks.
@Rob
The diet of the Israelites was predominantly fish - remember how many fishermen there were in the 12 apostles, the majority.
Consequently, in the Middle East, at the time of the Roman Empire, fisher-hunters-gatherers lived.%(
@Rob
1. Theres an Iran component apart from CHG component in both khvalynsk & progress. Those Iran_N carrying people were not hunter gatherers.
2. From Shishlina 2017
THE LEBYAZHINKA BURIAL GROUND (MIDDLE VOLGA REGION, RUSSIA):
NEW 14C DATES AND THE RESERVOIR EFFECT
"The age difference between the cattle and human bones from grave 10 of
the Khvalynsk II is 220 yr, the human bone being older because of the reservoir effect."
"Thus, for humans with a diet consisting for 100% of freshwater resources, the reservoir effect would be 1040 14C yr"
1040 yrs reservoir effect = 100% freshwater fish diet
220 yr reservoir effect = X % of fish diet?
calculate X using Cook et al linear model (2001, 2011)
3. David anthony writes "But before 4500 BC, CHG ancestry appeared among the EHG hunter-fishers in the middle Volga steppes from Samara to Saratov, at the same time that domesticated cattle and sheep-goats appeared.
A) Do you dispute that domesticated animals appeared in the khvalynsk and samara region?
B) If you dont dispute it, what were domesticated animals doing there and what was their use? Just occasional feast and sacrifice?
@Archi
P is from SE Asia. Although we can't rule our North Eurasia yet. Itanyuan is 39000-42000 years old and K2b and P is 41500 years old so I doubt he is the ancestor of the P line that lead to R and Q. He's still East Asian though.
@Draft Dozen
I knew it from the sagas. But this work did not strongly confirm "plenty aggressive Uralic-speaking groups, judging by Novgorod, Kuravanikha, Gnezdovo
Yes, the Baltic Finns were the most aggressive, still, other Finnic groups were more aggressive than the non-Finnic Uralics in general too.
You have everything mixed up, Novgorod, Rus', Russian Khaganate. Rus' and Russian Khaganat are not equal, Russian Khaganate is phantom. If you follow the Primary Chronicle, when the tribes called Rurik, archaeologically Novgorod did not exist at that time. It was another place. The Primary Chronicle didn't mention Meschera. Chudes, Merya and Muromians paid tribute, so they took part in the campaigns several times. But no fundamental role. And most of what is now European Russia was not only Finno-Ugric-speaking during the early centuries of Rus', but also partly Baltic, partly Turkic. There are couple of inaccuracies in your link to the last video.
The early settlement of Novgorod is not the current one, it is what is now called Rurikovo Gorodische, but still geographically close to the current one:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurikovo_Gorodische
The Rurikids first ruled from Staraya Ladoga (also in northern Russia), then moved their capital to Novgorod (what is now Rurikovo Gorodische) and only after conquering Kiev during the reign of Oleg made it their capital. The Novgorod and thus northern origins of Kievan Rus' and the Viking origin of the Rurikid dynasty are beyond dispute.
The Meschera lands are west of the Muromian lands and south of the Merya lands, so it is beyond doubt that Kievan Rus' came into contact with the Meschera or whatever they were called back then.
I am already well aware of the Baltic-speaking and Turkic-speaking territories of what is now European Russia during the Kievan Rus' times and made my statement "most of what is now European Russia was still Finno-Ugric-speaking during the early centuries of Kievan Rus'" taking them into account as well. I know history and geography well.
@Tigran
"P is from SE Asia."
It's just your speculation. P1 isn't from SE Asia.
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana1] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana2] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1
"Itanyuan is 39000-42000 years old and K2b and P is 41500 years old so I doubt he is the ancestor of the P line that lead to R and Q. He's still East Asian though"
That's not true. K2b/P is not East Asian, just like K2a is not from Europe.
Palaeolithic Romania Peştera cu Oase [Oase 1] 39690-35630 calBCE [(34290+970-870 BP, GrA-22810), (>35200 BP, OxA-11711), (34950+900-890 BP, OxA-GrA combined 14C Age)] M K2a* (pre-NO*)
Vasistha
I have repeated the quote
''At Eneolithic Khvalynsk , domesticated sheep, goats and cattle appeared in funerary sacrifices... IN this volume, SChulting & Richards analysis of stable isotopes in the bones of Khvalynsk individuals show that their diet depended to a large extent on fish. Eneolithic domesticated cattle & sheep-goats might have been reserved for use as a ritual and feastint currency with the elevation of a new social rank..'
You seem to be struggling with basic comprehension
''1040 yrs reservoir effect = 100% freshwater fish diet
220 yr reservoir effect = X % of fish diet?
calculate X using Cook et al linear model (2001, 2011)''
LOL That's not how it works
From M. Frachetti; even more digestible
'' Likewise, the trans-Caucasus and Volga-River basin were home to hunting communities, subsumedunder the “Khvalynsk” cultural typology, that supplementedtheir economies with domesticated animals to a small degree(Kuz’mina 1988). The limited use of domesticated animals(typically less than 10% of fauna) at sites such as Kyzl-khakII, Kurpezhe-molla, and Kara Khuduk I (3900–3700 cal BC)suggests a period of “auditioning” of new herding strategiesamong groups whose economy and regional ecology were still largely shaped by hunting during the fourth millennium BC(Barynkin 1998; Barynkin and Vasil’ev 1988'')”
It seems your obsessed with the need Khvalynsk to be pastoralists coming from ~ 7% Iran-N ancestry, and that these revolutionary people were therefore PIE
It's called a Hail Mary hypothesis
@Rob
"I have repeated the quote"
You don't understand this quote, it says the exact opposite of what you say, as always.
"Likewise, the trans-Caucasus and Volga-River basin were home to hunting communities, subsumedunder the “Khvalynsk” cultural typology, that supplementedtheir economies with domesticated animals to a small degree(Kuz’mina 1988). The limited use of domesticated animals(typically less than 10% of fauna) at sites such as Kyzl-khakII, Kurpezhe-molla, and Kara Khuduk I (3900–3700 cal BC)"
Learn to read, it's about Transcaucasia and Central Asia, but not Khvalynsk culture. The Samara culture and the Pri-Caspian culture also existed for a long time. "Khvalynsk" typology is not Khvalynsk culture.
@Archi and Rob: I think we can all agree that they ate a lot of fish AND that they bred domesticated animals. Probably the ratio changed from one settlement to the nexyt even, depending on the resources available.
In any case they were dwelling in their woodland and on the rivers, getting less of the cultural and genetic news Sredny Stog received, until they got caught by the next wave from the relative South West and that's where there story ends.
@rob
Stop quoting some kuzmina paper of 1988, we have more data now.
I would just like to know from you what a 220yr reservoir effect for khvalynsk means in relation to % of diet being from freshwater fish.
Does it mean fish was
a) 20-30% of diet?
b) 60-70% of diet?
2. I doubt that domesticated cattle was there for winning some cattle beauty pageant competition held by eneolithic societies, while they hunted wild animals for food.
3. Archi is right, you are not talking about khvalynsk site, but some other sites. I'm talking about khvalynsk site adna and khvalynsk site reservoir effect specifically.
@ Vasistha
I think you’re hallucinating; because I did not quote Kuz’mina; but 2 publications published in 2016; which summarise hundreds of isotopic samples across the Ponto-Caspian steppe
First Archi says Khvalynsk shouldn’t be used because they ate too much fish. So when I also refer to other eneolithic other sites; you say I should only talk about Khvalynsk . Okkaayyy
Did the putative south Caspian pastoralists fly over the lower Volga / Caspian steppe and parachute specifically into Khvalynskiy II; so 8,500 years later; you can formulate your theory ?
“ we have more data now”
You don’t have any data. There’s not much up in there
@zardos
For Rob's fake, anyone who eats fish is the Hunter Gatherer. You ate fish for lunch today, so you're the Hunter-Gatherer, a wild man who doesn't know the productive economy. The Japaneses who eat almost exclusively fish are, in his logic, hunter-gatherers. It is not profitable for him to understand that hunter-gatherers are called only those who do not know the productive economy.
@ Zardos
Yes fair summary there. But much work remains tbd to determine if they were breeding or merely acquiring domesticates. Given that Khvalynsk were the preferred steppe clients of Varna et al, they seem to also have been acquiring copper goods also
@ Archi
No I’m not saying anyone who eats a fish is a hunter-gatherer. You really should work on basic comprehension before repeatedly making vehement but completely erroneous statements
One of comments about Yamnaya Culture that I found interesting was the idea that they represented an ability move for pastoral populations to move away from freshwater sources, due to use of wagons to carry pottery to store or capture water in arid steppe.
If that's the case, I'd expect for fish to play an important part in diet of all pre-wagon using pops with domestic animals, tied to rivers, particularly if they lacked crops. Because it would be dumb not to use the resource. Then you'd see less fish incorporated into later pastoral groups with wagons, at sites which are further from rivers. Seems testable enough anyway.
@rob
"First Archi says Khvalynsk shouldn’t be used because they ate too much fish. So when I also refer to other eneolithic other sites; you say I should only talk about Khvalynsk."
Okay lets talk about other Eneolithic sites from the region. Lets put this to rest and lets see how and why Khvalynsk is different from them.
Lebyazhinka IV- 300km NE of Khvalynsk Site - Human dated to 5550cal bce.
I0124 - Label: Russia_HG_Samara - EHG with nil CHG/Iran
David Anthony 2019: Finally, in the Volga steppes north of Saratov and near
Samara, hunter-fishers who made a different kind of pottery (Samara type) and hunted wild horses and red deer definitely were EHG. A Samara hunter-gatherer of this era buried at Lebyazhinka IV, dated 5600-5500 BC, was one of the first named examples of the EHG genetic type (Haak et al. 2015). This individual, like others from the same region, had no or very little CHG.
Shislina 2017: Lebyazhinka V - "The funeral offerings in grave 12 included marmot canines, 100 carp pharyngeal teeth, one tubular flattened bead made from bone or shell, and two pieces of flint."
"We see that the 14C age of the human turns out to be 730 14C yr older than the age of the marmot. The 14С age of the carp is greater than the human one. The difference between the age of the terrestrial sample and the aquatic sample is 865 14C yr. This is given as “offset” in Table 2"
"For GrA-64048, the human bone from Lebyazhinka V, the measured δ15N value is δ15N =13.2‰ (Table 2). This then corresponds to a freshwater fraction of the food of 70%."
Reservoir Effect is 730-865 years for Lebyazhinka V. ie much bigger fish diet % (70%) as compared to Khvalynsk (only 220 yr reservoir effect).
Actual age of Lebyazhinka V is then 4800bce.
Coming to Khvalynsk, 300km SW of Lebyazhinka
DIFFERENCES
Point 1: Sheep, goats cattle bones found from Khvalynsk graves which were absent from Lebyazhinka (Marmot, carp)
Point 2: Reservoir effect much lesser @ 220yrs signifying much lesser fish diet % compared to Lebyazhinka (750yr reservoir effect)
Point 3: Khvalynsk saw first appearance of CHG/Iran. CHG/Iran completely absent from Lebyazhinka.
Point 4: Reservoir effect deduction puts Khvalynsk at 4800-4600bce actual instead of 5000-4800bce.
CONCLUSION
Khvalynsk ate less fish than Lebyazhinka eneolithic. Khvalynsk relied more on domesticated animals than Lebyazhinka. Khvalynsk had earliest appearance of CHG/Iran in the region. Therefore, it is likely that the change in consumption pattern and introduction of domestication of animals was brought over by CHG/Iran people.
ps: that is why the labels are Samara_HG but Khvalynsk_En
@Matt: This for sure the decisive moment, because you can see the steppe replacements, mixtures and mobility increase exactly because of that. The main factor was that armies and families alike could move fast through the steppe with wagons, while they are largely confised to the vicinity of freshwater supply before. That was true with or without a lot of fish on the menu, because the humans and animals need water on the way too.
Like I think before wagons, surprise attacks and large scale migrations were far less common, since moving through large portions of land without sufficient water supply would have been rare, whereas afterwards, it was possible.
@Onur Dincer
"Yes, the Baltic Finns were the most aggressive, still, other Finnic groups were more aggressive than the non-Finnic Uralics in general too."
You still haven't listed them, only referred to the work on the Vikings. The fact that some Finnic people were among them, does not make all Finnic people aggressive a priori. Besides Karelians, I don’t remember the warlike Finnic people.
" The early settlement of Novgorod is not the current one, it is what is now called Rurikovo Gorodische"
But the Ancient layers on the Gorodische have no direct genetic ties with the early Novgorod antiquities. Rurikovo Gorodische was a horseshoe-shaped fortified ship berth, such structures were both in England and Ireland, and in Scandinavia itself, but also among the Western Slavs. The Gorodische does not even have its own burial grounds - no one lived there permanently, this is a seasonal settlement and that's it. In addition, it arose later than Rurik's "calling". The date of log cutting of the early kiln is dendrochronologically dated 889–905 and has complete analogies in Gdansk and Szczecin.
"Viking origin of the Rurikid dynasty are beyond dispute"
Well, for now, ydna from the ancient Rurikids that we have are R1a, I2a and E-V13
Ok, this topic is not about the Rurik, Rus' etc, maybe, another time we will discuss it.
@ Vasistha
“ that is why the labels are Samara_HG but Khvalynsk_En”
No. That’s because Khv falls within Eneolithic chronology
. And they used copper. They did not eat copper.
So there’s labels aren’t predicated on diet.
to this point I’ve been nothing but friendly and courteous to you. But now I have to agree with Dave, you’re a complete muppet
@rob
Its quite funny that you focused on just my last line so as not to bother commenting on the first part and acknowledging how wrong you have been all this while.
Instead of bothering to focus on the "HG" , you bothered to focus on "EN", for your gotcha moment. Give me one instance in literature where khvalynsk people have been called hunter-gatherers, like samara and karelia people have been called.
And i dont give a rats ass how you behave with me, but you will be behaved with as you behave with me from now on.
@ Draft Dozen: for instance Finnic Estonians and Livonians attacked, according to Viking Age annals, frequently Scandinavian coastline. Finns Proper however apparently were in a loose alliance with Swedes, still visible by looking at modern distribution of the relevant paternal N lines fex in U.K. and BTW Rurikids for sure carry N haplogoup, even if that sublineage seems to have arrived in Sweden during late Bronze Age - Early Iron Age.
Karelian activities then were at least to some extent connected to early days of Ushkuinik boat raids, supported by Novgorod tax administration and commercially active boyar houses with Finnic connections. Even ushkui, as a boat term, seems to be based on Finnic uisk "snake".
That being said, I don't think that for instance Mari further in the East were especially peacefull. They were apparently mentioned by Jordanes as Imniscaris, cf. Mari imne "horse", probably being related to early Hungarian style of living. After later fierce Mari wars Russians even explicitly denied selling of arms to Mari.
All this however does not make Northern Russians more noble or Southern Slavs less nobel. Roads are still shitty both in Russia and Ukraine, not to mention the road side toilets.
@zardos, I don't know about armies (that may be a difference in translation), but certainly it seems like this period of wagon use catalyzed some interesting things. You've got the main Yamnaya/Steppe_EMBA group, and also Steppe_Maykop with their fusion of Steppe_En+West Siberian and mixes of them with the main Maykop clusters, who seem to have expanded fairly far and wide and to persist in Kazakhstan until Kumsay_EBA (unless this is actually a later fusion of a Steppe_EMBA+West Siberian group) and closer to the Caucasus in form of the post-Catacomb Lola sample (though this is probably admixed between the main Steppe_EMBA and Steppe_Maykop).
Related to wagons, another group it would be good if they could ever get samples from are the Novotitarovskaya group of steppe burials in the Kuban steppe; those have a richer set/number of wagon burials than are seen elsewhere. Some seem to classify them as a Yamnaya, others as something else. It would be interesting to see if they are genomically Yamnaya like - or possibly have some connections to Steppe_Maykop / Caucasus too. For an impression of where these sites are: https://imgur.com/a/3NBQraM (left; what Wang sampled successfuly for the 2019 paper, right; a set of burials featuring wagons / looped nose rings chosen for analysis by Sabine Reinhold in 2017).
Socioculturally there are those ideas about changes in social rules to deal with nomdic conflicts over pastures.
@ Vasistha
Unfortunately you don't understand the basic cultural-historical foundations of subject matter; hence you're postulating blind constructs out of desparation to prove your narrative.
Bottom line- Khvalynsk and other steppe Eneolithic populations all have hunter-gatherer roots. They piecemeal adopted domesticates between 4700 & 3300; before a specific subset more rapidly shifted to mobile pastoralism in the Yamnaya period due to climactic, economic and cultural choice
Populations like Progress have 10-15 % Meshoko admixture, which is why you're detecting a but of Iran N.
@rob
You said above
"There’s been quite a few isotopic studies on the steppe populations, and it shows that the Khvalysnk & Samara population were essentially fishermen."
You were wrong. Khvalynsk is quite different from Samara (lebyazhinka site) as I have demonstrated above. Archi is right when he calls you out on lumping these 2 sites together.
And progress/voniuchka have much more iran_n on top of meshoko, in case you have missed this result and that of g25.
left pops:
Steppe_Eneolithic
Georgia_Kotias.SG: 0.118 +- 0.037
Caucasus_Eneolithic: 0.124 +- 0.037
Russia_Khvalynsk_EN: 0.542 +- 0.018
Sarazm_EN: 0.216 +- 0.037
tailprob: 0.41
resultfile: https://pastebin.com/eU9a5q5t
@ Vasistha
'' Khvalynsk is quite different from Samara (lebyazhinka site) as I have demonstrated above. Archi is right when he calls you out on lumping these 2 sites together''
No I did not lump them together (Can you remind me where I said the ''Samara HG is the same as Khvalynsk".?), that's your own confusion as you're tripping over the labelleing from the genetic datasheets
''And progress/voniuchka have much more iran_n on top of meshoko, in case you have missed this result and that of g25.'
Maybe maybe not. Sarazm is too young, so apart from probative assessments, it does not give definitive conclusions. i suspect the WSHG in it is pointing you that way.
But otherwise Progress _En are from the north- the eastern variant of Sredni Stog
@rob
"Can you remind me where I said the ''Samara HG is the same as Khvalynsk".?), that's your own confusion as you're tripping over the labelleing from the genetic datasheets"
Here it is rob. But I am repeating myself. You said
"@ Vasistha
There’s been quite a few isotopic studies on the steppe populations, and it shows that the Khvalysnk & Samara population were essentially fishermen. They only started incorporating domesticates during the Yamnaya period"
This is where you lump Khvalynsk with Samara and call them both "essentially fishermen". This is flat out wrong. Reservoir effect on human and herbivore from same grave is an objective piece of evidence rather than a subjective claim. It shows that Khvalynsk had much less fish in their diet than Samara_HG (25% vs 70%, significant difference)
"They only started incorporating domesticates during the Yamnaya period" -
This is again flat out wrong. Khvalynsk had already started incorporating domesticated animals in their culture.
With regard to Sarazm
Sarazm being younger than Steppe_en by 800 years is actually irrelevant to the point that im making. This is because sarazm is independent of any influence of EHG, or even from Anatolia_N, and therefore the model i present is not tautological. So it is an extremely good proxy for east of caspian in 5000bce, and i never claimed that Sarazm is the exact population which gave ancestry to Progress/voniuchka.
Target: TJK_Sarazm_En:I4910
Distance: 4.0686% / 0.04068646
68.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
16.6 RUS_Tyumen_HG
15.2 GEO_CHG
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Samara_HG
0.0 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
0.0 TUR_Barcin_N
You claimed somewhere above that Sarazm is being preferred due to its ANE component. Well that is actually not true. Tyumen or Sosonivoy are totally rejected as sources when Sarazm is present. The same is the result in qpAdm sadly.
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 3.8445% / 0.03844503
36.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
30.0 GEO_CHG
27.0 TJK_Sarazm_En
4.6 RUS_Samara_HG
2.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
0.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.0 TUR_Barcin_N
Rob said...
@ Vasistha
''and it shows that the Khvalysnk & Samara population were essentially fishermen. They only started incorporating domesticates during the Yamnaya period"''
That's your misunderstanding. the Samara valley is where numerous others sites like Khvalynsk are. I was not referring to “Samara _HG” (in fact that’s not even a real population label). I’ve already explained to you that youre confusing yourself from your ad hoc data sheet labels
Maybe you should work on your comprehension (& geography) instead of being sassy
''. This is flat out wrong. Reservoir effect on human and herbivore from same grave is an objective piece of evidence rather than a subjective claim. It ''
Its not wrong. Never mind the reservoir offset, that's a dating issue.
If the isotopic signatures suggest that they ate 'predominantly fish' then calling them ''essentially fishermen'' isn't wrong- this is what they spent most of their time doing.
It might be simplifying things, but it would suffice in dicussions, as you havent exactly demonstrated much capability to understand the stream
In an case, you're simply hung up on one aspect because you seem fixated on trying show that a mystery population from Sarazm brought pastoralism to Khvalynsk; and apparently only Khvalysnk. Not a very realistic scenario.
''With regard to Sarazm''
A lot of change can occur in 800 years. But again; whatever the case it’s a minor component which peaks in Vonuchka and is less in Progress. Whichever Iran-N like component there might be can might be explained by Mezmaiskaja cave
But it has no little on the genesis of the kurgan cultures.
@Draft Dozen
You still haven't listed them, only referred to the work on the Vikings. The fact that some Finnic people were among them, does not make all Finnic people aggressive a priori. Besides Karelians, I don’t remember the warlike Finnic people.
It is currently a work in progress, so I suggest you read especially the most up-to-date archaeological material on the subject. Here is a good introduction, but for the details you should read much more:
https://estonianworld.com/knowledge/the-baltic-finns-were-vikings-too-but-the-world-ignores-it/
(continuing)
But the Ancient layers on the Gorodische have no direct genetic ties with the early Novgorod antiquities. Rurikovo Gorodische was a horseshoe-shaped fortified ship berth, such structures were both in England and Ireland, and in Scandinavia itself, but also among the Western Slavs. The Gorodische does not even have its own burial grounds - no one lived there permanently, this is a seasonal settlement and that's it. In addition, it arose later than Rurik's "calling". The date of log cutting of the early kiln is dendrochronologically dated 889–905 and has complete analogies in Gdansk and Szczecin.
Gorodische already existed as a settlement during the 8th century AD:
"In the 8th-9th centuries, a settlement of the Ilmen Slavs appeared on it, surrounded by a wooden wall along the rampart. It is possible that this settlement was the predecessor of Novgorod."
"The settlement, according to scientists, preceded Novgorod. Here was the center of princely power, princely squads were formed here."
"Commenting on the work of the conference at the request of the ITAR-TASS correspondent, the scientific director of the Novgorod archaeological expedition of the Russian Academy of Sciences, the Lomonosov Moscow University and the Novgorod United Museum-Reserve, Academician Valentin Yanin noted that “the importance of excavations at Gorodishche can hardly be overestimated. For a long period, he said, the dominant theory was that all talk about bringing the Varangian prince to Novgorod was an antipatriotic myth and offensive to the Russian people. And the excavations of Evgeny Nosov showed the truth of this chronicle message. Although the chronicle described the events of the 9th century 200 years later. At the Gorodische, archaeologists have established that the famous princely residence arose here in the middle of the ninth century. And by this time, the formation of a cultural layer begins, abundantly filled with Scandinavian objects, which, by the way, testify that these objects came here not as a result of trade, but brought by people. These are, for example, various kinds of amulets. Let's say a pendant with the name of the Scandinavian god Thor. This is the same as the Christian pectoral cross. Many other confirmations of the Scandinavian presence have been found. " According to Academician Yanin, the study of the Gorodishche helped significantly complement the history of Novgorod. As for the calling of a prince, there is nothing antipatriotic about it. After all, the Novgorodians invited Rurik to hired work, limiting his powers. The studies of the Settlement made it possible to more fully and more reliably represent the origin of the Russian state. Since the beginning of the 19th century this place has entered Russian historiography as an outstanding monument of the history of Russia. First of all, it is known as the residence of the Novgorod princes, with which many names of famous political figures of Ancient Rus are associated. Thanks to the excavations of recent years, the oldest administrative, trade and craft center at the source of the Volkhov is recognized as one of the largest archaeological monuments in Europe. Studies have shown the role of Scandinavians in the formation of Russian statehood and culture. Archaeological research on the shore of Lake Ilmen confirmed the theory of scientists that Novgorod arose among numerous Slavic settlements. Becoming for them a place of concentration of political and cultural ties."
Google translated from here: http://mapcy.narod.ru/novgorod_ru/gorodische.htm
(continuing)
Your interpretation of the dendrochronological material and the archaeological material in general is misleading and incorrect. See:
"The Ryurik Gorodishche existed, undoubtedly, in the mid-9th century and was probably founded even earlier. Two small hoards of Oriental coins, dated to the late 850s and 860s, corroborate this dating. Their stratigraphic context (fillings of ancient constructions) permits dating of the buildings. The settlement also yielded a great number of 8th-9th-century dirkhems and two unique finds: a silver Kwarazm coin of the late 8th century and a bronze Byzantine coin of Emperor Theothilos (829-842). The lower Gorodishche layers are dated by a bronze Saltovo seal-ring (end of the 8th - first half of the 9th century) and two Scandinavian fibulae of Type 58 according to Petersen (Fig. 3:4, 6) which are dated to not later than the 9th century. The entire set of glass beads from Goro76 dishche is undoubtedly older than the Novgorod one and can be compared with the Ladoga beads from the second half of the 9th and 10th century levels. Dendrochronological dates for household constructions were obtained on a settlement section (the limits of the Gorodishche dendrochronological scale are 820 and 947). The earliest beams are dated to 889, 896 and 897. The constructions which provided the samples were found on the settlement's fringes, in its lower parts settled later than its central part. This is corroborated by a considerable cultural layer pre-dating the construction. In this way the dendrochronological dates relate not to the beginning of settling the hill but, rather, to a later stage. On the whole Gorodishche yielded much earlier layers than Novorod which lacks layers dated earlier than the 930s-950s and this despite excavations in the key points.
In the second half of the 9th and in 10th century Gorodishche covered an area of 4 hectares. In actual fact it was much bigger since the hill has been partly washed away by the Volkhov and the north-eastern boundary of the site has not yet been established. A settlement of this size in Northern Russia of the end of the first millennium A.D. should be ranked among the biggest known. The location on the island's cape offered it an effective natural defence. Back in 1808, E. Bolkhovitinov, a prominent student of Novgorodian antiquities, noted that "this location was quite suitable for a fortress" . The excavations have revealed the fact that one of the hill's sides was scarped. It is possible that further investigations will reveal remnants of the protective wooden fence. In any case the very name "Gorodishche" used by the Novgorodians in the Old Russian time presupposes some fortifications in the earlier period.
In the 9th and 10th centuries Gorodishche was a large trading and handicrafts centre. International trade is testified by Oriental and Byzantine coins, rock crystal and cornelian beads, various glass beads which reached the banks of the Volkhov River mainly through the North European countries, Friesland combs, walnuts and amber artifacts."
From here: http://www.sarks.fi/fa/PDF/FA4_73.pdf
Well, for now, ydna from the ancient Rurikids that we have are R1a, I2a and E-V13
Ok, this topic is not about the Rurik, Rus' etc, maybe, another time we will discuss it.
The Viking origin of the Rurikid dynasty was beyond dispute even before the genetic evidence.
@ Onur Dincer
"Gorodische already existed as a settlement during the 8th century AD"
No, according to Eremeev I.I.: "The early fortifications, traced over 6 m and to a height of about 4 m, were a system of low scarp.
These fortifications and buildings fell into disrepair and were plowed up in the 8th first seal of the 9th century...
The hypothesis of E.N.Nosov, however, does not take into account the fact that, according to the data obtained in 2013-2016. According to the data, the first Slavic township was abandoned for a long time, it seems, not survived by the time of Rurik's arrival."
By listing coins, fibulae etc. what are you against off? Date of settlement or its status? If date, than even in your comment/link "The earliest beams are dated to 889, 896 and 897" and Nosov's "In this way the dendrochronological dates relate not to the beginning of settling the hill but, rather, to a later stage." probably his guess, or wish. If status, than it was (at first) fortified D-shaped ditch kinda this one
http://www.stevebivans.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/repton-sketch.jpg
The settlement probably was a fortress-customs house for collecting duties.
" The Viking origin of the Rurikid dynasty was beyond dispute even before the genetic evidence."
There were disputes of various kinds. But now, with genetic evidence, it's become even more complicated.
@Draft Dozen
You are ignoring all the evidence provided in my links for the existence of the Gorodische settlement during the time of Rurik's arrival. I will not bother anymore trying to convince you as you seem too entrenched in your weakly-founded revisionist views (also because this thread is not about Rurikid origins), same in the case of Rurik's origin. As for Y-DNA, all the individuals with reliable Rurikid genealogies belong to the same Scandinavian haplotypes under Y-DNA N1c1, it has been well studied by my colleagues on FTDNA.
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/rurikid/about/background
https://www.familytreedna.com/public/RussianNobilityDNA/default.aspx?section=yresults
The two Uyelgi samples posted seem to be more western of Ugric people. When I tried to extract samples from the .fastqs I only got 8000 SNPs on 1240K. I'd like to see if the Cis-Ural samples could be worked with.
@EastPole
You wouldn't understand PIE, you wouldn't even understand Baltoslavic (do you understand any lithuanian words?). Every slavic language contains 1-2 different characteristic of allslavic original - only difference being knowing polish would give you a better shot for: its created on layers of a few different slavic dialects & is second after lithuanian in nr of remaining archaisms - but the same a lithuanian it changed a lot, driffted away, lost many original words as for head, hand, leg... numerals as 6-9 ec it even got something from armenian-like and one middle-praitalian language and prussian and venetian/wenedian not to mention gothic. Slavic wasnt ever pure or invented in a lingual arkaim-like lab or by glagolitic croatian mages on krk. We are already lucky history was so kind to let us understand what was written 800 y ago - thanks to ancestors who pushed frontiers far away, neighouring younger but as expansive & busy brotherly branch, first slavic state unification & paper.
Post a Comment