search this blog

Tuesday, July 7, 2020

On the exotic origins of the Hungarian Arpad Dynasty (Nagy et al. 2020)


Hungarians speak a Uralic and Finno-Ugric language. However, the founders of the Medieval Hungarian state, the Arpad Dynasty, probably had Irano-Turkic paternal origins. There's a very interesting new paper on this topic at the European Journal of Human Genetics (see here). From the paper, emphasis is mine:

The phylogenetic origins of the Hungarians who occupied the Carpathian basin has been much contested [40]. Based on linguistic arguments it was proposed that they represented a predominantly Finno-Ugric speaking population while the oral and written tradition of the Árpád dynasty suggests a relationship with the Huns. Based on the genetic analysis of two members of the Árpád Dynasty, it appears that they derived from a lineage (R-Z2125) that is currently predominantly present among ethnic groups (Pashtun, Tadjik, Turkmen, Uzbek, and Bashkir) speaking Iranian or Turkic languages. However, their closest kin, the Bashkirs live in close proximity with Finno-Ugric speaking populations with the N-B539 haplogroup. A recent study shows that this haplogroup is also found in modern Hungarians [41]. Intriguingly, the most recent separation of the N-B539 derived lineages found in Hungarians and Bashkirs is estimated to have occurred ~2000 years before present [42]. This would suggest that a group of people consisting of a Turkic (R-SUR51) component and a Finno-Ugric (N-B539) component left the Volga Ural region about 2000 years ago and started a migration that eventually culminated in settlement in the Carpathian Basin.

Citation...

Nagy, P.L., Olasz, J., Neparáczki, E. et al. Determination of the phylogenetic origins of the Árpád Dynasty based on Y chromosome sequencing of Béla the Third. Eur J Hum Genet (2020). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41431-020-0683-z

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

199 comments:

Copper Axe said...

Oh damn, this is cool. Thanks for sharing this Davidski!

rozenblatt said...

I read the paper and have two observations:

1. They did full genome of all these samples, but haven't provided genome-wide results - I guess they're keeping them for a new paper.

2. They haven't compared Bela III's results with other ancient genomes.

3. Because of 2, they have this conclusion: "Framed within the context of a high resolution R-Z2123 phylogeny, the ancestry of the first Hungarian royal dynasty traces to the region centering near Northern Afghanistan about 4500 years ago", which to me sounds as highly dubious, since it seems that 4500 years ago R-Z2123 was still in Eastern Europe.

Coldmountains said...

@rozenblat

Oldest Z2123 is from Potapovka and Sintashta around 2000 B.C. Z2123 was pretty typical for Sintashta, Srubnaya and MLBA Steppe groups around the Altai and in Siberia.

Today Z2123 is a significant marker in Afghanistan but the clades there seem to be closee to South Asian clades which diverged from the Arpad line already 4000 years ago somewhere in East Europe.

G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer said...

Álmos the first ruler descended from Attila according to some authors.I am not sure how accurate this can be,but Attila's remains assilimated with other East Germanic Tribes while others returned back to Urals and central asia mixing with other clans of probably turkoman or uralic origins.Modern Hungarians btw those with far-right views consider themselves as their ancestors.

Iggy said...

Hi Davidski, huge fan of your blog since I first became acquainted with it a couple months ago.

I've seen several people say that Europeans (effectively, white people) are a genetic mix between East Asians and Middle Easterners. What is your stance on this?

Davidski said...

@Iggy

I've seen several people say that Europeans (effectively, white people) are a genetic mix between East Asians and Middle Easterners. What is your stance on this?

This doesn't really work even as a grand simplification.

You can certainly say that Europeans, just like all West Eurasians including Middle Easterners, have complex deep origins, but the populations that were involved in this ancient mixture process cannot be represented by modern-day East Asians and Middle Easterners.

Those ancient populations don't exist anymore.

JBS said...

Sorry that I'm not well versed in the language but I read your blog with great interest. In my own research I've tried to figure out how my R1a Y22259 ended up in Utrecht Netherlands. My paternal line has been in the U.S. since the 1600's though. While doing my research I discovered the Van Schalkwijk family who lived next to mine had R1a Z94. Now I see on the Netherlands Dual Dna Project that they are Z2125>2123>Y934>BY152700. I suspected that they might be of Arapad origin. Their coat of arms is the same as the Arapad dynasty and they were influential in the area as early as the early 1100's. I think this may add more evidence to my theory. I know there were some Arapad princes that were exiled to France and the region. Just thought I would share this interesting find.

Davidski said...

@rozenblatt & Coldmountains

R-Z2123 and R-Z2125 are obviously markers of the populations associated with the Sintashta-Petrovka circle of cultures.

But I doubt that the Arpad lineage stayed put in the southern Urals from the Sintashta-Petrovka period to the Hungarian Conqueror migration.

Considering that it's probably a Bashkirian lineage, and therefore a Turkic one, it's very likely that it has a very complex recent history, which probably includes its spread into Central Asia with Iranian speakers, and then a back migration to the Urals with Turkic speakers.

So even if the claim in the Nagy et al. paper that the Arpad line possibly originated in what is now Afghanistan is a rather bold one, it's probably not far from the truth.

rozenblatt said...

Well, my main concern was about chronology. Arpad male line ancestors were in Central Asia, but not 4500 years ago, but later, 3-4 thousand years ago.

epoch said...

@JBS

To the best of my knowledge some protestant Hungarian students came to study theology in the Netherlands in the 17th century. Track the religion.

Coldmountains said...

I see they base the Afghan origin of the Arpad line on the 2 basal Y2632 found in North Afghanistan. Interesting could be a Kushan, Yuezhi or Saka line.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Iggy,

I know you asked Davidski. I want to add to what he said. First of all, yeah Europeans have no East Asian ancestry. NONE, ZERO.

Here's a summary of the ancestors of Europeans.

WHG: Formed in Europe. Lived in Southern Europe during the Ice age (20-30ky). Expanded across Europe in Mesolithic era (15ky-10ky).

ANE: Formed in North Asia (Siberia) 35ky-25ky. Migrated into Europe via Russia, at least 15ky but possibly as early as 20ky. Spread across Eastern half of Europe.

EEF: Formed in Turkey by 13ky. Indigenous to Middle East probably going by 30ky at last. Migrated into Europe 8ky-7ky.

CHG: Formed in Caucasus by 13ky. Indgenouys to Middle East probably going back 30ky. Has signifcant ANE ancestry. Migrated into Southern tip of European Russia at unknown at sometime before 7ky.

My opinon, is that in a real sense, you can say Europeans are 40%+ Middle East. Considering EEF and CHG were totally indigenous to the Middle East. And that, they contributed ancestry to modern Middle East.

No modern Middle East pop is 100% EEF or 100% CHG. No modern pop is a perfect proxy of Europeans' late Stone age Middle East ancestors. But despite that I think it is accurate to describe Europeans as part Middle Eastern. It is why people speak of a "West Eurasian race", the main reason there's a "close" relation between Europe and Middle East is that Europe is part Late Stone age Middle Eastern.

Archi said...

@
"Formed by 13ky"

WHG, CHG, EHG all formed at the same time.

EHG ~13ky PES001 Peschanitsa 1 Arkhangelsk Russian Federation 61,2312 38,9093 Veretye Mesolithic 10785–10626 cal BC

The Villabruna is not quite there yet formed WHG.


Archi said...

"WHG: Lived in Southern Europe during the Ice age (20-30ky)."

WHG did not live in Southern Europe during the Ice age (20-30ky). Other European Paleolithic clusters lived then. The beginning of WHG formation can only be linked to the Villabruna cluster. Once again, EHG was formed no later than WHG, and maybe even earlier.

"EEF: Formed in Turkey by 13ky. Indigenous to Middle East probably going by 30ky at last. Migrated into Europe 8ky-7ky."

EEF (Early European Farmers) is a purely European cluster, a mix of ANF and WHG.

G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer said...

EEF is not middle east.It is actually very western shifted.CHG as well,it is mostly Dzudzuana and ANE.It has west eurasian origins.Even Levant Natufian can be considered to be west eurasian.Only Iran N has some strange basal eurasian and Onge related admixture the rest belong to west eurasian spectrum.

Rob said...

@ Archi

“ WHG did not live in Southern Europe during the Ice age (20-30ky).”

Obviously proto- WHG is (mostly) from Southern Europe . Longue duree development since the middle upper paleolithic

Archi said...

Known Paleolithic clusters from southern Europe: Romanian, Iberian, Czech, Austrian, Italian have nothing in common with WHG.

Rob said...

@ Archi

They do show some affinities to later WHG. They are all part of the same Villabruna-related / proto-WHG (or whatever one wishes to call it) metapopulation
For example, it is present in Dolni Vestonice; and it is even more present by the time of El Miron
But of course its quite complicated due to the demographic shifts & founder effects which occured during the Ice Age, palimpsetic effects & demographic layering. So, a simple sanity check is - Y-hg I and mtDNA U5 were already there in the Gravettian period. They are in turn the hallmark of the WHG
The only difference is local shifts occuring within Europe, bringing with them same extra Dzudzuana affinitiy, some of ANE, etc

Archi said...

@Rob

"affinities" is not about anything, it is abstract reasoning. Something to something always have proximity, but these clusters just do not have proximity to WHG, of course WHG was formed already in Europe on a local substrate.

Dolni Vestonice and El Miron very far from WHG.

https://i.ibb.co/S3YwSkx/Paleo-Mesolithic-West-Eurasian-clusters-f3.png

Haplogroups are not to blame, they spread after the Paleolithic in the Mesolithic, when at the border of the Glacial era, all of Europe almost died out (bottleneck), on this account there is a long-standing classical work that showed this extinction/bottleneck.

Rob said...

Archi; we need to read literature ; and not simply look at pictures
But in any case; that plot shows that El Miron is indeed shifted toward WHG compared to the Goyet cluster
The Goyet cluster is in turn a highly drifted aurignacian
That’s all one can say from that image. For everything else; we need deeper understanding and models

There’s no point getting into complexities here; but essentially Sam is correct in what he said - expanded WHG is from Italy -Balkans
El Miron is U5b; and it dates to 18000 BP; so obviously your claim about Mesolithic spread is false

Archi said...

@Rob
"we need to read literature"

Yes, read the literature.

"El Miron is U5b; and it dates to 18000 BP; so obviously your claim about Mesolithic spread is false"

El Miron is not a WHG, and does not belong to the formation of a WHG cluster. My statement about the distribution of WHG (along with haplogroups) after the extinction at the end of the ice age is absolutely true.

"but essentially Sam is correct in what he said - expanded WHG is from Italy -Balkans"

No, Sam wrote exactly the wrong thing, he wrote that WHG lived in southern Europe 20-30kya, which is not true.

You contradict yourself:
Rob: "so obviously your claim about Mesolithic spread is false"
Sam: "Expanded across Europe in Mesolithic era (15ky-10ky)."
Rob: "but essentially Sam is correct"



Mr. J said...

How are you not banned yet Archi?

Cy Tolliver said...

What (if any) consensus is there now on the nature of the Eastern-Non African side of ANE ancestry? Can we discern any differential affinity it has to any ancient or modern "Asian" population - Tianyuan, Onge, etc.?

Gaska said...

WHG-Is the key factor that sets Europeans apart from every other population, then we are Europeans because of WHG. This type of ancestry differentiates between present-day Europeans and non-Europeans within West Eurasia-Western and Central Europe were dominated by ancestry associated with the 14.000 years old individual from Villabruna, Italy, which had largely replaced earlier genetic ancestry, represented by 19.000-15.000 year old individuals associated with the Magdalenian culture.

However, little is known about the genetic diversity in Southern Europe refugia, the presence of distinct genetic clusters, and correspondence with geography. Here, we report new genome wide data from 11 HGs and Neolithic individuals that highlight the late survival of Paleolithic ancestry in Iberia, reported previously in Magdalenian associated individuals. We show that all Iberian HGs, including the oldest (19.000 year old individual from el Mirón) carry dual ancestry from both Villabruna and the Magdalenian related individuals. Thus, our results suggest an early connection between two potential refugia, resulting in a genetic ancestry that survived in later Iberian HGs.

The Villabruna cluster has been modeled as contributing to both the ~30kya Věstonice and ~20kya El Mirón-cluster populations suggesting that it must have existed somewhere in relatively unmixed form long before the oldest genetic data we have from it at ~14kya-

I mean rob is right and Archi is wrong, I guess now our friend Archi will react by insulting me and behaving rudely, but we are used to that.

We still know very little about the WHgs because despite what people think the Iberian and Italian Palaeolithic has been little studied to date. In fact we have some doctoral theses and works of Spanish geneticists that are not known by the great majority of the international scientific community that should be used to clarify some doubts about the origin of the Whgs. For example few people know that in the same site of El Mirón we not only have U5b but also the H lineage (Magdalenian)-For example

El ADN mitocondrial de los cazadores-recolectores de la región cantábrica: Nueva evidencia de la cueva de El Mirón (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria, España)-M Hervella, N Izaguirre (2.014)

El Mirón Cave (Ramales de la Victoria, Cantabria, España)- "Due to the poor state of conservation of the El Mirón teeth, it has only been possible to obtain DNA in one of the teeth, the first upper right premolar (14), recovered, at a level attributable to the Middle Magdalenian (14,000-12,000 BC) Mitochondrial Hap-H "

That is, we know that H is a Palaeolithic lineage in the southern refugia (although it hasn't been documented in Italy yet) when most people (even Harvard) think it is a lineage related to EEF. The connection between the WHGs of Italy, France and Spain is more than evident, but only when we have more ancient dna of these populations can we determine both their origin, the population movements that occurred in the European Palaeolithic and their relationship with the EHGs (because evidently Villabruna have also a small percentage of ANE)




Gaska said...

I have been reading the comments on Fatyanovo and I am surprised that no one has commented on some important aspects of the new paper

1- There is no R1b-L51/P312 etc in another of the CWC branches. This makes it very difficult to explain the new obsession with linking the BBC and R1b-P312 with the CWC
2- Fatyanovo apparently did not mix with Volosovo, then if something of R1b-M269 appears in the latter culture, its origin will not be Yamnaya or the steppes, but the Baltic neolithic cultures plagued since the Mesolithic of R1b-P297
3-For me it is more and more evident that R1b-M269/L51 was already abundant in Central Europe when the cwc arrived in 2900 BC (I think that in a short time many people are going to have interesting surprises) and the Neolithic farmers of Switzerland (Auvernier Burgaschisee, Aesch) are only a small warning of what is going to happen


Davidski said...

@Gaska

There's no evidence that R1b-M269/L51 was present in Central Europe before Corded Ware arrived there.

All of the evidence points to it arriving along with Corded Ware.

Mr. J said...

Gaska,

Some clades of mtDNA H have likely been present in Europe since the Mesolithic or even longer. There is a Mesolithic H sample from either Latvia or Lithuania IIRC. The vast majority of H clades expanded into Europe during the Neolithic or even a bit later though most likely. Say there is just "H" in pre-Neolithic Europe doesn't mean shit. El Miron is U5b btw.

Gaska said...

Regarding the alleged genocide of R1b-M269/L51/P312 in Eastern Europe at the hands of R1a, the truth is that our relatives R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103 succeeded in the Yamnaya and other steppe cultures, reaching the Tizsa River in the west while R1a had to settle for migrating to Central and South Asia (I honestly don't think our Indian friends can prove R1a's migration from South Asia), while the R1b from continental Europe kicked the CWC R1a's ass and never let them reach the western part of the continent. The genetic history of R1a and R1b is totally different since the Paleolithic and it is clear that over thousands of years there were very few cultures where they coexisted. Not even Yamnaya, which autosomically seems to be the origin of the CWC in the Baltic, Poland, Russia (Fatyanovo) etc, shares R1a and R1b lineages. Neither does the BB culture and of course not the CWC (here Archi is right). Even in modern times there is no such coexistence of lineages (perhaps with the exception of Scandinavia)

Archi said...

@Gaska

There is no such data, there is data that in the Balkans there were Goyet2 populations that persist until very late.

https://i.ibb.co/qgr8Zmj/LP-M-Euro-HG.png
Circled in green.

So there is no data that WHG lived there in the Paleolithic 20-30kya. About Italy, too, it is known that they did not live there. There is no data that the Villabruna cluster even existed at the time of ElMiron, in order for the alleged convergence of ElMiron with Villabruna, you do not even need the existence of the Villabruna cluster, it may or may not exist by this time, just a genetic stream fro, east is enough.


"The Villabruna cluster has been modeled as contributing to both the ~30kya Věstonice and ~20kya El Mirón-cluster"

This is just ridiculous, an erroneous model, contradicts all the data. Věstonice can only be one source in the formation of the Villabruna cluster, but it is very far from It.
It has long been established that West-Central European populations in the Mesolithic were very short, while Paleolithic populations were tall.

Davidski said...

@Gaska

Western Corded Ware was rich in R1b, so Bell Beaker P312 mostly replaced other L151 lines during its expansion there, not R1a.

Apart from that, R1a replaced R1b in the following areas:

- East Baltic (Latvia HGs were overwhelmingly R1b, while Baltic Corded Ware was R1a)

- East European Plain (Volosovo was overwhelmingly R1b, while Fatyanovo R1a)

- Central Asia (Botai and Afanasievo were mostly R1b, while Andronovo R1a)

- Pontic-Caspian steppe (Yamnaya was mostly R1b, while Srubnaya R1a)

I can probably go on and on, and I will when more samples drop.

RobertN said...

@Coldmountains

"I see they base the Afghan origin of the Arpad line on the 2 basal Y2632 found in North Afghanistan. Interesting could be a Kushan, Yuezhi or Saka line."

I know that Bulgarians, many of whom have an obsession with disproving the Turkic provenance of the Bulgars, insist the Bulgars were originally a Pamiro-Dardic people, with roots going back to the Bactrian kingdom of Balhara, and ultimately related to the Iranic tribes you mention above. That's interesting considering there might have been a relationship between the Bulgars and Magyars at one point.

Gaska said...

@ Archi, I'm happy to discuss genetics with you without being insulted. The relationship between the different clusters of WHGs is in the last Villalba-Mouco's paper and looking at her models I don't have to doubt their accuracy, you may disagree, but until we have more samples we won't know exactly what the relationship between them is. Even the relationship with the Anatolian Hunter Gatherers is intriguing because they share male lineages with Western hunters which means that everything will get progressively more complicated and the different theories that are being proposed have a very short life

Ric Hern said...

I think the R1a/R1b thing in Europe was due to tribalism. R1a and R1b live happily together in South-Africa, the USA and Australia.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Could it be that some similarities between Lithuanian and Irish Myths and Legends,sometimes almost word for word, originated somewhere near the Volosovo Culture ? Where could the most likely place be where Irish and Lithuanian Ancestors lived near each other or amongst each other ?

Ric Hern said...

Looks like we got a Highlander thing going on here. "There can be only One" Heheheeh...

Ric Hern said...

I think it is safe to say that there are significant numbers of both R1a and R1b Males left today to say that both were successful...

Gaska said...

@Davidski said-"Western Corded Ware was rich in R1b, so Bell Beaker P312 mostly replaced other L151 lines during its expansion there, not R1a"

I guess for you the western CWC is Holland, Danmark, West Germany and Switzerland, right? Where do you see that culture being rich in R1b-L51/p312?

RISE436 (2.724 BC)-Tiefbrunn, Bavaria, Germany-HapY-R1a1a/1-Mit-Hap-U5b1c2-
RISE61 (2.671 BC)-Kyndeløse, Zealand, Danmark-HapY-R1a1a/1-Mit Hap-J1c4
RISE446 (2.632 BC)-Bergrheinfeld, Schweinfurt, Bavaria-CWC-HapY-R1a1a/1-M417-Mit-U5b1c2
EUL11 (2.626 BC)-Eulau, Saxony- Anhalt, Germany-CWC-HapY-R1a- Mit-Hap-X2
RISE94 (2.546 BC)-Viby, Götaland- Battle Axe culture-HapY-R1a1-Mit-K1a2a
MX192 (2.542 BC)-Spreitenbach, Switzerland-HapY-I2c-Hap Mit-H11a@152

In other words, the CWC in Denmark, Switzerland and Bavaria is also R1a (the same as in Estonia, Poland, Russia, the Czech Republic, etc.)-It always seemed to me that your attempt to hide R1b-L51/P312 in the SGC was the smartest move after the Yamnaya disaster. We only have one genome from that culture (also R1a) but its archaeological attribution is doubtful so we'll have to wait for the release of samples from that culture before we can confirm or rule out certain rumors. What you can't do is say that that sample is not valid and yet qualify as undoubtedly belonging to the CWC-Aesch25 using its autosomal composition when that sample archeologically did not belong to that culture.

Could you explain why all the subcultures of the CWC are R1a and the SGC would have to be R1b-P312? It doesn't make sense unless there were different migrations with different origins. At the moment, Poland's cases are too young to be taken into consideration, especially since its mitochondrial lineages are mostly steppe and they are in a contact area with the BBC

Regarding what you say about Yamnaya, the Baltic, Volosovo, Botai and Afanasievo, it is evident that you are right, R1a replaced R1b-No one can deny that, but this situation makes it clear that we cannot say that R1a and R1b treated each other as blood brothers, they were simply rival clans with a very distant common origin.

In my opinion that makes it still much more difficult to explain that a CWC subculture was R1b while the rest were overwhelmingly R1a. This makes no sense because it would be the exception to the usual norm in the prehistory of Europe. I am not saying that it is impossible, I am saying that it is strange and that common sense tells me that the late Neolithic cultures of Holland, Germany and Switzerland were probably already dominated by R1b ​​before the arrival of the CWC.









Ric Hern said...

Maybe R1a should be thanked for thinning out the herd and indirectly pave the way for P312 to become as successful and innovative as they are today ?

Slumbery said...

It is an interesting touch that the minister of human resources, who is a medical doctor with known interest in ancestry stories (aka politically/ideologically useful origin myths), is listed among the authors. That guy is a religious nutcase on par with some Indian politicians that were mentioned in comments in the past. I wonder what was his contribution.
Well, sorry for this outburst, I really do not like that minister, but I guess you can tell that much. :/

The YHg is not surprising, especially that some of the early results were out there for a while. And the Bashkir connection was known and speculated about even before aDNA. One possibility that the Bashkirs assimilated a lot of Uralic speakers and the ancient Hungarians were a group were this assimilation "failed" after they got severed from the main group.

Interesting however that a big chunk of old Turkic words in the Hungarian language seem to come from Oghur Thurkic and Bashkir is a Kipchak dialect. It is complicated.

pnuadha said...

@davidski

Honestly, I assume most of them had just moved. The steppe and forest steppe were unstable places for populations. The yamnaya likely evacuated to the south, east, and west. I thought you have been suggesting that volosovo were a source of the L51 in the Corded ware, in which case they just moved west.

Many of the r1b that did stay in the east were swamped out by majority r1a but that doesnt imply violence. All that is required is differential birth rates. The autosomal transformation in the European neolithic was due to breeding rates, not violence. That is why the unadmixed WHG was largely incorperated into EF in the middle neolithic.

Ric Hern said...

The interesting thing is that R1b like to fight especially against each other. English vs. France. English vs. Spain. Germany vs. France, Rome vs. Gaul etc. etc. No need for outside culling. We will destroy ourselves.

Slumbery said...

@rozenblatt

The kings and princes of that dynasty were extremely exogenous with their marriages. After the first Christian king, literally none of the kings of that dynasty had Hungarian mothers. There was only one with geographically Hungarian mother, but even she was a second gen Cuman. So in their genome-wide ancestry they are a mixture of half of Europe by the late 12th century.
(Béla III's mother was from Kiev.)

Matt said...

The earlier Latvia HG with R1b were seemingly superceded by Comb Ceramic Culture. Saag's 2017 paper (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30724-8) typed one individual from that culture in Estonia and found R1a5-YP1272, a lot like PES001. That R1a-ization can possibly be attributed to CCC before CWC...

pnuadha said...

@archi,

WHG completely lacks Basal Eurasian, which was already established in mesolithic Turkey and the Caucasus. This must imply that the components of WHG were in Europe during or before the Ice age.

As others have said, most paleolithic Europeans are more related to WHG than any other group suggesting WHG is formed from Paleolithic Europeans. My best guess is Italy, the Balkans, or Ukraine. Admittedly I need to refresh on the paleothic dna record.

Does anybody know that the barcin like component in EEF formed exclusively in Northwest Anatolia and not in Greece as well? The land was actually linked during the ice age unlike today.

Also, isnt the deep West Eurasian component in ANE most likely from Eastern Europe, such as a kostenki type? If so it would suggest that East Europe was part of a back and forth migration route between Siberia and East Europe.

Long story short, modern Europeans have unique heritage related to Paleo and Mesolithic Europeans which cannot be derived from modern or mesolithic middle easterners or Asians. This should not come as no surprise since Europeans trace almost all there ancient heritage to Europe, the Agean/NW Anatolia, maybe the Caucasus, and East Europe/Siberia (which seems to be a valid bio geographical category).

Iggy said...

@Samiel Andrews I think that the people who stated that Europeans have East Asian ancestry were basing said statement on the notion that ANE were genetically/physically equivalent to East Asians today.

vAsiSTha said...

Since we are on the topic of R1b, can someone tell me what basal R1b is doing in I4315 Dzharkutan(bmac) 1500bce?

I4315 is R1b(xR1b1, xR1b1a1).

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,

ElMiron as 50% WHG. Which means WHG existed in Europe long before the Upper Paloelithic.

The WHG in Mesolithic Eastern Europe is not from the same population who spread WHG in Mesolithic Western Europe. Which, means the WHG family is a lot older than the Mesolithic.

Moreover, the kind of WHG in Elmiorn is almost for sure of the West European variety, which mean sthe split between Western & Eastern WHG occurred over 20,000 years ago.

The theory of Western vs Eastern WHG is my theory based on mtDNA. But, it makes sense. One refigium in Italy (Western) and one in Balkans (Eastern). Chances, were both Italy and Balkans were inhabited by WHG in the Upper Paleolithic 20,000 years ago.

epoch said...

@Archi

"https://i.ibb.co/qgr8Zmj/LP-M-Euro-HG.png"

That was from a recent paper, which one was that again?

Wise dragon said...

@Ιωαννης θεοδωρος Γαβρας

The Natufians genetically speaking are really strange. Professional geneticists like Krause and Lazaridis assert that they lack SSA admixture while on Gedmatch, G25 and other calculators they clearly show SSA admixture all the time. Futhermore, on anthrogenica a user who tested their samples and BA or IA Levantines with G25 calculator, appears to have proven that Natufians are definitely Dinka/East African admixed too. He said that they were around 14% SSA(Dinka/Mota). Therefore I don't get why the geneticists say that the Natufians have no SSA admixture. However, even if the Natufians weren‘t pure Western Eurasians they were predominantly Eurasians.

Bob Floy said...

@gaska
"For me it is more and more evident that R1b-M269/L51 was already abundant in Central Europe when the cwc arrived in 2900 BC"

Of course that's more and more evident for you, your worldview is controlled by your ethnocentric pet theory and you'll always see what you want to see. It dosen't matter what the actual data says, you'll always find a way to spin it for yourself.

"I think that in a short time many people are going to have interesting surprises"

We'll be surprised by the mental gymnastics you're willing to engage in to keep yourself deluded about the origins of L51, that's about it.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@Davidski

I'm not sure what Gaska is on about. Its clear R1a did most of the replacement like you said. Can the Balkans be added to this list to some degree too? Also Central/South Asia is hardly "settling".

@Samuel

Isn't there ENA in WHG, ANE, and CHG? I don't know if that paper on post NEolithic Iran_n geneflow to SOuthern Europe is correct but people are arguing Iran_N was 10% AASI in addition to 20% ENA. I think Chad's model had Anatolia_N as ~5% ENA. I guess those models were inaccurate. That's for the best. The uniparental markers never jived with those ideas imo.

vAsiSTha said...

This dzharkutan basal R1b in I4315 is either R1b or R1b2 (Ph155)derived (all R1b2 related snps are missing).

Ph155 has only been found in saka from central asia Asia and later shirengizou ia, in tocharian speaking land.

Davidski also modeled shirengizou as botai+mebrak+wusun/saka, so the connection here is solid.

It is also interesting that shirengizou is from tocharian land, with attested tocharian language archaeologically.

Makes you think!

gamerz_J said...

@Davidski

"You can certainly say that Europeans, just like all West Eurasians including Middle Easterners, have complex deep origins, but the populations that were involved in this ancient mixture process cannot be represented by modern-day East Asians and Middle Easterners."

Just saw this and have also come across similar arguments, they usually imply that modern-day Europeans are this mixture of early WE + BE lineages found in modern-day MENA populations but they also have admixture from populations that had significant ENA or East Asian ancestry, meaning ANE, and Iran_N/CHG , add to that other (real or imagined) admixture events with Siberians.

I think it's an inaccurate bad simplification but it's becoming a bit of a meme it seems.

Davidski said...

@Matt

The earlier Latvia HG with R1b were seemingly superceded by Comb Ceramic Culture. Saag's 2017 paper (https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(17)30724-8) typed one individual from that culture in Estonia and found R1a5-YP1272, a lot like PES001. That R1a-ization can possibly be attributed to CCC before CWC...

The evidence overall points to a major population, cultural and economic shift in the East Baltic during the Late Neolithic.

There's no evidence that R1a made a big impact in Latvia or Lithuania before this period.

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

Robert N. wrote:

"I know that Bulgarians, many of whom have an obsession with disproving the Turkic provenance of the Bulgars, insist the Bulgars were originally a Pamiro-Dardic people, with roots going back to the Bactrian kingdom of Balhara, and ultimately related to the Iranic tribes you mention above."

I recently ran into a Bulgarian fellow who was trying to link Balhara with Balan a last name also found in India.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balan_(surname)

However, Balan is a Dravidian last name (surname) found among Keralites and Tamilians.

rozenblatt said...

@Slumbery I know, autosomally Bela III will be mix of European royality of his time. But that is also interesting, though from a different perspective. For example, there is famous problem with Y-DNA of Rurikovich dynasty. Ideally, we need to study remains of ancient Rurikovich people. There is a skull found in Ukraine and archaeologists claim it's of Yaroslav Osmomysl(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yaroslav_Osmomysl). DNA analysis in 2016 showed that its Y-DNA is E1b1b1. Unusual, so other researchers dispute its identification. Bela III is relative of Yaroslav Osmomysl and comparison of autosomes can help to tell whether these remains are of Yaroslav Osmomysl or not.

Carlos Aramayo said...

@rozenblatt

"...Well, my main concern was about chronology. Arpad male line ancestors were in Central Asia, but not 4500 years ago, but later, 3-4 thousand years ago..."

R1a-Z2125 estimate is 4600 ybp for its formation, and 4300 ybp for its TMRCA (Time of Most Recent Common Ancestor). So 4500 ybp mentioned in the paper is perfectly in line with this estimations.

RobertN said...

@Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar

Balkanites tend to have quite chauvinistic and sometimes eccentric ideas about their ethnicities, that's for sure. It seems to them history is not so much about facts, but about how much it boosts their own self esteem.

Hodo Scariti said...

Given the last news about R1b in Volosovo and the SGC strange and not predicted things... does the narrative seem to point to R1a=PIE and R1b=something else then IEized at some point?

Rob said...

@ RobertN

I don't think that's an accurate summary; although partly true. It's just that history is more of an acute issue for people from there; whilst in the West most people are more blaze, even detached from their own history
But if you want to learn about manipulating history, you should probably watch some Holywood movies

Matt said...

@Davidski, OK, just noting that the cultures bearing the samples with R1b end about 1000 years or more before CWC shows up in Baltic. There could have been some sort of "hunter-gatherers replaced by farmer/pastoralist through force of demographics" type of thing of course, like probably happened with the Fatyanovo-Volosovo thing. But which hunter-gatherers seems a bit shadowy.

Copper Axe said...

@vAsiSTha

"Since we are on the topic of R1b, can someone tell me what basal R1b is doing in I4315 Dzharkutan(bmac) 1500bce?

I4315 is R1b(xR1b1, xR1b1a1)."

Cool. Probably ANE > WSHG/EHG > Botai/ Kelteminar > BMAC.

"Ph155 has only been found in saka from central asia Asia and later shirengizou ia, in tocharian speaking land."

And Xiongnu/Hunnic samples. I'm not sure about the link to Tocharian because Shirenzigou is close to where the Iranic Yuezhi and Wusun (perhaps Indic) and Xiongnu were duking it out in Gansu. Whereas Tocharians were farmers living in city states further to their west.

I find the identification of the Shirenzigou site as being Tocharian very dubious, and I don't know why it hasn't been brought up in the peer reviews.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Hodo Scariti,

All we know right now, is R1b M269 and R1a M417 both lived in Yamnya-like pops as early as 3500 BC specifically probbaly Sredny Stog.

If you think about it. Yamnaya & Early Corded Ware are basically identical. One is R1b M269, one is R1a M417. Proving both R1a M417 and R1b M269 come from Yamnaya-like populations. M

The Yamnaya profile formed gradually overtime due to admix bteween CHG-rich and UkraineHG/EHG pops. Many R1b and R1a lineages were included in this mix, chances are both R1b M269 and R1a M417 were apart of the original mix which created the Proto-Indo Europeans.

As of yet, there's no reason to say R1b is non-IE and R1a is original IE. Both can be IE at the same time.

Samuel Andrews said...

But I will give credit to the idea R1b isn't IE.

Considering Baltic HGs are rich in R1b P297 and Volosovo is rich in R1b P297>M269, which points to Northwest Russia as R1b M269>L23's homeland. T

his is significantly north of where the Yamnaya profile formed, suggesting maybe R1b M269 is an input from hunter gatherers from north who migrated south and mixed with Proto-IEs. But I see this as unlikely.

Archi said...

@Gaska

You always write unproven nonsense in such a confident tone, and you blame everyone for mistakes, though you are always wrong. You have not brought any proof of your words, only I bring them, you even referred to someone purely for the purpose of deception, although nothing of what you say is written there.

It's telling how you spread mistakes about Mito H, it's a mistake because of a bad sample and a low quality.
Palaeolithic Magdalenian Spain La Pasiega (Cantabria) [PS-1] R0 or HV rCRS in HVRI, G73A, reported as H Hervella 2012.


The Villabruna Cluster is a cluster originated in the Epigravette culture, which in any case emerged in the east of Europe after 21000BP, as far as I remember, its oldest manifestations are in Moldova.
Epigravette is the development of the Eastern Gravette at a new stage under the influence of the East, so there was practically no Gravette in the Balkans (only in small numbers in the North), so there is no reason to assume that this cluster existed earlier in the Balkans or Italy. In the west, Gravette is replaced by its own cultures, in the east it disappears for a short time, replaced by a certain coming culture, and then reborn as Epigravette, which is already very different from Gravette by the disappearance of many of its traditions. There is a general consensus that Epigravette comes from a synthesis of the Gravette population and the non-Gravette population, which has brought new ideas. We know for a fact that Epigravette is not from the Balkans.
This is if without the unsubstantiated fantasy that Gaska and Rob Mamonth_Hunther MH M.H. _82 un Mr. J, who never give proof to their empty words. The main thing is some blank claims without any proof, and then a new clone with a transition to a personality to create the impression of his mass support.

@pnuadha
" WHG completely lacks Basal Eurasian, which was already established in mesolithic Turkey and the Caucasus. This must imply that the components of WHG were in Europe during or before the Ice age.
As others have said, most paleolithic Europeans are more related to WHG than any other group suggesting WHG is formed from Paleolithic Europeans. My best guess is Italy, the Balkans, or Ukraine. Admittedly I need to refresh on the paleothic dna record."

Italy has nothing to do with it, the Gravette cluster is completely different. The Balkans are close to Anatolia, then there was no border between them at all, and the brown-eyed WHG there (elsewhere they are blue-eyed, this mutation most likely occurred in Siberia). There was no talk about Ukraine at all.
The origin of the Epigravette is not related to the Caucasus.

Samuel Andrews said...
"ElMiron as 50% WHG. Which means WHG existed in Europe long before the Upper Paloelithic."

Nonsense, you just don't understand that all clusters are to some extent related, all clusters absorb the substrate. And ElMiron refers to the same time as the Villabrunа cluster, but it's not its 50% in WHG, and it will shift towards the eastern populations due to the genetic flow from the East, probably from Ukraine in the end.

"Moreover, the kind of WHG in Elmiorn is almost for sure of the West European variety, which mean sthe split between Western & Eastern WHG occurred over 20,000 years ago."

What are you talking about, ElMiron is not WHG at all nor Villabruna cluster.

"The theory of Western vs Eastern WHG is my theory based on mtDNA. But, it makes sense. One refigium in Italy (Western) and one in Balkans (Eastern). Chances, were both Italy and Balkans were inhabited by WHG in the Upper Paleolithic 20,000 years ago."

Your theories are wrong, in Italy at that time a completely different cluster closer to Sunghir/Vestonice/Gravettian.
Judging by mtDNA, this U5b may be related to Vestonice U5, so here's the flow from the East. But most likely, it's the Epigravette genetic flow from likely Moldova.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Your theory is based on a singleton from Estonia, not Latvia, so I'd say you're inferring too much there.

It's more likely that R1b hunter-gatherers replaced other R1b hunter-gatherers in Latvia before being replaced by R1a Corded Ware.

The reason I say that is because there's shift in population structure in Latvia during the Middle Neolithic to a more eastern profile, but still with R1b.

Apparently, the hunter-gatherers of Middle Neolithic Latvia were closely related to the Volosovo people, and there's nothing in the archeological or genetic record that suggests there was another shift there before the Corded Ware period.

Volosovo is dominated by R1b, but it also has some R1a and I2, so it's possible that with more sampling Latvia MN would also show R1a. Nevertheless, I expect it to be mostly R1b.

Copper Axe said...

We have R1b in the North Caucasus as well? Basically south as you can get on the steppes.

It is really, really fucking silly to attach a language family to a single haplogroup.

In the end all these lineages come from Eastern Hunter gatherers so I don't know why people are surprised you find related clades in Eastern hunter gatherers.

There is this weird arbitrary divide between haplogroups you guys are making when it can easily be attributed to patrilineal kinship systemsdeveloping after pastoralism gets really going. This is why you find earlier populations with varied lineages but later on an entire group are basically clones of each other.

Also stop acting like the current status of ancient haplogroup distributions are set in stone, we have found L51 in Corded Ware and Afanasievo now, back when most of you were still hanging on the idea of "CW=R1a" "R1b=Yamnaya/Bell Beaker".

Gaska you better delete your account when SGC has L51, which adds to a prominent archaeological theory of Bell Beaker origins. Ain't much if it ain't Dutch son.

Copper Axe said...

"R1a=PIE and R1b=tag-alongs" or vice versa theories are silly too.

If we take the place where PIE originated as the triangle connecting Khvalynsk (even if it is a dead end), Sredny Stog, and the Caucasus piedmont, then both R1b, R1a and even I2.

Khvalynsk has shown diversity, Stedny Stog has one sample and it is M417. Progress has 2(?) R1b samples and seems to have provided a very significant amount of ancestry to the other populations.

Archi said...

@Copper Axe

The SGC territory was inhabited by the BBC, they were heavily mixed (archaeologically) with the SGC.

See SGC in https://i.ibb.co/ysMC0zL/Centum-IEgroups.png

So, the R1b in the SGC is from the BB.

Coldmountains said...

@Copper Axe

I agree with you. It is a very pointless discussion who was the first PIE speaking haplogroup. There is no way we can differentiate just by ancient dna the first PIEs from some Para-PIEs next to them. Maybe first PIEs were R1b, I2a or even Q1b we will never really know. The most likely scenario is obviously that it included already R1a, R1b and I2a but we can not disprove or prove this fully. It is in the end also not a a relevant question.

More important and proven is that earliest IE languages were spread by R1b, R1a and I2a and that Corded Ware/Yamnaya/Afanasievo was the vector for this.

Gaska said...


@copper axe, thanks for the advice. We have different opinions on the importance of the Netherlands in the prehistory of western europe. Important Dutch archaeologists have been in charge of destroying the Dutch model in its archaeological aspect. And for that model to be genetically credible you need;

1-Find R1b-L51/L52/P312 etc in deposits that can be attributed without any doubt to the SGC
2-That the dates of these sites are old enough so that these hypothetical cases cannot be related to the influence of the BB culture, that is, prior to 2,600 BC
3-Discard that these cases are not related to the Dutch, Danish German or Scandinavian Neolithic cultures because we have already seen VK531 in Norway and there is the possibility that R1b comes from the north and not from the east of the continent
4-That its autosomal composition is typical of the CWC and cannot be attributed to exogamy because there is a possibility that R1b men from Dutch Neolithic cultures (Vlaardingen) mingled with women from the steppes, as occurred in much of Europe (only you have to check what happened in the late Neolithic in Switzerland, Poland, Germany, Bohemia etc

Do you have any of that to date? NO-
So why do we have to believe that you will find it, if the CWC was overwhelmingly R1a?

Perhaps the rumors are true and the SGC was R1b-M269. When this happens we will discuss it, meanwhile we will be talking about fairy tales.

You and many other Kurgan fanatics should have deleted your accounts after the disaster of not finding M417 and L51/P312 in the Yamnaya culture and yet you dare to advise me to close my account when I still have not had to change my mind about it.

Gaska said...


@Archi honestly don't understand your reasoning. The Gravettian culture succeeded the Aurignacian culture (31,000 BC) and is considered a common culture throughout Europe. It was replaced by Solutrean culture in France and in Spain but in Italy (and I think also in the Balkans) it continued as Epigravettian. Villaba-Mouco has shown that the Villabruna cluster is much older than previously thought and that therefore it is inextricably linked to the Gravettian culture, although evidently R1b-L754 was not the only typical male marker of that culture

Reagarding Mit Hap-H, For Spanish geneticists it is a typical lineage of the Iberian Hunter gatherers, so if you do not agree you should contact them-These are the oldest cases that I know

Europe

Iberia-Cantabria, Cueva de la Pasiega, Puente Viesgo, Magdalenian-15.970 BC
Cantabria, Cueva del Mirón, Ramales de la Victoria- Magdalenian-13.000 BC
Portugal, River Sado, Mesolíthic-8.500 BC
Linatzeta Cave- Lastur, Deba, Guipúzcoa, Mesolíthic-6.165 BC
Paternanbidea, Íbero, Navarra-6.010 BC
Serbia, Lepenski Vir-Mesolíthic-Lepe16-6.100 BC


Asia

Siria, Tell Halula-Aceramic Neolithic-H68-7.650 BC
Anatolia, Catañhöyuk, Neolíthic-20850-6.525 BC/ Aktopraklık-Akt18-6.455 BC

Copper Axe said...

@Gaska

It is always funny how you have such strict criteria for proving a steppe hypothesis, which I do not see as an issue because you are right that those points ultimately should be proven, but then use super loose arguments for your own stuff. SGC must have P312 before 2700 bc but Vlaardingen culture has it because there are some EEF individuals who have distant related clades of R1b due to earlier WHG/EHG ancestry. You don't see the irony in that?

1. Wait for the new data
2. Same as above.
3. Show evidence of L51 in a Neolithic European context, which does not include steppe ancestry or influence.
4. Same as above, but specifically for the Vlaardingen culture. Also explain how the Vlaardingen gave L51 to an 80% steppe individual in Switzerland, or an Afanasievo man living in Mongolia (oldest L51 so far). Very Kurgan indeed.

Also, do not attribute your misunderstanding or those of trolls to the rest of us "Kurganists". Most of us were smart enough to realize that Yamnaya-like ancestry does not mean "direct paternal descent from core Yamnaya groups". You are just creating silly strawman arguments.

The only disaster here are the theories of you and Maju lmao.

G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer said...

@ Wise Dragon

A 2018 analysis of autosomal DNA using modern populations as a reference, found the Natufians to have a predominant mixture of ancestral components from Western Eurasia and North Africa as well as a small (ca 6.8%) East African-related ancestry (showing affinities to the Omotic peoples of southern Ethiopia). It is suggested that this East African component may have been associated with the spread of Y-haplogroup E (particularly Y-haplogroup E-M215, also known as "E1b1b") lineages to Western Eurasia. [52]

I dont know What is going on in G25 with the Natufian samples. But the majority of Levantine samples do Not show SSA or Dinka. In My situation too, as a person with Some ancestry from there.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Jatt Scythian,

You need to stop obsessing over East Asian related ancestry in West Eurasia. At best, IranN and ANE have some. If they do, it is super distant and unrelated to East Asians (Chinese, etc).

Dude, I don't get why you keep insisting there's East Asian ancestry in West Eurasia if you are opposed to that idea. It's like you're the devil's advocate for an idea you don't like in the first place.

A basic, fundamental, important fact about Eurasian genetics is there's no shared ancestry with people in West Eurasia and East Asia (by that I mean Pacific coast).

Ok, please move on and stop talking about ENA in West Eurasia. No one has the tools to answer the question if there is any distantly related East Asian ancestry in West Eurasia. To really answer that question conclusivly we know lots of new Upper Paleolithic DNA.

Gaska said...


Regarding the language issue, does anyone believe that the CWC-was able to change the Neolithic language (s) spoken in mainland Europe? - R1a did not go beyond Bavaria, and the R1b subclades in the steppes are totally foreign to Western Europe. So I think Haak, Harvard & company rushed to talk about mass migrations and the link of R1a and R1b to the expansion of IE. Perhaps R1a was able to impose some kind of IE language in Eastern Europe that survived until the Bronze Age in Unetice and urnfield culture. Later, the Iron Age Celts took their language to the British Isles and Iberia.

Archi said...

@Gaska

"Villaba-Mouco has shown that the Villabruna cluster is much older than previously thought and that therefore it is inextricably linked to the Gravettian culture"
"Gravettian in Italy (and I think also in the Balkans) it continued as Epigravettian."

It's just not true, nothing has been shown there, don't make up, there is no continuation of Gravette culture in Italy, Epigravette culture is not its direct continuation, it's just an archaeological fact, it's a completely new culture only in some aspects of the inherited tradition of Gravette culture (big difference). There is no direct link between the Gravette cluster and the Epigravette cluster (Villabrunа), so don't make it up. We don't have the Eastern Epigravette in our samples, but it has nothing to do with Southern and Western Europe.

Remember when the Magdalenian was living in Villabruna time
Palaeolithic Magdalenian Belgium Troisième caverne (Goyet) [GoyetQ-2] 13283-12829 cal BC (12650 ± 50 BP, GrA-46168) M HIJK U8a

We don't have East Gravette in our samples, because Epigravette is connected to it, but it has nothing to do with Southern and Western Europe.

"Reagarding Mit Hap-H, For Spanish geneticists it is a typical lineage of the Iberian Hunter gatherers, so if you do not agree you should contact them-These are the oldest cases that I know"

It's all just a straightforward lie.

Mesolithic Portugal Molinos de Papel [Mop3] 6235-5995 cal BC HV
Mesolithic Geometric Portugal Moita do Sebastião [CMS001 / 22] 6235 – 5994 cal BC (7240±70 BP, To-131) M I2a1b HV0 + 195

For the first time, H in Spain appears only in Neolithic.

Neolithic Spain Paternanbidea, Navarra [PAT-1E3, PAT-2E1] 5700-4700 BC M & F H
Neolithic Spain Paternanbidea, Navarra [PAT-1E5] 5700-4700 BC inf H

Archi said...

Cintinue to Gaska
Compare autosomes (
https://i.ibb.co/S3YwSkx/Paleo-Mesolithic-West-Eurasian-clusters-f3.png Gravettian is brown, Magdalenian is yellow) and mtDNA

Palaeolithic Gravettian Italy Grotta Paglicci [Paglicci133 (23C-2)] 34580-312010 cal BP M I U8c
Palaeolithic Gravettian Austria Krems-Wachtberg [KremsWA3] 31250-30690 cal BP M U5
Palaeolithic Gravettian Czech Republic Pavlov [Pavlov1] 31110-29410 cal BP M IJK L16, CTS4517, FGC2414 U5
Palaeolithic Gravettian Czech Republic Dolni Vestonice [Vestonice13] 31070-30670 cal BP M CT (xIJK) CTS109, CTS5318, CTS6327, CTS8243, CTS9556, Z17718, Y1571, M5831, (P126-, L16-) U8c
Palaeolithic Gravettian Czech Republic Dolni Vestonice [Vestonice14] 31070-30670 cal BP M U5
Palaeolithic Gravettian Czech Republic Dolni Vestonice [Vestonice15] 31070-30670 cal BP M BT PF1178 U5
Palaeolithic Gravettian Czech Republic Dolni Vestonice [Vestonice16] 28760-27360 BCE [28634-27458 calBCE (GrN-15277: 25740±210 BP); 28586-27086 calBCE (25570±280, GrN-15276); layer date] M C1a2 CTS11043, V20, V86 (F1370-) U5
Palaeolithic Gravettian Czech Republic Dolni Vestonice [Vestonice43] 30710-29310 cal BP M F P145, P158, PF3641, FI4, CTS2193, CTS4848, CTS8963, CTS11540 U
Palaeolithic Gravettian Italy The Grotta di Santa Maria di Agnano, Ostuni [Ostuni2] 29310-28640 cal BP F U2
Palaeolithic Gravettian Italy Grotta Paglicci [Paglicci108 (21B-1)] 28430-27070 cal BP F U2'3'4'7'8'9
Palaeolithic Gravettian Belgium Troisième caverne (Goyet) [GoyetQ53-1] 28230-27720 cal BP F U2
Palaeolithic Gravettian Italy Grotta Paglicci, Foggia [23] 28000 BP Unreliable
Palaeolithic Gravettian Italy The Grotta di Santa Maria di Agnano, Ostuni [Ostuni1] 27810-27430 cal BP F M
Palaeolithic Gravettian Belgium Troisième caverne (Goyet) [GoyetQ55-2] 27730-27310 cal BP U2
Palaeolithic Gravettian Belgium Troisième caverne (Goyet) [GoyetQ376-19] 27720-27310 cal BP F U2
Palaeolithic Gravettian France La Rochette (saint Léon-sur-VézРёre) 27780-27400 cal BP M
Palaeolithic Gravettian Belgium Troisième caverne (Goyet) [Goyet2878-21] 27060-26270 cal BP U5
Palaeolithic Gravettian Belgium Troisième caverne (Goyet) [GoyetQ56-16] 26600-26040 cal BP F U2
Palaeolithic Magdalenian Germany Hohle Fels [HohleFels49 (Ib1 66), 10 (Ic 405)] 16000-14260 cal BP M I CTS674, CTS9269 U8a
Palaeolithic Magdalenian France Rigney [Rigney1] 15690-15240 cal BP F U2'3'4'7'8'9
Palaeolithic Magdalenian Belgium Troisième caverne (Goyet) [GoyetQ-2] 13283-12829 cal BC (12650 ± 50 BP, GrA-46168) M HIJK F929+, PF3837+ U8a
Palaeolithic Magdalenian Germany Brillenhohle 15120-14440 cal BP M U8a
Palaeolithic Magdalenian Germany Burkhardtshöhle 15080-14150 cal BP M I CTS5650+ U8a
Palaeolithic Magdalenian Germany Hohle Fels [HohleFels79] 15070-14270 cal BP M U8a


Palaeolithic Epigravettian Italy Grotta Paglicci [PA71 (8A)] 19250-18210 cal BP U5b2b
Palaeolithic Epigravettian Italy Villabruna, Sovramonte - Belluno, Veneto 12230-11830 calBCE (12140±70 BP, KIA-27004) M R1b1a U5b2b
Palaeolithic Epipaleolithic France Rochedane, Villars-sous-Dampjoux 11140-10880 calBCE (11120±50 BP, GrA-41739) M I U5b2b
Palaeolithic Germany Oberkassel [998, 999] 11400 BC U5b1
Palaeolithic Azalian Spain Balma Guilanyà [BAL001 / E1206 / BAL005 / BG-E-3214 / BAL0051] 11384–10733; 10681–9263 cal BC (11095±195 BP; 10195±255 BP, Ua-34297; Ua-34298) M I1 U5b2a
Palaeolithic Epipaleolithic France Aven des Iboussières, Malataverne [IBS-9 (39)] 10090-9460 BCE M U5b2b
Palaeolithic Epipaleolithic France Aven des Iboussières, Malataverne [Iboussieres25-1 / IBS-6 (25-1)] 10090-9460 BCE (based on a direct date of Iboussieres 39) M J? U5b2a
Palaeolithic Epipaleolithic France Aven des Iboussières, Malataverne [Iboussieres31-2 / IBS-8 (31-2)] 10090-9460 BCE (based on a direct date of Iboussieres 39) U5b1

Gaska said...

@Copper Axe

My own stuff? I cannot at the moment prove that R1b-M269-L51 originates from any Neolithic culture in Central or Western Europe. We only have ATP3 (3,400 BC), and we don't know if it is a dead line or had descendants in Iberia or France. Nor can I test the genetic continuity of the WHGs R1b-L754-P297 in continental Europe except in the Baltic countries and perhaps in the Balkans.The r1b bottleneck prevents us from reliably studying its path to P312 in western europe so at the moment I cannot demonstrate what I think. But the same thing happens to supporters of the steppe theory although they have spent much more time, effort and money to demonstrate what they think. Perhaps they will succeed, but the steppes are the most genetically analyzed place in the world and they still cannot find the necessary evidence to convince the international scientific community.And this is obviously the greatest scientific-genetic disaster that has occurred in recent years because many people have wanted to believe what Harvard was saying without worrying about scientifically proving it.

However, all of us who disagree with that theory due to the lack of convincing evidence are considered a kind of demons by fanatics who do not admit that various other solutions are possible. That being said, R1b-L51 in the SGC? maybe my friend, but only if you meet the requirements I mentioned in my previous comment. If it finally turns out that the origin of my paternal lineage is in the Netherlands I will have to think that the Spanish Tercios of infantry only returned 4.500 years later. to our land during the Dutch revolt

By the way, I do not know Maju or his theories, I only know that he has a blog in Spanish but it has never interested me.

Matt said...

@Davidski, fair enough if there are some more unreleased sampled populations that represent more R1b rich late Mesolithic HG in Latvia/Lithuania; at the moment the published stuff seems to point to some R1b / I2 sequence which runs out well before CWC turn up, followed by CCC, scantily represented by R1a so far. The R1b rich HG we have so far there don't directly overlap or get replaced by R1a CW groups directly.

Same kind of thing with Botai/Afanasievo - there are R1a rich cultures in the same places later, but this is well after in time, well after the end of Botai and Afanasievo, and when we see population interactions with Steppe_MLBA and local pops they look East Asian / Q+N rich ANE / Turan... Not much actual direct succession between R1b->R1a in these areas.

Archi said...

@Gaska
"the steppes are the most genetically analyzed place in the world"

This is far from the case, as the entire Eneolitic there is practically zero. Spain is the most over re-analyzed place in the world, followed by Hungary, Germany with Britain and France are not far behind, all of them overtaking the Eastern European steppe.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Speaking of Shirenzigou I have two questions.

1.Will we ever get confirmation that the Xiahoe R1a guys were Z93-?

2.Also what was in the the Tarim Basin and Gansu before the arrival of Tocharians and Iranian speaking peoples? A predominantly ENA population? Or some sort of WSHG population? Any evidence for BMAC type ancestry that Far East before the IE expansion to the region?

Jatt_Scythian said...

Is Volosovo complete a dead end? Or do some of those R1b, I2 and R1a clades survive in small frequencies in NE Europe?
Also how does R1b-M73 play into this? I believe the Baltic R1b guys were something like pre M73.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@coldmountains
Is Q1b a Pontic Caspian steppe lineage? I always figured it had something to do with Botai or Keltiminar.

G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer said...

Archi is right on this.Spain(Iberia) is the most sampled area in the world when it comes to analysis.Thought i do not agree about Germany.Italy is the second IMO.

G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer said...

Actually Germans and Germanic nations have a problem with genetics.The majority of them have no interest about their DNA.And if i am not mistaken in Germany taking a DNA test it is non-positive thing.

Rob said...

Archie ; your chronology is off
The new elements which appeared in Italy did so during the LGM .
Moreover the sequence at Paglicci shows continuity; so these were additives rather than a discontinuity

Davidski said...

@Matt

There's no evidence that the R1b/I2 sequence runs out in Latvia and Lithuania before CWC shows up there.

But there is evidence of R1b-rich populations meeting Fatyanovo-related R1a-rich migrants in Central Asia.

Look at the Sintashta samples. Their core is Fatyanovo-related R1a-rich, but there is a minority of R1b males among them, except they fail to make a discernible impact in Andronovo and in South Asia.

Archi said...

@Rob

"your chronology is off
The new elements which appeared in Italy did so during the LGM .
Moreover the sequence at Paglicci shows continuity; so these were additives rather than a discontinuity"

Your words are incomprehensible. The chronology is correct. Paglicci shows no continuity.

vAsiSTha said...

So what archaeological cultures are definitely tocharian speaking?
based on archaeology, not genes as there is no need for tautological circular arguments as is the case with most of IE enthusiasts.

Rob said...

Blogger Rob said...
@ Archie

“ Your words are incomprehensible”

Lol the irony

Anyhow; shouldered points appear in Italy during the LGM
There is subsequent continuity into the late glacial

Archi said...

Davidski said...

"But there is evidence of R1b-rich populations meeting Fatyanovo-related R1a-rich migrants in Central Asia."

Related as brothers, but not necessarily as descendants. The fact is that there are no such assumptions about any continuity between Sintashta and Fatyanovo.

"Look at the Sintashta samples. Their core is Fatyanovo-related R1a-rich, but there is a minority of R1b males among them"

It is Kamennyi Ambar 5, there is literally a few meters from the Sintashta burial site is burial site of the Yamnaya culture.

Coldmountains said...

@Archi

Fatyanovo is older than both Sintashta and Abashevo. Sintashta not teleported from Central-East Europe into the Urals. And Davidski Worte Fatyanovo-related what is very correcf . Fatyanovo and the ancestors of Sintashta were part of the same movement eastwards. Sintashta and likely Proto-Indo-Iranians seem to be the eastern sparehead of this Fatyanovo-like wave which around 3000 b.c and likely bit earlier migrated eastwards

Archi said...

@Coldmountains

I repeat again

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

But there is no indication that Fatyanovo and Sintashta came in the same wave, between them there may be hundreds of years of difference, just came they probably from the same zone of the Central CWC.

https://i.ibb.co/FmqRxs9/Central-CWC-to-Fatyanovo.png

There's a lot of evidence to that effect.

Jatt_Scythian said...

What's an accurate map of Fataynovo-Balanovo( and Abashevo)? THe map from Malloy's book shows it as being much more Northern (reach Lake Ladoga?)?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Fatyanovo-Balanovo_culture.jpg
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/e4/7f/b7/e47fb75baed522a1613e3a582ebed3cf.png

Coldmountains said...

@Archi

And? Him being an outliner in Poltavka is exactly showing that he came recently from the northwest.

What you want to show me with this graphic? Abashevo and Sintashta also show many parallels to the far west and even Bell Beakers.

Ric Hern said...

Did Volosovo Ancestors also originate at the Lower Don ? Did R1b split from R1a with R1a going West and R1b going North and eventually meet again in Volosovo Territory ? If the Lower Don was the place of both Ancestors then Volosovo could also have been Indo-European Speaking just like their directly Westward migrating R1a kinsmen.

Archi said...

@Coldmountains

"And? Him being an outliner in Poltavka is exactly showing that he came recently from the northwest."

No, it doesn't. In this geographical place and at this time there was another (post-)CWC and battle axe culture Volsk-Lbishche, which buried its dead in the Poltavka mounds, this is a proven archeology fact.

Archi said...

Ric Hern said...

"Did Volosovo Ancestors also originate at the Lower Don ?"

Almost unbelievable.

Mesolithic Latvia Zvejnieki [I4432 / ZVEJ10] 6075-5920 calBCE (7140±40 BP, PSUAMS-2230) M R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2)
Mesolithic Narva Latvia Zvejnieki [I4626 / ZVEJ25/ Latvia_HG2] 5841-5636 calBCE (6840±55 BP, Hela-1212) M R1b1a1a
Mesolithic Latvia Zvejnieki [I4439 / ZVEJ20] 5763-5633 calBCE (6815±40 BP, PSUAMS-2236) M R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2)
Mesolithic Latvia Zvejnieki [I4434 / ZVEJ12] 5606-5385 calBCE (6530±35 BP, PSUAMS-2231) M R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2)
Mesolithic Latvia Zvejnieki [I4628 / ZVEJ27 / Latvia_HG3] 5302-4852 calBCE (6145±80 BP,Ua-19883) M R1b1a1a (xR1b1a1a2)
Mesolithic Latvia Zvejnieki [I4436 / ZVEJ14] 4260-4050 calBCE (5335±30 BP, PSUAMS-2233) M R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2)
Neolithic Latvia Zvejnieki, Burial 124 [I4627 / ZVEJ26 / Latvia_MN1] 4251-3976 calBCE (5280±55 BP, Ua-3639) M R1b1a1a(xR1b1a1a2)

Ric Hern said...

Did Volosovo relatives jump on boats in Latvia and coastal hop all the way to Denmark ? Or just migrate via Northern Poland...?

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

Yes Almost....

Vladimir said...

This question was answered back in 1987:

"Gradually, a growing number of evidences for the formation of Abashevo antiquities on the Northern periphery of Yamnaya cultural and historical community, a kind of intermediate territory between the massifs of the population of the Catacomb community in the south and partly east (which is associated with and Poltavka antiquity), Fatyanovo community (including Balanovo and monuments) in the north, the middle Dnieper culture in the west (Krainov, 1972a, p. 36, Fig. 13). It is primarily on the territory of forest-steppe along the Don and the adjacent southern areas of the Middle Volga region.
Exactly here is the selection sort protability monuments: the earliest layer Sokolsky settlement near the town of Lipetsk (Pryakhin, 1976а, pp. 59-60, Fig. 13), the earliest burial under mound Vvedensky (Sinuk, Kileynikov, 1976, p. 161, Fig. 2,1; p. 162, Fig. 3,12, p. 165, etc.). Hence the well-known cases of finds characteristic of Abashevo ancient vosloorus axe, typologically close to the axes of the catacomb population (korenevskiy, 1976, p. 30), the oldest wrought iron spearheads with an open sleeve, etc.
Finally, in areas along the Don known Neolithic monuments of the type Repin farm, ceramics protability which has several features: a tendency to bell beaker, the admixture of shells in the test, ornamentation, and incised wavy lines, etc. (Pryakhin, 1977, pp. 124-127). On the other hand, monuments with proto-Abashevo ceramics show features of cultural similarity with the proto - Yamnaya. Therefore, we can assume that the formation of the Abashevo took place on the northern periphery of the Yamnaya cultural and historical community on the basis of a population group isolated in the forest-steppe. And in this regard, we can see the ancient kinship of the Abashevo, Srubnaya of the population, whose distant ancestors were more or less related to the ancient tribes."

The bronze age of the forest strip of the USSR / / Series: Archeology of the USSR. Moscow: 1987. 4
Responsible editors: O. N. BADER, D. A. KRAINOV, M. F. KOSAREV
PUBLISHING HOUSE "NAUKA" IN MOSCOW 1987

Archi said...

It's just the same error as R1b = Yamnaya, it doesn't mean that Z93 = Fatyanovo. In fact, Z93 was in many cultures of the CWC circle.

Archi said...

"On the other hand, monuments with proto-Abashevo ceramics show features of cultural similarity with the proto - Yamnaya. Therefore, we can assume that the formation of the Abashevo took place on the northern periphery of the Yamnaya cultural and historical community on the basis of a population group isolated in the forest-steppe." 1987

It's outdated. Now Abashevo is only associated with CWC.

Vladimir said...

@ Archi
"It's outdated. Now Abashevo is only associated with CWC."

This is science. Moreover, it is confirmed by the latest data on the ancient DNA of Fatyanovo. The only thing that is outdated is that they did not see the connection between Fatyanovo (Balanovo) and Abashevo. And so the territorial location and without this clearly shows how the processes took place. I do not exclude that Fatyanovo may be Z93(xZ94), and actually Z94 will be where these outstanding archaeologists write.

Archi said...

@Vladimir

"This is science. Moreover, it is confirmed by the latest data on the ancient DNA of Fatyanovo."

Don't, they're not saying anything that you claim. All the data contradicts you. Science is when there are several opinions, you've pulled out only one, although the text contains many opinions. And of course, no data is confirmed that opinion, they just don't exist.

Vladimir said...

They're world-famous archaeologists, and nobody knows you, Archie. This is the case at the moment. When you, Archie, earn the same authority as Bader or Kraynov then you will get the right to argue with them.

Archi said...

@Vladimir

"They're world-famous archaeologists, and nobody knows you, Archie. This is the case at the moment. When you, Archie, earn the same authority as Bader or Kraynov then you will get the right to argue with them"

Don't lies, Kraynov and Bader are the editors, but the text of the article was written by Pryakhin and Khalikov, who have a completely marginal opinion.

"Ethogenesis Abashevo are far from unambiguous.
the main ethnogenesis of the Abashevois associated with the Yamnaya
(A. H. Khalikov (only!)) or to some extent with the Medle Dnieper (P. N. Tretyakov, I. I. Artemenko)."

Here is an enumeration of who he are arguing with, and directly argue with, because even the editors of Kraynov and Bader do not agree with him.

"The proposed solution to the question of origin research on the ways of settlement of Abashevo does not agree opinion of those authors Krivtsova-Grakova, Salyshkov
In others, Bader, 1950a, p. 81; Krivtsovatrakova, 19476,
p. 98; Salnikov, 1954, p. 81 and SL. Bader, 1964a, p. 174 Goryunov,
1961, p. 13, 14; Matyushin, 1970, 1971 Bryusov, 1968, p. 14. We can not agree and expressed O. N. Bader (Bader, 1970, C, 70-71). )."

Stop cheating. You only attribute your opinion to Kraynov and Bader, and you're also telling me. You're known to be a liar all the time.

Archi said...

^^^^ You only attribute Khalikov opinion to Kraynov and Bader,

Vladimir said...

Bader and Krainov are responsible editors of the publication, so they agree with the content of the publication. Pryakhin and Khalikov are also famous archaeologists. So, Archie, don't bring in a mess. Everything in this encyclopedia is clear and (this is my opinion) logical. Especially in light of the latest data on ancient DNA.

Gaska said...

@Archi said-It's all just a straightforward lie.

I think it's useless to argue with you, but I'm going to make one last try

1-Archi said-Mesolithic Portugal Molinos de Papel [Mop3] 6235-5995 cal BC HV-

I only know one deposit in Iberia called "Los Molinos de Papel", and it is not in Portugal but in Spain, specifically in Caravaca de la Cruz (Murcia). the site was studied by archeologist Ana Pujante in 2005-"El Yacimiento prehistórico de los Molinos de Papel (Caravaca de la Cruz) Intervencion arqueológica"- It is not Mesolithic but it belongs to the BB culture because two graves with burials, a Palmela spearhead and other objects from the BB package were discovered, and it is dated in 2,150 BC- The only correct data you have given is that Mop3-Mit Hap-HV, analyzed by Szecsenyi et al in 2.017-Please, if there is another deposit of the same name in Portugal, you will surely be able to send the data of who has genetically analyzed the deposit.The oldest HV analyzed in Iberia is in the Cueva del Pirulejo, Cordoba-Magdalenian culture-2PI-13,000 BC- Doctoral Thesis Eva Fernández


2-Archi said-Mesolithic Geometric Portugal Moita do Sebastião [CMS001 / 22] 6235 – 5994 cal BC (7240±70 BP, To-131) M I2a1b HV0 + 195

This deposit is in Portugal and has been analyzed several times

*Valdiosera et al (2.017)-SEBA1-Mit-U5b
*Survival of Late Pleistocene HG ancestry in the Iberian Peninsula-Villaba-Mouco
CMS001 (8.185-7941 BP)- Mit-U5b1

Can you tell me where you got that data from? What is the job where the site has been analyzed? I could be wrong and it would be interesting to have such an old HVO+195 in Iberia. The oldest I know to date are

*Pendimoun Neolithic France-PEN001-5,240 BC-Rivollat, 2.020-Mit HVO@195
*Cueva de Chaves-Neolithic Iberia-Cardial-CHA001 (5.235 BC)-HapY-I2a1b-Mit HVO@195
*GB-I3137-Neolithic Britain-3.500 BC-Mit-HV0@195

Since the male lineage data matches (I2a1b) maybe you have confused Moita de Sebastio with Cueva de Chaves because I am sure that you are unable to lie

3-Paternanbidea site (Ibero, Navarre)-6.090-5.960 BC-It is an exceptional Neolithic burial in Western Europe with double and multiple burials (simultaneous and cumulative- Garcia Gazolaz, 1998, Sesma, 2007).

Mit HAPS- HV, H (3 samples), H3 (2), U (1), K (1) and I (1)

4- To understand what Spanish geneticists think of Mit-H you should read- Ancient DNA in the Cantabrian fringe populations- C de la Rua, Neskuts Izaguirre (2015), because they analyze several paleolithic sites with Mit Hap-H.For us it is evident that it is a lineage related to the WHGs not to the Anatolian farmers.

5-I have seen that you have not read, you do not want to read, or you do not want to understand Villaba-Mouco's paper- I am not going to argue with you, it is better that you continue thinking what you want regarding the Viullabruna cluster.

6-The steppes have been and are being exhaustively analyzed to try to demonstrate the steppe theory. I have seen that a Greek friend agrees with you that Iberia is the most analyzed European region. Certainly more than Greece or Italy, but we only have a dozen paleolithic genomes (the oldest 19,000 BC), when Iberia is continuously inhabited since 40,000 BC. We also have little data on the Late Neolithic (3.500-2.600 BC) and of course the Bronze Age and the Iron Age, especially in the western half of the peninsula.




AWood said...

I'm not sure if there was any evidence R1b had much of a presence east of the Urals, so not much to replace. Furthermore, it looks like East Asian lines did most of the replacing, not R1a, who also seemed to take a beating from the East Asians. ie: Botai, low population who were nearly gone or gone by Yamnaya/Afanasievo. Afanasievo, replaced by East Asian expansions.

@vasistha

I think you are right on this one. The most Basal R1b is among Indians, Huns, and Uzbeks among some examples. The early R1b Xiongnu were modeled as partly BMAC which lends support they arrived from central Asia. This would infer that the successful branch of R1b moved west of the Urals <18000 years ago, and only one extant lineage remained in central Asia and was somewhat successful.

In any event, if Volosovo turns up R1b-M269, it will be a surprise to see it hand in hand with Q-L54, since they aren't exactly found together anywhere I can think of in modern day...except North/South America from European colonization.

Vladimir said...

On the theme. On Russian forums write that this line of DNA from Sarmat aorsi. The aorsi were related to the Sako-Massaget tribes in language and origin, Dating back to the bronze age. The relationship savromato-Sarmatian Volga-Ural and Saka-Massagetae of Central Asian areas in the second half of I thousand BC installed and in particular archaeological materials. In the Prokhorov archaeological culture of the Urals — Volga region, which belonged to the aorsi, K. F. Smirnov noted the SACO-Massaget Central Asian elements. R1a-SUR51-and this is the time of the Sarmat-AORS. Paleo-DNA Sarmat from Temyasovo 1-3 centuries ad-this confirms (tem002.SG, tem003.SG).

JBS said...

@epoch

Thanks for the info. The Van Schalkwijk's have been in the Utrecht area since the early 12th century. They were involved in mining and building some of the waterways you see today in the Netherlands. They had a castle built in the early 13th century in the area. I just think it's a little uncanny how they have Z2125 and their coat of arms is identical to the Arpad standard. Throw in the fact that they were highly influential in the Utrecht area and I think you have a case for Arpad origins.

pnuadha said...

@rick hern

Yes. The r1b volosovo people saw the warning signs and ran in terror of the r1a beasts. Along the way they gave warning to their fellow r1b'ers on the baltic. Little is known of that exchange but it is rumored that the baltics sacrificed themselves to given a fighting chance for the volosovo people to carry on the r1b banner in the west.

Moesan said...

1- ALL: be careful when opposing subclades of the same family (diverse up-downstream SNP of same lineage): every mutation doesn't create a new ethny/culture and autosomal group by force; we were almost sure P312 were come from east because we had in modern pops a trail of P312<L11(close to L151)<L51<L23 in Central Europe not far the danube. Small sets leaving the bulk of their original pop and underrunning drift and founder effect have ONE dominant SNP, it doesn't discard other close SNP's of their origins (first of all, upstream ones).
2- GASKA: 3000 BC is no more Neolithic in the most of Europe, it's Eneolithic or Chalcolithic, the meeting period of Farmers and Steppes Groups or Egean/Anatolian people. To date, all the studies (Switzerland, Germany, the Netherlands, Britain, Ireland, France...) seem pointing to a flow of Y-R1b-P312+++ in Western Europe beginning at leastaround the 2500 but there not earlier I think (in Central or East Central Europe we could hope older dates in future)

Moesan said...

1- don't think every SNP mutation create a new ethny/culture: they form chains. to oppose groups based upon a degree of SNP of the same great lineage without more arguments (like: "one is CWC, the other BB") is of weak value (even if don't think the male origin of BB's is in CWC)
2- GASKA: 3000 BC is no more Neolithic (except in far North) in Europe: it's Chalco or Eneolithic, time of meetings between post-Farmers and Steppes people or Egea/Anatolian people. I doubt we 'll find a lot of Y-R1b-/L51>P312>... before the 2800 BC in Western Europe (all surveys in Western Europe converge here around 2600 at very first); older dates to come maybe farther East?

Vladimir said...

Other hypotheses about the origin of Abashevo. "There are a significant number of mutually exclusive hypotheses about the origin of this archaeological culture. In addition to O. A. Grivtzova-Grakova the hypothesis of a genetic continuity from Fatyanovo divided N. F. Kalinin [1952] K. V. Salnikov [1954], A. P. Smirnov [1961].
P. P. Efimenko and P. N. Tretyakov [1961] saw the origins of this culture in the middle Dnieper culture.
N. Ya. Merpert [1961] similarities Fatyanovo and Abashevo cultures explained Eneolithic common underlying cause of both cultures."
Anthropological Characteristics of the Population of the Don Region, Abashevo Culture (Based on the Burial Mound Second class), 2016.
M. M. Gerasimova
Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
S. B. Borutskaya
Lomonosov Moscow State University
S. V. Vasiliev
Institute of Ethnology and Anthropology of the Russian Academy of Sciences
R. A. Tyurin
LLC «Terra»

JuanRivera said...

I think that the PIE community's Y-DNA haplogroups were R1a and R1b, then I2a, then Q1a (Q1b in ISOGG from 2018 afterwards), then J1, and then possibly even traces of G2a2 from their I3719-like EEF ancestry (I3719 himself is I2a2a), all arranged in descending order.

Rob said...

said...
@ AWood

“ I think you are right on this one. The most Basal R1b is among Indians, Huns, and Uzbeks among some examples. The early R1b Xiongnu were modeled as partly”

Not really. As I explained to Sam last thread; the R1b in Central Asia is not “basal”. In fact , it is rooted in Europe

@ JuanRivera

“ I think that the PIE community's Y-DNA haplogroups were R1a and R1b, then I2a, then Q1a ”

Well, the most “basal” IE lineage are the I2a2a1b. But who’s counting ? Well you guys are- so the correction needs to be made

Archi said...

@Gaska

Write some nonsense. You don't give the sample number or the date or the title of the articles you saw them in. Everything you write is purely unsubstantiated. I give evidence. You're just a naked set of unsubstantiated claims. Your words are untrustworthy.

"To understand what Spanish geneticists think of Mit-H you should read- Ancient DNA in the Cantabrian fringe populations- C de la Rua, Neskuts Izaguirre (2015), because they analyze several paleolithic sites with Mit Hap-H.For us it is evident that it is a lineage related to the WHGs not to the Anatolian farmers."

You're lying again, the full title of this article is Ancient DNA in the Cantabrian fringe populations: A mtDNA study from Prehistory to Late Antiquity Concepci on de-la-Rua*, Neskuts Izagirre, Santos Alonso, Montserrat Hervella.
There's no pre-Neolithic hunter-gatherers with Mito H, no discussion of Mito H. There's no opinion of Mito H, no statements about Mito H. There's only one who writes about Mitochondrial:
"Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) generated on Neolithic farmers in the Mediterranean area exhibited some lineages that are also present in modern populations from the same regions (as haplogroups J and T) (Sampietro et al., 2007; Lacan et al., 2011) but other lineagesare not (N1a) (Gamba et al., 2012), supporting a dual model (cultural and demic) for the dispersal of the Neolithic. However, the genetic composition of Paleolithic and Mesolithic hunter-egatherers in the Iberian Peninsula showed a more complex interpretation with some haplogroups existing both in hunter-egatherers and extant populations suggesting continuity from Paleolithice-Mesolithic times".
Mitogaplogroup H is mentioned there only in the table referring to Neolithic and after Neolithic time. In general, the article is minuscule, there is nothing in it, it is catastrophically outdated. This conversation is meaningless, because you simply have no proof, all the data against you.

I have seen that you have not read, you do not want to read, or you do not want to understand Villaba-Mouco's paper. I read Villaba-Mouco's paper, you didn't. I can see that you're not taking the data on any issue at all.

Archi said...

JuanRivera said...
"I think that the PIE community's Y-DNA haplogroups were R1a and R1b, then I2a, then Q1a (Q1b in ISOGG from 2018 afterwards), then J1, and then possibly even traces of G2a2 from their I3719-like EEF ancestry (I3719 himself is I2a2a), all arranged in descending order."

And A00, A0, A, BT, BC, F, C, IJHK, I, I1, J, J1, J2, H, K, K2, P, Q ... X, Y, Z
Who's more? Half Europe and Asia is the PIE?

You can think whatever you want, the main thing is not to think, but justify it. Well, Rob thinks "Well, the most “basal” IE lineage are the I2a2a1b", but he has nothing but empty words in his faiths.

Rob said...

@ Archie
Sorry if the truth offends you; but feel free to cope !

JuanRivera said...

I'm not saying which is the most basal, rather, each is arranged by frequency, R1 being the most frequent and G2a2 the least frequent, if present at all.

AWood said...

@Rob,

R-PH155 is not rooted in Europe. There really is no proof of this at all. It would be nice if you could refute my point with actual evidence or a hypothesis. I don't feel like skimming hundreds of posts for a response to someone else.

Rob said...



@ AWood
Of course there is
PH155 consists of 2 clades - M335 and PH200. M335 has been sequenced by from 3 west Eurasians, (Turk, Italian-American & Albanian). PH200 is that which is found in central-East Asia. Noticably, PH200 only appears in recent historic peoples of Inner Asia (Dzungar, Huns, etc); but is notably absent from Mesolithic Siberia. When combined with the fact that P297 is west Eurasian; the conclusion is self-evident


@ Juan

Yes I agree R1 were the most impacting

AWood said...

@Rob

I can only assume you are referring to the 1 line who has spawned 4 living lineages in Italy, Albania and Germany. This is a singleton and we have no clue how it got to its current location/spread. However, the Indian man who is (PH155-) and the several other *diverse* lines in and around central Asia suggest a more eastern origin. I am also aware of at least 1 Mongol who has this line, and we have several Huns and Xiongnu who have popped up. It's perfectly reasonable to suggest a paleaolithic time frame during the LGM in central Asia. Yes, R-L389 probably formed west of the Urals, but that's not what I am talking about.

AWood said...

@Rob

M335 cluster is 4 countries from 1 man. You can't base an argument around that. Descending branches also seem to be among Turks, or regions of the Middle East where Turks had a presence.

AWood said...

@Rob

I interpret Central Asia to be the "Stan" countries. I even alluded to the fact the R1b Xiongnu are modeled partly as Gonur Tepe, so it was clear I meant it was west of modern Mongolia or Siberia.

Rob said...

@ AWood

Italy & Alabania aren't in the Middle East

And given that the guy from Dzharkutan is the earliest attested ancient individual, a west Eurasian origins seems more likely; but too few early data points at present to be sure

Rob said...

Yes I see- something like kelteminar culture would make sense

AWood said...

@Rob,

No, I'm referring to the PH200 group. Like I mentioned, those M335 samples go back to 1 male who lived awhile ago, but not too long ago judging by the haplotype distance. You can't use him for anything. Besides, Cinnioglu from mid 2000's found M335 in Turkey before we knew much of anything. The Indian guy is actually the most basal of the bunch and his haplotype isn't close to anything publicly available that I have seen. There are a bunch of "predicted" central Asians as well as old P25+ men in and around Iran and central Asia. As you said, unfortunately not enough to go on, but it's leaning this way when you add in the Huns and Mongols. Your argument for Europe is based on 1 recent-ish guy who has 4 descendants. (certainly not 18,000 ybp) We won't turn up many bonafide L754- or early branchings because the region is undertested, but also because it's a paleaolithic branch who lived as foragers until they happened to encounter farmers who may or may not have been all that kind to them.

vAsiSTha said...

@awood
Which basal r1b Indian guy are you talking about?

vAsiSTha said...

And I also agree with awood that the ph155 seen in Albania Italy ME etc is likely due to more recent flow from likely Turkic speakers.

Matt said...

@Davidski, yeah, there are a few R1b samples at the Kamenyi-Ambar cemetary, this is true.

Archi said...

Matt said...
" @Davidski, yeah, there are a few R1b samples at the Kamenyi-Ambar cemetary, this is true."

Why shouldn’t it be there? This is essentially the cemetery of the Yamnaya culture where Sintashta was buried. Modern Bashkirs R1b-Z2103 continue that Yamnaya population.

Davidski said...

The point is that R1b was the most common Y-haplogroup in that region during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age.

But during the Sintashta period it fell sharply in frequency and was largely replaced by R1a.

Archi said...

Blogger Rob said...
"but is notably absent from Mesolithic Siberia."

That statement is completely wrong. We have no samples from Mesolithic (West) Siberia (and other time), Siberia is huge and diverse, but we have practically no haplogroups, so no one can claim that it was absent and where and when.

Rob said...

@ Archi

“ That statement is completely wrong. We have no samples from Mesolithic (West) Siberia (and other time)”

That doesn’t make it wrong .

Archi said...

@Rob

That makes it wrong.

Davidski said...

There won't be any R1a in West Siberia during the Mesolithic. That's Q country at that time.

R1a was much further west back then, in Ukraine and in Russia near the Finnish border.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

How did R1a get from there to the Lower Don ?

Davidski said...

The Lower Don isn't far from Ukraine.

Ric Hern said...

So basically a migration or broad expansion towards the East and Southeast...

Archi said...

Just a few years ago, they wrote this: There won't be any R1a in East Europe during the Mesolithic. That's N country at that time. There won't be any Q in East Europe during the Neolithic. That's N country at that time.

Ric Hern said...

Wonder if they found some R1b already living in the Don area or did they migrate with some R1bs to that area ?

Ric Hern said...

Post-Swiderian related ?

Archi said...

How many Y-haplogroups do we have from Siberia west of Angara/Baikal until the Copper Age? Exactly ZERO.

The first one is west of this border
Copper Bol'shemysskaya Russian Altai Tytkesken-VI, kourgane 61 [Bol 11] 6000-5000 BP M R1b-P297 (xM73)

The earlier R1a is recorded there so far only to the east
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Lokomotiv, Irkutsk [LOK_1980.006 and LOK_1981.024.01] 5500-4885 BC M R1a1-M17 2 samples

Let's say from Samara (R1a, R1b, EHG Sidelkino) to Siberia there are only 700 kilometers.

Davidski said...

There's no R1a in any reliable capture or shotgun data from Siberia dating to earlier than the Bronze Age.

That includes a lot of new data yet to be published.

A lot of the old PCR samples, like that Kitoi R1a sample, are contaminated and garbage.

Archi said...

Unproved.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Yea it seems like R1 had already vacated West Siberia and (definitely regions east of that by then). Was everything between the Urals and Baikal and north till the White/Kara/Laptev seas WSHG like or was there some EHG and ENA populations in that region too? Were most WSHG 30% EHG, 50% ANE and 20% ENA or did they have variation too?

Davidski said...

@Archi

If you can't verify the authenticity of ancient samples, then you can't consider them legitimate.

See that's why no one uses PCR sequencing like that anymore.

Archi said...

@ Davidski

Other results from the same samples are not disputed, and there are many. Well, this isn't one sample, this is two R1a.

I have no reason not to trust them because we have other West Eurasian (European) specimens there.

Neolithic Kitoi Russia Lokomotiv, Irkutsk [LOK_1980.014.03] 5500-4885 BC M U5a 2 samples

As well as anthropologists' notes on European influence on the Kitoi culture, as well as on ancient anthropological continuum between Europe and Siberia.

https://i.ibb.co/WVRj5MB/Neolithic-Anthropological-formation.png

Archi said...

And
Russia Siberia, Sosnoviy Ostrov, Tomsk10, inventory number 3079, burial 1 [I5766] 4230-3983 calBCE (5261±33 BP, OxA-33486) F U5a2b1

Compare to
Mesolithic Russia Sidelkino, Samara region [Sidelkino441] 9836 ± 48 BP, UBA-31465 U5a2

yet
Russia Siberia, western, Tyumen Oblast, Tyumen50, Kurgan 6, Mergen 6 (building No. 15) [I1960] 6361-6071 calBCE [6335-6071 calBCE (7330±40 BP, Poz-82198), 6361-6086 calBCE (7355±40 BP, OxA-33489, d15N=+15.3 permil possible marine influence)] F U2e3

Jatt_Scythian said...

Do you really think there were West Eurasians (much less European) people that far east that late?

Ric Hern said...

How accurate is this ?

ANE component in Yamnaya split from Botai 17 000 years ago. ANE component in Yamnaya split from Sidelkino 11 000 years ago. ?

Ric Hern said...

If the ANE component in Yamnaya split from Sidelkino only 11 000 years ago, does that not make Yamnaya closer to Sidelkino than Yamnaya was to Villabruna ?

Davidski said...

In my humble opinion, someone pulled those dates out of their backside.

a said...

Archi said...
Matt said...
" @Davidski, yeah, there are a few R1b samples at the Kamenyi-Ambar cemetary, this is true."

"Why shouldn’t it be there? This is essentially the cemetery of the Yamnaya culture where Sintashta was buried. Modern Bashkirs R1b-Z2103 continue that Yamnaya population."

It would be interesting to compare frequency of Yamnaya R1b-Z2103+ - with Sintashta R1a-Z93 among Iranian speaking- Ossetians and or Armenians, 2 Indo-European speaking groups within the Caucasus.

Archi said...

@Ric Hern

Your questions, even in the wording, are completely wrong.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

What dates would be more accurate ?

Slumbery said...

@Ric Hern

"If the ANE component in Yamnaya split from Sidelkino only 11 000 years ago, does that not make Yamnaya closer to Sidelkino than Yamnaya was to Villabruna ?"

What? I have to ask for clarification, because I do not understand this question. Yamnaya is not a third divergent group in a Villabruna-Sidelkino-Yamanaya triad, but simply a group that draws ancestry from populations similar to the mentioned ancient HG-s. Sidelkino had Villabruna-related ancestry already to begin with. If Yamnaya is closer to Sidelkino, it is because of genetic ancestry ratios, not because of that assumed split date.
(Sure, Yamnaya is closer to Sidelkino genetically, because it had much more ANE than Villabruna.)

Vladimir said...

Davidski
In my humble opinion, someone pulled those dates out of their backside.

It's even surprising how low-quality the Moussa2016 study is. In fact, the same culture and the same time period was studied by Damgaard2018 and received very high-quality results.

AWood said...

@Vasistha

Kit#N93357 from the R1b Basal project at FTDNA with surname Joshi. As far as I know, he's the most basal R1b member in any publicly available database. Of all things he's Indian, which is kind of ironic.

Samuel Andrews said...

Dagestan is 38% Yamnaya. But their Y DNA is almost 100% J1. They're the most Indo European influenced group outside of Europe, but they don't speak IE, and they don't have IE Y DNA.

Their IE ancestors probably carried R1b Z2103, but of course it disappeared due to a J1 patrilineal clan or whatever.

Jatt_Scythian said...

@Samuel Andrews

The most steppe South Asian populations (Haryana Jatts and Rors) are only 25% R1a. I'm guessing there was a strong maternal contribution there unlike most South Asians. I know you've studied mtdna. Does that data back that theory?

Ric Hern said...

@ Slumbery

Was just looking at something in the Damgaard et al. 2018 paper...

Wondering if Yamnaya "like" people stayed behind in Eastern Europe while Villabruna moved into the Balkans or....

a said...

If Dagestan is 38% Yamnaya; I wonder what the Bagvalal's score?

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

Since you are the English Expert and basically an expert in everything please feel free to correct my wording since English is not my Mother Tongue. How would you have asked the question ?

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

We have a saying. "A Clever Guy only needs halve a Word." Davidski obviously is very clever since he knew what I was talking about and didn't have an issue with my wording or phrases.

vAsiSTha said...

@awood
"Kit#N93357 from the R1b Basal project at FTDNA with surname Joshi."A far as I know, he's the most basal R1b member in any publicly available database. Of all things he's Indian, which is kind of ironic.

Thanks, Joshi is a quintessential Brahmin surname. From jyotishi - astrologer.

vAsiSTha said...

@jatt
"The most steppe South Asian populations (Haryana Jatts and Rors) are only 25% R1a. I'm guessing there was a strong maternal contribution there unlike most South Asians."

For a 100% male mediated ancestry, 25% y dna should be accompanied by 12.5% autosomal ancestry. Anything more, and it is through women.
That is also exactly what the swat paper tells you, that a lot of steppe ancestry was female mediated.
A lot of original northern south Asian pops have 30-40% mtDna which are west Eurasian ie Iranian + european, jats and rors aren't unique in that sense.

vAsiSTha said...

If you have 25% y and mtdna hg in a population which you believe to be from europe, and there is 25% autosomal ancestry on average from europe, then it means that the inflow was roughly 50:50 male:female

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

"Heavily sex-biased" population dispersals into the Indian Subcontinent (Silva et al. 2017)

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski You keep waving the Silva paper like its your bible. do you want to play paper-paper?

Because i also have papers to play with, and im sure you dont even know what groups the Silva paper has used.

Uttarakhand paper 2019

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/299513303_The_paternal_ancestry_of_Uttarakhand_does_not_imitate_the_classical_caste_system_of_India/link/5c909980299bf14e7e84d155/download

"When comparing with the previous analyses,43,52 our data showed significant (unpaired t-test Po0.0001) higher proportion of West Eurasian-specific lineages among traditionally higher caste (Brahmin and Kshatriya) populations for maternal lineages, although it was non-significant for the paternal ancestry (unpaired t-test P=0.5468)."

"Interestingly, the maternal structure of this region was in congruent with the classical social system, where distance from Brahmins to other groups was following a social ladder type structure (Figure 3a). However, the male line of descent did not reveal any kind of such local structure (Figure 3b)"


2015 mtdna paper https://www.academia.edu/12110338/West_Eurasian_mtDNA_lineages_in_India_an_insight_into_the_spread_of_the_Dravidian_language_and_the_origins_of_the_caste_system?auto=download

"A large proportion of the west Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups observed among the higher-ranked caste groups, their phylogenetic affinity and age estimate indicate recent Indo-Aryan migration to India from west Asia. The Indian–west Eurasian lineage diversity and frequency are highest in higher-ranked caste, implying that the west Eurasian admixture was restricted to caste rank."

2015 mtdna paper https://www.academia.edu/12110338/West_Eurasian_mtDNA_lineages_in_India_an_insight_into_the_spread_of_the_Dravidian_language_and_the_origins_of_the_caste_system?auto=download

"A large proportion of the west Eurasian mtDNA haplogroups observed among the higher-ranked caste groups, their phylogenetic affinity and age estimate indicate recent Indo-Aryan migration to India from west Asia. The Indian–west Eurasian lineage diversity and frequency are highest in higher-ranked caste, implying that the west Eurasian admixture was restricted to caste rank."


2004 https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2156-5-26

"Broadly, the average proportion of mtDNAs from West Eurasia among Indian caste populations is 17% (Table 2). In the western States of India and in Pakistan their share is greater, reaching over 30% in Kashmir and Gujarat, nearly 40% in Indian Punjab, and peaking, expectedly, at approximately 50% in Pakistan"

"In comparison to an overall frequency of 17% (CR 15.1–19.3%) among the caste populations, only 7% (CR 6.2 – 9.0%) of the mtDNAs from the tribal groups show affiliation to the West Eurasian haplogroups."

Bamshad 2001 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC311057/

"For maternally inherited mtDNA, each caste is most similar to Asians. However, 20%–30% of Indian mtDNA haplotypes belong to West Eurasian haplogroups, and the frequency of these haplotypes is proportional to caste rank, the highest frequency of West Eurasian haplotypes being found in the upper castes. In contrast, for paternally inherited Y-chromosome variation each caste is more similar to Europeans than to Asians."

Matt said...

Working out the balance of R1a to steppe ancestry in South Asia today is tricky given how many different subpopulations are there, and how many founder effects have hit all of these.

Narasimhan's paper did this using 1000 Genomes, however they *only* had 4 South Asian subpopulations and 221 samples, which sounds like a lot but not really (e.g. I know for British samples in 1000G, the y-hap frequencies were a bit off to what actually we saw in large samples from Biobank, and that's a largely unstructured population).

Working this out by adna+modern then looking at the X:A ratio is also difficult due to large standard errors.

E.g. Narasimhan found that for the 1000 Genomes populations "We also examined if we could detect sex bias on the Modern Indian Cline, and here detected the reverse pattern. We began by pooling South Asian populations (GIH, ITU, STU and PJL) from the 1000 Genomes Project for this analysis (76), and computed ancestry proportions on chromosomeX and the autosomes as before.Theresults do not show any significant difference, although the data are also consistent with a substantial difference" (in either direction!) "given the large standard errors on chromosome X(Table S 91).". (There are also possibly some problems with them using a modern AHG reference mixed with ancient dna for their qpAdm.)

This could perhaps somewhat be tackled using qpAdm models with modern whole-genome data and then using modern populations as a proxy for ancient ones (e.g. Swedes or Finns or Lithuanians as proxy for Steppe_MLBA, or something like this)... More SNPs, lower standard errors. Problem being that proxies are inexact (more EEF ancestry in Swedes than Sintashta, more HG+EEF ancestry in Lithuanians than Steppe_MLBA; possibly slight enrichment of ANE ancestry in Steppe_MLBA source).

Big biobank scaled South Asia samples with representative sampling would probably deal with most of the statistical concerns (standard errors should eventually drop with enough modern samples, even if the ancient data remains as it is).

There are still ways that we could be frustrated in the answer though. X:A ratio is IMO difficult to use for detecting ancient sex-biased migration anyway, as there's plenty of scope for that to be turned around by differences in subsequent admixture patterns *within* a population. While y-dna of course is subject to later founder effects.

(I tend to take it as default hypothesis that migrations were a bit biased towards males, but it's not crazy to think it's not settled. I'm more interested in whether the signals are retained through time. This does happen, as in Saag 2019 on the Baltic where "The high X-to-A ratio of European-early-farmer-related ancestry observed in Estonian CWC decreases over time and disappears by the Middle Ages (Figures S2C–S2F;Data S1).")

vAsiSTha said...

Yes Matt the %s for male:female % i gave above are theoretical and apply in perfect circumstances and endogamy over generations etc. Real life hardly was like that.

However,

1. The fact that Swat samples do not show excess males from steppes counts for something, and cannot be wished away due to whatever reasons. It is one of the strongest evidences out there.

2. There is yet not an answer as to why west eurasian mtDna % in a sub pop can predict caste rank whereas R1a % cant. (I do have my theory here)

3. The conclusions from such data in moderns, especially southern indian moderns (like narasimhan did), also have to be made cautiously. for eg. The high R1a (15-30%) in sinhalese with minimal steppe autosomal ancestry does not mean that the Sinhalese language came with steppe men to sri lanka. In fact we know for sure what happened was that few people from bihar, bengal, odisha in eastern india migrated to sri lanka in 1st mill bce and gave the language sinhalese which is closely related to pali, bengali and odiya.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

1.You've long been told that all the reasons are known - anthropologists, archaeologists, historians. Anthropologists have long seen a change of anthropological type in the burial sites only after 800-600 BC, and a big one. What wasn't the Aryan type before? And then who changed the anthropological type of Indians? They gave the answer long ago, the reason was the cremation of the Indo-Aryans and the advent of the Buddhist era with its inhumation. There was no other reason.

2.You don't seem like a Hindu at all, since you don't know the traditions of India. All the answers are well known from the caste system. Women can only marry men of their caste, while men can have adultery with women of another caste, wars of violence all the time, sleep with the prince of any Cinderella dream, etc.
The caste system did not exist at all in the Rīgveda period, before our era there was a rather light system of varns that was not as rigid as the jats system.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

"I gave answer long ago, the reason was the cremation of the Indo-Aryans and the advent of the Buddhist era with its inhumation. There was no other reason."

Vedas allow both burial aswell as cremation as well as post cremation burial. You can see burials as well as cremated remains burials in the same swat grave, for example. Cremation really took off in the late and post Vedic texts.

Buddhists do not bury dead primarily, cremation is predominant. I do not know what you smoke when you come to this blog.

"Women can only marry men of their caste, while men can have adultery with women of another caste, wars of violence all the time, sleep with the prince of any Cinderella dream, etc."

This is true now but was not true during Vedic times. If you just read the Ramayana, mahabharata or manusmriti, or any Shruti literature you would know.

Men could always marry down and women could always carry out hypergamy and marry up. But women were not allowed to marry down. Brahmins were allowed wives of all 4 castes however the main sacrificer along with husband would only be the Brahmin birth wife. Kshatriyas were allowed 3 and so on.
There are umpteen examples but you seem to know everything (wrongly) so there's no point. I shall not be replying to you on this matter.




Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

"Vedas allow both burial aswell as cremation as well as post cremation burial."

I don't know what you smoke when you go on this blog. Rigveda's only cremation, so don't cheat. You're done with your tricks.

"Buddhists do not bury dead primarily, cremation is predominant. I do not know what you smoke when you come to this blog."

It's not true, Buddhism recognizes different burial rites, early Buddhism did not like cremation, modern Buddhist groups allow cremation. In general, Buddhism does not dictate the rite of burial.

"This is true now but was not true during Vedic times."

I wrote that Varn's system was not as rigid as what I described - the Jat's system.
So I wrote absolutely right, within the upper castes women married within their Varna or higher, but not to the lower castes, hence less mtDNA of European origin in the lower castes.

Archi said...

Men of the upper Varnas spread their Y chromosomes more or less freely. The Varna system was not strict, it allowed exceptions in both directions, which were probably quite frequent, plus wars, rape, adultery, political marriages, tribes outside the Varna system to which these rules did not apply.

Archi said...

Hugo Zeberg, Svante Pääbo (2020). The major genetic risk factor for severe COVID-19 is inherited from Neandertals.
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.07.03.186296v1

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

This is very interesting. Makes one wonder if there was purpose behind it all....

Ric Hern said...

Makes me wonder how far Vindija Neanderthal type was spread or did this genes enter India after Modern Human admixture elsewhere ?

vAsiSTha said...

"I don't know what you smoke when you go on this blog. Rigveda's only cremation, so don't cheat. You're done with your tricks."

Anybody with a brain can search and see how you lie.
Rigveda 10.15.14
Rigveda 10.18 - Burial hymn
Google 'anagnidagdha rigveda' or 'anagnidagdha atharvaveda'
anagnidagdha = uncremated/not cremated/ not burnt by fire
Shatapatha brahmana also details burial rites

Jatt_Scythian said...

@Ric Hern
I thought that type of population wasn't found east or south of Uzbekistan. I guess it all depends on how India was populated. I'm guessing AASI came first (but I can't think of a good ydna to associate with them). I've also seen theories it was depopulated and then populated from the West first and then east (based on Indian mtdna M being derivative of SE Asian mtdna M). I have no idea. I'm guessing the political climate and warm temperatures makes aDNA that far back unfeasible.

Jatt_Scythian said...

Also is there any info on the migration that brought y R west of the Urals?

Mayuresh Madhav Kelkar said...

Archi

""I don't know what you smoke when you go on this blog. Rigveda's only cremation, so don't cheat. You're done with your tricks."

I thought they only cremated R1a's and buried the rest. Bastards!

Archi said...

@аAsiSTha

Anybody with a brain can search and see how you lie always.

Don't be ridiculous, I've given you this text before, but you're ignoring it. It's the latest anthems from the 8-7th century BC (Brahmans and Mahabharatka time, Jātavedas is the altar fire of sacrifice).

Rigveda 10.15.
There we are talking about not completely burning the victim.

Thou, Jatavedas, knowest well the number of Fathers who are here and who are absent, Of Fathers whom we know and whom we know not: accept the sacrifice wellprepared with portions.

"Burn him not up, nor quite consume him, Agni: let not his body or his skin be scattered. O Jatavedas, when thou hast matured him, then send him on his way unto the Fathers.

Thy portion is the goat: with heat consume him: let thy fierce flame, thy glowing splendour, burn him With thine auspicious forms, o Jatavedas, bear this man to the region of the pious."

Rigveda 10.18 - It doesn't say at all how to bury, burn or not.

EastPole said...

@vAsiSTha

“Rigveda 10.18 - Burial hymn”

This is not a good example because this is about funeral pyre:

RV.10.18.8. “Arise, woman, to the world of the living. You lie beside him whose life
is gone. Come here!
You have come into existence now as wife of a husband who has
grasped your hand and wishes to have you.”
9. Taking the bow from the hand of the dead for our dominion, luster,
and strength,
you there and we here—may we with good heroes win all contests and
hostile engagements.

The comment from Jamison and Brereton:

The next three verses (7–9) have been much discussed, especially in the context of “suttee” (satī) or widow-burning, though the verses are emphatically not a depiction thereof. From verse 8 it appears that the widow lies down, temporarily, beside her dead husband, but is summoned back to life and indeed symbolically reborn to become the wife of a new husband (quite possibly her brother-in-law, in levirate marriage). The happy women in verse 7 apparently approach the funeral pyre to adorn the widow for her return to life. A similar “return to life” is granted the dead man’s bow in verse 9, where someone, quite possibly the dead man’s son, repossesses
the bow to put it to future use.

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

vAsiSTha said...

Eastpole why did you omit the next 4 riks from RV sukta 10.18? very dishonest

10.Betake thee to the Iap of Earth the Mother, of Earth far-spreading, very kind and gracious.
Young Dame, wool-soft unto the guerdongiver, may she preserve thee from Destruction's bosom.
11 Heave thyself, Earth, nor press thee downward heavily: afford him easy access, gently tending him.
Cover him, as a mother wraps her skirt about her child, O Earth.
12 Now let the heaving earth be free from motion: yea,—let a thousand clods remain above him.
Be they to him a home distilling fatness, here let them ever be his place of refuge.
13 I stay the earth from thee, while over thee I place this piece of earth. May I be free from injury.
Here let the Fathers keep this pillar firm for thee, and there let Yama make thee an abiding-place.

Archi said...

It's not a proper translation. It's about building a funeral pyre, not buried in the ground. It's about burying the pillars to build a funeral pyre in the ground.

ucchvañcamānā pṛthivī su tiṣṭhatu sahasram mita upa hi śrayantām |
te gṛhāso ghṛtaścuto bhavantu viśvāhāsmai śaraṇāḥ santv atra
mit - pillar
12 Now let the heaving earth be free from motion: yea,—let a thousand pillars remain above him.
Be they to him a home distilling fatness, here let them ever be his place of refuge.

13 I stay the earth from thee, while over thee I place this piece of earth. May I be free from injury.
Here let the Fathers keep this pillar firm for thee, and there let Yama make thee an abiding-place.

The English translation of Rigveda is disgusting. It's the worst in the world. He's just cheating, the translator was making it up because he didn't know Sanskrit well.
It's the same as the funny google erroneous translation.

Archi said...

10.18.12
Sich aufwölbend soll die Erde recht feststehen, denn tausend Pfosten sollen angebracht werden.
Diese Wohnung soll schmalztriefend sein und allezeit ihm dort eine Zuflucht gewähren.

The German translation of Rigveda is much more accurate because it's not fantastic. An English translation of Rigveda is not so much a translation as a free expression of the translator's opinion.

Slumbery said...

@Samuel Andrews

"Dagestan is 38% Yamnaya. But their Y DNA is almost 100% J1. They're the most Indo European influenced group outside of Europe, but they don't speak IE, and they don't have IE Y DNA."

I do not argue with your main point, but Dagestan is technically in Europe, not outside of it.

EastPole said...

@Archi
“The English translation of Rigveda is disgusting. It's the worst in the world. He's just cheating, the translator was making it up because he didn't know Sanskrit well.
It's the same as the funny google erroneous translation.”

“The German translation of Rigveda is much more accurate because it's not fantastic. An English translation of Rigveda is not so much a translation as a free expression of the translator's opinion.”

You probably refer to old Griffiths’English translation and Geldner’s German translation. Both are very bad.

The best translation today are:

“Ригведа: Мандалы I-IV” by T. J. Elizarenkova 1989

https://books.google.pl/books/about/%D0%A0%D0%B8%D0%B3%D0%B2%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B0.html?id=gEfJnQEACAAJ&redir_esc=y

and

„The Rigveda” by Stephanie W. Jamison and Joel P. Brereton 2014

https://www.amazon.com/Rigveda-3-South-Asia-Research/dp/019068500X

Vladimir said...

"When they were separated from their power and internecine war broke out, the first power prevailed — and some of them (the rebels) were killed, others ran away and settled with the Turks in the (present) Pecheneg land, concluded mutual friendship and received the name of kabars, when king Obadiah introduced rabbinic Judaism as the state religion. The kabars were evidently opponents of Orthodox Judaism or opponents of The obadid overlordship that had overthrown the Ashina dynasty. Kabars were three families (clans) United under the leadership of a single Prince. Soviet historian Sergei Pavlovich Tolstov believes that kabary (Jvari) is the Khorezmians (hvalsey), who, in his opinion, practiced a syncretistic Judaism.
Part of the rebels were killed, the rest joined as the eighth tribe to the seven tribes of Hungarians. After that, they United under the rule of one ruler and became known as "Kavars".
In 881, the Hungarians along with the kabars are mentioned in the" Salzburg annals " near Vienna-mentioned their siege of Kulberg in the vicinity of Vienna.
"Just before moving forward in search of a" new homeland", at the Council of leaders of the madjar tribes, kabar Almus was elected leader, who, however, due to his advanced age, proposed to assign this responsible title to his son Arpad. The reason why the leader of the madjars was elected Prince of kabar tribes, explains the militancy kabar, as well as the search for new lands was associated not only with a simple relocation, but also believed that in this regard, have and military actions, that Arpad was proclaimed Prince madjar and traditionally took the oath and was raised on the shield. In this way, the madjars and the three khazar tribes that joined them, called the kabars, formed a Union of 10 tribes."

weure said...

gaska;
'Regarding the language issue, does anyone believe that the CWC-was able to change the Neolithic language (s) spoken in mainland Europe? - R1a did not go beyond Bavaria, and the R1b subclades in the steppes are totally foreign to Western Europe. So I think Haak, Harvard & company rushed to talk about mass migrations and the link of R1a and R1b to the expansion of IE. Perhaps R1a was able to impose some kind of IE language in Eastern Europe that survived until the Bronze Age in Unetice and urnfield culture. Later, the Iron Age Celts took their language to the British Isles and Iberia.'

Ergo in Southern Scandinavia and on the North German Plain they spoke the Funnelbeaker language until IA?
It's clear that Single Grave brought in the Indo-European language the Funnelbeaker language became a substrate (see Iversen/Kroonen). This formed pre-proto Germanic.

gopatob said...

Good evening,
this is an interesting thread. What I read about this topic so far that Bela the Third had R1a1a1b2a2a1c3a3b Z93 Z2123 YP451+ YP449-
Which is said to be common among Karachays and Balkars of the Caucasus. Is there someone here who could determine the history of his DNA?
The respective paper stated the following : The probable origin of the dynasty's lineage can be placed to modern-day Afghanistan, c.4500 years ago, then they stayed there for like 400-500 years before they moved to the direction of modern-day Bashkortostan.
In the meantime the mtDNA of Bela the Third showed a possible H1b. I'm confused. It's also written that c.2000 years ago the group of the Arpad dynasty separated from another group which remained in Bashkortostan.
What possible route and DNA history could be estimated from all these data?
With a Yamna origin what possible mutations could have occurred on the way to Afghanistan? I mean we can expect two possible ways, A, from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe down to the Caucasus on the Western shores of the Caspian Sea, via Northern Iran/Southern shores of the same waters, through Central Asia. B, from the Pontic-Caspian Steppe downwards between the Aral and Caspian seas, then further southwesterly by the Amu Darya.
Thanks in advance!

Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...

Bashkirs came to be only in the last thousand years if I recall. They are an amalgamation of Ugrians, Bolghars, Kypchaks, Permians and Tatars.