Fascinating stuff
Coming soon I guess:
But we have results from the Ezero culture, from Southeastern Bulgaria, which is from the early Bronze Age and which seems to connect the people of this culture with the future Hittites and Trojans. This has been confirmed by archeology many times and has been known for at least half a century. But now we see the genetic parallels between the two. Some of these ancient groups from the Bronze Age in one way or another have survived to this day in our country Bulgarians, as we also carry a certain amount of blood and genes from these same people, perhaps in the range of between 5 and 10%, which connects us with the Hittites, ancient Anatolia and the Trojans. There is a huge processing of the results before they are published, but among them there are huge curiosities from now on. One of them is from the necropolis in Merichleri from the Early Bronze Age and in another necropolis in Tsaribrod (the older of the two), these are mound necropolises from the Yamna culture in the Caucasus, of people who migrated here in Bulgaria and connected between you are. They came from the haplogroup R1a, namely Z93, which is the haplogroup again of the Scythian, but more of the Indo-Aryan tribes, the future Indo-Aryans, who later conquered India. But one of the tribes of the Yamna culture seems to have strayed and arrived in the Balkans instead of going to India. And so by chance, because archaeologists and geneticists have chosen between 260 burial mounds from this period, they have chosen only 3-4 and have come across exactly this extremely ancient group, which is from the time before the Indo-European group was divided into Iranians, Indians and Slavs, they were still one people at the time with the same genomes. And yes, one of these groups is among what we call Thracian tribes, but these are not Thracians. We have results from both the Early Iron Age and the Late Bronze Age, which are possibly Thracian, but I will keep them a secret at this stage, as I do not want to provoke speculation.
See also...
The precursor of the Trojans
Steppe invaders in the Bronze Age Balkans
3 or 4 R1a-Z94 out of 260 ; but no continuity with Thracians?
ReplyDeleteSeems like a few stray individuals from srubnaja
He's saying that there's R1a in some Early Bronze Age kurgans, probably the Usatovo ones.
ReplyDeleteIt sounds like they had material from around 260 such EBA burials, but only 3 or 4 produced reliable data.
The Late Bronze Age and Iron Age samples, as well as the Thracian issue, is a separate thing.
Right . 4s still pretty good
ReplyDeleteThe interesting thing Ezero. He didn't say anything about their DNA results other than they implying they have Steppe admixture and are probably related to the ancestors of Hittites. He didn't say anything about ancient DNA in Anatolia with Steppe ancestry.
ReplyDeleteSo I am left with confused.
It is fascinating. But, there isn't a whole lot of new info.
ReplyDeleteBalkans is still a gap in ancient DNA record of Europe. Especially for the Indo European story.
I wonder how this will affect Hittites position in the Indo-European Language Tree ?
ReplyDeleteExciting. Can't wait to see how these results and more like them are interpreted by the leading research groups. Will it be enough to invite some reconsideration of hypotheses?
ReplyDeleteThis will be the end of the idea that Anatolian languages split first. This in turn will also kill the so called "PIE reconstruction", "laryngeal theory", and hopefully that pseudo-science called "historical linguistics" as a whole.
ReplyDeleteAnatolian will end as a relatively late Bronze Age offshoot from the Balkans, heavily influenced by multiple non-Indo-European substrates.
I wonder which group he meant here:
the Indo-European group was divided into Iranians, Indians and Slavs, they were still one people at the time with the same genomes. And yes, one of these groups is among what we call Thracian tribes
dalugāšti - length - Hittite
dlúgostě - length - OCS
Hmm...a total mystery.
So all he said in broken English is they have R1a Z93 from two Early Bronze age necropoliss in Bulgaria. Merichleri and Tsaribrod.
ReplyDelete@Arzra,
ReplyDelete"This will be the end of the idea that Anatolian languages split first."
Ancient DNA supports the idea Anatolian is a basal split in the IE tree. Because it links almost all IE languages to the one specific recent ancestor: Corded Ware.
....Except for the pre-Slavic IE languages of Southeast Europe and Anatolian.
From a genetic perspective, you can say they are basal.
I think we will learn Anatolian comes from an early departure from Steppe into SE Europe then into Anatolia. Which would fit with its placement in the IE tree. But we don't have evidence of this yet.
Aren't the Early Bronze Age results I2-M223 and R1b (xL11)? The spreadsheet is right there in the video...
ReplyDelete@AWood
ReplyDeleteAren't the Early Bronze Age results I2-M223 and R1b (xL11)? The spreadsheet is right there in the video...
That's Bulgarian Yamnaya. He's talking about other burials, probably Usatovo.
I don’t think that linguists claim their field is science ? As long as they don’t try to get too clever with paleolexis, the comparative method seems good
ReplyDeleteI’m not sure about the recent trend to make linguistics into statistics though
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteGot it thanks.
Just realized that if the R1b results are Bulgarian Yamnaya, that would be our first R1b-L52+ Yamnaya result. The other is Afanasievo.
ReplyDeleteRob
ReplyDelete"I don’t think that linguists claim their field is science ?"
file:///C:/Users/Owner/Downloads/2084-6131-1-PB.pdf
"An interesting fact is that the criticism of Neogrammarian concept has not led to
the fact that the concept of law ceased to be used in the history of linguistics, i. e., Grimm's law has
remained to be the law, but modern linguists largely avoid using the notion of law in their own
investigations."
"Joseph Greenberg suggests replacing the “law” of “universals” and at the same time he says that
«when we think of universals we think of laws ...» (Greenberg, 1995: 146). "
I think Rakhimbirdieva means replacing ""law" with "universals."
Greenberg was a(n) (in)famous lumper. He pioneered the idea of mass comparisons. He passed away in 2001 at the age of 85.
Regarding dates: I don't think it's coming soon. Someone quoted on molgen that it would be published in 2021 at the earliest. Though I would be glad to be wrong.
ReplyDelete@AWwood,
ReplyDelete"Just realized that if the R1b results are Bulgarian Yamnaya, that would be our first R1b-L52+ Yamnaya result. The other is Afanasievo."
What R1b results? R1b L151 is from Corded Ware btw.
A little fuzzy analysis!
ReplyDeleteThracians before Thracians who were not Thracians but they were...something!!!
Just a hunch folks from what the video says it might be big news with a capital "B" or another blooper that wants to gain from the "now widely accepted" kurgan hypothesis.
Let's hope that they will publish something SOON because COVID-19 is coming back for "Round 2" unfortunately!
@AWood
ReplyDeleteMy info is that this Bulgarian Yamnaya does belong to R1b-P297, but it's a low coverage sample, so we have to wait for the data to see what it really is beyond that.
@ Arza
ReplyDelete“ Anatolian will end as a relatively late Bronze Age offshoot from the Balkans,”
Lol that’s called Phrygian
@rozenblatt
ReplyDeleteRegarding dates: I don't think it's coming soon. Someone quoted on molgen that it would be published in 2021 at the earliest. Though I would be glad to be wrong.
Well, if true, that's bordering on unacceptable.
Many (most?) of the samples from this paper were ready to be analyzed earlier this year, and maybe even late last year.
So that means a time lag of over a year from when the samples were at least in a presentable state to when the general public finally sees them. Surely there's a better way to do this.
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteI'm very well aware of such movements, but now they seem to be completely irrelevant. The earliest sensible link goes via Yamnaya/Yamnaya Bulgaria/Bulgaria_EBA.
But to-be-Anatolians still had to wait in the Balkans for CWC, because e.g. Anatolian and Slavic (and perhaps Germanic) share the way in which abstract nouns are created. It's something that's not present in Indo-Iranian or even in Baltic IIRC.
So at best Anatolian spread in the same time-frame as other branches during the Yamnaya/CWC expansion. But it's theoretically possible now that even the wave linked to Yamnaya Bulgaria had nothing to do with Anatolian (or maybe even Indo-European) and that Anatolian languages stem from CWC horizon (Thracians-but-not-Thracians from the video above mixed with [post-]Ezero).
As for the impact of substrates - it's all about the rate at which mixing happens. If a large group moves into a new territory and then slowly gains local admixture the language may be not affected at all by this process. It looks completely different when a small group dissolves in a much larger foreign one - the language is usually lost or it undergoes rapid changes.
This happened with Germanic and Celtic languages in a post-Beaker territory. Same happened with Latin. We can observe how rapidly Greek changes between Mycenaean and classical periods. Finally in the case of Tocharian:
The deviant typological profile of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European may be due to Uralic substrate influence
https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/7/1/article-p72_3.xml?language=en
"Lol"
But we have results from the Ezero culture, from Southeastern Bulgaria, which is from the early Bronze Age and which seems to connect the people of this culture with the future Hittites and Trojans.
@ Arza
ReplyDelete“ I'm very well aware of such movements, but now they seem to be completely irrelevant. “”
The earliest sensible link goes via Yamnaya/Yamnaya Bulgaria/Bulgaria_EBA.“
In fact it’s probably even earlier, with cernavoda
KumTepe B~ 3300 calBP
“But to-be-Anatolians still had to wait in the Balkans for CWC, ”
Lol “had to wait” ? This doesn’t sound very scientific
Is that based on anything other than your personal predilections with corded ware ?
Alexandrov - “ But we have results from the Ezero culture, from Southeastern Bulgaria, which is from the early Bronze Age“
Arza- “ late Bronze Age offshoot”
That’s some 2000 years difference
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteAnatolian will end as a relatively late Bronze Age offshoot from the Balkans
Anatolian will end as a relatively late [dated to the Bronze Age] offshoot from the Balkans. Late in relation to the current chronology and not as a Late Bronze Age (LBA) offshoot.
Irrespective of the details, this is the first public confirmation of what some of us here have known for a while.
ReplyDeleteThat is, the Steppe hypothesis for the origin of Indo-European languages is about to be corroborated by ancient DNA.
I don't expect that the debate will die completely after this happens, but most people will move onto discussing the details. These might take another decade or so to flesh out.
"mound necropolises from the Yamna culture in the Caucasus"(sic!)
ReplyDelete"But one of the tribes of the Yamna culture seems to have strayed and arrived in the Balkans instead of going to India."(sic!)
"We have results from both the Early Iron Age and the Late Bronze Age"
"I do not want to provoke speculation.":)
He said nothing new. R1a-Z93 is mentioned after Merichleri, so R1a-Z93 it refers to the Late Bronze Age.
Bronze Bulgaria Kairyaka necropolis, Merichleri [I2165 / Merich4, Burial mound N1; Individual N6] 3020-2895 calBCE (4340±30 BP, Beta-432797) M I2a2a1b1b T2f
Bronze Bulgaria_MLBA Bulgaria Kairyaka Necropolis, Merichleri, Merich2, individual N5 [I2163] 1750-1625 calBCE (3400±30 BP, Beta-432796) M R1a1a1b2 [Z93] U5a2
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThere are much older R1a samples than I2163 coming from Bulgaria.
I told you about this months ago.
And I don't care if you believe me or not.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteHe talked about Merichleri. It talks about Z93 in Merichleri and Tsaribrod, but not in general about Bulgaria.
Generally speaking, it will certainly not be published soon, in total they intend to test 500 ancient samples from the territory of Bulgaria, some are already ready. But of course Stamov is not well versed in genetics and anthropology, everything comes from the Caucasus.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI don't care what he said or what you think he said. I already know most of the results.
@ Arza
ReplyDelete''Anatolian will end as a relatively late [dated to the Bronze Age] offshoot from the Balkans. Late in relation to the current chronology and not as a Late Bronze Age (LBA) offshoot.''
Sure, there's no evidence of the Suvorovo migration
The Ezero culture begins ~ 3400BC; which links with late Cernavoda, Usatavo, etc
(That’s > 500 years before CWC) .
Given the relative free space in Western Anatolia, there’s no reason why they didn’t move in before 3000BC; in fact we know they did .
So if linguists suggest Anatolian split in the 5th century, then the paleodemographic data will support it. Because there trees inly imply the beginngs of linguistic divergence, not a presence of putative proto-Anatolians in central Anatolia. Indeed, these divergences go back even farther in the steppe and pre-steppe phases, as early as 5500 BC
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAre the Bulgarian R1a samples like the Romanian R1a sample?
No, they're quite different.
ReplyDeleteStamov says 80 samples have already been tested. But judging by the places mentioned by him, more half of them are those that were given in Mathieson 2017. So it is highly likely that Merichleris are the same that in Mathieson 2017.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteIs there anything said in this video about the ancient dna of Proto Bulgarian skeletal remains? Do you know anything on their paternal haplogroup results?
@Sarah
ReplyDeleteI haven't actually watched the video yet.
There are Medieval Bulgarian samples on the way with some Central Asian ancestry and eastern haplogroups like Q1a.
But I don't know whether these are Proto-Bulgarians, or how one would prove such a thing, unless the archeological details are right. We have to wait and see.
@Davidski,
ReplyDelete"Well, if true, that's bordering on unacceptable.
Many (most?) of the samples from this paper were ready to be analyzed earlier this year, and maybe even late last year.
So that means a time lag of over a year from when the samples were at least in a presentable state to when the general public finally sees them. Surely there's a better way to do this."
Dorkymon from Anthrogenica here, yes, that's what they mention in the video..they promise to release some more info in October, but the paper won't come out sooner than 2021. Why? Because this is part of a larger study on Bulgaria, and they received funding from the Reich Lab to analyse up to 500 ancient genomes.
This will sound harsh, but I have to say that the publication record of the author in question does not inspire confidence:
ReplyDeletehttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=author%3A%22Svetoslav+Stamov%22&btnG=
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/687384v3.full.pdf
I have a much higher than usual prior that they have made really basic errors in analysis or interpretation -- e.g. contaminating their samples or miscalling Y haplogroups -- that render their conclusions invalid.
Where were the DNA extraction and sequencing done? Who are his collaborators? A year ago he self-described as an "independent scientist" unaffiliated with any institution.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"There are Medieval Bulgarian samples on the way with some Central Asian ancestry and eastern haplogroups like Q1a.
But I don't know whether these are Proto-Bulgarians, or how one would prove such a thing, unless the archeological details are right. We have to wait and see."
Yes, the Q1a guy is mentioned in this video.
Actually, you can see the full English transcript here: shorturl.at/fCGLY
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAre there any other haplogroups found among the Medieval Bulgarian samples?
@KM
ReplyDeleteWhere were the DNA extraction and sequencing done?
Usual places like Harvard, Trinity etc.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteGood! I'm updating away from my old position slightly. Is there anywhere where I can read more about this project and who's working on it? I couldn't find any (English) info in the YouTube video description.
No, as far as I know, this clip is the only public release about this paper.
ReplyDeleteHopefully, more info is made public in October.
Stamov
ReplyDelete"The first results are available, they are only taken from material taken from two skeletons. One - from the end of the First Kingdom, from the time of Simeon the Great. And the second sample sent refers to the beginning of the Second Bulgarian Kingdom, the time of Kaloyan and the Polovtsy. So, we already have the first sequencing result for Bulgarian since the time of Simeon, but since it is still under publication and research and we are awaiting additional results, I will not go into details about these first results, except for one detail. We found a haplogroup on the Y chromosome that is passed down through the paternal line, which is somewhat surprising. The abbreviation under which it goes is Q2A1A2(????-me). This is the definition of the male chromosomal haplogroup, which is passed from father to son in all generations. Unlike autosomal DNA, it only tells us a small part of the story, but it also tells us what we don't know, but Bulgarian historians and archaeologists have suspected this for a very long time. First, let me clarify that the skeleton is from the village of Samovodene, from a secondary burial in a Neolithic necropolis, which, however, was used as a tomb during the First Bulgarian Kingdom. Using radiocarbon dating from Harvard, they found that the year of this man's death with an accuracy of +/- 20 years was between 880 and 900, or the end of Boris and the beginning of Simeon's (Golden Age). Most likely, it was a soldier or a high-ranking military leader, we are not entirely sure, but this is, so to speak, a militaristic funeral. Its haplogroup originates very far from Bulgaria - in the area of Lake Baikal. This confirms the idea that the real Proto-Bulgarians, or rather their predecessors, came here from the Baikal region somewhere many centuries ago, or rather thousands of years ago. This is a haplogroup that is not found in Europe and very clearly suggests that a new people appeared on the territory of Bulgaria in the early Middle Ages. Probably, we are talking about the Proto-Bulgarians, but not to the end, because at the time when this person lived, Bulgaria had already annexed the remains of the Avar Kaganate, and this same haplogroup was identified by Hungarian scientists during the burial of the times of the Avar Kaganate. on the Avar mound. Thus, there is no guarantee that this person is Proto-Bulgar and not Avar, but we will sequence from 200 to 500 samples and then get a much more complete picture. But the initial results of this study confirm the old hypothesis of the Far Eastern origin of at least some people from the Proto-Bulgar tribe. And how far eastern it is, so within the framework of absurdity, I can tell you that the first Indian identified in America, from the Clovis culture, belongs to the same haplogroup. It literally does not occur to the west of Lake Baikal, but only to the east of it, and in America it is the Paleosiberian population. 92% of the northern chum salmon, a small and miraculously preserved Yenisei group, belong to this haplogroup. Like the haplogroup, or in fact elements of the Ket language, they are also rooted in the old Xiongnu empire, which rivals China and is located in the territory to the north of it. So it can be directly or indirectly connected to some extent with the future European Huns. In Bulgaria, there is a big discussion about the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians - are they Proto-Turks, their language says that they are Proto-Turks, their culture shows that they are Iranians, or rather Sarmatians. And the haplogroup tells us something third. At least in the beginning they were a Paleo-Siberian group, since this haplogroup is not found in either the Turks or the Proto-Turks, it is found in more ancient peoples, which are even more eastern than they, and are more associated with American Indians than with European groups.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThere are two in Bulgarian, and the second one is the one from the message that started the thread "E-V13 in Bulgarian Iron Age" on Anthrogenica
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?21442-E-V13-in-Bulgarian-Iron-Age
I know it sounds absurd, but this is the first result that we got - a group originally from the eastern coast of Lake Baikal, from where it originated in the Bronze Age.
ReplyDeleteFor mitochondrial DNA, we have two results: the haplogroup of mitochondrial DNA, U5a2a, is transmitted through the maternal line. This is a haplogroup found in every second Scythian burial mound in Eurasia. In ancient times, until now, no matter what is attributed to people with this haplogroup, they are only from the Scythian burial mounds and nowhere else(sic!-me). People from this group were found from Pazyrik in Altai to Glinoye in Moldova. At this stage, 80 skeletons have been sequenced, of which only 2. Proto-Bulgarians - 2. For us, Bulgarians, the central question is the origin of the Proto-Bulgarians."
a part table
https://sedemosmi.tv/production/%D1%81%D1%82%D1%83%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BE-%D1%85%D1%8A-%D1%81%D0%B2%D0%B5%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%81%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B2-%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BC%D0%BE%D0%B2-18-%D0%B0%D0%B2%D0%B3%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82-2020-%D0%B3/
@Jason
ReplyDeleteThe shorturl.at link doesn't work.
@KM
ReplyDelete"Where were the DNA extraction and sequencing done? Who are his collaborators? A year ago he self-described as an "independent scientist" unaffiliated with any institution."
Stamov
"There is an assumption that the future Mycenaeans, future Trojans and future Hittites in Anatolia lived in the territory of today's Bulgaria, who, as part of a great migration, even before 2000 BC, first appeared here, in the Balkans, and established their settlements here. and centuries later eventually migrated south and created the Mycenaean and Achaean civilizations in ancient Greece. But it can be said that Dr. Reich and David Anthony, an American anthropologist, are currently studying the hypothesis that the Mycenaean-Achaean ethnic group did not form on the territory of present-day South or North-West Bulgaria and whether it migrated from here to Greece. It is the same with Trojans and Hittites. The territory of today's Bulgaria is the crossroads of many Indo-European groups that later settled in the Mediterranean, but began to exist as a group of today's Bulgarian lands and they are very interested in proving or refuting this hypothesis. Another hypothesis about the Mycenaeans and Trojans is that they migrated from the Caucasus, but passed through Anatolia and reached Greece, respectively. The initiative comes from the Bulgarian side, and the Bulgarian Academy of Sciences asked Stamov to contact Dr. Reich.
In agreement with Harvard, about 500 genomic samples will be sequenced. Sequencing an ancient genome costs $ 10,000, and the lab, as part of the project, will do it for free if there is something to work with. In fact, Harvard has offered $ 5 million in funding."
In fairness, on the part of the table that behind Stamov in Bulgaria_EBA, only R1b is visible, but R1a is not visible.
ReplyDelete@Samuel
ReplyDeleteI realize this is a different video of the same guy, but in a similar one he has an spreadsheet on the screen with results from various time periods. Early Bronze Age Bulgaria has 3x R1b : R1b-M269+, R1b-Z2103+, and R1b-L52/P310 (assume L11-?). The 4x I2 are I2-M223/L701+, and some more basal branches that appear throughout mesolithic Europe. None of them are the Dinaric/Slavic type common in the area today though.
The IA ones are E-V13 or V13-, and a Medieval sample is Q1a2, so possibly a legacy from the east Eurasian steppes.
If the R1b are low quality, how were they able to assign this deep a nomenclature?
The Bulgarian EBA I2 guys are from "Tell Kran", Kran being a town in central Bulgaria. This suggests to me that the I2-M223 et al folks were descended from sedentary farmers at a tell. It doesn't look like the R1b EBA folks are associated to any specific area based on the information on the spreadsheet. Of course I'm sure archaeologists reading the blog would be able to provide more information on that tell.
ReplyDelete@Arza I'm optimistic that you will be correct in the big picture conclusion.
ReplyDelete@SamuelAndrews There isn't any meaningful Hittite DNA evidence to tell us one way or the other yet.
@Arzra,
ReplyDeleteHistorical Lingustics is the only kind of lingustics which makes sense.
I would say you have too much faith in scant pieces of lingustic data.
"But to-be-Anatolians still had to wait in the Balkans for CWC, because e.g. Anatolian and Slavic (and perhaps Germanic) share the way in which abstract nouns are created. It's something that's not present in Indo-Iranian or even in Baltic IIRC."
I don't need to know a lot about lingustics to know languages isolate and form new languages. So, yeah historical lingustics makes sense.
ReplyDelete@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteDo they have ancient DNA from Troy site dating 4000ish BC with Steppe admixture? It alluded to this but didn't say it explicitly.
@David:
ReplyDelete"So that means a time lag of over a year from when the samples were at least in a presentable state to when the general public finally sees them. Surely there's a better way to do this."
I think they know how important the results are. For years I was thinking about: Why the hell don't they test the most likely pathway from the Carpathians -> Bulgaria -> Troy -> West Anatolia for one of the earliest, highly mixed waves from the steppe, related to Cernavoda generally speaking. Now its being confirmed that they are finally testing that path and the results will, probably, end a lot of debates, but might also stir up a lot of criticism. It will be a big PR thing for the ancient DNA, its probably even important for getting more funds and getting a better public image, so, if they are working neutrally, and not biased, but just want to do the best for the science, their field and institution, they will check for failures and possible holes in the plot, until everything is 90+ percent proven.
I'm not that optimistic to think they did close the other big gap too, which is the Lower Don culture and how CHG with new cultural innovations came up and spread from it, but if they would, they could close a lot of chapters of the whole archaeological debate about the steppe people's expansions and the spred of Indo-European. So this is a fairly big thing and also important to research the steps, the cultural and biological evolution which led to it.
To test actual Anatolians, even though its the final thing to do, would be more like a matter of course. If you can prove the pathway down to Troy, its a sure thing.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ AWood
ReplyDeletewhere are these recordings you mention ?
@ Sam
ReplyDelete''Do they have ancient DNA from Troy site dating 4000ish BC with Steppe admixture? It alluded to this but didn't say it explicitly.''
Troy was only founded ~ 3000 BC
But the small settlement at Kumtepe is nearby, which began ~ 3200 BC. The female (Kum4) is from there
@Rob,
ReplyDeleteOk. 3000 BC not 4000 BC.
@andrew,
"@SamuelAndrews There isn't any meaningful Hittite DNA evidence to tell us one way or the other yet."
Kum4 is low coveragem dates 3200 BC, and is modelled with Steppe ancestry.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-precursor-of-trojans.html
Barcin_Chalcolithic_I1584 dates circa 4000 BC, is high coverage, has 5-10% Steppe admix. She has been ignored becaue it was assumed her Steppe admix came from the Caucasus. But, now that we have more ancient DNA from Caucasus and Anatolia we know Steppe ancestry was not sidespread therefore there's a good chance I1584's Steppe ancestry is from Europe.
Wow, that caught me by surprise!
ReplyDeletehttps://youtu.be/gNNAJomccZ4?t=960
Vahaduo and Eurogenes are hitting the big time.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteSo Steppe in the Balkans arrived via Anatolia (or did I understand something wrong)? Would these samples be genetically similar to Yamnaya or have other admixtures?
Fascinating stuff in any case.
@gamerz_J
ReplyDeleteYou've got it wrong.
Steppe ancestry arrived in west Anatolia via the Balkans and in east Anatolia via the Caucasus.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete"Steppe ancestry arrived in east Anatolia via the Caucasus."
Who is this? Hittites? Mitanni? Armenians? Or?
You still claim that "Usatovo" in Bulgaria is Z93?
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks for the clarification!
So Steppe ancestry in Greece and West Anatolia is Balkan-derived? Or is any of it from the Caucasus too?
It's from the Balkans.
ReplyDelete@Archi: People like the Kaskians might have had steppe ancestry:
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaskians
@David: How do you think many Caucasian people got their fairly high steppe ancestry and when? Seems to be mostly female mediated, like the same pattern as for early steppe, just with changed roles.
Lots of recent founder effects in the Caucasus, so not necessarily female mediated.
ReplyDeleteLiving in isolated mountainous areas can skew signals from the past very easily.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteIt's not just founder effect, Steppe-associated mtDNA is very common in Steppe-rich Caucasian areas, such as Dagestan.
You can see a Yamnaya/Catacomb-related female mediated flow in North Caucasus beginning with EBA. Probably reaching to modern 30-50% range by the end of the Catacomb culture.
VEK006.A0101 U4a2
VEK007.A0101+VEK009 U4a2 J1
Target: Kura-Araxes_RUS_Velikent
Distance: 3.2911% / 0.03291093
85.8 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
14.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
Target: Avar
Distance: 2.0972% / 0.02097202
57.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
41.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
1.4 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
Target: Lak
Distance: 2.2204% / 0.02220370
57.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
41.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Caucasus
1.8 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
@zardos
ReplyDeleteI don't think that the Kaskians had steppe ancestry, 5% at most. They probably were a continuation of Ikiztepe or something similar.
But R1b-Z2103 is also fairly common in Dagestan.
ReplyDeleteAnd one of the upcoming EBA samples from Dagestan belongs to R1b-M269.
@Davidski @zardos
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't expect recent founder effects, or any other drift process, to noticeably alter *genomewide* ancestry proportions when the pre-drift ancestors are reasonably well mixed and have similar genomewide ancestry props to each other. I believe that latter requirement would be true in the "recent Caucasus founder effects" case.
But if you're defining "fairly high steppe ancestry" in terms of the distribution of Y/mt haplogroups: in that case, yes, drift can bring any existing haplogroup in that population to arbitrarily high or low frequency. (Think of the case where the population gets bottlenecked to a single surviving male-female pair.) Importantly, with strong enough drift, it's quite easy for "ancestry A" and "ancestry B" uniparental haplogroup markers to eventually reach very different frequencies to the autosomal admixture proportions of A and B for an admixed population.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteIt peaks in Lezgics(15-40%, Tabasarans having the most) and Bagvalins(~70% from a 28n sample pool), other groups such as Avars, Laks and Darginians(Dargins, Kaitags, Kubachi) have 0-15%, far as I know there's a higher prevalence of Steppe mtDNA than YDNA in Dagestan.
"And one of the upcoming EBA samples from Dagestan belongs to R1b-M269"
Interesting, is this from the paper that is supposed to release in 2024? Is his genetic profile KAC-like or Steppe-like?
@KM
ReplyDeleteI was referring to Y-haplogroup frequencies.
@CrM
ReplyDeleteBoth KAC-like and Steppe-like. A mix of the two.
@Davidski Yes, as was CrM I suppose. Although I think too many people here conceive of genetic ancestry almost purely in terms of uniparental markers. I'm not going to deny that there's plenty of information in them (especially in Y haplogroups), and sometimes the Talmudic knowledge of tree nomenclature really does come in handy, but...
ReplyDelete@CrM ... in this case, for instance, I really wouldn't try to infer too much from the frequencies of haplogroups. Also, I'd recommend keeping in mind the many movements of Iranian/Turkic/Mongolic peoples into the Caucasus since Kura-Araxes.
@zardos
ReplyDelete"People like the Kaskians might have had steppe ancestry"
We do not have the slightest reason to suspect the Kaskians that they are from the Steppe. The Kaskians were recorded too late after the Hittites arrived. All we know is that on their territory there was Ikiztepe, which has nothing like that.
"For example, the site of Ikiztepe
on the Turkish Black Sea Coast contains a material culture
with strong Balkan affinities, and this has been argued to signify
direct contact with populations across the Black Sea (e.g., Thissen,
1993), but these contacts do not seem to be accompanied
by gene flow." Genomic History of Neolithic to Bronze Age Anatolia,
Northern Levant, and Southern Caucasus 2020
Just found more info on Dagestani haplogroups from Yunusbayev et al. R1b accounts to roughly 9% of NEC YDNA, and R1a 3%. While the % of U4 and U5 in Dagestan is roughly 13%. The paper did not specify what type of U2 there is in Dagestan, so I did not count it since it would seem that only U2e can be associated with Steppe.
ReplyDelete@gamerz_J "So Steppe ancestry in Greece and West Anatolia is Balkan-derived? Or is any of it from the Caucasus too?"
ReplyDeleteMy money would be on a Balkan route for the most part. One good archaeological litmus test is the use of cremation which appears to show good correspondence with the advance of culturally Indo-European people in the Bronze Age. There is a nice progression of that from the Balkans to the Aegean to West Anatolia to Central Anatolia and not a corresponding progression in the Caucasus.
The earliest Hittite cuneiform records likewise seem to reflect a distribution of Anatolian language speakers at that time (ca. 1700 BEC to 1500 BCE), mostly to the West rather than to the east of their home city and newly captures capitol.
It also appears that metallurgy made its way onto the steppe via the Balkans rather than the Caucasus indicating more of a Balkan orientation of their society.
On the other hand, it looks like the people that the steppe people encountered in Anatolia were not simply descendants of Anatolian first farmers whose descendants were at the core of both the LBK and CP Neolithic first farmer waves. Instead it seems as if Eneolithic and/or early Bronze Age people from the Caucasus mountains and/or the Zargos Mountains of Iran (I think that they were probably part of the same linguistic and cultural macro-family) surged from the East into Neolithic Anatolia and made a substantial demic contribution first.
It is possible that these people from the Caucasus may have picked up some low levels of steppe ancestry through bride exchange with the steppe people in the steppe and Black Sea foothills that they brought with them (which was further diluted by admixture with Neolithic Anatolians who probably weren't entirely replaced), but the lion's share of steppe ancestry that eventually arrived in Anatolia probably came via a Balkan route.
@zantos ""So that means a time lag of over a year from when the samples were at least in a presentable state to when the general public finally sees them. Surely there's a better way to do this."
ReplyDeleteI think they know how important the results are."
I don't disagree. Ultimately, there isn't any great urgency to it and it is more important to get it done right than to get it done as soon as possible in a rush. The dead have been there for thousands of years and an extra couple of years or too won't make a difference.
By comparison, over in the world of particle physics, it generally takes more than two and a half years to go from data collection to pre-print publication and another three to six months to clear peer review, even though the most critical part of the data analysis is automated and happens in real time, the subject of the papers is a tiny rifle shot corner of the observations made, and the data collection and paper writing process is pretty much mechanical and non-discretionary except considering and estimating the magnitude of potential sources of systemic error.
In contrast, ion archaeology and archaeogenetics, one has to put much more thought into it and consider a lot more possibilities and interpretations, with a much smaller staff. Humans are complicated.
I also can't help but to think that coronavirus and political upheaval in Turkey aren't helping to speed up the process, even though some researchers may be able to spend more time on research and less on office hours and faculty committees than usual.
I'm not sure its random, because most Caucasian speakers, even those with very high steppe ancestry are overwhelmingly J. Could be coincidential, but probably not.
ReplyDeleteIt seems Dargins themselves has almost no R1b M269. But, I don't think there's any evidence they have lots of Steppe mtDNA since no serious mtDNA study has been done on the Caucasus. I've studied mtDNA a lot so I know.
ReplyDeleteYeah, in G25 PCA, Dargins who are represented in many sub-pops in G25, fit as almost perfect mix between 62%-Kura-Araxes and 38%-Yamanya. It is very interesting.
ReplyDeleteR1b Z2103 is popular in several places in Southwest Asia. It obviously came via Dagestan from Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-descendant. But, still ultimately from actual Yamnaya culture not Yamnaya-related.
Has anyone made a map of the oldest R1b samples, like your R1a map?
ReplyDelete@A
ReplyDeleteHas anyone made a map of the oldest R1b samples, like your R1a map?
Maybe Quiles, but he's a clown.
I'm planning to do one, but I'm waiting for a couple of really old R1b samples to be published before I start on it.
@Sam
ReplyDeleteR1b Z2103 is popular in several places in Southwest Asia. It obviously came via Dagestan from Yamnaya or a Yamnaya-descendant. But, still ultimately from actual Yamnaya culture not Yamnaya-related.
I think much and maybe even most of the R1b-Z2103 in West Asia came via the Balkans with the IE migrations given its relatively high frequencies in the least Slavic-admixed Balkan populations (the published Balkan ancient DNA results seem to point to that too).
One sample from Ikitzepe has some steppe/EHG shift.But in general the samples look Caucasus shifted with high CHG/Iran N.I ended up in the conclusion that we are not going to found Hittite samples.The reason has to do..as we know that Hittites buried their deads really good.So,it is going to be hard i guess to be found pure Elitistic graves.But you never know.About Kaskians,we are talking probably for a Hattian tribe inhabit the northern parts of anatolia from western Pontus to Bithynia.Btw Bithynia has a Thracian relation according to this:Bithynia is named for the Thracian tribe of the Bithyni, mentioned by Herodotus (VII.75) alongside the Thyni. The "Thraco-Phrygian" migration from the Balkans to Asia Minor would have taken place at some point following the Bronze Age collapse or during the early Iron Age. The Thyni and Bithyni appear to have settled simultaneously in the adjoining parts of Asia, where they expelled or subdued the Mysians, Caucones and other minor tribes, the Mariandyni maintaining themselves in the northeast. Herodotus mentions the Thyni and Bithyni as settling side by side.[1] No trace of their original language has been preserved, but Herodotus describes them as related to the tribes of Thracian extraction like the Phrygians and Armenians, whose languages may form part of the Paleo-Balkan group (although this is not certain and the theory is not universally accepted.I do not agree exactly with this statement since Phrygians were not exactly the same people with Thracians.The Thracian languange belongs to paleo-balkan spectrum while the Phrygian dialect does not.Ofc it is not impossible Phrygians and Thracians to lived from side to side but i would not inclunde them in the same linguistic category thought..
ReplyDelete@ Andrew
ReplyDelete''one good archaeological litmus test is the use of cremation which appears to show good correspondence with the advance of culturally Indo-European people in the Bronze Age''
That's not entirely accurate. Cremation is a late and patchy uptake, across aegean and anatolia. It is not a litmus test for IE in Anatolia. Some places (e.g. Poliochni) arent exactly IE centres
The earliest mortuary correlates are in NW Anatolia at the turn of the 4th millenium- the familiar side-flexed gendered burials, etc
Hi,
ReplyDeleteThis site was posted here about 2 years ago. Unfortunately, it has been updated since May 2018.
Home Page:
https://rootsofeurope.ku.dk/english/research/homeland/
Active Timeline Map:
http://homeland.ku.dk/
@George
ReplyDeleteThe Roots of Europe PIE map will be updated soon.
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete"I'm waiting for a couple of really old R1b samples"
Older than Villabruna ?
Yes, 2-3 thousand years older than Villabruna.
ReplyDeleteI am trying to determine how much Middle Eastern DNA is found in Southern Italians from post-Neolithic. Is there a way to differentiate between TUR_Barcin_N that comes directly from EEF's and more recent Middle Eastern DNA in https://vahaduo.github.io/vahaduo/ .
ReplyDeleteI started by using these groups...
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
GEO_CHG
TUR_Barcin_N
RUS_Piedmont_En
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
WHG
RUS_Karelia_HG
MNG_North_N
RUS_Ust_Kyakhta
...for a European sample, a Middle Eastern sample, and a Southern Italian sample, all three have TUR_Barcin_N. But how much of that is actually from Neolithic Europe and how much is from later Middle Eastern admixture? How can it be shown?
Wow, I'd love to see 17,000 year old R1b samples, and I am curious from where. Based on some of Davidski's previous comments on R1b, I would imagine they are in Europe based on his earlier convictions. Perhaps the Balkans or eastern Europe.
ReplyDeleteThere's a study on Caucasian mtDNA done by Yunusbayev et al. Dargins are 20% U4 + U5. What's also interesting to me is how well the Armenian KAC serves as a source for Caucasian-related ancestry in Dagestanis. Wonder if the Georgian KAC wasn't any different.
ReplyDeleteTarget: Darginian
Distance: 2.8245% / 0.02824477
43.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
25.2 GEO_CHG
22.4 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
8.2 IRN_Wezmeh_N
1.0 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
Target: Darginian
Distance: 1.7569% / 0.01756937
56.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
41.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
1.8 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
Target: Darginian
Distance: 2.4695% / 0.02469548
63.6 Kura-Araxes_RUS_Velikent
34.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
2.2 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
@When_in_Rome
ReplyDeleteI think even if you'll use Tepecik there will be a confusion between it and Barcin.
You can try modeling South Italians with less basal sources. Use some BA European and BA Middle Eastern sources, then count how much Anatolian ancestry comes from each source.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks.
@ AWood
ReplyDeleteYes indeed. My guess is somewhere near the Lower Don.
No, East Central Europe.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteDoes this mean Hungary? Epigravettian culture, main massif.
ReplyDelete@davidski
Is this perhaps an R1bL389 sample? It would be great to find it among a very likely WHG cluster.
Wikipedia keeps telling me that R1b originated in western Asia.
ReplyDelete@A "Wikipedia keeps telling me that R1b originated in western Asia."
ReplyDeleteWrite something else and it will tell you something else. The R1b originated in western Siberia, and migrated to Eastern and Central Europe where the Epigravettian culture was formed.
If the older R1b is in East Central Europe it could be tied to this:
ReplyDeleteIndustries from Middle Danube region dated after the Last Glacial Maximum (20-15 ka BP) were hitherto presented as a “mosaic” of derived Gravettian and Aurignacian features (Grubgraben, Stránská skála, Szágvár, Arka, Kasov - upper layer, Lipa; Svoboda et al. 1996; Valoch 1996, etc.). Actually, following a preliminary revision of the sites and redating of some of them (Moravany-Zakovská as the Upper Gravettian, Verpoorte 2002; Hranice as the Magdalenian), the techno/typological structure becomes more homogenous and we propose to unite the remaining industries into a distinct techno/typological unit (Svoboda & Novák 2004).
These sites form a network of scarcely distributed sites over the Middle Danubian region (fig. 2c). In terms of raw material exploitation and economy, there is more emphasis on local sources, and the sites located directly in vicinity of the outcrops display the character of primary workshops (Arka, Lipa). Contrary to the Gravettian based predominantly on lithic imports and producing long blades from the classical crested and prismatic cores, the Epigravettian blanks (flakes, shorter blades, microblades) are produced from short and cubical cores as well as from elongated blade cores. Typically, some of the microblades were made by pressure technique from wedge-shaped cores strongly recalling the North Asian parallels. Typologically, the groups of short endscrapers and burins predominate, but their quantitative relationship may be flexible at the individual sites.
https://journals.openedition.org/paleo/607
Aha, so my earlier guess a while ago that Villabruna Ancestors maybe migrated from somewhere near Slovakia (Northeast) was not far off....
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteCould you tell us how these old R1b samples look like in terms of genetic structure?
There was no E-V13 during Early Bronze Age in Bulgaria. What does that mean?
ReplyDelete@Crm,
ReplyDelete"There's a study on Caucasian mtDNA done by Yunusbayev et al. Dargins are 20% U4 + U5."
That is a lot. And does indicate Steppe maternal ancestry. I'm still waiting for actual raw data from Caucasus. Yunusbayev study is 10 years old.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"I'm waiting for a couple of really old R1b samples to be published before I start on it."
In the WHG range or in the ANE\EHG range?
And also, is the Global 25 store active? I should receive my myheritage results soon.
@davidski
ReplyDeleteIt seems you have a hand in the http://homeland.ku.dk/ project. Good news. I have a few questions.
For starters I dont recall there being an r1b WHG sample from Hungary, much less from a 2014 study GambaNatureCommunications2014 of all places. Is this an error?
More importantly, the map shows an r1b individual from neolithic Ukraine (Dereivka, 5500 - 4800 bce, Mathieson et al. 2018) who is autosomally steppe. I think that individual is supposed to be some mix of WHG and EHG, not steppe. Thus far, I think the earliest findings of autosomal steppe populations are located just north of the Caucasus. Off memory there are hints that Steppe could have formed elswhere like the high CHG woman in Ukraine and the 20% CHG individuals from Khvalynsk. I care because I want to know where the steppe individuals, who would eventually move into peninsular europe, actually formed.
Also, the map shows two cultures I have not seen before. The Orlovka and the Lyalovo culture. Were they added because they are important to the PIE story?
@CrM, @ Anyone
ReplyDeleteI tried it again using...
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
GEO_CHG
TUR_Barcin_N
RUS_Progress_En
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
RUS_Karelia_HG
WHG
MNG_North_N
RUS_Ust_Kyakhta
GRC_N
AUT_LBK_N
...with the following populations chosen at random to represent a Central European, Southern Italians, and Middle Easterners...
Turkish_Central
Italian_Umbria
Sicilian_East
German
Assyrian
...and got...
Target: Turkish_Central
Distance: 2.1326% / 0.02132645
30.6 TUR_Barcin_N
17.2 RUS_Progress_En
16.8 Levant_PPNB
14.0 GEO_CHG
13.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
7.6 MNG_North_N
Target: Italian_Umbria
Distance: 1.9538% / 0.01953839
48.0 AUT_LBK_N
29.6 RUS_Progress_En
10.6 GRC_N
5.0 Levant_PPNB
2.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.8 GEO_CHG
1.4 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
0.8 MAR_Taforalt
Target: Sicilian_East
Distance: 1.9616% / 0.01961581
50.6 AUT_LBK_N
23.2 RUS_Progress_En
14.8 Levant_PPNB
5.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.4 GEO_CHG
1.2 MAR_Taforalt
Target: German
Distance: 4.0890% / 0.04089047
45.0 AUT_LBK_N
34.8 RUS_Progress_En
15.8 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
4.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
Target: Assyrian
Distance: 3.0907% / 0.03090690
27.4 Levant_PPNB
25.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
24.8 TUR_Barcin_N
15.6 GEO_CHG
6.8 RUS_Progress_En
I don't know if this is any better.
@pnuadha
ReplyDeleteI don't have a hand in that project.
However, Mikkel, who programmed the map, has commented here saying that it will be updated soon.
The question of how the Yamnaya and closely related populations formed is still open, but it's the focus of some major papers that are in the works.
I can tell you that a population very similar to Yamnaya already existed well north of the Caucasus as early as 5,000 BCE.
Also, this blog post should be very useful, because it's actually based on the very latest info that I'm aware of in regards to this topic.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html
@epoch
ReplyDeleteIt must be one of those sites https://i.ibb.co/gZBFhd4/Epigravettian-map.png, hopefully Davidski will tell us which one.
Hey, guys
ReplyDeleteDo you know how much steppe/sintahsta alike ancestry Abel_IA and Barcin N got? I tried to model afghans with those two references added along with iranians and kurds too, and while afghans got around 30% sintahstha alike ancestry, i added the amount of what i assume Abel_IA(probably around 10%) and Barcin N(probably 20%) to get sintashta and some iranians turned out to have 26% sintahsta.
Just wanna know if some of you guys know the amount of sintahsta alike ancestry barcin N and Abel_IA got
Barcin N doesn't have any steppe ancestry. Sintashta has some Barcin N-like European farmer ancestry.
ReplyDelete@When In Rome,
ReplyDeleteBtw, Turkish aren't representative of ancient populations Anatolia. Keep that in mind when using them to understand Mediterranean population history.
They have recent Southeast Euro and Central Asian ancestry. And Their native Southwest Asian ancestry, might not be mostly of ancient Anatolian origin. From runs I've done, it is mostly Kurdish/Iranian.
And i guess Abel_IA doesnt have any sintahsta alike ancestry either?
ReplyDeleteALso, the reason why i assume barcin N to get steppe, is because this study said that "EEF" have some slight ANE too:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4170574/
But levantines do get slight sintastha ancestry, am i right(from mittans, myceaneans and probably kurds too)?:
Target: Druze
Distance: 1.4564% / 0.01456447
53.0 Levant_Abel_IA
23.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
14.0 TUR_Barcin_N
9.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.6 S_AASI
0.4 Mongola
Target: Lebanese_Muslim
Distance: 2.4107% / 0.02410712
61.8 Levant_Abel_IA
17.4 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
11.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
7.4 TUR_Barcin_N
1.8 S_AASI
0.6 Mongola
Target: Lebanese_Druze
Distance: 1.6949% / 0.01694877
56.2 Levant_Abel_IA
22.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
11.6 TUR_Barcin_N
9.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
1.2 S_AASI
Target: Lebanese_Christian
Distance: 1.7016% / 0.01701645
63.8 Levant_Abel_IA
16.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
13.4 TUR_Barcin_N
6.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.6 S_AASI
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteI am a bit confused now, because I though Yamnaya was R1b and a dead-end? He says that these groups descend from Yamna migrations?
He also claims that Yamnaya is from the Caucasus, which is obviously nonsense.
ReplyDeleteWhat he really means is that these R1a populations are Yamnaya-related.
And one of the R1a samples he seems to be talking about probably isn't Z93+.
@ Momo
ReplyDeleteThe fact that modern Levantines score some Steppe admixture does not mean necessary that it is straightway from sintastha.Also Mittanis would not have been 100% sintastha like,but they had probably assilimated BMAC and other groups on their way to the Levant.Also,Myceneans are more related with the Catacomb culture instead sintastha.The steppe admixture in modern Levantintes might be from many sources not just from the BA/IA periods.You should take seriously the hellenistic,roman-byzantines(Crusaders) and even the Ottoman occupation where Slave trade was a cultural habit.Ottomans used to take Slavs from balkans,caucasus and even from Ukraine and transfer them in the whole empire.The highest steppe admixture among Levantines btw it is founding among Syrians,who also score significant ssa admixture.
@ epoch
ReplyDeleteThere’s no Siberian -type microblades in those industries you mentioned . They appear in Central Europe very late
@G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer
ReplyDelete"Myceneans are more related with the Catacomb culture instead sintastha."
The Mycenaeans cannot be associated with the Catacomb culture because between the Catacomb culture and the Mycenaean civilization there is a huge temporal and spatial hiatus, in the steppe at that time there was a Babino (KMK) culture that was much larger than the Catacomb culture. Babino culture originates from the Central European and Middle Dnieper CWC superimposed on the Catacomb and Budzhak substrates. In the Mycenaean culture, there are no links with the Catacomb culture, but there are many of them with the Babino culture.
@Sam
ReplyDeleteBtw, Turkish aren't representative of ancient populations Anatolia. Keep that in mind when using them to understand Mediterranean population history.
You are right. But WiR did not use Turks as a source population, but just as a target, and apparently not to represent ancient West Asia or all of modern West Asia, so his analysis looks valid.
They have recent Southeast Euro and Central Asian ancestry. And Their native Southwest Asian ancestry, might not be mostly of ancient Anatolian origin. From runs I've done, it is mostly Kurdish/Iranian.
WiR used the Central Anatolian Turkish reference population of Global25 in his analysis. Those samples were all chosen from Turks whose all known ancestors are Turks from Central Anatolia. Turks whose all known ancestors are from Anatolia do not seem to have noticeably more recent Southeast European ancestry than Greeks whose all known ancestors are from Anatolia have according to genetics.
Also, Anatolian and Balkan Turks do not seem to have any historical Kurdish or sedentary Iranian ancestry of note based on the genetic results. Their historical Iranian ancestry is overwhelmingly from the Central Asian steppe nomadic Iranians their Proto-Turkic ancestors from what is now Mongolia mixed with in their expansion to the Central Asian steppe, so already included in the genetics of their Central Asian Turkic ancestors who came to Anatolia with the Seljuks directly from the Central Asian steppe and highly mixed with the Anatolian natives afterwards. It is the Central Asian Turkic ancestry that pulls Anatolian Turks towards the Caucasus and Iran on PCAs. If you use PCAs specifically designed to test sedentary Iranian ancestry in Anatolian Turks, you will see that it is in trivial levels:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l5rX18gfNf5qfeuUt2Bu6pdmU5e_e5ql/view?usp=sharing
The Anatolia_Ottoman:MA2195 sample is from a non-radiocarbon-dated skeleton in Central Anatolia, most likely from the Seljuk era rather than the Ottoman era given her fully medieval Central Asian Turkic genetics, so should be a very recent arrival to Anatolia from the Oghuz lands of the Central Asian steppe. Azeris show their significant sedentary Western Iranian mix expectedly given their geography. But Anatolian Turks have little to no sedentary Iranian genetic pull (Balkan Turks, who are not included in this analysis, do not show it either and genetically cluster with other Balkan populations but with a relatively minor Anatolian Turkish admixture). Here is another Anatolian Turkish analysis:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/13-PiVQrAy9CRPkffAcRu8xI_JCFOkVhH/view?usp=sharing
The genetic fits are really good.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteI said more related,i never said that Catacomb is 100% Myceneans home.You might be correct(thought we should wait to be 100% sure),but there are Similarities between the Catacomb culture and Mycenaean Greece are particularly striking. These include types of socketed spear-heads, types of cheekpieces for horses, and the custom of making masks for the dead.My point was that Sintasta has nothing to do with Myceneans.
@G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer
ReplyDelete"Similarities between the Catacomb culture and Mycenaean Greece are particularly striking. These include types of socketed spear-heads, types of cheekpieces for horses"
What are these striking similarities? You are confusing cultures. There were no cheekpieces for horses in Catacomb culture at all!
"My point was that Sintasta has nothing to do with Myceneans."
You are wrong, the similarities were huge. From chariots, weapons, cheekpieces for horses, ornamentes to tholoses. The Babino culture was much more related to Sintashta.
@G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer
ReplyDeleteRead https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/maykop-ancestry-in-copper-age-arslantepe.html?showComment=1591966770385#c246072105942270784
+ 2 of my following
@Rob
ReplyDeleteJiří Svoboda, Vojen Ložek, Emanuel Vlček. Hunters between East and West 1996
"The Epigravettian (after 20,000 B.P.) Microblades are common, and backed bladelets appear in most of the assemblages (Brno-Videnska Konevova, Zelena Hora, Otaslavice, Ostrozska Nova Ves, Hranice, Zablati), but micro lithic triangles are limited to the site of Hranice. Typical La Gravette points are absent, which seems paradoxical if we label this period Epigravettian.
A new technological feature, possibly related to the use of a pressure technique, is
the wedge-shaped micro blade cores (Svoboda, 1995c). Such cores, still little known in Moravia, appear in the context of either the Late Aurignacian (Dobrochov, Nova
Dedina, Karolin II) or the Epigravettian (Opava, Pistovice II, Stranska skala IV). The appearance of this technology is calculated to date before and around 20,000 B.P. in Northern Asia."
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteI do not believe Myceneans come from Sintasta but nevermind.What IE groups you would connect with Catacomb if not Myceneans?
Btw,Can you post links about the Babino culture?
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteThis is from Eupedia i am not sure how accurate it can be but i will agree with one specifically with the 'masking of deads'
Closely related to the Corded Ware Culture.
Originated in the forests of central and northern European Russia, then expanded southward and eventually replaced the Yamna culture, from which it is culturally descended.
The Catacomb culture could be ancestral to the Indo-Iranians, and/or to the Daco-Thracians, Mycenaean Greeks, Phrygians and Armenians.
Stock-breeding culture of semi-nomadic herders riding on horses. Cattle were the dominant domesticated animals, followed by sheep/goat and horses. Cereal agriculture and pig-breeding was practiced in a few permanent settlements in river valleys.
Pottery more elaborated than Yamna. Use of similar cord-impressed pottery with geometric shapes as the Corded Ware culture. Bronze artefacts included shaft-hole axes, fanged daggers, adzes, hammer-head pins, bodkins and chisels. Stone maces, polished stone battle axes, flint arrowheads and flint spears were also used.
Houses were predominantly rectangular, partially sunken in the ground and built with wooden posts.
The dead were inhumed in kurgans similar to the Yamna culture, but with a trench dug into the main shaft, creating the "catacomb", and burial niches in its side walls. Bodies were usually placed in a crouched position on their side and were accompanied by weapons or tools (for men), or pottery and silver ornaments (for women). Graves of elevated social status also contained two- or four-wheeled wagons (and possibly some early chariots), prestige items (axes, scepters), and sacrificed animals (mostly cattle and sheep/goat). A new funeral practice emerged with the modelling of a clay mask over the face of the deceased. These masks may have been the prototypes of the Mycenaean gold masks, like the famous Mask of Agamemnon.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteYeah but that theory hasn’t taken off with other authors, including the most recent one by the said author https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342611156_Last_Glacial_Maximum_landscape_and_Epigravettian_horse_hunting_strategy_in_Central_Europe_The_case_of_Stranska_skala_IV
It arrived in “late aurignacian or epigravettian “ spells it all. When there’s a 20,000 year confusion, then it’s not very clear
@ Alaron
Maybe somewhere else, not too far away
@ CrM
ReplyDeleteSo, I swapped TUR_Barcin_N for a less basal Copper Age group ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA, and compared them...
Target: Italian_Campania:NaN58AC
Distance: 2.9684% / 0.02968374
52.2 TUR_Barcin_N
26.4 RUS_Progress_En
13.2 Levant_PPNB
7.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.8 MAR_Taforalt
Target: Italian_Campania:NaN58AC
Distance: 3.5609% / 0.03560878
39.4 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
26.0 Levant_PPNB
21.4 RUS_Progress_En
8.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.6 GEO_CHG
@ everyone
Using the source populations...
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
GEO_CHG
TUR_Barcin_N
RUS_Progress_En
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
RUS_Karelia_HG
WHG
MNG_North_N
RUS_Ust_Kyakhta
GRC_N
AUT_LBK_N
...for different Italian_Campania samples, we get...
Target: Italian_Campania:NaN65DFG
Distance: 3.2625% / 0.03262486
46.8 AUT_LBK_N
19.8 Levant_PPNB
18.6 RUS_Progress_En
7.8 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
6.8 GEO_CHG
0.2 MAR_Taforalt
Mainly AUT_LBK_N-related
Target: Italian_Campania:NaN58AC ===>>> used below as well
Distance: 2.5908% / 0.02590806
50.0 GRC_N
28.2 RUS_Progress_En
13.8 Levant_PPNB
7.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.6 MAR_Taforalt
Mainly GRC_N-related
Target: Italian_Campania:NaN293SF
Distance: 2.5055% / 0.02505536
22.0 RUS_Progress_En
19.6 TUR_Barcin_N
15.6 GRC_N
14.4 AUT_LBK_N
13.4 Levant_PPNB
10.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.8 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
1.6 GEO_CHG
A mix of TUR_Barcin_N, GRC_N, and AUT_LBK_N related ancestries.
Now when I swap out the source population of TUR_Barcin_N for AUT_LBK_N we see a 3.2 point drop in EEF-related DNA and an increase in Levant_PPNB, IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N, and GEO_CHG, for a total of 6.8 points.
Target: Italian_Campania:NaN58AC
Distance: 2.9684% / 0.02968374
52.2 TUR_Barcin_N
26.4 RUS_Progress_En
13.2 Levant_PPNB
7.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.8 MAR_Taforalt
Target: Italian_Campania:NaN58AC
Distance: 3.2218% / 0.03221783
49.0 AUT_LBK_N
23.2 RUS_Progress_En
15.8 Levant_PPNB
10.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
1.0 GEO_CHG
0.4 MAR_Taforalt
So, can we infer that TUR_Barcin_N is predominantly received from the Neolithic European-side and not the post-Neolithic Middle Eastern side, with a range of 1 - 15% of the TUR_Barcin_N being from historical Middle Eastern ancestry?
But I wonder if there is a better method.
@When_in_Rome
ReplyDeleteUKR_N_o = European ENF without much extra WHG.
AUT_LBK_N = European ENF with some extra WHG
TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N = ENF with slightly more Levant_N and CHG, shifted to Middle East and Caucasus.
Target: Italian_Campania
Distance: 1.4688% / 0.01468806
23.2 Yamnaya_UKR
18.8 AUT_LBK_N
18.6 UKR_N_o
13.8 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
13.2 Levant_PPNB
8.8 IRN_Wezmeh_N
3.6 GEO_CHG
0.0 MAR_Taforalt
0.0 WHG
Note Levant_PPNB also has some Anatolian ancestry.
I know the levantines dont get their sintahsta alike ancestry straight though sintashta folks, but through others(more like mittanis and myceaneans, i would suspect. I mean, little suprising crusaders would effect the levantines that much, that most west iranics are closer to them in terms or at least many of them in sintahsta admix than theyre to me, despite indo-iranians had a very large impact on their identity).
ReplyDeleteIm still wondering if Abel_IA gets any sintahsta alike ancestry or not though? Wouldnt expect them to get more than modern day levantines
@G2a-M406 Anatolian Farmer
ReplyDelete" Originated in the forests of central and northern European Russia, then expanded southward and eventually replaced the Yamna culture, from which it is culturally descended.
The Catacomb culture could be ancestral to the Indo-Iranians, and/or to the Daco-Thracians, Mycenaean Greeks, Phrygians and Armenians.
Stock-breeding culture of semi-nomadic herders riding on horses."
Of course, you can't trust this.
Rob said...
"Yeah but that theory hasn’t taken off with other authors, including the most recent one by the said author https://www.researchgate.net/publication/342611156_Last_Glacial_Maximum_landscape_and_Epigravettian_horse_hunting_strategy_in_Central_Europe_The_case_of_Stranska_skala_IV"
there is nothing on the link about Stránská skála IV site only. This theory is the only known one and nothing has changed, because it is the only one that is confirmed. It is the main and practically the only one in archeology.
R1b-Z2109. 5300 YBP @---covererage regions included--- Yamna-Poltavka-Catacombe-Karagash-Eastern Bell Beakers-modern day Bashkir Buryzan. Hopefully we can compare the genetics of their horse burials for continuity.
ReplyDelete"The steppes east of the Dnieper at the end of the third/beginning of the second millennium BC can be divided into several distinct cultural communities: 1) the multi-cordoned ware culture (or KMK) that developed out of the earlier regional variants of the catacomb culture; 2) the Abashevo community further east in the forest-steppe zone of the Middle Don and the Don-Volga interfluve; 3) the Potapovka culture along the Middle Volga and along its left bank; and 4) the Sintashta/Arkaim (or Sintashta/Arkaim/Petrovka) community east of the southern Urals.
ReplyDeleteTwo hundred or more settlements of the KMK have been documented, some of them with cultural deposits approximately 1m thick (e.g. Babino III)"
https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=pA1-3KfkpuwC&pg=PA146&lpg=PA146&dq=Kohl+%E2%80%9CTwo+hundred+or+more+settlements+of+the+KMK+have+been+documented,+some+of+them+with+cultural+deposits+approximately+1+m.+thick.%E2%80%9D&source=bl&ots=hUC3mWML8_&sig=ACfU3U14Y0jKF4os1uQ9zmiHtCJrjiSzTA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjXtqHiybvrAhWpQhUIHdgGC_cQ6AEwAXoECAIQAQ#v=onepage&q&f=false
I have already read that art in the caves of the southern Urals, dated 16000 years ago, is very reminiscent of Madeleine art. Does anyone know if there are any human samples associated with this uralic culture that can be analyzed?
ReplyDelete@mary
ReplyDeleteDo you mean the Kapova cave? In the Paleolithic, people did not live in the Kapova cave, it was an exclusively cult place.
@ G2a Farmer
ReplyDeleteAs I’ve said before , the arrivals are more Central European than anything .
KMK or Sintashta aren’t directly relevant
Seems like mercenaries coming in fairly late , ~1300 BC; just before the late Bronze Age collapse and sea people’s etc
@ Archi
“ This theory is the only known one”
If you’re not aware then that’s your business. Let’s remember that you were adamant that it came in the ‘Mesolithic”
*sorry, magdalenian
ReplyDeleteAnd so, at least four European cultures are linked by Siberia. it
ReplyDeleteEuropean(>Levantine) Aurignacian < Streletskaya culture of the Russian Plain < Ust-Karakol culture of Gorny Altai
Bohunician < Kulichivka of the west Russian Plain < Kara-Bom culture of Altai
Kozarnician (Oase) < Ust-Ishim
Epigravettian <-.-> Malta culture of the west Baikal region
The fact is that Malta culture has no roots in the local Paleolithic or in the east, according to the general belief, it came from the west, part of it connects with Europe (Gravettian and Epigravettian). Although it is not Epigravettian, it is Epigravettian-like. It is especially associated with the Paleolithic Venuses.
Considering that European influence reached the Urals (Kapova Cave, Belaya River), then a common source for the European Epigravettian and Siberian Malta should be sought between the Belaya River and the Ob River.
The formation of the Classical Epigravettian took place on the territory of Moldova, where the most ancient dates of this culture were found, thousands of years older than anywhere else. This is followed by the date of the Eastern Epigravettian. The classical Epigravettian stretched from Austria to the Dnieper, in the west there was the Western Epigravettian, east of the Dnieper to the Lower Don was the Eastern Epigravettian, very diverse and non-classical, probably even where the Epigravettian itself began its formation, unfortunately there are very few dates from there. It is clear that initially Epigravettian was closer to the Aurignacian industry than to the Gravettian industry.
Unfortunately, where the Malta culture (R*) comes from west of the Achinsk site, Krasnoyarsk Territory, is still not clear, current research only expands the connections of this culture, showing the message along the rivers https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S235222671930114X, but there is no place where it comes from, therefore there is no place where the Epigravettian culture (R1b) comes from. We can only say that by this time R1a had already separated from this array.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Momo
ReplyDeleteI know the levantines dont get their sintahsta alike ancestry straight though sintashta folks, but through others(more like mittanis and myceaneans, i would suspect. I mean, little suprising crusaders would effect the levantines that much, that most west iranics are closer to them in terms or at least many of them in sintahsta admix than theyre to me, despite indo-iranians had a very large impact on their identity).
Im still wondering if Abel_IA gets any sintahsta alike ancestry or not though? Wouldnt expect them to get more than modern day levantines
Abel IA lacked steppe ancestry.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1eHUpDQduMv78Mfk3WjPEZKxAhmnrwt3E/view?usp=sharing
What is shown is noise. In fact, the Iron Age Levant in general lacked steppe ancestry as you can see (setting aside the gene flow to some coasts related to the Sea Peoples, which did not have a lasting impact). The Hellenistic Levant might be so too but we need more samples. The Roman Levant, on the other hand, shows signs of small steppe admixture (MA means "the Middle Ages" BTW). When you look at the modern Levantine groups, you will see that the Samaritans are the genetically closest modern group to the Iron Age Levantines:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1f7RX8W6160ggUQpk2Fu4QvnVTgc5p6wm/view?usp=sharing
That must be because, having no post-Iron Age pagan, Christian or Muslim past and being an isolated community, the Samaritans have largely evaded the gene flows to the Levant from outside since the post-Iron Age times. The Samaritans are probably also the genetically closest modern population to the ancient Jews BTW.
@When_in_Rome & CrM
ReplyDeleteWhy not simply use Anatolia_EBA, in addition to Barcin_N, WHG and Steppe? Because, consider this: The CHG/Iran-related admixture that reached Greece in the course of the Neolithic and Sicily in the MBA didn't come straight from the Caucasus, Iran or the Armenian plateau. It came through Anatolia. You can add Natufians and Taforalt to the list of sources to cover additional Levantine and North African admixture.
Of course Anatolia_EBA is a mix that includes some Barcin_N-like stuff. But the early European Neolithic was simply Barcin_N, until it mixed with WHG. So you have on the one hand the Barcin_N + some WHG that reached Italy in the early Neolithic, and you've got Anatolia_EBA-like stuff that came to Italy later. It's very easy.
ReplyDelete@JuanRivera
ReplyDelete"I think using UKR_N_o would lead to problems in the EEF and Near Eastern proportions at it lacks the Iranian admixture that Italian EEFs had, making the Near Eastern proportion higher in an effort to compensate; (...) GRC_Peloponnense_N may be better stand-ins for Italian EEFs.
That's not true. The early Neolithic of Italy was ordinary Cardium Pottery, just like in Dalmatia, Southern France and eastern Spain. There's nothing Iranian-related to this. So it makes sense that the Neolithic Italian samples in G25 show no pull towards Anatolia_EBA:
Target: ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N
Distance: 1.7274% / 0.01727374
97.6 TUR_Barcin_N
2.4 WHG
Target: ITA_Ripabianca_di_Monterado_N
Distance: 2.0410% / 0.02040990
91.4 TUR_Barcin_N
8.6 WHG
Target: ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_o
Distance: 4.6743% / 0.04674307
77.8 TUR_Barcin_N
22.2 WHG
Even in the Middle Neolithic, Sicily was without any Anatolia_EBA pull:
Target: ITA_Sicily_MN
Distance: 1.8878% / 0.01887784
89.6 TUR_Barcin_N
10.4 WHG
Copper Age Italy also lacked it:
Target: ITA_Grotta_Continenza_CA
Distance: 4.0981% / 0.04098086
88.4 TUR_Barcin_N
11.6 WHG
Target: ITA_Monte_San_Biagio_CA
Distance: 3.7373% / 0.03737277
85.2 TUR_Barcin_N
14.8 WHG
And in the Greek Neolithic it's absent in the earliest samples and then slowly increases in the course of the Neolithic. The increase in Anatolia_EBA-like admixture in the Peloponnese Neolithic correlates very well with the C14 dates. It gets strong fairly late:
Target: GRC_N:I5427 (6005-5879 BC)
Distance: 2.9424% / 0.02942398
100.0 TUR_Barcin_N
Target: GRC_Peloponnese_N:I2937 (5479-5338 BC)
Distance: 3.4313% / 0.03431312
97.4 TUR_Barcin_N
2.6 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Target: GRC_Peloponnese_N:I2318 (4043-3947 BC)
Distance: 3.0074% / 0.03007413
95.6 TUR_Barcin_N
4.4 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Target: GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3708 (indirectly dated to 5500-3700 BC)
Distance: 2.0260% / 0.02025975
89.6 TUR_Barcin_N
10.4 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Target: GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3709 (3990-3804 BC)
Distance: 2.4302% / 0.02430202
74.0 TUR_Barcin_N
26.0 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
Target: GRC_Peloponnese_N:I3920 (3933-3706 BC)
Distance: 1.9887% / 0.01988724
55.0 TUR_Barcin_N
42.0 TUR_Ovaoren_EBA
3.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
@ JuanRivera
ReplyDeleteI tried it agian using...
WHG
TUR_Barcin_N
RUS_Progress_En
CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
MAR_Taforalt
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
Levant_PPNB
GEO_CHG
SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
RUS_Karelia_HG
MNG_North_N
RUS_Ust_Kyakhta
GRC_N
AUT_LBK_N
SYR_Ebla_EMBA
...for different populations to see how the neolithic farmer DNA is spread in...
Sicilian_East
German
Assyrian
Turkish_Central
...and got...
Target: Turkish_Central
Distance: 1.2701% / 0.01270068
41.8 SYR_Ebla_EMBA
17.6 RUS_Progress_En
13.8 AUT_LBK_N
8.6 GEO_CHG
8.4 MNG_North_N
5.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
4.8 GRC_N
Target: Assyrian
Distance: 1.4951% / 0.01495080
66.6 SYR_Ebla_EMBA
11.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
10.2 RUS_Progress_En
7.0 GRC_N
5.0 GEO_CHG
Target: German
Distance: 4.0890% / 0.04089047
45.0 AUT_LBK_N
34.8 RUS_Progress_En
15.8 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
4.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
Target: Sicilian_East
Distance: 1.6858% / 0.01685764
43.2 AUT_LBK_N
30.8 SYR_Ebla_EMBA
21.8 RUS_Progress_En
2.0 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
1.8 MAR_Taforalt
0.2 CMR_Shum_Laka_8000BP
0.2 GEO_CHG
So far, this seems to be the best fit for measuring recent / historical Middle Eastern DNA in Southern Italians, as different Southern Italian samples had TUR_Barcin_N along with GRC_N or AUT_LBK_N, for example:
Target: Italian_Calabria:ALP596
Distance: 1.8117% / 0.01811727
30.6 SYR_Ebla_EMBA
27.6 AUT_LBK_N
17.2 RUS_Progress_En
8.4 GRC_N
6.2 TUR_Barcin_N
3.2 GEO_CHG
3.2 SRB_Iron_Gates_HG
2.2 MAR_Taforalt
1.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
@ everyone
Any other thoughts?
@Archi
ReplyDeleteIsn't it more likely Malta came from an East Eurasian population NE of it (Yana) or SE of it (Tianyuan)? There's no K2b or P to the West so far.
I never quite saw the claimed extra basal in Italian EEF, granted it has Y-Hg J2a
ReplyDeleteUsing Peloponnesus LN is a no no because it’s too late and has already acquired extra CHG from trans-Aegean contacts
@Tigran
ReplyDelete"Isn't it more likely Malta came from an East Eurasian population NE of it (Yana) or SE of it (Tianyuan)?"
There are no such data at all and there are no such hypotheses, archaeologically it is impossible. You made something up, and Yana and Tianyuan are definite aliens from the west.
"There's no K2b or P to the West so far."
Do not make up, there is no such data. You just do not know what is in the west and what is not there, and just make up non-existent statements. Prove that they do not exist, the data to the studio where it is shown that they do not exist.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI never quite saw the claimed extra basal in Italian EEF, granted it has Y-Hg J2a
Using Peloponnesus LN is a no no because it’s too late and has already acquired extra CHG from trans-Aegean contacts
Agreed. Something wrong with the methodology of the paper that published those Italian EEF genomes.
There are too many alleged ''epigravettian'' cultures in literature, from Provence, to Adriatic, to Balkan inland, to Carpathians to eastern Europe, Armenia & the caucasus. They're often quite different & disconnected. The entire premise behind the name epigravettian implies some form of continuity. The french term tardigravettian might be better - and for that Italy / Balkans shows the least change, but also the Carpathian intermountain valleys (Moldova & the Dniester sites are in fact just the seasonal bases derived from the latter). In fact the Caucasus also holds true to Gravettian traditions after the LGM (shouldered points, kotenki knves) but acquires new Near Eastern features also
ReplyDeleteThe Ice Age stuff in Russia/ Ukraine is non-Gravettian, but its not Aurignacian either (it was long gone). Its pseudo-aurignacian, due to some developmental trends (e.g carenoid scrapers). It then re-qacquires Gravettian features c/- the Molodovan influence, to then form the 'eastern epigravettian'
During the Ice Age in eastern Europe 2 or 3 rather ''new'' or distinctive cultures appear
1. The Paleolithic of northeastern Europe
March 2008Archaeology Ethnology and Anthropology of Eurasia 33(1):33-45
DOI: 10.1016/j.aeae.2008.04.014
Pavel Yurievich PavlovPavel Yurievich Pavlov
This is self-explanatory (MLUP Siberia -> cisUrals)
2. ''European perspectives of the East European LGM Epi-Aurignacian with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths''
This is less straightforward
@JuanRivera
ReplyDeleteYes, to claim that Yana is from East Asia is generally ridiculous.
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana1] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1 U2'3'4'7'8'9
Palaeolithic Russia Yana river, north Siberia [Yana2] 32047-31321 cal BP (27940 ± 115 BP) M P1 U2'3'4'7'8'9
Palaeolithic Gravettian Italy Grotta Paglicci [Paglicci108 (21B-1)] 28430-27070 cal BP F U2'3'4'7'8'9
@Rob
All Paleolithic sites are seasonal, absolutely everything. The sites of Molodova and Prednestrovie are older than all known Epigravette sites. It is a fact that Epigravettian does not originate from Gravettian; it is a new culture that does not originate from Gravettian everywhere, but only took some elements from Gravettian, and otherwise it is closer to Aurignacian.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteepigravettian is too Loosely defined, so one cannot state it came from X or Y as it wasn’t monolithic. Sure influences came from key regions.
Same with Gravettian - several variants . No room for too broad a conclusion
Nothing can come from aurignacian; because it had been extinct for 10,000 years. These are just convergences in the face of cultural degradation. Like the pseudo -Chatelperronian leaf points in Solutrean. We're not going to say Solutrean is closer to Neanderthals..
@@Rob
ReplyDelete"The Paleolithic of northeastern Europe"
So there we are talking specifically about North-Eastern Europe and confirms everything that I said.
"Late Upper Paleolithic sites in northeastern Europe date back to the beginning of the second half of the Late Valdai (19,000 – 16,000 BP): These are Talitsky site, Shirovanovo II, Medvezhia Peschera, and Ganichata II. Materials of these sites are rather similar to assemblages of the middle stage (from 27,000 to 24,000 – 18–17,000 BP) of the Upper Paleolithic of Siberia, where this period is characterized by the emergence of the so-called “small blade industries” (Vasiliev, 2000; Lisitsyn, Svezhentsev, 1997; Zenin, 2002). Geographically closest to the Late Upper Paleolithic sites of northeastern Europe are Early Sartan (second half of the Late Valdai) sites of the aforementioned chronological group in Western Siberia: Shestakovo (layers 24 – 17), Achinskaya, Tomskaya, and Evalga (Lisitsyn, Svezhentsev, 1997; Zenin, 2002). All these sites share similarities in the primary reduction techniques and typological parameters of the lithic assemblages.
Blades and akes were used in equal proportion for tools production. The toolset consists of endscrapers on blades, blade fragments and elongated blanks, including tools with steep working edges, small circular endscrapers, transverse burins, burins on truncations and breaks, splintered pieces, blades with notches formed by marginal retouch, backed bladelets, truncated blades and bladelets, and pebble tools. The presence of specific types of blades fashioned with dorsal, marginal retouch of the striking platform (Fig. 4, 20) is noteworthy. According to V.N. Zenin (2002), such a method, similar to truncation, is specific to the Siberian Paleolithic and it has been recorded in assemblages of the “Malta type.”
Thus, despite a number of differences, mostly concerning the abundance of burins (up to 20 % of tools) and their typological diversity in northeastern European assemblages, the latter display marked similarity to those from Siberia. New evidence will possibly demonstrate that Late Paleolithic industries of northeastern Europe are, in fact, part of Siberian small-blade industries. V.N. Zenin, too, points to a considerable similarity between small-blade industries of Western Siberia and the Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages of the Urals during the 25(27),000 – 18(16),000 BP interval (Ibid.)."
"One of the major characteristics of the Paleolithic in the study area is the distinct difference between the Early Upper and Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages. The Early Upper Paleolithic assemblages are characterized by the presence of two groups of artifacts – Middle and Upper Paleolithic. These assemblages are similar to contemporaneous industries of the Russian Plain. Northeastern European industries dating from the second half of the Late Valdai are generally similar to Western Siberian small-blade industries dating from the Early Sartan stage."
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Nothing can come from aurignacian; because it had been extinct for 10,000 years."
You are wrong. First, I wrote that Epigravettian did not descend from Aurignacian, but it was initially closer to Aurignacian than to Gravettian. This is in terms of the industry, because Siberia was more like Aurignacoid.
Secondly, Aurignacian was still alive even in Europe.
Jiří Svoboda, Vojen Ložek, Emanuel Vlček. Hunters between East and West 1996
"The Late Aurignacian (Epiaurignacian)
Stratigraphic evidence from Moravian sites (Stranska skala lla: Svoboda, 1991e),
certain C-14 datings from Lower Austria (Table 6.3), and typological chronologies
based on surface assemblages (Oliva, 1987a) suggest that the Aurignacian survived
until 20,000 B.P. (Chapter 5).
According to current scenarios, the Late Aurignacian and Gravettian populations
would have lived side by side, but would have occupied different territories (Chapter 8); this implies that their behavior was also different."
"epigravettian is too Loosely defined,"
Gravettian is even more diverse, it generally consists of a bunch of cultures. Still, Epigravettian differs from Gravettian much more than any cultural difference within these industries.
One of the main features of the Paleolithic is that each site there itself is a cultural type distinct from the other sites.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteNo it seems its quite the opposite of what you're saying
That industry moved from Siberia (post Mal'ta) to Europe, not vice-versa (''it came from the west, part of it connects with Europe '')
These Siberian industries have little directly do with the Epigravettian, which in reality are more related to the Old Gravettian and Caucasia
It simply did not make a much of a cultural impact there, although some of its people might have moved west. But culturally it stayed around the Kama-Ural. Its big cultural and demic impact in the West is quite late, Final Paleo - Early Meso. Again, this should be a no brainer
From the experts -
ReplyDelete“ The more than 40 years old hypothesis that connected the Epi-Aurignacian industry with the Evolved Aurignacian complexes, like Góra Puławska II, should be rejected now. The fact that the last true Aurignacian sites in Central and Eastern Europe are no younger than 30-28,000 uncal BP reveals a 7-9000 year gap between Evolved Aurignacian and the Epi-Aurignacian, a gap during which developed the whole Gravettian sensu stricto in these parts of Europe”
@Rob
ReplyDelete"No it seems its quite the opposite of what you're saying
That industry moved from Siberia (post Mal'ta) to Europe, not vice-versa (''it came from the west, part of it connects with Europe ''"
That's what I'm talking about. I say that they came to Europe from Western Siberia and Malta came to the Baikal region from Western Siberia. Therefore they are related. Siberian industries are connected precisely with Epigravettian, they are their prototype, and Malta is connected with Europe, there is nothing Caucasian there, but there are common elements with Europe as Epigravettian and hence Gravettian. In Siberia, only Malta culture has a European Gravettoid influence, that is, only it had ties with Europe, which were two-way, which I have depicted.
I say what is generally accepted in archeology, you just found a single article somehow indirectly related to the topic and think that you have learned everything on the topic, but you do not know anything on the topic anyway. Malta is only mentioned in this article, there is no talk about it at all, so there is simply no vice-versa there.
"It simply did not make a much of a cultural impact there, although some of its people might have moved west. But culturally it stayed around the Kama-Ural. Its big cultural and demic impact in the West is quite late, Final Paleo - Early Meso. Again, this should be a no brainer"
You are wrong again, in Eastern Europe-Urals, the influence of Siberia begins clearly at the time of Gravettian, which is clearly written to you "V.N. Zenin, too, points to a considerable similarity between small-blade industries of Western Siberia and the Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages of the Urals during the 25(27),000 – 18(16),000 BP interval".
" From the experts -"
This means nothing. Jiří Svoboda, Vojen Ložek, Emanuel Vlček are the most authoritative experts, and anonymous is simply nobody. What he writes is not any proof of anything.
@Archi, JuanRivera
ReplyDeleteSo Yana has an East Asian grandfather then? All the East Asian admixture in ANE related samples so far is paternal since every ANE sample is mtdna U but YDNA PQR.
@Tigran
ReplyDelete"So Yana has an East Asian grandfather then? All the East Asian admixture in ANE related samples so far is paternal since every ANE sample is mtdna U but YDNA PQR."
You are wrong. This is an absolutely unfounded statement. Women do not migrate without men. Stop trolling until you answer who lived in Central Eurasia with evidence as I asked you.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete“ small-blade industries of Western Siberia and the Late Upper Paleolithic assemblages of the Urals ”
ReplyDeleteWhich is what I wrote - “ But culturally it stayed around the Kama-Ural”
NB Bohemia isn’t in the Urals
Otherwise micro blades sensu latu can be found everywhere incl South African Stone Age .
@Tigran
ReplyDelete"So Yana has an East Asian grandfather then? All the East Asian admixture in ANE related samples so far is paternal since every ANE sample is mtdna U but YDNA PQR."
You are wrong. This is an absolutely unfounded statement. Women do not migrate without men. Stop trolling until you answer who lived in Central Eurasia with evidence as I asked you.
ANE is associated with Central Eurasian YDNA PQR but not with mtdna U. There are no East Asian admixtures in ANE, this ANE influenced East Asia through migration of Q/NO to East and not vice versa.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteWhat is Central Eurasian? Do you consider those people to be West or East Eurasians? Central Asia was probably home to Crown Eurasian like Ust-Ishim and/or West Eurasians carrying YDNA C like Kosenteki. What's your theory?
@JuanRivera
Is mtdna R1b considered Eastern or Western?
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Ive outline who the quote is from above - the authority on epiaurignacian
European perspectives of the East European LGM Epi-Aurignacian with Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths'' by Demidenko"
Here are Demidenko's words for you personally, this once again proves that you do not know anything, but are simply deceiving.
In between Gravettian and Epigravettian in Central and Eastern Europe: a peculiar LGM Early Late Upper Paleolithic industry
Yuri Demidenko Petr Skrdla 1999
"From the late 1990s one of us (Demidenko 1999, 2007, 2008) started to work on the “Aurignacoid” subject within a wider revision of the Eastern European Aurignacian. Lithic assemblages from Anetovka I, Muralovka and Zolotovka I were directly analyzed by Demidenko in St. Petersburg and Odessa in 1999 and 2000, and then new field work was conducted at the Anetovka I site in 2005–2006. As a result of these new investigations into the subject, these LGM “Aurignacoid” industries were grouped and renamed as “North Black Sea Epi-Aurignacian industry of the Krems-Dufour type” (Demidenko 2003, 2004). Two major techno-typological features, the presence of carinated atypical endscraper–cores and tiny dorsally retouched microliths, and the late chronology (LGM or even early post LGM – Zolotovka I) were the basic arguments for this classification. Also, the industry’s name “Krems-Dufour type” was intentionally proposed due to its general industrial similarity to the LGM Aurignacian V in Western Europe and a possible generic connection to some Evolved Aurignacian industries with “pseudo-Dufour” microliths"
Rob said...
ReplyDeleteFrom the experts -
“ The more than 40 years old hypothesis that connected the Epi-Aurignacian industry with the Evolved Aurignacian complexes, like Góra Puławska II, should be rejected now. The fact that the last true Aurignacian sites in Central and Eastern Europe are no younger than 30-28,000 uncal BP reveals a 7-9000 year gap between Evolved Aurignacian and the Epi-Aurignacian, a gap during which developed the whole Gravettian sensu stricto in these parts of Europe”
August 28, 2020 at 10:06 PM
You are just a deceiver, you did not indicate the authorship of your "quote" for nothing, you altered it to deceive everyone, because here Demidenko speaks only about one specific place. Here is a complete quote you uncorrected with the aim of changing the meaning:
"Also, the available dates underline the huge chronological
gap between the above-mentioned Evolved /
Late Aurignacian industries, which date in Central
Europe to ca. 32–28,000 uncal BP, raising some
doubts about the connection between these two industrial
complexes. The more than 40-year-old hypothesis
on a generic connection between the EASMM industry
and the Evolved Aurignacian complexes, like Góra
Puławska II, should now be rejected. The gap is too
great to claim any generic connections between these
two complexes, even more so considering that during
this hiatus the whole Gravettian techno-complex developed
in this part of Europe."
It is about Sagaidak-Muralovka-type microliths (EASMM), and which are dated to ca. 25,500–23,000 cal BP only with Evolved Aurignacian complexes, like Góra
Puławska II, only.
Moreover, Demidenko himself talks about migration from Aquitaine.
"Accordingly, we must also be aware that no other
“generic possibilities” for a local origin of the EASMM
industry in Central and/or Eastern Europe can be
claimed according to the current state of art of the LGM
archeological record in the regions. This drives us to
consider other possible, “external impulses” for the origin
of the EASMM. Probably it is necessary to pay more
attention to the former Western European Aurignacian
V. Indeed, former Aurignacian V / Terminal Gravettian
/ Proto-Solutrean sites are chronologically a little earlier
than the sites in Central and Eastern Europe, and
therefore this techno-cultural entity could have been
involved in the origin and spreading of EASMM industries
through Central and Eastern Europe at the beginning
of the LGM."
That is, he does not deny EpiAurignacian at that time in Eastern Europe, he is simply looking for its origins in the West, even in the same Aquitaine or Bohemia.
@Archi
ReplyDeletethis ANE influenced East Asia through migration of Q/NO to East and not vice versa.
So you mean that Y-DNA NO is of ANE origin? What is the basis of that claim? NO is about 40k years old, so may at most have some kind of Proto-ANE origin, if it is genetically of West Eurasian origin to begin with. We know that Ust'-Ishim and Oase-1 are pre-NO (K2a* to be exact), so NO might indeed have West Eurasian genetic origin, but even then, they would have to later mix too much with East Eurasians and lose most of their autosomal connection to West Eurasians.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Who say nothing about Kasov or Stranska Skala being from Siberia or Aurignacian in their detailed discussion on the industry in their most recent work and reapparaisal from Stranska Skala."
By Svoboda, you are deceiving again, you argued that there could be no EpiAurignacian in 20,000, but not that I allegedly wrote that Svoboda wrote something about Siberia.
"But one doesnt even need a reference here, even an amatuer like yourself should know that Aurignacian was not ''alive'' in 20000 BP."
Understand that you don't know anything, but you are simply deceiving people. Here's to you directly about the mixture of EpiAurignacian and Epigravettian.
https://www.academia.edu/7907163/Late_Middle_and_Early_Upper_Paleolitihic_Evidence_from_East_European_Plain_and_Caucasus, 1999
"These technological components occurred within two succeeding chronological horizons, named Sagaidak and Anetovka-Amvrosievka (Cohen and Otte, 1996), although general typological characteristics are different. The earlier assemblages of Sagaidak I and Muralovka contain no micro-Gravettes, while sites such as Anetovka II, Amvrosievka, Bolshaya Akkarzha, and Rashkov VII have technological components characteristic of both the Aurignacian and the Epi-Gravettian traditions (Krotova, 1995; 1996). In fact, the first group represents a latest Aurignacian, while the second one can be seen as an Epi-Gravettian technocomplex with some features of local Aurignacian." "Late Aurignacian and Epi-Aurignacian: 14, Anetovka II; 15, Amvrosievka; 16, Lubimovka; 16a, Rashkov VII."
"Who say nothing about Kasov or Stranska Skala being from Siberia or Aurignacian in their detailed discussion on the industry in their most recent work and reapparaisal from Stranska Skala."
This is not a work, this is a small article that in a few words describes this is only an archaeological site, it does not say anything else. It is not devoted to anything else, it is devoted only to the description of one archaeological site and nothing else, and everyone can be convinced of this by removing the link. So you are just cheating again.
" But culturally it stayed around the Kama-Ural”
This is your personal invention.
"NB Bohemia isn’t in the Urals"
Epigravettian is 5-10 thousand years later than they appear in Eastern Europe.
Where Epiaurignacian comes from in Bohemia is a completely different question, it could be local and only be influenced from Siberia, but most likely it came from Eastern Europe, for example, as the culture of Dzudzuana, even before mixing with Gravettian, or in general, this culture is entirely from Siberia. In Bohemia, there could be the same scheme as in Eastern Europe of the change of cultures with hiatus between Gravettian and Epigravettian: Gravettian > Epiaurignacian(?) > Epigravettian.
@Tigran
"Do you consider those people to be West or East Eurasians?"
This is your personal division from the 20th century. Such a concept did not exist in the Paleolithic, it was just being formed. There is no dichotomy. Central Eurasia is Central Eurasia, between Europe and East Asia. You are not surprised by the words Central Europe.
@Onur Dincer
I have simplified the expression. NO is not ANE, in ANE there were common components with NO, as well as with ANS, so they migrated to the East. ANE, ANS, NO have a common origin and, accordingly, common components.
@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ is simply looking for its origins in the West, even in the same Aquitaine or Bohemia.”
So youve just demonstrated to yourself that this is no Siberia
“ That is, he does not deny EpiAurignacian ”
If you had the capacity for basic comprehension, you understand that neither do I.
You claim that real aurignacian still existed at this time - present a date that’s for it that’s younger than 34000 calBo..
The generic roots of the- unfortunately named -epiaurignacian (from old times before C14) are therefor from the gravettian period. They have just taken a cultural drift and acquired (pseudo aurignacian) archaic characteristics
This happens in any society that undergoes stress and decline
But otherwise there is no link between the Epiaurignacian & aurignacian. No filiation & a 10,000 year gap.
So you should cease conflating your confusion as others deception
Rob
ReplyDelete"So youve just demonstrated to yourself that this is no Siberia"
I did not say anything where Epi-Aurignacian came from, you are substituting concepts, I spoke about EpiGravettian. Demidenko is considering all the options, he in no way denies the Epi-Aurignacian, he talks only about two sites in Eastern Europe and their appearance. Unlike you, he does not cheat.
Demidenko: "First, there is no known “Aurignacian V /
Epi-Aurignacian” site in the 1200 km separating Aquitaine
(South-Western France) and the Bohemian Massif
(Austria and Czech Republic). Second, the discussed
Eastern and Central European EASMM industry does
not have a “transitional character” as has been argu
ably suggested for the Western former Aurignacian V.
Third, the presence of numerous thick-nosed endscraper–
cores in Western Europe and their absence or rarity
in Eastern and Central Europe suppose some definite
technological differences in “micro-debitage” production
between the two industries. Therefore, it is too
early to draw the respective “human migration arrow”
from the West to the East on the map of Europe. At the
same time, it is still possible to hypothesize such a migration
but it needs more substantiation and explanation
due to the above-enumerated problems."
Genetically possible, see green on https://ibb.co/94r0Myg
"But otherwise there is no link between the Epiaurignacian & aurignacian. No filiation & a 10,000 year gap."
Once again, Demidenko does not deny that these people come from Aurignac, he only denies that they come from the local Aurignac. He does not deny Epi-Aurignac, moreover, he considers the hypothesis that they came from the West right now from Aurignac, and your statement about the impossibility of anyone coming from Aurignac is a direct deception.
Demidenko: "Thus, going further in the understanding of an origin
of the EASMM industry in Eastern and Central
Europe requires a real Pan-European approach and
some non-standard methods of analysis.
Finally, the Epi-Aurignacian subject also demonstrates
the significant industrial variability of Late UP
assemblages in Central Europe (not only Epigravettian
and Magdalenian) and in Eastern Europe (not just Epigravettian).
We believe that it is also worth bringing
up the discussion on the Epi-Aurignacian “historical
fate”, considering that this Central European EASMM
maybe also played a role in the development of Western
European Badegoulian / Magdalenian 0-I origin.
All in all, nowadays a great amount of data on the
EASMM industry not only in Eastern but also in Central
Europe has already been accumulated. Information on
the former Aurignacian V is additionally involved in the
study for a Pan-European understanding of the specific
LGM Early Late UP industry known to the east from
Western Europe. But although it might look strange,
a list of topics needed for further studies has not become
shorter, however, and now more in-depth and integrated
analyses need to be done, adding also here some other
European Late UP industries for a wider look at the
problems. However, this is the next stage of our research."
Dimidenko in relation to the existence of Epi-Aurignacian is in no way at odds with Svoboda, and Svoboda did not write about its origin.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYou're just muddying the water. Central Eurasians are not a branch in this field. Just clearly state were these Central Eurasians on a branch with West Eurasians or East Eurasians or mixed?
@Tigran
ReplyDeleteYou always ask the wrong questions are always completely wrong formulated. Answering them is meaningless, you still don't understand the answers. Therefore, no one answers them to you, and I will not because in order to ask questions you need to own at least basic concepts, but only some of your own invented concepts.
@ Archi
ReplyDelete''Genetically possible, see green on https://ibb.co/94r0Myg''
Genetics of Villabruna is not the same as epiaurignacian
The latter cannot be from Bulgaria/ Balkans, which continued a conservative Gravettian traditions
Ive explained the origins already of the EpAur. Take the time to digest, if you're genuininely interested
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Genetics of Villabruna is not the same as epiaurignacian
The latter cannot be from Bulgaria/ Balkans, which continued a conservative Gravettian traditions
Ive explained the origins already of the EpAur. Take the time to digest, if you're genuininely interested "
The genetics of Epiaurignacian are unknown. There is no data on this. Villabruna is Epigravettian, not Epiaurignacian, you deliberately substitute concepts to confuse everyone. And here the Balkans is completely incomprehensible.
Stop misinterpreting everything, Learn read, Svoboda mentioned Epiaurignacian only in the context of the fact that it existed simultaneously with the beginning of Epigravettian, and it had the same influence from North Asia as Epigravettian. You didn’t explain anything except that you wrote only non-truth. The origin of Epiaurignacian is irrelevant to the origin of Villabruna, only you have moved the arrows to Epiaurignacian.
" Archi
ReplyDeleteYou posted this link https://ibb.co/94r0Myg
You have circled the Balkans and the time frame 14,000 - 4,000
Most sane people will think youre therefore referring to Villabruna
Anyhow, you're views are quite irrelevant to me. you simply don;t make sense. It's just a garbled mash of miseducation, misdirection & butthurt
@Rob
ReplyDeleteLearn to read and understand, you don't know how to understand any texts at all. I gave a picture of the words of Demidenko to which you refer, that what he describes about the possible connection of Epiaurignacian with Aquitaine is possible from the point of view of known paleogenetics. You just don't know anything about archeology, history, genetics.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYou're just muddying the water with your made up terms. It seems you're just trying to deny that Ydna K2b and its descendants PQR are from the eastern side of the Eurasian split (and same is probably true for LT) and that there is significant Tianyuan related ancestry in ANE. All you do is use vague terms. At least come with a thesis and defend it not just constantly muddy the waters with misinformation and made up terms.
@Tigran
ReplyDeleteYou make up the terms, you don’t even know about the existence of Central Asia. You just don't know anything about what anthropologists think about the Paleolithic Northern Eurasian Formation and the Southern one. The same thing that you write simply contradicts science. Do not walk nonsense, LT from East Asia is already ridiculous. You are just trolling by nonsense. Tell us, from which East Asia did the Aurignacian C1a2 come from, if C1a1 lives in Japan and Tianyuan K2b is autosomally closest to GoyetQ116-2 C1a2?
@ Tigran
ReplyDeleteExactly. He doesn't even know what he's trying to say, so long as in his own little bubble he's the expert on everything. He's fanatically wishy-washy
@ Rob
ReplyDeleteSo do you think LT came from East Asia ?
I was a tad surprised by the U4'9 from that early Epigravettian.
ReplyDeleteRob said...
ReplyDelete"epiaurignacian Bulgaria/ Balkans, which continued a conservative Gravettian traditions"
You always write your own inventions without knowing anything on the subject, misleading everyone. We cannot believe any of your statements. Of course, in the Balkans there is also a Late Aurignac between 25,000 and 20,000 BP, for example, the Klisour cave.
Kozlowski J.K., Kaczanowska M. 2004. Gravettian/Epigravettian Sequences in the Balkansand Anatolia // Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 4. № 1
https://www.academia.edu/39162615/GRAVETTIAN_EPIGRAVETTIAN_SEQUENCES_IN_THE_BALKANS_AND_ANATOLIA
Of course, where EpiAurignac came from is not certain, but the fact that it has the influence of North Asia and the fact that in Eastern Europe there are early complexes of the Aurignacoid Epigravettian and Gravettian Aurignacian speaks for itself.
The fact that I am writing is a purely scientific mainstream view, I have not written a word that contradicts the scientific opinion of all archeology and antropology and every archaeologist, what you write is purely your invention of an uneducated person who distorts texts.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Ric
ReplyDelete“ So do you think LT came from East Asia ?”
Not really ; why would you say that ?
I wasn’t commenting on the above haplogroup debate ; just in general as to how someone tends to discuss
I speculate that K* is an early set of disparate dispersals through Asia ; followed by C ; although I’m sure most reasonable people understand it’s silly to have strong opinions on the matter like this given the dearth of UP genomes from Asia
@Rob
ReplyDelete"epiaurignacian cannot be from Bulgaria/ Balkans, which continued a conservative Gravettian traditions"
You always write your own inventions without knowing anything on the subject, misleading everyone. We cannot believe any of your statements. Of course, in the Balkans there is also a Late Aurignac between 25,000 and 20,000 BP, for example, the Klisour cave.
Kozlowski J.K., Kaczanowska M. 2004. Gravettian/Epigravettian Sequences in the Balkansand Anatolia // Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 4. № 1
https://www.academia.edu/39162615/GRAVETTIAN_EPIGRAVETTIAN_SEQUENCES_IN_THE_BALKANS_AND_ANATOLIA
Of course, where EpiAurignac came from is not certain, but the fact that it has the influence of North Asia and the fact that in Eastern Europe there are early complexes of the Aurignacoid Epigravettian and Gravettian Aurignacian speaks for itself.
The fact that I am writing is a purely scientific mainstream view, I have not written a word that contradicts the scientific opinion of all archeology and antropology and every archaeologist, what you write is purely your invention of an uneducated person who distorts texts.
@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ We cannot believe any of your statements”
Ok then-
“ The real Epigravettian, in the etymological sense of the term, assumes a continuous transition from the Gravettian without hiatus. Such a transition occurs only in Mediterranean regions.” (italy; Balkans,)
Also-
“ In the Balkans, in the cave of Klissoura 1, the mixed level III with too recent and erratic dates around 20 000 BP suggested to the authors of the excavations a continuous sequence of the Auri- gnacian until the glacial maximum, a proposal which was since abandoned (Koumouzelis et al., 2001; Kuhn et al., 2010).”
Territories and economies of hunteregatherer groups during the last glacial maximum in Europe
-François Djindjian
To say that you lack nuance or are outdated is too kind. You don’t understand anything
And a major problem with being the fool is you don’t realise that you’re a fool
Moreover;
ReplyDelete“the Balkans there is also a Late Aurignac between 25,000 and 20,000 BP, for example, the Klisour cave.
Kozlowski J.K., Kaczanowska M. 2004. Gravettian/Epigravettian Sequences in the Balkansand Anatolia // Mediterranean Archaeology and Archaeometry, vol. 4. № 1”
Kozlowski’s dates are uncalibrated. Calibrated makes it >30,000 calBP
Epiaurignacian is ~ 23000 calBP, moral
See, educated people understand these basics; which is why the above references - by whatever convention used- states the said 9/10,000 year gap Between aurignacian and EpiAur, everywhere in Europe .
You’re very confused
And your stray references to “aurignacianiod Siberia” lack relevance . Siberia has a very specific and easily identifiable industry during the LGM
@ David
ReplyDeleteA few posts you ago you had a discussion with Matt in the comments regarding some complications when running F3 Admix tests, namely too much recent drift in the target population can obfuscate admixture history. Are there any other things you can think of that can throw off the test? None of the tests I'm running seem to be generating significant results (I'm mostly working with ancients, both as my target and as at least one of my sources).
@Cy Tolliver
ReplyDeleteI don't think that in most cases f3 stats will be skewed significantly by recent drift. So there might be some other issues with your f3 analysis.
My point was that f3 stats are affected by recent drift, although not to the same extent as PCA or Admixture results.
By the way, my view is that to get the most out of f3 stats you should post-process them in some way, like with PCA or like this...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/03/lets-try-formal-heuristic-approach.html
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Kozlowski’s dates are uncalibrated. Calibrated makes it >30,000 calBP"
As always, you are cheating because you do not know anything, 23000 + -500 BP can never give >30,000 calBP.
Compare
Palaeolithic Gravettian France La Rochette (saint Léon-sur-VézРёre) 27780-27400 cal BP (23260+110-100 BP, GrA-54026) M
Palaeolithic Gravettian Italy Grotta Paglicci [Paglicci108 (21B-1)] 28430-27070 cal BP (23470В±370 BP, F-52, layer date) F
Palaeolithic Russia Mal'ta, Siberia [MA1] 22570-22140 calBCE (20240±60 BP, UCIAMS-79666) M R* U*
His date is 20,000 and 25,000 BP. Uneducated inventor between 20,000 and 25,000 BP correction for a maximum is 4000 years.
"See, educated people understand these basics; which is why the above references - by whatever convention used- states the said 9/10,000 year gap Between aurignacian and EpiAur, everywhere in Europe .
You’re very confused"
You have disgraced yourself a deceiver, I have quoted a quote about Epiaurignacian = Late Aurignacian. Previously, you denied the existence of Epiaurignacian in general, but now you cleverly changed the words Epigravettian for Epiaurignacian. You got caught cheating once again.
Your statement was that (Epi)aurignacian could not give rise to anyone, because there was a 7-10 thousand years difference between them and the beginning of Epigravettian, this is a complete lie from an ignorant person. Here's a sign from Demidenko with just Epiaurignacian up to 19000-17000BP (begin of Epigravettian)
https://i.ibb.co/3CXVVND/Demidenko-2008-Quartaer-Early-and-Mid-UP-period-in-Great-North-Black-Sea-region.png
https://www.academia.edu/2226774/Demidenko_2008_Quartaer_Early_and_Mid_UP_period_in_Great_North_Black_Sea_region
I only write the truth as opposed to @@
If R1b turn out to have migrated from Moravia to the Balkans then I wonder if there was some kind of link between Gravettian Pavlovian Ceramics and Epigravettian Croatian Ceramic art despite the 10 000 years gap between them ?
ReplyDeleteTollense sample WEZ56 is R1a-Z283(xM458, V92).
ReplyDeletehttps://pastebin.com/UGUQGYJW
One more time R1a is deliberately (Yleaf automatically reports R1a1a~ R-CTS2891) removed from the official publication. WTF is going on?
For f3 remember to set outgroupmode=YES, needed if the outgroup is a single individual.
ReplyDelete@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ but now you cleverly changed the words Epigravettian for Epiaurignacian”
I haven’t changed anything . It’s your limitations which precludes your comprehension
You are falling prey to not understanding the terminology, which can be confusing for the non acquainted (like yourself)
You need to read carefully. Eg Nerudova
“ After the period of relatively unified Gravettian,
human behavior is reflected in a heterogeneous conglomerate of industries which
are referred to as Epigravettian, Epiaurignacian or Grubgrabian. Dispute has mainly
been held on the meaning of carinated elements, which occur in this period as a
sort of reminiscence of Aurignacian “
Do you understand ? It means some elements which might look like aurignacian reappear; but they are not saying it is aurignacian reappearing from nowhere
Djindjan-
“ Aurignacoïdes” industries of the beginning of the last glacial maximum:
At the beginning of the glacial maximum, a general process of adaptation transformed Gravettian industries into a polymorphic aurignacoïde facies. This phenomenon is known in many regions of Europe:”
Note the quotation marks (implying so-called )
You miss subtleties, and also generally tend to miss basics as well. You lack ability to learn because you have a very malignant attitude
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYou absolutely do not understand the texts you read. You don't even understand what you are writing yourself. You blame everyone for your shortcomings, which only you have but your interlocutors do not have. the inability to understand and learn is your characteristic. Talking to you is absolutely useless, you will misinterpret any text.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteThe text is simple for anyone to understand. You cant bluff your way out of this with your usual misdirection & irrelevancies
Again from Svoboda -
'' Typologically, the groups of short endscrapers and burins predominate,
but their quantitative relationship is variable at the individual sites. Some of them are thick and polyhedric, thus recalling some “aurignacoid” forms, however their quantity is low, and the morphology is different from the true Aurignacian...the bone-and-antler industry, whenever preserved, shows parallels to the Magdalenian (bâtons de commandament at Grubgraben and Ságvár, needles at Grubgraben) or to the Gravettian (the circular section points at Lipa VI), but never to the Aurignacian.'
You waste so much space out of your contemptuous disregard for facts and honest discourse.
You serve no purpose here
For everyone else, here is an outline of Paleolithic chronology, from Solich & Bradtmoller 2017
https://imgur.com/mrsw2tc