There's a new archeological paper about the Fatyanovo culture at the
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society [
LINK]. It includes this quote on page 18:
In the traditional narrative, the Fatyanovo people – like the CWC populations in general – are regarded as Indo-European, representing the pre-Balto-Slavic (-Germanic) stage (Carpelan & Parpola 2001, 88; Anthony 2007, 380; also Gimbutas 1956, 163; Tretyakov 1966, 109) in the spread of Indo-European languages.
That's correct, but considering the latest ancient DNA research on the Fatyanovo people, the traditional narrative is probably wrong. Fatyanovo males were rich in Y-haplogroup R1a-Z93, which is found at very low frequencies in Balto-Slavic populations (see
here). It's actually much more common nowadays in Central and South Asia, where it often reaches frequencies of over 50% in Indo-Iranian speaking groups.
Balts and Slavs are rich in R1a-Z282, which is a sister clade of R1a-Z93 that has been found in Corded Ware and Corded Ware-related samples from west of Fatyanovo sites. That is, in present-day Poland and the Baltic states.
Therefore, the origins of the Balto-Slavs should be sought somewhere west of the Fatyanovo culture, probably in the Corded Ware derived populations from what is now the border zone between Poland, Belarus and Ukraine.
Indeed, in my view the Fatyanovo people are more likely to have spoken Proto-Indo-Iranian rather than anything ancestral to Baltic or Slavic (see
here).
Nordqvist and Heyd,
The Forgotten Child of the Wider Corded Ware Family: Russian Fatyanovo Culture in Context,
Proceedings of the Prehistoric Society, online 12 November 2020, DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/ppr.2020.9
See also...
The oldest R1a to date
347 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 347 of 347New little work on the Neolithic Balkans has been released. Nothing new or boring and uninteresting, the very theme of the transition from the Mesolithic to the Neolithic has already been jammed and over-tested. Got enough that the most interesting topic of the Balkans of the Bronze Age is not being published.
@Samuel
Yeah, I'm aware of the outliers. Don't know what to make of them right now. Once we see a plethora of post-Bronze Age DNA from Greece, the Aegean, Anatolia, and Magna Graecia, we'll be in a much better position to understand exactly who brought BA Anatolian-like and Levantine ancestry into Italy (and Greece for that matter).
Right now there are just too many possibilities that can't be ruled out, starting with the possibility of immigration from the Near East into Europe following the chaos of the Bronze Age collapse. That's just speculation on my part, but hey, maybe it happened? The possibility of migration become even stronger during the Iron Age following Phoenician and Greek settlement of the Mediterranean, prompting opportunity for mixture. Then there's the possibility of Hellenistic era migration into Europe (my favored explanation), and then further Imperial Roman and Byzantine era movements-- really, who knows the extent of the gene flow? We'll just have to wait patiently for the goods. We do know the Mycenaean profile persisted into the classical period because of the Emporiotes, but other types of Greeks might also have existed at that time. Rumor has it we're going to see heterogeneity in the classical period which might clarify things. Can't wait.
@ Michalis
In AG some balkanic and central european members claiming,that during the IA Greece received a gene flow from west balkans/centraleast Europe(Via Urnfield) and many of them suggesting that Dorians were actually Illyrians who eventually hellenized.Also,responsible for these EV13 lineages that we seeing today in Greece.Do you agree with it?
@Ioannis Gavras
That the Dorians were Illyrians is an unsubstantiated fantasy. The Dorians were from Pindus and the Illyrians were never there. The genetic flow was from the Danube, but was not associated with the Dorians, but with the Sea Peoples invaders who destroyed the Mycenaean civilization.
@Ioannis Gavras
I guess it's possible, but I don't have an opinion about it. I'm agnostic about the idea of a Dorian migration. Could be true, might not be. It will be interesting to find out what the deal is with EV13 in Greece, though.
@Michalis,
This is another Roman sample who is from Southern Italy/Sicily.
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR45
@0.02236
Sicily_MBA/LBA_1-39.2%
Classical Greek_Sain-8%
Syrian_maincluster-35%
Levant_Isreal_Ashkelon_LBA-12%
Moroccan-8%
"Sicily_MBA/LBA_1" are three samples from Bronze age Sicily who come out half Greek half Italy Chalcolithic. Two other Sicily_LBA samples score Anatolia_BA not greek so I put them in a separate category.
So, some of the Greek score may be Southern Italy/Sicily.
This is again why I say your claim Imperial Romans may be of largely Greek Southern Italy origin may be true.
@ Archi
I agree. Most people believe Dorians were blonde R1b warriors coming from central Europe brining with them iron weapons and new war tactics. But i have posted in AG that during the IA period and with the Greek-Dark ages,3 new tribes will rise.. and all of them being Greek speaking. I agree that Mycenaean culture collapse simply because of a northern invasion(prolly Sea people) or some time of civil war took place.Also likely this scenario with Dorians and other Greek tribes who settled down from Epirus or South Albania taking the control of the palaces.The point is from where exactly these EV13 lineages are coming from. Some are definitely associated with the Vlach and Albanian settlement of middle ages and even Slavs I would say but it is impossible all of them being associated with such people. In Crete and Islands it is decreased BTW.Pontic Greeks have 7% EV13 witch means they arrived there prolly with Greeks or during Hellenistic and Roman/Byzantine times.
@Michalis
I have a neutral stance since even the majority of Greek historians and archeologists have zero idea what exactly happened during the IA and with the Greek dark ages. Most of them guessworking. Only DNA would help but Lazaridis and other genetistics have more important things to solve first..
@Ioannis Gavras
"Lazaridis and other genetistics have more important things to solve first"
What are the more important things? He is not interested in Mycenaeans, Achaeans, Dorians? Very much like that.
If Dorians were migrants from Central Europe then we could have modeled the Phokacian samples as Mycenean + Unetice but instead Phokacian is identical to Mycenean.
@ Archi
I am joking ofc. I am tweeting him every day on Twitter but he dosn't respond.Even the dzudzuana paper is unsolved pretty much..
@ Romulus
I know. Also one of it, it contains some Levant influence suggesting that Classical Greeks were in contact either with Phoenicians or with people from Anatolia.Dorians wherever they come, we are talking prolly for a mountainous warrior clan who settled in the very southern parts of Greece. Even if they have come from Urnfield, they would have beent in mixing with populations rich in EEF during their journey to Greece. I really doubt they come in Greece as central European Bronze Age folks.To mention also that if they have come from central EU.. lineages like R1b-L51 would have been more frequent today in Greece and in balkans in general. Such lineages barely existing here.Proto-Greeks would have been either R1b-L23 or some R1a lineage I am not sure.It is going to be,a big debate to where Greeks exactly belonged.What I can say for sure is Thracians were R1b-L23 rich that's for sure.
@ Ioannis
But we know that near Thracian had R1a-Z93.
That’s about the limit of Sintashta & related influence in Balkans .
@Davidski
Sir please hear me out.
I am from india. A lot of propaganda is going on here to prove that proto indo Europeans originated from india. I often get it the argument with these people. But due to my limited information of the subject i often get stuck by their questions to which i have no answer. Can you Please help me exposing these people ?
I would tell you their arguments and you would give me the counter arguments.
Please respond
Not a single Thracian has yet been tested.
@ Rob
Oups.My fault.Thanks for correcting me. R1b-Z2103 is very frenquent among Thracian Greeks and northwest Turks(Bithynia, Pafhlagonia),regions were Thracian people used to inhabit. It seems this lineage was a major marker for the ethnogenesis of Thracian people.EV13 as well,if we take serious the EBA sample.For proto-Greeks it is hard to say but R1b-Z2103 is a good guess..
@Abhinav Chauhan
You'll find a lot of info at this blog about how to debunk the Out of India theory. For instance, see here...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/07/the-out-of-india-theory-oit-challenge.html
Just use the search function at the top.
Ioannis
Yes i agree. Thracians are likely to be E-v13, R1b-Z2103, and whatever else (G2a, J2, etc), with an minor adstratum from R1a-Z93 in the pre-Thracian stage
I really look forward to work on Minino, near Moscow, Resset or Butovo culture and Lesnika Cave, Crimea, all EHG, but different with different mito-haplogroups. Since almost all of them are men, it would be very interesting to see their Y-haplogroups. It would be very interesting to see what is the difference in Y-haplogroups between the Mesolithic Crimea and the Moscow region.
@ David
You mentioned earlier this summer that you had some information about an aDNA paper on Old Kingdom Egyptians. Unless I missed it I don't think it's come out yet. You have any update on it? Or any word on any upcoming ancient DNA from Africa, the Middle East, South Asia (particularly anything really ancient, like Upper Paleolithic?)?
@Samuel Andrews
"H2a2 have not been found in Neolithic farmers."
"1,500 samples from Neolithic is enough data to say what mtDNA they had and didn't have."
hehe,
AKT18g Aktopraklik SEF 6469–6393 calBC XX H2a2a
Bla29 Blaetterh MN 3020±61 calBC XX H2a2
@Cy Tolliver
No surprises. That is, no significant Sub-Saharan ancestry in the ancient Egyptians.
The Afro-centrists won't like it.
I'm not aware of any papers on Upper Paleolithic DNA from South Asia. And I don't know if we'll see anything really big until next year, with the pandemic and all.
@Davidski,
Do ancient Egyptians have "Iranian" ancestry? "Iranian" admix appears in Isreal in 3rd millenium BC. Same time as Old kingdom in Egypt.
@Archi,
I'm sorry to say this. But you fell for another trick. Or I should say another mistake which ancient DNA papers often make.
Which is that they label all samples whom they can't label to a specific haplogroup as H2a2a.
This is because the human reference for mtDNA belonges to H2a2a1. rCRS.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cambridge_Reference_Sequence
When an ancient DNA sample is found to have 'no differences' with the reference they label it as H2a2a. By no differences they mean no differences in a the small area of mtDNA they compared to the reference.
O/ T . Anybody an officianado on Yhg J1?
Spill some beans. TIA
@Samuel Andrews
You have written complete nonsense. Do not imagine.
@Archi
Samuel is correct. You're wrong.
In fact, your idea that only U5a in Corded Ware is from the steppe is totally idiotic, since there are several Corded Ware lineages that are found in Yamnaya and they're obviously from the steppe.
@Davidski
No, I'm right. Samuel claims that since he does not know some haplogroups among the Neolithic farmers, then they are from the steppe, and it does not matter that they were not in the steppe. I showed him many times that he does not know well, like with H2a2, which was not in the steppe, but which is just found among Neolithic farmers, but Samuel does not know about it. With some others, they can come from both the steppe, so be it local by Neolithic farmers, so it is impossible for him to decide, that's what I wrote, and Samuel just denied it.
@Archi
Tell us, do you also believe mtDNA H was present in Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers?
Offtopic, but I wonder if there's a new consensus on this unusual Zagros Bronze Age sample.
What's the deal with the high Steppe ancestry in I4243? Could it really be a Mitanni? why is her other half so Caucasian, rather than predominantly local Iranian?
The sample is very out of place.
Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
Distance: 1.7136% / 0.01713646
29.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
29.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
28.8 RUS_Catacomb
12.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
0.0 UZB_Dzharkutan1_BA
Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
Distance: 1.7826% / 0.01782613 | ADC: 0.5x RC
43.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan
32.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
23.6 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
0.0 UZB_Dzharkutan1_BA
Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
Distance: 1.9054% / 0.01905402
32.4 UZB_Kokcha_BA
27.8 RUS_Catacomb
25.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
10.6 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
4.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
Distance: 1.9900% / 0.01989952 | ADC: 0.25x RC
46.4 UZB_Kokcha_BA
40.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
13.6 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
0.0 TUR_Arslantepe_EBA
Here is interesting information: Chronological framework of archaeological complexes of the multi-layer monument Serteya II (according to radiocarbon Dating)
© 2020 A. N. Mazurkevich, P. Kittel, Y. Magro, E. V. Dolbunova, M. Krapets, A. Ginter. "Comprehensive research over the past five years has fundamentally changed the perception of the monument Serteya II (Velizhsky district, Smolensk region). To 5-4 thousand BC are the first identified finds of clay vessels, which can be compared with the materials of the Eneolithic steppe cultures: Khvalynsk, middle don culture and Sredniy Stog. The next period of habitation is marked by the appearance of multicultural materials originating from the territory of The upper and Middle don basin. Thus, the date 4575±35 (Poz-108580) was obtained from the soot of the upper part of the vessel of the middle don culture, and the fishing structure No. 2 in the Eastern part of the monument is synchronous with this event (4440±60 (LE-11879)." Dates are not calibrated. It turns out that we are talking about about 3500-3000 BCE. So the definition of R1a in Serteya II may well not be a mistake. The transparent connection with the eneolite of the don river is also quite logical.
http://www.archeo.ru/izdaniya-1/vagnejshije-izdanija/pdf/radiouglerod-v-arheologii-i-paleoekologii-proshloe-nastoyaschee-buduschee.-red.-n.d.-burovoi-a.a.-vybornova-m.a.-kulkovoi-2013-spb.-iimk-ran-rgpu-samara-sgspu-ooo-porto-print-2020-2013-123-s
Here is another interesting work from the same collection: Sredbiy Stog cultures of the don forest-steppe: Radiocarbon Dating Data
© 2020 A. M. Skorobogatov, R. V. Smolyaninov, P. 242).
"To date, an impressive array of dates has accumulated based on the materials of the Vasilievsky Cordon 17 and Vasilievsky Cordon 27 complexes. the Monuments are located on the upper don. Six Sredniy Stog buildings and 28 and 4 burials were found in these burial settlements. The full publication of these materials is just being prepared, so here we will limit ourselves to the most General results. Unpublished dates From C-14 were calibrated in the OxCal 4.4 program using results with an error of 95.4 %, and we will present them in the values of centuries BC (Cal BC). At Vasilyevsky Cordon 17, 19 dates were obtained for bones from SSC burials, and one date for animal bones from the construction site. From Vasilievsky Cordon 27, there are three dates for materials from buildings, and two dates for SSC burials. Since the last monument, the dates are quite compactly distributed from 37 to 34 centuries BC. on the Vasilievsky Cordon, 17-15 dates show an interval from 41/38 to 34/30 centuries BC. the date on the animal bone corresponds to the main array of dates from burials-38/36 centuries BC.
In addition to the numerous dates of the Upper don, there are two dates for SSC ceramics from the Cherkasskaya-3 site on the Middle don: 4240-3811 Salbc (2σ), 4760-4345 Salbc (2σ).” The situation about SSC population migration is also clear: Pontic steppe-middle don - upper don-Belarus
@Davidski
Regarding no significant SSA ancestry in Ancient Egyptians- Does that hold through for Upper/Southern Egyptians? The new Afrocentric argument is that Egyptian culture is from the South but if these people were no different than Lower/Northern Egyptians that would put that argument irrelevant even if it is true.
@Rob,
I am South Asian with J1-P58. From my relatives on 23dandme with the same caste names we seem to be around 50/50 R1A and J1. I mostly cluster with Jatts, upper caste Muslims (Syeds and UP Muslims) and Northern Brahmins.
Initially I did believe I had Arab ancestry but I cant find any traces, neither on 23andme and also using my own analysis (formal stats and pcas).
There is a thread on Anthrogenica about Punjabi Syeds (caste denotes descent from Muhammed, but most look like upper caste converts to Islam) and they seem to have I2, J1, J2 R1A and other related lineages.
@ Crm
Hajji_Firuz_BA is prolly a hurro-urartian outlier,or some kind of recent immigrant from the steppe mixed with a Mannaean native.Might be a slave as well.. from the region of north caucasus.It seems the area of northwest Iran,transcauacsus and historical Armenia received decent amounts of steppe DNA during the periods.
@Gabriel
"Tell us, do you also believe mtDNA H was present in Mesolithic European hunter-gatherers?"
I have always denied this, there is not facts for this, except for the fact that there was no barrier between the Balkans and Anatolia, therefore there were Anatolian mito-haplogroup H in the Balkans in the Late Mesolithic. I wrote about this to Gaska who pushed this idea. Only I do not understand why this question is to me?
@Ioannis Gavras
North Caucasus I find unlikely, but a model like this makes the most sense imo. Wonder if this is an outlier or a representative of a once existing broader population.
Target: IRN_Hajji_Firuz_BA
Distance: 2.4394% / 0.02439411
54.0 ARM_MBA
46.0 UZB_Kokcha_BA
@ mzp1
Thanks . I’m trying to figure how ot makes it to Europe,
Compared to the more common J2 clades
Yeah so R Yar is now down -dated to 5600 BC. Finally makes sense. Could be linked to CHG ?
I bet Elshanka is overdated too. It needs attention of international experts
mtDNA H isn't Anatolian. Pre-Neolithic Anatolia has U3, K1/ U8b, N1
5600 BCE is 14-17 layers, and R Yar has 20 layers, 17-20 layers previously dated to about 6200 BCE. But this is not the main thing. The dates show that starting from about 6000 BCE, there is a very slow process of movement through the Lower don to the North. First, the SSC is formed, then this tradition reaches the middle don at about 4500 BCE, and by 4000 BCE this tradition reaches the upper don. By 3500 BCE, this tradition rises even further North and apparently covers the Northern (including the North-West and North-East) of Ukraine, capturing the westernmost regions of Russia ( Kursk, Bryansk, Smolensk, Pskov). Apparently, it also comes to Belarus. Very slow movement. Apparently, this is not a direct migration, but a gradual syncretization and assimilation of the forest and forest-steppe population by the steppe people.
If it's an assimilation, then how come the early Corded Ware people in Poland and the Baltics look like they jumped there straight from the steppe?
@ vladimir
it is the other way round. Pontic peoples assimilited other folks from the Volga and the northern caucasus.
PIE archeological traits are all both from the pontic region and from the balkan carpathian folks. PIE expanded with typical pontic Y line R1b M269- R1a M 417 and I2.
@ Vladimir
Not really sure what you're trying to say, but if anything dates to ~ 6000 BC, it'll be 'local' HGs
@Archi,
H2a2a hasn't been found in Steppe yet. I'll give you that. But I haven't seen raw data of it in Neolithic farmers yet. I don't trust projected H2a2a by studies because they aren't transparent in how they determined mtDNA haplogroups.
All the other mtDNA haplogroups I mentioned have been found in the Steppe and not found in Neolithic farmers.
Considering that we can safely say over 50% of Corded Ware mtDNA is of Steppe origin.
@Davidski,
Can you answer my question about old kingdom egyptians?
@Davidski
Do you mean autosomal? First of all, we don't have autosomal data from this time and area yet. Second, when you talk about identity with the steppe, you probably mean the earliest samples of Yamnaya? I have already said that the population of the steppe and forest-steppe of the don apparently was similar more or less EHG / WHG. EEF they took from the remains of Tripoli in the same amount. The only thing that may be a small difference between Ymnaya Kolmukiya and CWC of the Baltic States is with the share of CHG, in the Baltic States it may be less.
@Samuel
I can't answer that question.
@Vladimir
You're not making any sense.
If the hunter-gatherers of the forests/forest steppe were assimilated by the expanding steppe pastoralists, then why isn't this reflected in the ancestry of the early Corded Ware people of Poland the Baltics?
Of course, their CHG ancestry is at a very similar level to that in Ukrainian Yamnaya. You should know that by now.
@ Archi
"a recent study on Iberian hunter-gatherers revealed the presence of hg H there in Mesolithic times”
https://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms2656
@A
"a recent study on Iberian hunter-gatherers revealed the presence of hg H there in Mesolithic times”
It contains an erroneous opinion based on outdated speculation and lack of facts. So what is written here is just a bug with obsolete methods before 2013. In Iberia, mt H appears only at the beginning of the Neolithic time.
@Samuel Andrews
"I don't trust projected H2a2a by studies because they aren't transparent in how they determined mtDNA haplogroups."
I don't trust you.
"All the other mtDNA haplogroups I mentioned have been found in the Steppe and not found in Neolithic farmers."
Not all, I have already given you the data that you ignored.
@old europe
" it is the other way round. Pontic peoples assimilited other folks from the Volga and the northern caucasus.
PIE archeological traits are all both from the pontic region and from the balkan carpathian folks. PIE expanded with typical pontic Y line R1b M269- R1a M 417 and I2."
it is the other way round. You wrote an absolute untruth. It is clear that everything was the opposite of what you wrote, there can be no two opinions.
@Vladimir
Thanks for this useful information. There is a population expanding from the Lower Don as it turns out. Now we only need their genetic profile. Is there an English translation of the collection ?
@Davidski
You assume that the admixture of these forest-steppe HG is different, but it is essentially the same as in the steppe, with the exception of CHG. I'm just sure that on the don and further through the North of Ukraine to Belarus and eventually to the Baltic lived I2a with WHG and someone with EHG-R1b or R1a or Q, and maybe all together. Just those of them who lived in the steppe were influenced by CHG probably after 5000 BCE, and those who lived West of the Dnieper under the influence of EEF after 4000 BCE
@Kavkasi
There are separate articles in English, but the entire collection is not in English
@Vladimir
What admixture are you talking about?
https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-_1JSbHXbClQ/Xq4uK-zNO0I/AAAAAAAAI3k/DUF3ACaBGHMhwD00c-FPIRvp3_rQH16ogCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Eneolithic_steppe_PCA2.png
@Vladimir
"By 3500 BCE, this tradition rises even further North and apparently covers the Northern (including the North-West and North-East) of Ukraine, capturing the westernmost regions of Russia ( Kursk, Bryansk, Smolensk, Pskov). Apparently, it also comes to Belarus."
You see, here you are putting facts and your assumptions in one sentence, as if this is something established. You can't do that. You are simply fabricating from a very superficial fragmentary knowledge of the subject. The SSC traditions never reached Belarus; the Dnieper-Donets culture was preserved there until later. Pskov????
@Davidski
Everything I say absolutely fits into this schedule. You see, you have an early CWC a little closer to EHG/WHG, Ymnaya a little closer to CHG. That's about the difference. The difference is of course very small, we can say within the margin of error.
@Archi
A. N. Mazurkevich, P. Kittel, Y. Magro, E. V. Dolbunova, M. Krapets, A. Ginter. "Comprehensive research over the past five years has fundamentally changed the perception of the monument Serteya II (Velizhsky district, Smolensk region). To 5-4 thousand BC are the first identified finds of clay vessels, which can be compared with the materials of the Eneolithic steppe cultures: Khvalynsk, middle don culture and Sredniy Stog. “
As for Pskov, I would advise you to pay attention to Usvyaty culture, especially Usvyaty IV. Here is what archaeologist weaver about this : "the Few fragments with impressions of cord was discovered in the layer B of the settlement Usvyaty IV [11, p. 25], which can be associated with CWC and funnel beaker cultures" and from there "At the moment, chronology of us-Vyatka culture was uravneni and its end refers to the end of IV Millennium BC [17, p. 321]." Later on, the place was formed zhizhitskaya culture CWC.
@Davidski
Thank you for your respond
The blog which you suggested is great but the OIT supporters ask Specific questions and they need Specific answers. Unfortunately that blog does not have those Specific answers.
therefore i need your person help to answer those Specific questions
Most of them are very foolish since the people who ask these questions have no academic undertsanding of key disciplines. They ask these questions mostly by copy pasting from various OIT supporter blogs
but if you point out to them that they are stupid than they start to attack you. So the better way to deal with these people is to answer the questions they ask and after that ask them technical questions in return.
Here is a copy paste of my argument with one of the OIT supporters. I am stuck here. Please help me out.
Note: this is in 2
3 parts because of 4,096 characters limit
Part 1:
Me: genetics tells us that 17% to 20% of indian males carry
Y chromosome haplogroup r1a and various descendant clades of it.
The same r1a is found all over the Europe and central asia
Ever since it has been found out these people are trying to prove that r1a originated in india and indians brought R1a along with vedic culture to Europe and central asia
Now if that is the case Can you tell me how old is the oldest found sample of R1a in South asia/India ??????
In Mesolithic Europe, R1a is characteristic of Eastern Hunter-Gatherers (EHGs). A male EHG of the Veretye culture buried at Peschanitsa near Lake Lacha in Arkhangelsk Oblast, Russia ca. 10,700 BCE was found to be a carrier of the paternal haplogroup R1a5-YP1301 and the maternal haplogroup U4a.
Mathieson et al. (2015) found the paternal R1a-Z93 - the earliest sample of this clade ever found at Alexandria, Ukraine ca. 4000 BCE, Sredny Stog culture.
The R1a clade was thus present in Europe at least 12,000 years ago,
Can you tell me how old is the oldest sample of R1b in india/south asia ??????????
oldest R1b sample is
Villabruna, Villabruna, Italy, R1b-L754(xV2219,xP297,xV1636), BC:12030
Ancestor of Haplogroup R1a and R1b is the Haplogroup R* Which has been found, in 24,000 year old remains, known as MA1, found at Mal'ta–Buret' culture near Lake Baikal in Siberia.
Can you tell me how old is the oldest found sample of R* IN INDIA ????
the same truth was proved in recent Rakhigiri excavation.
But the head of the excavation Vasant Shinde. Professor of Archaeology, Deccan College Postgraduate and Research Institute somehow twisted the whole thing (maybe beacuse of the pressure of the government) and said in the press conference that Rakhigiri excavation proved Aryan migration wrong because the skeleton DNA didn’t match any Iranian or central Asian
Part 2:
THIS IS EXTREAMY STUPID
Vasant Shinde has either gone mad or someone has threatened him thats why he is saying all of this. He know whats going on here.
The story he told in the media doesn't match what Rakhigiri excavation tells us and it makes ZERO sense. But he is able to fool a lot of uneducated people with single digit IQ who used to get failed in their science exams
NOW READ THIS CAREFULLY AND IF YOU CANT UNDERSTAND ALL OF THIS IN ONE GO THAN READ THIS AGAIN AND AGAIN, UNTIL YOU UNDERSTAND WHATS GOING ON HERE
The 'Aryan' migration theory says that this migration happened AFTER the Indus Civilization and, therefore, there will be NO Steppe-related genetic presence in sites like Rakhigarhi - which is exactly what is found!
The rakhigadi excavation proved that arayan migration was true. Not wrong. The 4500 year old the skeleton' DNA didn’t match any Iranian or central Asian
BUT TODAY'S PEOPLE'S DO.
Today 17% to 21% of indian's DNAs match with European and central Asian DNA.
Where did they come from ?
Why 17% to 21% of today's indian population has European and central Asian DNA when The 4500 year old the skeleton' DNA didn’t match any Iranian or central Asian ??????
This is how cocky stupidity spreads. It’s like looking at a prepubescent child’s photo and concluding “It PROVES he never ever had a moustache in his life.“ Harappa civilisation waned 4000 years ago and Aryan migration waves started only 3900 years ago
Part 3:
In short, the Rakhigarhi DNA study confirms the earlier understanding that the Harappan Civilization was built by a mixed population of First Indians and West Asians (Dravidians), and that the Steppe pastoralists who brought Indo-Aryan languages to India were not present in the region then.
Here is a simple question give me a simple answer. Dont write book long COMMENTS.
If the OUT OF INDIA theory is true than why the oldest sample of R1a is found outside the india? Why the oldest sample of its sister clade R1b is found outside the india ?
Why the oldest sample of the ancestor of both of these clades the R* is found outside the india ?
The whole family of R1a has been found outside the india
The R1a clade was present in Europe at least 12,000 years ago,
The R1b clade was present in Europe at least 14,000 years ago,
The The R* clade was present in Europe at least 24,000 years ago,
While in india The 4500 year old the skeleton' found in The rakhigadi excavation DNA didn’t have any R1a or R1b or R*
BUT TODAY'S PEOPLE'S DO.
Today 17% to 21% of indian's DNAs match with European and central Asian DNA.
Where did they come from ?
Why 17% to 21% of today's indian population has European and central Asian DNA R1a when The 4500 year old the skeleton's DNA didn’t match any Iranian or central Asian ??????
Why is that ?
Part 4:
To which he answerd:
oldest sample may be found outside of india but the oldest r1a is from india: Underhill (2010) examined this DNA and found that the oldest haplotypes of the DNA is from india. Branch M434 was distributed in West Asia , M458 in Europe and Z93 in India, M458 is NOT present outside Europe, hence no migration took place from Europe. While indian branch is present outside India hence There was a migration from india R1a* IS present in india which provides a strong evidence for it's autochthonous origin . Indian origin of paternal group r1a1* https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg20082?error=cookies_not_supported&code=b8cdbd6b-53da-4b21-8ab4-2754ed4ef38c
r1a age of Central Asian: 8600 yrs Europe: 11000 India: Kashmiri pandits: 18800 yrs Himachal:15500 Pakistan:14400 As we move away from india, the age of the haplogroup decreases https://www.nature.com/articles/jhg20082/tables/3?error=cookies_not_supported&code=27249d93-7e2b-4bbf-936d-200f149a8aa5
India is the Only place in the world where cousin groups like r1b R2 and parent group k is present, therefore it was migration from east to West Regarding rakhigarhi dna, it was Most propably that of a migrant . The Indus Valley area was multi-ethnic and multi-linguistic. Crucially, the skeletons in the cemeteries are believed to account for only a small fraction of the population of the cities.Obviously, a large number of Harappans were disposing of their dead by cremation or exposure. The skeletons at Harappa showed similar levels of nourishment, implying they belonged to people of one economic group. Startlingly, analysis also suggests the skeletons interred hundreds of years apart in Harappa and Farmana, about 50 kilometres from Rakhigarhi, may all have belonged exclusively to first generation migrants to the region. Department of Genetics scientist Peter Underhill stated that the ‘the overall distribution of various R1a lineages is a minority fraction’. So the absence of R1a in such a small sample proves nothing conclusively.
Now please help me answering this.
@Davidski
Why is the CHG component of Progress pulled closer towards the Iran_N cluster?
https://i.imgur.com/szQPZaP.png
Here is another interesting work: "the First stage was identified on the basis of rare finds of fragments of vessels with cord impressions in layer B of the usvyata IV settlement and isolated finds of axes with A-type drill. This stage refers to the time of development of the so called A-horizon of the CWC, which accounts for the first half of III Millennium BC the Emergence of the elements of the CWC during the second quarter of the III Millennium BC in the Upper Dvina region can be linked to the territory of Central Europe." “A. M. mikljaev noted that ceramic vessels with cord impressions are found among the materials of the Usvyaty culture of the middle Neolithic. It dates back to the IV-III thousand BC (3488-3096 years BC — for the first and 3078-2208 years BC — for the second stages, respectively)."
For citation: Tkach E. S. model of the spread of the corded ware culture in the Upper Dvina // Bulletin of Saint Petersburg University. History. 2019.
@CrM
That's because you don't have the right reference samples. Progress doesn't really have CHG ancestry, and even its EHG ancestry isn't like Karelia_HG.
@Abhinav Chauhan
Thanks to ancient DNA there won't be anywhere to hide for people who are arguing against reality.
I'll be adding more info to this map as it becomes available.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html
For now, there's no point wasting energy on pointless arguments.
@Vladimir
"Serteya II (Velizhsky district, Smolensk region)"
It is not Belarus.
"As for Pskov, ... "Usvyaty IV [11, p. 25], which can be associated with CWC and funnel beaker cultures""
Here you pulled out the right quote about the time of the CWC, and quite wrongly adjusted it to the SSC. That is, you insolently interpreted the world associated with CWC to SSC from the text that talks about CWC.
Zižice culture is not part of the CWC, no matter how you fantasize.
@Abhinav Chauhan
Answer this way, Underhill (2010, ...) was mistaken, he undefined haplogroups, so he was mistaken. He fully admitted his mistakes and he is now silent. It is because of his shameful mistake that misunderstanding arose, ordinary scientists are also mistaken, and he is mistaken very often, he is biased.
@Vladimir
I guess you don't know that Yamnaya samples from the Don area are exactly the same.
So no, there's no admixture in early Corded Ware.
However , isn’t Vlad correct to point out that that the exact relationship between CWC & Yamnaya is not clear at present; given the lack of R1a-M417 in the latter
@ Davidski
Do I understand correctly ? Was Yamnaya samples of the Don the same as Corded Ware ? Or did I miss something ?
I don't know yet what the relationship was between Yamnaya and Corded Ware.
But yeah, Yamnaya from the Lower Don is basically identical to early Corded Ware.
And there's Eneolithic R1a coming from burials in the Lower/Middle Don.
@Davidski
"And there's Eneolithic R1a coming from burials in the Lower/Middle Don."
Alexandria? It is from the Middle Don region and at best belongs to the Dereivka culture, if at all belongs to the Eneolithic.
@Davidski
OK. The EHG part is different from Karelia on the account of it having less WHG, correct?
I can't help but wonder about the CHG-related signal in Eneolithic-BA Central Asia, what's up with that? and it specifically prefers the Progress CHG (or whatever that is).
https://imgur.com/a/MeqPk69
Eneolite of the lower/middle don what year is it? I think dates and places are very important here. Until about 3700 BCE, the population from the Dnieper and apparently to the Volga was about the same. This is a large circle of cultures Sredniy Stog / Lower/middle Don/ Khvalynsk. They were basically R1a/R1b. To the left of the don R1b, on the right Bank of the don R1a. Closer to the Volga, Q was added to them, and closer to the Dnieper, I2a. Then something happens and Repino appears on the left Bank of the don about 3700 BCE. At this time, Konstantinovka ( Eastern SSC) still existed on the right Bank. Over time, Repino covers the entire territory from the Dnieper to the don and grows into Yamnaya. I think that one of the tribes of this community (Z2103) that lived to the North of the Kumo-Manych basin came into contact with the tribes of the steppe Maykop that came to this area from the South. Other tribes R1b-L51, apparently lived North of Z2103 on the left Bank of the don, and R1a, lived on the right Bank of the don. No combat actions are recorded between R1b-Z2103 and R1b-L51. Apparently their range was initially different. Z2103 steppe, L51 forest-steppe. But the fighting between Repino and Konstantinovka was serious. The settlement of Konstantinovka on the right Bank of the don was burned. I fully admit that R1a were on good terms with Tripoli and may even have acted as their confederates, so they are found for example in Usatovo. This may be the Tripolye C stage. But after Z2103 destroyed the Eastern Sredniy Stog (Konstantinovka) Tripoli was doomed. The R1A-M417 tribes that lived in the steppe moved North to the forest-steppe, where R1a-M417 also lived. In the very South near the sea of Azov probably lived pre Z93, further North in the forest-steppe pre CTS4385 and pre M458. And pre CTS4385 apparently lived on the Dnieper, apparently it was the most North-Western tribe. Pre M458 lived in the middle and upper don region. Approximately in the same area, but on the left Bank of the don lived R1b-L51. Apparently, these two tribes went together to the West. The northernmost tribes were pre Z280 and pre Z284. And those and others apparently lived in the forest area Serteya II, Usviaty IV). This is a period of 3500-3000 BCE. Before that, both Z645 and M417 still lived further South in the steppe - forest-steppe.
@Archi
These samples are definitely from the Eneolithic. You won't be able to argue with this.
@Davidski
"These samples are definitely from the Eneolithic. You won't be able to argue with this."
Only by one date I don't trust. Archaeologically, anthropologically, genetically, nothing points to the Eneolithic, definitely nothing. You won't be able to argue with this. In Alexandria, there was a site of Abashevo culture, to which this burial is most similar, somewhere the Abashevians had to bury their dead.
@Vladimir
".... Apparently, these two tribes went together to the West. The northernmost tribes were pre Z280 and pre Z284. And those and others apparently lived in the forest area Serteya II, Usviaty IV). This is a period of 3500-3000 BCE. Before that, both Z645 and M417 still lived further South in the steppe "
Usviaty IV? LOL. You fantasize so zealously in everything, but do not take into account dates at all, TMRCA M417 = 3300BC -> Z645 = 2900BC -> Z280 = 2600BC -> Z284 = 2200BC
Off Topic:
The mixed genetic origin of the first farmers of of Europe
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.23.394502v1.full.pdf
"We find that strict stepwise scenarios are better supported than scenarios allowing
for a long-distance migration from the Aegean directly to Lower Austria (Fig. S30e, Supp.
Table 4). Importantly, scenarios without HG introgression into early farmer populations are
clearly rejected. It implies that early farmer communities incorporated a few HG individuals
(2-6%, Fig. S31) at all major stages of the dispersal along the Danubian corridor"
Stewpwise migration of farmers might also correlate with climate adaptation of crops to areas further north.
For a good summary also see:
http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/index.php?post/2020/11/26/Origine-g%C3%A9n%C3%A9tique-des-premiers-fermiers-Europ%C3%A9ens
@Archi
This remark is correct. But there is a theoretical question. What happens before? Separation of a tribe or formation of a subclade Y. In any case, the two processes are not synchronous. It may be that the tribe was divided when all men had a subclades Z282, or it may be that while they were still one tribe, they formed Y17491, PF6155, Y2395, Z280. If the second assumption is correct, then the division of Z283 has already occurred in Europe, in Poland, for example. A from Russia (Ukraine/Belarus) they left as a single tribe Z283, and all this movement from the steppe/forest-steppe to the forest area occurred when they were still Z645.
The First Farmers paper seems like a good attempt to use whole genomes to distinguish between the waves of advance and dynamics of admixture into SE Europe from EEF and the datings of the divergence between WHG and South Eastern HG. Rather than the same old capture DNA that is not usable for those methods. There isn't really any ancient DNA from the region they label as a refugia for WHG (SE France) that refutes their model either (El Miron is elsewhere, Northern Spain).
It would be good for them to extend the model using high coverage Ust-Ishim and Sunghir to identify if they really do not require Basal Eurasian, using these methods. That could also help w/ establishing check for dating method and model of population structure.
@Vladimir
"....and all this movement from the steppe/forest-steppe to the forest area occurred when they were still Z645."
You do not understand. Don't you have absolutely no understanding about the times? They left when there was a whole M417, all Z645s are already purely CWC. Before that, there was simply no Z645 in Eastern Europe, as well as its subclades, they came from Central Europe.
@ Matt
"There isn't really any ancient DNA from the region they label as a refugia for WHG (SE France) that refutes their model either (El Miron is elsewhere, Northern Spain)."
This is not essential. This is not a different place at all. The difference is only a few kilometers.
@Archi
But what about the fact that in Central Europe, the oldest sample from the Z645 branch is Rise61.sg 2850-2490 BCE? By this time, not only Z645, but even Z283 and even Z282 had broken up. Even this sample was assigned to Z284.
Hi Folks, WRT to the Marchi First Farmers paper, they specifically state that they don't know where the mixing occurred and that the areas marked on the maps are supposition. Cheers,
Guy
@Vladimir
You have some strange misunderstanding of dates. 2850-2490 BCE is not a date, it is a range in which the sample date can be.
And TMRCA is when there lived one single person from whom all branches of a given haplogroup originated, in order for it to reproduce takes centuries. Learn.
Real Rise61 is assigned to 2650-2300 BC. TMRCA 4200 ybp (<4700 ybp).
@Archi,
R1a M417 is older than Corded Ware. Basal R1a M417 clades began before Corded Ware.
This is why there's regional R1a M417 in Corded Ware.
R1a L664 in Germany/Poland
R1a Z283>Z93 in Russia
R1a Z284>Z284 in Scandinavia
The ancestor of Balto-Slavic R1a was somewhere separate as well.
There was also R1b L51 in Germany, Netherlands, Poland Corded Ware as well.
Corded Ware was created by multiple different Indo European clans who each had a different Y DNA.
@Archi,
If derived forms of R1b Z2103 existed in Yamnaya in 3000 BC, then that means R1b L151 existed in 3000 BC as well. It also means R1a Z93 existed in 3000 BC.
@All,
Northern Europe/Corded Ware was the secondary Indo European homeland.
All Indo European clans, except the R1b Z2103 ones, relocated to Northern Europe. That is what Corded Ware is.
Central Asia/Andronovo can be said to be the third Indo European homeland. Because Indo-Iranian is the biggest Indo European branch.
Sredny Stog>Corded Ware>Andronovo
4000 BC>2500 BC>1500 BC
PIE>LPIE>Indo Iranian
@Sam
I think you're right. Would explain why all of our modern IE languages are so far removed from Anatolian and Tocharian, those did not come out of CW.
“ And TMRCA is when there lived one single person from whom all branches of a given haplogroup ”
Hehe, all extant branches don’t derive from a single person; but an entire clan carrying the same lineage
@ Guy
The admixture dates are 10,000 years too young
In fact, there is no admixture or budding off from a “SE refuge” to a central to a western one
Such a process did not occur
And one can always make the effort of reading archaeological literature to gather they lay of the land
@Samuel Andrews
"R1a M417 is older than Corded Ware. Basal R1a M417 clades began before Corded Ware."
Thank you, Captain Obvious. You teachings are very valuable to us, especially since they were written earlier. You have to learn to read.
"They left when there was a whole M417" November 30, 2020 at 2:35 AM
"Corded Ware was created by multiple different Indo European clans who each had a different Y DNA."
The CWC was created by one clan, the entire divergence took place within the framework of the CWC divergence into different variants.
" If derived forms of R1b Z2103 existed in Yamnaya in 3000 BC, then that means R1b L151 existed in 3000 BC as well. It also means R1a Z93 existed in 3000 BC."
You have logic problems. One does not follow from the other.
"All Indo European clans, except the R1b Z2103 ones, relocated to Northern Europe"
Moved only one clan to CWC and only Indo-Europeans to CWC. R1b-Z2103 is the Yamnaya culture, we do not have a single Indo-European language descendant from the Yamnaya culture and R1b-Z2103, they could not even be Indo-Europeans, but Kartvels.
"Central Asia/Andronovo can be said to be the third Indo European homeland. Because Indo-Iranian is the biggest Indo European branch."
This is an amateurish statement.
@Rob
"“ And TMRCA is when there lived one single person from whom all branches of a given haplogroup ”
Hehe, all extant branches don’t derive from a single person; but an entire clan carrying the same lineage"
You have absolutely no knowledge of elementary genetics. You don't know at all how mutations occur.
Whilst the splitting off of Bichon/ Loschbour is 8,000 years too early.
There’s hard aDNA data from Western Europe which they can look to ..
Northern Europe/Corded Ware was the secondary Indo European homeland.
Nope you forgot to mention western Yamnaya.
LPIE ( less anatolian which is likely connected with Cernavoda) was spoken in the western half of Yamnaya.
We now know that CWC is just western Yamnaya invading central and northern europe. So if we want to search for a secondary homeland ( a rather idiotic concept tough) it is to be found in western Ukraine, eastern Romania and Moldova). So south eastern europe if you prefer.
@ Archi
''You have absolutely no knowledge of elementary genetics. You don't know at all how mutations occur.''
Like I said, the offpsring of later or extand branches derive from a host of forebears, not a single person.
If you had, on the other hand, had a clue about anything, you wouldn't keep boring us with your out-of-Siberia Nostratic crap
@Rob
But we need to somehow explain the affinity of a 26k old sample from Dzudzuana to WHG. Can't be migration into Europe because of Dzudzuana's Basal Eurasian, absent in WHG. We also need to explain the presence of a WHG affinity in Magdalenian El Miron just after the LGM.
I recently read somewhere that the Solutrean and the Badegoullian - the latter being considered proto-Magdalenian - are distinctly different. The Solutrean presence in SW France has a hiatus after which Badegoullian can be proven. I somehow think the Solutrean might proof to be very interesting in this respect.
Another interesting thing is this: Fig 5 in de Dzudzuana paper shows that Gravettians and El Miron show similar affinity to Dzudzuana. Yet, if modeled, Gravettians only carry 10% WHG whereas El Miron carry's up to 60% is some models. That could mean in my humble amateurs opinion two things:
1) Gravettians contributed somehow to Dzudzuana
or
2) The WHG part in El Miron is somehow related to WHG but far less to Dzudzuana, which could be explained if WHG is an admixture from two distinct ancestries: a Dzudzuana-ish affinity and a Magdalenian-ish affinity.
@Samuel Andrews
"We now know that CWC is just western Yamnaya invading central and northern europe."
It is not true. Nobody knows this. There is no evidence for this.
"Romania and Moldova). So south eastern europe if you prefer."
There is not the slightest proof of this, everything that we know about Yamnaya from this region does not show ancestry to the CWC, there are other haplogroups.
@Rob
"Like I said, the offpsring of later or extand branches derive from a host of forebears, not a single person."
I hope everyone can see how much this person always writes without knowing anything about what he is writing, completely not owning even basic elementary knowledge and at the same time shouting.
"If you had, on the other hand, had a clue about anything, you wouldn't keep boring us with your out-of-Siberia Nostratic crap"
This is a fact no one denies today. And you bother with your senseless and useless anybody nonsense in every message of an ignorant person who has not received even an elementary education.
@ Archi
We know how mutations occur. The problem is your bar is so low that you can’t see above it
“ This is a fact no one denies today. ”
Lol. Please don’t project your delusions. But I guess that’s why you need to hallucinate R1a in Mesolithic Siberia
@Rob
"We know how mutations occur. The problem is your bar is so low that you can’t see above it"
Are you the king? You do not know, otherwise you would not have written such nonsense.
"Lol. Please don’t project your delusions. But I guess that’s why you need to hallucinate R1a in Mesolithic Siberia"
This is your hallucination, you do not see the Paleolithic Malta-boy and the relationship of the early Mesolithic EHG-R1a 13 thousand years ago and later from Veretier with ANE and WSHG from Siberia. Are you blind?
@epoch
"But we need to somehow explain the affinity of a 26k old sample from Dzudzuana to WHG."
The affinity is overrated and mostly hypothetical.
@Archi
It was the user known as "Old Europe" who said that "CWC is just western Yamnaya invading central and northern Europe", not Samuel Andrews.
@Old Europe
Why is the idea of a "secondary" PIE homeland idiotic?
Archie'
Yes something about birds and feathers and Siberia-Onega-IE
It's hardly sensical, but good for a laugh, and a good insight into how the pseudo-scholar bends reality around them
@ epoch
- I think the Gravettian is that link, which appears 36-33,000 calBP. Not quite the Vestonice variety - because it’s ‘diluted” by preceding aurignacian admixture
Not to keep harping on; but the paper in question has simply taken some statistical constructions at face value
- there isn’t a hiatus between Solutrean and badegoulian, insofar there is a clear demographic continuity in SW France & Cantabria
But yes there’s a significant technological shift or series of shifts within a short tomeframe (~23,000 -21000 calBP). The specialists are not sure why this came about, and in this case it really is difficult to say (climate ? New migrations ?)
Archi looks for the smallest thing to nitpick. He has no arguments. Mesolithic R1a in Siberia? West Eurasian ydna P? steppe gene pool only composed of U5a? All funny delusions he has.
@Rob
Yes, there is other aDNA data to look at, but it isn't as high a quality. They used only high coverage shotgun sequenced aDNA and applied tools (and a consistent tool chain) that require high quality genomes. If they got different results then maybe the results from lower quality genomes and less accurate tool chains should be questioned. For example, S53 - the Admix Graph - shows potential relationships that had not previously been visible. As far as their analysis goes... some of it seemed a bit un-nuanced. But they label their speculation as speculation. Cheers,
Guy
@Tigran
"Archi looks for the smallest thing to nitpick. He has no arguments. Mesolithic R1a in Siberia?"
You are delusional and you lie. You are using the lies of the liar Rob, I have always argued whose Mesolithic European R1a came from Paleolithic Siberia (in Paleolithic Europe it does not exist), but I never denied that R1a in Siberia could have been in the Mesolithic, anyone who denies this is a sick delusional, because we have no data about Mesolithic Siberia west of Baikal (it is only in early Neolithic on Baikal).
"West Eurasian ydna P?"
You are lying as always, I wrote that it is Central Eurasian. Everyone laughs at you because of your nonsense that P is from Southeast Asia. Everyone laughs at you that you don't know anything and don't read anything.
"steppe gene pool only composed of U5a?"
I did not assert this, I argued that only it (and several more haplogroups) can be reliably considered Eastern European. The rest could have come directly from local farmers.
"All funny delusions he has."
Tigran, everyone laughs at your nonsense, as well as at Rob. You, under all your numerous nicknames, showed that you know nothing at all, but only delusional without having a single argument.
@Guy
You're making some very optimistic comments about the Marchi paper.
However, the really obvious flaw with this paper is that it assumes that high quality genomes are the only way to get accurate results, and on top of that, they seem to think that whatever they do with these high quality genomes is awesome.
Of course, that's not true. We know that low quality genomes also produce reliable results when analyzed properly, because they behave like very high quality modern samples in such analyses.
So no, this paper won't make it through peer review in its current form, unless we're talking about some low impact journal.
Let's see what happens when it comes back to bioRxiv for another round after failing peer review. Then I'll post about it and we can discuss it.
Kinda tangible to the blog post, when is the Saag et al. paper supposedly coming out? I messaged her on qpAdm stuff and it seemed like it was about done.
@ Archie
“ anyone who denies this is a sick delusional, because we have no data about Mesolithic Siberia west of Baikal (it is only in early Neolithic on Baikal).”
Thats why Mereke, Kumsay, Botai and Sintashta outliers are Q1a and N1; whilst all the R1a is a post Bronze Age founder effect of Z93
You’re mega clued up
@ Archi
Please tell me what is a Central Eurasian. Do they cluster with NE Asians, Kosenteki type peoples, Use-Ishim? You purposely try to cause confusion. You know P is either SE Asian or from China.
@ Guy
“ Yes, there is other aDNA data to look at, but it isn't as high a quality. They used only high coverage shotgun sequenced aDNA and applied tools (and a consistent tool chain) that require high quality genomes. If they got different results then maybe the results from lower quality genomes and less accurate tool chains should be questioned.”
their results are inconsistent with all lines of evidence (genome-wide, uni parental; archaeological)
They can restrict their analysis to 100x coverage if they wish; but if their apparatus is broke it wont make any difference
@Rob: "However , isn’t Vlad correct to point out that that the exact relationship between CWC & Yamnaya is not clear at present; given the lack of R1a-M417 in the latter"
The relationship of Yamnaya and CWC seems to be pretty clear, because we know the Lower Don Culture is at the root of the steppe people's cultural evolution and therefore also most likely at the root of their ancestral steppe component.
From the LDC Sredny Stog emerged, of which Khvalynsk was just an offshot. This was offshot was late replaced and on the Easter flank, probably with more influences from the East, from Maykop, Yamnaya emerged. But unlike the earlier Eastern offshot, this time the Eastern group came back and drove the central and Western groups from the steppe.
By doing so, they forced the Western groups either up into the forest steppe, or through the Carpathians, or straight down into the Balkans.
That was rhe relationship of Yamnaya to Corded Ware and other Western steppe groups most likely. They were an offshot, a branch to the East, with reduced diversity, especially on the paternal side, and were so successful for a time that they could force all competitors from the steppe. They were the pusher which caused the big Indoeuropean migration period to start and to overrun the Western Neolithic neighbours, with which the Western groups were in close contact before, like TCC.
The only really important question which is unanswered is how the CHG/Iranian-like admixture came to the Lower Don region, and for that to answer we need samples from places like especially R. yar. That's nothing new, most people should know that for years by now. I still think the CHG-like people moved as early part-Neolithic people , with domesticated animals, but still primarily fishers, around the Black Sea, along the coast, fairly late probably. The Black Sea level is now much higher, most of their settlements on the way might be under water actually.
Likewise, in the Balkan-Anatolian sphere, with Cernavoda/Troy, early Greeks, Anatolians and Thracians, we just need the samples to be sure what really happened. Unfortunately for these and later times cremation is a major obstacle for various groups and phases.
In this context its almost a disappointment if a new report comes up telling us something marginally new about something like early farmers in the Balkans. But the spread of farming is probably still a preferred topic, the later, "more ethnic" stories being not as loved. Or they have troubles with putting results into context and still have to gather more?
A worse preservation can hardly be the reason.
@Rob=Mamonth Hanter=....=.....=
Don't be ridiculous, your well-known statements
- That PIE from the Balkans.
- That the Mycenaean civilization began in 2500BC.
- That the Greeks captured Greece in 2500BC, but hid in it secretly, hiding from historians.
- That the chariots were blown to Greece by the wind.
- That fish was not eating in Greece and therefore there did not exist High Marine reservoir effect. (By the way, the High Marine reservoir effect is two to three times stronger than the Fresh Water reservoir effect.)
- That Epigravettian descended directly from the Gravettians, that the later Orignacians did not exist at all.
- That PIE has been in Europe since the early Paleolithic, right from erectuses.
- That PIE has no related languages at all, it arose by spontaneous generation in European erectuses. Therefore, his affinity with the Uralic languages, confirmed by everyone, is my personal invention.
- ....
- ....
Archi that comment should go into the eurogenesr hall of fame
European Erectuses?
Mamonth Hanter?
Have you been another Krefter account all along?
@zardos
"The relationship of Yamnaya and CWC seems to be pretty clear, because we know the Lower Don Culture"
This is about nothing, the Lower Don Culture is a Neolithic culture and it is ancestral to some extent only to Sredny Stog, while Yamnaya and CWC are Bronze Age cultures, there was the Eneolithic in between and none of them originated from Sredny Stog directly. Actually, in Sredny Stog there are still no signs of Indo-European cultures, in fact, such signs appear only in Dereivka culture.
So this is not really an answer about the relationship between Yamnaya and the CWC.
"From the LDC Sredny Stog emerged, of which Khvalynsk was just an offshot."
Khvalynsk was not an offshoot of Sredny Stog, that's a fact. But the Danilovo group could well have been an offshoot of the Khvalynsk culture, although it is included in the SSC. It's just that Danilovo has a lot that is in Khvalynsk.
@Davidsky, create a topic on the Neolithic article and describe what is new with it, what it argues with, what it contradicts, describe your view and your opinion.
I've worked the ancient Roman DNA to a tee. I agree with Michalis they come from the Greek colonies.
Imperial Roman population with no Italian admixture.
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1cjoGNwtJhPrM-_xMlGBcjloGVFW4EkgsKe5wTpSlzzI/edit?usp=sharing
Pop1: Greek, plus mainly Syria, with some Anatolia
Pop2: Greek, plus Anatolia
Pop3: Sicily, plus Syria, plus minor NW Africa
Pop 4: Sicily, plus NW AFrica, plus minor Syria.
The first video on my channel will be on ancient Roman DNA.
Southern Italians can get their best fits with Imperial Roman pops plus Northern Italy/Iron age Central Italy.
Central Italy does better with French/North Euro contribution.
Region, Imperial Roman %
Calabria: 66%
Campania: 62%
Basilica: 60%
Apulia: 58%
Medieval Rome: 61% (higher than modern Central Italy)
This solves the mystery of the origins of Southern Italians and probably of all "East Med" ancestry in Southern Europe. The answer is Greek Colonies.
For some reason, people from Greek colonies were moved into Roman empire in large numbers. They outnumber other foreigners in Rome by huge margins. Which brings up questions about Roman history and why that was.
Ancient Roman DNA doesn't show a melting pop, it is dominated by people from one "immigrant" background.
@Samuel Andrews
Well, there were many Greek colonies in Southern Italy that predated the Roman empire by many centuries. It wasn't called Magna Graecia by accident. So even if the ancient Italic tribes of Southern Italy were like the Latins, as the insiders are asserting, the inhabitants of the Greek colonies were certainly different and predominantly Greek.
It is mostly Greek but not all Greek. There is indigenous Southern Italian ancestry in Imperial Romans but it isn't like Latins.
It matches Sicily LBA/MBA. 11 Imperial samples and one Etruscan outlier have this kind of ancestry.
So, these type of people survived in Southern Italy into the Iron age. Maybe they weren't the Italic ones, maybe the Italic tribes there matched Latins.
@Davidski
There's this rather unusual Kumyks40 sample in G25 that is unlike the Kumyk average. What's curios about it is that it behaves like the "Georgian" (I assume that's an East Georgian) sample on MDLP World22.
Do you have any idea if Kumyks40 is in fact an East Georgian? Would be an interesting glimpse on East Georgian genetics if that turns out to be the case.
MDLP World22:
Distance: 2.1672% / 2.16720768
Target: Georgian
68.8 Chechen
31.1 Georgian_Laz
0.1 Mongol
G25:
Target: Kumyk:kumyks40
Distance: 2.5910% / 0.02591007
53.8 Georgian_Laz
46.2 Chechen
0.0 Mongolian
Typical Kumyk on G25:
Target: Kumyk:kumyks1
Distance: 3.0464% / 0.03046434
75.2 Chechen
12.6 Georgian_Laz
12.2 Mongolian
Sicily MBA/LBA has some Anatolian BA. It makes sense that these people didn't disappear in the Iron Age. What exactly the various Italic tribes of Southern Italy were like remains to be seen. Some may have been Italic-like, but others may have been more admixed with the BA-descended locals.
And by the way, while the Latins had a decent WHG ancestry of around 11% (in Rome), the Protovillanovan singleton from northern Abruzzo has only 2.6% WHG. We don't know if that individual was Italic or Etruscan. So there may have been some variation among Italics.
@Guy, I would guess paper is mostly good to go. They should probably acknowledge more explicitly that they more agnosticism on the location deep split they've identified within Euro HG (Villabruna related) lineages - between "Western" and "Central" - really could be between Epigravettian in Italy vs SE Europe, and they should incorporate Lazaridis's questions about Basal Eurasian by testing models incorporating Ust Ishim to their SFS graph if they can. (This is of course the purpose of preprinting for peer review, right? Journals probably aren't going to always pick up on this stuff.). There are some stylized features to the model, but very many models with more abstracted versions of population history (e.g. simple split between West Eurasians and East Eurasians) are frequently used in journals.
But other than this, it seems an worthwhile paper to test the Site Frequency Spectrum based methods of population history directly on ancient genomes sampled in ways where they can usefully be employed. If you're interested (and you may not need this); there's a good post on GCat blog about what the SFS is, and why it is important and useful in reconstructing population history - https://theg-cat.com/tag/site-frequency-spectrum/ .
As I understand it, in theory this should provide a more sensitive method of detecting and timing declines in population size, over time, and also detecting population expansions.
The methods of capture dna are based on identifying and enriching ancient dna capture for those SNPs which are longstanding polymorphic across human populations, and primarily ascertained in Africans who are the most diverse and root populaton, but which are also mostly assumed to be selectively neutral (with some good evidence for this plausible because at mostly similar frequencies of standing variation). Then the changes in frequencies of these variants are used to reconstruct population history (mostly from loss of the minor alleles during drift), and there is not really much means to detect population expansions.
Actually sampling the whole genome at high coverage, and detecting expansions and contractions in singleton variants should allow for a more detailed reconstruction of population history and expansions and contractions for same number of genomes. (See GCat post for why this should be so).
(Given this being the case would differ here and say, I think it's unlikely it won't see print in a significant journal, as all the other papers from this group have, esp if incorporating above peer review from Lazaridis).
Off Topic:
Human mobility at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) during the 2nd millennium BC: integration of isotopic and genomic evidence
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.23.351882v1.full.pdf
Tell Atchana is located in the Amuq Valley of southern Turkey.
from the discussion
"...the common ancestryat Alalakh was widespread over a larger area which stretched southeastward at least until Ebla. Consequently, aDNA’s resolution for scenarios of micro-regional migration might be limited. The genetic homogeneity of the samples from Alalakh suggests that the recent ancestors of most individuals came from within the wider Amuq-Ebla region, rather than beyond, which conforms well with the overall strontium and oxygen isotopic results that indicate a local upbringing within the Amuq Valley for the majority of sampled individuals."
Also see:
http://secher.bernard.free.fr/blog/index.php?post/2020/12/04/Mobilit%C3%A9-humaine-%C3%A0-Tell-Atchana-en-Turquie-au-second-mill%C3%A9naire-avant-JC.
@Samuel Andrews
There were non-Italic Indo-European people in South Italy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Messapic_language
@ Archi
''That fish was not eating in Greece and therefore there did not exist High Marine reservoir effect. (By the way, the High Marine reservoir effect is two to three times stronger than the Fresh Water reservoir effect.''
By this point it's entirely unecessary for you to keep proclaiming your ignorance, because its well established.
For ex, from 'Establishment of a Greek Food Database for Palaeodiet Reconstruction: Case Study of Human and Fauna Remains from Neolithic to Late Bronze Age from Greece'
For the Early Neolithic early Neolithic - 'Primarily a C3 terrestrial diet. Very little of the dietary protein had a marine origin ''
In contrast, Volga forest-steppe Neolithic / Eneolithic populations primarily ate fish, supplemented by other elements, incl domesticates during special occasions, which they acquired from neighbouring regions
@ Zardos
“ because we know the Lower Don Culture is at the root of the steppe people's cultural evolution ”
Really ? What aspects are they , and what sources made such a simplistic theory ? When did this formulative genesis occur ?
''and therefore also most likely at the root of their ancestral steppe component.''
They were probably a key link for transmitting the steppe ancestry, EHG/ CHG, further afield, but we need to see more data
George said...
" Off Topic:
Human mobility at Tell Atchana (Alalakh) during the 2nd millennium BC: integration of isotopic and genomic evidence"
This is Mockery, anyone is being tested, just not the Hittites. The timing of the test takers is right, but the region is not the right one. Here is necessarily the southernmost part of Turkey had to take just not the one where the Hittites were.
@George
Some aspects of the first paper you mention, were already commented by me on October 25 this year (in this blog) in reply to gamerz_J message, then I wrote as follows:
"[It´s] a saga of a previous one claiming the case of a woman (the Lady of the well) which features Central Asian ancestry possibly connected to Indo-Aryan outliers in Northern Levant with male R1a haplogroup. This new paper adds three individuals with possible Central Asian ancestry but not confirmed by aDNA studies: '...Indeed, dental morphology of the Well Lady shows shoveling of I2, a feature which is passed down genetically and is shared by three other individuals – 42.10.130, buried in the Royal Precinct, ALA012, buried in the extramural cemetery, and ALA139, buried in the Area 4 cemetery – as well as ALA030 (the accident victim found in Area 3), ALA132, and ALA133 (both buried in the Area 4 cemetery), although the trait is less pronounced in these latter three individuals. Of these six individuals, only ALA030 has thus far yielded sufficient aDNA preservation, and this individual is not a genetic outlier among the Alalakh population. It is possible, therefore, that the former three individuals, which show pronounced I2 shoveling, may also be genetic outliers, similar to the Well Lady...' (page 50)."
But now, re-reading the paper, I was able to see that it also points out in Table 1 (page 7) a "Fire/Conflagration ca. 1650 BC" which perfectly fits with the campaing of Hittite king Hattusili I against Alalah in archaeological and C14 grounds, which supports the view that Mitanni kingdom, coeval to Hittite one, already existed in 17th century BCE, with the implication that Indo-Aryan people could have arrived there at that time or even earlier.
@Epoch,
"There were non-Italic Indo-European people in South Italy."
Yeah, I just noticed that on wikipedia as well.
Several Imperial Roman samples are mixed Sicily LBA, NW Africa, and Levantie. Then I read on wikipedia Phoencians colonized a non-IE people in Sicily. So it all makes sense.
@Archi: I know that there is more to it, but we had this debate some time ago and I showed you the references with respect to the dating of Khvalynsk, its origin close to SSC at the Lower Don and its expansion from there with an admixture pattern, culturally and genetically.
Good luck reconstructIng the PIE evolution without the LDC and SSC. Dereivka yes, but its a Western group coming from the wider sphere too and no descendant of Yamnaya.
@Rob: The fusion of the LDC created the (finsl) steppe component most likely and led to a part Neolithic, more sedentary and expansive population.
Its also the people from this fusion which around the area of the Sea Azow came first into contact with Western Neolithic people.
@ Zardos
But that’s not what the data shows The first contact with western Neolithics were BDC and DD2 , not LDC
let’s not just make up stories
@zardos
"its origin close to SSC at the Lower Don and its expansion from there with an admixture pattern, culturally and genetically."
We have no data on the genetics of these culture. Culturally, Khvalynsk does not come from the Lower Don culture.
@Rob
"By this point it's entirely unecessary for you to keep proclaiming your ignorance, because its well established."
Don't write nonsense, you don't know anything. Fish early Neolithic Greeks ate more than on the Volga river. But the fact is that the research is deceived, the business is that in the southern traditions that led to dyed ceramics, they did not cook food in ceramics at all, only dry products were stored in ceramics for long storage, therefore even Atlantic Neolithic fishermen did not seemingly to eat fish at all. This was by the way in one of the recent studies on genetics. Whereas in the northeastern ceramic tradition, food was cooked in ceramics, including fish. All information on fish consumption is obtained almost exclusively from ceramic soot. If we remove the data on ceramic soot, it turns out that no fish ate on the Volga at all.
@ Archie
Nothing to do with pottery residue, they tested isotopic signatures from human remains
-> ''Case Study of Human and Fauna Remains from Neolithic to Late Bronze Age from Greece''
Even the most uninitiated understand that early Farmers predominantly ate cultigens.
@Rob
''Case Study of Human and Fauna Remains from Neolithic to Late Bronze Age from Greece''
This is all complete nonsense. As from that last study of Lazaridis, who, as you remember, investigated the fishing slaves from the Late Bronze Age, who were fishermen and lived on the seashore, and at the same time it is allegedly stated that they did not eat fish! I have never met a more ridiculous statement.
Moreover, you are directly cheating on the paper, here are excerpts from it:
"Furthermore, we can observe a possible contribution of marine protein in Neolithic and Late Bronze age, in specific sites (Fracthi and Kefalas for Neolithic and Almyri, Kritika, Pineiada, and Rymnio for Late Bronze age), as their isotopic values are located to the right upper side of the red rectangle in Figure 2a, d respectively."
"The data from the Neolithic sites of Fragthi and Kefala (Figure 4) are consistent with the consumption of at least some marine protein challenging the general idea that during the Neolithic there was no signal of marine sources in the human diet [49,50, 51] and agrees with the finding of modest numbers of fish in the deposits of Neolithic settlements of N. Greece "
The Trident/Trishula is an IE symbol likely originating with fishermen.
@ Archi
There's difference between some minor consumtopn between a staple component, with resulting big difference in Nitrogen & carbon signals
This should be relatively simple
''Late Bronze Age, who were fishermem''
Oh okay some late bronze Age fishermen at fish. Cool story
@Archi:
"Culturally, Khvalynsk does not come from the Lower Don culture."
Read from Kotova, about the relationship of Khvalynsk to SSC:
"The Khvalynsk Eneolithic culture was formed in the steppe Volga basin practically simultaneously with the Sredniy Stog culture in the Don-Kalmius interfluve."
Positioning and borderzone:
"The border between the Khvalynsk and Sredniy Stog cultures probably passed between the Don and Volga rivers."
About its development:
"Similarity of the Khvalynsk ceramics with pottery of the Late Lower Don and Early Sredniy Stog cultures, as well as with separate vessels of the Orlovka culture allow me to assume, that its formation was connected with human migration about 5200-5150 BC, caused by gradual climate dryness. Probably, that aridity forced a part of the Early Sredniy Stog population from the steppe Don region to move in northern areas along valleys of the Don, Medveditsa and Volga."
Admixture with locals:
"On the right bank of Volga the migrants met the local population of the Neolithic Orlovka culture, and probably assimilated its separate groups, as well as some southern groups of the Samara culture. As a result of those complicated processes the Khvalynsk culture was formed."
"A layer of the Khvalynsk culture at the Kombak-te site in the north-west of Pricaspian area is dated about 4880±192 BC. Probably, here the Khvalynsk population partly
assimilated the native inhabitants - the population of the Neolithic Pricaspian culture."
Nadja S. Kotova, The contacts of the Eastern European steppe people with the Balkan population during the transition period from Neolithic to Eneolithic. In: PRÄHISTORISCHEARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA BAND 30. p. 314-315.
Kotova is also great in explaining how the Western steppe culture (later stages of SSC and related groups) developed under the influence of the expanding and highly influential Cucuteni-Tripolye Culture:
"Strange as it may seem, the Tripolye population was more interested in contacts, than the steppe inhabitants. They were newcomers, which gradually
moved to the east through the forest-steppe area, occupying lands, which were settled by the Bug-Dniester and Kievo-Cherkassy Neolithic population. The
Tripolye population needed allies and peaceful relations with the neighbors, especially with those, whose territories were unnecessary for them. Among such
neighbors were the bearers of Azov-Dnieper and Sredniy Stog cultures, who occupied other natural-climatic zone, which was useless for the Tripolye
population during the Early Eneolithic. Even during the Later Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age they occupied only the steppes in the South Bug basin and to
the west of it, staying out of the territories of the Sredniy Stog descendants."
Early Eneolithic in the Pontic Steppe, Nadezhda Sergeevna Kotova, BAR International Series 1735, 2008, p. 121 ff.
@zardos
"Similarity of the Khvalynsk ceramics with pottery of the Late Lower Don and Early Sredniy Stog cultures, as well as with separate vessels of the Orlovka culture allow me to assume, that its formation was connected with human migration about 5200-5150 BC, caused by gradual climate dryness. Probably,"
It is only necessary to remember that before this time it was ceramics from the Middle Don that captured the Lower Don. As a result, the southern pottery tradition itself is disappearing. This region is captured by northern ceramics originating from the forest zone. Therefore, the claims that this pottery originates from the Lower Don is outdated.
And Trypillia culture here is generally not clear why it is mentioned. They played no role for the SSC, there were great distances between them (Dnieper <> Southern Bug).
@Rob
"There's difference between some minor consumtopn between a staple component, with resulting big difference in Nitrogen & carbon signals
This should be relatively simple"
No, this is not an insignificant consumption. The one who has a lot of many grains, the fish's signals go down. The isotope ratio is the average between cereals and fish.
This should be relatively simple
@Archi: That doesn't really matter for the argument, because its possible to likely that the half-Neolithicised groups moving up the Black Sea were actually pre-pottery folks. In some settlements we see pottery earlier, in others not and so forth. Obviously the origin of the pottery is in itself a topic of its own for the region.
But that doesn't matter insofar, as no group before the LDC seems to have been a stabilised source for the later steppe ancestry groups and their cultural evolution and LDC -> SSC is quite a clear pathway, as is the origin of Khvalynsk which you denied.
Obviously, for the successful steppe source group, different strains of influences came together and mixed in the absolutely central Don region.
Read the papers on the influence of TCC direct and indirect influence on the early steppe cultures. They did expand to their borderzone and the older Neolithic groups in between were eliminated, assimilated or pushed upwards, where they fused with DDC. Some even speculated that this was kind of an alliance between steppe groups and TCC, but I guess you will call that fantasy and doesn't change the bigger picture anyway.
In any case you can't deny the origin of Khvalynsk, its obvious demise as a mixed branch-fringe group and the central position of the Lower Don area. Dereivka too, about which importance we both seem to agree, won't be explained by anything else but a large fraction of its ancestry and traditions coming from the LDC - SSC tradition.
@ Archi
'' The isotope ratio is the average between cereals and fish.''
So doubling 2% gives you 4%
okay
@zardos
"That doesn't really matter for the argument, because its possible to likely that the half-Neolithicised groups moving up the Black Sea were actually pre-pottery folks."
Pottery in Eastern Europe appeared around 7000BC, therefore, speculations about some "pre-pottery folks" refer to the Mesolithic and which no longer existed in the Neolithic.
"their cultural evolution and LDC is quite a clear pathway, as is the origin of Khvalynsk which you denied."
I do not deny, there is simply no evidence of this.
"Read the papers on the influence of TCC"
Once again, Tripolye is not essential for the relationship between the Lower Don, Sredniy Stog, Khvalynsk, CWC and Yamnaya, and for their origin. Therefore, I just do not understand why weave it here.
"Dereivka too, about which importance we both seem to agree, won't be explained by anything else but a large fraction of its ancestry and traditions coming from the LDC - SSC tradition."
Dereivka tradition is a different tradition, that's just the point. It is quite possible that SSC for Dereivka was only a substrate, it is more northern and eastern, Dereivka itself is associated with the Middle Don, and not with the Lower Don. Nobody knows for sure.
@Archi: I won't discuss every detail through, but just the most important one:
"Dereivka tradition is a different tradition, that's just the point. It is quite possible that SSC for Dereivka was only a substrate, it is more northern and eastern, Dereivka itself is associated with the Middle Don, and not with the Lower Don. Nobody knows for sure."
Like you said yourself, there were different stages between LDC-SSC and Dereivka, but if going back, what else do you have other than the LDC-SSC base for Dereivka too? It could have branched off earlier, with a different precursor, but its from the same source originally. There is no other steppe population which survived other than that of the LDC-early SSC horizon.
I know its also about definitions, like the wider and narrower definition of SSC or Yamnaya, but you can clearly see that even cattle breeding came from the west most likely, from the connections with Neolitic European cultures and spread from there to the East. So regardless of a later East - West movement, the original impulses for the agro-pastoralist lifestyle of PIE came from the West and influenced LDC- (early-general) SSC from which the others branched off.
@Matt
Thanx for the pointer to the SFS Tutorial. I'd read most of that before, but at my age repetition is a good idea. Cheers,
Guy
Narasimhan 2019 put to rest the notion of OOI (Out of India) theory. It was the last nail clinched in its coffin.
Everyone with even half a brain now knows that White people from Sintashta/Andronovo horizon, originating in a Corded Ware eastern migration are the founders of the modern Indian civilization: Buddhism, Brahmin Hinduism, Yoga - and more - none of it wouldn’t have existed if it weren’t for the nomadic pastoralists utilizing horses and chariots.
@Andrzejewski
"White people from Sintashta/Andronovo horizon, originating in a Corded Ware eastern migration are the founders of the modern Indian civilization: Buddhism, Brahmin Hinduism, Yoga - and more - none of it wouldn’t have existed if it weren’t for the nomadic pastoralists utilizing horses and chariots."
It is not true. Buddhism, Hinduism, Yoga were created by Indians, not Europeans. There are only some common elements in Slavic religion and Rigveda. Buddhism, Hinduism, Yoga are completely different philosophies.
Blogger Davidski said...
I'm talking about the Trzciniec and Komarov cultures.
I fully agree with that - out of a quite different reason. My glottochronological computation (published peer-reviewed 2017) allows to coordinate the Balto-Slavic branch chronologically with the Trziniec/Komarov culture. Perhaps you like it.
archlingo
Did steppe herders pivot from herding animals to herding( or hoarding) european farmers, their animals & property ? On steppe you follow animals, animals follow grass. Outside steppe you don't radically change diet - you adapt new environment to your diet (like Indians who got chinese porcelain but didnt start cooking rice prefering frying). You diversify eaten animals. Instead of automated natutal grass growth you find automated process in the work done by others - regularly robbing, subduing farmers for regular herding supplies & if needed you change hierarchy to force lower class to be the automated production source (scythian farmers). Every invention or adaptation is a new variation of old strategy in new environment. And every new strategy suprises you with a bit different than expected outcome.. f.e. your clan's new farming class or expanded family rebelling after creating new cultures in new places. So then you adapt to a war-like culture or.. you go back to steppe. This pivot from dogs & snow sledge into horses, chariots & wagons seems a likely example of this.
I believe there were instances in USA where in two bordering states in one europeans adapted to local indian economy and opposite in the bordering one. I read it in topic of their diets comparison with obviously european grain diet/system being very health depriving, with common teeth cavities & all farming society type diseases as diabetes e.c.
Herders can partially rely on farmers. Farmers are a steady target - they will always prefer to dependance than forceful relocation - herders if they diversify they can herd anywhere on hills or on islands. I don't believe spartan system being similar to scythian royals and scythian farmers scheme was a coincidence. I think it was more like IE economic model. Why Scythians kept slaves if herding didnt require that much hard work as farming? Because their culture was training body for fighting & hunting - a noble knights class differenciation from the lowly manpower. I believe the middle ages time class system was already invented on european steppe - farmers, warriors /herds-guards, priests/scholars like in arkaim & a royal clan. If herding got marginalised & farmers emancipated then they just incorporated foreign farmers into their system. The growing top needs a wider pyramid base...
In case of America - Indians werent good farmers, it was against their beliefs & basic honor - that was the whole point of bringing Africans instead. Also did you ever heard about colonists teaching Indians farming... both groups had a different notion of civilization & each saw each as barbarians. Like that first man on Iceland a Slav who was encountered by Scandinavians - Nordics had their strict laws and attacked the Slav right away for breaking them as if taking for granted that the poor guy & every human on earth supposed to know it and obey.
Interesting is the white space blocking cordedware is pannonia and the split at half of Vistula river, thw white space between east baltic cw and cebtral cw.
Post a Comment