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
David, when you are talking "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."
ReplyDeleteyou mean Middle-Dnepr Corded Wares culture?
I'm talking about the Trzciniec and Komarov cultures.
ReplyDeletehttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trzciniec_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Komarov_culture
Abashevo should be pretty similar to Fatanovo but I'd love to see Abashevo samples anyways.
ReplyDeleteAbashevo samples are basically identical to those from Fatyanovo and the main Sintashta cluster.
ReplyDeleteAs I look at the map I can imagine Middle Dieper as either a root population for Indo-Iranian or some kind of Indo-Slavic. It seems to be an obvious source for both Fatyanovo and Abashevo, but only on purely geographical base, as I am not aware of any aDNA from there,neither I know whether the archeological details fit.
ReplyDelete"The Komariv culture is usually associated with the evolution of the Proto-Slavs or the Thracians".
ReplyDeleteDavid, I was just proposing to look for the Proto-Slavic homeland somewhere further south and in the vicinity of the Carpathians.
How did this blog get taken over by Slavs?
ReplyDeleteAt first it seemed *to me*, you guys came out of a small area in the perhihpal of Europe in the Middle Ages and somehow took over half of the continent. But, that impression is really due to scarcity of written records. I see now you guys come from from a big family that had inhabited large area in Central-Eastern Europe since 2nd millenium BC.
Which is interesting, because who lived in the area of Europe form Germany to Russia during the Bronze age is unknown. This area is not the perhihial of Europe, it is more so right in the center of it. It is the last place we have historical written records, so the image in created in the mind looking at history is it is the perihilar of Europe.
Welzin warriors showed a surprise. They are unlike any population today. And didn't contribute much to any modern pops. But there is one Polish outlier who comes out as I think 40% Welxin 60% Polish, so there may be a village in modern Poland with people largely of Welzin-related origin.
If Slavs are one member of a bigger family, it means there are related but different populations to be discovered which help understand the diversity in Bronze age-Iron age Europe which will be interesting.
Judging from the shape of pottery, battle axes and graves, the CWC spread around the Baltic sea from south of it (and entered Sweden from Finland, not Denmark as is usually indicated on maps).
ReplyDeleteSamuel, this is the correct direction to think.
ReplyDeleteHmm... Linguistically, you kind of have to have an expansion of Slavic speakers from a single community relatively recently... unless you go consistently for extended homeland ideas in other Indo-European dialects, like Celtic, or you go full EastPole (e.g. as far as I can tell sort of believe that all the reconstructions are essentially false and proto-Slavic existed without change for thousands of years until it emerges into history and we begin to see clear divergences emerge between varieties, despite no population expansion of the linguistic community really happening).
ReplyDeleteBut genomically there is an argument about whether a Balto-Slavic type genotype is the result of a recent diffusion or not.
E.g. Ringbauer (2017) argued that the patterns of IBD which Coop (2013) previously interpreted as relating to a population expansion may be as follows: "We detected a systematic, large-scale deviation from a simple diffusion model with uniform population density, as there is a clear gradient for higher block sharing in the direction of the Balkan countries (Fig.5). This was already observed by Ralph and Coop (2013). They hypothesized that this could be due to the historic Slavic expansion, a hypothesis supported by admix-ture analysis (Hellenthal et al. 2014). However, the pattern of increased block sharing also holds for longer, typically younger blocks, which could hint additionally at a consistently lower population density in these regions. Such systematic regional deviations from the diffusion model also imply that care should be taken when estimating parameters and their uncertainty ranges."
Ancient dna will begin to work this genetic question out, at least.
(In general, we know about Indo-European trees that "The true tree is currently unknowable, because it is unclear how many branches or languages of Indo-European have vanished from the historical record" and we know that it is easy to use whatever methods, lexical or phono-grammatical, to reconstruct lower level subgroupings (Slavic, Celtic, etc) but higher level groupings (Celtic-Italic to exclusion of Celtic-Germanic) and so on is generally unstable (https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/aop/article-10.1163-22125892-20201000/article-10.1163-22125892-20201000.xml?language=en) ).
ReplyDelete1. Sintashta-Abashevo and Yamnaya on the same map is nonsense. Anachronism. In place of Yamnaya there was already Babinо culture.
2. The reasoning that Yamnaya was transformed into CWC is ridiculous.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteYou seem to be confusing the massive expansion of Slavs during the Migration Period with the formation of Slavic.
Also, keep in mind that Balts and Slavs are closely related genetically too, at several different levels including in regards to IBD sharing, but obviously no one is going to propose that Balto-Slavic is only a very recent phenomenon.
Slavs are defined only by language. So you cannot look for a Slavic homeland in Baltic linguistic areas such as Pripyat.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete“In the traditional narrative, the Fatyanovo people – like the CWC populations in general – are regarded as Indo-European, representing the pre-Balto-Slavic... stage in the spread of Indo-European languages.”
I think this statement is correct. CWC populations represented the pre-Balto-Slavic stage of language i.e. Indo-Slavic. Was Indo-Slavic closer to later Balto-Slavic or Proto-Slavic or Proto-Indo-Iranian, we don’t know. Linguists believe that when people and cultures mix languages change fast, otherwise they change very slowly.
It is suggested that they had Slavic religion, i.e. worship of fire and the sun:
“Fire cult is suggested, referring to traces of fireplaces and fire making in and near the burials (charcoals, occasional flint flakes, and finds of tar/pitch and tinder or red ochre) In addition, the frequent south (ie, sun) facing body position is taken to indicate the importance of a fire or sun cult.”
And sun symbols on the Fatyanovo pottery suggest sun cult too:
https://imgur.com/a/6VFueQz
So this may be an explanation why Rigveda had elements of Slavic religion and Vedic Sanskrit had many words similar to Slavic religious vocabulary.
It'll be interesting to see how you explain western Corded Ware (Single Grave) with R1b-L51.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I'm guessing as a western outpost of Indo-Slavic.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“It'll be interesting to see how you explain western Corded Ware (Single Grave) with R1b-L51.
Although I'm guessing as a western outpost of Indo-Slavic.”
I have no idea what language they spoke. There were no migrations of R1b-L51 to India, so I don’t know if it can be linked with Indo-Slavic.
@EastPole
ReplyDelete"So this may be an explanation why Rigveda had elements of Slavic religion and Vedic Sanskrit had many words similar to Slavic religious vocabulary."
He, as always, in his repertoire, is some other religious dictionary. He apparently does not understand that all Satem languages are close to each other in household vocabulary. Even an ordinary Slav with brains can understand household text in Sanskrit.
Here is an example of such a text in real spoken Sanskrit:
Dame vidhavā jīvati.
Damo navo’sti.
Dame’gnir asti: vidhavā damam tāpayati.
Catvāraḥ sūnavo na santi dame.
Avikāḥ pāsanti prastāre.
Navā snuşā na budhyate: supyate.
Vidhavā etām snuşām bodhayati: «Рaca mānsam!» iti.
Snuşā havate: «Devaro bharatāvikām» iti.
«Katarām?» iti
«Tāṃ tanukāṃ, devara» iti.
Trayo devaro jīvām avikām bharanti. Avikā ravati. Devara etām avikāṃ mārayanti.
Snuşā meşam darati, mānsaṃ pacati, dhūme vartayati.
Vidhavā sūnum havate: «Vaha madhv»iti nodayati.
Sūnū ravati: «Nūnam, mātar» iti.
Sūnur madhu vahati. Vidhavā sūnum sādayati, snuşā devaraṃ pāyayati.
Nūnaṃ catvāro’dakāḥ sīdanti, mānsam adanti, madhu giranti.
«Madhu-pītir jīvayati, mātar» iti ravanti.
Matt, David, but ultimately Poles share more kinship through IBS with the British and Scandinavians than with the Russians.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.nature.com/articles/srep41614
@ambron
ReplyDeleteBut ultimately Poles share more kinship through IBS with the British and Scandinavians than with the Russians.
That's not really true.
Poles share more IBS with Brits and Scandinavians compared to Russians only when the Russians have significant Finno-Ugric ancestry, like North Russians do.
Western Russians are very similar to Poles, much more similar than Brits and Scandinavians.
I am not an archeologist but it seems to me that the drawings of Fatyanovo amphoras show outside view on the left and cross section on the right:
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/a/6VFueQz
It would mean that solar symbols are placed inside of the amphoras.
It is interesting because similar custom of putting solar symbols (swastika) on the inside of their pots was practiced by Globular Amphora Culture in Poland. This suggests that it was not a mere decoration but a religious symbol:
https://imgur.com/a/i4fCNF2
I Fatyanovo paper they speculate about the origin of ‘Early Neolithic farmers’ component in Fatyanovo people and write:
“Particularly the users of Globular Amphoras, with their wide distribution between Poland, Lithuania, Belarus, and the Ukraine, might soon emerge as the primary candidates from where Fatyanovo newcomers must have acquired this component.”
This of course would have some implications for the origin of Indo-Slavic religion and language.
David, I don't think the samples from this study come from northern Russia, because at the PCA they are grouped with Poles.
ReplyDeleteThose Russians are from the HGDP dataset, which means they're from Kargopol in northern Russia.
ReplyDeleteAnd the PCA you're looking at doesn't show population affinities but intra-population diversity.
If you look at the analyses that show population affinities, you'll see that these Russians are clear outliers even in the context of Europe.
@ ambron
ReplyDeleteHGDP is the so-called Kargopol sampling, obtained from the territory on the border of the Arkhangelsk and Vologda regions (northeast of Helsinki), these northern Russians in the America, for some reason, were called central Russians. This zone is anomalous even for Russia, there is the maximum difference between this population and the rest of the Russians, in essence it is the Russification of Permia, or Bjarmia. These samples were obtained secretly, without informing the authorities or the Russian Academy of Sciences, so it is not even known where it came from, it is not presentable for the Russians. Because of such cases in Russia, there was a scandal in the government that someone was secretly stealing Russian genomes and taking them abroad for some unknown reason without even informing the Academy of Sciences.
@ EastPole
ReplyDelete"It is interesting because similar custom of putting solar symbols (swastika) on the inside of their pots was practiced by Globular Amphora Culture in Poland."
There is nothing to attract Globular Amphora, solar ornament is a common thing, it was already in the Neolithic Samara culture on the Volga.
@Davidski, what make you think that?
ReplyDeleteThe way you worded your comment seemed like you were lumping everything together, from the formation and expansion of Slavic to IBD sharing and the present distribution and diversification of Slavic languages.
ReplyDeleteBut these aren't necessarily directly related issues.
@Archi
ReplyDelete“There is nothing to attract Globular Amphora, solar ornament is a common thing, it was already in the Neolithic Samara culture on the Volga.”
Really? Inside of the pot and invisible? Prove it. Maybe you are confusing it with outside swastika decorations which were common everywhere.
@ EastPole
ReplyDeleteYou think it is strange that you know something. The solar ornament in Fatyanovo has nothing to do with the GAC, in Eastern Europe there has been a solar ornament since ancient times, its prints with a cord are also in Central Europe. In the GAC, this ornament is a borrowing.
So Central European Corded Ware moved down the Oder from Czechia to the North....Is this the same as Single Grave ?
ReplyDeleteMy video on Viking DNA study will be interesting because of how much detail G25 can uncover lots of details.
ReplyDeleteHere's one tibit.
One of the only sites in which the DNA samples were for sure Vikings are the ones from England. Because they comes from execution sites of killed Vikings.
There's 21 samples. This is their ancestry makeup.
Norse=12
Mixed (Norse English)=4
English=3
French=2
Btw, two of the mixed samples are 75% Norse. So 14 of 21 of these Vikings were over 75% Norse and 16 of 21 have some Norse heritage.
Overwelhmingly this small sample set of Vikings in England are Scandinavian. No surprise.
It is interesting two appear to be French mercenaries.
G25 can break down that their Norse ancestry came from different parts of Denmark. Most came from Juteland but some came from Sealand/Eastern Denmark.
Juteland ancestry is primary Germanic not Scandinavian. Because of this many of these Danish Vikings in England, are indistinguishable from Saxon DNA samples in England dating 500 years earlier.
High affinity to Saxons, may make you think this means they were British not Scandinavian. But they score near 100% Saxon, with no England_Roman or Irish contribution. And it is safe to assume there were no pure Saxons left in England in 1000 AD.
So it is interesting, that many of the Danish Vikings who invaded England were cut from the same cloth as the Anglo-Saxons, and so were direct relatives of England.
Link to my channel. Subscribe.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoL-O5egSxkfvkCGGE0vN1Q?view_as=subscriber
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteI think those French-like samples came to England after the marriage of Emma of Normandy to Æthelred and later Cnut. But it’s just a possibility.
Also unsurprising yet surprising that Danes from Jutland cluster close to Saxons, this confirms they are mostly of Jutish origin. Clearly not all Jutes, even if most, left for Britain.
David, Archi, thanks for the clarification. I can see that the Central Russians from Kargopol are the same surprise as the Central Europeans from Utah or the Poles from Estonia.
ReplyDeleteBut there are also other interesting conclusions from this study: the largest effective Polish population size in Europe (among the studied populations; bigger than the Spanish, the French and the British) and a zero parameter of genetic drift. This rules out speculation that Poles recently arose from a relatively small population that rapidly multiplied.
ReplyDeleteI'm reading Vladimir's "brilliant" theory at Anthrogenica about how L23 came from the Volga and M417 from eastern Sredny Stog. M417 was then pushed north by the expanding L23. And that's how Corded Ware came to be.
ReplyDeleteThe problem with this theory is that there's Z2103 in new Sredny Stog samples, and of course there's both L51 and M417 in Corded Ware.
So it looks like L23 and M417 are from Sredny Stog, and Z2103 moved to the Volga and into the Carpathian Basin, while L51/M417 moved north with Corded Ware.
Duh.
@Davidski, the problem is that in the Western tradition everything that is not Yamnaya call Sredny Stog. It is necessary to clearly look at which cultures what applies.
ReplyDeleteFor example, those are not the Sredni Stog culture
I4110 Mos57, Grave73, 263 tooth 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron 5456 3634-3377 calBCE (4725В±25 BP, UCIAMS-186349) Ukraine_Eneolithic_SredniStog Dereivka I Ukraine 48.91422 33.76493 1240K 1 1.068 580868 F
I6561 Mos70, Skeleton 5, 88 tooth 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Pinhasi, Ron 5960 4045-3974 calBCE (5215В±20 BP, PSUAMS-2832) Ukraine_Eneolithic_SredniStog_o4 Alexandria Ukraine 49.54067778 37.69799444 1240K 1 1.422231 738261 M
What is the deal with burial traditions in the Sredny Stog culture? From what I read they seemed to mainly have the flat burials we see in some CWC subcultures but almost every other group argued to have come from them had kurgan burials. Suvorovo, Usatovo, Repin/Yamnaya, Single Grave etc.
ReplyDelete@copper axe
ReplyDeletehttps://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3470
According to Rassamakin the kurgan ritual developed in the post stog period likely under the influence of megalithic ideas stemming from northern european farmers (GAC and TRBC). That is exactly the period (4000/3500 BC) were EEF dna starts to be consistent around the Dneper
sample": "Ukraine_Eneolithic:I4110",
"fit": 3.4225,
"Globular_Amphora_Ukraine": 42.5,
"Progress_Eneolithic": 30,
"SHG": 19.17,
"EHG": 7.5,
"WHG": 0.83,
"LBK_N": 0,
@Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteThere are no mounds in the Sredniy Stog, there are simple burials. There is no single ritual, therefore some famous archaeologists deny the existence of the Sredniy Stog culture itself, but divide it into Skelia and Kvityan cultures. Dereivka culture (corded ware and battle axe) in general is separated from the Sredniy Stog by everyone, as is Lower Mikhailovo. Even in the classical sense of the Sredniy Stog, the culture is heterogeneous, there is an eastern part, and there is a western one, there is the Novodanilovo group-culture and the Suvorovo group, they all have completely unique burial rites and origins.
@old europe
Rassamakin is wrong, his data are decades old, the first mounds appear precisely in the east in the southern Volga-Don region in Sredniy Stog period. In Neolithic Europe, there are no mounds and nowhere they come from.
There is nothing particularly unique about erecting a barrow of earth or stones over burials. It's seen throughout post-LBK north-central Europe. In fact, the earliest monumental barrows are the Passy-type in France, and these were recently shown to be G2a-farmers.
ReplyDeleteFor the steppe, we need contextual sampling of people in barrows, dated & analysed. IIRC in Khvalynsk, 12 from the 147 cemetery had some stones over them, and this is about the time the 'elite' Suvorovo burials appear in the far western steppe
When is the Fatyanovo paper due? I would hope that at least by March the data would be out.
ReplyDeleteI guess that the Fatyanovo could be used to model Sintashta from now on with Poltavka?
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“The problem with this theory is that there's Z2103 in new Sredny Stog samples, and of course there's both L51 and M417 in Corded Ware.
So it looks like L23 and M417 are from Sredny Stog, and Z2103 moved to the Volga and into the Carpathian Basin, while L51/M417 moved north with Corded Ware.“
I agree with Archie on that. You need to look at the dates. If we are talking about the Z2103, then this is later than 4000 BCE. As far as I know, there were no significant migrations from the Dnieper to the Volga. During this period, there was a migration of Dereevka to the upper don in the forest-steppe, but this is clearly not Z2103, not their climate zone. The second argument is afanasievo. If Z2103 were from the Dnieper, the afanasievo impurity would correspond to the ymnaya Ukraina impurity, but this is also not the case. Ideally, the z2103 migration corresponds to the Repino culture migration, 4000-3500 BCE. This migration came to Ukraine about 3700 BCE.
Nobody in 2800 B.C. would willingly choose to permanently relocate to cold wintry Northern Europe from the more temperate shores of the Black Sea. Whatever the catalyst was that triggered the Corded Ware migration, it wasn't something positive.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteAfanasievo and Yamnaya are from west of the Volga (Sredny Stog), that's why they have western admixture that Khvalynsk lacks.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteI guess that the Fatyanovo could be used to model Sintashta from now on with Poltavka?
Fatyanovo is identical to the main Sintashta cluster.
Poltavka is only relevant to a few of the Sintashta outliers.
What Rob wrote is not true.
ReplyDelete------------------------------
In the old literature, even in the pre-Gimbutasian time, when the authors considered migration from Eastern Europe to Central, I met the opinion that the CWC could have such a migration vector: from the Middle Don through the Middle Dnieper and further to the Ciscarpathian zone, from where they had already diverged in all directions. This was based on the proliferation of battle axes. I don’t know how relevant this is now.
A more complex issue appears to be the relations between the GAC and the
ReplyDeleteFatyanovo culture. These two units shared no territorial boundaries. Yet, one factor
in the origins of the Fatyanovo culture (at least of the Moskva-Klazma group) is
deemed to be the translocation eastwards of part of the Middle Dnieper culture
groups from the banks of the Desna [Artemenko 1987b:10-12; see also: Krainov
1987a:63]. Thus, it would seem logical to accept the hypothesis of the arrival of
GAC designs in the Fatyanovo cultural environment through the intermediary of the
Middle Dnieper culture population, and in an already evolved form.
Theories about one Y-haplogroup pushing out another are popular in the genetic genealogy community, but they never work out.
ReplyDeleteHistory and ancient DNA both show that large populations don't get pushed out by invaders. They stand their ground to defend their homeland, and are either absorbed or annihilated by the newcomers.
Mass migrations happen for other reasons, primarily economic or environmental factors, like economic depressions or droughts.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteWhat you’re saying is correct, but I guess we need to wait for those dozens of samples coming from Samara
(??)
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteYou’re just the Russian version of Gaska
“ In Neolithic Europe, there are no mounds and nowhere they come from.”
You can’t even deliver basic sense. Go back to your cave .
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI agree that it is the more typical scenario, especially for sedentary societirs, but from late antuque an Medieval dynamics of mobile Germanic, Iranian and Turkic groups, thete seem to be a lot of example for the contrary. That is, such populations sometimes moved away from invasions, it happened.
So I would not cross out this possibility on principle.
At the other hand we do not have a really detailed picture of the late Neolithic and Copper Age Pontic Steppe, so there is no data for such spwculations. Also the migration resulting in CWC seems to involve multiple lineages, I'd say probably multiple "ethnicities" from the let go.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteBut wouldn’t losing a war of resistance lead to the population leaving to save themselves, even if they suffer casualties?
@Gabriel and Slumbery
ReplyDeleteThere are probably lots of examples of people moving to avoid invasions or of survivors escaping invaders.
But these weren't mass migrations that caused massive demographic impacts.
Think about it, when people run for their lives, it's not really a careful, sustained population movement into a specific area like the Corded Ware expansion was. The Corded Ware expansion was more or less like the European colonization of North America.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteThe comparison doesn't perfectly match.
British then Americans always lived separately from Native Americans. We never absorbed them. Corded Ware on the other hand absorbed/admixed with native pops in Northern Europe right away.
The Anatolian farmers in Europe were more similar. LBK moved all the heartland of Europe while basically never absorbing native populations. Which is similar to White Americans moving into heartland of North America in 1800s without absorbing native populations.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any M269/L23/Z2103 in the Samara region before Yamnaya shows up in that area, but I guess I might not be totally in the loop in regards to the latest results.
However, there's a lot of WSHG around the Volga prior to Yamnaya, and then it disappears and instead minor Euro farmer ancestry shows up.
So Yamnaya seems to be from somewhere west of the Volga, and so does Z2103.
The CWC migration into Europe occurred over few hundred years . It began with men exploring the north then went from there..
ReplyDeleteDavidski is right, some theories people come up with are unidimensional
@Davidski
ReplyDeletePure WSHG or a Progress-WSHG mix?
"Theories about one Y-haplogroup pushing out another are popular in the genetic genealogy community, but they never work out."
ReplyDelete"Davidski is right, some theories people come up with are unidimensional"
This reminds me of the futile discussion of whether R1a or R1b was PIE and the other one was assimilated.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYou’re just the Lithuanian version of Gaska
You don’t even know any research on the place and time of the origin of the kurgans with dates, nor the reason for the emergence of the kurgans, what they meant. Only write your inventions in a categorical form.
@Samuel Andrews
" The comparison doesn't perfectly match.
British then Americans always lived separately from Native Americans. We never absorbed them. Corded Ware on the other hand absorbed/admixed with native pops in Northern Europe right away."
No, the difference is purely technical. Indo-Europeans came to the lands of more technically and economically developed peoples, they could borrow a lot of things, while the British came to the lands of backward peoples, and there was nothing to borrow from them. Compare the Hittites. The resettlement of the Indo-Europeans is predominantly the resettlement of men 5:1 or 10:1, while the British were resettled by formed families with children. Let's take the Afanasyevo culture, it was moved by families to the place of more backward cultures and there is no borrowing or cross-breeding in it.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteThere was a lot of mixing on the frontier in the early days in North America, pretty much like in Late Neolithic Europe, but then civilization happened, largely thanks to the railroads.
@davidski
ReplyDelete"The Corded Ware expansion was more or less like the European colonization of North America."
R1b is abundant under some native American tribes. And contrary to popular belief the demise of native Americans was not due to genocide but due to susceptibility to small pocks, according the book 1491.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThere is a lot of steppe mtDNA in modern Europeans, it’s not like Indo-Europeans didn’t bring their families and whole communities with them.
@Gabriel
ReplyDeleteIt's about the CWC. Of the 110 samples of this culture, only 9 have Eastern European mitoDNA.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteIt wad actually the opposite. In the early phases the steppe migrants didn't mix much and only in the post cwc bronze age did locals get absorbed, who by then had a relatively small population. You can see this in the rise in Narva ancestry over time in the Baltic paper. It is described in the paper.
The chronology describes it well too:
Narva 5300 BC - 1750 BC
Pitted Ware Culture 3500 BC - 2300 BC
GAC on the Steppe - 2900 BC - 2350 BC
The Corded Ware Horizon was a complex situation with the migrants living in parallel societies with prior groups, until Bronze work became widespread.
How many alone Bell Beakers can test? The CWC is clearly under-tested, there are only a few of deep tests of Y-haplogroups there. Well, completely disproportionate.
ReplyDelete@Archi
ReplyDeleteI think it's too early to talk about it. There are no eneolite samples from the Dnieper-don steppe and forest-steppe region, except for sample I6561 with MtDNA H2a1.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteYou don't have a clue what you're talking about.
Mixing didn't happen until bronze? Haha.
Even some of the earliest Corded Ware samples have loads of farmer ancestry.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-puzzle-of-early-corded-ware-grave_8.html
Of course, the process was very choppy at the start, but there's a reason why the Beakers are ~50% farmer.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete" I6561"
I have already written a thousand times that this sample is dated erroneously, so it cannot be used.
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteOnly write your inventions in a categorical form.''
From Brunnel
''Beaurieux "La Plaine" is located in the Aisne valley, 35 km east of Soissons. It is a Middle Neolithic funerary site comprising two or three Passy-type monuments, one of which contains burial 31 (radiocarbon date GrA-35371: 5775 ± 45 BP 4722-4515 calBC), as well as a massive structure over 80 m long, unprecedented in terms of its trapezoidal groundplan, dimensions and association with Passy-type monuments.'
Where is your bioligcal and radiometric data for monumental barrows from the Volga-Ural steppe before 4000 BC ?
''You don’t even know any research on the place and time of the origin of the kurgans with dates, nor the reason for the emergence of the kurgans, nor the reason for the emergence of the kurgans,''
Of course, in the westernmost steppe, where the earliest kurgan-type monuments appear. As in France, this was in the zone close to farmers. Who these people were remains to be seen.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteYou misinterpret what I am saying. I am talking only about cwc noy about anything else.
You are right the early Baltic CWC samples do have farmer ancestry but that farmer ancestry is not local to the baltic, Narva is the ancestry local to the baltic area, EEF never reached there before cwc. Only in the Bronze age does the Narva ancestry show up, and lots of it hence why WHG peaks there now.
Similar situation with PWC in Scandinavia.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteYou're right about one thing. That is, I don't have a clue what you're blathering about.
Corded Ware people did mix with both farmers and foragers almost as soon as they moved out of the steppe.
Like I said, the process was uneven, but there are Corded Ware individuals with excess farmer and/or forager ancestry to prove that it did happen.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"massive structure over 80 m long"
Where are the mounds/kurgans?
"Of course, in the westernmost steppe, where the earliest kurgan-type monuments appear."
Don't be creative. You are cheating again. It is proved that in the western steppe is not the earliest monuments kurgan type. The earliest burial kurgans date back to the 49-47 century BC in the Volga-Don region. None of the Suvorovоs compete with them. The Suvorovo group did not yet exist at that time.
Korenevsky 2012 Birth of the mound.
"So far, the earliest recorded construction of a mound in the steppes of the Stavropol region on the border with Kalmykia is the Tipka mound, dating from the 49th-47th centuries BC."
"The Lower Danube and Carpathian regions do not reflect reliable information about the most ancient burial mounds. Basically, we are talking about ground burials in large burial grounds (for example, Decha Mureshului) or single complexes with undetected burial mounds (Kasimcha, Falchiu, Devnya river, etc.).
The share of the sites of the Ciscaucasia and the Don-Volga region in the above statistical series is considerable. It includes almost half of the cases. This allows us to consider the Ciscaucasia and the Don-Volga region as one of the territories where the ideas of kurgan construction in the Eneolithic were actively expressed."
No they did not mix as soon as they moved out of the Steppe. It took around 1000 years before Triziniec absorbed Narva. PWC as well lived on for 500 years after the arrival of Steppe migrants in 2800 B.C..
ReplyDeleteThe farmer ancestry in the Baltic CWC samples was brought from the Steppe, and decreased over time.
This is one of the earliest Corded Ware samples from Germany.
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/01/the-puzzle-of-early-corded-ware-grave_8.html
ReplyDeleteComputing D-statistics for each individual of the form D(Baltic
LN, Yamnaya; X, Mbuti), we find that the two individuals from
the early phase of the LN (Plinkaigalis242 and Gyvakarai1, dating
to ca. 3200–2600 calBCE) form a clade with Yamnaya
(Supplementary Table 7), consistent with the absence of the
farmer-associated component in ADMIXTURE (Fig. 2b).
Younger individuals share more alleles with Anatolian and
European farmers (Supplementary Table 7) as also observed in
contemporaneous Central European CWC individuals2. The
individual Spiginas230, dated to a very late period of the LN
(2130–1750 calBCE), stands out in that it shares an excess of
alleles with European forager groups when compared to the
Yamnaya populations, with the top hits being Switzerland_HG,
WHG, Baltic Mesolithic and Baltic EMN Narva (Supplementary
Table 7).
Fatyanovo also has more EEF than the Baltic CWC. They got it from GAC. The Baltic CWC also got their EEF from GAC and CT, both on the Steppe.
ReplyDeleteEarly Baltic CWC has EEF ancestry levels consistent with Sredny Stog and Usatovo. This was diluted in the next few centuries by admixture from the expanding Yamnaya population. Simple.
ReplyDeleteThe farmer ancestry in the Baltic CWC samples was brought from the Steppe, and decreased over time.
ReplyDeleteFarmer ancestry increased over time in Baltic CWC you dumbass.
Like I said, mixing happened almost from the start with the locals everywhere, but it was choppy.
By the time bronze was being used, it even had time to even out. Obviously, Beakers are still mostly Late Neolithic, not Bronze Age, and they're ~50% farmer.
Haha.
Early Corded Ware was basically identical to Yamnaya. Then their steppe ancestry was diluted by farmer admix outside the steppe.
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-battle-axe-people-came-from-steppe.html
Everyone knows that except you.
I looks more like the iberian colonization of latin america than the anglo colonization of northern north america to me.... specially the encounter with agricultal native americans like mesoamerican or andean.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete“Corded Ware people did mix with both farmers and foragers almost as soon as they moved out of the steppe.
Like I said, the process was uneven, but there are Corded Ware individuals with excess farmer and/or forager ancestry to prove that it did happen.”
So you think Corded Ware originated on the steppe? And was like Yamnaya. But how did it happen?
I have been investigating Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2.
The best fit is that it originating from Polish Corded Ware migrating north and mixing with HG:
Target: Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2
Distance: 4.0104% / 0.04010415
50.8 Corded_Ware_POL:N49
17.0 UKR_Meso:I5885
14.2 Baltic_LTU_Narva:Donkalnis7
7.8 Corded_Ware_DEU:I1534
5.0 HUN_Sopot_LN:I4184
4.0 RUS_Karelia_HG:I0211
1.2 Corded_Ware_DEU:I1539
But there are also other interesting possibilities. This may be a model for alternative CWC Spiginas2 origin on the steppe and also for Dereivka origin.
Target: Corded_Ware_Baltic:Spiginas2
Distance: 4.6743% / 0.04674330
22.0 UKR_EBA:I5884
16.4 UKR_Meso:I5885
13.0 RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
11.4 BGR_MP_N:I1295
8.8 RUS_Karelia_HG:I0211
8.6 ROU_C_o:GB
6.0 HUN_Sopot_LN:I4184
5.2 UKR_N:I3715
4.2 UKR_Meso:I1763
2.0 UKR_Meso:I5876
1.4 ROU_Meso:I2534
1.0 Baltic_LTU_Narva:Donkalnis7
My interpretation of this result is like this: Karelia_HG mixed with Progress_En represents some steppe Khvalynks like population.(Khvalynsks was in the source but was not chosen by algorithm). There were also on the steppe at that time some farmers mixed with HGs, similar to UKR_EBA:I5884 or ROU_C_o:GB . They mixed creating early CWC like Spiginas2 or Dereivka culture. Later they mixed with Yamnaya creating most of CWC and BB. So later CWC will be mix of SS Dereivka and Yamnaya.
https://i.postimg.cc/6pnRsK6d/Spiginas-Theory.jpg
https://i.postimg.cc/NjdxCYdp/Spiginas-Theory2.jpg
What do you think? What is your theory for CWC Spiginas2 and Dereivka origin?
What the authors wrote was that the earliest CWC samples in the Baltic have higher EEF ancestry than those who came later, some of those having EEF levels on par with Yamnaya.
ReplyDeleteThe Bronze age samples do show an increase in EEF, but that is 1000 years later.
2800 -> 2300 : decreasing EEF
2300 -> 1200 : increasing EEF, beginning of Bronze Age
Look at what we are talking about
ReplyDeletehttps://media.springernature.com/lw685/springer-static/image/art%3A10.1038%2Fs41467-018-02825-9/MediaObjects/41467_2018_2825_Fig2_HTML.jpg?as=webp
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteWhat the authors wrote was that the earliest CWC samples in the Baltic have higher EEF ancestry than those who came later, some of those having EEF levels on par with Yamnaya.
Early Corded Ware samples have very low levels of EEF ancestry and are basically identical to Yamnaya.
Then the mixing starts with the locals and very quickly both EEF and forager ancestries increase in Baltic Corded Ware over time so that they become more farmer-like than Yamnaya.
You're really not very good at this.
@Romulus
ReplyDelete"2800 -> 2300 : decreasing EEF"
You have some kind of violent fantasy for the CWC.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteAre you on some sort of medication?
This paper is very clear about what happened (EEF ancestry increased in Baltic CWC over time). So how is it that you don't understand it?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-02825-9
Go read what I bolded above, its copy pasted from the paper that you never read.
ReplyDelete@ Archie
ReplyDeleteI didn’t ask for your word-salads
Come back when you have human sample data .... which’ll be never
@Archi,
ReplyDelete"It's about the CWC. Of the 110 samples of this culture, only 9 have Eastern European mitoDNA."
A slight majority of CWC have Steppe/Eastern European mtDNA. Still a majority.
It seems to me that the colonists entered Europe in different groups and relatively from different places. R1A-CTS4385 came in first. These are people like poz81. The second was R1b-L52. And only then entered R1a-Z283. R1a-Z93 in General passed apparently through Ukraine and Belarus and turned from there to Moscow. Some of them came from places closer to Tripoli, others from places closer to EHG. Therefore, in the very first settlers of the period 2900-2700 BCE, EEF/EHG/WHG/CHG admixtures should show the place where they came from.
ReplyDeleteVladimir, you need to cure yourself from this Y-haplogroup obsession, or you'll end up like Quiles.
ReplyDeleteThe Corded Ware people came from the same steppe population via the same routes, but different Corded Ware clans were often dominated by different Y-haplogrpups due to founder effects.
@Romolus
ReplyDeleteSeriously, you bolded this: "Younger individuals share more alleles with Anatolian and European farmers"
This means exactly what Davidski says. You are quoting something that supports his side of the argument. Try to understand the sentence you yourself quoted before you dig yourself deeper.
Judging by the scale of the CWC colonization, it was a large population. Even physically, their exit point couldn't be small. This should be a very large region. Let's say the square in the South is the border of the Pontic steppe and forest-steppe in the North is a swampy area of Belarus with access to Poland and Russia, in the West is the Dnieper, in the East is the don, and even East of the don. As we can see from the most researched BBC, the organization of life in these communities was purely patrilocal. They all kept to their own tribes. To organize life on the basis of chiefdom, when the family connection is lost, they moved much later in Europe.
ReplyDeleteKristian Kristensen posted the work in the public domain:
ReplyDeleteKinship and social organization in Copper Age Europe. A cross-disciplinary analysis of archaeology, DNA, isotopes, and anthropology from two Bell Beaker cemeteries
https://www.academia.edu/44519894/Kinship_and_social_organization_in_Copper_Age_Europe_A_cross_disciplinary_analysis_of_archaeology_DNA_isotopes_and_anthropology_from_two_Bell_Beaker_cemeteries?email_work_card=thumbnail
David, therefore we should not insist on a population replacement based on the change in the proportion of Y-haplogroups between Roman and medieval Poland. People could be the same only under the domination of other clans.
ReplyDeleteThis is what Figlerowicz and Benes say.
Maybe Figlerowicz and Benes don't know what Balto-Slavic drift is yet?
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"A slight majority of CWC have Steppe/Eastern European mtDNA. Still a majority."
Have you decided to write all posts in Rob 2.0 style? Deliberately incorrect and unproven. Remember, I will not watch any of yours and do not recommend it to anyone.
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
David, have you read my previous post? I think this drawing from BB paper may illustrate why I am still speculating and not sure 100 % that CWC came from Yamnaya like PIE from the dry steppe.
https://i.postimg.cc/3Jm0Cq7W/Spiginas-Dereivka.jpg
David, as far as I can tell, at least one of them knows. But it can't use it in the scientific method anyway.
ReplyDelete@ambron
ReplyDeleteBut it can't use it in the scientific method anyway.
Of course it's scientific. They just don't know how to test for it.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteSo how do you explain all of the early CWC samples looking like they came from the dry steppe?
@Davidski
ReplyDelete”So how do you explain all of the early CWC samples looking like they came from the dry steppe?”
Maybe CWC origin is more complex than simple dry steppe Yamnaya. Some CWC samples are closer to Yamnaya and some are closer to Dereivka. Maybe something happened during the transformation of Yamnaya into CWC:
https://i.postimg.cc/hPHxk39R/CWC-Yamnaya.jpg
I don’t believe Indo-Slavs came from the dry steppe. Their religion is not from the steppe, but strongly influenced by EEF, so Dereivka would be a better choice for Indo-Slavs then Yamnaya.
@EastPole,
ReplyDeleteIndo-Slavs perhaps separated from each other after they picked up some EEF, but it does not mean the pre-Indo-Slavic tribe (the ones who arrived to mix with EEF) had EEF before that mix.
@ Sam
ReplyDelete“ Remember, I will not watch any of yours and do not recommend it to anyone.”
If Archie’s delusions of knowledge weren’t funny enough; he now thinks he’s an “influencer”
@ Archie
Still waiting for your direct evidence. The founder graves in the cis-Caucasus date to 4300 BC, bozo
From Wang -
: VJ1001.B0101+D0101 (BZNK-3112+114/2), kurgan 1, grave 8, the founding grave in the mound discovered in a catacomb
Dating: 4332-4238 calBCE (5409±24BP, MAMS-29823),
4229–4065 calBCE (5314±21 BP, MAMS- 21327)
: PG2001.B0101.TF + B0201.TF (BZNK-113/4), kurgan 1, grave 37, was the Eneolithic founding grave in mound 1 was found in an oval pit, thickly packed in red ochre. The grave goods consisted of a long flint blade, a flint adze, a flint projectile head and another flint object. A radiocarbon doublet of charcoal and human bone revealed a strong reservoir-effect in the human bone date. Dating: human bone 4991-4834 calBCE (6012±28BP, MAMS-110564), charcoal 4336-4173 calBCE (5397±28BP, MAMS- 110563)
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"So how do you explain all of the early CWC samples looking like they came from the dry steppe?"
Is it like this? Show others not from the dry steppe to say that only in the dry steppe there were such. Do not recall the Khvalynsk samples? Your problem is that you absolutely do not know the rest of the samples from the forest-steppe and forest of Eastern Europe. That's the problem. There was always resistance to the fact that the Indo-Europeans came from the steppe because they have nothing at all in the lexicon that would connect them with the steppe, there is no way of life and technology, the same applies to the CWC. At the present time, it can be considered firmly established that they came from the Volga-Don region, and I really like the hypothesis of the old archaeologists who considered the starting point of the Proto-CWC resettlement from the Middle Don, that is, from the forest-steppe, maybe bordering the forest.
In Indo-European there is no word steppe, there is a common Indo-European word medhi-, medhi̯o- "glade middle the forest", this meaning was preserved in Slavic, which began to mean "in the middle", and in Baltic it began to mean simply "forest, tree".
@EastPole
"Some CWC samples are closer to Yamnaya and some are closer to Dereivka. I don’t believe Indo-Slavs came from the dry steppe. Their religion is not from the steppe, but strongly influenced by EEF, so Dereivka would be a better choice for Indo-Slavs then Yamnaya."
Dereivka I has nothing to do with the Indo-Europeans or the CWC at all, you are simply mistaken, you do not have any data confirming your opinion.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Still waiting for your direct evidence."
Learn to read. I gave you a text by Korenevsky, an archaeologist, a specialist in mounds, which speaks of the dates of 49-47 centuries BC, but which you, as always, ignored after squealing something. The tested aDNA is not from the first burial mounds. You in the proof of your words did not bring direct evidence, only your naked fantasies.
Archie
ReplyDeleteyour ´´evidence´´ is meaningless without context. Where is the date from - what material, what is the reservoir effect.
You fail to notice that Korenevski´s date of 4900 BC equals the uncorrected date from Progress.
So again- you have no direct evidence, just cherry-picked assertions (X is wrong, Y is right, because it makes me feel good).
@Rob
ReplyDeleteKorenevsky's text has nothing to do with Progress, it is a completely different area.
And once again, you have not given a single argument to support your fantasies.
@EastPole
ReplyDeleteCan you tell which book by Jerzy Bartmiński you quoted in one of our last discussions? Or was it an article?
@Davidski
Thank you for this interesting post. I have tried to make a kind of compilation:
http://aldrajch.blogspot.com/2020/11/heryos-satem-i-podobienstwa-sowiansko.html
I wrote there about my conception of migrating PIE Urheimat :D
Urheimat 1 (Sredny Stog) > Urheimat 2 (CWC)
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteYou said only 10% of Corded Ware have Stepe mtDNA then listed no evidence. This claim demands evidence considering Corded Ware on average is 70% Steppe.
I've studied mtDNA a lot. I know what is Steppe mtDNA and what is not. Corded Ware had lots Steppe mtDNA. Maybe not mostly like I said before. But they had a lot.
Using 74 high coverage Corded Ware mtDNA sequences.....34 out of 74
U4=10
U2e2=2
U5a=7
I=5
K1b2a=1
T1a1=3
T2a1=2
J1b1a1=1
W6a=2
I forgot to include H clades in COrded Ware of Steppe origin. This makes it 39 of 74 which is over 50%.
ReplyDeleteH6a=3
H15a=1
H2a2b=1
@Archi
ReplyDeleteIf you're hoping for a population like early Corded Ware in the forests around Moscow, you'll be very disappointed.
There are a lot of samples coming from there, and they're hunter-gatherers like Latvia_MN mostly with R1b.
The forest steppe is more complicated, and there are early Corded Ware-like people in this area, but they're obviously migrants from the nearby steppe.
@galadhorn
ReplyDelete“Can you tell which book by Jerzy Bartmiński you quoted in one of our last discussions? Or was it an article?”
Autorzy: Jerzy Bartmiński.
Tytuł: Starohinduski mit kosmogoniczny przez pryzmat kognitywnej teorii metafory. Rec. pracy: Kosmogonia Rygwedy : myśl i metafora / Joanna Jurewicz. Warszawa, 2001.
Czasopismo: Etnolingwistyka
Szczegóły: 2004 : vol. 16, s. 357-360
You can get it here:
http://dlibra.umcs.lublin.pl/dlibra/docmetadata?id=2616&from=publication
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDeleteOnly U5a can be relatively reliably associated with the CWC migration from Eastern Europe/Steppe, the rest of the lineages were present in the rest of Europe even before this migration. You can expand the list with some lines U4 and U2e2, but still they make up a small number. Your statement that mtDNA of Eastern European origin was the majority of the CWC is nonsense. There is nothing to do with autosomes, their component composition does not depend on the amount of mtDNA, and is formed in one or two generations, but you do not understand this. Essentially, a 5:1 ratio is seen on the X chromosome and mtDNA.
@Davidski
"If you're hoping for a population like early Corded Ware in the forests around Moscow, you'll be very disappointed."
Did I write that? Where? Reread what I wrote. I believe that this is so with respect to the Mesolithic, only for much larger areas (like Veretye, Onega, northern Dnieper), but not the Eneolithic.
"The forest steppe is more complicated, and there are early Corded Ware-like people in this area, but they're obviously migrants from the nearby steppe."
This is an unsubstantiated statement. The Eneolithic steppe is not a continuation of the Neolithic steppe, these are different unrelated populations. Therefore, just the Eneolithic population of the steppe is a newcomer.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteSo what are your claims exactly?
That early Corded Ware-like people lived in the forest zone during the Eneolithc? This is false.
Or that early Corded Ware-like people lived in the forest steppe during the Neolithic? Again, this is false. They arrived there during the Eneolithic from the steppe.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteJ1b1a1, W6, I, K1b2a, T1a1, H2a1, H2a2 have not been found in Neolithic farmers. We literally have over 1,000 mtDNA sequences from Neolithic Europe. None of those lineages have been found.
But they have been found on the Steppe.
They first become widespread in Europe with Corded Ware and Bell Beaker.
So they are from the 'Steppe.'
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"J1b1a1, W6, I, K1b2a, T1a1, H2a1, H2a2 have not been found in Neolithic farmers."
That's not true, you don't know much about mtDNA samples.
Neolithic Spain Paternanbidea, Navarra [PAT-4E1] 5700-4700 BC M I
Neolithic Spain Cami de Can Grau Granollers, Barcelona 3500-3000 BC I1c1
Copper Bell Beaker Germany Kromsdorf [grave 5] 2600-2500 BC M R1b1b2 M343, M269, (x S21/U106) I1a1
Neolithic Lengyel Hungary Veszprém Jutasi út [I1901 / VEJ5a] 4936-4742 calBCE (5958±31 BP, SUERC-54640) M G2a2a1 J1c2
Copper Corded Ware Czech Republic Radovesice X [I7209 / RDVS_5/79, Radovesice X, "U bílinské silnice", Grave 5/79, National Museum No. P7A 9322] 2458-2207 calBCE (3850±25 BP, PSUAMS-4026) M R1a1a1 J1c2
etc. For some reason you think that all mtDNAs of Neolithic Europe you are known.
@Davidski
"That early Corded Ware-like people lived in the forest zone during the Eneolithc? This is false."
Read carefully. "At the present time, it can be considered firmly established that they came from the Volga-Don region, and I really like the hypothesis of the old archaeologists who considered the starting point of the Proto-CWC resettlement from the Middle Don, that is, from the forest-steppe"
November 18, 2020 at 4:59 AM
"Or that early Corded Ware-like people lived in the forest steppe during the Neolithic? Again, this is false. They arrived there during the Eneolithic from the steppe."
But this is your unsubstantiated. Prove. In the Neolithic, they could live anywhere, you do not have any data from the Neolithic forest and forest-steppe zone of Eastern Europe.
Facts are Neolithic
Comb Ceramic Estonia Kudruküla, Ida-Viru [3 / MA975] R1a5 YP1272
Russia Serteya VIII (Smolenskaya oblast') [А3] 4000 BC M R1a1
@Archi
ReplyDeleteFacts are Neolithic
Comb Ceramic Estonia Kudruküla, Ida-Viru [3 / MA975] R1a5 YP1272
Russia Serteya VIII (Smolenskaya oblast') [А3] 4000 BC M R1a1
These samples don't have anything to do with Corded Ware, and the second one is probably contamination anyway, because of the outdated methods it was sequenced with.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteThe mHG I in Neolithic Spain is a false result from an old study. We've gotten 430 new results from Neolithic Iberia since then. No mHG I.
Hungary Neoolithic/Chl=531
Iberia Neolithic/Chl=430
West Europe Neolithic/Chl (xIberia)=289
LBK=130
Out of all of that, no J1b1a1, no T1a1, no mHG I, no H2a1, no W6.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThis is an indicator that you do not have any data to support your claims.
@Samuel Andrews
"The mHG I in Neolithic Spain is a false result from an old study. We've gotten 430 new results from Neolithic Iberia since then. No mHG I."
Well, yes, everything that does not suit you is a mistake.
Do not exaggerate the coverage of Neolithic farmers, you do not know a lot about Neolithic cultures and on this basis you draw the wrong conclusions. The logic, since the mitohaplogroup did not come across among the Neolithic farmers, it means that it is from the Steppe, is erroneous.
Neolithic Italy Ripabianca di Monterado; Ripa Biance; Monterolo [R18] 5465 - 5232 calBCE F H2a
Neolithic Turkey Kumtepe [Kum6] 4846-4618 calBCE (4880±41 BP) H2a
Neolithic Starčevo Hungary Alsónyék-Bátaszék [BAM17b / I1878] 5832-5667 BC M H2 M2713+, Z13964+, M2896+, M2942+, M2945+, M2955+, M2992+, M3070+, P96+, L285+, L286+ T1a2
Neolithic Starčevo Hungary Alsónyék-Bátaszék [BAM17] 5780-5700 BC M F M89+. Reported as F*, but F1329 not tested, so could be GHIJK. also see BAM25 T1a
Neolithic Bulgaria Yabalkovo [I2529 / Yaba4] Dumped in ditch 5726-5575 calBCE (6750±40 BP, Poz-81117) M I2a2 T1a
Neolithic Greece Peloponnese, Diros, Alepotrypa Cave [I3708 / A561] 6005-5879 calBCE (7050В±30 BP, PSUAMS-2682) F T1a
Neolithic LBKT Hungary Budakeszi, Szőlőskert-Tangazdaság [BUD4a / I1882 / I4187] 5300-4900 BCE M G2a2b2a PF3141+, CTS946+, CTS4454+ T1a
Neolithic LBKT Hungary Budakeszi 4/8 Szőlőskert-Tangazdaság [BUD4] M G2a2b T1a
Neolithic Tisza Hungary Hodmezovasarhely-Gorzsa [Gorzsa4 / I0447] 5000-4500 BC F T1a
Neolithic Cucuteni-Trypillia Moldova Pocrovca 3 3341–3114 cal BCE F T1a
Neolithic Baalberge Germany Karsdorf [I0550 / KAR22] 2570-2471 calBCE (3993±21 BP, MAMS-23344) F T1a1
etc.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYou do realize the Kromsdorf sample has M269 and steppe ancestry right?
@Archi,
ReplyDelete1,500 samples from Neolithic is enough data to say what mtDNA they had and didn't have.
T1a existed in Neolithic Farmers. But T1a1 did not. The oldest T1a1 is in Yamanya. They picked up T1a from farmers but T1a1 was born in Steppe people.
I'm skeptical of the H2a results from Italy & Turkey, considering it is absent everywhere.
Anyways H2a1 is not found in 1,500 farmer samples. But it is common in Steppe found all the way back to Khyvalnsk. It first becomes widespread with Corded Ware and Bell Beaker.
@Archi,
ReplyDelete"The logic, since the mitohaplogroup did not come across among the Neolithic farmers, it means that it is from the Steppe, is erroneous."
You forget to mention, and also found in the Steppe. So no this is not a erroneous conclusion.
J1b1a1, H2a1, T1a1, I, H6a, H15a are all found in the Steppe. They aren't just absent in Neolithic farmers, they are also found in the Steppe.
@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ Korenevsky's text has nothing to do with Progress”
For the 5th time- outline which human Individual is buried in the mound; lab Code, date code, isotopic & dna data
But you can’t ....
stop wasting time with your fantasies :)
Of course, the populations that formed IE lived in the steppe probably in the Neolithic, and Mesolithic they may have lived in Central Asia, and in the Paleolithic they probably were still in Siberia. But, if they lived in the forest-steppe since about 4000 BCE, then it is probably the forest-steppe that should be considered the homeland of both CWC and IE. As for the tokhar and especially Anatolian, then apparently Yes, they probably separated in the steppe.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteHow many Mesolithic R1a samples do you know from Central Asia? I don't know any.
@ Vlad
ReplyDelete“ Of course, the populations that formed IE lived in the steppe probably in the Neolithic, and Mesolithic they may have lived in Central Asia”
Since when is I2a2 & EEF from Central Asia ?
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteShouldn't there be R1a in Neolithic Central Asia at least? Seeing how a Steppe Maykop outlier carried R1a. It could be derived from the Kelteminar culture.
@CrM
ReplyDeleteThere's zero chance that the Steppe Maykop R1a came from Central Asia.
@All
ReplyDeleteLukasz sent me a couple of the Uyelgi samples. From this paper...
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-75910-z
Uyelgi1_scaled,0.086506,-0.132019,0.106725,0.086887,-0.068013,-0.027331,0.043712,0.025153,-0.027815,-0.050297,0.068528,-0.023379,0.032111,-0.041012,-0.02158,0.022275,-0.020601,-0.02065,-0.026271,-0.030014,-0.049662,0.010881,-0.009367,-0.01458,0.008622
Uyelgi2_scaled,0.106994,-0.114755,0.083721,0.088179,-0.082785,-0.063587,0.019506,-0.017076,-0.019021,-0.057222,0.041734,-0.023079,0.007433,-0.054499,-0.044381,-0.011535,0.000782,-0.022297,-0.035698,-0.033766,0.021213,0.026214,0.034879,0.010845,0.019639
Uyelgi1,0.0076,-0.013,0.0283,0.0269,-0.0221,-0.0098,0.0186,0.0109,-0.0136,-0.0276,0.0422,-0.0156,0.0216,-0.0298,-0.0159,0.0168,-0.0158,-0.0163,-0.0209,-0.024,-0.0398,0.0088,-0.0076,-0.0121,0.0072
Uyelgi2,0.0094,-0.0113,0.0222,0.0273,-0.0269,-0.0228,0.0083,-0.0074,-0.0093,-0.0314,0.0257,-0.0154,0.005,-0.0396,-0.0327,-0.0087,0.0006,-0.0176,-0.0284,-0.027,0.017,0.0212,0.0283,0.009,0.0164
Distances are generally very big for Uralians in the G25, so this makes sense.
Target: Uyelgi1_scaled
Distance: 11.2602% / 0.11260249 | ADC: 1x RC
100.0 RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov
Target: Uyelgi2_scaled
Distance: 12.3958% / 0.12395760 | ADC: 1x RC
59.6 RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov
40.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_o
@ Sam
ReplyDeletebtw I clarified also to your query on BBB.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete@Rob
Apparently, R1a passed to the lower don region in the Mesolithic, so if it was in Central Asia, it was in the Paleolithic. But R1b-L389 could still be in Central Asia, where R1b-V1636 apparently separated from it. I would quite assume that R1b-V1636 passed to Mesopotamia from Central Asia through Iran and from there through the Caucasus entered the steppe with an admixture of CHG.
As for I2a2, which obviously brought to IE-CWC not only EEF, but apparently WHG, then R1a-M417\R1b-L23 met with them apparently only in the Eneolithic. I'm not talking about native speakers of the analolian language, they could have met with EEF earlier and in a different place than IE-CWC.
R1a was already in northwestern Russia during the early Mesolithic.
ReplyDeleteThere's no link to Central Asia there.
@ Vladimir
ReplyDelete''Apparently, R1a passed to the lower don region in the Mesolithic, so if it was in Central Asia, it was in the Paleolithic. But R1b-L389 could still be in Central Asia, where R1b-V1636 apparently separated from it.''
What's so apparent about that hypothesis ? It all sounds a bit speculative
R1b-V3616 more likely passed via the Caucasus, because it's in some of the Eneolithic samples around Caspian & Caucasus.
''As for I2a2, which obviously brought to IE-CWC not only EEF, but apparently WHG''
The I2a2-M223 I'm referring to doesn't have much to do with CWC (which instead has small amounts of different I2a2 varieties), it is found in the Dnieper-Donetz & ALPc cultures, and it lay on a cline from WHG/Ukr-HG to almost fully EEF. It then acquired EHG/CHG and moved down & back to Bulgaria & Hungary, resp., in pre-Yamnaya period. The Ukraine steppe then became almost exclusivley R1b-Z2103.
That's we can say at the moment, because we don;t have many samples for the period between 5000 & 3000 BC.
@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete"500 samples from Neolithic is enough data to say what mtDNA they had and didn't have."
You are absolutely wrong. I can see perfectly well that you do not have even half of the mtDNA samples.
This can be clearly seen from the fact that you persistently shove mtDNA I, although it has been in Europe for a long time.
Mesolithic Italy Su Carroppu, Sardinia [CAR-H8] 9124-7851 BCE I3
Italy Grotta Continenza; BC; 7-89; Tg.10 [R5] 2902 - 2877 calBCE F I1
Bell Beaker Hungary Szigetszentmiklós,Felső Ürge-hegyi dűlő [I2786, GEN_56 / Grave 133 ] 2458–2205 calBCE (3850±35 BP, Poz-83639) M I2a2a I1
But naturally, you will also say that this is all a mistake.
@Rob
Summary. All your statements are false.
@Vladimir
"Of course,he populations that formed IE lived in the steppe probably in the Neolithic, and Mesolithic they may have lived in Central Asia"
Completely baseless nonsense. It is necessary to have a great imagination that would drag in here to Central Asia.
@Rob
"Since when is I2a2 & EEF from Central Asia ?"
These have nothing to do with PIE at all. Gasca re-login.
@CrM
"Seeing how a Steppe Maykop outlier carried R1a. It could be derived from the Kelteminar culture."
What else is the Steppe Maykop R1a outlier? What does Maikop have to do with the Kelteminar culture?
@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ These have nothing to do with PIE at all. “
We’ll see :)
“Gasca re-login “
At least come up with your own jokes. You just fail in every dimension
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"Apparently, R1a passed to the lower don region in the Mesolithic, so if it was in Central Asia, it was in the Paleolithic. But R1b-L389 could still be in Central Asia, where R1b-V1636 apparently separated from it. I would quite assume that R1b-V1636 passed to Mesopotamia from Central Asia through Iran and from there through the Caucasus entered the steppe with an admixture of CHG. "
Do not carry anti-archeological nonsense, in the Paleolithic Central Asia was not inhabited at all, in the Mesolithic it was very poorly populated (on the limits) and began to populate only towards the end of the Mesolithic. R1a in northern Russia is already 13 thousand years ago, Early Мesolithic. All your text is a flight of fantasy, obviously opposite to the facts.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete@Rob
In the North-West of Russia in the Mesolithic there is R1a-YP1272. It has nothing to do with IE or CWC. Also, IE-CWC does not include: Neolithic of Ukraine R1a-YP4141, Villabruna R1b-L754(hr297), Zvejnieki R1b-Y13200*, Ukrainian Neolithic R1b-V88.
I2a2-M223 has no relation to the Dnipro-Donetsk culture. These are people either from the Mariupol community (Sur culture, Azov-Dnieper culture) or from the Bugo-Dniester culture. First of all, because they are all anthropologically people of the Mediterranean type. CRO-magnons of the Dnipro-Donetsk culture are most likely R1b-V88.
@Archi - 1
ReplyDeleteThis is probably one of the last works on this topic, in 2020. The authors are famous archaeologists L. M. Andreev and A. A. Vybornov. "Migration and diffusion in the neolithization of the Volga region": We prefer to associate the neolithization of the forest-steppe Volga region with the early Neolithic materials of the Central Asian interfluve. Back in the 1980s, the point of view was substantiated about the penetration of the Elshan ceramic tradition from the Eastern Caspian and the Aral sea region as a result of migration or infiltration of the population through the territory of the southern Urals, bypassing the Northern Caspian region. The early Neolithic ware of the Elshan culture is close to the materials of Central Asia (sites of Uchi 131, Ayakagitma, monuments of Lyavkan) in terms of a complex of features. The lack of insurmountable natural barriers and the similarity of their natural and climatic conditions in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic contributed to the infiltration of certain population groups from Central Asia into the forest-steppe Volga region (Okladnikov 1956: 215). According to paleoclimatic observations, Central Asia in the early Holocene, up to the middle of the Subboreal period, was characterized by a more favorable climate situation, close to the steppe (the highest climatic optimum occurs at the end of the Atlantic period). At that time, the desert was located 700-1000 km to the South, and in what is now Kyzylkum, there were fresh and slightly brackish lakes, along the banks of which ancient man lived. The demographic explosion in Central Asia at the end of the Mesolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic (Vinogradov 1981: 160) is also associated with this time, which was reinforced by the expansion of Neolithic communities in Northern Iran into southern Central Asia (Weeks et al. 2006: 24). These events may have caused the migration of part of the Central Asian population to the North-West. According to a representative series of radiocarbon dates obtained from samples from large ceramic complexes of the Elshan culture (Chekalino IV, Ivanovka, Bolshaya Rakovka II), the first ceramics in the forest-steppe Volga region appeared in the early — first half of the seventh Millennium BC (table. 1: 1—12). At the same time, the Neolithic population did not develop the forest-steppe Volga region at one time: according to the study of ceramic manufacturing technology, at least two waves are recorded in it. Thus, it is possible assume regular contacts between the population of Central Asia and the forest-steppe Volga region during the second and third quarters of the VII Millennium BC. the population of the Volga region, in particular the forest-steppe region, contributed to the neolithization of Eastern Europe. "
@ Archi - 2
ReplyDelete"According to radiocarbon dates, the beginning of the spread of the Elshan population to the West belongs to the last quarter of the VII Millennium BC; this time is dated to the materials of the Middle Posurye, Poochye, Primokshany (table. 1: 23—29). Ceramic complexes of monuments of these regions (Fig. 3: 2-11) demonstrate a great typological proximity to the complexes of the Elshan culture and represent its Western version (Andreev 2015). The movement of the Elshan population to the North-West could be caused by a gradual increase in the population (due to natural growth and the influx of new groups from the original habitat area-Central Asia), the mobile lifestyle of early Neolithic hunters, and increasing crisis phenomena associated with aridization, which peaked at the end of the VII Millennium BC (Spiridonova, Aleshinskaya 1999: 23-25; Kulkova 2007). It is noteworthy that N. S. Kotova connects the beginning of migration of the population of the South of the black sea steppes to the North with the aridization of the end of the VII Millennium BC (Kotova And Makhortykh 2009). Approximately the same time interval marks the progress of carriers of the ring-drawn tradition of ornamentation of ceramics of the Lower Volga in the forest-steppe Volga region (Vybornov 2008: 241). These circumstances contributed to the outflow of some native speakers of the Elshan culture to more favorable, from a climatic point of view, and less populated areas. thus, a comparative analysis of materials from the early Neolithic of the forest-steppe and semi-desert Volga regions allows us to state two variants of neolithization of these regions. The carriers of the first ceramic traditions penetrate in the forest-steppe Volga region from Central Asia and are genetically related to Kelteminar cultural tradition, while the neolithization of the Lower Volga region is associated with the Caucasus. In both Volga regions, ceramics appeared in the first half of the seventh Millennium BC. until the end of the seventh Millennium BC. no significant contacts between the societies of the forest-steppe and semi-desert Volga region are recorded. Carriers of the Elshan cultural tradition in the late VII — early VI Millennium BC contributed to the neolithization of vast regions to the West and North of the Volga region."
@Archi
ReplyDelete"The lack of insurmountable natural barriers and the similarity of their natural and climatic conditions in the Mesolithic and early Neolithic contributed to the infiltration of certain population groups from Central Asia into the forest-steppe Volga region (Okladnikov 1956: 215)."
In the Mesolithic, people from Central Asia came to the Volga region. So in Central Asia itself, they were at least in the Mesolithic, and in General in the Neolithic, too.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"CRO-magnons of the Dnipro-Donetsk culture are most likely R1b-V88."
We already have Dnieper-Donets haplogroups and they had both I2 and R1b (not sure which subclades maybe Rob can chime in). I doubt they were of the mediterranean type based on their ancestry.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteWhy do I need this? What is written there that I did not write? You wrote it exactly the opposite of this:
"The demographic explosion in Central Asia at the end of the Mesolithic and the beginning of the Neolithic "
"with this time, which was reinforced by the expansion of Neolithic communities in Northern Iran into southern Central Asia"
I wrote "in the Mesolithic it was very poorly populated (on the limits) and began to populate only towards the end of the Mesolithic."
November 19, 2020 at 2:58 AM
You wrote
"Apparently, R1a passed to the lower don region in the Mesolithic, so if it was in Central Asia, it was in the Paleolithic."
"passed to Mesopotamia from Central Asia"
So you brought a text that directly states that you were wrong in everything.
And no need to give it out, Kelteminar arose later than the Elshan culture, so it says that the Neolithic tradition, in their opinion, genetically has common roots, but not that it is someone from Kelteminar.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"Okladnikov 1956"
Don't be ridiculous, it's just ridiculous to rely on bare assumptions of seventy years ago. There is no evidence of this fantasy regarding the Mesolithic, you just barely understand how ridiculous your opinion is based on a personal assumption of Okladnikov seventy years ago. You have won, as always, an uncertificated opinion.
Vlad
ReplyDelete''I2a2-M223 has no relation to the Dnipro-Donetsk culture. These are people either from the Mariupol community (Sur culture, Azov-Dnieper culture) or from the Bugo-Dniester culture. First of all, because they are all anthropologically people of the Mediterranean type. CRO-magnons of the Dnipro-Donetsk culture are most likely R1b-V88''
It's a bit anachronistic to use Cromagnon for people in the 5000s BC
But broadly, the Dnieper & Avoz region Neolithic had I2a2-M223 & R1b-V88
For some reason, the R1b-V88 completely disappear, whilst I2a2 moved southwest, although a few west East, as far as Swat.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteVybornov in 2020 refers to Okladnikov in 1956. So for 70 years, Okladnikov's assumption was confirmed.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteTelegin wrote about this. The population of the Bugo-Dnesrov culture fled from the advancing population of the Trypillian culture and they fled to the areas occupied by the population of the Dnipro-Donetsk culture.
Are the Neolithic traditions of the Leshan culture in any way related to the WSHG/Steppe Maykop ancestry we see on the steppes?
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteSo there is nothing surprising about the Uyelgi samples? Obviously they are quite closely related to BOO, but I suppose that was to be expected.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteAll that mtDNA from Mesolithic Sardinia is fake. There's no way a Near Eastern population lived in Sardinia before the Neolithic.
I'll have to look at the declared mtDNA I1 from Copper age Italy. Let me so, out of 1,500 mtDNA sequences from preNeolithic we find one mHG I which may be legitimate. Wow.
While, in Kurgan populations of Europe mHG I is abundent. You don't need 1,500 samples to find one which may be real.
Yamnaya, Afanasievo, etc. N=142
I=4 (2.8%)
Bell Beaker-EBA. N=239.
I=7 (3%)
Corded Ware. N=74.
I=5 (7%)
Sintashta, Andronovo, etc. N=153.
I=7 (4.6%)
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteTo use U5a as a declarative measurement of Steppe mtDNA in Corded Ware is short sighted
Mainly because 15-20% of Yamnaya mtDNA is U5a. The other 80% is other stuff. So, if you're trying to find the percentage of Yamnaya-related mtDNA in Corded Ware don't just look at U5a. There's a lot of other stuff. If you don't know what the other stuff is admit it and don't say well Corded Ware had 10% U5a therefore only 10% Steppe mtDNA.
But secondly because U5a, existed in Neolithic Europe unlike H2a1, J1b1a1, H6a1, I (extremely controversial imo). And I can guarantee you at least one U5a in Corded Ware isn't of Steppe origin.
Yeap, SA is correct.
ReplyDeleteIf 20% of Yamnaya is U5a, then 80% of Yamnaya is something else. So, if you use U5a % as an estimate of Yamnaya mtDNA then you should multiply that percentage 5 times. That is how arithmetics work.
@ Sam
ReplyDelete''All that mtDNA from Mesolithic Sardinia is fake. There's no way a Near Eastern population lived in Sardinia before the Neolithic.''
It would be interesting to see if the result is replicated in genome-wide studies.
Either way, even the study itself said it's a dead -end lineage.
It's also funny that Archi uses a BB individual from 2500 BC to claim that I1 isn't from the steppe.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"Vybornov in 2020 refers to Okladnikov in 1956. So for 70 years, Okladnikov's assumption was confirmed."
You are wrong, you wishful thinking. You present your opinion as the opinion of the authors.
@Samuel Andrews
"All that mtDNA from Mesolithic Sardinia is fake. There's no way a Near Eastern population lived in Sardinia before the Neolithic."
I knew that you would say it. Nothing else can be expected from you, some big expert.
"Yamnaya, Afanasievo, etc. N=142
I=4 (2.8%)"
It is not true, there is only one case of mtDNA I(simple) in Yamnaya and not one in Afanasyevo.
@Rob
Do not you understand, do not write, I gave an example of same haplogroup.
@Rob, re: Cromagnon in the 5000s BC. It was common word usage among physical anthropologists to call dolichomorphic people with wide, low faces Cromagnoid, especially if they were robust too. And this even though not all of the real UP Cromagnons of western Europe belonged to this type.
ReplyDelete@Anthony Hanken
ReplyDeleteSo there is nothing surprising about the Uyelgi samples? Obviously they are quite closely related to BOO, but I suppose that was to be expected.
No surprises.
I suppose this is what early Uralic speakers were like.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteWhy are the nMonte distances so wide for the Uyelgi samples? Are they low coverage?
As I pointed out above, G25 distances for Uralians are always very large. This is due to recent drift.
ReplyDeleteTo reduce the distances significantly you need to use highly relevant and proximal reference samples, but most of them aren't available yet.
You can get small distances for Saami, Udmurt, Mansi. Only Mari get large distances I assumed this was due to low coverage. Which Uralians have this drift?
ReplyDeleteMost of them, but it varies, and for some you can reduce the distances with less work.
ReplyDeleteSome of the mtDNA lineages like I2 (possibly all mtDNA I) may be from a CHG-rich population moving onto the steppes or absorbed in the western PC Steppes. It was found in the SE Polish CWC rich in R1b, but also found around the Carpathians today if I'm not mistaken. It's also very abundant in western Europe UK/Ireland, as well as Germany, and to some extent Nordic Europe. I believe it pops up in Greek and Georgian moderns, as well as found in an ancient mummy from Greco-Roman Egypt. So I think the strongest candidate is a western Caucasus origin absorbed by IE speakers, ancestors to people like Greeks, Celts, among others.
ReplyDeleteAlso, some branches of mtDNA I is found among modern Middle Eastern people which suggests it was part of a CHG/Iran_N rich population before spreading in several directions.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteR-V88 may have always been just a minor addition from the western steppes which may have only survived in the western Balkans at the time of Cardial ware. Spreading to Italy/Sardinia and areas of North Africa/Middle East as is generally accepted by the dating. However, I2-M223 is about 3000 years older and may have saturated most of Europe with these other branches of hunter-gatherers. The SNPs downstream are quite regionalized between west and eastern Europe, so this is probably the case. Outside of southern Europe V88 didn't survive, and was never part of a major Neolithic wave it seems.
Now a lot of work is being done on Barabino under the leadership of academician Molodin. There are preserved burials Dating back to 8000 BCE. They work together with the Max Planck Institute. I think the situation with the uralians will become clearer in the near future.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteThere's no evidence that R1b-V1636 came from Central Asia or that it's linked specifically to CHG.
It just looks like an EHG and steppe marker that moved from the steppe into Anatolia during the Eneolithic.
And obviously since the oldest R1a is found in Eastern Europe, and there's no R1a in Asia until the Bronze Age expansions from the steppe, then it doesn't matter that this old Eastern European R1a is not the CWC R1a-M417, because it's evidence of R1a, all R1a, being bottled up in Eastern Europe for a long time and moving into Asia from there.
You've got some very strange ideas.
@Davibski
ReplyDeleteWhat about ART038 without a connection to the Pontic steppe from Arslantepe? Does it not indicate that R1b-V1636 has a different origin from the Pontic steppe? As for R1a, it may be the first of the R1 passed to the European part of Russia, apparently somewhere in the area of modern Kuban. But it is obvious that they came out of Siberia as R, and R2 separated just as they were passing through Central Asia.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWe'll see. So far, this is a dispute of hypotheses. There are no samples of Y Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic from the Dnieper to the Altai.
Eastern Europe is obviously a major R1b center even before the Eneolithic, while there's no R1b in West Asia before the Eneolithic.
ReplyDeleteART038 is dated to only ~3,000 BCE, while the samples with R1b-V1636 from north of the Caucasus are at least a thousand years older.
So R1b-V1636 moved from the steppe along with steppe ancestry, but the steppe ancestry was diluted.
I won't even debate the idea that R1a-M417 came from Central Asia or Siberia. That's a totally stupid idea.
@ AWood
ReplyDeleteThanks for clarifying.
It seems to me that there are 2 different F-U clines, a northern and southern one
ReplyDeleteAs for the M417, and maybe even the M198, I really hope that they will be found in Rakushechniy Yr.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete"And obviously since the oldest R1a is found in Eastern Europe, and there's no R1a in Asia until the Bronze Age expansions from the steppe"
The only tested samples located between the Urals and Baikal from the Final Paleolithic to the Neolithic have it.
Neolithic Kitoi Russia Lokomotiv, Irkutsk [LOK_1980.006 and LOK_1981.024.01] 5500-4885 BC M R1a1-M17 2 samples
There are simply no other samples, no tested ones.
Those Siberian R1a samples were sequenced with outdated PCR methods.
ReplyDeleteI'm not interested in them.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThey are exist in Asia (Siberia), so your statement that they do not exist is incorrect. You can consider that these cases are not confirmed, that they are doubtful from your point of view, but you cannot say that they do not exist.
Looks like contamination, same as the N1c in Late Neolithic Belarus.
ReplyDeleteThey used garbage methods.
Moreover, LOK_1980.006 and LOK_1981.024.01 aren´t Carbon dated
ReplyDeleteDates are determined for neighboring samples, the necropolis is one: the Kitoi culture.
ReplyDeleteNope , none of the samples from the original study were individually dated.
ReplyDeleteDamgaard et al then reanalysed the samples and dated individuals . The R1a did not re-appear, because they weren’t legitimate results
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Damgaard et al then reanalysed the samples and dated individuals . The R1a did not re-appear, because they weren’t legitimate results"
This is a lie. Damgaard studied and dated only 2 samples out of previous 14 from this site, so your statement that they are not legitimate is a downright lie, Damgaard simply did not test them at all. He tested other samples of the Kitoi/Isakovo/Glazkovo cultures from other sites.
Chad Rohlfsen is single-handedly re-writing our understanding of human phylogenetic history as we speak:
ReplyDeletehttps://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?22253-African-phylogeny-(beginning-)
Chad Rohlfsen is single-handedly re-writing our understanding of human phylogenetic history as we speak.
ReplyDeletePardon my skepticism.
@ David
ReplyDeleteI knew that would trigger you, pardon the trolling :) Still, whenever he eventually develops a coherent summary of his findings, I would be interested in seeing your de-construction. I do give Chad credit for at least trying to understand deep population history, although I think I'm inclined to your more skeptical stance when we don't even have any ancient DNA from Africa or Eurasia during the relevant time frame for understanding these deep splits (50,000 to 100,000 years ago basically).
Well, I'm no big expert on this topic but some analysis I did seem to suggest modern humans originated in SE Asia or thereabouts and populated Africa from there rather than originating in Africa. I think you can find scientists with the same ideas. Not sure what others here think about that?
ReplyDelete@mzp1
ReplyDelete"I'm no big expert"
Yes, big not expert.
"some analysis I did"
Impossible.
"to suggest modern humans originated in SE Asia or thereabouts and populated Africa from there"
Impossible.
"I think you can find scientists with the same ideas."
Vain you think so.
@Cy, if Chad is trying to resolve the structure in Africa using capture ancient dna that seems like it could be difficult since unbiased Whole Genome data frequently shows differences from array in f4 stats involving 3-4 African populations (e.g. those most relevant to African structure). See - Fig 1C in this paper - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/674986v1.
ReplyDeleteThat shows a different array set than used in Human Origins, but the Supplementary Fig S3A (and the text of the paper) indicates Human Origins will have some of the same issues. The Z-scores in Fig1C are in some comparisons reversed or neutral on Whole Genome data...
Could end up getting some results that would basically be incorrect on Whole Genome (closer to real) data.
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteCan you tell us what was that analysis?
There was a couple of things. Firstly, on doing f4s with South Asians and including Africans, I saw a really weird result which was quite unsettling as it just seemed wrong and made me question all my calcs. I wasnt actually looking at the OOA model, it was just assumed, so the calc didnt really agree with that so it was unsettling but I didnt know what to make of it and I just ignored it and carried on.
ReplyDeleteI cant remember exactly what that was but very vaguely something like
f4: (Yoruba, Chimp) (Birhor, ONG), which had a positive result.
Then later on, I was running PCAs with South Asians and Ancient Eurasians, which came out like this.
https://ibb.co/GWRT13D
I assumed that when I put Africans into the PCA they would appear to the far bottom right, with ONG in-between Africans and most other Eurasian. But the results were completely unexpected.
https://ibb.co/wK80Vqb
So, on seeing that, I had no choice but to say to myself it looks like there could something more complex going on than a simple OOA model. Let me knw what you think of this PCA, as it seems quite telling to me.
Then there is this too...
Modern human origins: multiregional evolution of autosomes and East Asia origin of Y and mtDNA,
"These results suggest multiregional evolution of autosomes and replacements of archaic Y and mtDNA by modern ones originating in East Asia, thereby leading to a coherent account of modern human origins."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/101410v6.full
"Third, as migration of AMH from Hunan via the Southern route to East Africa must cross the Indian subcontinent, one would expect closer relationship with Africans for groups within South Asia that are more related to Chinese relative to those more related to Europeans or more Southern relative to more Northern. Indeed, relative to Fujian people, the distance of different Indian groups to Africans follows exactly their direct distance to Hunan people, as well as their direct distance to LWK, in the order of increasing distance, BEB, GIH, ITU, STU, and PJL (Fig. 7BC). Also, Gujarati Indians (GIH) in Western India is closer to Africans than Punjabi people from Northern Pakistan (PJL) (Fig. 7B). Consistently, relative to PJL, both BEB and GIH are closer to Africans with BEB closer than GIH (Fig. 7B). The observation of lower BEB/Fujian distance ratio than Hunan/Fujian is consistent with Indians being in general closer to Africans than East Asians (Fig. 7D) and being more recent ancestors to Africans than East Asians based on the migration route of the out of East Asia model."
also, the Khoisan look very East Asian
"Fossils or traits indicating AMH migration from East Asia into Africa or Europe have been noted before. First, native Africans such as Khoisans are well known to have certain East Asian features such as shoveling teeth, epicanthic fold, and lighter skins."
@mzp1
ReplyDelete"I cant remember exactly"
That is, you describe your hallucinations, you know nothing. Everything seems to you only because you do not understand the calculations.
"But the results were completely unexpected. https://ibb.co/wK80Vqb"
My jaw dropped. What is unexpected in it? Maybe because you've never seen anything?
"So, on seeing that, I had no choice but to say to myself it looks like there could something more complex going on than a simple OOA model. Let me knw what you think of this PCA, as it seems quite telling to me."
What is there to interpret, this suggests that Africans are equidistant from all Eurasians, they represent an outgroup for them and categorically cannot come from some Eurasian group.
Chinese that all people came out of China is just a banality.
Khoisans are racially neutral, they are similar to Europeans, they represent a population with not yet fixed racial characteristics.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/101410v6.full
It first it was quite intresting, but here it seems evident this is some kind of scientific joke. Everyone can post on biorxiv, some peopel don't know it...
This is ridiculosu statement:)
"The African affinity of Neanderthals prompted us to examine the distance between Neanderthals (with relatively higher coverage genomes, Vi33.16 and Altai) and several different Indian populations (ONG, JAR, BEB, and GIH) to see if ONG might have come from Neanderthals or related humans. Relative to the distance to the ∼4500 year old African Mota [94], ONG was closer to Neanderthals Vi33.16 and Altai, as well as to Ust’-Ishim who was known to have large amount of Neanderthal admixture, than other Indians were (Fig. 6D). Also, if Andamanese came from Neanderthals, Neanderthals should be closer to Mbuti than to San and other Africans, since Andamanese are closer to Mbuti than to San (Fig. 6C). This was indeed the case for the Altai individual who had high coverage genome for this analysis to be informative "
@Archi
ReplyDeleteOut of China is a crock but there is something to be said for the majority of Native American and European lineages coming from NE Asians (Tianyuan).
@Tigran
ReplyDeleteYour statements are as always anti-scientific, unprouven and ridiculous. You can keep your useless propaganda with you.
https://i.ibb.co/bWfmGsh/Early-East-West-Eurasians-plus-Denisovans.png
https://i.ibb.co/D9f75tP/PCA-Central-Eurasian.png
https://i.ibb.co/M6pS37d/an-Qp-model-Salkhit.png
Eurasia Ust-Ishim was earlier than Tianyuan and is located not in CE Asia, but in Western Siberia / Central Eurasia. And Afontova Gora is located there.
That’s a nice QP graph
ReplyDelete@All,
ReplyDeleteImperial Roman DNA keeps getting more interesting. Two samples fit as mix between Sicily Bronze age and North Africa.
You know what that means. They are mix of Carthage and ancient populations of Sicily.
Micheals thinks Imperial Romans come from Greek Southern Italy. I disagree. But, these two samples definitely come from Greek Southern Italy.
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR80
ITA_Rome_Imperial:RMPR132
@Michaelis,
ReplyDeleteI didn't notice this before. I don't know if you have. I tested Iron age outliers again.
Etruscan outlier is a Sicily BA+North African as are a few of the Imperial samples. Cut from the same cloth but 500 years older. Not Etruscan at all.
ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b
ITA_Sicily_BA-57%
Central Italy_IA-20%
Morocco-25%
And the Ardea_Latin outlier comes out as the same mix as many Imperial samples. Greece plus Syria. He date 500-800 BC, 500 years older than Imperial samples.
The adds credibility to your theory that the Imperial samples come from Greek Southern Italy. But it really makes no sense to me how Near East+Greece mixtures would form in Southern Italy.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYou are delusional. Ust-Ishim is irrelevant to European and Native Americans. The ydna does not fit and neither group has admixture from them. But Tianyuan , the paternal grandfather of Yana is needed to model the ANE in Native Americans and Europeans. Ust Ishim ancestry doesn't exist anywhere. Maybe Chad thinks it does but nobody else thinks that.
@Tigran
ReplyDeleteYou are delusional. Tianyuan has no relation to the Europeans, it is even to Yana has no direct relationship. It is a dead-end branch without any direct descendants. You do not know how to read and do not understand any scientific texts except your fantasies.
@ Archi
ReplyDeleteSo why is Tianyuan at the root of the K2b lineages? Tianyuan might not be directly ancestral but somebody like him probably was.
@ all
Anyone else see Chas's new model? Think he is claiming Ust Ishim is East Eurasian and the Basal Eurasians are Mende?
Chad wrote this on anthrogenica. What do you think, folks? How plausible is his conclusions?
ReplyDelete„Yes. The Onge harbor deep ancestry that is related to stuff in Iberomaurusians and Natufians. Natufians seem to have actual Mota admixture too. I think this will really help for nailing down the movements from Africa related to the Neolithic, as well as resolve that weird pull by East Asians. This can help to isolate the true Eurasian admixture in admixed Africans as well.
If everyone can't tell from the graph, this makes Gravettians essentially basal to the Crown Eurasians in Tianyuan and Ust_Ishim. The Onge are significantly closer to Ust Ishim than Tianyuan is, so there very well could be real Ust_Ishim ancestry in there as well.
If everyone can have a little patience, I will work this as much as possible for you all to see.„
„It honestly looks like a second OoA that brought DE into Eurasia from a group more related to West Africans than East Africans.„
African phylogeny (beginning...) - Page 7 (anthrogenica.com)
African phylogeny (beginning...) - Page 8 (anthrogenica.com)
I don't find these sorts of discussions about deep phylogeny very interesting anymore.
ReplyDeleteAt least if we had some samples from the relevant time periods, that would be something, but this is so speculative and theoretical it may as well be fantasy.
And then you see probable Modern Human remains in 200 000 years old remains in Apidema Cave in Greece and probable Modern Human Y-DNA and MtDNA in Neanderthals with an estimated +270 000 years old admixture event and the whole story change again. So I agree with Davidski, not enough samples to create a clear picture of what was going on then.
ReplyDelete@All
ReplyDeleteNo more off topic comments about Chad's models.
If you want to discuss this, please go to Anthrogenica.