search this blog

Sunday, December 6, 2020

Looking forward to a post-Covid world


I was hoping that the Covid-19 pandemic wouldn't have an immediate impact on the publication of ancient DNA papers and new data, but considering how much things have slowed down in this respect, it seems that I was fooling myself.

So let's take a break until early next year, and then see what happens.

Trust me, we've got a lot to look forward to in the post-Covid-19 world. Based on what I've heard from various sources, here are some predictions about what we might see:

- the search for the Proto-Indo-European homeland will shift west to the North Pontic steppe

- on the other hand, the search for the Proto-Uralic homeland will move deep into Siberia

- the key role of the Single Grave (westernmost Corded Ware) culture in the population history of Western Europe will finally get some attention

- following on from the above, Y-haplogroup R1b-L51 will be revealed as a Single Grave marker

- the idea that the Pontic-Caspian steppe was colonized by migrants from Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age will be forgotten, and, ironically, we'll instead learn that there was a significant influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Mesopotamia

- Old Kingdom Egyptians will come out less Sub-Saharan African than present-day Egyptians.

I probably shouldn't blab everything out, so that's all you're getting from me for now. You'll just have to wait for the rest until next year, or perhaps even the year after that.

See also...


421 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 421   Newer›   Newest»
Archi said...


There was no CWC in Belgium. Neolithic Belgium does not mean CWC.

EastPole said...

https://www.academia.edu/39903804/Rapid_radiation_of_the_Inner_Indo_European_languages_an_advanced_approach_to_Indo_European_lexicostatistics_accepted_2021_

“Since the Corded Ware culture is usually associated (non-exclusively) with the ancestors of Balto-Slavic peoples , it seems reasonable to suppose that the Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian break-up may be correlated with the end of Corded Ware. According to the current view, “[t]he years between 2300 and 2100 B.C. were a period during which the Corded Ware culture ended in most regions, especially in the southern part of its domain (basins of the Danube, Upper Rhine, Elbe, and Vistula). Only in the Russian Plain did it last until 2000 B.C.” These datings align relatively well with the Bayesian dates for the Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian break-up: 2723– 1790 BC (mean 2241 BC).”

Why do they correlate Balto-Slavic–Indo-Iranian break-up with the end of Corded Ware?
It should be correlated with R1a-Z645 break-up i.e. 4800 ybp.
Z283 TMRCA 4800 ybp:

https://i.postimg.cc/3R3jNzgB/screenshot-120.png

Davidski said...

@Archi

There was no CWC in Belgium. Neolithic Belgium does not mean CWC.

Single Grave CWC groups from the Netherlands traded with Neolithic groups from Belgium and France.

The flint dagger trade was especially busy in the area.

Archi said...

@EastPole

There are different methods of glottochronology and different rate constants in it, different estimates of the ages of divergence. Different authors make up Swadesh lists in different ways. Different methods for constructing trees.

Compare
https://i.ibb.co/rG8WY5G/kassian-indo-european-tree.png
https://i.ibb.co/3NQh1wX/IE-with-TMRCA.png

TMRCA is the lifetime of one person, he probably still lives in a common population with a single language and only after many centuries can his descendants form a separate people with a separate language.

Davidski said...

@EastPole

It makes no difference that Z645 broke up before Corded Ware did.

The Z93 and Z283 mutations arose in the Corded Ware population, not in Proto-Indo-Iranians and Proto-Balto-Slavs, respectively.

It's just that due to founder effects Z93 became very common in Indo-Iranians, while Z283 in Balto-Slavs.

And, of course, there's still some basal Z93 in Balto-Slavs and some basal Z283 in Indo-Iranians.

Archi said...

@Davidski
"Single Grave CWC groups from the Netherlands traded with Neolithic groups from Belgium"

Well, where does the trade? Trade is trade, it has nothing to do with the fact that CWC did not live there.

"The flint dagger trade was especially busy in the area."

It has nothing to do with the CWC. The flint dagger is not a CWC indicator by himself.


Davidski said...

There are pre-Beaker samples from Belgium with L51 and steppe ancestry.

And there's L51 and steppe ancestry in Corded Ware in nearby Netherlands and Germany.

So put those facts together and see what you get.

Archi said...

We get the usual picture, some migrants (BB) came to Western Europe and formed their new archaeological culture on the spot, perhaps it took them more than one hundred years to do this and began to spread throughout Western Europe. But they were not CW(C). Just as CW came to Central Europe and formed their own culture on the spot, which we call CWC. But they were not BB(C).

EastPole said...

@Davidski @Archi

I see it like this: Different tribes speak different dialects. If they live in the same area and mix their dialects diverge and converge. If they move away and don’t mix their dialects diverge and become different languages.
The split between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian languages occurred when some Indo-Slavic CWC tribes left Indo-Slavic homeland area and started to migrate east. This happened around the time R1a-Z293 and Z-93 TMRCA

https://i.postimg.cc/2jvFZrMY/BS-II.png

https://i.postimg.cc/bN41w8HB/CWC-expansion.jpg

Davidski said...

Mutation ages won't tell you when linguistic groups diverged, because mutations don't speak languages.

You can only estimate this very roughly by estimating the age of the Y-chromosome founder effects in these linguistic groups.

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

So when you are a Russian guy migrating from Russia to the United States then suddenly your Ancestors are not Russian ?

Archi said...

@Ric Hern

Russia is big, there are many nations and languages in it.
Likewise here, the steppe is large and not only the steppe, there were many archaeological cultures in it.

Davidski said...

Yeah, but R1b-L51 arrived in Western Europe via the Corded Ware expansion.

This should've been obvious to anyone who cared to understand the data years ago, and the fact that it still isn't to some is pretty funny.

Dospaises said...

What I would like to see is sufficient evidence for where those R1b-L51 Corded Ware people originated as well as the path, or paths, they traveled.

Samuel Andrews said...

"So put those facts together and see what you get."

You ask too much of him.
https://media.tenor.com/images/c0e74eedac48301c4f8eb666556478c4/tenor.png

KM said...

I don't think anyone should be shocked if it turned out that Proto-Uralic (or perhaps Pre-Proto-Uralic) were spoken far to the east. There are so many hints: the geographic distribution of N1a1-Tat, its subclades, and its closest relatives; the presumed basal split of Samoyedic from the other sub-branches; the inferred contacts with such far-eastern languages as Yukaghir...

Trying to think about how this would be proposed in an aDNA paper. Individuals found in ~Central Siberia with some kind of N1a, autosomal genetics very similar to Nganasan (maybe even with a tad less ANE?), and associated with some plausible culture (Seima-Turbino? Not hot on my Siberian archaeology).

(Pour another one out for Carlos.)

Huck Finn said...

Even if the somewhat unclear, earlier contacts of Proto Uralic and PIE are ruled out, the undeniable later contacts with Indo Iranian continuum are very clear. So, according to my understanding, this contact zone is somewhere within Sintashta-Andronovo area, Sintashta being the more probable alternative because of timing and spread of loan words within Uralic. Anything more eastern during Proto Uralic is practically impossible. Pre Proto Uralic, difficult to say, but then we're discussing something clearly older than 2000 BCE.

epoch said...

There is a set of CWC graves just 10 km from Belgium, in Swalmen.

Copper Axe said...

Seima Turbino wasn't a culture and it didn't speak a language.

That being said Uralic people quite likely got the sharp edge which allowed them to spread through Siberia and Europe by way of the Seima-Turbino phenomenon.

Does anyone think it's possible that both Indo-Iranian and Tocharian were involved in this network? Perhaps Tocharian in the east and Indo-Iranians in the west?

https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/7/1/article-p72_3.xml?language=en

Perhaps what it is being proposed here is indicative of a Tocharian presence near the Altai, but I'm not sure if that would've been around the same time as the ST network.

Davidski said...

Seima-Turbino is indeed the most plausible vehicle for the initial expansion of Proto-Uralic.

That's not to say that Seima-Turbino was a Uralic speaking culture or anything like that. It was most likely an Indo-European phenomenon, at least at the beginning.

I'm not even sure anymore if Sintashta had any contacts with Uralic speakers. The Siberian steppes east of Sintashta were full of various Andronovo and Yamnaya-related groups, so the contacts between Indo-Iranians and early Uralians could have plausibly happened here.

Vladimir said...

I do not insist on my version, but as far as I read the situation looked like this. The K2 population broke up somewhere in the area of the modern state of Jammu and Kashmir. Group K2a went North. On the way through Central Asia from this group was separated separate groups, one group went to the West, for example, Oase1, the second to the North, for example, Ust-Ishim, and others moved through the mountain passes in the Ferghana oasis and was in the oases of the Taklamakan desert and through the Northern foothills of Tibet reached South China, for example, O1a, the fourth through the Taklamakan only via the Northern route fell into the headwaters of Huanhe, such as a group O2. The population of haplogroup N reached the Altai mountains. The departure from the Altai just coincided with the division of N into N - Y6503, this group remained in the Altai, and group N - Z4762 went East through Dzungaria and Mongolia. Somewhere in Mongolia, the group breaks up and N-F2905 goes South, apparently to the Huanghe region. Group N-L729 reaches the banks of the Amur river. Starting around 15,000 BCE, the N-L729 population lived on the banks of the Amur river. There this group breaks up. The first to go to lake Baikal are N-F1360. The n-Z1956 groups remained on Amur for some time, even as N-TAT. Around 9,000 BCE, this group breaks up. Group N-Y23747 goes to Manchuria, and group N-F1419 goes to Baikal. At Baikal, this group is breaking up. Group N-Y24317 goes along the southern shore of lake Baikal. Group N-L708 goes through the Northern shore of lake Baikal, then through the upper reaches of the Lena river, through the Yenisei river in the Krasnoyarsk region. As a result, somewhere around 8000 BCE, this group reaches the Barabinsk forest-steppe. They live there for about 5000 BCE. From there, they expand and occupy the entire southern, middle, and Western Siberia, mixing with the native q population for that area. By the time of the arrival of the afanasievo culture, almost all of Siberia up to lake Baikal was inhabited by the N-L708 group, as well as q. Then it separates and goes North N-Y9022. Then n-M2019 separates, they apparently remain in southern Siberia. The n-L1026 subclades extend into Western Siberia and the Eastern slopes of the Urals. This is approximately 4000 BCE. Approximately here they are found by the Andronovo culture about 2500 BCE. Subclades N-Y6058 and N-Y13850 remain in the Urals and eventually become horse breeders. The population of N-CTS10760 seems to be very quickly located in the center of modern European Russia along with Seymo-Turbino, and the subclades of N-Z1934 apparently initially remained on the Volga and then slowly expanded to the West and North. On Kama, they met N-Y9022 who came there earlier, but they did not merge into one population. Then they went in the direction of Karelia and Eastern Finland. Meanwhile, N-VL29 apparently lived for a long time in the area North of modern Moscow, gradually expanding to the West and mixing with the proto-Balts who lived there, and in the area of 1000-500 BCE approached the Baltic coast.

epoch said...

@Archi

"It has nothing to do with the CWC. The flint dagger is not a CWC indicator by himself."

Grande-Pressigny daggers have been found in Dutch SGC burials as well as locally made copies. These daggers are not found in German or Danish SGC sites. There is a find of a battle axe in the vicinity of Grande-Pressigny.

https://www.persee.fr/doc/galia_0016-4119_1953_num_11_2_1342

Archi said...

@epoch
"There is a set of CWC graves just 10 km from Belgium, in Swalmen."

Swalman is not a CWC, it's a BBC AOO group. There are no battle axes at all.

https://edepot.wur.nl/264205

@Vladimir

You should not rest on Dzungaria and Mongolia, in the Paleolithic in Dzungaria there is a zone in which a person could not live and there were no human camps, in Mongolia there were zones poorly adapted for human life and generally not adapted, there are parking only in the region south of Baikal. All life was concentrated between Altai and Baikal.

themis said...

On the road south out of Banatski karlovac (in serbia) just as it reaches the deliblatska desert, they have found some fascinating round enclosures within a huge rectangular enclosure which has a huge droveway leading to the alibunar marshes at alibunar. To me it's a fascinating thing... Like an auroch processing facility... Wonder what it means in the grand scheme of things.

Peace

Anthony Hanken said...

@Copper Axe

Seima-Turbino is characterized by the rapid spread of a relatively advanced form of wax metallurgy, different from that practiced west of the Urals.

This metallurgy appears in various native cultures, which continue to practice native forms of pottery, burials, etc., but in some cases adopt the new S-T metallurgy. This is why S-T has not been called a culture in most literature. That doesn't mean they weren't a distinct people or that they didn't speak a language, frankly I'm not even sure what that would mean.

I haven't seen anything recent suggesting this "phenomenon" was only a trade network, although trade was certainly involved to a high degree, demographic movement also most likely played a large role in spreading these metal artifacts.

ADNA will ultimately decide who and where these people are from. According to Davidski it seems like there are samples coming down the pipe line implicating N-L1026. If I were to guess based on the most recent papers and radiocarbon datings I would say Rostovka, as the eastern most S-T necroplis and one of the oldest sites, is a good candidate for where the phenomenon began. Northern Abashevo is becoming more and more unlikely IMO, although Indo-Iranian groups were undeniably involved as trade partners or members of S-T.

Archi said...

@epoch

"Grande-Pressigny daggers have been found in Dutch SGC burials as well as locally made copies. These daggers are not found in German or Danish SGC sites."

That's exactly what I wrote about. This is not a CWC indicator at all, flint daggers themselves are not CWC, and these are just imports into it.

epoch said...

@archi

"The Beaker has all the characteristics of a hybrid of the PF Beakers and the Bell Beakers. The reminiscence of a protruding foot, the impressing of the decoration with a plain spatula, and the limitation -in the main- of that decoration to the part of the Beaker above the greatest body circumference recall the PF Beakers."

Drenth called it unequivocally a CWC barrow.

"EGK-bekers uit de grafheuvels 6 en 8 te Swalmen"

https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/32795/Drenth%20E%20_%20et%20al%20_%202011%20_%20Laat%20Neolithische%20graven%20Steentijd%20opgespoord.pdf?sequence=1

Ric Hern said...

@ Archi

From which Culture did the R1b Ancestors of the Bell Beakers come if not from Corded Ware, according to you ?

Archi said...

@epoch
"Drenth called it unequivocally a CWC barrow.
EGK-bekers uit de grafheuvels 6 en 8 te Swalmen""

You misunderstood. He doesn't call it that.

Archi said...

The Baigetuobie cemetery: New discovery and human genetic features of Andronovo community’s diffusion to the Eastern Tianshan Mountains (1800–1500 BC)
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/0959683620970260

The Chinese are interesting guys, as soon as they test one sample, they will immediately publish a paper. Here, too, they tested one low-coverage sample from the Andronovo burial in Xinjiang and immediately published an article. In my opinion, it should be. In general, 1566–1439 calBC mtDNA K1b, typical Andronovo autosomes, unfortunately there is no ADMIXTURE.

https://i.ibb.co/hB1hXcZ/aigetuobie-PCA.png

Simon_W said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

"I'm sure you've seen the thread on AG where I've posted the scaled coords with pop labels"

I just checked it, thanks for sharing. So these are modern samples. I had expected fresh ancient ones. :D I'll stick to using ancient samples when modelling my G25 coords. And so it still looks as though my Near Eastern admixture (from northern Italy) is ancient Jewish rather than Phoenician.

Samuel Andrews said...

Xiahoe cemetery (Tarim Mummies) is from Andronovo. Not Tocherians.

It was a hybrid Andronovo, Asian people outside the main Andronovo zone.

Arza said...

The direct visual evidence of the PCA plot was further confirmed by the outgroup-f3 statistics in the form of f3 (Mbuti.DG; X, BGTB), where X was represented by world-wide populations

https://i.postimg.cc/xCcBcmDG/Baigetuobie-f3.png

So out of the "world-wide" dataset the modern population that shares the most drift with him are... Czechs. Cool.

Tocharian? Z280? P312?

Vladimir said...

Apparently, S-T originated in an area rich in metallurgy, so the best candidate is the Kuznetsk Alatau, the Kuznetsk basin and the Eastern Sayans in General, the upper reaches of the Tom river. There was a syncretisation Of the R1B afanasievo culture, which brought the skills of metallurgy there, as well as the local population Q and n who lived there. Apparently these three subclades are the main ones in S-T. Many groups living in Western Siberia were also involved in the S-T movement. Apparently the most numerous local population in this area were group N, and they received the main prize from expanding to the West, penetrating far into the European part of Russia.

Copper Axe said...

Isn't Xiaohe older than the Andronovo culture?

What do you guys think of this article which proposed that chariots were introduced to China by way of the Ulaanzuukh culture?

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10963-020-09142-4

Not sure if I agree with them.

Old Chinese seems to have borrowed chariot-related terminology from Tocharian.

The Ulaanzuukh culture doesnt really seem to have any evidence of chariot usage, otherwise they wouldn't need to rely on petroglyphs from different cultures as evidence for chariots amongst them.

I think its more likely these prone burials are sacrificial victims like what was proposed initially, rather than the ethnic group which introduced chariots to China.

EastPole said...

@Arza
“https://i.postimg.cc/xCcBcmDG/Baigetuobie-f3.png

So out of the "world-wide" dataset the modern population that shares the most drift with him are... Czechs. Cool.

Tocharian? Z280? P312?”


I was watching video: “1177 B.C.: When Civilization Collapsed | Eric Cline” Eric Cline was talking about the trade in the Mediterranean at that time like the glass from the same source was found in Greece and Egypt etc. At the end he told us about lingua franca of those times:

https://youtu.be/M4LRHJlijVU?t=4039

I recalled that Chinese glass was found in Lusatian culture. So the question occurred to me: what was the lingua franca in the area from Poland to China? Why do we have so many Slavic words in Tocharian?

https://i.postimg.cc/KvNWKMp2/screenshot-121.png

In the bronze age from Elbe river to Altai mountains we have R1a-Z280. Were they traders? What language did they speak?

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews
"Xiahoe cemetery (Tarim Mummies) is from Andronovo. Not Tocherians.
It was a hybrid Andronovo, Asian people outside the main Andronovo zone."

You fell from an oak tree. This is in no way the Andronovo culture and has nothing in common with it. Therefore, they just might be Tocherians.

@Copper Axe
"Old Chinese seems to have borrowed chariot-related terminology from Tocharian."

There is no such fact. The chariots came to China from Andronovo.

@EastPole
"Why do we have so many Slavic words in Tocharian?"

Are you not at all interested in the fact that the Tocharian language is also Indo-European?


Rob said...

@ Archie


''In 339 BC. e. as a result of a bloody battle between the Scythian troops and the Macedonian army of Philip II, the Scythian king Atey was killed, and his troops were defeated. Little Scythia for a short time is under the rule of Macedonia.''

As I suggested, learn where Little Scythia actually is, and where it isn't



'' Among of those many who have 0% of Scythian pedigree, ''

I wrote Srubnaja ancestry, which is shared with other Scythians. There a multiple regional and chronological Scythian groups, which can't be used to model one another statistically. This is far too complex for an armchair historian to udnerstand. So leave it.


''Strabo reports this:...''

Which says nothing about the Getae being in Moldova. That's your false interpolatation, which is the Archie way, of course.



''The Nostratic theory has been confirmed in general terms, and is not denied by anyone in general terms, and the Balkanists and Anatolists can turn green with anger''

That's funny. Again, you should check Wikipedia - it's a good starting point -''Nostratic is a controversial and hypothetical macrofamily'.

In fact, you should read the main point of this Post. It's not looking too good for your 'theory', but if it reality turns and it does get proven, then that'll be fine with me.
Secondly, I don't think IE - or Uralic for that matter- came from Anatolia or Balkans. But I have written that hunter-gatherers in the vicinty of Balkan farmers were a key early component to generating the Pontic network, which is irreovocably proven. Moreover, its also indisputable that some of the key pre-yamnya I.E. groups were from NW Pontic/ NE Balkan steppe. This is also irrevocable. I know you have delusiosn that you're somehow relevant and 'in the know', but you're not.
But I do understand this might be difficult for you to understand what I have written, given that English, Russian, archaeology, genetics, etc aren't your strong points.
My advice - Just face reality. Moreover, you're not a very good biographer, in fact you're only embarrassing yourself further.

EastPole said...


@Archie

"Are you not at all interested in the fact that the Tocharian language is also Indo-European?"


According to G. S. Lane Tocharians enjoyed their last Indo-European contacts with Balto-Slavic. Moreover there are Slavic words in Chinese, like ‘kolo’ “wheel” (not Indo-Iranian).

This is interesting:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289928558_A_Balto-Slavic_key_to_the_etymology_of_Tocharian_B_twar

‘Twar-’ is interesting because Vedic god Tvastar “fashioner, creator” has Slavic etymology.

Rob said...

The presence of Andronovo in Xinjiang is very interesting. There's also Chermuchek-like burials too.
The article posted by Archie says that those people evidently didnt stay long at the micro-region, but perhaps 'migrated elsewhere'..

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,
"You fell from an oak tree. This is in no way the Andronovo culture and has nothing in common with it. Therefore, they just might be Tocherians."

The Xiaohe mummies belong to Y DNA R1a. So, they must be from Andronovo. There were no one else with R1a in Asia at that time.

Afanasiveo were the only IEs in Asia besides Andronovo, and they had R1b not R1a.

Archi said...

@Rob

"Which says nothing about the Getae being in Moldova. That's your false interpolatation, which is the Archie way, of course."

Which says nothing about the Getae being not in Moldova. That's your false interpolatation, which is the Rob way, of course.

You are not trainable, I don’t fantasize anything, but you’re all just fanning and fantasize ignoring the facts and so always without exception. I have presented indisputable proof many times, you have not brought a single one.

Once again, for you I am giving you the Map of the Getic Monuments of the Dniester-Prut interfluve https://i.ibb.co/QPzLWBp/Getae-Glinoe.png, there are only the Getae, study it carefully.

https://i.ibb.co/QPzLWBp/Getae-Glinoe.png

"you should check Wikipedia"

It is understandable that you have never read anything except Wikipedia. You here haven’t written anything but shameful and meaningless messages, showing everyone that you haven’t even finished elementary school. In science, they argue about everything that there were Indo-European languages ​​or were Indo-Hittite (Anatolian is a separate family of languages), were there a Balto-Slavic group or the Baltic and Slavic languages ​​were separate, and so on. So you put yourself in an awkward position.

Samuel Andrews said...

The existence of Tocherian languages makes no sense.

Fatayanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo all come from the same founding population. So, they MUST have spoken the same language: Indo-Iranian.

But Tocherian isn't Indo-Iranian. So where did it come from?

Afanasiveo doesn't look like a good candidate because Afansievo seems to have more or less disappeared/absorbed by Ustavo.

Arza said...

@ EastPole
I recalled that Chinese glass was found in Lusatian culture.

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=45665
There's a Chinese character 罽 (Mandarin jì, Old Sinitic *kràts), which means "rug, carpet; woolen textile; fish net"). On the basis of its sound, meaning, place, and date of occurrence, it would seem to be related to Toch. A kratsu "rug".

This raises two questions:

1. Does this Tocharian word have cognates in other IE languages?

2. Who borrowed it from whom? Sinitic from Tocharian or Tocharian from Sinitic?


Tarim basin:

https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/I/51EE1SY7ZVL.jpg

Przeworsk culture:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/10/0877_Keltische_Frau_im_3._Jh._v._Chr.JPG

Why a rug is called "kratsu" in Tocharian is rather obvious...

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews

"The Xiaohe mummies belong to Y DNA R1a. So, they must be from Andronovo. There were no one else with R1a in Asia at that time."

R1a(xZ93) Z93- ! You again do not know the common knowledge facts.

Archaeologists and anthropologists have long proved that these Andronovians were not. You don't know archeology to fantasize about who was in Asia before Andronovo.

@EastPole
"Moreover there are Slavic words in Chinese, like ‘kolo’ “wheel”"

kolo, wheel is Indo-European word. It is not Slavic, wheel is cognate of kolo.

Copper Axe said...

We barely have any understanding of the population genetics of the Tarim Basin. Saying either Andronovo or Afanasievo must be Tocharian is basically gambling.

The Tarim Basin during the bronze age is full of cultures with Andronovo influence, Afanasievo/Qiemu'erqieke influence and some cultures seem to have influences from both like the Gumugou culture.

Xiaohe could easily be Indo-Iranian derived but with different material tradition than on the steppes. Its also older than Andronovo proper iirc (2000 bc vs 1800 bc). But Xiaohe =/= Tarim Basin. It's just one of the cemeteries/cultures that is known due to their mummies.

There do seem to be loanwords in Tocharian that hint at a pre-khotanese archaic Iranian substrate.

Archi said...

Once again, the Tarim mummies were not Androvians. Earlier it was proved by archeology and anthropology independently of each other, now genetics proved it. The culture of the Tarim mummies is not Andronovo, nor a derivative from it, not even related, although it comes from Europe, which was proven right away.

Davidski said...

@Samuel

It's Tocharian not Tocherian.

Anyway, Afanasievo is seen by most as the best option for a Proto-Tocharian speaking culture because its people moved out of the Pontic-Caspian steppe homeland relatively early, which sort of fits with the basal position of Tocharian in the Indo-European phylogenetic tree.

However, there may be other ways to explain the divergent character of Tocharian, like, for instance, Uralic influence.

https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/7/1/article-p72_3.xml?language=en

If something like this turns out to be right, then it might be possible to say that Tocharian was closely related to Indo-Iranian and spread east rather late with the Andronovo culture.

Andronovo covered a huge area, probably as large as Europe. Think about how many Indo-European families exist in Europe.

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

Or it might indicate how Tocharian (or rather its ancestral phase) once upon a time was spoken around the Altai, in the vicinity of Yeniseian and Samoyedic languages. Pretty much exactly where Afanasievo was situated.

Given that we know that the Qiemu'erqieke were Afanasievo derived, both autosomally and with their Y-dna, that might be another possibility. That culture has been proposed to be the missing link between Afanasievo in the Altai and the material cultures of the Tarim Basin.

Arza said...

@Samuel Andrews
But Tocherian isn't Indo-Iranian. So where did it come from?

From a parallel migration or even more likely from a later migration from Central Europe that caught up with the Indo-Iranian one. That's why Tarim mummies are R1a, but not Z93.

Finding "Balto-Slavic" Y-DNA behind the Ural dated to the Bronze Age is a matter of time IMHO. And if they'll be mixed with (para-)Uralics it'll clear that they were Proto-Tocharians:

https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/7/1/article-p72_3.xml?language=en
The deviant typological profile of the Tocharian branch of Indo-European may be due to Uralic substrate influence.

We already have Z280 dated to 1900-1550 BCE at the doorstep of the Uralic homeland:
https://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#8/54.113/55.668

And now we have a "Czech" at the doorstep of the Tocharian world. Shame that they didn't publish either the Y-DNA or the RAW data.

Arza said...

@ Davidski
Anyway, Afanasievo is seen by most as the best option for a Proto-Tocharian speaking culture

Not even that. Afanasievo is already ruled out on a purely linguistic basis:

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47645
The geographical, archeological, genetic, and linguistic origins of Tocharian

It is particularly important to note that the dating makes whatever language spoken by the Afanasievo people not a descendant of the Proto-Indo-European of the Yamnaya people. If it was related at all, it was rather a sister of the Proto-Indo-European in the same way that Anatolian was a sister of the Proto-Indo-European rather than a descendant. Any descendant of the Afanasievo language, if Indo-European at all, would be as different from the “standard average Indo-European” (“SAIE”) languages descended from the Yamnaya language as Anatolian is different from “SAIE.” Since Tocharian is clearly “SAIE,” it can’t be a descendant of the Afanasievo language (again, presuming the latter was related to Proto-Indo-European at all).

Archi said...

@Arza
" the Proto-Indo-European of the Yamnaya people. If it was related at all, it was rather a sister of the Proto-Indo-European in the same way that Anatolian was a sister of the Proto-Indo-European rather than a descendant. “standard average Indo-European” (“SAIE”) languages descended from the Yamnaya language"

LOL. Who told you that Proto-Indo-Europeans come from Yamnaya culture? Stop carrying this outdated nonsense.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Vladimir

Afanasievo had relatively primitive metallurgy compared to Andronovo and Seima-Turbino. Even the earlier Abashevo culture did not utalize the wax casting which made Seima-Turbino unique.

S-T may have had direct or indirect contacts (mediated through Indo-Iranians or Tocharians?) with BMAC. This could explain where the wax casting technique came from.

Look at the few likely Uralic aDNA samples we have. BOO, Tarands, Uyelgi and Hungarian conquerors. The only uniting feature being Y-hg N1c and a varying degree of Nganassan related admixture, much like modern Uralic speakers. If Seima-Turbino spread PU, it was probably a relatively homogeneous population, atleast the portion which spread west.

Ric Hern said...

You do not have to look far to see that Tocharian was Indo-European. Just look at basic word comparisons between different Indo-European Languages and Tocharian. Some words are close to Celtic, others to Germanic and even some to Slavic. Much closer than most Hittite words...

EastPole said...

@Arza
“https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=45665
There's a Chinese character 罽 (Mandarin jì, Old Sinitic *kràts), which means "rug, carpet; woolen textile; fish net"). On the basis of its sound, meaning, place, and date of occurrence, it would seem to be related to Toch. A kratsu "rug".

This raises two questions:

1. Does this Tocharian word have cognates in other IE languages?”

Difficult to say. Can be related to Latin ‘cratis, -is’ “construction of wickerwork, hurdle”

https://i.postimg.cc/cLQ7sXwm/screenshot-122.png

Old Prussian ‘corto’ “fence” and Slavic ‘gord-/gorod-/hrad-/grod-/etc. ‘ related to fence,

Probably of not IE origin. Slavic words for weaving and sewing are like Indo-Iranian. When proto-Balto-Slavic boys migrated to Poland and married some local TRB, GAC girls, the boys were surprised that the girls told them to build a construction around their hut and called it ‘krat-/grod-‘ or similar. Probably proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic boys had similar experience when they married Michelsberg culture girls. So we have similar words for fencing made by ‘weaving’ wood branches which are of not-IE, probably LBK, origin. The girls also called some rugs or weaving patterns with similar words. And with traders these words got to China. Just speculating.

Rob said...

@ Arza

But you are constantly suggesting that Anatolia is not that divergent ; yet you maintain the divergence theory for Tocharian
If Tocharians really do feature somethign like Z280, then it might be from a post-1200 BC migration, as the eastern Trziniec groups replaced Srubnajans & Fatyanovans in E.E.
? some kept going east..

Simon_W said...

@Ryan

"Anyone else try the Genomelink ancestry report?"

I'm not going to try this report. An ADMIXTURE model that models West Eurasians as a mix of hunter-gatherers, first farmers and steppe pastoralists may work for Northwest Europeans, but it's bound to be a failure for people with South and Southeast European ancestry, due to the lack of an Anatolia BA component.

Their trait inference seems to be pretty good though, so thanks for hinting me at that site. I'm still waiting for my full list of inferred traits, should be ready soon.

Archi said...

@EastPole
"Probably of not IE origin. Slavic words for weaving and sewing are like Indo-Iranian. When proto-Balto-Slavic boys migrated to Poland and married some local TRB, GAC girls, the boys were surprised that the girls told them to build a construction around their hut and called it ‘krat-/grod-‘ or similar. "

You are fantasizing again. Old-Ind. gr̥hás "house", Avest. gǝrǝδō "cave", Goth. gards "house", Нitt. gurtas "fortress", Tochar.B kerciye "palace".

EastPole said...

@Archi

„LOL. Who told you that Proto-Indo-Europeans come from Yamnaya culture? Stop carrying this outdated nonsense.”

It is from:
https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=47645

just read it before accusing others of spreading nonsense. It is Mair’s view not Arza’s.


„You are fantasizing again”

So you think verb ‘grod-‘ “to fence” comes from the noun ‘grod-‘ “city, fortress, house”, and not the opposite?

Archi said...

The Czechs are farthest from Baigetuobie on the Chinese list. They have a very strange method, they actually measure the distance from the basal component of the Mbuti (outgroup). The farthest from Mbuti are naturally EHG, the closest to Mbuti are naturally those who contain the most EEF, that is, the Czechs.

In my opinion, it is impossible to use f3-statistics like that, except for the case when you do not want to use it to build PCA, f3-statistics are still for using ingroup.

Archi said...

@EastPole
"ust read it before accusing others of spreading nonsense. It is Mair’s view not Arza’s."

This is Arza's opinion as he refers to it ("Not even that. Afanasievo is already ruled out on a purely linguistic basis:"). Of course, no linguistic evidence that the Afanasyevans could not have been Tocharians does not exist in nature. Some dilettante Mair wrote his mindless set of words of nonsense on his blog, he is nobody and his opinion is nothing, it proves nothing. He did not give a single linguistic argument other than a set of errors based on his own preconceptions.

R1b Le destructeur de chattes said...

L51 is not just a single grave marker, it has been found in others Corder ware and afanasievo remains. Maybe you meant L51 or L151 ?

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

Do you agree Xiaohe Tarim mummies are an eastern outpost of Andronovo people merged with an Asian tribe/population? Y DNA R1a, Asian mtDNA. I believe it is dated to 1800-1500 BC, which is when Andronovo was in the area.

@Archi,

Xiaohe burials may look strange but there's no way explaining away their Y DNA R1a. Just like there's no way explaining away R1b L51 in Corded Ware.

Andrzejewski said...

@EastPole “ Probably of not IE origin. Slavic words for weaving and sewing are like Indo-Iranian. When proto-Balto-Slavic boys migrated to Poland and married some local TRB, GAC girls, the boys were surprised that the girls told them to build a construction around their hut and called it ‘krat-/grod-‘ or similar. Probably proto-Italo-Celto-Germanic boys had similar experience when they married Michelsberg culture girls. So we have similar words for fencing made by ‘weaving’ wood branches which are of not-IE, probably LBK, origin. The girls also called some rugs or weaving patterns with similar words. And with traders these words got to China. Just speculating.”

Maybe related to Hebrew? In Hebrew “ga’dder” = fence

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

Cut out the provocative posts about white people in ancient Asia. This is not the place for those sorts of discussions.

@Samuel

I don't really know what the Tarim Basin mummies represent.

They need to be tested properly and then we'll see.

@R1b Le destructeur de chattes

I didn't say that L51 was exclusively a Single Grave marker, only that it was a Single Grave marker.

In fact, as you shall see, L51 wasn't just a Corded Ware marker at the time, but modern L51 lineages are overwhelmingly, and possibly entirely, derived from those in the westernmost Corded Ware population.

Vladimir said...

Can Tarim mummies be R1a1a1b1-Z283>Z282>Y17491>YP4858 ? After all, in Western Mongolia there is NAI002 with such a subclades. Approximately there is a ZAM001 with the same incomprehensible M198. There's also an M4 with an incomprehensible Z645. Approximately the same DA39 with an incomprehensible Z645. In this case, it is clear why the Czechs are close. One subclade of R1a-YP4858 went to the East together with Z94.

Vladimir said...

The same population should probably include I8507 Andronovo culture, steppe_mlba_o bmac, kokcha_ba, R1a-M417, 2500-1500 BCE.

Copper Axe said...

The oldest layers at Xiaohe date to 2200-2000 BC Sam, it doesn't derive from Andronovo.

Just because Andronovo is the first material culture that covers Central Asia on a map does not mean that no Indo-Iranians (or z93- relatives) went east before the Andronovo culture was formed.

P.s there are thousands of Tarim mummies ranging from 2000 bc to the early medieval period. Xiaohe isn't representative of all Tarim mummies. It is one cemetery out of the dozens.

Vladimir said...

In the same area, there are no less paradoxical samples. For example, I4773, Andronovo, R1a-YP4141-YP4132*, which was still in the Neolithic in Ukraine.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,
"The oldest layers at Xiaohe date to 2200-2000 BC"

Is anyone else able to concur with this? Because I read 1800-1500 BC for a large cemetery with all the typical Tarim mummy burial customs.

Davidski said...

@Samuel

The C14 dates range from 2000 to 1500 BCE, but I guess there may be somewhat older remains there that haven't been dated directly yet.

We describe here the analysis of mtDNA from human remains recovered from the Xiaohe tomb complex, an important Bronze Age site in the eastern edge of the Tarim Basin (40°20′11″N, 88°40′20.3″E) (Fig. 1). Discovered originally in 1934 by the Swedish archaeologist Folke Bergman, it was subsequently lost, but rediscovered in 2000 by a team from the Xinjiang Archaeological Institute using global positioning equipment. The cemetery was excavated between 2002 and 2005, and consisted of five strata with radiocarbon dates ranging from 4000 to 3500 years before present (14C yBP) [19, 22]. The site has many notable features, including numerous large phallus and vulva posts made of poplar, striking wooden human figures and masks, well-preserved boat coffins, leather hides, wheat and millet grains, and many artifacts (Fig. 2). Importantly, it contains the oldest and best-preserved mummies so far discovered in the Tarim Basin, possible those of the earliest people to settle the region.

https://bmcgenet.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12863-015-0237-5

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews

"Do you agree Xiaohe Tarim mummies are an eastern outpost of Andronovo people merged with an Asian tribe/population? Y DNA R1a, Asian mtDNA. I believe it is dated to 1800-1500 BC, which is when Andronovo was in the area."

Your feedback is very valuable to us. You are the greatest connoisseur of Tarim mummies in human history. All the others are no match for you.

"Is anyone else able to concur with this? Because I read 1800-1500 BC for a large cemetery with all the typical Tarim mummy burial customs."

You are the greatest connoisseur of Tarim mummies, and of course you know all the dates best. I am a modest nonentity, I will just give these samples, which you certainly know better than me, I am far from you.

Bronze Tocharian? China Xiaohe, Xinjiang [106] 2515 ± 43 BC M R1a1a M89+, M9+, M45+, M173+, M198+ (Z93-) C4 16298C, 16327T Li 2010 (and answer to comments)
Bronze Tocharian? China Xiaohe, Xinjiang [111] 2515 ± 43 BC M R1a1a M89+, M9+, M45+, M173+, M198+ (Z93-) C4 16223, 16298C 16309, 16327T Li 2010 (and answer to comments)
Bronze Tocharian? China Xiaohe, Xinjiang [115] 2515 ± 43 BC M R1a1a M89+, M9+, M45+, M173+, M198+ (Z93-) C4 16298C, 16327T Li 2010 (and answer to comments)
Bronze Tocharian? China Xiaohe, Xinjiang [120] 2515 ± 43 BC M R1a1a M89+, M9+, M45+, M173+, M198+ (Z93-) R* 16189, 16192, 16311 Li 2010 (and answer to comments)
Bronze Tocharian? China Xiaohe, Xinjiang [121] 2515 ± 43 BC M R1a1a M89+, M9+, M45+, M173+, M198+ (Z93-) R* 16183, 16189, 16192 16311 Li 2010
Bronze Tocharian? China Xiaohe, Xinjiang [136] 2515 ± 43 BC M R1a1a M89+, M9+, M45+, M173+, M198+ (Z93-) C4 16298C, 16327T Li 2010 (and answer to comments)
Bronze Tocharian? China Xiaohe, Xinjiang [139] 2515 ± 43 BC M R1a1a M89+, M9+, M45+, M173+, M198+ (Z93-) C4 16298C, 16327T Li 2010

The most important thing is that dates do not play any role here, the most important thing is that the Tarim mummies culture has nothing to do with the Andronrovo culture.

Parastais said...

On gard, pretty standard IE root.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/g%CA%B0erd%CA%B0-

Baltic languages somehow got Satem version of that word too, i.e. Latvian zārds. So, it is one of those words in Balto-Slavic which has both Centum and Satem versions whatever that may mean.

Vladimir said...

I think it's time to remember eastern Babino, previously this group was called Krivoluk culture. This group arrived in the southern Urals before Sintashta, at the same time as Poltavka kultura. Kozintsev writes about the similarity of the Tarim craniological male series with the craniological series of Andronovo (Fedorovo) burials of eastern Kazakhstan and the Altai Mountains. He also points to the Ingul catacomb group of Ukraine, which has some similarities with the Elunino male series of the Elunino culture, which also have similarities with the Gumugou Tarim group. Kozintsev refers to Dubova, who sees similar parallels in Dashti-Kyzy. kozintsev sees two possible options. The first is through Dzungaria, the second through the Ferghana oasis and then through the mountains along the southern route of the Silk Road to Tarim. aDNA currently allows both options.

https://www.academia.edu/4740447/%D0%98%D0%B7_%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BF%D0%B8_%D0%B2_%D0%BF%D1%83%D1%81%D1%82%D1%8B%D0%BD%D1%8E_%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B5_%D0%B5%D0%B2%D1%80%D0%BE%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%BE%D0%B8%D0%B4%D1%8B_%D0%92%D0%BE%D1%81%D1%82%D0%BE%D1%87%D0%BD%D0%BE%D0%B3%D0%BE_%D0%A2%D1%83%D1%80%D0%BA%D0%B5%D1%81%D1%82%D0%B0%D0%BD%D0%B0_%D1%82%D0%B5%D0%BA%D1%81%D1%82_2012_Out_of_the_steppe_and_into_the_desert_The_early_Caucasoids_of_Xinjiang_text_2012_

Archi said...

@Vladimir

"I think it's time to remember eastern Babino, previously this group was called Krivoluk culture."

Do not invent it, no one calls the Krivoluk group East Babino and does not refer to it. There is no need to formalize your inventions as if these are not your fantasies, but someone else's opinion.

Archi said...

@Vladimir

"Kozintsev writes about the similarity of the Tarim craniological male series with the craniological series of Andronovo (Fedorovo) burials of eastern Kazakhstan and the Altai Mountains."

These are not the Tarim mummies (Xiaohe), but Gumugou. These are completely different burials belonging to completely different cultures and times, but this is also not the Andronovo culture. Nobody tested Gumugou. And your description is just a broken phone.


Vladimir said...

@Archie

POST-CATACOMB PERIOD IN THE LOWER VOLGA REGION: FROM THE KRIVAYA LUKA CULTURAL GROUP TO THE VOLGA-DON BABINO CULTURE
Mimokhod R.A.
Institute of Archaeology Russian Academy of Sciences

This article is devoted to an analysis of post-catacomb sites dating from the end of the Middle Bronze Age in the Lower Volga region and the Volga-Don interfluve. A description is provided of the funerary rite and the grave-goods accompanying the burials. It is argued that the pottery from the burials, which defines the culture, is represented by vessels decorated with multiple ridges, known also from the settlements of the region under discussion. On the basis of stratigraphic observations and cultural-typological comparisons, synchronization lines of local post-catacomb antiquities are established, particularly in relation to the Dnieper-Don Babino and Lola Cultures. According to calibrated radiocarbon dates, the post-catacomb period in the lower reaches of the Volga was determined as the 22 nd-20 th cc. BC. Examination of the terminology from a new angle has made it possible to conclude that the designation the so-called Krivaya Luka Cultural Group, which was previously used to mark post-catacomb sites in the region during the last ten years, has lost its relevance by this time. Given that the Lower Volga antiquities from the final stage of the Middle Bronze Age represent the eastern part of the Babino Cultural circle, a new term is suggested - «Volga-Don Babino culture» - in keeping with the principles used to denote other Babino cultures: Dnieper-Don and Dnieper-Prut Babino cultures.

Vladimir said...

"If we talk about the possible origins of the tradition of the appearance of wooden masks in the Xiaohe culture, then, apparently, we can point to the previous Gumugou culture in the same region of Xinjiang, where a similar wooden mask was found in one of the complexes, however, it differs in a different iconography. It is more realistic and does not contain deliberately exaggerated features of the human face. It is appropriate to add that the burial grounds of this culture of the early Bronze Age are clearly associated with the burials of the Caucasian population." molodin v. i.

Archi said...

In general, all the arguments about who the Tokharians were now are completely futile. Until the real Tocharians are found and tested in the range of the 5-7th century AD, that is, after the departure of the True Tokharians of Iranian Yuezhi from Xinjiang and before the arrival of the Uighurs, it is impossible to say anything.

Could Afanasyevans be Tokharians? Yes, it may or may not be.
Could Tarim mummies be Tokharians? Yes, it may or may not be.
There are no arguments in favor of any of the versions or against, except that the Tarim mummies are definitely Indo-Europeans who definitely lived in Xinjiang in the Bronze Age, but there are no traces of the advancement of the Afanasyevo culture into Xinjiang.

The problem is that we do not know anything about the Tokharians except their language, we do not know anything about culture, or about archeology, or about anthropology, or about genetics, or about history. Nothing at all, most of the Tokharian texts are Buddhist, since the Tokharians professed Buddhism, their burial ceremony was most likely not connected with the earth, most likely they had a Buddhist air burial. I have never heard of any remains that are known to belong to the Tokharians. The only thing we know about them is their language.

A completely opposite situation about Afanasyevans, we know everything about them except the language, we know their culture, archeology, anthropology, genetics, but we have no idea where they disappeared and what their language was. By the way, the same applies to Yamnaya culture.

Archi said...

@Vladimir

Nothing of the kind, Mimikhod does not call the Krivoluk cultural group by Eastern Babino, he inscribes it into the Volga-Don Babino culture. This is the opinion of Mimikhod, he may be wrong. According to the description of this cultural group, it does not constitute a unity at all, different cultures are represented there.

"the Xiaohe culture, then, apparently, we can point to the previous Gumugou culture"

Gumugou was after Xiaohe.


vahaduo said...

Bonus:

Blast from the PAST

All samples are added twice in the "As one group" + "Add (convex hulls and group labels) to aggregated subgroups" mode. Green points and convex hulls belong to the first layer, red labels (style set to "static") to the second. Legend, base PCA and points from the second layer are hidden.

Tigran said...

What a weird day. I actually agree with Archi's previous few posts on Tocharians. He's spot on.

vahaduo said...

@all

I've updated g25views tool:
https://vahaduo.github.io/g25views/

New stuff:
"Reset plot" (the current one) replaces "Reset all".
"Save" - 3 new sizes - FullHD, 4K, 8K.
"Scaled / Non-scaled" as input.
"Aggregated / Individual / As one group"
[in "As one group" mode]: "Type custom name" input field shows up.
[Gear icon]:
>"Add convex hulls"
>"Add group labels"
>[in "As one group" mode]:
>>"Add to:"
>>"Main group"
>>"Aggregated subgroups"

"join@" is automatically removed from the input so old spreadsheets can be pasted without any modifications and with all groups at once.

Plotly buttons:
"Download plot as PNG" saves the plot in the same size as rendered on the screen.

Custom Plotly buttons:
"Add subtitle"
"Toggle legend: full / projected only / base PCA only / none"
"Toggle base PCA visibility: show / hide"
"Toggle hover info: all / projected only"
"Toggle base PCA color scheme: color / gray"
"Toggle base PCA labels: none / full name / group name / ID"
"Toggle projected marker size: big / medium / small"
"Toggle projected labels: none / full name / group name / ID"
"Toggle group labels style: movable / static"
"Toggle group labels: show for visible projected groups / hide"
"Toggle convex hulls: show for visible projected groups / hide"
"Toggle projected visibility: show / hide"

Sample plots:
https://postimg.cc/gallery/PZjqq0G

EastPole said...

@vahaduo

Thank you! Now we can see our history better:

https://i.postimg.cc/nLk7hjGd/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-Polish-History-7.png

Matt said...

Nice one Vahaduo. Even using the new options in tool in a fairly basic way was useful to me to plot lots of the new modern samples in the datasheets: https://imgur.com/a/UGLoRy3

(In Europe: Danish, Afrikaner, lots of French regions - who all plot roughly where expected but still cool welcome to see. In Asia: Different Han Chinese from different provinces - not surprisingly G25 recreates the modest geographical structure by distance of Han in China.)

EastPole said...

We can now investigate the history of Polish population:

https://i.postimg.cc/nLk7hjGd/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-Polish-History-7.png

This is how modern Poles can be modeled with Polish aDNA samples:


https://i.postimg.cc/nrV6K0V7/Polish2.jpg


https://i.postimg.cc/LsMQBNNX/Polish1.jpg

galadhorn said...

@EastPole

Thank you for this diagram: https://i.postimg.cc/nLk7hjGd/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-Polish-History-7.png

Do you publish your links, graphics, diagrams on a blog? Have you any blog on the net? It would be very interesting for me.

@Davidski

Thank you for this place on the net. I read it and its comments with interest every day :)

EastPole said...

@galadhorn
“Do you publish your links, graphics, diagrams on a blog? Have you any blog on the net?”

No, I don’t have a blog. Eurogenes is the best blog for genetics. I have some ideas but it is too early for them to be published.



„CELTO-GERMANIC” John T. Koch

https://repository.uwtsd.ac.uk/id/eprint/1543/1/JK4.pdf

“The Abashevo people who moved eastward to found the Sintashta culture were attracted by abundant arsenic-rich copper ores in Transuralia (Cunliffe 2015, 131–2). This migration can be
seen as a favourable context for breaking a dialect chain and crystallization of a separate language, both by putting more distance—and a mountain range—between the migrants and the probable homeland of Pre-Balto-Slavic and also bringing closer contact with a non-Indo-European Proto-Uralic language and that of the Bactria–Margiana Archaeological Complex (BMAC) in Central Asia (cf. Parpola & Carpelan 2005).”

“The realignment of Pre-Germanic towards Italo-Celtic now suggests the spread of the Beaker phenomenon into Central Europe, where it overlapped and partly fused with CWC in the area between the Rhine, Upper Danube, and Jutland “

Proto-Balto-Slavic/Indo-Iranian CWC became proto-Indo-Iranian when crossed Ural and proto-Celto-Germanic when mixed with Bell Beaker around Rhine.

https://i.postimg.cc/DwfshTST/screenshot-124.png

Tigran said...

How much East Eurasian ancestry is there in Malta and EHG?

Davidski said...

@Samuel

Here's some background reading for you. This is brand new.

https://link.springer.com/referenceworkentry/10.1007%2F978-981-15-1614-6_28-1

old europe said...

@tigran

In Malta more or less 20/25 per cent
In EHG it depends on the variability of WHG/ANE ratio

Copper Axe said...

Shifting Memories: Burial Practices and Cultural Interaction in Bronze Age China: A study of the Xiaohe-Gumugou cemeteries in the Tarim Basin

http://www.diva-portal.org/smash/record.jsf?pid=diva2%3A1328477&dswid=-4665

Here is a good one as well.

galadhorn said...

@EastPole

I would love to make a map like yours but with my coordinates. I mean this map:

https://i.postimg.cc/nLk7hjGd/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-Polish-History-7.png

I am still the beginner. Where can I find the Global25 coordinates for the ancient samples of aDNA? I am sorry if my question seems to be stupid :)

If you want, you can write to me at derdzinski (at) gmail (dot) com

Samuel Andrews said...

Thanks for those studies.

EastPole said...

@galadhorn
“Where can I find the Global25 coordinates for the ancient samples of aDNA?”


https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html

Matt said...

May be interesting to someone: https://imgur.com/a/gzhsk3c

Plots of ancient samples from Iberia/Britain/Poland*, where X axis is time and Y axis is G25 distance from the present day population in that same region**

You can kind of see in the samples the timing of the drop in distance from present day samples around 2500-2000 BCE.

Also interesting is that certainly in Britain, there is a visual trend of continued slower falling in distance after 2000 BCE at a relatively even rate (to some extent also in Iberia but less obviously so due to appearance of the more differentiated Iberia Southeast samples, but unfortunately Poland is too patchily sampled atm to see this trend).

*as some countries with decent transects, Britain and Iberia more so

**for Britain and Iberia, used English samples and the main cluster of Iberian sample excl. Basques, respectively.

epoch said...

What the opinion about this, with regard to the origin of WHG ancestry?

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-78841-x

ambron said...

Matt, when it comes to Poles, the problem is also the lack of younger samples.

Matt said...

@ambron, yep. Note I went for the quick and lazy version of doing this by just pulling all the dates from the Human Origins .anno file from May. There are a few more samples like the Viking Age paper's samples from Poland+Britain that could go on some of those plots, but they are not present on that file and I couldn't be bothered to manually look up and enter dates from a bunch of different sources. (Likewise for Italy - I think I have a list somewhere for the dates for the samples from Roman period, but aren't in the current HO .anno file, otherwise I might have done one of these for there as well).

Aram said...

Well we have ancient Uighur samples who might have assimilated recently Tocharians. And they had some R1b-Z2103-s.
This is quite remarkable because I don't remember any other ancient Turkish sample with R1b Z2103.

Davidski said...

@All

The Viking world samples are now based on the official genotypes from the paper in the Global25 and Celtic vs Germanic datasheets.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/09/viking-world-open-analysis-and.html

Matt said...

Same thing as above (distance to present day) with Pakistan and Turkey included: https://imgur.com/a/u4LoObA

Rob said...

@ Epoch
Intuitively, SWF might not have the dual ancestry which Iberia does, because Goyet-Q2 lack VB-related ancestry. Unless, Goyet-Q2 came from somewhere else ?

Tigran said...

I'm more curious why Goyet has Tianyuan affinities. Seems out of place.

EastPole said...

I very interested in Nitra Culture. They migrated from POL_Chlopice_Vesele_Culture south. Maybe they were the ones which contributed to Greek culture:

https://i.postimg.cc/cJ1xvmMN/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-Polish-Greek-2.jpg

and Thracian culture:

https://i.postimg.cc/Pr3bN3km/Vahaduo-Global-25-West-Eurasia-PCA-Polish-Bulgarian.jpg

This would explain all the links between Greek, Thracian, Vedic and Slavic in religion and culture.

EastPole said...

The probable genetic links between:
Corded_Ware_POL –> POL_Chlopice_Vesele_Culture –> Nitra Culture –> Greek/Thracian/(Unetice)
and
Corded_Ware_POL –> RUS_Sintashta_MLBA –> RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA –>RUS_Tagar/ RUS_Karasuk/(India)

Can be seen here:


https://i.postimg.cc/T3pG3W2k/Poland-IE.jpg


https://i.postimg.cc/7ZkHmLqX/Poland-IE2.jpg

Matt said...

@ambron, in case you are interested, added the Viking Age paper's samples into a time vs distance from present day population plot covering England, Poland, Lithuania: https://imgur.com/a/Le8bwen

(dates given in Margaryen's supplement were somewhat approximate unfortunately but done the best I could with what was there).

Adding Spain as well: https://imgur.com/a/5xR8k5w

The Baltic region is useful to add as you can really see the transition of ancestry in the 3rd millennium BCE (3000-2000 BCE), mostly between the frame 2700-2200 BCE.

Removing Spain but adding in the Switzerland (CHE) samples from Furtwangler's paper: https://imgur.com/a/YWaAiZv . Again really good for visualizing the period of turnover in the above frame, unlike other regions where some phenomena like cremation or sparse samples could be obscuring things.

It'll be cool as well to add in some more regions like Balkans, Italy, Germany, Greece when there are good, full dated versions of transects for them in future in the Human Origins file.

Arza said...

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.08.19.256412v1.full
A Minimally Destructive Protocol for DNA Extraction from Ancient Teeth
Harney et al.

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB32750

Reads are VERY noisy. Y-DNA assignments are preliminary and they aren't necessarily correct.

Urziceni, Romania, Grave 27 6,300-6,050 Virag et al., 2006
I2a2b?

Urziceni, Romania, Grave 56 6,300-6,050
H2a1~?

Glăvăneşti, Romania, Grave 1(49), M11 5,450-3,050 Motzoi-Chicideanu, 2011
R1a1a1b2~?

Ras al Hamra 5, Oman, Grave 215 5,650-5,150
?

Ras al Hamra 5, Oman, Grave 221 5,650-5,150
?

Ciumai, Rep. of Moldova, Tumulus 1, Grave 10 4,000-1,000 Ciobanu et al. 2016
N2a~?

Polgár-Ferenci-hát, Hungary, 715/1022 7,280-7,035 Bickle and Whittle, 2013; Anders, 2017
I2a2b?

Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary 2,600-2,400 Hellebrandt, 1988
R1b1a1b1a1a2?

Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary 2,600-2,400 Hellebrandt, 1988
I1?

Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary 2,600-2,400 Hellebrandt, 1988
I?

Polgár Kenderföld, Hungary 4,300-3,600 Dani, 2002; Dani and V.Szabó 2003; Dani et al 2003; Dani and V,Szabó 2004
R1a1a1b1?

Dereivka, Ukraine 7,500-6,800
R1b1b?

Ekven, Russia 1,400-900
C2a1a1b2~?

Ekven, Russia 1,030-790
Q1a1b?

Ekven, Russia 1,380-1,010
Q1a1b?

Ekven, Russia 1,310-930
Q1b1a1a2?

Ekven, Russia 6,350-6,260
Q1a2? Q1a2a~?

Ust Belaya, Russia 4,840-4,490
Q1b1b~?

Volosovo-Danilovo, Russia 4,000-2,000
R1a1a1b2?

Arza said...

Polgár Kenderföld, Hungary 4,300-3,600 R1a1a1b1?

https://www.academia.edu/38482566/MIDDLE_BRONZE_AGE_SETTLEMENT_NETWORK_IN_THE_NEIGHBOURHOOD_OF_POLG%C3%81R
Polgár, Kenderföld - Kiscsőszhalom tell

The site also called ”Szödhalom” on the map of First Habsburg military survey. After the first field surveys of József Petróczy, and then the fieldwalking of Ibolya M. Nepper on this site (M. Nepper & Sz.Máthé 1973: 50; M. Nepper 1974a: 18; M. Nepper 1974b: 415, nr.13), the first excavations at this Bronze Age tell settlement were conducted between 1989 and 1995 by Márta Sz. Máthé and Magdolna Vicze (Fig. 1.1). Two joining 5 x 10 m trenches were opened. The method of this research was almost identical with the tell excavations conducted in the Berettyó region. A small trench was cut into the southwestern part of the tell in order to clarify the statigraphic sequence and chronological situation of the site. This research provided significantly more information neither about the inner structure of this tell settlement, nor about the location of the associated Bronze Age burial place(s). The material of this sounding excavation is yet unpublished. The first Early Bronze Age settlers on this loessy elevation on the bank of the Hódos brook belonged to the Nyírség culture with some pits. The tell of Kiscsőszhalom was founded in the last phase of the EBA by a Hatvan community. After the Hatvan settling, already in the MBA there was a partial change in the ceramic style and an important change in the settlement structure: wide and deep ditch were charged and we could observe traces of new houses above it in the later phases of the tell, wich connected to the appearance of Füzesabony style ceramics on the settlement (Fig. 2. 1). Meanwhile, the site was surveyed by the Upper Tisza Project in 1991 and 1996, where this site was named as ”Polgár 001” (UTP e-book, database 1).

Arza said...

Polgár Kenderföld, Hungary 4,300-3,600
R1a1a1b1? - R1a-Z283 Hatvan/Füzesabony

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trzcinica,_Podkarpackie_Voivodeship
Trzcinica is the site of one of the most important settlements of the Bronze- and Iron-Age Poland, where around 2100 BCE. the people of the early European Bronze Age culture created a settlement, and where archeologist found, amongst 30,000 objects, artifacts showing influence of the more advanced Carpathian Basin Otomani-Fűzesabony culture – clay wheels of toy or ritual carriages, clay animal figurines. Around 1600 BCE. the Otomani peoples actually arrived, crossing the Carpathian Mountains, from present Hungary, Slovakia and Romania, and took over the existing settlement of Trzcinica, expanding the existing stronghold and fashioning a fortress known to the archaeologists as the Troy of the North. Amongst the artifacts recovered, some 60,000, there are numerous bronze objects linking the gord of Trzcinica with the Mediterranean Troy. The cumulative area of the Bronze Age Trzcinica fortress was 2 hectares, with powerful earth ramparts. Around 1300 BCE. the stronghold was abandoned. During the early Medieval period, between 770–780 CE, Slavs built a new gord, 3 hectares large, a testimony to the power of a local ruling elite. This gord's power was circumscribed or ceased to exist by the 1030s.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zyndram%27s_Hill
Analysis of the artifacts proves that at first (1750-1550 BC) the settlement was inhabited most probably by a population of the Ottomány culture. In this period (ca. 1750 BC) a monumental stone wall construction was built around the hillfort's plateau (the local sources of sandstone was used). This example of stone architecture is one of the oldest in Europe (excluding the Mediterranean Area) and it is the oldest in Poland.[2] The stone wall of the Zyndram's Hill in terms of technical solutions has connections with Alpine and Mediterranean constructions. That suggests that some of the founders of the settlement were from the southern parts of Europe.[3] Archaeologists discovered also the remains of dwellings from this period.[4]

Arza said...

Re: Wielbark culture
https://www.academia.edu/33791135/2017_Zenczak_Piontek_Y_chromosome_haplogroup_assignment_through_next_generation_sequencing_of_enriched_ancient_DNA_libraries

I1 is the most common haplogroup in present day Scandinavia, and it is found in all places invaded by ancient Germanic tribes and Vikings

Reality check:

Hungarian Scythian DA197 R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP343>YP340 (xYP371,P278.2)
Hungarian Scythian? I20745 / I20767 Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary 2,600-2,400 I1?

Rob said...

Wow ! Late f-h-gs from Oman

Davidski said...

Those samples from Oman have hardly any data. Hopefully they can get better sequences, at least enough to run a PCA.

Tistel said...

@Arza

Hungarian Scythian? I20745 / I20767 Kesznyéten-Szérűskert, Hungary 2,600-2,400 I1?

A Scythian with I1? That's a surprise

Archi said...

@Tistel

Never trust the word "Scythian".

Arza said...

@Rob
As David said - there's practically no data in these samples from Oman.

@Tistel
After the I1 in Etruscans was leaked some time ago this shouldn't be a surprise anymore. It was a matter of time when I1 would start popping up in Central Europe in definitely non-Germanic contexts.

Arza said...

That I1 from Hungary is apparently from a Vekerzug culture cemetery.

http://www.wiadomosci-archeologiczne.pl/-Pierscien-brazowego-napiersnika-z-wczesnej-epoki-zelaza-z-miejscowosci-Dziechlino,130235,0,1.html

In 2014, the Museum in Lębork was enriched with a bronze ornament of the Early Iron Age date, found accidentally in a meadow near the place where the the Sitnica river valley meets the Łeba river valley in Dziechlino-Leśnice (Figs. 1, 2), a few kilometers west of Lębork (Pomorskie voivodship, northern Poland). Surface survey carried out in the area did not reveal any other remains associated with this find, although archival data indicate that the area was occupied in the younger part of the Early Iron Age (Hallstatt D) (Fig. 8). The item under analysis is a ring that was probably the uppermost segment of a multi-part collar built from open rings and fastened with a wide clasp at the back, an ornament typical of the Pomeranian Culture. The ring is oval in top view and saddle-like in side view, and its cross-section changes from lenticular in the central part to oval at the ends, the latter provided with shafts for attaching the clasp (Fig. 3–5). The dimensions are 12.2×12.7 cm, with a thickness of up to 0.6 cm. The ring is made of tin-lead bronze (Table 1). Its upper surface is richly decorated with groups of transversal and diagonal lines, diagonal hatches, punched holes, and a pattern of arches filled with transversal hatches. Most of the motifs were made in the casting, but the last one was made using the cold punching technique (Fig. 6). The ornament of arches seems particularly typical for Pomerania (Fig. 7), although single rings bearing such decoration were occasionally discovered as far as southern Poland, or even in the Szentes-Vekerzug cemetery in Hungary. It seems that multi-part collars decorated with arches represent the older stage in the production and use of these ornaments (in the younger one, arches were more often replaced with chevron motifs – cf. A. Drzewicz 2017). The ring from Dziechlino-Leśnice should therefore be considered a local product (that such collars were used in the Łeba valley is confirmed by face urns with images of these decorations, e.g. from Leśnice – Fig. 8:b). It is difficult, however, to determine whether it originated from a larger deposit of metal objects, or – as a single ring – was the element of grave furnishing. The fact that the object has survived in a good condition argues against this latter possibility.

I1 in Pomerania (Wielbark), I1 in Vekerzug, I1 in Etruscans

Comparison of face urns and house urns.

Rob said...

Hhm yeah < 3% eDNA

Arza said...

I was bored enough to download BAK & Dodecad to quickly (and roughly) process it to check whether K36 will show anything interesting before we will get him in the G25:

https://i.postimg.cc/6B5H7ffW/HUN-Vekerzug-IA-I20745.png

So... we have a "West Slav" with Y-DNA I1, who lived in Central Europe in the early Iron Age, 500 years before Goths even existed.

Sucked in Qui... Figlerowicz, I mean.

Vladimir said...

Volosovo-Danilovo, Russia 4,000-2,000
R1a1a1b2?

if this is not a dating error, then this is the latest r1a-z93 remaining from the fatyanovo culture in central russia

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

Volosovo-Danilovo, Russia 4,000-2,000 R1a1a1b2?

It's an archeological/layer date.

This sample needs a C14 date, like many others in that list.

Archi said...

About "Etruscan" this rumor was started by someone 2 years ago and has not been published yet. Broken phone.

The Kesznyéten-Szérűskert cemetery belongs to the mixed type Celtic-Scythian, there are Celtic burials, I have not seen that it was attributed to the Vekerzug culture, but they do not write about its cultural affiliation at all, there may be something Vekerzug there is.

In general, the influence of the Scythians in Alfeld is a very complicated and complex problem. Even directly reasoning there are very different groups of "Scythians", some may be real Scythians, some not real, some definitely not Scythians, but simply borrowed some objects from them, maybe they just bought it or as a result of the war.

EastPole said...

@Archi

„Never trust the word "Scythian".

Yes, it is very confusing. According to Roman geographer Pomponius Mela Sarmatians were living in Poland, not Scythians:
.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Europa_by_Pomponiusz_Mela_1st_century.jpg

But West Slavic Sarmatians in Poland had nothing to do with Turkic Sarmatians living on the steppe east of the Don river.

Archi said...

@EastPole

Sarmatians never lived in Poland. Roman authors called Sarmatians all who are not Germans in the east. The Eastern World was divided only into Germans and Sarmatians.

ambron said...

Matt, thanks! Generally, it can be seen that the genetic distance between the Polish population of the Bronze Age and the medieval and modern ones is small.

Arza, I suspect that genomes similar to I20745 will appear in Wielbark.

ambron said...

Arza, I20745 is similar to the N47 from Kuyavia.

Matt said...

@ambron, one other version that might be interesting (I'll stop these soon, I swear ;) ).

Had a go at using this time (X) vs G25 distance (Y) graph is that you can use it to visualize and assess trends in model fit over time.

For example: https://imgur.com/a/hdIuEbf

So here first I'm plotting

on the X: the distance from present-day population in region against ancient samples from that region, vs

on the Y: distance from present-day population in region against *a model* for that ancient sample (using IronGatesHG,KorosN and CWC_early).

In general, the models and real ancient samples produce similar distances to present-day populations (with exceptions where the model doesn't fit the samples, like the EHG like MN_Baltic, or the British_Meso who come from a differentiated and more drifted Villabruna related clade to IronGatesHG, with less ANE ancestry as well).

Then I can plot the difference between X and Y from above against time: https://imgur.com/a/crnzmL2

Looking at this helps us distinguish between whether the samples tend to get closer to present day people from the same region because of changes in ancestry proportions (the steppe:HG:anatolian ratios get closer over time) vs other genetic trends.

There's a tendency for the model to have a lower distance to the present day population at the beginning of the sequence, but over time this becomes more negative, indicating that the real ancient samples become a *better* fit for present day populations over time.

So this indicates that there is probably real decrease of distance of more recent populations in the same region, and it's not just a phenomenon driven by a progressively greater similarity of steppe:HG:anatolian proportions. This probably indicates some shared genetic drift picked up by G25, or unmodelled substructure / ancestry.

As we'd expect, for example in England at the onset of Beaker period, real Beaker samples don't systematically tend to be much closer to present day English than the model (because not much drift that has accumulated, and perhaps there's a fair bit of turnover). Then this changes over time.

There are also outliers - for instance, although the British samples over time tend to be closer to present day England than the model, there is an uptick in the Viking Age where the models tend to be closer to the English than the ancient samples. This probably indicates an influx of individuals who were from outside this process of accumulating shared genetic drift in the British Isles (not necessarily entirely, but more so relative to trend).

To some extent you can also quantify how much drift populations share relative to model - for the English and Polish, modern day samples tend to be slightly closer to their population means than their models are, to about a similar degree. However for Lithuanians it is stronger, while for Swiss populations, the combination of Swiss French+German+Italian tend to be slightly closer to the model than they are their shared population mean (doesn't mean no shared drift, but that drift/other ancestry pushes apart more than pulls together).

EastPole said...

@Archi

“Sarmatians never lived in Poland. Roman authors called Sarmatians all who are not Germans in the east. The Eastern World was divided only into Germans and Sarmatians.”


Sarmatian Venedi (Latin: Sarmatae Venedi) lived in Poland according to Pliny the Elder. They were not Germans, therefore they were Sarmatians. But of course they were not Turkic Sarmatians from the Volga-Don steppe.

Roman geographer Pomponius Mela map shows that Poland was populated not by Germans but Sarmatians.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/2a/Europa_by_Pomponiusz_Mela_1st_century.jpg

Arza said...

@Archi

https://i.postimg.cc/q4xGsDJf/The-most-important-burial-sites-of-the-Vekerzug-culture.png

And that rumor was not a "broken phone", voice was crystal clear.

@ambron

He rather won't be very similar to N47.

@EastPole

This is how the sample representing "the great civilization of the Bronze Age world" (Hatvan/Fuzesabony) looks like:

https://i.postimg.cc/tyPkTC84/HUN-BA-I20772.png

Probably that's the missing link to Mycenaean Greece you are looking for.

Tistel said...

@Arza
The rumor about an I1 Etruscan looks to be just that, a rumor. There hasn't been a single piece of evidence of it. You shouldn't take forum rumors as facts. We don't know of any such sample from the Stanford paper.

Davidski said...

The I1 Etruscan is from the upcoming Harvard paper. It's real, so the only question is if it's a reliable call.

Archi said...

@EastPole

"Sarmatian Venedi (Latin: Sarmatae Venedi) lived in Poland according to Pliny the Elder. They were not Germans, therefore they were Sarmatians."

Venedi Sarmatians because the Venedi are not Germans. Anyone who is not a German is a Sarmatae, there were no other categories then.

Tacitus Germania:
"As to the tribes of the Peucini, Veneti, and Fenni I am in doubt whether I should class them with the Germans or the Sarmatae, although indeed the Peucini called by some Bastarnae, are like Germans in their language, mode of life, and in the permanence of their settlements. They all live in filth and sloth, and by the intermarriages of the chiefs they are becoming in some degree debased into a resemblance to the Sarmatae. The Veneti have borrowed largely from the Sarmatian character; in their plundering expeditions they roam over the whole extent of forest and mountain between the Peucini and Fenni. They are however to be rather referred to the German race, for they have fixed habitations carry shields, and delight in strength and fleetness of foot, thus presenting a complete contrast to the Sarmatae, who live in waggons and on horseback."

"Roman geographer Pomponius Mela map shows that Poland was populated not by Germans but Sarmatians."

This map is not Pomponius Mela, this map of modern fantasy by Pomponius Mela in 1911, he did not draw anything.


The Nitra culture is small, it existed for a short time and did not affect anyone, the maximum that from it or near it could be migration to the Babino culture. Of course, it is important within the framework of understanding Epi-Corded cultures, but there is no reason to ascribe any astronomical importance to it.

------

Even if I1 was found in Etruria, this does not mean anything, since it is very well known that amber was delivered to Etruria from the shores of the Baltic Sea, there was a direct Amber trade route between Etruria and the Baltic.


Tistel said...

@Davidski
Likely an unreliable call, I'd bet on it having a few SNPs that define I1 but not enough to actually be classified as I1, so more like I or pre-I1. It would not surprise me if the "I1 Scythian" is something similar. Usually this happens with low coverage samples (the Etruscan samples from the paper were according to forum rumors low cowerage too).

Davidski said...

Maybe it's unreliable, but it does exist, so I wouldn't get dogmatic about this at least until the paper and data are released.

Vladimir said...

in this work, there are many refined y subclades. For example, they identified Y-subclades in two Iron Age specimens from Shirenzigou m4 - R1a1, M8R1-O2a2. A lot of refinements to the work of Narasimhan. For example, I3389, Central Stepe MLBA, R1a1a1b2, I6312, Gonur1. BA-R1b1a1b1a1

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2020/12/20/2020.12.19.423614/DC1/embed/media-1.pdf?download=true

ambron said...

Arza, I meant the similarity in the distribution of correlation.

Arza, this genome from the Ottoman-Füzesabony Culture is no doubt a surprise. But it actually gives EastPole an answer to his questions about the similarity of Greek and Slavic religions.

Archi said...

According to the statement in Supplementary Materials - Placing ancient DNA sequencesinto reference phylogenies
Rui Martiniano1,2*,Bianca De Sanctis1,3,Pille Hallast4,5,Richard Durbin
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.12.19.423614v1.supplementary-material

in Xinjiang there is R1a1

Ning et al., 2019 M4 Shirenzigou 380-200 calBC U4'9 R1a1

https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/Ancient-Genomes-Reveal-Yamnaya-Related-Ancestry-and-Ning-Wang/ae938a24a9a96277f81be715ca371f2ec8629e44/figure/2

Tistel said...

Yes, I didn't mean to sound dogmatic. I just think some caution and healthy skepticism is advised when dealing with rumors and low coverage samples from papers that have yet to be published.

Gabriel said...

Even if there was some I1 in Europe before the Germanic expansion much of it comes from them.

mzp1 said...

Some even say Etruscan is IE, related to the Anatolian branch.

Davidski said...

@Archi

No shit Sherlock.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/03/the-origins-of-east-asians-wang-et-al.html?showComment=1585191039993#c733849846315129326

Coldmountains said...

@Davidski

If it is possible and you are not too busy, could you please create Global25 coordinates for the Fatyanovo and Romania_BA samples from this study https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB32750
They dont seem to be of absolute terrible quality and it would be good to have an Fatyanovo result on Global25 already. It seems to be a Sintashta copy in terms of autosomal dna but i feel like we have to wait long for the bam files of other Fatyanovo samples because of Covid.

This the Fatyanovo sample got for Eurogenes K13 on AdmixtureStudio. Clearly Steppe MLBA-like and very likely on Global25 clustering with Sintashta and Srubnaya. He is Z93+ but the sample seems to be of too low quality for now to say more about his terminal subclade (negative for Y2 and S23592 )

Code:
I20784_Volosovo-Danilovo,39.56,32.25,2.07,18.81,0.03,0,6.58,0,0.53,0.07,0.02,0,0.08

Code:
Distance to: I20784_Volosovo-Danilovo
2.68337474 Kunila2_Estonia_Corded_Ware.SG_4408_ybp
3.38952799 I0419_Russia_Potapovka_published_4000_ybp
4.22819110 I0232_Russia_Srubnaya_published_3475_ybp
4.47275083 I0104_Germany_Corded_Ware_4378_ybp
4.47732063 RISE500_Russia_Andronovo.SG_3550_ybp
4.54207001 Ardu2_Estonia_Corded_Ware.SG_4638_ybp
5.14926208 kzb003_Russia_Srubnaya_Alakul.SG_3650_ybp
5.31181701 I0430_Russia_Srubnaya_published_3675_ybp
5.32649040 N44_Poland_CWC_o.SG_4405_ybp
5.37054001 I7280_Czech_Corded_Ware_4200_ybp
5.60016964 I2163_Bulgaria_MLBA_3638_ybp
5.65891332 I0424_Russia_Srubnaya_published_3675_ybp
5.79542923 Kunila1_Estonia_Corded_Ware.SG_4400_ybp
5.80884670 I1534_Germany_Corded_Ware_4225_ybp
5.92958683 RISE392_Russia_Sintashta_MLBA.SG_3961_ybp
6.19479620 I0803_Germany_Unetice_EBA_3987_ybp
6.39280846 I6561_Ukraine_EN_o_5960_ybp
6.44457912 I0103_Corded_Ware_Germany_

Archi said...

@mzp1

It is clearly seen that the Etruscans come from the border of Anatolia and the Balkans, their language is very similar to Lydian or Lycian.

The Etruscans are not associated with Villanovan or Proto-Villanovan or with the Northern Italics which are associated with Corded Ware and Bell Baker cultures but married local women naturally.

Genomic history of the Italian population recapitulates key evolutionary dynamics of both Continental and Southern Europeans Marco Sazzini, Paolo Abondio, […]Paolo Garagnani BMC Biology volume 18, Article number: 51 (2020) :
"In particular, N_ITA individuals, which clustered close to people from the Iberian Peninsula (IBS) within the bulk of modern southwestern Europeans, showed a particular affinity with Central European, Hungarian, and British Neolithic samples; Copper Age subjects from Hungary and the Balkans; a Corded Ware Czech remain; and Iberian and Hungarian individuals belonging to the Bell Baker culture. Moreover, the centroid of the N_ITA cluster lay in proximity to the Copper Age Northern Italian Remedello sample."

What I exactly modeled earlier in 2019:

Тarget: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR474b J2b2a-M12 H
Distance: 0.6830% / 0.00682953
42.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
25.4 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
14.4 Bell_Beaker_ITA
7.6 GRC_Mycenaean
7.0 ITA_Remedello_BA
2.8 Levant_PPNB
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Villanovan

0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_C
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 Levant_PPNC
0.0 MAR_Taforalt

Target: ITA_Etruscan_o:RMPR475b T2b32
Distance: 0.6210% / 0.00620998
29.6 Bell_Beaker_CZE
23.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
13.6 ITA_Sardinia_C
8.2 MAR_Taforalt
7.8 Levant_PPNB
5.2 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
5.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
4.0 GRC_Mycenaean

3.2 ITA_Remedello_BA
0.4 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Villanovan

0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_C
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 Levant_PPNC

Target: ITA_Etruscan:RMPR473 woman
Distance: 0.9143% / 0.00914338
31.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
26.6 GRC_Mycenaean
17.6 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
13.8 ITA_Remedello_BA
3.4 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
2.2 Levant_Natufian
1.8 Bell_Beaker_ITA
1.6 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
1.2 Levant_ISR_C
0.0 ITA_Villanovan

0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2
0.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 Levant_PPNC
0.0 MAR_Taforalt

Target: ITA_Ardea_Latini_IA_o:RMPR850 T1a1a L208 T2c1f (Rutuli's Pelasgan)
Distance: 1.4360% / 0.01436030
36.2 GRC_Mycenaean
24.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_LBA

18.8 Bell_Beaker_CZE
14.4 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA1
4.6 Levant_ISR_C
2.0 Levant_ISR_Ashkelon_IA2

0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA
0.0 Bell_Beaker_ITA_o
0.0 GRC_Minoan_Lassithi
0.0 ITA_Proto-Villanovan
0.0 ITA_Remedello_BA
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_C_o
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_EBA
0.0 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
0.0 ITA_Villanovan
0.0 Levant_Canaanite_MBA
0.0 Levant_ISR_MLBA
0.0 Levant_JOR_EBA
0.0 Levant_Natufian
0.0 Levant_PPNB
0.0 Levant_PPNC
0.0 MAR_Taforalt

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza

Hungary IA is so far the norm for pre-Slavic Central Europe.

This is the lineage, Welzin Warriors belonged to. They're closest to West Slavs because West Slavs have this admixture but you guys mainly come from proto-Slavs. So, the only way you have a lot from them is if proto-Slavs had a lot from them.

There's one Polish outlier in G25 who has a lot of this ancestry. Where's there's one there's many.

Polish:Polish201

Davidski said...

@Coldmountains

If the genotypes become available then I can probably run them this week sometime, otherwise we'll have to wait till 2021.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,

The mixed people in ancient Rome come from the Greek and Phoenician colonies. Including the outliers in Etruscans.

My youtube channel.
"Ancient Roman DNA reveals large scale immigration from the Greek Colonies"
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xTCObdYGBq8&ab_channel=ThePopulationGeneticsChannel

Almost everything which is "East Mediteeaen" in Southern Europe comes from Greco-Roman civilization in someway. Phoenicians, Greeks, Anatolians.

ambron said...

Matt, as far as Poland is concerned, your charts seem to show a high degree of biological continuity of its population since the early Bronze Age. Correct me if I am wrong.

ambron said...

Samuel, Proto-Slavs is a linguistic not a biological concept. Quite simply, the inhabitants of Central Europe, i.e. the Western Slavs (modern and historical), are autochtons at least from the Bronze Age. One is or is not an autochthon no matter what language he speaks.

Today, linguists (for example, Babik) and geneticists (for example, Benesz and Figlerowicz) agree that the Proto-Slavic language was spread on local demographic substrates mainly by authoritative groups of warriors integrating the local population around them.

EastPole said...

@ambron

“Arza, this genome from the Ottoman-Füzesabony Culture is no doubt a surprise. But it actually gives EastPole an answer to his questions about the similarity of Greek and Slavic religions.”

This explains a lot.
There are a lot of Slavic influences in Rigveda. But Rigveda is a religious poetry, using very metaphorical and symbolic language, there are many interpretations possible there. I need a reality check. And the elements of Greek religion which show similarity to Slavic and Vedic are such a reality check.
I used to think that Slavic religion was forming in Trzciniec culture. But it is impossible it had to be earlier because Indo-Iranians separated much earlier. CWC in Poland was no doubt Indo-Slavic, so after Indo-Iranian departure what remained was Balto-Slavic. In southern Poland Chłopice-Vesele evolved from CWC which can be considered proto-Slavic. Mierzanowice Culture which followed Chłopice-Vesele in Poland was contemporary with Ottoman-Füzesabony Culture, and now we know that Mierzanowice migrated south to form Nitra Culture. Nitra influenced Unetice in the west and very likely Ottoman-Füzesabony in the east, and Ottoman-Füzesabony had some influence on Greece.

It can also be seen in linguistics:
https://i.postimg.cc/bYxfWzPZ/screenshot-81.png

Sam Elliott said...

You have the wrong sample for the L283 CTS6190 Etruscan. Should be R474, not R474b. The L283 Etruscan clustered most closely with northern Italy and France and had no admixture with any groups from Anatolia or the Levant, which your calculations seem to show. Ancient DNA samples clearly show a north to south vector for L283’s expansion into peninsular Italy, Sardinia, and the Balkans. It certainly looks to be associated with the Proto Villanovan and Villanovan cultures, possibly descending from Bell Beakers from somewhere near the Central European Alps. In any event, I wouldn’t tie the CTS6190 Etruscan to Anatolia.

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews

"The mixed people in ancient Rome come from the Greek and Phoenician colonies. Including the outliers in Etruscans."

This is not Ancient Rome, we are not talking about Rome. This is Etruria. These are the real Etruscans. They are not mixed from any colonies. They have no outliers, they are all mixed Aegeans with local Beakers/Umbras. There were no Phoenicians in mainland Italy, the Etruscans just stopped in Sicily and visited Carthage on the way of their migration. It is very funny to recognize the alien Greek colonies and deny the alien Etruscans. Italian autochthonists are deeply despised in the scientific world.

@ambron

“Arza, this genome from the Ottoman-Füzesabony Culture is no doubt a surprise."

Not surprising at all. Everything is expected.

"But it actually gives EastPole an answer to his questions about the similarity of Greek and Slavic religions.”"

@EastPole
"There are a lot of Slavic influences in Rigveda."

Nonsense.

"Ottoman-Füzesabony had some influence on Greece."

You are fantasizing to wishful thinking.

ambron said...

Archi, but it is no coincidence that Maszkowice are called Polish Mycenae.

EastPole said...

@Archi
Archi, you should not comment about things you know absolutely nothing about. Soviet Marxist–Leninists had absolutely no understanding of other ancient religions and cultures except the Bible.

Simon_W said...

The idea that Etruscan is very similar to Lydian and Lycian is Frederik Woudhuizen's theory which didn't gain wide acceptance among scholars. Here is a critical review:
https://www.academia.edu/5880930/Review_of_Fred_Woudhuizen_The_Liber_Linteus_A_Word_for_Word_Commentary_to_and_Translation_of_the_Longest_Etruscan_Text_Innsbruck?auto=download

Archi said...

@Sam Elliott
"Ancient DNA samples clearly show a north to south vector for L283’s expansion into peninsular Italy, Sardinia, and the Balkans."

Absolutely not true. Directly told lies without any proof.

Neolithic PPN Iran Tepe Abdul Hosein [AH2] 8205-7756 calBCE (8833В±41 BP, MAMS-25472) M J2b-M12* M12 (xCTS560, Z620).
Copper Iran Hajji Firuz [I4241 / F10 B1 S3] 6016-5899 calBCE (7080±30 BP, PSUAMS-2163) M J2b Z1825>Z2453>Y18039>Y31143>pre-BY22519
Copper Iran Hajji Firuz [I4349 / F11 4 merged with F11 B3 3] 5887-5724 calBCE (6915±40 BP, PSUAMS-2126) M J2b Z1825>Z2453>Y18039>Y31143>pre-BY22519
Bronze Canaanite Lebanon Sidon [burial 63] 1600 BC M J2b M12

Bronze Late Bronze Age Armenia Norabak [RISE408] 1209-1009 calBCE (2908±32 BP, UBA-27939) M J2b2a (Z588+ Z589+ Z590+ Z622+ Y1276+, Z590 + Z2515+, Z627-) I5c

There is none in the Neolithic Europe, there is no Eneolithic, it first appears in the Balkans in the Late Bronze Age.

Bronze Croatia Veliki Vanik [I4331 / VV1] 1631-1521 calBCE (3305±20 BP, PSUAMS-2257) M J2b2a

"It certainly looks to be associated with the Proto Villanovan and Villanovan cultures, possibly descending from Bell Beakers from somewhere near the Central European Alps."

Absolutely not true. Outright lie.

Archi said...

@Simon_W
"The idea that Etruscan is very similar to Lydian and Lycian is Frederik Woudhuizen's theory which didn't gain wide acceptance among scholars. "

This is not the opinion of Frederik Woudhuizen, it has existed for a very long time since the middle of the 20th century.

David Sasseville's opinion you are referring to:
"It is not my intention to deny that some resemblance in the Etruscan and Anatolian religious vocabularies may be genuine, especially if the Etruscans did migrate from the east, but such similarities are more likely to arise due to contact rather than genetic relationship. The influence of Anatolian religion and culture upon the Etruscans has been recently addressed in a number of publications (for a particularly detailed discussion see Simon, 1998-99). Some comparisons made in the volume under review may shed additional light on Etruscan cultural contacts with Asia Minor"

He does not deny the similarity, he denies the origin of Etruscan from the Hittite.

@EastPole

You write very funny, especially when you proved to everyone that you know absolutely nothing and do not understand.

@ambron

This has nothing to do with the fact that religions are similar, just EastPole does not know anything about the Indo-European religion in general, he does not know anything about the religion of other Indo-European peoples, otherwise he would be horrified at how they are even more similar to the Greek.
Loud nicknames are for the common people, if Mycenae is really like anyone, then Sintashta.

Archi said...

By the way, let me remind you that Tokharian is also an agglutinative language, it is clearly seen that this is secondary and obtained as a result of a foreign influence. I may be wrong with the number, but it seems that 80% of the words in Lydian are not of Indo-European origin, in essence it is a Creole. Essentially the same Creole could be the Etruscan-Lemnos language, even with a large non-Indo-European component. Lemnos is undoubtedly related to Etruscan, represented by two stelae on the island of Lemnos, written before 510 BC when the island became Greek.

Matt said...

@ambron, I guess I would say that those graphics tend to describe the similarity, and the similarity seems quite high and to increase over time steadily. Appreciate it's probably a bit frustrating but it's difficult for me to get from that to an exact statement about an amount of continuity really - the trend certainly looks continuous, though sparsely sampled.

I would say I can't see a signal of discontinuity. Like; if the samples from Poland became clear increasingly distant from present day Poland in absolute sense, and relative to the expectation based on the Steppe+HG+Anatolian model, and then this suddenly flipped about, that would be a signal of discontinuty. There's no signal of that which I can see. But would like to have more sampling over time.

There's a bit more sampling over time in Hungary, though again appreciate this is not exactly the region your're interested in, and it looks to me like there is again a trend of increasing similarity over time, albeit with outliers (which maybe partly comes from sampling diverse burial contexts that might have been a bit unrepresentative). See: https://imgur.com/a/dfFyRDZ

Appreciate this is probably a bit not exactly what you want an answer to, apologies.

EastPole said...

@Archi
“EastPole does not know anything about the Indo-European religion”

Stop trolling and tell us what you know about Indo-European religion. Start with what it is and why you believe in it. Let us have a laugh.

Sam Elliott said...

I’m going to strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with YFull and their YTree. It’s a phylogenetic tree that displays living and ancient samples and their associated branches. This will help you better understand L283 and its spread throughout Europe. Here’s a link: https://www.yfull.com/tree/J-L283/

In any event, most of the samples you’ve listed above don’t even belong to L283. They’re not even close. They’re J2b M102. The I4331 L283 Z38240 Dalmatian/Croatian sample dates back to 1600 BC, or the Middle Bronze Age. An even older L283, specifically Z615, was recently discovered in Mokrin, Serbia. This burial site was a remnant from the Maros Culture which descends from Eastern Bell Beakers in vicinity of Austria or Hungary. The previously mentioned L283 CTS 6190 Etruscan is downstream from the L283 Z38240 Dalmatian who is just downstream from the L283 Z615 Serbian from Mokrin, adjacent to the Hungarian border. The Mokrin sample dates back to between 2100 to 1800 BC, or Early Bronze Age/beginning of Middle Bronze Age. The Dalmatian L283, at 1600 BC, is in the Middle Bronze Age. To get to the Late Bronze Age L283s, you have to go all the way down to Sardinia. There is a very clear migratory pattern from North to South of L283, both down into the Balkans and down into peninsular Italy, which points to a source population in vicinity of Central Europe (Bell Beakers). The most basal ancient L283 ever discovered, and second oldest sample, is from southern Russia in Karbino Balkaria. It’s only a matter of time before ancient L283 pops up in the Eneolithic from the Steppe or near vicinity.

Arza said...

Re: Scythian I1

Result from pathPhynder (that new tool published this week):

https://i.postimg.cc/LHLH8L94/I1.png

@Archi

We have archaeological evidence that some common religion was spreading between Crete and Southern Poland:

https://i.postimg.cc/4XrfGBTF/violinshapedfigurines.jpg

Archi said...

@Sam Elliott

@I’m going to strongly recommend that you familiarize yourself with YFull and their YTree. It’s a phylogenetic tree that displays living and ancient samples and their associated branches. This will help you better understand L283 and its spread throughout Europe."

I have a complete database, not a stub of it.

"In any event, most of the samples you’ve listed above don’t even belong to L283. They’re not even close. They’re J2b M102. The I4331 L283 Z38240 Dalmatian/Croatian sample dates back to 1600 BC, or the Middle Bronze Age. An even older L283, specifically Z615, was recently discovered in Mokrin, Serbia. This burial site was a remnant from the Maros Culture which descends from Eastern Bell Beakers in vicinity of Austria or Hungary. The previously mentioned L283 CTS 6190 Etruscan is downstream from the L283 Z38240 Dalmatian who is just downstream from the L283 Z615 Serbian from Mokrin, adjacent to the Hungarian border. The Mokrin sample dates back to between 2100 to 1800 BC, or Early Bronze Age/beginning of Middle Bronze Age. The Dalmatian L283, at 1600 BC, is in the Middle Bronze Age. To get to the Late Bronze Age L283s, you have to go all the way down to Sardinia. There is a very clear migratory pattern from North to South of L283, both down into the Balkans and down into peninsular Italy, which points to a source population in vicinity of Central Europe (Bell Beakers). The most basal ancient L283 ever discovered, and second oldest sample, is from southern Russia in Karbino Balkaria. It’s only a matter of time before ancient L283 pops up in the Eneolithic from the Steppe or near vicinity."

Mokrin has a very leftist attitude towards the Beakers. In general, comers from the south are buried there, they are mostly buried in pythos, this is a purely Anatolian-Aegean rite. This is the Maros culture, the genesis of this culture is associated with the appearance on the territory of the present Banat, in the lower reaches of the Timish River, of a population group originating from the Anatolian-Balkan zone, the so-called Pitvarosh group. Then a new group comes to the same territory, also of Anatolian-Balkan origin, and a mixture of both these groups leads to the formation of the Maros-Pechitsa culture. You don't know anything about this culture at all, these people lived in tells.

As to the Caucasian sample, it has nothing to do with the Steppe, it is an alien from Anatolia or Armenia, it is not known when, it's Bronze Age 1953-1776 cal BC and it did not spread anywhere. It could not get into any Beakers.

There is no question of time here, for the Beakers its appearance is not possible, it is the most over-examined group in the world, they have been explored far and wide. it is impossible to expect anything unexpected there. All your statements about the origin, its presence in Beaker and the vector of distribution are false, there are no two opinions, it is undoubtedly Aegean and spread to the north of the Balkans and to the west of the Mediterranean Sea.

@Arza

"We have archaeological evidence that some common religion was spreading between Crete and Southern Poland: https://i.postimg.cc/4XrfGBTF/violinshapedfigurines.jpg "

This is not spreading between, this is a small area, look carefully at your map, there is clearly shown this small area not beyond the Carpathians (red).

The widespread common religion was at the CWC.


Rob said...

@ Archi

''In general, comers from the south are buried there, they are mostly buried in pythos, this is a purely Anatolian-Aegean rite. This is the Maros culture, the genesis of this culture is associated with the appearance on the territory of the present Banat, in the lower reaches of the Timish River, of a population group originating from the Anatolian-Balkan zone, the so-called Pitvarosh group. Then a new group comes to the same territory, also of Anatolian-Balkan origin, and a mixture of both these groups leads to the formation of the Maros-Pechitsa culture. You don't know anything about this culture at all, these people lived in tells.''

It seems aDNA is challenging the old view that they're predominantly from the south, as neither autosomal nor Y-DNA really supports that, leaving aside the question of J2b2 which is but one lineage amidst others which are R1b and I2a. East Mediterranean burial rites are seen EL Argar in southeastern Iberia, but there is no such admixture until the LBA/ IA
The shift back to tells is climactic-environmental


@ Sam

''Hungary IA is so far the norm for pre-Slavic Central Europe.

This is the lineage, Welzin Warriors belonged to.''

It is not (I1 vs I2a2a1)


''So, the only way you have a lot from them is if proto-Slavs had a lot from them.''
or could be west Euro admixutre in west Slavs (& NW Balkan Slavs too)

Archi said...

@Rob

Just autosomal genetics shows that southerners are buried in Mokrin. So nothing needs to be revised, everything is confirmed. Actually, that these people have nothing to do with the Beaker is written in the very work on Mokrin.

Kinship, acquired and inherited status, and population structure at the
Early Bronze Age Mokrin necropolis in northern Serbia
"At the Mokrin necropolis, relatives were buried close together in small kinship groups; interestingly, in our sample these small groups did not include biological fathers. The absence of larger kindreds and the relatively high NYR diversity in our sample are evidence against strict patrilocality in this population. These observations suggest a different form of social organization from that of a Bell Beaker group in southern Germany, an assemblage containing high mtDNA variability but only a single Y-chromosomal lineage. However, the low Y-variability here could be typical for the entire region at this time and have no social implications at all.
Status inheritance at Mokrin also appears to have differed from other EBA cultures. It seems that sons did not inherit social status from their biological mothers, but had the opportunity to acquire status throughout their lives. It is possible that sons may have inherited their status from their fathers, but this would require that spouses display different status in the grave. An alternative explanation is that in Mokrin the law of the first-born was valid and in our sample only the post-born sons are present. In any case, the situation in Mokrin is different from the EBA Lech valley and the Bell Beaker population in Bavaria where clear signals of (male) status inheritance are observed.
Our kinship analysis identified three mothers, one sister, and nine unrelated females, but no daughters, complicating inference about inherited or acquired status in females. Here Mokrin once again differs from the Bell Beaker sites in southern Germany, where girls are underrepresented in burial assemblages. In Mokrin, the sex-dependent body orientation is almost universally applied to adults and children of both sexes, an inhumation pattern which is in accordance with the highly normative funerary ritual observed in all Maros cemeteries.
It is evident from the few existing palaeogenetic studies on this topic that there is significant regional and temporal variability in the social structures and heredity patterns of Late Neolithic and EBA societies, although one common thread among the different societies investigated appears to be the practice of female exogamy."

Rob said...

Nothing there supports the contention that those individuals are from anatolia; or even greece
BB is irrelevant here; I did not mention it

Samuel Andrews said...

Bronze age Crotia-J2b
Bronze age Serbia-J2b
Bronze age Sardinia-J2b
Etruscan-J2b

No evidence of real Near Eastern ancestry (with "Iranian") in them. One Villonovan sample and one Etruscan sample though show evidence of West Balkan ancestry.

Davidski said...

@Arza

I'm not home right now and won't be for a while, and I don't have my usual hardware with me.

So you'll have to make things easier for me.

Can you upload PLINK bed files with the standard 1240K markers?

Davidski said...

J2b-L283 is interesting.

I still don't think it's from the steppe, because if it was, it would've turned up in some Eneolithic/Bronze Age steppe samples by now.

Yeah, I know there are reports of an Eneolithic J2b2a from the Romanian/Moldovan border, but that's practically the Balkans, and steppe-related samples from that area have elevated farmer ancestry.

I suspect that the answer will be something that no one has considered yet.

CrM said...

I think L283 is a Maykop or a Dolmen lineage, hence why it's found MBA Kudachurt. It could have been dispersed into Steppe with the Maykop culture.

Archi said...

There is no doubt that J2b2a is from Anatolia, and it was not in the Balkans in the Neolithic. When it penetrated the Balkans in the Eneolithic or Bronze Age is a matter of lack of data. Most likely the Bronze Age. In Sardinia and Etruria, it undoubtedly penetrated by sea from the Aegean region.

That is why I did not mention Mokrin that in fact this is a rumor from a certain person unknown to me, this is not reliable data.

@Sam Elliott
" or the Middle Bronze Age."

I use the Anatolian-Steppe scale, where all times are understandable for the whole world, and the European scale is understandable only to Europeans, there are different times and names in each region, it is very bad to use it for comparison. I do not recognize it for measuring eras, especially in the Balkans.

Davidski said...

@CrM

The problem is that there's absolutely no sign of L283 in any post-Maykop steppe cultures.

Rob said...

J2b2
- in addition to caucasus there’s Alalakh MBA (ALA095)
So come ~2000 BC it was spreading around

Arza said...

@Davidski

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KZW9q-q2zw82Ft7EoH9dT27ecoO4EkoQ/view

Total genotyping rate is 0.462052.
1062322 variants and 8 people pass filters and QC.

HUN_Gava_BA:I20771
HUN_Hatvan-Fuzesabony_BA:I20772
HUN_LaTene_IA:I20774
HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20743
HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20745
HUN_Vekerzug_IA:I20746
RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784
UKR_Meso:I20753_dup.I5885

I hope that it'll work as I had to manually filter out a lot of stuff. I definitely need to install a proper pipeline.

The last one is already in G25, but I've included it as a control to see how big the difference will be.

Stan said...

"J2b2 - in addition to caucasus there’s Alalakh MBA (ALA095)
So come ~2000 BC it was spreading around"

@Rob, ALA095 belongs to J2b-Z2453 branch, which is different from J2b-L283 in question that's found in European aDNA.

Stan said...

"Yeah, I know there are reports of an Eneolithic J2b2a from the Romanian/Moldovan border, but that's practically the Balkans, and steppe-related samples from that area have elevated farmer ancestry"

@Davidski, if this is true, it would place the expansion of J2b-L283 in that region, as it's TMRCA is currently being estimated at ~5700 ybp.

Perhaps it's part of Suvorovo culture? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suvorovo_culture

Rob said...

@ Stan
good to know, thanks

Davidski said...

@Arza

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1H8JsPW3JyOk4rBZz7mcl5w1eQ0ox1qGS/view?usp=sharing

Arza said...

Whoa. Distances are small and in modelling they aren't picking any weird admixtures. It worked better than I thought! Thanks a lot!

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@David

Nice! Thank you for your work!

Appreciate the update on the Vikings, too!

Simon_W said...

@Archi

"David Sasseville's opinion you are referring to:
"It is not my intention to deny that some resemblance in the Etruscan and Anatolian religious vocabularies may be genuine, especially if the Etruscans did migrate from the east, but such similarities are more likely to arise due to contact rather than genetic relationship. The influence of Anatolian religion and culture upon the Etruscans has been recently addressed in a number of publications (for a particularly detailed discussion see Simon, 1998-99). Some comparisons made in the volume under review may shed additional light on Etruscan cultural contacts with Asia Minor"

He does not deny the similarity, he denies the origin of Etruscan from the Hittite."

The excerpt you quoted refers to similarities in religious vocabulary only, and states that this may perhaps be genuine, but could be explained by contact, it doesn't prove a genetic relationship of the languages. Contact is possible even if the Etruscans didn't migrate from the east, but if they migrated from the east it is especially possible. IF they did - Sasseville doesn't say they did. And he calls Woudhuizen's comparative work regarding similarities between Etruscan, Lydian and Lycian unconfirmed speculation.

Besides, how do you derive Etruscan numerals from PIE numerals?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Etruscan_numerals

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_numerals

Simon_W said...

@Archi

As for your Global25 models of those Etruscans, I guess I don't have to repeat what I think about them, or why.

But consider this: With that same method I could "prove" that Czech Bell Beakers had Anatolian, Aegean, Iranian and Levantine admixture:

Target: Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7249
Distance: 0.6589% / 0.00658857
13.2 CZE_Starounetice_EBA
13.0 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
10.8 UKR_Sredny_Stog_En_o4
10.0 KAZ_Solyanka_MLBA
9.8 KAZ_Karagash_MLBA
8.6 DEU_LBK_KD
6.6 TUR_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA_low_res
5.6 VK2020_GreenlandE_VA
5.2 ROU_Iron_Gates_N
5.2 USA_colonial_period
4.0 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA
3.0 VK2020_POL_Krakow_MA
1.4 Gepidian_SRB_ACD
1.4 RUS_Saltovo-Mayaki_low_res
1.2 VK2020_POL_Sandomierz_VA
0.4 KAZ_Zevakinskiy_BA
0.4 MNG_SHU002
0.2 DEU_MA_o

Target: Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7211
Distance: 1.2931% / 0.01293131
21.4 FRA_FN_Lingolsheim_steppe
16.6 SWE_BA
16.2 VK2020_DNK_Jutland_IA
13.6 ITA_Grotta_Continenza_N_o
7.2 SWE_LN_low_res
6.8 DEU_Karsdorf_LN
5.6 UKR_Dereivka_I_En1
5.2 ITA_Rome_Latini_IA
2.8 Levant_LBN_MA_o6
2.4 TKM_Sumbar_LBA
0.8 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.8 VUT_2300BP_all
0.4 WHG
0.2 HUN_Hunyadihalom_MCHA


Target: Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7205
Distance: 1.4949% / 0.01494897
34.0 VK2020_NOR_North_IA
20.8 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_IA
18.0 DEU_Karsdorf_LN
8.8 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
7.2 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_LNBA
3.8 IRN_Belt_Cave_Meso_low_res
2.4 KAZ_Georgievsky_LBA
2.2 CZE_Starounetice_EBA
1.2 DEU_BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN
1.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.6 Corded_Ware_POL_early


Target: Bell_Beaker_CZE:I5666
Distance: 1.1640% / 0.01163983
29.2 SWE_BA
21.6 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
18.0 SVK_Poprad_MA
5.2 UKR_Srubnaya_MLBA
5.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
4.8 ITA_Sardinia_ECA
3.4 DEU_Halberstadt_LBA
3.2 GRC_Minoan_Odigitria_low_res
2.6 RUS_Samara_HG
2.2 DEU_MA_o
2.0 HUN_ALPc_I_MN
1.8 TUR_Kumtepe_N
1.0 CZE_Starounetice_EBA

Samuel Andrews said...

My youtube skills are getting better. I'm going to be posting four videos this weekend on the Viking DNA. Subscribe and the hit the bell if you want to see them.

DNA from massacred Vikings in England show Scandinavian and French ancestry

The "Vikings" of Eastern Europe had mixed Eastern European and Scandinavian ancestry-Ancient DNA reveals

Homogenous Scandinavian population in Ancient DNA in massive Viking Ship Burial in Estonia

"Immigration" in Viking era Scandinavia-Ancient DNA provides insights

Subscribe and hit the bell if you want to see these videos. They'll be better than my Roman DNA videos.

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCoL-O5egSxkfvkCGGE0vN1Q?view_as=subscriber

Samuel Andrews said...

I'll throw this in too.......

Iceland has Scandinavian, British, Irish ancestry

This would not be hard to make.

Archi said...

@Simon_W

"The excerpt you quoted refers to similarities in religious vocabulary only, and states that this may perhaps be genuine, but could be explained by contact, it doesn't prove a genetic relationship of the languages. Contact is possible even if the Etruscans didn't migrate from the east, but if they migrated from the east it is especially possible. IF they did - Sasseville doesn't say they did. And he calls Woudhuizen's comparative work regarding similarities between Etruscan, Lydian and Lycian unconfirmed speculation."

He exaggerates, he understands all cultural vocabulary by religious vocabulary. This is a fact, he is not entirely honest in terminology. For the name of bread, and in general, apparently, of all agriculture, the name of government positions, everything that we know about the cultural vocabulary of the Etruscans comes from Anatolia. Moreover, these agricultural terms associated with Anatolia (the Hattic language), no one else borrowed in Europe, that is, they could not get them from anyone as directly from the Hattic.
His text is the same personal opinion, the same unconfirmed speculation.

Derive from Indo-European numerals Hittite meu- "four".

"As for your Global25 models of those Etruscans, I guess I don't have to repeat what I think about them, or why."

You do not know how to build models at all, I specially took all populations that can claim to be directly ancestral for all samples, including the Latins. The list is the same for everyone, the Latins showed a completely other set of ancestors. There is no noisy nonsense like your erroneous figment.

It is shameful to flood your pseudo "models" with meaningless populations that obviously lived after the samples under study and certainly from different eras very distant from each other, this is a meaningless mess. The fact that you do not understand at all what an model is, characterizes you very much.

Archi said...

@Simon_W

For example.
"Target: Bell_Beaker_CZE:I7205
Distance: 1.4949% / 0.01494897
34.0 VK2020_NOR_North_IA
20.8 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_IA
18.0 DEU_Karsdorf_LN
8.8 UKR_Dereivka_I_En2
7.2 VK2020_DNK_Sealand_LNBA
2.4 KAZ_Georgievsky_LBA
2.2 CZE_Starounetice_EBA
1.2 DEU_BenzigerodeHeimburg_LN
1.0 Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke
0.6 Corded_Ware_POL_early"

You must understand that none of these populations were ancestral for Bell Beaker, this is, as always, your mistake, hence you have an astronomically far distance with a huge list of more than three dozen populations, none of which is ancestral for these samples.

Most of them generally live after the tested (IA, BA, MA, Greece, Anatolia), including in our time or very far away (Yamnaya_KAZ_Mereke, LBA Greece, Anatolia, Kazakhstan, Iran). Others belong to the Mesolithic time far from them (Meso, WHG). Only the presence of testing the ancestor through many descendants makes this model absolutely impossible, there all the numbers will be random and chaotic, far from rationality, and adding ancestors from other times here is generally a mess.

All my populations are directly related to both the Etruscans and the Latins, these are their ancestral populations, which is known from history, archeology and genetics, so I have small distances with a minimally small list. All of these populations cannot be ignored. This is the Italy of the immediately preceding time with Sardinia, they cannot be ignored. These are Ligurs and Umbras, that is, the Beakers of Italy and the Czech Republic, Proto-Villanova and Villanova, they cannot be ignored. These are the Greeks continental and insular, in any case they were in Italy, they cannot be ignored. These are the Sea Peoples and their predecessors, that is, the Levant, and the Carthaginians, they cannot be ignored. I have it is all ancestral populations from the same era, as close as possible to the tested samples.

capra internetensis said...

Merry Christmas Davidski and all the rest of you weirdos

Copper Axe said...

Merry Christmas folks and have a laugh at this one:

"One possible explanation for the maternal genetic contribution from Europeans to the Kalash people would be the involvement of women in foreign campaigns of ancient Greek warfare, followed by a founder effect."

Exploring European ancestry among the Kalash population: a mitogenomic perspective

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32692490/

Archi said...

@Copper Axe

Autochthonists go crazy. The Chinese support them in every possible way. It is clear that these dates unambiguously indicate the invasion of the Indo-Iranian Dards themselves.

Bronze Yamnaya Ukraine Ozera, Kurgan 18, grave 14 [I1917 / OAE-99 / Yamna1] 3095-2915 calBCE (4390±30 BP, Beta-432809) F R0a1
Copper Bell Beaker Italy Pergole 2, Partanna, Sicily [I4933 / P2-7-US5] 2500–1900 BCE R0a
Iron Denmark BС€gebjerggård [B2] 0 BC/AD M R0a

Neolithic Spain El Portalón/North, Atapuerca [atp005] 7165-6980 cal BP (6170 ± 30 BP, Beta-368283) M G2a2a J2b1a
Neolithic Andalusian Early Neolithic Spain El Toro cave, Antequera (Málaga) [TOR.5] 5280 - 4780 cal BC M G-M201 J2b1a
Neolithic Andalusian Early Neolithic Spain El Toro cave, Antequera (Málaga) [TOR.12] 5280 - 4780 cal BC M J2b1a
Neolithic Middle + Late Neolithic Spain Fuente Pecina 1 [Fupe9] 4365-3720 cal BC J2b1a
Neolithic Spain Les Llometes, Alcoi, Alacant/Alicante, Valencian Community [I7597 / LL24] 4100–2700 BCE [based on other dates in the same context] U CT J2b1a
Neolithic Spain Les Llometes, Alcoi, Alacant/Alicante, Valencian Community [I7642 / LL27] 2907–2761 cal BCE (4240±23 BP, MAMS-16338) M I2a2a2 J2b1a
Neolithic Schöningen Germany Salzmünde [SALZ 12] 4100-3950 BC J2b1a
Neolithic Funnel Beaker / TRB Sweden Frälsegården [passage grave], Gokhem [Ste 9] 3500-2500 BC J2b1a
Neolithic Salzmünde [regional TRB] Germany Salzmünde [SALZ 78] 3400-3025 BC J2b1a
Copper Balaton-Lasinja Hungary Keszthely-Fenékpuszta, Pusztaszentegyházi-dűlő [I1908 / KEFP2a] 4300-3900 BCE F J2b1a
Copper Corded Ware Switzerland Spreitenbach-Moosweg [17/5] 2500 BC F J2b1a
Copper Bell Beaker Italy Sardinia, Serra Crabiles, 1267, Tomb III Cella B [I14675] 2141-1976 calBCE (3680±25 BP, PSUAMS-6689) M I2a2a2a J2b1a+16311C!
Bronze Babino Ukraine Pidlisivka, Grave 13, barrow 1 [poz094] 2200-1700/1600 BC F J2b1a
Bronze Unetice Germany Plotzkau 3 [PLOTZ 1] 2200-1550 BC J2b1a
Bronze EBA Germany Königsbrunn, Obere Kreuzstraße, Massy, grave 3 [OBKR 47] 2136-1977 cal BC F J2b1a
Bronze Straubing Germany Lech valley, Königsbrunn – Obere Kreuzstraße (Baugebiet 110) [OBKR_47] 2136-1977 cal BC (3671±22 BP, MAMS 18894) M J2b1a
Bronze Lech_MBA Germany Lech valley, Oberottmarshausen – Kiesgrube Lauter [OTTM_110] 1605-1412 cal BC (3207±37 BP, MAMS 21551) J2b1a5
Bronze Petrovka Russia Stepnoe VII [RISE392] 2126-1896 calBCE (3626±33 BP, OxA-30999) M R1a1a1b2a2a [Reported as R1a1a1b] S224 [*Tagankin reads Z2123 +, and downstream SNPs Y877+, Y939-] J2b1a2a
Bronze Mallorca_EBA Spain Balearic Islands, Mallorca, Cova des Moro, CDMDR [I4329] 2395-2316 calBCE (3900±30 BP, KIA-30020) F J2b1a+16311C!
Bronze Srubnaya Russia Barinovka I, Samara River, Samara [I0423 / SVP 31] 1850-1200 BC M R1a1a1b2 Z93 J2b1a2a
Bronze Andronovo Kazakhstan Kairan [I4318 / KZ-KAN-002 + KZ-KAY-002, Kairan I, Enclosure 7b ] 1767-1658 calBCE (3415±20 BP, PSUAMS-2961) F J2b1a2
Bronze Andronovo Kazakhstan Byan Zherek, eastern spur, Dali [I1931 / DL-Br-2, sample KZBR-2-012, individual 1 ] 1495-1300 calBCE (3130±30 BP, Beta-391198) F J2b1a2
Bronze Kazakhstan Guruldek [I11542 / Kurgan 1, burial 2, right skeleton, female] 1500-1100 BCE F J2b1a2a
Bronze Early Bronze Northern Ireland Glebe, Rathlin Island [Rathlin3] 1736-1534 calBCE (3354±28 BP, UBA-8706) M R1b1a1a2a1a2c1 [L21 was R1b1a2a1a2c in 2015] L21/M529/S145 J2b1a
Bronze Mezhovskava Russia Kapova cave [RISE524] M R1b R1b1a2 (PF6494) J2b1a
Bronze Germany Tollense valley [WEZ39 / ALM 1996/0855-0055] 13 century BC M I2a2 [I2a1b1a1b1~?] J2b1a1
Iron Scythoid Ukraine Starosillya [scy009] 770 - 415 BCE M R1b1a1a2 R-P312 J2b1a6
Iron Scythian North Pontic region Kolbino 1 [KOL5] 3rd BCE J2b1a

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,

That's hilarious. The reason for this type of ignorance is simple.

No one in the mainstream is aware that a European population, Andronovo, invaded and settled a huge portion of Middle Asia in the Bronze age.

And that almost all European DNA in Asia can be explained by them.

This is because the mainstream insists on making the Indo Europeans racially ambiguous Steppe people.

I'm not Andreganszi, but this way of describing Andronovo and maybe Steppe people in general will have to change simply for accuracy reasons.

From a European perspective they are Steppe people, but when looking at them from an Asian perspective they are a people from Eastern Europe.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,

I guess you already knew that. I was preaching to the choir.

Copper Axe said...

@Samuel Andrews

The craziest part is them attributing it to european women partaking in ancient Greek Warfare.

Those geneticists should really be more familiar with Greek history or the story of Philip and Alexander before making such ridiculous claims.

Sure we laugh about it because we are in the know but many people who aren't will think these are legitimate statements, proved by science. That is kinda fucked if you think about it.

And yeah people really want to deny how European those steppe peoples were, and it sucks that Academics do not want to be honest.

It's even crazier with the Steppe_MLBA peeps because they are essentially right in between modern day northern europeans and Steppe_EMBA populations, which I already consider to be European to beginn with.

Whenever someone says that they cant be considered European, I always ask them if they consider the Bell Beaker culture to be European, given it's basically the genetic and ethnolinguistic basis of Western Europeans and northwestern Europeans get a strong majority of their ancestry from Bell Beaker peoples.

If they say yes, they cannot deny that the Abashevo, Sintashta and Andronovo were of European origin as they were two sides of the same coin.

mzp1 said...

lol u guys are so bad at basic science let alone IE studies...

f3(Kalash, Kotias CHG; Chimp) = 207.247677
f3(Kalash, Afanasievo; Chimp) = 207.79802
f3(Kalash, Sintashta; Chimp) = 207.79802


As you can see Kalash has the same amount of shared drift with Kotias CHG as with Afanasievo and Sintashta. If Kalash received its CHG admixture from something like Afanasievo (Steppe EBA) or Sintashta (Steppe MLBA) then clearly Kalash would have greater f3 (shared drift) with them than with Kotias CHG.

It just means your models and broken and you dont know what your talking about.

Tigran said...

Did the admixture of pre ANE with East Eurasian population have a linguistic impact? Do IE languages have any relationship with SE Asian languages?

Archi said...

@mzp1

It just means that you don't its how to use f3 statistics at all. You do not understand its at all and give her the wrong parameters as input! I can see it perfectly "f3(Kalash, Kotias CHG; Chimp)". Learn and do not disgrace yourself.

Romulus said...

Alexander actually banned women from travelling with his army.

EastPole said...

Some thoughts about Kalasha and Christmas:
Two years ago I made some comments about Kalasha Pagan Christmas:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-kho-people-archaic-indo-aryans.html?showComment=1516795236915#c8505964353792957184

In the mean time Postimg has changed their server address from postimg.org to postimg.cc, so if you want to open old links you have to change .org to .cc like here:
from
https://s22.postimg.org/p8kesbbw1/screenshot_138.png
to
https://s22.postimg.cc/p8kesbbw1/screenshot_138.png

Later some discussions about “haoma/soma and chmiel/hops” took place:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/01/the-kho-people-archaic-indo-aryans.html?showComment=1516812356435#c8376810896132820885

Looking at the book “Pagan Christmas: Winter Feasts of the Kalasha of the Hindu Kush” again I am thinking about some possibilities:
The name of our holidays Christmas comes from Christ. The name of Kalasha holidays Chaomos may come from Haoma/Soma. We know from Rigveda about the Soma and Indra coming as a pair Indra-Soma in some hymns.

"the god of Chaumos is to be identified with the Vedic Indra"

https://i.postimg.cc/zXT0Tkbm/screenshot-126.png

https://books.google.pl/books?id=DVgrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT54&lpg=PT54&dq=god+Praba&source=bl&ots=Qe4zcx7JTW&sig=XGAcnNVILWT6qXjBmeibBv0KEQI&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvuTE0ZnYAhWCQZoKHWQWByYQ6AEIPDAH#v=snippet&q=%22the%20god%20of%20Chaumos%20is%20to%20be%20identified%20with%20the%20Vedic%20Indra%22%22&f=false

They also say about the god of Chaomos:

"Visitor god of fertility"

https://i.postimg.cc/xdVQt5gK/screenshot-127.png

https://books.google.pl/books?id=DVgrDwAAQBAJ&pg=PT54&lpg=PT54&dq=god+Praba&source=bl&ots=Qe4zcx7JTW&sig=XGAcnNVILWT6qXjBmeibBv0KEQI&hl=pl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjNvuTE0ZnYAhWCQZoKHWQWByYQ6AEIPDAH#v=onepage&q=%22Visitor%20god%20of%20fertility%22&f=false

In Polish folklore Chmiel (= Haoma/Soma) was the god of fertility. In old pre-Christian songs Chmiel is responsible for marriages and children as a god of Love (=Eros/Dionisos in Greek). At the peak moment of the wedding during which the bride symbolically passed from a maiden state to a married state a hymn to Chmiel was sung:

https://pl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oj,_chmielu

https://youtu.be/tgDR5y_HAqU?t=119

DragonHermit said...

L283 is strongly associated with R1b-Z2103. They were found together in Bronze Age Croatia, and exist together in the southern Balkans in Greece/Albania, and modern day Tatars in the Volga area.

Why would a "Mediterrenean" group exist as far east/north as the Volga? L283 also goes all the way to India. This group clearly travelled together as a sibling group to Z2103 since the Bronze Age from north of the Black Sea.

Archi said...

@DragonHermit
"They were found together in Bronze Age Croatia"

No, not together. These are completely different times 2884-2666 calBCE and 1631-1521 calBCE, and completely different places, the first (R1b-Z2103) on the very border with Hungary, the second (J-L283) on the very coast of the sea near Bosnia. There is nothing in common between them, either geographically or in time, there is no need to generalize them with the word Croatia, so you can write that the Chukchi and Moldovans always follow together because they lived in the USSR.

Tatars have nothing to do here at all, they have a very narrow very late branch of J-Y12000, which definitely came very late from Europe.

Rob said...

It seems that J2a1 could be a post-Neolithic marker from west Asia to Europe (although already present in a few Neolithic individuals)
I attempted a brief summary on the situation a few years ago on Alberto’s blog
https://adnaera.com/2018/11/17/the-beginnings-of-the-bronze-age-in-europe/

EastPole said...

There is a new map showing IE migrations at Wikipedia:

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Indo-European_expansions.jpg

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indo-European_migrations

Joshua Jonathan, Dutch psychologist and social worker, with an interest in psychology, history, philosophy and religion who is the author of this map claims that it is based on Nordqvist & Heyd (2020) study. Of course it is not.
In Nordqvist & Heyd (2020) study “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”. Pre-Balto-Slavic means Indo-Slavic and the divergence of Indo-Slavic languages took place in South-Eastern Poland and not what that Dutch social worker imagined.

This is to demonstrate for less experienced commentators on this blog like Archi or Samuel that they should not trust Wikipedia or other internet sources too much.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 421   Newer› Newest»