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...
Sucked in Quiles.
ReplyDelete"we'll instead learn that there was a significant influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Mesopotamia"
ReplyDeleteDispersed through Central Asia or through the Caucasus?
I thought you would have had a post on this paper. https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.23.394502v1
ReplyDelete@CrM
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-potentially-violent-end-to-kura.html
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteKura-Araxes culture was replaced by Trialeti. We have a bunch of samples from Trialeti or a related horizon in Armenia with a chunk of Steppe ancestry. Does this mean that the Hurrians, Kassites or Gutians had ancestry from Trialeti? Can't think of any other population that might bring steppe ancestry from the Caucasus into Mesopotamia, considering that Mitanni most likely had ancestry from Central Asia.
I can't get into this discussion right now. Maybe one day.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteAll these my dear David are marvellous news provided THAT WE ARE STILL GONNA BE AROUND to read them!!!
P.S. the paper with the Mycenaeans that you referred to a month ago is it going to appear this year?
I don't have a clue when these papers will come out. Probably not this year though.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete"I can't get into this discussion right now. Maybe one day."
Sure. Some time back I mentioned the unusual Hajji Firuz sample, perhaps it's connected to this.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete“the search for the Proto-Indo-European homeland will shift west to the North Pontic steppe”
PIE culture and PIE homeland is a very dangerous, politically loaded subject. Nothing certain is really known about it. People interested in it or fantasizing about it are often accused of racism or Nazism and it is safer to stay away from such dangerous subjects if you don’t want to get into trouble sooner or later. Let academia handle it.
After 3000 BC Indo-Slavic CWC was formed in South-Eastern Poland and from there some migrations occurred. This seems to be a well accepted fact today confirmed by linguistics, genetics and archeology. We don’t know when, where, and how PIE formed and it is better not to speculate about it without solid data if you don’t want to be associated with western nationalists. Look what is happening to Survive the Jive.
@EastPole
DeleteThen we should also not deal with aDNA either or with physical anthropology and Paleoanthropology!!
We should not support quantum mechanics since it was introduced by Heisenberg who was a Nazi too.
Thus forget Cosmology, Astrophysics, Space Technology, genome editing, and so on and so forth!!!
None is going to tell nobody what to say or to believe!
I find your comment disrespectful and in a devious way "blackmailing".
Oh! And I know people who were people who were politically correct and they failed royaly, e.g. Dienekes Pontikos sites!!!!!
Scientists like Spencer Wells (the Pope of Afrocentricism), Bryan Sykes, Stringer etc. etc.
P.S. prof. Stringer you declared in 2018 that the Harbin skull will prove the African-Only origin of Homo once and for all.
We are reaching 2021 in a few days!
Any news from the...Mark? (lol)
So it seems more and more that the PIE Urheimat there was in today's Poland and West Ukrainę and is associated with Corded Ware Culture(s). And Yamnaya only took part in creating the PIE craddle
ReplyDeleteDo you think one of the Minino samples is genuinely pulling toward Steppe ancestry?
ReplyDeletehttps://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=41563&d=1607104801
@Davidski-"-the idea that the Pontic-Caspian steppe was colonized by migrants from Mesopotamia during the Bronze Age will be put to bed, and, ironically, we'll instead learn that there was a significant influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Mesopotamia"
ReplyDeleteI think that instead of searching for a colonization in the Bronze Age, the reality is that there is an influx from Western Asia into the Pontic-Caspian Steppe during the Neolithic Revolution period(7000-4000), and this is probably related to the Hassuna/Halaf/Ubaid colonization period in which farming was introduced into the Steppe.
This migration happened from the Northern Fertile Crescent into the Pontic-Caspian Steppe through the Caucasus. The ancient DNA studies of the Maykop / Steppe Maykop and the Areni cultures already gave us some insights on this.
After this Neolithic Revolution event, the population from Western Asia and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe mixed genetically and culturally. During the Bronze Age period, this mixed population then moved back South into the Western Asian regions.
@EastPole
ReplyDelete"PIE culture and PIE homeland is a very dangerous, politically loaded subject."
This can be said about any ancestral Homeland.
Just out of interest, although we all associate the word 'Bagdad' with Arabs and Semites in general, so much so that the word automatically conjures up images of everything quintessentially Arab, it is in fact an Indo European word, with the identifiable meaning as 'God's Gift'.
ReplyDelete@Sarah
ReplyDeleteThere was no migration from the Northern Fertile Crescent into the Pontic-Caspian Steppe.
There was just a trickle from the Northern Fertile Crescent into Steppe Maykop, but Steppe Maykop didn't last long.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDeleteYour link isn't working for me.
@Galadhorn
ReplyDeleteThere is absolutely no way that the Anatolian languages came from the Corded Ware populations in Poland so that is a very strange time and place to position the Proto-Indo-European homeland.
Proto-Indo-Anatolian (4,500 BC) is the earlier stage then Proto-Indo-European (3,500 BC). Proto-Indo-Anatolian could be on Pontic Steppe and then the users of the proto-language could migrate, could join Neolitic peoples of today's Poland and create the Proto-Indo-European homeland
ReplyDeletehttps://ibb.co/0KyJbq7
ReplyDeleteFrom page 35 (or 30 by the labels) on this paper
https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34
Can't say much based on that PCA.
ReplyDeleteThe result for this sample might be skewed due to its low coverage, or it might have excess EHG-related ancestry, which was present in the eastern Balkans since the early Mesolithic at least.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteMinino is northern Russia, near Moscow, the Mesolithic Butovo or Ressetian culture. This site has both of them mixed.
I can't tell what's what in that PCA.
ReplyDeleteBut there was no steppe ancestry in the forest zone at least until the Eneolithic, and it really only shows up there consistently during the Bronze Age with Fatyanovo.
@@Davidski
ReplyDeleteWe are waiting for this paper with Y-haplogroups, autosomes and a detailed description. More than a year has passed since this data was published.
What are you talking about? Which data?
ReplyDeleteIn this paper https://d-nb.info/1209245647/34
ReplyDeleteI'm not familiar with this thesis, and I can't be bothered reading it. I've seen lots of new data from the forest, forest steppe and steppe, and it shows what I just said.
ReplyDeleteBut in vain. Look, there is not volumetric.
ReplyDeleteRaw data and scripts are available upon request from jbloech@uni-mainz.de
Exciting times. We should hopefully see a final Dzudzuana study released next year.
ReplyDeleteIn regards to ancient Greece (a perennial topic here), you posted this teaser on Anthrogenica back in June:
"Heard some stuff...
- Mesolithic Greeks are like Barcin farmers (or wrongly dated)
- Bronze Age samples range from quite a bit of steppe (clearly more than the current Mycenaeans) to basically none
- Iron Age/Hellenistic/Roman samples are also very heterogeneous, some clearly Anatolian
Let's wait and see."
"we'll instead learn that there was a significant influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Mesopotamia"
ReplyDeleteIt must have been Trickled down Steppe geneflow into Mesopotamia from Dagestan.
"Old Kingdom Egyptians will come out less Sub-Saharan African than present-day Egyptians."
But you can't tell us if they had "Iranian" ancestry/Y DNA J which is a more relevant question?
The Egyptian thing should be super interesting. Does it hold true for Upper Egypt? I would guess yes but still excited. Should crush some people's dreams and delusions of grandeur.
ReplyDeleteI can't give you any more details about the ancient Egyptians.
ReplyDelete@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDelete“Do you think one of the Minino samples is genuinely pulling toward Steppe ancestry?”
It looks close to Corded_Ware_Baltic_early.
Not only can Egyptians not be described as "African" as bieng related to Black Africans.
ReplyDeleteBut even describing Egyptians as North African is inaccurate as they aren't related to NW Africans.
They're best described as Levantie. I'm pretty sure ancient Egyptians will be shown to be southern continuation of the Levant cline. More Anatolian in north, more Natufian in south.
They're probably mostly derived from Neolithic farmers from Levant who migrated into North Africa.
@EastPole
ReplyDelete"It looks close to Corded_Ware_Baltic_early."
No, there are EHG samples in the image, plus shifted towards CHG as in the Khvalynsk samples. Unfortunately, there is a disgusting analysis of ADMIXTURE so it is not clear what it is.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteI would imagine the Anatolian and Iranian related ancestry would be later additions on a Levantine base.
Either way I wonder how these results will be written off as false by the usual actor?
I already told you, there's nothing significantly CHG or Yamnaya-like in the forest zone until the Eneolithic.
ReplyDeleteAnd it only shows up there consistently with Fatyanovo.
Early Corded Ware has nothing to do with the forest zone. It's from the steppe near the Black Sea coast no less.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteYou're not saying there was a literal Steppe migration into Mesoptamia are you? Because that sounds Steppecentric. It must have been trickled down Steppe geneflow.
You have associated it with Hurrians in the past. Who weren't IE-speaking & who probably had some actual Steppe ancestry but probably did have lots of R1b Z2103.
@ Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteIronically; the bearers of PA might have distally been from Poland or thereabouts
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteThere was a "significant influx of steppe ancestry into ancient Mesopotamia".
I didn't say how it got there exactly.
ReplyDelete@ Davidski,
does the Indo-European influx to Mesopotamia explain why R1b-M269 can be found around 25% in Syriac Orthodox/Church of the East Assyrians and around 20% in Chaldean Catholics? Assyrians or Iraqi Christians are believed to be native Mesopotamians.
It’s intrigued that in Egypt, the Levant or Mesopotamia the Christian populations always appears to be the closest living relatives of the ancient ones. The genetic continuity is the strongest among them and not among the Muslims. However, there are people who assert that the hp R1b-M269 originated in the Middle East, hence this hp is high in Semitic Assyrians.
@Wise dragon
ReplyDeleteR1b-M269 is definitely not from the Near East.
It arrived in Mesopotamia and surrounds during the Bronze Age. It got there via the Caucasus from the steppe.
This is nothing new to anyone who's been following this blog.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/likely-yamnaya-incursions-into.html
What I would like to know is the migration Route of R1b L51 or its Ancestor to the what would become the Single Grave territory.
ReplyDelete@Ric
ReplyDeleteRoute A1 through Poland and Germany.
@Wisedragon,
ReplyDeleteAs Davidski mentioned, M269 is archaeologically attested and phylogenetically placed north of the Black Sea, however it's presence in the Armenian highland/Assyrian desert/Amuq Plain/Upper Mespotamia probably extends well before Assyria and the Sumerians. Also, the R1b subclades in these groups are generally distinct from what you'd expect of European Christians, so its presence in modern Assyrians isn't anything that happened recently. Assur itself is Luwian and it's not impossible that it could be Proto-Euphraic. (See Samuel N. Kramer)
Copts are probably a different story, but I don't know the exact sub-clades, but their R1b is probably a mixture of several sources.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteThe A1 I could find runs from South to North and is only in Poland ?
@Ric
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your question, but as you probably know, there are Corded Ware samples rich in R1b-L51(xP312) from southeastern Poland, and there's a lot of Bronze Age/Copper Age/Late Neolithic L51 in samples from southern and western Germany. So these might be strong clues.
It's unlikely, though, that we'll ever learn the exact migration route of L51 to the west.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteThank you.
One thing I'd like to see next year is some discussion on the impact of Impresso/Cardium farmers on the North Pontic Eneolithic. They would seem to be a credible source of admixture leading to the early Eneolihtic Steppe.
ReplyDeleteI wouldn't assume they were straight EEF either; it's possible the ones north of the Black Sea had significant Levantine admixture, since that appears to be one nexus in the Eastern Mediterranean, and quite plausibly the source of Black Sea groups.
I'm not really buying the Olalde et al, 2015 "Common genetic origin of..." cardial and LBK farmers based on a few 'highlanders' I can count on one hand, probably significantly mixed with Continental groups (or at least not the primary wave of immigrants).
Anyhow, I think it's a poorly understood archaeological horizon, almost nothing is truly known of it genetically. The entire Pontic coast and its rivers seem to have been littered with their junk. It seems retarded to think of them as just "LBK with boats" when in fact they are culturally and economically distinct. Just something to keep your eyes on.
See Dmytro Haskevych, D.L. Gaskeyych
@ BBB
ReplyDelete''One thing I'd like to see next year is some discussion on the impact of Impresso/Cardium farmers on the North Pontic Eneolithic. They would seem to be a credible source of admixture leading to the early Eneolihtic Steppe.''
One would think that the most economic explanation is C-T, GAC, epi-baden groups which were right next to Dereivka ?
''
Anyhow, I think it's a poorly understood archaeological horizon, almost nothing is truly known of it genetically.''
Well, that's simply not true
''It seems retarded to think of them as just "LBK with boats" when in fact they are culturally and economically distinct. ''
Theyre obviously not from LBK, but they are from the same pool of Anatolian-Aegean early farmers. I would argue that the distinction is due to agency & ecological adaptation. Obviously the LBK are adapted to the central European loess after brewing in Transdanubia for 400 years
I doubt Cardial have extra Levantine admixture over & above of whats in the formative pre-pottery phase. Maybe something extra via Cyrpus.
But you're right that Iberian stuff is heavily R1b-V88 and I2a1b, which is Euro . But I guess that further answers your question as to why theyre different to LBK..:)
From David: "I already told you, there's nothing significantly CHG or Yamnaya-like in the forest zone until the Eneolithic."
ReplyDeleteThat's just what the archaeological record made likely anyway. The steppe ancestry was formed in the South, especially around the Lower Don and spread from there, in various phases. Its even possible that the main push into the forest steppe came about, because Yamnaya pushed Western groups from the steppe, which initiated a chain migration event.
We have more than Corded Ware, groups with more obvious connections to TCC, like Cernavoda, Usatovo, Cotofeni. These all were part of the Western groups which left the steppe when Yamnaya expanded or shortly before.
The forest steppe was therefore, most likely, just secondarily colonised by Western steppe groups. Or is there a good argument against that interpretation? I know of none, but that doesn't have to mean that much ;)
"One would think that the most economic explanation is C-T, GAC, epi-baden groups which were right next to Dereivka ?"
ReplyDeleteCertainly groups such as GAC play a substantial role, but i think probably too late for either pre-IE or PIE. I think you have to start with something at least a thousand years earlier than Anatolian and that eliminates a lot of possibilities.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteThe academic consensus, which may or may not be correct, is that Corded Ware was an extension of the Yamnaya expansion.
No one is arguing at any serious level that Yamanya pushed out Corded Ware from the steppe. The reason for this is probably that there's no reliable evidence for it.
But you keep making this claim as if it was the academic consensus. So where is your confidence coming from that it's true? What evidence have you got that everyone else is obviously missing?
And now you've extended the same claim to Cernavoda, Usatovo and Cotofeni, which is chronologically very unsound.
There is J in EHG samples is there not? If this Minino sample turns out to have CHG, it might be telling of an older presence of CHG related ancestry in Eastern Europe.
ReplyDeleteMore likely it's just a low coverage sample or the PCA is garbage, which happens a lot. I say that because I'm not aware of anything like this in any of the new data.
ReplyDeleteBut sure, if you can get the genotypes, and they're half decent, then I'll run them.
@zardos
ReplyDelete"We have more than Corded Ware, groups with more obvious connections to TCC, like Cernavoda, Usatovo, Cotofeni."
What nonsense, Cernavoda, Usatovo, Cotofeni are not Tripolye.
"The forest steppe was therefore, most likely, just secondarily colonised by Western steppe groups."
There are no such fantasies. Yamnaya never penetrated either the forest or the forest-steppe. What are the mythical Western steppe groups? Neolithic Dereivka 1 or what?
--
Naturally, there is no consensus that Corded Ware originated from Yamnaya. There is, let's say, the opposite consensus that the CWC did not originate from Yamnaya.
As for where CHG was, where he was not, we do not know at all, therefore all statements are not substantiated, we only know that at the beginning of the Eneolithic he was already in the Samara region, there are no other data.
There's nothing reliably dated with a lot of CHG in the forest west of Samara until Fatyanovo.
ReplyDeleteHaha.
BBB
ReplyDelete''Certainly groups such as GAC play a substantial role, but i think probably too late for either pre-IE or PIE. I think you have to start with something at least a thousand years earlier than Anatolian and that eliminates a lot of possibilities.''
Yes that's true, GAC arrives at or just after 3000 BC. I guess that leaves C-T on the one hand, & Majkop on the other, as adstrative influences.
Varna - KMK would be in the pre-phase
There's nothing tested in the forest west of Samara until Fatyanovo.
ReplyDeleteHaha.
@Archi: I didn't say they were part of TCC, but I said they had close contacts with TCC to the West. Please comment what I wrote, not the imagination.
ReplyDeleteYamnaya did move around the forest steppe, that's correct, they pushed West, they even came into Pannonia and Bulgaria, but not into the forest steppe, that's the point actually, this was a habitat for a steppe group in which they had a USP, because it wasn't done before, at least not with that kind of success. That's the single biggest reason for CW success, that opened up a completely new possibility for wide ranging expansions, far away from the hard fought for open steppe and steppe-like terrain to the South and East. And my assumption is that part of the reason for their transition, for their adaptation to a new ecological zone, was not just pull, but also push factors, and a major push factor came indeed from the East and was, in the final phase, exerted by Yamnaya. Not necessarily directly, but indirectly, over a chain reaction.
This well known map should make the distinction clear:
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-018-29914-5/figures/1
Yamnaya was, in a way, rather a fairly early exception with its East to West expansion.
Concerning once again West-Eastern contacts:
"To
the south, close to the Danube, a vessel typical of the north
Pontic Skelya culture was found in the tell settlement of
Pietrele, Măgura Gorgana, also testifying to the existence
of an exchange network between east and west (Fig. 7,
No. 1) (Reingruber and Rassamakin, 2016, p. 274).
For most of the first half of the fourth millennium BC,
the evidence for contacts is very scarce, becoming more
obvious only towards the end of this period, with the
appearance of corded ornaments on vessels of Dereivka,
Cernavoda I and Cucuteni B pottery (Reingruber and Rassamakin,
2016, p. 274). The much debated Cucuteni C
shell-tempered pottery also needs to be mentioned"
Of course this was not because of direct Yamnaya pressure, but a general East -> West migration trend.
About the limits of the Yamnaya expansion:
"The limits of the Yamnaya expansion in south-eastern
Europe were traditionally perceived as confined
to the steppe-like landscape, marked by the Tisza River
in the west, the Serbian Banat to the south-west and the
Rhodope Mountains in the south"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/344726460_The_Yamnaya_Impact_North_of_the_Lower_Danube_A_Tale_of_Newcomers_and_Locals
This more specialised and limited expansion is also the reason why the impact of Yamnaya was not just smaller than that of Corded Ware, but most likely also less important than that of some of the earlier groups which made the transition.
There is also a Yamnaya related horizon of destruction and mounds being build on structures from previous inhabitants in the Western steppe, so this was a direct conquest by Yamnaya from the East. What I'm saying is that there might have been a chain migration event, caused by the East-West shift of Yamnaya.
Unfortunately I don't have the paper at hand which deals with this more obvious conquest/destruction horizon on the Western steppe, I just can recall some of it. Probably someone else has? Want to re-read on the issue of the Yamnaya expansion on the steppe itself anyway. If I find it myself, I will add how much I remembered correctly and what it said.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteDave maybe you wanna have a look to the below articles since there is nothing more interesting:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.18.342816v2
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.11.08.373225v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.30.350678v1
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2020.10.14.339135v1
"The academic consensus, which may or may not be correct, is that Corded Ware was an extension of the Yamnaya expansion.
ReplyDeleteNo one is arguing at any serious level that Yamanya pushed out Corded Ware from the steppe. The reason for this is probably that there's no reliable evidence for it.
But you keep making this claim as if it was the academic consensus. So where is your confidence coming from that it's true? What evidence have you got that everyone else is obviously missing?"
Not to speak for zardos, but I don't think it's an academic consensus. However haven't you posted here yourself that the Y-DNA haplogroups of the Yamnaya cannot be derived from the western portion of the steppes, nor can Corded Ware be derived directly from the Yamnaya? If the Corded Ware origin is to be found in the Pontic portion of the Pontic Caspian, which later manifested further north and west, while the eastern, Caspian Y-DNA markers flooded the western area at the same time, only to be replaced much later by western DNA markers associated with post-CWC cultures such as Fatyanovo, etc. then it becomes certainly very plausible if not almost obligatory.
@Michalis Moriopoulos
ReplyDelete"Exciting times. We should hopefully see a final Dzudzuana study released next year."
You have any inside info here or are you just speculating/hoping? I don't understand what the big hold-up with this paper has been, it's been over 2 years since the pre-print was released. I'm optimistic maybe they've been sand-bagging it because they've gotten more aDNA from the Middle East that caused them to re-calibrate a lot of their original models but that's only wishful thinking right now.
@Sam Andrews
What makes you think Egyptians are just immigrant Levantines exactly? Why can't they be native native Nile valley inhabitants who just adopted farming from Levantines?
CRM
ReplyDeleteTrialeti Vanadzor was not the only culture that formed after KAC. In NW Iran we have the apparition of so called Urmia ware.
The Hajji Firuz BA sample that we have from NW Iran can be labeled proto Urmia ware.
There was also another minor culture known as Sevan Uzerlic in Karabakh.
So Steppe groups that came to Near East in MBA didn't created a homogenous culture. A fragmented cultures emerged with similarities and differences. And almost certainly different identities.
Urmia ware is an excellent candidate to be linked with Gutians. While Hurrians can be linked with Khabur ware.
Both this wares are MBA period.
Here is the stratigraphy of cultures in NW Iran. Urmia ware is mentioned. Page 324
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287799502_Fifth_and_fourth_millennium_BC_in_north-western_Iran_Dalma_and_Pisdeli_revisited
Just what *couldn't* those Steppe boys do?
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI am really intrigued by the presence of haplo J in EHG's and the presence of some mtDna strains that we associate with the Middle East in WeRuHG (which is another name for EHG). Is it not a sign of Caucasian HG ancestry?
@Desdichado
ReplyDeleteYou mean Y-haplogroup founder effects are obligatory evidence? I'd say you've been spending too much time on genetic genealogy boards, or even at Quiles' blog.
Time to take a break.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThere's nothing tested in the forest west of Samara until Fatyanovo.
Yes there is. Hundreds of samples.
Most are R1b. And they're all basically EHG/WHG.
Obviously practically all Western groups had varying degrees of TCC influences, but they were still different entities...
ReplyDeleteAnyway. I made a longer post which wasn't published or got lost about this, but to sum it up, Corded Ware is a branching event from the Western steppe which adapted to the forest steppe zone. This was a big step and it was, most likely, also done because of a push factor coming by chain migration events. The timing fits nicely and its clear that Yamnaya and Corded Ware had almost no overlap in their future habitats from 3.000 BC on. Just compare the well known maps and its clear that the Yamnaya were open steppe pastoralists, the Corded Ware adapted as forest steppe agro-pastoralists. The more important aspect of agriculture is already present in Dereivka by the way, since it was mentioned.
And I once read an article about a destruction horizon and erected mounds on top of structures of the defeated people by Yamnaya, including in the Western steppe sphere, where they caused a chain migration event. So to me they seem to be intrusive and the timing is close to the Westwards movement and before the earliest CW. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to find that paper, probably someone can help out - I would like to re-read on the issue of the Yamnaya expansion on the Western steppe anyway. Memories might be tricky.
In any case, Yamnaya proper is very different entity from Corded Ware and related groups, most with relations to Dereivka. There is practically no overlap and the Yamnaya expansion will not be decisive I guess, just reducing the yDNA diversity on the steppe, by pushing out or eliminating the a large fraction of the Western groups.
@David: Sorry, just saw the first trial is there anyway, got confused by the order of the posts.
ReplyDelete@ Zardos
ReplyDeleteYes Yamnaya kurgans could build on top of previous Baden settlements for ex
Seems pretty aggressive but it’s hard to say for sure ( because we’re dealing with flimsy huts anyway )
@zardos
ReplyDeleteWhat is there to imagine? You wrote "TCC, like Cernavoda, Usatovo, Cotofeni."
" corded ornaments on vessels of Dereivka,
Cernavoda I and Cucuteni B pottery (Reingruber and Rassamakin,
2016, p. 274). The much debated Cucuteni C
shell-tempered pottery also needs to be mentioned"
Of course this was not because of direct Yamnaya pressure, but a general East -> West migration trend."
There was no migration from the East to the West, you cite the text concerning the Suvorovo group of Sredniy Stog culture, which is not associated with any migration to the West, but is a trading outpost of Sredniy Stog for the trade of Balkan copper. It was not migration, they generally took goods for trade in the Donets. You can call this an Sredniy Stog extension, but not a migration. And even more so, it has nothing to do with Yamnaya, especially with the CWC times.
@Desdichado
"post-CWC cultures such as Fatyanovo"
Fatyanovo is a real CWC, not post.
@Archi: I know, these are two different issues, one being TCC contacts of Western steppe people, the other being Yamnaya rolling over related steppe groups later.
ReplyDelete@Rob: The evidence is non-conclusive, but if aDNA proves the East to West replacement, together with this archaeological hints, it would be proven that Yamnaya expanded in the West by force and replaced and pushed the more agro-pastoralist, less mobile Western groups.
But even if not, the origin of the steppe cattle breeders with their specific ancestral component will go back to LDC and early SSC most likely.
@ Zardos
ReplyDeleteYes but Cernavoda (which is a steppe culture) was there before. So it's still not entirely clear until there's aDNA , even though the burials do differ b/w Cernavoda & Yamnya
Yamnaya only moves ''over'' Baden in steppe niches, not elsewhere
Also, Baden were themselves moving around, e.g to central Balkans, even into Tripolje. So the exact dynamics are complex
Anyone else try the Genomelink ancestry report? Nothing earth shattering there, but the Steppe Pastoralist graphic looks almost identical to the graphic on the Fatyanovo post.
ReplyDeleteIt pegs me as 93% European, which is almost certainly too low (23andMe has me at 99.6% European, Ancestry 100%, Family Tree and myHeritage both at 95%), though it's possible I accidentally uploaded my grandfather's DNA.
Yes, Cernavoda was earlier, but I also thought about why the situation between the western steppe groups and TCC completely escalated and I think an early East - West shift would be the No 1 explanation, beside the possibility of TCC defenses and economy collapsing at some point. Sure we had Baden, Cernavoda, GAC coming to the region. It is more complex, but the major factor seems to have been, in my opinion, pressure from the East.
ReplyDeleteAnd that Yamnaya did just follow in steppe niches is highly important, because that's why the other groups could survive and in part, on the long run, even assimilated Yamnaya groups rather than the other way around. Yamnaya wasn't winning structurally and demographically on the long run, and their ways didn't excel beyond the narrower steppe habitat. On the other Cernavoda might have even moved on to found Proto-Anatolians.
In fact its hard to find one safe pathway of Yamnaya survival, but there are many of both the earlier South and West migrations, as well as the Northern-Western Corded Ware path obviously.
The point is, Yamnaya is a separate entity which impact is far lower and which distance on various levels is quite big to the Western groups. So I highly doubt Yamnaya had any significant role to play for Corded Ware. If, that would be a big surprise. Same goes, largely, for early Cernavoda, Cotofeni and Usatovo. Some of their descendents however met again in various places like Pannonia and Bulgaria, with Yamnaya splinter groups. But then again, there is not too much which speaks for a strong Yamnaya tradition to survive anywhere?
@zardos
ReplyDeleteI think you and many others here are in for a shock when you see the new data from the steppe.
The Yamnaya expansion didn't start at the eastern end of the PC steppe, like you've been led to believe on Carlos Quiles' dodgy info graphics, but in fact it largely moved from west to east. That is, from the steppe north of the Black Sea into the Caspian region.
This should have been obvious a long time ago, because there's a western signal in the Yamnaya genome that is lacking in Khvalynsk, Progress, etc. But these things are often hard to read correctly without more samples to create the proper context.
So yeah, there was a lot of replacement, but that largely happened in the Volga and Caspian steppes.
@ David
ReplyDeleteDavid what happened with the samples from 'East Rumelia' in G25?For some reason i cannot see them.Did you remove them for some reason?
Still there...
ReplyDeleteRumelia_East:642
Rumelia_East:643
Rumelia_East:644
Rumelia_East:645
Rumelia_East:646
Rumelia_East:647
Rumelia_East:648
Rumelia_East:649
Rumelia_East:650
Rumelia_East:651
Rumelia_East:652
Rumelia_East:653
@ David
ReplyDeleteNow i figure.You removed the 'Greek'.David with all the respect,but these samples are Greek people.It dosn't matter how they come genetically or where they coming from.I am not sure why you removed the 'Greek'or who told you anything weird...but keep in mind that these samples(besides their low SNP) are coming from the Stamatayanopoulos paper and they have to do with Greek people who come from East Rumelia and more specific from Plovdiv.They considered Thracian Greeks.I am pretty sure some Bulgarian members have become upset but they have to realize that many Greeks come from 'Thrace/East Rumelia' and they used to live there during Ottoman times.
@David: That would be no shock to me, because Khvalynsk and Yamnaya, both started from the birth region around the sea of Azow. Repin is clearly no that Eastern group at all. The difference is however, that Khvalynsk moved from the centre, just ro mix and die, in that order. Yamnaya on the other hand didnt just expand to the East, but swept to the West also, to create the unified horizon.
ReplyDeleteBut by doing so, which is my assumption, they pushed the very Western, more TCC influenced and agro-pastoralist groups, in all directions away from the steppe habitat.
So I have no problem with Yamnaya expandIng to the East, but I don’t think it will harbour any later IE lineages, like those of CW and Usatovo, Cotofeni and being highly likely different from Cernavoda also.
Yamnaya was only relatively more Eastern, not absolutely. Because the dynamic centre was until then never too far away from the Lower to Middle Don, the Sea of Azow.
I expect the other non-typical Yamnaya lineages only to appear in assimilated Western fringe groups and fairly late.
If you know of surviving R1a-CW lineages in earliest and even central and Eastern Yamnaya, that would really change my mind. But it wouldnt fit from my point of view.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteSee that's the problem. You're fixating on Y-haplogroups, which can rise and fall in frequency very quickly, and messing up the genome-wide evidence.
Keep in mind that early Corded Ware was very similar to Yamnaya in terms of genome-wide ancestry. In fact, early Corded Ware and Don Yamnaya are basically identical.
Corded Ware initially wasn't more western, more TCC influenced than Yamnaya like you think.
By the way, R1a-M417 only became really common thanks to the Corded Ware expansion.
ReplyDeleteIt wasn't common before, so it wasn't pushed out.
This pushing out theory is a fantasy. Let's stick to the facts.
ReplyDeleteAm intrigued at the prospect of SGC showing up as a 'marker' for R1b-L51 (perhaps it really will apply to R1b-L151)
What I am seeing in the available data is that unless P312 started out around the Sth Baltic/Jutland (which is not impossible but conflicts with P312 expanding from around the Sth Alps) then SGC seems to better match R1b-U106 areas.
This link offers some commentary.
https://en.natmus.dk/historical-knowledge/denmark/prehistoric-period-until-1050-ad/the-neolithic-period/the-single-grave-culture/barrows-with-single-graves/
The SGC wasn't really centered on the Jutland Peninsula, but on the lower Rhine region (Netherlands/NW Germany).
ReplyDeleteAnyway, we'll probably never know where L151, U106 or P312 formed exactly, and modern data are best ignored when trying to work this out.
I remember how Carlos once described you as some blogger fueled by a desire to make his haplogroup the most important or something.
ReplyDeleteAside from the projecting, it is kind of hilarious how you have been argueing for so long that everyone is getting caught up in founder effects on Y-dna haplogroups that they are missing the forest for the trees.
Determining "who" pushed out "who" based on haplogroups is silly, even thinking that material cultures represent a people with a common goal is very simplistic and incorrect.
So yeah any "Yamnaya/R1b" pushed out "Corded Ware/R1a" discussion should be where they belong, in the forums of Eupedia or the comment section of indo-european.eu
I hope Harry Fokkens is aware how the recent findings have somewhat vindicated his archaeological works regarding the origins of the Bell Beaker cultural horizon.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete„By the way, R1a-M417 only became really common thanks to the Corded Ware expansion.
It wasn't common before”
So what is the current PIE and indoeuropeization story? Which version is preferred:
1. Indo-Germanic women from Yamnaya indoeuropeized R1a males from Corded Ware?
2. Indo-Slavic women from Corded Ware indoeropeized R1b males from Yamnaya?
3. PIE was not patriarchal, patrilocal and patrilineal?
@David:
ReplyDelete"Keep in mind that early Corded Ware was very similar to Yamnaya in terms of genome-wide ancestry. In fact, early Corded Ware and Don Yamnaya are basically identical.
Corded Ware initially wasn't more western, more TCC influenced than Yamnaya like you think."
Its like it was with SSC vs. Khvalynsk, from the same central root, moving out, one West, one East, Yamnaya came back and shifted the whole spectrum West. I don't expect Corded Ware to be necessarily more Western shifted genetically, but I do expect their ancestors to sit relatively more Western than the core of Yamnaya, when the latter established itself and began unifying the steppe under its horizon.
If you look at Dereivka, its a good candidate for at least a relative or even ancestor, directly for CW, if you look at Yamnaya proper, its not, in my opinion. The ancestry of both was at this point, most likely, dominated by the classic steppe ancestry. That doesn't make the difference, its the patrilineages and the cultural package. Yamnaya didn't move just like that on the forest steppe, in one generation, and changed its package so completely.
It didn't happen there, it didn't happen in Bulgaria or Pannonia. It didn't happen with most later steppe pastoralist incursions. They didn't just pick up the plough and became more agropastoralist.
Of course you are right about the uniparentals. Everything I brought forward is inconclusive insofar, as its no definitive proof. But it makes such a scenario likely or at least quite possible, until the opposite being proven by these lineages and ancestral component being freshly introduced by an Yamnaya group.
My condition is like this: No group of Yamnaya proper directly on the Pontic steppe, especially not in the Central and Eastern portion, most likely nowhere, will be dominated by surviving CW-related lineages. There might be sporadic finds later, when some of the Western groups were assimilated possibly, but not early, not widespread, not dominating clearly, original, fairly unmixed Yamnaya people.
If such a Yamnaya group appears, which being clearly and early on dominated by related Western lineages and can be linked to CW, Usatovo-Cotofeni, I'm fine with it and declare I was wrong. Until then, I'm just waiting and looking at the, rather circumstantial, evidence and where it might point to.
Probably you already know the result, but without knowing it for sure, I would bet for an earlier Western branch being in the centre, which might have branched off not long before Yamnaya came into existence, but which took a seperate path, more agro-pastoralist, one further Northern branch adapting to the forest steppe, the other, even more Western-Southern being close to TCC, these resulted in Cernavoda first, Usatovo-Cotofeni later. Yamnays is only more Eastern relative to these, but its origin is still in the original homeland and cradle, around the Don river.
At the time Yamnaya proper spread, the climatic situation too might have changed, made the subsistence for the less mobile agro-pastoralists more problematic. This affected TCC as well as groups like Usatovo and Dereivka. Dereivka were agro-pastoralists and hunters, at least culturally more influenced by the Western Neolithics (compare Rassamakin and Kotova among others). They already lived in and close to the forest steppe, that's the natural evolution for Corded Ware.
Not the specialised mobile pastoralists, which adapted to the worsening conditons on the steppe itself and expanded rapidly from their central position against West and East. I mean I can't exclude it, until the data is there and I might be proven wrong, but it just doesn't fit to me. They could have fused, that's an option, but then the uniparentals make even less of a sense.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteWhat's happened here is that you've come up with an "awesome" theory and never mind the facts if they don't want to agree with it.
You're even filling in the gaps in the facts to make your theory work.
So you've created a population on the North Pontic steppe that was more western than Yamnaya, rich in R1a, and ancestral to Corded Ware.
The problem is that this population never existed, and whatever gave rise to the Corded Ware and R1a-M417 expansions is actually the same thing that gave rise to the Yamnaya expansion. See here...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-battle-axe-people-came-from-steppe.html
Unfortunately, it looks like it might take you the next decade or so to accept this.
For bringing some order into the debate, this summary from page 8-11 and the map on page 10 is useful I'd say:
ReplyDeletehttps://books.google.at/books?id=M4sFCgAAQBAJ&lpg=PR1&hl=de&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false
Just for making clear what West and East means in this context and what some of the mentioned cultures mean. Its interesting that Rassamakin was early (e.g. his article from 1994) on right about Khvalynsk being out of the game and only Repin coming close to playing a role for Yamnaya. As well as his description of the more agro-pastoralist Dereivka group, and the more Western TCC influences on the one side, more Maykop shifted on the other.
The big Corded Ware movement started roughly at around the time Yamnaya really took off, but I think it was more rooted in the tradition of Dereivka. With the, for Carpathian-Balkan-Anatolian sphere so important groups of Usatovo-Cotofeni and Cernavoda already on the march to the South West.
I just don't see the big Yamnaya role - other than as an impulse giver. As one can see, there is no reason to assume that Dereivka as a whole was much more Neolithic shifted necessarily, but they were still rather to the North West and culturally more influenced by the TCC sphere. More samples from Dereivka would be really fine.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteIt is interesting that R1b Z2103 was the only IE line on the Steppe which didn't move into Northern Europe. And that it is also so far the main lineage in Yamnaya, Catacomb, Poltvka.
Why did R1a m417, R1b L51 leave and why did R1b Z2103 stay? It is just speculation but R1b Z2103 pushing them out seems like a possibility.
@David: The steppe was big and the unified Yamnaya horizon is not fundamentally different, other than in uniparentals and cultural adaptation, ancestry wise, from the "Western groups" I meant. The Yamnaya just took a different path shortly before.
ReplyDeleteThe question is: Did the ancestors of CW live in a common source group with Yamnaya, before the split and one group (ancestors of CW) becoming TCC culturally influenced agro-pastoralists of the forest steppe, whereas the other (ancestors of Yamnaya) adapted to a more mobile, more exclusively pastoralist lifestyle, with which they did even better when the climate worsened.
Or did the ancestors of CW split from developed Yamnaya proper to form this (CW-) branch very late.
Do you suggest they have the same ancestor one or two steps/branching events before (I'm fine with that) or that they are actual, direct descendants from developed Yamnaya (in my opinion unlikely, because they were culturally so different and the Western groups not jus survived but did better on the longer run)?
Probably this is just a misunderstanding? I totally accept they came from the steppe, just when exactly and how long they needed to develop their own package, that's where we might differ (let's see :) ).
@zardos
ReplyDeleteThe big Corded Ware movement started roughly at around the time Yamnaya really took off, but I think it was more rooted in the tradition of Dereivka.
You should take a closer look at what the samples associated with the Dereivka site look like before you continue this much longer.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteZ2103 was also moving.
It moved into the Carpathian Basin, the North Caucasus and east as far as the Urals and even Mongolia.
With dense enough sampling we'll also eventually find L51 and M417 in these places, and Z2103 in Corded Ware.
@zardos
ReplyDeleteLook what I just posted for Samuel.
I agree with that, obviously, the map I posted before just shows that Yamnaya proper was moving into the Carpathians-Pannonia-Balkans, roughly along the steppe-like biological boundaries. They did intermix with Pannonian groups and so on. That's known from the archaeological context, they did mix with the earlier groups in some regions. But that's exactly the zone of overlap, not the source or original home regions. Some minor groups became assimilated, either way, when they conquered their respective territories.
ReplyDeleteBut only the early sampling will answer the question whether especially Corded Ware and Yamnaya were different branches, taking different paths, some time before Yamnaya proper was formed. It would be just a series of strange coincidences, that Corded Ware follows the Forest steppe agropastoralist tradition, starting from roughly the same place even, not overlapping significantly with Yamnaya and being dominated by quite different haplogroups. To me, it looks too much, but like I said, I might be just wrong. But to prove it, one has to come up with a source group for Corded Ware from developed Yamnaya. Before they met Western grups again, like with the Yamnaya expansion into Pannonia-Bulgaria where they met R1a folks from Usatovo-Cotofeni probably, or when Sintastha-Andronovo did sweep deep into Asia, taking some Yamnaya-Catacomb splinter groups with them.
If there are ancestral CW/Andronovo haplotypes in Repin-Yamnaya early on and Yamnaya haplotypes in the forest steppe agro-pastoralists/CWC, let's say before around 2.900 BC and probably more than one, I would be totally convinced.
Believe me, I'm really open minded on the issue, I'm just searching for a safe, verifiable way to prove/disprove scenarios with higher certainty. Later, sporadic finds, especially from known overlap/assimilation zones can't decide it.
@galadhom “ So it seems more and more that the PIE Urheimat there was in today's Poland and West Ukrainę and is associated with Corded Ware Culture(s). And Yamnaya only took part in creating the PIE craddle”
ReplyDeleteSamuel Andrews and myself have been saying it for over a year now. Glad to have finally been vindicated!
@sarah “ This migration happened from the Northern Fertile Crescent into the Pontic-Caspian Steppe through the Caucasus. The ancient DNA studies of the Maykop / Steppe Maykop and the Areni cultures already gave us some insights on this.
ReplyDeleteAfter this Neolithic Revolution event, the population from Western Asia and the Pontic-Caspian Steppe mixed genetically and culturally. During the Bronze Age period, this mixed population then moved back South into the Western Asian regions.”
Why are so many people infatuated with some notion that PIE originated in the Fertile Crescent?
Did you drink Dr. Reich’s Kool Aid?
If anything, then Indo-Europeans (Catacomb, Poltavka) pushed Kura Araxes deep into the ME, and therefore 1/3 of the biblical land of Canaan inhabitants were actually Hurrians. The Jebusites were an offshoot of the Mittani Kingdom. King David has adopted many Jebusite customs which had origins in the Indo-Aryan ruling elite. To boot, “Aravna” is a name with clear Indo-European etymology.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteAny dates available for the Don Yamnaya ? Early, Middle or Late Yamnaya ?
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteWas the Repin Culture part of this connection to Corded Ware ?
The dates that I've seen for the Don Yamnaya sites are basically in the same 3000-25000 BCE range.
ReplyDeleteUnfortunately, I haven't heard anything about Repin samples being tested, although some of the Eneolithic steppe samples that are on the way might be associated with this culture. No idea which ones though.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteVery interesting thanks.
@ Davidski, bellbeakerblogger
ReplyDeleteThanks for the reply. Since I read Eurogenes blog, of course, I assumed that Rb1 269 is a Yamanya/Indo-European marker. The thing is, that I had a discussion with some folks about the Rb1 in King Tut. However, they showed me, as it seems, the outdated Balaresque et al. Paper (2010) and argued for the Near Eastern origin of R1b. According to Balaresgue Rb1 originated in the Near east and was introduced to Europe via Anatolia. That's why I was surprised that there was no academic consensus over R1b being from the Steppe. Anyway, as far as I know Kurds are Indo-Europeans that are indigenous to Mesopotamia, too. So it appears that there was an Indo-European element in Mesopotamia, thus it wasn't entirely Semitic.
@Aram
ReplyDeleteI'll check it out. I remember you mentioning Urmia ware and its connection to the Gutians.
Lets assume that Hajji Firuz BA is a recent arrival from the Caucasus and has no Steppe ancestry from Central Asia. Her extra EEF ancestry then must have come directly from the Steppe north of the Caucasus. Same signal can be seen in some other samples from Armenia. There's also the case of Lola ancestry in Lchashen. This highlights the diversity of the Steppe influx, it wasn't just one Steppe tribe that migrated South. I do wonder about their numbers, but it would seem they were assimilated rather quickly, barring proto-Armenians.
https://i.imgur.com/mRKp0nt.png
The Kura-Araxes culture began expanding into the Middle East before the Indo-European movements into the Caucasus, it is foolish to assume that IE were the reason of the Kura-Araxes expansion. Indo-Europeans were absorbed, they began speaking local Caucasian languages and began following local Caucasian customs and Gods. Among Northeast Caucasian speakers, the Indo-European input was overwhelmingly maternal, while Armenians (assuming they were Lchasheneans) and Trialetians were forced to live in fortified fortresses due to the hostile nature of the Caucasus, and the former were almost on the verge of being exterminated by the Urartians, while the latter (who probably didn't even speak IE at that point) were rooted out and/or assimilated by Shida Kartlians. It's obvious that the "Steppe" geneflow into Mesopotamia came in a very deluted form, and did not carry any significant Indo-European cultural package.
@davidski
ReplyDeleteAre you able to confirm that L51 in single grave means L11? As opposed to xL11 which has been found in ancient Latins and Romans.
Off topic, but also very interesting. Calibrated dates of the Paleolithic Kapova cave of the Urals are published. 16000-19000 BCE during the period of the greatest cold snap LGM. In Russian archaeology, there is still no understanding of what to do with the maltin-buret culture that existed on lake Baikal 25000-18000 BCE, in which the MA1.SG. It is probably in the Kapova cave of the Urals that the R1 population of about 19,000 BCE moved, and it is probably here that they survived the LGM. This explains the early appearance of R1b in Villabruna. This population crossed the Holocene flood zone (the West Siberian sea and the Caspian transgression) before the glacier melted. http://www.ipdn.ru/_private/a50/5-16.pdf
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews
ReplyDelete„It is interesting that R1b Z2103 was the only IE line on the Steppe which didn't move into Northern Europe. And that it is also so far the main lineage in Yamnaya, Catacomb, Poltvka.”
How do you know Z2103, Yamnaya, Catacomb, Poltavka were IE? What IE languages are they linked with?
@Awood
ReplyDeleteNo L11, but that might be due to a lack of data.
@Wise dragon
ReplyDeleteAlmost all of the academic papers about Y-haplogroup origins are garbage and outdated.
Balaresgue et al. firmly falls into this category.
How do you know of the IE input in Northeasterm Caucasians is entitely female mediated if we lack the ancient data and modern data shows strong founder effects on their Y-dna?
ReplyDelete@zardos
ReplyDelete"More samples from Dereivka would be really fine."
What does more mean? Strictly speaking, we do not have a single tested sample from Dereivka culture. The only one that is inscribed in it in time is a sample from Alexandria R1a, but its culture is not defined, it is definitely not Sredniy Stog, I generally doubt that it is Eneolithic.
You love to write a lot of words. Of course, Dereivka is the most suitable, it is a forest-steppe society of battle axes and corded ware, all these traditions come from the northeast. The kurgan tradition comes from the east.
@Davidski
"You should take a closer look at what the samples associated with the Dereivka site look like before you continue this much longer."
He writes about Dereivka culture, which has nothing to do with the tested Dereivka 1 site, there are many Dereivka sites. Just like Sredniy Stog culture has nothing to do with Sredniy Stog 1. Remember, as Sredniy Stog culture is an eponymous of Sredniy Stog II, so Dereivka culture is an eponymous of Dereivka II, it has not been tested.
Repino plays a key role in transmitting the steppe signal. During the period of 3500-2500, there were no migrations to the don from either the West or the East, but Repino itself spread both to the West and to the East. Moreover, the transition from Repino to Yamnaya on don generally occurred unnoticed, obviously it was one population and I think it was R1b-L23 ( but with two distinct clans Z2103 and L51). How and where R1a-M417 mixed with them is an unanswered question. The fact that in the period 5500-3500 to the middle don there were constant migrations first from the Lower don, and after 4500 from the post Sredniy Stog cultures: Dereivka, skelya, Konstantinovka. Therefore, there is a hypothesis that during the period before the Repino expansion, the main area of R1a-M417 was in the forest-steppe.
ReplyDelete@EastPole,
ReplyDeleteR1b Z2103 is an IE lineage too. Illyrian and Greek might come from it.
But even if no IE languages come from it, they still probably spoke IE, because they came from the same recent ancestors as Corded Ware.
Not all IE languages survived to the present day.
@Wise dragon
ReplyDelete"Anyway, as far as I know Kurds are Indo-Europeans that are indigenous to Mesopotamia"
Kurds are Iranians and came as part of the Persian conquerors in ~800BC from Central Asia.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteThere's R1b-M269 in EBA Dagestan.
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteWhat does main area mean? How do you know this main area existed?
Try and understand that M417 was a very limited lineage until the Eneolithic, after which it exploded in frequency, especially with Corded Ware.
You and Zardos appear to be ignoring this, and instead pretending that M417 had to be common somewhere before Corded Ware.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThanks. Is the sample from an upcoming article or was it featured in an already published one?
@Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteWhere did I write that it was "entirely" maternal?
Northeast Caucasians can reach up to 50% Catacomb in some cases, averaging at 40%, but they are dominated by J Y-DNA lineages. This is usually the part where the founder effect argument usually comes;
As per Yunusbayev et al, R1b among NEC speakers accounts to roughly 11% of total YDNA, while steppe mtDNA to 16%. And that's only accounting U4 and U5, obviously they have other steppe lineages as well, but due to their ambiguity in the study I'd rather not count them, but overall, had it been a simple case of founder effect, steppe mtDNA wouldn't appear as often as it does among Northeast Caucasians. There's also the fact that the Indo-European cultural package is almost nonexistent in Northeast Caucasus.
@Davidski
Seems like a sure way of getting unpublished information from you is by challenging the "Steppecentric" narrative with half baits. :))
There's nothing surprising with R1b being found in Dagestan, as I said before it accounts to roughly 11% of NEC YDNA. We also know of KAC Velikent with a typical NEC J1 YDNA and Steppe U4.
It's not out yet, as far as I know.
ReplyDelete@Archi: "What does more mean? Strictly speaking, we do not have a single tested sample from Dereivka culture. The only one that is inscribed in it in time is a sample from Alexandria R1a, but its culture is not defined, it is definitely not Sredniy Stog, I generally doubt that it is Eneolithic.
ReplyDeleteYou love to write a lot of words. Of course, Dereivka is the most suitable, it is a forest-steppe society of battle axes and corded ware, all these traditions come from the northeast. The kurgan tradition comes from the east."
I knew that it, its good we agree on the unfortunate representation of Eneolithic Derevika, which is indeed poor to non-existent, with one ill defined individual which might come close to the whole grouping. We need LDC, SSC and Dereivka proper to get the full picture.
Anyway, talking about the deeper origin of the Dereivka/Corded Ware tradition, we'll see, but for sure not more North East than Repin, rather the contrary.
I also thought about the situation of Dereivka and CW in general, and if CW is Yamnaya derived, it would be a second BB situation, in which nothing of the material fits in, yet there is still a genetic input from the main steppe group, which just drastically changed its cultural-ideological framework. I highly, highly doubt it, it makes the least sense, but we'll see. We just need early Yamnaya tested, and if they are genetically on the paternal side unified too, they are the people apart I'm assuming. Later mixture doens't matter if there is no proven direct input into early CW, replacing local Dereivka males. And chances for that kind of replacement are extremely low I'd say.
The above overview is mostly focused on R1b. Any idea if next year we will see Bronze age E-V13 and in which context?
ReplyDeleteI'm not aware of any E-V13 in the new data dating to the Bronze Age. But isn't there a Bronze Age E-V13 from Moldova that was wrongly dated to the Scythian period, or something?
ReplyDeleteJ2b2a is another tough one. Apparently, there's a sample from the Moldovan/Romanian border dating to the Eneolithic, but I'm not sure if it's reliable.
It seems to be the other way around. The V13 was most likely from the Scythian period, but wrongly dated to the Bronze age (the authors retracted the original dating). So still no clue on where it was in the Bronze age.
ReplyDeleteIf J2b2a designates L283 an Eneolithic sample from Moldova/Romania would fit nice with the theory of arrival from the steppe to Central Europe, but L283 already has plenty of aDNA, so it's not as useful as V13.
I don’t think what Davidski & Zardos or Vlad are saying are necessarily mutually exclusive
ReplyDeleteThe forest steppe might indeed have been the core zone of some groups which moved down during early Eneolithic
Let’s remember that the open steppe was not often frequented until the middle eneolithic, that is, the necessary adaptations had been acquired / Invented / mastered
Those then expanded back out
On the topic of E-V13, E1b1 so prominent in the Adriatic coast (and the strange presence of mtdna N in Cardium samples), I've wondered if the origin of these and the Cardium-Impressed Ware complex lies in the Khartoum Mesolithic, which I think phylogenetically nests these in Northcentral Sudan. Plus, North African pottery is getting much older recently (Jordan and Zelebil) It can explain the correspondence with styles in the North Pontic and the reverse migration of R1b-V88 throughout the Impresso World. You tend to find these where the Impresso Farmers settled, such as the Levant. The Adriatic might be like a secondary urheimat of these peoples.
ReplyDeleteI really haven't followed the Paleolithic SE Europe DNA, so if it's already there then never mind. I doubt it is though, seems like a more recent phenomenon, like Early Neolithic
@Rob any chance that V13 and J2b2n are due to founder effect from Cucuteni Tripolye?
ReplyDelete@Davidski Recent reading that I’ve done, according to Dr. Anthony, there was a cranial index difference between Yamnaya, catacomb and Poltava being brachyolchaphalic compared to skeletons from Mariupol and generally a more westerly region. He adds that Sintashta, Abashevo and other Corded Ware offshoots were much more dolichocephalic in cranial index.
ReplyDeleteDo you agree with his assertion, as well as with his attribution of this change in cranial index to the significant admixture with GAC and CTC Neolithic ethnicities?
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteNo, head shape is not a reliable indicator of population structure and admixture. So if David Anthony was using cephalic index data specifically for these purposes then his conclusions are best ignored.
Head shape can only be used to differentiate groups in a basic way if there's an obvious difference between them in this regard.
For instance, Bell Beakers were often very brachycephalic (round headed) while the populations around them mostly dolichocephalic (long headed), so this difference could be used to potentially link individuals and populations to the Bell Beaker community, even genetically before ancient DNA.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/06/the-man-with-flat-occiput.html
And that's about as much as I'm going to discuss this topic, because physical anthropology is against the rules here.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteYou need to work on your language skills a bit if you want me to approve your comments here.
I won't publish some crap about a "damaged phone" when obviously the word you're looking for is miscommunication or misunderstanding.
@Rafc
ReplyDelete"It seems to be the other way around. The V13 was most likely from the Scythian period, but wrongly dated to the Bronze age (the authors retracted the original dating). So still no clue on where it was in the Bronze age."
Quite the opposite is true. The dating there is correct, it is of the Bronze Age. It's just that West anthropologists ignored the information of the Moldavian archaeologists that this burial does not belong to the Scythian age, the Moldavian archaeologists told them this when they transferred samples for testing, but they illegally attributed it to the Scythians.
@Davidski, This is not nonsense, this is information from Moldavian archaeologists who have done excavations and know better who is a Scythian and who is not.
So they " illegally" attributed it to the Scythians.
ReplyDeleteWhich laws did they break?
@Davidski, wrongfully.
ReplyDeleteE-V13 seems really scarce in Southeastern Europe in the early bronze age even, seems more likely it grew exponentially during the Late BA. Perhaps related to events of the Urnfield cultural horizon?
ReplyDelete@Archi: Do you have any sources and do you know something about the context of this Bronze Age sample from Moldova?
ReplyDelete@zardos
ReplyDeleteRight now, much like Vladimir, you seem to be seeing Y-haplogroups like chess pieces on a board that were always there until pushed out.
For one, you need to incorporate founder effects and their ages into your interpretive toolkit.
And keep in mind that expansions and migrations need not be interchangeable descriptions of what happened in the past.
In fact, they do leave different signals in DNA, especially in Y-chromosome data.
Just a quick question on SGC though, lightly touching physical anthropology if I may... Were SGC brachycephalic with flat occiputs like BB? I can't seem to find any info on their body type and skull shape, unlike BBC which is sourced aplenty.
ReplyDeleteI've never seen any cranial data from SGC sites.
ReplyDeleteMaybe our Dutch readers can help?
I’m intrigued by the mysterious and sudden resurgence and subsequent disappearance of the WHG during the Unetice Culture. Do they have anything to do with what @Samuel Andrews referred to as “Hungary HG”, a population with about 40%-50% that used to inhabit the Balkans until the Slavic expansion of the 7 Century AD?
ReplyDelete@David: It's more than that of Yamnaya practically never left the steppe landscape or changed its cultural package of being mobile pastoralists.
ReplyDeleteBut right where they copied the North Western cultural package, becoming agro-pastoralists, using the same ceramic and reducing the usage of metal, its where they changed with chances of 1:100 to R1a, just by accidence the same haplogroup like being found in the single remotely related individual from the region from pre-Yamnaya?
The Yamnaya stayed mobile, specialised pastoralists even in Pannonia and Bulgaria. They only changed with mixture and assimilation.
Corded Ware on the other hand is closer related to Usatovo-Cotofeni most likely.
So the R1a question comes on top of this problems and autosomally the come from the same root anyway, just from earlier stages. So uniparentals are key in proving relationships in this case. In most other cases a simple founder effect explanation is better to swallow than here. Its unlikely that its chance.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"I've never seen any cranial data from SGC sites."
There is
PETERSEN, Hans Christian; IREGREN, E.; LILJEKVIST, R. An anthropological investigation of the Single Grave Culture in Denmark. Populations of the Nordic countries–Human population biology from the present to the Mesolithic, 1993, 178-188.
I have a scanned copy of this, but I have no idea where I got it.
CRM
ReplyDeleteYes off course. Steppe ancestry in Mesopotamia might be diluted a lot. We had two R1b-M269 from Bronze Age Levant before Sea people. And both practically lack any Steppe. Amazingly one if them is probably R1b L51 but that's not very important.
Nevertheless in most Northern parts of Mesopotamia in modern Hakkari (Iraq Turkey border) they left some artefacts. For example Hakkari stelaes.
https://travelatelier.com/blog/mysterious-stelae-hakkari/
They are dated to bronze age. One can compare them to Chemurchek stelaes.
They are some fifty graves around those stelaes. Both Urmia ware and Khabur ware are found in those graves. So they could be as old as MBA.
It would be also interesting to have aDNA from the ancient city Arrapkha. It was the capital of short lived Gutians kingdom.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrapha
The founder effect is best explained by one group of Dereivka-like people, still closer to Usatovo-Cotofeni, even though branched off from these too, expanding rapidly after they adapted fully to the kind of agropastoralism we find in Corded Ware.
ReplyDeleteThis is in any case more likely than exactly the single Yamnaya clan which completely changed its cultural package, while all the others did not, even if living among completely different people in Pannonia and Bulgaria, even if being under pressure, being the R1a founder. That's just too much of coincidences. The chances of a Yamnaya R1a founder are probably 1:100 based on the known Yamnaya haplogroup frequencies, and then its exactly this lineage which turns around and copies Dereivka to become Corded Ware? How likely is this? Yamnaya and Corded Ware are two completely seperated cultural entities, you can see that in their habitat, their remains, everything. That they are not from the same patrilineage just fits, while assuming the R1a founder effect took place exactly in the most deviating Yamnaya group of all does not. Its the combination of factors which makes this so unlikely. I know very well how dynamic the paternal founder effects and shifts can be, but in this case everything speaks against Yamnaya proper from my point of view.
Do you know of Eneolithic, real SSC and Dereivka samples? Real ones? If not, how can we know they were unlike Yamnaya? I don't think so, they should be pretty much the same autosomally.
Usatovo-Cotofeni could, in theory, have been already more mixed, but they were on the Western fringe and moved deep into "foreign territory" from the steppe, so that would be kind of expected. Yet I'm pretty sure they too had the basic steppe component, just like Eneolithic Dereivka, SSC proper and Yamnaya proper. These were all closely related people, I think they won't be easy to tell apart, before mixing with other people, from each other. The best chance of telling them apart is exactly yDNA.
Unless you have the samples already and know this is all wrong and the least likely scenario was the real one...
@zardos
ReplyDeleteThe founder effect is best explained by one group of Dereivka-like people.
No, of course it's not.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-battle-axe-people-came-from-steppe.html
@Archi
ReplyDeleteDo you have sources that support the Bronze age dating of the 'Scythian' V13? A scientific paper for example? If the sample is this old it would be great news.
I'm no specialist in autosomal DNA, but at the time people said the sample (SCY197) appeared alike to other Iron Age samples, supporting the younger dating.
These are the samples from the site that were originally dated (early) Bronze age:
Scythian_MDA:scy192
Scythian_MDA:scy197
This one had no date:
SCY193 (not in G25 dataset?)
And these are from the same site but dated to the late Iron age:
Scythian_MDA_o:scy303
Scythian_MDA:scy300
Scythian_MDA:scy301
Scythian_MDA:scy305
Scythian_MDA:scy311
SCY304 (not in G25 dataset?)
Are there experts here that can confirm the first two samples are alike to the ones dated to the Iron age? And that this would exclude them from being Bronze age? Thanks in advance!
Let's remember that very few of the "Scythians" in that abhorrent paper (how did that get past peer review?) were actual Scythians, as opposed to Dacians or something.
ReplyDeleteRe: Minino
ReplyDeleteCompared to the Eurogenes version, the PCA shown in this paper is probably slightly rotated due to different reference set:
https://i.postimg.cc/XVZ58k6c/minino.png
So that shift in Minino is not necessarily CHG, but it may be simply something ANE/Siberian.
@ Rafc
https://imgur.com/a/DajRJEG
Check picture 7 & 8.
@Rafc
ReplyDeleteThis is direct information from Moldovan archaeologists, they will not write any article so as not to conflict with Polish anthropologists. Actually, they wrote everything in a fundamental book about this burial ground (in Russian) "Тельнов Н.П., Четвериков И.А., Синика В.С. Скифский могильник III—II вв. до н.э. у с. Глиное" 2016, which the anthropologists ignored, what is very strange, they could just take extracts on each sample from this book, but they do not even mention it.
@David
ReplyDeleteLots of really nice new Near Eastern samples in the Mount Lebanon paper. Would it be possible to convert them to G25?
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/ERS5009939-ERS5010547
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThanks for pointing me to this book, seems good enough a source. However, the book clearly states that 113 of the 115 Kurgans were Scythian, and dated to the 3d-2nd centuries BC.
The only two exceptions are Kurgans 1 and 110 which were Bronze age and are not treated in the book (there is a seperate article on them it seems).
The V13 sample comes from Kurgan 50, and so according to the book should come from the late Iron age.
Where do you read something else in the book?
For the interested: I cannot paste the link to the book because it's in Cyrillic, but you can easily google it, it's on Academia.edu
The Scy_192 & 197 appear to plot with some of the other south shifted Scythians, but check this:
ReplyDeleteScythian_MDA:scy192
AUT_LBK_N 53.3%
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 25.1%
RUS_Maykop 18.4%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 2%
Baltic_LTU_Narva:Donkalnis7 1.2%
Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA:MA2203 0%
Scythian_MDA:scy301
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara 41.4%
AUT_LBK_N 25.2%
Anatolia_Kaman-Kalehoyuk_MLBA:MA2203 21.5%
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 8.3%
Baltic_LTU_Narva:Donkalnis7 3.5%
Yoruba 0.1%
RUS_Maykop 0%
Distance 2.2839%
Now, it's not unusual for samples to be younger than anticipated (we see it all the time); but the other way around is rare.
But perhaps go with the C14 ?
@ Copper Axe.
Don't be silly, none of those samples are Dacians
@Arza
ReplyDeleteThanks, so it seems 1 E1b will be found in Nitra, but no guarantee it's V13. It would fit with current thinking on V13 though.
@Rafc said...
ReplyDelete"Thanks for pointing me to this book, seems good enough a source. However, the book clearly states that 113 of the 115 Kurgans were Scythian, and dated to the 3d-2nd centuries BC.
The only two exceptions are Kurgans 1 and 110 which were Bronze age and are not treated in the book (there is a seperate article on them it seems).
The V13 sample comes from Kurgan 50, and so according to the book should come from the late Iron age."
Far from it. There are many different burials under these kurgans dating back to different eras, there are Yamnaya, Catacomb, Hun, and Medieval times. There are Sarmatians and so called "Scythians" by those archaeologists. This cemetery has been in operation since the Bronze Age and is full of inlet graves. The fact that this sample is not Scythian was said by the author of this book. For example yet, the scy332 sample is not Scythian, but Hunnic from other time.
Rob said...
ReplyDelete"Don't be silly, none of those samples are Dacians"
The Getae lived there. Most of the samples left behind are clearly theirs. I must say that this burial ground is not Scythian, there is nothing Scythian in it, it is only declared as Scythian by these archaeologists.
"on the other hand, the search for the Proto-Uralic homeland will move deep into Siberia."
ReplyDeleteBut how deep, as in to the Siberian interior (or possibly beyond)?
At least Central Siberia.
ReplyDelete@All,
ReplyDeleteIf those individuals aren't Scythian why do they have Central Asian admixture?
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteYour & copper axe determination is wrong
These are catacomb inhumations in the Moldovan steppe, Gatae cremated and don’t “map” onto this region
They just have Celtic; Thrace/Getan & Pontic Greek (hence the Anat BA signature) admixture
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteThey just have Celtic , Thraco-Getan and Pontic Greek admixture
Otherwise Getans don’t ‘’map’ onto the Moldovan steppe, and preferred cremation rather than catacomb inhumations
Some of these "Scythians" looked genetically like Slavs. Getaes were called interchangeably Slavs in the chronicles.
ReplyDeleteDA197 R1a-Z280>CTS1211>YP343>YP340 (xYP371,P278.2)
Target: Scythian_HUN:DA197
Distance: 1.3804% / 0.01380425
38.8 HUN_Baden_LCA
33.2 Baltic_EST_BA
25.6 Corded_Ware_DEU
2.0 POL_Globular_Amphora
0.4 SWE_Motala_HG
Beyond West Siberian hunter gatherer territory I guess. Ob-Irtysh?
ReplyDelete@Archi
ReplyDeleteCan you post the pages where Kurgan 50 is dicussed? The details per kurgan are not on Academia, would be appreciated if you could scan them!
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Getae did not live in the Moldovan steppe"
Don't talk nonsense. You are always talking disgraceful nonsense without knowing anything about the subject in which you write.
See the map for you https://i.ibb.co/QPzLWBp/Getae-Glinoe.png
Some of these MDA Scythians seem to have barely any 'Central Asian' admixture though, Scy197 seems to be mostly Balkan in ancestry for example. With that sample I get 2.2% when using an Ukranian Scythian (MJ15) as a reference on G25 and practically nothing when applying the Sintashta-Baikal-BMAC trinity.
ReplyDelete311, 303 and 301 probably are Scythians, but with admixture from European populations west of the steppes.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteCremations were the most common but not the exclusive burial traditions of the Dacians. Geto-Thracian inhumations exist.
Furthermore we don't really know the context of this burial. They could've been buried in a Scythian grave because they were affiliated with Scythians, as opposed to just being a Scythian themselves. Just because the person was of Thracian origin does not mean they had to be buried in Thracian fashion.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDelete"They could've been buried in a Scythian grave"
The fact of the matter is that the Glinoe is not even a Scythian burial ground , there are no classical Scythian burials. Culturally, there is an incomprehensible culture, which the authors declared Scythian simply because they wanted to, without a single proof that they were Scythians. They are badly criticized for this.
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteYeah nice doodles and ubsubstantiated claims, as usual.
This map depicts the sphere of scythian culture ; and that of the Getae to the west and south
https://i.imgur.com/g6OcZYv.jpg
From NOMADS OF THE EURASIAN STEPPES
IN THE EARLY IRON AGE
Chapter Petrenko & Melyukova
I’m not saying it’s bible; but that’s the general perspective
@ copper axe
Your statement is rather wishy-washy & non-contributory
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYeah nice doodles and ubsubstantiated claims, as usual.
"This map depicts the sphere of scythian culture"
You, as always, do not know how to read, this map superficially depicts only the influence of the Scythians, not the Getae, and only until the 3rd century BC. In the 3rd-2nd century BC, there were no longer any Scythians, they all disappeared.
You can't read maps either, and you are wrong about everything.
See expansion of Getae https://i.ibb.co/LrwG8dQ/Getae-expansion.png
And you wrote a delusional statement about the Getae, not the Scythians.
"Rob said...
@ Archie
Getae did not live in the Moldovan steppe
December 9, 2020 at 10:01 PM"
I answered you about the Getae, not about the Scythians.
Learn to read.
@Samuel Andrews “ If those individuals aren't Scythian why do they have Central Asian admixture?”
ReplyDeleteIt was the Cimmerians who had Central Asian admixture.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDelete"Beyond West Siberian hunter gatherer territory I guess. Ob-Irtysh?"
I would have assumed Ob-Ityrish but Central Siberia is usually devided by the Yenisey river in the west.
IIRC WSHGs were found pretty close to the Ityrish on one of its tributaries.
Out of curiosity, since there have been rumors about upcoming ancient Greek samples, was the nature of that one mysterious neolithic Greek outlier(I6423) from the Wang paper about the Caucasus ever clarified? There's a post about it from 2018 but perhaps approaching 2021 there's more info?
ReplyDelete@ Archie
ReplyDelete'This map superficially depicts only the influence of the Scythians, not the Getae, ''
Bullcrap. It is the Scythain propper group . The Gatae are depicted in a different schema
''In the 3rd-2nd century BC, there were no longer any Scythians, they all disappeared.''
For a start, these samples go from 800 BC to 200 BC, and even then you're wrong, because Scythians persisted in Scythia Minor, the Lower Dnieper and Crimea after 200 BC
''https://i.ibb.co/LrwG8dQ/Getae-expansion.png''
So Getans sttled on tiny spot in the Moldovan steppe.
Well done Archie, you've managed to disprove yourself brilliantly
'' wrote a delusional statemen''
In the good old days i'd have you whipped for being insolent to a superior
@Rob
ReplyDelete"For a start, these samples go from 800 BC to 200 BC," and even then you're wrong
You once again disgraced yourself, all the cited samples of "Scythians" from the Glinoe of the Iron Age date back to the range from 390 to 200 years. There are no others, the Glinoe Sad is a completely different burial ground, there are Cimmerians.
"Nope. Scythians perpetuated in Scythian minor (Dobrudja), lower dnieper , in Crimea.
They just became admixed
The problem is you have no idea how to understand the data"
Do not write your fantasies if there is no knowledge, they disappeared all over the place, except for the Crimea. They appear there after the 2nd century BC, and the time to which this burial ground belongs belongs to the time when the Scythians completely disappear. As always, you don’t know and don’t understand any data, you just speculate.
"'https://i.ibb.co/LrwG8dQ/Getae-expansion.png''
So Getans sttled on tiny spot in the Moldovan steppe.
Well done Archie, you've managed to disprove yourself brilliantly"
Learn to read the captions to the maps, shameful, it clearly says that this map is an expansion of the Early Getae to the 6th century BC.
"In the good old days I’d have you whipped for being insolent to your superior"
Don't be ridiculous, you are a child who has not finished school and is a very bad student.
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteI’m not here to discuss with you, because you have no clue what you’re saying. You just spin a web of lies sequentially with every comment, because you clearly have an issue. It is sad, but it’s hard to sympathise with you because your a major douche
So I’ll happily keep calling your BS out until you disappear; which hopefully will be soon
@Rob
ReplyDeleteIgnorance, you wrote and write exclusively lies here, I wrote and write exclusively the truth. In every message you fall for a lie and you cannot object to this fact. All my words are supported by evidence, you do not confirm anything. but only you are building a pyramid of deception. Your every message is absolutely useless for everyone.
Can't wait until Early Dynastic and Old Kingdom Ancient Egyptian genomes are released. My money is they will genetically deviate considerably further in the West Eurasian direction than the Taforalt genome. Beyond that it's hard to say. I expect a lot of Natufian like ancestry and also Anatolian farmer like ancestry. Don't expect much Iran Neolithic/CHG ancestry that far back. If they don't have that compared to Phoenicians who have an abundance of it then I would not really call them "Levantine".
ReplyDelete@Rob & @Archi:
ReplyDeleteNot that I agree always with you and I see why you two sometimes don’t get along too well, but seriously, just take a deep breath and calm down.
You both deliver at least one really valuable and insightful comment to almost every new topic.
So you both would be missed by me on this blog. Everybody can make up his own mind based on your arguments, thats just fine.
And on many issues you debate about there is no fully established scientific consensus anyway.
The borderline between Cimmerians, Dacians and Getae, as well as different kinds of Scythians and Sarmatians might be just part of this.
Actually I think some relationships will become more obvious with large sampling of ancient DNA, rather than the opposite way around.
Small samples can be misleading though.
Also, if Mesolithoc "Greeks" are really Barcin Neolithic like then that means there was a very distinct group of HGs that not only occupied Anatolia in the Mesolithic but also existed in the far South of the Balkans and Southeastern Europe. Meanwhile in the Northern Balkans the population was WHG-like, just like Central Europe. Since we know the Iron Gates HGs in the Northern Balkans were WHG.
ReplyDelete@Arch Hades,
ReplyDeleteBtw, I now agree with you and Micheals, that the Imperial Romans come from the Greek colonies.
And yes it seems Phonecians were very "Iranian" Levant people. Because if ancient Romans' their Levant admixture is from Phonecians which it probably is, the Phonecians were like modern Syrians who are much more "Iranian" than Levant Bronze age.
@Michalis
ReplyDeleteCan you label these by their proper pop codes?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HpbfJZHkfFYGb_3IsUrbSNOQVGE5BpEe/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1E1GIrJoHbdSdA7l8eBCeC2jZpLHhoNAJ/view?usp=sharing
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteI'd suggest you & CopperAxe solicit Wikipedia. Its a good starting point
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Getae
The Getae (/ˈdʒiːtiː, ˈɡiːtiː/ JEE-tee, GHEE-tee) or Gets (/dʒɛts, ɡɛts/ JETS, GHETS; Ancient Greek: Γέται, singular Γέτης) were several Thracian[1] tribes that once inhabited the regions to either side of the Lower Danube, in what is today northern Bulgaria and southern Romania.
The source you cites Тельнов Н.П., Четвериков И.А., Синика В.С. Скифский могильник III—II вв. до н.э. у с. Глиное" 2016, is exactly contrary to your lies
-> ''the most significant result of the excavation onthe Glinoe cemetery is the exceptional volume of archaeological information. The striking state of pres-ervation of the catacombs and integrity of most ofthem enabled us to build representative collections ofweaponry, horse harness, working tools and house-hold items, ware, adornments, costume accessoriesand details, fancies and cult objects. These materi-als make it possible to obtain a reliable picture of thematerial culture, way of life and economy, warfareand ideological representations of Scythians of 3rd —2nd centuries BC in the Dniester region''
No less important is presence of chronological indicators in burials of the Glinoe cemetery, indicat-ing the continuation of the existence of the Scythian steppe culture in the Dniester littoral in 3rd — 2nd centuries BC ''
The source of the map of the 'Fromation of the Early Getan culture' which you failed to cite, is the PhD by Igor Byrko. (ПРОЦЕССЫ КУЛЬТУРОГЕНЕЗА В ПРИЧБРНОМОРСКО-КАРПАТСКОМ
РЕГИОНЕ В РАННЕМ ЖЕЛЕЗНОМ ВЕКЕ (первая половина I тыс. до Р.Х.)
Its precicely that - the formative influence of early Getic culture. Nowehere does state a confluent Getic culture in the Molodivan steppe. In fact, he states the clear distinction ''Burial monuments constitute another group of Thracian antiquities from this period. These are two buried burials in the Tulcea district (Mahmudiye and Piatra Fricatsey), small burial grounds near the town of Chernavoda, the village of Chukurova near
Babadaga, as well as the necropolis of Corbu de Jos south of Istria (Fig. 45). The vessels from the cremations near Mahmudiye ("Kairakul Mare") are considered by the author of the publication to be close to the ceramics of the Byrsesti group (Oberlander-Tamoveanu I., 1977/1978, p. 58-59, p. 1.3 / 5). *''
or biritual cemeteries in stone boxes. ''A very remarkable feature of the funeral rite of the Chukurov burial ground is the presence of burials (inhumations and cremations) in stone
boxes.''
Nothing like Gilnoe.
I know that you're also illiterate in Russian, so simply look at your own pictures.
@ Zardos
''You both deliver at least one really valuable and insightful comment to almost every new topic.''
If you think Archie is remotely in my league, then you must be a complete fool.
''The borderline between Cimmerians, Dacians and Getae, as well as different kinds of Scythians and Sarmatians might be just part of this.''
That doesn't mean much. There is a way to distinguish and analyse the different layers between social identity & genetic make-up.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"I'd suggest you & CopperAxe solicit Wikipedia."
Well, yes, you are smarter than all because using only Wikipedia.
"is exactly contrary to your lies"
You’re just lying because you don’t know anything. You ripped out a quote refuting your lies and confirming what I wrote. Here the authors do not prove that these are Scythians, they simply call them Scythians and nothing more. These authors began to do this recently, they themselves write that they came to this opinion simply because they think so cleanly.
Mordvintseva V.I. Review: N. P. Telnov, I. A. Chetverikov, V. S. Sinika. Scythian burial ground-ΙΙ centuries BC e. at s. Clay. Tiraspol: Stratum plus, 2016.1096 p .. (Stratum plus No. 3. 2018) "The situation is more complicated with another goal - substantiating the Scythian "ethnocultural attribution" of the published monument, which is noted by the authors of the work themselves (Telnov et al. 2016 : 23). The idea of attributing the archaeological monuments of the Lower Dniester region to the Scythian culture is directly related to the concept of the formation of the Lower Dniester Minor Scythia in the ΙΙΙ century BC (Telnov et al. 2016: 982), which was expressed by I.V.Bruyako (Bruyako 1991: 200; 2009: 362) It should be noted that the authors came to this conclusion relatively recently, earlier they were inclined to the version “about other than Scythian”, “Sauromato-Sarmatian” or North Caucasian (Asiaki) origin of those buried in the necropolis near Glinoe (Yarovoy, Chetverikov 2000: 10-20; Chetverikov 2002: 235-236, 239; Sinika 2004: 238) Throughout the entire work, the "Scythian" belonging of Glinoe's antiquities has been constantly declared rather than proved. the authors generally represent no system of evidence of ethnicity based on archaeological materials."
Personally, I think that this is exactly the people who destroyed the Scythians, these authors themselves provide evidence of this, indicating that his things are found in scattered "strange complexes". This assumption is much more reasonable in connection with the disappearance of the Scythians.
"Nothing like Gilnoe."
You do not know how to read and understand in any language, Glinoe is 2-3 century BC, the same map is 7-8 century BC, it shows the prevalence of Geto-Thracians from early times. I gave you the Getae Distribution Map but you ignored it.
@ Zardos
"You both deliver at least one really valuable and insightful comment to almost every new topic."
Rob is a layman who only lies and does nothing but lies because he knows nothing, really knows nothing and has not read anything.
Shouldn’t the Getae be Balkan instead of Central Asian-influenced?
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews @Hades @Michalis “ And yes it seems Phonecians were very "Iranian" Levant people. Because if ancient Romans' their Levant admixture is from Phonecians which it probably is, the Phonecians were like modern Syrians who are much more "Iranian" than Levant Bronze age.”
ReplyDeleteYes, Canaanites were created from an admixture of incoming Kura Araxes, Hurrians, Iranian Chalcolithic and CHG with the Levant Neolithic people already living there. Not sure how the process came about, but there were lots of Hurrian influences, and it seems as though up to 1/3 of Canaanite kings prior to Israelite invasion had Hurrian names.
But overall, I’m completely confused trying to figure out the Neolithic history of the Near East; I read that Natufians and Anatolian Farmers were on the same cline although constituting distinct populations, and maybe it was the BA admixture that pulled Semitic people apart from Anatolians?
Everything I do read about the so-called “Pre-Pottery Neolithic” and the tribes taking part in it doesn’t make sense to me, in regards to whether they were ANF, Natufians, pre-Semitic, Halafians/Ubaidians or all of the above - but you’re more than welcome to educate me on the subject.
Hopefully Michalis can label the fresh ancient Lebanese samples by their proper pop codes. In vahaduo- and nMonte models of my G25 coords I currently get 6% Levant_Megiddo_IA, apparently suggestive of ancient Jewish admixture. But maybe Phoenicians will fit better.
ReplyDelete@All
ReplyDeleteThis looks like the first "official" report of the pre-Bell Beaker presence of R1b-M269 in the Low Countries. But, to be sure, there's more on the way.
http://eprints.hud.ac.uk/id/eprint/35254/
However, within the Neolithic group I observed two genetic clusters. The first cluster appears to be the result of an admixture between local Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers of Anatolian descent. However, the Mesolithic component was much larger than seen to date in other west European Neolithic samples, with a possible sex bias towards local males carrying Y-chromosome haplogroup I and dispersing females. The second, less numerous genome-wide cluster revealed admixture from a Pontic-Caspian Steppe related population, further indicated by the presence of Y-chromosome R1b-M269.
No mention of R1a. That's because it was much less common in westernmost Corded Ware than R1b.
"The first cluster appears to be the result of an admixture between local Mesolithic hunter-gatherers and Neolithic farmers of Anatolian descent. However, the Mesolithic component was much larger than seen to date in other west European Neolithic samples, with a possible sex bias towards local males carrying Y-chromosome haplogroup I and dispersing females."
ReplyDeleteI know some of the people here and on AG argued that some of the Funnelbeaker regions in the low coubtries where ones where WHG was higher than the average of 27-30% we see amongst the northern Neolithic farmers. Would be cool if they actually found samples showcasing that.
The amount of male WHG lineages introgressing into agricultural societies is very interesting. I wonder if it's because of aspects of EEF culture that advocates for it, or because of WHG "success" by whatever means you want to imagine.
@Davidski
Did they give the dates for their late neolithic M269 samples? Depending on their classifications late neolithic could be like 2500 bc or later even.
Some pre-Beaker R1b-m269 being published anytime soon would be much apprecisted over here. Put's an end to four years of sillyness.
I think this guy would have said something about Beakers if these samples were Beaker related. They're probably somehow related to the nearby Single Grave population in the Netherlands.
ReplyDeleteBut yeah, apparently there's a "Neolithic" R1b-M269 sample from Belgium on the way with a dating at least as early as Aesch25.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/04/aesch25.html
In regards to excess hunter-gatherer admix in the early farmers from the Low Countries, you'll see levels similar to those in the Blatterhohle MN samples from nearby Germany.
I don't doubt they are related to the Single Grave cultural horizon, but you know how it goes with samples which are close on the borderline like Aesch25. The " Yeah buts durr Bell Beaker not CWC" arguments.
ReplyDeleteWe have pretty solid evidence of the SGC expanding and trading southwards quite early on.
I mean Belgium is right there. I've biked to Belgium, imagine an ox-cart ride.
Netherlands and Britain Beaker have some admixture from those WHG rich farmers. They're mainly Aesch25+WHG rich farmer.
ReplyDeleteBut Central European Beaker doesn't seem to have this kind of farmer ancestry.
Suggesting Bell Beaker culture was created by multiple different R1b P312 clans in Germany/nearby not by one founding population.
@Andre,
ReplyDelete"But overall, I’m completely confused trying to figure out the Neolithic history of the Near East"
In the Levant it looks like this is what happened. But there's no proof yet.
Pre-Pottery Neolithic will be Natufian
Pottery Neolithic is Natufian+Anatolian.
The same Natufian/Anatolian populations who went into the Levant, are responsible for spread of Pottery Neolithic into Western Anatolia/Europe and Caucasus. European farmers had very little Natufian but they had some because the original Pottery Neolithic population came from North Levant.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteBeakers from outside of the Rhine region are admixed with locals and even with people from as far as the Carpathian Basin/Balkans.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/10/the-balkan-connection.html
Their lower levels of WHG can also be explained as lacking the WHG-rich farmer ancestry which Beaker Netherlands has. The most Steppe rich Eastern Beakers on average have less WHG than Beaker Britain but similar levels of Steppe.
ReplyDeleteEastern Beakers have varying levels of direct Yamnaya ancestry, even as much as 50%.
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/01/hungarian-yamnaya-bell-beakers.html
Yeah, but even the mainstream ones have slightly lower WHG than Beaker Britain. When modeled directly with Beaker Netherlands they come out 10-20% HungaryEF which imo isn't realistic. A more realistic fit for them is Corded Ware+Central Euro Farmer stuff.
ReplyDeleteIf I'm right, then Single Grave Y DNA show already show a break up of R1b P312 clades, with R1b U152 in Southern Rhine and R1b L21 in Northern Rhine.
@David
ReplyDeleteThank you very much! I'm sure you've seen the thread on AG where I've posted the scaled coords with pop labels. And 23abc helped me out with the unscaled. I'm hoping Taleb or Zalloua will reply to my tweet asking for more specific regional info about the non-Lebanese samples.
@ Archie
ReplyDelete''personally, I think that this is exactly the people who destroyed the Scythians,'
These people are ~ 50% Srubnaja ~ 50% eastern Halstatt.
They are not Getan
They might have waged wars against other Scythians, but they are not completely different. They are similar to other western SCythians of the classic age
''Geto-Thracians from early time''
There's no early times Getans, no continuity with the former east Halstatt (Gava-Holihrady, Saharna, etc)
Igor clearly writes that the Getan culture emerges from the continuity in Dobrudja , with minor admix from Ferigile
All Greco-Roman authors place the Getae in Donrudja & lower Danube. Not until Burebista or Decebalus do they arguable extend further north
''laymnan''
Please stop kidding yourself - you're a Nostratic bullshitologist, which even in Russia is fringe.
AFAIK In NW Europe “late Neolithic” includes both CWC and BB
ReplyDeleteBut there’s only 1 or 2 early EKG skeletons due to soil acidity
Have to say a Dutch sub-homeland is looking interesting
@Rob
ReplyDelete"They are not Getan"
You don't even know what Getae looked like to say so.
"These people are ~ 50% Srubnaja ~ 50% eastern Halstatt.
They might have waged wars against other Scythians, but they are not completely different. They are similar to other western SCythians of the classic age"
Stop fantasizing by deceptions. These people are very different. They do not constitute a population. Among of those many who have 0% of Scythian pedigree, the rest have a very small share, a consequence of centuries of mixing.
"All Greco-Roman authors place the Getae in Donrudja & lower Danube. Not until Burebista or Decebalus do they arguable extend further north "
Moreover, you are a layman, you don’t even read historical documents. And in them it is clearly written that in those days this area was occupied by the Getae.
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 a result of these events, the Scythians were driven out of Budzak, which came under the control of the Getae. In 331 BC. e. they were attracted as an auxiliary force for the campaign of Zopirion against the Greek cities of the Northern Black Sea region. However, Zopirion was repelled by the Lower Dnieper Scythians, who came to the aid of the inhabitants of Olbia, and died before he could cross the Danube. After that, the victorious Scythians attacked the Getae. Almost all Getae settlements between the Dniester and the Carpathians by this time show signs of destruction, after which life on them did not resume. For several decades, this whole region was desolate.
Getic king Dromichet in 293/292 BC defeated the army of the Scythian king Lysimachus in the Getae desert (Budzhak). Strabo reports this:
“Dromichet, the king of the Getae in the era of Alexander's successors, captured Lysimachus alive, who marched against him. Then pointing out to Lysimachos his poverty and his tribe and at the same time their independence, he advised Lysimachus not to fight with such tribes, but to enter into friendly relations with them. After these words, the tsar gave the prisoner a warm welcome and, having concluded a friendly agreement with him, released him."
"Please stop kidding yourself - you're a Nostratic bullshitologist, which even in Russia is fringe."
You're just a ridiculous infamous Balkanist Erectusist. 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, they are categorically thrown into the dustbin of science by everyone and are now funny to everyone. Nostratic is mainstream in whole science. So that you can keep your shameful false fantasies to yourself.