Wednesday, January 27, 2021
The great shift
Here's a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) featuring some of the ancients from the recent Saag et al. paper at Science Advances. To see an interactive version of the plot paste the Global25 coordinates here into the relevant field here.
Note that the Fatyanovo culture agropastoralists, who are rich in Y-haplogroup R1a and steppe ancestry, cluster with present-day Eastern Europeans. On the other hand, the Volosovo culture singleton sits near the European hunter-gatherer cline that no longer exists.
This Volosovo individual belongs to Y-haplogroup Q1a. However, most of the Volosovo males whose genomes are soon to be published belong to Y-haplogroup R1b.
Thus, in much of Eastern Europe during the Bronze Age, agropastoralists rich in R1a and steppe ancestry replaced hunter-gatherers rich in R1b and with no steppe ancestry. Of course, that's not where the story ends, but I'll get back to that later this year.
By the way, the relatively high coverage Fatyanovo Y-chromosome sequences are being analyzed at YFull. You can check out the results here.
See also...
271 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
I don't know what the Volosovo R1b subclades are exactly. I've seen some conflicting info about that.
ReplyDeleteThe Great shift.......
ReplyDeleteThis touches on a bigger trend in European prehistory, which is that hunter gatherers didn't do well when farmers moved into their land. They were in large part "replaced" by Anatolian farmers then in large part "replaced" by Corded Ware.
Farmers became 0-30% hunter gatherer. Baltic Corded ware became 30% Baltic hunter gatherer.
This is the general trend with important exceptions. Like Patrilocal farmer tribes having hunter gatherer Y DNA.
Where does East Asians fit into all of this ? Very interesting is the Ancient Central Asians form two almost seperate clusters with Ancient South Asians in the middle...? Does the Ancient Central Asian cluster on the right pull more towards East Asians ?
ReplyDeleteI can already see some salivating with the words R1b and No Steppe. But I guess the surprise will be that some R1a and R1b formed joint clans in the Steppe just before CHG admixture came into the picture which would have made those clan 100% Steppe...?
ReplyDeleteThus, we now know that at least three districts are being investigated in Russia. The first is the Volosovo and forest zone of the Moscow region, the second in the steppe and forest-steppe of the Don region, the third in central and western Siberia. These samples are transferred to the Max Planck Institute. I wonder if any work is being done on the forest-steppe of Ukraine?
ReplyDeleteFrom what regions isvthe Volosovo data coming from?
ReplyDeleteMore and more confusing and confounding ......
ReplyDeleteI would love to more see Karelia, Komi and Arkhangelsk data, especially from the Bronze Age.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteWell the Volosovo samples will turn out to be mostly R1b M 269 IMHO
Judging by their autosomal, it's almost impossible that they be R1b m269, or at least they got the full m269 mutations package
DeleteTaking into account this result for Volosovo, it is now clear that the entire population of Eastern Europe from the Black Sea to the Baltic Sea, at least since the Mesolithic, was EHG/WHG, to the west more WHG, to the east more EHG. Then CHG appeared somewhere in the south and another story began.
ReplyDeleteTarget: RUS_Volosovo_N:BER001
Distance: 5.7058% / 0.05705804
78.8 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
21.2 WHG
ReplyDelete@ vladimir
the new story you are talking about is the birth of PIE? I'm quite skeptical on CHG being the vector of PIE. It seems to me more likely that a WHG/EHG population on the pontic steppe and till the lower don was the main vector at least of archaic PIE.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"This Volosovo individual belongs to Y-haplogroup Q1a."
There is not a sample not of Volosovo culture, but of an indefinite culture that with equal probability can be Volosovo or L'yalovo. Don't forget about L'yalovo culture.
-----
All Fatyanovo in this study and another Fatyanovo from Volosovo is Z94-.
ReplyDeletea god fit for Sidelkino in turn
[1] "distance%=3.1957"
RUS_Sidelkino_HG
ROU_Meso,47.4
RUS_Tyumen_HG,29.6
RUS_AfontovaGora3,22.6
GEO_CHG,0.4
Yeah, but some Fatyanovo samples from a new study are Z94+ and even Z2124+.
ReplyDeleteI'm making a documentary on Fatayanovo. I'll be done in two days. It should be good.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteObviously you need to rename RUS_Volosovo_N to RUS_LyalovoVolosovo_N or RUS_Berendeyevo_N.
RUS_Fatyanovo_BA can be uniformly called Corded_Ware_RUS (Corded_Ware_Fatyanovo_RUS) since they are one and the same.
I'm not renaming it because what really matters is that it's a pre-Fatyanovo sample.
ReplyDeleteAlso, I know for a fact that it's very similar to Volosovo samples that will be coming out soon.
And when they come out, I'll be dumping this one because of its low quality.
Indeed, the document is marked l'yalovo\Volosovo. But I also think it's Volosovo because it has too much WHG. Volosovo is considered a culture that originated on the basis of the Valdai culture and the culture of pit-comb ceramics. And the Valdai culture is somehow connected with the Narva culture.
ReplyDeleteIn Russia, it is believed that there are two groups of Volosovo. One is from the Volga Region and the other is from the Oka River. This one is obviously from the second group.
@Vladimir
ReplyDelete"But I also think it's Volosovo"
This sample is too early for Volosovo. At that time Volosovo did not yet exist.
I don't think the Narva influence on Volosovo is that drastic, it seems to be more diffusion and blending of Baltic and West Russian HGs. Valdai came from the Upper-Volga culture after all.
ReplyDeleteI read somewhere that the Upper Volga culture was once called " the Upper Volga version of Ahrensburg culture"
ReplyDeleteVladimir said...
ReplyDelete"I read somewhere that the Upper Volga culture was once called " the Upper Volga version of Ahrensburg culture""
It was not called that. It was one of countless versions of the origin of cultures by certain authors. This was due to the fact that the Fosna culture of Scandinavia originated from the Ahrensburg culture, which turned out to be associated with the Komsa culture of Scandinavia, which in Europe was mistakenly considered a genetic relationship, but the Komsa culture, respectively, originates from Lake Onega and the Barents Sea and, accordingly, was linked with the Upper Volga culture. But Komsa culture is not genetic relationship to Fosna culture.
It would be like this if this person Q1b-pre-L804 was 100% EHG, then it is logical that in Scandinavia he would mix with the Fosna group of the I2a culture and get WHG. But he already has a WHG while still on the Upper Volga, so it was more complicated. Another is the hypothesis that the culture of the Upper Volga is based on Svidersky culture.
ReplyDeleteRan Y calls on the Saag 2021 R1a-Z93 Fatyanovo samples
ReplyDeleteHAN002 Z93+, Y3-, Y26-, Y5-, Z2121-
BL003 Z93+, Y2-, Y5-
HAL001 Z93+, Z94-, Y3-,
HAN004 Z93*+, Z94-, Y2-, L657-, Z2123-
NAU001 Z93+, Z94-, Y2-, Y3-, Z2123-
NAU002 Z93*+, Z94-, Y5-, Z2123-
None are positive on the Y3,Y2 line.. as was expected.
I'm sorry but I'm not buying the angle that there's little to no correlation between Y-hap and genomic ancestry, and it's all founder effects. Despite cultural similarities and a greater level of shared ancestry compared to their neighbors, CWC and Yamnaya look like very different populations with different histories/destinies. CWC is connected to major branches of IE and possibly somewhere near it's root, the actual PIE source. And I'm not talking a magical transformation from Yamnaya.
ReplyDeleteTwo bests
ReplyDeleteTarget: RUS_LyalovoVolosovo_N:BER001
Distance: 2.7140% / 0.02714037
73.8 NOR_Meso (Komsa culture <- EHG from Onega/Barents)
16.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
10.2 Baltic_LVA_HG
Target: RUS_LyalovoVolosovo_N:BER001
Distance: 2.9847% / 0.02984673
44.6 Baltic_LVA_HG
29.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
21.6 RUS_Samara_HG
4.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
---
Target: RUS_LyalovoVolosovo_N:BER001
Distance: 3.4999% / 0.03499901
39.6 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
21.4 WHG
20.0 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
14.6 RUS_Karelia_HG
4.4 ITA_Villabruna
@Vladimir
ReplyDeleteThe Upper Volga culture is from the Butovo culture, which in turn is from the Ressetta culture, which being there is the most ancient Mesolithic, it is not known from what. All outdated hypotheses about the origin of the Arenburg culture, the Swiderian culture are connected with the fact that earlier it was seriously believed that all people came to Eastern Europe from Western Europe, that the Mesolithic and Neolithic came from the West. Which was now unambiguously refuted.
Q1a2 has been there for a long time, since the beginning of the Neolithic, so they started mixing with WHG long ago.
Latvia Zvejnieki [I4550 / ZVEJ3] 6000-5100 BCE M Q1a2
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteBronze Poltavka outlier (Volsk-Lbishche?) Russia Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara [I0432 / SVP 42] outlier 2925-2491 calBCE (4180±84 BP, AA-12569) M R1a1a1b2a Z94+
Ukraine Alexandria, Khar'kov region, Skeleton 5, 88 [I6561 / Mos70] 4045-3974 calBCE (5215±20BP, PSUAMS-2832)(bug) M R1a1a1 Z94+, Y3: Y26+
the east Baltic area has long been recognised to have 2 components - eastern technocomplexes (pressure blades) and western . The western are linked to Ahresnburgians & Swiderians from northern Europe moving east , chasing reindeer. The issue is- even the western component does not look to be from western Europe, because it harbours I2a2, mtDNA U4, U5a2, etc; whilst northwestern Europe is mostly U5b1, I2a1b. The 'western' admixture therfore looks to be from east-Central Europe, or Ukraine even. its still tbd
ReplyDeleteWhat kind of dates are we talking about for these EHG Volosovo R1bs?
ReplyDeleteI4550 is not Neolithic
ReplyDelete''I4550: Mesolithic, burial 52, sub-adult 2-3 years old, No grave goods. Ochre addition''
@archi
ReplyDeleteUkraine Alexandria, Khar'kov region, Skeleton 5, 88 [I6561 / Mos70] 4045-3974 calBCE (5215±20BP, PSUAMS-2832)(bug) M R1a1a1 Z94+, Y3: Y26+
Y26+ Lol..
Study this sample and come back..
ISOGG 2019 - Sample I6561
AM00479/M723/Y2 R1a1a1b2a1~ G->T Found G : Y2 Negative
Y26/M780/AM00483 R1a1a1b2a1~ C->T Found T : Y26 Positive
Y2 is negative. C->T is the most common deamination damage error... Therefore y26+ is a false positive, therefore no scientist has claimed this explosive discovery so far, only some internet geneticists have done so..
Ancient DNA Damage
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3685887/
"High-throughput sequencing of libraries constructed from ancient DNA has confirmed that C to T substitutions are greatly increased in number over other substitutions (Stiller et al. 2006; Gilbert et al. 2007). Moreover, it has been found that these substitutions are primarily localized to fragment ends where up to 40% of all cytosines appear as thymines, followed by an exponential decrease of such substitutions along the DNA molecule"
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S187249731830108X
"Cytosine deamination is observed in a characteristic pattern in ancient and degraded samples. While found at low levels across the length of a degraded DNA molecule, cytosine deamination is most prevalent on the outermost 10 bases of the ends of DNA fragments [[4], [16], [17]]. In fact, ancient DNA (aDNA) samples commonly show cytosine deamination at frequencies as high as 50% on the outermost few bases of DNA template (e.g., [16])."
@coldmountains
I do not understand how you can claim so much with no male ancient sample from India yet. The only R1a-Y3+ adna is from a pallan farmer like sample 850ad. Need at least 100+ male samples from all over india over various ancient periods for proper sampling..
Till then i will bet that you will not find your sample wherever you are looking for it.
LOL
ReplyDeleteYeah, Z93 is from India.
Look here, the first four samples are all Indians.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z93/
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteLol. As always, you ignored that they are Z93+ and Z94+, the rest is just your opinion that does not matter. The Z93 and Z94 came to India from Eastern Europe and no amount of your interpretation of the Y3 will change anything. The Aryans came to India from Eastern Europe, otherwise is impossible and two opinions do not exist here in nature.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteMedieval or modern samples from India with R1a-L657+ are as much as relevant to the orign of R1a-L657 as I1 on the Mars at 2500 a.d. . We have Z94+ Z2124+ and even downstream Z2123+ from Potapovka and Poltavka_o around 2500 B.C and according to Yfull Z2124 formed during more or less the same time when Z94>Y3 and Z94>Y3>L657 formed so parallel Y3 and slightly younger L657 must orginate west of the Urals somewhere between Poland and the Urals probably even rather in Ukraine than in the Ural considering that Yfull often underestimates the ages and TMRCA of clades (netherless they do very great work). Like i mentioned before nowhere in Central Asia EBA, BMAC, South Asia or even Siberia are any signs of Z93+ before 2000-2200 B.C so more samples from these regions before the MLBA will not show anything interesting about Z93 or even Y3.
@Rich S
ReplyDeleteThey're not exactly EHG, but heavily WHG shifted EHG.
The dates are here.
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/40.6
@Coldmountains
ReplyDelete" from Potapovka and Poltavka_o"
I want to draw your attention to the fact that this is not Poltavka culture at all, these are the Potapovka kurgans "Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara", there the neighboring burials from the same kurgan 5 belong to the Potapovka culture. Even this burial could belong to the Potapovka culture if not for the date. It is known for certain that it does not belong to the Poltavka culture, but there is no more accurate information.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"They're not exactly EHG, but heavily WHG shifted EHG.
The dates are here.
https://revije.ff.uni-lj.si/DocumentaPraehistorica/article/view/40.6"
Thank you very much. Could be exciting stuff.
Mitochondrial genome diversity on the Central Siberian Plateau with particular reference to the prehistory of northernmost Eurasia
ReplyDeletehttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0244228
Newly reported ancient samples:
I0991 (Korchugan1-3, Novosibirsk, Korchugan 1; 5206–4805 cal BCE (6060±50 BP, Poz-83427)),
I0992 (Korchugan1-7, Novosibirsk, Korchugan 1; 5002–4730 cal BCE (5990±50 BP, Poz-83428)),
I0998 (Khuzhir-2, Irkutsk, Olkhon Island, Lake Baikal, Khuzhir; 2835–2472 cal BCE (4040±35 BP, Poz-83426)),
I1000 (Obkhoy-7, Irkutsk, Kachugskiy, Obkhoy; 2871–2497 cal BCE (4100±40 BP, Poz-83436)),
I2068 (230/3, Kurgan 2, Sayan Mountain, Minusinskaya Intermountain Basin, Tepsei III; 420–565 cal CE (1560±30 BP, Poz-83507)),
I2072 (230/13, Altai foothills, Solontcy-5; 3959–3715 cal BCE (5050±40 BP, Poz-83497)), and
I2074 (230/18, Burial 1, Vas’kovo 4, Intermountain basin between spurs of Altai and Sayan Mountains; 5602–5376 cal BCE (6520±40 BP, Poz-83514)).
It's crazy that there are still unpublished samples with IDs below 1000.
@All
ReplyDeleteThanks to Arza, the following samples are now in the Global25 datasheets. Keep in mind, though, that the Wartberg coords are a bit noisy. I'm guessing those genomes weren't UDG treated.
DEU_Wartberg_MN:KH150614_KH150615
DEU_Wartberg_MN:KH150630
DEU_Wartberg_MN:KH150635
DNK_Gjerrild_SGC_low_res:Gjerrild_id5
GRC_Cycladic_EBA:Kou01
GRC_Cycladic_EBA:Kou03
GRC_Helladic_EBA:Mik15
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log02
GRC_Helladic_MBA:Log04
GRC_Minoan_EBA:Pta08
RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA:kra001
More Siberian samples from the Kilinc paper would be nice.
@davidski
ReplyDelete"Yeah, Z93 is from India.
Look here, the first four samples are all Indians."
I didnt say anything about Z93..
R-Y3 tmrca 2500bce.. Where is it? In Moscow? lol lol
Everyone who belongs to Z93 has paternal ancestry from Eastern Europe.
ReplyDeleteAnd that includes the Y3 crowd.
You better learn to live with that fact.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteBronze Poltavka outlier (Volsk-Lbishche?) Russia Potapovka I, Sok River, Samara [I0432 / SVP 42] outlier 2925-2491 calBCE (4180±84 BP, AA-12569) M R1a1a1b2a Z94+
If this is really Volsk-Lbishchevo, then this explains a lot and the origins of this migration should be sought at the latitude of Kharkiv-Voronezh-Samara, and not in Fatyanovo
@Rob
ReplyDelete"the east Baltic area has long been recognised to have 2 components - eastern technocomplexes (pressure blades) and western . The western are linked to Ahresnburgians & Swiderians from northern Europe moving east , chasing reindeer. The issue is- even the western component does not look to be from western Europe, because it harbours I2a2, mtDNA U4, U5a2, etc; whilst northwestern Europe is mostly U5b1, I2a1b. The 'western' admixture therfore looks to be from east-Central Europe, or Ukraine even. its still tbd"
There's a Maglemosean U5a2c (Hansen et al. 2017), and the uniparentals of the SHGs look very "eastern" for their autosomal profile, so it surely looks like the Ahrensburgians and spinoffs in Central and Northern Europe were uniparentally quite "eastern" already before the known Mesolithic mixing with EHGs started.
@ Angantyr
ReplyDelete“ There's a Maglemosean U5a2c (Hansen et al. 2017), and the uniparentals of the SHGs look very "eastern" for their autosomal profile, so it surely looks like the Ahrensburgians and spinoffs in Central and Northern Europe were uniparentally quite "eastern" already before the known Mesolithic mixing with EHGs started.”
I would rather suggest that SHGs are eastern because of U5a2 (rather than “before” it. Not sure what you mean there)
That’s the only way to explain the EHG admixture in Scandinavia . Otherwise there’s no Yhg R1 or Q1, nor MtDNA C or R1b
@Angantyr
ReplyDelete"so it surely looks like the Ahrensburgians and spinoffs in Central and Northern Europe were uniparentally quite "eastern" already before the known Mesolithic mixing with EHGs started."
Most likely, all Eastern influence in Maglemose comes from the neighboring Komsa culture, which appeared nearby earlier.
@Leron,
ReplyDelete"I'm sorry but I'm not buying the angle that there's little to no correlation between Y-hap and genomic ancestry, and it's all founder effects. Despite cultural similarities and a greater level of shared ancestry compared to their neighbors, CWC and Yamnaya look like very different populations with different histories/destinies. CWC is connected to major branches of IE and possibly somewhere near it's root, the actual PIE source. And I'm not talking a magical transformation from Yamnaya."
R1A and R1B are certainly different populations. Firstly, R1b is mostly Steppe EBA or EMBA while R1A looks more like Steppe MLBA populations. So not only do they have different cultural backgrounds but also different ydna and different Autosomnal makeup.
The only problematic assumption here is that Steppe MLBA is a product of Steppe EBA (Yamnya/Afanasievo) with EEF or other Anatolian farmer DNA. We can see that this is not the case when look more closely at the samples. This PCA makes it clear.
https://ibb.co/KFH2NLh
The Steppe samples split into two clusters, one has Yamnaya Samara, Steppe_Maykop, Afanasievo, CW, Steppe Eneolithic, so these look like early Steppe (EN, EBA) mostly R1b peoples. This group is closer to ANE. The second group has Sarmatians, Andronovo, Srubnaya, Geoksur_C, Yamnya Bulgaria, Sintashta, Yamnaya Ozera and others. These look more like Steppe MLBA and indeed these are closer to Anatolian than the other Steppe samples.
However, the Steppe MLBA samples do not form a simple cline between Yamnya/Afanasievo and Anatolian Farmers (GAC) as they should if they were a mixture of the two. Instead there is much Y-axis variation in this second group, meaning there are other components there that are not coming from Steppe EMBA.
So I dont think R1A Steppe MLBA are descended from R1B Steppe EBA with additional farmer admixture.
@ David
ReplyDeleteExcellent. Thanks to Arza.
I also look forward to the Kilinc genomes. Do you think it feasible to get the perennial Paleo-Eskimo sample (Saqqaq) into the G25? I assume the reason it was never added was coverage-related.
@mzp1
ReplyDelete"https://ibb.co/KFH2NLh The Steppe samples split into two clusters, one has Yamnaya Samara, Steppe_Maykop, Afanasievo, CW, Steppe Eneolithic, so these look like early Steppe (EN, EBA) mostly R1b peoples. This group is closer to ANE. The second group has Sarmatians, Andronovo, Srubnaya, Geoksur_C, Yamnya Bulgaria, Sintashta, Yamnaya Ozera and others. These look more like Steppe MLBA and indeed these are closer to Anatolian than the other Steppe samples."
No need to spread your mistakes if you don’t know how to do anything, no one believes your pictures since you don’t know how to do anything.
Archi,
ReplyDeleteWhat do you mean mistakes? Mind your language, and your arrogance is unjustified.
What's wrong with the PCA? You know how a PCA works right?
What's the Y-axis on the PCA can you tell me? Why are the MLBA samples so differentiated on the Y-Axis?
@Archi
ReplyDeleteI6561 is not even Z94+ all snps related to Z94 are missing, It is only confirmed Z93*+..
@davidski @coldmountains
I was promised R-Y3 in fatyanovo, where is it? Running out of places to look for it? its been 6 years already no sign of the L657 line in your preferred places.. too bad
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDelete"I6561 is not even Z94+ all snps related to Z94 are missing,"
Do not lie. There Z95+ which is at the level of Z94.
@mzp1
I have no idea what you are doing, but I only know one thing that you are doing everything is always wrong, because you have no idea how to use tools. I can see one nonsense here for sure, you are using populations for PCA taken on the average, which is a categorical error, since you cannot study clusters this way.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteWhere is Z93 in Siberia, Central Asia or the Altai before 2000 B.C?
The nitpicking is ridiculous already. Maybe you missed it but Indo-Iranians are not just Z94+ but also had plenty of basal Z93+ Z94-. For example Srubnaya, Turkmenistan_IA (50% steppe sample), Steppe_MLBA-like UZB_Kashkarchi_BA and several Saka samples were under basal Z93+ negative for Z94 and in some cases even negative for Z93 but still R1a . So actually Indo-Aryan Z94>Y3 is closer to Scytho-Turkic/Sintashta Z94+ clades than many Srubnaya, Turkmenistan_IA and other basal Z93+ Scythian clades are to Scytho-Turkic/Sintashta Z94+ clades.
Also the Fatyanovo samples are very early and older than Sintashta, Abashevo and most Z93 in the Volga-Ural region so of course you see mostly extinct R1a-M417 and R1a-Z93 lines but a subset of Fatyanovo-like lines which expanded early into the Middle Volga region will carry Y3, Y40 and Z2124 and be ancestral to most of modern day Z93.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteIts not averages, each point is a sample from the publicly available dataset.
@ mzp1
ReplyDelete"Its not averages, each point is a sample from the publicly available dataset."
you do not understand what you are writing about, this is just ridiculous.
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteYour PCA is garbage and so are your theories.
Steppe_MLBA does sit on a cline between Steppe_EMBA and EEF/Europe_MN. All decent plots show this clearly, like the one here.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/04/the-mystery-of-sintashta-people.html
You're always very confused.
In this case you're confused because your PCA is garbage and you probably don't know the difference between the main Sintashta cluster and the Sintashta outlier clusters.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeletehttps://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10564-The-Genomic-History-of-Southeastern-Europe-Mathieson-Reich-et-al&p=634939&viewfull=1#post634939
R-Z93:
DeleteZ2479/M746/S4582/V3664: 3/0
Z93/F992/S202: 0/0
FGC77882: 0/0
R-Z94:
Z95/F3568: 1/0
Z94/F3105/S340: 0/0
R-Y3:
Y3/F2597/M727: 0/0
Y26/M780: 1/0
R-Y2:
Y2/M723: 0/2
Y27/M634/V1981: 0/2
Do these results mean that it is actually a Z645 or even an M417? Potentially, it already has some of the Y3 mutations, but not all of them yet. And only his descendants in the future will surpass the remaining mutations and he will become Y3?
@archi
ReplyDelete"Do not lie. There Z95+ which is at the level of Z94."
lol. Give me rs#/physical position of your z95+ in I6561.. as usual you are an empty vessel who makes too much noise..
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteZ93 is from Eastern Europe.
There is no Z93 in Asia from before the time when Steppe_MLBA moves into Asia and there never will be.
All Indian Z93 lines ultimately derive from Eastern Europe.
Haha.
@steppeman (lol)
ReplyDeleteI ran I6561 y-calls again yesterday..
available here
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ve5EPY-WZ_opwYboLuPNh67nsiDS74O7/view?usp=sharing
No Z94/Z95 snps available (ISOGG2019)
Y26+ is a c>T deamination error false positive
No one really cares, because...
ReplyDeleteZ93 is from Eastern Europe.
There is no Z93 in Asia from before the time when Steppe_MLBA moves into Asia and there never will be.
All Indian Z93 lines ultimately derive from Eastern Europe.
Haha.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteHe was analyzed by several people and always found with Z95+ and Y26+ And even if both calls are errors Y3 and L657 are anyways from Abashevo/eastern Fatyanovo so it does not make really any difference. Please show Z93 before 2000 B.C/Steppe MlLBA in Central Asia
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10564-The-Genomic-History-of-Southeastern-Europe-Mathieson-Reich-et-al/page64&p=634991#post634991
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?10564-The-Genomic-History-of-Southeastern-Europe-Mathieson-Reich-et-al&p=359334&viewfull=1#post359334
@Vladimir
well he is definetly M417+ Z93+ and David Anthony wrote even about this in one of his works.
@coldmountains
ReplyDeletehttps://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?20521-Y-Chromosome-Haplogroup-assignments-for-2500-ancient-samples/page3
kolgeh said as a reply to you
"A single positive is probably due to deamination error (i.e. ancient dna damage), but I should check the snp to be sure. I'll post here."
I have shared the file with all the I6561 reads and ISOGG 2019 calls.
He is definitely Z93+ but thats it.
@davidski
"There is no Z93 in Asia from before the time when Steppe_MLBA moves into Asia and there never will be.
"
Will you shut your blog if a pre 2000bce R-Y3 it is found in India? or a lengthy apology? Im fine with both, 2nd is better though.
Neither Z93 nor Y3 are from India, so no one will give a shit anyway if they turn up there a few years before 2000 BCE.
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeletelol kolgeh wrote about a Czech BA sample and not about I6561. I6561 is unlike the Czech sample Z93+ Z94+ and has a super Steppe_MLBA-like profile. Even Simargl on Molgen.ru (Y-DNA expert) wrote it is consistent and reliable.
We don't even see R1a-Z93 and Steppe_MLBA in any of the BMAC samples around 2000 B.C so R1a-Z93 arrived in India probably much after 2000 B.C and rather around 1700 B.C if not even slightly later.
The "RUS_Volosovo_N" (BER001, "RUS_LyalovoVolosovo_N") individual is highly important because it is likely a Q-L804 (PH4027+,A13475+,A13494+,A13501+,[A13548+] ,L1291+). This makes the BER001 the first aDNA of Q-L804, and it fills the gap between the younger/recent Q-L804 in Scandinavia (<3500 yBP) and the Q-M3 (Native Americans, Anzick1, Kennewick-man). The Q-L804 (Scandinavia) / Q-M3 split is dated c 15000 yBP. The BER001 (RUS_LyalovoVolosovo_N) is dated c. 6400 yBP and it is likely on another branch of the Q-L804 than the current Scandinavian branch.
ReplyDeleteEven better would be if it was pre Z93, then everything would coincide with the new dates of 3400 BCE. But in general, I think it is now easy to determine whether this sample belongs to Y3 or to Z645. In the article about Fatyanovo, it is written that the impurity with EEF occurred in the period 3100-2900 BCE. If this sample has the same EEF impurity as Fatyanovo, then it is Y3 with the wrong dates, but if it has a much smaller EEF impurity than Fatyanovo, then it is Z645 and pre Z93 with the date 3900-3400 BCE.
ReplyDelete@Vladimir
ReplyDeletesomething about the dating of I6561 is definetly weird and it shows as much as EEF as Fatyanovo but i am not sure if the shared CM segments really mean that the sample is from the MLBA period or even later (Srubnaya) but netherless Yfull underestimates the ages of clades by 10-15% often what we see again with the Fatyanovo samples which are dated around the time of the TMRCA of Z93 on Yfull (2500 B.C) but unlikely are ancestral to all Z93 in the world today and rather parallel/extinct lines which around 3500 diverged from other Z93. It would than take around 500 years for the Z93 clan to be big enough in numbers to be able to expand around 2800 B.C from Tver to the Volga region and maybe even Moldavia (if the Romania_EBA Z93 samples are correctly and not from a later period). Also keep in mind that early Indo-Iranians already had plenty of Z93 negative for Z94+ so even these westen Fatyanovo samples could have descendants in IA Central Asia/South Asia or even among modern day Indo-Iranians, which are poorly tested so far, even if most of Indo-Iranian Z93 is likely derived from more eastern Fatyanovo groups
@coldmountains
ReplyDeleteColdmountains said "I am not really an expert about this but i found him to be psoitive for Y26+ and M780+ what would mean he is Y3+ but on the otherside he is is negative for Z2479,M746,S4582 so he is Z93-. He is probably not Y3+"
Lol ok, accepted. Doesnt matter though the same error applies to I6561 like the Czech EBA samples for which you saw y26+ & y3+.. c>t standalone.. super unreliable.
Y2 is -ve
"Neither Z93 nor Y3 are from India, so no one will give a shit anyway if they turn up there a few years before 2000 BCE."
ReplyDeletecope
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteas usual you are an empty vessel who makes too much noise..
troll from your senseless screeching there is no aisle, you are only a disgrace. You are absolutely useless to everyone, all your messages without exception, are lies.
Everyone used to be so sure that I6561 was from the eneolithic due to its farmer ancestry being more Balkan/Trypilian like than from the later BA where GAC type ancestry was present.
ReplyDeleteWhat ever happened to that? The rejecting of the dates was just based on genetic similarity to later mlba individuals.
@Coldmountains
ReplyDelete"so R1a-Z93 arrived in India probably much after 2000 B.C and rather around 1700 B.C if not even slightly later."
According to classical archeology, it should be around 1300BC or slightly early.
"something about the dating of I6561 is definetly weird"
In Alexandria, all the burials are so very strange in dating. Here is the neighboring burial 40, it has two carbon dates with a difference of a thousand years!
Burial 40
4815 ± 60BP, Кі-8300 3710 - 3370 cal BC ;
5555 ± 35BP, Poz-78001 4455 - 4344 cal BC ;
(95.4 %)
And it must be borne in mind that burial 4-8 is the latest of all those made there.
"what we see again with the Fatyanovo samples"
Fatyanovo dates are very strange, no one expected that they would be so ancient. Most likely, the last numbers of the ranges are correct there, perhaps they have an underestimated reservoir effect.
"numbers to be able to expand around 2800 B.C"
For Fatyanovo dates, the center of the ranges at 2500 BC are most likely correct.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteThe rejecting of the dates was just based on genetic similarity to later mlba individuals.
I'm guessing that it's based on more than that.
There are a bunch of Eneolithic samples from that area on the way and none of them resembles I6561.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDelete"Everyone used to be so sure that I6561 was from the eneolithic"
Not everyone, I am a refutation of your words.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteYes you mentioned those before, basically just Steppe_EMBA right?
But shouldn't we eventually find eneolithic samples resembling I6561 however, considering that steppe_emba has EEF admixture? That had to be mediated through people with mixed ancestries.
Archi was right about I6561 and we were all wrong. That's a first.
ReplyDelete@Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteEneolithic steppe but with elevated EHG.
ReplyDeletewell the overall picture won't change much. We have a western sredni stog area that graviteted more toward the west and eastern sredni stog that was more in contact and absorbed more purely steppe eneolithic folks from the Don Volga area and from the northern foothills of the caucasus. We have eneolithic sample from eneolithic ukraine that have more EEF than I6561.
It is not a revolution.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteDope. So more or less steppe_emba minus the EEF then? As in the right amount of EHG to CHG ancestry as we see in Yamnaya and CWC? Assuming that with eneolithic steppe you mean the Progress and Vonyuchka profiles.
@Copper Axe
ReplyDelete"But shouldn't we eventually find eneolithic samples resembling I6561 however, considering that steppe_emba has EEF admixture?"
The Eneolithic can not be there, since according to the IBD segments between 6 samples from Srubnaya/Alakul/Andronovo (from 1900BC), the Alexandrian sample is 8-10 generations apart, that is, he lived 200-300 years earlier, that is, approximately at 2200-2100BC.
Anthropologists also always wrote that very different people are buried in Alexandria, at least split into two clusters, and probably even more. Their comprehensive characterization is very strange and contradictory.
@Samuel Andrus
"Archi was right about I6561 and we were all wrong. That's a first."
Not the first, I am always right without false modesty.
Certain proponents, the usual suspects think that this Volosovo paper will confirm their theory of the Western European origin of R1b. They assert that the Volosovo results will reveal that all Russian R1b are clearly WHGS without steppe ancestry. What do you think folks?
ReplyDelete@Davidski
ReplyDelete"Eneolithic steppe but with elevated EHG."
Something like Corded_Ware_POL_Early but without EEF? Would that make Yamnaya a mix of Early Steppe and Progress, with Yamnaya Caucasus being mostly Progress-derived?
Is this how it is? https://i.imgur.com/36hGUs0.png
Whats the new date for I6561?
ReplyDeleteIn the light of this new assesment, how sure is it that I6561 still is R1a?
ReplyDelete@epoch
ReplyDeletethe dating has not something to with him being R1a or not.
@Wise Dragon
ReplyDeleteYou mean EHGs correct? The Volosovites may have elevated WHG related ancestry compared to their Mesolithic predecessors, but calling them WHGs is quite inaccurate. And is it not so that R1b itself originates from EHG, unless you're talking about some Narva related clades dominating Volosovo?
@Coldmountains
ReplyDeleteUnderstand, when Abashevo and Sintashta culture existed, no Poltava culture existed anymore, Volsk-Lbische culture destroyed it. Your map is an anachronism, in the place of Poltavka already existed Babino, Lola, Voronezh, Krivoluk, Potapovka cultures.
I constantly see some completely crooked style of periodization of Eastern European archeology in European and American genetic sources, from where I cannot understand its source at all, but in the Eastern European archeology of the Steppe, the following Steppe-Anatolian scale of cultures of the Eneolithic-Bronze Age was adopted, and another there not.
period ~ cultures
EEn - Sredniy Stog, Khvalynsk
MEn - Dereivka
MLEn - Konstantinovka
LEn - Repin, Pivicha
EBA - Yamnaya
MBA - Catacomb, Poltavka, Volsk-Lbishche
MLBA - Babino, Abashevo, Sintashta, Petrovka, Potapovka, Lola, Voronezh, Krivoluk
LBA - Andronovo (Alakul / Fedorovo), Srubnaya
FBA (/ EIA) - Andronovo (Alexeevo), Roller pottery, Sabatinovka
Moreover, most archaeologists equate ML with L.
@wise dragon
ReplyDeleteR1b P297 is a EHG lineage. It is not born in the steppe. It traces back its origin in a Yana/ANE related populations.
We will see if in Narva/ Kunda and later on in the Samara hunter gather its proximate origin is from the Afontonova Gora population or from a source like the Swiderian culture in Poland or Iron Gates.
@ Sam
ReplyDeleteEven a dead clock is right twice a day
Something for Sam:
ReplyDeleteMaternal lineages from 10-11th century commoner cemeteries of the Carpathian Basin
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.01.26.428268v1
Results Haplogroup composition of the commoner population markedly differs from the elite and in contrast to the elite, commoners cluster with European populations. Besides, detectable sub-haplogroup sharing indicates admixture between the elite and commoners.
Conclusions Majority of the 10-11th century commoners most likely represent local populations of the Carpathian Basin, which admixed with the eastern immigrant groups including conquering Hungarians.
Coldmountains wrote,
ReplyDelete"something about the dating of I6561 is definetly weird and it shows as much as EEF as Fatyanovo but i am not sure if the shared CM segments really mean that the sample is from the MLBA period or even later (Srubnaya) but netherless Yfull underestimates the ages of clades by 10-15% often what we see again with the Fatyanovo samples which are dated around the time of the TMRCA of Z93 on Yfull (2500 B.C) but unlikely are ancestral to all Z93 in the world today and rather parallel/extinct lines which around 3500 diverged from other Z93. It would than take around 500 years for the Z93 clan to be big enough in numbers to be able to expand around 2800 B.C from Tver to the Volga region and maybe even Moldavia (if the Romania_EBA Z93 samples are correctly and not from a later period)."
YFull's age estimates may be off by even more than 15% in some cases.
One recent case I have considered is that of XW-M1R18, a specimen recovered from the Xiaowu site in Xiaowu village, Lingbao city, Henan province, China and attributed to the early Yangshao culture.
Chao Ning et al. 2020 have reported an AMS radiocarbon date of 4225-3987 calBCE (6056±119 BP) for the XW-M1R18 specimen. They also have reported that the specimen's mtDNA belongs to haplogroup D4g2a1 and that the specimen's Y-DNA belongs to haplogroup Q1a1a1.
On the current version of the YFull tree, XW-M1R18 has been tabulated as belonging to Q-M120 > Q-Y515 > Q-FGC14753 > Q-Y144860 > Q-Y144860*. However, the TMRCA of Q-Y144860 has been estimated to be 4,300 (95% CI 3,900 <-> 4,800) ybp. (In fact, the TMRCA of Q-Y515, two levels up in the tree, likewise has been estimated to be 4,300 (95% CI 3,900 <-> 4,800) ybp.)
Taking the lower bound of the confidence interval for the radiocarbon date of the XW-M1R18 specimen (5,937 ybp) and the upper bound of YFull's 95% CI for its estimate of the TMRCA of Q-Y144860 (4,800 ybp), one may conclude that the real TMRCA of the Q-Y144860 clade must be at least 123% (or 1.23 times) YFull's current estimate (assuming, of course, that YFull's phylogeny and its assignment of XW-M1R18's Y-DNA to the Q-Y144860 clade are correct).
(By the way, on YFull's mtDNA tree, there is no such discrepancy for this particular specimen: XW-M1R18's mtDNA has been tabulated as D4g2a1*, with the TMRCA of the D4g2a1 clade estimated to be 8,600 (95% CI 6,700 <-> 10,900) ybp. However, this does not necessarily mean that YFull's estimate of the TMRCA of the D4g2a1 clade of mtDNA is not also an underestimate.)
Arza, there are already genomes from O'Sullivan's paper. Have you seen? The most Slavic one on the PCA has Avar's maternal great-grandfather (Lukas's model):
ReplyDeleteTarget: Germany_EarlyMedieval_Alemanic_lc_NIEcap2
Distance: 9.0323% / 9.03233006 | ADC: 0.5x RC
47.9 Ukrainian_Ivano_Frankivsk
31.0 Polish_Masuria
13.7 Belarusian_Minsk
7.4 Dai
It would be worth removing the Far East admixture and checking where the Slavic component will be located in the North European PCA. In this way we will locate the early Slav with U106, if I am not confusing something in the symbols of the R1b haplogroup.
The lc suffix stands for low coverage. And when they say low coverage, they really meany it.
ReplyDeleteSo I wouldn't take that model seriously at all.
David, do you think the coverage is lower than RISE568? This sample seems interesting to me because we have a Slavic U106 without an autosomal Germanic admixture.
ReplyDelete@Coldmountains
ReplyDeleteBut the sample also was booked as "questionable". The point is, if the new date is correct and it's Y-DNA asssignment is still R1a we have R1a just before Yamnaya in Yamnaya territory.
So I wonder if this sample is somehow suspected to be contaminated.
@ ambron & epoch
ReplyDeleteSnps number and what "questionable" means can be checked in the anno file:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen-ancient-dna-resource-aadr-downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data
NIEcap2 possibly has Slavic origin but that's all what can be said about this sample.
And I6561 cannot predate Yamnaya if it's dated to 1900-1400 BCE.
@Ebizur
ReplyDeleteIt is not necessary to absolutize radiocarbon dating, they are very complex and inaccurate, depend on a huge number of factors (reservoir effects, contaminations, etc.). AMC dating tends, for example, to give outliers towards the aging of samples. The problem is that a certain percentage of them are always wrong, some laboratories have less, others have more.
In YFull it is necessary to look not only TMRCA, but also "formed" because it is not at all necessary that a given sample left descendants at all, it can enter the population of people who lived before the person whose descendants are on the YFull tree.
@epoch
ReplyDeletebased on the new info it is rather from Abashevo or some kind of other Fatyanovoid culture around 2000-2500 B.C. Also his R1a-Y26+ clade is so rare among modern Europeans bascially has a frequency of around 0,0001% if not even lower that it pretty much unlikely is that he got his Y-DNA from contamination rather some kind of other error like deamination but this neither can proven or disproven so far.
@epoch
ReplyDeleteI understand that when they ignored the original date, the new Date 3900-3400 BCE, they apparently took by analogy with the neighboring burial, for which there is this date, established back in the 1980s in the work of Telegin.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteSo, you would tell us that the Z93 in Fatyanovo came from Asia? Is that what you'd say?
R1a pops up in Usatovo and we have steppe related ancestry in female Cucuteni-Trypillia samples. So EEF and R1a in I6561 might not be very strange. It might be a very interesting sample if the quality could still be considered usable.
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/01/a-tantalizing-link.html?showComment=1611238226891#c6938939395878830084
@Arza
ReplyDeleteO damn, I do it again... Mixing up BC and BCE. Yes you are right, just a normal sample in that case.
BC and BCE are the same.
ReplyDeleteBP is different.
@ambron&Arza
ReplyDeleteInteresting that you Polish users are still trying to analyze these Alamannic samples from Niederstotzingen, without telling me. I've been waiting for half a year or so for Tomenable to convert them into something usable, but he didn't.
I suppose NIEcap2 is the easternmost ancient individual in the paper's PCA plot. Seems to plot rather with Northeast Euros than with Northwest Euros, though some modern Germans (probably Eastern Germans) plot nearby.
The question is, if this individual had actual Slavic drift, or if its position in the PCA just reflects higher Steppe and lower MN farmer ancestry. Niederstotzingen lies outside of the area settled by Medieval Slavs. On the other hand it would make sense if the Alamanni were a bit more northern and eastern than the Baiuvari, because the latter were mostly descended from Marcomanni who had migrated to Bohemia coming from the river Main, while the former were mostly descended from the Semnones on the Elbe.
@ambron
What data did you feed into that Vahaduo calculator? Eurogenes K13, K15 or what?
So, you would tell us that the Z93 in Fatyanovo came from Asia? Is that what you'd say?
ReplyDeleteNo. What I am saying is that the south asian R-Y3(z93>z94>Y3) line did not come from the steppe post 2000bce.. this is because you neither see Y3 in ancient dna from a huge number of samples, neither do you see it in modern samples from the steppe region even though the purported tmrca is 2500bc (likely an underestimation).
Additionally, modern south asia has lots of samples with upstream terminal markers present starting with R1*, R1a, R1a1 and so on which are absent in the steppe mlba ancient samples (Choubey, unpublished as of yet)..
So, while some Z93 Z94 Z2124 In NW india and pakistan likely came from steppe, the bulk of the R1a which is on the R-Y3 line has nothing to do with the steppe.
How can this happen?? Old connections much before bronze age. You have an example in J1 J2 branches from Iran Central Asia region randomly appearing in khavalynsk,EHG, LBK samples.
"NIEcap2 possibly has Slavic origin but that's all what can be said about this sample".
ReplyDeleteIt can also be added that, according to the authors of the study, she was of the paternal lineage R1b1a2a1a1c2b2b1a1.
@ epoch
ReplyDeleteThis time it's not you, but whoever was working on that spreadsheet.
Context: Layer date based on 6 20-28 cM IBD individuals with Srubnaya/Alakul/Kazakhstan_MLBA individuals from 3900-3400
Srubnaya/Alakul/Kazakhstan_MLBA are from 3900-3400 BP, but someone copied this date to another field and added "BCE".
Curious, does any of the Fatyanovo samples show East Asian ancestry?
ReplyDelete@ ambron
ReplyDeleteThis sample is not U106. It's not even known whether it was a male or a female.
In the anno file between "ds.half" and "PASS" you have library (sequence) number of this sample. You can check the details of it in the supplement (table S3).
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/suppl/2018/08/31/4.9.eaao1262.DC1/aao1262_SM.pdf
By the way, only now I realized that you believe that this sample is in the G25. Next time, check everything first here:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/07/getting-most-out-of-global25_12.html
What you've pasted is a result from some "calculator".
Okay, I've already figured it out... NIEcap2 is a man from burial number 2. He wasn't at the PCA. Only his mtDNA was marked: K1a1b2a1a. Sorry for the confusion!
ReplyDeletevAsiSTha said...
ReplyDelete"Additionally, modern south asia has lots of samples with upstream terminal markers present starting with R1*, R1a, R1a1 and so on which are absent in the steppe mlba ancient samples (Choubey, unpublished as of yet)."
It is not published because there is nothing to publish, he lied for a very long time. And it will never be published because he can only lie verbally, in scientific work it will be immediately exposed.
"So, while some Z93 Z94 Z2124 In NW india and pakistan likely came from steppe, the bulk of the R1a which is on the R-Y3 line has nothing to do with the steppe."
This is senseless nonsense, this can never be, you understand genetics worse than any schoolboy.
"It is not published because there is nothing to publish, he lied for a very long time. And it will never be published because he can only lie verbally, in scientific work it will be immediately exposed."
ReplyDeleteOk loudmouth lol.. the data and the paper will be published shortly.
And no one will care apart from oddballs like you.
ReplyDeleteThat's because both R1a and Z93 are from Eastern Europe, which means that the R1a and Z93 in India is from Eastern Europe.
Ancient DNA shows this very clearly.
@epoch
ReplyDelete"So EEF and R1a in I6561 might not be very strange. It might be a very interesting sample if the quality could still be considered usable."
Sample I6561 was declared: "QUESTIONABLE (damage.ds.half=0.028)". And they explain in ".anno file" that "half" means a damage retained at last position", "ds" is a double stranded library preparation, and damage for ds.half is "QUESTIONABLE_CRITICAL/FAIL" if the rating is <0.01, "QUESTIONABLE" for 0.01-0.03, and recorded but passed if 0.03-0.05.
So we can see that I6561 is in the middle of the damage rating.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteOk loudmouth lol.. the data and the paper will be published shortly.
Liar. Yes, you are loudmouth.
"https://www.docdroid.net/EC8uFeh/gad-et-al-hawass-fs-final-2020-pdf"
ReplyDeleteThis is generally a shameful paper. All the data there is from messages up to 2010, the youngest date from a certain shameful Klyosov, 2012 who knows nothing at all. The old STR data is taken there, it is not clear where it was received from, and passed through the old predictor. I don’t like the approach itself, I don’t understand where it came from, and I think it’s just shameful to refer to outdated 20-15 year old sources with which these unclear who operate only.
Now think about the reliability of this source, it's just a blog from the arts department of a third-rate institution: "Charles University, Faculty of Arts".
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteBased on your theory, how would you explain the Bell Beakers and their similarity to Sintashta? Just a coincidence?
In my modest text I show that only Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian have full set of the wheel and wain terms. Adding to this the DNA proofs and the Bronocice evidence I think that the "out of India" theory is impossible. Z93 has its origins in Eastern Europe, as Davidski says
ReplyDeletehttp://tolkniety.blogspot.com/2020/04/updating-picture-from-anthony-indo.html
@Gabriel,
ReplyDeleteMy theory is just that Steppe MLBA is not a descendant of Steppe EBA and European farmers. Bell Beakers DNA would originate wherever Sintashta did, if they are genetically close, but I dont have a particular view on that yet.
The mainstream theory is problematic due to the ratio of Steppe and Farmer ancestry being so consistent across the whole of the Steppe MLBA populations, from Bell Beaker to Andronovo. That is the real coincidence, and is highly unlikely as recently mixed populations should have more varying ancestry proportions. Also, the existing model does not explain the differences in R1A and R1B and also the distribution of light skin/hair alleles that is not explained by descent from Steppe EBA or EEF (from discussions here).
@Salden
ReplyDeleteAnd the mummy of Thutmose 1 likely is misattributed. Which is very interesting, considering the theories of Hatshepsut reburying him. He also was the only royal burial without a name in the royal cache, IIRC.
Plenty of opportunity for a mix up.
http://ww.sjefwillockx.nl/2TT1.pdf
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteYeah. It is needed to be able to find fault with the theory that there is nothing to find fault with it.
@galadhorn
ReplyDeleteThe idea that wheeled vehicles originated on the steppe is long abandoned, they came from the farmers.
See this quote from a paper Kristiansen co-authored:
The spread of farming practices across western Eurasia was followed by a period of demographic expansion (Hinz et al., 2012, Müller, 2013, Shennan et al., 2013) and technological innovations (e.g., pottery, animal traction, the wheel, metallurgy, etc.). These events favored the initiation of trading networks, which, for the first time, could reach remote geographic regions and connect multiple independent human populations. Population densities and settlements also increased in size with the emergence of the first mega-settlements (6,100–5,400 BP) in the current territory of Moldova, Romania, and Ukraine.
https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(18)31464-8?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS0092867418314648%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
Romulus said...
ReplyDelete"The idea that wheeled vehicles originated on the steppe is long abandoned, they came from the farmers."
This is an absolute lie, wheeled transport originated in the steppe, this is a proven scientific fact, but any connection with farmers is categorically long rejected. In your quote, nothing is written to support your words.
@galadhorn
ReplyDelete“In my modest text I show that only Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian have full set of the wheel and wain terms. Adding to this the DNA proofs and the Bronocice evidence I think that the "out of India" theory is impossible. Z93 has its origins in Eastern Europe, as Davidski says
http://tolkniety.blogspot.com/2020/04/updating-picture-from-anthony-indo.html”
I agree with you.
Some time ago I wrote a post about PIE “ingridients” which mentioned Bronocice:
“The requirement that PIE homeland be located on “a plain near the highest mountains” which David Anthony reminded us about, is an important ingredient.
In practice it probably means that those highest mountains should be visible from PIE homeland or from some important religious center of this homeland.
Here we are: Tatri/Patri or “Father” the highest mountain range in Carpatian mountains is visible from Cracow:
https://lifeinkrakow.pl/cache/images/watermark/uploads/gallery/208/370efc357583e79e8989bdde3bd7537a.jpeg
https://i.postimg.cc/SNw7SqBK/Tatry.jpg
pcw250 R1a R-Z645
pcw420 R1a R-M417 (xZ645)
pcw430 R1a R-M417 (xL664, FGC9988)
https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?p=660299#post660299
That R1a rich CWC area around Cracow is very interesting. There the Bronocice pot was discovered, a ceramic vase incised with one of the earliest known depictions of a wheeled vehicle. It was dated by the radiocarbon method to the mid-fourth millennium BC.
TRB culture to which Bronocice pot is attributed was also using Corded ceramics so it probably had some early contacts with Dereivka Sredny Stog culture”
Another ingredient can be the wheel and wagon vocabulary. Full and complete in Slavic languages.
Reconstructable form: PIE *kwékwlo-s (masc.), collective *kwekwlé-h2 (→ neut. pl.) derived from *kwel- ‘turn’; pattern of derivation (reduplication + zero-grade root + thematic vowel).
This very complex derivation is not convincing at all.
Reduplication in nouns is very rare. This whole construction is artificial.
There is a much simpler derivation:
Slavic: ‘koł-/kol-’”turn”‘koło/kolo’ “circle, wheel”––> diminutive “kol-ko”pl. „kul-ka”which are used for wheels in wagons even today. Diminutive endings ‘-ko/-ka’ in Slavic are the same as in Sanskrit. Then metathesis: sing. ‘kolko’––> ‘koklo’, pl ‘kulka’––> ‘kukla’
This metathesis is a very common mistake children make, so it is natural.
CWC mixing with TRB in Poland were the first steppe people who got hold of wheels and wagons. Surely their vocabulary was the oldest. It happened in South-Eastern or Central Poland, Slavic homeland.
Is my theory better than Anthony-Ringe’s theory? They cannot explain where, when and how words for wheel and wagon originated and their derivation is not convincing and artificial. I can explain how it happened, my derivation is simple and natural.
It’s established in academia that wheels were around since middle Neolithic, plenty of evidence there (wagon models, causeways, etc)
ReplyDeleteIt’s not even debated
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThat's an issue with your 3rd grade reading comprehension not with what I wrote. Wheeled transport is synonymous with the rest of the neolithic package. Early technoligical innovation correlates directly with population density and we know this for a fact as before we had population density none of the package existed. Things don't just magically appear out of nowhere to support the steppe hypothesis. Cause and effect is law.
Rob said...
ReplyDelete"It’s established in academia that wheels were around since middle Neolithic, plenty of evidence there (wagon models, causeways, etc)"
Only in your personal fantasies. It’s not even debated
@Romulus
"That's an issue with your 3rd grade reading comprehension not with what I wrote.
Wheeled transport is synonymous with the rest of the neolithic package."
This is lie, do not invent nonsense and lies. Learn to read and don't lie if you haven't finished elementary school. Romulus Rob, you have never written anything but lies here.
The wheel was never included in the concept of the Neolithic, it could not have appeared even before the Eneolithic, because metal tools are needed to make it.
Moreover, even pottery is not included in the concept of the farm Neolithic, because there were farmers before the pottery era (Per-Pottery N), pottery were invented and distributed by hunter-gatherers (from east), and farmers borrowed it only from them. Not to mention metallurgy, which is also in that quote from which you claim that it is included in the concept of the Neolithic package. Study uneducated.
Lol Archi da Komrad wheel-made in Urals is written by Lenin !
ReplyDelete@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteUh huh.
It just seems like you're trotting out a bunch of knitt-picky(and ultimately irrelevant) stuff in a desperate last ditch attempt to prop up the OIT(or something more compatible with it, at least). You'll probably say that you're not an OIT supporter, but it's obvious to everyone that you're trying to put off accepting the reality of indo-Iranian origins at any cost, you just can't handle the idea of Z93(and so many Indian, Pakistani, and Iranian paternal lineages) coming from eastern Europe.
So you're trying to come up with an idea as close to the OIT as possible. Reminds me of how modern creationists never stop trying to come up with something, anything to avoid accepting the inevitable, and it just gets more and more tedious as they try to keep their foot in the door. It's pretty cringy to watch, I'm not gonna lie. The rest of us are so far past this, it's not even funny.
I made a video about Fatyanovo.
ReplyDeleteFatyanovo the Ancestor of the Indo Iranians (Documentary)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TupNpqfAIIQ&ab_channel=GenosHistoria
The journey of Fatyanovo from.......
Ukraine Steppe to Poland to Russian Forests to Eurasian Steppe to Southern Asia.
Did Fatyanovo R1a Z93+ descendants stay in Northern Russia?
ReplyDeleteBecause R1a Z93 does not exist there today. That region has been Baltic and Uralic for last 3,000 years.
@mzp1
ReplyDelete"My theory is just that Steppe MLBA is not a descendant of Steppe EBA and European farmers."
So, they're descendants of...who, then?
"Bell Beakers DNA would originate wherever Sintashta did, if they are genetically close, but I dont have a particular view on that yet."
"If" they're genetically close? You already know that they are, so what's the point of all this vague language?
Ukraine Steppe to Poland to Russian Forests to Eurasian Steppe to Southern Asia.
ReplyDeleteLol
Bob floy
ReplyDeleteWhat you need to deal with is this..
Swat samples have hardly any R1a.. the steppe ancestry in swat was female mediated.. no R-y3 of any kind in swat..
You all had been waiting for decades for that adna right??? What did it give you? Nothing. Suck on it
@Archi
ReplyDeletehttps://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ljubljana_Marshes_Wheel
"So, they're descendants of...who, then?"
ReplyDeleteWe dont know. Who says they need to be descended from different groups? If you imagine that Steppe MLBA lived somewhere bordered on one side by Yamnya/EHG/ANE and on the other side with Anatolia, then over time the Yamnaya/ANE side drifts in its own direction, and Antolian drift their own way. Steppe MLBA is in the middle and shares drift with both of them so it has both components but this does not neccessarily mean the two groups mixed to produce Steppe MLBA as a third.
About how close is Sintashta and BB I didnt answer because I havent looked at BB closely, hence my vague response.
(Russia_MLBA_Sintashta, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Poland_GAC, Anatolian_N) 0.002 0.00213 0.92 22861 22771 522344
(Russia_Andronovo, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara) (Poland_GAC, Anatolian_N) 0.005 0.00296 1.68 22836 22610 522729
(Germany_BellBeaker, Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_EBA_Samara) (Poland_GAC, Anatolian_N) -0.002 0.00219 -0.895 23012 23103 522201
The above Steppe MLBA samples barely pick GAC over Anatolian_N when given Yamnaya as an input. Pretty weak Z-scores for the first two and the negative result for the last row really opposes the theory that BB is a mixture of Yamnaya with GAC.
If they are descended from Yamnaya and GAC or EEF those scores need to be strongly positive, the first two are below 3 and the last (BB) is not even positive.
@Romulus
ReplyDeleteAt this time, the whole steppe was already in carts. Many wheels have already been found in the steppe. Here their dating was laid out. At this time, the Bronze Age has long been in the Steppe.
@vAsiSTha
Suck on it
The Aryan masters simply robbed those who lived in Swat with their feet on their throats and lived separately from their slaves.
@mzp1
"We dont know. Who says they need to be descended from different groups? If you imagine that Steppe MLBA lived somewhere bordered on one side by Yamnya/EHG/ANE and on the other side with Anatolia, then over time the Yamnaya/ANE side drifts in its own direction, and Antolian drift their own way. Steppe MLBA is in the middle and shares drift with both of them so it has both components but this does not neccessarily mean the two groups mixed to produce Steppe MLBA as a third."
Only you don't know anything, you don't need to write the word we here. The Aryans come from the CWC, you can build delusional hypotheses as much as you like and write a meaningless set of words.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteSeems you weren't able to read the part where it says oldest ever discovered.
@Archi,
ReplyDeleteBut why the focus on 'Aryans' and does the term make sense when used in place of IE.
How about Dasa, that name seems more widespread than Arya. They seem to be in India with the Aryans, and they seem to be in Europe (Dacians) where there is no mention of Aryans.
Maybe the "high-born" Dasa are the real OGs, and the Aryans some Iranian/West Asian Neolithic influenced new, innovated, IE culture.
ReplyDeleteIn Europe, wheels and wagons were invented by groups of the Boleraz circles, incl TRB, Lubljana Group, etc . Brononice established a date of ~3500 BC
It was brought toward the steppe by post-Baden immigration to late tripolje groups. Then moves toward steppe during the Zhivotilovka-Volchansk horizon, which is immediately before the Yamnaya horizon
^Purely unscientific fantasies.
ReplyDeleteIs a well-established scientific fact is not questioned by anyone that Baden all borrowed from the Steppe.
@Romulus said...
"Seems you weren't able to read the part where it says oldest ever discovered."
There is a downright lie written there because this is a Wikipedia in which everyone lies freely.
Here are the dates known to me from the eastern part of the Steppe, and these are scientifically published data about which you do not want to know like that liar from Wikiped
Balki, g.57 3170+-120 calBC
Starokorsunskaya 6 burial 3336-3105 calBCE
This is from the steppe burials, because by that time everyone in the steppe already owned wagons and they were of no value, unlike in other Europe, there is no swamps in the steppe for a wagon to drown there and there is no art on pottery to draw unprecedented wonders such as a carriage, pottery in the steppe was not appreciated.
@mzp1
"But why the focus on 'Aryans' and does the term make sense when used in place of IE."
What else instead of? Aryans are the same as Indo-Iranians.
"How about Dasa, that name seems more widespread than Arya. They seem to be in India with the Aryans, and they seem to be in Europe (Dacians) where there is no mention of Aryans."
Dasa has no relation to the Dacians. These are completely different words, not related. Dasa literally means "exhausted", that is, immovable, sedentary, not nomads. Hence any slaves or enemies of the Indo-Aryans.
@Archi
ReplyDeleteThe Lubjana Marshes Wheel predates the Steppe Migration by 180-350 years. That's if you set the beginning at 2900 B.C., when it is more like 2900-2800 B.C.. GAC groups appeared in the Forest Steppe before the Corded Ware migration began.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteKnitt pick, knitt pick, knitt pick.
In the end none of what you're saying will amount to anything, and on some level you know that.
@mzp1
ReplyDeleteThe rest of us have known for several years that Sintashta and Bell Beaker are closely related, almost identical in some cases. I think back in 2016 Dave posted a PCA where they were basically sitting on top of each other. So you should probably catch up, although that may have negative consequences for your pet theory.
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteSure buddy, all the wagons disappeared, although those after 3300 managed to survive. And they were valueless , which is why the highest strata of elites were buried with them . Cool story
@Bob,
ReplyDeleteIf Sintashta and Bell Beaker are close then according to this theory they originate close to each other, but that does not mean they are descended from Yamnaya and EEF.
We can look at it in different ways, but all the data point to the same conclusion.
f3
Russia_Andronovo.SG, Russia_Kostenki14, Chimp.REF 203. 0.849 239. 290925
Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara, Russia_Kostenki14 Chimp.REF 202. 0.832 243. 315509
Poland_GAC.SG, Russia_Kostenki14 Chimp.REF 202. 0.945 214. 215163
You can see that Andronovo has a greater f3 with Kostenki than do Yamnaya Samara or GAC. Correct me if Im wrong but surely that cant be the case if it is a descendant of those two populations.
and with Karelia HG,
Russia_Andronovo.SG, Russia_HG_Karelia Chimp.R… 213. 0.848 251. 271470
Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara Russia_HG_Karelia Chimp.R… 213. 0.835 255. 294943
Poland_GAC.SG, Russia_HG_Karelia Chimp.R… 208. 0.932 223. 202756
Here GAC has a significantly lower f3 than the other two which are the same ,around 213. According to your theory, the Andronovo f3 should be between that of the other two, no?
Anyone know about f3 and admixture can chime in on the above.
@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ There is a downright lie written there because this is a Wikipedia in which everyone lies freely.”
Actually , Wikipedia has quality assurance. You can be assured that any misinformation -laden edits of your quality would get reverted & blocked by good-faith editors & admins
In any case; this is the latest thesis from Europe
“ The paper uses a new research tool, the Digital Atlas of Innovation to re-think the invention and diffusion of wheeled vehicles in Eurasia during the 4th and 3rd millennium BC. It isargued that the diffusion of wheeled vehicles is the result of the local transformation of several technical components which have been known since the Pottery Neolithic”. (F Klimscha 2017)
Romulus was right
So, the only place where lies flow freely is the nonsense which come out of your face
@bob floy
ReplyDelete"Swat samples have hardly any R1a.. the steppe ancestry in swat was female mediated.. no R-y3 of any kind in swat.."
This above is no nitpicking. This is actual summary of evidence of the whole Narasimhan paper lol.
And there goes R1b L51 quietly taking the Backroads with their travoises and taking over Western Europe while R1a and I2a fights about who invented the wheel in Eastern Europe....Heheheeh.
ReplyDelete@Tarim Mummies,
ReplyDeleteSomething to consider is their Asian mtDNA is Siberian. So, even their mtDNA suggests they weren't indigenous to Western China.
It is mostly C4 with some D4 and G2a. Those are the three most common mHGs in Siberia in that order.
This makes me think they were an Andronovo population from Siberia who migrated to Tarim Basin.
I'm planning on making Youtube video on mummies from Xiaohe cemetary.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteRomulus is not educated. The influence of the steppe on Europe was even before the migration of the CWC. It began in the days of Sredniy Stog, when merchants from the steppe covered all the Carpathian-Balkans and later, when the Baden-Boleraz cultures arose under the direct influence of the Steppe.
ReplyDeleteTarget: HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:I2788
Distance: 1.4344% / 0.01434393 | R3P
75.0 HUN_Lengyel_LN
13.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.0 HUN_Koros_N_HG
Target: HUN_Protoboleraz_LCA:I2788
Distance: 1.4241% / 0.01424096
58.6 HUN_Lengyel_LN
13.2 HUN_Koros_N_HG
12.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
9.0 HUN_Starcevo_N
6.8 HUN_LBK_MN
0.0
Target: HUN_Baden_LCA:I2370
Distance: 1.3527% / 0.01352693 | R3P
87.4 HUN_Lengyel_LN
7.4 HUN_Koros_N_HG
5.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
For a long time, many archaeologists generally assumed that the culture of Baden was formed simply by the steppe people. The CWC were not distributors of carts, carriages as all technical innovation spread as a result of minor influences, this is how they penetrated the Middle East without any CWC or Yamnians migrations. Secondly, the time of the CWC migration has not been established at all, no one knows the beginning of the CWC migration, because the earliest phase of the CWC has not been found at all, for archaeologists at distances of a thousand kilometers it seems to appear instantly literally in one year.
Rob, stop lying, you only write useless lies 100% of the time without exception. You have not written a single message that does not contain 100% lies.
In the Steppe of Yamnaya time, they buried with the most valuable thing a person had, no ritual things existed. The clan to which a person belongs was considered the most valuable, therefore, they were buried under the patrimonial mounds mainly without equipment. Aliens were buried with the things that were during their lifetime, in Yamnaya culture the wagon was not any sign of the elite, the poorest practically beggars of society, practically women and children, were buried with them, these are the poorest burials of all. These are strangers who died in a foreign land, they were not buried under the mounds, and the wagon is their only property.
@mzp1
You don't understand at all how statistics work and what they show, everything you do is meaningless and does not show anything.
If Xiaohe has layers from 2200-2000 bc as some C14 datings suggest they are not derived from Andronovo.
ReplyDelete@Sam
Imagine the pronounciations of yours in a video about archaeological material cultures in the eastern tian shan and the tarim basin. Get ready for some serious tongue twisters such as Qiemu'erqieke or Qawrighul.
Also note Xiaohe =/= Tarim Mummies. It is only one of the several material cultures and cemeteries which has produced mummies.
Adunqiaolu is the oldest Andronovo site in the Eastern Tian Shan region of modern day Xinjiang as far as I know and it's roughly from 1900-1800 bc so the beginning of the Andronovo period.
ReplyDelete@Sam Andrus
ReplyDelete"This makes me think they were an Andronovo population ... who migrated to Tarim Basin."
The complete absence of any logic considering that they are all Z93--------.
"It is mostly C4 with some D4 and G2a. "
Maternal genetic structure in ancient Shandong between 9500 and 1800 years ago, 2021
"Archaeological and ancient DNA studies revealed that Shandong, a multi-culture center in northern coastal China, was home to ancient populations having ancestry related to both northern and southern East Asian populations. ... For samples older than 4600 years before present (BP), we found haplogroups D4, D5, B4c1, and B5b2, which are observed in present-day northern and southern East Asian. For samples younger than 4600 BP, haplogroups C....."
@Genos Historia said...
ReplyDeleteUkraine Steppe to Poland to Russian Forests to Eurasian Steppe to Southern Asia.
NO
From Poland to Russia why:
1.T-13910 is another characteristic of the Baltic region of Europe mutation: it allowed our ancestors to freely drink raw milk and gave an evolutionary advantage: people with this mutation spend up to 19% more fertile offspring, which makes this degree of selection "one of the strongest so far observed for any gene in the genome. (Kujawy region,Poland) It was in the Corded Ware culture that this mutation was the most common. Formerly it was believed that it was a nomadic culture, but traces of the cultivation of emmer wheat were discovered in the settlement of this culture from Bronocice. and barley.
2.Baltic CCR5 mutation
Delta 32 mutation in the CCR5 gene (inactivation) makes HIV unable to enter the cell. This mutation is absent among the African and southern European populations decimated by AIDS, but it is quite common in northern Europe, in the Baltic area. Poland is one of the few countries in the world with the highest percentage of the population genetically resistant to AIDS (approx. 11%, in some parts of the country even 14%). Research has shown that the Delta 32 mutation arose in the Baltic region under the influence of smallpox. Fatyanowo people had similar characteristics
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDelete"This above is no nitpicking. This is actual summary of evidence of the whole Narasimhan paper lol."
And, in the end, it won't change the big picture(indo-Aryans coming from the CWC) at all.
@ Archie
ReplyDeleteI have no need to lie , you’re projecting. The gulf between my breadth & your limited conceptualisations might make certain concepts appear alien to you; but that is your issue
Obviously from ~ 3000 BC the steppe influence was more powerful, but that’s Baden period . Boleraz is an earlier phase with a different dynamic
If the earliest Xiaohe are from 2200 BC, that would align them with Qiemu'erqieke- Okunevo
ReplyDeleteRob, do not stir up nonsense, from 3500BC the influence of the Usatovo culture (Coţofeni culture) and ~3200 Yamnaya Bulgaria-Hungaria went. Baden-Boleraz has always been considered as a derivative of the Cernavodă culture, which in turn goes back to the Suvorovo group of the Sredniy Stog culture. Baden is a continuation of Boleraz.
ReplyDelete@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ Baden-Boleraz has always been considered as a derivative of the Cernavodă culture, which in turn goes back to the Suvorovo group of the Sredniy Stog culture. Baden is a continuation of Boleraz. ”
Everybody except you now understands that these are demographically distinct groups. Neither derives from one another .
You have cherry -picked one individual with ~ 10% ancestry ; whilst the rest lack it. Ba-Bol males are G2a and I2a1
This merely proves the autochthonous origin of Baden - Boleraz
You have tried to deny the role of Central Europe in the origins of wheels and failed, then you tried to claim that they are in fact from the steppe & failed. I don’t know if you are simply too stupid, or have deeply set problems. Probably both; but your posts are almost always contemptuous of evidence
Rob, do not stir up nonsense, from 3500BC the influence of the Usatovo culture (Coţofeni culture) and ~3200 Yamnaya Bulgaria-Hungaria went.
ReplyDeleteTarget: BGR_EBA:I2175
Distance: 1.2866% / 0.01286553 | R3P
75.2 HUN_Lengyel_LN
15.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
9.4 HUN_Koros_N_HG
Target: BGR_EBA:I2176
Distance: 1.5740% / 0.01573982 | R3P
60.6 BGR_MP_N
31.2 HUN_Lengyel_LN
8.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: BGR_EBA:I2165
Distance: 0.8419% / 0.00841909 | R3P
47.0 BGR_MP_N
34.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
19.0 HUN_Starcevo_N
Baden-Boleraz has always been considered as a derivative of the Cernavodă culture, which in turn goes back to the Suvorovo group of the Sredniy Stog culture. Baden is a continuation of Boleraz.
Target: BGR_Varna_C:ANI159-ANI181
Distance: 0.8718% / 0.00871770 | R3P
65.8 HUN_LBK_MN
28.8 BGR_MP_N
5.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
“ Cernavodă culture, which in turn goes back to the Suvorovo group ”
ReplyDeleteNot really. There is a notable hiatus between the 2 groups , no overlap
“ Baden is a continuation of Boleraz”
Yes & no. There’s a lot more to it. Different lineage different ideologies
“ Usatovo culture (Coţofeni culture) ”
Cotofeni is completely different to Usatavo.
Eveything you state is false. Just ramblings of an armchair amateur who learned some ancient history in 1973
"and, in the end, it won't change the big picture(indo-Aryans coming from the CWC) at all."
ReplyDeleteEvidence, or lack thereof, never matters to propaganda or propagandists. So there I agree with you, you will never change your belief.
@Rob
ReplyDelete“It’s gone, the only people left with the delusion that PIE just appeared out of nowhere are Archie and David Anthony
Been watching too many Chingiz Khan movies”
It is all very complex and confusing. I did a lot of comparative studies on IE influences in early Rigveda, in Orphico-Pythagorean and Slavic religions. By IE influences I mean what is common in them and probably from the same early source.
There are such common elements and there was a common early source but what is important that early source religion was not primitive at all. I don’t think it came from männerbünde or jungmannschaf wolf-skin cloaks wearing steppe proto-Celto-Germanic warriors of David Anthony.
Maybe it was from Vinca, as Alinei thinks, or Tripolye or LBK/TRB? I don’t know. Looks like advanced peaceful civilization.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"Everybody except you now understands that these are demographically distinct groups. Neither derives from one another ."
I strictly showed that there was an influense, you are refuted in all the articles.
And otherwise you lie
Copper ProtoBoleráz Hungary Abony [I2791 / GEN63] 3658-3384 calBCE (4800±40 BP, Poz-82206) M mtDNA U5a1c1
Copper Baden Hungary Balatonlelle [I2753 / GEN22] 3332-2929 calBCE (4440±35 BP, Poz-88231) M mtDNA U5a1
"You have tried to deny the role of Central Europe in the origins of wheels and failed, then you tried to claim that they are in fact from the steppe & failed. I don’t know if you are simply too stupid, or have deeply set problems. Probably both; but your posts are almost always contemptuous of evidence"
It is you who have been refuted on all counts, you have completely failed with your anti-scientific delirium. You are 100% disproved, I have proven everything 100%. There is no role for Central Europe in the origin of the wheels, this is a strictly scientific fact. I am completely right, you are completely wrong and you will not be able to pass off white as black and black as white. These are freaks like you who lie on Wikipedia and no one checks anything there, I know for sure that you are absolutely stupid and do not write anything but lies. In no post in your life have you ever given a single proof of your false words. I always back up all my words with evidence, so you are only spoons because you have nothing to do but lie to pass black for white.
....
"Not really. There is a notable hiatus between the 2 groups , no overlap"
You do not understand the topics in which you write at all. You have absolutely no knowledge of archeology or genetics.
Target: BGR_Late_C:I2430
Distance: 0.6195% / 0.00619550 | R3P
58.8 HUN_Koros_N
34.2 BGR_MP_N
7.0 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Target: BGR_Late_C:I2424
Distance: 1.0878% / 0.01087765 | R3P
52.2 HUN_Lengyel_LN
39.4 HUN_LBK_MN
8.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
Copper Copper Age tell Bulgaria Smyadovo [I2430 / 40] 4545-4450 calBCE M R1b1a [L754]
Copper Copper Age tell Bulgaria Smyadovo [I2181] 4550-4455 calBCE M R
"Cotofeni is completely different to Usatavo."
Lies, shame, at least look in into your Wikipedia from which you only get information before being so disgraced.
"Eveything you state is false." You are uneducated and do not know anything, but you have the audacity to write lies.
Continuité génétique des populations anciennes et récentes d’Asie Centrale
ReplyDeleteGenetic continuity between ancient and recent populations in Central Asia
Since prehistoric times, South Central Asia has been a region at the crossroads of movements of people, cultures and goods. Today Central Asia is populated by populations divided into two cultural and linguistic groups: the Indo-Iranian group and the Turco-Mongolian group.
The establishment of a genetic database on these populations made it possible to study their genetic structure by highlighting the migration of populations from East Asia at the origin of the diffusion of Turkish languages. -Mongoles and the partial replacement of the Indo-Iranian populations. Little is known about the origin of the latter. To clarify it, we compare genetic data on current populations obtained in our laboratory with the growing number of published ancient genomes.
Using PCRs, F3 statistics and D-statistics, we have shown that the Central Asian populations of the Indo-Iranian group show strong genetic continuity with the Iron Age samples from Turkmenistan. nistan and Tajikistan. We model, with qpAdm, these populations as resulting from a crossbreeding of 93% of individuals of the Iron Age of Turkmenistan and of 7% of individuals of East Asia.
But where do these Iron Age populations come from? The study of the Iron Age samples from Central Asia, reveals that contrary to what has been suggested by archaeological data, the steppe populations which migrated and interbreeded in the Oxus civilization are genetically closer to the western steppes (eg Srubnaya) than to the central steppes (eg Andronovo). Despite strong cultural influence from Achaemenid Persia, no Iranian gene flow in Iron Age individuals is observed. Our results therefore suggest that the history of Central Asia and its population is complex but shows remarkable continuity since the Iron Age.
page S18
https://www.sapweb.fr/images/Rsums_SAP_2021.pdf
@J.S.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ibb.co/6nqSrNh/Kuzmina-2008.png
''But where do these Iron Age populations come from? The study of the Iron Age samples from Central Asia, reveals that contrary to what has been suggested by archaeological data, the steppe populations which migrated and interbreeded in the Oxus civilization are genetically closer to the western steppes (eg Srubnaya) than to the central steppes (eg Andronovo). ''
ReplyDeleteWorth exploring. As I said, Scythians arent from Inner Asia !
@J.S.
ReplyDeletehttps://i.ibb.co/6nqSrNh/Kuzmina-2008.png
It is now finally clear that Kuzmina was right.
Indo-Aryans come from the Fedorovo and Alekseevo types of the Andronovo culture.
Northern Iranians (Scythians) come from the Fedorovo type of the Andronovo culture and the Karasuk culture derived from Andronovo.
Southern Iranians come from the Alakul and Srubno-Alakul types of the Andronovo culture.
Indo-Aryans were those who left Central Asia before 1000BC, those who remained were Iranians, they began to settle from Central Asia after 1000BC.
The reason for this was explained by Zarathushtra. In the steppe there was a permanent war for resources, this war was fiercely hated by Zarathushtra. The reason for it was understandable, it was economic, the only way to get rich in the steppe was to steal cattle, but it was pure robbery, which naturally was a morally condemned matter, and in order to justify it, a religious split occurred in the steppe. In the religion of the Indo-European there were ancient gods (gods of the cloudy sky and night) and young gods (of the bright sky and day), who were called Asuras / Ahura and Devas / Daevas for the Indo-Aryans / Iranians, respectively. The Iranians sided with the Ahuras who won in Central Asia, and the Indo-Aryans sided with Devas, but without fanaticism. Zarathushtra hated this confrontation so much that he called the ancient religion evil and invented a new religion based on BMAC.
This path, and for the same economic reasons of an eternal plundering war, will be followed by the Turks.
@ Archie
ReplyDelete“ BGR_Late_C:I2430”
Has nothing to do with Boleraz, nor does it change the fact that there is a steppe hiatus
This is the known minor immigrants of Suvorovo culture into Bulgaria and Transylvania
“ "Cotofeni is completely different to Usatavo."
Lies, shame, at least look in into your Wikipedia from which you only get information before being so disgraced”
“Usatavo -Cotofeni” is a generic chronological umbrella term. The 2 cultures are different, with different genetics.
“ I always back up all my words with evidence, ”
Lol . The evidence irrevocably refutes your old-wives tails. But you’re in complete denial
@Rob
ReplyDelete“Usatavo -Cotofeni” is a generic chronological umbrella term. The 2 cultures are different, with different genetics."
You, as always, are in your repertoire, fantasize and lie and don't blush. you cannot know anything about the genetics of Coțofeni and Usatovo, since it is not known to anyone, there are no publications. You don't even have the mind to avoid such a grotesque banal lie.
At least you could have looked at your Wikipedia before shamefully fantasizing https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Co%C8%9Bofeni_culture
you have never written here at least something that has not been refuted science.
@ East Pole
ReplyDeleteThere is little point in critiquing old narratives , e.g. of Gimbutas, because they were framed within the climate of their time. But current scholars who maintain old errors are fair game. The key link is hunter-gatherers which connected the old Neolithic world , adapted key elements whilst maintaining their own identity (& language). When the old system collapsed (seems like a large-scale catasgtrophe effecting from anatolia to parts of Europe ~ 4200 BC), the adapted hunter-gatherer systems and post-Neolithic frontier societies filled the gap. They re-vitalised the region, not destroyed it.
@ Archie
There is no need to continually advertise your ignorance.
Usatavo is a pit-grave culture in the grass/ steppe lands in the NW Black Sea
Cotofeni buried their dead in caves and flat cemeteries in Transylvania & northern Serbia, sometimes dismembered parts. Only in the final stages did it have tumuli, and then it was on flat ground (no pit), under the influence of GAC. Its material culture links to baden, Kostolac. Its genome will be like Baden, Kostolac.
You are barealy literate on Russian archaeology, whlst your knowledge on other regions is negative; negative because not only are you uninformed, but you militantly mandate your ignorance as bible.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteIt is a fact that you did not finish elementary school. You have never on this forum, under all your hundreds of nicknames, brought a single proof of your words, all your statements are just an empty set of categorical words only of your personal shameful fantasies without a single proof, but they are all refuted without options.
You absolutely do not understand any archeology, this is a proven fact, you do not know anything in archeology. And in genetics, you do not understand anything at all and do not know, you are not able to understand or do anything there. Therefore, you shamefully never once brought any archaeological or genetic arguments here. Everything that you write is only your naked fantasies of an ignorant person, militant ignorance.
I gave an endless number of proofs of my words and with calculations in genetics and with links to sources in archeology, you are not the only one.
@Vladimir
"But I also think it's Volosovo"
Before Volosovo
Eneolithic Ust-Kama type Russia Murzikhinsky II, Tatarstan [MUR009] 4550-4400 BC Q-L472>F1096>F746*
@archi
ReplyDelete"It is now finally clear that Kuzmina was right"
Lol do you know that Kuzmina believed Swat people to be Indo aryans? Now you can conveniently change your beliefs after the aDna is out showing female mediation of steppe ancestry and almost missing R1a.
Quote from Origin of Indo aryans, pg 313
" E. E. Kuz’mina (1972; 1974; 1975) sought parallels to the Swat materials in Tulkhar and suggested that these peoples were Indo-Aryans, as it had been previously stated by A. M. Mandel’shtam (1968) who had compared the burial rites of the cemetery of Tulkhar with the data from the Vedic funeral rituals. "
Kuzmina has been wrong many a times. example this from pg 268
"The Andronovo provenance of the fire-cult and the cremation rite is beyond
dispute. Bustan’s type of fires and crematoria goes back to the cult constructions discovered in the Fedorovo-type cemetery of Kinzerskiy in the southern Urals"
Too bad there was zilch steppe ancestry in Bustan aDna from the same site.
How about this?
DeleteTarget: UZB_Bustan_BA:I4157
Distance: 4.0874% / 0.04087445
65.0 IRN_Wezmeh_N
23.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
9.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
1.4 KAZ_Botai
1.0 TUR_Barcin_N
@fvAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteLol
рsychic liar, do not lie . Kuzmina never considered everyone in Swat to be Indo-Aryans, she always wrote about the complex nature of Swat. She always wrote that Indo-Aryans are only those that were cremated, and the rest are not Indo-Aryans. Exactly everything is accurate, in Swat the Vedic rite of cremation.
Stop lying liar you are disgusting. You are not adequate. Kuzmina wrote about Swat in passing only a few times in her life, finding exactly the parallels there, but never claimed that Swat was completely Indo-Aryans, here is actually her longest last (1994) text about Swat (one sentence):
"The progress of pastoral tribes to the south - to northwestern Hindustan-
is recorded by the materials of the Gomal and Swat burial grounds, the culture
of which reflects the interaction of the Bishkek and Andronovo components [Mandelstam, 1968; Litvinsky, 1981; Pyankova, 19826; Kuzmina, 1972a; 19726; 1975b].
The skulls from the Timargarh burial ground are a northern archaic rough massive type that has no analogies in the Indo-Trans-Asian region, close to the type of Tajikistan of the second millennium BC and the type of the Saks of the Pamirs [Bernhard, 1967, p. 376].
The similarity to the Timargarh skulls of the Tigrovaya Balka burial ground notes and T. P. Kiyatkina [1976, p. 23-25], bringing the latter closer to the Srubnaya and
Tazabagyab ones, but also emphasizing their difference (the great narrowness of the Tajik ones)"
Due to the immense confusion of Swat in her books, it does not play any kind and is almost never mentioned.
The Andronovo origin of the cult of fire and cremation was proved and Kuzmina was right, and Bustan simply borrowed them from the steppe inhabitants of Andronovo. So you can break off.
"She always wrote that Indo-Aryans are only those that were cremated, and the rest are not Indo-Aryans. "
ReplyDeleteLol. Exact source please. Hahaha
There's no Steppe_MBA or Steppe_EBA in BMAC or related cluster. They do pick some Steppe signal on G25 but the best source is Progress and/or Kumsay. It can be filled with Eneolithic Central Asian sources.
ReplyDeleteTarget: UZB_Bustan_BA:I4157
Distance: 3.2172% / 0.03217203
38.6 IRN_Wezmeh_N
26.8 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
22.0 RUS_Progress_En
12.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
0.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 KAZ_Botai
0.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 TUR_Barcin_N
Target: UZB_Bustan_BA:I4157
Distance: 3.1394% / 0.03139379
31.6 IRN_Seh_Gabi_C
29.8 TKM_Geoksyur_En
23.2 TJK_Sarazm_En
12.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
2.8 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 GEO_CHG
0.0 KAZ_Botai
0.0 KAZ_Kumsay_EBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 TUR_Barcin_N
@fvAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteLol.
Do not freak out, you absolutely do not know what Kuzmina wrote and what she claimed. Here's what she wrote in 1972:
"J. Stakul allocated three consecutive chronological groups in the Swat's burials. In the first period, cremation prevails, there are rated solitary burials; Ceramics made by hand and has red and gray surface. The II period is characterized by the predominance of rates (sometimes paired) corpses, ceramics made on a circle and has a gray surface of the surface. In the III period, all burials are committed on the burial rite, ceramics made on a pottery circle and has Red surface. Iron things have found in the graves. These findings of iron are important for determining the age of burials. Terminus Antequem for Swat's burial grounds is the Buddhist period, since Buddhist materials overlap the area of the Butcker's II burial ground."
"Among the ceramics of the Swat burial grounds, a number of forms (and not imported ceremonial ones, but domestic ones) find complete analogies in the ceramics of the Tulkhar burial ground.
Especially significant similarity with Talgar complex forms lanai ceramic burial Kherai J. Stacul which considers the earliest, synchronous IV period settlement Khalighi.
Thus, all the leading types of ceramics are represented in the south of Central Asia in Swat.
Metal products of the Swat also find some analogies in the south of Central Asia: leaf-shaped and with parallel blades of the petiole there are also knives-spears similar to the Tulkhar and Namazga chens analogs to beads, the spatula-shaped pins are similar to those of Tulkhar, Zamanbaba, and Namazga;
Finally, the flat schematic female statuettes of the Matchmaker resemble a statuette from the Zaman Baba burial ground. Special attention deserves a comparative analysis of the burial rite of the burial of Swat and South of Tajikistan, as it seems to us that the funeral rite, does not depend directly on production activities of the team, the most conservative and therefore, it is able to persist for a long time even in conditions of migration. Neither the construction of the catacombs and undercuts or cremation for crops Iran II-the beginning of I thousand BC are not typical. On the contrary, in Tajikistan, the design of the burial chambers of the Swat finds complete analogies in the Tulkhar burial ground, where A. M. Mandelstam distinguishes the same three types as in the Swat: a pit with a recess, a pit with a descent, a catacomb with a dromos. In both areas, stone is widely used in the construction of graves, which is used to construct the surface markings, the overlap of the pits, boxes. Burial grounds are biritual, there are paired and triple burials.
Practiced the ritual burial of animals: in Tulkhar found the bones of sheep, in Katilai sheep and horses.
Thus, between the burial grounds of the Bishkent culture of Tajikistan and the burial grounds of Swat, there is a coincidence of most of the cultural determining factors: the shapes of vessels, ornaments and details of the funeral rite. The set of features of the burial grounds of two groups gives us reason to raise the question of their cultural affinity and it allows a new approach to the problem of the origin and ethnicity of media culture burial grounds Swat."
"Kinship of burial grounds Swat and Bishkent allows you to see in the carriers of the Swat culture of ancient Indians who came to Hindustan through Central Asia. This
conclusion, obtained on the basis of archaeological materials, is consistent
with the data of linguists, suggesting a move through the Central Asia of several waves of Indo-Aryan tribes."
In Swat
ancient Indians = inhumation = the Bishkent culture = Dasa or Shudra
Vedic Indo-Aryan = cremation = the Andronovo culture
Buddhist period = inhumation
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteI have to agree with Archi, you are inadequate, and a liar.
@archi
ReplyDelete"The Andronovo origin of the cult of fire and cremation was proved and Kuzmina was right, and Bustan simply borrowed them from the steppe inhabitants of Andronovo. So you can break off."
I dont think you understand how scientific evidence works, and is quite clear from the spewed nonsense you frequently display here.
Theory - Bustan culture is from andronovo.
Evidence: New aDna data shows no steppe_mlba ancestry in Bustan. aDna profile at Bustan is same as that of BMAC. ie. complete genetic continuity.
Conclusion - original theory of Andronovo provenance is proved false and extremely weak.
As far as your bullshit about Swat goes -
There is inhumation AS WELL as cremation urns burials in THE SAME GRAVE. So the bullshit about cremated = aryan, buried = slave is dogshit.
"On record are single, double and collective graves, primary and secondary interments, and the co-occurrence of cremation (absent in the newly excavated sites) and inhumation rituals.
From
VIDALE M., MICHELI R. 2017. Protohistoric graveyards of the Swat Valley, Pakistan: new light on funerary practices and absolute chronology.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315812727_VIDALE_M_MICHELI_R_2017_Protohistoric_graveyards_of_the_Swat_Valley_Pakistan_new_light_on_funerary_practices_and_absolute_chronology_Antiquity_91_356_389-405
"From the recalibration of the radiocarbon measurements of the protohistoric cemeteries in Dir and Swat valleys, we now know that both the cremation burials and inhumations were present right from the beginning to the end of the protohistoric cemeteries. This continuity of the protohistoric burial practices and cemeteries is not accounted for within both the IsMEO and the UoP models, which have fixed ideas of time, burial practices and
geographical distribution. Thus, it may be suggested that both the IsMEO and UoPchronological frameworks are inadequate in the study of the protohistoric cemeteries andthat a new chronological framework (based on radiocarbon measurements) is needed ..."
from The “Gandhara Grave Culture”: New Perspectives on Protohistoric Cemeteries in Northern and Northwestern Pakistan
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301336720_The_Gandhara_Grave_Culture_New_Perspectives_on_Protohistoric_Cemeteries_in_Northern_and_Northwestern_Pakistan
If we follow Kuzmina that the population of the Swat valley with inhumation burials, which were Dasa and Shudras, comes from the Bishkent culture of South Tajikistan, then the contradiction between the time of their steppe component appearance of 1700-1500BC by IBD segments at Narasimhan and the time of appearance of Indo-Aryans in Swat after 1300BC is removed.
ReplyDelete@fAsiSTha
"I dont think you understand how scientific evidence works, and is quite clear from the spewed nonsense you frequently display here.
Theory - Bustan culture is from andronovo."
Stop lying. Nobody ever wrote that Bustan is from Andronovo. There has never been such a theory. All only asserted that in late Bustan (after the tested samples) there is a cultural influence of the Andronovo steppe inhabitants who lived near it. You are a disgusting freak who always lies in disgustingly unscientific lies and also lies about other people because you lack the brains and honesty to admit that you are a liar.
"As far as your bullshit about Swat goes - There is inhumation AS WELL as cremation urns burials in THE SAME GRAVE. So the bullshit about cremated = aryan, buried = slave is dogshit."
Stop lying, inadequate fool. Learn to read, in your link there is absolutely no statement that you fantasized for yourself in "On record are single, double and collective graves, primary and secondary interments, and the co-occurrence of cremation (absent in the newly excavated sites) and inhumation rituals".
Learn to read: "From the recalibration of the radiocarbon measurements of the protohistoric cemeteries in Dir and Swat valleys, we now know that both the cremation burials and inhumations were present right from the beginning to the end of the protohistoric cemeteries."
Prehistoric this is the pre-Buddhist time. In Kuzmina's text it is written that the inhumation "writhed solitary burials" are present from the very beginning of stage I. J. Stakul wrote it until 1972. Since then, nothing has changed, only the intervals and frequencies have been clarified.
vAsiSTha has a typical troll style, he comes up with something that no one has ever claimed, and then happily refutes it in hundreds of messages of an endless troll them.
ReplyDeleteHeh.
ReplyDeleteTarget: Belarusian
Distance: 1.1334% / 0.01133406
56.8 Baltic_EST_BA
32.4 SRB_Mokrin_EBA
10.8 POL_EBA
Target: Ukrainian
Distance: 1.3060% / 0.01306004
46.0 Baltic_EST_BA
37.4 SRB_Mokrin_EBA
16.6 POL_EBA
Target: Polish
Distance: 0.9003% / 0.00900277
44.0 SRB_Mokrin_EBA
42.8 Baltic_EST_BA
13.2 POL_EBA
Models have to be historically plausible.
ReplyDeleteWhat are the chances that Poles and Ukrainians have ancestry from any ancient population from Estonia or surrounds? I'd say zero.
@Arza
ReplyDeleteModeling Slavs without CWC is not comme il faut.
Estonia 1000-800BC cannot even have any direct relation to the Slavs.
@supernord
ReplyDelete"In Swat
ancient Indians = inhumation = the Bishkent culture = Dasa or Shudra
Vedic Indo-Aryan = cremation = the Andronovo culture
Buddhist period = inhumation"
I know you can't read but this is even more retarded than your claim of the Uzboy drying 1500BCE and Novosvobodnaya being from the steppe even though it's entirely J2.
Here's what Kuzmina says about Bishkent:
"A. M. Mandel’shtam (1968: 131-141) conducted a systematic analysis of the funeral practice of the Bishkent (Vakhsh) culture and demonstrated specific correspondences with Indo-Aryan practices. He viewed the Bishkent culture as cattle raising,
coming from the north-west in transit to India, and he noted its similarity to the
Andronovo culture. B. A. Litvinsky (1964: 158; 1967: 122-126) connected this
culture with the Nuristani languages and showed its analogies in Swat. E. E.
Kuz’mina (1972 a: 134-143; 1972b: 116-121; 1974: 188-193; 1975: 64-7) emphasized the Indo-Iranian attribution of the culture, its connection with Swat and
Gomal and the participation of the Zamanbaba and Andronovo components in its
formation" & "These characteristic features are found in a number of steppe cultures in the
2nd millenium BC. A. M. Mandel’shtam demonstrated some specific convergences between the Bishkent culture and the Indo-Aryan one and he showed their
connection with Andronovo rituals. Among a number of specific Indo-Aryan–
Andronovo correspondences are: the construction of a round or rectangular
enclosure, a frame-work inside the grave of stone or wood, the dead laying head
to the west with face to the south towards the kingdom of the dead, and, what is
more important, cremation (Gonda 1962; Tiwari 1979). The convergence of
Indo-Aryan ritual with Andronovo and especially with Fedorovo bears a systemic character and speaks not for just individual traits but a whole constellation
of characteristics. Thus, the analysis of the burial rite of representatives of some
of the archaeological cultures of the Eurasian steppes confirms the hypothesis of
an Indo-Iranian homeland in this zone. The specific complex of correspondences
between the Bishkent and Andronovo, especially Fedorovo, ritual with IndoAryan hints at the possible connection of these groups of the Indo-Iranian
continuum with the Indo-Aryans."
"Of decisive importance is the evidence concerning the burial rite. The early
monuments of the Bishkent culture maintain the characteristic features of the
Andronovo Fedorovo burial tradition: burial mound, enclosure, stone cist,
cremation, swastika, and the hand-made ceramics. "
Kuz'mina's entire theory is that the Swat Indo-Aryans came from Bishkent.
According to supernord, Indo-Aryans did some DNA tests to make sure they were cremating all the R1a dudes LOL. Sorry, but we have to look at J2 for the genesis of Indo-Iranians.
"You are a disgusting freak who always lies in disgustingly unscientific lies and also lies about other people because you lack the brains and honesty to admit that you are a liar."
ReplyDeleteHahahaha I love the Archman!
@ambron
ReplyDeleteWhere did you find that model for NIEcap2? Do you have an idea where I can find his or her admixture results it was based on?
@ambron
ReplyDelete"genomes from O'Sullivan's paper. Have you seen? The most Slavic one on the PCA has Avar's maternal great-grandfather (Lukas's model)"
You seem to know something I would like to know. So Lukasz made a model too? So he must have some admixture data for this sample and hopefully for some others too. Where can I find it?
What is to say that purely Baltic Bronze Age groups did not exist further south as well? Turlojiškė individuals from Lithuania are possibly Trzcieniec related after all and they're pretty much run of the mill Baltic BA individuals.
ReplyDelete@archi
ReplyDelete"Stop lying. Nobody ever wrote that Bustan is from Andronovo"
The literal quote from our hero Kuzmina is pasted above. She writes
"Bustan’s type of fires and crematoria goes back to the cult constructions discovered in the Fedorovo-type cemetery of Kinzerskiy in the southern Urals"
Kindly eat your words and apologize.
Mokrin Serbia EBA is mix between Western Yamnaya and Tollense Valley-related pops.
ReplyDelete@0.013
Croat BA: 41%
Vucedol: 16%
Welzin_BA: 43%
Gets fit down to 0.004 with ancient pops included. Hungary EF, Yamnaya, Hungary BA/Welzin.
Y DNA I2a came from "Tollense Valley-related"
Y DNA R1b Z2103, J2b2a came from Western Yamnaya.
Not saying J2b2a is of Steppe origin. But it did exist in Bronze age descendants of Western Yamnaya.
Quick PCA using Mokrin samples and ancient samples from Eastern Europe, with present day Poland and Ireland for context: https://imgur.com/a/kPGevax
ReplyDeleteIncluded some Vahaduo plots that tell the same story.
(I've used most ancient samples from Eastern Europe that is west of Russia, east of East Germany, roughly from the beginning of Steppe ancestry in Eastern Europe. Excluding samples with identifiable East Asian, or v high EEF/ HG ancestry outside the Baltic_BA. Samples included: https://pastebin.com/yRcknxp4 ; Samples excluded: https://pastebin.com/i39G10Yg).
Vary from being like HUN_Mako_EBA to samples to samples that fit better on European cline.
If you pick the more "Northern" (PCA wise) SRB_Mokrin sample subset (MOK22, MOK23, MOK21A, MOK28A, MOK19A, MOK30), who are HUN_Mako_EBA like, then you *might* be able to fit some present day East European samples with a two-way model with some other sets (like the POL_CWC set N47 and N49).
@Norfern
ReplyDeleteThe BA samples from Lithuania are clearly different from those from Estonia and even Latvia.
@ copper axe
ReplyDelete“ Hahahaha I love the Archman!”
Probably because you’re both retarded