search this blog

Wednesday, March 31, 2021

Against the conventional wisdom


I've read some very strange theories over the years trying to explain who was responsible for the so called Caucasus/Iranian-related ancestry in the Yamnaya people.

Proto-Indo-European speaking farmers from what is now Iran? How about Uruk invaders from Mesopotamia? No, wait, they were migrants from India who spoke Sanskrit. Haha.

Nope, it seems that hunter-gatherers rich in this type of ancestry lived north of the Caucasus already during the so called Pottery Neolithic or even the Mesolithic. That's the impression that I'm getting from watching the clip HERE.

This is basically also the idea that I gradually developed at this blog during the last few years, following common sense and logic, but totally against the conventional wisdom in regards to this topic. For instance, see here...

But here's my prediction: Steppe_EMBA only has 10-15% admixture from the post-Mesolithic Near East not including the North Caucasus, and basically all of this comes via female mediated gene flow from farming communities in the Caucasus and perhaps present-day Ukraine.
Modeling Steppe_EMBA

Of course, I could've done better with many of the details in my posts, like the dates and archeological links. But hey, at least I was smart enough to ignore the conventional wisdom.

I can't wait for the new ancient samples from the Pontic-Caspian steppe that David Anthony featured in his talks recently. Once I have them we'll be able to work out the details here for ourselves.

See also...

Ahead of the pack

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

148 comments:

Davidski said...

Is David Anthony still pushing that Out-of-Iran by boat theory for these CHG-rich foragers?

Andrzejewski said...

If he’s doing it then it’s likely because of his collaboration with MIT Broad Reich’s lab.

My idea is that EHG and CHG groups met at Progress, developed a brand new language (not certain on details and technicality) as a lingua franca and also owing to a new lifestyle, and this group spread north.

Yamnaya developed differently, similar to Sredny Stog because of a strong farmer influence from the west.

That’s what I think has happened.

vAsiSTha said...

Apart from the the 2 khvalynsk samples, the khvalynsk outlier and the progress vonyuchka samples cannot be modelled as ehg+chg. Harvard doesn't claim so because it rightly sees the problems there (ie the models don't work). You need an Iran component apart from some chg and they're figuring out to best present this.. maybe they're waiting for more older samples from the namazga region

Davidski said...

Yamnaya isn't a EHG/CHG mix, it's largely derived from this Mesolithic steppe population plus some EEF.

That's why you're still confused.

There was no migration from Iran or Central Asia bringing CHG with it.

CrM said...

G25 always detects some Iranian-related signal in Steppe Eneolithic even if you cut them all into several main components. We all came to the conclusion that the CHG ancestry in Steppe Eneolithic isn't quite like Satsurblia or KK, but what exactly distinguishes them and why is there a greater affinity to Iran_N in the Steppe CHG?

Target: CHG_Satsurblia
Distance: 3.8806% / 0.03880621
49.0 CHG_Basal-related
31.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3
13.2 WHG
3.4 AASI
3.0 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
0.0 Iran_Basal-related*

Target: IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
Distance: 3.1979% / 0.03197908
38.2 RUS_AfontovaGora3
23.2 Iran_Basal-related*
19.8 CHG_Basal-related
9.4 AASI
8.2 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
1.2 WHG

Target: Vonyuchka_CHG
Distance: 6.6989% / 0.06698915
39.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3
38.8 CHG_Basal-related
9.4 Iran_Basal-related*
6.8 WHG
5.6 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
0.0 AASI

Target: Vonyuchka_CHG
Distance: 7.0025% / 0.07002513
64.4 GEO_KK
34.2 Hotu_-AASI*
1.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 CHG_Satsurblia
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 WHG


Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En
Distance: 6.0681% / 0.06068053
52.4 RUS_AfontovaGora3
22.4 CHG_Basal-related
16.4 WHG
4.6 Iran_Basal-related*
4.2 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
0.0 AASI

Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En
Distance: 3.9914% / 0.03991450
43.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
36.8 GEO_KK
19.4 Hotu_-AASI*
0.0 CHG_Satsurblia
0.0 IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 WHG


Another thing is that Lazaridis' rough CHG model basically puts it on a cline between Iran_N and EHG. Do you agree that there's EHG ancestry in CHG?

Davidski said...

It seems that you guys are having a hard time realizing that genetic variation can't be cut up into neat components like CHG, EHG, Iranian farmers, etc.

In reality, there were many different near and far related populations that often formed clines in all sorts of ways for different reasons.

So no, there's no EHG in CHG. This is just an artifact of not having the correct reference samples. There's also no Iranian farmer input in the Eneolithic steppe populations.

CrM said...

OK, there's no Iranian farmer in Eneolithic Steppe, but did the CHG in the Eneolithic Steppe formed a cline between CHG and Iranian farmers?

Davidski said...

I'll tell you when someone actually sequences the populations that were ancestral to the Bereznovka and related peoples, if that's actually possible.

It doesn't really matter anyway, because it's not any type of CHG that we're dealing with here, but a much older version of Eneolithic steppe that already lived at the same time as CHG.

CrM said...

@Davidski
It matters because the said CHG group that moved to the Steppe may have not been the Colchian/West Georgian one. This is an important detail because it might suggest a migration route and give us a dating hint.

Satsurblia is 12k BC and more or less identical to KK which is 8k BC, both aren't a good match for the Steppe CHG. But both are an excellent match for whatever CHG ancestry Neolithic Caucasians and their descendants have.

So, what exactly goes against the narrative that the CHG offshoot that mixed with EHG to create Steppe Eneolithic (be it a much older version) was from the Caspian? Specifically from Gobustan since we know it hosted a HG population that was contemporary to Colchian CHGs. Iranian HGs akin to Hotu wouldn't live too far so it would explain the Iran_N affinity in Steppe.

Iran_N was a very important population, probably more so than CHG, and if they finally prove that there is a shared link between Steppe, CHG and Iranians via the Caspian, then it would be a big blow to the Steppe hypothesis.

We already know about several J lineages in Karelia, Popovo and Steppe related populations, and recently you've mentioned some upcoming J Steppe Eneolithic samples. So if the defining and original Steppe Population had a strong prevalence of non EHG Y-DNA then this could be used to reinforce the PIE-CHG-Iran_N linguistic affinity.
Because as I've wrote in the previous thread - you have two options, either PIE is from Steppe Eneolithic or from some Ukr_N-like population, and if the latter is correct then it could imply that Yamnaya, or at least Yamnaya Caucasus, wasn't PIE speaking.

Davidski said...

Your thinking about this is way too narrow.

We don't know if CHG moved to the steppe. There may never have been any CHG people on the steppe.

Instead, the Mesolithic Bereznovka/Progress/Yamnaya-like populations may have formed via long-lasting contacts between CHG-related and EHG-related populations in the North Caucasus area.

This may have happened during the Upper Paleolithic already, and it's even possible that most of the groups derived from this process went extinct without a trace, so that it might never be possible to connect all the dots.

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

Would you say that the steppe_emba profile arose due to eneolithic populations with low and high amounts of this CHG-like ancestry mixing, or was this more due to them coming from a population on a preexisting cline from EHG to EHG+CHG populations which already was in mature form during the Neolithic?

CrM said...

@Davidski

North Caucasus wasn't very inhabitable in the Upper Paleolithic. You have sites in Abkhazia, which isn't exactly North Caucasus proper and the population that inhabited it should have been similar to Satsurblia or KK.
There's also Mesolithic Chokh in Dagestan, which was possibly linked with Gobustan either way.

I doubt that such population, if it existed in the Western Caucasus would go extinct because Satsurblia is quite old and was probably part of the very first CHG wave into the Caucasus, then you have KK which is almost identical to Satsurblia.
Another option is some Eastern CHG variety with a greater link with Hotu. And if they're the CHG contributor that we speak of, then you could say they did make it to the Steppe since their Y-DNA was found in several EHG and Steppe populations.

Archi said...

@CrM
"G25 always detects some Iranian-related signal in Steppe Eneolithic even if you cut them all into several main components."

Steppe Eneolithic is an extremely unfortunate name, it is only Progress/Vonyuchka. The correct name is Cis-Caucasus Eneolithic. Progress/Vonyuchka has influence from the neighboring Darkveti-Meshoko, but Progress/Vonyuchka has nothing to do with the Steppe populations. It was not the source of the CHG in either the Yamnaya or CWC.

Steppe cultures do not originate from Cis-Caucasus and their populations do not originate from Cis-Caucasus. Progress/Vonyuchka are isolated.

Davidski said...

@CrM

https://meso2020.sciencesconf.org/325710/document

Davidski said...

@Copper Axe

I've been thinking that a homogeneous Vonyuchka-like, or even Yamnaya-like, population already existed during the Neolithic or even Mesolithic, and I guess the Bereznovka data suggest that this is correct.

Ric Hern said...

@ CrM

There is still Kammenaya Balka to consider...Late Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Archaeologicaly linked to the Caucasus....

Archi said...

Remember, the Caucasus has always been a very backward territory, all the changes there have always occurred with a noticeable delay, sometimes many thousands of years, there have always been few people. The only exception is the Bronze Age, two bright flashes - the Maikop culture and the Trialeti culture associated with the uniqueness of the Caucasus in the sense of mining Bronze, after which again comes the darkness of stagnation.

Archi said...

@Davidski
"I've been thinking that a homogeneous Vonyuchka-like, or even Yamnaya-like, population already existed during the Neolithic or even Mesolithic, and I guess the Bereznovka data suggest that this is correct."

Berezhnovka is unlikely to give such a result, the earliest burials there belong to the Eneolithic Khvalynsk time.

CrM said...

@Davidski

Chygai, Sosruko and Gubsky are evidently from the same batch as Abkhazian Upper Paleolithic and ultimately Colchis. There were several distinct CHG types - Black Sea and Imeretian, which is the Western variety to which Satsurblia and KK fall to, and Eastern variety - Trialeti and Chokh.
The latter has a stronger link with Iran_N and the Caspian, and might ultimately be the source of CHG in Steppe Eneolithic.

@Archi
Darkveti-Meshoko has the Colchian CHG type which is unrelated to Progress and Vonyuchka.
And I wouldn't say there was a period of technological stagnation in the Caucasus after Trialeti Bronze Age, not with the Koban culture, and the later Colchian and Urartian cultures.

Archi said...

@CrM
"Darkveti-Meshoko has the Colchian CHG type which is unrelated to Progress and Vonyuchka."

This statement is completely incomprehensible, it is taken from somewhere in the sky.

"And I wouldn't say there was a period of technological stagnation in the Caucasus after Trialeti Bronze Age, not with the Koban culture, and the later Colchian and Urartian cultures."

Koban culture is Ciscaucasian, Urartu is Transcaucasian. Well, the Colchian culture is an unremarkable culture, complete darkness, the only thing connected with Greece.

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

Thanks. I was thinking of the situation on the lower Don you mentioned to me before, with samples which had varying amounts of EHG to CHG related ancestry.

I had a scenario in mind you would've had populations with more than 50% CHG-related ancestry on the southern (southeastern) side, with more EHG shifted profiles further up north.

These then mix (perhaps nearly 50/50 contributions from both sided) and as a result you had a fairly homogenous 35-40% CHG carrying steppe_emba (perhaps minus the farmer ancestry) populations.

But we could also be dealing with a population increase of a population which had already been Yamnaya-like for thousands of years as you pointed out.

If so, which region do you suspect it will be?

CrM said...

@Preslav

The only incomprehensible thing on this forum is your constant passive aggressive pedantism. Why even mention "Ciscaucasian" and "Transcaucasian" when you originally just wrote "Caucasus"?

Darkveti-Meshoko evidently has a contribution from KK, which is unrelated to the CHG found in Steppe Eneolithic populations.

Educate yourself on Colchis and post Trialeti Bronze Age cultures. Greeks attributed the first ironsmiths to Colchian tribes, and it's not by chance, since ironworking was very advanced in Colchis.
https://imgur.com/a/jmnzFJ2
https://imgur.com/a/21X7vMZ

zardos said...

When do they finally test Rakushechny Yar and other sites from the Lower Don culture?

Khvalynsk was never in, it was common sense that they were a backward, unusually (for steppe people) mixed and branched off group from the steppe central regions. People just had to read up on the archaeological context to get that.
I mean its all nice and sweet to get more information about this dead end relative of Sredny Stog, which was the central and source group for its branches Yamnaya and Corded Ware alike, among many others like Usatovo, but if searching for the PIE cradle, one has to look at the Sea of Azow region and the Don, not the Volga.

That the Lower Don Culture was the first and major progression towards PIE should be extremely likely. What's more debatable is rather what happened within this complex. Like which groups founded the oldest settlements, which people contributed to it on the longer run.
My best guess currently is still that CHG moved up as fishers along the coast, which is now under the sea level and a later CHG-rich wave with more Neolithic innovations, including new building types and ovicaprids, reached the Lower Don/Sea of Azow slightly later, pushed together upwards, founded the first settlements.
The EHG-rich foragers put themselves on top of this half-Neolithicised settlers and this is what was at the root of the steppe people, led to the developed Lower Don and Middle Don cultures, to Sredny Stog and its first dead end branch Khvalynsk, which mixed while moving up the Volga, and the next big branch Yamnaya, which took over most of the steppe, but not all other Sredny Stog descendants, among which being the Cernavoda, Usatovo and Corded Ware.

But what exactly happeend in the first stages of the developement in the Lower Don region, this is what's most interesting, because there was a Neolithic-inspired input there, that is without a doubt, and it looks rather Eastern than Western. So probably we deal with two CHG-rich source groups, of which the main group was Mesolithic Caucasian, with a more Caucasian-Transcaucasian input which brought the innovations either along the coast as well, or even over sea?

JuanRivera said...

Would say that Steppe CHG is a mixture of HGs from Gobustan, which were
resumably intermediate between 'true CHG' and Iranian HGs (not farmers), and 'true CHG'. The initial pulse would be the former, while the latter gradually increased over time, as recently as Progress (who show traces of recent 'true CHG' admixture when compared to Vonyuchka). However, a Vonyuchka-like composition already existed by at least the earliest Mesolithic, if not the Final Paleolithic, as shown by models (don't know how accurate since they were run by me) in which the two oldest EHGs (Veretye and Sidelkino), and EHGs in general, prefer the Vonyuchka Near-Eastern ghost to both Kotias and Satsurblia.

JuanRivera said...

Speaking of the IEs, a new study of mtDNAs in Xinjiang. Getting Y-DNA and autosomal DNA out of those samples would be nice.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/14/eabd6690

Samuel Andrews said...

@Archi,

David Anthony says in this video Neolithic cemetery in Lower Volga has highest CHG of any samples on Steppe. Not Eneolithic.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,

When Davidski says it you ask questsions. But when I say basically the same thing it is baseless.

If the majority of PIE's ancestry comes from South Steppe Neolithic pop, then R1b M417 and R1b M269, and pre-PIE language are likely to come from there to.

Davidski basically reiterates that here.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/02/ancient-dna-vs-ex-oriente-lux.html

AWood said...

It sounds like Anthony is basically saying the same thing that David has been saying openly for the last couple years. A group or groups of CHG foragers were on the steppes very early, which would explain the YDNA J1* among some of the mesolithic foragers in Russia. I still believe it really amounts to a R1/J1 dichotomy between EHG + CHG, but for whatever reason the J1* guys died out along with those rare R1b1 lineages. It does beg the question, how did R1b-L23 derivatives become successful at the time of Yamnaya, and later on the R1a-Z645 ones in subsequent cultures. They must have arrived from further west with better technologies? I'm not seeing the smoking gun quite yet.

Does anyone have any insights into the material culture of the Caspian sea foragers? Did they have any domesticated animals around 6500 BC?

vAsiSTha said...

@awood

"A group or groups of CHG foragers were on the steppes very early, which would explain the YDNA J1* among some of the mesolithic foragers in Russia."

It is impossible for these hypothetical CHG foragers to have the IranN affinity which the Steppe_en Samples show.

"Does anyone have any insights into the material culture of the Caspian sea foragers? Did they have any domesticated animals around 6500 BC?"

You should look at Jeitun neolithic culture 6000bc with domesticated sheep and goat.

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews
"@Archi,
David Anthony says in this video Neolithic cemetery in Lower Volga has highest CHG of any samples on Steppe. Not Eneolithic."

Berezhnovka is not Neolithic. Davidski was talking about Berezhnovka. The video shows Dzhangar and Kair Shak, which may belong to the Neolithic and Mesolithic.

I have always written that CHG was from ancient times earlier than the Eneolithic widespread far north from the Caucasus.

@CrM

I did not understand who you are addressed to. I was talking about the Caucasus, and not about your CisCaucasus and Transcaucasus. The metallurgy of the Colchian culture is a derivative of the Koban culture.

@zardos
"My best guess currently is still that CHG moved up as fishers along the coast, which is now under the sea level and a later CHG-rich wave with more Neolithic innovations, including new building types and ovicaprids, reached the Lower Don/Sea of Azow slightly later, pushed together upwards, founded the first settlements."

This is all unlikely, since a very small area of land was flooded off the eastern coast of the Black Sea. And CHG has been present there since the Late Paleolithic. And if they came from the Middle East, they would have had ANF.

Trade contacts are much more likely, in any case the Middle Eastern obsidian trade with the Steppe is recorded archaeologically.

Archi said...

@zardos

Another point, if these were migrants from the Middle East, they would have brought with them a productive economy, and it was absent there until the Eneolithic. Manufacturing in the Middle East is a very ancient thing, it appeared there long before pottery. Pottery in the Lower Don appeared earlier than in the Near East and much earlier than livestock and crops.

Rob said...

@ Zardos



That the Lower Don Culture was the first and major progression towards PIE should be extremely likely. What's more debatable is rather what happened within this complex. Like which groups founded the oldest settlements, which people contributed to it on the longer run.
My best guess currently is still that CHG moved up as fishers along the coast, which is now under the sea level and a later CHG-rich wave with more Neolithic innovations, including new building types and ovicaprids, reached the Lower Don/Sea of Azow slightly later, pushed together upwards, founded the first settlements.
The EHG-rich foragers put themselves on top of this half-Neolithicised settlers and this is what was at the root of the steppe people, led to the developed Lower Don and Middle Don cultures, ”


This is an impressive imagination . In the past, it was said that LDC had precocious domesticates and Neolithic features (eg settlements) etc
But it’s now evident these are all from younger layers of R Yar, ie the eneolithic
It therefore all falls into place with reality. So we don’t have to imagine direct migrations from Iran or the near east to the lower don, biblical floods, so forth
LDC is just a mundane steppe Neolithic group.

Andrzejewski said...

@AWood “
It sounds like Anthony is basically saying the same thing that David has been saying openly for the last couple years. A group or groups of CHG foragers were on the steppes very early, which would explain the YDNA J1* among some of the mesolithic foragers in Russia. I still believe it really amounts to a R1/J1 dichotomy between EHG + CHG, but for whatever reason the J1* guys died out along with those rare R1b1 lineages. It does beg the question, how did R1b-L23 derivatives become successful at the time of Yamnaya, and later on the R1a-Z645 ones in subsequent cultures. They must have arrived from further west with better technologies? I'm not seeing the smoking gun quite yet.”

The real question boils down to: “Did PIE come with the R1a1 Sredny Stog/Corded Ware guys, or with the R1b Yamnaya type ones”?

Copper Axe said...

@Samuel

You said that the populations which spread CHG-rich ancestrt on the Steppe had to have spoken pre-PIE, which I think is baseless. Especially if the suggestion here seems to be that there were CHG rich populations on the steppes since the Mesolithic.

Copper Axe said...

And the reason why its just asking questions with Dave is because he doesnt talk shit and his opinions are worth listening to, even if I dont always agree with them.

Rob said...

@ CRM

Although the Azeri lowland samples might not be entirely representative of Sho-Shu, would you agree that it points to a mostly via east Anatolia than Iranian origin of agriculture in south caucasus ?

Copper Axe said...

What was the deal with Volosovo having M269 again? Rumours being rumours or an upcoming truth?

How do we tie that in with these findings here?

Davidski said...

@Sofia

Why don't you get his email and discuss this privately?

Davidski said...

@Copper Axe

Yeah, there were Volosovo samples assigned to M269, and even one to L51/U106, in a pre-publication anno file.

But of course there are sometimes mistakes even in published Y-haplogroup assignments, so these might be errors too.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Coppr Axe,

You said Indo European comes from wherever R1b M269 and R1a M417.

Davidski said here, those two lines, "possibly" come from the South Steppe.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/02/ancient-dna-vs-ex-oriente-lux.html

This is why I'm confused as to why you say my claim is baseless.

If the majority of the ancestry of people who carry R1b M269/R1a M417 comes from the South Steppe, it is likely that is where those lines come from, and it is also likely PIE language comes from there today.

This is not baseless. It is conjecture. Ancient DNA is needed for it to be solid. But it isn't a stupid carless claim.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,

My opinions aren't worth listening? :)

I am a veteran of this stuff. I've made several correct insights before anyone else did.

I don't talk shit. I just act like a know it all. You acted like a know it all too, saying my opinion is baseless.

I do appreciate discussion and taking in what others say. Including you. I have no beef with you.

CrM said...

@Rob
Yes, Anatolian agriculturalists likely came to the Caucasus before the Levant-rich Zagrosian agriculturalists (one of the main contributors to AZE and East Geo SSC, probably representative of the Dalma culture) or Levant-poor Hissar-like pops (contributors to KAC, Maykop and probably Leyla Tepe).
I've heard the paper on Neolithic Armenia will be released in mid 2021 so hope it will clear some things up. There's also the new Arukhlo sample from Neolithic Georgia with Y-DNA H2, would be interesting to see what it's like.

Target: AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN:MTT001
Distance: 2.0411% / 0.02041123
62.0 Areni_noSteppe
26.8 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
10.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056
0.6 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C

Target: AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN:POT002
Distance: 3.2056% / 0.03205552
53.8 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
27.8 Areni_noSteppe
18.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
0.0 RUS_Progress_En

Target: RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Distance: 2.0537% / 0.02053696
63.8 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056
22.2 Areni_noSteppe
10.8 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
3.2 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C

Target: Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
Distance: 2.1856% / 0.02185586
48.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056
22.8 Areni_noSteppe
13.8 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
12.8 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
2.0 RUS_Progress_En


Target: Areni_noSteppe
Distance: 3.4356% / 0.03435568
74.2 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
16.6 IRN_Wezmeh_N
9.2 GEO_CHG
0.0 Levant_PPNB








Rob said...

Contacts b/w S/S and Hassuna & Halaf were certainly present

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,

I will admit, I was slightly arrogant (know it allish) earlier.

Archi said...

Davidski said...
"Yeah, there were Volosovo samples assigned to M269, and even one to L51/U106, in a pre-publication anno file."

The western part of Volosovo and up to the Baltic may very well be the ancestors of BB. Anthropologically they fit, culturally they are also very close, to me their outlook on life is simply the same.

zardos said...

@Rob: The last words are not spoken about the LDC. Some of the features of the settlements are in any case, well let's say "inspired" by more Southern patterns. I don't know which dates you thought I would suggest, but basically I'm speaking about the 6th mil. BC.

I'm stll following this paper, which suggests the possibility of influence from the Zagros area:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/313125698_'Neolithisation'_in_the_NE_Sea_of_Azov_region_One_step_forward_two_steps_back

I might also quote:
"The multilayer settlement Rakushechny Yar situated in the lower Don River (Rostov region, Russia) is one of the oldest early Neolithic sites in this region, dated to the 7th and 6th millennia BC. Recent investigations have shown a particular importance of this site in the study of the spread of the Near Eastern “Neolithic package” and the neolithisation of Eastern Europe."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/332993971_Subsistence_strategies_and_the_origin_of_early_Neolithic_community_in_the_lower_Don_River_valley_Rakushechny_Yar_site_earlymiddle_6th_millennium_cal_BC_First_results

Or one of the newest papers, which you might have had in mind, but it is the youngest date possible for the start of the settlements from a safe layer position:

"The Early Neolithic settlement was established ca 5600 cal.
BC"

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/347721186_RAKUSHECHNY_YAR_SITE_LACUSTRINE_AND_FLUVIAL_DEPOSITS_BURIED_SOILS_AND_SHELL_PLATFORMS_FROM_6TH_MILL_BC

Even if the settlements were not as old as originally thought, they are still among the oldest in the region and absolutley central for the development of the developed steppe culture. But more needs to be done, especially ancient DNA analysed, to put things into context.

I just can't understand how people failed to concentrate on the Sea of Azov region and the Lower Don settlements.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ Contacts b/w S/S and Hassuna & Halaf were certainly present”

Who were Halafians, Ubaidians, Hassunians and Yarmukians? PPNB? (Levant + Anatolian farmers?)

Rob said...

@ Sam

The evidence is indeed complex, for the following reasons

1. It seems CHG moved from the north Caucasus to other parts of the steppe, then beyond it
2. However, the 'north Caucasus steppe Eneolithic' groups in fact moved down from the north
3. The expanding male lineages aren't from the proto-typical EHG/CHG network, but further west, but from the EHG/WHG network



Rob said...

@ Zardos

I completely agree , the lower Don is a vital area
From what I understand, the 'Neolithic' LDC began near the same time as other steppe sites (Bug-Dniester, Caspian, middle Volga), with the invetion/arrival of pottery
Domesticates arrived during the Late Neolithic/Eneolithic, as in other parts of the steppe.

mzp1 said...

It's not like this. You should stop looking at Eastern Europe in isolation. This is what is happening, and you can tell me if I'm wrong.

The Y HGs J1, J2, I2 etc can often be found with R1 and R1B. This is the case in the Western and Eastern extremity of the IE geographic space, both in Eastern Europe (before Steppe_EMBA) and in South Asia (UP Syeds etc). The geographically intermediate groups though mostly consist of R1A and R1B, these are Western South Asians, Iranians, Central Asians and Steppe groups. So it is logical that R1A and R1B came to dominate this central space while the older HGs continue to exist in the extremities.

This 'purge' seems to happen around the time of the LGM, possibly due to events in South Central Asia when environmental pressure pushes North Eurasians South creating greater competition for resources in the region.

When the ice melts populations expand North, but there also seems to be an expansion of Iranian or West Asian ancestry, as Steppe EMBA is much closer to Iranians while EHG/MA1 is comparatively closer to South Asians.

EHG and MA1 look like pre-LGM populations who are more intermediate between South Asians and Iranians, while Steppe EMBA are post-LGM and they seem to be more West Asian.

R1A and R1B are only a subset of the larger space consisting of R1, J1, J2, I2 etc and you cannot look at them in isolation to understand IE population history.

Rob said...

@ Zardos

The 'neolithic' in Russia means pottery. So yeah, pottery arrived in ~ 5600 BC in lower Don, just like other places on the steppe (boradly), perhaps even earlier.
The carbon dates in Dolbunova 2020 sitting at 56000 BC all come from deer & elk (wild animals)

But there were no Zagrosian pastoralists in 6000 BC in LDC. This is a hangover error from old excavations where the (i) the archaeologists from the 1900s mistook wild animals bones as domesticated (they werent specialist zooarchaeologists) and (ii) the actual domesticated sheep & cattle from above-laying Eneolithic layers might have moved down into the Neolithic ones.

So lets appeal to a sanity check. How can 'farmer-pastoralists' appeared in the lower Don in 6000 BC, when it had barely appeared in Georgia and the Caucasus , on the one hand, and Hungary-Ukraine, on the other ? What route or mode of transport could the Zagrosian pastoralists have taken. To go with this, we would you have to come up with elaborate stories of Noahs arc and floods

There is nothing out of the ordinary about the LDC

zardos said...

@Rob: I don't say you are wrong, but what I say is there need to be further investigations to be sure. Like in the third linked paper said, the stratigraphical situation is very complicated and I might add the opinions still differ.
No 1 priority is, in any case, to test the human remains, but it wouldn't hurt to further test the animal bones too.
And I don't get the irony, because obviously, Anatolian farmers did on the coastline and by sea and this included larger animals than ovicaprids.
Why should the fisher people in the Black Sea region not?
I'm rather agnotic on the details of the chronology, I just try to gather what's there and am open minded. Its just I don't think the case is completely closed yet.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

Not sure, we would need aDNA from Syria & Iraq one day..

Archi said...

@Rob

1. On the Lower Don the Pottery Neolithic appeared in 6500 BC. This is an established fact.

2. 5600 BC there the reasoning is exactly about the appearance of the Farmer's Neolithic. Exactly so, the emergence of agriculture in the Azov region comes a few centuries before the beginning of the Eneolithic, which begins somewhere around 5000-5200 BC.

3. In the Caucasus-Georgia the Pottery Neolithic appeared very late, somewhere around 5000-4500 BC, and the Farming Neolithic is even later, and almost simultaneously with the Eneolithic. This is the most backward region in Western Eurasia where the Neolithic appeared later than all of them. Neolithic is essentially not there, this name is applied there quite conventionally, a very delayed Mesolithic, a very brief period of "Neolithic", a very brief period of "Eneolithic" and immediately the Bronze Age.

vAsiSTha said...

"So lets appeal to a sanity check. How can 'farmer-pastoralists' appeared in the lower Don in 6000 BC, when it had barely appeared in Georgia and the Caucasus , on the one hand, and Hungary-Ukraine, on the other ?"

From the east, not from the south of caucasus. Lack/meagre amount of anatolian poses problems to the theory that the iranian ancestry came from the south.

And, as far as Davidski's theory goes - that a yet unsampled local chg/iran like ancestry always resided in the lower steppe, it is not possible for such a hypothetical population north of kotias and satsurblia cave to show more affinity to iran like ancestry than what CHG shows to IranN, unless there was a migration.

Rob said...

@ Archi

There is sometimes a difference between ''reported facts'' and reality. The shell-tempered pottery from Volga sites is not an ideal source for C14 dating, and extreme outlier dates need to be excluded. Same with charcoal due to possibility of 'old wood effect'. As such, terrestrial animal bones are more optimal, which show a beginning date to ~ 6200 BC at the earliest for the steppe zone (e.g. Kairhsak III ID # Ua-41359 vs Ki-14633), which is what I have always said and the only thing i will accept for now. To the same date is the lower Don region.

The reported domesticate goats/ sheep from kairshak related sites are from ~ 4700 BCE


@ Zardos


I think we need to wait international research of modern quality standards for R Yar for some realistic results.

At present, this data from Bereznovka speaks against an Azov route, it rather calls for links across the Caspian sea.
The problem is the lack of intermediary sites in the Caucasus north region, the apparently late appearance of 'Neolithic' in the southern Caucasus too.



Rob said...

In fact there are a few 'Neolithic'* sites in north Caucasus, 2 of which have carbon dates to ~ 6000 BC. All in all, the pattern is very clear - at this time ceramics were rapidly adapted across a large area of Ponto-Caspian steppe, Caucasus & West Siberia perhaps in responce to changes in climate (8.2 ky event)

* The new term being used is 'sub-Neolithic''

Archi said...

@Rob

"There is sometimes a difference between ''reported facts'' and reality. The shell-tempered pottery from Volga sites is not an ideal source for C14 dating, and extreme outlier dates need to be excluded. Same with charcoal due to possibility of 'old wood effect'. As such, terrestrial animal bones are more optimal, which show a beginning date to ~ 6200 BC at the earliest for the steppe zone (e.g. Kairhsak III ID # Ua-41359 vs Ki-14633), which is what I have always said and the only thing i will accept for now. To the same date is the lower Don region."

Every word that you wrote is simply not true, it is all your personal fantasy, you write only your personal fiction. I showed you the dating of the animsl bones earlier than 6500BC, but you deliberately ignore them. The worst case is in the Middle East and Greece, where all the dating of pottery is completely indirect, made from abstract considerations of layer belonging, so there they are all attributed to older times than actually appeared.

" The reported domesticate goats/ sheep from kairshak related sites are from ~ 4700 BCE"

Kair Shak is not the Lower Don/Azov. It is the Lower Volga-Caspian.

vAsiSTha said...

@rob
"At present, this data from Bereznovka speaks against an Azov route, it rather calls for links across the Caspian sea."

Please explain. What data

Rob said...

@ Vasistha


“6000 LDC.. From the east, not from the south of caucasus. Lack/meagre amount of anatolian poses problems to the theory that the iranian ancestry came from the south”

No, there is no evidence for such a date. For the Don, the evidence we do have is during the Eneolithic period; although late 6th mill domesticates might appear in western Ukraine in Koros & Bug-Dniester culture, but that has clear links to the Balkans & Central Europe

Some trumped-up dates of early pastoralism in the Volga-Caspian have been propagated also, one can read it being in certain Search for Indo-Europeans book.
These days, even Vybornov who is somewhat more critical & objective than his predecessors ''contours'' the data somewhat. E.g. he writes that domesticates appear in the “late Neolithic Caspian culture (5600-4700 BC)''.

But looking critically at the data; this is what it actually shows
Oroshaemoe I, Caspian culture 5667 ± 100 BP.
That calibrates to 4500 BCE. Moreover this site has 2 layers; the top one being Khvalysnk; so in all likelihood, the domestic sheep bone is from an eneolithic period

With that said, some propose that the belt cave region in the South Caspian was a semi-independent zone of domestication & pottery innovation, but so far everything points to a post 5000 BC arrival of domesticates to the Volga-Caspian steppe. Ultimately, animal aDNA is needed to discern their population history

Rob said...

@ Archie

Lol what does Greece have to do with it ? You have no clue
Present the ID code of data supporting your claims ...

Rob said...

@ Vasistha


“ Please explain. What data”

Bereznovka looks like it has as much CHG as the north caucasus eneolithic samples
But the lower Volga , unlike the Caucasus, has a clear & obvious Neolithic horizon.
So if steppe - CHG isn’t from the epipalaeolithic (along the lines of what Ric & Davidski have suggested), then the other option might be what you & CRM point to

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe, Rob,

Regarding pre-PIE origin in South Steppe, you guys made good counter points.

It doesn't have the needed ancient DNA evidence yet. It isn't a solid theory yet. I wouldn't say it is baseless.

I wouldn't say it is clear R1b M269, R1a M417 are from Ukraine western Russia.

I know R1b P297 is well documented in Latvia in WHG rich groups. But R1b P297 is 13ky according to yfull. It is old and could therefore have existed in Southern Russia too and give rise to R1b M269 which his only 6ky.

For R1a M417. I don't see why it couldn't have originated in Southern Russia.

Davidski said...

There were hunter-gatherers on the steppe at least 6,500 BC with loads of so called CHG ancestry.

So vAsiSTha's idiotic fantasies are over.

Rob said...

@ Sam

Isn’t it obvious?

1. I2a2 is from western steppe and Bulgarian Yamnaya is full of it .
2. R1a is found in Mesolithic Ukraine & must have been lurking there later on
3, R1b-M269 in eneolithic Bulgaria; whilst zero out of hundreds of samples from khvalynsk

Copper Axe said...

@Sam

If Volosovo samples have R1b-m269 it's origin is likely not going to be with hunter-fishers on the caspian shoreline right. Especially if these new Volosovo samples will be similar to already published Lyalovo/Volosovo; WHG shifted EHGs.

Besides, didn't Davidski already suggest/establish we had Dnieper-Donets samples with small but noteworthy amounts of this CHG related ancestry from the Neolithic, and pretty much in the midst of Ukraine?

If so, there wasn't a single population or event which spread this ancestry across the steppes, and to then say that the initial populations which brought this ancestry to the steppes were Pre-PIE speakers to my ears is unfounded.

Especially if we have a scenario were lower amounts of CHG-like ancestry was already present in Ukraine and most of the expanding IE lineages as Rob pointed out are on the WHG-EHG connection.

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"There were hunter-gatherers on the steppe at least 6,500 BC with loads of so called CHG ancestry."

Firstly, do not obfuscate CHG. It very clearly is just Kotias/Satsurblia samples. Nothing else so far. So these hypothetical hunter gatherers on the steppe (which anthony hypothesizes were present from 6500bce in the steppe but clearly says he does not know for sure) still doesnt explain the second part.

Sadly, the progress and vonyuchka samples do not model just with EHG + Kotias or Satsurblia ancestry.

What they do crave is an added IranN component and i will keep showing you proof again and again so you may finally understand it.

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2001
Distance: 3.2511% / 0.03251104
54.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
23.2 TJK_Sarazm_En
19.8 GEO_CHG
2.8 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG

Target: RUS_Progress_En:PG2004
Distance: 3.7888% / 0.03788846
61.2 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
23.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
12.6 GEO_CHG
2.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG

Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 3.3074% / 0.03307424
50.8 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
20.4 GEO_CHG
20.4 TJK_Sarazm_En
6.8 IRN_Tepe_Hissar_C
1.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.2 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
0.0 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C
0.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
0.0 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG

2nd piece of evidence - qpAdm run of EHG+CHG model. result pasted below

https://pastebin.com/MjRZEv4X

Relevant bit is this
## dscore:: f_4(Steppe_En, Steppe_En_Model, Shumlaka(outgroup), Ganj_Dareh_N)

details: Georgia_Kotias.SG Iran_GanjDareh_N 0.000518 1.077764
details: Russia_HG_Karelia Iran_GanjDareh_N -0.003902 -8.681836
dscore: Iran_GanjDareh_N f4: -0.001524 Z: -4.053403

What this is telling us is that there is significantly more allele sharing between actual Steppe_en and Iran_N than the EHG + CHG model of Steppe_en cannot account for.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Davidski,

Did you get confirmation that the Bereznovka samples are from 6500 BC? This would be great news.

@Rob,

Those points are taken but we don't have Y DNA from South Steppe to compare. I will say though the lack of R1b P297 and anything close to R1a M417, in Khvalnsky is good evidence of 'Western' origin for those two lines.

Yeah, and I agree, I2a2a in Yamnaya looks like it is of for sure "Western" origin.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “ There were hunter-gatherers on the steppe at least 6,500 BC with loads of so called CHG ancestry.”

I thought that Anthony himself wrote on another article of his that CHG and EHG amalgamated around 5,000BC to create WSH, somewhere in the proximity of Progress/Vanyuchka?

But it doesn’t matter to ME; I KNOW that PIE was created in Europe, and not in Asia.

@Rob & @Samuel Andrews “ Isn’t it obvious?

1. I2a2 is from western steppe and Bulgarian Yamnaya is full of it .
2. R1a is found in Mesolithic Ukraine & must have been lurking there later on
3, R1b-M269 in eneolithic Bulgaria; whilst zero out of hundreds of samples from khvalynsk”

Right. Because Yamnaya and Corded Ware are from a Western Steppe source, closer to the Don, Dnieper and even Dniester. Khvalynsk is a dead end, pretty much like Yamnaya (unless we consider the significant Catacomb and Poltava admixture and introgression into Caucasus population or attribute Armenian to these aforementioned populations). Hence, Indo-European languages derive from Sredny Stog sources, in stark contrast to any putative Volgaic or Caspian one.

I’m pretty sure that it will become apparent in the coming decade that PIE evolved with a strong farmer substrate, just like blogger Dragos used to suggest its status as lingua franca in the frontier zone as part of a trade network with Tripolye and GAC. It’s probable that PIE was a Ukrainian_Meso language arising with the R1a1 Sredny Stog culture which gave rise to Corded Ware and partially to Yamnaya (R1b adopted the R1a1 dialect continuum).

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “
Especially if we have a scenario were lower amounts of CHG-like ancestry was already present in Ukraine and most of the expanding IE lineages as Rob pointed out are on the WHG-EHG connection.”

Volosovo are utterly irrelevant because they were completely replaced by Fatyanovo.

I can’t believe that PIE is from an I2a1 lineage (WHG but also GAC), although the concept of its origination within a Ukraine Mesolithic Sredny Stog R1a1 ethnic background interacting with GAC and/or WHG/Baltic HG resulting in some strong EEF impact on its formation is not too far fetched IMHO.

Archi said...

Rob said...
" 1. I2a2 is from western steppe and Bulgarian Yamnaya is full of it .
2. R1a is found in Mesolithic Ukraine & must have been lurking there later on
3, R1b-M269 in eneolithic Bulgaria; whilst zero out of hundreds of samples from khvalynsk"

1. It has nothing to do with that. I2a2 in Bulgaria are local, but not from the steppe.
2.Second. It's just your fantasy as usual. In the Neolithic the population of Ukraine changed completely, it is anthropologically, culturally and genetically not a continuation of the Mesolithic population.
3. It has nothing to do with anything. R1b1a [L754] (R-V2219-V88+) in Bulgaria could refer to anyone, it was in the Iron Gate, so your statement is false as always.

@Copper Axe

" Especially if we have a scenario were lower amounts of CHG-like ancestry was already present in Ukraine and most of the expanding IE lineages as Rob pointed out are on the WHG-EHG connection."

Everything that Rob writes is his personal fiction and simply not true. IE has nothing to do with WHG, it's shameful to repeat such antisience nonsense.

Archi said...

Samuel Andrews said...
"Did you get confirmation that the Bereznovka samples are from 6500 BC? This would be great news."

Where do you get your fiction from? No one wrote or said such a thing. Where did you get it from. You heard about Berezhnovka for the first time in your life, you don't even know how to spell it correctly. Berezhnovka appeared not earlier than the Eneolithic, it is a under-mound burials, they were made under the kurgans.

Andrzejewski said...

@Archi “ IE has nothing to do with WHG”

Agree with that statement.

Notwithstanding, I have read that there was a population turnover in the Neolithic in Ukraine, to the tune of a distinction between Sredny Stog phase I and Sredny Stog phase 2; I just don’t agree with these studies. Ukraine_N has always been (up to LGM) R1a1, and its language is most likely the progenitor of PIE, giving birth to Corded and Yamnaya.

But I wouldn’t rule out a “Lemnian” (=eg “Barcin-ish”) origin of most if not all the agricultural vocabulary stock in what was to become PIE (e.g “Ardinth” for peas or beans).

Andrzejewski said...

Going over the graph at your blog entry “Ancient Ancestry Proportions”, it turns out the modern Germans are literally the ONLY ethnic group with Herder IE proportion not exceeding 50% (49.6%). What an irony of history...even Hungarians and Sami are majority Yamnaya-like!

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/ancient-ancestry-proportions-in-present.html?m=0

So my Polish group is 2:1 WSH to Anatolian and 2:1 Anatolian to WHG. (4:2:1).

I’ve always thought the Poles were almost even on Steppe’s (Corded) and GAC’s contributions.

Andrzejewski said...

OT “ belongs, is the major Y-chromosomal lineage in modern north-east Europe and European Russia. It is especially prevalent in Uralic speakers, comprising for example as much as 54% of eastern Finnish male lineages today36. Notably, this is the earliest known occurrence of Y-haplogroup N1c in Fennoscandia. Additionally, within the Bolshoy population, we observe the derived allele of rs3827760 in the EDAR gene, which is found in near-fixation in East Asian and Native American populations today, but is extremely rare elsewhere37, and has been linked to phenotypes related to tooth shape38 and hair morphology”

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-018-07483-5

————

Puts to final rest that the Uralic speakers had anything to do with ANE but everything to do with the *East Eurasian side* of Native Americans.

Copper Axe said...

@Archi

"Everything that Rob writes is his personal fiction and simply not true. IE has nothing to do with WHG, it's shameful to repeat such antisience nonsense."

Who said anything about PIE being derived from WHG people and languages? I'm not talking about that at all my man.

Besides the idea of an WHG-EHG mating network didn't originate with Rob,it's David Anthony who talked about that concept.

It refers to the fact that pretty much all the lineages we've seen so far in the Western Steppe Herders are linked to EHGs and WHGs (or rather the WHG ancestry in relevant EHG populations).

Archi said...

@Andrzejewski
"I have read that there was a population turnover in the Neolithic in Ukraine, to the tune of a distinction between Sredny Stog phase I and Sredny Stog phase 2; I just don’t agree with these studies. Ukraine_N has always been (up to LGM) R1a1"

Why do you always write something that is the opposite of all the data? Absolutely always. There is no R1a in the Ukrainian Neolithic.

There is no Sredny Stog phase I and Sredny Stog phase 2. There is Sredny Stog I and Sredny Stog II that are different sites, or rather layers belonging to different unrelated cultures, the Neolithic Dnieper-Donets culture and the Eneolithic Sredny Stog II culture. The population there has changed completely.
Just as the Dereivka I site does not belong to the Sredny Stog culture, but belongs to the Dnieper-Donets culture (Mariupol type). The Dereivka II site has a completely different population, the population of the Ukraine in the Eneolithic changed completely.

"agricultural vocabulary stock in what was to become PIE (e.g “Ardinth” for peas or beans)"

There is no such word in PIE, just as there are no words for peas and beans.

aeolius said...

expanding the topic:
Rethinking the evidence for early horse domestication at Botai
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-021-86832-9.pdf

Archi said...

PIE had no connection to the WHG. In Neolithic Ukraine there was EHG with an admixture of WHG, but it did not become an ancestor of the Indo-Europeans.

@Copper Axe
"It refers to the fact that pretty much all the lineages we've seen so far in the Western Steppe Herders are linked to EHGs and WHGs (or rather the WHG ancestry in relevant EHG populations)."

PIE had no connection to the WHG. In Neolithic Ukraine there was EHG with an admixture of WHG, but it did not become an ancestor of the Indo-Europeans.

Target Distance RUS_Karelia_EHG GEO_CHG TUR_Barcin_N WHG
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0231 0.05025332 57.4 35.4 7.2 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0357 0.05236039 54.4 34.8 10.8 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0370 0.06498798 55.8 37.4 6.8 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0429 0.06748676 59.0 37.4 3.6 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0438 0.06317229 57.6 40.0 2.4 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0439 0.06725379 55.4 33.4 11.2 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0443 0.06286349 54.6 38.8 6.6 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I0444 0.06306674 59.6 32.2 8.2 0.0
Yamnaya_RUS_Samara:I7489 0.06516677 53.8 41.0 5.2 0.0
Yamnaya_UKR_Ozera_o:I1917 0.04099453 32.8 43.0 24.2 0.0
Yamnaya_UKR:I2105 0.06048519 54.6 38.8 6.6 0.0
Yamnaya_UKR:MJ06 0.06664705 55.2 33.8 11.0 0.0

Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Gyvakarai1_10bp 0.05705457 55.2 27.6 17.2 0.0
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:I4629 0.07900079 60.2 29.4 10.4 0.0
Corded_Ware_Baltic_early:Plinkaigalis242 0.06855109 57.4 28.0 14.6 0.0
Corded_Ware_POL_early:poz81 0.06741993 58.6 30.8 10.6 0.0
Corded_Ware_POL:pcw211 0.05765667 53.0 21.2 25.8 0.0
Corded_Ware_POL:pcw362 0.06125162 53.0 23.0 23.6 0.4
Corded_Ware_DEU:I0049 0.06200744 51.4 23.6 25.0 0.0
Corded_Ware_DEU:I0106 0.06037555 53.0 16.4 30.6 0.0
Corded_Ware_DEU:I1534 0.06698482 52.0 22.0 26.0 0.0
Corded_Ware_DEU:I1536 0.09001964 56.8 23.4 19.8 0.0
Corded_Ware_DEU:I1538 0.08044376 57.2 24.2 18.6 0.0

compare to
UKR_N:I1732 0.03733812 53.8 5.2 2.0 39.0
UKR_N:I1734 0.02873719 53.8 0.2 8.4 37.6
UKR_N:I1736 0.02960587 50.8 3.2 4.2 41.8
UKR_N:I1738 0.03164990 46.0 9.6 1.8 42.6
UKR_N:I3714 0.02797296 47.4 6.4 0.0 46.2
UKR_N:I3715 0.03866244 49.0 9.8 0.4 40.8
UKR_N:I3717 0.02930695 53.6 6.2 5.8 34.4
UKR_N:I3718 0.02969975 45.8 5.2 2.4 46.6
UKR_N:I4111 0.02907742 49.6 5.8 6.8 37.8
UKR_N:I4114 0.03304252 49.8 3.2 5.4 41.6
UKR_N:I5870 0.03676376 52.4 7.2 1.8 38.6
UKR_N:I5875 0.03176840 53.0 2.4 4.2 40.4
UKR_N:I5883 0.05048618 51.8 5.8 2.6 39.8
UKR_N:I5890 0.03441772 45.6 7.2 0.6 46.6
UKR_N:I5892 0.04731831 50.0 4.6 2.6 42.8
UKR_N_o:I3719 0.02395338 0.4 0.0 96.8 2.8

zardos said...

All the later important steppe lineages of R1b and R1a will be present in the developed Lower Don culture and the Sredny Stog Culture. Yamnaya's main group was just a branching event with a founder effect, that's why its so homogeneous and lacks the variation.
We just need those LDC and SSC remains get tested, that's all. Early LDC will be, probably, even more varied, with more J, possibly other.

I also agree with Archi, no way R1a comes from the Mesolithic Western Ukraine. I don't think it came with Yamnaya, but with Sredny Stog shortly before and being present in Dereivka. This all speaks for itself. The chances of local foragers taking over is minimal to non-existent. That time was over after the early to middle Neolithic transitions, where I2 in the West and R1a+b in the East made it in Europe.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,

You can test the Dnieper hunter gatherers using the G25 PCA. They do have CHG but very little.

I don't believe they are significant ancestors of PIE.

If you model Yamnay as mix between Steppe ENeolithic, UkraineHG, EF farmers, they score 5-10% UkraineHG.

Rob said...

@ Archie


You are profoundly wrong on every aspect

''1. I2a2 has nothing to do with that. I2a2 in Bulgaria are local, but not from the steppe.''

no I2a2a1 has been found in Bulgaria before the Copper - Bronze Age. Instead, it has been found in Neolithci Urkanie & eastern Hungary
Your rebuttal is therefore incorrect


''2.Second. It's just your fantasy as usual. In the Neolithic the population of Ukraine changed completely, it is anthropologically, culturally and genetically not a continuation of the Mesolithic population.''

So far only the Dnieper region has been tested, not the eastern parts of Ukraine
Your rebuttal is therefore incorrect


''3. It has nothing to do with anything. R1b1a [L754] (R-V2219-V88+) in Bulgaria could refer to anyone, it was in the Iron Gate, so your statement is false as always.''

Actually, Smyadovo Eneolithic is R1b-M269, not V88
Your rebuttal is therefore, as always, incorrect

My advice is to stay in your lane (whichever C-grade linguistics you dabble with) and leave genetics & antrhopology to thos have have a basic grasp of the field

Rob said...

@ Andrze

''I can’t believe that PIE is from an I2a1 lineage (WHG but also GAC),''

You dont have to believe that, because it is neither I2a1 nor GAC which is the particular relevance. Instead, (by the 2016 convention) it is I2a2a1b1, a lineage which finds closest paralleles in baltic HG, and then appears in ALPc & DDII/ Neolithic Ukraine.
The GAC lneage is related but different : I2a2a1b2

Rob said...

@ Sam

''You can test the Dnieper hunter gatherers using the G25 PCA. They do have CHG but very little..''

That’s only one side of the equation
90% of Yamnaya comes from Progress but 0% of lineages do

Archi said...

@ Rob

"no I2a2a1 has been found in Bulgaria before the Copper - Bronze Age. Instead, it has been found in Neolithci Urkanie & eastern Hungary
Your rebuttal is therefore incorrect"

1. this is not correct. Not Yamnaya
Neolithic Bulgaria Yabalkovo [I2529 / Yaba4] 5726-5575 calBCE (6750±40 BP, Poz-81117) M I2a2 T1a Mathieson 2017

Before Yamnaya
Bronze Copper Age tell Bulgaria Smyadovo [I2176 / 12 Burial 20B] 3338-3025 calBCE (4470±30 BP, Ly-5516) M I2a2a1b [CTS10057] U1a1 Mathieson 2017
Bronze Copper Age tell Bulgaria Smyadovo [I2175 / 10 Burial 20A] 3328-3015 calBCE M I2a2a1b1 [L701, L702] K1c1 Mathieson 2017

" Your rebuttal is therefore incorrect"

Your statement is your pure fantasy. We are talking about scientific facts, not your fantasies.

"Actually, Smyadovo Eneolithic is R1b-M269, not V88
Your rebuttal is therefore, as always, incorrect"

You always know nothing, you write only your personal fiction. There are two entries

Copper Copper Age tell Bulgaria Smyadovo [I2430 / 40] 4545-4450 calBCE M R1b1a [L754] Mathieson 2017

and

I2430 40 43.06 26.98 M .. K1a26 htt K1a26 htt K>K1>K1a>K1a-T195C!>K1a26 K1 K .. R1b1a R1b1b1a V2219>PF634 F3867, FGC21027 37297 R1bFGC21056* R1b-FGC21056* R-FGC21056* R-FGC21056 R-V2219 R1b1b(....) R-M207>M173>M343>L754>PF6323>PF6292>V88>FGC21056 R1b R1bV88 Balkans_CA Bulgaria_C Smyadovo

You are, as always, refuted on all counts.

" 90% of Yamnaya comes from Progress but 0% of lineages do"

It is only your fantasy, a profane who understands nothing in genetics.


You need to stop speaking out in the genetics forum altogether. You haven't written a single correct post on genetic issues, you haven't written a single correct post on any issues of archaeology, genetics, linguistics, anthropology, culture in general. All of your posts are incorrect and useless.


Archi said...

@Rob
"Notice how that is I2a2*"

Don't lie, there's no asterisk there. There's just an ordinary undertyped result.


"The sample is from a bronze Age barrow of ''steppe tradition'', not a tell."

Don't lie, This is your imagination. That's exactly what Copper Age tell, no steppe tradition there. You're just outright lying.

Mathieson 2018 quote:
"Smyadovo (6 individuals).
The cemetery is associated with a Copper Age tell located 200 m to the Southeast. 32 burials have been excavated containing 37 individuals."


You wrote "Actually, Smyadovo Eneolithic is R1b-M269, not V88", I refuted it. You embarrassed yourself as always without exception.

Rob said...

@ Archie


''Neolithic Bulgaria Yabalkovo [I2529 / Yaba4] 5726-5575 calBCE (6750±40 BP, Poz-81117) M I2a2 T1a Mathieson 2017


Notice how that is I2a2*, although it might be the variety found in the Iron Gates, which is not quite the same as that found in Dnieper.



''Bronze Copper Age tell Bulgaria Smyadovo''

The sample is from a bronze Age barrow of ''steppe tradition'', not a tell. I dont know why it has been labelled like that in the database.

So as per what I said - ''no I2a2a1 has been found in Bulgaria before the Copper - Bronze Age. ''




''You always know nothing, you write only your personal fiction''

LOL
I2181 is M269, with steppe ancestry 4550-4455 calBCE (5680±30 BP, Beta-432803)
Why are you talking about R1b-V88, its a completely different subclade ? Perhaps read up on the R1b phylogeny to familiarise yourself with some basics.

Matt said...

I2181 is pretty low SNPs? HO anno file - SNPs: 71542, no called y-dna haplogroup only called as F, contamLD warning: Very_High_Contamination.

(ContamLD - https://genomebiology.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13059-020-02111-2 - Nakatsuka 2020 - "We report a method called ContamLD for estimating autosomal ancient DNA (aDNA) contamination by measuring the breakdown of linkage disequilibrium in a sequenced individual due to the introduction of contaminant DNA. ContamLD leverages the idea that contaminants should have haplotypes uncorrelated to those of the studied individual. Using simulated data, we confirm that ContamLD accurately infers contamination rates with low standard errors: for example, less than 1.5% standard error in cases with less than 10% contamination and 500,000 sequences covering SNPs."

Most samples tested for contamination via ContamLD in Human Origins are marked as "None", 3149/4197, and 844 marked as "Model Misspecified", only 206/4197, 4.9% marked as "Very High Contamination").

Though overall assessment is "PASS" (on the basis of acceptable Xcontam using ANGSD - "methods for estimating rates of contamination in ancient DNA measures the rate of polymorphism on the X chromosome in males assuming there should be none").

(The other "early steppe ancestry sample" from the Mathieson paper was Varna female ANI163, who is pretty high coverage but "QUESTIONABLE_CRITICAL (literature, but data were later found to lack characteristic ancient DNA damage raising the possibility that contamination explains why this individual appears to be an ancestry outlier; a subset of the co-authors of Mathieson et al. 2018 are actively looking into this and will publish corrected information after the issues are fully understood)").

New papers covering these spheres can't come quick enough to confirm with more samples and explore these things in more detail. Everyone is working hard but it seems difficult to rely on a couple of samples for early Steppe ancestry, one probably heavily contaminated and false and the other low coverage and possibly contaminated.

(Off topic, recent paper on stature in ancient Europeans -https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.03.31.437881v1.full - provided some mention of about further 15x unpublished ancient dna samples from Urziceni site dated 4300-4000 BCE - https://pastebin.com/UA3UhTQH. This is a site mentioned in Mathieson 2018 paper - "Urziceni(2 individuals): The Urziceni-Vama site is situated in northwestern Romania on a terrace of the Pârâul Negru creek, in Satu Mare county. On the occasion of the construction of the Urziceni Duane and of a Duty-Free shop, rescue excavations discoveredseveral graves belonging to the Bodrogkeresztúr culture (Middle Eneolithic –second half of the 5th millennium BC), which formpart of a necropolis. So far, 68 graves have been excavated. The graves haverectangular or oval-oblongor irregular pits and containskeletons deposited in crouched position, on the right or the left side, and oriented East-to-West. Over 75% of the graves contained inventory thatwas particularly rich (e.g. gold and copper items, many ceramicpots, obsidian and flint tools)". 2x ROU_C samples in G25, not including ROU_C_o sample GB1).

Chad said...

Piedmont ancestry is only really going to affect late PIE expansion east and reflux. Not a big part of PIE.

Andrzejewski said...

Why do so many posters here assert BMAC has anything to do with an Indo-Iranic group, in light of Narasimhan 2018 and 2019 discovery that BMAC’s contribution was negligible at best?

What’s the genetic differences between Scythians and Sogdians? I though the latter were nothing but a Scythian subgroup.

Archi said...

@Rob

LOL
"I2181 is M269"

I2181 is low quality.

4964 I2181_published I2181 21 tooth (molar) 2018 MathiesonNature2018 Gaydarska, Bisserka Direct: 95.4%; IntCal20, OxCal v4.4.2 Bronk Ramsey (2020); r:5; Atmospheric data from Reimer et al (2020) 6458 42 4606-4447 calBCE (5680В±30 BP, Beta-432803) Bulgaria_C_oSteppe_published Smyadovo Bulgaria 43.05777778 26.98361111 1240K 4 0.063 71542 .. M n/a (no relatives detected) F .. HV15 .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. -0.097 0.036 Very_High_Contamination

Andrzejewski said...

Interesting would be to find out if the Native American languages came from the WSHG side (Haplogroup Q) or from the Ulchi (Tungus, Evenk) -like one.

If Ulchi are he proximate pop which gave East Eurasian contribution to the Beringians > American Indians, then we could deduct that Altaic languages which originated in Mongolia/Trans-Baikal are descendants of the pop giving rise to Native Americans.

So it seems either:

1. Most North American native macro families bear resemblance to Yenisseyan, Ukunevo and Botai.

2. Most NA languages are actually closer to the para-Altaic side.

OR:

3. Some families are related to WSHG and others are to Altaic.

Sarah said...

@Andrzejewski-"What’s the genetic differences between Scythians and Sogdians? I though the latter were nothing but a Scythian subgroup."

I think that everyone should acknowledge that the Sogdians and Kangju are not the same population. We should understand that the Sogdians are the descendants of Indo European speakers who migrated into southern Central Asian regions since 2000-1500 BCE. The Kangju and the early medieval Otyrar (genetically tested sites of Kokmardan and Konyrtobe) population are obviously the descendants of the early and late Bronze Age BMAC population whom genetically originated in the Neolithic West Asian region, meaning that the BMAC population and the core of the Kangju population probably spoke some kind of a proto version of the Sumerian language. The early medieval Kangju (and many other early medieval Central Asian tribes like the Turk, Karakhanid and Karluk) is a population of a mix between the BMAC and the Indo European speaking Sogdians.

Rob said...

Some comments dont seem to have a grip on the Ukraine Mesolithic. We need to recall that only sites on the Dnieper have been tested so far (Vasilievka, Dereivka). These riverine sites must have been contested for their resources, esp. after 6000 BC as resources were drying up.
So when we see a comparative shift in genetic ancestry in 'Ukraine Neolithic', it is the clannish dominance of those sites.

The overall regional layout would not have shifted too markedly. For ex broadly it would have looked like this since the late Paelolithic until the post-Stog clan bottlenecks, with some local shifts
E.g. this

The external influences imparting cultural effects would be Farmers from the west and Majkop from southeast.

vAsiSTha said...

"Why do so many posters here assert BMAC has anything to do with an Indo-Iranic group, in light of Narasimhan 2018 and 2019 discovery that BMAC’s contribution was negligible at best?"

narasimhan is wrong. Swat samples cannot be modeled without BMAC type ancestry. anyone who has tried modeling swat samples in qpAdm or even G25 knows this.

Target: PAK_Arkotkila_IA
Distance: 3.8387% / 0.03838677
43.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
38.4 UZB_Bustan_BA
18.2 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA


Target: PAK_Butkara_IA
Distance: 1.9916% / 0.01991648
45.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
35.4 UZB_Bustan_BA
19.2 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA


Target: PAK_Barikot_IA
Distance: 1.6646% / 0.01664620
42.2 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
33.4 UZB_Bustan_BA
24.4 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

Target: PAK_Gogdara_IA
Distance: 1.8868% / 0.01886805
47.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
30.2 UZB_Bustan_BA
22.2 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

Target: PAK_Katelai_IA
Distance: 1.4490% / 0.01449004
48.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
32.2 UZB_Bustan_BA
19.8 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

Target: PAK_Loebanr_IA
Distance: 1.3295% / 0.01329497
47.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2
33.0 UZB_Bustan_BA
19.4 KAZ_Dali_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA

Davidski said...

BMAC couldn't have been Indo-Iranian speaking.

If we apply this method to the Indo-Iranian vocabulary, we come to the undeniable conclusion that the Aryans were nomadic pastoralists. They had dozens of words related to horses, harness, chariots, all sorts of cattle, and very limited agricultural terminology. Besides, there were practically no terms in their language relating to permanent houses, let alone words like ‘palace’ or ‘temple’. The only conclusion we can draw is that the Aryans were simply unable to build a city like Gonur. Moreover, they as nomads did not even need such a city.

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004438200/BP000002.xml?language=en

Rob said...

@ Archi, Matt
Fair enough. But that won;t change things too much..

vAsiSTha said...

Davidski
Viktor sarianidi trumps Lubotski any day..
He has been absolutely right so far about steppes minimal impact on bmac, in opposition to claims by steppe theorists like kuzmina and Mallory who were adamant that the steppe 'aryans' passing through bmac left a cultural trail on bmac and post bmac - for eg the bustan necropolis and the fire altars found there (no steppe ancestry though, too bad).

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski The Aryans are descendants of Sredny Stog > Corded Ware > Fantyanovo > Abashevo and Srubnaya > Sintashta > Andronovo > any Europoid pop speaking IE languages: Bactrian, Scythians, Tocharians, Nothern Indians, Iranians, Wusun, Yuezhi, Saka, Kushans, Pashtun and Nepalis.

@Vasishta BMAC along with Botai have been scattered to the wind by the expanding warrior pastoralist Sintashta.

@Rob @Matt @Zardos @Archi How plausible is the theory that Sredny Stog was created by Dnieper Donets (R1a1) males marrying GAC, Tripolye and Funnelbeaker women with Anatolian farmer ancestry, to create Sredny Stog?

Andrzejewski said...

Expanding on my idea expressed earlier in this thread, that North American Natives had linguistic affiliation matching their 2 streams of deep ancestry, I can conjure up some phonetic similarity between Japanese and Algonquian (words such as Idaho, Ohio and Iowa sound like Japanese), mixed up with the hypothesis that Japanese is remotely related to Altaic languages (all ydna Hap C carriers), then perhaps most NA languages south of Canada derive from the Ulchi-like (Evenk) pop carrying uniparental Y-dna C, contrasting it with Na-Dene and Inuits and a few (Haida?) tribes whose linguistic affiliation matches their Y-DNA as WSHG, such as Kett (Yenisseyan), Botai and Okunevo?

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

Your comments here hardly ever make any sense. The arguments in this article make perfect sense.

If we apply this method to the Indo-Iranian vocabulary, we come to the undeniable conclusion that the Aryans were nomadic pastoralists. They had dozens of words related to horses, harness, chariots, all sorts of cattle, and very limited agricultural terminology. Besides, there were practically no terms in their language relating to permanent houses, let alone words like ‘palace’ or ‘temple’. The only conclusion we can draw is that the Aryans were simply unable to build a city like Gonur. Moreover, they as nomads did not even need such a city.

https://brill.com/view/book/9789004438200/BP000002.xml?language=en

Kouros said...

@ David , when will these Mesolithic Steppe genome be released? I am in absolute agreement they must be ancient for even Siberians to mix with such population to create creole WSHG/Progress profile so far up north in Siberia distant from Caucasus.

Davidski said...

@Kouros

Well, we do have Mesolithic genomes from the steppe, but not from the right places.

It seems that the Progress/Yamnaya-like Mesolithic populations lived just west of the Caspian Sea, probably along the Volga and/or the Caspian coast.

And yes, populations like Kumsay_EBA and Steppe Maykop probably formed when these Progress-like groups mixed with nearby WSHG foragers.

I have seen Pottery Neolithic (that is, forager) samples from the Volga region, and they look like Progress or Khvalynsk samples, so their Mesolithic ancestors couldn't have been much different.

vAsiSTha said...

@Davidski

"Besides, there were practically no terms in their language relating to permanent houses, let alone words like ‘palace’ or ‘temple’."

Lol ok

RV Mandala VII 88.5 (Griffith)
"What hath become of those our ancient friendships, when without enmity we walked together?
I, Varuna, thou glorious Lord, have entered thy lofty home, thine house with thousand portals."

Mandala II 41.5
"Both Kings who never injure aught seat them in their supremest home, The thousand-pillared, firmly-based."

Lubotski is indeed full of shit

क्व१ त्यानि॑ नौ स॒ख्या ब॑भूवु॒: सचा॑वहे॒ यद॑वृ॒कं पु॒रा चि॑त् ।
बृ॒हन्तं॒ मानं॑ वरुण स्वधावः स॒हस्र॑द्वारं जगमा गृ॒हं ते॑ ॥५॥

kva ǀ tyāni ǀ nau ǀ sakhyā ǀ babhūvuḥ ǀ sacāvahe iti ǀ yat ǀ avṛkam ǀ purā ǀ cit ǀ

bṛhantam ǀ mānam ǀ varuṇa ǀ svadhā-vaḥ ǀ sahasra-dvāram ǀ jagama ǀ gṛham ǀ te ǁ

grham is the word still used today for 'family, house'.. check

https://www.gruh.com/ its a housing finance company lol.

So yes, Lubotski is full of shit.

vAsiSTha said...

@Davidski

"let alone words like ‘palace’ or ‘temple’"

Mandala X 107.10

bhojāya ǀ aśvam ǀ sam ǀ mṛjanti ǀ āśum ǀ bhojāya ǀ āste ǀ kanyā ǀ śumbhamānā ǀ
bhojasya ǀ idam ǀ puṣkariṇī-iva ǀ veśma ǀ pari-kṛtam ǀ devamānā-iva ǀ citram ǁ

devamAna = palace of the Gods/dwelling of the Gods/temple/ german - Götterwohnung

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski I read recently scientific papers denoting a discontinuity between LBK and TRB/Funnelbeaker. The main take was that the populations were both culturally and genetically very distinct from one another, despite their share of common Anatolian ANF stock.
The main difference was a stark increase in HG introgression (both sexes), but I could also detect a swift change from N1a, K, UV, R and T to mtDNA H. All these uniparental Haplogroups are common within modern European, and to a lesser extent- Caucasian and West Asian populations.

According to the paper, a Michelsberg farmer group originally from the Paris Basin is responsible for that change (ultimately from Cardial Pottery). Therefore it beckons the questions:

1. Is GAC ultimately from the west? And if affirmative, would the high rate of mtDNA H of all clades be attributed to Cardial Pottery ultimately?

2. Are all modern Europeans’ ANF contribution then owing to Cardial pottery v. Balkan Farmers?

3. Were Cardial and Balkan farmers descendants of the same Barcin populations, or were there distinct Anatolian pops based on regional variations? (Or was it purely to “genetic drift)?

4. Is the fact that modern ME and Caucasus pops have all these mtDNA groups but share much more frequently with LBK ones one factor explaining the enormous cultural and genetic differences (without taking Yamnaya into account).

5. Were Tripolye related to LBK compared to TRB and GAC?

But the most important question is:

6. Are there any survivors of the so-called Balkan or Agean farmers? Would we classify current Balkan - Romania and Hungary all the way to Southern Greece as constituting LBK/Koros Balkanic route + later Anatolian BA/KAC?

Matt said...

vAsiSTha: And it is true that even many samples quite late after BMAC in the region show little to no steppe related ancestry. As I can remember there is no presence of Steppe ancestry within BMAC within the cemetaries in the city, in any sites that indicator a warror elite position. Steppe samples are found in camps around the cities which may be during or perhaps after the settlement phase and misdated (perhaps some would suggest these are to destroy or besiege the cities, but I don't think there is any evidence of such). Certainly this seems a bit of a corrective to the ideas of many archaeologists (such as Parpola who bandied about these ruling elite things virtually everywhere).

Andrzejewski: As you know from Anthony's presentation, the "Sredny Stog" samples overlap Yamnaya, and the "Early Sredny Stog" sample is north of them (so requiring some form of CHG rich admixture to get to Sredny Stog position, either Progress_En like or something else).

Since Yamnaya can't be modelled as the Ukraine_N (Dnieper-Donets) population admixing with EEF groups, you'd see that what you propose wouldn't seem to work.

On the other hand, perhaps this is from a point in Sredny-Stog where the ancestry is taken over by some other population or something like this.

Archi said...

@Rob
"Fair enough. But that won;t change things too much.."

This sample is too low quality, it is very heavily contaminated by someone and therefore its haplogroup is not defined, they even refused to attribute it to the haplogroup R, and began to attribute it to the haplogroup F. Apparently there is just garbage from a lot of false readings. Most likely the autosomes were also contaminated by some of the researchers.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

"is indeed full of shit"

You are really inadequate and full of shit, the word home is not a palace or a temple. You need to finish elementary school.

"devamAna = palace of the Gods/dwelling of the Gods/temple/"

LOL, it is lie
deva-māna is the dwelling of the gods
deva is s god
māna is a building, house, dwelling, not a palace nor a temple.

Lubotsky is right about everything, he just wrote what absolutely everyone claims, vAsiSTha is wrong about everything and just lies.

Matt said...

@andrezjewski: re divergence of EEF, check out a momentary slide at 1 hr 8 mins from a recent talk by Reich - https://youtu.be/QoGmPJJS3X8

We'll see more in a paper but it does seem like they have identified some forms of relatedness between the EEF groups via Mediterranean and Danubian routes. So they are not completely separated populations, and/or probably diverging from a recent shared population.

Rob said...

@ Andrze
To simplify things, I see GAC as south Baltic / Polish hunter-gatherers marrying LBK/ SBK women en masse and adopting agriculture, but in a new way adapted to northern Europe.
The evidence doesnt point to an origin in France. Michelsberg is still something of a 'classic farmer' culture, with hg G2a, E-V13, etc (mixed streams of LBK & Cardial).
The archaeological evidence suggests expansion from Kuyavia (i) to West into Germany & Czechia (ii) toward east - Moldova, middle Dnieper, eastern Transylvania
The aDNA data is consistent with this, although some western shift is to be noted - due to ''connections' betweeen middle Neolithic societies across Europe


''Would we classify current Balkan - Romania and Hungary all the way to Southern Greece as constituting LBK/Koros Balkanic route + later Anatolian BA/KAC?''

There have been way to many recombinations in this region to base it solely on neolithic & bronze Age periods. I would think that 'old Balkan farmer' ancestry remains in some Greeks ?




''Were Cardial and Balkan farmers descendants of the same Barcin populations''

Archaeologists think that the main route of neolithic was via south and southwest Anatolia, then Greece-> Macedonia, rather than NW Anatolia-> Bulgaria. But this'll need some pretty fine scale analysis in upcoming years. ..




@ Archi

Yes i had recalled Arza was confident of the calls & D.A. had even written about them, but subsequently that sample as well as the 'Varna-Outlier' have been marked questionable.
But I agree with your pondering about Latvia-HG like people for the relevance of R1b-m269, hence would not be surprised to see that lineage in Eneolithic western Steppe in future, more optimal data..

Rich S. said...

Here's another interesting item: the Razib Khan podcast of his recent interview of Nick Patterson from David Reich's team:

https://unsupervisedlearning.libsyn.com/nick

Near the end of the interview, Patterson talks briefly about finding Corded Ware and Yamnaya individuals who were actual relatives. Here's a quote from Nick Patterson:

"I'll give you a heads up. You mentioned the Corded Ware. We believed, in a paper about five years ago, that Corded Ware were getting massive amounts of ancestry from the Russian steppe. There was a population of pastoralists on the steppe called the Yamnaya. That was what we thought five years ago and there have been numerous papers saying, 'No, no, it shouldn't be Yamnaya because of this and that. It's probably some other group that's not Yamnaya and you haven't genotyped them yet,' or something like that. Well, you know, heads up: we're finding numerous actual relatives between Corded Ware and Yamnaya."

Very much in line with what David Reich says here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QoGmPJJS3X8&t=2707s

vAsiSTha said...

@Matt

"such as Parpola who bandied about these ruling elite things virtually everywhere"

These 'scholars' have their whole theories resting on such connections which later turn out false.

Kouros said...

@David,

Merci for your insight, indeed it will likely pan out in this manner. If those Maykop Steppe/Kumsay were present in the late Neolithic, the Volga related CHG must have formed earlier and move into the Steppe long ago to have been present far and wide.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi

Never seen a more cocksure individual than you.

Lubotski: "Besides, there were practically no terms in their language relating to permanent houses..."

Outright false. gṛham (home, house) is the word from RV used even today..
later, grihya-sutras = texts for household rites and rituals

So yeah, lubotski is full of shit.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

Lubotski: "Besides, there were practically no terms in their language relating to permanent houses..."

You really can't read like an elementary schoolboy. Lubotski wrote that there are no terms relating to permanent houses, that is, describing their structure, not that there are no terms for a house. Of course Damas is there, as is gr̥hás "house," which in other languages means "fence, city" (Sintashta is a house), but in the Avesta it word means gǝrǝδō "cave", that is not even a house.

Learn to read.

Matt said...

@Rich, I have a mixed impression of that quote I think if the central point that people were making was that "Corded Ware probably diverged from the Sredni Stog/Repin cultures *not* the Yamnaya phase" then that may stand up and is not necessarily refuted. (And that may possibly refute some of David Anthony's ideas, that key parts of proto-IE languages and culture developed during exactly the Yamnaya phase and no earlier and can be directly associated with Yamnaya archaeology.).

But if people were saying "Corded Ware and Yamnaya culture diverged very far before the 3rd Millennium. and they don't share recent ancestors. and female mediated links weren't present. and they likely spoke very diverged languages, rather than almost or actually completely undifferentiated languages", then all that may not stand up for the reasons of those relational links.

Rich S. said...

@Matt

Have you watched the Reich video at the link I provided? Anthony also says pretty much the same thing in one of his recent videos. I don't think these relations go back as far as Sredni Stog. They share much more recent common ancestors.

Rob said...

Corded Ware only moved out after 3000 BC, so it is at least contemporary with Yamnaya, Early CWC biruals are the same as Yamnaya

Arza said...

@ Rich S., Matt

Third population (e.g. CHG-rich "Caucasian wives") admixing into pre-Yamnaya and pre-CWC would create such links between CWC and Yamnaya. As a result two guys may be close cousins genetically despite having nothing in common culturally nor linguistically.

Additionally low population size / density may skew the dating and the links will appear to be more recent.

And of course because of this:
https://i.postimg.cc/B4GCqKSj/West-Eurasia-PCA-Subtracted-EEF-ancestry.png

Yamnaya can't be the source of the steppe ancestry in CWC or BBC. At best Yamnaya is a Progress-enriched homogeneous off-shoot, whose Y-DNA is just a small subset of a greater pool.

@ Rob, Archi

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1352772293202767874
I believe this is the oldest R-M269 currently known! Based on its coverage it could be ancestral for the two children nodes of R-M269, but no coverage.

ID of this sample is "I2181_published" so they also have an unpublished one with better quality:
"_published" distinguishes a published sample for a still-unpublished higher quality version)

And besides one or two negative calls on an R or P level there is nothing that would suggest that the other calls are a result of contamination (e.g. in the case of M269 in Austrian LBK it was possible to separate calls into two different sets matching two different haplogroups).

Nevertheless caution is advised, as usual.

@ Andrzejewski

I’ve always thought the Poles were almost even on Steppe’s (Corded) and GAC’s contributions.

Balto-Slavs in general don't have any extra GAC ancestry above the level seen in CWC. And if they have, it's rather due to recent (well after the Proto-Slavic stage) Medieval Germanic admixture.

Davidski said...

@Arza

It's impossible for Caucasian wives to be the explanation for the appearance of the Yamnaya genotype, which was also the early CWC genotype (Don Yamnaya and early CWC are practically identical to each other).

Such a genotype existed on the steppe already during the Sredny Stog stage, and its base, which was very similar, existed on the steppe already during the Pottery Neolithic stage, and perhaps even during the Mesolithic.

So, Yamnaya and CWC are indeed closely related.

The only uncertainty is whether this relationship goes back to the Eneolithic or is much more recent.

vAsiSTha said...

@archi
" Lubotski wrote that there are no terms relating to permanent houses, that is, describing their structure, not that there are no terms for a house."

As usual he and you are both full of bs.

For God Varuna
"His chariot dazzles brilliantly like sunrays (ghabasti suro nadyauth – RV.1.122.15).Varuna and Mitra ride the golden chariot like floating clouds in the blue sky, drawn by well yoked steeds. (Rv.5.62.7). in the midst of vast heavens urukşhaya (RV 1.2.9) he is seated on a splendid throne of thousand columns (RV 2.41.5) and thousand doors (RV 7.88.5). From his glittering throne, the monarch (samrajnya) watches over the deeds of all men and gods (pastyasu)- (RV 1.22.11-12)."

sahasra-dvāram = 1000 doors, dvAra = door, word used even today
sahasra-sthūṇe = 1000 pillars, sthUNa = pillar, word used even today

With time, you will see much increased usage of these terms in Yajurveda and Atharvaveda.. This is because RV is much older than what you claim, not because RV was 'composed' inside some Andronovo camp. The geography of RV is extremely clear even to dunces like you.

Matt said...

@Rich, yes, I watched it as soon as it was produced and commented up it extensively on other websites.

Archi said...

The early CWC had proportionally more EHG and less CHG than Yamnaya Samara, so when you add an extra EEF there, the EHG becomes only slightly more than Yamnaya and even less CHG. That is, CWC =/= k * Yamnaya Samara + (1-k)*EEF.

Davidski said...

Yamnaya from the Lower Don has more EHG/WHG than Samara Yamnaya, and like I said, it's identical to early CWC.

Archi said...

@vAsiSTha

"The geography of RV is extremely clear even to dunces like you."

The door is in all CWC-derived Indo-European languages, Indo-Europeans had both doors and houses. You are the dumbass here, inadequate dumbass who can't read or understand. All your outpourings are thrown in the trash, you will squeal for the rest of your life, but no one cares about your squeal.

Archi said...

@Davidski

"Yamnaya from the Lower Don has more EHG/WHG than Samara Yamnaya, and like I said, it's identical to early CWC."

Early CWC had no more WHG than Samara Yamnaya.

Rob said...

@ Arza
Yep I thought so ;) Thanks

Matt said...

@Rich S, I guess to explain my stance here a bit more, I'm taking a bit of a medium position between extreme skepticism of the methods and extreme optimism, though probably I'm more optimistic than most.

Where they identify links - like between Corded Ware and Yamnaya, or Steppe_Maykop and Usatovo samples - I'm willing to give them the benefit of the doubt that their method is not just picking up matches that are dated to shared Mesolithic ancestries at like 3000 years earlier, and this does really represent relatively recent interactions... But I'm not totally confident that where they identify links that seem like with 3 generations, and so 100 odd years, it's exactly right and it not actually like be 200 or 300 years in reality. Or if 10 generations (300 years), maybe 20-30 generations (600-900 years). Like "Order of magnitude probably right, but I'm not sure about multiples". And those differences would change the story a lot.

There are some things in Reich's presentation there about shared IBD detection by this method between Unetice and Corded Ware populations who are separated by quite a bit of time, for an example.

There's also the thing that, of the samples who are described as Yamnaya so far, just looking at samples good enough to get on Global25, we have, judging by YBP and transforming to median date BCE:

1) Approx 3100 BCE: 1/23 (RUS_Yamnaya_Caucasus:RK1007, who shows some tilt to the Caucasus), 2) 3100-3000 BCE: 5/23, 3) 2900-2800 BCE: 3/23, which includes the Yamnaya_Ozera outlier, 4) 2800-2700 BCE: 8/23, which includes Yamnaya_Bulgaria outlier, 5) Post 2700 BCE: 5 /23. Comparably early Corded Ware are around 2x 2900-2800 BCE, 1x 2700 BCE.

(There is also one sample RUS_Yamnaya_Caucasus:SA6010 who was precociously dated at a date YBP that translates to 3400 BCE, but who has now been revised to description as RUS_Caucasus_Eneolithic, on the basis of weak dating and relative links to Steppe_Maykop: SA6001).

I.e. although Yamnaya culture is dated from 3300-2600 BCE and Sredni-Stog supposedly phases out by 4500 BCE - 3500 BCE, and some people place Yamnaya at very early date of 3500 BCE, our genetic samples do not really date (going by median dates at last) that early within that sequence, so it seems possible to me that the Yamnaya phase is later than the earliest date and the pre-Yamnaya cultures last longer.

There may have been these cultures living in the steppes or the forest steppes to the north who were not Yamnaya culturally, and did not participate (much or at all) in the Yamnaya burial rite and were excluded from sites, but diverged from the same Sredni-Stog culture, and shared some female mediated geneflow. Archaeologists might not call these people Yamnaya, while someone like Nick Patterson who defines populations more genetically than by material culture might be tempted to do so. So the question of "Is Corded Ware 'from' Yamnaya?" might need to be thought about in this context.

vAsiSTha said...

"the door is in all CWC-derived Indo-European languages, Indo-Europeans had both doors and houses."

Sure. You can put the words in all made up reconstructed languages lol and showcase them as being real.. then you can prove whatever you want with them.

Which is the oldest extant inscription/text of 'cwc derived' language?

Copper Axe said...

"Which is the oldest extant inscription/text of 'cwc derived' language?"

If we're talking about the language itself rather than substrates like Mitanni Aryan, it is Italic I think. 7th century bc.

Indo-Aryan languages are only properly textually attested from the 4th century bc onwards.

vAsiSTha said...

"If we're talking about the language itself rather than substrates like Mitanni Aryan, it is Italic I think. 7th century bc."

which text?

"Indo-Aryan languages are only properly textually attested from the 4th century bc onwards."

Immaterial. This whole field of study would not have happened if the Brahmins all over subcontinent did not perfectly preserve the vaidik samhitas and the early aryan language orally, you all know that. Even though the date you ascribe to it is wrong, it is at least a millenium older than that.

JuanRivera said...

What became of the 31 or so Khvalysnk samples?

Matt said...

Off-topic: Pastoralism in Central Asia (via rozenfeld) - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41562-021-01083-y - "Evidence for early dispersal of domestic sheep into Central Asia" - "Here, we present archaeological and biomolecular evidence from Obishir V in southern Kyrgyzstan, establishing the presence of domesticated sheep by ca. 6,000 BCE." ... "predating previous evidence by 3,000 years and suggesting that domestic animal economies reached the mountains of interior Central Asia far earlier than previously recognized.". Inner Asia Mountain Corridor. Very early dispersal if right, early as "First Neolithic" in Europe.

Andrzejewski said...

I watched Dr. Anthony’s lecture (the the link to Dr. Reich’s that Matt posted here). While I appreciate Anthony’s background in archeology, I don’t regard his opinions on genetics. I read his book that came out in 2008, which was just before BROAD lab’s breakthrough on ancient DNA, and much of what he wrote in his book has been debunked.

As a kurganist I am upbeat that science has corroborated a European origin for post-BA European cultures and languages (even non-IE pops - Basques, Sami, Finns, Estonians and Hungarians are of majority Steppe Herder stock and a significant ancestry’s percentage of Ashkenazi Jews plot with Yamnaya as well) - but I wouldn’t take Anthony’s word as the gospel on genetics, in spite of his strong support for Steppe origin.

mzp1 said...

Matt with a killer post. That should be enough for anyone with understanding of this discussion that our dates for PIE are far too late and that these processes do back much further into history. I still hold that Cattle predate sheep and PIE exists from the earliest cattle domestication.

Ric Hern said...

@ mzp1

I think this has got something to do with the evolution of fat tailed sheep specifically. I do not think Cattle reached those areas so early. I think the Zebu (Bos Indicus) type was needed to cross this desert like environment from South to North and we already know when the Bos Indicus arrived in that area. My guess is still that Cattle came via Europe specifically because Haplogroup T3 was dominant in Northern Central Asia from the very beginning while in Europe there was a selection process where T3 eventually became dominant. T3 was Bos Taurus not Indicus.

Ric Hern said...

@ mzp1

What is interesting for me is the Short Tailed sheep of Northern Europe and specifically the Romanov breed of the Volga which apparently split up very early on from the rest of the short tailed breeds entering Europe from Asia Minor.

vAsiSTha said...

"A new study, published today in the journal Nature: Human Behavior, reveals that the roots of animal domestication in Central Asia stretch back at least 8,000 years -- making the region one of the oldest continuously inhabited pastoral landscapes in the world."

Been saying this for long. Even Jeitun culture has domesticated sheep and goat dated 6000bce. although Obishir-V is more eastern than Jeitun.

Rich S. said...

@Matt

Not to start a big argument, but it seems to me you are reading a lot into a very blurry chart that appears briefly during Reich's video remarks - a chart no one watching that video can really read. What Reich, Patterson, and Anthony said is that there are 23andMe-style (using Reich's analogy) relationships between Yamnaya and Corded Ware. None of them mentioned such connections between Yamnaya and Unetice or Yamnaya and any other group. As I said, that chart is too blurry to base anything on: certainly not an argument against its own author's interpretation of it. I tend to think all three men know what they are talking about and would not speak in terms of relationships in genealogical time if those relationships were much more distant.

Genos Historia said...

@Rich S,

I agree with your criticism of the 23andme cousins between Yamnaya & Corded Ware. What type of cousins are they? I don't think they said so.

Reich's lab should know only Y DNA can confirm Corded Ware comes from Yamnaya.

I do think Corded Ware comes from Yamnaya. I just find it confusing that almost all Yamnaya so far are R1b Z2103, and all Corded Ware are R1a M417 and R1b L51 (excluding some I2a).

Matt said...

vAsiSTha/MzP:yeah, not sure what is matters to, but makes me wonder if generally more early dispersion of herding than we think.

Rich: yeah, well, it's not published or peer reviewed yet; I have some more confidence than most (so I'm taking an opposite position here in this discussion with you than in previous ones with David), but not that much. Take it or leave it until their paper is out I guess.

Rob said...

@ Mzp1

How do the domestic sheep in Ferghana 600o BC lead you the conclusion that PIE “must have” expanded earlier than generally posited ?

Rich S. said...

@Genos Historia

I agree that is confusing, but Yamnaya was pretty widespread across the steppe, and who knows but Reich and company what unpublished Y-DNA they have?

I actually transcribed the pertinent part of what Reich said, as briefly as possible, with the help of closed captioning, starting at about 46:17 into his recent video -

"So we now have data that's new data that is led by Harald Ringbauer where we can actually really ask the question is it the Yamnaya or some people very very close to them or is it some other group that has ancestry similar to them that is contributing.

So we have many sampled Yamnaya genomes now and we can tie them now within generations to people who spread steppe ancestry west. That's using this idea that I mentioned to you before of 23andMe for ancient genomes. We look for close cousins between these ancient genomes, and we find many close cousins between Yamnaya, who are these ones here in this grid [indicating a table that appears on screen at about 46:54], and bright bright colors indicates close relationship, and Corded Ware, which is one of the first archaeological culture in central Europe and eastern Europe that contains steppe ancestry, and there's lots of close relationships, which means these individuals must have shared ancestors within generations."

Of course, Reich doesn't say how many generations when he says "within generations", nor does he say how just close the "close cousins" are, but it wouldn't make sense to use language like that if the relationships were not within genealogical time and probative of the descent of Corded Ware from Yamnaya predecessors.

Matt said...

@vAsiSTha: If you're still reading, here's a quick question/proposal for you:

We've all discussed before the Steppe_Eneolithic samples (Progress and Vonyuchka) and how they model.

I mentioned upthread (or in previous thread) that one of the samples in "Yamnaya_Caucasus", SA6010, who is dated very early compared to other Steppe_EMBA (3400 BCE), has been re-assigned to "Caucasus_Eneolithic" by the Reich Lab, based on his relationship to a Steppe_Maykop sample, SA6001.

This makes some sense since the sample appears to cluster with Steppe_Eneolithic in Global 25 data.

Looking at the samples, there is also another Yamnaya_Caucasus sample, RK1007, who dates just earlier than all the other Yamnaya samples in other locations (3100 BCE) but quite a bit earlier than other Yamnaya Caucasus samples (2850 BCE-2720 BCE).

Now this sample also clusters with Steppe_Eneolithic, which seems interesting!

See here for a some results / graphics display (showing clustering, PCA, Vahaduo models that show these relationships): https://imgur.com/a/YjLGsT5

So my ask is kind of: If you were to run your qpAdm models with these 5 samples, rather than the 3 previous Steppe_Eneolithic samples, are the results still consistent with your general findings and do these models get a bit more robust (e.g. CHG+EHG isn't enough to explain them?)?

vAsiSTha said...


@Rob

"How do the domestic sheep in Ferghana 600o BC lead you the conclusion that PIE “must have” expanded earlier than generally posited ?"

Not a direct answer to your question, but as per Mallory PIE was in a region with domesticated livestock and arable agriculture. SC Asia passes both these criteria..
Can also explain Tokharian (just over the Dzhungar plains on the IAMC) and Steppe_eneolithic (just across the caspian)..
As i have been claiming since long, once we get 6000bce samples from east of caspian (should be iran_n like + ANE) they will prove a good 3rd source for progress and vonyuchka ancestry.

From Mallory 2013 - 21st century clouds over IE homeland

" All models cited above acknowledge that the Proto-Indo-Europeans possessed an economy based on domesticated livestock and domestic cereals. Earlier models such as those developed in detail by Wilhelm Brandenstein (1936) that suggested a marked dichotomy
between arable Europeans and pastoral Indo-Iranians (or Tokharians) cannot really be sustained (Mallory 1997b) and despite a considerable number of differences there is still a substantial amount of shared agricultural vocabulary between European and Asian languages
(Table 1 and 2). While the lists of cognates can certainly be criticized in certain specifics and they may well be an over-optimistic summary, I fear that there would still be a sufficient assemblage of words to indicate that both Europeans and Asiatic Indo-Europeans shared inherited words for both livestock and arable agriculture (if someone can prove they did not, this would make things easier for many of the homeland models). Thus, any solution to the homeland problem must be able to explain how we can recover cognate terms associated with farming from Ireland to India."

vAsiSTha said...

http://www.spekali.tsu.ge/index.php/en/article/viewArticle/2/16

The Homeland Problem of Indo-European Language-Speaking Peoples - Nikoloz Silagadze

"Thus, we believe that the homeland of peoples speaking Indo-European languages was located on the territory of the southern Middle Asia and northern Iran. Here as early as Mesolithic period the process of the formation of Proto-Indo-European linguistic peculiarities may have started. This process must have been considerably accelerated by the spread of farming in this part of the world (i.e. Southern Middle Asia and northern Iran) and formation of Hisar and Jeitun like archeological cultures. The disintegration of Indo-European linguistic space may have started in the fifth and fourth millennia B.C. Its spread on the Eurasian continent proceeded in two directions. The spread of Anatolian languages to the west must have been linked with the formation of the Kura-Araxes culture, and then its disintegration in the second half of the third millennium B.C. Tocharian languages were not subjected to significant movement. Agriculture must be considered as a marker of Indo-Europeans expansion to Volga-Ural. According to the Pontic-Caspian theory there was located the Indo-Europeans's homeland which in our opinion, was the homeland only for "old-European" and wing of Aryo-Graeco-Armenian stock. In our view such reasoning does not break any of D.Adams and J.Melor's criteria mentioned. All linguistic arguments proposed by T.Gamkrelidze and V.Ivanov also remain in force. "

Another one who proposes Jeitun as PIE - Kozintsev (2019)

https://pure.spbu.ru/ws/files/53198823/Proto_Indo_Europeans_The_prologue_2019_.pdf

Davidski is referenced in this paper haha

Davidski said...

Looks like the usual garbage.