search this blog

Monday, March 29, 2021

Khvalynsk is now out of the picture


The population associated with the Khvalynsk culture was not ancestral to the Yamnaya people. Archeologist David Anthony says so HERE. So where did the Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations come from? Anthony doesn't know yet.

See also...

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

Ancient DNA vs Ex Oriente Lux

A final note for the year

123 comments:

Davidski said...

Let's get back to blogging!

MitchellSince1893 said...

Sredny Stog is a good candidate according to Anthony

MitchellSince1893 said...

The actual quote from Anthony
“Yamnaya is incredibly homogeneous...almost inexplicably homogeneous. We have Sredni Stog samples that are right in the same group as Yamnaya so probably Yamnaya evolved from some kind of Sredni Stog culture in the Ukraine...”

Davidski said...

Thanks, I skimmed through the clip and missed that.

Vladimir said...

It's hard to say without dates, but judging by the schedule in Yamnaya presentation, this is a mix of what he called the Eneolite of Russia, located on the left near the Dnieper-Donetsk Eneolite and CHG. Geographically, this is the Eneolithic of the Don River, or in other words, the culture of the Middle Don. A sample of the early Sredniy Stog is located in this place.

Arza said...

Let's get back to plotting!

https://i.postimg.cc/B4GCqKSj/West-Eurasia-PCA-Subtracted-EEF-ancestry.png

Subtracting EEF ancestry from Steppe MLBA / Europe LNBA samples reveals a hypothetical source of their steppe ancestry.

Clearly it's not Yamnaya. At least not of the Samara / Kalmykia type, as this cluster overlaps practically only with Yamnaya Don.

Yamnaya and Sredni Stog look like this hypothetical population mixed with Progress and maybe a little bit of Khvalynsk and EEF.

Note that there is no certainty that any of the ancestors of CWC looked like this at any point in time. It's possible that the source of CWC generally was more western and was gaining CHG and EEF ancestry simultaneously.

Andrzejewski said...

I lost Anthony in 2019 when he classified PIE as an “EHG language” because to him the uniparental markers pointed to “EHG and WHG males marrying EEF and CHG women”.

But to his credit, I give him that he’s an avid Kurganist like myself, who believes in the evidence showing that the Indo-European dialects first associated with Western Steppe Herders arose in Eastern Europe.

rozenblatt said...

Well, I guess it's most probably question of time, given Reich's conveyor, they will study samples from all over Pontic-Caspian steppes. I think Don river region is underexplored currently, so Yamnaya origins may end up being there.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza,

Corded Ware derived groups show slightly more "EHG" and less CHG, than Yamnaya. But, chances are they come from Steppe groups who were sibling populations to Yamnaya. What I mean to say is, their CHG comes from the same source. They just have less of it.

Sofia Aurora said...

Now if i open my big mouth will i be the "bad person" again?

Anthony said so!
Anthony had said many things after the not so successful latest book of his back in 2016!

He had also fully neglected his post in the Journal of Indoeuropean Studies because we have not seen an archaeological article for 7 years now!
He comes lately with very bizzare ideas that makes you feel that he likely expresses them more to make noise than to make a point!
"boys making noise" ah?
Perhaps!!

BUT

As of late many Russian journals have started playing the "Maikop wildcard" in order to prove a very ancient inflow from Mesopotamia and the Middle East to Caucasus and finally to the steppes!

The aral journal of history, the Moscow bulletin of history and linguistics, the Tomsk journal of history, the south Ural bulletin of history, the Irkutsk journal of ethnography and history etc. etc. etc. and i could go on for an hour!
There are about 30 journals that deal with archaeology and ethnography and some with linguistics too that SUDDENLY promote this "Maikop thesis".

Of course there are others that support the standard kurgan theory but somehow they present the Khvalynsk phenomenon as part of the Yelshan culture (i.e. the Elshanka culture) by lowering the archaicity of Yelshan to late Neolithic - Eneolithic.
They also now doubt that in the Neolithic, the Kama - Middle Volga area was inhabited by the ancestors of proto-Indoeuropeans and present other cultures as candidates!!!

All these started last year!
The journals are too many for that shift to be coincidencial i think.

I don't know if they have some info that we still do not have but from what i have read their criteria are purely archaeological.
Time will show how and where this shift goes to.

P.S. this Carpathian aDNA from Nagy and the Mycenaeans' new samples studies have not appeared. Any news about them?

P.S.2 That Bulgarian fellow that had uploaded a video in which he said he had taken samples from Yamnaya and pre-Yamnaya kurgan burials has he given any "signs of life" yet?

Copper Axe said...

Still too much focus on Khvalynsk and the Volga but hey, what else to expect from Anthony?

Good to have you back!

Rob said...

Wow individuals #12 & 13 at Khvalysnk (2 brothers) fathered most of the group

Samuel Andrews said...

@Arza,

I think Yamnaya & Corded ware come from the same founding population.

Archi said...

Khvalynsk is not an ancestor for Indo-Europeans is true, but Indo-Europeans lived somewhere very close, so they intersected with Khvalynsk. By the way, we still can't tell if the Yamnayans were Indo-Europeans.
I still have a working hypothesis that the Yamnayans came from Dzhangar.

Interesting from Anthony 2021 about the relationship between Usatovo and Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog and Yamnaya Russia Don circled on PCAs.


https://i.ibb.co/C6XnZyz/Anthony2021-Usanovo-Khvalynsk-SStog-Don-PCAs.png


@Arza "It's possible that the source of CWC generally was more western and was gaining CHG and EEF ancestry simultaneously."

It's impossible.

Rob said...

"Wow individuals #12 & 13 at Khvalysnk (2 brothers) fathered most of the group"

Kurgan = patriarchal family (up to 5th-7th degree of kinship, cousins ... third cousins)

Davidski said...

Yamnaya didn't come from Dzhangar, because Yamnaya samples are significantly shifted west compared to Khvalynsk due to their Western HG and Euro farmer ancestry.

Matt said...

It's cool to see a "full" Khvalynsk cline on the PCA (excerpts here: https://m.imgur.com/a/4coC36k).

Comparing to the plots of previous samples: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html / https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/02/the-khvalynsk-men-2_16.html

The "centre of gravity" looks between the I0434 (richest CHG, Progress En like) and I0122. But hard to tell, and cemetery may be unrepresentative. It will be cool to put them into sequence, so we can see if they accumulate more CHG over time.

Also interesting that "Early Sredni Stog" is directly "north" of Sredni Stog, rather than "East", though what this means is hard to interpret (probably compatible with lots of explanations).

Yamnaya does seem to have these recent IBD links to Corded Ware (and there are similar between Yamnaya and even Unetice), so I would be surprised if there weren't relatively recent links. Back projection from GAC and modern or lnba Europeans to a single steppe source seems like it might be questionable.

Dates are really important for inference on these, e.g. if Yamnaya Don earlier than other samples, might tell a different story than if later.

Archi said...

The Eneolithic Dzhangar comes from the Novodanilovo branch that advanced from west to east. Dzhangar is not Khvalynsk, it's different culture.

Concerning the Sredny Stog specimens, I want to remind that it is not clear what kind of specimens they are, because under Sredny Stog in Europe they often call all those pre-Yamnaya culture, although that is not correct. We can see this perfectly well from the aDNA publications, so we need to look at what these samples are and their dating.

Rob said...

I wonder if those labelled "Eneolithic Russia' from contemporaneous forest zone (white upward triangles on Matt's link), e.g. ~ Volosovo as a guess.
They seem slightly WHG-shifted EHGs (closer to DD cluster).

The Don pre-Yamnaya / Yamnaya seem even more western than those, so it seems the main area seems to be Dnieper-Don interflueve.
That's the Skelja culture

Davidski said...

Yamnaya formed in what is now Ukraine or on the Ukrainian/Russian border. So Anthony is right about that.

The real question is where the eastern, Porgress-like ancestry of Yamnaya comes from, because it's obviously not native to Ukraine.

My bet is the Lower Don/Ciscaucasia.

EastPole said...

I think we can also see influence of Sredny Stog on Trypilia:

https://postimg.cc/YLmNSwNt

CrM said...

If Yamnaya Caucasus is overwhelmingly Progress-like, then standard Yamnaya could be Western Steppe/whatever + Progress, while early CWC just Western Steppe.
Western Steppe itself is likely Progress + Ukr_N-like pop.
https://i.imgur.com/zTXeuWS.png

I wonder though, was it Progress or Ukr_N who spoke PIE? If Progress wasn't PIE, then I imagine neither was Yamnaya Caucasus? And is z2103 from Progress?

Rob said...

To clarify ''That's the Skelja culture', that's where it would be in its time phase (~ 4500 BC); not in the immediate pre-Yamnaya period. It did not exist by then

Copper Axe said...

I think you had progress-like people (ehg+chg mixed) traveling up the Caspian coast to meet WSHG-like pops to create the eneolithic Central Asian/Steppe Maykop profile.

It would make sense that related populations would have a similar migratory pattern but more western, along the coastlines of the Sea of Azov.

This could explain how populations from around the Don got admixture from these eastern neighbours.

Archi said...

@Sofia Aurora

"As of late many Russian journals have started playing the "Maikop wildcard"
"The journals are too many for that shift to be coincidencial i think."

It's not. This is written by a single retired scientist, Kozintsev. It is only his hypothesis, no one supports it, but he is allowed to publish it.

Matt said...

Copper Axe, related; Carlos Quiles mentioned on his blog that SA6010 "Yamnaya Caucasus" was identified in the Human Origins anno as a relative of SA6001, who is one of the roughly 50:50 Progress_En+West_Siberia_HG groups. (Whatever ppl think of Quiles, think he can at least read an anno file, though I havent checked). So while we could object that the methods for inferring relatedness might be shaky, but if not means that Steppe_Maykop and people with a more typical WSH herder genotype (think that's true of SA6010, though he may be slightly more CHG like) were relatively recently part of same mating / marriage network.

That doesn't change anything v much but might raise our probability assessment that Steppe_Maykop were a mixture between early but ordinary Western steppe herders on the Khvalynsk cline (or even closer Sredny Stog) who were recruited into early metal trade networks by Maykop, due to their mobility advantages, and met with West Siberian like people through that role in their network, possibly quite recently to the date of these samples. Rather than a long standing differentiated people. (Then maybe descendents - Lola, Kumsay_EBA - ultimately absorbed at low levels into other larger populations later in history - see Potapovka diversity, Sintashta outliers, maybe North Caucasus potential contributions).

(This might explain the finding of a chunk sharing between some form of Maykop population and some form of WSH population, reported in previous Reich talk this month - https://m.imgur.com/a/vsIHv2z )

old europe said...

@CrM

But Progress has WHG/EHG pontic ancestry . So that influence that reached the northern foothills of the Caucasus would have made progress IE speaking. IE yline are from the pontic/caspian steppe not from the northern caucasus. The ukranian influence on progress is also quite clear from archeology. See Rassamakin

Progress is in reality
45 ukraine and western russian hunter ( lower Don)
55 something related to CHG

Ned said...

@Sofia and others
The genetic forebears of the Yamna(ya)culture are not neccessarily the linguistic forebears.
The Yamna(ya)culture may have adopted their language from the Maykop culture together with some other cultural elements as suggested by Kristiansen last year.

Matt said...

Followup to last comment to Copper Axe: although these look like different groups (Steppe_Maykop, Yamnaya), it does make me wonder if these long range trade networks (with Carpatho-Balkans as well) are part of the spur that made WSH groups "invest" so much in mobility and a mobile lifestyle, and that then helps us explain why they were so much more expansive in ways that many other earlier pastoral groups weren't (they were more on a local loop?). Big long range expansions of people often come after trade networks (which cause people to invest in mobility), in history?

Andrzejewski said...

@CrM “ Western Steppe itself is likely Progress + Ukr_N-like pop.
https://i.imgur.com/zTXeuWS.png

I wonder though, was it Progress or Ukr_N who spoke PIE? If Progress wasn't PIE, then I imagine neither was Yamnaya Caucasus? And is z2103 from Progress?”

Something is telling me that it was Progress who were the first speakers of anything ancestral to or resembling PIE.

Where Ukraine_N R1a1? Sredny Stog was rich in it.

Ric Hern said...

6500 BC. CHG ancestry already present in the Steppe. Did I hear correctly ? Or did he mean 6500 years ago ? So if the former is correct then CHG did indeed already enter the Steppe genepool during the Mesolithic...

vAsiSTha said...

I will watch the talk later. Hope he has some new genetic data from khvalynsk for this conclusion, especially outliers, rather than him talking out of his backside.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@David

I think you're right about a Lower Don origin.

And thanks for being so quick on those Kazakhstan samples. I'm going to look over those today.

If possible, would you mind converting these Austro-Asiatic samples to G25:

https://share.nibmg.ac.in/d/0b373e011a1d4f689cb2/

I'd be happy to label them.

Davidski said...

@Michalis

The README file appears to be referencing old papers. So the samples that are compatible are probably already in the G25 datasheets.

The data are obtained from the following studies (reference number in the square brackets)
367 individuals of Indian dataset from [8]
144 individuals of Malaysia from [34]
940 individuals of HGDP from [53]. The HGDP dataset is also separately available from https://www.hagsc.org/hgdp/files.html


Davidski said...

@Ned

I can't see Maykop as being linguistically ancestral to Yamnaya, because these two cultures didn't overlap genetically or geographically.

Indeed, when Yamnaya expanded its range south, Maykop disappeared. There's probably a good reason for that.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@David

Ah, okay, nevermind, thanks. With this Kazakhstan study, we've got more than enough samples right now anyway to keep us busy.

Davidski said...

@Matt

So while we could object that the methods for inferring relatedness might be shaky, but if not means that Steppe_Maykop and people with a more typical WSH herder genotype (think that's true of SA6010, though he may be slightly more CHG like) were relatively recently part of same mating / marriage network.

I wouldn't base any conclusions on IBD relatedness between two pseudo-haploid singletons.

For one, if real this signal might be a fluke, because Caucasus Yamnaya does appear to have some local ancestry that is missing in other Yamnaya groups. Secondly, there might be technical issues here.

The IBS stuff can only be really useful when fairly large sample sets are compared.

Also, any observations made by Carlos Quiles are best ignored as a rule.

CrM said...

@old europe

The EHG in Progress is pretty different from Ukr_N. It's not as WHG rich.
https://i.imgur.com/uX3O7qO.png

@Davidski

Maykop started to disappear right at the time when the Dolmen culture began to expand north, and the former Maykop territories were quickly taken by the Dolmenians, who were likely proto Northwest Caucasian.

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

The IBD method is definitely not using direct comparison between pseudo-haploids (that never works with snp capture low coverage data, everyone can see that) but something completely new, which probably infers IBD/potential relatedness with much better accuracy. Its likely a methods development, otherwise its not worth such fanfare.

Samuel Andrews said...

The whole idea of marriage networks in prehistoric Steppe, I think is false.

David Anthony pushes this idea. We at Eurogenes used to believe it on this blog. We used to say CHG spread due to marriage networks.

But, in prehistory we don't see any marriage networks. When intermarriage happens, it is due to one population migrating to a new place.

CHG ancestry spread across Steope because of the migration of a CHG rich population from the South. Probably Lower Don. They were probably the pre-Proto Indo Europeans.

Matt said...

I'd watch the Reich presentation though - if Reich is calling it like "23andme for ancient DNA", I would place confidence in it. As said, think Quiles is safe to literally read "X is related to Y" in an anno file by Reich lab, at least...

Synome said...

Sredny Stog is really looking like the epicentre of the IE explosion these days. I fully concur with David and others who see a predecessor on the Volga-Don steppe.

One detail that remains to be resolved is the circumstances of the Anatolian break off. In the video Anthony suggests it occurred with the eastward movement of the early steppe population into the Ukraine region. While most of that population mixed in place in that area he suggests, leading to the ancestor of most IE groups, some must have continued on through the southern Balkans and created the first split in PIE with proto Anatolian.

Romulus said...

Origin of Yamnaya? Descendants of ANI163 bringing wagons from the west.

VOX said...

There is somebody at deviantart creating drawings of the Yamnaya and other ancients based on previous reconstructions. Just thought it was interesting.


https://www.deviantart.com/tag/yamnaya

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “ I can't see Maykop as being linguistically ancestral to Yamnaya, because these two cultures didn't overlap genetically or geographically. ”

Indeed. But what language do you think they spoke? Hurro-Urartian? Kartvelian? Or NWC?

Andrzejewski said...

As much as I believe that WSH spoke languages unrelated to any other population, I am starting to think that the EEF influence on PIE is much underrated.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt I used to regard Quiles’s observation as interesting fairytales.

I lost all respect for him once he came up with this bizarre “Corded Ware were Indo-Uralic” rubbish.

Zulfiqar said...

Hey Davidski, I'm the one who uploaded the video.

I just posted further clips of Anthony answering follow-up Q&A questions that I though you & your audience might find interesting:


Anthony on the source of Yamnaya's CHG ancestry (interesting new samples coming?): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-MOrEA84qvo


Anthony on Steppe Maykop & Maykop: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1O1zDrW7SvE

Let us know your thoughts!

Copper Axe said...

"CHG ancestry spread across Steope because of the migration of a CHG rich population from the South. Probably Lower Don. They were probably the pre-Proto Indo Europeans"

Sam by this logic you might as well say that Proto-Scythians were Siberian foragers/pastoralists with y-dna Q1a2.

Pre-Proto-Indo-Europeans will be where the Y-dna will be.

Rob said...

@ crm

“ Maykop started to disappear right at the time when the Dolmen culture began to expand north, and the former Maykop territories were quickly taken by the Dolmenians, who were likely proto Northwest Caucasian.”


Dolmenic traditions appear already in late Majkop, assoc with rise in CHG relative to Iran & Anatolia N
Then during the MLBA there is a drop in settlements in the northwest caucasus foothills
The situation picks up again with the LBA - IA groups (eg Koban)
I would have thought these are more proximately relevant for modern groups

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

On that same YouTube channel I found something on where the CHG probably came from. Looks like Hunter Gatherers of the Caspian Delta area around 7000 BC...

Davidski said...

@Ric

You mean the Volga Delta?

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

Ric Hern said...

So if this CHG population moved up the Volga then maybe they come into contact with a non-Khvalynsk like population near the Middle Don where the Don River is closest to the Volga. Maybe some Botai like population picked up the remainders from near the Volga Delta after the innitial CHG spread up the Volga...

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Yes

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Sorry. I was thinking about the Caspian and Volga River Delta and didn't read what I wrote...

Copper Axe said...

Has anyone looked at the non-WSHG side of ancestry in Kumsay, Mereke and Steppe Maykop? Might be worthwile to substract that to see if the remaining profile is like steppe_eneolithic or perhaps slightly different (less EHG and more ANE+CHG perhaps?)

Its interesting that they found CHG rich samples in the Volga delta, it falls in line with my speculation earlier that you had steppe_eneolithic populations migrating along riverbeds and shores into that direction.

It wouldnt surprise me if we saw something similar further west. It isn't like we have a lot of samples from the relevant region (inbetween the Don, Volga and North Caucasus) to begin with.

Rob said...

@ Sam

“The whole idea of marriage networks in prehistoric Steppe, I think is false.”

But that’s what the data shows , as far as the pre-expansion phase in the steppe goes
The “proto” EHG/ CHG formed due to Volga - Caucasian networks
Then the Don guys got into it & perhaps coopted it
Then a few Dnieper -Donets also participated (the I2a2a1b) whilst others got marginalised (R1b-V88)

Matt said...

@ANI Excavator, right, whatever the new method is probably needs some testing and review, but not as simple as "off the shelf" IBD calls on the data. (Its in some way linked to the methods used by Ringbauer to accurately call RoH distributions in low coverage and capture samples, using references, and I think was used in the recent Caribbean paper or is an advance on that, but I don't really understand the method yet myself.)

@Sam, it's not "new ancestry" in the sense of a wholly new component, but I think the Lech Valley study did convincingly demonstrate influxes of different ancestry proportions via a marriage network of moving women.

@Zulfiqar, interesting stuff from DA.

1) CHG likely from Pre-Caspian based on Bereznovkha samples. That said, the Bereznovkha samples on the plot don't look far "south" genetically of Vonyuchka sample to me, more about the same place, so I don't know. But they may have more. Could be that a broadly CHG genotype was present in a few different places in the region between/around Black Sea and Caspian Sea.

2) Recent relatives (>3 degrees but relatively recent) between Usatovo in Black Sea (Moldova / Ukraine?) and a Steppe_Maykop person! That would seem to offer a separate confirmation (apart from the relative link above) that people involved in this Steppe_Maykop phenomenon shared recent ancestors with people from WSH formations. Mentions Maykop ancestry in Usatovo, although not whether this is SM or M type. We know that there's the early Yamnaya (earliest still in Ukraine I think?) of Yamnaya Ozera who has Maykop like ancestry of course. There is some variance in the Usatovo samples position; some are "east" of Yamnaya (so possibly some Botai/West Siberian ancestry in some Usatovans... Or not...). Usatovo was thought to be a relatively elite phenomenon if I recall correctly, so these samples might have some bias to some elite network which is slightly separate from the ones which lead to Yamnaya patrilineal clan (the ones we generally see in these Kurgans, with a few exceptions in Afanasievo and other groups, whether they were the main ones in the culture or not)

Interesting that he comments Steppe_Maykop as far as lower Don. He says they still only have these 5 samples, so it is not based on any new genetics. Kristianson is pushing him on whether language transfer from Maykop to Yamnaya is possible - he disprefers it (which seems sensible), but won't close the book on it. Seems to find Haak's "Steppe Maykop brought in as buffer against Yamnaya" idea slightly funny, because thinks of them as pre-Yamnaya.

Similar thoughts to my (non-unique) thoughts above; the expansion of mobility and technologies for mobility precedes Yamnaya and is perhaps from the Maykop incentive of producing wagons for going out into the steppes for trade, linked to the Maykop trade network into Mesopotamia. But then going forwards perhaps that becomes dominated by Yamnaya like ancestry component (from networks that perhaps were inspired by the previous, but had a larger demographic base, or were more robust to the fall in demand on the Mesopotamian metal network, more focused on cattle).

@Zulfiqar, I don't suppose you captured any of Alyssa Mittniks talk?

Davidski said...

@Matt

That said, the Bereznovkha samples on the plot don't look far "south" genetically of Vonyuchka sample to me, more about the same place, so I don't know.

Nope, that makes perfect sense.

I've been saying for years that there were Vonyuchka-like foragers on the steppe, and they're the source of the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya.

It's all outlined here...

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html

Matt said...

Well the point is that DA suggests that ancestry into steppe came from one source - Volga Estuary, but I'm suggesting that on PCA don't seem to have more of CHG ancestry that Vonyuchka in North Caucasus Piedmont, therefore ancestry could have entered from multiple directions and been present in a wider distribution.

Rob said...

yeah the Majkop material is even further west than Don, but to Dnieper, Dniester and maybe even northern Balkans . Which is why i thought there should be at least some signs of expansion from the north Caucasus during the Eneoltihic
aDNA did not seem to support the archaeological deduction, but thats because all early data was just late phase Yamnaya stuff
Now with enough sampling, we see that individuals of Majkop circle really did move West, but the surprise is most are ultimately of West Siberian origin

CrM said...

@Rob
The early Dolmen culture, which started off in Abkhazia, and late Novosvobodnaya did influence each other. But as Dolmen spread, the former Novosvobodnaya territories began to gradually Dolmenize, that's probably how Northwest Caucasians became dominant.

The 2000BC Dzharkutan2 sample from Uzbekistan, which technically should be a representative of Dolmen culture, acts as a very good proxy for Northwest Caucasian populations.
Koban I think will have more Iran_N, and be a better proxy for Nakh. But it will probably have some regional variations.

DragonHermit said...

The problem with ruling Maykop out linguistically, has always been Anatolian languages. They are not only a branch of PIE, but the EARLIEST split branch, yet they have no Steppe DNA IIRC.

Could it have been diluted? Maybe, but it seems unlikely. They've also ruled out a Balkan migration.

Rob said...

@ CRM

very interesting. So you see Koban linked to a northeast Caucasians rather than NW. I wonder if that explains the Catacomb/ Kubano-Tersk like ancestry in NEC ? Local Scytho-Sarmatians

Davidski said...

@DragonHermit

Anatolian languages probably entered Anatolia via the Balkans.

There's new data showing steppe gene flow into Copper Age/Bronze Age Anatolia both from the west and east (via the Caucasus).

And there are very good reasons why steppe ancestry wasn't widespread in Bronze Age Anatolia. For one, the Hittite Empire, which spread its language via conquest and also texts, not necessarily ethnic mixing and gene flow.

Matt said...

The Vonyuchka person is about 4200 BCE, and we then have Khvalynsk sites/ cemetary is between 4500 BCE and 4300 BCE (the family cemetary Murzhinka cited by DA is 4300 BCE), and the Ekaterinovka Mys, with low CHG, just being introduced, around 4600 BCE.

Also have to second Ric's comment from the YouTube comments "6500 BC or 6500 BP?"; Anthony states had to be before 8.5 kya because farmers "after 6500 BC" had Anatolian ancestry, but Darkveti-Meshoko farmers are dated to 4700 BC, and Anthony even says so in the presentation...? It must be earlier than that, but I don't know why the 6500 BCE date is the one.

Open question: why is there a correlation at Khvalynsk cemetary, relative to EM cemetary, between enrichment of CHG ancestry and copper and domestic animal economy? Is it just sort of chance, if the sources are coming from completely opposite directions and are separate phenomenon, w/ domesticates and copper from the west, and CHG from Volga Delta? (If we are sticking to orthodox scenario of "CHG related people hunter fishers, not incorporating early pastoralist elements").

The relationships between individuals at Khvalynsk family "elite" cemetary are fascinating...

Vladimir said...

Judging by Gerasimov's reconstruction of Bereznovka, these are classic Caucasians.

http://www.ssc.smr.ru/media/journals/izvestia/2013/2013_1_196_199.pdf

Here's what they wrote Khokhlov: "Cranial group of the oldest burial ground tombs graves Bereznovka type includes three male and two female skulls from Bereznovka burial grounds and one OK Panicle 6B, p. 6 (PL. 1). All Bereznovka skull dolikhocraniya or subdolikhocraniya (Bereznovka II, 9/16), with a high arch, with a moderately broad, medium-sloping forehead, protruding nasal the bones, especially on the male cranium, more or less pronounced horizontal profile, with the exception of one
case (Berezhnovka II, 9/10), low or medium-high facial skull".

Archi said...

@DragonHermit

"The problem with ruling Maykop out linguistically, has always been Anatolian languages. They are not only a branch of PIE, but the EARLIEST split branch, yet they have no Steppe DNA IIRC."

No representative of Anatolian languages (Hittite-Luvians) has ever been tested. Therefore, your statement is completely false. There is no problem, or rather there is only one, in that no one ever tested Hittite-Luvians, but they brazenly lie about not finding anything.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Copper Axe,

The idea Pre-PIE came from where CHG ancestry comes from follows good logic. It is not a odd conclusion at all.

If the CHG rich population from Southern Russia had roughly 50-60% CHG ancestry, then they can explain the majority of Yamnaya & Corded Ware's ancestry.

Yamnaya can be modelled as 87% Progress Eneolithic (PG004 individual who has the least CHG).

If Yammnaya is even 75% derived from Southern Steppe, chances are their language came from the Southern Steppe. Therefore pre-Proto-Indo European came from there.

CrM said...

@Rob

I see Koban being linked with both NWC and Nakh.
As I recall, proto-Koban originated in what is now Ossetia. Ossetia back then was likely a mix of North_Caucasus_MBA (who in itself seems to be rich in Dolmen ancestry) and KAC - basically Nakh minus most of their Steppe. This is IMO how the proto-Nakh genetic profile was formed. The material culture would then reach from what I think was Nakh-dominated modern Ossetia to Dolmen-dominated Northwest Caucasus.
I do wonder how important Svaneti was for Koban, since it's the epicenter of G2a1 and they did find some G2a1 Kobanians. G2a1 is also the main lineage in modern Ossetia. There's also the issue with the Dvals, we're not sure who they were but they might have been the link between Kartvelians and Ossetians.

And yes, the Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry is present in both Nakh and NWC, it probably was introduced during the final stages of the Koban culture. The Catacomb and Kubano-Tersk in Dagestanian NEC evidently predates the Koban culture though.

Archi said...

@Samuel Andrews

" If Yammnaya is even 75% derived from Southern Steppe, chances are their language came from the Southern Steppe. Therefore pre-Proto-Indo European came from there."

Totally flawed logic. CHG came from Transcaucasia, therefore Indo-Europeans came from Transcaucasia. The spread of the CHG is in no way related to Indo-Europeans. The CHG in the region of the North Caucasus is very ancient, and has been spreading there since ancient times. The matrimonial connections are perfectly visible archeologically and genetically. All we can say that CHG was present in the Khvalynsk time in the Volgs-Don region, Berezhnovka contains CHG at the level of the Yamnaya culture. All we can say is that Indo-Europeans are from the Volga-Don region.


Vladimir said...
"Judging by Gerasimov's reconstruction of Bereznovka, these are classic Caucasians."

They are not Caucasian.

Andrzejewski said...

@CrM “ The early Dolmen culture, which started off in Abkhazia, and late Novosvobodnaya did influence each other. But as Dolmen spread, the former Novosvobodnaya territories began to gradually Dolmenize, that's probably how Northwest Caucasians became dominant.”

Koban is indeed Nakh NEC. But in regards to the cultures you’ve mentioned, what’s their ethnic affiliation? Novosvo v. Dolmen?

As for the strong BA and IA European elements persisting in North Caucasian populations, is it due to Catacomb and Poltava (potential ancestors of Armenians?), or to later Scythians and Sarmatians?

Andrzejewski said...

@DragonHermit “ The problem with ruling Maykop out linguistically, has always been Anatolian languages. They are not only a branch of PIE, but the EARLIEST split branch, yet they have no Steppe DNA IIRC.

Could it have been diluted? Maybe, but it seems unlikely. They've also ruled out a Balkan migration.”

You and David Reich are going to be surprised one day.

Sofia Aurora said...

By all means check the journals for yourself and you will see!
We are talking about 30 diffirent Russian journals that i know because i follow them!!!

Sofia Aurora said...

Guys Anthony continues!!!

Please watch below:

https://youtu.be/-MOrEA84qvo

https://youtu.be/1O1zDrW7SvE

Here is the "Maikop wildcard" i was talking about!

Copper Axe said...

@Sam

I think it is pretty baseless because we have some significant gaps sample-wise to begin with, and attributing pre-PIE status to a certain population is quite complicated.

Have you considered that you might had populations with various amount of CHG-related admixture, and that it wasn't a scenario where you just had pure EHGs, Steppe_Eneolithic like populations and pure CHG ones?

What if the main population of the North-of-the-Caucasus foragers were more CHG shifted than the steppe_eneolithic samples we gave right now? This would make the drastic contribution less.

Or the second option is that you already had a low CHG-like amount around the Don (as it pops up in small amounts in neolithic samples even, and these populations then admixed with populations which had higher amounts of CHG-like ancestry.

"If Mycenaeans were even 75% derived from Neolithic Greeks, chances are their language came from Neolithic Anatolia. Therefore pre-Proto-Greek came from there"

Archi said...

Sofia Aurora said...
"By all means check the journals for yourself and you will see!
We are talking about 30 diffirent Russian journals that i know because i follow them!!!"

List these journals, these articles, and their authors.

Ric Hern said...

Khvalynsk to the South = Many Men, few Women and a lot of Stone Maces. Kind of makes me think that CHG incorporation into Khvalynsk and maybe into other neighbours were less voluntary than some seem to think...

Ric Hern said...

I get the feeling that CHG Hunter Gatherers got ripped apart from all directions by different neighbours...

CrM said...

@Andrzejewski
"Novosvo v. Dolmen?"
Dolmen is NWC. Maykop is a mystery. If their language was derived from Darkveti-Meshoko then it could have been related to Dolmen or to Kartvelians, if it was derived from Leyla Tepe then possibly NEC or HU. Kartvelian has a good amount of cognates with PIE (more so than NWC), Maykop may have been responsible for that. But there's always a possibility that they spoke a now extinct language.

There's also an auDNA difference between West and East Maykop, they could have even spoken two different languages.

"As for the strong BA and IA European elements persisting in North Caucasian populations, is it due to Catacomb and Poltava (potential ancestors of Armenians?), or to later Scythians and Sarmatians?"
Both. Dagis have Catacomb, NWC have Cimmerian/Scythian/Sarmatian. Nakh are inbetween.

Target: (NEC)_Dagi_(Avar_Lak_Dargin_Kaitag_Kubachi_average)
Distance: 1.3410% / 0.01341026
50.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
37.6 RUS_Catacomb
6.2 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001
3.0 HUN_Prescythian_IA
2.6 KAZ_Kipchak:DA23

Target: (NWC)_Adygei
Distance: 1.8516% / 0.01851637
67.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001
29.2 HUN_Prescythian_IA
3.4 KAZ_Kipchak:DA23
0.0 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
0.0 RUS_Catacomb

Target: (NEC)_Chechen
Distance: 1.9369% / 0.01936921
39.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001
25.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
15.8 RUS_Catacomb
15.8 HUN_Prescythian_IA
3.6 KAZ_Kipchak:DA23


Target: Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
Distance: 3.0787% / 0.03078731
40.2 GEO_CHG
40.0 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
17.6 IRN_Wezmeh_N
2.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Target: RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA:KDC001
Distance: 2.7729% / 0.02772941
61.8 GEO_CHG
23.8 TUR_Tepecik_Ciftlik_N
8.6 Levant_PPNB
3.6 IRN_Wezmeh_N
2.2 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara

Target: HUN_Prescythian_IA:IR1
Distance: 3.8109% / 0.03810865
54.4 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
34.2 TUR_Barcin_N
7.0 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N
2.8 WHG
1.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
0.6 IRN_Wezmeh_N
0.0 GEO_CHG

epoch said...

Usatovo Moldova looks like Yamnaya in that PCR. Interesting.

Vladimir said...

And if we consider such a scenario: The steppe population of EHG in the Early Neolithic penetrated to the foothills of the North Caucasus, where a certain CHG population lived and settled in settlements where the CHG population lived, naturally exterminating the male population, but obtaining 50% of the autosomal profile of the local female population. Such situations were enough in the future. The Meshoko culture fits perfectly into this scenario. There are works in which this culture is structured in two stages. The first stage has Transcaucasian roots from the Darcveti culture, Sioni culture and even Shulaveri - Shomu-tepe. This stage starts in the period of 5000-4800 BC. The date of the Nalchik burial ground, for example, 4800 BC. The second stage has steppe roots in the Skelya culture (Novodanilovka). We can assume that a certain group moving from the north of Mesopotamia gradually came to the North Caucasus. Later, the settlements of this group were captured by the steppe population. And then the already mixed EHG/CHG population spread across the steppe starting from 5000 BC.

Sofia Aurora said...

I have already named some!
There are in my first comment!

If you want i can gather the web addresses of the journals i am referring and you can check them out!

There is no single article!
There are many articles from 5 or 6 or even 7 issues per year from each journal!
Thank God the journals are "open access" mostly except very few that you have to sign in to elibrary.ru to acquire them.

Romanian and Czech journals follow and some Balkanian too.
Only the Ukrainian journals had not changed their views!
There is also the Turkish journal of archaeology, the journal of archarology, ethnography and anthropology of the Caucasus etc. etc. and the list is without end.

The reason that i refferred to the Russian journals is because they changed their views after 2019!
And towards a specific point which i have already mentioned.

The language is in Russian and in the Cyrillic alphabet. Unless you have the Samsung app store translator or SYSTRAN you won't be able to read them (only the maps, graphs, pics and a summary are in English).

If you are REALLY interested i can post a list of the journals and you can read the according articles from each year.
But will you be able to read them?
Google translate will not work. I tried it!
To cite each and every article or author is horribly tiring!!!
We are not talking about a single Nature, Science or Biorxiv article.
It is an entire tenet!

But as i said if YOU ARE REALLY interested and capable of reading them i can put a list of the journals and from there you can see the archives and according to the title select them!
For example check the bulletin of Moscow History and Political Science!
There is a difference to what the journal stood for till 2019 and afterwards.

https://vestnik-mgou.ru/Series/HistoryAndPoliticalScience

As i said if you want i can put a list but you have to give me time!

Currently i am translating an article that it will appear in in the 2020 Studii de Prehistorie Romanian journal about the redating of many kurgan burials of Cernavoda II.

The article is from Alin Frinculeasa and has the title:

Cultura Cernavodă II la Dunărea Inferioară Relevanța cronologiei și a înmormântărilor tumulare

It has not appearred yet in the online journal but it will do shortly

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe @Samuel Andrews “ I think it is pretty baseless because we have some significant gaps sample-wise to begin with, and attributing pre-PIE status to a certain population is quite complicated.

Have you considered that you might had populations with various amount of CHG-related admixture, and that it wasn't a scenario where you just had pure EHGs, Steppe_Eneolithic like populations and pure CHG ones?

What if the main population of the North-of-the-Caucasus foragers were more CHG shifted than the steppe_eneolithic samples we gave right now? This would make the drastic contribution less.”

Pre-Proto-PIE was most likely a language isolate, created by a Progress/Vanyuchka/Piedmont population. Nothing can be traced past 7kya when it comes to the word “brothers”, whereas when it comes to Afro-Asiatic macro-families, linguists claim out of left field that their progenitor existed 15,000 years ago, let alone attempting to link Native American languages with Paleo-Siberian ones whose speakers must’ve split 20kya at the latest.

Ergo, WSH invented their own independent language.

vAsiSTha said...

@Davidski

"I've been saying for years that there were Vonyuchka-like foragers on the steppe, and they're the source of the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya."

Doesnt really matter. the iran component in that came from somewhere which is not the steppe.

Ned said...

@all, Sofia, Andrzejewski, Davidski
The Anatolian problem is not just genetic but also linguistic. If you compare Hittite with most proposals for Late Indo-European (that is before Tocharian split off) you will see significant differences.
Hittite: two genders (common/neuter); no number distinction in instrumental, dative, locative, ablative, allative noun cases; no subjunctive nor optative; two major verb classes (-ḫi/-mi); no dual in verbs; analytic perfect.
Late Indo-European: three genders (masc., fem, neuter); plural in all noun plural cases and also a dual in nouns; synthetic verbal complexity including subjunctive/optative; no separate -ḫi/-mi classes; at least 1st and 2nd person dual.
One explanation of this could be that one of these two groups of languages was adopted by a population previously speaking a different language.

Davidski said...

@Ned

There's no genetic problem. There was gene flow from the steppe into Bronze Age Anatolia via the Balkans and the Caucasus.

Copper Axe said...

@Andrzejwewski

Can you nrule out PIE not having any known relative purely due to the fact that any closely related WSH/EHG languages simply went extinct?

Because if you think about it there are no language families besides Indo-European which you could link to WSHs or EHGs.

Indo-European by most linguists is considered not to be a creole and with no direct relation to other known languages (no nostratic pls) so it easily could be from just one initial group of steppe dwellers.

Imo Pre-PIE comes from the populations ancestral on the paternal line to the R1b-M269/R1a-M417(+adjacent haplos such as I2, Q, J1a etc) populations of the eneolithic, because of PIE's linguistic nature is highly patriarchal.

And I doubt those two main lineages were clustered in the southern steppes near the Caucasus or inbetween the Volga-Caspian.

mzp1 said...

I think Archi's hypothesis is quite solid atm.

Andrzejewski said...

@Ned “ One explanation of this could be that one of these two groups of languages was adopted by a population previously speaking a different language.”

Such as the influence of Hattian, Kaskian (Kura Araxes, Anatolian BA languages), Hurrian (from Iran?) and remnant EEF languages indigenous to Turkey.

Rob said...

@ Ned / Davidski

Genomes will probably also solve the linguistic concondrum of proto-Anatolian
I suspect that the divergence of Anatolian would be explained by a combination of factors, incl (i) early separation (arriving in Anatolia ~ 3300 BC) (ii) slightly different origins (I2a-rich D-D II part of Europe) , moving via East Balkans (Ezero related)
The east Anatolian side is the tail end of proto-Armenian. East Anatolia does have early records, and they suggeste a late take-over by Hittites

@ Copper Axe
'Imo Pre-PIE comes from the populations ancestral on the paternal line to the R1b-M269/R1a-M417''

Seems speculative to just lump R1ab-M269 & R1a-M17 together without any convincing evidence to do so.

Rob said...

@ Vasistha

'Doesnt really matter. the iran component in that came from somewhere which is not the steppe.''

Of course it matters. The timing, context and nature of this introgression is very important. Otherwise one risks being a Stat-tard.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “
Imo Pre-PIE comes from the populations ancestral on the paternal line to the R1b-M269/R1a-M417(+adjacent haplos such as I2, Q, J1a etc) populations of the eneolithic, because of PIE's linguistic nature is highly patriarchal.

And I doubt those two main lineages were clustered in the southern steppes near...”

If I go by your rational, then Modern Semitic languages’ speakers (very patriarchal and patrilocal both in ancient and modern times) would’ve been speaking a CHG/KAC language, Basques, Finns and Etruscans would’ve been speaking IE languages (Basques are 92% R1b, Estruscans had a strong WSH admixture and were offsprings of Villanova Culture, of Urnfield, whereas Finns, Sami and Estonians are 55% WSH/Yamnaya in their aDNA).

These were just few examples.

And I believe the first pre-pre-PIE speakers originated in Piedmont, although Yamnaya and Sredny Stog/CWC were from the Dnieper area, hence I suspect strong EEF influence on Late PIE.

Desdichado said...

@ Abdrzejwewski "Progress/Vanyuchka/Piedmont population. Nothing can be traced past 7kya when it comes to the word “brothers”, whereas when it comes to Afro-Asiatic macro-families, linguists claim out of left field that their progenitor existed 15,000 years ago, let alone attempting to link Native American languages with Paleo-Siberian ones whose speakers must’ve split 20kya at the latest.

Ergo, WSH invented their own independent language."

I doubt we can infer that anyone invented their own independent language, except for that guy who made Esperanto. And even then, he made it out of existing language elements. Just because we can't recover any relatives of pre-PIE doesn't mean that they didn't exist. All languages that we know of derive from some earlier language until we lose the ability to trace it, not until we get back to people who actually invented the concept of language from scratch. I actually am tentatively prefering Bomhard's Caucasian Substrate Hypothesis for the genesis of pre-PIE. Although who knows; it may not pan out.

https://www.academia.edu/40002289/Bomhard_The_Origins_of_Proto_Indo_European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_Volume_47_Number_1_and_2_Spring_Summer_2019_pre_print_

@ Sofia Aurora "Please Davidski publish my reply to Archi in order to avoid the thought that i did not answer because i was not able"

Archi's gonna Archi. Sadly, blogger does not come with any kind of PLONK feature to allow us to ignore him, but you're probably better off not stressing about it anyway.

dsjm1 said...

@MitchellSince1983 'The actual quote from Anthony
“Yamnaya is incredibly homogeneous...almost inexplicably homogeneous. We have Sredni Stog samples that are right in the same group as Yamnaya so probably Yamnaya evolved from some kind of Sredni Stog culture in the Ukraine...”'

The problem we see here is that when Anthony says 'Yamnaya' as of today, he is meaning either R1a, or R1b-L23-Z2103, and even I2. There are *no* R1b-L23-L51 burials included in these except the reported one burial of an L52 at the Afansievo site. In fact on the Steppes there are no R1a in Kurgans that I know of.

Anthony reconciles this rather glaring discrepancy by saying (I guess it is quite a reasonable *idea*) that the Yamnaya in the Steppes Kurgans (which are nearly all Z2103 with a few I2) were an elite & the others (i.e. L51) weren't so didn't get the Kurgan treatment. I think it is one line of reasoning but, am not convinced it is the best explanation. See 20:08 mins in the Anthony video.

What really adds to this confusion is that one L52 was found in Afanasievo which is approx 2,500kms east of Samara.

Another issue that needs folding into this story is how metallurgy/mining and trading exploded around the Kama-Volga junction and spread over west & south of there, at around the time Z2103 and L51 were emerging as peoples.

Rob said...

“ Imo Pre-PIE comes from the populations ancestral on the paternal line to the R1b-M269/R1a-M417”

The question remains is how these two main groups became proximate.
Most people take an essentialist assumption- an Ur-IE group always together on the Volga steppes (or whatever their preferred river valley)
But what if their pre-4000 BC history was quite divergent ?
Imo , the scenario I have sketched anticipates this possibly & deals with it concordantly

Copper Axe said...

@Rob

I lumped R1a-M417 and R1b-m269 together as they are the two most prevalent haplogroups related to the IE expansion. It makes sense that once upon a time, during the development of Proto-Indo-European carriers of these lineages must've lixed in close enough proximity to form areal zones, because they ended up speaking Indo-European after all.

I agree with you in the sense that I dont think you had one singular ur-population of EHG foragers which were fully ancestral to the PIEs.

Several groups living in reasonable proximity, becoming part of a "singular" network due to changes in economy is what I have in mind but we will see if it works out. This "homogenization" then leads to PIE being developed, and also the typical steppe ancestry profile (over time).

Just spitballing here but I think R1b-m269 and R1a-M417 could have been carried by populations in the vicinity of the Don river with I2 lineages in the midst or on the western side. Perhaps around 5000 bc they were already close to another, or maybe this happened later in the fifth millenium. Somewhere in the vicinity you would have had populations with variable amounts of EHG vs CHG ancestry which explains the presence of CHG-like ancestry in steppe_emba. I think that if they were migrating up the Volga Delta and the Caspian they also would've gone west along the Sea of Azov.

Given the time-constraints regarding Proto-Indo-European I can't imagine M269 and M417 to have been very distant from one another in the fifth and fourth millenium b.c

What is the scenario you have in mind?

Andrzejewski said...

@Desdichado “ https://www.academia.edu/40002289/Bomhard_The_Origins_of_Proto_Indo_European_The_Caucasian_Substrate_Hypothesis_JIES_Volume_47_Number_1_and_2_Spring_Summer_2019_pre_print_”

Bomhardt and Kurtland are discredited in my eyes because of their affinity for Indo-Uralic crackpot theories.

I’m sure @Davidski agrees with me on this point.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob @Ned “ Genomes will probably also solve the linguistic concondrum of proto-Anatolian
I suspect that the divergence of Anatolian would be explained by a combination of factors, incl (i) early separation (arriving in Anatolia ~ 3300 BC) (ii) slightly different origins (I2a-rich D-D II part of Europe) , moving via East Balkans (Ezero related)
The east Anatolian side is the tail end of proto-Armenian. East Anatolia does have early records, and they suggeste a late take-over by Hittites”

Hittite may also be divergent from main IE stock because all other IE languages derive from CWC/BBC/SGC - all ultimately descendants of Corded/Sredny Stog, while Hittite may have come from a different WSH population.

Thus, major mainstream IE languages could have been profoundly impacted by strong Anatolian_N EEF languages ranging from GAC to Tripplian whereas Hittite may not.

Same pattern could be observed in Armenian, which not only follows the same pattern of Hittite in regards to a strong indigenous substrate (Urartian in Armenian; Hurrian, Hatti, Kaskian and others in Hittite), they also happen to diverge from the trunk of “standard” IE (Armenians could be Catacomb and Poltava rather than Sredny/Corded/Single Grave based).

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski @Ned “There's no genetic problem. There was gene flow from the steppe into Bronze Age Anatolia via the Balkans and the Caucasus.”

Exactly! Hittites could be from Yamnaya Hungary or Yamnaya Bulgaria in lieu of Corded/Sredny; that’s likely one prominent reason to their sub-branch’s high divergence.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “ Imo Pre-PIE comes from the populations ancestral on the paternal line to the R1b-M269/R1a-M417(+adjacent haplos such as I2, Q, J1a etc) populations of the eneolithic, because of PIE's linguistic nature is highly patriarchal.”

I2 is from WHG and Neolithic Farmers. Q comes from WSHG. J1a was an ANE lineage common in both CHG and in EHG (Karelia HG).

So, which one of them (living in adjacent areas) came up with PIE?

(A rhetorical question).

And if anything, then given the 50% ANE ratio in Yamnaya from both EHG (75%) and CHG (35%), I could kind of accept PIE as evolving ultimately from ANE somehow, but even then very begrudgingly.

Andrzejewski said...

@Desdichado “ I doubt we can infer that anyone invented their own independent language, except for that guy who made Esperanto. And even then, he made it out of existing language elements. Just because we can't recover any relatives of pre-PIE doesn't mean that they didn't exist. All languages that we know of derive from some earlier language until we lose the ability to trace it, not until we get back to people who actually invented the concept of language from scratch.”

If you go by genetics to assert PIE’s descent from EHG, then why wouldn’t you also champion Elamite as being close to that of any other “Iran_N” related or descended ethnic group like Dravidians or even BMAC? What about NEC Nakh having strong Iranic element. Is Elamite related to Nakh?

And how about Dravidian being related or linked to Elamite? 75% of ASI have Iran HG in them?

By the same token how would you explain the fact that Kartvelians such as Georgians and Laz along with NWC are 60% -70% CHG (although I do acknowledge that a significant portion of it is from WSH), but their languages aren’t related?

How come Jews and Arabs speak Semitic languages but carry pre-eminently J1 and J2 CHG/KAC ydna uniparental markers? Even the Jewish ethnogenesis points to a Harran (Tepecik Çiftlik? Northern Mesopotamia? Kura Araxes?) origin separate and distinct of that of the West Semitic Canaanites.

Would you lump Basque and Etruscan languages as related languages just because both of them are majority aDNA of Anatolian farmers stock? If not, why not?

Another example: Finns, Sami and Estonians are at least 55% Indo-Europeans. How come their languages belong to the Uralic family?

Basques have the highest ratio of R1b ydna in the entire world. You would expect them to speak IE, right? Why don’t they?

Last example: Linguists found deep connection between Paleo-Siberian and North American languages stretching back 20,000 year! How is THAT even possible, let alone likely or probable?!

All these cases debunk and disprove your theory that Y-DNA determines languages. I’d be happy to see how you counter my argument based on these aforementioned points.

Andrzejewski said...

@Copper Axe “Several groups living in reasonable proximity, becoming part of a "singular" network due to changes in economy is what I have in mind but we will see if it works out. This "homogenization" then leads to PIE being developed, and also the typical steppe ancestry profile (over time).”

You just explained it. Could’ve been the same homogenization that took place between EHG rich groups and CHG rich ones.

Rob said...

@ Copper Axe

''Given the time-constraints regarding Proto-Indo-European I can't imagine M269 and M417 to have been very distant from one another in the fifth and fourth millenium b.c
...
Several groups living in reasonable proximity, becoming part of a "singular" network due to changes in economy is what I have in'''

For sure, that's what I was suggesting - at some point there would have been a standardization of dialects or even language shifts by some groups within the steppe. It would depend on furhter pre-Yamnaya data about comparative locations to infer hypotheses about just how geographically distant or close they were.



'What is the scenario you have in mind?'

Well i think most people are saying more or less the similar things whilst we await further details


Vladimir said...

@Andtzejwski
« Bomhardt and Kurtland are discredited in my eyes because of their affinity for Indo-Uralic crackpot theories.»

These theories may not be so improbable, and what unites PIE and PFU may be ANE-like language equally close to EHG and Uralians, whose migration, as it is now clear, was male, and their autosomal profile on their way from Baikal to the Baltic changed in accordance with the met populations encountered on their way.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Quiles makes things up.

How is it that you haven't noticed this yet?

Ric Hern said...

@ Andrzejewski

You can not throw everyone under the same blanket. Eg. You just look at Basque Males whose population is about +-1 Million but ignore +100 Million R1b Males in Western Europe speaking Indo-European Languages. Looking at this from this perspective you can see that the case of Basque is something special...special circumstances.

Rob said...

@ Vladimir
It doesn’t look like hg N is associated with ANE

Matt said...

David, there are many things both wrong and purely fictional with what he writes.

However, that is irrelevant to what the updated anno file says or does not say.

And the full ancients anno file (here: https://reichdata.hms.harvard.edu/pub/datasets/amh_repo/curated_releases/V44/V44.3/SHARE/public.dir/v44.3_1240K_public.anno) does indeed say:

"SA6010 - BZNK-008/3, kurgan 2, grave 13; Context: Direct date(s) on relative SA6001; 3550-3350 BCE; GroupID: Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic.

(while "SA6001 - BZNK-004/3, Sharakhalsun 6, kurgan 2, grave 17; Context: Direct; 3520-3371 calBCE; GroupID: Russia_Steppe_Maikop).

So the sample has been re-dated back to the Eneolithic, and is identified as a relative of a Steppe_Maykop female. This is not something Quiles has made up. We're not having to take anything on trust from him (a dubious source). It is something the Reich Lab have put in their data about the sample.

Here is where SA6010 sits relative to others: https://imgur.com/a/zbjBhGu

It seems interesting to me! A sample from the steppe near the Caucasus dated in the mid 4th millennium, after Progress and Vonyuchka but before Yamnaya and contemporary with Steppe_Maykop.

Ric Hern said...

@ Vladimir

K=>MNOPS. P=>QR. P in Yana (ANS). R in Mal'ta (ANE).

Vladimir said...

@Rob
Target: RUS_Bolshoy_Oleni_Ostrov
Distance: 1.4948% / 0.01494814
41.4 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
34.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
14.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
10.0 WHG

Before meeting with Sintashta, they were mostly already ANE. But after the meeting with Sintashta:

Target: Sargat_IA:BIY003
Distance: 2.7552% / 0.02755236
33.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
25.2 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
23.8 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
5.6 TUR_Barcin_N
3.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
3.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
2.8 Han
1.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
1.6 WHG

Ric Hern said...

@ Vladimir

According to Y-DNA, P (K2b2) should be closest to MS (K2b1) not NO (K2a) the Ancestor of N and O.

Vladimir said...

@Ric Hern
K=>MNOPS. P=>QR. P in Yana (ANS). R in Mal'ta (ANE).

No, that's not what I'm talking about. If we consistently follow the changes in the autosomal profiles of the group N haplotypes from Lake Baikal: L708 (5000 BC) - in Eastern Siberia M2126 - in Central Siberia L1026 - in Western Siberia Z1936 and CTS10760 - in the Volga region Z1934 and VL29, etc., we can see that the autosomal profile of Lake Baikal gradually decreases throughout, while during the stay of the population N in Central Siberia, its ANE profile increases when the population came to the Urals, where If you meet a Sintashta, then it increases the profile of the Sintashta and so on.

Target: RUS_Sosonivoy_HG:I5766
Distance: 9.0483% / 0.09048290
100.0 RUS_MA1

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

You have not really understood the population history of hg N or ANE very well.
ANE is associated with hg R & Q which were dispersed across EE & Siberia during the Late Pleistocene. hg N originated in northern China and gradually moved toward the north and west. In turn, hg C-rich groups in the southern Bakial & Amur basins originally separated the above 2 population blocks . There is therefore little if any direct contact between ANE & hg N rich populations until later in the Holocene, and for Uralic-relevant lineages quite late - in the 2nd mill. BCE

Your autosomal models aren't optimal, as BOO prefers CCC over WSHG. There is no pan-ANE link in Uralic languages. In fact, as far as Eurasia goes, PIE & proto-Uralic moved in polar opposite directions.

Rob said...

@ Vlad

“ If we consistently follow the changes in the autosomal profiles of the group N haplotypes ..ANE profile increases””

So according to that logic PIE / Hg R came from iberian farmers

Vladimir said...

@Rob

Iberian farmers do not have any early R1a and R1b subclades. So this is an absurd comparison. With these groups, it's about the same. The only thing I'm not sure of is whether there is a consensus where these groups were 5000 BC. But with the group N1a1, it is more or less clear and the route of its movement is also more or less clear. The statement that PFU is the same language with which N1a1 came out from Lake Baikal and they brought it to the Baltic in its immutability is too optimistic. It would still be possible to agree with this if the people who came to the Baltic N1a1 in 800 BC had the same autosomal profile as their N1a1 ancestors who came from the vicinity of Lake Baikal in 5000 BC. But this is not the case at all. Over 4000 years, this population has changed its autosomal profile several times, and it is not at all a fact that it has not changed its language.

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob & @Vladimir “ Your autosomal models aren't optimal, as BOO prefers CCC over WSHG. There is no pan-ANE link in Uralic languages. In fact, as far as Eurasia goes, PIE & proto-Uralic moved in polar opposite directions. ”

Linguistically, there’s nothing connecting or in common between Uralic and PIE. Except for later PIIr -> PU, owing to Seima Turbino phenomenon.

mzp1 said...

In India there is a group Uttar Pradesh Syed. Their Y-DNA is consists of lots of R1A, R1B, J1, J2, I2 literally all the HGs close to the expansion of IE in Eurasia. They are autosomally pretty homogenous and cluster with NW Indias/Pakistanis, closest matches being Muslim Jatts, Kashmiris and then Northern Brahmins.

I dont have their autosomes so cant analyse more than that, but they are very close to my ethnic group genetically. My goup has mostly J1/J2/R1A but I am further from all West Eurasians, inc Arabs, compared to others from NW India.

Rob said...

@ Vlad

''Iberian farmers do not have any early R1a and R1b subclades. So this is an absurd comparison'

In fact it captures the essence your theory: ancient ANE populations don’t have any Hg N haplogroups


''The only thing I'm not sure of is whether there is a consensus where these groups were 5000 BC''

Your strange style of writing is difficult to follow.
If you mean that is not clear where hg R1b & R1a were ~ 5000 BC, then that lack of clarity is merely your own, as most people would have a fair idea by now


''The statement that PFU is the same language with which N1a1 came out from Lake Baikal and they brought it to the Baltic in its immutability is too optimistic''

Nobody has made the statement that Uralic came from Baikal
Instead, it was outlined that hg N is 'primordially' associated with the Baikal region, and at that time, the relevant lneages assoc with PIE were on the opposite side of Eurasia. There is therefore no original connnection between the two, but only later contact.




' It would still be possible to agree with this if the people who came to the Baltic N1a1 in 800 BC had the same autosomal profile as their N1a1 ancestors who came from the vicinity of Lake Baikal in 5000 BC. But this is not the case at all. Over 4000 years, this population has changed its autosomal profile several times, and it is not at all a fact that it has not changed its language.''

But that’s self evident , and aptly called secondary convergence
Talking about Stone Age “ANE” with regard to MLBA expansions is too crude, has catalysed your unsustainable ANE theory.

mzp1 said...

Another perspective would be interesting, shame they dont put stuff out in English. I'm sure Dugin is involved, interesting guy...

Desdichado said...

"All these cases debunk and disprove your theory that Y-DNA determines languages. I’d be happy to see how you counter my argument based on these aforementioned points."

Lolwut?! At what point did I articulate any such theory? All I said was that your theory that the CHG and EHG peoples "created" PIE as an all new language ex nihilo was bonkers. Clearly it developed the same way every other language does; it came from one of the source populations, diverged over time, possibly with substrate or adstrate influences from another language.

A nice model that happens to be in print for that is Bomhard's Caucasian substrate hypothesis. Which, to be pedantic, is a hypothesis and a proposal, not a theory.

Andrzejewski said...

@Desdichado “ Lolwut?! At what point did I articulate any such theory? All I said was that your theory that the CHG and EHG peoples "created" PIE as an all new language ex nihilo was bonkers. Clearly it developed the same way every other language does; it came from one of the source populations, diverged over time, possibly with substrate or adstrate influences from another language.”

So would you classify Basque and Etruscan languages as related just b/c their aDNA is mostly Anatolian farmer?

Why would Jews and Arabs speak Semitic and not Kartvelian or Hurrian? (Mostly J1, J2 today compared to Levantine/Anatolian T1, K, G and E1b1b in prehistoric times).

Would Elamite, Chechen/Nakh, Dravidian and BMAC be related? Based on the Iranic element...

Why would Kartvelian and NWC macro families be utterly unrelated? Taking out their enormous CHG in Yamnaya, they still both have a huge CHG ancestry).

Then why would the origins of PIE be any different? Implying that PIE is probably from EHG is akin to saying that Semitic came with KAC, or that Elamite is related to other Iran_N languages (and not isolate), or that all CHG people in the Caucasus (or any EEF, WHG or EHG tribes in Paleo-European times) must also have been speaking related languages stemming from common heritage.

Desdichado said...

So, you're strawman appeal to call "my" "theory" something that it clearly isn't is your justification for a theory that is absolutely crazy?

Your questions are a smoke and mirrors non sequitur and I think you probably know it. Take it up with Bomhard if you think he's got it wrong.

Chad said...

Suvorovo.. that's the key.