search this blog

Thursday, April 22, 2021

The history of the Scythians (Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021)


Over at Science Advances at this LINK. Many of the samples from this paper are in the Global25 datasheets. Look for the relevant population and individual IDs from the paper.

The Scythians were a multitude of horse-warrior nomad cultures dwelling in the Eurasian steppe during the first millennium BCE. Because of the lack of first-hand written records, little is known about the origins and relations among the different cultures. To address these questions, we produced genome-wide data for 111 ancient individuals retrieved from 39 archaeological sites from the first millennia BCE and CE across the Central Asian Steppe. We uncovered major admixture events in the Late Bronze Age forming the genetic substratum for two main Iron Age gene-pools emerging around the Altai and the Urals respectively. Their demise was mirrored by new genetic turnovers, linked to the spread of the eastern nomad empires in the first centuries CE. Compared to the high genetic heterogeneity of the past, the homogenization of the present-day Kazakhs gene pool is notable, likely a result of 400 years of strict exogamous social rules.

Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. 2021, Ancient genomic time transect from the Central Asian Steppe unravels the history of the Scythians, Science Advances, Sci Adv 7 (13), eabe4414, DOI: 10.1126/sciadv.abe4414

See also...

Uralians of the Sargat horizon

202 comments:

1 – 200 of 202   Newer›   Newest»
Onur Dincer said...

Some observations on the paper. Among the new ancient genomes in the paper Y-DNA N is restricted to those from the Sargat and related cultures in the the forest steppe that runs through today's Russian territories just north of Kazakhstan, what is now Kazakhstan seems to be largely devoid of Y-DNA N during most of the researched eras in the paper. Also, Y-DNA C2 seems to be very rare in what is now Kazakhstan before the Turkic times. Sarmatians seem to be almost all R1a. The R1a finds in the paper seem to be all Z93 and the J2a finds seem to be all from the Central Asian subclade. What is now Kazakhstan seems to be less East Eurasian in ancestry than today (excluding the recent Russian and other European arrivals) before the Hunnic times at least except the more fertile southern parts, which became particularly high in East Eurasian ancestry at post-Hunnic times. There is also a decrease in Sintashta-like and Botai-like ancestries with the Hunnic era. Huns and the subsequent peoples fall on the Turco-Mongolic genetic cline, the previous peoples with East Eurasian ancestry of what is now Kazakhstan instead in general fall on a genetic cline that is between the Uralic and Turco-Mongolic clines, so I do not think the pre-Hunnic peoples of what is now Kazakhstan were Turkic-speaking irrespective of their East Eurasian levels, they may well have been Iranic speakers despite the high East Eurasian ancestry in many. This paper did not sample Pontic-Caspian steppe Scythians, but we know from previous papers that they had far less East Eurasian ancestry than Kazakh steppe Scythians. Also, this paper presents new Sarmatian samples from what is now western Kazakhstan, they do not seem high in East Eurasian ancestry either (the previously tested Pontic-Caspian steppe Sarmatians were not either).

Davidski said...

@Onur

Thanks.

Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?

Nyan said...

I have a question about Global25, is there a reason why divergent Eurasians like Americans and Australians get poor distance fits when modeled on your Global25? Even though sample appears to pick up closest ancestral components.

Target: Karitiana
Distance: 48.8405% / 0.48840524
53.8 RUS_MA1
46.2 RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N

Target: Papuan
Distance: 40.9992% / 0.40999201
74.2 CHN_Tianyuan
25.8 RUS_Ust_Ishim

Target: Australian
Distance: 40.4365% / 0.40436497
73.0 CHN_Tianyuan
27.0 RUS_Ust_Ishim

Genos Historia said...

@Onur,

Interesting how you describe Iranians in Kazakhstan as intermediate between Uralics and later Turks.

It seems this is because Uralics and ancient Iranians had West Siberian/Botai hunter gatherer ancestry. While Turks do not, generally speaking.

Would you agree?

Davidski said...

@Nyan

Heavy genetic drift.

Onur Dincer said...

@Davidski

Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?

The ones with enough resolution belong to the Uralic clade L1026/L392 and its subclades (Z1936 in particular). This goes nicely with the Northern Siberian autosomal mix in Sargat.

Rob said...

? one of the Kazakh-steppe Huno-Sarmatians + Hun-period nomads from IAMC from Damgaard was N1-TAT
Observing the Y-hg N5 in # IR-1, and probably other future Cimmerians & Scythians, confirms what I have been proposing for quite some time now - the minor East / Inner Asian ancestry in real Scythians and Sarmatians of the Ponto-Caspian region probably arrived via the forest -groups. It would be difficult to ascribe a Scythian origin for this element. The Altaian affinities in Tasmola, Pazyryk & Tian-Shan 'Sakae' are a different matter, but have little direct bearing on the genesis of real Scythians.
So the surprising affinities of Ukrainian Scythians doesn't make them 'Geto-Dacians' other such nonsense that has been proposed several commentators

Onur Dincer said...

@Genos Historia

It seems this is because Uralics and ancient Iranians had West Siberian/Botai hunter gatherer ancestry. While Turks do not, generally speaking.

Would you agree?


There is a clear increase in East Eurasian ancestry with the transition from Iranics to Hunno-Turco-Mongols and Devil's Gate-like ancestry plays a big role in that increase. Hunno-Turco-Mongols are not devoid of WSHG ancestry, they show it too, but we can say that its ratio decreases among the non-West Eurasian ancestries with their appearance.

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

? one of the Kazakh-steppe Huno-Sarmatians + Hun-period nomads from IAMC from Damgaard was N1-TAT

Yes, with the transition to the Hunnic times we begin to see Y-DNA N in more southern regions.

Rob said...

@ Onur
Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?

Proto-Turks might have been the Slav Grave people or at least a part of them. Genetics and geography are compatible with that, and chronology certainly fits. Proto-Mongols, on the other hand, might have been the Donghu people, their eastern neighbor.

Onur Dincer said...

Slab* Grave

Copper Axe said...

@Onur

I find it likelier that both Turkic and Mongolic peoples come out of the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon. Turkic perhaps in Central Mongolia and Mongolic in southeastern Mongolia/Inner Mongolia.

There is some geneflow from the western liao river region in thw Xiongnu samples (Xiongnu_Han) and the Hun elite sample from Hungary shows a lot of it. Mongolians have some ancestry from that region as well. That might be connected to the Donghu.

Copper Axe said...

With connected I mean the geneflow from the western liao region going into the eastern steppe might be related to the Donghu, rather than that ancestry representing Donghu ancestry.

vAsiSTha said...

Heres qpAdm on the new Sarmatian samples
Result file https://pastebin.com/69ntKTw8

left pops:
Sarmatians_450BCE

Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6 - 8.6% +- 0.9%
Kazakhstan_MLBA_Dali - 64.7% +- 4.1%
Turkmenistan_IA.SG - 26.7% +- 4%
p-value: 0.5093

left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG (Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe in G25 dataset)

Russia_Srubnaya - 13.2 +-4%
Russia_Tagar.SG - 50.7 +- 3.7%
Turkmenistan_IA.SG - 36.1 +- 4.1%
pvalue: 0.277

result file https://pastebin.com/nvpPc11s

vAsiSTha said...

Eigenstrat data of this paper for Admixtools

https://edmond.mpdl.mpg.de/imeji/collection/nlbFKLpwCfl1SyNw?q=

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Age

I find it likelier that both Turkic and Mongolic peoples come out of the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon. Turkic perhaps in Central Mongolia and Mongolic in southeastern Mongolia/Inner Mongolia.

There is some geneflow from the western liao river region in thw Xiongnu samples (Xiongnu_Han) and the Hun elite sample from Hungary shows a lot of it. Mongolians have some ancestry from that region as well. That might be connected to the Donghu.


We know from the Chinese records that the Xianbei are descended from the Donghu and we know that the Xianbei spoke Mongolic, and the Xianbei genome we have has even more Devil's Gate-like ancestry than the Slab Grave/Ulaanzuukh genomes, exactly what you would expect from a people right to the east of Slab Grave and exactly what you would expect from Proto-Mongols. The Hun elite from Hungary has too little Devil's Gate-like ancestry and too much Tibetan-like ancestry to be genetically close to the Donghu or even Slab Grave.

vAsiSTha said...

Also note that this is yet another paper from the steppe and Central Asian region in which you find no trace of the R1a-L657 line downstream of R1a-Z94 even though the samples are millennia after the supposed formation and tmrca of that paternal line.

Slumbery said...

@Rob

Our earlier discussion is actually more fitting here.

You wrote:
That's because you're using K-A.
https://ibb.co/HBv6bD0
This parallels the CHG issue, but for the Iron Age


'' both admixture could very well came from the same source''

Could do but we also know that these ancestries weren’t cosynchronous.


You appear to think that Kubano-Tersk_late represents something important in the formation of the Sarmatians. It might be, but it is essentially Yamnaya with some Srubnaya admixture + local Caucasus ancestry.
- It needs a lot of Sintashta ancestry to make Sarmatians (so OK, you added Srubnaya for that)
- It needs East Asian ancestry and extra WSHG ancestry to make Sarmatians
- It does not account for the "BMAC" ancestry either and that consistently comes up even in your model.
Not only these, but for example the Caucasus Sarmatians do not show much of extra Yamnaya ancestry above Sintashta and that is hard to explain if something like Kubano-Therks_late assumed as a vector for their Caucasus ancestry. (No wonder they have a bad fit in your model, where you even use Srubnaya, a population that is Yamnaya shifted compared to Sintashta.)

Here I made something to showcase this problem: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1NNDsjm7_4wtfVd3ChHdKHBJ2eSAemigj/view?usp=sharing


Also, based on the results of your model above, I have the impression that Sarmatians cannot be modelled well as Sarmatian_Caucasus as a base + whatever admixture.

Actually if I drop Kura-Araxes and Botai to a similar model model as yours, I get this:

Targe: Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
Distance: 0.02423106
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA: 56.8
KAZ_Botai: 16.0
TKM_Geoksyur_En: 16.2
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan: 8.6
RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N: 2.4
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late: 0.0

Target: Sarmatian_RUS_Caucasus
Distance: 0.02378978
RUS_Sintashta_MLBA: 57.6
TKM_Geoksyur_En: 16.4
KAZ_Botai: 14.2
Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kalavan: 8.2
MNG_Khovsgol_BA: 3.6
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late: 0.0


In other words, you used Khovsgol_BA - a population that has a completely different WSHG/East Siberian ratio than Sarmatians and therefore is ill suited as a combined source for these ancestries - and with that you forced Bubano-Tersk_late on the Sarmatians as an only source for the needed extra WSHG (because they had some, just like Potapovka).
Even if the Sarmatians formed in the Volga-Don-Caucasus region, this Kubano-Terks_late + Khovgol_BA model is forced.

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"Can you say more about the Y-HG N in the paper? How does it relate to the N in modern populations?"

Someone went through thre Y-SNP calls and posted them at Anthrogenica.

Apparently a few of them are assigned wrong. For example, the G-M201 in Sargat.

More of the Sargat samples turned out N, but still none from any other site, IIRC.

mzp1 said...

Nice qpAdm but doesnt tell me anything. Now need to run qpAdm on those source pops to know what they are.

Have you any idea whether Sarmatians have NW South Asian ancestry?

Slumbery said...

@mzp1

In G25 nMontes Segizsay and Aktobe show a few percent reaction to Udegram_IA, but it is not necessarily anything directly from that south and at any rate it is not universal among Sarmatians.

@Rob

The more I look at it the more I am convinced that Kubano-Tersk (including the late one) or anything similar to it, is not an important/significant ancestor to Sarmatians. Not even to the Caucasus Sarmatians, let alone the others. It has totally the wrong ancestry proportions and only picked in models if it is the only provided source for key ancestries.
Note that the article at hand also notes how Caucasus sources failed in their modelling, while "Turan" worked.
If Ihad to guess, Sarmatians formed on the Western Kazakh steppe.
And the biggest difference between them and Scythian-Saka is the proportion os East Asian ancestry.
I have some comparisons:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12V2RbvKw_VPN__w5YDSUnnG87EuAt5iw/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l2LxtreC1b6erkEmHoH6JsbmEwVWWDTK/view?usp=sharing

It is also apparent why Khovsgol_BA works reasonably well for Scythian-Saka, but not so much for Sarmatians. At least not as a single source for WSHG + East Asian ancestry.

Davidski said...

@vAsiSTha

No one cares, and they never will, because L657 is derived from Z93.

Z93 didn't exist in Asia until it arrived there with migrants from Eastern Europe.

Davidski said...

@Anthony Hanken

Apparently a few of them are assigned wrong. For example, the G-M201 in Sargat.

Do you have a list?

Anthony Hanken said...

@Davidski

"Do you have a list?"

Vladimir Taraskin posted it in this thread.

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23436-New-Kazakh-samples/page10

I didn't realize it was from Indo-European.eu so take it with a grain of salt I guess. Some of the calls in the paper do look pretty sketchy though.

Davidski said...

It's better to ignore anything that Carlos Quiles posts.

Genos Historia said...

@Arza, Davidski

Can either of you tell me what website has the Bronze Age Mokrin Serbia DNA files.

The study gives burial ids. Not DNA ids.

The G25 (DNA) Ids don't match the burial ids.

SO, I can't match the individuals from the study with the samples in G25 PCA. This is impeding some "research."

Maybe their DNA files will show both ids.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ Among the new ancient genomes in the paper Y-DNA N is restricted to those from the Sargat and related cultures in the the forest steppe that runs through today's Russian territories just north of Kazakhstan, what is now Kazakhstan seems to be largely devoid of Y-DNA N during most of the researched eras in the paper. Also, Y-DNA C2 seems to be very rare in what is now Kazakhstan before the Turkic times.”

Ydna N could be from Botai indeed.

Isn’t ydna Hap C related to the non-WSHG ancestry in Native Americans?

Huns and Xiongnu had lots of Hap Q (ANE/WSHG) heritage.

Nezih Seven said...

@Onur

I agree with you on Slab Grave being potentially Proto-Turkic. I always had thought Proto-Turks as being closer to Khovsgol_BA genetically, but after analyzing the recent mediaeval Turkic samples from Central Asia it became obvious that Slab Grave is a much better candidate with a chronology that fits. Mediaeval Turks are roughly Slab Grave mixed with Eastern Iranics like Sogdians. But, like Copper Axe, I thought Slab Grave as the homeland of both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic. Your Donghu theory seems more satisfactory.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ There is a clear increase in East Eurasian ancestry with the transition from Iranics to Hunno-Turco-Mongols and Devil's Gate-like ancestry plays a big role in that increase.”

Yes, and Ulch-like (Evenk, Tungus) is what comprises the non-WSHG ancestry of North American Natives.

“American Indians” have Hap Q (WSHG) + Hap C (Ulchi, Devil’s Gate).

Andrzejewski said...

I find it curios that Japanese sounds a lot like Algonquian, with sounds like “Ohio”, “Iowa”, “Idaho”, “Watenabe”. Japenese was thought to be part of the Altaic family, so perhaps most Natives in NA spoke Ulchi-derived languages instead of Botai/Kett-related ones?

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
phodges said...

"Samples from the steppe from the Middle and Late Bronze Age were genetically homogenous, but those from the Iron Age exhibited additional influence from eastern Eurasian and southern populations related to Neolithic Iranians and Mesolithic Caucasus hunter-gatherers.... Iron Age Scythians also included ancestry components from Late Bronze Age herders from Khovsgol in northern Mongolia, in addition to a small proportion of ancestry from populations in the southern Caucasus/Iran or Turan." A previous paper showed that even the earliest Cimmerians sampled from the Western Steppe had this admixture. It appears that both Steppe MLBA and residual Steppe EMBA populations in the Altai and Eastern steppe combined with populations from the BMAC area to form the original steppe nomads. The areas of the Karasuk and Yaz cultures would be the likely areas of the ethno-genesis of the Saka-Scythian nomad culture- so far the Altai-Sayan-Ili show the earliest evidence of this classic cultural package which spread accross the steppe.

Rob said...

Well I think there’s more to it than “Turks come from slab grave “ (not suggesting that Onur implies anything straightforward either)
But at some point they had to coalesce in the medieval altai region . I think the genomes we currently have all look fairly admixed

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

Isn’t ydna Hap C related to the non-WSHG ancestry in Native Americans?

Well, Y-DNA Q males in Siberia and environs began to mix with genetically East Eurasian females already during the Upper Paleolithic times. Even ANE seems to be East Eurasian-admixed (WSHG is certainly so). But the later Y-DNA C arrivals to the Americas brought more East Eurasian genetics indeed.

Onur Dincer said...

@Nezih Seven

But, like Copper Axe, I thought Slab Grave as the homeland of both Proto-Turkic and Proto-Mongolic. Your Donghu theory seems more satisfactory.

Y-DNA haplogroups point to Donghu origins of Mongols too. Slab Grave are full of Q1 whereas the immediate Xianbei descendants of Donghu are full of C2, which is in high ratio among Mongols to this day.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ Well, Y-DNA Q males in Siberia and environs began to mix with genetically East Eurasian females already during the Upper Paleolithic times. Even ANE seems to be East Eurasian-admixed (WSHG is certainly so). But the later Y-DNA C arrivals to the Americas brought more East Eurasian genetics indeed.”

Botai had ydna N, ydna K and ydna R1b, thus I wouldn’t classify them as a homogenous pop. It might be that Botai, Okunevo, Inuits, Kamachatdals, Yenisseyans and NA-Dene all spoke languages highly divergent of WSHG proto-phylum.

BMAC had mostly Iranian, but it’s interesting that their most common y Hap were E1b1b - common among the Levant and Anatolian farmer’s cline. BMAC had a considerable minority of both WSHG and Anatolian farmers, nevertheless, so the E1b could be from ANF.

I believe that an (Davil’s Gate) Ulchi-like Hap C basal was responsible to Japanese, Altaic, Ruan Ruan, and most North American languages.

Pertaining to Huns and Avars - I’ve read contradictory accounts, ranging from their Turkic (aka East Eurasian) extraction to them being primarily a WSHG pop - Xiongnu Confederacy and particularly the “Jie” tribe. Chinese writers even describe the Jie as “European- looking”, although I wouldn’t rule out extensive admixture with Scythians, Saka, Sarmatians and Tocharians for that effect.


Davidski said...

@Anyone

Apart from the Sargat samples, are there any other samples in this paper that belong to N-L1026?

Onur Dincer said...

@Rob

But at some point they had to coalesce in the medieval altai region . I think the genomes we currently have all look fairly admixed

By the Xiongnu times we see some likely Turkic-speaking individuals with significant levels of West Eurasian ancestry and non-Y-DNA Q West Eurasian haplogroups. So immediately after the Proto-Turkic times significant West Eurasian mixes can be seen among some likely Turkic individuals.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

I believe that an (Davil’s Gate) Ulchi-like Hap C basal was responsible to Japanese, Altaic, Ruan Ruan, and most North American languages.

Japanese- (minus the Jomon mix) and Korean-like genetics first formed in the West Liao River Basin in NE China by the Bronze Age in a population mixed with Yellow River Basin farmers and Amur River Basin hunter-gatherers and pastoralists. The Amur River Basin might be where the Altaic sprachbund or language family is ultimately from.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16557-2

Onur Dincer said...

@Davidski

Apart from the Sargat samples, are there any other samples in this paper that belong to N-L1026?

All the Y-DNA N in this paper are either from Sargat proper or from Sargat-associated cultures from the Sargat territory.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

BMAC had mostly Iranian, but it’s interesting that their most common y Hap were E1b1b - common among the Levant and Anatolian farmer’s cline. BMAC had a considerable minority of both WSHG and Anatolian farmers, nevertheless, so the E1b could be from ANF.

No, J (especially J2) was the most common Y-DNA haplogroup in the BMAC based on the results we have.

Rob said...

@ Slumberry

''You appear to think that Kubano-Tersk_late represents something important in the formation of the Sarmatians. It might be, but it is essentially Yamnaya with some Srubnaya admixture + local Caucasus ancestry.
- It needs a lot of Sintashta ancestry to make Sarmatians (so OK, you added Srubnaya for that)
- It needs East Asian ancestry and extra WSHG ancestry to make Sarmatian''


in fact WSHG is something I looked at first up for Sarmatians, because the archaeological clues point to obvious connections between Don-Volga-Ural Sarmatians and forest groups like Aninyo, Sargat, etc. So i anticipated some WSHG to be there
But WSHG doesn’t appear to be consistent. It seems that a more eastern kind of Siberian -& Mongolian derived ancestry during, or in the wake of, the S-T Ph; although Paleo-WSHG lineages persist

But can you point to where WSHG/Botai-related groups managed to survive in the Kazakh steppe during the Iron Age ? I thought one of the major conclusions from Damgaard was that this ancestry almost disappeared by the MLBA.



''Even if the Sarmatians formed in the Volga-Don-Caucasus region, this Kubano-Terks_late + Khovgol_BA model is forced.''

That's your misinterpretation; because the Srubnaja-Andronovo component is included

In any case, nothing is 'forced' in that linked model I intially suggested. I was merely looking at how G25 does in distinguishing between BMAC-related and KT-related ancestries at a deeper level. It did, but then you drifted awkwardly into discussing WSHGs and Devils Gate..


But in adding WSHG & Devil's Gate, it doesnt really change much

Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe

RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 55.0
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late 19.2
TKM_Gonur1_BA 11.3
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 9.8
RUS_Tyumen_HG 3.8
RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N 0.9

d = 0.01639219


Here is a qpADM model of your set-up

left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 0.716
Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.099
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur 0.186

tail prob 1.33252e-10

(using Vasistha's self-proclaimed best-est set of outgroups
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Turkey_N.SG
Russia_HG_Karelia
Russia_HG_Tyumen
Mongolia_North_N
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Iran_GanjDareh_N
ONG.SG
Georgia_Kotias.SG)



''And the biggest difference between them and Scythian-Saka is the proportion os East Asian ancestry.''

Don't group Scythians with so-called Sakae from eastern Kazakhstan, They're different people.


''Note that the article at hand also notes how Caucasus sources failed in their modelling''

they used Armenia LMBA and Caucasus _MBA only



''If I had to guess, Sarmatians formed on the Western Kazakh steppe.''


Looking at the Sarmatian sites in the Kazakh region, most of them post-date those in the Volga-Ural region, apart from some like DA202 which are doubtfully 'Sarmatian' at all, but probably isolated Iron Age 'Sakae'/ early Masagatae sites of the eastern Aral region.

Davidski said...

It's awesome that these Sargat samples that were pinned as Uralic speakers based on linguistics and archeology came back with the Uralic-associated N-L1026 and Nganasan/kra001 ancestry.

This obviously can't be a coincidence and deserves a post of its own. I'll write something up on Monday.

Huck Finn said...

@ Onur Dincer and re: "This goes nicely with the Northern Siberian autosomal mix in Sargat." There is indeed either Levänluhta_IA or Ekven _IA related signal in Sargat, but just by looking at Fig S3 in Supplement, Sargat/Mount Bitya looks rather West Siberian, if Im right, being mostly related to groups like West_Siberia_ N, Botai, Dali_EBA, Sintashta_MLBA_o3, Kumsay_EBA and Mereke_MBA. Otherwise Sargat looks like Ugrics/early Hungarians, getting close to groups like Bashkirs and Volga Tatars, but also Udmurts. I'd guess that their paternal N is mostly East Uralic N-Z1936 > B539 or something related to that.

vAsiSTha said...

"@vAsiSTha

No one cares, and they never will, because L657 is derived from Z93.

Z93 didn't exist in Asia until it arrived there with migrants from Eastern Europe."

Haha, of course you don't care.. anything which doesn't fit your theory is quickly forgotten and dismissed by you.

Unknown said...

Andrzejewski said...
"BMAC had mostly Iranian"

As always you have written an anti-scientific nonsense, sucked out of your hand. You do not know anything to write such statements.

"I believe that an (Davil’s Gate) Ulchi-like Hap C basal was responsible to Japanese, Altaic, Ruan Ruan, and most North American languages."

Believe. Your belief has nothing to do with science. It is pure nonsense.

@Davidski

"It's awesome that these Sargat samples that were pinned as Uralic speakers based on linguistics and archeology came back with the Uralic-associated N-L1026 and Nganasan/kra001 ancestry."


The Sargat culture has long been regarded as an Ugrian culture, part of the ancestors of the Magyars. So there is nothing surprising, everything is logical.

Unknown said...

Rob, of course, cannot be convinced of anything; he always ignores all arguments.

Here is an evident refutation of his position,

https://i.ibb.co/MfM1Ng2/Vahaduo-Global-25-North-Eurasia-Sarmat-rel-PCA.png

of course it is immediately obvious that the Sarmatians have nothing to do with the Kubano-Tersk culture, but are directly related to the Kazakhstan Andronovо culture, Fedorovo culture from Zevakino, Karasuk and especially Tagar cultures.
Even the Sarmatians from Moldavia.

The fallacy of Rob's position is related to the fact that he does not understand that the late Kubano-Tersk culture is essentially a mix with the Sintashta and KMC, it is not much different from the Andronovo culture.

Rob said...

Whatever you say Archie; the data never seems to prove your pompous claims. As if it matters to me whether sarmatians have KT- related or BMAC related ancestry .

vAsiSTha said...

Very interesting. ALN005 is Z94>Y2/Y3/Y26+ L657-

The other 3 Z94+ individuals from paper are on the Z2121+ line.

ALN005 is from ALai Nura 300AD, seems to have 10-15% ancestry from BMAC. Alai Nura 300ad as a whole seems to have 10-20% ancestry from BMAC, however Alai Nura 400bce has much higher BMAC and also some ancestry from Loebanr_IA which over the ages got diluted by east asian ancestry from its North east.

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_1 (400bce)
Distance: 1.3672% / 0.01367208
51.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
28.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
14.8 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
5.8 PAK_Loebanr_IA

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_2 (300AD)
Distance: 1.0344% / 0.01034387
43.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
42.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
14.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA


By this time, south asian proper ancestry is also visible in the vicinity of Alai Nura (200km away), along with L1a2 y-hg.. from the paper..

"KNT004 is shifted in PC1 toward East Asians (figs. S1 to S3). Admixture models including ~10% South Asian and ~50% eastern Eurasian influx adequately explain KNT005 and KNT004, respectively (data file S4). In contrast, the individuals from the site of Alai Nura (Alai_Nura_300CE) in the Tian Shan mountains (~200 km east from the Konyr Tobe site) still lay along the IA cline of the Tian Shan Saka, with four individuals falling closer to Konyr_Tobe_300CE and four closer to the Tasmola/Pazyryk cloud"

mzp1 said...

Though we expect Scythians and Sarmatians to show it, I'm not interested in looking too closely for South Asian (Indo-Aryan) introgression into West Eurasian populations, but lets just say it can be found and arguments can be made (ie f3 statistics I posted earlier, qpAdm runs showing SA Ancestry in modern Euros along with Ancient WSH/EEF/HG ancestry, fstats showing SAs with greatest contribution to Africans who are most Eurasian-shifted etc).

However, there are a few important points that need to be considered properly.

Ancient populations were much more structured and over time these divergent populations produce much more homogenous descendants. This effected can be due to modern Eurasians being a mixture of ancients, but also it can be an expansion of Southern, less differentiated populations moving North and replacing more drifted pops. A constant stream of Southern -> NW Eurasian can be hard to detect in small time transect, but over a longer timespan it can show up as a homogenising effect.

It should be noted that South Asians never have their own component in ADMIXTURE runs, this group always has a mixture of whatever components result from the run. Hence, when we see 'homogenization' in Eurasia ie with Steppe EMBA having CHG/Iran_N over EHG/MA1, or Steppe MLBA having 'Anatolian' over Steppe EMBA, this could be effected via a suble South-> North movement, an addition to the simple explanation of populations mixing.

Slumbery said...

@Rob

First I would like to start near the end. You say "Here is a qpADM model of your set-up" and then present a model where there is no source for the extra WSHG that I pretty much implied to be critical for modelling Sarmatians. That is not my set-up.


in fact WSHG is something I looked at first up for Sarmatians, because the archaeological clues point to obvious connections between Don-Volga-Ural Sarmatians and forest groups like Aninyo, Sargat, etc. So i anticipated some WSHG to be there
But WSHG doesn’t appear to be consistent. It seems that a more eastern kind of Siberian -& Mongolian derived ancestry during, or in the wake of, the S-T Ph; although Paleo-WSHG lineages persist

But can you point to where WSHG/Botai-related groups managed to survive in the Kazakh steppe during the Iron Age ? I thought one of the major conclusions from Damgaard was that this ancestry almost disappeared by the MLBA.


That is an interestingly phrased question. If I try to literally answer it, then the answer is: the Sarmatians. Now of course you mean a group that is ancestral to them and a source for this admixture, but that is not possible to answer, because there are hardly any relevant samples that are pre-Sarmatian and still Iron Age. But we have such populations in LBA (I showed examples in the other thread) and if there are no Iron Age populations that have more of this ancestry that just means this part of the Sarmatian make-up was already ready and evened out by the start of the Iron Age.
Anyhow, the Sarmatians do have this ancestry and an attempt to ignore this in the modellig distorts the results. I do not need to identify the full chain of vectors for this ancestry for this to remain true.

''Even if the Sarmatians formed in the Volga-Don-Caucasus region, this Kubano-Terks_late + Khovgol_BA model is forced.''

That's your misinterpretation; because the Srubnaja-Andronovo component is included


I do not understand what are you trying to say here.

Slumbery said...

continues

In any case, nothing is 'forced' in that linked model I intially suggested. I was merely looking at how G25 does in distinguishing between BMAC-related and KT-related ancestries at a deeper level. It did, but then you drifted awkwardly into discussing WSHGs and Devils Gate..

I "drifted" because I had to point out, that your model is not good for the exact purpose you targeted. Because Sarmatians have a lot of extra WSHG ancestry above what Khovsol_BA can deliver and the only other source for it is Kubano_Tersk_late, the latter is inflated. Also you did not include any other possibilities for Caucasus ancestry. Seriously, Botai/Tyumen and Kura-Araxes are much older populations that surely do not share recent drift with the Sarmatians and still when both are included Kubano-Thersk is consistently kicked out with a much improved distance. That shows how bad is Kubano-Tersk as a main Sarmatian ancestor. That is why I call it forced. Kubano-Tersk picked up as an ancestor only if you cherry pick the other sources to make it happen and the fit will still suffer.

But in adding WSHG & Devil's Gate, it doesnt really change much

Sarmatian_RUS_Caspian_steppe

RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 55.0
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late 19.2
TKM_Gonur1_BA 11.3
RUS_Shamanka_EBA 9.8
RUS_Tyumen_HG 3.8
RUS_Devils_Gate_Cave_N 0.9

d = 0.01639219


In the eralier thread I mentioned that Caspian Steppe Sarmatians are one of the groups that have some real Caucasus ancestry. Now, if the only group in the entire set-up that can deliver it is Kubano-Tersk_late, then of course it will score. Include Kura-Araxes and compare.

Here is a qpADM model of your set-up
left pops:
Russia_Sarmatian.SG
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 0.716
Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG 0.099
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur 0.186


Not, this is not my set-up. Include Botai or Tyumen and then it will be my set-up. Also Sarmatian_Caucasus and in a lesser extent Caspian Sarmatians have significant real Caucasus ancestry, so you cannot lump them together with Pokrovka and Ural (I assume Russia_Sarmatian is a combined group in your set-up.) My point is however that even for those the ancient Kura-Araxes is a better source than Kubano-Tersk_late (if we give an alternative source for the extra WSHG too).

Don't group Scythians with so-called Sakae from eastern Kazakhstan, They're different people.

I had no such intend, I merely pointed out that both groups are differentiated from Sarmatians with their much higher level Devil's Gate / WSHG ratio and consistently higher Devil's Gate related ancestry in general and that is why they can be reasonably well modelled with Khovsol_BA as a single combined WSHG + East Siberian source. But Sarmatians are not.

Note I do not have a strong opinion on where _precisely_ the Sarmatians formed. So I am not going to defend the Western Kazakh steppe idea with my blood. I am pretty sure however that the Kubano-Tersk_late line does not work.

Unknown said...

Rob said...
"Whatever you say Archie; the data never seems to prove your pompous claims. As if it matters to me whether sarmatians have KT- related or BMAC related ancestry .
April 24, 2021 at 3:26 AM "

This is just ridiculous, my words are all strictly confirmed, your words are all not merely unconfirmed, but simply all brutally refuted. You just don't know how to look. Here to you are completely chewed up and put in your mouth.

https://i.ibb.co/rFbP2cS/Vahaduo-Global-25-North-Eurasia-Sarmat-rel-full-PCA.png


And after that, to object to the obvious would be ridiculous, it means to continue to show your complete inadequacy.

@mzp1
"Though we expect Scythians and Sarmatians to show it, I'm not interested in looking too closely for South Asian (Indo-Aryan) introgression into West Eurasian populations"

It does not exist and do not fantasize, you will not deceive anyone here with your fantasies about the presence of South Asia in the Scythians and Sarmatians.

Simon Stevin said...

@Davidski
How can Carlos deny this now? The Uralic association with N is now solidly confirmed with ancient DNA, it is not directly associated with R1.

gamerz_J said...

@mzp1

"It should be noted that South Asians never have their own component in ADMIXTURE runs, this group always has a mixture of whatever components result from the run. Hence, when we see 'homogenization' in Eurasia ie with Steppe EMBA having CHG/Iran_N over EHG/MA1, or Steppe MLBA having 'Anatolian' over Steppe EMBA, this could be effected via a suble South-> North movement, an addition to the simple explanation of populations mixing."

I am confused, where are you getting this from? South Asian admix in Europeans?

@Andrzejewski

E1b1 was not common in Anatolian farmers, only in Natufians and Levantine farmers.

vAsiSTha said...

@Archi

"It does not exist and do not fantasize, you will not deceive anyone here with your fantasies about the presence of South Asia in the Scythians and Sarmatians."

Theres about 20% Indus_periphery_pool present in Shahr_Sokhta_BA1. There's about 10-12% Indus_periphery_pool present in the BMAC label of Narsimhan. and there's 12-15% Indus_Periphery_Pool present in AigyrzhalBA like original SC asian population. This is all as per Narsimhan paper supplement.

SO while the minor and diluted AASI component is difficult to detect in later heavily mixed Sarmatian and Scythian populations, it doesnt mean it had exactly 0 impact in the cultural formation of the SC asian populations. Later on in iron age and later you of course see much more fresh influx of south asian populations into the SC asian region.

The east asian admixture also makes it hard to distinguish minor aasi admixture in the absence of actual AASI aDna samples.

Hannibal said...

@ Onur Dincer


I strongly doubt that Xianbei/Proto Mongols started off with haplogroup C.


That's because Xianbei fossils are all East Asian mtDNA, but their physical description in the Chinese history describes them as having blond hair, beards, tall, etc. That suggests admixture on the paternal line from Europoids.


Although Mongols today are mostly haplogroup C, the fossil data shows that ancient Mongols weren't. The predominant y-DNA haplogroup in medieval Mongols R1b (Jeong 2020), and the Golden Family (probable Borjigin) fossils from Lkhagvasuren 2016 are R1b and R1a.


Ancient Mongols weren't like today's Mongols and had more European ancestry, particularly on the paternal line. Their phenotypes were also dissimilar to modern Mongols, showing more light eyes, hair, and skin color. Also, the Mongols outside of Mongolia (like Hazara) retain this older genetic distribution of haplogroups. About 30% of Hazara men belong to R1b which is today absent in the independent state of Mongolia.


https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33083459/



Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Rob said...

@ Archie


''The fallacy of Rob's position is related to the fact that he does not understand that the late Kubano-Tersk culture is essentially a mix with the Sintashta and KMC, it is not much different from the Andronovo culture.''

G25/Vahaduo:
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
RUS_Catacomb 51.4
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA 31.8
______________
RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA 9.4
RUS_Tyumen_HG 6.8
TKM_Gonur1_BA 0.6
d=0.01789239

qpADM
left pops:
RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
RUS_Catacomb 0.821
RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA 0.179

Tail Prob 0.351233


It is completely different to Andronovo. As I previously outlined, it is therefore is a far more 'eastern' type of population due to low proportion of EEF.

Archie, you are low bar but anosognosic to your condition

Unknown said...

@Rob

"It is completely different to Andronovo. As I previously outlined, it is therefore is a far more 'eastern' type of population due to low proportion of EEF.
Archie, you are low bar but anosognosic to your condition "

Bullshit. Rob your models are always a fraud, you deliberately always choose false populations to fool everyone. You don't know how to model and you don't know how to do anything.

You just cheat everyone, you wrongfully included Srubnaya, which was after RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late, and excluded Sintashta, which was simultaneously with it to cheat everyone and excluded RUS_Kubano-Tersk not to see that the population has changed.

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD002
Distance: 3.6929% / 0.03692908
68.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
19.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
9.8 RUS_Catacomb
2.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD001
Distance: 5.3474% / 0.05347415
76.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
24.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Catacomb

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD002
Distance: 1.5666% / 0.01566629
27.4 RUS_Catacomb
25.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
18.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
13.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
8.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
7.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3

Target: RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late:KBD001
Distance: 1.5858% / 0.01585769
34.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
21.4 RUS_Catacomb
19.6 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
13.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
7.8 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o2
3.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o1
0.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA_o3


You've shamed yourself again and you'd better keep your mouth shut. You can't fool anyone.

Copper Axe said...

@Onur Dincer

Donghu and Ulaanzuukh/Slab grave are two different things, and are not mutually exclusive. One is a historical confederation from the antiquity, the other are archaeological phenomenons from the LBA/EI. The Donghu were pushed to the east from somewhere further in Mongolia/Inner Mongolia by the Xiongnu as well.

The Xianbei are assumed to have been predominantly Mongolic but this did not apply to all groups within the Xianbei. There were plenty of Turkic elements in the Xianbei. Dinglings etc. were part of the Tuoba Wei. The Touba may have been Turkic speaking themselves, but that is still debated.

Point being, the make-up of these confederations did not run along ethno-linguistic lines; so Xiongnu=Turk and Xianbei=Mongol is just too simple of a narrative and not whath istory or genetics shows us here.

The Xianbei samples seem predominantly Slab Grave and Ulaanzuukh derived as far as autosomal ancestry goes. Also just from looking at G25 the Xianbei samples do not really seem to be significantly more eastern than Xiongnu or earlier Slab Grave samples. Also, there is barely any tibetan-like ancestry in that sample from Hungary, less than 10%. It is Altai+Central Mongolia+Western Liao region as far as eastern ancestry goes for the most part, which makes sense considering it is a sample from a Hun cemetery in Europe.

The Q1a1a in those samples comes from the southeast, and is not necesarily more "western" than C2b considering that has shown up in bronze age Kazakhstan and was one of the lineages of Neolithic Mongolia. The same Q lineage is also in Neolithic northeast China, as well as some Zhou dynasty "Hu" burials if I remeber well. I also think that those lineages probably represent a founder effect or an elite with close paternal kinship because it doesn't seem as present in later samples or distribution amongst historical and modern Turkic peoples, not to mention there are iron age Xiongnu samples with like 80-90% Slab-Grave like ancestry who have different lineages like N and C.

Want to move this discussion over to AG perhaps? I find discourse there a bit easier.

Andrzejewski said...

@Gamerz_J “ E1b1 was not common in Anatolian farmers, only in Natufians and Levantine farmers.”

How come has it become so widespread and common among Neolithic Balkan pops and continues until today (found even amongst Medieval Visigoths from Spain who sojourned across the Danube in Roman times), if it didn’t arrive there with Anatolian farmers? I’m confused.

mzp1 said...

@Gamerz,

From HarrapaDNA and my own research, the NW Indian populations are grouped something like this (obviously this is not exhaustive):

Ror-Kalash-SikhJatt-MuslimJatt-Kashmiri-UPSyed-GujaratiMuslim

The left side, Ror, is closest to all West Eurasians like Anatolian, European etc, from atleast the Bronze Age onwards. The Eastern side, Gujarati Muslim and UPSyed is closer to no one by comparison, as Ror has more ONGE than Gujarati Muslim.

I got the idea of checking for SA DNA in Europeans when I ran the calc f4(Mbut, Yoruba)(Test, Test) and found that GujaratiMuslim and Jatt scored the highest affinity to Yoruba vs Mbuti. This I posted earlier. This suggested that although Ror are generally closest to ALL West Eurasians, there is significant geneflow from Eastern Indo-Aryans into West Eurasia.

So I checked with qpADm

Target: Ukrainian
Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara: 43
England_N: 29
Luxembourg_Loschbour: 19
Gujarati_Muslim: 8

Target: English
Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_Samara: 40
England_N: 43
Luxembourg_Loschbour: 11
Gujarati_Muslim: 4

It was just a quick run but it shows that it is feasible to model Euros with some geneflow from the Eastern end of the NW Indian cline above. Muslim Jatts, Kashmiris, Syeds (obviously), Gujarati Muslims and related populations are a large and influential Indo-Aryan genetic cluster, much less 'Western' than Ror and Kalash. So it is not hard to imagine this cluster contributing migrants out of SA into West Eurasia.

I've put the Gujarati Muslim 23andme file online, as there is little representation for the Eastern IndoAryan cluster in research and online.

http://e11.online/DNA/Gujarati-Muslim-Bharuchi.txt

Muslim Jatts, Kashmiris, Syeds and Gujarati Muslims look like they are the most important Indo-Aryan groups, not (the Western) Ror and Kalash, though they are the most reported.

Anyway, a very clear picture is emerging of how NW Indian population structure is related to West Eurasia. But it is off-topic to go into it here (unless Davidski wants to talk about it), but it is a very compelling story so I expect to be able to blog and make some YT videos on it soon.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

In direct contradiction to your claims, modern and medieval Mongols show more West Eurasian genetic input, not less, than their Xianbei and Khitan ancestors:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JO6oRHE8Z7hFCaI-SaclOHv6hf9q1LYt/view?usp=sharing

Also as you can see, their level of genetic continuity from their Xianbei and Khitan ancestors is high in general.

The most common Y-DNA haplogroup of medieval Mongols is C2 according to Jeong et al. 2020 and other ancient DNA papers (though lower than the modern frequencies), stop lying. The Lkhagvasuren et al. 2016 paper studies only two male lineages and thus cannot represent the general population. Modern Mongols have R1a and R1b too, but in lower frequencies than the tested medieval Mongols.

And, we have quite a number of Xianbei Y-DNA results already (Li et al. 2020, Ning et al. 2020, Wang et al. 2020), so far all of them are C2 but one.

Lastly, Hazara are a very mixed population, not any pure descendants of the Mongol invaders (and their invader ancestors most probably included Turkic groups too). They do not even speak Mongolian, they speak a Persian dialect.

ambron said...

Arza, Matt, Archi, we have probably over 20 of good quality early medieval samples from West Slavic areas. Maybe it would be nice to put them all on the PCA; we would have a genetic image of the early medieval Western Slavs. Unfortunately, I do not use these tools.

Rob said...

@ Archie

Yes so you're overfitted 'models' (being generous here) show the main sonstituents of late K-T are Catacomb & North Cacuasus groups. Archaeologically, they are Catacomb + north Caucasus groups (from Wang - “ The mound was constructed by communities of the North Caucasian tradition, but a later phase can be associated with a local group of the post-Catacomb/Late Bronze Age 1 horizon”)
The crumbs of Sintastha outlier you are picking up are either unwarranted, or might represent collateral gene flow from the quasi-contemporaneous Lola culture , which featured some WSHG

It has nothing directly to do with Sintashta or Andronovo. So you’re statement of synonymity with Andronovo is wrong


''you'd better keep your mouth shut.'

LOL or what ?
I don’t know why you keep barking wounded dog; it’s not like you’re in anyway relevant

Hannibal said...

@ Onur


Keep coping, buddy.


This the haplogroup chart of Mongols from Jeong 2020. The dominant Y-DNA lineage among early medieval Mongols (early Med) is R1b. C is a minority haplogroup.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-figs2.jpg



Also, 0% of Mongols in Mongolia today have R1b, or at most, 0.99%.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622


"In comparison, our unpublished data demonstrated that the Y-haplogroups R1b-M343 and R1a1a-M17 are distributed at 0.0% (0/101) and 0.99% (1/101) in modern-day Mongolians across the Mongolian plateau, respectively (S10 Fig) [31, 32]. Zhong and Colleagues [50] also reported that the modern-day Mongolians who inhabit in the Inner and Outer Mongolia carry the R1b-M343 haplogroup at 8.3% (1/12) (only in Heilongjiang; the province located in the North Eastern part of China) and 0.0%, respectively. Meanwhile, Zhong and colleagues [50] and Katoh and colleagues [59] demonstrated that the R1a1a-M17 was found at 9.1% (2/22), 3.5% (3/85), 6.7% (4/60) and 13.3% (8/60) in modern-day Inner Mongolians, Khalkh, Uriankhai, and Zakhchin Mongolian tribes, respectively. Thus, R1b-M343 is scarcely found in the Mongolian plateau, whereas R1a1a-M17 is widely distributed, although at a relatively low frequency, having a maximum of 13.3% in the Zakhchin tribe [59]. These results demonstrate that modern-day individuals carrying R1b-M343 are hard to find on the Mongolian Plateau, meaning that descendants of R1b-M343-carrying members of the Golden family disappeared from the Mongolian Plateau for unknown reasons."

Also, yes, Hazara are mixed -- but not on their paternal line. "Admixture" isn't a source of R1b in Hazara since we already know R1b is closely associated with medieval Mongols, as you have already admitted.


"Eastern Russian Tatars, Bashkirs, and Pakistani Hazara were found to carry R1b-M343 at unusually high frequencies of 12.65%, 46.07%, and 32%, respectively, compared to other regions of Eastern Asia, which rarely have this haplotype (Fig 3) [40, 42, 43, 49–53]. Interestingly, ancestors of those 3 populations were all closely associated with the medieval Mongol Empire. That is, Russian Tatars and Bashkirs are descendants of the Golden Horde (also known as the Ulus of Jochi) that had been controlled by Jochi, the first son of Genghis Khan, and his descendants during the 12th–15th centuries. In addition, some of the Hazara tribes are believed to consist of descendants of Mongolian soldiers and their slave women after the 1221 siege of Bamiyan under the leadership of Genghis Khan [54, 55]. Through domination of Hazara, Mongolians strongly influenced the genetic makeup of the Hazara people, especially in Pakistan [49, 54, 56]. Some modern Hazara populations resemble Mongolians in their physical attributes including facial bone structure. Similarly, the high frequency of R1b-M343 in geographic regions associated with the past Mongol khanates including the Golden Horde (from Ural Mountain to Western Siberia, which includes Russia, Ukraine, Belarus, Poland, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan), Ilkhanate (Iran and neighboring territories including Armenia, Turkey, Georgia, Afghanistan, Syria, and Tajikistan), and Chagatai Khanate (from the Aral sea to the Altai mountain, including Pakistan (Hazara), Uzbekistan, Kazakhstan, Tajikistan, India, and China), strongly suggest a close association between the Y haplotype R1b-M343 and the past Mongol Empire (Fig 3) [42–44, 49–53]."

Just face it buddy, you're a racist nationalist who doesn't like the fact that medieval Mongols were more West Eurasian and were characterized by more West Eurasian haplogroups, also had more West Eurasian appearance as demonstrated by the lighter hair and eye colors.

Copper Axe said...

"Just face it buddy, you're a racist nationalist"

Jesus christ man Onur is like one of the chillest people here smh

Hannibal said...

@ Copper axe

Doesn't matter. He frequently mis-speaks on Mongols and Turks in a way that reflects race bias and nationalism, it's his signature.

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Axe

I agree with most of what you say, those steppe groups were mostly not mono-ethnic and homogeneous organizations, most of them were tribal confederations involving multiple ethnic groups and languages. Having said that, certain patterns can be found in each one of them and that is what I was focusing on in my comments. I have some objections to some of your claims though:

Also just from looking at G25 the Xianbei samples do not really seem to be significantly more eastern than Xiongnu or earlier Slab Grave samples.

There are some clear differences in the levels of Devil's Gate-like (Amur Basin) ancestry. Let me first show my analysis with the Xianbei again:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JO6oRHE8Z7hFCaI-SaclOHv6hf9q1LYt/view?usp=sharing

Now compare it with the analyses of other populations using the same source populations:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16RpKDqWrnvV1mSHA0A-u0_d_0u_4oF2W/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1moIWwJ03fk2M2PZ4CdZVC50RVhFuI-eg/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Kr6Zndbv_sHBEnnS0-ou-ZIGYLQbCAns/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1l4Rf2ikS0owacI3KOxn5NEuhQ5srNQCR/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/18lIgvyGuOb7zYppsqM7dMRDnr356xQh0/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S9ryHpno0d3V7vrW5K8Jc5QUA9cvqRq-/view?usp=sharing

As you can see, the Xianbei in general have more Amur Basin ancestry and are more depleted in more western or southern East Eurasian ancestries than Slab Grave/Ulaanzuukh, the Xiongnu and even Khitans, and the Xiongnu by far have the most heterogeneous genetics among all those populations with even some individuals with mostly West Eurasian ancestry (note that I am not claiming that all those individuals spoke the same language or had tribal connections).

Also, there is barely any tibetan-like ancestry in that sample from Hungary, less than 10%. It is Altai+Central Mongolia+Western Liao region as far as eastern ancestry goes for the most part, which makes sense considering it is a sample from a Hun cemetery in Europe.

The Hun elite sample from what is now Hungary really has quite high Tibetan-like ancestry, compare his ancestry with those of the Hun elite sample from what is now Kazakhstan and of the samples I have shared above (all with the same source populations):

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1S9xGS5nDj1peaOq4nu1FcTNOoPfB7mSM/view?usp=sharing

Davidski said...

@Hannibal

This theory of yours that early Mongols were mostly of European/West Eurasian ancestry seems very unusual.

Do you have any evidence for it apart from the data in that Plos One paper, which was based on just a handful of samples and outdated ancient DNA methods?

Like, for instance, can you back up your theory with genome-wide data from some of the recent papers on ancient Central and East Asia?

Hannibal said...

I don't have a theory that early Mongols were mostly European/West Eurasian -- only that they were significantly West Eurasian/European, more so than today's Mongols. Probably there were "pure" Europoids among them, but many more were hybrids. It's not my theory, but the evidence amassed by Jeong and also the work of Lkhavasuren clearly demonstrates this. Mongols did not become predominantly East Eurasian as they are today until the Mongol Empire period.


There is also historical evidence that contradicts the retarded idea that Mongols were mostly East Asian, in the form of physical descriptions from historians within China and all over the world, and even Mongol historical chronicles themselves, which describe certain Mongol tribes (such as the Uriankhai) as being predominantly yellow haired, blue eyed, red haired, etc. Traits no pure East Asian ethnic group has in the majority.

A nice comment from a forum recently held by experts:

https://languagelog.ldc.upenn.edu/nll/?p=48160



"You have a very good observation. In my opinion, this could be a reflection of genetic hybridity of Mongoloid and Caucasoid groups in Inner Asia. I have a strong conviction that no group there is homogeneous in their genetic composition and ethnogenesis. I am not sure if anyone has specifically studied physical transfer of Sinitic population to Mongolia by the Xiongnu as repeatedly recorded in early Chinese dynastic histories. The Xiongnu needed to have human resources and thus aimed to grab outside, especially Chinese, population. Though the Xiongnu seemed ruthless on battlegrounds, they were very kind toward those Chinese individuals. When Zhang Qian (d. ca. 114 BC) was captured, he was treated nicely and was offered a marriage with a Xiongnu woman. This aspect of Xiongnu-Han interactions merits further investigation."

Anyway, to answer your last question, at the moment I am not aware of the existence of a medieval Mongol genome. But yes, the Y-STR data do clearly demonstrate more mixture than modern Mongols. The pigmentation paper I included had late Xiongnu individuals and I believe Xianbei.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

This the haplogroup chart of Mongols from Jeong 2020. The dominant Y-DNA lineage among early medieval Mongols (early Med) is R1b. C is a minority haplogroup.

https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S0092867420313210-figs2.jpg


You said just "medieval Mongols" in my reply to you, not "early medieval Mongols," so I replied to you taking into account all the medieval Mongol genetic results in Jeong et al. 2020 (the Jeong et al. 2020 paper itself stresses the high frequency of C2 in medieval Mongols too with this statement: "In addition, nearly a third of historic Mongol males (12/38) have Y haplogroup C2b, which is also widespread among modern Mongolians (Table S6, Fig. S3)"). This is what you wrote:

Although Mongols today are mostly haplogroup C, the fossil data shows that ancient Mongols weren't. The predominant y-DNA haplogroup in medieval Mongols R1b (Jeong 2020), and the Golden Family (probable Borjigin) fossils from Lkhagvasuren 2016 are R1b and R1a.

Obviously your statement was wrong because of not using the word "early" before "medieval."

Also, 0% of Mongols in Mongolia today have R1b, or at most, 0.99%.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0161622


There is some, but very little like you say. But I have never denied the decrease in R1a and R1b frequencies and the increase in C2 frequencies in Mongols or claimed otherwise. This is already what I said in my previous post to you:

Modern Mongols have R1a and R1b too, but in lower frequencies than the tested medieval Mongols.

Now let's come to the topic of Hazara:

Also, yes, Hazara are mixed -- but not on their paternal line. "Admixture" isn't a source of R1b in Hazara since we already know R1b is closely associated with medieval Mongols, as you have already admitted.

Like I already stated, Hazara have diverse origins in invader ancestry too, they almost certainly have Turkic invader ancestry too, and as you know, some Turkic groups have high frequencies of R1b, Bashkirs being one of them. Also, you should take into account the effects of genetic drift too in populations like Hazara. Only Pakistani Hazara have shown high R1b frequency, Afghanistani Hazara have not even shown any R1b, see:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3314501/

No R1b found in the 60 tested Afghanistani Hazara Y-DNA as you see. In the paper with Pakistani Hazara 25 Pakistani Hazara Y-DNA were tested and 8 of them were found to belong to R1b. Not sure how to interpret this, it could be due to genetic drift in Pakistani Hazara, due to influence from some Turkic invaders with high R1b frequency, or due to both.

Just face it buddy, you're a racist nationalist who doesn't like the fact that medieval Mongols were more West Eurasian and were characterized by more West Eurasian haplogroups, also had more West Eurasian appearance as demonstrated by the lighter hair and eye colors.

Now you are resorting to name calling without fully engaging with my arguments. I have already pointed to the higher West Eurasian Y-DNA haplogroup frequency in medieval Mongols than modern ones and have said nothing contrary to it. But according to their autosomal results, medieval Mongols were not that different in amounts of West Eurasian ancestry from modern Mongols:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1JO6oRHE8Z7hFCaI-SaclOHv6hf9q1LYt/view

In case you do not know, I am neither Mongol nor even from any East or Central Eurasian population, so your accusation of racism towards me on this issue makes no sense.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

Doesn't matter. He frequently mis-speaks on Mongols and Turks in a way that reflects race bias and nationalism, it's his signature.

All I have written here is backed with genetic evidence. Unlike you, I rely on advanced ancient genome analyses rather than outdated papers or some debatable historical data. If you have reliable counter-arguments against me, you should not resort to defamation tactics.

I don't have a theory that early Mongols were mostly European/West Eurasian -- only that they were significantly West Eurasian/European, more so than today's Mongols. Probably there were "pure" Europoids among them, but many more were hybrids. It's not my theory, but the evidence amassed by Jeong and also the work of Lkhavasuren clearly demonstrates this. Mongols did not become predominantly East Eurasian as they are today until the Mongol Empire period.

Medieval Mongols had mostly East Eurasian ancestry as demonstrated by both my analyses and those of Jeong et al. 2020. Also they were autosomally not too different from modern Mongols.

There is also historical evidence that contradicts the retarded idea that Mongols were mostly East Asian, in the form of physical descriptions from historians within China and all over the world, and even Mongol historical chronicles themselves, which describe certain Mongol tribes (such as the Uriankhai) as being predominantly yellow haired, blue eyed, red haired, etc.

This is the average ancestry estimation of your beloved Jeong et al. paper about medieval Mongols in case you do not trust my analyses:

Mongol era individuals as a group can be modeled with only 15-18% of western Steppe ancestry (Alan or Sarmatian), but require 55-64% of Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave and 21-27% of Han-related ancestry (Table S22).

On Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave genetics they state this:

In contrast to other contemporaneous Eastern Steppe populations, we find that individuals associated with these burial types show a clear northeastern-Eurasian (ANA-related) genetic profile lacking both ANE and WSH admixture (Fig. 2; Fig. 3c; Fig. S7). Both groups were ruminant pastoralists, and the EIA Slab Grave culture also milked horses (Wilkin et al., 2019). The genetic profiles of Ulaanzuukh and Slab Grave individuals are genetically indistinguishable (Fig. 2 and Table S16), consistent with the archaeological hypothesis that the Slab Grave tradition emerged out of the LBA Ulaanzuukh (Honeychurch, 2015; Khatanbaatar, 2019). Both groups are also indistinguishable from the earlier eastMongolia_preBA individual dating to ca. 4600 BCE, suggesting a long-term (>4,000 year) stability of this prehistoric eastern Mongolian gene pool (Table S16).

So they classify Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave in East Eurasian genetics like me.

Traits no pure East Asian ethnic group has in the majority.

Who has stated medieval or modern Mongols were pure East Eurasian in genetics? Historical descriptions and depictions of physical traits can only give a rough idea on the genetics and appearances, for more details you need ancient DNA and/or physical anthropological studies (better both).

Anyway, to answer your last question, at the moment I am not aware of the existence of a medieval Mongol genome. But yes, the Y-STR data do clearly demonstrate more mixture than modern Mongols. The pigmentation paper I included had late Xiongnu individuals and I believe Xianbei.

How are you not aware of any medieval Mongol genome when you constantly mention the Jeong et al. 2020 paper, which tested plenty of medieval Mongol genomes (autosomally too)? Read and try to understand it rather than sticking to outdated papers or debatable historical depictions or descriptions.

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Axe

Want to move this discussion over to AG perhaps? I find discourse there a bit easier.

Would love to. But do not have much time for discussions.

Onur Dincer said...

You said just "medieval Mongols" in my reply to you

You said just "medieval Mongols" in your reply to me*

Copper Axe said...

@Onur

Well AG is still down but when its back up I'll make a thread about this. Been finding some decent clues and connections and I'll put them on maps and such.

But to summarize I noticed that the outlier Upper Xiajiadan (pastoralist) worked very well as a source for Mongolic peoples, but also for the Ulaanzuukh and slab grave models. Also for a lot of Turkic peoples, but not all of them. Dont take it too literally as the UXJD sample is contemporary/younger than some Ulaanzuukh samples but:

Target: MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
Distance: 1.4291% / 0.01429127 | R4P
55.8    MNG_East_N
25.0    RUS_Baikal_BA
11.8    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
7.4    CHN_Miaozigou_MN


Target: MNG_Ulaanzukh_LBA_2
Distance: 1.6562% / 0.01656209 | R4P
35.4    MNG_East_N
24.8    CHN_Miaozigou_MN
24.4    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
15.4    RUS_Baikal_BA

Target: MNG_Ulaanzuukh_Slab_Grave
Distance: 1.3082% / 0.01308179
31.4    CHN_Yumin_N
24.8    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
17.6    MNG_East_N
14.8    RUS_Baikal_BA
11.0    CHN_Miaozigou_MN
0.4    CHN_Amur_River_EN
0.0    MNG_North_N

That sample is more or less intermediate between MNG_Northeast and those neolithic Amur river samples, which are almost right next to the mongolian border and later on that becomes Slab grave territory. Unlike the Slab grave populations, there isn't any neolithic inner mongolian agriculturalist (Yumin, Yangshao) ancestry present yet. C2b1!

Those EIA slab grave samples seem like a mix of whatever came out of the southeast, and the MNG_North and Altai-Sayan ancestries already present by the way, but keeping the same paternal lineages (aside from one outlier with Q-L330).

So for example those Xianbei samples (excluding the ones from Kazakhstan as it basically just seems slab grave+Saka):

Target: CHN_Amur_River_Xianbei_IA
Distance: 3.3916% / 0.03391643
50.4    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
48.8    MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.8    Saka_Tian_Shan

Target: MNG_Xianbei_IA
Distance: 3.2141% / 0.03214129
48.2    CHN_Western_Liao_River_BA_o
36.6    MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
15.2    Saka_Tian_Shan

Given that this outlier origins lie somehwere around northeast Mongolia and the Xianbei/historic Mongols/modern day Mongolians are are halfway inbetween that one and central/eastern Mongolian LBA pastoralists, I's say their ethnogenesis happened somewhere in eastern (greater) Mongolia. Can't say whether it was the Southeast (SGC+UXJD) or northeast (SGC+Amur_EN+MNG_N) for now. Maybe I'll find some clues later on.

Rob said...

@ Copper

“ Upper Xiajiadan”

Which one is that ?
UXC in itself represent a shift in northern China; switch to pastoralism & something of a genetic shift

Copper Axe said...

@Rob

91KLM2 from this article: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-020-16557-2

Western_liao_river_BA_o on G25.

For sure a shift! I just wish the archaeology was a little more clear where exactly they came from though. They pop up with northern zone metal goods as well with graves made out of stone slabs covered in stone mounds, which is kinda similar to the Slab Grave burials but distinct enough to be its own thing.

Rob said...

@ Copper Axe
Im still familiarizing myself with China.
It might be that 'Western Liao LN' corresponds Lower Xiajiadian Culture. Compared to the preceding MN, they are shifted away from Amur basin. Toward Yellow river complex, but not early Neolithic variety, but a more shifted LN one. Im not sure the source of this LN Yellow-Liao river shift, but it's not immediately obvious to be the Yangtze
Whatever the case, this shift is consistent with first appearance of Y-hg O (on the background of Y-hg N (xNc-TAT), and agriculture (although perhaps some domesticates had come earlier).

Then comes the "BA" - Upper Xiajiadian Culture, there is a shift back toward the north. Indeed, the 'outlier' projects with Amur basin and Slab Grave individuals
This is the appearance of pastoralism and steppe-type metal work in northern China. Appearance of 'Nc-TAT'

https://ibb.co/k889LRT

Onur Dincer said...

@Copper Axe

Thanks for the analyses and findings.

Here is an analysis I have done which I think can contribute to the discussion:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/15RHnkPxHk_aZ9i4Lr2-iQnU2J4xjGoac/view?usp=sharing

Bear in mind that the Turkic, Mongolic and Tungusic language families have shallow time depths, their proto versions were spoken as recent as the Iron Age times, that is why I am focusing on that era when seeking for their proto populations.

CrM said...

Never noticed that the Caucasus-related proxy in Kubano-Tersk is best represented by KDC, I always assumed it was more Maykop and Velikent related. This might explain the small amount of KDC ancestry that Dagestanians harbor, which I previously assumed to be an ancestry that they picked up from Chechens or maybe Kumyks.
So I suppose this might hint that Northeast Caucasian Steppe is more akin to Kubano-Tersk than early Catacomb.

Target: Avar
Distance: 1.4698% / 0.01469767 | ADC: 0.25x RC
49.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
26.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
22.4 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
1.6 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.0 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*

Target: Darginian
Distance: 1.5872% / 0.01587227 | ADC: 0.25x RC
59.2 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
39.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
1.4 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.0 RUS_Catacomb
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*

Target: Kaitag:DAG06-826
Distance: 2.8030% / 0.02802980 | ADC: 0.25x RC
49.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
46.6 RUS_Catacomb
3.8 RUS_Kubano-Tersk_Late
0.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1
0.0 RUS_Kubano-Tersk
0.0 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*



Target: Avar
Distance: 1.5300% / 0.01530035 | ADC: 0.25x RC
56.4 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
39.2 RUS_Catacomb
2.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*
2.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1

Target: Darginian
Distance: 1.6747% / 0.01674658 | ADC: 0.25x RC
51.2 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
42.4 RUS_Catacomb
4.6 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*
1.8 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1

Target: Kaitag:DAG06-826
Distance: 2.7940% / 0.02794042 | ADC: 0.25x RC
49.0 RUS_Catacomb
45.6 Kura-Araxes_ARM_Kaps
5.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA*
0.0 MNG_Slab_Grave_EIA_1


@mzp1
Could you do a qpAdm run for Dagestanians (Avars, Darginians, Kaitag, Laks... any of these will do) with Hajji_Firuz_C/Iran_C, CHG and Yamnaya_Samara?

@Copper
What do you think the Khazars were like, are there perhaps any existing samples that may end up being genetically close to them?

mary said...

@Nyan

There is something that most are unaware of: the entire Karitiana people are descended from a single chief who lived only 80 years ago. I realize that this fact causes some confusion in the blind application of software like Admixture.

Ebizur said...

Rob wrote,

"Then comes the "BA" - Upper Xiajiadian Culture, there is a shift back toward the north. Indeed, the 'outlier' projects with Amur basin and Slab Grave individuals
This is the appearance of pastoralism and steppe-type metal work in northern China. Appearance of 'Nc-TAT'"

According to Pribislav at Anthrogenica, Sample M54A of Chao et al. 2020 (a DNA sample obtained from petrous bone of a specimen recovered from a vertical earthen pit associated with Phase II of the Early Neolithic at Houtaomuga, Jilin, China and dated to 7430-7320 BP) belongs to pre-N1a1a2-Y23747. This is a subclade of N-TAT. The extant haplogroup N1a1a2-Y23747 has been observed in China, Korea, and Japan, with the most basal branch found to date being represented by one individual from Aichi Prefecture and one individual from Hokkaido prefecture of Japan. The main branch, N-Y125664, is currently estimated by YFull to have a TMRCA of 4,500 (95% CI 3,400 <-> 5,700) ybp and has one subclade, N-MF38607, that has been found in individuals from Anhui and Hunan provinces of central China and another subclade, N-F22150, that has been found in northern China (Hebei), northeastern China (one individual from Heilongjiang and one ethnic Oroqen), two Koreans, and a Tibetan. The Y-DNA of an individual from Shanghai that appears to be basal to all other members of N-Y125664 (but more closely related to them than to the aforementioned Japanese individuals) has recently been added to the YFull tree.

The specimen from Houtaomuga indicates that haplogroup N-TAT has been present in the basin of the Amur River since the Early Neolithic period, but the Houtaomuga specimen's Y-DNA appears to form a clade with a branch currently observed sporadically among Chinese (including the Tungusic-speaking Oroqen, the Mongolic-speaking Daur, and the Tibetan ethnic groups), Koreans, and Japanese vis-à-vis members of the N-F1419 subclade of N-TAT, who are now very common throughout the northernmost tier of Eurasia, from Lapland and Finland in the west to Chukotka in the east.

Arza said...

@ Genos Historia

You need to write to the authors or match IDs using uniparentals.

@ ambron

I'll put all the Slavic related stuff on a separate blog. It's too much data for an off-top in a comment section.

Rob said...

@ Ebizur
Yes I had heard that. Where is raw data for Houtaomuga?
By northern China I meant Liao and yellow river basins in this case


@ CRM
Yep it suggests that KT ancestry might have persisted around the northeast Caucasus

Copper Axe said...

@Rob

Unless if I'm mistaken the regular Western Liao_BA samples are actually those of the Lower Xiajiadan culture as well as UXJD period samples with genetic continuity to the former.

@CrM

"What do you think the Khazars were like, are there perhaps any existing samples that may end up being genetically close to them?"

I bet they will be nearly identical to the Ashkenazi ^_^

No on a more serious matter I dont expect anything out of the ordinary. So when compared to the antiquity there should be a west eurasian shift on the steppes from Sarmatian-like (or by this time more the Alans) to more eastern steppe Iranic + sedentary Iranian ancestry coming in, as well geneflow from Europe, the Caucasus etc.

As far as East Eurasian goes, a considerable uptick of Slab Grave like ancestry of course, but I would not place any bets on how much exactly. That goes for all their ancestry components, which could be very heterogenously distributed amongst the populations if you consider geographic position of Khazaria.

ambron said...

Arza, great news! So I'm waiting patiently...

Hannibal said...

@Onur

"the Jeong et al. 2020 paper itself stresses the high frequency of C2 in medieval Mongols too with this statement: "In addition, nearly a third of historic Mongol males (12/38) have Y haplogroup C2b, which is also widespread among modern Mongolians (Table S6, Fig. S3)""


No, this stresses the low frequency of Haplogroup c2 in medieval (historical, Mongol empire era) Mongols.


"But according to their autosomal results, medieval Mongols were not that different in amounts of West Eurasian ancestry from modern Mongols:"

Using late medieval Mongols. Take out the Mongols from the mid-later Mongol empire datws and suddenly the Mongols aren't West Eurasian.


P.S. a sample isn't the same thing as a genome. Jeong 2020 doesn't contain an early Medieval mongol genome. Learn what a genome is.



"This is the average ancestry estimation of your beloved Jeong et al. paper about medieval Mongols in case you do not trust my analyses: Mongol era individuals as a group can be modeled with only 15-18% of western Steppe ancestry (Alan or Sarmatian), but require 55-64% of Ulaanzuuk_SlabGrave and 21-27% of Han-related ancestry (Table S22)."


Wrong again. That is for Mongol empire era Mongolians. I already said Mongol empire era Mongolians were majority East Asian. We are talking about early Mongol empire individuals here, who weren't majority East Asian and weren't like modern Mongols in uniparental ancestry or phenotype, on average.



All I have written here is backed with genetic evidence. Unlike you, I rely on advanced ancient genome analyses rather than outdated papers or some debatable historical data. If you have reliable counter-arguments against me, you should not resort to defamation tactics.

None of tbe research I posted is outdated; all of it is post-2015.


Also, the historical "data" is not debatable. Many of the prominent Mongol groups in history (Shiwei, Xianbei, Uriangkhai, Borjigin) were all described by numerous historical sources as having traits that only exist in Europid populations. This isn't happening in history for no good reason; they can't be repeatedly described by themselves and different authors as having European pigmentation for no reason. A majority East Asian genome won't allow that.

Onur Dincer said...

@Hannibal

No, this stresses the low frequency of Haplogroup c2 in medieval (historical, Mongol empire era) Mongols.

You are clearly in denial. Jeong et al. 2020 state this:

In addition, nearly a third of historic Mongol males (12/38) have Y haplogroup C2b, which is also widespread among modern Mongolians (Table S6, Fig. S3)

They say, "which is also widespread among modern Mongolians," pay attention to the word "also."

Using late medieval Mongols. Take out the Mongols from the mid-later Mongol empire datws and suddenly the Mongols aren't West Eurasian.

What you do not get or do not want to get is that what is now Mongolia was largely a Turkic territory during the Early Medieval times, not Mongolic, and all but one of the tested Early Medieval genomes from what is now Mongolia from Jeong et al. 2020 are from mortuary contexts associated with the Turkic Türk and Uyghur khanates and one of them is from an unclassified mortuary context:

Although our sample representation for the Early Medieval period is uneven, consisting of one unclassified individual dating to the Xianbei or Rouran period (TUK001), 8 individuals from Türkic mortuary contexts, and 13 individuals from Uyghur cemeteries, it is clear that these individuals have genetic profiles that differ from the preceding Xiongnu period, suggesting new sources of gene flow into Mongolia at this time that displace them along PC3 (Fig. 2).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1wR2FBmxjOEDFzMqBWhWZGKj71ass9gz_/view?usp=sharing

Now let's look at all the Mongolic Khitan and Mongol proper ancient genomes from Jeong et al. 2020:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WXplqPeQAlkVYS_zJPvSt65IcDLpVhFa/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16udDckbp3WMPHxdA1l4xrFDTAlpywRft/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vePr-hjI5bpmbR9gT-Q3Xg8hyI9Jjr07/view?usp=sharing

Compare them with modern Mongol results:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ixn1yR-Ops_P4AnDyrshH6PRcZV9j1s9/view?usp=sharing

As you see, modern Mongols are more homogenized in genetics, but they are not that different genetically from their Late Medieval Khitan and Mongol ancestors.

Now compare them with the Early Medieval Turkic genomes from Jeong et al. 2020:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1DjoOdUhAgylkIBm1lqcUkpXoosX_QU6F/view?usp=sharing

At least among these you can find some individuals who would likely be classified as Turanid rather than Mongoloid.

P.S. a sample isn't the same thing as a genome. Jeong 2020 doesn't contain an early Medieval mongol genome. Learn what a genome is.

All these things I am sharing are genome results. Based on your statement about genomes and samples, you are obviously ignorant about genetics stuff. I am doing MS in a genetics-related field and know well what I am talking about.

Wrong again. That is for Mongol empire era Mongolians. I already said Mongol empire era Mongolians were majority East Asian. We are talking about early Mongol empire individuals here, who weren't majority East Asian and weren't like modern Mongols in uniparental ancestry or phenotype, on average.

I have already explained to you making quotations from Jeong et al. 2020 that all those Early Medieval genomes are from Turkic contexts, not Mongolic.

None of tbe research I posted is outdated; all of it is post-2015.

Genome-wide research on East Eurasian ancient DNA was very limited before 2020. No wonder that I have used 2020 papers in my refutations of your arguments.

Onur Dincer said...

continues...

Also, the historical "data" is not debatable. Many of the prominent Mongol groups in history (Shiwei, Xianbei, Uriangkhai, Borjigin) were all described by numerous historical sources as having traits that only exist in Europid populations. This isn't happening in history for no good reason; they can't be repeatedly described by themselves and different authors as having European pigmentation for no reason. A majority East Asian genome won't allow that.

I have already posted a lot of Late Medieval Mongol genome results and demonstrated how autosomally largely East Eurasian and modern Mongol-like they were, so Borjigins were most probably so too. I did the same for Xianbei too but will do it again for people who did not read my previous posts:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1WgnROoPi7kR5RG5Mpz9qS0T5zehZWBvI/view?usp=sharing

Xianbei in fact seem to be more East Eurasian in ancestry than modern Mongols, not less, as their Y-DNA also indicate. Not aware of any Shiwei or Uriankhai ancient genome results, but do not expect surprises there either.

Arza said...

@ ambron

https://slavicorigins.blogspot.com/

SKRiBHa said...

Hello there.

I have looked at the ‘Supplementary Materials’ attached to this paper. I noted that there is additional data related to YDNA of these 111, or 117, samples.

Particularly, the file "abe4414_Data_file_S1.xlsx" contains very interesting data.

It can be observed that the Scythians and Sarmatians were very mixed peoples, see the haplogroups:

Q1a (Q-M1155, Q-L472), Q1a1 (Q-F1215, Q-F1096), Q1a2a (Q-L475; Q-L53), Q1a1a1 (Q-M265, Q-M120), Q1a1b1a (Q-L713), Q1a2a1 (Q-L54), Q1a2a1c (Q-L334; Q-L330), Q1b1b1 (Q-FGC4872, Q-Y2990),
E1b1b1a1b1a (E-V13), E1b1b1b2a (E-M123),
CT (CT-M5812, CT-M168), CT (CT-M5603, CT-M168),
CF (CF-M3690,CF-P143),
J (J-CTS852, J-M304), J2a (J-L212, J-M410), J2a1h2 (J-L25),
C2b (C-L1373), C2b1c (C-F1918),
D1b2a (D-Z17175; D-CTS220),
L (L-PF5747, L-M20), L1a2 (L-M357),
NO (NO-F549, NO-M2313),
N1c1(N-L395, N-M46), N1c1a (N-P298, N-M178), N1c1a1a (N-L392), N1c1a1a2 (N-CTS10082, N-Z1936),
F (F-P14, F-M89),
G (G-M3544, G-M201),
P1 (P-P243, P-M45),
BT (BT-M9267, BT-M42), BT (BT-Z12003, BT-M42),

However, I paid special attention to the diversity of the samples of the R haplogroup presented there, see:

R1 (R-P225, R-M173), R1 (R-P238, R-M173)

R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269)

R1a (R-L62, R-M420),
R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512),
R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512), R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645),
R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),
R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93),
R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94)


Both the so-called ‘European’ and ‘Asian’ R1a was present among the Scythian and Sarmatian peoples.

Questions:

1.
Were the ancestors of male Scythians also R1a men from Europe, e.g. from CWC, or were they only people from Siberia, e.g. descendants of Locomotiv, etc.?

2.
Does the lack of ‘Asian’ R1a subclades among the present population of Poland prove the lack of contact between the ancestors of the present Poles and the Scythians and Sarmatians?

I will be very grateful for your opinions.

Best regards
SKRiBHa

Davidski said...

There's no R1a in Locomotiv. Those samples are either contaminated or wrongly dated.

R1a didn't exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age.

And Poles don't have any Scythian or Sarmatian ancestry, that's why there are no Asian, or rather so called Asian, R1a subclades in Poland except in rare cases among people who have non-Polish ancestry, like from a Tatar or Jewish male ancestor.

vAsiSTha said...

"R1a didn't exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age."


Davidski knows this because of the millions of aDna male samples from the regions of interest in Asia.

ambron said...

Arza, thanks! I've already checked in there as you probably noticed.

SKRiBHa said...

Davidski, thank you very much for your kind reply.

With reference to it, I have, however, the following questions:

1.
On what basis do you claim that: ‘There's no R1a in Locomotiv. Those samples are either contaminated or wrongly dated. R1a didn't exist in Asia until it was brought there by migrants from Europe during the Bronze Age.’?

2.
Has I1819 Vasilevka Ukraine still been the oldest R1a, or is it now this PES001 Russia, see below?

https://anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?23436-New-Kazakh-samples&p=765544&viewfull=1#post765544

(...)
1. PES001 Russia 10785-10626 BC M459 YP1272 YP1301
2. I1819 Vasilevka Ukraine 8825-8561 BC M459
3. I5876 Dereivka Ukraine 7040-6703 BC M420 YP4141>pre-YP5018

4. I0061 Karelia Russia 6800-5950 BC M459
5. I0433 Khvalynsk Russia 5200-4000BC M459
6. MA975 Estonia 3653-3376 BC M459 M459 YP1272
7. Sites Serteya VIII and II
A3 Site Serteya VIII boundary of V-IV mill. BC [Likely M459]
A8 and A9 Site Naumovo Site Serteya II middle of III mill. BC

The I6561 sample in Sredny Stog II Alexandria, Ukraine is M417 Z94 Y26.

I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1) from Samara Bend, Russia, 2925-2536 BC is Z93 Z94 Z2124 Z2121
(…)

2a.
Do you have a better list of the oldest R1a samples than the aforementioned one?

You once claimed that the sample I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine was also wrongly classified and should be Z93. Currently, it is classified as such.

3.
So where did the ‘European’ R1a come from in CWC, if it could not come from I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine?

4.
Are the "Asian / Aryan" R1a samples from Fatianovo, Sintashta, etc., from the "European" R1a from I5876 Dereivka Ukraine, or rather directly from I6561 Sredny Stog II Alexandria Ukraine?

5.
So where did the 'European' R1a, which I mentioned earlier, among the Scythians and Sarmatians come from?

5.
What is the oldest fossil R1a found west of the Bug River?

In your answer you also stated that:

(…) And Poles don't have any Scythian or Sarmatian ancestry, that's why there are no Asian, or rather so called Asian, R1a subclades in Poland except in rare cases among people who have non-Polish ancestry, like from a Tatar or Jewish male ancestor. (…)

6.
Does this mean that Długosz, Kromer, etc., were fantasists and fairy-tale writers, and the so-called sarmatism itself and all similar claims about the alleged origin of the Polish nobility, or even all Poles from the Scythians and Sarmatians, have only been lies and propaganda?

7.
And what about Piasts’ R1b, can it not however come from that Scythian-Sarmatian R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269) mentioned in this paper?

Best regards
SKRiBHa

vAsiSTha said...

SKRIbha

"The I6561 sample in Sredny Stog II Alexandria, Ukraine is M417 Z94 Y26."

This is incorrect. This sample is definitely not Y26+ because the other call at this level is negative. The Y26+ is a false +ve due to C>T deamination in aDna. There are no markers present for Z94 level so we dont know. So at best we can say this is Z93+.

In any case this sample is now marked as QUESTIONABLE (damage.ds.half=0.028) by Reich lab.



Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. There's no R1a older than the Bronze Age anywhere in Asia in samples that are properly dated and sequenced with next generation technologies, and I don't think there ever will be.

2. PES001 is the oldest R1a on record right now.

2a. I6561 does belong to Z93, but it was wrongly dated. Its real date is around 1600 BCE.

3. CWC R1a comes from somewhere on the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

4. The so called Asian R1a, which is Z93, is from the part of the CWC that Fatyanovo came from, wherever that was, maybe the eastern Carpathian region.

5. The R1a in Scythians is from the CWC.

6. Poles don't derive from Sarmatians, and don't even have any significant ancestry from them or similar populations.

7. I don't have a clue about the Piast R1b.

Ganesh Atan said...

Wrong again. That is for Mongol empire era Mongolians. I already said Mongol empire era Mongolians were majority East Asian. We are talking about early Mongol empire individuals here

Mongol empire only started to exists from 12-13th centuries onward i.e. late medieval period. Early med Mongolia was held by GokTurks and they were deefeated by Tang and then the area passed to Uighurs which lasted until mid-9th century. Mongols start to live in Mongolia only from mid-late medieval period.

Rob said...

@ Vasistha
I actually agree with you
IAMC seems to be very important

Kouros said...

@Rob and Vashishte would you kindly run qpadm on Alai Nura 009, KNT002, KNT005, Merci

vAsiSTha said...

@kouros trying

@vahaduo will it be possible in future to draw line segments between samples on the 3D pca plot? that will be immensely helpful

vAsiSTha said...

@Kouros

left pops:
KNT005.out
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 25.7 +- 2.8
Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 57.6 +- 3.4
Irula.DG 16.7 +- 2.4
pvalue 0.82
Result https://pastebin.com/ywvZuyCm

or

left pops:
KNT005.out
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 20
Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 40
Pakistan_Udegram_IA 40
pvalue 0.08
https://pastebin.com/saZFLD2h

left pops:
ALN009.A0101
Kazakhstan_LBA_Molaly 51.3 +- 8.4
Turkmenistan_IA.SG 48.7 +- 8.4
p-value 0.1577
https://pastebin.com/jZzwxZm4

or

Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 38
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 47
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6 15
pvalue 0.10
https://pastebin.com/gfUxkqaH

left pops:
KNT002.A0101
Kazakhstan_LBA_Molaly 39.5 +- 7.4
Turkmenistan_IA.SG 60.5 +- 7.4
pvalue 0.063
https://pastebin.com/jzBDb4pi

only model above 0.05 for knt002

Rob said...

@ Kouros
I havent merged the dataset yet, might do soon.
But here is a solid model for Kang'ju


Kazakhstan_Kangju
Uzbekistan_Kashkarchi_BA
Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
Uzbekistan_Dzharkutan_BA_3

best coefficients: 0.849 0.114 0.037
std. errors: 0.087 0.033 0.088
chisq tail prob
2.047 0.915299

Rob said...

@ copper axe

''Unless if I'm mistaken the regular Western Liao_BA samples are actually those of the Lower Xiajiadan culture as well as UXJD period samples with genetic continuity to the former.''



I will eventually look at it in greater detail, but from
https://bmcecolevol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1471-2148-13-216

''Because the farming LXC was replaced by the nomadic UXC and no transitional type has yet been found, it had been suggested that there might have been large-scale immigration or even population replacement by northern Asian nomads [23]. Y chromosome data show immigration components from both northern steppe tribes and farmers from the Yellow River valley. However, because all original LXC lineages in this investigation were retained in the UXC gene pool, we tend to believe that while immigrant nomads from the north played an important part in the cultural transitions in this region, they probably did not replace the preceding populations in the West Liao River valley. Instead, the cultural transitions were more likely the result of adaptations to a new lifestyle caused by climate change''

Kouros said...

@Vasishta , Rob Merci

Vasishta can you substitute InPe for Irula, it unlikely Centrale Asian agriculturalists mix with remote modern tribal population

SKRiBHa said...

Davidski, again thank you very much for your kind reply.

(…) I6561 does belong to Z93, but it was wrongly dated. Its real date is around 1600 BCE. (…)

1.
If R1a Z93 from I6561 Alexandria was so badly sampled and dated, did it come from I0432 Poltavka Outlier R1a Z93, or from this CWC R1a Z93, which went to Fatianovo and further to Sintashta, etc?

By the way, according to the map below, CWC R1a Z93 went straight through the Pripyat marshes while going to Moscow / Fatianovo.

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/7/4/eabd6535
Genetic ancestry changes in Stone to Bronze Age transition in the East European plain
Lehti Saag

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/advances/7/4/eabd6535/F1.large.jpg

2.
Did CWC R1a Z93 leave any genetic trace on the Pripyat River area?

2a.
Did CWC R1a Z93 drown in the Pripyat swamps and that is why it is not visible among the Slavs, especially Poles, see the allo-allo claims regarding the so-called homeland of the Proto-Slavs?

(…) CWC R1a comes from somewhere on the Pontic-Caspian steppe. (…)

3.
Does the 'European' CWC R1a derive from I5876 Dereivka Ukraine, or rather from I0061 Karelia Russia?

(…) The R1a in Scythians is from the CWC. (…)

4.
Are these ‘Scythian / Sarmatian’ subclades visible in CWC:

R1a (R-L62, R-M420), R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512), R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512), R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645), R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),

because the 'European' R1a is neither visible in Fatianovo nor in Sintashta?!

4a.
Are you sure that the entire 'European' R1a visible in the Scythian / Sarmatian samples comes from the 'European' CWC R1a, and not, for example, from the descendants of I0061 Karelia Russia, which the Fatianovans took with them from Moscow when they then went further east to the Ural?

4b.
What about these haplogroups: R1 (R-P225, R-M173), R1 (R-P238, R-M173), and R1b1a2 (R-PF6475, R-M269)? Where did they come from to the Scythians / Sarmatians?

(…) Poles don't derive from Sarmatians, and don't even have any significant ancestry from them or similar populations. (…)

5.
Ok, what about this 'European' R1a visible in the Scythians and Sarmatians? Could it not have later returned with them via the steppe to the west, also to Pripyat and further to the Vistula and Oder?

After all, it is officially claimed that alleged Iranian / Scythian / Sarmatian language borrowings are allegedly found in Slavic languages, so something is fishy and not adding up here!

Haplogroup G (G-M3544, G-M201) occurs among these Scythian-Sarmatian samples.

5a.
Are the Ossetians the descendants of the Sarmatian Alans or only east-iranised Kartvelians?

http://www.khazaria.com/genetics/ossetians.html

(…) Y-chromosomal DNA haplogroups among North Ossetians in the "Ossetian DNA Project" include C3b2b1, E1b1b1a1b1a, G2a1a1a, G2a1a1a1b1, G2a1a1a1b1a, G2a1a1a1b1a2, I2c, J1a3a, J2a*, J2a1b, Q1a1b1a, R1b1a2a1a, R1b1a2a2c1, T1a, and more. South Ossetians in the project have haplogroups including G2a1a1a1a, G2a1a1a1b1, J2a1b, L1b, and R1b1a2a2c1. (…)

(…) I don't have a clue about the Piast R1b. (…)

Really?! There you have got all relevant and available data:

https://www.genealogiagenetyczna.com/2017/04/znamy-pierwsze-wyniki-dna-piastow.html
https://www.genealogiagenetyczna.com/2017/02/dna-piastow-na-tropie-potomkow.html
https://en-gb.facebook.com/PiastDNA/
https://scienceinpoland.pap.pl/en/news/news%2C80495%2Cdna-research-shed-light-piast-dynasty-history.html
https://www.familytreedna.com/groups/piastdynasty/about/background

If you know Figlerowicz and others, you can ask them about it. Maybe they will tell you something more because it looks like they have not done anything about it for several years...

5.
Is R1a from Eulau Germany the oldest R1a found west of the Bug Rivers?

https://www.pnas.org/content/105/47/18226
Ancient DNA, Strontium isotopes, and osteological analyses shed light on social and kinship organization of the Later Stone Age
Wolfgang Haak

vAsiSTha said...

@kouros

I don't like using IndusPeriphery as a label because they don't cluster together and have a wide range of aasi % in them. So as such any model using that is suspect.

But I'll try something else and let you know.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. I6561 is probably derived from the Abashevo population, which in turn came from the CWC. And you shouldn't take these maps too literally, especially in regards to places that haven't been sampled yet.

2. Nothing significant.

2a. Fatyanovo was rich in Z93 because of a rapid founder effect, which may have happened during its migration north, so there's no need to posit that anyone drowned, but rather that they left the area, and eventually most of their descendants left for Asia.

3. Like I said, the CWC R1a is from the Pontic-Caspian steppe.

4. These aren't specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians.

4a. Neither Scythians nor Fatyanovo have anything to do with Karelian hunter-gatherers. The Karelian R1a is probably extinct, or at least extremely rare today. Most R1a in the world belongs to the M417 subclade, which expanded with the CWC.

4b. You need to differentiate useful subclades from poor classifications due to missing data, because obviously something like R1 (R-P225, R-M173) is the latter.

5. I'm not aware of any specific Scythian or Sarmatian Y-DNA subclades or their autosomal DNA being found in Poles. Just saying that there's some "European" R1a or G2 in Scythians/Sarmatians doesn't mean anything. What you need to do is establish that a specific lineage or lineages had real impact on the modern population, and we're not seeing that in the case of Poles.

5a. Ossetians are mixed, with some Iranic ancestry from the steppes, but they're mostly of local Caucasian stock. And I don't have much interest in the Piast R1b.

5b. Most CWC C14 dates west of the Bug overlap significantly, so it's impossible to say which sample is really the oldest.

Andrzejewski said...

@Davidski “ 4a. Neither Scythians nor Fatyanovo have anything to do with Karelian hunter-gatherers. The Karelian R1a is probably extinct, or at least extremely rare today. Most R1a in the world belongs to the M417 subclade, which expanded with the CWC.”

The origins of R1a1 fascinate me. It literally sprung out of the blue and exploded with CWC.

But I can’t wait for more extensive Anatolian and Armenian MLBA excavations to exhume lots of WSH-rich folks, thus putting to rest the Anything-But-Steppe conspiracy theories by way of the final nail in the coffin.

vAsiSTha said...

We know for certain that Buddhism spread to tarim basin from Indian subcontinent (Taxila in Pakistan). What are the paternal or autosomal indicators in the samples there or on the iamc path which show this?

So far nothing much apart from few outliers with excess aasi ancestry. The reason is also quite clear to me.

Andrzejewski said...

@VasisTha “ What are the paternal or autosomal indicators in the samples there or on the iamc path which show this?”

That’s easy! Tocharians/Wusun/Saka/Scythians/Yuezhi etc mercenaries or traders carrying R1a1 and bearing a clear European genotype and phenotype according to Chinese writers.

vAsiSTha said...

@kouros

left pops:
KNT005.out
Russia_MLBA_Sintashta 25
Uzbekistan_Bustan_BA 45
Swat_lowsteppe 30
p-value 0.335
https://pastebin.com/2T3GiDmp

Swat_lowsteppe is a cluster of samples found in Swat_IA which has least steppe ancestry of all the IA samples. This cluster is closest to the original population of Swat before steppe and bmac ancestry came in. These samples are I6888, I12981, I12470, I12446, I12460, I5399 (identified from G25 3d pca plot on vahaduo)

vahaduo said...

@vAsiSTha
will it be possible in future to draw line segments between samples on the 3D pca plot? that will be immensely helpful

I will add this feature within a few days if I don't encounter any bugs in Plotly.

vAsiSTha said...

"That’s easy! Tocharians/Wusun/Saka/Scythians/Yuezhi etc mercenaries or traders carrying R1a1 and bearing a clear European genotype and phenotype according to Chinese writers."
So then there is spread of culture from south asia to china without any visible marks in genes. Tells you something doesn't it? That's the 4th largest religion as of today.

vAsiSTha said...

@vahaduo

Thank you. Much appreciated. Thanks for the great work

Kouros said...

@Vashishta , merci, this individuel origins seem from Helmand Basin, I tried Swat it prefer InPe sample SIS 1459, SIS 1456

Target: KAZ_Otyrar_Antiquity:KNT005
Distance: 1.6475% / 0.01647508
47.8 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
30.2 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
22.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA2

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity:ALN009
Distance: 1.9441% / 0.01944120 | R3P
46.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
35.2 UZB_Sappali_Tepe_BA
18.2 RUS_Okunevo_BA

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) I6561 is probably derived from the Abashevo population, which in turn came from the CWC. And you shouldn't take these maps too literally, especially in regards to places that haven't been sampled yet. (...)

You have written at least two articles about I6561 Alexandria:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/was-ukraineeneolithic-i6561-proto-indo.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/02/a-swarm-of-locusts.html

1.
How did you understand that I6561 Alexandria is not 'the oldest recorded individual belonging to Y-haplogroup R1a-M417', but is much younger and Z93 as well, so it can not be paternal to the 'European' and 'Asian' CWC R1a?

(…) Like I said, the CWC R1a is from the Pontic-Caspian steppe. (...)

2.
Any R1a has not yet been found in Yamna so far, so where did it hide?

2a.
Can you name any sample that fits as paternal to the 'European' and ‘Asian’ CWC R1a?

(…) These aren't specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians. (...)

3.
I do not understand how, when and where, then, in the Scythians and Sarmatians, this 'European' CWC R1a came from, since it was not present in Fatianovo, Sintashta, and so on?

Regards
SKRiBHa

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. I6561 was recently dated to the Middle Bronze Age by Harvard, because it didn't fit its earlier Eneolithic date due to its Sintashta-like genetic structure and high haplotype sharing with Sintashta, Srubnaya and other Late Bronze Age individuals. You can find details about this issue at the David Reich Lab and by getting in touch the scientists there.

2. You have to understand that almost all of the R1a in the world today is R1a-M417~, which didn't exist until the Eneolithic and was very rare until the CWC expansion. The fact that the earliest CWC males belong to R1a-M417 and are basically identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA means that R1a-M417 came form the steppe, but because it was so rare before the CWC expansion, it might never be found on the steppe before the CWC.

2a. No I can't. There are still very few samples from the Eneolithic steppe, so R1a-M417 might turn up when we see more of such samples, or, as per above, it might never be found anywhere before the CWC.

3. Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. But the term "European CWC R1a" is very broad and meaningless. You have to be more specific when trying to link modern populations with ancient populations, rather than using broad terms and just looking at basal lineages.

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) You have to understand that almost all of the R1a in the world today is R1a-M417~, which didn't exist until the Eneolithic and was very rare until the CWC expansion. The fact that the earliest CWC males belong to R1a-M417 and are basically identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA means that R1a-M417 came form the steppe, but because it was so rare before the CWC expansion, it might never be found on the steppe before the CWC. (…)

As far as I know, no R1a has been found in Yamna / Yamnaya so far.

1.
Is R1a Z93 from CWC that mutated somewhere east of the Eastern Carpathian Bend area?

2.
What do you think that caused R1a-M417 CWC expansion?

As for the origin of the Scythians, two mutually exclusive conclusions one can be drawn from the available data that they descend simultaneously:

- from Srubnaya / Timber-grave culture < Catacomb culture and Poltavka culture < Yamna / Yamnaya,

- from Andronovo < Sintashta < Fatianovo < CWC < Yamna / Yamnaya.

In the first case R1a Z93 is visible only in I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1), while in the second it is visible everywhere except Yamna / Yamnaya.

3.
Which way of the formation of the Scythians is logicly consistent with genetics data?

The formation of the Sarmatians is a mystery, according to the different data.

3a.
How, when and where did the Sarmatians genetically form?

3b
Are there any visible differences in the genotypes of the Scythians and Sarmatians, or is it genetically the same population?

4.
Are those right, such as Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve, Reich, etc. who claim that the Yamna / Yamnaya, not CWC, was mainly and directly responsible for the formation of the Scythians, Sarmatians, and thus earlier the Aryans, etc?

5.
Was Afanasievo 'eastern Yamna / Yamnaya' not involved in the creation of the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc.?

(…) Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. But the term "European CWC R1a" is very broad and meaningless. You have to be more specific when trying to link modern populations with ancient populations, rather than using broad terms and just looking at basal lineages. (…)

I understand that the simplest explanation for the existence of 'European' R1a among these Scythian and Sarmatian samples is the possibility that also the 'European' R1a subclades had been present in Fatianovo, Sintashta, Andronovo, etc., but they have not been simply detected yet.

As far as I know, the Scythians formed about 1000BCE in the area of the Altay. When they went west once and even reached the Vistula and the Oder, they did not return to Altay, see the later Sarmatian invasion. For this reason, this dubious Scythian homecoming could not be the real source of the 'European' R1a found in these samples.

.....

As the 'European' R1a, I consider the not Z93 R1a mentioned in this paper and quoted by me above.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. Z93 is from the CWC, but I don't know where from exactly.

2. No one knows yet, but it was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions.

3. Scythians are ultimately from Fatyanovo and more directly from Sintashta-related groups, which is obvious because of the Z93 and horse links.

3a. Don't know, but it was due to the interactions between European and Asian groups on the steppe.

3b. They're very similar, but with regional differences within and between them.

4. Indo-Aryans and Scythians are ultimately derived from Fatyanovo, and thus from the CWC.

5. Afanasievo and Yamnaya are irrelevant to the Scythian ethnogenesis. The most relevant populations are Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, and also the CWC, because all of these groups descend from the CWC.

As the 'European' R1a, I consider the not Z93 R1a mentioned in this paper and quoted by me above.

That's too broad.

There are R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya samples and in modern Central Asians.

So these aren't Z93 lineages, but they're not European, and many more of such lineages will be found in ancient steppe groups as more samples come in.

That's why I said that you have to be specific, and if you want to show that Poles have ancestry from Scythians and/or Sarmatians, then you have to prove this with very specific lineages that are found in Scythians and/or Sarmatians, and not just any lineage that isn't Z93+.

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

‘What do you think that caused R1a-M417 CWC expansion?’
(…) No one knows yet, but it was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions. (…)


1.
Ok. If R1a-M417 CWC expansion was closely tied to the Proto-Indo-European expansions, why did R1b Yamna / Yamnaya not do the same as CWC, but earlier?

Duke2 proves that R1b Yamna / Yamnaya had domesticated horses from Derievka. They did not just eat them like R1b Botai did but passed them to CWC.

1a.
Maybe Yamna / Yamnaya only absorbed both horses and Proto-PIE people from Derievka, but the language barrier prevented Yamna / Yamnaya from expanding north?

1b.
Maybe R1b Yamna / Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Botai, etc. did not speak PIE, see Kartwelian like speaking Basques, 100% R1b from the steppe?

1c.
Maybe it is about language of the CHG on the steppe, which appeared there, it is not known when, how and from where, but certainly not from Iran? Am I wrong about CHG?

(…) Scythians are ultimately from Fatyanovo and more directly from Sintashta-related groups, which is obvious because of the Z93 and horse links. (…)

People, horses, two-axle full-wheeled wagons from Bronocice and related PIE vocabulary came from CWC to Fatianovo and Sintashta. There, the Aryans removed one axle from the cart, and some wood from the wheels. That is how they created spoked wheels. They attached two horses to it and the chariot was made. Then they drove further south without interfering with anyone on the way, see Vedic Dasa, etc.

Then, some 1000 years later, the Scythians formed on Altay. As it can be seen from these samples, they mixed even with the G and N haplogroups, which were previously absent on the steppe. After moving out to the west, Scythians did not return to Altay, so they had to inherit the 'European' R1a earlier.

2.
Were the Sintashta Aryans more genetically homogeneous compared to the highly mixed Scythians, Sarmatians, etc?

2a.
Where did the R1b Aria from Kutuluk with the vajra come from?

https://archive.archaeology.org/0203/newsbriefs/cudgel.html

‘How, when and where did the Sarmatians genetically form?’
(…) Don't know, but it was due to the interactions between European and Asian groups on the steppe. (...)


3.
Is there any evidence that R1a Fatianovo and Sintashta were mixed up with the 'European and Asian groups', whether it happened in Andronovo, or only between the Scythians in Altay?

3a.
Was this mixing of 'European and Asian groups' responsible for the emergence of all Iranian languages, or did they arise somehow before that?

3b.
Were the Arians in Sintashta speaking rather like their ancestors in Fatianovo and CWC?

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) Afanasievo and Yamnaya are irrelevant to the Scythian ethnogenesis. The most relevant populations are Sintashta, Srubnaya and Andronovo, and also the CWC, because all of these groups descend from the CWC. (…)

4.
Why have Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve, Reich and similar scientists not combined R1a Indo-Aryans and Scythians with R1a CWC, but stubbornly have been connecting them with R1b Yamna / Yamnaya?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/figure/F3/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/
The Formation of Human Populations in South and Central Asia
Vagheesh M. Narasimhan

(…) There are R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya samples and in modern Central Asians. So these aren't Z93 lineages, but they're not European, and many more of such lineages will be found in ancient steppe groups as more samples come in. (…)

I did not know of any R1a-Z280 lineages that have been found in Srubnaya. This would indicate that Srubnay's ancestors came directly from the 'European' R1a CWC, or from the present R1a but not yet discovered in Fatianovo, Sintashta, etc.

Srubnaya allegedly comes from Timber-grave culture < Catacomb culture and Poltavka culture < Yamna / Yamnaya.

5.
Where did R1a Z93 in I0432 Poltavka Outlier (Potapovka 1) come from?

(…) That's why I said that you have to be specific, and if you want to show that Poles have ancestry from Scythians and/or Sarmatians, then you have to prove this with very specific lineages that are found in Scythians and/or Sarmatians, and not just any lineage that isn't Z93+. (…)

I am not going to prove something that has never been there. The lack of this affinity can be seen, for example, in the genetic research of the Polish nobility, published in 2015.

https://youtu.be/aqOSGnjjpR0
Pochodzenie, pokrewieństwo i etnogeneza polskiego rycerstwa w świetle badań DNA
Referat wygłoszony przez dr Łukasza Lubicz - Łapińskiego podczas obchodów jubileuszu 20-lecia Związku Szlachty Polskiej dn. 24 października 2015 roku w Warszawie.

However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called 'Kejland mythology', or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings, in Polish, see:

https://ruj.uj.edu.pl/xmlui/handle/item/52176
Spór nad genezą zachodniosłowiańskich państwowości w świetle mitologii kejanidzkiej i Aleksandriady / The controversy about the origin of West Slavic statehood, with relation to Kejland mythology and Aleksandreida

https://ksiegarniainternetowa.co.uk/en/od_ariow_do_sarmatow_nieznane_2500_lat_historii_po-9788376382425
Od Ariów do Sarmatów Nieznane 2500 lat historii Polaków
Piotr Makuch

Andrzejewski said...

@Skribha “ However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called 'Kejland mythology', or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings, in Polish, see:”

I give more credence to the theory that POLISH JEWS are Khazarians than to average Poles/Szlachta being so.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

1. Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC. After all, early CWC is practically identical to Yamnaya. Maybe one day someone will find R1a-M417 in Yamnaya.

And your understanding of what Duke2 represents appears to be outdated. Duke2 has significant Iberian ancestry, while Sintashta horses lack this sort of admixture, and the Sintashta horse is the earliest example of the modern domesticated lineage. So Duke2 is a dead end, and has nothing to do with the CWC.

1a. Not sure why this sort of speculation is even needed.

1b. If Yamnaya was ancestral to the CWC, then it was definitely Indo-European.

1c. My latest views about the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya and the Indo-European problem are here...

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

2. Yes, the Sintashta population and all closely related populations were very homogeneous, apart from clear outliers who didn't have any noticeable impact on the main Sintashta cluster.

2a. The link between the cudgel and India seems highly speculative to me.

3. I don't understand the question. Obviously, Fatyanovo and Sintashta didn't have any Asian admixture, unless you mean their Anatolian farmer ancestry.

3a. Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian existed during the Sintashta era and well before the Scythians and Sarmatians.

3b. I don't understand the question.

4. Ask them.

Srubnaya is basically identical to Sintashta and Fatyanovo, so it's a CWC derivative, obviously.

5. From Fatyanovo.

SKRiBHa said...

@Andrzejewski

(...) I give more credence to the theory that POLISH JEWS are Khazarians than to average Poles/Szlachta being so. (...)

Many thanks for your comment but I have mentioned Piasts only, see:

'However, I do not exclude the Sarmatian / Khazarian origin of the Piasts. This could explain the similarities between Polish legends and the so-called 'Kejland mythology', or possibly alleged Iranian or Turkish borrowings in Polish.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polans_(eastern)

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC. After all, early CWC is practically identical to Yamnaya. Maybe one day someone will find R1a-M417 in Yamnaya. (...)

As you have stated above, Yamna / Yamnaya may have been ancestral to the CWC,.. or maybe not at all. The facts are that no R1a but only R1b-L23 and I2 have been so far found in the Yamna / Yamnaya kurgans / tumuli. Here you can find other point of view of this problem, see:

https://rokus01.wordpress.com/2014/12/29/why_yamnaya_didnt_contribute/

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1600-0390.2017.12184.x
THE STEPPE HYPOTHESIS OF INDO‐EUROPEAN ORIGINS REMAINS TO BE PROVEN
Leo S. Klejn
First published: 09 January 2018

(…) And your understanding of what Duke2 represents appears to be outdated. Duke2 has significant Iberian ancestry, while Sintashta horses lack this sort of admixture, and the Sintashta horse is the earliest example of the modern domesticated lineage. So Duke2 is a dead end, and has nothing to do with the CWC. (…)

I have never claimed that Duke2 had anything to do with CWC. I stated that ‘Duke2 proves that R1b Yamna / Yamnaya had domesticated horses from Derievka. They did not just eat them like R1b Botai did, but passed them to CWC.’

Ok, I should have finished that conclusion as follows: ‘to CWC, Bell Beakers, and others as well’. I hope it is more precise now.

The fact is that R1b Botai ate their horses that were ancestors of Przewalski's horses only, and Yamna / Yamnaya (after Derievka / Sredny Stog) passed them further on to CWC, Bell Beakers, etc.

(…) Not sure why this sort of speculation is even needed. (…)

Well, R1b and horses were both in Yamna / Yamnaya and Botai, but I do not know anyone who claims that the Botai people were PIE because of that. The wagons / carts were used in the TRB (Bronocice), and wheels were used in Ljubljana, so they also do not have to be a determinant of the PIE.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronocice_pot
https://slovenia.si/art-and-cultural-heritage/worlds-oldest-wheel-found-in-slovenia/

(…) If Yamnaya was ancestral to the CWC, then it was definitely Indo-European. (…)

Well, Sredny Stog culture ca. 4000–3500 BC had first, corded ware pottery, stone battle-axes of the type later associated with expanding Indo-European cultures to the West, horse domestication, EEF ancestry, lactase persistence 13910 allele, etc. And only then the Yamna / Yamnaya came from the east...

Let’s suppose that it was the case and R1b Yamna / Yamnaya was indeed a PIE, and not just an aggressive horde of another R1b Botai that attacked the few and peaceful PIE of Sredny Stog culture.

If it were otherwise, the R1b Yamna / Yamnaya language would be ‘elite dominance’ one and it did not have to be PIE after all... R1b Yamna / Yamnaya could take Sredny Stog culture toys and still talk in their own way, see Normans in England after 1066, etc.

(…) My latest views about the so called CHG ancestry in Yamnaya and the Indo-European problem are here… https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html (…)

As I can see there, the situation with the explanations of the CHG on the steppe looks the same as the CWC, Yamna / Yamnaya, PIE origins, which are not certain at all and only highly speculative. Am I wrong?

(…) Ask them. Srubnaya is basically identical to Sintashta and Fatyanovo, so it's a CWC derivative, obviously. (…)

Hahaha. I suspect why they have been doing this, and I understand why you do not want to comment on that. I will wait and I hope that the matter will resolve itself, as it happened with the claims of Hindutva or Kristiannsen, see below from 08:14...

https://youtu.be/a7HStd26qJE
Revolutions: The Age of Metal and the Evolution of European Civilization
32,388 views•Jul 22, 2013
SAR School for Advanced Research

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) Yes, the Sintashta population and all closely related populations were very homogeneous, apart from clear outliers who didn't have any noticeable impact on the main Sintashta cluster. (...)

1.
Exactly, then why in Fatianovo, or Balanovo, or Abashevo, or Sintashta, a new 'Proto-Aryan' / Proto-Indo-Iranian language would form from which all other Indo-Iranian languages come?

1a.
Where did all the other Indo-Iranian languages or their dialect continuum come from, if not from mixing with other peoples?

(…) The link between the cudgel and India seems highly speculative to me. (...)

2.
Why? What is wrong with R1b Aria of Kutuluk, Vajra and Vedas?

‘Is there any evidence that R1a Fatianovo and Sintashta were mixed up with the 'European and Asian groups', whether it happened in Andronovo, or only between the Scythians in Altay?’
(…) I don't understand the question. Obviously, Fatyanovo and Sintashta didn't have any Asian admixture, unless you mean their Anatolian farmer ancestry. (…)


I meant Siberia rather than Anatolia and haplogroups like N, Q, CT, etc.

(…) Proto-Indo-Iranian and Proto-Iranian existed during the Sintashta era and well before the Scythians and Sarmatians. (...)

OK but my question was: ‘Was this mixing of 'European and Asian groups' responsible for the emergence of all Iranian languages, or did they arise somehow before that?’

‘Were the Arians in Sintashta speaking rather like their ancestors in Fatianovo and CWC?’
(…) I don't understand the question. (…)


3.
The same question as the above one, but reversed: Why, when and where did the descendants of those CWC who went to Fatianovo and further in search of copper in the Urals abandon the language of their ancestors if they did not mingle with anyone except Volosovo along the way?

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

The Klejn paper doesn't reflect reality. The author got the basics wrong and was obviously very confused.

Also, there's no evidence that Duk2 had anything to do with Yamnaya. It was probably a Bell Beaker horse being sold at a market far away from its home, which may have been Western Europe, even Iberia.

And my current view is that Yamnaya was actually derived from a Sredny Stog group in Ukraine near the Black Sea coast. That's based on preliminary, yet to be published, data that I've actually seen.

The reason I didn't comment on the point of view that you ascribed to Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve and Reich, is because I'm not sure that any of these people still believe what you say that they do.

But if at least some of them really do still believe that Scythians are derived from Yamnaya rather than the CWC, then that's hilarious and obviously population genetics is in a lot of trouble.

1. I don't understand your question. It should be obvious now that most surviving Indo-European families descend, one way or another, from the CWC.

1a. Again, I don't really understand the question. Obviously, mixing isn't necessary to produce new languages, and, in fact, mixing often results in heavy substrates or even creoles, and neither Indo-Iranian or Iranian are creoles or particularly substrate-heavy.

2. The most obvious Proto-Indo-Iranian marker is R1a-Z93. If R1b was present in the Proto-Indo-Iranian gene pool, then it was only a minor and substrate lineage. And it's extremely unlikely that Indo-Aryan was spoken during the Yamnaya period.

Also, obviously, Fatyanovo and the main Sintashta cluster don't have any Siberian ancestry.

3. You're not making any sense.

Proto-Indo-Iranian is the daughter language of late PIE, and it's very likely that late PIE was spoken in the CWC.

Btw, Fatyanovo didn't even mingle with Volosovo, at least not genetically.

Draft Dozen said...

@Copper Axe

"I bet they will be nearly identical to the Ashkenazi ^_^"
Y-Chromosome Haplogroup Diversity in Khazar Burials from Southern Russia
Sample mtDNA Y-DNA
67 D4e5 R1b mongoloid
457 C4 G2а2 mongoloid?
531 X2e R1a europoid
619 H1a3 Q mongoloid
656 C4a1 C3 europoid
1251 H5b R1a ?
1564 H13c1/H13c: C3
1566 D4b1a1a N1a1 ?
1986 C4a1c R1a mongoloid/europoid

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) The Klejn paper doesn't reflect reality. The author got the basics wrong and was obviously very confused. (…)

Perhaps. However, the fact is that no R1a has been found so far in the Yamna / Yamnaya kurgans / tumuli. Only R1b and I2 were found there. According to logic, this is a clue to the so-called elite dominance R1b and I2 over R1a potentially existing there.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Language_shift
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_dominance_theory

For example, if Anthony took this possibility into account, then he would not have to invent his next nonsense, about how one R1a somewhere in Yamna / Yamnaya, suddenly multiplied like a bacterium and created CWC, etc.

https://www.academia.edu/44892216/Anthony_2021_Migration_nomads_from_the_east_IEMA_SUNY_Buffalo
Migration, ancient DNA, and Bronze Age pastoralists from the Eurasian steppes.
David Anthony

He and others like him have been for 150 years inventing artificial languages allegedly existing even 5,000 years ago, and so far they neither understand nor know even the Slavic vocabulary regarding the wheel, cart, horse, etc!

(…) Also, there's no evidence that Duk2 had anything to do with Yamnaya. It was probably a Bell Beaker horse being sold at a market far away from its home, which may have been Western Europe, even Iberia. (…)

If Bell Beaker culture really was 'western CWC’ and CWC derived from Yamna / Yamnaya, as you say, then the linking of Duke2 with Yamna / Yamnaya is logically obvious.

Well, unless the CWC was not formed from Yamna / Yamnaya, but directly from Sredny Stog... hehehe.


(…) And my current view is that Yamnaya was actually derived from a Sredny Stog group in Ukraine near the Black Sea coast. That's based on preliminary, yet to be published, data that I've actually seen. (…)

As I can see, you have changed your mind about the formation of Yamna / Yamnaya. As far as I know, Anthony, Reich, etc. keep claiming that Yamna / Yamnaya is derived from Khvalynsk, CHG, etc, and they have been still wading in ‘CHG from Iran’, etc.

(…) The reason I didn't comment on the point of view that you ascribed to Juras, Krzewińska, Unterländer, Järve and Reich, is because I'm not sure that any of these people still believe what you say that they do. (…)

I again read what you wrote about the appearance of CHG in the steppe and found nothing there to explain it unequivocally. However, I found such statements there:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html?showComment=1588902263530#c2931408458834481779

Davidski @Vincent
(…) Obviously Khvalynsk isn't the genetic ancestor of Yamnaya, so Anthony is wrong. (...)
May 7, 2020 at 6:44 PM

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/05/understanding-eneolithic-steppe.html?showComment=1589114190260#c5412714870405426011

Davidski @mzp1
Yamnaya's got nothing to do with Iran. At best, and this is the very best possible scenario for all of you Near Eastern and Central Asian patriots, it might have some Maykop ancestry. The Reich Lab team will figure this out at some point, if they haven't already.
May 10, 2020 at 5:36 AM

(…) But if at least some of them really do still believe that Scythians are derived from Yamnaya rather than the CWC, then that's hilarious and obviously population genetics is in a lot of trouble. (…)

Touche.

Only that we all know that they are not after science, logic, truth, etc., but about this or that 'narrative' and to what is related to its propagation. The point is to chase the bunny, not catch it, because it may turn out to be a 'bloodthirsty beast', like the one from Monty Python ... ;-)

Onur Dincer said...

If anything, Khazar genetics must have been absorbed by the later Turkic populations of the Pontic-Caspian steppe such as Cumans and Tatars.

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

The fact is that R1a-M417 is a young (Eneolithic era) marker and also essentially a Corded Ware marker.

It owes its current status as one of the world's most important Y-haplogroups thanks to the Corded Ware expansion and Corded Ware-related expansions.

There's no evidence, or even any clues, that it was common or widespread before the Corded Ware expansion.

So yeah, just before the Corded Ware expansion R1a-M417 was very, very rare, and may have existed in just one Eneolithic steppe clan.

I'm not sure why some people, including yourself apparently, don't accept this information, and instead believe that R1a-M417 must have always been common somewhere, because obviously this defies logic.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,
"I don't understand."

I think it is simply because people have a hard time believing genetic markers they deeply associate with one region today, originated in a different region.

We see this with R1b L51 too.

And I mean, ancient DNA always goes contrary to our preconceptions (speculations) in a major way, because it is almost impossible to predict what happened in the past.

The lesson I take from it is to not take your speculations too seriously until you get the ancient DNA. People took modern DNA evidence too seriously in the 2000s. Now, have a hard time believing that their speculations were wrong.

*European Archaeologists also have a hard time believing they were basically completely wrong about the population history of Europe.

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

(…) I'm not sure why some people, including yourself apparently, don't accept this information, and instead believe that R1a-M417 must have always been common somewhere, because obviously this defies logic. (…)

I have never stated that ‘R1a-M417 must have always been common somewhere’. I have used term ‘R1a-M417’ related only to ‘cause of R1a-M417 CWC expansion’.

I mentioned R1a related data from the paper:

R1a (R-L62, R-M420),
R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512),
R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512),
R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645),
R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),

R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93),
R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94)

As you said, Aryans were ‘very homogeneous’ and did not mix with Volosovo or with N, Q, CT, but the Scythians had no problem with mixing with whom they would fall.

The data shows that the Scythians were very mixed genetically and also had the typical 'European' R1a subclades, not only the 'proper Asian / Z93'. They, like R1b Aria from Kutuluk could get DNA only from their ancestors form CWC. The fact that these subclades were not detected in Fatianovo etc. does not prove that they were not there.

Therefore the Scythian language must logically have been a mixed language and different from the language of the homogeneous Aryans of Andronovo, Sintashta and earlier. Following Fiorin Curta’s ‘logic’ it was a true creole language, a 'lingua franca of the Scythian kaganate'. ;-)

https://www.academia.edu/227792/The_Slavic_lingua_franca_Linguistic_notes_of_an_archaeologist_turned_historian_

I will return to the (Proto-)Indo-Iranian languages in another commentary.

I am aware of these datings:

https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-M417/
YTree haplogrupy v9.02.00 (01 Maj 2021)

R-M417 M630/V1720 * PF6165/M637 * V8042/PF6231/F3551+29 SNPs formed 8700 ybp, TMRCA 5400 ybp

R-Z645 Z650/CTS9754/PF6206/M750/V3726 * CTS12179/M811 * Z647/S441/PF6158+5 SNPs formed 5400 ybp, TMRCA 5000 ybp

‘Asian R1a’
R-Z93 Z93/F992/S202 * Z2479/M746/S4582/V3664 * FGC77882 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp
R-Z94 Z95/F3568 * Z94/F3105/S340 formed 4600 ybp, TMRCA 4600 ybp

‘European R1a’
R-Z283 Z662/CTS11197/PF6225 * Z283/S339/PF6217 formed 5000 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-Z282 Z282/S198/V3055 formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4800 ybp
R-Y2395 Y2395/FGC11882 * Z289/S443 formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
R-Z284 Y2397/FGC11883 * Z284/S221 * Z285/S341+1 SNPs formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4200 ybp
R-Z280 Z687 * Z280/S466(H) * Z91/S204 formed 4800 ybp, TMRCA 4700 ybp
R-Z92 Z92/S205 * Z2468 * Z660/S344/CTS91+5 SNPs formed 4700 ybp, TMRCA 4300 ybp

1.
According to you, is the R-Z92 Proto-Baltic, or Proto Balto-Slavic marker?

By the way, anyone can be wrong, see:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-genomic-history-of-southeastern.html

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/09/the-genomic-history-of-southeastern.html?showComment=1505887818295#c8861942644191918979

Davidski said...
There's no R1a in any Upper Paleolithic European samples yet, but there is R1a in Neolithic Siberians from sites close to Lake Baikal, and R1b has already been found in a couple of Upper Paleolithic Western Europeans. So R1a and R1b look like they're both from Siberia, but R1b probably entered Europe earlier.
September 19, 2017 at 11:10 PM


Locomotive and Alexandria were officially R1a-M417, but curently they are ‘mistakes’.

What if scientists make mistakes more often?

https://indo-european.eu/2019/09/on-the-ukraine-eneolithic-outlier-i6561-from-alexandria/
https://indo-european.eu/2020/03/earliest-r1a-z93-from-late-trypillian-in-the-podolian-volhynian-upland/

2.
What if I2 is a Proto-Indo-European marker that transferred the wheel, horse and agricultural vocabulary to R1a and R1b?

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

Where did all the other Indo-Iranian languages or their dialect continuum come from, if not from mixing with other peoples?
(…) Again, I don't really understand the question. Obviously, mixing isn't necessary to produce new languages, and, in fact, mixing often results in heavy substrates or even creoles, and neither Indo-Iranian or Iranian are creoles or particularly substrate-heavy. (...)


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Substratum_in_Vedic_Sanskrit
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elamite_language
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Median_language

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Greek_substrate
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germanic_substrate_hypothesis

Why? What is wrong with R1b Aria of Kutuluk, Vajra and Vedas?
(…) The most obvious Proto-Indo-Iranian marker is R1a-Z93. If R1b was present in the Proto-Indo-Iranian gene pool, then it was only a minor and substrate lineage. And it's extremely unlikely that Indo-Aryan was spoken during the Yamnaya period. (...)


It all depends on why and where the Aryans formed, whether still in CWC or Fatianovo, or in Balanovo, Abashevo or Sintashta, or only finally in Andronovo.

3.
Which of these cultures still spoke Past-CWC, and where was already proper 'Proto-Aryan' / Proto-Indo-Iranian spoken?

‘I meant Siberia rather than Anatolia and haplogroups like N, Q, CT, etc.’
(…) Also, obviously, Fatyanovo and the main Sintashta cluster don't have any Siberian ancestry. (…)


4.
Was Andronovo less homogeneous than Sintashta?

4a.
Was Andronovo in contact with Seima-Turbino?

Davidski said...

@SKRiBHa

You appear to be very new to this hobby and I don't have the time to explain the basics to you.

Also, considering that you're referencing such nonsense as Carlos Quiles Indo-European blog, then you're obviously completely lost, and I really don't have the time for this.

SKRiBHa said...

@Davidski

Thank you very much for your answers and time spent responding to my comments.

My first comment was addressed to everyone who writes here. I did not expect you to find time at all and want to answer it!

(...) You appear to be very new to this hobby (…).

Well. I know and like the charming style of your answers from the now deleted 'Forumbiodiversity', where Polako, Dhira Simha, Pioterus, Wojewoda, EastPole, Elias, Jaska and others 'discussed' there in the good old days, ten years ago or so.

I know that this is your blog, who rules it and what comes out of it…

I was not going to write anything here because I know how such an activity ends, see Gaska. I was kind of forced to write here by:

- Robert and AnnaM writing on my blog,
- as well as what Genos Historia, Copper Ax, Hannibal, Rob, but especially Onur Dincer wrote, see:

(…) The R1a finds in the paper seem to be all Z93 (...)
April 22, 2021 at 9:56 PM

@Rob Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?
Proto-Turks might have been the Slav Grave people or at least a part of them. Genetics and geography are compatible with that, and chronology certainly fits. Proto-Mongols, on the other hand, might have been the Donghu people, their eastern neighbor.
April 23, 2021 at 12:31 AM


I hope you will not ban me just yet and let me here:

- list in points a summary of what resulted from our exchange of views,
- ask others questions about the Afanasievo-Aryan-Scythian-Sarmatian-Mongolian 'origins of Turks' and what comes out of it...


Hopefully some of the commentators will be tempted to comment on that.

(...) Also, considering that you're referencing such nonsense as Carlos Quiles Indo-European blog, then you're obviously completely lost (…)

On my blog, I have repeatedly commented on Carlos’s claims of R1a as alleged UF, which I do not think to be logical, but who knows. I believe that anyone can be wrong and it does not have to be a crime right away, unless it is not a mistake, but deliberate manipulation.

Recently, together with those who comment on my blog, I have been testing various theories.

Thinking out of the box is also not a crime and after all you Polako / Davidski used it yourself and still do sometimes...


Thank you again for your answers and time spent responding to my comments.

Best regards
SKRiBHa

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

I was not going to write anything here because I know how such an activity ends, see Gaska. I was kind of forced to write here by:

- Robert and AnnaM writing on my blog,
- as well as what Genos Historia, Copper Ax, Hannibal, Rob, but especially Onur Dincer wrote, see:

(…) The R1a finds in the paper seem to be all Z93 (...)
April 22, 2021 at 9:56 PM


There is nothing wrong in my statement. Check out the supplementary tables of the Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. paper, you will see that all the R1a samples with enough resolution are Z93 and none of them are Z283, thus very similar to the situation in the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya ancestors of Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas.

@Rob Any ideas about the origins of Turks propper ?
Proto-Turks might have been the Slav Grave people or at least a part of them. Genetics and geography are compatible with that, and chronology certainly fits. Proto-Mongols, on the other hand, might have been the Donghu people, their eastern neighbor.
April 23, 2021 at 12:31 AM

I hope you will not ban me just yet and let me here:

- list in points a summary of what resulted from our exchange of views,
- ask others questions about the Afanasievo-Aryan-Scythian-Sarmatian-Mongolian 'origins of Turks' and what comes out of it...


Unlike you, I am making a distinction between Proto-Turks and subsequent Turkic peoples and was talking about Proto-Turks in your quote of me. For me, Xiongnu-era and subsequent Turkic groups are post-Proto-Turkic. What you write about Turkic origins is largely relevant for the post-Proto-Turkic times, not Proto-Turkic times.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ Unlike you, I am making a distinction between Proto-Turks and subsequent Turkic peoples and was talking about Proto-Turks in your quote of me. For me, Xiongnu-era and subsequent Turkic groups are post-Proto-Turkic.”

Would you agree that Xiongnu were at least partially WSHG, for example the Jie?

Who were the Avars? Would you link them with an Evanki/Tungus group?

vAsiSTha said...

@onur

All the z93 in the new kazazkh steppe paper are on the Z2120 line barring a few.

vAsiSTha said...

*Z2124 line. Not 2120

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

Would you agree that Xiongnu were at least partially WSHG, for example the Jie?

Yes, they had varying levels of WSHG mix, just look at my analyses of them in my earlier comments on this thread.

Who were the Avars? Would you link them with an Evanki/Tungus group?

Some Tungusic peoples might have been part of the Avar tribal confederation, but do not think they were ever a major group in it, Turkic and/or Mongolic peoples most probably were the main groups, and they later mixed with more western peoples as they moved westward and lived there.

@vAsiSTha

All the z93 in the new kazazkh steppe paper are on the Z2124 line barring a few.

There is not enough resolution in that paper unfortunately. Those of us who have enough time and knowledge can examine their raw data and report their findings.

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur “ Yes, they had varying levels of WSHG mix, just look at my analyses of them in my earlier comments on this thread.”

Would you classify WSHG pops as Botai, Kelteminner, Steppe Maykop and Okunevo as similar linguistically and/or genetically to North American “Indians”, or shouldn’t we also assume right away that these ancient extinct cultures spoke a language close to Yenisseyan/Kett and/or Innuit?

vAsiSTha said...

There is not enough resolution in that paper unfortunately. Those of us who have enough time and knowledge can examine their raw data and report their findings."

I have, all the Z94 are on the Z2124+ line. Except 1 which is on the Y3 line.

Onur Dincer said...

@Andrzejewski

Would you classify WSHG pops as Botai, Kelteminner, Steppe Maykop and Okunevo as similar linguistically and/or genetically to North American “Indians”, or shouldn’t we also assume right away that these ancient extinct cultures spoke a language close to Yenisseyan/Kett and/or Innuit?

The existing Amerindian languages or language families of the first and the greatest (in terms of genetic and linguistic impact) migration wave to the Americas from Siberia show no proven connection to any other existing language or language family in the world. That migration wave is too old, so any connections with non-Amerindian languages have reached undetectable levels through linguistic divergences and replacements. As for the languages of the past WSHG peoples, it is anyone's guess. I would speculate that at most the Yeniseian language family may be descended from the WSHG languages among the existing language families, and note the "at most" and "may" in my sentence.

Onur Dincer said...

@vAsiSTha

I have, all the Z94 are on the Z2124+ line. Except 1 which is on the Y3 line.

Are all the R1a samples in the paper on the Z93 and Z94 lines according to your research? Also, which sample is on the Y3 subclade of Z94, and can that sample be resolved down to the L657 subclade of Y3 (I ask this since L657 already existed during the Scythian times)?

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(...)There is nothing wrong in my statement. Check out the supplementary tables of the Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. paper, you will see that all the R1a samples with enough resolution are Z93 and none of them are Z283, thus very similar to the situation in the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya ancestors of Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas.(...)

Many thanks for your comment.

Let's settle something at the beginning, because I do not know how to understand what you wrote above. I re-list all R1a available on the supplementary tables of the Gnecchi-Ruscone et al. paper, see:

R1a (R-L62, R-M420),
R1a (R-L63, R-M420),
R1a1a (R-M512),
R1a1a (R-M198, R-M512),
R1a1a (R-L449, R-M512)
R1a1a1 (R-M417),
R1a1a1b (R-Z645),
R1a1a1b (R-Z647, R-Z645),

R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93),
R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94)

1.
Do you claim that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched?

Davidski is not so sure about it, see:

(…) 4. These aren't specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians. (…) May 2, 2021 at 6:03 AM

(…) 3. Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. (…) May 2, 2021 at 4:41 PM

(…) Unlike you, I am making a distinction between Proto-Turks and subsequent Turkic peoples and was talking about Proto-Turks in your quote of me. For me, Xiongnu-era and subsequent Turkic groups are post-Proto-Turkic. What you write about Turkic origins is largely relevant for the post-Proto-Turkic times, not Proto-Turkic times. (…)

I am happy that you distinguish it all! :-)

2.
Can you describe how, where and when you think Proto-Turks and their Proto-Turkic language were formed?

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

Do you claim that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched?

What makes you think those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283 among them when all of the ones with enough resolution are Z93?

Davidski is not so sure about it, see:

(…) 4. These aren't specifically Scythian/Sarmatian subclades, but rather very broad subclades due to missing data, and obviously these broad subclades are found in CWC too, because CWC is ancestral to the R1a in Scythians and Sarmatians. (…) May 2, 2021 at 6:03 AM


Davidski does not mention any Z283 among them, he mentions missing data thus insufficient resolution.

(…) 3. Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta. (…) May 2, 2021 at 4:41 PM

Here Davidski is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper, and he makes may statements thus speculates.

Can you describe how, where and when you think Proto-Turks and their Proto-Turkic language were formed?

I think Late Bronze Age-Iron Age Mongolia and environs is the most likely place of origin for the Turkic language family. I suspect the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon is where it formed. But its expansion to all of what is now Mongolia and environs and further west probably began during the Xiongnu times, and it must be when lots of C2, R1a-Z93, N and even O2 males began to be incorporated in the Turkic groups and began to eclipse the original Q1 males, the confederative organization of the Xiongnu and the later Eastern steppe polities must have played a significant role in this process.

vAsiSTha said...

@onur

All the samples labelled z94 in the paper are z2124+ except aln005 which is Y3+ L657-

Onur Dincer said...

@vAsiSTha

All the samples labelled z94 in the paper are z2124+ except aln005 which is Y3+ L657-

Thanks. In my last comment I also asked you whether all the R1a samples in the paper are on the Z93 and Z94 lines based on your research.

FYI, here are the autosomal results of all the Alai Nura Antiquity samples:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1L9xJS5lQRP4VGksVtb8Ka-LbtOSX2Yds/view?usp=sharing

ALN005 does not seem divergent from the others.

vAsiSTha said...

@onur this is what I had posted above

Very interesting. ALN005 is Z94>Y2/Y3/Y26+ L657-

The other 3 Z94+ individuals from paper are on the Z2121+ line.

ALN005 is from ALai Nura 300AD, seems to have 10-15% ancestry from BMAC. Alai Nura 300ad as a whole seems to have 10-20% ancestry from BMAC, however Alai Nura 400bce has much higher BMAC and also some ancestry from Loebanr_IA which over the ages got diluted by east asian ancestry from its North east.

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_1 (400bce)
Distance: 1.3672% / 0.01367208
51.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
28.4 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
14.8 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
5.8 PAK_Loebanr_IA

Target: KGZ_Alai_Nura_Antiquity_2 (300AD)
Distance: 1.0344% / 0.01034387
43.4 MNG_Khovsgol_BA
42.0 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
14.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA1
0.0 PAK_Loebanr_IA


By this time, south asian proper ancestry is also visible in the vicinity of Alai Nura (200km away), along with L1a2 y-hg.. from the paper..

"KNT004 is shifted in PC1 toward East Asians (figs. S1 to S3). Admixture models including ~10% South Asian and ~50% eastern Eurasian influx adequately explain KNT005 and KNT004, respectively (data file S4). In contrast, the individuals from the site of Alai Nura (Alai_Nura_300CE) in the Tian Shan mountains (~200 km east from the Konyr Tobe site) still lay along the IA cline of the Tian Shan Saka, with four individuals falling closer to Konyr_Tobe_300CE and four closer to the Tasmola/Pazyryk cloud"

Onur Dincer said...

@vAsiSTha

What I mean is that there are many R1a samples whose subclades are not clarified in the paper below Z645 or even higher levels. I asked whether you can resolve them below Z645 and what subclades you find them.

vAsiSTha said...

@onur

So far i only looked at z94. I'll do others when Im back home in front of my pc in a few days.

Onur Dincer said...

@vAsiSTha

OK, thanks.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

Do you claim that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched?
(…) What makes you think those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283 among them when all of the ones with enough resolution are Z93? (…)


I regret to say that you have not answered my question.

1.
Where did I allegedly state that 'those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283', hm?

It is not important what I think. It is important what has been written in this documentation. I am not correcting what has been written there, I have been merely trying to establish the facts. That is all I have been doing. I am asking those who are wiser than I am.

1a.
Are you just speculating on whether you can really prove that 'that the subclades I marked are all really Z93, and they have not been well researched'?

(…) Davidski does not mention any Z283 among them, he mentions missing data thus insufficient resolution. (…)

2.
Should I therefore understand that all other cases of R1a (R-L62, R-L63, R-M420), R1a1a (R-M198, R-L449, R-M512), R1a1a1 (R-Z645, R-Z647, R-M417), are only poorly researched cases of R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) and R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94), or is this only the case of this paper?

2a.
How do you know if a given sample is or is not well tested?

’Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta.’
(…) Here Davidski is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper, and he makes may statements thus speculates. (...)


3.
Where did Davidski state that ' is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper' ?!!

‘Can you describe how, where and when you think Proto-Turks and their Proto-Turkic language were formed?’
(…) I think Late Bronze Age-Iron Age Mongolia and environs is the most likely place of origin for the Turkic language family. I suspect the Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave horizon is where it formed. But its expansion to all of what is now Mongolia and environs and further west probably began during the Xiongnu times, and it must be when lots of C2, R1a-Z93, N and even O2 males began to be incorporated in the Turkic groups and began to eclipse the original Q1 males, the confederative organization of the Xiongnu and the later Eastern steppe polities must have played a significant role in this process.(…)


Afanasievo, Andronovo, Scythians, Seima-Turbino, Karasuk, Tagar etc. were present in the Altay area and preceded or coexisted with the Slab Grave Culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karasuk_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagar_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_Grave_culture

4.
Do you have any opinion on their relationship with each other?

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

Firstly, I suggest you be more humble in a topic (genetics) that you are new to.

Where did I allegedly state that 'those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283', hm?

You constantly talk about European subclades, the European subclades of R1a are Z283 and its subclades broadly speaking based on the modern distributions.

Should I therefore understand that all other cases of R1a (R-L62, R-L63, R-M420), R1a1a (R-M198, R-L449, R-M512), R1a1a1 (R-Z645, R-Z647, R-M417), are only poorly researched cases of R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) and R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94), or is this only the case of this paper?

Yes, it is a very frequent issue in ancient DNA papers. In fact, not all the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya samples are resolved to levels below Z645 either, so there is nothing that differentiates them from the R1a Cimmerians-Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas in terms of being Z93.

Where did Davidski state that ' is talking about the westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper' ?!!

This is what Davidski says:

Scythians and Sarmatians may have acquired typically European R1a lineages after they expanded into Central Europe. Or such lineages may have been present at very low levels in Fatyanovo and Sintashta.

The Scythians and Sarmatians expanding into Central Europe are the westernmost ones, they are not included in this paper and Davidski is not talking about this paper when he mentions the westernmost ones obviously. Also, do note the "may" in Davidski's statements, he does not say they had Z283 but just that they may have had it.

Afanasievo, Andronovo, Scythians, Seima-Turbino, Karasuk, Tagar etc. were present in the Altay area and preceded or coexisted with the Slab Grave Culture.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afanasievo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andronovo_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seima-Turbino_phenomenon
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karasuk_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tagar_culture
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scythian_cultures
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slab_Grave_culture

4.
Do you have any opinion on their relationship with each other?


Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave had genetics similar to those of the other ancient samples from what is now Mongolia with high Amur N and very low or no WSHG and no Yamnaya/steppe. Certainly nothing to do with the Altai or further western samples. The Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave samples we have have almost no ancestry from the other peoples you listed, they are genetically too East Eurasian compared to them.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EWM0EW3p8zb8u8NxnaB8Z9kXBUvYHExC/view?usp=sharing

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1moIWwJ03fk2M2PZ4CdZVC50RVhFuI-eg/view

https://drive.google.com/file/d/16RpKDqWrnvV1mSHA0A-u0_d_0u_4oF2W/view

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

‘Where did I allegedly state that 'those R1a samples without enough resolution in the paper have Z283', hm?’
(…) You constantly talk about European subclades, the European subclades of R1a are Z283 and its subclades broadly speaking based on the modern distributions. (…)


You misinterpret what I wrote. I am constantly writing about various things here. According to Davidski, Locomotiv is a mistake, so all R1a comes only from Europe, the Z93 from CWC, Fatianovo, Poltavka, etc., and all 'Asian' after-Sintashta too, see:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/09/y-haplogroup-r1a-and-mental-health.html

I have never claimed that only the R1a Z283 is 'European' and I have always referred to the data in that paper, see below.

‘Should I therefore understand that all other cases of R1a (R-L62, R-L63, R-M420), R1a1a (R-M198, R-L449, R-M512), R1a1a1 (R-Z645, R-Z647, R-M417), are only poorly researched cases of R1a1a1b2 (R-Z93) and R1a1a1b2a (R-Z94), or is this only the case of this paper?’
(…) Yes, it is a very frequent issue in ancient DNA papers. In fact, not all the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya samples are resolved to levels below Z645 either, so there is nothing that differentiates them from the R1a Cimmerians-Scythians-Sarmatians-Sakas in terms of being Z93. (…)


It is sad that such 'poorly researched' samples have been published so they have to be later 'interpreted'. I do not 'interpret' the data, I just quote it.

(…) The Scythians and Sarmatians expanding into Central Europe are the westernmost ones, they are not included in this paper and Davidski is not talking about this paper when he mentions the westernmost ones obviously. Also, do note the "may" in Davidski's statements, he does not say they had Z283 but just that they may have had it. (...)

Again, I have never referred to any Z283, but only to the data mentioned in the paper. What you presume about what Davidski may presume about some other data that have no relation to the data mentioned in the paper, is irrelevant to what I wrote about.

However, I already understand your position on the 'poorly researched' R1a samples mentioned above, and acknowledge that they may all be Z93s.

1.
Can you list some examples of R1a 'westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper' for comparison?

(…) Firstly, I suggest you be more humble in a topic (genetics) that you are new to. (…)

Well, can you tell me how to be even more humble and what do you think I should do?

Earlier I wrote: ‘It is not important what I think. It is important what has been written in this documentation. I am not correcting what has been written there, I have been merely trying to establish the facts. That is all I have been doing. I am asking those who are wiser than I am.’.

I have clearly expressed my respect for you. Would you like me to fall on my face in front of you and kiss your feet or something?

But seriously, would it not be easier if you just stopped manipulating my statements and answered my questions directly, instead of lecturing me in general? It will be more productive...

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

‘Do you have any opinion on their relationship with each other?’
(…) Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave had genetics similar to those of the other ancient samples from what is now Mongolia with high Amur N and very low or no WSHG and no Yamnaya/steppe. Certainly nothing to do with the Altai or further western samples. The Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave samples we have have almost no ancestry from the other peoples you listed, they are genetically too East Eurasian compared to them. (...)


I clearly wrote 'their relationship with each other' and it was not just about genetics.

2.
Did The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people use cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows and kurgans? If so, did they invent them themselves or did they borrow them from someone else? From whom? From the Proto-Mongols and the Chinese, or from someone who had been using them much earlier and happened to live west, e.g. on Altay?

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

There is no manipulation of your statements on my part, at least not any deliberate one. I have been replying to you based on what I understand from your statements. In your earlier posts, besides Z283, you were treating the unresolved Z645 and clades above it as European and Z93 and its subclades as Asian, that is why I assumed you considered at least some of them as Z283. But now that you acknowledge that that the Z645 and above in this paper may be Z93 and in fact may all be Z93, there is no reason to dispute. Also, you should bear in mind that Z93 is first attested in Europe and is a subclade of Z645, which you already acknowledge to have evolved in Europe.

Did The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people use cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows and kurgans? If so, did they invent them themselves or did they borrow them from someone else? From whom? From the Proto-Mongols and the Chinese, or from someone who had been using them much earlier and happened to live west, e.g. on Altay?

Yes, they had the items you mention, and they borrowed such items and more (e.g., animal art, sheep and goats) from the cultures to their west around the Altai with very little to no genetic admixture from them.

BTW, I suggest you check out the figures 2, 3, S3, 4 and S4 in the Jeong et al. 2020 paper to better understand the autosomal genetics of the relevant populations:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420313210

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) But now that you acknowledge that that the Z645 and above in this paper may be Z93 and in fact may all be Z93, there is no reason to dispute. (…)

I do not deny that you may be 50% right about the ‘poorly researched’ R1a Z93 samples mentioned in this paper. My point is you have not in any way proved that they really are R1a Z93.

You did not answer my questions 1 and 1a, from May 16, 2021 at 4:27 AM. I understand why you can not answer them. However, I ask you to answer my question I asked on May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM, see:

1.
Can you list some examples of R1a 'westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper' for comparison?

(…) Also, you should bear in mind that Z93 is first attested in Europe and is a subclade of Z645, which you already acknowledge to have evolved in Europe. (…)

Well, this is rather obvious and you should bear in mind that I logically pointed this out at least twice May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM.

(…) Yes, they had the items you mention, and they borrowed such items and more (e.g., animal art, sheep and goats) from the cultures to their west around the Altai with very little to no genetic admixture from them. (...)

I am glad that you confirmed my predictions that The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people borrowed cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows, kurgans, and even animal art, sheep, goats etc. ‘from the cultures to their west around the Altai’.

2.
Can you give the Turkish equivalents of these words?

2a.
Do you have any opinion on the borrowing of the names of these objects, as well as other terms related to them, such as the names of metals or the Altai mountains themselves possibly made by The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people?


3.
Do you have any opinion on where and when CHG got to the step and how Yamna / Yamnaya was created?

Onur Dincer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

I do not deny that you may be 50% right about the ‘poorly researched’ R1a Z93 samples mentioned in this paper. My point is you have not in any way proved that they really are R1a Z93.

They may be Z93 or not. What is clear is that all the R1a ones resolved below Z645 are Z93, just like the Fatyanovo, Sintashta, Andronovo and Srubnaya cases.

Can you list some examples of R1a 'westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper' for comparison?

You are asking me to give examples to samples supporting Davidski's speculation. You should ask that to Davidski, not to me. Anyway, since it is a speculation, even Davidski does not need to give any examples. You should already know the difference between judgement and speculation.

Well, this is rather obvious and you should bear in mind that I logically pointed this out at least twice May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM.

I did not claim the opposite.

Can you give the Turkish equivalents of these words?

Will give you the reconstructed Proto-Turkic (the likely language of the Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave people) equivalents instead to give a better idea (with the IPA symbols of the reconstructed sounds):

cow, cattle: *ingek, *sɨgɨr
horse: *at
wheel: its Proto-Turkic form is contested since different Turkic languages use different words for wheel
cart: *araba (of steppe Iranic etymology)
bow: *jaː(j)
kurgan: *kurgan or *koːrɨkan
sheep: *koɲ
goat: *ɛt͡ʃky

Do you have any opinion on the borrowing of the names of these objects, as well as other terms related to them, such as the names of metals or the Altai mountains themselves possibly made by The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people?

Of the reconstructed Proto-Turkic equivalents above, only *araba has demonstrated IE etymology, it probably comes from the Sakan rraha with the same meaning. As for the metal names, do not know any Turkic metal name of likely IE origin. The close to no IE borrowings in Proto-Turkic is in concert with the close to none IE genetic mix in Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave (likely Proto-Turks) despite them having IE cultural influence and borrowed cultural items from IE. By the Xiongnu times Turkic peoples would start to show significant IE genetic mix, but since their Proto-Turkic ancestors had aleady created their own steppe vocabulary and acquired the steppe way of life and items, they did not need to borrow steppe vocabulary from IE.

Do you have any opinion on where and when CHG got to the step and how Yamna / Yamnaya was created?

Yamnaya seems to be Sredny Stog-derived. The Sredny Stog people may well be the Proto-IE proper. As for the influx of the CHG-like ancestry to the Western steppe, it probably occurred sometime during the Mesolithic, if not earlier.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

I asked you to 'list some examples of R1a ‘westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper 'for comparison', not about 'examples to samples supporting Davidski's speculation'.

You did not answer my simple question, instead you misinterpret its meaning, speculate on other speculations, and generally lecture me again. It is not productive and you should have noticed by now that it does not work.

I understand that you do not know such data, so you can not provide them. You do not need to beat around the bush.

‘Well, this is rather obvious and you should bear in mind that I logically pointed this out at least twice May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 17, 2021 at 3:06 PM.’
(…) I did not claim the opposite. (…)


Nice! :-)

‘Can you give the Turkish equivalents of these words?’
(…) Will give you the reconstructed Proto-Turkic (the likely language of the Ulaanzukh/Slab Grave people) equivalents instead to give a better idea (with the IPA symbols of the reconstructed sounds):(…)


You did not answer my question again. I am not interested in fake reconstructions / recreations, but only in contemporary words.

1.
Can you present the Turkish equivalents of these words, please?

If I understood correctly what you wrote, it is because The Ulaanzukh / Slab Grave people borrowed cows, horses, wheels, carts, bows, kurgans, and even animal art, sheep, goats etc. 'from the cultures to their west around the Altai', but they did not borrow their own names. It is very interesting!

2.
Can you present your interpretation of the Turkish meaning of words ‘Altai’ and ‘kurgan’ as well as their etymologies?

2a.
Can you present your interpretation of the history of the construction of buildings now known as the ‘kurgan’?

(…) Yamnaya seems to be Sredny Stog-derived. The Sredny Stog people may well be the Proto-IE proper. As for the influx of the CHG-like ancestry to the Western steppe, it probably occurred sometime during the Mesolithic, if not earlier. (...)

I understand that like Davidski, unlike Anthony, Reich, etc., you do not link the origins of Yamna / Yamnaya (and PIE) to Khvalynsk culture.

3.
Do you, like Anthony, Reich, etc., link CHG to the South Caucasus and Iran, or, like Davidski, do you disagree with them?

vAsiSTha said...

@onur

"Anthony and the others now acknowledge this too with the recent ancient DNA results;"

No, they guess it, without actual evidence.

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

I asked you to 'list some examples of R1a ‘westernmost Scythians, who are not included in this paper 'for comparison', not about 'examples to samples supporting Davidski's speculation'.

You did not answer my simple question, instead you misinterpret its meaning, speculate on other speculations, and generally lecture me again. It is not productive and you should have noticed by now that it does not work.

I understand that you do not know such data, so you can not provide them. You do not need to beat around the bush.


I know all the existing data. I was just surprised why you asked that question to me instead of Davidski. The westernmost Scythian samples you will find are from these papers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

No Z283 find among them.

You did not answer my question again. I am not interested in fake reconstructions / recreations, but only in contemporary words.

Those are not fake reconstructions, those are the reconstructions of top Turcologists worldwide. If you continue to make such arrogant or childish comments, I will not reply to you anymore.

Can you present the Turkish equivalents of these words, please?

The Turkish equivalents are inek/sığır (cow/cattle), at (horse), tekerlek (wheel), araba (cart), yay (bow), kurgan (kurgan), koyun (sheep), keçi (goat), all of them come from the Proto-Turkic ones as you see since they are from the basic vocabulary (tekerlek also has Proto-Turkic origins). The relevant metal names in Turkish also come from Proto-Turkic.

Can you present your interpretation of the Turkish meaning of words ‘Altai’ and ‘kurgan’ as well as their etymologies?

On the etymology of Altai I suggest this article:

https://www.academia.edu/33611500/SOME_NOTES_ON_THE_ETYMOLOGY_OF_THE_WORD_altai_altay

On the etymology of kurgan I am undecided between the *kurgan and *koːrɨkan etymologies. Both are Proto-Turkic and have no IE linguistic relation anyway.

Can you present your interpretation of the history of the construction of buildings now known as the ‘kurgan’?

Irrespective of who invented kurgans, it is clear that IE peoples made kurgans from early times and played a very significant role in their spread both in the steppe and outside of it. Proto-Turks would later adopt kurgan making from steppe Iranics and kurgans would become important elements of the Turco-Mongolic cultures as well.

I understand that like Davidski, unlike Anthony, Reich, etc., you do not link the origins of Yamna / Yamnaya (and PIE) to Khvalynsk culture.

I recently did such Vahaduo G25 runs for Yamnaya with and without Khvalynsk as a source population:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1etLxO9BHLMlzUcYTJ-NMXMbcKS2hu9Xo/view?usp=sharing

This is just an experiment, they should not be taken literally, we still lack sufficient data from pre-Yamnaya peoples of the Western steppe. Khvalysk may well be a dead end and even non-IE.

Do you, like Anthony, Reich, etc., link CHG to the South Caucasus and Iran, or, like Davidski, do you disagree with them?

That CHG-like ancestry in the Western steppe obviously came from a more southern location, what is in dispute is the timing of that arrival, what is clear is that it was in the Western steppe well before the Proto-IE times (Anthony and the others now acknowledge this too with the recent ancient DNA results; see: this).

Onur Dincer said...

@vAsiSTha

No, they guess it, without actual evidence.

How do you know? They have access to unpublished ancient DNA results we do not have access to.

vAsiSTha said...

@onur
Because he says it at 1:10 in the link you post

"I think that is CHG.... But we do not have samples....."

vAsiSTha said...

Secondly, the sample with the most CHG is kotias and satsurblia. So

Thirdly, the kind of chg/Iran ancestry steppe eneolithic has is very east shifted, towards iranN and WSHG. It is almost impossible for such a population to exist north of Kotias without actual admixture from iran like pop.

It is slightly possible that the iranN like admixture came from the south of Caucasus but is older than the time Anatolian component becomes entrenched in the region south of Caucasus later on (hajji firuz and earlier)

Onur Dincer said...

@vAsiSTha

PC steppe Yamnaya, who are the best genetic proxy for the early pops who expanded out of the steppe, barely show any WSHG-like mix. Their CHG-like ancestry has some Iran N-like shift yes (at least for some individuals), but still it is by and large CHG-like.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1V4ei1HcY8cSmi39Imb1cSPa2JjDTbp5Q/view?usp=sharing

vAsiSTha said...

Onur

That's expected, progress and vonyuchka barely show 5-10% wshg admixture. That component becomes diluted and hardly detectable in yamnaya.

https://pastebin.com/kKr9MzWL

Refer above.
In the chg + ehg + wshg model of steppe_en, wshg comes out as 7.9% +-4%. Even though p value is low like all models

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) The westernmost Scythian samples you will find are from these papers:

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-018-0094-2
https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/10/eaat4457

No Z283 find among them. (…)


As I can see, you confirm what I wrote earlier, e.g. May 5, 2021 at 2:43 PM, May 6, 2021 at 6:48 AM! It is nice that you referred to Krzewińska and Juras’s paper.

It is obvious that Długosz, Kromer and other XV-XVII century catholic writers who derived the origin of the Polish nobility from these steppe nomads simply fantasized. They could also deliberately write untruths in order to, for example, divert attention from connecting the ancestors of Poles with the Vandals, who in 455CE conquered Rome.

The same applies to the works of contemporary ‘researchers’ like Jamroszko, Makuch, Kowalski, etc.

Sarmatism and claims about the origin of the Polish nobility from the Scythians and Sarmatians have been only lies and propaganda. Genetic data also support this. The lack of R1a Z283 among the 'westernmost Scythians' additionally confirms the above and also proves:

• the lack of contacts between ancestors of Poles (and maybe even more broadly the Slavs), and the Scythians, Sarmatians, etc., or other Iranian peoples,
• the lack of Iranian / Scythian-Sarmatian / Ossetian, etc. borrowings in Polish or even more broadly, the so-called Proto-Slavic languages,
• alleged Iranian borrowings, allegedly found in Polish or even more broadly, the so-called Proto-Slavic languages, are simply ancient remnants of primary languages used by R1a Z645, and next in CWC by both Z283 and Z93,
• devoicing, debuccalization, e.g. rough breathing and distortions, e.g. Rask rule / Grimm's law, Verner's law, etc. visible / heard in Indo-Iranian, as well as Armenian, Greek, Albanian, Italo-Celtic and Germanic, are logically secondary to the primary alternated forms of Slavic roots and sufixes, according to the R1a origin from CWC > Pripyat ;-) > Fatianovo > Sintashta > Andronovo, see May 2, 2021 at 5:28 AM.

There is, however, evidence of noble coats of arms very similar to tamgas. Therefore I take into account the origin of the Piasts from the Kiev Polans, who themselves could have descended from some Scythian-Sarmatian-Turkish-Khazar R1b or Z93 from the steppe. Unfortunately, research on this Piast DNA has been standing still for many years. I wonder why… ;-)

(…) I was just surprised why you asked that question to me instead of Davidski. (…)

Surprised? Davidski (like you) on the basis of his presumptions May 10, 2021 at 4:39 PM, stated that:

‘You appear to be very new to this hobby and I don't have the time to explain the basics to you. Also, considering that you're referencing such nonsense as Carlos Quiles Indo-European blog, then you're obviously completely lost, and I really don't have the time for this.’

I never judge anyone by what it seems to me, but by what someone writes. I try to be very precise, I am quoting quotes and various sources. I treat my interlocutors the same way they treat me. I respect my reasonable interlocutors, but even to the unreasonable ones I have never written that they seem to be 'new'. It is because many times, such ‘new ones’ have shown me that they were right and I was wrong. I am always grateful for new ideas and mistakes that are shown to me because I can learn much faster. I do not know you, who you are and it does not bother me. You should have already noticed that I am not referring to you, but only to what you wrote.

Once I have explained everything between you and me, I am going to come back to the questions I asked Davidski (which he ignored) on May 10, 2021 at 4:01 PM and May 10, 2021 at 4:05 PM. Maybe someone, including you will want to refer to them. To the rest of what you wrote, I am going to answer tomorrow in more comments.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

‘You did not answer my question again. I am not interested in fake reconstructions / recreations, but only in contemporary words.’
(…) Those are not fake reconstructions, those are the reconstructions of top Turcologists worldwide. If you continue to make such arrogant or childish comments, I will not reply to you anymore. (…)

Maybe the Proto-Turkic reconstructions are plausible or maybe not, I do not care, because I deal with issues related to the so-called Indo-European languages, or logically rather Euro-Indian, or more precisely Euro-Asiatic.

I do not know if you are ‘new’ or ‘old’ to genetics, history, archeology, and linguistics, and I do not care. I know that reconstructions related to the so-called PIE, etc. are only 'fake reconstructions / recreations'. They are based on wrong assumptions, so they are not worth much.

I can prove it to you in no time on the basis of the words I have already mentioned here. Moreover, I can prove it to you on the basis of one fairy tale and one word related to the feeling that has been with me from the moment you started lecturing me.

(…) On the etymology of Altai I suggest this article:

https://www.academia.edu/33611500/SOME_NOTES_ON_THE_ETYMOLOGY_OF_THE_WORD_altai_altay (…)


Here is the point of this paper at a glance:

(…) The word altay is is an oronym referring to Altai Mountains, but it, in this phonological form, is not attested to have existed in Old Turkic’. (…) The nominal altun yış attested eight times in Old Turkic runic inscriptions is used for ‘Altai Mountains’ . (…) The former ( Jīn 金 ) means ‘gold’ ( altın in Turkic) (…) 4. Semantically, the words referring “Altai Mountains” and have the meaning of “gold, golden”, support this etymology. (…)

On May 17, 2021 at 9:55 PM you already confirmed that peoples from Yamna / Yamnaya / Afanasievo and CWC spoke IE languages around Altai / Altay much, much earlier before the arrival of the Turkish peoples there.

This is why the etymology of the meaning of the word Altai / Altay should be sought in IE languages, see:

Altay / (Z)+aL+Tay

Żółty / Z”o’L’+Ty
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%C5%BC%C3%B3%C5%82ty

Złoty / ZL”o+Ty
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/z%C5%82oty

The e/o > a transition complies with the Brugmann's law.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

‘Can you present your interpretation of the history of the construction of buildings now known as the ‘kurgan’?’
(…) Irrespective of who invented kurgans, it is clear that IE peoples made kurgans from early times and played a very significant role in their spread both in the steppe and outside of it. Proto-Turks would later adopt kurgan making from steppe Iranics and kurgans would become important elements of the Turco-Mongolic cultures as well. (…)


Exactly. Turco-Mongolic cultures formed much, much later in relation to both Khvalynsk, where the kurgans were built for the first time, and to Yamna / Yamnaya / Afanasievo, which was the second to build these tombs, and to CWC, Fatianovo, Sintashta , Andronovo, or the Scythians on Altai, who also built them. For all these cultures, the kurgan has always been a Górka / Go'R+Ka - hill shaped tomb and its meaning has never changed.

It is not logical that the IE descendants of the ancient IE cultures somehow forgot what their IE ancestors called these ‘grobowce’ / hill tombs.

Grobowiec / GRo+B+oW+ieC

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/grobowiec

Grób / Gro’+B

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/gr%C3%B3b
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/grob%D1%8A

Garb / GaR+B

https://pl.wiktionary.org/wiki/garb
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/garb
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/g%D1%8Arb%D1%8A

Since Proto-Turks did not borrow the name of the wheel from IE cultures from Altai, the Proto-Slavs could also not borrow Górka / Go'R + Ka / Kurhan / Ko'R + HaN, because they have never forgotten it!

By the way, there are words in the Polish language such as Kagan / KaGaN, Kaganiec / KaGaN+ieC and Kaganek / KaGaN+eK, see:

Kaganiec / KaGaN+ieC

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaganiec

Kaganek / KaGaN+eK

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kaganek

When you drop suffixes and focus on the root od the word, you could understand the true meaning of this:

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

(…) The term is of unknown origin and possibly a loanword from the Ruanruan language. Pulleyblank (1962) first suggested that a Xiongnu title, transcribed as 護于 (Old Chinese: *hʷaʔ-hʷaʰ) might have been behind Proto-Turkic *qaɣan ~ *xaɣan. (…)

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

‘I understand that like Davidski, unlike Anthony, Reich, etc., you do not link the origins of Yamna / Yamnaya (and PIE) to Khvalynsk culture.’
(…) Khvalysk may well be a dead end and even non-IE. (…)


Khvalynsk was initial to kurgans and no CHG. If so, then both R1a and kurgans do not have to be originally related to PIE. I2 was also found in Khvalynsk and it came there from the Carpathians / GaRB+atians… :-)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carpathian_Mountains#Name

‘Do you, like Anthony, Reich, etc., link CHG to the South Caucasus and Iran, or, like Davidski, do you disagree with them?’
(…) That CHG-like ancestry in the Western steppe obviously came from a more southern location, what is in dispute is the timing of that arrival, what is clear is that it was in the Western steppe well before the Proto-IE times (Anthony and the others now acknowledge this too with the recent ancient DNA results; see: this).


I must admit that I am not the only one who is fed up with slipping through presumptions about, e.g. CHG, the alleged ancestors of the Yamna from the South Caucasus or Iran, etc.

If I understood correctly what Anthony said in the video you attached, he now points to the Volga delta as the site of CHG's steppe origin. He presumes again as there are no samples, etc as VasiSTha summarized on May 22, 2021 at 8:54 PM.

I associate the spread of CHG in the steppe around 5600 BC with the so-called Black Sea deluge hypothesis.

For some time now, I have been looking with increasing amusement at the official slipping of allegations about CHG, the alleged ancestors of the Yamnay from the South Caucasus, and Iran.

The same applies to other inconvenient topics that have been ground and chewed for over 150 years, such as e.g. the origin of the Slavs and Germans and their languages, etc. It looks worse and worse for Max Planck Institute, Reich, Kristiansen, Anthony, etc.

To make it funnier, I used to think like Anthony that PIE should be associated with EHG / Post-ANE Hunters of the North. Today, however, I have no opinion anymore and I am trying to solve this riddle out of defiance in line with what Robert proposes, who links PIE more broadly with WHG, and more specifically with I2.

If I understand what he is trying to explain, then according to him the I2 that was everywhere in Europe was PIE and it passed on the wheel, cart, horse, metals, agriculture, etc., and related vocabulary to R1b, R1a and so on. I do not know if this is true and I am testing this theory.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

This comment did not come out on 05/27/2021 and 29/05/2021, so I am re-reposting it. Maybe this time it will be published...

’Can you present your interpretation of the Turkish meaning of words ‘Altai’ and ‘kurgan’ as well as their etymologies?’
(…) On the etymology of kurgan I am undecided between the *kurgan and *koːrɨkan etymologies. (…)


You did not answer my question again. :-( I did not ask about 'reconstructions', but about the meanings and etymologies!

The reproductions of * kurgan and * koːrɨkan have the meanings 'refuge, fortress, rampart, major shrine, fence, protection, to protect, to defend, to erect (a building), to establish', see:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/kurgan#Turkish

Andrzejewski said...

@Onur @Skribha @Rob

I associate PIE with R1a1, whoever they were.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

Here are the data on the 'credibility' of official recreations of the so-called PIE promised on May 27, 2021 at 3:13 PM. Maybe will be published at least.

Evidence No.1

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schleicher%27s_fable

If reconstruction of the so-called PIE, etc. is supposed to be credible, so which of the 10 versions of this fable is really true and why others are not true?

Evidence No.2

VoMiT

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/vomit

(…) from Proto-Indo-European *wemh₁- (“to spew, vomit”)

WeM?

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Indo-European/wemh%E2%82%81-

*wemh₁- (imperfective)[1] to spew, to vomit

*wemh₁-ti (root present)
Indo-Iranian: *wámHti
Indo-Aryan: *wámHti
Sanskrit: वमिति (vámiti)

*wemh₁-e-ti (thematic present)
Indo-Iranian: *wámati
Indo-Aryan: *wámati
Sanskrit: वमति (vámati)

Slavic: Polish: wymiotować

Wszystkie powyższe postacie posiadają rdzeń W+MT.
All of the above forms contain W+MT root.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B5%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%BF#Sanskrit

From Proto-Indo-Aryan *wámati, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *wámati, from Proto-Indo-European *wémh₁-e-ti, from *wemh₁- (“to spew, vomit”). (…)

to vomit, spit out, eject (literally and figuratively), to emit, send forth, give out

Wymiotować / Wy+MioT+oW+aC’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wymiotowa%C4%87#Polish

(…) from Latin vomitō and wymiotać (“to throw out”).

According to the above ‘logic’, every Slav from the Pripyat Marshes, every Balt from the Baltic wilderness and every Aria from Fatianovo, Sintashta, Andronovo, Altai, etc. had to borrow this word from thechurch Latin during the 10th or or even later in the 15th century… Right.

Wymioty / Wy+MioT+y

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wymioty#Polish

vomiting, emesis, vomit, vomitus

Miotać / MioT+aC’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miota%C4%87

to fling, hurl

Synonym: ciskać

Miot / MioT

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/miot#Polish

litter (offspring of an animal from one birth)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/metati

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/metati

From the same root as *mestì (“to throw, to sweep”).

Verb *metàti impf to throw

Related terms:

*mestì (“to throw, to sweep”)
*motàti (“to wind, to reel”)

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/motati

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/motati

See *mestì (“to throw, to sweep”) for etymology.

to wind

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mesti

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/mesti

From Proto-Balto-Slavic *met-. (…)

to throw, to sweep

Mieść / MieS’+C’

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/mie%C5%9B%C4%87#Polish

From Proto-Slavic *mesti (stem *met-).

mieść impf (perfective zamieść) to throw, hurl

Synonyms:

miotać, rzucać (transitive) to sweep
zamiatać, podmiatać, omiatać

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

Summary:

1.
The root of the words Vo+MiT and Wy+MioT is MT, not WM+T.

2.
Wy+ is just a prefix, see:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/wy-

From Proto-Slavic *vy-.

Indicates movement outwards or away, e.g. from the inside rzucić (“to throw”) → to throw out of

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vy-

Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/vy-

From Proto-Balto-Slavic *ū́, from Proto-Indo-European *úd. The *y is a result of Winter's law.

Prefix *vy- out

…..

As it can be seen above, the reconstruction of the so-called PIE etc. is just a humbug, and linguists have just been mumbling about it for 150 years.

As I have mentioned before, there are plenty of similar examples. If you still want to defend a 'credibility' of the so-called PIE, etc., I invite and encourage you to carry on with that.

By the way, I do not know why the second part of my comment on the etymology of the word kurgan can not be published here for the third time. Maybe the Blogger is allergic to something I have included in it. ;-)

I published it at my blog, so if everyone can read it, even in two languages…

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

Yes, it is possible that the etymology of the Turkic word altun/altay (both forms meaning ‘gold’ apparently) could be traced back to some IE language. Could be some extinct IE branch or extinct Iranic branch with a word similar to Proto-Slavic *zoltъ with the same meaning. But the form altun/altay obviously evolved in Turkic as dropping of initial z is typical in Turkic.

As for the word kurgan, whatever its ultimate etymology, it must have been loaned to Old East Slavic from some Turkic language and spread to other European languages from the East Slavic languages in the modern era. The form kurgan is very Turkic in sound, transformation of initial g to k is typical in Turkic.

It is accepted by many historians and linguists that kagan/khagan is a post-Proto-Turkic and even post-Xiongnu loan to Turkic languages. But do not think it has a relation to the Slavic words you mention. Could be from some Iranic language.

Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions. That is because Proto-Turkic was spoken as recent as the Iron Age.

Having said that, no need to be so harsh towards the Proto-IE reconstructions, Proto-IE studies have improved a lot since the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and the discovery of the various IE sound laws.

SKRiBHa said...

@EastPole

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/05/beware-of-greeks-bearing-gifts.html?showComment=1622670771877#c4272725626407296957

(…) I don’t think we have much to do with Scythians and Sarmatians. They were very mixed steppe people, their language and culture, religion are unknown. (…)

True, see the many haplogroups mentioned above, etc.

The Slavs as well as the Aryans, and then the Scythians and Sarmatians, are derived from R1a from the CWC. Only that the former come from the tribe which remained where the CWC was formed where R1a Z283 mutated. The latter come from a different tribe, where R1a Z93 mutated, which moved north from the eastern Carpathians to Fatianovo and beyond.

Logically, the language, tradition and culture of the Slavs must therefore be primal to the language of the Aryans, Scythians and Sarmatians, etc.

1.
Do you have any idea why there were simultaneous mutations and division into the western Z283 and the eastern Z93 in Fatianovo and beyond?

(…) I don’t think the Piast legend comes from them. In my opinion it was the opposite direction, i.e. from us to India, Iran and Greece. (…)

As I understand, you do not agree with the theses contained in the 'works' by Jamroszko, Makuch, Kowalski, or earlier in Długosz, Kromer, Bielowski and other followers of Sarmatism, about the origin of the Polish nobility, or Iranian borrowings in the language, tradition and culture of the Slavs.

2.
So how to explain the visible similarities according to Makuch in the so-called Iranian mythology and in Polish legends?

2a
Are these just traces of a common post-CWC / post-PIE tradition?

Look at this:

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

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/chwa%C5%82a

(C)HWaL”a > HwaRa

L>R

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

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Kowal

KoW+aL > KaV+eH

e/o>a

(…) Similarities in Slavic, Vedic and Orphic religions come from the common source which most likely was CWC. I strongly believe some Tripolye influence judging by their symbolic ceramic. (…)

3.
Is PIE tradition homogeneous or mixed, eg. WHG / EEF R1b / I2a (e.g. from Tripolye etc.) + EHG R1b / R1a?

4.
What do you think of kurgans, their origin, etymology and meaning as the original symbol of PIE?

5.
What do you think of my aforementioned etymologies for Vo + MiT / Wy + MioT, etc?

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) Yes, it is possible that the etymology of the Turkic word altun/altay (both forms meaning ‘gold’ apparently) could be traced back to some IE language. Could be some extinct IE branch or extinct Iranic branch with a word similar to Proto-Slavic *zoltъ with the same meaning. But the form altun/altay obviously evolved in Turkic as dropping of initial z is typical in Turkic. (…)

Thank you very much for confirming that according to the data and logic, the etymologies of Turkish words such as Altai / Altay are derived from the earlier IE vocabulary, see:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Scythians

I wonder what others, such as Hüseyin Yıldız, will now say. He somehow failed to take into account such logically obvious IE etymologies when he was writing his paper...

(…) As for the word kurgan, whatever its ultimate etymology, it must have been loaned to Old East Slavic from some Turkic language and spread to other European languages from the East Slavic languages in the modern era. The form kurgan is very Turkic in sound, transformation of initial g to k is typical in Turkic. (…)

It is possible that sometime, perhaps during the Hun invasion, the distorted original meaning of the word Go'R+Ka / ‘hill’ was secondarily borrowed into some Slavic dialect, and then transferred further, see:

Go’R+Ka > Ko’R+GaN > Ko’R+HaN > Ko’R+GaN

However, this does not change the fact that the Slavic meaning of the word Go'Ra / Go'R+Ka is primary and 'ultimate etymology' for Turkish meanings, such as ‘refuge, fortress, rampart, major shrine, fence, protection, to protect, to defend, to erect (a building), to establish’, etc., compare with Z"o'L" Ty / ZL"oTy> (Z)+Altai / (Z)+Altay.

An interesting fact is that for some Slavic languages, the secondary transformation of G > H is typical, see GoRa > HoRa.

(…) It is accepted by many historians and linguists that kagan/khagan is a post-Proto-Turkic and even post-Xiongnu loan to Turkic languages. But do not think it has a relation to the Slavic words you mention. Could be from some Iranic language. (…)

This is illogical. The CWC language is the direct ancestor of all Slavic languages, while all Indo-Iranian languages are derived only indirectly from CWC language, see:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Abrashevo > Balanovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians

Logically, what is IE in Indo-Iranian MUST come from the CWC, that is, be directly Slavic.

1.
Could you try to undermine my etymologies for the words KaG/HaN / KaGaN+eK and Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, etc. and give some of yours?

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions. That is because Proto-Turkic was spoken as recent as the Iron Age. (…)

This is logically very likely.

(…) Having said that, no need to be so harsh towards the Proto-IE reconstructions, Proto-IE studies have improved a lot since the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and the discovery of the various IE sound laws. (…)

In these two sentences above, you logically contradict yourself. 'Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions', means that 'Proto-IE reconstructions' are less precise and secure than the former.

The fact that someone has invented 'various IE sound laws' only means that 'various IE sound laws' have been formulated and nothing else, see e.g. so-called Winter's law which is invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter%27s_law

It is not a quantity that counts, but the quality and Occam's razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor

I am glad you mentioned 'decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages'.

2.
Are you claiming that 'the Anatolian IE languages' existed before the CWC language?

2a.
Do you know on what grounds the existence of the so-called Hittite "coefficients sonantiques", which are now the so-called laryngeals was proved?

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

Let me remind you that the alleged so-called laryngals allegedly modified only vowels, while word roots are made up of consonants only.

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

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

It is possible that sometime, perhaps during the Hun invasion, the distorted original meaning of the word Go'R+Ka / ‘hill’ was secondarily borrowed into some Slavic dialect, and then transferred further, see:

Go’R+Ka > Ko’R+GaN > Ko’R+HaN > Ko’R+GaN


Even if the word kurgan is ultimately of IE origin (which is yet to be demonstrated), the g > k transformation should have happened in Turkic. So the word kurgan should have been formed in Turkic regardless of its ultimate origins, then was loaned to Old East Slavic and from East Slavic spread to other European languages.

This is illogical. The CWC language is the direct ancestor of all Slavic languages, while all Indo-Iranian languages are derived only indirectly from CWC language, see:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Abrashevo > Balanovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians

Logically, what is IE in Indo-Iranian MUST come from the CWC, that is, be directly Slavic.


The CWC language is ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian and probably to some other IE branches too. Fatyanovo is just the eastern wing of CWC (they are contemporary if you do not know), probably spoke an eastern dialect of the CWC language and ultimately led to Indo-Iranian. And more importantly, no Balto-Slavic language is attested east of the Urals before the Russian expansion to east of the Urals beginning from the late 16th century.

In these two sentences above, you logically contradict yourself. 'Proto-Turkic reconstructions are mostly more precise and secure than Proto-IE reconstructions', means that 'Proto-IE reconstructions' are less precise and secure than the former.

I do not contradict myself. I already stated that Proto-IE reconstructions are mostly less precise and secure than Proto-Turkic reconstructions, but that by no means translates to "Proto-IE reconstructions are imprecise and insecure."

The fact that someone has invented 'various IE sound laws' only means that 'various IE sound laws' have been formulated and nothing else, see e.g. so-called Winter's law which is invalid.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Winter%27s_law

It is not a quantity that counts, but the quality and Occam's razor.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor


Not all IE sound laws have equal acceptance in academia. Also not all of them are connected with each other. They are not all to be treated similarly.

Are you claiming that 'the Anatolian IE languages' existed before the CWC language?

The branch leading to them probably diverged before the CWC language yes.

Do you know on what grounds the existence of the so-called Hittite "coefficients sonantiques", which are now the so-called laryngeals was proved?

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


The laryngeal theory was proposed already before the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and confirmed with their decipherment, it is one of the most widely accepted IE phonological theories.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) Even if the word kurgan is ultimately of IE origin (which is yet to be demonstrated) (...)

I have already demonstrated this etymology on June 1st, 2021 at 5:29 AM, see:

‘By the way, I do not know why the second part of my comment on the etymology of the word kurgan can not be published here for the third time. Maybe the Blogger is allergic to something I have included in it. ;-) 'I published it at my blog, so if everyone can read it, even in two languages…’

I referred to it in my question you did not answer, see:

‘1.
Could you try to undermine my etymologies for the words KaG/HaN / KaGaN+eK and Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, etc. and give some of yours?’

Since you did not answer this question, I mean that you can not undermine any of my etymologies, including the etymology for the word Go'Ra / Go'R+Ka > Ko'R+G/HaN.

(…) the g > k transformation should have happened in Turkic. So the word kurgan should have been formed in Turkic regardless of its ultimate origins, then was loaned to Old East Slavic and from East Slavic spread to other European languages. (…)

G>K transformation, or rather the distortion, could have happened at any time on the way from CWC to Altai or later, for example, when the Turkish tribes finally got there.

The fact is that the Proto-Turks / Slab Grave People were not the first to build kurgans, but only borrowed the tradition of building them from earlier IE Altai cultures.

Logically, Proto-Turks / Slab Grave People in the same way borrowed the original meaning of the word Go'Ra / Go'R+Ka / hill, and then distorted both its original meaning and pronunciation > Ko'R+G/HaN.

In none of the Slavic dialects, the word Ko'R+G/HaN means ‘refuge, fortress, rampart, major shrine, fence, protection, to protect, to defend, to erect (a building), to establish’, etc.

The Slavic meaning is one and the same as the original meaning GRo'B / tumulus in the shape of Go'Ra / Go'R+Ka / hill.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) The CWC language is ancestral to both Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian and probably to some other IE branches too. Fatyanovo is just the eastern wing of CWC (they are contemporary if you do not know), probably spoke an eastern dialect of the CWC language and ultimately led to Indo-Iranian.(…)

Exactly! The territories of CWC Z283 and Z93 and the Slavic languages overlap from the Elbe through the Carpathians, Pripyat to Fatianovo. :-)

The CWC language was the basis for further transformations, which eventually, as a result of distortions of the original CWC language, led to the emergence of secondarily devoiced / distorted Indo-Iranian languages, perhaps already in Abrashevo, Balanovo or Sintashta, and maybe only in Andronovo.

I repeat:

PIE > CWC > Fatianovo > Abrashevo > Balanovo > Sintashta > Andronovo > Indo-Iranians

Logically, what is IE in Indo-Iranian MUST come from the CWC, that is, be directly Slavic.


By the way, deriving the meaning of the name Altai from the Indo-Iranian languages does not make any sense, see:

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%D8%B2%D8%B1#Persian

From Middle Persian *zarr (“gold”), from Parthian *zarn (“gold”), the inherited form would start with a D, as is seen in Old Persian (d-r-n-y). Probably ultimately from a derivative of Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“yellow; gleam; to shine”). Indo-Iranian cognates include Northern Kurdish zêrr, and Sanskrit हिरण्य (hiraṇya). Other cognates include Old Church Slavonic злато (zlato), Latvian zelts, and English gold and yellow.

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A3%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%AF#Sanskrit

From Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰr̥Hanyam (“gold”), from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰl̥h₃-en-yo-m, from *ǵʰelh₃- (“yellow, golden”). Cognate with Avestan (zarańiia, “gold”), Old Persian (d-r-n-y /daraniya/, “gold”), Russian жёлтый (žóltyj, “yellow”), English gold and yellow. Also related to हरि (hári).

https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%BF#Sanskrit

From Proto-Indo-Aryan *źʰárHiṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰárHiš, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“to shine”). Cognate with Avestan (zairi), Persian زر‎ (zar, “gold”).

(…) And more importantly, no Balto-Slavic language is attested east of the Urals before the Russian expansion to east of the Urals beginning from the late 16th century. (…)

Well, so what? Does this mean that the IE Indo-Iranian language of the Aryans was somewhow atested or fell from space in Arkaim? It did not arise from the distortion of the original language of CWC Z283 and Z93, and earlier PIE, see e.g. e/o>a, etc.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) Not all IE sound laws have equal acceptance in academia. Also not all of them are connected with each other. They are not all to be treated similarly. (…)

Really?! Well, what is that supposed to prove? Since 'Not all IE sound laws have equal acceptance in academia', why did you refer to it?

I understand that you are in a severe shock after discovering that Altai has IE or more specifically Slavic etymology which the Turkish and other etymologists could not somehow discover for ages, but try to be factual, okay?

‘Are you claiming that 'the Anatolian IE languages' existed before the CWC language?’
(…) The branch leading to them probably diverged before the CWC language yes. (…)


It might as well not be that way, and you are again just speculating, and probably will not be able to prove it, am I wrong?

(…) The laryngeal theory was proposed already before the decipherment of the Anatolian IE languages and confirmed with their decipherment, it is one of the most widely accepted IE phonological theories. (…)

Nice, but I did not ask who, whom or what, accepting or not. My question you did not answer was:

2a.
‘Do you know on what grounds the existence of the so-called Hittite "coefficients sonantiques", which are now the so-called laryngeals was proved?’

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

Emendation to June 8, 2021 at 4:08 PM

Well, so what? Does this mean that the IE Indo-Iranian language of the Aryans was somewhow atested or fell from space in Arkaim? No! It did arise from the distortion of the original language of CWC Z283 and Z93, and earlier PIE, see e.g. e/o>a, etc.

I am sorry for the mistake.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

‘I do not contradict myself. I already stated that Proto-IE reconstructions are mostly less precise and secure than Proto-Turkic reconstructions, but that by no means translates to "Proto-IE reconstructions are imprecise and insecure."’

Somehow I missed the above.

Of course, of course, you do not contradict myself, Proto-IE reconstructions are precise and secure, I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right. ;-)

If so, then you can easily challenge my etymologies for the words Vo + MiT / Wy + MioT. Will you finally do it?

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

Will not reply to any more of your comments. Not interested in your pseudoscientific claims and Turboslavism. Have no time to waste.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

In the beginning, I have to correct myself, see:

‘Of course, of course, you do not contradict yourself, Proto-IE reconstructions are precise and secure, I am 100% wrong and you are 100% right. ;-)’

‘Will not reply to any more of your comments. Not interested in your pseudoscientific claims and Turboslavism. Have no time to waste.’

In those sentences above, did you use reonstructed Proto-Turkish grammar or mayby someone just ‘hacked your account’?

Since June 3rd, 2021 at 1:53 PM, the logical consistency of your comments has just been deteriorating. Judging by the 'quality' of your answers, it is more than obvious that the simple logic of my evidence just overwhelmed you.

On the other hand, I never thought you could last this long. I thought you would run away on the occasion of proving IE etymology of the word Altay.

The fact that you will not be able to challenge my etymologies for the words Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, etc. was logically obvious.

It is not strange, since your 'knowledge' is based on logically biased outdated XIX century Prussian humbug and linguists like Hüseyin Yıldız, who does not know IE etymology for the word (Z)Altay / Z"o'Ly. I am sorry you are in cognitive shock. It was not my goal.


Anyway I thank you very much for everything you wrote. However, in the future, you could try to use subjects at the beginning of each sentence according to the SVO rule and stop writing junk English.

If you have not noticed it yet, English is IE language and its logic should not be crippled by some Turkic sentence-building rules. More broadly, the same is true of logic as such.

However, especially I thank you very much for your last comment. You summarized in it not only the 'knowledge' you have and how you can defend it, but your whole self.

As it can be seen above, not only children start calling names when they have no arguments. I am not going to lie down and equal with your level.

Instead, I wholeheartedly wish you to broaden your horizons and get rid of those unscientific anti-Slavic biases and complexes. Pull your socks higher because I believe you can do much better. :-)


Best regards
SKRiBHa

Onur Dincer said...

@SKRiBHa

I would not reply to you, but you made so blatantly wrong claims in your last comment that I could not resist writing a short reply. I will ignore what you wrote on etymology, which repeats the same biased and flawed arguments, and your very subjective remarks about me and will just focus on some of your new arguments:

Anyway I thank you very much for everything you wrote. However, in the future, you could try to use subjects at the beginning of each sentence according to the SVO rule and stop writing junk English.

If you have not noticed it yet, English is IE language and its logic should not be crippled by some Turkic sentence-building rules. More broadly, the same is true of logic as such.


Most languages, including most IE languages (including your own Polish), are null-subject and thus permit subject dropping, that has nothing specifically to do with Turkic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null-subject_language

Moreover, English allows subject dropping too in certain contexts and the sentences in my previous comment were good examples to that, anyone who labels them as junk English either does not know English enough or is deliberately distorting the facts. I invite every native English speaker here to check all my comments on this thread for grammatical errors and report them here.

On the other hand, I never thought you could last this long. I thought you would run away on the occasion of proving IE etymology of the word Altay.

I decided not to reply to you as soon as I noticed your Turboslavism. If I did it late it is because I was slow to notice that.

Instead, I wholeheartedly wish you to broaden your horizons and get rid of those unscientific anti-Slavic biases and complexes. Pull your socks higher because I believe you can do much better. :-)

The only bias I have is anti-idiocy bias. I just cannot stand idiocy. If that is a flaw, I admit to be flawed.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

I would not reply to you, but you made so blatantly wrong claims in your last comment that I could not resist writing a short reply. I will ignore what you wrote on etymology, which repeats the same biased and flawed arguments, (…)

Blablabla… The truth is that you have no arguments and you are not able to undermine what I proved and stated. It is a pity you have nothing left to write but lies. I expected something more from you.

From now on, I am going to ignore your rudeness, obvious ignorance and prejudice,.. so logically this exchange of our views comes to its end. :-(

(…) Most languages, including most IE languages (including your own Polish), are null-subject and thus permit subject dropping, that has nothing specifically to do with Turkic.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Null-subject_language

(…)

If you have not already noticed, English is not one of the languages where subject skipping is officially permitted (see above).

‘Not interested in your pseudoscientific claims and Turboslavism.’

In the ‘sentence’ above, there is neither a subject nor a verb, i.e. this ‘sentence’ is as ‘true’ as the statements contained therein. You should be embarrassed with this! Who do you want to lecture?

(…) Moreover, English allows subject dropping too in certain contexts and the sentences in my previous comment were good examples to that, anyone who labels them as junk English either does not know English enough or is deliberately distorting the facts. I invite every native English speaker here to check all my comments on this thread for grammatical errors and report them here. (…)

I have not used any informal language, slang or slurs towards you or anybody. I have always written to you or anybody respectfully and in plain English.

(…) The only bias I have is anti-idiocy bias. I just cannot stand idiocy. If that is a flaw, I admit to be flawed. (…)

You have the right to your ‘anti-idiocy biased’ opinion, but it does not mean that you have presented any evidence to prove it. You have no arguments, so you try to use insults to cover up your mental defeat. I would be ashamed to act like that. Manners and logic are important, but I understand that you have got problems with both.

I hope that from now on, you will remember forever that the word Altay has an IE / slavic etymology (Z)Altay / Z"o'LTy.

It has nothing to do with the Iranian languages, see L>R, Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰr̥Hanyam (“gold”), Proto-Indo-Aryan *źʰárHiṣ, from Proto-Indo-Iranian *ȷ́ʰárHiš, from Proto-Indo-European *ǵʰelh₃- (“to shine”), cognate with Avestan (zairi) Sanskrit हिरण्य (hiraṇya), Avestan (zarańiia, “gold”), etc., much less with the Proto-Turkic languages, as you said.


Sorry to accidentally ruin your Altay and other Turboturkic fantasies. I suggest, next time you try harder, educate yourself, be open and humble to others as well as to the generally available data and you (possibly) will not be intellectually exposed so easily. :-)

I understand that Vo+MiT / Wy+MioT, Go'Ra / Go'R+Ka > Ko'R+G/HaN, KaG/HaN / KaGaN+eK, etc. is already too much for you to swallow and digest. (Next time maybe? If it helps you, I would like to reassure you that you are not alone).

That would be all about your credibility. That is all I would like to tell you.

…..

I will write a summary of this thread.

Onur Dincer said...

Wow, I am accused of being anti-Turkic (see Hannibal's replies to me) and being Turboturkicist on the same blog thread, what a world! :)

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) Wow, I am accused of being anti-Turkic (see Hannibal's replies to me) and being Turboturkicist on the same blog thread, what a world! :) (…)

WoW / L”oL”! :-) As I can see, you have finally learned how to use the subject and the verb in English sentences! Good. It is nice that you swallowed what I had written above and you are digesting it in silence.

I remind you that this thread concerns the topic of the Scythians and Sarmatians and what is related to them.

If I were you, I would be focusing on this and on the substantive defense of what you wrote, rather than trying to make a victim of yourself and make me laugh. This is pathetic.

Be finally serious and professional. What you have been doing only keeps sinking into yourself. I do not care about your emotional problems and relationships with other commentators. Take care of them on your own. I can not help you in this matter.

By the way, I have not wanted to comment on that earlier, but I have changed my mind because it fits here:

(…) I decided not to reply to you as soon as I noticed your Turboslavism. (…)

Be finally honest. Admit that you have no idea what the term you used above is and does mean. You repeat it mindlessly like a parrot after other mindless like you anti-Slavs.

You stopped writing back because you finally somehow realised that you had been in a trap that you had set for yourself with your Turboturkic / Turboturian haughtiness and ignorance. You needed an excuse to get away from my few simple arguments that logically trampled you and what you supposedly knew deeply on the Mongolian steppe.

You have twisted and slipped as best as you could, but still unconsciously admitted your ignorance and anti-Slavic prejudices. You made fun of yourself and now you are just plain stupid. You are a very easy and predictable opponent and the quality of your evidence is as seen above. TBC.

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

(…) If I did it late it is because I was slow to notice that. (...)

If I were you, I would never publicly admit that you associate so ‘wisely’ and ‘quickly’. You know, others can easily use it against you in the future. :-)

Your Turboturkic bias pours out of you everywhere and is clearly visible. It is worth as much as your fake Turboturkic etymology for word Altay, etc. :-)

It is obvious that you are anti-Slavic biased and as it can be observed, you know little of both genetics, logic, linguistics, etc. Your illogical arguments about the alleged creation of the Slavs and Slavic languages, prove it, see:

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html

Onur Dincer said…
@ambron
The Slavic homeland is only an ethnolinguistic concept. It is a geographic area where Slavic linguistic innovations were born. And it is not the area of Polesia, as some archaeologists try to prove, and which linguists definitely deny (the Baltic toponymy of Polesia). It has long been denied by genetics (the Baltic genetic substrate of Polesia), and today denies it archeogenomics - the vast majority of early Slavic genomes are most similar to contemporary Poles and Western Slavs, the vast majority of Poles and Western Slavs cannot be a mixture of genetic Belarusians and Restgermans (Kowalewko males).

Cannot Proto-Slavs themselves be a mixture of a Baltic-like population and early Germanics?
May 13, 2021 at 1:41 PM

@EastPole
Your graph is little different from Turbo-Slav shits. Proto-Germans obviously existed before Proto-Slavs.

@ambron
My question was more about possibility than probability, thanks for your answer. I do not know modern Kashubian genetics BTW, what can you tell me about it?
May 14, 2021 at 3:21 AM

@ambron
And the Slavic dialects are of course much more archaic than the Germanic dialects.

Slavic itself might be more archaic than Germanic, but that does not mean Proto-Slavic was spoken earlier than Proto-Germanic, just means that pre-Germanic diverged from Proto-IE more than pre-Slavic.

@Arza
The consensus is that the proto-languages in the absence of written records cannot be reliably dated.

All the IE trees I have seen so far that show the times of branchings converge all the Germanic branches at an older time than all the Slavic branches. But this can be inferred even from the levels of intelligibility among the modern Germanic languages and among the modern Slavic languages.
May 15, 2021 at 12:50 AM

Have I said anywhere that Proto-Slavs can or cannot be a mixture of a Baltic-like pop and early Germanics? Have I criticized anyone for making either of those statements? I have only asked a simple question: "can Proto-Slavs be a mixture of early Germanics and and a Baltic-like pop?" and have not given an answer myself. My criticism to the graph EastPole posted was because it did not make any sense to me linguistically, not because it was used to prove that Proto-Slavs cannot be a mixture of a Baltic-like pop and early Germanics. Additionally, my statement that Proto-Germans predate Proto-Slavs is the consensus view. Finally, no sane person here would talk positively about Turbo-Slav crackpots, I could not care less if my negative remarks about them would offend someone. In no way these show that I am biased against Slavs, I am only biased against stupidity. FYI, I am someone who is much more descended from Slavs than Germanics (it is even disputed if I have any Germanic ancestry at all). It is your touchy reaction to me that gives the feel of bias. Real men do not act like that.
May 14, 2021 at 11:37 PM

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

You made a pair with Turbogerman Małgorzata, see:
May 14, 2021 at 10:27 AM.

You complement each other perfectly in your rudeness and ignorance.

With such ‘manners’, ‘knowledge’ and ‘logic’, I would be afraid to speak in public, because someone could easily make a shashlik out of me, just like me and others have made it from you above. Sorry, not a shashlik, but a digested donner kupap.

I will not kick you because you are both already lying face down in the ground. Besides, they have already answered you there:

EastPole
@ Onur Dincer
Cannot Proto-Slavs themselves be a mixture of a Baltic-like population and early Germanics?

This is impossible:

https://i.postimg.cc/bYxfWzPZ/screenshot-81.png

May 13, 2021 at 2:34 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1620941698239#c3164046320145786502

ambron
Onur, I understand you're asking in a genetic context... Theoretically, it would be possible, but then the pre-Slavs would look genetically like today's Kashubians. Some of the pre-Slavs could actually look like Kashubians, because that was the genetic makeup of the Legedzine population, which came to Ukraine originally from northern Poland.
May 14, 2021 at 12:24 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1620977051653#c1683816449206893762

Arza said...
@ Onur Dincer
Cannot Proto-Slavs themselves be a mixture of a Baltic-like population and early Germanics?

They can't. Basic PCA-reading skills are enough to know why.

Your graph is little different from Turbo-Slav shits. Proto-Germans obviously existed before Proto-Slavs.

You have absolutely no idea what you've commented on. You just made a complete fool of yourself and proved how biased you are. You don't even know which theory this diagram illustrates, whose theory it is, why it looks like that, in whose book it was published, and why it's a proof that Slavs are not half-Balts, half-Germanics. But you saw a giant circle with "Slavic" written in the middle and it immediately triggered you, because if it's "Slavic" then it should be a tiny, unimportant circle somewhere in the corner.
May 14, 2021 at 9:13 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621052002850#c4556559659270220812

ambron
Onur, Kashubians are those Slavs who are at the top of the Polish cluster at the NE PCA. Of all Western Slavs, only they can be a mixture of Balts and early Germans, because they lie on the PCA between Lithuanians and the males of Kowalewko. But their genetics have nothing to do with the Middle Ages Slavic migration; it was already like that in the Iron Age, according to a study by Margaryan.
May 14, 2021 at 11:46 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621061203129#c5055477484255247722

ambron
The graphic presents the Schmidt / Lehmann wave theory, which - unlike the language tree - adequately reflects the process of Indo-European linguistic differentiation. (Schmidt is a German linguist, Slavist). And the Slavic dialects are of course much more archaic than the Germanic dialects.
May 15, 2021 at 12:08 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621062534371#c5656416586447444025

Arza
@ Onur Dincer
The consensus is that the proto-languages in the absence of written records cannot be reliably dated.

For no reason you've called the work of two Indo-Europeanists (Lehmann & Schmidt) and Colin Renfrew "little different from Turbo-Slav shits".

And now you continue the trolling with "Real men do not act like that."


EOT
May 15, 2021 at 12:13 AM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621062794566#c800761123071903307

SKRiBHa said...

@Onur Dincer

And here's the answer regarding those Anatolian presumptions of yours from which you quickly run away:

Arza said...
@ Rob
There is no proof that Anatolian spit earlier, because reconstructions are not data.

prof. Gąsiorowski:
Thus, protolanguage reconstructions are not “data”. They are forever provisional and hypothetical. Using them as data is a category error.

It's reconstructed as such, but reconstructions can differ. And they can change dramatically.

My prediction about the Anatolians was always that they were barely IE from a POV of genetics. That they were just locals from Anatolia or the Balkans, and that one day they'll be used to undermine the steppe theory, because "everyone knows" that they are nearly synonymous with Proto-Indo-Europeans.

Archi's prediction, if I understand correctly, is that they were Pre-Greeks. So if Archi is right, they should be quite local (as I predicted), but similar to non-IE layer (Minoan, Cycladic, whatever) in early Greeks (hence their linguistic divergence, similar case as with the divergence of Tocharian due to the contacts with Uralics, as per the newest research on this topic), and not to the pre-IE inhabitants of Anatolia.

Do you agree?

And what's your prediction when it comes to their autosomal composition? Because Y-DNA, especially the one present also in non-IE contexts, is not everything. Yamnaya? Neolithics from Bulgaria? Can you mark a spot on the West Eurasian PCA and post it?

Re: Slavic homeland
I told you everything ~4 years ago. Balto-Slavic not-a-cline. It's still there and it won't go anywhere. Just check what's on the other side, and you'll know how far south you need to go. Helves on AG just passed this IQ test.

The only thing that changed, is that back then I thought that Baltic_BA originated in the north-east and moved into inner Carpathians in the Bronze Age. Now I know that it was the opposite. Volosovo is nearly identical to LVA_MN, so no surprises in the area between them are to be expected. Pre-Fatyanovo rolled over the supposed Slavic homeland. And what? Nothing. New samples from the Balkans/Carpathians on the other hand are packed with the "Balto-Slavic drift"...
May 14, 2021 at 8:38 PM
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/04/uralians-of-sargat-horizon.html?showComment=1621049932749#c7367664447014159951

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 202   Newer› Newest»