search this blog

Tuesday, July 20, 2021

On the origin of the Corded Ware people


There's been a lot of talk lately about the finding that the peoples associated with the Corded Ware and Yamnaya archeological cultures were close cousins (for instance, see here). As I've already pointed out, this is an interesting discovery, but, at this stage, it's difficult to know what it means exactly.

It might mean that the Yamnayans were the direct predecessors of the Corded Ware people. Or it might just mean that, at some point, the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations swapped women regularly (that is, they practiced female exogamy with each other).

In any case, I feel that several important facts aren't being taken into account by most of the interested parties. These facts include, in no particular order:

- despite being closely related, the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were highly adapted to very different ecological zones - temperate forests and arid steppes, respectively - and this is surely not something that happened within a few years and probably not even within a couple of generations

- both the Corded Ware and Yamnaya populations expanded widely and rapidly at around the same time, but never got in each others way, probably because they occupied very different ecological niches

- despite sharing the R1b Y-chromosome haplogroup, their paternal origins were quite different, with Corded Ware males rich in R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 and Yamnaya males rich in R1b-Z2103 and I2a-L699

I suppose it's possible that the Corded Ware people were overwhelmingly and directly derived from the Yamnaya population. But right now my view is that, even if they were, then the Yamnaya population that they came from was quite different from the classic, R1b-Z2103-rich Yamnaya that spread rapidly across the steppes.

Indeed, perhaps what we're dealing with here is a very early (proto?) Yamnaya gene pool located somewhere in the border zone between the forests and the steppes, that then split into two main sub-populations, with one of these groups heading north and the other south?

I do wonder what David Anthony would say if he was made aware of the above mentioned facts? Then again, perhaps he's already aware of them, and simply chose to ignore them when formulating his latest theory about the origin of the Corded Ware people?

See also...


748 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 748   Newer›   Newest»
Copper Axe said...

"I honestly don't know what the hell Anthony was thinking when he came up with his Iran theory. It seems to me that he wasn't thinking at all."

Guiding whispers in his ears I'm guessing. Hunter-fishers out of the Caucasus travelling along the water bodies which lead you deeper into Europe seems the most sensible take you can have with the currently available data and I doubt this simple scenario hasn't run through his mind, eo I'm guessing he haa been shown "convincing" "evidence" that this route isn't possible or something.

Vladimir said...

@Davidski

If they got to the Volga, it means that they came from the eastern Caucasus, from the coast of the Caspian Sea, and not from the Satsurblia region. It turns out that the first mixing was with this as yet unknown CHG, and the second mixing of Yamnaya proper was already with the second CHG, which is from Satsurblia?

Davidski said...

No, the CHG-like ancestry on the steppe is basically from one source, and it's most similar to Kotias.

It is possible that the Eneolithic samples from Progress and Vonyuchka have some minor Caucasus Eneolithic ancestry, but this doesn't really change anything.

I'm not seeing any evidence for the scenario that Anthony proposes. It looks like a total fail IMHO.

zardos said...

@Rob: The ultimate origin(s) of the CHG-like component is a seperate issue and so far unresolved, even though I still propose the Lower Don Culture.
But the origin of both Corded Ware and Yamnaya from Sredny Stog is yet another question. And it becomes absurd if we have every aspect of the Corded Ware package in the West, yet the theory needs replacement by Yamnaya which adds nothing to the equation but only produces a worse fit.
Its possible Yamnaya came in an adopted everything from the locals in this single case, but obviously thats not the most likely explanation.
Budjak is a complicated construct, right in the midst of the other Western, Corded Ware related steppe groups. Or do you seriously propose a direct descendency of Corded Ware from Budjak and call the latter Yamnaya proper?
Also no smallish end-post-Yamnaya group somewhere in the Balkans disproves my argument that no Real Yamnaya people being shown to have legt pastoralism behind and successfully transitioning to agro-pastoralism like CWC and BBC.
Even less which such a total shift like it would be needed for changing from Yamnaya to CW. Not even remotely clone.

zardos said...

Khvalynsk was an early, separate branch, which got admixed over time while moving up the rivers. The admixture from these locals doesn't appear in any significant numbers in any later steppe group of importance for Europe.
Its without any relevance for the later developments. The ultimate centre for the steppe groups was for most of the time the lower and middle Don.

zardos said...

@Rob: Chronology and geography?
There were various Western steppe groups with many elements of Corded Ware.
The question is rather how you connect those (like Cotofeni) with Yamnaya proper. Budjak is not Yamnaya proper in the narrower sense and shows many deviations, for example in the burial rite, obviously.
Without having them tested, you don’t even know for sure which patrilineages were dominant. Probably not those of the incoming Yamnaya (proper).

zardos said...

Or put it differently, which important element of Corded Ware needs to be derived from Yamnaya at all?
But there is a lot which needs to be derived from Western steppe groups out of the Yamnaya horizon (in the narrower sense).

MH_82 said...

@ Zardos

''Or put it differently, which important element of Corded Ware needs to be derived from Yamnaya at all?
But there is a lot which needs to be derived from Western steppe groups out of the Yamnaya horizon (in the narrower sense).''


Early CWC & Yamnaya burials are exactly the same. These include
1. Posture: Supine flexed inhumation or side-crouched
2. the corded ware pottery
3. Battle Axes

But these features specifically are found in the Budzhak & related groups of Yamnaya in the Pontic zone.
This is actually fairly simple and might not sound so absurd to you if you familiarized yourself some facts

As for the rest of your claims about the Don, I dont see a need to substitute one simplistic Volga-centric theory for a 2.0 version, merely shifted to the Don.


zardos said...

Khvalynsk is a completely dead end. It was only favoured because people wanted to shift the PIE East and were in denial of the Western Neolithic cultures crucial influence.
As if Yamnaya style pastoralism needs to have an origin the furthest away from European Neolithics, when the exact opposite is much closer to the truth.
Khvalynsk was culturally backward when being literally crushed by Yamnaya, which brought fresh impulses from the centre.
Up the Volga is primarily a pathway for expanding groups to the West and a sink, rather than a source.
TCC and Maykop were crucial influences, not the forager and Neolithic groups in the North which Khvalynsk did assimilate.
If they would have been important, that admixture and their patrilineages would have spread, but they largely died out instead.
Just forget about Khvalynsk completely.

zardos said...

Corded Ware decorated pottery from steppe related groups is older and has its origins in the West, not the Yamnaya heartlands.

Do you want to derive Cernavoda. Usatovo and Cotofeni from Budjak too? That would make the Budjak group the oldest and original Yamnaya, which they obviously weren't...

You are right, I don’t know a lot about Budjak though, any suggestions for a good read? I just skipped it because it seems too late to me in the described context.

Genos Historia said...

@Vladimir,

Thanks for sharing those PCA Pics. Can you share the video you found them in? I lost track of that video.

Vladimir said...

@ Genos Historia
This video was removed from Youtube on the complaint of some institute from Copenhagen

Davidski said...

My PCA are better...

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

vAsiSTha said...

@davidski

"No, the CHG-like ancestry on the steppe is basically from one source, and it's most similar to Kotias."

Incorrect, it could be multiple sources and the component looks intermediate between Kotias and an IranFarmer + minor WSHG source.

Matt said...

@Davidski, cheers, I'll have a go if I can. Anyone got any info on how to convert from Geno 2.0 to plink? I can't find much on it.

MH_82 said...

@ Slumberry

“ I could be wrong, but I do not think that is the point Rob tried to make either. 60 000 burials in 7 generation can be still a low population density in the absolute sense, depending on how high the preservation ratio we assume. “

The CB was quite densely settled by 700 CE.
It was probably a Demographic hub in Central Europe

Arza said...

@ Matt

I'll take care of it over the weekend.

_____________________

Isotopes.

Human mobility in a Bronze Age Vatya ‘urnfield’ and the life history of a high-status woman
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0254360

MH_82 said...

@ Zardos

“ Corded Ware decorated pottery from steppe related groups is older and has its origins in the West, not the Yamnaya heartlands”

The specific type of corded ware & the combination with which appears is shared between CWC & western Yamnaya (Budzhak) groups
This must mean something


''Do you want to derive Cernavoda. Usatovo and Cotofeni from Budjak too?''

Of course not . Cernavoda & Usatavo predate Yamnaya ; whilst Cotofeni is completely different, Baden related group

zardos said...

Yes, it has to mean something, but for sure more than just a development from Yamnaya proper.
The relationship to the other Corded decorated groups is clear, they are not independent from each other.
And Cotofeni too is within that context, a bothers group of Corded Ware with regional Carparthian basin influences.
They will be strongly steppe influenced genetically also.

The whole Western sphere forms its own older tradition. How the cultural influences from the Neolithic groups on the one and Yamnaya on the other Pan out genetically has to be seen case by case.
Still no Cernavoda in the pipeline I guess?

Davidski said...

@Genos

Did you end up doing that video about the CHG ancestry on the steppe?

Also, I think you should do a video about the origins of Corded Ware, with the info from this post and comment thread.

This thread is getting a lot of clicks.

zardos said...

I think this article is at least food for thought in the context of this debate:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287556906_Corded_ware_in_the_Central_and_Southern_Balkans_A_consequence_of_cultural_interaction_or_an_indication_of_ethnic_change

I think its completely wrong to deny a close relationship of the different Corded decorated cultures.
The Corded Ware nucleus for the forest steppe is closely related to the groups mentioned, much closer than to Yamnaya.
If some of the Balkan and Carparthian groups turn out to be more Neolithic shifted, that just confirms the expectations created by the archaeological evidence.
But they all will show steppe ancestry and most likely patrilineages closer to Western Sredny Stog and ultimately Corded Ware culture too.

Davidski said...

It's looking more and more likely that both Corded Ware and Yamnaya came from the western end of the steppe, and if that's true, then there aren't any dilemmas if Corded Ware is also closely related to these Eneolithic forest steppe cultures.

Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

The CHG video will be finished this weekend. I have already planned doing a Corded Ware video next on exactly what we are all talking about here. Yeah these topics get lots of views so I'm trying to get the videos finished.

The topic of my series of videos will literally be what the Eurogenes blog has figured out which the Harvard lab has not figured out yet. It will be fun to se the record straight.

Andrzejewski said...

What are the odds that Sredny Stog was ancestral to both Yamnaya and Corded Ware, and that Dnieper Donets was the progenitor to Sredny Stog, with a considerable EEF/WHG admixture?

What language family do we surmise PIE grew out of?

Romulus said...

Interesting thing about Anthony's PCA that Vladimir posted; there are 3 Yamnaya Hungary samples without Steppe admix? Will be less interesting if they're female.

MH_82 said...

I remain agnostic about the details of CHG; but whatever the case, it’s not a game shifter

Slumbery said...

One reason why I think that the proto-Yamnaya population had diversified from the proto-CWC population a while before Yamnaya proper started up, is because the EEF ancestry of Yamanya is low after all (not more than 10% maybe) and the existence of such population in the western edge of the Steppe is unlikely this late. Even Dereivka had much more EEF ancestry than Yamnaya and it is pretty far from the western edge. It is difficult to picture a population that low in EEF in the general region of Usatovo around 3400 BCE, unless they arrived from east. So it is a good fit for the proto-CWC population, but not for the proto-Yamanya.

And my guess is Repin because it goes well with the estimated TMRCA of the Yamnaya R1b, eastern enough for the less EEF and still western enough to remain connected to proto-CWC. Much of that ~10% EEF was possibly coming from intermarriages with proto-CWC women if there are IBD sharing Yamanya vs. CWC.

Davidski said...

There are new Sredny Stog samples from Ukraine that cluster with Yamnaya.

And there's an Usatovo sample from Moldova that is way more eastern than Yamnaya.

So Yamnaya can be from the western end of the steppe.

Matt said...

@arza thanks man.

...

I think the Sredny-Stog on the PCA previewed by Anthony ( https://m.imgur.com/a/MWX38hE) certainly do not seem to be the mix of Dnieper-Donets foragers with EEF and WHG (which would produce a mix rather more like Blatterhohle with an EHG shift). But I think its very hard to know what happened from the PCA we see, which are without any dates or context. We've got people in this thread talking about the Khvalynsk in ways that sort of seem to presume that the Khvalynsk samples are contemporaneous or later than the Sredny-Stog samples and constitute an outbranch that does not contribute to later cultures for that reason, but we don't know how much that presumption about the sample dates is even true etc. Like we mention one Usatovo sample is east of Yamnaya, but maybe that's the person who shares some recent ancestry with Steppe_Maykop and they're possibly not so representative of their population. There's one early Sredni-Stog sample that's directly north shifted from Sredni-Stog, but do we know if it's representative or not? Too many unknowns about new samples as we only have a picture.

Davidski said...

The Khvalynsk samples form a very long cline east of Yamnaya, with an average that has much more EHG than Yamnaya.

So if Yamnaya is actually derived from Khvalynsk, then it's a different Khvalynsk population than those that have been sampled.

And there are other issues that will become apparent when these new samples become available, like the somewhat different hunter-gatherer ancestry in Yamnaya and Khvalynsk.

So my bet is that both Yamnaya and Corded Ware are from a population somewhere near the western end of the steppe, which is archeologically part of Sredny Stog or something closely related.

Yamnaya was probably the result of the same process as Usatovo, except without the obvious Maykop influence.

MH_82 said...

We need to account for the shift which occurs in the western/Dnieper steppe after DDII phase, from a west-shifted Ukr-HG to something like Yamnaya. This is a profound shift genomically, and at a uniparental dimension, R1b-V88 disappears, although I2a2 remains.
We need samples between 5000 & 3000 to understand this process, a mixture of local shifts/collapses, changing mating networks, environmental change, and economic change could all be pertinent. It could even be due to the expansion of Tripolje eastward across the forest-steppe. Thus, the remaining groups (now exclusively I2a2) sought alliances with groups on the Don.
Although present as early as 4500 bce, the new eastern component was probably established by ~ 4000 bce in the western steppe. Then from here, it began to expand further, including to the east in the form of the Volga-Ural variant of Yamnay + Afansievo

Davidski said...

Well, I don't really know what happened yet, but I think ultimately it was the Yamnaya expansion that erased all of those forager communities.

Looking at Don Yamnaya (which has more forager ancestry), it's also possible that some forager enclaves were absorbed by Yamnaya.

My hunch is that there was a migration corridor along the northern coast of the Black Sea that made it possible for groups from the Volga steppe to move west, establish themselves there, and form Sredny Stog, Usatovo, Yamnaya and Corded Ware.

MH_82 said...

The DDII was mostly in the forest-steppe zone, so I would still link a role for Tripolje expansion.
In fact, given that DDII ends ~ 4700 bce, Khvalynsk hadn't even formed by then. The 'migration corridor' then formed in responce to Varna networks. The main drivers seem to have been Skelja groups (which is what people mean when they loosely use the term 'Sredni Stog'); but yes it stretched all the way to the Volga. For some reason, the most copper hoarded was in Khvalynsk II.
In addition to that, there is a whole raft of intra-MNF shifts falling within the 'late Tripolje' rubric which I suspect most geneticists and indoeuropeanists might not be aware of.



a said...

Rob said...
" R1b-V88 disappears, although I2a2 remains,"

With the help of IBD segments, we might be able to narrow down areas/regions of interest-potentially connected clans/families.
uncle h₂éwh₂os / áwontlos / p∂trujós
aunt ámetā / mātérterā
cousin jentēr
nephew (h₂)népōts (possibly)
niece néptih₂
grandfather h₂éwh₂os / awos / dhēdhjos
grandmother anus / áwijā
grandson (h₂)népōts
granddaughter néptih₂
father-in-law swéḱuros
mother-in-law sweḱrúh₂

Copper Axe said...

I wonder how much of a clinal situation there was going on around 5000 bc in regards to steppe (lets just say ehg+chg+whg) ancestry, so prior to the big changes.

Is steppe_emba just a point on a rough cline from populations resembling DDII to populations resembling Steppe_en, which then supposedly was around the Don from which they had their expansive moments during the eneolithic. Or was it the result of various groups mixing with significant differences in rehards to "ehg/chg" which then sort of morphed into an average we see will see with the Sredny Stog samples?

zardos said...

The chronology is quite clear:
From the Lower Don culture in which EHG foragers mixed with CHG fishers-foragers and part-Neolithicised is most likely the ultimate source of the typical "steppe ancestry" and therefore PPIE.
But even if not, and I see no better alternative, its fixed with Sredny Stog, from which, very early, during its formative phase, Khvalynsk branched off. The closer to the Lower Don centre and the earlier, the more typical steppe-like Khvalynsk is, the further away and the younger, the more mixed they become with upper Volga foragers and Neolithic groups, which reuslts in a backflow and making Khvalynsk different as whole most likely.
At the same time, down at the Don, Sredny Stog evolves on and begins to diversity, while keeping the original steppe ancestry profile with only little additional, primarily Western Neolithic admixture. And its at that point that the Western groups branch off from Yamnaya proper, which quickly rushes over Khvalynsk and swallows or better destroys it.
At the same time Corded Ware decorated and other Western steppe branches, to which groups like Cernavoda, Usatovo and Cotofeni belong, among others, evolve on. Now the question is whether Corded Ware culture as a group got influenced by Yamnaya too, in a significant way, but if so, primarily via a female contribution I guess. Paternally, Yamnaya is a quite limited branching event with a clear profile, culturally as well. So really distinct.

Davidski said...

Based on the incomplete picture that I've seen from published and unpublished data, the Pontic-Caspian steppe was a genetic patchwork until after Yamnaya spread across it and homogenized everything, probably largely by erasing non-Yamanaya groups one way or another.

But during the Eneolithic, Yamnaya-like populations were already moving around quite a bit, and popping up in surprising places, like around Moldova.

So like I said before, the fact that WHG-rich foragers were still living along the rivers north of the Black Sea doesn't say anything about where Yamnaya and Corded Ware formed.

Vladimir said...

here is an interesting fact-based article from 1995. Of course, the conclusions contained in it, now we understand exactly the opposite, it was not the European centers that contributed to the formation of the Sofia axes, but exactly the opposite.
https://www.academia.edu/35983936/Weapons_from_Sofievka_type_cemeteries_Cemeteries_of_the_Sofievka_type_2950_2750_BC_Poznań_1995_Baltic_Pontic_Studies_vol_3_р_228_234

old europe said...



the names of the river in the pontic caspian steppe makes it clear which was the genetic cluster that provided most of the pre PIE linguistic materials in the ukranian/western russia region. The name of the rivers perfectly overlaps with the projection and extension of the WHG in eastern europe ( polish swiderian in the north (DVINA) and Iron gates like in the south ( DANUBE, DNIESTER, DNEPER, DONETS, DON). If the PIE were the ones on the northern caucasus/ volga cline we should expect the opposite.

The whole PIE problem must be addressed with the ties with paternal Yline. I repeat again and again.
Western Steppe Herders were a combination of progress like and ukraine HG ( 80 and 20 respectively). It seems that their paternal lines were in the ukranias region.
R1a was there since the mesolithic
I2 was there since the mesolithic.
We still await the autosomal profile of the R1b M269 in the balkans / Romania ( Suvorov and Smydovo) but likely is these guys came from the Dneper too. So it doesn't really matters how much "deep steppe ancestry" yamnaya and CWC had. Their paternal continuity goes back to the Dneper Don culture anyway.

PIE were like the romans historical trajectory. Romans started off as an italian bell beaker population ( broadly speaking) but ended up in their imperial height to be like an eastern mediterranean population.
just substitute archaic latin with DD and eastern mediterranean with yamnaya like ancestry and the whole picture is in front of you.
Is it so difficult to understand?

Vladimir said...

In a word, the cultures that were considered a late stage of Tripoli back in 1995, as it now becomes clear, were not Tripoli at all. Tripolye ended with Stage B II. Stages C I-II are no longer Trypillia, but phase 0 of the CWC culture. Here is a map, apparently dating back to 3500 BC, on which the borders of Sredniy Stog (blue line) and Trypillia (pink line) are marked. After 3500, apparently, Trypillia is simply absorbed by Sredniy Stog, the male population is apparently destroyed, and the female population transfers its EEF to the CWC.
https://imgur.com/a/kOUzFTM

MH_82 said...

@ Davidski

This 'proto' population is nothing more than the summed effect of forest-steppe groups become increasingly homogenized & moving into the open steppe. Given that the bulk of these groups were situated beyond the Dnieper (Don, Volga), then the net genomic affinity which took shape was west shifted CHG + EHG.
Skelja crystalised in the Dnieper-Azov region, proto-Anatolians are I2a2-rich, 'Farmer' influences from the west
That's more or less the progression.



@ Vladimir

''here is an interesting fact-based article from 1995. Of course, the conclusions contained in it, now we understand exactly the opposite''

Sofievka is in fact a Boleraz group. Which is what the article states.
So what opposite reality to you imagine here, Vlad ?



Dranoel said...

@ Davidski and Rob
Thanks for the answers.

David, did you get a closer look at this VK535 sample? What do you think? What is the probability that this is an Italo-Norman descendant?

Does anyone know under what circumstances it was considered a "Viking" burial?

MH_82 said...

@ Vladimir

Usatavo is a steppe group; but Sofievka is a Boleraz group . Gordinesti is different still

MH_82 said...

@ a

" R1b-V88 disappears, although I2a2 remains'
With the help of IBD segments, we might be able to narrow down areas/regions of interest-potentially connected clans/families.''

I recall now that the R1b-V88 (or pre-V88) is from around Dereivka. The DD2, properly speaking, evidently did not partake in the genesis, but the more southern Dnieper groups (Sursk) did.
But it is interesting that R1b-V88 tracks links between Dereivka, Iron Gates, even MN Germany . Do you know the phylogenetic TMRCA is these groups ?


@ Old Europe

yeah the notion that PIE= CHG/EHG is nonsense. It's a statistical pseudo-construct, twigs pretending to be a body

zardos said...

@Rob: "If anything is clear, it’s that PPIE emerged to the west of the Don
You’re simply repeating the same thing like a broken record because you don’t really grasp anything substantive . You’re a story teller"

Most of us became repetitive, because there is so little new stuff which brings the case forward, and yes, that includes yourself as well.
Also you didn't prove me wrong and the Lower Don and Sea of Azow region is just the most likely area for the formative zone. You just repeated it yourself above.

The only thing we might disagree fundamentally right now is that I think the steppe ancestry profile and its ratio of EHG:CHG is too specific and too narrow to be just the result of a generalised homogenisation. That won't work out. We need to get data from the sites from the Lower Don culture and I'm especially curious about Rakushechny Yar, which I expect to be a pre-homogenisation group, but either the source itself or very, very close to it.

You said, with your typical nonchalance, that the visible influences in the region and especially R. Yar, including those in the buildings like experienced wattle & daub constructions, are irrelevant. Yet they are not.

And what David said about the rather disordered distribution of some finds and results, just confirms to me the same thing: There was one source group which came up from the fusion of local foragers with more CHG-shifted fishermen, which had a part-Neolithicised package from the South, but were overall more local Caucasian-North Caucasian probably, we don't know for sure.
However, these people met, fused, created a nucleus, which was paternally more diverse at this point, and from then on, we primarily deal with branching events, new regional clan and tribal groups being created, which began to replace in different regions at a different pace other people first on the steppe, then, with the Corded decorated, Western groups, beyond the steppe. Yamnaya is a special case, because it primarily did replace brother groups, not reaching much beyond the steppe at any point.

This evolution happened directly at the border with the Western Neolithic groups, from which the most important cultural impulses came to the local steppe people and there were more mixed formations to the steppe people's West originally. But for some reasons, these didn't made it and were replaced by the Lower Don centre formation altogether, just like some early branches of it, including Khvalynsk.

What we see being better explained by one source group starting to replace others with little assimilation and gene flow, on the steppe first, then beyond. The main established group being Sredny Stog most likely. Its not the result of a homogenisation, of a very diverse range of people, or at least it doesn't look like that to me at this point.
Concerning Sredny Stog and Dereivka in particular, it matters whether they are represenatives of the culture in the narrower sense, because earlier finds from the same place don't count. We need those and we need samples from different sites and periods from the Lower Don culture, with R. Yar being a must have.
They won't all have the typical steppe profile, but some might still show the "pure" components which contributed.
But this is a much more narrow geographical zone for the homogenisation, it won't be a later one encompassing the whole steppe, not even the area of later maximal SSC extension.

Copper Axe said...

@Zardos

"From the Lower Don culture in which EHG foragers mixed with CHG fishers-foragers and part-Neolithicised is most likely the ultimate source of the typical "steppe ancestry" and therefore PPIE."

What does "half neolithized" nean and what indications do we have thst CHG fisher foragers werw this?

I find it unlikely that steppe ancestry was formed by "ehg" and "chg" groups mixing during the neolithic/eneolithic, the time frame of the LDC.

zardos said...

@Copper Axe: I meant actually two things:
1st different elements of the Neolithic package reached the Lower Don region with different people at slightly different times
2nd the CHG heavy fishermen in the region had elements of the Neolithic package when establishing themselves, but can't be categorised as fully Neolithic at that time and with their way of life.
However, that local forest and river foragers would have come up with these elements completely on their own is highly unlikely.
The developed later LDC is obviously too late, its at its very beginnings the mixture and homogenisation should have taken place or started, if the model is right.
I'm not aware, anyone is free to correct me, of any steppe-typical sample predating the formation of the LDC.
The LDC is so interesting because its a fusing culture with different elements and influences involved, right place, right time, right profile and with traditions within which could have led directly to SSC.
In any case it would be very strange if it would not have contributed to the later steppe people's culture and ancestry at all.

There was of course earlier mixture of EHG and CHG, but not the right ratio and lineages probably.

MH_82 said...

I would bet that R1a-M417 is from the Dnieper -Donets (Desna variant) — Pit-Comb contact zone
R1b-M269 from Voronezh-Don

Davidski said...

I wouldn't bet on that, considering that there's R1a in Khvalynsk, Steppe Maykop and unpublished Eneolithic samples from the Don region.

MH_82 said...

All those eneolithic samples are later than Neolithic. The steppe isn’t the ancestral abode of R1a lineages. At one point or another, it had to get down there before expanding back out

Davidski said...

This sample is from the North Pontic steppe (rather than the forest steppe).

Ukraine_Mesolithic I1819 R1a U5b2 8825-8561 calBCE Vasil'evka Ukraine 47.434167 35.276389

https://www.google.com.au/maps/search/47.434167+35.276389?sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjarcv2zIzyAhVIzDgGHeTRAtEQ8gF6BAgEEAE

MH_82 said...

The extent of the steppe zone could vary depending on epoch/ climate. Vasilievka is the southern limit of R1a extension. Those Dnieper Rapids fisher-hunter-foragers can hardly be called 'steppe ' inhabitants, given that they were tethered to the river valleys for subsistence.
In any case, at some point, those groups were temporarily displaced from other groups of fisher-hunters, also coming from the north, but northwest (Zedmar,etc), which accounts for the minor -WHG shift observed in the 'Neolithic' phase.
If you look at Khvalynsk, it is in the forest-steppe / north steppe region.
The steppe Maykop R1a is obviously a migrant to the region

Davidski said...

Well, the samples we have show that R1a was just north of the Black Sea during the Mesolithic, and in the Don-Volga region during the Eneolithic.

So I don't see the need to bring R1a-M417 from somewhere in the north, especially considering that it expanded from the south to the north.

MH_82 said...

We know it expanded from south to north, when it was actually expanding
However, before 4500, groups were expanding into & around the steppe, resulting in shifting domains & relative frequencies
All the more reason why LDC being some biblical urheimat is utter garbage

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

First ancient DNA from mainland Southern Italy:

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.07.30.454498v1

ambron said...

In all this discussion, I miss the basics. And the basics are that nomadic pastoralism has evolved from hunting consisting in follow the seasonal movements of animals. Today this is confirmed by genetics, as the first shepherds turned out to be descendants of hunters (EHG plus CHG). Hunting and herding groups could travel thousands of kilometers in one season; the hunters followed the game and the shepherds looked for the freshest fodder for their herds. No wonder then that we find their genes between the Carpathians on the one hand, and the Caucasus and Urals on the other.

MH_82 said...

Yes, after 3000 bce, R-M417 expanded to the north. But before 4500 bce, hunter-gatherer groups were moving into & around the steppe, due to shifting networks, resulting in changing abodes & relative frequencies of lineages. R1a-M17 is unlikely to be from Crimea or, Jungar or Kairshak, and we know its not from Sursk. It doesn't really leave many options
Then after 4500 bce, there is great autosomal homogenization & lineage pruning

Romulus said...

@Ambron

What are you talking about?
https://i.imgur.com/2hqsd7H.jpg

Copper Axe said...

@Zardos
"2nd the CHG heavy fishermen in the region had elements of the Neolithic package when establishing themselves, but can't be categorised as fully Neolithic at that time and with their way of life."

Doesnt the neolithic (forager neolithic) package enter the steppes from the east and arguably earlier in the steppes than in the Caucasus?

And if the other half is in reference to agriculture and such, what suggestive evidence do we have of that?

Agriculture had barely reached the northern Caucasus during the early neolithic. The agriculture in the Caucasus arrived relatively late and was heavily associated with Anatolian ancestry, which fits what we see in genetics as the highest CHG samples were full on fisher foragers.

The materials we see in the neolithic lower Don region which have links to the Caucasus and Caspian are those of hunter-fatherers, and fairly simple ones when comparing to their contemporaries.

zardos said...

@Rob: "The extent of the steppe zone could vary depending on epoch/ climate. Vasilievka is the southern limit of R1a extension. Those Dnieper Rapids fisher-hunter-foragers can hardly be called 'steppe ' inhabitants, given that they were tethered to the river valleys for subsistence."

Well, that doesn't matter, because before the steppe package evolved, most inhabitants of the region were fishermen close to the rivers. These were the population centres from which their unique culture could evolve in contact with the Neolithic neighbours. Before they became pastoralists, the steppe in its narrower sense was a dead zone.

However, you have to search for a region in which these three elements were brought together: The Northern foragers, the Caucasian-related fishermen with their Neolithic elements and a contact zone with the Western Neolithics. And that's just the Sea of Azow. And in that area the population density of the foragers living from fishing in particular was fairly high throughout. Its a similar situation as with some WHG nests which could resist and reconfigure the Western Neolithic culture to a more pastoralist one, which too were fishermen primarily. Because only along the rivers and with fishing foragers could keeup the numbers, the population density, to
a) resist the Neolithics, even pose a threat
b) develop their own Neolithic variant
It happened in North Western Europe, in Northern China and in the steppe. In all three cases local foragers took up Neolithic elements without being replaced and all three had high population densities along strategically positioned river systems supporting a high population density.
The Lower Don region created a very competitive setting.

@Copper Axe: "Doesnt the neolithic (forager neolithic) package enter the steppes from the east and arguably earlier in the steppes than in the Caucasus?"

You mean ceramic? That's possible, but not the point. There are other elements in the Lower Don region like the buildings, possible introduction of domesticated ovicaprids and ornamentation. In R. yar some datings and the chronology being still debated, but we'll see.

The more Neolithic shifted element seems not to have been dominant for long, if at all, it was just present and brought new impulses, possibly also a different ancestral component minor or bigger. And a big problem for the region are the water levels which were significantly lower at that time. So a people moving along the coast, living primarily from fishing, would be a challenge for underwater archaeology more than anything else.

That's from Bulgaria, but still:
"Underwater archaeologists have discovered that a submerged prehistoric settlement near the mouth of the Ropotamo River in Southeast Bulgaria previously thought to be from the Bronze Age was in fact 1,000 years old, going back to the Chalcolithic (Copper Age), and have established that 5,000 years ago, the level of the Black Sea was 5 meters lower than it is today."

"The Bulgarian archaeologists have established that while during the original settling of the site near the mouth of the Ropotamo River in the Chalcolithic, the prehistoric coastal settlement was entirely on land, the level of the Black Sea rose rapidly, and in the subsequently Bronze Age the inhabitants of the place already had to build their homes above the water, on top of wooden stilts, i.e. they had to live in stilt houses."

http://archaeologyinbulgaria.com/2020/11/10/6000-year-old-submerged-prehistoric-settlement-reveals-black-sea-level-was-5-meters-lower-5000-years-ago/

zardos said...

Concerning R. Yar, I would recommend this article:

"Further analysis of some of the mammalian bones using ZooMS failed to demonstrate that domesticated animals were present in the Early Neolithic. Nevertheless, we argue that intensive exploitation of seasonally migratory fish, accompanied by large-scale pottery production, created storable surpluses that led to similar socio-economic outcomes as documented in early agricultural societies."

"In support of the latter hypothesis, analysis of material culture found at Rakushechny Yar and more broadly in the North Pontic region suggests that the region was embedded in a wide cultural network that possibly encompassed farming communities to the south (Gorelik et al 2016). Neolithic obsidian from Southern Ukraine was obtained from Armenia and Central Anatolia (Biagi et al. 2014) and the presence of wattle-and-daub architecture at Rakushechny Yar (layer 11) and a female figurine (layer 10) (Belanovskaya 1995; Tsybrij et al. 2017) are similar to the many found in Anatolia (Cauvin 2000; Budja 2005, 2009). Similarly, Early Neolithic pottery at Rakushechny Yar is noted to share some technological and morphological attributes with SW Asian pottery produced by farmers (Vandiver 1987; Le Mière and Picon 1998; Nishiaki and Le Mière 2005; Budja 2009; Mazurkevich and Dolbunova 2015). Whilst there are also some shared technological and morphological traits between the Rakushechny Yar pottery and hunter-gatherers pottery from the neighbouring Lower Volga region, both the ceramic manufacturing techniques and the high proportion of undecorated pottery appear to have been quite different (Mazurkevich et al. 2017; Mazurkevich and Dolbunova 2012, 2015). Thus, the origin of the pottery at Rakushechny Yar based on stylistic and technological aspects is still unclear."

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s12520-021-01412-2

We really need DNA from this site at the crossroad of different cultural and ethnic formations.

Davidski said...

Right, so they found a bunch of hunter-fishers who may or may not have had contacts with Neolithic societies south of the Caucasus, and they concluded that they probably did.

zardos said...

True, its not that decisive, but there are some hints which should be considered. First, these people developed even without or without a high percentage of domesticated animals a highly efficient storage economy which could feed a larger population. So this was a real population centre for the whole North Pontic steppe macro-region.
Secondly, they surely had contacts to Neolithic cultures, including those South of the Caucasus. The unresolved question is rather how important these were. Was this just about occasional trade, some artefacts and probably individuals, or was more to it, was it a formative influence. That's indeed unknown and can be only speculated about at this point. Only DNA comparisons can help.

Aleph said...

Don't fail me now blogger comment system.

Hello David I was wondering why Ostuni1 is not on the global25 ancient sheet because it has nearly 370K SNPs.

MH_82 said...

@ Zardos & Davidski

This is all a big mess, not helped by some people who don't understand evidence critically.
Russian scholars are trying to validate the dubious conclusions of previous scholarship, but it's all nothing so far. They just wanted to 'rpove' that a producing economy is just as old there as in the west. This definition of 'Neolithic' they invented in the 20th century has confused a lot of people. The latest research on LDC simply affirms the non-existence of any domesticates in LDC, so as a consolation prize, some claims are made about a handful of ideological/symbolic convergences with the Near East.

To repeat -there is nothing special about LDC. As Copper Axe outlined, it is merely one group of several so-called 'steppe Neolithic' cultures which emerged ~ 6200 BCE. Lower Don, Lower Volga (Kairshak et al), middle Volga. In fact, LDC is the smallest one of all. Its all more or less contemporary although not synonymous. The prevailing theory is it comes from East, but a role for southeast might be warranted. There is a site or two in the Caucasus at this time- essentially not much, and certainly nothing to link.
Maybe Neolithic obsidian was obtained in E Anatolia, but we have plenty of data from there now, and there is no genetic links

What Z failed to mention, however, is the meat of the article -
Many of the vessels have molecular and isotopic characteristics consistent with migratory fish, such as sturgeon, confirmed by the identification of sturgeon bony structures embedded in the charred surface deposits. There was no evidence of dairy products in any of the vessels, despite the fact these have been routinely identified in coeval sites to the south. Further analysis of some of the mammalian bones using ZooMS failed to demonstrate that domesticated animals were present in the Early Neolithic. Nevertheless, we argue that intensive exploitation of seasonally migratory fish, accompanied by large-scale pottery production, created storable surpluses that led to similar socio-economic outcomes as documented in early agricultural societies.

These were fishermen. They fished so much, that entire mounds of fish bone were created. Some suppleental hunting. And they had so much surplus that they could become 'sedentary' and develop 'complex huts' & dream about some religions.
They have-enitrely appropriately- completely redacted on the old views.


Zardo's theory that PPIE emerged in R Yar is more in the realms of creative writing than science, with parallels to Carlos Quilles.
It has no genetic, archaeological or anthropological support. There is no specific continuity demonstrated between LDC & his 'dynasty of Yamnaya chiefs', a sort of biblical primordialism that typifies pseudoscience
He doesn't understand what networks did emerge, which did not being in the LDC.
Z. has not even produced an automated 25 or any reference of simple uniparental data to support his very dubious genetic claims of monolithic expansion from the LDC

The earliest steppe -related lineages are found in the Dneiper region & Tisza. The fact that these groups transmitted Neolithic elements toward the steppe says it all.
LDC is way too distant. it could even turn out to be dead end lineages which did not experience expansion. So instead of imagining theories which have no data to back them up, is ignorant of data that does exist, and based on simplistic paradigms, my preferred approach is to look at the evidence. And that points to the far west as the tip of the proto-Yamnaya network. The rest of the network stretched out to the Volga region, hence the prevalent rise of EHG/CHG after ~ 5000 bce, and sharply after ~ 3700 with rapid homogenization.

MH_82 said...

@ Davidski

''Right, so they found a bunch of hunter-fishers who may or may not have had contacts with Neolithic societies south of the Caucasus, and they concluded that they probably did.''

No.
The pottery was part of an eastern package introduced from central Asia & Siberia. The distinction in LDC is because its users chose to make their own style - they did not simply copy/paste that of their Volga neighbours
The idea that these post have 'some general affinities to SW Asia' is not a very convincing line of arguementation.
Given the prevalence of fish, they conclude ''Nevertheless, it is still plausible that knowledge of pottery production was gained through contact with farming communities but incorporated into an entirely fisher-hunter-gatherer economy''

Obviously farmers did incorporate fishing and hunting, but they still grew crops. The idea that SW Asian farmers flew to the LDC just to become 'local fishermen' is frankly comical

Ideas & pots don't just float in the air, they need people to carry them. Where is the East Anatolian or Ian-N ancestry in the Don ?
If anything, CHG-related ancestry might have something to do with Ceramic Neolithic in lower Volga

Davidski said...

@Aleph

Where are the genotypes for Ostuni1?

zardos said...

@Rob: I did quote that part and its indeed crucial, because it shows that they were ripe for developing on, aleady based on their own economy which relied mostly on fishing. Whether and how they adopted domesticated animals is still disputed, the fact is just, they didn't rely on it in any case, because they got such a surplus from fishing, just like you wrote.

Concerning this:
"The earliest steppe -related lineages are found in the Dneiper region & Tisza. The fact that these groups transmitted Neolithic elements toward the steppe says it all."

No, it does not. There was a chain of Neolithic influenced cultures from the Dnieper to the Sea of Azov and the most Neolithicised to intermediate groups, while transmitting cultural elements, didn't made it and had not the impact. The decisive steps towards the more pastoralist steppe culture was done around the river Don primarily and if anything else, not that far to the West.

This is your story telling, the idea of a Western transmission, which lacks any support at this point. The large communities at the Don did adopt Neolithic elements on their terms and there was never a successful, lasting Neolithic colonisation of the steppe, but only a transmission, a selective adoption by the local clans.

What's even more, there is a direct, continuous evolution from the Lower Don Culture to that of Sredny Stog, and this is key. You have prove that the LDC did disappear and Sredny Stog has a completely different origin. Good luck with that.
And Sredny Stog is the ultimate prize, because all the others, including Khvalynsk, Yamnaya and Corded Ware, can be traced back to SSC. R. Yar is just one element among others, but it might signify a cultural and demographic influence present in the region as a whole. I still follow this interpretation however:

"In Eastern Europe, the eastern steppe areas were most affected by this climate
aridity. In the northern Pontic steppe, the dry climate first influenced
the eastern variant of Sredny Stog culture located near the
Don River, and this event played an important role in the cultural
development in the Eneolithic Ukraine. Probably already at the
beginning of this arid stage, a part of the population of the eastern
variant of the Sredny Stog culture, formerly occupying small river
valley habitats, was forced to move to the west, in the steppe
middle Dnieper basin (Kotova, 2008). This migration initiated
formation of the western variant of the Sredny Stog culture about 4350 BC."

"During weak arid events (e.g. 5650–5500 BC, 5300–5100 BC and
4750–4650 BC) another situation existed in the steppe zone. In the
eastern part of the arid steppe, some cultures with small populations
disappeared (the Rakushechny Yar culture, ca. 5650–5500 BC) or
were newly formed (the Sredny Stog culture from the Lower Don
and Surskaja cultures about 5300 BC)."

This is absolutely key:
"Geographically dispersed Eneolithic
populations were assimilated by environmentally better-adapted
cultures (for example, people of the Sredny Stog culture assimilated
populations of the Surskaja and Azov–Dniper cultures about
5100–4800 BC)."

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/248479043_Human_adaptation_to_past_climate_changes_in_the_northern_Pontic_steppe

This is when the steppe ancestry will spread West in a significant way the first time most likely.

zardos said...

About the formation of the SSC:
"These imports and imitations reflect the contacts of the steppe people with the Balkans population, namely with the Hamangia culture. Those contacts created a base for formation of the Sredniy Stog and Khalynsk Early Eneolithic cultures with radical changes of the burial rites. The cultural transformation was initiated with an aridity of climate between 5400–5330 ВС with a maximum about 5360 BC, which created an ecological and economic crises in the dry southern regions of steppe. Destruction of traditional way of life of the Surskaja and Low Don populations near the Sea of Azov and their close contacts during previous times gave an impulse for the formation of the new Sredniy Stog culture on the base of their traditions located in the Sea of Azov area. The first period of this culture is dated about 5250–4800 BC. Pottery with shells in clay, linear and comb decoration, flintheads of spear and arrows, bone plates, pendants from red deer teeth and shell beads are typical for this culture. Their ceramics can be seen as a heritage of the Surskaja tradition, but the set of tools, weapons and adornments copied the Low Don complex (Kotova 2008)."

Nadja S. Kotova, The contacts of the Eastern European steppe people with the Balkan population during the transition period from Neolithic to Eneolithic, in PRÄHISTORISCHE ARCHÄOLOGIE IN SÜDOSTEUROPA - BAND 30. p. 315.

First we have the transition of the local foragers from the simple hunting and gathering to a storage economy, with complex buildings of the Near Eastern inspired kind, wattle-and-daub constructions. The possible more direct Southern influence was rather limited, its genetic impact can be disputed, its cultural one was important.
Then came the Western Neolithic influences, but the Western Neolithic groups couldn't colonise the Sea of Azov zone, but just influencing it.
The local Neolithic groups were eliminated by Tripolye-Cucuteni and the Lower Don groups in cooperation:
"Strange as it may seem, the Tripolye population was more interested in contacts, than the steppe inhabitants. They were newcomers, which gradually
moved to the east through the forest-steppe area, occupying lands, which were settled by the Bug-Dniester and Kievo-Cherkassy Neolithic population. The
Tripolye population needed allies and peaceful relations with the neighbors, especially with those, whose territories were unnecessary for them. Among such
neighbors were the bearers of Azov-Dnieper and Sredniy Stog cultures, who occupied other natural-climatic zone, which was useless for the Tripolye
population during the Early Eneolithic. Even during the Later Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age they occupied only the steppes in the South Bug basin and to
the west of it, staying out of the territories of the Sredniy Stog descendants."

Early Eneolithic in the Pontic Steppe, Nadezhda Sergeevna Kotova, BAR International Series 1735, 2008, p. 121 ff.

Both the influence of the Neolithic status culture, new technological innovations, as well as possible climatic and natural deterioration on the steppe and river systems, led to the increase of cattle breeding among Lower Don Culture groups, from which Sredny Stog as the first true steppe culture emerged. The rest should be clear.

MH_82 said...

@ zardos bullshitos

''This is your story telling, the idea of a Western transmission, which lacks any support at this point. The large communities at the Don did adopt Neolithic elements on their terms and there was never a successful, lasting Neolithic colonisation of the steppe, but only a transmission, a selective adoption by the local clans.''

No, we understand the genetic data completely. And hence nobody has claimed that Farmers colonized the steppe. Everything you write therefore is your own misunderstanding, or outright lies. Instead of continually showering us with your nonsense, I again point you to look at the data, which demonstrates how hunter-gatherers - not Farmers- brought selectively elements of the Neolithic package from the Central Europe to the steppe

To keep things simple, i will make point forms, not so to convince you (as you are obviously averse to scientifically credidble & verifiable facts), but as an illustrative example
1. ~ 5500 bce Alfold Linear Pottery culture. Y-hg I2a2a1b1 (Farmer admixed)
2. ~ 5500 bce Dnieper Steppe Neolithic, Y-hg I2a2a1b1 (mixed; Hunter-gatherers & farmer admixed)
3. Yamanaya 3300 bce -> 2600 BCe ; I2a2a1b1 (steppe admixed)
4. Even Catacomb Caucasus Y-hg I2a2a1b1
5. India Swat valley; Y-hg I2a2a1b1

On the contrary, your imaginary SW Asian farmers-cum-magical Don Fishers has no data,. it has nothing apart from your imaginations. And when we do get aDNA, it won't back your 'theory"
And you can spare your texts dumps- I know all the literature. And whilst I am happy to learn more, there is unfortunately nothing that you can inform me on, because your very premise is pseudo-science & cryptic ex Oriente Lux chauvinism

zardos said...

@Rob: "On the contrary, your imaginary SW Asian farmers-cum-magical Don Fishers has no data,"

That's not what I tried to say. The point is that there are different people meeting at the Lower Don, the Sea of Azov area, bringing together different cultural influences. The more developed half-Neolithicised fishermen, which might or might not have been from further South, but should have been, in any case, more CHG-heavy, were assimilated and fused with a dominant local group of foraghers, which were more EHG-heavy. Out of this came the steppe ancestral component and culturally a more sedentary, storage based forager economy with elements from the Neolithic package. The original most Southern shifted groups might even have disappeared nearly completely, but their presence left a mark.

The real big leap forward happened when this strong, more developed and resilient hunter-fishers met the incoming Neolithic colonists from the West at the border of the steppe. And from there, like you said, it was local foragers which brought elements to the Don, where they were picked up and resulted in first the developed Lower Don Culture, then Sredny Stog from it.

This has nothing to do with "cryptic ex Oriente lux chauvinism", whatever that shouild be.

I guess that I2a2a1b1 was picked up by Sredny Stog expanding West, when they replaced and assimilated the more mixed cultures there. So if that's what you tried to communicate, I'd agree. However, that is not the population and clans at the root of the steppe people and its also not the cultural source and tradition. It was, at best, an intermediary which helped to create the Lower Don and Sredny Stog culture respectively. The mixed and more Neolithic shifted groups to the West I spoke about earlier, just some postings above.

Ric Hern said...

At the end of the day, two questions comes to mind.

1:Did Hamangia bring R1b and R1a ?
2:Did Hamangia bring CHG-LIKE Ancestry ?

If not then why the big fuss about I2a2....?

MH_82 said...

@ Zardos

“ I guess that I2a2a1b1 was picked up by Sredny Stog expanding West, when they replaced and assimilated the more mixed cultures there. So if that's what you tried to communicate“

I’m not “trying”, you’re just failing :)

Your dubious claims that the versatile Dnieper group, which encompassed the entire variety from farming to herding to early pastoralism were merely “picked up” only highlights your conceited ignorance
The link of adaptions diffused west to east
Hamangia -> Dnieper -> Azov -> don -> Volga
Skelja is thought to be from Dnieper - Azov , not LDC
Again, nothing innately special about them apart from being at the right place to transmit the packages; and being the earliest IE


“ The more developed half-Neolithicised fishermen, which might or might not have been from further South, ”

Nonsense. They’re not more developed than anyone . LDC is in fact fairly unimportant

@ Ric
Sorry ; what’s the big fuss about R1b or CHG ?
Are you a bit slow ?

Ric Hern said...

As far as I could gather this corridor or part of it was already in use since the Mesolithic. So did the Neolithic Balkanites extend it or just make use of it as an already established trade route ?

MH_82 said...

Ric
No; that corridor was not in use, as during the late Mesolithic there is not much to see in the NW Pontic region .
The Balkan Neolithic also did not fill that void . It was not until the LN/ copper age did Balkan farmer descendants move beyond NE Bulgaria (Hamangia -Varna)
This means the early stage was mediated via areas further north - across the carpathians. The interesting thing is eastern carpathian “farmers” are I2a: the same lineage in fact as DD2. In other words; they are acculturated hunter gatherers .
I’m not saying there’s anything special about I2a, it just marks a link which autosomalists might not pick up
It explains how Yamnaya acquired elements of Neolithic package without having much farmer admixture , because every link requires some kind of human link

As for your previous question, I still don’t understand what CHG has to do with Hamangia or why it is at all relevant ? They were just FHFs at the end of a long network

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

So the Bug-Dniester Culture is not in this picture ? Too early ?

ambron said...

Romulus, agriculture is associated with croft breeding and short-distance transhumance pastoralism in mountainous areas. In contrast, typical nomadic pastoralism, such as reindeer husbandry, for example, arose without the mediation of agriculture as a more sophisticated hunting of seasonally migrating game. Therefore, the first nomadic pastoralists were descendants of hunters (EHG plus CHG).

Ric Hern said...

So Proto-Yamnaya looked Corded Ware-Like. So how did this happen ?

1:A Middle Eneolithic Culture heavy with EHG/CHG spread Westwards and Settled near Moldova and admixed with Farmers there, then backmigrated Eastwards losing some of their Farmer admixture to form Yamnaya ?

2:Early Eneolithic Farmers spread Eastwards and admixed minimally with EHG/CHG and then some of this admixed population migrated Westwards during the Middle Eneolithic leaving Yamnaya behind ?

Draft Dozen said...

OT
Genetic continuity of Bronze Age ancestry with increased Steppe-related ancestry in Late Iron Age Uzbekistan

https://academic.oup.com/mbe/advance-article/doi/10.1093/molbev/msab216/6329832

Davidski said...

@Ric

No, early Corded Ware people were Yamnaya-like.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

I can already see where you are going with this. Proto-Indo-European Language originating from I2a2.....Eneolithic Farmer Package.

Ric Hern said...

@ Davidski

Yes, I'm just trying to figure out where this apparently Massive Farmer influence came from which Rob is talking about.

MH_82 said...

@ Ric
read carefully what I have written . Pay attention to the words I use eg “links, networks, selective adaptation“. In any case; you hopefully understand that hg I2 isn’t a “farmer lineage” which had been neighbouring R1 lineages for Millenia ?

As for BDC; it’s mostly located closer to the forest steppe. It would have been part of the the very early phase of links
However it would not have played a part in the final pathway to proto-Yamnaya, because it’s too far west; as was absorbed into or displaced by CT. All which was left behind of the early western links remained in the Dnieper. By then, the 2nd phase of the network was, by volume, largely focussed to the east. Hence the Net genetic structure. So I can understand; if I were some mediocre autosomalist; I’d think say “duh proto- Indo -European wuz CHG/ EHG”
:)

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

"1. ~ 5500 bce Alfold Linear Pottery culture. Y-hg I2a2a1b1 (Farmer admixed)
2. ~ 5500 bce Dnieper Steppe Neolithic, Y-hg I2a2a1b1 (mixed; Hunter-gatherers & farmer admixed)
3. Yamanaya 3300 bce -> 2600 BCe ; I2a2a1b1 (steppe admixed)
4. Even Catacomb Caucasus Y-hg I2a2a1b1
5. India Swat valley; Y-hg I2a2a1b1"

 “links, networks, selective adaptation“

With I2a2a1b1 in the middle of it all and seemingly the only constant...Mmm...

Matt said...

The HO Anno files calls that as I2a1b1a for the Dneiper, Swat and Yamnaya samples. See - https://imgur.com/a/Mm2Hriz . (Couldn't find any Caucasus sample with I2). Is this a read from an Anthrogenica user?

Andrzejewski said...

Does it all mean that the very 1st PIE speaking tribe was something like Progress or Vanyuchka, which migrated to both LDC and Khvalynsk and was EHG+CHG?

Ric Hern said...

@ Matt

Rob would know. That was his words.

zardos said...

What advantage should they have had? At the Lower Don we deal with a fairly strong, dense population in a good position and they had good contacts to the West, for the Neolithic innovations being picked up from a position of strength, after which they could radiate out.
But these won't be solved without having actual results from those groups, because in theory there are more than two plausible alternatives. I would definitely bet on Sredny Stog growing out of the Lower Don Culture though.

And I don't think that groups that far to the West, like Rob suggested, did have such an impact with such a low level paternal and autosomal influence. Its possible though, because the original LDC and SSC formations could have been way more diverse. The later uniformity is mainly the results of founder effects and branching events, in which patrilinear clans formed independent, competing units. Before that, I expect SSC to harbour all the known and some unknown haplogroups of the steppe people.

Romulus said...

@Matt

ISOGG has switched up the I2a structure, Rob is using the old convention we are all familiar with. I believe you are referencing the new ISOGG 2019 structure. Regardless of I2_____ Rob is right about those samples being on the same branch under I2 - M223.

MH_82 said...

@ Matt
The 'Catacomb' (or very Late Yamnaya) sample is RISE552

Simon_W said...

@Michalis Moriopoulos

"First ancient DNA from mainland Southern Italy:"

Interesting paper. These Daunii don't seem to have contributed much to the Italian cline, judging from the PCA. Quite a surprise. Also, the Protovillanovan female from northern Abruzzo seems to occupy a completely different place in the PCA. (She's one of the four individuals labelled Italy_IA_republic_o, and quite evidently the one clustering with north Italians, the others being the Ardea outlier, the Prenestini outlier and the Etruscan outlier.)

MH_82 said...

@ Ric

First off, Matt wasn't asking you. We don't expect you to know anything about samples or data
Secondly - stop sulking & twisting words


@ Andrze

''Does it all mean that the very 1st PIE speaking tribe was something like Progress or Vanyuchka, which migrated to both LDC and Khvalynsk and was EHG+CHG?''

LDC is from 6200 bc
Khvalynsk is from 4700 bc
Progress is from 4300 bc

As many people have asked, how does reality manage to continually bypass you ?

Simon_W said...

@Rob

"cryptic ex Oriente Lux chauvinism"

Zardos is an Austrian with some Transylvanian Saxon ancestry. I recognized him by the style of his language. So "ex oriente lux chauvinism" makes little sense here. :D

MH_82 said...

@ SimonW
Well that’s a fascinating biography. But my summary remains

MH_82 said...

@ Romulus
I dislike the new convention. 2016 was the best

Funnily enough, the change has confused some people, incl Carlos Quilles, the self-professed 'Indo-Europeanist' (whose closet fans have manifest themselves here). It has led him to believe the 'Yamnaya-related' I-M223 is equivalent to the modern 'Dinaric' I-M423 (spec I_CTS102280 found in the Balkans), and therefore the Slavic expansion is instead assoc. with E-V13. What a laugh


@ Zardos

''But these won't be solved without having actual results from those groups, because in theory there are more than two plausible alternatives.''

There are indeed two main theories, but they are not related to place or haplogroup, but methodology. My approach is empirical, versus what I call 'bibical primordialism' Whilst there can very well be certain key innovating centres or demographic hubs, the belief that this must have been LDC or Repin, is methodologically simplistic & empirically unfounded. It's a very entry level framework because it is so simple to institute. Just pick spot X on a map & invent a series of reasons as to what was so special about it.

btw: scholars like kotova attribute the main stimulus of Sredni Stog to the Azov-Dnieper group or Dnieper-Donetz southern forest-steppe groups, not LDC

Given how devout you have ben for LDC, I am looking forward to what it shows. Will it change anything ? No



''like Rob suggested, did have such an impact with such a low level paternal and autosomal influence. ''

That I2a2 is absent in CWC is irrelevant, for ex. Quite the contrary, the more circumscribed distribution of I2a-M223 correlates with the singularity of proto-Anatolian vs the more ubiquitous distribution of 'nuclear' IE languages asssoc. with R1b-M269 & R1a-M417.
Weight of frequency is a low-bar line of analysis

Given the early lineage diversity in the steppe, things might have occurred a different way in a parallel universe - early Balkan Yamnaya could be assoc with Q1a, Bell Beaker Y-hg J1 and Baltic CWC R1b-P197

zardos said...

Like quoted and in other publications, Kotova does consider traditions of the LDC as well. Without these sites being tested it remains conjecture and only future studies can determine who's right. There is, up to this point, no conclusive evidence either way.

Genos Historia said...

@Simon_W,

Do the new South Italy Iron age samples cluster with Latins/Etruscans? Do they have any Near Eastern ancestry like Bronze age Sicily?

I took a glance of the paper and couldn't make sense of it.

It is exciting that many have R1b M269 this far south in Italy. Most Latin samples have R1b M269. More confirmation Italic languages come from Bell Beaker.

Arza said...

@ Matt, Davidski

https://drive.google.com/file/d/117EAUQ_-hEr8Qz0fJ6tF911Hlefschph/view?usp=sharing

~103089 SNPs in 1240K (chr1-22)
Names require some adjustment.

MH_82 said...

Re Italy
What are the debates people are having - the timing & character of “East Med” diffusion across southern & central Italy ?

Davidski said...

@Matt & Arza

Here are those new Italian samples.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1AV0vZsnPFfOmisdGhJ_vlCFM3z0zAlkA/view?usp=sharing

If you remove any outliers and/or duplicates I can add them to the G25 datasheets.

Genos Historia said...

@Rob,

Eneolithic Sicily going back to 4000 BC already shows a lot of Minoan like ancestry.

But the strong signal East Med ancestry in South Italy today, most of us think came with the Greek colonies. Imo, it is combination of Greek, Phoenician, Anatolian.

Then the Roman empire distributed this throughout Italy.

Ric Hern said...

@ Rob

No sulking here. At the end of the day what matters is what the Linguistic implications will be. But luckily only time will tell.

Slumbery said...

@Genos Historia

On the PCA of the article those ancient South Italians are pretty much on a Sardinia (EEF) -> Levant cline, with varying levels of northward pull (but not enough to pull them to moderns).

That one thing, however if I take that PCA on face value, then the difference between the new samples and modern South Italians is mainly not a simple northward shift, but a shift toward Balkan-Anatolia (possibly combined).

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Davidski

Thanks for these!

Looks like all of the Aostans are duplicates except for two (GRC14372389 & GRC14372397). Not sure if this crop gives better coverage than the ones already in the datasheets, but there ya go. Everybody else is new.

Now if only you data hunters can secure the Italian samples from this paper:

https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2012229

The fact that there are people THAT shifted toward Sardinians living in Friuli Venezia Giulia is pretty neat, especially since this is the same region with all the isolated Germanic speakers (some with clear Northern European shift, as revealed in these newly converted G25 samples). Crazy place.

Matt said...

@Davidski / Arza, nice, thanks for that!

The samples all look normal for an Italian or Sardinian context - https://imgur.com/a/UgFIl80 - excepting that the North Sardinian group looks to include a few samples people who genetically more typical generally Italian people or who are intermediate Sardinia and Italy (and one Balkan like person). The Sauri_i and Sauri_g samples who were off cline here - https://www.nature.com/articles/ejhg2012229/figures/2 - are either not in this set or are constrained to be closer to Italy in G25.

I'll have a look around to try and track down individual IDs later unless Arza gets to it first.

Matt said...

For those new Italian samples, here's a list of the within population distances as calculated by Vahaduo, for outlier detection among North Sardinians (and I guess as a contribution to any ongoing discussions about what G25 distances should be typical within a community that is isolated / homogenous) - https://imgur.com/a/ksfngXp
(Some screencap output problems.)

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

@Matt

A couple of the North Sardinian samples are clearly immigrants. One is a Central-Southern Italian and the other is some kind of Balkanite (Romanian or the like). Two of the samples are shifted toward the mainland and so probably have some Italian ancestry. Everybody else looks regular Sardinian.

Compared to the Sardinian norm, the Sulcis-Iglesiente samples have a slight MENA or East Med shift that might not be the result of recent gene flow. GRC14339406 is the only real outlier among this set (~20% Yamnaya) and probably has recent ancestry from elsewhere.

Matt said...

@Michael, yeah that's how it looks to me re N Sardinian.

Re 2012 paper, I was hoping we'd see some of the extreme Sauris samples from there here to at least test whether that placing near Sardinians / Basques among some samples was due to EEF/HG/steppe proportions. But either theyre actually more normal here or no luck. Some of those samples from that paper were sequenced to very high coverage comparable to 1000 Genomes, see - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41431-019-0551 - but it's crazy to me that no one has looked at them with adna given those PCA! I even emailed Reich lab about this years ago with no luck. I think we're cut short here in that it looks like they would only be available to academic community on request. Perhaps I'll ask Nick Patterson on comments, if he shows up again.

Regarding these isolates, it seems like Anagnostou had a follow-up year before last that claimed - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0214564 - Our results challenge the traditional paradigm of population isolates as structured as genetically (and genomically) uniform entities. In fact, focusing on the distribution of variance of intra-population diversity measures across individuals, we show that the inter-individual heterogeneity of isolated populations is at least comparable to the open ones. More in particular, three small and highly inbred isolates (Sappada, Sauris and Timau in Northeastern Italy) were found to be characterized by levels of inter-individual heterogeneity largely exceeding that of all other populations, possibly due to relatively recent events of genetic introgression.

But still no adna analysis... (And anyway just the same populations here, which may or may not exclude the really unusual population isolate samples from the 2012 paper).

vAsiSTha said...

Someone said above that Khvalynsk is a dead end.

It is not. Not only does the archaeology show the earliest transition away from a primarily fishing diet, the khva samples we have so far are part of the mating network which formed Steppe_eneolithic, or at least the closest we have autosomally (in carbon dating as well). How exactly it happened is unclear yet. When we do get new published samples this can be reevaluated.

And steppe_en is an obvious ancestor to yamnaya, havent seen any opposition to this so far.

vAsiSTha said...

@Ric Hern

"4. Even Catacomb Caucasus Y-hg I2a2a1b1
5. India Swat valley; Y-hg I2a2a1b1" "

I remember early on when narsimhan data was published i was running models on Swat with Armenia_Mba not because of the I2 but because of the E1s and the Gs found in Swat. There was a model which worked out

left pops:
SPGT

IndusPeriphery 60
Armenia_MBA.SG 12
Molaly_LBA 28

p-value 0.244
https://pastebin.com/9kh4J4W9 Result

still wonder about this sometimes. It does have something to do with the caucasus region.
Also, Swat samples in G25 overwhelmingly prefer molaly as the steppe source when multiple steppe sorcs are provided.

MH_82 said...

@ Vasistha

''Someone said above that Khvalynsk is a dead end.

It is not. Not only does the archaeology show the earliest transition away from a primarily fishing diet, the khva samples we have so far are part of the mating network which formed Steppe_eneolithic, or at least the closest we have autosomally (in carbon dating as well). How exactly it happened is unclear yet. When we do get new published samples this can be reevaluated.''

Agree, no need for absolutisms. For its period, Khvalynsk stands out for its apparent richness, although this was concentrated in a couple of individuals, and probably represented gifts . I say apparent wealth, because funerary assemblages are dramatizations. Some groups elsewhere might have been wealthy, or wealthier, but did not have a need for 'over display'
Isotopic data, however, demonstrates that Khvalynsk people predominantly relied on aquatic diet, there was no economic 'transition' as such, although the earliest domesticate animal bones do appear at this time (~ 4700 bce).
It seems to me that Khvalynsk declined after Varna did. The flow on effects and political shifts subsequently saw the rise of new centres of power.

Matt said...

@vas, well, clearly that is one model of the formation of steppe Eneolithic and the one Reich, Patterson and Anthony seem to lean towards (although I think they're probably in the camp of the populations involved lacking domesticated plants or animals; Volga Delta CHG like fishers and EHG like people). Of course on here there is a reverse preference to root the formation of steppe Eneolithic on the steppe earlier in time (presumably because it roots them more clearly in the north and in Europe, and that's the preference for whichever reason, even if it's not too much difference in miles on a globe). Frankly, I don't think there's much evidence to support either option though, genetically speaking.

Davidski said...

Anthony's model is rooted in the misunderstanding that CHG is from Iran.

The reason that he got this idea is because Lazaridis, Reich, Patterson et al. have been pushing very strongly for an Out-of-Iran model, so Anthony felt obliged to at least partly agree with them.

But, of course, there were hunter-gatherers on the "Neolithic" steppe with a lot of CHG, and there's really not much point putting their origins in Iran, when the Caucasus is closer and CHG is actually based on Caucasus hunter-gatherers.

I've seen this data, and I'm not going to pretend I'm significantly retarded or insane just to seem more objective to you Matt or anyone else.

Genos Historia said...

@Michalis,

Matt pointed out there are Neolithic farmer enriched outliers in Northeast Italy several years ago based on a PCA from study.

Slumbery said...

@Davidski

I have a question about this CHG vs. Iran issue, I hope it is not too dumb. If I try to model Iran Neolithic with G25 nMontes as CHG + something else, what comes up is pretty much CHG + Natufian + Onge. The fit is horrible, because it is obviously not Onge what they actually had (insdtead something that is not represented by available samples) and probably not exactly Natufian either. However G25 nMontes gives 25-30% of these sources combined for all Iran Neolithic and Mesolithic and that is a big difference from CHG.
Now, if this difference in genome-wide affinities is real, then I do not understand how can be CHG-related ancestry mistaken to Iran Neolithic ancestry in any population that has a lot of this (like Yamnaya).
So...
1. Am I misinterpreting the Gn25 nMontes results in some silly way? Or made some basic mistake?
2. Or is this just coming from a flaw of G25 nMontes and it is not suitable for this all, so formal stats used by the scientist paint a different picture?

Genos Historia said...

My interpretation of the PCA from the new ancient Italy paper is...'

The most northern samples cluster just west of Latins/Etruscans. They're the same but with more farmer ancestry.

Then the cline goes from there southeast towards Imperial Romans aka Cyprus aka 'East Med.'

This could be due to admixture between a native Iron age Italian population with Colonial Greeks.

It could be due to a cline of 'East Med' ancestry which had existed in Southern Italy since Eneolithic that got admixed with Indo Europeans from the north during the Bronze age.

My guess is they were admixing with Colonial Greeks. Since their East med pull varies a lot that suggests the admixture is recent.

Aleph said...

@Davidski

I don't know how to extract and identify genomes, but since Ostuni 1 was from the 2016 Fu paper, it might be in here: https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/FuQ.zip

Davidski said...

@Slumbery

There aren't any methods to tell you exactly what you want to know, because we don't have the relevant ancient samples available yet.

Even if you put together an awesome qpGraph tree with the currently available samples, the ancestry proportions and sources of ancestry would shift if you got more relevant samples.

That's the nature of analyzing deep ancestry and working with ghost ancestry sources.

Davidski said...

@Aleph

I think that a new version of Ostuni1 was published more recently and I did run it in the G25.

But I don't have the coords anymore. Someone here or at Anthrogenica might have them.

DragonHermit said...

Quick note on the Italian samples: From the inscriptions we have, linguistically, Messapians are linked to the Western Balkans like Illyrians (and Albanians), not Latin or Greek speaking populations.

Slumbery said...

@Davidski

"There aren't any methods to tell you exactly what you want to know, because we don't have the relevant ancient samples available yet.

Even if you put together an awesome qpGraph tree with the currently available samples, the ancestry proportions and sources of ancestry would shift if you got more relevant samples.

That's the nature of analyzing deep ancestry and working with ghost ancestry sources."


Sure, if the aim is to actually analyze deep ancestry. But could it be still used to differentiate between two related ancestries (like CHG vs. Iran) with the differential affinities of those ancestries?

For example if Iran Neolithic is 70-75% CHG and 25-30% [Natufian + Onge] in this setup and Yamnaya has 35% of this ancestry, then when Yamnaya is modelled with [WHG + EHG + ANF + CHG + Natufian + Onge], there should be around 10% [Natufian + Onge] in it, if the real ancestor is Iran Neolithic.
If the target population has another interfering ancestry (like Levantine would be in this case) or the complementing ancestries (here WHG, ANF, EHG) are badly represented, it won't work of course, but for Yamnaya interfering ancestries are unlikely and the complementing ancestries are well understood. So why should it not work?

Davidski said...

@Slumbery

It won't really work because none of the reference populations that you're using are the actual populations that you need, and most aren't even particularly close to them.

Genos Historia said...

@DragonHermit,

Thanks for mentioning that. That could be why a few of the Apulian Iron age samples have Y DNA J2b which is found in Bronze age Croatia and Serbia.

But R1b P312 and I2a M223 are the most common haplogroups. R1b P312 showing they have Italic ancestry. If they were not italic speakers they still had Italic ancestry.

Bronze age Western Balkans don't have any East med ancestry. So I still tend to think greek colonies are responsible for the East med pull in the Apulian iron age.

I hope the study publishes the DNA data soon.



Genos Historia said...

@Davidski,

I'm recording my CHG video today. I need to ask you a few key questions.

You already explained how your thoughts evolved overtime.

But it isn't clear whether you considered a hunter gatherer (pre-Eneolithic) origin of the Kurgans' CHG ancestry before the Wang 2019 paper came out.

We've had the CHG genomes since 2016. They would give all the justification someone needs to propose a Stone age hunter gatherer origin of the Kurgans' SW Asian ancestry.

Davidski said...

Most of my posts about this issue were in the comments section, so they're hard to track down, but yeah, once the CHG genomes dropped I basically thought that Yamnaya was almost all Eastern Euro except for 10-15% admix from farmers somewhere.

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

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/07/modeling-steppeemba.html

MH_82 said...

I've just had a look at the Dnieper Mes/Neolithic samples again. They come from various sites. Whilst the R1a are tending to be earlier, it's hard to say that they were 'replaced'
The R1a samples come from Vasilievka & Dereivka, and Dereivka is more northern than the rest. Dereivka also witnesses R1b-V88 in addition to I2a-M223. Vasilievka has R1a & I2a1.
On the other hand, the I2a-M223 rich sites are Vovnigi & Volnienski
Although fish were the main diet, sites & individuals would vary, hence it is difficult to equate radiometric dates at face value, nor can any single conversion can be applied

To complicate the issue more, no t2o archaeologists have a common classification of 'archaeological cultures'. E.g Telegin called averything from Belarus to the lower Don group - 'Dnieper Donets', whilst Kotova restricted DD to the northernmost areas (incl Dereivka), Sursk to northern steppe, and Azov-Dnieper to southern steppe. She included LDC within DD

The source of WHG-rich groups in DD could be Narva-nema affiliated, rather than Iron Gates

Ariel said...

Etruscan data (BAM and fastq) is out!!

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB42866?show=reads

Davidski said...

The genotype data will be out when the paper is published, so it's better to wait for that.

Ariel said...

I can try to convert the BAM to genotype and put it on Gedmatch or Admixture studio, but how much data there is in a 2MB BAM? Very little, I imagine

vAsiSTha said...

@slumbery

CHG & Iran_N are quite different, on PCA as well as qpAdm. However we need ancient samples such as dzudzana, mbuti/shumlaka and Tianyuan in right pops of qpAdm for the model to diffrentiate between the two while modeling with IranN or CHG as sources.

Unfortunately we donot have dzudzuana sample published. i reckon Laziridis/Harvard lab already knows the answer to the CHG/iran question because they have the dzudzuana sample.

MH_82 said...

Anyone noted that CHG & Iran ‘prefer” MA1 over Afontova ?

Slumbery said...

@Rob

Yes, it is an observation made by multiple people years ago. There were even speculations that MA1 was "CHG admixed". (I think it was not, besides the anachronism.)

BTW, EHG vs CHG in admixed groups would be really messy if CHG had AG3 related mixture.

Nevertheless whatever connects CHG-Iran to ANE, it is completely different thing than the Siberian ancestry of EHG. Older too.

CrM said...

"Anyone noted that CHG & Iran ‘prefer” MA1 over Afontova ?"

Does this apply to qpAdm as well?

On G25 it depends on the sources that you pick.

Target: GEO_CHG
Distance: 16.7212% / 0.16721229
72.2 IRN_Wezmeh_N
14.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
13.0 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
0.0 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_MA1

Target: GEO_CHG
Distance: 16.8926% / 0.16892588
70.2 IRN_Wezmeh_N
17.2 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
12.6 RUS_AfontovaGora3
0.0 RUS_MA1


Target: IRN_HotuIIIb_Meso
Distance: 3.7029% / 0.03702857
77.6 IRN_Wezmeh_N
17.8 RUS_AfontovaGora3
4.6 GEO_CHG
0.0 IND_Great_Andamanese_100BP
0.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
0.0 RUS_MA1
0.0 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

Can those new samples from Kushan era Uzbekistan be added to G25? Thanks.

Davidski said...

As far as I can tell, they won't be available until 2023.

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

I thought so too but Altvred from anthrogenica already has the genotype files actually. I can forward you a link with the files if you want them, either here or privately on AG if your account isn't suspended still.

Davidski said...

OK, but I won't be able to run them until Friday.

MH_82 said...

@ Slumberry
I caution against using Iran N as a a source for CHG, because of the unresolved direction of gene flow
In turn, that might affect your final results

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

Here you go champ:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/c02ahx0apcofrfr/UZB_IA.zip?dl=1

Cheers.

Slumbery said...

@CrM

You answered Rob, but I give my own answer anyway.

This is not a difference between the methods. I just replicated your first model in G25 nMontes and got the same result.

However I was talking about an attribute that is common in CHG and Iran_N. Using another Iran_N population as a source is outside of the range of interpretation. I can even imagine that CHG does have some EHG admixture after all, but it should still pick MA1 against AG3 if there is not another CHG-Iran as source.

But if you are in it, I'd suggest adding Barcin_N to the models where you target CHG. I do not think Pinarbasi is an ancestor to anybody (other than the very nearby Boncuklu)

Nevertheless, you still made me question my opinion. Maybe I was doing a pointless exercise by trying to model CHG and Iran_N ancestries, when there are no ancestral samples are available. The results of an AG3 vs. MA1 comparison could be completely deceiving when the complementing population is totally off.

MH_82 said...

https://pasteboard.co/KenT9ha.png

MH_82 said...

Sorry replied to wrong person
In above outline ^ ; using Sungir (or K14) is a reasonable stand in for the common west Eurasian affinities shared between west Asia and post-IUP Europe (in fact, if we add K14 it further differentiated between Europe and west Asia)
So Iran N & CHG are that + MA1 -related admixture . Could be a paleoSiberian group taking refuge during LGM
IranN has additional archaic UP affinities to be defined
By contrast, Pinarbasi lacks ANE whilst having North African related admixture
The admixture in EHGs, is younger - VB + Afontova related

Dzudzuana will clarify things; but that’s the nutshell

CrM said...

@Slumbery, Rob

Yes, I know there's a preference for MA1 if you're modeling CHG & Iran_N with Sunghir/K14 as the main component, but I don't know how reliable it is, given the bad fits.

As it appears, Kotia is slightly more ANE rich than Satsurblia, and that extra ANE has a stronger affinity to AG3 rather than MA1, similar is observed with more ANE-rich Iran_N samples: https://i.imgur.com/PhVHVN3.png

"Could be a paleoSiberian group taking refuge during LGM"

That's a possibility, there are rather unusual, so dubbed "proto-Australoid" craniums in Cold Grotto, Abkhazia. Allegedly dated to the Mesolithic or the Neolithic, but Soviets weren't 100% sure about the dating, they could be much older than that. I attempted to make a facial reconstruction of one such skull: https://i.imgur.com/6NOAUQD.png

On top of that, there's also a damaged skull from Northwest Caucasus, Satanay grotto. Once again with a very dubious dating, and coincidentally, with a strong craniometric affinity to Kostenki14: https://i.imgur.com/a6gqusH.png

MH_82 said...

@ CRM

“ I know there's a preference for MA1 if you're modeling CHG & Iran_N with Sunghir/K14 as the main component, but I don't know how reliable it is, given the bad fits. ”

Expectedly so, because the groups split ~ 42,000 years ago. There is probably no direct affinity between K14/Sungir & the west Eurasian in CHG & Iranian groups

Given that Kotias is much younger than Satsurblia, differential affinities may be expected

To specify; I don’t think PaleoSiberian group took refuge in caucasus -Zagros, but such ancestry could obviously be found south of Siberia during the epipalaeolithic

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

Hey, David, when you get the time to do the Kushan genomes, would it be possible to convert these new genotypes from the latest Haber Middle East study as well?

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB28504?show=reads

Davidski said...

@Copper Axe

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1EqwYlntmIeXliwg08zbvP-chym8VFHuM/view?usp=sharing

Copper Axe said...

@Davidski

Thanks man you're a trooper.

Check out sample L8619, looks like it's a descendant of migrants from the Roman empire.

alex said...

@Davidski

Is it possible to get G25 coords for the samples from the study "Variable kinship patterns in Neolithic Anatolia revealed by ancient genomes"

https://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(21)00423-1

Genomes are located here:

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB39316?show=reads

Thanks

Andrzejewski said...

@Slumbery @Rob @Copper Axe @CrM “ BTW, EHG vs CHG in admixed groups would be really messy if CHG had AG3 related mixture.

Nevertheless whatever connects CHG-Iran to ANE, it is completely different thing than the Siberian ancestry of EHG. Older too.”

Regardless: both CHG and EHG have AG-3 rather than MA1 as their ANE source, nevertheless their different origin due to genetic drift, founder effect and so forth.

Yamnaya is hence 50% AG3. OTOH, the ANE in Botai, Okunevo, Kett and American Indians is fully MA1.

MH_82 said...

Is there something 'odd' about Areni-C ?

vAsiSTha said...

Apart from the y haplo L?

MH_82 said...

Its been often discussed, but it worth emphasizing that it stands out compared to contemporary Caucasian populations, with steppe/Eneolithic admixture, even trace EEF.


Armenia_C
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Ukraine_N_o
0.708 0.243 0.049
TP: 0.386

[[right pops:
Cameroon_SMA.DG
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Israel_PPNB
Russia_Kolyma_M.SG
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Russia_Kostenki14.SG
China_Tianyuan
Russia_HG_Tyumen
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Mongolia_North_N
Morocco_Iberomaurusian
Russia_HG_Karelia.SG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Turkey_N
Serbia_EN_Starcevo ]]

This would be consistent with mtDNA U4a seen in Areni_C individuals
Y-hg L is a Mesopotamian marker, it moved to Caucasus then central Asia then south Asia. The distribution of its 'brother' lineage T supports its West Asian origin.

So we have a population deep in Armenia with obviously steppe admixture, whilst further north in NW Caucasus, the Darkveti-Meshoko groups lack it. The Progress-Vonuchka groups face the central segment of the Caucasus range. I wondr if this contact was via the Caucasus passes or Derbent pass ?

Whatever the case, both Progress & Areni-C appear to be 'dead-end' groups
It's also interesting that, despite, steppe admixture, Areni-C did not get inspired to construct kurgan burials, which only appear later during the Leila Tepe - Majkop horizon.

Davidski said...

Those Azeri Lowlands genomes aren't the right references for the Areni C samples.

Neolithic samples from the Armenian highlands are somewhat different, with more Anatolian, even pseudo EEF, ancestry.

MH_82 said...

Yes those whove been around for a while can recall the discussions around the EEF-like element which was being picked up in Areni in G25 -based models when the data first came out

You can even get a 4-way model
Armenia_C
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Turkey_Buyukkaya_EC
Ukraine_N_o

with ~ 10% each from latter two, with similar, but slightly less optimal TP

A two-way model as
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic

is still statistically more optimal

A 2-way model with a 'more Anatolian' source (e.g Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic + Turkey_Buyukkaya_EC) is okay, but def. less optimal

Given that Sho-Shu derives from Hassuna, Halaf, etc (Mesopotamia), im not sure how ''Anatolian'' it would be.

By contrast, Darkveti-Meshoko works very well as CHG + Anatolian (e.g. Buyuk. EC)

CrM said...

is there Iran_N in Neolithic Armenia?

Davidski said...

Sure there is, but there's clearly more Anatolian ancestry than in those Azeri Lowlands samples.

I reckon when we finally get these Armenian samples they'll make up the majority of the ancestry in the Areni Cave samples, and the rest will be something like Progress EN.

MH_82 said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
CrM said...

I was wondering whenever the Iran_N/C in Areni is from Azerbaijan. It could be that the Steppe ancestry is from the same region as well.

MH_82 said...

But yes; Sho-Shu reference samples would obviously be a more optimal fit than the Iran -shifted Azeri LN

Leslie said...

@Davidski Is there an ETA on when one could obtain G25 coordinates? I'm trying to begin to understand all of this, and wonder where I'd fit into, etc. Thx....

Genos Historia said...

New documentary by Survive the Jive.

Neolithic Iberia - 5000 year old Idols and Megaliths!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xJLTXmHuEbI&t=1193s&ab_channel=SurvivetheJive

@Rob,
He explains well based on archaeology and DNA, show Bell Beaker isn't from Iberia.

Davidski said...

@Leslie

Please email me.

MH_82 said...

@ Genos
Yeah, solid

DragonHermit said...

@Genos Historia

Take this with a grain of salt, but Wikipedia quotes some archived web page of a Daunian museum or something. This is what they write

"Towards the late Bronze Age (11th-10th centuries B.C.) Illyrian populations from the eastern coast of the Adriatic arrived in Puglia. These groups of population, united with the pre-existing people and groups from the Aegean, probably from Crete, created the Iapygian civilization, from which three cultures developed: the Daunia, Peucezia and Messapica."

If this is true, these new samples should be a 3-way mixture of native Italians, Illyrians (J2b/Z2103?), and Aegean populations that could account for the "East Med".

MH_82 said...

@ Genos
Also, note how StJ correctly points out that western Farmers don't "come from Anatolia"

Copper Axe said...

@Genos

I really think you will like Tom's next documentary, its going to be a real kurganfest!

Genos Historia said...

That's great news. His documentaries are awesome.

The Ker-gins need this recognition! I hope many people outside his subscriber list can see the video because anyone interested in world history will be wondering why they never heard of the Kurgans before.


Vladimir said...

@Rob "Sofievka is in fact a Boleraz group. Which is what the article states".

If we assume that the post-Tripoli culture of Sofiyevka has something in common with the culture of Boleraz, then maybe this explains the presence of a specific EEF among the Balt Slavs, similar to DEU-LBK, which Arza wrote about.
After all, eventually all these groups are absorbed by the CWC, but, apparently, at the second stage.
At the first stage, the groups of the early Baltic CWC passed without a significant WHG\EEF substitution.
At second stage. Those groups that went through the north-west of Ukraine absorbed the GAC, and those groups that went through the north of Ukraine absorbed the Boleraz.

MH_82 said...

@ Vlad
Yes, genomes of 'early CWC type' must represent individuals which briskly moved beyond the northern steppe into the Baltic & Central Europe without stopping off to intermix mix. Esp. in the early phase, when it was mostly groups of males which were moving goods and scoping out routes.

alex said...

"Rob said...
@ Genos
Also, note how StJ correctly points out that western Farmers don't "come from Anatolia""

Where do they come from?

Targamos the Based, son of Kavkasos son of CHG son of said...

@Davidski

I recently heard from someone that he converted Georgian samples labeled as MG to a format that can be converted to G25. They are from an academic paper. Has he sent them to you yet and if he did when do you plan to convert and upload them?

Freak Amour said...

@rob
Maybe I missed something in his video but StJ states that megalithic culture does not originate in Anatolia. Rather it originates in NW France. He does not say the western farmers don’t come from Anatolia. Please correct me if I am mistaken.

Davidski said...

@Targamos

I don't have much time at the moment. I'll try and answer my emails and check out these samples within the next few weeks.

MH_82 said...

@ Freak A, Alex

Simply put- they’re from Western Europe; but carry a lot of Aegean- Anatolian ancestry ; which is a different matter to being straightforwardly descended from them. West European farmers are a different bag to LBK, Balkan farmers , let alone Anatolian farmers
I will formally explain it in detail in future

Freak Amour said...

@rob
Thanks I appreciate the effort. I look forward to that explanation. As Davidski said in a comment from an earlier post...farmers are cool...

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ West European farmers are a different bag to LBK, Balkan farmers , let alone Anatolian farmers
I will formally explain it in detail in future”

The only difference is that West European farmers are from Cardial Pottery and not from LBK.

TRB and GAC are largely from Michelsberg, ie West farmers.

weure said...

@Andrzejewski TRB is not one size fits all, the one in North Germany/North Dutch is most probably 60-70% Ertebølle/ HG derived, in parts of Poland and Sweden TRB are 70-80% connected to ENF.

MH_82 said...

@ weure

yes I think the data suggests that TRB is a heterogeneous entity- the outcome of a network of groups from Michelsberg to Baltic-HGs. In that regard, early CWC or NWE Bell Beaker are different. Even GAC is different, although it is of said network.

archlingo said...

Hi,
"Yamnaya males rich in R1b-Z2103 and I2a-L699"
I only know two examples,
1. Bul4 (Bulgaria), 2. RISE552 (Ulan), both with descendends of I-L702.

I would be happy to get the concrete IDs, Dates and sources for the "rich I-L699".
Thankyou
archlingo.

claravallensis said...

The new Etruscan samples 1240k BAMs seem to have been uploaded on ENA: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB42866

MH_82 said...

@ archiloingo

i wouldnt necesarily call Yamnaya 'rich' in I2a-L699, but we have to remeber that most of what we consider 'Yamnaya' .i.e to the east of the Dnieper is a rapid founder effect of a subset population expanding toward the east

But the Bulgarian EBA , which are mixed with or somehow related to Yamnaya are also I2a-699. You should be able to find the sample # easy enough

Davidski said...

There are more Yamnaya samples with I2a-L699 on the way.

archlingo will just have to wait.

weure said...

What IMO is underestimated is that Yamna related proto-Tumulus folks scattered from the Transdanubian area down the Elbe to the North Sea about 1800 BC. The same proto-Tumulus Italo-Celtic speakers went to the Po Valley in EBA. They brought with them a shot R1b (even subclades of R1b U106, not found around the North Sea until 1800 BC).

Corded Ware, Single Grave, Bell Beakers have certainly their influence but I guess the proto-Tumulus warriors certainly had that too...

Davidski said...

@weure

What IMO is underestimated is that Yamna related proto-Tumulus folks scattered from the Transdanubian area down the Elbe to the North Sea about 1800 BC.

This is just your wild imagination.

There's U106 in North Sea Bell Beakers and obviously also in Late Neolithic Sweden, so U106 moved from the north into Central Europe during the Bronze Age.

weure said...

Nothing wild archeologically attested.

Until now zero R1b U106 in SGC nor in NWE BB.

All too early imo, at TMRCA 2600 BC (If I'm well) R1b U106 was still in Eastern Europe.

So don't sign it of as too wild, proto- Tumulus warriors have had their impact on the North Sea area, perfect candidate for a founder effect.

Flux and reflux David!

Davidski said...

RISE98 and his U106 are probably from Single Grave.

https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/the-boscombe-bowmen.html

And like I said, there will be more early U106 from the north.

weure said...

But no Single Grave R1b U106 yet, the proof of the pudding is in the sample....

Anyway do you assume that R1b U106 proband lived around the North Sea then?

SGC departure point is Elbe/ Halle region from about 2850 BC. Too early for R1b U106.

The Sögel-Wohlde region is about the same region as SGC, his zenith is just above the Elbe in Dithmarschen Schleswig Holstein.

It was an elite migration from the proto-Tumulus context, as the princes of Fallingbostel (Lower Saxony) was dressed in full regalia from the proto-Tumulus Gata Wieselburg culture (West Hungary/ Eastern Austria area), the chieftain of Drouwen in the richest Tumulus of Sögel Wohlde (Drouwen North Dutch)had the same kind of golden spiral rings as a Gata Wieselburg offshoot found near Verona, all EBA.

Sögel-Wohlde area is exactly the hotspot zone of R1b U106! Too much coincidence (admitted the SGC core zone is not that differentiated).

So either, what as such is not weird to assume, we get some samples from the SGC/BB context in the line North Dutch-NW Germany-Jutland. But until now only rumours and kind of waiting for Godot.

Or 1000 years later than SGC the proto-Tumulus made the same movement...Gata Wieselburg had some R1b stuff a board.

Interesting quote about the proto-Tumulus/ Sögel-Wohlde battle gear, German wiki so google translate:
"Typical grave goods in men's graves in the Sögel-Wohlde district are bronze short swords and edge hatchets, more rarely Sögel daggers. The two short swords, after which the Sögel type was first described, were discovered in 1898 when the new path from Spahn to Werpeloh was being built. As has been proven over a large area, there is a connection between the short swords of the cultural area and swords from eastern Hungary at about the same time, as evidenced by their type, shape and decoration. The hallmarks of the Sögel type are the round staple plate and a striking decoration with groups of lines, dotted lines and bow garlands. In contrast to the Sögel sword, the short sword of the Wohlde type was provided with a trapezoidal staple plate. This type of sword was first described in 1937. The short swords of the Wohlde type are derived from Hungarian short swords with a trapezoid grip plate. But they are also mixed up with features of the Sögel type (Toppenstedt, Harburg district).

Perhaps the swords were made by craftsmen from the Moravian-Hungarian region. This is indicated by small clay nozzles found in settlements and graves. The clay nozzles, as the mouthpieces of the bellows, are evidence of the existence of melting furnaces in the early Bronze Age of northwest Germany.

The scattering of their finds extends from Hungary via central Germany to northwestern Europe, via southern Germany to northern Italy and in eastern Europe to Kalinovka, north of Volgograd.

The grave of a bronze caster was excavated near Kalinovka, which contained handicraft equipment. The bronze casting is also documented. One already knew the casting in one or two shell form or in a lost form (lost wax process)."

Too much 'wild East'?????? ;)

Resume: your SGC scenario is still likely, but this "outsider proto-Tumulus option" is not fare fetched imo.

weure said...

Already from 2015:

It is noteworthy that the R1b occurred first after the Middle Chalcolithic in Transdanubia. (Late Chalcolithic has not been not examined yet, and so a hiatus remains between the Middle Chalcolithic and the Early Bronze Age data.) The two R1b samples are dated to the Vučedol period (~2,870-2,580 cal BC) and to the Gáta/Wieslburg culture (~1,950- 1,760 cal BC).

Arza said...

https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB44430

Study Title: The origins and spread of domestic horses from the Western Eurasian steppes

Horse domestication fundamentally transformed long-range mobility and warfare. However, modern domesticates do not descend from the earliest domestic horse lineage associated with archaeological evidence of bridling, milking and corralling at Botai, Central Asia ~3,500 BCE (Before Common Era). Other long-standing candidate regions for horse domestication, such as Iberia and Anatolia, were also recently challenged. Therefore, the genetic, geographic and temporal origins of modern domestic horses remained unknown. Here, we pinpoint the Western Eurasian steppes, especially the lower Volga-Don region, as the homeland of modern domestic horses. Furthermore, we map the population changes accompanying domestication from 273 ancient horse genomes. This reveals that modern domestic horses ultimately replaced almost all other local populations as they rapidly expanded across Eurasia from ~2,000 BCE, synchronously with equestrian material culture, including Sintashta spoke-wheeled chariots. We find that equestrianism involved strong selection for critical locomotor and behavioral adaptations at the GSDMC and ZFPM1 genes. Our results reject the commonly held association between horseback riding and the massive expansion of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists into Europe ~3,000 BCE driving the spread of Indo-European languages. This contrasts with the situation in Asia where Indo-Iranian languages, chariots and horses spread together, following the early second millennium BCE Sintashta culture.

_______________


https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB46155

Study Title: Patterns of genetic connectedness between modern and medieval Estonians reveal the origins of a major ancestry component of Finns

The Finnish population is a unique example of a genetic isolate affected by a recent founder event that has been extensively utilized in gene mapping studies. According to current genetic and archaeological synthesis the ancestors of Finnic-speaking Finns and Estonians reached the circum-Baltic region by the 1st millennium BC. However, high linguistic similarity points to a more recent split of their languages. To study genetic connectedness at historic time depths directly through ancient DNA we first assessed the efficacy of imputation of low coverage ancient genomes by sequencing a medieval Estonian genome to high depth (23x) and evaluated the performance of its down-sampled replicas. We find that ancient genomes imputed from >0.1x coverage can be reliably used in principal component analyses without projection. By searching for long shared allele intervals (LSAI; similar to identity-by-descent segments) in unphased data for >143,000 present-day Estonians, 99 Finns and 14 imputed ancient genomes from Estonia, we find unexpectedly high levels of individual connectedness between Estonians and Finns for the last eight centuries that stand in contrast to their clear differentiation by allele frequencies. High levels of sharing of these segments between Estonians and Finns predate the demographic expansion and late settlement process of Finland. One plausible source of this extensive sharing is the 8th–10th cc AD migration event from North Estonia to Finland that has been proposed to explain uniquely shared linguistic features between the Finnish language and the northern dialect of Estonian and shared Christianity-related loanwords from Slavic. These results suggest that LSAI detection provides a computationally tractable way to detect fine scale structure in large cohorts.

Ric Hern said...

@ Arza

Horses. Was that not the study from 2012 ?

Copper Axe said...

@Arza

"https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB44430

Study Title: The origins and spread of domestic horses from the Western Eurasian steppes"

This article sounds fun, especially the part about selection of behavioural adaptations, but I think the conclusion regarding the MLBA horses basically being ancestral to all domesticated breeds had been made before right?

The bigger unanswered question is where do their horses come from? The development of the chariots in that region were not limited to Sintashta, there are "Proto-chariots" (modified wagons, chariot shaped but no spoked wheels) present amongst a wider set of material cultures, including Catacomb/Poltavka and Babino/KMK.

Abashevo has quite some cultural influence from the southern steppes (kurgans, metalworking) and their fatyanovo predecessors do not seem like horse breeding powerhouses either, but they did have them. Just not as much as their southern neighbours did.

It will be interesting to see from which cultures, sites and periods they sampled from.

I'd say this is still the strongest oldest evidence of actual horse riding:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X2030211X

But there also is this indvidual, who ia a couple of centuries older:

"I0805 / QLB26
Feature 19614. This 35-45 year-old individual is osteologically and genetically male. The
body was buried in NO-SW orientation with the head in the north facing east. Grave goods are scarce and include three silex arrowheads, a few potsherds, and animal bones. A notable observation from the physical anthropological examination is traits at the acetabulum and the femur head suggesting that the individual frequently rode horses."

And if this individual did ride horses; I wonder what the relation between that horse, the Sintashta horse and the modern domesticated breeds.

MH_82 said...

@ Arza
Cool. I wonder if they're insinuating that the main line of domestic horse expanded from the post-yamnaya steppe ?

@ All
i am beginning to think that Pinarbasi is a back migration from Europe to Anatolia

epoch said...

@Rob

Pinarbasi has a special relationship to Iron Gates WHG, to the exclusion of other WHG samples, but there is no trace of Basal Eurasian in Iron Gates WHG. Furthermore IIRC Anatolia was deserted during the LGM. There can hardly be another way.

But how to fit Dzudzuana in this?

Did somebody email Iosif Lazaridis to see if he's willing to pre-publish those samples?

MH_82 said...

@ epoch

It’s not just Iron-gates, it’s also Villabruna cluster in general
The only other group which Pinarbasi shows elevated affinities with (not having Dzudzuana) is Natufians
But this is mostly due to secondary admixture (a/w Natufian lunate & chipped stone industries) which arrived as far as eastern Greece during the Younger Dryas period

On the other hand, VB has elevated Goyet, Vestonice, Afontova Gora

Matt said...

@arza, thanks for that re; horse. I think there are some interesting points around dates to compare there with a couple of papers.

1:
https://www.mdpi.com/2076-2615/11/7/1859 - published in late June 2021
"Review: From the Eurasian Steppes to the Roman Circuses: A Review of Early Development of Horse Breeding and Management"

"From the late fifth millennium BP, both humans and horses were painted, carved, and sculptured, but none of the many finds represent a man sitting on a horse. The earliest representation of mounted equids dates to c. 4500 BP in Mesopotamia [37]. However, the poor state of preservation prevents the determination of the exact equine species. The first unquestionable iconographical proof of horse-riding was found in 1991 on a royal seal belonging to Abbakalla of Ur (the scribe in the service of King Shu-Shin), which dates to the beginning of the fourth millennium BP" (4100-3900 BP) "[37,38].".

"Horses were also the subject of trade; in about 4100–4000 BP, they probably reached and spread across Central Asia, a region where only onagers appeared in feral herds [46]. A new exotic animal quickly became a subject of interest for the aristocracy, and was represented in various pieces of art [47]. The horse-drawn chariots appeared in the Near East about 3800 BP, as represented on Syrian seals [48]. Other discoveries confirmed the horse presence in the area of Southern Iran at that time [49]. The possession of the fast and swift chariots gave the peoples of steppes a tremendous military advantage [47]. Increasing welfare of horse owners led to the birth of the horse industry: 3800-year old clay tablets found in northeast Syria mention the teams of horsemen, trainers, and grooms. Another text from this period describes the import of valuable specimens from Syria and Anatolia to Mari and Assyria [50]".

(re Central Asia - we've also got that find at Gonur - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria%E2%80%93Margiana_Archaeological_Complex - "In excavations at Gonur Depe, at a brick-lined burial pit, grave number 3200 of the Royal necropolis, a horse skeleton was found in period I, dated around 2200 BCE along with a four-wheeled wooden wagon with bronze rims.[40] Archaeologist Julio Bendezu-Sarmiento, mentioning N. A. Dubova's (2015) article, comments that this was an "almost complete skeleton of a foal" resting on the wagon with "wheels circled by bronze bands" and radiocarbon-dated to 2250 BCE. .... A stone statuette that seems to be a horse with saddle was found in burial number 3210 also in the Royal necropolis and was reported by Sarianidi in 2005, and in burial 3310 parts of a stallion's body were found, the stallion lacked its head, rump, and tail, and was considered as a cult burial of a domestic horse by archaeologist Sarianidi in his 2008 publication.")

Matt said...

(cont). 2: Then from last year - https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/6/38/eabb0030 - "Ancient DNA shows domestic horses were introduced in the southern Caucasus and Anatolia during the Bronze Age"

"Our paleogenetic study of pre- and protohistoric horses in Anatolia and the Caucasus, based on a diachronic sample from the early Neolithic to the Iron Age (~8000 to ~1000 BCE) that encompasses the presumed transition from wild to domestic horses (4000 to 3000 BCE), shows the rapid and large-scale introduction of domestic horses at the end of the third millennium BCE."

"A combination of textual, iconographic, and archaeozoological data suggest that, by the mid to late third millennium BCE, domestic horses were introduced from neighboring mountain regions into Mesopotamia (modern Iraq and northeast Syria), where they were often referred to in cuneiform texts as ANŠE-KURRA (“donkey of the mountain”) (24–28)."

"The route across the Bosporus has been postulated on the basis of the earliest zooarchaeological evidence for domestic horses in the southern Balkans at the Early Bronze Age site of Kanligeçit around 2600 to 2300 BCE (8)." (this site seems interesting as - https://greencorridors.burgas.bg/en/objects/view/81 - "Kanlıgeçit dates back to the Early Early Bronze Age in the 3rd Millennium, being the earliest example of urbanization in the Balkans. It is also the only Anatolian colony settlement in Thrace in the Early Bronze Age.") "The coat colors of 10 horses from this site were genotyped and revealed a highly biased distribution of coat color mutations with 6 of the 10 homozygous black horses (a/a), 4 of which also show the leopard spotting (LP), plus 2 bay-colored horses with leopard spotting; no chestnut mutation was detected (72). This pattern strongly contrasts with our results in Anatolia and the Caucasus, where chestnut (e/e) is the earliest coat color variant, while black and leopard mutants remain very rare (only 2 of 25)."

"The abundance of horse bones and images of horses in Maikop culture settlements and burials of c. 3300 BCE in the northern Caucasus led to the suggestion that horseback riding began in the Maikop period"

Matt said...

(cont) This stuff seems really, when put with what the genetic claim is being made above, to suggest that horse domestication happened really rapidly within Sintashta and then spread almost immediately with its associated practices across the world. These dates are all almost contemporary or less that 8 generations after 2000 BCE. Though note there is also some evidence in the Arbuckle paper that domesticated horses were already present at the Anatolian colony site in Thrace, no doubt from the proximate steppe region there. And there's obviously some cultic use of horses in the Caucasus and in the "horse head maces" of the steppe that appears to precede domestication.

It kind of seems to me like it maybe actually makes more sense that the "fast horses" were domesticated and then immediately spread within a few centuries without much human genetic turnover within a few centuries. (As we know there isn't any Bronze Age genetic turnover in BMAC or in the Near East, and we find only some outliers, but even then the outliers at BMAC are not clearly like Sintashta people until later I think).

(This is kind of what we find with other animals after all - they decouple a bit from human migrations.)

I think that contrasts with an ideas that domesticated horses were present in the Yamnaya and CWC, and then other cultures just sort of weren't interested in them until a Yamnaya/CWC related migration. Which seems like a bit of a questionable idea - why wouldn't people want a domesticated fast horse that would replace having to capture and tame wild equids, when they already had battle-wagons and such which were probably important in battle? (Why would we need a "horse people" to demically migrate to spread the use of the animal of obvious use?).

Arza said...

@ Ric Hern

273 ancient horse genomes in 2012?

@ Copper Axe

Re: I0805 / QLB26

https://i.redd.it/yl9fnvzcf3s11.png

Copper Axe said...

https://advances.sciencemag.org/content/4/4/eaap9691

This article already gave a rough outline what happened around the turn if the third millenium b.c:

Sintashta > andronovo > scythians = Y-HT-1 = modern domestic lineage

But during the Roman period you still had horses with Y-HT-4 in northwestern Europe which was also found in the PC steppes around 3000 bc, however this lineage was ultimately bred out. Y-HT-4 was also present amongst the Horses around the iron age Scytho-Siberian sites in Arzhan.

So either this Y-HT-4 lineage went west prior to the explosion of the 2000 bc horse and survived until antiquity, or the Y-HT-4 lineages seen there also came from 2000 bc waves.

I'm guessing that Y-HT-4 was one the lineages that spread out if the steppes with the Corded Ware and later Bell Beaker horizon, perhapd some native Y-HT-2 lineages survived in western Europe because it pops up later on. Not sure yet where to place Y-HT-1, but hopefully this new article will help with that.

Maybe Y-HT-1 went in the direction of Fatyanovo > Abashevo > Sintashta but it could also be Catacomb/Poltavka > Abashevo/Sintashta.

Davidski said...

I think that both YHT1 and YHT4 moved out of the steppe with the proto-Corded Ware people, but eventually YHT1 became more numerous and YHT4 died out due to human induced selection.

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 748   Newer› Newest»