Over at
Nature at this
LINK. I'm getting the impression that geneticists and the editors at
Nature are really crap at geography. Obviously, this paper argues that modern domestic horses came from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is located very firmly in Eastern Europe. But, inexplicably, instead of actually saying this, the authors came up with the much more ambiguous term Western Eurasian steppes, and even put that in the title. I wonder why? Here's the paper abstract:
Domestication of horses fundamentally transformed long-range mobility and warfare 1. However, modern domesticated breeds do not descend from the earliest domestic horse lineage associated with archaeological evidence of bridling, milking and corralling 2,3,4 at Botai, Central Asia around 3500 bc3. Other longstanding candidate regions for horse domestication, such as Iberia 5 and Anatolia 6, have also recently been challenged. Thus, the genetic, geographic and temporal origins of modern domestic horses have remained unknown. Here we pinpoint the Western Eurasian steppes [my note: they actually mean the Pontic-Caspian steppe, which is located in Eastern Europe], 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 expanded rapidly across Eurasia from about 2000 bc, synchronously with equestrian material culture, including Sintashta spoke-wheeled chariots. We find that equestrianism involved strong selection for critical locomotor and behavioural adaptations at the GSDMC and ZFPM1 genes. Our results reject the commonly held association 7 between horseback riding and the massive expansion of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists into Europe [my note: the Yamnaya culture was located in Europe] around 3000 bc 8,9 driving the spread of Indo-European languages 10. This contrasts with the scenario in Asia where Indo-Iranian languages, chariots and horses spread together, following the early second millennium bc Sintashta culture 11,12.
Librado, P., Khan, N., Fages, A. et al.
The origins and spread of domestic horses from the Western Eurasian steppes. Nature (2021). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-021-04018-9
Update: I emailed one of the lead authors, Ludovic Orlando, asking him for a comment. Here it is:
Thanks for your interest in our research. We indeed struggled finding the term that would be most appropriate and this was discussed with our coauthors. The Pontic-Caspian steppe would seem the most obvious choice but my understanding is that this would include a large region, stretching from the most north-western side of the Black sea to the foothills of the Urals. This is larger than the signature recovered in our data. My understanding is that the Eastern European steppes would also stretch more northernly than the region that we narrowed down. Eastern European steppes was also not immediately clear, even for European scholars such as myself. Therefore, it did not seem that there were any terms that were ready-made for truly qualifying our findings. We thus went for Western Eurasian steppes in the main title, and sticked to more precise locations such as the Don-Volga region in the main text. I guess that this is one of those cases where the activities of past herders did not exactly follow some geographic terms that would only be defined thousands of years later.
However, the Pontic-Caspian steppe and the Eastern European steppe are in fact terms that describe the western end of the Eurasian steppe. So they should be totally interchangeable with the term Western Eurasian steppes. Except, at least to me, they seem less ambiguous.
Ergo, the Eastern European steppe can't be more northerly than the Western Eurasian steppes, because it's the same thing. Moreover, the Pontic-Caspian steppe can't stretch further west than the Western Eurasian steppes, because, again, it's the same thing.
Indeed, the land north of the Eastern European/Western Eurasian steppes is called the forest steppe.
See also...
236 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 236 of 236@ Vasistha
Cheers
BE peaks in North Africa. When you include Taforalt; no near eastern population reaches levels up to 50%
AHGs don’t even need it, in some formulations
@Davidski,
Do you know anything about getting multiple calls for SNPs like geneticker used to?
@Open Genomes
Please make a list of the duplicates.
@Genos
Genetiker was getting his calls from BAM files.
But I don't know how reliable his work was. I never really paid attention to it, because he was totally fucking insane.
@Davidski,
Geneticker's work was accurate because it was always collaborated by studies and other amateurs. I know because I checked.
Is the Bohemia DNA not available in BAM Files?
This would be disappointing, as it is really great data to look at for phenotype SNPs.
I started to understand the UP processes that took place in Siberia:
There were 3 distinct clines of ancestry: Nganasan (Hap N) was ancestral to Uralic languages, and is divergent from East Asians;
NEA (Northeast Asians) who were Hap C, ancestral to Altaic speakers, and there was something to those proponents of adding Japanese and Korean inside the Altaic macro family;
ANE were AG3, AG2 and MA1 and other related individuals. They had pronounced Europoid features, which wasn’t surprising because they were in a cline with WHG deep ancestry.
The interactions between ENA + ANE were responsible for the creation of Native Americans, Kolyma and even Botai and Yenisseyan lineages.
Václav Blažek 2019 thought of Botai as speakers of some Yenisseyan language. Botai had mostly East Asian paternal Haplogroups (Damgaard 2018; Jeung 2019). I can now firmly debunk Botai as being anything WSHG but instead they cluster closely with some ANE/NEA grouping as as Kolyma, Kett and Inuit. All these groups, along with Native Americans, are majority East Asian (NEA, Devil Lake/Baikal HG) with a significant minority which is ANE or WSHG. Perhaps that’s why all these languages are so different than IE ones.
The discovery of the TUP (Terminal Upper Paleolithic) in Japan with links to MA1, who lived 30,000-40,000 years ago - can explain the Caucasoid features of the Ainu (Natsuki 2021 - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1040618221000240).
Conclusions:
1. Modern European phenotype most likely came down from Ancient North Eurasians, with the European-like traits reflecting a similar admixture. In fact, ANE-related people were the first inhabitants of Japan.
2. Botai and Yenisseyan speakers aren’t WSHG but they are Kolyma related with an amalgamation of Northeast Asian and ANE groups, while the majority of their culture, dna and therefore languages are from Devil’s Gate.
3. Info-European languages are from a distant ANE root.
@Genos Historia Why don’t you produce a video about what I just posted? Japan’s TUP people as related to ANE; Botai and Yenisseyan having the same admixture as Kolyma and Native Americans rather than being WSHG, with them being more East Asian > ANE, just like American Indians; and our Ancient North Eurasian roots genetically and linguistically.
@Open Genomes
very cool, I read through it. The Etruscan cluster is interesting
https://imgur.com/a/SV5nAXk
Project: PRJEB48297
Study Title: Biological history of the human populations inhabiting Central Europe in the first ages of the common era
Little is known about the genetic makeup of the populations inhabiting East-Central Europe in the first millennium CE, a period during which the transformation from Late Antiquity to Christianity brought substantial socio-cultural changes to Europe. Slavs form the largest ethno-linguistic group in modern Europe and yet their appearance in Central Europe has been the subject of debate for ~200 years, driven by two conflicting hypotheses. The first assumes that Slavs came to Central Europe no earlier than the 6th century CE whereas the second postulates they inhabited the territory of present-day Poland long before the Migration Period (375–568 CE). Despite progress in ancient DNA technologies, testing these hypotheses, and addressing the origins of the Slavs, is not trivial as cremation was the prevailing custom in Central Europe from the late Bronze Age until the Middle Ages.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB48297
@Sam
"Is the Bohemia DNA not available in BAM Files?"
Why do you need the BAM files? 1240k snps are available in the eigenstrat files and can be isolated with plink.
@vara
David Anthony said there are no horses in SC asia and if there are any they came with trade from steppe lmao. That guy is the most biased of the kurganist lot.
Anyway, i excoriated this horse paper on email author Orlando and archaeologist Outram for their claims about indo iranian and horse package moving together south from Sintashta without actually sampling any horse remains. Based on that at least they have removed the word horse but kept the indo iranian and chariot package claim.
@mh82 ill add taforalt and see
@ Andrzejewski
Is Caucasoid and Australoid the same thing now ? I thought I heard Early Ainu had more Australoid features ? Did Australoids originate from an admixture of Early Caucasoids and Denisovans ? I'm still wondering about that migration path through a Mongolian Valley from North to South apparently around 48 000 years ago...
@Mita
At this point I should be paid by the Armenian minsitry of education.
>None of those groups lived outside of where Armenians traditionally lived
This is nothing but headcanon. Urartu spoke URARTIAN, which has barely anything in common with Armenian and in fact has approximately as many loanwords contributed to Georgian as to Armenian. If you claim to have been a subject or slave people of Urartians similar to how Dorians and Helots lived in Laconia, then sure, claim ahead, but that isn't based on any solid evidence, just your headcanon or just servile attitude. However I agree that Hayasa-Azzi was the most likely among the BA/IA peoples to have been Armenian-speaking.
>and they certainly had Indo-European elements
Having Indo-European elements is not proof of being Indo-European, especially when we know what language Urartians spoke, stop pretending to be clueless. As for Hayasa-Azzi, please give me a source where we can see what % of total names was of IE origin. Basques, Hungarians and Kartvelians have Indo-European elements too and have had it for many centuries before modernity. One thing is to have some elements and another is to be dominated by such elements and even then you can be dominated by IE names but not speak IE.
> Armenians come from Yamnaya
Which is pathetic considering that even Georgians score more Yamnaya than Armenians do. In fact every people neighboring Armenia scores more Yamnaya than Armenians do. If you mean that Armenian comes from PIE, sure, but I have already explained this thing to your compatriot, you can't claim to be equally descended from every people, otherwise I can claim history from the whole Old World and maybe the New one too. I am not saying Armenians aren't meant to claim a connection with Yamnaya, but that connection is not very pleasant to think through once one realizes the elite domination and/or mass kidnapping and rape connotations it could have had
>Anyway, Georgians frequently claim groups like the Tibarenoi
This is not up to debate, Tibarenoi and neighboring tribes in that dense cluster in East Pontus were all Kartvelian. The Laz did not come from the moon.
>despite the ancient Greeks explicitly calling them "Scythians"
Greeks called Colchians Egyptians and Svans - Sarmatians. If the East Pontus ever had a Scythian presence Laz would pick at least 1 percent of Yamnaya or Scythian blood, which they don't.
>despite the one Chalybe word we have, Kakmori, their name for the Black Sea, clearly be Indo-European
The only thing I can find about this is that it is a "Chaldian" word. There is no such thing as a Chaldian language. If it is meant to be Chaldean, Chaldean is irrelevant here. I would like to see the source for that claim nonetheless, it seems to be from 'Armenia: A Historical Atlas', assuming it really says 'Chaldian' in the original source, the source is nothing short of bullshit.
@Mita
>Diaeuhi (despite the known Diauhian names being Indo-European and Hurrian)
Names barely matter as I explained above, but I am still curious how you explain their etymologies. The word Diaokhi means 'land' in Zan, what does it mean in Hurrian or IE that makes more sense than 'land' for a political/geographic concept.
>and Tabal in Cilicia
I don't claim them to be Kartvelian and neither does the majority of academics here.
>And it wasn't Armenian scholars who suggested that Georgian "Somekhi" (meaning Armenians) is etymologically connected to Mushki.
I don't know anyone who suggests Somekhi and Meskhi are related. The word comes from: 'The term "Somkhiti"/"Somkheti" is presumed by modern scholars to have been derived from "Sukhmi" or "Sokhmi", the name of an ancient land located by the Assyrian and Urartian records along the upper Euphrates.[3] According to Professor David Marshall Lang,'. Alternatively it comes from 'Samkhreti' meaning South.
>As for Diaokhi (the Greek form of Diauhi), the root is likely Diaus (land of the Diau tribe). Regardless, if you're going to go with the "lands" argument, the Zan is probably loaned from Iranian or another IE language.
The word for 'soil' in PIE - 'deghom', is probably from PKartvelian itself. Page 63 here:
http://loanwords.prehistoricmap.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/06/Bj%C3%B8rn-2017-Foreign-elements-in-the-Proto-Indo-European-vocabulary.pdf
>Your own username refers to a Georgian legend which was adapted from an Armenian legend. And in the Georgian legend, Kartlos (i.e. Georgians) is the younger brother of Haos (i.e. Armenians).
I am aware of that.
>Your second reply
Diaokhi and Daiaeni are indeed one. Nairi was a confederation. Diaokhi being part of Nairi in no way implies that Diaokhi come from lake Van. There is no archaeology suggesting that there was an aggressive expansion from some specific starting point that formed the Nairi extant, unlike for Urartu.
@Targamos and the Armenians “ > Armenians come from Yamnaya
Which is pathetic considering that even Georgians score more Yamnaya than Armenians do. In fact every people neighboring Armenia scores more Yamnaya than Armenians do. If you mean that Armenian comes from PIE, ”
I bet he meant that the Armenian language is a descendant of Yamnaya, Catacomb or Poltava.
@Ric Hern “ Is Caucasoid and Australoid the same thing now ? I thought I heard Early Ainu had more Australoid features ? Did Australoids originate from an admixture of Early Caucasoids and Denisovans ? I'm still wondering about that migration path through a Mongolian Valley from North to South apparently around 48 000 years ago...”
More Yana RHS ANS (Ancient North Siberians) rather than ANE, according to Osada 2021-
https://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/ase/129/1/129_201215/_article
But the fact was that before the formation of Hokkaido Jomon there was some ANS-related substrate with Europoid traits who were being subsumed by incoming migrants and it could be that the enigma which perplexed and baffled anthropologist for decades as to whether to classify them as deriving from East Asians or from West Eurasians is finally solved here. Of course, now that we found out that Ainu are mostly from Okhotsk Culture then the extra ANE admixture wouldn’t hurt either :)
Bottom line, though, is that Botai Culture and Yenisseyan languages did NOT descend from ANE/WSHG but from their East Asian admixture; Botai had pre-eminently East Asian paternal markers, and both current Yenisseyan speakers, Nivkh, Yukaghir, Kamachadals and North American “Indians” score higher on Tyuanyuan than on MA1/AG3. All these aforementioned newly-discovered findings underscore that PIE can not be related to any of these languages. And the TUP admixture into Hokkaido Jomon in common with modern Europeans (Poles and Finns are 60% WSH, etc), proves that the massive Steppe influx is what is largely responsible for post-BA average Europeans’ phenotype.
@All It used to be hypothesized that North American natives had some connection to Japanese archipelago, which is nowadays largely disproved, although I can’t ignore the phonetic similarities between Japanese and Algonquin words in place names like “Omaha”, “Ohio”, “Cayuga”, “Ottawa”, “Idaho”, and so on.
@Rob
When modeling North Africans, do you notice a distinction between "Basal Eurasian" and "Ancestral North African" like components? Can you model Iberomaurusians with just normal BE style ancestry or do they always need something deeper, and more overtly African related ("ANA")?
@Mat
great work, thank you. I see it a little differently, comparing Tyumen HG like component for example.
https://imgur.com/a/oUeeaLF
Sintashta MLBA 02 outlier I1020 is R1b-Z2109(Yamnaya/Poltavka/Catacombe branch)
Potovka-Potopovka,Sintashta- I7670,I1020,I0246(Utyevka VI, kurgan 6, grave2)-form a different cluster from the main Sintashta R1a group and R1a Potopovka elite burial I0419 with horse head and hoofs(Utyevka VI, kurgan 7, grave 1 ).
"There also clearly isn't any unity even in the Potapovka main cluster samples we have that Reich lab accept as within the group; only one of them is much near Sintashta. Again, I'm open to the idea that actually that one is going to be the representative one should we get more samples, but this is the data as it stands."
what Genetiker produced I assume was essentially nothing more than samtools pileup files, it's fairly easy, samtools can be run like such on a bam file
samtools mpileup -R -B -q30 -Q30 -l snp_list.txt -f path_to_hg19.fa your_bam.bam > your_pileup.txt
(note: before running this command, you should index the bam using 'samtools index your_bam.bam')
snp_list.txt has to be a two column file with chromosome in first column and position in the second(note: if your .fa uses the 'chr#' convention instead of just the chromosome number #, you may need to follow this convention in snp_list.txt and possibly reheader the bam file)
hg19.fa is the human reference genome, typically hg19 aka GRCh37
e.g in https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2018/02/25/phenotype-snps-for-bell-beaker-genomes/ he reports individual I3255 as having 1/4 copies in rs12913832, 31/31 copies in rs16891982 and 1/1 in rs1426654
and this is indeed the pileup of this individual at those three sites(I guess he skipped one of 32 at rs16891982)
5 33951693 C 32 GGggggGGGgGggGgggGgGggGgggggggG^Fg <AEEEEAEEEEEEEEAEAEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
15 28365618 A 4 ..,g EEEE
15 48426484 A 1 , E
of course you need to know which is the reference and which is the allele, as some times as in this case the reference and allele are swapped(e.g rs1426654 at 48426484 is the depigmentation allele in SLC24A5, the allele A is the one responsible for depigmentation, the ',' means that one such reference in the third column was read, while in rs16891982 at 33951693 G is the depigmentation one, hence the fifth column reporting the reads)
would be tedious to do this one by one but it shouldn't be too hard to automatize it with either shell scripts or R-software
@capra
The tepe hissar III bmac like cylinder seal has a horse pulled spoke wheeled 'proper chariot' rather than impressions of spoke wheels found in Sintashta which are somehow called the first chariots based on wheel impressions only and no body.
Apart from the horse chariot seal, there are also bmac trumpets found from the site, for animal calling/training.
@ Andrzejewsk
I started to understand the UP processes that took place in Siberia:
There were 3 distinct clines of ancestry: Nganasan (Hap N) was ancestral to Uralic languages, and is divergent from East Asians
Interesting. But you have not revealed the topic of haplogroup N. Where are they in your plan?
Blogger Suevi said...
Project: PRJEB48297
What are the arguments for a Slavic presence in EastCentral Europe before the 6th c.CE?
I understand the point that many current Slavs of the area have genetic ancestry therefrom going back to the early CE prior to the 6th c. What I would like to know are the arguments proving that already at that time period they existed as "Slavs" there. I don't know of any on the basis of the extant "contemporary" documentation.
@Davidski
The paper on Tarim Basin mummies was published today (in open access) by Nature:
Zhang, F., Ning, C., Scott, A. et al. The genomic origins of the Bronze Age Tarim Basin mummies. Nature (2021).
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04052-7
"...Multiple contrasting hypotheses have been suggested by scholars to explain the origins and Western elements of the Xiaohe horizon, including the Yamnaya/Afanasievo steppe hypothesis, the Bactrian oasis hypothesis21 and the Inner Asian Mountain Corridor (IAMC) island biogeography hypothesis..."
"...The Tarim_EMBA1 and Tarim_EMBA2 groups, although geographically separated by over 600 km of desert, form a homogeneous population that had undergone a substantial population bottleneck, as suggested by their high genetic affinity without close kinship, as well as by the limited diversity in their uniparental haplogroups (Figs. 1 and 2, Extended Data Fig. 4, Extended Data Table 1, Supplementary Data 1B and Supplementary Text 4). Using qpAdm, we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%) (Supplementary Data 1E and Fig. 3a). Tarim_EMBA2 from Beifang can also be modelled as a mixture of Tarim_EMBA1 (about 89%) and Baikal_EBA (about 11%). For both Tarim groups, admixture models unanimously fail when using the Afanasievo or IAMC/BMAC groups as a western Eurasian source (Supplementary Data 1E), thus rejecting a western Eurasian genetic contribution from nearby groups with herding and/or farming economies. We estimate a deep formation date for the Tarim_EMBA1 genetic profile, consistent with an absence of western Eurasian EBA admixture, placing the origin of this gene pool at 183 generations before the sampled Tarim Basin individuals, or 9,157 ± 986 years ago when assuming an average generation time of 29 years (Fig. 3b). Considering these findings together, the genetic profile of the Tarim Basin individuals indicates that the earliest individuals of the Xiaohe horizon belong to an ancient and isolated autochthonous Asian gene pool. This autochthonous ANE-related gene pool is likely to have formed the genetic substratum of the pre-pastoralist ANE-related populations of Central Asia and southern Siberia (Fig. 3c, Extended Data Fig. 2 and Supplementary Text 5)..."
"...While the arrival and admixture of Afanasievo populations in the Dzungarian Basin of northern Xinjiang around 3000 bc may have plausibly introduced Indo-European languages to the region, the material culture and genetic profile of the Tarim mummies from around 2100 bc onwards call into question simplistic assumptions about the link between genetics, culture and language and leave unanswered the question of whether the Bronze Age Tarim populations spoke a form of proto-Tocharian. Future archaeological and palaeogenomic research on subsequent Tarim Basin populations—and most importantly, studies of the sites and periods where first millennium ad Tocharian texts have been recovered—are necessary to understand the later population history of the Tarim Basin. Finally, the palaeogenomic characterization of the Tarim mummies has unexpectedly revealed one of the few known Holocene-era genetic descendant populations of the once widespread Pleistocene ANE ancestry profile. The Tarim mummy genomes thus provide a critical reference point for genetically modelling Holocene-era populations and reconstructing the population history of Asia..."
Zhang et al (2021) on Tarim Basin mummies, report amomg other ones, the following 4 male individuals:
G218M5-2, Nileke, H15b1(mtDNA), R1b1a1a2a2(Y-hapl)
L5209, Xiaohe, C4(mtDNA), R1b1c(Y-hapl)
L5213, Xiaohe, R1b1(mtDNA), R1b1c(Y-hapl)
11KBM1, Beifang, C4(mtDNA), R1(xR1a,xR1b1a)(Y-hapl)
To be honest, I’m still on the fence, as far as Neandersovan admixture in modern humans is concerned. We need very ancient human genomes, like 65-100kya +.
Not very on topic, but I just read a layman’s version (phys.org) of an autosomal study that found the oldest Tarim basin mummies are not just ANE but very unadmixed sort of local ANE relict Pleistocene population: and that neighbouring Dzungarian basin mummies are also longtime local + Afanasievo : is this study reliable? The senior authors they give are
- Yinquiu Cui, a professor in the School of Life Sciences at Jilin University.
- Christina Warinner, a professor of Anthropology at Harvard University, and a research group leader at the Max Planck Institute
“..the Tarim Basin mummies show no evidence of admixture with any other Holocene groups, forming instead a previously unknown genetic isolate that likely underwent an extreme and prolonged genetic bottleneck prior to settling the Tarim Basin.”
@Carlos Aramayo “ Using qpAdm, we modelled the Tarim Basin individuals as a mixture of two ancient autochthonous Asian genetic groups: the ANE, represented by an Upper Palaeolithic individual from the Afontova Gora site in the upper Yenisei River region of Siberia (AG3) (about 72%), and ancient Northeast Asians, represented by Baikal_EBA (about 28%) “
Exactly. Because, since Tarim Mummies look so European, it is just the final nail to clinch my theory that Proto-Indi-Europeans were the ones who carried this typical ANE look into Central Europe, via the Eastern Euro Steppes
@claravallensis,
So you're saying it is possible to do what geneticker did?
I'm not trying to do it myself. I don't have the machines needed to get started on it. I'm asking if some of the other experts here can do it.
Would you be willing to get these allele calls for the Bohemia ancient DNA? I can pay you $20.
@ Cy Tolliver
''When modeling North Africans, do you notice a distinction between "Basal Eurasian" and "Ancestral North African" like components? Can you model Iberomaurusians with just normal BE style ancestry or do they always need something deeper, and more overtly African related ("ANA")?''
So far, I have not needed to add-in any Basal Eurasian when ANA is there.
@ Andrzejewski
''In fact, ANE-related people were the first inhabitants of Japan.s''
Say what ? How did you infer that
''Václav Blažek 2019 thought of Botai as speakers of some Yenisseyan language. Botai had mostly East Asian paternal Haplogroups (Damgaard 2018; Jeung 2019). I can now firmly debunk Botai as being anything WSHG but instead they cluster closely with some ANE/NEA grouping as as Kolyma, Kett and Inuit. All these groups, along with Native Americans, are majority East Asian (NEA, Devil Lake/Baikal HG) with a significant minority which is ANE or WSHG. Perhaps that’s why all these languages are so different than IE ones.''
Botai aren't predominantly East Asian . They have 1x R1bxM269 and 1x N1c
'' Info-European languages are from a distant ANE root.''
Indo--
Maybe , maybe not. The manner in which hunter-gatherers passed on languages in distant ages might not lend to a Siberian re-formulation of Paleolithic Continuity Theory
@Andrzejewski
"...since Tarim Mummies look so European, it is just the final nail to clinch my theory that Proto-Ind[o]-Europeans were the ones who carried this typical ANE look into Central Europe, via the Eastern Euro Steppes."
The study, shows there were two different populations in Xinjiang, one in the north (Dzungaria_EBA2)beginning around 3000 BC, and Tarim_EMBA1 in the south, around 2000 BC. The first one was Pontic-Caspian-Steppe-related, with R1b1a1a2a2 in sample G218M5-2 at the site Nileke, and this paper's authors can not denny that they were Indo-Europeans.
But I still wonder how can we explain that the southern people, Tarim basin's proper one, was sampled in the site Xiaohe as featuring Y-haplogroup's subclades R1b1c in two individuals with no Steppe ancestry.
These two samples are:
L5209, Xiaohe, C4(mtDNA), R1b1c(Y-hapl)
L5213, Xiaohe, R1b1(mtDNA), R1b1c(Y-hapl)
@All
In reference to the pastoralism and domestication of horses in the area of the Pontic-Caspian steppe which is located in Eastern Europe, east of the Carpathians, where the first burial mounds / kurgans were erected:
https://nowiny24.pl/archeolodzy-na-pogorzu-przemyskim-odkopali-kurhan-sprzed-niemal-pieciu-tysiecy-lat-zdjecia-wideo/ar/c1-15864791
Archeolodzy na Pogórzu Przemyskim odkopali kurhan sprzed niemal pięciu tysięcy lat! [ZDJĘCIA, WIDEO]
Archaeologists in the Przemysl Foothills have unearthed a kurgan from almost five thousand years ago! [PHOTOS, VIDEO]
Beata Terczyńska 21/10/2021, 16:26
To najwyżej położony kurhan kultury ceramiki sznurowej w polskiej części Karpat, w którym znaleźliśmy groby - mówi Paweł Jarosz z Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii krakowskiego oddziału PAN (…)
This is the highest located kurgan of the Corded Ware culture in the Polish part of the Carpathians, where we found graves - says Paweł Jarosz from the Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Krakow branch of the Polish Academy of Sciences
(...)
Paweł Jarosz z Instytutu Archeologii i Etnologii PAN z Krakowa tłumaczy, że ta kultura związana była z ludnością pasterską, która sypała kopce na najwyższych garbach w obrębie wyniesienia. Dlaczego?
Paweł Jarosz from the Institute of Archeology and Ethnology of the Polish Academy of Sciences in Krakow explains that this culture was associated with the shepherd population, who poured mounds on the highest humps within the elevation. Why?
- Chodziło o to, żeby były dobrze widoczne w okolicy, bo poza tym, że pełniły one funkcję funeralną, czyli składano tam zmarłych, uważa się, że również stanowiły drogowskazy szlaków dla pasterzy.
- The point was that they should be clearly visible in the area, because apart from the fact that they had a funeral function, i.e. the dead were buried there, it is also believed that they were also signposts for routes for shepherds.
(…)
This is a proof that the etymology of the word Kurhan / Ko'R+GaN is related to the meaning of Górka / Go'R+Ka / hill!
@Genos
Matt recently posted some figures from an unpcoming study which apparently did large scale analysis on pigmentation from 1400 ancient dna samples. If I were you I woukd wait for that data to come out.
Davidski is absolutely correct. The facts are obscured when we change or create new terms when existing terminology is applicable.
I confess to being an American who did not understand East Europe extended to the Urals. That was my fault and no reason to change terms in scientific papers.
However, it only takes about five minutes of reading to learn what the existing terminology means. There are no excuses for ignorance.
I like to call it the European steppe. That makes things nice and clear.
Most of Black sea cost was Kashkian in LBA. And Kashkians almost certainly introduced extra CHG there because they were intrusive in North Anatolia. Are You gonna to claim that Kashkians were Kartvelian?
Btw the L1b in Pontic region is only 2700 old. Which is an Middle or late Iron Age expansion.
And who was speaking about thieves grabing everything? LoL
For PIE to have a loanword from the proto Kartvelian it need to have it's homeland in the south of Caucasus.
Are You gonna to claim that it was the case?
Post a Comment