When discussing the Kura-Araxes culture and its people it's important to understand these key points:
- there is Eastern European steppe ancestry in Kura-Araxes samples, and if you're not seeing it then you're not looking hard enough
- Armenian Kura-Araxes samples are mainly a mixture between three different groups currently best represented in the ancient DNA record by ARM_Areni_C, IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C and RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
- ergo, most of the steppe ancestry in the Kura-Araxes population of what is now Armenia must have been mediated via local Chalcolithic groups like ARM_Areni_C
- Kura-Araxes samples show Mesopotamian-related ancestry, and this mustn't be ignored.
Oh, you don't believe it because you just read a big paper in
Science claiming otherwise?
Well, the authors of that paper,
Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg et al., used distal mixture models to study the ancestry of their Kura-Araxes samples, and such models can miss important details.
Consider these three proximate mixture models for a relatively high quality and very homogenous Kura-Araxes sample set from the aforementioned paper. They were done with the qpAdm software
ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
ARM_Areni_C 0.239±0.068
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.379±0.068
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.382±0.054
P-value 0.285122 (Pass)
Full output
ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.569±0.051
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.363±0.058
RUS_Progress_En 0.068±0.020
P-value 0.20306 (Pass)
Full output
ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.531±0.060
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.469±0.060
P-value 0.0132579 (Fail)
Full output
Some caveats apply. For instance, the pass threshold (P-value ≥0.05) is arbitrary. But the point is that the models look much better with steppe-related and steppe reference populations (ARM_Areni_C and RUS_Progress_En, respectively).
Moreover, the unique and vital Darkveti-Meshoko population is represented by just one individual. I also have the genotypes of his brother and sister, but relatives aren't allowed in these sorts of tests.
Including a singleton in the analysis means that I can't use the
inbreed: YES option, which apparently can be a bad thing. Nevertheless, these models do look very solid.
Indeed, I can also model ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber as practically 100% RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya, perhaps with some excess ARM_Areni_C-related input.
ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber
ARM_Areni_C 0.094±0.087
RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya 0.906±0.087
P-value 0.284259 (Pass)
Full ouput
This makes good sense, because RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya can also be modeled solidly as a mixture between IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C, RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En and RUS_Progress_En.
RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
IRN_Hajji_Firuz_C 0.614±0.056
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En 0.307±0.064
RUS_Progress_En 0.080±0.022
P-value 0.141468 (Pass)
Full output
I don't know whether the genetic relationship between ARM_Kura-Araxes_Berkaber and RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya shown in my model is due to Maykop ancestry in the former. It might just be a coincidence in the sense that the same or similar processes led to the formation of both groups. Feel free to let me know your thoughts about that in the comments.
The fact that the Kura-Araxes people harbored steppe ancestry might be very important in the debate over the location of the so called Indo-Anatolian homeland. For instance, it's possible that the proto-Anatolian language spread from the North Caucasus into Anatolia via the Kura-Araxes culture.
But, admittedly, such a solution doesn't have strong support from historical linguistics data, which suggest that the Indo-Anatolian homeland was located in what is now Ukraine and that Anatolian speakers entered West Asia via the Balkans:
Indo-European cereal terminology suggests a Northwest Pontic homeland for the core Indo-European languages
See also...
R-V1636: Eneolithic steppe > Kura-Araxes?
Dear Iosif...Yamnaya
But Iosif, what about the Phrygians?
Obviously, mixture models using the G25/Vahaduo look very similar to these qpAdm runs. But I couldn't be bothered including them in the blog post.
ReplyDeleteAlso, ARM_Kura-Araxes_Kalavan has steppe ancestry too. The male from this sample set belongs to R-V1636, which is clearly a steppe marker and found in the RUS_Progress_En samples.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ANoqwv-aAxR2MTquN-f-m21bK-Y5Cmo/view?usp=sharing
The highest level of steppe ancestry (~18%) is found in RUS_Kura-Araxes_Velikent, but that's not surprising since Velikent is located in Dagestan, and thus not far from the steppe.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1M8sF1_L-Qzu9SlfhYx4HY5FiZns-7jUG/view?usp=sharing
are you saying Olympus Mons of the Shulaveri Shomu hypothesis is unbanned?
ReplyDeleteActually, one of the main reasons why I'm so pissed off with the Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg paper is that it encourages stupidity and gives these crackpots ammunition.
ReplyDeleteHow on earth can they put the Indo-Anatolian homeland in Armenia with zero evidence, and even miss simple things like steppe admix in Kura-Araxes?
WTF is going on?
Kura Araxes could’ve spoken Hurro-Urartian.
ReplyDeleteErgo, if Maykop were KAC they might’ve spoken a Hurrian dialect
I'm pretty sure Maykop wasn't KAC.
ReplyDeleteI guess it's possible that they largely descend from the same populations.
But KAC is only really similar to late Maykop, and especially to Maykop Novosvobodnaya, not to early Maykop.
Davidski
ReplyDeleteIn this study it is assumed that probably with the Sredny Stog Culture the Anatolian languages spread to today's Turkey and as you suspect most likely via the Balkans and of course in a diluted form of steppe descent and thus it would be Proto-Indo-Europeans?
@Steppe
ReplyDeleteI don't understand your question.
Davidski
ReplyDeletethus Proto-Indo-Europeans would be responsible for the Anatolian languages in Anatolia (the study suggests SSC) how do you see it?
Yes, there's only the Indo-European homeland in the Northwest Pontic, and that's where Anatolian languages are from as well.
ReplyDeleteThere was no Indo-Anatolian homeland in Armenia.
Davidski
ReplyDeleteI was also never a proponent of the Renfrew Theory and the PLoS ONE paper also has good arguments against the Anatolia hypothesis which Lazaridis, Alpaslan-Roodenberg may have overlooked or really out of ignorance like Johannes Krause with the geographical determination of the Indo-Europeans in Asia
Lol what??
ReplyDeleteYou recently were against KA spreading Anatolian now that you can find some 5% steppe ancestry you're fine with it? Talk about extreme bias based on preconceived notions.
Funny thing is who says this 5% spread Anatolian? Maybe spread non-IE languages.
Also, where is your archaeological evidence because if you accept that then you can accept IE being brought to the steppes from the southern arc.
Lol Anatolian spoken from Pala to Lycia and Kuskara to Troy was brought by some 3 random dudes from the steppe with 0 cultural impact on the region.
there are also many people in German universities who are of the opinion that the IE languages were brought to Europe with the Neolithic people from the Middle East and that the Anatolian languages came from the Fertile Crescent, where is the evidence please?
ReplyDeleteAlso it has been stated many times in the thread that they are individuals with a diluted steppe ancestry ( but it is there ! ) also we need more genetic results from Anatolia from Chalcolithic to Early Bronze Age and please read the article mentioned above.
@David
ReplyDelete"ergo, most of the steppe ancestry in the Kura-Araxes population of what is now Armenia must have been mediated via local Chalcolithic groups like ARM_Areni_C"
There are Chalcolithic kurgans in Azerbeidjan from roughly the same age. With a mace head.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/286182086_Late_Chalcolithic_kurgans_in_Transcaucasia_The_cemetery_of_Soyuq_Bulaq_Azerbaijan/link/576f7e0408ae842225a888f7/download
Renfrew might have been less wrong than people think
ReplyDeleteThere are two major ancestries in Anatolia - the CHG rich one (e.g. K-A related) which has an spatially inverse relationship to IE languages, the other is the original Anatolian Farmer one which was preserved in central-west Anatolia.
Linguistic geography in Anatolia
ReplyDelete[1]
[2]
If you sort all the KuraAraxes samples in G25 by time, and then run a quick model:
ReplyDeletehttps://imgur.com/a/zLC0LvF
On this quick model anyway, the samples from pre-3000 BCE (I1657, ARM001, ARM002, I1658) would average Progres_EN input of 1.5%, and then the samples from Berkaber around 2500-2400 BCE would tend to around 4.5%.
It could be the case that there is some early contact between that group and steppes, increasing from 1.5% to 5%, though not sure if real would be better explained by an early dispersal like Progress rather than by the post-3000 BCE steppe groups.
I don't know if you'd be able to detect anything in the earlier group by f4admix or qpAdm.
Berkaber is one of the highest Levant samples, which is why it wants to pick significant DM. There are KAC samples with 0 Levant, PPNB or Natufian, so it is unlikely that DM is a source of significant ancestry to KAC.
ReplyDeleteRob@
ReplyDeleteRob takes it for granted that IE people did not borrow words from IE for certain functions and terms they will encounter in their new homeland, but this still does not make the Anatolian languages a CHG language or indicative of a Fertile Crescent origin.
@Steppe
ReplyDelete“there are also many people in German universities who are of the opinion that the IE languages were brought to Europe with the Neolithic people from the Middle East and that the Anatolian languages came from the Fertile Crescent, where is the evidence please?
In the Bible. Sola scriptura.
@Targamos
ReplyDeleteThere's no way to model KA correctly in qpAdm without significant Meshoko input.
Of course, the reason being that Meshoko has the highest actual CHG ancestry, and KA has quite a bit of CHG itself.
That's not to say that Meshoko is the real source of this ancestry in KA, but that's all we got for now.
EastPole
ReplyDeleteare some archaeologists who think so, although even the archaeogeneticist Krause was sometimes misled and now refers to the southern steppe and Caucasus as PIE
@ Steppe
ReplyDelete''Rob takes it for granted that IE people did not borrow words from IE for certain functions and terms they will encounter in their new homeland''
Not sure what you;re trying to say there. But to reply
1. Im aware of what the linguistics points to, although linguistics isn't a science. It's a craft lying in the eye of its beholder. The only way to decipher these topics is via a throrough intergration of linguistcs, archaeology & DNA.
2. western Anatolia and Eastern balkans dont lie in the Fertile Crescent.
3. Thirdly, I'm simply thinking out loud & painting the big picture.
However, there was a long-established 'interaction sphere' between western Anatolia, the Balkans and Steppe, which merely shifted in intensity & direction of reciprocity over time.
However, you wont read it in most genetics papers because those academics are fairly clueless about details & paint simplistic pie-chart scenarios which are often wrong or uninformative. For that you need to read the old skool, upper crust scholars from previous decades. So you should respect them, even though they werent always entirely correct.
Rob
ReplyDeletedon't worry I know where the fertile crescent is (Levant and Mesopotamia) but it doesn't matter because I had a difference of opinion with a professor at the time and the PIE was located there and I didn't
@Matt
ReplyDeleteYou're overfitting your G25 models.
KA Kaps is similar to KA Berkaber in my qpAdm analysis.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PJ8_EERaNv72qXQj-i4ktxG8fGkHkr3F/view?usp=sharing
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1TWtldRhBnmhPpLBM7tgwo-Hyhdb5vl13/view?usp=sharing
@ steppe - ok
ReplyDelete@Davidski, when you say "overfitting", do you mean "too many sources" or "the sources are not distinct enough"? Because the source set of
ReplyDeleteGEO_CHG, IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N, RUS_Tyumen_HG, SRB_Iron_Gates_HG, RUS_Karelia_HG, TUR_Barcin_N, ISR_Levant_PPNB, UKR_N, RUS_Progress_En, ZAF_400BP, MNG_North_N, MAR_Taforalt_~12500_BCE
with only CHG, Levant_PPNB, Barcin, IRN_N, Progress_EN selected in the final model,
are all highly distinct from each other. What is the meaning of "overfitting" here?
You're doing something similar to what Lazaridis did, which is using really ancient, distal sources and thus missing the details.
ReplyDeleteIt's overfitting in the sense that Vahaduo looks for the best fit and takes too much of one thing at the expense of another, rather than producing a model that reflects reality.
It's not a bad model, and can be useful, but only as a broad overview, and it's not a good way to see how much minor steppe ancestry these sorts of populations have.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"Kura Araxes could’ve spoken Hurro-Urartian.
Ergo, if Maykop were KAC they might’ve spoken a Hurrian dialect"
Both Huro-Urartian? it is impossible. The Kartvelian language has a proto-Indo-European substrate, which means that the people who spoke the Kartvelian language had a close and long-standing relationship with the proto-Indo-Europeans. If the Proto Kartvelian people were confined only to Western Georgia, they would not have had contact with Proto-Indo-Europeans.
The Proto Kartvelians must have met the Proto-Indo-Europeans somewhere, and it was either in the South Caucasus or the North Caucasus.
There's a lot of crap that goes on about Anatolian on the internet:
ReplyDelete1. There was an Invasion from the Balkans somewhere 2500BCE bringing Proto-Anatolian or some Anatolian language.
Absolute nonsense. It was international trade according to Deniz Sari, which matches well with the aDNA evidence: "At the sites outside this route, the pottery innovations in question occurred either with less intensity or did not occur at all. Therefore, the appearance of these innovations should not be connected to any invasion or migration. Rather, the spread can be linked with the trade relations between distant regions... Thus, the stability and continuity in the cultural/political structuring of western Anatolia in the 3rd and 2nd Millennia on the one hand, and the absence of signs of any acculturation on the other hand rule out the possibility of a migration which is often linked with a ‘Luwian invasion’ from outside the peninsula into western Anatolia."
2. We don't have evidence of Anatolians because they cremated.
Cremation appears at the end of the 3rd millennium in southeastern Anatolia long after Anatolian speakers hit the scene.
3. The Central Anatolian samples all represent non-IE speakers because the Proto-Anatolian homeland is in Western Anatolia and the Anatolians were a minority elite.
a) This is the biggest misconception out there. Both the two major Anatolian groups, Luwian and Hittite, spread out not far from Central Anatolia East to West. Hittites from Kussara(Cappadocia) to Nesa to Hattusa and Luwians from Purushanda to Troy and Southern Anatolia.
b) The Hattian homeland was inhabited by by Anatolian speakers before Hittite conquest: "In view of the fact that Hittite speakers were able to found a village in an originally Hattian area, Alp (1997: 40) concluded that theHittites must have formed a majority already in the Colony period.
https://www.academia.edu/350837/Central_Anatolian_languages_and_language_communities_in_the_Colony_period_The_Luwian_substrate_of_Hattian_and_the_independent_Hittites
Also, there are other perhaps unlikely models in which the non-IE Hattians and Kaskians are conquerors of IEs who were there before them.
There's a lot of crap coming out of your mouth is more like it.
ReplyDeleteAreni_C is a steppe related population and its appearance in Armenia correlates with the appearance of the Kurgan burial tradition south of the Caucasus.
Then the Kura-Araxes culture appears; a mirror Near Eastern image of Yamnaya with Areni_C ancestry.
This is being ignored by Reich, Lazaridis etc., but it can't be swept under the carpet forever. Sooner or later it'll require an explanation, especially when more samples come in from Armenia and Azerbaijan.
As for the Balkan route, we're already seeing signals of this from western Anatolia, and all we have are just a few samples from there.
Lol what an absolute amateur.
ReplyDeleteAreni_C also show L1a.
Caucasian Tumuli have their roots in Se Girdan. You're digging yourself a deeper hole hahahaha.
From Ivanova:"Considered in the historical context outlined previously, however, the available evidence begins to reveal a new and meaningful pattern. Like several other innovations presented previously, the complex of peculiar funerary practices most probably spread from northwest Iran and the lowland areas of the southwest Caspian northwards along the valley of Kura, and reached the northern slopes of the Caucasus around the second quarter-middle of the fourth millennium BC. Thus, the funerary evidence adds further credibility to the hypothesis that the foreign elements in the north Caucasus originated from the Iranian plateau and its borderlands, and not from Greater Mesopotamia or the Anatolian highland, two regions which lie far outside the area of distribution of early tumuli."
Oooof David, goalpost shifting so hard you now agree with the two "bozos"? How the mighty have fallen hahahahha.
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"Feel free to let me know your thoughts about that in the comments."
Most likely, the Maikop and Kuro-Araks culture arose as a result of the migration of the population from somewhere in eastern or southeastern Turkey, possibly even northern Syria (in the Neolithic, the Northwestern Caucasus was empty). It is also possible that migrants from Palestine or Mesopotamia mixed with the local population of the Armenian Highlands (who were direct descendants of the population of Caucasian hunters). It is also not yet clear whether the Kuro-Araks culture was formed as a result of the migration of the Maikop one, or whether they were formed independently as a result of the migration of a genetically similar population from more southern regions. In short, they are genetically similar, the basis is Caucasian hunters + a rather significant "Palestinian component". But this is perhaps not so important for this topic in this case. More importantly, you call the Progress component "steppe". And on what basis is it steppe? These samples were found in the foothills of the Central Caucasus, but there is no evidence of a similar population in the steppes between the Don and Volga rivers. That is, Progress and especially Vonuchka are indeed most likely the descendants of Caucasian hunters - but only these can be a few population groups from Transcaucasia (from the territory of Georgia), who crossed the Caucasian Range in a local area, but did not penetrate far north into the steppes.
That is, respectively, the component of "Progress" in the Kuro-Araxes is in fact the influence of the local Transcaucasian culture Shulaveri-Shomu, from whose midst the population of Progress arrived.
@CeRcVa “ Both Huro-Urartian? it is impossible. The Kartvelian language has a proto-Indo-European substrate, which means that the people who spoke the Kartvelian language had a close and long-standing relationship with the proto-Indo-Europeans. If the Proto Kartvelian people were confined only to Western Georgia, they would not have had contact with Proto-Indo-Europeans.
ReplyDeleteThe Proto Kartvelians must have met the Proto-Indo-Europeans somewhere, and it was either in the South Caucasus or the North Caucasus.”
Where do you think they met?
Where do you think the Proto-Kartvelian family came from - KAC, CHG, ANF, Steppe Maykop, Iranian Zagros?
Where do you think NEC and NWC came from?
Are you a South Arc theory proponent like Lazaridis et al?
@Tarbagan
ReplyDeleteProgress is a classic steppe population closely related to other hunter-fishers of the Neolithic steppe.
It has nothing to do with Shulaveri-Shomu or Armenia.
In fact, steppe people arrived from the north in Armenia during the Copper Age. That's how Areni C formed.
@ Tarbagan
ReplyDeleteThere's no direct Palestinian or Syrian component in KA or Majkop
The Mesopotamians came with the Neolithic - Shuvaleri Shomu - ~ 6000 bc.
Majkop & KA merely represent reformulations between highland (CHG-rich Meshoko like) and lowland (Azer_N -like) + a dash of steppe here n there. Late Majkop might have some input from Iran
PM
ReplyDelete@ Davidski
IMO Luwian-Hittites are from ultimately NW Pontic & SEE, but might have come via Greece & the Aegean. There are menhirs in Thasos and Troy, Battle Axes, etc and the hydro-toponymic trail. It also explains the genotypic traits of Yassitepe MBA & the lack of obvous 'disturbance'
The K-A merely demonstrates residual Steppe Eneolithic ancestry from Arenia, but is not a vector for H-L
@ Vara
Despite your claims, there is clear archaeological and DNA evidence for links between Balkans and Anatolia. The fact that you’re unaware of this is concerning
Hittite is simply a Luwian language . But even if we accept some of Goedeburg’s claims- that Hittite was earlier than Hattic- then it proves that K-A wasn't IE
Goedeburg admits she just came up with her theory ad hoc after looking at a map of KA. A bit of a ditzy theory to be frank
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"Where do you think they met?
Where do you think the Proto-Kartvelian family came from - KAC, CHG, ANF, Steppe Maykop, Iranian Zagros?
Where do you think NEC and NWC came from?
Are you a South Arc theory proponent like Lazaridis et al?"
Maykop seems to me to be proto-Kartvelian. The main reason for this is not only the autosomal analysis, but also Y-DNA and etc.
Also, Maykop's neighbor was the Proto-Indo-European Yamnaya, which supports the well-founded argument that Proto-Kartvelian was here(in Maykop), and hence the great influence of the Proto-Indo-European language on Kartvelian.
No special influence of Proto-Indo-European languages can be seen in North-West Caucasian. Also if you observe Circassian G2a2b-Y12277 does not coincide with the period of existence of Maykop, they later migrated to the Koban area, when Maykop no longer existed.
@CeRcVa
Delete"No special influence of Proto-Indo-European languages can be seen in North-West Caucasian"
Thats completely wrong. Circassian has one of the closest grammar systems to PIE and shares a huge number of cognates, here are a few from Caucasus linguistics expert John Colarusso:
a. Proto-Northwest-Caucasian */a-r©a/ the-people, Circassian /ade©e/, Ubykh, /a-de©a/ the-Circassians, Ubykhs, Abaza /-r\a/ people, tribe, Abkhaz /-raa/.
Proto-Indo-European *aryo-, Indo-Iranian *Aryan, (found in modern Indic languages), Farsi Iran, Hittite arawa ‘free person’, Runic Germanic arjostiR, Greek aristos, etc.
Pontic *a-r-©o-. the-person-collective/abstract
PNWC */pNa/ ‘lightning strike’, /-Xwa-/ (/X/ is a palatal fricative) -fall.down. Ubykh /fa/ ‘to ignite by a lightning bolt, for lightning to come down’, Circassian, /pNe-LeLe-/ down-dangle, and /-f-/ or /-XW-/ ‘to fall, drive out, down’
PIE *paxwer ‘sacred fire’ (nominative case), *paxweni (dative case, “in the fire”), Hittite pahhur, pahhweni, pahhenes, Greek pu:r, English fire.
Even the mythology of Circassians is extremely Indo-Europeanised / Indo Europeanlike.
@All
ReplyDeleteWhat I find somewhat amusing is that the narrative in peer reviewed papers is backwards to reality.
If one were to rely on such papers instead of the data, then it would seem that all the important migrations went from Armenia and Iran to Eastern Europe.
But the ancient DNA actually shows that the key migrations went the other way, from Eastern Europe to Armenia and Iran.
Haha.
@ CeRcVa
ReplyDeleteIf Kartvellian has significant PIE influences then it might come from postMajkop groups
Majkop itself was heterogeneous, and we need to distinguish early Majkop (essentially Meshoko), Novosvobod phase (extra Iran ) and dolmen (back to Meshoko )
So I would look to the north Caucasus MBA groups which interacted with catacomb, and some of these move down into Georgia
because Maykop itself is a “dead end” and there’s no obvious Majkop in Georgia
ReplyDeleteKura-Araxes was in Georgia, so maybe some Kura-Araxes tribes spoke Kartvelian, others Hurrian, and others Indo-European??
ReplyDeleteThe obviously IE Caucasian groups were the post-KA groups rich in Catacomb ancestry
ReplyDeleteBut more Georgian BA data might clarify details for the non-IE groups
@CeRcVa “ Also, Maykop's neighbor was the Proto-Indo-European Yamnaya, which supports the well-founded argument that Proto-Kartvelian was here(in Maykop), and hence the great influence of the Proto-Indo-European language on Kartvelian.
ReplyDeleteNo special influence of Proto-Indo-European languages can be seen in North-West Caucasian. Also if you observe Circassian G2a2b-Y12277 does not coincide with the period of existence of Maykop, they later migrated to the Koban area, when Maykop no longer existed.”
Where did NEC and NWC come from?
Are Gerorgians (at least west G) 55% CHG, 30% ANF with IE about 15%?
If NWC, NEC and Kartvelians spoke unrelated languages then I guess Kartvelian might’ve been a Barcin language (for example), NWC was CHG and NEC was Iran_N?
Questions (sorry to veer away from thread topic):
ReplyDelete1.) Smyadovo. R1b M269. Has EHG, but difficult to determine if there is CHG or not based on poor coverage. Seems like a huge deal that deserves more attention. Since R1b Z2103 is downstream from M269, is it possible that this lineage formed there in the late Gumelnita-Karanovo (Old Europe) Culture and moved from west to east initially? I had heard there is a 3700 BC R1b Z2103 sample from Dobruja, Romania…but not sure if this is confirmed or not.
2.) I noticed there were many samples from the NW Black Sea region that were submitted to the Reich lab for the Southern Arc study that are not included in the study. These were all Eneolithic samples (Giurgiulesti, Purcari, etc.) from 3500 BC and older. I find it weird that these weren’t included in this paper because the dates of these samples coincide very closely with when this presumed Anatolian language split occurred, possibly between 4400-4000 BC. Is there a paper/study in the works that might include these Eneolithic NWBSR samples?
There's a new sequence of the Smyadovo sample and it definitely has steppe ancestry, along with the usual CHG-related portion.
ReplyDeleteRob
ReplyDelete"Despite your claims, there is clear archaeological and DNA evidence for links between Balkans and Anatolia."
I've looked at all the recent stuff. Even those who believe Anatolian comes from the Balkans like Bachhuber does not see evidence of a conquest or migration but rather a diffusion amongst elites. Anatolia did not have a high population before the urbanisation period; if there was a migration it would not have had such a minimal impact. The idea that it would be diluted to this extreme is bogus because other than an alleged Northeast Caucasian substrate Proto-Anatolian did not have a strong non-IE influence.
"Hittite is simply a Luwian language . But even if we accept some of Goedeburg’s claims- that Hittite was earlier than Hattic- then it proves that K-A wasn't IE
Goedeburg admits she just came up with her theory ad hoc after looking at a map of KA. A bit of a ditzy theory to be frank "
No Hittite and Luwian are different languages. The fact that you're unaware of this is concerning.
Goedegebuure did not claim Hittite was earlier; she claims the opposite. What she claims is that Proto-Luwian and Proto-Hattian interacted with one another before the Hittites hit the scene and that Hittites were living in Hattian lands before they conquered Hattusa.
IDK how that proves or disproves that K-A wasn't IE but sure.
@ Vara
ReplyDeleteI’m not talking about dilution and other simplistic piechartism , But pointing out that you’d be profoundly wrong to claim that there’s no influence from the Balkans into Anatolia. This was long-standing and is independent of whether you think Hittites came from the east or the west (although the former is nonsensical).
The links go back since the Neolithic, culminating during Varna horizon at which point the Balkans became the “more developed” zone and influences now moved back into Anatolia but includes the vast steppe eneolithic complex. A specific social Koine formed amongst the ANF ancestry groups in Aegean - Anatolia into which Cernavoda was integrated.
So you’re not going to find sweeping admixture shifts nor destruction levels but there is a superstate Euro / steppe hunter -pastoralist impact as clearly evident in the Yassitepe lineage present in the Bronze Age and well into Roman period. So the evidence is clear, but unfortunately Lazarides & Apasalan got very confused about Yhg I2a and started talking about medieval Bosnians for some reason
“ No Hittite and Luwian are different languages. The fact that you're unaware of this is concerning”
Hittite, Luwian, Palaic, Carian are all from the one granddaddy language- Lydian, which is the biggest and stretches all the way to the west Anatolian coast and Aegean. You can call it proto-Anatolian, makes no difference
And there’s no point talking about KA & PIE given PIE given that actual IEs (Ie Catacomb related protoArmenians) swept it aside
@ Rob
ReplyDelete"If Kartvellian has significant PIE influences then it might come from postMajkop groups
Majkop itself was heterogeneous, and we need to distinguish early Majkop"
Be that as it may, it also follows from here that the people of Maykop spoke the Kartvelian language and brought that proto-Indo-European language to the Colchis. Otherwise, they would have brought the influence of another language to Colchis.
In general, archeological samples identical to Maikof have been found in the territory of western Georgia, and Georgian archaeologists assumed years ago that there were influences and relations between Maikof and Mtkvar-Araks in western Georgia.
Here is a small 1-page article (after Georgian, there is also a translation in English) and it is written about what has been discovered in western and southern Georgia.
http://saunje.ge/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=2053%3A2021-02-20-22-46-38&catid=1%3A2010-01-24-19-54-07&lang=en
“ nor destruction levels ”
ReplyDeleteWell there is in 2200bc when Hittites expanded toward central - east Anatolia as a political/ military event
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"Are Gerorgians (at least west G) 55% CHG, 30% ANF with IE about 15%?
If NWC, NEC and Kartvelians spoke unrelated languages then I guess Kartvelian might’ve been a Barcin language (for example), NWC was CHG and NEC was Iran_N?"
Georgian_Mtiuleti(Northeast highlander Georgians) have about 47% CHG, 34% ANF and 9% IE.
But it doesn't matter because West Georgia has a high percentage of CHG. Therefore, in case of settling here, their genetic picture would change to some extent.
If CHG spoke a Northwestern language, then how did the Maikop and West Georgian languages switch places? Also, no trace of Circassian G2a2b-Y12277 can be seen in the territory of Georgia (therefore they came to the Caucasus through another territory) and the direct descendants of Kotia still live in the territory of Georgia.
Also, after the destruction of Maikop (in BC 3000), the proto-Colchian culture appears in Western Georgia in BC 2700.
So, 300 years after the destruction of Maikop, a new culture is created in the South Caucasus.
In Wikipedia, the date of Colchian culture is not correct.
"Indeed, the inferences drawn from a range of excavations suggest that this territory spawned a number of related cultures, one evolving into the next, which collectively formed a cohesive geographical and social zone termed Proto- Colchian (ca. 2700– 1600 BC) and Ancient (or Early) Colchian (ca. 1600– 700 BC). Various studies subdivide these two periods further on the basis of chronometric dates and ceramic typology. They are to be distinguished from the fi nal Colchian period, during which Greek colonies were established in western Georgia in the sixth century BC. The Proto- Colchian culture corresponds to the Early and Middle Bronze Ages of the Black Sea region and part of the hinterland of Colchis. Its main characteristics are mound and hilltop settlements with wattle- and- daub buildings, black polished and coarse pottery, and evidence of a strong metallurgical tradition. These features continue to a certain extent into the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, or the Ancient Colchian period."
Author: Antonio Sagona -The Archaeology of the Caucasus, page 450.
Rob
ReplyDelete"But pointing out that you’re profoundly wrong in your claim that there’s no influence from the Balkans into Anatolia."
Nice strawman. I clearly stated: "Even those who believe Anatolian comes from the Balkans like Bachhuber does not see evidence of a conquest or migration but rather a diffusion amongst elites."
There's a difference between migration and influence.
"So you’re not going to find sweeping admixture shifts nor destruction levels but there is a superstate Euro / steppe hunter -pastoralist impact as clearly evident in the Yassitepe lineage"
We see an actual impact of a migration from the Caucasus but you're free to believe that Anatolian comes from the Balkans like Bachhuber. However, seeing evidence of a steppe lineage does not magically make it a superstate impact. If we get Sumerian samples and we see evidence of some random Elamite trader does that mean there's suddenly an Elamite superstate in Sumeria and big Lugal was Elamite?
"No, Hittite, Luwian, Palaic, Carian are all from the one granddaddy language- Lydian, which is the biggest and stretches all the way to the west Anatolian coast and Aegean"
Except that this is wrong. However, there may be a Proto-Lydian substrate in Western Luwian according to Yakubovich.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_languages#Classification
"Well there is in 2200bc when Hittites expanded toward central - east Anatolia as a political/ military event"
There was also destruction when the Luwians from Purushanda expanded to the west but like Sari says that's not a foreign conquest from the Balkans.
"In this period, we can observe destruction layers in many sites between the Aegean coastline and central Anatolia (e.g. in Troy, Liman Tepe, Aphrodisias, and Alacahöyük). However, there is no clear break in the cultural development. This might be due to struggles between the western Anatolian city-states to become the ruling power."
We have already talked a lot about Smyadovo and I will not repeat my arguments about its autosomal composition but IMO its consideration as an outlier is very doubtful.
ReplyDeleteOnly one thing, that sample is in the Balkans and it is previous to the existence of the IE languages (or PIE), so what language did it speak?
Next to it, a R1b-V88 is buried, so, they spoke different languages? I suppose that in Smyadovo they would speak the same language as their ancestors, right? I think it is reasonable to think that they spoke a neolithic language typical of the cultures of old Europe (their grave goods are typical of Gumelnita-Karanovo culture, nothing to do with Khvalynsk or any contemporary steppe or pseudo-steppe culture).
If the common agreement among linguists is that PIE can be dated to "aprox" 4,500 BC, where did this language come from? What language did R1a or R1b-M269 spoke before that date? Does anyone know?
Before some of them joined the neolithic cultures (for example R1a in Romania, R1b in Bulgaria etc...) they were european HGs (eastern or western, no matter the distinction) and therefore if they spoke the same language as their ancestors the origin of this language cannot be south of the Caucasus.
What is the reasoning of the supporters of the steppe theory?
I am pretty sure that KAC do not descend from Maykop. They are simply made of similar components.
ReplyDeleteI think Meshoko here represents a CHG rich highlanders genetic type present all over places. But especially in Western Caucasus
.
@ Vara
ReplyDelete''Except that this is wrong.''
Yakubovich states "Luwian and Hittie are two closely related languages, and much that can be said about the structure of Hittite can also be said of Luwian' (Luwia & the Luwians, p 543)
This is fairly categorical
''We see an actual impact of a migration from the Caucasus but you're free to believe that Anatolian comes from the Balkans''
Which 'the Caucasus''? They came from 'southern Arc', or the'Caucasus' aren't really models.
''like Bachhuber does ''
This is the overwhelming viewpoint amonst specialists, although you mind be aware of it.
What I still fail to understand is how they came into such solid statements about the origins of PIE, when they barely sampled West Anatolia during the right periods.
ReplyDeleteThere aren't any solid statements in the paper as far as I can see.
ReplyDeleteJust some statements and opinions not based on anything much.
@Davidski, OK, I see what you mean.
ReplyDeleteBut I'm not sure that Vahaduo on G25 is going to be e.g. taking too much of Barcin and too little of Steppe, etc. compared to reality, due to having multiple ancient, distal sources here. That seems a bit questionable to me. These sources are really very distinct. It shouldn't be coming to the wrong conclusions about the levels of deep ancestry because they are so divergent.
(More an issue if the sources have different levels of additional drift from the true ancestral populations though (because G25+Vahaduo is based on minimizing absolute differentiation and not so much the minimizing distance along phylogenetic trees controlling for drift like qpAdm would), though since the southern sources tend to be earlier/older, that wouldn't seem in this case to particularly bias towards them.)
I would say that for me, my beef with Lazaridis in that paper was that by using distal modelling *alone* the way they did to model things possibly underplayed local turnover. Also I think it's plausible that distal modelling actually got steppe / EHG related ancestry wrong because really its more CHG:Iran_N:Levant_N:Barcin and they neglected that dimension. But the main thing is that only doing distal models underplayed the sort of chain populations that we've talked about... It was perhaps understandable in the scope of the paper, but that's a point against the choice to make a paper of this scope rather than smaller studies that are then synthesized later.
Ideally we *should* be doing *both* the distal and proximal modelling (and the former as a sense check on the latter) - as the lab he previously did in say previous papers on Mycenaeans, Central Asia, and neither should simply be a replacement of one for the other. It's highly likely that we won't have access to all the proximal variants of different local mixes of these components that existed, so we should try to do both at the same time.
But if you find that in qpAdm / qpWave there's no difference between later and earlier Kura-Araxes samples, that's probably more meaningful than if Vahaduo indicates substructure.
@Gaska “ If the common agreement among linguists is that PIE can be dated to "aprox" 4,500 BC, where did this language come from? What language did R1a or R1b-M269 spoke before that date? Does anyone know?”
ReplyDeleteNOBODY knows. What’s important is that both spoke a PIE dialect circa 5000BCE and afterwards.
This is more or less the date that EHG and CHG-like tribes started melding to create Steppe ancestry. Therefore, I think that PIE or whatever spawned it was an independent language family, unrelated to either one.
In particular, Ukraine (Sredny Stog) and the forest zone.
It’s also possible that both R1a and R1b-M269 spoke a descendant language of a common basal R, which is much less likely.
However, since Sredny was mostly R1a1, I guess the language could’ve been an R1a one…
@Matt
ReplyDeleteThis issue affects all methods.
Basically, what happens is that the references are often imperfect, so the algorithms have to compensate.
There's no way around this, except very comprehensive sampling.
Both distal and proximate models will suffer as a result, but in this case the proximate models at least rely less on having to find tiny amounts of EHG, because there's a lot more Progress and Areni ancestry in Kura-Araxes.
No, distal models will suffer more, because distal references are likely to be more imprecise.
ReplyDelete@Rob
ReplyDelete"This is fairly categorical"
Yeah, except no one denies that Luwian and Hittite aren't closely related except that they do not come from Proto-Lydian which expanded long after them. It's like saying Middle Parthian and Middle Persian are close languages.
"Which 'the Caucasus''? They came from 'southern Arc', or the'Caucasus' aren't really models."
Except that these models have been around since Gimbutas and JP Mallory and aren't anything new. Heard of Ivanov and Gamkrelidze?
Both K-A and Maykop routes have been considered for decades now and even recently several models have been linked here by Vasista or Matt.
This is from Kristansen: "Here the Maykop Culture of the northern Caucasus stands out as the most probable source for Proto-Anatolian, and perhaps even Proto-Indo-Anatolian
(to be discussed below), as it encapsulated many of the traits/institutions that
were later taken over by the Yamnaya Culture (Kohl & Trifonov 2014; Sagona
2017: Figure 4.1). This scenario is supported by a Maykop expansion into the
steppe, forming the Steppe Maykop Culture (Rezepkin 2000; Chernykh 2008:
Figure 5). It is far more difficult to pinpoint the southward influences into Anatolia except in more general terms (e.g. pottery types), and then they mostly
follow a maritime route along the southern Black Sea coast (Bauer 2011). Recent
evidence, however, suggests that Maykop kurgans also existed in the southern Caucasus (Lyonnet et al. 2008). Additionally, a break of continuity can be
observed at Arslantepe around 3000 BC with the introduction of a Caucasian
kurgan burial ritual of new elites, the so-called “royal kurgan” (Palumbi 2007).
Thus, we may assume that earlier traditions were embraced by the Kura-Axes
expansion, including southern Maykop."
^Evidence of a real elite movement but not exactly some outstanding discovery.
"This is the overwhelming viewpoint amonst specialists, although you mind be aware of it."
There's no consensus and it doesn't have strong aDNA evidence compared to the eastern route.
Maybe that'd be worth put that to Laz as it seems like that strikes at the vey heart of the approach in the paper, putting doubt on being able to recover low proportions of ancestry and so missing a very diluted signal? One approach would be to do simulations to test whether that's the case. E.g. simulate some genomes that are functionally EHG<0.05+>0.95somethingelse, then random damage, and see if its better recovered by a distal or model using a proximal intermediary.
ReplyDelete(That would also hit for his reverse contention of Levant like ancestry in steppe of course, and also for things like whether trace Levant related ancestry might have been leaking into Europe via El Argar, etc. Conventional qpAdm often says no, but if we believe its being lost by distal modelling, more of a problem!)
ReplyDelete@Andrei
We Basques (and Spaniards) have nothing to do with this issue "CHG", and we have nothing to do with the Caucasus, Iran, India or anything related to these things. We only disagree in that for us, R1b never spoke an IE language, simply because our origin is very different from yours. You love steppes and eastern europe, I think that is not our origin. That's all.
If you ever manage to prove that R1b has its origin in the steppe we will have to admit that you are right, but for the moment you are far from it. Just try to talk about your lineage and not ours, we are very different, andrei.
And by the way, your phenotypic comments are very funny, you should travel more, visit other countries and realize that blue-eyed blondes are not only in Scandinavia. I like Cuban brunettes mixed with Spanish more than Swedish super blondes. It's just a matter of taste. If you haven't learned over the years that no one is purebred, then you have no idea what you're talking about.
@Vara
ReplyDelete"Even those who believe Anatolian comes from the Balkans like Bachhuber does not see evidence of a conquest or migration but rather a diffusion amongst elites."
And that is exactly how the spread of the Hittite language looks: Like it was an administrative spread.
The idea is that Anatolian languages took a hold in Troy and Troas, then spread from there later on, by the suggested Caravan route between troy and Cilia as proposed by Tufan Efe.
Not unlike how Swahili spread. Or how Afrikaans entered Namibia.
There is evidence of Steppe ancestry in the Troas region. Kumtepe 4 and now the sample from this study, from near Smyrna.
@All
ReplyDeleteAny comments about this?
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744
Paper: "It follows that the early, eastern Yamnaya of the Don-Volga steppe, with its lack of evidence for agricultural practices, does not offer a perfect archaeological proxy for the core Indo-European language community and that this stage of the language family more likely reflects a mixed subsistence as proposed for western Yamnaya groups around or to the west of the Dnieper River."
ReplyDeleteJudging by the preliminary IBD results, from a population genetic perspective western Yamnaya have no fewer cousin links with eastern Yamnaya than each does with western/eastern respectively. So kind of "who cares". They're probably just all one linguistic / genetic group.
The Berkaber samples are from 2600bce, which of course are not relevant to the Anatolians because they see eastern admixture from 3800bce at the latest..
ReplyDeleteWhat do the Kaps samples say? ARM001 and ARM002 from 3600-3100bce.
@ Davidski
ReplyDeleteThey say “In conclusion, unlike the archaeological Yamnaya homeland, the linguistic homeland of the core Indo-European language community cannot be located in the eastern steppe, but must be situated around, and extending to the west of, the Dnieper River. After the formation of the core Indo-European dialect continuum in this area after ca. 3300 BCE,“
That’s thinking in 4D . Good work !
In fact, the details of “archaeological Yamnaya” still require final resolution.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteKA Kaps also has steppe admix, but the rest of its ancestry is probably a bit different.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PJ8_EERaNv72qXQj-i4ktxG8fGkHkr3F/view?usp=sharing
By the way, I guess you missed this. KA Kalavan has steppe ancestry too. The male from this sample set belongs to R-V1636.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/12ANoqwv-aAxR2MTquN-f-m21bK-Y5Cmo/view?usp=sharing
R-V1636 was found in the Arslantepe Royal Tomb.
I'm pretty sure there are better models for KA as well as chalc Anatolians, especially with the new irq_ppn, aknashen and masis_blur samples. Need to run a rotating strategy to compare sources against each other, simple models don't cut it anymore. Ive run them before but didn't bother to save results.
ReplyDeleteWill run them and post results in a day or two.
ReplyDelete@ Vara
I’m not talking about Gimbutas. I dont think she delved into Anatolia in any detail
I was inviting you to specify which “Caucasus invasion” you’re taking about and back it with genetic specifics
The Caucasus had a variety of fairly different systems , so there’s little value in lumping them into one generic “Caucasus” people.
The “CHG-IranN” admixture jn post 5000 BC western Anatolia is multicentric. However it mostly derives from a ‘north Anatolian late Neo groups” (eg Buyukkaya, Ikiztepe) which, going back deeper, relate to Halaf, Hassuna, Sho-Shu and J ware in western Iran. Hence they all appear similar and jnterchanagable in models.
Very little of this ancestry is relevant for Yamnaya (who’s West asian admixture comes from Tripilja, meso CHG, Darkveti).
In Anatolia, aforementioned ancestry parallels the spatial extent of Hattic & “Kaskians”.
On the other hand, there’s steppe ancestry near Troy and Arslantepe, right on the 2 poles of the Caravan road. Moreover, they both belong to “non-nuclear” lineages - I2a and V3616.
What can we make of that ?
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteThis isn't about complex rotating models, it's about what's real.
Kura-Araxes does have steppe ancestry, and a lot of Areni C ancestry.
We can see this in archeological, Y-chromosome and now genome-wide data.
Haha.
Sometimes the lack of a written word is not because that word didn't exist but could be because it is common knowledge at the time and for some or other reason not worth mentioning...
ReplyDeleteTo know what something is is not always an indication that you practiced it or used it.
ReplyDeleteAt the end of the paper, there is an important statement that you've mentioned before in the thread or several times,
ReplyDelete"Indo-European core culture suggests that the source populations for steppe ancestry in the earliest Bell Beaker and Corded Ware groups are in the Pontic rather than the Caspian steppes." - and forest-steppe zones should be sought"
Seen in this way, the SSC is the source population of "steppe descent" and we know from many studies that the eastern CW branch (middle range of the Dnieper) is responsible for the later Indo-Iranians/Aryans... and also for the of earlier (basal-Indo-European) Anatolian languages, the SSC, which took the route to Anatolia via the Balkans (northwestern Pontic region is key), is the better candidate than the eastern Yamnaya culture.
Since Yamnaya bears no trace of agriculture and in contrast to the CW /BB They remain shepherds and did not adapt quickly to their new environment since their expansion was largely in the steppe stayed! then there is still the question of the Afansievo culture, which from a genetic point of view was closely related to the Yamnaya herdsmen, but the economy speaks a different language...?
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"This isn't about complex rotating models, it's about what's real.
Kura-Araxes does have steppe ancestry, and a lot of Areni C ancestry.
We can see this in archeological, Y-chromosome and now genome-wide data.
Haha."
No, this is about you trying only the models that you like, and ignoring the obvious local sources that you should test with. This is where rotating models come in, leaving out all the bias and trying out all models from a combination of sources.
Example:
KA_Kaps can simply be modeled as Arm_Aknashen_N with P-value of 0.35
KA_Berkaber too can simply be modeled as Arm_Aknashen_N with P-value of 0.17
If you forcibly want to go to a 2-source model, both Kaps & Berkaber work with Aknashen_N (~90%) + any one of these
Steppe_Maikop
Steppe_en
Khvalynsk
EHG
Sarazm
Armenia_C
Shahr_Sokhta
Tepe_hissar
Caucasus_Eneolithic/Meshoko
All the rotating models results are here
Kura Araxes seems to simply be a continuation of the Neolithic population.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteThe only reason you can get those models to pass is because the Neolithic Armenian singletons are garbage and they have hardly any data.
They represent extinct populations and don't have anything to do with Kura-Araxes.
The obvious local proximate source is Areni C with steppe ancestry.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteHey shithead, did you even check the coverage of those samples before you came up with your genius hypothesis?
Did you have a look how they cluster in a PCA? They don't cluster with Kura-Araxes.
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteYou rely too much on the Smyadovo mostly-R1b-M269 being too old for the ballpark beginning of PIE, 4500 BC, since he is radiocarbon dated to 4550-4455 BC. Those sets of dates are not meant to be precise. You shouldn't put too fine a point on them. Mr. Smyadovo could very well have spoken archaic Proto-Indo-European.
Here's another thing. A "proto" language is the state of a parent language just before it breaks up into constituent daughter languages. Prior to that, the language is in an indefinite, developmental, "pre-proto" stage. Mr. Smyadovo was definitely potentially either PIE or Pre-PIE.
Next, the burial of an R1b-V88 near that of Mr. Smyadovo is irrelevant. Don't let the "R1b" prefix confuse you. The two were not close Y-DNA cousins. The MRCA of R1b-V88 and R1b-M269 is R1b-L754. The line leading to V88 (V2219) and the line leading to M269 (L389) separated 17,000 ybp.
Let me remind you once again that Smyadovo, Bulgaria is not far from the west coast of the Black Sea, not all that far from the Pontic-Caspian steppe, and that Mr. Smyadovoa had steppe DNA (aka Yamnaya_Samara DNA). Ergo, Mr. Smyadovo or his ancestors came from the steppe. Now imagine a skeleton found in the desert in modern Arizona a hundred miles or so north of the Mexican border and dated to ~2000 AD. Imagine that DNA testing revealed the skeleton had Mexican DNA. The owner of that skeleton might not have been born in Mexico, but it's a safe bet his ancestors were. He might not have spoken Spanish, but it is certainly reasonable to infer that his ancestors did. Get it?
The overwhelming preponderance of the evidence is that R1b-M269 arose on the steppe and was involved very early in the evolution of Indo-European. R1b-L51 has been found plentifully in Corded Ware, and thus far twice in the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture. Its brother clade under L23, R1b-Z2103, has been found plentifully in Yamnaya. R1b-V1636, a distant cousin but certainly closer to M269 than V88 is, has also been found among steppe pastoralists and also in Corded Ware.
What's hard to understand about all this?
@davidski
ReplyDelete"The only reason you can get those models to pass is because the Neolithic Armenian singletons are garbage and they have hardly any data."
If that is the case, then why does the same not happen when modeling Areni_C which definitely requires excess EHG/Steppe_En?
Lazaridis is correct in asserting no EHG in Kura Araxes. Aknashen and Masis_blur have 240/250k SNPs and are perfectly fine sources which give very low std errors. 250k SNPs does not mean 'garbage' or 'no data' lol. There is literally no reason not to use those sources. Even if you incorrectly think there is a reason, your standard position should not be that KA DEFINITELY DOES NOT descend directly from neolithic populations.
Furthermore, Lazaridis has literally used them as sources. Page 304 of supplement
"We consider the following set of sources of ancestry:
CHG, EHG, WHG, ARM_Aknashen_N, ARM_Masis_Blur_N, AZE_N,
IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N, Levant_PPN, Mesopotamia, SRB_Iron_Gates_HG,
TUR_C_AşıklıHöyük_PPN, TUR_Marmara_Barcın_N, TUR_C_Boncuklu_PPN,
TUR_C_Çatalhöyük_N"
Finally, I completely agree with Lazaridis on his conclusion about no EHG required in Kura Araxes. Supp pg 272
"In contrast to the two previous ancestral components which had a general and variable distribution, the EHG ancestry is absent in both Neolithic individuals and in all of the Early Bronze Age groups. Thus, steppe ancestry arrived in the South Caucasus in pre-Yamnaya times, as the Areni1 samples have been dated to the last quarter of the 5th millennium BCE, and the Early Bronze Age is not associated here with either an increase or pervasiveness of this component in the region as it is in mainland Europe on the west. If anything, the EBA population seems to have none of this component."
David wrote: Any comments about this?
ReplyDeletehttps://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744
There's something off about this paper whether the premise is true or not. It would have been more correct to mention that this whole lexical list is a guess. (e.g., "it is beyond doubt that a verbal root �h2erh3- with the meaning ‘plow’ existed directly after the Indo-Anatolian split" is not true and it doesn't make sense if eastern/Indo-Iranian didn't have the plow.)
The other thing you just really can't do with the comparative method is leave Indo-Iranian out of the any kind of "core IE" by picking some words and saying they were only used in core IE. The sound rules that are used to reconstruct Proto-IE depend on Indo-Iranian. The comparative method says you can say these words were lost. Otherwise you need to get the Indo-Iranian out of your reconstructions.
Davidski
ReplyDeleteyou still know the paper where it is claimed by Johannes Krause below there is no evidence of steppe descent in Anatolia cough cough “However, the lineages R1b-V1636 and R1b-Z2103 divided long before (∼17 kya) and therefore there is no direct evidence for an early incursion from the Pontic steppes during the main era of Arslantepe" what does he think about the origin of the Anatolian language, maybe I'll write to him!
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420305092
@Davidski
ReplyDelete"You can get qpAdm models to work if you use low quality singletons. And that's exactly why you used them."
I use them, Lazaridis uses them, and everyone should use them because they're available to be used and there is no reason not to use them. They carry good information about neolithic Armenia and there is yet no alternative. Just as there is no good reason not to use 260k SNP AfontovoGora3 sample.
You still have not answered the question. If Aknashen gives an automatic easy pass to models, then why can't Areni_C pass with just Aknashen_N or Masis_N as source? All single source models fail, and in 2-source models, only one passes. That is 70% Arm_Masis_Blur_N + 30% Steppe_Eneolithic. Results here
This matches the 12% EHG result that Lazaridis got for Areni_C.
Simply put, Areni_C needs additional EHG ancestry over Arm_Neolithic whereas Kura Araxes does not.
@vAsiSTha
ReplyDeleteKura-Araxes is only coincidentally similar to those low coverage Armenian Neolithic samples.
There were several population shifts in Armenia since then, thanks to migrations from the steppe and from the south.
Kura-Araxes is in large part derived from the steppe-related Areni C.
Deal with it.
@Steppe
ReplyDeleteObviously the R-V1636 in the Arslantepe Royal Tomb is from the steppe. It's found in >4,000 BCE Progress and Khvalynsk samples from the steppe, so this should be obvious to anyone.
And I don't have any interest in what Johannes Krause thinks about the origin of Anatolian languages or the PIE homeland.
I'm just surprised because he has already changed his mind and back then advocated the origin of the PIE language in the Pontic steppe and now towards the Caucasus maybe an influence of Iosif 😂
ReplyDeleteRob
ReplyDelete"The Caucasus had a variety of fairly different systems , so there’s little value in lumping them into one generic “Caucasus” people."
Well there are two Caucasus people that matter who are genetically similar but are a part of different networks. One of them could have brought Anatolian.
"In Anatolia, aforementioned ancestry parallels the spatial extent of Hattic & “Kaskians”.
Except that it doesn't. The Hattians who have a strong IE substrate were barely expanding before 2000 BCE. And the Kaskians who took over Pala were either foreign invaders around 1500BCE or displaced Hattians.
"On the other hand, there’s steppe ancestry near Troy and Arslantepe, right on the 2 poles of the Caravan road. Moreover, they both belong to “non-nuclear” lineages - I2a and V3616"
But what does the Novosvobodnaya kurgan tell you? How do we know that I2a in this context was an elite not a trader? There's Balkan influence in Ikiztepe and northern Anatolia but surely that doesn't count because when it's Balkan influence it's IE.
V3616 is interesting because it's definitely from the steppes and came down from the Caucasus. However, seeing the low coverage sample from Oman it might have spread independently.
But I do agree with you that an Uruk/Mesopotamian type movement might have been what brought non-IE to Anatolia.
@Epoch
ReplyDelete"And that is exactly how the spread of the Hittite language looks: Like it was an administrative spread.
The idea is that Anatolian languages took a hold in Troy and Troas, then spread from there later on, by the suggested Caravan route between troy and Cilia as proposed by Tufan Efe."
Except that this isn't the case. There's already evidence that Hittite speakers were already living in Hattian lands before the conquest. And even if it's true Luwian and the other Anatolian languages did not spread that way.
If Anatolian languages took a hold in Troy for centuries then we would see them heavily influence one another but that's not the case. For example, there's Proto-Lydian influence on Western Luwian but not in Hittite.
By 2000 BCE the majority of Anatolia was IE including minor settlements and the only major non-IE group the Hattians have a strong Luwian influence.
Also, I never denied steppe ancestry in Anatolia. Contacts between Anatolia and the Balkans are well established from 6th mil BCE. However, the fact that they have such a small genetic impact is what leads me to agree with Sari that this is simply international trade. Ofc with a few settler here and there.
The steppe ancestry in Kura-Araxes may not necessarily be from Areni. Kura-Araxes can technically work as a mixture of Kaps (which has no Steppe according to G25), Velikent or OSS001 and Aze Lowlands. And as it was mentioned before, certain Kura-Araxes samples (most notably Velikent and Kaps) seem to lack ancestry from Levant, which not only makes Meshoko an unideal proxy, but also Areni. We cannot be sure how frequent Areni-like populations were in Armenia, and samples from East Georgia will prove vital to our understanding of Kura-Araxes, and maybe Maykop.
ReplyDelete@Davidski
What do you think about this sample? To me it looks like something that we might expect to see in Eneolithic East Georgia or Azerbaijan.
Target: RUS_Maykop:OSS001_Date:BC_3632_Coverage:32.37%
Distance: 3.5370% / 0.03536985
36.6 TUR_Marmara_Barcin_N
25.0 GEO_CHG
20.8 IRN_Wezmeh_N
17.6 RUS_Progress_En
0.0 Levant_PPNB
The R1b sample in Arslantepe royal grave is referred as a female in the burial description of Skourtanioti et al, guess the sex was determined incorrectly based on anthropological grounds solely?
ART038 [S150 (H221)] is a young female from Period VI B1/VI B2 lying on top of stone slabs closing the Royal tomb. Probably sacrificed. Dating of human bone: 3361-3105 cal BCE (4534 ± 27 BP, MAMS-34112)
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@ Vara
ReplyDelete“ Also, I never denied steppe ancestry in Anatolia. Contacts between Anatolia and the Balkans are well established from 6th mil BCE. ”
I believe you’ve answered your own question. Seems like a no brainer at this stage !?
And if you are appealing to % autosomal weighting, then Anatolian has prevailing western Farmer ancestry
“ Well there are two Caucasus people that matter who are genetically similar but are a part of different networks”
There are several Caucasus related networks. Early Majkop , Novosvovodnaja, Meshoko, Chaff Ware, K-A.
These all relate to the multiplicity of Caucasian related languages, NWC, NEC, Kartvellian, Hattic and other now extinct groups
Seems like fudging history to try link them to PIE
@ CeRcVa
ReplyDeleteI'm quite open to & like two-way network possibilities.
How do you think Koban, Colchian and proto-Maeotian 'cultures' relate to Caucasian languages ?
@Vasistha, in the paper Davidski linked, I thought you might find this bit interesting:
ReplyDelete"4.2. The position of Indo-Iranian: Hirt vs Schrader
We shall now return to the age-old question of to what extent Indo-Iranian participated in the general shift of the core Indo-European subgroups from a largely pastoralist economy to a more agricultural way of life. The question revolves around the two rival hypotheses by Hirt on the one hand and Schrader on the other: did Indo-Iranian lose many of the agricultural terms present in the European branches or did the European branches rather acquire them after the Indo-Iranian split?
As described above, multiple semantic innovations can be observed in the European languages. Many of these innovations appear late and dialectally limited, i.e. post-Tocharian at the earliest and pan-European at best. They demonstrate how the European Indo-European dialects, in the period when they had started diverging from each other, were in the process of repurposing the vocabulary they had inherited from basal and core Indo-European to reference an increasingly agricultural way of life. However, Indo-Iranian typically does not participate or only marginally participates in the semantic shifts that characterize the European branches. This is evinced by a number of very subtle archaisms in this branch." (Detail removed to limit comment length) "Although often subtle, at least some of these differences in meaning attest to unidirectional semantic shifts in the European branches towards a more agricultural way of life to the exclusion of the Indo-Iranian branch.
Consequently, we may conclude that the evidence presented here is more consistent with Schrader’s scenario than with that of Hirt. While it cannot be excluded that Indo-Iranian lost some vocabulary, the data strongly suggest that the relative dearth of inherited agricultural terminology in this branch is due to a comparatively limited involvement in the lexical innovations that characterize the European branches. At the same time, it is clear that some vocabulary was lost in Indo-Iranian". (Detail removed to limit comment length) "It thus appears that both Schrader and Hirt were partially right. On the one hand, Indo-Iranian participated in the initial core Indo-European shift from a pastoralist to an agro-pastoralist economy, of which some elements later were lost. On the other hand, Indo-Iranian was peripheral to the more recent and more radical shift towards a farming economy, as reflected in the vocabularies of the European branches (cf. Fig 2)."
This is suggested to support a split order of:
Anatolian->Tocharian->Indo-Iranian->Rest of IE splits.
As in this Figure - https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744
Rather than a model in which Indo-Iranian splits from Balto-Slavic after a BSII clade splits from other core IE.
As ever, the attempts to build "One tree to rule them all" when it comes to substructure of the main branches of core IE, have frustrating elements where different parts of the corpus do not cohere to any particular single tree.
From Discussion: The results from the present investigation mitigate, but do not entirely resolve the archaeolinguistic paradox outlined in the introduction. Through the lexical evidence, a cultural shift is observed from a presumably mobile, predominantly non-agricultural to a more sedentary, agro-pastoral language community. The former is represented by basal Indo-European, i.e. Indo-Anatolian, and the latter by core Indo-European, including Tocharian. A later, more radical shift towards an agricultural economy is seen in the European branches of the Indo-European family, which separated them from Indo-Iranian.
OT: I'm not so interested in early 1st millennium AD nomads, but for those of you that are, some new data at ENA: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJNA872874
ReplyDelete"Tashtyk culture genomics" - "The Minusinsk Basin in Southern Siberia had unique conditions for the development of ancient societies, thanks to its geographical location, favorable climatic conditions, and relative isolation. Located at the northern periphery of the eastern Eurasian steppe, surrounded by the Altai-Sayan Mountains this area witnessed numerous ancient human migrations with specific types of interaction between outside and local archaeological cultures.
The genomic history of the human population of Southern Siberia from the Chalcolithic to the middle Bronze Age has been relatively well described in the recent genome-wide studies, while the genetic ancestry of populations, represented by diverse archaeological cultures of the Late Bronze and Early Iron Ages, remains a blank spot for modern paleogenomics.
Here, for the first time, we present two ancient nuclear genomes of the individuals buried in the Oglakhty cemetery (early Tashtyk culture, 2nd to 4th centuries AD). Our pilot study is undertaken within a multidisciplinary project on this noteworthy site with well-preserved organic remains and provides fresh paleogenomic data on the ancient societies of Southern Siberia."
Rob
ReplyDelete"I believe you’ve answered your own question. Seems like a no brainer at this stage !?"
Yeah its a no brainer that Proto Anatolian did not come from traders from the Balkans in the Neolithic.
"There are several Caucasus related networks. Early Majkop , Novosvovodnaja, Meshoko, Chaff Ware, K-A."
No there 2 which have a significant impact on Anatolia at the right time. KA and Novosvobodnaya.
"These all relate to the multiplicity of Caucasian related languages, NWC, NEC, Kartvellian, Hattic and other now extinct groups"
Woah you just said these groups were erased by Catacomb so maybe Catacomb brought non-IE languages since Indo-European religion is seen in Novosvobodnaya?
Especially considering there are well known movements to the Caucasus from both north and south into the Caucasus as late as the common era.
Connecting Novosvobodnaya with languages first attested ~3000-4000 years after it's fall is laughable.
Seems like fudging history to try link them with non-IEs.
PS PIE is not from the Caucasus.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteYes, this is good.
I don't think we'll ever get a totally accurate IE tree but this is the closest. I think Eric Hamp was right about many things especially the early Indo-Iranian split. Surprisingly, there's a ton of overlooked evidence that even supports his view where Iranian splits before Indo-Aryan.
@Vara
ReplyDelete"There's already evidence that Hittite speakers were already living in Hattian lands before the conquest."
If you are refering to Goedegebuure's theory, she argues that there is some evidence of Luwian speakers, based on word order and based on the fact that Hittite pantheon is mostly Hattian. More than one option is possible.
This two year old topic gets a new meaning with this data.
ReplyDeleteFor instance ART018 from Arslantepe has the same Y dna as in Berkaber KAC, which by the way was _absent_ in Maykop.
At last this ART018 in most likelihood represents KAC migrant rather than a migrant from Maykop. For others hard to say without looking closer to uniparentals.
----
Maykop ancestry in Copper Age Arslantepe
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/maykop-ancestry-in-copper-age-arslantepe.html?m=1
@Vara, well, they do discuss essentially the Hamp style model:
ReplyDeleteFirst of all, many of the details of the linguistic fragmentation of the Indo-European speech community, i.e. the exact phylogenetic model, are still unclear. While there is relative consensus on the basal status of the Anatolian branch, leading to the formulation of the Indo-Anatolian Hypothesis [11:30], the situation beyond the Anatolian split is more blurred. Tocharian, too, is often held to be relatively archaic, i.e. the second branch to split off, but it has alternatively been assigned to the so-called core Indo-European group, consisting of the European branches and Indo-Iranian [12]. Within core Indo-European, various rival models exist, including primarily those prioritizing a Graeco-Indo-Iranian (“Graeco-Aryan”) subnode versus a Balto-Slavo-Indo-Iranian (“Indo-Slavic”) subnode, with Albanian and Armenian as their satellites. Without a generally established phylogeny, the identification of suitable archaeological and genetic proxies for the prehistoric locations and movements of the various Indo-European speech communities, itself a highly challenging endeavor, is all the more treacherous.
Though they're not arguing for that, but rather early branch off of II, before the branch of others.
They argue against a starburst model of IE, using:
"Evidently, many of the formal and semantic issues tie back into the problem of the phylogeny of the Indo-European languages. In the starburst model, in which all core Indo-European branches are treated as equally distantly related, a term shared by as few as two branches must be admitted to the protolanguage, whereas a more structured model allows for more strata. Our findings underline that the latter is a priori more realistic than the starburst model."
But I think a contrasting starburst vs a model whereby although there may be technically structure, its weak enough that there's lots of conflicting signal (e.g. maybe II is linked to BS by some sound changes and archaisms, but the outgroup to other core IE on agricultural terminology), then that may end up being more like a structured model in semantic sense only than a strongly structured model.
Getting back to the thread topic, I don't have the full set of later Armenia_KuraAraxes_EBA samples in my dataset (as just using the latest Allen 1240k) sample, but a couple of qpWave just to see if the limited 2x Armenia_KuraAraxes_EBA samples that were previously published are continuous with any others: https://imgur.com/a/lAB4dRC
ReplyDeleteIt's not rejected for Armenia_KuraAraxes_EBA to have qpWave=0 with Russia_LateMaikop or Russia_Caucasus_LateMaikop, so it's possible that these are autosomally speaking not distinguishable populations (e.g. at least, if KuraAraxes has some steppe related ancestry, so does LateMaikop). However the sample count is limited, so it will be worth checking again when the full data of Lazaridis 2022, and Ghalichi (upcoming) are integrated with more samples, because although the SNPs are good, some comparisons are based on only single samples and both matter.
(OTOH, Armenia_KuraAraxes_EBA is distinguishable, as we'd expect, from Azerbaijan_Caucasus_LN, Armenia_C, and Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic).
@ Vara
ReplyDelete'' No there 2 which have a significant impact on Anatolia at the right time. KA and Novosvobodnaya.''
Novosvobodnaja was not an 'expanding' system but a phenomenon which formed in the northern Caucasus as local Darkveti groups and Uruk-linked colonists fused and adapted some symbolic aspects from Sredni Stog, then developed it to the needs of their own distinctive, heirarchical society. Majkop then dissolved as Dolmen groups re-asserted local traditions and then expaning Catacomb groups formed new syncretic cultures represented by 'North Cauc MBA'.
Kura-Araxes did expand but has nothing to do with languages like Celtic, Slavic or Tocharian, hence it bears no relation to the expansion of IE, even though there were some steppe -derived people within it leftover from Areni days.
K-A carried its own identity and prima lingua.
But that's beside the point. Like I said, the Iran/CHG related shift across Anatolia appears already c. 5000 BC (Buyukkaya), which is long before Majkop. It harks back to a broad Halaf-related Neolithic seen across northern/ eastern Anatolia, the Caucasus and western Iran.
''since Indo-European religion is seen in Novosvobodnaya?''
It seems that Majkop adapted aspects of IE representation from Sredni Stog society, which preceded it by 1000 years. However, these groups still maintained a cultural and physical boundary, although some individuals or kin groups did move into the steppe, where they were then liable to assimilation into IE society ('Illyrian-related J2b2' being the example).
''Woah you just said these groups were erased by Catacomb so maybe Catacomb brought non-IE languages''
I said ~ swept aside, ie Catacomb-related groups had a period of dominance 2200 - 1500 BC. It doesnt necessarily mean they erased linguistic diversity, whatever language one would have them 'speak'.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteLate Maykop does have some steppe (Progress-related) ancestry.
Take a look at how Late Maykop samples cluster together in the PCA. Two are clearly more steppe-admixed than the rest.
@Davidski, lots of things are possible; Ghalichi said that they found an individual with EHG ancestry in the North Caucasus for'ex - https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/coming-soon.html ("We present the first genomic data from a Mesolithic individual (6100 calBCE) from the Northwest Caucasus that shows Eastern hunter-gatherer ancestry"). I'm just talking about whether there's a sign of them being much other than a clade, rather than directly onto their deeper ancestry.
ReplyDeleteEpoch
ReplyDeleteThere is written evidence of a Hittite village in the Hattian area. The Hattians are at the center of a triangle consisting of Palains, Luwian and Hittites. Also, just compare the supposed Hattian religion with any other non Anatolian IE one. Hattians are the outliers here not the Anatolians.
But of course, more than one option is possible.
Rob
ReplyDeleteNot sure lapis lazuli comes from Uruk. Novosvobodnaya is not part of the Uruk system but rather one that links it deeper into Iran (see Ivanova).
Tbh idk what late neolithic Eastern Anatolia has to do with Novosvobodnaya weapons and Kurgans showing up at Arslantepe.
This IE representation is not found in Sredny Stog and only from the Mikhailovka groups that emulated Novosvobodnaya. Which mountain next to the Dnieper was associated with big daddy Dyeus I wonder?
@Romulus said... are you saying Olympus Mons of the Shulaveri Shomu hypothesis is unbanned?
ReplyDeleteOlympus Mons said that Shulaveri Shomu were R1b people that migrated through Anatolia > Levant > Egypt >>> Mocrocco and finally Iberia. He claimed these R1bs were then the descendants of all modern Western European men. His theory belongs in the "Hall of Shame" of bad DNA hypotheses, right besides the R1b Italian Refugium and R1b Solutrean hypotheses.
@matt
ReplyDeleteThanks. Yes, i read that and even chatted with Kroonen about it.
This work of his basically negates the possibility of IIr being the last to split from the CW/Sintashta genetic complex. He basically agreed that IIr did not spend time at a common stage with other Euro languages, but could not proceed further using that logic.
So Eric Hamp's Asiatic split sounds pretty good at this point. Kummel and Pronk have independently discarded the Indo-slavic clade as well, seeing no obvious proto BS-IIr family.
They also discarded afanasievo as tocharian source because of lack of agriculture in Afan. That basically leaves some Andronovo related culture or C Asia (dali_eba) like people as the source of Toch.
@Rob “ Novosvobodnaja was not an 'expanding' system but a phenomenon which formed in the northern Caucasus as local Darkveti groups and Uruk-linked colonists fused and adapted some symbolic aspects from Sredni Stog,”
ReplyDeleteWho were these “Uruk-linked colonists”? Are you referring to the Sumerians?
What was their ethnogenetic make-up vis-a-vis the “authochnonous” Darkveti groups?
If the Darkveti were overwhelmingly CHG linked (I believe Meshoko shares the Colchian dual ancestry model of CHG + ANF), would you agree with me that Sumerian/Uruk was a Barcin related language and ethnicity?
@CeRcVa
@Matt
ReplyDeleteHere is where they end up in their conclusion -- their lexical analysis doesn't point to Indo-Iranian splitting off. It points to Sredni Stog as "the basal, Indo-Anatolian language." Versus Yamnaya. They say it outright.
So that mixed "farming" vocabulary excludes eastern Yamnaya from the start. So -- startburst or not -- the breaking off of Indo_Iranian would have happened before "the basal, Indo-Anatolian language." That's what there linguistic analysis is saying.
"From the linguistic perspective, it is worth noting that the Sredni Stog culture, with its limited evidence for agriculture, potentially offers a better archaeological fit for the basal, Indo-Anatolian language community than the eastern Yamnaya culture, which shows no traces of agriculture. From the linguistic perspective, it is worth noting that the Sredni Stog culture, with its limited evidence for agriculture, potentially offers a better archaeological fit for the basal, Indo-Anatolian language community than the eastern Yamnaya culture, which shows no traces of agriculture."
https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0275744
@Vara
ReplyDelete“Which mountain (…) was associated with big daddy Dyeus I wonder?”
This may be interesting to you:
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/01/the-great-shift.html?showComment=1612218167085#c3039054307196807115
@vasistha, in fairness, yes; I think I misremembered Hamp as offering a split between Graeo-Aryan-Armenian (albanian too) and remaining IE. But simply a branch off of Indo-Iranian is more his model (https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D9cLdJiXUAMwTDz?format=jpg&name=900x900).
ReplyDelete"They also discarded afanasievo as tocharian source because of lack of agriculture in Afan. That basically leaves some Andronovo related culture or C Asia (dali_eba) like people as the source of Toch."
This link (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/am/pii/S2352226721000118), Honeychurch 2021, a review paper from last year, had this to say on Afanasievo and agriculture:
"Much like the problem with domestic horses, the question of whether Afanasievo communities consumed domestic grain as part of their diet has also not been fully resolved. To provide some context, the so-called ‘Neolithic’ of Mongolia and southern Siberia is defined based on the production and use of pottery rather than possession of animal and plant domesticates, as is the case in the Near East (Janz et al. 2017:14). Therefore the introduction of domesticates, in this case millet, wheat, and barley, among pottery using hunter-gatherer groups during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age remains a major research question for this entire region. The pestle-like grinders that are most often mentioned as possible evidence for grain use are universally acknowledged as insufficient since wild plants, pigments, and other materials would likely have required grinding (Shul’ga 2012:208). The most comprehensive studies on this issue are by Svyatko et al. (2013, 2017) who conclude that millet is not evidenced in the Afanasievo diet in the form of C4 isotopic signatures. Isotopic analysis has difficulty attesting to C3 grains such as wheat and barley but, to date, there is simply no other evidence to argue for the production or use of cultivated grain.
The gathering of wild plant and root foods was likely the primary complement to hunting and animal husbandry among Afanasievo groups; however, recent identification of what is likely Southwest Asian wheat and barley at a cave site in northern Xinjiang dated to c. 3200-3100 BC suggests that domesticated grain was indeed circulating within the greater region (Zhou et al. 2020)." (Zhou - https://www.nature.com/articles/s41477-019-0581-y / press - https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2020/02/200214134705.htm)
Also: Growing evidence supports the appearance of domesticated bovids and barley, wheat, and millet, contemporary with the Afanasievo period and potentially associated with this intermontane migration route; but as mentioned there is as yet little suggestion of direct contact with southernmost Afanasievo communities (Hermes et al. 2019; Zhou et al 2020)"
I guess there is maybe some outside possibly that Afanasievo still have enough continuous trade contacts with people with grain and agriculture to retain a basic terminology that was circulating within the western steppe sphere. Something like, they had the word when back in the west and then made enough contact pretty quickly with farming peoples in Central Asia in order to retain the vocabulary. We know their dispersal was very fast, such that they even had cousins (can't remember if first, second or third) in Central Europe, so its not necessarily like generations are going by where they're in isolation and can forget things. I don't know what Kroonan would think of that. Maybe a long shot.
To add what Matt said, when it comes to agricultural terminology and Yamnaya (particularly in the russian steppes) one thing to remember is that this particular wagon-driven pastoralist lifestyle only developed around 3500-3300 BC with the introduction of the wagon. It is a recent adaptation, not a lifestyle practised since time immemorial. Agriculture terminology from the generation of their great-grandparents' time wouldn't immediately be forgotten due to a subsistence specialization.
ReplyDeleteAnd then yeah we actually do have evidence of agriculture and agricultural trade when it comes to the Afanasievo.
Indo-Iranian being some kind of basal split in PIE is simply just nonsense, it is a very generic Indo-European language all things considered.
@ Vara
ReplyDelete''Not sure lapis lazuli comes from Uruk. Novosvobodnaya is not part of the Uruk system but rather one that links it deeper into Iran (see Ivanova).''
No, Novosvobod. is not directly part of the Uruk system, I suggested that one formative groups was linked to Uruk, whilst the other(s) were not.
It seems you misunderstand these nuances
Yes Lupis is from central Asia / Afghanistan. However, thats one commodity, probably traded down -the-line. Kohl is critical of overinterpreting that. It might have been brought in by the WSHG in Steppe Majkop, which we know were all around Central Asia.
''This IE representation is not found in Sredny Stog and only from the Mikhailovka groups that emulated Novosvobodnaya. ''
Majkop takes on some components of the Sredni Stog, but magnifies them to mean status symbols instead of something which represented every day life in S.S.
These aspects are clearly missing in West Asia before the Leila Tepe kurgan horizon, which obviously relates to Steppe Eneolithic evident in Arenic C.
Mikhailovka and Usatavao do, at least in part, represent responces to Majkop in some way, but only socially, not ideologically religously or lingusitically.
btw - the Omani samples are low coverage. R1b isn't a Gulf lineage
@Matt
ReplyDeleteKroonen (on twitter) was open to the possibility of some Andronovo related communities bringing in Pre Toch.
There is no direct link between cereals and Afanasievo (as per your hermes et al and zhou et al quote). The only region that could have brought barley and wheat to the Xinjiang region in the Afanasievo era is SC Asia. If the idea is that Tocharian was brought in during this period, then SC Asia is the source of that proto Tocharian.
If not this, then Andronovo is the source. I have said before as well, Andronovo genetic impact inside Tarim is much higher than it had on Indian subcontinent, and 3-4 times higher than it had on Iran. Its hypocritical to assume that andronovo only gave loanwords to Tarim but changed language of the Indians and Iranians with a much lesser impact.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"How do you think Koban, Colchian and proto-Maeotian 'cultures' relate to Caucasian languages ?"
I can't write anything about Maeotian, but there has been a theory about the Koban-Colchian culture connection for a long time. If we look at the genetic analyzes from Koban, G2a1 obviously migrated from Kolkheti, and after the migration of G2a1, the Koban culture was formed.
And in general, the Georgian language has no kinship with the northern languages. According to linguists, Kartvelian has much more connections with Proto-Indo-European.
@Andrzejewski
"If the Darkveti were overwhelmingly CHG linked (I believe Meshoko shares the Colchian dual ancestry model of CHG + ANF), would you agree with me that Sumerian/Uruk was a Barcin related language and ethnicity?"
I do not know. Yes, there is a theory about the Uruk expansion into the Caucasus for resources. Hypotheses about Georgian-Sumerian kinship were also very popular in Georgian historiography of the 20th century, many wrote about similarities of words, etc. But at that time they were not familiar with the Sumerian language, etc. I do not believe in Sumerian-Georgian theories.
In general, there were many strange tendencies among Soviet historians. For example, Georgian was often ignored, and some believed that since Georgians were not a Caucasian population, the Kartvelian languages came from Anatolia, etc. Instead of Georgian, there were hypotheses that there was a Circassian language in western Georgia and Nakh-Dagestan in the eastern Georgia, etc. In general, Soviet/Russian politics was often characterized by anti-Georgian politics in history, etc. And many Georgian historians sincerely followed and believed this narrative, etc. At that time, it was popular to connect Georgian with ancient cultures-countries and peoples (for example, Sumerians, etc.).
@Vara
ReplyDelete"There is written evidence of a Hittite village in the Hattian area."
But that doesn't mean that Hittite was there before.
Rob
ReplyDelete"These aspects are clearly missing in West Asia before the Leila Tepe kurgan horizon, which obviously relates to Steppe Eneolithic evident in Arenic C."
Forget the Lapis Lazuli.
"Furthermore, the silver vessels with animal depictions from the kurgan of Maikop portray animal species which are native in Azerbaijan and west Iran, and resemble in style another gold vessel with animal decoration found at Fullol in north Afghanistan. Along with these exotic commodities, exotic ideas and technological knowledge reached the communities of the Maikop period from the southeast. Most shapes of locally made copper tools, for example, derive clearly from Iranian and not from Syro-Anatolian prototypes. Other technological peculiarities of the north Caucasus, like lost-wax casting, beads of gold and silver sheet over faience core, copper-lead alloys, copper-silver alloys, arsenic-nickel copper, use of silver and gold, manufacturing of metal vessels, may well originate from the “Irano-Afghan” cultural sphere, and not from Greater Mesopotamia. All these innovations were part of the technological system in central Asia and Iran during the early fourth millennium BC"
^That doesn't exclude the Caucasus from trading with Mesopotamia ofc. But the roots of these southern Kurgans is in Se Girdan not Vonyuchka. Leila Tepe was a thousand years more advanced than the egalitarian fishermen.
"Majkop takes on some components of the Sredni Stog, but magnifies them to mean status symbols instead of something which represented every day life in S.S."
What are these components and how were they magnified to status symbols? Come on, Rob you've done nothing but deflect the whole time, throw some vague general statements, and misrepresent the facts (eg. Hittite comes from Lydian).
"Mikhailovka and Usatavao do, at least in part, represent responces to Majkop in some way, but only socially, not ideologically religously or lingusitically."
Sure, that's entirely possible. But think about what this means.
"btw - the Omani samples are low coverage. R1b isn't a Gulf lineage"
You sure I said R1b is a gulf lineage?
@CeRcVa http://science.org.ge/old/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf
ReplyDeletePitskhelauri thinks that the Uruk expansion is responsible for Maykop and Kartvelian.
Who knows? We do know that Georgians have 35% ANF, just like Europeans (latter have more Anatolian, though).
Imertians turned from Darkveti to D. Meshoko—> Sioni, it’s either that:
Either: ANF came from Sumerians and/or Ubaidians;
Or the “Iranian” element in Chechens (Nakh) snd Karvelians arrived with these Mesopotamians.
My favorite theory, to go off on a tangent, is that OT characters depicted as blue eyed or red haired such as King David, Jesus, Essau etc, are the descendants of the pre-Iran_N/CHG/“Hattic”-like migrants e.g. “Abraham”, and that the Peqi’in specimen was true to the Anatolian + Natufian PPNB/PPNC mix before Zagros migrants rendered the population much swarthy.
It’s also possible that many Israelites gained European-like phenotype as an outcome of marrying Hurrians (KAC), Philistinines (Steppe + EEF, speakers of Aegean and Anatolian branches) and other European migrants.
CopperAxe
ReplyDeleteWould you please have a link about agriculture of Afansievo culture? the study sees no indication, however, only one study cannot know everything
@ Andrze
ReplyDelete“Who were these “Uruk-linked colonists”? Are you referring to the Sumerians?
What was their ethnogenetic make-up vis-a-vis the “authochnonous” Darkveti groups?”
Don’t think they were Sumerians that seems like a long shot
They simply represent links to the ‘lowlands’
“If the Darkveti were overwhelmingly CHG linked (I believe Meshoko shares the Colchian dual ancestry model of CHG + ANF), would you agree with me that Sumerian/Uruk was a Barcin related language and ethnicity?”
How does that mean that sumerians were Barcin ?
We’d need actual Sumerian data to know but I doubt ANF has anything to do with Mesopotamian languages
It’s more related to IE
@ Vara
You’re a bit of a battler, despite my repeating the same things over in simple-man terms for you
Btw the Petra article highlights that pure Luwians lived in west Anatolia. So thanks for the link.
@vAsiSTha, I guess the point for me is that they just have to know about it enough to have some words for it, rather than necessarily it's a big part of their culture. This is where some of the linguistic paleontology I find questionable down for me. (Fine to suggest that people can't have a reconstructable term for wheel until its invented for'ex, but people do not need to live in a place where horses are a big part of their culture for a word for horse to be reconstructed, just where they are present for experience at all. So I don't know that it's a problem for cultivated grain not to be a big part of subsistence, if it's plausible they'd know about it at all, continuously. But then maybe there is a counterargument to this.)
ReplyDeleteAnyway...
Btw, I read an article by Hermes and Frachetti (https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/268992353.pdf) which claimed that Dali_EBA at approx 2700-2600 BCE lacked ancestry from the Western steppe groups. ("Phase 1 occupation levels at Dali date to 2705–2545 cal BC (electronic supplementary material, figure S1 and table S1) and include pit house architecture not previously described for the region. Ceramics from phase 1 resemble those from Altaic cultures of the third millennium BC (electronic supplementary material, figure S3). A human parietal bone recovered from the pit house exhibits a genetic composition most similar to Eurasian hunter–gatherers, including Eneolithic horse herders at Botai, with approximately 20% admixture from Neolithic populations from the northeastern Iranian plateau, while there was not a contribution of western steppe Yamnaya or Afanasievo ancestry")
But I don't know if this is the most plausible. When I looked at it using G25 and qpAdm, it seemed more plausible for it to have some: https://imgur.com/a/oaucWec
Albeit in qpAdm the model didn't seem to care too much about what source of Steppe ancestry it was (not much change between Progress, Afanasievo, Khvalynsk). (The qpadm here are not with allsnps; with allsnps, the steppe proportion and p-value went down but still contributed to a better fit and a passing fit).
The point not being to suggest that Dali_EBA represents a heavily Western steppe related population, but it's possible there was a sign of "some interaction".
@Matt
ReplyDeleteDali_EBA does have Kumsay_EBA and Botai ancestry, along with Sarazm ancestry. So via Kumsay, it has some Progress ancestry. Now this population might have been a perfect candidate for introduction of Tocharian into the Tarim basin. The problem is that no special genetic connection with Dali is seen inside Tarim. Some input is seen in Chemurchek, but that's not really in Tarim. My preferred method to find out who the Tocharians were, is to find out the samples near Tocharian speaking sites which have Buddhist South Asian admixture. So far, the answer seems to be that SA ancestry mixed with high andronovo ancestry in Toch regions.
"I guess the point for me is that they just have to know about it enough to have some words for it, rather than necessarily it's a big part of their culture. This is where some of the linguistic paleontology I find questionable down for me."
I agree with this. Let's assume that Afanasievo people knew of agriculture. But the question is - which words do Afanasievo folks start using for agricultural items? Steppe_en, khvalynsk_en till yamnaya see little to no agriculture as well. So the IE agricultural words in afanasievo, if any, should also be of SC Asian origin. Simple examples are spread of words for tomato, pineapple(ananas) etc. which retain indigenous south american names.
In any scenario, the simple case of Afanasievo giving Tocharian to Tarim (including the agricultural terms) is inadequate.
@Vara
ReplyDelete"Caucasian Tumuli have their roots in Se Girdan."
Ivanova talks about Maikop. Not Chalcolithic ones like Soyuq_Bulaq.
@ cercva
ReplyDeleteOk . You wouldn’t Colchis BA with Kartvelian?
I’m having difficulty seeing Majkop as anything but an extinct or para- group at this stage
Epoch
ReplyDelete"But that doesn't mean that Hittite was there before."
Sure. But it also dispels the myth that Hittite was only spread by elites as an administrative language.
"Ivanova talks about Maikop. Not Chalcolithic ones like Soyuq_Bulaq"
She clearly did. The paragraph below is followed by the one I quoted to David:
"Series of burial mounds in the southeast Caucasus provide better parallels for the tumuli in the plain of Lake Urmia. Tumulus 1 at Telmankend in the region of Astara... The tomb contained the skeleton of an adult individual accompanied by several artefacts: a clay wheel (possibly a spindle whorl), a stone animal-head scepter, a whetstone, and several objects of arsenical copper, that is two poker-butt spears, one flat axe... At Soyuq Bulaq near Aqstafa, excavations of some eighteen tumuli revealed several variants of the same burial custom"
@ Epoch
ReplyDeleteI think the kurgans at Soyug might harbour R1b-V3616 or Q1
''You wouldn’t Colchis BA with Kartvelian?''
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't connect Colchian bronze age with Karvetlian
@Andrzejewski "http://science.org.ge/old/moambe/6-2/153-161%20Pitskhelauri.pdf
ReplyDeletePitskhelauri thinks that the Uruk expansion is responsible for Maykop and Kartvelian.
Who knows? We do know that Georgians have 35% ANF, just like Europeans (latter have more Anatolian, though).
Imertians turned from Darkveti to D. Meshoko—> Sioni, it’s either that:
Either: ANF came from Sumerians and/or Ubaidians;
Or the “Iranian” element in Chechens (Nakh) snd Karvelians arrived with these Mesopotamians"
Yes, I know Pirstkhelauri. But here I will write the Top 10 Y-DNA spread among Georgians, and you (or others) tell me which one came from southern Mesopotamia during the Uruk expansion.
1. G2a-Z6653 26%
2. G2a-PH1780 9%
3. J2a-Y12378 9%
4. J2a-CTS6804 6%
5. R1b-Z2013 6%
6. J2a-Y11200 5%
7. R1a-Z93 4%
8. I2a-Y16419 4%
9. J1a-Z1842 3%
10. L1b-Y16187 3%
To me, none of them fit into the Uruk expansion.
@Rob
"I’m having difficulty seeing Majkop as anything but an extinct or para- group at this stage"
And why? Is the autosomal result not enough for you, where the maximum distance between Maikop and modern Georgians is 0.02 to 0.04? When the Maikop disappeared 5,000 years ago, the modern population not only shares autosomal similarities with the Maikop people.
How many 6000-5000 year old cultures can you write down that are genetically almost identical to modern populations?
@Vara
ReplyDelete"Sure. But it also dispels the myth that Hittite was only spread by elites as an administrative language."
Hittite was largely spread by elites as an administrative language. That is the one of the main points in Goedgebuure's paper. Did you read it?
CeRcVa said...
ReplyDelete''And why? Is the autosomal result not enough for you, where the maximum distance between Maikop and modern Georgians is 0.02 to 0.04? When the Maikop disappeared 5,000 years ago, the modern population not only shares autosomal similarities with the Maikop people.
How many 6000-5000 year old cultures can you write down that are genetically almost identical to modern populations?''
I don't disagree. I haven't look into moden Caucasians, but are vahaduo distances formal tests ?
Im just thinking in cultural sequences:
1. 3800 BC Majkop develops/ emerges
2a. 2900 Late Majkop dissolves, Dolmen culture appears in NW Caucasus mountain zone, as a transformed western remnant
2b. 2900 BC- hybrid Majkop/ Yamnaya groups emerge in steppe zone of north Caucasus, until they disappear ~ 1700 BC
From which group of 2a or 2b does Kartvelian emerge ?
Imho
ReplyDeleteProto Colchian and Colchian cultures fits well for Kartvelian languages. In Eastern Georgia probably Samtavro type is related to them.
Where was Pre pre Kartvelian before Bronze Age is much harder to know. I have seen claims that it's a CHG language or Neolithic farmers language. I have no opinion on this matter.
Epoch
ReplyDeleteYou forgot the only. I'm really not sure what's your point?
Do you disagree that there were different Anatolian groups roughly north, east and west of the Hattians before any Anatolian empire was formed?
But more important did you read Ivanova?
@Rob
ReplyDelete"I haven't look into moden Caucasians, but are vahaduo distances formal tests ?"
I'm not talking about the modern Caucasian, I'm specifically talking about the modern Georgian population.
What do you mean in "formal test"? You can try another test, the result will be the same.
"1. 3800 BC Majkop develops/ emerges
2a. 2900 Late Majkop dissolves, Dolmen culture appears in NW Caucasus mountain zone, as a transformed western remnant
2b. 2900 BC- hybrid Majkop/ Yamnaya groups emerge in steppe zone of north Caucasus, until they disappear ~ 1700 BC"
As for the steppe Maykop, these are other people, which is not surprising, because they lived on the periphery of Maykop.
Dolmens in general are a complex subject and should be better studied.
Dolmens by Antonio Sagona - The Archaeology of the Caucasus
"Shortly after the advent of the Kura- Araxes complex in the mid- fourth millennium BC, the western Caucasus spawned its own highly distinctive traditions. One of these peppered the foothills of the mountains and is easily distinguishable by its dolmens – megalithic edifi ces for the dead. The other cultural tradition, known as Colchian, occupied the wetlands and lowlands for well over two millennia ( Chapter 11 ).
Dolmens are accessible aboveground burial chambers, usually megalithic in construction, covered by a barrow and intended to house several or multiple individuals. They are most often associated with Western Europe, especially the Atlantic façade, where the oldest and most elaborate are situated. 1 There they form part of the megalithic building tradition. Although there is no ‘dolmen culture’ as such, for these megalithic structures are a global phenomenon, in the north- western Caucasus we fi nd one of the greatest concentrations in the world. They are relatively little studied and even less understood in western scholarship. 2 In the Caucasus, these edifi ces should be studied with reference to their own historical and geographical conditions."
@Vara
ReplyDeleteThe point about Hittite is very simple. The paper that you pasted states clearly that Hittite is invasive in the Hattian lands.
And I haven't read the Ivanona paper apart from your quotes, the point is that there is Chalcolithic Kurgans in the southern Caucasus and there is steppe ancestry there from the same age.
I don't think those Soyuq Bulaq Kurgans originate from Se Girdan. They are older. I don't think Ivanova states that either, by the way. You OTOH did.
https://www.academia.edu/2104974/Maikop_Type_Tumuli_in_Northwest_Iran_towards_a_more_precise_dating_of_the_tumuli_at_Se_Girdan_
@ CeRcVa
ReplyDelete''I'm not talking about the modern Caucasian, I'm specifically talking about the modern Georgian population.''
which are a modern Caucasian group. Naturally, one would need to analyse all modern Caucasian groups in order to understand one subset.
You do understand that basic premise, right ?
''As for the steppe Maykop, these are other people, which is not surprising, because they lived on the periphery of Maykop.''
lol I'm aware who 'steppe majkop' are, but that's not what Im talking about.
I laid out what occurrs after the Majkop culture region ends, in the mountainous zone and the lower valley/ steppe zone.
a) in the mountainous western zone, the Dolmen culture succeeded, (b) in the open lands Catacomb/Yamnaya + post-Majkop hybrids emerge then disappear after a while.
If you think Kartvelians derive from Majkop, they really would need to derive from a or b. Its a simple a or b answer.
And you dont have to encyclopaedia descriptions of groups I already know about, but thank you
@ Aram
''Proto Colchian and Colchian cultures fits well for Kartvelian languages. In Eastern Georgia probably Samtavro type is related to them.''
Agree. Majkop which has no direct link with Iron Age/ historic Kartveliians, its just a theory brandied around
So we need to evaluate the origins of Colchian culture.
@Rob
ReplyDelete"which are a modern Caucasian group. Naturally, one would need to analyse all modern Caucasian groups in order to understand one subset.
You do understand that basic premise, right ?"
Everything can be discussed, but you can look at common Y-DNA, sub-branches and ages in North Caucasians and then do autosomal analysis. It is literally impossible to connect them to Maikop. What we cannot say about J1 of Dagestanis, which is really related to Kura-Araxes.
"I laid out what occurrs after the Majkop culture region ends, in the mountainous zone and the lower valley/ steppe zone.
a) in the mountainous western zone, the Dolmen culture succeeded, (b) in the open lands Catacomb/Yamnaya + post-Majkop hybrids emerge then disappear after a while.
If you think Kartvelians derive from Majkop, they really would need to derive from a or b. Its a simple a or b answer."
Sorry, but why do you think your reasoning and options are necessarily true?
I just don't understand how you can not connect the samples of Darkveti-Meshoko and Maikop with the Georgian population (especially the Western Georgian population) and discuss about any other language. It is clear that the samples of Kura-Araxes autosomally coincide with Georgians, but here a mixture of quite different populations(and cultures) is seen and it is difficult to discussed, while the issue of Maikop seems to be quite simple(for me).
If Colchians are from Steppe Maykop then Georgian could be from Kelteminnar = WSHG.
ReplyDeleteBut it seems HIGHLY unlikely to me
Epoch
ReplyDelete"The point about Hittite is very simple. The paper that you pasted states clearly that Hittite is invasive in the Hattian lands."
Where did I claim that Hittite originates in the Hattian lands?? I clearly stated it's from Kussara in Cappadocia. My claim is by 2000BCE most of Anatolia from Cappadocia to Troy would have been Indo-Europeanized and the only major non-IE group would be heavily influenced by these IEs.
"the point is that there is Chalcolithic Kurgans in the southern Caucasus and there is steppe ancestry there from the same age."
I love how metallurgy and art that has nothing to do with the steppes in Soyuq Bulaq is ignored but some picked up progress ancestry in Areni makes you go: KURGANS! STEPPE!
Talk about motivated reasoning.
"I don't think those Soyuq Bulaq Kurgans originate from Se Girdan. They are older. I don't think Ivanova states that either, by the way. You OTOH did."
"The geographic distribution of these characteristic tumuli seems to mark a route from northwest Iran along the valley of the Kura to the passes of the central Caucasus. Researchers regard sites like Sé Girdan as unusual monuments, which emerged under influence of or even through the direct migration of north Caucasian communities (Muscarella 2003, 125; Korenevskij 2004, 76, note 2; Kohl 2007, 85).175 This view appears feasible if such sites are viewed in isolation. Considered in the historical context outlined previously, however, the available evidence begins to reveal a new and meaningful pattern. Like several other innovations presented previously, the complex of peculiar funerary practices most probably spread from northwest Iran and the lowland areas of the southwest Caspian northwards along the valley of Kura, and reached the northern slopes of the Caucasus around the second quarter-middle of the fourth millennium BC. Thus, the funerary evidence adds further credibility to the hypothesis that the foreign elements in the north Caucasus originated from the Iranian plateau and its borderlands, and not from Greater Mesopotamia or the Anatolian highland, two regions which lie far outside the area of distribution of early tumuli "
Translation: Kurgans move from Northwest Iran to the valley of Kura where Soyuq Bulaq is. As much as you want Soyuq Bulaq to be a steppe colony it simply isn't.
@ Rob,
ReplyDeleteA new Greek sample from c. 2150 BC with significant steppe ancestry and Y-DNA I2a2a1b:
Genetic History of Anatolia during Holocene (Koptekin 2022)
https://open.metu.edu.tr/handle/11511/99472
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"If Colchians are from Steppe Maykop then Georgian could be from Kelteminnar = WSHG"
I did not say such a thing. From the analysis of Darkveti-Meshoko, it can be seen that the population migrated from Western Georgia to Koban. Later, after the destruction of Maikop, this population migrated back to the territory of Georgia and in a few centuries the proto-Colchian culture was created in the South Caucasus. The population that migrated to Maikop probably spoke the Proto Kartvelian language and was heavily influenced by the Proto-Indo-European language from Yamnaya.
@ A
ReplyDelete“new Greek sample from c. 2150 BC with significant steppe ancestry and Y-DNA I2a2a1b”
Thanks that’s interesting.
Location Thessaly
@
“Sorry, but why do you think your reasoning and options are necessarily true?
I just don't understand how you can not connect the samples of Darkveti-Meshoko and Maikop with the Georgian population ”
My options are of course true, but it appears you don’t really understand the culture-historical sequences of the Caucasus region very well
Majkop has no link with Georgia, even if an isolated site is found. There is a big chronological gap between Majkop and attested Kartvelian speakers
Meshoko are not synonymous with Majkop, I explained this previously
Even Meshoko has no direct link to historic Kartvellians
You need to look at Colchis culture and see how they link in
“The population that migrated to Maikop probably spoke the Proto Kartvelian language and was heavily influenced by the Proto-Indo-European language from Yamna””
A proto-language is the immediate predecessor of attested languages, so Majkop can’t be protoKartvellian
Also, Yamnaya & Majkop were not in direct contact , but separated by Steppe Majkop
Curiously, there are many other Caucasian cultures which show clear evidence for mixing between Caucasus groups and Steppe
@A
ReplyDelete“new Greek sample from c. 2150 BC with significant steppe ancestry and Y-DNA I2a2a1b”
Wow, I believe this is the same haplogroup as I5737? Close in age as well.
@Vara
ReplyDeleteCan you point me to the Iranian tumuli older than Soyuq Bulaq?
@Rob
ReplyDelete"My options are of course true, but it appears you don’t really understand the culture-historical sequences of the Caucasus region very well
Majkop has no link with Georgia, even if an isolated site is found. There is a big chronological gap between Majkop and attested Kartvelian speakers
Meshoko are not synonymous with Majkop, I explained this previously
Even Meshoko has no direct link to historic Kartvellians"
You are too self-confident and somehow you think you know everything, especially since you clearly deny genetic results and write some strange arguments.
As for the connection between Meshoko and Darkveti, it is archeologically confirmed. Also, the genetic analysis of Darkveti-Meshoko confirms them South Caucasian origin.
"A proto-language is the immediate predecessor of attested languages, so Majkop can’t be protoKartvellian
Also, Yamnaya & Majkop were not in direct contact , but separated by Steppe Majkop
Curiously, there are many other Caucasian cultures which show clear evidence for mixing between Caucasus groups and Steppe"⁷
It doesn't matter if there was a direct connection between Yamnaya and Maikop, the fact is that they had a cultural influence on each other. As for Steppe Maikop, I already wrote that he had nothing to do with the population of Maikop, and it is not clear why Steppe brings you as an argument to invalidate the Kartvelian language. As an argument, I bring genetic results and proto-Indo-European influence on Kartvelian. You decide what the truth is with some incomprehensible texts.
Well, I won't stop you from writing your theories, but on a strange blog that talks about genetic tests, there is a clear denial of the genetic result.
@ CeRcVa
ReplyDeleteI don't know why you keep pointlessly perseverating about steppe Majkop.
You’re obviously attached to the idea that Kartvellians relate to the illustrious Majkop culture. Despite its popularity, it's rather nonsensical
Wrong time , wrong place.
Although you can't admit it, deep down you're quite aware of that, which is why you're inventing an imaginative & circutious model. Meshoko isnt synonymous with Majkop, which isnt synonymous with Colchian culture. You're just bundling them all together
Even if you want to believe that Majkop spoke a related language, it was a dead end which did not produce modern Kartvellian
In reality, it is the Colchian culture in the marshes and valleys of Colchis which is relevant for Kartvellians. And yes, there were plenty of late IEs nearby to influence them, documented by hundreds of kurgans in the southern Caucasus c 2200 bc
Linguists who had assumed some generic connection between NWC or Kartvelian like Nichols and Bomhardt to IE were dead wrong; it is the Catacomb and Srubnaya influence on the former ones which renders any similarities possible. There are also similarities in numerical, grains and the term for wine between Semitic, Kartvelian and IE. My estimate is that these terms originated in PIE and spread forward (like equestrian terms), or that all these language families received those terms from some substrate language.
ReplyDelete@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteI'd just like to interject for a moment. When you’re referring to Catacomb or Srubnaya ancestry, you must note that Kartvelians, or to be more specific, the Colchians (who have preserved much of Proto-Kartvelian auDNA), completely lack any input from the former or the latter. That's why theories like Maykop spoke Kartvelian/Para-Kartvelian or that Steppe Eneolithic spoke a CHG-derived language are so tempting.
And do you honestly think that the terms for wine and grain were spread by the PIE? The second options sounds far more likely than the first.
Regarding the Maykop question. The auDNA similarity between Maykopians and Kartvelians aren't strong. Maykopians do resemble East Georgians and East Georgian admixed West Georgians like Imeretians, but that's largely coincidental.
East Georgians are West Georgians who are admixed with populations that used to inhabit much of Kartli-Kakheti and Meskheti. Said populations went through many shifts, from Kura-Araxes to Trialeti to (possibly) Urmia_IA admixed Trialeti. The Kartvelians invaded those territories in MLBA, bringing with them a Colchic DNA profile and eventually shifting the whole region back to its previous KAC-like state.
So if we are to compare Maykopians with Kartvelians, then we must compare Maykopians with Proto-Kartvelians, and the best Proto-Kartvelian candidates that we have right now are Megrels, non-Balkar admixed Svans and the new Colchian outliers that we got from the Southern Arc paper.
https://i.imgur.com/EdruU3v.png
As you can see in the image above, Maykopians are characterized by a much higher Iran_N ancestry, different Anatolia to Levant_PPNB proportions and (most of the time) lower CHG ancestry. There are some candidates that do somewhat resemble Proto-Kartvelians, like SIJ003 (who is a child of SIJ001 and SIJ002, which is weird because her ancestry proportions differ from her parents, it could be a quality issue or some weird genetic recombination), and to a lesser extend I6266. There is a huge variety within the Maykop culture. Maybe certain Maykopian groups were admixed with Dolmenians or Colchians, so it possible that some of them spoke Para-Kartvelian, Para-NWC or Para-NEC, but that's impossible to prove as of yet. And yes, the chances that Maykopians had direct successors are very slim. Kartvelians are very autochthonous to the Colchis region, so I don't see why we should view Kartvelians as Maykopian migrants when there are many good candidates for Proto-Kartvelians within Colchis itself. FrankN did a good rundown in one of Rob's threads on adnaera.com
https://adnaera.com/2019/03/10/the-cirum-pontic-region-c-4000-3000-bc/
And regarding the Kartvelian and IE linguistic similarities, we must note that the similarities are between Proto-Kartvelian and PIE, and not just some highly diverged IE tongue that some of the Trialetians likely spoke. The contacts between Trialetians and Zan-Svans were also almost nonexistent.
About the new 2150 BC sample from Greece with I2a2a1b.
ReplyDeleteI2a2a1b1b1 was also found in two samples with steppe ancestry from the Swat valley c.1000 BC (Narasimhan et al. 2019).
@Vara
ReplyDeleteIf Hittite was spoken up until Kussara 2000 BC, the whole Goedebuure paper is wrong. She claims that native Hattian speakers existed before Hittites conquered the area and remain native Hattian speakers during Hittite rule. That Hittites conquered the area is pretty clear. So in order for your assumption to be true the paper must be wrong.
Also, as I asked before, can you point me to the Iranian tumuli older than Soyuq Bulaq?
RE; 'Uruk migrants', probably a bad term because it wasn't Uruks themselves, but I think Majkop picks up Iran-ChL type ancestry over local CHG-rich Darkveti
ReplyDeleteEpoch
ReplyDelete"If Hittite was spoken up until Kussara 2000 BC, the whole Goedebuure paper is wrong."
Why? Kussara has nothing to do with the Hattians.
"She claims that native Hattian speakers existed before Hittites conquered the area and remain native Hattian speakers during Hittite rule."
I'm pretty sure she bases her whole theory on the fact that there was a bilingual Indo-European group that was subordinate to the Hattians before the Hittite conquest that switched to "Nesite Hittite" that was brought by the elite conquerors.
Check out the following:
"We have a large, originally subordinate immigrant group which has completely merged with Hattian society, and is fully, but not perfectly bilingual in both Hattian and an IndoEuropean language, either proto-Hittite, proto-Luwian, proto-Palaic, or another Anatolian Indo-European language...When Anitta sweeps over Hattian ruled land and certainly after Labarna, Hattusili I of Kussar and Murili I definitively conquer the former Hattian core land, the Hittites find a language community of mixed descent, in which a large part of the population might
still speak a form of Indo-European, but worships Hattian deities in Hattian, performs
Hattian rituals, and listens to Hattian mythology. Although Hattian as a court language
will have been replaced by Hittite, part of the population will still speak Hattian for some
time after the conquests. One can imagine however, that possibly bilingual descendants
of the speakers of Indo-European might easily switch to that other Indo-European
language or dialect, Nesite Hittite... Nevertheless, the other facts mentioned above support the view that these language communities were already present in Hattian lands before the Hittite conquests. "
Also, she references this: "This corresponds with Soysal’s phase 1 of Hattian-Hittite contacts: “The earliest Hittites who peacefully lived in Hattian cities under Hattian sovereignty without having any military-political claim”
"Also, as I asked before, can you point me to the Iranian tumuli older than Soyuq Bulaq?"
Allegedly, it was supposed to be coming soon but all the focus is on Eastern Iran recently. But that doesn't change the fact that Soyuq Bulaq has a typical "Iranian" package.
Soyuq Bulaq doesn't really have a ''typically Iranian package', whatever that means, but draws from multiple regions to communicate the status & links of individuals buried there.
ReplyDeleteFrom Lyonett (2008):
- ceramics : 'most of which present features known in northern Mesopotamia in the first half of 4th mllenum BC', however these are 'local imitations'
- black/red bowls which seesm to be a forerunner of sorts for the red-black ware later seen in Kura-Araxes culture
- lapi-lazuli imported from Afghanistan
- obsidian : local Caucasian sources
- metal beads and items: no provenance studies but probably local Caucasian ores.
- stone sceptre in Soyug similar to that seen in Se Girdan, kurgan III (which itself is 'to be perceived and appropriately studied as a northwestern Iranian manifestation of the North Caucasian, Majkop, EBA culture''. This preceded the 'massive' Kura-Araxes infiltration into northwestern Iran (Muscarella 2003, Rezepkin 2000)).
The problem with the south Caucasian Chalcolithic (pre-Markopti) kurgans is that skeletal remains are scarce: could be due to local soil conditions or cultural choice of community.
@Vara
ReplyDeleteThe sentence directly after that is:
"There is however no positive evidence that identifies Hittite
speakers as the ones in contact with the Hattians"
Thanks a bunch, much appreciated! Check out the Klosterneuburg guys from ~100AD...
ReplyDeleteEpoch
ReplyDeleteAre you trolling?
She clearly states that it's an Anatolian group and opts for Proto-Luwian at the end. Remember Hittite is an Anatolian language but not all Anatolian languages are Hittite.
@Davidksi,
ReplyDeleteWhat study are those samples from?
Meshoko and its successor the Dolmen culture (influenced by the Novosvobodnaja phase) might be pre-proto-Kartvellian, and acquired early IE loans via their contacts with Sredni Stog
ReplyDelete@Samuel
ReplyDeletehttps://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/05/geography-is-hard-for-some.html
The implication of Petra’s article : if Central Anatolia was originally Luwian Indo-European, before Hattic conquest from the east, then it follows that the CHG rich / KuraAraxes ancestry which came after 4000 bc was non-IE
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case, Luwian and other Anatolian IE languages appear to correlate with ANF ancestry, under the sway of leading Balkan centres 5000-4000 bc
@Rob
ReplyDeleteMeshoko and its successor the Dolmen culture (influenced by the Novosvobodnaja phase) might be pre-proto-Kartvellian, and acquired early IE loans via their contacts with Sredni Stog
The problem with this is that we won't be left with any candidates for Northwest Caucasians.
Regarding the possible loans,
Take PIE word for clover, "*semh1r-", which has no meaning in IE, whereas the Kartvelian equivalent "sam'qura" means "three-eared".
Another one is "*dʰéǵʰōm", meaning "soil". The Georgian equivalent would be "niadagi". There's also another term for fertile soil, "*diɣwam-" in Georgian, Svan and Proto-Kartvelian. It is a cognate with the previously mentioned words.
Given the nature and the variety of those terms within PK, it is unlikely that they were mediated to the Kartvelians by the Indo-Europeans, rather the opposite is more probable.
Which is why I don't completely disregard the theory of the existence of a Para-Kartvelian group further north of Colchis. I expect Darkveti-like ancestry to be found in Eneolithic Don.
@ ancestralwhispers
ReplyDeleteI think there's Meshoko ancestry in Steppe Eneolithic already
--
How does Koban culture fit in with the required G2a clades for NWC ?
The other alternative is Maeotian culture, although I cant find much literature on it
in turn, Meshoko-Darkveti has almost 10% EHG
ReplyDeleteRUS_Eneol_Mountains
RUS_Samara_HG
GEO_Satsurblia
AZE_N
best coefficients: 0.089 0.319 0.593
Jackknife mean: 0.088970171 0.318670716 0.592359112
std. errors: 0.024 0.066 0.056
TProb: 0.26
@Vara
ReplyDeleteSo you come up with a theory that Hittite was spoken before Hattian in order to refute Hittite being spread as an administrative language with Mrs Goedgebuure's paper as source. Yet that paper basically confirms Hittite being an administrative language.
You claim "Kurgans move from Northwest Iran to the valley of Kura where Soyuq Bulaq is". Yet you cannot point to any Iranian tumuli older than Soyuq Bulaq.
@ancestralwhispers.org
ReplyDelete"The problem with this is that we won't be left with any candidates for Northwest Caucasians."
Northwest Caucasian G2a2b-Y12277 and Georgian G2a2b-PH1780 are very young. They migrated to the Caucasus about 4500 years ago, by which time Maikop no longer existed, they probably still lived in Anatolia. Therefore, if we take into account the G2a2b spread among the speakers of the NorthWest Caucasian language, which is spread with a high percentage, it is actually impossible for them to be in the Caucasus during the Maikop-Yamnaya period.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteHow does Koban culture fit in with the required G2a clades for NWC ?
Koban had G2a1. It is rare among Circassians, but is present at moderate amounts among Abkhazians and Karachai-Balkars, but much of their existing G2a1 would be mediated by the Kartvelians.
G2a1 is the most major Kartvelian clade, peaking among Svans. G2a1 is also dominant among Ossetians, but their variation has a Medieval TMRCA.
https://i.imgur.com/h5Br8Q6.png
The other alternative is Maeotian culture, although I cant find much literature on it
Maeotian is too late, the basis of that culture would be formed on a heavily Koban influenced Dolmen culture, plus the later Cimmerian and Sauromatian impacts.
@ CeRcVa
ReplyDelete''They migrated to the Caucasus about 4500 years ago, by which time Maikop no longer existed, they probably still lived in Anatolia'''
This issue with that is, by 2500 BC, central-eastern Anatolia (ie. those parts close to the Caucasus) was dominated by Y-hg J2a. So Anatolia is no longer a G2a-source region at this time
@ ancestralwhispers.org
''Koban had G2a1. It is rare among Circassians, but is present at moderate amounts among Abkhazians and Karachai-Balkars, but much of their existing G2a1 would be mediated by the Kartvelians.
G2a1 is the most major Kartvelian clade, peaking among Svans. G2a1 is also dominant among Ossetians, but their variation has a Medieval TMRCA.''
OK, so NWC are predominantly J2a (of some form), + G2a2b ?
@CeRcVa
ReplyDeleteBy your logic Ossetic was first spoken in the Caucasus 900 years ago due to the G2a1 founder effect among the Ossetians.
@CeRcVa
ReplyDeleteYou have the most impressive track record of coming up with the most terrible takes that belong in Georgian boomer academia. There is no magical place in Anatolia which answers every question about the Caucasus. Please don't leave your forum.ge containment zone.
https://i.imgur.com/UYUhD0l.png
ReplyDeleteThe Beniamin set sums up the genetic history of Armenia rather well. Starting from MLBA you have the Steppe-rich, possibly Proto-Armenian speaking population.
Then in 500BC you see a massive dilution of Steppe ancestry, which some associate with an input from the Urartians (alternatively, I wonder if they were the ones who brought Armenian to East Armenia, a slight twist towards the Anatolian-Armenian theory?). Another curious thing is that at the same time we also see an increase of CHG ancestry, relative to the Lchashenians and modern Armenians, that the Urartian samples alone cannot cover. I can't think of any other source of this increased CHG ancestry other than a direct Kartvelian input, or a Kartvelian/Colchic-admixed Diaokhi or Hayasa Azzi populations that were integrated into late Urartians.
This additional CHG input would further wane in modern East Armenians due to a later influx of Upper Mesopotamian-rich West Armenians.
@ ancestralwhispers.org
ReplyDeleteThe comparison with the Ossetians is irrelevant because the Y-DNA found in Maikop does not match the Y-DNA found in the Circassians. Well, let's follow another logic. Is there a Proto-Indo-European influence in the Northwest Caucasian language?
@Targamos the Based, son of Kavkasos son of CHG son of
I agree with you that in Georgian and Soviet academies they often connected everything with Anatolia. But the fact is that G2a1 and G2a2b in the Caucasus came from Anatolia in different periods and this is not my stupid idea. And for the second time you are attacking me and trying to insult me. Who are you?
@Rob
ReplyDelete"This issue with that is, by 2500 BC, central-eastern Anatolia (ie. those parts close to the Caucasus) was dominated by Y-hg J2a. So Anatolia is no longer a G2a-source region at this time"
Yes, I made a small mistake, they were already here at that time.
Epoch
ReplyDelete"So you come up with a theory that Hittite was spoken before Hattian"
I never did. Rob did above (Luwian tho).
That paper confirms Luwian or
another Anatolian language being spoken in Hattian lands.
You're incredibly dishonest. Improve your reading comprehension and stop making strawmans.
@Rob “ The implication of Petra’s article : if Central Anatolia was originally Luwian Indo-European, before Hattic conquest from the east, then it follows that the CHG rich / KuraAraxes ancestry which came after 4000 bc was non-IE
ReplyDeleteWhatever the case, Luwian and other Anatolian IE languages appear to correlate with ANF ancestry, under the sway of leading Balkan centres 5000-4000 bc”
Which we know is BC, because Anatolian IE languages don’t correlate with LBK-like ancestry but with Steppe component from Ukraine
Ancestralwhispers
ReplyDeleteIt's not at 500bc. The Urartian sites in modern RoA are not sampled. All what we have that is labeled Urartian are from Lchashen 6 sites. Except two samples.
I think soon we will have ancient DNA from genuine Urartian sites in Republic o Armenia then it will become that this type didn't appeared at 500bc. But earlier. Starting from 750bc or earlier.
. Concerning all this extra CHG or Anatolia/Levant_N surging and decreasing here and there over time in historic Armenia.
ReplyDeleteI think a large mountainous region with multiple valleys and fragmented water systems could have harboured much more diverse populations than we can imagine.
Look at the Talin site KAC. Two different KAC there. One Anatolian shifted the other is none. Why?
Because Talin is close to Araratian plain lowland.
Unfortunately Shengavit KAC is low coverage and we don't have it's G25. But looking at it's distal models it is very Anatolian Levant shifted. I guess it will even plot with modern Armenians.
Shengavit is in lowlands in modern Yerevan.
Hello, can you add this Laal sample to G25?
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mediafire.com/file/n9z6dpn9e6yhrh7/A409.zip/file
FYI
ReplyDeleteUrartian kingdom which Zimansky consider as empire deported and relocated more than 700.000 people mostly women and kids.
There is no any other event of such a magnitude in Armenian history.
This event might have left a strong genetic impact all over historic Armenia. The borders of Urartu were roughly the same as the later Satrapy and Greater Armenia created by Artaxiads.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteDo you know if there are any new samples from the Neolithic or earlier coming from Egypt/North Africa? I find how some AG posters are using AdmixTools, G25 and K13 suspect too; these tools don’t really elucidate which direction gene flow was coming from right? I’m suspicious of mixing modern and ancient pops together in models too.
@ancestralwhispers.org?
ReplyDeleteAre you Armenian? From around the Caucasus?
@Rob
ReplyDeleteMrs Goedegebuure had some constraints she applied, one of which was that she would not entertain the idea of a substrate of a yet unknown language present in Anatolia.
However, the only language that seemed to have been the source of loans in the Hattian language is Akkadian. And that too is a SOV word order language, just like Hittite and Luwian.
I don't know if such an idea would fly. It just struck me as interesting.
@ Andrze
ReplyDelete“ Which we know is BC, because Anatolian IE languages don’t correlate with LBK-like ancestry but with Steppe component from Ukraine”
LBK is in Central Europe , so not relevant for Anatolia . Steppe ancestry needs to be demonstrated in Anatolia , but it hasn’t been yet convincingly
Anyhow, the classic steppe hypothesis of Gimbutas, later popularised by Mallory & Anthony have never been correct.
The most accurate approach was that of the Sherrats
@ epoch , Vara
ReplyDeleteThat article suggests that Luwians had originally lived in central Anatolia before being taken over by a Hatttic speakers. To the west lived unadmixed Luwians. So this isn’t my idea , Vara
Then Hittites re-conquered the region of central Anatolia
But what Vara doesn’t get is that this only invalidates the notion that KA introduced IE
Rob
ReplyDeleteThe implication isn't that Luwian is native but rather a Proto-Luwian group and Proto-Hattians interacted during their expansion ~2200BCE. As noted that there isn't a strong evidence of an early Hattian influence on "Nesite Hittite" which means if the Hattians weren't native must've missed the Hittites in their conquest somehow. Highly unlikely.
There is currently a good consensus on the Proto-Luwian homeland and even those who previously supported a Central Anatolian homeland like Yakubovich now agree that Purushanda is in Konya.
There isn't anything special going on. Hattians were possibly a minor native group that formed a powerful city state after the urbanisation phase that was heavily influenced by their IE neighbors but managed to resist total Indo-Europeanization for a while.
@ Vara
ReplyDeleteWell, you're right about one thing- there's nothign special going on. It's farily clear now.
Hitto-Luwians are focussed in western-central Anatolia, parts of which have 0-30& 'CHG-related' admixture and clear archaeological and genetic evidence of long-term evidence of interaction & mobility with Balkans and steppe lands, existing since hunter-gatherer period, but enhanced during the Neolithic wave before a relative 'reversal' of influence c. 4500 bc then 'break' c 4000 bc, splitting nuclear IE from H-L.
On the other hand, CHG-rich groups are located in eastern Anatolia, where various non-IE languages abound. This was a very distinctive system which led to different social realities, such as K-A, Chaff Faced Ware, Sioni, which linked eastern Anatolia & the Caucasus.
For some reason, some choose to shove IE in the 'eastern Arc'. These same people then condense all 'West Asia' into one monolithic block and one pulse and say "see, it 'transformed' the steppe !". Aside the obvious logical fallacy ( & questionable honesty) of this exercise, it wastes time because all these data and effort should be put into understanding Hattic, Hurrian, the various Caucasian languages, etc.
Rob
ReplyDelete"Hitto-Luwians are focussed in western-central Anatolia,"
This is wrong because Hittites are focused in Cappadocia.
You switched your position 50 times just to say Anatolian didn't come from the east.
Anatolian is already attested in the Eblaite texts 2500BCE in which Armi is likely somewhere between Cilicia and Syria. And no the Eblaites did not establish colonies deep in Anatolia like the later Assyrians.
I was making an average of Yervanduni (Orontid which comes after Urartu) era samples and noticed an error. The sample I19322 which is marked as Noratus_Anc(ient) and is lumped with an another sample from Yervandid era Noratus is not from that era.
ReplyDeleteIn fact it is from Urartian period. At 650bc.
And here how she looks.
Distance to: ARM_Noratus_Anc:I19322
0.03159227 TUR_SE_Batman_Anc
0.03801031 TUR_SE_Gaziantep_Byz
0.04000982 TUR_SE_Mardin_RomByz
0.04099196 IRN_Hasanlu_LBA_B
0.04365056 IRN_DinkhaTepe_BIA_A
0.04367149 TUR_SE_Mardin_PostMdv
0.04387448 TUR_E_Van_Urartian
0.04422451 TUR_SE_Kilis_Byz
0.04591197 IRN_Hasanlu_MBA
0.04793373 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LC
0.04808755 IRN_Hasanlu_IA
0.04809169 IRN_HajjiFiruz_C
0.05048535 TUR_SE_Sirnak_BA
0.05145230 GRC_Marathon_Rom
As You can see she plots with very southern samples. Even more southern than Van. She has mtdna X2 which also can be an indication of southern origin.
Her autosomes are by consequent very Levant/Iran shifted.
Target: ARM_Noratus_Anc:I19322
Distance: 3.3728% / 0.03372765
25.6 Central-farmer_AZE_LN
23.2 Levant_PPNB
21.8 IRN_Zagros_N
18.6 TUR_Barcin_N
5.8 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
5.0 GEO_CHG
In conclusion we are dealing with a genuine Urartian era sample with southern origin very different from surrounding Lchashen/Etiuni people in modern Armenia.
Another such sample (I13035 dated 605bc) is found from Karmir Blur (Teisheba). So currently we have two such examples.
But in reality the number of such people were much more numerous. Simply we are missing samples from real Urartian sites in RoA.
This example shows that the arrival of very low Steppe people in modern Armenia started in Urartian era not after as one can get impression from this data.
Analolian names are already attested in Armi, according to those texts. Not the language.
ReplyDeleteOT, but referring to the new coords for the Antonio2022 samples:
ReplyDeleteDEU_Hassleben is weird. These are four individuals from central Thuringia archaeologically dated to 200-700 AD - you'd expect Germanic people like the Hermunduri at this time and place, but they are surprisingly southern by their DNA, ranging from Parisian-like to Terres de l'Ebre-like, averaging on the Occitans.
Then noteworthy the great diversity among inhabitants of Gallo-Roman towns. In Roman era Sarrebourg you find people resembling all sorts of modern French, including Basques and Bretons, also some German Swiss-like ones, a North Italian-like one, and apparently a Greek, an Anatolian and a Jew.
The inhabitants of Roman era Metz are on average Belgian-like, but they vary from Dutch- to Catalan-like, and again there's an individual resembling North Italians.
Diversity also in Roman Wels, in Upper Austria: A France_Auvergne-like individual, again a North Italian-like one plus a Greek and a North African.
I had a closer look at ITA_Urbino_Bivio. This is in the Marche region, but historically and by dialect this is part of the Romagna. Two of the individuals resemble modern East Sicilians, one the Campanians, and one the Corsicans, yielding an Apulian-like average, that is, decidedly South Italian-like. It follows that this region was affected too by later admixture, that pulled it back northwards.
When modelling them individually with three ancient pops each, two of them seem to have Etruscan ancestry (could well be Latin too, considering the similarity and the sampling bias towards Etruscans) and the two others have ancestry resembling the Protovillanovan woman from Abruzzo, I guess that could be local eastern Italic ancestry. Then all four have Greek admixture, two have Lebanese admixture from Beirut, and one has Egyptian admixture.
Well that's just Global25 modelling, nothing formal, but it seems plausible.
As for Roman age Croatia, it's striking that no less than seven sites on average resemble modern Italians. (I think some may be early Medieval too, haven't checked.) They vary from Apulian-like (HRV_Novo_selo_Bunje) to Trentino-Alto-Adige-like (HRV_Umag_Sipar).
The Roman Age samples Levant_LBN_Chhim and Levant_LBN_EjJaouze resemble modern Lebanese Christians, indicating substantial population continuity there. The same can be said about MNE_Doclea_Bjelovine, it's closest to modern Montenegrins.
Levant_SYR_Tell_Masaikh is closest to SaudiA. This is a similar outcome as for Levant_SYR_Tell_Qarassa_Early_Antiquity which resembles the Yemenite_Mahra. I guess this means they were Arabs, in spite of the fairly northern location of those tells.
And last but not least, my delightful Prussian grandmother lol! For the model in the last thread I had used just the one individual from Marvele that was available back then. Now that there are four individuals from Marvele I computed the average and tried it again. The Polish admixture (20.4%) still surpasses the Baltic admixture, but the latter is bigger now, reaching 17.4%.
@Rob
ReplyDeleteDo you really believe that the Anatolian IE languages have their origins in the Balkans? You are smart enough to recognize that with the current data we have, this is absolutely impossible.
Nobody is going to believe that I2a.... or 3% steppe ancestry in some Turkish sites is enough evidence to prove that these languages have their origin in the Balkans or the steppes. Gimbutas, Anthony, Mallory etc.... are DEAD, and you will die with them if you pretend to defend what they thought.The Hittites have nothing to do with the steppes, nor with western Anatolia, nor with anything to do with Europe.
Genetically it is an imbecility to try to relate the Anatolian IE languages with the Balkans. The population flow is the other way around, it is much more likely that the Greeks and the Mycenaean have their origin in Anatolia than the opposite. You have one European marker in Anatolian among hundreds of ancient samples and you think it is enough evidence to say that IE languages reached Anatolia from Serbia? You must be joking, you'd better find yourself another hobby.
The arguments of Lazaridis as always, are debatable, and in many cases absurd, David is right to do what he is doing, that is to criticize some absurd conclusions, but in my opinion if you are really supporters of the steppe theory, you have to focus on the real problem, that is to say neither R1a-M417 nor R1b-L51 have absolutely nothing to do with PIE (or IE or whatever you want to call it) in the case that these languages have their origin in Yamnaya. The more idiots believe it, the harder the fall will be.
It is ridiculous that Rocca and the rest of the guardians of the Kurganist orthodoxy pretend to link Etruscan or Sicanians with G2a when they had dozens of U152 and some DF27 in those cultures. The only Indo-Europeans that arrived to mainland europe were the M417 people (I am lying, because they were not really steppe people either but descendants of the neolithic cultures of old europe).
Yamnaya? the Balkans? don't make me laugh. To say that the Mycenaeans derive from Yamnaya as Lazaridis says is the biggest nonsense that has been said in the international scientific community in the last 50 years. What they need to do is to publish the ancient samples they have and stop making a fool of themselves.
Addendum to DEU_Hassleben: the archaeological dating of the samples to 200-700 AD is very poor. I considered an early date and thought about the possibility that these might be Celts assimilated by Germani. But in 531 AD there was the battle of the Unstrut river, where an alliance of Franks and Saxons defeated the Thuringians. The area has fallen to the Franks after that. So these might be settlers from France. But then again, archaeologically, early Medieval settlers from southern parts of France should be very easy to tell apart from Germani. The very broad dating seems to rule this out.
ReplyDeleteAddendum to ITA_Urbino_Bivio: The two individuals who scored Etruscan ancestry could also be partly Umbrian. No Umbri have been sampled so far, and this area belonged to the Augustean regio VI Umbria.
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteNo one questions that Greek is from the steppe, not even Lazaridis. In fact, even the idea that Greek arrived from the steppe via Armenia and Anatolia has been debunked.
So this issue is settled: Greek arrived in Greece from the steppe via the Balkans.
The only controversial issue left is the origin of Anatolian speakers, but there's no evidence that they didn't come from the steppe, just some claims that there's a lack of evidence that they did.
I think they did come from the steppe and sooner or later this will be clearly seen in ancient DNA.
Poor delusional Gaska still believes that BB and R1b-M269 come from Iberia, so he’s the last person to be appealing to data
ReplyDeleteHe believes all Europe was Vasconic, therefore IE must be foreign and extraneous to Europe
@ Vara
ReplyDelete“This is wrong”
I’m not really interested in your wishful thinking. At least come up with a concrete model rather than vague references to Majkop & your personalised re/interpretation of linguistics
Rob
ReplyDeleteThis is funny because you haven't even came up with a model just crazy amounts of mental gymnastics just to say Anatolian came from the Balkans.
Rob: "the paper implies Luwians were the natives in Central Anatolia so KA brought Hattian"
Wait Rob, that's not what the paper is saying.
Rob: "So Hattian is native well that proves a movement from the Balkans"
Lol what?? Great job you just won gold in the Olympics. GOAT mental gymnast.
Radiocarbon Dating and Stable Isotope Analysis of Human Remains from the Usatovo Culture Site of Mayaki in Ukraine
ReplyDeletehttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4236123
Gaska
ReplyDeleteRob claims everyone who supports a southern homeland is biased but he is fine with neolithic farmers speaking Proto-Anatolian if it means it came from the Balkans. It's the funniest thing since Lazardis' Z2103 wagon dwellers spoke late PIE.
He is a bullshit artist. Pretends he knows something no one else does and whenever he doesn't agree with something he gives some BS general statement like "PIE should be solved by linguists and archaeologists or experts or whatever".
Yes Rob, tell us about linguistics and archaeology. "Lydian is ancestral to Luwian and Catacomb was Iranian". Haha doesn't even know the basics.
Rob should just switch to being a tarot reader. He can put his cold reading skills to use.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete@Sam Elliott - in the full report pdf, they say DNA will be presented in a separate paper. I guess that includes "pre-Usatovo" burials.
ReplyDelete"In the current report, only those specimens producing interpretable DNA data in a whole-genome screening assay (the results to be presented in a separate report) were chosen for radiocarbon analysis."
Radiocarbon Dating and Stable Isotope Analysis of Human Remains from the Usatovo Culture Site of Mayaki in Ukraine
https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=4236123
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
ReplyDelete???
Have you ever considered putting labels on your samples?
1:A409,-0.603262,0.059916,0.011691,-0.002907,0.003385,-0.000279,-0.033136,0.031614,0.020657,-0.030798,-0.005359,0.011989,-0.011298,0.001789,0.010993,-0.010209,0.014994,-0.004561,0.009804,-0.013381,0.00025,0.00507,-0.001602,-0.005302,-0.000239
1:A409,-0.053,0.0059,0.0031,-0.0009,0.0011,-0.0001,-0.0141,0.0137,0.0101,-0.0169,-0.0033,0.008,-0.0076,0.0013,0.0081,-0.0077,0.0115,-0.0036,0.0078,-0.0107,0.0002,0.0041,-0.0013,-0.0044,-0.0002