Hello authors, Thanks for the interesting preprint and data. However, I'd like to see you address a couple of technical issues and perhaps one theoretical issue in the final manuscript: - the output you posted shows some unusual results, which are potentially false positives that appear to be concentrated among the shotgun and noUDG samples. I'm guessing that this is due to the same types of ancient DNA damage creating IBD-like patterns in these samples. If so, isn't there a risk that many or even most of the individuals in your analysis are affected by this problem to some degree, which might be skewing your estimates of genealogical relatedness between them? - many individuals from groups that have experienced founder effects, such as Ashkenazi Jews, appear to be close genetic cousins, even though they're not genealogical cousins. Basically, the reason for this is reduced haplotype diversity in such populations. Have you considered the possibility that at least some of the close relationships that you're seeing between individuals and populations might be exaggerated by founder effects? - thanks to ancient DNA we've learned that the Yamnaya phenomenon isn't just an archeological horizon, but also a closely related and genetically very similar group of people. Indeed, in my mind, ancient DNA has helped to redefine the Yamnaya concept, with Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b-Z2103 now being one of the key traits of the Yamnaya identity. So considering that the Corded Ware people are not rich in R1b-Z2103, and even the earliest Corded Ware individuals are somewhat different from the Yamnaya people in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, it doesn't seem right to keep claiming that the Corded Ware population is derived from Yamnaya. I can't see anything in your IBD data that would preclude the idea that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were different populations derived from the same as yet unsampled pre-Yamnaya/post-Sredny steppe group.See also... Dear Harald #2 On the origin of the Corded Ware people
Saturday, April 8, 2023
Dear Harald...
I've started analyzing the Identity-by-Descent (IBD) data from the recent Ringbauer et al. preprint (see here). Unfortunately, it'll take me a few weeks to do this properly, so I won't be able to write anything detailed on the topic for a while.
Meantime, this is the comment that I left for the authors at bioRxiv (at this time it's still being approved, but it should appear there within a day or so, possibly along with a reply from the authors):
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
443 comments:
1 – 200 of 443 Newer› Newest»One part of the paper I'd comment on (not in a negative way) is that they've used the high-coverage Afanasievo family (28x to 2.5x coverage; average 13x for 13 samples) as a validation of their technique. As the "Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia" has got 3 of the Koszyce Globular Amphora at 27x, 19x and 5.4x (and more at 4x-1x), perhaps they could use that as a validation of the connection to CWC without imputation? Although they really need high coverage CWC as well. Hopefully there are some that are suitable from the large set in Czech Republic.
("To assess performance on downsampled empirical aDNA data, we used four high-coverage genomes of ancient individuals, all ca. 5000 years old and associated with the Afanasievo culture (Supp. Note S4). When comparing the IBD calls in the downsampled data to the IBD calls of the original high-coverage data, we found that WGS substantially outperforms 1240k data of the same coverage. For long IBD segments (ą10cM) that are particularly informative when detecting relatives, ancIBD achieves high precision and recall (~90%) for all coverages tested here (WGS data: 0.1x-5x, 1240k data: 0.5x-2x).").
Davidski: "many individuals from groups that have experienced founder effects, such as Ashkenazi Jews, appear to be close genetic cousins, even though they're not genealogical cousins. Basically, the reason for this is a reduction in haplotype diversity in such populations."
Perhaps they could address this by normalization for RoH in their ancient samples, using hapRoH? (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-021-25289-w).
Look at the data, my impression was this seems unlikely to have too much effect for the signals between steppe populations, but at least it might be very important for the HG populations with radically reduced haplotype diversity (e.g. the detection of IBD between WHG or Jomon who are separated in time).
Would just highlight that, although I think the _noUDG.SG samples are overrepresented in matches that seem implausible (over longer time scales and sometiems distance!), the big problems do seem to be primarily driven by a few Siberian samples, 4/6 of which are _noUDG.SG : https://imgur.com/a/r3RVEYg
Without these, the potential problems with higher average difference in dates for no_UDG.SG tend to decrease, although they still seem present. (Tentatively, this seems to be the case for matches between no_UDG.SG and capture samples in particular.)
Well put. Thx davidski
@Davidski
To continue this from last thread: You have to decouple steppe ancestry from the concept of PIE to understand this better. They CORRELATE but are not one and the same.
When you reconstruct a language, it has to go back to 1 small, coherent group of people. When you look at all the Romance languages today: Spanish, Portuguese, Italian, etc... they all descend from one specific Vulgar Latin variant spoken in the city of Rome. They don't descend from other dead Italic languages like Oscan, Umbrian, Venetic, etc... I'm sure those other Italics were also very genetically similar to Romans, but ultimately they were not Romans, nor the predecessors of modern Romance languages. So PIE has to be one small, coherent, group of people from which all modern PIE languages come from.
So, if we take your theory of some pre-Yamnaya/CW people as "PIE", this would imply that CW and Yamnaya are clearly bifurcated from pre-Yamnaya times. Like I explained, this would show up linguistically. We would have:
CW languages: Baltic, Celtic, Germanic, Italic, Slavic, etc...
Yamnaya languages: Albanian, Armenian, Greek, Thracian, etc...
These divisions DO NOT EXIST. Like I explained, the Beaker languages are the most exotic. Germanic and Slavic for example share some similarities with Italo-Celtic but overall are closer to Albanian, Armenian, Greek. Afanasievo/Tocharian is also the most exotic one apart Anatolian, pointing to a post-3300 BC date for PIE.
Hundreds of years of division is the difference between Russian and Ukranian, or Swedish and Norwegian. These differences are VERY easy to spot and would have been figured out by linguists hundreds of years ago. In addition, you're not only adding a time factor, but also a geographical/ecological factor, which would deepen the division even more.
Like I said, you can make all the theories you want about genetics and whatnot, but language is the foundation for PIE, and everything has to follow language. This temporal/ecological bifurcation of CW/Yamnaya that you're proposing makes 0 sense and is completely inconsistent with the theory of PIE.
I think the xrux of their point is :
We find that the first individuals in Central and Northern Europe carrying high amounts of Steppe-ancestry, associated with the Corded Ware culture, share high rates of long IBD (12-25 cM) with Yamnaya herders of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, signaling a strong bottleneck and a recent biological connection on the order of only few hundred years, providing evidence that the Yamnaya themselves are a main source of Steppe ancestry in Corded Ware people.
A few things need to be resolved or clarified
- the suggestion of close IBD links formed only a few hundred years makes sense. However, does this imply a proess of 'branching' from a unitary population or a process of intense social convergence from initially more disparate set of steppe / forest-steppe sub-populations reflected by forging of IBD links and reflected by a cultural 'homogenization' in the material culture record (the data points to the second scenario IMO)
- define Yamnaya . If few hundred years earlier, then this is not Yamnaya, but a pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic population
- obviously, they need sanity check from uniparentals because broad=brushed novel approaches can leead to loss of granularity
I recently read "The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited", edited by Eske Willerslev and Kristian Kristiansen, published this year in 2023.
Chapter 5 of this book is "The Corded Ware Complex in Europe in light of current archaeogenetic and environmental evidence", which is aufhored by Haak, Furholt, Sikora, Nielsen, Heyd and Kristiansen.
Pages 70-71 it says:
"How exactly the emergence and expansion of the Corded Ware are linked to the emergence and expansion of the Yamnaya horizon remains unclear. However, the Y chromosome record of both groups indicates that Corded Ware cannot be derived directly from the Yamnaya or late eastern farming groups sampled thus far, and is therefore likely to constitute a parallel development in the forest steppe and temperate forest zones of Eastern Europe. Even in Central Europe, the formation of the earliest regional Corded Ware was the result of local and regional social practices that resulted in the typical Corded Ware rite of passage."
So it's pretty much official that the Yamnaya origin hypothesis has been abandoned for Corded Ware. Even the people who used to advocate for it have changed their tune.
Hello David,
There is a thread about this on Anthrogenica, I visited it briefly and many people said that the length of the IBD strings were too long for it to have come from a pre-Yamnaya population.
I think it is very fair to bring up the effect of endogamy, bottlenecks, what not in the role of IBD sharing. It is important to note that prehistoric populations were much more endogamous than modern populations, and most people didn't stray far from their tribe or village. This would probably make for historic populations, even mobile populations like Yamnaya and Corded Ware, preserving more of those long segments for a longer time than in the modern day. I could be wrong, but I looked up IBD segment lengths among primitive peoples in the modern day and mostly just found stuff about IBD as in the intestinal disorder. If you have any data on IBD lengths between tribal populations with common ancestry, that would be interesting. Maybe Pacific Islanders would be a good fit?
It's also possible that Corded Ware people are descended from Yamnaya, but some para-Yamnaya group also contributed and were the cultural progenitors, seeing how it was their haplogroups which remained prevalent.
Anyways, it's good to see another post from you. It's been a while. Cheers
@WSH
There is a thread about this on Anthrogenica, I visited it briefly and many people said that the length of the IBD strings were too long for it to have come from a pre-Yamnaya population.
That's not a strong argument.
First of all, pre-Yamnaya might mean something like 3,500 BCE. The IBD data do not contradict this.
Secondly, the split between Yamnaya and CWC need not have been a hard split, but one with continued contact and mixing. I talked about that here.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-origin-of-corded-ware-people.html
Apart from that, like I pointed out above, the close relationship between the CWC and Yamnaya might be exaggerated due to technical problems.
@Rob, I guess part of the question here is whether their IBD models can distinguish:
1) Two small populations are pretty separate over 1000 years, but then recently have shared ancestors <500 ya.
2) Two small populations have recently split <500 ya, and so have some recent ancestors.
My gut feeling is that you would actually need short IBD segments for this - which HR doesn't have any confidence that his method can resolve satisfactorially.
Particularly difficult when CWC is largely available in admixed form.
However, it does seem a bit unlikely to me that you would have strongly divergent languages within some unstructured small population (hundreds to low thousands individuals) that split about 1.5kya ago and then experienced a big increase in connectivity 500 years ago. Or particularly if it never really split properly and was continuously exchanging women/men across borders.
Although I guess possible if one population switched languages without much genetic influence in that time.
Quick experiment; graphs of average shared IBD (total shared/possible combinations) for Russia_Afanasievo with other populations (using population labels provided by paper without .SG annotation or relatives annotation): https://imgur.com/a/bUma6vv
Included only populations with >0.
IBD peaks around the time of Russia_Afanasievo, with not much before their time (a few matches in steppe related populations, and some Neolithic EEF that I think are false positives). It then declines fairly rapidly in our samples over 3000-2000.
It does seem like there is still some quite high sharing with samples even 500 years out, within China/Mongolia/Central Asia, who we'd expect to be descendants of the Afanasievo; maybe some of this is a problem with dating though, and some samples within these sets are actually closer to the time of the Russia_Afanasievo than we think.
Plotting this for just Yamnaya/Beaker/CWC: https://imgur.com/a/4dQ0zP9
It seems like CWC may be sharing slightly more IBD chunks with Afanasievo than are Beaker populations of their time, but since the number of labelled CWC subpopulations is so low compared to the large number of samples and different labellings used for Beaker, it's hard to be sure.
Another quick experiment, a cross-comparison between IBD sharing for an England_BellBeaker_highEEF outlier and G25 distances to those same matches: https://imgur.com/a/MgjYLIo
The samples that do really jump out in terms of higher IBD relative to G25 distance do tend to be ones from BellBeaker of C_EBA British Isles and to some extent Netherlands and France.
(Only a subset could be matched between both, because some just aren't on G25 or under very different sample IDs; also I removed the noUDG samples in this comparison).
@David Holiday said... I recently read "The Indo-European Puzzle Revisited", edited by Eske Willerslev and Kristian Kristiansen, published this year in 2023-"However, the Y chromosome record of both groups indicates that Corded Ware cannot be derived directly from the Yamnaya or late eastern farming groups sampled thus far"
These gentlemen (Furholt, Sikora, Nielsen, Heyd and Kristianse) are to be congratulated, and especially W.Haak, it has only taken them 8 years to realize something so obvious.This is something that tends to happen when instead of analyzing the available data in an unbiased way, you try to adjust it to prove a previous theory.The absolutely wonderful thing is that it only took 76 ancient genomes to dare to say that massive migrations related to R1b and R1a and originating in the Yamnaya culture spread IE in mainland Europe.
Some others, like Lazaridis, have not learned that lesson and continue to believe that Yamnaya is the origin of the male markers that spread IE. Another eight years will pass and another 10,000 ancient genomes will be analyzed and there will still be people who have not realized that the Yamnaya culture is not the origin but the sink of R1b-M269. Meanwhile thousands of press articles all over the world and hundreds of scientific papers have made everyone believe that the Yamnaya herders are our forefathers. And regarding the linguistic issue, you better be very careful, for the moment Yamnaya can only be related to Armenian (Z2103) and maybe to some Italic languages, and this, more than a millennium after the Yamnaya culture disappeared. Z2103's contribution to the CWC and the BBC is so little that linking it to the IE languages of continental Europe is currently a joke. Delenda est Yamnaya.
I don't know if the origin of CWC is in Sredni-Stog, the Ukrainian forest steppe, Belarus, Poland or Bohemia, but its autosomal composition has a north-western component incompatible with the currently available Yamnaya samples. No matter Lazaridis' opinion to the contrary, sooner or later his beloved Yamnaya will fall into oblivion.
@ Matt
Going by the evidence we have so far, the progenitor groups which produced the founder effects (R1a-M17, R1b-M269 & I2a-L68) all seem to have a Ukraine_N like profile, regarldess of which exact river valley they originally dwelt. Acc. to DATES & archaeological inferences, this admixture occurred thousands of years before the Eneolithic, so any language switching would have occurred back then.
Then there was a period of mild diversification due to various sporadic inflows from here-n- there (other HGs, EEF, some Caucasian groups), followed by a reconvergence in the immediate pre-Yamnaya period. imo this provisionally explains nuclear IE
@Davidski @Matt
Is there a time limit or constraint for the accuracy of IBD methods? For example, there is this rather well known paper from Coop and co: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555 where they apparently found IBD links over 1000 and even 1500 years. Could something similar be going with the ancient remains above?
@Matt
Since you brought them up, the Siberian IBD links are indeed some of the oddest, having IBD sharing with populations on the other side of Asia or having lived thousands of years earlier. Then again, some Yamnaya samples have IBD with Near Easterners also far removed in space but more plausible in a temporal sense.
Thought it might be interesting to plot the time vs IBD for Sintashta main cluster: https://imgur.com/a/AmBxqH1
Again most of these are "populations" with a single sample available which means some noise, but I'm surprised at how smooth they are considering that.
This is possibly the advantage of having 12 Sintashta samples available.
Sintashta_o2 ("ANE" admixed outliers) are similar but noisier: https://imgur.com/a/qlbghuC
Generally sharing is higher with the main cluster: https://imgur.com/a/jJ107ni
Which seems consistent with the main cluster having more of the ancestry which is responsible for the matching.
Compared to Fatyanovo, who seem to have elevated but not very high sharing with Sintashta compared to other mid-late CWC, Poltavka_oEEF looks like a misdated person who has IBD more consistent with being from 1800-1500 BCE.
More minor outliers are: The sample RISE392_noUDG.SG (KAZ_Zevakinsky_BA: https://amtdb.org/sample/RISE392 ; Sintashta culture) also looks like it is a bit too early and would fit more with Kazakhstan samples closer to 1500 BCE, from its IBD, which is kind of low compared to other Steppe_MLBA samples of the time period. Also UZB_Kashkarchi_BA:I4255 seems like it may be earlier in time as has a mildly outlying amount of IBD with Sintashta.
@gamerz_J; Yeah, there's definitely a data issue with the problem Siberians. I didn't really see any implausible links for the Yamnaya or Afanasievo - the only populations with any links seemed like rare but present Maikop links, which seems plausible. What's that referring to?
Slight correction; a little double counting in my previous graph for Sintashta of links between Sintashta individuals (didn't realize they'd appear twice in the list that Ringbauer's provided).
Doesn't materially change the graph, but just means the peak of intra-group sharing with Sintashta is lower relative to the Steppe_MLBA cultures - https://imgur.com/a/oXxv41H
(The other features are the same, so can't be bothered to redo all of them!)
It looks like the shared IBD within the Steppe_MLBA cluster is relatively strong btw, more so than e.g. the Beaker group in England, who have only a mild degree of accelerated shared IBD relative to CWC / Yamnaya etc: https://imgur.com/a/p6aT7Wz
(previous thread)
@Davidski
Eh early CWC isn't particularly different. What are they, ~5% more EHG-related? Could be just a westward expansion of early Yamnaya absorbing steppe-related people near CTC (and after that CTC).
Btw where does Anthony say that the ancestors of CWC were living among Yamnaya as second class citizens? I've always had the impression that the main proposition is that CWC simply branched out of early Yamnaya and diversified, being one single entity with Yamnaya beforehand.
@epoch Sredny isn't purely EHG/WHG, which means that even if the goods came from that area it wasn't Sredny spreading these trade goods. I looked up a few maps out of curiosity of the borderings of CTC/Sredny and saw Dnieper Rapids falling inside CTC territory (or rather, sphere of influence) with Sredny influencing the area below it. So I don't see any contradiction to what you say. In either case, even if it was a Sredny-related culture, it wouldn't matter because they weren't Sredny.
But that was before I looked at the dates more carefully, and seeing that the trade occurs from CTC/Balkans circa 4500 BCE which is the formation date of Sredny and Khvalynsk, with Khvalynsk being arguably older (see proto-Khvalynsk elements at the Volga, but not at Sredny which didn't even exist at that time, and was influence from those eastern areas if not mostly descended from them).
I'm not particularly interested in what Rassamakin proposed, though, since it doesn't change anything.
"The reason I toy with the idea of a trade language is that the places where Anatolian languages are found they are clearly intrusive: Hittite empire and Kuzzawatna. In both cases a local non-IE language was part of the languages of the kingdom, Hattian and Hurrian respectively. While not conclusive it gives a bit credit to a western entry point of Proto-Anatolian."
I meant, what would spark a trade language? Local (?) non-IE languages being an issue was attempted to be explained a couple decades ago by the elite dominance model. A trade language would probably be mostly used for the goods being traded, and wouldn't replace the local non-IE languages. Not without a good reason at least, since not even most of the population would be speaking it but mostly the traders (the middlemen).
Also wouldn't an entry of Anatolian from the East (as per the Southern Arc theory) also generate the same results? Armi is in the East after all.
"Kloekhorst hypothesizes that Hittite and all other Anatolian languages split roughly 3000 BC and there is no large upheaval known from the archaeological record from that time."
Oh I see why a trade language is suggested now. Yes, it does make some sense. But population movements also make sense since they don't have to bring any radical change (let alone destruction). Greece from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age is one such example, even the recent steppe-harboring samples (who were mixed with locals and thus not isolated initially) weren't associated with any upheavals.
Another theory that seems plausible (but I don't know if there are evidence supporting it) is religion. Languages can spread with religion.
There are probably more possibilities.
Yamnaya can be modeled as derived from Corded Ware:
https://i.imgur.com/5wAGCkB.png
@Davidski "I can't see anything in your IBD data that would preclude the idea that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were different populations derived from the same as yet unsampled pre-Yamnaya/post-Sredny steppe group."
This creates a major problem when it comes to language, because both CWC and Yamnaya spoke IE languages, not to mention significant cultural similarities. What's the claim, that CWC started off as a different culture but somewhere along the way got culturally dominated by Yamnaya and changed its non-Yamnaya culture and its language to a Yamnaya-related culture and to an IE language? Or did they inherit it from a common ancestor when the Yamnaya culture had not yet developed? Because proto-Yamnaya culture is pretty old and would go back to ~4900 BCE (Volga, and always designated as proto-Yamnaya. Even Sredny is designated as a form of early Yamnaya). So you'd need CWC to be fully formed, fully having a Yamnaya-like culture and an IE language before ~4900 BCE, and not near that area as well (since they were different and all that). Then CWC would have to influence Yamnaya with their own language since CWC presumable spoke IE and Yamnaya didn't, or it was the other way around. Extremely unlikely.
Then there's the issue of the IE languages themselves. After the Anatolian split, the IE languages remain unified. After the Tocharian and I-Ir split they also remain unified. If CWC was some kind of divergent population by then (let alone for the past 1000+ years), this wouldn't be the case.
@Rob This would mean that Yamnaya dominated CWC without being the source of it, and it's not something Davidski would like to think as an option I reckon hehe
"define Yamnaya . If few hundred years earlier, then this is not Yamnaya, but a pre-Yamnaya Eneolithic population"
They mean Yamnaya culture, not the dates of the genetic data. Also aren't the earliest Yamnaya samples older than CWC anyway?
They then use "Yamnaya" to refer to the genetic data from the people associated with the more common Yamnaya culture (in its most "mature" phase which is the also the most widespread and long-standing one). The culture itself predates the genetic formation of the Yamnaya. And to my knowledge there isn't any CWC DNA samples older than Yamnaya, who also lived in a (genetically homogeneous CWC) non-Yamnaya culture.
Haplogroups not mathcing is not a problem at all. And there is Yamnaya R1b in early CWC so I don't see a problem there, if anything that's just additional evidence since they point to these populations being united at some point even after the Yamnaya-related R1b had formed (although not necessarily spread).
Tl;dr Yamnaya R1b could have very well appeared after Yamnaya already existed. And it did, archaeologically speaking.
2x Y3/Y2 were found in Abashevo and 2x Z2124 . The results were mentioned in a recent video conference. https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=5143&v=I06VYBuGVyY&feature=youtu.be
@David Holiday Kristiansen is cringe and probably has dementia, he still thinks PIA was a pastoralist language and was spoken in NE Pontic steppe by Khvalynsk hunter-fishermen.
"However, the Y chromosome record of both groups indicates that Corded Ware cannot be derived directly from the Yamnaya"
Entirely depends on how they define Yamnaya. It's pretty clear that CWC had split from Yamnaya before Yamnaya-related R1b became widespread, but the period before this was also Yamnaya culturally. Otherwise what's the scenario, to culturally similar groups who split thousands of years ago or possibly formed entirely separately magically happened to have linguistic homogeneity over a period of centuries? Yeah nah
"Even the people who used to advocate for it have changed their tune."
Did Anthony, Reich, Lazaridis, Ringbauer etc changed their tune? Huh weird I missed that.
@WSH From a presentation on IBD some years ago I remember that bottlenecks and inbreeding will cause intra-group IBD (also titled as "self" sometimes) to spike but not out-group IBD.
@Matt "Although I guess possible if one population switched languages without much genetic influence in that time."
Entirely possible but this would spark a flame war between the CWCboos and the Yamnayaboos arguing about who gave the other their language etc etc
@Orpheus
Because proto-Yamnaya culture is pretty old and would go back to ~4900 BCE (Volga, and always designated as proto-Yamnaya. Even Sredny is designated as a form of early Yamnaya).
LOL
@ Orpheus
“ This would mean that Yamnaya dominated CWC without being the source of it”
I see no evidence for that. Usatavo was a hierarchical society, but not Yamnaya which based on male heads of small kin groups in equal footing. So the power structures which built up during Usatavo period dissolved
Yamnaya might be a couple hundred years older, but in the big scheme it’s essentially contemporaneous with cwc.
And you need to be aware that the claims of a minority of past scholars that a sort of “proto-Yamnaya” existed in the Volga-caspian region for hundreds of years has been disproven given the population replacement which occurred there c/- the Z2103 founder effect from the west
@gamerz_J said...
„Is there a time limit or constraint for the accuracy of IBD methods? For example, there is this rather well known paper from Coop and co: https://journals.plos.org/plosbiology/article?id=10.1371/journal.pbio.1001555 where they apparently found IBD links over 1000 and even 1500 years. Could something similar be going with the ancient remains above?”
Do respectable and wise people know such a work with IBD and the IBD table by Khvorykh 2020?
Biology (Basel). 2020 Nov; 9(11): 392.
Published online 2020 Nov 10. doi: 10.3390/biology9110392
Global Picture of Genetic Relatedness and the Evolution of Humankind
Gennady V. Khvorykh,1 Oleh A. Mulyar,2 Larisa Fedorova,2 Andrey V. Khrunin,1 Svetlana A. Limborska,1 and Alexei Fedorov2,3,*
Supplementary Materials - (importand!): Table 30 MB
Abstract
Simple Summary
The intricacies of human ancestry are buried deep within our DNA. For years, scientists have been working to piece together a vast picture of our genetic lineage. The purpose of this study was to further reveal this global picture of human genetic relatedness using identical-by-descent (IBD) genomic fragments. We processed over 65 million very rare single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) alleles and detected over 17 million shared IBD fragments, including very short IBD fragments that allowed us to trace common ancestors back to 200,000 years ago. We also determined nine geographical regions representing nine unique genetic components for mankind: East and West Africa, Northern Europe, Arctica, East Asia, Oceania, South Asia, Middle East, and South America. The levels of admixture in every studied population could be assigned to one of these regions and long-term neighboring populations are strikingly similar, despite any political, religious, and cultural differences. Additionally, we observed the topmost admixture to be in central Eurasia. The entire picture of relatedness of all the studied populations presents itself in the form of shared number/size of IBDs, providing novel insights into geographical admixtures and genetic contributions that shaped human ancestry into what it is today.
Abstract
We performed an exhaustive pairwise comparison of whole-genome sequences of 3120 individuals, representing 232 populations from all continents and seven prehistoric people including archaic and modern humans. In order to reveal an intricate picture of worldwide human genetic relatedness, 65 million very rare single nucleotide polymorphic (SNP) alleles have been bioinformatically processed. The number and size of shared identical-by-descent (IBD) genomic fragments for every pair of 3127 individuals have been revealed. Over 17 million shared IBD fragments have been described. Our approach allowed detection of very short IBD fragments (<20 kb) that trace common ancestors who lived up to 200,000 years ago. We detected nine distinct geographical regions within which individuals had strong genetic relatedness, but with negligible relatedness between the populations of these regions. The regions, comprising nine unique genetic components for mankind, are the following: East and West Africa, Northern Europe, Arctica, East Asia, Oceania, South Asia, Middle East, and South America. The level of admixture in every studied population has been apportioned among these nine genetic components. Genetically, long-term neighboring populations are strikingly similar to each other in spite of any political, religious, and cultural differences. The topmost admixture has been observed at the center of Eurasia. These admixed populations (including Uyghurs, Azerbaijanis, Uzbeks, and Iranians) have roughly equal genetic contributions from the Middle East, Europe, China, and India, with additional significant traces from Africa and Arctic. The entire picture of relatedness of all the studied populations unfolds and presents itself in the form of shared number/size of IBDs.
From the point of view of archeology and geography, I think the situation is clear now. Approximately 5500 BC, a group of Balkan farmers EEF/WHG penetrates into the Dnieper region, where the EHG/WHG population lives. Local residents of the Dnieper region are Ukr-meso, migrants arriving from the Balkans are Ukr-N-o. Ukr-N after 5500 BC is already a partially mixed population. Then this Balkan group or their descendants from the Dnieper go further to the lower Don. There they meet the local EHG/CHG population. The result of the mixing of the Balkan group and the population of the lower Don is seen by the sample of the Middle Don 2, although this sample is apparently already mixed with the local population of the middle Don (sample of the middle Don 1). Then about 4800 BC this population from the lower Don goes to the Volga where the population of Khvalynsk EHG/CHG is formed and returns to the Dnieper where the population of EHG/CHG/WHG Sredniy Stog is formed. Thus, by 4500 BC, the Sredniy Stog - Khvalynsk horizon is formed from the Dnieper to the Volga. At this stage, the Novodanilovka culture arises, it is also called Suvorovo, Skelyanskaya, Meshoko of the Nalchik burial ground of the North Caucasus (samples of Progress). On the Middle Dnieper, where pulses from the lower Don have weakly penetrated, a Dereivka is formed with a small percentage of CHG (similar to the sample of the Middle Don 2). The period 4500-3800 BC is the central period of homogenization of this population throughout the entire space from the Volga to the Danube and to the Caucasus. After 3800 BC, the stage of differentiation begins, caused either by internal reasons or by the invasion of Maykop. In place of a single horizon, new cultures begin to emerge - Chernavoda on the Danube, Nizhnyaya Mikhaylovka between the Southern Bug and the Dnieper, Zhivotilovka between the Dnieper and the Don, Repino between the Don and the Volga. So there are prerequisites for the subsequent differentiation of the population into separate clans. In the future, these already separate groups are expanding into adjacent territories. Thus, not the whole horizon is already being mixed, but individual clans with different populations, depending on where the clan is expanding. For example, the population of the future CWC is expanding into the forest-steppe and, accordingly, mixed with forest-steppe groups of central Ukraine. This is how samples of early CWC are formed, then there is already mixing with GAC and the classical CWC culture arises. The Yamnaya group remains in the steppe and is also divided into separate groups - Budzhak, Novotitarovka, Afanasevo, classical Yamnaya.
@Rob
And you need to be aware that the claims of a minority of past scholars that a sort of “proto-Yamnaya” existed in the Volga-caspian region for hundreds of years has been disproven given the population replacement which occurred there c/- the Z2103 founder effect from the west
This is not a fact at all. The only period when this could happen is the stage of expansion of Suvorovo to the east starting from 4500 BC. According to Rasamakin's theory, Progress samples should also be part of such an expansion of Suvorovo, but this is not the case. They don't have a European EEF/WHG. Although there was a return influence of Suvorov, but not in the period about which Rasamakin writes, and later, in the period 4000 - 3800 BC, and apparently at the first stage it did not reach the Caucasus, but stopped somewhere in the area of the Manych River, where apparently there is the beginning of the formation of the Repino culture.
@ Vladimir
''This is not a fact at all''
It is what the data currently shows. I would have thought even less avid observers understand this by now. There are multiple lines of evidence
- Yamnaya is more western-shifted than Khvalynsk or Progress_En, with Ukr N + EEF
- the Yamnaya-related lineages R1b-M269 are lacking in the Eneolithic Bolga-ural & Piedmont steppe sites (as recently discussed by Anthony).
- by contrast, M169 is found in Chalcolithic northwest Pontic steppe
- there is an isotopically documented shift, with a replacemnet of Volga-Ural fihser-hunters by western pastoralists.
Not sure what there is to debate
@Rob
One poor-quality sample of Smyadovo shows the horizon of Suvorovo. Before the formation of Yamnaya, 1000 years should still pass from the time of this sample. This is another story of the formation of the Novodanilovka horizon. We do not have more up-to-date samples of the 4000-3300 BC period. There are at least five versions about the place of formation of Yamnaya. Nikolaieva (Ukraine) considers the Budzhak culture district. Spitsyna (Ukraine) Seversky Donets district (Kharkiv region), Khokhlov, Fayfert (Russia) Manych River district, Kuznetsov (Russia) - Khvalynsk district, Morgunov (Russia) - Volga-Ural district
If I recall correctly one the oldest Corded Ware sites in Poland is Hubinek and one of the graves has a supine burial with red ochre and flexed legs, i.e. classical Yamnaya burial type.
So there is archaeological evidence of Yamnaya admixture in the CWC spread, apart from the occasional Z2103 in CWC.
Mind you, this response uses CWC and Yamnaya as two different entities.
The suggestion I've heard from I think Anthony and Reich is that settlements along river valleys ended with the arrival of the wagon, and then you don't find fisher-pastoralist camps any more along those river-valleys, and then you find more kurgans.
So was this like immediate, so as soon as the dates of the last Khvalynsk type cemetaries, immediately after that we get kurgans associated with Yamnaya?
Or is there more like a hiatus between the earliest Yamnaya kurgans and the latest Khvalynsk cemetaries? Where it is only after population growth etc that these start being built?
& Matt
So was this like immediate, so as soon as the dates of the last Khvalynsk type cemetaries, immediately after that we get kurgans associated with Yamnaya?
Or is there more like a hiatus between the earliest Yamnaya kurgans and the latest Khvalynsk cemetaries? Where it is only after population growth etc that these start being built?
Burials of Khvalynsk without burial mounds. They are followed by burials of Berezhnovka with burial mounds, but otherwise with the preservation of the Khvalynynsk burial rite. Then come the burials of Novodanilovka with barrows, then come the burials of Repino with barrows, and then come the burials of Yamnaya with barrows.
Anthropologists, in particular Khokhlov, believe that at the transition between Berezhnovka and Novodanilovka, the population in the Volga region is changing and population from Novodanilovka and further on to Repino and Yamnaya anthropologically, the population is more similar to the population of the Lower Don
@ Matt
Good question, I don't think it is known (sudden or gradual) at present, because of the gap in sampling between the Khvalynsk horizon and Yamnaya. There are other factors than just wagon, incl climate, ideology, economy, etc which need to be considered.
But as a byproduct of DNA, there will be an accumulation of dietary isotopic data, so we can will soon be able to track dietary shifts in time & place.
@ Vladimir
''One poor-quality sample of Smyadovo shows the horizon of Suvorovo. ''
It's actually > 100 K SNP coverage & non-contaminated, so the results it offers are beyond doubt. And the interesting thing is that it's profile is high in UkrN. One might think of it as an anomaly, if there wasn't the Ukr BA outlier who is R1b-M269 and also UkrN-rich.
'' This is another story of the formation of the Novodanilovka horizon''
As much as I like 'archaeological deductions', every steppe specialist has their own little schema. I wouldnt attach too much weight these days to those notions of 'invasion of Repin pottery' for example, as we can follow aDNA more objectively.
''There are at least five versions about the place of formation of Yamnaya. ''
Yes, but the Budzhak variant is the one which is genetically diverse, all the otherse look like homogeneous founder effects. Chicken or egg ?
@ Matt
''Or is there more like a hiatus between the earliest Yamnaya kurgans and the latest Khvalynsk cemetaries''
We would need a Bayesian radiometric model, after excluding outliers. Accessing literature, including, the chronologically intermediate groups (e.g. Repin). There are online programmes e.g. Oxcal which anybbody could use, its fairly easy although the sheer data would render it time consuming.
But in broad terms, the 'demise' of Khvalynsk is related to the demise of Varna-Karanovo VI, as they were trade partners, or like the favoured Germanic kings of a now fallen Roman Emperor, bereft of subsidies & status.
In the Balkans, there is a 'gap' or at least a lull in steppe presence after this and the new potentate is the Tiszapolgar group in the Carpathian basin. In the steppe zone, the new power which evebntually rises is Usatovo group in the lower Dniester. Then things accelerate and we see the big expansion just on 3000 BC
@ Rob
We have dozens of samples from Bulgaria, among which there is only one R1b-M269. And from the steppe during this period we have three samples of Khvalynsk and three Progress and one from Samara. From the Don to the Dnieper there is not a single sample at all. Although the territory between the Volga and the Dnieper probably contains at least ten territories of Bulgaria.
The "Corded Ware bros" have essentially turned into the Out-of-India PIE 2.0. people. PIE languages follow a STAR-SHARED PHYLOGENY. You can't have this CW/Yamnaya division of languages. They almost all dispersed around the same time.
The only way for CW and Yamnaya to be different ethnic groups but speak the exact same language, is David Anthony's theory of Kurgans only being Z2103 elites ruling over R1a/R1b-L51 underclass. (The "non-elite" kurgans Davidski mentioned would be probably be less prevalent royals, but still related to the main clans).
And quite frankly, the theory of Z2103 kurgan elites and R1a/R1b-L51 underclass is 1000x more realistic, than this nonsense being spouted in this thread by people who ignore basic linguistics.
@Davidski Here, from the paper you linked.
"If Yamnaya is accepted as the material correlate of late Proto-Indo-European languages, then the new religion indicated at Khvalynsk was an important ancestor of Indo-European religious ideas."
"The standard body pose at Khvalynsk was highly distinctive – on the back with tightly raised knees – and would later be characteristic of early Yamnaya graves."
You're also aware of the whole kurgans thingy I presume.
Inb4 you write about how Yamnaya didn't speak IE.
But wait, what's this?
"Recent large-scale studies of ancient DNA (aDNA) show that the Bronze Age populations in the steppes of present-day Russia and Ukraine migrated across both Europe and Asia during the Early Bronze Age (EBA) and the Middle Bronze Age (MBA) in the chronology of the western steppes1. Between 3100–2500 BCE the Yamnaya culture expanded out of its steppe homeland westward into central Europe, where people with ca. 70 % Yamnaya ancestry created the Corded Ware horizon2; and eastward to the Altai Mountains, where people almost identical to the Yamnaya population in genetic ancestry appeared as the Afanasievo culture3. (...) Yet none of the key archaeological sites most important for understanding the evolution of Yamnaya customs and economy is published in a western language. These key sites would include Khvalynsk on the Volga (Eneolithic), Repin on the Don (EBA), and Mikhailovka (EBA) on the Dnieper rivers4. This essay is about Khvalynsk, an Eneolithic cemetery on the Volga River dated ca. 4500–4300 BCE."
As I said, you link pretty good papers. I'd mention Mallory from 1997 too (~4900BCE date).
@Rob Then this leaves only the option of population branching available. There simply isn't a CWC-like population in the west pontic steppe before Yamnaya and Khvalynsk appeared, and the cultures there before them (with their obvious Khvalynsk/Yamnaya influences) are either EEF or HG. CWC are not local to the area unless someone wants to argue that the CHG-like and EHG-like populations that formed Yamnaya had also formed CWC entirely independently (still wouldn't explain the R1b in them). Good luck to anyone who will attempt this.
Not to mention it would also go back to the point that Yamnaya dominated CWC and changed their language at some point.
"Yamnaya might be a couple hundred years older, but in the big scheme it’s essentially contemporaneous with cwc."
Khvalynsk/Volga aren't. Neither are the pre-CWC cultures of the area, culturally and genetically.
As for the proto-Yamnaya claims, these are based on archaeology. This doesn't change with DNA, if anything DNA helps us understand which populations assimilated which other ones, with or without mixing. CWC are neither HGs nor EEF (even if they have far stronger EEF influences than Yamnaya*), not too many options remain.
*: and still early CWC had no EEF dna lol.
Also the Yamnaya R1b was formed before the CWC genetic profile appeared. On the other hand CWC R1a was formed before the CWC genetic profile appeared too. CWC don't have some kind of "ecce CWC" point of origin. They're either descendants of proto-Yamnaya (with or without the R1b. Could be just a tribe that branched away, or a single tribe that came to dominate other ones and made R1a more widespread while branching off), or subordinate to Yamnaya. Both simpler and more credible explanations.
Revisited the Arc excel file. Oldest Yamnaya samples are 3400-3300 BCE, oldest CWC samples are 2900-2800 BCE. Almost half a millennium difference, and keep in mind the earliest CWC samples are almost the same as Yamnaya without the trademark 25-30% EEF in later CWC.
If CWC samples (in areas that were or became CWC) that are contemporaneous to early Yamnaya appear, then CWC would definitely not be a direct Yamnaya offshoot from some early Yamnaya tribe (but this was already discussed in the previous thread). For CWC to be completely unrelated to Yamnaya even earlier dates would be required for their autosomal composition, which would still mean they got heavily culturally influenced by Yamnaya (or Khvalynsk or whatever) and changed their language and religion even if their culture appeared independently of Yamnaya (doubtful given all the influences from the east, epoch mentioned one too).
Not a very prestigious outlook either way. Lots of cope ahead.
@Orpheus
I don't even bother with this "northwestern" component nonsense, but if CW did acquire some EHG on the way to Poland, that could easily explain the extra R1a in CW, leaving R1b-M269 as the only true "PIE" group.
That doesn't take away from Yamnaya -> CW but it gives another piece of evidence to explain Y-DNA differences.
@DragonHermit
I don't even bother with this "northwestern" component nonsense, but if CW did acquire some EHG on the way to Poland, that could easily explain the extra R1a in CW, leaving R1b-M269 as the only true "PIE" group.
That's because you don't understand genetics.
Early CWC has extra Ukraine_N, not extra EHG, over Yamnaya.
And, by the way, Yamnaya is derived from Sredny Stog. Soon to be published Sredny Stog samples have R1a.
The real problem here is that people like Reich, Lazaridis, Patterson et al. are encouraging stupidity from idiots like you with their papers and Twitter posts.
@Orpheus
You just claimed that Yamnaya existed in 4,900 BCE in the Volga region, and Sredny Stog was actually Yamnaya.
I don't take you seriously.
@ Orphues
“ There simply isn't a CWC-like population in the west pontic steppe before Yamnaya and Khvalynsk appeared, and the cultures there before them (with their obvious Khvalynsk/Yamnaya influences) are either EEF or HG. CWC are not local to the area unless someone wants to argue that the CHG-like and EHG-like populations that formed Yamnaya had also formed CWC entirely independently (still wouldn't explain the R1b in them)'”
Nope. The Yamnaya and CWC related R1a and I2a were in the Dnieper and Don regions since the Mesolithic. They didn’t come from anywhere too far. The rest is local dynamics and shifts.
@Rob
Maikop is an adstrate, Ukr_N is a substrate. Neither is the main steppe component. The territory on which the genesis of the steppe profile from the Volga to the Dnieper occurs has not been studied at all, there is not a single sample of the Neolithic-Eneolithic period from it.
@Orpheus
"Greece from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age is one such example, even the recent steppe-harboring samples (who were mixed with locals and thus not isolated initially) weren't associated with any upheavals."
Actually the time at which people with steppe-derived heritage appear in the Aegean is right about the same time or just after widespread devastations occurred there and in bordering regions (EBII-III).
from Wiener: " In the Aegean, the so-called International Age of EB II was followed by a period of turmoil.33 On the Greek mainland, the massive Rundbau granary at Tiryns and
the substantial corridor houses at various sites, including the House of the Tiles at Lerna and the Weißes Haus at Kolonna on Aegina, were destroyed. The construction of the corridor houses ended, along with the pre-state sealing-administration systems of Lerna and
Geraki in Laconia.34 By the Middle Helladic/Middle Cycladic period, evidence of seals and sealings disappeared, metallurgy declined, and luxury goods practically disappeared.35 In the Cyclades, the manufacture of marble objects ceased or sharply declined, and cist tomb burial ended.36 Fortifications were created on hilltops, apparently for the purpose of protecting food supplies and people for limited periods in expectation of raids—for example, at Kastri on Syros and Panormos on Naxos. At Panormos, the end was surely
violent, to judge from the facts that the entrance was burnt and sling stones and a spearhead were found in the debris.37 Many Cycladic sites were abandoned, including the putative pan-Cycladic ritual center of Dhaskalio Kavos on Keros.38 Cycladic material ceased
to appear at Helladic sites....Crete, and in particular the northeast coast, was not exempt from disturbance in EM IIB, as shown by the destruction at Mochlos (unexpected by the inhabitants, it would seem),43 the massive perimeter walls erected at various sites in EM III, and the likely construction of harbor fortification walls at Malia at this time.4"
I think when the Kumsay-related guys moved toward the Piedmont steppe ~ 4000 BC to be with their Majkop allies, they displaced Progress_En groups. Half got absorbed, the other half fled northwest, mixed in with Dnieper-Don groups intensely, but naturally this was female-biased.
hence we get more western steppe male lineages and profoundly Caspian autosomic shift.
That's proto-Corded-Yamnaya
Corded_ware_pol_early is like 95% yamnaya autosomal and 5% ukr_n
It's compelte surity that early corded ware got this ukr_n
You also see this in yamnaya _ukr ,they have a slight 10% ukr_n+vinca Ancestry similar to ukr_n and globular amorpha in early pol corded ware
They,simialr to corded ware got this 5% ukr_n Ancestry during their westward expansions
Yamnaya_hungary also shows similar admixture.
It's just that corded ware and Bell beakers split from ab early yamnaya stage,kept close but seperated ajd and later expanded.
So corded ware is very well yamnaya derived,from early yamnaya stages
But this is still yamnaya,btw
People are just cherrypicking minor things and overblowing it to create probelms out of nowhere
CWC also shows r1b l51,l23,z2103 ,just because z645 became the majority later through bottlenecking dosent mean much.
In general, the Kuban region can generally be dispensed with. Anthony showed slides in which the autosomal profile of Berezhnovka's samples from the Volga was 50% CHG and 50% EHG. And this is 4200-4000 VS. It was also shown there that there was a person in Usatovo with a similar autosomal profile. It is logical that by 4000 such people lived further west along the Manych River, the lower Don, and further along the coast of the Azov and Black Seas to the Suvorovo region on the lower Danube. And the further this population lived to the west, the more it had WHG and EEF.
@ Vlad
''Anthony showed slides in which the autosomal profile of Berezhnovka's samples from the Volga was 50% CHG and 50% EHG. And this is 4200-4000 VS. It was also shown there that there was a person in Usatovo with a similar autosomal profile. It is logical that by 4000 such people lived further west along the Manych River, the lower Don, and further along the coast of the Azov and Black Seas to the Suvorovo region on the lower Danube. And the further this population lived to the west, the more it had WHG and EEF.''
Except these CHG-rich groups belonged to Y-hg J1, Q, and R1b-V3616
The 'founder lineages' R1b-M269, I2a-L68 and R1a-M17 came from a different social network, rich in Ukr_N (WHG rich) and had pre-existing EEF admixture even before they ventured into 'Central Europe'.
@Vladimir/Rob, ah, so there is still possibly a continuous sequence of burials around these regions (which could show either a continuity with Khvalynsk, or a discontinuity with shift to something more like Yamnaya or the unpublished Sredny Stog), and we've just not sampled them yet? It's not like the people just become so mobile that there is some gap of burials (or very low frequency).
@Rob: "I think when the Kumsay-related guys moved toward the Piedmont steppe ~ 4000 BC to be with their Majkop allies, they displaced Progress_En groups."
I think when Anthony talks about Steppe_Maykop showing up, he seemed to think it was about 3500-3300 BCE as a general rise in mobility (https://youtu.be/1O1zDrW7SvE?t=405), and fits with the Steppe_Maykop we have being the first wagon rider (and founding kurgan grave) in their sequence. Although whether that's supposition with no direct dna, I can't tell from this short video. It does seem intuitive to me anyway that there would be a connection between wheeled transport and a connection between Steppe_Maykop and Maykop (otherwise how would trade happen?), but whether that sets a tight boundary around the second half of the 4th millennium rather than hundreds of years before I can't hazard a guess.
IBD-wise, Kumsay_EBA themselves don't show any long segments with anyone apart from themselves (and oddly a later, unpublished Armenia_EBA sample), although they do show multiple 8cM length segments with expected ppl like Steppe_Maikop, Potapovka:I0244, Kazakhstan_Mereke_MBA (shorter segments which would have been broken up over time). It's a different story to e.g. Kazakhstan_Central_Steppe_EMBA, Kazakhstan_Mereke_MBA themselves or Kazakhstan_Dali_EBA:I3447, who do show some long IBD with Afanasievo and Yamnaya.
(The IBD links between Steppe_Maikop and Steppe_Maikop_o seem pretty long (>20cM), so it would make sense for them to be relatively recent to the time of the samples (<200 years?).)
@ Matt
Agree 3800-3500 BC (? wagon) was a period of heightened mobility, and perhaps precipitous, but there were also earlier ones. The 5500 bc (on foot) and 4500 BC (? early horse) movements, each from a different zone, appear to established the 'Sredni Stog' preconditions.
@Davidski
I have no issue with the SS -> Yamnaya argument. I agree with you that atm Progress-like ancestors seem like the most likely scenario.
The issue here is PIE can't be bifurcated into CW/Yamnaya languages. That goes against all linguistic research of the past 300 years. It has to follow a star-shaped phylogeny.
Your argument of "different ecological zones" is a linguistic impossibility. You can't have a language frozen in time for hundreds of years after this supposed CW/Yamnaya split.
So either
(1) Your genetic theory is right, but the Yamnaya Z2103 elites influenced CW and imposed them their language.
(2) Your genetic theory is wrong, and Yamnaya -> CW.
Even if you are right genetically, if the Z2103 kurgan elites ruling over others theory is true, there is no need to even make argument (1). The lack of R1a in Yamnaya would just be because of the ruling clans being Z2103, regardless of whether Yamnaya and CW were 1 ethnic group.
I've told you before, ask anyone that knows anything about linguistics since you keep disregarding my linguistic arguments. You can't have two languages be apart for hundreds of years, with no noticeable differences. Reich, Anthony, Lazaridis make the Yamnaya -> CW argument BECAUSE they know it has to be a SINGLE point that dispersed rapidly, not some "CW Forest Steppe" bifurcation where they live apart but magically there are no noticeable linguistic differences between CW and Yamnaya languages.
@ Epoch
left pops:
TUR_Marmara_Barcın_ChL
AZE_N
HUN_Vinca_MN
BGR_Boyanovo_EBA
best coefficients: 0.529 0.314 0.157
tail prob 0.291451
Full output https://jpst.it/3b21K
I knew that PIE was originally from R1a. So much for Lazaridis claiming West Asian descent and all the chatter about “EHG-CHG” cline and other drivel.
PIE is from the forest Steppe zone of Ukr, period!
@Silvia “ Yamnaya can be modeled as derived from Corded Ware:”
Wrong! Yamnaya and CWC are both Sredny derived
@DragonHermit
The DNA evidence simply indicates that your linguistic ideas are wrong. You can't reconstruct past events by analyzing extant words, but ancient genetics says that Yamnaya isn't the direct ancestor of Corded Ware, except perhaps on the maternal line for eastern Corded Ware.
FYI linguistic paleontology is generally regarded as bullshit.
Alright did some digging. There are basically two sides, the mainstream one (eg Gimbutas, Anthony, Mallory, early Kristiansen) and the non-mainstream one (eg Furholt, Heyd, late Kristiansen). The mainstream and initial hypothesis is that CWC is a result of the Yamnaya migrations. The other hypothesis is that they are not, and that they predate the Yamnaya expansion (circa 3000 BCE). However none of them argues that they weren't linked with Yamnaya at some point. So their origin is still Yamnaya/Khvalynsk/Samara/whatever, it's from that cultural (and genetic) line of descent, just not necessarily the outcome of Yamnaya expansions. A different family, basically. IBD points at this. My guess is that Lazaridis and other geneticists talk about a "Yamnaya origin" of CWC due to their autosomal composition, and not the culture (or the dates).
Archaeologically they have several elements Yamnaya have too, but not alaways, and they also have different elements (e.g. completely different pottery, such as amphorae, and of course very different economy and lifestyle which is far more sedentary and agricultural). This can be explained with their position as more northern post-Khvalynsk "proto-Yamnaya" groups moving westward and adopting various elements from GAC while at the same time not being necessarily close together with Yamnaya proper, and thus not developing the exact same culture beyond the shared elements from their common origin. This makes sense with their culture and genetics not being found in the most western areas they occupied before them (it's just EEFs and HGs). CWC is essentially an EEF-ized steppe culture that ended up as neither steppe nor EEF.
The big split between CWC and Yamnaya communities could probably be dated through linguistics. It would be before Italo-Celtic and after Tocharian/I-Ir, so I'm guessing something around 4000-3600 BCE.
Anthony 2021:
Gives a short backstory on how some give later dates for Yamnaya (~3000 BCE) and others earlier ones (~3800 BCE, ~4500 BCE). This is because the definition of "Yamnaya culture" differs and thus the dating also differs.
Few early Yamnaya radiocarbon dates are ~3600 BCE and ~3500 BCE. These are generally more westward than Khvalynsk.
"Settlement sites such as these, with diverse artifact assemblages and multiple radiocarbon dates on bones and teeth, are better guides to Yamnaya chronology than isolated graves. Nevertheless, radiocarbon dates from both graves and settlements demonstrate that the expansion of steppe pastoral nomadism by the early Yamnaya culture began between 3300–3000 BC."
So we can see that when something is said to be "from Yamnaya" it is meant "from the Yamnaya expansion". This is why there's a disagreement on the descent of Corded Ware, not because they aren't a steppe/Yamnaya-like culture themselves (especially genetically), but because they presumable predate the Yamnaya expansion which probably coincides with the R1b becoming widespread in them. Early CWC basically descend from the ancestors of Yamnaya instead of Yamnaya themselves, as defined by Yamnaya during ~3000 BCE.
In the same paper there's a letter from Reich, Patterson and others where they briefly discuss datings. CWC begins no later than 2800 BCE and most of its dates are from 2600 BCE. The question here is, where were they before that? Perhaps a more archaic form of Yamnaya culture that had not yet developed most of its cultural traits that made them CWC. Genetically they'd be attributed (or missattributed) to Yamnaya if discovered, which would make their identification harder. IBD could solve this though.
A couple of long comments will follow. Couldn't find it any more condensed.
Kristiansen & Sjogren 2017 (letter subset):
"It has recently been demonstrated that twomale burials of the earliest Corded Ware culture in Poland and southern Germany were non-locals and had a hammer-headedpin of steppe type as grave goods(Pospieszny et al., 2015; Sjögren et al.,2016). In another article (Rasmussen et al.,2015) it could be demonstrated that an early form of plague occurred in Yamnaya and Corded Ware populations, which could account in part for the strong decline of theso-called Neolithic DNA. This, however,needs to be tested on Neolithic samples."
"1) in two early burials of the Corded Ware culture (one in Germany,the other in Poland) some single attributes of Yamnaya origin have been found; 2) in the Yamnaya and Corded Ware popula-tions an early form of plague (pestis) was found (Rasmussen et al., 2015) and both bacteria stem from one source."
Seems like a done deal at this point. Even if not all of the people in early CWC had initially a similar culture to Yamnaya/Khvalynsk/Volga (they could have had similar DNA but a more HG-oriented lifestyle), they were influenced by a subset of people like them (before 3300-3500 BCE) who had the same traits Yamnaya had inherited from their earlier forms.
Kristiansen & Heyd 2021:
"This should make Yamnaya a well-defined archaeological culture. But then, there is on the other hand the fact that Yamnaya material culture is rather sparse due to a rarity of settlements and peculiarities in the burial customs and, compared to Corded Ware, rather heterogeneous especially when it comes to the pottery. This leave us only with the burial customs to define the basic cultural traits: Usually a large mound; individual burial in pits, often stepped or rectangular with rounded corners; supine body position with flexed originally upright standing legs and grounded feet; orientated west (head)–east; ochre, either straying or deposited in lumps; spare equipment throughout; preparation of the pit with organic materials and coverage with wooden beams. Besides, there are also primary and secondary graves and with these differences in pit forms; different arm positions; slight variation in orientation; equipment exemptions for children; overall lack of women’s graves; occasional stone slabs instead of wood to cover; and here and there a stone stela. These should be acceptable variations and exemptions from the rule. But what to do for those graves and burials that do not display these basics, or just miss one or two of them. So, is a grave in an oval pit still Yamnaya? And without wooden beams and a grave without ochre? Side-crouched body position? A multiple burial of several individuals? Are there Yamnaya flat graves after all? In such cases, ancient DNA can come to the rescue and may give additional information about the levels of steppe ancestry. But what then to do when steppe ancestry is high but the burial customs do not fit. Is this still a Yamnaya burial or not? The opposite may also happen: Missing steppe ancestry but perfect Yamnaya customs… Questions remain and discussions will ensue…"
1/2
2/2
"A fourth topic discussed during the workshop and also touched in papers of this volume refers to the degree of Yamnaya’s mobile way-of-life. Observing very recent research and publications (i.e., Librado et al. 2021; Wilkin et al. 2021; and Anthony 2021, in press), the tide is currently turning towards giving Yamnaya of the Pontic-Caspian steppes a fully nomadic status and letting them live in wagons, tents and seasonalised camp-sites. They are regarded as cattle breeders and horse keepers, with a generally high protein intake of which milk, including horse milk, is seen to play an important role. This view is certainly in line with their assumed high mobility and distant migrations and does not contradict current ancient DNA results. But to what degree is this perspective valid for the western regions of Yamnaya, covered in the present volume? Do we have to deal with regional variations? For example, while we still do not know of any Yamnaya settlement site west of the Black Sea, we also lack unambiguous evidence for such a lifestyle from isotopic, bio-anthropological, biomarker lipid, or any other scientific side. We thus only assume their way-of-life to be the same than north of the Black and Caspian Seas but when judging from a neutral point of view we cannot really say.In contrast, Corded Ware is nowhere to be categorized as nomadic although high levels of socio-economic mobility are also referred to its people. But the same features of wagons, cattle, horse and milk are also attested, and at least for some parts of its huge distribution seasonal mobility including camp sites are also suggested. Obviously, because of a different environment – grass steppe there, temperate forested Europe here – Corded Ware people are not granted the same way of life and economy, even if almost the same parameters apply otherwise. However, no one questions that they retained a strong pastoral component in their economy inherited from the steppe but now integrated into a more mixed farming economy (Kristiansen 2021, in press; Haak et al. 2022, in press)."
"Again, we should probably envisage regional variation, where some of the mentioned core regions were more fully pastoral than regions with a higher degree of interaction with Neolithic communities. Thus, after 50 years of rescue archaeology in Jutland (Denmark), with large areas uncovered, we have still not been able to document any solid settlement structure from the early and middle phase of the Single Grave Culture in central and western Jutland (Sparrevohn – Kastholm – Nielsen (eds) 2019). From botanical pollen evidence we learn that they created the vast heathlands of Northwestern Europe, and they kept them open by regular burning. In this steppe-like environment it was possible to practice a lifestyle much closer to the original Yamnaya economy, with only a small contribution from barley crops and other cereals and pulses. But other regions may have gone very different pathways, and Corded Ware economies in the forests of the Baltic countries, dotted with wetlands and lakes, may well have turned into different directions."
Stora 2020:
"During the Final Eneolithic the Corded Ware Complex (CWC) emerges, chiefly identified by its specifc burial rites. This complex spanned most of central Europe and exhibits demographic and cultural associations to the Yamnaya culture."
It has been shown that Yamnaya pastoralists contributed Y chromosome R1a and R1b haplogroups to continental Europe almost entirely replacing the previously wide-spread G2a haplogroup1,2. The mtDNA contribution of Yamnaya to CWC individuals is associated with the appearance of U2 and W haplogroups. This large-scale contribution, close to complete replacement is very evident among CWC individuals that have retained very little genetic ancestry from the Mesolithic HG and Early Neolithic farmer groups. The study of individuals associated with the CWC complex detected ancestry and admixture patterns with the HG groups, individuals of the Steppe culture groups such as Afanasievo and Yamnaya complexes."
"The most unusual signal identified is the one between the CWC and the Afanasievo complex. This genetic incorporation from a Steppe population further east than the Yamnaya culture, is novel for these parts and suggests a CWC population structure and history more complex than previ-ously thought."
Looks like the recent IBD results simply confirmed something that was already detected before. This pretty much confirms that just like Afanasievo was not "Yamnaya proper" but had extremely close ties with them and descended from a recent common group, so did CWC (just with a more mixed/diverged lifestyle).
There aren't any evidence to the contrary, and pretty much all evidence point to one direction (common descent with Yamnaya/Afanasievo, from a common group that had the cultural traits, practices and ideas that came to define Yamnaya and survived in both Afanasievo and CWC). Unless Furholt wants to argue that CWC akshually wuz local EEFs or whatever.
Kelder 2021:
Bit unrelated to the CWC issue but places Khvalynsk at the Volga in the early 5th millennium (and then moving southward to the more typical Khvalynsk sites). Tracing Yamnaya to Khvalynsk and Khvalynsk to ~4900-4800 BCE explains the occasional categorization of the elements of these cultures as "Yamnaya".
Juras et al 2018:
“Genetic similarity analyses show close maternal genetic affinities between populations associated with both eastern and Baltic Corded Ware culture, and the Yamnaya horizon, in contrast to larger genetic differentiation between populations associated with western Corded Ware culture and the Yamnaya horizon. This indicates that females with steppe ancestry contributed to the formation of populations associated with the eastern Corded Ware culture while more local people, likely of Neolithic farmer ancestry, contributed to the formation of populations associated with western Corded Ware culture.”
Exactly what I had suggested a couple of threads back, to explain the significantly more agriculture-oriented lifestyle and economy of CWC compared to Yamnaya. This seems to have occurred earlier as well, and would explain the R1a as well as the relatively higher EHG ancestry in early CWC compared to Yamnaya.
A summary of the two sides of the argument: “Archaeological records point to some similarities between the Corded Ware culture and the steppe, including shared practices such as the barrow structures and burial rituals2. Adoption of a herding economy based on mobility through the use of wagons and horses, was also proposed as a common trait associated with both the Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures12. These observations led some researchers to suggest a possible Yamnaya migration toward the Baltic drainage basin15 or a massive westward expansion of the steppe pastoralist people, representing the “barrow culture”, into the North European Plain12,16. However, specific burial customs of the Yamnaya people, such as the scarcity of grave goods, the presence of ochre, and the building of specific wooden roof or floor structures, generated opposing arguments emphasizing the significant differences between the Corded Ware and steppe cultures2.”
“Pairwise mtDNA-based FST 54 values (Supplementary Table S4), visualized on MDS using the raw non-linearized FST (stress value = 0.099) (Fig. 4), also supported the PCA results and indicated that western and eastern Yamnaya horizon groups (YAW and YAE) were closer to people associated with the eastern Corded Ware culture (CWPlM) (FST = 0.00; FST = 0.01, respectively; both p > 0.05) and Baltic Corded Ware culture (CWBal) (FST = 0.00; FST = 0.00, respectively; both p > 0.05), than to populations associated with the western Corded Ware culture (CWW) (FST = 0.047 and FST = 0.059, respectively; both statistically significant p < 0.05).”
“Individuals associated with the eastern Corded Ware culture (from present day Poland and the Czech Republic) shared close maternal genetic affinity with individuals associated with the Yamnaya horizon while the genetic differentiation between individuals associated with the western Corded Ware culture (from present-day Germany) and the Yamnaya horizon was more extensive. This decreasing cline of steppe related ancestry from east to west likely reflect the direction of the steppe migration. It also indicates that more people with steppe-related ancestry, likely both females and males, contributed to the formation of the population associated with the eastern Corded Ware culture. Similarly, closer genetic affinity to populations associated with Yamnaya horizon can be observed in Baltic Corded Ware groups, which confirms earlier indications of a direct migrations from the steppe not only to the west but also to the north, into the eastern Baltic region18,19,55.”
1/2
2/2
“A steppe origin can possibly also be assigned to hg U4a2f, found in one individual (poz282) but not reported in any other ancient populations to date, and to U5a1- the ancestral lineage of U5a1b, reported for individual poz232, which was identified not only in Corded Ware culture-associated population from central and eastern Europe55,61 but also in representatives of Catacomb culture from the north Pontic region24, Yamnaya from Bulgaria and Russia17,46, Srubnaya23 and Andronovo62-associated groups.”
“An interesting snippet about Bell Beaker and Yamnaya connections: “Hgs W3a1 and W3a1a, found in two Yamnaya individuals from this study (poz208 and poz222), were also identified in Yamnaya-associated individuals from the Russia Samara region17 and later in Únětice and Bell Beaker groups from Germany61,63, supporting the idea of an eastern European steppe origin of these haplotypes and their contribution to the Yamnaya migration toward the central Europe.”
“Ancient mitochondrial genome data from the western Pontic region and, for the first time, from the south-eastern part of present day Poland, show close genetic affinities between populations associated with the eastern Corded Ware culture and the Yamnaya horizon.”
An older paper by Kristiansen: “Although both pottery and battle axes of the CWC may be given a Central European origin, it also seems rather obvious that this does not account for a number of distinct features in burial ritual. Here a Kurgan origin is still most likely, although Hausler in his works maintain that the CWC of Central Europe and the Ochergrabkultur, by some also called the Pit Grave, Jamna or Kurgan Culture, stretching from the Volga to Hungary, represent two different cultural complexes (Hausler 1963, 1967, 1974 & 1976). Such a distinction is obviously dependent upon definitions, but it seems to be generally agreed that the pastoral farmers of the Pit Grave or Ochre Grave Culture proper did not expand beyond the river Theiss in Hungary (Ecsedy 1979). It also seems clear, however, that it is exactly this mixture between Kurgan burial ritual and Corded Ware material culture that produces the classic package of the Battle Axe/Single Grave Culture in Northern Eurasia, or some of the classic early Corded Ware groups, as pointed out by many scholars (see especially Struwe 1955).6” (By Central European origin he means this: “Today most researchers agree that the genesis of the Corded Ware complex is, for the major part, to be sought in Central Europe, rooted in large scale economic and social changes, with Baden and Globular Amphorae Cultures playing a major role (Sochacki 1980, Kruk 1980, summarized in Sherrat 1981).”)
“(…) To this may be added an often observed, but none the less significant geographical dimension: the massive spread not only to central and northwestern Europe, but also to Sweden, Finland and eastwards into the USSR (the Middle Dnieper and Fatjanovo groups, e.g. Ozols 1962) that would seem to favour an eastern rather than a central or west European source. Since most groups of the Corded Ware and Battle Axe cultures are chronologically synchronous (Pape 1981), this also suggests radiation in many directions from one or a few regions of origin.”
Kristiansen & Allentoft 2017:
“Recent genetic, isotopic and linguistic research has dramatically changed our understanding of how the Corded Ware Culture in Europe was formed. Here the authors explain it in terms of local adaptations and interactions between migrant Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe and indigenous North European Neolithic cultures. The original herding economy of the Yamnaya migrants gradually gave way to new practices of crop cultivation, which led to the adoption of new words for those crops. The result of this hybridisation process was the formation of a new material culture, the Corded Ware Culture”
“As evident from, for example, western Jutland (Andersen 1993; Kristiansen 2007), CordedWare people burned down forests on a massive scale, thereby creating open, steppe like grazing lands for their herds. A more gradual opening of the landscape is also found in other regions (Doppler et al. 2015), while subsistence seems to have been a variable mix of cultivation, husbandry and some hunting and gathering (Müller et al. 2009).”
“The Corded Ware Culture had widely shared similarities in burial rituals over vast distances (Furholt 2014: fig. 7), and had strong affinities to the Yamnaya burial rituals known from the steppe. The tens of thousands of small, single-grave barrows in Northern Europe were aligned in rows across the landscape, in a similar way to the practice on the steppe. They formed visible lines of communication in these vast open environments (Hübner 2005; Bourgeois 2013).”
“Most previous research on the CordedWare Culture has used portable material culture, especially pottery, as a diagnostic feature, and therefore stressed differences between Corded Ware and Yamnaya steppe cultures while overlooking more basic similarities. We therefore need to re-analyse the (possible) social processes from initial Yamnaya migration to settling down and forming a new material culture: Corded Ware (Furholt 2014).” (by basic similarities he means burial rituals and cosmological beliefs, it’s analyzed elsewhere in the paper)
“There is additional evidence to support the idea that males dominated the initial Yamnaya migrations and the formation of the early Corded Ware Culture: in burials from the earliest horizon, often with males, as in Tiefbrunn and Kujawy, there was no typical Corded Ware material culture. This was followed shortly afterwards by the deposit of A type battle-axes in male burials, but there was as yet no pottery (Furholt 2014: 6, fig. 3). Corded Ware pottery appeared later in Northern Europe, and we may suggest that this did not happen until women with ceramic skills married into this culture and started to copy wooden, leather and woven containers in clay. This process began in the early phase both south and north of the Carpathians (Ivanova 2013; Frînculeasa et al. 2015).”
“The Yamnaya people from the Pontic-Caspian steppe are the best-known proxy for this incoming gene flow. The exact source could have been another, yet unsampled, group of people, but, in that case, they must have been very closely related genetically to Yamnaya.”
Well would you look at that, early CWC is even more Yamnaya-like than later CWC. Not surprising, since after all they were migrants from the steppe with a common origin with Yamnaya (let alone with contemporary Yamnaya individuals within their groups). Makes more sense than CWC randomly appearing out of nowhere and then Yamnaya imposing various cultural elements (and languages) on them.
Grigoriev 2022:
“(T)here are no grounds for assuming the formation of Corded Ware cultures on the Yamnaya basis. They were formed partly on the basis of European Neolithic cultures, partly on the basis of impulses from the steppe zone in the pre-Yamnaya time.”
Even when a direct migration from Yamnaya is not accepted as the source of CWC, a pre-Yamnaya (with the basic Yamnaya elements) culture is still the source.
“There are old and generally accepted ideas that the Yamnaya culture played an important role in the CWC formation, changing the tradition of collective burials in this area. A number of common features made this reconstruction possible: kurgans, individual contracted burials oriented along the W–E line, simple pot-shaped or beaker-shaped ware with corded or carved decoration, simple spiral-shaped copper ornaments, ornaments made from animal teeth and bones, a significant proportion of cattle breeding, and the rarity of settlements.”
He goes on to say that Yamnaya didn’t have pottery, battle axes etc but as we already saw these are later developments and early CWC lacked them.
The very early origin that is sometimes attributed to the Yamnaya culture is because of this: “The problem of the formation of Yamnaya culture is very far from being solved. It is widely believed that it was formed on the basis of the Eastern Eneolithic groups of the Khvalynsk culture in the Volga region (5th–4th millennia BC)”
@DragonHermit It looks like it, see one of the papers I mentioned analyzing X chromosome convergence on Yamnaya and CWC.
@Davidski "proto-Yamnaya culture" is a bit different than "Yamnaya" as we mean it here (genetics and multiple cultural elements instead of a few fundamental ones).
And Sredny is indeed designated as an early form of Yamnaya, due to its heavy influences from Khvalynsk/Volga (and its most likely origin from there). You can read it in Nikitin's paper. Or the paper you linked earlier ("Sredni Stog is often seen as an ancestor of Yamnaya in Ukraine24.").
@Rob Haplos are neither autosomal (=population) nor culture. Cope
@LGK You read the article a bit sloppily. Similar damage is observed in Crete and Cyclades and there's no steppe ancestry in Crete or Cyclades at that time (~2000-2100 BCE). Furthermore all of this can be attributed to local warfare (which continued until what, the Hellenistic age?) instead of the small-scale sedentary communities where the steppe-harboring samples were discovered. At the same as per the paper this follows a broader pattern of upheavals in western Mediterranean as well. There's nothing linking the incoming steppe ancestry with any upheavals, as I said. They themselves are small-scale ordinary farmers at a time where local conflicts were common.
You can read page 585 (5 of 12) to see him mention exactly this. A lot of the destructions are followed by reoccupation, some are reorganizations, there are depictions of maritime warfare, Cycladic groups raiding Cycladic groups etc not to mention Anatolian impulses as he notes. The only thing he links to nomadic/semi-nomadic people is the horse (page 586) which was most likely spread via trade and could even come from Anatolian merchants (the horse had already appeared in Anatolia earlier). There are basically zero ways to link the small farming communities with steppe ancestry with any of that, besides the only thing they had in common: they lived at a similar time. As did everyone else in the area, including the local powerhouses (most of them militarily active).
Pretty interesting paper, I suggest reading it in its entirety.
@Orpheus
No one ever claimed that Sredny Stog was proto-Yamnaya.
Proto-Yamnaya was eventually derived from Sredny Stog. So was Corded Ware.
That took a bit of time though, and what ancient DNA can do now is to try and find this population that gave rise to Corded Ware, Afanasievo and Yamnaya.
Many people no doubt will call this population proto-Yamnaya, but I have a different view. As per my blog post above, which I guess you didn't read.
Thanks to ancient DNA we've learned that the Yamnaya phenomenon isn't just an archeological horizon, but also a closely related and genetically very similar group of people. Indeed, in my mind, ancient DNA has helped to redefine the Yamnaya concept, with Y-chromosome haplogroup R1b-Z2103 now being one of the key traits of the Yamnaya identity. So considering that the Corded Ware people are not rich in R1b-Z2103, and even the earliest Corded Ware individuals are somewhat different from the Yamnaya people in terms of genome-wide genetic structure, it doesn't seem right to keep claiming that the Corded Ware population is derived from Yamnaya. I can't see anything in your IBD data that would preclude the idea that the Corded Ware and Yamnaya peoples were different populations derived from the same as yet unsampled pre-Yamnaya/post-Sredny steppe group.
@ Vladimir
What is the hypothesised provenance of Nalchik cemetery - Khvakynsk or Meshoko like ?
@ Orpheus
“Haplos are neither autosomal (=population) nor culture. Cope”
What am I coping about ? I’m personally not from corded ware nor an archaeologist with an slant, so have no vested interest
I just know how to read data.
Unlike you
@Orpheus
Y-chromosome haplogroups are the most important markers when it comes to ancient culture and language expansions, because such expansions were usually male biased.
The order is this:
- Y-DNA
- autosomal
- mtDNA
And since these markers are not directly linked, then there doesn't even need to be an association between them.
What this means, of course, is that we only really need Y-DNA evidence to prove anything in terms of PIE.
@DragonHermit
Your argument of "different ecological zones" is a linguistic impossibility. You can't have a language frozen in time for hundreds of years after this supposed CW/Yamnaya split.
So either
(1) Your genetic theory is right, but the Yamnaya Z2103 elites influenced CW and imposed them their language.
(2) Your genetic theory is wrong, and Yamnaya -> CW.
1. Yamnaya and CWC genetic/clan split does not necessarily mean their languages diverged in a similar time frame. Nobody is saying they were cut off completely from each other and had no impact on each other's development.
2. As far as "Yamnaya imposing their language" on CWC, it could have happened the same way the other way around. Fayatnovo lords, probably more advanced than Catacomb and with contacts across europe, influencing the "Yamnaya-descendants" still on the steppe into adopting their northern dialects.
@Rob
Nalchik is more similar to Novodanilovka and Suvorovo. Therefore, there has been a dispute for a long time that the primary is Suvorovo/Novodanilovka formed Nalchik or vice versa. Not everyone thinks Nalchik looks like a Meshoko. They call Nalchik an independent culture, by the way, for the first time using burials under stone slabs in a natural mound. There is a point of view that this was the beginning of artificial burial mounds.
Nal’chik = Meshoko Svobodnoe.
See following excerpt from HISTORY OF THE CAUCASUS AT THE CROSSROADS OF EMPIRES by Christoph Baumer:
“While the walled villages of the Meshoko-Svobodnoe culture had little in common with the Maikop culture that followed, the latter's antecedents can be found at the necropolis of Nalchik in the middle North Caucasus from the middle of the fifth millennium BCE. In lower, adjacent kurgans, there were 147 burials. Burial objects were rarely placed in the graves of the dead, who were, nevertheless, often sprayed with a thick layer of ochre. The same ritual can also be found in the Bedeni and Trialeti cultural stages. Presumably spraying the dead with ochre not only had a symbolic, but also a functional component, as the pigment has a certain detumescent and antiseptic effect. Indeed, spraying the dead with ochre may have been thought to prevent their further decay. The kurgans of Nalchik are a first clue that the concept of the burial mound was known long before the Maikop culture in the North Caucasus. Smaller burial mounds are also found in the northern Black Sea area and in the neighbouring Volga region. The smaller kurgans of the Chalcolithic are individual burials. A mound of clay or stone of a maximum diameter of 20 m and a height of 1 m was built on top of them, with a flat stone circle sometimes surrounding the site. Precisely dated Chalcolithic kurgans include Kurgan 3 at Revova in the northern Black Sea area (4335-4231 cal BCE) and Kurgan 13 at Peregruznoe in Volgograd Oblast (4340-4236 cal BCE). The Nalchik culture stage was most probably the link from the Chalcolithic cultural area located between the northern Black Sea and the lower Volga to the Maikop culture.
A Nal’chik lineage now found throughout Europe:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/j-l283/
Korenevsky gave a generalizing description of the understanding of the historical and cultural situation of the Eneolithic era at that time. Chronologically, this period was correlated by him with the "Tripolye B" stage for the cultures of the steppe zone of southern Eastern Europe and was attributed to the pre-Kura-Arak period of the Sioni–Tsopi cultures of the South Caucasus, then dated to the first half of the IV millennium BC (now - V millennium BC). The opinion about a single pre-Baikal cultural community was denied. The question was raised about two types of monuments of this time, differing in elements of culture and economic occupations, expressed in various types of monuments: 1) stationary settlements (Meshoko, Vesely farm, Yaseneva Polyana, Castle, Galyugai II, etc.); 2) underground burials and Nalchik burial ground.
The Nalchik burial ground had a flat and low (up to 0.7 m) embankment and contained 147 burials. In the center of the grave field, clusters of bones (up to 5-8), mostly crouched on the right (mostly male) or left (most female) side, were found, and on the periphery – separate graves at a certain distance from each other. There were burials on the back with bent legs (12) or on the chest, legs bent (5). Most of the children's (23) – separate, 4 – were accompanied by adult bones. Family and ancestral plots are assumed. Burials in shallow pits, some under masonry. The vast majority of them had no inventory. Exceptions: female burial 86 (a large number of small white beads, a fragment of the corolla of a clay vessel; a copper ring made of thin wire, 2 stone bracelets on the hands. An anthropomorphic statuette made of marl and a spherical stone mace were found in one of the burials opened before the start of stationary studies of the monument. According to a number of signs, the burial in the burial mound of 6 villages is similar to the early group of burials of the Nalchik burial ground. Bamut and the remains of a twisted burial in Grozny (Chechen Republic). Thus, in the early Eneolithic era, a burial mound tradition already existed in the Pre-Caucasus.
archaeological sources about the origin and ethno-political history of the population of the north caucasus (ProbLemS of STuDy)
Off topic; https://ourarchive.otago.ac.nz/bitstream/handle/10523/15164/BeattieJoseph2020MSc.pdf?sequence=1&isAllowed=y - a thesis on some Phoenician ancient dna.
Mainly mtdna but it shows that "A third previously sequenced Phoenician (unpublished), from Beirut, is also included in the PCA. This individual is plotted directly within the cluster of Late Neolithic-Early Bronze Age Europeans, likely indicating that this individual is of indigenous European descent. The presence of this individual in the Levant also corroborates the suggestion that there was a high degree of mobility within the Phoenician trading network. "
This is similar to a recent presentation by Ringbauer (https://youtu.be/ExCYSxUd3aE?t=4831), which found that there was quite a bit of genetic diversity in the Phoenician network, although his presentation did not find EuropeLNBA people in the Levant sites.
Nalchik looks like something related to the Piedmont steppe-Khvlaynsk. Meshoko-Darkveti groups didnt have kurgan burials. but of course the two might have interacted.
Baumer's theory doesnt hold up. Bedeni and Trialeti are MBA horizons which cant be ancestral to Nalchik, and we know they derived from Catacomb/ KMK anyhow.
It should be a good site to date & DNA.
in fact, the earliest 'kurgans' in the north Pontic region (e.g Chapli, Mariupol) are stone cists, cairns & earthen barrows which are broadly the same as those seen in northern & western Europe.
@Eric Farrow
"The DNA evidence simply indicates that your linguistic ideas are wrong. You can't reconstruct past events by analyzing extant words, but ancient genetics says that Yamnaya isn't the direct ancestor of Corded Ware, except perhaps on the maternal line for eastern Corded Ware.
FYI linguistic paleontology is generally regarded as bullshit."
You have no idea what you're talking about. Linguists predicted Balto-Slavic closeness (proved by R1a/BS drift). They predicted Italo-Celtic (proved by Beaker R-L51). They predicted PIE 300 years before it was invented. They also predicted the distant exoticness of Anatolian, which is reflected genetically.
The theory of PIE is a rapid dispersal of a single group. There is no theory where PIE splits into two and magically lives apart frozen in time in different ecological zones.
This thread has turned into some kind of deranged anti-Yamnaya nonsense where people refuse even evidence that Yamnaya rode horses, when you literally had Yamnaya cousins one living in China and one in Hungary. Now even language, IBD, autosomal, evidence is not enough. They need the exact Y-DNA clades as well.
Korenevsky's hypothesis is correct and has now been confirmed by aDNA. Nalchik apparently looks like Progress. Meshoko's genetics are different. Dates of Nalchik 5000-4800 BC. I doubt that the Northern European TRB mounds are related to steppe mounds. There were no burial mounds in the Mariupol culture, there are typically Balkan burials. So far, the simplest version is that a group of Balkan metallurgists penetrated to the lower Don, from there to the Dnieper, the Volga and the North Caucasus. This is how Sredniy Stog-Khvalynsk-Nalchik arose. The North Caucasian group apparently turned out to be the most mobile, it gave impetus to the reverse movement in the steppe. So the horizon of Novodanilovka-Suvorovo-Berezhnovka was formed.
@WSH
(1) Like I said, there is no "bifurcated" PIE theory or evidence. PIE is 1 single source with rapid dispersion in 20 different directions. A few hundred years is a massive period for linguistic development. Any separation would EASILY be picked up by linguists. Some linguists tried and failed hard to split PIE into 2 parts with the Centum/Satem theory already. Tocharian threw all of that out of the window. Apart from Italo-Celtic and Balto-Slavic, all these languages split away very rapidly from one another. There is no bifurcation. It's an impossibility.
(2) The Kurgan elites and leaders were obviously Z2103-dominant since early Yamnaya. There is no archeological or genetic basis for a forest steppe people to dominate the southern plains for hundreds of years. On the other hand we have arch. evidence of Yamnaya reaching into CW territory, and CW can be largely modelled with Yamnaya (obviously they picked up some extra DNA so they're not identical) sharing IBD, not the other way around.
The only plausible outcomes are David Anthony's Z2103 dynasty of kurganites that ruled steppe people for hundreds of years (with the "poorer" sibling clans also being Z2103), or PIE came from a SUBSET of steppe people, namely a yet unsampled northwestern steppe people with heavy farming influence. They could have easily picked up R1a in northwestern Ukraine/Belarus. And whether it's region or status, either way we have sampling issues.
@Davidski
Hello can you do these Batwa and Bakiga samples? They should have enough data in at least a couple of the samples:
https://www.mediafire.com/file/ec3z25ncbu93rrl/BatwaBakiga.zip/file
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-019-0947-6
@Orpheus
A group can be responsible for destructions and upheavals without settling down on the ruins for the next 300 years.
Just refer to the sea peoples and associated disruptions by mobile 1000 years later.
So it doesn't really matter whether their genetic signal is visible in Crete or the Cyclades at this time - the fact is that there is widespread upheaval in the Aegean precisely when a new type of ancestry arrived there, contra to what you said. It may have been caused directly by the migrants on the mainland or indirectly on the islands through disruptions of trade or other networks etc. And yes, "Anatolians" are also probably responsible for some of the changes in Crete and the islands.
@ Vladimir
''Korenevsky's hypothesis is correct and has now been confirmed by aDNA. Nalchik apparently looks like Progress. Meshoko's genetics are different. Dates of Nalchik 5000-4800 BC. '
That's probably the case, but we'd need modern C14 data from the people with R.E. correction
Did Khvalynsk sites have barrows/ kurgans ?
''I doubt that the Northern European TRB mounds are related to steppe mounds. There were no burial mounds in the Mariupol culture, there are typically Balkan burials''
I wouldnt call these 'Balkan' burials, theyre central European hunter-gatherers. most of Balkans at that time were just Anatolian farmers with burial rites nothing like the Dnieper region (e.g. burial under houses). They werent really farmers, but mobile flint-merchants and hunters. The Iron Gates region is different, HOWEVER.
As I said, the earliest 'kurgans' were megalithic constructions similar to that seen elsewhre in Europe at the Farmer/ HG frontier, but that doesnt mean theyre from TRB, that's not what was stated. Mariupol had some kurgans in Eneolithic acc. to Rassamakin
@ LGK
Yeah it's just part of the broader Eurasian disruptions assoc. with 4.2 ky event.
The proto-GReeks might have been part of it, or moved in the wake of them. it does't mean they caused all those issues in the Greek peninsula, some might have been local turmoils,
earthquakes, etc
@DragonHermit
David Anthony's Z2103 Kurgan overlord theory is actually based on some wrongly dated Scythian or Sarmatian samples with R1a-Z93 that were found near Yamnaya kurgans.
David Reich's hypothesis in his book that the Indo-Aryan migrations came from the eastern end of the Yamnaya culture (rather than from Sintashta) seems to be based on the same samples.
I talked about this problem here...
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-pie-homeland-controversy-june-2021.html
@Rob
I know, but the point is that big upheavals were underfoot at the same time as a new group arriving. Whether migrants cause disruption because they are warlike or themselves are a symptom of worsened environmental conditions doesn't matter too much in the end
Looks like Yamnaya --> CW direct link is now rock solid. I suppose Davidski will keep whining about this for 1 solid year at the minimum because of his pet Sredni Stog theory, even though there's hardly any steppe ancesty in the Dereivka samples.
Those Dereivka samples aren't Sredny Stog you moron.
Sredny Stog is like Yamnaya. You can read about that here.
https://www.degruyter.com/document/doi/10.1515/pz-2022-2034/html?lang=en
On the other hand, the Abashevo > Indo-Aryan link is now rock solid.
Haha.
The only way CWC can 'come from Yamnaya' is if Yamnaya around the Dniester & Dnieper is unipareterally diverse, i.e has R1b-M269 & R1a-M17 in addition to R1b-Z2103 & I-L68
Not sure if that'll be the case or not
Whatever the case, Yamnaya groups from the Caucasus, Volga & Ural regions are recent colonists from the Dnieper-Don region.
The “Ukr_N” should be split into the northern Dereivka group which are dominated by R1b-V88
These would fall under the Sursk variant of DD2
These disappear , however the V88 in Blatterhohole and those which occasionally pop up in SW Europe are closer to these guys than iron gates, acc to ftDNA
The southern guys are mostly I2a-L68, and are part of the Azov-Dnieper group which contributes to formation of the Mariupol horizon (pre-Sredni Stog)
@Rob, although re; Yamnaya_Caucasus, I'd note that at least two out of four samples seem quite strongly displaced towards the Progress Eneolithic samples compared to the general run of Yamnaya/Afanasievo: https://imgur.com/a/YCbajwt
(I think this checked out when I did some formal qpAdm as well, with more Steppe_Eneolithic in a model.)
These two are RK1007 - female, and SA6010 - male (who was somewhat trickily renamed from Yamnaya_Caucasus to Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_o in the latest anno file!).
Also note that SA6010 is described as (I think) R-V1636* (R1b).
So it could be that these two are both misdated, but if not, and although of limited sample size, I think it's some evidence that Progress_En type people were still around and incorporated in Yamnaya's network (rather than the samples we have all being of recent origin from somewhere else). Although the y-dna clearly renamed at some low/reduced level in any subsequent culture compared to the lineages of Yamnaya chiefs/founders.
(None of the more "interesting" Yamnaya Caucasus samples - RK1007 and SA6010 with strong displacement to Steppe_En or ZO2002 with slight displacement "south" - made it through to the Ringbauer analysis, so can't say if any of them have unusual IBD. RK1001 who is the most regular of the bunch has no unusual affinities).
Does any know if work is being done with IBD and samples I5876,I0433 connecting to any Corded Ware or Fatyanovo samples?
@a, neither of these samples got onto Ringbauer's analysis due to not meeting quality thresholds. If some more Khvalynsk samples are published, they may be tested with the method (and I believe that Reich's group may have already tested many of these - https://i.imgur.com/oBUFLPt.png), but I would not guess there to be direct long links because of how quickly these decay. I'm not sure if the Sredny Stog samples will favour better or no better, either, may depend on their dating (and they don't seem to have many so it will be dependent on luck as to whether the ones they have are good enough quality).
@ Rob
"The only way CWC can 'come from Yamnaya' is if Yamnaya around the Dniester & Dnieper is unipareterally diverse, i.e has R1b-M269 & R1a-M17 in addition to R1b-Z2103 & I-L68"
The steppe cultures that temporally preceded Yamnaya were uniparentally diverse. Khalvynsk is proven. As per Davidski, SS might also have R1a. So unless Yamnaya lost all their Y-DNA diversity (which I2 hints against), there were clearly non-RZ2103 Yamnaya. The southern/open steppe Z2103 dominance is a REGIONAL genetic bottleneck, but bottleneck doesn't necessarily imply a complete wipeout. This bottleneck might have just been more prominent in the southern/better sampled parts.
CWC on the other hand clearly picked up extra DNA in their migrations, so that's why I don't bother nitpicking autosomal differences between Yamnaya/CW. They obviously assimilated a bunch of other people, be it EEF, EHGs, Ukraine Neolithic or whatever, and weren't pure Yamnaya. The main point is Yamnaya and the Polish/Czech CW clearly shared both distant and recent ancestry (IBD) hinting towards them being recent relatives.
@ Matt
''These two are RK1007 - female, and SA6010 - male (who was somewhat trickily renamed from Yamnaya_Caucasus to Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_o in the latest anno file!)''
Thanksfor pointing that out. Seems that the intense mixing between '2 social networks' was intsense and lasted into 3000 bc
@ Dragon Hermit
The IBD analysis of recent & distant shared ancestry doesn't imply what the authors & their fanboys believe
@DragonHermit
The southern/open steppe Z2103 dominance is a REGIONAL genetic bottleneck, but bottleneck doesn't necessarily imply a complete wipeout.
Haha.
You just described what Yamnaya really is.
Yep, it's a southern/open steppe population rich in Z2103, all the way from Hungary to Mongolia.
Ergo, Corded Ware is not Yamnaya and it's not actually derived from Yamnaya.
@Dragon Hermitt
Your idea that the existence of a linguistic unit is necessary for PIE, is against the reality that we are seeing in the ancient genomes analyzed. No one will ever be able to prove that Yamnaya spoke IE because no written records exist and will ever exist and because her male uniparentals are limited to Z2103 and some cases of I2a-L699 and V1636. All the rest are fairy tales, steppes have not been sufficiently analyzed??, R1a and R1b-L151 “lower classes” with no right to be buried in Kurgans?? don't make me laugh, it is the most absurd theory I have read in the last years.
Simply neither R1a-M417 nor R1b-L51>L151 existed in Yamnaya culture, that is the true reality. And the best proof of this is that at least R1b-L151 never participated in migrations related to that culture. This marker is non-existent south of the Caucasus, there are no samples in Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, Central Asia or India. Nor does it exist in Greece and the Peloponnese, and in the rest of the Balkans they are an insignificant minority. Nor did it participate in the supposed Indo-Europeanization of Poland, Scandinavia, Baltic, Belarus, northern Russia… where CWC is overwhelmingly R1a-M417.
So what is the current (2.023) steppe theory in relation to R1b-L51>L151?
1-It was in the Yamnaya culture but we didn't find it because the right sites were not analyzed or because they were because they were peasants with no rights. LOL
2-It had to be a very scarce lineage with very few individuals and all of them marched to Bohemia giving rise to the early CWC. None of them remain in their original homeland because they never participated in successive steppe-related migrations, neither in the Chalcolithic, Bronze Age nor Iron Age because no samples of this marker are known east of Bohemia in any prehistoric period
3-Once in Bohemia they separated from his fellow travelers, M417 and Z2103, created the BB culture and settled in Central Europe speaking the Italo-Celtic language-The reasons why they did not allow these other lineages to participate in their trip to Western Europe remain a mystery. And it is also a mystery why no L151 stayed in the CWC, it is clear that they were very rare guys-The explanation is very simple, they had already been too cold and discovered the beaches of southern Europe and they were too selfish to share them with their colleagues .
4-The Italo-Celtic language was divided into Proto-Celtic spoken by the urnfielders in central and western Europe, and Proto-Italic spoken only on the Italian peninsula
5-The fact that all known NON-IE languages in Europe were overwhelmingly spoken by descendants of R1b-L51>L151, is due either to the matrilocal customs of the native cultures, or to the fact that in certain regions L151>P312 were a minority that simply adopted the languages of the neolithic farmers (G2a, I2a etc...). Patrilocal cultures? conquest and extermination of native populations? only when it interests me to demonstrate my theories
6-On the fact that the urnfielder culture genomes we have, are not L151>P312 no one has an opinion because no one has an explanation, we just ignore it and move on
And voilá, we have already demonstrated the new Kurgan theory, Gimbutas must be jumping for joy. If anyone thinks that this is a coherent and satisfactory explanation, congratulations, nothing will change your mind.
"Rob said...
The only way CWC can 'come from Yamnaya' is if Yamnaya around the Dniester & Dnieper is unipareterally diverse, i.e has R1b-M269 & R1a-M17 in addition to R1b-Z2103 & I-L68"
There's no reason to expect that there *must* be a single group with all these lineages. Y DNA doesn't work that way, we have multiple examples in Europe of Y lines expanding from zero to dominating a different language group (I1 & E-V13). The idea that R1b, R1a and I2 (let alone Q, non-M269 R1b, etc) all spoke PIE (or pre-PIE) is infeasible, obviously there was some kind of non-paternal language transmission at some point or groups getting incorporated in a different group, etc.
@alex
The idea that R1b, R1a and I2 (let alone Q, non-M269 R1b, etc) all spoke PIE (or pre-PIE) is infeasible, obviously there was some kind of non-paternal language transmission at some point or groups getting incorporated in a different group, etc.
This is not only feasible but also very likely because Y-haplogroups don't speak languages.
It's highly unusual for all or even almost all males from an ethnic or linguistic group to belong to one Y-chromosome haplogroup.
Usually they belong to two, three or more main ones and these haplogroups aren't necessarily closely related either.
PIE probably developed in such a group.
@Gaska
You're on a different plane of reality. We ALREADY have R-L51 in eastern Yamnaya, and we have Z2103 in CW. The issue is the frequency of it.
@Davidski
These people didn't call themselves "R1b" or "WSH" or "Yamnaya"/"Corded Ware" culture. You are anachronistically imposing ethnic and geographic boundaries that does not reflect language at all. Estonians/Fins are like >50% steppe and aren't considered Indo-Europeans, but ancient Greeks and Anatolians are. You know why? In 90% of cases, LANGUAGE defines ethnicity. Estonians/Fins cannot be considered Indo-Europeans as long as they speak a Uralic language.
We can debate the genetic differences (uniparental or autosomal) between different steppe groups all day long, but when we're talking about "Proto-Indo-Europeans", we're talking about the ethnic group/s that SPOKE THE PIE LANGUAGE. That is how "Proto-Indo-Europeans" are defined. It doesn't matter how much steppe ancestry or whatever they carried, as long as they don't speak that specific language.
There are 0 linguists, and I repeat 0 linguists, who will back a theory of PIE being split into two ecological zones post-SS. You guys can nitpick and write 400 different blogs, but at the end of the day modern day Proto-Indo-European descendants have to go back to a single group speaking 1 single language that rapidly dispersed post-dating the Anatolian and Afanasievo split (3300/3200 BC at the latest). That is how the "PIE" ethos is defined. It's not simply anyone who carried steppe ancestry, because most of your ancestry can be WSH and you're still not considered IE like Estonians/Fins.
@DragonHermit
"@Gaska
You're on a different plane of reality. We ALREADY have R-L51 in eastern Yamnaya, and we have Z2103 in CW. The issue is the frequency of it."
That's right. He doesn't know what the hell he's talking about, but he says so much that isn't true, it's a pain in the ass to answer him.
@Dragon Hermit
Yeah, may be I am on a different plane of reality but so is Max Planck which is the most prestigious European laboratory- See what L.Papac says-
“Therefore, despite their sharing of steppe ancestry and substantial chronological overlap, it is currently NOT possible to directly link Yamnaya, CW, and BB groups as paternal genealogical sources for one another, particularly noteworthy in light of steppe ancestry’s suggested male-driven spread and the proposed patrilocal/patriarchal social kinship systems of these three societies”.
It is better to live in this reality than to live on Mars like you, who think there is L51 in Mongolia and that central Asia is Eastern Yamnaya LOL.
Others like “Sitting Bull” Rich S will be able to swear that they have found L51 in West Virginia and that Yamnaya horsemen arrived in America 4,500 years before Columbus
@ Alex
''There's no reason to expect that there *must* be a single group with all these lineages. , we have multiple examples in Europe of Y lines expanding from zero to dominating a different language group (I1 & E-V13).''
Not sure what point that's illustrating, because I1 mixed with R1b-u106 considerably later ca. 2200 BC. Same with the LBA-IA case of E-V13 , or whatver the details that shall emerge.
That isn't the case with what we're seeing in the forest'steppe / steppe zone
''The idea that R1b, R1a and I2 (let alone Q, non-M269 R1b, etc) all spoke PIE (or pre-PIE) is infeasible, obviously there was some kind of non-paternal language transmission at some point or groups getting incorporated in a different group, etc.''
The data shows that WHG- & ANE-related groups were mixing since the end of the Ice Age, as I predicted on my understanding of archaeology, and touched on the recent Posth paper, including their DATES admixture estimates. Not only was there an initial mixing, but their products mixed yet again, e.g. EHG moved west, and WHG moved east again. Plus you have local tussles for control of river valleys, consistent but shifting mating networks over a broad area of central-eastern Europe, etc, etc. -> Long term contacts.
So yes, there might have been language shift at some stage, but this was at the hunter-gatherer stage, not at the Corded Ware -Yamnaya stage. Im not sure how Q1 fits into it, they obvously brought the Khvalynsk-related cultural aspect, but they belonged to a different social network. On the other hand, the Corded & Yamnaya founders did belong to the same social network, at least by 5500 BC, although further data from the western steppe will add granuliarty to this proposal.
IMO this is not only feasible, but is the only sober, rational & empirically viable explanation. In fact, the above pre-existing structure and possible language shifts eloquently explain the position of proto-Anatolian
@DragonHermit
"Your argument of "different ecological zones" is a linguistic impossibility. You can't have a language frozen in time for hundreds of years after this supposed CW/Yamnaya split."
Have you seen the reconstructed trees from this paper? They have Greek, Armenian and Albanian as a group, and splitting from the rest minus Tocharian and Anatolian before 3000 BC, several hunderd years before the rest. That is the group of languages which, with some assumptions, can be tied to bronze age J2b2a-L283.
https://www.linguisticsociety.org/sites/default/files/news/ChangEtAlPreprint.pdf
@Gaska
Papac's argument is a straw man. Reich & co are not saying RZ2103 magically mutated into R1a or R-L51. That makes 0 sense. They are saying that the Yamnaya did not lose all the uniparental diversity that was prevalent in the Neolithic steppes. That Yamnaya's PARENTS also had R1a and R-L51 is a FACT.
Steppes were ALWAYS a mixture of R1a/R1b. The open steppes just experienced a REGIONAL bottleneck, but like I said "PIE" was just some northwestern variant. Not every RZ2103 kurganite gave rise to modern/core PIE.
@epoch
The most recent mega-linguistic IE compilation book had something similar, but the Greek expert in that book denied the supposed links between Albanian, Armenian and Greek, even though they are clearly all Yamnaya derivates. He stated the similarities between Greek and Albanian are recent developments, while with Armenian only rest on a cognate-only basis. Uniparentally, I'd tie all of these regardless to RZ2103. I think one of the papers recently posted here on Eurogenes even said they found countless RZ2103 in that W. Balkan region in a tumulus. Interestingly enough, in that very book it's shown Albanian for example has some VERY strong similarities to Baltic and Germanic, proving that the CW/Yamnaya split is like I said linguistically impossible. A computational language model in that book straight up put Albanian and Germanic in the same group.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/4B44B5ACF0D3BBA89B9408050F112A52
@Gaska
". . . Others like “Sitting Bull” Rich S will be able to swear that they have found L51 in West Virginia and that Yamnaya horsemen arrived in America 4,500 years before Columbus"
Of course, I've never said anything even remotely like that, but it is kind of funny that I know a guy who claims that Y-DNA R originated in North America and crossed ice floes to get to Europe.
Funny to see Gaska quoting Papac, since Papac's Bohemian Corded Ware paper was a death blow to so much that Gaska had argued for years, like his goofy old argument that steppe DNA got into Bell Beaker because non-CW European farmers took Corded Ware women as wives.
Regarding Yamnaya and Corded Ware, I am agnostic. Obviously, however, the two share a common origin. If we could just get the Russians and Ukrainians to stop fighting, and patch things up in our relations with Russia, we might get some more ancient steppe/forest-steppe DNA and figure it out.
I ran across this Quora post and thought I'd share. I assume it's one of the readers here that wrote it.
https://www.quora.com/What-are-the-closest-relatives-of-the-Indo-European-language-family/answer/Andreas-Weber-53?ch=15&oid=1477743657086710&share=7f58c836&srid=hWijS&target_type=answer
L51 in eastern Yamnaya?
Do you mean afanasievo?
Or yamnaya proper?
Can you tell the sample ID?
@Ryan
The Indo-Anatolian homeland wasn't in the North Caucasus. Not even in the North Caucasus steppe.
Even if proto-Anatolians moved into Anatolia from the steppe via the Caucasus (via the Kura-Araxes or Maykop migrations), then the Indo-Anatolian homeland was still in the Sredny Stog culture.
That's because Sredny Stog is the direct ancestor of Corded Ware and Yamnaya.
And linguistically, the Balkan route makes more sense for the entry of proto-Anatolians into Anatolia anyway.
@Dragon Hermit
Papac's argument is a straw man ???- Papac has only recognized what some of us have been saying for years, that without genetic continuity through the male line there can be no transmission of language, especially if we are talking about prehistoric patriarchal societies.
There has never been L51 in the steppes, neither in the Neolithic nor in the Chalcolithic, if Reich and Lazaridis think so, they are wrong. How can it be a FACT if it has not been scientifically proven?
Don't you realize that Papac is just trying to save the Kurgan theory? For Max Planck the Narva signal in the early CWC is incompatible with Yamnaya (and this involves L51 and the dubious archaeological CW classification of its tombs), hence they have resorted to UKR_N, i.e. an emergency alternative solution, the “forest-steppe”.
In this way, they can continue saying that L51 has its origin in a culture not yet analyzed very similar genetically to Yamnaya but with a northern touch (WHG) that could be found in Ukraine. The other possibility, i.e. a Baltic origin of L51, would be the definitive destruction of the steppe theory in relation to that marker. If you really think that the homeland of Indo-European is in Ukraine, then forget about Yamnaya and fight for the forest-steppe.
@Rich S-
He He, you don't seem to have noticed yet, Papac's paper is the best genetics paper I have ever read in my life, it not only destroyed the Yamnaya culture (something I had been fighting for 10 years), but confirmed the western origin of P312, the existence of U106 and L151 in Bohemia (central Europe-3,000 BC), the presence of a northwestern signal in the early-CWC and the widespread practice of exogamy (including Yamnaya women). And beware, you should know that MPlanck in his first abstract of the paper clearly talked about having found some outliers who didn't know how to fit into the official Kurganist narrative. You can reread the "Is Yamnaya Overrated" thread on this very blog to realize what I am saying
@Gaska
Cored Ware has Ukraine_N admix, as well as Globular Amphora admix, so it's definitely from Ukraine.
It's got nothing to do with Narva.
Narrowing down location, and possible contacts between early groups--
It will be interesting to compare future IBD links between potential speakers of Proto-PIE, Proto-Uralic, Proto-Semitic, and Proto-Kartvelian, with common words such as,
1} Bull
Borrowed from or into Proto-Semitic *ṯawr- (“bull, ox”), or both originated from a common unknown source. (The unconditioned /a/ suggests a non-Indo-European etymon.)
2} Water
Descendants
Proto-Samoyedic: *wet (see there for further descendants)
Ugric:
Hungarian: víz
Mansi:
Northern Mansi: вит (wit)
Proto-Permic: *vå (see there for further descendants)
Proto-Mari: *wü̆t (see there for further descendants)
Proto-Mordvinic:
Erzya: ведь (veď)
Moksha: ведь (veď)
Proto-Samic: *vëcë (see there for further descendants)
Proto-Finnic: *veci (see there for further descendants)
From Proto-Indo-European *wódr̥ (“water”). Related to Luwian 𒉿𒀀𒅈𒊭.
Bedřich Hrozný, who deciphered Hittite in 1917, said that seeing this word and knowing German Wasser made him realize Hittite was Indo-European.[1]
Noun
𒉿𒀀𒋻 • (wa-a-tar)
3} Wine
Proto-Kartvelian
Etymology
Usually considered a borrowing from Proto-Indo-European *wéyh₁ō.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8]. However, the nature of relationship with it, as well as with Proto-West Semitic *wayn-, Aghwan 𐕔𐔼 (fi), and the first part of Hattic [script needed] (finduqqaram, “wine-bearer”) may be more complicated.[9][10][11][12][13]
According to many, the borrowing occured via the (Pre-)Proto-Armenian ancestor of Old Armenian գինի (gini, “wine”), genitive գինւոյ (ginwoy), variously reconstructed as *ɣʷeinyo-, *ɣʷino- or *gwīníyo-.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Martirosyan describes the sound change Proto-Indo-European *w → Proto-Armenian *ɣʷ → Kartvelian *ɣw as impeccable[24] and observes it also in Proto-Indo-European *wi(H)- → Proto-Armenian *ɣʷi- (→ Old Armenian գի (gi, “juniper”)) → Proto-Kartvelian *ɣwiw-. According to others, however, the term was borrowed directly from Proto-Indo-European;[2]
@ Dragon Hermit
''in that very book it's shown Albanian for example has some VERY strong similarities to Baltic and Germanic, proving that the CW/Yamnaya split is like I said linguistically impossible. A computational language model in that book straight up put Albanian and Germanic in the same group''
So ..complete bullshit
The only thing capable of reconstructing language trees is intelligent population genetics.
@DragonHermit
I don't know how you can say " Albanian, Armenian and Greek, even though they are clearly all Yamnaya derivate". No modern language can be linked with Yamnaya. There is nothing "clear". It is possible that no modern language is derived from Yamnaya's language. It is possible that all IE languages still existing today derived from the Corded Ware dialect of PIE.
@ Folker
Bronze Age IE languages often derive from more than one streams. But the role of CW in Balkan languages shouldn’t be overestimated, otherwise you just end up sounding as silly as the Yamnaya -centric guys
For Balkans, you’d be looking at Cernavoda , Yamnaya , maybe Usatavo .
@ Rob
"So ..complete bullshit
The only thing capable of reconstructing language trees is intelligent population genetics."
@ Folker
"I don't know how you can say ' Albanian, Armenian and Greek, even though they are clearly all Yamnaya derivate'. No modern language can be linked with Yamnaya. There is nothing 'clear'. It is possible that no modern language is derived from Yamnaya's language. It is possible that all IE languages still existing today derived from the Corded Ware dialect of PIE."
It's worth pointing out that linguistic analysis of this question is fraught with uncertainty and disagreement, and always has been. Also, because we know of many examples historically and currently where genetics and linguistics do NOT closely match, and where there is a great deal of uncertainty and disagreement, we can't say any of this kind of thing definitively.
At best, we can make proposals and pile on as much evidence as we can—often circumstantial—to support them, but they probably aren't really provable. If Greek, Albanian and Armenian (and probably Phrygian, and maybe Thracian and Illyrian and who knows what other paleo-Balkan IE languages) are ultimately descended from a Yamnaya rather than Corded Ware dialect of IE, we'll never "know" that. We may never even be able to propose that Yamnaya and Corded Ware spoke similar dialects of the same language. They may not have, and it is almost certainly beyond our ability to retrieve the reality of the linguistic picture. We can merely assert and assume, and believe that it's likely. At best. The tone of this debate seems to be taking an absolutist approach, or have absolutist expectations that the evidence will likely never justify.
It's perfectly OK to make assertions that are unproven on the linguistic side of things. In fact, the entire history of the discipline of historical linguistics is largely made up of exactly that, at least when it comes out of the discussion of the languages themselves and attempts to map language to archeological cultures or genetic data. And even in the world of pure linguistics, that's true. The linguistic sister-language status of Baltic and Slavic as descendants of an earlier Balto-Slavic branch, as well as its relationship to Armenian/Greek, Albanian, Thracian/Dacian, etc. is uncertain and probably ultimately unsolveable, and that's purely a linguistic question.
@Gaska
". . . There has never been L51 in the steppes, neither in the Neolithic nor in the Chalcolithic, if Reich and Lazaridis think so, they are wrong. How can it be a FACT if it has not been scientifically proven?"
Wrong. Can't you read? R1b-L51 has been found twice in Afanasievo, dated to 3316-2918 cal BC (Sample I6222, Wang et al) and 2815-2526 cal BC (Sample C3341, Kumar et al), autosomally virtually identical to Yamnaya.
The oldest R1b-L51 in peninsular Europe, Papac's earliest Bohemian CW samples, is already loaded with steppe DNA.
Let's recall, as a matter of phylogenetic clarity, that Z2103 (common in Yamnaya) and L51 (common in Corded Ware), are brother clades under R1b-L23. It's utter foolishness to think L51 originated anywhere but on the steppe and among Indo-European steppe pastoralists.
"@Rich S-
He He, you don't seem to have noticed yet, Papac's paper is the best genetics paper I have ever read in my life, it not only destroyed the Yamnaya culture (something I had been fighting for 10 years), but confirmed the western origin of P312, the existence of U106 and L151 in Bohemia (central Europe-3,000 BC) . . ."
That's hilarious. Familiar as I am with your arguments over the years, and how you have been forced to retreat eastwards across Europe step by step (steps toward the steppe, one might say) over the years, I know full well that Papac marked the absolute bitter destruction of all that you once held dear. It showed R1b-L151 in the earliest Corded Ware remains to date, remains chock full of steppe DNA and clustering not far from Yamnaya. There goes the old idea that Corded Ware women married L51 European farmers and made Indo-Europeans out of the them! (As if that ever made even the slightest bit of sense and was not rather a source of embarrassment to those few desperate souls who advanced it.)
As for the "western" origin of P312, that wasn't "confirmed" by Papac's paper. Instead, Papac speculates that P312 may have arisen "somewhere between Bohemia and England, possibly in the vicinity of the Rhine" (p. 7 of 17). How is that a big triumph for you, who once claimed ALL of R1b spent the LGM in an Iberian refuge, and who, later, long after that became obviously untenable, claimed P312 originated there? I don't recall anyone ever arguing strenuously for a steppe origin for P312. Not a soul. The issue was always the ultimate origin of R1b-L51. Clearly P312 has an eastern origin in the sense that the Y-DNA line it is on does. Surely even you understand that?
You cannot legitimately claim to have been ahead of the curve on the relationship between Yamnaya and Corded Ware. Your arguments have always been merely the continued, dogged insistence that L51 (and, indeed, M269) is western in origin. By "western" you meant Iberian, until you were forced by the weight of ancient DNA evidence to retreat steadily eastwards. Now you've got your heals in the Baltic, when they're not in the Black Sea, far to the east of old Iberia.
@David - "And linguistically, the Balkan route makes more sense for the entry of proto-Anatolians into Anatolia anyway."
Genetically it doesn't though, at least based on the little information we have so far. The best guesses we have for samples of Anatolian speakers lack WHG (but still have detectable steppe admixture). Granted it's a handful of samples only...
That wasn't my main point though. Just thought the post was pretty well done for Quora.
Actually that doesn't even make sense from a linguistic sense, does it? A Sredny Stog -> Balkan route would mean that Anatolian should share the full IE agricultural terminology, shouldn't it? And Anatolian lacks many IE agricultural terms.
@Davidski Your views differ from pretty much every paper out there only semantically, where you won't call "proto-Yamnaya" or "early Yamnaya" what they do. No biggie
@Davidski "What this means, of course, is that we only really need Y-DNA evidence to prove anything in terms of PIE."
Etruscans, Iberians, Basques, modern Central Asians, early Mycenaeans etc would definitely agree ahahah.
And I mean yeah we already knew >50% of early CWC males are R1b (formed 3500 BCE, later than early Yamnaya proper appeared). It's safe to assume that the origins of CWC are unrelated to R1a.
@WSH Influences are from east to west early Yamnaya > early CWC instead of the other way around, with Yamnaya being older than CWC. You might also want to consider the split of Tocharian and I-Ir which predate Fatyanovo.
Basically you have to find early CWC settlements that exhibit Yamnaya/early CWC elements while predating Yamnaya (and R1b Afanasievo) as a whole, and R1a rich very early steppe elites (plenty of R1b around so far), otherwise it's turbocope
@LGK Listen I don't really want to call you mentally challenged but you should probably read your arguments twice before posting them.
There's no reason to attribute something to literal nobodies with zero evidence of any warlikeness (or seafaring) on their part, when somebodies were around and had a history of doing that something, with all the evidence pointing at it as well (e.g. Cycladic localized fighting), especially when the aforementioned nobodies are nowhere near those areas as well.
"precisely when a new type of ancestry arrived there"
Embarrassing. This ancestry was already there from centuries ago. Even the ~2400 BCE samples are already mixed with locals. Their mixing dates were significantly older in general, they predate any EBA upheaval. You're trying to force a narrative that has literally 0 evidence in its favor (and every evidence discovered thus far against it) so hard and so sloppily that you might as well be both autistic and stupid.
@Davidski Reich's position on I-Ir is mostly stemming from Sintashta/Andronovo not being good proxies for the steppe ancestry in Indians and a later source being preferred. He mentioned it in a 2018 lecture.
Fits with the current linguistic data too, as well as Hasanlu DNA. Given the current evidence Sintashta/Andronovo were either Tocharian speakers which they adopted from earlier Afanasievo, or were the original speakers of Tocharian (remaining isolated from the agricultural shift of European IE languages that CWC was a part of), or spoke a now-extinct IE language, or didn't speak IE at all.
I understand that the LARP is prestigious but you should probably wait for more samples since current ones + linguistics don't favor the usual suspects (Sintashta/Andronovo).
@Gaska "The fact that all known NON-IE languages in Europe were overwhelmingly spoken by descendants of R1b-L51>L151"
I mean that's true, but then again early CWC is majority R1b-L51 so that means CWC weren't IE speakers. Not sure if Davidski would be particularly happy with what your argument alludes to.
@DragonHermit Eh he's not really saying much.
"I cannot discuss the evidence for common innovations of Greek and Albanian in any detail here; for a list of potential cases, see Chapter 12, where Hyllested and Joseph adduce some interesting examples, such as the element *ki̯ā- (contained in both Alb. sot ‘today’ and Greek τήμερον ‘id.’). However, a number of Greek innovations adduced there can or must in my view be dated later than Proto-Greek. I am not convinced of a close genetic relation between Greek and Albanian."
It's not presented as close in the central tree of the book so I don't think he disagrees with anything.
@DragonHermit "We ALREADY have R-L51 in eastern Yamnaya, and we have Z2103 in CW. The issue is the frequency of it."
Oh damn missed that. Can't keep up with the haploautism. Very interesting, I don't see how there are any holes in the early Yamnaya (yes this includes genetics too) > CWC argument now.
@Ryan Probably something like Apricity/Eupedia/Anthrogenica. PIA has only Sredny or some Caucasus culture as homeland candidates, even CTC is more likely as the PIA homeland compared to Khvalynsk.
@Davidski A Steppe > Caucasus route makes sense linguistically as well. Balkans were full of wheels and agriculture and in every scenario steppe ancestry into Anatolia via the Balkans is heavily diluted (or even nonexistent at this stage), which means heavy assimilation of local elements (cultural and linguistic).
Correction wrt PIA lingo: not "either Sredny or Caucasus", but "either Sredny or Caucasus/West Asia"
@a A.I. combined with IBD will be probably what'll help with this (Ringe will love it). It's a long list wrt vocab, lions are another example. PIA root for wine is also found in OEg iirc, or it was some other shared PIA root that I don't remember atm.
@Desdichado Brah you're wasting energy, the average archaeogenomics enthusiast is in this field to find some epic and prestigious identity and origins (or/and a reassurance of nativity) for himself to LARP and parade online. Overconfident assertions in an extremely recent field (with literally tens of thousands of samples more to go) is the norm, and good source of comedy and juicy drama. Better stir it than reason with it
@Orpheus
Reich's initial position was that the steppe source in Indians was like Yamnaya, thus an earlier source than Sintashta.
But that was wrong. The mistake was the result of the over interpretation of formal statistics.
Sintashta/Andronovo is a good proxy for the steppe ancestry in Indians. Most people know this now, and Reich has updated his views since 2018.
@Orpheus
"@Gaska "The fact that all known NON-IE languages in Europe were overwhelmingly spoken by descendants of R1b-L51>L151"
I mean that's true, but then again early CWC is majority R1b-L51 so that means CWC weren't IE speakers. Not sure if Davidski would be particularly happy with what your argument alludes to."
No, that's not true, actually. Gaska thinks he's onto something because El Argar was mostly R1b-DF27, but who really knows what language those people spoke and how they came by it, fairly late in the game?
Pretty obviously the Basques were mostly I2 to begin with. That's plain from the ancient remains in the Basque country before the arrival of Beaker c. 2500 BC. How the modern Basques came to be mostly R1b-DF27 and yet retained their non-IE language (if it is really non-IE) is probably mostly down to their matrilocal marriage tradition, in which the groom went to live with the bride's family.
Now take a look at the rest of central and western Europe, the Italo-Celtic and Germanic spheres, which were Indo-European and largely R1b-L51. Should we judge them and their origin by a relatively small number of DF27s in Iberia? That's a tail too small to wag the great big IE dog.
Before Gaska jumps up, citing some U152 among the Etruscans, let's remind him Etruscan is a language from the Iron Age, too late to mean anything. Besides, look at the U152 among all the IE speakers in Italy and elsewhere. Again, trying to wag a big IE dog with a tiny little (too late) non-IE stub tail.
@ Desdichado
I dont really agree with 'we'll never know'
I mean sure, we cant go back in time & record them, but we cant certainly reconstruct the 'population history' of putative Illyrian speakers, Italics, etc
And through this, we can decipher the internal relationships between these groups in a way that linguitics alone never will be able to
And for most of these languages the population history is by now becoming incerasingly clear
@ Ryan
LOL Lack of WHG in Anatolia ? What about the Y-hg I2 present across western Anatolia ?
Nevermid Lazarides' coarse -grained analyses
Also, you still seem to misunderstand the Kroonen article. the Balkans & Even western Anatolia were outside the 'core Frming' region
@Ryan
A Sredny Stog -> Balkan route would mean that Anatolian should share the full IE agricultural terminology, shouldn't it?
Why's that? Were Sredny Stog people fully fledged farmers?
Or are you assuming that they picked up farming terms as they moved into western Anatolia? If so, why?
'' but we cant certainly reconstruct the 'population history' of putative Illyri''
sorry typo - we can
@Orpheus said...
@a A.I. combined with IBD will be probably what'll help with this (Ringe will love it). It's a long list wrt vocab, lions are another example. PIA root for wine is also found in OEg iirc, or it was some other shared PIA root that I don't remember atm.
Yes it will be interesting to see the application of A.I. combined with IBD and ydna. We just learned that Fatyanovo has Yamnaya 12 cM IBD and recently Abashevievo has actual R1b-Z2103+(1:15 05): interesting in light of Czech Corded Ware( 1-sample R1b-Z2103) samples plotting close to Yamnaya and while Polish Corded Ware sample PCW070 connection to Yamnaya 12cM IBD and Afanasievo.
Remember when Szécsényi-Nagy’s lecture was pulled from youtube. Ever wonder if there might be more interesting finds? Like Hungary Yamnaya having a sample like I0443--L23+(Z2103,L51) or East Slovakia mounds perhaps L51+?
Not to mention IBD - ydna -AI formulating a plausible scenario connecting Anatolian and Tocharian.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I06VYBuGVyY
@David - "Why's that? Were Sredny Stog people fully fledged farmers?"
The opposite. But I figured the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture would be the source of the agricultural terms, and wouldn't a western/Balkan route put Anatolian speakers into contact with Cucuteni–Trypillia or some related culture? Or was the Neolithic Balkans sufficiently diverse?
@Rob - "LOL Lack of WHG in Anatolia ? What about the Y-hg I2 present across western Anatolia ?"
In these specific samples. Like the boy from Hatay. I'm not talking about Phyrigians.
@Ryan
A lot of things may or may not have happened, but we can't use these sorts of hypothetical scenarios as arguments.
If Sredny Stog was the source of Anatolian languages, then I guess no.
@ Ryan
I’m not referring to Iron Age Phrygians, either, but Bronze Age Anatolia central-western Anatolia, where Hittites and Luwians are attested, not some late political - military Hittite expansion point like Hatay
@Rich S
1-"Afanasievo L51?"- Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha
2- "R1b-L151 in Bohemia?"-
Yes and Bohemia is in central Europe, not in the steppes.
3-"Utter foolishness to think L51 originated anywhere but on the steppe and among Indo-European steppe pastoralists"-
Sure it does not originate in west Virginia?
4-"How you have been forced to retreat eastwards across Europe step by step"-
Sitting bull will never stop being a weasel
5-"Corded Ware women married L51 European farmers and made Indo-Europeans out of the them"-
Oh my God, you still don't understand what exogamy is, nor do you know which cultures practiced it
6-"P312 somewhere between Bohemia and England, possibly in the vicinity of the Rhine"-
Yeah, western Europe you knucklehead
7-"Clearly P312 has an eastern origin in the sense that the Y-DNA line it is on does"-
Italy & France-L754, Serbia-L754, Bulgaria-M269, Baltic-P297, Spain & Belgium-M269 and your conclusion is that P312 has an eastern origin, you are a genetic genius
8-"By western you meant Iberian-
Iberia is in Western Europe and you're still on the moon.
9-"Gaska thinks he's onto something because El Argar was mostly R1b-DF27"-
This is funny, you don't know the language of El Argar culture when 300 years later their Iberian descendants (all of them Df27>Z195 like the Argarians), wrote and spoke Iberian, but you know for sure what is the language of the Yamnaya culture that neither left a single written word, I have no doubt, you are also a genius in linguistics
10-"Pretty obviously the Basques were mostly I2"-"That's plain from the ancient remains in the Basque country before the arrival of Beaker"
I know you're not going to stop making a fool of yourself, but you should at least study a bit of Iberia's history if you want to participate in this kind of conversations. This is getting funnier and funnier, the Basques occupy the current territory of the Basque Country since the 6th century AD, and you think they were already living there in 2.500 BC.
Basque was spoken in Aquitaine (Yeah, southern France) in the Iron Age, meanwhile in the iberian peninsula only Iberian, Tartessian and Celtiberian were spoken. Iberian was also spoken in Occitania, (Yeah again southern France, remember ???, the Franco-Cantabrian region). And yes, all of those peoples were overwhelmingly R1b-P312.
11-"Etruscan is a language from the Iron Age, too late to mean anything"-
Again Ha Ha Ha, 75% of the Etruscan samples are R1b-P312 and there are also two Df27 among them. In addition, the Sicans of Sicily also spoke a non-Indo-European language related to Iberian (and there are also Df27 on the island thanks to the migrations of the Iberian BB culture).
So you have, Basque-Aquitanians, Occitanians, Iberians, Tartessians, Etruscans and Sicans all of them overwhelmingly P312>DF27 and all of them Non-IE.
On the other hand, we have Anatolians and Greeks J2, J1, H, L, E1b, G2a.... Thracians-E1b-V13, Illyrians-J2b-L283, not even the urnfielders were P312, it does not seem that the steppe theory is going in the right direction.
It will be interesting if more samples like the ones below can be used for IBD analysis, for Corded Ware- Anatolian -Tocharian regions; wagon SA6004 and or I0433 copper burial.
I5876--7040-6703 calBCE (7960±30 BP, PSUAMS-2811)Dereivka phase I
Steppe Maykop, 3619-3105 BC
SA6013.B0101
SA6004-wagon burial
I0433-Samara_Eneolithic-Khvalynsk, Volga River, Samara, 5200-4000 BCE, copper ring and beads.
Future potential list for comparison using IBD from R1b-Z2103 samples from around 2400BC +/- 250 years, from sites,
Czech Corded Ware- 1 sample
Derivka phase II Sredny Stog-I5884-(+2 samples?)
Eastern Bell Beaker/Poland+Hungary-(3 samples)
Catacombe samples near SA6013.B0101,SA6004-wagon burial
Abashevo -Pepkino burial mound(3 samples+ 1 possible related blacksmith?)
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/the-abashevo-axe-did-it-mednikova-et-al.html
Potapovka outlier-(1 sample)
Iran?
Okunev culture?
@Ryan
"The opposite. But I figured the Cucuteni–Trypillia culture would be the source of the agricultural terms, and wouldn't a western/Balkan route put Anatolian speakers into contact with Cucuteni–Trypillia or some related culture? Or was the Neolithic Balkans sufficiently diverse?"
Why? Agricultural terms are used by farmers. It is safe to see the early Anatolians as pastoralists, not farmers. It is not the same ecological niche.
Therefore, termes related to agriculture found in the different IE languages are different because imported from different languages (the one of the people living where IE adopted agriculture).
Agricultural terms in Hittite/Luwian... are probably imported from other languages preexisting in Anatolia before.
BTW, given that thousands of years have passed since the beginning of the AF migration in Europe, the more likely is that Neolithic populations were linguisticly diversified.
@Ryan Yeah, among other things. Wheels, lions, possibly wine cultivation too (not sure if it existed in the Balkans at the time. Definitely didn't exist anywhere near Sredny or Khvalynsk). There's a reason the recent paper on PIA is placing PIA near CTC but not right into it. CTC is too agriculture-heavy, not just cereal-wise but in general as were other farmer cultures of the time both in lifestyle and economy. This disqualifies them as PIA sources just like pure pastoralism is disqualified.
Not that Sredny has some super strong case, its cereal findings could be simply from trading with CTC and not from themselves. But it's better than nothing and I can't dismiss it yet.
East steppe > Caucasus is a better explanation in general but it's currently untenable due to the total absence of agriculture there, and there's no evidence of Sredny moving eastward for now (let alone SEward).
@Davidski "and Reich has updated his views since 2018."
Link?
@Davidski "Or are you assuming that they picked up farming terms as they moved into western Anatolia? If so, why?"
Any Sredny (or any other EHG-rich) ancestry was heavily diluted by then which means heavy assimilation, also seen in the cultures of the time. It's gotten to the point where Kristiansen is claiming that PIA/proto-Anatolian speakers taking a Balkan route had 0% steppe-related DNA left by the time they reached Anatolia. Unless there's some 75%+ Sredny/Yamnaya/whatever sample found in Anatolia, the route proto-Anatolian/PIA took was heavily influenced by agriculture.
You've mentioned tiny bits of steppe-like ancestry that can be found in Anatolia (depending on the model) yourself, in earlier blogposts.
@a Yep
"We find that the first individuals in Central and Northern Europe carrying high amounts of Steppe-ancestry, associated with the Corded Ware culture, share high rates of long IBD (12-25 cM) with Yamnaya herders of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, signaling a strong bottleneck and a recent biological connection on the order of only few hundred years, providing evidence that the Yamnaya themselves are a main source of Steppe ancestry in Corded Ware people. We also detect elevated sharing of long IBD segments between Corded Ware individuals and people associated with the Globular Amphora culture (GAC) from Poland and Ukraine, who were Copper Age farmers not yet carrying Steppe-like ancestry. These IBD links appear for all Corded Ware groups in our analysis, indicating that individuals related to GAC contexts must have had a major demographic impact early on in the genetic admixtures giving rise to various Corded Ware groups across Europe."
It looks like it's mostly early CWC (corroborated by archaeology, aDNA and yDNA for now) linked with Yamnaya. After that there were cultural shifts and competition between local groups, most likely. A couple of blogposts before I mentioned that EEF admixture in CWC probably occurred early on coinciding with a lifestyle and economy shift and allowing the initial 50% EEF-admixed CWC clans to dominate the rest due to a surplus in resources, technology (both defensive and offensive).
IBD seems to support that. If EEF-rich early CWC are found to be R1a this could explain the late spread of R1a in CWC. Just theorizing here though
@Rob Vara already addressed that a blogpost ago
] Yep, Hittite the oldest and most archaic branch of the family while Lydian is the most divergent. The Eblaite texts only confirm what was obvious for decades:
"Norbert Oettinger (pers. comm.) points out that the near certain adoption by the Hittites of the Old Babylonian script via a northern Syrian intermediary also suggests that the Hittites' position at the start of the second millennium was relatively closer to Syria than that of the Hattians" - Melchert
The substratum in Hittite is from the East too (Hattic), and Hittite is the earliest attested Anatolian language (IE too). Luwian is also in the East (and attested in the East), and Palaic (much later) is attested at North-Central Anatolia.
@Folker Not even PIA is a pastoralist language. Even the most uberkurganist academics were forced to concede on that years ago (Mallory, Anthony), it's a mixed economy-lifestyle at best. And the agricultural words in PIA are IE words.
@Gaska
"@Rich S
1-"Afanasievo L51?" - Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha"
Yes, that is correct. So far, at least in two cases, which is a lot for remains that ancient. Of course, you know it is.
The rest of your last post was so incoherent that "Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha Ha" is best left to stand as characterizing the whole thing and the most common reaction to it.
Amazing that you're still plugging away, when you could just admit you were and are wrong. No one would hold it against you.
Ah, well.
@Folker - "Why? Agricultural terms are used by farmers. It is safe to see the early Anatolians as pastoralists, not farmers. It is not the same ecological niche."
Ruling over farmers would necessacite the terminology though.
"Therefore, termes related to agriculture found in the different IE languages are different because imported from different languages (the one of the people living where IE adopted agriculture)."
They're uniform outside of Anatolian though. So it helps trace their history.
@Rob - Which paper and which samples? They're steppe-admixed?
Off topic but may be interesting to you lot: https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.adg6175 - Grambank reveals the importance of genealogical constraints on linguistic diversity and highlights the impact of language loss - "Next, we use these dimensions to examine how history constrains the evolution of languages through this design space. Figure 2 plots the location of the languages in our sample, colored according to the first three principal components. Consistent with our spatiophylogenetic analysis above, this figure reveals macroscale spatial patterns around the globe that appear to mirror the distribution of some major language families. For example, most Austronesian languages in the Pacific are colored dark green, while the Bantu languages in sub-Saharan Africa share a bright turquoise. To examine the connection between history and design space more closely, we map the 15 largest language families in the world onto plots of design space defined by the first two principal components (Fig. 3). Language families such as Austronesian, Nuclear Trans-New Guinea, and Dravidian are tightly packed together, suggesting strong phylogenetic inertia in this part of the design space. However, other families like Afro-Asiatic or Indo-European are more spread out in the Grambank design space, demonstrating high within-family diversity in these dimensions. Within Indo-European, for example, there are two clusters largely corresponding to contact languages and noncontact languages (see fig. S17)." (e.g. more Creole like languages with less morphology form one cluster and more fusional clusters the other. Within the fusional cluster there is a split between apparently South Asian and European languages that reflects noun class/gender. English is separate to all these clusters, and to world languages generally in PC1 and PC2). "The Austroasiatic language family also shows two distinct clusters: languages of the Munda sub-family and the rest of the family (see fig. S18). Language families, then, can be both distinct and diverse samples from the design space."
@Orpheus
You're discussing this here and you don't know about this paper?
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.aat7487
Here's what I said in 2016, several years before that paper.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/01/the-poltavka-outlier.html
By the way, how do you not know that there were lions living in the Balkans until the Middle Ages? They were even in the Carpathian Basin and in Ukraine until the Copper Age or maybe even later.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_lions_in_Europe
@Orpheus
Cope. You're trying to split hairs about precision when discussing imprecisely indirectly dated samples and events which is pointless. You will also be amazed to learn that people can sack and destroy things without settling on the ruins so that MPG can sample their descendants 2000 years later, although you would know about how piracy and migration work if you had actually read Wiener.
You should probably also work on your reading comprehension. Nobody said that steppe vikings personally ransacked the entire Aegean, only that the local arrival of their genetic signature is associated with a period of upheaval in the region (which you apparently didn't know about but is 100% factual). Since this thereafter spreads permanently throughout the Aegean accompanied by cultural changes it is pretty clear that they were associated with it in some way, whether they were victims of broader circumstance or not. No shit they would appear in northern Greece slightly earlier than destructions or their appearance further south, since the direction of the balkans and steppe is to the north... Lmao
@Davidski
Not only until the Copper Age but into the Bronze Age and even as late as the Hellenistic in Greece, and similarly in adjacent Balkan areas up to south Ukraine, according to archaeological finds of lion bone. These have put away the "just an imported oriental motif" explanation for good.
@Orpheus
Lol, still rambling about LARP? I think the key thing here is to keep an open mind. That is, to be ready to accept whatever the evidence suggests. In contrast, it's fatal to start with a preconceived conception and then to look how the evidence might fit into it.
@ LGK
There's no point. He's either a halfwit or a Troll.
Proving what language a people spoke 6000 years ago is an almost impossible task. The reason we can tie IE languages to steppe ancestry is because the evidence (ancient and contemporary) is overwhelming: genetic, archeological, linguistic. It's a bit of an anomaly.
Finding Anatolian language origins is 1000x more tricky, and quite frankly might ultimately be unprovable.
We know Anatolian split early (let's say 4000 BC), but we have no guarantees Anatolian languages were even spoken in Anatolia then. The earliest in-situ evidence we have is Hittite in 1900-1800 BC. But what guarantee do we have that Anatolian languages didn't move in, say, 2500 BC? The fact that they were linguistically diverse, lends credence to an in-situ development, but it's not a certainty.
What if Anatolian, for example, was just some exotic/more-eastern steppe variant that split early but migrated later south to eastern/central Anatolia through the Caucausus, just like Armenian? And instead of R1b-M269, it could have been some other R1b, like Arslanteppe?
Again, the diversity of their languages seems to point to a local development, but the amount of options are numerous. I don't understand how some speak with such certainty about this.
Arslantepe was ruled by communities on & off by the Chaff-ware & Kura-Araxes network. Although broadly related the two were enemies & socially distinct.
The Chaff Ware guys had contact with the steppe & Uruks, i.e. well connected.
The elites in Majkop, Leila Tepe & chiefdain's grave at Arslantepe stem from these communities(elite adults adopted kurgan burials, whilst special children were buried in pithoi).
The KA were a more egalitarian, household society & they then eventually conquered Arslantepe.
Following the destruction event c. 3000 BC, Arslantepe gradually lost its promiannce and was eventually conquered by the Hittites during their politcal expansion from Central Anatolia in the MLBA. By then western Anatolia & the Aegean had become the main focus of Near Eastern traders
@DragonHermit
It wouldn't be too difficult to work out how Anatolian languages ended up in Anatolia with some decent sampling of key ancient Anatolian sites and a multidisciplinary study involving people who really know about Anatolian archeology and Anatolian languages.
Unfortunately, this effort got seriously sidetracked for the time being thanks to a few people's unnecessary obsession with Dienekes Pontikos' tracer dye hypothesis and Eupedia's fantasy guide to the origin and spread of R1b.
The Southern Arc paper couldn't even say where the Phrygians came from, and its authors actually had Phrygian samples to work with.
As things stand, the ancient DNA revolution can't handle complex multidisciplinary issues, or even problems that involve fine scale ancestry.
But things will get better eventually.
Don Ringe’s conclusion
“The general conclusion of this chapter is neither sweeping nor startling. We should use computational cladistics for what it’s worth, but we need to be aware that its worth is limited. The general rule about extrapolating into the unobserved past still applies: results are comparatively secure when different lines of evidence converge on the same result. Computational cladistics yields only one line of evidence; therefore, it must be used in conjunction with traditional methods, archaeology, ancient DNA evidence and everything else that might be relevant”.
https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/what-we-can-and-cant-learn-from-computational-cladistics/05A8665553661B6139BC769D7DA75B82
So the only comparatively secure results, where different lines of evidence converge on the same result, are now Indo-Slavonic migrations of R1a-Z645 Corded Ware groups to Central Asia and South of the Carpathian mountains from South-Eastern Poland/Western Ukraine, which explains why Indo-Slavonic languages are spoken where they are spoken and correlate with R1a. Everything else is speculation.
https://postlmg.cc/rzK5Tzmt
https://postlmg.cc/QHtfTPq3
https://postimg.cc/CRcRND1x
Another comparatively secure conclusion should be that since Slavs never left Indo-Slavonic homeland, Indo-Slavonic homeland is Proto-Slavonic homeland:
https://postimg.cc/KRjq5L78
"Sintashta/Andronovo is a good proxy for the steppe ancestry in Indians. Most people know this now, and Reich has updated his views since 2018."
Its not, no model works with these samples for modern Indians.
900bce TKM_IA or Loebanr_outlier are the sources which work best in rotating models. the steppe admixture dates in modern Indians also falls between 1000-0bce. All this will be made clear, hopefully, quite soon.
Imagine thinking that steppe people could just jump over BMAC rich regions (theyre still bmac rich today) and admix in pure form with Indians.
Are u publishing your paper?
When?
Hope it shifts the Overton window.
Narasimhan and Harvard would take like 2028 to come to the truth based on their speed
Indo slavonic isn't a thing
Indo iranian and balto slavic don't form a clade,read thr latest papers published by kroonen and others
Yeah, because R1a is from India.
Bahahaha...
@Ryan
"Therefore, termes related to agriculture found in the different IE languages are different because imported from different languages (the one of the people living where IE adopted agriculture)."
"They're uniform outside of Anatolian though. So it helps trace their history."
No, there is only relative uniformity in European languages (West and South European in fact) cf Kroonen. Not with the Anatolian branch, Tocharian or the Indo-Aryan languages.
It is therefore not as simple as Anatolian and the others. It is far more complex.
It is also clear that at the time of their expansion, Steppe populations were not farming societies.
@ Davidski & All
I have a slightly different question, but a bit off-topic.
At the end of 2021, on your blog, Romulus mentioned research conducted in Molenaarsgraaf, Zuid-Holland, the Netherlands, where 3 people associated with BB were tested. One of them had Y DNA identified as Z2103+ and was vitamin D deficient as a child.
Does anyone present have access to any broader article on this topic? Is there a way to test this sample to see how it relates to other BBs in the area? Can we check if it is related to other Z2103 from the Czech Republic or Poland?
Regards!
I was surprised, at face value, when the study came out suggesting no BMAC is reuired in Indus samples. Some people have suggested that proto-Indo-Aryans rather mixed with WSHG-enriched groups from the IAMC instead.
But i havent personally looked into it yet
Possibly some of the IBD work by Ringbauer will be able to clarify at what time Steppe_MLBA ancestry arrived in at least the Swat_IA samples.
For example looking at the Sintashta shared sumIBD average, then there is a signal of Sintashta which is present but low: https://imgur.com/a/bpeDAcT
However, if we found a jump in relatedness with any of the particular post-Sintashta populations, that could be a signal that that population would more directly donate to the Pakistan population (and is not sharing going back to Sintashta)?
Possibly some automated way could be found to do this.
An ancestry pulse of Steppe_MLBA ancestry around 1300-1100 BCE, to Swat_IA's ancestors at least, feels likely to me, although this is just a gut feeling and I can't say why. It can't be too close to the time of the samples (as in literally a couple generations before or something), or the intra-individual variance in Steppe_MLBA ancestry and IBD sharing would be too high.
@Davidski
were the Bakiga and Batwa samples too low coverage?
Would you do at least the highest coverage samples
Which ones are the Bakiga and Batwa samples?
@Rob said...
"I was surprised, at face value, when the study came out suggesting no BMAC is reuired in Indus samples. Some people have suggested that proto-Indo-Aryans rather mixed with WSHG-enriched groups from the IAMC instead. But i havent personally looked into it yet"
Did you know that in the publication A.Linderholm 2020,
Corded Ware cultural complexity…from south-eastern Poland,
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-63138-w
in the samples of Poland SE - CWC, a significant South Indian component (probably Dravidian) was found, on average about 10%. This is a trace of ancestral pre-Indo-European temporal community and gene exchange (in Europe?).
https://www.mediafire.com/file/ec3z25ncbu93rrl/BatwaBakiga.zip/file
Sample starting with K is Bakiga and sample starting with T is Batwa.
They should be there in the .fam file.
"An ancestry pulse of Steppe_MLBA ancestry around 1300-1100 BCE, to Swat_IA's ancestors at least, feels likely to me, although this is just a gut feeling and I can't say why"
@matt. Your gut feeling is correct. The steppe ancestry in swat is is 300-400 yrs later than advertised by Narasimhan et al. 1400-1150bce range is the correct date. An indication of this also comes from the bmac region samples which don't show uniform steppe admixture till 1500bce (bustan, sumbar, parkhai lba are unadmixed)
@vAsiSTha
Coldmountains said...
2x Y3/Y2 were found in Abashevo and 2x Z2124. The results were mentioned in a recent video conference. https://m.youtube.com/watch?t=5143&v=I06VYBuGVyY&feature=youtu.be
Oops. So now kindly piss off and get another hobby.
@davidski also let them release the sample,it's most likely simialr to how they found y3 in a fatyanovo sample that later turned out as a false call with contradictions.
You are getting happy too early
@Freakk
Nice cope there.
But these are ancient Eastern Europeans with the two most common R1a lineages in modern India.
Haha.
@davidski
Oh did they find L657? You know the clade under which ~100% of Indian R-y3+ lies and which makes 70% of all indian R1a. Russia does have 0 L657s under yfull after all.
You know that etruscans had 75% R1b, basques 80%+, baltics 30+% N right?
@vAsiSTha
The ancestors of Indian R1a lived in Eastern Europe.
They migrated to India, so why would they be found in Russia today?
Keep raging and coping idiot.
Oh did they take a DNA test and decide to all move out without leaving a single one behind?
Nice cope there.
But obviously, like many steppe groups before and after Abashevo, its people disappeared (migrated out to India or killed) and didn't leave any local descendants.
No DNA tests necessary.
Huh, looks like a fun storytelling time.
So, all of the L657 migrated to India and whoever stayed back were killed and that's why 0/2800 Russians on Yfull are L657+. But clearly that did not happen with the Y3 lineage - Bashkirs and Tatars still have it, Turkic speakers. Also one Ukrainian Cossack is Y3 (from Karmin et al). Just an example for you Slav R1a exceptionalists to consider that there are R1a non IEs right in your homelands.
What were the numbers of these hypothetical abashevo L657s? Doesn't look like there were many given that they could so easily be disappeared from the region.
@EastPole
You need to fix this graphic: https://postimg.cc/KRjq5L78
Z292 (did you mean Z282?) is under R1b-P312: https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Z292/ while Fuzesabony has about 60% of R1a. 25% of its Y-DNA can be pinned down to R-Z280*.
@vASIsTha: Yeah. I think Narasimhan had a very wide estimate on their graphical abstract of 2000-1000 BCE (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6822619/) and the earlier parts of that range seem unlikely to me, and then they claimed specifically "Using data from ancient individuals from the Swat Valley of northernmost South Asia, we show that Steppe ancestry then integrated further south in the first half of the second millennium BCE, contributing up to 30% of the ancestry of modern groups in South Asia.", but it seems more likely to be in the second half, even at Swat itself.
Narasimhan's paper talks about having samples from 1400 BCE onwards, but the earliest sample that makes it to G25 (and the one that shows the earliest IBD link as well) is PAK_Udegram_IA:I6900 with a median date of 1250 BCE. (1400 BCE is the earliest date in his radiocarbon date range).
But then note that I6900 has been reconstructed by Ringbauer as having quite intense IBD links with some samples: I1985 who has a more conventional date from the set around 990 BCE. And some others too (I1799, I6899, I3262). And this is on top of the paper giving him as a first degree relative of I3260 dated ~950 BCE (which is also identified by Ringbauer's method). Considering all this together after consideration it may not be worth placing too much weight on that sample's date.
The other two samples who are dated pre-1000 BCE (I8193, I12147, approximately 1200-1100 BCE ) are too low quality to be checked with Ringbauer's method, but for I12147 the paper notes a 2nd to 3rd degree relationship with I12462, dated (by context) to 1000-800 BCE.
So I think all in all, 1300-1100 BCE still feels plausible given the data we have, for Swat_IA.
Rai thinks that a sample from the site where the wheeled vehicle was recovered in NW India, around 2000-1900 BCE has no steppe ancestry - https://youtu.be/F_WeHQsT_6g?t=9869 . Regardless of his other interpretations of this burial and ancestry, that would tend to push against very early dates for arrival of Steppe_MLBA ancestry (which would have to be almost contemporary with the earliest adna for Steppe_MLBA at Sintashta, and very early compared to the most southern findings of Steppe_MLBA; Tajikistan_BA_DashtiKozy ~1450 BCE and Uzbekistan sites ~1350-1050 BCE). A date after this seems most sensible (and frankly, I don't think anyone really has suggested otherwise, other than Parpola - https://core.ac.uk/download/493088609.pdf - who made claims of very early and elite Steppe related movements at BMAC that are not found in genetics (e.g. 1990 - https://tinyurl.com/4eduwhzm) , drawing conclusions from mere presence of bones/iconograpy related to horse/cart.)
As you mention, there is little sign of any Steppe_MLBA ancestry in the post-BMAC period samples from mid 2nd Millennium BCE TKM and UZB (1500-1600 BCE): https://imgur.com/a/Ks06U3C . To the degree there are admixture clines they are not reflecting a shift towards Steppe_MLBA.
@vASIsTha, that said, Ringbauer's data did show a link between the Krasnoyarsk BA sample I3393 and the South Asian with Steppe_MLBA individual UZB_Bustan_BA_o2 I11520 dated 1550 BCE. I3393 is not a G25 individual and nor is its first degree relative I6718, so I assume I3393 is a typical Steppe_MLBA individual, but who knows.
@Arza
Thanks. It is a typo. Of course I meant R1a-Z282
https://postimg.cc/5YMNG0dy
It is a general statement. Exactly which R1a clades were in Nitra and Fuzesabony we will find out soon.
We know they were not R1a-Z93, so they should be related to those Indo-Slavonic groups that formed Slavonic and Baltic populations.
@Matt
Yes that Bustan_outlier from 1550bce threw me off at first as well with its Swat_IA like ancestry. I did believe that the early date of admixture was possible. But now I think that sample is just an outlier.
I have new evidence to believe that the steppe admixture in Swat_IA is from ~1350bce, with a range of 1500-1150bce.
This is confirmed also by the DATES results from Swat_H. These are 12 samples from 300BCE Swat and are identical in steppe% to Swat_IA. Their admixture time using DATES also comes to 1550-1150 bce with an average of 1350 bce.
New dates for SPGT also overlap this date range - earliest carbon date is 1491-1231bce, from Udegram and later dates fall into 800bce range. So it does look like whatever admixtures occurred here with BMAC and steppe people probably helped start this culture.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/315812727_VIDALE_M_MICHELI_R_2017_Protohistoric_graveyards_of_the_Swat_Valley_Pakistan_new_light_on_funerary_practices_and_absolute_chronology_Antiquity_91_356_389-405
@Matt said...”vASIsTha, that said, Ringbauer's data did show a link between the Krasnoyarsk BA sample I3393 and the South Asian with Steppe_MLBA individual UZB_Bustan_BA_o2 I11520 dated 1550 BCE. I3393 is not a G25 individual and nor is its first degree relative I6718, so I assume I3393 is a typical Steppe_MLBA individual, but who knows.”
What do you think about Admixture K-7 by Linderholm 2020.
This lineage has a high proportion of Caucasian CHG and Iranian Neolithic.
Supplermetary SX22 is difficult to open. I have a better picture:
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/k7-admixture-modern-dna-linder.jpg
Compare with Linderholm SX23, K7) (Dravidian?)
@vAsiSTha
"New dates for SPGT also overlap this date range - earliest carbon date is 1491-1231bce, from Udegram..."
That dating is in the published paper from 2017. Strangely, two years later, Supplementary Information to Narasimhan et al. (2019) does not mention that sample, which in the original publication is UDG9, from Grave 5. This Supplement by Olivieri, Micheli, Vidale, and Zahir, also mention they took samples from 16 Udegram individuals, but that Grave 5 belongs to the last phase (1000-800 cal BCE), see page 138 here:
https://tinyurl.com/3mwhyxd5
They also say that 32 excavated graves in Udegram graveyard "features two burial phases, encompassing 1400-1100 calBCE and 1000-800 calBCE." Not earlier than 1400 BCE, and maybe even not earlier than 1200 BCE! as they firstly comment:
"These individuals derive from an extensive graveyard in Udegram village in the Swat Valley
(the left bank) dating to ~1200-800 BCE" (Olivieri, Micheli, Vidale, and Zahir 2019: 137).
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
https://drive.google.com/file/d/15oftCMtSIgqokasOOoBvwc6_Paro_1q8/view?usp=sharing
@carlos
It's a bit confusing yes. But maybe they didn't sample dna from the older layers.
See this on pg 138
"In fact, of the total of 22 dates we generated from the Swat Late Bronze-Iron Age individuals (not just from
Udegram but also from the other sites), all are clustered in a time range of 1195-789 BCE conservatively considering the union of 95% confidence intervals, and 1087-804 BCE if we consider the range of the means of these dates. Thus, the individuals for which we obtained
DNA that we directly radiocarbon dated for this study do not have any evidence of coming from the earliest burial phase (1400-1100 BCE) and it is possible that our analysis is entirely reflecting individuals of the inter-phase and late phase."
@vasistha let them release the samples first,i don't know when they will do it ,like 2 years later haha
It's most likely similar to the case of how they found z93 in sredny stog 3500 bc which was changed to 1700 fatyanovo bc after some months
Remember how everyone like cold mountains and kale on anthrogenica was jumping with joy when they got the news of z93 sredny stog?
And when it was redated to 1700 bc fatyanovo,they all went silent.
Or the Ukranian Alexandria y3 calls whcuh turned out as wrong(false calls due to low coverage)
Or the fatyanovo y3 calls (u solved that issue, remember? Low coverage and false calls again)
Can't really say anything until they release the samples
People should be agnostic and neutral until they release the samples for cross verification
We already have 3 previous examples of cases where this all turned out to be wrong later,not going to make another mistake accepting this
@Freakk
Keep raging and coping dumbass. At least it's funny to watch.
But Abashevo is now confirmed as the source of Indian R1a.
@a
"According to many, the borrowing occured via the (Pre-)Proto-Armenian ancestor of Old Armenian գինի (gini, “wine”), genitive գինւոյ (ginwoy), variously reconstructed as *ɣʷeinyo-, *ɣʷino- or *gwīníyo-.[14][15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] Martirosyan describes the sound change Proto-Indo-European *w → Proto-Armenian *ɣʷ → Kartvelian *ɣw as impeccable[24] and observes it also in Proto-Indo-European *wi(H)- → Proto-Armenian *ɣʷi- (→ Old Armenian գի (gi, “juniper”)) → Proto-Kartvelian *ɣwiw-. According to others, however, the term was borrowed directly from Proto-Indo-European;[2]"
The Proto-Armenian theory is complete nonsense and absurd, because at the time of the Proto-Kartvelian language, there was no Proto-Armenian language, it was still Proto-Indo-European.
@Davidski, off-topic, but how has it gone with getting the latest AADR onto G25 - https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/allen-ancient-dna-resource-aadr-downloadable-genotypes-present-day-and-ancient-dna-data? I'm mainly just interested in whether the Gretzinger samples show any differences to the preliminary set that you shared with us.
Don't get This overconfident too early,again,Davidski lest you be disappointed again as you were like 3 times befote
We will see when they release the samples.
Even if it's the ancestor of Indian r1a it's not a problem,since Indian r1a expanded in 2600-2300 bc in the peak phase of ivc,so this Cancels out the possibility of any y3 or l657 men en masse invading india,since theres no evidence of such an invasion neither there is steppe mlba autosomal in ivc
Plus,2000 bc ivc sample lacks any sintashta Ancestry
So,even if we accept your BS for the sake of argument here ,what happened at best was that some y3 entered in ivc due to trade or some other reason and lost its autosomal association and became associated with ivc itself and later experienced a founder effect
This is a far cry from your purported theory of z93 invading india en masse(this is impossible because sintashta Ancestry only reached india in 700-400 bc by a tkm_ia group, this is by DATES and ALDER results for various Indian castes and regions ,and niraj rai leak shows no steppe in 1200 bc burzoham Kashmir samples))
Indians don't have much z2124, from tkm_ia which is where they get their steppe autosomal Ancestry from
(TKM_IA because DATES and ALDER for indians gives 700-400 bc admixture date for sintashta related Ancestry,a
Since indians don't have much z2214 compared to sintashta autosomal,It means that steppe autosomal was mediated by tkm_ia wwomen, opposite of what are trying to shill
@Freakk
The 2600-2300 estimate is based on modern DNA, so it doesn't mean that the expansion happened in India.
In fact, it happened on the steppe and eventually these lineages ended up in India after 2,000 BC.
You dickhead.
There was no expansion of L657 in the steppe. Neither is there any ancient l657 on the steppe, neither is there any steppe specific L657 in moderns. All the variation within L657 is from Indian subcontinent. Y4,y6,y7,y9,y1 etc subclades are all in India and their age and tmrca goes back to 2000-1800bce also.
All of this points to the expansion within India subcontinent from 1 L657 man, around 2000bce.
Stop abusing people you insecure pos.
@Freak and his ilk
The Indians themselves express regret that for too long they believed in the autochthonism of their origin and denied the migration of Indo-Europeans to the Indus and Ganges basins
TONY JOSEPH
How genetics is settling the Aryan migration debate
New DNA evidence is solving the most fought-over question in Indian history. And you will be surprised at how sure-footed the answer is, write Tony Joseph
June 19, 2017 12:50 pm
https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/science/how-genetics-is-settling-the-aryan-migration-debate/article19090301.ece
SIRPI BALASUBRAMANIAM,
The Indians themselves are looking for the original homeland for the Dravidians near Europe or in Europe...
http://indpaedia.com/ind/index.php/Dravidian_people
@vAsiSTha
There were expansions of Z93 and Y3 on the steppe in Eastern Europe you moron.
And obviously today these expansions will show up in modern DNA far away from Eastern Europe, like India.
@stp Tony Joseph isn't a representative of Indians and neither i am an Indian,just half.
I just support Indians against AIT lies and cope.
Also,Tony Joseph is a retard who throws too much ad hominems and flees away(like you guys) when u debunk it
Yes,indo european isn't autochthonous to India as many OIT campers think
But it wasn't brought by sintashta or steppe mlba either as a result of migrations or invasion by sintashta/steppe mlba
Neither me nor vasistha belive in OIT.
It's as fallacious and wrong as AIT is
Steppe mlba can't be Aryans since this Ancestry only reached indians around 700-400 bc(From DATES and ALDER results for various Indian groups)
Also,1200bc Kashmir burzoham samples lack steppe Ancestry too
So,if steppe Ancestry entered Kashmir post 1200-1000 bc this means that steppe mlba Ancestry reached interior india even later,post 800 bc, probably from yaz 1/2 sakas(whose presence in punjab is textually recorded,they are the ones responsible for sintashta component in Indians since yaz tkm_ia was 50-50 sintashta and bmac)
4000-3500 bc ivc shows geneflow from eastern iran bringing new anatolia_n
and ppnb Ancestry(same which shows up in steppe_en at progress and vonyuchka,same Ancestry which was discussed in southern arc) this is what Aryans were(iranN/chg + ppnb+ BarciN)not steppe mlba whose Ancestry only reached modern indians from tkm_ia Eastern iranics (do u think these tkm_ia were the source of vedas? Lol)
Plus 700 bc is too late for the Vedas and for AIT to hold.
Tldr-steppe mlba or sintashta weren't Aryans,neither did they invaded India or ivc
The true indo euroepan Ancestry reached india in 4500-3500 bc bringing ppnb and BarciN component to ivc and replaced 50% of the ivc Ancestry.
This fact debunks both AIT and OIT
Out of Caucasus or out of if iran is true for India(same as southern arc discussed,you guys are coping with it with your "autochthonous steppe chg" cope which has been debunked by the presence of ppnb in steppe_en, yamnaya and corded ware.
And z93 or l657 never invaded India en masse ,what at best happened was that some z93 entered ivc due to trade or minor migration and lost its autosomal association with steppe Ancestry and became associated with ivc itself (not differeing from other ivc men with other ydna)and later experienced a founder effect
Date of expansion of z93/l657 in india is 2600-2300 bc(poznik et al) this is too early for an Aryan invasion or migration
This is also because l657 indians don't show any higher sintashta autosomal than non l657 indians
And l657 peaks in gangetic plains ,which won't be the case if it spread due to sintashta invasion (if that happened it would peak in Pakistan and northwest
Also,u know the case that sintashta dosent hold for iran proper too since indo Iranians are attested in iran(Dinka tepe and hasanlu_ia ) since 1300 bc but 800 bc Dinka tepe and hasanlu_ia both dont show any sintashta Ancestry.
Yet it shows 30-50% bmac Ancestry (which were the real indo Iranians)[bmac shows ppnb and BarciN Ancestry too same as ivc starts showing at 4000 bc,both showing the souther arc ppnb]
Both can be modelled as local source+ bmac(30-65%)
Its over for AIT and sintashta copers
Lol,so much sweet cope
And when are you postulating that l657 spread in india?
800 bc tkm_ia which only carried z2123?(which indians have like 2-5%)
Hahaha,is this your best 'candidate'?
Because ivc and interior india dosent show sintshta or steppe Ancestry even in 1200 bc Kashmir burzoham samples.
You are gonna get disappointed again,son
Even your Harvard AIT gods are backpedalling.
https://anthrogenica.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=22945&d=1525386848
How does it feel?
Soon they will go full southern arc 2 on AIT when they find out 800 bc Indian samples with no sintashta and run ALDER and DATES and
Then davidski will write some seething posts about how sintashta were Aryans and how they really invded india
Just like he did last year how the entire world has turned against him.
@vasistha let him get riled up.
He is just frustrated with the fact that west uralics like udmurts,komi,etc carry 70%+ N1c ydna despite autosomally being 60% +sintashta
Udmurts are like 65% sintashta,the highest in the world,yet carry only 10% r1a, but 70%+ n1c and speak a uralic language.
Carlos was right when called corded ware "uralic" hahaha
Seems like r1a z645 and z93 "beasts"(as davidski touted them as)couldn't hold up to a bunch of n1c siberians
So much for the z93 Aryan "conquerors"
Sintashta ancestry is associated with Indo-Aryan-speaking and especially higher caste Indians.
Not all Indians have Sintashta ancestry even today.
@vAsiSTha @Freakk
Thanks for the entertaining and funny posts. Just to make it better for you the Y3+ samples have a Steppe MLBA autosomal profile even a bit more western than average Sintashta. Probably will look like I6561 with the same Y-DNA. In this case it is also unlikely they are significantly misdated because after Abashevo and Srubnaya you don't really see such an unmixed Steppe MLBA profile in the region. Also the fact that Y3+ and L657+ are older than 2000 B.C makes it impossible they were born in India because now R1a or Steppe MLBA was even found around 2000-2000 B.C in Central Asia so please telle me how R1a-Y3 teleported from Fatyanovo to South Asia?
@Davidski
“2x Y3/Y2 were found in Abashevo and 2x Z2124.”
“But these are ancient Eastern Europeans with the two most common R1a lineages in modern India.”
David, have you noticed how close Abashevo is to Fuzesabony and Nitra on IBD graphs:
http://postimg.cc/pmkQ01zy
It is interesting because Fuzesabony and Nitra had Slavic R1a and Abashevo Indo-Iranian R1a. They were probably in close contact, which implies similar languages and cultures, religions.
https://postimg.cc/DWPt1kWZ
Very interesting times ahead.
"Also the fact that Y3+ and L657+ are older than 2000 B.C makes it impossible they were born in India because now R1a or Steppe MLBA was even found around 2000-2000 B.C in Central Asia so please telle me how R1a-Y3 teleported from Fatyanovo to South Asia?"
You think a large migration is a necessary condition for Y haplogroups to travel?
J1 from Caucasus/Iran found in Karelia and Popovo EHG with minimal autosomal ancestry from south. How did it happen?
R1b1a2 in Arslantepe. How did it happen?
3 L1a1 in Armenia_C, how did it reach there? From steppe eneolithic? Armenia_C has 20% steppe ancestry. From India? L1a1 has a huge spread in India.
Anatolian G2 in Wezmeh_cave_N. No autosomal Anatolian in these samples. How did it reach there?
side question: G2b is present in Irula dravidian tribe but also in Birhor austroasiatic tribe from east India. How did it reach there lol?
Y-hg G, H, I, J, L, T were all probably from central-eastern parts Western Asia, with I & J venturing off earlier (I much earlier).
For ex. Y-hg G2 is not 'Anatolian' originally, as Ive made the point before Y-hg C1a is 'Anatolian', + some i2 in the West.
"Seems like r1a z645 and z93 "beasts"(as davidski touted them as)couldn't hold up to a bunch of n1c siberians
So much for the z93 Aryan "conquerors""
What a beautiful self-own hahaha
@vAsiSTha
What has L1a1 in Armenia_Chalc to do with India? L1a spread during the late Neolithic from West Asia/Iran into Central and South Asia. The modern distribution actually points strongly to this because there is not really a South Asian-specific L1a1 or L1a2 clade predating the middle-late Neolithic. All the basal clades are in West Asia and this is not just true for modern DNA but also for ancient one.
Now after Y3 was found in Abashevo you claim L657 magically appeared in Harappa and after it will be found in Andronovo or Abashevo you will claim downstream Y6 or Y7 are from Harappa. And after they will be found in southern Andronovo you will claim Yfull estimates are fake and some clades downstream of Y6 and Y7 dated to the Iron Age are actually from Neolithic India . I always thought you are R1a-L657 but turns out you have not even done a dna test which makes your obsession and coping about R1a-Y3 and R1a-L657 even funnier.
@carlos if u got mistaken,i qasnt referring to you but to carlos quilles the guy who runs indo-european.eu
He propounded that corded ware was uralic
@Coldmountains
I have a strong feeling Y3 in Abashevo is just another chapter in the never-ending saga of goalpost shifting by this traveling troupe of internet jesters...
Now, they'll eagerly bang about L657's absence in ancient DNA beyond South Asia, until, inevitably, it makes an appearance.
And then, the spotlight will shift to M605, followed by Y28, Y4, and Y6, until they desire aDNA for every modern South Asian clade to be found outside of South Asia to prove its "invasiveness".
Regrettably, this comedy show has long lost its humor and is quickly morphing into a tragedy.
I genuinely can't fathom what they aim to achieve with this tomfoolery.
The only result of this misguided digital crusade is self-inflicted embarrassment and countless hours of (our) laughter at their expense...
Oh well...
Post a Comment