In their recent paper, titled
Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe, Penske et al. make the following claim:
By contrast, Yamnaya Caucasus individuals from the southern steppe can be modelled as a two-way model of around 76% Steppe Eneolithic and 26% Caucasus Eneolithic/Maykop, confirming the findings of Lazaridis and colleagues 47. This two-way mix (40% + 60%, respectively) also provides a well-fit model (P = 0.09) for the Ozera outlier individual, consistent with the position in PCA and corroborating an influence from the Caucasus.
Err, nope.
The Ozera Yamnaya outlier, a female dated to 3096-2913 calBCE, is, in fact, a ~50/50 mix between standard Yamnaya and Late Maykop. It's a result that is totally unambiguous.
There are a number of ways to demonstrate this fact. For example, with the qpAdm software that was also used by Penske et al., except with different outgroups or right pops. Please note that in my dataset the Ozera outlier is labeled Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o.
right pops:
Cameroon_SMA
Levant_N
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Iran_C_SehGabi
Georgia_HG
Turkey_N
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Russia_WestSiberia_HG
Russia_Karelia_HG
Latvia_HG
Russia_Boisman_MN
Brazil_LapaDoSanto_9600BP
Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop 0.554±0.031
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 0.446±0.031
P-value 0.00109868 (FAIL)
Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Russia_LateMaykop 0.512±0.035
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya 0.488±0.035
P-value 0.462447 (PASS)
I can also do it with the Global25/Vahaduo method. And you, dear reader, can too, by putting the
Target and
Source Global25 coords from the text file
here into the relevant fields
here.
Target: Ukraine_Ozera_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Distance: 2.9292% / 0.02929202
50.6 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
49.4 Russia_Caucasus_LateMaykop
0.0 Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop
0.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Moreover, here's a self-explanatory Principal Component Analysis (PCA) plot that illustrates why my Late Maykop/Samara Yamnaya combo is much better than the reference populations used by Penske and colleagues. It was done with the PCA tools
here.
I'm pointing this out for two main reasons. First of all, this is a fairly obvious mistake that should've been avoided, especially considering the level of expertise and experience among the authors (such as Wolfgang Haak and Johannes Krause).
Secondly, it's important to understand that the Ozera outlier comes out almost exactly 50% Samara Yamnaya because the standard Yamnaya genotype already existed well before she was alive, and thus she cannot be used to corroborate any sort of influence from the Caucasus in the formation of the mainstream Yamnaya population.
As for the Yamnaya Caucasus individuals, I don't know why Penske et al. attempted to model their ancestry as a group, because they don't form a coherent genetic cluster. RK1001 and ZO2002 are fairly similar to standard Yamnaya samples, while RK1007 and SA6010 resemble Eneolithic steppe samples from the Progress burial site. This is what happens when I try to reproduce the Penske et al. model with my outgroups.
Russia_Caucasus_EBA_Yamnaya
Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop 0.187±0.019
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 0.813±0.019
P-value 4.15842e-06 (HARD FAIL)
Oh, and Penske et al. modeled the ancestry of mainstream Yamnaya as a three-way mixture with Steppe Eneolithic, Caucasus Eneolithic/Maykop and Ukraine Neolithic (or Ukraine N). They succeeded, but with my outgroups it's another hard fail.
Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Russia_Caucasus_EneolithicMaykop 0.177±0.017
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic 0.706±0.026
Ukraine_N 0.116±0.014
P-value 4.73919e-07 (HARD FAIL)
Admittedly, proximal models aren't easy to get right. And if you throw enough outgroups into a model, a large proportion of plausible models will fail. But I'm somewhat taken aback by these poor statistical fits.
In my opinion, mainstream Yamnaya doesn't harbor any Caucasus ancestry that wasn't already present on the Pontic-Caspian steppe during the Eneolithic or even much earlier (see
here). But ultimately this problem can only be solved with direct evidence from ancient DNA, so let's now wait patiently for the right samples.
Citation...
Penske et al.,
Early contact between late farming and pastoralist societies in southeastern Europe,
Nature, https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-023-06334-8
See also...
Understanding the Eneolithic steppe
401 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 401 Newer› Newest»@Apostolos
Thank you, I have already considered this because I have not included Anatolian markers that have been documented in the Balkans or Central Europe since neolithic or chalcolithic times such as
I0708 (6.147 BC)-Barcin, Anatolia-HapY-J2a-Z6046>Z6049>Z6048>Z43590
I5068 (5.137 BC)-Kleinhadersdorf, LBK, Austria-HapY-J2a1b-Z6046>Z6048
I18636 (5.000 BC)-Rákóczifalva–BagiI, LPC, Hungary-HapY-J2a-Z6055>Y13128
KOU01 (2.407 BC)-Koufonisi, Cycladic-EBA, Greece-HapY-J2a-Z6055>Z6057>Z36834
ART023 (3.300 BC)-Arslantepe, chalcolithic, Anatolia- HapY-J2a-L26>PF5087
LSC011 (2.711 BC)-La Sassa, Italy-HapY-J2a-L26>PF5087>PF5160
I4159 (1.400 BC)-Bustan, Uzbekistán-HapY-J2a-L26>PF5087>PF5160>PF5172>PF5197>PF5252
I15823 (3.600 BC)-Jinonice, Bohemia-HapY-J2a1a/1b1a/1a-L26>PF5087>PF5160>PF5197>PF5252
GLI003 (1.367 BC)-Glika Nera, Attica-HapY-J2a1a/1-L26>PF5087>Z7314>PF5174>PF5177>PF5252
Although I speak Spanish and French my mother tongue is not Indo-European, so I don't really understand why people are so emotional when we talk about the IE homeland. I have no idea and a Balkan or southeastern European origin doesn't seem a bad option to me either, especially if Heggarty is right and IE can be dated to 8,100 BP. On the other hand the genetic connection between Anatolia and Greece seems obvious to me, but gene flow does not always lead to a change in language.
In any case, if that dating is correct, what would prevent the neolithic or chalcolithic markers I just sent from bringing IE to Europe?
I hope you will control the fires, I have a hotel booked in Rhodes this august (if it hasn't burned down).
@Rich S-itting Bull
Remember that all your posts (and mine of course) are recorded and that everyone can access them if they need to consult our opinion during these years. If someone on this blog is interested in knowing the truth, I can send you those threads privately.
And please, calm yourself down, of your glory days in anthrogenica only ashes remain,thanks to your fanaticism and stupidity, you all killed a forum that could have been very useful for genetics fans around the world .
That being said, are you not ashamed to lie so blatantly? Are you so desperate? What does your family think of that attitude?-Face it mate, you all screwed up dramatically. Delenda est Yamnaya
ok checked Heggarty et al 2023's tree where language splits are visible (DensiTree fig).
Balto-Slavic split: 700-500 BCE
Traditional linguistic date for B-S split: 1000-500 BCE
Italo-Celtic (incl Germanic) split: 3000-2500 BCE
Traditional linguistic date for I-C split: "somewhere in the 3rd to 2nd millenium", in Olander 2022 it also splits relatively early.
Overall corresponds with CWC
Germanic-Celtic split: ~1500 BCE
Traditional linguistic date for G-C split: couldn't find anything but proto-Germanic is likely placed ~500 BCE
proto-Germanic split: 500 BCE
Traditional linguistic date for p-G split: 500 BCE
Seems to get most things correct. The Balkanic group is an obvious error but it could be just due to missing paleobalkan languages. Or computational issue which will be eventually resolved.
It doesn't seem to have any significant (large-scale) grouping issues either.
@Matt I find this tree to be closer to Barbieri et al 2022.
@The Rudism Kind of, but yeah. My point is that it wasn't Mycenaeans who received direct Anatolia ChL-like geneflow but Minoans. Mycenaeans carry this too through Minoan-like ancestry plus some additional admixtures (steppe, and some kind of BA anatolia(?)). So Anatolia ChL autosomal-wise and haplo-wise is relevant (that's what I meant by "related", could be just bad translation of what I was thinking) for Minoans but not Mycenaeans since they didn't come directly in contact with it
Gaska
Yes I am grateful that You gathered that data. Now You can see Yourself that there are only few cases of post Neolithic haplotypes in Mycenean Greece. And even more those haplotypes are ultimately from regions South Eastern than Anatolia.
The number of those haplotypes is lower than the true Steppe haplotypes. Like the I2-L701 and PF7562. I am pretty sure that Z2103 will also show up in ancient Greece. It was found in ancient Macedonia. Among Paeonians . An IE group living there. Probably closely related to Greek.
While the rest of haplotypes are from Neolithic farmers.
Just a clarification.
I mean that Steppe rich I2-L701>Y5606 in Theopetra which almost certainly came from North.
There are some chances that G2-L13 in Mugla is also from North. Although it can be a Thracian marker rather than Greek.
@Gaska
"@Rich S-itting Bull
Remember that all your posts (and mine of course) are recorded and that everyone can access them if they need to consult our opinion during these years. If someone on this blog is interested in knowing the truth, I can send you those threads privately.
And please, calm yourself down, of your glory days in anthrogenica only ashes remain,thanks to your fanaticism and stupidity, you all killed a forum that could have been very useful for genetics fans around the world .
That being said, are you not ashamed to lie so blatantly? Are you so desperate? What does your family think of that attitude?-Face it mate, you all screwed up dramatically. Delenda est Yamnaya"
Those posts were there, yes, for me from 2012 to early 2021, when I quit posting at Anthrogenica. They reflect a process of learning and growing, including some errors that were corrected as knowledge of ancient DNA, linguistics, and archaeology increased. That was true of most of the folks participating in the discussions there - but not for you. You refused to learn and simply compounded your errors as you launched your now infamous scorched earth campaign of sour grapes.
As for lying at Anthrogenica and elsewhere, I never have. That is an accusation you cannot prove. You, on the other hand, have lied repeatedly.
You have made claims about ancient DNA that have been demonstrably false, and you made those claims when you knew better. Examples include your claims about the samples in Fichera's thesis, about Aesch25, ATP3, and others. You bend the truth on a frequent basis about your current favorite topic, Smyadovo. That's understandable, since the truth about Smyadovo, which a number of people have told you over and over and over, runs completely counter to your claims. The fact that you rely on that single sample shows the tremendous weakness of your argument. Smyadovo (I2181), a sample with significant steppe DNA, recovered not far from the Black Sea coast, is the best you can do. Think of it: that's the best you can do! He wasn't buried wearing a ballcap that said, "My paternal grandpa came from the steppe", so you continue to claim he was a "Neolithic farmer", implying that R1b-M269 is an EEF lineage, despite the fact that R1b-M269 has not been found among Neolithic farmers of the Balkans or anywhere else in Europe, nor has it ever been found unaccompanied by steppe DNA.
Fortunately, your agenda is pretty transparent.
One of the things I find most incredible about you is your complete lack of basic background knowledge of the topics primarily discussed here, and your refusal to read the handful of books that would help, like Reich's Who We Are and How We Got Here, Mallory's In Search of the Indo-Europeans, and Anthony's The Horse The Wheel and Language. You periodically badmouth Gimbutas, but you haven't read a damn thing she wrote (there are a number of people here in that camp, however). Since you now seem to be pushing the Anatolian thing, have you even read Renfrew's Archaeology and Language? It's dated now - and wrong as heck - but Renfrew is a good writer. The book is enjoyable.
You really should give the computer keyboard a rest and go spend some time in a good public library - and take notes.
@Gaska
". . . I find the Kurgan theory acceptable in certain aspects (especially the relationship of R1a to CWC and Balto-Slavic), and totally unacceptable in others (R1b-L51>L151). But this is just my opinion, I don't claim to be right, I leave that to people as intelligent as you."
That's interesting, given that the oldest CWC samples thus far known are R1b-L151 (plus one that was R1b-P310), there are two very old R1b-L51 samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture (one L151, the other P310), and given the fact that no R1b-L51 has ever been found in Europe among Neolithic farmers, despite the large and ever growing number of Neolithic farmer DNA samples.
Of course, there is also the opinion of Lazaridis, who mentioned the likelihood that the whole R1b-M269 clade originated on the steppe or in the North Caucasus. Back down the tree toward the root a bit and take in a view of the entirety of R1b-L389. Given the ancient DNA evidence thus far, it certainly looks like R1b-L389 originated somewhere in Eastern Europe.
If the "Kurgan theory" is incorrect for R1b-L51, what is the correct theory then?
@Rob
"If I2a-701 introduced a vital package of innovations which inaugurated the Mariupol horizon and remained as the chiefs of the heirarchic Usatavo chiefdom buried with Cooper daggers, why would they adopt the language of Yamnaya commoners ?"
Most I-l701 (as I-l699) is likely IE by around 4500BC, or at least appears to be a an important part of the Steppe networks. Otherwise its presence wouldn't be ranging from Khvalynsk (although just one sample) and the N West Pontic. I don't disagree with that at all.
But I don't see how we can securely link every instance of I-l701 to these networks with the evidence we have right now. It's also worth noting that its TMRCA (8000-7000BC) predates the secondary products revolution and key developments on the steppe by quite a lot.
I-l699 has a much clearer path to be exclusively IE. I-p78 we'll see.
@LGK
"TIR001 (1.326 BCE)-Tiryns, Argolis-HapY-J1a-Z2215>P58>CTS9721>Z643>Z2313>Z2292>FT137403
Probably the most relevant. But its a burial in the lower citadel with no goods. The authors state regarding the lower citadel burials:
[...]
Who knows who he was?
Also worth remembering traditions which explictly associate Tiryns' construction with western Anatolians (Lycians)."
Relying on ancient Greek mythology and traditions of origin to make sense of genetics will make one lose their mind. A lot of Greek tribes that were clearly, well, Greek believed they were autochthonous (literally "sprang from the soil"), others claimed descent from Pelasgians and there's a bunch of founder myths about individuals originating from the Levant, Anatolia or Egypt. Whether there's some element of truth to these stories is an interesting debate (obviously early Greeks mixed with various people at various times both on the paternal and maternal side) but the point is you shouldn't take these stories too literally.
The Tiryns TIR001 individual is clustering with most other Mycenaean-period samples we have so far and there's no reason to assume he was of recent Levantine or Anatolian origin. He's also not J1, he belongs to this branch of J2a: https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/J-Z36800/tree
@Gaska
This is a low effort strawman even for you, nobody said those PF7562 Pylian samples are the introducers of Indo-European or proto-Greek to the region LOL.
They are just Greeks of uncertain but probably northerly derivation, possibly recently arrived at Pylos. With decent sampling of Epirus and southern Albania PF7562 will be found 2000-1500BC
"Himera"
Irrelevant to this question given its context for reasons already explained. The site is useful for understanding the level of contact and integration between Greeks and foreigners in the later Iron Age
"The genetic connection of Anatolia and Greece from the Neolithic to the Iron Age, and that this relationship is much stronger than the genetic relationship with the steppes."
And? Learn to cope with the fact that language change processes are dynamic and don't rely on people possessing a certain autosomal % or unbroken paternal lineage from people thousands of years earlier to be able to speak a language.
The genetic continuity of Greece and Anatolia going back to the Neolithic is the very issue, unless you believe the Heggarty model of 6000BC Neolithic Greeks (lmao). It is only a common substrate onto which Indo-Europeans were projected.
@Rob, it's imaginable, although I think their challenge - and also equally in some cases our challenge back to them! - would be "How is this lingustic diversity being maintained?".
For example, let's look at the earliest representatives in their dataset of Indic and Iranian, Pali and Avestan - https://imgur.com/a/1rLz1iq (also included a comparison of Old Church Slavonic and Old Prussian, for a similar depth to what they estimate on their tree).
There's definitely enough cognacy between P and A there that (armed with a reason to want it to be so) you could doubtless (with a bit of luck) cherry-pick passages that would be expected to read the same between either, if you avoid non-cognate terms, given the apparently lower levels of phonological and morphological divergence. How astonishing! But there's also a lot of instances where their linguist, each an expert in their respective family and armed with literature reviews, have identified primary non-correspondent terms in the texts which lack cognacy.
(Of course, this dataset can be opened to serious challenge by other linguists in these fields, which is a positive thing about their open approach).
So would we expect that there is social diglossia (or polyglossia, including unsampled varieties) that gives rise to the divergence in cognate states, and if so, for how long?
What do you think about this from an archaeological point of view?
I guess nothing is impossible, some social mechanisms like dialects could maintain this and still then be carried with an expansion, but this is why I kind of think it seems maybe more promising to use mathematical simulations to estimate how reliably varying rates of change in an unsampled part of a tree can be recovered from a sampled part (and that maybe these were very different in the unsampled parts of the tree). If it turns out that in simulations, this is not that reliable, then the estimation of the depth of the primary node, estimated from sampled languages, will not be the strong eidence they think it is.
@Rob
So what is your theory in regards to L701 and PIE? L699 and P78 have TMRCAs that match well with the initial steppe dispersals. We have eight Ukraine_N samples with no ANF/EEF and L701; we also have a Khvalynsk male (I6103) with L701>L699 and no EEF/ANF. Seems like L701 took part in the PIE ethno-linguistic genesis in Ukraine-Russia, although judging by its presence in LBK EEFs, it seems to have had a wider dispersal initially, with the preeminent clades taking part in the PIE expansions and achieving reproductive success.
Just for clarity, these are the Ukraine_N samples I’m speaking of (all eight are older than the two L701 LBK guys): I5886, I1378, I3715, I5875, I1738, I5872, I3717, I5870
These are the LBK L701 males: I2375, I2377
@ Ethan
Im not suggesting any sort of exclusivity, that’s your fixation. It’s more about understanding networks, interaction & integration.
And, a lot of people don’t understand TMRCA- it’s a common problem - (mis)believing TMRCA as being directly reflective of a real population event. You might benefit from (literally) sketching to yourself the distribution of L78 and seeing what it shows
@ Simo
Do you mean PIE as in the language or the recent sample site ?
@Orpheus
What things is it getting "correct"? "Germanic-Celtic" is not a subgroup proposed by 99% of linguists. Italo-Celtic is the correct grouping and it's linked to Beaker cultures. And up to this point, Tocharian has been explained as a Yamnaya/Afanasievo offshoot ~3300 BC. That's gone out the window. Good luck explaining that now.
One of the key differences between steppe PIE and Anatolian PIE is steppe PIE languages all had a word for the "wheel" while Anatolian had a completely different word.
Germanic - Wheel
A. Greek - Kuklos
Sanskrit - Chakra
Proto-Slavic - Kolo
Albanian & Tocharian - Sjell/Kal (To bring)
That's just 1 example amongst many words for vehicular terminology. If all these languages split in Anatolia one after the other, there'd be no reason why all Anatolian languages didn't use these terminologies.
The fact of the matter is this paper is just gaslighting garbage.
@Rob
I mean PIE as in the linguistic population, although if you have more to add in regards to the recent sample sites that would be appreciated too. We have L701 in Ukraine_N, Khvalynsk, and in multiple Yamnaya sites. So what is your theory as to how this lineage became integrated into steppe populations such as Yamnaya? Do you believe that L701–along with R-M198 and R-M269–represents a Y-DNA lineage that took part in the WSH and PIE genesis?
Exclusivity is relevant if one wants to treat it the same way we think of R-M269, to use the analogy with L151 and Z2103 brought up earlier.
The significantly older TMRCA allows time for branching events outside of the Steppe network/before its entrance to that network.
Hence on its own I-P78, unlike I-L699, cannot be unambiguously linked to the steppe (although the minor steppe signal at that site helps matters).
@Simon Stevin
There is also an I-CTS10057 sample from 5300BC middle don in Allentoft's preprint. I suspect many of the samples from that paper will provide downstream reads once they are publicly accessible. I wouldn't be surprised if he's I-L701.
@ Simon
''So what is your theory in regards to L701 and PIE? L699 and P78 have TMRCAs that match well with the initial steppe dispersals. We have eight Ukraine_N samples with no ANF/EEF and L701; we also have a Khvalynsk male (I6103) with L701>L699 and no EEF/ANF. Seems like L701 took part in the PIE ethno-linguistic genesis in Ukraine-Russia, although judging by its presence in LBK EEFs, it seems to have had a wider dispersal initially, with the preeminent clades taking part in the PIE expansions and achieving reproductive success''
Yes agree. I would add a couple of minor additions
- its absence before ~ 5200 BC, suggests some kind of 'domino effect' due to early farmers arriving in central Europe , perhaps near the north Carpathian zone, although the deadringer is still missing.
- be wary of TMRCA, physical data is more relevant
- the context of I2375, I2377 is specifically ALPc, which was treated as a distintive unit within LBK even before aDNA. The absence of mass-G2a in ALPc confirms those early suspicions
- The dichotomy between I2a-CTS10057 dominated early western Barrows and the upsurge of R1b-M269 rich individuals post-3000 might parallel the split between nuclear & older PIE.
- one mechanism behind the integration of these two spheres was the collapse of Varna - Karanovo VI-Gulemnitsa. The I2a-CTS10057 clans now privielged links with groups east of the Dnieper rather than Farmers. Together, and with some ongoing contacts with Trypillia, Baden, Meshoko; they became pastoralists. So a detailed kinship studies like that done in Khvalynsk or Mygdala might give us first hand evidence how it occured
@ Ethan
''Hence on its own I-P78, unlike I-L699, cannot be unambiguously linked to the steppe (although the minor steppe signal at that site helps matters).''
I-P78 is found in Bronze age barrow horizons in Bulgaria & other sites linked to the steppe in one form or another. But again, I dont undersand your OCD with 'exclusive'' & ''unabiguous''. The steppe is a landscape, people are able to move in and out of it, and don;t need to have a genetic passport of being CHG -rich to do so. Members of this lineage were able to adapt between steppe and non-steppe landscape, that's a centrel tenet of this connection.
@ Ethan
''Exclusivity is relevant if one wants to treat it the same way we think of R-M269, to use the analogy with L151 and Z2103 brought up earlier.''
This counter analogy is flawed. Perhaps discuss with Gaska why there hasn't been any L151 in the western steppe
@Rich S
Don't ever put words in my mouth again that I have never used or theories that I have never defended, you can defend your arguments honestly, do so and you will earn my respect, otherwise I will always think you act like a weasel. Regarding our topics of discussion, let's not keep boring these guys with the same eternal discussion. Time will tell who is right about the origin of L51>L151, because about M269 everything has already been said.
Aram & LGK
Many people have tried to deny the Anatolian gene flow into the Peloponnese during the Bronze Age and yet that genetic relationship is evident both autosomally and in the male markers (mtDNA lead us to the same conclusion). You think that the steppe influence is greater?, ok everyone interprets the data as best he can, but it is obvious that Anatolia cannot be excluded in the controversy about the origin of Proto-Greek.
Regarding the controversy about the role played by I2a-L701, L699 & P78, in the Indo-European affair
-I2a-CTS10057 & L701 are markers linked to WHGs (Iron Gates HGs)- Their behavior was similar to other lineages such as R1b-V88 that from the Balkans reached the EHGs territory during the Mesolithic.
-I2a-L701 is a shared lineage between Hungary (ALPC-LBK), Romania, Bulgaria (Varna) and Ukraine, same men, same markers, same language in my opinion
-I2a-L699 is an eastern marker (Russia, Ukraine), reached Khvalynsk at a very early date, and like other linages of that culture (V1636) participated in the ethnogenesis of the steppe cultures, ergo, IF (and it is a great IF) you are right, regarding the role played by these cultures in the origin and spread of IE, nobody can deny that I2a-L699 has to be necessarily linked to the dispersion of Indoeuropean (Kvhalynsk>Cernavoda>Yamnaya>Bulgaria etc).
-I2a-L701>Y87044 (xL699) in Theopetra, chalcolithic, Greece, has its origin in Smyadovo, Bulgaria (3,200 BC), it is normal that it has steppe ancestry, but its origin is in the Balkans, not in the steppes. There is also L701 in the GAC without steppe ancestry
-I2a-P78 reached Anatolia, but its origin is also in the Balkans not in the steppes
And regarding the hypothetical similarity with the behavior of other markers such as M269,
-R1b-L754>P297 are WHGs (IGHGs & Baltic HGs) markers
-They also reached Ukraine (Dereivka) and Russia (Minino) in the mesolithic
-A branch of that lineage (V1636) reached or originated in the Khvalynsk>Progress>Yamnaya
-R1b-M269 has also been found in the Balkans (Gumelnita-Karanovo), but not in Ukraine or Russia
-R1b-Z2103 founder effect in Yamnaya, linked to the spread of IE (Balkans, Bohemia, Armenia)
-R1b-L51 theoretically hidden in the forest steppe because it has not appeared in the western steppe either-See what Max Planck thinks”The ancestry predominant in aDNA samples from early Corded Ware contexts has recently been reported to have originated not on the Pontic-Caspian grassland steppe, but further to the north in the forest steppe of the Middle Dnepr region, and towards the BALTIC.
Have reviewed the Heggarty paper on my blog here.
https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2023/07/hybrid-model.html
A breakthrough paper in my opinion which does justice to most branches of the IE language. There are more daily use words than before (170), more languages than before (161 in total), more ancient languages than before (52), more Indo-Iranian ancient languages than before (used to be just Vedic and Avesta, now there are 7 Iranic and 2 Indic ancient languages). The Bayesian methodology is nothing new and has been used multiple times in the past 2 decades on multiple families successfully (compilation of such papers here https://simon.net.nz/phylogenies/)
The early split of Indo-Iranian and a trans-Iranian plateau route solves the problem of absence of any Andronovo archaeological material in the Vedic regions of Indian subcontinent in the 2nd millenium BCE, and the late steppe admixture dates (500BCE, achaemenid era, TKM_IA from Iranic Yaz II culture is best steppe source for indian subcon) in the modern Indian and Pakistani groups. I have been vocally in support of this model, finally vindicated.
The paper adds to the growing number of researchers who have explicitly opposed a common Balto-Slavic & I-Ir clade, such as Kortlandt 2016, Hamp 2012, Kummel 2022, Pronk 2022, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995 etc.
The paper accurately predicts the splits within the BS, Celtic, italic and Germanic clades matching with known archaeological and genetic expansions (eg Viking expansion of 750CE with Scandinavian languages, English split around 500ce matching with fall of Roman empire and spread of Anglo-Saxon settlements, Romance break-up after 300CE etc).
Late neo/ early chalc Armenian, Greek, Albanian expansion is not likely to be correct and steppe source is a better explanation. Their Tocharian solution of second to split after Anatolian is mainstream but there's still no explanation of how it reached China.
@vAsiSTha said...
The paper [of Heggarty] adds to the growing number of researchers who have explicitly opposed a common Balto-Slavic & I-Ir clade, such as Kortlandt 2016, Hamp 2012, Kummel 2022, Pronk 2022, Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 1995 etc.
/…/e.g. V.Narasimhan (India) and A.K. Pathak (India), genecists.
"I dont undersand your OCD with 'exclusive'' & ''unabiguous"
Because it is important that the I-P78 Izmir sample came from the Steppe and is a speaker of an Anatolian language.
@vAsiSTha
So you say, that Balto-Slavonic and Indo-Iranian are unrelated, and the original proto-Indo-Iranian language and culture was closer to Hittite than to Slavonic. But something happened in the Bronze Age. Massive migrations of CWC related R1a rich Slavonic tribes to Central Asia, and to India and Iran very strongly influenced languages, cultures and religions of Indo-Iranian tribes, which originally, as we know, were closer to Hittite.
But now there are lots of similarities and common features between Slavonic and Vedic. You don’t have to be a linguists to see it:
“The list of common words and other features which are special to the two groups is clearly impressive, and the whole of the material must be referred to the period of Primitive Indo-Iranian. When on the contrary we look for signs of special contact between Iranian itself and Slavonic (or Baltic) we find that there are practically none. It is true that some of the words that are listed above are found only in Iranian and not in Sanskrit, but it is equally possible to point out others in which the reverse is the case.”
https://books.google.pl/books?id=cWDhKTj1SBYC&printsec=frontcover&hl=pl#v=onepage&q=%22%C2%A74.%20Indo-Iranian%20and%20Balto-Slavonic%22&f=false
The only way to explain it are the Bronze Age migrations of Slavonic tribes to Central Asia, India and Iran which influenced Indo-Iranian languages and religions there. For example very important word which traveled from Eastern Europe to India:
https://iecor.clld.org/cognatesets/774#3/41.53/49.74
And there are hundreds of words like this unfortunately not included in the set.
@Gaska
"@Rich S
Don't ever put words in my mouth again that I have never used or theories that I have never defended, you can defend your arguments honestly, do so and you will earn my respect, otherwise I will always think you act like a weasel. Regarding our topics of discussion, let's not keep boring these guys with the same eternal discussion. Time will tell who is right about the origin of L51>L151, because about M269 everything has already been said."
I have never misrepresented anything you have posted. Frankly, if you didn't think I was a "weasel", I'd be worried.
Feel free on your part to quit discussing R1b-M269 and the origin of R1b-L51. That would be an excellent idea. I am interested in those topics. If I have the time and I happen to be checking out Eurogenes (and I don't always have the time or the inclination), I will continue to chip in my two cents from time to time.
@AlbCoder
The labels are from the files at the David Reich Lab.
I don't have the time to check if they're all correct.
@ Norfern @ anyone
Do you have plink data for - buran kaya ; Immel (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7060214/)
This massive migration you speak of is still not detected....
500bce-500ce saw continuous migrations of steppe rich people into India....Greek Presence in India for a long time...Iranian presence in the steppes, Iron age Indic and European contacts...Presence of Indo Aryans south of Caucasus 1700-1200bce....
All could have contributed to new linguistic influences post split....
Iranics in steppe adopted Turkic and later these same Turko-Mongols adopted Persian language and established Persian as lingua franca in India....over next 500 years it gave numerous loans to numerous IA languages and played significant role in the formation of Urdu.
In ancient times scythians instead of imposing their iranic tongue on the natives adopted sanskrit and Hindu culture....
The idea of steppe R1a adopting BMAC tongue isn't far fetched...
Another thing to keep in mind is that before BMAC steppe mixing took place few steppe sites appeared outside the cities of BMAC....either these guys didn't interact with each other for 500 years or the pastrolists had to learn the languages of BMAC leading to slow assimilationof some tribes...Hard to convince that it was other way...
Also BMAC and IVC have wheeled vehicles but the Vocabulary for it in dravidian is loaned from Aryan...doesn't make sense but with early split and presence of Wheeled vehicles from 3000bce or earlier fits well with the common Vocabulary in Iranic and Indic...
My opinion...no need to get angry over it...Unless I don't share would not know where the fault lies in the reasoning.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40072-9 - "Patrilocality and hunter-gatherer-related ancestry of populations in East-Central Europe during the Middle Bronze Age"
Paper dropped with dates for IDs. The samples don't really appear to be from Ukraine much, with a small number of MBA samples across the border.
Struck by Davidski’s surprise that the first-line authors should know better than to give the interpretation they gave.
As an outsider, I’m wondering if this is yet another field where young and relatively lowly researchers have the names of more prominent people fronting their papers whose function is actually to get the paper past gatekeepers to peer- reviewers, but who barely themselves read, let alone lead a piece of research.
@ Matt
''So would we expect that there is social diglossia (or polyglossia, including unsampled varieties) that gives rise to the divergence in cognate states, and if so, for how long?''
Which specific time and region are you referring to ?
@LGK Heggarty dates proto-Greek being a distinct language ~2000 BCE, agrees with almost all traditional linguistic dates. Not 6000 BCE
@DragonHermit It's getting most things correct going with traditional linguistic dates. "Germanic-Celtic" (Germanic-Celtic-Italic languages) breakup corresponds with CWC appearing and subsequent spread (not necessarily a clade of its own, that's why I mentioned CWC) and I already mentioned the other splits it gets correct. It gets most things correct (Italo-Celtic, Balto-Slavic for example, not to mention the more recent splits as well) and when it comes to I-Ir it agrees with the most up-to-date traditional linguistic papers and gets that correct too.
Tocharian has split by 3500-3000 BCE in their tree. They get this correct too even though we don't actually know if it was Afanasievo. We just assume it due to location + archaic nature of Tocharian (early split)
"That's just 1 example amongst many words for vehicular terminology. If all these languages split in Anatolia one after the other, there'd be no reason why all Anatolian languages didn't use these terminologies."
The paper places the homeland in Armenia/NW Iran, not Anatolia, and several languages are split in the Steppe and not in the initial urheimat (let alone one after the other). This is the first map/graph one encounters, did you even read the paper? Wtf lmao, at this point I'm sure 90% of the people seething at the paper have no idea what it shows
Its only apparent weakness is the Balkanic family, placing Albanian ("Illyric" technically, from which Albanian and other languages emerged) as an outgroup to Greek-Armenian, and the unlikely route it proposes for the spread.
By ~2500 BCE the ancestor of Balto-Slavic has also become a distinct language, again corresponds with CWC timeline. Heggarty et al 2023 basically just corroborated that most European IE languages descend from CWC.
GASKA said..."R1b-L51 theoretically hidden in the forest steppe because it has not appeared in the western steppe either."
The forest steppe is without a doubt the most logical place for the birthplace of R-L51. Since I've been told by 3 different sources that there is fully formed R-U106 already there in the late 4th millennium, then it stands to reason that R-P312 was likely there as well, since they are both brother clades to R-L151. Based on the first generation R-U106 and R-L151(xU106) Corded Ware samples from the Czech Republic, they were nothing like the preceding Czech Late Neolithic samples and were therefore first generation immigrants from further east/north-east.
@Orpheus
The amount of obfuscation and bullshit you're dishing out to cover up this paper is next level.
First, you were talking about Germanic-Celtic. Then it's Germanic-Celtic-Italic, then it's all of CWC. What's next? Germanic-Celtic is not a real clade. That throws this out of the window immediately.
Secondly, stop wasting people's time with nonsensical geographic hair splitting based on modern countries. Eastern Anatolia borders "Armenia" and "NW Iran", and it was occupied by Anatolian speakers like Hittites. Western Anatolia was mainly dominated by Phrygians.
My point was not which side of which modern border they fall on, but the fact that languages like Greek, Albanian and Armenian have wheel/vehicle-related terminology which Anatolian doesn't share though they supposedly "split" around the same time and same region. This is clearly because that modern wheel terminology was acquired in the steppe.
There would be absolutely no reason for Albanian, Greek and Armenian to share all this wheel/vehicle terminology with "steppe languages" but not Anatolian, if they already diverged 5,000 BC.
@Wee e
Usually in that case its sufficient for the "big name" to be last author. I think this is Heggarty's own creation.
@ Orphues
“
Tocharian has split by 3500-3000 BCE in their tree. They get this correct too even though we don't actually know if it was Afanasievo. We just assume it due to location + archaic nature of Tocharian (early split
It’s not correct. They lump it with Anatolian, which is patently false
Garbage in = garbage out
All:
Some preliminary population labels for the new Chyleński_et_al_2023 paper: https://pastebin.com/Cbu5sQ03
How these appear on standard Vahaduo plots: https://imgur.com/a/cjePT3e
Sample poz502 with y-dna T1a1 and mtdna K1b1b1 is given as an MBA sample circa 1800 BCE, but seems more likely to me that he is a late EEF/Anatolian autosomal sample who is dated to later than actual time. Although still interesting in the context of being quite HG rich and having T1a1 (not I2).
...
@Rob, in the example, Indo-Iranian.
Are you going to publish samples from this study?
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-023-40072-9
@Rolling Eyes
Hope that they publish a deep study about these data. Only 3 R1b, the most downstream R-M269*, out of 48 samples. Very useful for understanding the origin are the mt. U5b3 was born in Italy (I discussed a lot with one of its discovers, my friend Paolo Francalacci, who thought to Southern France and not Italy like me), and I think that from the WHGs also R1b came.
@ East Pole
I trust this MBA TCC data affirms the problematic use of overly linear models
@ Matt
The archaeology requires a lot of development, much of it is old excavations from Italians & Soviets. However, new data is emerging which shows how the nature of relationships changed. For ex: there is evidence of established 'pastoralist' camps following the collapse of BMAC urban pattern c. 1700 BC in the regions of northern Kopet Dag.
E.g. ''A Line in the Sand: Archaeological Evidence for the Interactions of Settled F Settled Farmers and Mobile P armers and Mobile Pastoralists in the Late Bronze Bronze Age (1950 - 1500 BC) Murghab alluvial fan, Turkmenistan''. L Rouse.
How / if they moved further south requires further study. However, many of the earlier ritualised barriers were broken down, and now post-BMAC & steppe grups could chose to interact on a more individualised choice (rather than something dictated by Gonur citadel elites the zenith period)
Poz1039 (why pos1039?) is R1a1a1 and not R1b1a1. Thus the R1b are 2 and not 3.
Poz712 isn’t hg R.
P.S. In the YFull tree the samples at the U5b3* level are above from Iberia and not Italy, but I think that they were among the migration of 7500 years ago from Italy to Iberia described from Zilhao. To note the samples not only from Iberia and France, but also Croatia and Algeria, that presuppose a dispersion from Italy.
poz712 is P1-FGC285 (P1 or K2b2)
55004 C FGC285
55015 C CTS3736
55035 C PF5935
55101 T P283
The last level is P-P226, the ancestor os hgs Q and R.
Not really ancestral to Q and R.
It just has a lack of data downstream.
@ Davidski
Look at the YFull tree:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/P-P226/
@ Davidski
"Not really ancestral to Q and R.
It just has a lack of data downstream"
Of course, this sample is a new subclade P-P226 (xQ, xR). Ancestor in the meaning that he came from the pool from which hgs Q and R were born.
@Rocca
Yes Richard, it is very important to specify the exact origin of the migration, as you are a smart guy, you will understand that east is not the same as north-east. IMHO,you should have added north (BALTIC) because you would have been right-I don't doubt that your sources have told you that there is U106 in the forest steppe, when the samples are published we will discuss them.
Oh my God, so now you think we'll find P312 in the forest steppe???
late 4th millennium??? Really???
You want to bet with me that you will only find P312 in Western Europe?
First of all, which regions do you consider to be part of the forest steppe? What are its boundaries? The current East European Forest Steppe??? Russia, Ukraine, Romania, Moldova, Bulgaria, all these countries have regions included in the forest steppe.
Anyone who is well connected in the world of population genetics (except Lazaridis) knows that there is no U106, PF7562, L51>L151 or P312 in any steppe culture at any time. Once the steppe (north, south, east and west) is eliminated, the forest steppe is a lesser evil for a good kurganist. This change of criterion may have important linguistic consequences for R1b-M269.
@EastPole
"But now there are lots of similarities and common features between Slavonic and Vedic. You don’t have to be a linguists to see it"
There is no Indo-Slavonic clade. Sorry.
"The only way to explain it are the Bronze Age migrations of Slavonic tribes to Central Asia, India and Iran which influenced Indo-Iranian languages and religions there. For example very important word which traveled from Eastern Europe to India:"
Or, given that archaeologically the adventures of the steppe pastoralists are not visible south of the Oxus, the archaeologically and genetically attested millenium long rule of the Iranic kimmerians, scythians, sarmatians, alans in the PC steppe was responsible for these real/imagined similarities (but somehow the invisible steppe rule in Indian subcontinent completely obliterated the languages of that heavily populated region, but scythians of the Ukrainian steppe hardly gave any loanwords to Slavs as per you guys. I see how this works - make up shit as you go).
@DragonHermit said
""Germanic-Celtic" is not a subgroup proposed by 99% of linguists. Italo-Celtic is the correct grouping and it's linked to Beaker cultures."
I will quote some words from Michael Weiss, 2022 (https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/indoeuropean-language-family/italoceltic/B4955FB7B7A6803DDD727795EA88C065)
"But in the 1920s Carl Marstrander and Giacomo Devoto questioned the validity of this subgrouping. Scholarly opinion has varied ever since. It would be fair to say that Italo-Celtic is more debatable than any other higher order subgrouping, certainly much more so than Balto-Slavic."
"Many features once cited in favor of Italo-Celtic unity are now seen to be archaisms"
"In the realm of phonology there are a small number of innovative features that have been proposed as shared Italo-Celtic developments, but these are all problematic."
"Whether one recognizes an Italo-Celtic node or not, the fact remains that Italic shares more innovative features with Celtic than with any other branch. Nevertheless, it should not be forgotten that both Italic and Celtic individually and in common share many features with Germanic. This connection is not surprising given their geographical positions"
From Hansen & Kroonen 2022
"Germanic and Celtic had a long period of intensive contact. Their high number of shared lexical innovations concentrated in certain semantic domains such as religion and warfare serves as solid evidence thereof. So do a number of indisputable Celtic loanwords in Germanic, e.g. PIE *h3rēǵ- ‘king’ > PCelt. *rīg- ⇒ PGmc. *rīk‑. However, it is often difficult to decide whether a given Germano-Celticism is a shared innovation (or archaism) or reflects a loanword relationship in either direction as exemplified by PIE *h3reǵ-tu- > PCelt. *rextu-, PGmc. *rehtu- ‘justice’.
Notwithstanding the quantity of these lexical isoglosses or their quality for reconstructing a period of Germano-Celtic neighbourhood and convergence, they remain lexical only. Apart from the uncertainties regarding the participation of Celtic in the development of PIE *-TT- > *‑ss- (Section 10.4.1), Germanic shares no exclusive phonological and morphological innovations with Celtic. The evidence for a common Germano-Celtic branch is therefore scanty."
" The most frequent suggestions set up a Germano-Italo-Celtic unity (Meillet 1984: 131–2; Porzig 1954: 213) or, less frequently, a Germano-Balto-Slavic unity (Schleicher 1853: 787; Stang 1972)"
So:
1. Italo-Celtic clade is still hotly debated.
2. Evidence for Germano-Celtic clade is scanty in phonology, but not in lexemes (Bayesian method is based on cognates, not phonology).
3. Strong evidence for Germano-Italo-Celtic unity in the literature, which Heggarty et al also return with the highest posterior probability of 1. Note that their MCC tree can have only 2 branches, so impossible for their tree to show trifurcation. When asked to choose a subgrouping, it returns Germano-Celtic and that is correct based on lexemes.
The age of breakup of proto-Celtic, p-Italic, p-Germanic is young enough (3.5-3k bp) compared to early breakup of proto-GIC (5.5-5k bp) that it is essentially a trifurcation.
p-GIC also form a clade with p-Balto-Slavic with a PP of 0.65, forming the North Western IE group of European languages around 3600BCE, presumably in the ancestors of Corded Ware. Makes a lot of sense given these 4 branches share a common agri vocabulary (due to Trypillia contacts) missing in other non Euro branches as per Kroonen et al 2022.
Tens of millions of Indians belong to a Y-haplogroup (Z93) that is straight from Bronze Age Eastern Europe (Fatyanovo).
This is also how Indo-Iranian languages arrived in South Asia.
Yet there are no R1a in the BMAC site samples till 1500bce and only 2/45 R1a in the 1200-800bce Swat samples. None of them R1a-L657 (born 2000bce) which is present in 65% of Indians with R1a.
70% of Basques belong to R1b-M269 they don't speak IE do they?
@vasistha
I like how you guys claimed recently IVC formed without any West Asian migration and all that Iran Neolithic comes from local HGs but now after this paper you guys suddenly decided there was a West Asian migration and that West Asian migration brought Indo-Iranian in 5.000 B.C
Could you at least form a coherent and stable theory, which not changes every month?
About Indo-Aryan migration anyone suggesting Indo-Aryans took a southern route in 5.000 B.C via Armenia <West Iran < Balochistan to India and Iranics migrated via a northern route Caucasus <Steppe < BMAC is insane no matter what he studied or how long he needed to come to this conclusion.
@vasistha
Also Slavic R1a is much closer to Vedic R1a than any non-R1a Y-DNA in Iran Neolithic, BMAC, Shar-I-Sokhta and even Swat_IA is to South Asian J2, R2, H, G and so on (some Hindko, Dardics,.. might match Swat_IA but they are an exception). So tell me how there is no connection between these groups and PIE formed in 8000 B.C when Slavic and Brahmanic R1a split from each other around 3500 B.C and that is closer than the split between any J2, L1c, G, R2 and so in pre-Indo-Iranian and modern South Asian cultures.
@Davidski
It conveniently does not occur to you that Y dna does not encode language spoken, and that sublineages of a Y-Hg may become associated with another language or even language family (50% Sintashta R1a-Z2124 in Turkic speaking Kyrgyz, 30% R1a in Lankan Tamils, 40% N in Baltics).
The below paper and data concludes that Yamnaya R1b-M269 were proto-Basque, using your (childish) logic.
From Luis et al 2021
"Six major haplogroups (R, I, E, J, G, and DE) were detected, R-S116 (P312) haplogroup being the most abundant at 75.0% in Alava, 86.7% in Guipuzcoa and 87.3% in Vizcaya."
"CONCLUSION
The analyses performed in this investigation support the hypothesis that during the Bronze Age a dispersal of individuals occurred that led to the replacement of the Paleolithic/Neolithic Y-chromosome composition in Western Europe by Indo-European R-S116 lineages. Our data shows that this substitution was not uniform and that in some localities such as the Basque Country of Spain, the replacement was more vast and thorough than in other regions of Western Europe. Although our data does not uncover the evolutionary mechanism(s) that brought about such a specific and dramatic replacement of Y-chromosome types, it demonstrates that the Bronze Age dispersal genetically linked populations as geographically dispersed as Ireland, Gascony and the Basque Country of Spain."
It seems Balto-Slavic populations emerged well to the north, part of a broader complex of groups admixed between local Corded Ware & HG-rich groups extending from southern Scandinavia & the SE Baltic to the Carpathian basin. The barrow ideology representing a re-introduction from the western Tumulus culture, probably via Czechia.
The link between Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranian goes back to an earlier node incorporating now extinct dialects spoken by R1a-rich groups (e.g. early central-western R1as of Unetice & Elbe-Saale CWC), and idioms which contributed to proto-Germanic & Thracian. So technically i agree that there is no Batlo-Slavic-Indo-Iranian clade per se.
@vAsiSTha
There's no getting away from this.
Corded Ware-related ancestry, and especially Z93, is the only link of relevance between the Indo-European speakers of Europe and South Asia, because in ancient times languages were spread by men.
Once this fact becomes mainstream among scientists and linguists, no one is going to buy any of this nonsense that Heggarty is peddling.
The clock is ticking until you have nothing but a crackpot theory, tick tock...
@Coldmountains
"I like how you guys claimed recently IVC formed without any West Asian migration and all that Iran Neolithic comes from local HGs but now after this paper you guys suddenly decided there was a West Asian migration and that West Asian migration brought Indo-Iranian in 5.000 B.C
Could you at least form a coherent and stable theory, which not changes every month?"
You are an idiot who loves strawmanning. I have been giving podcasts and have been tweeting for more than a year advocating for an Armenian/Iran route towards India around 4000BCE. This paper vindicates my position.
"About Indo-Aryan migration anyone suggesting Indo-Aryans took a southern route in 5.000 B.C via Armenia <West Iran < Balochistan to India and Iranics migrated via a northern route Caucasus <Steppe < BMAC is insane"
Who is saying they took different routes? SC Asian chalcolithic and Indus periphery share the same ancestry source from the west containing IranN+minorAnatolian. IranN + AASI mixing date in Indus Periphery = ~ 4000BCE (Narasimhan)
Tajikistan 6200bce Tutkaul individual has 75% Siberian. By 3600BCE, the SIberian has dropped to 22% and IranN (+minor anatolian) is the major source. Get a hint.
@GASKA, based on the very early dating of Czech Corded Ware, then we can only assume that Corded Ware in the forest steppe will be just as old as Yamnaya. If R-U106 was already there, say around 3300-3000 BC, then it is an impossibility for U106's father R-L151 to not be there as well. I'm not sure how it would be possible to have a 900 year gap from L151 on the forest steppe and P312 in Bell Beaker. That is way too much time for a single Y-SNP to materialize. All we need is for one single P312 subset to be hidden in Corded Ware to move along with much bigger tribes.
Regarding my use of east/north-east, I wrote it like that because the non-EHG/CHG in Czech Corded Ware has strong matches not just from Latvia_MN and Pitted_Ware (north-east), but also Ukraine_Neolithic which is obviously east.
@Gaska
". . . Anyone who is well connected in the world of population genetics (except Lazaridis) knows that there is no U106, PF7562, L51>L151 or P312 in any steppe culture at any time. Once the steppe (north, south, east and west) is eliminated, the forest steppe is a lesser evil for a good kurganist. This change of criterion may have important linguistic consequences for R1b-M269."
Wrong, Gaska. Very wrong.
FTDNA's team has confirmed the R1b-P310 results of those two samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture and has placed both of them in FTDNA Discover's "Ancient Connections". I have seen them and confirmed that myself in an exchange of messages with FTDNA's Goran Rundstrom. If I could post screenshots from Ancient Connections here in Eurogenes, I would, but if you have access to FTDNA Discover, you can look them up yourself.
They are listed in Ancient Connections as Shatar Chuluu 1, 3320-2918 BCE, Sample SHT001 from C.-C. Wang et al (2021) and Jeong et al (2020), from Erdenetsogt, Shatar Chuluu, Mongolia; and Nileke 5-3, 2865-2576 BCE, Sample C3341 from Kumar et al (2022), from Nileke County, Xinjiang, China.
Autosomally they are almost identical to Yamnaya. As Anthony says in The Horse The Wheel and Language, Afanasievo probably represents an eastward migration of people from the Repin culture before Yamnaya formed, but from the same basic steppe Eneolithic source population.
You really should give up the vain, futile and idiotic struggle against the steppe origin of R1b-M269 and especially of R1b-L51. If these two Afanasievo samples don't seal the deal, I don't know what will.
@DragonHermit This is what I wrote
"Italo-Celtic (incl Germanic) split: 3000-2500 BCE
Traditional linguistic date for I-C split: "somewhere in the 3rd to 2nd millenium", in Olander 2022 it also splits relatively early.
Overall corresponds with CWC
Germanic-Celtic split: ~1500 BCE
Traditional linguistic date for G-C split: couldn't find anything but proto-Germanic is likely placed ~500 BCE"
Germanic, Italic, Celtic, Balto-Slavic etc all descend from CWC. Whether the original language that encompassed all of them can be reconstructed or not is irrelevant. The dating of them appearing as distinct languages corresponds with archaeolgy and aDNA of CWC.
"hair splitting "
When there's another theory called Anatolian hypothesis it is very useful to clarify that it's not in fact in Anatolia at all.
"though they supposedly "split" around the same time"
They're around 1500 years apart. But anyway yes I agree with you that the Balkanic languages splitting in Anatolia seems unlikely. An Anatolian route is more likely but still unlikely. This sticks out like a sore thumb
The rest of the paper is solid and corroborates traditional linguistic papers. That's my point.
@vAsiSTha
Even if you think you have found a good argument to try to prove that R1a-Y3 or L657 in India is an autochthonous marker, the fact is that it seems obvious that all males belonging to that lineage are descended from Fatyanovo. I suppose you will agree with this statement.
Regarding Basques, using our M269 percentage (>90%, Luis et al's data is incorrect) and our non-Indo-European language is a misleading tactic. First, because there was no population replacement but a massive founder effect of the P312>DF27 lineage and then, because that percentage is due to isolation in the mountains, inbreeding, pacts with the Romans, our resistance to Goths and Moors and the blood purity laws of the Hispanic monarchy. The Basques are simply Iberians from the Iron Age. The genetic continuity is evident and therefore we have to doubt that our P312 ancestors spoke an Indo-European language. But what does this have to do with India?
Even poz533 is not clear why it is classified R1 although with a question mark, being P1-CTS3775 G and negative downstream. Probably having classified poz712 as R1b1a1b and not P-P226* led them astray. Certainly 2 hg P1* and only one R-M269* is a fact that should make us reflect.
@Gaska
"Once the steppe (north, south, east and west) is eliminated, the forest steppe is a lesser evil for a good kurganist. This change of criterion may have important linguistic consequences for R1b-M269."
Indeed, if P312 is found on the forest-steppe it is confirmed he spoke the glorious Vasconic, indigenous to Iberia! But if the sample came from the steppe 50km away it was an only accursed Yamna invader with totally different language (from the Middle East)
Perhaps it is necessary to say that the graves where poz533 and poz712 were found had also the mts of the Alpine region: downstream U5b3 and downstream U5b2.
I'm enjoying these comments as always. Got a few questions about them.
Working out cladal distinctions for IE languages in prehistory gets speculative and abstract pretty quickly, witness the Hegerty paper which I gave up on when I saw the arrows indicating that Proto-Greek came to the Aegean through Anatolia. So there is Caucasian gene flow West to the Aegean in the 4th m BC(?). What was it (if not Greek)? Kura-Araxes peoples?
It's clearly evident 3 different ways how Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic are related - Linguistic: Striking similarities between say, modern Lithuanian and Sanskrit, especially considering the distance in space and time. Archeological: CW>Fatyanovo>Abashevo>Sintashta/Balanovo/>Androvono ...(etc). And now we have the genetic trail of R1a migrations to South Asia. End of story ... Certainly the Eastern Spread of IE languages is clearer than that on the Western side though.
In settlements such as Arkaim most units had 2 distinct hearths and a well that could aid smelting but was also for sun-worshipping ablations of water and fire, as was gleaned from the Vedas in a fascinating article recently (Epimakhov and Lubotsky, 2023). Btw, I remember when Putin went there 5 years ago or so he called it Russia's 'Special Story' or something. Was he correct? Apologies for the political can of worms:). I bring this up because I have wondered if Balto/Slavic could have come from the Middle Dnieper Culture and Papac's HG-shifted Epi-CW R1A groups that encroached into Unetici territory around 2200BC.
What is the consensus regarding the path and origin of PF-7562? I have read the earliest PF-7562 we have comes from the North Caucasus. I suspect it came from EHG tribes to the North before that but now I guess we're talking about the source of M269. PF-7562's modern distribution is similar to Z2103's (http://r1b-pf7562.blogspot.com/) so I'd reckon that it spread as part of Yamnaya. Or possibly before? Sredny Stog?
@Rob I believe you wrote a while back that Z2103 came from the West, like from Sredni Stog (and not ultimately Khvalynsk as I had thought). This is news to me. Could you say a little more on that? Thanks in advance.
@Steppisch
Minoans and Neolithic groups from the Peloponnese already had significant levels of Caucasus-related ancestry, and not many people subscribe to the idea that these were Indo-European speakers, let alone early Greek speakers.
You might find this old post interesting.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/10/a-homeland-but-not-homeland-3.html
And, indeed, the question of the origins of Indo-Aryan languages is solved, thanks largely to R1a and specifically its Z93 subclade.
But people like Assuwatama and vAsiSTha will never accept reality, because they see it as an insult to their identity.
It's also likely that Heggarty and friends will keep publishing crap on the topic until they retire or die, because that's the sort of thing that academics do until they're replaced by a new generation. It's a well documented phenomenon.
Ironically, this is known as Planck's principle.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planck%27s_principle
@vasistha
Instead of answering to my questions you get hysterical. You have claimed anything which helps you to cope about Steppe MLBA Indo-Aryan and R1a-L657. Really not interested what is the current cope theory. Also another insane talking point is suggesting CHG and Iran Neolithic were one component. Sure people who share ancestry in the Upper Paleolithic and split more than 10.000 years before they show up spoke the same language. Just like all R1a-L657 in India is from Iran Neolithic and Steppe_MLBA from Saka women (super funny)
@Steppisch
unfortunatley nothing new to report, or speculate
From Anthony's article on Khvalynsk ''The R-V1636 form of R1b, found in males at Khvalynsk, Ekaterinovka Mys, Berezhnovka II, and Progress-2, identifies a branch that split from the
Yamnaya branch defined by R-P297 > R-M269 > R-L23 > R-Z2103 (yfull.com). This entire branch is absent from the sampled Eneolithic males from the steppes, appearing for the first time in Yamnaya males. The evolution of Yamnaya Y-haplogroup ancestry occurred in a still-unsampled Eneolithic population.''
This latest data from pre-Yamnaya ares of the very western steppe Z2103 is only reported in individuals c. 3000 bc or younger leaving the sole M269* from the much-discussed Smyadovo sample. Can't really pin-point his origins (although he can be modelled as Khvalynsk + Ukr N + EEF), and he was culturally integrated with the locals of Bgr, so the archaeology doesnt help much either
However worth checking from Penske et al , as some form of R1b
MAJ009
KTL005
@Rocca
Well Richard, each one interprets the data according to his capabilities and if you have now changed your mind and think you are going to find P312 in the Ukrainian forest steppe I can only wish you good luck. My opinion is that it has western origin (France, Spain, Germany) and that there was a massive founder effect of this marker between 2,700-2,500 BC and onwards. Nothing to do with the forest steppe. It is funny that you try to link the non-EHG/CHG component in Czech Corded Ware not only with Latvia, also with Ukraine. I know you have good friends in Europe, try to talk privately with Max Planck, so you can understand why it took so long to publish the Papac data.
1-Archaeologically, the sites with L51>L151 do not belong to the CWC (only an axe has been found in those sites, but that was already a millenary tradition in the Bohemian burials and besides & there is no CWC pottery). They had to bring forward the arrival of the CWC in Bohemia by 200 years to accommodate the data obtained.
2-Initially, those first L51>L151 were considered outliers (just read the first abstract of the paper, very different from the one published later). And you know why?, because there was a WHG (western shifted) signal linked to the Baltic, not to Ukrainian forest steppe. The latter is only an emergency solution to try to continue linking that marker with eastern migrations and therefore with Indo-European.
3-However, if your contacts have assured you that there is U106 in the Ukrainian forest steppe, then it surely reached Bohemia from there, but it surely reached Ukraine from the north not from the steppes or the Volga, so the link with the Baltic would still exist.
4-I see that you are falling into the same error you fell into when you defended Yamnaya as the origin of L51, i.e. the old argument of "we have Z2103 in Yamnaya, it is certain that his brother L51 will also appear there". Time has proved you wrong, now even if U106 appears in Ukraine, P312 doesn't have to appear there, I think you are wrong again.
@Rich S
It is amusing to hear you say that I am wrong when you hold all the records for wrongness among all the genetics fans in the world. I know you and all your Anthrogenica friends come from FTDNA and I even understand that you have blind faith in that company, but it is only a private company and has its biases like everyone else. In any case you have to understand
1-After Smyadovo, everything that happens east of Bulgaria in relation to marker R1b-M269 (4.500 BC) has Balkan origin, so even if you and your friends from FTDNA have confirmed that there is P310 in Mongolia or China, that would be the result of migrations with origin in the Balkans, not in Repin, Yamnaya etc... You really should give up the vain, futile and idiotic struggle against the Balkan origin of R1b-M269. If Smyadovo sample don't seal the deal, I don't know what will.
2-If you have so much faith in FTDNA, then you have to congratulate them because they have qualified CLL007 (Cueva de las Lechuzas, 3,300-2,300 BC) as the first DF27 found in Europe. Taking into account that both you and Rocca and the rest of the Kurganist fans have defended for years that the oldest Df27 was Quedlinburg, I suppose that now you will have no problem admitting that you were wrong, right?
That happens when you try to deny reality, the Spanish geneticists were right when they published that DF27 had its origin in the Pyrenees and you have spent 6 years confusing people using a sample that in no way belonged to that marker. That is a clear example of stupidity, now it is ironic and funny to remember the number of Spaniards banned in Anthrogenica for daring to defend the papers on Df27 that linked their origin to Iberia. It's embarrassing to remember those FTNA administrators acting as secret police trying to stop any outbreak of ideological dissidence (you, Hulan, Webb, Tiger etcc......) you are pathetic. Sorry folks, I was right about that too, and even FTDNA has agreed with me.
@LGK
They're never going to find P312 in the forest steppe, this is just another red herring to keep their followers hopeful
I don't know and I don't care what the origin of the IE is, but I do care what the origin of my M269>P312>DF27 lineage is and, with the data we have, many Spanish geneticists think that genetic continuity in Iberia since the Chalcolithic means that the BB culture did not speak IE but a kind of Proto-Iberian, the Basque issue has never been mentioned so don't try to attack me using Basque nationalism, we are already vaccinated against viruses like yours.
@Steppisch Their explanation for how languages spread doesn't have to correspond with their clades. Their clading is almost perfect except in cases where limited ancient languages are used (eg Balkanic, Anatolian-Tocharian). For the hundred of other languages they get it right. The method is solid
Dating is also apparently not depended on clading. For example Proto-Greek is correctly predicted to become a distinct language ~2000 BCE, CWC languages are correct, more recent splits are also correct. Anatolian and Tocharian are correctly predicted to be archaic early splits. Branching issues will most likely be cleared up in the future with more languages included (eg Phrygian, Messapic, Thracian etc). The method is again proven to be solid
"So there is Caucasian gene flow West to the Aegean in the 4th m BC(?). What was it (if not Greek)? Kura-Araxes peoples?"
There is (not 100% Caucasus though, admixed) but it is unrelated to Greek (didn't even exist yet) or Balkanic languages. You can see it in Peloponnese (which received two such geneflows in a short period), Cyclades, Crete. Minoans didn't speak Greek obviously, even if their language turns out to be IE it wasn't Greek
To associate movements from W Asia into Greece with proto-Greek a later date is required, from around 2400 BCE (in case it arrived as pre-proto-Greek) to 1800 BCE (if already formed).
"It's clearly evident 3 different ways how Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic are related"
It's clear that they they aren't. This notion is outdated and refuted in several recent linguistic papers (which agree with other older papers. This observation isn't new). I assume you have already read Olander's book and Kroonen et al 2022
@Gaska
@vAsiSTha
"Even if you think you have found a good argument to try to prove that R1a-Y3 or L657 in India is an autochthonous marker, the fact is that it seems obvious that all males belonging to that lineage are descended from Fatyanovo. I suppose you will agree with this statement."
Yes, the ancestors of R1a-L657 (but not L657 itself) were from Fatyanovo. Just like R1b-M269 (but maybe not the first P312) was from the steppe.
"because that percentage is due to isolation in the mountains, inbreeding, pacts with the Romans, our resistance to Goths and Moors and the blood purity laws of the Hispanic monarchy. The Basques are simply Iberians from the Iron Age. The genetic continuity is evident and therefore we have to doubt that our P312 ancestors spoke an Indo-European language. But what does this have to do with India?"
Because the same founder effect in a sublineage occurred in India (L657) as it did in Iberia (PF312/DF27) but to a much smaller extent, Indians only have ~20-25% R1a on average vs 70+ in Basques. 70% of all Indian R1a is R1a-L657+. The dates of formation of DF27 and L657 are also similar.
Y-HGs are not beholden to some language family but can become associated with various dialects and language families. As I said above
"sublineages of a Y-Hg may become associated with another language or even language family (50% Sintashta R1a-Z2124 in Turkic speaking Kyrgyz, 30% R1a in Lankan Tamils, 40% N in Baltics)."
@vAsiStha: Re; "NW IE", one item that might be of interest though, re; whether NW IE (Baltic-Slavic-Italic-Celtic-Germanic) is plausible, is that there is often a claim that this structure does not work from the point of view of phonology and morphology.
However Goldstein 2020 (https://brill.com/view/journals/ieul/8/1/article-p110_3.xml?language=en) finds to the contrary, under his parsimony analyses, considering only morphological and phonological characters, that these at least emerge as the more common topology even if with low levels of support.
Albeit he outlines that all consensus trees under parsimony analysis have weak support at this high level branching - "The results in the tree above are sobering and largely recapitulate what has been known at least since Brugmann (1884: 226), namely that the innovations that define late diverging clades such as, e.g., Indo-Iranian are clear, but innovations that define earlier diverging clades, such as the ancestor of Germanic, Celtic, and Italic, are scarce (Garrett 1999: 147).".
Although also Goldstein finds some of the Maximum Likelihood Estimation trees do contain an II-BS grouping... This highlights the uncertainty of these higher order grouping estimates, again, considering only P+M characteristics.
I really think the challenges to Heggarty's tree will be more like what I've underlined previously in this thread; the lack of simulations to confirm that the methodology can work in all cases, the linguistic paleontology problems for specific items of vocabulary, the general difficulty with the idea that Balto-Slavic and NNW IE split as languages 1500 years before the Corded Ware expansion (that is their shared vector to Northern and Western Europe even in Heggarty's model).
I would guess that this Heggarty tree will contribute to refining the tree phylogeny, because lexical evidence gives so many more independent items with which to build the tree.
Although, again this is uncertain if you look at the branch-split support levels in Figure S6.1 for where Indo-Iranian splits.
But the consensus will I think still tend towards the date of the root being compatible with the rapid dispersal and LCA-EBA expansion of IE; this is more compatible with both linguistic paleotontology and the lack of shared morphological and phonological changes that provide higher order groupings, which lead to a "flat" or undecided/conflicting tree that tends to emerge from morphological and phonological evidence. And also their continued relatively weak support for higher order branching even in Heggarty's tree. This would require a lot of very compressed lexical change though, so tests would be needed to see how plausible this is.
(A tree that combines H's topology with a late root date, may look like this - https://imgur.com/a/RLVI6pd ; similar in structure but much flatter in the early phase.)
(One problem given the paucity of firm morphological and phonological higher order grouping is: How do you have >50% admixture at 5500 BCE, followed by 2000 years of evolving as a common group, between Germanic-Italic-Celtic, and yet reconstructing these as a group from morphology and phonology is still not agreed upon at all (and only Italic-Celtic at most is reconstructed)?
There is a lack of loans also supporting the grouping: in Indic, in their dataset, you have a clear shared replacement or parallel use of the word for 'black' with a Dravidian word, which is present across not all but a large number of branches including the deepest attested branch in their dataset (Pali). See - https://imgur.com/a/rTeSmIl. Cool, so we know that Dravidian was expanded or at least present at the point at which these languages shared a common ancestor, and the common ancestor encountered them. So clear cut support for a shared contact stage for these languages prior to their expansion.
But if you go term by term, in their set, there seems no evidence for a loan from a non-Indo-European language that cuts across Germanic-Italic-Celtic (e.g. is found only among them in a way that indicates it was ancestral to them all together and cannot be linked through to a pIE etymology); despite this scenario of in-theory language contact. Potential non-IE loans seem to cut only into the specific sub-branches, esp. Germanic. The driver of their shared grouping on the tree is not any sets of shared lexical innovations among them which cannot be ascribed a pIE etymology).
@steppische
"It's clearly evident 3 different ways how Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic are related - Linguistic: Striking similarities between say, modern Lithuanian and Sanskrit, especially considering the distance in space and time."
What striking similarities?
The Cognacy between Vedic & Old Church Slavonic is just 28%, similar to Vedic-Ancient Greek cognacy of 27%, Vedic-Lithuanian is 25%. Vedic-YoungAvestan is 58%, Vedic-Pali is 70%.
From Heggarty et al supplement.
"To be consistent with ‘ruki’ as evidence for an Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic node, one has to entertain the idea that Nuristani languages did actually inherit all the results of a full original ‘ruki’ change, but then reversed some of those results by later sound changes: e.g. where found between vowels, /ʂ/ changed (‘back’) to /s/. Although this has been hypothesized (161), the analysis includes faulty data on Nuristani languages, and proposes a sound change
which — although convenient for defending a sweeping ruki rule — is unmotivated phonologically. It is unclear what phonetic preconditions should have caused such a reversal, nor why other instances of intervocalic *ṣ did not therefore also become *s in Nuristani. For a more phonologically plausible alternative analysis of Nuristani “nonruki
*u”, not consistent with ruki as validly demonstrating an Indo-Iranic + Balto-Slavic node, see §4.2 in (162).In sum, it is highly controversial whether the ‘ruki’ sound change is a genuine, single shared innovation (at a putative common Proto-Indo-Iranic-Balto-Slavic stage); many specialists consider it a series of independent parallel changes instead."
Re; "father tongues", We've discussed this before I think the "father tongues" idea will not become predominant as a way of solving the South Asian IE question simply because:
1) In the wider set of language interactions where we can even more confidently than IE say that the language was associated with one female/male biased admixing population (rather than some mere associations of correlation with y-dna) it's not so clear it works predictably. Austronesian and the Polynesians - some would claim this is an exception, but what's the evidence base?
2) The replacement of y-dna in South Asia by steppe clades seems generally somewhat "soft" anyway compared to West Europe. Although more of the the mixing steppe group may have contained proportionately more men (and this is not entirely unambiguous given the potential for founder effects in the admixed population), it's not clear that the majority of the male ancestry did overall, or even then possibly only by very slim margins. (For comparison, N1 is about 40% in Lithuanians, clearly in excess of autosome which is slim-to-none. Language is just continuous with Indo-European, and in fact remarkably conservatively so.) Particularly accute in the extant West Iranian part of Indo-Iranian (where R1a is today very small). People can say, "Well, OK, but father languages + switching due to political alliances and other motivators between men", but in that case the simple silver bullet for steppe R1a becomes a lot more complex and open to questions.
(Within Indic, even you have some Brahmin groups who presumably - I haven't checked - are R1a heavy who speak Tamil.)
It's just simpler to avoid this whole thing and to focus on the large issues with lexicon dating, likelihood of (lack of) phonological and morphological changes, and the plausibility of the archaeological and genetic models.
@Matt
Abashevo was pinpointed as the proto-Indo-Aryan culture based on linguistics and archeology before ancient DNA was available.
I don't think it's just a coincidence that the subclade of R1a ancestral to most South Asian R1a has been found in Abashevo remains.
@Matt
By the way, your Lithuanian comparison isn't accurate.
You failed to mention that when Y-HG N arrived in Fennoscandia and the East Baltic it was indeed accompanied by large-scale language shifts.
There were even Uralic speaking groups in Latvia until recent times.
So you need to explain how it's possible for R1a to show such a large, rapid growth during the Bronze Age in South Asia without being accompanied by any language shifts.
Do you know of any Slavic or Baltic speaking South Asian communities? Neither do I.
@Davidski, but the point is that it's not reliable for any given group, even at such a significant percentage, so it would be easy to imagine some scenario where Finns had switched language and there is no evidence. The R1a clades are of course supporting evidence, but because such scenarios are possible, they can never simply be taken as wholly determinative, or even used as constraints in these tree topologies etc.
@Matt
There will always be exceptions and variations.
And it's never smart to just pluck a random percentage of a genetic marker and expect that it should correlate with something like language.
In Central and South Asia we're not just talking about one group of people heavily influenced by Sintashta/Abashevo-related groups, but many of them, including East Iranian speakers and different types of Indo-Aryan speakers.
We have some obvious exceptions, like Brahui Dravidians and the Burusho, but overall the pattern is clear, and points to a massive shift in language, culture and genetics dating to the Bronze Age.
This was the mainstream view before ancient DNA, and ancient DNA has just corroborated this view.
By the way, there are West Iranian subclades of R1a-Z93 that are found at decent levels even in groups from Kurdistan, so there's no need to get too creative when it comes to West Iranians.
"Abashevo was pinpointed as the proto-Indo-Aryan culture based on linguistics and archeology before ancient DNA was available."
Lol. Nothing but Slavic wet dreams. Lots of crackpot theories have been invented by the Soviets. Everyone can see what their ethnonationalism has brought to the region.
@vAsiSTha-
Your argument regarding the Basques fails on a fundamental premise because we have tons of R1a-Z93 in the CWC (Fatyanovo) but we don't have a single case of M269 in the steppes but in Bulgaria, so unless the Gumelnita-Karanovo culture spoke an IE language, actually associating M269 with that language family is simply a working hypothesis. However, it seems that everyone agrees that CWC is somehow related to the dispersion of certain branches of IE.
It is perfectly possible that a founder effect of L657 occurred in India but what are the R1a lineages of the remaining non-L657 Indian males? My guess would be Z2124, Y40 and Y3, all of them descendants of Fatyanovo.
In any case, I could agree with you that maybe there were no massive migrations or conquests and I think that determining exactly the time of arrival of those steppe migrants is very important because in my opinion it had to be before the appearance of the first Indo-European languages of South Asia.
@Aram You were wondering about 2200 bce and climate.
I was thinking about the Azov sea which to this day is incredibly shallow, its deepest part less than 20m. Yet it has some quite strong currents. The Greeks often referred to it as a swamp or wetlands rather than a sea. (They were a bit hazy about its further-off reaches too.) And the rivers coming into it would have been much less channelled, silty delta marshlands, extensive reedbeds — there are shifting sandbars and lagoons to this day. It partly was this area that the ancients regarded as a useful natural fence discouraging steppe nomads
Anyway, wikipedia says: 4.2-kiloyear event — dry, lasted most of the 22nd century BC, linked to the end of the Old Kingdom in Egypt, and the Akkadian Empire in Mesopotamia, various archaeological cultures in Persia and China.
Wikimedia commons has a map showing that one area of aridification for that period covers the eastern and northern end of the Black Sea, the Azov and also a good bit of the Caspian.
This event isn’t necessarily something that there’s consensus on as a global event, and there are various conjectures about how widespread it was, or what caused it (eg meteorite) but there does seem to be traces of something large ecologically that went on in this area at that time.
@Gaska
Regarding Sample CLL007 from Villalba-Mouco et al (2021), "Genomic transformation and social organization during the Copper Age–Bronze Age transition in southern Iberia": it's amazing that you would have the temerity to cite that sample. Have you actually read that paper? Look, for example, at Supplementary Table S1.1. The entry for Sample CLL007 says this, in the column labeled "included/excluded in pogen (notes)": "EXCLUDED Intrusive (Steppe ancestry in Southern CA)".
Oops! There's that pesky steppe ancestry again!
This is from the paper's introduction:
"The beginning of the Bronze Age [Early Bronze Age (EBA)] in Iberia (2200 to 1550 cal BCE) marks a clear population turnover, suggested by both the omnipresence of steppe-related ancestry in all individuals directly postdating 2200 BCE. An even more notable shift can be observed in the frequency of Y-chromosome haplogroups in males, which are almost exclusively of the R1b-P312 type that was completely absent in Iberia before 2400 BCE (6, 7, 25, 26)."
Note the part where it says "the R1b-P312 type that was completely absent in Iberia before 2400 BCE."
R1b-P312 was completely absent in Iberia before 2400 BCE.
As for the huge, thousand-year date range for CLL007, 3300-2300 BCE, that is just the Iberian Copper Age. Obviously - very very obviously - if "the R1b-P312 type . . . was completely absent in Iberia before 2400 BCE", then CLL007 cannot predate 2400 BCE. Pretty simple. You understand that, right?
I invite anyone to read the Villalba-Mouco paper and decide for himself/herself what it says. It's not exactly a secret.
As for Smyadovo (I2181), we've hashed that out time and time again. No need to go into the details again, which you refuse to acknowledge anyway. You know he had steppe DNA and was pretty obviously the Y-DNA descendant of a migrant from the steppe.
The weight of the evidence of a steppe origin of R1b-L51 is truly ponderous. As Lazaridis himself wrote, probably the whole R1b-M269 clade originated on the steppe or in the North Caucasus.
Please try to understand.
@Gaska
I agree with a lot of your arguments, not always. If I agree or at least take as possible your propositions concerning a « cradle » of Y-R1b6L51-L151 closer to North Central Europe (almost Baltic; and we have L11 very centered around Southern shores of the Baltic Sea, so possible vector also for U106 there) for L269 I see rather it around Eastern slopes of Carpathians maybe, or even faurther East. It’s legid to consider Smyadovo place as Balkans for an official geographic point of view, but you can see it’s placed very East, and not far for Danube river, and on what we can see as a highway from SW Steppes towards Egea and Greece. It’s not what I call true Balkans.
besides, I don't like too much the tone someones take here (you among them sometimes) to answer others. Where is the gain? Let's keep cool.
@Matt
"Although also Goldstein finds some of the Maximum Likelihood Estimation trees do contain an II-BS grouping... This highlights the uncertainty of these higher order grouping estimates, again, considering only P+M characteristics."
Carling & Cathcart 2021 (https://www.jbe-platform.com/content/journals/10.1075/dia.19043.car?crawler=true) also worked with Grammar (Morphology & Syntax only, while Heggarty is lexical only), and none of their trees support a BS-IIr pairing.
"the general difficulty with the idea that Balto-Slavic and NNW IE split as languages 1500 years before the Corded Ware expansion (that is their shared vector to Northern and Western Europe even in Heggarty's model)."
I guess you are looking at their single MCC Tree in Fig S6.1, and even there you are ignoring the 95% Confidence Intervals. The median date is 4980BCE and 95%CI range is [3645‒6395 BCE]. So a 4500-4000 BCE NWIE unity is amenable with the paper. Consider the recent SE Europe paper which showed a much earlier spread of steppe_en west into Ukraine starting 4200bce or earlier. The meaning of 'split' is important as well. The split also represents the first cognate to change state, ie the very beginning of the split, and in some cases even before the first cognate changed its state. They explain it in supp S8.3 thus
"In fact, technically in the model, the split is not bound to any specific change event. A split represents only the point at which two nascent sub-lineages of the same ancestor first become free to begin changing independently of each other (even before the first change actually arises). An extreme, prototypical case in the real world is when a divergent long-distance migration sharply splits a speaker population into two. This need not instantaneously mean a difference in cognacy in one of the 170 meanings in the IE-CoR reference set, of course. Rather, the split is just when the clock starts ticking, the point in time from which changes may start proceeding differently in the newly independent sub-lineages. In reality it may take decades before the first clear contrast in cognacy actually
emerges."
That is just one tree. The real output is in the DensiTree which carries much more information. For example, this is how I read that DensiTree (https://imgur.com/a/K6Z1ikt).
What we also see is that by the end of the CordedWare expansion (2400bce), all 4 branches are clearly separate.
Your loanword arguments are quite astute, but I guess they just go to show the antiquity of the the proto-stage. We don't know any ancient attested north Euro language before 1000bce. And all non IE Euro languages are poorly researched. Btw, wrt Vedic, not a single cognate is a loanword from Dravidian (or any other). Davidski believes that a band of his ancestors' brethren attacked north India around 1500bce, but where is the proof of the assimilation of the local language?
Consider this - In Vedic, 160/170 words are marked PIE or proto-Indo-Iranian; 10 are marked Vedic or proto-Indic. ie 5.9% local words
In Ancient Greek - 130 are PIE, 42 are Ancient Grk or proto-Greek. ie 24%.
In Hittite - 94 are PIE, 45 are PAnat or Hittite. ie 32%.
In Latin - 145 PIE, 27 marked Latin or proto-Italic. ie 16%
Younger Avestan - 128 PIE or P-IIr, 18 Iranic. ie 12% local.
If the % of local words are taken as indicator of resistance to the invading language, in other words ratio of locals to invading foreign speakers, does it tell us that the Vedic people invaded and assimilated into a Dravidian or some other language speaking population around 1500bce, when compared to these other ancient languages?
@GASKA said..."It is funny that you try to link the non-EHG/CHG component in Czech Corded Ware not only with Latvia, also with Ukraine."
Funny? It is literally in the Papac paper, pages 5-6:
"To explore why two-way proximal models between any Yamnaya and a European Neolithic source are insufficient in explaining Bohemia_CW_Early genetic diversity, we tried adding a third source to obtain better model fits. We find that when either one of Latvia_MN, Ukraine_Neolithic, or PittedWare is added as a source, almost all (280 of 285) model fits (P values) improve and most of them by several orders of magnitude (table S17)."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.07.31.551265v1 -
"Local population structure in Cambridgeshire during the Roman occupation" -
"The Roman period saw the empire expand across Europe and the Mediterranean, including much of what is today the United Kingdom. While there is written evidence of high mobility into and out of Britain for administrators, traders and the military, the impact of imperialism on local population structure is invisible in the textual record. The extent of genetic change that occurred in Britain before the Early Medieval Period and how closely linked by genetic kinship the local populations were, remains underexplored.
Here, using genome-wide data from 52 ancient individuals from Cambridgeshire, we show low levels of genetic ancestry differentiation between Romano-British sites and lower levels of runs of homozygosity over 4 centimorgans (cM than in the Bronze Age and Neolithic.
We find fourteen cases of genetic relatedness within and one between sites without evidence of patrilineal dominance and one case of temporary mobility within a family unit during the Late Romano-British period.
We also show that the modern patterns of genetic ancestry composition in Modern Britain emerged after the Roman period."
Not an urban site so looks no Roman migration proper, which in Britain from this study does not appear to have impacted rural populations (unlike perhaps is possible in parts of France, and Mediterranean generally).
I thnk what Matt is talking about for West Iranian speakers is due to 'Language of the State', where the Medes, or whomever the earliest dynasts were, established an empire which incorporated Assyarians, Elamites, etc. Over centuries the Y-DNA frequency are going to vary due to local population dynamics. NB: in 'minority' groups like Kurds we even still see lineages like i2a-L69
People have suggested that a similar situation occurred with the establishment of a state in Haryana. The founders might already have been locally admixed in south Turan to some degreee.
@Rocca-
Yeah, funny, and remember that not only you have good contacts here in Europe. Everybody can imagine the surprised face of some people at Max Planck when they discovered L151 & U106 in Bohemia in tombs hardly associated to the CWC and with dates before the arrival of that culture in that region. And furthermore those samples !!!! Oh my God !!!! could not be modeled with the currently available samples from Yamnaya because the margin of error was too large. That western shifted signal was totally INCOMPATIBLE with the Yamnaya culture and so someone considered those L51>L151 as “northern” or “baltic” outliers. The rumor quickly spread through the international scientific community because it meant the collapse of the Kurgan theory. The solution was a scientific and media counter-offensive to convince their followers that nothing had changed.
1-Emphasize the CWC character of the tombs-Thank God we have found an axe, we must emphasize this finding, no one will doubt that we are talking about the CWC.Excusatio non petita acusatio manifesta
2-That third component cannot be Baltic (where there are tons of R1b from the Mesolithic), the best solution is the Ukrainian forest steppe where we can justify that there was in the Eneolithic a similar signal, so we can keep alive the eastern migrations and continue linking that lineage to the IE.
Ok, I understand that reaction, they have a theory and it is their obligation as scientists to look for solutions when things do not turn out as they would have liked. But in my opinion it is a risky solution that some people find unconvincing, so post those U106 in Ukraine, then we will study them, see where they come from and draw our conclusions.This is how science works, discussing a theory to try to reach an acceptable consensus.
@Rich S
Ha Ha, Nothing to say about Quedlinburg? please face reality. You were seriously wrong about this sample and many people were banned because of you, the only thing you can do is apologize
1-Quedlinburg has been dated three times and its dating is even later than the lowest range established for the Cueva de las Lechuzas (2.300 BC) so even if it miraculously became DF27, it wouldn't even be the oldest in Europe
Brotherton et al (2.013)-3.839±55 (Erl8558)-Uncalibrated
Haak et al (2.015) (2.296-2.206 BCE)-(MAMS 22820) Date 2-sigma- 2.251 BC
Mathieson et al (2.015) (2.431-2.150 BCE)-(MAMS 22820) Date 2-sigma- 2.290 BC
2- In addition, we have GBVPK (2.380 BC)-Grotte Basse de la Vigne Perdue, and remember that Narbona is in the western Mediterranean very close to the eastern Pyrenees. I still remember some knuckleheads defending that the Z195s from Sicily had arrived on the island from Germany and not from Iberia and that, despite finding Iberian BB pottery-Another example of stupidity and bad faith.
3-Regarding CLL007, it was found in a cave, collective burial typical of the Iberian neolithic-Bad habit for a horseman from the steppes, right? we always find R1b-M269 in Europe buried in dolmens (Aesch), caves (Belgium, Spain), pits (Bulgaria), the truth is that these Yamnaya men lost their customs very quickly-The archaeologist's dating is 3,300-2,300 BC, don't worry, they are reanalyzing the sample to date it exactly.
4-Both Villalba and you are wrong there is M269 & P312 before 2,400 BC, keep looking and you will find because the samples are already published
@Moesan
My apologies, I always try to use irony but it is true that sometimes I am rude
Describing Davidski as a person influenced by Soviet nationalism is one of the greatest stupidities I have ever seen written here.
I think with qpAdm Czech CWC (non-outliers) can modelled as: Yamnaya (Don-Volga variant) (~ 65%), a north-central European LN (e.g. GAC or Czech Baden) (~30%), and extra HG, both East Baltic & Dnieper HG work (5-10%) (rotating and non-rotating approaches). So tracing lineages juts requirs actual samples rather than inferencing from admixture patterns.
Don’t you think that Heggarty model corresponds well with Proto-Slavonic in Mierzanowice culture. Which is OK:
https://postimg.cc/R6sw8sZt
@Gaska
“I still remember some knuckleheads defending that the Z195s from Sicily had arrived on the island from Germany and not from Iberia and that, despite finding Iberian BB pottery-Another example of stupidity and bad faith”.
I don’t know which sample are you referring to, but R-Z195 is only one subclade of the numerous ones of R-DF27*, and the only survived sample found so far in the world which is R-DF27* is from Sicily, Italy, at least until I studied that case.
If you were hinting to the Buffa3123 sample of 4200 years ago, I wrote many times that it matches my daughter-in-law (Flemish, 100% Frankish) and not me (99.5% Italian as to 23andMe) and my wife from Sicily, thus I wrote that it came from the Flemish zone, where probably R-DF27 came from, as its distribution of to-day is demonstrating, I think.
You could say that there is Cueva de las Lechuzas 7, but with a very large DI.
@vAsiStha: Re; dates, yep, I used the MMC tree median date. 4980 BCE is pushes it even further back in time from early CWC ~3000BCE.
There are ways I guess to read the DensiTree as proposing a more wooly and gradual split than emerges over time with more continuous connections (presumably as connections become less local) and that help some of the models, but it seems like this then implies a whole dense network of ongoing connections between branches in general, some of which are even earlier than the median date and some well after? This may be even harder to reconcile with genetic evidence compared to a harder split in MMC Tree. It seems generally more ellusive how to interpret that visual.
Re; local words particular to languages or branches, which can't be established as clear loans.: those may or may not necessarily telling us that much about interactions. Any that can't be traced to pIE could also be simply new coinages from other parts of the vocabulary in ways that are much more obscure to trace and reconstruct (may reflect some taboo or slang or something).
I think they could be a indicator of any kind of social pattern between language groups straight away, just more useful as a kind of independent check of what is causing a group to exist on their tree (innovations, or patterns of retentions), although thinking about this more, given that for example Indic there is only that one clear loan that I checked (and maybe no more), perhaps I've overestimated what they can tell you and whether they could be lost.
I'm really not sure about what words particular to certain languages would provide an indicator of tbh.
Looking at the ones you mentioned and a few others - https://imgur.com/a/tx9KU7H . Of these it seems like the languages with the least cognates outside (Proto-Indo-European) and (Proto-(Family)) was Gaulish (98%), Avestan close as you say, and then Old Saxon (97%) pretty close too.
Seems tough to know what this might mean if anything - I'd have thought it would mean that the language was relatively close to the common ancestor of the family without much time to build up unique lexical innovations (e.g. that Old Saxon would be closer to the time and date of Proto-Germanic), but it seems hard to know if that fits given that Latin would be expected to have a similar time depth from proto-Italic.
@Gaska
"the BB culture did not speak IE but a kind of Proto-Iberian"
Whether it is Vasconic or proto-Iberian either option is laughable copium. Did R1b-M269 from the Baltic or Smyadovo speak proto-Iberian? How can you possibly simultaneously entertain the origin of M269/P312 in the Baltic/Balkans -> Iberia but this did not entail 1) break in genetic continuity and 2) language replacement? Face it, this male line is NOT native to Iberia and never was!
@Matt
Wrt the early Balto-Slavic split. I don't know why the 3600BCE Comb Ceramic (CCC) individuals from Baltics are missing in G25, as well as the Latvia_MN2 individual. Both of these are supposed to have Yamnaya/steppe_en related admixture as per Mittnik et al 2018 and Lamnidis et al 2019. in Baltic_CCC, Lamnidis et al find 20% yamnaya ancestry via qpAdm. Similarly, Mittnik et al find 10% IranN related green component via admixture in these 3600BCE samples.
After this, the steppe component only increases in the 3000bce Baltic_LN/Early corded ware samples (present in G25).
So there is evidence of a pre-cordedware steppe ancestry in the Baltic region, adding to the possibility of an early split.
That doesn't explain adoption of the languages by common people. Unless someone wants to paint a rosy picture of steppe men freeing post IVC inhabitants from evil rulers 🤭
@rob
Such a state of Sanskrit speaking elites did exist in India....Scythians in Gujarat and Punjab.....Guptas in Eastern India....Satvahana in Deccan...
None of it converted Prakrit speaking commoners to Sanskrit....
@GASKA, stay focused. You insinuated I made up possible Ukraine_N ancestry in Czech Corded Ware and then I provided a direct quote from Papac. Please reply about this direct quote from the study. Does it, or does it not say that Ukraine_N is a possibility as I stated, thus my mention of both east and/or north/east Neolithic ancestry?..
"To explore why two-way proximal models between any Yamnaya and a European Neolithic source are insufficient in explaining Bohemia_CW_Early genetic diversity, we tried adding a third source to obtain better model fits. We find that when either one of Latvia_MN, Ukraine_Neolithic, or PittedWare is added as a source, almost all (280 of 285) model fits (P values) improve and most of them by several orders of magnitude (table S17)."
@Matt
"It seems generally more ellusive how to interpret that visual."
It's pretty straightforward. The white regions where the lines don't crisscross are before(or after) the proto-period in question. The split date (given as a single number in the single MCC tree) is then somewhere within that region where crisscrosses are happening. We can assign some probability as to where exactly within that region depending on the density of criss-crosses.
Wrt loanwords, when an external language enters and local speakers (and their descendants) change their language over time, a lot of morphosyntactic features and lexicon from the substrate is carried over to the new language. It is also well-known that the toponyms and hydronyms are most conservative names and they preserve the local names for longest.
My limited point was the paucity of the alleged substrate in Vedic (by comparing it to Hittite and Greek mainly, the other 2 oldest languages recorded). It is also well known from the Rig Veda that almost all the hydronyms and toponyms mentioned are of IE origin. Compare it to Greek hydronyms and toponyms from Homer's works (Hainsworth 1972 did work on this), only 1/3rd of the toponyms (40/140) are IE/Greek, rest are obscure. This is an example of a more recent immigration and assimilation. Again, no such thing is seen in Rig Veda. Edwin Bryant's book has 4-5 pages devoted to such a comparison from all viewpoints, do check.
@Gaska
". . . 3-Regarding CLL007, it was found in a cave, collective burial typical of the Iberian neolithic-Bad habit for a horseman from the steppes, right? we always find R1b-M269 in Europe buried in dolmens (Aesch), caves (Belgium, Spain), pits (Bulgaria), the truth is that these Yamnaya men lost their customs very quickly-The archaeologist's dating is 3,300-2,300 BC, don't worry, they are reanalyzing the sample to date it exactly.
4-Both Villalba and you are wrong there is M269 & P312 before 2,400 BC, keep looking and you will find because the samples are already published"
You cited CLL007 as some sort of proof that DF27 originated in Iberia, but now you disagree with the authors of the paper it appeared in because they state - along with every other ancient DNA expert who has had anything to say on the subject lately - that R1b-P3132 was completely absent from Iberia before 2400 BC.
You also think you know better than a whole host of other ancient DNA experts: Reich, Olalde, Lazaridis, Mathieson, Papac, Linderholm, etc., etc. You also disagree with and know better than Anthony, Kristiansen, Mallory and so on, though you haven't bothered to read their books. You certainly haven't bothered to read Reich's book (but you wouldn't agree with it anyway).
YFull currently estimates that DF27 formed about 2500 BC, which is also the date they give for its TMRCA. FTDNA discover estimates that DF27 arose about 2550 BC. As things stand right now, there is no evidence of any R1b-DF27 - or any R1b-P312 or R1b-M269 for that matter - in Iberia before 2400 BC, as Villalba-Mouco et al pointed out. Olalde et al found the same thing in their groundbreaking study of Beaker, a study you must have found truly heartbreaking and personally devastating (like so many other studies since then). So, if YFull and FTDNA Discover are right, and if Villalba-Mouco and Olalde and company are right, it isn't likely that DF27 originated in Iberia.
When you cite samples in defense of your thesis, you inevitably neglect the fact that they have steppe autosomal DNA. You do that with Smyadovo (I2181), you do that with Aesch25, and you do it with CLL007. You do that because you must, because to reveal that these samples all have steppe DNA is to reveal their ultimate ancestral origin. You know that the fact that Smyadovo was R1b-M269 and had steppe DNA means that he was very obviously the Y-DNA descendant of a migrant from the steppe. You know that Aesch25 had in excess of 80% steppe DNA (like a typical CW man) and was obviously a steppe migrant or the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe migrant. You know that Cueva de las Lechuzas (CLL007) was likewise the Y-DNA descendant of a migrant from the steppe. Read Reich's book. In it he goes into detail about what happened in ancient Iberia.
You know the truth - you must by now - but you cannot bring yourself to admit it. A person would have to be incredibly stupid - or willfully blind - not to know it.
@LGK
Your reasoning is against common sense. First of all nobody here is talking about an Iberian origin of R1b-M269 and secondly, it is clear that you do not understand the concept of genetic continuity both in the autosomal component and in the uniparental markers (both male and female). If you studied a little Iberian genetics you would understand.
Since you are such an intelligent person, surely you can tell us what language M269 Smyadovo (4,500 BC) spoke. Do you know the language spoken by the Gumelnita-Karanovo VI culture?, please, do not hesitate to share it with us, the international scientific community will thank you for it-.
@Gio
The Arrival of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean-Daniel Fernandes (2.019)-“In Sicily, Steppe pastoralist ancestry arrived by ~2200 BCE and likely came at least in part from Spain as it was associated with Iberian-specific Y chromosomes” Two of these were Y-haplogroup R1b1a/1a2a/1a2a/1 (Z195) which today is largely restricted to Iberia and has been hypothesized to have originated there 2500-2000 BCE. This evidence of west-to-east gene flow from Iberia is also suggested by qpAdm modeling where the ONLY parsimonious proximate source for the Steppe ancestry we found in the main Sicily-EBA cluster is Iberians
I am referring to these samples
I8561 (2.272 BC)- Abisso del Vento, Isnello- HapY-R1b-Df27-Z195
I3123-BU31 (2.165 BC)-Buffa Cave-HapY-R1b-Df27-Z195
Look Gio, those smart kurganists can only be qualified as knuckleheads because they all know perfectly how qpAdm works and know how to model ancient samples using other available tools and yet despite the evidence they have written hundreds of posts saying that the Sicilian samples came directly from Germany. Don't tell me it's not funny
By the way, Df27 has also been found in the Sicani (another non-Indo-European people, even Thucydides, claims that the Sicani originated on the Iberian Peninsula) and Etruria (Casenovole, 346 BC)-Those Etruscans were DF27>Z225>Y31420 like me, so the genetic relationship between Etruscans and Iberians has also been demonstrated. And everyone knows what language the Etruscans spoke, right?
I should mention re the origin of R1b-DF27 that both it and R1b-U152 are immediately below R1b-ZZ11, along with BY140446.
According to FTDNA Discover, DF27 and U152 are the same age: 2550 BC. BY140446 is a little younger (c. 2400 BC). Since they all stem from ZZ11, they probably all have the same approximate geographic origin. In other words, DF27, U152 and BY140446 were probably all born in roughly the same place.
Does anyone think it likely that U152 originated in Iberia?
As far as I know, there are no ancient BY140446 samples yet.
I don't know if anyone of you read Johannes Krause's book : A Short History of Humanity but it's full of approximation and mistakes, couldn't finish it. Not surprising his papers he participates in are full of mistakes too.
Ever since Gustav Kossina, German-based scholarship has pushed an out-of -Middle East agenda, and they still cant shake off their complex (right, Matt?). Then scholars like Renfrew came along & pointed out the complexity seen in Varna is older than anything in the Near East. C14 dates proved him right.
This MPI model makes no sense population wise. Its statistical masturbation about loanwords. i.e. psuedoscience
The analysis of the genetic data in the Heggarty paper is below any sort of acceptable level, to the point where it just looks made up.
@ Assuwatma
''Such a state of Sanskrit speaking elites did exist in India....Scythians in Gujarat and Punjab.....Guptas in Eastern India....Satvahana in Deccan...
None of it converted Prakrit speaking commoners to Sanskrit....''
historical age interlopers didnt change the langauge, but the LBA arrival of new groups after a profound societal collapse of IVC might have
@Gaska
"I don't know and I don't care what the origin of the IE is, but I do care what the origin of my M269>P312>DF27 lineage is"
Why do you leave out the extremely important L23>L51>L52>L151? There are about 1600 years in that span and many more than just those mutations that occur about every 3 generations.
You actually do not care because we tell you facts about the evidence of the origin that you continually challenge without logic. You allow you beliefs to blind you from reality. You are dishonest with yourself and with us.
@ Gaska
I have all the sympathy for you and of course have nothing against Iberia nor Basques, but some points:
1) I never accepted the idea that Sardinians derived from Iberia and not the other way around, and the hg of the diffusion wasn’t R1b or others but I-M26. Huge in Sardinia until pretty much 40% and much less among Basques. You all forget the migration of 7500 year ago described from an Iberian; Zilhao, already more than 20 years ago, and about the language in common. It has something to do with the Caucasus, as the great linguist Alfredo Trombetti demonstrated one hundred years ago (Le origini della lingua basca, 1925, unfortunately written in Italian, but it shouldn’t be difficult to understand by a Castillian speaking), and the same Trombetti wrote that Etruscan was intermediate between Indo-European and North Eastern Caucasian. That Etruscan did come from Iberia is out of any truth, being demonstrated that they came from the Northern Alps (I think before from the Aegean Sea), and we have now also the aDNA. I, being a Tuscan at least from 13ù0, documented, know very well that I am Roman and a little Etruscan, because the expansion happened from the eastern Alps to Northern Italy, Southern France and Iberia, who all have closer links with Etruscan aDNA than me who live in Tuscany.
2) We may believe a little to MyTrueAncestry, but all use that tools now, even FTDNA beyond the academics, and I wrote which are the IBD links of Buffa aDNA.
3) That Sicani were linked with Iberia is an Herodotean idea like that Etruscans came from Lydia. The Sicani had hg G2a old more that 7000 years in Sicily, and by a linguistic point of view the Sicani and the Siculi, linked to Latin, were deeply rooted in Italy, and linked with Ligurians as many toponims demonstrated already to linguists of one hundred years ago.
4) Beyond that the old idea that R1b derived from the Franco-Cantabrian refugium isn’t believed now and no R1b has been found in Iberia if not we may suppose R-V88 but due to the Zilhao migration whereas not only Villabruna but also Les Iboussiéres were around the Alps alreadsy 14000 years ago and being the same of Tagliente at the autosomal level we may say at least 17000 years ago, and certainly the origin was in the Siberian corridor and not in the Atlantic. Look also to these hg P1-M226 in this last paper on Polish aDNA, which probably came from the Alps as mt U5b2 and U5b3. Of course the link of the Alps with the Caucasus and even the Pirenees are known to me from so long.
I could say about this Globtrotter what I said about the Phyogeographer of Hunter Provyn, that it lacks of History. Why the oldest R-L754 was found in Villabruna, Italy, 14000 years ago and I found 2 P1-P226 in the last paper on Polish aDNA that the authors classified as hg R1...
https://www.facebook.com/groups/R1b.L238/?multi_permalinks=6547681228655131¬if_id=1691301934244768¬if_t=group_activity&ref=notif
@Rocca
Of course Papac mentions Ukraine_Neolithic, nobody has denied it, but I have already explained that in my opinion it is only an emergency improvised solution to avoid the collapse produced by having to discard Yamnaya as the origin of those samples
BTW, what do you think of Lazaridis' latest paper? He totally dismisses Ukraine_N for the early CWC samples and continues to defend a Yamnaya origin because in his opinion this excess of WHG in Bohemia can be justified by the genetic composition of Yamnaya.
Do you agree with Lazaridis (still Yamnaya) or with Papac (Ukrainian forest steppe)?????
@Rich S-
Ok, Bla Bla Bla Bla, but definitely nothing to say about Quedlinburg, you missed a good opportunity to apologize and behave like a gentleman. It is not worth arguing with you because you have no arguments.
There are published M269 in Iberia before 2,400 BC, you just have to leave laziness aside and start looking”.
@Dospaises
Dishonest? don't make me laugh, all I am saying, is that to date, M269 does not originate in the steppes but in Bulgaria. Lazaridis, southern Arc paper has confirmed what we said in this blog 3 years ago (thanks to Arza).
@Gio
1-I haven't talked about Sardinia, but certainly the Sardinian-Basque connection is very interesting both genetically and linguistically.
2-Nor have I said that the Etruscans have their origin in Iberia, only that there was also an evident commercial, cultural, linguistic and genetic relationship between Etruscans and Iberians and that my male lineage is the proof of it (probably due to Iberian mercenaries who helped the Etruscans in their fights with the Greeks or to exogamy). Etruscans are mostly R1b-M269 and this is very important to understand the relationship of this marker with Non-Indo-European languages.
3-Df27 in the Sicani only proves the genetic continuity of this marker in Sicily since the time of the Bell Beaker culture. And everyone agrees that these people did not speak IE either.
4-Finally I have never defended a Franco-Cantabrian origin for R1b, as you say, until proven otherwise the oldest R1b has been found in Italy.
@ Gaska
I appreciated your answers, as pretty much always. I didn’t indict you of all what I said, but they were the theories of the last tens of years, some disproved now, but am not I to deny the importance of Iberia and the Pirenees also for the mt hgs, included hg H and others. I spoke of the large presence of the same U5b3* more in Iberia than Italy, even though I think that the origin was in Italy, and the same H105*, I have been studying from so long (it belongs to Barbara Ann Lewis, the adopted American whom I found the parents to, and resulted more than 90% Italian with an 8% of Greek/Balkan for the presence of Arbereshet and also Croatians in some hamlets of Molise) and, probably even though it is present in Italy from at least 10000 years, it finds a huge presence in Iberia too.
If we consider honestly the data at our disposal, also the link of genetics with languages could be deepen more than in the past.
This might be interesting: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB63318
"Descent, marriage, and residence practices of a 3,800-year-old pastoral community in Central Eurasia"
"Our understanding of prehistoric societal organization at the family level is still limited. Here, we generated genome data from 32 individuals from an approximately 3,800-year-old burial mound attributed to the Bronze Age Srubnaya-Alakul cultural tradition at the site of Nepluyevsky, located in the southern Ural region of Central Eurasia. We found that life expectancy was generally very low, with adult males living on average 8 years longer than females.
A total of 35 first-degree, 40 second-degree, and 48 third-degree biological relationships connected 25 of the studied individuals, allowing us to propose a family tree spanning three generations with six brothers at its center.
The oldest of these brothers had eight children with two women and the most children overall, whereas the other relationships were monogamous. Notably, sisters and female children above the age of 14 were completely absent from the site, and adult females were more genetically diverse than males." (presumably genetic diversity as expressed by pooled nucleotide diversity / heterozygosity rather than ancestral components)
"These results suggest that biological relationships between male siblings played a structural role in society, and that descent group membership was based on patrilineality. Women originated from a larger mating network and moved to join the men, with whom they were buried. Finally, the oldest brother likely held a higher social position, which was expressed in terms of fertility."
Steppe MLBA type R1a-Z93 pastoralists (most likely); some polygamy, patrilocality, differential fertility by status (which seems linked to birth order or something rather than any other trait they can measure).
6 brothers implies a larger set of siblings, but with the girls moving.
@Davidsky A quote from 'Pre-Greek Strata & Origins'(Tardivo, Kitselis): '... Many Pre-Greek words have an exact counterpart in North Caucasian languages'.
So there are mysterious linguistic, mythological and genetic links between the Caucasus and the Aegean and they seem to be very old. (North Caucasian languages = Maikop?)
@Orpheus I have not read Olander's book. Not sure why multiple posts here are saying that Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic are unrelated. I believe this branch traces the Eastern CW migration, no? Heck of a migration at that.
I favor a grouping of Germanic/Balto-Slavic > Indo-Iranic (basically non-BB or 'archaic CW' if you will) with Germanic subsequently 'reoriented' towards Beaker Cultures. I am no linguist. Just noting basic syntactical similarities from Germanic and Slavic. This would correspond nicely with the cultural overlap from the Nordic Bronze Age to the Indo-Iranic areas (Kristiansen, 2011).
What I remember from Kroonen's article on cereal terminology was the placing of Proto-IE to the West of the Dnieper (Sredny Stog) and adjacent to a EEF society based on the richness of IE vocabulary for various grains, while Proto-Anatolian and its limited grain lexicon is correlated to a more distal locale (Khvalynsk; Suvorovo migration) as the source of this language family. Makes sense to me though I recall previous posts here proposing the beginnings of Anatolian further West in Sredny Stog as well (Why?).
If you take all the hypothesized centers for L151 (that I see) from these comments, you have an aggregate area from lower Austria to Bulgaria and Belarus and into the Euro steppe & forest Steppe and the Trans-Caucasus. I like the Western Ukraine locale myself which is just about in the middle of this area but who knows where early L151 will show up when he is found.
@Gaska
"@Rich S-
. . .
There are published M269 in Iberia before 2,400 BC, you just have to leave laziness aside and start looking”.
I do not believe that. If there really were M269 in Iberia that predate 2400 BC, you would trot them out at every opportunity and trumpet them to the skies.
Certainly Olalde et al and Villalba-Mouco et al are right: R1b-P312 was completely absent from Iberia before 2400 BC.
Again, read Reich's book. In it he explains what happened in Iberia with regard to steppe Y-DNA and autosomal DNA.
@Matt. Just a point of logic. What does it mean by “the oldest of these brothers?”
It says the burial mound had “six brothers at its centre”, but this preview abstract doesn’t say if they were seen in a clear hierarchy themselves in their original positions, or whether bones could have been curated.
I would be wary of a leap of logic that presumes that the one who lived to the oldest age or had the two wives was the “oldest brother,” firstborn, therefore most senior.
It’s reasonable that someone who had a longer life than several of his brothers would become socially senior eventually — whatever his birth order. He would even more substantially outlive an “average-lived” wife. He would be likely then to have a serially-second wife and raise a second brood.
But this does not mean that he owed his second wife to a firstborn’s higher status.
There could be an argument (for the sake of argument) to say that a younger and longer-lived sibling would hold a more senior position for more of his life than his brothers did, because as his elder brothers died off, he may well gain authority over his nephews and his (bride price? or political-alliance bringing) nieces & any stepdaughters. He might marry an opportunity/obligation widow too. Then he might marshal all their resources — sooner than his own children come of age, and perhaps until his own death.
By the sound of it they were reopening the mound to bury each brother inside. This suggests that remains they encountered could be curated, and burials from ten or twenty years previous might be shifted to accommodate the most recent.
@Gaska
Let me make it very simple for you. Did this line of R1b, which originated somewhere from the Baltic to Bulgaria introduce a new language to Iberia?
GASKA said... BTW, what do you think of Lazaridis' latest paper? He totally dismisses Ukraine_N for the early CWC samples and continues to defend a Yamnaya origin because in his opinion this excess of WHG in Bohemia can be justified by the genetic composition of Yamnaya.
What did he say in the paper? And copy/paste it please and do not paraphrase.
@wee e, that's a good point I didn't think about. It'll be interesting to see how they've inferred birth sequence; speculatively, it may relate to some combination of how they've reconstructed the tree as a whole (the most likely age sequence given the ages at death and carbon dates of each samples) and epigenetic markers of age (methylation and such) combined with the traditional measures.
Compare to Liu 2023 - https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9950528/ - "DNA methylation-based profiling of horse archaeological remains for age-at-death and castration" (whether this works in ancient humans, seems rather speculative).
I agree if it is an inference from an older age at death, that's does seem relatively weak, but if it's something like the above it could be a significant advance on previously published work.
@Rocca-
Always a pleasure to help you
"We find that the Corded Ware and Bell Beaker complex individuals from Europe are all consistent with a balanced presence of the two components (consistent with having been transmitted through a Yamnaya-like population). Even in the early Corded Ware from Bohemia, where a third “NORTHERN” source has been suggested to have been substantially involved, the difference is one of a small 3.1 ± 2.1% excess of EHG ancestry, which is entirely consistent with being transmitted entirely by the Yamnaya to the limits of the resolution of our statistical analysis"
You may have noticed that both Harvard and Max Planck use the word "northern " or "Baltic", not east or north-east, right?
That is, Lazaridis represents the Harvardian Kurganist orthodoxy interpreting Yamnaya as responsible for the spread of all Indo-European languages (with the novelty of the origin of IE south of the Caucasus due to the absence of steppe ancestry in Anatolia), and Papac-M.Planck advocates the revolution of the Ukrainian forest steppe.
Both of them have a problem: there is no L51>L151>P312 neither in Yamnaya nor in Sredni Stog.
@LGK
Does your question mean that you don't know what language was spoken by the first R1b-M269 (Smyaodovo-4,500 BC)?
And if you don't have the slightest idea, how dare you disqualify the opinion of others, recognize that you don't know what the solution is and be respectful with everyone.
I can only say that the descendants of Smyadovo by direct male line M269>L51>L151>P312>DF27-Etruscans, Sicans, Aquitanians, Occitanians, Iberians and Tartessians, in Western Europe spoke NON-Indo-European languages 4,000 years later (i.e. 500 BC).
@Matt Interesting! I wonder if it will be possible to know whether a child was, at least, one of the older or younger children.
(I realise this is pretty off topic but, since a lot of the genetics of population spread is bound up with cultural issues like reproductive age, pregnancy-spacing and weaning resources/practices — and perhaps methylation effects — I hope Davidski will let it slide.)
I had wondered whether they were measuring femur length or something. Firstborn children were, up to the recent past, born prematurely often enough for it to be seen as normal. Up to the end of the 19th century premature birth/low birthweight was put down to its being the first pregnancy but, from our modern perspective, that correlation is with the youth of the mother.
On the other hand, subsequent children born less than three years after a previous one — they tend to be shorter. Those born with a three year gap apparently don’t suffer from maternal depletion.
To go by the absent girls in the abstract, they were being married off soon after menarche. (In Classical times they talked of menarche as typically being age 12-14, not so different from now.) A woman with six sons who reached adulthood … if you factor in the high rate of infant mortality and the likelihood of having a few daughters, does it seem likely that she had an average three years or so between pregnancies? Doesn’t seem too likely to me. Fertility rises as frequency of breastfeeding drops, and pastoralists can supplement weaning with animal milk.
But maybe, as you say, there could be something unique to a first pregnancy that leaves its mark on firstborns, that could show in methylation. As long as the eldest brother didn’t have an elder sister.
@Matt the ancestor of proto-Balto-Slavic splits around 2500 BCE and fits very well with CWC (Baltic CWC too). Split dates where languages cease being mutually intelligible are here https://www.science.org/cms/10.1126/science.abg0818/asset/289d8006-e849-4201-b0f6-69174a873320/assets/images/large/science.abg0818-fa.jpg
@Matt yDna turnover isn't a bad argument, but only as long as it meets no obstacles.
The issue with Sintashta, and even Fatyanovo and adjacent cultures, is primarily linguistic. "The Fatyanovo Culture people were the first farmers in the area" (Saag et al 2021). From Kroonen et al 2022, this eliminates them as the early Indo-Iranian speakers (not only were they farmers but were also in contact with the European IE which underwent agricultural shift). Another issue that arises is the period where Indo-Iranian split, if we assume that Sintashta/Andronovo = Indo-Iranian, it would mean that Iranian and Indo-Aryan split extraordinarily quickly. But that's secondary
Sintashta and Fatyanovo was favored as the only likely explanation, and I accepted it for years as well since there really wasn't any better explanation. Now however we have at least three:
- Some pre-Yamnaya (agrees with I-Ir split date in Heggarty) or even specific early Yamnaya group with R1b > moving south and east, can be seen in Hasanlu.
- Southern Arc urheimat > moving east
- Southern Arc urheimat > moving north > moving south > moving east
All fit the linguistic data better than Sintashta, which was mainly favored from spoked wheels. Since then spoked wheels have been uncovered in the Near East at the same or earlier date. It's only logical to put Sintashta as the second or third option since others are better supported candidates now. Same goes for Fatyanovo or any other farmer-shifted steppe culture.
If I'm not mistaken R1a-Z93 comes from R1a-M417 which is associated with CWC and farmer shifted. Can't really see a case being made for the haplogroup angle, and that's not even taking into account the possibility of the initial R1a vector in India having its language changed by another culture while in Central Asia.
R1a in South Asia seems to be a case similar to the various examples of yDna found in various countries in Europe that do not correspond with the local language. N with some non-Uralic speakers, R1b with some non-IE speakers both in modern and ancient times, and so on. If we assume that haplo spread = language spread, it points at whoever spread those haplos in that population not speaking an uralic or IE language in the first place. It's not that simple, which is why I'd favor linguistics first and foremost and genetics as the other half of the equation, corroborating already existing linguistic theories. (Heggarty does this to a great extent)
@EastPole The split of B-S into proto-Baltic and proto-Slavic is no earlier than 1800 BCE, you have to look at the point were the two languages separate completely in the tree
@Steppisch For sure read Olander, the Indo-Iranian and Balto-Slavic chapters. Available for free online here https://www.cambridge.org/core/books/the-indo-european-language-family/4B44B5ACF0D3BBA89B9408050F112A52 , they give a review of previous arguments as well. Recent work on B-S and I-Ir connection are brought up frequently exactly because they address previous work and hypotheses.
Better re-read Kroonen et al as well, not only for what he writes about Indo-Iranian but also because it's proto-Indo-Anatolian that he associates with Sredny Stog. He rejects Khalynsk/Yamnaya as the PIA homeland. (Anthony participated in the paper btw)
Kortlandt in 2016 wrote this, "The large majority of special correspondences between Balto-Slavic and IndoIranian are archaisms, not innovations. This is important because it implies that a comparison of Balto-Slavic with Indo-Iranian leads to a reconstruction of an early stage of Indo-European." which was supported by the more recent linguistic works (and now Heggarty, with the involved linguists agreeing as was mentioned by Greenhill).
Fatyanovo did not have a complete agricultural economy, nor did Corded Ware. It had an economy largely based on domestic livestock.
If anything, Fatyanovo representing Corded Ware individuals with only one to two generations of admixture is very consistent with Kroonen's observations about Indo-Iranian: "Indo-Iranian participated in the initial core Indo-European shift from a pastoralist to an agro-pastoralist economy, of which some elements later were lost. On the other hand, Indo-Iranian was peripheral to the more recent and more radical shift towards a farming economy, as reflected in the vocabularies of the European branches".
Orpheus doesn't know the difference between farmers and pastoralists.
Hehe.
@Orpheus
As I already explained, Matt's example about Lithuanians not being Uralic speakers isn't relevant.
It misses the point that Uralic speakers did move into Europe and their migration also brought haplogroup N, despite the fact that some populations that are rich in haplogroup N aren't Uralic speakers (Lithuanians), and also the fact that some populations that aren't rich in haplogroup N are Uralic speakers (Hungarians).
So even though Lithuanians don't speak Uralic, it's clear that haplogroup N is associated with the expansion of Uralic languages in Europe.
It's also clear that haplogroup R1a-Z93 is associated with the expansion of Indo-Iranian languages in Asia, and this fact has become more obvious thanks to ancient DNA.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/07/an-early-iranian-obviously.html
@GASKA...
As I suspected, Lazaridis is careful to say, "consistent with having been transmitted through a Yamnaya-like population". There is obviously a difference between Yamnaya-like (an autosomal reference) and Yamnaya Culture (a cultural reference).
So, to answer your question: "Do you agree with Lazaridis (still Yamnaya)"... I can't agree or disagree because, as you so clearly copied/pasted from the study, he did not say "Corded Ware came from the Yamnaya Culture".
Before my team sequenced the first propper Y-DNA of Magyars, people were using the lack of Y-hg N in modern Hungarians arguement to disconnect genetics, language & culture.
@Gaska
Surely you understand that the languages spoken by Iron Age peoples (even when we know what they were) are not really germane to the question of the Indo-Europeanization of peninsular Europe two millennia and more earlier. So, what the Etruscans and the Sicani spoke, for example, isn't relevant to a discussion of whether or not a particular Y-DNA haplogroup was brought to peninsular Europe by Indo-European steppe pastoralists. It's just not. Too much water under the bridge between the IE peoples and the Iron Age, too many ways for WSH Y-DNA to get into non-IE-speaking populations.
Besides, of the relatively small number of R1b-L51 and even R1b-DF27 speaking non-IE languages by the Iron Age, vastly more of them were still speaking Indo-European languages.
2000 or more years are a lot.
You never addressed yourself to the fact that DF27, U152 and BY140446 are all sons of ZZ11. Just to remind you, FTDNA Discover dates DF27 and U152 to 2550 BC. It makes BY140446 a bit younger (2400 BC). So it certainly seems likely that all three known sons of ZZ11 were born in the same general vicinity.
Who thinks that was Iberia? Nobody with any sense.
https://haplotree.info/maps/ancient_dna/slideshow_samples.php?searchcolumn=Y_Haplotree_Variant&searchfor=R-P312&ybp=500000,0
@ Gaska
I don't know how much this site is reliable, but they say that Sicilian R-P312 at Buffa is the oldest sample in aDNA found so far.
@Rocca-
Please, stay focused, Lazaridis said-“entirely consistent with being transmitted ENTIRELY by the Yamnaya” ergo, if you don't need a third source (WHG) originating further north (east or northeast according to you) the Bohemian-CWC has its origin in Yamnaya.
He was not thinking about the Ukrainian forest steppe and downplays the importance of that northern signal detected by Papac. If you and your sources are right and U106-P312 Ukrainian samples before 3,000 BC are going to be published, then Harvard, Lazaridis and Co. are screwed and the future of the relationship of the whole R1b-M269 to Indo-European will depend on the origin of those Ukrainian samples.
@Rich S-
Surely you understand that the genetic continuity of Df27 in Iberia, southern France, Etruria and Sicily from 2500 to the Iron Age is absolutely incompatible with the theory that the BB culture spoke an Indo-European language. There was no reason to change language and therefore it is absurd to think that our P312 ancestors spoke IE, that is just a fairy tale.
The knuckleheads are used to not using common sense and so they think that
1-R1b is a lineage linked to the EHGs when the oldest R1b has been found in Italy (Epigravettian-WHG, 12.100 BC)
2-R1b-M269 is a steppe marker when the oldest member of this lineage that we have is a farmer of the Gumelnite culture (Smyadovo, 4. 500 BC)
3-R1b-P310 has its origin in China or Mongolia when we have L51>L151 in Bohemia (central Europe, around 3.000 BC)
4-R1b-P312 is a Ukrainian marker when the oldest one is in Sicily (Buffa-I11443, 2.674 BC)
5-R1b-DF27 is a German or Central European lineage when the oldest ones have been found in Iberia and France.
With these data, everyone should understand that population movements related to R1b (between 12,000 and 2,000 BC) are always west-east and not the other way around. Only the obsession to link R1b with the origin and spread of IE leads many people to develop and defend theories that go against common sense. For you to be right, you should first
1-Find R1b in Siberia, Russia, Ukraine etc. before 12,000 BC
2-Find R1b-M269 in the steppes before 4.500 BC
3-Find R1b-L51>L151 in the steppes ((or steppe forest) before 3.000 BC)
4-Find R1b-P312 anywhere other than Sicily before 2.674 BC
5-Find R1b-Df27 anywhere other than Iberia or southern France before 2,434 BC
When you find them, we will talk, until then it is not worth discussing this matter with you.
Thanks Gio, that Sicilian sample turned out to be surprisingly old according to the new dating.
Increasingly I am thinking Etruscans have links with eastern Urnfield & Halstatt, and in turn back- links between Italy and Central Europe during PRIA
All the Yhg G in Wielbark speaks of considerable migration at some point, but the genome wide affinities of the G2a males aren’t hugely different to the I1. So the migration occurred centuries earlier perhaps. The appearance of house-urns is one clue, as is early amber “trade’
I’m still not sure about Iberian & Etruscan, but the collapse of El Argar must be a terminus ante quem
@Rob
The pylogeny of G-L497 in Scandinavia does seem to point to roughly 800-500 bc founder effects. I think it would be Celtic rather than Italic/Etruscan though.
I think I may have read something on more eastern urnfield influences in the Villanovan culture, and it could explain the earlier appearance of body armor cuirasses there compared to say France; although that is based on the oldest cases found which may not be a perfect representation of the past.
Luka Papac et al-- and or Sandra and Wofgang.
There are some of us that have a small problem with your Corded Ware and Bell Beaker samples and how they are connected, if indeed they are connected to the spread of Indo-European culture as many claim.
Can you explain how the ydna samples in your paper from the forest Corded Ware and the extending Bell Beaker culture connect to Hittite and Tocharian cultures?
1) Using material culture, including artifacts, architecture, biofacts or ecofacts, ancient sites, and cultural landscapes--- just how are they connected?
2) Using archaeogenetics --and the study of ancient DNA using various molecular genetic methods and DNA resources genetic analysis -- applied to human, animal, and plant specimen.
Hittite--
"The ancestors of the Hittites came into Anatolia between 4400 and 4100 BC, when the Anatolian language family split from (Proto)-Indo-European.[23] Recent genetic and archaeological research has indicated that Proto-Anatolian speakers arrived in this region sometime between 5000 and 3000 BC.[24] The Proto-Hittite language developed around 2100 BC,[25] and the Hittite language itself is believed to have been in use in Central Anatolia between 20th and 12th centuries BC.[26]"
Tocharian--
"The Tocharian (sometimes Tokharian) languages (/təˈkɛəriən/ or /təˈkɑːriən/), also known as Arśi-Kuči, Agnean-Kuchean or Kuchean-Agnean, are an extinct branch of the Indo-European language family spoken by inhabitants of the Tarim Basin, the Tocharians.[3] The languages are known from manuscripts dating from the 5th to the 8th century AD, which were found in oasis cities on the northern edge of the Tarim Basin (now part of Xinjiang in Northwest China) and the Lop Desert. The discovery of these languages in the early 20th century contradicted the formerly prevalent idea of an east–west division of the Indo-European language family as centum and satem languages,"
off topic, but does anyone know how much steppe there is in the individual Mycenaean samples from Lazaridis 2022 'A genetic probe into the ancient and medieval history of Southern Europe and West Asia'?
Fig. 1D (Aegean:EHG) shows that the samples have up to ~12.5 EHG, which I assume is about 25% steppe. But this isn't mentioned anywhere in the text or the supplementary material. Am I correct that the Mycenaean samples have up to ~12.5 EHG / 25% steppe?
You can't really work out the level of Eastern European steppe ancestry by testing the level of EHG ancestry, because EHG is a forest marker. Steppe ancestry is just something that is distantly related to EHG.
The Southern Arc analysis just looks contrived.
It seems to have been specifically designed to underestimate the level of Eastern European steppe ancestry in West Asia.
Thanks, so do you know approximately how much steppe the Lazaridis Mycenaean samples have at most (i.e. what's the highest amount)?
If some have up to 25% or more steppe it seems very misleading to describe them as only having '4.8% EHG' as Lazaridis does in the paper.
@GASKA, I guess we can "lawyer up" and fault Lazaridis for not continuing to use "Yamnaya-like" everywhere or use a "Hereafter Yamnaya" to clarify if his interpretation is based on the genetic component or the culture. Until forest steppe samples are published, it is impossible to offer anything more educated guesses. The other problem is with the use of the word 'Northern'. There could be Late Neolithic samples from Sweden that are more "Southern" than Ukraine samples, but it is because they are shifted heavily towards EEF samples, not because they are more geographically "Southern". Either way, nobody is losing sleep if Corded Ware originated in a forest steppe Yamnaya-like culture and not in the Ukraine and Yamnaya itself.
@Gaska
No need to take offense, the question is very simple. 1) Is P312 of intrusive origin to Iberia from Baltic or Balkan origins and 2) if so did it bring a new language to Iberia?
Of the possible scenarios you must realise that if:
- Both 1 and 2 are correct, P312 is not native to Iberia and neither is Vasconic or Iberian. But Vasconic or Iberian may be contiguous there from the (late) Chalcolithic. My congratulations!
- Only 1 is correct, in which case a language switch occurred from P312's native language to whatever was spoken in Iberia. This is your nightmare scenario as now the linguistic origin origin of P312 is irrelevant and he could as well have been an Indo-European who switched.
@ Copper Axe
''The pylogeny of G-L497 in Scandinavia does seem to point to roughly 800-500 bc founder effects. I think it would be Celtic rather than Italic/Etruscan though''
Yes, theyre clearly linked to a set of Celtic-associated contexts, but deeply linked to Unetice groups.
The Etruscan G2a from Venosa & Vetulnia have a broader base - some central Europe (often German LBK! ), others Unetice,/ Celtic, seem to be linked to Copper Age individuals of Sardinia & SW EUrope
@AJ
If some have up to 25% or more steppe it seems very misleading to describe them as only having '4.8% EHG' as Lazaridis does in the paper.
Yeah, I think the Southern Arc paper is misleading in this sense.
The average level of Yamnaya Samara-related ancestry in the high quality Mycenaean samples seems to be about 15%, with some of these samples having about 10% more than that.
That's what I found by using a three-way G25 analysis.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k1GAZJ5h8eJSydDgjdFyeQVfmlHfvtbX/view?usp=sharing
It's probably possible to get better fitting models by using more relevant reference populations. And then you would need to corroborate your G25 models with qpAdm.
Also, by using a more relevant Yamnaya proxy than Yamnaya Samara, it might be possible to significantly push up the level of steppe-related ancestry in these Mycenaeans.
So, for example, by using Yamnaya samples from Bulgaria or Romania, some of the Mycenaeans might end up with ~50% Yamnaya-related ancestry.
Gaska wrote:
“The knuckleheads are used to not using common sense and so they think that
1-R1b is a lineage linked to the EHGs when the oldest R1b has been found in Italy (Epigravettian-WHG, 12.100 BC)
2-R1b-M269 is a steppe marker when the oldest member of this lineage that we have is a farmer of the Gumelnite culture (Smyadovo, 4. 500 BC)
3-R1b-P310 has its origin in China or Mongolia when we have L51>L151 in Bohemia (central Europe, around 3.000 BC)
4-R1b-P312 is a Ukrainian marker when the oldest one is in Sicily (Buffa-I11443, 2.674 BC)
5-R1b-DF27 is a German or Central European lineage when the oldest ones have been found in Iberia and France.”
My response:
1. Villabruna again? That has been dealt with time and time again. Davidski addressed it quite well here: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/villabruna-cluster-near-eastern-migrants.html
2. Smyadovo (I2181) – He had significant steppe DNA, as you have been told over and over and over. The fact that he was R1b-M269 and had steppe DNA (a combination this far unique among Balkan farmers) simply shows that he was the Y-DNA descendant of a migrant from the steppe. No ancient R1b-M269 (and subclades) has been found unaccompanied by steppe DNA, nor has it been found among any Neolithic farmers in Europe west of the steppe. If R1b-M269 were a Balkan EEF lineage, as you imply, it should be turning up regularly among Balkan Neolithic farmers. It isn’t. Must I quote Mathieson et al again about Smyadovo?
3. No one is claiming R1b-P310 has its origin in China or Mongolia. However, R1b-P310 has turned up TWICE thus far in the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture, in two separate scientific papers. Afanasievo obviously had its origin on the steppe, probably among Repin people between the Volga and the Ural. Shatar Chuluu 1 (R1b-P310) is slightly older than any of Papac’s Bohemian CW samples (though they are also very old – the oldest CW samples thus far).
4. Buffa, Sample I11443 – You just heard about that sample from Gioiello, who uncritically got it off Carlos Quiles’s web site. You haven’t bothered to find out in what paper that sample appears, whether or not it really is P312+, if it has been c14 dated, or what its autosomal profile looks like. Let me help you out. I11443 comes from Fernandes et al, “The Spread of Steppe and Iranian Related Ancestry in the Islands of the Western Mediterranean” (2020) (nice title, eh?). It was c14 dated to 2279-2102 calBC. So, you can take the I11443 arrow from your quiver. It’s not that old.
Gioiello also recently told you about a sample from Adige, Italy, that was supposed to be the oldest P312 ever found. That turned out to be a big nothing burger. I asked FTDNA’s Göran Runström about it. Very low coverage, Runström said, as the sample came from dental calculus. Adige was not c14 dated, and the paper it appeared in, Granhälle et al (2021), lists it in the spreadsheet as a biological female, naturally providing no Y-DNA haplogroup for it.
5. Again, DF27 is supposed to date back to 2550 BC and is a son of ZZ11, along with U152 and BY140446. It could not have been born in Iberia, if Villalba-Mouco et al and Olalde et al are right, because there was no R1b-P312 of any kind in Iberia before 2400 BC. Could it have arisen in France? Maybe, but frankly, I doubt it.
@Rich S
Congratulations, little by little you are improving, you even recognize that DF27 can have its origin in France (no wonder because officially the Narbonne sample is the oldest to date), now you just have to be less lazy and keep looking for P312 in Iberia before 2400 Ac, sure you will succeed.
Regarding the Sicilian sample, the new dating was discussed a long time ago and there seems to be no reason to doubt. In any case, don't worry according to Rocca there is P312 in the Ukrainian forest steppe next to U106, if it is confirmed and its dating is earlier than the western samples then the discussion regarding the origin of that lineage will be over.
I know that there are some things that are hard for you to understand, but you have to try again, when I2181-Smyadovo-R1b-M269 lived (4,500 BC) there was still NO Indo-European language and there was still NO steppe DNA.
That sample can only be modeled using earlier or contemporary cultures (Khvalynsk) or using distal models as Lazaridis did. And in all cases the sample is overwhelmingly a Neolithic European farmer. So I am sorry that your dreams have been so brutally destroyed, the first sample of our lineage not only did not speak IE but also did not have steppe DNA, only very small percentages of EHG and CHG like the rest of the contemporary Bulgarian samples.
I will remind you what you have to do for the next few years;
1-Find R1b-L754 in Siberia, Russia, Ukraine etc. before 12,000 BC
2-Find R1b-M269 in the steppes before 4.500 BC
3-Find R1b-L51>L151 in the steppes (or forest steppe) before 3.000 BC
4-Find R1b-P312 anywhere other than Sicily before 2.674 BC
5-Find R1b-Df27 anywhere other than Iberia or southern France before 2,434 BC
Until you get it, limit yourself to expose your theories with humility, thinking that maybe you are wrong.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05131-3 - "Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe"
Published, although nothing new for us since we've already read the preprint and have had the G25 preliminary data.
By process of elimination, can we say that certain branches of R1b have not been found to date in any steppe kurgan-Turganic-Dom2 horse burials, and or wagon/chariot burials? And the same branches have not been found( and or very little 1 or 2 samples if any) in "ancient" proto-Hittite-Tocharian, Yamnaya, Sredny Stog, Deriivka, Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta, Scythian, Sarmatian, Armenian, Iranian, Greek, Albanian?
Yet the same branches are connected the spread of Indo-European language groups, since they are Yamnaya like and found in ancient Bohemia?
@ALL Here’s a nice Quora post by Ygor Coelho about the origins of Proto-Indo-Europeans, one of the most thorough posters on the site re: European genetics. I thought you might enjoy reading it:
https://www.quora.com/How-did-the-combination-of-blonde-hair-and-blue-eyes-arise-amongst-the-people-of-the-Globular-Amphora-Culture-if-they-were-mostly-of-Early-European-Farmer-ancestry
@GASKA..."In any case, don't worry according to Rocca there is P312 in the Ukrainian forest steppe next to U106."
I'm trying not to sling mud and stay amicable in my replies, so please don't put words in my mouth. I didn't say I have proof that P312 was there. I said that the sources say there was U106 and L151 already in the forest steppe and so it is only logical, based on mutation rates, that P312 may have existed already in the earliest Corded Ware. It is called deductive reasoning.
I'll have to try to answer you in two separate posts, Gaska, if David will allow it, because a proper response requires too many words for the blog to accept at one go. Here's installment 1.
Gaska wrote:
“I know that there are some things that are hard for you to understand, but you have to try again, when I2181-Smyadovo-R1b-M269 lived (4,500 BC) there was still NO Indo-European language and there was still NO steppe DNA.
That sample can only be modeled using earlier or contemporary cultures (Khvalynsk) or using distal models as Lazaridis did. And in all cases the sample is overwhelmingly a Neolithic European farmer. So I am sorry that your dreams have been so brutally destroyed, the first sample of our lineage not only did not speak IE but also did not have steppe DNA, only very small percentages of EHG and CHG like the rest of the contemporary Bulgarian samples.”
My response:
Once a model of steppe DNA was established, based as it was on Yamnaya, wherever and in whatever time period it appears, it is called by that name and connects a sample to other populations bearing that profile. It doesn’t matter that I2181 (Smyadovo) predates Yamnaya.
The fact that he had steppe DNA and was R1b-M269 shows that Smyadovo was the descendant of a steppe migrant. If R1b-M269 were a Balkan Neolithic farmer lineage, it would be showing up frequently among the remains of Balkan Neolithic farmers and without steppe DNA. It isn’t showing up among them because it’s a steppe pastoralist lineage. That “the rest of the contemporary Bulgarian samples” (contemporary with Smyadovo I guess you mean) did not have steppe DNA is clear from what Mathieson et al wrote on page 8 of their paper, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe" (2018):
"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe-related ancestry (Figure 1B,D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years, but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000 BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it."
Installment 2 -
Gaska wrote:
“I will remind you what you have to do for the next few years;
1-Find R1b-L754 in Siberia, Russia, Ukraine etc. before 12,000 BC
2-Find R1b-M269 in the steppes before 4.500 BC
3-Find R1b-L51>L151 in the steppes (or forest steppe) before 3.000 BC
4-Find R1b-P312 anywhere other than Sicily before 2.674 BC
5-Find R1b-Df27 anywhere other than Iberia or southern France before 2,434 BC”
My response:
1. R1b-L754 in Siberia, etc. - HG populations were very small, but a very old R1b-M343 of L754 may turn up in a Paleolithic sample from Siberia eventually. We already have R-M207 (Mal’ta Boy) from there. As Gioiello already told you, Villabruna was probably descended from R1b of, as he put it, “the Siberian corridor”.
2. R1b-M269 on the steppe before 4500 BC - That is coming eventually, but we already have an old R1b-M269 in far eastern Bulgaria, with his toes almost in the Black Sea, who had steppe DNA (Smyadovo, I2182). He had steppe DNA, Gaska. Steppe DNA.
3. R1b-L51 on the steppe before 3000 BC - Shatar Chuluu 1 (R1b-P310), Sample I6222/SHT001, is c14 dated to 3316-2918 BC, and Nileke 5-3 (R1b-P310), Sample C3341, is c14 dated to 2815-2526 BC. Both of them belonged to the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture. Besides them, the very oldest CW samples thus far known were R1b-L151, and CW is regarded by consensus as a culture with its origin on the steppe. Those oldest L151 CW samples were also loaded with steppe DNA and cluster close to Yamnaya.
4. R1b-P312 anywhere other than Sicily before 2674 BC – Well, it hasn’t been found in Sicily that old either. I already told you that Buffa (I11443) isn’t that old. It’s c14 dated to 2279-2102 calBC (see Fernandes et al 2020, the paper that sample appears in).
5. DF27 anywhere other than Iberia or southern France before 2434 BC - DF27 is a subclade of P312. Its origin is not really germane to that of R1b in general or even of R1b-L51 in general. If FTDNA Discover is right, it’s too old to have arisen in Iberia, because there was no R1b-P312 of any kind there before 2400 BC. If DF27 was born on the moon, it wouldn’t really change things, although it would be interesting.
As for discussing these things with anyone, Gaska, I think you would be better off if you shut your mouth and opened a few books, like those important books you still haven’t read, including Reich’s Who We Are and How We Got Here, Anthony’s The Horse the Wheel and Language, Mallory’s In Search of the Indo-Europeans, etc. In the meantime, you’re just making an ass of yourself.
@Rocca
You wrote-"Since I've been told by 3 different sources that there is fully formed R-U106 already there in the late 4th millennium, then it stands to reason that R-P312 WAS LIKELY THERE AS WELL, since they are both brother clades to R-L151"
Well, you know what Max Planck & Papac thinks about it, don't you?
Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe-Luka Papac-
“however, they predominantly carry R1b-P312, a Y-lineage NOT YET FOUND AMONG CW or Yamnaya MALES. 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”
“A scenario of R1b-P312 originating somewhere between Bohemia and England, possibly in the VICINITY OF THE RHINE, followed by an expansion northwest and east is compatible with our current understanding of the phylogeography of ancient R1b-L151–derived lineages”
It's funny because I wrote those words or very similar ones, more than 5 years ago (and I have the posts saved). I am proud to think that if I am wrong to bet on a western origin of P312, Max Planck will also be wrong.
@Rich S
Calm yourself down, you are losing your temper (it is impossible to lose your good manners because you have never had them). Your answer is an example of ignorance, incompetence and impotence.
1-"L754 may turn up in Paleolithic sample from Siberia eventually"
Yeah, it may turn up, but it may also not turn up, so until you find it, keep looking.
2-"R1b-M269 on the steppe is coming eventually"
Yeah, it's coming but until it arrives, you should also keep looking, you've got a lot of work piling up.
3-"Mongolia, China", etc
I said R1b-L51>L151, before 3.000 BC in the steppe, please keep looking
4-"R1b-P312 hasn’t been found in Sicily that old"
Really???, have you ordered a new dating?, which lab has studied the sample?, can you share the result with us? - If you don't have a new dating or can't share it, please keep looking
5-"If FTDNA Discover is right, it’s too old to have arisen in Iberia"
There are P312 and even DF27 older than 2400 in Iberia. You should stop reading those books that you recommend so much, they don't let you think clearly.
And as for what Steppe DNA is, your answer is so funny that even someone who has no idea about genetics would think you've lost your mind.
Just a few facts for your understanding-
At first steppe DNA-Yamnaya was EHG + CHG
Wang found out it was EHG +CHG + EEF,
and then Lazaridis thinks it is EHG + CHG + Levant (NO EEF)
You see, not even the most prestigious geneticists agree, and yet you know perfectly well what Steppe DNA is and when it was formed, maybe you deserve a Nobel Prize.
All these components existed in Bugaria in the Neolithic in different proportions, try to understand it, you can waste all the time you want making anachronistic models with I2181, but it will never stop being a typical neolithic Balkan farmer.
Gaska wrote:
“@Rich S
Calm yourself down, you are losing your temper (it is impossible to lose your good manners because you have never had them). Your answer is an example of ignorance, incompetence and impotence.”
My response:
That’s funny. I’m perfectly calm. As for my answers, as usual they contain examples of what I'm talking about. I cite sources, provide c14 dates, etc. I quote the authors of scientific papers, especially when what they wrote utterly and completely refutes and contradicts what you say. Take for example the quote from Mathieson et al in my post from earlier today concerning Smyadovo and steppe DNA. One would think you would be embarrassed. Over the years you have been absolutely humiliated and publicly shamed numerous times, and not just by me. It's amazing you're still around and unashamed to use the same oft-discredited screen name.
Just about every time new evidence from archaeogenomics surfaces, it blows you out of the water, but you simply ignore it and make up some dismissive crap about it. Take all those R1b-L151 earliest CW results, and the two R1b-P310 Afanasievo results, for example. Good grief!
Rich Rocca’s answers to you, and his questions to you, are of the same nature as mine: he cites sources, provides examples with c14 dates, and provides quotes from the authors of scientific papers. Others here do the same. It's standard operating procedure among the civilized.
You, on the other hand, almost never bolster your arguments with anything but imbecilic insults. You often repeat old arguments that were long since refuted and trot out ancient examples whose results do the exact opposite of what you intend.
As for “ignorance, incompetence and impotence”, well, doesn’t it bother you that you have not read the books that probably every other person who participates on this blog has read? You have little idea really of what Reich has to say on the subject of ancient DNA in Iberia, for example, or what experts like Anthony, Mallory and Kristiansen have to say about European prehistory, especially when it comes to the Indo-Europeans. You dismissed out of hand what Lazaridis had to say in his "Southern Arc" paper about the origin of R1b-M269, as if you know better.
Doesn’t any of that trouble you? It should.
The rest of your post was just redundant drivel, so I won’t bother trifling with it again.
@Rich S said-"You dismissed out of hand what Lazaridis had to say in his "Southern Arc" paper about the origin of R1b-M269, as if you know better"
Ha Ha Ha, look at what Lazaridis actually says about M269
“Where did the R-M269 founder live?-The early presence of this lineage in steppe samples and its association with steppe ancestry in MANY of its descendants may suggest that the R1b-M269 founder belonged to a population with EHG ancestry. However, the COMPLETE LACK OF ASSOCIATION of R1b-haplogroup descendants and EHG ancestry in either Armenia or Iran is consistent with either a massive dilution of EHG ancestry in these populations resulting in the dissociation of Ychromosome lineages from autosomal ancestry over time, or with a SCENARIO IN WHICH R1b-M269 WAS NOT ASSOCIATED WITH SUBSTANTIAL EHG ANCESTRY to begin with. At present, WE HAVE NO archaeogenetic information ON WHERE THE R1b-M269 POPULATION ORIGINATED. The TMRCA of R1b-M269 descendants is 6,400 ybp and of the immediately upstream node R1b-P297 a much earlier 13,300 ybp-HapY-R1b-P297(xM269) chromosomes are found in huntergatherers from the Baltic as well as in a hunter-gatherer from the Samara region of Russia???-This would suggest an EHG-associated origin of this lineage, but the “long branch” of R1b-M269 reduces greatly any confidence in the proximity of the earliest R-M269 bearers to these eastern European relatives. Yet, the data are equally CONSISTENT WITH A SCENARIO IN WHICH THE R1b-M269 FOUNDER DID NOT HAVE EHG. It is a challenge for future archaeogenetic research to pinpoint the origin of the R-M269 lineage”
Even Harvard does not know where the origin of M269 is although they already have Smyaodovo (4,500 BC). So keep searching and learning, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
My advice is to keep reading, but not Gimbutas, Anthony, Kristiansen and company, but the genetic papers that are published, that will not make you smarter, but it will surely make you wiser.
Try to deal with it, your first M269 is overwhelmingly a neolithic farmer.
Using the new G25 data, the ancestral components of mainstream Yamnaya/Afanasievo can be modeled as approximately 65% Corded Ware, 25% Maykop/Kotias:
https://i.imgur.com/MPLqnkJ.png
@Gaska & Rich
The comments about M269 in the Southern Arc paper are alarmingly stupid, considering that this paper was published in the Science journal and co-authored by over 200 people.
The authors claim that they don't know where M269 came from because there's no association between M269 and steppe ancestry in Armenia and Iran.
This makes no sense for two reasons:
1) M269 first shows up in the West Asian ancient DNA record in groups that have steppe ancestry, and so it does show an early association with steppe ancestry
2) the observation that there's no association with steppe ancestry in Armenian and Iranian individuals with M269 is not a useful observation, because in genetically homogeneous groups there are never any associations between genome-wide genetic components and Y-chromosome haplogroups.
We can apply the same stupid argument to argue that M269 originated in Portugal or Sweden, where, just like in Armenia, there's no longer any association between M269 and steppe ancestry. That is, Swedes with I1 have as much steppe ancestry as those with M269.
Clearly, there's a problem at the David Reich Lab with a basic understanding of this sort of stuff.
Just a few years ago who would have guessed and or imagined the following finds,
-- M269 being found in Smyaodovo (4,500 BC).
1)R1b - 14,000-year-old individual from Villabruna Cave 1, Italy.
2)R1b-V88 in Europe-https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/08/r1b-v88-out-of-balkans-and-into-africa.html
3)R1b-V1636 connected to Pontic-Caspian steppe and Corded Ware-Single Grave Culture Denmark.
3)Yamnaya IBD connecting Corded Ware-Swedish Battle Axe Culture.
4)Yamnaya ydna found in Deriivka(SS late phase)/Abashevo shared burial mound with R1a/Potopovka/Sintashta cultures. "Yamnaya like" -NON Ydna found in none of the above, but in early Bohemia Bell Beakers and vast numbers in Western Europe.
5)Dom2 genetic horse remains , compared to possible origins in Anatolia- Deriivka(SS)- Corded Ware- Bell Beaker - Sintashta - Pontic-Caspian steppe.
All R comes from ANE anyways so obviously R1b ultimately is ANE derived.
It cannot have been in WHG ancestors.
@Silvia
Those models tell you nothing, G25 isnt supposed to be used in a "insert 10000 references and press play" manner.
Furthermore, steppe maykop =/= maykop. The Steppe Maykop population were a mix between eastern european steppe inhabitants and ANE-rich central asians/west-siberians.
@GASKA, you were calling for "surprises" of an L51 origin in Western Europe just a few years ago. A quote from YOU:
GASKA quoted dated to 01-03-2021: On the other hand, M269 and L51 are markers that suffered strong bottlenecks and therefore finding samples will be difficult, but don't worry because they will appear. Iberia, France and Germany as well as Italy are fundamental, geneticists have to continue analyzing sites to clarify the mystery.
Gaska wrote:
“Ha Ha Ha, look at what Lazaridis actually says about M269”
My response:
Only two kinds of people begin posts with “Ha Ha Ha”: teenage girls and blithering idiots.
To which category do you belong?
Evidently, you don’t really understand the quote you provided. It contains no real assertions about the origin of R1b-M269. It’s a statement about the facts as the authors – at least some of them – see them, and the set of apparent contradictions presented by those facts. But I trust you read David’s answer, in which he points out the fallacies in the reasoning in that excerpt you quoted. (I assume you quoted it. You provided no real source attribution, no page numbers, etc.)
Then again, the following is what Lazaridis et al wrote on pages 332-333 of the Supplementary Material of their paper, "The genetic history of the Southern Arc: A bridge between West Asia and Europe". Note that where they write "Z2013" that's a typo. Z2103 is meant.
"Given that within the phylogeny of R-M269 (R-PF7562, (R-L51, R-Z2013)) both R-PF7562 and R-Z2013 have their earliest examples in the North Caucasus and steppe to the north, the most likely hypothesis is that the entire R-M269 clade originated there as well, with R-L51 representing a lineage that eventually became highly successful in mainland Europe, R-PF7562 a lineage that did not achieve the prominence of its relatives, and R-Z2013 became highly successful (briefly) as part of the Yamnaya culture and its offshoots . . . "
That’s actually a clear-cut statement of what they believe, given the phylogeography of ancient DNA results relative to R1b-M269, what they call “the most likely hypothesis”, minus any dithering about EHG in Iran and Armenia.
Gaska wrote:
“Even Harvard does not know where the origin of M269 is although they already have Smyaodovo (4,500 BC). So keep searching and learning, you have a lot of work ahead of you.
My advice is to keep reading, but not Gimbutas, Anthony, Kristiansen and company, but the genetic papers that are published, that will not make you smarter, but it will surely make you wiser.
Try to deal with it, your first M269 is overwhelmingly a neolithic farmer.”
My response:
A single ancient sample from eastern Bulgaria belonging to a steppe Y-DNA haplogroup (R1b-M269), and with ample steppe autosomal DNA, is overwhelming evidence that R1b-M269 is a Balkan Neolithic farmer lineage? That’s ridiculous. Naturally you’ve noticed how R1b-M269 is conspicuous among Neolithic farmers by its absence. So is steppe DNA.
No, Gaska. Smyadovo (I2181) was very obviously the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe migrant.
Consider that dealt with.
You still refuse to read any of the numerous books you should read to become even semi-literate in the topics addressed at Eurogenes. Your loss, but it lets everyone else here understand why you write the goofy things you write: you don’t know much, and you’re unwilling to address that.
@Rich S-
Again, Ha Ha Ha Ha, it must be very hard to be wrong all the time, don't be lazy and study some genetics.
@Rocca-
You have nothing to say about Max Planck's opinion about the origin of P312? You are still thinking that “it was likely in the forest steppe”?
For me it is an honor that you have saved my posts (I also have yours saved), so you will realize that I have been right many times (Iberian Bell Beaker migrations, origin of Df27, origin of P312, non-existence of L51>L151 in Yamnaya, appearance of M269 in European neolithic cultures, genetic continuity in Iberia since the chalcolithic, linkage of R1b with WHGs) and that you have been wrong a lot
Regarding the post you mention just remind you that we have gravettian-mesolithic-neolithic-L754>M269 in Italy, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Spain.
When those leaked samples of L51>L151 in the forest steppe are published then we will see what is their origin (currently is Bohemia, not far from Germany right?), it certainly doesn't make me lose sleep, I am not a greedy man, I am content with what I have achieved so far.
Remember "Delenda Est Yamnaya"
Mattila et al 2023 is out
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-05131-3
Genetic continuity, isolation, and gene flow in Stone Age Central and Eastern Europe
There's something like ~10% or so CHG in ancient Ukraine, consistent with a "first wave" pre-Neolithic CHG into the steppe as per Lazaridis et al 2022
The Sredny Stog individual is an outlier among other Eneolithic Ukrainian samples, more "Iran-shifted" (as per the paper) and was modeled as 2/3 Yamnaya
Thoughts?
@EthanR Better read Kroonen et al 2022, all CWC-related languages are agriculture-shifted. Pilpul about whether they were more EEFs than EEFs or whatever doesn't magically make this inconvenient fact go away. Their economy is far more farmer heavy than the PIA community, and this is reflected in the language itself (of all the later cultures deriving from these populations, who also practiced the same lifestyle)
Fatyanovo has 30-35% EEF ancestry (Saag et al 2021), it's not even early CWC. It's late CWC era, fully after the agricultural shift had completed, and then moved eastward (as Saag himself notes).
Needless to say that their ancestral haplogroup is also not "peripheral" to the mainland CWC. Maybe if they were some old R1b this case could be made. It would also be more consistent with pastoralism (see Afanasievo). But it's not, and the other three options remain superior
@Davidski Disagree. Early R1b is just as relevant as is ANF+Iran ancestry found in SC Asia coinciding with early split dates for I-Ir and also consistent with a date for Iranian and Indo-Aryan split (Sintashta is too late for that). Linguistic restrictions make Sintashta/Fatyanovo/etc the least likely option currently or rather, make the other options more likely since they don't contradict any research
@GASKA.. Your post was only two years old, so you were completely wrong not too recently. And no, you don't have samples of pre-Corded Ware and pre-Bell Beaker M269 samples from Italy, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Spain.. and if you do, post the IDs.
And no, nobody is arguing against some lineages of R1b in WHG, as it took the entire M269 branch with its 104 SNPs almost 7,000 years to materialize. And nobody cares about dead-end branches that don't relate to L51 and its descendants. So please, stay on point.
@Orpheus
Thoughts?
You're either a moron or insane.
Corded Ware nor Fatyanovo had a robust farming economy. It'd be lovely if you could provide a source for the agricultural activities partaken by them beyond an offhand quote from a geneticist. Again, the core of their economy was domestic livestock.
Fatyanovo isn't a late CW culture, and we have samples from 2700-2600BC. Additionally, in DATES, the Sintashta set returns one of the earliest date of admixture of CW-related cultures. I don't think it's a coincidence R-Z93 hasn't shown up in Corded Ware-proper.
"all CWC-related languages are agriculture-shifted"
As is Indo-Iranian, I'm not sure what your point is.
Also, the more accurate way to put it is that all European IE languages are agriculture-shifted, whether they come from Corded Ware or something else (Greek).
@Rich S @Richard Rocca
I feel like you guys should just stop engaging with Gaska to be honest. Just the same lies repeated over and over in every comment thread, ignoring the same facts presented to him every time. It's kind of internet 101, a phrase I feel like I haven't seen for years but bears dragging back up from the past: Don't feed the trolls!
People have been commenting about R1b-PF7562. Looks like lineage associated with, proto-Illyrian and NW Greek ('Dorians").
@Orpheus
I don't care that you disagree, and I'm not interested in your special pleading.
A few points for the honest and objective people reading these comments:
- Heggarty's model is experimental and it'll be debunked just like his earlier work was debunked
- there is no ancient DNA evidence of any early R1b in South or even Central Asia that can be tied to the spread of Indo-Iranian languages, and modern DNA is useless for these sorts of things
- you haven't shown any evidence that the Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Sintashta etc. peoples farmed anything.
So unless you start making some sense, then shut up.
I think there is something to be said about earlier steppe presence in southern Caucasus & NW Iran dating to 4000 bc and 2500 bc
People place too much faith in Sintashta being “indo-Aryan” on the basis of some cultural premonitions
The possibility of layering and dialect convergence is why I largely ignore the language trees constructed by linguistic-based linguistics
Certainly the interplay between early indo-Iranian & Hurrian should not be ignored
@All
Heggarty to improve!
The Indo-European language tree need not be a hybrid; Its origin does not need to be sought in the Iranian Neolithic population.
There is no need to question the closer affinity of Baltic (Balto-Slavs) and Indo-Iranian and to deny the centum-satow dialects and the rules of "ruki".
The solution is simple.
According to classical Indo-European studies, it should be recognized that centum was the initial, root dialect of Indo-European languages. There was no shared innovation in the group. They were created only after the migrations of separate groups (see I.R. Danka in: Bednarczuk, Języki Indo Europejskie, vol. 1, p. 280 and here).
Common linguistic innovations, even before the migrations, took place only in the satem dialect, and further innovations separately in each group, either during or after the migration.
And all of this could only be in the R1a genetic family.
The first migration of R1a with the kentum diaect, branch YP4141 (and probably the younger YP7211), probably took place through the Southern Carpathians, and from there to Anatolia, Iran, Arabia and Palestine; and separately to the Alps.
Later under snip M417 snip and dialect kentum CTS4385 moved to Northern and Western Europe.
On the other hand, in the lines under the Z645 snip, innovations were made separately for the Z283 line, mainly to Central and Eastern Europe, and separately for the Z93 line, mainly to Asia.
See film (10 min.): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-iungylb-La&t=430s
(start set from minute 7.10, i.e. 430 sec.)
@ Dave
''Proto-Armenian from Catacomb (2500 BC).''
Yes. However, there might be some corresppndences which precede the well-known intense historical contacts between Iranian & Armenian
@ StP
Have you noticed that you & Bolek are the R1a version of Carlos Quilles?
@R.Rocca-
I see, you are desperately trying to find some issue where I was wrong because you can't stand that I got many of my predictions right, that's why you don't even dare to discuss them with me.
That is to say, you think that if L151 is confirmed in the Ukrainian forest steppe you will have proven me wrong. Well, I have always said that I am not a fortune teller, and that I have no idea what is the origin of L51, but the fact that it does not appear in Yamnaya culture opens the door to many possibilities (western europe, France even Italy), Central Europe (Germany, Bohemia), the Baltic (where there are tons of R1b), the Balkans (where we have R1b-M269). Now we have L51>L151 in Bohemia with a clear WHG-northern signal (may be the Baltic and why not Ukraine where we also have L754), but you have to be clear that even if it appears in the forest steppe it did not arrive there from Khvalynsk or Yamnaya, but from the north (Russia or the Baltic) or from the south (Bulgaria). Here are some old posts that demonstrate what I am saying
-Anthrogenica-Oldest Steppe Bell Beaker’s-Gaska (18/05/2.018)- “If you ask me, where is the origin of L51, I don`t Know. It could be the first to leave the steppes or perhaps Central European
-Anthrogenica-Sangmeister’s Reflux Model and the Origin of the Bell Beaker Complex-Gaska (10/09/2018-08:52 AM-P187)-“I have absolutely clear that my Y-R1b-M269 line comes from Eastern Europe. I also know that P312 doesn't come from the Yamnaya culture, nor from any of the cultures related to it, and that the BB culture originated in Iberia”
Anthrogenica Forum-Iberian Ancient DNA on the works-Gaska (27/11/2.018-05:52PM-P77)-“ I think that they will not find L23>L51 in the chalcolithic of the steppes, and maybe they will have to look at the Baltic countries”
So, as you will see, I don't worry about the final origin of L51>L151, I am satisfied with having contributed to demolish the Yamnaya culture because I always thought it was foolish to defend the possibility that this marker was there with the absurd argument that its brother Z2103 was there and because it was evident that there was no genetic continuity through the paternal line between Yamnaya and the BB culture.
You, however, have been wrong so many times by insisting on being one of the guardians of the Kurganist orthodoxy that no wonder you can't stand that others have been right.
By the way, I guess you must have made a mistake in the date of the post you sent (01-03-2.021), can you tell me in which forum I made that comment?
@Rob
The earliest contacts between Armenian and Indo-Iranian, or at least their ancestors in some form, are potentially on the steppe, where there were contacts between Catacomb and Abashevo.
@Gaska
"Dishonest? don't make me laugh, all I am saying, is that to date, M269 does not originate in the steppes but in Bulgaria. Lazaridis, southern Arc paper has confirmed what we said in this blog 3 years ago (thanks to Arza)."
That is not all you have said or omitted. You constantly omit important details in your arguments that invalidate your comments. We are playing whack a mole with your arguments by constantly giving you factual data that contradict your statements then in your rebuttals you make different incomplete and imprecise statements that have previous been proven false and then the cycle continues repeatedly. That is how we know that you are dishonest with yourself and us. I don't know what your ulterior motive is for not accepting facts that we provide but it is strange.
For example recently you stated "just remind you that we have gravettian-mesolithic-neolithic-L754>M269 in Italy, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Spain."
Well let me remind you once again. Whatever samples you are mentioning, which I doubt have validity, they are not direct ancestors of our R-L51 ancestors. I will also remind you that you cannot name a single ancient R-L51 specimen that does not have Steppe autosomal DNA. I will also remind you that the "Yamnaya" source does not have to specifically be Yamnaya. What we are concerned about is the Steppe autosomal DNA along with R-L51. There is not a single western European specimen with R-L51 prior to 2400 BC even though there are hundreds of western European specimens between the formed date of R-L51 and 2400 BC. If
Another sign that you are dishonest is that you consistently omit sample names, dates, and actual Y-DNA SNP results of many specimens that you comment on. What are those details for gravettian-mesolithic-neolithic-L754>M269 in Italy, France, Germany, Denmark, Belgium and Spain? Post the details if you really think they are important. If they are not important why are you wasting everyone's time with the comment?
You also constantly omit that fact that every verifiable R-L51 specimen has Steppe autosomal DNA.
@Gaska
“however, they predominantly carry R1b-P312, a Y-lineage NOT YET FOUND AMONG CW or Yamnaya MALES. 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”
“A scenario of R1b-P312 originating somewhere between Bohemia and England, possibly in the VICINITY OF THE RHINE, followed by an expansion northwest and east is compatible with our current understanding of the phylogeography of ancient R1b-L151–derived lineages”
Using those statements is another example of how dishonest and disingenuous you are. We all know that the first person with the R-P312 mutation is a descendant of the first person born with the R-L151 mutation and there there is a possible 1000 year difference between those two based on the formed and TMRCA dates. We also know that the first person born with the R-L151 mutation is almost guaranteed to have Steppe autosomal DNA since all other existing R-L51 samples also have Steppe autosomal DNA. We already know that the R-L51 father of the first R-P312 doesn't have to have lived in a CWC group but we do know that they were relatives. There is no doubt that they were relatives. That is all we care about. You are making points that are completely irrelevant.
That makes you and your posts irrelevant.
I did some checking in FTDNA Discover, looking for Sample I2181, aka Smyadovo. When I could not find it in the Time Tree or in Ancient Connections, I contacted FTDNA's Göran Runström and asked him about it. Here's what he wrote:
"It is a low coverage sample and we don't think there is enough evidence in the currently published data to confidently place it at R-M269. ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence")
Hopefully it will be sequenced again in the future for some better clarity.”
That's why I2181 is not among the ancient samples in FTDNA Discover's Time Tree or Ancient Connections.
Kind of a thin reed upon which to rest an argument, bad as that argument is. (Besides the fact that Smyadovo has steppe DNA.)
Dospaises
Have you read Volker Heyd's 2021 paper, "Yamnaya, Corded Wares, and Bell Beaker on the Move"?
https://tinyurl.com/muxapk9w
I think you'll like it, and I know you're not afraid to actually read something informative.
@ SKRiBHa
As usual, I of course will study all the matter. It seemed to me that you tried to use the “Alternation” for saying that there wasn’t a priority of the centum IE as to the satem ones.
I answered that centum languages are older than the satem ones. What you call “palatalization” is a case of the passage from centum to satem languages (even though Woudhuizen wrote interesting things also about that). The matter of course merits to be studied carefully, but what I said, that centum languages are older is a truth, thus it is a proof, I think (in spite of the centum Tokharic), of the origin in the west and not in the east, and remember that Latin is linked with the pile dwellers of the emerged Adriatic.
@Twocountries
Only an ignorant knucklehead or a fanatic kurganist can say the nonsense you have said in your last two posts.
1-How can it be dishonest to quote a conclusion from a paper signed by Luka Papac (Max Planck) about the origin of P312?. It is dishonest because it does not fit your dogma of faith?-Sorry buddy, Max Planck thinks the same as I do about the origin of R1b-P312, just try to deal with it.
2-How can it be dishonest to quote the conclusions of Lazaridis (Harvard) regarding the origin of R1b-M269?-I know it bothers you that Smyadovo is a neolithic Balkan farmer, try to deal with that too.
3-All those samples that I have cited in Spain, Italy, France, Belgium, Denmark etc. have been discussed and commented dozens of times in this blog and others. Everyone who is aware of the genetic novelties regarding the R1b marker should know them. If you don't know them, look for the hundreds of comments where they appear, I am not going to repeat the same arguments over and over again to bore everyone. It is not dishonesty either, you're just an ignorant lazy.
And regarding the well-known, boring and absurd Kurganist argument of “steppe ancestry”, you should study a bit of genetics in order to understand how autosomal DNA works.
1-None male or female uniparental marker has exclusivity over the so-called steppe ancestry.
2-Women are as important (or more) than men in transmitting different autosomal ancestries thanks to the widespread and universal practice of exogamy for thousands and thousands of years.
3-The migrations with origin in the Yamnaya culture changed the genetic composition of all Europe in a period of one thousand years (3.000-2.000 BC)-The consequence is that there is no European of the Bronze and Iron Age (whatever their uniparental markers) that do not have steppe ancestry.
4-This means that not only L51>L151>P312 have steppe ancestry, but also G2a, G2b. I2a2a, I2a2b, I2a1a, I2a1b, H2, J2b-L283, E1b-V13 etc... i.e. all European men, whatever lineage they belong to, have the famous Yamnaya signal in their genes since 5,000 years ago.
5-In addition, all European men L51>L151>P312 have also Anatolian ancestry and WHG ancestry, obviously in different percentages according to the regions and the culture to which they belong.
6-Linking a language or language family to a particular autosomal signal is a failed attempt to explain the timing and manner of spread of a language.
7-Since the L51>P312 in Iberia or Italy have more percentage of Anatolian ancestry than Yamnaya ancestry, who could deny that IE arrived in these regions with the neolithic migrations originating in Anatolia?-This is not dishonesty either, it is even an argument used by Lazaridis or Heggarty recently. You don't like it because you have to defend an absurd dogma of faith, I am sorry but you will have to understand that we are not all sheep incapable of reasoning and that we are intelligent enough to draw our own conclusions.
8-And, since, all European R1b-L51>P312 men maintain percentages of WHG ancestry (even 20-30%), why can't we defend that IE is a language of Paleolithic origin transmitted from generation to generation until today? Is it that the WHG did not speak? Couldn't the women transmit it?
In other words, if you defend that a certain autosomal composition, that is, the Yamnaya ancestry, is proof of the origin of both R1b-L51>P312 and the IE language in the steppes, I think you are wrong, because you are ignoring the Anatolian and WHG ancestries that in many regions of Europe it is much more important quantitatively and qualitatively than the steppe ancestry. Therefore, when you say that I cannot name a single ancient R-L51 specimen that does not have Steppe autosomal DNA, I could answer you that cannot name a single ancient R-L51 specimen that does not have Anatolian or WHG autosomal DNA.
@Gio-
What is the relationship between Latin and the pile dwellers of the emerged Adriatic?
I am not an expert in Italian prehistory, could you elaborate on this?
Here's some further information about the famous sample I2181 (aka "Smyadovo") that first appeared in the 2018 Mathieson et al paper, "The Genomic History of Southeastern Europe".
I2181 is listed more recently in the 2022 Patterson et al paper, "Large-Scale Migration into Britain During the Middle to Late Bronze Age", as belonging to Y-DNA haplogroup F, which supports what FTDNA's Göran Runström said about it as being a low coverage sample that can't be called for M269.
Kind of a funky sample. Can't really count on it. BTW, in the Patterson paper’s spreadsheet, in the column labeled "Group ID", it is listed as "Bulgaria_C_oSteppe", for what it's worth.
Gaska wrote:
". . . Therefore, when you say that I cannot name a single ancient R-L51 specimen that does not have Steppe autosomal DNA, I could answer you that cannot name a single ancient R-L51 specimen that does not have Anatolian or WHG autosomal DNA."
My response:
Well, the two R1b-P310 Afanasievo samples, Shatar Chuluu 1 (I6222) and Nileke 5-3 (C3341), are both virtually identical to Yamnaya.
All the earliest R1b-L151 CW samples from Papac et al's Bohemian CW paper cluster very close to Yamnaya. By far their autosomal profiles are overwhelmingly steppe profiles. They are the oldest CW samples thus far known. The CW samples from Linderholm's SE Poland paper are also very high in steppe DNA. In fact, Heyd thinks they were part of a second CW wave from the steppe (see his 2021 paper, "Yamnaya, Corded Wares, and Bell Beakers on the Move").
There are too many R1b-L51 samples with large proportions of steppe DNA to list here. The ones I mentioned above are just the ones that spring to mind because they are the most obvious.
Pretty obviously the presence of steppe DNA in every ancient L51 sample is evidence of the steppe pastoralist origin of that haplogroup, especially when taken together with the preponderance of the totality of the evidence, like there being no L51 among European Neolithic farmers, ancient L51 turning up repeatedly in steppe pastoralist cultural contexts, etc. If the opposite were true, and Neolithic Europe were full of L51s without steppe DNA, and L51 only appeared on the steppe later, always accompanied by Anatolian Farmer DNA and WHG DNA, then what you wrote might make sense. But that isn't true, so what you wrote doesn't make sense.
Post a Comment