Thursday, August 31, 2023
The story of the Khvalynsk people
I'm totally serious when I say that this video is more objective, informative and accurate than any peer-reviewed paper published to date when it comes to the genetic origins of the Khvalynsk people.
However, that's not to say it's perfect. I think it misses some important details. See here...
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
Dear David, Nick, Iosif...let's set the record straight
Understanding the Eneolithic steppe
358 comments:
Read the rules before posting.
Comments by people with the nick "Unknown" are no longer allowed.
See also...
New rules for comments
Banned commentators list
Congrats Samuel! I was looking for new vids on your channel for months :)
ReplyDelete@Andre
ReplyDeleteThanks man
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteYeah, I didn't spill all the beans.
I chose to focus on how they had CHG ancestry and how it probably entered the Steppe a really long time ago.
I decided I did not have time to explain everything about Khvalynsk's origins.
Importantly, how they were a direct mix between forest and steppe populations.
@Samuel Andrews Did Khvalynsk descend from Samara HG or a closely related population?
ReplyDeleteKhvalynsk were only 25% CHG, which probably means that their para-PIE langywas NOT a CHG related one but an indigenous Eastern European one.
Beaker Lady’s reconstruction of Eneolithic Steppe and of Yamnaya closely resemble modern Europeans. I’ve always attributed White genotype (not including the US Census definition of Caucasian as including Near Easterner, Hispanic and Native American) comes mostly from Sredny Stog pastoralists and much less of Anatolian farmer and/or WHG stock.
ReplyDeleteExcelent vídeo. Considering some CHG-like DNA could be found on Russian Southern Steppe/Caucasus area , I didn't think any real migration was needed before PIE expansion, simple Intermarriage of some tribes, what Mtdna suggest. CHG-like females .
ReplyDelete@Andre,
ReplyDeletePIE language probably came from the CHG-rich people.
Khvalynsk was a mix between CHG-rich Steppe people and people from the northern forests who had no CHG.
I'm not saying PIE comes from CHG, from the Caucasus region.
But, it did originate in Steppe people who had CHG ancestry.
At least all (except for Krause and BROAD MIT) are all in agreement that PIE people came mostly from Eastern Europe and are not some Siberian (ANE, Mal’ta Burrett) or CHG derived (well, Khvalynsk was 75% Eastern European, 25% CHG).
ReplyDeleteThe pre-Anatolian split Pre-PIE was admittedly spoken by Sredny Stog; I’m just trying to go back in time to find out how far back our ancestors go: what preceded Stedny Stog. Wasn’t there in situ a Bug Dniester or Dnieper Donetsk? It would be really intriguing to finally uncover which was the first culture associated with IE speech and ethnogenetics, as well as a pre-pastoralist lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteGood video. However I have one question, why wasn't Khvalynsk consider Indo European? Off course it wasn't the ancestor of modern days R1b-M269 and could not been the ancestor of the living Indo European, however we can't say there was a specific cultural group or material culture that developed the Proto Indo European language and culture alone. Probably it came from a bunch of Dialects , imo related to EHG with some influences from Danubian Farmers and Transcaucasiana languages, there wasn't only one common ancestor group , it's like that some different innovations appeared at the Early Neolithic Steppe , just before the Tripolli Raiders and 1 thousand years after some CHG-Like DNA at the North steppe border , probably a bunch of different tribes were on the Proto Indo European Horizon and developed independent Dialects, meaning that Khvalynsk was on the Proto Indo European edge.
ReplyDeleteImo makes more sense than one founder common culture. This could explain why we couldn't found any R-M269 before Yamnaya and why R-L151 and R1a-M417 came from northern groups of the Forest Steppe Zone.
Some important inovations came with Khvalynsk, some that we couldn't neglect as important to what we consider Indo European Culture, such as Kurgans, Cannabis Cultivation and ritualistic usage(medicinal indeed?), etc... Traces that all later PIE cultures had , they were on the Proto Indo European Horizon, couldn't been the ancestor's of mostly R1 living IE, but where part of our history, maybe having some DNA from female lines mostly, who knows? We can just secure that they were Indo Europeans and gave us several elements that were important to the Later Stages of Proto Indo European societies (Corded and Yamnaya).
Yeah... right. So now its commonly accepted that the Shulaveri were the ancestry for the Yamnaya, but all we have to to is call it CHG (found 4000 years earlier) but not Shulaveri-Shomu that lived in there for the 2000 years prior to that migration. Ok, got it!
ReplyDelete@ Andre I’m just trying to go back in time to find out how far back our ancestors go: what preceded Stedny Stog. Wasn’t there in situ a Bug Dniester or Dnieper Donetsk? It would be really intriguing to finally uncover which was the first culture associated with IE speech and ethnogenetics, as well as a pre-pastoralist lifestyle.
ReplyDeleteNobody knows. From a linguistic standpoint, it doesn't make sense to talk about PIE going back much further than Sredni Stog, although no doubt SOMEONE spoke some language ancestral to PIE, and Dnieper Donets seems like a likely candidate. But that's just speculative. Dnieper Donets is also genetically pretty different; the genesis of Sredni Stog happened because of some significant admixture event between Dnieper Donets and populations to their West who were richer in EEF and WHG ancestry, and even before genetics, physical anthropology made quite a distinction between Dnieper Donets and Sredni Stog.
@ Virgin Good video. However I have one question, why wasn't Khvalynsk consider Indo European?
ReplyDeleteBecause no Indo-European language or Indo-European speaking group is descended directly from them that we know of. Sure, sure... they probably spoke a closely related para-PIE, or even just dialects of early PIE that died out, and they clearly interacted with the proto-Corded Ware people like Sredni Stog, but if you can't derive any Indo-European group from them, you can't say that they were Indo-European. There's just no way to know that.
I should say that you don't understand what I said.
DeleteThere weren't any sort of Proto Indo European Language, it was a bunch of Dialects. And it's fake to said that, considering that Khvalynsk R1b still already exist, but it is uncommon. Also, Khvalynsk was on the Indo European Horizon, there wasn't any Indo European original group, it was a bunch of Innovations that came from the Steppe and a not only a material culture spoke it, but all that inhabited steppe. Simple.
Otherwise some elements that scholars associated with Indo Europeans, such as Kurgans, couldn't been related to them.
@Samuel Andrews “ PIE language probably came from the CHG-rich people.”
ReplyDeleteIn other words, it wasn’t an indigenous Eastern European HG language like what the Samara guys spoke; it probably came from Progress or Piedmont.
It may not have come from the Caucasus, but it may’ve been a language isolate that developed among the CHG-rich people.
Progress is not the direct ancestor of Sredny Stog/Yamnaya/Corded Ware.
ReplyDeleteIt's just the closest proxy we have available at the moment from the ancestral gene pool.
@Andre,
ReplyDeleteNah, man that's not what I mean.
The English language originated in people who had distant near Eastern ancestry. Yet English it also originated in Europeans.
The PIE language originated in eastern Europe. The fact the people it originated in had distant CHG ancestry doesn't change that.
Why don't the researchers look into the history of R1a-M417 and R1b-L51, since those two Y-DNA haplogroups account for most European males post third millennium BC? It seems that ancient finds of those two haplogroups are just kind of incidental, despite their obvious predominance in the Indo-European story. R1b-Z2103 is a big deal, but it's relatively small potatoes in the story of the Indo-Europeanization of Europe. Why is that? Pretty obviously, Corded Ware was a bigger deal for Europe than Yamnaya was.
ReplyDeleteMore questions--------------
ReplyDeleteWhy not show IBD links between R1a-M417 and R1b-L51 and Khvalynsk ? What about Khvalysnsk pottery? What about IBD links between Yamnaya Kurgan culture R1b-L23+(L51) sample I0443 and Corded Ware or Sintashta - Abasheivo Culture? Or show, how Corded Ware is connected to the HIttite and or Tocharian culture. Pretty obvious that both R1a M417 and R1b L51 are not found together in Khvalynsk, Deriivka late phase(Sredny Stog), Bell Beaker, HIttite, or Tocharian cultures. Even shared Dom2 horses and or 4 wheeled wagon or metallurgy, between any of the above, would be interesting, yet proto Corded Ware is connected to the spread of Indo-European?
@Samuel Andrews “ The PIE language originated in eastern Europe. The fact the people it originated in had distant CHG ancestry doesn't change that.”
ReplyDeleteI agree. I would contend that PIE was a language isolate just like Sumerian was. These CHG rich natives did originate on the Steppes, however I believe that the pre-proto-PIE somehow arose without any relation to any extant language family.
It would fascinate me to learn how PIE was created, when and by whom. Especially it will delight me to see Lazaridis and Reich lose the argument once and for all. If PIE was created among the CHG-free pop it would excite me even more, because of their more antiquity in time but as long as it was created in Europe and not imported from Asia (be it Mal’ta-Burrey/ANE or Caucaaus/West Asia/Middle East) I’d still be thrilled.
ReplyDelete@ Andrze It would fascinate me to learn how PIE was created, when and by whom. Especially it will delight me to see Lazaridis and Reich lose the argument once and for all. If PIE was created among the CHG-free pop it would excite me even more, because of their more antiquity in time but as long as it was created in Europe and not imported from Asia (be it Mal’ta-Burrey/ANE or Caucaaus/West Asia/Middle East) I’d still be thrilled.
ReplyDeleteTo paraphrase Mallory, in the past some linguists essentially posited that the proto-Indo-Europeans perfected their case endings and phonemes in isolation before bursting across the Old World, swinging stone axes and spears and inflectional morphemes with equal abandon, but the reality is almost certainly that proto-Indo-European, as well as every other language isolate, was related to SOME other language, which didn't survive. Languages don't come from nowhere. There was some predecessor to proto-Indo-European, there were sister languages to proto-Indo-European. Our view of what remains is only because those remains. Look at the paleo-Balkan Indo-European languages that we know of, for example, but know almost nothing about: Thracian, Dacian, Illyrian, Moesian, etc. We're lucky to even know that they exist; if the Greeks and Romans hadn't mentioned them, we'd never know about them. That's probably exactly what happened to the sister languages of proto-Indo-European, Sumerian, Hurrian, etc. I doubt they were truly language isolates. They just appear that way because we don't have any visibility to any of the relatives that they once had, which have completely disappeared.
Just because it’s helpful to just state it again and again! - PIE was the language of the Shulaveri-Shomu.
ReplyDeleteFrom honey to plough to horses, they had everything. Actually, first culture that diverged a river and invented wine!
It does not matter if they call it South Caucasus, or Armenia or northwestern Iran… golly! There is no other culture in that region for 2000 years but the Shulaveri. Plenty of time to spill into the north Caucasus.
Wiki was updated on them, and it is a bit more informative. Not much but a bit. -https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shulaveri%E2%80%93Shomu_culture
FTDNA corroborates the R-V1636 read in Cernavoda. He has about as much Maikop ancestry as he does Progress-like.
ReplyDeletehttps://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-V1636/tree
OT, new ENA uploads, although no data yet for most interesting:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB64496 - "Early Upper Paleolithic genomes of Crimea show migration and admixture dynamics of the first modern European ancestries in relation to climatic crisis" - "We describe the genomes of two c. 36,000 and 37,000-year-old individuals from the site of Buran-Kaya III in Crimea as belonging to the earliest migration wave of humans carrying ancestry found in present-day Europeans. The occupants of Buran-Kaya III shared the highest genomic similarities with the members of the more recent Mid Upper Paleolithic (MUP) Gravettian-associated Fournol cluster found in southwestern Europe. These genomes revealed that the population turnover in Europe surrounding the Campanian Ignimbrite super-eruption (CI) and the severe Heinrich Stadial 4 climatic cooling was accompanied by admixture events with populations that arrived in Europe thousands of years earlier. We also characterize a shared ancestry component related to pre-CI Zlatý Kůň found in Buran Kaya III, later Gravettian-associated populations of western Europe, and Mesolithic Caucasus populations. These findings show genetic connections between pre-CI central Europe, Early UP Caucasus, and MUP western and southwestern Europe."
@arza: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB49524 - "Interdisciplinary analyses of Bronze Age communities from Western Hungary reveal complex population histories" (Gerber 2022 Preprint) - "In this study we report 21 ancient shotgun genomes from present-day Western Hungary (3530 – 1620 cal BCE), from previously understudied Late Copper Age Baden, and Bronze Age Somogyvár-Vinkovci, Kisapostag, and Encrusted Pottery archaeological cultures. Our results indicate the presence of high steppe ancestry in Somogyvár-Vinkovci culture that was replaced by the Kisapostag group having an outstandingly high (up to ~47%) Mesolithic hunter-gatherer ancestry, despite this component being thought to be highly diluted by the time of the Early Bronze Age. The Kisapostag population was also the genetic basis of the succeeding community of the Encrusted pottery culture. We also found an elevated hunter-gatherer component in a local Baden culture associated individual, but no connections were proven to the Bronze Age individuals." (ENA-FIRST-PUBLIC: 2023-08-31)
No data yet tho.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB65282 - "New shallow sequencing data from Harper Road Burial", a woman from Roman London although I expect she is just a typical Briton from the era.
Indo Europeans weren't one single material culture or tribe, indo European were probably a bunch of dialects of the Steppe,a contact zone between different sort of population, such as EHG and Danubian Farmers. What people can't understand is that CHG-Like DNA was simple EHG+Dzudzuana Rich pops, that already existed on the southern Steppe before the ANE migrated to that area(all was Mammoths steppe). For me it's incorrect to said that Sredny, Progress or even Khvalynsk were Proto Indo European alone, and others para-Proto Indo Europeans. They were the Early Indo Europeans, probably Sredny gave us the language, but all those material cultures had similar dialects and probably could be the consider the first of the IE group. Otherwise I think that all EHG had a sort of language on the same branch as Indo europeans.
ReplyDeleteThere weren't any Proto Indo European original group, that is not the way languages work, in fact a bunch of different material cultures tribes developed independently their own dialects and then expanded some got more successful, others not. Khvalynsk R1b still exists , however it is uncommon, they probably were less successful than Sredny and got absorbed by their groups, probably by female mixing. Why I said this?
Cause Kurgans were first found at Khvalynsk site and Kurgans were the typical Late PIE Graves,.
Saying this , absurdism neglect Steppe as the original IE Homeland , like a horizon not a initial material culture.
Imo CHG influence already had some EHG inside it, that is why some bias-rich models could neglect it.
Indo Anatolian was the most outlier on the Indo European language tree, IMO Southern Steppe CHG-Like could easily been the ancestor's of the Indo Anatolian Branch. Funny those guys forcing that Akkadian and Minoan Greeks were Indo European, Minoan Greeks were matrelinear and all pre Indo European Cultures of Anatolian were, such as Lycian(came from a Pre PIE culture). Indo Anatolia Branch came after Iran Neo DNA went to Anatolia and Greece, that is why I m totally confident that those people never studied history.
ReplyDelete@Virgin “ Why I said this?
ReplyDeleteCause Kurgans were first found at Khvalynsk site and Kurgans were the typical Late PIE Graves,.”
Actually in Samara HG, which preceded Khvalynsk
@Olympus Mons “ again! - PIE was the language of the Shulaveri-Shomu.”
ReplyDeleteKura-Araxes or Proto-Huro-Urratian probably was Sholeveri-Shomu
What people also forget is that Khvalynsk also had WSHG Hap Q (Kelteminnar, Steppe Maykop?) which was lacking in Western Don Indo-Europeans ancestral to us, whereas Khvalynsk lacked the significant EEF and WHG admixture found in Sredny, Repin, Corded and Yamnaya.
ReplyDelete@EthanR
ReplyDeleteWhat's your overall take on the Y-haps in the Penske et al. samples?
a wrote:
ReplyDelete". . . yet proto Corded Ware is connected to the spread of Indo-European?"
My response:
Yes, obviously. I would simplify things, however, and leave off the modifier "proto". Anyone who thinks Corded Ware was not connected to the spread of Indo-European needs to read more and type less.
Great. It was well knew since the Late 19's Century I Guess. Proud of being direct descendant of one Chad R1a War Lord.
Delete@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI think a few more may trickle into FTDNA's tree, which happens slowly, so my opinion may change (I like their tree because for some clades it breaks them into more detail than ISOGG's classification, see for example https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-L702/tree which has several samples from the paper).
A few things I noticed/was looking for:
-The R-Z2103 in Boynanovo/late "Usatovo" don't have enough reads to distinguish them from standard Afanasievo/Yamnaya lineages
-There is no hint of I-P78 which is a bit disappointing as it could have provided clarity on how they got to Yassitepe/halicarnassus
-Most of the I-L701 looks closer to Ukraine_N's, and some of the Cernavoda I-L701>I-L699 is very close to what ends up in Yamnaya. I wish the Varna (4450BC) I-L701 sample was added, as it would have been interesting to see how related it was to Sredni Stog/Khvalynsk.
-The Usatovo R-L754 unfortunately doesn't have any additional reads.
-I'm not sure we can know whether the R-V1636 individual is mediated by Sredni Stog/Khvalynsk or Maikop. It would be cool if it was the former.
Aside from that there isn't really anything weird or too unexpected. There's some interesting things like the position of the Varna E clades relative to E-V13. As it pertains to the Steppe/PIE question though the paper seems to indicate an introgression of I-L701 into the eneolithic balkans, much of this mediated by Cernavoda/Steppe ancestry and perhaps by implication Suvorovo.
If that's the case then it's also noteworthy to see uniparental overlap between the eneolithic pontic steppe, Khvalynsk (the new I-L699 from Anthony's paper), and Yamnaya.
@Matt
ReplyDeleteThese findings show genetic connections between pre-CI central Europe, Early UP Caucasus, and MUP western and southwestern Europe."
Looks like it could be unraveling for Dzudzuana origins.
@Gaska wrote in this very blog (July 23, 2023 at 12:36 AM)- Rob-“Yes KTL005 looks like V1636 not just M343 and the Boyanovo samples are all Z2103” The genetic relationship between Khvalynsk, Progress eneolithic, Cernavoda, Majkop and Yamnaya seems evident thanks to V1636
ReplyDeleteSomeone said-“It seems that ancient finds of those two haplogroups are just kind of incidental, despite their obvious predominance in the Indo-European story”-
Could be regarding M417 and its descendants in relation to Balto-Slavic and the Indo-European languages of South Asia
but R1b-L51>L151?????- This marker does not exist south of the Caucasus, nor in Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, India, the Balkans, Greece & Baltic countries, then it had absolutely nothing to do with the Indo-Europeanization of those regions
Even accepting that the L151 cases in the Early-CWC-Bohemia truly belonged to that culture (archaeologically they are very doubtful), we also did not find this marker in the CWC-Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Baltic and Switzerland, because the CWC was overwhelmingly R1a-M417.
The role of R1b-L51>L151 in relation to the Indo-european story is totally residual if it ever had any relationship.What is the branch of Indo-European that R1b-L151 spoke???
https://www.academia.edu/19575239/Early_Eneolithic_in_the_Pontic_Steppe
ReplyDeleteNot exactly, first kurgans were found on Middle Don/Samara at the Early Neolithic, no chance of Hunter and Gather making Kurgans.
One more time Khvalynsk might been Indo European as well as other Early Neolithic Steppe Cultures, no relation with one CHG migration.
A Horizon, not a single material culture more or less related to them, even if we got our language from Sredny mediated contacts , it' doesn't make Khvalynsk less Indo European and part of the IE Genetic Continuum.
IMO all Early Neolithic Steppe Cultures probably were on the Proto Indo European Horizon, we should call them Early Indo Europeans instead, I don't think that a single group could gave the language and ancestry from all Indo European languages , considering they were Semi Nomad,even a Sedentary Barbarian tribe would be very local, developing independent Dialects such as what Germanic or Slavic tribes did, saying that Nordic Iron Age wasn't Proto Germanic cause Jastorf was the Proto Indo European related to mostly groups sounds absurdism.
ReplyDeleteThat is why some people can't understand why we won't find Yamnaya R1a-M417 or R1b-L151, they probably didn't have any direct shared ancestor (from paternal side) , from the same reason that Jastorf and Nordic Iron Age didn't share theirs direct ancestor's , but both were Proto Germanic.
After all, people still trying to find the "Original Indo European" and others "my lineage was the most Indo European"(such as Quilles) when in fact the Steppe proper and all cultures there were Proto Indo Europeans, meaning that different groups expanded independently, sometimes mixing with each other, and gave rise to several cultures off course they shared linguistic similarities(such as interintelegiable dialects), cultural customs, similar social structure, production ways,etc.. but none of them was the most Indo European, some were more successful than others and we had more lineages or influences from them.
ReplyDeleteEasier than "mystical" migrations from Females or cucked males CHG-like , susteing by a DNA evidence from a source that already existed on Southern Steppe.
Science prefers the easier, not the Easier model but the easier explanation(models were just a way to understand, not a explanation proper).
I imagine that after they concluded that no chance of PIE on Caucasus, they won't tell us that Botai were the PIE Kkkkk, or some Iron Gates Neo culture.
But if one lineage was the most IE probably R1a-M417. It was found before the Neolithic on Steppe, it could be found on Russian Caucasus, Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk, and it wasn't found on Iron Gates HG, like R1b and I2.
ReplyDelete@MaxT: The data seems to be linked to this preprint (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/685404v2.full.pdf), which is now *4 years old*! I'm surprised that they find links to Fournol cluster given that shared f3 in that preprint with GoyetQ116-1 was not very high (compared to Vestonice and Kostenki/Sunghir). That said, maybe they have since resequenced the sample in much higher quality and come to different findings.
ReplyDelete@MaxT: Btw; BurankayaIII FASTQ files now uploaded onto ENA if anyone wishes to do anything with these; albeit I don't G25 is ever informative with such old samples.
ReplyDelete@Samuel Andrews “PIE language probably came from the CHG-rich people.
ReplyDeleteKhvalynsk was a mix between CHG-rich Steppe people and people from the northern forests who had no CHG.
I'm not saying PIE comes from CHG, from the Caucasus region.”
I forgot to being it up that in Khvalynsk, unlike in Sredny and its scion cultures, they found R1b, R1a, but also an outlier Q1a (WSHG), BUT ALSO J1.
That J1 Haplogroup is most likely attributable to a CHG male lineage/founder effect.
We do find J in EHG foragers in Karelia, although Lower Don cultures such as Sredny Stog lack it.
From that reason, I believe that - *even though our ancestors had CHG admixture to a considerable degree* - the fact that the local patrilineal founder effects in Yamnaya and it sister cultures we’re indigenous HG (R1a, R1b) is a testament that PIE in its earliest form most probably originated among the oldest (ie non-CHG-rich) clans of the Steppe.
@Virgin Khvalynsk may have spoken a language related to Sredny Stog, but since some members had Q1a and J1, I wouldn’t rule out that some spoke a WSHG rich language (Botai, Kelteminnar, Steppe Maykopish?), whereas still others spoke a J1 derived CHG rich language.
ReplyDelete@Davidski What’s your opinion re: the alleged substantial non-IE substrate?
ReplyDeleteDoes that make sense that some Swedish scientists claim that Nordic Bronze Age was an amalgam of Corded Ware/SGC with Pitted Ware SHG, and that thus up to 20% of Germanic vocabulary is authoctonous from SHG foragers?
On the same vein, I’ve read theories that much of the agropastoralist vocabulary in PIE and especially in post-CWC Germanic and what EastPole calls “Indo-Slavic” comes not from the WSH but from GAC, Baden and Cucuteni Tripolye.
Are these just bunkers theories or do any of them make the slightest sense to you?
BTW, from reconstructions of both Ötzi and SHG (the latter is Romulus’s profile pic) can look almost indistinguishable from most white patrons at an American bar.
ReplyDeleteIn my humble opinion, actor Jim Kazievel typifies the most Globular Amphora Culture phenotype among people living today, and if anyone notices- his looks very much resemble a Sardinian male’s appearance-
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jim_Caviezel_SDCC_2013.jpg
@Matt said... "In this study we report 21 ancient shotgun genomes from present-day Western Hungary (3530 – 1620 cal BCE), from previously understudied Late Copper Age Baden, and Bronze Age Somogyvár-Vinkovci, Kisapostag, and Encrusted Pottery archaeological cultures."
ReplyDeleteYet another study that releases samples that are pre- and post-Yamnaya. With all the hoarded samples, that big Yamnaya paper better have 1000 samples in it!!!
Gaska wrote:
ReplyDelete". . . but R1b-L51>L151?????- This marker does not exist south of the Caucasus, nor in Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, India, the Balkans, Greece & Baltic countries, then it had absolutely nothing to do with the Indo-Europeanization of those regions"
My response:
Not exactly true, but so what? R1b-L151 exists in plenty in the very earliest CW samples, with very high steppe DNA, and in later Corded Ware samples in SE Poland and Germany. And, ahem, it has been found in two very ancient samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture from two different sites, one in Mongolia and the other in Xinjiang, China, with autosomal profiles virtually identical to Yamnaya. And those two Afanasievo samples, with results confirmed by FTDNA's team, appeared in two different scientific papers (Wang et al 2020 and Kumar et al 2022).
And btw, who died and made "Anatolia, Armenia, Iran, India, the Balkans, Greece & Baltic countries" the end-all and be-all of Indo-European? What about Europe itself? You know, the noun from which the adjective European is derived?
Gaska wrote:
"Even accepting that the L151 cases in the Early-CWC-Bohemia truly belonged to that culture (archaeologically they are very doubtful), we also did not find this marker in the CWC-Germany, Denmark, Scandinavia, Baltic and Switzerland, because the CWC was overwhelmingly R1a-M417."
My response:
The very earliest Corded Ware samples thus far known are R1b-L151 (including one that was U106), and they are not "archaeologically doubtful" despite your fevered dreams. See Papac et al, 2021.
As for Switzerland, we have Aesch25, very obviously a CW individual with very high steppe DNA (80%+) inserted in a local burial context, a practice well known among both CW and Beaker people, and MX304, both ancient samples from Furtwängler et al (2020). MX310, also A CW sample from Furtwängler et al, was R1b-M269, not R1a-M417, and his remains were recovered from Burgäschisee, Switzerland. There is also an R1b-P310 (xU106) Corded Ware sample (Alt_4) from Althausen, Germany, from Mittnik et al (2019). RISE98, an R1b-U106 from Allentoft et al (2015), belonged to the Battle Axe culture (a CW variant), and he was found in Lille Beddinge, Sweden.
There are also a number of R1b-L151 samples from SE Poland who had Katakombnaya burial practices and grave goods and showed an autosomal connection to Afanasievo (Linderholm et al 2020).
Please note my practice of citing the papers these samples appear in.
Gaska wrote:
"The role of R1b-L51>L151 in relation to the Indo-european story is totally residual if it ever had any relationship.What is the branch of Indo-European that R1b-L151 spoke???"
My response:
Residual? Left over from what? Residuals that came to be the largest Y-DNA haplogroup in central and western Europe? I get the impression you often pepper your posts with words you don't really comprehend or know how to use.
As for what "branch of Indo-European that R1b-L151 spoke", just look at the IE languages that came to prevail in the places in Europe where R1b-L151 came to prevail. There's your answer.
Very obviously, Bell Beaker was derived from Single Grave Corded Ware. It was Beaker people who completed the job their Corded Ware ancestors started, carrying Indo-European language, culture, Y-DNA and steppe autosomal DNA all the way to the shores of the Atlantic.
@Rob “ This is the male-mediated component (minority) which brought CHG-rich EHG to the Dnieper region , but mostly female mediated
ReplyDeleteThe “south of Caspian/ southern arc “ scenario remains empty handed :(”
That’s the reason why I think that PIE was “indigenous” rather than CHG-mediated. I do suspect that the CTC and GAC impact on PIE development is not negligible
''That J1 Haplogroup is most likely attributable to a CHG male lineage/founder effect.''
ReplyDelete“ FTDNA corroborates the R-V1636 read in Cernavoda. He has about as much Maikop ancestry as he does Progress-like.”
Seems like a baton-relay type phenomenon. J1 is obviously a dead-ringer for CHG, which supports a Meso-Neolithic time frame for its arrival to the lower Volga/Caspian region. Then acquired by local groups rich in R1b-V1636 and even Q1, these guys & their females brought it to the Donetz & Dnieper zones. The latter groups then expanded.
Still no answer to the genetic connection between Corded Ware and Hittite and or Corded Ware and Tocharian cultures?
ReplyDeleteWhat about branches of R1b that are L51 negative and found in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker?
Could it be possible that R1b-V1636 in single grave culture, and Netherlands Bell Beaker sample 13026 (Yamnaya R1b-Z2109_KMS60) are connected to the phylogeny of Dom2 horses and Yersinia pestis?
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/01/a-tantalizing-link.html
A tantalizing link
"Surprisingly, one of the male genomes belongs to Y-haplogroup R1b-V1636, which is an exceedingly rare marker both in ancient and present-day populations.
However, the results do make sense, because the earliest instances of R1b-V1636 are in three Eneolithic males from burial sites on the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe in Eastern Europe, which is precisely where one would expect to find the paternal ancestors of the SGC population. The SGC, of course, is the westernmost variant of the Corded Ware culture (CWC), and there's very little doubt nowadays that the CWC had its roots on the PC steppe.
The prehistoric origins of the domestic horse and horseback riding
A bioanthropological study by Trautmann et al. (2023) provides additional strong support for the "horse before the cart" view by finding diagnostic traits associated with habitual horseback riding in human skeletons that considerably predate the earliest wheeled vehicles pulled by horses, which are dated to the late 3rd millennium BC (Chechushkov and Epimakhov, 2018; Lindner, 2020).
"Ashva (Sanskrit: अश्व, romanized: aśva) is the Sanskrit word for a horse, one of the significant animals finding references in the Vedas as well as later Hindu scriptures. The word is cognate to Avestan 𐬀𐬯𐬞𐬀 (aspa), Latin equus, Ancient Greek ἵππος (hippos), Proto-Germanic *ehwaz, obsolete Prussian Lithuanian ašvà (from Proto-Balto-Slavic *éśwāˀ), all from Proto-Indo-European *h₁éḱwos."
Wait, isn't Ashva the word for any "Swift and strong creature/force" which is used to describe horses more when they become plentiful?
DeleteKhvalynsk is dead end. It has NOTHING to do with Proto-Indo-Europeans. They may have been later Indo-Europeans (mixed kind with CHG) but not Proto-Indo-Europeans.
ReplyDeleteProto-Indo-Europeans were similar to Tarim_EMBA's sister group. Something like ANE + minor ANA.
This supports Alexander Kozintsev theory that Proto-Indo-Europeans came from Central Asia (Lake Balkhash-Tien shan-Altai in Figure 11 and 10) right next to Tarim.
"On the Homelands of Indo-European and Eurasiatic: Geographic Aspects of a Lexicostatistical Classification. Alexander Kozintsev et al 2020"
https://www.academia.edu/43594756/On_the_Homelands_of_Indo_European_and_Eurasiatic_Geographic_Aspects_of_a_Lexicostatistical_Classification_2020_
Samuel Andrews said... "I chose to focus on how they had CHG ancestry and how it probably entered the Steppe a really long time ago."
ReplyDeleteJust a thought. One option is that pre-pre-pre PIE came to the steppes with those early, early CHG ancestors. And that cognate ancestors of Indo-European languages were carried by CHG into not just the steppes, but also into Anatolia and also expanded into Europe with the spread of Corded Ware.
Just a thought.
ReplyDeleteRoutes proposed by Alexander Kozintsev in figure 11 makes most sense and is in line with both new genetic and linguistic data.
History shows that it is the steppe people; more often from Altai-Balkhash-Tien Shan region are the ones contributing to language-shift in populations they conquered - Indo-Europeans, Uralic and Turkic as recently as 11th century in Anatolia. They all had less than half or minor genetic contribution and lead to language shift.
We know that Turks did not need to pass through Europe or Caucasus to reach Anatolia in 11th century! Alexander Kozintsev's figure 11 makes sense both genetically, linguistically and routes taken by Proto-Indo-Europeans to reach Anatolia.
@LivoniaG
ReplyDeleteWas that comment inspired by the bullshit in the Heggarty paper?
It's important to understand that Corded Ware and Khvalynsk derive from the same gene pool (Corded Ware via Sredny Stog).
So Corded Ware and Khvalynsk aren't related to each other via CHG, but rather via a population that was a mix of EHG-related and CHG-related ancestries/alleles.
Indeed, Corded Ware and Khvalynsk don't really have CHG ancestry, but rather related alleles that were present in the hunter-gatherers of the steppe.
Ergo, there's no evidence that any CHG people ever made it into the steppe, and they probably didn't.
What actually happened was that different hunter-gatherers around the Caucasus expanded their ranges gradually, and they kept to their own ecological zones because they were adapted to them exclusively. But they did mix in some contact zones. One contact zone was probably the North Caucasus.
So once those CHG-related alleles entered the steppe via admixture, they became part of the steppe gene pool, and they were spread by steppe people, who were well adapted to the steppe ecology and also highly mobile.
This is not a model that is conducive to CHG being Proto-Indo-European, Indo-Anatolian, or any pre-Proto-Indo-European.
@Falcon “ Proto-Indo-Europeans were similar to Tarim_EMBA's sister group. Something like ANE + minor ANA.
ReplyDeleteThis supports Alexander Kozintsev theory that Proto-Indo-Europeans came from Central Asia (Lake Balkhash-Tien shan-Altai in Figure 11 and 10) right next to Tarim.”
Try Southern Ukraine
@LivoniaG “Just a thought. One option is that pre-pre-pre PIE came to the steppes with those early, early CHG ancestors. And that cognate ancestors of Indo-European languages were carried by CHG into not just the steppes, but also into Anatolia and also expanded into Europe with the spread of Corded Ware.”
ReplyDeleteOK, Iosif Lazaridis…
a wrote:
ReplyDelete"Still no answer to the genetic connection between Corded Ware and Hittite and or Corded Ware and Tocharian cultures?"
Do we have any actual Hittite (Nesili) DNA yet? Not that I have heard.
Speaking of Tocharian, there are two R1b-P310 samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture, which is thought to be connected to Tocharian. I6222 from Wang et al (2020) is dated to 3316-2918 cal BC. His remains were recovered in Shatar Chuluu, Mongolia. C3341 from Kumar et al (2022) is dated to 2815-2526 cal BC and was recovered in Xinjiang. China.
Must Corded Ware account for all the Indo-European peoples? Isn't it enough that it accounts for those in most of Europe and, indirectly, South Asia?
a wrote:
"What about branches of R1b that are L51 negative and found in Corded Ware and Bell Beaker?"
What about them? They are few and far between. By far most of the R1b in both Corded Ware and its descendant, Beaker, is R1b-L51.
There is also plenty of Corded Ware that is R1a-M417 and a little bit that isn't any kind of R1 at all.
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete"Try Southern Ukraine"
Topography fail. That's flat land.
Mountains are most important aspect of Proto-Indo-Europeans homeland.
"The first thing that can be claimed about the homeland with any reasonable certainty is that it was a region with a mountainous topography. The most obvious evidence for this is the great number of Indo-European words denoting high mountains and heights."
Proto-Indo-European lived where "mountains rose to the sky". This is also in line with Alexander Kozintsev theory.
@LivoniaG,
ReplyDeleteThere's no link between the "CHG" in the Steppe and the "CHG" in Anatolia.
There's no way they both spoke Indo-Anatolian.
The big mistake Harvard is making is thinking that CHG could be the linguistic between Anatolia & the Steppe.
ReplyDeleteIt is a very ancient shared ancestry that is too old to be considered a lingustic link.
@Blogger Andrzejewski
ReplyDelete" the alleged substantial non-IE substrate?
Does that make sense that some Swedish scientists claim that Nordic Bronze Age was an amalgam of Corded Ware/SGC with Pitted Ware SHG, and that thus up to 20% of Germanic vocabulary is authoctonous from SHG foragers?
On the same vein, I’ve read theories that much of the agropastoralist vocabulary in PIE and especially in post-CWC Germanic and what EastPole calls “Indo-Slavic” comes not from the WSH but from GAC, Baden and Cucuteni Tripolye."
It makes perfect sense. Excess EHG in Scaninavia suggests to me SHG like Motala who were somewhere around 1/3 EHG or the Norse ones who were ~ 2/3 EHG, plus all that I that Swedes & Norse have suggest they were a mix. Throw in some farmer who CWC replaced and you've got Nordic Bronze Age. Well wasn't there BB there in it as well?
As far as Farmer vocab in in CWC, why not? They're GAC's offspring too and would likely have learned words for processes/things that Steppe didn't have in their vocabulary. Good luck trying to prove it though.
Not the regular poster that goes by "Rob"
@Falcon
ReplyDeleteWest of the Pontic-Caspian steppe we have the Carpathian Mountains, and southeast of it the Caucasus Mountains.
So steppe people were very familiar with high mountains, but they didn't live in the mountains.
By the way, Kozintsev's hypothesis is a total fail.
It's right up there with the horseshit from Heggarty.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteThat is too far-west of Ukraine, most of Ukraine is flat-land.
Caucasus is not that important for Proto-Indo-Europeans other than maybe one of the routes they may have passed through (picking up word for "Wine" in or around Caucasus).
CHG language will be unrelated to Proto-Indo-European - since Caucasus languages are not related to Indo-European family and appear quite distinct.
It is small group of men who are changing languages of entire populations - IE, Uralic, Turkic. These language families have more in common with each-other than with other language families.
Kozintsev's theory works because routes makes more sense for Proto-Indo-European in Anatolia.
Heggarty's theory works because R1b and R1a appear to be feuding rivals - which is also very clear with their expansion - we see this difference even in graves 8000-5000 years ago. Yet, both spoke same language family! This "Para-Proto-IE" language spoken by both R1a/R1b is at least 9000-13,000 years old.
If we could just show ydna in Corded Ware or late phase Sredny Stog/Deriivka and a connection with Afanasievo(if it indeed is connected to Tocharian) besides the usual Yamanaya branch like I5884 Z2103.
ReplyDeleteIn terms of horses(importance of horse in Indo-European culture)we have Turganic horses and Pontic-Caspian steppe that fall in the sphere of Yamnaya branch R1b-Z2109 -- homogenous male burials not shared with Altai -- Corded Ware ydna 310 or Corded Ware Bell Beaker L51(With the exception of I0443 L23).
The prehistoric origins of the domestic horse and horseback riding
Markku Niskanen
"Whether or not there was any captive breeding and riding of horses, this "horse cult" arrived from the Volga-Ural steppe into the Dnieper-Don steppe with Khvalynsk immigrants, who with the local Dnieper-Donets II people formed the Sredni Stog culture dating to about 4750/4400-3400 BC (Anthony, 2007:244; Kotova, 2008:122; Rassamakin, 2012: Table 1; Anthony et al., 2022). Increased aridity drove some early Sredni Stog groups westward (Kotova and Makhortykh, 2010), giving rise to the Suvorovo-Novodanilovka group. Graves in the Danube delta and the westernmost steppe represent the Suvorovo group and those further east the Novodanilovka group (Anthony, 2007:251). These were graves of high-status individuals, who controlled long-distance exchanges of prestige goods including copper and gold from the "Old European" settlements in the lower Danube Valley, pottery from Tripolye settlements and the horse-head shaped mace heads of the Sredni Stog and Khvalynsk cultures (Rassamakin 1999:100-112; Anthony 2007:249-258)."
In terms of wine, we can connect Georgian, Armenian and Hittite with either language or ydna Z2109(Armenian).
Z2103 or Z2109 in Deriivka--Afanasievo -- Corded Ware, Bell Beaker -- Armenia -- and Abashevo(Indo-Iranian)?
Georgian ღვინო (ghvee-no), "wine", itself derived from the Proto-Indo-European stem *win-o- (cf. Armenian: գինի, gini; Ancient Greek: οἶνος oinos; Aeolic Greek: ϝοῖνος woinos; Hittite: wiyana; Lycian: oino).[43][44][45]
Some scholars have noted the similarities between the words for wine in Indo-European languages (e.g. Armenian gini, Latin vinum, Ancient Greek οἶνος, Russian вино [vʲɪˈno]), Kartvelian (e.g. Georgian ღვინო [ˈɣvino]), and Semitic (*wayn; Hebrew יין [jajin]), pointing to the possibility of a common origin of the word denoting "wine" in these language families.[53] The Georgian word goes back to Proto-Kartvelian *ɣwino-,[54] which is either a borrowing from Proto-Indo-European[54][55][56][57][58][59] or the lexeme was specifically borrowed from Proto-Armenian *ɣʷeinyo-, whence Armenian gini.[60][61][62][63][54]
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteThat's not really correct.
Lazaridis is claiming that Yamnaya not only has CHG ancestry, but also a second layer of mixed CHG/Anatolian ancestry that came from Armenia or surrounds during the Copper Age, and brought Indo-European to the steppe and Indo-Anatolian to Anatolia.
It's important to understand this hypothesis in order to debunk it. So if you say Lazaridis is wrong because CHG is too old, then he'll just say that you don't understand what he's claiming.
But anyway, there are a number of problems with Lazaridis' hypothesis, such as the lack of that specifically Armenian-related ancestry in Yamnaya. In fact, Yamnaya has ancestry from European farmers instead.
Another issue is that the Kurgan tradition actually came from Eastern Europe and it arrived in West Asia, including in Armenia, at about the time when Lazaridis' Indo-Anatolians were living there.
This actually correlates with the appearance of steppe ancestry in Armenia during the Copper Age.
Apart from that, there are linguistic problems, like the presence of a wide range of language families and civilizations in ancient West Asia that obviously had no contact whatsoever with any Indo-Anatolians.
So the Indo-Anatolian homeland wasn't in Armenia or anywhere in West Asia. This is bullshit. But you need the right arguments to make that point.
@a
ReplyDeleteIf we could just show ydna in Corded Ware or late phase Sredny Stog/Deriivka and a connection with Afanasievo(if it indeed is connected to Tocharian) besides the usual Yamanaya branch like I5884 Z2103.
Corded Ware is closely related to Afanasievo via Yamnaya. This is obvious.
How do you not know this yet? Are you totally fucking retarded or what?
@Rich.S
ReplyDelete1-Yes, exactly true, and don't try to downplay its importance because it is very important. L51>L151 did not participate in the Indo-Europeanization of Anatolia, Central Asia, Armenia, Iran and India. Nor did it participate in migrations to the Balkans or reach the Peloponnese until the late Bronze Age. It has absolutely nothing to do either with Balto-Slavic (which is an R1a matter) or with Germanic. You don't even understand that the Balkans, Greece and the Baltic are also European regions, you knucklehead.
2-You still haven't been able to understand that Aesch25, MX304 & MX310 are neolithic farmers buried in dolmens, two of them with hardly any steppe ancestry. Since when did the CWC bury their dead collectively in dolmens?. Don't make me laugh. The rest of samples in Poland are late and add nothing to this debate.
3-Try to understand that neither the CWC nor the uniparental steppe markers (among which I include R1a-M417) ever reached western Europe.
4-Yes, absolutely residual because at best we could only relate it to some small branch of IE such as Italo-Celtic. The current speakers of languages derived from this branch are many, but in prehistoric times it was a grain of sand in the desert.
5-The conclusion is obvious-we do not have R1b-L51>L151 in the steppes, nor did it participate in steppe migrations, and yet it played a very important role in the Indo-Europeanization of mainland Europe? You are either losing your mind or you have simply believed the fairy tale you have been told. Many times bitter and frustrated people project those complexes to their hobbies, you have believed that you are descended from the glorious Yamnaya riders and you try to prove it by all means.Ha Ha Ha
6- Hitting the nail squarely on the head
NP548 (5.086 BCE)-Niederpöring, Early farmer- LBK, Germany-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a, Da Silva, 2.023
Everyone knows the kurganist options;
1-He has steppe ancestry-FALSE, he is an early neolithic German LBK farmer with only 7% WHG, the rest ANF.
2-It is wrongly dated-FALSE, just check Joachim Pechtl paper (2.018) on the LBK site of Niederpöring (upper Danube).Die linienbandkeramische Gräbergruppe von Niederpöring-"Leitensiedlung", G de. Oberpöring, Lkr. Deggendorf-Pechtl (2.018)-
3-Contaminated sample-FALSE is an ancient genome of relatively good quality.
4-Y Haplogroups were determined with yHaplo-Maybe some FTDNA expert will take care of analyzing that BAM FIle and maybe he will discover that it is V88 or any other marker, it doesn't matter, we will keep looking because more samples will appear.
5-When the paper is finally published we will be able to give our opinion with more data, but at the moment things are not looking good for the relationship of L51>L151 with Indo-European unless this language is a WHGs or Anatolian issue.
@Falcon
ReplyDelete“Mountains are most important aspect of Proto-Indo-Europeans homeland.
"The first thing that can be claimed about the homeland with any reasonable certainty is that it was a region with a mountainous topography. The most obvious evidence for this is the great number of Indo-European words denoting high mountains and heights."
Proto-Indo-European lived where "mountains rose to the sky". This is also in line with Alexander Kozintsev theory”.
Some time ago we had a discussion here about the ingredients of PIE and the mountains in PIE lexicon:
@Ric Hern
“When you bake a cake you need all ingredients for it to be a cake after the baking process. All ingredients had to be in close proximity. Very important is that one ingredient on its own is not a cake.”
Exactly. The requirement that PIE homeland be located on “a plain near the highest mountains” which David Anthony reminded us about, is an important ingredient.
In practice, it probably means that those highest mountains should be visible from PIE homeland or from some important religious center of this homeland.
Here we have Tatra Mountains (Tatri/Patri (tata/papa) meaning“Father”): the highest mountain range in the Carpathian Mountains which are visible from Cracow:
https://i.postimg.cc/SNw7SqBK/Tatry.jpg
pcw250 R1a R-Z645
pcw420 R1a R-M417 (xZ645)
pcw430 R1a R-M417 (xL664, FGC9988)
That R1a rich CWC area around Cracow is very interesting. There the Bronocice pot was discovered, a ceramic vase incised with one of the earliest known depictions of a wheeled vehicle. It was dated by the radiocarbon method to the mid-fourth millennium BC.
TRB culture to which Bronocice pot is attributed was also using Corded ceramics, so it probably had some early contacts with Dereivka Sredny Stog culture.
Migrations of CWC from southeastern Poland to the east ended in India and Iran, migrations to the south influenced Balkan languages, from that area also came some CWC influences on the Bell Beaker culture and western European languages.
Here are some pictures of Tatra Mountains from Cracow:
https://ocdn.eu/pulscms-transforms/1/p3Rk9kpTURBXy80YzBhNjYxNjY2NGE1YjEwNzU5ZmVjYTc3ZWNiZjQ5YS5qcGeTlQMATc0FeM0DFJMFzQMUzQG8kwmmZmNkZjQzBoGhMAU/wawel-i-krywan-podczas-zachodu-slonca.webp
http://www.krakow4u.pl/inne/krakow-tatry/krakow-tatry_102_d.jpg
Wawel castle, visible on the pictures, stands on Wawel Hill where the famous Wawel Dragon lived. His lair was in a cave at the foot of Wawel Hill on the bank of the Vistula River.
Many PIE questions may have very simple answers for people who are not biased.
The Sam / Andrze theory
ReplyDelete“ PIE language probably came from the CHG-rich people.”
In other words, it wasn’t an indigenous Eastern European HG language like what the Samara guys spoke; it probably came from Progress or Piedmont.”
IMo I struggle to accept this theory due to non -plausibility, after all these years, because Piedmont were culturally peripheral and they’re not the expanding / founder lineages
There’s just 2 R1b-V1636 in CWC & Cernavoda, 1x J1 in Afansievo
Unless you’re claiming PIE was maternally mediated ?
@ Falcon
ReplyDelete“History shows that it is the steppe people; more often from Altai-Balkhash-Tien Shan region are the ones contributing to language-shift in populations they conquered - Indo-Europeans, Uralic and Turkic as recently as 11th century in Anatolia.””
Not sure where you’ve been the last 15 years, because none of those language groups come from the Altai-Balkhash
Kozintsev paper is an example of Nostratic pseudoscience. Claims he’s unlocked the history of all the worlds languages - which just happen come to radiate from one magic place - via lexicostatistics . Yeah right
“ “Mountains are most important aspect of Proto-Indo-Europeans homeland.””
Is that what his crystal ball and magic herbs say ? Great to know
Comparing metals in Corded Ware and Yamnaya/Afanasievo burials/
ReplyDeleteMallory points out has no word for farming grains however they have gold and silver in Afanasievo. A small sample of meteoric iron earings are found in Afanasievo. Linking R1b-Z2109 Yamnaya, Afanasievo, Catacombe with meteoric iron.
James Mallory, The problem of Tocharian origins
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-Q_tqVQHwFw
https://musaeumscythia.blogspot.com/2021/10/new-evidence-for-meteoric-iron-objects.html
Khvalynsk culture= no iron.
New evidence for meteoric iron objects belonging the Yamnaya culture
"This grave was roughly dated to 2873-2471 b.c, making these finds the oldest examples of meteoric iron found in both Europe and Asia, only beaten in antiquity by meteoric iron objects from Egypt which date to about 3200 b.c. (There is also the famous King Tut knife)
In total there were six iron objects found in the Boldyrevo I grave. One of these artefacts was an iron knife, with a blade of roughly 14 centimeters long, another was an adze and another was a chisel-like object. The other three objects were not able to be properly identified.
What I find more interesting though is that these metal objects were not an isolated incident. The article mentions that in addition to the Boldyrevo I grave, the Utevka I and Tamar-Utkul VII burials of the Yamnaya culture were sites reported to have meteoric iron objects as well, although these weren't included in their study. All of these were large burials with prestigious grave goods, and are thus connected to the elites of these societies.
In Ludmila Koryakova's 'The Urals and Western Siberia in the Bronze and Iron Ages' it is mentioned that there potentially are more than 64 iron objects shared between the Yamnaya, Catacomb and Afanasievo cultures."
If this is true, that would be interesting because I know that the Kaman-Kalehöyük site in Anatolia around 2200-1900 b.c also had early signs of iron smelting. The oldest known evidence for steel also comes from this site. The Hittites were of course famous for their early development of iron smelting, and this site has been linked to early Hittites.
Some of the samples from this sites showed up with a degree of ancestry hailing from the Pontic-Caspian steppes from what I have seen. But you do not have to take my word for it. You can read more about the steppe ancestry in this post from the blog Eurogenes:
Hittite era Anatolians in qpAdm
@ a
ReplyDelete"Could it be possible that R1b-V1636 in a single grave culture and the Dutch bell cup sample 13026 (Yamnaya R1b-Z2109_KMS60) are related to the phylogeny of Dom2 horses and Yersinia pestis?"
A question from the other side - where did the information come from that this sample is Z2109-KMS60 ??? Wherever I did not look for information, at most there is talk of Z2103. I have not seen the Z2109 anywhere, much less the KMS60.
@Rob “ The Sam / Andrze theory
ReplyDelete“ PIE language probably came from the CHG-rich people.”
In other words, it wasn’t an indigenous Eastern European HG language like what the Samara guys spoke; it probably came from Progress or Piedmont.”
IMo I struggle to accept this theory due to non -plausibility, after all these years, because Piedmont were culturally peripheral and they’re not the expanding / founder lineages
There’s just 2 R1b-V1636 in CWC & Cernavoda, 1x J1 in Afansievo
Unless you’re claiming PIE was maternally mediated”
How the fuck is it my theory? LOL
If you had read carefully the thread of back and forth between me and him, you would’ve noticed that I was debating him and counter arguing with him about it. My theory was that PIE was an indigenous Don region rather than CHG-rich population from Khvalynsk. My assessment is, and has always been, much closer to yours, whereby PIE arose among the Sredny Stog tribes/ethnos, which were mostly EHG +CHG, with lots of ongoing influences from Ukraine_N (Dnieper Donetsk? Bug Dniester?) and mainly Tripolye and GAC. The CHG in Sredny was overwhelmingly maternally mediated and hence its impact on the creation and evolution of PIE was close to nil.
Gaska wrote:
ReplyDelete". . . NP548 (5.086 BCE)-Niederpöring, Early farmer- LBK, Germany-HapY-R1b1a/2a1a, Da Silva, 2.023"
I cannot find any such sample or any such paper that one can find simply by searching for "Da Silva 2023" or searching for that whole string. So, please post a link to that paper. Don't just make claims about it that are impossible to verify. I seriously doubt you can produce an ancient sample from an LBK farmer without any steppe DNA who is R1b-L151. I know you would if you could, but you can't. Meanwhile, there are numerous ancient R1b-L151 samples from Indo-European steppe pastoralist and steppe pastoralist-derived cultures.
Please try to understand that the spread of Indo-European was not accomplished everywhere entirely by the same group of people with one single Y-DNA haplogroup. So, it is not necessary to show that R1b-L151 was involved equally in the Indo-Europeanization of every place that was eventually Indo-Europeanized. The parts of Europe that R1b-L151 Indo-Europeanized will suffice.
You very obviously did not know what you were talking about - you never do - when you made the claims you did about an alleged lack of R1b-L151 in Corded Ware in Switzerland, Germany, etc.
Very plainly the earliest wave of Corded Ware into northern and central Europe was primarily R1b-L151. At this point only an utter moron blinded by a rabidly idiotic partisan adherence to some misguided ethno-nationalist mania could fail to see that. Those early Corded Ware people carried Indo-Europeanization to the Rhine River valley. The Beaker culture developed from western Corded Ware in the Lower Rhine valley. Its people, biological, linguistic and cultural descendants of those earlier Corded Ware pioneers, carried Indo-European language and culture, as well as steppe Y-DNA and autosomal DNA, the rest of the way to the shores of the Atlantic.
When you referred to me in your last post as a "knucklehead", you may have been partly right, because truly only a knucklehead would continue to read your posts and respond to them after years of seeing you embarrass yourself time and time again in various DNA discussion venues. I'm not sure why Davidski allows you to persist in your babbling here. Perhaps it's because you make everyone else look so good by contrast.
Take comfort, Gaska, in the knowledge that no one believes a damn thing you have to say.
Yamnaya and CWC are not relevant for PIE or Para-PIE. They are later population who are too mixed.
ReplyDeleteUralic and Turkic emerged in population who were entirely ANA. Uralic and Turkic contribution in Finland, Turkey and parts of East Europe is small but made large impact when it comes to linguistic and paternal haplogroup. It is nomadic men who are leading these language shifts.
At some point Para-Proto IE language was spoken by both R1a and R1b before they went their own way (for whatever reason) - this separation is very clear even in bronze age - not just in Mesolithic.
These population were not mute, they must have spoken something that was clearly ancestral to later IE. Similar to how paternal haplogroup N is clearly associated with Uralic expansion.
This Para-PIE speaking population can only be ANE + with minor ANA. EHG has haplogroups R1a/b, mtDNA U and mtDNA C. This population was already speaking Para-PIE. Heggarty's theory pushing back PIE to 9000 years ago makes sense here. With Para-PIE emerging two or three millennium earlier where early myths of PIE would already be shared by both R1a and R1b before their rivalry.
Gaska wrote:
ReplyDelete". . . 5-The conclusion is obvious-we do not have R1b-L51>L151 in the steppes, nor did it participate in steppe migrations, and yet it played a very important role in the Indo-Europeanization of mainland Europe?"
My response:
What's wrong with your memory, Gaska?
Surely you recall those two ancient R1b-P310 samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture, confirmed by FTDNA's team? One, I6222, appeared in Wang et al (2020), is dated to 3316-2918 cal BC, and was recovered in Shatar Chuluu, Mongolia. The second, C3341, appeared in Kumar et al (2022), is dated to 2815-2526 cal BC, and was recovered in Xinjiang, China. They were virtually identical to Yamnaya in terms of autosomal DNA.
Oh, but perhaps you object to them because they were only confirmed to be L51>P310 and not L151?
Of course, there are numerous R1b-L151 samples from Corded Ware, which everyone with a brain acknowledges was a culture derived from the Eastern European steppe. In fact, the very earliest Corded Ware samples we know of were all R1b-L151 and very high in steppe DNA, clustering close to Yamnaya. And those aren't the only R1b-L151 Corded Ware samples.
Then there is Beaker, obviously derived from Corded Ware and loaded with R1b-L151 and steppe DNA.
Beyond the genetic problems regarding a south caucasian origin of Yamnaya and PIE (I'm broadly in agreement with the consensus here on this), there are a few things that seem really difficult to reconcile with Lazaridis'/Patterson's account even if viewed extremely generously:
ReplyDelete1. If they want to maintain that the farmer ancestry is the distinguishing factor of PIE on the Steppe, then it more or less follows that Khavlynsk could not have spoke a language related to PIE. This isn't an impossible scenario but the presence of shell-tempered pottery, burial characteristics, and symbols of power (stone maces/scepters) are at least curious.
This problem also may extend to other eneolithic steppe subgroups. Take for example Anthony's description of the Suvorovo sample at Csongrad with "autosomal DNA similar to Khvalynsk" (Though I'm unsure how literally we are to take this comment, perhaps all he knew at the time was that this sample had Steppe-like ancestry).
2. If they want to reconcile their theory with the linguistic theory where proto-anatolian splits from PIE ~4100-4400BC, then this requires the PIE speaking south caucasian ancestry to enter the Steppe at around this time at the very latest. It's awfully difficult to square this with Steppe activities in the Balkans already occurring by ~4500-4400BC. It's way too tight of a time window to believe south caucasian farmers could have already crossed the caucasus, acclimatized to/conquered the Steppe, and begun carrying out these activities. Are we to believe that early Sredni Stog/Suvorovo weren't PIE? Or that the two aren't related to Yamnaya? Beyond the evident cultural characteristics, Nikitin in his lecture certainly seemed convinced that the people responsible for Suvorovo were ancestral to Yamnaya. Patterson in a lecture also stated his belief in Sredni Stog->Yamnaya.
@Falcon
ReplyDeleteR1a and R1b never really went their own way.
There were always some populations around with both R1a and R1b, and Proto-Indo-European developed in such a group.
This population also had other Y-haplogroups, such as I2 and probably some odd cases of Q and J.
Y-haplogroup phylogeny has nothing to do with linguistic phylogeny.
Apart from that, the idea that Siberia or any other part of Asia was the Indo-European homeland is bullshit and Heggarty is an idiot.
@EthanR
ReplyDeleteThere are some new papers on the way from the David Reich Lab and Max Planck MPI (or whatever it's called now) about the peopling of the Pontic-Caspian steppe, Sredny Stog, and the origins of Yamnaya.
But I have zero confidence that they or their collaborators like Anthony or Nikitin will provide us with any truly useful insights.
I'm just waiting for their raw data.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI'm aware, I'm just extremely skeptical about how their sketch of what happened even forms an internally coherent account. Very little of it can be synchronized with the linguistic, archeological, and related data.
Also, from the sound of it, it doesn't seem like Nikitin contributed much to the paper's final conclusions (if we are to assume it is consistent with the Southern Arc paper). In his lecture he seemed convinced of a Trypilian origin for much (if not all) of the farmer ancestry in WSH.
@Rich S.
ReplyDeleteIt’s from this pre-print: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.23.554285v1
If you go to the supplementary file 1, NP548 also has the “KH180171_outlier” label under the laboratory ID column. He hasn’t been directly C14 dated (none of the Niederpöring samples appear to be individually C14 dated) and the raw data for the sample doesn’t seem to be available at the moment, for it’s still an un-peer reviewed pre-print, but I would check for yourself just to be sure. I’ve also checked all the other supplementary files and the pdf for the paper itself and their is no mention of this sample; he isn’t included in any admixture analysis of the farmers nor in any analysis concerning their respective mtDNA/Y-DNA haplogroups. Additionally, not one pre-steppe farmer in the aforementioned pdf haplogroup column is listed as having R1b, let alone a clade of M269. So between that and his status as an autosomal “outlier” with no direct C14 dating, he’s most certainly a latter sample with steppe autosomal DNA. So in summary, this guy is lying once again and making claims he has no direct evidence for.
@Davidski
How much would I have to donate to the blog for you to ban this Basque peasant? All this asswipe does for pages and pages of countless blogs is lie and regurgitate the same debunked nonsense, polluting the comment section and concealing genuine conversations about the topics at hand. He is not interested in having a genuine dialectic and discovering the truth, he’s just a bad faith zealot ideologue. Between this guy and the anti-Semite Gio, we need commenter bans again.
"Surely you recall those two ancient R1b-P310 samples from the steppe pastoralist Afanasievo culture, confirmed by FTDNA's team? One, I6222, appeared in Wang et al (2020), is dated to 3316-2918 cal BC, and was recovered in Shatar Chuluu, Mongolia."
ReplyDeleteInteresting I6222(3316-2918 cal) P310 is older than Bavarian Corded Ware.
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Compare some of the oldest R1a to date in relation to L51+(Corded Ware), P310+(Afanasievo) and Z2103+ finds.
My popular map of the oldest instances of Y-haplogroup R1a in the ancient DNA record has a new entry: PES001 from the recent Saag et al. preprint. PES001 comes from a burial site in what is now northwestern Russia and is dated to a whopping 10785–10626 calBCE.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/07/the-oldest-r1a-to-date.html
https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-0u2IraQPBV8/Xxbsri0rciI/AAAAAAAAJCs/tRz2C0e4EFoM-oomS1YSWCL6eNcPa4CkQCLcBGAsYHQ/s1600/Ancient_Y-hg_R1a_v2.jpg
R1b-Z2103>Z2109 can be found in Yamnaya/Afanasievo/Corded Ware and Bell Beaker) as well as some of the oldest R1a samples.
For example:
1)PS001 Northwestern Russia( 10785–10626 calBCE.)
To the South-- Abashevo culture--common burial with R1a-93 and Z2103 Pepkino-Pepkinsky mound.
2)I5786(7040-6703calBCE) Dereivka Ukraine, I5884 Yamnaya (Z2103)- Dereivka
3)I0433 Khvalynsk(5200-4000calBCE), Yamnaya-Samara I0443(L23+) and Io444-Z2109+
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteLazardis's theory is that were two waves through the Caucasus.
One which was pure CHG and one which was Armenian_Neolithic-like.
He said either could have spread IE languages.
But, yeah he seems to specifically think it was "the second wave."
This must mean he doesn't think Khvalynsk spoke IE or anything even related to IE
ReplyDelete@Samuel
ReplyDeleteNah, according to Lazaridis the second Caucasus admixture into Yamnaya was supposedly more like Maykop and Kura-Araxes. Mixed CHG/Anatolian.
See that's why he claims that Kura-Araxes was proto-Anatolian.
The funny thing there is that Kura-Araxes was obviously a Middle Eastern version of earlier kurgan steppe cultures.
And yeah, if this Maykop/Kura-Araxes wave into the steppe was Indo-European, then Khvalynsk wasn't even related to Indo-Europeans.
Again, this is nonsense when we look at the Khvalynsk cultural traits.
The Southern Arc paper isn't half as bad as Heggarty's joke of a paper, but it still looks like some sort of parody.
@Davidski,
ReplyDeleteIt is so hard to believe that there were two completely independent waves of people from the Caucasus into the Steppe.
The chances for there to have been a second one are so low.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteTheir second wave into the steppe is from Meshoko or something related, or maybe from early Maykop.
This is in part correct, because people with this type of ancestry are found on the steppe starting from the Eneolithic.
Their ancestry shows up in Usatovo and in the Maykop outliers.
But the Maykop outliers form a different steppe cine from Yamnaya, specifically due to this type of ancestry.
The good people at the David Reich Lab can't work this out, because they base everything on formal stats and qpAdm (with poor outgroups), and they don't know how to run a PCA beyond the usual West Eurasian PCA that they always do.
@David
ReplyDelete"Y-haplogroup phylogeny has nothing to do with linguistic phylogeny."
It is very obvious which haplogroups dominates most IE speakers and which minor non-IE haplogroups were assimilated. It is comparable to Uralic and Turkic expansions.
"This population also had other Y-haplogroups, such as I2 and probably some odd cases of Q and J."
I2 and J are like non-playable characters when it comes to PIE or Para-IE. They were not PIE speakers, let alone Para-PIE.
There is mostly R1a in Karelia. R1b in Samara. Khvalynsk is mostly R1b. Yamnaya is mostly R1b. CWC is mostly R1a. It is clear which haplogroup was dominant in each of these burial sites.
This is LAST stage of Indo-European language (not PIE) : "David W. Anthony : this implies that the Indo-European languages were the result of "a dominant language spoken by EHGs that absorbed Caucasus-like elements in phonology, morphology, and lexicon" (spoken by CHGs)"
David Anthony admits there was "a dominant language spoken" by EHGs. It is pretty obvious Para-PIE and PIE was already spoken by this ANE rich group.
@Falcon
ReplyDeleteDavid Anthony's hypothesis is outdated and based on wrong assumptions.
The chances that Proto-Indo-European was spoken in a forest EHG population like the one in Karelia is zero.
Yamnaya doesn't even have forest EHG ancestry like that.
It has somewhat different EHG-related ancestry from two different sources; Ukraine foragers and Caspian steppe foragers/nascent pastoralists.
Ukraine foragers are more western than the forest EHG, while the Caspian steppe foragers are more eastern. But lumping them together sort of looks like forest EHG.
See that's why the David Reich Lab models for Yamnaya are wrong. They're based on the wrong assumption that Yamnaya has forest EHG ancestry.
"Yamnaya doesn't even have forest EHG ancestry like that."
DeleteCould you explain the reasoning for this? Why is Ukrainian HG + Caspian HG(?) a better fit for the non CHG like ancestry in Yamnaya than EHG? Also I thought Ukrainian HGs were mainly I2 not R1b/R1a
Simon Stevin wrote:
ReplyDelete"@Rich S.
It’s from this pre-print: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.08.23.554285v1
If you go to the supplementary file 1, NP548 also has the “KH180171_outlier” label under the laboratory ID column. He hasn’t been directly C14 dated (none of the Niederpöring samples appear to be individually C14 dated) and the raw data for the sample doesn’t seem to be available at the moment, for it’s still an un-peer reviewed pre-print, but I would check for yourself just to be sure. I’ve also checked all the other supplementary files and the pdf for the paper itself and their is no mention of this sample; he isn’t included in any admixture analysis of the farmers nor in any analysis concerning their respective mtDNA/Y-DNA haplogroups. Additionally, not one pre-steppe farmer in the aforementioned pdf haplogroup column is listed as having R1b, let alone a clade of M269. So between that and his status as an autosomal “outlier” with no direct C14 dating, he’s most certainly a latter sample with steppe autosomal DNA. So in summary, this guy is lying once again and making claims he has no direct evidence for."
My response:
Thanks!
I checked the Data S1 spreadsheet, and it does show that sample as R1b-L151 (R1b1a2a1a), but, as you pointed out, he is called "outlier", and the sample was not used for HLA frequencies and did not pass the "popgen filter".
Here's something else that is curious. Figure S7B on page 8 of the Supplementary Materials shows the macro Y-DNA lineages of EF (Early Farmers) and LF (Late Farmers) as studied in the paper. Y-DNA haplogroup R does not appear in the table. Instead, it has C, G, H, I, and T. So, if one of the farmers was R1b-L151, why does R not appear in Figure S7B?
That leads me to suspect that NP548/KH180171_outlier is such an outlier that the paper's authors do not consider him one of the farmers, either EF or LF.
As you said, NP548/KH180171_outlier is not mentioned in the Supplementary Materials.
@Samuel
ReplyDeleteBy the way, here's another little gem from Lazaridis and friends: the Caucasus is not a genetic barrier.
This is obviously false.
The Caucasus ecology is so different from the steppe ecology, that there is no record of any population ever making a successful transition from one to the other, resulting in a very strong, persistent genetic border between the Caucasus and the steppe.
Maykop tried to colonize the steppe but it failed. And even Maykop proper was a very different population from the so called steppe Maykop.
Some admixture did take place between the Caucasus and steppe populations, but as I already explained, this was due to genetic contact zones, probably in the North Caucasus, and not because of any large scale migrations into the steppe.
It's a scandal that this sort of thing is being allowed to go unchecked in peer reviewed work.
@Stevens & Stevin
ReplyDeleteAll the samples from Niederporing are perfectly dated, the names of the samples in the laboratory coincide with the names assigned by the archaeologists to the skeletons in the different tombs. So perfectly dated and perfectly analyzed. You can check it in this link-Die linienbandkeramische Gräbergruppe von Niederpöring-"Leitensiedlung", G de. Oberpöring, Lkr. Deggendorf-Joachim Pechtl (2.018)-Ergo, six of the seven LBK tombs excavated by Pechtl (2008) have been successfully analyzed
Sample ID Tomb (Pechtl)
N N Niederpöring KH180172 NP398- Grab1 No results
Y Y Niederpöring KH180169 NP410 -Grab2 mtDNA X2d-HapY-G2a2a
Y Y Niederpöring KH180166 NP541 -Grab3 mtDNA-J1c
Y Y Niederpöring KH180168 NP543 -Grab4 mtDNA-X2b
N N Niederpöring KH180171_outlier NP548 -Grab5 mtDNA-U5a1/a1b-HapY-R1b1a2a1a
Y Y Niederpöring KH180167 NP560 Grab6 mtDNA-N1a1a1a
N N Niederpöring KH180567 NP561 Grab7 mtDNA-K1a1
Die linienbandkeramische Gräbergruppe von Niederpöring (Page 45)NiederpöringLeitensiedlung“. Tabelle der aus menschlichen Knochen der Bestat-tungen gewonnenen-14 C-Daten (C14 dates)
I sent you this link the other day to check it out, but either you don't have a German translator on your computer, or you are too lazy, or you are not smart enough to interpret the data, or you just didn't like what you read.
Grab Labornummer BP Standard-abweichungcal. BP(2-Sigma) Material
1 MAMS-29288 6142 31 5208-5002 Knochen
2 MAMS-29291 6096 29 5205-4916 Knochen
3 MAMS-29289 6151 32 5210-5009 Knochen
4 MAMS-29292 6182 28 5218-5048 Knochen
5 MAMS-29290 6112 29 5206-4946 Knochen
6 MAMS-29293 6194 28 5281-5047 Knochen
7 MAMS-29294 6158 29 5212-5022 Knochen
In the table on archaeological information published by Da Silva Nierderpöring is considered as follows-5.000 BCE (82), culture (Linear Pottery), Sample Size (14)-
This means that Da Silva's dating of 5,000 BC may be correct even though Pechtl speaks of Grab5-NP458- 6.112 BP or 5.206-4.946 BP (sigma 2). So according to Da Silva we have HapY-R1b1a2a1a 5,000 BC or 4112 BC at the Nierderporing Upper Danube LBK site.
I don't know why Da Silva calls it an outlier because tomb 5 belongs to the LBK, I suppose he was scared when he checked the male marker.
Then, not only am I not lying but I have been totally honest because in my post I say “5-When the paper is finally published we will be able to give our opinion with more data”
Regarding the accusations of lying and the requests for a ban, first remember that everything is recorded and second we already know how the holy Kurganist inquisition works.
Try to accept it, or Da Silva has made a mistake in assigning a marker to NP548 or game over.
@Rich S.
ReplyDeleteNot sure if its already been mentioned but if you look at Figure 1c in the preprint (the PCA) just one of the LBK samples can be described as an outlier to the rest. And it is outlying (roughly intermediate, in fact) in the direction of the cluster of BBC, Unetice, other Bronze Age samples, ultimately with CWC and Samara at the end of this cline. We can wait for the sample, but for now it would appear to be a heartbreaking shame, yet another early L151 with steppe ancestry...
That an LBK sample is L151 and has an unusual autosomal composition is being ignored by the authors is probably because these things made the sample irrelevant to their main research question. Of course, maybe it is because they are Kurganist conspirators.
@ Andrze
ReplyDelete“ How the fuck is it my theory? LOL
If you had read carefully the thread of back and forth between me and him, you would’ve noticed that I was debating him and counter arguing with him about it. ”
Ok bro no worries.
I wasn’t really dissing it, anyway . The matriarchal CHG -rich population does seem to be a “glue” for the various patriarchal -based clans focussed around major river valleys of the formative steppe / forest steppe zone
I think there might be something to do this
@ Ethan
ReplyDelete“Beyond the genetic problems regarding a south caucasian origin “
It’s just trying to fudge some stats and claim it’s a working model
Otherwise It’s very difficult to rationalise anthropologically. I thought hard about such a model years before the Arc paper.
The area they’re pointing to is Chaff Ware culture, which has nothing to do with Yamnaya or CWC
It barely has anything to do with Majkop
They’ve offered no mechanism for how the Mesopotamians would impart a language shift in Europe
@ Ethan
ReplyDelete“paper). In his lecture he seemed convinced of a Trypilian origin for much (if not all) of the farmer ancestry in WSH.”
Nah it’s not that simple.
Trypillia & even Boleraz (in some cases) fit for Cernavoda & Usatavo, but it might be GAC for CWC
Seems like Trypillia was already gone when “CW-X” was expanding toward Podilia. Then GAC went southeast from Kuyavia and began to mix with CWC
@Rob “ They’ve offered no mechanism for how the Mesopotamians would impart a language shift in Europe ”
ReplyDeleteI’ve been reading about bogus far-fetched fantasy theories how allegedly the “Uruk Expansion” is responsible for Leyla Tepe migration to the Caucasus Mountains to work at iron smeltering mines, and how allegedly these Sumerian Leyla Tepe were the founders of the Maykop Culture, which “of course” was the creator of the first Kurgan, the inventor of the potter’s wheel and so many influential inventions that were indispensable. The final leg of the journey is how Maykop was having so much impact on Yamnaya’s creation, existence and evolution…
It doesn’t get better than that…LOL
@ Davidski
ReplyDelete“There were always some populations around with both R1a and R1b, and Proto-Indo-European developed in such a group.
This population also had other Y-haplogroups, such as I2 and probably some odd cases of Q and J.
”
Seems like Kotova’s model is correct about Sredni Stog is correct. The I2a-L699 rich Azov-Dnieper clans were early “founders” of the Sredni Stog phenomenon, with LDC input on one side and farmer admixture on the the other
R1b-M269 & R1a-M17 were later mass-expanders. Will they show up on the lower Don or further north ?
OT: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB49524 - "Interdisciplinary analyses of Bronze Age communities from Western Hungary reveal complex population histories" - FASTQ files now uploaded for this study.
ReplyDelete@Gaska
ReplyDeleteThe "link" you sent is not a link, and you never provided a link to the Da Silva pre-print, although I asked you for one. I'm not all that lazy, and I can actually read German fairly well.
There is no c14 date listed in the Da Silva supplementary materials for NP548, and, as I mentioned before, Y-DNA haplogroup R is not listed in Figure S7B on page 8 of the Supplementary Materials, which lists the macro Y-DNA haplogroups of the EF (Early Farmers) and LF (Late Farmers) of the Da Silva et al study. That's really odd, if one of the farmers was R1b-L151.
Also, NP548 (KH180171_outlier) was not used for the HLA frequencies among Neolithic farmers, and admixture as a source for HLA variation in Neolithic farming communities was the actual subject of the paper (see the title). Why not, if he was one of the Neolithic farmers? NP548 also did not pass the popgen filter, at least according to the Data S1 spreadsheet.
I suspect that Da Silva and his colleagues probably do not view NP548 (KH180171_outlier) as one of the LBK Neolithic farmers, which is the reason Y-DNA haplogroup R does not appear in Figure S7B in the Supplementary Materials and why NP548 was not used for the farmers' HLA frequencies. I suspect there are three reasons for that: NP548 has steppe autosomal DNA, belongs to a steppe Y-DNA haplogroup (obviously), and the sample is too late to belong to LBK.
Time will tell.
LGK wrote;
ReplyDelete"@Rich S.
Not sure if its already been mentioned but if you look at Figure 1c in the preprint (the PCA) just one of the LBK samples can be described as an outlier to the rest. And it is outlying (roughly intermediate, in fact) in the direction of the cluster of BBC, Unetice, other Bronze Age samples, ultimately with CWC and Samara at the end of this cline. We can wait for the sample, but for now it would appear to be a heartbreaking shame, yet another early L151 with steppe ancestry...
That an LBK sample is L151 and has an unusual autosomal composition is being ignored by the authors is probably because these things made the sample irrelevant to their main research question. Of course, maybe it is because they are Kurganist conspirators."
I suspect you are right. Not only does NP548 (KH180171_outlier) belong to a steppe Y-DNA haplogroup, no doubt he has steppe DNA, too. I also suspect his c14 date (if there is one) is too late for LBK. All that, as you said, is why he was ignored by Da Silva and his colleagues: it doesn't do any good to include a steppe interloper or the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe interloper when one wants to know about "admixture as a source for HLA variation in Neolithic European farming communities".
You need Neolithic farmers for such a study.
@Rich S.
ReplyDeleteAlso found the German paper on Niederpöring-Leitensiedlung itself: https://www.academia.edu/37675249/Die_linienbandkeramische_Gr%C3%A4bergruppe_von_Niederp%C3%B6ring_Leitensiedlung_Gde_Oberp%C3%B6ring_Lkr_Deggendorf
In said paper, the German authors describe the individual from grave/tomb 5 (finding number: 548) as "female, late maturity to early senile." The Da Silva paper has no file describing which specific grave and paper their NP458 comes from, nor its archaeological characteristics, aside from general site information (e.g., Niederpöring). What's more, Da Silva's NP458 is biologically male and has no direct C14 dating; there's no subject information archaeologically linking him to the female subject from Pechtl's study. And lastly, Da Silvas's NP458 has been excluded from autosomal analysis; he's also not included in either of the EN/LN Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroup columns on page 8 of the "Supplementary Materials" file. So once again, this isn't evidence of anything. Actual evidence would be a directly C14 dated LBK male with R1b-M269 and no steppe autosomal DNA, but we clearly don't have that here.
Simon Stevin wrote:
ReplyDelete"@Rich S.
Also found the German paper on Niederpöring-Leitensiedlung itself: https://www.academia.edu/37675249/Die_linienbandkeramische_Gr%C3%A4bergruppe_von_Niederp%C3%B6ring_Leitensiedlung_Gde_Oberp%C3%B6ring_Lkr_Deggendorf
In said paper, the German authors describe the individual from grave/tomb 5 (finding number: 548) as "female, late maturity to early senile." The Da Silva paper has no file describing which specific grave and paper their NP458 comes from, nor its archaeological characteristics, aside from general site information (e.g., Niederpöring). What's more, Da Silva's NP458 is biologically male and has no direct C14 dating; there's no subject information archaeologically linking him to the female subject from Pechtl's study. And lastly, Da Silvas's NP458 has been excluded from autosomal analysis; he's also not included in either of the EN/LN Y-DNA/mtDNA haplogroup columns on page 8 of the "Supplementary Materials" file. So once again, this isn't evidence of anything. Actual evidence would be a directly C14 dated LBK male with R1b-M269 and no steppe autosomal DNA, but we clearly don't have that here."
My response:
Thanks for that additional information. I mentioned the fact that Y-DNA haplogroup R is not in Figure S7B on page 8 of the Supplementary Materials, which shows the macro Y-DNA haplogroups of the Early (EF) and Late (LF) farmers. Instead, it lists those haplogroups as C, G, H, I, J, and T. As I said before, that's really odd, if in fact one of the farmers was R1b-L151.
I couldn't find any direct c14 dating for NP548 either, although it's there for some of the other samples.
Were James Brown alive today and looking at this information, he would probably say, "Something's funky".
@Gaska
ReplyDelete"Sample ID Tomb (Pechtl)
N N Niederpöring KH180172 NP398- Grab1 No results
Y Y Niederpöring KH180169 NP410 -Grab2 mtDNA X2d-HapY-G2a2a
Y Y Niederpöring KH180166 NP541 -Grab3 mtDNA-J1c
Y Y Niederpöring KH180168 NP543 -Grab4 mtDNA-X2b
N N Niederpöring KH180171_outlier NP548 -Grab5 mtDNA-U5a1/a1b-HapY-R1b1a2a1a
Y Y Niederpöring KH180167 NP560 Grab6 mtDNA-N1a1a1a
N N Niederpöring KH180567 NP561 Grab7 mtDNA-K1a1"
Kindly link us directly to the publication and page/table where the sample NP548 in Da Silva is explicitly stated to be the person in Grab 5 from Pechtl et al. 2018.
In Da Silva supplementary Data S1, you can see there are 14 samples from Niederporing which is the LBK site. In the column for radiocarbon dating, every single one of these is blank. None of other Data S2-9 give any further info about NP548. In Pechtl et al. 2018 only 7 graves from the site are described as dated. So I don't see why NP548 is specifically thought to be the person in Grave 5 specifically or even any of the described and directly-dated grave occupants in Pechtl et al. 2018.
@ Andrze
ReplyDelete“ I’ve been reading about bogus far-fetched fantasy theories how allegedly the “Uruk Expansion” is responsible for Leyla Tepe migration to the Caucasus Mountains to work at iron smeltering mines, and how allegedly these Sumerian Leyla Tepe were the founders of the Maykop Culture, which “of course” was the creator of the first Kurgan, the inventor of the potter’s wheel and so many influential inventions that were indispensable. The final leg of the journey is how Maykop was having so much impact on Yamnaya’s creation, existence and evolution…
It doesn’t get better than that…LOL”
Some aspects (eg Uruk wheel made pottery) are justified, but overall those views can be criticised as being “Mesopotamocentric”.
the kurgan tradition is a borrowing from the north (via eastern Sredni Stog/ Progress mediated admixture in some Majkop and chalcolithic southern Caucasus). Barrows, cromlechs, Stone cists, are found through Europe long before Majkop appeared.
Majkop are a diverse phenomenon, mostly local Caucasian flavour. The Y-hg L-595 might represent genuine Uruk colonists from Mesopotamia. I’d think Leilatepe kurgans would be similar
@ Stevens & Stevin aka Laurel & Hardy
ReplyDeleteBasque peasants usually check the data before daring to offer an opinion on a sample as important as the one we are discussing. You, on the other hand, not only did not know the preprint but you had not even bothered to look for archaeological information about the site.
And yet, once again, you have accused me of lying, you have insulted me and you have asked me for the umpteenth time to be banned. You are hopeless, you will always behave like drunken and fanatic hooligans who think they are defending a true dogma of faith.
Thank God you are not professionally engaged in scientific research so your ability to influence is minimal and is reduced to a small number of ignorant followers incapable of interpreting the genetic data available to us in an unbiased manner.
I don't know what the problem with NP548 is, but its ID number matches Pechtl's Grab5 just as six other numbers in Da Silva's pre-print match the numbers of the other six Niederpöring LBK graves. And these tombs, as I have already shown, are perfectly dated as early LBK farmers.
Therefore we do not have to doubt that NP548 according to Da Silva is R1b-L151.
Nor do we have to doubt that the Nierderpöring samples are early LBK farmers because in the PCA you mentioned all of them are grouped together with the ANF, far away from the late EF and of course from the CWC, BBC or Yamnaya samples (even if some knuckleheads like LGK think they see LBK ghosts and quickly associate them with NP548).
However, there are some problems with pre-print that make us be cautious with our conclusions because Da Silva may have made a mistake in the assignment of the marker (she may be a woman although it is more logical that archaeologists make mistakes than geneticists in this matter), besides there are 14 samples from Niederpöring when I have only found 7 tombs from the LBK and his archaeological information (5,000 BC) does not specify the dating of each specific sample.
However the relation of NP548 with Grab5 and its dating are indisputable so only the official publication of the paper will serve to clarify our doubts about it (I hope so).
@Gaska
ReplyDelete"However, there are some problems with pre-print that make us be cautious with our conclusions because Da Silva may have made a mistake in the assignment of the marker (she may be a woman although it is more logical that archaeologists make mistakes than geneticists in this matter), besides there are 14 samples from Niederpöring when I have only found 7 tombs from the LBK and his archaeological information (5,000 BC) does not specify the dating of each specific sample.
However the relation of NP548 with Grab5 and its dating are indisputable so only the official publication of the paper will serve to clarify our doubts about it (I hope so)."
There are 14 Niederporing samples in Da Silva, and only 7 graves were described and dated by Pechtl. Again unless you can show us exactly where NP548 and/or sample KH180171_outlier is specified as corresponding to Grab 5 from Pechtl, specifically, we will have to believe you just made up the association.
And don't lie about the PCA "ghost", you can clearly see that precisely ONE of the LBK samples is intermediate to the EEF cluster and the Corded Ware, Unetice, Bell Beaker, etc cluster along the cline ending in Samara. So this person clearly has some % steppe ancestry. We know you that steppe ancestry in Neolithic Europe is an oxymoron for you because it predates Yamna, but it doesn't matter. It is a signature of ancestry from people who originated outside the boundaries of the EEF societies, the sooner you learn to deal with it the better you will feel.
@Agelmund
ReplyDeleteYamnaya is derived from Sredny Stog in Ukraine, not from northern EHG.
Sredny Stog is a mix between a CHG-rich Caspian steppe group and Ukraine foragers.
And obviously there's some I2 in Yamnaya.
ReplyDeleteAngelmund
a lot of ukranian HG had R1a to begin with and the Smydovo R1b sample could be, ( given the amount of his WHG/EHG ancestry) likely from the ukranian neolithic folks. Let's not forget that we have a Dereivka R1b Z103 sample who is only ukranian HG and EEF with very low level of steppe ancestry
@LGK
ReplyDeleteNot only are you a knucklehead, it's also that you haven't even read the German archaeologists paper, nor do you know how to interpret a PCA.
Have you not seen the drawings of the different tombs with the numbers assigned by archaeologists? Grab5-NP548, and then the ID numbers of Da Silva samples?-With Da Silva's explanations there is no doubt that NP548 belongs to tomb5.
Regarding the PCA, I assume you see the Niederpöring samples in the left corner, NP548 has not even been used for the PCA data and has not been used for the qpAdm models, why? I don't know. I suppose Da Silva et al will explain it to us when they publish their paper.
So stop talking nonsense and focus, your opinions are a joke and answering them a waste of time
(prev)
ReplyDelete@Ygor Well the Steppe is still proposed as the PIE homeland in the Southern Arc hypothesis. Just not the PIA homeland. If you had Heggarty's dispersal hypothesis in mind then that's not exactly the same as the Arc one. They're both "hybrid model" theories but have differences.
@Davidski "So if Sintashta wasn't Indo-Iranian, can you explain why all the ancient Iranian groups in Central and Inner Asia are derived from Sintashta?"
Because that's where Sintashta ancestry traveled to duh? There's CWC ancestry in ancient Greece in various timelines up to LBA so far, yet it's not related to the proto-Greek language or any CWC substratum in ancient Greek dialects. There's BA Anatolia ancestry in virtually all of Balkans (and probably Italy too) post-EBA but the languages aren't derived from there. Or, linguistics-wise, Sintashta was known for years to not have any agriculture which is required for I-Ir, yet without any other explanation around it was logically considered the favorite (by me as well, I simply considered there was some explanation for this that was not yet known).
In the past this coincidence would have been enough to explain I-Ir but now there are simply better explanations around. If these start bumping into problems as more studies on aDNA and linguistics inevitably come out then Sintashta has chances to become the favorite again.
@Andrze "Slam dunk against PIE = Sredny Stog language being a CHG one in origin"
I have no idea what this refers to lol
@Andrze "Do your 3 different core phenotypes correlate to WHG, EEF and Steppe by chance?"
No, moderns. I'm not aware of where the ancient populations can be classified or whether they can be classified in any of the modern categories at all.
@Ygor There's no acceptance of any hypothesis about Linear A. BTW we have had Linear B for quite a long time before it was deciphered as Greek. There was a time where the posited arrival of proto-Greek in Greece was somewhere in 1200 BCE or something like that because of this.
"so my point remains valid"
Your point is that it is not IE when we don't know what it is (undeciphered), and with most of the literature on it straight up proposing that it is IE. Not so valid to make claims about the genealogy of a language that is undeciphered as if it was innit?
"The Pelasgians thing alone means little or nothing"
Yeah, that's my point. Thanks for agreeing with me lol
"but in the much wider context (...) as Heggarty et al. are clearly wanting us to believe."
We don't know about Hittite and even in the most cookie cutter steppe urheimat theories Anatolian entry into Anatolia is pretty earlier before Hittite is attested.
As for Balkan IE Heggarty isn't proposing some earlier date, to my knowledge. You can see the Greek-Armenian split somewhere around ~2000 BCE. Albanian (or rather the language that led to it) is at ~3000 BCE but several languages are missing from the Balkanic tree (see Olander 2022), an obvious mistake in the paper, so we can assume it's the date for a split in proto-Balkanic. 3000 BCE is a sensible date for it and we already have early Yamnaya presence in the Balkans at that date. I'm not sure what your point is, it appears you have misunderstood Heggarty's paper on this. What's unconvential is the route he proposes for Balkanic (through Anatolia), not the dates.
So Gaska now has shifted his position from Basque being a vestige of Mesolithic if not Paleolithic Europe to it being an EEF language?
ReplyDelete@Gaska
ReplyDeleteYes, I saw the figure. The NP- numbers are not individual skeletons but archaeological features as you can see in the figure. It is unlikely that there was an additional male's bone in Grave 5 that Da Silva sequenced, and more likely Pechtl was just wrong about the sex. As for Da Silva, maybe they thought it was not necessary to include complete radiocarbon data at the preprint stage.
Either way, I never had an issue with the dating at Niedeporing as I already called it an early L151. Nevertheless, the reason they excluded it is probably because it has an autosomal profile and Y-dna suggestive of a recent steppe ancestor rather than some other error. We have to wait for release of the sample to clarify, but apparently you already know he was not in the PCA, how I am not sure.
(prev)
ReplyDelete@epoch Incredibly lazy cope or just low effort bait, I'm sure Azeris and their Oghuz Turkic language are relevant for what we're discussing here (R1b found in Hasanlu, R1b's existing across Iran -Terreros et al 2011, all indicating contact with steppe all of which corroborate Heggarty's route for I-Ir even if PIE was in the steppe -also Krause&Trappe and a couple of others if I'm not mistaken). Hmm maybe Hungarians too indicate that R1a (and R1b) in Eastern Europe never meant that IE languages were spoken there, right? Lmao
You're not even making some kind of rebuttal which means that this non-sequitur was the only thing you could come up with
@Davidski Tocharian speakers descend from Sintashta therefore Sintashta must've been proto-Tocharian based on your line of thinking. Interesting theory but hey if you say so haha
(current)
@Samuel That's plausible and would explain the discrepancy in CHG between Yamnaya and Khvalynsk (let alone Sredny), since CHG had already entered the steppe in small amounts in the Neolithic or ealier (Lazaridis et al 2022). A later second migration is proposed because Yamnaya and CWC are apparently loaded with CHG whereas Khvalynsk are not, and the Sredny samples we have (Mattila et al 2023) even less so, especially the early ones. Sredny also has plenty of WHG whereas very little amounts (if any) can be traced in Yamnaya alongside EEF. Based on what we see published at least. That Yamnaya are a local phenomenon, no admixture required etc etc is an interesting theory but doesn't have anything to support it for now.
Whether that CHG-rich steppe group independently developed PIA would probably be shown with relation to their role in Yamnaya ancestry. Although any origin aside from Sredny isn't going to make Davidski happy heh
But they would have to be found before ~4400 BCE for it to make sense unless they're slightly later but show a great fit statistically.
@Livonia Extremely unlikely, early CHG was just hunter-gatherers and PIA isn't a hunter-gatherer language. Which is why Khvalynsk also has trouble being the PIA homeland.
@Falcon Is that from Gamkrelidze & Ivanov 2010? Very interesting, will look it up.
@Samuel "It is a very ancient shared ancestry that is too old to be considered a lingustic link."
It's actually recent, and not the old "pure" CHG. Lazaridis et al 2022 wrote exactly about this. Otherwise yes it wouldn't make sense
@Falcon I think most people misunderstand Heggarty's paper. The important thing here is the dating, which doesn't work for anything north of the Caucasus. Maybe it works for CA too, haven't checked
ReplyDelete@EthanR There isn't any meaningful consensus here as this is a blog for discussion by hobbyists. Academic consensus seems to turn toward Southern Arc.
Khvalynsk are also not related to PIA due to the language itself.
PIA could already be somewhere in North Caucasus, Anatolian splits and moves southward. There's no requirement for West Asia > Steppe(or nearby) movement at that exact date as it could be earlier.
"Are we to believe that early Sredni Stog/Suvorovo weren't PIE? Or that the two aren't related to Yamnaya? Beyond the evident cultural characteristics"
Yeah we actually have no evidence for that so far. And the consensus on cultural characteristics is that it came from Khvalynsk which itself wasn't PIA/PIE. Unless Sredny magically invented a totally different language for no reason within a few centuries then also magically (no evidence so far) passed it on to Yamnaya/CWC.
@Davidski Where does he claim that Kura-Araxes spoke proto-Anatolian?
@Gaska
ReplyDeleteSeveral of us have explained to you the problems with your claims about sample NP548 (KH180171_outlier). There is no evidence in the Da Silva paper and its supplementary materials that NP548 has been directly c14 dated or that it was part of the paper's autosomal analysis of the Early (EF) and Late (LF) farmers. Even though "Admixture as a source for HLA variation in Neolithic European farming communities" is the title of the paper and is its subject, NP548 was not included in the HLA frequencies of the paper's farmers. That's odd, if NP548 was one of the Neolithic European farmers.
As I said before, the macro Y-DNA haplogroups of the paper's EF and LF (Early and Late farmers) groups appears in Figure S7B on page 8 of Da Silva's Supplementary Materials. R is not one of the macro Y-DNA haplogroups listed. So, either none of the farmers belonged to Y-DNA haplogroup R, or Da Silva et al left it out. Why would they do that, if one of the farmers was R1b-L151?
For the last several months, maybe the last several years, you have been pushing the notion that M269 is a Neolithic European farmer lineage. If you were right, you wouldn't have to scrape and search and hope for odd samples with loads of problems to make your case. The ancient DNA catalog is not short on samples from Neolithic European farmers. There should be plenty of them that are R1b-M269 by now, but there aren't. There are no R1b-M269 Neolithic European farmer samples, and every time you think you've found one, it turns out to be loaded with steppe DNA and is an oddball - an outlier - among a bunch of actual farmers who are not R1b-M269 and do not have any steppe DNA.
Besides all this, how could an R1b-L151 sample be as old as you're claiming this one is? FTDNA Discover's age estimate for R1b-L151 takes it back to ~3000 BC, with a 95% confidence interval of 3711-2375 BC. YFull takes R1b-L151 back to between 3500 and 2800 BC. If you're right about NP548, L151 is considerably older than those estimates. Does that really seem likely to you? It doesn't to me. It just contributes to the overall fishy smell of your claims about that sample.
But we'll wait and see how this one turns out. It seems to me the handwriting is already on the wall, but time will tell. Mene mene tekel upharsin.
@Rob “ Majkop are a diverse phenomenon, mostly local Caucasian flavour. The Y-hg L-595 might represent genuine Uruk colonists from Mesopotamia. I’d think Leilatepe kurgans would be similar”
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that this haplogroup and subclades are represented among Dravidian speakers and BMAC. It’s either that they were all related to Iran_N or that the hap was shared between it and CHG due to shared origins.
@Orpheus Lazaridis built his entire thesis on the scarcity of R1a or R1b Eastern European Haplogroups in Anatolian populations (not found yet), but how can he or Heggarty explain their Out-of-Armenia hypothesis, given that Armenian makes do have an abundance of R1b, all of it traced to 1,800ybp and onward?
ReplyDelete@Orpheus
ReplyDelete"I think most people misunderstand Heggarty's paper. The important thing here is the dating, which doesn't work for anything north of the Caucasus. Maybe it works for CA too, haven't checked"
Pushing back PIE 9000 years is a big deal, since previously oldest branch - "Archaic PIE" (Anatolian) was generally accepted to be around 6,000 years old (4000 BC). Para-PIE will be few millennium older than that. Heggarty's theory only proves Alexander Kozintsev 2020 theory.
"Archaic PIE" would have entered Anatolia similar to the way Oghuz Turks entered Anatolia in 11th century. Similar to Alexander Kozintsev 2020 figure 11.
Heggarty is an idiot.
ReplyDeleteIt's a scandal that his paper was published.
It'll be debunked and people will be laughing at it for many years to come.
And Orpheus is his torch bearer
ReplyDeleteI think Falcon (who also uses virgin gamer slang) will give Orpheus a run for his money
ReplyDelete@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteTocharian speakers descend from Sintashta therefore Sintashta must've been proto-Tocharian based on your line of thinking. Interesting theory but hey if you say so haha
No one is claiming that Tocharian speakers descend from Sintashta. The claim is that Iranian speakers descend from Sintashta, and therefore that Sintashta is proto-Indo-Iranian.
The point I was making was that Tocharians were wrongly named after an ancient Iranian group that was derived from Sintashta, because these Sintashta Iranians dominated the region in which the so called Tocharian speakers lived.
In fact, the so called Tocharians had very different names for themselves, such as Agni, Kuci, and Kroran.
This is common knowledge for anyone interested in these things, but, obviously, you're a moron, so you had no idea.
@Rob(aka NPC I2 Robby)
ReplyDeleteR1a and R1b are Para-PIE, PIE and IE. J1 and I2 are not relevant to this because dominant clans have always been R1. Best J1 and I2 is comparable in this situation is medieval Page acquired during raids or feuding local lords who decided to switch sides for better changes of survival.
Just because some Uralic and Turkic speakers have R1 and J1, it does not mean Proto-Uralic and Proto-Turkic were spoken by them. Hungarians are mostly R1a with very little N but they speak Uralic today.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB64496 - "Early Upper Paleolithic genomes of Crimea show migration and admixture dynamics of the first modern European ancestries in relation to climatic crisis" - "We describe the genomes of two c. 36,000 and 37,000-year-old individuals from the site of Buran-Kaya III in Crimea as belonging to the earliest migration wave of humans carrying ancestry found in present-day Europeans. The occupants of Buran-Kaya III shared the highest genomic similarities with the members of the more recent Mid Upper Paleolithic (MUP) Gravettian-associated Fournol cluster found in southwestern Europe. These genomes revealed that the population turnover in Europe surrounding the Campanian Ignimbrite super-eruption (CI) and the severe Heinrich Stadial 4 climatic cooling was accompanied by admixture events with populations that arrived in Europe thousands of years earlier. We also characterize a shared ancestry component related to pre-CI Zlatý Kůň found in Buran Kaya III, later Gravettian-associated populations of western Europe, and Mesolithic Caucasus populations. These findings show genetic connections between pre-CI central Europe, Early UP Caucasus, and MUP western and southwestern Europe."
ReplyDeleteThat is big deal. To sum up if I get it right is
there was a diffusion from the atlantic to to the pontic steppe of an aurignacian population which is probably also the population that provided most (if not all) of the genetics components of Ancient North Siberian/ Ancient North Eurasian folks.
But that raises the question about the exact relationship between Aurignacian and Gravettian. It could be that they were autosomally much closer to each othet than previously tought.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteFalcon wrote,
ReplyDelete"Just because some Uralic and Turkic speakers have R1 and J1, it does not mean Proto-Uralic and Proto-Turkic were spoken by them. Hungarians are mostly R1a with very little N but they speak Uralic today."
Consider present-day Mongolic speakers: Proto-Mongolic has spread within the last millennium, yet present-day Mongols in Outer Mongolia and Russia as well as the Mongolic-speaking Daurs in China are predominantly C-L1373 and/or C-M407 with a minority of O2-M122, present-day Mongols in Inner Mongolia (who actually constitute the majority of present-day Mongolic speakers) are predominantly O2-M122 with a minority of C-L1373 plus very little C-M407, and other Mongolic-speaking ethnic groups in China (e.g. Dongxiang, Bonan, Tu) present an eclectic mix of lineages from all over Eurasia and do not particularly resemble Mongols from Inner Mongolia or Mongols from (Outer) Mongolia and Russia.
I think it should be clear that any correlation between Y-DNA and language is far from perfect.
Perhaps this paper, although not adna, would provide some new discussion that isn't in broken record territory - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.09.04.555011v1.full.pdf -
ReplyDelete"We present the first robust radiocarbon ( 14 C) chronology for prehistoric burial activity at Sakhtysh, in European Russia, where nearly 180 inhumations attributed to Lyalovo and Volosovo pottery‐using hunter‐gatherer‐fishers represent the largest known mortuary populations of these groups. Past attempts at 14 C dating were restricted by poor preservation and limited understanding of diet and dietary 14 C reservoir effects (DREs). We obtained 32 new AMS (Accelerator Mass Spectrometry) 14 C dates on human petrous bones. Dietary stable isotopes (δ 13 C, δ15 N) for all AMS‐dated human samples allow us to propose a novel DRE correction model, using differences in 14 C, δ13 C and δ15 N from bones and teeth of the same individuals to predict DREs of up to c.900 14 C years. Our chronological model for 40 individuals dates Lyalovo burials to the early 5th millennium cal BC, and Volosovo burials to the mid‐4 th to early 3rd millennium. It reveals a previously unrecognised shift in the Volosovo subsistence economy at c.3300 cal BC, coinciding with a reorientation of trade networks, and shows that the last burial at Sakhtysh was the only one in a crouched position, which coincided with the beginning of Fatyanovo practices, the regional expression of the Yamnaya/Corded Ware expansion."
The samples in question are sampled for dna within upcoming: Allentoft, M. E. et al. Population genomics of Stone Age Eurasia.
@ old Europe
ReplyDeleteSounds interesting
ZK like component in crimea is interesting
Also that they mention Fournol cluster (which lacks much “proto-Gravettian” admixture) having affinity with BUran Kaya
I think I’ll need to take a look at it to make sense of it
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI honestly don't remember about any R1b-V1636 in Maykop culture. It is quite possible that with more sampling V1636 will be found in Maykop Steppe but I think it's quite obvious that V1636 was rather the victim of Steppe Maykop Q1b Siberian rich guys rather the founders of Steppe Maykop. Later the attack of Yamna on Maykop Steppe can be interpreted as a part of this rivalry between Sredni Stog/Yamna and Siberian rich folks.
ReplyDeleteThe presence of V1636 in Cernavoda/Khvalynsk simply means that V1636 was a lineage of first pastoralists groups in Eastern Europe affiliated to SredniStog/Yamna. Later the expansion of M269 and M417 will decrease their number. Another early pastoralist's lineage was the I2-L701. And maybe some that I missed.
No V1636 or other R1b or I2a in Maykop, but some variants do have EHG, perhaps female mediated
ReplyDeleteBut that’s no generic “Majkop” , even after excluding steppe Maykop
Some are obviously from the south, others look like a resurgence of the local northwest Caucasian CHG mountain folk (eg the Dolmenic type)
.. by “EHG” I mean ~ 10% Eneolithic Volga steppe admixture
ReplyDeleteMy bad, for some reason I thought SA6010 (V1636) was labeled differently at some point in the AADR sheet. He's pretty much just Progress-like, with a "typical Yamnaya burial position" per the description in the supplement.
ReplyDelete"J1 and I2 are not relevant to this because dominant clans have always been R1."
ReplyDeleteThis is an absurd thing to say because I-L699 is (so far) the only lineage that has been present in all phases, from Ukraine Neolithic, Khvalynsk, Dereivka, to Cernavoda and Yamnaya. If PIE comes from the Ukrainian Neolithic horizon then I-L699 was part of the PIE community from the start and even if it wasn't there's no indication that they were "second-class citizens" or whatever.
Saying "the dominant clans have always been R1" reeks of haplogroupist thinking, R-V1636 which is the dominant branch of R1b in the pre-Yamnaya/CWC stage is only very distantly related to R-M269 and ancient people didn't have FTDNA kits to test themselves and calculate phylogenetic trees.
I feel like people become too emotional about their own precious haplogroups when discussing these matters, despite all the big talk about objectivity and bias.
Rob wrote,
ReplyDelete"Majkop are a diverse phenomenon, mostly local Caucasian flavour. The Y-hg L-595 might represent genuine Uruk colonists from Mesopotamia. I’d think Leilatepe kurgans would be similar"
Andrzejewski wrote in response to Rob,
"It’s interesting that this haplogroup and subclades are represented among Dravidian speakers and BMAC. It’s either that they were all related to Iran_N or that the hap was shared between it and CHG due to shared origins."
Y-DNA haplogroup L-L595 has been found among present-day Dravidian speakers and archaeological specimens attributed to the BMAC? Where have such findings been published?
I think you may have confused L-L595 with L-M27 (found in Chalcolithic specimens from Areni Cave in Armenia and which does have a significant presence among certain present-day Dravidian-speaking populations) and L-M357 (found in BMAC and Swat Valley as well as among present-day Tajiks, Pakistanis, etc.).
If you have meant to refer to haplogroup L-M20 as a whole, then I think one ought to keep in mind the following TMRCA estimates from FTDNA:
L-M20 24,105 (95% CI 27,605 - 21,048) ybp
*L-L595 5,663 (95% CI 7,557 - 4,186) ybp
*L-M22 19,308 (95% CI 22,127 - 16,848) ybp
**L-M317 13,575 (95% CI 15,702 - 11,735) ybp
**L-M2357 17,326 (95% CI 19,881 - 15,099) ybp
***L-M2533 15,842 (95% CI 18,233 - 13,764) ybp
****L-M357 7,432 (95% CI 8,597 - 6,424) ybp
****L-FT368536 7,532 (95% CI 9,412 - 6,000) ybp
***L-M76 14,354 (95% CI 16,552 - 12,447) ybp
****L-M27 8,415 (95% CI 9,747 - 7,265) ybp
*****L-FGC63321 7,928 (95% CI 9,376 - 6,698) ybp
*****L-Z20396 7,982 (95% CI 9,269 - 6,873) ybp
******L-BY12363 7,413 (95% CI 8,944 - 6,133) ybp
******L-Z8047 6,650 (95% CI 7,749 - 5,706) ybp
As for L-M76 > L-M27, the L-FGC63321 subclade is found primarily in Southwest Asia (including Areni 12 and Areni 46 from Chalcolithic Armenia) and Egypt. The L-Z20396 > L-BY12363 subclade is found sparsely throughout Southwest Asia and South Asia, without being clearly more common in either region than in the other. The L-Z20396 > L-Z8047 subclade, with an estimated TMRCA of 6,650 (95% CI 7,749 - 5,706) ybp, is the only subclade of L-M76 that is clearly found predominantly in South Asia, yet it is also found more sparsely in present-day Southwest Asia, Italy, and Southeast Asia.
L-M357 has been found in Early Bronze Age Iran (e.g. Seistan 11462 from Shahr-i Sokhta), Middle Bronze Age Uzbekistan (e.g. Sappali Tepe 4285, Bustan 5604), Late Bronze Age-to-Iron Age Swat Valley, and Iron Age Xinjiang (e.g. Abusanteer 22), Kazakhstan (e.g. Karatau 5), Iran (e.g. Hasanlu 4233), and Armenia (e.g. Beniamin 11653, Karmir Blur 16119). The Bronze Age specimens from Uzbekistan are associated with the BMAC.
The MRCA of L-M357 plus L-M76 is L-M2357 (TMRCA 17,326 [95% CI 19,881 - 15,099] ybp), so it should be comparable in age to R-L389 (TMRCA 16,611 [95% CI 18,945 - 14,566] ybp), the MRCA of R-M269 plus R-M73 plus R-V1636.
However, the MRCA of L-L595 plus any other subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup L is the L-M20 root (TMRCA 24,105 [95% CI 27,605 - 21,048] ybp), which should be intermediate between the MRCA of Y-DNA haplogroup R-M207 (TMRCA 27,726 [95% CI 31,796 - 24,176] ybp) and the MRCA of Y-DNA haplogroup R1-M173 (TMRCA 21,589 [95% CI 24,494 - 18,865] ybp). There is not much more reason to assume that members of L-L595 should share common ancestry with members of any other subclade of Y-DNA haplogroup L than to assume that members of R2-M479 should share common ancestry with members of R1-M173.
Lazaridis has already made a mistake in the past - in 2016 he claimed that the West Asian component in Yamnaya came from Iran.
ReplyDeleteRazib's interview with David Anthony dropped. Unsurprisingly, he's very critical of the dating in the Heggarty paper and disagrees with Lazaridis that Meshoko brought proto-indo-european to the Steppe.
ReplyDeleteObviously (almost) everyone is aware that when talking about formative periods of certain language and/ or ethnic groups, incl PIE in the period 6-4000bc, it’s pointless making statements about macrohaplogroups whose TMRCA is 25-40 kbp, not only as inferred but attested by actual samples. Eg R1b-V1636 had more to do with steppe related J1 than it did with R1b-V88. Same with some subclades with I2a and R1a etc
ReplyDeleteIn terms of wealth or social structure, it’s hard to definitely guage from the archaeological record, because burials are shematized and orchestrated statements. Nevertheless, it depends on when you’re talking about.
If it’s 4500 bc, the wealthiest were the Varna type burials, which were a mix of EEF, local HGs, and more distant HGs (the so-called “steppe eneolithic”); as well as Khvalysnk type sites (which constituted the steppe eneolithic component in Varna).
After 4000 bc, the apparently wealthiest burials were Majkop; followed by Cernavoda / Usatavo in the west. So a new “axis” had formed.
But then after 3000 bc, Majkop disintegrated, Cernavoda moved deep into Balkans, and the proto-Corded-Yamnaya group expanded. The wealth & status of proto-corded-Yamnaya groups is regionally ascribed & earned post-proto. Eg some of the richest seem to be the proto-Armenian Badeni-Markopti horizon, with significant amounts of silver & gold. In fact , some archaeologists (wrongly) thought them to be from Mesopotamia. Some others include certain Iberian Beaker groups, Unetice R1a, etc
I think all these groups are obviously linked in some way , so it’s a question of teasing out who spoke what in the most sober way given we don’t actually have any written records for them .
know ok to be emotional, getting basic facts straight is what’s important
P
@ Ebizur
ReplyDelete''"Majkop are a diverse phenomenon, mostly local Caucasian flavour. The Y-hg L-595 might represent genuine Uruk colonists from Mesopotamia. I’d think Leilatepe kurgans would be similar"
''
I did not state that L-595 is in Dravidians, but that it is in Majkop (Marinskaya ~ 3000 bc), although Andrze might have
You're right. Areni_C falls under a different subclade L-M27.
TMRCA considered, it is still vital to base splits on hard data. E.g. I think these trace out copper-bronze age mobility networks, rather than groups moving during the Ice Age, some in turn might indeed link to Dravidian.
@Rob & Ebizur “ You're right. Areni_C falls under a different subclade L-M27.”
ReplyDeleteIt’s interesting that Areni has the alleles for blue eyes and red hair
It’s amazing with IE languages- Goliath’s name is derived from a Carian (=Anatolian) cognate of “valiant”, but the Anatolian word for milk, “Le” is of a different root from post-CWC variety.
ReplyDeleteSpeaking of milk, maybe “Le” and “lacteus” come from the same root but perhaps the latin word stems from “Mlokto”?
And how are Iron, Eisen and Ferrum related?
@Falcon "Pushing back PIE 9000 years is a big deal, since previously oldest branch - "Archaic PIE" (Anatolian) was generally accepted to be around 6,000 years old (4000 BC). Para-PIE will be few millennium older than that."
ReplyDeleteIs it a big deal though? Heggarty doesn't trace proto-Anatolian in 6000 BCE, but the beginning of the divergence of PIE. Proto-Anatolian could be 5000-5500 BCE in his model which isn't a major difference from 4500-4000 BCE that is commonly suggested.
In Fig 6.1 the beginning of divergence of proto-Anatolian is 5600 BCE, so the actual split occurred post-5500 BCE.
There doesn't seem to be any issue for the dates in the paper, it's some of the method's grouping and Heggarty's explanation for dispersals that could be bogus and fixed in future publications as more languages are included. The dates wouldn't significantly change unless many new words that were somehow missed are added.
His theory about genetics is just the one that currently fits the dates best, if another one comes around that satisfies it I don't think he would object to it.
@Davidski "The claim is that Iranian speakers descend from Sintashta, and therefore that Sintashta is proto-Indo-Iranian."
That's a non-sequitur though. You'd have to make the same case using samples ranging from 2000-1500 BCE to demonstrate a significant impact that can be linked to language change, ideally coinciding with the dates suggested for the various languages (and probably also greater than the impact they had in Xinjiang for it to make sense). Then a plausible explanation for the population that descend from the admixed Sintashta-CA vector that is proposed as spreading Indo-Aryan into India (see Reich 2017) not speaking that language anymore etc etc. There are plenty of counter-arguments to be made as long as explanations are lacking. This was sufficient back until 2018-2019 because this was the only alternative but now it's not.
Without this there isn't any way to resolve (or at least ignore) the various problems that Sintashta has as the source of I-Ir when better explanations are around. If they end up bumping into problems then this would change things as well. Iranian speakers also descend from groups related to (but not necessarily identical to) BMAC, IVC etc.
You're coping about Tocharian btw. The (large) genetic impact of Sintashta/Andronovo ancestry and lineages in Xinjiang is as early as 2200 BCE and yet it didn't result in any language change as it supposedly did in not just India but also West Iran (where there's presence of Yamnaya ancestry and R1b, coincidentally), or even any influence if the I-Ir of the newcomers was side-by-side with Tocharian (which it apparently was in your argument). Unless you're suggesting that Indo-Iranian had already split by 2200 BCE, basically before Sintashta was even a thing. This is discarded by virtually all proponents of the steppe theory but nice try.
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteYou're the one coping.
There must be a good reason why all of these ancient Iranian groups are derived from Sintashta.
And there must be a reason why Sintashta ancestry had such a massive impact on Indo-Aryan speakers in South Asia.
According to you this is all a coincidence, because apparently Tocharians also have Sintashta ancestry.
But you're a moron, because no one has sampled any Tocharian speakers. They've sampled Iranian speakers from the general area where the Tocharians lived.
Cope harder moron.
@Davidski I totally disagree with Orpheus, but what do you think about Agni käntwā kusi aka “Tocharians”’s ethnogenesis? Do you subscribe to the view that they are Afanasievo’s descendants? If so, did they mingle with the WSHG inhabitants of Tarim Basin before being subsumed by a more recent Andronovo wave?
ReplyDeleteWhere does Okunevo come into play here and what role (or none) do they occupy?
Is it true that the Saka and Scythian tribes’ East Asian mtDna was acquired through an ongoing admixture with Okunevo/Afanasievo’s maternal component/WSHG?
Unless I'm missing something, the first R1a-Z93 individual in Xinjiang dates to around 1550BC, and coincides with when Sintashta-like ancestry enters the region.
ReplyDeleteThere is robust historical documentation of Iranic speakers in the area. Additionally, we know the region is not homogeneous.
R1b-Z2103 arrives in the region earlier, and we see it continue to pop up there into at least the iron age (we do not have a significant number of medieval samples). By this point, the strong association of Z2103 with purely distinguishable Afanasievo ancestry predictably collapses, given it had been sloshing around the Tarim basin for a several thousand years.
@Andrzej
ReplyDeletehere under some reliable etymologies (spite undertain at the PIE level) which seem showing two different sources for Latin (+ Greek?) and Germanic(+Slavic!)
Milk - Wikipedia
The term milk comes from "Old English meoluc (West Saxon), milc (Anglian), from Proto-Germanic *meluks "milk" (source also of Old Norse mjolk, Old Frisian melok, Old Saxon miluk, Dutch melk, Old High German miluh, German Milch, Gothic miluks)".
Reconstruction:Proto-Slavic/melko – Wiktionary
Etymology. Uncertain: Borrowed from Proto-Germanic *meluks f (“milk”), from Proto-Indo-European *h₂melǵ- (“to milk”) with unexpected 'u' (cp. *melkaną (“to milk”)).
___________
Alternative forms γλάγος (glágos)
Etymology
Inherited from Proto-Indo-European *glakt-, *galakt- (note Hittite 𒂵𒌨𒋻 (galaktar, “soothing substance, nutrient”), from 𒂵𒌨 (galak-, “to soothe”)). The variant γλάγος (glágos) was contracted from the second oblique stem. Related to Latin lac, Old Armenian կաթն (katʿn), Albanian dhallë.
I hope some specific signs (Hittite by instance) would be accepted by the David's blog system.
@Andrze "@Orpheus Lazaridis built his entire thesis on the scarcity of R1a or R1b Eastern European Haplogroups in Anatolian populations (not found yet)"
ReplyDeleteIf I recall the Arc paper correctly, Harvard base their argument on a combination of lack of movement from the Balkans into Anatolia in the proposed timeline, "southern ancestry" in Yamnaya, formation date (DATES) of Yamnaya coinciding with split in proto-Anatolian and the formation of the Yamnaya r1b. Not sure if they mention anything else.
Whether that is true or not remains to be proven and I'm open to it just like I'm open to Sredny being the PIA homeland. Or Sintashta/Andronovo being the Indo-Iranian source. I don't have a problem with any of these, as long as they can bring forth stronger evidence in their favor. Otherwise I have no reason to consider them plausible since them being true or not changes nothing for me and thus I don't care enough about which position will eventually triumph over the other.
"but how can he or Heggarty explain their Out-of-Armenia hypothesis, given that Armenian makes do have an abundance of R1b, all of it traced to 1,800ybp and onward?"
I don't understand what you're referring to, Lazaridis (and pretty much everyone else) connects the R1b in Armenia at that time with the Armenian language, not proto-Indo-Anatolian. There was no such thing back in the time of PIA, and "armenian ancestry" that is brought up occasionally refers to Chalcolithic ancestry from around that area (it could be somewhere in NW Iran and not Armenia for example). I personally never use this term because of this reason so you have Davidski to blame for this lol
@old europe Gravettians and Aurignancians are pretty close genetically, in fact closer than Dzudzuana and Anatolia Neolithic are. Probably common origin + not a lot of drift?
@Davidski Either you're dense or you have bad memory, the problems that Sintashta has for being the source for I-Ir have been outlined in the past few blogs and are all from published research, most of it recent as well. Most of them aren't even about genetics but about language itself. You can tunnelvision whatever non-sequitur you want and then wonder why nobody cares but that's entirely your problem. And the argument about Tocharian-Sintashta connection is primarily linguistic too, as has been made clear. But you're free to complain all you want of course.
BTW As a sidenote, if you remember [you don't], I have mentioned in the past that Andronovo could be Iranian speakers just fine. Being the vector is different than being the source.
@EthanR This one? https://www.razibkhan.com/p/david-anthony-when-we-were-yamnaya#details
ReplyDeleteIt's paywalled, got a transcript anywhere?
Anthony is wrong about no wheeled vehicle prior to 3500 BCE btw, off the top of my head there's a 4-wheeled cattle figurine in CTC ~3800 BCE. Which means they existed from even earlier. There's also a 4-wheeled cart figurine from Kiziltepe in western Turkey but I found two dates with no indication of which one is correct, 5500 BCE and 3000 BCE. (Would be interesting to analyze what are the implications of this for proto-Anatolian but that's probably for another time)
Hello everybody. Sorry to be off topic but I wanted to ask if there will be any Egypt/Sudan results posted anytime soon?
ReplyDelete@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteSintasha and related groups obviously were Proto-Indo-Iranian.
Your so called arguments against this obvious conclusion are based on your lack of understanding of linguistic and genetic data.
You're suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
@Orpheus “I don't understand what you're referring to, Lazaridis (and pretty much everyone else) connects the R1b in Armenia at that time with the Armenian language, not proto-Indo-Anatolian. There was no such thing back in the time of PIA, and "armenian ancestry" that is brought up occasionally refers to Chalcolithic ancestry from around that area (it could be somewhere in NW Iran and not Armenia for example). I personally never use this term because of this reason so you have Davidski to blame for this lol”
ReplyDeleteYes, exactly, you’re supporting my theory and Davidski. If there was no R1b in Armenia at the time of the Proto-Anatolian then they could NOT have come from the Southern Arc, namely from Armenia.
The reason why there were no R1b Eastern European indigenous Haplogroups was because of a simple fact that they were so diluted to begin with. If the Proto-Anatolians came from the Suvurovo-Neodanilovka or whatever, and they took the Balkan route, they were already admixed to death by the LBK, Baden and CTC like EEF that created the Paleo-Balkanic tribes when mixed with Yamnaya Hungary and Yamnaya Bulgaria. This mixed pop then encountered Hurrians, Hatti, Kaskians and so many non-IE that they were swiftly absorbed, just like the Philistines within the first 2 generations after settlements.
ReplyDeleteThe earliest attestations of any Anatolian language date from 2,300BCE-1,800BCE, so how can one even contemplate their supposed “antiquity” vis-a-vis CWC-scion cultures?
@Falcon
ReplyDelete"Uralic and Turkic emerged in population who were entirely ANA. Uralic and Turkic contribution in Finland, Turkey and parts of East Europe is small but made large impact when it comes to linguistic and paternal haplogroup. It is nomadic men who are leading these language shifts."
How stupid can you possibly be?
Turkic originated in a pooulation that was +40% Steppe, not pure ANE. And it did not spread from men, in fact the early Turkic speakers are pretty much defined by their predominantly Iranian paternal haplogroups. Turkics were receiving Iranian male DNA during the Turkic period, from an Alan-like source. See Jeong, et al. 2020.
The early Turks are +75% Iranian Y-DNA haplogroups but less than 10% West Eurasian maternal haplogroups. Turkic languages never spread by ANA male expansion, but rather ANA male recession.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0092867420313210
"Sex-biased patterns of genetic admixture can be informative about gendered aspects of migration, social kinship, and family structure. We observe a clear signal of male-biased WSH admixture among the EIA Sagly/Uyuk and during the Türkic period (i.e., more positive Z scores; Figure 5B), which also corresponds to the decline in the Y chromosome lineage Q1a and the concomitant rise of the western Eurasian lineages such as R and J (Figure S2A)."
It's important to not forget that we do find an indisputably European haplogroup (I-P78) in both the anatolian bronze age and antiquity in likely Luwic (Carian?) contexts.
ReplyDelete@Steven Hsu
ReplyDeleteIt's called language shift. Stupid.
Those are NOT Turkic. That is not what ancient DNA says about their early origins. What you are talking about is later mixed population.
Proto-Turkic has deep origins in population similar to Slab Grave Culture (ANA) population.
We have also aDNA of Xiongnu ELITE from earlier year, many of these ELITES are entirely Slab-grave (ANA), even some Chandman_IA are 94% (ANA). While LOW statues males tend to have more mixed ancestry.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10104459/ Lee (2023)
High status Xiongnu individuals tended to have less genetic diversity, and their ancestry was essentially derived from the Eastern Eurasian Ulaanzuukh/Slab Grave culture, or alternatively from the Xianbei, suggesting multiple sources for their Eastern ancestry. High Eastern ancestry was more common among high status female samples, while low status male samples tended to be more diverse and having higher Western ancestry.[247] A likely chanyu, a male ruler of the Empire identified by his prestigious tomb, was shown to have had similar ancestry as a high status female in the "western frontiers", deriving about 39.3% Slab Grave (or Ancient Northeast Asian) genetic ancestry, 51.9% Han (or Yellow River farmers) ancestry, with the rest (8.8%) being Saka (Chandman) ancestry."
Both David Anthony and Lazaridis have come out against Heggarty's paper.
ReplyDeleteDavid Anthony said he was acquainted with it a year ago at a conference, and not a single linguist there was convinced by it.
Continued..
ReplyDeletehttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10104459/ 2023
"In this genome-wide archaeogenetic study, we find high genetic heterogeneity among late Xiongnu-era individuals at two cemeteries located along the far western frontier of the Xiongnu empire and describe patterns of genetic diversity related to social status. Overall, we find that genetic heterogeneity is highest among lower-status individuals. In particular, the satellite graves surrounding the elite square tombs at TAK show extreme levels of genetic heterogeneity, suggesting that these individuals, who were likely low-ranking retainers, were drawn from diverse parts of the empire. In contrast, the highest-status individuals at the two sites tended to have lower genetic diversity and a high proportion of ancestry deriving from EIA Slab Grave groups, suggesting that these groups may have disproportionately contributed to the ruling elite during the formation of the Xiongnu empire." (...) "a chanyu, or ruler of the empire. Like the elite women at the western frontier, he also had very high eastern Eurasian ancestry (deriving 39.3 and 51.9% from SlabGrave1 and Han_2000BP, respectively, and the rest from Chandman_IA; data file S2C)" (...) "Chandman_IA was representative of people in far western Mongolia associated with Sagly/Uyuk (ca. 500 to 200 BCE), Saka (ca. 900 to 200 BCE), and Pazyryk (ca. 500 to 200 BCE) groups in Siberia and Kazakhstan." (...) "This further suggests the existence of an aristocracy in the Xiongnu empire, that elite status and power was concentrated within specific subsets of the broader population."... Although not conclusive, this suggests that the ANA ancestry source of the Xiongnu-period individuals may not be exclusively traced back to the Slab Grave culture but may also include nearby groups with a similar ANA genetic profile, such as the Xianbei. ... Last, our findings also confirm that the highest-status individuals in this study were females, supporting previous observations that Xiongnu women played an especially prominent role in the expansion and integration of new territories along the empire's frontier."
Continued..
ReplyDelete"All but two males (BUL002 and I6365) associated with the Ulaanzuukh and Slab Grave cultures belong to Y-haplogroup Q, all three AR_Xianbei_IA males belong to Y-haplogroup C, and the Xiongnu males harbor both Q and C (data file S1C) (14, 15). Although not conclusive, this suggests that the ANA ancestry source of the Xiongnu-period individuals may not be exclusively traced back to the Slab Grave culture but may also include nearby groups with a similar ANA genetic profile, such as the Xianbei."
@Falcon
ReplyDeleteThat article is a bit of a joke, clearly having some issue with misdated/mislabelled samples and interpreting their limited sampling and limited archaeological data as proof of some gynocracy in the Xiongnu (in short they base status on burial goods and size, somehow all male burials in the article were low status and the higher status burials were all female, this is indicative of a faulty methodology for determining who is a commoner and elite).
They also never seemed to figure out that the Q in Slab Grave is completely different than the main Q lines we see during the Xiongnu period. The one from Slab Grave is North Chinese in origin, the Xiongnu leriod ones are from Siberia/NW Mongolia. There is basically no y-dna continuity between Slab Grave and the Xiongnu period, there is one sample with Q-M120 and then we have some more from a family grave. So much for "Slab grave continuity".
The authors also "forgot" to mention that the only Y-dna we have from Xiongnu elite burials is R1a-Z93.
I tried to bring some of these points up with the authors involved and the publishers because there are clearly incorrect datapoints being presented and that should be rectified. Two posts on the topic are on my blog.
When it comes to Turkic it seems clear that lines such as C-F1756 (C-Y10420) and N-M2019 were originally prominent in their population but as they expanded towards western mongolia, the Altai and Central Asia the frequencies of these Y-DNA lineages dropped significantly in favour of primarily (eastern) Scytho-Siberian Y-DNA lineages. Its a unique scenario because it is not a case of a random line undergoing a founder effect but its a very diverse set of y-dna lineages ending up in the Turkic populations.
An issue as always is a lack of competent people involved in peer review, this article shouldnt have passed let alone be published in a major journal. But an MPI-associated article getting a lot of leeway in this regard is not exactly news is it now...
ReplyDeleteDoes anyone know about the supposedly 'dark skin' of Otzi? According to Wang et al. 2023, Otzi has a 'weighted genetic score of dark pigmentation' of 0.591, whereas modern Sardinians have 0.589 (Table S11). That doesn't seem like much of a difference, but in interviews the authors imply that he had significantly darker skin than modern Europeans.
ReplyDelete@AJ “ Does anyone know about the supposedly 'dark skin' of Otzi? According to Wang et al. 2023, Otzi has a 'weighted genetic score of dark pigmentation' of 0.591, whereas modern Sardinians have 0.589 (Table S11). That doesn't seem like much of a difference, but in interviews the authors imply that he had significantly darker skin than modern Europeans.”
ReplyDeleteWe discussed it on the previous thread :)
@Falcon I thought that the ruling elite among the Xiungnu was Yenissian speaking like the Jie. For some reason or coincidence, this ruling elite was Q1 male haplogroup ANE rich.
ReplyDeleteThe Tang empire described them as looking European-like, which could mean 2 things;
Either they were heavily admixed with Saka and closely related IE groups or they, just like the Tarim Basin mummies, had a Caucasian-like deep ancestry.
@AJ, I left some comments on this in the previous thread; agree about the comparison to Sardinian and in my opinion its adding some hype to a paper where they went to effort to publish a new high-coverage genome and want some media coverage, but the actual coverage seems to be somewhat misleading. Repeat my coments below and bolded some parts I think might be more interesting to you.
ReplyDelete"(t)he paper is here (supplement - https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2666979X2300174X-mmc7.pdf) and they did not calculate a PRS for skin pigmentation for Cheddar Man, but only for Iceman, Loschbour, LBK Stuttgart and a present day Sardinian person.
Darker is Loschbour -> LBK Stuttgart -> Iceman -> Present day Sardinian. But the EEF group are all closer together than any of them are to the WHG. (Table S11 - https://i.imgur.com/ZaKQnZ3.png)
"The weighted genetic score of dark pigmentation in the Iceman is estimated to be 0.591, higher than the score of present-day southern European populations taking Sardinians as an example (Table S11), which the Iceman shares closest genetic affinity to (Figure S1) and which represent the highest level of pigmentation among modern-day European groups, although it is lower than the score of ancient LBK farmers and the Luxembourg_Loschbour.DG hunter-gatherer (Table S11)."
Comparable PRS scores from Ju and Mathieson's 170 SNP panel from their paper (used by Krause and collaborators for Oetzi) can be seen here in Figure 1 B and C (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33443182/#&gid=article-figures&pid=fig-1-uid-0).
Oetzi fits reasonably well into the EF set in Fig 1C there, who are lighter than HG, but not so much (light) as following Bronze and Iron Age populations.
There is no real revelation about Otzi or EF groups in this paper, it's the same kind of findings that are already out there."
"(T)o continue my comment from yesterday, if you go with what I linked above from Mathieson and Ju's comparable panel using the 170 SNPs (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33443182/#&gid=article-figures&pid=fig-1-uid-0) that Krause et al used to predict Otzi and Loschbour's pigmentation risk score, then West Africans score 0.76, South Asians 0.67, present day Europeans 0.5. (East Asians are likely not accurately recorded or identified there).
Slot in the estimated PRS from Table 11 from Krause paper then Loschbour (typical for HG) probably about as dark as South Asians (in 1000 Genomes) or Native American groups but not as much as Africans, EEF farmers about the same as Sardinians and intermediate between the present 1000 Genomes Europeans and South Asians.
Also Otzi is about the same (perhaps slightly lighter even) than the average for the EF in Mathieson's, and Loschbour within the same as HG.
Unlikely to be 100% accurate, but probably indicative, at this point of genetic research of this trait.
So overall this paper tells us nothing new about pigmentation in HG or EF, and seems sensationalized by the media a bit. (HG varied from the west of Europe where about South Asian/Native American with blue eyes to the east where dark eyed and a bit darker skinned than present day people but lighter than EF; EF slightly darker than present day Sardinians but not much). They probably found more variants in the rest of Otzi's genome that will contribute to medical genetics, but things about appearance are easy to get the media to write stories about, even if we're not learning anything new..."
It would be useful if Mathison and Ju's paper had provided the exact PRS for all their samples, so we could compare to e.g. Yamnaya / EHG / etc. But they haven't. So.
@Andrze "If there was no R1b in Armenia at the time of the Proto-Anatolian then they could NOT have come from the Southern Arc, namely from Armenia."
ReplyDeleteWhy is R1b necessary?
Also, proto-Anatolian isn't theorized to travel northward into the steppe but southward, even with Sredny as a homeland so there would be no connection to Yamnaya
@DragonHermit Lazaridis disagrees because he supports Sintashta as Indo-Iranian lol
Does any of them propose a counterargument though? I haven't seen any.
@Davidski Nice deflection, I haven't made any arguments of my own, just posting the available research especially the most recent one. Try to keep up grandpa.
All we see is that Sintashta is the least likely candidate for Indo-Iranian based on linguistics first and foremost, genetics still remains to be seen but a lack of connection with west Iranian speakers does stand out. As does Sintashta ancestry in Burusho speakers, for example. All of Indo-Aryan and Iranian speakers are linked with the "southern" ancestry though. But linguistics has the final word on linguistic matters
What also stands out is that the Steppe is flat grassland, no mountains down to Turkmenistan and Tajikistan. Yet proto-I-Ir had developed their own words for mountains. (*gr̥Híš, *párwatas)
"Curiously, it is sometimes presented as if any Indo-Iranic presence anywhere on the Steppes somehow reinforced the case for the Steppe hypothesis. In fact, it is no support at all; rather the opposite. For none of these Steppe representatives is Indic; they are only Iranic, indeed all specifically Eastern Iranic. That is, the only presence here is of languages specific to a lineage already discrete even from other Iranic languages, let alone Indic. Their identity postdates considerably the Indic-Iranic split; so too, then, most plausibly and economically, did these languages' arrival here."
"Avestan, as very early Eastern Iranic, is the one language we know of that is closest to the common ancestor of Eastern Iranic; and wherever precisely Avestan hailed from, it was patently not the Pontic-Caspian Steppe. On the Steppes, Eastern Iranic is found only relatively late, and alone. In the northwestern corner of South Asia, however, it coexists alongside all of its closest relatives. On Occam's logic of parsimony, this is most plausibly the result of a single northward movement, at a stage after its specific lineage had had time to crystallise out of Proto-Indo-Iranic, and through Proto-Iranic. This militates against a Steppe origin for general Indo-Iranic (see also Chapter 3.16)."
"Conspicuous by their absence from the Steppe are all the other branches of Indo-Iranic, resulting from its earliest divergent splits: i.e. western as well as eastern sub-branches of Iranic: Nuristani; and Indic itself, including its own earliest divergent branch of Dardic. All are first attested along the southern route; several abundantly so, and long before Eastern Iranic on the Steppes. And the only region where representatives of all of them are found and indeed all in close proximity to each other - is in the highland redoubts around the Upper Indus, the clear focus of diversity within Indo-Iranic. The homeland out of which Proto-Indo-Iranic began to spread and diverge would by default be assumed to be somewhere near these remote mountains where this diversity survives. Languages from all of Indo-Iranic's first branches are spoken within a few hundred kilometres or so of Harappa, in the northern arc of the Indo-Gangetic Plain, the gateway from Indus to Ganges."
Heggarty & Renfrew 2014, took me 5 mins to find
You're a moron because I have no issue with Sintashta being I-Ir, it's simply not what the data shows and I have no sunken cost fallacy making me latch onto it like you do. Although you can always acquire the additional knowledge that you very obviously lack.
@ Copper Axe
ReplyDeleteAgree with your comments about Ordos & leading clans
It’s interesting that R1a-Z93 derived lineages are also common in European Huns, but now autosomically northeast Asian (Ie probably not recent Alan-Iranian shifters)
“When it comes to Turkic it seems clear that lines such as C-F1756 (C-Y10420) and N-M2019”
Is there much M2019 in eastern Mongolia , or where do you see Turkic languogenesis developing ?
@Orpheus
ReplyDeleteNice deflection, I haven't made any arguments of my own, just posting the available research especially the most recent one.
All you've done is cherry picked nonsense and misrepresented linguistic and genetic data.
You're a troll with limited intelligence suffering from the Dunning–Kruger effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning-Kruger_effect
@ Matt
ReplyDeleteThanks for your reply.
"West Africans score 0.76, South Asians 0.67, present day Europeans 0.5"
how did you get those precise numbers just from looking at the chart?
@Rob
ReplyDeleteYou'll find this interesting: The Y-dna of the European Huns seems connected to the Kok-Pash and Bulan-Koba culture. KP was an extension of more Asiatic Hunnic peoples from Tuva (Kokel culture) and BK was a continuation of Pazyryk after the region had been under Xiongnu rule for some centuries.
At the Hun-Xianbei period of the Berel cemetery you can see samples which given the period context came from these groups. The Bulan-Koba guys had Q-L713 and the Kok-Pash had R-YP5505. These are the main lines seen in European Huns so far. Different clade than the R1a-Z93 seen in the elite Xiongnu sample DA39, and my best guess its from Sagly-Uyuk and then assimilated into more eastern populations.
A recent Altai origin for the Huns seems to make more sense than some fleeing Xiongnus after the collapse drifting in Central Asia for centuries before attacking the Alans in the late 4th century AD.
In regards to the eastern eastern Scythians in northern China and the Xiongnu, there is such a lack of relevant archaeological, anthropological and genetic data that I cant subscribe to any theory fully. But given what we know about Iranic influence on Xiongnu culture and (political) terminology, it does seem there was a considerable influence from these groups on the early Xiongnu pre-207 BC conquest of Mongolia and Siberia. Perhaps the Z93 clade of DA39 fits into this. DA39 is buried in the largest xiongnu terrace tomb we know of, but we really have no idea if these were the burials of Chanyus or of high ranking people in the empire.
"Is there much M2019 in eastern Mongolia , or where do you see Turkic languogenesis developing ?"
It seems a bit connected to the Transbaikal region and the areas north of the Khingan, and I suspect these zones together with eastern Mongolia are important for Turkic. There is a Slab Grave outlier shifted towards this direction with that clade and its present in some ancient Turkic samples. Not sure about N-M2019 in Mongols however.
@AJ, think I did pixel counting (e.g. copied it into another drawing software and then just compared the number of pixels to each from the baseline against the number of pixels to known Y-axis values printed on the chart, e.g. if its 50 pixels up to, I don't know, 0.6, and then a value was 40 pixels up then 0.6/50*40=0.48). It may basically be approximate, given the limits of the resolution of the picture of the chart. (Kind of annoying that the values aren't in a supplement, and only someone with too much time on their hands like me would do this).
ReplyDelete@Matt I’m curious why ötzi would be lighter skinned compared to LBK
ReplyDeleteGood interview from Anthony on Razib Khan's podcast. I suggest people listen to it. Don't want to give too much away since it was behind a paywall but he still stands behind the Yamnaya -> CW theory like Reich, Lazaridis, etc... However, it seems people misunderstand his "R1b elite" theory.
ReplyDeleteHe wasn't saying only RZ2103 were PIE elites, but they were elites in a CERTAIN time/place (open steppe). He also considers R1as as elites in E. Europe, and R1b-L51 as elites in C. Europe. So certain clans dominate a certain region, and anyone else is just not sampled in that time/place. He rules out any ghost forest steppe populations with "extra EHG" as ancestors to CW, since that extra EHG is all within the normal variation of Yamnaya autosomal profile.
So just like R1a/R1b-L51 were part of the same population, but later came to dominate different regions, it was the same with RZ2103. Like Reich, Lazaridis & co, Anthony is of the mind that Yamnaya had Z2103/L51/R1a, etc...
@Andrzejewski
ReplyDeleteI understand your point, even some WSHG DNA could be found at Maykop, why not on Caucasus?
Botai were one of the first that domesticated Horses, even if they simple used it as food.
The one thing that I m totally confident is that CHG like DNA was on Southern Steppe before Neolithic , since CHG-Like could easily been a mixture between Dzudzuana-Rich +ANE-Rich populations, and even Iran Neo had something different to Caucasus(the Southern Caspian HG could easily been from another source that wasn't Dzudzuana Rich, other unknown group +Basal). Also Iran Neo had some AASI influence, absent, as far as I know, upon CHG-like or CHG-rich populations.
Imo Steppe-CHG-Like females mixed with EHG-Steppe males even Before Neolithic Steppe Time, then some Iron Gates Neo /Tripolli went to Lower Dnipro Valley and brought the R-M269, creating the Lower Dnipro and West Sredny Profile(more sredny).
Keep in mind that R1b was more common among Balkans HG than Steppe HG, even if some variations could be found at Steppe none R-M269 related. As far as I know even UK Neolithic had some R1b.
No lineage was the most IE, however R1a and some I2 could been the most Steppe , as well as some minor R1b.
Even if R1b-M269 wasntt Tripolli, it certainly came from Iron Gates HG,off course it is mine opinion, but could be a genetical and archeological hypothesis without any mystical Iranian Plateau Migration
The biggest bullshit I always read was one J1 Dude(that I respect a lot) forcing that our R1a was Turkic - cause some have it- and the J was the original Indo European using the Southern Arc as argument.
ReplyDeleteThe Quilles Syndrome's, as we could call it.
Andrzejewski wrote:
ReplyDelete"The reason why there were no R1b Eastern European indigenous Haplogroups was because of a simple fact that they were so diluted to begin with . . ."
I must be misunderstanding what you mean. What do you mean "there were no R1b Eastern European indigenous Haplogroups"?
Pretty obviously, R1b is indigenous to Eastern Europe.
@Virgin
ReplyDeleteAnyone who claims that R1a is a proto-Turkic marker is an idiot.
@DragonHermit
ReplyDeleteNo one has said anything about a ghost forest steppe population giving rise to Corded Ware.
The argument that I made was that both Yamnaya and Corded Ware were derived from the same ancestral gene pool located probably somewhere on the border between the steppe and forest steppe, and that Yamnaya expanded south while Corded Ware moved north.
My post is still online.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/07/on-origin-of-corded-ware-people.html
By the way, did Anthony also double down on his idea that Khvalynsk got its CHG ancestry from Iran?
If so, that's also total bullshit.
@ Copper Axe
ReplyDelete''You'll find this interesting: The Y-dna of the European Huns seems connected to the Kok-Pash and Bulan-Koba culture.''
Thanks. That's what Im thinking, possibly with some political diffusion of the -Hun name. Almost makes me think these Huns aren;t really Turkic, and the Altai is a kind of sacral centre for these groups.
Any ID's to look into specifically for those Y-hgs ?
There's been some good research on those culture groups recently.
''It seems a bit connected to the Transbaikal region and the areas north of the Khingan, and I suspect these zones together with eastern Mongolia are important for Turkic. There is a Slab Grave outlier shifted towards this direction with that clade and its present in some ancient Turkic samples. Not sure about N-M2019 in Mongols however.
I havent looked into Turkic Y-hg N enough, but broadly I'd say (most) N-Tat lineages share the ''Lena basin founder effect'' phenomenon, perhaps apart from the Upper Xiadin related individual lying on N-P83. There are acouple of different N lines in LBA Mongolia, but always minority, and therefore a episodic trickling in from the north toward Mongoolia.
I also think the that the N in Buryats (which lies on Avars lie) is a later founder effect, perhaps due to polical re-location. The papers so far also didnt realise this.
Maybe Ebizur can chime in
Overall, the post-Xiongnu, pre-Gokturk period remains a bit of an archaeological/ research terra incognita
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteI didn't catch that if he did. What I recall is that he identified Progress/Khvalynsk as having something close to "pure CHG" (lol). He was aware that a number of Ukraine_N individuals had this ancestry too.
He seemed receptive to the genetic arguments from the southern arc paper.
He does reiterate the elite R-Z2103 Yamnaya arguments but extends it to late corded ware (R1a) and Bell Beaker (P312), inexplicably.
There wasn't a ton of new information to glean. He says Harvard will have two papers released hopefully by Christmas.
@Davidski
ReplyDeleteDon't recall him mentioning Iran. Just mostly talked about Caucasus farmers moving northward to the steppes.
It seems like he might disagree with Southern Arc paper conclusion though. He thinks the paper was just too broad and covered too many things.
@DragonHermit
ReplyDeleteJust mostly talked about Caucasus farmers moving northward to the steppes.
He's living the in the same fantasy as Iosif Lazaridis.
There never were any Caucasus farmers moving to the steppes.
@DragonHermit,
ReplyDeleteWe have only found R1b Z2103 in Yamnaya.
There is no evidence that R1a M417 or R1b L151 come from Yamnaya.
David Anthony's theory is really just speculation. There's no evidence for it.
He doesn’t actually say “Caucasus Farmers” in his articles, that’s DHs interpretation
ReplyDeleteAnthony says, following Russian archaeologists, that the meso-Neolithic horizon along then north caspian has some analogies to Caucasian sites in some of the tools, and this movmenent might have occurred c 6000 bc
That theory makes sense, but it’s hard to validate because the Russian literature doesn’t specify which sites they’re actually talking about. Eg Satsurblia & Kotias fauna profile look different to the north caspian , there do also appear to be some occasional connection with SE caspian coast sites
@Rich S. “ The reason why there were no R1b Eastern European indigenous Haplogroups was because of a simple fact that they were so diluted to begin with . . ."
ReplyDeleteI must be misunderstanding what you mean. What do you mean "there were no R1b Eastern European indigenous Haplogroups"?
Pretty obviously, R1b is indigenous to Eastern Europe.”
OF COURSE R1b is indigenous to Eastern Europe. But it wasn’t to the Balkan or Anatolia. Lots of admixture events would make R1b scarce outside its Steppe homeland
R1b was indigenous to the Balkans, because the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers have R1b.
ReplyDeleteR1b indigenous to eastern europe? What do you mean by indigenous ? The most basal R1b, R1b PH155 is central asian and certainly not indigenous to eastern europe. You meant which sublace of R1b exactly ? R-L754 ?
Deletethe R1b in Villabruna definitely aint a fluke
ReplyDeleteAnthony's interview is good news, it means that the Harvardians are not going to change their view of the Kurgan theory and Yamnaya's predominant role in spreading IE. The crew (Lazaridis, Patterson, Anthony) and the captain (Reich) are going to be honest and have decided to go down with their ship. Someone should explain to them that the ghost population of the steppe forest is an emergency solution adopted by Max Planck on the evidence of the incompatibility of the early CWC in Bohemia with Yamnaya and that this signal is not an excess of EHG but an excess of WHG that can only come from the Baltic (and maybe Ukraine). Anthony's elites theory is the biggest bullshit I have read in the last years, I understand that this gentleman has his followers in the USA, here in Europe his opinion is for many people an attempt to gain prominence in a subject he has no idea about.
ReplyDeleteRegarding the origin of R1b, except for some fanatics who still think in an origin in Eastern Europe (I suppose they refer to the EHGs), the truth is that I am happy to hear opinions that I have defended for many years-R1b is a typical WHGs marker (even though they technically live in eastern Europe), it can have Balkan origin, there is no R1b-M269 in the steppes (and that maybe it has its origin in TC or any other Balkan neolithic culture), & there is no R1b-L51 or M417 in Yamnaya (Sam now writes this, but years ago, he wanted me to be banned for saying it), so things are going well.
@R1b Le destructeur de chattes
ReplyDeleteI mean that R1b is found in indigenous European hunter-gatherers.
Also, I don't know exactly where the R1b mutation first appeared, but the oldest R1b is from Europe.
You're talking about PH155 as a basal mutation only in the sense that its ancestral mutation split from the main R1b tree early, not in the sense that it's ancestral to European R1b.
Basal =/= ancestral or even necessarily very old.
Yes I already know that basal is not ancestral, I wanted to simplify. Instead I should have say the first subclade to split from the main R1b tree.
DeleteAnyway the R1b first mutation like M343 appeared somewhere in north west or central Asia judging by the fact that R1b ph155 ancient samples (Tarim mummies) are mainly ANE in origin with no WHG and that once R1b reached Europe (R-L754), ANE got more and more diluated with WHG the deeper in Europe you go. To the point that Villabruna almost got none.
So yeah R1b (M343) first bearer could and certainly is full ANE and from central / north western Asia, not Europe. While R1b L754 first bearer is certainly from eastern Europe somewhere and not full ANE but somewhere on the ANE-WHG cline.
So please be more careful when you say R1b is indigeneous to Europe, you should say R1b L754 instead !
Thanks
@Gaska There was R1b in Villabruna but overall R1b is a typical Eastern European indigenous marker of the forest Steppe populations
ReplyDeleteNothing that you said proves that R1b isn't native to Europe.
ReplyDeleteFor semantics, given that R1b-L754 expanded from & diversified in eastern Europe, its subclades can be called native there, even though R1 & P as a whole are of Siberian origin. Calling them Central Asian, as they expanded there after 3000 bc, would seem rather odd.
ReplyDeletePH-155 is a different story, it's obviously of Late Roman Era 'Nomad' origin.
They found R1b in Botai remains but I’m quite positive that it was a European migrant’s founder effect.
ReplyDeleteGaska wrote:
ReplyDelete"Regarding the origin of R1b, except for some fanatics who still think in an origin in Eastern Europe (I suppose they refer to the EHGs), the truth is that I am happy to hear opinions that I have defended for many years-R1b is a typical WHGs marker (even though they technically live in eastern Europe), it can have Balkan origin, there is no R1b-M269 in the steppes (and that maybe it has its origin in TC or any other Balkan neolithic culture), & there is no R1b-L51 or M417 in Yamnaya (Sam now writes this, but years ago, he wanted me to be banned for saying it), so things are going well."
My response:
If one is speaking of R1b-M269*, there is none of it in Europe west of the steppe either, and the likelihood of finding a true M269* anywhere is slim, since the number of such men must have been small. However, in terms of the M269 clade, there is plenty of it on the steppe predating anything in peninsular Europe, and when it first shows up there it's among IE steppe pastoralists. It's pretty obvious that M269 originated on the steppe or in the forest steppe.
As for R1b being a "typical WHGs marker", perhaps "typical" is yet another word you don't quite comprehend. R1b is not typical among WHGs. Most of them have been I2 and C. Villabruna, who was R1b-L754 and could not be confirmed as L761, was far removed from the lineage of most subsequent R1b men. After him, R1b goes AWOL in peninsular Europe until those V88s show up at the Iron Gates. After that, V88 is the only R1b clade found in Neolithic Europe, and it is separated from the line R1b-M269 is on by thousands of years. The males of the Villabruna autosomal cluster all belong to Y-DNA haplogroup I, except for the eponymous Villabruna himself.
Davidski wrote this about Villabruna back in 2016:
"- Villabruna is a sister clade of the earlier European Vestonice clade, but with significant input from an AfontovaGora3-related North Eurasian population, perhaps one that was living north of the Black Sea after the Kostenki people went the way of the dodo
- Hence, the R1b lineage carried by Villabruna I9030, the individual in this Treemix series, probably comes from the Eurasian steppe"
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/villabruna-cluster-near-eastern-migrants.html
Where a single, stray, wandering HG from the East, or the descendant of such an HG, ended up in Eurasia is of little significance unless a number of others like him are found in the same vicinity or one can demonstrate by subsequent ancient DNA evidence that he left descendants or was the representative of a Y-DNA haplogroup that left descendants. No one can do that with Villabruna, because after him peninsular Europe is bereft of R1b except for a few V88s here and there. But maybe Villabruna was in some unknown way important in the history of V88. Could be. And of course, V88 separated from the line most modern R1b men are on about 16,000 years ago. Its trajectory is a thing entirely separate from that of the rest of R1b.