search this blog

Friday, September 22, 2023

The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow


The scientists at the David Reich Lab are a clever bunch. But they're not always on top of things. And this can be a problem.

For instance, they fail to understand that the Caucasus has effectively stymied human gene flow between Eastern Europe and West Asia through the ages. That is, the Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to human gene flow.


Until they accept and understand this fact, they won't be able to accurately characterize the ancestry of the ancient human populations of the Pontic-Caspian (PC) steppe, including the Yamnaya people.

In turn, they also won't be able to locate the Indo-Anatolian homeland.

Now, the Caucasus isn't a barrier to gene flow because it's difficult to cross, and, indeed, many human populations have managed to cross it since the Upper Palaeolithic. As a result, the peoples of the North Caucasus are today genetically more similar to the populations of the Near East than Europe.

In fact, the clear genetic gap between most West Asian and Eastern European populations through the ages is actually caused by the extreme differentiation between the mountain ecology of the Caucasus and the steppe ecology of the PC steppe.

That is, the Caucasus is ecologically so different from the PC steppe that it has been practically impossible for human populations to make the transition from one to the other.

Indeed, it's important to understand that there's no reliable record of any prehistoric human population successfully making the transition from the mountain ecology to the steppe ecology in this part of the world.

In other words, contrary to claims by people like David Reich and David Anthony, there's no solid evidence of any significant prehistoric human migration from the Caucasus, or from south of the Caucasus, to Eastern Europe by hunter-gatherers, farmers or pastoralists.


But, you might ask, how on earth did the Yamnaya people get their significant Caucasus/Iranian-related admixture if not via a mass migration from the Caucasus and/or the Iranian Plateau, as is often argued by the above mentioned scholars and their many colleagues?

Well, obviously, the diffusion of alleles from one population to another can happen without migration. All that is needed is a contact zone between them.

The ancient DNA and archeological data currently available from the Caucasus and the PC steppe suggest to me that there was at least one such contact zone in this area bringing together the peoples of the mountain and steppe ecoregions. This allowed them to mix, probably gradually and over a long period of time, by and large without leaving their ecoregions.

Once the Caucasus alleles entered the steppe, they were spread around by local hunter-gatherers and pastoralists who were highly mobile and well adapted to the steppe ecology.


Someone should write a paper about this.

See also...

The Nalchik surprise

Understanding the Eneolithic steppe

Matters of geography

571 comments:

«Oldest   ‹Older   201 – 400 of 571   Newer›   Newest»
EastPole said...


Target: Poland_Strzyzow_Culture_oBS:poz794
Distance: 3.1819% / 0.03181914
32.6 S11
19.6 S45
18.8 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
14.2 Russia_EN_Srednestogovskaya
10.4 S8
3.0 Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya
1.4 Russia_LN_Volosovo


Target: Lithuania_LN_o:Spiginas2
Distance: 3.1780% / 0.03177975
29.0 S11
17.0 Russia_EN_Srednestogovskaya
16.0 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
14.6 S8
13.2 S45
9.2 Lithuania_EMN_Narva
1.0 Russia_LN_Volosovo

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ From the Mushabian of the Sinai & Negev desert. There is actually a technological 'turnover' between the Kebaran and Natufian, in situ.
This might correlate with a male-biased takeover of the Kebaran territory by late Mushabian/ Ramonian users, c/w with ~ 20-30% admixture in Natufians of a population with links to northern Africa, but with more proximal DNA, that degree might be greater, as well as Y-DNA shift to haplogroup E.”

Does this turnover correspond to a shift to an Iberomaurausian sourced Afro-Asiatic language?

Slumbery said...

@Rob

"That would imply that WSHG like Tyumen also have East Asian admixture
However that might be tempered by western back-flow from eastern Europe"


At least G25 nMontes says that Tyumen does have extra East Asian over AG3 and over EHG and Steppe Eneolithic. About 10%. Botai have even more.

Of course there is the usual weakness: nMontes is not good with deep ancestry and there in the absence of better ANE proxy I used the quite old AG3.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

I haven’t even begun looking at A-A languages, but doesn’t the tree structure support a northeast African origin ?
If so, this might broadly correspond with the initial introduction of Semitic languages into the Levant , with due caution of course
Iberomaurisians are just a side group, a proxy here

LivoniaG said...

Samuel Andrews said - September 23, 2023 at 12:31 PM
@Davidski,
The CHG ancestry on the Steppe is not super distant.
If the CHG geneflow reached the Steppe in 8000 BC, that's not a super long time ago.

Yes. Not to challenge anybody
But the whole idea of Proto-indo-European is based on using the language family to reconstruct ONE parent language.
And the same method applies to the parent of that parent language.

So, there’s a pre-IE and pre-pre-IE, etc., all single parents going back in time. PIE doesn’t fall out of the sky. It comes out of a line of earlier languages.

So , it’s ok to ask where was that grandparent or great grandparent language being spoken in 8000 BC and who genetically was speaking it in 8000 BC and were they genetic ancestors of whoever was speaking it in 3000 BCE.

Was the ancestry EHG? Was it WHG? Was it CHG?

Remember it can be only one great grandparent according to linguistics.
Who and where was it being spoken in 8000 BCE

EthanR said...

FTDNA has started adding samples. The new Catacomb Culture sample is I-L701.

Andrzejewski said...

@LiviniaG “ Was the ancestry EHG? Was it WHG? Was it CHG?”

Rob has just given me an idea: what about a WSHG one?

Andrzejewski said...

I somehow tend to think that the earliest speakers of PIE were the R1a forest steppe ancestors of Sredny Stog, whoever they were

Andrzejewski said...

What also fascinates me is whether or not there is a substrate from EEF and WHG languages, and what the non-Uralic non-PIE substrate in the Baltic sounded like.

Another thing that intrigues me is where did the Paleo-Laplandic in Sami comes from, was it EHG or WHG, and especially in light of the fact that Post-Nordic BA Scandinavians do have a lot of SHG but not the Lapps.

Gio said...

I agree with you. My idea was WHG, but we should follow the Y and not the autosome, and the Y is hg R1. We know now that hg P*, or P1* was in Poland at some time (look at the paper where I demonstrated there was that hg and not a recent hg R), and we have now other hg K2b or subclade in the Balkans, we have hg R1b1 in Villabruna and all the others in the Baltic, Russia etc, until the R-M269 and R1a which could already be the centum and satem IE languages. At some point IE languages were close to Uralic languages. I doubt that Gramkrelidze and Ivanov were right in the “Southern Ark” linguistic theory.

Chad said...

It is a dead-end, with something older and deeper already present. If Ganj_Dareh had any input from a population like Kotias_UP, this stat would be very significant the other direction. Looks like next to zero ancestry from Kotias.

Now, with Anatolia_HG, the stat is similar. Where is the input from a Kotias population with this? Anatolia_HG would've been the sure thing if it was true, considering they plot similarly. But, plotting in the same general viscinity doesn't mean you come from the same place ancestrally. This, however, looks like the nail in the coffin. This should've been way worse than the Anatolia_HG, away from WHG. I'm telling you, all of the three main groups, Iranian, Natufian, and Anatolian spring from a different and much deeper, basal population than Kotias. They are a dead-end off-shoot, only minimally related or impactful.

Chimp GanjDareh_N WHG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001435 -2.827 26188 26910 502795

Marlow said...

@Andrzejewski

What "non-Uralic non-PIE substrate in the Baltic"? Do you mean a substrate in Baltic or Balto-Finnic languages?

Rob said...

@ Chad

So what could If Iran_N & WHG share something to the exclusion of Kotias_UP ?
The answer is nothing, in essence.
In fact, we can model WHG with Dzudzuana but not Iran_N or later CHG from the Caucasus.


The situation is that Kotias_UP is pre-Ice Age (~24,000 BC , ~ 26,000 calBP), and therefore it is a relative outgroup to the post-Ice Age social-mating network of western Asia . However, this network was not cooped-up in a tiny corner of the Levant, but sprawled across western Asia. The uniparental diversity of post-Glacial Western Asia is too large for that, and of course we have very clear archaeological evidence for its expanse.

So even though Kotias-UP himself is a dead-end, in real life terms the prevailing ancestry of succeeding CHG came from the southern Caucasus, perhaps further south in Armenia or along the southwest caspian, although Bondi cave has LGM deposits. The uniparental situation does not allow for any other scenario.

Andrzejewski said...

@Marlow “ What "non-Uralic non-PIE substrate in the Baltic"? Do you mean a substrate in Baltic or Balto-Finnic languages?”

Sorry, I meant hydronyms and typonyms -

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Finno-Ugric_substrate

Probably a Combed Ceramic or Volosovo or another likely EHG language

JR said...

@Matt interesting stats,it seems mota is closer to everything else compared to iran_n?

Matt said...

@Chad/Rob, what do the stats of:

f4(Chimp/Mbuti/etc, WHG; Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP)
f4(Ust_Ishim, WHG; Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP)
f4(Ust_Ishim, Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N; WHG, Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N)

f4(Chimp/Mbuti/etc, Vestonice16; Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP)
f4(Ust_Ishim, Vestonice16; Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP)
f4(Ust_Ishim, Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N; Vestonice16, Iran_Ganj_Dareh_N)

look like?

@JR: the stats for Georgia_CHG, Russia_Kostenki14, are negative, so not exactly everyone else, and also most of the positive ones are non-significanct. But yeah, there is no apparent f4 stat connection with the ancient East Africa relative to the West African outgroup. (Apparently this is not the case for Turkey_N or Georgia_Kotias_UP and populations related to the former for some reason!).

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

@Gaska you use a line of argument highly based on Straw Man Fallacy, which implicates that it is easy to attack, with nonsense sentences, what others had said.
I made it clear as the waters of the Black Sea that the Proto Indo Europeans had seen when they rase up.
J1 Marker was simple related to Dzudzuana Rich population, some contact might happened but I m certain that no relation to IE culture, stop your fantasy.
No one used any reference to any modern culture, only geographical positions. I referred to a region that now days was place on Southern Russia Caucasian area, but in other times I will draw it so would be easy, I prefer this than bias-guessing like you did with Sredny Stog on Caucasus.
As well, J1 was related to Pre-CHG, probably Dzudzuana and any Villabruna like ancestor, IJ*, doesn't mean anything for us since Pre CHG Admixture was found at Mesolithic on Steppe.
Maybe came from some Slavs that our IE foundfathers had, or you think we cucked your ancestor's?

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

@Andr thanks for the gentle answer, I have to say that we won't know exactly which culture those Comb Ceramic or pre Kunda-Narva had, as well as Volsovo. They had some WSteppe Heritage but certainly a minority probably inherited due to Commercial contact and formal relationships (exchange of wife's, tribal alliances, etc .) ..
My point is being Bug Dniester a Pré proto Indo European , without any contact with Danubian Farmers at the Neo/Meso, we should expect that all EHG had a sort of Related language and culture, not at all but in some aspects
Proto Indo European was a evolution of Pre Proto Indo European, meaning that some lost cultures and languages , related to them, would be call as Para Indo European, and I suggest those cultures as a sort of Para IE, different from Dnieper Donetsk/Sredny, Khvalynsk and Progress, all steppe cultures had merged to form PIE Horizon .
The innovations that made Pre PIE into PIE came from the contact with Danubian Civilization (Danubian Farmers and Old Europe) + Maykop/Summerian(Sumerian was Semitic as J1) , but there was a Pre PIE language and it was found on Bug Dniester, EHG with higher WHG , then we could imagine that Pre PIE wasn't to distant to the language that Comb Ceramic spoke.
That could explain why no one with a good brain and rational intentions imagine Iranian Plateau as the PIE homeland, since no region related to that population could even been similar to PIE, some were Dravidic others Semitic.
We simple can't know about how was comb ceramic, but at least we knew that they weren't Semitic, Uralic, Dravidian,

gamerz_J said...

@Matt, @Chad

f4(Cameroon_SMA.DG, Ethiopia_4500BP.DG; Iran_GanjDareh_N, Georgia_Kotias_UP)?
The equivalent for f4(Cameroon_SMA.DG, Ethiopia_4500BP.DG; Iran_GanjDareh_N, X) for the following populations is (order of Z score):

Turkey_N, Z: 2.43, 1050123 SNPs
Turkey_Epipaleolithic, Z: 2.29, 815047 SNPs
Spain_MLN, Z: 2.16, 1042707 SNPs
Russia_Afanasievo, Z: 1.64, 1045181 SNPs
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Z: 0.982, 1049935 SNPs
China_Tianyuan, Z: 0.831, 860301 SNPs
China_AmurRiverLPaleolithic_19k, Z:0.644, 670024 SNPs
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG, Z: 0.242, 1051361 SNPs
Georgia_CHG.SG, Z: -0.00673, 1049631 SNPs
Russia_Kostenki14, Z: -0.608, 1028916 SNPs

Alternatively with f4(South_Africa_2200BP.SG, Ethiopia_4500BP.DG; Iran_GanjDareh_N, X):

Spain_MLN, Z: 1.85, 617658 SNPs
Turkey_N, Z: 1.45, 622654 SNPs
Russia_Afanasievo, Z: 0.957, 619282 SNPs
Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic, Z: 0.337, 622522 SNPs
Turkey_Epipaleolithic, Z: 0.17, 485782 SNPs
China_Tianyuan, Z: 0.0568, 505419 SNPs
China_AmurRiver_LPaleolithic_19k, Z: -0.504, 392475 SNPs
Georgia_CHG.SG, Z: -0.944, 622702 SNPs
Russia_Kostenki14, Z: -1.11, 608399 SNPs
Russia_Ust_Ishim.DG, Z: -1.19, 623523 SNPs


These stats posted here seem to me to suggest African-related (Mota-like input) into Anatolia_N and in fact Pinarbasi_HG relative to Iran_N in the first case, and no such affinity or gene flow in the latter case. Could this be due to some interaction between Mota and Cameroon_SMA?

This would agree more with Rob's model of West Asian population history than Chad's although I'm not sure as to the Mota-like contribution Rob inferred for Anatolia_HG.

Furthermore, Matt said this:

"Apparently this is not the case for Turkey_N or Georgia_Kotias_UP and populations related to the former for some reason"

Hard to imagine African gene flow to Kotias_UP (but I didn't notice that affinity in the stats posted above, maybe I missed it) however we know Dzudzuana-like pops had mtDNA U6 that is found in copious amounts in North Africa, could this affinity be due to back-migration instead?

One of the stats Chad posted do seem to indicate that Mota is about equally related to AHG and Kotias_UP interestingly.

Chad said...

Matt,
I took a guess at some of this. You had GanjDareh in two places in a couple of them

result: Chimp GanjDareh_N Kostenki14 Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.000725 1.249 30953 30547 558671
result: Chimp GanjDareh_N GoyetQ116-1 Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.002342 3.264 16341 15659 291400
result: Chimp GanjDareh_N Vestonice16 Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.001685 2.673 21479 20815 393778
result: Chimp GanjDareh_N MA1.SG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001504 -2.372 22930 23558 417134
result: Chimp GanjDareh_N SunghirIII.SG Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.002331 4.019 32798 31433 585631
result: Chimp GanjDareh_N WHG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001435 -2.827 26188 26910 502795
result: Chimp GanjDareh_N Russia_Karelia_HG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.003244 -5.481 28408 30145 535391
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG Kostenki14 Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.000958 -1.223 30077 30627 574252
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG GoyetQ116-1 Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001154 -1.277 15107 15440 288605
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG Vestonice16 Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.000839 -1.063 20120 20449 391905
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG MA1.SG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001287 -1.651 23080 23639 434358
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG SunghirIII.SG Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.000289 0.400 32641 32463 616891
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG WHG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001243 -1.936 25406 26037 507687
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG Russia_Karelia_HG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.002053 -3.017 28186 29304 544929
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG Turkey_Epipaleolithic Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001644 -2.307 22980 23733 458085
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG Natufian Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.001220 1.320 8436 8242 159357
result: Chimp Zlaty_Kun.SG GanjDareh_N Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.001642 -2.825 30333 31268 569693
result: Ust_Ishim.DG WHG GanjDareh_N Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.004933 8.220 28965 26387 522621
result: Ust_Ishim.DG GanjDareh_N WHG Georgia_Kotias_UP -0.000118 -0.213 26325 26387 522621
result: Chimp Vestonice16 GanjDareh_N Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.004199 5.974 22469 20815 393778
result: Ust_Ishim.DG Vestonice16 GanjDareh_N Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.004180 5.897 21813 20103 408952
result: Ust_Ishim.DG GanjDareh_N Vestonice16 Georgia_Kotias_UP 0.004289 6.124 21857 20103 408952

Rob, WHG and GanjDareh share ANE, to the exclusion of Kotias. So, WHG and GanjDareh share just as much together through ANE as Kotias and GanjDareh do through Basal Eurasian. There is no Kotias ancestry in GanjDareh.

Everyone else,
Looking at simple Z-scores isn't the end all. And a Z-score of 2 is meaningless, within the range of noise at high SNPs. You can't just look at Z-scores either. You have to look at the f-stat. A Z-score of -2, with 1m SNPS might get you a 1 percent admixture edge.... again... noise.

SNP coverage and fstats are greater keys to look at than the Z-score with aDNA because of coverage issues not being consistent. For instance a Z-score of -2, at 100k-200k SNPs might mean something. That is where the f-stat is important.
You could miss something where it's like.....

A,B,X,Y -.0233 -2.1Z 100kSNPs
A,B.X,Y -.0013 -2.1Z 1.1mSNPs

These are vastly different things. One is most certainly noise, the other is not.

I'm hopping out of this rabbit hole.

Gaska said...

@Virgin

I'm sorry, but I can't even understand your reasoning because you constantly mix arguments that have nothing to do with each other. straw man fallacy?

1-You have changed your mind about the origin of M269 in just a few days, before you thought it was in the Balkans and suddenly you think the opposite, I think your knowledge of the branches of this lineage is very limited, so I advise you to read the Allentoft paper again because this lineage has not been found to date neither in Russia, nor in Ukraine nor in Siberia, but in the Balkans.

2-You have said that there were no “fantastic migrations” from Iran and I have only asked your opinion about J1b-Y6313 which has its origin in the Caucasus and is shared by Iran and the middle Don. I have no idea of the linguistic affiliation of J1b-Y6313, but I do know that there are cases of J1a-CTS1026, J2a-CTS900 & L2-L595 both south of the Caucasus and in the steppes from the mesolithic to the chalcolithic.

3-I have no horse in this race, and although I don't give a damn about the origin of IE, I have my own theory about it. Lazaridis' arguments regarding his second “Armenian-Levantine” wave and the Mycenaean-Yamnaya connection seem like a fairy tale to me. I think the Harvardians are desperate and are just trying to keep their edifice from collapsing, although perhaps the forthcoming paper on Yamnaya will clear up our doubts once and for all.

4-And regarding the Sredni Stog culture, archaeologists do not agree on its origin, its territorial extension or its dating range. From the samples we have, we know that it was a genetically heterogeneous culture, but it is clear to me that the Ukrainian neolithic (Dnieper-Donets), CT, Khvalynsk and Progress collaborated in the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya.



Rob said...

@ gamerzJ

No I dont think there's any African in Pinarbasi. It forms a clade with Dzudzuana, I believe as stated in Laz's pre-print, whilst Natufians do have it, from where it permeated into other parts of Western Asia, including Neolithic Turkey.

As for Chad's proposal, well its not really a model. More a disconnected series of sentences which jump from one topic to another without adressing things in a rational or coherent manner. I hope his book does better than that :)

anyway, dont hinge yourself on F-stats, they can be very difficult to understand when there is complex ancestry and multiple gene flows. They are a prelimiary screen, then you need qpGraph to evaluate overall typology, followed by qpADm for finer grained admixture.


@ Chad

You're jumping from one thing to another without addressing things.

- the J2b2 which abounds in CHG is already present in Kotias_UP. Even if that specific cave's inhabitants died out, the foundational population was there or nearby
- the Y-hg E in Natufians is unequiovcal evidence of at least some gene-flow from northeast Africa to the Levant
- Yes Iran_N and WHG have ANE, but via different trajectories. They also share West Asian ancestry which is younger than Kotias but older then CHG, and/or not mediated via the Caucasus, but via Aegean-Anatolia into Europe. That is what shaped your D-stat.

Andrzejewski said...

@Virgin “ As well, J1 was related to Pre-CHG, probably Dzudzuana and any Villabruna like ancestor, IJ*, doesn't mean anything for us since Pre CHG Admixture was found at Mesolithic on Steppe.
Maybe came from some Slavs that our IE foundfathers”

Per Lazaridis 2015, CHG split from WHG ~45yka and from Barcin ~25yka, so here’s the IJ connection

Andrzejewski said...

@Virgin Re: your PIE’s origin theory & my own previous correspondence w/ @Marlow per pre-IE pre-Uralic native indigenous in Eastern Europe

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pre-Finno-Ugric_substrate

There was a pre-Finno-Ugric substrate in Volgaic Finnic which was different from that of the Paleo-Laplandic one which formed the 1/3 of Sami vocabulary. My hypothesis is that the Sami substrate could be either a TRB related neolithic farmer core, or more likely a Post-Swiderian Scandinavian WHG language (I ruled out it being a SHG language, because SHG was merged with Single Grave to form the Indo-European Nordic BA whereas the Sami have NONE of the SHG).

The proto-Finno-Volgaic substrate share with Finnish (Proto-Finno-Volgaic *täštä "star") compared to tähti in Finnish indicate an unkown language which Haakkinen termed “sybilant” which preceded both Uralic and PIE in parts of the taiga/tundra and forest Steppe of Eastern Europe. I suspect based on a gut feeling that this pre-Finno-Volgaic substrate was EHG, which was shared with Combed Ceramic, Volosovo and other extinct civilizations in Eastern Europe.

From the Wikipedia entry’s etymology of certain words, along with their phonology - 2 things are clear:

1. Uralic languages were NOT at all EHG languages, which makes sense to almost of us given their Western Siberian homeland and their Trans-Baikal origins. But most importantly —> —>

2. PROTO INDO EUROPEAN COULD *NOT* be an EHG language. Just compare one cognate of basic words: “H2STR/star” v. “tähti” or “tâšti”.

Therefore, PIE must’ve originated not among EHG foragers but perhaps somewhere on the west, maybe among Ukraine_N?

@Davidski, @Rob & @Samuel Andrews - what are your take on all of this?

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “ - the Y-hg E in Natufians is unequiovcal evidence of at least some gene-flow from northeast Africa to the Levant”

…and Barcin Anatolian farmers too. Just look at the prevalence of E1b among contemporary Balkanic populations like Greece and Bulgaria, and that’s AFTER the massive Slavic infusion and influx into these countries during the Early Middle Ages.

EthanR said...

I wouldn't be so quick to assume everything EHG-related spoke very related languages. Especially when we can see that the "EHG" in Progress, and to certain degrees Khvalynsk and Yamnaya, is extremely ANE-rich.
I would also be very skeptical of assigning the language to any specific haplogroup because we have evidence of a number of them participating in the same steppe networks from a very early point in time.

I don't find these granular questions especially interesting but more telling to me is which ancestry source appears to be most mobile immediately preceding PIE and during the Yamnaya profile's formation.

EthanR said...

Has anyone taken a look at the rest of the Golubaya Krinitsa samples? I'm curious as to whether any of them host the same minor ghost ANF-like ancestry as PG2001. It does look like their IBD charts show a contribution from "Caucasus_25000BP" in them (table XII) which I assume to mean Kotias UP.

epoch said...

@Chad

Also, there is the ice coverage of the Caucasus during LGM which probably did not permit populations to continue there.

Chad said...

Rob, you're all over and missing what I'm saying. The main argument. I'm just bowing out of this conversation. I have other stuff that needs my attention riow.

Davidski said...

Yeah, the EHG in Yamnaya isn't really EHG in the same sense as the EHG in Karelia and Samara.

It's actually a couple of different distantly related streams; one more western and the other more eastern.

So saying that EHG was pre-proto-PIE because Yamnaya was late/nuclear PIE doesn't make much sense.

The genetic relationships between all of these ancestry streams are too distant for them to have any tangible linguistic relationships.

Andrzejewski said...

@EthanR “ I don't find these granular questions especially interesting but more telling to me is which ancestry source appears to be most mobile immediately preceding PIE and during the Yamnaya profile's formation.”

You seem to point out something interesting, and I agree with @Davidski that we can’t automatically assume EHG —> Yamnaya, but my actual focus is to rebut and refute @Samuel Andrews (whom I highly respect as a person and whose videos are highly enlightening)’s assertion that Khvalynsk’s para-IE speech (if indeed it was so) stems from the CHG-rich Progress-like migrants, which by allusion means that eventually and ultimately- the source of PIE was somewhat in the Caucasus, even if 20yka.

On a 2nd note here, people tend to forget that CHG has a cline of ANE-rich ancestry, from 0% in Kotias to almost 35% in the ones in Yamnaya, and that the CHG rich groups responsible to contributing to the creation of the WSH profile were the ones who were ANE rich (Yamnaya was 75% ANE from its EHG component and 35% from its CHG one, summing up a 50% ANE rich Yamnaya profile in total).

Why folks ignore the ANE in the CHG (particularly the CHG in WSH) is beyond my understanding.

Matt said...

@Chad, but isn't z score just (f stat/standard error), where SE is determined by SNPs? So if we think that we would be more likely to discard results as insignificant on low SNPs, then Z score includes that factor (hence why it's their criterion for qpGraph and qpAdm)?

Number of individuals per SNP also matters for strength of a stat though and is not taken into account I think.

Rob said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “yep, Barcin farmers are a type of Turkish Farmer ('atufians do have it, from where it permeated into other parts of Western Asia, including Neolithic Turkey')”

So
Where did Greeks and Bulgarians get it from, sans Barcin and Aegean farmers??

Davidski said...

@Andrzejewski

The so called EHG/CHG mixed genotype (which it isn't really that anyway) is native to the Eastern European steppe.

It didn't exist anywhere else unless it moved there from Eastern Europe.

But it existed in Eastern Europe since at least 5,000 BCE, and probably much earlier, so it can't be linked to PIE, because PIE is too young.

You can't link PIE to any of these distal components like EHG, CHG etc. They're too old and too broad.

And no one is saying anymore that Khvalynsk was PIE or even para-PIE. It was PIE-related.

Rich S. said...

Gaska wrote:
“@Virgin
I'm sorry, but I can't even understand your reasoning because you constantly mix arguments that have nothing to do with each other. straw man fallacy?
1-You have changed your mind about the origin of M269 in just a few days, before you thought it was in the Balkans and suddenly you think the opposite, I think your knowledge of the branches of this lineage is very limited, so I advise you to read the Allentoft paper again because this lineage has not been found to date neither in Russia, nor in Ukraine nor in Siberia, but in the Balkans."

My response:

What are you talking about? M269*? We don't have any of that anyplace yet, and it's not likely to show up anytime soon, since there probably never were too many of those guys. If you're still blathering on about I2181/Smyadovo, remember he had steppe DNA, and his Y-DNA haplogroup has not yet been confirmed. If he is M269, that just means he was the Y-DNA descendant of a steppe migrant who made it as far "west" as far eastern Bulgaria, not far from the west coast of the Black Sea.

Other than that one very shaky sample, who had steppe DNA anyway, where is the evidence that M269 originated in the Balkans?

But as far as the R1b-M269 clade goes, it's pretty obviously of steppe origin. It's in Yamnaya, Afanasievo, the very earliest Corded Ware, in later Corded Ware in Małopolska evidently belonging to a second CWC wave from the steppe, possibly from the Middle Dnieper culture (according to Polish archaeologist Piotr Włodarczak, Völker Heyd, and Linderholm et al anyway), in Beaker, in Proto-Nagyrev, in Vucedol, etc., etc.

No ancient R1b-M269 has yet appeared without steppe DNA.

Arguing for the steppe origin of M269 is like being a mosquito in a nudist colony: so much to choose from.

Rob said...

@ Andrze

“So
Where did Greeks and Bulgarians get it from, sans Barcin and Aegean farmers?”

E-V13 and ancestors is evident sporadically across Cardial farmers and the Danubian chalcolithic
It then goes into hiding somewhere - It’s missing in Bronze Age Greeks, Bronze Age Croatia and “Illyria” as well as E-MBA Bulgaria
It then appears Iron & Roman Age Thraco-Moesia
So Greeks,, Bulgarians , Albanians, Macedonians all got it in one way or another from that region

Gaska said...

For those who are truly interested in the origin of R1b-M269 please remember

1-Epigravettian technologies are related to the formation of the Swiderian>Kunda and Butovo cultures, ergo the early successful expansion of haplogroup R1b1a1-P297, TMRCA (11.300 BC) may be associated with the spread of Epigravettian (Villabruna-R1b-L754) & post-Swiderian cultures in north-eastern Europe, linked thus to the north-eastern Technocomplex (Kunda, Veretye & Butovo cultures) as demonstrated by the samples found in the Baltic (Zvejnieki-7.272 BC) and northern Russia (Minino2-8.534 BC)

2-The sister clade of R1b-P297, i.e. R1b-V1636, TMRCA (4.800 BC) followed the course of the Volga river to the south (Samara, Khvalynsk-4.405 BC) and contributed to the formation of the steppe eneolithic and later also to the Yamnaya culture.

3-The descendants of R1b-P297 have a different geographic distribution, R1b-Y13200, TMRCA (6.400 BC) originated in the Northwestern Russia-Baltic-Karavaikha (6.327 BC), Zamostje2, Onega culture (5.908 BC), Latvia (Zvejnieki, 5.946 BC), Lithuania (Donkalnis-5.210 BC), from where it moved to Lebyazhinka, Sok River, Samara (5.597 BC), Sakhtish, Lyalovo culture (4.969 BC), Sakhtish, Volosovo culture (3.989 BC) Vasilyevskiy kordon (3.713 BC), Borovjanka XVII (3.714 BC), Norway (Troms-2.400 BC) Kazakhstan (Botai-3.362 BC) i.e. it occupied the entire territory of the north-eastern technocomplex reaching Samara, Scandinavia and Central Asia.

4- It would not be strange to find R1b-M269 in the Baltic & northwest of Russia where its brother Y13200 is found, but the fact of finding this marker in the Gumelnita culture (4.500 BC) makes us think that either it did not move from the Epigravettian territory (which includes the Balkans), or it was incorporated into the Balkan neolithic cultures from the north in a backward migration.

5-This seems to be the case of I2181-Smyadovo which has 19.2% WHG, a component that could not have been acquired either in the Balkan neolithic cultures, Khvalynsk, Eneolithic Progress or Anatolia.Since his mtDNA is typical of European neolithic cultures, his HapY must have originated from WHGs (according to Lazaridis I2181 is only 9% EHG)-Yamnaya is only the sink of R1b-M269 and more specifically its branch Z2103.

Gio said...

Expressed neatly by Gaska, this is practically the theory that I came up with 15 years ago, long before Villabruna's R1b1 was discovered by those who really didn't want to find it. Being a Basque, Gaska thinks that these WHGs did not speak Indo-European, while instead I think that Indo-European was formed and spread from them. The presence of Etruscan and Basque-Sardinian is not surprising, if Alfredo Trombetti already defined Etruscan as intermediate between Indo-European and Caucasian and Basque as a language of Caucasian origin as he demonstrated in the brilliant "Le origini della lingua basca" of 1925.

Matt said...

For a bit more kind of off-topic f stats nerdery: Going back to my comment above ("Chad, isn't z score just (f stat/standard error)...");

1) Z-score is definitely just the f-stat/standard error. nothing more, nothing less. effectively how many units of error from zero the statistic is.

2) however, having reviewed it, I think regarding how important the SNP count is to reduce the standard error, it actually seems to me like number of individuals in a sample may be more important in giving a low standard error (and thus achieving robust Z-scores). Rather than the number of SNPs covered. For a bunch of stats I calculated, the standard error didn't appreciably change for ancient groups of sample size 1 (single individuals like Ust Ishim and Tianyuan) going from 600k to almost the full 1240k. But it was much lower for groups of many individuals (e.g. Turkey N) at coverage of almost the full 1240k.

For an example of how numbers of individuals can matter more for standard error than the SNP count: https://i.imgur.com/TExaCaW.png

At the top are some stats for English vs Czech (two populations with pretty similar deep ancestries in terms of Anatolia/WHG/Steppe split) computed on HO Public for fewer SNPs vs the 1240k with more SNPs; sorted by Z scores.

Although the SNPs in 1240k is almost double in some instances, you can see that the standard error is about 2 or 3 times higher for the stats involving the same modern populations and same ancient samples. This means that although the estimated f4 stat is the same size, the Z score is insignificant in many cases where there is a pretty clear difference in HO_Public, which show a distinction where Czechs are converging more with both Serbia_IronGates and Turkey_N relative to Middle Neolithic farmers, compared to English. This fits with the idea that some more of NW Euros HG and Anatolian ancestry comes via the Atlantic/GAC farmer populations.

Getting back to the relevance to qpGraph and qpAdm directly, this kind of worries me a bit about the methods, because we only tend to talk about the level of SNPs in our models, and not the levels of standard error, but if standard errors are high because of low numbers of individuals being used in the populations, we might find that models work which would probably fail if they had robust sample sizes. I guess in theory the p-values should resolve this but I haven't thought that through.

It also indicates to me that the 1240k is deficient in understanding fine scale relatedness in present-day ancestry even for Eurasian populations as the generally low sample size of one or two individuals per present day population in 1240k is not adequate for reconstructing fine scale f scores at high confidence. Doing the same kind of patterns as in the above with intra-present-day sample differences makes the point: https://i.imgur.com/ymOBqRA.png . There's fine structure in populations today which could be much more easily squeezed out with a project that combined the 1240k capture coverage with the sample sizes of Human Origins.

Matt said...

As another example of the problem of "Higher SNPs, but actually a worse model because of lower numbers of individuals (leading to exploding standard error)", using the Czech / English example, I've used above:

1) A 1240k model testing whether English and Czech can be modelled as each other, using the outgroups of Mbuti.DG, Russia_Afanasievo, Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic adn Turkey_N - https://pastebin.com/Ww1x30HL . This model suceeds at p=0.27, and essentially covers the whole 1240k.

2) Now introducing Spain_MLN and Latvia_BA into the outgroups - https://pastebin.com/gFfFheKG . Model succeeds at 0.18, similar SNP coverage.

3) New repeating model 1 with HO_Public and a larger sample size for English and Czech - https://pastebin.com/BGmUvqPQ. Model p rises to 0.68! This shows that these outgroups (who date to before the expansions into Europe or otherwise weren't affected by founder effects or pre-existing substructure on those routes) can't really distinguish these two populations well, and that's even moremore the case as we have limited SNPs.

4) New replicate model 1 with HO Public - https://pastebin.com/MfKWAUED . Now in contrast to all the previous models (and particularly to the very high value in model 3), we see an extreme failure of the p-value at 4.45e-16 (this is so low as to effectively be impossible; also either the inclusion Spain_MLN or Latvia_BA lead to model failure and both together are not necessary).

So once we combine high modern day sample sizes, and ancient groups who represent the different founder effects incurred upon expansion throughout Europe of EEF and steppe, we see quite a distinguishable population difference.

The wider problem of this is that it perhaps wouldn't be obvious, without considering sample size and standard error explicitly, why model 4 is probably more persuasive than the model 1 or 2. After all, these model 1 and 2 have higher SNPs, right? This could be a problem for considering competing models; if we just go "Well, this model has higher SNPs, it has a good p-value, its outgroups are scrupulously meeting the conditions we want it to meet" we might be blind to problems with poor standard error due to poor sample size. qpAdm evaluates models in terms of overall fit of z-scores (and thus f-stats relative to standard error), summarized as statistical tests of probability, but does not evaluate whether competing models overall have worse/better standard error, and why that's the case.

Kavi said...

Davidski ur such a deluded twerp and major pleb.

Poland is major pleb land ur ppl r too low and stupid.

No way r u or Yamnya PIE, Yamnaya and Polish ppl are clearly plebs u guys r recent nomads they r nothing the true elites were farmers.

I know ur just a dumb pleb dw ur time will come.

I need to stop talking shit u and ur friends will surely pay for ur transgressions.

History will repeat itself again and for ur words and ignorant attitude u will be shamed across the internet and ur ppl too along with the arrogance and delusion of northern euros to spread lies is misinformation about history all it will come out and all this will do down into the same category as hitler nazism, pseudoscience and your beta retardness and that of ur friends will be known for a long time.

u stupid beta irrelevant polist twerp.

Rich S. said...

Gio wrote:

"Expressed neatly by Gaska . . ."

No, it's completely and utterly goofy, as is the ridiculous idea of "Paleolithic Continuity" and the origin of Indo-European in peninsular Europe.

As has been pointed out a number of times, including in the 2018 Mathieson paper in which the sample first appeared, I2181/Smyadovo had steppe DNA. The fact that his remains were recovered in far eastern Bulgaria among a bunch of non-R1b-M269 Gumelnita farmers with no steppe DNA does not make him the Y-DNA descendant of European Neolithic farmers, and one such result - so far unconfirmed, by the way - certainly does not make R1b-M269 a Balkan Neolithic farmer lineage, especially when compared with the massive weight of contrary evidence, i.e., all the R1b-M269 in steppe pastoralist and steppe pastoralist-derived cultures, and its absence from peninsular Europe prior to the arrival, from the steppe, of the Indo-Europeans, beginning around the start of the third millennium BC.

It would take too long to list it all, it really would. One thing doofus (a long time rabid ethno-nationalist) conveniently forgot to mention, with his "Z2103 Yamnaya sink" baloney, is the presence of M269 of the R1b-P310 variety in Afanasievo - very old Afanasievo, by the way – in two different ancient skeletons, from two different, widely separated sites, and two different scientific papers, authored by different sets of researchers, samples with autosomal profiles virtually identical to Yamnaya.

Those two Afanasievo P310s have been confirmed by FTDNA's team and can be found in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections (unlike I2181/Smyadovo).

If Villabruna meant so damned much to the history of R1b-M269 - he doesn't - he cannot even be confirmed for anything beyond L754 - then R1b, other than a mere smattering of V88, would have continued to appear in peninsular Europe after his own demise, but it did not.

I seriously think I should just discipline myself to quit reading posts by you and Gaska. I can feel my IQ drop each time I suffer through them. It's really unhealthy.

Davidski said...

@Kavi

You're either a comedian or you suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect

MyeDin said...

@kavi

"History will repeat itself again"

Careful what you wish for ;).

Matt said...

Also @chad, thanks for the stats; I got waylaid on the issue of technical details of f-stats and standard error (and how important sample number is to standard error), but I will have a look at those to see what conclusions they might suggest about Georgia_Kotias_UP.

Also: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.01.559299v1 - "Ancient genomes illuminate Eastern Arabian population history and adaptation against malaria", Martiniano. 300 BCE for Arabian region is not really what I suspect most of us would really be most excited about (more like 6000 BCE, if there was anything!), and suspect the Persian Gulf is less of interest than Southwest Arabia, but it is cool to have something. These samples are more like Iran_CA and Iraq_PPN than they are anything from the Levant, and what we might suspect to be the profile in Southern Arabia.

Chad said...

Matt,
One thing I've learned is that large sample sizes also come with issues. The amount of outliers that get missed or mislabelling of relatives is an issue. I like picking apart individuals and see where modeling issues are coming from.

Modern pops is probably an outlier issue. People know way less about their ancestry than we realize. I would try to rule that out with your modeling.

Matt said...

Also OT: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.01.560195v1 - Childebayeva's awaited Seimo-Turbino thing : "Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics in the Context of Development of Metallurgy and Siberian Ancestry" - "The genetic profiles of nine ST-associated individuals vary widely ranging between ancestries maximized in individuals from the Eastern Siberian Late Neolithic/BA, and those of the Western Steppe Middle Late BA. The genetic heterogeneity observed is consistent with the current understanding of the ST metallurgical network as a transcultural phenomenon. "

The site is: "Here, we present ancient human DNA data from a well-known, ST-associated site Rostovka (ROT), which is one of the very few ST sites with preserved human remains. The majority of the graves found at Rostovka contain bronze ST objects, bronze weapons and tools, casting molds, jewelry, bone knife handles, and armor plates. In fact, the majority of Rostovka burials contain weapons, found in 60% of the female and 80% of the male burials. The radiocarbon dates for Rostovka, excluding extreme values, range between ca. 2200-2000 cal. BCE. This chronological horizon is simultaneous with the Okunevo culture, while its lower bound overlaps with the early Abashevo and Sintashta cultures, among others (Fig. 1b)."

From PCA figure, although it says ancestries widely range between "Eastern Siberian Late Neolithic/BA, and those of the Western Steppe Middle Late BA", they're not actually on a cline between these two sources, and there looks to be a lot of Ancient North Eurasian ancestry going on here.

Looking at the newly generated data, ST individuals spread widely on the Eurasian PCA (PC1 vs PC3), mainly throughout the so-called ‘forest-tundra’ genetic cline (Fig. 2b) mirroring the distribution of the modern Uralic speakers (Supplementary Figure 4).

There is one individual that is wholly Western Steppe Middle Late BA like (ROT003) and one almost wholly East Siberian (East Asian) (ROT002), and this explains the description given in the abstract.

("Here, we could successfully model the ROT individuals as a mix of three ancestries, Eastern_Siberia_LNBA, Sintashta_MLBA, and WSHG, except for ROT002, which could be modeled instead as a two-source mixture of mainly Eastern_Siberia_LNBA ancestry and a smaller proportion of EEHG-like ancestry that could be represented by either Sintashta_MLBA, WSHG, or EEHG, whereas ROT003 could be modeled with Sintashta_MLBA as single source (Fig. 4B).")

WSHG appears to be the largest source for most ROT individuals in their Fig 4 models.

In terms of y-dna, the Sintashta like sample ROT003 and the one that looks closest to intermediate Sintashta and East Siberian ROT016 both are R1as, and ROT002 who is most East Siberian is N1a1a1a1a, whereas the others are Q1b, R1b-M73 ("a sister-clade of R1b-M269") and C2a; other groups that you'd expect if the male line history is coming through North / Central Eurasian HGs.

I've only skimmed it, but looking at the end the authors say that: "Our findings show that the ST-associated individuals from Rostovka likely did not originate from a single location but rather represent people from a wide geographical area. Seima-Turbino was a latitudinal phenomenon on the same east-west axis where also the hypothetical homelands of the ancestral Uralic subgroups were positioned. Thus, our genetic results are temporally and geographically consistent with the proposal that Uralic languages could have spread within the ST network, but are neither a clear nor a direct proof.", which seems fair enough.

Matt said...

@chad, mechanically that result is explained because in Human Origins Public, the size and direction of the f4 stats are similar to what we see with one or two individuals, in the 1240k with far more SNPs but lower sample size, but the standard error (the degree to which the stat can be attributed to chance) is lower. Because SNPs covered are lower, I can only think that standard error is improved by number of individuals and that thus that going from one or two to 10 samples is actually more important to reduce standard error, generally, than going from HO levels of SNPs to 1240k SNPs.

Stat pairs between the 1240k equivalent and HO equivalent are strongly correlated and of similar magntiude in f4 - https://i.imgur.com/24P92VJ.png . If you look at the plot, the f stat is almost one-to-one for the most part.

It's the much reduced standard errors (plot - https://i.imgur.com/QiSEVtH.png) with larger sample sizes that drive the changes in significance of z scores (plot - https://i.imgur.com/A5FzUKJ.png) and thus of the model to reject the populations being a clade. It's not because the f4 stats are telling a substantially different story because of different individuals (because of outliers or whatever), it's because the SE drops and the Z scores are robust.

I think its unlikely that there are significant outliers who drive these relationship, particularly as they're relatively consistent with what we'd expect. Even within 10 samples as for the comparisons in the list - you could really test for the effect of any single outlier by doing random replicates of the set and leaving one out each time. (Something like qpWave with low sample sizes would have its own extensive problems).

As one other reason why I think there is real substructure, If I extend the models of HO_Public set, with pRight('Mbuti.HO', 'Russia_Afanasievo', 'Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic', 'Turkey_N', 'Latvia_BA', 'Spain_MLN'), target = 'English.HO' and the pLeft ('Scottish.HO','French.HO) or pLeft ('Norwegian.HO','French.HO), I get passing p-values for 'English.HO' but failing values for 'Czech.HO' in this set up. That's consistent with an expected geographic cline where the UK is between those geographical locations, and again seems unlikely that this kind of expected clinal relationship is only driven by chance inclusion of person with unusual ancestry in either set.

Copper Axe said...

Regarding the Rostovka data, at first glance:

The person in burial ROT03 was fully Sintashta-like.

"Grave 8, in which RO003 was buried, is particularly rich. It contains two lanceheads of the types KD-10 and KD-14, a socket ax of type K-20, a dagger blade of the type NK-6, several small flint arrowheads, two rectangular flint blades, and a bone handle"

ROT016 was of steppe_mlba paternal descent and had a warrior burial seemingly with bone armor.

"The inventory of grave 33, in which ROT016 was buried, contains a lancehead of type KD-24, two gold rings, several small flint arrowheads, two stone objects, which are usually described as arrow-smoothers, and a big number of perforated bone battens. These battens are interpreted as the remains of a piece of body-armor"

The Uralic-related male had a somewhat unremarkeable burial and seems to be slightly later than the other chaps dating to 1950-1700 bc. I wonder if there is a similar pattern in other ST sites in terms of when Kra001 shows up precisely. Interestingly the arrowhead match some found in the cis Urals.

"The individual ROT002 was buried together with a dagger blade of the type NK-4, several nonspecific flint-tools, a grindstone, two ceramic vessels and a bone-arrowhead, similar to arrowheads, which were found among the ST-materials of the Kaminskaya Cave on the western site of the Urals"

@Davidski This brings back memories now doesnt it ahahaha

Matt said...

@chad, even more literally for how sample size and its effect on standard errors has more bearing on the z-scores than SNPs: https://i.imgur.com/jxsnC8g.png

Top table is stats calculated with Human Origins populations with 10 samples each, on the HO panel. Middle table is stats calculated with .DG populations with 1-2 samples each, on the 1240k panel. Bottom table is stats calculated with .DG populations with 1-2 samples each, on the HO panel.

Comparing the middle and bottom, with exactly the same samples, you can see that going from an average of 976327 SNPs on .DG for 1240k to 527221 on .DG for Human Origins has almost no impact on the standard error and no impact on Z-score.

1240k should of course be used for comparisons purely between ancients that are sequenced on 1240k/.SG and where you are looking to maximize sample size. But for modern comparisons using ancients, there isn't too much gain it seems from going from HO size levels of SNPs to 1240k levels. I guess this indicates why Allen adna project hasn't taken much time to recover the HO samples at 1240k, but it does seem to me still like there should just be one dataset, ideally.

The limited distribution of power from additional SNPs on 1240k is probably why projects like Skoglund's 'Ancestral 850k' SNP would be worth doing. That seeks to replace ancestral polymorphisms ascertained in Africans with ones which are truly neutral to the common ancestor of AMH, Neanderthals and Denisovans. That solves the problem of inflated differences between Africans and non-Africans in 1240k capture and would make f stats slightly more accurate. You might think this costs SNPs, but the marginal contribution of going from 850k to 1240k seems likely to be low.

Anyway, probably enough about this for now...

Davidski said...

That new preprint about the Seima-Turbino phenomenon looks good at first glance.

I need to read it properly and maybe say a few things in a new post.

Rob said...

Looks like awesome data

''Rostovka likely did not originate from a single location but rather represent people from a wide geographical area. Seima-Turbino was a latitudinal phenomenon on the same east-west axis where also the hypothetical homelands of the ancestral Uralic subgroups were positioned. ''

So, the S-T phenomenon was not simply a migration from the Baikal like the WSH one to the East was.




''Thus, our genetic results are temporally and geographically consistent with the proposal that Uralic languages could have spread within the ST network, ''

I disagree with that somewhat in so far as the real origins of the 'Kra-1' population isnt actually highlighted by that theory.

Rob said...

Hhm their postulated origins for FU groups down south near the steppe, as if pseudo-Scythians, is at variance with the data. They even highlight the Kra-1 related affinities way up north in BOO 1500 BC.
I suspect that the expansion of F-U had other causes than S-T. I think they just drifted by and dabbled.

MOCKBA said...

Isn't there a substantial gap in archaeological data of the era from Azerbaijan and Dagestan, which may not allow us to judge population mobility at the Eastern base of the Caucasus Range? not even to mention that part of it may be underwater now? I read that the Caspian Sea level was as much as 100 m lower than at present (that's about 10,000 years ago)

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt and @Rob Do you think that the FU are what is referred to in the study as the East Siberian (aka East Asian, probably Transbaikal)?

We know what happened to European migration into Asia (Sintashta, Toxharians, Wusun, Yuezhi, Indo-Iranians, etc).

But what happened to the WSHG and the ANE-rich pops that Matt has brought up? Did they get displaced, dispersed, assimilated or exterminated?

Andrzejewski said...

@Kavi Watch your mouth talking about Poles!

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

@Andrez
Yes , that is why I called it Para-Indo European, meaning not from Indo European Tree but related.
Ukraine Neo was basically EHG+WHG, Dzudzuana-Rich pop matches with CHG x WHG connection, related to IJ Ydna.
EHG on Northeast might been something related to Pre-Proto Indo European, that was what I said, not Indo European proper.
Bug Dniester was Pre Proto Indo European, and they probably shared connections with EHG from Karelia and Other Northeast Cultures.

It's very unlikely that any language simple came from ine area without any connection to other groups, PIE wasn't a koine made by Semitic and Uralic contact zone , EHG might been the ancestor of PIE before it became PIE, that was what I said.

CHG would spoke something similar to Afro-Asiatic branch, I doubt any IE from Dravidian borders.

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

Elamites and Dravidians spoke a language from the same Branch of Afro Asiatics, as well as Anatolian Farmers/Neo Europeans, those element could contribute to Pre-Proto Indo European, as David Anthony said, into PIE proper, around the Dnieper Donets Culture. No one said comb ceramic was PIE, para means something related from a secundary branch, probably close to Pre-Proto Indo European like Bug Dniester spoke . Doubt that the source of PIE came from another population that wasn't EHG, it was a evolution not something unrelated, then we could easily assume that Comb Ceramics and others would spoke something related to this Pre Proto Indo European, so Para-IE sounds accurate, a parallel branch , unrelated to PIE itself but on the same tree.
Like Pre-Celtic IE languages from Bell Beaker Britain's were from Celtic Post Urnfield language, for example. Probably related to proto Celtic but from a parallel line, so Para-Celtic sounds accurate.

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

Of* Bell Beakers*
I doubt whg and Iron Gates could been a better source, also before Dnieper Donets(Early Danubian Farmers contact) we didn't see a huge Iron Gates HG influence. Keep in mind that Khvalynsk was forming at the same time, considering their social structure and material culture we could secure that they were PIE like Dnieper Donets, then the source of PIE (pre PIE) was formed before Neolithic.

Andrzejewski said...

@Virgin “ considering their social structure and material culture we could secure that they were PIE like Dnieper Donets,”

Who said that DD spoke anything IE or PIE? Not even Anthony raised it!

Andrzejewski said...

@virgin “ EHG might been the ancestor of PIE before it became PIE, that was what I said.

CHG would spoke something similar to Afro-Asiatic branch, I doubt any IE from Dravidian borders.”

Hogwash!

1. Davidski has just touted the notion earlier in the thread that PIE is simply too young to have been either a CHG nor an EHG language.

2. CHG & EHG are too old and too broad for that.

3. CHG had nothing to do with Semitic or Afro-Asiatic, which most like arose from an Iberomaurasian like ghost pop into Dzudzuana in Israel.

Andrzejewski said...

“ Elamites and Dravidians spoke a language from the same Branch of Afro Asiatics”

Again, BS to the core…

Elamites spoke a language isolate among a sea of Semitic speakers.

For all likelihood, the closest living language spoken today to Iran_N or Iran HG might be Burushaski, unless the latter is a WSHG derived. If the former theory is correct, then Dravidian language family is definitely from AASI and not from Iran.

Matt said...

Rival paper by TC Zeng* - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.01.560332v1 - "Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages"

"The North Eurasian forest and forest-steppe zones have sustained millennia of sociocultural connections among northern peoples. We present genome-wide ancient DNA data for 181 individuals from this region spanning the Mesolithic, Neolithic and Bronze Age. We find that Early to Mid-Holocene hunter-gatherer populations from across the southern forest and forest-steppes of Northern Eurasia can be characterized by a continuous gradient of ancestry that remained stable for millennia, ranging from fully West Eurasian in the Baltic region to fully East Asian in the Transbaikal region. In contrast, cotemporaneous groups in far Northeast Siberia were genetically distinct, retaining high levels of continuity from a population that was the primary source of ancestry for Native Americans. By the mid-Holocene, admixture between this early Northeastern Siberian population and groups from Inland East Asia and the Amur River Basin produced two distinctive populations in eastern Siberia that played an important role in the genetic formation of later people. Ancestry from the first population, Cis-Baikal Late Neolithic-Bronze Age (Cisbaikal_LNBA), is found substantially only among Yeniseian-speaking groups and those known to have admixed with them. Ancestry from the second, Yakutian Late Neolithic-Bronze Age (Yakutia_LNBA), is strongly associated with present-day Uralic speakers. We show how Yakutia_LNBA ancestry spread from an east Siberian origin ~4.5kya, along with subclades of Y-chromosome haplogroup N occurring at high frequencies among present-day Uralic speakers, into Western and Central Siberia in communities associated with Seima-Turbino metallurgy: a suite of advanced bronze casting techniques that spread explosively across an enormous region of Northern Eurasia ~4.0kya. However, the ancestry of the 16 Seima-Turbino-period individuals--the first reported from sites with this metallurgy--was otherwise extraordinarily diverse, with partial descent from Indo-Iranian-speaking pastoralists and multiple hunter-gatherer populations from widely separated regions of Eurasia. Our results provide support for theories suggesting that early Uralic speakers at the beginning of their westward dispersal where involved in the expansion of Seima-Turbino metallurgical traditions, and suggests that both cultural transmission and migration were important in the spread of Seima-Turbino material culture."


* ;) - if you know what that means.

Queequeg said...

@Andrzejevski and re "But what happened to the WSHG and the ANE-rich pops that Matt has brought up? Did they get displaced, dispersed, assimilated or exterminated?" What's left can apparently be found in the Forest Tundra cline of Allentoft et al. In many cases they mixed with Uralic speakers when the latter group(s) expanded to the North, after expanding to the West.

Michalis Moriopoulos said...

Another paper relevant to Uralics just dropped today:

Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages

https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.01.560332v1

It's Reich and company.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt @Rob @Michaelis So in layman’s terms, in Plain English, what the study is saying is that Yeniseian speakers originated in a population residing along Lake Baikal, was rich in ANE ancestry components and was somewhat related to the population left behind in Asia after the ancestors of the American Indians migrated across Bering Strait.

Is that a Steppe closer to validating Vaida and Blašek’s theory that Botai, Kelteminnar, Steppe Maykop and any other WSHG population spoke something either Native American-ish or something in Paleo-Siberian ball park, eg Nivkh, Koriak, Giliak etc?

Rob said...

@ Queequeg

“ In many cases they mixed with Uralic speakers when the latter group(s) expanded to the North, after expanding to the West.”

Uralic speakers never came from the steppe until late in history
They’re Taiga dwellers

Andrzejewski said...

@Rob “or they disappeared from one reason or another…no Hap C in Uralic”

Or perhaps they were ultimately assimilated into Turkic speakers.

The “traneurasian” (formerly known as Altaic) language family have ydna C and lots of ANE rich substrate.

Given that both Uralic and Altaic speakers originated in the Transbaikal or Amur River (Evenk/Ulchi/Tungus) region, is it plausible to surmise that the theory of Ural-Altaic macro-family is now alive and back on the agenda?

Andrzejewski said...

If Uralic and Yukaghir both are scions of Ymmakhtakh Culture or Amur River foragers, would it cement the so-far hitherto tenuous link between these families?

Andrzejewski said...

(Damn it Rob, you deleted a really good comment re: lack of Hap y dna in Uralics and sometimes to do with the disappearance of WSHG and ANE in Central Asia and Siberia)

Ebizur said...

Andrzejewski wrote,

"Or perhaps they were ultimately assimilated into Turkic speakers."

Tomsk Tatars (Kharkov PhD thesis)
2/47 = 4.3% C-M217(xM86, M407)
2/47 = 4.3% E
2/47 = 4.3% G
3/47 = 6.4% I1
2/47 = 4.3% J2a(xJ2a1b1)
3/47 = 6.4% J2b
9/47 = 19.1% N1c1-Tat/M178
5/47 = 10.6% Q1a3-M346(xQ1a3a1-M3)
13/47 = 27.7% R1a1(xR1a1a7-M458)
6/47 = 12.8% R1b1b2-M269

As far as one may judge from this small sample of Tomsk Tatars, they may have assimilated some LNBA Cis-Baikalian -> historical West Siberian males (5/47 = 10.6% Q-M346(xM3), 2/47 = 4.3% C-M217(xM86, M407)), but the Y-DNA pool of the Tomsk Tatars appears to be very eclectic, and there is no guarantee that these hypothetical LNBA Cis-Baikalian ancestors had not been assimilated by some other ethnolinguistic group prior to finally being assimilated by Turkic-speaking Tatars.

Rob said...

Yukaghir have high levels of Yhg Q and “northern C”, as well as Nc-Tat
They therefore have different origins , but this contact would explain the Uralic - Yukaghir loan sets.

Rob said...

@ Andrze - we can talk about disappearance of WSHG and some EHG when/ if the time comes. This a CHG thread so didn’t want to sideline too much

Gio said...

What is happening? The Dante Labs tests aren't anymore in the YFull tree. I found the test with Dante Labs of my friend Emanuele Infantino (R-Z2110-CTS699) the best test I saw.
Dante Labs, from the same YFull data, released tests T2T of about 61Mbp...

Zelto said...

@Rob What have I said that is "nonsense"?

Andrzejewski said...

So what I understand after reading the study:

1. Yenisseyan have nothing to do with American populations. Actually, the Belkachi-Salayakh complex that contributed to Innuit, Nivkh, Koriak, Chukchi and other Paleo-Siberian pops shares more genetic drift with Uralic populations than with Yenisseyans. Here goes the Dene-Yenisseyan theory down the toilet.

2. Cis-Baikalians who spoke Yenisseyan, their languages came either from the the indigenous APS in situ or from the Inland (Yellow River?) migrants, however they shared nothing in common with Botai Culture, Tarim Basin Mummies or any other WSHG cline, genetically at least. Here goes Blažek and Vaida’s “Botai as a para-Yeneseian language” hypothesis.

3. Uralic populations are from Tranbaikal and/or Amur River in Siberia, which resurrects now the long-thought-of-as-obsolete notion of “Turanic” aka “Uralic-Altaic” major macro-family, spanning from Turkish to Finnish and all the way to Korean and perhaps even Japanese.

4. Uralic languages came, as we all already knew, from East Asian, corresponding to Ydna N1c1, and this study just shows once and for all, that Uralic languages are NOT WSHG or ANE languages at all, unlike what some in Anthropogenica would like you to believe.

5. Indo-Europeans and Neo-Siberians (Uralics and to a lesser extent Yenisseyans) largely replaced the FSHG cline, which may answer what happened to EHG/WSHG. It may have been that Yenisseyans have assimilated more WSHG than others, but nevertheless- WSHG and EHG have vanished altogether once the ST network started going in earnest.

Silvia said...

@Davidski,

Are the England_N_o samples in G25 considered to be reliably dated? There are indications of dates as early as 3750 BCE -- if that is indeed accurate, this strongly questions whether "steppe ancestry" should even be understood as a meaningful concept at all in the way it's usually discussed.

Additionally, can I ask what is the specific location in Sweden of sample GSM1884840? This individual shows differences with all other modern samples in Sweden (and elsewhere), while having interesting affinities to Poprad and Pennsylvania Colonist which also have unusual genomic qualities for their time periods.

Davidski said...

@Silvia

Some of the samples that aren't C14 dated have wrong dates.

Usually these are also outliers, with the o suffix, because they don't fit well genetically into their archeological contexts.

Ergo, the England_N_o samples are probably wrongly dated.

I don't know anything about GSM1884840.

Gio said...

I posted the 23andMe data of my mother (Silvana Vagelli: 1924-2013) to Genomelink, Inc. I of course didn’t pay beyond the results they gave me for free, but what they write in The history of Italian: Part 1 is interesting, beyond the propaganda I have been fighting for so long against. I have been saying all that from at least 15 years through genetics, from all my life on the rest. I’d say only that I don’t agree that the agriculturalits who migrated to Europe were from Anatolia if not from the northern regions and the Aegean Sea with European descent, and that Etruscan was their language I demonstrated against the great linguist Schrijver many years ago. He thought to Hattian.

Vladimir said...

David, the Allentoft base appears to have expanded again. It added 32 more samples that are not on your G25 list. This: NEO1, NEO3, NEO7, NEO13, NEO41, NEO61, NEO76, NEO102, NEO223, NEO496, NEO514, NEO545, NEO549, NEO550, NEO553, NEO566, NEO568, NEO571, NEO580, NEO795, NEO817, NEO857, NEO915, NEO938, NEO941, NEO942, NEO945, NEO946, NEO951, NEO960, NEO961, NEO962.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB64656

ANI EXCAVATOR said...

@Andre

"Yeniseian languages are related to the Na-Dene languages in North America under the Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis (76). We investigated this connection by using qpAdm to distinguish sources of APS ancestry in ancient (<4kya) Siberian and American Arctic groups that have been connected to present-day Yukaghirs, Chukotko-Kamchatkans, Eskimo-Aleuts, and Athabaskans (SI Section VI.B). We find strong evidence that all such ancient groups show at least partial descent from Paleo-Eskimo-related populations (represented by Greenland_Saqqaq.SG), and by extension Syalakh-Belkachi and other “Route 2” populations, except Athabaskans from ~1.1kya (SI VI.B.iiii-iv), consistent with some previous inferences (19,30,31), and contradicting other work, including from our own team (77). We instead find weak evidence that ancient Athabaskans may require a small quantity of ancestry from a population related to Cisbaikal_LNBA—genetic evidence for the linguistic hypothesis of a distinctive link between Yeniseian and Na-Dene languages. This suggestive result awaits corroboration with further sampling and more
sensitive analytic methods. "

The authors don't contradict the Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis this but find suggestive genetic evidence in favor of it. The "Route 1" populations connect Cisbaikal_LNBA with modern Central Siberians including Kets plus ancient Athabaskans, and the "Route 2" populations connect Yakutia_LNBA and Uralic populations, plus Eskimo-Aleut, Yukaghir, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan groups.

Rob said...

@ old Europe

Looks to me that Buran Kaya is just like Kostenki

Gio said...

@ ANI EXCAVATOR
“The authors don't contradict the Dene-Yeniseian hypothesis this but find suggestive genetic evidence in favor of it. The "Route 1" populations connect Cisbaikal_LNBA with modern Central Siberians including Kets plus ancient Athabaskans, and the "Route 2" populations connect Yakutia_LNBA and Uralic populations, plus Eskimo-Aleut, Yukaghir, and Chukotko-Kamchatkan groups“.

I thank you for this passage, I didn’t read the paper, but I thought the same. The hypotheses about Na-Denè group as the same Nostratic are worth and of course from an autosomic point of view we cannot find more after many millennia. The link of Indo-European with Uralic languages and of all the others of the Nostratic group are very old. That was what I did mean in my answer, and not the more recent ones happened after the migration of Uralic westrward that as to the paper happened not more than 4500 years ago.

Andrzejewski said...

@Gio “ The link of Indo-European with Uralic languages and of all the others of the Nostratic group are very old.”

WTF are you talking about? PIE is from Eastern Europe, Uralic is from Transbaikal or Amur River in Eastern Siberia

Gio said...

@Andrzejewski
“WTF are you talking about? PIE is from Eastern Europe, Uralic is from Transbaikal or Amur River in Eastern Siberia”.

But if we think that also we Europeans (both R1a and R1b, and others) descend from the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor, we have to admit that this people went and came in this space, and as we find hg R in central Asia (Mal’ta boy) and now we have also R1*in India (Andhra Peadesh), but we don’t know how these last tests of Date Labs will mean seeing that some of them have been deleted from the YFull tree, we have to admit that also the “Nostratic languages” went and came in this space. And we know that the link between Uralic and Indo-Iranian languages happened in Asia beyond the Urals after 4500 years ago when Uralics migrated from eastern Asia westward and Indo-Iranians to Asia from eastern Europe. There is the equivocal theory of the Altaians who want to demonstrate that they always lived where they are now and not that Altaic was spoken in the “Altai” and they migrated westward with a few hgs from Altai, but some like R1a and R1b were due to a previous migration eastward of European people, but the language remain the same, and the possible link with IE is old, just for what I said above. I think it is wrong to think to movements in only one way. People went and came.

Rob said...

@ Zelto

Just admit S-T is also a Fail theory. It’s not as lame a Queequeg failed acopia, but it’s not exactly awesome either

Davidski said...

Seima-Turbino probably does have something to do with the Uralic expansion.

But, looking at the latest ancient DNA evidence, it seems to be something that was started by Indo-Iranians.

Eventually it may have included Uralic speakers, or it paved the way for Uralic speakers to expand after it was gone.

Rob said...

@ Davidski

“Eventually it may have included Uralic speakers, or it paved the way for Uralic speakers to expand after it was gone.”

S-T ended 1700 bc, suspiciously similar to the demise of BMAC
If so, it’s end has little to do with FU people
IMO it’s got more to do with the up & down tides of Andronovo & postAndronovo people initially moving to the forest zone , then heading back south & leaving vacant land

Vladimir said...

Judging by the fact that the burial of Tatarka Hill, where all people with the autosomal profile of Yakutia LNBA and Y-DNA N-Z1936 are buried, belongs to the Samus culture, and also that a person with Y-DNA N-Z1936 in Rostovka also has several dates later than all other burials, it can be assumed that the Finno-Ugric population is marked not so much by Seima-Turbino as by its peripheral taiga derivative - Samus-Kizhirovo. Samus-Kizhirovo - late
taiga derivative from Seimo-Turbino. It should be borne in mind that in the later cultures of the Volga region of the early Iron Age - Maklasheyevskaya and Ananyino (Ananino is considered a reliably Ural population) metal processing was based on the Samus-Kizhirovsky traditions.

Davidski said...

Yeah, at best the Uralic expansion looks like something Seima-Turbino derived.

Matt said...

@Andrzejewski; I don't really have a strong opinion about the reasons for decline of ANE end of the FSHG cline. My guess would be that combinations of new diseases, smaller population size, competition for resources/land and intermarriage meant they eventually went to such low levels of ancestry that they leave very little trace. The populations to the West and East were on a population boom. It's cool to see that whether in the form of Steppe_Maykop's early use of wagons and genetic connection to Usatovo, Botai's parallel domestication of horses, or the Tarim_EMBA's adoption of technology, ANE like people showing up as outliers in Gonur, or now these ANE rich Seima-Turbino metallurgists or metal traders, peoples who were highly ANE seem to have been keen and capable to adopt new technologies or interact with others. But overall it seems like they left very little trace. So much that we didn't even know they existed from modern day dna. It's a shame in a way!

I don't have much of an opinion about Sejma-Turbino either really; the new paper seems to indicate against any idea that admixed people between Iran_CA/Sarazm_Eneo+ANE like Kazakhstan_Dali_EBA (last I checked I think this was the idea?) or Yamnaya+ANE people like Chemurchek had anything to with it at all. But the origins seem deeply archaeological and outside my ballpark.

Matt said...

Off-topic: New preprint by Marnetto and collaborators - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.04.560881v1.full.pdf - "Ancestral genetic components are consistently associated with the complex trait landscape in European biobanks"

These are guys who authored the previous paper "Ancestral genomic contributions to complex traits in contemporary Europeans" (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0960982222001087), which found that the Steppe/Anatolian/WHG ancestries were in locally across the genome in correlation with variants for particular traits in Estonians. Some of which were intuitive (Steppe taller) and some unintuive (Steppe ancestry locally across the genome associated with variants associated with reduced likelihood of light hair or skin tone), and there was a pretty lively debate on here about it in 2022.

The new paper shows that they basically replicate the results in UK Biobank with a different sample, which at least shows that it's likely that these are associated in some sense to genomic landscape of British and Estonian populations and not particular to specific population history events in either one, and whether the method is good or not, it at least replicates in a different large sample.

Some interesting ones they found here were that Steppe ancestry had associations with taller height, but not greater grip strength, or body weight, or BMI overall. (Presumably except inasmuch as these traits genetically overlap with height). Steppe seem to be associated to lower blood pressure (consistent with height!) but lower lung function. So Steppe ancestry may have been associated with being taller but not necessarily much more robust or higher physical fitness for their height. Also WHG and Steppe associated with a higher BMI adjusted waist circumference compared to their BMI adjusted hip circumference (i.e. less "curvy" waist-to-hip) compared to Anatolian which fits with being slightly more cold-adapted (e.g. less curvy body minimizes heat loss).The association of WHG ancestry with being heavier and a higher body weight and BMI, did not replicate in the UK sample, so this may be a specific signal in Estonians. They also do seem to find an association of WHG with lighter skin tone though, which seems pretty questionable.

They did adjust by geographical factors in UKBB, which may have helped them find the association of Steppe with height, as it is known that height in the UKBiobank seems to be more associated with the Southeast of Britain (https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/357483v2.full - "For height (ΔY=-0.091; individuals born in the southern UK are taller on average than individuals born in the northern UK) ... For height (ΔY=0.087; individuals born in the eastern UK are taller on average than individuals born in the western UK)"), where people have less Steppe ancestry, but more Germanic ancestry (which balances out because of also more French-like ancestry).

Still perhaps it's not impossible that these correlations might be biased by some shared historical dynamics for both populations, so maybe testing with a German biobank or something like this would help further?

Queequeg said...

@ Vladimir: How do you know there's N-Z1936 at Tatarka vs. the information given in the supplement: "A subset of these are also found among individuals of the Yakutia_LNBA cluster
and at Tatarka, where subclades of N-TAT more closely related to those found today among Uralic
speakers (N-F1419 and N-M2126) are represented."

Zelto said...

@Rob

I've known about the results from Rostovka for a while now, there's nothing here that is incompatible with my position. What is new to me are the results from Satyga-16, with their Yakutia_LNBA admixture.

Yakutia_LNBA groups became involved during the latter stage of the ST network in West Siberia. They adopted elements of material culture, picked up PIIr loanwords and appropriated trade routes. The aftermath of this process can be observed in the influence Seima-Turbino metallurgy had on S-K, 'andronoid' and even IA cultures like Ananyino. These later groups are post Proto-Uralic, but probably had a larger impact on the historical areal distribution of Uralic languages and DNA.

You would understand this if you payed more attention during our conversation about 'fatyanoid'/Chirkovo and Netted ware.

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt “They also do seem to find an association of WHG with lighter skin tone though, which seems pretty questionable.”

Not really: Baltic HG were known to be lighter skinned than Loschbour, let alone Cheddar Man.

Rob said...

@ Vladimir

What can you tell us about the LBA Atlym culture ? It is often ascribed to trans-Uralic migrants.
What are its deeper affinities?


@ Zelto

“You would understand this if you payed more attention during our conversation about 'fatyanoid'/Chirkovo and Netted ware”

Sorry professor but you promised some C14 dates but failed to deliver :)
Instead you referenced a paper without a single C14 figure which on closer reading referenced another paper which mostly talks about dates in Karelia.

“They adopted elements of material culture, picked up PIIr loanwords and appropriated trade routes. The aftermath of this process can be observed in the influence Seima-Turbino metallurgy had on S-K, 'andronoid' and even IA cultures like Ananyino.”

That’s a somewhat simplistic rendition of the evidence which doesn’t get at the core of the issue
S-T needs to be de-emphasised in FU expansion and genesis. It’s just a technological loan environment but not the root cause of FU folk teaching their final position
The Zeng paper is very good, the Max Planck paper is rather off.


“don't have much of an opinion about Sejma-Turbino either really; the new paper seems to indicate against any idea that admixed people between Iran_CA/Sarazm_Eneo+ANE like Kazakhstan_Dali_EBA (last I checked I think this was the idea?) or Yamnaya+ANE people like Chemurchek had anything to with it at


“I've known about the results from Rostovka for a while now”
That’s good for you. Who do you think first noticed the relevance of Kra1 , or delivered Magyar genomes which completely revolutionised our understanding of Uralic languages. So everything is relative in the world of AG vs reality

Rob said...

The point is FU did not “takeover S-T networks”
S-T dissolved because the preconditions which established it were no longer valid
This is because the geopolitical interests of Andronovo groups shifted south, with the decline of BMAC the barrier to the south Central Asia and Western Asia was removed
What was left in the forest steppe was an impoverished fragmented set of post ST groups.
In areas west of the Urals , neither Balanovo nor Fatyanovo groups were around, an empty land; whilst netted ware expanded from Karelia east..
the final demographic shift was in 1200 bc when almost the entire steppe / forest steppe belt collapsed

pnuadha said...

@daviski

Groups of people don't always mix. Sometimes they kill each other instead.


It doesnt have to be killing either. Two groups can actually just ignore each other. The neolithic people barely mixed with WHG and vice versa despite living near each other for thousands of years.


Davidski said...

@pnuadha

Interestingly, there's some evidence of farmers taking hunter-gatherer heads as trophies in the Carpathian Basin.

That might be one of the reasons why the hunter-gatherers avoided the farmers.

Zelto said...

@Rob

"Sorry professor but you promised some C14 dates but failed to deliver :)
Instead you referenced a paper without a single C14 figure which on closer reading referenced another paper which mostly talks about dates in Karelia."

I sent you a source for the information I provided. You posted an irrelevant blog post by Carlos Quiles. Fatyanovo /= 'fatyanoid'.

"That’s a somewhat simplistic rendition of the evidence which doesn’t get at the core of the issue
S-T needs to be de-emphasised in FU expansion and genesis. It’s just a technological loan environment but not the root cause of FU folk teaching their final position
The Zeng paper is very good, the Max Planck paper is rather off."

S-T metallurgy clearly impacted later Uralic speakers, these groups shared the same waterways and Yakutia-LNBA admixture is present in both Rostovka and Satyga-16 sites. S-T was not originally Uralic, nor was Yakutia_LNBA a primary component in the West Siberian sites. However, your "de-emphasis" is (intentionally) hyperbolic and not supported by the Zeng paper you're admiring.

"In areas west of the Urals , neither Balanovo nor Fatyanovo groups were around, an empty land; whilst netted ware expanded from Karelia east..
the final demographic shift was in 1200 bc when almost the entire steppe / forest steppe belt collapsed"

Your account of complete desolation west of the Urals is not substantiated. There was perhaps some population decline post-Fatyanovo, however the area was still occupied by the Chrikovo culture and later Netted ware. The demographic processes of the Steppe do not directly correspond to those in the forest-zone.

"That’s good for you. Who do you think first noticed the relevance of Kra1 , or delivered Magyar genomes which completely revolutionised our understanding of Uralic languages. So everything is relative in the world of AG vs reality."

Impressive! You must be some kind of boy genius. Maybe I'll take you under my wing since you're already calling me professor.

Rob said...

@ Zelto


The link was to this study , which upturned previous conceptions based on pottery -guesswork dating.
See the difference between scientific Bayesian dating and your reference which doesnt have a single date posted ?

As for the demographic events, unfortunately you dont really get it and present some absurd strawman that I suggested a 'complete desolation" of the entire west of Urals region.

what in fact happened is evidently a large gap in the boreal zone of of western Russia between Balanovo and Fatyanovo, consistent with the paucity of local HG admixture in Fatyanovo genomes.
Fatyanovo in turn ends 2200 BC, because the population shifted osutheast.
Following tis there can be no Balanovo 'renaissance' if they had disappeared over 1,000 year earlier, and whatver presumed net-war influence did appera had non-local origins.
The netted Ware C14 dates are earliest near karelia, thus this population probably moved from west to East.
So there was most definitiely settlement gaps and at least 2 or 3 'population turnovers'

This explains the elephant in the room you are avoiding - the lack of 'basal' R1a-Z93 in western Russia and the Baltic and the prevalence of R1a-Z280.

Coinciding with the western wave was an eastern wave from Siberia which although partially involved in late S-T, it neither originated there nor perpetuated it, nor caused it's collapse.
Therefore the focus on S-T is misguided. I dont care if your friend wrote the paper, which I thought was good, but not perfect.

The 1200 BC event was the final collapse of post-Fatyanovo groups from further south in the forest-steppe and steppe zone, with a gap before the coming of the Scythians.



''You must be some kind of boy genius. Maybe I'll take you under my wing since you're already calling me professor.''

As inviting as that sounds, I've got committments in the real world with real entities producing real evidence so that clowns like you can pretend theyre relevant on your thread of 5 people.

Rob said...

'The neolithic people barely mixed with WHG and vice versa despite living near each other for thousands of years.

''That might be one of the reasons why the hunter-gatherers avoided the farmers.''


When HGs actually existed, there is almost immediate admixture. Even the famed case of Blatterhnohle, the German farmers have high levels of WHG ancestry and male lineages, whilst the Blatterhohle cave hunter-fishers had EEF admixture.

Vladimir said...

@Rob
Altym is an interesting culture and apparently also related to the Urals. This taiga group in EIA emerged from the taiga and mixed with the preserved forest-steppe and southern taiga groups. As a result, the Gamayun culture was first formed, and then the Itkul culture was transformed, which mixed even more with the steppe tribes. At the turn of the millennium 200BC-200CE, this group crossed the Urals and formed the Piynoborskaya culture. In the scientific literature, it is believed that this is the migration of the Udmurts. If we assume that this wave of migration is the migration of all Uralians, then the ethnic composition of all cultures of the forest strip of western Russia since 2000BC remains unclear. The first group that emerged immediately after ST around 1800 BC is the Chirkovo culture (fatyanoid) and the mesh ceramics that arose on its basis around 1500 BC. The second group using the Samus-Kizhirovo technique - starting from about 1200 BC, these are the Atabaevo and maklasheevo cultures. As a result of the merger of mesh ceramics and maklasheevo, ananyino/akozino-akhmylovo arose. I think that all these three migrations are Uralic groups. The first to enter the European part was a very small male group N1a-CTS10760, apparently as part of the warriors/traders of St. This group went through the bottleneck with the subsequent founder effect already in the European part. Considering that Chirkovo ceramics is essentially a derivative of Fatyanovo/Balanovo/Abashevo ceramics/Volsk-Lbishchevo, and the weapon is ST, then this confirms the hypothesis about the introduction of ST men into the women's collectives of the local population. The second group passed through the Urals in the LBA/EIA as the Cherkaskul culture and the Atabaevo culture emerged on the Volga, which transformed into the Maklasheevo culture. This group brought with them the Samus-Kizhirovo technique. I think it's group N1a-Z1934. And the third group passed through the Urals 200BC-200CE, which formed the Pyanoborskaya culture apparently N1a2-P43.

pnuadha said...

@Davidski

Interestingly, there's some evidence of farmers taking hunter-gatherer heads as trophies in the Carpathian Basin.

That might be one of the reasons why the hunter-gatherers avoided the farmers.


Thats not a good explanation.

If farmers were murdering hunter gatherers, then it would be war and one side would lose. They wouldnt be sitting there with stable borders for thousands of years, while being at war.

pnuadha said...

@rob

When HGs actually existed, there is almost immediate admixture.

There was very very little if there two groups were distinct for thousands of years while living side by side. It like you have little sense of time.

Do you know how many generations that is. If mixture was anything but extremely rare, the two populations would become the same.

There were pure WHG in Sweden while farmers were already there for 1000 years.

Look how long it took for the farmers to gain WGH on top of the 5% to 10% they attained in the balkans. It didnt increase much till the middle neolithic. Thats a lot of time!

Matt said...

@Andrzejewski; there variation sure, but it still seems surprising given what we know from ancient dna and the profiles of HGs most likely to be close to the ancestors of the UKBiobank participants, compared against early steppe and farmers. Perhaps this is an issue of so much of the phenotype being driven by those large variants which are rare in some HG groups though, and when you get outside those variants to the small effect variants, those are more associated with HG ancestry? Not an issue for other massively polygenic (dependent on very large numbers of variants of small effect) traits, like height or grip strength though.

Rob said...

@ Pnuadha


“There were pure WHG in Sweden while farmers were already there for 1000 years. “

You’re using Sweden as a case study of farming ?
Do you understand that farming was only adopted in the southern most tip of Sweden and a little bit around the lake area ?
Do you understand that, despite what lamestream publications state, that TRB are just local HGs which mates with farmer wives and adopted farming for a while, before it collapsed ?
Hence your example doesn’t support


“Look how long it took for the farmers to gain WGH on top of the 5% to 10% they attained in the balkans. It didnt increase much till the middle neolithic. Thats a lot of time!”

Not so. As I said, there were no HGs in much of the Balkans. That’s why there was no admixture
The lamestream publications write this off as avoidance or population replacement because they don’t understand basics and overcompensate for it by doing fanciful tests and “models”.
But where it were it in a few places that they did exist, such as the Danube littoral, we see almost immediate admixture (eg Dudesti culture)


Rob said...

Plus a lot of the additional HG ancestry which eventually came in was from beyond the carpathian, whether Poland or near Eastern Europe
That’s why it took so long . It can’t come south until farmers reached the north

Davidski said...

@pnuadha

If farmers were murdering hunter gatherers, then it would be war and one side would lose.

This is a surprisingly naive comment.

These farmers and foragers were definitely murdering and probably also kidnapping each other, but this wasn't a war that someone declared in parliament. It was just a tribal conflict over scarce resources.

In fact, there was also such a conflict between the farmer groups themselves, and between farmers and pastoralists, resulting in very brutal deeds and some nasty mass graves.

The farmers were pushing into the territory of the hunter-gatherers, systematically turning it into farmland.

So there was no stable border, it was a frontier, and the hunter-gatherers could either retreat or stand their ground to defend their homeland.

Andrzejewski said...

Speaking of farmers, is there a consensus that Italians and modern Balkanic groups are overwhelmingly descended from LBK or Baden related groups while the farmer admixture in Northern, Eastern and NW Europeans is almost exclusively from GAC or TRB?

pnuadha said...

@rob

Not so. As I said, there were no HGs in much of the Balkans. That’s why there was no admixture

...

But where it were it in a few places that they did exist, such as the Danube littoral, we see almost immediate admixture (eg Dudesti culture)


My post was not about the balkans. Im talking about Spain, Germany,France, and Sweden where there is a boost of local WHG in farmer populations that took place after thousands of years. This means that there was distinct populations for thousands of years (some with more WGH and some with less WHG) living next to each other.

Do the math yourself. That means mixing between these two groups was very infrequent. It took 1000's of years to assimilate, if that ever actually happened.

The lamestream publications write this off as avoidance or population replacement because they don’t understand basics and overcompensate for it by doing fanciful tests and “models”.

I am talking about replacement, more so than you. A completely new people enter an area and rarely mix with the locals. This is a complete population replacement. We saw this in the colonial US and it seems to be a theme throughout the world.

What you are talking about is assimilation, albiet, with one side dominating the exchange. People are more tribal than you think. They did not mix much.

pnuadha said...

@davidski

These farmers and foragers were definitely murdering and probably also kidnapping each other, but this wasn't a war that someone declared in parliament. It was just a tribal conflict over scarce resources.

Of course murders were happening and there was tribal conflict. The point is that both populations survived side by side for a very long time without exterminating each other or mixing with each other.

But in your scenario, you seem to think there were many exterminations of WHG groups. But why were so many WHG groups not exterminated after thousands of years? If the groups were tribal (which they were) and belligerent then why did France, Spain, and Germany all have WHG groups that survived for 1000s of years despite being vastly outnumbered? You think they just lived on bad soil? I doubt thats the reason.

I think the groups were tribal (they didnt mix much so they had to be) but I dont think they fought much. I think farmers just outnumbered the HG and they slowly expanded while hunter gatherers slowly retreated.

Sintashta seems to have been belligerent in their expansion. The yamnaya and corded war seem much less belligerent. They just opportunistically settled new areas as their numbers grew.

Zelto said...

@Rob

You are misunderstanding or intentionally misrepresenting what I said. We actually agree on most points regarding S-T and Uralic; that was evident before you started deleting comments. You must have been attributing a position to me, which I do not hold (i.e direct association between Uralic & S-T).

"The link was to this study , which upturned previous conceptions based on pottery -guesswork dating.
See the difference between scientific Bayesian dating and your reference which doesnt have a single date posted ?"

Again, not relevant to the point I was making, but you don't seem to grasp that. I have read your study... Some AMS dates from the Sakhtysh peat bog. Truly revolutionary! You seem to be ignoring the part where the authors state more dates from Sakhtysh and other Volosovo sites are needed to actually prove a general decline ~2700 BC. The Mid-Volga is more important in that regard.

"As for the demographic events, unfortunately you dont really get it and present some absurd strawman that I suggested a 'complete desolation" of the entire west of Urals region."

That was not intended to be a strawman. I thought it would be obvious to your superior intellect that I was reffering to the forest-zone between the East Baltic and Urals. Context clues.

"what in fact happened is evidently a large gap in the boreal zone of of western Russia between Balanovo and Fatyanovo, consistent with the paucity of local HG admixture in Fatyanovo genomes.
Fatyanovo in turn ends 2200 BC, because the population shifted osutheast."

I explicitly stated that I do not have a strong opinion when it comes to the formation of 'fatyanoid'/Chirkovo groups, or whether Volosovo remnants actually took part. I was describing to you the dominant archaeological interpretation.

Please provide sources for this "large gap" in the forest-zone of Western Russia. Btw, I don't think Uralic speakers arrived ~2200 BC.

"Following tis there can be no Balanovo 'renaissance' if they had disappeared over 1,000 year earlier, and whatver presumed net-war influence did appera had non-local origins."

Never once did I claim there was a Balanovo renaissance. You made that up.

"The netted Ware C14 dates are earliest near karelia, thus this population probably moved from west to East.
So there was most definitiely settlement gaps and at least 2 or 3 'population turnovers'"

Kriiska, Lavento & Peets provided early AMS dates of Textile ware from Estonia, perhaps suggesting a West to East diffusion. However, there is disagreement on whether early Baltic Textile ware is actually related to the Upper-Volga Netted ware. Regardless, an expansion of R1a-Z280 with Netted Ware might align better with the available aDNA.

Short periods of succession associated with population shifts? Sure. Long periods of desolation? Show me the evidence.

Zelto said...

"This explains the elephant in the room you are avoiding - the lack of 'basal' R1a-Z93 in western Russia and the Baltic and the prevalence of R1a-Z280."

Are you sure there is no R1a-Z93 in modern Uralic speakers that can be traced back to the Bronze Age? I agree that most is from IA Steppe populations.

The lack of old R1a-Z93 lines may be due to circumstances that initially favored a HG or subsistence economy that was more 'mixed'. Something similar has been suggested to have occured to Pozdnyakovo in the Volga-Oka region. Alongside patrilineal marriage practices in early Uralic speaking groups. Perhaps a demographic shift had already occured, favoring western R1a-Z280. Keep in mind, we are dealing with low population densities, over a vast area.

Either way, the situation is extremely complex. Even N-L1026 only makes up a small percentage of certain Uralic speaking communities; some of which have high frequencies of other N subclades. This probably points multiple waves of settlement from Siberia. Each with an impact on the preceding Y-DNA landscape.

"Coinciding with the western wave was an eastern wave from Siberia which although partially involved in late S-T, it neither originated there nor perpetuated it, nor caused it's collapse.
Therefore the focus on S-T is misguided".

I disagree with the sentiment that the Uralic expansion had nothing to do with S-T. As long as the facts are correct, your opinion about the focus on S-T is subjective. That does not equate to a "fail theory", as you so eloquently put it.

"As inviting as that sounds, I've got committments in the real world with real entities producing real evidence so that clowns like you can pretend theyre relevant on your thread of 5 people."

You're posting on the same threads big shot. Consider the invitation revoked after this display.

Matt said...

@andrzejewski: Here's what I find when I look at using f-statistics to distinguish between farmer ancestry streams:

Plot 1: https://i.imgur.com/MsdMQ0M.png (just modern European and some Near East populations)
Plot 2: https://i.imgur.com/jbmHc9G.png (Adding some ancients)
Plot 3: https://i.imgur.com/FYSAe56.png (More some ancients)
Plot 4: https://i.imgur.com/4xAzk8Y.png (Even more ancients)

These are just statistics which compare affinity to Turkey_N to Serbia_IronGates_Meso and various Early European Farming populations (no CHG/Steppe etc in the stat).

But the shape of the plots parallel, in a slightly distorted way, plots like Vahaduo 'Europe 1' PCA, with a split within West->East Europe, unlike what we see in 'West Eurasia PCA'.

The x-axis maps the affinity to European HG vs Turkey_N EF, while the y-axis specific affinities to European Neolithic farmers with more drift, which probably includes some drift unique to the HGs they mixed with.

From this, it seems to me quite likely that the people from Balkans take some/all ancestry from a EEF population without much HG and also without much additional European farmer drift, and the North East Europeans have for some reason also a low level of European farmer drift compared to NW Europeans.

Rob said...

@ Vlad

thanks for the rundown of the 'received opinion'' in current archaeological literature

The problems with that theory remain

: large gap between Volosovo & Chirkovo ~ 1500 years

: we have Mezhovskaya genomes, which can be included in the circle of Maklasheyevsky, Atabay-Kaibel, Akim-Sergeevsky cultural type. These date to 1500 BC, and are predominantly Andronovo derived with some Kra_1 like admixture. There is no Volosovo or other EHG admixture, qpAdm models with such fail .

This means that these groups are not post-Fatyanovo, or Fatyanavid, but (non-local) ''Andronovid''.
Moreover, the views that these are Uralic cannot be upheld, given theyre predominantly Andronovo derived, and have R1a-Z93 and even R1b.
The modest Kra-1 admixture shows that these groups were nearby but much further north.

BOO can be modelled as KRa_1 and western CCC, which despite what some clowns in denial syndrome claim, is an early FU individual.

the established narrative has problems on multiple levels, and an unreocgnised migration from western Siberia to northeastern Europe evidently ocurred.








Rob said...

@ pnuadha

''My post was not about the balkans. Im talking about Spain, Germany,France, and Sweden where there is a boost of local WHG in farmer populations that took place after thousands of years. This means that there was distinct populations for thousands of years (some with more WGH and some with less WHG) living next to each other.''


Observe the early Cardial individuals form El Trocs, Spain. The males are R1b-V88 and I2a1-L161. Theyre' hunter-gatherer lineages. Lineages like G2a and H2 are rare in Spain.
So bad example .

The case of German & Paris Basin LBK is different. Like the Balkans, these (what are essentially Anatolian-Balkan) Farmers moved into the loess zone which was poorly populated by hunter-gatherers. Hence my addage- be familiar with the settlement dynamics.
By a few generations in the post-LBK phases like Hinkelstein , Grosssgarach, etc (which otherwise look like LBK culturally), the males are I2a1 by still heavily EEF autosomically. This implies not only brisk interaciton, but a complete take-over of farming society by hunter-gatherer males.


''I am talking about replacement, more so than you. A completely new people enter an area and rarely mix with the locals. This is a complete population replacement. '



There can be no ''population replacement' if there is nobody to replace.
Instead, its called primary colonization (of empty land, or nearly so).
So whilst Im sure not all was roses & peaches, and there were case-studies of avoidance & conflict, I would suggest be careful what you read & learn the evidence first hand yourself.

Rob said...

@ Zelto


see my comment to Vlad


''You're posting on the same threads big shot. Consider the invitation revoked after this display.

haha you were serious about educating me ? i appreciate the sense of humour & am always keen to learn from anyone who is impartial and has carefully studied the evidence, but given that you guys think Germanic formed in Finland and Uralic formed in the Volga-Kama because 'genes dont speak", it is clear that it is you who need the help. And that's fine, you dont even need bend the knee, im generous with my help.

Rob said...

''There can be no ''population replacement' if there is nobody to replace.''


I hope Chad deals with these kind of specifics in his book.

the same error has been made for the case of CordedWare in central Europe, most glaringly by the Kristiansen / Copenhagen mass-book production factory.
Again, I have no doubt that at times they had to kill off some competitors in this or that site or sub-region, but in a pan-regional perspective, these groups were moving into spacious territory. LBK villages were long gone (some 2,000 years ago), even the TRB congoleracies were gone by ~ 3000 BC. CWC encountered GAC - who were also mobile cattle-hearding pastoralists living lightly off the land.
And the biggest irony is that the biggest Y-hg turnover actually occurred farthest away from the steppe - in western Europe.

Zelto said...

@Rob

I'm glad you can appreciate the banter, but your assumptions are completely wrong. The relevent AG threads are archived, for all to see. I have consistently argued in favor of a Siberian homeland for Uralic. Although, I've refrained from using linguistic terms because it becomes unproductive with certain posters around. I have also defended a Proto-Germanic homeland in Southern Scandinavia/Northern Germany, although a dialectical continuum probably stretched across much of Scandinavia.

The Mezhovskaya culture is actually considered an 'andronoid' culture. The Andronovo influence is well recognized among archaeologists. The Kapova cave (where the samples are from) is located on the Southern periphery of Mezhovkaya.

The Chirkovo and other Volga-forest cultures are considered 'fatyanoid' due to the perceived influence from preceding Fatyanovo groups. Regardless, my point was only that settlement in the Volga-Kama region was relatively continuous during the BA. That is not predicated on how exactly these groups formed. We haven't even considered the (formerly) 'prikazan' cultures of the Kama basin.

EthanR said...

I've been playing around and I've noticed on west eurasian PCA that the new middle don samples, NEO522, and Yamnaya arguably form a loose cline between Ukraine_N and PG2001/Vonyuchka. I'm not sure if there is really any signal there given the large gaps in time though.

FTDNA has been slowly adding more samples. One of the Ertebolle Culture samples was labeled I-L701, on an interesting branch.
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-Y87044/tree

pnuadha said...

@rob

Observe the early Cardial individuals form El Trocs, Spain. The males are R1b-V88 and I2a1-L161. Theyre' hunter-gatherer lineages. Lineages like G2a and H2 are rare in Spain.
So bad example .


This is low iq.

HG and Farmers mixed on day one. You see it in the Autosomal dna. You arent pointing out anything new. Re read my post. You dont understand the basics.

Take two buckets of paint and start mixing them. It wont take long to end up with a single homogenous color. The WHG and EEF mixed so infrequently (mated with each other) that they didnt end up as a single homogenous people after living side by side for thousands of years. Mixing events happened, but it was rare.

So whilst Im sure not all was roses & peaches, and there were case-studies of avoidance & conflict, I would suggest be careful what you read & learn the evidence first hand yourself.

Yes, avoidance. That was common. The two groups avoided mating together.

You think my take is PC? Im saying people are highly tribal and therefore tribal identity matters.

There are two visions for assimilation. One is harmonious and filled with lofty ideas about universal humanism and our potential for understanding. The other is filled with conflict and war, whereby the strong dominate and absorb the weak. The former believes that people are good natured and can reason their way to common understanding. The later believes that people are greedy and want more for themselves, so they will use whatever power structure they can to get it. However, both philosophies are fundamentally about the individual. They are both liberal. Neither takes into account the meaning and value of the group. The harmony side would rather throw away culture and cohesion if it meant that some would be left out ("we are better than this" they say). The warlike side would become a mercenary or use a mercenary army to fight a brother way and take a foreign wife. Think of modern capitalism and its worship of money and domination. Capitalists would see their borders opened and nations destroyed if it meant a profit.

But this is all insufficient for describing what we are. We find purpose and meaning in our tribe. We are happiest when living in a homogenous society (community). We are much more willing to fight for our tribe instead of just conquest for profit. The avoidance phenomena is in direct conflict with this liberal notion that its only the individual that gives meaning.

Rob said...

@ Zelto

“ The Chirkovo and other Volga-forest cultures are considered 'fatyanoid' due to the perceived influence from preceding Fatyanovo groups. Regardless, my point was only that settlement in the Volga-Kama region was relatively continuous during the BA”

As I said, the accepted models are flawed
We saw how the C14 dates disproved previously “accepted” long chronology for Balanovo, which ended much earlier than assumed via the “pottery guesswork dating” approach ; with a resultant 500 year gap between them and Fatyanovo

The C14 dates by Yushkova cluster between 1600 & 1300 Bc, coinciding with Mezhovskaya and BOO.
Obviously these groups come neither from Balanovo nor Fatyanovo

Your refusal to accept scientific evidence makes you appear like that linguist and his groupies.
Of course, we can say from an cosmological perspective , 500 year gaps are a form of population continuity :)


Rob said...

@ pnuadha


''HG and Farmers mixed on day one. You see it in the Autosomal dna. You arent pointing out anything new.''

''Yes, avoidance. That was common. The two groups avoided mating together.'


Ok. that's crystal clear now.

We can also say the Saami avoided the Phoenecians

Rob said...

@ Ethan
Suggests that the forerunner of L-&701 which dispersed around were closer to the Buh-Vistula zone than Iron gates, consistent with their paucity in Early balkan farmers

Zelto said...

@Rob

"As I said, the accepted models are flawed
We saw how the C14 dates disproved previously “accepted” long chronology for Balanovo, which ended much earlier than assumed via the “pottery guesswork dating” approach ; with a resultant 500 year gap between them and Fatyanovo"

From Nordqvist & Heyd (2020):
"Its end has previously often been placed somewhere in the 2nd millennium BC, but termination over the final centuries of the 3rd millennium is a more realistic option (Krenke 2019, 115; Saag et al. 2020). Unfortunately, absolute dating of other partially overlapping or subsequent cultural phases is poorly known as well, making the studying of their relationships challenging."

Dismissing a corpus of archaeological evidence because there is a lack of absolute dating is not exactly a triumph of the scientific method. What are you relying on at that point, your intuition?

Make sure to consult your crystal ball & tarot cards before you respond.

"The C14 dates by Yushkova cluster between 1600 & 1300 Bc, coinciding with Mezhovskaya and BOO."

There are Netted ware C14 dates from the Mid-Volga that are earlier. You need to provide context (culture/sites). I already told you, I don't have access to Yushkova (2015).

"Your refusal to accept scientific evidence makes you appear like that linguist and his groupies.
Of course, we can say from an cosmological perspective , 500 year gaps are a form of population continuity :)"

What scientific evidence am I refusing to accept? If relevant C14 dates become available and are incompatible, I would change my position. Simple as that.

Vladimir said...

In a 2015 article, Yushkova writes on the basis of C14 about the dating of the Chirkovo culture 2300-1700 BC. In the preprint Postglacial genomes from foragers across Northern Eurasia reveal prehistoric mobility associated with the spread of the Uralic and Yeniseian languages dating of the Chirkovo culture 2400-1900 BC. The culture of Pozdnyakovo is about 1800-1300 BC. The article was published this year. The culture of Mesh ceramics is approximately 1700-1200 BC.
https://i.imgur.com/ZzzyEf0.png
https://kunstkamera.ru/files/lib/978-5-88431-282-1/978-5-88431-282-1_17.pdf

Rob said...

@ Zelto

From your reference - ''"Its end has previously often been placed somewhere in the 2nd millennium BC, but termination over the final centuries of the 3rd millennium is a more realistic option (Krenke 2019, )'
That corresponds to what I suggested. It might be later, but dates for such are missing and 2200 BC corresponds with its move further East, so it all makes sense.



'Dismissing a corpus of archaeological evidence because there is a lack of absolute dating is not exactly a triumph of the scientific method. What are you relying on at that point, your intuition?''

Im not dismissing anything, I'm highlighting the gap in radiocarbon data, which is not a surprising or odd phenomenon given that we know population histories weren;t one gradual and steady state of evolution. Aside from research factors, it could represent a real phenoneon such as migrations, local extinction, conflict, etc., things we know happened in all regions of the world.

The image Vlad linked is a schematic representation of the typologically based phases, but Yushkova highlights that the data is focussed in certain periods.

Before C14 dating, they used to think the Iberian Chalcolithic came from the late Bronze Age Aegean, the Volosovo dates, etc. The conclusion is models must be based on radiometric confirmation because they shape the overall conclusions.

Matt said...

New paper today - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.10.06.561165v1.full.pdf - "The landscape of ancient human pathogens in Eurasia from the Stone Age to historical times"

"Infectious diseases have had devastating impacts on human populations throughout history. Still, the origins and past dynamics of human pathogens remain poorly understood1. To create the first spatiotemporal map of diverse ancient human microorganisms and parasites, we screened shotgun sequencing data from 1,313 ancient human remains covering 35,000 years of Eurasian history for ancient DNA deriving from bacteria, viruses, and parasites. We demonstrate the widespread presence of ancient microbial DNA in human remains, identifying over 2,400 individual species hits in 896 samples.

We report a wide range of pathogens detected for the first time in ancient human remains, including the food-borne pathogens Yersinia enterocolitica and Shigella spp., the animal-borne Leptospira interrogans, and the malaria-causing parasite Plasmodium vivax.

Our findings extend the spatiotemporal range of previously described ancient pathogens such as Yersinia pestis, the causative agent of plague, Hepatitis B virus, and Borrelia recurrentis, the cause of louse-borne relapsing fever (LBRF). For LRBF we increase the known distribution from a single medieval genome to 31 cases across Eurasia covering 5,000 years.

Grouping the ancient microbial species according to their type of transmission (zoonotic, anthroponotic, sapronotic, opportunistic, and other), we find that most categories are identified throughout the entire sample period, while zoonotic pathogens, which are transmitted from living animals to humans or which have made a host jump into humans from animals in the timeframe of this study, are only detected from ~6,500 years ago. The incidence of zoonotic pathogens increased in our samples some 1,000 years later before reaching the highest detection rates ~5,000 years ago, and was associated with a human genetic ancestry component characteristic of pastoralist populations from the Eurasian Steppe.

Our results provide the first direct evidence for an epidemiological transition to an increased burden of zoonotic infectious diseases following the domestication of animals. However, they also reveal that the spread of these pathogens first becomes frequent thousands of years after increased animal-human contact, likely coinciding with the pastoralist migrations from the Eurasian Steppe. This study provides the first spatiotemporal map of past human pathogens using genomic paleoepidemiology, and the first direct evidence for an epidemiological transition of increased zoonotic infectious disease burden after the onset of agriculture, through historical times."


Indo-Europeans/Steppe were disease bearers after all?

May make sense as to why the turnover was more dramatic - seems like people expected EEFs to bring in diseases which wiped out Euro HGs, but that this is a bit open to question as lots of pockets remain.

However, this may not be the only factor associated with IE/steppe demographic replacement success *but* it may indicate that the IE/steppe peoples were associated with vastly larger and more connected herd sizes than any peoples before them?

This is where we need to use those population size inference methods and to apply them to the domesticated animals we find in steppe and EEF contexts.

Rob said...

@ Zelto

The Yukoshvka paper you claimed to read and Vlad posted has a couple of dates for thre Volga area


'In a multi-layer settlement of the Ivanovo region Sakhtysh 2, a date of 3280±40 BP was obtained (Le- 3084), 1610–1510 BC for coal from fill hearth pit, belonging to the layer with “false textile” ceramics of the Bronze Age (Krainov et al., 1991, p. 38, 40).
-Another dating that can be associated with the Reticulate Ware culture comes from the Iwa multi-layer settlement Novskoe 3: 3320±40 BP (Le-1939), 1660–1520 BC, but the collection itself has not been published (Krainov et al., 1990, p. 28–29).

Summarizing the available data, we can conclude that that the formation of a culture of reticulate ceramics occurred in the first half of the 2nd millennium BC, and the most
the more intensive period of its development is middle - second half of the 2nd millennium BC''

Andrzejewski said...

@Matt “ Indo-Europeans/Steppe were disease bearers after all?”

So our ancestors were just like the Spaniards in the Aztec empire, reducing EEF populations drastically unintentionally through diseases and then mating with the remaining females? A parallel role?

Zelto said...

@Rob

"That corresponds to what I suggested. It might be later, but dates for such are missing and 2200 BC corresponds with its move further East, so it all makes sense."

Even after considering the latest C14 dates, the chronology in the latter stages is more opaque than what you suggested. I'm mainly reffering to the relationship with later cultures here.

"Im not dismissing anything, I'm highlighting the gap in radiocarbon data, which is not a surprising or odd phenomenon given that we know population histories weren;t one gradual and steady state of evolution. Aside from research factors, it could represent a real phenoneon such as migrations, local extinction, conflict, etc., things we know happened in all regions of the world."

So an accurate summarization would be that there is no percieved long settlement gap in the Volga-Kama. But, that could change with more C14 dates. Demographic shifts notwithstanding.

"Before C14 dating, they used to think the Iberian Chalcolithic came from the late Bronze Age Aegean, the Volosovo dates, etc. The conclusion is models must be based on radiometric confirmation because they shape the overall conclusions."

The academic understanding in 2023 is not analogous to the pre-radioisotope dating era. The stratiographic chronology is bolstered by C14 dates from upper and lower layers.

"The Yukoshvka paper you claimed to read and Vlad posted has a couple of dates for thre Volga area."

I linked the Mikhailovich article which references Yushkova (2015). I was completely honest about not having access to the latter. Nice try though.

Rob said...

@ Salty Zalto

Anyway, thanks for article you lied about reading. It confirmed my suspicious for chronology of ~ 1500 bc
Let me know if there’s anything I else I can help with

Zelto said...

@Rob

"Anyway, thanks for article you lied about reading. It confirmed my suspicious for chronology of ~ 1500 bc "

So you think the Volga-Kama was abandoned between 2200 & 1500 BC now? That's a rough one.
The discussion I had with you is right here. As we can all see, I didn't lie about anything.
https://genarchivist.freeforums.net/thread/257/proto-finnic-language-genes-archeology?page=3

Nice work! You retrieved a couple dates from a Netted ware context. I'll even send you some more.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/razvitie-i-hronologiya-tekstilnoy-keramiki-na-sredney-i-verhney-volge-kriticheskiy-vzglyad-vozmozhnostey-hronologii-po-14s-ams-i

Based on relative dating, the Chirkovo culture is older than Netted ware, but younger than Fatyanovo, with some degree of synchronicity. We have C14 dates from both Netted Ware and Fatyanovo; this is where that 2300-1700 BC date range comes from.

"Let me know if there’s anything I else I can help with"

Tell me, what's going through your head when you delete a bunch of comments in a row? I can't imagine it's very pleasant.

LanguageisCool said...

Is it just me or does everyone underestimate ANE? I feel like ANE might be the key to all of it.

By the way, is ANE now considered the same as WSHG?

Rob said...

@ Salty Zalty



''I'll even send you some more.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/razvitie-i-hronologiya-tekstilnoy-keramiki-na-sredney-i-verhney-volge-kriticheskiy-vzglyad-vozmozhnostey-hronologii-po-14s-ams-i''

That link is broken.?



''. We have C14 dates from both Netted Ware and Fatyanovo; this is where that 2300-1700 BC date range comes from.'''



Im not discounting the possibility, but we would need to see evidence first.
At the moment, you've only made vacuous claims. And all the evidence we do have so far points to Yakiutia-type ancestry arriving after 1600 BC, which falls after S-T.

Zelto said...

@Snobby Robby

"That link is broken.?"

The whole website is down, here is the title.
"Развитие и хронология текстильной керамики на Средней и Верхней Волге: критический взгляд возможностей хронологии по 14C-, АМС и типологическому методам"

"Im not discounting the possibility, but we would need to see evidence first. At the moment, you've only made vacuous claims."

Future radiocarbon dating MAY alter the mainstream understanding. Your original conclusion stems entirely from this notional scenario. The stratiographic chronology (bolstered by C14 dates from upper and lower layers) constitute actual scientific evidence.

"And all the evidence we do have so far points to Yakiutia-type ancestry arriving after 1600 BC, which of course is after S-T."

Ok? That's only half the issue at hand. Earlier samples from the forest zone have not yet been published; 1500 BC is terminus ante quem.

Matt said...

@Andrzejewski, it seems that new paper adds evidence that something like that might possibly be the case!

MyeDin said...

Concerning Anthony being in league with Reich, is this his initial association with the southern arc paper and Reich or did something happen recently? Either way, not surprised, they all fall in line.

EthanR said...

My reading of the situation is that Anthony trusts Reich lab in their assertion that there is Meshoko ancestry in Yamnaya.
However, he seems to have different beliefs about PIE and Indo-Anatolian than them.

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

Several R1a from Middle and Lower Don areas, around 4500-3300 BCE, so I was right about northeast forest steppe zone as the homeland from R1a-M417 patriarch. Seems that those groups went to Middle Dnieper/Lower Dnieper before Sredny Stog was formed, sime authors claimed that they might been the ancestor's of Sredny Stog, also went to the ideia that Dnieper Donets migrated to the Danubian banks to forma the LBK culture. I don't agree at all but no doubts PIE was formed around those steppe types, with classical PIE cultures formed at the End of Early Neo as a result from the expansion and pressure that Maykop made on Southern steppe/North Caucasus

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

Progress related went to Middle Dnieper/Lower Dnieper area , mixture with Sredny and Lower/Middle Don Groups, forming both Yamnaya and Corded Ware cultures. So, Pontic Steppe diversity , rather than migrations, might explain theirs genetical makeup , with cultural contact as a result of trade and minor intermarriage with Neolithic Societies, introducing innovations and forming the PIE dialects with several different groups , as well as different clans and lineages.
R1a, R1b and I2a were really common among those people, I saw that I2a1b was the most common among Neolithic Steppe, i didn't expect it but we should agree about their importance at the foundation of Indo European Cultures

Gio said...

Another new entry in the YFull tree (Serbia) from Dante Labs in hg R1* like the previous sample from India, and that after the samples in hg IJK that were after deleted. We don’t know what is happening in Dante Labs and in YFull.




Rob said...

@ Zelto

''Future radiocarbon dating MAY alter the mainstream understanding. Your original conclusion stems entirely from this notional scenario. The stratiographic chronology (bolstered by C14 dates from upper and lower layers) constitute actual scientific evidence.''

There is no singular mainstream narrative, especially the discourse for F-u, which has 2 or 3 proposed models, none of which are entirely accurate (some less 'wrong' than others).

As for the gaps, they're beyond doubt for the Moscow basin, that Syvoratko says - ''the term ‘Dark Ages’ is not used for the period of the Late Bronze Age of Central Russia, though it would rightly deserve it.''

Im sure similar dynamism and shifts will bve evident in the Volga-Kama.
Im expecting LBA migrations from Siberia will a paucity of Andronovo/ Fatyanovo ancestry.
We already see it in BOO.

Zelto said...

@Rob

“There is no singular mainstream narrative, especially the discourse for F-u, which has 2 or 3 proposed models, none of which are entirely accurate (some less 'wrong' than others).”

What I have presented is the most common archaeological interpretation in contemporary scholarship. Linguistic models diverge considerably in quality; it’s not uncommon to still see Volosovo described as Finno-Ugric.

“As for the gaps, they're beyond doubt for the Moscow basin, that Syvoratko says - ''the term ‘Dark Ages’ is not used for the period of the Late Bronze Age of Central Russia, though it would rightly deserve it.''”

At the end of the 13th century BC, Pozdnyakovo groups in the Volga-Oka are finally replaced by Netted Ware, after a period of cohabitation (including mixed settlement sites). This new regional formation, existed between the 12th and 7th centuries BC- referred to as post-Pozdnyakovo, pre-Dyakovo, or Advanced Textile Ware.

The area is marked by thin cultural layers, a mosaic of pottery traditions and unremarkable finds, probably due to subsistence economy and settlement structure. This has led to a poor understanding, as archaeologists have disregarded this ‘uninteresting’ phase. This is why Syrovatko calls it a “Dark Age”, NOT due to settlement gap. The chronology is based on radiocarbon dating and Azarov (2021) has done GC-MS analysis on ceramic surfaces. The results were consistent with a hunter-fisher subsistence, despite earlier arguments to the contrary.

One of these pottery types, ‘Klimentovo’ ceramics, is what Lang considers the prototype ‘SW Tapiola’ ware. This is precisely the population he believes migrated to the East Baltic in the LBA/EIA, alongside some Akozino-Akhmylovo groups from farther east. Since even the two non-local early Tarand samples have so much Baltic_BA admixture and one had R1a-Z280, it may lend credence to Netted ware being associated with such ancestry. We should probably continue that discussion elsewhere though.

Rob said...

@ Zelto

“What I have presented is the most common archaeological interpretation in contemporary scholarship.”


“The results were consistent with a hunter-fisher subsistence, despite earlier arguments to the contrary. ”

That’s cool, but even Neanderthals leave traces behind . I find the “absence of evidence =/= evidence for absence” argument overused and unconvincing.

Btw Cyberlinka is back up
Not surprisingly, apart from one stray outlier dating to 1800 bc, all other sites date to 16-1300 BC in the Lavento article

Where can we find the direct C14 dates for the “missing centuries” ?



“We should probably continue that discussion elsewhere though.”

Happily, but there’s not much more to be said until we accept the current scientific evidence based on C14 and adna, and get new data who’ll might fill the gaps

Vladimir said...

Ceramics from Klementovo, apparently, of mixed origin. Some attribute it to Pozdne-Pozdnyakovo, others - to the Cooperage, others - to the Dnieper-Dvinskaya, the fourth - to Protodyakovo. But this is not textile ceramics, it is already a mixture of textile ceramics and the most eastern cultures of the Sosnitsky circle. However, this mixed population is not the only one in the Baltic (at least in the Ladoga region). At the same time, there was also a population with Volkhovo-type ceramics, which can be considered direct heirs of Textile ceramics.

Vladimir said...

It might be interesting to read, just on topic

Entwined relationships:
genetic and cultural diversity in the Caucasus and the adjacent steppes in the Eneolithic–Bronze Age period
http://www.sarks.fi/masf/masf_11/MASF11_10_Trifonov_et_al.pdf

Zelto said...

@Rob

"That’s cool, but even Neanderthals leave traces behind . I find the “absence of evidence =/= evidence for absence” argument overused and unconvincing."

The settlement layers are thin, but still present. C14 dates can be found in Syrovatko's article.

"Not surprisingly, apart from one stray outlier dating to 1800 bc, all other sites date to 16-1300 BC in the Lavento article

Where can we find the direct C14 dates for the “missing centuries” ?"

Netted ware appears earlier in the Upper-Volga, than the Mid-Volga. The earliest date in the article (~1776 BC in Vladimir Oblast) is not that much of an outlier in this context, especially when the Baltic dates are considered. A 17/16th century BC debut in the Upper-Volga is fair, perhaps a little conservative.

Again though, the Chirkovo culture preceded Netted ware. I doubt we will agree on the chronology until direct C14 dates are published. That's ok, no choice but to wait and see.

"Happily, but there’s not much more to be said until we accept the current scientific evidence based on C14 and adna, and get new data who’ll might fill the gaps"

I meant 'Netted ware- from the West'. I think there's some meat left on the bones of that topic.

@Vladimir

Can you post your sources? Some of that didn't translate to English very well.

Vladimir said...

The collection dedicated to the 60th anniversary of VOLKER HEYD'S contains many interesting articles
http://www.sarks.fi/masf/masf_11/masf_11.html
Corded Ware graves from Obříství, Czech Republic
Miroslav Dobeš, Monika Pecinovská, Luka Papac & Michal Ernée
Contrasting 3rd and 2nd millennium BC mobility in temperate Europe: migration versus trade
Kristian Kristiansen
Early Metal Age in the Middle Volga and the diversification of Uralic languages
Riho Grünthal & Sampsa Holopainen

@zelto
MONUMENTS OF THE EARLY IRON AGE (DYAKOVSKAYA CULTURE) ON THE MOSCOW RIVER pg 38
https://www.archaeolog.ru/media/books_2019/Krenke_redu.pdf

The Final Bronze Age in the Moskva river basin: condition of the sources and the problem of their interpretation
https://www.academia.edu/23913752/Период_финальной_брозны_в_Москворечье_состояние_источников_и_проблемы_их_интерпретации_The_Final_Bronze_Age_in_the_Moskva_river_basin_condition_of_the_sources_and_the_problem_of_their_interpretation

ANALYSIS OF COMPOSITION AND MANUFACTURING TECHNOLOGY OF CERAMICS
BRONZE AGE - EARLY IRON AGE FROM SOUTH EASTERN
LADOGA, POVOLKHOVYE AND PRIILMENIE
https://www.kunstkamera.ru/files/lib/978-5-02-0258283-7/978-5-02-0258283-7_16.pdf?ysclid=lnljpegtq8384633369

THE QUESTION OF THE DEVELOPMENT OF NETWORK CERAMIC TRADITIONS IN THE LATE PERIOD OF THE BRONZE ERA - EARLY IRON AGE IN THE VICINITY OF LAKE GALICH (BASED ON MATERIALS FROM THE BRYUKHOVO CITY)
https://www.evrazstep.ru/index.php/aes/article/view/103/140

Davidski said...

@Vladimir

http://www.sarks.fi/masf/masf_11/MASF11_10_Trifonov_et_al.pdf

Garbage.

Davidski said...

By the way, do you have the e-mails of these clowns? I'd like to send them a message.

Viktor A. Trifonov, Egor B. Prokhorchuk & Kristina V. Zhur

Vladimir said...

Trifonov archaeologist https://archeo.ru/struktura-1/otdel-arheologii-centralnoi-azii-i-kavkaza/trifonov?ysclid=lnlqfmjiff864322469

Prokhorchuk geneticist https://www.fbras.ru/about/nauchnye-podrazdeleniya/laboratoriya-genomiki-i-epigenomiki-pozvonochnyx?ysclid=lnlqhqog4y948595247

Prokhorchuk runs a telegram channel and sometimes looks in there https://t.me/prokhortchouk

EthanR said...

4400 bc carbondating for Khvalynsk I is nice to see. Aligns with some of the previous archeological views that it was contemporaneous with Sredni Stog, if not a smidgen later.

Zelto said...

@Vladimir

"But this is not textile ceramics, it is already a mixture of textile ceramics and the most eastern cultures of the Sosnitsky circle."

Thanks for your sources.
In the statement above, what are you reffering to? Krenke describes "Predyakovo" as a synthesis of Textile ware and Bondarikha cultures.

pnuadha said...

@andrzejewski So our ancestors were just like the Spaniards in the Aztec empire, reducing EEF populations drastically unintentionally through diseases and then mating with the remaining females? A parallel role?

They were not like the Spaniards. The conquistadors were all men, as were the early spaniards. The early Indo Europeans brought their women with them. Beakers replaced 90% of Neo British gene pool. Most the women in early CW Czechia had the max Steppe for CW.

The ancestors of Afanasievo almost completely displaced the locals. They did not mix/assimilate

Rob said...

Pozdnyakovo culture seems to be a Srubnayoid culture, synchronising with it. If it antedates Textile Ceramics in the general vicinity of Volga, there are a few dated pozdnyakovo burials to ~1700 bc


RE; cite article by Vlad

Trifonov's article was good about how he disqualified the alleged 'waves of migration from west Asia, contra Lazarides.

However, he is incorrect about the lack of steppe ancestry in West Asia


Kristiansen's article is quite misguided & empirically inaccurate. I critiqued him directly on his Aacdemia post page.

Vladimir said...

@Zelto
Yes. Some archaeologists note the participation of the Bondarikha culture in the formation of monuments like Klementovo. The Bondarikha culture was formed on the basis of the Marianovo, Lebedovo cultures (both of these cultures originate from the Sosnitsky Circle), Srubnaya (Berezhnovo-Mayatskaya and Pozdnyakovskaya) and monuments such as Malobudkovo. Malobudkovo is Textile ceramics and Maklasheevo. When Yushkova describes ceramics of the Klimentovo type (group D), she describes it as the Dnieper-Dvina (this culture originated on the basis of the culture of Hatched ceramics).

Vladimir said...

@Zelto
By the way, please note that the ceramics that Yushkova finds are "Volkhov type" (ceramics of type A-B-C) Novikov finds near Lake Galich in the Kostroma region and calls it textile ceramics, continuing the traditions of fatianoid ceramics (group 1) under the influence of the Atabaevo culture and Lugovskaya culture. However, there are also ceramics of the Klementovo type on Lake Galich. In general, there is nothing new here, Kuzminykh wrote about it back in 2017. The movement of the Ural groups to the Baltic went in a wide band, the westernmost groups mixed with the easternmost groups of the Sosnitsky Circle, and the eastern groups walking along the Volga reached relatively unmixed at least in the area of Lake Onega.

Zelto said...

@Vladimir

According to Buynov, the Maryanovka culture was not derived from Sosnitsa, but was instead ousted from their territory on the left bank of Polesie by them. I've seen a similar sentiment repeated elsewhere.
"Вопросы хронологии и периодизации марьяновской культуры эпохи бронзы"

Here, Korokhina describes the formation of the Bondarikha culture, as an amalgamation of Maryanovka and migrating Volga-Kama populations-  i.e. Pozdnyakovo/Textile ware or 'Malobudkovo'. The commonality between Bondarikha and Lebedov (Sosnitsa) cultures, is explained by an impulse from the Volga-Kama, which is reflected in the ceramic traditions of both.
"СЕВЕРО-ВОСТОЧНЫЙ ВЕКТОР СВЯЗЕЙ НАСЕЛЕНИЯ ДНЕПРО-ДОНСКОЙ ЛЕСОСТЕПИ В ЗАКЛЮЧИТЕЛЬНЫЙ ПЕРИОД ПОЗДНЕГО БРОНЗОВОГО ВЕКА"

In Yushkova's article, I can't find any mention of 'Klimentovo' ceramics. The "technology D" sites, with ceramics related to Dnieper-Dvina, are located near Lake Ilmen. The core area of 'klimentovo' ceramics was the Volga-Oka .
Unless I'm missing something due shoddy translation?

Vladimir said...

@ Zelto

Read this article by Buynov: https://khiao.files.wordpress.com/2015/11/16_bujnov.pdf

Eastern Polesie vector of the genesis of monuments Malobudkovsky type of the final Bronze Age
conclusion of the article: "Thus, the above facts and data allow us once again to completely abandon the hypothesis put forward by some researchers about the genetic connection of the Malobudkovo type monuments with the cultures of the Volga-Oka basin - Late Dnyakovo and early textile ceramics. Available data indicate the eastern Polesie vector of genesis of the Bondarikha monuments, where tribes of the Maryanovka and late Sosnitsa cultures existed in the Desna, Seim and Sula basins in the Late Bronze Age. It is in them that the author of the article sees the origins of the formation of monuments of the Malobudkovsky type, which represents the early period of the Bondarikha culture. This is evidenced not only by the proximity of their bearers in material culture, but also by the direct junction of areas on the Polesie-forest-steppe borderland in the absence of a chronological gap in the development of these ethnocultural formations.
//////
Among the issues related to the study Bondarihinskaya culture, the most urgent is
the problem of its origin. Currently, there are two opposite hypothesis and its genesis. One group sees its origins in Maryanovskaya culture, another — in Pozdnyakovskaya and Earlytextile cultures. In this case, focus on the settlement at s.Malye Budki and his like monuments representing early stage Bondarihinskaya culture. The author tries to find the genetic roots of monuments Malobudkovskij type Sosnytsya culture at a late stage of its development, and dwelt in Novgorod-Seversky Polessie. This is convincingly may indicate the mapping data and materials from many monuments basins Sula, Sejm and Desna of the Late Bronze Age. It is important to note the fact that these cultures have among themselves neither territorial nor chronological gap."
It is clear here that they have a different understanding of the origins of Malobudkovo and Korokhina, who insists on an eastern impulse. But the way I look at it is that everyone is right. There is influence from both Sosnitsa and Maklasheyevo.

Vladimir said...

@Zelto

As for the “D” type ceramics, Yushkova’s work lists where this ceramics was discovered, including Gorodok on Lovat. And in Krenke’s article, where he describes the area of distribution of ceramics of the Klementovo type, he writes “at the Gorodok settlement on the Lovat River (Orlov, 1962). Thus, the Lovat River basin is the approximate western border of the early Iron Age monuments with similar ceramics.”

Vladimir said...

At the Western Edge of the Great Steppe - Igor Manzura
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H8126pEjIqw

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

@Vladimir and @Zelto do you have some article or book for learning more about those archaeological cultures?
Any material write and that you could share.

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

We found more R1b-M73 and R-PF29 across volosovo than R1a, which was more common among Middle-Lower Don and Samara, seems that those """"Uralic"" that Quilles said were R1b lol. R1b more common among Narva, Kunda, Comb Ceramic and Volosovo, and R1a Across Central/Eastern Steppe, as well as meso Ukraine. So R1b became common by contact with border cultures, not steppe proper. Thus, Could R1b been proto Uralic? Just a joke.

Zelto said...

@Vladimir

"It is clear here that they have a different understanding of the origins of Malobudkovo and Korokhina, who insists on an eastern impulse. But the way I look at it is that everyone is right. There is influence from both Sosnitsa and Maklasheyevo."

That's fair, however Buynov only describes the formation of the Malobudkovsky culture in relation to Sosnitsa. I haven't seen the Maryanovka culture described as part of the "Sosnitsky Circle".

"As for the “D” type ceramics [...]"

In that passage, Krenke does't say he's alluding to 'Klimentovo' ceramics, instead he describes ceramics with "oblique pokes and comb stamps". He devotes the next paragraph explicitly to the 'klimentovo' -type.

I believe he was referring to Syrovatko's Kashira- type based on the description above. That would be more consistent with the northerly distribution Krenke attributes to ceramics with "oblique pokes and comb stamps".

Vladimir said...

@Zelto
Perhaps, but Krenke calls it all "pre-diykovo". In the second paragraph of page 38, he describes this ceramics as a whole "smooth-walled or textile with oblique pokes or comb". Next, he describes the entire page of ceramics with oblique pokes, calling it "Moskvoretskaya". He calls the ceramics of Klementovo "as having a great similarity." He goes to the ceramics of the "Kashir type" in the very last paragraph of page 38. This ceramics is mainly with a comb. And on page 39, Krenke again describes and suggests calling all these complexes "pre-diykovo culture". Regarding Buinov's article, I agree, he writes about the malobudkovo type from which the Bondarikha culture arose. But this is the main thing, because the Marianov culture itself does not matter because it was absorbed by the Bondarikha culture.

Zelto said...

@Virgin_Quilles

It depends what you're looking for. This website provides brief descriptions of cultures by some acclaimed archaeologists. Unfortunately, the collection is far from complete.
https://old.bigenc.ru/

For anything in-depth, you'll probably have to stick to individual articles or monographs on a specific topic.

@Vladimir

Yeah, 'Pre-Dyakovo' and similar descriptors are used to refer to different ceramic types; related through their common Netted ware component. Right now, they are too poorly defined to be split into individual cultures.

Yushkova's "D" ceramics are found too far north (as far as Lake Ilmen). According to Syrovatko (2021), the 'klimentovo" -type are found along the Oka-Moskva rivers, with analogous materials along the Upper-Oka, Upper-Western Dvina and Upper-Don rivers (i.e. Lang's SW route). Kashira and 'ruffled' ceramics are also found in the Upper-Volga and "further north".

I'll make a thread devoted to Netted ware in the future, since we're not discussing Zeng et al. anymore.

Rob said...

@ pnuadha

“The ancestors of Afanasievo almost completely displaced the locals. They did not mix/assimilate”

Not to pick on you, but this statement misequates the fact that Afansievo lack local ancestry. This is NOT the same as meaning that local groups disappeared . They’re two different things
We know they didn’t because soon afterward Okunevo appears which is ~ 90% “local” Y-hg Q1

Again, I blame the vanilla academians who proliferate these kind of errors

I won’t get into Britain because undoubtedly population replacement did occur but even before the beaker arrival, local groups appear to have focussed around Orkney and the north

Rob said...

@ Zelto

“I doubt we will agree on the chronology until direct C14 dates are published“

That’s because I’m evidence-based instead reliant on “old man pottery stories”

princenuadha said...

@Rob this statement misequates the fact that Afansievo lack local ancestry.

This is semantics. They take up space that was occupied by locals; hence displacement. You can disagree with my use of the term; doesnt matter.

The point is that they did not mix, or did so very infrequently. The same is true for bell beakers in Britain. And the same is true for hunter gatherers and farmers throughout Europe who took thousands of years to assimilate (they actually probably never did, some just died out).

Again, I blame the vanilla academians who proliferate these kind of errors

You do not understand the implications at all. My position contradicts liberal assumptions. Your's does not. You believe in assimilation, men taking foreign wives and bringing them into the fold. You believe in individualism and that was all just want a better life for ourselves. You think people will assimilate if they can just benefit themselves individually. This is what underpins open borders in the West. The idea is that as soon as people succeed in the west they will love the west. But this is ridiculous.

Rob said...

@ prince nuadha


''This is semantics. They take up space that was occupied by locals; hence displacement. You can disagree with my use of the term; doesnt matter.''


It's about fine-grained understanding of chronology, geography & ecotones.

Afansievo occupied steppe-like ecotones whilst the local Siberian hunger-gatherers continued living in river valleys & lakes.
So how is that a replacement ? It's not

The Anatolian Farmers who arrived in Bulgaria did not 'avoid local HGs for thousands of years', because there were no local late Mesolithic groups around to ignore.
How can you ignore that which doest not exist ?

Swedish hunter-gatherers did not ignore Famrers for thousands of years, because farming only arrived to Sweden very late - after 4000 BC, when it was taken up by local Mesolithic groups from Northern Europe then abandoned, partially or completely so, in the case of PWC.

You see, its not semantics, but important details



''You do not understand the implications at all. My position contradicts liberal assumptions. Your's does not. You believe in assimilation, men taking foreign wives and bringing them into the fold. You believe in individualism and that was all just want a better life for ourselves. ''

The reconstruction of prehistory cannot be predicated on the basis binary philosophical and socialogical ideologies, but an objective & skillful observation of the evidence at hand.
You cannot just say that your're right and im wrong just because you take the non-woke perspective. Every case needs to be analysed on its own merit, and entire range of possibilities exits.

Rob said...

''This is what underpins open borders in the West. The idea is that as soon as people succeed in the west they will love the west. But this is ridiculous.''


That's an modern issue (of greedy ultra capitalists wanting cheap labour suprficially allying themselves with misguided liberals)
It should have no impact on how we interpret the past. On the contrary, we should learn from the past to interpret modern day events.

Matt said...

nuadha, firstly I think if you say that, I suspect you don't know Rob (who, whatever else, is probably not simple or doctrinaire in that direction). secondly, focusing on these ancient events, where we know only indirectly about what the demography on the ground actually was, what the cultural frameworks were for people to interact, as telling us something about the present day, is never going to be very persuasive. there are of course serious (though not themselves unquestionable) arguments against large scale immigration from regions with poorly educated populations, and on a different level of income and development, and with long standing cultural grievances like historical European imperialism, and who may be at risk to become stuck in isolated enclaves or else unmoored from tradition and absorbed into some homogenized Americized global culture which is their only common ground - these arguments (and others) stand alone.

I don't personally think that those arguments are particularly well bolstered by "Look at the Bell Beakers" etc.

you may as well say, "Look on the other hand at the absorption of French like ancestry into Britain after the early Anglo-Saxon era", "Look at the Iron Age Anatolian genetic profile of people from Latin speaking contexts in Rome, and look at the similar cosmopolitan genetic diversity of the Phonenician settlements", "Look at what looks like immediate admixture between European Neanderthals and the Bacho Kiro people with 500 years", "Look at the admixture in India between Indo-Aryan speakers and local people (male biased, but not exclusive)" and so on. the problem is we often don't know what circumstances any of this occured on, how much those are the same or different to the present day, and can only speculate dimly, so it's not very useful to say anything about our future. it also would be misused by people who want to discredit the genetic results as saying that they're inherently political.

pnuadha said...

@rob

Afansievo occupied steppe-like ecotones whilst the local Siberian hunger-gatherers continued living in river valleys & lakes.

The point is that they didn't mix despite being very close to each other.

The Anatolian Farmers who arrived in Bulgaria did not 'avoid local HGs for thousands of years', because there were no local late Mesolithic groups around to ignore.
How can you ignore that which doest not exist ?


profound indeed. I must be talking about places they did meet like Spain, France, Germany, and Sweden.

pnuadha said...

@Matt

Of course I don't use it as a stand alone argument. But it adds an important dimension to who we are as a people seeing how frequently it happened. I don't know about you but I was shocked to find out (in the early 2010's) that HG and farmers rarely mixed and mostly just moved past one another. I thought for sure farmers in the Northwes Europe would be a lot more HG than farmers in Southeast Europe, but that wasnt really the case. It also blew my mind that hunter gatherers maintained a distinct population for thousands of years, an not just in some tiny remote pockets like the negritos of southeast asia. I thought, people move next to each other and then mix.

telling us something about the present day, is never going to be very persuasive

of course. I sometimes get ahead of myself but I rely on modern findings to make arguments about current predicaments. Studies like Putnum (2007) taught me that integration, happiness, and community are about a lot more than just mutual success and civic agreement. Growing up in america I was taught that people mostly just want safety, prosperity, and a good home with family. I did not realize that regardless of those things, even in spite of those things, most people only experience real community when they share a common heritage. More diversity leads to less social trust, less political engagement, inability to unionize, and less volunteering regardless of how safe and prosperous an area is.

You talk about the potential incompatibility of poorly educated populations moving in with highly educated populations. Fair enough, but I would argue that this isnt even the perspective we should be taking because it misses something bigger, more fundamental. Something is lost on both side when you unroot a people and drop them in the community of another people. And even if a highly educated population were to experience migration from a different highly educated, low crime, prosperous people something is still lost.

absorbed into some homogenized Americized global culture which is their only common ground

Yes, this. Dull and lacking meaning. Its less about adding and more about reducing. Im guessing you are also American?

pnuadha said...

Going back to ancient dna. Its pretty clear that people are not, in the fashion of capitalism as the "great equalizer", just looking for more prosperous lives. Farmers did not pack up and move to enjoy the hunter gatherer dream or vice versa.

Wodanicshammon arjas said...

Hello I have something interesting to share Reconsidering the origin of ost3. The ost3 sample was mentioned in a paper at natures.comd discussing the patrilocality of hunter-gatherers in the nothern europe from the mesolithic to the Neolithic. Ost3 was labeled as a hunter gatherer in this paper from around 3200bc in this paper im offering a different alternative ostorf is assumed to apart of the oberkassel that is incorrect he has no cultural continuity with any one those people in his grave goods there seems to be a cordedware culture axe ostorf is dated around exactly 3200bce which is exactly around the time around the time corded ware would have penetraded germany many might disagree with this date because there is a swap of contradicting information on Wikipedia dating the culture to just the 3000bc .

Rob said...

@ pnuadha

''profound indeed. I must be talking about places they did meet like Spain, France, Germany, and Sweden.'


We've already established that your case-examples here are unsupported and at odds with the evidence. ive already mentioned the Spanish Epicardial scenario 5400 BC where the 'Farmers' belong to 'Mesolithic' R1b-V88 and I2a-M423, implying brisk interaction.

There was an entire publication, or 3, about France, concluding High proportions of hunter-gatherer ancestry in both Early and Late Neolithic groups in Southern France support multiple pulses of inter-group gene flow throughout time and space and confirm the need of regional studies to address the complexity of the processes involved. (Arzelier 2022)
I.e. happily rejecting the early stat-tard based models written by the evil Big Pharma labs and the archaeological lackeys ("advisors")



''Going back to ancient dna. Its pretty clear that people are not, in the fashion of capitalism as the "great equalizer", just looking for more prosperous lives. Farmers did not pack up and move to enjoy the hunter gatherer dream or vice versa.''

Wheverver farmers entounterd a sizable body of Mesolithics, they admixed and adapted elements of hunting, fishing & gathering.
Choice and agency operated at, both, individual and tribal levels.

The best case of genuine ideological exclusion scenario I can think of is the Bell Beaker phenonenon in western Europe, and this indeed goes against the rose-coloured perspectives which are still favoured by scholars studying it

Rob said...

@ Wodanicshammon arjas


Not sure where the idea of battle Axes in ostorf 3 are coming from
The grave goods of that cemetery - ''frequent presence of grave goods such as transverse arrowheads, animal tooth pendants sometimes in large numbers, and fish hooks led to the interpretation of a surviving final Mesolithic population (Schuldt, 1961), from Posth

These look like late HGs who did not adapt farming like some of their cousins, persisted, became incorporated into local Single Grave and/or northern Beaker groups, then rose to prominence in Nordic society

Wodanicshammon arjas said...

Interesting retort but I might say that fishing was common amongst the cwc culture of the eastern baltic coast. Also you have failed to take note of the stone polished axes that resemble cwc axes

Wodanicshammon arjas said...

I also must mention these are not ostorf people ostorfs origin was assumed to be lined up with funnel beaker because In the initial stages of trb you still had a large cultural influence from whg in the north Rhine not ostorf he just ate fish

Rob said...

@ Wodanicshammon arjas

Well your theory has no no basis for it, your dates are all out of whack. There’s not a single I1 yet found in CWC or variants .
It also seems that you’re imagining the battleaxe, because it’s not documented in the actual scientific paper supplement and TRB used stone battleaxes as well

pnuadha said...

@rob Farmers' belong to 'Mesolithic' R1b-V88 and I2a-M423, implying brisk interaction

You still dont understand the basics of admixture, or just math.

If people are regularly mixing with each other, it does not take long for them to become a single homogenous population. For example, the Spanish are relatively homogenous despite being populated by very different groups, including Iberians, Romans, and North Africans. There are no Roman like, Phoenician like, or North African like Spaniards. They all mixed in historical times. That also why you dont see vikings in Ireland or Huns in Hungry.

Mexico is a very racial and segregated country and so it has a lot of variation in old world vs new world admixture. But still, after only 400 years the majority of the population is already at the mean admixture.

Contrast that with the Neolithic and Hunter gatherer populations. They never assimilated into a single population after thousands of years. Furthermore, they never even got to the mean until the middle to late neolithic.

High proportions of hunter-gatherer ancestry in both Early and Late Neolithic groups in Southern France support multiple pulses of inter-group gene flow throughout time and space and confirm the need of regional studies to address the complexity of the processes involved

Not homogenous after 1000s of years. So high levels of racial endogamy and low levels of exogamy. Got it.

I.e. happily rejecting the early stat-tard based models written by the evil Big Pharma labs and the archaeological lackeys ("advisors")

are you trolling?

The best case of genuine ideological exclusion scenario I can think of is the Bell Beaker phenonenon

You clearly don't understand the time frame involved, or the math.

Gio said...

@ pnuadha

“If people are regularly mixing with each other, it does not take long for them to become a single homogenous population. For example, the Spanish are relatively homogenous despite being populated by very different groups, including Iberians, Romans, and North Africans. There are no Roman like, Phoenician like, or North African like Spaniards. They all mixed in historical times. That also why you dont see vikings in Ireland or Huns in Hungry”.

I agree with you, and it is for that that I am 99,5% Italian, and only through the uniparental markers, mine and of my ancestors’, I may understand their path to me. The fact that my wife’s from Sicily uniparental markers are probably Norman don’t make her less “Sicilian” or “Italian” than others.

Rob said...

@ pnuadha


''You still dont understand the basics of admixture, or just math.If people are regularly mixing with each other, ''


No dufus, you don't get it. The heterogeneity is because admixture and social contacts were happening at multiple fronts at multiple regions in multiple unique ways

Everyway you look at it, your contention that farmers and hunter-gatherers avoided each other for 1000s of years, or that the defaiult mode of interaciton was conflict is wrong.
The above quote from the French study explicitly contradicts your claims, and now you're deflecting.

Ultimately, your problem is you dont understand evidence in the slightest (probably because you're too stupid to do so), and instead create for yourself a catch-all internal monolgogue based on your personal political views.

Wodanicshammon arjas said...

There is i1 is i1 in the bell bell beaker dagger period according the to the allentoft paper. Corded has been date properly bu it maybe just as old as Yamnaya very close . I predict i1 is from the forest steppe and was picked up by bellbeaker entering nothern europe from an already existing cwc group. This is based off of a ukrane bronze age sample with i1 paper titled patrilocality of hunter-gatherers . Click on my profile I made a blog about ostorf with his actual gravegoods

Vladimir said...

Allentoft apparently added all the samples, now there are 315 of them. New 75 samples
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB64656

EthanR said...

OST003 is older than Corded Ware and is like 80%+ WHG. I'm not sure how he is supposed to be evidence for a Steppe/Forest Steppe origin of I1.

Rob said...

not to mention the 'Bronze Age I1 in Ukraine' is, what, 600 BC ?

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

Danke

Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski said...

I was clustering Coordinates, Cultures, Estimate Age and Y/Mt lineages from Meso to Early Neo Ukraine and Russian samples. Just curious, Middle and Lower Don Neo/Early Neo was literally almost R1a ,R1b seems to been more common among volosovo and Ukraine Neo/Early Neo. We should add I2a1 as PIE like R1a and R1b.

Gio said...

@ Virgin_Quilles_Sucks_R1a_Chadvski

“We should add I2a1 as PIE like R1a and R1b”,

I agree with you, and that is in favour of IE as the language of the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor who mixed with hg I of the Western Europe (at least 17000 years ago as we see in Tagliente 2). As I think that hg J was with hg I in Europe before developing in the Caucasian region, we could get many informations about this separation and the dates just by comparing the language families.

Gio said...

Sardinian and Basque may be the Caucasian part of haplogroup I (residual in Sardinian and Basque with I-M26) while the Caucasian haplogroup J may have originated the Caucasian languages or some branches of them (but going back to the Paleolithic the branch can also be unique). IE is precisely a Siberian language that has had influences from Caucasian (but not Caucasian, as Gramkrelidze and Ivanov supposed, but Alpine). Etruscan is also one of the few surviving branches, probably in the Aegean area, but there must have been many different branches and they have largely become extinct.

Wodanicshammon arjas said...

The cordedwaee horizon is around 3200bc 2900bce ostorf is about that old in age actually the same exact age

Wodanicshammon arjas said...

No its around middle bronze age 1900s bc 2200bce

pnuadha said...

@rob

The heterogeneity is because...

yes?

admixture and social contacts were happening at multiple fronts at multiple regions in multiple unique ways

sigh... word salad. You show no understanding.

The vast majority of WHG heavy people married other WHG heavy people. The vast majority of EEF heavy people married other EEF heavy people. You could make the counter claim that a large portion of WHG heavy people did mix with EEF heavy people. However that would rapidly deplete the remaining number of WHG heavy people and rapidly increase the portion of WHG in farmer. This did not happen because it took thousands of years for the eventual admixture profile to be reached by the majority. (This is a simple differential equation.)

Let me make a simple analogy since you cant seem to comprehend that it takes very little time for people to become a single homogenous population when people openly mate with one another. Examples where this happened are Spain, Ireland, Hungry, and as someone else said Sicily too. Take a white bucket of paint and a black bucket of paint. If you pour each bucket into a larger bucket, allowing a large portion of the two colors to mix you will very quickly get a homogenous grey. This is Spain, Ireland, Hungry, and Sicily. If instead, you pour a few drops from the white paint bucket into the black paint bucket and vice versa (pulsating complicated multivaried multispacial socially dynamic interaction zones, as you would say) you would very slowly get convergence between the two paints. This convergence would take a long time. This is because the portion of black mixing with the white is small, and vice versa in the other bucket. This is what happened with WHG and EEF. A very slow convergence to the eventual admixture profile.

TLDR: Spain mixed fast, sub 1000 years. Meso and farmers mixed very slowly because the vast majority of individuals were mating within their respective groups.

Matt said...

OT: https://www.cell.com/current-biology/pdf/S0960-9822(23)01303-9.pdf - New China paper: "Ancient genomes reveal millet farming-related demic diffusion from the Yellow River into southwest China"

Seems like the dna from Yunnan sites approx 2500-1000 BCE is from a basically Sino-Tibetan North Chinese group with some (10%) Hoabinhian ancestry, with Yangtze River/South Chinese type ancestry absent. Strange mix, although we know that in MSEA to Nagaland in India there are of have been some groups with completely Sino-Tibetan related ancestry with almost none of the South Chinese component.

Paywall so I can't say much more about it.

Mr.Funk said...

Hello Mr. Davidski, I'm new here, first of all I would like to thank you for your work for your contribution to population genetics, you and your calculator have changed the world of genetics, for example, I spend almost all my free time on your calculator comparing ancient and modern populations, I model them from each other, you are an incredible person, what did you come up with this, you have perfect brains, I want everything in your life to be wonderful, good health to you, your family, children, may you always luck is with you
I apologize for my English, I use a translator, I don't speak English well

«Oldest ‹Older   201 – 400 of 571   Newer› Newest»