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
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
571 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 401 – 571 of 571Matt wrote,
"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."
There are a decent number of modern populations that exhibit some blend of hypothetically Sino-Tibetan and hypothetically Austroasiatic autosomal components accompanied by some minor hypothetically Hoabinhian-related admixture. The native languages of such populations are either Tibeto-Burman or Austroasiatic (especially Palaungic IIRC).
It seems like (certain branches of) Tibeto-Burman and (certain branches of) Austroasiatic may have entered Mainland Southeast Asia approximately simultaneously, bringing Neolithic culture(s) to the region. I suppose the typical South Chinese autosomal component, which is also found in variable amounts among present-day people in Mainland Southeast Asia, may have spread to that region more recently with speakers of Kra-Dai, Sinitic, and Hmong-Mien languages.
We can just keep speculating after all these "North Eurasia" studies. Still almost no aDNA from north of the polar circle, the forest tundra zone.
That region certainly was not empty during the middle holocene.
There aren't many more places for R1b-M269*, R1a-M417* and Balto-Finnic autosomal drift to hide except far in the North.
@Ebizur; yes, that seems likely to me, near simultaneous expansion, rather than a separate waves where Austroasiatic much preceded ST. Still unsure about whether we sorted out how much of this earlier ancestry that received Hoabinhian input is still about in people in this region today.
@ Marlow
“That region certainly was not empty during the middle holocene.
There aren't many more places for R1b-M269*, R1a-M417* and Baltic-Finnic”
Despite what you, Vlad and Zelto claim, there were definitely shifts and gaps. The evidence and state of research is typically poor, as Russian articles have a fashion of merely rehashing the last 100 years of beliefs rather than offering anything new, challenging or evidence based.
Moreover, I doubt the far north has much directly to do with R1b-M269, that’s become a bit of a meme lately
But I do project that there were now extinct IE groups in the forest zone during the LBA , in areas described as “Uralic” by the problematic literature which you guys desperately cling to
@ Rob and re: "But I do project that there were now extinct IE groups in the forest zone during the LBA , in areas described as “Uralic” by the problematic literature which you guys desperately cling to." This indeed seems to be the case, see fex here:
https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/78d03463-17f8-4715-930c-1ea120e39458/content
@ Queequeg
I wouldn’t call it Para-Slavic as it’s not for the same stock
Anyhow, I don’t take the Carlos Quilles of the linguistic world seriously, although you personally worship him
@ Rob: no, you don't and I'm somewhat afraid that it tells more about you than him.
@Rob
"Despite what you, Vlad and Zelto claim, there were definitely shifts and gaps. The evidence and state of research is typically poor, as Russian articles have a fashion of merely rehashing the last 100 years of beliefs rather than offering anything new, challenging or evidence based."
Nice strawman. Attempting to establish calendar chronology with relative dating is problematic. When relative dating is fortified useing C14 dates from upper and lower stratiographic layers, it becomes much more credible.
Obviously there were settlement gaps and shifts, I said as much earlier. However, a long settlement gap between Fatyanovo and the arrival of Yakutia-LNBA requires counter evidence, which you have failed to provide.
"But I do project that there were now extinct IE groups in the forest zone during the LBA , in areas described as “Uralic” by the problematic literature which you guys desperately cling to"
Many linguistic attributions in archaeological papers are nonsense. That shouldn't be controversial.
Personally, I suspect there will be a genetic shift in the post-ST forest cultures. Again, we'll have to wait and see.
@ D: any G25 related news concerning the latest Allentoft et al releases? I'm very much looking forward to seeing if there's any WSHG or something closely related in NEO538.
@ Queequeg - ''no, you don't and I'm somewhat afraid that it tells more about you than him.''
And what's that ? Im impetuous for not taking heed of the Great Jaasko ? please dont be so pathetic.
I'll happily follow the proposals of dozens of other linguistcs who's theories are more consistent with reality.
@ Zelto and re: "Personally, I suspect there will be a genetic shift in the post-ST forest cultures." Or, just by looking at the WSHG biased Rostovka samples it seems that some groups of the original Yakutia_LNBA sphere got involved into West Siberian circles, maybe leading into modern groups such as Mansi. Some did not, as they immidiately proceeded into areas west of Ural mountains. Besides the linguistic difference, this might be visible in the WSHG these later groups have, - or don't. West Uralic speakers, in terms of the Siberian genetic component, seem just have Yakutia_LNBA whereas Mansi, if I'm right, do have WSHG or at least something getting close to that. The linguistic issue is then a different question, difficult to say whose language Uralic at first place was. Besides typological similarities, there's apparently no evidence pointing to locations East of West Siberia.
@Davidski
Could you add those new Northeastern Italians samples from Late Antiquity(From Tyrol).
Also about New Steppe Samples, I made a list with Samples x Dates x Cultures, not only sites, as well as Y-DNA and Mtdna.
Visible WHG DNA got high around 6000-5000 BCE Ukraine. We could found some Kotias like DNA , Dudzuana and ""basal"" at Mesolithic Samples around 8000BCE, just noise around Neolithic.
The first E1b was found around Meso and the incidence of E1b matches perfectly with the increase of the WHG ancestry. Looks like Danubian Groups from Iron Gates Meso could been a good source for R1b indeed.
And Volosovo dudes were mostly E1b, I m waiting Quilled to come there , on their bullshit page, and explain us why shouldn't us consider R1b the proto Uralic Y-DNA? Just a joke.
Great Middle Don samples literally end those sort of bullshit assumptions, no doubts our R1a was PIE.
Could you add those new Northeastern Italians samples from Late Antiquity(From Tyrol).
Which samples are these?
@ Zelto
''Obviously there were settlement gaps and shifts, I said as much earlier. However, a long settlement gap between Fatyanovo and the arrival of Yakutia-LNBA requires counter evidence, which you have failed to provide.''
What does "long" mean ? I did not make such vague claims. The present evidence suggests that Fatyanovo ends ~ 2200 BC and Yakutia_LN people arrive ~ 1500 BC. Wouldn't the burden of proof lie with demonstrating population continuity ?
@ Queequeg
'East of West Siberia" would be extinct para-Uralic languages.
Samples from Tyrol will be here, but they are not posted yet.
https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB60362
@ Rob and re: "East of West Siberia" would be extinct para-Uralic languages." Might be possible if we fex assume that Pre Proto Uralic developed inside a group of related languages and the people speaking Pre Proto Uralic did not assume any foreign vocabulary, even if the speakers of related languages did. In other words, in order to be able to defend Pre Proto or even Proto Uralic in East Asia we, i.e. not you, need some hard evidence which is missing, such as loan words into Uralic, pointing to East Asia.
@Queequeg
https://helda.helsinki.fi/server/api/core/bitstreams/78d03463-17f8-4715-930c-1ea120e39458/content
Fatyanovo couldn't have been Proto-Balto-Slavic because Balts and Slavs share very specific autosomal genetic and Y-DNA traits that Fatyanovo people lack.
In fact, Fatyanovo is much more closely related to modern-day Indians in terms of Y-DNA and the European portion of Indian autosomal DNA than to Balts or Slavs.
And the other obvious problem is that there's no way that Fatyanovo had any direct links with Uralic speakers. It's way too early for that.
There's just nothing that we can describe as Uralic anywhere near Fatyanovo.
Early Uralic speakers certainly had contacts in Siberia with Indo-Iranians who were direct descendants of Fatyanovo, but that doesn't really back up anything in that paper, does it?
@ D: I appreciate the problems related to matching the linguistic results with say genetic ones but it is not just Jaska, "Already Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords in West Uralic can be supported (Petri Kallio, forthcoming)." However, for one reason or another, I have heard rumours that also Jaska is now considering Proto Uralic homeland between Kama and Tobol, instead of just Volga-Kama area. The dispersal area between Kama and Tobol would according to my understanding explain very nicely some genetic differences between Uralic speaking groups, especially the one related to WSHG.
@Queequeg
Already Proto-Balto-Slavic loanwords in West Uralic can be supported (Petri Kallio, forthcoming).
This is not the same thing as knowing for sure that Proto-Balto-Slavic speakers were in direct contact with West Uralic speakers.
There is no gap in the Volga-Oka region. Yes, Fatyanovo stops at 2200 BC. Abashevo appears immediately and lasts until 2000 BC. Then Seima-Turbino appears, lasting until 1800 BC. Simultaneously with Seima-Turbino, Chirkovo appears and lasts until 1700 BC. Chirkovo is a forest derivative of Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Balanovo and Volsk-Lbishchevo. Then Pozdnyakovo appears and lasts until 1500 BC. Then Mesh ceramics appears and lasts up to 1200 BC. Then, as a result of mixing Mesh ceramics, Bondarikha, Podnyakovo, Hatched ceramics, Atabaevo/Maklasheyevo, Pred Dyakovo, Akozino-Akhmylovo, and Ananino on the Volga appear. This is already the early Iron Age. There are two key points here. These are Chirkovo and Atabaevo/Maklashevo. The Chirkov culture, by all indications, looks completely European without any elements from Siberia or the Urals. The only thing that is found is weapons from the Seima-Turbino culture. Therefore, the most that can be assumed is that male warriors from Siberia penetrated the women’s groups of Chirkovo, but this culture as a whole remained a derivative of European cultures such as Abashevo and so on. Mesh ceramics did not bring anything new to Chirkovo. But a significant transformation occurred around 1200 BC, since Atabaevo/Maklasheyevo definitely have roots from the Urals and Siberia. It is at this stage that a significant transformation actually occurs - fortifications like before Dyakovo appear, Samus-Kizhirovo technology for working with metal appears. At this stage, the Akozino-Akhmylovo culture with axes of the Melar type arose. As for Jaakko Häkkinen’s article, chronologically his approach fits precisely into this story about the formation of the Western Uralic language in the period 1500-1000 BC. Of course, this is hardly anything close even to proto-Balto-Slavic, because this is the language of those who remained in the forests of Abashevo, Balanovo, Volsk-Lbishchevo. I don't think it's proto-Indo-Iranian. Until 1200 BC it was the language of the Srubnaya tribes, after which these tribes were influenced by post-Sosnitsa cultures. It was at this stage that a para - Balto-Slavic languages could already arise.
So according to you, what is the language spoken by the CWC (including Fatyanovo)?
What do the supporters of the steppe theory currently think about the role played by Yamnaya? According to the Harvardians, all IE languages, except the Indo-Anatolian branch, derive from Yamnaya migrations.
It would be good if Indo-European experts could establish a definitive theory regarding the male lineages involved in the origin and dispersion of the different branches of Indo-European in mainland Europe. In the meantime, in the absence of written records (except for the Bronze Age in Greece and the Iron Age in Spain, France and Italy), everything is speculation that contaminates the genetic debate.
The four fundamental premises that geneticists and linguists use to try to prove the spread of a language are- Mass migrations are essential (Anatolian farmers or steppe shepherds), Patriarchy of prehistoric societies (i.e. the linking of certain male lineages to a language), Relationship between archaeological records, and Genetic continuity through male lineage up to the existence of written records.
Everything else does not have to be taken into consideration, i.e. exogamy, lingua francas, small percentages of autosomal DNA, sporadic appearance of male lineages in regions where they do not originate.....
Are these criteria currently valid for you? Obviously not, because, NONE of these criteria can be used to explain the arrival of IE in Western Europe
1-There is no archaeological continuity between Yamnaya>CWC and between CWC>BBC
2-There is no genetic continuity in the male line between Yamnaya and Western Europe.
3-R1a-M458, R1a-Z93, R1b-Z2103, V1636, I2a-L699 and the different branches of Q never reached Western Europe
4-There were no massive migrations in Italy, France and Spain
@Rob
"What does "long" mean ? I did not make such vague claims. The present evidence suggests that Fatyanovo ends ~ 2200 BC and Yakutia_LN people arrive ~ 1500 BC. Wouldn't the burden of proof lie with demonstrating population continuity ?"
Hang on, I'm not taking a stance on "population" (genetic) continuity, if that's what you meant. Instead, I'm saying that there is no evidence for a ~700 year long settlement gap in the Volga/forest region. That's the current archaeological understanding, taking into account available c14 dates.
The onus should be on you to refute the established chronology. So far, I have only seen blanket statements expressing your vexation at the state of Russian archaeology.
@ Zelto
'' I'm saying that there is no evidence for a ~700 year long settlement gap in the Volga/forest region. That's the current archaeological understanding, taking into account available c14 dates.
The onus should be on you to refute the established chronology. So far, I have only seen blanket statements expressing your vexation at the state of Russian archaeology.'
Absolute nonsense, there is no 'established chronology', the local archaeologists only express uncertainty. You appear to have no idea about the scientific method.
The scientific method requires independent, verification with modern dating methods, not Tolstoyan tales from Bygone Eras.
Do you think you & Vlad will be able to present at least one C14 date which supports your claims ? List a couple of sites & Lab Serial #s.
@ Vlad
''There is no gap in the Volga-Oka region. Yes, Fatyanovo stops at 2200 BC. Abashevo appears immediately and lasts until 2000 BC. Then Seima-Turbino appears, lasting until 1800 BC.
You & Zelto excel at fanatically re-chanting B-grade archaeology & C-grade linguistics
Abashevo migrated south and spoutheast, hence the Volga-Oka region was emptied.
^ Look at these maps, although by CQ.
''Simultaneously with Seima-Turbino, Chirkovo appears and lasts until 1700 BC. Chirkovo is a forest derivative of Fatyanovo, Abashevo, Balanovo and Volsk-Lbishchevo. Then Pozdnyakovo appears and lasts until 1500 BC. '''
Prove it ?!
''As for Jaakko Häkkinen’s article, chronologically his approach fits precisely into this story about the formation of the Western Uralic language in the period 1500-1000 BC''
Incorrect. There was a series of already differentiated migrations into northeast Europe fby Yakutia_LN types, meaning the disintegration had occurred by 200 BC
The fact that you think JH is correct further underscores the fact that you & Zelto have little analyitical crdibility.
@ Daviski
''In fact, Fatyanovo is much more closely related to modern-day Indians in terms of Y-DNA and the European portion of Indian autosomal DNA than to Balts or Slavs.
And the other obvious problem is that there's no way that Fatyanovo had any direct links with Uralic speakers. It's way too early for that.'
His, and a couple of other Finnish lingusits, entire platform is bollox.
They think Fatyanovo was Balto-Slavic, they think the east Baltic LBA was Germanic. They think Samoyeds migrated to Siberia from west of the Urals.
They refuse to accept the significance of BOO, and indeed, dimiss the growing archeogenetic evidence with amateurish deflections such as 'genes dont speak' because it doesnt sit well with their preconcieved & half-baked narrative.
I dont think he'll change because he has taken refuge amidst a fanatical rabble of disciples on a not-so-Germanic thread on Gene Archivist
It's only purpose presently is to serve as a focus of critique and comparison against intelligent & well-reasoned models.
Matt wrote,
"yes, that seems likely to me, near simultaneous expansion, rather than a separate waves where Austroasiatic much preceded ST. Still unsure about whether we sorted out how much of this earlier ancestry that received Hoabinhian input is still about in people in this region today."
I vaguely recall having looked into present-day Cambodian mtDNA diversity years ago and finding that approximately one third of their mtDNA quite likely should have derived from a deeply divergent population; whether that deeply divergent population/populations should be identified with Hoabinhians is a question that I have had no means of investigating at the time. Since present-day Cambodians exhibit very little deeply divergent Y-DNA, I would estimate that they should have somewhere between 15% and 20% overall ancestry from a deeply divergent (pre-East Asian) population/populations. I also recall that their deeply divergent mtDNA was very "M heavy," consisting mostly of unusual subclades of mtDNA macrohaplogroup M; it definitely did not involve any of the N/R-derived lineages that are often observed among indigenous New Guineans and Australians.
Present-day Tibeto-Burman populations tend to have great amounts of Y-DNA haplogroup O-M117 > O-M133 > O-F8 > O-ACT2839 > O-F5970 > O-Z25921 > O-Z25915 > O-CTS4658 (TMRCA 6170 ybp according to 23mofang).
Tibetan(-ish) populations tend to have notable amounts of O-CTS4658 > O-CTS5308 (TMRCA 6120 ybp), which is also the clade that has been found in the published specimen from the Iwade horizontal tunnel tomb in Kanazawa, Ishikawa, Japan, alongside notable amounts of Y-DNA haplogroups D-M533, D-Z27269, and N-M1819.
Burman(-ish) populations tend to have notable amounts of O-CTS4658 > O-Z25928 (TMRCA 5970 ybp). This clade is also found in significant percentages among the general population of the Lingnan/Liangguang region of China and among Daic and Palaungic people. All these populations also share D-Z27269 and N-M1819 with Tibetan(-ish) populations to some degree; however, D-M533 has a different distribution, perhaps because most of it is represented by a subclade with a very small (like 3,000 ybp or less) TMRCA, and it has spread mainly among the Tibetan(-ish) populations, with one branch spreading into and across the steppe.
The roots of the Austroasiatic peoples are more difficult to trace because of a dearth of high-resolution Y-DNA data regarding these populations. I suppose at least O-M95 > O-M1310 > O-F1803 > O-M1280 > O-M1284 > O-M1368 > O-M1361 > O-FGC29900 > O-Y9325 (formed 6740 ybp, TMRCA 6310 ybp according to 23mofang) may have something to do with them considering its presence in South Asia: O-Y9325 > O-B426 (TMRCA 6090 ybp) in Ho (Austroasiatic > Munda) from Jharkhand, India x1, Khonda Dora (Dravidian > Telugu-Gondi-Kui > Gondi-Kui > Konda-Kui) from India x1, Riang (Tibeto-Burman > Bodo–Garo) from Tripura, India x1, and Bengali from Bangladesh (Indo-European > Indic) x2 plus O-Y9325 > O-B418 > O-Y186325 > O-Y98032 > O-B421 (TMRCA 5640 ybp) in Gond (Dravidian > Telugu-Gondi-Kui > Gondi-Kui > Gondi) from Madhya Pradesh, India x1.
@Rob
Dating C14 by Pozdnyakovo came out quite recently, and Berezovyi Rog is a controversial attribution, some archaeologists consider it Pozdnyakovo, and some Mesh ceramics. The article is here. If there is paid access, then a couple of photos with dates and sites here. Taking into account the calibration of 1750BC - 1250 BC
https://elibrary.ru/download/elibrary_54494123_13711678.pdf
https://imgur.com/a/NwuFKAz
@ Vlad
Thanks. The bayesian curves have a modal value of 1600 BC, thus similar to Textile Pottery sites. It is said to be a Srubnaya-oid culture. Same dates exist for Lugosvka type sites (A. V. Lyganov)
Russian wikipedia says - ''The Pozdnyakovskaya culture influenced the formation of later local cultures, in particular Gorodets , although due to the chronological gap in their existence it is impossible to directly derive the latter from the Pozdnyakovo culture''.
There are a hanndful of Abashevo dates from Pepkino (М.В. Добровольская, М.Б. Медникова) which are modal ~ 2000 BC.
So we still need to fill the gap between the post-Fatyanovo-Abashevo phase and the Textile/ Lugovska/ Pozdnyakovo. I would not be surprised if this apparent 'gap' represents shifting habitation / landscapes patterns and/or an element of new migrations from Andronovo groups which are more eastern. The profile of Mezhovskaya support the latter.
“some archaeologists consider it Pozdnyakovo, and some Mesh ceramics”
If archaeologists can’t even agree on which culture a site belongs to, I would say that supports my concern against old narratives based on pottery. More objective criteria are warranted, and given that there are plenty of such burials it should be achievable
So far, this is what we know
- Yamnaya - Catacomb- early Poltavka are a block
- Fatyanovo -Abashevo - Sintashta - Srubnaya are a block, and chronological and geographic successions and shifts
- Mezhovskaja is a new group but which most ancestry from # 2 above . Like many of the discussed sites on this thread, it dates to ~ 1500 bc.
There’s a clear pattern
@Rob
This period 2000BC-1500BC is Seima-Turbino and Chirkovo. Chirkovo itself is more like Volsk-Lbishchevo than Fatyanovo or Abashevo. I think that Rus_poltav_ka_o is Volsk-Lbishchevo, not Poltava. And RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784 is Chirkovo.
Target: RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784
Distance: 3.1675% / 0.03167491
30.6 RUS_Poltavka_o
26.0 Hungary_EBA_Somogyvár_Vinkovci
21.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
12.8 Hungary_MBA_Kisapostag
4.0 TKM_Gonur_BA_avg
2.8 RUS_Volga-Kama_N
1.2 Russia_N_Itkul_Bolshemysskaya
1.0 Russia_EBA_Volosovo
arget: RUS_Mezhovskaya:RISE525
Distance: 2.3831% / 0.02383061
40.2 RUS_Poltavka_o
26.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_MLBA_avg
14.8 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
7.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
5.2 RUS_Okunevo_BA_avg
3.0 MNG_North_N
3.0 RUS_Afanasievo_avg
0.4 Hungary_MBA_Kisapostag
Target: RUS_Mezhovskaya:RISE523
Distance: 1.8448% / 0.01844786
27.0 RUS_Poltavka_o
18.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_avg
10.8 Hungary_EBA_Somogyvár_Vinkovci
10.4 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
9.8 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
6.8 Norway_Mesolithic
6.8 RUS_Tyumen_HG
5.6 Yamnaya_RUS_Samara
3.0 RUS_Volga-Kama_N
1.8 TKM_Gonur_BA_avg
Target: RUS_VolgaOka_IA_avg
Distance: 2.6605% / 0.02660473
43.2 Corded_Ware_Baltic_Spiginas2
22.4 RUS_Poltavka_avg
15.8 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
8.2 POL_MBA_Trzciniec_avg
5.4 GRC_Perachora_BA
5.0 Russia_EBA_Volosovo
Target: Baltic_EST_IA_0LS10:s19_0LS10_1
Distance: 3.3817% / 0.03381701
51.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_Spiginas2
12.8 Hungary_MBA_Kisapostag
12.8 RUS_Poltavka_avg
10.2 Russia_En_Volosovo_avg
4.6 POL_MBA_Trzciniec_avg
4.4 RUS_Mezhovskaya
3.4 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
0.8 SWE_BA
Target: FIN_Levanluhta_IA_avg
Distance: 2.9293% / 0.02929302
27.8 Corded_Ware_Baltic_Spiginas2
25.0 RUS_Mezhovskaya
22.0 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
18.0 Russia_En_Volosovo_avg
6.6 GRC_Perachora_BA
0.6 RUS_Poltavka_o
Target: RUS_Chalmny-Varre_MA
Distance: 2.4270% / 0.02427025
31.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_Spiginas2
22.0 RUS_Yakutia_Ymyiakhtakh_LN
10.4 Russia_EBA_Volosovo
8.0 GRC_Perachora_BA
7.8 RUS_Mezhovskaya
7.2 Russia_En_Volosovo_avg
5.6 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA
4.2 RUS_Volga-Kama_N
3.0 RUS_Poltavka_o
0.8 SWE_BA
@Rob
"Unfortunately, when dating the period under consideration, one can
operate with only three partially matching radiocarbon dates (Chernykh, Kuzminykh, Orlovskaya, 2011, table 5, a, b; 11, a, b). Hearth of dwelling 2 Balanovo-Volosovo (early Chirkovo) settlement Udelny Shumets VII: 2190 - 2030, 2200–2020 CalBC.
Volosovo-Danilovsky Fatyanovo burial ground with Atlicasinsky and Balanovo manifestations: 2300–1750 CalBC." Volosovo-Danilovsky - This is where sample was taken RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784
@ Vlad
'This period 2000BC-1500BC is Seima-Turbino and Chirkovo. Chirkovo itself is more like Volsk-Lbishchevo than Fatyanovo or Abashevo. I think that Rus_poltav_ka_o is Volsk-Lbishchevo, not Poltava. ''
These are superfluous & rather irrelevant categorizations formulated too long ago .
Instead of getting bogged down on Pottery Proverbs, for the region we're discussing there are these relevant categories
1. EHG hunter-gatherers often using Comb & Pit ceramics which might or might not have lingered on beyond 3000 BC 9depending on sub-zone)
2. EEF-poor R1b-Z2013 clans
3. EEF- rich R1a-Z93 clans
4. occasional outliers with HG admixture, but such as lacking in the Moscow basin, and only became pertinent once we reach the Urals (sintashta outliers).
''And RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784 is Chirkovo.''
What are his carbon dates ?
And your model shows that this guy is from central Europe, without any preceding Volosovo HG ancestry.
He also lacks eastern ancestry, according to the S-T theory.
So did Chirkovo come from Moldova ?
@Rob
This is a primitive simplification. More EEF or less EEF. No one knows where Volsk-Lbishchevo came from, just as no one knows where Abashevo came from, just as no one knows where the Unetitian culture came from. And Chirkovo is a forest derivative of Abashevo, Balanovo and Volsk-Lbishevo. Chirkovo may have Volosovo, or it may not. It doesn't matter at all. The principle is different here, whether Chirkovo and Pozdnyakovo will have Yakutiya_LNBA. If there is, then in what position. If not at all, then Yakutiya_LNBA came later via Atabevo/Maklasheevo. If there is a small percentage, it means that small groups have penetrated together with the Seima-Turbino. If Yakutiya_LNBA is 30-50%, it means that in general all Finns came from the Sejm-Turbino.
Abashevo not only has some EEF/GAC admix, but is also rich in Z93, so it's obviously derived from Fatyanovo.
The only difference is that Abashevo also has some Catacomb influence, at least in terms of paternal ancestry (Z2103).
Obviously there was intermixing at the border, but those are the general categories pre 1600 bc
Hi!
@Davidski
Unrelated people who look the same have similar genes and partially similar behaviors
https://www.cell.com/cell-reports/fulltext/S2211-1247(22)01075-0
https://bigthink.com/health/look-alike-genetics-behavior/?utm_medium=Social&utm_campaign=echobox_freethink&utm_source=Facebook&fbclid=IwAR3lnUFDVJV7l5Zoq7VnzsOhKwLwyD41VbNOyfu3FxMnlrR5TNDyuTVVJKA#Echobox=1697636189
As such we can soon expect methods to gain some info about looks and certain behavioral tendencies from DNA - also for ancient populations...
Just wanted to mention this...
Kind Regards.
@ Davidski
This is not a fact. IBD tests do not confirm this version. This issue will finally become clear when we study enough samples of Abashevo and CWC of the Middle Dnieper
@Vladimir
Are you saying that Abashevo and Fatyanovo don't share IBD?
Where have you seen this result?
@Davidski
There are common IBD with Fatyanovo, but much closer to Abashevo - Unetice, Nitra, Moros. Here is a report on this, only in Russian, but reported by Flegontov, who works at Harvard https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SOeiOLRLgDc&t=7740s starting from 2.07.00
I'm not seeing anything there that would change my mind about Abashevo being derived from Fatyanovo.
Only a few individuals have been tested for IBD links so far, so the results aren't very stable in certain comparisons.
IBD is different from overall affinity. It's genealogy.
@Rob
You're failing to critically engage with what I've said and conflating it with the opinions of others. Keep hiding behind empty platitudes though.
"Do you think you & Vlad will be able to present at least one C14 date which supports your claims ?"
We have already discussed the available C14 dates from terminal Fatyanovo and incipient Netted ware (~22 and 17/16 centuries BC res). Settlement layers associated with the Chirkovo culture are medial. Radiocarbon dates from Chirkovo sites may alter future chronological interpretations, but right now, there is no evidence to support a ~700 year settlement gap.
This is clearly very frustrating for you.
@ Zelto
We have already discussed the available C14 dates from terminal Fatyanovo and incipient Netted ware (~22 and 17/16 centuries BC res). Settlement layers associated with the Chirkovo culture are medial. Radiocarbon dates from Chirkovo sites may alter future chronological interpretations, but right now, there is no evidence to support a ~700 year settlement gap.
This is clearly very frustrating for you.''
No it's actually comedy. You've dedicated 2 pages to pontificating, but havent a single scrap of evidence to show population contuinty. Moreover, you have a bizarre twisting of logic, which is a Beta trait.
At least Vlad brings in useful references which highlight the inadequacies of the state of research, even though his contentions are confused half the time.
Case in point, his bold claim ''RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784 is Chirkovo.'', which is undated and looks like the person draws much of their acnestry from the Carpathian region and none at all from 'S-T easterners'.
So yeah, we are dealing with two A-grade comedians out of their depth
I made a interesting model with Corded Ware Groups(Battle Axe+Single Graves x Fatyanovo-Middle Dnieper x Germany/Switzerland +Elba Vistula), Yamnaya(Balkans x Catacomb x Caucasus), Kura Araxes and Mediterranean Sources(Megalhitic, Danubian , Anatolian, Iran Neo, Levantine, Hamitico and Kushidean), Proto Uralic and Extra EHG, WHG, etc.. interesting but not perfect. Looks like have some relation to Physical Anthropology, I know that most of it was pseudoscience but it wasn't totally wrong.
I think those groups were too arbitrary but had some truth, specially Charleton Coon.
He told about Steppe origins of the Nordic race for example. But off course he thoughts about Cromagnons were totally bullshit. About Baltic process of Individual Sedentarization, different from Alpine one, makes a lot of sense cause Baltic HG became Baltic Farmer without any additional ancestry. IMO Alpinid came from Anatolian HG with gracilization from Natufian additional Basal Ancestry and Paedomorphy as a result of Sedentarization, several anthropologists thought about it.
The classical Mediterranean was related to Southern Anatolian Groups, more Natufian or Basal Rich than those who went from the Danubian routes, that went from Aegean islands , travelling by Mediterranean Coast and repopulated the Iberian Peninsula, mixing with Magdalian Refugee and forming Megalhitic Types(Atlanto Mediterranean, Baskid and Berid).
Off course none of those groups were pure to one Phenotype and even those phenotypes we're almost arbitrary, but looks like it had some connection.
I noticed that even using corded groups with some Neo ancestry(GAC), none got much more IE than reported with Yamnaya Dudes, except by some Scandinavians and Eastern Euros that were about 60% with any Corded Ware source(even early and less GAC).
IMO makes more sense than Yamnaya as source and we should accept Early Corded as the better proxy for estimating the PIE ancestry. Keep in mind that even from Early Neo those individuals had farmer input and farming contacts were obviously important for the foundation of the PIE societies, just take a look upon Neolithic Ukraine.
I would be honest that I always want a better model for PIE estimation, Yamnaya wasn't PIE and some of PIE groups should had a profile almost identical to Early Corded Groups, which leads us to even more PIE in some Europeans, such as Scandinavians and Eastern Europeans.
About Italians my model got 20-45% , 48% from Cimbrians (Partially Bavarians) and 20% Sicily, with some Yamnaya related origin in the whole peninsula(Mycenean Greek and Asawa, Phrygian, Iron Age Anatolian, Balkanic, Etc..)
Germanics were exclusively Corded, except 1% from Austria , even using Balkanic Yamnayas.
Basques got 60% Megalhitic Farmer or Megalhitic Mediterranean + 33% Corded from German and Elba-Vistula Groups, which totally agree with previous report .
I m anxious for Levantines results, glad that it works for tracking the Kura Araxes impact upon Calcolithic Levant and Anatolia.
@Rob
"No it's actually comedy. You've dedicated 2 pages to pontificating, but havent a single scrap of evidence to show population contuinty."
The only things you've demonstrated are your poor reading comprehension skills. Once again, I'm not taking a strong stance on population/genetic continuity, we need more evidence to make sound conclusions on that front. You are the one making imprudent extrapolations based on data from two peripheral sites.
If you can't comprehend how stratiographic and absolute dating methods may work synergistically to create a pragmatic chronology, I can't help you. The evidence is going straight over your head.
"Moreover, you have a bizarre twisting of logic, which is a Beta trait."
It's sad that you find such a basic first-order logic formula "bizarre". Instead of worrying about "beta traits", you should go outside and touch some grass.
@ Zelto
I think you've been touching too much grass and not enough reality
So far, the evidence shows that there are indeed gaps in at least parts of western Russia beteween Volosovo and Fatyanovo, and then between Fatyanovo and the series of LBA 'cultures'.
Let me know when the empirical conspiracy against your claims become resolved.
@Rob
"So far, the evidence shows that there are indeed gaps in at least parts of western Russia beteween Volosovo and Fatyanov"
Yes, there were settlement gaps in at least some parts of western Russia during the late Neolithic. That's not exactly the mass exodus from the forest-zone during the Bronze Age you envisage though.
Furthermore, the implications of a few radiocarbon dates from the Sakhtysh micro-region should not be exaggerated. Fatyanovo aDNA is an important clue, but Volosovites also occupied a seperate ecological niche and differed in subsistence economy. Sparse contacts are not really suprising, similar phenomena can be observed elsewhere.
With that said, I'm agnostic about the role Volosovo had in the formation of these later cultures, we simply need more data to draw well informed conclusions. Many archaeologists express that there was an impact though; please don't bother sermonizing about the Russian academic apparatus again.
"and then between Fatyanovo and the series of LBA 'cultures'."
The radiocarbon dates from Fatyanovo and Netted ware create a tentative temporal boundary for 'fatyanoid' groups and the Chirkovo culture (i.e. 2200 BC - 1700/1600 BC). Where is the evidence of a ~700 year settlement gap?
@ Zelto
“Yes, there were settlement gaps in at least some parts of western Russia during the late Neolithic. That's not exactly the mass exodus from the forest-zone during the Bronze Age you envisage though. “
A sequential and organised definitely exodus occurred. That’s why they amassed in Turan & Iran by 1200 bc
Your personal cognitive-analytical shortcomings have no bearing on the reality which happened
“The radiocarbon dates from Fatyanovo and Netted ware create a tentative temporal boundary for 'fatyanoid' groups and the Chirkovo culture (i.e. 2200 BC - 1700/1600 BC). Where is the evidence of a ~700 year settlement gap?”
You’re Beta-word twisting again :)
Can you & Vlad show me the continuity evidence? The Fables is you 2 comedians circulate on AG don’t count as evidence.
@Rob
"I’m saying there’s a gap, and at present we have a gap between 2200 and 1600.
Moreover, as we’ve all seen, you & Vlad have not been able to bring a single price of evidence for that period / gap
So note again how you’ve twisted words, because of that pervasive Beta trait within"
There are no C14 dates from the relevent cultural layers. We need direct dating to confirm, but the stratigraphy and available C14 dates circumscribe the Chirkovo culture to the 22-17/16 centuries BC.
You are completely disregarding materials since they aren't directly carbon dated, despite important indirect evidence being present.
"A sequential and organised definitely exodus occurred. That’s why they amassed in Turan & Iran by 1200 bc Your personal cognitive-analytical shortcomings have no bearing on the reality which happened"
There was a migration from Fatyanovo-Balanovo to the Southern Urals, not "Turan & Iran". I'm not sure why you are confusing events that occured a millennium apart.
"You're beta word-twisting :,("
Not "word-twisting", you just don't read very well. Keep projecting your bizarre insecurities on to others though.
@All
The datasheet with the Allentoft 2023 G25 coords has been updated.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pHAqMPIRgfdXJuf9B4ZChOcJlBLhFe-/view?usp=sharing
Currently this is the best I can do, at least until the authors release their genotype dataset.
Target: Russia_EIA_ Late_Kargopol_culture:NEO538
Distance: 3.0546% / 0.03054642
42.4 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA:kra001
25.0 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA:I20784
19.6 Russia_EBA_Sakhtish_IIa_Volosovo:NEO187
7.6 Baltic_EST_BA:s19_X15_2
4.8 Russia_En_Sakjtish_IIa_Volosovo:NEO188
0.6 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA:I0942
@ Zelto
“There was a migration from Fatyanovo-Balanovo to the Southern Urals, not "Turan & Iran". I'm not sure why you are confusing events that occured a millennium apart. ”
Learn what “sequential migration” means
1. Fatyanovo leave the boreal zone of western Russia 2200 bc
2. Andronovoid groups disperse further and push south 1200 bc
'You are completely disregarding materials since they aren't directly carbon dated'
BS. Im not disregarding, Im appropriately critiquing.
But let's say these ''missing layers' return a C14 date of 1650 BC. So what ?
By virtue of their exiguity and lightness, it means that populations drop
if there was substantial settlement and continuity, layers would have built up and be highly visible
Everythign points to a significant populations drop.
It all fits, populations departed and we are left with gaps and sparsity
@ Vlad
Target: Russia_EIA_ Late_Kargopol_culture:NEO538
Estonia_BA.SG 15.0 %
Russia_CentralYakutia_LN.SG 42.0 %
Estonic _CWC 7.4%
Russia_Vologda_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG 35.6 %
Russia_Moscow_Fatyanovo_BA.SG ___ 0%
Volosovo NEO187:_________ 0%
Looks like complete turnover, pure migrations from Siberia linking in with Estonian post-Cordeds.
Im actually Messianic
@Rob
This is ridiculous. Vologda_Veretye_Mesolithic. Would you add a Paleolithic :)
@Davidski
Hey, it seems F6-620 from Bacho Kiro Late Pleistocene doesn't have G25 coordinates
Could you make them? Thanks.
Target: neo538:NEO538
Distance: 3.1692% / 0.03169219
41.0 RUS_Krasnoyarsk_BA
28.8 RUS_Fatyanovo_BA
13.6 Russia_En_Sakhtish_IIa_Volosovo
10.0 Russia_En_Sakhtish_II_Volosovo
6.2 RUS_Vologda_Veretye_Meso
0.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
0.0 Baltic_EST_BA
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic
0.0 Corded_Ware_Baltic_early
0.0 RUS_Poltavka
0.0 RUS_Poltavka_o
0.0 RUS_Sosonivoy_HG
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_Alakul_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Srubnaya_MLBA
0.0 RUS_Veretye_Meso
0.0 Russia_EBA_Sakhtish_IIa_Volosovo
0.0 Russia_EBA_Upper_Don_Ksizovo
0.0 Russia_En_Sakhtish_8_Volosovo
0.0 Russia_En_Sakjtish_IIa_Volosovo
0.0 Russia_En_Upper_Don_Ksizovo
0.0 Russia_LN_Sakhtish_IIa_Lyalovo
0.0 Russia_N_Sakhtish_IIa_Lyalovo
0.0 Russia_N_Upper_Don_Ksizovo
@ D: many thanks, much appreciated!
Thanks Davidski, I have labelled that Allentoft sheet up in the style of Norfern, and hopefully got the labels right - https://pastebin.com/4QMvyFpn
The most obviously "interesting" sample (which we haven't discussed previously) is NEO281, just as another "CHG" from Georgia Kotias Cave. The samples NEO631 and NEO632 from Portugal may also be interesting as posssibly admixed between a Fournol/El Miron rich lineage and Anatolian Neolithic farmers, although I haven't done systematic checks as to whether this is the case so jumping to conclusions.
Having two samples of "CHG" from the same era and population (if that's correct!) might be useful to generate more solid statistics of the drift specific to this population. Quick Vahaduop on "Allentoft Kotias" vs previous Kotias - https://imgur.com/a/G7PHhxt . Very minimal differences.
@Rob
"Learn what “sequential migration” means"
The Andronovo migrations have no bearing on events much earlier and thousands of kilometers farther west. Not to mention forest-zone vs. steppe.
"BS. Im not disregarding, Im appropriately critiquing.
But let's say these ''missing layers' return a C14 date of 1650 BC. So what ?"
My contention was with your claim that the Volga-Kama was abandoned for a period of 700 years. There were definitely demographic declines and genetic shifts over the course of the Bronze Age.
Such an expansive culture only enduring for ~50 years is a stretch. However, if that chronology were substantiated, then we could perhaps talk about a ~650 year settlement gap. Right now, that's all conjecture.
"Looks like complete turnover, pure migrations from Siberia linking in with Estonian post-Cordeds."
Close to 1000 km east of Estonia, where there actually is evidence of a settlement gap between CWC and EST_BA populations.
How is the EHG accounted for in your schema?
@ Vlad
Your overly fitted paste-dump vomit is ridiculous.
@ Zelto
EHG is probably from the western end of CCC, which as I said survived till late . But you forgot that because you’re not so sharp
But I’ll check with qpAdm, Vlad’s overly fitted eye-sore is not worth a rouble
@ Zelto
“Andronovo migrations have no bearing on events much earlier and thousands of kilometers farther west. Not to mention forest-zone vs. steppe. “”
It seems that everyone except you and a couple of OIT boys knows that Andronovo comes from and was fed by Fatyanovo migrations
You’re tragically ignorant for a big mouth. And also butt hurt that the ST theory you spoon fed over 5 years Ryukendo is wrong and will be put to bed
Later loser
@Rob
"EHG is probably from the western end of CCC, which as I said survived till late . But you forgot that because you’re not so sharp"
You said western CCC can be used to model BOO, that's it. Isn't this considered "beta word-twisting"?
"It seems that everyone except you and a couple of OIT boys knows that Andronovo comes from and was fed by Fatyanovo migrations"
Ultimatly derived from, yes. You're missing a few steps between Fatyanovo and Andronovo groups in "Iran" though.
"You’re tragically ignorant for a big mouth. And also butt hurt that the ST theory you spoon fed over 5 years Ryukendo is wrong and will be put to bed"
The interpretation I have is perfectly sound. You conceded almost every point I made earlier, before deleting the comments. Maybe they'd still be up if you could avoid making so many embarrassing spelling mistakes.
"Later loser"
Haha. Talk to you later, buddy.
EHG survived in Choinovtinskaya culture and Asbestos ware cultures which BOO is located within.
In addition to late EHG, Sub-taiga cultures: late asbestos, waffle & stamped ceramics had early Yakutia LN related ancestry and were primal Uralics, early contributors to Saami. 1500 bc on the door of northeast Finland . “Traditional theories” have erroneously fobbed these of as “paleo-Asians”
Finns , Estonians are a later wave which moved south and mixed with Estonian / Karelian post-CW (Lang’s Tapiola ware)
Rurikovich: the first experience of reconstructing the genetic appearance of the ruling family of medieval Russia according to paleogenomics
ABSTRACT
Representatives of the Rurikovich family were rulers of Russia for seven centuries, from the IX to the end of the XVI century. "The Tale of Bygone Years", the main chronicle source about the first centuries of the history of Russia, traces the origin of this princely family from the Varangian Rurik, called to reign in 862, however, direct genetic evidence of the origin of the early Rurikovich has not yet been received. In this work, for the first time, a full-genome paleogenetic analysis of the bone remains of the founder of the Rurikovich family – the Grand Duke of Vladimir Dmitry Alexandrovich (?-1294), the son of the Grand Duke of Kiev and Vladimir Alexander Yaroslavich Nevsky (1221-1263) was carried out. It was found that his Y chromosome belongs to the N1a haplogroup. The majority of modern Rurikovites, who, according to their pedigrees, belong to haplogroup N1a, have the most similar variations of Y chromosomes among themselves, as well as with the Y chromosome of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich. The totality of genome-wide data of medieval and modern Rurik can unequivocally say that their genus, starting at least from the XI century. (since the time of Grand Duke Yaroslav the Wise), is characterized by the carrier of the N1a-haplogroup of the Y chromosome. All other alleged Rurikovichi, both ancient and modern, are carriers of other haplogroups (R1a, I2a), have high heterogeneity of the Y chromosome sequence and do not confirm a single origin. The most likely distant ancestors of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich in the male line were men who left the Big Deer Island burial ground on the coast of the Kola Peninsula about 3,600 years ago. Modeling of the genome of Prince Dmitry Alexandrovich indicates the contribution of three ancestral components to its origin: (1) populations of the early Medieval population of eastern Scandinavia from the island of Eland; (2) representatives of the steppe nomadic peoples of the Eurasian steppes of the Iron Age or the early Medieval population of Central Europe (steppe nomads from Hungary) and (3) the ancient Siberian component. Reliable statistical values were also obtained when replacing the inhabitants of Scandinavia with representatives of the Slavic Old Russian population of the XI century . Thus, for the first time on the example of ancient Rurikovich, the genetic component of the complex nature of interethnic interactions in the formation of the nobility of medieval Russia is shown.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yOyGjdQ...p=drivesdk
Sequencing data for the NEV2 sample.3 are available for download via the link
http:// russiangenome.ru/NEV2_3.bam
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1yOyGjdQWEGYdXld0SA5qEFkB-_rGEcyt/view?usp=drivesdk
@Davidski
Kale posted something this week that displayed some results from a qpWave/qpGraph experiment he’s been conducting. In it he stated that EHG has a very small amount of para-American-Indian input, which seems like a pretty novel take, never heard it before. He seems to have found this component in every EHG heavy group—even the Srednedonskaya HGs. He says it’s Kolyma-like and there is some sort of link between them and the Y-DNA Q1 and mtDNA C1 clades found in various EHGs. Not exactly convinced here. Aren’t these graphs somewhat finicky and unreliable, especially when dealing with very small admixtures? I think we may have to wait for better/more accurate technology to arrive, like more developed and refined IBD techniques. Also Afontova Gora 2 had Q1a-F746, so perhaps this Kolyma explanation is unnecessary and EHG + ANE admixed Siberian HGs contributed to the populations that conceived the proto-Paleo-Amerindians?
@Simon
There are deep relationships between all North Eurasians, and indeed all humans.
But this is way too abstract for me to spend time thinking about it.
I'm more interested in more recent, direct links.
Re the new Chinese paper, I couldn't get access to it, but I did find a news article with some information beyond the abstract, including an admixture plot. https://min.news/en/history/1dcfe8cfd9c2f957c0d610034969f103.html
5 Late Neolithic samples from Gaoshancheng in Chengdu (Sichuan Basin), 2 early Baodun (~4500-4200 years ago), 3 late Baodun (3850-3720 years ago). The other 6 are Bronze Age, from Haimenkou in northwestern Yunnan.
From the admixture plot it looks like they are basically similar to Zongri from Qinghai and some of the Qijia (Upper Yellow River LN) samples (a little less Tibetan-shifted on average than the former). Some internal variation but not huge.
I'm not sure if the Hoabinhian-related ancestry here is really any different from the deep ancestry that differentiates Tibetan samples from middle Yellow River ones. They have ancient Nepalese rather than Hoabinhian components at lower K.
A bit unrelated to the topic and not sure if it has been brought up before but I came across:
Genetic identification of Slavs in Migration Period Europe using an IBD sharing graph
Popular methods of genetic analysis relying on allele frequencies such as PCA, ADMIXTURE and qpAdm are not suitable for distinguishing many populations that were important historical actors in the Migration Period Europe. For instance, differentiating Slavic, Germanic, and Celtic people is very difficult relying on these methods, but very helpful for archaeologists given a large proportion of graves with no inventory and frequent adoption of a different culture. To overcome these problems, we applied a method based on autosomal haplotypes. Imputation of missing genotypes and phasing was performed according to a protocol by Rubinacci et al. (2021), and IBD inference was done for ancient Eurasian individuals with data available at >600,000 1240K sites. IBD links for a subset of these individuals were represented as a graph, visualized with a force-directed layout algorithm, and clusters in this graph are inferred with the Leiden algorithm. One of the clusters in the IBD graph emerged that includes nearly all individuals in the dataset annotated archaeologically as “Slavic”. According to PCA a hypothesis for the origin of this population can be proposed: it was formed by admixture of a Baltic-related group with East Germanic people and Sarmatians or Scythians. The individuals belonging to the “Slavic” IBD sharing cluster form a chronological gradient on the PCA plot, with the earliest samples close to the Baltic LBA/EIA group. Later “Slavic” individuals are shifted to the right, closer to Central and Southern Europeans and probably reflecting further admixture of Slavs with local populations during the Migration Period.
It's from the Reich lab, and I'm assuming they use Ringabuer's IBD method. But how accurate is the inference that Slavs have Sarmatian/Scythiana ncestry? Skeptical of that, even by haplogroups alone.
Wonder if anyone else has any thoughts on this.
As a final nail in the coffin :
From Peltolta
''The best-fitting models indicated that Volga Oka_IA shared approximately half of its ancestry with a population related to Baltic Iron Age individuals (800 BCE–50 CE), and 25% of its ancestry related to Russia_Kola_BA and 25% to Iron Age Steppe (Figure 3B; Data S3B). Thus, the Volga-Oka interfluve appears to have been at the crossroads of gene flow from several directions, although we do note that the proximal origin of these components in the Suzdal Iron Age gene pool may lie elsewhere.
Interestingly, Fatyanovo did not provide a feasible ancestry source for VolgaOka_IA in any of the tested models
so long farewell auf wiedersehen goodbye
@ Simon
''Aren’t these graphs somewhat finicky and unreliable, especially when dealing with very small admixtures? '''
I remain unconvinced about his use of 'ghost' basal Eurasian ( I find it is uneccessary) , but I think Kale's models overall make sense. Certainly, for big picture qpGraph is fairly robust, despite some recent claims to the contrary (probably because theyre using ADMIXTOOLS 2, which is randomly generated coin toss incapable of deciphering complex relationships)
But the % can vary, hence use qpAdm for evaluating finer details of admixture when possible
@ Zelto
''The interpretation I have is perfectly sound. You conceded almost every point I made earlier'
lol your models are ameteurish and ignore the evidence. Granted, they're less bad than Jaska's , but still unimpressive overall. I mean you can't even perform analysis first hand.
So it seems that delusions in addition to dishonesty are part of your Beta package.
''Ultimatly derived from, yes. You're missing a few steps between Fatyanovo and Andronovo groups in "Iran" though.''
Don't worry, the regulars here understand the details. It is newby you who doesn't understand the very basics, so try to catch up.
btw its spelled 'ultimately', if you're going to critique spelling don't embarrass yourself.
@gamerz_J
Well, they claim that PCA can't isolate Slavic ancestry, which is bullshit.
If they're claiming that Slavs have anything but very minor Scythian ancestry, then this is also bullshit.
@Davidski
I guess one way to make sense of it is that the "Scythians" they are talking about are actually European in ancestry ancient samples from modern-day Romania or Hungary.
Their model of what seem to be proto-Slavs as Germanic+Baltic+Scythian (if not just some form of SE European) is also perplexing.
But regarding what you said on PCA, that's probably Pavel Flegontov's input in the paper, he recently had posts on twitter arguing that within the last 4000 years at least, qpAdm PCA etc are unreliable.
https://twitter.com/PavelFlegontov/status/1714893447352537174
https://twitter.com/PavelFlegontov/status/1714908549019521322
Relevant paper:https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2023.04.25.538339v2
PS. How accurate would you say that these IBD methods are in general? I remember seeing some odd results re: Yamnaya-CW and Matt had touched upon this too after Ringbauer's preprint came out.
@gamerz_J
IBD is a genealogical tool.
This needs to be kept in mind, because people who share significant recent genealogy need not be from the same ethnic group.
For instance, I bet some of those "Slavs" in their IBD analysis are Turks or Huns with Slavic grandmothers or mothers.
That's why fine scale PCA is also important. Fine scale PCA can find very specific ethnic clusters that are not necessarily made up of recent relatives, but rather from people who come from the same very specific gene pools.
I'll say a lot more about this IBD vs PCA thing when they release that Slavic preprint or paper.
@Rob
"lol your models are ameteurish and ignore the evidence. Granted, they're less bad than Jaska's , but still unimpressive overall. I mean you can't even perform analysis first hand.
So it seems that delusions in addition to dishonesty are part of your Beta package."
If you were confident in your own first hand "analysis", you wouldn't have appealed to the Peltola paper for validation.
I've said numerous times that a population shift occurred, but you read even worse than you spell. Recall, our agreement that Textile ware may have come from the West.
Be specific with your criticism. So far, you've only managed to strawman.
"btw its spelled 'ultimately', if you're going to critique spelling don't embarrass yourself"
I missed an 'e'. Your jumbled prose make me sound like James Joyce.
The "Scythian/Sarmatian" ancestry in proto-Slavs probably comes from the high EEF groups of eastern Europe/northern Balkans that we've seen repeatedly pop up in Hungary and surrounds, the ones some people call Daco-Thracian. These groups genetically persisted for a long time, under Roman, Scythian, Sarmatian, Avar, Gothic, Hunnic etc rule.
Genotypes for NEV2
https://www.mediafire.com/file/46vjqtbd71nvi4i/NEV2.zip/file
BTW Bacho Kiro sample F6-620 has no G25 coordinates, could they be made?
The genotype file of Prince Dmitry. David is it possible to make a G25, please
https://www.mediafire.com/file/46vjqtbd71nvi4i/NEV2.zip/file
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Bacho Kiro sample F6-620 has no G25 coordinates, could they be made?
If you post a link to the genotypes I can have a look.
@Davidski
I think the data is present in the 1240K dataset but if you need them in plink format then sure I can send them.
@Davidski
The sample has a duplicate which is far lower coverage too but I don't think it needs to be merged with considering the great coverage on F6-620
NEV2_scaled,0.104717,0.016248,0.035449,0.015504,-0.010156,0.000558,0.00376,0,-0.02168,-0.015672,-0.007632,0.003597,-0.006095,-0.005643,0.003122,-0.00305,-0.002217,-0.003041,-0.004777,0.005503,-0.005989,0.002597,0.000493,0.00253,-0.00455
NEV2,0.0092,0.0016,0.0094,0.0048,-0.0033,0.0002,0.0016,0,-0.0106,-0.0086,-0.0047,0.0024,-0.0041,-0.0041,0.0023,-0.0023,-0.0017,-0.0024,-0.0038,0.0044,-0.0048,0.0021,0.0004,0.0021,-0.0038
Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene:F6-620_noUDG,-0.078538,-0.144205,-0.090886,0.074936,0.010463,-0.01255,0.00094,-0.006692,0.0407,0.010934,0.006008,-0.007643,0.010109,0.005643,0.001493,-0.015778,0.000522,0.016089,-0.000251,0.015132,0.004617,0.002473,-0.007272,-0.007471,-0.003353
Bulgaria_BachoKiro_LatePleistocene:F6-620_noUDG,-0.0069,-0.0142,-0.0241,0.0232,0.0034,-0.0045,0.0004,-0.0029,0.0199,0.006,0.0037,-0.0051,0.0068,0.0041,0.0011,-0.0119,0.0004,0.0127,-0.0002,0.0121,0.0037,0.002,-0.0059,-0.0062,-0.0028
https://www.academia.edu/108547976/Ten_Constraints_that_Limit_the_Late_PIE_Homeland_to_the_Steppes
I don't agree with some of the cladistic discussion near the end but he is clearly quite passionate about this.
He seems to confirm CopperAxe's observation that the Csongrad rider had Steppe ancestry, and is almost certainly the Q1b individual mentioned in the Khvalynsk paper.
@EthanR
I deleted my Academia.edu account a while ago so I can't access it.
Has he come up with anything new that is useful?
Nothing really new, it's mostly a review of the recent bioarchaeological and linguistic but there are some funny jabs:
" A millennium later their descendants’ steppe ancestry could have been lost through local admixture before they moved into Anatolia, accounting for the absence of steppe autosomal ancestry in Anatolia. Lazaridis et al. (2022) described an analogous case of a loss of steppe autosomal ancestry in a one-millennium time-series of individuals dated ca. 1500–500 BCE in Armenia".
I do wonder how long it will take for it to be consensus that there is recent balkan admixture in many of the relevant Anatolian individuals, and, by extension, already a bit of Steppe ancestry.
@EthanR
Thanks for sharing Anthony's article (and plugging one of my blog posts)! I was very surprised to say the least that the finding of a 5th millenium BC steppe-related individual having osteological signs of being a horse rider was just a footnote in their article, with a heavy focus on Yamnaya. Meanwhile Orlando's team still seem to peddle that horses were only domesticated circa 2000 bc (saw this in a news article about a paper on donkey domestication, stating that they were domesticated 3000 years prior to the horse)...
Anthony is persisting with the Khvalynsk-Csongrad horizon theory but they did not make it to Anatolia. They disappeared with Varna & the patron-client relations moved the other way to what he claims
The post-4000 groups reached western Anatolia
I don't know how literal he is being when he says Csongrad has Khvalynsk -like ancestry (or what that even means, does it just mean a lack of ANF?). But it is interesting he is repeating it again here, where a reference to Khvalynsk is not necessary.
@ Ethan
''I don't know how literal he is being when he says Csongrad has Khvalynsk -like ancestry (or what that even means, does it just mean a lack of ANF?). But it is interesting he is repeating it again here, where a reference to Khvalynsk is not necessary.'''
My point was more about what time phase he places the detachment of proto-Anatolians. As written previously ,e.g. with Ringe, he links it to the pre-4000 bc horizon (broadly synchronous with Khvalynsk), but Im contending the proto-Anatolian detachment (acc. to a western route) moved several hundred years later, but still before Yamnaya.
Moreover, his narrative that Khvalynsk were chiefs in the patron-client relationship is unfounded according to the contextual analysis of early steppe individuals south of the Danube.
@Rob do you know of any literature regarding the formation of Cernavoda? Most of what I've come across is rather vague, beyond the obvious typologies.
But yes his obsession with Khvalynsk is funny, given that it continues to look more like a genetic sink than a source.
@ Ethan
“Grundzüge einer Kulturgeschichte des nordwestlichen Schwarz-meergebietes im 5. und 4. Jahrtausend v. Chr. “
Govedarica/ Manzura
“History carved by the dagger: the Society of the Usatovo Culture in the 4th Millennium BC”. Manzura
There are also some good articles by young Romanian scholars
Older and older riding is difficult from the point of view of seeing riding itself as a very decisive event explaining the steppe population expansion, because then it doesn't coincide then much with a population spread and turnover, or with a export or expansion of the domesticated horse population themselves. If you were thinking about domesticated horses being ridden in the 5th millennium, then them having a causal role in population expansion in the 3rd millennium is not so easy, and it can't have been a cultural advance that other cultures were keen to copy and technology they were looking to import.
Even with the Yamnaya/CWC, even in Europe perhaps there is some turnover of horse ancestry but still enough local ancestry that there is ambiguity in the model, with no real sign wider afield.
But horses see very rapid turnovers with the DOM2 horse, which in fact seems to spread into the Near East or at least Turkey seems to me almost instanteously with it being found at Sintashta and independently of human genetics.
So y'know even if riding develops early at like 4000 BCE there are reasons that the turnover of horses only happens like 2000 BCE and this particular lineage spreads between cultures rapidly.
So it becomes more that it has to be the combination of this riding in some sense with a pastoralist model perhaps enabled by the wheel or wagon, and that this is linked to the strong bottleneck described by Ringbauer in the IBD or seen in the y-lineages, if horse riding is important to the circa ~3000 BCE population expansion.
None of that means its wrong to find these things and should be explore (https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/981424 - DA 03/03/2023: "Clearly, we need to apply this method to even older collections.”); it just has implications. Possibly this is something Anthony is a bit shy about exploring, not only for reasons of professional caution, but as it seems like he places more emphasis on riding in-and-of-itself.
@ Matt
The “Yamnaya expansion” was probably based on the mobile pastoral economy which enabled life on the steppe , not horse riding. But horse riding was an earlier prerequisite for pastoralism. The fact that guys from east of the Don were appearing in Varna contexts must imply significant mobility
What Anthony thinks on horse domestication is that early steppe people were horse riding nomads, but the horses weren't bred for warfare, only pastoralism. It would've taken a while to breed horses that were suited for warfare (he said early horses would have been "skiddish" in war situations).
But this is why even early steppe people could cover absurd amounts of distance. That's why we have graves in China and Central Europe being distant cousins. This would require horse riding.
@DragonHermit
That's why we have graves in China and Central Europe being distant cousins. This would require horse riding.
No, because whole families traveled into Central Europe and China.
They weren't just males and they didn't travel on horseback, but on wagons.
I don't think Anthony underestimates how horseriding in Yamnaya has different social implications than what came before, and Sintashta even more radical implications than Yamnaya. his book chapter from this year on Yamnaya was quite detailed.
I think a fair criticism is his account of Suvorovo in the chain of events. Obviously they did not ride directly into Anatolia. But how 5th millennium horseriding, which you would think is mostly just capable of maintaining trade and communication networks, contributed to a persistent population with Steppe ancestry like Cernavoda, which was able to maintain a faint genetic signal and even greater uniparental impact (most of the Balkan EBA I-l701) is unclear to me.
@rob thanks
@ Zelto
Okay, perhaps we agree for most things, just need to clarify chronology
@ Vlad
I think some Russian archaeologists proposed migrations to Fennoscandia, were right, bringing Ymyyakhtakh -influenced ceramics. Apart from Schumkin's 1984 PhD, is there anything more recent on this ?
This is not news. The Nyakhtakh style is characterized by the culture of "waffle" ceramics. This fact is recognized by archaeology. However, this culture is not the source of the textile ceramics culture. Conclusion from Shumkin's 2022 article "During the excavation of the Kola Oleneostrovsky burial ground (3.5 thousand years ago) using new analysis methods, it turned out that the anthropological and genetic features (DNA) of the buried do not find direct analogies with representatives of the modern population of Northern Fennoscandia, radically differ in characteristics from both Neolithic Laplanders and Sami groups, and, consequently, the ancient Oleneostrovians cannot be either descendants of the former or ancestors of the latter, while showing a tendency to approach representatives of the so-called "Ural race" living now in the north of Western Siberia."
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FQBwnmmqfqnOvBj9XHPdBJX53leuhXfQ/view?usp=drivesdk
@ Vlad
Thanks for link. I asked specifically about the influence of Siberian ceramics in BA northern Russia, not Textile Ceramics issue.
Wr.t. the 'DNA analysis" in the citation, its mostly old perspectives based on skull shapes and concepts such as the "Uralic race". Obviously modern Saami have large amounts of introgression from neighbouring groups, and only a well thought out analysis will explain how they relate to other FU and putative early Uralics from which BOO came.
There are also other archaeological cultures of the Late Bronze Age - Early Iron having Siberian origin, for example, the Korshakov culture, the Atamannyur culture, the culture of "cross-shaped" ceramics, the Gamayun culture. But these cultures were located around the northern Urals, they did not reach Fennosaandia, were located in the northern taiga and tundra strip, and did not expand further south. All of them were absorbed by Ananyino culture.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/kamennaya-industriya-rubezha-epoh-bronzy-i-zheleza-po-materialam-poseleniya-oralovskoe-ozero-ii-na-reke-vishere/viewer
FTDNA labels lower don NEO212 as I-L699
Awesome to see.
@ Vlad
''There are also other archaeological cultures of the Late Bronze Age - Early Iron having Siberian origin''
Correct. That is why upthread I outlined that ''There was a series of already differentiated migrations into northeast Europe by Yakutia_LN types, meaning the disintegration had occurred by 2000 BC'
- thus the linguistic chronology you cited above by a certain linguist is wrong, as its not based on science, but ''loan word voodoo'' & guessing
This Schumkin persona is also wrong. Apart from his pseudo-scientific 'genetic analysis', he claims the northern most groups are ''primitive Arctic-Asians'', who could not have possibly imparted cultural change amongst the 'advanced cultures of north-western Russia' (such as?), but were instead rapidly assimilated. As a result of his and other Russian archaeologist views, the Finnic linguists and their fanboys have been dismissive of the significance of BOO. Both groups will be strongly criticised in the future.
Ananyino is too late to be western Fino-Uralic, it possibly represents some derived branch such as Mari. But its hard to say without proper genomes and dates, plus there were other shifts during the Sarmatian & Hun eras.
The independent flint tools & material culture also shows that these groups are not simply scions of S-T, but have their own independence and paths of migration.
On the other hand, many other groups deemed to be Uralic-related might not be, but are post-Andronovo groups with marginal KRa-1 admixture.
Hence, we must reject 'traditional explanations' on multiple levels.
@EthanR
FTDNA labels lower don NEO212 as I-L699
What's the date of this sample?
@davidski it should be middle don*, they are labeled erroneously in places. This guy is the same date as the others, 5400-5200bc.
It also had roughly the same autosomal profile as the others.
@ Dave - notice anything about it ?
Not really. It seems to be on that same Progress>Ukraine_N cline like the rest of the Middle Don samples, and also Yamnaya and early Corded Ware.
So it appears that Progress-like people mixed with foragers around the Don and probably in Ukraine, and Yamnaya eventually came from that.
What is really amazing is how far north and how early in Eastern Europe this process was taking place. I had no idea we'd see samples like this north of the steppe well before 5,000 BCE.
@EthanR
Thanks, what are the raw data terminal Y-DNA and mtDNA mutations for all of the Middle Don samples?
@davidski
Between TheYtree and FTDNA:
NEO113 Y: R-M459 MT: U2e1a1
NEO207 Y: (n/a) MT: U5a1c
NEO209 Y: R-M459 MT: U5b2
NEO204 Y: I-P220 MT: U4
NEO210 Y: R-M459 MT: U5a2b
NEO212 Y: I-L699 MT: U4a2a
The only discrepancy I see is that TheYtree is more aggressive in labeling NEO210 R-M198.
I'm not sure they are descendant of anyone (although G25 likes them+Progress to model Yamnaya) but they are evidence for a network connecting the neighboring regions, which is consistent to some degree with archeological observations.
I'm still curious as to whether any of them have ANF or if it's just an artifact. If not, it's a mystery to me how it would end up there at such an early point.
@ Ethan
''It's a mystery to me how it would end up there at such an early point.''
Who's the mystery ?
@Rob
It's before Tripolye pushes deep into Ukraine. There seems to be more of it in some of the Middle Don samples than is in PG2001, so I'm not sure if a southern origin is more likely.
I don't really have a strong opinion of where it came from but it would be nice to know, as it may have implications for what we should expect to find on the Lower Don.
@ EthanR
Do you mean they have EEF/ ANF ? We'd have to check formally
But it would still be from the West, via the hunter-gatherer networks
@Davidski “ So it appears that Progress-like people mixed with foragers around the Don and probably in Ukraine, and Yamnaya eventually came from that.”
With all due respect to @Samuel Andrews, whom I deeply respect, this ethnogenesis makes much sense to me rather than his theory of a CHG rich group bringing PIE’s predecessor speech to Khvalynsk.
A question: which group do you think brought PIE’s parent language to Yamnaya: the indigenous Don foragers or the Progress newcomers?
@Rob @Vladimir et al:
“ This period 2000BC-1500BC is Seima-Turbino and Chirkovo. Chirkovo itself is more like Volsk-Lbishchevo than Fatyanovo or Abashevo. I think that Rus_poltav_ka_o is Volsk-Lbishchevo, not Poltava. ''
Would you affirm that the red hair and strong Europoid features of Mordvins and other Volgaic Finnic speakers are inherently from a strong Indo-European, likely Iranic, possibly Scythian/Sarmatic?
Is there any discernible vocabulary from GAC and/or Tripolye in core IE languages? If so, was it before the Anatolian branch split or afterwards?
@Andrzejewski
It's not necessarily true that Indo-European had just one parent language.
@ Andrze
''A question: which group do you think brought PIE’s parent language to Yamnaya: the indigenous Don foragers or the Progress newcomers?'
Theoretical contact linguistics, based on ethnographic observations, describe various scenarios possible when two communities come into contact.
More data is required to understand the local dynamics, but it's fairly clear that the males from the Khvalynsk-Progress network did not form the leading role and instead appear to have been for the large part replaced by those from the Dnieper-Don region. I think various renditions of the "CHG hypothesis' have largely revolved around them supposedly migrating to the steppe and bringing a cultural package, neither of which are presently supported by evidence.
@EthanR
I'm still curious as to whether any of them have ANF or if it's just an artifact. If not, it's a mystery to me how it would end up there at such an early point.
Yeah, these are shotgun samples probably without any UDG treatment, and it seems like they do carry a bit of that typical shotgun "basal" noise.
This noise usually comes through as very minor Sub-Saharan admixture, but if not accounted for it can appear as other things, possibly even ANF ancestry.
I did a word find for the title and didn't see a post for this paper.
I haven't read it yet myself. It was in my mail.
Anthony, 2024, Proceedings of the 33rd Annual UCLA Indo-European Conference. Hamburg: Buske. 1–25.:
https://www.academia.edu/108547976/Ten_Constraints_that_Limit_the_Late_PIE_Homeland_to_the_Steppes
@ D and re NEV2: is this the G25 result of Dimitry Aleksandrovits i.e. Дми́трий Алекса́ндрович Переяславский? NEV2_scaled,0.104717,0.016248,0.035449,0.015504,-0.010156,0.000558,0.00376,0,-0.02168,-0.015672,-0.007632,0.003597,-0.006095,-0.005643,0.003122,-0.00305,-0.002217,-0.003041,-0.004777,0.005503,-0.005989,0.002597,0.000493,0.00253,-0.00455. Looks like a Conqueror Hungarian or even Avar to me, I wonder why is that? Also, see here: https://minio.nplus1.ru/app-images/837658/6512bf1ca1de6_img_desktop.jpeg
Supposedly that's what it is, but I can't vouch for the quality of the data used.
Someone just posted the data here and I ran it.
@Rob
I read that Anthony 2024 paper. What a waste of time, he is as delusional as ever. It is not so much a scientific paper as him writing fiction to plug all the holes in his outdated hypothesis. His explanation for the Anatolian branch is borderline lazy and dismissive, he put no effort into even suggesting something plausible other than ignorantly stating "it happened". Obviously because he has nothing to support it. He brings up R1b Z2103 in Armenians when it is convenient to do so to support his hypothesis but completely ignores Y DNA otherwise since it outright contradicts the rest of the bullshit theory he peddles.
Currently there are two plausible ways to explain the appearance of Anatolian languages in Anatolia, and both are supported by ancient DNA:
- contacts between the western edge of the steppe and western Anatolia via the eastern Balkans, with the dilution of steppe ancestry starting already at the western edge of the steppe and continuing in Anatolia (supported by minor Balkan and steppe ancestry in some Bronze Age Anatolians)
- migrations via the Caucasus starting during the Copper Age, bringing the Kurgan burial tradition from Eastern Europe to West Asia, and resulting in the formation of the Kura-Araxes culture (supported by steppe ancestry in Copper Age Armenia and in Kura-Araxes).
The first is the mainstream hypothesis and the one that makes most sense overall.
Unfortunately, both hypotheses have been largely ignored in recent scientific literature, especially in papers dealing with ancient DNA.
The David Reich Lab has totally ignored them, which has made it difficult for David Anthony to offer anything useful, since he's relying on the David Reich Lab for an explanation of the ancient DNA evidence.
And this is about the only ancient DNA paper so far that has made any sense in regards to the Kura-Araxes culture.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s42003-023-04681-w
@David
The fact that there samples from Suvorovo related burials with steppe ancestry as well as without steppe ancestry is telling. The Cernavoda I samples showing steppe ancestry as well. The proposed western route relied on that and it fits Chang's language tree.
I read that Anatolian languages are simpler than Late PIE in a number of ways but hold archaic features which would actually fit such a scenario. This is sometimes explained by suggesting late PIE developed complexity after the Anatolian split. One of the arguments for migration as source for IE languages is that is retained the complexity when spread over large distances, so maybe it could also be a sign of a more cultural, non-genetic transfer.
"It's not necessarily true that Indo-European had just one parent language."
There is a people in India, Aka, in which the majority speak a completely different and even unrelated language than one of the subtribes, yet all identify as Aka. While genetic transfer is a nice fit for a model which uses migration, it is by no means exclusively the way languages transfer.
https://www.sapiens.org/language/new-languages-discovered/
I think the second Rob above you linked the paper should have a qualifier, otherwise thisll get confusing.
- OG Rob
@ Davidski
You've mentioned K.A. a few times, but the LK-A period in the southern Caucasus represents a nadir in steppe ancestry compared to earlier indiviuals from Areni cave as well as the Catacomb MBA migrants.
Yes, but Kura-Araxes is a steppe influenced culture.
So even though steppe ancestry arrived in the south Caucasus before Kura-Araxes, and it was then diluted, it's clear that cultural impulses from the steppe inspired or even created the Kura-Araxes phenomenon.
Sure they probably absorbed some elements from the steppe & Majkop, but K-A seem to represent an oppositional phenomenon with a rise in archaic-type of CHG (rather than more southern Caucasian Farmers) & drop in other types of ancestry, incl steppe.
Thse groups appear to have led to the collapse of Majkop phenomenon. Looks like a local Caucasian takeover against trans-regional Elites.
@Rob
It was a complex picture for sure, but there's even evidence for direct contacts between Kura-Araxes and steppe people.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-potentially-violent-end-to-kura.html
I have long said that we need to take a close look at these large-scale changes in the Caucasus during the MBA period. And Harvard sees this migration. But these are not Armenians (no matter how much the Armenians themselves would like it). The migration of Armenians was described by Dyakonov and this is the LBA migration as part of the Phrygian migration. The main objection to the idea that migration through the Caucasus during the MBA period is the Anatolians is linguistic. The Anatolian and Indo-European split occurred 4000-3500 BC, and MBA is too late for such a split. However, you need to understand that the Novotitarovka culture migrated to the MBA through the Caucasus. This culture, although considered part of the Yamnaya horizon, is distinguished by the fact that in it the Yamnaya population did not absorb the local culture, as happened in all other cases, but there was a unification of the Yamnaya and Maykop cultures. For this reason, many researchers do not consider the Novotitarovka culture to be part of the Yamnaya culture, but consider it an independent culture. Therefore, in the Caucasus of the MBA period, you need to look not for “pure” Yamnaya, but rather for a mix of Yamnaya + Maykop. In this regard, the linguistic split of the Novotitarovka culture and the Yamnaya culture occurred no later than 3500 BC, when the steppe tribes of the North Caucasus began to mix with the Maykop culture.
Re NEV2: possibly Dimitry Aleksandrovitsh had a Mongol mother or something, the other part of the sample perhaps looks like Russia_Viking. Difficult to say why the first choice of Vahaduo G25 is a Hungarian Conqueror or even Avar, if there in reality isn't any Yakutia_LNBA type of admixture in place?
@ Vlad
Novotikarovka isn’t the same thing as what we see in the Armenia MBA
The latter is far more Western as it has Yhg I2c from Central Europe, but not Majkop J2. And it here migrations occurred 2200 bc
That goes well with a European affinity of Armenian language is. On the other hand, what’s the evidence D. presents for migrations from balkans and Troy toward eastern Anatolia & Armenia ?
@ Dave
What that post is describing is the collapse of KA, due to invasion from east Central Europe
@Rob
That article is describing the start of the Catacomb-related push into the south Caucasus via Dagestan.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/02/catacomb-armeniamlba.html
@Rob
Analysis of written sources, toponymy and linguistics. He did not touch archaeology because he is a linguist himself. But this is a huge book of 250 pages - I. M. Diakonov
The prehistory of the Armenian people
The history of the Armenian Highlands from 1500 to 500 BC
. Hittites, Luvians, Proto-Armenians
http://annales.info/other/djakonov/index.htm#pian
http://annales.info/other/djakonov/03.htm?ysclid=lodqo15zwc271481366
@ Rob
“The latter is far more Western as it has Yhg I2c from Central Europe”
I sent some Italian I2c to Ken Nordtvedt perhaps 15 years ago and he, who was the best expert of hg. I, classified them as “Adriatic”, because they were present both in the Balkans and Italy. I didn’t follow that hg since then, but many samples were in the Tuscan Apennine.
@ Vlad
I suspect he basing it mostly on Herodotus. I dont think linguistics can clearly differentiate which path people migrated when the exact internal IE phylogeny isnt even agreed upon. Population dynamics is needed.
By the way it is in English http://www.attalus.org/armenian/diakph11.htm
@ Vlad
as you said, based on one authors interpretation of typonyms and tribal names
The Novotitarovskaya culture is a mixed Yamnaya - Majkop successor. This feeds into Caucasus MBA types, which is difficult to link to Anatolia. Also, Yamnaya represents only some late PIE tribes, not even all of them, so it's hard to see how it could be related to proto-Anatolian
@Davidski
Going back on the Slavic IBD thing a bit, this poster is making the rounds: https://imgur.com/VDaWX8u on the formation of Turkic speakers.
You can see on the right corner graph that alleged Slavic pops share substantial IBD with alleged Turkic pops, including those in C. Asia it would seem, so that is perhaps why they claim there is some minor Turkic/Sarmatian/C Asian ancestry in Slavs. Though it's not really clear either way.
However, I don't know if it's strictly recently genealogical because you see IBD connections over millennia apparently, between BA and IA pops.
Also curious what you or Matt/Rob/anyone else here make of these IBD sharing between Caucasus_BA and IE speakers, perhaps it's a rehash of their previous pre-print.
@gamerz_J
I can't make out much from that poster. I would need to see the stats that the figures are based on.
Like I said, it's total bullshit if they claim that Slavs have anything more than very minor Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry, and I'll demonstrate this so that they understand it well once they release their data.
Also, no idea who they're calling Bronze Age Indo-Europeans, so again I can't comment until I find out.
@ Davidski
Probably to follow the uniparental markers and not the many times mixed autosome is more useful. We know the old origin of hg R from the Siberian corridor, but probably it developed in Europe, I think around the Alps, at least from 17000 years ago, and many times migrated again to Asia. It is clear for all the R1 subclades, both a and b.
@Davidski
“Like I said, it's total bullshit if they claim that Slavs have anything more than very minor Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry, and I'll demonstrate this so that they understand it well once they release their data.”
I have a cousin in Golden Horde in Kazakhstan:
Distance to:
Kazakhstan_GoldenHordeEuro.SG:DA29_noUDG.SG
0.02381348 East Pole scaled
https://postimg.cc/t7grPf60
https://postimg.cc/7bQKNV15
Steppe people had been mixing with Slavic farmers for millennia. Probably from the Bronze Age. That IBD sharing of the Abashevo with Central European Mierzanowice/Nitra/Eastern Unetice (R1a-Z280 and therefore Slavic IMO) was of the same nature.
Ydna Z-2103 -- ancestors of elite burials of homogeneous Turganik ( copper smelting,-wagon wheel+ horse + iron)clans, and Sintashta Z-93(copper smelting, chariot spoke wheel + horse) clans, show up in modern day Armenia and Anatolia(ancient Hittites) in different ratios. Sredny Stogg late phase Deriivka, Novotitarovskaya culture, and Abashievo and Catacomb also have different ratios of the above ydna lines.
@ a
“Ydna Z-2103 -- ancestors of elite burials of homogeneous Turganik ( copper smelting,-wagon wheel+ horse + iron) clans”
I have no difficulty in believing that my Y (R-L23-Z2110-FGC24408 etc) did come from the chieftains of Yamnaya, but, just looking at the FTDNA tree, we may see that the oldest documented aDNA is R-Z2109 Samara Valley38 3339-2916BCE, whereas the haplogroup was born around 6600 years ago, just a few later of the separation of R-M73*, whose oldest survived samples are in Italy and Iberia, thus I don’t think, with the data at our disposal, that my hypothesis of an origin westernmost is falsified. The oldest samples in aDNA aren’t found so far in eastern Europe or Asia and neither in the Baltic if not the oldest R-M73*. I hope that they will be found in some places around the Alps or nearby.
@Gio
For sure you have proven ancient Villabruna, much to the dismay of some. We shall see about M73 and how it is connected with I0443.
Interesting feature Anthony did not bring up in respect to the genetics/linguistics of agriculture versus viniculture.
For example Latin and Georgian region both have Z2103(Latin tribal clans) and both regions have similar words for Vino--Latin vinum, Georgian ღვინო (ghvee-no)
--------------------------------------------------------------------
The earliest archaeological and archaeobotanical evidence for grape wine and viniculture, dating to 6000–5800 BCE was found on the territory of modern Georgia.[16][17] Both archaeological and genetic evidence suggest that the earliest production of wine elsewhere was relatively later, likely having taken place in the Southern Caucasus (which encompasses Armenia, Georgia and Azerbaijan), or the West Asian region between Eastern Turkey, and northern Iran.[18][19] The earliest known winery from 4100 BCE is the Areni-1 winery in Armenia.[11][20]
The English word "wine" comes from the Proto-Germanic *winam, an early borrowing from the Latin vinum, Georgian ღვინო (ghvee-no), "wine", itself derived from the Proto-Indo-European stem *win-o- (cf. Armenian: գինի, gini; Ancient Greek: οἶνος oinos; Aeolic Greek: ϝοῖνος woinos; Hittite: wiyana; Lycian: oino).[44][45][46] The earliest attested terms referring to wine are the Mycenaean Greek 𐀕𐀶𐀺𐄀𐀚𐀺 me-tu-wo ne-wo (*μέθυϝος νέϝῳ),[47][48] meaning "in (the month)" or "(festival) of the new wine", and 𐀺𐀜𐀷𐀴𐀯 wo-no-wa-ti-si,[49] meaning "wine garden", written in Linear B inscriptions.[50][51][52][53] Linear B also includes, inter alia, an ideogram for wine, i.e. 𐂖.
The ultimate Indo-European origin of the word is the subject of some continued debate. Some scholars have noted the similarities between the words for wine in Indo-European languages (e.g. Armenian gini, Latin vinum, Ancient Greek οἶνος, Russian вино [vʲɪˈno]), Kartvelian (e.g. Georgian ღვინო [ˈɣvino])
@Davidski
Here's genotypes for an individual from Borsuka cave
https://www.mediafire.com/file/9stwwy68d9t5uxp/C7675.zip/file
@ a
To base a theory upon a single word is useless, because a word may be a wanderwort as surely “wine” is, and about its oldest origin there are different hypotheses. Nothing against the theory that the origin of the wineculture is in the Caucasus. That the Alps and the Caucasus had many links also in very old times and also many haplogroups in common I have been saying from the beginning of my research. About R-V1636 I thought having found that the migration was from the Alps to the Caucasus because Italy gets all the 5 known haplotypes and the Caucasus ony 1, but other results have been found so far and my old theory should be updated, even though the oldest survived samples are always in Italy and Iberia. About the origin of the Armenians I thought that it was proved that the IE language did come from the Balkans with the about 30% of the Armenian autosome, but many other data should be taken into account now.Of course I have nothing against the Caucasian peoples, but they have all my sympathy. Mine are only hypotheses based upon the data that was at my disposal then. Also my haplogroup have links in the Armenian and Georgian pool, even though from 3100 years ago the presence in Italy is massive, and an origin of some noble Georgian families at the Roman Empire time shouldn’t be excluded, but of course I take into account also a medieval migration from Caucasus to Italy as it is for other hgs. I am in contact with some of these persons, also from India not only from Caucasus, but a possible descent from the charioteers of Sintashta, as I thought in a first time, isn’t probable.
Poland_Borsuka_MUP:C7675,0.095611,0.106631,0.056191,0.055556,0.037238,0.015897,0.00752,0.006,0.010431,-0.01221,0.000487,-0.002847,0.01442,0.009771,0.002307,0.006099,0.000391,0.002154,0.005405,-0.00025,0.004118,0.005441,-0.000863,-0.006748,0.002155
Poland_Borsuka_MUP:C7675,0.0084,0.0105,0.0149,0.0172,0.0121,0.0057,0.0032,0.0026,0.0051,-0.0067,0.0003,-0.0019,0.0097,0.0071,0.0017,0.0046,0.0003,0.0017,0.0043,-0.0002,0.0033,0.0044,-0.0007,-0.0056,0.0018
There's now a PMDS filtered version of the sample which should be less contaminated. Could you give it a try?
@All
I'm in the market for a new computer and was wondering what kind of rig would be best for someone interested in doing their own analysis with Admixtools and whatnot. Years ago I tried installing the old Admixtools on my comp (Intel i5 with 6GB ram) and it was murder running any kind of stats because of how computationally intense the Admixtools packages were/are. Granted I didn't do much pruning of files or creating my own smaller datasets which probably would have helped but still.
I'm wondering if something with 12GB of ram would be good enough to handle analysis or would 16GB be preferable?
@Davidski
Hey Dave I have a question in regards to Polish and Baltic genetics. How common is it for Poles and Balts to display .1-2% Ashkenazi on 23andme? I don't display this affinity in either 23andme or AncestryDNA but my paternal Polish-Lithuanian/South Italian aunt does display 1.1% Ashkenazi in 23andme, but it's not Litvak (she just took the test so perhaps it will update and disappear?). I don't trust forums such as reddit due to the fact that those people seem to believe every little signal in these calculators, and tbh they don't know what they are talking about or how these things seem to work. I thought you said a while back that such minute signals in Ukrainians/Poles/Balts/Belarusians are not out of the ordinary due to the heavy Eastern European/West Slavic/Balto-Slavic maternal contribution to Ashkenazi autosomal genetics, it could also be noise related or a conflation because she also displays Azerbaijani matches despite being of partial southern Italian origin.
@Simon
From what I've seen, ~1% Ashkenazi in Poles isn't common at 23andMe, but I haven't been at 23andMe for a while.
It's true that Ashkenazi Jews have 10-15% Slavic ancestry, so in analyses with Ashkenazi ancestral clusters some Slavic haplotypes will look Jewish.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
I can give it a try, but the G25 isn't really designed for analyzing Paleolithic samples.
RAM is pretty cheap these days so unless you're really on a budget you aren't going to save much there by not getting 4 GB of RAM. And these days 32 GB is pretty cheap and should be enough for anything you throw at it
@Davidski
Thanks, I’ve come across stuff from Reddit like this “Slavic and Baltic people from Poland, Lithuania, Latvia, Belarus, and Ukraine have trace amounts of Ashkenazi Jewish DNA. That whole region had a lot of Jewish people living there for centuries, and some of them integrated into other populations. Also, Ashkenazi DNA is extremely identifiable in general, so the likelihood that the European Jewish on your results is wrong is very, very low (as in <1%).” I’ve always read in papers the opposite of this, that being Jewish males took women from these regions, and that is why many have this affinity, shared Eastern European ancestry mediated (in Jews) by Eastern European females.
Interesting that that IBD graph shows clear connections between Bronze Age Caucuses and Bronze Age Indo-Europeans.
@Davidski
Re: poster, I think they are just using Ringbauer's method, given how their IBD seems to transect long historical periods from BA to IA and beyond I would say that long-term drifted populations seem to preserve IBD relationships for a longer time than normal and perhaps why these connections are appearing.
Perhaps the IBD Slavs-Mongols/Turks (not easy to make it out) is exactly that minor autosomal ancestry, I am guessing if 1-2% would show as IBD connections with a variety of samples if the admixing population was relatively isolated for a long period of time.
You can see Flegontov's IBD graph on Slavs here if interested: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/F9-0XHuWYAAFCuw?format=jpg&name=4096x4096
@DragonHermit
Interesting that that IBD graph shows clear connections between Bronze Age Caucuses and Bronze Age Indo-Europeans.
The Bronze Age Caucasus samples are probably the MBA/LBA samples from Armenia with 20-30% steppe ancestry.
@gamerz_J
The claim by Flegontov that Slavs have Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry is based on PCA not IBD.
That's what the abstract from the Slavic preprint that you showed me clearly states.
However, Flegontov is misinterpreting the PCA, and I'll explain why that is when the preprint or paper comes out.
The IBD graph is a different matter, and it doesn't necessarily show that all Slavs have IBD originating from Turks, Scythians or Sarmatians.
If you look at the graph more closely, it's clear that the Slavic cluster is small, with only a few outliers, while the Turkic cluster is much larger with complex substructures.
Therefore, the Turks are genetically much more heterogeneous than the Slavs and they are likely to be the ones who are mixed.
@Davidski
The files are at the same mediafire link BTW
Poland_Borsuka_MUP:C7675,0.103579,0.093429,0.048271,0.071383,0.03693,0.017849,-0.012691,0.009461,0.031906,-0.028611,0.006496,3e-04,0.025718,0.015276,0.013301,0.017634,-0.005607,-0.015963,0.004902,0.013006,0.011854,-0.001855,0.006655,-0.010242,0.003712
Poland_Borsuka_MUP:C7675,0.0091,0.0092,0.0128,0.0221,0.012,0.0064,-0.0054,0.0041,0.0156,-0.0157,0.004,0.0002,0.0173,0.0111,0.0098,0.0133,-0.0043,-0.0126,0.0039,0.0104,0.0095,-0.0015,0.0054,-0.0085,0.0031
@ Davidski
“Therefore, the Turks are genetically much more heterogeneous than the Slavs and they are likely to be the ones who are mixed”.
Great answer. In fact their “Turkish” origin in Turkish Anatolians is 100% for the language but not more than 7% for the genetics. The same probably for European Jews.
@Gamerz_J; yeah, I mostly agree with the suggestions that the poster doesn't really let us understand or test the meaning, and would encourage some skepticism.
Present-day West Slavic speakers seem to have no real detectable ancestry that prevents them being modelled as a clade by some appropriate NW European groups when using with deep outgroups (i.e. not including outgroups with specific drift to Baltic_BA or Europe_Middle_Neolithic or later; when you introduce either of these groups, it doesn't work). That's harder to explain if East and West Slavic speakers both descend from a group that had even at a low level ancestry some post-BA North/Central Eurasian ancestry shared from a predecessor population, and its easier to explain that East Slavic groups may have a low level geneflow from post-BA North/Central Eurasians. Otherwise perhaps you would need extensive geneflow from the Baltic and from pre-Slavic Central Europeans to explain why a signal would get diminished in West Slavic speakers, is the only way I can think of it being feasible.
Will wait and see their paper though; if nothing else if they find IBD connections between people for whom genome wide ancestry similarly has fallen very low, they would be a kind of fascinating result. 7 generations (so within 250 years) is potentially ancestry halving at 0.5^7, so might fall to <1% of genome wide ancestry, but might still be detectable in IBD links.
Welp, it was worth a shot. The tool does allow for C-T damage restriction too but at this point I'm not sure if that would help either.
I find these Balkan migration theories quite frankly mind numbing. Firstly, there was the so-called Armenian migration from the Balkans, which magically made Armenians jump over Phrygians and Anatolians to land in Armenia. But thankfully that's being put to rest.
Then it was the Anatolian languages migrating through there, when most Anatolian languages were strongest in EASTERN Anatolia, like the Hittites who engaged in war with ancient Egyptians. We know Phrygians have been there since at least 4,000 years ago.
If Anatolian comes from the steppe, it's probably through the Caucasus, maybe even from Khvalynsk related people. Let's not forget by 3500 to 3000 BC, horse riding had become common even amongst the Botai culture, let alone western steppe people. In reality, Proto-Anatolian just has to SPLIT from Yamnaya >4,000 BC, it doesn't have to be spoken in Anatolia at that time. Earliest attestation of Anatolian in Anatolia is 19th century BC.
So it could very likely be some eastern cousins of the Yamnaya (Khvalynsk?), probably carrying a non-M269 variant of R1b like the Arslanteppe noble, migrated south to the Caucausus and Indo-Europeanized some tribes around that region, which later migrated to Turkey and took over places like Arslanteppe.
One complication that may link ancient Anatolian populations to Paleo-Siberian/Native American populations is the striking parallels in the thunder god complex in Anatolian and those of Iroquoian- and Algonquian-speaking peoples of North America which may have something to to with the Steppe Maycop. The Iroquoian thunder god Hinon is the direct equivalent of Hittite/Luwian Tarhun/Teshub and Illuyanka is the direct equivalent of Iroquoian Onyare, Onyarhe, On-yar-he, O-ni-a-re, Oniares, Ohnyare, Ohnyare:kowa; Oniont, Oneyont, Angont; Donongaes, Doonogaes, Doonongaes; Jodi'gwadon. The Iroquoian thunder god even appears to have his own version of Tarhunt's Kursa, or hunting bag - a basket slung over his shoulder containing sharpened flints that he throws at his enemies.
In Barbeau's original works on Iroquoian myths and legends, the Iroquoians also had their own equivalent of the Hittite puruli* festival honoring the storm/thunder god. To quote Barbeau, "Among the Seneca, a special ceremony, called Wesaze, is held every spring in honor of the Thunderer.” See: "Supernatural Beings of the Huron and Wyandot" by C. M. Barbeau.
Link: https://www.jstor.org/stable/659612?seq=1
Cultural and linguistic links between west Eurasia and North America can now be regarded as more likely due to unexpected genomic links between populations of the Black Sea region and Native North Americans associated with "Ancestral Population B" (ANC-B) characterized by maternal DNA types X2 and C4. One researcher, Julien d’Huy, has suggested that the parallels between Greco-Roman and eastern North American versions of the Cosmic Hunt myth describing the creation of the Big Dipper/Ursa Major may be the result of shared deep maternal ancestry through mtDNA haplogroup X2.:
"A branch groups the Greek and Ojibwa versions. That can be explained by an ancient genetic link : haplogroup X2 appears to be essentially restricted to northern Amerindian groups and to the Near East, the Caucasus and Mediterranean Europe, making it likely that some Native American founders have European ancestors.'.." (Note: mtDNA HG X2 has been found in populations of Siberian populations of the Altai Mountains as well as ancient populations of Xichiang, making it likely that X2 reached North America by an overland route through Siberia, and not across the Atlantic as some have claimed.) See "A Cosmic Hunt in the Berber sky: : a phylogenetic reconstruction of a Palaeolithic mythology." by Julien d’Huy.
Link: https://shs.hal.science/halshs-00932197/document
@ Gary
I found very interesting what you wrote. I have been writing about mt X2 in Italy for 20 years, and what you say shad some interesting light also on the great linguistic group like Nostratic, Caucasian Na Dené etc that others think to be a fluke. I don't.
Post a Comment