Sunday, November 19, 2023
Musaeum Scythia on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon
A few weeks ago bioRxiv published two preprints on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon (see here and here).
I can't say much about these manuscripts until I see the relevant ancient DNA samples, and that might take some time.
However, for now, I will say that both preprints really need to emphasize the profound impact that the Sintashta-related early Indo-Iranian speakers had on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon. This, of course, would require Wolfgang Haak and friends to pull their heads out of their behinds and admit that the proto-Indo-Iranian homeland was in Eastern Europe, not in Iran.
At the same time, it's likely that the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon originated deep in Siberia, and its inception was probably most closely associated with the West Siberian Hunter-Gatherer (WSHG) genetic component. It's important that the preprints emphasize this too.
Moreover, I can't see any convincing arguments in either preprint that the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon was mainly associated with proto-Uralic speakers, or even that it was an important vector for the spread of proto-Uralic. So there's not much point in forcing the Uralic angle on studies focused on the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon. Indeed, what we also need is an archaeogenetics paper dealing specifically with the proto-Uralic expansion.
Apart from that, I'd like to direct your attention to the fact that Musaeum Scythia has already written a fine blog post about these preprints:
Genomic insights into the Seima-Turbino Phenomenon
See also...
Finally, a proto-Uralic genome
The Uralic cline with kra001 - no projection this time
Slavs have little, if any, Scytho-Sarmatian ancestry
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
521 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 521 Newer› Newest»@ Rob
éThe decimal system similarity between Baque & Iberian cannot be mere chance
In order to figure out the use of “Iberian Lingus franca“ in late Iron Age Eastern Iberia it would be useful to understand what occurred there in the LBA, after the calamitous collapse of the El Argar society."
You will say ‘vigesimal system’ I presume. I didn’t know for Iberian langage, but I read this system was used in Celtic (and then in French) and in Danish too. An old system imposed by trade exchanges or by some (Atlantic) substratum ? Directly or indirectly ; say : Vasconic > Celtic > Danish ?).Without any certainty I wonder if the numeral system isn’t one of the less reliable proof of ancient common origin, because it could emerge of trade relations themselves submitted to commercial domination ?!? Uneasy to answer even if here it seems the vigesimal system is rather from some subtratum now, but what was the situation, say, around the Atlantic Bronze period ? Superiority come and go off during history...
Concerning LBA and El Argar I 'm trying to found more data.
@ Gio
"Of course, but we have to read linguistics in the light of history. If I consider only my country, Italy, after the fall of the Romam Empire and the end of a political unity, Latin language was broken in many different dialects, also not understandable each other, but not only a new united state but also a common cultural unity gave birth to a new unified language. That may have happened also not only in the Slav world but also elsewhere. Always linguistics in the light of history. Genetics of course may help."
1- After the Roman Empire demise the creation of dialects, I suppose, didn’t give immediately birth to « not understandable » ones. They surely stayed very close one to another a long enough time. BTW even during the Empire there were surely some forms of dialects.
2- I think that, compared to Roman Empire, I cannot imagine in the Slavic speaking area after dispersion so a centralized state or highly interconnected tribes which could have afforded the creation of a new « national » koine. Religion language ? At what scale ? So I think the dispersion of Slavic language has surely been recent enough in history.
Hello everyone, can anyone model a Caucasian hunter who took part in the ethnogenesis of Yamnaya, Khvalynsky, and progress? it would be nice to know the coordinates of the “south pole” for Khvalynsk progress and Yamnaya separately
I’m just wondering whether these coordinates will extend to the isolated highland peoples of the Eastern Caucasus such as the Ginukhs, Gunzibs, Akhvakhs, Tsezs, as one of the most isolated peoples in the world, I quote
"Analysis of genomic data (~ 907,750 autosomal SNPs) allowed us to estimate the level of inbreeding based on the identification of regions of high homozygosity (FROH) in a sample of 518 people from 23 indigenous peoples of Dagestan. As a result, in the populations of the indigenous population of Dagestan, the number and total length of ROH, as well as FROH coefficients show significant diversity both within and between the studied populations.The Ginukhs, Gunzibs, Akhvakhs, Bezhtins and Tsezs have some of the highest values of the inbreeding coefficient (FROH>1.5 million bp) compared to other world populations."
@ JS. thank you
@ Zelto
'' you called them "early West-Uralics"''
because they are early West Uralics. Notice the difference in terminology between that ^ and the term 'proto-west Uralic'. You should have understood the difference.
''and argued that "Estonian-Finns" came from the north. ''
Becasue FU groups dont seem to be there with the LBA-IA Tapiola Ware phenomenon, but are present in Kola peninsula already by 15000 BC. Was just a thought. Otherwise you're looking at a late Iron Age / middle Ages migration ? Would be odd.
''I can't read your mind''
You just have to read sentences which are written simply & clearly. One needs to repeat the same thing 7 times for you for some reason.
@ Moesan
You of course are right, but what I said is understandable at the light of the “linguistic Geography”. I gave an exam about that and “Le origini delle lingue neolatine” of Carlo Tagliavini (with a 30 not “cum laude”, but only because I wasn’t of the golden circle) with Emilio Peruzzi, Florence University, 1970, after passed to the “Scuola Normale Superiore” of Pisa, and what you have been saying is understandable with the theory of the “aree laterali”, that could be the furthest ones but also may maintain the oldest links (look at rex/rix and raja etc). The “space” of course has to be taken into account, but the Indo-European one was even furthest, look at Ireland and Bangla Desh…Among that there is the History and to-day the whole world.
@Rob,
Regarding the collapse of El Argar, it was simply a depletion of natural resources with overexploitation of forests, pastures and water resources, it is currently the driest region of Spain. We know that there was continuity in the population because both Argarians and Iberians are Df27-In the heart of the territory of El Argar lived later the Bastetanians, one of the richest Iberian peoples of the peninsula. A paper on the Greek and Phoenician colonies of Bastetania will not be long in coming.
@Moesan
Arzelier's thesis proves what we already knew: the Occitanian Bronze Age (Aude, Gard) is genetically very similar (both uniparentals and autosomically 17-23%-WHG and 23-29% Yamnaya) to the Iberian Bronze Age cultures (Northeast-Catalonia, North-Asturias & Cantabria and Mediterranean-Valencia)-
The Castilian Bronze cultures (Las Cogotas and Las Motillas) always have a higher percentage of WHG (17-30%) than Yamnaya (17-24%)-100% R1b-P312
El Argar culture is special because despite being overwhelmingly DF27>Z195 it has on average only 10% Yamnaya (many samples including P312 males have 0% Yamnaya) and 25% WHG-The gradient is clear the further south the less Yamnaya, but all the Argarian male markers are R1b-P312
Regarding the Basque-Iberian numerals, I guess you are kidding when you talk about coincidence or lingua franca. Basque-Aquitanian and Iberian have a common origin, no one can doubt this today.
@Rob
Forget the semantics, it seems like a touchy subject for you.
"Becasue FU groups dont seem to be there with the LBA-IA Tapiola Ware phenomenon, but are present in Kola peninsula already by 15000 BC. Was just a thought. Otherwise you're looking at a late Iron Age / middle Ages migration ? Would be odd."
There were multiple migrations to Fennoscandia/Estonia during the LBA-EIA. As we've established, I'm also skeptical of the 'inherited wisdom', regarding Textile ceramics. However, while SW-Tapiola ware is present in Stone-cist graves, so are imported items from Southern Scandinavia. Their grave structure also resembles burials from Gotland and the Swedish mainland. Is there a pattern here- considering the lack of BA Scandinavian and Yakutia_LNBA ancestry in EST_BA samples? I don't know, but perhaps something to contemplate.
The pottery of the earliest Tarands was also a varient of SW-Tapiola ware. However, as I've stated above, there were also probably Ananyino influences involved.
@ Gaska
'Regarding the collapse of El Argar, it was simply a depletion of natural resources with overexploitation of forests, pastures and water resources, it is currently the driest region of Spain. We know that there was continuity in the population because both Argarians and Iberians are Df27-In the heart of the territory of El Argar lived later the Bastetanians, one of the richest Iberian peoples of the peninsula. A paper on the Greek and Phoenician colonies of Bastetania will not be long in coming.''
Over-exploitation was certainly a large part of it. More than that, it was a social revolution of some sort and a deep crisis. Many elements of the material culture are 'rejected' (by social choice) after the collapse, settlements abaodoned, and some of the central places destroyed. This not surprising given how heirarhical El Argar was, pathologically so, because it not only exploited the land, but the people and womenfolk too.
And the interesting aspect is that the few elites walling themselves behind the elevated forts and the mass of commoners were virtually all R1b-M269 (probably DF-27). Such a separation opens the possibility of diglossia during El Argar, or the introduction of new prestige language after the collapse of the State. If the later, it obviously did not come from the Greek or Phoenecian settlers. Could they have turned to central Mediterranean islands or southern France ? Hard to say.
But this does illustrate one of the 'exceptional cases' where language can shift in absence of 'foreign intrusion', but we should note clearly that this is a specific loco-regional case, not something which can be applied to entire langauge family dispersal or trans-continental scenario.
@ Zelto
''Their grave structure also resembles burials from Gotland and the Swedish mainland. Is there a pattern here- considering the lack of BA Scandinavian and Yakutia_LNBA ancestry in EST_BA samples? I don't know, but perhaps something to contemplate.''
Yes they do appear to have affinities to Swe_LN, so Lang (for ex) was correct as far as the northern most tip of East Baltic goes. But there is no obviuosly Yakutia_LN ancesty, all the eastern ancestry detected in Saag is in fact extra (local-ish) EHG.
What does that say for the rest of the Tapiola range ? Too soon to say
'Forget the semantics, it seems like a touchy subject for you.'
Not really, I've got nothing personally or academically to defend one way or another.
But I have to admit, i do enjoy it a but when new paths are formed, although this is merely the tip of the iceberg.
@Rob
1-The Argaric society is very interesting. On the one hand it is evidence of a massive DF27 founder effect because as you say, both princely and peasant tombs belong to this lineage. On the other hand it was a cosmopolitan society with evident connections with the eastern Mediterranean (pithoi under the dwellings and palaces) and thanks to the exogamy with Sicily, Central Europe and the British Isles. The exploitation of the territory was systematic with small factories and colonies that controlled very productive remote territories. The cultural and genetic exchanges with other BA Iberian cultures are also evident (pithoi in the territory of Las Motillas culture, southern Castilian plateau).
2-The change of language can be ruled out within the Argaric society since they all belong to the same male lineage (there is no possibility that elites and peasants spoke different languages) and also that it changed due to the influence of other Iberian Bronze Age societies (they were also P312>Df27), thanks to exogamy (if we rule it out in all of Europe, we must also rule it out in Iberia) or due to Greek, Phoenician or Celtic influence.
3-Could a social revolution produce the imposition of an elitist language? This is pure speculation, sincerely we see no reason to think that the Iberians spoke a different language than the one spoken by the Argarians.
Honestly, if you want to look for an argument to justify the unjustifiable (that is, a change in language), you have to go back to the chalcolithic and think that perhaps (and this is also speculation), Iberia was very sparsely populated, that the P312 that crossed the Pyrenees were small groups of men who integrated into neolithic societies, abandoned their IE language, and then a massive founder effect of this lineage established much more developed societies that spoke NON-IE languages. But this is also very difficult to prove because you have to take into account that at the arrival of the Romans 2/3 of the Iberian Peninsula spoke non-IE languages (including the territory of the Carpetani on the southern Castilian plateau) and that the problem it is not reduced to Iberia because IE was not spoken in Aquitania, Occitania, Etruria and Sicilia.
If we accept this, then we must recognize that genetics is of no use when it comes to demonstrating the transmission of a language. After all, this is what is happening in the current scientific debate, when genetics does not serve to explain the Kurgan theory (for example Anatolia, Greece, Balkans) everyone resorts to collateral arguments. No one is going to convince those who do not interpret genetic results in an unbiased way.
@@ Gaska
You didn't keep in mind all what I said in my diverse posts.
I said Vasconic and Iberian (basis) language shared common phonetic trends. SO I never excluded a faurther common origin of these languages. But in the Vasconic forms a cluster (Basque, Aquitan) tighter respective to Iberian, what could show that the Iberian texts allegedly found in Basque country could be tied to commerce, the source of Iberian being maybe farther in S-E.
In France, the Iberian apparent presence is considered by someones as a strong trade input rather than a political or heavy demic input.
Speaking of languages, when we find written traces in some place, these traces can be the result of contacts with culturally superior peoples, or at least people who write. It doesn't exclude the possibility that a majority of people there could speak another language.
Water passed under the bridges between 2300 and 700 BC.
And Gauls underwent the Roman colonization but it doesn't seem this changed too much their Y-haplo distribution.
A local elite in a too restricted area can change language at some stage of history without changing his Y-haplo distribution.
I avow todate the facts SEEM confirming your thoughts for DF27 and "Iberians". I haven't a definitive opinion concerning BB's. Yuou ought remember I wrote sometimes ago in other fora BB's could have been of non-IE speaking origin; so I'm just trying to understand past with caution what isn't always the case on fora or blogs. But then it remains the question of other BB's in North? IE? How explain the overwhelming presence of IE language in N-w Europe (and in IA W-Iberia)? Were P312 soon divided in two groups with different destinies?
Concerning the vegisimal counting, I was not kidding. I suppose it's linked to a substratum (Basque likely), but can we link it to an Y-haplo? Can we link it to Basque in Denmark? Possible but not sure. Here comes the trading question...
Native Breton speakers put into the French world have left in their language their ancient way to count,to take the French one (order of cifers, abandon of the more developped vegisimal counting (French have only "quatre-vingt", "quatre-vingt-dix" when Bretons could go until "eizh-ugent" (eight-twenty: 8 x 20) or farther, but this fact hasn't changed their Y-haplo's.
@Gaska
"Also mention that FTDNA has classified CLL007 as DF27>Z195 and that this man appeared in a neolithic site dated by archaeologists to 3,300-2,300 BC. In the absence of exact dating, even taking the lower range of 2,300 BC, this sample is contemporary with that of Narbonne. Df27 is definitely a Mediterranean affair (Narbonne, Alicante, Sicily are the oldest samples).
I don't understand how you enjoy posting factually incorrect information that can easily be proven wrong. CLL007 is definitely not from the Neolithic. It is intrusive. They even say so in the Supplementary Material at https://www.nature.com/articles/s41559-023-01987-0#Sec24
CLL007 (Arc. ID: Lech 11 (LE11B)): Adult male burial. This individual was
considered intrusive and thus excluded from the analysis, as it showed steppe related
ancestry. The remainder of the individuals are genetically similar to
the SE_Iberia_CA group, so we assumed the indirect chronology for all of
them.
@Gaska
"And yes, officially GBVPK is the oldest DF27 and has been found in the Franco-Cantabrian region, which shows that Spanish researchers were right when they stated that the origin of this lineage is in the region of the Eastern Pyrenees (to the chagrin of those who have been defending a Central European origin for years). And just remind you that this man appeared in a BB culture site with Pyrenean style ceramics that is almost identical to the Ciempozuelos style that is exclusive to Iberia and the south of France. Therefore, culturally, it has nothing to do with Germany etc…."
We don't care where exactly in western Europe DF27 first appeared. What we care about is where the ancestors haplogroups R-P312, R-L151, R-PF6538, R-L52, R-L51 and R-L23 first appeared. They did not first appear in the Pyrenees and the oldest specimen equivalent to R-L52 was SHT001 associated with the Afanasievo cultural group found in Erdenetsogt, Mongolia. That is nowhere near western or central Europe. R-DF27 is a descendant of people that originated outside of western and central Europe and also have Steppe autosomal DNA. These are points you continually fail to mention and you continually overlook what we care about.
@ Gaska
''Could a social revolution produce the imposition of an elitist language? ''
No the suggestion is the collapse of the elitist structures brought in new sociolects, perhaps those of the countryside.
'' that the P312 that crossed the Pyrenees were small groups of men who integrated into neolithic societies, abandoned their IE language, and then a massive founder effect of this lineage established much more developed societies that spoke NON-IE languages.''
I dont think pre-Beaker societies of Iberia were 'much more developed'. Half of them were still Megalithic. Even the southern region barely had any copper metallurgy, trading ivory and clay idols. The northern Beaker groups had mobile wealth and probably were better equipped to deal with the 4.2 ky event, but even before that they established themselves as a new social elite, as clearly documented at Homanejos & La Magdalena.
''If we accept this, then we must recognize that genetics is of no use when it comes to demonstrating the transmission of a language. After all, this is what is happening in the current scientific debate, when genetics does not serve to explain the Kurgan theory (for example Anatolia, Greece, Balkans) everyone resorts to collateral arguments. No one is going to convince those who do not interpret genetic results in an unbiased way.''
I dont know what you're talking about, there's profound steppe influences on the Balkans post-4000 BC - large scale colonization into empty lands of East Balkans & northern Greece.
The issue is your own refusal to accept I2a-L69 is associated with steppe groups, and making dubious claims that J2b2 is from Anatolia, when it's clearly not.
@Rob
“Yes they do appear to have affinities to Swe_LN, so Lang (for ex) was correct as far as the northern most tip of East Baltic goes. But there is no obviuosly Yakutia_LN ancesty, all the eastern ancestry detected in Saag is in fact extra (local-ish) EHG.
What does that say for the rest of the Tapiola range ? Too soon to say”
I’m intrigued. In G25, I haven’t seen anything that would suggest Estonia_BA specifically has SWE_LN admixture. They behave similarly to the Kivutkalns samples and plot together in PCAs, away from SWE_LN. Are you sure it’s not just broad similarity across North/East Europe that you're seeing (i.e. post-CW + HG)?
The earliest Stone-cists date to the 13/12-11th centuries BC and the radiocarbon chronology is fairly robust now. Between 1000 and 850 BC, the first hillforts with SW Tapiola ware were built along the Estonian coast, near Stone-cist graves. Lang argues that these populations were unrelated because Stone-cists derive from Scandinavia and the SW-Tapiola ware in hillforts was from the Upper-Volga- Oka. However, I know other archaeologists disagree; they tend to see hillforts as a local economic development, precipitated by adoption of agriculture and trade with Scandinavia. They believe those occupying the hillforts, would have buried their dead in Stone-cists, making a link between SW-Tapiola ware and Yakuta_LNBA untenable. I'm sure you are aware of how the genetic origins of Estonia_BA could impact this paradigm.
here they wrote above about a tooth found in Nalchik, are there any details? was it closer to chg or ehg on the chart line?
The new Nalchik genome is similar to Progress, but with more CHG.
Well, if it looks like progress, with a bias towards chg, then I am sure that in terms of distances it was close to the modern peoples of the Eastern Caucasus, especially mountainous dagestan
@ Zelto
The only passing qpAdm model was with Swe_LN rather than Estonia or Poland CWC ..
Will keep probing
Mind you, I haven’t got anything passing for the Latvia_LBA, probably because we don’t yet have the right HGs
"Kristina Zhur, who works in the same laboratory of the Federal Research Center “Fundamental Foundations of Biotechnology” of the Russian Academy of Sciences, spoke about a paleogenetic study that made it possible to test the hypothesis about human migration routes. A tooth from a burial ground dated 5197–4850 BC was examined. near the city of Nalchik. This burial ground is one of the earliest known burial complexes in the Caucasus. Scientists compared DNA isolated from the tooth with other ancient genomes to choose one of three hypotheses for the origin of man from Nalchik. First hypothesis: this is a descendant of the most ancient population of the Caucasus. Second: this is a representative of the first wave of settlers who have a genetic component of Iranian or Anatolian farmers. Third: this is a representative of the steppe Eneolithic population, mixed with the local Caucasian one.
The position of the genome from Nalchik in the space of principal components turned out to be intermediate between the steppe and the Caucasus, which indicates contacts with the population of the steppe. The authors suggested that by about 5000 BC. (and perhaps earlier), a population appeared in the North Caucasus that combined the gene pool of Caucasian hunter-gatherers with the gene pool of the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic, probably from the territory of Northern Mesopotamia - Zagros, and this population subsequently interacted with eastern hunter-gatherers from the steppe. This assumption fits into the pattern of the major migration flows that brought agriculture from the Middle East to Europe. Genetics have shown that migrations of farmers could also spread through the Caucasus. They emphasize that this assumption does not contradict archaeological data."
It seems that the sample has some Southern Arc-related stuff too, not just plain CHG. How correct is the dating btw, do they take reservoir effect into account? Anything known about the haplogroup?
@Dospaises
As your nickname is written in Spanish maybe you understand this paper “Dieta, movilidad y jerarquía en Cabezo Redondo y cueva de las Lechuzas: Estudio mediante análisis isotópicos de carbono, nitrógeno, azufre y estroncio”-Domingo Carlos Salazar-So you will understand the archaeological context of the find. In any case I will summarize it for you -The CLL007 sample analyzed by Villalba-Mouco is Lech11 (S-EVA-23563)and none of the analyzed individuals (including 23563) can be considered intrusive. It is a typical site of the late Iberian Neolithic and nothing can relate it to the BB culture (NO metal grave goods)
And yeah, CLL007 appears to have been excluded from analysis, because it contains steppe ancestry (their sole reason given in supplementary), and other samples from Copper Age do not-I could not find anything justifying the removal of sample CLL007 (~200,000 SNPs, so it is not one of the <60,000 SNPs low resolution samples), but I do think, they should have mentioned WHY they removed it, considering their refutation of Heyd's assumption that steppe ancestry would show up early in southern Iberia. It seems to me the lack of explanation coupled with the refutation, is at best a conflict of interest. They should have explained why they excluded the sole sample which could potentially jeopardize said assertion. It would have been easier to order an exact dating of the sample (which by the way is what we have done, I will let you know when we have the results) and include it in the autosomal models.
DF27 has its origin in the Franco-Cantabrian region and that is what is important for us after 10 years of reading nonsense about its origin in Germany (Quedlinburg etc). R1b-P312 is western and the rest of the markers you mention at the moment have their origin in central Europe (Bohemia), you Kurganists are so desperate that you think the origin of these markers is in Mongolia, Ok that's your problem.
@Moesan
Is a pleasure to talk to you because you always behave in a polite manner
1-When I said you were joking I was not referring to the vigesimal system, but to the Basque and Iberian numerals which can never be considered a coincidence
2-The Celtic language entered Iberia with the urnfielders (1.100-1.000 BC) who in Spain are considered as Proto-Celtiberians. Nothing to do with the P312 marker
3-The Iberian texts in Basque territory are not commercial contracts, in the case of the Irulegui hand the word “sorionak” means in Basque congratulations. This bronze was hung on the door of a house (it has a hole to hang it) and was a kind of welcome to visitors, something similar to the Celtiberian hospitality “tesseras” (treaties between clans to avoid war between them). These “tesseras” (so the Spanish archaeologists call them but I don't know if in English the meaning is the same) had two parts that could be joined together and each tribe kept one part. It is evident that Iberian was the common and familiar language in the Basque settlements of Navarre during the Iron Age. Modern Basque crossed the Pyrenees from Aquitaine in historical times
4-According to Claire Fischer, the genetics of Occitania (up to the Herault river) during the Iron Age is identical to the Iberian one-This means that the Iberian language in that French region is not only a matter of commercial treaties, but of cultural and genetic identity.
@Targamos
The dating is more or less correct, and Progress is largely derived from a Nalchik-related population.
You should read this and try and understand it. It's based on some things that I can't yet share openly.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2023/09/the-caucasus-is-semipermeable-genetic.html
@Targamos the Based, son of Kavkasos son of CHG son of
and why does no one take into account the fact that in the northern Caucasus there could have been descendants of Paleolithic hunter-gatherers like Dzurdzuana, who later mixed with CHG-like migrants from the southern arc and the Zagros mountains, and that is why there could have been an “Anatolian” trace in early samples in the northern Caucasus like progress and other similar things
Come on Rob, you better than anyone else understand the current difficulty in establishing the genetic relationship (male markers) between the steppes, the Balkans & Anatolia. You may be right but you need much more convincing evidence (e.g. Z2103 in Mycenaean culture)
@Davidski
Try to understand that you have a shit understanding of geography, biomes, history, and archaeology. A significant portion of what you refer to as the North Caucasus features a steppe-like biome, and the indigenous North Caucasians historically had no issues adapting to the steppe climate. Familiarize yourself with the history of Kabardin and Chechen expansions into the plains.
Setting that aside and addressing the fundamental flaws in your premise, let's revisit another thread of yours:
Now, leaving that aside and highlighting the fundamental flaws in your premise, lets take a look back to another thread of yours: https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/02/ancient-dna-vs-ex-oriente-lux.html
The learned man FrankN, someone who truly is familiar with geography and archeology predicted this long ago:
FrankN said...
"There are two sites not too far from Progress & Vonyushka that are commonly connected to Zamok and IMO also display cultural similarities to the a/m sites. One is the Nalchik cemetery (not the Nalchik Kurgan, that one belongs to Maykop!), the other one is the eneolithic settlement of Agubekov, at the outskirts of Nalchik. Here is what a Russian blogger has to say about them (emphasis is mine):
"Our knowledge of the Late Neolithic and Eneolithic of the Central Ciscaucasia is based on material from the Agubekov settlement, as well as from the Nalchik burial ground in Kabardino-Balkaria. Both monuments date back to both eras. Agubekovskoe settlement was located on a hill, its cultural layer abounded with shards, obsidian and flint agricultural tools, as well as fragments of wattle, which was the basis of the walls of light dwellings. The economy was dominated by livestock. The general appearance of the settlement resembles the monuments of the North-East Caucasus. Ceramics are flat-bottomed and correspond to local features of the local Eneolithic."
http://darnika.ru/en/recepty/epoha-rannego-metalla-i-problemy-ee-izucheniya-mednyi-vek-hronologicheskie/"
Davidski said...
"Also, I'm not interested in the Nalchik burial ground in Kabardino-Balkaria in this context, since it's located in the Caucasus, not on the steppe, and thus it has nothing to do with Eneolithic steppe.
There was a goddamn awesome genetic border between the Caucasus and steppe populations. Surely you know this by now."
Learn some humility and curb your soyjaking smugness before contradicting yourself further and making a bigger fool of yourself.
@Targamos
Haha.
You still don't understand and you never will.
Go and cry to Iosif Lazaridis.
But even he won't be able to save your fantasy.
@ Targamos
CHG-related groups did to a small degree move further north, beyond the Piedmont, one guy's line obviuosly even made it to Karelia. But that's the point, it was a long-term trickle of mobility, and to mostly introduced by EHG groups mixing with various Caucasian groups along a frontier, who then introduced it back across the steppe. Actual Caucasian people remained as individuals and small groups at best located at certain foci.
@Targamos the Based, son of Kavkasos son of CHG son of
ты чеченец или кабардинобалкарец? )
This came out today
the homeland of Indo-European languages can be refined to the Zagros or Hyrcanian (Alborz) refugia (Supplementary Fig. S4). These refugia are geographically closest to the South Caucasus71,72. The proposition of placing the Indo-European homeland in the Zagros and/or Hyrcanian refugia sheds light on the structural relationships or prolonged contacts between Kartvelian and Indo-European languages4,8.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45500-w
I'm confused as to whether Nalchik has any minor ANF or PPN Levant ancestry. The abstract made it sound like it did.
Regardless, 5000bc is too early Lazaridis' scenario.
Speaking of which, I guess Harvard's papers should be out soon unless they are delayed.
Both Progress and Nalchik have that type of ancestry, but it depends how you model them.
But these are basically still hunter-gatherer populations, maybe with a few goats.
Those papers from the David Reich Lab are only good for their data. They won't have anything interesting in them apart from that.
Thanks, that's what I figured, I do think it might be relevant to explain why Progress provides such good fits for Steppe EMBA though.
I'm curious to see what some of the eneolithic Steppe genomes they have look like. When I try to observe the mixed ChL Balkans samples on a PCA, it sure looks like something with almost the precise ratios as Yamnaya contributed to Smyadovo and Cernavoda I, and realistically existed earlier than that. It doesn't match Anthony's comments suggesting some of these guys looked autosomally "Khvalynsk-like".
@Davidski
I would like to ask where and when did people like EHG first appear? Where approximately could WHG and ANE meet? It’s just that Eastern Europe is a huge territory and the number of people like WHG and ANE by that time was not so large, and the likelihood that these two completely different groups of people met, mixed and then the offspring was extremely low, and if such an event had occurred, then it would hardly be repeated more than once, I don’t know, I think so, but what do you think about this? when did the mixing happen? Does genetics know anything about this?
Any idea of the uniparentals of that Nalchik sample? Iosif lazaridis mentioned Progress had a X/Y ratio pointing to male spread of the CHG component yet the mtDNA of these was certainly not EHG related.
That points to complicated admixture.
The 'experts' have done a poor job so far in characterizing the type of ancestry flowing in from southern Caucasus. And it is challenging, as the west Georgian Neolithic which contributed to Meshoko & presumbaly Nalchik is different to the well-described Shulaver-Shomu phenomenon further east and southeast.
I think we can pretty much get there, but for completeness we really need some propper Mesopotamian Neolithic genomes
@Gaska
-According to Claire Fischer, the genetics of Occitania (up to the Herault river) during the Iron Age is identical to the Iberian one-
Where did you read it? That is not what show the qpAdm results from her study.
@epoch
It's now clear that people with EHG-related ancestry were moving into the North Caucasus as early as 5,000 BCE, if not earlier.
So yes, it was a complex process in the North Caucasus (which was a contact zone), and not some mysterious migration from Iran or Armenia to the steppe.
But it's also worth noting that those X chromosome qpAdm tests are kind of crap, because they're based on less than 50K markers and can't pick up much fine structure.
@ Арсен
Good question. Genetics does not know directly, but I believe a paper recently by Posth suggested mixing of the Sidelkino / EHG cluster occurred c. 170000 bp. But I think ANE arrived a few thousand years earlier , landing in the Volga-Ural region during the Ice Age
@Арсен
I would like to ask where and when did people like EHG first appear? Where approximately could WHG and ANE meet?
There's no such thing as one EHG population that formed when WHG and ANE met somewhere.
It was a long process during the Upper Paleolithic, and EHG is just one type of group that formed from a genetic cline between WHG-rich and ANE-rich populations.
I'm betting that the so called EHG in the Nalchik genome isn't even the same sort of EHG as in Karelia, but something more ANE-rich. Let's wait and see.
Hey, I'm sorry if this has been discussed before on this blog but I want to know what your opinions are regarding Lazaridis' reasoning for why Steppe Herder ethnogenesis was CHG male mediated despite no evidence
from his twitter:
"In other words, the fact that a novel patriline became very successful during the 4th millennium before the late 4th millennium BCE emergence of the Yamnaya tells us nothing about the chrY composition of the late 5th millennium BCE population of the steppe.
A direct test of the sex bias hypothesis is to fit the same model on the autosomes and chrX; since the chrX spends 2/3 of its life in females, under the assumption that CHG ancestry is mediated by females we'd expect more CHG ancestry on chrX than autosomes
The simple CHG-EHG model gives a CHG estimate of:
51.9+/- 1.3% (autosomes)
34.2+/- 8.5% (chrX)
In other words, the evidence is (2.1 s.e.) in favor of male CHG bias and _not_ the opposite
The evidence for male CHG bias is not super strong so we did not dwell on this point in the Southern Arc paper. But, I thought it would be useful to report here as I want people to be aware that the data don't point to a male EHG:female CHG mix and if anything the opposite."
and he also said in reply to Sam:
"If West Asian males didn't participate in the spread of CHG ancestry then all of it would be spread by females and hence 2/3 of the ancestry on the chrX would be CHG; it's actually 34.2+/-8.5%, i.e. 3.9 s.e. lower. That scenario is dead in the water."
I am just a layman at this population genetics stuff so I don't know how compelling of an argument it is for a CHG male mediated admix event
@Scott G
The short answer, without being too brutally honest, is that Lazaridis is operating in an abstract world where Yamnaya is an unrealistically simple mixture between EHG and CHG.
But Yamnaya is not a mixture between EHG and CHG. It's a much more complex mixture between Progress-like and Ukraine Neolithic-like populations.
Apart from that, it's obvious that all of the main Y-haplogroups in Yamnaya and Yamnaya-related populations (like R1b, R1a and I2) are from Eastern Europe and not from Armenia or Iran.
So, one way or another, Eastern European male lineages had a massive impact on the formation of Bronze Age steppe populations, while foreign lineages did not, and there must be good reasons for this.
There's no way that Lazaridis and Reich will ever be able to spin any of this the other way, even though they've been trying to for many years.
The X chromosome results won't help them.
I was going to write a blog post about Lazaridis' online comments about the X chromosome in Yamnaya and Progress.
But I'm going to wait and see what he puts in those new papers before going at him.
Hopefully, Lazaridis, Reich and Patterson realize that they can't infer sex biased migrations from unrealistically simple and also very weak tests of X chromosome data that is several thousand years removed from those migrations.
@ Davidski
''There's no way that Lazaridis and Reich will ever be able to spin any of this the other way,'
One shouldnt have to engage in mental gymnastics to 'prove' a position. It would rather look more genuine if a step back is taken and the situation appraised.
@ Gaska
''Come on Rob, you better than anyone else understand the current difficulty in establishing the genetic relationship (male markers) between the steppes, the Balkans & Anatolia. You may be right but you need much more convincing evidence (e.g. Z2103 in Mycenaean culture)''
On the contrary I have sktetched out contacts between these 3 regions not only for the Bronze Age, but occurring since the Paleolithic. But obviously my model is nuanced and distinctive to "Pop 40" Kurganology.
@JS said- Gaska Where did you read it? That is not what show the qpAdm results from her study.
-Origin and mobility of Iron Age Gaulish groups in present-day France revealed through archaeogenomics-Claire-Elise Fischer (2.022)-
“We have seen that PCA and qpAdm analyses highlighted special affinities between IA groups from southern France and Spain and from north-western France and England”
“Genomic affinities perceived between IA groups from south-western France and northern Spain are expected since they belong to the same cultural entity called ibero languedocian”
Apports del’archéogénétique àl’étude des groupes du Second âge du Fer en France: Approche multi-scalaire-Claire-Elise Fischer-
“A strong genetic affinity between England and Normandy as well as between Occitania and the Iberian Peninsula”
In addition to culture and language, the Iberians of Occitania shared genetics with those of the south of the Pyrenees.
The time and place of origin of South Caucasian languages: insights into past human societies, ecosystems and human population genetics
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45500-w
"placing the Indo-European homeland in the Zagros and/or Hyrcanian refugia sheds light on the structural relationships or prolonged contacts between Kartvelian and Indo-European languages"
This new linguistic study places South Caucasian languages in Georgia and Proto-Indo-European in Zagros or Hyrcanian (Alborz) in Iran (Figure S4)
@MaxT
Another garbage paper that blows out the age of Proto-Indo-European by several thousand years.
So what's your point?
@Gaska
1)Fischer's quote is not the equivalent of your statement.
2)You don't mention qpAdm on purpose. The models do not show significant Iberian BA gene flow in the Southern French Iron Age samples.
https://imgur.com/2SGsV7c
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2589004222003649-mmc6.xlsx
@ JS
On the contrary it looks like some people from southern France were moving toward Iberia in LBA & Iron Age, would you say ?
@Davidski
and another question, it is known that Caucasian hunter-gatherers used mountain caves and rocks as shelters from the cold as homes, simply closing the entrance to the rocks, etc., but how did more northern populations protect themselves from the cold? in what shelters did they live to protect themselves from the external environment, which was harsher than the warmer Caucasus? How did they calmly move over such vast distances without fear of freezing? will they find a place to spend the winter and so on? I just didn't delve into this topic
@JS
1-What do you understand when Fischer says “qpAdm analyses highlighted special affinities” or “same cultural entity called ibero languedocian”, it may be that you and I live on different planets
2-Only you have written about “significant Iberian BA gene flow in the Southern French Iron Age samples”, in any case, the Bronze Age in the south of France and in the northern half of the Iberian Peninsula are also very similar, all of them are proto-iberians-
qpAdm models
France_BA (1.450 BC)
Quinquiris, Aude, Occitanie
QUIN7038_1:R1b-M269
0.576-Anatolia_Neolithic
0.249-Yamnaya_Samara
0.175-Western_HG
pvalue:0.141905
Iberia_EBA (1.741 BC)
Valentian BA:LLoma Betxí
I3397: R1b-Df27>Z195
0.579-Anatola_Neolithic
0.241-Yamnaya_Samara
0.180-Western_HG
pvalue:0.228534
@Арсен
Steppe hunter-gatherers mostly lived along rivers.
I have no idea whether these areas were less exposed than the open steppe, but I guess they may have been, and there was a lot of food available along rivers through fishing and hunting.
Later, when the descendants of these hunter-gatherers became herders, they lived in wagons like the early settlers in the American wild west.
@Арсен
“and another question, it is known that Caucasian hunter-gatherers used mountain caves and rocks as shelters from the cold as homes, simply closing the entrance to the rocks, etc., but how did more northern populations protect themselves from the cold?”
https://player.slideplayer.com/98/17088437/slides/slide_11.jpg
https://donsmaps.com/wolfcamp.html
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mezine
If we are to date pre-pre-Proto-Indo-European language to 10 000 BC then the Mezine is a much better place for the homeland than Zagros. There are a lot of religious symbols in Mezine which can be linked with later steppe and forest-steppe cultures which were true Proto-Indo-European IMO.
@ EastPole
You think so? did people like ehg live there?
@EastPole
Regarding the “southern” genetic pole among the Proto-Indo-Europeans, I don’t think that these were hunter-gatherers similar to those who lived in the Kotias and Satsurblia caves, I think the species of hunter-gatherers that interests us lived in the eastern caucasus , they, together with Georgian hunters, came to the caucasus from the middle east about 15 thousand years ago or older, some settled in the southern caucasus on the black sea coast and could calmly wait out the Ice Age there, the climate is very warm even in winter, some could settle in the eastern mountainous caucasus, modern dagestan, the so-called chokh mesolithic, there are rivers in the mountains there, peshera, mountain tours, everything that hunters of that time needed, from time to time these hunters descended to the plain after the Ice age, explored the caucasian steppe and mixtures with ehg already occurred there, some j1 were found far beyond the caucasus, I think this is the first results of ehg contacts and chg when their descendants reached the far north
@Gaska
I posted the qpAdm results https://imgur.com/2SGsV7c
and the direct link of the Table.
https://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S2589004222003649-mmc6.xlsx
Everyone can have a look at the models & their p-value. There is no need to argue.
Overall, there is a North/South gradient, Steppe vs EEF in France from the Bronze age. I guess, affinity means closer, in term of genetic distance or ancestral components, but the qpAdm show the samples from South of France are formed by Bronze Age populations from the territory but not from the Iberian peninsula.
One of the main result of Fischer's thesis and publication, if the not the main, is the absence of genetic discontinuity between Bronze Age and Iron Age France populations.
The only valid point you could make is about the scarcity sampling which is on the way to get resolved by two publications on their way; from Ana ARZELIER and Projet ANCESTRA, second part:
The Genetic Legacy of Ancient Gaul: Insights into Social Organization and Human Mobility during the Roman Empire
page 226
ISBA abstracts https://drive.google.com/file/d/1YruH2gc30bt5AfAbJMFA1za0LZwSH3XS/view
@Арсен, I'm not sure what the latest thinking is on the date of the formation of the EHG - I think if they formed between Tagliente Epigravettian (earliest sampled WHG) ~16kya and Minino (earliest EHG?) ~10kya, then maybe that would fit with some of the residents of site at 10kya or earlier being EHG. But not at the height of the LGM? Not sure if the timing of the formation of the EHG from WHG and ANE has ever been attempted from methods that try to infer these (DATES etc).
@ Арсен
Please, just only 1 proof about that. Y or mt at your choice so I could verify.
@EastPole
I meant turs - high mountain goats (East Caucasian tur), the translator wrote it as “tour”
https://www.diana-hunting.com/game/tur-east-caucasian-dagestan-tur
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Caucasian_tur
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/Capra_cylindricornis_MAP.png
and not "peshera" but "cave" XD
in my opinion, the settlement of the Caucasus by Caucasian hunter-gatherers occurred according to this scenario, the population that settled was close to the Iranian farmers but did not descend from them, but came from the general West Asian community
https://prnt.sc/ih3xMov2z1W6
@Арсен
They were closer to CHG from Georgia.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2019/12/a-final-note-for-year.html
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/12/fully-automated-graph-exploration.html
@JS
Everyone on this blog knows how to interpret a qpAdm model and therefore everyone should agree with what both Fischer and Arzelier say, i.e. that the Bronze Age and Iron Age in southern France and Spain are very similar in genetic terms. And I repeat, only you have spoken of Iberian migrations, from the data we have it is evident that both in France and in Iberia there is genetic continuity between the Bronze Age and the Iron Age-
The migrations of the Celts at the end of the Bronze Age brought the Iberians even closer to their relatives on the other side of the Pyrenees. The Etruscans are also very similar to the Occitanians and Iberians and a little further away are the Latins and the central european Celts.
Fischer-“Les différentes analyses réalisées mettent en lumière une proximité génétique forte entre l’Angleterre et la Normandie ainsi qu’entre l’Occitanie et la péninsule Ibérique”
Arzelier-“Conversely, individuals originating from Southern France, both belonging to Bell-Beaker-associated and Bronze Age contexts, display more variability and a profile similar to Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula”
@Davidski
Didn’t chg from Georgia and Iranian farmers have the same Central Asian origin? for example, in an article about the "Population Genomics of Stone Age Eurasia", both the Caucasian hunter and the Iranian farmer came from a common West Asian community (except that the Caucasian hunter has additional ancestors in the form of the Paleolithic population of the Caucasus), who knows where the homeland of these West Asians was? maybe the Middle East, maybe the southern Caucasus, maybe the Zagros mountains, it doesn’t matter, the main thing is a common origin, for me the Caucasian hunters of the south and northern Caucasus were slightly different from each other and radically different from their Iranian farmers, they were more hardy in morphology, build, and body structure , were tall and so on, despite the fact that North Caucasian hunters could be much more hardy than Georgian hunters, but both of them had origins from the Middle East, maybe Zagros, maybe further south. We will find out this over time
https://prnt.sc/-GcLTjXcFOJ-
@Davidski
even according to this diagram in which you modeled progress - vonyuchka, does something contradict my words or the picture that I threw - the map of the settlement of the caucaus by the ancestors of Caucasian hunters? You also have indirect ancestors of Kotias satsurblya who took part in the ethnogenesis of progress - like samples , I said it is quite likely that when the Caucasus was settled from Western Asia, some settled on the territory of modern Georgia, some in the mountains of the North Caucasus - Chokh sites, recent dating confirms that 10 thousand years BC people lived there, archaeologists suggested that they were similar to those who were found in the Kotias cave
Here in the screenshot is detailed information about the radiocarbon dating of various samples of the Chokh settlement, there are Mesolithic ones, there are also Neolithic bronze ones, etc.
https://prnt.sc/1TPsxwms4JUi
https://prnt.sc/ih3xMov2z1W6
@Davidski
not Central Asian but West Asian, sorry my translator is going crazy
@Арсен
I don't know yet how CHG formed, but the CHG-related ancestry on the steppe is much closer to the CHG from Georgia than to Iranian hunter-gatherers and farmers.
@Gaska
Fischer's Normand Iron Age samples are from buried skeleton in "so-called Durotrigian " position. Fischer does not know for sure if they are locals or from the other side of the Channel.
I have no doubt you know how to interpret qpAdm, and i am sure you do better than me, so what is the point you are trying to make saying: "4-According to Claire Fischer, the genetics of Occitania (up to the Herault river) during the Iron Age is identical to the Iberian one- "
It seems to me that it is your very personal interpretation, as you claim: " This means that the Iberian language in that French region is not only a matter of commercial treaties, but of cultural and genetic identity. "
Fischer's IA Southern samples are from Narbonne region (Gard, Hérault, Aude), where the Celts are historically attested for the first time. Therefore, what " Iberian language in that French region " are you referring to?
@Gaska
"I believe there are two L21 and one U106 in the French Bronze Age.They may be the oldest L21s in continental Europe. NO DF27 & U152"
First of all, even though R-L21 is extremely likely to have originated in the continent there are still no samples from the continent from the French Bronze Age that have tested positive for R-L21. If you think there are you need to find those samples and post the sample ids, dates, and study they published in.
R-DF27 does not provide a negative read with the 1240k panel in almost all of the specimens tested to date. That means there is no negative and no positive results of almost all the specimens. That means we have no idea that all of the specimens from the French Bronze Age really are negative for R-DF27.
@JS said-“what Iberian language in that French region"
The first thing you need to do is to consult this MLH-“Monumenta Linguarum Hispanicarum”-Jurgen Untermann & HESPERIA-Paleo-Hispanic languages database
-Narbonense-In this section are collected the Paleo-Hispanic inscriptions from the South of France, most of which are located in oppida and trading places of the Narbonese region. Those known in 1980 were published in vol. II of MLH, where they form epigraphic region B. The inscriptions are geographically distributed in the following areas: a) coastal area of the Narbonne, from the border to the Hérault river, where the sites of Ensérune, which has provided one of the richest epigraphic sets both in its habitat and especially in its necropolis, and of Pech Maho, with texts of a mercantile nature, such as its leads, stand out. We must add the sites of Elne (ant. Iliberris) and Château-Roussillon (Ruscino), to which are added more specific findings in other places along the coast. b) The rock inscriptions of the Cerdanya, both from France and Spain. c) The tituli picti or dipintos of Vieille-Toulouse, which constitute a homogeneous group of inscriptions of a markedly commercial nature. d) Scattered finds, some of them out of context, such as the fiales of Vielle-Aubagnan -The oldest Iberian texts, from the necropolis of Ensérune, were written on imported Attic pottery from the end of the 5th or beginning of the 4th century B.C.
As a curiosity note that in France you have Iliberris (Elne), in Spain we have the Iberian city of Iliberri (Granada) and in Basque new city is said Iriberri-“iber” is the name the Iberians gave to the Ebro river and ”ibar” means river in Basque.
I have already given you an example of two identical qpAdm models for Occitania and Valencia, you don't need to be a genius to understand that the genetics of these regions are very similar even to this day.
Distance to Castellón (Valencia)
0.01909244-French_South
0.02444201-French_Auvergne
0.02684532-Italian_Aosta_Valley
0.027228003-French_Occitaine
0.02750834-French_Provence
@Dospaises
All you have to do is read Arzelier's thesis, I think the clades are too modern for such old samples. Tables_SI_Partie4-Chapitre3-Table7
Method1-Yleaf
FAD9-R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5b1a1c-R-S6189*(xS6191)
QUIN7038-2-R1b1a1b1a1a1c2b1b4b3-R-S6934
QUIN7038-1-R1b1a1b1a1a1g-R-S21183*(xS20199,FGC35808)
Quin7038-5-R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a5c3b1a1-R-Z16289*(xBY20009)
I only know of one (or two) DF27 in France_BA
@ Davidski
So that’s why I asked the question above about the time of the emergence of ehg, could it be that in the North Caucasus by the time the chg people arrived there from the south, ehg people were already living there?
as far as I understand it was more than 15 -16 thousand years ago
I don't know if EHG was in the North Caucasus before CHG. I guess it's possible.
Nalchik is an important site. As it was mentioned here earlier, it is situated in the North Caucasus, specifically in the Caucasus plains. Similar burial traditions to those in Nalchik and Progress were practiced in Eneolithic Bamut, Chechnya, which is also located in the Caucasus plains.
There is a cranial affinity between Nalchik and Bamut, as well as strong similarities between burial rites. In addition, Nalchik is part of the so-called Southern Europid racial type, which is also characterized by cranial series from Koskuduk, Razdorskaya, and Rakushechny Yar. It makes up one of the main racial types in Khvalynsk.
Regarding possible Steppe Eneolithic sites, you can potentially trace them by examining a list of Neolithic and Eneolithic burials that featured boar tusks in the archaeological record - https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/izdeliya-iz-klyka-kabana-v-neolite-eneolitevostochno-evropeyskoy-stepi-i-lesostepi
In this context, the earliest usage of boar tusks in the archaeological record is observed in Cairshak and Varfolomeevka. These two key monuments mark the beginning of the Neolithic era in the Northern Caspian and the Lower Volga region.
Interestingly, Cairshak (as did the Eslhan culture not far off) had pottery, resembling that of the Northeast Caucasus Neolithic. It is possible that Cairshak was influenced by the foragers from Chokh in Dagestan, and by later Neolithic Chokh inhabits with cultural affinities towards Shulaveri Shomu and later Kura-Araxes cultures. Regarding Elshan, it possibly entered the subneolithic phase due to the influence from Cairshak, https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/problema-kontaktov-stepnogo-i-lesostepnogo-povolzhya-v-rannem-neolite
As tempting as it is to attribute a genetic substrate from the Caucasus to Cairshak, however, it would appear that Elshan, influenced by Cairshak as mentioned previously, is seemingly a fully EHG culture autosomally. Therefore, even if there was an influence from the Caucasus to Cairshak, it was mostly a cultural one that led to their transition to a subneolithic phase, as opposed to one that left an autosomal trace. The article above also mentioned a replacement of Cairshak by a population likely originating further West. So the hypothesized Caspian CHGs might not be relevant at all to the early dispersal of CHG ancestry further North, and the boar tusk tradition likely arose in EHG populations that mixed with CHG to create the Progress-like profile, then the question arises, where did this mixing happen?
According to "Genomic signals of continuity and admixture in the Caucasus," we know that a forager from Northwest Caucasus, dated to 6100 BC, already possessed EHG admixture. It's very possible that the sampled specimen is Satanay, as the individual's remains were recently sent to the West for radiocarbon dating, opening the possibility to its DNA being extracted for further analysis.
Archaeologically, Satanay exhibits strong links with the CHG Imeretian culture of Georgia, but more significantly to the foragers from Adler. Adler and Gubs (where Satanay was found) are connected by valleys, suggesting a possible migration route from Georgia to Coastal Adygea and then to Mountainous Adygea.
Morphologically, Satanay is highly distinctive, showing affinities with certain Upper Paleolithic specimens from Europe, such as Kostenki and some Gravettians. It is characterized by a very primitive, low, Neanderthal-like forehead. Interestingly, Satanay is not the sole specimen exhibiting this trait; several others, including specimens from Podkumok and Khvalynsk (predating the well known Khvalynsk culture), share similar features - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0047248410000977
The Neanderthal-like Khvalynsk is sampled and is mentioned in Luka Papac's dissertation "Tracking population history, social structure and intergroup exchange in Neolithic to Bronze Age Europe using ancient human and virus genomes". Said specimen is seemingly EHG-like autosomally.
Given the proximity of Khvalynsk to Cairshak and Elshan, the first appearance of boar tusk artifacts in Cairshak, the EHG admixture in Northwest Caucasus Mesolithic, and the morphological similarities between Satanay and the Khvalynsk specimen, we can speculate that the Progress-like autosomal admixture arose gradually through the mixing of Satanay-like CHG and Volga EHG migrants in the vicinity of Central and Northwest Caucasus. Nalchik represents the initial stage and site where this mixing standardized. The genetic profile likely dispersed even before Nalchik, into Ukraine possibly during the Mesolithic with the Crimean Mesolithic, and to Karelia given that some of the Karelian EHG had J1. However, it is in Nalchik where this genetic profile turned into a distinct, stabilized genetic profile that later dispersed to other regions.
The formative Proto-Indo-European (PIE) stage is the result of a mixture between Nalchik-like Eneolithic Steppe populations and Dnieper Donets descended foragers, with influence from Trypillia and Meshoko cultures. The genetic results of the Novodanilovka chiefs, who might have been the initial spreaders of the IE tongue, would be interesting. Cranially they differed from Sredny Stog, were significantly more robust, and were more similar to Dnieper Donets - https://go.gale.com/ps/i.do?p=AONE&u=googlescholar&id=GALE|A89075882&v=2.1&it=r&sid=sitemap&asid=58c7bae2
Unfortunately, there's a lack of craniometric analyses for Steppe Eneolithic populations, but we observe a pattern where Yamnaya is cranially larger than Sredny Stog, and Afanasievo cranially larger than Yamnaya, possibly attributed to increased Progress-like ancestry.
The acknowledgment that Nalchik has a Steppe Eneolithic-like genetic profile is a significant step toward understanding the formative stages of the Proto-Indo-European people. Looking forward to seeing a thorough autosomal and uniparental analysis of the Nalchik specimen.
@ AW
Interesting comments. Just two minor points
''It is possible that Cairshak was influenced by the foragers from Chokh in Dagestan, and by later Neolithic Chokh inhabits with cultural affinities towards Shulaveri Shomu and later Kura-Araxes cultures. ''
The issue with Chokh site is that no carbon dates exist. Some of the layers are Eneolithic, esp with those with pottery and domesticates.
Certainly, Karishak et al are much earlier than Shulaveri-Shomu culture sites, and there is no compelling parallel between north Caucasus and anything in the south.
In fact, there is no strong pottery tradition in the north Caucasus, unlike that of the 'eastern pottery traditions' we see in the Volga.
''CHGs might not be relevant at all to the early dispersal of CHG ancestry further North, and the boar tusk tradition likely arose in EHG populations that mixed with CHG to create the Progress-like profile, then the question arises, where did this mixing happen?
The boar-tusk tradition seems to originate in the Dnieper region if I recall correctly.
@ancestralwhispers.org
oh what people, greetings my Georgian neighbor from the North Caucasus)
@ancestralwhispers
"but we observe a pattern where Yamnaya is cranially larger than Sredny Stog, and Afanasievo cranially larger than Yamnaya, possibly attributed to increased Progress-like ancestry."
Hmm, interesting. I assumed the larger DDC/WHG ancestry would make the western populations more robust. I assumed that Yamnaya had larger cranial measurements compared to Khvalnysk due to having 33% ~ of the Dnieper Donets type ancestry.
@ancestralwhispers.org
I wrote above about the chokh, according to the latest radiocarbon dating data in an American laboratory in Amirkhanov’s article, it turned out that the age of the Mesolithic samples there is more than 10-12 thousand years, there are later samples of the Neolithic, Eniolithic, Bronze and so on
https://caucasushistory.ru/2618-6772/article/view/1860
@gaska
Southern Iron age samples from Fichers' paper are from Gallic oppida. If you tend to suggest that Ancient populations from that French region are of Iberian heritage so far, nothing support this point of view.
@JS
The oppida of Pech Maho was a Gaulish settlement??? I suppose you know that two very important Iberian writing plombs have been found there and we know from classical sources that in the 3rd century there was a settlement of Celts, especially of the Gaulish tribe of the Volcae Tectosages in Toulouse and large areas of southeastern France. These Gallic peoples also make their appearance in the Iberian texts of this time and constitute, therefore, a layer that is superimposed on the native Iberian population of the region. Several samples from Pech Maho were analyzed by Brunel and reanalyzed by Fischer, and look what they say-
-Brunel PCAs, the SF-IA2 samples cluster with Iberia_BA and Iberia_IA and their their uniparental & autosomal composition (qpAdm again) are very similar to the Iberian samples analyzed by Olalde.
-Fischer-“Dans le cas du site de Pech-Maho, nous disposons de 3 génomes à faible couverture:PECH5, PECH8 et PECH9. Si les individus PECH8 et PECH9 se regroupent avec les autres individus du sud de la France, l’individu PECH5 occupe une place très particulière, proche des populations basques actuelles”
-Isabelle Rébé (2.012)-Two Iberian plombs from Ruscino (Perpignan)-“Confronted with the information of archaeological indicators, the image of an Iberianism reduced only to a commercial phenomenon is blurred and Ruscino appears rather as a true home of Iberian culture among those that mark the coastline from the Empordà to the Aude basin”
I am not saying that they have Iberian heritage, I am saying that they are as Iberian as those south of the Pyrenees.
I see no evidence for domesticates in Chokh presented jn Amirkhanov’s article, not a single bone has been dated and contextualised . Plus he uses the problematic Kiev laboratory which gives wrong dates .
Once again, I see no evidence for any pottery tradition coming in from the Caucasus either.
These were a sub-Mesolithic type people that were culturally enriched by hunter gatherers from the north
@Rob
did you read the article carefully? There is data from the Kyiv laboratory and more recent data from the American one. I don't care if animals were domesticated there. I am more interested in whether these Mesolithic inhabitants of Chokh are the south pole for the steppe Eniolithic populations of the Caucasus and Volga region
Data for "An ancient genome perspective on the dynamic history of the prehistoric Jomon people in and around the Japanese archipelago"
This collection includes the EIGENSTRAT format genotype data of 23 Jomon-related ancient individuals for the 1240K SNP panel. These individuals were in-depth re-analyzed in the study "An ancient genome perspective on the dynamic history of the prehistoric Jomon people in and around the Japanese archipelago". These individuals were previously published elsewhere.
https://edmond.mpg.de/dataset.xhtml?persistentId=doi:10.17617/3.CXKGCX
@ Arsen
Insofar as the habitation of the northern Caucasus by CHG-type populations, we alreday knew that it was inhabited since the Epipaleolithic Imeretian until the late Mesolithic (since 18,000 calBP). There are several sites documenting that, and we already know such contacts reached the lower Don since 15,000 calBP. Chokh is just one of those sites, and its good to get some C14 dates.
But article also advances the view that domesticates appear at the turn of the 7th Millenium at Chokh, mostly in the abstract without elaborating in the body. The local evidence for that is weak, and it doesnt fit into any broader pattern. The Neolithic in the southern Caucasus appears c. 5800 BC, and in the Meshoko groups in the North c. 4700 BC.
It's important to understand this because some might then mistakenly claim that this is evidence of importation of pastoralism into the steppe from the southern Caucasus, when there is in fact no direct link between the village-based horticulturalists of the Shulaveri-Shomu group, the difficult to define 'Neolithic' of the western-central Caucasian highlands, and the complex fisher-hunter-gatherers of southern East Europe.
@Rob
Regarding cattle breeding, I’ll say that the dagestanis are known for being shepherds from time immemorial, cattle are constantly driven from the mountains to the plain and back, this is so by the way 🤣. Then terrace farming in dagestan is one of the earliest in the world, all the mountains are covered with terrace you can do it yourself Google it to see for yourself
Sorry for my english
@Rob
why do I think that the mountains of the eastern Caucasus, in particular Chokh, are a key point for hunter-gatherers, because unlike Eastern European hunters, who, as I understand it, lived in artificial houses like yurts made of animal skin, Caucasian hunters continued to use caves as housing and shelter for The mountains of the eastern Caucasus were ideal for this, since there are many rocks, many caves, many springs of water, unlike the plains and steppes of the Caucasus
@Rob
Regarding the Epipaleolithic, in the same Georgia cave of Dzudzuana and Kotias, Paleolithic DNA age 27-25 thousand years was found, on the Davidski calculator they are close to the Neolithic samples of Anatolia and the Levant, I’m interested in these Imeretian samples that you named, they are close to these Paleolithic samples or closer to the Caucasian hunters🤔
@MaxT From the paper
"There is linguistic evidence that points either to possible structural relationship or to prolonged contacts between Kartvelian and Indo-European languages in the South Caucasus4,8."
"Our analyses place the Kartvelian homeland in an area that intersects the Colchis glacial refugium in the South Caucasus. If refugia truly are sources of linguistic families and Indo-European languages originated somewhere south of the Caucasus, then the homeland of Indo-European languages can be refined to the Zagros or Hyrcanian (Alborz) refugia (Supplementary Fig. S4). These refugia are geographically closest to the South Caucasus71,72. The proposition of placing the Indo-European homeland in the Zagros and/or Hyrcanian refugia sheds light on the structural relationships or prolonged contacts between Kartvelian and Indo-European languages4,8."
Decent argument, big if true since Sredny Stog is the only (arguably) viable homeland for PIE/PIA on the steppe and it's not near the Kartvelian homeland.
@Zelto There isn't really any Siberian ancestry in BA Estonia or the rest of the Baltics, it starts appearing from the Iron Age onward. See Saag et al 2021 supplementals, good fits with BOO (ergo BOO-like).
Not sure if BOO themselves were responsible for Uralic in Europe though.
@Targamos The date is just before Khvalynsk and the even earlier Volga culture that started using animal husbandry and incorporating them into their funerals/religion (Sredny is also traced back to that).
From the Khvalynsk paper by Reich/Anthony:
"Domesticated animals, first adopted in the Volga-Ural steppes about 4800–4600 BCE, had triumphed by 4500 BC as the principal means of communication with the gods and ancestors, who apparently desired only sheep and goats, cattle, and an occasional horse. The horse was the only acceptable mammal that was indigenous. This new system of belief about the desires of the spirit world necessarily post-dated the arrival of domesticated animals, so it was a recently established ritual in 4500 BC. Yet this was the exclusive sacrificial ritual in the funerals at Khvalynsk. Khvalynsk was a central cemetery (because of its size) for a
new funeral cult in which domesticated animals were the preferred channel of communication with the spirit world. If the Volga steppes were part of the Proto-Indo-European
homeland, as many have argued100 then from the point of view of Indo-European religion, this was the moment when the world, made from the pieces of a cosmic cow101, began."
"Sredni Stog introduced into the Ukrainian steppes new funeral customs (the Khvalynsk or ‘Yamnaya’ position), ceramic types (shell-tempered like Khvalynsk), and economies (large numbers of horse bones) that had appeared earlier on the Volga."
Intriguing. Seems possible that this was introduced not just from the south (this is virtually guaranteed) but that there was also a genetic footprint around ~5000 BCE from which we now see evidence of. Chintalapati et al 2022 dates proto-Yamnaya genome to 4400-4000 BCE shortly after all this.
@EthanR "Regardless, 5000bc is too early Lazaridis' scenario."
Is it? proto-Anatolian splits around 4400-4200 BCE presumably there was more divergence time earlier for a few centuries. 5000 BCE is a pretty good date for proto-Indo-Anatolian, although they'd have to trace a southward movement into Anatolia from people like this, or to trace some even earlier people (closer to Heggarty's 6000 BCE scenario).
5000 BCE sounds like an awesomee argument in favor of Lazaridis lol
@Scott Lazaridis is specifically arguing against the (now abandoned anyway) scenario of CHG and EHG mixing to form Yamnaya. It's right there in what you quoted.
"If West Asian males didn't participate in the spread of CHG ancestry then all of it would be spread by females and hence 2/3 of the ancestry on the chrX would be CHG; it's actually 34.2+/-8.5%, i.e. 3.9 s.e. lower. That scenario is dead in the water."
The CHG in Yamnaya is more male-mediated than it is female-mediated, but the mediator of that CHG ancestry wasn't a CHG population but a CHG-rich one. That was what the South Arc papers were about lol
Although as was already said, mating bias is best measured in the early population so 4000 BCE or earlier. It could have changed over time (e.g. switched to a heavier male EHG bias hiding a stronger male CHG bias or the opposite).
@Orpheus
Pay attention you moron. This is what Iosif Lazaridis is literally saying:
If West Asian males didn't participate in the spread of CHG ancestry ... That scenario is dead in the water.
So he's trying to prove that West Asian males at least helped to spread some of the CHG into Eastern Europe.
I have no idea why though, because no one ever argued that they didn't, since we even have the West Asian Y-haplogroup J1 up in Karelia during the Mesolithic.
The point is that obviously the spread of CHG into Eastern Europe was largely female mediated. See that's why we only see a few instances of J1 in the ancient steppe, along with a wide variety of West Asian mtDNA lineages.
So unfortunately, Iosif is losing his grip on reality, which is very sad.
Lazaridis, like most individuals with IQ above room temperature, supposes the split of proto-Anatolian to around the late 5th millennium BC. Under Lazaridis' framework, archaic PIE does not cross the caucasus significantly earlier. It's an explicit part of his argument. You can go ask him directly.
@ Arsen
Precisely- CHG lived in mountains and caves, and not just eastern CHG But also those in Georgia.
This is not compatible with early pastoralism being introduced via the Caucasus, but as then being Refugial hunters of bear & boar , a window into the long lost Paleolithic world .
The Caucasus was a cultural & ecological barrier between wine-making village farmers in the south and EHG.
WRT pre-Ice Age Caucasians like Dzudzuana , I’ve already explained their affinities in a previous thread,
The Satsurblia man is middle Imeretian CHG and young Kotias is ‘Mesolithic Imeretian’
Fairly significant degree of continuity between the two but the CHG are a complex admixture
Intramural child burials in Iron Age Navarra: How ancient DNA can contribute to household archaeology-Luka Papac
35 new samples, 21 males, 20 R1b-P312 and 1 I2a
First Iron Age Basque genomes in low Navarre, bordering with the Celtiberians.
6 of the men are Df27>Z195 like the Argarians and Iberians, the rest of the men M269, L51, P310 and P312 , I guess many of them will be Df27>ZZ12. 95.5 % of Iron Age males in Iberia are P312, the rest I2a.
There are only 3 mtDNA with Central European origin (urnfielders) the rest are typical Iberians, which shows the exogamy between the proto-Celts and the Basques. Autosomically they are identical to Iberia_BA, without Mediterranean influence like the Argarians.
@ Gaska
"There are only 3 mtDNA with Central European origin (urnfielders) the rest are typical Iberians"
I was going to do just this exam, but only J1c3g. Very likely you are right, anyway I will verify through my methods.
The chapter finds that the Iron Age Navarri are shifted to central Europe compared to MLBA individuals from Spain, suggesting additional gene flow from Central Europe during the Iron Age, or shielding from mediterranean admixture from the south
we need more ancient DNA data from the eastern Caucasus , just to know where to look for bones 😪 is there really no modern technology for scanning the soil to search for ancient graves and bones in it ? I do not know any echo locators, I am so interested in this topic of ancient and modern dna , the relationship , the roots of origin .
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1coNyS7g-BIChqC0tSmGeAbwrYtjBns2C/view?usp=drivesdk
my theory is the settlement of the Caucasus by hunter-gatherers , although I do not know the age of this migration and the effective number of these hunters.
@Gio & Rob
Yeah, it is evident that there is French influence by the increase in steppe ancestry and the appearance of new mtDNA. In my opinion, these are the mtDNAs from France & Central Europe
mtDNA-T1a1, found in Afanasievo, CWC_Bohemia, France_BA
mtDNA-U2e1, found in mesolithic Ukraine, Russia, Baltic, CWC_Bohemia, France_BA
mtDNA-J1c3g, found in neolithic Germany, Belgium, Iberia_BA (Argar)
mtDNA-H1ea2, found in Poland and La Tene_Bohemia
mtDNA-T2a1/a, found in Afanasievo, Yamnaya, Poland, Denmark, England
Iberian genetics is super boring until the arrival of the Romans, it is absolutely amazing that more than 95% of men from 2500 onwards are R1b-M269.In case anyone has any doubts about the cultural identity of the sites analyzed, coins with the legend BARSKUNES (Basques) have been found in them.
All the places where Iberian writings have been found in IA Between Perpignà and Béziers (French Catalonya and South Languedoc) are coastal ones, so I’m pushed to consider them as commercial counters as were the Greek ones in the Mediterranean Gaul. Maybe could you provide us other places deeper inland ? I don’t refute an Iberian presence in Southern Gaul but I doubt about their demic weight. BTW at the beginning of the Pech Maho (Sigean, dep. Aude, coastal Sth Languedoc) the Oppida showed Greek architectural influences relative to other Oppidas ; it’s only around Pech Maho III ( ?315 to 210 BC) that Iberian writings were intensified. Before it’s the first writings would be of 500 to 300 BC inEnserune, but with what density ?
It’s in this Pech Malo that was found a genomic profile close to today Basque auDNA profile, according to you. Here under what I found in the Fischer survey (everytime bold police is of me):
« Oppidum dePech Maho (Sigean, Aude)
Person in charge: E Gailledrat
Pech Maho (Sigean, Aude) is a small fortified trading post founded at the middle of the 6th century BC and abandoned at the end of the 3rd century BC.
The settlement acted as a place of exchange and meeting between native populations and Mediterranean merchants (Greek, Etruscans, Iberians). Domestic levels yielded some graves of very young children. »
That said I dont know what a « Basque profile » could add to your demonstration, if the link with Iberian stays in the ordinary Sth French profile, distinct, profile which can be explained by an ancient common background (WHG, Cardial, BB’s, Aquitanians, Ligurians, Celts… The TRUE cultural Iberian component here and there could be very light, the Iberian having surely absorbed at home a big part of the same ancient background if not all of it. And similarity isn’t identity.
You said too :
Gaska : «-Isabelle Rébé (2.012)-Two Iberian plombs from Ruscino (Perpignan)-“Confronted with the information of archaeological indicators, the image of an Iberianism reduced only to a commercial phenomenon is blurred and Ruscino appears rather as a true home of Iberian culture among those that mark the coastline from the Empordà to the Aude basin”
For Ruscino I never denied a true settlement there. All that makes a maritime narrow ribbon which doesn’t provide us any certainty concerning the back country.
Concerning linguistics you don’t distinguish between Vasconic-Aquitanian maybe very ancient sources of toponymy (before the IE’s?) and genuine Iberian writings which could by very more recent and almost only commercial by nature even if we have traces of some true integration among the local pop a coastal place (Enserune between Narbonne and Béziers). The most of these writings as said by the quotes yourself gave us are linked to trade. You’re poling Vasconic and Iberian at IA. Surely they had common ancestry at a deeper stage of history but you establish an allover chronologic and geographic continuum since BB to IA linked to all Y-R1b-L51 descendants, what is still to prove, IMO.
Your quote : Arzelier -
“Conversely, individuals originating from Southern France, both belonging to Bell-Beaker-associated and Bronze Age contexts, display more variability and a profile similar to Bronze Age individuals from the Iberian Peninsula”
It agrees surely with the fact that South of Gaul was the crossroad of a lot of cultures, pre-Celtic, Celtic, Ligurians + trade bridgeheads of Greeks and others, and of Iberians there…
Apparently Gascony region (part of Aquitania then) was a patchwork of Vasconic and Celtic tribes as it was in the today Basque country in Spain, and in Alps it was a patchwork of Celtic and Ligurian tribes.
ATW Southern Gaul at those times was not the better region to track mono-ethnic populations near the coast. Geographically intricated pop’s in not too different numbers create bilinguism or multilinguism and the winner language depends then on more than a factor. Same question with Italic-Etruscan.
@ Arsen- I can’t see your link, it’s protected or blocked..
@ Moesan , Gaska
Do we have adna from Bronze Age southern France ? Would be interesting to see the impact of Beaker groups here vs the resilient local groups such as Treilles & Fontbousse
The suggestion of a coastal link for Iberian is intriguing with regard to Sardinian links
@ Gaska
I didn’t make my analysis, not only because I think that yours is excellent (and I wouldn’t arrive in different results), but also because YFull isn’t reachable from the Biblioteca “G. Gronchi” of Pontedera where I was yesterday (I spoke a lot about that in the past), but I gave a glance to the paper and it confirms your thoughts: “Later, by the middle of the 1st millennium BC, it became a distinctive funerary practice of populations identified in archaeology as »Iberian«, based on their settlement pattern, artefact typology, the Northeastern Iberian script, and pre-Roman toponymy of the Iberian Peninsula and southern France”.
@Moesan
Nobody knows the demographic weight of the Iberians in the south of France, but what is certain is that more and more writings are appearing all along the Spanish and French Mediterranean coast. In any case, commercial contracts or stock lists are a small part of the texts written in Iberian. It is true that there were also factories or colonies in the Greek or Etruscan style
Do not forget that in the Iberian-French territory there are at least 9 mints. Do you think that the locals would allow foreigners to mint coins?–Galia Narbonense-The legends are clearly Iberian-Auntiki, Beterra, Bineken, Birikantin, Biurbi, Bersa-Kurukuru-Atin, Neronken, Selonken.
(S) KEN-Galia (Bineken, Neronken & Selonken)-9 iberian cities in Spain use this suffix on their coins ergo is definitely a proof of cultural unity between south and north Pyrenees-Untikesken, Iltirkesken, Laiesken, Oskumken, Ausesken, Seteisken, Otobesken, Ikalesken, Urkesken.
Meaning=Currency of the urcitani (Urkesken), layetani (Laiesken), sedetani (Seteisken), ilerkavones (Iltirkesken) etc
The uniparental markers also coincide, I will give an example of an mtDNA that has only been found in Iberia and then in France.
I3322 (550 AC)-Puig de la Misericordia, Iberian culture, Edetania-mtDNA-H1t
PECH10 (450 AC)-Pech Maho, Sigean-Occitania-mtDNA-H1t
@ Gaska
About H1t we have to say that the sure diffusion in Iberia is linked with H1t1 and subclades separated 5400 ybp, but the oldest samples H1t, separated 8900 ybp, are found not only in Iberia (Spain and Portugal) but also in Italy, and the presence in Iberia is in the Canaries and Valencia, i.e.
possibly not surely linked with the ancestors of the Iberians, because about the Canaries we can not know which is the origin in Iberia, and Valencia is the most linked region not only with the migrations of recent people from Southern France, but also from all the migrations from Liguria/Italy beginning from the Zilhao migration of 7500 years ago. Thus we’d need a long and deep exam to demonstrate something. I have expressed many times that a link of hg. Y R1b1 with the Alps (less the Franco-Cantabrian refugium where it hasn’t been found so far) and the Caucasus with the Caucasian languages is a possibility.
All the other subclades of H1t (H1t2 until H1t9) are preponderantly found in Iberia but their ancestors separated very recently, not before 3000 ybp, and the oldest separated (H1t7 and H1t8) are found in the British Isles and not in Iberia, thus they aren’t a sure proof about your hypothesis.
Okay, it doesn 't matter. There is nothing unusual there
@ Gaska
The mutation of H1t from H1 is as to YFull G9986A, a synonimic mutation that occurs 113 times in GenBank and 74 in H1t, but also 1 in one H1a sample and above all in hgs L. Perhaps you know that I criticized so long the YFull tree about the question of the heteroplasmies. This mutation seems just fixed in heteroplasmy and to be very old given its presence in hgs L. This hypothesis is reinforced by the Helix variants. The H1a sample is
MN687188.1 /country="Italy: Umbria"
A73G, A263G, C315CC, A750G, A1438G, G3010A, A4769G, A8860G, T9047C, G9986A, A11026G, A15326G, A16162G, T16311C, T16519C
and reinforces an old origin in the Alpine zone or Italy more than Iberia.
@Davidski
"Yeah, the Yamnayans with R1b were the upper class buried in kurgans, while those with R1a were the artisans buried out the back somewhere."
It's more like a SPECIFIC group of Yamnayans who happened to be R1b-Z2103 were the ruling clans in the OPEN STEPPE, not that all R1bs were elites. I would assume most R1bs, even Z2103s, were just like R1a, I2, etc.. and were buried normally.
And those ruling clans (and their close relatives in the "poorer" kurgans) would be the only ones that received kurgan burials. Most people in that culture would simply be buried normally.
If we truly buy SS -> Yamnaya, this is a pretty solid assumption. Yamnaya overnight losing all the Y-DNA diversity that populations like SS/Khvalynsk had seems far-fetched. It's more like sampling bias based on who was buried in kurgans. Even the direct patrilineal ancestors of CW people, had that Y-DNA diversity of SS/Khvalynsk.
I know that this question will be raised off topic in this forum dedicated to genetics, but recently the other day there was a study that ancientized the age of the Kartvelian languages to 7-8 thousand years, although if you compare the vocabulary of the Kartvelian languages, they practically do not differ from each other, including Svan language
Now I have a question, where I come from in the eastern Caucasus, the languages are much more different from each other, sometimes it happens that two neighboring villages speaking the same language group of dagestan languages practically do not understand each other, the languages are so different from the languages even in the same group, the question is why the age of the Nakhsk-Ddagestan languages is much younger than the Kartvelian languages?
Sorry for my english☺
@DragonHermit
The so called rich and poor Yamnaya burials are all R1b-Z2103 and I2a-L699, or something that is on the way to those markers because of missing data.
And this is true for all of the Yamnaya samples that I've seen from several different sites that are yet to be published.
So, as things stand, what you're claiming isn't supported by any direct evidence.
If this ends up being the case, and David Anthony and David Reich publish a paper claiming the same sort of thing based on no direct evidence, then they'll look pretty stupid IMHO.
@ Арсен
Answering this question is very difficult and only an expert could answer it. The simplest answer is the one that takes geography into consideration: two communities that are close but separated by mountains that make contact impossible tend to differ greatly over time as happens in New Guinea with very different languages between populations that are close but separated by impassable mountains. But this can be influenced by the nature of the language and its difficulty or ease of change and only an expert can determine this. Furthermore, the question of Caucasian languages is whether they have been where they are now for a long time or whether they are due to the concentration of languages previously spread across a much larger space. Once again, a lot of information would be needed to attempt an answer.
Perhaps Dragon Hermit is proposing a new form of burial by Vaporization during the Yamnaya period on the steppe.
Yeah, David Anthony isn't analyzing, he's story telling.
It's a really bad hypothesis that ignores obvious things like the fact that there's always some way that social stratification like this is overcome by individuals.
So even if there was a ruling Yamnaya kurgan clan rich in Z2103, we'd expect to see one or two instances of R1a in the rich burials.
@Gio
thank you, I understand what you mean, you gave a detailed good answer to my question. Thank you 😊
@Davidski
by the way , our Tabasarans have the Z2103 and Z2106 branches according to the latest data , it is more than 60 percent , it still occurs in some villages , but the main branch is j1
https://youtu.be/eiGou8GkWmo?si=EFL1wTncc500MDgT
The issue is more pronounced than even that. There's no R-L51, R1a, or R-PF7562 in sampled Yamnaya. There's two R-l51 in Afanasievo.
Miraculously there's very limited Z2103 or I-L699 in Corded Ware.
I don't have a particularly strong opinion on the issue but it's a challenge to maintain there being one shared linguistic community (as most models do for late PIE), when it's clear that if Corded Ware comes from "Yamnaya", it's not any of the ones we've seen so far. You'd need some degree of regionalism . I think it's plausible technological terms could be shared in this scenario, but usually more is posited than that on the linguistic side.
Viewed purely by the genetics, you'd expect some branching to occur around 3400-3300bc when the Z2103 founder effect spreads. This would be a bit earlier than most linguistic branching estimates post-tocharian split.
@Rob
https://www.pnas.org/doi/101073/pnas.1918034117
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/52589004222003649
@ Moesan - neither link works .
Ive seen Patterson had a couple of samples from southern France
@ Rob
"As a sanity check, if Kartvelian languages remain nearly mutually intelligible, then they obviously did not split 8 thousand years ago, during hunter-gatherer times.
Sounds like a couple of the Georgian authors are just trying to artificially inflate the antiquity of their languages".
Of course for answering this question we should be expert about the Caucasian languages, and I am not, but about the ages of the split of the Kartvelian languages I suggest to you to look at the origin of the Y (and mt) subclades, to the time of formation and the age of the survived subclades, and it seems that the Kartvelian languages have no link (at least in the last many thousands of years) with the other Caucasian languages. It remain the question I spoke about with Arsen, i.e. if they are in the Caucasus from the Palaeolithic or came from a wider space.
@Gio
🤔Hmm ,I think that Kartvelian and in general all languages of the Caucasus are connected with eastern Anatolia, or at least were strongly influenced by Anatolia. After all, Caucasian hunters originally inhabited the Caucasus in a language close to proto-Indo-European . But I think that this language was at the initial stage of formation, the vocabulary was very scarce and limited. That is why even a small number of Anatolian mixtures and northern Iran could greatly affect the languages of the Caucasus , in particular Kartvelian and East Caucasian
@Rob
Try to google
Ancient genomes from present-day France unveil 7000 years of its demographic history
by Samantha Brunel et
+
Origin and mobility of Iron Age Gaulish groups in present-day France revaled through archaeogenmics
by Claire-Elise Fischer et
@ Moesan
Thank you. Putting Patterson, Brunnel & Fisher together, we see a milder turnover in southern France than north during Beaker phase, with persistent Y-DNA diversity into the Iron Age, although this diversity was also due to inflow of novel groups from the Alpine-Halstatt zone during the Iron Age.
All put together, we see clues of existence of non-IE groups in southern France, esp SE France perhaps, linked to the resilience of the local Late Neolithic. Curiously, this is more evident than in Iberia, at present.
@ Arsen
Many great linguists wrote about the question. I think we should start from them: http://www.mapageweb.umontreal.ca/tuitekj/caucasus/IberoCaucasian.pdf
The thread of Caucasian historical linguistics was woven into the broader tissue of ethnocultural history since the beginning of the discipline, but from the 1950’s to the present, currents came to the forefront in the historiography of Transcaucasia that were, like reconstructions of Indo-European warriors, driven by idealized templates of the past that doubled as models for the future. In Georgia in particular, Caucasian linguistics continues to be recruited into political, or in any case politicized, discourses.
There is as yet no convincing evidence that the three Caucasian language stocks — Abkhaz-Adyghean, Nakh-Daghestanian, and Kartvelian — are related either among themselves, or to any languages spoken elsewhere.
For the first time, a hypothesis of pan-Caucasian linguistic unity emerged from the pen of a
reputable expert possessing a solid command of the primary data. Čikobava frequently cited this
letter by Uslar as a forerunner of his Ibero-Caucasian proposal. Less often cited, however, are
letters written a few years later, which shows that Uslar was already having serious doubts that
the Caucasian languages were in fact genetically related. In a letter dated 1870, Uslar referred to
West-Caucasian, East-Caucasian and Georgian [Kartvelian] as distinct language groups.
In another letter written two years later, he expressed the belief that the North Caucasian languages
represented either “a separate family or even several separate families” (osoboe semejstvo ili
daže neskol´ko osobyx˝ semejstv˝; Uslar 1888:49; Klimov 1986a: 109).
Toward the end of this period, though, Marr returned to a topic that first caught his interest when he was still a student, namely the possibility that Georgian was related to the Semitic languages. p. 13
etc etc
@ Gio
“Of course for answering this question we should be expert about the Caucasian languages, and I am not, but about the ages of the split of the Kartvelian languages I suggest to you to look at the origin of the Y (and mt) subclades, to the time of formation and the age of the survived subclades, and it seems that the Kartvelian languages have no link (at least in the last many thousands of years) with the other Caucasian languages.”
This question is beyond linguists itself. They’ve established language families and some can advance cautious clues from the language itself , then adiue
It’s hard to accept Svan is a Mesolithic language given that Svan harbour 80% G2a, which from the Taurus-Zagros region
Of course, all caucasians retain high levels of local CHG in one form or another
@ Arsen
“After all, Caucasian hunters originally inhabited the Caucasus in a language close to proto-Indo-European”.
This is quite unlikely, as PIE developed in a completely different cultural setting. More realistically, your NEC is closest to the original CHG language.
What does NEC the Northeast Caucasus mean? Do you really think that the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus spoke languages close to dagestan? then what about the theories that the true founders of pie were the chg people, then who is the true pie in your opinion? ehg ? Then there are even more questions 😅
and what about the Georgian languages . they have the highest percentage of Caucasian hunter-gatherer in their genes, if we assume which of the Caucasian languages chg spoke , then it is more likely to assume that this language was close to Svan
@Davidski
Could you convert the samples from "A genetic history of the Balkans from Roman frontier to Slavic migrations" (https://www.cell.com/cell/fulltext/S0092-8674(23)01135-2) to G25?
Here is the link to the official genotype files:
https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/Olalde%20Cell_Datasets_Gentypes.zip
Thanks!
@Арсен
The consensus for the past ~100 years has been that the Indo-Anatolian/Proto-Indo-European homeland was in the Pontic-Caspian steppe.
And there's no real, direct evidence that this is wrong.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2022/09/dear-iosif-about-that-2.html
Apart from that, considering how closely related Indo-European languages are, Indo-Anatolian realistically emerged only around 4,500 BCE.
Anybody claiming that it dates back to the Mesolithic or even Neolithic and that it was a CHG language is an idiot.
@ Arsen - you’re asking very dumb questions. Given that IE languages are linked to hg R1b-M269, R1a-M17, I2-L601, and a cultural package which developed in Eastern Europe, it’s clear why PiE isn’t from the caves of Dagestan or Chechnya.
@ Rob
What I wrote wasn't against your positions or Davidski's ones, that I am following and appreciating. I only wanted to say that the exam of the languages and the languages families may be important also for understanding the genetics, with all the due caveats, but to be expert in both is very difficult. I wondered that in this paper about the Caucasian languages the author doesn't quote Alfredo Trombetti, perhaps because he wreote in Italian even though he spoke more than 30 languages included Russian and was able to understand all the Slavic ones as I am able at least to understand all the neolatin ones by knowing Italian and Latin, also without having studied them, but having learned them during my life as an Italian understand pretty much all the Italian dialects. We don't need to study the Neapolitan dialect as we heard songs and comedies and movies since our infantry. Trombetti thought that Basque language was linked to the Caucasian ones and the Etruskan was intermediate between Indo-European and Caucasian, from that my position I have expressed also here: Caucasian languages in the Caucasus and the Alps, linked above all to the Palaeolithic hg I/J, perhaps with hg R1b1 at least from 17000 years ago when it arrived from the Siberian corridor. Perhaps the linked R1a, remained Easternmost, maintained the original ancestor of the Indo-European. It is possible. But don't forget that the survived languages to-day are a little part of those formed during the Palaeolithic and Mesolithic, and the Caucasian ones perhaps concentrated in the Caucasus from a wider space, and only Sardo-Basque and Etruskan survided in Europe, and of course many others supposed from the relict languages which are found in Indo-European and elsewhere.
It's rather clear that R1b/R1a were on the steppe and/or the forest-steppe for thousands of years. It has nothing to do with the Caucasus or Middle East. This is exactly why we have SNPs which have regional differentiation. I believe R1b/R1a are Epigravettian in origin, maybe the latter shifted slightly north.
So, Rob, I’m not an expert, neither in the field of linguistics, nor in the field of archeology, nor in the field of genetics, I don’t understand much about this at all, the only thing I understand is how the calculator works, which was invented by the respected Davidsky 🤭
I don't pretend to be an expert, so I will naturally have stupid questions, and I'm not saying that CHG from the caves of Chechnya or Dagestan spoke PIE languages. I myself have seen this theory and read it from eminent scientists. I'm not saying that this is right or that it's true, I myself want to get to the bottom of the truth, find out the genetic history of my people, and also find out the connections with PIE.
@Davidsk
It’s interesting to me. We have hunter-gatherers. They lived in small groups, they hunted mammoths, horses, animals, and so on. They couldn’t be silent all the time. They somehow exchanged information among themselves. Didn’t there exist languages according to you? in the Mesolithic or even in the Paleolithic? at least at a primitive level they all sat in a cave and discussed with children how to properly kill a mammoth or defend themselves from a saber-toothed tiger.. why do you think that pie arose only in 4500 BC?
yes, this is another stupid question. but I’m interested to hear your opinion
@Арсен
Languages evolve very quickly. Within a few hundred years one language can split into two or more languages that generally aren't mutually intelligible.
So Indo-Anatolian can't be much more than 6,000 years old, or we would expect much greater diversification between extant languages within the Indo-Anatolian family, and between the different Indo-Anatolian branches.
For example, some of the phrases in Sanskrit still sound basically like some sort of ancient Slavic speech to modern Slavic speakers like me.
And yet, we have clowns like Heggarty telling us that the Balto-Slavic and Indo-Aryan branches split about 8,000 years ago. This is insane.
Before Indo-Anatolian existed, there were other languages on the Pontic-Caspian steppe that were near and far related to Indo-Anatolian. Some of these languages were ancestral to Indo-Anatolian.
But they're all extinct now, and there's no way to learn anything meaningful about them from any extant languages, because they existed too far back in time.
hmm interesting, thank you then, in your opinion, what language could the bearer of the tooth from Nalchik speak? In genetic terms, I have virtually no doubt that he was close to, for example, the Akhvakhs or Dargins or other NEC ethnic groups, I don’t even doubt it says your calculator, and you will see for yourself when the genome is sequenced. And I am sure that this is not just a “similar mixture”. There are two options: either it is proto pie or NEC
''Didn’t there exist languages according to you? in the Mesolithic or even in the Paleolithic? at least at a primitive level they all sat in a cave and discussed with children how to properly kill a mammoth or defend themselves from a saber-toothed tiger.. why do you think that pie arose only in 4500 BC?''
The proto in PIE means the final stage before break up. This is theoretical, because there is always dialectical varation & splits are never clean, because communities remain in contact or can even reconverge. That's why the Tree approach is not ideal.
Obviously PIE has older forms but it becomes hypothetical to trace it back too far, but if we had to hedge our bets it would be from EHG groups, who are a mix of ANE & WHG.
But EHG, WHG and CHG would have spoken many different languages. Just look at Native Amercians, which entered North America as one or two founder effect and there are numerous families which developed since 16,000 years ago as they moved into new lands and became segmented into their own niches. EHG, CHG, and WHG are approximately the same age, even older.
@Арсен
Maybe the Nalchik genome will be very similar to Akhvakhs or Dargins, but if that's true then it's an argument against the Nalchik people being Proto-Indo-European speakers.
Nalchik is a dead-end population, we already know that groups like them and Progress_En were replaced by Steppe Majkop and then Yamnaya. I doubt they even have much directly to do with NEC, which probably are more related to Kura-Araxes
the only thing that will make Nalchik's genome different from the Akhvakhs and Dargins is that he will lack additional genes associated with Anatolian farmers and Iran
@Rob
where did you get the information that the sample from Nalchik is a dead-end branch? Suddenly, this sample later mixed with EHG people and gave rise to such people as progress , later went north , mixed even more with ehg and Ukrainian hg and gave catacomb yamnaaya other cultures
@Арсен
There's no evidence that Nalchik was ancestral to Yamnaya.
These groups just shared certain genetic components, and all we can claim is that Yamnaya was potentially largely derived from a Nalchik-related population.
@ Arsen
''Suddenly, this sample later mixed with EHG people and gave rise to such people as progress , later went north , mixed even more with ehg and Ukrainian hg and gave catacomb yamnaaya other cultures''
Nalchik didnt migrate to Ukraine or whatever. On the contrary people arrived to the north Caucasus to form communities like those buried in Nalchik, Progress & Vonuchka.
''where did you get the information that the sample from Nalchik is a dead-end branch?''
It's simple culture-chronology
Nalchik/Progress were supplanted by Majkop and Steppe Majkop ~ 3800 BC
Majkop & steppe Majkop were then supplanted by Majkop-Novosvobodnaya and Yamnaya/Catacomb, resp. ~ 3000 BC.
Thus, Nalchik is not directly ancestral to anything, it was a niche group which was locally replaced, not an expander horizon.
@All
Here are the G25 coords for most of the samples from the new Balkan paper by Olalde et al.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1CmELrecqqmDDEzoRilqq6bRM1NJXaLdq/view?usp=sharing
I'll have a blog post about this paper in a few days.
@Rob
do you really think that the tooth from Nalchik was formed from a mixture of Ukrainian HGs that came to the Caucasus and mixed with local CHGs, but I don’t think so. I think that in the northern Caucasus the chg-ehg mixture existed at least since the Mesolithic, why did I decide that? that CHG itself is a mixture of Western Asia (similar to Iranian farmers) of the Levant, and EHG people. And this EHG could only come from the northern Caucasus, and that means back in the Mesolithic it was in the northern Caucasus, since there is a sample of Satsurblia older than 13 thousand years. that is, EHG in people, supposedly Satsurblia, could only have come from hunter-gatherers of the Northern Caucasus, for whom EHG was higher. This is my opinion, don’t throw rotten tomatoes at me. That’s why I asked above about the approximate time of origin of EHG, is anything known about it?
@ Arsen
''do you really think that the tooth from Nalchik was formed from a mixture of Ukrainian HGs that came to the Caucasus ''
No I never said that. Your google translator, plust whatever else, seems to be malfunctioning
''that CHG itself is a mixture of Western Asia (similar to Iranian farmers) of the Levant, and EHG people. And this EHG could only come from the northern Caucasus, and that means back in the Mesolithic it was in the northern Caucasus, since there is a sample of Satsurblia older than 13 thousand years''
EHG from the Caucasus ? This also doesnt make sense. I dont think you know much about genetics, and it would also help if you speak English in an English-speaking based comments section.
@Арсен
CHG is not a mixture between EHG and Iranian hunter-gatherers. That's just an abstract model to describe its ancestry, not the reality.
EHG people never migrated to the South Caucasus, and we don't know yet if they ever lived in the North Caucasus.
You're confusing shared genetic components and similar allele frequencies with actual peoples and migrations. This is a mistake that happens a lot in papers too and it's a problem.
All that we know for sure is that there was a genetic cline in CHG-related and EHG-related allele frequencies between Nalchik and the steppe.
The most likely reason for this cline is the two-way (bidirectional) movement of people, usually women, who already had both CHG-related and EHG-related ancestries, but at somewhat different ratios (more CHG in the south, more EHG in the north).
Okay , I got it , we 'll wait and see . I saw this "abstract" model in an article where people like EHG levant Iran WHG stood on 4 sides of the square, and everything inside, including CHG, was modeled as a mixture of these 4 components
I know the translator is a bit dumb.
I imaging Nalchik will be very similar to Progress & Vonuchka, perhaps a bit more variability because it is the larger cemetery (maybe more Meshoko-like stuff, less West Sib. HG). These N-P-V groups formed due to EHG migrating from the north, the Volga-Caspian region, toward the Caucasus mountains, and mixing with those kind of CHG people living in Chokh, Gubs gorge, indeed, the entire Caucasus mountain ecotone. Acquiring flint & obsidian was one draw-card
The N-P-V groups were supplanted by, and mixed into, Steppe Majkop.
So the CHG-rich ancestry in future Yamnaya is either indirectly admixed, or from somewhat different groups.
didn't meshoko contain Anatolian impurities already 6 thousand years before our era?
Nalchik is older than Meshoko and apparently it already has Anatolian-related ancestry.
I think it does not have Anatolian , as well as the samples of the eneolitic steppe of the Caucasus , because there was a clear border of the Caucasus steppe that did not mix for several thousand years , although Nalchik itself is not quite in the steppe but not in the mountains either
Ostatni zbiór danych G25.
Nie ten czas i nie to miejsce dla Germanina.
Target: Croatia_TrogirDobric_100-400 CE _R1b->z2103->BY250:I26718
Distance: 1.4500% / 0.01450037
31.8 Mycenaean ???
23.2 UpperMycenaean ???
17.0 Levant_BA_e
10.2 Nordic_BA
6.2 BritishIslands_BA
4.0 RUS_Catacomb
3.4 RUS_North_Caucasus_MBA
2.6 Cycladic
1.0 Anatolia_BA
0.6 NorthAfrica_EN
Nie mam pojęcia jak to interpretować.
He's talking about Nalchik, but this is what the Nalchik abstract says...
The authors suggested that by about 5000 BC. (and perhaps earlier), a population appeared in the North Caucasus that combined the gene pool of Caucasian hunter-gatherers with the gene pool of the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic, probably from the territory of Northern Mesopotamia - Zagros, and this population subsequently interacted with eastern hunter-gatherers from the steppe.
That Makes sense but always good to check when data comes out.
One or two of the Progress/Vonuchka individuals have Meshoko ancestry, thus would have a slither of something Anatolia.
@Арсен
This is what the Nalchik abstract says...
The authors suggested that by about 5000 BC. (and perhaps earlier), a population appeared in the North Caucasus that combined the gene pool of Caucasian hunter-gatherers with the gene pool of the early Pre-Pottery Neolithic, probably from the territory of Northern Mesopotamia - Zagros, and this population subsequently interacted with eastern hunter-gatherers from the steppe.
@Polak_X
Nie mam pojęcia jak to interpretować.
To sie naucz.
Yes I get it thanks 🙏
@Rob
https://twitter.com/waters_of_mem/status/1732581960168456482?t=Zot8l6M4PNACn3hb6Bk4Tw&s=19
that's what I meant, Rob, when I said that yamnaya DNA is modeled through progress
Progress is just a proxy for the population that is ancestral to Yamnaya.
It's not really ancestral to Yamnaya.
Regarding the new Nal’chik genome, is there any intel regarding which burial complex it comes from?
At the very top of the J2b L283 YTree is an ancient sample (basal) also from Nal’chik, Russia (KDC001). However, this sample dates back to 2000 BCE to a catacomb burial.
https://www.yfull.com/tree/j-l283/
I’m curious if the new Nal’chik sample might come from the same cemetery as KDC001.
I just finished reading a portion of Antonio Sagona’s book “The Archaeology of the Caucasus” and in it he profiles the Nal’chik cemetery where they have a number of low elevation kurgans or barrows. The dating on these barrows is difficult to nail down, but some Russian archaeologists think they may date between about 5100-4500 BCE. These dates are curiously close to the age estimate for the new Nal’chik sample.
Here’s a more detailed account re: Nal’chik and Meshoko from Antonio Sagona found in Chapter 4 of “The Archaeology of the Caucasus”:
“Judging by the faunal remains at Meshoko – 217 pigs (52 per cent), 119 cattle (28 per cent), and 73 sheep and goats (18 per cent) – these early north Caucasian villagers were primarily stock-breeders, who also tilled the black soil of the piedmont.All the same, hunting and gathering was keenly practised, as is shown by the wild animal (90 per cent of the total sample) and fruit (wild pear) remains from the Meshoko rock shelter. Half of the animal bones from Svobodnoe belong to red deer and boar, suggesting the villagers certainly had a taste for game.
Within the vicinity of the town of Nal’chik, we have a settlement (Agubekovo) and a cemetery (Nal’chik), both investigated in the late 1920s and early 1930s. The cemetery provides a glimpse of mortuary practice. Covering an area of 300 m2, it consists of 147 burials represented by a series of low-lying mounds grouped in clusters that possibly reflect some sort of familial structure. Males were usually placed on their right side and females on their left, but with no particular orientation, although north–south aligned inhumations are more prevalent in the later burials.
Many skeletons, especially those placed along an east–west axis, were thickly covered with red ochre. This practice is also attested at Bamut, in Chechnia, where the deceased was laid to rest with beads and a circular stone pendant, and provided with retouched stone blades. Red ochre is a globally important substance and highly symbolic. It is its ‘redness’, a visually stimulating colour, which is so appealing to humans. In many cultures extending back into the Palaeolithic, red ochre was often associated with blood, vigour, and life. The vast majority of burials at Nal’chik had no grave goods. Graves 46, 54, 55, 83, 86, and 92 did include grave goods, and the dead wore jewellery, mostly necklaces, comprising perforated animal teeth (wild boar, deer wolf, bear, and other beasts), and beads crafted from sea-shell (the limpet Helcion pectunculus) and stone. One individual in Grave 86 had a copper wire laid across the skull, and two stone bangles, one on each wrist (Figure 4.3(1)). From another grave came a stylised (seated?) human figurine carved from a soft stone, possibly marl. It has a constricted neck and waist, and is perforated at the base so it could be worn as a pendant. Pottery, agricultural, and domestic items were not placed in tombs. A stone statuette of a woman with exaggerated waist and legs, found near a globular mace, provides evidence for artistic endeavours, but we do not know from which burial it derives.
Munchaev dates Nal’chik to the second half of the fourth millennium BC, based on loose connections with the Near East, but – taking into account today’s evidence – a higher date is more likely. We only have a single radiocarbon date from Nal’chik, which might have been contaminated. Nevertheless, the reading tallies with similarities in material culture from Kamennonmost Cave,Level 2,stratified beneath Maikop-like material,and Staronizhesteblievsk, which would place Nal’chik in the region of 5000–4500 BC. Although the information from Nal’chik is insufficient to provide any sort of detailed picture of life and death in the northern Caucasus, the introduction of barrow burials, a mode of funerary construction that became popular centuries later, is important to note.”
@Sam Elliott
most likely, I think that KDC001 is of South Caucasian origin since there is a lot of Levant Anatolia and Kotias in it, plus there is not far away a pass that connects the southern and northern Caucasus, the so-called Caucasian gates, there is currently a highway connecting Georgia and North Ossetia. last year there were mobilized Russians who fled the war 🤣🤣
through this transition, these genes could get from Georgia to the northern Caucasus
@Davidski
I'm sorry, it turns out that you are the same David Wesolowski, the creator of the eurogenes k36 gene calculator? Do you accept how much your calculators helped popularize such a field as population genetics and everything like that? no matter how pathetic it may sound, people like you change the world and serve as the engine of progress and civilization
It’s important to realise that Meshoko and Nalchik are different burial traditions, cave burials & kurgan burials, resp.
They likely have different origins, Meshoko being from the non-Shulaveri Georgian Neolithic and Nalchik being a steppe group dominated by EHG. So they real question is what sort of flow there is between the 2 neighbours
@Rob
This is exactly what I mean, of course, our writings can now only be guesses, but I think that the Meshoko and samples are like KDC001. more connected with the southern Caucasus, and such as Zub-Nalchik and progress with the northern.
and this is not due to the fact that progress-like samples have more EHG, but Meshoko and KDC001-like AHG, everything is much more interesting, the Caucasian hunters who took part in the first and second populations are actually different and divided among themselves even then when the Caucasus was populated by hunters from Mesopotamia Zagros or where they came from
@ Arsen
'' but I think that the Meshoko and samples are like KDC001. more connected with the southern Caucasus, and such as Zub-Nalchik and progress with the northern.
and this is not due to the fact that progress-like samples have more EHG, but Meshoko and KDC001-like AHG''
It is due to obvious fact that Progress has EHG, whilst Meshoko has hardly any at all. Meshoko does have some 'Anatolian' ancestry, although Im not sure we can really call it that
'' Caucasus was populated by hunters from Mesopotamia Zagros ''
That's not possible. The original Zagros lineages were G2, so obviously CHG is native to the Caucasus/ Caspian region, showing >= 80% continuity with Dzudzuana
@Rob
"It is due to obvious fact that Progress has EHG, whilst Meshoko has hardly any at all. Meshoko does have some 'Anatolian' ancestry, although Im not sure we can really call it that"
This is where you are wrong, CHG for progress and CHG for Meshoko are completely different. I have no doubt about it. As I said, and I say again, there were two populations of Caucasian hunters, some lived in the eastern Caucasus, the Caspian lowland, the Tereko-Sulak interfluve, the mountains of the eastern Caucasus, maybe to the north, they also lived up to the Volga, and the other part in Georgia were Kotias satsurblia this kind of hunters, they separated long enough
@Rob
"That's not possible. The original Zagros lineages were G2, so obviously CHG is native to the Caucasus/ Caspian region, showing >= 80% continuity with Dzudzuana"
on Davidsky’s calculators, CHG is poorly modeled by Dzudzuana, Dzudzuana itself influenced EHG EHG EEF and to a lesser extent CHG, because CHG has more connections with the West Asian propopulation, in some calculators I saw the name gedrosia, that’s where its main origin comes takes CHG, I don’t know where this proporulation lived, but who cares, it was so long ago, in the end, all people have roots from Africa)
@ Arsen
“wrong, CHG for progress and CHG for Meshoko are completely different. I have no doubt about it. “”
Where did you read that nonsense - Dagestani Facebook?
The CHG group isn’t much older than 18000 calBP, and are all Dominated by Y hg J. There’ll be subtle structure, but to claim they’re completely different is Arsen-level bullcrap.
“ on Davidsky’s calculators, CHG is poorly modeled by Dzudzuana, Dzudzuana itself influenced EHG EHG EEF and to a lesser extent CHG, because CHG has.. geodrosia “
you come here with a false premise of wanting to learn, but consistently sermonize Fake News.
Calculators are not useable for this kind of question, let along antiquated concepts such as “Geodrosia”. It seems that almost everyone but you is aware of that.
@Davidski
Regarding the topic of the post, have you tried communicating your points to the authors of the articles? I tried but got no replies back unfortunately...
@ Copper Axe
Arent you well acquainted with one of them ? Anyhow, its hardly the last word on the topic.
@Rob
I will surprise you, dagestanis absolutely do not give a f😏ck about genetics , people are not up to it, these theories are written by your European American bloggers, various, I add something from myself and give it out as my opinion, I do not say that this is the truth, I say that I am sure of it
@Rob
regarding dzuzuana, on this diagram caucaus_up this is a Paleolithic example of something like dzuzuana, I think even a beginner can figure out this diagram of components, the authors of this article are listed as almost a hundred people. And they probably have more knowledge than you and me
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2022/05/05/2022.05.04.490594/F14.large.jpg
Rob, even people from the same culture, from the same grave can be genetically different, but at the same time have a common origin, to prove that I’m right, we need ancient samples from the North Caucasus, before they had time to mix with ehg like components, and turn into Nalchik or progress
@Copper Axe
I haven't emailed them in ages.
They didn't listen to me about the origins of Yamnaya and PIE, so it's unlikely they'll listen to me about any of this stuff.
@ Arsen
Got you, you're not saying that you're right, you;re just saying that you're 100% sure, and Im wrong. So you're dishonest as well, not to mention oblivious.
There's no special 'Dagestani CHG" which are 'completely different" to Georgian CHG. Georgia is the homeland of CHG, and the differentiator of north Caucasian CHGs will be EHG admixture. You'll have to grow a brain in the meantime so you can accept the facts when they arrive.
@Арсен
What samples do you know from the North Caucasus that are older than Nalchik? I only know the sample from the Satanai Grotto, I think its age is about 7000 BC. By the way, Prokhorchuk said that this work on Nalchik and other samples of the North Caucasus will be sent to print before the end of this year. They want to get ahead of Harvard with its expected papers on the homeland of the Indo-Europeans, which they also seem to have promised to publish by the end of this year.
@Rob
that is, are you saying that CHG was finally formed in Georgia, and moved to the northern Caucasus, then it simply mixed with different breeds, forming further mixtures? okay, your point has the right, I won’t argue with you about the truth. maybe I’m wrong, maybe you’re wrong, we’ll see. I say again, we just need ancient DNA from the northern Caucasus. older than 10 thousand years or more
I wonder if @DavidsKi thinks the same way.?
🤔😏
@Vladimir
Yes, I saw you wrote about Satanai Grotto, but I couldn’t find information about him, where is he located? In Adygea? Is there any information about his DNA?
@Rob
I’m amazed that scientific geniuses like you waste all their time on the Internet, wasting their time on population genetics. dude, with the kind of knowledge you have, you should be the chief scientist of genetic engineering and publish articles :)
@ Arsen- sure I’ll obtain a professorship in ‘Genetic Engineering’ so I can can grow you a brain.
In short, Rob, your final verdict is that the hunter-gatherers who participated in the ethnogenesis of the man with the tooth are from Nalchik, people from progress , vonuchka and Yamnayas are Georgian hunter-gatherers.
Well, I don't think so. I believe that Georgian hunter-gatherers were slightly different from the North Caucasian hunter-gatherers.
Yes, the Georgians_CHG partially moved to the northern Caucasus. for example, such as Meshoko, like KDC001, and other later ones. because long before Meshoko, North Caucasian hunters and gatherers already lived in the northern Caucasus, closely connected specifically with the northern Caucasus, with groups such as the tooth of Nalchik, progress, vonychka, which also went far to the north - to Karelia, to Khvalynsk, to Samara, to Ukraine
@ Arsen
You’re confused in time & place. And given that you struggle to articulate for yourself, it’s not the best idea for you to summarise others views, because it’s going to be wrong.
There were multiple flows from the Caucasus toward Eastern Europe, but in certain/ discreet episodes. But as far as CHG goes, the “homeland” is Georgia due to significantly documented archeogenetic continuity, it’s forests and Game, etc
Chokh is just one peripheral site on the northeastern flank of the CHG homeland. There’s nothing particularly special about it even though it’s closer to the steppe.
Now, everybody here currently knows that CHG hunters lived north of the mountains before KDC001 . So you’re not saying anything new.
The Northern Caucasus is not limited to Chokh, smart guy. there are huge steppe territories far from the mountains, look, open Google maps, there are more fertile lands, more important and warm in the northwestern Caucasus, there are less fertile dry lands, with a more “continental” climate in the northeastern Caucasus. The mountains have their own microclimate. There is plenty of various game in all regions of the Caucasus, wild boars, bears, Caucasian mountain goats, and so on and so forth.
@ Arsen
The CHG are associated with the Imeretian culture adapted to forested mountain landscapes. Sites are focussed in the western Caucasus, especially Georgia and the northwest Caucasus. That's where famous sites like Mezmaiskaya are, and that is where the Satanay man is from. The northeast Cacausus zone is almost archaeolically empty, the 'genetically special IE-speaking Dagestani CHG folk' your dreamed up on your Facebook account don't really exist.
Rob
What Facebook are we talking about? I’m just not in the know.
Yes, Georgia is very rich in forests, just like the North-West Caucasus. Surely the influence of Georgian hunters was also widespread in the western Caucasus. but the eastern Caucasus is harsh. and the people here are harsher. by the way, are you Georgian 🇬🇪?
Don’t you think that Georgian hunters were strongly attached to the forest and were part of this flora and fauna, and could not go north into the steppe mixing there with eastern hunters? These forests exist in the central and eastern Caucasus, but not in such quantities as in Georgia and the Western Caucasus
@ Arsen
''Don’t you think that Georgian hunters were strongly attached to the forest and were part of this flora and fauna, and could not go north into the steppe mixing there with eastern hunters? These forests exist in the central and eastern Caucasus, but not in such quantities as in Georgia and the Western Caucasus''
That is why at the start of the discussion I stated that it was primarily EHG who moved south to meet CHG, because they needed flint & obsidian from the Caucasus mountains. That is how the admixture started. You wont read that in any of the 100+ authors papers.
''by the way, are you Georgian 🇬🇪?''
Nope, nothing from there personally. But I have in law family in Karachayevsk, who are linguistically Kipchak, ~ medieval Volga-Ural genetically.
New version of Allentoft's paper:
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2022.05.04.490594v6?ct
"Our study has provided new genetic knowledge on these steppe migrations on two levels: we have identified a hitherto unknown source of ancestry in HGs from the Middle Don region contributing ancestry to the steppe pastoralists, and we have documented how the later spread of steppe-related ancestry into Europe via the CWC was first mediated through peoples associated with the GAC. In a contact zone that included forested northern regions, the CWC was rapidly formed from a cultural and genetic amalgamation of steppe-groups related to Yamnaya and the GAC groups in eastern Europe."
Fig. 3 is interesting showing Middle Don ancestry in CWC.
@EastPole
I look at this article and am amazed at how many names there are, but I don’t see Rob among them, I don’t understand why he’s wasting his time with us here, because he knows 90 percent more than they do. . Such talent is wasted.
Not sure this was ever in the previous versions regarding the Don foragers:
" Using the linkage disequilibrium-based method DATES we dated this admixture to ~8,300 BP (Supplementary Data XIV). These results document genetic contact between populations from the Caucasus and the steppe region much earlier than previously known"
Arsen, stop projecting your inferiority complex onto others, because you’re the only waste of time & space here.
Btw allentoft et al originally claimed that GAC disappeared due to CW, Dave even features the Schroeder article; but somebody told them that was not correct. Good to see they’ve seen the wisdom, eventually. Might have taken 200+ of them & 4 years..
Yes, but it's still sad that your name is not among them (
look Rob, in this new work they refer to the same diagram, that is, for more than a year they have not changed their minds and in the same way depict the hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus as a mixture of the Upper Paleolithic of western Asia, plus the Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus and a little Upper Paleolithic of northern Eurasians
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0sxqiu0pf9ebrd/sfig_structure_16_admixgraph_deep.png?dl=0
@ Arsen - never mind about me. The real question is why arent you there ? With your obvious local expertise and fascinating Chokh cave unicorns theory, you should be lead author & chairing a conference.
in their work, the Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus is not presented as Dzuzuana. and it is represented by another similar Upper Paleolithic sample, but from the Kotias cave, which was first published in their last year’s article. They are not very different genetically from each other. Well, they can still provide various mixtures for simulating Caucasian hunter-gatherers
David, regarding Allentoft's new preprint... Where did they lose the Balto-Slavic WHG? Do you have any idea?
Maybe it was hidden in MDHG...?
@ambron
I don't have a clue what you're talking about.
David, according to data from this work, Balto-Slavics have at most up to 7% WHG. I guess that's too little...? Something isn't right here!
Post a Comment