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 401 – 521 of 521@ambron, there are no models for modern-day people, but I assume we are looking at the clusters they label:
Estonia_3000BP_2500BP
EuropeNE_2500BP_800BP?
If this is the case, then turning to their Supplementary IX and Supplementary X proportions, we see:
Supplementary Table IX - "Deep" Proportions: https://i.imgur.com/nSIC6Rw.png
Supplementary Table X - "PostNeol" Proportions: https://i.imgur.com/TP0k3ez.png
(Labels in these may not be quite right as the clustering doesn't exactly follow such borders, caution.)
It does indeed seem like there is a curious result of the models resolving "Baltic_BA" groups by putting more MiddleDon_7500BP or Ukraine_10000BP_4000BP (Ukraine HG) ancestry into them rather than more WHG. This may be due to how they've built the models.
The model is certainly picking up a "HG" shift, but not necessarily from where we expect.
Where does your 7% come from?
Matt
I based this max 7% on the maps, where the darkest blue color means the range from 0 to 7. Now I see that the table shows 0.4-0.5% WHG. I know that this is not about modern populations, but nothing has changed in the basic components of the Balto-Slavic genomes since the Middle Ages.
How do you see this compared to Gerber's work? At Gerber's work, Balto-Slavic HG is mainly WHG with a small admixture of EHG. We have always been convinced that the "Balto-Slavic drift" is based on WHG.
@ambron
You're making unnecessarily complex inferences from relatively sparse data.
Keep in mind that the maps use interpolation, which means that they miss a lot of detail.
Also, the Middle Don hunter-gatherers are different from Yamnaya in that they have more hunter-gatherer ancestry which is heavier in WHG admixture. However, we know that the Corded Ware population that gave rise to Balto-Slavs and related groups was much more like Yamnaya than the Middle Don samples. So using the Middle Don hunter-gatherers as a proxy for steppe ancestry in Europe won't produce realistic outcomes.
@Davidski
About the Nalchik genome having ancestry from Pre-Pottery Neolithic Northern Mesopotamia. Could this be associated with the IV3002 Steppe Maykop individual from Ipatovo? Could the Nalchik genome have the same paternal haplogroup as IV3002?
@Suyindik
I don't think so.
Nalchik is much older than the Steppe Maykop outliers, and probably formed from different populations.
Pre-Pottery Neolithic Northern Mesopotamia ? What is it all about? This is definitely not the Caucasus... and not Iran ... rather the Levant and Anatolia
@Davidski
My actual point was if IV3002 (3500 BCE) could be a descendant of the population of this Nalchik (4500 BCE) individual (from the part that brought the Pre Pottery ancestry)? So, the timeline and migration direction being: "Pre Pottery Neolithic Northern Mesoptamia" (7000 BCE) -> "Early Neolithic Southern Caucasus" (6000 BCE) -> "Eneolithic Nalchik" (< 5000 BCE).
@Suyindik
I don't think that Nalchik has any Pre-Pottery Mesopotamian ancestry. That's just a model based on some wrong assumptions.
I'm betting that it's really something pre-Meshoko.
And the Steppe Maykop outliers, like IV3002 just have some Maykop Caucasus ancestry.
Are the steppe Maikop samples something like the Batai culture of Kazakhstan? a type of mixture of West Siberian hunters, with steppe eneolite of the "progress" type.
@Davidsky
I have a question. Among the many peoples of the North Caucasus ,speakers of Caucasian languages, from Adygea to Dagestan, an East Asian mixture is present, albeit in small quantities. Is this mixing related to the spread of the Maikop steppe culture? or this mixture came much later, along with the Turkic expansion of such peoples and states as the Khazars, Mongols, Bulgars, Huns and so on.
I apologize in advance if there are errors in the text.
Yes, Steppe Maykop is a West Siberian/Steppe Eneolithic mix. But I still don't know how it formed exactly.
I'm guessing it formed either in the western part of the Kazakh steppe or in the North Caucasus.
The East Eurasian admixture in the modern Caucasus is from several different sources, but mostly steppe Iranian and Turkic.
steppe Iran? do you mean something like the Scythians, Sarmatians, Alans, Sogdians? I completely forgot about them. What kind of crooks has our northern Caucasus survived, and managed to preserve its genes, its culture, its language.😢
Yes, Scythians and Alans.
Scythians Chimerians Sarmatians Alans Bulgars Khazars Achaemenid Power Savirs Arab Caliphate Huns Sasanian Empire Tatar-Mongols Tamerlane's army Persian Empire Ottoman Empire Russian Empire and much more I have not listed ... all our enemies ...
Another question is, if the Botai people of Kazakhstan and the steppe Maykop people are almost the same thing, is it possible to assume that in such a short time they moved long distances due to the fact that they were one of the first to domesticate the horse 🐎? After all, burials in the Botai burial ground confirm that they either tamed horses or used roofing felts them for food.
I didn’t claim that pie is from Dagestan, I suggested that the south pole for Proto-Indo-Europian pastoralists is associated with the Chokh culture. This is just an assumption, otherwise I wouldn’t ask this question here. You like the Georgian theory better, I like the Dagestan one. What are the problems? The Georgians are our neighbors. similar culture customs .difference only language. I’m Dagestani and you’re not even Georgian. my motivation is clear, but yours is not to me
@ Arsen - the fact that you think that one needs to be Georgian to criticise your theory shows that it derives from your own personal sentiments, not to mention that you refer to Iron Age groups such as Scythians which actually have very little to do with you as 'enemies'.
The papers which you claim to cite don't support anything of what you propose, there is nothing splendiferous about the isolated site at Chokh (it's population was likely replaced by Majkop, anyway), nor did I state the CHG admixutre in the steppe comes directly from Georgia, rather that Georgia and the NW Caucasus are where the densest concentration of CHG sites are situated. So, rather than directing people to 'Google Maps', try learning basics about the prevalance of CHG sites in the western Caucasus from the above academic paper. But whether from Chockh or somewhere in Georgia, it's doubtful these groups have directly to do with PIE, despite contributing significant amounts of female-mediated ancestry.
that is to say, the 'southern pole if PIE' is likely to be represented by Progress-Nalchik-Vonuchka, already mixed EHG-rich communities, not Epipaleolithic CHG groups, which are too far removed in time & place.
@Arsen
"I didn’t claim that pie is from Dagestan, I suggested that the south pole for Proto-Indo-Europian pastoralists is associated with the Chokh culture. This is just an assumption, otherwise I wouldn’t ask this question here. You like the Georgian theory better, I like the Dagestan one. What are the problems? The Georgians are our neighbors. similar culture customs .difference only language. I’m Dagestani and you’re not even Georgian. my motivation is clear, but yours is not to me".
It is interesting what you said: you are for Dagestan because you are a Dagestani. The answer is just about what we think about our identity. Probably both Rob and Davidski haven't my same concept of identity (but I am glad that I am able to express my opinion now as I am glad that you may express yours) but probably we are fighting at some point the same fight: we are Europeans, descendants of the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor. In my view I don't see in the Caucasians (from the Caucasus, the Alps, the Pyrenees) something different from us, in fact I wrote that both hg R and I/J belonged to the same background. Religions were imposed upon us, and I am an atheist because my thought came from Epicurus and the great Greek phylosophy. If you'll understand that, probably you'll understand better also genetics. Reflect if your enemies are the Russians or others.
@Rob
Very interesting, thanks, I understood everything. at the expense of the Scythians and Sarmatians, the Saks, Alan, and the Cimmerians - Herodotus and other authors localized them all in the North Caucasus and in the mountains . there are direct descendants of the Alans, these are Ossetians in language, according to genetics they are the same Georgians only with "oriental" admixtures
@Gio
no, I’m not biased in any way, because I’m a “Dagestanian” or someone else, I’m a Lak, that’s true. But I came to the conclusion that the south pole pie is Dagestan not because I’m a patriotic nationalist. that came after after I started experimenting with various modern other mixtures in the Davidski calculator. For example, do you know that the percentage of Yamnaya in the world is highest in Dagestan? How did this happen? And it did not come to us through the Corded Ware culture or other similar cultures rich in Yamnaya, it is modeled directly as a mixture of the Kura-Araxes and the Yamnaya or Afanasyeva culture, where the distances are literally hundredths of a fraction. You can check it yourself
and I'm agnostic
Rob, you don't need to delete your comments, they don't bother me in any way
pie translates as pie 🥮🍰
May be
@ Arsen
“Rob, you don't need to delete your comments, they don't bother me in any way”
I just don’t want some concepts “borrowed” by randoms.
“But I came to the conclusion that the south pole pie is Dagestan not because I’m a patriotic nationalist. that came after after I started experimenting with various modern other mixtures in the Davidski calculator. For example, do you know that the percentage of Yamnaya in the world is highest in Dagestan? How did this happen?”
You mean you just blindly ran a calculator ? Why didn’t anybody else think of that ?
Truly, you’re a genius
wait, you don’t trust the greatest invention of population genetics, the calculators that Mr. Davidsky invented?
not good )
and to be honest, not only for this reason. It’s just that if we talk about where exactly the Caucasian proxy for PIE was, then it’s most logical to assume where Yamnaya is most present now))
Rob
so that you understand what I mean, here is the component composition for Dagestanis
https://ibb.co/j4ZGZJ6
but for the Indo-European peoples of the Caucasus, belonging to different branches
Slavic (Kuban Cossacks)
Armenian (actually various groups of Armenians)
Iranian (Ossetians Tats Talysh Kurds) and so on
https://ibb.co/djdP8Qm
that is, Yamnaya is more common among people who have nothing to do with Indo-Europeans
@ Arsen
"I’m a Lak, that’s true [...] that is, Yamnaya is more common among people who have nothing to do with Indo-Europeans".
Are you a Lak? It seems that another Nationalist Turk is a Lak genetically and I had to do with some Georgian more Turkish than the Turks, who of course have a little of original Turkish, perhaps not more on average than 7%, thus genetics isn't all. What is important is what we think to be or want to be.
I studied in the past the uniparental markers but am glad that an expert of the autosome thinks pretty much like me about the Harvardians and their agenda and I follow his posts against the "Southern Arc" theory, that probably is at the base of your position.
About Yamnaya (which is surely at the origin of my Y R-Z2110, at least Roman from 3100 years ago) I would take into account Gaska's theories that R1b-s weren't IE speaking, being linked with the R1b1 which entered into the HG of the Alps (and the Caucasus) at least 17000 years ago.
IE languages could be due to R1a, and that should be grateful for Davidski.
I don’t quite understand what you have to do with Laks and Turks? Laks are an autochthonous people of the northeastern Caucasus speaking NEC languages. Turks live in modern Anatolia, this is beyond the Caucasian ridge.
David
So, as I suspected, the Middle Don HG "eats" the Balto-Slavic HG completely.
On the other hand, it may be an interesting contribution to the discussion on the source of the Balto-Slavic drift.
@ambron
The Middle Don samples are not directly relevant to the ancestry of modern Europeans, including Balto-Slavs.
@ Arsen
"I don’t quite understand what you have to do with Laks and Turks? Laks are an autochthonous people of the northeastern Caucasus speaking NEC languages. Turks live in modern Anatolia, this is beyond the Caucasian ridge".
People says that Erdogan is genetically a Lak, as the most part of Turks are Armenians, Zazas, Kurds etc etc converted. A Georgian dentist who lives in Germany, hg. R1a-YP4141, had something to do with me, but the R1a-YP4141 project follows my old studies about that haplogroup I made more than 10 years ago on Worldfamilies and elsewhere.
@ Arsen
''wait, you don’t trust the greatest invention of population genetics, the calculators that Mr. Davidsky invented? not good )''
Of course they are a useful tool. But you can't be a one-trick pony (as many online personalities are). As Davidski himself has said, they are only to be cautiously used for very old samples. But to be serious, you need formal analysis and other data. You cant just CTRl + ALT + PASTE something into a calculator and pretend that you're performing something ground breaking.
''so that you understand what I mean, here is the component composition for Dagestanis''
Everyone knows that NEC have greater amounts of Yamnaya-related admixture in modern day Caucasians, due to the relative isolation of Armenians, admixture with neighbours, and shifting / reducing nature of their population.
But that wasnt the topic of discussion; you seem to be jumping from point to point, and over-dosing with Emojis (for a grown male).
@Арсен-
In my opinion, autosomal composition is not a good indicator to solve the linguistic issue, so in the case of the East Caucasus perhaps it would be better to resort to male uniparentals (I think that you are overwhelmingly J1 & J2) and this would satisfactorily explain why you speak Non-IE languages.
However this is not so for Ibero-Basques who are overwhelmingly R1b-P312 and do not speak IE, no science is exact and genetics sometimes does not have satisfactory explanations (what percentage of Yamnaya do we Basques have using your model?)
@Gio-
Even if you are agnostic, I'm going to wish you a Merry Christmas.
Regarding my opinion on whether R1b spoke IE, the truth is that I have no idea what language the Yamnaya culture spoke, and it is not even clear to me that R1b-Z2103 is a steppe thing (it could be Balkan in origin and simply have a massive founder effect on the steppes).
On the other hand I understand that if Z2103 spoke IE, it is normal that his brother L51 also spoke that language, but the situation in Spain, France and Italy with respect to L51 always leads us to NO-IE languages, so evidently I have my doubts about the language spoken by my ancestors.
The matter is complicated with your lineage because I remember that there is at least one case among the Etruscans, but there is also one among the Latins, and from their dating it seems that they do not have their origin in Italy but in the Balkans. I think that Italy is the worst genetically analyzed country in Europe and that many more samples from the chalcolithic and Bronze Age need to be analyzed to try to clarify the situation.
@Gio
😁Maybe you mean laz .Laz is a subethnic group of Georgians living in the northeast of Turkey and they have lived there for centuries, yes, I have heard about Erdogan's Georgian roots, but I do not know specifically what Georgian roots we are talking about
@Rob
I’m tired of arguing with you, okay, you’re right. The ethnic roots of the South Pole for the Yamnaya and other Proto-Indo-European cultures lie in Georgia, and are associated with Georgian hunter-gatherers. are you happy?
David
The most important thing is that all subsequent studies confirm your old suspicions:
"Interestingly, on the PCA plot, the European Bronze Age cluster is more or less half way between GAC and Latvia_LN. This is also where modern-day Poles and Ukrainians cluster on such plots when they're not significantly skewed by projection bias or shrinkage. Thus, I do wonder if the Slavs of East Central Europe are essentially a 50/50 mixture of early CWC and late GAC?"
https://polishgenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/globular-amphora-people-starkly.html
@ Arsen
I apologize. I did mean Laz and not Lak. Caucasian languages (and people) are a question to me. Too much difficulty and with too many phonemes...
@ambron, if you are interested here are data from the tables with some different population groupings, some of him who will more approximate modern populations:
Deep: https://imgur.com/a/v780xMI
PostNeol: https://i.imgur.com/uOxeHNI.png
@Matt
I'm sorry, but what populations are represented by the middle Don? Vasilyevsky cordon and that's it?
@Gaska
Are you a Basque? Surprisingly, some linguists classify the NEC and Basque languages into one macrofamily. It is likely that the roots of this relationship lie in the Anatolian farmers. I won't guess
@David
The most recent estimate to R1a-L657 in Y-full is c. 2350 BCE (both formation and TMRCA). The margins are of course wider: 3550-1250 BCE (at 95%).
Can we trust in it? Is there an explanation?
@Carlos Aramayo
The formation and TMRCA dates for R1a-L657 are interesting but they're irrelevant to its phylogeographic history.
That's because in ancient DNA the entire phylogeny leading up to L657 is rooted in Eastern Europe and associated closely with the Fatyanovo-related genotype at different levels of its evolution.
So even if L657 formed in 3550 BCE, then this must've happened in Eastern Europe, from which it moved much later into Central and South Asia with Fatyanovo-related ancestry.
The option that L657 is from South Asia before Fatyanovo-related ancestry got there is a fail, because this would involve the migration of a pre-Fatyanovo Eastern European population deep into Asia with a mutation ancestral to L657, like M417. On top of that, Y3 (which is the mutation immediately ancestral to L657) has been found in a Fatyanovo-like Srubnaya sample from near the Urals, so there has to be a plausible source for that and South Asia isn't it.
There's no evidence for a pre-Fatyanovo migration like that into South Asia and there's no logic behind positing that such a migration took place.
So the people out there arguing that L657 is from South Asia and that Fatyanovo-related ancestry arrived in South Asia with women are either dishonest, mentally unstable or total morons.
@Арсен
I am a Spaniard of Basque origin
Despite certain similarities I don't think they are related languages either, but I am not a linguist
@David
Thanks for your reply and comment, I appreciate them.
I also found an article by Brown Pundits site (from July 2023):
https://www.brownpundits.com/2023/07/31/iranian-if-by-land-indian-if-by-sea/
Of course it's Razib Khan who wrote:
"Consider the famous R1a-L657. The estimated formation date and TMRCA for it is ~2100 BCE. That could of course be a fluke defined by some sort of later founding effects. But we can consider the other major subclade of R1a-Z93, namely R1a-Z2124. This is sometimes assumed to be an Iranic clade, but it contains Indic sub-branches as well, such as R-YP523 with a formation time of ~2100 BCE and TMRCA of ~1700 BCE, and R-Y46 and R-Y43743 both with formation time and TMRCA of ~1800 BCE. A little messier but also likely originally Indic is R-Y37 with a formation time of ~2500 BCE and a TMRCA time of ~2000 BCE. Based on these, we can estimate that the main steppe migrants into India branched off from the rest of the steppe ~2100-1800 BCE. A plausible scenario is that at the same time that many Sintashta clans were spreading out and establishing the cultures of the Andronovo horizon as well as related cultures like Tazabagyab, one or more clans chose to travel past them into the Hindu Kush and the Indian subcontinent, contributing the bulk of steppe ancestry seen in modern day Indians."
We know now L657 can be from 2350 BCE, but Razib Khan, months ago, suggested the movement towards South Asia could have been contemporary to Andronovo's horizon. Of course L657 is a descent from Eastern European branches, as you say. But, is Razib Khan on the wrong way too? Or does he differ from the morons you mention?
David said:
The Middle Don samples are not directly relevant to the ancestry of modern Europeans, including Balto-Slavs.
The Allentoft paper says otherwise. At genome wide ancestry level but also on the paternal side
hundred of millions of R1a folks that speak Balto-slavic and indo-iranian languages are paternally derived from R1a middle don HG.
@Carlos Aramayo
I don't think that Razib is suggesting that L657 is not associated with Fatyanovo-related ancestry in India. So no, he's not one of the morons out there.
He seems to be saying that the movement of L657 into India is associated with a Fatyanovo-related group that wasn't derived from Andronovo, which I guess is possible, but I don't see why it's necessary to explain anything.
Y3 was found near the Urals in a Srubnaya sample, so eventually we'll see both Y3 and L657 popping up in this area in even earlier closely related samples.
Matt, thanks!
It is astonishing that CWC (Steppe+Poland) genetics remain at 80% in most medieval northern European populations.
@ Gaska
"I am a Spaniard of Basque origin.
Despite certain similarities I don't think they are related languages either, but I am not a linguist".
But don't forget that Caucasian languages like Basque and Old Sardinian and also some traits of Tyrsenian (Etruscan, Rhaetian and Lemnian)separated from the Caucasian languages around the Caucasus many thousands of years ago, thus the links have to be found in old traits, what Alfredo Trombetti made in "Le origini della lingua basca" published in 1925. The links are as old as those between the IE verb and Hungarian one I spoke about in another post. Strangely Haakkinen didn't reply. I'd have liked to know he disproved and why.
No, the Basque language cannot be connected with the Caucasus, it, like Sardinian Etruscan and other pre-Indo-European languages, must be directly connected with Anatolian farmers. It can't be otherwise
@Арсен: MiddleDon_7500BP in the paper by Allentoft ("Population Genomics of Postglacial Western Eurasia" preprint, recently updated) describes two individuals NEO113 and NEO212, and their archaeological description is among the following:
"Golubaya Krinitsa, Middle Don, Russia. Cemetery. A.M. Skorobogatov
The site was discovered in 2011 by Valery Berezutsky. The burial ground is located on the right bank of the Black Kalitva River (a tributary of the Don River), near its mouth. Excavations were carried out in 2015-2016 under the leadership of Andrey Skorobogatov. A total of 18 burials were studied (single, paired and collective). The burials were in rectangular pits, characterised by orientation to the south - southeast and southeast. The position of the buried is stretched out on the back, with arms located along the body. The bones are sprinkled with red ochre.
The burials were accompanied by inventory: fossil sea shells, Unio shells and products from their wings, bone decorations (wild boar fangs, beaver teeth and groundhogs), bone tools, a copper product, flint tips, flint knives, and ceramics.
The complex finds analogies in the Mariupol-type burial grounds widespread in the territory of modern Ukraine (Mariupol, Nikolsky, Lysogorsky, Yasinovatsky burial grounds), and can date back to the 6th millennium BC. Six samples were analysed, with datings ranging ca 6400-6700 uncal BP, corresponding to c. 5000-5400 cal BC:
NEO113, kurgan 10, burial 10
NEO204, burial 4
NEO207, burial 7 skeleton 2
NEO209, burial 7 skeleton 4
NEO210, burial 8
NEO212, burial 10
Literature: Berezutsky et al. 2011" (NEO113 buried in "kurgan 10, burial 10" proves to be a male with R1a y-dna and NEO212 is aLso male, of I2a1b1a2).
The cited paper is "Berezutsky, V. D., Kileinikov, V. V. & Skorobogatov, A. M. Mariupol-type burial of the Middle Don. Archaeological site of Eastern Europe: interuniversity collection of scientific papers. 76–88 (Voronezh State Pedagogical University, 2011)."
Nothing about the dates of these two individuals appears to distinguish them from the other people in the cemetary in the same period (or later) who have more typical genetics of the Ukrainian/Western Russia hunter-gatherers. But the authors appear confident that these two are not later samples who are dated too early (simply later Sredny Stog samples that have been misassigned to an earlier layer or something like this). They are perhaps a 'strange drop of oil in the Ocean' of the more typical HG people surrounding them. You might be better placed that I to read and research the above paper if you are interested in more detail about their burials.
The estimate for the formation of the population these two individuals come from is approximately 6500 BCE, but note that there is because there are only two individuals there is a high uncertainty and standard error involved - see Supplementary Table 14 - https://i.imgur.com/OKOV7kb.png , so this could be substantially earlier or later by as little as 250 years or by as much as 2000 years. If more samples are identified it would converge on a much more meaningful admixture date. This date anyway might agree approximately with a putative population or ancestry expansion here - https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Expansion_of_farming_in_western_Eurasia,_9600%E2%80%934000_BCE.png - but *not* that this population expansion was associated with farming or even pastoralism.
@ambron, well, I should've put in my last comment that I agree with Davidski that these models are probably indicative of very deep proportions rather than a descent. HG received separately from another source is probably inflating "MiddleDon" (which in reality is a composite of Steppe 3000BCE ancestry along with some HG from other sources).
Still it is surprising to me that their haplotype based method works this way. Perhaps a composite of the power of haplotype methods to resolve recent ancestry with the constraint of qpAdm for understanding deep ancestry is one way forward...? (Only accept those haplotype models which meet a qpAdm constraint).
Related to this topic, what do you guys think of this claim by Alexey G Nitkin and his collaborator Svitlana Ivanova:
"ENEOLITHIC SANCTUARIES AND BRONZE AGE KURGANS IN THE PONTIC STEPPE AS MARKERS OF CLIMATIC SHIFTS - December 2023 - Conference: 28th EAA Annual Meeting (Budapest, Hungary, 2022) – Abstract BookAt: Prague, July 2022 - Large-scale cultural transformations are often connected with major climatic shifts. The end of Atlantic Climatic Optimum was associated with a series of climatic oscillations, leaving a mark on the cultural landscape of Europe in the early Metal Ages. These climatic fluctuations in the circum-Pontic region resulted in the appearance of cultural and genetic packages that transformed Europe in the Early Bronze Age (EBA). A unifying feature of the most recognized EBA steppe group, the Yamna historical-cultural complex, is kurgan burial.
We will discuss a hypothesis that the origins of kurgans in the Pontic steppe are connected with the spread of megalithic/ditch-enclosed ground-level sanctuaries in the late 5th - first half of the 4th millennium BCE, coinciding with major climatic changes in the circum-Pontic area.
By the end of the 4th millennium, these ritual constructions became foundations for the Yamna kurgans, where-in the main kurgan burial would be placed within the ritual space of the earlier sanctuary. In the 3rd millennium, the Yamna kurgans were expanded by the Catacomb and Babino cultural communities, while preserving ties with the ritual center space of the kurgan. The latter cultural transformations can also be tied to climatic events."
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376581498_ENEOLITHIC_SANCTUARIES_AND_BRONZE_AGE_KURGANS_IN_THE_PONTIC_STEPPE_AS_MARKERS_OF_CLIMATIC_SHIFTS)
Also Ivanova: "Ancient burial mounds as a symbolic system - December 2023 - Conference: KIEL CONFERENCE Scales of Social, Environmental & Cultural Change in Past SocietiesAt: Kiel University, March 13–18, 202" - "Analysis of early dates and stratigraphy of burial mound complexes (the second half of the V millennium BC) led to the conclusion, that they are not directly related to the burial embankment, but relate to complex monumental structures — sanctuaries. The sanctuaries preceded the burial mounds in chronological aspect, and they functioned for a long time without creating an embankment above them. The part of sanctuaries had astronomical reference points and were connected to calendar-zodiac symbolism. Sometimes burials were carried out on the territory of sanctuaries; these burials had sacral nature. These were flat burials and the mound above them were not erected. Burial mounds above the sanctuaries began to appear after burials of later epochs were carried out in sacral places (not earlier than 38/37 BC). These mounds erroneously are associated with flat burials or ground sanctuaries. The dating of burial mounds by the dating of sacral flat burials (or by the dating of «pillar sanctuaries») mistakenly greatly pushes back the dating of appearance of the first mounds in the Steppe Black Sea region and Transcaucasia. The separation of these complexes in time and space (the flat ground sanctuary and the burial mound itself) allowed drawing conclusions about the existence of this sanctuaries in 45—40 BC. The burial mounds appear later, their installation in the place of sanctuaries is connected with the sacral nature of the place. Throughout Europe, barrows appear almost simultaneously, in 38/37 BC, although in different cultures. It is possible to assume the Central European and Lower Danube influence on the formation of ideological ideas of the Steppe population. In particular, the phenomenon of sanctuaries of the Middle Eneolithic may have originated under Central European influence. It obviously had structural similarities with other complexes built in accordance with the movement of the celestial luminaries in the late Neolithic of Central and Atlantic Europe. The appearance of sanctuaries can be attributed to the circle of archaeological evidence of the interaction between the world of early farmers of Southeast and Central Europe and the “steppe” world of the pastoralists. The barrows of the Black Sea and Caucasian steppe are synchronous with European burial mounds, and their ancientization and equation with the dating of sanctuaries is erroneous"
(https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376581612_Ancient_burial_mounds_as_a_symbolic_system)
Could any of this help to resolve it as to why the burials found under kurgans tend to favour particular y-dna haplogroups that did not expand with Corded Ware phenomenon?
(Also: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/376579504_IntrusIons_of_the_steppe_populatIon_Into_the_Balkan-CarpathIan_regIon_In_the_early_Bronze_age_faCtors_and_aspeCts - is there any reason behind such uploads in December 2023?).
@Gio
Well, I have read papers relating Sardinian or Etruscan with Basque, and there are also cultural & genetic connections between iberians and etruscans (many shared mtDNAs and two DF27 samples among etruscans, one from Casenovole, with strong Iberian ancestry) but the truth is that I have not read Trombetti (I will find it and give you my opinion). For the moment Spanish linguists are advancing in the Iberian-Basque-Aquitanian relationship.
@Арсен
Regarding the “Caucasus connection”, both language families are ergative-absolutive and have some similar grammatical cases but this grammar structures are found in more than a dozen wildy unrelated languages (Africa, America, Australia…)-
Regarding the origin in the Anatolian farmers, it could be, but the genetic impact of the WHGs in Iberia and especially in Basque territory is very big so I don't know why this possibility should be excluded.
@matt
"is there any reason behind such uploads in December 2023"
I believe a few versions of the paper with Nikitin were already public.
The Harvard Steppe paper was suggested by both him and Anthony to release by the end of the year, and I know Nikitin is a contributor, so perhaps it's in anticipation of that. I have no clue if Ivanova assisted in any capacity.
Nikitin's continued insistence on connections with SE Europe as opposed to the south caucasus is interesting as he has seen all of the data.
@ Gaska
This is not the place to discuss these issues as I cannot send attachments. "The origins of the Basque language" was published in 1925. I have the 1977 anastatic edition with a preface by the great linguist Carlo Tagliavini (I took my Romance linguistics exam on his "The origins of neo-Latin languages"). On p. Xi Tagliavini writes: "Even in particular points, many parallels Basque-Caucasian, established by Trombetti since its first writings, have found confirmation in rear writings: just remember those of the pronominal elements in the verbal conjugation of the first and second person plural, already established in the first of the open letters to Hugo Schukhardt [...] of the type of Georgian w-ar-th "we are" Basque g-ara-te x-ar-th "you are" s-ara-te" etc etc expanded into Unità d'origine del linguaggio p. 21 with comparisons of the Abkhaz h-a-r-th and sv-a-r-th" etc etc.
yes, I looked, the middle Don is modeled as a mixture of local hunters, "progress", and Scandinavian hunters, they have a lot of Caucasus
@Davidski "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."
Yeah, that's what I said too though. We already know this happened, Lazaridis is specifically saying that it was PRIMARY spread by males over females in Yamnaya (with their doubled CHG-like ancestry compared to preceding populations in the steppe). That was what his analysis was about. How this correlates with haplogroups remains to be seen, you should probably ask him.
@EthanR "Under Lazaridis' framework, archaic PIE does not cross the caucasus significantly earlier."
He doesn't even make an argument that PIA ever crossed the Caucasus into the steppe iirc. He never puts Anatolian north of the Caucasus.
"First, the genetic transformation of Anatolia after the Neolithic and before the Late Chalcolithic (Fig. 2) was a clear opportunity for linguistic spread resulting in the coexistence of Hattic and Anatolian languages. Second, the two transformations of steppe populations during the Eneolithic and before the Bronze Age, with their strong south-north directionality (Fig. 3), were opportunities for linguistic spread and match exactly the Anatolia/Indo-European split inferred by linguists."
Although of course this population in 5000 BCE could be IE-speaking or not IE-speaking at all. They might not even meet the linguistic requirements of a combination of agriculture and pastoralism. If they're hunter-gatherers they're out of the question altogether, PIA is not a hunter-gatherer language. Which is why the Volga is a no-go, Khvalynsk is a no-go, and Sredny is somewhat better although it's meh for the timeline (PIA developing overnight in 4500 BCE at most from a previous "Volga" pre-PIA language, and then Anatolian splits also overnight).
If you mean PIE after Anatolian had split, Nalchik aside (it could simply be another population), what would be the constraints on it not having already split by 5000 BCE? Feel free to quote anything you can find.
@Davidski Heggarty proposes the initial separation with European IE around 4500 BCE though, not 6000 BCE. He places PIA at ~6000 BCE (7000-5000 BCE).
@Arsen This is better speculated through IBD, qpAdm and archaeology of the culture itself.
@Sam Elliot That type of economy/culture is pretty good for PIE, and even PIA. Wonder if this was widespread among other cultures of that area as well.
@EthanR Yeah I don't remember DATES in the prev version either. Haven't read the new one tho
Lazaridis' argument requires PIE crossing the caucasus simultaneous of or at some point after the split of proto-Anatolian. Anything earlier than that dating (he favors the classical late 5th millennium BC) cannot be the ancestors of late PIE.
@Orpheus
yes, just on this diagram
https://www.dropbox.com/s/o0sxqiu0pf9ebrd/sfig_structure_16_admixgraph_deep.png?dl=0
It is indicated that about 18 percent of the admixture associated with Western Asia, before it formed the CHG, took part in the ethnogenesis of Eastern European hunters. This occurred in the middle of the Ice Age. just they could have brought these genes associated with j1
does the link open? if not, I’ll upload it through another hosting
@ Arsen
“ I looked, the middle Don is modeled as a mixture of local hunters, "progress", and Scandinavian hunters,””
Scandinavian ? your calculator is broken
@Orpheus
okay, let’s assume j1, j2 are associated with Western Asia, then to which male haplogroups did the Upper Paleolithic hunter-gatherers of the Caucasus belong? Was it something ancestral for I and J? It’s just that we have two samples from Georgia and both, as luck would have it, are female. Maybe they were carriers of haplogroup I?
@EthanR Checked my old copy of the preprint, they didn't include it. They only mentioned a 6000BP admixture between HGs and Anatolian Farmers in Denmark (page 11 of the previous pdf)
"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"
So 6300 BCE. Also:
"Lazaridis et al.30 suggested a model for the formation of Yamnaya ancestry that includes a ‘Northern’ steppe source (EHG+CHG ancestry) and a ‘Southern’ Caucasus Chalcolithic source (CHG ancestry) but without identifying the exact origin of these sources. The Middle Don genomes analysed here display the appropriate balance of EHG/CHG ancestry, suggesting them as likely candidates for the missing Northern proximate source for Yamnaya ancestry."
So something Khvalynsk-like (just like Sredny ended up), wasn't this already known though?
"were found to be predominantly derived from earlier Ukrainian HGs, but with ~18-24% of their ancestry contributed from a source related to HGs from the Caucasus (Caucasus_13000BP_10000B)"
Geographically they seem like the Volga precursors of Khvalynsk/Sredny. Or maybe they were a sibling population moving westward.
@ambron Their earlier version had a map that showed WHG maxing out at 10% in the Baltics. In line with various other models in other studies showing 8-14% in them. They used standard steppe ancestry as the source in those previous maps.
@EthanR From Lazaridis' xitter: "So, I continue to think that the Indo-Anatolian first split was likely a Chalcolithic event and the Indo-European first split coincided with the emergence of the Yamnaya culture during the Early Bronze Age"
Anatolian splitting in 4400-4200 BCE de facto means that PIA already existed before that.
Kloekhorst 2023
"On the basis of the linguistic differences between Proto-Anatolian (which first diverged around 3100 to 3000 BCE) and Classical Proto-Indo-European (which first diverged around 3400 BCE, the time of the “Tocharian split”), it is estimated that Proto-Indo-Anatolian first diverged around 4300 to 4200 BCE".
It stopped being a unified PIA entity at that date, diverging into the ancestor of proto-Anatolian and the ancestor of proto-PIE. Indo-Anatolian in an undiverged form obviously existed before that.
This is what I wrote: "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)."
There's no contradiction anywhere, you probably misread something. I wasn't even making a point for Nalchik specifically being PIA (let alone PIE), only that there's a genetic footprint from the south being visible which is overall consistent with Lazaridis' scenario. They still need to prove a genetic connection between populations, even if the economy/culture of Nalchik matches with PIA.
My mention of Heggarty was as an alternative too, his argument is different than Lazaridis. They're 1000 years apart.
If Nalchik's southern pulse dates to 5000BC or earlier, it is impossible that this pulse brought PIE to the Steppe - if you at the same time want to maintain that pre-proto-anatolian and the ancestor of late PIE split ways around 4000BC, with the former fully south caucasian and the latter acclimatizing the steppe at some point.
It's fairly clear that Lazaridis likes the classical split date, given his previous insistence against any south caucasian signal in Progress, comments on Yamnaya's DATES outputs, and general skepticism toward Heggarty's paper on twitter.
The funniest thing about Iosif Lazaridis' Indo-Anatolian hypothesis is that it's based on his confidence that there was a male mediated migration from Armenia to the steppe which gave rise to Yamnaya. I think he's even been calling it a wave.
But there's absolutely no evidence for such a migration, and even no reason to assume that it happened.
@ Matt
I’d mentioned those influences quite some time ago (amidst a chorus of nay-sayers & heretics). But I’m not sure why Ivanova is limiting it to 4th century, the mounds in France date to 4500 as does apparently Nalchik (at least the burials of, would have to date the soil separately with TIL).
Either way , a European thing, which then moved to southern Caucasus, Anatolia and NW Iran after 4000 bc (so-called Leilatepe horizon).
Yep, the kurgan tradition moved from Eastern Europe to West Asia.
But David Reich et al. wanted to make Yamnaya a West Asian population so much that they even put the origin of kurgans in West Asia.
The hypothesis of Nikitin and Ivanova is their point of view and nothing more. This is the position of the Ukrainian archaeological school since Soviet times. There are other positions. For example, Morgunova and Korenevsky. I understand Anthony supports this position too. The discovery of the oldest EHG/CHG or Middle Don/CHG samples in Nalchik without additional WHG/EEF admixture will finally bury Nikitin's hypothesis/Ivanova/Rob.
« ON THE DISCUSSION ABOUT THE ORIGIN AND CULTURAL AFFILIATION OF THE FIRST BURIAL MOUNDS IN THE STEPPES OF EASTERN EUROPE AND CISCAUCASIA
Introduction. The introduction outlines the problems of studying the early stage of mound construction in the steppe zone of Eastern Europe, shows the history and discussion character of their study. The methodology of the investigation was based on the developed principles of archaeological typology of funerary rites, features of the mutual occurrence of things in complexes, determination of the chronology of cultures by diagnostic types of things for the epoch, application of dates of radiocarbon definitions with verification of the latter by serial samples, not by single definitions. Materials and analysis. In the section “Localization and cultural affiliation of the oldest mounds” according to the burial rite and inventory of more than 40 mounds in the territory of the Lower Volga region, Ciscaucasia and Don, the cultural unity of the Berezhnovka type mounds with the Khvalynsky burial ground is traced. They are preceded the Yamnaya (Repin stage) culture (Pit grave culture). The first mounds date back to the time preceding the Maykop culture in the Ciscaucasia. The similar mounds are badly known to the west of the Dnieper. The most ancient mounds arose among the Eneolithic population of the eastern part of the Eastern European steppe. Later in the early Yamnaya period, this tradition is fixed in the west. In the section “Chronology of the emergence of the Kurgan tradition”, by analogyof rites and inventoryestablished the relative chronology of the beginning of the mound construction in the cultural block Gumelnitsa-Karanovo VI- Varna-Kojadermen-Tripolye ВI-BIBII, dating by the 5th millennium BC. Results. Due to the radiocarbon dating, the first barrows in Ciscaucasia arose no later than the middle of the 5th millennium BC. Contribution of authors in writing the article is associated with specialization of professor N.L. Morgunova with the problems of the Eneolithic and Bronze Age of the Volga region and the Volga-Urals, of professor S.N. Korenevskiy with study of mounds of the Eneolithic and Maikop culture of Ciscaucasia.»
https://hfrir.jvolsu.com/index.php/ru/component/attachments/download/2842
@Davidski
I'm half-expecting them to cite the rumored J2b in Suvorovo as evidence despite J2b never showing up in relevant Anatolian samples.
https://www.sherdog.com/fighter/Nabi-Nabiev-416884 here is a guy of Ahvakh origin , they have the highest EHG in the Caucasus , despite the fact that 90 percent of J1
@Арсен
Catacomb culture-related groups moved through the eastern Caucasus on their way to Azerbaijan.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/06/a-potentially-violent-end-to-kura.html
That's why there's now R1b-Z2103 in this area and a lot of Catacomb/Yamnaya-related ancestry.
The high frequencies of J1 in the eastern Caucasus are due to fairly recent founder effects. In Armenia, on the other hand, there was a founder effect in Z2103, but Armenians only have 10-15% of Yamnaya/Catacomb-related autosomal ancestry.
here above there was a link to an article where the time of CHG admixture was measured for the middle Don, is it possible to do the same operation for modern populations?
Yes, it’s quite possible you’re right. since there are many burial mounds on the plain and foothills of the eastern Caucasus, but one strange detail emerges: if it were not for the mounds, then the percentage of Caucasian hunters in the eastern Caucasus would be much lower? would there be more Anatolian origin?
although it would be more logical to assume that in this case there should have been more Anatolian genes in Georgia
The founder effect?
https://youtu.be/jRFTla9xEEs?si=mNHvloWFZp0YdHkw
this person in the video says the general age of the ancestor j1 for the eastern Caucasus (in the specific case of Dagestan ) at least 10,000 years old , even within certain villages , the total age of the ancestors of this haplogroup is several thousand years . and this branch is not found in neighboring villages
@Арсен
Some mutations in the J1 tree are very old while others much younger.
https://m.vk.com/mma_dagestan?z=photo-56994658_457377115%2Falbum-56994658_00&from=post
here are 4 guys in the foreground from left to right - a Lak Avar and two akhvakhs
@Davidski
He also says that the gene mutation associated with the frequency of blood clots has a peak in dagestan, about 25 percent, when the world average is 1 - 1.5 percent. I wonder if similar mutations were transmitted to the steppe groups 🤔? There is data on similar mutations in the same Yamnaya crops?
You can't track migrations with blood clot and other health markers, because they're susceptible to strong selection pressure.
so in your opinion, these are newly acquired mutations? I was thinking that these mutations were possessed by hunter gatherers of the eastern Caucasus and I was interested in the prevalence of such mutations among the populations that originate from them
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.11.049
a new article about Sarmatian Caucasian specimens from Roman Britain
@ Vladimir
''The hypothesis of Nikitin and Ivanova is their point of view and nothing more. This is the position of the Ukrainian archaeological school since Soviet times. There are other positions. For example, Morgunova and Korenevsky. I understand Anthony supports this position too. ''The discovery of the oldest EHG/CHG or Middle Don/CHG samples in Nalchik without additional WHG/EEF admixture will finally bury Nikitin's hypothesis/Ivanova/Rob.''
You're conflating different things. As I replied to Matt above, I do not disagree with a 5th Mill chronology of monumental burials, but given the haziness of Russian archaeology, some Thermoluminescence dating of the soils associated with Nalchik mounds & the like would be needed to secure the synchrononicity.
And the lack of EEF in Nalchik doesnt change or 'bury' anything. The proposal is not that those buried in Nalchik come from France or Central Europe, but it means that quite similar phenomena occurred acorss Europe at the same time in otherwise different groups. So, the common thread is its European geography, and probably the WHG element.
We know that Nalchik/ Khvalynsk provided Female mating networks without EEF. No problems.
btw here is what Morgunova & Korenevski wrote - '''by analogy of rites and inventory established the relative chronology of the beginning of the mound construction in the cultural block Gumelnitsa-Karanovo VI- Varna-Kojadermen-Tripolye ВI-BIBII, dating by the 5th millennium BC''
You should improve your basic scientific literacy instead of pretending you're the resident expert in Russian archaeology.
@ Arsen
''He also says that the gene mutation associated with the frequency of blood clots has a peak in dagestan, about 25 percent, when the world average is 1 - 1.5 percent. I wonder if similar mutations were transmitted to the steppe groups 🤔?''
Sounds like Factor V leiden. Probably has nothing to do with steppe, but due to endogamy , local village founder effects. Seems to be high in parts of Italy and certain Arab communities. Probably a West Asian phenomenon
@EthanR
I'm half-expecting them to cite the rumored J2b in Suvorovo as evidence despite J2b never showing up in relevant Anatolian samples.
It's far from certain that this is really a J2b.
There is some sort of a J2a in an Eneolithic sample from the Lower Don, but this is basically a Steppe Maykop outlier and nothing directly to do with Yamnaya.
If Steppe Maykop outliers were in some important way ancestral to Yamnaya, then Lazaridis would have a point, but they're not.
This is a very different phenomenon and, at best, might represent non-Indo-European influence in Late Proto-Indo-European.
@ Ethan
What/ who is the source of that rumour ?
Interesting. And of course even if it was relevant in some way to Yamnaya, it's fairly unlikely that Steppe Maikop spoke something south caucasian.
@Rob
From Nikitin and Ivanova's "Long-distance exchanges along the Black Sea coast in the Eneolithic and the steppe genetic ancestry problem"
"preliminary results of the genetic analysis of individuals from the Giurgiuleşti necropolis (D. Reich, personal communication, 2021), indicate that the uniparental genetic lineages from a child of the Giurgiuleşti Burial 3 match those of a Mesolithic hunter- gatherer from the Kotias Klde rock shelter site in the Republic of Georgia"
This mesolithic sample is plausibly NEO281, a J2b individual from Kotias Klde, which is to be published with the Allentoft paper. As per this timestamp of Nikitin's lecture, the mtDNA of the burial 3 sample is from iron gates mesolithic, so the quote must be referring to sharing Y-DNA with the Kotias sample (assuming the information above is all in reference to the same two samples).
https://youtu.be/7pgJoMUs66w?t=1668
@ Ethan - thanks, that makes sense.
@ Rob
Also about that I wrote a lot in the blogs and in private letters, above all by saying that J2 (a and b, but also some J1 subclades) came to Europe from around the Caucasus or eastern Europe independently from the migration to the Levant (above all the 4200 years ago migration) and not from the Levant as many pretended, if not a few cases eaasily undestandable.
@ Gio.
Yes I remember that it was commonly thought that J was a Neolithic Levant marker. Fair enough guess at the time, but that's why aDNA was needed.
Btw, the Nalchik burial group is a communal/ group burial ground. It was not covered by a kurgan (but there is a later, Majkop-era Kurgan at Nalchik). Nalchik people were buried side-crouched, and thus different to the "Yamnaya pose". Low earthen mounds appear in the cis-Caucasus after 4500 BC, spec. c. 4300 BC with Progress [this is from Korenevksii & Anthony articles].
After 4000 bc, aside from the Majkop zone, the most complex kurgans were those of the Cernavoda culture, which had complex subterranean constructions which lined up with astrological features.
@Rob
yes, it is quite possible that this mutation is meant, he also said in the video that the mortality rate from coronavirus was maximum in our country, also due to the high prevalence of this mutation, but what useful function does it perform, why does it have such a high peak in our country? some kind of positive selection played a role, or as I put it, is it connected with the Eastern Caucasian hunters?
@Rob
https://ibb.co/vLTddxL I found such an interesting map, but for some reason only 4.5 percent is indicated when, according to geneticist Radjabov, it should be much higher
@Rob
here is another interesting Wikipedia quote
Studies have found that about 5 percent of Caucasians in North America have factor V Leiden. Data have indicated that prevalence of factor V Leiden is greater among Caucasians than minority Americans. One study also suggested "that the factor V‐Leiden mutation segregates in populations with significant Caucasian admixture and is rare in genetically distant non‐European groups."
https://youtu.be/jRFTla9xEEs?t=2399&si=FKcs3RVbC4G5_QLR
It’s precisely at this moment that he talks about the hereditary diseases of the Dagestanis, and thrombophilia, and says that he used 500 absolutely healthy college and university students for the sample. says that in a normal case this disease does not manifest itself in any way, but only when sick with diseases such as coronavirus, etc.
Matt said...
Ivanova: "Ancient burial mounds as a symbolic system - December 2023
...Burial mounds above the sanctuaries began to appear after burials of later epochs were carried out in sacral places (not earlier than 38/37 BC). These mounds erroneously are associated with flat burials or ground sanctuaries. The dating of burial mounds by the dating of sacral flat burials (or by the dating of «pillar sanctuaries») mistakenly greatly pushes back the dating of appearance of the first mounds in the Steppe Black Sea region and Transcaucasia...
Throughout Europe, barrows appear almost simultaneously, in 38/37 BC, although in different cultures. archaeological evidence of the interaction between the world of early farmers of Southeast and Central Europe and the “steppe” world of the pastoralists. The barrows of the Black Sea and Caucasian steppe are synchronous with European burial mounds, and their ancientization...is erroneous"
Matt also wrote:
Could any of this help to resolve it as to why the burials found under kurgans tend to favour particular y-dna haplogroups that did not expand with Corded Ware phenomenon?
One way of looking at this is that Steppes kurgans were made in imitation of more western communities and the native IE element was CWC and Yamnaya was intrusive.
thanks for posting this, Matt!
Like I said, health markers are useless in tracking ancestry because they're under selection pressure.
You need neutral markers and a lot of them to find out anything.
@ Rob
"@ Gio.
Yes I remember that it was commonly thought that J was a Neolithic Levant marker. Fair enough guess at the time, but that's why aDNA was needed".
aDNA could be a proof, but I wrote about that only by studying the STRs like for Villabruna as R1b in Palaeolithic Italy, thus I could be right also in other hypotheses of mine.
@Davidsky
Thank you Mr. Davidski, I understood this. the gene is too strongly susceptible to the effect of natural selection since it strongly depends on external conditions, unlike other genes that are neutral and do not affect anything, they can be used to track the connections of one people with another. Did I understand correctly?
Yes.
@ Arsen
@ Davidski
That is true, but it is also true that even mutations linked to diseases may be used to understand the introgressions, for instance, as European Jews increased their populations from a few to many (from 25000 to 10 million), many diffused diseases among them due to inbreeding are a proof of introgression: Tay Sachs from Sicily, some BRCA from the Baltic and certainly the resistence to AIDS (50% in Lithuanian Jews) from the same Baltic people, clearly not from people of the old Roman Empire, and so on.
@Davidsky
Mr. Davidsky, then this question may sound a little racist, but I don’t care, are there genes responsible for intelligence and mental abilities? Taking the Ashkenazi as an example, is there a difference in their genes from the same Europeans among whom they lived that would directly correlate with intelligence and IQ? autosomal they have a direct connection to the Levant, meaning these genes from the Levant gave them additional mental abilities? if so, why don't the Palestinians, Levantines, Yemenis and other peoples with the maximum percentage of the Levant have superintelligence?
@Арсен
You need to do some background reading about genetics and selection. I don't have time to explain.
athletes of the eastern Caucasus
https://ibb.co/1mpPzsd
Lak (Burshi) Chechen
Avar (Gunib) Avar (Sildi)
He indicated their ancestral villages in parentheses , since nationality is often localized within one village ,and even if both people are of the same nationality , they may not understand each other at all , such as the Avar from Gunib and Sildi
@Davidski
thank you for your answer, Mr. Davidsky, I will definitely get acquainted, I know all this on an intuitive surface level, I did not even delve into it. Excuse me, of course, but are you a Jew or a Pole yourself?the surname sounds in Polish
@Gio
everything, maybe nothing can be ruled out, but it is best, as Mr. Davidsky says, to use neutral genes for this
I'm Polish.
My grandmother grew up in an Ashkenazi Jewish family, but she was adopted.
Wow, very interesting, thanks for the answer Mr. Davidsky. For some reason, initially it seemed to me that you were an Ashkenazi from Poland)
Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA
Harald Ringbauer, Yilei Huang, Ali Akbari, Swapan Mallick, Iñigo Olalde, Nick Patterson & David Reich
Abstract
Long DNA segments shared between two individuals, known as identity-by-descent (IBD), reveal recent genealogical connections. Here we introduce ancIBD, a method for identifying IBD segments in ancient human DNA (aDNA) using a hidden Markov model and imputed genotype probabilities. We demonstrate that ancIBD accurately identifies IBD segments >8 cM for aDNA data with an average depth of >0.25× for whole-genome sequencing or >1× for 1240k single nucleotide polymorphism capture data. Applying ancIBD to 4,248 ancient Eurasian individuals, we identify relatives up to the sixth degree and genealogical connections between archaeological groups. Notably, we reveal long IBD sharing between Corded Ware and Yamnaya groups, indicating that the Yamnaya herders of the Pontic-Caspian Steppe and the Steppe-related ancestry in various European Corded Ware groups share substantial co-ancestry within only a few hundred years. These results show that detecting IBD segments can generate powerful insights into the growing aDNA record, both on a small scale relevant to life stories and on a large scale relevant to major cultural-historical events.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-023-01582-w
Poor Gaska. He is going to blow a gasket when he reads Ringbauer, H., Huang, Y., Akbari, A. et al. Accurate detection of identity-by-descent segments in human ancient DNA. Nat Genet (2023). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41588-023-01582-w
We found that several nomadic Steppe groups associated with the Yamnaya culture that date to around 3,000 bce share comparably large amounts of IBD with each other (Fig. 4). This late Eneolithic to Early Bronze Age culture of pastoral nomads, who inhabited the Western Eurasian Pontic-Caspian Steppe often buried their death in tumuli (Kurgans) and were among the first people to use wagons, are suggested to have had a key role in the early spread of Indo-European languages34. Notably, the Yamnaya IBD cluster includes also individuals associated with the contemporaneous Afanasievo culture thousands of kilometres east, an Eneolithic archaeological culture near the Central Asian Altai mountains. This signal of IBD sharing confirms the previous archaeological hypothesis that Afanasievo and Yamnaya are closely linked despite the vast geographic distance from Eastern Europe to Central Asia34. A genetic link has already been evident from genomic similarity and Y haplogroups31,35; however, the time depth of this connection remained unclear. We now identify IBD signals across all length scales, including several shared IBD segments even longer than 20 cM (Extended Data Fig. 3). Such long IBD links must be recent as recombination ends an IBD segment ~20 cM long on average every five meiosis. This long IBD sharing signal, at the same level as between various Yamnaya groups (Fig. 4), therefore clearly indicates that ancient individuals from Afanasievo contexts descend from people who migrated at most a few generations earlier across vast distances of the Eurasian Steppe.
SHT001 is derived for R-P311 and clusters with the other Afanasievo samples such as SHT002 which is mentioned as being related to I11752 which is considered as being from the Forest Steppe. See Fig. 5: A geographically distant pair of ancient biological relatives detected with ancIBD. a, When screening ancient Eurasian individuals for IBD segments (Fig. 3), we detected a pair of biological relatives whose remains were buried 1,410 km apart, one in central Mongolia and one in Southern Russia. The two individuals were previously published in two different publications35,59. Both individuals are archaeologically associated with the Afanasievo culture and genetically cluster with other Afanasievo individuals35,59
Gaska, the evidence is growing that the ancestors of R-P312 and R-DF27 are from Steppe related people in eastern Europe. Do you still deny this?
@ Dospaises
"This long IBD sharing signal, at the same level as between various Yamnaya groups (Fig. 4), therefore clearly indicates that ancient individuals from Afanasievo contexts descend from people who migrated at most a few generations earlier across vast distances of the Eurasian Steppe".
But do you think that Yamnaya derived from Afanasievo or Afanasievo from Yamnaya? Said in other words: Indo-European did come from Eastern Europe (probably linked above all with hg R1a) or from India or Iran?
Of course, for resolving deeply your question and disproving Gaska (but me too, that R1b separated from R1a in the Paleaolithic and entered the Caucasian languages group near the Alps and perhaps the same Caucasus) we'd need to test these samples until the terminal SNP and see if they are the ancestors of the western European R1b or if they descend from other linked R1b developed in central Europe and near the Alps. Don't forget that the Harvardians use these data for their theory of the "Southern Arc", i.e. the Gramkrelidze-Ivanov theory.
Ha Ha Ha Ha, poor Dospaises, you are even more desperate than the Harvardians, we have already commented on that IBD paper months ago. You can go on living in your fantasy world but if you were smart you would see that German and Czech Beakers do not show links to Yamnaya-Afanasievo, only show a weak link to Lithuania LN & the link to Corded Ware is fairly weak-Something is very wrong with models based on the so-called steppe admixture. As long as you are unable to study a paper in an unbiased manner you will never be able to have a serious genetic discussion.
Gaska. I have already explained that you constantly disregard basic genetics and facts of studies and samples even when you repeatedly reminded of them. The person that is unable to have a serious conversation is yourself. You are biased since you refuse to acknowledge the totality of the evidence with the main points being that every since specimen that is derived for R-L23 also has Steppe autosomal ancestry and the Afanasievo, Yamnaya and Corded Ware all have a common autosomal ancestor. All of the R-L23 specimens have a single common male ancestor in the direct paternal line in eastern Europe about 4000 BCE and extremely likely already had Steppe autosomal DNA.
Gio. I don't care about the argument about the origin of PIE. That argument can't be proven because we don't have a time machine to go back and listen to who spoke what, when and where.
"we'd need to test these samples until the terminal SNP and see if they are the ancestors of the western European R1b or if they descend from other linked R1b developed in central Europe and near the Alps"
Do you not understand that ancient specimens have DNA damage due to degradation over time? All we can get is what they have given us. I know for a fact that SHT001 is negative for R-L151 and R-S1159 but that is irrelevant. What it proves is that R-P311 has been found as far east as Mongolia about 3000BCE, which is very close to the formed date of R-P311, but note a single specimen in western Europe that far back that is derived for R-L23 or any of it's subclades.
@Jaakko Hääkinnen That you?
I was late to the discussion on the origins of Proto-Uralic languages, but wasn’t it our debater Jaasko Häkkinen who himself wrote this study?
https://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust264/sust264_hakkinenj.pdf
“ However, Jaakko Häkkinen argues that the language of the Volosovo culture was not itself Uralic, but a Paleo-European substratum to Uralic, especially its westernmost branches, and identifies Proto-Uralic with the Garino-Bor culture instead.”
Jaska, you wrote that Uralic languages came from EHG, but I have the article’s link posted here to show you how you contradict yourself
"Jaska, you wrote that Uralic languages came from EHG"
No, I have never made such a claim. If anything, I consider the Late Proto-Uralic speakers as an admixture of different ancestries.
My recent article is of course more up-to-date than my article 15 years ago, but it is still valid that the Stone Age cultures in the Volga Region could not have been Uralic-speaking.
Post a Comment