If, like Iosif Lazaridis, you subscribe to the idea that the Yamnaya people carry early Anatolian farmer-related admixture that spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus, then I've got great news for you.
We now have a human sample from the Eneolithic site of Nalchik in the North Caucasus, labeled NL122, that packs well over a quarter of this type of ancestry (see
here). Below is a quick G25/Vahaduo model to illustrate the point (please note that Turkey_N = early Anatolian farmers).
Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 2.1934% / 0.02193447
60.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
26.2 Turkey_N
13.0 Georgia_Kotias
On the other hand, if, again like Iosif Lazaridis, you subscribe to the idea that the Indo-European language spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus in association with this early Anatolian farmer-related admixture, then I've got terrible news for you.
That's because NL122 is apparently dated to a whopping 5197-4850 BCE (see
here). This dating might be somewhat bloated, possibly due to what's known as the reservoir effect, because the Nalchik archeological site is generally carbon dated to 4840–4820 BCE.
However, even with the younger dating, this would still mean that early Anatolian farmer-related ancestry arrived in the North Caucasus, and thus in Eastern Europe, around 4,800 BCE at the latest. That's surprisingly early, and just too early to be relevant to any sort of Indo-European expansion from a necessarily even earlier Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus.
This means that NL122 effectively debunks Iosif Lazaridis' Indo-Anatolian hypothesis. Unless, that is, Iosif can provide evidence for a more convoluted scenario, in which there are at least two early Anatolian farmer-related expansions into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus, and the expansion relevant to the arrival of Indo-European speech came well after 5,000 BCE.
I haven't done any detailed analyses of NL122 with formal stats and qpAdm. But my G25/Vahaduo runs suggest that it might be possible to model the ancestry of the Yamnaya people with around 10% admixture from a population similar to NL122.
Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.4123% / 0.03412328
72.6 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
18.2 Ukraine_N
9.2 Nalchik_Eneolithic
However, I don't subscribe to the idea that the Yamnaya people carry early Anatolian farmer-related admixture that spread into Eastern Europe via the Caucasus (on top of what is already found in Progress Eneolithic). Based on basic logic and a wide range of my own analyses, I believe that they acquired this type of ancestry from early European farmers, probably associated with the Trypillia culture. For instance...
Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.2481% / 0.03248061
80.2 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
13.6 Ukraine_Neolithic
6.2 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia
0.0 Nalchik_Eneolithic
Another way to show this is with a Principal Component Analysis (PCA) that highlights a Yamnaya cline made up of the Yamnaya, Steppe Eneolithic and Ukraine Neolithic samples. As you can see, dear reader, there's no special relationship between the Yamnaya cline and Nalchik_Eneolithic. The Yamnaya samples, which are sitting near the eastern end of the Yamnaya cline, instead seem to show a subtle shift towards the Trypillian farmers.
Indeed, I also don't exactly understand the recent infatuation among many academics, especially Iosif Lazaridis and his colleagues, with trying to put the Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus. Considering all of the available multidisciplinary data, I'd say it still makes perfect sense to put it in the Sredny Stog culture of the North Pontic steppe, in what is now Ukraine.
Please note that all of the G25 coordinates used in my models and the PCA are available
HERE.
See also...
The Caucasus is a semipermeable barrier to gene flow
279 comments:
1 – 200 of 279 Newer› Newest»Just wondering what all of the pro-Iranian Plateau morons are going to come up with based on this Nalchik sample.
The whole problem is that we have few samples from the southern, and especially the northern Caucasus, these are the remains of the Copper Age of the Eneolithic Neolithic and Mesolithic. If we had this, we would answer a lot of questions
@All
For easy access, G25 coords...
Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122,0.104717,0.107646,-0.00528,0.043928,-0.028005,0.022311,0.007755,0.002308,-0.051131,-0.044101,0.002761,-0.001798,-0.009812,-0.005092,0.008958,-0.004641,-0.004433,0.000633,-0.004274,0.000375,0.007736,0.001113,0.011462,-0.000602,-0.002395
Davidski:
"However, even with the younger dating, this would still mean that early Anatolian farmer-related ancestry arrived in the North Caucasus, and thus in Eastern Europe, around 4,800 BCE at the latest. That's surprisingly early, and just too early to be relevant to any sort of Indo-European expansion from a necessarily even earlier Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus."
I agree. This sample is chronologically not a good match for the assumed Proto-Indo-Anatolian migrants.
Is the reasoning for a pulse being too early based on linguistic paleontological concerns, a specific set of terminology that is rejected as wanderworts, linking the Anatolian and non-Anatolian primary branches?
Ayshin Ghalichi's abstract for her unpublished paper, "Genomic signals of continuity and admixture in the Caucasus", mentions: "We observe a degree of genetic continuity through time within the main mountain and steppe genetic groups, but also identify various episodes of gene flow between these and the neighboring regions. In the Late Eneolithic period, we find evidence of admixture from the south into the steppe groups, detectable through the presence of Anatolian_Neolithic-like ancestry.". This sample makes me wonder if these individuals will be genomically similar to NL122.
Also, whether or not there was any linguistic legacy (and this seems unlikely to move things much against the conventional solution although it may push some of those Caucasus-contact linguistics arguments for early p-IA towards being more plausible?), I wonder if these people had any legacy in material cultural change. The introduction of pastoralist practices - such as I think is indicated by how Scott (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9177415/) found milk peptides in the teeth of Progress Eneolithic PG2002. Or was that all a deal introduced via networks linked to SE Europe?
@Matt
This sample makes me wonder if these individuals will be genomically similar to NL122.
They're talking about the same population as the Steppe Maykop outliers.
For a proximal look with G25, much of that West Asian ancestry can be mediated via Shulaveri_N type people (e.g. Aze_lowland). There is a paucity of CHG in Nalchik (seems to be a more direct dialogue between southern Caucasus and Volga-Don steppe), whilst Meshoko-Darkveti is the local west Caucasian Neolithicized hunters (high CHG, low steppe) (although this would need a look with formal stats).
So quite a bit of structure in the north Caucasus.
@ Matt
Most online people would obviously be interested in this sample for the implications of the IE debate.
Beyond that, this establishes a 'low chronology' for the Caucasian route of Neolithic productive economy rather than an early ("7000 bc") route proposed in some older literature; meaning influences from European farmers were much earlier.
But for pastoralism, your quoted study and clear evidence of interaction does support that at least some steppe groups adopted ideas mediated via the Caucasus.
As for introducing a cultural & lingusitic package, that seems less likely. The ideological tenets of the steppe groups do not derive from the Caucasus or Western Asia, but were in fact introduced in the latter regions by some individuals from the north.
Unfortunately, scientists, even outstanding ones, often do not understand the basic facts...
PIE is a language reconstructed on the basis of the common cores of words of all modern and historical Indo-European languages. Therefore, if we are looking for a PIE population using genetics, it must have a common biomolecular marker for all contemporary and historic IE speakers. And such a specific marker is the CWC admixture (WSH plus GAC). Therefore, the PIE population cannot be look for in any ancient human group that does not have an admixture of CWC (WSH plus GAC).
@ambron
Well, obviously, CWC wasn't the Indo-Anatolian speaking culture.
Sredny Stog was, and it's too early for GAC admixture. Even Yamnaya doesn't have GAC admixture.
David
The oldest attested Indo-Anatolian languages date back to the 18th century BC. So in what sense is it too early for a GAC admixture?
@ambron
Oldest attested doesn't mean oldest existing.
Obviously, people didn't just start speaking Hittite in 1800 BCE out of nowhere.
There was Proto-Indo-Anatolian thousands of years before that.
David
But we reconstruct PIE based on Anatolian cores from 1800 BCE, when all IE speakers had already an admixture of CWC (WSH plus GAC).
@ambron
There's zero chance that Anatolian speakers had CWC ancestry.
I don’t know whether it would be correct to use the G25 coordinates of the remains to find out which language group this person, this or that people belonged to, because even G25 does not give a clear answer why, of all the peoples of the North Caucasus, the Ossetians belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of languages, they are no different from its southern and western neighbors
David
In my opinion, the chances are good, given the admixture of CWC in Mycenaean Greek speakers.
@Арсен
We don't use genetic data to guess who speaks what language, we use it to track migrations that could have potentially brought language shifts with them.
So we have a very good idea why Ossetians speak Indo-European, because we can see population movements of steppe groups into the North Caucasus at exactly the right time.
@ambron
There's no CWC admixture in Mycenaeans. It's an illusion due to the mixture of Yamnaya-related and Balkan farmer ancestries in them that looks sort of CWC-like.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/03/main-candidates-for-precursors-of-proto.html
@ arsen
“I don’t know whether it would be correct to use the G25 coordinates of the remains to find out which language group this person, this or that people belonged to, because even G25 does not give a clear answer why, of all the peoples of the North Caucasus, the Ossetians belong to the Indo-Iranian branch of languages, they are no different from its southern and western neighbors”
G25 is not used to find out languages. But in any case you appear unfamiliar with Caucasian history and it’s adna.
There are medieval Alans - Ossetians who are a mix of Sarmatians and Caucasians. Like in other examples, the core ruling Alan’s died off in mongol wars but their language lived on amongst the commoner population, leaving just Caucasian dna in modern speakers.
It would work better for you to make your statements into questions, for the foreseeable future.
@Davidski
at the expense of the Karachais, Balkars , Dagestani Kumyks , not to mention the Nogais , it is clear and visible that they have a noticeably higher Asian component compared to neighboring peoples ,there are no problems with this.
''e Karachais, Balkars , Dagestani Kumyks , not to mention the Nogais t is clear and visible that they have a noticeably higher Asian component compared to neighboring peoples'
These are fairly recent 'Turko-Mongols'
Sarmatians didnt even have an "East Asian" ancestry; they are ~ 80% 'pure' Sintashta-Andronovo derived.
@Rob
You, as usual, did not understand my thought.
I meant that genetically, according to their haplo X and Y, according to autosomes, judging by their G25, Ossetians are no different from their neighbors who speak kartvel and NC languages, in autosomes they are more like a mixture of Svan with the peoples of the North Caucasus, Maybe for them the language of the Sarmatians was a lingua-franc? I don’t know. What is the history of the Ossetians, I know enough.
@Rob
"These are fairly recent 'Turko-Mongols'
Sarmatians didnt even have an "East Asian" ancestry; they are ~ 80% 'pure' Sintashta-Andronovo derived."
Rob, here you are wrong, the Asian trace in the northern Caucasus has been introduced since the time of the Huns, during the Khazar Khaganate, etc., then there was no smell of Tatar-Mongols, the Sarmatian Scythians also had a small asiatic trace, judging by their DNA remains.
The problem here is that all the Steppe Eneolithic samples are at least 500 years younger than the Nalchik Eneolithic sample. However, if your autosomal analysis is correct, then it turns out that the autosomal profile of the Progress 2001, 2004 samples is the autosomal profile of the local population that lived in the Kuban/North Caucasus, apparently from the Mesolithic. This may also be because the Progress samples were found almost randomly, there is no particularity in their burials, that is, these burials could be burials of the common population. And the Nalchik sample is a population mixed with the South Caucasus population and from the largest burial ground in the North Caucasus of the Eneolithic era.
@Vladimir
Yes, I know the model is anachronistic. But the point was just to see how much more Anatolian ancestry NL122 had compared to Progress/Vonyuchka, rather than to calculate his actual Anatolian ancestry.
Progress/Vonyuchka actually do have some Anatolian ancestry, but I can't show that yet until new Steppe Eneolithic samples are published.
Once they're available it might turn out that Progress/Vonyuchka have ancestry from a population similar to NL122.
Let's wait and see.
If we proceed from the concept that Progress is a descendant of Nalchik, then I checked the origin of the Chalcolithic samples from the period 5000-4000 BC and as their sources I took all the samples from the period 8000-5000 BC and the following picture was obtained:
Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 3.0639% / 0.03063854 | R5P
49.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
37.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
10.6 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
3.4 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
Target: Ukraine_Eneolithic_CernavodăI_KartalA:KTL001.merge
Distance: 3.9577% / 0.03957715 | R5P
39.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
21.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
21.2 Baltic_LTU_meso
10.8 BGR_MP_N
7.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
Target: UKR_Deriivka_En:ukr104
Distance: 1.7624% / 0.01762434 | R5P
63.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
14.2 UKR_Deriivka_N
8.0 IRN_Tepe_Abdul_Hosein_Meso
7.8 Hungary_N
6.4 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso
Target: UKR_LN_Sredni_Stog_En_Igren_Dnepr-4200BC
Distance: 3.6107% / 0.03610693 | R5P
69.0 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
13.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
9.6 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
4.6 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
3.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
Target: Ukraine_LN_Usatovo_Majaky:MAJ023.merge
Distance: 1.9711% / 0.01971095 | R5P
39.0 ARM_Aknashen_N
25.2 BGR_MP_N
15.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
14.6 RUS_Vologda_Veretye_Meso
5.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_LN:VJ1001
Distance: 5.2306% / 0.05230616 | R5P
57.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
24.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
10.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
7.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
Target: RUS_Progress_LN:PG2004
Distance: 4.8991% / 0.04899101 | R5P
58.8 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
23.2 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
9.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
8.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
Target: RUS_Progress_LN:PG2001
Distance: 5.0216% / 0.05021556 | R5P
48.2 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
22.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
21.2 ARM_Aknashen_N
8.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
Target: RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_LN:I1722
Distance: 7.8864% / 0.07886429 | R5P
41.4 ARM_Aknashen_N
41.4 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N
10.6 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
6.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
Target: RUS_Khvalynsk_LN:I11837
Distance: 3.3479% / 0.03347887 | R5P
49.8 Russia_N_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Lower_Don
15.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
15.0 RUS_Vologda_Veretye_Meso
13.2 RUS_Karelia_HG_Meso
6.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_Meso
Good fits are found in trying to account for the difference between PG2004 and PG2001 by about 25% Nalchik ancestry in the latter.
Already from these samples of aDNA https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-V1636/tree no doubt about their origin in Samara etc, and no doubt about their autosome. I put the question if their Y derived from a migration of the Villabruna after the Younger Dryas to the Baltic etc as we know from other hgs. It is possible that one or more of the Italian 5 haplotypes of R-V1636 are of medieval origin from probably German people, as the Gjerrid 5 sample demonstrate, but I spoke about the only one sample in YFull tree and I'd like to know a deep test of the others present in Italy I spoke about many years ago above all in Worldfamilies but also elsewhere.
Hi Davidski, what do you think about these models for NL122? Regards.
Samples used: https://pastebin.com/raw/bjaYtLFX
Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0235% / 0.02352973 | R3P
62.3 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
23.8 DEU_LBK_HBS:HBS009.B0101__BC_5025
13.9 GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0212% / 0.02123730 | R4P
43.5 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
29.5 ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908
19.0 GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
8.0 ROU_Boian_LN:buk022dr__BC_4884
Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0187% / 0.01866686 | R5P
26.2 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
24.1 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
23.2 ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908
13.7 GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
12.8 ROU_Boian_LN:buk022dr__BC_4884
Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0184% / 0.01841440 | R6P
24.1 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
23.8 ARM_Aknashen_N:I3931__BC_5908
22.8 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
14.1 GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
12.5 ROU_Boian_LN:buk022dr__BC_4884
2.7 UKR_Meso_Voloshskoe:NEO527__BC_8974
Target: NL122_scaled
Distance: 0.0178% / 0.01783225 | R7P
28.2 RUS_Progress_En:PG2001__BC_4900
17.2 GEO_CHG:KK1__BC_7728
15.2 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
14.4 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN:MTT001__BC_5688
13.3 DEU_LBK_HBS:HBS009.B0101__BC_5025
7.7 RUS_Meso_Minino:NEO537__BC_6102
4.0 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N:I1954__BC_8212
@ arsen
“ Rob, here you are wrong, the Asian trace in the northern Caucasus has been introduced since the time of the Huns, during the Khazar Khaganate, etc., then there was no smell of Tatar-Mongols, the Sarmatian Scythians also had a small asiatic trace, judging by their DNA remains.”
Huns did not leave any lasting trace in the Caucasus . Karachay, Balkars, Nogay are all kipchak Turks under the Mongolia horse , & that is where they’re eastern ancestry of from .
🙄
@Davidski, is that (on Ghalichi's study) confirmed by a pre-release contact or something like this?
@William Anderson
There are some key samples missing in your models. They will be published eventually, and things will look somewhat different then.
@Matt
100% confirmed.
@Davidski-"They're talking about the same population as the Steppe Maykop outliers."
Do you know if unpublished data will show Y-haplogroup T within Nalchik or neighbouring sites (because of the individual IV3002)? Will these be connected to the individuals in the Varna culture whom actually came from the older early Neolithic Northern Mesopotamia (where Anatolia_N is the main component)?
You have to wait for these samples to be released and then we'll discuss them.
//That's surprisingly early, and just too early to be relevant to any sort of Indo-European expansion from a necessarily even earlier Proto-Indo-Anatolian homeland somewhere south of the Caucasus.
// Heggarty paper predicted this circa 5000 BCE movement from south caucasus to north entering Easter Europe carrying Slavic/Baltic/Italic/Germanic/Celtic branches
Heggarty is an idiot, and his language graphs are garbage.
@Davidski
Do you know when they will be published?
I'm hoping this year, but there's no guarantee.
In all your calculations, you are missing the hunter-gatherers of the North Caucasus, just admit the fact
No, I'm missing the hunter-gatherers of the Neolithic steppe.
Progress is Steppe hunter-gatherer plus something Nalchik-like.
North Caucasus hunter-gatherers were probably just CHG.
No, there's definitely a special type of CHG from Arsen's village. They probably came from the planet Krypton and spoken 10 major language families.
Well, that’s quite possible. My village is literally 30 kilometers from Chokha, and plus rock paintings of hunter-gatherers were discovered there
https://blog.welcomedagestan.ru/placepost/drevnie-naskalnye-risunki-v-kara/
funny Rob thinks I’m trying to take over the history of the Indo-Europeans and steppe peoples. In fact, I’m studying my own history. It just so happened that the same hunter-gatherers of the Northern Caucasus took part in the ethnogenesis of both the steppe peoples and mine.
an error, it says the Early Bronze Age. These are not hunter gatherers.
Target: RUS_Nalchik_En:NL122
Distance: 3.6460% / 0.03645965
43.2 RUS_Lower_Don_N
29.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
27.2 AZE_LN
@ Arsen
''Well, that’s quite possible. My village is literally 30 kilometers from Chokha''
Have you explored around ?
With all the variety of archaeological versions of the description of the Eneolithic of the North Caucasus, none of them is exactly confirmed by paleogenetic data. However, the archaeologist Korenevsky turned out to be the closest to the paleogenetic data. In a 2008 article, he separated the Maikop culture from the cultures of the pre-Maikop period. He divided the cultures of the pre-Maykop period into two groups. Western Georgian (these are samples of Darquetti-Meshoko) and North Caucasian (samples of Nalchik and Progress). Describing the settlements related to the Nalchik burial ground, he noted two layers in them. He associated the ancient layer with the Ubaid culture. He associated the second layer with the Novodanilovka culture.
https://cyberleninka.ru/article/n/poselenie-eneoliticheskoy-epohi-predkavkazya-yaseneva-polyana-i-kultura-nakolchatoy-zhemchuzhnoy-keramiki-predkavkazya?ysclid=lslagijbiu617593813
good post
@Davidksi
On the basis of autosomal DNA/admixture, do practically all Europeans have some degree of East Asian ancestry outside of the kind that is baked into ANE? I remember some Eupedia poster claiming this a few years back and it only seems to hold true for most Eastern Europeans no? I believe even Lithuanians, Czechs and Poles display these affinities at very minor levels, and the presence of the East Asian derived Y-DNA N could account for this especially in Balts. Yet why did this admixture only flow in one direction? There seems to be no ANE/West Eurasian in East Asia (China, Korea, or Japan) despite the wide spread presence of Y-DNA Q.
@William Anderson
Hello, don't you think that you have too much input data for a sample of the Eneolithic period?
This sample from Nalchik solves the puzzle of steppe ancestry in Areni cave in Late Chalcolithic Armenia. The introduction of food producing to north of Caucasus almost certainly resulted in the apparition of mobile pastoralist groups. They moved to various directions and some of them moved to South Caucasus after the 4500BC where they left kirganic burials. Soyuq Bulagh in Azerbaijan, Se Girdan in NW Iran and probably the Aknalich in Armenia. The Arslantepe royal burial can also be related to this groups. The apparition of R1b-V1636 in West Asia is almost certainly related to this Chalcolithic migration.
For now, these are the most interesting samples regarding the Steppe profile:
https://pastebin.com/raw/s3nAD2H7
https://i.imgur.com/y3qGi5s.png
you don’t necessarily need to present a sample from progress and vonychka through the Nalchik Chalcolithic. they don’t have to come from each other in chronological order. Nalchik has too much Anatoli, in progress has almost none.
@ Aram
That’s true but Progress / Vojnucka were already good fits for steppe ancestry in Areni
@All
Anyone know what the Usatove guys look like ancestrally/autosomally? Like Maj023?
Target: Armenia_C_Areni
Distance: 3.3054% / 0.03305385
53.4 Armenia_MasisBlur_N
46.6 NL122_scaled
Target: Armenia_C_Areni
Distance: 3.7556% / 0.03755592
70.2 Armenia_MasisBlur_N
29.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
@ EthanR
Maybe that's because you intentionally excluded Progress _EN as a source.
Target Areni_C
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
Georgia_Kotias.SG
Nalchik_Eneolithic
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Turkey_TellKurdu_EC
56.0 3.0 0.0 24.4 16.6
From what its worth from calcultor runs, looks like Nalchik contributed zero to Arenia_C
Excluding VJ doesn't show any real difference in G25 although everything does improve with other South Caucasian sources than those from Armenia.
Target: Armenia_C_Areni
Distance: 2.6130% / 0.02612972
62.0 Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
38.0 Nalchik_Eneolithic
Target: Armenia_C_Areni
Distance: 2.7288% / 0.02728779
78.2 Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
21.8 Russia_Progress_Eneolithic
@ Ethan
I think there's too many people producing meaningless calculator outputs.
More importantly, the point is I suspect that it wasn't Nalchik off-buds who migrated south of the Cuacasus, but the more mobile 'purer' steppe groups. They are the loink in the chains
Lazaridis wrote extensively about these R1b-V1636 people in the Southern Arc paper, and said they were evidence of steppe-west asian genetic exchange.
"Subclades of Y-chromosome haplogroup R-L389 are particularly informative for tracing connections between the Southern Arc and the Eurasian steppe (Fig. 6). First, haplogroup R-V1636, with an inferred common ancestor in the 5th millennium BCE, documents gene flow between the steppe and the Southern Arc in the Eneolithic/Chalcolithic period (Fig. 6B). R-V1636 is present in two individuals from the Late Chalcolithic at Arslantepe (Turkey) (14) and the Early Bronze Age in Armenia at Kalavan (10). It is also found in the piedmont of the North Caucasus at Progress-2 (17), the open steppe at Khvalynsk II (9), and the Single Grave Culture of Northern Europe (Gjerrild) (33). The individuals from Armenia and
Arslantepe lack any detectible Eastern hunter-gatherer autosomal ancestry (Fig. 6C), which is maximized in the Khvalynsk individuals, an observation that provides some evidence for a southern origin for the R-V1636 haplogroup (we caution, however, that the haplogroup occurs earlier in several sites in the north, which
could be consistent with an alternative scenario in which male migrants from the steppe introduced it into Southern Arc populations during the Chalcolithic, but their autosomal genetic legacy was diluted by the much more numerous locals). The earliest individuals from the R-L389 clade belong to the R-P297 sister clade of R-V1636, including the hunter-gatherer from Lebyazhinka IV (8, 9) and hunter-gatherers from the Baltic region (3), both without Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry, suggesting an Eastern European origin of this clade that would eventually give rise to the R-M269 clade that spread extremely widely in the Bronze Age"
Imo, I think we're finally getting some genetic evidence of Proto-Anatolians. They might be intrinsically tied to these R1b-V1636 people. Not specifically this specific Nalchik sample, but something like this. Most estimates only put the Indo-Anatolian split a few hundred years after this Nalchik sample's existence at 4500 to 4000 BC.
Laziridis's argument was that these R1b-V1636 migrated north, but he also left the door open for the opposite to be true, that the Arslanteppe sample represents the paternal descendants of these people whose autosomal DNA was watered down, like many R1bs in the Middle East today.
@DragonHermit
Laziridis's argument was that these R1b-V1636 migrated north...
That's totally delusional and it should've never been in this paper that many people are unfortunately taking very seriously.
@Rob
I imagine communities like Nalchik were genetically heterogenous. If Areni has any special affinity to this Nalchik sample then presumably what it likes is the northern source in question responsible for Nalchik. I'm surprised G25 is indifferent to the use of either as Progress seems to show more violent ANE/WSHG ancestry which is less evident in Areni/Nalchik (although this may be obfuscated by other ancestry streams).
@DragonHermit
An Eastern route for Anatolian is not very mainstream and does not correspond with the other types of evidence. You should hope for more than matching Y-DNA which share a TMRCA of 5100BC. And V1636 isn't even the most common "European" haplogroup to show up in ancient Anatolian samples.
I get the feeling these Khvalynsnk - Nalchik network people were extinct para- or non-IE steppe people
Arslantepe was conquered by Kura people then essentially pettered out of existence before being conquered by Hittites from the west . These are fairly basic facts.
I had such a feeling from the very beginning when I saw the composition of the Nalchik sample , it did not give no steppe, no clear , no other peoples , it is not very suitable for this
I don't think. that Anatolia was the birthplace of PIE, I think. that Anatolia was the homeland of the Proto-NEC (northeastern Anatolia, Armenian highlands) Hurrians of Urat. languages , Basque Etruscan languages and the like
@ Ethan
I’m sure you’re right that Nalchik was diverse at least to an extent, with probably some Yhg J in there
Still, I think the mobile segments within the Volga -Caspian network migrated south rather than their more settled kin
We also should keep an open mind - the fact that there is V1636 in eastern Anatolia is still pertinent; given that closely related languages can interact & converge
I don't think there is any evidence suggesting these south Caucasian V1636 carriers represent any kind of para-IE. And even if it were supposed, Arslantepe is too far removed from the key action relating to the disintegration of Anatolian if a Balkan route has already been supposed.
At best it would have some sort of substratum effect over the attested languages in the region like Hurrian or Urartian.
@Ethan
I think it's fair to say that Khvalynsk, Progress, etc. may have been PIE-related, and some possibly para-PIE, considering their close genetic and archeological relationship with Sredny Stog, and even Corded Ware.
It's probably not a coincidence that V1636 appears in Corded Ware/Single Grave.
I think Khvalynsk, Progress and Nalchik all probably are para-PIE, and V1636 was at one point more relevant in the Steppe network (as was I-L701 and likely a number of others).
It should be noted that it also shows up in Cernavoda.
I don't see any demonstrable linguistic impact the intrusion of V1636 into the south caucasus had, or how it even could in light of the other linguistic, archeological, and historical evidence we already have and can comb through.
There is a hypothesis that Proto-Anatolian languages may have spread into Anatolia with the Kura-Araxes expansion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4jnBdVxjw
This is in line with some steppe ancestry and V1636 found in Kura-Araxes samples, as well as steppe influence in Kura-Araxes burials.
I think it's possible that Kura-Araxes was in part Indo-European speaking, but the idea that it was Proto-Anatolian doesn't look all that hot to me.
Anyway, the kurgan burial tradition did spread into West Asia from the steppe via the Caucasus during the Copper Age, so that might be another possible link to Proto-Anatolian.
Could be a scenario like Jutland / PMGc where two IE streams converged from east and centr-west
Still favour a western entry for PA, however
@ Davidksi
''There is a hypothesis that Proto-Anatolian languages may have spread into Anatolia with the Kura-Araxes expansion.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pe4jnBdVxjw'
But there's not much convingly historical or genetic there. It's inferences from inscriptions & linguistic strata.
And I highlight my view that Kura-Araxes = anti-steppe horizon.
Target: RUS_Nalchik_En:NL122
Distance: 3.4667% / 0.03466734
39.8 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
34.6 RUS_Samara_HG
25.6 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_N
@ Davidski
Can you share Upper/Middlel/Lower Don coordinates again?
@Gabru
Your model is wrong. EHG didn't move into Nalchik. It was an EHG-rich population already very similar to Progress with a lot of CHG ancestry as well.
The Allentoft G25 coords are here.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1-pHAqMPIRgfdXJuf9B4ZChOcJlBLhFe-/view?usp=sharing
@Gabru
from whom, but from similar mixtures that you have, Nalchik would definitely not have originated
Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 2.0280% / 0.02027984 | R5P
47.6 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
24.6 Early_European_Farmer
16.0 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer
6.0 Ukraine_Mesolithic
5.8 Iran_Neolithic
additional Caucasus/Iran could have been brought by the Anatolian ancestors of Nalchik
What’s interesting to me is that one Nogai turned out to have a very similar profile. For a minute, these are Asian people
Target: Nogai_Dagestan_o_(Ciscaucasian_Profile)
Distance: 2.3387% / 0.02338680
48.4 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
23.8 Early_European_Farmer
18.6 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer
6.0 Iran_Neolithic
1.8 Early_Levantine_Farmer
1.4 Northeastern_Asia_Neolithic
@ Арсен
Nalchik is close and contemporary to Darkveti-Meshoko, to me it seems like Nalchik is a mix of Caucasus_En + Azerbaijan_LN + Lower_Don_N
@ Davidski
When are your PC Steppe 5400 BCE samples coming? Will they be just like Lower Don 5400 BCE?
Not sure when they're coming, but they have a lot of CHG.
By the way, the 6,100 BCE hunter-gatherer from the Northwest Caucasus is also a mix of CHG and EHG.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/coming-soon.html
Target: RUS_Nalchik_En:NL122
Distance: 3.4333% / 0.03433275
46.4 RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N
31.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
22.2 AZE_LN
Are there only two Don Neolithic samples? I heard about Upper and Lower Don samples but apparently only NEO212 and NEO113 are mentioned as Middle Don Neolithic in Allentoft 2024
@ Davidski
And what if they're just like Don Neolithic with like 30% CHG :))
"By the way, the 6,100 BCE hunter-gatherer from the Northwest Caucasus is also a mix of CHG and EHG."
Nice, I think this might be a representative of PC Steppe Neolithic
Davidski
Not sure when they're coming, but they have a lot of CHG.
By the way, the 6,100 BCE hunter-gatherer from the Northwest Caucasus is also a mix of CHG and EHG.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2021/10/coming-soon.html
Obviously, we are talking about a sample from the Satanai Grotto, the dating coincides and co-author Buzhilova, who wrote about this sample
Rob
I agree, that the group that moved to the south was probably more like Progress rather than the Nalchik.
What I mean is that finally we have an explanation how and why they moved. Because they were already food producers. Otherwise it would be strange to imagine that just hunters managed to move deep into South Caucasian mountainous lands occupied by advanced Chaff faced ware farmers.
@ Davidski
Don Neolithic samples aren't detecting considerable CHG, why is this?
Only NEO212 and NEO113 are detecting 21% and 25% CHG respectively, these are labelled as Russia_Neolithic_MiddleDon in Allentoft's spreadsheet and dated to 5500 BCE
Have a look on a map where the Don is located.
Ahh, my bad, those "Don River" samples are actually from 5800-5300BP in Allentoft's spreadsheet, sorry...
What samples are these then? The dating seems suspicious - 3900-3300 BCE
https://files.catbox.moe/qs4fbt.png
Vasilievsky Cordon 17
Among the ceramic complexes, the overwhelming amount of ceramics is represented by fragments of the Sredny Stog culture of the Chalcolithic era (mid-4th millennium BC). Materials from the Ryazan-Dolgov culture, the Ksizovo type (mid-4th millennium BC) and Dubrovichi culture (end of the 4th millennium BC) of the Neolithic era, and the Repin culture of the Chalcolithic era (the turn of the 4th-3rd millennium BC) have also been identified AD), catacomb culture of the Bronze Age (turn of the 3rd-2nd millennium BC).
Steppe Eneolithic guys seem to have heaps of Tutkaul-related affinities. Probably via Caspian Sea networks
Not sure what’s going on, but they almost don’t need EHG in current qpAdm set up .
@ Rob
Any way to obtain RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N(Russia_Neolithic_MiddleDon) raw data?
@Davidsky
"By the way, the 6,100 BCE hunter-gatherer from the Northwest Caucasus is also a mix of CHG and EHG."
Do you have the coordinates for him? Why haven't I heard anything about him? What is his chg/ehg ratio? if the chg is bigger, then that's what I need
I don't have the coordinates.
Wait for the paper.
By the way, there is only one - highly contested and disputed - possible theory of something IE south of the Caucasus that I was able to find and that is the theory that there is an IE substrate or adstrate in Sumerian. The theory was brought up by Gordon Whittaker of the University of Göttingen.
@ Aram
''What I mean is that finally we have an explanation how and why they moved. Because they were already food producers. Otherwise it would be strange to imagine that just hunters managed to move deep into South Caucasian mountainous lands occupied by advanced Chaff faced ware farmers.''
They might have been early pastoralists but that would need to be checked scientifically. But hunters were quite mobile and capable of moving deep into farmer territory, as we've seen everywhere. Certainly, the main ancestors of these steppe Eneolithic group appear to have been the mobile 'Seraglazovk' hunter-fisher populations.
Btw: Areni cave also has Sioni pottery.
@ Gabru
You mean genotype data ? It's from Allentoft & data has been released already.
That Kura-Axes video was great because it made the point that Luwian/Hittite, the two main Anatolian dialects, were in CENTRAL/EASTERN Anatolia, and to their west was the non-IE Hattic language, right in the center of Anatolia. The only western Anatolian dialects are along its southern coast, like Lydian, since the Hattics didn't control the southern corridor, another point made in the video.
So the central Hattics essentially walled off the eastern Luwian/Hittite from reaching the western Phrygian dominated area of Anatolia.
@ dragon hermit
Linguists speculating without understanding the populations they’re studying is about as credible as homeopathy
This is evidence - “ North-Western Anatolia
As will be further detailed, an almost sudden increase in population, best traceable in surface surveys, has been noted and defined for decades (Fig. 15), however, with no consensus either for its origin or scope. Recent rescue excavations within the urban area of İstanbul at Beşiktaş have exposed an extensive cemetery with kurgan type of burial mounds, some cremated, others as simple inhumations mostly placed in cist graves, clearly indicating massive movement originating from the northern Balkans. The coming of migrant groups must have lasted at least 200 years, but was not clearly manifested in other parts of Thrace. Nevertheless, by the very beginning of the Early Bronze Age, as indicated by surface surveys, there are hundreds of newly founded settlements over Western and West-central Anatolia (Günel 2003; Korfmann et al. 1994; Şahoğlu 2005)”
- the making of Bronze Age Anatolia (Ozdogan 2024)
Luwian isn't from central east Anatolia. We know this because Luwic clearly disintegrates into Lycian, Carian, Luwian among others toward the west. Focusing on what the "main" languages are is the behavior of an imbecile. There is nothing special about Luwian and Hittite relative to other basal languages in the Anatolian tree like Lydian, Palaic and perhaps Kalasma, which orient things further west.
Also there is no clear consensus in what direction Hittites emerged from. They appear to have been in central Anatolia for a decent amount of time before attestation.
Wait... you're not yet at the Shulaveri-Shomu desapearence by 5000 BC was the beginning of the yamnaya ethnogenesis?
Don't worry. You will get there...
@Rob
I'm trying to understand what western steppe EBA kurgans have anytbing to do with Anatolian. This is Yamnaya territory, where Greco-Phrygian very likely stems from.
Anatolian split 4500-4000 BC, and the R1b Arslanteppe samples are at least 1k years later, enough for R1b to dilute its steppe autosomal component. And btw, Arslanteppe is not the only place with the Nalchik Y-DNA south of the Caucusus.
Like I mentioned the Hittite and Luwian are not in West Anatolia, but in its center and east. The only langugages that made it west did it along the southern Mediterrenean coast like Lydian.
Kinship practices at the early bronze age site of Leubingen in Central Germany
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-54462-6
@Olympus Mons
Yamnaya obviously has nothing to do with Shulaveri-Shomu you delusional dumbfuck.
But go and tell Lazaridis. He'll probably believe you.
It looks as if Hittites moved to central Anatolai via a long route from west to south then up , at least according to Bryce's recon.
Here is a rough sketch of the linguistic picture in bronze/early iron age Anatolia (emphasis on where each is believed to have emerged, relying on Yakubovich).
https://i.imgur.com/HKkWfJ9.png
Kloekhorst's Lydian/Luwic/Palaic clade is very clearly oriented further west, and Kalasma is just further evidence of this regardless of whether it's at a similar level in the tree or further downstream of Luwic (there was a lack of sureness at the recent lecture).
I was actually wrong previously, there is minor evidence locating proto-Hittites further west.
From Deniz Sari:
"This unification is especially evidenced by
the pottery of the Transitional period, which spread from inland north-western
Anatolia into the Kızılırmak/Halys Bend in the east and the central Black Sea
coastline to the north. At the same time, the earliest examples of this pottery,
which is accepted as the predecessor of the Hittite pottery, seem to have
occurred in the Eskişehir region. 27 This is proven stratigraphically in the exca-
vations of Küllüoba (Fig. 7a)."
Indeed...and I agree that Lazaridis knows nothing about the subject, right?
maybe even less that Reich, and less than Krauser.
Reich, Lazaridis and Patterson are not experts in this area. If they were, they wouldn't be trying to find the origins of Indo-Anatolian and Yamnaya in Armenia or Iran.
Krause and Haak don't have a clue about Indo-Anatolian, and I'm not even sure if they can run a half decent genetic analysis all by themselves.
I’m certainly not an expert, but the language of modern Armenians is very similar to Caucasian languages, in sound and pronunciation, when I hear Armenian speech, it is somewhat similar to Georgian, somewhat similar to North Caucasian ones (although there are few similarities), I think the main substrate of the Armenian language is Kura -Araks roots (Hurrian Urartian), and people of the Catacomb culture from the North Caucasus on horses simply diluted this language with Proto-Indo-European, it seems to me so
for example, I noticed that the Bronze Age Armenians are very similar genetically to the North Caucasians.
qpAdm run for Nalchik
left pops:
Nalchik
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG
Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
best coefficients: 0.310 0.240 0.450
tail Prob 0,38
left pops:
Nalchik
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG
Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
Turkey_TellKurdu_EC
best coefficients: 0.485 0.193 0.322
All SE <0.1
right pops:
Mbuti.DG
China_Tianyuan
Czech_Vestonice16
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Hungary_EN_Starcevo_1
Mongolia_North_N
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
USA_Anzick_realigned.SG
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
Italy_North_Villabruna_HG
Jordan_Late_PPNB
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN <-> Kurdu; rotating
Next I might look into how that feeds into Progress/ Vonuvhka & Yamnaya
@EthanR
That is very interesting. Not only is Eskişehir quite close to Barcin, as the crow flies (~100km). It also lies smack on the proposed Great Caravan Route.
This is all so tiresome. Here's a model for RUS_YamnayaCluster (39 individuals listed in Lazaridis et al., 2022) with the same reference pops as Lazaridis et al., 2022.
Target: RUS_YamnayaCluster (p = 0.749499)
RUS_Eneol_Piedmont = 82.2±1.7%
UKR_N = 7.8±1.4%
UKR_Trypillia_Eneol = 9.9±1.3%
@ Anveṣaṇam
Can you try to model Progress-Vonyuchka as Darkveti-Meshoko_En + Middle_Don_N for me? Sorry, I don't have Middle Don N raw data to work on qpAdm...
@ Anveṣaṇam
Model RUS_Progress_En and RUS_Vonyuchka_En as:-
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En + RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_En
Source coordinates below for Sample IDs
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I1722,0.097888,0.122879,-0.061471,-0.04522,-0.05601,0.013108,0.028906,0.003923,-0.0814,-0.042643,0.007957,0.01139,-0.031219,-0.006468,0.007329,-0.006762,0.010691,-0.008868,-0.022751,0.02176,0.026703,-0.015951,-0.000739,-0.017834,-0.010897
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2055,0.108132,0.119832,-0.055437,-0.029393,-0.04924,-0.001394,0.016216,-0.001846,-0.078128,-0.035901,-0.002273,0.003447,-0.02111,0.007982,0.005565,-0.020419,0.02386,-0.017356,-0.00905,0.021635,0.012728,-0.002968,-0.01861,-0.011568,-0.00479
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056,0.101303,0.133034,-0.067882,-0.037468,-0.04924,0.008367,0.019741,-0.005538,-0.085491,-0.038087,0.009743,0.01124,-0.031219,0.00055,0.001493,-0.020949,0.018515,-0.007855,-0.013324,0.016633,0.02246,0.000495,-0.007148,-0.016147,0.001676
RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N:NEO212,0.113823,0.07718,0.073539,0.143413,-0.005539,0.042949,-0.00611,-0.005538,-0.032928,-0.067063,0.005359,-0.00015,0.007433,-0.025735,0.030673,0.017634,0.009127,0.003421,-0.001383,0.021135,0.009982,0.012736,0.002095,-0.017834,-0.00455
RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N:NEO113,0.118376,0.082258,0.074293,0.158917,-0.016311,0.056615,-0.00188,0.003461,-0.025565,-0.081642,0.018025,-0.013938,0.014569,-0.030277,0.050759,0.019491,0.007953,0.003294,-0.003897,0.02126,0.002745,-0.005441,-0.007888,-0.015424,-0.003712
Add WSHG if the model doesn't work
You can extract Middle Don N raw data if you don't have it from here:-
Allentoft 2023/2024:- https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-023-06865-0
@ Арсен
Totally wrong model :/
everything is clear, you have a competition, using as few initial populations as possible, which will be either older or the same age as Nalchik, to simulate the shortest possible distances for it. I repeat, we don’t know the coordinates of the hunter-gatherers of the Northern Caucasus, maybe they would solve this problem 🤷
@ Ethan
I think we've got it - the Eneolithic Steppe in Caucasus was like Smyadovo_o in Varna, an precocious but dead-end movement.
@ Anveṣaṇam
Every new sample needs to be reinvestigated, I cant see Nalchik included in your old run you've posted here.
Moreover, I remember your model for Piedmont steppe previously used the crap quality Khvalynsk individual, which would give false positives with qpAdm. The key is figuring out Piedmont/Vonuchka
@ Арсен
"which will be either older or the same age as Nalchik"
Challenge accepted, here's my 2 cents:-
Target: RUS_Nalchik_En:NL122
Distance: 3.1118% / 0.03111830
46.8 RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N:NEO212
27.2 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_LN:I4351
19.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I2056
6.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En:I1722
@Gabru
Target: Kabardino-Balkaria_Eneolithic_Nalchik:NL122
Distance: 2.4937% / 0.02493720 | R3P
34.0 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO209__BC_5346
21.0 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN:MTT001
19.4 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer:GEO_CHG:KK1
13.4 AZE_Caucasus_lowlands_LN:POT002
5.4 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO204__BC_5278
5.0 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO207__BC_5147
1.8 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa:NEO113__BC_5348
@ Арсен
Share these Middle Don N coordinates :)
Also your model is just mine but Darkveti-Meshoko_En replaced with Pure CHG Kotias Klde
@Gabru
https://pastebin.com/raw/ZtJVkrYB
I don 't know why Darkveti is not very suitable for this
I merged middle Don data as well
To summarise
- middle Don can be modelled as 30% CHG 25% Ukraine_N 45% EHG
- middle Don is not revolutionary or game-changing .
- Piedmont En remains the corner stone of Yamnaya
- Yamnaya = Piedmont 70% + Ukr+N or Middle Don 20% + Trypillya 10%
- a Caucasian Neolithic source in place of Trypillia fails
- Piedmont is therefore key for understanding Yamnaya
- In distal terms; the indispensible components for Piedmont_En are: Ukr N , caspian HG, Caucasian Neolithic source + CHG. EHG are not required
With Darkveti as a proximal source, extra Caucasian N or CHG are not required.
ie 3 -way model of Ukraine N, + TTK + Darkveti-Meshoko,
@Rob
do not pay attention that the Golubaya_Krinitsa is well suited for Nalchik, because both the Golubaya_Krinitsa and Nalchik (and Khvalynsk) come from a population close to progress and stinkhorn, most likely similar to those hunter-gatherers of the Northwestern Caucasus about whom Davidsky wrote, which were not published.
but don’t assume that these hunters will be something like CHG+EHG, these hunters are not from Georgia, but from the eastern Caucasus, straight from my village, they lived in my house
The Progress profile formed north of the Caucasus. They were most likely pushed by Chaff-Faced Ware, Maykop and Novosvobodnay groups into the steppe into the steppe forming proto-Yamnaya.
@ Rob
Do what I asked Anveṣaṇam above...
@ Gabru
Two way model for Piedmont steppe (RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En + RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_En)
Fails
Not enough Eastern affinities
@ Rob
**In distal terms; the indispensible components for Piedmont_En are: Ukr N , caspian HG, Caucasian Neolithic source + CHG. EHG are not required
With Darkveti as a proximal source, extra Caucasian N or CHG are not required.
ie 3 -way model of Ukraine N, + TTK + Darkveti-Meshoko.**
Since you correctly identified Darkveti-Meshoko as the source, you're one step closer. Now see, TTK is not a valid proximal source but WSHG is
Try this:-
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoki_En + RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_En + RUS_Tyumen_HG
Basically, Progress = Caucasus_En + Middle_Don_N + WSHG/West_Siberia_N
This should work :)
not stinkhorn but vonychka , it is written in russian as вонючка, which means "stinky"
"We uncover a common source of Iranian-related ancestry from early Neolithic cultures of Central Asia into the ancestors of Ancestral South Indians (ASI), Ancestral North Indians (ANI), Austro-asiatic-related and East Asian-related groups in India."
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.15.580575v1
I wonder if pottery styles connected to Hunter Gatherers and not farmers from Caucasus or Iran--in Northern Hemisphere(forest--steppe) ydna R1b(M73,V1636,Z2103) could have spread from East to West, instead of South(Iran) to North? Is pottery older in the Volga (Elshanka) and East(Amur river basin) when compared to Iran?
Late Glacial hunter-gatherer pottery in the Russian Far East:
Indications of diversity in origins and use
https://baikalproject.artsrn.ualberta.ca/wp-content/uploads/2021/03/Shoda-et-al_2020_QSR_Early-Pottery-Function-Amur-River.pdf
@ Davidski
Possible to generate at least a few coordinates from this fresh ~2700 modern Indian genomes dataset? It's a preprint though...
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.15.580575v1
@Rob
"the making of Bronze Age Anatolia (Ozdogan 2024)"
Thanks a lot for that article. I was aware of newspaper articles that state of Kurgan burials around the Sea of Marmara but they sometimes even think it proves them to be the First Turks, so I wanted to see an archaeological remark about it.
IMHO that article combined with Penske 2023 have nailed it for the Sredny Stog hypothesis. That is because Penske showed that the cultural change in the Balkans after the Chalcolithic can be tied to the steppe by genomic evidence and dated ~4k BC. And this article showed that the cultural change at the doorstep of Anatolia - literally a few kilometers from it - can be tied to that genomic change in the Balkans and can be dated ~3.3k BC.
Even if no genetic evidence can tie that Besiktas finds to the steppe, that doesn't disprove the cultural ties. It merely excludes mass migration as vector for that change. You cannot wish away visible cultural ties, unless you would consider every archaeological evidence useless. Which obviously is bollocks.
Here is the Hürriyet article on the finds. Look at the figurines.
https://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/besiktas-excavations-find-5-500-year-old-ancient-mother-daughter-135968
Wouldn't it be a problem for the south-of-the-caucasus theory of the origin of IE languages the fact that as far as we know, Hurrian languages seem to be the native language of the classical Armenia+Kurdistan region? This includes a potential linguistic family connection to other Caucasian languages like Chechen, and very old loan word contact with Sumerian.
@ Epoch - yes a very interesting article.
@ Gabru
''RUS_Darkveti-Meshoki_En + RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_En + RUS_Tyumen_HG'
Im abroad so not at main computer, but I tried that already.
Almost pass, but in presence of TTK, Tyumen is a mild / soft fail.
Khvalynsk works even better than G.K, because it has similar type of eastern ancestry as Piedmont
@ Vara
''The Progress profile formed north of the Caucasus.''
Agree
''They were most likely pushed by Chaff-Faced Ware, Maykop and Novosvobodnay groups into the steppe into the steppe forming proto-Yamnaya.''
These weren't one people but looks to be a mesh of several streams.
The "actual southern'' / Mesopotamian ancestry stream represents the final neolithic push concurrently into final frontiers- western Georgia (skirting the poorly suitable Colchian marshlands) & the Caucasian alps, shortly after 5000 BC (& therefor 1000 years before the Maykop phenomenon).
@epoch
"IMHO that article combined with Penske 2023 have nailed it for the Sredny Stog hypothesis"
Wait, what? SS is clearly PRE-KURGAN. That's literally what differentiates Yamnaya from SS archeologically. 3300 BC to 3000 BC is clear Yamnaya era. Yamnaya's official start is ~ 3500 BC, according to Anthony.
So if Besiktas has kurgans 3300 to 3000 BC, it has nothing to do with the Anatolian language. Kurganites are too late for Proto-Anatolian.
@DragonHermit
The earliest kurgans are those associated with the Suvorovo culture. They were smaller than Yamnaya kurgans, but about a thousand years older.
If the Suvorovo-related kurgan culture spread into western Anatolia then obviously we can associate this with the appearance of Proto-Anatolians in Anatolia. All we need is corroboration from ancient DNA, and then the focus will shift to working out the details.
By the way, can you actually name any Yamnaya burials carbon dated to ~3,500 BCE?
I wouldn't discount the possibility that proto-anatolian communities in eastern thrace were "Kurganized" without related linguistic shift, although I think it's more likely that Anatolian speakers crossed the Dardanelles as opposed to the Bosphorus.
@ Rob
"Im abroad so not at main computer, but I tried that already.
Almost pass*
Post the pastebin output once you're back on your main computer :-)
@Ethan
Why the Dardanelles and not the Bosphorus?
@Davidski
So with others modeling steppe eneolithic with Caspian HG (Tutkaul 1), and with steppe eneolithic serving as a fit for Yamnaya, I’m guessing that the common denominator for Yamnaya’s ancestry is a steppe eneolithic-like population that lacks the Darkveti-Meshoko/ANF affinities (EEF via the Caucasus instead of GAC/Cucuteni). Do you think Tutkaul-like HGs are relevant over all? That Q-Y6802 clade has appeared in Afanasievo and Bohemia CWC too, so perhaps they have ANE mediated from the Caspian area, since WSHG has that East Asian stuff they all lack. I’ve also seen that Sarazm_En doesn’t require WSHG/Tyumen in the presence of Tutkaul 1.
Well, Khvalynsk, Progress, Vonyuchka etc. aren't far from the Caspian Sea, and the Caspian Sea largely separates Eastern Europe from Central Asia.
There's more bronze age sites immediately past that Dardanelles than the Bosphorus.
Bidirectional relations between Ezero and Troy, and slightly later on, influence from Troy on sites like Kanlıgeçit. The NW Anatolia cultural groups also seem to include some Aegean sites (Poliochni among others). The great caravan route reaching Troy etc. There's just generally more going on, and more interaction emanating from this area.
I also think the Kloekhorst tree makes a bit more sense if the migration was further west, although the implied branching events are still plausible from the Bosphorus.
could you share the coordinates of Tutkaul, the hissar I have shows more ANE than something related to Iran
@ Simon Stevin
I don't think Tutkaul is Caspian_HG, it seems like the immediate adjacent of Caspian Steppe to the East was WSHG instead of Tutkaul, Tutkaul is too Far East into Tajikistan and the Caspian_HG might not have had IranN which Tutkaul does
@ Rob
1. The model I propose:-
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 5.7110% / 0.05711039
41.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
39.0 RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N
19.4 RUS_Tyumen_HG
2. The model you propose:-
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 4.9713% / 0.04971252
42.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
38.6 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
19.0 UKR_N
3. The model with best distance on G25 using source coordinates of both (1) and (2) combined:-
Target: RUS_Vonyuchka_En:VJ1001
Distance: 4.4849% / 0.04484884
37.2 RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N
36.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
26.4 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
TJK_Tutkaul_Meso:TTK001.C0101,0.10927,-0.002031,0.003394,0.205752,-0.131101,0.049364,-0.021621,-0.041306,-0.057267,-0.085833,0.021435,-0.004046,0.01442,-0.06427,0.033659,0.021612,-0.004303,-0.00266,0.00264,-0.006003,-0.040429,0.006677,0.015406,0.012893,0.002155
@ Simon Stevin
""I’m guessing that the common denominator for Yamnaya’s ancestry is a steppe eneolithic-like population that lacks the Darkveti-Meshoko/ANF affinities""
Now only if this "common denominator" aka Caspian Steppe 5400 BCE turns out to be like you say instead of another Middle Don N
@Gabru
Those models are no good because RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N is from the forest steppe (which is north of the steppe).
RUS_Vonyuchka_En has ancestry from a ~5,000 BCE steppe population with much more CHG than RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N.
See that's why your models have such high distances.
@ Davidski
""RUS_Vonyuchka_En has ancestry from a ~5,000 BCE steppe population with much more CHG than RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N.""
Sure about it? When is the sample of this population coming again?
@ Gabru
“ Steven - I’m guessing that the common denominator for Yamnaya’s ancestry is a steppe eneolithic-like population that lacks the Darkveti-Meshoko/ANF affinities""
Now only if this "common denominator" aka Caspian Steppe 5400 BCE turns out to be like you say instead of another Middle Don N”
I don’t think either of those models are viable because they ignore the data
Caspian HG, or whatever we call it, is just one component
And I don’t subscribe to Steve’s view that steppe Eneolithic lacks ANF.
Btw try using please before requesting things
@Gabru
I'm sure about it.
Khvalynsk I0434 actually belongs to this population, but doesn't have enough markers for the G25.
@ Rob
Steve's comment said that this Steppe HG/N population that is Progress-like but lacks ANF should be the source for Sredny Stog/Yamnaya instead of Piedmont (Progress & Vonyuchka) from what I can understand
What's your opinion? Davidski's Steppe N population w/o ANF(and related to Middle Don N but with more CHG) or directly Progress?
Also sorry for not using please...
Now could you please post the pastebin output for Darkveti-Meshoko_En + Golubaya_Krinitsa_N + Tyumen_HG for Progress :`)
@Gabru
Target: Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:VJ1001
Distance: 3.5105% / 0.03510516
45.6 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa
25.2 Caucasus_Hunter-gatherer
12.8 Sarazm_Eneolithic
10.2 TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
3.4 Eastern_Hunter-Gatherer
2.8 Iran_Neolithic
this VJ sample differs from the progress samples in its more Iranian and ANE influence, there may have additionally been a flow of genes from the Caspian passage, but definitely not through Georgia.
@Gadru
thanks, it turns out this is the same, rich ANE sample
so Rob's theory about Georgian hunters as part of PG and VJ has no basis in itself .
so those who claim about AASI in steppe populations, they are partly right, there is no need to rush at them 😂
Darkveti-Meshoko too unsuitable a population for pg and vj , partly because of its strong Anatolia shift
even these Golubaya_Krinitsa samples do not come out as a mixture of pure chg along with Ukrainian Mesolithic and ehg, Golubaya_Krinitsa also has an Iranian shift relative to kotias
there is not a single steppe sample that has pure CHG in it, they are all a little Iran, so give up Rob and recognize me as the winner)
joke
@El Lurker
Wouldn't it be a problem for the south-of-the-caucasus theory of the origin of IE languages the fact that as far as we know, Hurrian languages seem to be the native language of the classical Armenia+Kurdistan region? This includes a potential linguistic family connection to other Caucasian languages like Chechen, and very old loan word contact with Sumerian.
Yes, Urartians and Hurrians were native to a large area south of the Caucasus, while the Hattians may have been originally from the Caucasus. Elamites and Sumerians were in Iran.
So I don't know where one would plausibly put the Indo-Anatolian homeland in this area?
Did you read Lazaridis' Southern Arc paper? If so, what did you think about the linguistic arguments that the authors used to locate the Indo-Anatolian homeland south of the Caucasus?
@ Davidski
"Did you read Lazaridis' Southern Arc paper? If so, what did you think about the linguistic arguments that the authors used to locate the Indo-Anatolian homeland south of the Caucasus?"
I don't know what El Lurker will answer, neither who he is, but about the IE words in Sumerian I wrote a lot many years ago probably in the "Dienekes' Anthropology blog", and I tried to demonstrate that those words were linked to Latin more than any other IE language. Which the causes? Perhaps they had to do with the first expansion of IE, perhaps not so from east as many think but more westernmost, but I should take at hands those old studies. The reason of the "Southern Ark theory" I explained in other way.
@ Arsen
“ so Rob's theory about Georgian hunters as part of PG and VJ has no basis in itself there is not a single steppe sample that has pure CHG in it, they are all a little Iran, so give up Rob and recognize me as the winner”
No, The point made is CHG were concentrated in western Caucasus, esp Georgia , which was the main reservoir of CHG peoples (rather than the empty northeast Caucasus)
This is different to saying that there were “pure CHG” in the north Caucasus . On the contrary I said they began to arrive as early as 18,000 bp, plenty of time for mixing with EHG. These mixed EHG/ CHG hunters were in northwestern Caucasus, like Satanay.
So, you’re confused as usual, and your “models”, or those you copied from elsewhere, are always anachronistic.
You don’t have to make jokes, you are the joke 🤡
@ Gabru
''Steve's comment said that this Steppe HG/N population that is Progress-like but lacks ANF should be the source for Sredny Stog/Yamnaya instead of Piedmont (Progress & Vonyuchka) from what I can understand''
At present, Piedmont steppe works well for Sredni Stog & Yamnaya; and is historically plausuble. I havent got to Yamnaya as yet, but will see how the new samples might shift our understanding of Yamnaya and some northwestern steppe Eneolithic samples, if at all.
Ill post your request when I get back in a week or so
Could someone here please explain to me what the major differences strengths and weaknesses are between qpAdm and Global25 for modelling ancestry? It is quite confusing for someone who doesnt really have a good grasp of statistics
@Rob
I don't know exactly how many thousands of years ago this happened, but CHG - a closely related species of people, on the approach to the main Caucasus ridge, moving from north to south, in the Azerbaijan region, they split into two paths, it was not like in horror films, like “hey, we need to split up” this all happened involuntarily and for a long time, but keep in mind that it is very difficult to get from the northern Caucasus to the southern one, as well as vice versa, bypassing the Caspian passage (these are called the Caspian Gate). The passage to Georgia is not very suitable for this, it is too wooded, the passage to Ossetia is too difficult, the Caspian Gate was the smoothest flow, so m
There was practically no mixing between chg North and South Caucasus. Those who went north, some of them settled in the mountains, some settled in the steppes, they participated in the ethnogenesis of steppe populations, and not your heat-loving Georgian hunters.
And then, no one has any idea who lived in the northern Caucasus before the arrival of chg, maybe the descendants of or rather Paleolithic hunters, like those hundred found in Dzudzuana and Kotias, they could also dilute the mixture
Target
Distance
Georgia_Kotias.SG
RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N
Russia_Karelia_HG
TJK_Tutkaul_Meso
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2001
0.03502539
22.6
10.2
27.0
15.8
15.0
9.4
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:PG2004
0.03750814
19.2
0.0
27.4
23.6
14.4
15.4
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic:VJ1001
0.03631052
24.2
0.0
19.8
26.0
4.6
25.4
Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur is also a good source for Iranian farmer related ancestry in Harappans....
@Rob and once again, a million apologies for my English
https://postimg.cc/hXr95FG0
I wonder if a “pure” ehg was even needed for populations like steppe en
*I apologize, I posted another screenshot by mistake the first time
Re; https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.02.15.580575v1 - "50,000 years of Evolutionary History of India: Insights from ~2,700 Whole Genome Sequences"
Most of this paper is not very adna focused, other that they confirm that Sarazm_Eneo seems to be a sensible source for Indus_Periphery, although this may have problems of strong true temporal priority (i.e. Sarazm_Eneo and IP are pretty close to simultaneous?).
I found this a little unexpected for them (a group among which Moorjani, Patterson and Skov are authors) to say that:
"Archaeological studies have also documented trade connections between Sarazm and South Asia, including connections with agriculture sites of Mehrgarh and early Indus Valley Civilization. Indeed, one of the two Sarazm_EN individuals was found with shell bangles that are identical to ones found at sites in Pakistan and India such as Shahi-Tump, Makran and Surkotada, Gujarat (J. Mark Kenoyer, personal communication).
Surprisingly, when we applied qpAdm, we discovered that this individual has substantial AHG-related ancestry (~15%), unlike the other individual from the Sarazm_EN group (Sarazm_EN_2 henceforth)."
Extended excerpt:
From the Supplementary Data, the individual with AHG (Andamanese Hunter Gather; AASI proxy) ancestry in their model is I4290, and the other individual is I4910 who lacks it and in their model has reasonably substantial Anatolia_N related ancestry instead (which I4290 lacks). They also find that I4910 has substantially more WSHG related ancestry.
That seems unusual on Vahaduo PCA (https://imgur.com/a/48B106B) where I4910 is more displaced away from the West Eurasian end of PCA compared to I4290.
So should we be treating these samples differently or not? Under the paper's interpretation, we might be justified in including I4920 within an extended set of "Indus Periphery" samples, but I'm not sure if that is supported?
Their outgroups are: 'Ethiopia_4500BP.SG’, ‘WEHG’, ‘EEHG’, ‘ESHG’, ‘Dai.DG’, ‘Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG’, ‘Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave’ and ‘Israel_Natufian’, so may there be ways in which this is not truly sufficient? The archaeological connection seems kind of tantalizing and would be cool, but this may be subject to a kind of confirmation bias overkill of pots and peoples (e.g. c'mon, it's not a specific culturally bound burial ritual here; it's a bangle).
@ arsen
“ The passage to Georgia is not very suitable for this, it is too wooded, the passage to Ossetia is too difficult, the Caspian Gate was the smoothest flow, so m
There was practically no mixing between chg North and South Caucasus. ”
That’s your guessing. There are no Mesolithic sites in northeast Caucasus. Even the 5000 bc farmers travelled via the difficult mountain terrain of central-western Caucasus, probably because the eastern pass with dry and desolate.
So NW CHG like Satanay derive from Georgia. If they didn’t, qpAdm wouldn’t pass so nicely .
“ And then, no one has any idea who lived in the northern Caucasus before the arrival of chg”
Nobody, because there is an archaeological gap
Re; Sarazm Eneolithic, assuming that this is I4290 then (via UNESCO - https://whc.unesco.org/uploads/nominations/1141rev.pdf):
"A burial site with a woman, a man and an adolescent was the central element. On the woman's skeleton and around it, several thousands of various beads were found (from burned steatite, lapis lazuli, cornelian, turquoise and silver), which were used for decoration of clothes or simply to cover her body, and her hair was decorated by 49 massive gold beads.
Her hands were adorned with bracelets made of seashells originated from the Indian Ocean which proves direct or indirect relationships with populations of the Hindus valley.
The bracelets of the “great lady” are made from the shells of Turbinella pyrum L., the Sanskrit _anka, the most important ritual shell in the Hindu religion, extensively worked for bracelets and trumpets in India since the 4th millennium BC.
These mollusks live only in the tropical waters between the Arabian Sea and the Gulf of Bengal where they are still harvested today. However it is rather interesting to notice that the pair of bracelets from Sarazm is from an even earlier period than any of those so far found in India. The accompanying artefacts also included a bronze mirror, bone awl, and two small schematic women's figures. The necropolis comprises four other burials (individual and double)."
Bit more stimulating than the bland description given in Narasimhan's supplement (https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/2019_Science_NarasimhanPatterson_CentralSouthAsia_Supplement.pdf) - "UZ-SZ-001, Sarazm 85 (1), burial 44-38 (I4290): Context date of 3700-3300 BCE. Genetically female"
(If it's the same individual she is also called the “Sarazm princess” in other contexts - https://shs.hal.science/halshs-03060027/document. The dating of the "Sarazm princess" seems to coincide with I4290)
@Matt
Their outgroups are: 'Ethiopia_4500BP.SG’, ‘WEHG’, ‘EEHG’, ‘ESHG’, ‘Dai.DG’, ‘Russia_Ust_Ishim_HG.DG’, ‘Iran_Mesolithic_BeltCave’ and ‘Israel_Natufian’, so may there be ways in which this is not truly sufficient?
My first impression is that there's something wrong with their model, and these outgroups might be the problem.
They're mixing capture, shotgun and modern data, and some of their samples are very low quality, like BeltCave.
@David
When is the common parent of this Suvorovo culture with SS? Because Proto-Anatolian should SPLIT around 4500 BC to 4000 BC, and this was already split by then. Let's not forget that while Proto-Anatolian is more archaic, it's not THAT archaic. It's still fairly similar to other PIE dialects. If we're pushing back the date that far back to Dnieper-Donets era, then Suvorovo split would be too far back, if it's beyond 4500 BC. To me it's more likely that early SS is Proto-Anatolian, while late-SS is Core PIE.
Anyhow, there is a very easy solution to this. Study the type of kurgans in Turkey. To what other kurgans are they similar to. There are only three solutions here for the Besiktas graves:
(1) Some western archaic PIE movement from the west, like you mentioned.
(2) A later Yamnaya migration, which should also have steppe DNA. If it doesn't, it's not this option.
(3) An east -> west kurgan culture from Kura-Axes (or similar south-of-Caucasus cultures) which would support that Proto-Anatolians were the Nalchik-YDNA carriers, who lost all their steppe autosomal DNA.
@daviski
did you catch this? it seems that archeologists have recently found a bunch of kurgans near instanbul dating to around 3,300 bc. They also posit a north balkan origin.
https://twitter.com/nrken19/status/1758881283302699455
@Davidski
https://a-genetics.blogspot.com/2021/11/steppe-eneolithic.html?m=1
Does he have the right conclusions?
@Rob
So by your estimation, there is something Tutkaul related and Darkveti-Meshoko related in Yamnaya/Sredni-Stog via Piedmont EN? The reason I ask is I’ve seen David and others state that the ANF in Yamnaya and Sredny Stog comes from nearby EEF populations related to GAC and Cucuteni, not from northern Caucasus populations related to Maykop.
@Арсен
Does he have the right conclusions?
It's a bunch of nonsense.
@DragonHermit
Linguistic splits aren't set in stone, and neither are archeological relationships.
If there was an expansion of a kurgan culture from the northeastern Balkans to western Anatolia, then this is obviously the best candidate ever for the spread of Anatolian languages into Anatolia.
Like I said, if these archeological inferences are corroborated with ancient DNA at any reasonable level, then we can start looking at the details to tie everything together.
@Dave
So by your estimation do you think the Piedmont_EN affinities in Yamnaya/Sredny Stog came from a population without the Maykop/Darkveti-Meshoko related ancestry found in Piedmont_EN and Nalchik? I recall you finding zero evidence of ANF shifted Caucasian ancestry in Yamnaya/Sredni-Stog, while all of their ANF likely came from EEF populations (GAC/Cucuteni).
no, there is practically NOTHING there not from Darkveti-Meshoko not from Nalchik, almost all ANF in Yamnaya and Sredny Stog and other steppe populations were brought by Ukrainian farmers/hunters
this guy also has an interesting photo
https://twitter.com/nrken19/status/1543232249763602432?lang=bg
@Арсен & Simon
Progress Eneolithic does have some Nalchik-like ancestry, probably less than 20%.
The reason this isn't showing up in any decent mixture models is because we're currently lacking samples from the Neolithic steppe.
Once those samples are published, you'll see that Progress Eneolithic is roughly 80% Steppe Neolithic and 20% Nalchik-like.
So since Progress Eneolithic has some Nalchik admixture, then it stands to reason that Yamnaya has some as well. And the correct way to look at this is that the Anatolian-related ancestry in Yamnaya that doesn't come from its Progress-like ancestry is from Trypillia farmers.
@Davidski
following your logic, it turns out that the steppe neolit propopulation had even less affinity with chg as the south pole and was closer to Iranian hunters?
No, Steppe Neolithic is basically 50/50 CHG/EHG.
But the EHG-like portion is genetically more eastern than the EHG from Karelia and Samara.
And its CHG is not exactly like the CHG in Georgia, but still much more CHG-related than Iranian-related.
Hmm ,for the sake of scientific interest, would you be able to get the coordinates of the step neolit by the difference of progress-20% Nalchik? I don't have a laptop handy.
There's no point, because the ratio isn't exactly 80/20, so you won't get the right results.
You have to wait for the data.
of course, this is a stupid statement, but it turns out that the Neolithic steppe was similar to modern Tajiks and Pamiris 😅
Steppe Neolithic is not similar to modern Tajiks and Pamiris.
@ Steven
''So by your estimation, there is something Tutkaul related and Darkveti-Meshoko related in Yamnaya/Sredni-Stog via Piedmont EN? The reason I ask is I’ve seen David and others state that the ANF in Yamnaya and Sredny Stog comes from nearby EEF populations related to GAC and Cucuteni, not from northern Caucasus populations related to Maykop.'
As per my summary, the Piedmont steppe (IMO) do have Darkveti ancestry (although Trypillia also passes, but lower Tail Prob).
Then Yamnaya obtain EEF ancestry, as part of their western pull (Caucasian sources seem to fail here).
@ Davidski
'The reason this isn't showing up in any decent mixture models is because we're currently lacking samples from the Neolithic steppe.'
They seem to show up unambiguously from what Ive seen
@ Dragon
''Because Proto-Anatolian should SPLIT around 4500 BC to 4000''
That date means there is estimated splitting of languages in a relative sense. Such populations could still be in proximity, no need for Hitties to yet exist in central Anatolia
@David
So there is some sort of ANF shifted Caucasian (Darkveti-Meshoko/proto-Maykop-like) in Sredny Stog and Yamnaya via the Eneolithic Piedmont steppe populations, however, it’s almost nonexistent due to Progress only having around 20% Nalchik, which means even less ANF shifted Caucasian (I believe Nalchik has about 20% ANF so there’s less in Progress and even less in Yamnaya). This means that the vast majority of the ANF in groups like Yamnaya comes from GAC/Cucuteni related EEFs, if I’m reading this all correctly. The Iranian farmer signals are also a misnomer due to the lack of a proper CHG reference for the steppe groups right? These Harvard types seem to be interpreting it literally like fools.
I admit that I was tired, but still I did it from my phone)
and yes, in terms of distance they are close to the Pamirs and Tajiks
just don't attack me Mr. Davidski, I was just curious😊
https://postimg.cc/XBWKVH7W
https://postimg.cc/bSRxdxst
Target: Polska_Kujawiak_współczesny_scaled R1b-z2103
Distance: 4.0238% / 0.04023788
37.0 NE_DK
31.4 Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia
13.6 Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
12.8 Ukraine_N
5.2 Yamnaya_cline
Kujawiak R1b-z2103 prawdopodobnie niewiele ma wspólnego z Yamnaya
he was not bad even for Khvalynsk
https://postimg.cc/6yzH0mXg
Steppe Neolithic is basically 50/50 CHG/EHG.
But the EHG-like portion is genetically more eastern than the EHG from Karelia and Samara.
And its CHG is not exactly like the CHG in Georgia, but still much more CHG-related than Iranian-related.
What does eastern mean, more ANE?
I cant believe we still dont know the source of EHG nor the CHG in Steppe Neolithic, which formed a large chunk of Yamnaya and CW (?). What regions and time periods are missing samples?
and this hypothetical steppe_n population should really be closer to Iranian hunters than progress or vonychka
https://postimg.cc/Bj7KZdWT
@ Davidski
""""No, Steppe Neolithic is basically 50/50 CHG/EHG.""""
What's the basis of this statement? How are you so sure about it? Is this a forced assumption?
@Simon S; "This means that the vast majority of the ANF in groups like Yamnaya comes from GAC/Cucuteni related EEFs, if I’m reading this all correctly" - it seems to depend on how much overall ANF Yamnaya has. Quick maths:
Steppe Eneolithic with 20% Nalchik (using the model in this OP) would be 5% Anatolian or 8% South-of-Caucasus-farmer overall (assuming that the Turkey_N+CHG = one population).
If Yamnaya (or late Sredny Stog) is then 5% European farmer plus Steppe Eneolithic then, the ratio of Anatolian from each source would be:
5:5, approximately 1:1; with total Anatolian 10%.
If Yamnaya is then 10% European farmer plus Steppe Eneolithic then, the ratio of Anatolian from each source would be:
10:4.5, approximately 2:1; with total Anatolian 14.5%
(The ratio of European farmer to South-of-Caucasus-farmer would be roughly 1:1.)
If Yamnaya is then 15% European farmer plus Steppe Eneolithic then, the ratio of Anatolian from each source would be:
15:4.25: approximately 7:2 (slightly above 3:1), with total Anatolian 19.25%.
I think we could work this out better with more samples. Davidski's post implies that we would need further Steppe Eneolithic series to really get the measure of it properly.
(If Early Steppe EBA has 19.25% Anatolian, then later populations that we think of as 50% Yamnaya and 50% European farmer could be thought of as having substantially more overall Anatolian ancestry than we might have previously assumed, compared to late 2010s when assuming none.)
Post a Comment