Steppe Ancestry in western Eurasia and the spread of the Germanic Languages (McColl et al.) The Genetic Origin of the Indo-Europeans (Lazaridis et al.) A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age (Nikitin et al.)All of these studies are very useful, but there are some problems with each of them. Indeed, I'd say that the authors of the Lazaridis and McColl preprints need to reevaluate the way that they use ancient DNA to solve their linguistic puzzles. Once they do that their conclusions are likely to change significantly. I'm aiming to produce a couple of detailed blog posts about these preprints within the next few weeks. Afterwards I'll get in touch with the relevant authors to change their minds about some key things. Please stay tuned. See also... Indo-European crackpottery
Friday, April 19, 2024
It's complicated
Three important manuscripts appeared recently at bioRxiv, mostly dealing with the origins and expansions of proto-Germanic and proto-Indo-European populations.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1,378 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 601 – 800 of 1378 Newer› Newest»RE: Horses
Seems like it was complex. The earliest horse herders were Botai, maybe Dereivka as well.
Expasion into Caucasus / E Anatolia with non-IE K-A people, probalby the first IE horse-riders in west Asia were Mittani
Here are formal & historically plausible models for Golubaya Krinitsa
MiddleDon_N
Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
Ukraine_N
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG
best coefficients: 0.477 0.189 0.284
tail prob 0.264902
full output
Many people confuse 'expansions' with admixture
Yamnaya "expanded ' into Caucasus, wiping out the CLV & Khvalynsk clusters. K-A expanded in the Caucasus, replacing the CLV.
But CHG did not expand, it gently diffused via admxiture.
The lack of Caucasian male markers in GK suggests that CHG inflow was mediated via female exogamy, as an example.
Target: RUS_Lola:NV3001__BC_1995__Cov_70.29%
Distance: 1.8842% / 0.01884194
58.4 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
41.6 RUS_Catacomb
What's the actual extent of Lola Culture? Wikipedia map seems exaggerated
@ Gabru
''Somebody run DATES on Golubaya Krinitsa to find when that 24% CHG entered and if it was accompanied with Neolithic package as a primary diffusion''
Fudging around with DATES isnt going to be useful because GK is a complex 3-way admixture. Moreover, we have a decent amount of direct aDNA data points and paleoclimactic correlates, which suggest that shortly after 6000 BC, CHG began diffusing northward from the northwestern Caucasus base camps. So no guessing required
Secondly, neither pottery nor a productive economy arrived to eastern Europe via the Caucasus. The pottery is of Siberian/ Aralo-caspian origin, and domesticates are from Europe. These cultural elements arrived to the Caucasus mountain zone very late, only ~ 4500 BC.
In other words, there was no connection between Armenian farmers and eastern Europe for hunderds of years.
@ Matt
"[I]f at the start of that date range, that could be very early to be a DOM2 horse then. Perhaps that makes it less likely. Maybe despite the title it might not even be horse bones. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with."
Markku Niskanen (2023) regards a horse from Acemhöyük, Turkey, dated to 2205-2044 BCE, to be the earliest DOM2 horse found yet, having 15-20% of non-DOM2 ancestry, but that DOM2 horses began to appear around 2300-2200 BCE in the lower Don-Volga region:
https://tinyurl.com/yfd832p4
Niskanen also writes that "DOM2 horses arrived in Mesopotamia during either the Akkadian period (2334-2154 BC) or the Ur III period (2112-2004 BC) and [that] based on artistic evidence, they were already being ridden on their arrival."
If the bones found in Southern Levant are from Early Bronze IV (c.2200-2000 BCE) still can fit in the picture.
@Rob
Siberian and Aral Sea, Caspian being the origin of Eastern Europe Ceramic Mesolithic pottery tradition is possible as one paper says but I think this Caspian or Pre-Kelteminar group itself got Ceramic Mesolithic from further Southwest or Southeast Caspian perhaps from 7200-6200 BCE Pre-Djeitun group or Zarzian group directly(Pre-Jeitun likely gets its Neolithic package from Zarzian itself).
The earliest typologically similar pottery is from Upper Volga and Pre-Kelteminar West Central Kazakhstan c. 6800 BCE for both these regions, so I think there's a common origin in Zarzian or Pre-Jeitun instead of Aral Sea → Eastern Europe transfer, perhaps it was like Trialetian Mesolithic → Eastern Europe and Aral Sea? May have brought this minor CHG we see in EHG
@ Gabru
The eastern ceramic traditions ultimately come from Eastern Asia, not 'Iranian_N Farmers' from Jeitun, Zarzian were Zagrosian hunter-gatherers without pottery.
The common link between Kelteminar, the Caspian and Eastern Europe is ANE, and it was post-glacial ANE groups which transmitted pottery from Inner Asia to the West. The arrival into the Keltemina area is more like 6000 BC. Its introduction into eastern Europe was probably via different sub-regions, e.g western Siberia to Upper Volga and kelteminar to the Caspian-Caucasus area.
@Gabru
If the Kelteminar culture, as you claim, has a TTK+WSHG profile, then why is there no Asian presence in steppe pastoralists like Khvalynsk, Blue Krynytsa, Steppe En, Afanasevo, etc., which is present in WSHG? Isn't there even a slight Asian influence in them? The answer is negative.
DragonHermit said... "Anthony ripped that Librado paper to shreds in his latest talk, which is telling considering he was also one of the main contributors of it.
He explains how genetically DOM2 horses are descended from Yamnaya horses."
DragonHermit - we really don't know why non-DOM2 horse lineages all died out.
Could it have been disease? Was DOM2 a resistant strain?
The trouble is that logically earlier horses were already in trade and use.
If Yamnaya accidentally came up with that next generation of horses - DOM2 -
then they were introducing an improvement. They weren't introducing horses.
Everybody already had horses.
@Rob
Some say the Half-Neolithic Soft Ware of Hotu Cave, Belt Cave, Sang-i-Chakmak aka SE Caspian could be where Elshan and Eastern Europe - Western Siberia - NE Caspian - Pre-Kelteminar/Aral? derives their psuedo-pottery from
@ Gabru - i think Hotu, the SE Caspian are part of that same network
Did you know that of all the K.A specimens, the closest to the Caucasian hunters are the Velikents from the northeastern Caucasus, why? because the source of the Caucasian origin of the Kura Araxes was more hunter-gatherers of the northeastern Caucasus than Georgia
https://i.ibb.co/5hxfzGy/Screenshot-63.png
https://i.ibb.co/zxPyJPv/Screenshot-62.png
besides, this is evidenced by their male Y chromosomes, for example J1-Z1842, which has been assigned to the northeastern Caucasus since at least the late Neolithic
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/9/1780
@Rob
Yes it's something 7400-6400 BCE Half-Neolithic Complex in SE Caspian, it has Soft Ware pottery, barley, goats since earliest levels, etc. But Mesolithic activities continue alongside until 6400 BCE when Djeitun Full Neolithic phase begins. This Half-Neolithic Complex(it's more like between Sub-Neolithic and Full Neolithic so I say Half) proobably has origin in Zagros
Of course horses domesticated on the steppe are related to the horses who lived on the steppe prior to domestication. It doesn't mean anything. People had been interacting with horses and eating them since the Mesolithic. Gravettians drew horses on the walls of caves, does that mean they were riding them? Obviously not. Watching people here try to gaslight themselves into believing this shit again when the matter was already settled conclusively is pathetic.
Yamnaya did not ride horses
Corded Ware did not ride horses
Bell Beaker did not ride horses
https://i.ibb.co/DRNgmK5/yamnaya.png
It's worth keeping in mind that the IBD analysis in the preprint will probably be expanded upon once published. It looks like the analysis in the preprint was done before Penske 2023 was published as I don't see any reference to Cernavoda or Usatovo IBD in either preprint or supplement.
It doesn't look like the Suvorovo individuals were included either.
@ Arsen
''Did you know that of all the K.A specimens, the closest to the Caucasian hunters are the Velikents from the northeastern Caucasus, why? because the source of the Caucasian origin of the Kura Araxes was more hunter-gatherers of the northeastern Caucasus than Georgia
https://i.ibb.co/5hxfzGy/Screenshot-63.png
https://i.ibb.co/zxPyJPv/Screenshot-62.png''
If you want to prove that K-A originated in Abkhazia, then you need to show evidence. However
- those calculator 'ditances' you (& others) paste are scientifically meaningless.
- Abkhazia shows no evidence of mesolithic populations, or even Neolithic. This means it was a population sink, not source
- the mainstream archaeological theories place the origin of K-A in Goergia or Armenia, but given the CHG rise, Georgia is most likley (some Sioni-related group)
''besides, this is evidenced by their male Y chromosomes, for example J1-Z1842, which has been assigned to the northeastern Caucasus since at least the late Neolithic
https://www.mdpi.com/2073-4425/14/9/1780''
Actually J1 in Velikent - J-ZS6602- are closest to Shah Tepe & Geoksur (~ 3200 BC)
Given the absence of any setltmenet in northeastern Caucasus before the Bronze Age, claims that it is the origin of these lineages & phenomena is wishful thinking
@Rob , What does Abkhazia have to do with it? Abkhazia is the northwestern Caucasus, it is on the other diagonal of the Caucasian ridge from the northeastern Caucasus, and regarding Z1842, its homeland is undoubtedly central mountainous NE Caucaus, first of all you will read this article, everything is written there in an understandable language, it is not so big and all the information there is laid out in shelves, its collapse occurred in the late Neolithic into different branches in the northeastern Caucasus, from there it came in the early Bronze Age to the southern Caucasus,Armenia ,eastern Anatolia, Lebanon, etc.
Regarding the absence of large settlements in the northeastern Caucasus - they existed. One of them is the Ginchi settlement of the Eneolithic period, which belongs to the Sioni-Tsopi Ginchi archaeological cultural community.
Therefore, I was delighted when during the presentation of Sabina's article, I saw a green spot in the center of the mountainous Dagestan.
@Rob , It's okay not to know the history and archaeology of the Caucasus, but you're confusing the Northeast Caucasus (Ingushetia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Northern Azerbaijan) with Abkhazia, which is on the other side of the ridge, on the Black Sea coast, just like Georgia.
Open a political map of the Caucasus or figure out where the west and east are
@Rob ,in Abkhazia, as well as in western Georgia, there has never been a significant Iranian admixture, and until now it is not so high there, so they are not suitable as a source, nor for K.A. not to the “steppe proto-IE” culture
@Romulus
Yes, horse riding magically appeared in 2200 BC out of nowhere. Are you serious or what? Do you know how long it takes to genetically modify a creature to select for certain traits?
You need to select for stronger backs, increased docility, fearlessness when jumping into battle as prehistoric horses were skiddish. You are essentially creating a new sub species. This shit takes thousands of years to perfect, especially considering the fact that the first people to do anything do it badly and slowly.
Imagine turning a feral gray wolf into a Chihuahua overnight for example. That's how stupid your comment is.
@ Arslen
“It's okay not to know the history and archaeology of the Caucasus, but you're confusing the Northeast Caucasus (Ingushetia, Chechnya, Dagestan, Northern Azerbaijan) with Abkhazia, which is on the other side of the ridge, on the Black Sea coast, just like Georgia.
Open a political map of the Caucasus or figure out where the west and east are”
I’m quite familiar with the region, thanks
Ginchi is a one of the few Chalcolithic sites, and there is a sparsity of documented sites in the entire NE Caucasus before the copper age- there’s Chokh and not much else
This means that NE was always a periphery in the Caucasian history
It is you who needs to consult maps, posted here by several people, all the MESO-Neolithic sites concentrate in the NW & SW Caucasus
Neither KA not the steppe CHG come from NE Caucasus. There’s nothing in your “models” which state otherwise
@Livonia, as to why DOM2 horses expanded, my guess is that their immediate parent had some genetic shift that allowed more probability of breeding in captivity. From Librado's paper: "The second most differentiated locus extended over approximately 16 Mb on chromosome 3, with the ZFPM1 gene being closest to the selection peak. ZFPM1 is essential for the development of dorsal raphe serotonergic neurons involved in mood regulation31 and aggressive behaviour. ZFPM1 inactivation in mice causes anxiety disorders and contextual fear memory.".
When the steppe people expand to Europe, the Corded Ware horses, under some models maybe they have some ancestry from the steppe, but most of the ancestry is not from the steppe horse population (see Maier - https://reich.hms.harvard.edu/sites/reich.hms.harvard.edu/files/inline-files/elife-85492-v1_0.pdf).
So obviously they're enriching and replenishing or mixing the herds as they go. And that means, even if they ride horses, it possibly can't go that far with the population movement into areas of Europe with few wild horses.
Whereas the DOM2 horse moves very rapidly around West Eurasia, without any strongly correlated change in human population genetics.
So I think either way, for the question of horse domestication, it's possible that early horse riding mattered to the steppe population boom, but that it didn't really matter that much to the genetic expansions (because at the time of EBA, the people dropped the horse as the went; at the MBA, the new type of horse moved faster and independently of the people). It may be part of the package that helped LCA steppe population grow and become initially mobile enough, but maybe did not matter much beyond that.
OT: https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.14.594056v1.full.pdf - "Bioarchaeological Perspectives on Late Antiquity in Dalmatia: Paleogenetic, Dietary, and Population Studies of the Hvar Radošević burial site"
@DragonHermit, from the abstract at ENA (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB71445) we get "We find that reproductive control of the modern domestic lineage emerged ~2,200 BCE, through close kin mating and shortened generation times. It followed a severe domestication bottleneck starting not earlier than ~2,700 BCE".
It seems like the scenario is that you get extreme genetic selection for domesticability and breeding in captivity over approximately 500 years from 2700-2200 BCE, where presumably the horses that were less tameable tended to have dramatically less reproductive success in this interval. In some area of the steppes, horses with a wild genotype were pushed down to very low population size.
That's about 41-62 generations, so about the same amount of generation time as is equivalent to humans for 1200-1900 years.
We should see very extreme selection coefficients that are distinctive for DOM2 horses on the specific variants that are identified by Librado et al as distinctive from horses found in DOM2 vs found in Yamnaya EBA contexts. Anyway, it's an empirical question to estimate the selective coefficient of the particular relevant variants (just as it is for say LCT in humans!).
Note from Librado: "Additionally, genetic continuity with DOM2 was rejected for all horses predating about 2200 bc, especially those from the NEO-ANA group (Supplementary Table 2), except for two late Yamnaya specimens from approximately 2900 to 2600 bc (Turganik (TURG)), located further east than the western lower Volga-Don region (Figs. 2a, b, 3a). These may therefore have provided some of the direct ancestors of DOM2 horses.".
So Librado's paper didn't even suggest that Yamnaya didn't have some horses ancestral to DOM2, but that its happening in some specific part of the horizon and after 3000 BCE.
It comes together to be more of a suggestion that rather than the genetic domestication of horses being early in Yamnaya, or much even earlier than Yamnaya, you are maybe more getting taming and use of wild horses, and then the actual genetic changes for horse domestication are happening after the first expansions of steppe ancestry (as the elimination of wild type horses tends to proceed more apace, and the survivors are eventually the horses where the breeding can be managed and controlled).
@Matt
in the end, what happens, these world-famous “pit grave” people captured the whole of Western Europe on foot, and also reached Afanasyevo in Altai on foot? Did they have no means of transportation at all?
@Rob
This Ginchi, as I said, had cultural and possibly genetic ties to the Sioni culture.
Further from the article by Sabina Reingold, in low-resolution photographs via YouTube, you can somehow see that the Ginchi was an intermediate culture between the steppe and the Caucasus. Perhaps the Neolithic of Georgia + steppe en
but on the other hand, based on archaeological finds and interpretations, it is known that the Ginchi directly follow from such cultures as the Mesolithic-Neolithic Rugudzha, Chokh and so on, which were one of the most numerous Mesolithic monuments not only of the northern but also of the entire Caucasus, more than 40 thousand artifacts in all layers, a bunch of bones of wild mouflons, goats, sheep, etc., etc., and this is only at one site chokh, but there is more than one site, there were many of them, serious archaeologists just need to work, maybe people’s bones will be found
Nalchik Eneolithic:NL122, when modeled, prefers Middle Don over CLV, plus Aknashen and Kotias.
Target: Nalchik_Eneolithic:NL122
Distance: 2.4160% / 0.02415978
46.8 Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic
40.6 Armenia_Aknashen_N
12.6 Georgia_Kotias.SG
if Remontnoye look like this will be quite interesting. Tying to model Yamnaya i come up with this model:
Target: Ukraine_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.7983% / 0.03798260
37.6 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
28.6 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
27.8 Nalchik_Eneolithic
6.0 Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic
Target: Serbia_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 6.7161% / 0.06716091
58.2 Nalchik_Eneolithic
32.0 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
9.8 Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic
Target: Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 3.3125% / 0.03312504
39.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
26.2 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
20.6 Nalchik_Eneolithic
13.4 Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic
Target: Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya.SG
Distance: 3.2914% / 0.03291378
37.8 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
30.4 Nalchik_Eneolithic
29.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
2.6 Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic
Target: Russia_EBA_Yamnaya_o
Distance: 3.3047% / 0.03304657
89.8 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
5.8 Nalchik_Eneolithic
3.0 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
1.4 Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic
Target: Russia_Caucasus_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 2.0474% / 0.02047391
55.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
20.6 Nalchik_Eneolithic
17.2 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
7.0 Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic
If there is anything wrong with this model, like noise, please correct me.
@Matt
Almost everything in life follows an exponential growth. For the vast majority of time you're making little progress until you hit a critical point. You're simply looking at the "knee of the curve"/inflection of the curve.
No one decided in 2700 BC to suddenly "start breeding riding horses". This was a intentional/conscious decision by a culture that already understood the potential of such an undertaking because they had experience with it firsthand. We already showed this in that paper with skeletal pathologies associated with horseback in Yamnaya people. That was a huge breakthrough that some people conveniently forget.
DOM2 weren't the first riding horses, just like the iPhone wasn't the first cellphone. But once touchscreen phones became the norm, no one made flip phones anymore. All other form factors died out because touchscreen phones became the optimal form. The same with DOM2. They were way more efficient than other type of horse, and everyone switched to them.
@Dragon Hermit, well, the abstract for that paper suggests no one really started breeding horses until closer to 2200 BCE...
@Arsen, well, the suggestion is that they used wagons and also that they drafted in and tamed wild horses, on the steppe, so I think your hyperbole is founded on somewhat of a misunderstanding.
@Mike said...
"If there is anything wrong with this model, like noise, please correct me."
The distances in your models are very bad, especially for Serbia_EBA_Yamnaya, do you really think that half of the genome there is associated with the Eneolit of Nalchik? this is very far from Nalchik. And the Eneolit of Nalchik most likely acted locally, on local populations, or maybe it went extinct altogether
This is what works more or less well for Serbia, you won’t be able to do anything better, don’t even try, but it’s definitely not 50 percent NL122
Target: Serbia_EBA_Yamnaya
Distance: 4.6155% / 0.04615544 | R3P
75.4 UKR_Cernavodă_I_En
17.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
7.6 RUS_N_Pogostishche_I
@ Arsen. Yes I'm looking forward to looking at the data on Ginchi. I think its hard to say much from one slide
@ Arsen
There is another issue in the Caucasus- there seems to be a big chronological gap between late Shuvaleri horizon (5300 BC) and chalcolithic cultures like Sioni (4500->)
''For yet unknown reasons, traces of sedentary life disappear after ca. 5300 BC and were probably replaced by a semi-mobile life. ''
@Falcon
It wasn't a preference so much as a necessity. Yamnaya were very homogenous so it is likely they did ordinarily practice a broad endogamy (obviously, familially they were exogamous). But Yamnaya who went out into foreign territory probably didn't bring women with them. Or they found no women at home for them perhaps.
Albeit, some of those EEF women may have been quite charming as they were gracile and whatnot.
@Romulus:
First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade2451
Here, we report five Yamnaya individuals well-dated to 3021 to 2501 calibrated BCE from kurgans in Romania, Bulgaria, and Hungary, displaying changes in bone morphology and distinct pathologies associated with horseback riding. These are the oldest humans identified as riders so far.
@Rob
Shulaveri-Shomu lasts till 5000 BCE, it's most probably succeeded by Alikemek-Kultepe Culture in around 5000 BCE, which itself is succeded by and then in 4500 BCE by Sioni. Ginchi I would say could be earliest NEC candidate that may track origin in Meshoko even if it's part of Sioni-Tsopi material culture
@DragonHermit
Listen retard
"On the leg bones of the buried person, there are no curvatures diagnostic for horse riding, characteristic of later nomads."
@Mike
Target: RUS_Yamnaya_Caucasus:SA6010__BC_2778__Cov_33.63%
Distance: 3.0291% / 0.03029126
34.4 RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
28.0 RUS_Vonyuchka_En_VJ1001
24.4 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
13.2 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Target: RUS_Yamnaya_Caucasus:RK1007__BC_3155__Cov_17.19%
Distance: 3.0025% / 0.03002518
37.6 RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
33.8 RUS_Vonyuchka_En_VJ1001
23.4 RUS_Steppe_Maykop
5.2 RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
@Richard Rocca
Thanks for sharing this paper. This is hilarious. Out of 217 samples they find 6 potential early "Horse Riders"(excluding Medgidia). According to the paper 2/6 don't come from Yamnaya and one of those two is from Hungary 4442–4243 calBCE. Alright then I guess.
We also list four more graves meeting the threshold, which are however non-Yamnaya. While the two mature individuals of Medgidia V/4 and VI/6 (figs. S7 and S8) are securely dated to the mid-second millennium BCE, the 25- to 35-year-old man buried in the late fourth millennium BCE in Blejoi III/3 (fig. S6) is culturally displaying a mixture of local elements with those of either pre-Yamnaya or (chronologically possible) incoming first Yamnaya pastoralists (15, 27). Special attention is deserved by the case of the individual of Csongrád-Kettőshalom in Hungary (fig. S12). Displaying five traits, this 25 to 35 years old scores as high as our five Yamnaya individuals and thus meets our requirements to qualify as a rider with a sufficiently high probability. However, his Copper Age date in the second half of the fifth millennium BCE and his geographical isolation call for caution because we lack comparably assessed skeletons of this period and his special cultural context [(42), pp. 249–257; see also section S1 for his Copper Age/Eneolithic context).
Csongrád (Csongrád-Csanád District, Hungary) 1963, Bárdos-farmstead, -Kettőshalom, grave 1 100% m 25–35 years Copper Age (Poz-41865) 5470 ± 40 B.P., 4442–4243 calBCE
ENA things:
1) https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJNA1086800 - "Genetic history of the ancient population of the Russian Plain" - No data, no abstract, but probably one that you guys want to keep a watching brief on.
2) https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB63352 - "Until death do us part". A multidisciplinary study on human- Animal co- burials from the Late Iron Age necropolis of Seminario Vescovile in Verona (Northern Italy, 3rd-1st c. BCE) ". This one was uploaded back in March but updated again recently, so I'm not sure if they added more data or something like this.
@Gabru
Maybe
Target: Russia_Caucasus_EBA_Yamnaya:RK1007__BC_3155__Cov_17.19%
Distance: 2.8747% / 0.02874704 | R4P
41.6 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
32.4 RUS_Khvalynsk_En
15.8 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa
10.2 TKM_Geoksyur_N
@Gabru ,Yes, I think so too, autosomalally it should be similar to the Eneolithic of Nalchik, Areni, Remontnoe, but later with the penetration of the Kura Araxes culture(population associated with Armenia-Azerbaijan, most likely speaking proto-NEC languages) and pit grave-catacombs culture (most likely Proto-Armenian or Tocharian language), the NEC profile was finally formed
@Romulus,
The Csongrád sample showing up as a horse rider is not at all out of place. From the Lazaridis pre-print:
"A genetically Volga Cline individual not from the Volga Basin is from Csongrád-Kettőshalom in Hungary, whose direct date is 4331-4073 cal BCE. This individual is estimated to have 87.9±3.5 185 % of its ancestry from the BPgroup (Fig. 1c) comparable to the most extreme “Khvalynsk high” individuals. The Csongrád individual is one among a group of steppe-like graves that appeared in Southeastern Europe in the late 5th millennium BCE including a cemetery at Giurgiuleşti, Moldova, from which one individual (I20072; 4330-4058BCE) is consistent with being a clade (p=0.90) with BPgroup, and another cemetery at Mayaky, Ukraine."
All R subclades ultimately descend from ANE.
So if there's say R1ba1 in an EHG sample, then I'd assume it originated within the ANE heavy EHG population. There's zero chance that R has anything to do with the original WHG components of EEF Related West Eurasian and Gravettian. And even if some R subclades ventured onto WHG heavy populations, I think ultimately most of them before the Chalcholithic were constrained to EHG admixed HGs in the Baltic, Scandinavia or Ukraine with the sole exception of R1b-V88 and it's subclades. Even Villabruna had EHG.
Guys can anybody guide me on how to merge Plink files(.bed .bim .fam) into the 1240K dataset? I found a very easy way to convert .bam to Plink on Genarchivist on Windows
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian said...
"All R subclades ultimately descend from ANE."
Do you mean this?
https://i.ibb.co/zrgzPhB/Screenshot-66.png
@ Gabru
'''Shulaveri-Shomu lasts till 5000 BCE, it's most probably succeeded by Alikemek-Kultepe Culture in around 5000 BCE, which itself is succeded by and then in 4500 BCE by Sioni. Ginchi I would say could be earliest NEC candidate that may track origin in Meshoko even if it's part of Sioni-Tsopi material culture''
There is far more nuance to it than ''continuity''.
Kultepe and Sioni are very different cultures in different regions of the southern Caucasus. This is what the evidence suggests
- Sh/ Sh cluture dissipates (making your theory that PIE=Armenia N difficult to sustain, but we knew that years ago)
- the late phases of Aratashen, Kultepe, and southeast Caucasus sees a new phase of mesopotamian colonization, developing Leilatepe horizon
- in the north, we see the large scale CHG introgression, arbuably with Sioni culture, and the eventual, late move of productive economy into the Colchian marshlands and beyond the mountains.
@ Dragon Hermit
''"Anthony ripped that Librado paper to shreds in his latest talk, which is telling considering he was also one of the main contributors of it.'
Anthony has little scientific credibility after his multiple failed theories and unashamed collaboration with the Harvard charletons. Scientifically illiterate US-based amateur cultists like yourself need to bring some better evidence to the table
@ Rocca
''The Csongrád sample showing up as a horse rider is not at all out of place. From the Lazaridis pre-print:''
As per above, their entire thesis is faulty, so Im not sure why you & Rich are citing them so frantically.
@Rob
That's what we want cause someone has to replace those PIE remnants in South of Caucasus after PIE disperses into all directions from there
@ Matt
“Genetic history of the ancient population of the Russian Plain" - No data, no abstract, but probably one that you guys want to keep a watching brief on.”
I think we can make some basic patterns for the older periods:
- starting with an EHG Mesolithic
- a pulse of WHG, as in the steppe zone, ~5500bc
- perhaps some other subtle inter-HG trends assoc with CombCeramics, etc, ~ 3000 BC
- Fatyanovo migration 2700 bc
- ? Extent of displacement and assimilation of preceding Balanovo/ CCC groups
- collapse / exodus of Fatyanovo settlements ? 2000 ? 1500 bc
- expansion of Baltic-like and Neo-Siberian populations into NW Russia LBA-IA
@ Gabru
''That's what we want cause someone has to replace those PIE remnants in South of Caucasus after PIE disperses into all directions from there''
But the source of CHG-Iran like shift in Chalcolithic Anatolia is from Mesopotamia, or at least, a source lacking ''actual CHG''. The best statistical fit for this source is with Turkey_PPN
But Harvard ignored the fact that this process began in 5500 BC, as clearly seen in Buyukayya. This erodes their premise that Mesopotamian admixture co-occured with an 'eastern steppe route'. Actually, they acknowledge this in the supplement, but in they failed to be honest about that in the body.
What this means is that the shifts in CHL-Anatolia were an ''internal reshuffling''.
Then c. 4000 BC, there is a population drop in C-W Anatolia soon folowed by a gentle trickle of stepppe ancestry from the Balkans. As this came at a critical period of 'rebuilding' the modest arrival of some indidivudals had a disproportionate linguistic effect. This was a discreet, one off event, whilst contacts with mesopotamia and the east were ongoing and sustained.
On the other hand, the K-A migration from the southern caucasus had no important effects in Anatolia itself, it was very much limited to SE Turkey (Arslantepe & Lamataya) and then onto Syria & the Levant. They preserved 3% of steppe ancestry and some R1b-V1636, but they were neither Hittites nor IE in general.
Another new ENA entry with no data - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJNA1082095 - "Ancient DNA sequencing of individuals from Segesta, Sicily" - "This project presents the results of a large-scale, multi-proxy study of Medieval Sicily, a pivotal time period and location for the demographic formation of Europe. In this study, we compare the genetic affinities and diet of two communities of different faiths (Muslim and Christian) buried in adjacent cemeteries on the Sicilian site of Segesta at the end of the Norman period until the end of the Swabian period (late 12th/mid 13th century). This work has been part of the ERC Advanced grant "SICTRANSIT" which aimed to understand the impact of the regime changes in Sicily during the Middle Ages."
So I managed to get this done:-
- .bam to .bed .bim .fam (Plink)
- .bed .bim .fam (Plink) to .geno .snp
ind (Eigenstrat)
But merging Eigenstrat into 1240K is encountering me RAM error, I'm merging few of the samples I wanted to have on qpAdm
@Rob, a humble request please can you merge this file I'll send and send it to me via Dropbox/Mega/send.zcyph.cc? Do you have Discord or anything?
I imagine the Russian plain data will include these Abashevo and Fatyanovo samples:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/380374945_Zabytoe_dita_ili_peredovoj_otrad_O_svazi_naselenia_fatanovskoj_i_srednevolzskoj_abasevskoj_kultur_v_svete_dannyh_sekvenirovania_drevnej_DNK
@Rob said...
"But the source of CHG-Iran like shift in Chalcolithic Anatolia is from Mesopotamia, or at least, a source lacking ''actual CHG''. The best statistical fit for this source is with Turkey_PPN"
https://i.ibb.co/Hh5Jx2p/Screenshot-68.png
their chg-iran is much higher than if it were associated with Mesopotamia and similar cultures. which have a very rich contribution of Levantine admixture, which is not so much in the Eastern Anatolian eneolithic, so undoubtedly this additional surge of chg-iran is located somewhere in the Caucasus, in the south, maybe Azerbaijan is Mesolithic, or northern Iran
@ Gabru
Im going away again, Hit me up Monday week and Ill merge it for you
Arsen
“https://i.ibb.co/Hh5Jx2p/Screenshot-68.png
their chg-iran is much higher than if it were associated with Mesopotamia and similar cultures. which have a very rich contribution of Levantine admixture, which is not so much in the Eastern Anatolian eneolithic, so undoubtedly this additional surge of chg-iran is located somewhere in the Caucasus, in the south, maybe Azerbaijan is Mesolithic, or northern Iran”
As I’ve explained to you before , you’re overfitting with G25 although qpAdm might undercall
The IranN shift certainly comes southeast Turkey and this is correlated with the advance of Dark Burnished ware over painted Red Slip. This occurred as early as 5500 bc. It’s quite nonsensical to claim these movements were coming from Mesolithic Caucasus
There might be some minimal CHG surge associated with K.A., but it’s definitely fringe, perhaps restricted to late Arslanetepe
Here is a map of K.A., its advance into Turkey was minimal.
https://images.app.goo.gl/MnYHpZM3cMQDh6746
@Rob.. I posted a paper and a link. I'm not sure what your definition of "frantically" is, but that's not it.
@Rob
Thanks for the helping gesture man, I'm experimenting kn another way by extracting required and important right and left pops from v54 then merging Private/Ancient sample with that extracted list and then running it on Admixtools2, just experimenting on it though I think it will work, let's see
@Richard Rocca
Thanks for pointing that out, I would have missed that. That is actually fascinating that there is this CLV guy with Q1b in Hungary ~4200 BCE. I looked for other Horse Riders from this paper in the Laz preprint and I see another one of them is Z2108+. It's a shame we don't have this type of analysis for Afansievo.
@Romulus
Do we have the autosomal of that Hungarian CLV guy? Sample ID? The invention of horse riding was probably done by CLV people
I do think paleozoologists should look at CLV zone as possilbe early centre of horse domestication. Although I keep my view (evidenced based) that their independent prorgession was curtailed, their early mobility begs explanation.
Back to Arslantepe, some revision is required. The R1b-V6136 boy dates to 3300 BC, thus before the proposed K-A expansion (it probably wasnt a conqeust, but 'settling in the dust'). This puts it the timeframe when Arslantepe was an Uruk outpost.
Long story short, Arslantepe belongs to the horizon of 'Caucasian kurgan-like sites' such as Majkop, Leilatepe. Look at their mythology, symbolism, religion. It doesn't look IE, although it had some steppe-EN admixture
@Gabru
Just do a ctrl+f in the laz xlsx for Csongrád
@Romulus
I meant the G25 coordinates of Csongrad
Horses
We should try to avoid dogmatism in these discussions, the domestication of the horse occurred in several regions and in different historical moments - the steppes?, well, maybe some man of the Yamnaya culture rode a horse but the truth is that there was never any conquest of mainland europe by the horsemen of the steppes, it is just another fairy tale related to the narrative imposed by some knuckleheads.
DOM2 was not the only domesticated horse breed, it is simply the one that has been the most successful thanks to human intervention in the selection of animals.
In Spain we have mtDNA-C documented in 50,000 BC and it still exists today in Lusitanian mares ergo this breed was domesticated in situ, Iberian horses survived until the Iron Age ergo they were also domesticated in situ.
Horses were hunted in Iberia since the Paleolithic and there are many sites with evidence of the breeding of these animals to work in the field and to consume their meat since the Neolithic. The first evidence of men with typical horse riding traits belong to El Argar culture and at that time none of the horses analyzed belonged to DOM2. Horses and steppe riders? don't make me laugh.
IE
The latest Harvard papers only serve to demonstrate the inability of geneticists to resolve the issue of the origin and spread of Indo-European languages. It is an express recognition of their failure.
Ten years ago Harvard was talking about massive migrations of R1a and R1b from the steppes, now it is enough to find two or three cases of V1636 in Anatolia or two or three sites with ridiculous percentages of steppe ancestry to ensure that the origin of IE is in the Volga or the Don.
If you don't like this reasoning you can always think that the CHG or Iran_N ancestry, north of the Caucasus proves that Indo-European originated in Anatolia.
In other words, any discussion about it is useless, nobody will be able to prove his theory, so it is better to let everybody be happy believing what he wants or needs to believe.
@ Gaska
I appreciated all what you wrote, also the hypothesis that hg R1b couldn't speak IE languages, in fact I supposed that they, coming from the Siberian Corridor, could have adopted in the Alpine region a Caucasian language ancestress of Basque and Sardinian, etc, but always R-V1636? I wrote that Italy gets the 5 known haplotypes of this haplogroup, some found in papers with only a few STRs (one, I remember, of Boattini et al). The known R-V1636 in aDNA are 7000 years old, but the hg was born 16000 years ago, and we lack its presence for 9000 years. As the oldest R1b is Villabruna 14000 years ago, but probably 17000 as to the link with Tagliente 2 hg I2a, may I think that the origin is in the Alpine region and the following migration nearby after the Younger Dryas? Let's wait for other results, as for the IE origin, that I believe linked with hg R1a that remained easterward than R1b during the Palaeolithic.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2589004224012410
Human Y chromosome haplogroup L1-M22 traces Neolithic expansion in West Asia and supports the Elamite and Dravidian connection
Gaska, while true that the IE homeland question can never be physically proven, let's not pretend it could have originated just about anywhere. It takes into account chronology/time, technological innovations, loan words of languages near the source, geographical locations were words could/could not have existed, etc. This latest ancient DNA substantially reinforces the PIE origin point on the steppe and aligns with what most linguists and archeologists have been saying for decades. Subtleties (Balkan vs. Caucasus vs. Both route for Proto-Anatolian) still need to be figured out.
Revision of Tripolje C14 dates suggests that it was younger & shorter duration, mostly 4000 - 3300 BC. Implications
- it follows the demise of East Balkan centres (e.g. Varna); opening possibility of some
'exodus'
- it correlates with later Sredny Stog
- correlates with colonization of western-most steppe by Tripolje admixed steppe clans (Cernavoda, Usatavo)
Why is there no DDCC in Cernavoda and Usatove_En on G25?
@Rocca
Of course IE could have originated anywhere. It could have been the language of the European HGs or the Anatolian farmers and also the language of the steppe shepherds, no one will ever be able to prove otherwise because there are no written records.
I don't care what its geographical origin is, I just smile when I read sentences like yours. “this latest ancient DNA substantially reinforces the PIE origin point on the steppe” or when I see Indians trying to prove the origin of this language in south or central Asia. I sincerely believe that this is an obsession of some westerners (especially Americans) who believe that their identity is threatened or that they want to demonstrate their superiority in some way.
I honestly don't care, on my father's side I speak a NON-IE language and on my mother's side an IE language and both are especially dear to me. And if you ask me about the contribution of genetics to the linguistic debate, I think it's a waste of time, because any impartial observer would tell you that migrations from the south Caucasus to the north are overwhelmingly more important (both in terms of unipersonal and autosomal markers) than the other way around and yet the genetic continuity through the male line in the steppes (WHG+EHG) until reaching the Yamnaya culture makes me think that IE could be the original language of the European HGs.
On the other hand, the migrations with origin in Asia Minor that reached the Balkans and the genetic identity between these two regions makes me think that it is very difficult to think in an origin of Greek (or Proto-Greek or Mycenaean) in the steppes.
If you think otherwise, I am not going to argue with you, if you are happy believing that, I will not be the one to spoil your party, but please do not pretend to be right without convincing evidence. People are not stupid and you are not as smart as you think.
@Gaska
answer the question: when approximately did the first shepherds and cattle breeders appear in the steppe? and where were they discovered?
@ Gabru
“Why is there no DDCC in Cernavoda and Usatove_En on G25”
What’s DDCC ?
Dnieper-Donets Culture Complex, the Ukraine_N
"When approximately did the first herders appear in the Steppe? And where were they discovered?"
It's arguably in the Prikaspiiskaya Culture, my theory is that Early Aratashen-Aknashen Agro-Pastoralists brought domestication into North of Caucausus Steppe and created CLV people by having 25-30% genetic impact
@ Gaska
“ It could have been the language of the European HGs or the Anatolian farmers and also the language of the steppe shepherds”
But steppe shepherds evolved from European HGs (incl north CHG living there for 15000 years)
So there are in fact only 2 major sources of ancestry in most European populations* - “Euro” HG and Anatolian Farmers
What’s more AF are half Balkan in origin
* exceptions- far northeast, and some southern Europeans
RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso
RUS_Samara_Sidelkino_HG 75.1%
UKR_Vovnigi_HG 8.2%
TJK_Tutkaul_EN 16.7%
Tail: 0.59
What if there are two waves(1st: Imereti Mesolithic, 2nd: Tutkaul with hypothesised pottery spread)?
@Gabru
And the date? When approximately did domestication occur? and why exactly the Caspian culture? What were the motivations of hunters and fishermen to domesticate livestock? Is there any archaeological evidence to confirm your words?
@ Gabru
''Dnieper-Donets Culture Complex, the Ukraine_N''
You must split Dereivka and other upstream sites which are rich in R1b-V88 from the lower Dnieper sites, who are the founders of the Mariupol horizon and expanded all the way to the lower Don. Given that Cernavoda derive 90% of their Y-DNA from the lower Dnieper(-Azov) group, the claim claim that Cernavoda-Usatavo dont have Dnieper ancestry is obviously laughable.
"When approximately did the first herders appear in the Steppe? And where were they discovered?"
It's arguably in the Prikaspiiskaya Culture, my theory is that Early Aratashen-Aknashen Agro-Pastoralists brought domestication into North of Caucausus Steppe and created CLV people by having 25-30% genetic impact''
There is no magic bullet to this question. However the oriental claims being pushed by certain academics is disingenuous, not to mention you;re just parroting Vasistha's garbage, given that domesticates clearly appear in western Ukraine earlier than elsewhere in the ponto-caspian region. The Caucasus was a barrier between 15000 and 4500 BC and there is nothing much going on in the Caucasus between 6000 and 4000 BC.
Even Khvalynsk had some domesticated animals, and they have no Fertile Cresent admixture. The Pricaspian culture was a hunting culture. The earliest date from one sheep bone dates to 4500 BC. So it is not the source of entry for domesticates either.
The other claim that it came with TTK related ancestry is just another hail mary for the anti-European wokesters and their unsullied :) Jeitun were settled farmers who didnt move much beyodn the Copet Dag, and TTK were huntergatherers, which episodically borrowed some doemsticates in the IAMC during 4000 or 3000 BC.
We should mention that GAC were mobile pastoralists from Poland and south of Jutland in 3500 BC. They had neither Armenian N nor TTK ancestry. Clearly pastoralism was something possible amongst any group in contact with animals, given the right demand and ideological push, and all such preconditions were present in Europe.
It doesn’t look like Majkop or KA were even pastoralist
@Rob
"Given that Cernavoda derive 90% of their Y-DNA from the lower Dnieper(-Azov) group, the claim claim that Cernavoda-Usatavo dont have Dnieper ancestry is obviously laughable.".
I asked Lazaridis about this and he maintained that SShi models didn't pass.
Have you tried modeling KTL_A as Yamnaya+PIE_CA or YUN_CA in qpAdm? I'm unfortunately not able to right now.
I don't think the temporal implausiblity is an issue given we know that SS samples that looked like Yamnaya already existed.
I would advise people to read ''Multiregional Emergence of Mobile Pastoralism and Nonuniform Institutional Complexity across Eurasia' by Frachetti
He shows there is no catch-all model for Eurasian pastoralism.
But as far as the western steppe goes, he advocates that it began in the Dnieper region, because that is where early evidence points to. The Caspian steppe folk hunted wild game, domesticates appear in the Khvalynsk period.
@Rob said...
"Even Khvalynsk had some domesticated animals, and they have no Fertile Cresent admixture. The Pricaspian culture was a hunting culture. The earliest date from one sheep bone dates to 4500 BC. So it is not the source of entry for domesticates either."
"...There is no doubt that the population had a significant number of small and large livestock, which provided basic food products; just as the presence of a horse is undeniable, however, we cannot say that the Khvalyntsy had large herds and were horse breeders. Large and small cattle in the Volga region appeared in a domesticated form [Petrenko 1982, p. 49]. The sheep, the skeletal remains of which were studied in the Khvalynsky I burial ground, are much larger than domestic sheep known in Eastern Europe in the Neolithic and Chalcolithic and are most similar to the breeds from the Chalcolithic monuments of Southern Turkmenistan, in particular, Kara Tepe."
Kara-Tepe, Karatepe:
A hill in southern Turkmenistan, located 4 km north of the Artyk railway station, where remains of a sedentary farming settlement from the Chalcolithic era (5th–3rd millennium BCE) have been found. The area covers about 15 hectares. Excavations were conducted in 1952 and from 1955 to 1963. In the lower layers, pottery with monochrome painting, figurines of standing women, and copper tools were discovered. The middle layers are characterized by pottery with two-tone painting and the emergence of multi-room houses made of mudbrick. The stratigraphy of Kara-Tepe shows parallels with Anau and Namazga-Tepe. In the upper layer (late 4th to early 3rd millennium BCE), several multi-room houses—dwellings of extended family communities—were excavated. These houses contained vessels with geometric patterns and depictions of people, animals, and birds; terracotta figurines of male and female deities; stone amulet seals; copper tools, and more. The materials from Kara-Tepe indicate connections between the Chalcolithic period of southern Turkmenistan and similar sites in Iran, Afghanistan, and India.
@Arsen, see below quotes:-
"Prikaspiiskaya or Cis-Caspian Culture"
All of these features are similar to the material from Khvalynskaya culture. Domesticated sheep bones were found alongside the bones of wild species (kulan, saiga, tarpan).
Remains of domesticated animals were also recently found at Prikaspiiskaya sites, preceding Khvalynskaya culture. It is located in the same area as Khvalynskaya culture.
The Neolithisation process in the southern part of the Low Volga region during 6500–5500 BC did not include a producing economy. From the point of view of European researchers, sites of this period could be attributed only to the ‘ceramic Mesolithic’. In the eastern European scientific world, pottery is regarded as a marker of the beginning of the Neolithic era (Oshibkina 1996), which is why these sites were classified as Neolithic.
The second Neolithisation model could be dated to 5500–4800 BC, and encompassed the whole area of the steppe Volga basin. It is connected to the incoming Prikaspiiskaya culture, which has yielded reliable traces of a producing economy.
In the Low Volga basin, apart from the sites of Kairshak, Tenteksor, Jangar, and Orlovsky types, another cultural group of sites was distinguished. This is the Cis-Caspian culture (Melentiev 2012). Prior to 2007, only a few sites with artifacts of the Cis-Caspian culture had been excavated. During 2014–2017, the new site Oroshaemoe I of the Cis-Caspian culture was excavated (Vybornov et al. 2017). The well-preserved cultural layer includes numerous animal bones. Species such as saiga, aurochs, tarpan, onager, red dear, wild boar, and wolf were identified. This selection is similar to the bone assemblages of Orlovskaya and Tenteksor types. But there are some differences. In the layer of the Cis-Caspian culture, the bones of domestic sheep and goat were identified. The bones of domestic sheep and goat were also found in the Kurpezhe-Molla site, which is located in the northern Caspian Sea region. Before this study, the first domestic ungulates were assigned to the Khvalinian Eneolithic culture (Kuzmina 1988). The latest results agree with the conclusion that domestic animals appeared together with carriers of the Cis-Caspian culture. The chronology of the Cis-Caspian culture was defined on the basis of a series of dates obtained on different type of organics from different archaeological sites. One of the dates was obtained on bones of domestic sheep. It is a temporal marker for the earliest appearance of domestic sheep in the Cis-Caspian culture. Based on the new results, we can date the Cis-Caspian culture to the interval from ca. 5200 to 4700 cal BC. The results of the lipid analysis showed that animal or plant food had been cooked inside of the pottery from Kairshak III, Baibek, Tenteksor, Algay and Varfolomeevka sites. Fatty acids of fish have not been identified in those vessels.
@Rob
I already said above that UKR_N isn't picked on G25 for Usatove_En and Cernavoda
Such a triggered respone lmfao. Few things to clarify here:-, there are just three possible sources that could transfer producing economy in there, Kelteminar
- Khvalynsk derives from Upper CLV people that is Prikaspiiskaya/Cis-Caspian Culture
- Prikaspiiskaya has Domestication of goats and sheep since 5300 BCE
- The claim about TTK in Samara_Meso is not my original claim, someone ran it just like that and I found it interesting to point here. We know about the Degryuter paper which says Eastern European Sub-Neolithic pottery has origins in Kelteminar/Aral Sea region or typological similarities. So I just thought if there was a genetic input of this pottery spread or not and this model was intriguing about that, although there may not be any genetic inpact at all
Also GAC were pastoralist because they derive from Barcin Farmers, that's nothing magical, yes Dnieper-Donets Culture has domestication
But the theory about Early Aratashen-Aknashen bringing domestication into North of Caucausus Steppe is not unsound, there are three source that could transfer producing economy there, Kelteminar, Aratashen-Aknashen/Shulaveri-Shomu, Azov-Dnieper, out of which first two are more likely
@Rob
"SShi didnt pass what ?"
Sorry, modeling KTL_A as SShi and any EEF source.
PVgroup also fails for this.
They seem to think the EEF source is Trypillia which isn't particularly convincing archeologically but takes up any WHG-like ancestry they have.
@EthanR
Yes I also saw Lazaridis model about Suvorovo(Moldova_Giurgiulesti) being modelled as 100% CLV(BP-PV), which made me doubt Ukraine_N in Suvorovo, then G25 not detecting Ukraine_N in Cernavoda-Usatove_En connected to it so I said here
@Arsen
Does it hint to that Khvalynsk(subsequently Prikaspiiskaya) sheep breed is from Aral Sea? Someone I discussed had theory that Kelteminar brought IE into Steppe(opposed to my theory that Early Aratashen-Aknashen brought it)
Gaska, for someone who "now" pretends to not care, you sure do do a lot of pleading. And it makes me smile to think that you also think yourself so smart, the nobody on this or any other amateur DNA site, nor the hoards of PHD types at one of the worlds leading Ivy League universities disagrees with you.
@Rob
I’m not even claiming, I just downloaded a couple of articles about the Caspian culture, I’m reading what’s the point, do you think I perceive them as a hundred percent authority? there are a lot of nuances in each article, I’m just reading, I didn’t know about such a culture before, now I’ll take a couple of screenshots, interesting translations and sketches, and throw it in like a Google file, then make your assessment
@Rob, Regarding your words about how sedentary farmers suddenly left their comfort zone and became nomadic herders, there is a simple explanation: climate change. In the Caspian culture, a warm, humid climate was replaced by a continental arid one. Around the 6th millennium BCE, the Kantemir people, or whoever they were, could easily migrate north with their herds of sheep and goats (if they had them) and simply change their way of life to one that was more energetically advantageous for them. It is likely, as was written by either Gubaru or Gasca, that they brought the ttk trace to the CLV line. I don't know and am not asserting this.
Here are some interesting points for me regarding the chronology of the domestication of animals and sheep in the Caspian culture
translated into English
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1nPgRJ9ea-mCXifu0aqS2nyWpR4JhOUky5Pb4Zak5XCU/edit?usp=sharing
@ Gabru
Your statements are all false, because like Arsen, you waste the limited capacity you have on bending reality to your regionalist/ ethnonationalist pet theories.
But because I am so gracious, Ill give you some Pro tips
''I already said above that UKR_N isn't picked on G25 for Usatove_En and Cernavoda'
it doesnt matter what you said, the prevailing male lineages of Cernavoda-Usatavo come from Dnieper and even further West at one point or another. There is no model by any person that will change this fact.
''Also GAC were pastoralist because they derive from Barcin Farmers, that's nothing magical, yes Dnieper-Donets Culture has domestication''
No, GAC do not derive from Barcin N, but they have Barcin N ancestry. These are quite different things.
GAC come from northern Europe, which is why they are 100% I2a-Z16 and 0% G2a (the Barcin lineage). So this shows that GAC formed due to marrying SBK/ post-LBK women, and they adopted some limited farming and became pastoralists.
This establishes precedent of local pastoralism and parallels the processes seen further east in the steppe. No unicorns from Turan required because European farmers had been in central & eastern Europe for 1000 years earlier
Your quote to Arsul:
''All of these features are similar to the material from Khvalynskaya culture. Domesticated sheep bones were found alongside the bones of wild species (kulan, saiga, tarpan).
Remains of domesticated animals were also recently found at Prikaspiiskaya sites, preceding Khvalynskaya culture. It is located in the same area as Khvalynskaya culture.''
You are wrong because you didn't read facts, you just cherry picked sentences
This is what the data shows:
Oroshaemoye; sheep bone (#UGAMS-23059): 4724-4557 VC
This actually comes from the younger, Eneolithic - Khvalynsk related layer.
All other dates are even younger
There is therefore NO domestic animals from the Pricaspian layer. Vybornov is wrong, I told him so and he accepted, like a good man
@ Arsen
''Regarding your words about how sedentary farmers suddenly left their comfort zone and became nomadic herders, there is a simple explanation: climate change. In the Caspian culture, a warm, humid climate was replaced by a continental arid one. Around the 6th millennium BCE, the Kantemir people, or whoever they were, could easily migrate north with their herds of sheep and goats (if they had them) and simply change their way of life to one that was more energetically advantageous for them. It is likely, as was written by either Gubaru or Gasca, that they brought the ttk trace to the CLV line. I don't know and am not asserting this.''
Be careful not to conflate 2 different things. Yes, Kelteminar are a possible source for TTK ancestry.
But what evidence is there for Kelteminar being pastrolaists ? Maybe they were but we need modern studies which meet quality standards
''I’m not even claiming, I just downloaded a couple of articles about the Caspian culture, ''
As per above, look at your Table 1 , line 6 ; The date for Sheep bone is 4700 - 4500 BC & Kara_khaduk 4800 BC
Oroshaemoe site has 2 layers : Pricaspian and Khvalynsk. This means that the sheep/goats appeared after 5000 BC
@ Gabru
''But the theory about Early Aratashen-Aknashen bringing domestication into North of Caucausus Steppe is not unsound, there are three source that could transfer producing economy there, Kelteminar, Aratashen-Aknashen/Shulaveri-Shomu, Azov-Dnieper, out of which first two are more likely''
Here are the issues
- Shuvaleri were settled village farmers, not pastoralists
- Shuvaleri stopped in its tracks in the plains of in eastern Georgia. They could not advance into the Alpine-Caucasus regions or the Colchian marshes, just like Anatolian Farmers could not move into northern Europe, Cantabria or Britain
- some form rudimentary agropastoralism only extended north across the mountains after 4500 BC, with Meshoko-Darkveti. And that's only because the local CHG's adopted and intermarried with the now declining Shuvaleri groups.
As per above, there seems to be no magic unicorn theory to be upheld. What we see is various groups mostly fishing & hunting, but also exposed to domesticated animals perhaps from various sources. Then Cernavoda, Usatavo & Yamnaya shifted to a greater reliance on pastoralism, probably because they became more mobile.
What the 'Caucasus route' did was open new markets in Mesopotamia for western steppe pastoralists. Initially, it was mediated via Majkop & Uruk, then Catacomb moved south and took over parts of the southern Caucasus for themselves.
@Rob
The material at Oroshasmoye I to which the animal bone 4600 BCE belongs is of Prikaspiiskaya culture not Khvalynsk. We know from BPgroup that CLV continued to exist in and around Volga till later, even 4200 BCE(the boundary may be defined with Volga and South of Volga being CLV remnants).
And also, we have Kuperzhemolla site from Cis-Caspian that has sheep and goat from 5200-500 BCE. It's quite obvious that Cis-Caspian and Progress-Vonyuchka cultures from the earliest phases had domestication Neolithic that their predecessing Sub-Neolithic cultures lacked, they only had dog domestication that too limited to some).
The question still remains, who brought Domestication Neolithic to NoC Steppe and whether it was primary(with genetic, linguistic, cultural impact) or secondary(such as NoC groups borrowings techniques from adjacent neighbours without any genetic or linguistic turnover), possible candidates remain:-
- Early Aratashen-Aknashen(primary>secondary),
- Early Kelteminar(primary, secondary)
It should be noted that Dnieper-Donets culture got domestication likely from Prikaspiiskaya/Progress-Vonyuchka itself,DDCC has cattle, sheep, goats, pigs from it's second phase(that's Post-5200 BCE only)
"At the Northern Caspian site of Kurpezhe-molla (Barynkin, Vasylyev 1985) only wild animal bones were identified through preliminary analysis, including saiga, onager, and auroch (Kuzmina 1988.175). However, after further study, we obtained different information showing the presence of sheep and goat The site dates to the end of the 6th millennium calBC (Vybornov 2008)."
Somebody should run Cernavoda/Usatove_En on qpAdm as [Trypillia or respective Balkan EEF + Russia_Yamnaya_Samara] successfully, and run distal on KTL/Usatove_En as something Trypillia + Ukraine_N + Progress_LN(PG2001) maybe to see whether Ukraine_N is present in them
@Rob
- Not in the earliest phases of Shulaveri-Shomu and Aratashen-Aknashen. They were still dominantly Agro-Pastoralists. They could lose agriculture upon entering into Kuban and NoC Steppe too
- Yes Shulaveri didn't expand much into Georgia and Western Caucasus Ridge, Abkhazia, and Colchian plain, that's not a problem as I argue for an Eastern entry to North rather
Ancient genomes revealed the complex human interactions of the ancient western Tibetans
The western Tibetan Plateau is the crossroad among the Tibetan Plateau, Central Asia, and South Asia and it is a potential human migration pathway connecting these regions. However, the population history of the western Tibetan Plateau remains largely unexplored due to the lack of ancient genomes covering a long-time interval from this area. Here, we reported genome-wide data of 65 individuals dated to 3,500-300 years before present (BP) in the Ngari prefecture.
https://ngdc.cncb.ac.cn/bioproject/browse/PRJCA019728
https://download.cncb.ac.cn/gsa-human/HRA005606/
@Davidski, this new study likely has outliers with IVC but without Andronovo. Request you to please generate the coordinates
@Rob
Quit bullshitting. I literally quoted the text saying Kuperzhemolla has goats and sheep from the end of 6th millennium BCE. Table 2 in Vybornov 2015 also contains it.
"Steppe groups developed it natively."
Lol. Be serious ffs.
Also Earliest Kelteminar, Earliest Tutkaul does have pastoralism but Mesolithic activities continue alongside given they were in transition phase at that point. Even SE Caspian 7400-6400 BCE has goats and sheep, barley, but still Mesolithic activities persisted alongside
"That’s not true."
"Until recently, no Eneolithic sites with animal bones have been found in the Volga steppe region. The situation changed in 2014, __**when the site Oroshaemoye I was analysed and a cultural layer found in situ with artefacts related to the Caspian culture**__. According to the archaeozoological results, the bones belong to saiga, auroch, tarpan, wild boar, onager and domesticated sheep and goat. According to the radiocarbon analysis of animal bones, the site dates to the second quarter of the 5th millennium calBC."
@ Gabri
“The question still remains, who brought Domestication Neolithic to NoC Steppe and whether it was primary(with genetic, linguistic, cultural impact) or secondary(such as NoC groups borrowings techniques from adjacent neighbours without any genetic or linguistic turnover)”
No point repeating the same misunderstanding - nobody brought a complete package to the steppe, certainly not some random groups from a poor record for pastoralism . Steppe groups developed it natively after 2000 years of learning.
The shift to greater pastoralism came with Yamnaya, who spread from the Dnieper area (Mikhailovka).
TTK and Kelteminar have nothing directly to do with it
“The material at Oroshasmoye I to which the animal bone 4600 BCE belongs is of Prikaspiiskaya culture not Khvalynsk. ”
That’s not true. The site has 2 layers, one Neolithic one (early) Chalcolithic
The younger layer belongs to Khvalynsk phase, consistent with the C14 dating
“And also, we have Kuperzhemolla site from Cis-Caspian that has sheep and goat from 5200-500 BCE”
No it doesn’t . The date from that site is only associated with pottery, no domestic animals. Look at Arsen’s table
As things stand, all domesticates are post 5000 bc, which makes historical sense
@Rocca
Of course I don't care about the original geographical origin of the PIE, I have always considered that getting the right answer is a chimera, I know that you and your sheep have to keep alive the option of the steppes and I will not take away your illusion of being happy.
On the other hand, considering Harvard's evidence as definitive or convincing only gives us an idea of your impartiality, your analytical skills and your intelligence.
Regarding the “Ivy League”, it's obvious that even the smartest people get it wrong, but they have a very big problem if they don't recognize it. Harvard has not been an exception, I do not doubt their good faith or their intelligence and of course, they have the obligation to continue trying to prove their new “Kurgan theory” because their international prestige is at stake. They do not lack means or support, money, technology, media, specialized forums, private companies that share their objectives, qualified experts in genetics, mathematics, archeology and linguistics, but they are a giant with feet of clay because they were hasty in their conclusions.
You don't have to be very smart or have studied at a prestigious American university to realize that Harvard has not yet been able to demonstrate genetic continuity through the male line between the steppes and the BB culture, and without that genetic continuity, their work is useless in demonstrating the spread of IE languages. Neither have they been able to find out the geographic origin of M269 and L23 which is the majority lineage in Western Europeans, so I hope they get it, meanwhile they will have to accept my criticisms, which by the way are shared by people much more intelligent than me in all of Western Europe.
@Rob
There is enough evidence showing Prikaspiiskaya was Domestication Neolithic. Pastoralism isn't somehow independently developing in Yamnaya. It has to be transferred from an adjacent group then Yamnaya could innovate it(which they may have done). Suddenly domestication happening in Steppe with the coming of Prikaspiiskaya after Sub-Neolithic Hunting Fishing cultures there allows to to find where this Domestication came from. The possible neighbouring candidates are given, whether you buy it or not. I'm not continuing this further when you deny the initial proof of PKC being Domestication Neolithic
@ Gabru
''There is enough evidence showing Prikaspiiskaya was Domestication Neolithic.''
"Domestication Neolithic" making up terms that don't even make sense . Good start
''Pastoralism isn't somehow independently developing in Yamnaya. It has to be transferred from an adjacent group then Yamnaya could innovate it(which they may have done). ''
Nobody said Yamnaya "suddenly" invented pastoralism, but represents a shift in the degree & nature of animal use. Yammaya and other steppe groups like Cernavoda, Usatavo, come from a long line of predecessors who either used animals themselves, or were in contact with groups utilising animals.
''suddenly domestication happening in Steppe with the coming of Prikaspiiskaya after Sub-Neolithic Hunting Fishing cultures there allows to to find where this Domestication came from. ''
You are hallucinating, because Prikaspian culture did not domesticate animals. The PK culture almost exclusively hunted wild animals
From Frachetti's article Late-fifth-millennium-BC communities living on the drier
north Caspian steppe were generally more mobile, hunting seasonally and living in campsites that included semiannual bases as well as more permanent settlements (Shishlina 2008:
224). The faunal record from the year-round settlement of Tentek-sor (4500–4000 cal BC) reflects a hunting strategy of mainly Asian wild ass (Equus hemionus kulan; 85%) as well
as antelope (Siaga tatarica; 5%), aurochs (5%) and a few wild horses (Barynkin and Kozin 1998:71; Kuz’mina 1988:175). Domesticated sheep and cattle were not recovered in sites of
this time period.
From Arsen's link, we see two sheep bones in north Caspian region: 4700 and 4400 BC are the earliest dates (Oroshaemoe & Kairshak)
When you find earlier dates, let us know.
Moreover, my description of the complecity of layering is 100% accurate, from Vybornov ''The first layer contains artifacts of the Khvalynsk culture, the middle layer of the Caspian culture, and the lower layer of the Orlov culture''
The above dates all sync in with the Eneolithic. By then groups in the Dnieper were already eating animals at the same time, if not a couple hundered years earlier (e.g. individual 45 at Yasinotovka)
Even worse, you're simply imaging that Kelteminar were pastoralists. Where are the modern studies showing this ? And if they were pastoralists, why did they 'disappear' when the actual pastoralists (Yamnaya, Afanaseivo, Srubnaya) expanded ?
''I'm not continuing this further when you deny the initial proof of PKC being Domestication Neolithic"
You have nothign to continue, A case of fake it till you make it getting exposed by Facts.
You might have better luck in an alternate reality
@ Ethan
“They seem to think the EEF source is Trypillia which isn't particularly convincing archeologically but takes up any WHG-like ancestry they have.”
Which EEF source would you expect for Cernavoda ?
Their pottery is Tripolje like , that’s why people thought that Tripolje “colonised the steppe “ .
In fact they weren’t that wrong - we have plenty of “farmer “‘lineages there - G2a, E-M798etc
The other interesting thing is that I2-L699 is found in late Tripolje/ Gordinesti contexts as well as being the Sredny Stog lineage
Now that we also see R1a-M17 in the Pre-Yamnaya west , it’s beyond doubt these guys were the PIE
@ Gaska
You shouldn’t be criticising Harvard, because they support your fantasies :
- PIE comes from imaginary oriental populations
- BB expanded from Iberia via ghost population
Pay attention to how the Darkwetti-Meshoko population (Chalcolithic of the Caucasus) is formed in the Ghaichi presentation. First they show that the Neolithic of Georgia is formed as 50% Neolithic of Anatolia and 50% CHG. Then they show that Darkvetti-Meshoko (Chalcolithic of the Caucasus) is formed as 50% Neolithic of Georgia plus 50% CHG again. If we assume that all CHG are migrants from the southern Caucasus, then Darkvetti-Meshoko (Chalcolithic of the Caucasus) should correspond to the Neolithic of Georgia, however, in the northern Caucasus, another 50% of CHG appear from somewhere else.
https://imgur.com/ckNUJOx
@Rob
I had expected Cernavoda I to have primarily Gumelnita ancestry, but Usatove to have excess Trypillian ancestry.
@Vladimir, this is not related to the fact that an additional 50 percent of the Neolithic of Georgia was picked up in the North Caucasus to make Darkveti. It’s just that the hunter-gatherers didn’t all immediately mix with the newcomer Anatolians, I think this process went on slowly, the Chg were more primitive, and people like Catalhuyuk already had all the signs that there was some kind of cultural community,
undoubtedly they also picked up chg from the north. But the main percentage of chg for Darkveti was in Georgia, in the canyons of the mountains of Svaneti, Abkhazia, and Mergelia
G25 runs on the SDLG_o Indian admixed outlier from Tibet paper of today/yesterday
Target: CHN_Tibet_Sangdalongguo_1900BP_o:HRR1385338
Distance: 1.2682% / 0.01268186
77.2 IND_Roopkund_A
19.6 CHN_Ngari_2300BP
3.2 CHN_Gaofeng_400BP
Target: CHN_Tibet_Sangdalongguo_1900BP_o:HRR1385338
Distance: 2.1639% / 0.02163859
76.6 PAK_Saidu_Sharif_H
17.8 NPL_Mustang_Samdzong_MiddleKingdoms
5.6 CHN_Gaofeng_400BP
Target: CHN_Tibet_Sangdalongguo_1900BP_o:HRR1385338
Distance: 2.7200% / 0.02720029
52.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA_2_I8728_enhanced
16.2 SAHG
13.4 CHN_Ngari_2300BP
10.2 NPL_Mebrak_2125BP
7.6 KAZ_Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA
Target: CHN_Tibet_Sangdalongguo_1900BP_o:HRR1385338
Distance: 2.5922% / 0.02592150
52.6 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA_2_I8728_enhanced
23.8 Tibet
16.6 SAHG
7.0 KAZ_Oy_Dzhaylau_MLBA
Target: CHN_Tibet_Sangdalongguo_1900BP_o:HRR1385338
Distance: 2.6126% / 0.02612645
52.0 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA_2_I8728_enhanced
24.2 Tibet
16.8 SAHG
7.0 UZB_Kashkarchi_BA
Target: CHN_Tibet_Sangdalongguo_1900BP_o:HRR1385338
Distance: 2.6392% / 0.02639195
52.8 IRN_Shahr_I_Sokhta_BA_2_I8728_enhanced
24.2 Tibet
16.6 SAHG
6.4 RUS_Sintashta_MLBA
@ Vlad - who are the authors working on Satanay genome ?
@Davidski
What do you think?
https://github.com/lm-ut/ASAP
That I should publish my tools on bioRxiv ASAP. :-)
@ Ethan
By 4000 BC, Gulemnita was kaput, just like Varna, Karanovo VI, Tozsapolgar, etc
And all those “pioneer LCV” who moved to the Carpatho-Balkans (Smyadovo outlier, Csongrad, Suvorovo) became kaput with them. That’s why I’m saying LCV are a dead end - everywhere
All the groups which came to the East Balkan-Carpathians after 4000 BC , whether steppe or EEF rich, are Non-Locals
This is top end stuff, no publicised academic work will decipher this
@ Ethan
To continue, so Cernavoda (Bayesian C14 place it 3900-3500) synchronises with Tripolje
Between 4100 & 3800 bc there is a “steppe hiatus” in NWPR; and a 600 year hiatus in east Balkan
@ Davidski
I posted a comparison of the results of ASAP vs. Vahaduo, but this comment didn't make it through the moderation.
@ Matt
ASAP is just a wrapper for nnls R function, which in turn is a wrapper for the original solver written in fortran.
read_eigen() is a wrapper for read.table()
If you want to load g25 data into ASAP all you have to do is split the first column into POP and IND and then read it with pca = read.csv("file", header=TRUE)
e.g.
POP,IND,PC1,PC2,PC3,PC4,PC5,PC6,PC7,PC8,PC9,PC10,PC11,PC12,PC13,PC14,PC15,PC16,PC17,PC18,PC19,PC20,PC21,PC22,PC23,PC24,PC25
Albania_BA_IA,Albania_BA_IA,0.1231566,0.1523294,0.0274544,-0.0156332,0.0270818,-0.0087572,0.000987,-0.0007846,-0.0003274,0.0256952,0.0030206,0.005785,-0.0189098,-0.0070464,-0.0095546,-0.0063644,0.0069624,-0.00038,0.0027652,-0.0069534,-0.009084,0.0029182,-0.002687,0.0059286,-0.0058678
ASAP calculates POP averages on the fly, so if you want to compare it to Vahaduo directly you need to use the averaged spreadsheet.
@Rob
https://i.ibb.co/7kcsjbj/image.png
I accidentally came across this character on the Internet, a businessman from Novosibirsk, apparently a Tatar
similar?
@Rob
I do not know if it is being investigated at all. I read on some forum that this sample was transferred to some foreign laboratory
@ Vladimir
''I do not know if it is being investigated at all. I read on some forum that this sample was transferred to some foreign laboratory'
Im pretty sure you or someone already posted an abstract months ago. He was apparently CHG/ EHG mix, and several of the authors were Russian
@ Arsen
''I accidentally came across this character on the Internet, a businessman from Novosibirsk, apparently a Tatar
similar?''
same person?
@ Arza/ Matt
Can you run raw genotype data in ASAP ? And if so, is it more efficient than SmartPCA ?
@ Arsen
https://imgur.com/O8xiiYJ
Meshoko = 4 (southern CHG) + 5 (Arm.N / PPN) + dash of 3 (northern CHG)
@ Rob
You can run raw genotype data in both, ASAP and Vahaduo. But I don't know what you mean by "more efficient".
The results will certainly be slightly different, perhaps more similar to qpAdm in some aspects. But that doesn't mean they will be "better".
And you'll have to deal with missing data somehow.
@arza, thanks for all that.
Arza: "I posted a comparison of the results of ASAP vs. Vahaduo, but this comment didn't make it through the moderation."
President Davidski, let this comment out of jail!
@Rob
No, definitely not me. I'd be interested to see it myself.
Arza's missing comment is nowhere to be seen. It must've got nuked by Blogger for having too many numbers or something.
https://pastebin.com/bxiE5yxf
nnls (ASAP) calculates exact result with high precision, on the other hand Vahaduo is 8 times faster
@ Arza
“You can run raw genotype data in both, ASAP and Vahaduo.”
You’re saying we can genotype data (ind/geno/snp) PCA on vahaduo ? How ?
“But I don't know what you mean by "more efficient".”
Running SmartPCA is quite a process , then you have to use some other R programme to visualise the plot
@Rob
What kind of card is this? Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age?
@arza, thanks, so Vahaduo is really more As Soon As Possible, than ASAP is? ;)
Do you find there are any meaningful differences in tests on "deep" proportions? This may be something I should test myself if you haven't; I wouldn't imagine from what you've presented that there are...
@ Arsen
“What kind of card is this? Eneolithic or Early Bronze Age?”
It would be ~ 5500 bc, representing some of the major “blocks” which fed the development of ‘steppe eneolithic’ and Caucasian BA cultures. However I still need to add Tripolje in the west & putative Central Asian / TTK in the east
Rob, Oh,I see. Did you make this map yourself? Why do you have the Northeastern Mountain Caucasus in the same cultural community as Transcaucasia? Do you attribute this to the influence of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture? Still, I think the Anatolian-Mesopotamian mix came to Dagestan during the Eneolithic and Early Bronze Age. Before that, the area was inhabited by hunter-gatherers from the PCA plateau CHG-Iran (possibly there was also a TTK mix, as there were cultural connections with the Northern Caspian), who transitioned to herding and farming. That's what I think. And as I mentioned above, without mixtures from Mesopotamia/Aknashen/Azerbaijan Neolithic, that's all that is needed for steppe herders.
@ Arsen
“Did you make this map yourself?”
Of course. Who else will be up to date & accurate ?
“Why do you have the Northeastern Mountain Caucasus in the same cultural community as Transcaucasia? Do you attribute this to the influence of the Shulaveri-Shomutepe culture? ”
The shaded/ hatching associated with #5 (Shulaveri, broadly) ends south of the greater Caucasus range , the heart of Kura valley
The northeast (in so far as the occasional sites as Chokh go) are within #3
“Before that, the area was inhabited by hunter-gatherers from the PCA plateau CHG-Iran (possibly there was also a TTK mix, as there were cultural connections with the Northern Caspian), who transitioned to herding and farming. ”
Perhaps. But we would need to see some convincing mesolithic sites in northeast Caucasus. More optimistic is Azerbaijan (Gobustan, etc)
I'm sure Rob will want to share his wisdom with all of us, after all he collaborates in this blog to get us out of ignorance.
@Rob said-"So there are in fact only 2 major sources of ancestry in most European populations-Euro_HG and Anatolian Farmers-Exceptions-Far northeast, and some southern Europeans"
What exactly do you mean?
CHG is a european component?
Why and who in southern Europe is an exception?
@Rob said-"You shouldn’t be criticising Harvard, because they support your fantasies-PIE comes from imaginary oriental populations, BB expanded from Iberia via ghost population"
What the hell are you talking about?
Which are these imaginary oriental populations?
Enlighten us, where did the BB culture originate?
@Rob said-"No, GAC do not derive from Barcin_N, but they have Barcin_N ancestry. These are quite different things. GAC come from northern Europe, which is why they are 100% I2a-Z16 and 0% G2a (the Barcin lineage). So this shows that GAC formed due to marrying SBK/post-LBK women, and they adopted some limited farming and became pastoralists"
You know what the Barcin-Neolithic ratio is in GAC, don't you?
What is the percentage of an autosomal component for you to consider that a given culture does not derive from this component but simply "has" that component.
In this sense is the GAC an exception in the group of European neolithic cultures?
Regarding 100% I2a1-Z16, I guess you mean Z161, right?
Do you think the origin of this marker is northern Europe?
Do you know where this marker was found before appearing in GAC?
You know what pastoralism is, don't you?
How do you think the GAC adopted pastoralism, could you elaborate a bit more on this?
Are you trying to say that I2a-Z161 men only adopted pastoralism when they were part of the GAC and mixed with LBK women?
@ Gaska
''What exactly do you mean?
CHG is a european component?''
Given that northern CHG has been in eastern Europe since 16,000 BC (Golomolova et al), what shall we call them - Nicaraguans, or locals of the Volga-Caucasus region ?
''Why and who in southern Europe is an exception?''
Because parts of southern Europe do have actual recent Near Eastern gene flow. It could be
Copper-Bronze Age (as in southern Greece & the Aegean), or Hellenistic - Roman era in parts of the Greek/Roman world, or even more recent such as the central Mediterranean (Malta).
''What the hell are you talking about?
Which are these imaginary oriental populations?''
Harvard, some personas within, invented a theory based on crumbs of PPN ancestary in their typically poor quality modelling. But they couldn't even define what group actually 'migrated to the steppe', so they had to make some vague claims about the 3800 BC kurgans from the southern Caucasus somehow being the inspiration for the 4500 BC kurgans in Europe LOL. It really is quite irrelevant now, no point wasting time on autopsies
''Enlighten us, where did the BB culture originate?'
BB is a Corded Ware subgroup which developed in the Rhine-Rhone and then moved into Iberia c. 2600 BC :)
Everyone here except you gets this
''You know what the Barcin-Neolithic ratio is in GAC, don't you?
What is the percentage of an autosomal component for you to consider that a given culture does not derive from this component but simply "has" that component.''
Yes Genetics master Gaska, thanks for the inquisition, I do know - GAC is ~ 70% ANF , 30% WHG.
But the ''ratio'' is driven by many factors, and cannot be taken at face value. It is shaped by multiple factors driving the admixture process, including the effective population sizes of the groups about to mix and then the degree of demographic growth as the, and after, the admixture occurs
That is why you need to consider other lines of evidence. Crucial is the Y-DNA as well as archaeology, because that puts a contraining 'sanity check' on the percentage autosome models.
So let's take a few examples.
The middle Neolithic guys in the Paris basin (Gurgy) are a direct continuation of LBK (being G2a and 90% EEF/ ANF).
The case of Hinkelstein or Grossgarach: these guys are 90% I2a1b, but still 90%+ Anatolian, and their material culture is essentially LBK. So we can say they were some opportunistic local hutners who became incorporated into the Neolithic world, and established their own little zone.
But GAC is very different. They are 100 % I2a2, 30% WHG, and a completely different material culture to LBK. They also formed 1500 years after LBK collapsed, and acquired their EEF admixture third hand (LBK-> SBG-> TRB-> GAC)!
The continuation of high EEF is a result of the ongoing growth of neolithic society, but the very fabric of these groups had changed. The break occurred during TRB, 1,000 years earlier
''Regarding 100% I2a1-Z16, I guess you mean Z161, right?
Do you think the origin of this marker is northern Europe?
Do you know where this marker was found before appearing in GAC?''
The ancestor of these lineages were Latvian HG or populations close to them. The Iron Gates ones are more distant, & dead ends
BTW some also appear in Iberia c. 3000 BC. Guesswhat- there was a migration into Iberia in 3000 BC, even before the BB R1b-L151. It was a popular desination
''You know what pastoralism is, don't you?
How do you think the GAC adopted pastoralism, could you elaborate a bit more on this?''
Complex, long drawn out process, just as in the steppe.
But in a nutshell, GAC are a subsect from a northern TRB group, who had long used cereal farming and animals for meat. But then as part of a econmic and ecologic shift, then stopped simply slaughtering animals (often at young age) for meat, and kept them to older age for ongoing use of their secondary products (whool & milk). So it wasnt any particular 'grand revolution', just a change in what one did with the animals. Anyone knowing something about farmlife will get this
And because they had cattle-driven wagons, they were also mobile - thats why they ended up as far as Belarus
Of course this wouldnt have been possible had it not been for farmers coming in 2000 years later, but the point is - pastoralism emerged autochthonously in northern Europe as a result. No additional migrations were required, whether from Anatolia or Turkmenistan (but maybe the Caspian guys did acquire some sheep via Iran_Ch groups)
'after all he collaborates in this blog to get us out of ignorance.'
Don't obfuscate your own ignorance onto others, esp. when all of the above have been explained before, but we all know poor Gaska is very s l o w.
@Gaska
It's common knowledge that the Northeast of Europe has additional East-Eurasian input from Siberia and parts of Southern Europe have additional Near East ancestry outside of ANF-like. Maybe read what you post instead of making snobby and arrogant comments that make you look like you've never studied the basics of European DNA.
Also please explain your 'origin theory' for the Bell Beakers - your understanding from what I've read is a bit odd unless I've simply misunderstood.
Otherwise, you have a habit of posting comments on here with a trend of being outright ignorant with them. People would respect you here far more if you were just ignorant instead of arrogantly ignorant. Maybe revise a bit before posting next time.
@Rob said-“Given that northern CHG has been in eastern Europe since 16,000 BC (Golomolova et al), what shall we call them - Nicaraguans, or locals of the Volga-Caucasus region”
Ok, as we have CHG in Golomova this means that it is a European component, right? Congratulations you have revolutionized genetic research, from now on, you have to tell everybody to stop calling it Caucasus HG and start calling it Volga HG
I guess you think that the increase of CHG in steppe cultures from 16.000 to Yamnaya culture has nothing to do with south-caucasian migrations right?
@Rob said-“Harvard, some personas within, invented a theory based on crumbs of PPN ancestry in their typically poor quality modelling”
Well that has nothing to do with my fantasies, if anything with Harvard's fantasies, so don't put in my mouth what others say”.
@Rob said-“BB is a Corded Ware subgroup which developed in the Rhine-Rhone and then moved into Iberia c. 2600 BC :) Everyone here except you gets this”
Ha Ha Ha, here means in this blog right? if you're happy thinking that, I'm not going to spend a minute of my time trying to convince you otherwise, but I recommend that you come to France or Spain and explain your arguments to the archaeologists, they will surely find them funny.
@Rob said-“But GAC is very different”
NO, GAC derives from Barcin_Neolithic as the rest of European cultures, the different percentages of WHG only signify a greater or lesser introgression of the local mesolithic lineages, but all of them learned pastoralism from their Anatolian ancestors. I think it is not so difficult to understand.
@Rob said-“GAC come from northern Europe, which is why they are 100% I2a-Z161” & “The ancestor of these lineages were Latvian HG or populations close to them. The Iron Gates ones are more distant, and dead ends-BTW some also appear in Iberia c. 3000 BC. Guesswhat- there was a migration into Iberia in 3000 BC, even before the BB R1b-L151. It was a popular desination”
The only thing you are right about is that Spain is a popular place as a destination, last year we had more than 85 million tourists, more than any other country in the world.
Regarding I2a-Z161, at the moment it seems to have a Balkan origin, that is to say the south of Europe, not the north. Maybe you should explain why you consider these Balkan lines as dead ends? Because it doesn't fit in the fairy tale you are telling?
I5402 (6.206 BCE)-Hadučka Vodenica, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-HapY-I2a2a/1b-CTS10100-CTS10057
I4881 (6.413 BCE)-Vlasac, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-HapY-I2a2a/1b2>CTS10057>Z161
Since the few Baltic samples are very distant in time, you have to try to understand that Z161 practiced pastoralism in Spain, Ukraine or Romania long before the GAC culture existed. Or do you think that in those European regions cattle were not raised and nomadic populations of shepherds or cowherds did not exist? You understand? Z161 is not exclusive to the GAC so your argument makes no sense.
I7135 (3.950 BCE)-Urziceni, Bodrogkeresztur_ChL, Romania-HapY-I2aCTS616>CTS10057>Z161
I0406 (3.750 BCE)-Dolmen de la Mina, MINA4, Iberia-HapY-I2a1b/1a2b-CTS616>Z161
I13064 (3.588 BCE)-Verteba, Trypillia culture, Ukraine-HapY-I2a1b/1a2b-Z161-Nikitin, 2.024
@Rob said-“GAC are a subsect from a northern TRB group, who had long used cereal farming and animals for meat. But then as part of a economic and ecologic shift, then stopped simply slaughtering animals (often at young age) for meat, and kept them to older age for ongoing use of their secondary products (whool & milk). So it wasnt any particular 'grand revolution', just a change in what one did with the animals”-Do you think that the GAC invented pastoralism in Europe independently from the rest of the European neolithic cultures?
Are you serious? Pastoralism, animal husbandry and the use of pastures in the different seasons of the year (transhumance) has been practiced throughout Europe since the beginning of the neolithic period. Of course, later migrations are not needed, the GAC learned these customs from their Anatolian ancestors as did the rest of the European cultures.
Listen to me, to explain to Gabru that pastoralism did not reach the steppes from the south of the Caucasus, you did not need to get into these problems, obviously in Ukraine pastoralism has Balkan origins, at least in the areas of contact with the cultures of old Europe.
Regarding my intelligence, if you keep talking nonsense, everyone who reads this blog will realize that you are just a charlatan.
@arza, actually after your helpful coaching, I've done tests on ASAP.
I think I would correct on one point about ASAP (assuming I read your correct comment) is that I don't actually think it calculates more accurately.
In your example, vahaduo gave a residual of 0.01884881, while ASAP gave 0.00035516. However the square of 0.01884881 is 0.00035527 - so effectively I think ASAP is just giving squared euclidean distance and Vahaduo outputs euclidean distance, but otherwise they're the same. It's effectively a comparable distance (although ASAP has slight improvement).
(Runtime speed may also depend on how powerful our computers are compared to vahaduo?)
I also found for a run of "deep proportions", the outputs were pretty much identical between vahaduo and ASAP (proportions and residual after adjusting for squared vs non-squared distance).
So yeah, effectively to my mind, no independent use case or advantage for ASAP over vahaduo (effectively it's just vahaduo-in-R), unless perhaps you're integrating into an R workflow, but it's useful to have a citation out there in the literature that refers to these methods of using distance minimization over PCA (and explicitly compares them to qpAdm/f4admix).
I believe this was something Kristiansen referenced at the talks earlier in the month:
ENA: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB75495
"Repeated Plague Infections Across Six Generations of Neolithic Farmers" -
"In the period between 5,300 and 4,900 years before present (cal. BP), populations across large parts of Europe underwent a period of demographic decline. However, the cause of this so-called Neolithic decline is still debated. Some argue for an agricultural crisis resulting in the decline, others for the spread of an early form of plague. Here, we use population-scale ancient genomics to infer ancestry, social structure and pathogen infection in 108 Scandinavian Neolithic individuals from eight megalithic graves and a stone cist. We find that the Neolithic plague was widespread, detected in at least 17% of the sampled population and across large geographical distances. We demonstrate that the disease spread within the Neolithic community in three distinct infection events within a period of around 120 years. Variant graph-based pan-genomics reveals that the Neolithic plague genomes retained ancestral genomic variation present in Yersinia pseudotuberculosis, including virulence factors associated with disease outcomes. Additionally, we reconstruct four multi-generation pedigrees, the largest of which consists of 38 individuals spanning six generations, showing a patrilineal social organisation. Lastly, we document direct genomic evidence for Neolithic female exogamy in a woman buried in a different megalithic tomb than her brothers. Taken together, our findings provide a detailed reconstruction of plague spread within a large patrilineal kinship group and identify multiple plague infections in a population dated to the beginning of the Neolithic Decline."
More neolithic patrilineal and patrilocal social organisation on the cusp of 3000 BCE, ho-hum.
@Gaska
What is this CHG sample from 17,000 years ago north of the Caucasus Mountains? Where is the information about this? Are you talking about the Kamennaya Balka culture in the Rostov region?
@ Gaska
''Regarding I2a-Z161, at the moment it seems to have a Balkan origin, that is to say the south of Europe, not the north. Maybe you should explain why you consider these Balkan lines as dead ends? Because it doesn't fit in the fairy tale you are telling?
I5402 (6.206 BCE)-Hadučka Vodenica, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-HapY-I2a2a/1b-CTS10100-CTS10057
I4881 (6.413 BCE)-Vlasac, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-HapY-I2a2a/1b2>CTS10057>Z161
Since the few Baltic samples are very distant in time, you have to try to understand that Z161 practiced pastoralism in Spain, Ukraine or Romania long before the GAC culture existed. Or do you think that in those European regions cattle were not raised and nomadic populations of shepherds or cowherds did not exist? You understand? Z161 is not exclusive to the GAC so your argument makes no sense.''
Perhaps you're dyslexic, because the statement was that GAC is exclusively Z161, not that that Z161 is exclusive to GAC
The Z161 in GAC is from the north because qpADM, says so and so does close phylogenetic assessment.
Gaska staring at a computer screen doesn't qualify as ''assesssment''.
''NO, GAC derives from Barcin_Neolithic as the rest of European cultures, the different percentages of WHG only signify a greater or lesser introgression of the local mesolithic lineages, but all of them learned pastoralism from their Anatolian ancestors. I think it is not so difficult to understand.''
GAC learned nothing from Anatolian farmers, you're obfuscating 3000 years of history into one Gaska story.
TRB learned cereal farming and animal breeding from LBK/ SBK.
Given that Anatolian farmers werent pastoralists, they couldnt teach it to anyone.
GAC developed pastoralism inherently & natively, just like their distant cousins on the steppe
''Ok, as we have CHG in Golomova this means that it is a European component, right? Congratulations you have revolutionized genetic research, from now on, you have to tell everybody to stop calling it Caucasus HG and start calling it Volga HG''
If the the CHG component found in later steppe individuals lived north of the Caucasus mountains since 17000 BC, it is in the European continent is it not ?
''Ha Ha Ha, here means in this blog right? if you're happy thinking that, I'm not going to spend a minute of my time trying to convince you otherwise, but I recommend that you come to France or Spain and explain your arguments to the archaeologists, they will surely find them funny.
''
I realise that BB not originating in Iberia presents an existential crisis to your persona, but those are the facts. That's why your compatriot Maju blew a fuse and retired :)
And keep in mind that you don't speak for every single Spanish & French archaeologist, or indeed, a single one.
https://youtube.com/shorts/9-9QLEaPXG8?si=LyL0C1UA_MIo6cEA
@Gaska
"obviously in Ukraine pastoralism has Balkan origins, at least in the areas of contact with the cultures of old Europe"
Do you have a source? Given Dnieper-Donets Culture only has pastoralism from 5200 BCE that includes cattle, goat, sheep, pig, horse(?), dog I thought them getting pastoralism from Kuban Steppe(Prikaspiiskaya) was also a possible explanation. Although CTC may have either completely brought pastoralism there, or partially CTC and partially Prikaspiiskaya
Golubaya Krinitsa, I saw it again somewhere labelled as Lower Don and I'm struggling to find any archaeological material about it to confirm. In absence of Kuban Steppe Mesolithic, GK is very important clue to find how much "Paleolithic CHG" was there in North of Caucausus Mountains in my opinin
@Noble Goth
Thank you for giving us a lesson in contemporary European genetics, I simply wanted Rob to clarify what he said precisely to avoid misunderstandings. As you may have seen, I don't even disagree with him on this issue.
Regarding the origin of the BB culture I can recommend dozens of papers that can help you to learn a little about the subject. If you are interested let me know, we have already discussed it many times in this blog and others, and we are not going to tire people. I will only tell you that if there is any issue on which European archaeologists agree is to point out the origin of the BB culture in the Tagus estuary. Rob's opinion is anecdotal, some time ago he thought that BB culture emerged in the Balkans.
And regarding being arrogantly ignorant, I don't care about your opinion, I'm arguing with Rob, let us fight, maybe you'll learn something.
@Arsen said-What is this CHG sample from 17,000 years ago north of the Caucasus Mountains? Where is the information about this? Are you talking about the Kamennaya Balka culture in the Rostov region?
I have no idea what the sample 16,000 BCE with CHG ancestry is
Ask Rob, he said it exists and I have no reason to doubt.
In any case, surely that component is insignificant
and certainly does not originate on the European continent.
https://files.catbox.moe/wumon9.jpg
Rough G25 model for some LN/EBA samples from Greece. Fits as Turkey_Marmara_Ilipinar_C + Greece_EN(Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_N-derived)
@Dear Rob, you are getting old, you have to recover that vitality that has always characterized you.
1-Do not try to confuse the discussion, you have said that GAC has its origin in the north thanks to I2a-Z161 and I have shown you that its origin is Balkanic and that it was a common lineage in Trypillia, Romania as well as in the western megalithic culture. Therefore it is a lineage shared by the GAC and other European neolithic cultures, to say that this culture is northern thanks to this marker makes no sense, even if you publish 200 qpAdm models. Just recognize that you have made a mistake.
2-It may be that you are the dyslexic and now you think that the Balkans, Ukraine, Romania and Iberia are in the north of Europe and Scandinavia, Karelia or the Baltic in the south.
3-Please don't talk nonsense, now that you know that Z161 was present in many other European cultures prior to the GAC, you continue to defend that this culture developed pastoralism inherently & natively. Dude you need help, pastoralism is a form of animal husbandry where domesticated animals are released onto large vegetated outdoor lands for grazing, historically by nomadic people who moved around with their herds. Considering that Z161 has been documented in cultures that practiced pastoralism hundreds or thousands of years before being documented in the GAC, why would they invent pastoralism again? Isn't it easier to think that they learned it from their ancestors (or relatives) Z161? No, the GAC did not invent anything, the only one who invents is you.
4-You have not answered my question, it is very simple, do you think that CHG in the north of the Caucasus from that hypothetical date of 17,000 BCE until the Yamnaya culture has its origin in the north of the Caucasus? There were never any migrations originating in the south of the Mountain range? Don't be tricky, and recognize that you have also made a mistake. If we applied your deductive method we would reach the conclusion that CHG has its origin in Greece because 8,000 years ago we already had that component in that region.
5-Regarding BB culture, I have already told you that if you are happy thinking that BB culture originated in the Rhine, I will not be the one to take away that illusion, I would simply like to see you defend your arguments at some meeting of european archaeologists. Everyone would learn a lot from you.
@ Gaska
“BB culture in the Tagus estuary. Rob's opinion is anecdotal, some time ago he thought that BB culture emerged in the Balkans.”
My opinion is based on facts, Cardoso has no case, he’s hiding behind 2 carbon dates .If he’s honest, he’ll accept reality.
And I have never stated BB “comes from Balkans”.
target "RUS_Progress_LN_PG2001"
left "ARM_Aknashen_LN" "RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_HG" "GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso" "RUS_Tyumen_HG"
weight 0.31039 0.32740 0.19312 0.16908
se 0.05873 0.04008 0.05682 0.03813
z 5.2847 8.1670 3.3987 4.4338
p 0.63677
https://pastebin.com/jDiJMwa0
It looks like PG2001(4900 BCE) is higher Aknashen(31%), isn't it
@ Gabru
“Golubaya Krinitsa, I saw it again somewhere labelled as Lower Don and I'm struggling to find any archaeological material about it to confirm. In absence of Kuban Steppe Mesolithic, GK is very important clue to find how much "Paleolithic CHG" was there in North of Caucausus Mountains in my Opinion”
GK is 700km north of the lower Don. We don’t need antiquated categorisations, just simple geography
But the amount of CHG in GK is irrelevant to the fact , because the CHG and EHG populations remained separate, for the most part until 6000 BC, even though CHG was present in the NW Caucasus piedmont for thousands of years before that
@ Gaska
“ Considering that Z161 has been documented in cultures that practiced pastoralism hundreds or thousands of years before being documented in the GAC, why would they invent pastoralism again?””
Irrelevant because GAC isn’t from Iberia nor the iron gates
And the other groups didn’t practice pastoralism, keeping animals isn’t the same thing as pastoralism.
“ You have not answered my question, it is very simple, do you think that CHG in the north of the Caucasus from that hypothetical date of 17,000 BCE until the Yamnaya culture has its origin in the north of the Caucasus? There were never any migrations originating in the south of the Mountain range? Don't be tricky, and recognize that you have also made a mistake”
No mistake from my end.
The CHG migration to the north occurred 10000 years before Yamnaya
There is very Minimal recent middle eastern ancestry, and most of it is from from CT
“ If we applied your deductive method we would reach the conclusion that CHG has its origin in Greece because 8,000 years ago we already had that component in that region.”
The ChG appears in South greece 4000 bc, which is 6000 years ago, not 8000
Big difference between 6000 and 18000.
You don’t even understand basics maths
You’ve got nothing to offer apart from trolling
@Rob
Nope, it's just 280 kilometres from Rakushechny Yar, a Lower Don Ceramic Mesolithic site on Don River
@OK Rob, sometimes it is better to admit your mistakes than to persevere in absurd arguments
1-If you really think that Z161 in the Iberian megalithic culture practiced pastoralism (which by the way has been proved by Spanish archaeologists many years ago) and yet his descendants or relatives Z161 in Poland invented again pastoralism two or five hundred years later means that you have lost your mind. And all this to try to prove that pastoralism did not reach the steppes from the southern Caucasus.... I have already told you that you don't need to bring the GAC into the debate
-2-Now you think that the CHG migration occurred 13,000 BCE (10,000 years before Yamnaya), i.e. that 40-50% of CHG in Yamnaya magically arose in the steppes or forest-steppe thanks to the Cucuteni Trypillia culture?-Don't you think you should reread or delete that comment? Do you really think that between 13,000-3,000 BCE there were no inputs originating in the South Caucasus that reached the steppes?
Come on man, you can do much better than that.
@Gaska If I get it right Z161 was present in ancestors of GAC(I'm noob in EEF interests so pardon), then why couldn't it be a founder effect in GAC instead of hypothetically coming from respective WHG males of that region. After all GAC is archaeologically derived from it's ancestral EEF culture
Btw there is perhaps 33% input in "CLV" from South of Caucausus(Aknashen and others), that ANF in Progress 4900 calBCE isn't reaching past Caucausus organically. It will be game over for Davidski theory once North Caucausus Steppe Mesolithic genome is found and it turns out only at most 35% Kotias. Progress 4900 calBCE also contains minor Ganj Dareh which a Aratashen-Aknashen/Shulaveri-Shomu population can only bring along with that ANF
@Rob
were they CHG in the sense that they became 10,000 years later? there were no signs of cattle breeding in the southern Caucasus before people from the south came there, Mesopotamia Iran Anatolia, etc.
Yamnaya slightly prefers Kotias over Satsurblia
Chimp.REF Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya Georgia_Kotias.SG Georgia_Satsurblia.SG -0.000820 0.000486 -1.69 0.0917 761321
So I don't know if CHG entered North Caucasus during the Epipaleolithic but I'd think there was a far greater influx of people during the Mesolithic.
@ Gaska
''-If you really think that Z161 in the Iberian megalithic culture practiced pastoralism (which by the way has been proved by Spanish archaeologists many years ago) and yet his descendants or relatives Z161 in Poland invented again pastoralism two or five hundred years later means that you have lost your mind. And all this to try to prove that pastoralism did not reach the steppes from the southern Caucasus.... I have already told you that you don't need to bring the GAC into the debate''
The Z161 in Iberia is I-PH4495, whilst that in GAC is CTS4348, spliiting 5000 BC at the latest.
you really suck at this
''And all this to try to prove that pastoralism did not reach the steppes from the southern Caucasus''
Because it didn't. Im not going to perpetuate a lie just to sooth your mental complexes, quite the contrary, it is the duty of my superior cognition to shine the truth
''Now you think that the CHG migration occurred 13,000 BCE (10,000 years before Yamnaya), i.e. that 40-50% of CHG in Yamnaya magically arose in the steppes or forest-steppe thanks to the Cucuteni Trypillia culture?-''
Yamnaya derive from a group to the north east of Sreni Stog, in the Don forest-steppe/ steppe border.
They got their CHG from GK and -mostly- Steppe Piedmont (LCV, BP-BV, DPG, LBC or whatever other silly Cope name Harvard come up). And the latter in turn obtained their CHG from Caucasian hunter-gatherers who had been spilling over the Caucasuan Alps since 18,000 calBP
''After the Last Glacial Maximum at ∼25–18 ka BP (cal.), a new Epipaleolithic (EPP) industry is found between ∼18 ka BP (cal.) and the early Holocene at 10 ka BP (cal.) from Georgia in the Southern Caucasus through the Northwestern Caucasus to the southern Russian Plain. '' - L.V. Golovanova
''Do you really think that between 13,000-3,000 BCE there were no inputs originating in the South Caucasus that reached the steppes?''
because you are so knowledge poor, you fail to understand that there's no unitary south of the Caucasus. CHG in Georgia were part of the same social network as those in the Kuban region, for ex. But in terms of Fertile Cresecent or ArmN ancestry, it's very minimal
In Nalchik or Meshoko it is ~ 50%
These in turn contribute 30-40% To Piedmont steppe (-> 15-20%)
which in turn contributes ~ 60% to Yamnaya propper (8-10%)
Whichever way you look at it, it's its very small, esp given that Tripolje contributed ~ 10% as well.
btw Yamnaya model
Russia_Caucasus_EBA_Yamnaya
MidDon_N
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
Ukraine_VertebaCave_MLTrypillia
best coefficients: 0.195 0.691 0.114
Russia Steppe Eneolithic were female refugees to the Don region, fleeing Majkop, after the R1b-V1636 males were decimated. But Majkop bowed down to Cernavoda and sent their daughers as gifts
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
Turkey_TellKurdu_EC
Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
Georgia_Satsurblia.SG
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
Ukraine_N
Tutkaul1
@ norfern
''Yamnaya slightly prefers Kotias over Satsurblia
Chimp.REF Russia_Samara_EBA_Yamnaya Georgia_Kotias.SG Georgia_Satsurblia.SG -0.000820 0.000486 -1.69 0.0917 761321
So I don't know if CHG entered North Caucasus during the Epipaleolithic but I'd think there was a far greater influx of people during the Mesolithic.''
It is no surprise that the younger Kotias is preferred over Satsurblia, because south and north of the Caucasus mountains did not become divorced, but contacts maintained & perpetuated. Therefore, there was constant rejuvenation of the gene pool
But as i said above, the main admixture between EHG & CHG occurred c. 6000 BC (~ 8,2 ky events), because even though the CHG were present north of the mountains, EHG at that time were physically separate (perhaps hunting mammoths & horse in different niches much furhter north)
btw one of the lower Don samples with J2a but no additional southern affinities might link in to Satsurblia's J2a (?)
btw We can model Piedmont steppe as a 2-way mmix of Nalchik + TTK
@Rob said...
"btw We can model Piedmont steppe as a 2-way mmix of Nalchik + TTK"
surprising, but you're right
Sample "Stinky" VJ1001 from Steppe Eneolithic, has an additional Iranian mixture, it is high enough to be ignored, but it is not connected with Neolithic Armenia and Azerbaijan, where these people of Neolithic Iran hid and escaped "neolithization" by Anatolia and Mesopotamia?
I think it was the Neolithic of northern Azerbaijan, north of the Kura River, perhaps these people are related to the Mesolithic Gobustan, hunter-gatherers who were similar to the North-East Caucasians but with a large Iranian mix
Piedmont Steppe is just mix of Aknashen Pastoralists and North Caucasian Steppe Hunters & Fishers with pinch of WSHG-related input from Ural Sea and around
Nalchik is quite obviously an intermediate population of Piedmont Steppe(Progress PG2001 4900 BCE) and Shulaveri-Shomu/Aratashen/Hajji Firuz (South Caucausus). It won't be wrong to say Piedmont = Nalchik + Lebyazhinka (/+Kotias /+Tyumen) I believe.
@Rob Could you plz send Nalchik merged 1240K, I want to test something...
Note on Nalchik, looks like it has 42-48% South of Caucasus input on G25...
Akin to Shulaveri-shifted PG2001, it seems Aknashen Pastoralists had larger initial impact when they reached Northeast Caucasus Steppe...
Target: RUS_Nalchik_6800BP:NL122__BC_4830__Cov_unknown
Distance: 3.2358% / 0.03235842
62.6 RUS_Progress_LN_PG2001
28.4 AZE_Mentesh_LN_MTT001
9.0 AZE_Mentesh_LN_MT23
Target: RUS_Nalchik_6800BP:NL122__BC_4830__Cov_unknown
Distance: 3.2011% / 0.03201068
34.8 RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso
25.8 AZE_Mentesh_LN_MTT001
21.4 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
10.2 IRN_Hajji_Firuz_LN_I4351
7.8 ARM_Aknashen_LN_I3931
Target: RUS_Nalchik_6800BP:NL122__BC_4830__Cov_unknown
Distance: 3.6897% / 0.03689669
35.8 RUS_Samara_Lebyazhinka_Meso
22.6 ARM_Aknashen_LN_I3931
20.8 ARM_Masis_Blur_LN
20.8 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
@Rob said-“The Z161 in Iberia is I2a-PH4495, whilst that in GAC is I2a-CTS4348, spliiting 5000 BC at the latest. you really suck at this”
NO NO NO, Rob, you are wrong again, none of the Spanish samples have enough coverage to go beyond Z161 (dolmen de la Mina-3.750 BCE, Cueva de los Cuarenta-3.648 BCE, Humanejos-2.600 BCE).
The same is true for some Polish (Sandomierz-2.723 BCE) and Ukrainian (Verteba cave-3.588 BCE, Ilyatka-2.792 BCE) GAC samples-
This marker Z161 has even been found in the Polish-CWC (Pitutkowo-2.405 BCE).
On the other hand, the oldest known PH4495-L623 sample is;
I2650 (3.430 BCE)-Holm of Papa, Scotland-HapY-I2a1b/1a2-CTS10057>L623-Olalde, 2.018
And the funniest thing is that the oldest CTS4348 that confirms a southern European origin of this branch in the GAC is this one;
I4914 (6.173 BCE)-Hadučka Vodenica, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-HapY-I2a2a/1b2>Z161>CTS4348
In case you had any doubts
I4881 (6.413 BCE)-Vlasac, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-HapY-I2a-CTS10057>Z161>L801
KY02 (3.000 BCE)-Koszyce, Globular Amphora culture, Poland-HapY-I2a1b/1a2b/1-L801
So trying to separate the branches of Z161 as you have done only shows your desperation, all the GAC and other European neolithic cultures Z161 samples belong to the same lineage with origin in the Iron Gates HGs, that is southern Europe, claiming an origin in the north is absurd and claiming that those documented in the GAC reinvented pastoralism is a joke.
And please remember that the sister branch of Z161 is I2a1b/1a2a-CTS616>CTS10057>L701 from which the Yamnaya I2a-L699 derive, i.e. this male lineage of steppe shepherds also has Balkan origins.
@Rob said-“Because you are so knowledge poor, you fail to understand that there's no unitary south of the Caucasus. CHG in Georgia were part of the same social network as those in the Kuban region, for ex. But in terms of Fertile Cresecent or ArmN ancestry, it's very minimal”-
Who has spoken about “unitary” south of the Caucasus?, the question was quite simple ''Do you really think that between 13,000-3,000 BCE there were no inputs originating in the South Caucasus that reached the steppes? and the discussion derives from your assertion that the CHG component is European which is simply not true.
@Gabru said-"If I get it right Z161 was present in ancestors of GAC (I'm noob in EEF interests so pardon), then why couldn't it be a founder effect in GAC instead of hypothetically coming from respective WHG males of that region".
I2a-Z161 is a typical Western-Iron Gates HG marker that like many other linages was incorporated into European neolithic cultures. Therefore they all have a common origin and no particular branch invented pastoralism in the GAC, they simply learned these customs from their Anatolian ancestors.
Then, in each region of Europe, men and their livestock quickly adapted to the different climates and adopted different exploitation strategies depending on the availability of pastures. For example in Spain, which is a very mountainous country with different climates, transhumance has been practiced since neolithic times (winter pastures in the valleys or the south of Spain-Andalucia & Extremadura and summer pastures in the mountains of the north and center of the peninsula).
The strategy in Ukraine would be very different because the steppes have no mountains and it would not be possible to alternate pastures, so the smartest thing to do would be to become true nomads.
It is evident that both semi-nomadic and nomadic cultures have practiced pastoralism since domesticated animals arrived in Europe.
And regarding what you were saying, it is clear that in Ukraine a certain form of pastoralism was practiced thanks to Trypillia and that the origin of animal breeding in that region is in the Balkans.
The Volga?, I have no idea, the pastoralism could have come from the Dniper-Don or from the south of the Caucasus, or perhaps strictly nomadic pastoralism was adopted by the Yamnaya culture as the only form of rational exploitation of the territory without the need for anyone to teach it.
@ Gaska
'' NO NO, Rob, you are wrong again, none of the Spanish samples have enough coverage to go beyond Z161 (dolmen de la Mina-3.750 BCE, Cueva de los Cuarenta-3.648 BCE, Humanejos-2.600 BCE).''
Wrong. You dont even bother to check Web sresources, such as our friends from ftDNA https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-Z161/tree
all but one Spanish samples have enough covergae to go beyond the Z161 macro call, and they all cluster within I-PH4495
All the GAC lineages belong to a different haplotype of Z171
The split was in central Europe, not Balkans
''And please remember that the sister branch of Z161 is I2a1b/1a2a-CTS616>CTS10057>L701 from which the Yamnaya I2a-L699 derive, i.e. this male lineage of steppe shepherds also has Balkan origins.''
The Iron Gates were predominantly R1b-V88.
The specific lineage I2a-L701 is first found in eastern Hungary & Ukraine 'N".
It is then transmitted via Sredni Stog, Mariupol and Cernavoda/Usatavo
its earliest presence in Balkans is after 4000 BC
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-CTS10057/tree
Balkan Farmers and Chalclithic belong to G2a overwhelmingly, and some T1, C1a and R1b-V88. There's but one I2a in yabalkovo N.
''you really think that between 13,000-3,000 BCE there were no inputs originating in the South Caucasus that reached the steppes? and the discussion derives from your assertion that the CHG component is European which is simply not true.''
It is 100% true, and so you & Laz should Cope
@ Gabru
LOL you must be desparate to be asking Gaska for genetics advice.
He is forced to believe in his own lies, that Europe before 2800 BC was a pan-Vasconic entity all deriving from Anatolian farmers, whilst PIE entered via a ghost population from some random X in western or central Asia. The truth is dangerous for him because if the imaginary reality he has constructed for him in his head erodes, he'll enter a psychogognitive meltdown, kind of like the guys with OIT-by-Muchausen syndrome
In general, any tools can be used to check whether ttk was in Golubaya Krinitsa or not?
@Rob
I'm not desperate. Just wanted to know his opinion like that. Also about entry of IE, I think Nalchik is yet another important piece in the puzzle, I know you have Nalchik merged, why not share it dude, please (•‿•)
@Rob said-“All the GAC lineages belong to a different haplotype of Z171”
I have only mentioned three Spanish samples and all of them are Z161 according to Harvad's review of male markers in Patterson's paper (2.022). All GAC samples are under L801 which has also been documented in western Europe-France (Rosheim-4,600 BCE), also in the Chaseen culture (Le Cres-4,204 BCE), Central Europe-Czechia (Neratovice-4,116 BCE) & Denmark (Kolind-2,161 BCE). As I have told you, the Z161>L801 marker not only has its origin in southern Europe, but is also shared by the GAC and other European neolithic cultures, to claim that the men of the GAC invented pastoralism is nonsense.
@Rob said “the specific lineage I2a-L701 is first found in eastern Hungary & Ukraine N”
Yes, and you know the origin of I2a1b/1a2a-M436>M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701, don't you? don't you think it's funny that one of the most important male markers of Yamnaya culture has its origin in Sicily or Denmark WHGs?
*UZZO40 (6.330 BCE)-Grotta dell Uzzo, Trapani, Mesolithic_Sicily-HapY-I2a-CTS616>CTS10057
*R19 (6.222 BCE)-Ronsten, Mesolithic_Jutland, Denmark-HapY-I2a-CTS10057
*I5402 (6.206 BCE)-Hadučka Vodenica, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-HapY-I2a-CTS10100-CTS10057
@Rob said-“It is 100% true, and so you & Laz should cope”
Yeah, CHG is European, you are a Martian and migrations originating in the southern Caucasus never reached the steppes. Dear friend you know that insults, lies, disqualifications etc. are the last resort of the losers, accept it, you have been wrong in everything.
@ Gabru - the data for Nalchik is already evailable via ENA. I cant share my personal file as it has too many other things
I’ve been catching alot of chatter in this thread on horse riding and was just wondering did anyone check this paper out yet?:
"First bioanthropological evidence for Yamnaya horsemanship"
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/sciadv.ade2451
@ Rob
You’re saying we can genotype data (ind/geno/snp) PCA on vahaduo ? How ?
You must have your genotype data in text format organized into rows. If your browser crashes, you will need to modify the script to load data directly from file. Not very user friendly, but it works if you're interested in trying new methods.
@Rob
The problem is I'm not able to merge... It's ok if you can't send. Maybe I can list few models worth checking with Nalchik on qpAdm later on, for now maybe you could try Nalchik as PG2001 + Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN(Mentesh, Polutepe) / Aknashen / Masis Blur / Hajji Firuz, run with these set of right populations if possible:- https://pastebin.com/jDiJMwa0, remove Iraq_PPNA_HQ(I6445) if unnecessary
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-024-61052-z - "Bioarchaeology aids the cultural understanding of six characters in search of their agency (Tarquinia, ninth–seventh century BC, central Italy)"
Set of Etruscan Iron Age individuals; includes an outlier who may be Baltic like -
"Individual 11 was inhumed in a pit dug into the edge of a hut, a little further east than Individual 10, probably in the first half of the eighth century BC. This chronology depends on that of two fibulae deposited on the skeleton that partially match 14C results: 830–790 BC (68%). This burial was covered by ash and stones. The skeleton, with a stature of about c. 163 cm, was that of an old adult with strong evidence of spinal degeneration. Additionally, there was trauma to the left upper limb, suggestive of a fall at some period prior to death. From aDNA analysis, the genetic sex of this individual is female and her genetic affinity is to Northern European, Scandinavian, and Baltic populations. Pigmentation profile analysis indicates she had brown eyes, lighter brown hair, and intermediate skin. The 87Sr/86Sr isotope analyses (Fig. 6) suggest her early life was in an area different to Tarquinia. δ15N and δ13C isotope results suggest a mixed fish and terrestrial diet."
(Attribution as Baltic like is more confident in accompanying - https://www.arch.cam.ac.uk/news/six-characters-in-search-of-their-agency)
The data will be uploaded at: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB74104
@ Matt
Interesting observation. So either this "unlimited" precision of ASAP is only illusory, or the limited precision used by Vahaduo (0.2% steps) is sufficient to find a near-perfect solution.
Vahaduo runs locally on the client side, just like R, so the runtime depends only on the algorithm and the performance of the R and JS environments.
Another new one on ENA: https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB74730 - "Bronze Age Northern Eurasian Genetics" - "Bronze Age in Eurasia has been characterized by a period of human migrations, development of pastoralism, and development of metallurgy, among other processes. We generated genome-wide SNP data for 9 individuals associated with the Seima-Turbino transcultural phenomenon. We also generated whole-genome sequencing data for 5 individuals from the site Bolshoy Oleni Ostrov in Russia, as well as genome-wide SNP data for 2 new individuals."
So I searched some material about appearance of Domestication in Ukraine(around 5200 BCE) and some possible hypotheses include:-
- Local Domestication(horse, cattle, pig)
- Domestication(all) came from Koros-Cris Culture (Zaliznyak)
- Domestication(goat, sheep) came from Cis-Caspian region (Krizhevskaya)
- Domestication(goat, sheep) came from Northern Azov Sea region(?) (Kotova?)
- Domestication(cattle, pig) came from Koros-Cris Culture (Kotova)
- Local Domestication(horse) (Kotova)
- Domestication(goat, sheep) came from Linear Pottery Culture (Telegin)
I want to doubt horse domestication here, but no good reason for me to
@Rob, @Gaska
Spread of pottery that I thought about a while back, surprisingly Vybornov already supports that route
"I. Vasiliev and A. Vybornov, citing the similarity of pottery, assert that Elshanka people were the descendants of the Zarzian culture who had been ousted from Central Asia by progressive desertification.[4] Other researchers see Elshanka ceramic industry as a local attempt at reproducing Zarzian pots.[5]"
Zarzian → SE Caspian → Central Asia → Volga, Western Siberia, Eastern Europe → Balkans, Denmark, Baltics
Else is it possible Imereti Mesolithic "CHG"(obviously getting it from Zarzian directly) brought this pottery instead into Elshanka, Rakushechny Yar, Eastern Europe Sub-Neolithic?
It should be noted that 5600-5200 BCE Surskaya Culture also has very slight appearance of cattle and pigs, which may hint to some domesticates including cattle, pig being derived from Koros-Cris Culture
Why would there be Zarzians in Central Asia? They inhabited mostly the Zagros mountains and Caspian region. In Central Asia the Epipaleolithic culture was Tutkaulian which was ANE dominated. In fact we see a lot of Tutkaulian ancestry in the west. I think it's the Zarzians who got their ANE ancestry from Tutkaulians. As for pottery, that can spread through cultural diffusion or trade.
I don't think discussions regarding if CHG is "European" is in any way useful. In reality the discussion should center around the actual range of CHG over time and when the various admixture events happened involving actual CHG and not just populations admixed with it.
David, we have Lusatian and Vysotska cultures from Ukraine. They look Slavic.
“In the forest-steppe zone, the contemporary settled populations were associated with the previous Tshinets Cultural Circle 21 (Lusatian, Vysotska cultures), as well as with Central European migrants of Hallstatt and La Tène periods (Illirians, Thracians and Celts) 22–25. According to written and archaeological sources, peoples that are considered the predecessors of the Slavs (associated with the Zarubinetska culture) had already been present in the Ukraine region during the La Tène and Roman periods, from the 3rd century (c.) BCE onwards 26”.
“Early Vysotska (1,300–800 BCE, one 1,278–1,055 cal BCE; UkrFBA/EIA_Vysotska_Early) and Lusatian (1,000–700 BCE; UkrFBA/EIA_Lusatian) individuals appear similar to Northern and Eastern European individuals from the Iron Age to modern times (including modern Ukrainians) (Figures 3A, 4, Figures S1, S3, S4)”.
https://i.postimg.cc/50YjVjwx/screenshot-400.png
“One Thracian Hallstatt individual (900– 798 cal BCE; UkrEIA_ThracianHallstatt_2) is similar to Early Vysotska and Lusatian individuals in both analyses (Figures 3A, 4, Figures S1, S3, S4)”.
“Most of the Scythian individuals from the right bank of Dnipro with Illirian-Thracian associations (UkrEIA_Scythian_RightDnipro_IllThr), one individual from local agricultural tribes of the left bank of Dnipro (UkrEIA_Scythian_LeftDnipro_LocAgr_2), some of the non-elite nomad individuals from Siversky Donets basin (UkrEIA_Scythian_SivDon_Nom_2) and one elite nomad individual from the same area (UkrEIA_Scythian_SivDon_NomEl_3) are similar to previous Early Vysotska and Lusatian individuals and also modern Ukrainians in both PCA and ADMIXTURE (Figures 3B, 4, Figures S1, S2B, S3, S4)”.
https://i.postimg.cc/jjThC080/screenshot-401.png
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.24.595769v1
@ Matt
"Set of Etruscan Iron Age individuals; includes an outlier who may be Baltic like"
JQ398135 from Pala et al. 2012 is put now by YFull at "T2-b T16189C! formed 11400 ybp, TMRCA 11400 ybp" but it has in common with ITTQ14 the mutations A6662G and G13135A. A6662G is present in GenbBank only in three samples, and this Etruscan would be the forth, thus, as I said many times in the past, this mutation could be unique and fixed in heteroplasmy. Also the mutation G13135A is more frequent but GenBank gives it 1 time in hg T2, 2 times in hg T2g and 3 times in hg T2a, thus it is likable that it is the same fixed in heroplasmy.
ITTQ19 is classified as hg T2b, and could be linked with other samples in aDNA from Italy and Poland with the mutation T16093C, but it gets 3 mutations that the other samples lacks. I'd be very cautious in making hypotheses until these trees remain very questionable.
There is an interesting new study on Iron Age & medieval Ukraine
Features - Scythians, 'Ukrainian Hallstatt', Saltovo, Chernjakov culture, etc
https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.24.595769v1.full.pdf
@ Arza - thank, i will play around with it
@ Gabru: Ill take a look at those models soon, although I might have already done them
Agree that there were multiple streams of exposition to domesticates toward the steppe (but even the Dnieper & Big-Dniester those dates from Telegin need to be validated by modern studies, as they might be too old or simply wild).
But that is what Im saying, all the exposure & influence occurred from several directions and almost 2,000 years before Yamnaya, so no magic bullet, Just a local acceleration
@ Gaska
''As I have told you, the Z161>L801 marker not only has its origin in southern Europe, but is also shared by the GAC and other European neolithic cultures, to claim that the men of the GAC invented pastoralism is nonsense.
Yes, and you know the origin of I2a1b/1a2a-M436>M223>CTS616>CTS10057>L701, don't you? don't you think it's funny that one of the most important male markers of Yamnaya culture has its origin in Sicily or Denmark WHGs?''
Ha you're not in a position to be telling anything to anyone. You should instead learn basics and work on your honesty.
Y-hg I* originally comes from the East Carpathian region. It moved into Italy after 20,000 bp. That is why Tagliente, San Teodoro, all belong to a specific lineages below I2a_M223, as a founder effect
I-Z161 is not from southern Europe. Southern Europe was full of Y-hg C before the Ice Age, and the prevailing pre-Mesolithic lineage in the Iron Gates was R1b-L754.
Before debating incessantly, you should make the effort of cross-validating your thoughts with the published data, otherwise you will sound about as out of touch as the guys from the Joe-Biden-Forum who claim R1b->754 entered to Eurpope in 10,000 bp.
Not sure what to make of this:
"UkrFBA/EIA_Vysotska_Early and UkrFBA/EIA_Lusatian are non-cladal with Lusatian having an additional affinity with some Siberian, East/West/Central Asian, Western Steppe and post-steppe migration European groups (but not with any European early farmers) (Tables S5–S6)."
Brief impressions about the Ukrainian paper
- The 'Scythians' look like a mix of Cimmerians, local Late WSH (late Srubnaya/Belozerka) (mix of R1a-Z93, R1b-Z2103), para-Balto-Slavs, and newcomers from the West (E-V13) associated with Hallstat
So increasingly, I dont think there was anything such as a Scythian migration frm Central Asia, only a Cimmerian one from Tuva. Modern scholars invented things to try match Herodotus.
- the Chernyajov they cluster into 2 main groups, but none of the males sample appear to reflect any actual Goths. Being R1a-Z93 and E-V13, they probably come from Sermatians & Dacians, although they might have 'identified as Goths'
@ Ethan - maybe due to admixture with some form of 'Scythian'
@Rob-
It is funny that a person who thinks that BB culture and Indo-Anatolian languages originated in Serbia, GAC invented pastoralism, I2a-Z161 originated in Scandinavia and that Italy is Northern Europe pretends to give lessons in linguistics, archaeology, geography or genetics. Take a vacation, you need it.
@Norfern-Ostrobothnian
Didn't mean Zarzians were in Central Asia or migrated to Eastern Europe. But pottery transfer seems to be in that direction which need not include genetic movement. There is another possibility of Ceramic transfer that I highlighted about Zarzian → Imereti → Elshanka which may potentially be related to genetic movement of "CHG" upwards into "Mesolithic" as some people on this Blog seem to suggest and may tie to the appearance of J1 in those regions
Modern post-Bronze Age Europeans are an admixture of Western Hunter Gatherers, Anatolian Farmers and Western Steppe Herders, namely Yamnaya and Corded Ware. Yamnaya is dead end (except for Armenians) whereas CWC had mixed with Globular Amphoora Culture to produce modern whites.
The quandary is where do Indo-European languages stem from? Basically the Reich Lab theory states that Yamnaya were 1:1 EHG:CHG; however, Dr. Lazaridis himself corrected himself later, arguing that WSH also had ~20% EEF (mostly Anatolian Farmer component, a minor WHG one).
Recently the Reich lab (MIT BROAD) published new peer reviewed articles in which the underlying current is that the pre-Proto-IE originated south of the Caspian in what’s termed as the “Southern Arc” theory.
He can’t be more wrong than that! Lazaridis is claiming now that CHG are behind both Anatolians branch IE and the core Yamnaya (WSH, in Ukraine).
Another issue is who was the first group to speak PIE? EHG, CHG or perhaps some farmer community to the west such as GAC or Tripolyans or even Dnieper Donetsk?
@Andrzejewski
I think this topic has been raised on this blog a million times already.
"Modern post-Bronze Age Europeans are an admixture of Western Hunter Gatherers, Anatolian Farmers and Western Steppe Herders, namely Yamnaya and Corded Ware. Yamnaya is dead end (except for Armenians) whereas CWC had mixed with Globular Amphoora Culture to produce modern whites..."
But what about the Greeks and the peoples of the Balkans? It is believed that their language is also directly related to them, and the steppe mixture also has a high percentage among Western Iranians, who are also Indo-European in language
then the Pamiris of Rushana, the Yaghnobis and some Tajiks, weakly mixed with Asians and Dravidian mixtures, also have a high percentage of steppe ancestors
"..Another issue is who was the first group to speak PIE? EHG, CHG or perhaps some farmer community to the west such as GAC or Tripolyans or even Dnieper Donetsk?"
for example, one Armenian I know is trying to prove in a telegram that the Aknashenians were the first Proto-Indo-Europeans, I think maybe there were some borrowings, but not the entire language
Post a Comment