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)
660 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 660 Newer› Newest»@Falcon
Maybe because it was steppe men and not women who raided farmers
@Jaaaka
"Your argument is like claiming that it is absurd that the Indo-Iranians made a full clockwise circle ending up in the Sintashta Culture, when they could have just moved directly from the steppe to the Southern Ural Region, cutting their path much, much shorter. You forget that any random movement is possible, and the moving people cannot know in where their distant descendants will eventually end up."
Steppe migrations have always been driven by war rather than necessity. This has been the case for thousands of years.
What necessity is there to circumvent the entire Black Sea on foot?
Finngreek:
“No bearing on your original debate, but unless I'm misunderstanding something, this is not how the formation of the Sintashta culture is described in Parpola 2022: 262, which shows a simple southeastward migration of Pre-PII Abashevo from the Kama-Belaya interfluve to the Ural-Tobol region. If Abashevo succeeded the Late Yamnaya/Poltavka culture, I don't see where there was a "full clockwise circle".”
I did not list all the intermediary stages, which include also the Abashevo Culture, which has roots both in the steppe (Poltavka) and in the Fatyanovo Culture. Parpola thought that into the Abashevo Culture the Indo-Iranian language lineage was inherited from the earlier Poltavka Culture and not from the Fatyanovo Culture, because he considered Fatyanovo (apparently as a whole) Balto-Slavic and because there were no kurgan graves within the Fatyanovo Culture.
However, as the linguistic evidence cannot distinguish between different routes for Indo-Iranian, we must acknowledge the genetic results, according to which the Sintashta people were autosomally very similar to the Fatyanovo and other Corded Ware people, and also the paternal haplogroup R-Z93 comes from the Fatyanovo region rather than from the steppe.
To conclude, there seems to be no reason to derive the Indo-Iranian language lineage directly from the steppe, even though some cultural traits like the kurgan graves might come from there directly. But naturally all cultures always have several roots, and we cannot know which one of those roots was associated with certain language. In the case of Indo-Iranians, the genetic roots support the extensive clockwise tour from the steppe via the Middle Dnieper Region, the Upper Volga Region, the Volga-Ural Region and finally to the Southern Ural Region (and from there yet to the southern directions).
BatongKermit:
"Steppe migrations have always been driven by war rather than necessity. This has been the case for thousands of years. What necessity is there to circumvent the entire Black Sea on foot?"
You are moving the goal now. My point was that the mere shorter distance is not a counter-argument against anything, because the moving people could not have known how far their distant descendants would end up. They just moved to random directions, and somewhere they prevailed, somewhere they disappeared. Some steppe people ended up in Anatolia, and that final result does not itself support the shortest route.
@Falcon
EEF women looked like this, not much better lol:
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42802291
Friends,
since 2020 I have been repeating that PIE MRCA should be sought in the Carpathian foreland.
@Арсен
Yamnaya men were very robust, Yamnaya women were JUST as robust.
Those pictures and skull size of Yamnaya women simply show that. There is a reason robust women like that are not common. They were NOT selected for once Yamnaya encountered EEF women.
@Romulus
Good thing Minoans left a lot of art to admire and they were mostly EEF, ideal feminine form that inspired European art for centuries.
@Romulus
well why? among any population there can be both beautiful and not so beautiful ones, it’s just that the steppe men choose the most beautiful ones, there was a strong natural selection
positive selection
@StP
Why there ?
@Falcon
The Minoans are not a perfect example, they were not typical EEF representatives, but were a mixture of early Anatolian farmers with later migrations from eastern (mixture of Caucasus and Iran) Anatolia, and they did not have the WHG admixtures that European farmers had who were attacked by steppe
so they could be radically different in appearance, especially when we are talking about northern European farmers
@ Arsenja
Did you know that Areni_C used Sioni pottery ?
1:37 - "We can now time the development of the steppe ancestry in a time between 6000 and 5000 BCE, without having skeletons".
Nice to see an estimate of the time period of when Steppe autosomal DNA first emerged. So anywhere between 80% to 92% of the SNPs at the R-M269 level had already developed. Now we need R-M269 and R-L23 specimens from 6000-4000 BC to determine at what point males derived for SNPs at those levels acquired Steppe autosomal DNA or if they were part of the development of Steppe autosomal DNA.
@Dospaises
are you commenting on some video? link please?
@Rob
I don’t know about this, but I know that they inherited material culture from the previous Shulaveri-shomutepi
I'm an amateur when it comes to archeology.
@ Arsen - I was saying that there is.
@Dospaises
"1:37 - "We can now time the development of the steppe ancestry in a time between 6000 and 5000 BCE, without having skeletons".
Nice to see an estimate of the time period of when Steppe autosomal DNA first emerged. So anywhere between 80% to 92% of the SNPs at the R-M269 level had already developed. Now we need R-M269 and R-L23 specimens from 6000-4000 BC to determine at what point males derived for SNPs at those levels acquired Steppe autosomal DNA or if they were part of the development of Steppe autosomal DNA."
Where is that quote from? The new samples from the Don-Volga-Caucasus triangle are only as old as the Eneoltihic. Why isn't anyone at Harvard interested in the Neolithic and Mesolithic of that steppe zone?
@Falcon
I tend to just observe and read what people have to say on anything relating to Yamnaya, CWC and their ancestors as I'm not as inclined and not as well-read as other posters here on it, but posts like:
'Those pictures and skull size of Yamnaya women simply show that. There is a reason robust women like that are not common. They were NOT selected for once Yamnaya encountered EEF women'
Ye, sounds cool, maybe provide something on it instead of schizo-ranting though, no? Maybe WSH like Yamnaya thought the EEF skulls were so perfect and less caveman-like compared to their own women, or maybe it's simply they raided EEF settlements and took the women as brides due to the fact they were an invading male-dominated horde when they migrated.
You see, even the distant descendants of Sredny Stog, like the Bell Beakers, dominated areas like Iberia and entirely replaced the male populations and took the women as brides. It seems far more likely (imo, from what I know) that they were, as we know, heavily mobile for their period and most migrations were male-dominated, so naturally when they came across other tribes or societies the men killed or prevented the other men from breeding for one reason or another due to their own patrilineal structure and assimilated the native women because they were an invading, conquering force.
Or you know, their skulls just looked pretty.
Sorry for droning on about the new Yamnaya R1b-L51 and L52 samples, but Y-DNA is my thing, plus I can't hold a candle to Davidski and Rob and a few others here when it comes autosomal analysis.
Someone referred to these new Yamnayan R1b-L51s as "outliers". Yeah, FIVE outliers, spread across the steppe and into the Balkans at widely separated locations.
It seems to me finding five R1b-L51 Yamnayans at five different, widely separated locations is a big indicator that L51 wasn't actually small potatoes in Yamnaya. Maybe Z2103 was the Big Kahuna, but five samples from the early third millennium BC are a lot, and they weren't clustered all in one small spot, which might indicate an oddball founder effect. And we aren't talking just one single sample, which would have still been exciting, but five of them.
Just imagine what everyone would have said if those five had been among the first Yamnaya samples tested by Haak et al back in 2015 rather than waiting until spring of 2024.
Hopefully, I won't be shot for saying this next thing, but I expect R1a-M417 to turn up in Yamnaya eventually. Seems to me it has to.
@Rich S
“Hopefully, I won't be shot for saying this next thing, but I expect R1a-M417 to turn up in Yamnaya eventually. Seems to me it has to.”
I am not so sure about it. David Reich asks Martin Sikora today if he thinks Baltic HG could be the source of R1a in Corded Ware:
https://youtu.be/q0CV0sh7wGQ?t=6089
So it looks like Reich is not confident we will find R1a in Yamnaya. It will complicate things, because there is no doubt that Corded Ware with R1a was IE and the proof is India, while it is not at all certain Yamnaya without R1a was IE.
@Noblegoth
"Maybe WSH like Yamnaya thought the EEF skulls were so perfect and less caveman-like compared to their own women"
That's exactly what it is because - even in new published abstract graph there is big difference in body size/muscle build between EEF men and Yamnaya men - Similarly, Yamnaya women were extremely robust and 'masculine' in appearance compared to EEF women skulls. EEF skulls are smaller while Yamnaya are extremely robust.
Once expansions begin we see selection for more softer features in women and it's pretty clear when you see beaker girl Ava's reconstruction.
Sexual dimorphism is reality and was selected for.
Hello,
So according to the McColl and Lazaridis paper Indo-Europeans have Tutkaul (Central-South Asian Neolithic) ancestry.
Is this accurate?
https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/1781010223278534802
@ RichS
''Hopefully, I won't be shot for saying this next thing, but I expect R1a-M417 to turn up in Yamnaya eventually. Seems to me it has to.''
As in ~ 3000 BC steppe/ forest-steppe, sure probably. But my view is doing away with labels such as "Yamnaya", unless very specifically defined. Otherwise, we see somewhat meaningless comments such as ''J2b2 is a Yamnaya lineage'' (refer to Dragon Hermit/ Targaryan ad nauesum).
In place, more sceintific terms should be used, e.g. based on clans/ chronology & place.
So you can have a name for the entire Yamnaya-East - Afansievo - Catacomb group, because they are essentially just set of patrilineal males who come form an earlier Eneolithic group.
@ StP
''PIE MRCA should be sought in the Carpathian foreland.''
But we are told that PIE came from Tajikstan, because Yamnaya carries ~ 4% of this ancestry, and a couple of the goats might have come from there. I'm convinced !
@ EastPole
"So it looks like Reich is not confident we will find R1a in Yamnaya. It will complicate things, because there is no doubt that Corded Ware with R1a was IE and the proof is India, while it is not at all certain Yamnaya without R1a was IE".
In fact I found interesting the hypothesis of Gaska that the R1b1 of the Siberian Corridor entered the Alpine Caucasian linguistic pool in the Alps region and only R1a remained easternmost continued the IE original language, and of course the R1b in Yamnaya and around descended from them and didn't speak an IE language. About the R1b-M269 sample in Yamnaya, as Rich said, they did come of course from west or at least from the Baltic as R-M73 and all the others and we have definitive proofs also in the YFull tree.
@Bread
Hello,
And from whom did the Tutkaul people come? Are these local Central Asians or those who migrated to the south ANE?
It is for that that I supported the research of the linguists, and never I was against Jaakko's hypotheses, that seemed to me interesting even though I can not say if they are right or wrong, and only a linguist could answer my hypothesis if these R1b of Yamnaya brought some Caucasian language into the Caucasus or nearby probably linked to the Caucasian languages of the Alpine region continued from Sardinian and Basque. Caucasian languages belong to different stocks and the Caucasus was the refugium of many languages diffused before all around and differentiated meanwhile. Anyway IE presupposes a restricted culture where only one of the numerous dialects was spoken before the expansion like Latin in the Roman Empire and Hittite and linked languages and Tokharian were only dialects expanded before and survived.
@Gio
The Caucasian languages were not brought from outside, if we are talking about the North Caucasian, then they have a connection with the southern Caucasus, most likely I think so, that the Abkhazo-Adygs were Maikopians, and the Kura-Araxes were Dagestanis (including the Nakhs, but some consider their language to be a mixture of Ando -tsez from Dagestan and Abkhaz-Adyg from the Western Caucasus), and what unites the Maikop and Kura Arak cultures? Leilatepe Menteshtepe and Eastern Anatolia, if the Caucasian languages were from the Alps, then the Caucasians of ancient and modern times would have seen an admixture of WHG, wouldn’t it?
I have already written that the only root that can unite the Basques, Sardines, Etruscans and other Paleo-Europeans with the Caucasus is Anatolia, which is where I consider the homeland of all these languages
I was asked where the following comment is from 1:37 - "We can now time the development of the steppe ancestry in a time between 6000 and 5000 BCE, without having skeletons".
Matt had reported on that comment in a follow up post when he told us Sabine Reinhold gives the talk about "Bioarchaeology of Innovations – The 4th/3rd Millennium BC in the Caucasus and Beyond"
Her comment is at 1:37:41 according to the transcript. https://www.youtube.com/live/ow36WzmMq8k?si=TzZQv89LxjVWfZUC&t=5846 Youtube has the transcript as "we can now time let's say this development of the step ancestry uh in a time between about 6,000 and 5,000 uh BC without having uh skeletons"
There is no doubt that I27983 Yasynuvatka 5560-4750 BCE has an erroneous result of R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2. It should be obvious to the authors that it is not possible. Once the BAM file is available we'll be able to look at the calls to see why it has the wrong haplogroup.
@Bread
So according to the McColl and Lazaridis paper Indo-Europeans have Tutkaul (Central-South Asian Neolithic) ancestry.
Don't be a naive moron.
This is statistically Tutkaul-related ancestry, which can mean a lot of things.
@ Arsen
"I have already written that the only root that can unite the Basques, Sardines, Etruscans and other Paleo-Europeans with the Caucasus is Anatolia, which is where I consider the homeland of all these languages".
It is well known from the linguists that Caucasian languages are so differentiated that they can not having differentiated all in the Caucasus, even though we have the samples of the languages og Papua-New Guinea, very different also in close valleys, but some Caucasian languages always were in the Caucasus, but other had migrated all around and came back long after up there. We are speaking of very old times, of Palaeolithic, of hgs I/J (Alps and Caucasus) and hg R1 (Siberian corridor until the Alps: R1b1 Villabruna 14000 years ago but probaly already 17000 at the Tagliente 2 time of hg I2). Tyrsenian languages, as Alfredo Trombetti wrote, were intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages. And why to think that Hittite and Tokharian did come from Yamnaya if there was above all hg R1b up there and if the language was an Alpine-Caucasian one? If IE was spoken above all where hg R1a was, the migration happened more from Central-Northern Europe than Yamnaya. Of course all the languages are at some level mixed and Anatolian languages are, where many other languages than IE had importance, but only a linguist may answer that.
@East Pole
To be fully proven, the Kurgan theory needs a combination of factors that researchers are far from achieving at the moment.
1-On the one hand, the Yamnaya culture is overwhelmingly Z2103 (>95% of the more than 200 males analyzed), one of the best examples of a founder effect that we can see in genetics.
2-The rest of the R1b lineage markers (Y13200, V1636, PF7562 and L51 ) can be considered outliers because we have no more than three samples of any of them, and in the case of L51 also from Late Yamnaya-Catacomb times, i.e. more than 1,000 years after the first Z2103 sample.
3-None of these markers actively participated in the expansion of IE languages-R1b-Y13200 has not been found west of the steppes, V1636 has only 3 occurrences in Anatolia and two in mainland Europe and then disappears from the record, PF7562 appears with a single case in Romania and three samples in the Peloponnese when the Mycenaean culture had already collapsed and L51 does not appear in the regions where the oldest languages have been attested, i.e. the Peloponnese, Anatolia and India.
4-Q1b-Z5902>FT380500 & Q1b2a-Y6826 are very scarce and their role in the dissemination of IE is nonexistent. A similar case to I2a-L699 which controlled the Central Yamnaya_Lower_Don, only reached Romania and Bulgaria and then simply disappeared.
5-That is, of the seven male lineages found in Yamnaya, none of them except Z2103 can be considered as linked to massive migrations that helped the dispersal of IE languages. Harvard and Lazaridis's bet to consider this culture as IE makes sense because after all, this marker has been found in Afanasievo (tocharian???) Armenia and Iran (Armenian and doing gymnastic mental exercises-Indo-Iranian). This is currently what the Yamnaya culture can offer us linguistically because the role of Z2103 in the CWC and the BBC is practically nonexistent.
@ Davidski
Hello Davidski, I have a request: what is the average genetic composition of the Pontic Greeks? My work colleague wanted to know. I have this sample and it is ancient and looks like a Balkan Scythian mixture of what I believe was not a Pontic Greek?
North Pontic Greeks,0.118945167,0.121017167,0.021558667,-0.0114665,0.014104833,-0.003951,0.001997667,-0.004115167,-0.0018065,0.021018,0.000812167,0.0028 475,-0,009687667,-0,002270833,-0,006310833,0,002209833,0,00452,0,003547333,0,0094065,-0,002626333,-0,008298,0,006306333,-0,001150333,0,002149,0,0005985
@Steppe
Sorry, I'm really busy with other things at the moment.
@ Davidski
"Don't be a naive moron.
This is statistically Tutkaul-related ancestry, which can mean a lot of things".
In fact, what would Tutkaul-related ancestry and Nalchik 1 demonstrate? At the autosome level it is a place of IE migration we know now from Eastern Europe and Nalchik 1 (R-BY15337*) has the age of Villabruna in the Alps and certainly this sample is a dead end line even for this tiny subclade and I remember you that Italy gets all the known 5 haplotypes probably from the Villabruna clan and not from some samples migrated to actual Tajikistan, and we have other samples of linked haplogroups of the same R1.
@ Gaska
''A similar case to I2a-L699 which controlled the Central Yamnaya_Lower_Don, only reached Romania and Bulgaria and then simply disappeared.''
This is a naive argument, as we know with recorded history the same thing happened with early Hungarians. They appeaar to have disappeared, but their language remained.
And you always conveniently ignore the I2a-L699 in Northern Greece, Illyrian Daunians, etc, and make false claims that all J2a is from Anatolia-Iran.
Change the station dude
@Gaska said
"1-On the one hand, the Yamnaya culture is overwhelmingly Z2103 (>95% of the more than 200 males analyzed), one of the best examples of a founder effect that we can see in genetics."
not the founder effect but rather a super patriarchal society
6-The next step of the Harvardians is to link the CWC with the spread of certain branches of IE in Eastern Europe and the BBC with the spread of other branches in Western Europe because without the CWC the steppe theory is simply a joke. But what is the problem?-R1a-M417 has NOT been found in the Yamnaya culture. and paradoxically this lineage overwhelmingly dominated the CWC for 800 years (Balto-slavic) and can also be linked to western & south Asian IE languages. So the only solution is what David and now the Harvardians are trying to do, that is to genetically link the CWC and Yamnaya with Sredni Stog, despite the recognized genetic heterogeneity of this culture-R1a-M417 origin in the Baltic? I find it difficult considering the samples that have appeared in Romania and Bulgaria (Durankulak)
-7-And finally we have Western Europe where ironically six of the Yamnaya male markers (Z2103, Y13200, PF7562, V1636, I2a-L699, Q1b-Y6826) have ever been found in times of the expansion of IE languages-Neither R1a-M417 has been found and yet Western Europe is overwhelmingly L51>L151>P312-For some ignorant people who only have steppe in their brain, the appearance of the three L51 samples in the catacomb culture is proof of the migrations of this marker from the steppes, but for someone who knows the samples of this marker in Europe it is evident that not only in Bohemia but also the neolithic farmers R1b-M269>L51 from Switzerland, Belgium and Spain are older than the Russian catacombs
Perhaps Reich should ask about the origin of L151 in the Baltic because they have recognized the paradox of the nonexistence of this P297>M269 branch for 2,000 years in Russia until the mysterious appearance of Z2103 in the Repin culture.
@Gaska
Perhaps R1a-M417 is associated with the Neolithic of Ukraine
Target: Poland_CordedWare.SG:poz81_noUDG.SG
Distance: 1.3387% / 0.01338679 | R4P
86.4 Russia_Afanasievo
10.8 UKR_N_Lysa_Gora
2.8 Germany_EN_LBK
Target: Germany_CordedWare.SG:RISE446_noUDG.SG
Distance: 2.6489% / 0.02648854 | R4P
55.2 Russia_Afanasievo
28.0 Poland_Koszyce_GlobularAmphora.SG
14.8 UKR_N_Mamaj_Gora
2.0 Africa_Mesolithic
Target: Germany_CordedWare:I0104__BC_2408
Distance: 1.7757% / 0.01775667 | R4P
68.6 Russia_Afanasievo
19.8 Poland_GlobularAmphora
6.0 UKR_N_Vovnigi_II
5.6 Germany_EN_LBK
@ Orpheus
''This is still the Southern Arc theory as they've laid it out in the past btw. Lazaridis was explicit in saying that the northern wing of the SA has a circle which spans from south to north of the Caucasus.'
It's getting hard to keep up with these mental gymnastics of the poor boy.
The printed theory was that PIE was introduced by CHG populations who migrated to the steppe and Anatolia at the same time. Here it is here
Now Cayanou_PPN_9000 BC actually brought CHG to the Anatolia 4500 BC.
LOL. Ok.
We also know that CHG was in the steppe c. 5200 BC, and we'll soon find out 6500 BC. In fact, it was there by 15000 BC.
So where you at ?
„StP said...Friends, since 2020 I have been repeating that PIE MRCA should be sought in the Carpathian foreland”
@Арсен said...: „StP Why there ?”
@Rob said...: „StP'PIE MRCA should be sought in the Carpathian foreland.''? But we are told that PIE came from Tajikstan, because Yamnaya carries ~ 4% of this ancestry, and a couple of the goats might have come from there. I'm convinced" !
Here, in the Carpathian foreland, PIE MRCA, i.e. the homeland of mature PIE, should be considered for many reasons, e.g.
1) Here, in the basins of the upper Dniester, Prut, northern Bug and San, there was a place of early interaction of the Yamna, GAC and CWC populations (Marzena Szmyt 2001 and 2010 in Baltic-Pontic Studies; Piotr Włodarczyk many times, e.g. in BPS)
2) Here in SE Poland there was an early CWC = Central European CWC = Fatyanovo culture (Saag et al. 2020);
3) Here (in Western Volhynia, Podkarpacie, Lesser Poland) in the post-PIE in Chłopice-Vesele culture, in the first half of the 3rd millennium BC, there were numerous R1a and R1b people who emigrated to the Carpathian Basin/Nitra culture around 2500 yBC, and several dozen of their samples have been waiting for a Hungarian publication for quite a long time…
@Arsen
Of course this marker can be associated with the Ukrainian neolithic. We have R1a in Ukraine since the mesolithic (Vasilievka & Dereivka) although they are a minority compared to other male lineages. However it is a majority in Golubaya Krinitsa (Don river, with Mariupol type tombs). In that site there are also I2a-L699 then the strange thing is that both were incorporated to Sredni Stog (If Vasilievskyi Kordon can be considered as belonging to this culture) but only L699 appears in Yamnaya while M417 appears in Romania Moldova and Bulgaria approx 3.250 BC. Then the mystery continues
Regarding the origin of Basque in the Caucasus, this is only a fairy tale, Basque can only be traced back to the Iron Age in Aquitaine, everything else is speculation.
And regarding the founder effect of Z2103 in the steppes, it is clear that a patriarchal society helps the homogenization of male lineages.
@Rob
To change the station I need a better example than the Hungarians. And by the way it is not necessary to be a genius to understand that all the J2a, J2b, J1a & J1b lineages that appear in Europe but mainly in the Balkans have Anatolian origin, although it is true that some could have followed the Levantine route. In this sense you will have to recognize that they are much more numerous than the European lineages appeared in Asia Minor.
You know that for me the origin of IE is not a matter of life and death, and you have to be happy because Harvard (basically Patterson & Anthony) have taken into consideration your theory of the Balkan route- Maybe you are right, but if you ask me, genetics has done much more in favor of Renfrew's hypothesis than Gimbutas' hypothesis.
Regarding I2a-L699, it is of Ukrainian origin but with very distant origin in the Balkans-Baltic-I2a1b/1a2-CTS10057 in Hadučka Vodenica-6.206 BCE & Zvejnieki, Latvia-5.506 BCE i.e. it is another mesolithic-neolithic Ukrainian marker of western origin (like R1b-V88).
Then we have I2a-L701>Y5606 at Pietrele, Smyadovo and Theopetra (I guess this is the sample you are referring to when you talk about L699 in northern Greece). I do not know of any samples of this marker in the Illyrians or Daunians only in Balatonkeresztúr, Transdanubian encrusted pottery, Hungary (1.750 BCE) & Teplice, Radosevice , La Tene_IA, Czech Republic (290 BCE). i.e. sporadic cases.
Let me know when a sample appears in Mycenaean or Hittite culture then I will have no problem in recognizing that you were right.
@ Gaska
"Regarding the origin of Basque in the Caucasus, this is only a fairy tale, Basque can only be traced back to the Iron Age in Aquitaine, everything else is speculation".
Nobody said that Basques came from the Caucasus, but only that the Basque language, in its deep structure, is an incorporant language as the Caucasian ones and as many other languages in the world, in fact the Nostraticists speak of Basque-Caucasian-SinoTibetan-NaDené languages, what in the Tyrsenian languages in only partial. And also in genetics we are speaking about hgs I/J at one side and R1 (and others) in the other.
And I don't understand why you, after your hypothesis that hg R1b in Western and Central Europe wasn't linked to the IE languages, changed your mind. Of course to demonstrate something in linguistics is very difficult, but interesting hypotheses should be maintained and studied.
@ Gaska
"Regarding I2a-L699, it is of Ukrainian origin but with very distant origin in the Balkans-Baltic-I2a1b/1a2-CTS10057 in Hadučka Vodenica-6.206 BCE & Zvejnieki, Latvia-5.506 BCE i.e. it is another mesolithic-neolithic Ukrainian marker of western origin (like R1b-V88)".
Of course the oldest I2a-M223-Y344225 and Y344262 were found in Mesolithic Italy (R7 and R15) and only from up there they migrated all over Europe as also the YFull tree demonstrates and the map I have but I am not able to post here. You may say that they were negative for Y3259, but even upstream we have Tagliente 2 17000 years ago old, i.e. as R1b1 of Villabruna.
@ Gaska
"And by the way it is not necessary to be a genius to understand that all the J2a, J2b, J1a & J1b lineages that appear in Europe but mainly in the Balkans have Anatolian origin, although it is true that some could have followed the Levantine route".
So many people all over the world asked me in these last 20 years about their Y, also because I am for free, only for a true knowledge. Many asked me about their hg J2 and even J1, presumed Levantine before that it was clear that they came from around the Caucasus and to the Levant only about 4200 years ago, and it wasan't true to me that in Europe they were of Levantine origin, but pretty much all from an independent migration even from easterm Europe more than Anatolia. Look at this sample: YF009093 separated 5200 years ago from the subclade migrated to the Levant. Now this haplotype found a close match (YF127069) 2200 years old in an unknown sample and the "trekker" of FTDNa, which derives from the Phylogeographer of Hunter Provyn, that I broke in pieces many times, says that its origin is in Corsica through a route from the Balkans and of course FTDNA thinks (and makes all the others think) that its origin is in the Levant as other important (to them) hg J-s. Of course I said that this sample separated 5200 years ago from the Levantine subclade and without intermediate samples and their presence to-day none may say more. Someone asked me to be a moderator in the J1 Italian project... but of course they know very well my thought at least from 20 years but actually from all my life.
@Gio
I am not a linguist, for me Basque is a mystery that can only be related to Iberian and Aquitanian. A Caucasian origin seems impossible to prove and yet Spanish linguists are getting closer to demonstrating a common origin of Basque and Iberian, which also coincides with what genetics is telling us. Even Carles Lalueza and Iñigo Olalde recognize that the linguistic situation in Iberia and also in Italy (due to Etruscan and Raethian) is currently impossible to explain with the genetic results obtained.
And of course I have not changed my mind, for me the linguistic issue is in the background compared to the most important objective, which is to find the origin of M269>L51>L151 and P312-And in this sense, R1b is a typical lineage of the Western, Baltic & Iron Gates HGs, which migrated north from the Italian & Balkan epigravettian-Swiderian>Kunda>Narva cultures to form the northern techno complex-Veretye, Butovo and then Lyalovo and Volosovo cultures etc.
I do not believe that these WHGs lineages spoke IE simply because according to linguists this language is only 5-6000 years old, and of course I don't think the BB culture spoke IE
@ Gaska
''Let me know when a sample appears in Mycenaean or Hittite culture then I will have no problem in recognizing that you were right.'
Evidently, that statement stems from your ignorance of basic linguistics. As told to you several times, Myceneans =/= proto-Greeks or all Greeks, but one southern, cosmopolitan Branch.
Similar scenario for Hittites, they are not all IE Anatolian speakers, and moreover, we have, what 3 Hittite samples ?
You're essentially trying to claim origins of proto-Germanic by looking at Switzerland.
So don't worry, you'll also be starting future posts with I WAS WRONG
David Reich thinks that steppe ancestry in Corded Ware was female-mediated by Yamnay women. This would explain the lack of R1a in Yamnaya:
https://i.postimg.cc/mgDcHrSy/screenshot-392.png
So this opens the question about the language of Yamnaya. Was it really IE?
@ Gaska
“J2a, J2b, J1a & J1b lineages that appear in Europe but mainly in the Balkans have Anatolian origin, although it is true that some could have followed the Levantine route. In this sense you will have to recognize that they are much more numerous than the European lineages appeared in Asia Minor.””
And they were all ultimately from Africa. By your confounded claims IE and basque come from Africa
I think you actually understand that a J2 lineage which arrived in Europe 5500 BC is going to speak a very different language to one which arrived in 1500 BC, or Hellenistic times.
Anthony's suggestion of PAs being silver smiths and horse herders made me check where silver ores were in Anatolia - all in the west, with elaborate techniques present in Troy. Next to that, there are the silver mines of Thrace. Ivanova already proposed that Usatavo people were following the sources for silver in their movements south
Gaska EastPole
maybe in Sredny Stog there were both R1b-L51 and R1a-M417 (with a lower frequency), they had a slightly more Ukrainian Neolithic admix, and then they mixed with Globular Amphora.
And the “eastern” branches of Z2103, ears to the east, had less Ukrainian Neolithic in their genome, and did not have parasitic R1b-L51 and R1a-M417
Gio;
“Tyrsenian languages, as Alfredo Trombetti wrote, were intermediate between Caucasian and IE languages. And why to think that Hittite and Tokharian did come from Yamnaya if there was above all hg R1b up there and if the language was an Alpine-Caucasian one?”
No conclusive evidence has ever been presented to support the hypothesis that Etruscan was related to Indo-European. The method of these nostraticists and other “distant-comparativists” is so loose that they achieve badly contradicting results by it – it is not comparable to the critical historical linguistics we see within the Indo-European or the Uralic studies. Anatolian and Tocharian are definitely Indo-European languages, not Alpine-Caucasian languages.
Gaska:
“if you ask me, genetics has done much more in favor of Renfrew's hypothesis than Gimbutas' hypothesis.”
Renfrew’s hypothesis is impossible on the linguistic ground. So, no matter how many migrations you can derive from Anatolia to Europe, none of them was associated with the spread of the Indo-European languages. You should know that you cannot see language from the DNA, because language is not inherited in the DNA.
@ Jaakko Häkkinen
"No conclusive evidence has ever been presented to support the hypothesis that Etruscan was related to Indo-European. The method of these nostraticists and other “distant-comparativists” is so loose that they achieve badly contradicting results by it – it is not comparable to the critical historical linguistics we see within the Indo-European or the Uralic studies. Anatolian and Tocharian are definitely Indo-European languages, not Alpine-Caucasian languages".
I never said that Anatolian and Tocharian languages weren't IE. Perhaps it is due to my bad English. I said only that they could have migrated from the IE dialects before that one of them, being linked to a centre of power (look at Latin) expanded submerging all the other IE dialects as the same Latin, and many other languages, made. For what I know, Anatolian languages are very different from the other IE languages for many traits, demonstrating that they had no contact with the core IE, and of course they mixed with many other different languages.
About Etruscan and IE, only Alessandro Morandi wrote a book (I have it) about the Etruscan as an IE language, and nobody believes with that, but of course it had contacts with IE in the migration from the Aegean Sea (this is what I supposed against Schrijver who thought to Hattic) if they were the agriculturalists migrated to the Balkans and around the Alps before migrating to Tuscany. Alfredo Trombetti wrote that it was intermediate between the Caucasian languages and IE as to a structural point of view, and Gaska doesn't realize that languages aren't children, they aren't born but they are the transformation of previous phases of the language, but some carachteristics remain.
That Italian linguistis though what you are saying about the great linguistic groups (and they didn't consider Alfredo Trombetti and could read him who wrote above all in Italian even though he spoke more than 30 languages, had the result that I didn't find an Italian in these last papers about this matter. I had contactr with Romano Lazzeroni of the "Scuola Normale" who though that, he became an important sankritists and much more, all great classicists, but who knows him now?
What a great Italian linguist in his field as Carlo Tagliavini wrote in his "Introduzione alla ristampa" of "Le origini della lingua basca" of Alfredo Trombetti: "Georgiano w-ar-th "nous sommes" Basco g-ara-te "nous sommes" etc is at the structural level of a language, thus very important, as the link of IE and Uralic are (for what I know).
@Gio
Totally agree with you, both I2a-M223 and R1b-L754 actually have their origin in Italy-WHGs, which is funny, because we could defend the "EX OCCIDENTE LUX" theory so that the most abundant male markers in the steppes including Yamnaya have western origin.
@Rob-
I will admit my mistakes because I have no problem to do so, I am not as smart and infallible as you and most Kurganists are. But remember that this latest Lazaridis paper has not yet found either R1b-M269 or L151 anywhere in Ukraine or Russia, maybe you are right and this lineage is hidden in some cave in the Don region, but until you prove it, I will think you are making up a fairy tale.
And regarding your theory about the western or Balkan route to Anatolia, I hope you are lucky and genetics will help you to prove it because at the moment what do you have?-
That the Anatolian IE languages were spoken in western Asia Minor?
What are your genetic arguments?
That there is an I2-P78 sample in Yassitepe, Anatolia?,
The autosomal models published by Harvard this week?,
You should have the same standard of proof and you would understand that the Anatolian migrations to the Balkans are overwhelmingly more important than the other way around.
@Mr Hakkinen-
Yeah, so you agree with me that genetically Renfrew has won and linguistically he has lost.
The problem is that many people think that genetics is a much more reliable science than linguistics and therefore your system of linguistic reconstruction and loanwords will never be definitive proof to exclude the possibility that the Anatolian farmers brought the IE languages to mainland Europe.
Don't have many more comments about the videos shown at "Transformation of Europe" but thought these were interesting :
1) Some IBD links (not strong) between Maros / Kisapostag and Latvia_BA in Anna Szécsényi-Nagy's talk - https://i.imgur.com/EE8mhLq.png . This is kind of like we expect from looking at these through the IBD lens.
2) In Quentin Bourgeois talk on Day 3 about modelling spatial distributions of Beaker and CWC burials over time, QB showed a slide where the oldest CWC burials were identified in Bohemia in Czechia and in Baltic (which fits well with this being where we currently have the no or little EEF CWC samples), but also early BBC in Pyrenees.
Slide: https://i.imgur.com/a5z3kQc.png
In the Pyrenees region we currently have the France_Occitanie_LN sample PEI2.SG, from a collective burial with BB pottery, which I find sometimes exhibits unusual attraction to other Bell Beaker after you control for CWC (Steppe+GAC) ancestry in other Bell Beaker. Perhaps more samples from this region would be good if possible.
Though these dates were all a bit disputed during the follow-up after QB's talk.
3) I wonder if it will be worth going back to Globular Amphora and seeing if there is any CLV ancestry in then, even 5%, as we get more CLV samples. Globular often has some slight eastern shifts on PCA relative to HG rich EEF samples from Western Europe, but there could be various reasons for this.
@ Gaska
There were no migrations from Anatolia to Balkans during the Bronze Age or chalcolithic
Only Minoans to southern Greece
So what are you taking about ?
@Davidski Both of the 2/3 major ancestry sources in Yamnaya and Sredny themselves (in departure from previous locals) from the paper are traced right in the circle of the original Southern Arc paper, which was their original position. Hypotheses A1&2 are more Kurganist-friendly but B & C which are Harvard's are just the Southern Arc, in which they even entertained the possibility of the first wave of CHG ancestry to be PIA speakers.
His own words about the 2024 paper: "while our preferred solution [Eastern entry] agrees with all known facts and has several lines of evidence going for it (...), we should continue to explore alternative hypotheses as well."
"At the same time, we think that alternative models must continue to be explored. This includes both the western entry model and the eastern entry model in which the CLV ancestry is incidental rather than the one transmitting Pre-Anatolian languages."
Uh oh what could this possibly mean? Definitely not that they didn't emphasize Iran as a homeland again in order to get the archi-Kurganists on the boat while they still prefer their original position innit? Even indirectly mentioning that they're probably going for Iran & environs again (cue "incidental")
And now given some of Lazaridis' posts even Kurganist-leaning linguists are getting warmed up to it.
Anyway, this is just how it is. This is the mainstream now and it's only going to keep going down that route. Good luck emailing them
The Durankulak guy seems key to everything. They did a poor job modelling him in the paper, I look forward to seeing him modeled better. His R1a-M417 and atypical GAC(55%)/(45%)Core Yamnaya ratio imply he was a member of the pre-Corded Ware population. It's too bad they didn't carbon date him but if the given date of 3500-3000 BCE is correct he predates their proposed Corded Ware admixture event. Dating admixture always ends up being wrong. In the paper they improve their model of him by adding Latvia HG as a source which takes up 6%.
Corded Ware is probably something like
Pop 1 : R1b-L51 Early Core Yamna group split off before Z2103 became ubiquitous
Pop 2 : R1a-M417 GK-like(maybe?) + GAC
I suggest GK because it is essentially Sredni Stii and contains R1a.
Those two groups exchange women via female exogamy, both become CW like.
Just a theory
@Gaska
Could you check using the qpAdm model how much Caucasian Iranian admixture is contained in the Neolithic EHG sample NEO555 from Karavaikha
@Orpheus
The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities.
You dumb troll.
"The Dunning–Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which people with limited competence in a particular domain overestimate their abilities."
oh this is just about me)
The modelling in this paper is "highly orchestrated" to support their chosen narrative. They group things together in a contrived way and cherry pick sources. It's effectively "look how many models we can make that support our hypothesis", rather than generate feasible models and then draw conclusions from them. Even in these biased models they still produce results which contradict their theory, the SShi in EBA Anatolia is one instance. In some cases they arbitrarily dismiss these results , such as with EBA Anatolia where Lazaridis claims the Western Route is "simply implausible because geography", which is just lazy. In another they will highlight the results that support their theory even though that particular result did not have the best P value of the result set. The PCAs look alright though.
The Remontnoye + SShi theory for the origin of Core Yamna is just a more convoluted way for them to say that PIE/PIA was Maikop. The only other model of Core Yamna that works is SShi + Maikop, but Remontnoye has ancestry from Maikop. An autosomal contribution of Maikop to Core Yamna without Y-DNA is a theory that PIE is female mediated in its earliest and most critical phase, and hence is stupid.
Gaska:
The problem is that many people think that genetics is a much more reliable science than linguistics and therefore your system of linguistic reconstruction and loanwords will never be definitive proof to exclude the possibility that the Anatolian farmers brought the IE languages to mainland Europe."
That possibility has already been excluded long ago - you just do not know the methods of historical linguistics and therefore you cannot understand the validity of the results. There is no way to reliably see language from the DNA or from the genetic results. Genetics cannot study language, it has no methods for that. Do you understand what I wrote?
@Arsen
0.0000000% is a typical mesolithic Russian_EHG
"Rob said...
@ Gaska
There were no migrations from Anatolia to Balkans during the Bronze Age or chalcolithic
Only Minoans to southern Greece
So what are you taking about ?"
There most definitely was migration(s) from Anatolia to Greece, be serious.. It's well attested both archaeologically and genetically. Minoan Crete was just one aspect of this phenomenon.
@Rob-
There were no migrations from Anatolia to the Balkans in the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age?
Are you sure what you're saying?
Do you want us to really talk about it?
Where do you want to start the discussion, male markers, mtDNA or autosomal components?
@East_Pole said/..../
On Friday in Budapest, Sikora said that CWC developed in parallel to Yamna and that there was a relationship with Yamna - a woman, certainly not a one-off and the acquisition of common autosomes, as we have long suspected.
For the sake of the arithmetically challenged individual who keeps saying there are only three R1b-L51 Yamnayans in this new Lazaridis preprint, here is what it says in the preprint's spreadsheet in Online Table 1, column M "Group ID for analysis", for each of the FIVE samples:
1. I20499: Serbia_EBA_Yamnaya
2. I6884: Russia_Don_EBA_Yamnaya_A
3. I11838: Russia_Volga_EBA_Yamnaya
4. I12823: Romania_EBA_Yamnaya
5. I12893: Russia_Kalmykia_EBA_Yamnaya
Feel free to check that for yourselves.
@Matt said /"..."/
The Baltic and Slavic WHGs come from the Iron Gates on the Danube, as demonstrated quite some time ago in the Pegler-Matchieson video. Western WHG was also close for Iron Gates.
@Matt wrote:” I wonder if it will be worth going back to Globular Amphora and seeing if there is any CLV ancestry in then, even 5%, as we get more CLV samples. Globular often has some slight eastern shifts on PCA relative to HG rich EEF samples from Western Europe, but there could be various reasons for this.”
Yes, CWC carries some autosomes from GAC, as shown by Ringbauer's IBD, confirmed by D. Reich
http://www.tropie.tarnow.opoka.org.pl/images/ibdjamna-cwc-gac-ringbauer.jpg
In Ringbauer's illustration I found that CWC Germnans come from SE Poland. That's why they don't have a pair with the other two CWC Germany!
Some takeaways from the lecture:
- On Anatolian
Everyone pretty much just shat on the Southern Arc Anatolian/ME origin theory saying it made no sense genetically or linguistically. Reich is pretty much fully convinced of the eastern steppe route of Anatolian. He mentioned that the Central Anatolian samples are literally Mesopotamian intruders with 10-30% CLV and share IBD with samples north of the Caucasus. Looks nothing Balkanian like, but a clear intruder for the Middle East with some steppe. He said now it's 5 to 1 in favor of the eastern route. I think it's more like 6 to 0 in his mind, but he wants to placate David Anthony and some linguist pals of his who have long advocated for a western route.
DA himself kind of floundered at the Anatolian question (no surprise given how he was one of the biggest proponents of the western route), saying now he was 50-50, and even considered a "southern sea route". He did give an interesting historical anecdote regarding the possibility of steppe migrants into the Middle East though.
- Horses
DA showed that Yamnaya had dairy peptide dental calculus, while Eneolithic steppe people didn't. And two of those samples were horse milk, which to him is proof Yamnaya had domesticated horses. "You wouldn't try to milk a wild horse".
He also showed that DOM2 is a direct descendant of Yamnaya horses, and CLVs went on horseback all the way to Hungary during the Eneolithic. He insisted that not only Yamnaya, but even CLVs were horse riders, and DOM2 was just a perfection of horse domestication, not its origin.
- Yamnaya/CW
I saw some talk of "Baltic HG" but that was just the presenter quoting Papac. When Reich asked him, he said he's not fully sure, but he's just deferring to Papac's old models.
Reich himself doubled down on Yamnaya > CW, and talked of a "founder event" in 3600 to 3400 BC, which downstream are both Yamnaya and CW.
- Cultural Stuff
One presentation showed steppe and EEF communities living side by side in Romania for centuries. Another put forth the possibility that "Yamnaya were hippies that just had more kids and outbred EEFs, but there wasn't a genocide" since there aren't enough mass graves. Not sure about this, but it was amusing. And lastly Kristiansen talked about how disease ravaged EEFs, similar to the Justinian Plague in the Balkans, and that paved the way for steppe people to succeed. Overall, a lot of theories flying around at why steppe people succeeded in Europe and EEFs declined.
@Romulus, that's an interesting conjecture but I would raise some problems with it:
1) While Czech Corded Ware does switch over from early R1b-L51 to late R1a-M417, we don't see any outliers with unusual proportions of Ukraine_HG:CLV across the Czech CWC transect.
2) While Czech Corded Ware does have early R1b-L51, we also have early samples up in the Baltic and Poland who are that have almost a classic steppe profile, without *too much* HG shift; the female LN1/ZVEJ28/I4629 and more importantly the male R1a-M417 poz81 in central Poland.
Seems to me it's possible that R1a-M417 might have been associated with a variant autosomal profile (as we find that in to some degree in poz81/LN1, although LN1 is not directly linked to R1a-M417), I have some doubt this could have been exactly like GK-like+GAC. At most more like classic Steppe with a bit more admix from both EEF and some HG populations. At most I'd see a kind of model going on where there is a low HG Sredni-Stog/Sredni-Stih variant associated with R1a-M417?
But I think that's kind of a bit of a odd scenario compared to just having CWC be relatively diverse in y lineages from the start (compared to what we see in the Yamnaya) - in this scenario, you would likely end up suggesting that R1b-L51 were the original Corded Ware and the R1a-M417 group were a takeover group, but somehow without a major shift in the symbolic system? (Or at least, less of a major one than Beaker represent?).
@ Dragon Hermit
“Reich himself doubled down on Yamnaya > CW, and talked of a "founder event" in 3600 to 3400 BC, ”
They come from late Sredni Stog : that’s why they date 3600-3300
Yamnaya is actually the more massive founder effect
Keep coping 🤡
@ Alex
''@ Alex
''There most definitely was migration(s) from Anatolia to Greece, be serious.. It's well attested both archaeologically and genetically. Minoan Crete was just one aspect of this phenomenon.'
The original statement was about Balkans, of which Southern Greece is often considered separately & specially.
But in any case, if the Anatolia -> Crete & Southern Greece is all part of the same phenomenon, one can just call it 'Minoans to southern Greece'.
We are keeping things simple for Gaska, he still thinks R1b came from Iberian Neanderthals..
@DragonHermit: "DA showed that Yamnaya had dairy peptide dental calculus, while Eneolithic steppe people didn't. And two of those samples were horse milk, which to him is proof Yamnaya had domesticated horses. "You wouldn't try to milk a wild horse"."
I think that's a strange statement given that Reinhold showed a sequence of cultures out in the steppe beginning with Progress and Steppe Maykop (https://www.youtube.com/live/ow36WzmMq8k?si=7-px-FnJN-ZNxrce&t=4805), with this peptide evidence.
If the argument is that Khvalynsk didn't have it, yes, seems to be the case. But "significant milk consumption in the steppe usage began with Yamnaya" is a fairly questionable.
Re; horses, I don't think anyone has suggested that its necessarily the case that tamed horses were not known among Yamnaya, just that selective breeding for domesticated traits may not have commenced. They would suggest that steppe people are dealing with tamed horses in this period.
See - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/ERZ23432452 - "We find that reproductive control of the modern domestic lineage emerged around 2,200 BCE, through close kin mating and shortened generation times. It followed a severe domestication bottleneck starting not earlier than around 2,700 BCE, and coincided with a sudden expansion across Eurasia that ultimately replaced nearly every local horse lineage. This expansion marked the rise of widespread horse-based mobility in human history, which refutes the commonly-held narrative of large horse herds accompanying the massive migration of steppe peoples into Europe around 3,000 BCE and earlier. We detect significantly shortened generation times at Botai around 3,500 BCE, a settlement from Central Asia associated with corrals and a subsistence economy centered on horses. This supports local horse husbandry before the rise of modern domestic bloodlines."
A theory of Anatolian speakers bringing domesticated horses to Anatolia before the introduction of the DOM2 horse post 2000 BCE really has to cope with why Librado found no replacement of Anatolian horses in this timeframe (https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9) and why there is no significant identification of an equestrian type culture in Anatolia in this timeframe.
@ Gaska
“Are you sure what you're saying?
Do you want us to really talk about it?
Where do you want to start the discussion, male markers, mtDNA or autosomal components?
Dont ask redundant questions. The uniparentals have all been explained but you just keep ignoring them jus like you did for R1b-M269, and if you cant even get your own backyard right, do you think you're going to lecture us about Balkans & Anatolia ?
To repeat, there are no migrations from Anatolia to the Balkans during the Bronze Age, apart from southern Greece, Crete & the Aegean, which arent really the Balkans, but the phenomenon that is associated with Anatolian-Aegean-Minoan trade.
If you really want to get specific, there is possible one Anatolian colony in eastern Thrace during the Sveti-Kirilovo phase of Ezero culture. But again, that has nothing to do with Proto-Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians , Phrygians or whatever other IE groups existed there.
@ RichS
Do those 5 samples help you triangulate thoughts as to the departure stage of L151 ?
RE: horses, there was one speaker on Day 3 who made the comment - Yamnayans kept falling off their horses, that's why they went back to just using wagons :)
@ Alex
In fact, I remember Dave once modelled the Anatolian ancestry in Mycenaeans with just Minoans, although I tend to use Anatolians themselves
@DragonHermit
And lastly Kristiansen talked about how disease ravaged EEFs, similar to the Justinian Plague in the Balkans, and that paved the way for steppe people to succeed. Overall, a lot of theories flying around at why steppe people succeeded in Europe and EEFs declined.
Personally I am not a fan of the plague theory. I find this to be way more compelling:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CGFPOp61t3A
Interestingly the Ajvide site off of Gotland was submerged due to a marine transgression corresponding to the 2900 BCE date window.
Also interesting:
Uta-napishtim is the eighth of the antediluvian kings in Mesopotamian legend, just as Noah is the eighth from Enoch in Genesis.[1] He would have lived around 2900 BC, corresponding to the flood deposit at Shuruppak between the Jemdet Nasr and Early Dynastic levels.[1]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utnapishtim
Gaska wrote:
. . . R1b is a typical lineage of the Western, Baltic & Iron Gates HGs, which migrated north from the Italian & Balkan epigravettian-Swiderian>Kunda>Narva cultures to form the northern techno complex-Veretye, Butovo and then Lyalovo and Volosovo cultures etc . . .
My response:
No, no, no.
Let’s begin with the R1b HGs at the Iron Gates. They were under R1b-PF6323. Some were R1b-V88, some were R1b-FT360002. FT36002 disappears from the ancient record following those Iron Gates HGs. V88 shows up subsequently here and there in Neolithic Europe. Today R1b-FT360002 appears to be extinct.
R1b-V88 never had more than a tenuous toehold in Europe and was nearly completely wiped out during the 3rd millennium BC, holding on into the Nuragic Period on the island of Sardinia in the Mediterranean. Everywhere in Europe today, including Sardinia, V88 is rare. Its greatest demographic success came in the Sahel in Sub-Saharan Africa, particularly in the modern nation of Chad, whence it was evidently borne from Europe sometime during the last “Green Sahara” period, 5-12 kya.
The R1b-PF6323 Iron Gates HGs are about 20% ANE. The R1b-V88 HGs at Dereivka in Ukraine are about 44% ANE.
R1b-V88 is not a close relative of R1b-M269 or its subclades. The most recent common ancestor V88 shares with M269 is L761, c. 15,000 BC. Anyone who looks into it can see V88 has its own trajectory and history entirely separate from the R1b clades downstream of L389, including M269.
There is no evidence any kind of R1b-PF6323, including V88 and FT360002, migrated north to the Baltic.
There is likewise no evidence that R1b of any kind migrated from some sort of Italian/Balkan homeland to anyplace else. After Villabruna 1, who was evidently on a dead-end Y chromosome line, derived for L761 but ancestral for L389 and P297 (despite being recent enough to have been derived for both), R1b disappears from peninsular Europe, except for a smattering of Neolithic V88, until it begins to reappear in the form of R1b-M269 in the late fourth - early third millennia BC, always in men with steppe DNA.
The Baltic R1b HGs were all derived for M73 and were likely the descendants of HGs from the Russian interior who made their way to the Baltic via river valleys of the Baltic drainage basin. The P297 stuff we know about is older, and is from the interior of Russia, well east of the Baltic.
Regarding the stray HG, Villabruna 1, who wound up in NE Italy, it is well to recall what Davidski wrote about him a few years ago:
"- Villabruna is a sister clade of the earlier European Vestonice clade, but with significant input from an AfontovaGora3-related North Eurasian population, perhaps one that was living north of the Black Sea after the Kostenki people went the way of the dodo
- Hence, the R1b lineage carried by Villabruna I9030, the individual in this Treemix series, probably comes from the Eurasian steppe"
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/05/villabruna-cluster-near-eastern-migrants.html
Rob said...
@ RichS
Do those 5 samples help you triangulate thoughts as to the departure stage of L151 ?
My response:
I can't say they have, except to show that L51 was present in Yamnaya at widely separated locations, at least a couple of them pretty far east. In that connection it is good to recall the two Afanasievo R1b-P310 samples, one from Mongolia and the other from Xinjiang, China.
My own opinion, which I mentioned before, is that L151 went northwest via NW Yamnaya up the Dniester valley, through Podolia in Ukraine, where it encountered and began mixing with GAC. Thence it was carried into Małopolska in SE Poland, where it was involved in the genesis of early Corded Ware (i.e., the CWC-X Horizon). It seems to me Papac showed that the earliest CW was mostly L151. R1a-M417 followed a couple of generations later.
That's just my own opinion. I could be wrong, and I certainly don't have all the answers, like where R1a-M417 was during CWC-X and how it got involved in CW in such a big way. IMHO L151 looks like it disappeared from CW in Central Europe around 2600 BC but that is only because we have a separate name for Bell Beaker, which is in reality just a CW variant.
@Gaska
Thanks ,strange, in the G25 it shows approximately 8-9 percent CHG+Iran relative to Karelia
@ Rich S
Yes I think the 'Dniester episode' is fairly clear now
@ Romulus
''Personally I am not a fan of the plague theory. I find this to be way more compelling''
There's some an element of imagination going on there. Kristiansen wasn't even aware of the masive 'collapse' in central-east Balkans and northern Greece c. 4200 BC (even casual readers know this). 5500 BC in Anatolia.
These kind of syncopated episodes does speak of climactic causes
Kristiansen & Copenhagen seem obsessed with 'Neolithic collapse'. But just the day prior Johannsen, Muller and Szmyt (who were definitely one of the better talks, along with Anthony) showed us how GAC were pastoralists and expanded all the way to the upper Dnieper. There's no unified 'Neolithic Europe' story. The GAC data also shows that the West Asian origin of pastoralism peddled by the Hansen/ Reinhold is nonsense.
Btw a couple of people here quote Kroonen (also from Copengahen) here with religious fervor, but he claims that Balto-Slavic came from BB ! So....
mistake, the Minoans look like people associated with Arslantepe-Camlibel Tarlasi-Ikiztepe, mixed with Neolithic Greece, would have settled on the islands
@Rich S
"It seems to me Papac showed that the earliest CW was mostly L151. R1a-M417 followed a couple of generations later."
Just so. Your narrative of the movement of L51 is the most plausible. Three comments.
First, the earliest CW weren’t “mostly” L51—they were exclusively so. And these earliest L51 in Papac are not only nearly identical to Yamnaya (at least 80+% and often more than 90%) they predate R1a-M417 by at least a century (probably more) not just a “couple of generations”.
Second, now that several other L51s contemporaneous to Papac's samples have been identified as Yamnaya in Lazaridis, I think an argument can be made that the earliest CW are quite possibly descended from Yamnaya even if the later, traditional CW encompassing R1a-M417 are not. And this is so because clearly L51 and M417 took different paths in their westward movements (even if they arrived at different times in the same territories) and likely originated from different source clans. And as shown in Papac their interactions were far from harmonious.
Finally, of course, as you note elsewhere BB is a variant of CW, but it seems now that BB descends from the earliest (i.e. Yamnaya based) L51 variant of CW. As Davidski title says “It’s Complicated” but I think the complication is coming to grips what exactly we’re talking about when we identify people as CW or under some other label. I was very comfortable with the story of CW and its many offshoots—it made for a good, clean narrative—but now I’m much more cautious.
@Rob
The plague theory does not explain why the GAC people would migrate towards the steppe and into seemingly hostile territory. The megatsunami/deluge hypothesis does a good job of that, it would serve as a catalyst for people to migrate away from coastal lowland areas towards inland locations. Unless they were hunter gatherers in which case they wouldn't really be affected.
It seems too much of a coincidence that the steppe migration overlaps perfectly in time with the dating of this worldwide deluge event, and that this is also corroborated by written and geological evidence from the near east. When I originally learned about the Burckle crater I didn't take it too seriously but it seems to be gaining validation recently.
@GeorgeKatz
You don't have a clue what you're talking about.
The earliest Corded Ware burials include those in the East Baltic, and the East Baltic Corded Ware was rich in R1a-M417 (not R1b-L51). Unfortunately, this is something that Rich always leaves out in his comments about the origins of Corded Ware.
Also, it's known that Corded Ware was actually a society, not just an archeological culture.
Different Corded Ware groups kept in regular contact with each other across most of Northern and Central Europe. They didn't test their Y-DNA to see who they could talk to or mix with.
In fact, the R1a East Baltic Corded Ware probably became less Yamnaya-like after mixing with Corded Ware women from Central Europe.
This is something that you have to come to terms with, instead of spamming internet blogs and forums with your strange ideas about two different Corded Ware cultures based on a R1a vs R1b division.
One "SSMed" sample is carbon dated to 4900BC, and another is carbon dated to 4600BC. Given how they approach modeling in the paper, this "SSMed" cluster presupposes the existence of a Yamnaya-like population already packed with some ANF.
I don't see either of these samples discussed in the supplement but they would both need to be reservoir effect adjusted rather significantly to make a South Caucasian origin of archaic PIE inline with the parameters suggested by mainstream linguists (crossing the caucasus ~4400BC at the very latest).
@Rich S.
If Yamnaya is something like 90+% Z2103 how could Corded Ware descend from Yamnaya? The oldest Z2103->Z2106 as per this paper is 3500 BCE, the implication here is that this theoretical L51 Yamnaya group would have had to diverge before then and that is pre-Yamnaya. Relying on theoretical Yamnaya populations with L51 and M417 appearing from nowhere in 3000 BCE and mixing with GAC (in the exact same ratio) before diverging in separate directions along Y DNA lines is far fetched. If we look at Don Yamnaya in this paper we see that a case where there is heterogeneity in Yamnaya Y-DNA, but it still contains a lot of Z2103. I do not buy a story where the pre-Corded Ware R1b-L51 group is descended from the post-3300 BCE Yamnaya/Afansievo group. It had to diverge before then. Harvard's decision to redefine Yamnaya to mean inclusive of Yamnaya related back to 4000 BCE is a means to save face for them but just needlessly confuses the discussion of them.
@ Davdiski
And R1a-L664 x Z645 in Elbe-Saale
R1b -V3616 in Danish EKG
Some of these steppe groups were pushed out by other steppe groups or North European 'farmers' or themselves became extinct (or almost so)
@ Romulus
Its not just GAC, the entire TRB complex shifted southward in the late (Tiefstich) phase. Boleraz migrating into Hungary and northern Serbia / NW Bulgaria is part of this same phenomenon.
Some TRB hung on the East Danish Islands, but much of Swedish TRB was replaced by PCW, or ''became PWC'' (same Y-DNA).
They also mention western Europe. Similar things but different directions. The LN population of Britain concentrated around Orkney, even if massive henge projects were built further south in England (probably much of the able-bodied population migrated there on a sort of pilgrimage to help build it).
Iberia, the population concentrated south in the 'mega-sites'
France im still researching slowly much of the literature is in French
that is, in Yamnaya, most of Anatolia is connected with the Caucasus (Remontnoe) than with Ukraine? (SShi)
https://ibb.co/9bMz0SG
https://ibb.co/Tkq6QsY
@ Dragon Hermit
'Everyone pretty much just shat on the Southern Arc Anatolian/ME origin theory saying it made no sense genetically or linguistically. Reich is pretty much fully convinced of the eastern steppe route of Anatolian. He mentioned that the Central Anatolian samples are literally Mesopotamian intruders with 10-30% CLV and share IBD with samples north of the Caucasus. Looks nothing Balkanian like,'
Reich is actually doubling down on his southern Arc theory, as can be heard/ seen at the very end of his talk but was forced to swallow uncomfortably when the crowd interjected "but you've just found steppe ancestry in Anatolia'. So the east route is just a Cope for the southern theory.
Whatever, he is entitled to his views ; but I’m entitled to melt them down.
Firstly, 1 distant IBD match doesn’t prove migratory path
Secondly, their models are funky, using extinct Mesopotamians to model Bronze Age central Anatolians raises questions about historical plausibility. This is why you need to know the region you’re attempting to model. You can’t just come in lime a cowboy and prod blindly with autosomal guessing
Thirdly, he didn’t even mention Barcin-CHL, and half the other west Anatolian samples, which have higher levels of steppe ancestry
His explanation about Kura-Araxes erasing the eastern trail also fails, because Ikiztepe dates to 3800 bc, which is 700 years earlier than KA, and it lacks steppe ancestry. Same with Arslanetepe CHL, which is 300 years earlier than KA
Does RUS_Siberia_Tenisei_EBA(Lowest Krasnoyarsk Krai) work for Uralic speakers?
G25 Elimination Runs:-
Target: RUS_Siberia_Tenisei_EBA
Distance: 1.3436% / 0.01343642
52.0 RUS_Angara_River_N
35.0 RUS_Sosnoviy_HG
13.0 USA_Alaska_Ancient_Athabaskan_1100BP
Target: RUS_Siberia_Tenisei_EBA
Distance: 1.7333% / 0.01733329
43.6 KAZ_Botai_En
32.6 RUS_Buryatia_M
23.8 RUS_Ust_Belaya_EBA
Target: RUS_Siberia_Tenisei_EBA
Distance: 1.7804% / 0.01780392
40.8 RUS_Ust_Belaya_EBA
37.0 RUS_Tyumen_HG
22.2 RUS_Kolyma_M
@Rob
The only one who behaves and thinks like a neanderthal is you. It's good that you try to share with everyone your wisdom but we don't really need it. Anatolia and the Balkans (the whole region not only the Peloponnese) are a genetic continuum since the first Neolithic migrations. I guess you won't need me to prove it to you. And when we talk about migrations these never stopped in the south of Greece, because they reached both the east of the Balkans and the west. You have been looking for a single Balkan marker in Anatolia for 10 years and yet we have many Anatolian markers in the Balkans. Western, southern & eastern Balkans examples
-mtDNA-H1u
Armenia, Kalavan, BA-I1633 (2.514 BC)-Lazaridis, 2.016
Croatia, Ostrvica-Pasičine, BA-I18712-HapY-J2b-L283 (1.650 BC)-Lazaris, 2.022
Montenegro, Velika Gruda, BA-I13166-HapY-I2-M438 (1.225 BC)-Lazaridis, 2.022
-mtDNA-U1a1/a
Iran, Seistan, Shahr-i Sokhta-I11483 (3.003 BC)-Narasimhan, 2.018
Armenia, Karnut, Kura-Araxes culture-I13599 (2.381 BC)-I.Lazaridis, 2.022
Greece, Koukounaries, Mycenean culture-KUK002 (1.163 BC)-Skourniatioti, 2.023
-mtDNA-U1a1
Irak, Nemtik9-I6457 (8.750 BC)
Armenia, Shengavit Kura-Araxes-I14346 (2.500 BC)
Bulgaria, Smyadovo-I2176 (3.181 BC)
-Regarding R1a, I think everyone must be clear that it was not only in Golubaya Krinitsa but also in Vasilievskyi Kordon (Sredni Stog), ergo its non-appearance in Yamnaya is a mystery. Also remember that CWC is overwhelmingly R1a-M417 (Germany, Poland, Bohemia, Baltic, Scandinavia etc...)
-R1b-U106 & L151 only appear in Bohemia 2,900 BC i.e. 250 years before the R1b-L51 from Russia which are classified as belonging to Late-Yamnaya Catacomb-“Chronology ans periodization of the Pit-Grave culture in the region between the Volga and Ural rivers based on radiocarbon dating and paleopedological research-N.Morgunova (2.013)”
-You Kurganists have been looking for years for routes to L51 from the steppes, well, now you have three samples that are useless for interpreting the path that marker followed to central Europe because both west-Yamnaya(Ukraine) and central Yamnaya (Lower_Don) are overwhelmingly Z2103 & I2a-L699, i.e. the samples from the Volga region are uniparental outliers within a sea of Z2103.
And remember that Papac spoke at first of outliers in the Bohemian CWC, he was referring to the Baltic signal found in the L151 samples which are also 150 years older than R1a-M417 in Bohemia and that except for one sample they have no grave goods to be able to identify these men as belonging to the CWC.
Papac's solution was to talk about the forest-steppe in the north of Ukraine as the origin of L151, but evidently a Baltic origin for this marker cannot be ruled out (and even more after having found R1b-Y13200 in Yamnaya).
So we'll see where L151 shows up, maybe the Wisconsin Kurganists are right and it will show up in Afanasievo-Mongolia.And please don't lie, the two L51 samples from Romania and Serbia also belong to the catacomb culture.
@Rob
The whole point is that Mesopotamians are NOT local to Anatolia, but an intrusion from the east. They are not saying it's 10-30% CLV + the rest local. They're saying it's ALL intrusive from the east.
@Gaska
There's no Baltic signal in early Corded Ware. It's Baltic-like due to a bit of extra Ukraine N ancestry.
Papac et al. explain this in their paper.
And Corded Ware also has Ukraine GAC ancestry, so the origin of Corded Ware is definitely in Ukraine.
Ukraine is not a Baltic country.
StP
The origin of the ancestors of the Fatyanovo population from Poland GAC (according to Saag there were up to 47%) surely pleases EastPole, because it shows the Indo-Slavic community as a real being, and not just a linguistic construct.
David
The assimilation of GAC into CWC groups must have taken place in various places, not only in Ukraine, because, for example, Germany CWC traces its ancestors to Poland GAC, not Ukraine GAC.
@David
It is true that forest steppe could also be a convincing explanation regarding autosomal components, but what do you think about uniparental markers?
In my opinion, Ukraine could also be used to explain the migrations related to R1a-M417, but what about L151? Do you think it will also appear in Sredni Stog?
@Davidski
“And Corded Ware also has Ukraine GAC ancestry, so the origin of Corded Ware is definitely in Ukraine.”
I am not sure about it, because CWC in Poland:
https://i.postimg.cc/Z57ydxSR/screenshot-393.png
https://i.postimg.cc/HkyCwpGy/screenshot-396.png
seems to be earlier than GAC in Ukraine:
https://i.postimg.cc/59SyzS5V/screenshot-395.png
EastPole
It doesn't really matter anyway, because generally all GAC comes from Poland, according to archeology and IBD segments.
@Matt
"3) I wonder if it will be worth going back to Globular Amphora and seeing if there is any CLV ancestry in then, even 5%, as we get more CLV samples. Globular often has some slight eastern shifts on PCA relative to HG rich EEF samples from Western Europe, but there could be various reasons for this."
I tried TRB + Baden + Narva + CLV in G25 nMontes and it is noise level or not even that and even that noise level completely disappeared when Ukraine Neolithic was included.
(And Globular Amphora from Chechia is zero CLV, zero Ukr_N either way.)
The eastern shift is probably caused by Narva-related or similar EEHG-shifted HG ancestry as opposed to Western groups that had pure WHG ancestry.
Here are some models
Camlibel Tarlasi (Central Anatolia CA, 3800 BC)
- one way pass with Buyukayya_N (5000 BC)
'Old Hittie' MA2203
left pops:
Turkey_OldHittitePeriod.SG_1
Turkey_Buyukkaya_EC
CernavodaA
best coefficients: 0.692 0.308
std. errors: 0.054 0.054
tail prob: 0.051
left pops:
Turkey_OldHittitePeriod.SG1
Turkey_Buyukkaya_EC
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic2
best coefficients: 0.840 0.160
std. errors: 0.031 0.031
tail prob 0.0067
Mbuti.DG
Ethiopia_4500BP
USA_Anzick_realigned.SG
Russia_Kostenki14
Russia_MA1_HG.SG
China_Tianyuan
Turkey_Epipaleolithic
Serbia_EN_Starcevo
Russia_DevilsCave_N.SG
Mongolia_North_N
Russia_AfontovaGora3
Iran_GanjDareh_N
Luxembourg_Loschbour
Jordan_PPNB
Turkey_PPNA
Iran_HajjiFiruz_N
Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN
Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic2 (Vonuchka, PG2001) <-> CernavodaA (high steppe cluster)
Turkey_TellKurdu_EC
Even better
left pops:
Turkey_OldHittitePeriod.SG1
Turkey_Buyukkaya_EC
"CernavodaB" (lower steppe, higher UkrN/ EEF)
(same right pops)
best coefficients: 0.679 0.321
std. errors: 0.075 0.075
tail prob 0.291599
The CLV folk became extinct. Yes they through out some early venturers, and donated huge amounts of ancestry, but they were replaced not only in the Caucasus by K-A, but also in their homeland by Steppe Majkop & then Yamnaya.
Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...
@Rich S.
If Yamnaya is something like 90+% Z2103 how could Corded Ware descend from Yamnaya? . . .
My response:
Well, pretty obviously, Yamnaya must not have been so heavily Z2103 everywhere. Different tribes/clans had different dominant Y chromosome lines: R1b-Z2103 here, R1b-L51 there, R1a-M417 in another place, I-L699 in yet another, and so on. The autosomal homogeneity of Yamnaya as a whole was created and maintained on the steppe before Yamnaya even became a thing via female exogamy. The tribes exchanged women. That led to the evolution and spread of pretty uniform autosomal DNA while preserving the Y-DNA profiles of the individual tribes/clans.
Evidently the Yamnaya clan/clans that contributed to the formation of early Corded Ware were almost exclusively R1b-L151 and R1a-M417. That seems obvious to me because Z2103 is conspicuous in CW by its absence, yet CW is loaded with Yamnaya DNA and has IBD connections to Yamnaya and Afanasievo in genealogical time.
Yamnaya was a cultural horizon with many local variants, not a single, completely uniform culture with just one Y chromosome line. It might be helpful too to remember that Z2103 and L51 are siblings under L23.
Davidski said...
. . .
The earliest Corded Ware burials include those in the East Baltic, and the East Baltic Corded Ware was rich in R1a-M417 (not R1b-L51). Unfortunately, this is something that Rich always leaves out in his comments about the origins of Corded Ware . . .
My response:
Just a question, not intended as an argument. I'm just letting you know part of what informs my thinking on the formation of CW.
Which East Baltic CW R1a-M417 samples are as old as the oldest of Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early samples?
The oldest East Baltic R1a-M417 samples I can find - and obviously I could have missed some - are MA976 and MA969 from Ardu, Estonia, in Saag et al (2017). Both are dated 2872-2501 calBC, which makes for a midpoint of 2686 BC. That makes them actually a little more recent than the R1a-M417 samples in Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early group. The average of the midpoints for the Bohemia_CW_Early R1a samples is 2704 BC.
The average midpoint for Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early R1b samples is 2777 BC, which is why I said R1b-L151 appears to have been in the first wave of CW to go west - about two generations ahead of R1a-M417.
When R1a-M417 came in behind R1b-L151, it took over CW, but, personally, I think R1b-L151 had already gone west, where it became "Bell Beaker" and became invisible to those archaeologists who for some reason don't seem to understand that Beaker was just a CW variant.
But if you know of R1a-M417 CW samples that are as old or older than Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early guys, R1b or R1a, please let me know. I don't want to be wrong in my chronology.
when will BAM files from all these new works be published? I can’t wait to see the results from Remontnoe, as well as the ginchi from the work of Sabine Reinhold and other samples of the Chalcolithic of the North Caucasus
How can we say Corded Ware comes from Ukraine when our only example of a proto-Corded Ware person comes from Bulgaria? I am not excluding Western Ukraine but the formation zone but it clearly extended to the south and must have included Romania and Moldova. It's is centered on Usatove.
Yamnaya samples from Bulgaria, Moldova, and Ukraine all contain Trypillia farmer ancestry as per this paper. There is one sample I20076 from Moldova that has GAC. Corded Ware as far as I am aware has exclusively GAC-like ancestry and can not be modeled as having any Trypilla (or YUN_CA).
This is interesting:
GlobularAmphora (3400-2600 BCE)
If we relax our p-value threshold to 0.001, then the best 2-way model (p=0.004) for the Globular
Amphora population involves 75.7±0.9% YUN_CA and 24.9±0.9% Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
ancestry which point to this population having a higher proportion of hunter-gatherer ancestry than the
Chalcolithic population from Yunatsite in Bulgaria.
I wouldn't have guessed that Chalcolithic Bulgaria was the origin of Farmer ancestry in GAC. I expected that they would be derived from LBK farmers.
@Rich
You're conflating two different things: the C14 dates of the few Baltic Corded Ware samples that have been successfully sequenced vs the C14 dates of the East Baltic Corded Ware culture.
The East Baltic Corded Ware is accepted to be among the earliest examples of Corded Ware.
https://i.imgur.com/a5z3kQc.png
You're also taking C14 dates too literally. They're not as precise as you probably think they are.
Poz81 is an "early" Corded Ware sample from North-Central Poland. It belongs to R1a-M417 and has a Yamnaya-like genome-wide profile, and there's no evidence that an R1b-L51 Corded Ware population moved into this region first.
The R1a-M417 ancestors of Poz81 and the early Baltic Corded Ware populations moved into these regions from the Corded Ware homeland, while the R1b-L51 clans went somewhere else, more or less at the same time.
@Romulus
I1456 from Bulgaria isn't really proto-Yamna nor proto-Corded Ware.
This sample is obviously very mixed compared to the early Corded Ware samples that are still very Yamnaya-like.
So it can't be ancestral to early Corded Ware.
Davidski said...
@Rich
You're conflating two different things: the C14 dates of the few Baltic Corded Ware samples that have been successfully sequenced vs the C14 dates of the East Baltic Corded Ware culture.
The East Baltic Corded Ware is accepted to be among the earliest examples of Corded Ware.
https://i.imgur.com/a5z3kQc.png
You're also taking C14 dates too literally. They're not as precise as you probably think they are.
Poz81 is an "early" Corded Ware sample from North-Central Poland. It belongs to R1a-M417 and has a Yamnaya-like genome-wide profile, and there's no evidence that an R1b-L51 Corded Ware population moved into this region first.
The R1a-M417 ancestors of Poz81 and the early Baltic Corded Ware populations moved into these regions from the Corded Ware homeland, while the R1b-L51 clans went somewhere else, more or less at the same time.
My response:
You may be right. Probably I am taking c14 dates that aren't all that far apart and making more of them than I should, but I got the midpoints of the c14 dates of all the c14-dated samples I mentioned, then took the average of those midpoints, and so far, from what I can see, the R1b samples in Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early group comprise the oldest CW samples anyplace.
Thanks for bringing poz81 to my attention. With a c14 date of 2880-2630 calBC, his midpoint is 2755 BC, which makes him older than the R1a samples in Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early, but still younger than the midpoint average of Papac's c14-dated R1b samples (2777 BC). The difference is not much, just 22 years, but when you look at the very oldest R1b samples versus the oldest R1a samples, the difference is starker. The oldest R1b sample, PNL001, has a midpoint of 2896 BC, which is 141 years older than the midpoint of the oldest R1a sample, poz81, which has a midpoint of 2755 BC. The next oldest R1b sample, OBR003, with a midpoint of 2893 BC, is 138 years older than the oldest R1a sample, poz81. Those two R1b samples have midpoints that are older than the oldest Papac R1a sample by 175 years and 172 years respectively.
Maybe that's still not enough to concern oneself about, but that's part of the reason I see R1b-L151 as representing an earlier wave of CW - that and the fact that L151's distribution seems to reflect an earlier push to the west.
Probably the routes for R1a and R1b CW were slightly different, as well.
We should recall the Bell Beaker debate because of 'old dates' from Iberia
Different labs and different material are ging to produce slightly different dates. So 50 years here or there doesnt mean much
Also, careful when reading actual C14 dates, which are given as a spread (e.g. 2850 - 2620 BCE). Its hard to get a 'middle date' (it doesnt work like that), least of evils is looking at the mode on the actual C14 curve
@Rich S.
Well, pretty obviously, Yamnaya must not have been so heavily Z2103 everywhere. Different tribes/clans had different dominant Y chromosome lines: R1b-Z2103 here, R1b-L51 there, R1a-M417 in another place, I-L699 in yet another, and so on.
The problem with this argument is it requires inventing populations we have no evidence of, which also contradict the data we have from existing populations. Until there is data it it's not even worth discussing. This is the problem many of these types of Kurgan arguments; you are not working from the data, you are working against it as always. If your theory has validity it should harmonize with the data but instead you cope with imaginary scenarios you expect people to indulge (nobody gives a shit what you can make up).
@Davidski
You ignore a lot and give a shitty argument. It would take many generations of mixing between two populations to become homogeneously 70%/30% as we see in CW. The atypical ratio is precisely why it is a great example of proto-CW.
There is no earlier sample with a mix of GAC and Core Yamna, not to mention the R1a-M417.
@Romulus
You have a problem where you ignore very basic, widely accepted facts when they contradict your beliefs.
Obviously, the earliest Corded Ware samples from Bohemia, the East Baltic and North-Central Poland are very similar to Yamnaya.
So it's impossible for I1456 to represent the proto-Corded Ware gene pool, because it has far too much farmer ancestry.
Corded Ware samples only start showing the so called typical 70/30 steppe/farmer genetic profile after the early Corded Ware period.
@Rich
You seem to be projecting what happened in Bohemia to the entire Corded Ware horizon.
There was indeed a shift from L51 to M417, and also to a more farmer admixed genetic profile, in Bohemia after the early Corded Ware period.
But that later Bohemian Corded Ware population rich in M417 doesn't represent a second wave from the Corded Ware homeland on the steppe.
It's actually a migration from another part of the Corded Ware horizon, probably from somewhere in Poland, where admixture between early Corded Ware and GAC was happening already for a couple hundred years.
What is the oldest sample with R1a-M417 and Core Yamnaya ancestry?
What is the oldest sample with R1a-M417 and GAC ancestry?
If Durankulak man who lived 3500 - 3000 BCE mated with a woman of 100% Core Yamnaya ancestry then his offspring would have a correct Corded Ware admixture ratio, one generation to Corded Ware.
How many R1a from Usatove? 1
How many R1a from Bulgaria 3500-3000 BCE? 1
How many R1a from Yamnaya 3300-2500 BCE? From HUNDREDS of samples? From Hungary to Mongolia? 0
@Romulus
Your hypothesis requires two nonsensical major genetic shifts in Corded Ware, from GAC-admixed during the proto-Corded Ware stage to Yamnaya-like during the early Corded Ware stage, and back to GAC-admixed during the middle Corded Ware stage.
Obviously, that's total bullshit.
Poz81 (2880-2630 calBC) from North-Central Poland is the oldest Corded Ware sample with M417 and a Yamnaya-like profile sampled to date.
You can't get Poz81 in North-Central Poland by mixing I1456 from Bulgaria with "core" Yamnaya.
You can only get Poz81 by assuming that there was a Yamnaya-like population on the steppe with M417 that eventually migrated to North-Central Poland.
Romulus the I2a L233+ Proto Balto-Slav, layer of Corded Ware Women said...
The problem with this argument is it requires inventing populations we have no evidence of, which also contradict the data we have from existing populations. Until there is data it it's not even worth discussing. This is the problem many of these types of Kurgan arguments; you are not working from the data, you are working against it as always. If your theory has validity it should harmonize with the data but instead you cope with imaginary scenarios you expect people to indulge (nobody gives a shit what you can make up).
My response:
Hmmm, we disagree. I don't think I made up or invented anything. I used what thinking people call in English "inference". In other words, I inferred what we don't know from what we do know.
We know from the CWC-X Horizon burial sites at Srednia and Hubinek in Małopolska that Yamnaya or something that looks an awful lot like it was involved in the apparent transition from that steppe pastoralist culture to early Corded Ware. We know that Corded Ware is loaded with Yamnaya DNA, and it got into Corded Ware somehow. We also know that the very oldest Corded Ware samples we currently have, in Papac's Bohemia_CW_Early group, are R1b-L151 and very high in steppe DNA, clustering close to Yamnaya. The oldest of them are dated not long after CWC-X, in the earliest stage of CWC-A.
We know, too, that whatever Yamnaya or Yamnaya-look-alike group was involved in the genesis of Corded Ware, it was not R1b-Z2103.
We also know from the archaeological evidence that NW Yamnaya used the Dniester valley to move northwest through Podolia in Ukraine toward SE Poland.
My ideas about the genesis of Corded Ware are not actually original to me but have been put forward by knowledgeable people like Polish archaeologist and Corded Ware expert Piotr Włodarczak. Evidently Völker Heyd also believes Corded Ware was formed from Yamnaya in SE Poland - at least according to Kristian Kristiansen he does. Włodarczak hasn't said anything about any specific Y-DNA haplogroups; that part is my addition, but it is entirely reasonable, given the evidence, which is actually based on data which you somehow missed.
No the data doesn't require any shift back to Yamnaya-like. A sample or two with uncharacteristically low GAC are just outliers and not significant. We also have hundreds of Corded Ware samples and 99.9% have GAC.
I have questioned some current ideas about the migration into Poland and Hungary. For example in Hungary sample I7043 is R1b- L51 while sample I2787, I7044 are Bell Beakers R1b-Z2103 Z2109. One is from Corded Ware and one is from Yamnaya-Both have steppe? In Poland you have the same,I4252 is a Bell Beaker with R1b-L51 and I4253 is a Bell Beaker that is R1b-Z2103 one is from Corded Ware and one is from Yamnaya?. How is this explained?
@Romulus
The Yamnaya-like early Corded Ware samples aren't outliers.
They represent the typical genetic structure of the earliest Corded Ware population.
That's why I1456 can't be proto-Corded Ware.
These R1a arguments also ignore the basic fact that R1a just wasn't that popular back then. R1b has always been more popular even before Yamnaya. R1a was just a small amount of EHG people. But that's what founder effects do. Look at I1, J2B2-L283, or E-V13 later on in Europe.
I don't understand this obsession some have with finding the same exact % Y-DNA ratio through history. That Bulgaria sample at least showed that R1a was somewhere there down south.
@Rich S.
I will call it "making things up" you can call it "infering the existence of a theoretical population" or whatever. I have pointed out that there are contradictions and inconsistencies between your scenario and the data, your solution to those problems is to manufacture a population which will conveniently solve them all for you.
Davidski said...
@Rich
You seem to be projecting what happened in Bohemia to the entire Corded Ware horizon.
There was indeed a shift from L51 to M417, and also to a more farmer admixed genetic profile, in Bohemia after the early Corded Ware period.
But that later Bohemian Corded Ware population rich in M417 doesn't represent a second wave from the Corded Ware homeland on the steppe.
It's actually a migration from another part of the Corded Ware horizon, probably from somewhere in Poland, where admixture between early Corded Ware and GAC was happening already for a couple hundred years.
My response:
What you wrote above is entirely reasonable.
What I am using Papac and Bohemia_CW_Early for is evidence for an educated guess at the Y-DNA of the CWC-X Horizon in Małopolska, which of course is not Bohemia. So, I am working from the fact that the very oldest Corded Ware samples thus far known anywhere are R1b-L151 to infer that it may be R1b-L151 that shows up in CWC-X and R1b-L151 that was present in the NW Yamnaya group that, in Kristian Kristiansen's words, "transformed into Yamnaya" in SE Poland.
I realize that leaves the R1a-M417 problem unsolved, and that is a big problem with my hypothesis.
Maybe both R1b-L151 and R1a-M417 were present in CWC-X in the same vicinity. If researchers ever test some male remains from those CWC-X burial sites, and some from NW Yamnaya in Podolia, maybe we'll find out.
It seems to me that the North Caucasian hunter-gatherers were limited from the north by the Terek River from the south by the Kura and Araks Rivers and their main habitat was the mountains of the North-Eastern Caucasus
@Rich
What is Papaс?
@ Rich S
What are the early sites/ samples of R1b-L51/ L23 in central -wetern Europe please. Just doing some brainstorming
What I would like to know is where and in which culture was R-L23 born into? FamilyTreeDNA calculates the oldest of the 3 SNPs on the R-L23 level is from 4350 BCE. YFull has it at about the same age.
Did Serednii Stih (Sredny Stog) get it's start in 4500 BC? If so and if the calculated branch date of 4350 BC for R-L23 is correct, which I do think it is correct within a few hundred years at least, then it looks like R-L23 was born at the time the Serednii Stih culture had already developed.
I found the following in Lazaridis et al. 2024 -
The Core Yamnaya belonged primarily to haplogroup R-M269 (49/51 instances) most of which
could be determined as belonging to the Z2103 sub-lineage (41/51). This lineage is
unprecedented in our sampling of the steppe before the Yamnaya period; its closest relative is the
L51 lineage which dominated the Beaker group3 and mainland Europe outside the steppe (Fig.
3), with a slightly more distant relative in the R-PF7563 lineage found in Pylos in Mycenaean
Greece.45 With an estimated time of formation of ~4450 BCE (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R
L23/; v11.04.00), the R-L23 lineage unifies Beaker, Yamnaya, and Mycenaean Y-chromosomes
within an Eneolithic timeframe, which is consistent with the ancestors of these three groups
being part of a single population in the Yamnaya period itself since population divergences are
always lower than the genetic divergences of specific haplotypes. It is a challenge for future
ancient DNA studies to find the population in which the Eneolithic R-L23 founder lived and to
trace his R-Z2103 descendants. Their absence from the Eneolithic record, together with the
evidence (discussed below) for isolation in the formative period of the Yamnaya suggest that he
might have been part of a small group not yet sampled.
Which group that has not been sampled could R-L23 have been born into?
As far as old R1b specimens from the study, there are 2 Upper Volga specimens older than 4600 BC that are R-P297 that have a lot of coverage. It will be interesting to see their results for R-M269 SNPs. I20298 4350-3950 BCE also looks interesting. The haplogroup is obviously wrong so an analysis is needed for that one. If R-L23 or reliable R-M269 aren't found in those specimens then which area that has not been sampled needs to be sampled?
@Арсен
Luka Papac et al.,
Dynamic changes in genomic and social structures in third millennium BCE central Europe.Sci. Adv.7,eabi6941(2021).DOI:10.1126/sciadv.abi6941
https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abi6941
You can't get Poz81 in North-Central Poland by mixing I1456 from Bulgaria with "core" Yamnaya.
You can only get Poz81 by assuming that there was a Yamnaya-like population on the steppe with M417 that eventually migrated to North-Central Poland.
Poz81 has 10% GAC ancestry we don't need to manufacture a population from imagination to explain it. It's just a regular CWC sample.
The samples from the Mayaky Usatove site where the R1a was found have 55% Core Yamnaya ancestry:
https://ibb.co/9HMrPbD
@Romulus
Poz81 is genetically an early Corded Ware sample. All early Corded Ware samples are very similar to each other and to Yamnaya.
Early Corded Ware doesn't derive from I1456.
It's just a Yamnaya-like population with a small amount of admixture.
@Davidski
mmmmmmnnnnnnnnnnnnope
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7817100/figure/F4/
"Poz81 (2880-2630 calBC)"
NIK004 Nikultsino Yaroslavl, RUS Fatyanovo 2876–2620 32% GAC
NIK005 Nikultsino Yaroslavl, RUS Fatyanovo 2881–2581 28% GAC
@Romulus
The samples are poorly covered and therefore poorly modeled.
Target: RUS_Fatyanovo_Yaroslavl_BA:NIK005
Distance: 3.0629% / 0.03062906 | R4P
35.2 UKR_Meso_Vasilevka-I
33.2 Russia_Afanasievo
28.4 Germany_EN_LBK
3.2 China_Upper_YR_LN
Target: RUS_Fatyanovo_Yaroslavl_BA:NIK004
Distance: 2.6532% / 0.02653161 | R4P
47.4 Russia_Afanasievo
28.2 Germany_EN_LBK
15.0 RUS_N_MiddleDon_Golubaya_Krinitsa
9.4 UKR_Deriivka_N
@Dospaises
R1b-M269 >L23>L51 by their TMRCAs cannot originate from Repin-Yamnaya (3,600-2,600 BCE), as I have already said many times, Yamnaya it is only the sink of these lineages, not the origin.
If we ignore the Smyadovo sample and therefore the Balkans, then we have to think of the northeastern techno-complex (Kunda, Narva, Veretye, Butovo). There we have P297 and Y13200 in abundance and we know that these markers reached Lyalovo and Volosovo.
The Minino, Zvejnieki & Sakhtysh samples may be the solution, because when BAm files can be reanalyzed then maybe some calls downstream P297 will be found (L23 or even M269). The key dates are 5,000-4,000 BC.
Sredni stog? If those markers appear there would be a miracle considering that we have dozens of Ukrainian samples and they haven't found anything.
Sample I20298 is from Kulmetovskiy-Grot, in that site there are only two burials that were already analyzed (I think by Zeng, 2.023)-They are also Y13200 not PF7562.
The territory of the Baltic and northern Russia may have served as a base for R1b lineages to recolonize the south following a triple route-Poland>Bohemia, Don>Central Steppe and Volga>Eastern Steppe. For years now, many people (except for irrational ultrakurganists) have accepted this possibility with normality.
So now since CLV existed in PC Steppe before 4500 BCE based on Progress_En ~4900 BCE and Berezhnovka_En ~4900 BCE, what else is left to shoot for Davidski's illogical theory? I think it's proven now thay Progress-Vonyuchka-Berezhnovka also known as "CLV" is the ancestor of SS as demonstrated on qpAdm
R1b-Z2103 is now upstream R1b-Z2105, as per yfull. Yamnaya I0443 was L23(Z2105-L51-) now=Z2103. Sample I33307 is
R1b-Z2103(Yamnaya) one of the oldest,- Inland Caspian region 3600BCE+/-.
Another Z2103(Yamnaya)sample comes from Mykhailivka --south of Serednii Stih. It is older than the Deriivka -Yamnaya sample I5884. Around 3500BCE+/-
Additionally re CWC formation or admixture with EEF, the DATES work on Fatyanovo (see Saag 2021) suggests that the admixture event in that population's history happened around 3100-2900 BCE, which is compatible with being the same kind of timing as the earliest CWC in Bohemia that we see co-occuring without EEF related admixture and with the presence of females with a Globular Amphora profile (and one of these females actually has IBD links to Poland GAC, as far as I can remember from Ringbauer's paper, although there is some ancestry diversity to them).
I know a lot of people on here don't set much store by DATES, but at the least that's additional line of evidence not suggesting an earlier formation in Fatayanovo by 400 years or something.
@Gabru
Davidsky said that hunter-gatherers with 50/50 CHG-EHG lived in the Caucasian steppe in the Neolithic
And from the new work it is clear that Samara hunters went down the Volga mixing with CHG in different proportions in the eneolithic, while in the Neolithic in the Caucasian steppes there lived CHG similar cattle breeders
@Davidski
I think that studying M. Sikora's lectures could explain a lot Myślę, że studiowanie prelekcji M. Sikory mogło by wiele wyjaśnić.
(Tube: 1.12 -1.38) 9.45–10.15 Martin Sikora: The Origins and Genetic Structure of Corded Ware-Associated Individuals – Insights from Networks of Recent Genetic Co-Ancestry
The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC - Day 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0CV0sh7wGQ
@ gabru
''So now since CLV existed in PC Steppe before 4500 BCE based on Progress_En ~4900 BCE and Berezhnovka_En ~4900 BCE, what else is left to shoot for Davidski's illogical theory? I think it's proven now thay Progress-Vonyuchka-Berezhnovka also known as "CLV" is the ancestor of SS as demonstrated on qpAdm''
The CLV cluster is just an invention, to sneak in the 4% of Iranian ancestry. Its impact was minimal
Otherwise, CHG was there for thousands of years. No migration from the south
@ a
"R1b-Z2103 is now upstream R1b-Z2105, as per yfull. Yamnaya I0443 was L23(Z2105-L51-) now=Z2103. Sample I33307 is
R1b-Z2103(Yamnaya) one of the oldest,- Inland Caspian region 3600BCE+/-.
Another Z2103(Yamnaya)sample comes from Mykhailivka --south of Serednii Stih. It is older than the Deriivka -Yamnaya sample I5884. Around 3500BCE+/-"
R-Z2103 is given born 6100 years ago by YFull, i.e. at least 500 or 600 years before, and the samples found so far are older more and more we go westernmost.
@Gaska
So far all R-L23 specimens have Steppe autosomal DNA. Based on the statement by Sabine Reinhold that they can now time the development of the Steppe ancestry in a time between 6000 and 5000 BCE then R-L23 was extremely likely to have been born into a culture that already had Steppe autosomal DNA.
If the R-P297 specimens from the Upper Volga dated to 5323-4610 calBCE and 5500-5200 BCE didn't have an autosomal signature similar to Steppe autosomal DNA, or ancestral to Steppe autosomal DNA, the authors of Lazaridis et al. 2024 would have made a statement about them.
You need to fit that information in to any hypothesis you have. So does everyone else.
@All
I think that studying M. Sikora's lectures could explain a lot.
Budapest, DAY-3; (Tube: 1.12 -1.38) 9.45–10.15
Martin Sikora: The Origins and Genetic Structure of Corded Ware-Associated Individuals – Insights from Networks of Recent Genetic Co-Ancestry
in: "The Transformation of Europe in the Third Millennium BC" - Day 3
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0CV0sh7wGQ
Gio said...
"R1b-Z2103 is now upstream R1b-Z2105, as per yfull. Yamnaya I0443 was L23(Z2105-L51-) now=Z2103. Sample I33307 is
R1b-Z2103(Yamnaya) one of the oldest,- Inland Caspian region 3600BCE+/-.
Another Z2103(Yamnaya)sample comes from Mykhailivka --south of Serednii Stih. It is older than the Deriivka -Yamnaya sample I5884. Around 3500BCE+/-"
R-Z2103 is given born 6100 years ago by YFull, i.e. at least 500 or 600 years before, and the samples found so far are older more and more we go westernmost."
My reply
Perhaps you are right, west group is not yet sampled. In the following as posted above.
Lazaridis et al. 2024 -
"The Core Yamnaya belonged primarily to haplogroup R-M269 (49/51 instances) most of which
could be determined as belonging to the Z2103 sub-lineage (41/51). This lineage is
unprecedented in our sampling of the steppe before the Yamnaya period; its closest relative is the
L51 lineage which dominated the Beaker group3 and mainland Europe outside the steppe (Fig.
3), with a slightly more distant relative in the R-PF7563 lineage found in Pylos in Mycenaean
Greece.45 With an estimated time of formation of ~4450 BCE (https://www.yfull.com/tree/R
L23/; v11.04.00), the R-L23 lineage unifies Beaker, Yamnaya, and Mycenaean Y-chromosomes
within an Eneolithic timeframe, which is consistent with the ancestors of these three groups
being part of a single population in the Yamnaya period itself since population divergences are
always lower than the genetic divergences of specific haplotypes. It is a challenge for future
ancient DNA studies to find the population in which the Eneolithic R-L23 founder lived and to
trace his R-Z2103 descendants. Their absence from the Eneolithic record, together with the
evidence (discussed below) for isolation in the formative period of the Yamnaya suggest that he
might have been part of a small group not yet sampled."
I was just thinking of what sets those Bell Beakers from Poland I4253 and Hungary I2787, I7044 are R1b_Z2103--- apart from the Poland-Hungary L51 and M417 also found in Corded Ware and Bell Beakers in the Papac et al paper. The same crew with ring leaders have formed on one forum , and are puzzled why Corded Ware has different dates and autosomal for their formation of different clades, when you inquire you get the reply about PIE or "it's complicated" or even no reply at all. I'm grateful that we have much older samples that can connect the quote above directly with I2787, I7044, I4253 without any useless debates about PIE. Maybe you will be proven right.
@Gaska
Adding to what I said above. We have known ever since YFull started calculating formed and TMRCA dates that R-L23 was older than Yamnaya. This was never in doubt by me.
Many of us have acknowledged for many years, based on Y-DNA phylogeny and Steppe autosomal DNA, that R-L23 in western Europe comes from the east.
We have also acknowledged that Yamnaya and CWC have Steppe autosomal DNA their Steppe autosomal DNA had to have come from predecessor in the east and so did R-L23. Now they just need to find the skeletons from that predecessor group.
@a
Do you think this branch comes from Ukraine or the Balkans?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-PF7562/
It seems to me that she comes from the North Caucasus, since at the top of the branch there is a Dagestan and below the branch there are Armenians and Turks
Even lower are the Balkan Arabs
It can be seen that its trajectory was from north to south
@ Rob
"Otherwise, CHG was there for thousands of years. No migration from the south"
Think again, CLV(Progress_En, Vonyuchka_En, Berezhnovka_En) contains substantial ANF which alone proves migration from South of Caucasus with impacting source such as Armenia_Aknashen_LN
What do you all make of this sample?
I27983 Yas24/Ya40 Yasynuvatka, Burial 24, Pit Б-1 2,3 n/a 5560-4750 BCE M H R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2
This seems to be a full fleshed R1b-P312-L21-DF13-FGC11134/Y3550+ sample found in Ukraine pre-dating Yamnaya there by a long shot.
The main article:
"A genomic history of the North Pontic Region from the Neolithic to the Bronze Age" does not address I27983, however the supplementary info cautions of some possible contamination, although it gives us this nugget:
"On the PCA (Figure 2a), they cluster together, with Individual I27983 (Yasinyvatka burial 24) positioned in close proximity. In PCA iterations involving central European Bronze Age specimens, this location is populated by central European Únětice and Corded Ware. While I27983’s contamination raises concerns about its use in comparative analysis, its proximity to the central European Bronze Age is noteworthy."
If proven true, this will throw YFull formed and TMRCA dates for R-L23 into a tailspin.
@Rich
“I realize that leaves the R1a-M417 problem unsolved, and that is a big problem with my hypothesis.”
As EastPole has noted in a couple of posts above, Reich is exploring a possible solution to this problem. His thinking seems to be that the R1a ancestry in CW might be derived from the Baltic Hunter Gatherer component identified in Papac. Here’s a rough transcript of his question to Sikora:
“So for example the Baltic Hunter Gatherer ancestry component in the Papac samples, which is super interesting and like one of the sort of debates that is simmering about whether that's an importance component because maybe that's the source of the you know R1a Y-chromosome or the or something like that um you know to what extent do you think that that might be related to the kind of temporal features of the modeling and to what extent do you think that that's a confidence statement that you're actually finding ancestry that is not for example either Yamnaya or Globular Amphora drived.”
The second step in Reich’s analysis is to argue that the Steppe/Yamnaya ancestry found in R1a CW was female mediated, i.e., either through exploitation or exchange of Yamnaya females into the R1a CW clans, which massively “swamped out” the original CW genome except for the Y-Chromosome.
Why go all the way to the Baltic for the source of R1a CW and why say that the original CW genome was “swamped out”? Reich identifies Sredny-Stog as the source population for “Core” Yamnaya, and says that this “Core” Yamnaya experiences an enormous explosion in terms of population and territorial expansion 3600 – 3400 CE . Reich also argues that this “Core” Yamnaya comprises the steppe component in R1a CW, but why can’t “Core” Yamnaya and R1a (along with R1b-L51, for that matter) all be derived from the same Sredny-Stog source population, a major social and economic component of which is the constant exchange of females among the three groups keeping their genomes virtually identical for an extended period preceding the CW mixing with Globular Amphora and Baltic Hunter Gatherer.
@Dospaises
1-The oldest L23 (and also Z2103) we have belongs to the Repin culture (Volga Chogray, approx 3.600 BCE) and evidently has steppe ancestry.
2-How many R1b specimens do you know between 6.000-4.500 BCE that have steppe ancestry as we know it in Repin-Yamnaya-Afanasievo?-Only Golubaya Krinitsa samples (R1a-M459 & I2a-L699) could be considered as Yamnaya ancestors because Khvalynsk has small percentages of CHG but there is no genetic continuity through the male line with Yamnaya.
3-Perhaps L23 acquired it somewhere in the steppes but this would be no earlier than 4,400-4,000 BCE. Certainly if this marker appeared in the culture of Lyalovo, Kunda or Volosovo it would not have it. To pretend that this autosomal component is universal for all R1b in Europe is a chimera.
4-At the moment there is NO P297>M269 in Sredni Stog except the Nikitin sample from Yasinovatka, Dnipro-Donets culture (I27983-L21??????-5.155 BCE), which could be R1b and why not M269. But even that sample would NOT have steppe ancestry. Even if an isolated sample of any male marker appeared, it could be considered an outlier among dozens of ukrainian and Russian samples without steppe ancestry. Harvard has expanded the existence of steppe ancestry to try to explain their errors.
You also need to fit that information in to any hypothesis you have
Can anybody put a Dropbox link of Allentoft 2023 merged 1240K please a humble request, especially at least NEO310 - (TKM_Monjukli_Depe_N)
cc:- @Rob
R1a M17 and R1b-M269 must have been just north of the lower steppe, which was initially full of I2a in the east and R1b-V3516 in the east
Rob said...
@ Rich S
What are the early sites/ samples of R1b-L51/ L23 in central -wetern Europe please. Just doing some brainstorming
My response:
As far as I know, there are no undifferentiated L23* samples in central or western Europe. As far as I can tell (and easily find out), all the R1b-L51 samples in central and western Europe are also derived for SNPs further downstream.
Papac's R1b Bohemia_CW_Early group are the earliest L51s I know of, and, as you know, most of them are L151, and one was U106. A couple of other old ones are MX304, 2866-2601 cal BC from Auvernier, Switzerland, who was L52 (Furtwängler 2020) and Aesch25, 2864-2501 cal BC, from Aesch, Switzerland, who was R1b-L151 (Furtwängler 2020).
There are some samples from Fichera's thesis in Belgium, but none of them was c14 dated, and some of the haplogroup results seem rather too refined to be correct; either that, or they are later than the archaeological context indicated.
I might have missed something, of course.
I've got a question regarding the conference in Budapest that just ended this past Saturday. In Razib Khan's recent interview of Kristian Kristiansen, Kristiansen said Völker Heyd would speak at the conference and describe how "Yamnaya transformed into Corded Ware" in SE Poland.
I didn't watch every minute of the livestreaming of that conference, but I surfed through the video of it looking for Heyd's presentation. I never found it.
Did I simply miss it? Did Heyd speak at the conference? If so, on what day?
a said... qouting Lazaridis et al. 2024 -
"the R-L23 lineage unifies Beaker, Yamnaya, and Mycenaean Y-chromosomes
within an Eneolithic timeframe, which is consistent with the ancestors of these three groups being part of a single population in the Yamnaya period."
This seems to say a separate R-L23 group existed at the same time as Yamnaya that was also ancestral to Yamnaya and Beaker.
This seems like a big deal.
Where this Missing Link population was located also seems like a big deal.
Since Beaker is not present on the steppes and Yamnaya covers a lot of territory in the opposite direction, this group could have been anywhere.
@Gabru said
"Think again, CLV(Progress_En, Vonyuchka_En, Berezhnovka_En) contains substantial ANF which alone proves migration from South of Caucasus with impacting source such as Armenia_Aknashen_LN"
significant amount of ANF? Naturally, some Neolithic components penetrated into the north of the Caucasus, but where is the significant one?
@LivoniaG
Bell Beaker is derived from the Single Grave culture (western Corded Ware).
And both Corded Ware and Yamnaya are derived from the same post-Sredny Stog population that existed around 3,500 BCE in Ukraine.
@GeorgeKatz
There's no Baltic hunter-gatherer component in Corded Ware and there's no evidence of such a thing in the Papac paper.
It's just extra Ukraine Neolithic ancestry on top of what is found in Yamnaya.
R1a-M417 doesn't come from the Baltic region, it comes from the Corded Ware homeland in Ukraine.
This Corded Ware homeland was also the Yamnaya homeland.
R1a-M417, R1b-L51 and R1b-Z2103 all expanded from this homeland in Ukraine, with the Corded Ware people who went north into the forests and the Yamnaya people who went south into the steppes.
If David Reich doesn't know this yet, then that's his problem.
@ Gabru
''Think again, CLV(Progress_En, Vonyuchka_En, Berezhnovka_En) contains substantial ANF which alone proves migration from South of Caucasus with impacting source such as Armenia_Aknashen_LN"''
These are just isolated individuals with no historical impact. Nalchik has 15% of such
ancestry
As I said, translates into 2% of such ancestry in Yamnaya
Rather meaningless given that central Anatolia has 30% ancestry from eastern Romania
haha poor laz
@ RichS
That seems to confirm a modified Danubian route
No, Heyd didnt speak, would have been a good one.
@Canarias DNA Project
I27983 Yas24/Ya40 Yasynuvatka, Burial 24, Pit Б-1 2,3 n/a 5560-4750 BCE M H R1b1a1b1a1a2c1a3a2
It will be proven to be a false positive or contamination as mentioned the text you copied from the study.
The TMRCA for R-L23 is the same at FTDNA at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-L23/story as it is at YFull at https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-L23/ even though FTDNA has more samples.
The TMRCA date for R-L23 will not change at either site because the reported haplogroup for I27983 is obviously an erroneous result.
Yamnaya had some aggressive founder effects in general. Looking at some of the R1a mutation dates this becomes obvious. R-Z93 for example dated to 3000 BC (when Harvardians say Late PIE disbanded) and it's TMCRA is 2500 BC, which matches perfectly the eastern pre-Indo-Iranian migrations from CW. TMRCA for R-M417 is actually 3400 BC, meaning ALL LIVING R1a/M417 people go back to this 1 dude in the early Yamnaya period.
So people are essentially trying to hunt down this 1 dude in 3400 BC that became the ancestor of all R1as today in a sea of R-L23s. It could literally be something as absurd as a clan of 25 people out of a population of 10,000. Just a minor EHG lineage that somehow snuck into SS and survived with Yamnaya that late. (Similar to J2B2-L283 which was a minor CHG lineage).
Population density was so small in that region, that I wouldn't be surprised if each major Y-DNA like RZ2103, RL51, R1a-M417 all went by one clan name each that everyone knew, and the RL51 and R1a-M417 clans decided to seek new pastures in Poland.
I had missed this part in Lazaridis et al. 2024
"Uncertainty about where, exactly, within the territory of the Serednii Stih culture the ancestors of the Core Yamnaya lived contrasts with their expansive distribution after the formation of the Yamnaya archaeological horizon"
So that information coupled with the information that Core Yamnaya descends from R-L23 and the evidence for isolation in the formative period of the Yamnaya suggest that the R-L23 founder might have been part of a small group not yet sampled means that they believe that R-L23 was born in the territory of the Serednii Stih culture.
So that answers the question I had earlier.
Rob said...
@ RichS
That seems to confirm a modified Danubian route
No, Heyd didnt speak, would have been a good one.
My response:
Thanks.
I was really looking forward to Heyd talking about what Kristiansen described to Razib Khan as "Yamnaya transforming into Corded Ware in SE Poland". Probably he's saving it for an upcoming paper.
@Gaska
As far as R1b specimens between 6.000-4.500 BCE we have to wait until the BAM files of these studies are published to see what the Y-DNA SNPs show for those specimens in order to determine if they are on the same, or a different lineage, leading to R-L23, and see what their autosomal DNA actually shows, etc. Other than those there are no reliable R1b specimens from 6.000-4.500 BCE that are on a branch that leads to R-L23.
The authors of the Lazaridis study believe R-L23 was part of a small group in Serednii Stih territory. Once that group is found then whatever autosomal DNA R-L23 had I am fine with. It isn't very likely to not have autosomal DNA that makes up a significant part of Core Yamnaya since Core Yamnaya has such a high rate of R-L23 subclades.
I don't care about all R1b in Europe. I care about R-L23 and it's descendants and it's direct ancestors. In these discussions, I don't care about all of the other R1b people in your constant banter that you talk about that are on dead ends or have very unreliable results or no direct 14C testing. All of the R-L23 people and descendants to date have Steppe autosomal DNA. They have yet to publish R-L23 specimens from 4500 BC to 3800 BC. It's those specimens and their autosomal results are what I care about.
The authors of Nikitin admit that I27983 has contamination but we'll have to see the details once the study is officially published and the BAM file.
I'll repeat - The authors of the Lazaridis study believe R-L23 was part of a small group in Serednii Stih territory.
We will have to wait for more studies until we have the answer as to the autosomal profile of our R-L23 ancestor, the ancestor of all R-L23 derived people in the world.
@Dospaises
1-Maybe these words of Lazaridis & Anthony after finding a P297 in Ekaternivoka will help you to think about it- “It is surprising that the subsequent mutations in this important subclade (R-P297>M269>L23>Z2103) are NOT documented in our steppe sample set until their appearance in Yamnaya individuals MORE THAN 1000 years later”. Surprising? To a certain extent, because we already have more than 1000 samples from that region and we still have not been able to find out what is the geographic origin of M269, L23 and L51
2-This means that between 5.500 and 3.600 there are no M269>L23>L51/Z2103 neither in Ukraine nor in Russia and also that the closest R1b-P297 (Ekaterinovskiy-Mys & Sakhtysh), did NOT have steppe ancestry. So the Harvardians think that the origin of R1b-M269>L23>L51 is in Sredni Stog?, we will see, I do not understand how they have come to that conclusion knowing the uniparental markers that we have from the Ukrainian mesolithic, neolithic and eneolithic. It seems more a hunch than a scientific certainty
3-I think it's great that you are only concerned about our L23 ancestor, but before that marker existed we have another 16,000 years until we reach MA1 and all those ancestors also deserve our respect
4-And regarding steppe ancestry, I have always found this argument very boring because you always forget that all of us R1b-L23 also have blood from WHGs and EEFs and we should be as proud of some ancestors as others
5-The overemphasis on the autosomal component and the difficulty of proving the Kurgan theory with uniparental markers has led us to the stupidity of saying that a small percentage of an autosomal component is sufficient to prove that a culture spoke a certain language, Really?, how did we get to this point?
Regarding the discussion about the origin of CWC
1-We know more than 100 mtDNA from the CWC-62.38 have been previously documented in Yamnaya-Afanasievo, 28,71 in the EEF (GAC, TRB depending on the region) 8,91 in the WHG. I still remember some fanatics defending years ago the exclusive responsibility of men for the spread of steppe ancestry in mainland europe
2-Prof Reich is a good man and looks for explanations to interpret the data at his disposal. I would advise him that instead of looking for the origin of M417 in the Baltic, to look for the origin of M269>L23 in that region. R1a-M417 looks like a Ukrainian issue on the border with CT.The Baltic signal is becoming fashionable
The recently launched Egyptian Genome Project aims to sequence genomic variants of 100,000 apparently healthy Egyptian adults, with around 8,000 individuals suspected to have a genetic disease, as well as 200 ancient Egyptian mummies. The project will provide the first comprehensive genomic dataset from Egypt and North Africa.
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41588-024-01739-1
@rozenblatt said...
„Regarding that paper by Balanovskaya: the authors only use modern DNA in their analysis. As such, what they call "Steppe cluster" is cluster based on modern population of Eurasian Steppe, so people like Kazakhs, Karakalpaks etc. It is not the same as Bronze Age Steppe cluster.April 21, 2024 at 9:19 AM”
Yes you are right. But skillful analysis of modern genomes can reveal many elements of their individual and social past.
You will remember that before the great ancients DNA research by Haak and Allentoft in 2015, we already knew a lot about human and our antiquity based on the analysis of our modern genomes.
Similarly, intelligent research on the genomes of modern Karanogaians has already said something and this research needs to be continued: to distinguish between the elements of the Mongol horde and the Caspian autochthons.
It's obvious NC-LV(aka CLV) group is Proto-NWIE[{(Blt-Slv)---(Itl-Cel--Grm)}----(Dac-Thrc--Alb/Ily)----(Toch)}], like Progress-Vonyuchka culture = NC, Prikaspiiskaya/Cis-Caspian culture = LV, maybe Lower_Don_LN/Lower_Don_N is also part of CLV people?
@StP
The Karanogais are steppe Mongolian tribes, the remnants of the Golden Horde, there are not many steppe autochthonous people in them, although what counts as steppe autochthonous, cattle breeders from the early Bronze Age? or late bronze like sintashta? or even later, like the Scythians, Sarmatians, Huns, Avars, or Khazars? this region has always been a passageway for many pastoral tribes.
The Karanogais live mainly in the Caspian lowland of the Caucasus
Previously, the Nogais lived from the Black Sea to the Caspian Sea until the Russian Empire committed genocide against them
Approximate map of Nogai residence in 1840
https://ibb.co/QptQ7gB
And this is what is left of them now
https://ibb.co/Vph4cPV
sad picture
@StP ,Although some groups of Nogais have a very high steppe ancestry, they are rather assimilated highlanders, since there is a noticeably high Eastern Anatolian and Caucasian origin, and a low Asian component relative to other Nogais (especially the first)
https://i.ibb.co/HzgMYND/Screenshot-45.png
@Gabru
Stone Age sites of the northwestern Caucasus, red square - Paleolithic sites, Mesolithic triangle, Neolithic circle,
https://i.ibb.co/ncqm6C4/photo-2024-04-29-13-06-52.jpg
it is clear that from the north their location is limited by the Kuban River, and the settlement route goes through the northwestern Black Sea passage from Georgia to the "Kuban" (as the Russians now call the indigenous land of the Circassians ), perhaps they were the ones who gave CHG to the steppe people, what do you think? Rob believes that they, I believe that the hunter-gatherers of the Eastern Caucasus, since the Western were hunter-gatherers even during the Neolithic, and the Eastern domesticated mountain sheep and animals by that time
@Gaska
1. People with the important mutation of R-L23, and/or phylogenetic equivalents, have not been found because they are in an unsampled population. That does not prove anything other than not being one of the specimens sampled so far. It means nothing else.
2. You do not understand that ancestral reads for specimens can prove they have nothing to do with a specific lineage. That is why you incessantly bring up specimens that have nothing to do with the lineage that brought about R-L23 subclades in western Europe. The scientists involved in these studies obviously understand these things better than you.
3. That is what you don't understand. Having respect and being focused on a subject are two different matters. I am focused in these discussions on a specific lineage. Everything tangential to the core discussion of the lineage is just noise and can cause misconceptions and misinformation.
4. I don't care what you call boring. I made a statement without mentioning you and of course you responded when you were the last person I cared to have a response from. If you think my posts are boring ignore them and move on. When I respond to your posts it's because of misinformation. Your misinformation caused you to be wrong about R-L51 and R-L52 not being found in Yamnaya. So from now on you can ignore my posts when I don't mention you. Now that I am on that subject, the R-L52 in Yamnaya and Bell Beaker and the shared autosomal DNA between Yamnaya and Bell Beaker proves that the R-L52 subclades in western Europe come from Yamnaya. That is something that you always denied was possible. Now we have the proof.
5. Are you on drugs? I haven't brought up language of these people in years because I stopped caring about proving or disproving who spoke what a long time ago.
A summary of the recent preprints, with English subtitles: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=So2F7ibgN84
@ Vlad MC
Can you re-post the Satanay abstract please
Dospaises said...
@Gaska . . .
My response:
That person began this thread of commentary with the words, "And yes, I WAS WRONG". Hope flickered momentarily, like a candle in the wind, but then he snuffed it out and proceeded to double down on the same old-same old, wrongheaded, R1b-out-of-peninsular-Europe schtick. Ho-hum. I seem to hear Pete Seeger singing from beyond the grave, "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?".
One can take some solace in the fact that as the years have progressed that individual has moved the L23 homeland farther and farther east. He began in Iberia, now he's in the Baltic.
It's still wrong, but that's some improvement, I guess.
@Rob
The uncalibrated date of Oxford University is 7450 BP. I think the calibrated one will be about 6500-7000 BC. Archaeologists refer to the Late Mesolithic.
https://www.kunstkamera.ru/files/pdf/piles_of_bones_tekst.pdf?ysclid=lvn8rdp8ur564794544 pg. 61
https://www.academia.edu/11505385/Imereti_Culture_in_the_Upper_Paleolithic_of_Caucasus_past_and_present pg. 68
@Vladimir
Thanks
@ Rich S
"I seem to hear Pete Seeger singing from beyond the grave, "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?".
I heard the Seeger's song at the time of the Vietnam war and I am above all a historian and don't think I have something to learn from you about History (and neither Genetics or other) from you and neither from your wife.
‘ @Vlad
Thanks, but I meant the genetic preview abstract ?
@Arsen
A review of haplogroups Y chromosomes (I have a detailed table) and your recent analysis indicate that this Mongolianness of Karanogais is not significant. In the K=3 analysis, the step admix is 91%
@Rob
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1XJwSqcFDefWU7pnX27A77xaqTz-OTfIA-lG9yyjBzhA/edit?usp=sharing
Here, I translated it a little and added different pictures
@StP
Quit talking rubbish and learn to interpret Admixture results.
The Karanogai steppe component isn't the same as the Yamnaya steppe component, even after removing Mongolian admixture in the Karanogais.
It's a modern composite of different ancient components, with a contribution of only about 30% from Yamnaya/Catacomb.
In order to actually see the Yamnaya steppe component in the Admixture analysis, you need to have Yamnaya samples in the analysis.
@Davidski said... StP, Quit talking rubbish
Davidski! Zacznij nas traktować jako poszukiwaczy prawdy naukowej.
Moim celem w sprawie Karanogai było głębsze przebadanie tu tego, co pojawiło się w pracy zespółu E. Bałnowskiej. Traktowałem to jako ciekawostkę. Szanuj Swoich partnerów!
@Rich S.
Just to let you know, Heyd's first name is Volker. The word Völker does exist in German as a plural of Volk, i.e. the people, but it's not used as a name.
@Dospaises
Dear Mexican friend, your comment only demonstrates your low intelligence and your great ignorance. When you analyze the BAM Files of the latest papers, I hope you will share your findings with the international scientific community. Kurganists around the world will be eternally grateful to you.
Simon_W said...
@Rich S.
Just to let you know, Heyd's first name is Volker. The word Völker does exist in German as a plural of Volk, i.e. the people, but it's not used as a name.
My response:
Yes, I finally caught my error on that. I don't know where I got the idea that there was an umlaut in his first name. Actually, German is my second language, believe it or not. I read it pretty well, but my speaking of it is extremely rusty. I would need to go live in Germany for a few months to bring it up to speed.
Gio said...
@ Rich S
"I seem to hear Pete Seeger singing from beyond the grave, "When will they ever learn? When will they ever learn?".
I heard the Seeger's song at the time of the Vietnam war and I am above all a historian and don't think I have something to learn from you about History (and neither Genetics or other) from you and neither from your wife.
My response:
I'm not sure what my wife has to do with anything. She's not even interested in genetics or prehistory in the least.
Anyway, I don't expect you to learn anything from me Gio. The problem is that you won't learn anything from anyone else either.
For some more Anatolia' individuals, + rehashing above (with same qpAdm set-up)
Ilipinar_Chl : one-way model with Buyukkaya (Camlibel-Tarlasi works in place of Buyukkaya also in these)
Barchin_Chl: 78% Buyukkaya + 22% Cernavoda
MA2203: 68% Buyukkaya + 32% cernavoda
Isparta: 88% Buyukkaya + 13% Cernavoda
Arslantepe_Chl: 44% Buyukkaya + 56% Azerbajan_N
Arslantepe EBA: 21% Buyukkaya + 79% Azerbajan_N
Iiztepe: 48% Buyukkaya + 52% Azerbajan_N
Very patchy, but clear differentiation between a west/ southwest and east/ northeast Anatolia
These are trash models you could easily find Cernavoda in Illipnar_ChL if you vould in Barcin_ChL just shows how garbage models you're making out of thin air to cope
Post a Comment