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 401 – 600 of 660 Newer› Newest»steppe en, Kura Araks (South Caucasian and East Caucasian) as well as some modern peoples of the Eastern and Western Caucasus through the prism of the Mesolithic and Neolithic
https://i.ibb.co/SJYQ7L9/Screenshot-46.png
the Iranian-Tukatul admixture, characteristic of the steppe en, is found only among the Velikent Kura Araks and the Eastern Caucasians
I’m more than sure it will be the same among the ginchi_en and much higher than among the bronze velkents ,who's willing to bet? )
@Gaska
You have shown you don't understand the data at least since you tried to use ATP3 as proof that R-L51 obviously has nothing to do with Steppe migrations even though it didn't have a single call for R-L23 or R-L51 and even though it is young enough to be derived for any of them. It's even young enough to be derived for some SNPs on the R-P310 level. That's only one example of several that you would incessantly use to "prove" that R-L51 subclades in western Europe have nothing to do with the Steppe migration. Not only that you would incessantly say that the Steppe migration had nothing to do with Yamnaya. It's not so bad that you would believe it. You would belligerently argue about it. We now have proof that R-L51 is from Yamnaya and are the source of R-L51 in western Europe. It's ironic that you have the balls to call someone else of low intelligence after all of your belligerent arguing when you were obviously wrong the whole time and we informed you the whole time what you thought was evidence wasn't evidence. Like I have said before, I feel sorry for you.
@Dospaises
Maybe in Mexico and the United States you are used to lie, to hide data that do not interest you, to ignore samples that are not convenient for your "genetic" interests and to put in other people's mouths words that they have never said. It is a typical weasel behavior to which we are already accustomed and that is reason enough to feel sorry for you
1-You have been denying for 10 years that ATP3 was M269 despite having the ability to prove it, simply because an M269 without steppe ancestry in the Iberian chalcolithic was a disaster for the Kurgan theory. Everyone knows that if that sample had enough coverage there could have been calls under M269, maybe L51, L151 or P310, but the truth is that it is only M269 and you have only recognized it when it has appeared in official lists of published papers. Then if it was a mistake, you should have had the balls to admit it publicly. However the reaction despite knowing that the Spanish geneticists recognized it as such was to ban people from participating in certain forums in order to control the official narrative, you are simply lackeys and will never be able to behave otherwise
2-Sorry to tell you, but you have absolutely nothing, 3 samples from the catacomb culture prove L51-Yamnaya migrations when you have L151 in Bohemia 250 years before?, keep dreaming, you know that Harvard has recognized that finding the origin of M269 and L23 is a challenge that they have not been able to overcome after 10 years of hard work and thousands of samples analyzed. It is normal that many people are skeptical and doubt the ability of this laboratory to find a solution. I have always said that only convincing evidence can solve the mystery. So far only conjectures, hunches and unscientific conclusions
3-And yes, I prefer to think that you are either dumb or incompetent at analyzing ancient genomes. Otherwise you should have recognized many years ago that ATP3 is M269.
4-Why don't you take a look at the R1b of Fichera's thesis. Check the dating and then tell me your conclusions, it will be interesting to know your opinion.
The two oldest R1a with Steppe admixture:
https://i.ibb.co/5RNL3m4/Usatoveand-GAC-Copy.jpg
@Gaska
what is ATP3? have you been arguing with Dospaises for 10 years? what is your argument about?
Those new R1a samples are important, just like the R1b-L51 in Afanasievo was important.
For a long time, we didn't have R1b-L51 in Yamnaya in and of itself, but we had it in Afanasievo, which was an early offshoot of Yamnaya. This implied that Yamnaya had R1b-L51 somewhere in there. It was just a matter of having more samples.
These new R1a samples imply the same thing about R1a in Yamnaya. It's in there somewhere, even though it's not a key lineage.
@ Romulus
I had previously thought R1a-Z93 to be linked with an EEF-rich pre-Yamnaya group, which Usatavo would fit the bill. But the question here is is this a lone outlier or a founder for the future mass group. Mayaki is C14 dated, Dyadovo is not unfortunateyl
@ Gabru
''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''
Don't be salty now, princess Gabrustan. The models are not trash, and Ilipinar & Barcin_CHL are somewhat distinctive, noted also in PCA
Арсен said...
@Gaska
what is ATP3? have you been arguing with Dospaises for 10 years? what is your argument about?
My response:
ATP3 is an old, very bad, low coverage sample from the El Portalon cave in Spain from Gunther et al, 2015, dated 3516-3365 calBC. The authors of the paper itself would not assign it a Y-DNA haplogroup, and it still does not have one in the Allen Ancient DNA Resource (AADR). Way back then, in 2015, Genetiker claimed it was M269, and some folks fastened onto that as if it were true. It's not. The other males from the same site were all I2a, as I recall.
ATP3 is not listed in FTDNA Discover's Ancient Connections or in its Time Tree. Not too long ago, I asked them about it. I was told ATP3 is just not a good enough sample with enough coverage to safely assign it a Y-DNA haplogroup. That's why FTDNA will not place it in Discover.
Think about this, as well. ATP3 appeared in Gunther et al nine years ago. There has been plenty of time for other Iberian R1b-M269s from the same time period or earlier to surface, if there were any. None has. If M269 was of peninsular European origin, and if ATP3 were really an authentic Spanish M269, shouldn't others of similar age or even older have turned up by now?
One would think Gaska would have some better samples with which to make his case by now, but he doesn't, so he has to drag out ATP3 and thump it for all it's worth.
Арсен... ATP3 is a low quality sample with a 83KB datafile size when high quality data files are 500 Megabytes or better. It also has positive calls for SNPs in haplogroups Q2, L2, H2, E1b1b1a1. It has not been used in subsequent DNA studies due to its low quality while good samples from Atapuerca have. But hey, if Gaska can use it to prove that M269 was a pre-Bell Beaker Basque marker and that M269 went from Iberia to the east then let's all just play along.
@Gaska, so you claim the R-L52 sample from Serbia that is marked "Yamnaya" was from Catacomb Culture now? Can you find us a scientifically published map of Catacomb Culture in Serbia? Try not to use your crayons. Seriously, I cannot believe you are still peddling this horseshit after years of embarrassing defeats.
@Richard Rocca @Rich S
I understand everything, very interesting, thank you
@Gaska, why have you been arguing for 10 years with smart people? They are right, the sample is of very poor quality and has little to do with the Basques, imagine, out of a standard 500 megabytes, the sample is only 83 kilobytes in size, how much is that? 0.016 percent? where is this good?)
As far as I know, David doesn’t deal with quality samples lower than 12 percent, but here the coverage is 740 times less than 12 percent) what information can it contain? one piece of garbage, the best option is to try again to find genetic material from ATP3 of better quality, look for it there in the bones in the teeth
Well, we already have four kurgan fanatics ready to continue denying that ATP3 is M269 despite the fact that it appears as such in the database used by Carvallo in 2.023. I have already told Dospaises that I prefer to think that you are fools or incompetent in analyzing BAM Files. You do not have to discuss ATP3 with me, now you must discuss it directly with the geneticists who consider it as such.
“years of embarrassing defeats????-Ha Ha Ha, Richard, remember that the old comments from anthrogenica and other forums are recorded and everyone can have access to it, if someone has the patience to read the 20000+ posts you and your friends wrote they will find the most amazing examples of ignorance ever seen in this type of forum.
I remember some glorious battles and some of the stupidities you defend - Yamnaya migration was exclusively male and that there was no exogamy in the formation of the CWC, R1b-P312 will appear in Yamnaya culture, M269 would never appear in deposits of neolithic cultures, there is no R1b east of the Dnieper river, R1b will never be found in mainland europe without steppe ancestry…..
and year after year you have to face the harsh reality i.e. 60% of CWC-mtDNA documented before in Yamnaya-Afanasievo, P312 in Germany and Spain, M269 in Smyadovo, dozens of samples of R1b-L754, P297 and Y13200 without steppe ancestry in Italy, France, Norway, Belgium, Spain, Balkans, Baltic….
But without a doubt my favorites are when you discovered that there was a DF27 sample in Quedlinburg and when you denied that Iberian migrations related to BB culture reached other European regions. Maybe you can explain to us again what are the calls under Df27 that you found in Quedlinburg, and what are the reasons to say that the Sicilian Df27 do not have Iberian origin.
And regarding the “Yamnaya” sample from Serbia, where have you found the archaeological information about the site? could you give me a link?,
You don't really think that L23>L51 and P312 originated in the Yamnaya culture, do you? Knowing you, I'm sure you're a supporter of Sredni Stog now, right?
Where do you think is the first M269 with steppe ancestry?
It's funny, the Kurganists think that this Lazaridis' paper has solved their problems of the last ten years when in reality it has demolished the Repin-Yamnaya culture as the origin of L23>L51>P312
There’s a difference between ATP3 (coverage 0.03x) and Iboussieres (0.08x). We can’t make any meaningful delineation from the fromer but can from latter. There is no R1b in northern Iberia, much of his contemporaries fall within a specific lineage - I2a2a2 (isogg 2016). There are of course a couple V88 in Mediterranean parts of Iberia
About hg. R-V1636 and the Jewish cluster I spoke about a lot in the past it seems that not only it is recent (a MRCA 600 years ago as to YFull), but probably we have also the likable origin in the British Isles as the new sample YF128975 with a rare mt J1c2af1 with the very rare mutation, a transversion, G3666C is probably from the Isles as his origin.
Distance to: TUR_Marmara_Barcin_C:I1584__BC_3820__Cov_49.98%
0.03248053 TUR_Marmara_Ilipinar_C:I10545__BC_4500__Cov_55.92%
0.04999172 TUR_Marmara_Ilipinar_C:I10547__BC_4500__Cov_37.78%
0.05047406 TUR_Marmara_Ilipinar_C:I10542__BC_3511__Cov_67.71%
Target: TUR_Marmara_Barcin_C:I1584__BC_3820__Cov_49.98%
Distance: 2.8507% / 0.02850723
87.2 TUR_Marmara_Ilipinar_C
12.8 UKR_Cernavoda_En
Barcin_ChL single sample is an obvious outlier, the I1584 female likely also has Steppe mtDNA - *K1a17* in my guess
Unveiling Hunnic legacy: Decoding elite presence in Poland through a unique child’s burial with modified cranium
New Hunnic elite samples from Przeworsk culture
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X24001913
One looks pure Hun. east asian autosomal, yDNA N. Other looks east germanic, Scandinavian like. yDNA I1. Vandal?
Gaska,
1. I discovered DF27 from BAM files and published it for the entire scientific community and the paper has been sourced by many other scientific papers. And you claim I'm the one who is incompetent in analyzing BAM files?
(Gaska Clown Meter = 25%)
2. ATP3 is "junk" as every single person here has told you. That your Basque colored glasses has prevented you from seeing that is on you.
(Gaska Clown Meter = 50%)
3. The Quedlinburg DF27 sample has no Iberian Copper Age DNA. As the authors of that paper stated, Iberia is not the origin of Central European Bell Beaker, all of them P312.
(Gaska Clown Meter = 75%)
4. This paper lists the Serbian L52 sample as "Serbia_EBA_Yamnaya". Additionally, Catacomb Culture has never existed anywhere near Serbia so it is in your court to produce a single reference to Catacomb Culture in Serbia.
(Gaska Clown Meter = 100%)
@ MrRocca
1-Good for you, everyone knows your contribution to the knowledge of DF27 and no one takes away your merits in this respect “Al César lo que es del César y a Dios lo que es de Dios"
2-I have explained before that your 10 years attempts to discredit ATP3 clash with its inclusion as M269 in the database they are currently using in Europe. So if you disagree now you have to convince prestigious geneticists that you are right. I wish you luck, because if you still think it is not M269 you are really bad at analyzing BAM files
3-Rocca said- "Quedlinburg DF27 does not have Iberian Cooper Age DNA"
And what does this have to do with what I asked you?
I'll tell you again-“Please, can you explain to us again what are the calls under DF27 that you found in Quedlinburg?, and what are the reasons to say that the Sicilian DF27 do not have Iberian origin?
Your answers may be important, maybe you can convince us all that DF27 has its origin in Germany and that the Sicilian BBs did not travel from Iberia but from France or Germany (of course it would be strange considering that the pottery associated with the sites are Ciempozuelos style)
4-Yeah, you are right in the paper it appears as Yamnaya and according to Paweł Jarosz (archaeologist who excavated the barrow)-“The remains of a male individual, approx. 40 years old, were found lying mixed and incomplete in the central part of the pit (among others, bones of the limbs were missing). No grave goods were found, radiocarbon dates-2858–2525 BC=2.692 BC.
That is, 1,000 years after the first Z2103 documented at Repin-Yamnaya, 600 years after the date when archaeologists believe that the pit-grave culture began, 210 years after the L151 found in Bohemia and more than a hundred years after the L51 samples we have in Belgium, Switzerland and Spain. No wonder these late L51 samples appear in Late Yamnaya & Catacomb, we already have the late CWC Polish samples all of them L51 & L52.
So keep looking Richard, you may think the battle is over but if you analyze the data coldly you will realize that Yamnaya's role is irrelevant in the L51>L151>P312 issue.
By the way I would also like to hear your arguments to defend Sredni Stog as the origin of L23>L51 & L151.
ATP3 is a very low coverage, bunk sample, which is why FTDNA has rejected it for inclusion in FTDNA Discover. None of Papac's R1b Bohemia_CW_Early samples is "210 years" earlier than any of the five new R1b-L51 Yamnaya samples from the 2024 Lazaridis preprint. The oldest of Papac's male Bohemia_CW_Early samples, PNL001, which was R1b-U106, is dated 2914-2879 calBC. Here are the five new R1b-L51 Yamnaya samples and their dates:
I11838 - Krasnosamarskoe-4 site (Middle Volga steppe). R1b-L51, mtDNA U5a1a1. 2851-2498 calBCE.
I12823 - Smeeni (Romania, just west of the Black Sea). R1b-L51, mtDNA K1b2b. 3300-2500 BCE (estimate from archaeological context).
I6884 - Krestovyi kurgan (Rostov region, Aksay District, near Alitub village). R1b-L51, mtDNA T1a1. 2852-2500 calBCE.
I12893 - Idzhil-2 (Republic of Kalmykia, Oktyabrsky District, Idzhil Village). R1b-L51, mtDNA H13a1a. 3300-2600 BCE (estimate from archaeological context).
I20499 - Zabalj-Medisova-humka, Serbia. R1b-L52 (P310), mtDNA U4b1b1. 2880-2633 calBCE.
As anyone can see, PNL001 is earlier than these new L51 Yamnaya samples, but not by all that much. Chances are they are all derived for something downstream of L51 (one of them is already known to be L52). We just don't know what yet. Could be L151, but it might be PF7589, FT377377, or something along those lines.
They are not later than the R1bs from Belgium in Fichera's thesis, all of which had steppe DNA, but none of which was actually c14 dated. There are no L51 samples from Spain that are older than the five L51 Yamnaya samples. All Iberian L51 samples date to after c. 2500 BC and the arrival of Beaker.
@Gaska
I have to play whack-a-mole again when you are the one that initiated remarks towards me. In addition to not being the person that initiated the arguments you have gotten more belligerent. That's not a sign of intelligence.
I have never admitted to ATP3 being R-M269. I have said that Gerber et al. 2023 has it as R1b1a1 which is R-P297. Carvalho et al. 2023 also has it as R-P297. Neither Gerber nor Carvalho have ATP3 as R-M269. If they did it would be listed as R1b1a1b. ATP3 does not have a reliable read for R-M269. Without reads on L23, L51 and L52 ATP3 can't be used to prove or disprove anything about the origins of R-L52 subclades in western Europe. That is what you do not understand. If you actually understood these details you would stop relying on ATP3 for proof of anything. I still can't believe you actually think that the sample is relevant.
On this forum, I have no reason to discuss the other lineages. Just like a lot of people don't bother discussing haplogroup R. It's natural to be interested in one's own lineage and less so in others. You crack me up.
I am not hiding data. That was a strange accusation.
I do not have the power to ban anyone from any forum. Where do you get these false ideas from?
I don't need to put words in your mouth. The posts are all there to be read.
The data keeps coming in and it continually shows that there are no R-L23 derived specimens anywhere without Steppe autosomal DNA. There isn't a single specimen, with reliable Y-DNA results and reliable 14C dating, that exists that contradicts that statement.
The scientists have recognized that finding the origin of L23 is a challenge because it is in an untested population and that untested population logically is in Serednii Stih territory. They focused on the R-L23 lineage because they understand that it is what is in common to Beaker, Yamnaya, and Mycenaean Y-chromosomes within an Eneolithic timeframe. They never mentioned attempting to find the origin of M269. Talk about putting words in people's mouth.
The totality of the evidence of R-L23 subclades only being found in people with Steppe autosomal DNA after the thousands of specimens tested leaves only one conclusion, to date, about the origin of R-L23. There are no specimens anywhere that contradict this information. It's really basic.
Target: RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_N
Distance: 2.8541% / 0.02854142
45.8 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
29.8 UKR_Meso
24.4 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
It's obvious if Middle Don is only 25% Kotias then Steppe_EN/Steppe_Meso would at best turn out to be something Kotias-shifted MD minus Ukraine_Meso
Let's say 33% Kotias + 60% Sidelkino + 7% Tyumen-like/Tutkaul-like, there's nothing going on in Steppe_Meso anyways
Kairshak/Orlovskaya is gonna be similar to Samara culture, Lower Don I expect to fall between Middle Don and Steppe_Meso
@Mr Dospaises
1-Finally you are proving me right, ATP3 is M269, but even if it were only P297 you would have this marker in the Iberian chalcolithic without steppe ancestry something that Kurganists have denied for years could happen. Explain that to your redneck friend from Wisconsin. And make no mistake, I have never claimed to prove anything using ATP3, I have simply fought to prove its existence, something that for many years you have denied without any reason to do so
2-In Europe after 3,000 BC, not only L23 but all male and female markers have steppe ancestry as do all 21st century Europeans. Do you understand? Steppe ancestry is a recent issue for the history of the R1b lineage and is far from being proof of its origin. In fact, currently the oldest sample of this marker is in Italy, far away from the Russian or Ukrainian steppes. When and how it acquired M269/L23/L51 or L151 steppe ancestry remains to be proven
3-L23 in Sredni Stog territory?-What proof do you have to affirm this in such a categorical way? You know the genetic heterogeneity of this culture, don't you? At the moment the only male marker that went from SS to Yamnaya is I2a-L699. When Harvard finds L23 in SS let me know, we will celebrate together, meanwhile, keep dreaming
@Dospaises said-"They never mentioned attempting to find the origin of M269. Talk about putting words in people's mouth"
You are definitely a Mexican with a big mouth and little understanding. See what Lazaridis said (Southern Arc paper)-“This would suggest an EHG-associated origin of this lineage, but the “long branch” of R1b-M269 reduces greatly any confidence in the proximity of the earliest R-M269 bearers to these eastern European relatives. Yet, the data are equally consistent with a scenario in which the R1b-M269 founder did not have EHG. It is a CHALLENGE for future archaeogenetic research to PINPOINT THE ORIGIN of the R-M269 lineage.!!!
@Gabru
no, it’s not obvious, the Ukrainian Mesolithic also has impurities associated with the Caucasus, at least according to G25
@Gabru
Even in the Mesolithic, according to archaeological data, tribes from the southern Caspian moved to the Caucasus, there is one example from there, the Khotu cave, it is clear that part of it reached Ukraine, maybe)
That's what I'm talking about:
https://i.ibb.co/7yX6RGx/Screenshot-47.png
https://i.ibb.co/7gCPpD7/Transcaucasia-and-Neolithic-of-the-South-1.png
@ Arsen
''no, it’s not obvious, the Ukrainian Mesolithic also has impurities associated with the Caucasus, at least according to G25''
Basically zero, G25 might pick up minor 'noise'
I think they were restricted to cis-Caucasus and lower Volga
@Rob ,only the mighty and great David himself can answer this question, but he does not want to waste his attention on punks in the comments
@Rob
I don’t think that this is noise. I think there is an admixture from the Caucasus, since J is found among Eastern European hunters, and some Ukrainian ones, Kotias is just not the most suitable source, as I said, she needs something from the Iran Caucasus plane
Re: Genetiker; IIRC this was the guy who argued that the supposedly ANE connection between West Eurasians and Native Americans was due to prehistoric transatlantic contacts; that R1b comes from WHG and R1a from EHG; and whose inventive conclusion to the Haak et al. 2015 paper was that the kurgan theory was dead.
@Rob
"Basically zero, G25 might pick up minor 'noise'
I think they were restricted to cis-Caucasus and lower Volga"
Mostly and in average yes. But among the samples high quality enough to remain in the datasheet I1733 and I5876 pick up a small, but above noise level CHG ancestry. The same is true for Samara HG, it is not very much, but above noise level CHG shifted compared to earlier Sidelkino from the same area and it is not lower Volga.
@ Slumberry
Yes Samara HG is a different issue because it is part of the Volga- Caucasus network
Dnieper is linked with Northern Europe for most
@ Arsen
“only the mighty and great David himself can answer this question, but he does not want to waste his attention on punks in the comments
I don’t think that this is noise. I think there is an admixture from the Caucasus”
Davidski knows that I know that what im talking about. G25 is great, but noobs like you don’t know how to use it
As in Samara HG , dating to ~ 5000 BC, is Neolithic
And part of the Caucasus - Volga network
But ChG was never prominent in the Dnieper, and what little there was was eliminated by North European Aryans. They had no need for Abkhazian inbred slaves
@Rob ,You don’t have to be “noobs like me” to be able to use a calculator, even on PCA 3D you can see that ukr meso and neolit are pulling somewhere in the direction of chg iran relative to the ehg-ane line
Unveiling Hunnic legacy: Decoding elite presence in Poland through a unique child’s burial with modified cranium
New Hunnic elite samples from Przeworsk culture
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S2352409X24001913
One looks pure Hun. east asian autosomal, yDNA N. Other looks east germanic, Scandinavian like. yDNA I1. Vandal?
There's already more acient I1 dna in Poland than the provider of CW concubines R1a..;)
@ Arsen
''You don’t have to be “noobs like me” to be able to use a calculator, even on PCA 3D you can see that ukr meso and neolit are pulling somewhere in the direction of chg iran relative to the ehg-ane line''
But you don't know what you're dealing with, just lumping all Urakine-HG into one basket is wrong, firstly. Secondly, calculators, esp G25 are convenient for establishing hypotheses, but then you have to test them with formal methods which directly analyse gentype data. The way a lot of people you use them- dump every possible source as a free for all gives overfitted answers.
Now, Ukraine Mes has 2 clusters - (1) the Dereivka samples from further north of the Dnieper, which have high levels of R1b-V88 and higher levels of WHG, and (2) the lower Dnieper guys which have higher levels of I2a and preserve more of R1a and even have a Q1, i.e. stereotypical EHG types.
Then (3) Ukraine _Neo are even more WHG shifted due to an additional movement from the west. These were the Meriupol horizon founders.
@Rob
Before I am going further I have to make something clear: I do not know what is the original issue you are discussing here with Arsen, because I have not read back. I just commented on your sweeping claim about zero or noise CHG. That being said...
"As in Samara HG , dating to ~ 5000 BC, is Neolithic"
~5600 BC and not Neolithic in local context, unless we are talking about pottery Neolithic. It well pre-dates any farming or animal husbandry in the region. It is indeed younger than any of the Ukraine Mesolithic samples however, more contemporary with Ukraine Neolithic.
"Yes Samara HG is a different issue because it is part of the Volga- Caucasus network
Dnieper is linked with Northern Europe for most."
I agree that Samara HG is a different population with different connections. The reason why it still has some relevance because it is another example for CHG ancestry spreading pretty far from the Caucasus in the Mesolithic, even if just as a minor admixture. It was not contained, they were there (in the North Caucasus) very early and mixed with the neighbors.
And as Arsen pointed out that YHg J in Karelia must be CHG ancestry (even if it was diluted to nothing in terms of autosomes). It is not a very old sample (actually might be younger than Samara HG), but at the other hand it is pretty far from the Caucasus.
"But ChG was never prominent in the Dnieper,...
Of course if we talk about Mesolithic or even earlier then you are right about this. There was no CHG population around the Dnieper or around Samara. It was just some admixture reaching here and there, probably indirectly (mediated by the lower Don and the lower Volga) in both area.
"...and what little there was was eliminated by North European Aryans.
If anything the build-up of the classic steppe genetic profile had brought a huge increase in CHG-related ancestry there.
And that increase can be observed earlier. Ukraine Mesolithic might be inconclusive and sporadic at most, but Ukraine Neolithic definitely has CHG-related ancestry in multiple samples. (At the other hand the most CHG-rich Ukraine Neolithic samples are all from around the Sea of Azov, so possibly represent an admixture trail that reached westward from the lower Don by the Black Sea coast, amd did not went up very far north.
But regardless of that, the classic steppe (core Yamnaya) genetic profile is loaded with CHG-related ancestry in genome-wide terms. (The same cannot be said about their yDNA.)
"They had no need for Abkhazian inbred slaves
What have Abkhazians ever done to you? This is such an unprofessional comment.
@ slumberry
'I just commented on your sweeping claim about zero or noise CHG. ""
before commenting, you should learn basic geography
The discussion was about ''Ukrainian Mesolithic also has impurities associated with the Caucasus''
Then you come in talking about Samara _HG , which is 1500km away & Neolithic, and as anyone knows the local context, that means pottery neolithic and networks with the Caucasus.
And I dont know what the rest of your crap about Yamnaya is about.
''What have Abkhazians ever done to you? This is such an unprofessional comment.''
Put up a rainbow filter, then. It's an accurate of our obsequious friend's ethos
@ Slumberry
''And as Arsen pointed out that YHg J in Karelia must be CHG ancestry (even if it was diluted to nothing in terms of autosomes). It is not a very old sample (actually might be younger than Samara HG), but at the other hand it is pretty far from the Caucasus.'
This is old, basic news. There is some CHG-type ancestry within the basline 'classic EHG". Dnieper HG are not classic EHG, because of 'dilution' from the West.
Mesolithic slaves from Abkhazia on the territory of Ukraine? why not)
Abkhazia, like the entire Western Caucasus, has had close ties with Ukraine since ancient times, as evidenced by the Bronze Age dolmens on the territory of Abkhazia and in the general Western Caucasus
@Rob
So you are arguing in bad faith as usual (pretty much just trolling, instead of addressing actual arguments made), and as a bonus causally insult the ethnicity of the other party, because why not. I am repeatedly making the mistake of engaging you, but it is impossible to do a civil discussion with you, because your nasty inner nature always boiling over your knowledge. It is a pity.
So far, the Y-hg in Dnieper-HG (all comers) have been R1b, R1a, various I2, and a couple Q1. The mtDNA has been U4, U5a, U5b. The earliest T2a1b is seen in Eneolithic contexts
@ Slumberry
''So you are arguing in bad faith as usual (pretty much just trolling, instead of addressing actual arguments made), and as a bonus causally insult the ethnicity of the other party, because why not.''
it's actually clear to anyone with half a brain that you're commenting in bad faith because you're obfuscating. Rather than riding in on a little white pony, first of all demonstrate that you understand the geography & chronology the region. Then demonstrate the ancestry which you speak of. Where is the CHG aadmixture in Mesolithic Ukraine (over any minor amounts which might be in EHG itself) ? Then move to Neolithic data. The comments were on Ukraine & the Dnieper regeion, not the pre-Khvalynsk zne of the Volga.
Next time, instead of judging like Goody Mariam, address the facts. Then you can talk smack
@ Arsen
Let's have a loook at the data
Ukraine_Mesolithic:I5885
Iron Gates_HG 48.4 EHG 47.2 Turkey_N 3.0 CHG 1.4
and here is Golubaya Krinitsa (NEO204) from the Don
Iron Gates_HG 3.0 EHG 70.6 Turkey_N 5.2 CHG 21.2
So there's clear cultural & genetic boundary between the Don & Dnieper, as far as CHG ancestry goes.
That's the issue with you & Slumberry, you're dead wrong and yet pass judgement onto those who know what they're talking about, just because theyre being honest.
Slumbery should also understand the meaning of ethos, vs ethnos.
very interesting
it is necessary to take into account that during the late Paleolithic (18-13 thousand years ago), the level of the Caspian Sea began to grow rapidly (the great Khvalynsk transgression of the Caspian Sea), and became so high that part of it overflowed through the Kuma-Manych depression into the Sea of Azov, I don’t know , did this strait freeze in the cold season, since then the temperature was 7 degrees lower than now, and the north of the Caspian Sea is covered with ice even in our warmest winters, and if it didn’t freeze, then most likely the hunter-gatherers of the North Caucasus have been for a long time were isolated (between the strait and the Caucasus mountains) from the hunter-gatherers of the north of Russia, Ukraine, etc.
https://i.ibb.co/hy6LSjC/TOGEOGJ-2-1-1.png
https://journals.openedition.org/quaternaire/docannexe/image/17991/img-10.png
@Rob
That's BS model, there's no Turkey_N in Gokubaya Krinitsa, it's funny how you declare war on people all of a sudden who even be civil here(even Kurganists) when you yourself bring delusional takes most of the time
@ Gabru
''That's BS model, there's no Turkey_N in Gokubaya Krinitsa, it's funny how you declare war on people all of a sudden who even be civil here(even Kurganists) when you yourself bring delusional takes most of the time''
How do you manage to be so stupid and so pompous at the same time.
Didnt you learn from your little Barcin_Chl exerise ?
Here it is again Iron Gates_HG 3.0 EHG 70.6 Turkey_N 5.2 CHG 21.2
5% Turkey_N means zero, it's just the overfitting of calculators, thus also proving my original point.
And dont lecture about civility here when your reason for existing is to project lies to sooth your own complexes.
How plausible is Uralo-Yukaghir? Jaakko's nightmare I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@Gabru
There is a general agreement in Uralic studies for at least loanwords from Uralic into Yukaghir, but not a direct genetic relationship. Not much research is done on Uralo-Yukaghir anyway, as most linguists and hobbyists who study external relationships with Uralic these days are fixated on Indo-Uralic lexicostatistics. It's not yet agreed upon when and how Uralic and Yukaghir were in contact. Also, Jaakko has already written in support of Pre-Proto-Uralic contact with Yukaghir, so I doubt it's his worst linguistic nightmare.
Gabru wrote,
"How plausible is Uralo-Yukaghir?"
No more or less plausible than any other proposed language macro-family, I would say.
Perhaps a better question might be, "How plausible is Yukaghir(-Yukaghir)?" There are two (barely) surviving languages called "Yukaghir," and these two languages are really very different from each other, though they do seem to in fact belong to their own peculiar language family.
There are also some words that seem to be shared in common between some Uralic languages (or reconstructed Proto-Uralic) and one or the other or both of these languages called "Yukaghir." However, these apparently shared words are so extremely similar (despite the fact that even the two languages called "Yukaghir" differ from each other to such a startling degree) that one must presume a loanword relationship in my opinion, either between Uralic and Yukaghir or from some hypothetical third source to both.
What big skeletons!
https://ria.ru/amp/20240502/ostanki-1943498302.html
Off-topic, but may be interesting to folks who are looking at the more genetic data driven side of ancient dna and population genetics.
New blog by Lamnidis and others about ancient genetic data - https://haam-community.github.io/blog/2024/04/15/blog/
I think a lot of the projects they will do will be closed access but may be some interesting things for folk who are more on this side of it.
Matt wrote:
New blog by Lamnidis and others about ancient genetic data - https://haam-community.github.io/blog/2024/04/15/blog/
"The experiment performed here assumes that missingness is random, but it is conceivable that not every SNP has the same probability of getting lost through degradation processes."
There's a different bias in this definition of "missingness" that doesn't have to do with "degradation" but with genetic evidence that might be completely absent from the record. How do you account for populations that don't leave evidence? Cremation is just one example. Archaeologists may be supplying ancient DNA gather this stuff based on what's available and old funerary practices should favor some evidence over others. Consider that 20 remains in a bronze age cemetery may be "missing" 20,000 members of the same group who did make it into the ground for all kinds of reasons. That's a very big category of missingness.
To summarise data we have about the steppe so far, the reality is very different than that Painted by the storytellers frmo USA who dont even understand basic chronology
Formative period
- EHG base
- CHG admixture
- WHG admixture (proto-Mariupol)
- Central Asian admixture (? Kelteminar)
Ferticle Crescent adstrtaets (minor)
- via Tripolje, Meshoko, etc
Early CLV movements to
- to Armenia & NW Iran
- Balkans (Csongard, Varna, etc)
both became locally extinct
Collapse of CLV homeland - 'invasion of Majkop vassals" / Steppe Majkop
- women & children take refuge in Dnieper-Don region
Consolidation of actual PIA- PIE
- kemi-Oba Mikhailkovka ("core Yamnaya")
- Cernavoda-Usatavo
Migration of Cernavoda to Balkans & Anatolia
Consolidation of R1a & R1b in core Yamnaya
There are other unanswered questions in Harvard's thesis.
What was the proximate fate of the CLV group ?
They left no almost trace in the southern Caucasus, apart from some low-caste males.The eastern route in Anatolia completely lacks any sign of steppe ancestry, which is missing in Arslantepe, Titris hoyuk, Batman, etc. The Kura-Araxes explanation offered by Reich does not explain these findings, as the above sites pre-date the KA expansion
On the other end, the Csongrad male was also a dead-end.
Even more glaringly, CLV were replaced in their own homeland by Majkop and their Steppe Majkop vassals, despite contributing large volumes of autosomal (biut little to no male -mediated) ancestry to the Dnieper-Don Indo-Europeans.
The fascinating reality of this data is that it supports a relatively western origin for the origins of the steppe Eneolithci complex, a reality long resisted by the Anthony - Reich- Lazaridies collaborative, but now poetically disproven by their own data. Lastly, confusion appears to reign at Harvard as to basic chronological & historical concepts. The earliest kurgan in the Dnieper-Don-Volga region date to 4500 BC, and belongs to a male bearing I2a-L699, whist those in the Caucasus dated after 3800 BC, and mostly after 2200 BC
- Lower Don Neolithic
- Prikaspiiskaya/Cis-Caspian culture
- Progress-Vonyuchka culture
= "CLV/Steppe_En" → Linguistic ancestors of Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk culture, unlikely Steppe Maikop/Kumsay-Mereke
Proto-Indo-European didn't come out of nothing. There had to have been pre-proto-Indo-European and para-proto-Indo-European groups on the steppe.
These groups may have lived on the Caspian and/or North Caucasus steppes, or even in the Caucasus, including the South Caucasus.
But there's no evidence, or even any way, to link Khvalynsk to any Indo-European speaking groups.
We can only go as far back as Sredny Stog, because Sredny Stog is the direct ancestor of Late proto-Indo-European Corded Ware and Yamnaya.
So Sredny Stog was Proto-Indo-European, and Anatolians probably came from Sredny Stog too.
Further back than Sredny Stog and we're dealing with groups that spoke ancestral and related languages.
CLV are 2 of the 4 grandmothers of PIE/ PIA.
@ Gabru
''"CLV/Steppe_En" → Linguistic ancestors of Sredny Stog, Khvalynsk culture, unlikely Steppe Maikop/Kumsay-Mereke''
CLV, as defined by the hardvadians, were decimated by Majkop. They no longer existed by 3800 BC & their women were refugees in Sredni Stog.
Their northern survivors were then wiped out by Yamnaya a few hundreds years later
Based on such circumstances of systems collapse, their language became extinct.
@Rob
This visceral behaviour against CLV is uninteresting, of course they disappeared after a short while just like Yamnaya and Sredny Stog disappeared by mixing with others, how does it mean anything to the point? It's true that CLV is linguistically ancestral to SS/Novodanilovka and Khvalynsk, they're the only group capable to bring lion's share of autosomal in SS ancient genomes unless a miracle happens and Lower Don Mesolithic turns out CLV-like minus Anatolian or something
CLV women passed in SS? Lmfao, even that Hungarian horseman and Bulgaria_C_outlier is CLV-derived most perhaps, I don't understand the cry about CLV you're doing
@Davidski
Vashishta's theory makes more sense than these delusions
Davidski said... "... or even in the Caucasus"
yes that's right, they lived in my house
The reason why CLV suddenly doesn't matter anymore is simply because now it's proven the EHG/CHG mix occured in the Northern Caucasus region. The same anti-CLV guys were claiming that Progress was simply an eastern Sredni site.
In fact, the data is pretty clear. There's continuous waves from the south replacing and assimilating earlier groups until the rise of Yamnaya. The steppe is a sink both in terms of technology, genes and most likely language as well.
As I called it years ago the classical steppe hypothesis is simply untenable and the kurgan hypothesis will have to move to the North Caucasus.
@ Gabru
Crying ? I’m celebrating the truth because the data tells it. What do you call it when the centre point of LVC Berezhnovka kurgan is a male from the west ? On the other hand, your TTK theory, or is it Iran N, or now LVC? Keep edging the goal posts , it gets hard to keep up with you Vasistha clones :)
I already addressed Csongrad (Hungarian horseman)- he’s a dead end. Same with Snyadovo outlier. They’re both pre 4000 BC and were washed away with their Balkan hosts. Areni C- extinct also, I suspect
So all Balkan and Anatolian viable IEs are post 4000 BC from groups carrying LVC ancestry, but quantitatively and quantitatively different to original LVC. Harvard and their opportunistic fanboys don’t get this because they simply don’t know what they’re talking about, and never will.
@Rob
The Areni did not become extinct, they participated in the ethnogenesis of the Kura Araks and Novosvobodnaya, at least this was Sabina’s last article
"Maykop_Novosvobodnaya is modelled as 42% Hajj_Firuz_C, 41% Caucasus_EN and 17% Armenia_C"
@ Vara
''As I called it years ago ''
err yes, you called it.
''In fact, the data is pretty clear. There's continuous waves from the south replacing and assimilating earlier groups until the rise of''
There are no "continuous waves from the south". There is CHG since 15,000 bp, and then some trickles which ultimately came from the Fertile Crescent via Euro Farmers and Armenian Farmers. There rest is just vacuous statistical trickery by Lazarides & Reich
''the reason why CLV suddenly doesn't matter''
case in point CLV. This is a statistical invention.
As per above, what we have is EHG <-> CHG existing in a heterogeneous cline. This is what matters, not that there were 4 individuals with Arm N ancestry. Moreover, as important as the EHG <--> CHG cline was, PIE conquered and absorbed it. A proto-folk are the last common denominator before expansion, not the locality of their grand-aunties
@ Arsen
''The Areni did not become extinct, they participated in the ethnogenesis of the Kura Araks and Novosvobodnaya, at least this was Sabina’s last article
"Maykop_Novosvobodnaya is modelled as 42% Hajj_Firuz_C, 41% Caucasus_EN and 17% Armenia_C"''
That's not quite accurate.
The Areni folk were buried in a cave with Sioni pottery, so theyre culturally different to Majkop kurgan folk.
Moreover, Majkop have lower levels of steppe_En ancestry than Areni_C.
So the reality is that Majkop and Areni_C both have steppe ancestry from a common source, rather than one from the other. That is, Piedmont steppe people mixed into Majkop, some mixed into Armenia, and maybe even to NW Iran (acc. to archaeology).
Come K-A, that ancestry basically disappears, because K-A were an anti-steppe and anti-elite, local Caucasian resurgance.
Moreover, the Areni_C and/or LCV trail is missing in NE Anatolia. So the defenders of the CLV theory need to explain why such ancestry is missing from CHl and BA sites in eastern Anatolia, but is found western & southwestern Anatolia. They keep ignoring this fact and talking about 'mass autosomes waz good"
Four days ago, Guus Kroonen wrote in X:
"Linguistically, it seems to me that the IE word for wool (Hitt. hulana-, Skt. urna, Gk….etc.) supports an eastern entry. The oldest known (cotton-)wool find is from Tsarskaya and dated to ca. 4000 calBC. This is close to the CLV people in space and time (4400-4000 BCE).
Opinions differ on whether PIA and PIE share the exact same protoform. If not, this potentially suggests a loan. But even if the word entered both PIA and PIE as a loan, it must have done so when these protolanguages were still linguistically similar and geographically close.
Archaeologically, the North Caucasus region is [an] area in which this might have happened. The area is more attractive than the Balkans at least, since no wool finds as early as the one from Tsarskaya are know[n] from there."
Target: ARM_Areni_C
Distance: 2.1994% / 0.02199420
52.8 AZE_LN
24.8 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En
22.4 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
Target: ARM_Areni_C
Distance: 2.7475% / 0.02747543
35.2 ARM_Masis_Blur_LN
34.2 TUR_SE_Cayonu_PPN
30.6 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En
Theory:- Sioni/Areni was partially Hurro-Urartian speaking
@Rob
For some reason I also think that the source of the steppe at Areni, at Maikop_Novosvobodnaya, at Kura Araks is the same, and not that Areni is the source for Kura Araks and Maikop_Novosvobodnaya, but since Sabina decided so, who has been dealing with these issues for many years, then I trust her more than myself, she also made a mistake in the article by identifying Kura Araks and Maikop, as if Kura Araks was genetically descended from Maikop_Novosvobodnaya, but these are just similar mixtures
@ Carlos Twitteratti
''Linguistically, it seems to me that the IE word for wool (Hitt. hulana-, Skt. urna, Gk….etc.) supports an eastern entry. The oldest known (cotton-)wool find is from Tsarskaya and dated to ca. 4000 calBC. This is close to the CLV people in space and time (4400-4000 BCE).''
Guus Kroonen also proclaimed that Balto-Slavic derives from the Bell Beaker culture.
Needless to say, his understanding of population & cultural dynamics is lacking.
The earliest evidence of whool and spindle whrols appeared in Chalcolithic Balkans, at least by 4200 BC (pre-Steppe Krivodol-Salcutta culture)
(The spinning process in the Central Balkans and the Rila-Rhodopes area in the context of the social and economic transformations during the final Chalcolithic. Ivan Kotsov)
But even if we go with the word for whool being adapted via Mesopotamian or south Caucasusian loans, which is quite possible, it doesnt mean that the Hittites themselves moved via the East. i.e. Anatolian IE borrowed the same olan word as 'core Yamnaya', but still took a western route into Anatolia.
Some scholars can't think beyond 1 dimension
I don’t think we can talk about PIE before the Sredny Stog’s interaction with TC/GAC/TRB.
The religion and language of PIE were strongly influenced by TC/GAC/TRB and probably formed as a result of such interaction.
From TC/GAC/TRB came wheels, wagons, and other elements of PIE culture.
There is no evidence that PIE existed in the East prior to it. IE languages were moving from West to East.
@Carlos Aramayo
This guy knows the homeland of wool
https://youtu.be/ZE3Z2Ok03V0?si=NmXo6BiZfB5AOfLd
@Rob dude, I don’t understand English, I draw conclusions from her pictures, like that article by Lazaridis, I translated it in small passages and then not all the information related to the points that interest me, but I drew the main conclusions from the pictures
@ Arsen
'' I draw conclusions from her pictures, like that article by Lazaridis, I translated it in small passages and then not all the information related to the points that interest me, but I drew the main conclusions from the pictures'
Try to be less of a walking meme.
You cannot even trust the holy G25 unless you look at it closely and in multiple ways
@LivoniaG; yes, that is true. Or in the case of the early Steppe groups, we simply can't find the ones who did not or did not yet participate in the burial mound building tradition, but who were too mobile to have long term settlements.
But this is different from the bioinformatics that that blog focuses on there.
Matt wrote: @LivoniaG; "yes, that is true. Or in the case of the early Steppe groups, we simply can't find the ones who did not or did not yet participate in the burial mound building tradition, but who were too mobile to have long term settlements.
But this is different from the bioinformatics that that blog focuses on there."
Yes, thanks, Matt. But doesn't this kind of analysis of missingness add too much confidence given to good quality DNA evidence because it is good quality?
Accidentally, a small number of rich and powerful preserve their genetics -- so they can claim ancestral right to the land, for example -- but that is maybe a very thin sample of who was living there at the time. When did humans even start burying their dead? Are we tracking a belief rather than a complte human population -- that miss would also be "missingness."
Notice that even studies of early cremation treat it as if it had to be ceremonial. What if most cremation and exposure back then were not especially ceremonial, except for a very small biased sample?
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC7423105/
@Gaska
1. I did not prove you right. ATP3 is not derived for a reliable marker for R-M269. Most importantly it doesn't even have reads for R-L23 and downstream SNPs, even though it was young enough, which means it can't be used to prove anything about the origin of R-L23 in western Europe. Since all modern R-M269 subclades in western Europe, and all R-M269 subclades since Bell Beaker, are also derived for R-L23 and have Steppe autosomal DNA then it is obvious they come from a Steppe population that also had R-L23.
I have never met anyone else on this forum. If you have an issue with them you take it up with them and not me. Especially so it if has anything to do with what I am focused on.
2. What you still fail to accept is that the R-L23 descendants come from a source population with Steppe autosomal DNA that R-L23 was extremely likely to have been born into, which is what the scientists state in Lazaridis et al. 2024. It doesn't matter that other populations also acquired Steppe autosomal DNA. What matters is that zero R-L23 specimens without Steppe DNA ever lived in western European and that the two arrived together in western Europe meaning it was the R-L23 people that took Steppe autosomal DNA to western Europe with them. The fact that you bring up Villabruna again proves you have no idea how important the phylogeny of Y-DNA is or how to look at the Y-DNA of the specimens. Villabruna is ancestral (negative) for all of the reliable R-P297 SNPs it was tested for even though it was young enough to be derived for most, if not, all of them. It's on a dead lineage that did not lead to R-L23. My focus is on R-L23 and it's descendants.
3. It's the scientists that made the statements. They used logical deduction. Read the study. I have already posted the data from it. Go back and read my posts with the data.
4. Where a person is from has no bearing on the data. My mouth is used to point out facts and dispute misinformation. It's your problem if that upsets you. It's not mine. I understand more than you about the phylogeny and source of R-L23 in western Europe.
Lazaridis et al. 2024 didn't say that. The Lazaridis et al. 2024 study overrides Lazaridis et al. 2022. Lazaridis et al. 2024 moved it's focus to R-L23 since that is the logical decision with all of the new samples and results and with R-Z2103 being the primary haplogroup of core Yamnaya and R-L51 for Beaker. Long before this study was published I had also moved my focus to R-L23. Once an R-L23 specimen with good resolution and directly radiocarbon dated to between 4350-4000 BC then whatever autosomal DNA it has will be proof as to whether or not R-L23 was born into a Steppe autosomal population.
Target: AZE_Alkhantepe_LC:ALX002__BC_3710__Cov_32.72%
Distance: 3.8029% / 0.03802938
55.8 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
32.6 IRQ_Nemrik9_PPN
6.6 IRN_Seh_Gabi_LN
5.0 RUS_Nalchik_En
Leyla Tepe culture(LTC) sample? Very strange behaviour on G25
@Gabru
Where did the Maikop people live? that’s right, in the northwestern Caucasus, these Maikop people were autochnonic inhabitants of the western Caucasus, who mixed with newcomers from the south, they say Ubeid, I don’t know, we don’t have the DNA of hunter-gatherers not from the North Caucasus, not Ubeid, so what are you doing? called "fortune telling by coffee grounds"
Target: RUS_Maykop_Novosvobodnaya
Distance: 2.0101% / 0.02010115
57.6 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
25.0 AZE_LN
10.6 TKM_En
6.8 ARM_Areni_C
Target: RUS_Maykop_Early:OSS001__BC_3632__Cov_35.99%
Distance: 2.7558% / 0.02755770
51.0 ARM_Areni_C
22.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
17.0 TKM_En
10.0 ARM_Aknashen_7600BP
Target: RUS_Maykop_Late:SA6002__BC_3176__Cov_64.74%
Distance: 2.3716% / 0.02371601
62.4 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
19.0 ARM_Masis_Blur_N
10.8 ARM_Areni_C
7.8 TKM_En
Target: RUS_Maykop_Late:MK5004__BC_3200__Cov_70.71%
Distance: 2.9161% / 0.02916142
46.0 RUS_Darkveti-Meshoko_En
36.2 ARM_Areni_C
10.0 TKM_En
7.8 ARM_Aknashen_7600BP
What's going on with Maikop bruh? OITists were right about SC Asian influences in it?
@Mr. Davidski, why do you let Rob’s angry comments through and block mine?
Alkhantepe can be modelled as deriving essentially exclusively from Mentesh-Tepe late Neolithic with qpAdm. These are jar burials, sampling the Chalcolithic kurgans would be interesting
@Arsen
It seemed like you threatened him with severe bodily harm in that deleted comment, which is illegal in many countries and could get you into trouble with Google.
@Dospaises
1-Yes, Carvallo and Gerber have proven that I was right, so those who have denied it for so many years including you, should apologize.
2-It is useless to pretend that you understand, but I will try again, steppe ancestry has nothing to do with the origin of M269 and L23, don't you understand that those markers are prior in time to the existence of that autosomal component? don't you understand that there are dozens of R1b samples (including P297) all over Europe that have no steppe ancestry?
3-You have no evidence or even hints that L23 originated in Sredni Stog therefore another fairy tale for the time being
4-You have accused me of putting words in other people's mouths that they did not say, and I have shown you with evidence that either you were lying or you are ignorant. Lazaridis also refers to M269 in his last paper, so you are wrong again. “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” i.e., so far M269 and L23 have not been found in the steppes at the crucial time of their formation, so let's keep looking for them
ok, I got excited
Dear Miiister Arsen, only a walking meme will argue with the Sun when they are an illiterate entity (in multiple respects).
Perhaps stick to kissing ass, it seems to be where your talent lies.
@Rob ,What are you talking about? don't embarrass yourself. What makes you think you're the smartest one here? If there's a walking meme in this chat, it's you. It looks pathetic from the outside. Who do you think you are? The smartest one around? nerd, probably getting straight A's in school)
If you keep being so arrogant, you'll be humiliated.
@Gabru
The genetic profile of the hunter-gatherers of the North Caucasus is in the chg-iran-ttk-ane plane, so in each of your models, in addition to the local Caucasian components, there is a little ttk, I think ttk a similar mixture came to the North Caucasus back in the Mesolithic, bypassing the Caspian Sea through the south, maybe this is due to the ANE impurity in the hotu cave, one can only guess about this
@ Arsen
''What are you talking about? don't embarrass yourself. What makes you think you're the smartest one here? If there's a walking meme in this chat, it's you. It looks pathetic from the outside. Who do you think you are? The smartest one around? nerd, probably getting straight A's in school)
If you keep being so arrogant, you'll be humiliated.''
Life is always humbling, but such lessons won't be delivered by a someone who arrived yesterday and started looking at pictures on YouTube. I've been around for a long time and will continue to be right about everything after you disappear. Ingrates like yourself & Gabru should not bother to spar with those beyond your short reach :)
Gaska is right about R1b being an epigravettian lineage, even if by fluke. Claims being made on other fora about P297 arriving to Europe in 10,000 BC are ignoring the evidence and seem like clinging to one own's pet theory
Interesting that the 2 pre-Yamnaya R1b-M269 possible finds are lower Dnieper and East Bulgaria. They must have also been from the Dnieper-Don network, like R1a-M17 and I2a-L699, but not as yet sampled, and probably confined to the forest-steppe border.
Given the diversity of western steppe lineages, which also included occasional farmers, J2a and J2b2, the attempts to link R1b-V1636 (such as here) seem desparate and haplo-centric. These claims ignore context & history- a slave of non-IE Kura-Araxes in a non-IE town of Arslantepe, which only acquired by the Hittites in 1600 BC.
@Gabru
Check the Golubaya_Krinitsa samples in qpAdm for a mixture similar to TTK, according to G25 they all show the presence of this impurity
Off-topic: "Fast and reliable ancestral reconstruction on ancient genotype data with non-negative Least square and Principal Component Analysis"
Estimation of proportions using projected PCA data.
This is available as an R package, so perhaps I will test how this compares to Vahaduo - https://github.com/lm-ut/ASAP
It uses Non-Negative Least Squares, whereas I'm not sure how vahaduo weights proportions. It will be interesting to see if the fundamental problems with using PCA to estimate deep ancestry sources tend to remain here.
...
Livonia, you may be interested to see that this issue was discussed in the context of Phoenician genetics (https://youtu.be/ExCYSxUd3aE?si=SDCnl_thQ9UsMoin&t=5411), with specific point talked about at the time stamp in the link.
@ Davidski
"Rob has left a new comment on the post "It's complicated":
These posts by RMS on crack me up
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=581&page=2
They should rather be called - much ado about nothing. The alleged links of R1b and PIE, who also came from Siberia in 9000 BC, on horses”
It’s like who can say more garbage out of him and Derwood Targaryen".
I am glad that many people considers this tiny haplogroup I wrote hundreds but perhaps thousands of letters about more than 10 years ago when nobody spoke about it and probably didn't know its existence. Of course none of them knows something about it more than me.
@Arza
What do you think?
https://github.com/lm-ut/ASAP
We know for certain now that the R-V1636 sample, that FTDNA used as to it was the oldest sample of the "Jewish clade" for the SNP PF4354, actually found in a partial Geno 2.0 of National geographic when its STRs demonstrated that it belonged to the very recent other samples, has been tested through Nebula, and that the recent sample YF128975, it too tested through Nebula, belongs to the recent subclade R-PF4354. There is no indication about the origin of this last sample YF128975, but I found that his mt was probably from the British Isles, and suggested that this recent Jewish cluster of R-V1636 could have introgressed up there. The sample YF079257, labelled as Israel (HaMerkaz) is N16605 Savage Abraham Shpritz, Minsk, Russia Belarus R-L389.
Samples separated 4000 years ago and found in China demonstrate that this subclade derived from the expansion from eastern Europe to east, and fundamental is the origin of the sample found in Switzerland, YF089460, and separated 800 years ago. Of course we cannot exclude that these samples derived from a medieval back migration from Asia.
@Rob-Even by fluke?
Ha Ha Ha, what people should do is start analyzing data intelligently.
1-Ex occidente Lux-The first thing is to take into account that 6 of the 7 male lineages of the Yamnaya-Afanasievo cultures have western origin, basically because R1b-L754, I2a1b-M436 and I2a1b1-M223 have been found in the Villabruna epigravettian cluster of the WHGs (Italy). There is only one lineage of clear Siberian origin.
2-Many mtDNA markers of Ukrainian and Russian EHGs are shared with WHGs (including Baltic and Balkan ones).
3-The genetic distinction between WHG and EHG has long been obsolete, the shared markers mean that they must have spoken the same Paleo-European language. We have no reason to believe otherwise
4-The genetic continuity of the male markers WHG>EHG through the Epigravettian culture and the northeastern technocomplex (Kunda-Narva-Veretye-Butovo>Lyalovo) and then Volosovo (P297, Y13200), Sredni Stog (I2a-L699, R1a-M417)& Khvalynsk means that the Yamnaya culture inherited its language from its male ancestors (whatever the linguistic family to which this language belonged).
5-Although there are many mtDNA markers of Balkan and South Caucasian-Anatolian origin in the Yamnaya culture the southern male markers (J1 & J2) are an anecdote in Yamnaya's genetic makeup, ergo if we follow the criterion of attributing to the male markers the ability to transmit the language, we ignore the high CHG percentages in the steppes and the cultural superiority of the Maykop culture, then I believe that the steppe cultures did not change their language by the migrations from the South Caucasus.
6-So the key question is what was the Paleo-European language spoken by all European hunter gatherers?- Did it survive the neolithic migrations?-As we will never have written texts, the answer is more a question of faith than of scientific criteria.
By the way, the Bronze Age R-M269 in my house from Lazaridis’s article was most likely from a catacomb burial, I wonder how he ended up in such a wilderness, among the mountains, a steppe warrior, a herdsman, was he proto-Armenian-speaking?
when will G25 coordinates be ready for them?
can not wait
https://i.ibb.co/2yZ2ypx/Screenshot-49.png
https://i.ibb.co/L05LqqV/Screenshot-50.png
This is such a wonderful place, it’s more like a foothill than a mountain, the place where the Dargins live, and they are the overwhelming majority J1-CTS1460
Gio wrote:
@ Davidski
"Rob has left a new comment on the post "It's complicated":
These posts by RMS on crack me up
https://genarchivist.com/showthread.php?tid=581&page=2
They should rather be called - much ado about nothing. The alleged links of R1b and PIE, who also came from Siberia in 9000 BC, on horses”
It’s like who can say more garbage out of him and Derwood Targaryen".
I am glad that many people considers this tiny haplogroup I wrote hundreds but perhaps thousands of letters about more than 10 years ago when nobody spoke about it and probably didn't know its existence. Of course none of them knows something about it more than me.
My response:
Happily there's a url for GenArchivist there so anyone can see I did not post anything even remotely like what you accused me of, Gio. No one thinks R1b came from Siberia in 9000 BC on horses, and no one posted anything of the kind.
You've written a lot of wild stuff in your time, Gio, which is why you have been banned almost everywhere DNA is discussed - including at Eurogenes, for a time. But here are you, enjoying a reprieve, for however long it lasts.
@ Old Europe, Ethan, etc
This is why the CLV theory doesn't work
https://imgur.com/ruGE1u7
black - any site, red + Black : sites with steppe ancestry in West Asia.
@Rob
I'm still receptive to the idea that Ovaoren and Kalehoyuk (with the exception of MA2203) do indeed have CLV ancestry from the East but were not Indo-European speakers (or at least not Hitto-Luwians).
The most harmonious account I agree is that Anatolian speakers arrived from the West and brought with them an increase of Balkan/ANF ancestry to parts of the Peninsula. Once sampling is bolstered I expect this to be ascertainable in Western and Central Anatolia.
@ Rich S
I invite you to read more carefully what I wrote. The sentence you attributed to me belongs to a post of Rob that after he deleted but I, as you probably, received in my mail. I never said that, but I said much more about R-V1636 like this post after yours: "We know for certain now that the R-V1636 sample, that FTDNA used as to it was the oldest sample of the "Jewish clade" for the SNP PF4354, actually found in a partial Geno 2.0 of National geographic when its STRs demonstrated that it belonged to the very recent other samples, has been tested through Nebula, and that the recent sample YF128975, it too tested through Nebula, belongs to the recent subclade R-PF4354. There is no indication about the origin of this last sample YF128975, but I found that his mt was probably from the British Isles, and suggested that this recent Jewish cluster of R-V1636 could have introgressed up there. The sample YF079257, labelled as Israel (HaMerkaz), is N16605 Savage Abraham Shpritz, Minsk, Russia Belarus R-L389. Samples separated 4000 years ago and found in China demonstrate that this subclade derived from the expansion from eastern Europe to east, and fundamental is the origin of the sample found in Switzerland, YF089460, and separated 800 years ago. Of course we cannot exclude that these samples derived from a medieval back migration from Asia" and that should explain you why I was banned from blogs controlled from FTDNA&Friends. Examine the history of this markers PF4354 and how FTDNA tried to make you and those like you believe that this tiny Jewish clade (as pretty much all the European Jews ones were old and not recently introgressed into the Jewish pool, and, above all, how my analysis is always scientific as to the data at our disposal until then. I always searched for the truth and not excluded that the R-V1636 Jewish cluster could be European but also due to medieval migrations from Asia, Khazars probably in this case. As I am above all a historian, study attentively also what I wrote about that and look at the wars in due course.
@Arsen
Golubaya Krinitsa has Kelteminar or Northeast Caspian Meso/N on qpAdm you mean?
@ Ethan
''I'm still receptive to the idea that Ovaoren and Kalehoyuk (with the exception MA2203 ) do indeed have CLV ancestry from the East but were not Indo-European speakers (or at least not Hitto-Luwians). '
There's no steppe ancestry in Ovaoren, or any other site from north/eastern or eastern Anatolia. Both Devret & Arslantepe lie on the ancient route which connected the southern Caucasus to central Anatolia. So what we see in Arslantepe, the 'Hurrian sacrifice', is a persistant lineage but no steppe ancestry. This means the Areni_C had already be swarmed into the Kura-Araxe pool and lost their identity many generations ago.
But other sites in western Asia which retain steppe ancestry imply more recent migration and a more consolidated gene pool.
Anyhow, Turkish archaeologists are becoming increasingly aware of migrations via Thrace, even though at face value, the Caucasus route is more aparent - Kurgans, but the wrong kurgans.
@ Gio my posts on current adna don’t have anything to do with your letters
It's hilarious how some people just bash their head against the wall, rather than admit they were wrong.
It's not just V1636 but we have IBD between CLVs and those Central Anatolians, meaning the exchange happened within a few hundred years at most. And using the whole range of CLVs they can model up to 30% CLV for one of those CA samples. That's quite significant, as it's similar to modern southern Europeans and steppe ancestry.
Given that Yamnaya descends from this group of people, this is clearly the original PIE/PIA people. It ties everything up in terms of geography and genetic/linguistic timeframe.
@DragonHermit
Quit acting like a clown.
Just months ago you were still claiming at this blog that Yamnaya got Indo-Europeanized by Maykop or Kura-Araxes. I actually had to explain to you that Kura-Araxes was younger than Yamnaya.
I then showed you this quote and said that it's possible that Indo-Anatolian moved into Anatolia via the Caucasus along with the kurgan burial tradition, which you didn't accept as a possibility.
The Arslantepe Royal Tomb (in the Upper Euphrates Valley, eastern Anatolia), which is dated to 3100-2900 B.C., shows that far-reaching influences from the Northern Caucasus were already crossing the Greater Caucasus range and that they were being assimilated by the Anatolian power groups.
https://www.persee.fr/doc/mom_2259-4884_2012_act_58_1_3447
I've been suggesting an eastern route for Indo-Anatolian for a long time. The evidence is still online.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2020/06/maykop-ancestry-in-copper-age-arslantepe.html?showComment=1591700880635#c3786391167965072186
However, I still maintain that a western entry is more plausible.
@ Rob
"@ Gio my posts on current adna don’t have anything to do with your letters"
Of course, but explain to Rich S that he attributed to me what you did write even though in a deleted letter. Those words were among parentheses, and of course I explained him the reasons of my banishments, and I am always here, grace to YFull too, that FTDNA tried to cancel, they, the masters of the "cancel culture".
@ DH
“It's hilarious how some people just bash their head against the wall, rather than admit they were wrong.
It's not just V1636 but we have IBD between CLVs and those Central Anatolians, ”
Yes Cleitus , it is hilarious that the guy who’s only ever read one book in his life thinks he knows more than the Turkish archaeologists currently excavating & analysing in western Anatolia .
IBD has been explained, it’s a chance hit 1500 years apart which doesn’t show direction of movement the direct evidence shows us that not much occurred via eastern Anatolia or Mesopotamia.
You can’t argue against these facts, nor can Harvard.
So you should stop bashing your head because you’re dizzy enough as it is, if you couldn’t figure out that CW comes from Sredni Stog , despite being told so, you’re not going to honestly have a chance grappling with Anatolia.
The entire attempt to revive the old "Indo-Anatolian" hypothesis has a built in hedge pointing out that Anatolian is outside the phylogenic crown group. A significant portion of the worlds research budget toward ancient DNA in the paste few years has been dedicated to pulling the roots of PIE from the European steppe. The data acquired fails to move Occam's razor because it just isn't necessary.
The disconnect between DNA and language leaves any narrative you attach almost unfalsifiable, but in a context without a rich literary/epigraphic record adding extra steps is the same as special pleading.
@Gabru
if only Kelteminar is the source for TTK of a similar mixture for the Volga-cline, but I think that everything that was needed for the Volga was all in the North Caucasus, maybe I’m wrong, and the source of TTK could actually be the eastern Caspian region
@Arsen
As per archaeology Tutkaul/Hisor culture is ancestral to Kelteminar, so I'm guessing Kelteminar profile would be TTK + WSHG-like, we don't know if it was present in North of Caucasus Steppe profile prior to CLV people, but good chance it was there since early
@Rob
Instead of clowning and projecting hastily on your own colleagues just share the gibberish right pops being used to push Steppe in Isparta and Company so it's easy for me to shoot it
It's quite clear now that Anatolian and Indo-Iranian branches are not from any parts of Europe, Graeco-Armenian is a 50:50 case
@Gabru
https://i.ibb.co/YWL0M96/Screenshot-52.png
hmm, do you think it was something like this? is this your logic? ok, interesting
@Gabru
why did I ask about TTK in Golubaya Krinitsa, because Golubaya Krinitsa are examples of the Neolithic of the Black Sea region of the Don River 5500-5100 BC, and if there are impurities there, then what does that mean? TTK arrived much earlier, and from there, together with chg, mixed with Ukrainian hunters
@Davidski
Ok, chill out man, the comment to Rob was trolling yes, don't mind that one I just wanted to ask right pops by trolling
@Arsen
I'm not sure about Eastern input in Golubaya Krinitsa(don't have it on qpAdm) but on G25 it works as Ukraine_Meso + Russia_Sidelkino_HG + Georgia_Kotias_Klde_Meso kind of, but CLV people(Progress-Vonyuchka_En) show slight TTK/WSHG signal(12-18%?), so technically this WSHG signal should be present in North of Caucasus Steppe imo prior to impact from Shulaveri-Shomu Horizon people, as I see:-
Russia_Progress-Vonyuchka_En = Shulaveri-Shomu Horizon + Caspian Steppe Mesolithic(Lower Don Mesolithic & Kairshak-Orlovka related)
@Gubaru
https://i.ibb.co/9r6wKY3/Screenshot-53.png
Target: Russia_Steppe_Maikop_o:SA6013__BC_3217
Distance: 1.7725% / 0.01772493 | R5P
29.2 TJK_N
19.8 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
19.2 Armenia_Aknashen_N
16.6 GEO_CHG
15.2 Jordan_PPNB
In Russia Steppe Maikop_o SA6013, the overwhelming part of the genome is associated with TTK, most likely it got there on its own, maybe through the northeastern Caspian Sea, most likely you are right
Maybe? or did I draw complete nonsense
https://i.ibb.co/NmCWf32/chg.png
@Gabru
I haven't seen a consensus on Greco-Armenian. Greco-Phrygian has the strongest support, so I'd start from there.
@ Gabru
''Instead of clowning and projecting hastily on your own colleagues just share the gibberish right pops being used to push Steppe in Isparta and Company so it's easy for me to shoot it'
The right pops were posted already, if you weren't so erratic about your OIT by proxy theory being taken down you'd have seen that, it's just the individuals which rotate. But you won't shoot down anything, because you cant use admixtools and you're not fooling anyone with your creepy echoing of Vasistha's poetics.
Get a life & stay in your lane
I don't think there is any actual CHG in the Shuvaleri_N individuals from Armenia or Azerbajan, their CHG-related ancestry comes from eastern Fertile Crescent (Iraq PPN), even if cautiously needing more data from there. This is consistent with the fact that there are not many 'Mesolithic' sites continuing into the Neolithic in the plains of southern Caucasus (contra. Georgia-Imereti & NW Caucasus). And Iran_N has now been superceded for relevance.
The difference between Masis Blur and Aknashen in fact lies in the amount of western FC (Anatolian) ancestry, with Aknashen being ~ 100% EFC, whilst Masis Blur being 66 EFC & 34% WFC. 'Actual CHG' only appears in Meshoko-Darkveti and then with the Kura-Araxes spillover. last I checked, early Majkop lack CHG, but late/ Dolmenic Majkop acquire CHG.
The eastern FC ancesty also make s a huge impact in Anatolia by 5000 BC. ~ 45% of Buyukayya derives form it, other being Barcin_N-like. So Im not sure what Harvard are going on about mesopotamian ancestry coming in the Bronze Age, when it was already in Central Anatolia for 2000 years.
So, the large East FC movement just after 6000 BC coincides with the final fragmentation & exodus of the PPNB.
^ that type of appropriately-constructed distal approach can they be used to track Caucasian migrations into Anatolia. But it'll remain somewhat sketchy, as there is unevan sampling, different data types (SG, 1240K), etc.
Btw, I can confrim Davidski's view that Armenian Kura-Araxes has EHG (3.7% , SE 1.2%); or 8.3 % (1.9%) as Piedmont steppe.
The Georgian KA dont have any.
@Rob
That's BS, lol
Shulaveri-Shomu Horizon people have an intermediate CHG+IranN population that existed in Zarzian and Urmia, we all know Wezmeh and Abdul Hosein already show CHG drift, and Shulaveri doesn't have Iraq_PPN(Nemrik9, Shanidar), it simply has some Ciftlik related ANF-rich input from Northeast, East, Central Anatolia that Iraq_PPN completely lacks to my knowledge
@Rob
Check Turkmenistan_Eneol in Maykop all phases
"The right pops were posted already, if you weren't so erratic about your OIT by proxy theory being taken down you'd have seen that, it's just the individuals which rotate."
Where? Do it again, also I'm against OIT, Vashistha's theory is mostly legitimate
"But you won't shoot down anything, because you cant use admixtools."
I'm working since quite a days in other platforms and circles to counter it with Admixtools2 and I've dealt with a Rabid Kurganist who echoed the same Steppe in Isparta and even CT_LC, various other LC pops gibberish, in absense of Vasistha I'm doing what I can along with another compelling Anti-Kurganist on Twitter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
@ Gabru
''That's BS, lol
Shulaveri-Shomu Horizon people have an intermediate CHG+IranN population that existed in Zarzian and Urmia, we all know Wezmeh and Abdul Hosein already show CHG drift, and Shulaveri doesn't have Iraq_PPN(Nemrik9, Shanidar), it simply has some Ciftlik related ANF-rich input from Northeast, East, Central Anatolia that Iraq_PPN completely lacks to my knowledge''
No, the populations between Mesopotamia and NW Caucasus lie on a cline, which is what you're confusing. But the Neolithic migrations into the Caucasus come from the southern pole of that cline. Iraq_PPQ, far_SE Anatolia, etc, work interchangibly, + some Caucasian Neolithics have something a little more western than that (e.g slicing in from Anatolia itself); but none have 'actual CHG'.
Actual CHG (the stuff which made the greastest contribution to East Europe) is confined to Georgia and regions to its north (sadly for Arsen). Within the Caucasian context, CHG only disperses out of Georgia with K-A, acc to present data.
''I'm working since quite a days in other platforms and circles to counter it with Admixtools2 and I've dealt with a Rabid Kurganist who echoed the same Steppe in Isparta and even CT_LC, various other LC pops gibberish, in absense of Vasistha I'm doing what I can along with another compelling Anti-Kurganist on Twitter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯''
Cool story. Sounds like you're kicking goals.
@Finngreek
Graeco-Armenian = Graeco-Phrygian + Armenian, some people say Phrygian falls between* Greek and Armenian branches
I think in Azerbaijan there were hunter-gatherers 50|/50 Iran Caucasus, there is open space for Georgian hunters, and from the Iranian plateau, and north of the Kura and Araks river, there may well be hunters more than CHG and less than IRAN, but in the north, there were are there additional ANE impurities?
if there are EHG impurities in the Kura Araks, then there is nothing surprising, since before that there were prerequisites in Copper Age Armenia, but still, I think this northern signal is more related to the TTK admixture.
What about 'central' maritime (coastal on the safe side) route?
@Davidski
I've considered all options: I believed the western route initially because of Anthony. I even considered the southern route of Lazaridis. Gave every option the benefit of the doubt. I had no inherent bias.
But this was my comment 1 month before this paper came out. Check the date
"Lazaridis wrote extensively about these R1b-V1636 people in the Southern Arc paper, and said they were evidence of steppe-west asian genetic exchange.
'Subclades of Y-chromosome haplogroup R-L389 are particularly informative for tracing connections between the Southern Arc and the Eurasian steppe (Fig. 6). First, haplogroup R-V1636, with an inferred common ancestor in the 5th millennium BCE, documents gene flow between the steppe and the Southern Arc in the Eneolithic/Chalcolithic period (Fig. 6B). R-V1636 is present in two individuals from the Late Chalcolithic at Arslantepe (Turkey) (14) and the Early Bronze Age in Armenia at Kalavan (10). It is also found in the piedmont of the North Caucasus at Progress-2 (17), the open steppe at Khvalynsk II (9), and the Single Grave Culture of Northern Europe (Gjerrild) (33). The individuals from Armenia and
Arslantepe lack any detectible Eastern hunter-gatherer autosomal ancestry (Fig. 6C), which is maximized in the Khvalynsk individuals, an observation that provides some evidence for a southern origin for the R-V1636 haplogroup (we caution, however, that the haplogroup occurs earlier in several sites in the north, which
could be consistent with an alternative scenario in which male migrants from the steppe introduced it into Southern Arc populations during the Chalcolithic, but their autosomal genetic legacy was diluted by the much more numerous locals). The earliest individuals from the R-L389 clade belong to the R-P297 sister clade of R-V1636, including the hunter-gatherer from Lebyazhinka IV (8, 9) and hunter-gatherers from the Baltic region (3), both without Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry, suggesting an Eastern European origin of this clade that would eventually give rise to the R-M269 clade that spread extremely widely in the Bronze Age'
Imo, I think we're finally getting some genetic evidence of Proto-Anatolians. They might be intrinsically tied to these R1b-V1636 people. Not specifically this specific Nalchik sample, but something like this. Most estimates only put the Indo-Anatolian split a few hundred years after this Nalchik sample's existence at 4500 to 4000 BC.
Laziridis's argument was that these R1b-V1636 migrated north, but he also left the door open for the opposite to be true, that the Arslanteppe sample represents the paternal descendants of these people whose autosomal DNA was watered down, like many R1bs in the Middle East today.
February 14, 2024 at 3:21 PM"
I had no idea about Reich's paper which literally repeated that VERBATIM, including the dates, routes, Y-DNA, etc... In other posts I have also talked about an EASTERN cousin of the Yamnaya. This is what CLVs represent.
@ George
''What about 'central' maritime (coastal on the safe side) route?''
Ikiztepe on the northern coast lack steppe ancestry.
So far, the earliest steppe ancestry is found in NW Anatolia, Barcin_C, ~ 3600 BC (modal C14).
There are Cernavoda sites in Thrace & Rhodopes at this time, but short coastal trips from the Dniester estuary would be feasible.
However, we dont really need to imagine elaborate scenarios given the dozens of kurgans recently excavated in Instanbul, a few kilometers away.
@ Gio
''Of course, but explain to Rich S that he attributed to me what you did write even though in a deleted letter.''
I was stating there are inacurracies in the posts at G.A, due to the limited bibliography and miunsderstanding of data, and this was amalgamated into a follow-up post. Im not sure how you took this as an invitation to comment on people's marriage choice, or why it is your business.
@DragonHermit
It seems to me that the two samples of Arslantepe ART 020 ART 018 have a little steppe, although there is little, but there are zero tired ones
"but there are zero tired ones" error, sorry, it should be "but the rest have zero"
@Gabru
I remember recently I asked you about the Mesolithic sample EHG NEO555 from Karavaikha, for the presence of chg-iran admixture in the qpAdm program, you said that it showed nothing and it is pure EHG. This is very strange, because in G25 “NEO555” shows Caucasus Iran impurities are greater than those of Samara EHG I0124,
https://i.ibb.co/kHnp6qL/Screenshot-59.png
and Samara EHG definitely has an admixture of CHG
https://i.ibb.co/r0W598G/Screenshot-54.png
What can you say to this? )
@Davidski, re; using the ASAP r package, it seems simple to install but you need to have the PCA data in eigensoft (smartpca output) format, so you may be the only one in a position to give it a try? (if you so choose of course).
https://lm-ut.github.io/ASAP/articles/Tutorial.html
@Arsen
Except for Golubaya Krinitsa and Ksizovo, CHG is minimal(<9%) in other EHG-rich samples published by Allentoft 2023, peaks in Russia_Samara_HG/Meso to my knowledge(6-8%)
On a side note the below qpAdm models might be interesting to you
Target: GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
P-Value: 0.0609
78.6 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
15.4 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
6.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
Target: GEO_Satsurblia_HG
P-Value: 0.401
84.9 IRN_Ganj_Dareh_N
11.1 TUR_Pinarbasi_HG
4.0 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
We need genomes from
- Orlovskaya/Orlovka
- Kairshak/Pre-Prikaspiiskaya/Lower Volga Mesolithic
- Lower Don Mesolithic(can Golubaya Krinitsa be LD instead of the MD labelling of it?)
- Caspian Steppe Mesolithic
Until then it's guesswork and bets, I think Rob and group especially as Arsen said above might be thinking that ANF Ciftlik-related wave that happened into Caucasus and Highlands/Lowlands(Aknashen, Masis Blur, Hajji Firuz, Mentesh, Darkveti-Meshoko) also somehow happened to penetrate past Caucasus Mountains and entered Caspian Steppe, so as to deny Southern input into C Steppe around 5400 BCE for the formation of "CLV" people and direct the formation of CLV as "Caspian_Steppe_Meso + X(TTK-like/WSHG-like/additional Southern", basically component X being minor whatever in all possibilities Caspian_Steppe_Meso despite the jackpot of ANF present in it can miss, it should be noted that CLV shows Ganj_Dareh signal on f4 and distal modeling on qpAdm too
I think the old theory that R1b being non-IE needs to be reintroduced
In Asia, they are sort of the anti-Indo Europeans, Hurrian underclass, whilst in Europe they were Basque :)
@Gabru
but CHG do not come from Iranian farmers, the farmers are already settled farmers.
CHG, North Caucasian_HG and Iranian farmers have a common ancestor, like this
Then, why is the second P-Value almost 7 times greater than the first?
@Gabru
The samples from the Blue Krenica belong to the Mariupol horizon (culture of the Lower Don). Samples of the culture of the Middle Don are missing both in published articles and in preprints.
@ Vlad
Golubaya Krinitsa is from Middle Don sphere of Mariupol horizon
@Arsen
RUS_Karavaikha_Meso individuals and NEO555...
Target: RUS_Karavaikha_Meso:NEO555_BC_6327_Cov_unknown
Distance: 2.4634% / 0.02463403
70.4 RUS_Karelia_HG
21.6 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
8.0 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
https://files.catbox.moe/ny82t6.png
Target: RUS_Ksizovo_4600BP:NEO175__BC_2657__Cov_unknown
Distance: 2.7122% / 0.02712245
46.4 RUS_Fatyanovo_Tver_BA
44.8 RUS_Yamnaya_Samara
8.8 RUS_Karelia_HG
A strange finding...
Target: RUS_Ksizovo_6400BP:NEO173__BC_4393__Cov_unknown
Distance: 2.8583% / 0.02858294
61.0 UKR_Meso
20.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
18.8 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En
Another strange finding, can somebody check?
@Gabru
In this whole matter, the main talent is to choose the right sources. but why did you choose populations that are 2000 years younger for Ksizovo as sources? not only are they younger, but they themselves represent later mixtures
Another horse dna paper preview on ENA - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJNA1003267
"Horse in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant" - "Horses are quite rare in the archaeological record of the Southern Levant, especially before the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BCE) and the advent of chariot warfare. Domesticated horses (Equus ferus caballus Linnaeus, 1758), brought from the Euro-Asiatic steppes, are attested in the Southern Levant during the Early Bronze Age, as shown by the sites of Arad, Ashkelon/Afridar, Tell Jenin, Ras el-Ain/Aphek and Khirbet al-Batrawy. The latter is one of the most interesting case studies, where recent samples of equid bones have been analysed by the Molecular Anthropology/Paleogenetic Unit of the Laboratory of Anthropology in the University of Florence, to identify ancient equid DNA in order to determine the species and possible hybridization, giving new evidence to help developing the study of equid domestication."
If the dates of this Early Bronze Age are around the 2000-1800 BCE kind of date, that fits with the very, very rapid almost immediate dispersal of domestic horses around ~2,200 BCE (https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJEB71445 - "We find that reproductive control of the modern domestic lineage emerged ~2,200 BCE, through close kin mating and shortened generation times") with the DOM2 horse.
It may be that before this date, steppe groups *tamed* horses, but did not actively breed them. So only once they began a breeding progamme, could the use of horse be rapidly exported across Eurasia, and then almost immediately without necessarily being associated much with the "steppe ancestry"? (Likely accompanied by some steppe people but not always with a sustained reproductive advantage so the expansion of horses and people often became uncoupled).
@Gabru, I myself am already confused with the dating of your ancient samples. I always confuse BC and BP, for some reason I have it in my head that BP is 2 thousand years older than BC, and not vice versa, sorry)
@Rob
No. The Middle Don Neolithic culture is an independent culture of the forest-steppe zone. Its center is the Bityug River, a tributary of the Don, and it approximately reaches the city of Voronezh. To the north of Voronezh, the forest crops of the pit-comb ceramics horizon are already beginning. South of the Bityug River, there are also rare settlements of the Middle Don culture, but they decrease as they move towards the steppe. The culture of the Lower Don was located in the steppe zone of the Don (this is the modern Rostov region). Golubaya krenitsa is the border of steppe and forest-steppe and archaeologically it is the culture of the Mariupol circle, that is, the culture of the Lower Don.
@Gabru
Target: RUS_Ksizovo_6400BP:NEO173__BC_4393__Cov_unknown
Distance: 2.8583% / 0.02858294
61.0 UKR_Meso
20.2 RUS_Karelia_HG
18.8 RUS_Progress-Vonyuchka_En
Another strange finding, can somebody check?
Why is it strange? This is the Sredniy Stog culture
@Vlad
I am of the exact same opinion, do you have any archaeological material on Golubaya Krinitsa to verify, I've only seen it labelled as Middle Don because of Allentof 2023, but I think it fits with Lower Don rather, yes
"Golubaya krenitsa is the border of steppe and forest-steppe and archaeologically it is the culture of the Mariupol circle, that is, the culture of the Lower Don."
Completely agree
On another topic, Huang and Ringbauer - https://www.biorxiv.org/content/10.1101/2024.05.06.592728v1.full.pdf - "Estimating effective population size trajectories from time-series Identity-by-Descent (IBD) segments"
They estimate the Corded Ware Culture to have undergone a 300% population size increase from 3500 BCE to 2500 BCE. From something like 2500 reproducing individuals to something like 7500 reproducing individuals. (The real population including non-reproducing individuals may have been larger, but as Ringbauer's earlier paper on the Caribbean said "census size is unlikely to be >10x larger than Ne").
That's actually surprisingly gentle IMO; you only need 2.8% population growth per generation over that time span to get that, so 3.3% more kids in the following generation than the replacement rate. However, high mortality among the Corded Ware Culture (say from warfare or diseases) may have meant many more kids that were actually born per generation?
It also may have been less smooth than H and R's method identifies.
They also do a similar thing for Medieval Britain, although I think this is a bit dubious as it's not really a closed population (the Cambridgeshire population has a quite large shift towards EEF ancestries compared to the sampled Early Medieval Anglo-Saxon population, pointing to Northern France).
@Vladimir ,у тебя есть телега?
@ Vlad
''No. The Middle Don Neolithic culture is an independent culture of the forest-steppe zone. Its center is the Bityug River, a tributary of the Don, and it approximately reaches the city of Voronezh''
GK is in the Voreznheh oblast, so must straddle the border. Whatever the case, these are largely arbitrary, as there are Mariupol sites in middle Don too.
New scientific classifications are required based on C14 dates and genomes, but Harvard's & Anthony's approach is unsatisfactory (more am unholy alliance of desparation the failed Volga theory & the failed Ex mesopotamia theory)
Also, we can reject far-fetched claims of migrations from the Near East to the Lower Don, such as those of Manko & Chkhatarashvili
@Matt
"It may be that before this date, steppe groups *tamed* horses, but did not actively breed them."
I think this is very likely.
Can that mean that non-steppe were also taming horses in times of necessity?
Matt wrote: If the dates of this Early Bronze Age are around the 2000-1800 BCE kind of date, that fits with the very, very rapid almost immediate dispersal of domestic horses around ~2,200 BCE
It looks like it could have taken as little as 50 years for the horse to spread across a good chunk of North America and be in use by Native Americans on the Great Plains.
https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.adc9691
Rob May 11, 2024 at 5:06 PM
I think the old theory that R1b being non-IE needs to be reintroduced
In Asia, they are sort of the anti-Indo Europeans, Hurrian underclass, whilst in Europe they were Basque :)
Careful, you will trigger their Yamnaya derangement syndrome.
@Matt
"Another horse dna paper preview on ENA - https://www.ebi.ac.uk/ena/browser/view/PRJNA1003267...
'Horse in the Early Bronze Age Southern Levant' - Horses are quite rare in the archaeological record of the Southern Levant, especially before the Late Bronze Age (1550-1200 BCE)...If the dates of this Early Bronze Age are around the 2000-1800 BCE kind of date, that fits with the very, very rapid almost immediate dispersal of domestic horses around ~2,200 BCE."
Actually, Early Bronze Age in Southern Levant begins around 3500 BCE. Of course, a more coherent time would be the Early Bronze Age IV period (2300–2000 BCE), but it's a period wheres the Early Bronze Age political systems collapsed in that region.
@Carlos, EBA wide interval, let's wait for the paper and see the dates.
@Vara, happened at Botai, although people there were a steppe people, just not the steppe people. But elsewhere horses will be more scarce and not obviously as a source of food or mobility to I would doubt it a bit more.
@Carlos Aramayo
\Maybe the appearance of horses in the southern Levant in the Bronze Age is associated with the expansion of the Kura Araxes culture to these territories?
@Rob & Romulus
Maybe these data can help someone to think about it-To date, we have 94 samples of men in Ukraine between 5500 BC and 3300 BC i.e. pre-Yamnaya. It includes Ukrainian Neolithic, Dnieper-Donets/Mariupol/Sredni Stog (some samples are from Russian sites belonging to this culture)/ Cernavoda & Usatovo-The results are significant
I2a-M438 (especially L701>L699)-52 samples-55.32%
R1b-V88-15 samples-15.95%
R1a-M420 8 samples-8.50%
Q1b2-L56-4 samples-4.25%
R1b-L754-3 samples-3.17%
J1b-Y6313-2 samples-2.11%
R1b-V1636 (1)-1.07
R1b-Y13200 (1)-1.07
J2b-Z42942 (1)-1.07
J2a-M319 (1)-1.07
G2a2b-P303 (1)-1.07
E1b1b-L618 (1)-1.07
P1-CTS196 (1)-1.07
R1b-M343 (1)-1.07
R1b-P297 (1)-1.07
R1b-? (1)-1.07
If these cultures spoke PIE, who were the Indo-Europeans?
R1b-M269, R1b-L23? of which we have not found a single case precisely at the time it had to have been formed?
Sredni Stog contributed to form the Yamnaya culture (I2a-L699, V1636, Y13200, Q1b2-L56) but L23>Z2103 is not in Ukraine but in Russia (3.600 BCE) and there we have Khvalynsk, overwhelmingly R1b-V1636.
Perhaps all those who advocate that M269 will appear in the Dniper-Don (Sredni Stog etc) can think of some other solution.
By the way almost 50% of mtDNA in early CWC Bohemia have been documented in Yamnaya-Afanasievo but there are some markers with origin in Usatovo and it should be remembered that M417 has appeared in Durankulak in a deposit belonging to this culture.
@Gaska
1. That fact is that ATP3 is not derived for any reliable R-M269 SNPs. Also he does not have reads at all for anything downstream from R-M269 even though it is dated to 3516-3362 BC and therefore can't be used to prove anything about when and how R-L23. Do you not understand that in order to prove ATP3 has anything to do with R-L23 in western Europe you need to show it was derived for SNPs that belonged to R-L23 subclades in western Europe. So it would have to at least be derived for R-L23 since ATP3 was way younger than the calculated age of R-L23 and only slightly older than SHT001 which is derived for R-L23, R-P310, and R-P311. ATP3 is meaningless for the source of R-L151 in western Europe.
2. R-P297 all over Europe is absolutely meaningless without R-L23 with regards to the arrival of R-L23 into western Europe. It's subclades of R-L23 that took Steppe autosomal DNA to western Europe. There is no R-L23 in western Europe at all prior to R-L23 subclades appearing in western Europe. R-L23 appears in Yamnaya prior to arriving in western Europe. Therefore, R-L23 in western Europe is from a Yamnaya related people.
3. I had told you it is the scientists that recognize it. They are the ones that made he statements. I don't care what you think. I care what the scientists think.
4. He only states that it is surprising they are not documented but does not go on say he is interested in finding the origin of R-M269 specifically. He does point out R-Z103 specifically later where he states "In the future it is important to study the Pontic-Caspian steppe in even finer spatio-temporal detail to identify the pre-Yamnaya population in the Eneolithic mix of Don-Volga with Serednii Stih populations out of which we think that the Yamnaya emerged. Where did the “core Yamnaya” patrilineal clan (R-Z2103/R-M12149 bearers) live and why did they become so successful?" and in the main paper he states "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." So here we can see that he is interested in finding the ancestors of the Yamnaya which are mostly R-Z2103 and not specifically interested in finding the origin of R-M269.
The authors understand that every single person in the world that is derived for a subclade of R-L23 is a direct paternal descendant of the very first person to be derived for R-L23 (that was also derived for all upstream SNPs). Specimens that can't be related, or proven to be related, in the direct line due to relevant ancestral reads, or no-calls, have no bearing determining the source of R-L23 in western Europe.
@Matt and Arsen
In the following (2016) paper it is commented that possible Equus ferus caballus bones were found since Early Bronze III at Khirbet-al-Batrawy, and "[a] further eleven caballine bones were discovered in EBIV B layers, indicating the presence of E. caballus at the site from around 2700-2100 BC [...]"
https://tinyurl.com/ykffnmvp
@ Dospaises
I have been reading some of your posts. It seems that you are a Mexican or a Latin American, and probably your Y is R1b. What have I to understand, that you are against Gaska, and probably against me, that R1b did derive from the Villabrunas of the Alpine refugium, and being probably your mt a Native American one you desire that also your Y did come from Asia? But I said that our haplogroup probably descended from the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor and very likely our Latin language even though probably the Villabrunas adopted the Alpine Caucasian languages oh hg I? I have nothing against you, Native Americans etc, and nothing if you speak some languages of Native Americans, I hope they survived and are studied, but your nickname is Latin through Castillano and we make our analyses only through a scientific point of view, that means through hypotheses and verifications. Too many people tried to demonstrate that Italians aren't Italians and also Iberians aren't Iberians etc, but probably I demonstrated that they aren't what they think to be.
@Carlos Aramayo
This is what I managed to find
"Khirbet Kerak culture appears to have been a Levantine version of the Early Transcaucasian culture, also known as the Kura-Araxes or Kur-Araz culture."
and here is an excerpt from the article I came across
"The article provides a description of each type of pens, provides analogues on the sites of the Early Bronze Age both in the Northeast Caucasus and the adjacent regions of the Caucasus, including the territories of modern Iran, Turkey and Palestine and Israel, which were part of the distribution area of the Kuro-Arak cultural and historical community ( including Khirbet-Kerak culture)"
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/350455014_ON_THE_HANDLES_OF_CERAMIC_VESSELS_OF_THE_EARLY_BRONZE_PRIMORSKY_DAGESTAN_QUESTIONS_OF_TYPOLOGY_AND_CHRONOLOGY
the author of the article is a certain Arsen L. Budaychiev
but it's not me
@Carlos, if at the start of that date range, that could be very early to be a DOM2 horse then. Perhaps that makes it less likely. Maybe despite the title it might not even be horse bones. Looking forward to seeing what they come up with.
(Unrelated but wonder if the IBD methods will soon extend to these DOM2 horses, in the other paper "Domestic horses promoted rapid and long-distance human mobility from ~2,200 BCE"? It's obviously going to be the case that horses generations are like >5-8 times as fast as humans, so signals would be expected to be less, but it would be cool to see if some horses elsewhere were literally related by recent IBD blocks to ones found on the steppes).
@ Romulus
''Careful, you will trigger their Yamnaya derangement syndrome.''
LOL True, although the Europe part was a joke in response to the couple of LARPers.
@ Gaska
''Maybe these data can help someone to think about it-To date, we have 94 samples of men in Ukraine between 5500 BC and 3300 BC i.e. pre-Yamnaya. It includes Ukrainian Neolithic, Dnieper-Donets/Mariupol/Sredni Stog (some samples are from Russian sites belonging to this culture)/ Cernavoda & Usatovo-The results are significant
If these cultures spoke PIE, who were the Indo-Europeans?''
All of those sites are relevant. And pre-PIE would have emerged from the language of north Pontic hunter-gatherers in broad terms. The First external influence was from European farmers, then later influences from Caucasian Eneolithic.
The pre-Anatolians would have to be a group which departed earlier, which is why LVC has been suggested. But on their south Caucasian treck, they veered off toward Azerbaijan. The lack of steppe ancestry in eastern Anatolia cannot be explained by a later K-A expansion ("conveniently erasing IE diversity in eastern Anatolia"), because Arslantepe LC and Ikiztepe are both earlier than the KA exapnsion, and they still dont show steppe ancestry. Devret is syncrhonous with KA, but KA never reached that far in. So the KA erasure arguement fails to explain away the genetic - & linguistic - observations.
So what are we left with; steppe ancestry in :
- Barcin_C 3700 (NW Anatolia)
- Yassitepe / Ispart 3000 BC (West Anatolia)
- Kalehoyuk 2200 BC (central Anatolia)
Also Cernavoda provides a sound statistical fit, Harvard's models are obfuscatory & confused (standard).
So how did 'core IE' emerge with the modest showing of R1a-M17 and R1b-M269 in Sredni Stog ? Firstly, there was some outmigration of earlier, primal IE, followed by local events and takeovers within the steppe & forest steppe itself. Maybe a movement from the Dnieper-Don forest steppe, whilst the steppe was more I2a-L699. That kind of delineation would parallel, at least somewhat, the linguistic structure in IE.
@Carlos Aramayo
Here is an excerpt from another article, translated into AI
The appearance of domesticated horses in Egypt around the 17th century BCE is most likely explained by technological and trade connections with the Levant. Bones of E. caballus, contemporaneous with or slightly earlier than the horse remains from Buhen, have been found at three sites from the early and middle Bronze Ages in the Southern Levant—Tel Afek, Hirbet al-Batrawi, and Tel Michal.
Tel Afek is one of the fortified settlements that emerged in the Levant in the early 3rd millennium BCE. Several stages of settlement have been identified, spanning from the Early Bronze Age I (Phase C, 3150–2850 BCE) to the early 20th century. Wild or domestic horse remains were found at two locations. In sector B, during the Early Bronze Age I layer, ten horse skeleton elements were discovered (the number of individuals is unknown), and in the Middle Bronze Age II layer, three more were found, with another in the same layer in sector A, near a palace structure. Most identifiable remains of domestic horses are teeth [Hellwing, 2000, p. 294, 297, 305].
At the early Bronze Age site of Hirbet al-Batrawi in Jordan, excavated since 2005 by La Sapienza University, remains of wild or domestic horses were found in the Early Bronze Age III layer (mid-3rd millennium BCE). Around 2700 BCE, an earthquake destroyed a significant part of the settlement, but its area continued to grow after the natural disaster [Nigro, 2013]. In sectors 3a and 3b, in layers of the early Bronze Age III period following the earthquake, at least 10 bones of domestic horses (with a minimum number of individuals being three) were discovered. Additionally, 11 more specimens were found in the Early Bronze Age IVB layer. This suggests the existence of domestic horses at the Hirbet al-Batrawi settlement during the period 2700–2100 BCE [Alhaique, 2008].
and in general, there is a lot of information about the bones of horses, wild and domesticated, discovered in southwest Asia, from the Neolithic
@Dospaises
1-I have already explained many times that the important thing about ATP3 is that it is P297, that it also has a SNP derived from M269 and that it has no trace of steppe ancestry. I repeat, all of you should acknowledge your mistake or apologize. Maybe instead of continuing to analyze hundreds of sites in Ukraine and Russia Harvard should think about analyzing western Europe where there are hundreds of sites waiting and maybe more R1b-L754>P297>M269 will appear, who knows? BTW, we also have CLL007 (3.300-2.300 BCE) at least L151 in a typical neolithic collective burial
2-P297 meaningless? You know that this marker is the “grandfather” of L23, right? This marker can descend from any of the L754>P297>M269 that have been discovered (Italy, France, Balkans, Belgium, Baltic, Northern Russia etc). If you had more than steppe on the brain you would understand
3-Yeah, it's funny that you believe the fairy tales that scientists tell you and are not able to analyze the data at your disposal independently. Your opinion is of no interest to me
4-Lazaridis has no idea where to find M269 and L23, and has recognized that this is one of the main objectives of the laboratory with which he collaborates ergo you were wrong again. Harvard has been looking for these markers in the steppes for 10 years and they have found absolutely nothing in the time they should find it i.e. 5,000-3,500 BCE. When and how this marker was Indo-Europeanized is still a mystery. Or maybe this never happened and R1b always spoke non-Indo-European languages?
I would like to know what are the reasons that led him (and you, and your friends) to think that he will find it in Sredni Stog. Is it a hunch? Do you have an interesting argument? Or do you just repeat like a parrot what you hear others say?
Further about Harvard's nonsensical models, the Mesopotamian ancestry arrived to central Anatolia long before steppe, in 5000 BC.
Mesopotamian & steppe ancestry are two different movements with no correlation.
Given that Cernavoda formed in Ukraine & Moldova, lack of Iron Gates ancestry is meaningless, beyond showing that Harvard don't understand what theyre gtalking about.
@Carlos Aramayo
Here is another picture from the same article,
https://i.ibb.co/w6tdBPK/441-1.png
translation of the description of this picture:
Fig. 1. Possible distribution of E. caballus in the Near East and the main sites discussed in the article, indicating the dates of the earliest evidence of domestication. Dashed lines indicate territories where wild horses continued to exist during the Middle Holocene (circa 5000 years BCE).
Apparently these data did not take into account the DNA of the bone remains of horses, and the authors of the article assumed that the first domesticated horse belongs to the Botai culture of the Chalcolithic era of northern Kazakhstan
The markers R-M417 and R-M269 likely originated in foraging groups in western Russia. It appears that they entered in the Indo-European genetic somewhat late. Additionally, Golubaya Krinitsa seems to have some admixture from Lyalovo. Besides that, the samples from Krivyansky do not reflect the genetic diversity of the Don region. It is necessary to get more samples from other sites, especially from the middle Eneolithic period, big monuments like Koisug and Bessergenovka.
@Carlos Aramayo
That's why I initially suggested that domesticated horses in the Southern Levant could be linked to the Kura-Araxes culture. The cultural area you mentioned belongs to a local variant of the Kura-Araxes culture, and the Kura-Araxes culture is the only one that connects the steppe culture of the Caucasus (in this case, the northeastern part) with the Southern Levant. Who else could it be, really? I haven't even studied this issue, I just made a guess, and in the end, everything seems to point to that, but my words shouldn't be taken as the ultimate truth. Ultimately, there are many other ways domesticated horses could have reached the ancient Levantians, but it's likely connected to the Kura-Araxes culture.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/Distribution_of_archaeological_cultures_in_Europe_and_Caucasus_before_and_after_3000_BCE.png
Some interesting runs...
@Arsen, @Vladimir check these
Target: RUS_Vasilyevskiy_kordon_17_N_En
Distance: 1.4401% / 0.01440120
34.6 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
33.8 UKR_Meso
26.0 RUS_Karelia_HG
5.6 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
Target: RUS_Vasilyevskiy_kordon_17_N_En
Distance: 1.6418% / 0.01641822
68.4 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
26.2 UKR_Meso
5.4 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
Target: RUS_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Meso
Distance: 2.9188% / 0.02918843
48.6 RUS_Sidelkino_HG
26.4 UKR_Meso
25.0 GEO_Kotias_Klde_Meso
@ Arsen
The article you mention is the Russian version of this one:
Shev, E. T., (2016). "The Introduction of the Domesticated Horse in Southwest Asia", in: Archaeology, Ethnology & Anthropology of Eurasia 44/1, pp. 123-136. Institute of Archaeology and Ethnography of the Siberian Branch of the Russian Academy of Sciences.
https://tinyurl.com/ykffnmvp
The author, as you commented, did not take into account Genetic analyses because they will be published in a forthcoming paper led by Italian scholars. On the other hand, you're also right by stating that, by now, he considers the provenance from Botai. Maybe forthcoming aDNA will confirm or reject this view. It's also important the Egyptian connection I think.
@ Arsen
Yes, the map b you provide:
https://tinyurl.com/m4y94bhd
fits well in timing with the horse bones in Southern Levant and Kura Araxes III expansion there, 2800-2300 BCE, as the findings are dated to 2700-2100 BCE.
Anyway, the genetical analysis will be the only way to confirm or deny this trajectory.
@Carlos Aramayo
if this is a domesticated type of horse, then they are not related to Botai, I think, because the Botai people ate horses, and if they are domesticated horses, then they are associated with the North Caucasus, from Kalmykia, you know, from these places
Botai horses are genetically related to modern Przewalski horses
It's worth remembering that the Mariupol culture is a generic term for cemeteries from the Neolithic period, covering the area from the Dnieper to the Volga. These sites share common characteristics, such as the presence of boar tusk plates, deer teeth, and intense use of ochre. This "culture" is probably linked to the expansion and influence of CHG-rich groups. As for genetic composition of the Golubaya Krinitsa samples .
Target: Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic:NEO212
Distance: 2.3655% / 0.02365457
53.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
31.6 Ukraine_N
15.4 Russia_MN_Lyalovo
Target: Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic:NEO210
Distance: 3.5624% / 0.03562404
50.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
49.8 Ukraine_N
Target: Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic:NEO209
Distance: 5.4131% / 0.05413119
52.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
35.0 Russia_MN_Lyalovo
12.8 Ukraine_N
Target: Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic:NEO207
Distance: 5.2984% / 0.05298369
42.2 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
29.2 Russia_MN_Lyalovo
28.6 Ukraine_N
Target: Russia_Golubaya_Krinitsa_Mesolithic:NEO204
Distance: 5.1950% / 0.05195018
52.0 Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic
24.4 Ukraine_N
23.6 Russia_MN_Lyalovo
If one looks up desperation in an English dictionary, one of the definitions is ATP3.
ATP3 is a no good, very low coverage sample for which no Y-DNA haplogroup could be determined. Really.
Continuing to rely on ATP3 is tantamount to admitting, "My argument is extremely and very obviously weak".
Come up with some better samples.
Lol that Figure 1 matches the dates and steppe -> anatolia migration route of Reich's new paper perfectly.
"The Proto-Indo-European link to horsemanship is one that may have some credence given that the first domestication event likely took place in roughly the same region that was the homeland of all Indo-European languages. The transmission of the domesticated horse from the Eurasian steppe into the Near East could have only occurred via a limited number of geographical corridors. As it stands, there is no evidence that horses were present in the Balkans or eastern Iran at a period contemporary with or shortly after horse domestication occurred at Botai. Transcaucasia, Anatolia, and northwestern Iran on the other hand do demonstrate populations of E. ferus/ caballus between 3500–3000 BC, indicating Transcaucasia as a likely corridor of dissemination (Fig. 1)."
RE the Horse Discussion
When it comes to trade, horse, asses, sheeps and cows are products that don't need to be carted. They carry themselves.
As with the first dispersal of the horse among Native American tribes, trade outruns both human genetics and specific culture.
Aside from food and riders, it may be helpful to remember that horses may have been most useful as pack animals, well before they were bred to become "modern domestic horses"
"This reveals that modern domestic horses ultimately replaced almost all other local populations as they expanded rapidly across Eurasia from about 2000 bc...
"Our results REJECT the commonly held association7 between horseback riding and the massive expansion of Yamnaya steppe pastoralists into Europe around 3000 bc driving the spread of Indo-European languages. This contrasts with the scenario in Asia where Indo-Iranian languages, chariots and horses spread together, following the early second millennium bc Sintashta culture."
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41586-021-04018-9
Somebody run DATES on Golubaya Krinitsa to find when that 24% CHG entered and if it was accompanied with Neolithic package as a primary diffusion
*Non-Producing Neolithic package that would actually be Ceramic Mesolithic, but just labels
"The Neolithisation process in the southern part of the Low Volga region during 6500–5500 BC did not include a producing economy. From the point of view of European researchers, sites of this period could be attributed only to the ‘ceramic Mesolithic’. In the eastern European scientific world, pottery is regarded as a marker of the beginning of the Neolithic era (Oshibkina 1996), which is why these sites were classified as Neolithic."
@Livonia
Anthony ripped that Librado paper to shreds in his latest talk, which is telling considering he was also one of the main contributors of it.
He explains how genetically DOM2 horses are descended from Yamnaya horses.
Post a Comment