Wednesday, December 4, 2024
The PIE homeland controversy: December 2024 open thread
It seems like we're getting close to the moment when Iosif Lazaridis has to finally admit that the Proto-Indo-European (PIE) homeland was located in Eastern Europe, and also that the ancestors of the Hittites and other Anatolian speakers entered Anatolia via the Balkans.
Let's discuss.
However, please note that comments from total morons, trolls and/or mentally unstable people will not be approved.
See also...
Indo-European crackpottery
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
491 comments:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 400 of 491 Newer› Newest»Forgot to add the Khvalynsk individual:
https://pastebin.com/CQgAZDxk
@Ethan
Thanks. Where do you think the Anatolian I-L699 came from ultimately? Cernavoda?
@ Ethan
“ think the user responsible for the one linked is making a revised version with all of the relevant samples
But yeah, as Rob pointed out, we have two I-L699 samples in EBA Thrace with pre-yamnaya archeological contexts (Bul4 was for some reason “
It’s fine, I’m constructing a new map. Focussing only on L699 would cut out a lot of the bigger picture, sort of like evaluating the migration path of P312 without detailing L51, L23 and M269
@Davidski
I'm fairly confident that its appearance in EBA Thrace and therefore Anatolia comes from Cernavoda. Cernavoda I and III are vital in explaining what happened in the region with respect to the timeframe between when the old tell settlements collapsed and Yamnaya.
I'm less certain about how I-L699 ended up in Cernavoda from the eneolithic steppe (whether it's from something like SShi or an I-L699 rich Berezhnovka-like source). It's worth keeping in mind that R-V1636 does also show up in one Cernavoda sample.
https://imgur.com/a/EJpGsx5
There were guys in 2000bce Gonur and Kyrgyzstan who were literally half kumsay and half BMAC related like Geoksyur and then one 1500bce Alalakh_MLBA outlier from BMAC that has like 10% Kumsay....
Target: Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo:I11527__BC_1993__Cov_66.31%
Distance: 1.6202% / 0.01620171
46.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
45.0 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
9.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019__BC_1564__Cov_63.81%
Distance: 1.8282% / 0.01828225
91.2 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
8.8 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
Target: Turkey_Hatay_Alalakh_MLBA_o:ALA019__BC_1564__Cov_63.81%
Distance: 1.9336% / 0.01933596
83.6 Uzbekistan_SappaliTepe_BA
16.4 Kazakhstan_Kumsay_EBA
@ Ethan - just to counter check, by Khvalynsk, do you mean Berezhnovka ?
Also cautionary with the new data as it hasn’t gone through ftDNA as yet (at least not publically)
@Davidski
yes of course, I just took a nap, here is the table and the map to it that hurian fan posted
https://i.ibb.co/BKm5T1P/Screenshot-2024-12-13-011847.png
https://i.ibb.co/hVMkX8d/Screenshot-2024-12-13-012312.png
The Khvalynsk and Berezhnovka would be different samples - not sure if anyone bothered to check them independently yet.
ftDNA has started to add samples but the backlog must be significant between this paper and the Ghalichi one. The Csongrad Q1b, Gaziantep R-V1636, Golubaya Krinitsa R1a and Usatovo R1a were added but most were placed too upstream for anything really interesting to be said about them. Haven't noticed anything else yet.
@ Ethan
“an I-L699 rich Berezhnovka-like source).”
That’s a 1 in a million chance that all the western I2a-L699 derives from that one Berezh. Individual rather than the dozens of cousins further west
Instead, Berezh is a dead end, and only later some new L699 reaches the Volga region as a minority Yamnaya lineage
😁why are there so many humiliations and insults of Lazarides and his team in all the gene forums, if he is wrong, should he be insulted? no matter what, he has published a lot of useful work and some of the first articles on the topic of the genetics of the Indo-Europeans belong to him
Yep, it must have come from either of the two regions I-L699 never shows up in despite tons of sampling. Genius stuff.
I figured that since it's been mentioned, I'd chime in. Here's the link to the more recent version of my map. As I'd mentioned in a comment on Genarchivist, it wasn't meant to be exhaustive, just throwing a few points down.
https://genarchivist.net/showthread.php?tid=742&pid=42038#pid42038
Feedback is welcome, it's just a draft. As to your comments, Rob, I get that it doesn't capture the whole story, but it wasn't meant to. I picked L699 since it had garnered special mention in both the new Lazaridis and Yediay preprints and was relatively easy to search for in the supplementary materials to throw together a list. There's bound to be errors, and the varied dates in different publications depending on accounting for reservoir effects.
"Resorting to abuse or aggression often indicates a lack of confidence in one's position or the inability to defend it with reason, evidence, or conviction. When someone believes strongly in their stance and has the data to support it, they tend to rely on rational argument and constructive dialogue rather than hostility. It’s a reminder of the importance of staying composed and well-prepared, especially in discussions or debates."
@Rob
It doesn't need to be Berezhnovka, but I wouldn't be surprised for a high steppe I-L699 source to have existed maybe around the lower Don.
@Hurrian Fan
I can't access the map because I'm not a forum member.
Can you upload it somewhere else?
@mister funk
Lazaridis was given a lot of credit initially, including by me.
But after a few years it became obvious that there was a problem, and that problem is not going away.
FWIW this is my weakly held position on what happened with respect to the eneolithic steppe. I acknowledge it very well could be more complex than this.
https://i.gyazo.com/a6890b229fb4d55371180e7761dbd602.jpg
@Davidski
https://i.ibb.co/607TRxs/IL699-Spread.jpg
Link for non-GA members: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1FadVzFIuZbI1yuUL2Rp2KEyUR9fN-sAR/view?usp=drive_link
@Gabru
There's no evidence of I-L699 in Areni or anything related. And Cernavoda is not a dead end.
Quit being a moron.
We have a lot of sampling from these regions now with the Ghalichi and Yediay papers. I-L699 never shows up on the Piedmont Steppe, never shows up in the South Caucasus, never shows up in Eastern Anatolia, and never shows up in Greece.
An eastern route for I-L699 is insane cope.
@Hurrian Fan
yes, that's exactly what I'm talking about, I2, originally associated with Scandinavia and its environs, migrated south along the Dnieper and other rivers and ended up in Neolithic Ukraine, from there it ended up in cultures like Golubaya Krinitsa, and from there in the steppe Eneolithic cultures of the Caucasus and Khvalynsk
The eastern route would only have worked for the Trialet-Markopti invasion, which most people link to proto-Armenians, with later convergence made Armenian distinctive to proto-Anatoliam. I m not sure that's linguistically feasible, and irrelevant given the data.
Otherwise, it would need Maykop or PIE to have been the original PIE, which does not make sense - they're a completely different people. So there's no point in inventing some convoluted 'genetics analysis' to support it
@ Mr Funk
Yep PIE were hunters from northern Europe, NWC hunters from Chokh region ;)
R1b-M343 from BMAC 1500bce
Target: Uzbekistan_Dzharkutan_BA_1:I4315__BC_1511__Cov_62.34%
Distance: 2.0973% / 0.02097266
56.0 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
37.4 Iran_ShahTepe_BA
6.6 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Target: Uzbekistan_Dzharkutan_BA_1:I4315__BC_1511__Cov_62.34%
Distance: 2.1112% / 0.02111238
64.6 Turkmenistan_C_Geoksyur
28.4 Iran_SehGabi_C
7.0 Iran_ShahrISokhta_BA2
Weird paternal origins...this is the only male from 10 Dzharkutan samples...
@Tom just five easy questions;
Do you personally know Lazaridis, Reich, Patterson and Anthony?
Have you talked to them about these issues?
Have you said that Lazaridis lies and Reich allows it?
Why is it that when supporters of the Kurgan theory find people who disagree with their conclusions they resort to ideological arguments and personal attacks?
Why is it so important that the origin of Indo-European languages is not in the Southern Arc, Mesopotamia, Central Asia, Mongolia or India?
I have always been very critical of the conclusions of Harvardians, and I do not find them particularly intelligent (Patterson would be an exception), I think they are wrong but they are honest in their work.
@Rob
What do you mean?
@ Mr Funk - sorry, I mist-typed - NEC from Chokh, PIE from northern Europe. It's a joke for you & I, because you pointed out that I2a-L699 might be from Scandinavia, there are a couple of distantly related lineages in mesolithic Denmark, but it its not really an SHG lineage, and of course PIE dont come from north European HGs. On the other hand, NEC could indeed be from Chokh if you suggest
@ Hurrian Fan - nice map
@Rob
it looks like they are from northern Europe, Denmark, England (the man from Cheddar was from the parallel branch I2) etc. they lived there since the Epipaleolithic
@Rob PIE is from Aknashen (Southern Arc/Shomu Tepe) with Nalchik as entry point, PIA is from Seh Gabi with pre-proto PIA being Tepe Abdul Hosein proto-agro-pastoralists.
@CordedSlav Wait for the paper, you will be proven wrong. Ukraine (Sredny Stog is old news, Seh Gabi reigns king.
@Hayk
That's not a coherent multidisciplinary hypothesis.
Basically all you're doing is matching colors on a mixture bar graph and making up the rest.
On the other hand, the discovery of a paternal steppe/Balkan signal (I-L699) in Bronze Age Anatolia means that the steppe hypothesis has been corroborated by ancient DNA.
So no one's really going to pay attention to your scribbles.
And you actually sound mentally retarded.
"Seh Gabi reigns king" lol
@Vahaduo
They're moving to a different 25 coordinate PCA system (not compatible with the G25).
I thought they were simulated G25 coords, but they're not. My mistake.
I want to focus on this blog and also to finish developing an improved version of the G25 for scientific use.
Why weren't these samples from I-CTS10057 marked on the map?
https://www.yfull.com/tree/I-CTS10057/
This
https://i.ibb.co/dW2WVzJ/1734187564562.jpg
To be honest, I said such stupidity when I said that I2-L699 went down the Dnieper to the south to Ukraine, and why did no one correct me? These Mesolithic I2 of Denmark look exactly the same as the Iron Gates of Serbia and Romania. They are all from the same cluster.
The entry route for Anatolian was from the east. I-L699 was a dead-end.
I-L699 will be found in Areni in conjunction with Aknashen ancestry. They are the tracer dye for Anatolian.
@Hayk
I-L699 will be found in Areni in conjunction with Aknashen ancestry. They are the tracer dye for Anatolian.
Let me know when this fantasy of yours comes true, you moron.
@All
I'm no longer discussing the G25 and related issues here, because my comments are being twisted by a bunch of trolls.
@ Ethan
I am satisfied that there is temporal and phylogenetic continuity in the Dnieper-Don region, including 5000 - 4000 bc, although that period remains the most poorly sampled. Also I think all the Dnieper Neolithic individuals are too old by 200-500 years, as they mostly come from Mathieson et al (2018) and a RE correction was not performed.
Any scenario of an 'Eastern reflux', incl L699 coming from the Don, sounds silly.
In short, Dnieper-Don HGs morphed progressively toward Sredni Stog and Cernavoda due to 4-way admixture between them and 'Steppe Eneolithic', Late Tripolje and some direct Majkop admixture.
@ Mr. Funk
Im not sure what you're asking, but the I2a-L699 do not come from Denmark or Britain. There are just some phylogeneticaly distantly related CTS10057 Mesolithic individuals there (one location is located on the 2nd image ''E''), but are not down the L699 path. Look at the ftDNA 'classic tree' & 'time tree' functions, it is less confusing than YFull. Also some lesser resolved individuals would be sitting in a pseudo-basal position.
But the interesting thing is this lineage was absent in Mesolithic Ukraine, appearing after 6000 BC. One archaeologist suggested that these were para-Neolithic migrations from the Iron Gates, but they could be just Bug-Dniester type people pushed east due to early Farmers.
@Rob
The depletion of patriline diversity in Sredni Stog era Ukraine looks like a massive founder effect, regardless of whether you ultimately assign it to UKR_N or something else. We still don't have a great sense of what was going on around the lower don/don-volga interfluve so I don't see the reason to discount them having a primary role.
By the way, how much UKR_N do you see in Cernavoda (KTL_A set)?
I see a 10 to 1 ratio of Berezhnovka to UKR_N using Trypillia fixed as a farmer source, 3 to 1 using Gumelnita fixed instead.
@ Ethan
''The depletion of patriline diversity in Sredni Stog era Ukraine looks like a massive founder effect, regardless of whether you ultimately assign it to UKR_N or something else.''
Technically this looks more like bottlenecking which occurs over 2000 years, there is still one of the 'declining' R1b-V88 at Ig'ren typo. dated to 4400-4000 bc.
''We still don't have a great sense of what was going on around the lower don/don-volga interfluve so I don't see the reason to discount them having a primary role''
I get the feeling that idea privileges evidence which does not exist against that which does; perhaps based on preconceived ideas on about the spread of 'Novodanilovka type burials''.
In fact, there is one data point from the lower Don Eneolithic (Krivyanski #9; I31755), he is J2a-M319. Archaeology supports that this was part of the Majkop sphere, which extended farther to the north (between 4000 and 3300 bc) than some might realise.
And it's clear that the lower volga was originally full of R1b-V1636. The presence of a couple of i2a-L699 there is assoc. with appearance of 'western elements' in the lower Volga, they didnt then do a U-turn and march back after first doing a Y-DNA test kit. The Dnieper region is beyond doubt the central core of I2a-S22311
''I see a 10 to 1 ratio of Berezhnovka to UKR_N using Trypillia fixed as a farmer source, 3 to 1 using Gumelnita fixed instead.''
Interpreting admixture analysis where there is complex multi-way admixtures and shifting population sizes is a difficult task....
@mister funk The I-L699 branch ancient specimens at FTDNA are at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-L703/classic
@Rob
yes i looked at these I2 samples from the mesolithic-neolithic of Denmark, autosomal they are part of the IronGateHG cluster
Target: DNK_Meso_Røntesten:NEO19
Distance: 1.4000% / 0.01399964 | R3P
47.2 WHG
44.0 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
8.8 Motala_HG
Target: DNK_Meso_Fannerup_D:NEO855
Distance: 1.8762% / 0.01876231 | R4P
66.0 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
34.0 WHG
@All
I added a couple of images pertaining to ancient I-L699 to the blog post.
@Dospaises
I didn't check everything, here are some of the earliest I2 in Ukraine
it turns out they didn't come down from the Dnieper, but they were pushed out from the West to the East by farmers.
Target: Ukraine_N:I3717__BC_5292__Cov_42.41%
Distance: 1.9105% / 0.01910549 | R3P
67.4 Ukraine_Mesolithic
27.4 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
5.2 CHG
Target: Ukraine_N:I1738__BC_5398__Cov_61.79%
Distance: 1.5397% / 0.01539698 | R3P
61.0 Ukraine_Mesolithic
32.2 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
6.8 CHG
then I2 decided to take revenge, in the Eneolithic from the western coast of the Black Sea they penetrated into the homeland of farmers and established their own states there
@Rob The Igren R-V88 doesn't have a Sredni Stog autosomal profile or even a UKR_N one.
And yes, burial rites seemingly imported from the east should be eyebrow raising. The Lower Don has long been thought to have been important in Sredni Stog's emergence and still possibly provides answers to some of the genetic puzzles posed (for example, Sredni Stog samples have a near uniform ~10% Aknashen ancestry already in 4500BC - this likely was acquired as part of a mating network, in contact with the Steppe, slowly over the course of numerous generations).
@ EthanR
''The Igren R-V88 doesn't have a Sredni Stog autosomal profile or even a UKR_N one.
And yes, burial rites seemingly imported from the east should be eyebrow raising. The Lower Don has long been thought to have been important in Sredni Stog's emergence and still possibly provides answers to some of the genetic puzzles posed (for example, Sredni Stog samples have a near uniform ~10% Aknashen ancestry already in 4500BC - this likely was acquired as part of a mating network, in contact with the Steppe, slowly over the course of numerous generations).''
You seem to be steering the conversation toward 'soft evidence' because there is very little direct phylogenetic data to support the Don-Volga proposal :) These archaeological theories you mention have over several interpretations, each of which were formulated decades ago with minimal C14 dating. Secondly, 10% ''Aknashen ancestry'' means that some Dnieper groups were being integrated with the lower Volga -Cauc network (via a system of exogamy), whilst others (like the individual from Igren) were not. The exclusion of groups like him explains their demise. So overall, this suggests that an I2a-L699 clan in the lower Dnieper-Azov region became prominent after 4500, perhaps due to increasing control of trade and weapons imported from Majkop, and began to exercise control over the entire Dnieper region (until 3300bc). Something similar occurred with the R1b-M269 clan further east.
@mister funk
"Target: DNK_Meso_Røntesten:NEO19
Distance: 1.4000% / 0.01399964 | R3P
47.2 WHG
44.0 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
8.8 Motala_HG
Target: DNK_Meso_Fannerup_D:NEO855
Distanc
e: 1.8762% / 0.01876231 | R4P
66.0 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
34.0 WHG"
In fact the origin is in Palaeolithic Italy as I demonstrated 15 Years ago, and with R1b1 of Villabruna.
It is amusing that I2a-L699 has become the star of the hypothetical Indo-Europeanization of Anatolia from the steppes. As I have been saying for a long time, all Yamnaya male markers have their ultimate origin in the WHG. Or is there anyone who dares to say that L699 has its origin in Siberia or the Volga? Have any of you heard about the Villabruna cluster of WHGs? This is its true story-I2a1b/1a2-M223>Y3259>CTS616>CTS10057>L701>Y5606>L699
*R7 (8.551 BCE)-Grotta Continenza, Italy-I2a1b/1-M436>M223-M.Antonio, 2.019
*DOG001 (7.608 BCE)-Doggerland, OBERKASSEL-WHG, Netherlands-I2a1b/1-M223
*I6754 (7.638 BCE)-Ogof-Yr-Ychen, neolithic, Wales-I2a1b/1-L460>M436>M223>Y3259
*I4878 (5.853 BCE)-Vlasac, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-I2a2a-L460>M223>Y3259
*FALKENSTEIN (7.161 BCE)-Falkensteiner Höhle, WHG, Germany-I2a1b/1a-CTS616-Posth, 2.016
*ZVEJ4, (5.721 BCE)-Zvejnieki, I4551, BHG, Latvia-I2a2a/1-CTS9183-CTS616-Mathieson, 2.018
*UZZO40 (6.330 BCE)-Grotta dell Uzzo, Trapani, Mesolithic_Sicily-I2a1b/1a2-CTS616>CTS10057
*R19 (6.222 BCE)-Ronsten, Mesolithic_Jutland, Denmark-I2a1b/1a2-CTS10057
*I5402 (6.206 BCE)-Hadučka Vodenica, Iron Gates HGs, Serbia-I2a2a/1b-CTS10100-CTS10057
*ZVEJ9 (6.026 BCE)-Zvejnieki, I4596, BHG, Latvia-I2a2a/1b-CTS616>CTS10057-Mathieson, 2.018
*NEO307 (5.506 BCE)-Zvejnieki, Latvia-I2a1b/1a2-CTS10057-M.Allentoft, 2.022
*LEPE18 (6.075 BCE)-Lepenski Vir, Iron Gates_Mesolithic Serbia-I2a2a/1b1-L701 (xP78,Y5606)
*I3715 (5.560 BCE)-Vilnianka, Zaporizhia oblast, Neolithic_Ukraine-I2a1b/1a2-L701
*I5872 (5.432 BCE)-Volniensky, Neolithic_Ukraine-I2a-L701
*I5888 (5.150 BCE)-Dereivka1, burial27, N_Ukraine-I2a1b/1a2a/2-Y5606-Mathieson, 2.018
*PIE061 (4.664 BCE)-Pietrele, Gumelnita culture, Romania-I2a1b/1a2a-L701>Y5606
*PIE060 (4.664 BCE)-Pietrele, Gumelnita culture, Romania-I2a1b/1a2a-L701>Y5606
*FANNERUP855 (4.463 BCE)-Fannerup, Ertebolle culture, Denmark-I2a-L701>Y5606
It is evident that, like other Yamnaya male markers, arrived on the steppes during the neolithic and becomes a Ukrainian lineage typical of the Sredni Stog culture and later dominant in the Yamnaya culture (Don river)-WHG>EHG
*NEO212 (5.443 BCE)-Golubaya Krinitsa, Neolithic_Russia-I2a-L701>L699
*I1738 (5.399 BCE)-Vovnigi, Neolithic_Ukraine-I2a-L701>L699
*I27982 (5.355 BCE)-Mariupol, Neolithic_Ukraine-I2a1b/1a2a/2a-L699-Nikitin, 2.024
*NEO304 (5.056 BCE)-Volniensky, Neolithic_Ukraine-I2a1b-L701>L699
*I6103 (4.889 BCE)-Khvalynsk1, grave30, Neolithic_Russia-I2a-L701>L699
*I12686 (3.234 BCE)-Krivyansky, Don_EBA_Yamnaya-I2a1b/1a2a/2a-L699-Lazaridis, 2.024
But it is not the only I2a in the steppes, we have another very interesting branch in Afanasievo, and of course it also descends from the WHGs.
*LOSCHBOUR (6.105 BCE)-Heffingen, mesolithic, Luxembourg-I2a1b-M423>V6473-Fu, 2.013
*KGH6 (4.699 BCE)-Killuragh, Ireland_Mesolithic-I2a1a/2-P37>M423>V6473-Cassidy, 2.020
*STG001 (3.857 BCE)-Steigen, Scandinavian HGs, Norway-I2a1a/2-M423>V6473-Gunther, 2.018
*I32497 (2.800 BCE)-Kamyshta, Khakassia, Afanasievo-I2a1a/2-M423>V4673-Lazaridis, 2.024
-Theoretically, none of these samples spoke IE right? basically because that language according to linguists did not exist yet, so we have to reason that they spoke the language of their ancestors WHG, why would they speak any other language? L699 participated in the creation of the Yamnaya culture from the beginning. Then the big question when and how exactly was these markers Indo-Europeanized? or was it simply the ones who invented PIE?
@Gaska
R-V1636
R-M269
R-M417
Are these guys WHG too?
their ultimate common origin comes from the east and has nothing to do with WHG
@Gaska
Here are some of your I2s, starting from the oldest, they were probably originally from Italy, then went to the Balkans, from there they were pushed to the north and the East
the oldest one looks like part of the WHG cluster
Target: Italy_Mesolithic.SG:R7.SG__BC_8756__Cov_95.96%
Distance: 1.6152% / 0.01615246 | R3P
96.0 WHG
4.0 Iberia_LaBrana
Target: NLD_Meso_Oberkassel:DOG001__BC_7658__Cov_27.23%
Distance: 1.6345% / 0.01634521 | R3P
68.4 WHG
31.6 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
Target: Wales_Mesolithic:I6754
Distance: 2.3516% / 0.02351580 | R3P
85.8 WHG
8.2 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
6.0 Iberia_LaBrana
Target: Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic:I4878
Distance: 1.3447% / 0.01344714 | R3P
79.8 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
17.8 WHG
2.4 Levant
Target: Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic:I5402
Distance: 1.4036% / 0.01403555 | R3P
87.0 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
6.6 Ukraine_Mesolithic
6.4 WHG
Target: Baltic_LVA_Meso_Zvejnieki:NEO307__BC_5506__Cov_unknown
Distance: 1.6345% / 0.01634464 | R3P
47.8 Motala_HG
32.4 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
19.8 WHG
@mister funk
"@Gaska
R-V1636
R-M269
R-M417
Are these guys WHG too?
their ultimate common origin comes from the east and has nothing to do with WHG"
Of these hgs only R-M417 surely is fom eastern Europe (but not Iran or elsewhere).
The others may descend from the R1b of Villabruna, surely 14000 Years ago in Italy but probably from 17000 Years being the same at the autosomic level with I2a of Tagliente 2 and following samples. About R-V1636 the oldest samples are from central Europe, but I found all the 5 known haplotypes in Italy, thus let's wait for other samples, because those found so far are 7000 Years younger as to their origin. The same for M269.
@Gaska
You're off by a few years. Here's my blog post about L699 from 2017.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2017/05/steppe-invaders-in-bronze-age-balkans.html
@Mr Funk-“Ex occidente lux my friend”
1-Everybody knows that R1a-M417 is a typical EHG marker, but you know what?, they haven't found it in Yamnaya culture yet.
2- R1b-V1636 has its origin in the Volga and R1b-M269 in Bulgaria (for the moment), unless someone find something older than Smyadovo (4.500 BCE). In any case, they both descend from R1b-L754 and you know what? the oldest one is in Villabruna (Italy) in the Epigravettian culture, so you have to find an older sample in eastern Europe to prove that its origin is eastern and not western.We have been repeating the same thing for ten years.
3-There are more R1b “western” markers in Yamnaya. What do you think of these? Are they also EHGs?
*Donkalnis7 (5.166 BCE)-Donkalnis, Narva culture, Lithuania-R1b-Y13200-Mittnik, 2.019
*I4627 (4.144 BCE)-Zvejnieki, Narva culture, MN_Latvia-R1b1a/1a-Y13200
*I20559 (3.003 BCE)-Afanasieva-Gora, Afanasievo-Yenisei -R1b1a/1a-Y13200
*I6731 (2.999 BCE)-Leschevo3, EBA_Samara_Yamnaya, Russia-R1b1a/1a-Y13200
*VILLABRUNA (12.105 BCE)-Villabruna, Epigravettian, Italy-R1b1a-L754>L761
*I8952 (2.795 BCE)-Mokro-Chaltyrsky, Don_EBA_Yamnaya-R1b-L754>L761
EHGs especially in Ukraine have many uniparental markers shared with Balkan HGs, e.g. R1b-V88, they are different clusters but very similar genetically. Two mitochondrial examples. You think these women spoke different languages?, in my opinion the language of the WHGs was the same as that of the EHGs.
-mtDNA-U4b1/a
Germany, Urdhöhle, WHG, mesolíthic-DOB001 (7.438 BC)
Russia, Satanaj Grott, mesolithic EHG-SJG001 (6.152 BC)
Ukraine, Volniensky, neolithic, EHG-I3712 (5.441 BC)
-mtDNA-U5b2/b Villabruna mtDNA appears in France, the Baltic, the Balkans and Ukraine.
Italy, Grota Paglicci, WHG-Paglicci71 (15.460 BC)
Italy, Villabruna, Epigravettian, WHG, (12.030 BC)
France, Rochedane, WHG-GA127 (11.120 BC)
Lituania, Kretuonas, Narva culture, BHG-Kretuonas5 (4.395 BC)
Croatia, Vela Spila, mesolithic, IGHG-I1875 (7.167 BC)
Ukraine, Igren, mesolithic, EHG-NEO521 (6.320 BC)
Ukraine, Dereivka, Dnieper, EHG-I5885 (6.161 BC)
@Gaska
yes these Baltic samples look exactly the same, as if they came there from the Mesolithic Serbia.
when I wrote such such branches from the east I did not mean EHG, I meant that these men came to Vilarbuna and the Iron Gates from Siberia, since it is known that ancient Siberians partially participated in the ethnogenesis of WHG
@Gaska
ok now let's look at the earliest P297 and Y13200 samples
here are some of them
MN2003, Minino II, Vologda Oblast, Russia, 8654-8413 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2, Y-DNA: R1b-P297(xM269,Y13202,FTA35755)
Target: RUS_Meso_Sidelkino:MN2003.A0101__BC_8583__Cov_55.09%
Distance: 2.0893% / 0.02089321 | R3P
46.0 Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
39.6 Russia_Arkhangelsk_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG
14.4 EHG
this is pure EHG, further
NEO536, Minino II, Vologda Oblast, Russia, 7618 BC, mtDNA: U4, Y-DNA: R1b-P297,
Target: RUS_Meso_Minino:NEO536__BC_7618__Cov_unknown
Distance: 2.5086% / 0.02508564 | R4P
47.0 Russia_Arkhangelsk_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG
35.8 Russia_Sidelkino_HG.SG
11.6 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
5.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
also looks like pure EHG
Next is the most ancient R1b-P297, on the territory of Latvia
I4630, Zvejnieki, Latvia, 7471-7073 calBCE, mtDNA: U5a2c, Y-DNA: R1b-P297(xY13202,M269)
Target: Latvia_HG:I4630__BC_7268__Cov_65.14%
Distance: 1.8350% / 0.01835031 | R3P
51.8 Russia_Arkhangelsk_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG
31.6 Serbia_IronGates_Mesolithic
16.6 WHG
looks like a mix of EHG and Iron Gates
and the last two from Karavaikha
NEO555, Karavaikha, Vologda Oblast, Russia, 6418-6236 BC (cal midpoint 6327 BC), mtDNA: T2a1b1, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y13202>pre-Y13204,
NEO559, Karavaikha, Vologda Oblast, Russia, 6318 BC (cal midpoint), mtDNA: U5a1, Y-DNA: R1b-Y13200>Y13202,
Target: RUS_N_Karavaikha:NEO559__BC_6318__Cov_unknown
Distance: 2.3365% / 0.02336450 | R3P
55.2 Russia_Arkhangelsk_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG
35.2 EHG
9.6 CHG
Target: RUS_N_Karavaikha:NEO555__BC_6327__Cov_unknown
Distance: 2.3615% / 0.02361462 | R3P
51.2 EHG
40.2 Russia_Arkhangelsk_Veretye_Mesolithic.SG
8.6 Iran_N
look like EHG with admixture from Caucasus, they don't need any WHG
@Mr Funk
These models prove what archaeologists demonstrated many years ago, that the Italian and Balkan epigravettians moved northward as the ice retreated and created what they call the Northeastern Technocomplex, which includes the Kunda and Narva cultures and of course the Butovo culture, then following the Volga route southward is very simple.
R* and probably R1 and R2 have their origin in Siberia, but R1b is currently western, there is no such marker in Siberia and we have dozens of samples.
@Gabru
The Volga sample I2a-L699 is younger than the Ukrainian samples and demonstrates the cultural and genetic relationship between Sredni Stog and Khvalinsk.
The origin of I2a-L699 is important to understand the geographical origin of the male markers in Yamnaya and of course to understand the linguistic debate, or do you think that the PIE landed on the steppes by parachute? or do you think that the European hunter gatherers were dumb?
If we follow the available genetic data and respect the principle of male transmission of language in prehistoric patriarchal societies, then Yamnaya spoke the language of the European HGs (western & eastern) whatever language family belonged to.
This doesn't prove anything, I just showed you above that the earliest R1b-P297 and basal branches were found in Russian EHG, which have nothing in common with WHG, Italy, the Balkans, etc., most of them are pure EHG, and the one from Latvia is a mixture of Russian EHG and Iron Gate. And those that you posted Y13200 from the Baltics, they are later.
@mister funk
Me too, who am the theorist of an “Italian refugium” (already 20 years ago against all) have always said that hg R1b (which is mine: R-Z2110, probably more recently from Yamnaya) was the haplogroup of the hunter-gatherers of the Siberian corridor, as I have always thought that also the Indo-Eurpopean languages belonged to those languages and the closest ones are the Finno-Ugric languages, but R1b1 of Villabruna is in Italy for 14000 years ago and very likely for 17000 through the close link with hg I2a of Tagliente 2. My opponents said that that what a dead end line, but I think that it was a clan from which the haplogroup migrated all over around after the Younger Dryas, and all what we know so far seems to demonstrate that, if only R-PH155 could be older in Asia, but the aDNA samples aren’t older up there more that the age of R-M73 clearly older in the Baltic than in Asia. We are open to every next result.
@Gio
I still think that when M269 entered the steppe, when he became Caucasian, he was more EHG than WHG, if you know what I mean. Whether he was from Russia or the Baltics or a local Ukrainian, he was still more EHG.
Well, that's my opinion.
@mister funk
"This doesn't prove anything, I just showed you above that the earliest R1b-P297 and basal branches were found in Russian EHG, which have nothing in common with WHG, Italy, the Balkans, etc., most of them are pure EHG, and the one from Latvia is a mixture of Russian EHG and Iron Gate. And those that you posted Y13200 from the Baltics, they are later".
About that we may discuss.
This is the YFull tree:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-Y13200/
and this is the FTDNA one:
https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-M73/tree
Anywy don't be too much confident with the autosome as the Harvardians...
@mister funk
Anyway I demonstrated already 15 Years ago that European R-M73* is the ancestor of the subclade R-M73-M478 only present in Asia but still in Europe, thus as to the genetic science the origin is in Europe. Is your misfortune not having read my 20000 letters before.
@Mr Funk
Russians HG have nothing to do with the Balkans? are you sure? then why many mtDNA markers are shared by Balkan HGs and Russian EHGs and also are older in the Balkans? Can you explain it?
-mtDNA-U4a
Serbia, Vlasac, IRON GATES HGs-I5773 ( 8,238 AC)
Russia, Minino, mesolithic, EHG-NEO537 (6.102 AC)
Ukraine, Dereivka, Dnipro-Donets-I5883 (5.267 AC)
-mtDNA-U5a1@16192
Serbia, Hajdučka-Vodenica, IGHG-I5401 (6.887 AC)
Russia, Ekaterinovka, Samara, EHG-I3546 (5.404 AC)
-mtDNA-U5a1/c
Serbia, Padina, IGHG-I5240 (8.855 AC)
Latvia, Zvejnieki, cultura Kunda, WHG-I4632 (6.358 AC)
Russia, Zamostje2, EHG-NEO88 (5.908 AC)
Ukraine, Dereivka, neolíthic-UKR116 (4.354 AC)
-mtDNA-U5a2@16294
Serbia, Padina, IGHG-I5241 (9.245 AC)
France, Les Closeaux, WHG-LesCloseaux13 (8.870 AC)
Ukraine, Vasilievka, EHG-I3717 (8.240 AC)
Rusia, Ivanovskoe, EHG-DM5 (6.543 AC)
-mtDNA-U5a2@16362
Serbia, Vlasac, IGHG-VLASA54 (6.623 AC)-Hofmanova, 2.016
Ukraine, Vovnigi1-NEO551 (5.336 AC)-M.Allentoft, 2.022
@hayk, you work with lazaridis?
@hayk, no need to be hostile
To some commenters above me.
Neither qpadm or any calculator (including G25) is omniscient. Those only work best for a two-way model, that is if history applies to such models.
In a 3-way populations (like in Near Eastern + Med European + Northern European) in most cases you get overfitted models and historically inaccurate results.
It is best to get as many Ancient/Medieval DNA samples, and analyze chronological movements of the samples, instead of applying multiple sources to modern population.
@Gaska
naturally, Russian EHG are connected with WHG, according to a simple scheme, EHG = ANE+WHG+
something like the Upper Paleolithic of the Caucasus, and according to Mr. Rob, the place where these populations mixed is the region of Crimea and the Western Caucasus (he gave the example of Satanay Grot) and naturally the female markers of EHG will be from WHG, since the male Y is completely from ANE, perhaps these WHG came from the Balkans?
but in any case, R1b-M269 is the merit of ANE-EHG
turn on the logic
@mister funk
"@Gio
I still think that when M269 entered the steppe, when he became Caucasian, he was more EHG than WHG, if you know what I mean. Whether he was from Russia or the Baltics or a local Ukrainian, he was still more EHG.
Well, that's my opinion".
I based all my theories upon the uniparental markers, and many years ago when we had only the STRs. I never took into account the autosome, and for that I am confident with Davidski. Of course the autosome is composed through many single bp but highly mixed, whereas the uniparental markers could be followed through less "disturbs". I don't deny that the principle is the same, but I have always thought that it is more prone to agendas and interpretations. The uniparental markers trace a line, more reliable, and we know that P was in Southern Asia, Q in Siberia, R in the Siberian corridor, probably R1a remained in eastern Europe and R1b from 14000 but probably 17000 Years ago was in Italy, for what we know so far in the Alpine zone, whereas the brother hg I2a was in all Italy, from North to South. This is the Path, but I have no difficulty to think that my R-Z2110 5000 years ago was a Yamnayan thus a "Russian" in to-day reality.
@Samuel Andrews
Yes. We have organised a large joint effort to debunk the Steppe hypothesis. Many Southern Arc compatriots from this blog and X are in on the collaboration, as well as Central & South Asian compatriots.
Important revalations:
- Tutkaul ancestry is an ubiquitous part of the Steppe cocktail, including the early CW/Yamnaya/Afaniesvo genepool.
- There were three waves of Southern Arc ancestry entering the Steppe, including CHG (Mesolithic), Nalchik (Eneolithic) and Tutkaul (Eneolithic. Iran N was part of the Tutkaul component).
@Samuel Andrews
I'm not hostile, just an assertive high testesterone Armenian man.
You can say my Aknashen ancestors were hostile towards EHG, whom they took women from ;)
There's a difference between not telling the truth and lying. Sometimes people are mislead and cannot accurately interpret the data and sometimes the proof is right there and some people don't "see" what they "see" and still pick an implausible version of the story that strokes their ego. Even the latter is not 100% equal to lying.
Now morally speaking that might be a more favorable position, but intellectually that's even worse than lying.
Southern Arc will come back with full force. Better prepare yourselves because even Reich and Patterson will put their names on the paper.
Is there the slightest shred of evidence that those I2s have anything to do with Proto-Anatolian and aren't just core PIE migrants into Anatolia? The timing doesn't really help their case. David Reich showed that the 2 central/eastern Anatolian CLV-admixed samples were sharing IBD with the population north of the Caucasus, and this was 4th millennium BC. That's direct evidence of tribes from southern Russia being related to those Anatolians.
Phrygians prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that we have Late PIE BA migrants into Western Anatolia, but there are also countless, nameless PIE-speaking peoples that aren't extant today.
Fact of the matter is R1b-V1636 is 100x better candidate for the main Y-DNA marker of Proto-Anatolians, than I2 or whatever straws some hardheaded people are clutching for.
@Davidski
So did Caucasus Neolithic populations contribute to Yamnaya and CWC? It appears Darkveti-Meshoko (pre-Maykop) mixed with Bereznovka/Vonyuchka to form Remontnoye, which mixed with Novodanilovka, to form Yamnaya, which would explain the appearance of J2b-L283 in several Yamnaya males. Nalchik like groups also may have contributed to populations which later formed Yamnaya/CWC correct?
@Simon Stevens
You're referring to a complicated and lengthy process that, even if accurately described, resulted in minor admixture from ancient populations that can't be directly linked to any living or dead Indo-European speakers.
That's not a good model for language change.
On the other hand, a relatively sudden migration via the Balkans up to Anatolia is a good model for language change, because such migrations have more of an impact on language and culture than gradual contact over thousands of years.
So it makes no difference what the percentage of admixture from the steppe we find in the remains of likely Anatolian speakers. The important thing is that there's evidence of a quick migration into Hittite, Luwian etc lands from the steppe, and those instances of obviously European lineages under L699 and P78 in western and Central Anatolia now provide that evidence.
And that means that the classic steppe hypothesis has been corroborated by ancient DNA.
If anyone wants to challenge the steppe hypothesis now, they'll have to put together a multidisciplinary model that is grounded solidly in linguistics and archeology, and isn't simply another exercise in matching colors in genetic mixture bar graphs.
For the past decade, the Reich Lab has been matching colors in genetic mixture graphs, rather than actually offering anything of substance in this area.
I-L699 shows up in very low frequency in Yamnaya (excluding the Don set which is just continuity with Konstaninovka post-stog), even in the many western/Balkan Yamnaya samples we now have.
The EBA Thrace I-L699 samples are from pre-Yamna archeological contexts (despite bul4 being erroneously labeled in the Mathieson paper).
So yes, there is good reason to think that Anatolian I-L699 derives from the trail of I-L699 derivative of the eneolithic cultures and has no direct relationship with Yamnaya.
Also, if you bothered to actually check the Ringbauer IBD paper, you'd notice that the piedmont steppe samples also show segment matches with Balkan ChL populations like Bodrogkeresztúr. So there's really no reason to be firm on the direction of the IBD match with Ovaoren.
The Lazaridis paper explicitly excludes all Balkan populations from the its newer IBD analysis, possibly because much of the paper was already written by the time the Penske 2023 samples were made public.
To repeat from before. R-V1636 never appears in central Anatolia, never appears in western Anatolia, and never appears in Anatolian-rich Roman Imperial samples. It's a horrible tracer dye.
@Ethan R
"So yes, there is good reason to think that Anatolian I-L699 derives from the trail of I-L699 derivative of the eneolithic cultures and has no direct relationship with Yamnaya."
But take a look at Ksizovo 175 (c. 2650 BCE), Russia, Yamnaya, I-PF6902 (branch of I-L699); and Ulan 552 (c. 2450 BCE), Russia, Yamnaya Kalmikia, I-S21579 (branch of I-PF6902).
@Davidski
I was referring to the genetic aspect of Yamnaya/CWC, and not the linguistic one. I was curious as to your view of this process, in light of all the new data that’s come out, and the various models showing an assortment of Caucasus related admixtures into steppe groups (post-Mesolithic). Do you generally agree with Gabru’s assessment?
@Hayk
wow, how tough the Armenians are)
Are you aware that the Proto-Indo-Europeans were the tallest and most powerful people for their period?
Now remind me what the average height of the Armenian population is, even by Caucasian standards?
HurrianFan in GA posted a new version of the map, adding V1636 samples, without specifying dates
https://i.ibb.co/TbrLHRh/Screenshot-2024-12-15-193426.jpg
@Simon Stevens
No, I don't think that is an accurate description of how steppe populations formed.
@ Arsen
''HurrianFan in GA posted a new version of the map, adding V1636 samples, without specifying dates
https://i.ibb.co/TbrLHRh/Screenshot-2024-12-15-193426.jpg''
These guys were somehow taken into KAx and dominated by J1 males. Interesting that the R1b-V1636 in Arslantepe was a sacrificed slave boy. Overall this network must relate to some non-IE language
Tracing haplogroups for language doesn't guarantee anything... if you have no hard evidence to point that certain Y haplogroup males spoke certain language...the whole exercise becomes pointless...
There are R1b among Assyrians, Urartians and Hasanlu....and some of those Hasanlu males are pretty close to Assyrians...
So while the ancient DNA from NW Iran shows the male to be R1b...it perhaps didn't even speak Indo-European....and perhaps spoke Hurro-Urartian....
https://imgur.com/a/2IZaBLu
Yes south Caucasian populations played an important role in developing steppe culture , and there are handful of J2b and J2a males, although in very specific (& predictable) locations - north Majkop fringe and Moldova. Otherwise this ancestry spread via internal female exogamy.
It’s basically a 4500 to 3300 bc non-homogeneous phenomenon, associated with certain cultural horizons (Meshoko, Nalchik, Majkop). I don’t see any actual Caucasian farmer in GK, just some CHG. Either way, it doesn’t change much.
As another example take R1a-YP1548 (1100bce)...
It was present among Tasmola pops...We don't know what Tasmola spoke but today this Y haplogroup shows quite high frequency among Turkic population of Kyrgyzstan....
https://imgur.com/a/7DFVUuo
Target: Kazakhstan_Tasmola_EIA
Distance: 0.4625% / 0.00462487
49.0 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
41.8 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
9.2 Kyrgyzstan_MLBA_Andronovo
@Rob
because Caucasians mixed in Golubaya Krinitsa before Neolithic cattle breeders and farmers came to the South Caucasus (for example, the Gabru model, where there is a late Neolithic steppe, may well be the source of the Caucasus for GK), and I still haven’t fully understood whether there is a Tutkaul admixture in GK or not. It’s not clear
What I really find interesting is that West_Asian_UP (parent of IranN)largely contributed ancestry to what we call CHG (Kotias_M)(72%) which then moves away from IranN populations...CHG goes into steppe and forms Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic...
We also see one group with IranN-CHG moving into steppe to form steppe_Eneolithic...which perhaps also had admixture from central Asian ANE population with some IranN like Tutkaul...
Although it may not be a strong argument for PIE from South Caucasus or from Central Asian and North Iranian Caspian shores....It is pretty strong evidence to disprove the race narrative peddled by one of the segments involved in tracing the PIEs.....
Also J-M241 has two descendant lineages J-L283 & J-Z2444....1st one is found in Europe while other is present in India....
https://imgur.com/a/DARLNSa
@Ash
We're not tracing the spread of Indo-European into Anatolia with L699.
That would be kind of stupid and naive. As stupid and naive as tracing the spread of Indo-European with some type of broad autosomal signal.
What we're actually saying is that the steppe hypothesis has now been corroborated by the discovery of unambiguously European paternal lines, L699 and P78, in exactly the right places and time in Anatolia to make them relevant for the steppe hypothesis.
And, obviously, Turkic R1a is derived from Indo-Iranian R1a. Everyone with a brain, some historical knowledge, and analytic ability can work that out. You must be playing dumb.
@Rob said
"Interesting that the R1b-V1636 in Arslantepe was a sacrificed slave boy. "
i mean this guy from arslantepe who was sacrificed has no steppe ancestry except for a paternal marker, how long did his ancestors live there?
i mean he wasn't sacrificed because he was from a different tribe or people, autosomal he is similar to the local arslantepe people
he wasn't sacrificed because he was V1636
@Arsen
I'm a big Armenian man, hence the name Hayk.
1.97m tall and a hunk. Married a Russian woman. Some things don't change ;)
@Hayk
You've got serious mental problems because men with EHG paternal descent (M269) cucked your Southern Arc male ancestors.
@Hayk
that is, the fact that you are married to a Russian is a reason for pride for you? in fact, your children will never be Armenians, they will be half-breeds, neither fish nor fowl
you need to preserve your Armenian genes, there are already so few of you.
or is being married to a Russian a new privilege among Armenians? especially since these people are far from the Mesolithic EHG, except for some Russians from the northern regions and Karelia (who are in fact assimilated Finno-Ugrians)
@Hayk
How do you know my name?
@Davidski
"@Hayk
You've got serious mental problems because men with EHG paternal descent (M269) cucked your Southern Arc male ancestors".
Ask Hayk if they transmitted him also my 2.54 x 7.4 …
@ Mr Funk.
''because Caucasians mixed in Golubaya Krinitsa before Neolithic cattle breeders and farmers came to the South Caucasus (for example, the Gabru model, where there is a late Neolithic steppe, may well be the source of the Caucasus for GK), and I still haven’t fully understood whether there is a Tutkaul admixture in GK or not. It’s not clear''
GK is a 3-way admixture between EHG ~ 40%, Ukr_N ~ 30%, CHG ~ 30%
There is no TTK there, and this supports its pre-4500 BC dating, contested by Lazarides, despite the fact that Allentoft et al already corrected for RE.
@ Mr Funk
'i mean this guy from arslantepe who was sacrificed has no steppe ancestry except for a paternal marker, how long did his ancestors live there?
i mean he wasn't sacrificed because he was from a different tribe or people, autosomal he is similar to the local arslantepe people
he wasn't sacrificed because he was V1636''
Maybe he has ~ 10%, but curiously less than one of the J1 males (ART018).
No I dont think it's as simple as he being the wrong haplogroup or the degree of autosomes, the context of his sacrifice is far more intricate.
This burial dates to 33-3100 BC, and is related to the power dislay of the local chief (not analysed) and had 4 adolescent sacrifices atop his burial. At this time, some group which the chief led became powerful and highly interconnected between the Uruk system and the Caucasian region, probably trading in Arsenical weapons similar to those seen in Majkop.
So all this means was that the local chief at Arslantepe had the means to acquire slaves or hostages from a region where the occasional male R1b-V1636 persisted .
Arslantepe was then destroyed in a fire, and some 'more simple' KAx pastoralists groups made camps there for a while, then the site faded, until the Hittites conquered it. Here is what the lead archaeologist who excavated the site said about this ''The political breakup that is thought to have occurred in the territory of Malatya and Elazığ in the second half of the third millennium b.c.e. may have created favorable conditions for the cultural and, later, political domination by the eastward expanding Hittite state during the second millennium b.c.e .''
In short, the presence of R1b-V1636 in Arslantepe has nothing to do with Hittites.
A lot of great papers have been published recently.
Some questions:
I-L699 is now undeniably recognized as the Indo-European marker. However, how can we be certain that it is a remnant of the Hunter-Gatherers from Ukraine and the Don region, rather than an introduction by invaders from the East? This marker has been found in both Berezhnovka and Khvalynsk. Additionally, there is an almost complete absence of V88 - a lineage that was also prevalent among Ukrainian foragers. Why would V88 not survive an invasion from the East, but I-L699 would? Wouldn't it be more plausible that all the significant I-L699 in Ukraine and further west were introduced by the Berezhnovka/Progress groups?
Has anyone attempted to determine if the Indo-European I-L699 subclades are more closely related to Ukrainian HGs or Steppe Eneolithic groups? Furthermore, the dominance of Eastern burial rites, which replaced local burial traditions in Ukraine, seems to support the theory that I-L699 is not a surviving haplogroup from Ukraine but was instead introduced, or rather, reintroduced.
Are there any updates regarding R-M269 and R-M417? Does it still seem that R-M269 and R-M417 were late additions to the PIE genetic pool, much like J2b? Are they not part of the original Indo-European lineages, which appear to have been predominantly I-L699 and V1636, with some contributions from other haplogroups like Q and J1?
Regarding the Near Eastern ancestry in Yamnaya and Sredny Stog populations, is the theory that it was derived from the Trypillian culture now largely dismissed? Does it now seem more likely that this ancestry originated from the Caucasus, mediated by groups such as Nalchik and Remontnoe? Or could it be a mix of the aforementioned groups and Trypillian ancestry?
Nationalism, patriotism and related stuff has no place in a genetic science.
@Arsen
I'm a proud Armenian man fulfilling my ancestral duties.
Regarding half-breeds, don't worry, I only have mixed daughters. That in itself is not problematic, they will marry Armenian men.
I have pure Armenian sons from a previous marriage. J2 conquistadors as RCO would say. Strong and healthy, all four outgrew me.
@Gabru
I'm not that individual. We had brief correspondence on X regarding Shulaveri Shomu origin for Nalchik and firm connection with the Steppe Eneolithic genepool.
Neirher is there any pretending. Being Armenian and a son of Hayk comes with great honour.
@Arsen
Marrying Russians is a recent phenomenon among Armenians, yes. Globalisation presses on Armenians to open up to the rest of the world (with the all emotional baggage we carry caused by Turkroaches), no question about that.
In terms of pride and prestige, no such thing regarding the ethnicity of the person you marry. There will always be Armenians because what we endured is a given that no one can take away from us. The strength and resilience is rooted the soul of every Armenian.
Our community is vibrant and fertile. Yes, there is a lot of pride in our youth. My sons are no exception, they exude virility and Armenian masculinity in a healthy way. Of course there are social issues as well, including the youth, but everything has a solution and I'm very optimistic.
Last thing I will add is that I found ANE/EHG R1 supremacy silly. There is a lot of that online lurking around the corner. Yes, be proud but they racistly belittle other people in a cowardly manner, that is not a sign of strength but weakness.
For further info; the R1b-V1636 from Gaziantepe in Amuq plain
''This Early Bronze Age horizon yielded skull fragments in the southeast sector of the Lower Town, inside a settlement building of level 4. Skull fragments were found among the debris caused by a fire. The bones were exposed to high temperatures as a result of which the skull darkened and crushed. ..This spot has been radiocarbon dated 2308-2129 BCE.''
Hayk. Gabru, Mr Funk
yes you're all giga-chads. We don;t' want to be like the sad prunes on GA (who pretend to be 'academics'), so joking is okay, but lets stick to the topic.
@Rob You do realise PIA was from Seh Gabi? I laid out the route to the northwest/west already in the thread.
@Hayk
average height of men in Europe
https://www.facebook.com/share/p/1Z3bwaycyf/
@Rob
very interesting , I didn 't know about it , thank you
@ Gabru
''Idr if Lazaridis contests the date of GK. You r probably conflating the Eneolithic GK sample from Laz. 2024 to LateMesolithic GK samples from Allent. 2023, the Eneolithic GK is similar to Krivyanski iirc. ''
here is what Laz. paper says -''Both GK1/GK2 dates may be too early given that archaeologists of Golubaya Krinitsa interpreted people of the site as in contact with people of the much later Eneolithic Serednii Stih Culture. 30..GK2 (individual I12490 from Golubaya Krinitsa in the Middle
265 Don dated 5610-5390 BCE''
So he is questiong the dates, but Allentoft apparently did correct for RE. Even if we give an upper range correction of ~ 500 years, they'd still date ~ 5000/4900 bc. But its not hugely important because the West Asian ancestry in Yamnaya comes from a later source, GK appear to be local dead ends
@The Last of the Maharuls
There's exactly zero evidence that the original Indo-European gene pool was I-L699 and V1636, with some contributions from other haplogroups like Q and J1.
This is just an idea based on assumptions on top of assumptions.
@carlos I'm familiar with all of those.
We just happen to have like easily northward of 100 male Yamnaya samples I assume now. It's very low frequency.
@Rob
First of all, relax. I stumbled upon this thread by accident after being away from Eurogenes for a long time. Your name does sound familiar, aren't you the guy who was routinely fact-checked and corrected by Archi? Speaking of which, where is that devil these days?
Anyway, I’m just a chill guy, and I assume you are too. Maybe a failed mammoth hunt or two has left you a bit disgruntled, but let’s keep the tone civil and, most importantly, objective. The map shows a significant presence of I-L699 in Ukraine. Y-DNA aside, this haplogroup persists right after the introduction of a massive influx of people with Steppe Eneolithic auDNA, along with new customs that are distinctly Indo-European and have links to the East. These customs completely displaced the previous ones.
So, even if we entertain the idea that I-L699 in the region represents a surviving lineage, why would these "survivors" adopt the customs of the invaders? And why would they persist only as L699 and not V88? This is closely tied to the question of R-M269 and R-M417 as well, which shows that lineages can assimilate and become dominant while the original culture is preserved, which, following the same logic, could go the other way.
So, does the data actually indicate that the culture associated with these L699 local hunter-gatherers DEVELOPED into the Indo-European culture LOCALLY? That’s assuming they were even local to begin with. As we know, kurgans, the position of the dead, distinctive inventory, and so on, appear in the L699-rich Sredny Stog region, originating from areas east of where the L699 foragers were living. The presence of L699 in Berezhnovka and Khvalynsk raises additional questions. Let’s take a step back and consider the broader picture here.
Also, nobody mentioned the Caucasus here, Mr. Mammoth Hunter.
@Davidski
I think by now we all know what a wonderful person you are, Davidski, and I personally hope that G50 will surpass the fantastic tool that is G25. My Gujjar friend and I will be eagerly waiting for its release. That said, while it’s true that these are assumptions, what else does the data show beyond that?
Target: Russia_Don_N_Mariupol_o:I12491
Distance: 1.8959% / 0.01895901 | R3P
69.4 Ukraine_Mesolithic
15.4 Georgia_Kotias.SG
15.2 TJK_N
Target: Russia_Don_N_Mariupol:I12490
Distance: 1.1891% / 0.01189058 | R3P
54.4 RUS_Meso_Sidelkino
26.4 UKR_Meso
19.2 Romania_IronGates_Mesolithic
Target: Russia_Don_N_Mariupol:NEO212__BC_5443__Cov_unknown
Distance: 1.3667% / 0.01366658 | R5P
37.2 Ukraine_Mesolithic
28.4 RUS_Meso_Sidelkino
21.2 GEO_Meso_Kotias_Klde
8.2 TJK_N
5.0 HUN_N_Koros_Dezsk
Well maybe PIE did emerge from such a mix
But i would again point out the idea of I2a-L699 coming from Berezhnovka is just silly. The archaeological claims are irrelevant, even if they were true (unverified claims from Soviet archaeology copy/pasted by randoms without any proof). The Brzh individual was a singleton, and the lineage disappears in Volga-Caspian Yamnaya; by contrast the broader Azov-Dnieper region has a continuity of said lineage from 5500 to 3000 BC.
The counter-point about R1b-V88 is also irrelevant and has been addressed.
This sort of mental gymnastics is the last coping grasp of the horse/wheel Larpers and Southern Arc copers.
@The Last of the Maharuls
"I think by now we all know what a wonderful person you are, Davidski, and I personally hope that G50 will surpass the fantastic tool that is G25. "
I just like the idea that by simply increasing the number of dimensions we have unlimited space to improve the quality and accuracy of the calculator
there is room to grow)
@The Last of the Maharuls
@Davidski
So, is it confirmed that the improved version of G25 will be called G50?
A "Hayk," who tryhards his identity, obviously lies about his involvement with Lazaridis and, most suspiciously, shills for Iran_C?
The first point is somewhat believable for a Hayk, although over the top, but the Iran_C shilling? No Hayk worth his salt would do that, this is clearly a larper.
@The Last of the Maharuls
and I patented the phrase "what a wonderful person Davidsky is!" next time ask my permission before writing )
https://imgur.com/a/htRfnTU
Khvalynsk and Tutkaul link up? Don't think it is directly from ANE source in both...something related to Tutkaul moved into Russia 5500bce or later...
2 interesting pointers on R1a with respect to Indo aryans is that Y3 shows up in Srubnaya which some consider Proto-Iranic...Indian L657 brached off from the common ancestor with this Y3 male and predates it by atleast 25 generations....so not directly ancestral to Indian l657....
BC era l657 from China is genetically scythian...so again iranic...
Target: China_Xinjiang_Guanjingtai_IA:C3316__BC_77__Cov_69.57%
Distance: 1.6143% / 0.01614294
51.2 Russia_MLBA_Sintashta
23.4 Russia_Siberia_Lena_EBA
19.6 Turkmenistan_Gonur_BA_1
5.8 Mongolia_LBA_Khovsgol_6
You need to have a talent and a creativity to find a good use for those extra dimensions. If you lack them then adding extra dimensions can actually make a calculator worse. An example of a good use of an extra dimension: expressing an unique admixture or a drift. An example of a bad use of an extra dimension: intermediate component which can be flawlessly modeled as a mixture of other components.
@Tom
https://i.postimg.cc/tJtTKT3L/GZ8ebuc-XEAYxdwi.jpg
Two of my sons. J2 conquistadors. Real men.
We will have the last laugh with the Turks. Armenian men are stronger.
@EthanR
Yes, you are probably right in this issue. Based on two of the earliest samples, in Vovnigi (c. 5350 BCE) and Kartal (c. 4050 BCE), and that both are I-PF6902, a first branch of L699, we can infer a pre-Yamnaya origin of L699, even in Ukrainian Late Mesolithic, if we take a look at Deriivka (c. 6700 BCE).
Nice to see another J2 guy here....Are you J2a or J2b?
@The Last of the Maharuls
'''Maybe a failed mammoth hunt or two has left you a bit disgruntled,''
It has been bountiful, don't worry, how are the herds ? nah, just too many dishonest academics and midwits from certain forums tires one's patience. Sorry but your claims came off as pretentious and reaching. Given that R1b-M269 Beaker males 'adopted' the side-crouched farmer posture, did their clan come from Anatolia ? Simply put, the scenario you & others proposed is phylogenetically untenable.
@ Gabru
''Yeah I would like to clarify that it's KHB003 (and 001 + 002 but they're lc), which is basically Krivyansky cluster. ''
As I said, most of these 'cluster's have no bearing in reality, they were invented to spin a narrative and should be jettisoned. Somethign tells me that future papers dealing with Eneolithic steppe will not employ them
@All
There probably won't ever be a G50, because adding more dimensions isn't necessarily useful. In fact, usually it adds more noise. But that depends on the reference dataset and how the PCA is produced statistically.
@Radiosource
you're right
@Davidski
It doesn't have to be a round number like G25/G50/G75/whatever. I would rather have a superior calculator called G29/G34/G41/whatever than a slightly less functional version but with a round number like G30/G35/G40/whatever.
If you finish with 27 or 33 dimensions, just let it be G27 or G33. Don't add or cut dimensions just for the sake of a round number. That would be a grave mistake.
@Gabru
"There is no workaround to reconcile the 2 new L699 from Kulloba and Kalahoyuk with Caucasus route hypothesis. "
I don't think anyone claimed this is from the Caucasus. It could very well be from the western steppe. The issue I raised, is how do we identify this with Proto-Anatolian and not Late PIE?
Yes, Proto-Anatolian doesn't HAVE TO enter Anatolia in the 5th or even 4th millenium, but that would certainly help your case. When we look at the R1b-V1636 in Anatolia, which is clearly a STEPPE Y-DNA, it had little steppe autosomal DNA by 3200 BC. This means it's been south of the Caucasus for at least a few hundred years before that, fitting well with the archaic split of Proto-Anatolian. Add the 4th millenium IBD sharing + the archaic CLV component, you can tell why Reich made this hypothesis.
Just like the with brain-numbing Yamnaya/Corded Ware debates, linguistics puts a barrier on archeology and genetics, that these theories are just not living up to. The issue is with establishing the "archaicness" of those samples, which language pinpoints to, and I've yet to see anything proving that this anything but Late PIE migrants. The kurgans in Western Anatolia HURT that point, not help it. It's basically saying these are Late PIE kurganites, not Proto-Anatolians.
This is probably not news, but in the Marmara samples, Cernavoda-related ancestry is pretty easy to detect. While Ilipinar C seems to lack it and probably carries more of its steppe ancestry from Eastern populations rich in CLV ancestry, Barcin C on the other hand can be modeled additionally with Cernavoda.
Right pops: 'Mbuti.DG', 'Turkey_Central_TepecikCiftlik_N.WGC.SG', 'Turkey_Southeast_Cayonu_PPN.SG', 'Armenia_Aknashen_N.SG', 'Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LN.AG', 'Iran_HajjiFiruz_N.AG', 'Bulgaria_Yunatsite_Chalcolithic_GumelnitaKaranovo.AG', 'Bulgaria_Varna_Chalcolithic.AG', 'Russia_Don_N_Mariupol.SG', 'Russia_Steppe_Eneolithic_Berezhnovka.AG', 'Russia_Caucasus_Eneolithic.AG', 'Armenia_Areni1_Chalcolithic.AG', 'Russia_Nalchik_E.SG', 'Russia_Remontnoye_Eneolithic.AG', 'Russia_Caucasus_Maikop_Novosvobodnaya.AG', 'Israel_C.AG', 'Iran_SehGabi_C.AG'
target: Turkey_Marmara_Ilipinar_Chalcolithic.AG'
Turkey_Marmara_Kumtepe_N.SG weight: 32.9% ± 9.59%
Turkey_BlackSea_Ikiztepe_Chalcolithic.AG weight: 67.1% ± 9.59%
P-value: 0.291
I then added Kumtepe N and Ikiztepe Chalcolithic to the right.
Target: Turkey_Marmara_Barcin_Chalcolithic.AG
Turkey_Marmara_Ilipinar_Chalcolithic.AG weight: 75.3% ± 6.76%
Ukraine_CernavodaI_Kartal_C.AG weight: 24.7% ± 6.76%
P-value: 0.142
It's fairly difficult to attempt to model later Anatolian populations because it's not always easy to model them with Chalcolithic sources that don't capture the complexity of ancestry they received from more contemporary sources but this combined with the Kurgan trail into Anatolia's doorstep and I2-L699's sporadic appearance in Anatolian samples makes an Anatolian route fairly convincing. The Reich team has definitely been putting too much weight on their qpAdm models.
@Radiosource
the calculator doesn't care what the dimension of the vectors is that you add there to calculate the proportions of distances, etc. The main thing is that the dimensions of all vectors (sources and targets) match. The calculator itself will not change, the conversion from a file to a numerical vector will change, adding new dimensions is equivalent to leaving the dimensions the same, but simply increasing the accuracy of each G25 coordinate (the number of digits after the decimal point of a raw or scaled vector)
Davidski, could you publish g25 coordinates from [FE Yediay et al. 2024]?
In the third map, we can see in red square the number 9 sample, I-CTS10057 > I-L207 > P78, in Anatolia. However that sample does not belong to a direct branch of L699, although it is interesting that the estimate TMRCA of P78 is c. 4200 BCE but in Italy. Also interesting is its sub-branch I-A427 with TMRCA c. 2850 BCE in Turkey!!
@Istakhr @Davidski @William Anderson
Finally , these Kenyans that I sent to Davidski is corrupted data. I extracted them from the HO dataset, so the issue was the data in HO. The previos G25 for these Kenyans that was done before is all good (because it was done from the other data file provided with the publication) . I sent an email to Lazaridis and they will fix the HO data with the next version. Thanks all for the help.
Correction: I meant to say I find the Balkan route of Anatolian languages more convincing.
@Carlos Aramayo
98520 Circone Italy I-P78 P78+, S10452+, S16266+, S25733-, Y7219-
201 98520 Italy Italy I-P78
14 23 15 10 15-15 11 13 12 13 12 31 17 8-9 11 11 24 14 20 27 14-14-15-16 12 9 19-21 16 15 18 19 35-35 12 10 11 8 15-15 8 11 10 8 10 9 12 21-22 16 11 12 12 15 9 14 25 21 10 13 12 13 12 12 12 11
But we'd need other data of course.
@Carlos I-P78 at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-P78/classic shows ancient specimens from Bulgaria but they are a lot younger than the TMRCA. Italy is for a modern specimen. Upstream I-L702 has 4 ancient specimens older than the TMRCA date of I-P78. They are from Ukraine and Hungary. They don't have reads on all of the I-P78 SNPs so it is possible that they would have been derived for some of the SNPs if there had been reads but the reads they do have are ancestral. So where I-P78 derived specimens were when the SNPs first mutated is unknown.
The ancient specimens for I-A427 are also far younger than the TMRCA.
@Rob
Sad! With you as an example, I would advise all the boomers here not to raise their cortisol levels from amateur forum visits. If you're not immune to it, it's best to prioritize your quality of life, especially when you're already halfway through it.
And archaeology is reaching now? The burial traditions are well-documented in the respective Reich and Lazaridis papers. Following your logic, the people who brought the kurgan tradition, widely associated with Indo-Europeans, along with many different haplogroups and the auDNA that became the signature of the IE, were somehow not Indo-European.
What would actually be "reaching" is claiming that the flat graves built by Ukrainian foragers somehow transformed into kurgans through the adoption of Western European megalithic traditions. Never mind the fact that the first kurgans were constructed further to the east by people with a Steppe Eneolithic-like admixture.
Berezhnovka: I22199, Kurgan 9, Burial 5, 4929-4730 cal BCE (5955±20 BP, PSUAMS-8815), I2a1-S12195.
Kartal 1 is on that branch, as well as Yamnaya Kalmykia.
There are also several modern Iranians who will soon appear on the I-Y154998 branch (a downstream branch of I-S12195), which may suggest that this clade was assimilated by the Sintashta.
As for G50, it would be interesting if you could have the ability to pit the dimensional anchors against a robust right list.
Yo somebody leaked the photo of Hayk to me
https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/1236740889397825570/1318496541954015232/image.png?ex=67628918&is=67613798&hm=e79b18df6c5df655082a6dc5dcab983b656ff2009c5e82b678d2d006c0ceb245&
@ Dragon Hermit
''Just like the with brain-numbing Yamnaya/Corded Ware debates, linguistics puts a barrier on archeology and genetics, that these theories are just not living up to. ''
Nope, the evidence fits perfectly, you just don't have the capacity or will to understand it.
BTW in 2026, we will find out the real origins of CWC.
@The Last of the Maharuls
Indo-European didn't form in a vacuum.
There were near and far related peoples around them, and there's a pretty good chance that at least some of the steppe and forest steppe groups building kurgans weren't Indo-European speaking.
Maykop and steppe Maykop probably weren't Indo-European speaking, and it's also possible that Khvalynsk was only Indo-European-related.
These are the sorts of things you should focus on, rather than trying to seek advantage in debates based on your age or whatever else you come up with. Your age makes no difference if you're a total moron.
@ Marahuk
''And archaeology is reaching now? The burial traditions are well-documented in the respective Reich and Lazaridis papers. ''
You don;t understand archaeology because you haven't read anythign about it, you read summaries of summaries from a paper which was wrong.
''I would advise all the boomers here not to raise their cortisol levels from amateur forum visits. ''
I'm the best - GenX, I take it you're an amatuer mllenial. Perhaps after you've figured out what gender you are, you can raise your hand to speak to the Men
I'm not a boomer and I don't think there are any boomers regularly commenting here.
@The Last of the Maharuls
what's the joke or the prank in this photo?
@ Rob
Do you believe Pre-PIE was a language spoken by Ukrainian locals as opposed to incoming WSH groups — the ones that contributed to Sredny Stog formation that is?
And what is everyone's opinion on the origins of the languages that bordered PIE proper in the Caucasus and east (Steppe Maikop types)?
@Tom
I think the proto-PIE arose in this environment of cattle breeders (I have circled the area with a black dotted line)
when these 4 populations mixed from 4 sides in the Caucasus
and each of these populations forms its own wedge, the share of which is directly proportional to the distance from this hatched area
https://i.ibb.co/gDjrgPX/1734119078070.jpg
@Gio
"But we'd need other data of course."
Yes, Italy very suggestive in this case, thanks for the sample analisis.
@Dospaises
"...I-P78 at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/I-P78/classic shows ancient specimens from Bulgaria but they are a lot younger than the TMRCA...The ancient specimens for I-A427 are also far younger than the TMRCA."
Yes, I-P78 has a too high TMRCA in "discover.family" c. 4200 BCE, but yfull.com puts it around 3250 BCE, within the timeline of the earliest Bulgarian ancient sample, Beli Breyag6, (c. 3400-1600 BCE). And of course older ancient samples can be found in future excavations.
I-A427 ancient samples are far younger than the TMRCA even in yfull.com, c. 2650 BCE, but that only points out to the need to get more aDNA to confirm or deny.
@The Last of the Maharuls
I have nothing against Iranians. We are good allies despite religious differences.
Seh Gabi is the PIA homeland. The truth is the truth, which will always prevail. Wether I like Iranians or not is a sideline issue, not remotely relevant to the PIA homeland debate.
Of course the same applies wether I like Seh Gabi as homeland or not. You have to stay objective.
@Tom What is this nonsense? My sons are not gay, they are real Armenian masculinity. Something that the west lacks.
I have nothing against Kurds, nor Iranians. Good people and as an Armenian I'm glad to be their allies, despite our religious differences. All three of us hate Turkroaches, so it is a natural thing to become allies. Wether or not we are allies have no bearing on the PIA homeland debate.
Aknashen remains the bifurcation point for PIA and basal PIE. They carried Seh Gabi ancestry. Nobody can escape that fact, neither Davidski.
Seh Gabi remains the most plausible homeland for PIA, or at least the western edge of the Zagros-Alborz region.
By the way, this region (up to the Caspian shores) shares all the basal clades for R1b, R1a and J. Tebe Abdul Hosein will be proven (by Lazaridis & me et al.) to have provided ancestry to Seh Gabi and Tutkaul (moving up the Caspian mixing with WSHG). Abdul Hosein has a lot going for it regarding the pre-proto-PIA origin point.
@Gabru
by the way, have you tried for Remontnoye - zolotarevki not alhantepe but early Maykop from Galichi's work? for example
Target: Russia_Stavropol_EarlyMaykop_EBA:VS5001__BC_3709__Cov_75.11%
Distance: 1.6205% / 0.01620452 | R4P
35.0 Georgia_Kotias.SG
32.2 Azerbaijan_Caucasus_lowlands_LateC
24.4 unknown
8.4 Russia_Khvalynsk_Eneolithic
unknown - this is a group of samples from a new work on çatalhöyük
@Carlo Aramayo
"@Gio
"But we'd need other data of course."
Yes, Italy very suggestive in this case, thanks for the sample analisis."
I said that we'd need other data not only because it seems that the sample is tested only for a few SNPs, and even though it seems that he actully is I-P78*, only a full genome could say more, also if he is a new subclade of P78*. Beyond that, it is a modern sample, the surname is very rare in Italy and is found only in two towns of the Southern Italian coast and may have come from everywhere, but it is more important to me that I-M223 was probably in Palaeolitic Italy during the Palaeolitic and Mesolitic, but after migrated all around and only the reconstruction of its path may say more, but to me it could be a proof that I-M223 and R1b1 may have expanded from Italy. As I said above I have no problem to think that my known origin as to R-Z2110 is in actual Russia, i.e. in Yamnaya.
@Hayk
R1a and R1b aren't from West Asia you moron.
They only arrived there during the Bronze Age from Eastern Europe, and that includes the so called "basal clades".
@Davidski
We have Haji Firuz with Z2103 (Seh Gabi migrant) and no clear sign of Steppe ancestry. Obviously this means Z2103 pushed with Aknashen via Nalchik (entry point) into the Steppe genepool.
@Gabru
There's no R1 in Ganj Dareh you moron.
These samples belong to R2.
@Hayk
You're really dumb.
The Hajji Firuz Z2103 is actually dated to the Iron Age and does have steppe ancestry.
This sample was initially wrongly dated and wrongly claimed not to have steppe ancestry by Nick Patterson and friends.
After I emailed Nick Patterson about this, they finally worked out that, oops, this sample does have steppe ancestry.
@Rob
The existence of Afanasievo/Tocharian rendered all the "Proto-CW" theories useless, because it implied 3500-3300BC is an archaic split, pushing Yamnaya-CW split well into 3000 BC/i.e. Core Yamnaya (which IBD also backs). Like I said before, all those dumb theories imply Albanian, Armenian and Greek would be noticeably different than CW languages, and they're clearly not.
With Proto-Anatolian, linguistics tells us:
(1) Archaic split >4,000 BC
(2) Vocabulary noticeably different when it comes to wheeled technologies
(3) Vocabulary noticeably different when it comes to farming
A western route would imply heavy intermixing with Balkan/Eastern European EEFs just like Core PIE. But their vocab doesn't reflect that at all. It's all Middle Eastern.
@Gabru
are you talking about him?
https://www.theytree.com/sample/1f8ecb6c01cf6d1f94bfd5798b20b9fa.html
https://amtdb.org/sample/I1949
he doesn't look like he's R1
@Carlos Where do you get the idea that I-P78 has a too high TMRCA in FTDNA Discover? FTDNA has a lot more downstream specimens that allow for a more refined date. It was already understood that older ancient samples can be found in future excavations. That has no bearing on what I posted. What's important is that, at this moment, there are too few ancient specimens derived for I-P78 to draw properly deduce which area I-P78 SNPs were born in. Also, the older TMRCA date is more believable especially when you consider the ages of I-S22311 and I-L703. The two I-P78 ancient specimens can't be used for the origin because it is too young and much less a modern Italian that is listed there only because there is no one else that has the same private mutations. Once another person tests and matches his private mutations he will be farther down the tree and if that had already happened you wouldn't have even noticed him. This is another detail you overlooked or misunderstand. Have you had advanced Y-DNA testing or have you paid for advanced Y-DNA testing of relatives to learn more about private mutations and matching and so forth?
We need a lot more ancient specimens with good coverage for a whole lot more than just I-A427. Really though the most important point is that when there is a lack of specimens close to the age of the calculated TMRCA then the specimens can't be used to determine likely point of origin unless upstream and downstream, or in some cases parallel lineages, were already in the same region and not found in any other region.
So, at this moment, the specimens for those specific subclades don't really tell us much. We have no idea what will happen in the future.
@Gabru the Ganj Dareh specimens are at https://discover.familytreedna.com/y-dna/R-P249/classic and even https://adnaxp.github.io/ doesn't show any of them to be R1
I'm not familiar with any middle eastern vocabulary attributable to the proto-anatolian stage. This is more made up nonsense and/or a grave misinterpretation of Akkadian, Hurrian, and Hattic loans that made its way into Hittite and Luwian during the historical period (and only indirectly into the other Luwic languages or Lydian via Luwian intermediaries, in the context of well-documented east to west movements that happened during the historical period).
Also, even if there was evidence of this sort, there is the obvious issue that all ChL/EBA Balkan EEF languages are unattested, whereas in the near east, we can identify with some degree of confidence that several of the later attested languages were already long present in the region. So the exercise of identifying loans is significantly different.
The first evidence of the Early Ceramic Neolithic in the North Caucasus
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000355212400092X?via%3Dihub
@ Tom
'Do you believe Pre-PIE was a language spoken by Ukrainian locals as opposed to incoming WSH groups — the ones that contributed to Sredny Stog formation that is?''
Hi Tom. The idea of 'incoming WSH" is a meme, a fallacy created by some in academia which distorts what the genetic evidence actually shows.
WSH did not come from anywhere, they formed in the Ponto-Caspian region, which includes the lower Dnieper area just as it includes the Don & Volga regions. Of course, the wavelets of South Caucasian Eneolithic groups were important but they themselves were not WSH.
The archaeological evidence in fact shows that that the lower Dnieper region was part of the Mariupol and emegent Sredni Stog horizon, which included certain burial ideologies, whilst groups in the middle and upper reaches of the Dnieper (e.g Dereivka) are often viewed as not belonging to this system. As it so happens, the further north up the Dnieper, the more dominant R1b-V88 became, but due to their lack of participation, they became extinct.
The idea that IEs emerged from local East Europeans is not novel, nor is not some some 'ideological cope' of this Blog, but something written about for decades by Ukrainian archaeologists (for ex), which has however received less attention than other, more publicized theories which emphasies the 'exotic' origins of WSH and hyperbolize the degree of population replacement they imparted on the 'native Europeans'.
If PIE/PIA emerged in the Dnieper-Don-Volga region, without confining it to a 20km radius of Berezhnovka (as some commentators seem keen to do), then we have a very eloquent and easy explanation for the 'deeper' split between proto-Anatolian and nuclear IE; they being a remnant of an even older dialectical diversity which existed amongst south EE hunter-gatherers, whose mixing and shuffling goes back to the Ice Age (the mammoth steppe extended from France to Alaska).
So, it has to be a preexisting 'native' linguistic diversity, any other scenario doesnt work. Because if pre-PIE was introduced by 'civilised' Majkop folk, it would mean that all native R1/I2 would have undergone a flat (dialectless) language shift. The same error occurs with the new Berezhnovka meme theory, if all the ~ 4000 bc Sredni Stog/ Kartal derive from Berezhnovka (phylogenetic BS), then they'd too be speaking nuclear IE, just like R1b-M269 and R1a-M17, because the separation would be just too recent/ shallow. Hope that makes sense ?
To answer your specific question - could the original I-L708 have introduced pre-PIE to the steppe ? Yes. Could they have adopted from the ANE-richer R1 clans, ? Yes
@ Dragon Hermit
'The existence of Afanasievo/Tocharian rendered all the "Proto-CW" theories useless, because it implied 3500-3300BC is an archaic split, pushing Yamnaya-CW split well into 3000 BC/i.e. Core Yamnaya (which IBD also backs). Like I said before, all those dumb theories imply Albanian, Armenian and Greek would be noticeably different than CW languages, and they're clearly not.''
I don't entirely understand what you're saying, but let's stick with CW. We have not been saying CW emerged in 3500 BC, because that is nonsense. We dont even need aDNA for that, archaeology tells us that CW only spread after 2900 BC, which means that it falls within the Yamnaya period, and not even at the earliest point (3200 bc ->).
Im not sure what Davidski might have said at some point in the past, but the Intense IBD sharing between Yamnaya & CW doesn’t necessarily imply a monogenetic origin. So in theory, and focussing on R1a-M17 and R1b-M269 who are the main clans which propagated CWC, these could have originally been quite distinctive & separated in 4000 BC, and fate placed them in an intimately close social relationship between 3500 and 3000 bc, thus giving the IBD results. We don;t yet know what exactly happened
That wrongly labeled R1 in Iran_GanjDareh_N is labeled as R2-Y3403 if you scroll right...
As of now there is 0 evidence of R1b and R1a from Iran-CHG pops...They only carry R2 among the R haplogroups...As for CHG-IranN haplogroups that did move into steppe, it is J-L283 and some subclades of Q from central Asian-Siberians populations like Tutkaul...
Question though is did J-L283 migrated from the Vicinity of South Asia as other sub clade is securely from South asia...or did it and Indian specific subclade of J-M241 was in south of Caucasus from where one migrated to steppe and one to south asia....
Yes, the wrongly labeled R1 in Iran_GanjDareh_N is labeled as R2-Y3403 in the YFull column. The ID of the specimen is I1949 and is R-M124 at FTDNA and theytree.
Yep, that was a mistake by the Reich Lab.
Not only did they mistake Hajji Firuz I2327 for a Copper Age sample with no steppe ancestry, therefore suggesting that the origins of M269/Z2103 were in Iran, but they also managed to "find" R1 in Neolithic Iran.
https://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2018/12/the-hajji-firuz-fiasco.html
Honestly, how is it possible to screw things up like that?
@Dospaises
even if there was this R1, it would have changed the picture a lot? ehg gave their male lines to the Indo-Europeans. and a little bit of whg. There are no Iranian Caucasian male chromosomes in the Proto-Indo-Europeans (with rare exceptions). This is how it happened historically.
we must accept this as a fact, like Newton's third law or the Pythagorean theorem)🧑⚖️
Well, obviously, someone was hoping like hell that both R1 and Z2103 were from Iran.
I'd love to know who exactly was responsible for that at the Reich Lab.
From what I have gathered, it seems illyrian's had this interesting fire cult similar to Indo-Iranians...They also seem to have been J-L283 heavy its cousin clade is in south asia today and oldest samples under this clade are BMAC and Swat...and we know BMAC was big on fire cult...
Need an Illyrian expert to help me out on this one....as Illyrian fire God Enji is awfully close to Vedic Agni...
Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity. I'm not saying I think the person(s) was/were stupid. I think they made stupid mistakes which anyone can do especially if someone is busy and thinking they are doing their repetitive tasks correctly. Additionally they acknowledged their errors and have corrected them in studies. But not only did the scientists make the stupid mistakes so did people that are posting on here, years after the data was corrected, and making bold claims without actually verifying with simple searches. That's what is even crazier. To make things even worse the site https://adnaxp.github.io/ was made by Genetiker. He should have caught the R1-M173 error in the ISOGG column. It's extremely simple to have an automation that checks for contradictions between columns in a database. The Hajji Firuz I2327 correction could have easily been found by Hayk if he understood basic searching or how to look up which studies it had been reported in. Lazaridis 2022 spreadsheet or the latest Allen Ancient DNA Resource spreadsheet at the Harvard Dataverse at https://dataverse.harvard.edu/file.xhtml?fileId=10537416&datasetVersionId=428039 That last spreadsheet has some errors but not the errors discussed.
@Mr Funk The reason it's important is because people that don't understand the rest at least don't have that mislabeled specimen as 'proof' of their erroneous conclusion. The reference to the mislabeling is also a basic way to determine who is being thorough and who is grasping as straws without investigating details. Maybe they learn from their mistakes, maybe not.
@Ash
"Question though is did J-L283 migrated from the Vicinity of South Asia as other sub clade is securely from South asia...or did it and Indian specific subclade of J-M241 was in south of Caucasus from where one migrated to steppe and one to south asia...."
I wrote here, with the skandal of the so called Arsen, that J-L283 may have expanded from Europe, probably central or Baltic Europe. We'll see ...
@Dospaises
The I1949 sample has only 4 or 5 percent coverage
@Ash
"Need an Illyrian expert to help me out on this one....as Illyrian fire God Enji is awfully close to Vedic Agni"
Where did you find the "Illyrian fire God Enji" and that it is linked with Albanian? There are two words "enje" in Albanian: "Juniper, yew" and "dairy goat". A PAlb *agni- for "fire" is supposed, and also Latin has the word "ignis". These words survived in the lateral areas of IE, as the words for "king", and don't forget that Albanian has 40% of its words from Latin, 20% from Greek and so on...
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enji_(deity)
@Dospaises
Hanlon's razor. Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.
The problem is that these stupid mistakes and oversights at the Reich Lab are part of a pattern which doesn't look coincidental.
It's as if someone there was doing this on purpose to help boost the popularity and acceptance of Iran as the proto-Indo-European homeland and a major source of language, culture and ancestry for present-day Europeans.
The fact that these mistakes are eventually corrected doesn't mean that they're not a problem, because a lot of people, including academics (not just brain dead morons like Hayk), will remember that they saw something pointing to Iran with David Reich's name on it, and won't follow up to see if it was true or eventually corrected.
What I'm saying is that the overall impact of this nonsense is still considerable because it's coming from a respected source and it does shape the discussion at all levels about the origin of PIE and the ethnogenesis of modern Europeans.
@Hayk
You're a stupid troll and you're banned from this blog.
@ Gio Davidski & All I have now read the book you suggested I read and have also read up on the Cernavoda culture and reread Kroonen et al (2022). I can now see how the Western route is viable (which is not to say certain).
If we assume the Indo-Anatolians were the folk with the Sredny Stog culture with an economy based on shepherding, hunting and some use of the hoe. In 4000 BC the split came with some Indo-Anatolians doing a mass migration to Cernavoda. An early split is premised on sound linguistic grounds (grammatical and phonological). There are also lexical reasons to do with cereals, wine, wheels and wool although the old mantra needs to be wheeled out: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence..
This lasted from 4000–3200 and there is a destruction layer here in 4000 BC implying a violent take-over. Their pottery shares elements with the Sredny Stog culture.
Following Kroonen Late Indo-european developed on the Dneiper river in an area where Tripolye farmers were mixing with Yamnaya from 3300BC. Between 4000 BC and 3300 BC the Repin culture may have been their culture. At this point there was a split with the Tocharians leaving for central asia.
The wheel cart seems to have been invented by the Maykop culture 3700BC-3300BC. If this had been adopted and developed into waggons by the Yamnaya by 3300 BC this would have enabled the Tocharian migration to central asia ca. 3300 BC. It also fits in with Indo-european wheel terminology.
The mixture with the Tripolye farmers at that point (3300 BC) sets the scene for the Late Indo-europeans and fits into Kroonen et al’s investigation of cereal terminology.
Late Indo-european has a shared word for wool. Although the Anatolian word for ‘wool’ at first sight looks similar, it isn’t the same (although borrowing may be involved). Wool only appears North of the Caucasus in 2900 BC. This means the break-up of Late Indo-European happened after 2900 BC.
@Ash
I thank you for the link. The item is interesting, well done, not like others who translated Etruscan and even Italian through Albanian words, completely foolish. Perhaps Turks are acting up there. Anyway the word for "fire" is supposed, and I should study deeper the question, whereas "ignis" in Latin was a used word (look also at many English words like "ignite" and many others). About the IE word of Alb Zjarr not only Greek and Armenian but Latin too: formidus etc etc.
@Ned
What do you mean by the words that wool appears north of the Caucasus only after 2900 BC, and before 2900 BC rams walked without wool?
@ Gio
"...but it is more important to me that I-M223 was probably in Palaeolitic Italy during the Palaeolitic and Mesolitic, but after migrated all around and only the reconstruction of its path may say more, but to me it could be a proof that I-M223 and R1b1 may have expanded from Italy. As I said above I have no problem to think that my known origin as to R-Z2110 is in actual Russia, i.e. in Yamnaya..."
Regarding I-M223, of course, the earliest sample in Tagliente, Veneto, Italy, is by far the oldest one, RIP001, (c. 16,980 to 16,510 BCE), within Palaelithic era. And much later I-L699 is a sub-branch, TMRCA 5450 BCE (6550-4450 BCE). And you refer also to R-L761 in Villabruna, Italy too, (c. 12,268 - 11,851 BCE) if I'm not wrong. Yes both moved on to sub-branches in Ukraine-Russia it seems.
@ Gio
However, as per Family tree dna site, R-M343 originated in Kazakhstan or nearby, and its branch L761arrived in Italy later.
@ Mr Funk
''The first evidence of the Early Ceramic Neolithic in the North Caucasus
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S000355212400092X?via%3Dihub''
Interesting article. It surmises that the 'Neolithic'' pottery at Alebastroviy Zavod is closest to Lower Don & Volga and very different to Shulaveri and other south Caucasian Farming sites. Further the flint industry in Mesoithic north Cauc. sites is different to Late Paleolithic.
With the aDNA from Satanay/ Gubs, this means that EHG groups might have replaced Late Paleolithic CHG groups in the north Caucasus between 6500 and 5000
@Carlos Aramayo
"@ Gio
However, as per Family tree dna site, R-M343 originated in Kazakhstan or nearby, and its branch L761arrived in Italy later"
When I firstly studied the oldest samples of the haplogruop R1b through the STRs, at the FTDNA there was Mike Walsh. If you want to understand… I studied first the Indian Joshi and samples probably from Uzbekistan. We have now this sample in YFull tree: id:I4315UZB [UZ-SU]age, but it is a recent sample survived, and it doesn't demonstrste anything. For I-M223 we have samples in Italy and only in Italy for 10000 Years in the Palaeolithic. The oldest samples are everywhere in the world. I found R-M207 also in Africa… Of course my opponents say that Villabruna is a dead end line. We'll see...
Two new papers on South Caucasus archaeology:
"The archaeological record of the Qaraçay River Basin along the northern piedmont of the Lesser Caucasus"
https://tinyurl.com/enen8b79
"Kurgan Phenomenon in the Southern Caucasus: Results of an Interdisciplinary Multi-Method Remote Sensing Survey Along the Kurekçay Valley (Goranboy Province, Western Azerbaijan)"
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/arp.1930
@Rob
Late Paleolithic CHG groups of the Satsurblia type? That is, EHG still came there much later and did not live there initially?
and doesn't the fact that new people came from the lower Don mean that they were more like ukr_hg, that is, a mixture of ehg + iron gate hg?
but at the same time, the grotto satanay is deduced as pure Karelia
@ Mr Funk: Sheep had to be bred to have a wooly coat. Wild sheep (when they existed as a pure species) only had hair. Have a look at: https://www.academia.edu/123968955/Wool_and_the_Indo_Anatolian_Hypothesis
Satanay has Ukraine HG
target: Russia_Satanay_Mesolithic:SJG001
Distance: 1.8974% / 0.01897442 | R3P
44.6 RUS_Meso_Sidelkino
38.8 UKR_Meso_Vasilevka-I
16.6 Russia_AfontovaGora3
@old europe
yes I know, because I wrote it in GA, but as I wrote further, this is an additional Afontova Gora, it can turn from ukr_meso into an ordinary ehg
@Ned
that is, a breed of sheep with large wool was distinguished around 2900 BC? I wonder, I didn't know about this, I wonder if this selection of sheep is connected with wool, in the mountains of the North Caucasus, since there are often frosts in winter
(for example, a temperature map for tonight https://meteologix.com/ru/model-charts/euro/dagestan/temperature/20241219-2000z.html)
that is, this breed of sheep, brought from the south, could have automatically distinguished itself
Caucasian breed of sheep
They tolerate cold weather conditions well, are undemanding to care and maintenance, give a lot of wool and meat, so it is economically profitable to raise them. You can get up to 9 kg of fleece from rams, up to 2.5 kg from ewes
@Gabru
I hadn't been speaking of I2, but about I2a-M223, the ancestor of I-L701 etc and also the expansion of I-Z161 happened out of Italy after the Younger Dryas. That you don't like "old europe" as an "Italian" I want you to know that I know his real name and have no link with him, and that anti-Italians aren't only out of Italy but also within Italy.
@Gabru
after the retreat of the glaciers, the EHG people repopulated Eastern Europe, and this early EHG from Peschanitsa that you are talking about can be modeled as Malta up, Dzudzuana up and Western Asia up, that is, probably this man from sandstone was formed somewhere in the northern Caucasus in the Epipaeolithic and populated the Russian plains freed from ice
Why the North Caucasus? Because it's a good refuge. Perhaps it was, as Rob writes, the Western Caucasus and Crimea
@ Mr FUnk
''Late Paleolithic CHG groups of the Satsurblia type? That is, EHG still came there much later and did not live there initially?
and doesn't the fact that new people came from the lower Don mean that they were more like ukr_hg, that is, a mixture of ehg + iron gate hg?
but at the same time, the grotto satanay is deduced as pure Karelia'
Or the 'older stratum' in north Caucasus could have been EHG/CHG mix with the younger stratum (Mesolithic) being pure EHG. Older individuals like Sidelkino & Peschanitsa paradoxially seem to have more CHG than Satanay, despite its' geographic proximity to the Caucasus
Don region would have been almost ~ 100% EHG, with some modest WHG flow after 5500 bc
@ Gabru
What are you talking about? Not even Gio said EHG originates from Italy
@Rob
that is, the Karelian hunters, younger, as a result of genetic drift, became less CHG than the older Sidelkino, Peschanitsa, who populated the "Russian plain" moving up the Volga. Slowly moving up, they geographically and genetically moved away from their Caucasian roots. Sounds logical.
In the North Caucasus, in the Upper Paleolithic, there could have lived people from Malta (Upper Paleolithic of Baikal and Siberia) who hid there during the cold snap, they were mixed with local caucasus_up from Georgia, later from Western Asia they began to penetrate into the South, and then into the North Caucasus, populations associated with the Western Asian Upper Paleolithic (those who later became the Neolithic of Iran). and finally formed the EHG and CHG profile
Do you think so?
(I apologize for the inaccuracies of the translation )
@Davidski
I apologize in advance for cluttering this thread with my messages that do not directly relate to this topic, I am simply more interested in migrations from the Upper Paleolithic to the Eneolithic than in the Bronze Age and later ones.
@Ned
Here is a short excerpt from Darden, Bill 2001. On the question of the Anatolian origin of Indo-Hittite. In: Greater Anatolia and the Indo-Hittite language family
relating to the topic of this post, and Ned's comments
"The main problem tracing the origin of this new variety of sheep is not their movement into Europe but how and when they arrived in the steppe. We have noted evidence for wool technology in the southern and northern Caucasus in the fourth millennium BCE. Certainly, sheep domestication existed in the Caucasus in the fifth and sixth millennia BCE, but there is no direct indication that they were used for wool or were useful in this context.
Sheep were present but did not play a significant role in the economy of the Maikop culture in the northern Caucasus. The primary focus of their livestock economy was swine (Munchaev 1975: 382). In terms of population, sheep were in third place, after cattle. The Maikop culture never occupied the high-altitude areas most suitable for sheep raising. This does not necessarily mean that the people of the Maikop culture were unaware of wool, but it makes it less likely that they produced it in significant quantities.
It also suggests that the Maikop culture is unlikely to have been the vehicle through which wool sheep were introduced into the steppe. If wool sheep were brought into the steppe through the Caucasus, they probably came from the northeastern area, where settlements of a culture similar to the Kura-Araxes culture reached the steppe. In fact, a sheep-based livestock economy appears to have developed in the northeastern Caucasus earlier than in the southern Caucasus.
Gadzhiev (1991: 82) describes the Eneolithic settlements of Ginchi and Chinna as permanent agricultural settlements where sheep were the primary livestock, utilizing high alpine pastures and transhumance. Temporary sites in the high-altitude areas confirm this.
Shnirelman (1992) suggests that the tall sheep that moved from the steppe into central and northern Europe had been in the steppe since the Eneolithic and were introduced there from the Caucasus around 5800–4800 BCE. The Eneolithic sheep in the Caucasus were similar in size to their steppe counterparts. His primary evidence comes from Petrenko (1984).
However, Petrenko (1984: 49) preferred the area of Turkmenia near the southeast corner of the Caspian Sea as the source. This is near the region where the earliest evidence of domestication is found, and the Eneolithic sheep from that area were also tall. These data are certainly worth examining in detail.
The earliest sheep bones found in the steppe that are intact enough for measurement were discovered at the Khvalynsk cemetery in the forest-steppe zone along the lower Volga. This is the culture that Gimbutas (1997: 56) claims as the parent culture of the Proto-Indo-Hittites. Together with the Sredny Stog culture in the west, the Khvalynsk culture formed the basis of the Yamnaya (pit-grave) culture of the steppe.
There are six radiocarbon dates from skeletons in this cemetery. Three, recently published by Anthony (1998), date to the late sixth to early fifth millennium BCE:
- Grave 30: 6200 ± 85 BP, 5251–5010 BCE
- Grave 18: 5985 ± 85 BP, 4946–4783 BCE
- Grave 18: 6015 ± 85 BP, 4994–4799 BCE .. "
Proto-Kartvelian is most likely from ANF groups with Y haplo G as mediator...Nothing to do with IranN-CHG pops...
Post a Comment