search this blog

Thursday, February 16, 2017

The Khvalynsk men #2


I didn't run any mixture models of the Khvalynsk men in my original post on these three individuals from the 5200-4000 BCE Eneolithic cemetery at Khvalynsk, Samara Oblast, Russia. That's because at the time I felt that I didn't have the right reference samples and outgroups to produce convincing results. But this is no longer an issue, so here goes, using qpAdm.

Outgroups
AG3-MA1
Chukchi
Dusun
Igorot
Iran_Neolithic
Karitiana
Kosipe
Kostenki14
Lebbo
Levant_Neolithic
Mbuti
Satsurblia
Ust_Ishim
Villabruna

Samara_Eneolithic:I0122
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 0.070±0.059
Caucasus_HG 0.136±0.050
Eastern_HG 0.794±0.037
chisq 7.964 tail_prob 0.716545

Samara_Eneolithic:I0433
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 0.046±0.065
Caucasus_HG 0.155±0.058
Eastern_HG 0.799±0.038
chisq 7.970 tail_prob 0.715965

Samara_Eneolithic:I0434
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 0.195±0.200
Caucasus_HG 0.238±0.192
Eastern_HG 0.567±0.076
chisq 10.965 tail_prob 0.446237

...

Samara_Eneolithic_merge
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 0.082±0.048
Caucasus_HG 0.135±0.042
Eastern_HG 0.783±0.030
chisq 5.610 tail_prob 0.898074

Samara_Eneolithic_merge
Caucasus_HG 0.065±0.047
Eastern_HG 0.804±0.025
Iran_Chalcolithic 0.132±0.051
chisq 6.909 tail_prob 0.806405

Samara_Eneolithic_merge
Caucasus_HG 0.147±0.033
Eastern_HG 0.797±0.027
Lengyel_LN 0.057±0.036
chisq 7.040 tail_prob 0.795835

Samara_Eneolithic_merge
Caucasus_HG 0.105±0.055
Eastern_HG 0.809±0.028
Iran_Late_Neolithic 0.086±0.051
chisq 8.304 tail_prob 0.685822

Samara_Eneolithic_merge
Armenia_Chalcolithic 0.130±0.056
Caucasus_HG 0.088±0.043
Eastern_HG 0.782±0.030
chisq 9.121 tail_prob 0.610719

...

Yamnaya_Samara:I0429 (3339-2917 calBCE)
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 0.190±0.063
Caucasus_HG 0.277±0.056
Eastern_HG 0.533±0.034
chisq 11.732 tail_prob 0.38412

I tried a number of different combinations of reference samples, and the three I settled for produced the best fits and lowest standard errors overall. That doesn't mean they literally show what happened; they're just the best we've got for the time being.

The results are very interesting, and perhaps unexpected, with Samara Eneolithic I0434 packing the highest ratio of Anatolia- and Caucasus-related ancestry, and, as per above, almost looking like he could be an early Yamnaya sample. I say perhaps unexpected because this individual belongs to Y-haplogroup Q1a and mitochondrial haplogroup U4a2, so his uniparental markers don't suggest any strong southern affinities.

But the result, even though only based on 13527 SNPs, looks robust enough, and it basically matches the Principal Component Analysis (PCA) that I featured in my original post.


Keep in mind that 10434 is the individual that appears to have been whacked over the head a few times and simply thrown into a ditch. Perhaps this suggests that the genetic shift in the Samara region from the Eneolithic to the Bronze Age, which saw the dilution of Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (EHG) ancestry by Anatolian- and Caucasus-related gene flows, was not always a peaceful and migrant-friendly process.

187 comments:

Rob said...

There's no problem with using Anatolia Chalcolithic (4000 BC) as an outgroup for Khvalysnk (~ 4200 BC)?
(I know our choices are limited ats)

Davidski said...

You mean reference, not outgroup.

No, I don't think so. Lengyel_LN produces similar results and statistical fits, except is pushes up Caucasus_HG, because Anatolia_ChL already has some Caucasus_HG admix.

I'm pretty sure that already at ~5000 BCE there were groups like Anatolia_ChL near and maybe even on the southern fringes of the steppe.

Rob said...

That would be interesting, because the LN Greek (4000 BC) sample seemed to have very little ChG (ie only 10% or so).

Davidski said...

Anatolia_ChL-like groups may have pushed onto the steppe via the Caucasus, and picked up extra Caucasus_HG admix along the way. That's possibly why Iran Late Neolithic is a good fit for Khvalynsk, because it approximates this mixture.

Like I say, these models shouldn't be taken literally. The real mixture sources could have been two, three, four or even five, from the Balkans and Caucasus, and each one looking like something anywhere between Lengyel_LN and Caucasus_HG.

Davidski said...

Btw, keep in mind that Anatolia_ChL looks like a new arrival to Western Anatolia. Her ancestors came from somewhere further east, and were packing a lot of CHG compared to the Barcin Neolithic farmers.

Rob said...

Yes we recall
But it looks different still to Kum4 which looks to have come from northwest
A lot was happening

Davidski said...

I've added a few more models.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Armenian Copper Age works too.

Davidski said...

I'll add that too, and Lengyel_LN.

Aram said...

Armenia Chl has a mtdna match with Khvalynsk. The H2a1.
H2a1 was also found in CWC, BB, Vatya.

Davidski said...

Armenia_ChL also has mtDNA U4.

By the way, it's very interesting that I0434 is shifted too far "east" relative to Eastern_HG and Caucasus_HG on my plot. It basically seems like his model, which also includes some Anatolian or EEF-related ancestry, is plain wrong.

But that's probably because the Eastern_HG we've got are not a good proxy for his ancestry. I reckon he comes from an area where the Eastern_HG was more ANE-shifted, and if we had some samples like that they would cluster "east" of the Eastern_HG on the plot. They might also have a lot of Q1a.

That's why I think his qpAdm statistical fit is also worse than for the other two Khvalynsk samples.

So the question is, where did he or his population arrived from in the Samara region? My guess is from east of the Urals, where there might be more Near Eastern ancestry at around that time frame than west of the Urals. Pure speculation though; can't wait to see some samples from east of the Urals and Caspian dating to the Chalcolithic.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Armenia probably makes more sense, there doesn't look to be any European farmer in the Ukrainian from the same timeframe. We can probably rule that out and Balkan Copper was strictly trade.

Rob said...

""My guess is from east of the Urals, where there might be more Near Eastern ancestry at around that time frame than west of the Urals. Pure speculation though;"


I was picking that up too, but Sein vehemently disagreed

capra internetensis said...

I thought the Yamnaya-like one would be the one with H. Interesting. Is I4304 being pulled east by Siberian/Amerindian kind of stuff like Karelia_HG seems to have?

A Botai sample turned out to have K1b didn't it? That might indicate Near Eastern type ancestry.

Rob said...

Capra
Against that , western Yamnaya and catacomb are very U-something
Did "cHG" come from Kazakhstan ?

Aram said...

It is possible that Volga river was used as a trade highway. If You move North with Volga You will end up in Karelia. J in Karelia. Also mtdna H2a. It seems mtdna H2a has old presence in East Europe.

Shaikorth said...

Does I0434's fit improve if you add some less northwestern-shifted Near Eastern like Iran_N - or Satsurblia if CHG here is just Kotias - to the fit.

Grey said...

"Did "cHG" come from Kazakhstan ?"

http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20160523-kazakhstans-treasure-trove-of-wildly-flavoured-apples

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"I reckon he comes from an area where the Eastern_HG was more ANE-shifted, and if we had some samples like that they would cluster "east" of the Eastern_HG on the plot. They might also have a lot of Q1a."
Anthropologically, the region of Ural had its unique type of local hunter-gatherers with a substantial Siberian-Mongoloid admixture. It can be seen clearly in Kelteminar culture around the Aral sea (6000-4000BC). The materials from this group cluster well with Siberian series from Krasnoyarsk. Another feature of Kelteminar culture is the gracile Meditteranean type of women as opposed to robust EHG men (Terek-Kichiji settlement). By the way, any sign of Dravidian admixture in Khvalynsk? There were many Dravidian type skeletal remnants found in this area by Soviet anthropologists dating to late Neolithic. I even saw a number of reconstructions.

Nirjhar007 said...

By the way, any sign of Dravidian admixture in Khvalynsk? There were many Dravidian type skeletal remnants found in this area by Soviet anthropologists dating to late Neolithic. I even saw a number of reconstructions.

Come again? .

Matt said...

Related question, how do Steppe_EMBA model in qpAdm with ancestors as Samara_Eneolithic? The cline intersections seem different; where EHG-CHG cline works well, Samara_Eneolithic-CHG doesn't seem so fitting for Steppe_EMBA exactly: http://i.imgur.com/UoTR0KW.png

Seems like an interesting question because Samara_Eneolithic are the people who directly preceeded Yamnaya.

Although this said, as the Samara_Eneolithic samples are so dispersed, there's no way of knowing which if any of them was most typical, so that makes it uncertain to use them in modelling - R1b and Q1a are typical, then a "Balkan Farmer" population at low level (5%-15%ish) might make best fit for Yamnaya. If R1b is typical, then Armenia_BA / Anatolia_Chal would fit (at a similarly low level). If Q1a alone is typical, then you have the "virtue" of having Steppe_EMBA being on a simple cline through Steppe_LNBA and Europe_LNBA. Very uncertain and needs caution.

Olympus Mons said...

Yes...who had lots of Barcin and CHG by 4900 bc and was displaced from their land? ... Just wondering who?

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski.
Is Anatolia Chl the kum6? The shulaveri fleeing woman or other?

Rob said...

@ Matt

"Seems like an interesting question because Samara_Eneolithic are the people who directly preceeded Yamnaya."

They did not, at least not directly. Generally, the Eneolithic samples from Samara are of the Khvalnysk culture, which ends c. 4200/ 4000 BC.
Then after some gap, Repin appears in the Samara region (? 3600 BC), which evolves into one of the local groups of the Yamnaya culture from 33/3200 BC. It is difficult to conclude firmly, but Repin expands possible from the Don steppe/ forest-steppe border, and some 'impulses' from Majkop & C-T.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

1. "They did not, at least not directly. Generally, the Eneolithic samples from Samara are of the Khvalnysk culture, which ends c. 4200/ 4000 BC."
There is a substantial anthropological support for this hiatus: "Regular and varied in form interpopulation contacts that are documented in the Volga-Urals during the Neolithic and early Chalcolithic period, contributed to the formation (Khvalynsk time) of anthropologically homogeneous population in that era. This population was different in general from their western hypermorphic neighbors as it had more moderate skull dimensions.
Somewhere at the turn of the IV-III millennium BC, the representatives of this anthropological layer disappeared from the northern regions of the Samara-Volga region. Judging by Gundorovka burial ground in the area there again prevailed the Uraloid anthropological component. Perhaps, it dominated there until the emergence of mobile pastoralists of Yamnaya culture". (http://www.povolzie.archeologia.ru/19.htm)

2. Nirjhar007
http://slavanthro.mybb3.ru/viewtopic.php?t=689

Rob said...

@ Volodymyr

...and how would you describe Yamnaya cranially ?

Davidski said...

@Matt

Related question, how do Steppe_EMBA model in qpAdm with ancestors as Samara_Eneolithic?

Pretty good.

Yamnaya_Samara
Caucasus_HG 0.194
Eastern_HG 0.000
Lengyel_LN 0.141
Samara_Eneolithic 0.665
chisq 6.451 tail_prob 0.841664

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"...and how would you describe Yamnaya cranially ?"
It is quite heterogenous depending on the region. In general, the most common type would be mesocranic with elongated face of moderate to broad breadth. Recent reasearch suggests at least two major components: massive Dnieper-Donetsk or Baltic like hunter-gather + Maykop culture like Mediterranean. The former having a stronger influence than the latter. In the Northern Caspian region it included a substratum that had links to Southern Siberia (incredibly massive brachicranic Uraloid type). Later it was a unique feature of Adronovo culture.

Rob said...

@ Volod
Thanks, as expected.

Davidski said...

Maykop's got nothing to do with it.

The process started during the Khvalynsk period and the typical Yamnaya genotype already existed back then.

jv said...

Chapter 6 : Demographic and Cranial Characteristics of the Volga-Ural Population in the Eneolithic and Bronze (Khokhlov), A BRONZE AGE LANDSCAPE IN THE RUSSIAN STEPPES The Samara Valley Project(Anthony) compares Khvalynsk, Yamnaya, Poltavka, Potapovka & Srubnaya cranial characteristics.

Olympus Mons said...

So, now we are at Craniometrics are we?


I stick to Nmdental, much better. Take A V Zubova in saying for the last 5 years that those Karelia HG like people went as far south as Poland and the Balkans and that specific non metric dental traits, therefore genetics, is seen as far East as south Siberia in the Baraba forest ( forest steppe zone between the Ob and Irtysh rivers) itself in later periods and even in a specific site in South Turkmenistan. So, EHG baltic people that were the same as the Samara HG. - Was she wrong? What were we talking about a couple posts down?


Also I have been calling long for...


"A V Zubova. She does have several, some very recent. A 2011, apart from as expected be right on target about thinks later showed correct by later Adna papers, there is a PCA that has a very telling cluster (4,7, 11, 38).
It tells us that a Çatal Hoyuk (7th millennia BC ) nm dental traits population (or related) shows up at the northern plains of the Caucasus as a Neolithic Russian plain population (5th millennia) that became Yamnaya pit grave by 3rd millennia and later as Srubna culture 2nd millennia.
It also impressive how 3 and 12 cluster. So Çatal Hoyuk (late series) by 6 millennia so close to Pit Grave (Yamnaya) culture of Kalmykia 3rd millennia.

So, aren’t people looking for how the steppe got CHG and Levant DNA? "


Davidski said...

How about we stick to ancient DNA?

Azarov Dmitry said...

@Davidski
Maykop's got nothing to do with it.


Keep on repeating it. And when we get R1a-M417 from Maykop you’ll cry like baby.

Nirjhar007 said...

Its not about crying or laughing , winning or loosing . Its about knowing , the more you know the more you get free .

Rob said...

@ Dave
Yes, nothing trumps analysis of aDNA, but it has fit with the reality that there is no continuity between Khvalynsk & Yamnaya, typo-chronologically.
Also noted that only one of the Khvalynsk guys approximates later Yamnaya, and he is haplogroup Q, whilst later Yamnaya is Z2103 mostly, and no Q.

Altogether, it means we are seeing definite population shifts within the steppe itself, and the clues from craniometery were probably not so far off, but can be seen in concert with other evidences.

So i guess it depends on how nuanced an analysis we want. At a broad level, we are seeing a set of closely related populations existing by the Eneolithic (but going back perhaps even further back in time), captured here by your qpAdm calculations; but some would not be satisfied to rest with what might be just a veneer of analysis.

Davidski said...

It's obvious that the base genetic component on the Bronze Age steppe is EHG.

That's where the R1a and R1b are from, and these markers, plus EHG, expand out of the steppe in all directions during the Bronze Age.

Really not very difficult. And Dmitry Azarov is clearly insane.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"but it has fit with the reality that there is no continuity between Khvalynsk & Yamnaya, typo-chronologically."
There was a clear hiatus between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya cultures in that area. The original population disappeared long before Yamnaya and was substituted by distinctively different South-Siberian Uraloids.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

By the way, when may we expect any Maykop aDNA?

Rob said...

@ Dave
Yes I think we all agree that a broad EHG/ ANE base going back to the LUP-Meso-Neolithic subsumes and permeates all these groups . No issue there

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"No issue there"
Absolutely

Nirjhar007 said...

By the way, when may we expect any Maykop aDNA?

I heard today, that its on the way . Can't tell exact time though .

Matt said...

@ Rob, ah so there's an archaeological hiatus. I meant more direct relative to EHG, but yeah, I did not know about that, so thanks. I think it's hard to tell how much an archaeological hiatus actually means population genetic and population discontinuity though (e.g. some had thought that Euro HG cultures ceased totally and did not contribute, but then despite a lack of archaeological continuity, the component continues to increase through the Neolithic in Europe).

@ Davidski, cheers. How does that work with substituting CHG for Armenia_Chal / Anatolia_Chal? If at all.

Simon_W said...

Interesting, this Anatolia_Chalcolithic at Khvalynsk. To me this relaunches the possibility that PIE might have something to do with an area in eastern Anatolia. Sure, 19% isn't a lot, and the EHG is still in the majority, at Khvalynsk and in Yamnaya. BUT the migrants picked up some CHG on the way, and together, Anatolia_Chalcolithic + CHG is substantial. And take this together with the fact that the rare brother clade of R1b-L23, namely R1b-PF7562, which has about the same recent age as R1b-L23, has a distribution in Anatolia, Bulgaria-Belarus, Calabria. R1b-L23 and R1b-PF7562 split about 4500 BC. The former came to dominate Yamnaya, the latter has a suspiciously southern distribution.

-> We need to know what the Hittites were like, if they had any Steppe_EMBA ancestry. If they did, then the Steppe theory is fine. But if they didn't then it will be a serious hint that something is wrong with the steppe theory.

The point that Indo-Iranian seems to be from the steppe really isn't evidence against a PIE origin in eastern Anatolia, it never was. We have to be logical. Neither does heavy steppe ancestry in (at least some of) the ancient Greeks prove a steppe origin of PIE, if the ancestor of Anatolian IE had never been on the steppe. There's just too much confusion in the people's heads who believe that an Anatolian origin of PIE would mean that almost all branches of IE must have spread from Anatolia. That's faulty logic.

Now we could argue with the predominant opinion among linguists, which would be OK. But for sure not as compelling as ancient DNA from Anatolian IEs would be.

Ryan said...

"But that's probably because the Eastern_HG we've got are not a good proxy for his ancestry. I reckon he comes from an area where the Eastern_HG was more ANE-shifted, and if we had some samples like that they would cluster "east" of the Eastern_HG on the plot. They might also have a lot of Q1a."

David - are you able to see if adding Nganasan and/or AG3 as a references help? Or an ANE rich Beringian or Amerindian sample?

Palacista said...

@Simon
"The point that Indo-Iranian seems to be from the steppe really isn't evidence against a PIE origin in eastern Anatolia, it never was"

It really is. IE and Balto-Slav share the late satem innovation so they came from contiguous areas on the steppes as did the other branches that split off into separate speech communities before satemisation. So all the branches came from the steppes but is was not where IE originated?

It's hard to work out how an area like Eastern Anatolia with a history of very different languages produced IE.

Davidski said...

@Matt

Can't not have CHG in these models. Armenia and Anatolia ChL are interchangeable with Lengyel_LN, not with CHG.

Yamnaya_Samara
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 0.155
Caucasus_HG 0.172
Samara_Eneolithic 0.674
chisq 7.523 tail_prob 0.75528

Yamnaya_Samara
Armenia_Chalcolithic 0.222
Caucasus_HG 0.150
Samara_Eneolithic 0.628
chisq 8.509 tail_prob 0.667136

@Ryan

Taking AG3-MA1 from the outgroups to references improves the fit, but the standard errors are huge, so we're still missing something, and Nganasans, East Asians or Amerindians don't help. Might need something like Okunevo, but currently Okunevo is too low quality to use in this test.

Samara_Eneolithic:I0434
AG3-MA1 0.037
Anatolia_Chalcolithic 0.297
Caucasus_HG 0.235
Eastern_HG 0.430
chisq 8.058 tail_prob 0.528268

Davidski said...

He was stating that Anatolian languages could have split off in Anatolia with the rest of the IE stem moving to the steppe, and branching out as usual.

Pretty crazy stuff though. Why did they move specifically to the steppe, these proto-IE Anatolians?

Ryan said...

David - Wouldn't using Okunevo be a bit circular given that those Samara Eneolithic samples may be direct ancestors of Okunevo? And yah, I was just trying to think of what other ANE-rich samples are out there. Kets maybe?

Rob said...

@ Matt

(Rewriting my reply due to misspellings)

I think it means a lot in the nitty gritty of things; but in terms of the broad picture, it means the successors of Khvalynsk (perhaps Repin people from the next river basin over) were very similar, coming from a similar population pool. But I also think that's were bulk autosomal comparisons have their limit, as important as they are, and other lines of evidence like Haploid lineages, other anthropological traits and markers of individual mobility, and settlement evidence, come into play.

Rob said...

@ Dave

Are you asking why they migrated, and that its crazy to suggest so ?
Isn't that what weve been looking at for the last 10 years ?
But I'm sure grey can answer your question as to why- copper, animal dung , ....(?)

Davidski said...

I'm asking why they would specifically migrate to the steppe in such a short time, across very difficult terrain, and nowhere else? I can think of better immediate destinations for native Copper Age Anatolians than the steppes.

Another problem, of course, is that the steppes were already populated by a mixture of Eastern HG, Caucasus HG and Anatolian Chalcolithic-like people at that time.

So the whole thing just sounds like special pleading.

Davidski said...

@Ryan

Kets don't work.

Rob said...

@ David

The possibility of metal seekers moving to the Kuban is well documented and has been discussed on your blog ample
They might have also moved due west (as per the Anatolia Chalcolithic). But I agree that all the components required for Yamnaya might have already existed on or near the steppe itself

Davidski said...

My question wasn't why they moved to the steppe, but why did they move specifically to the steppe?

There wasn't any metal anywhere else for these Proto-Indo-Europeans? Seems hard to believe.

It looks like a one in a million scenario, or just an excuse to get the Indo-European homeland off the steppe.

Rob said...

I think you're needlessly moving into conspiracy theories. The people who first proposed such movements are archaeologists and anthropologists who often don't even concern themselves with questions of language

Mines in Afghanistan and Central Asia opened up much later, so hypothetically they moved to areas already familiar.

But whatever the case, Majkop metalwork is very different to that south of the Caucasus - it seems native and original; so any simple connection to the south is difficult

Davidski said...

No conspiracy, just irrational special pleading.

If there was a movement of Proto-Indo-Europeans from Anatolia to the steppe, then there should be evidence of more intensive movements of Proto-Indo-Europeans at the same time around the Near East.

Rob said...

There are : Tepe Hasar (Iran), Arslantepe (E Anatolia), Ilipinar (W Anatolia), Ezero, Majkop, etc
A whole half a continent is still poorly explored in terms of aDNA.

Davidski said...

There are : Tepe Hasar (Iran), Arslantepe (E Anatolia), Ilipinar (W Anatolia), Ezero, Majkop, etc

Which branches of Indo-European do these belong to?

Jaydeep said...

David,

Turning your logic around, can you give us a reason as to why the steppe people should migrate to places such as South Asia or Anatolia ? What is the reason ? Was the cold on the steppe too much for the Proto-Indo-Iranians that they went South ? And why did the Central Asians, South Asians and ancient Iranians, all inheritors of well-developed Bronze Age civilizations, should be so accomodating of these trifling strangers from the North that they would abandon all of their culture, religion and language for the the religion, culture and language of these small band of steppe migrants ?

You never seem to bother explaining this, do you ?

P.S. The theorising of Kuzmina and Anthony, about Sintashta being a site of Proto-Indo-Iranians is already difficult to sustain now, since we know that Yamnaya groups are a far better bit for a potential migration from the steppe into South Asia (if it ever happened), than these Sintashta samples. The R1a-Z93 in Sintashta, could well be 3rd or 4th generation migrants from Central Asia into the steppe. Sintashta does after all show evidence of contacts with the BMAC.

Rob said...

@ Dave

"Which branches of Indo-European do these belong to?"

I don't know as yet. It could not even be related to IE at all
But the fact is people weren't only migrating in and from the steppe. So until we get a complete analysis, this commentator will keep an open mind, even if the evidence from Europe and the steppe is more or less solid.

Ryan said...

@Jaydeep - They needed room to expand. Their way of life was successful and their population increased. That means a need for more space. They expanded in all directions.

Samuel Andrews said...

@JayDeep,

Why can't Sintashta' R1a be from Europe? Corded Ware was 99% R1a.

Jaydeep said...

You can say that for any large Bronze Age civilization that the people there needed room to expand. This is nothing specific of the steppe.

Jaydeep said...

Why should migration only be from the steppe into Central Asia ? Why could it not be the other way around ?

Why should we be so presumptive as to discount Central and South Asia entirely when we have had no aDNA from there ?

Ryan said...

They all wanted to @Jaydeep. Not everyone succeeded. I'm sure there was some two way flow genetically, but linguistically it seems to have been just one. And it wasn't just steppe to Central Asia. It was Steppe to Central Asia, West Asia, the Levant, Europe, North Africa and even China. It was an expansion in all directions.

And this is hardly an isolated incident. Other nomadic cultures succeeded the Indo-Europeans on the Steppe and had a wide impact. Turks, Mongols, Bulgars... the Indo-Europeans were not unique, just first.

Ryan said...

There's other cases of nomads over running more settled cultures too. Lots. The Akkadians, Aramaeans, Arabs, Dene...

postneo said...

I am not a firm believer of anatolian moving to steppe or anything else for that matter, butt even your questioning has so many implicit assumptions.

"I'm asking why they would specifically migrate to the steppe in such a short time,"
How do you know its a short time? do you have such high temporal resolution?

"across very difficult terrain, and nowhere else?"
how do you know its nowhere else, have you sampled all other places

"I can think of better immediate destinations for native Copper Age Anatolians than the steppes."
Sure how do you know they did not go there?

--------------

There are : Tepe Hasar (Iran), Arslantepe (E Anatolia), Ilipinar (W Anatolia), Ezero, Majkop, etc
Which branches of Indo-European do these belong to?

Forget about branches how do you know they are indo-european even? Perhaps they represented all branches or none. ...These are worthless questions.




Rob said...

@ Ryan
Do you want to hazard a guess how much genetic legacy the Huns or Avars left ?

Ariel said...

About Anatolia and IE, you just need to mention Hattians and the controversy is over.

Nirjhar007 said...

Anatolian branch, in simple sense, has some features, which are considered by various linguists as archaic and older than others , which advocate for a deep presence . So, SE Anatolia is a very crucial zone regarding the IE Issue . aDNA from those areas is very important , there can't be any 'controversy' in that.

Ariel said...

There were other people there, who spoke another language, end of the story. It's like saying that germanic languages came from Rome, it's nonsensical, the Hattians were there, they had a county, their written language, an army, a civilization. Where were the IE hiding? Under the ground, in the sky? Where?
And where the Hittes came from? How do you possibly explain that? They were there the all time? And remember that the same people should have been there for 2,3 thousand years before to explain the "native" anatolian branch in the first place.

Rob said...

@ Ariel

Playing devils advocate- we know there were Hattics there. How do you know which specific sample they came from (as they lived side by side)? How do you know Hattic language came from there to begin with ? Were Hattics descended from original Anatolian farmers, or some of the ChG shifted copper age people ?
Do you have a sequence of Hattic aDNA from 6000 BC to 1500 BC ?

Ariel said...

Rob

Can we agree that written language trumps dna? And Hittes and luwian for example were spoken exactly where the Hattians were. Even if you argue that before the Hattians there were other people, what are the odds that they were the same f%$@ing people that then came back to conquer the place were they were before, that make no sense at all... It's like saying that in England they spoke english before the romans came and brought latin, and then the anglosaxons brought back english replacing latin. It's stupid, it's all there is... It's the stupidest thing ever!

Ariel said...

And I don't care about no dna, what kind of dna you could find in eastern Anatolia that change the fact that they didn't spoke IE and we know that for a fact?

Rob said...

Ariel
Don't use profanities - this is only an exercise in historical linguistics, and you're not doing very well

The Athenians once claimed that they came from native Pelasgians ; so are we taking that to mean that Proto-Greeks are native to Greece ?

But in actual fact - can you point to any inscriptions which highlight that Hatti were natives since forever, and / or that Hitties or Luwians invaded ? Did you know there are Hittie inscriptions from broadly the same time as Hattic? Did you in fact know that the Hatti only appear in literature because of the Hittites ?

The fact that there were other languages in the near east isn't proof that IE came from somewhere else (eg steppe), unless one is deficient in lateral thinking
In fact, that has long been one of the arguements against the steppe hypothesis , Womb of Nations, etc: the upper near east & mountaious west Asia have long been characterised by a diversity of ethnie and languages with well developed social systems; with PIE being but one particularly successful one to spread to another staging post; like the steppe.

Lastly, if we are to take that PIE fort split c4000 BC; and this was from the steppe, can you point to which steppe culture was capable of invading Anatolia to such an extent that by the 3rd millennium IE languages were so prominent there ? Hint: the steppe was still full of fisher-foragers specialised to steppic riverine niches ..
they must have had some very powerful darts and slingshots

Ariel said...

Rob

You didn't answer to a simple question, in the same area that supposed to be the homeland of IE there were other people (the Hatti), that after some time were invaded by the Hittes (in every history books), if you still belive that IE was there before the invading Hatti than you have to belive that the Hittes (the IE) reconquer their own land. Just like if in England they spoke English before the romans. On that subject from "The Indo-European Controversy: Facts and Fallacies in Historical Linguistics" https://postimg.org/image/7jrpgyp35/

postneo said...

Ariel said...

Oh so hattic inscriptions from some parts of anatolia are supposed to tell us that what all chalcolithic anatolians from thousands of years earlier spoke.

anatolia speaks turkic today and we know they have that for a just over 1000 years. But going by your logic ot should have been spoken there since the bronze age.

Rob said...

I did answer your question but you missed it
Quote the specific line which states that Hitties invaded from a far away land ?!
All it states is that they took Kanesh. Conflict over srategic towns and capitals is normal - but it's not proof of being "foreign", or more foreign

Rob said...

In WW1, sources report that Russia and Austria fought over Tannenburg. To whomever it originally belonged to, all sides here were more or less "local"

Ariel said...

It wasn't about the invasion, it was about the contradiction of a the supposed native population (the Hittes) ruling over the supposed invaders (the Hatti) and calling the land as the name of the invading population.

postneo said...

@Ariel

Persians attacking greece and alexander invading persia are not indo europeans reconquering their own land. they are completely different cultures speaking mutually unintelligible languages without any clue or memory of linguistic links.

Anyway I gotta go

Rob said...

@ Ariel

Your claim doesn't set who was first between Hittites and Hatti in any way. For all i think, both could descend from "foreigners", or Hatti could be Neolithic remnants & Hittites could be Copper Age invaders - I have no issue with that.
Ethnicity back then only mattered to elites & their armies, so the Hatti & Hittites could be enemy clans who use their distinct langauges to maintain separation - it doesn;t prove that Hatti were there first in anyway. Hence my retort to your original statement " you just need to mention Hattians and the controversy is over". It does nothing of the sort.

Scholars have long debated the origins of the Anatolian branch, and Hittites especially. All they can conclude, at present, is that IE kingdoms were established in the plateau by late M3, along a host of other non-IE kingdoms. For the record, I *don't* think that IE comes from Neolithic Anatolia (if that's what you were concerned about), but it could have come from an invading Copper Age group. Both of the post-Neolithic samples from Anatolia show marked shifts compared to early Anatolian farmers. So as I said, a lot was happening south of the Black Sea too, but we're still pretty much in the dark about it.

But as something to think about- if IE kingdoms had been established by 2200, the linguistic evidence would suggest that they had already been diverging for at least 1, 000 years, and had come from a single proto-Anatolian group; which correlates when early Bronze Age centres like Kanesh, Troy, etc begin (c. 3200 BC).

Jaydeep said...

Ryan,

There is only real evidence of movement into Europe from the steppe. However, so far there is no evidence forthcoming of any 2nd millenium BC steppe movement into Central Asia, South Asia or Iran. All we have is evidence of contacts and speculation of one way linguistic transfer.

Is it mere co-incidence that the Yamnaya or steppe_EMBA come out as the best source of steppe incursion into South Asia ? Or could it be so because the steppe_EMBA it self could be modelled as receiving admixture from Iran_Chl, as per Lazaridis et al ?

What Lazaridis et al produced was a very strong evidence for a Southern movement into Yamnaya ? However, without aDNA from Central or South Asia we cannot prove any suppossed movement of steppe people into those regions.

---------

As for the Turks and Mongols, they did rule over Central Asia & Iran for centuries. What was the eventual outcome ? Most of the people in these regions still speak Iranian languages and they follow Islam. Infact, the Turks and Mongols were singularly unsuccessful in spreading their religion but instead got converted to Islam which prevailed in Central Asia & Iran. How is this comparable to the postulated Indo-European migration which (if it happened) totally transformed the religious and linguistic landscape of the vast regions of Central Asia, South Asia & Iran

Davidski said...

@Jaydeep

However, so far there is no evidence forthcoming of any 2nd millenium BC steppe movement into Central Asia, South Asia or Iran.

Of course there is. You're just denying it.

But the fact that you're denying it, isn't going to change anything, because this has already happened.

Ric Hern said...

I think the Neolithic Anatolian and Neolithic Iranian samples basically tells the whole story. No R1a or R1b in them.Amen.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"Why did they move specifically to the steppe, these proto-IE Anatolians?"
I would blame a number of climatic changes that devasted the Middle East between 3700BC and 3100BC. The steppe area was still sparsely populated at those times and attracted new migrants in hordes. This natural catastrophe in the Middle East clearly corresponds to the timeline of Yamnaya culture formation. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S027737911530127X

Grey said...

Jaydeep

"Turning your logic around, can you give us a reason as to why the steppe people should migrate to places such as South Asia or Anatolia ? What is the reason ?"

Same reason the Mongols, Huns etc did - and not only the same reason but the same mechanism - cavalry dominance.

#

"Infact, the Turks and Mongols were singularly unsuccessful in spreading their religion but instead got converted to Islam which prevailed in Central Asia & Iran. How is this comparable to the postulated Indo-European migration which (if it happened) totally transformed the religious and linguistic landscape of the vast regions of Central Asia, South Asia & Iran"

So moving on from the reason why (obvious) to the relative impact - what was the population density of the farmers in the IE era compared to their density in the Mongol era 3,000 years later?

Maybe even at a Mongol rate of killing they simply couldn't kill enough farmers to have the same demographic impact as the IE - given the nomad populations were always small.

small numbers of nomads vs small number of farmers

vs

small numbers of nomads vs huge numbers of farmers

Matt said...

Jaydeep Why should we be so presumptive as to discount Central and South Asia entirely when we have had no aDNA from there ?

Whether its discounting, we should be honest that at the moment South Central Asia seems unattractive as a source for Yamnaya. The offsets from CHG that the Yamnaya have are in the opposite direction from what you would expect from South Central Asia vs Iran and Caucasus during the Chalcolithic, based on Iran_Hotu and the likelihood of much enriched East Asian and Onge affinity further to Iran_Hotu. They are more towards Levant_N and Anatolia_N than CHG is.

Of course, it would be great to have reinforce with adna from Kelteminar Culture, BMC, etc. But huge gaps still exist elsewhere - Balkans, Ukraine, Italy and Spain south of their northern limits, the Caucasus north of Armenia at a time after the Upper Paleolithic.

Al Bundy said...

Davidski does the next big paper concern itself with Central Asia,South Asia, and Iran?

Al Bundy said...

@Matt Anthony puts the PIE split with Anatolian ca 4200 BC and Yamnaya is dated ca 3500 3000 BC.Another steppe group brought the language to Anatolia is that what seems to have happened?

Davidski said...

@Al Bundy

There are at least three papers being put together or waiting to be published. I have some basic details about two of them from several sources, but can't divulge all the info.

- Bell Beaker origins. It looks like Bell Beakers came from steppe-derived cultures, but after that things get complicated and maybe even confusing. We'll hopefully see the basics publicly revealed soon, and the paper published within a couple of months at most, and then Olympus Mons can find another hobby.

- Population history of South Asia based on ancient and new modern-day samples. Expect the expected here, in other words, South Asians are a mixture of Mesolithic South Asian foragers, Neolithic farmers from Iran, and Indo-Europeans from the steppe. Should be out by the middle of the year, and then Nirjhar and Jaydpeep can find other hobbies.

Not really sure what the third paper is about, but there is one as per the Dr Patterson I presume post...

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/dr-patterson-i-presume.html

Samples from Minoan and Mycenaean Greece, Maykop, new samples from all over the Bronze Age steppe and Upper Paleolithic and Mesolithic Eurasia, and new samples from the Near East are either ready or being processed, but I don't know which papers they'll be in exactly.

Grey said...

Rob

"But I'm sure grey can answer your question as to why- copper"

quite - glad to see you're coming round to the relevance of copper sources to this issue (in addition to horses).

Clearly if you look at Samara bend in terms of the copper field at Kargaly it's the perfect spot for a trading settlement - rivers to Samara down from the watershed on the west edge of Kargaly and then from Samara on to both the Baltic and Black Sea.

Like you (before the R1b HG ydna) i also assumed the direction of flow would be south to north with the default assumption that something like metalwork would flow from more civilized -> less civilized. However the Samara R1b ydna being steppe HG currently suggests that maybe wasn't the case.

So how could it have been north to south?

metallurgy 201 - mining and smelting
but
metallurgy 101 - native soft metals and cold hammering

i.e. metallurgy 101 isn't determined by more civilized vs less civilized it's determined by the presence of native soft metals that don't need mining or smelting.

aka completely random - metallurgy 101 starts wherever native soft metals are

(there was an HG tribe in Namibia during the colonial era recorded as copper workers for the same reason - they happened to be live on a native copper deposit)

maybe it will turn out the opposite way but currently i think Kargaly was an early center of metallurgy 101 which hit a brick wall due to lack of wood and the Kargaly metalworkers moved south (and east and west) with their hammer pendants and red hair thus starting metallurgy 201 in a semi-circle around the origin in places with both copper and wood.

if correct the ancestral west European R1b (or at least some of it) will be found in the river valley north of Orenburg

http://www.envsec.org/maps/032.jpg

#

Davidski

"There wasn't any metal anywhere else for these Proto-Indo-Europeans?"

the sources of native soft metal i.e. the stuff you can pick off the ground or fish out of rivers without any mining - are much rarer

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_metal

"Only gold, silver, copper and the platinum metals occur in nature in larger amounts."

but that speaks against the flow being south to north - metal workers from a region with copper but no wood have an incentive to move to nearby regions with both copper and wood but not vice versa

#

personally i think this issue speaks to the default assumption about civilization being wrong i.e. that the regions who dominated civilization 201 (in the western part of the world that meaning middle east and Egypt) being assumed to have dominated civilization 101 also

i think civilization 101 was more random, determined by who happened to live on the relevant resources and then all the individual developments spread out along trade routes and as a result those regions which were geographical crossroads got all the pieces of the puzzle first - hence becoming the epicenter of civ 201.

Al Bundy said...

@Davidski Thanks

Ric Hern said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cernavod%C4%83_culture

Nirjhar007 said...

Dave,

Should be out by the middle of the year, and then Nirjhar and Jaydpeep can find other hobbies.

I think You must have a retirement plan ready for yourself , don't risk it , oh yes.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski,
Not much separates you from a cult wannabe leader. so surf the wave of "super uber papers the will come and destroy the galaxy" while it works.

Olympus Mons Hobby is about the importance of Shulaveri-Shomu culture in the context of future Dna admix in north caucasus, in north Egypt (merimde and El omari) and even western Iberia (namely Portugal.in 4th millennia). North Anatolia will have it as well by a good amount. Obviously in a much lesser extent also in local south caucasus, a slight component in Uruk and even northern Iran probably. - All that as been said and written in the last year just makes me closer to being right than being wrong.

André de Vasconcelos said...

We should be careful when referring to cavalry and its military advantage, especially when using words like 'dominance', when used this early in history.

As far as we know horses were first domesticated - and what 'domesticated' means is debatable - by the Botai culture around 3500BCE, although it could have happened elsewhere and earlier, but there's no evidence for that. Considering the time frame we're dealing with here horses were nowhere as developed as today, they were much smaller, wild, unspecialized, and bred for different uses. There were no saddles that we know of, and certainly no stirrups (which aren't as important as most people think, the Scythians, Celts and Numidians didn't use them, and they seemed to do alright) so imagining burly 1,80m men riding these 'ponies' into battle without any of the gear of later ages seems just awkward, and most likely did not happen. There's a reason animals are mostly used to drag things, it's what they are natural and physically good at, and why they were used with ploughs, wagons and chariots. There's a reason why the spoked wheel was so important.

I'm not saying there was no horse riding, we know there was, but to equate that with a cavalry force like in the late classical period and early middle ages is very probably just wrong. They could have use them while chucking pointy things at their enemies from a limited distance and running away to keep safe, but that's about it. For instance, during the Trojan War mounted horses were mostly used as messangers and scouts, not actual fighters. Aditionally, when assaulting a fortified position cavalry is useless, you are not going to go over a wall-of-sorts on the back of a horse. They are great for raiding though.


So, in conclusion, I'm very skeptical about this massive cavalry advantage steppe cultures had in a military context against over cultures they were at odds with.

Ric Hern said...

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ezero_culture

Olympus Mons said...

@davidski,
And you dont even have to read my thesis. Just go to http://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/ and I am very clear and detailed on how it went down!

Not vague brushes of a painting of unkonwns like the ones you posit, based on small amounts of adna found here, another found there a 1000 years later, another 1000 years earlier 2000 kM away. - Strange difficulties with concepts of space and time.

Davidski said...

Start looking around for a new hobby. You'll need it in about a month or so.

Nirjhar007 said...

You know Dave, retirement is way more relaxing , without all those fuss and worries , think about it .

Ric Hern said...

André:

I think using the horse for travel conserved the energy of the warrior. Compare a footsoldier having to carry most of his own gear and walking for kilometre and a "riding footsoldier",even on a pony who did not need to walk and carry his own gear.....

Rob said...

@ Andre

You're quite correct. There's no real evidence for warrior horsemen until the second millennium. Certainly, nothing remotely like the Huns or Avars existed in 3300 Bc .
There were little horses in Yamnaya, which appear to have been characterised by wagons, specialising in cattle.
All pretty old stuff

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski,
You do realize the the more you say it, the more scared you seemed to be. - Don't! we will all be understanding and not diminish the work you did thus far. Its ok to be wrong to some extent. Just calm down.

PS: Have you figure out the problem Reich is having with the Copenhagen lab findings on BB?

Jaydeep said...

David,



"The archaeological evidence for an expansion from the steppelands across historical Iran and India varies from the extremely meagre to total absence: both the Anatolian and the Kurgan theory Wnd it extraordinarily diYcult to explain the expansion of the Indo- European languages over a vast area of urbanized Asian populations, approximately the same area as that of Europe."

The above is a quote from Mallory, whom I presume you're well aware of.

Olympus Mons said...

And regarding BB - Any paper can have even 1000 BB samples full of SNPs, however if does not have samples from before 2500 BC and bellow parallel 45 dna is worthless in determining the origin of Bell beakers.

Davidski said...

Have you figure out the problem Reich is having with the Copenhagen lab findings on BB?

Apparently, the Reich and Willerslev teams have merged their efforts and there will be one paper not two. So it seems they worked things out, whatever the issue was.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2016/12/bell-beaker-behemoth-coming-real-soon.html

And there's absolutely no indication in the results that I've seen that Bell Beakers can be sourced from Armenia and surrounds, or that their ancestors migrated to Europe via Africa. This is all pure fantasy.

Davidski said...

@Jaydeep

The above is a quote from Mallory, whom I presume you're well aware of.

But the genetic data obviously contradicts Mallory. Why do you ignore this fact?

And why didn't you answer Samuel's question?

Why should Sintashta R1a derive from Central Asia, when the much older and very closely related Corded Ware culture was already 99% R1a?

Are you suggesting that there were two different sources for the R1a in Sintashta, a European one and a Central Asian one, and only the European one left its mark on the autosomal DNA of Sintashta?

You have to be realistic: no one in their right mind is going to listen to you, when you engage in such desperate special pleading.

And what about the comments from Matt above? He just said what I've been telling you for months. Any reason why you keep ignoring these facts?

Whether its discounting, we should be honest that at the moment South Central Asia seems unattractive as a source for Yamnaya. The offsets from CHG that the Yamnaya have are in the opposite direction from what you would expect from South Central Asia vs Iran and Caucasus during the Chalcolithic, based on Iran_Hotu and the likelihood of much enriched East Asian and Onge affinity further to Iran_Hotu. They are more towards Levant_N and Anatolia_N than CHG is.

Olympus Mons said...

@Volodymyr Lutsyk,
The paper mentions Katie Manning work. Have you read it? Have you seen the Mp4 animation at the end regarding the population hotspots rising and vanishing in north Africa as the climatic events unfold?

to me is incredible how people ignore those 3000 years of North Africa history and its impact in Europe and the rest of the nearby regions.

People Ignore how diverse and from such regions as the levant and even caucasus those populations also were, and above all what do people think happen to them, hundreds of thousands, after the "birth of the Sahara" event, the 5.9Kiloyear event, as Katie manning shows, they all mostly vanished - Did they just lay down and died in the Forth millennia?

Karl_K said...

@Jaydeep

Why do you feel the need to discount very clear data (although not at all perfect) to chase obviously incorrect conclusions?

Have you no interest in science? Is this just a hobby to waste your idle time?

Olympus Mons said...

...

"And there's absolutely no indication in the results that I've seen that Bell Beakers can be sourced from Armenia and surrounds, or that their ancestors migrated to Europe via Africa. This is all pure fantasy"


None. At least in your mind. its not even a very difficult reasoning - If BB are from Iberia (were not?) and Iberia chalcolithic had a rise of population IMPOSSIBLE to be from local pop increase (each having 20 surviving kids?) arriving with carinated pottery, arrows and blade making typical of south Caucasus/eastern Mediterranean/north Africa, at a time that large amounts of populations were vanishing from North Africa (hundredth of thousands)... what is the fantasy part, Sherlock?

and, sure, None... the L1b in a bell beaker, the spurious SSA whiff of SSA found in some bell beakers, the arrows and tendency for large useless (until copper) "canadean" lever pressure blade from south Caucasus... completely impossible sherlock, completely impossible.

Blasonario Cremonese said...

Davidski wrote:

"- Bell Beaker origins. It looks like Bell Beakers came from steppe-derived cultures, but after that things get complicated and maybe even confusing. We'll hopefully see the basics publicly revealed soon, and the paper published within a couple of months at most, and then Olympus Mons can find another hobby."

I really am curious about that "after that things get complicated and maybe confusing"... perhaps, R1b was present in Iberia from the beginning and without steppe admixture?

Seinundzeit said...

Matt,

I completely agree.

But, as David noted with Samara_Eneolithic:I0434, and as Rob originally claimed for the Srubnaya_outlier, some of these people seem to have had extra ANE ancestry (over what EHG possessed), which they might (possibly) have received (ultimately) from Central Asia.

In fact, this is why I find Iran_Hotu to be such an interesting sample. It constitutes solid/ambiguous evidence for this kind of dynamic, but to the south of the Eurasian steppes.

I mean, based on the evidence we currently have, it seems that Iran_Hotu sits on a Zagros Neolithic-to-Ancestral North Eurasian cline.

So, I'd say it's only reasonable to assume that those ANE-related populations (the ones towards which Iran_Hotu deviates, when compared to the Zagros pastoralists) are going to be found (eventually) in Central Asia.

Also, Iran_Neolithic itself ultimately received its ANE ancestry from somewhere else (I'm thinking that perhaps ANE wasn't "native" to the western Iranian plateau, that kinda seems somewhat unlikely). Again, Central Asia looks like a logical candidate.

For what it's worth, at the moment (looking at the current evidence, which could go in many different directions. Who really knows what we'll find, with further sampling), I think "native" Mesolithic foragers from South Central Asia (Tajikistan, Uzbekistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan west of the Indus river + northern Pakistan, etc) might possibly turn out to be 60% Iran_Neolithic + 40% ANE.

Perhaps, it's also possible that foragers from the Indus valley and Gangetic plain will be construable as this sort of ancient South Central Asian population + substantial "ASI".*

Of course, none of these populations will have any "actual" Iran_Neolithic ancestry, but they will (perhaps) be construable as such, since Iran_Hotu is best modeled as 80% Iran_Neolithic + 20% ANE (in the basic analyses I've tried).

Basically, to sum things up, I'm claiming that "Central Asia proper" was perhaps home to predominantly ANE populations during the Mesolithic (maybe even later than that), and it's possible that these Central Asian "ghost" populations left a substantial genetic legacy in South Central Asia, and also left a genetic mark on a few steppe samples (Q1a Samara_Eneolithic individual, Srubnaya_outlier, etc. Especially Srubnaya_outlier). Complex networks of gene-flow going south, west, north, and east.

Although, that doesn't really change anything.

I mean, Sintashta R1a is obviously very closely related to Corded Ware R1a, and I do think that R1a and R1b are "native" to Eastern Europe.

Those Central Asian ANE-related populations probably harbored R2, the unique Q lineages that still exist in South Central Asia, the extremely "basal/divergent" R1b still found around India/Nepal, etc. But most contemporary European R1b, and Corded Ware/Sintashta/Andronovo/modern South Asian R1a, ultimately comes from Eastern Europe.

And, that paper David mentioned will be exceedingly interesting, it'll provide so much clarification.

*Note: ASI, as per Lipson and Reich (personal communication), seems to be near/at the East Asian/Onge split, with an ambiguous position in relation to both.

And, that's based on analyses using peninsular Indians. We already know that South Central Asians (and northern South Asians) skew even harder towards East Asians (versus the Onge), when compared to South Indians/scheduled caste North Indians.

Davidski said...

@Blasonario Cremonese

I really am curious about that "after that things get complicated and maybe confusing"... perhaps, R1b was present in Iberia from the beginning and without steppe admixture?

Well, R1b-V88 was present in Iberian Neolithic farmers. But that has been known for a while.

I don't know about other types of R1b in pre-Bronze Age Iberia. They might be there too, if we look hard enough.

But no, in all likelihood, modern Iberian R1b-M269 came from the east with steppe ancestry during the Bronze Age.

Jaydeep said...

Matt,

I am assuming that you're referring to the EEF admixture in Yamnaya.

This does not discount Central Asia as a source for the southern component in Yamnaya. There are still 2 possibilities :-

1. It has been argued by many archaeologists that there is evidence of movement from NE Iran into Central Asia during the 4th millennium BC. The people in NE Iran could have had Anatolian_N admixture just like Iran_Chl, albeit with a smaller proportion. Therefore Central Asians moving on the steppe could already have Anatolian_N/EEF admixture required to contribute to Yamnaya.

Alternately, as Mariya Ivanova has shown, there is evidence of contacts of Maykop people with Central Asian cultures, showing movement of material culture from Central Asia into Maykop. This may well represent the intrusion of language and religion from Central Asia into Maykop which then got transmitted onto the steppe.

2. The second possibility is that there was an admixture of steppe HG populations with some EEF populations from the West from Europe as well as admixture from a Southern population coming from Central Asia.

Seinundzeit said...

Correction: unambiguous, not "ambiguous" (lol, I rush too quickly when I write this stuff).

Olympus Mons said...

Yes davidski... I agree with you that i am right and s does Johannes krause from the Max Planck, that the shulaveri (how do you like Kum6?) dispersal by 4.9 BC was the source of the CHG and levant in the steppe...

Olympus Mons said...

Oh boy...you re in for a surprise...!

ak2014b said...

@Rob
"There's no real evidence for warrior horsemen until the second millennium. Certainly, nothing remotely like the Huns or Avars existed in 3300 Bc ."

I believe Kuzmina and other archaeologists specifically pointed out there were no warrior horse riders in the steppes until the end of the 2nd millennium Bc.

There is evidence of warrior horse riders well before the end of the 2nd millennium bc elsewhere, beyond the steppes, however, as seen in the 3rd millennium bc Jiroft culture of Iran. A Jiroft sculpture is of a man riding a horse, carrying a spear in one hand and holding the reins of his horse's bridle in the other. A warrior horse rider, in other words. The sculpture is from before the start of the Sintashta culture. And Sintashta was anyways not known for warrior horse riders, as is apparent from Kuzmina and the others' insistence on a far later date (of over a thousand years later) for warrior horse riders on the steppes.

If Sintashta is the genesis of Indo-Iranians, it follows Jiroft in Iran could not have got warrior horse riding from Indo-Iranians. Nor could Jiroft have got it from elsewhere on the steppe, since the phenomenon is only attested in the steppe much later. So its presence in Jiroft would then be pre-Indo-Iranian and also otherwise pre-steppe, and may reflect indigenous Jiroft culture of warrior horsemen. Perhaps by the end of the 2nd millennium bc, this culture had trickled into the steppes.

ak2014b said...

"Perhaps by the end of the 2nd millennium bc, this culture had trickled into the steppes."
Of course I meant only "this culture of warrior horse riding" specifically. I don't care to guess at the transfer of any other cultural innovations.


@Seinundzeit
"Note: ASI, as per Lipson and Reich (personal communication), seems to be near/at the East Asian/Onge split, with an ambiguous position in relation to both."

Is that definition for ASI in any way similar to the definition for ANE from Lazaridis et al 2016? Unless I'd misunderstood, didn't the Lazaridis pre-print indirectly define ANE as being on the Onge->Han cline? If I did understand it correctly, then is it the specific "position in relation to both (Onge and East Asian)" or the distinction between Han and East Asian that which distinguishes Lipson and Reich's definition for ASI from Lazaridis et al 2016's implied definition of ANE?

I inferred the ANE definition from the following three segments in Lazaridis et al 2016:

a) Page 10 of the Lazaridis et al 2016 pre-print:
Eastern Hunter Gatherers (EHG) derive ~3/4 of their ancestry from the ANE (Supplementary Information, 318 section 11);

b) Page 145 of the paper's Supplementary Information:
The “Ghost” population may correspond to Ancient North Eurasians
We were curious to see if the population represented by the MA1 Upper Paleolithic Siberian2 could be the “Ghost” population, as it shares more alleles with EHG than with other European hunter-gatherers3 and there is a cline of shared genetic drift with it in East Asia2. Testing Left=(EHG, WHG, MA1), we weakly reject rank=1 (P=0.041). Fig. S11.2 shows a modeling of EHG as a mix of 71% MA1 and 29% WHG, although the regression is driven wholly by statistics involving the Switzerland_HG outgroup. The mixture proportions resemble the ~3/4 “Ghost” and ~1/4 “WHG” inferred for EHG (Table S11.5) and we think it is plausible that an “Ancient North Eurasian”-related population (which, however may not be exactly represented by MA1) was the “Ghost” population.


c) p.23 of the Lazaridis et al 2016 pre-print:
(f) Eastern European hunter-gatherers (EHG) are a mixture of WHG and a population on the Onge→Han cline.

Matt said...

Jaydeep: not so much EEF admixture in Yamnaya in ADMIXTURE or qpAdm as the statistical offsets where the CHG+EHG doesn't quite fit for Yamnaya which are most pronounced for Anatolia and Levant Early Farmers.

Yes, either of your scenarios seem within the realm of the possible (as we have no definitive data about what was even happening in SCA or Ukraine at this time), just seem far less likely and more complex to me at the moment than more local population flow through Caucasus. I would think that Iran Chal->SCA->Yamnaya would pick up at least some admixture on route through SCA and I would expect that this would be in the wrong direction. OTOH, there's what Sein says (sorry, Sein only had time to skim that briefly today, so can't offer any comment).

That said, the only thing I find troubling about a local flow through Caucasus is that in Lazaridis's models Armenia_Chl, closer in time and closer in space, does not work where Iran_Chl does... but possibly this is a) a matter of getting a better local population from north of Armenia about the same time, b) because Armenia_Chl had already experienced geneflow from the steppe and anatolia which would make it a worse proxy for the original admixture onto the steppe, or c) maybe Davidski has found something contradicting this already which I can't remember.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

OM,

You're in for a big surprise when you see Iberian Beaker is no different than the preceding population. Zero....zero links to the Caucasus.

Matt said...

By the way, slightly off topic, been trying some more modeling of European population history using the Globe10+Days of High Adventure merge sheets with nMonte:

Calc populations*: Steppe_EMBA (average of Afanasievo, Yamnaya, Poltvaka), Anatolia_N (average of Barcin_N and Mentese_N), Iberia_M, Loschbour, Motala_H, Ukraine_N1, Hungary_HG, Karelia_HG

European target populations: Basque French, Basque_Spanish, Belarusian, Bosnian, Bulgarian, Croatian, Czech, Dutch, English_Cornwall, French, Germany, Hungarian, Irish, Italian_North, Latvian, Lithuanian, Macedonian, Norwegian, Polish, Russian_West, Sardinian, Scottish, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Ukrainian_West

Calc chosen to represent the Mesolithic HG, plus Steppe and Barcin_N. Difference from what I've previously run in avoiding using Kotias rather than the more proximate Steppe_EMBA.

Results:

Unsorted (alphabetical order) - http://i.imgur.com/inI5BLV.png
By Anatolia_N:local HG ratio - http://i.imgur.com/khLnAsv.png
By Anatolia_N:Steppe_EMBA ratio - http://i.imgur.com/h2cckSc.png
By local HG:steppe_EMBA ratio - http://i.imgur.com/wkmd3vC.png

For Anatolia_N vs local HG - contrast biggest between South Balkans (least local HG relative to Anatolia) and Northeast Europe (most relative to Anatolia), West and Central Europeans intermediate).

For Anatolia_N vs Steppe_EMBA - contrast biggest between SW European (least steppe_EMBA relative to Anatolia) and Northwest Europe (most steppe_EMBA relative to Anatolia), Eastern Europeans all fairly intermediate.

For Steppe_EMBA vs local HG - contrast biggest between NW European and South Balkans (least local HG relative to steppe) and Northeast Europe, Basques and Sardinians (most local hg relative to Steppe_EMBA).

Local HG in Northeast European may literally represent late pottery neolithic predominantly HG ancestry cultures, or may be Western Yamnaya as Davidski has suggested, which may have participated possibly less in migrations to Southeast and Northwest Europe.

* calc also originally included Latvia_MN1, Latvia_MN2, but I found these contributed to no more than 3 Scandinavian/ Germanic populations and at no more than 2% at most, with no improvement to distance, so removed them.

Matt said...

To explain why I think this happens, visually, using the PC1 and PC2 of the PCA (Days of High Adventure based) that Davidski has uploaded for this post, see - http://i.imgur.com/xIluyUW.png.

Once you draw an Anatolia_N to Steppe_EMBA cline, you find that to fit modern Europeans, even though only a very small additional shift is necessary, the cline you have to draw seem to have endpoints which intersects with local Euro HGs.

Seems to be the case also whether you alternatively use a cline from Europe_MN_Chl to Steppe_EMBA - - http://i.imgur.com/uTOjppN.png - or Europe_LNBA to Steppe_MLBA - http://i.imgur.com/WX4YstC.png (difference being those are less able to fit a wider variety of European populations).

Of course there is some extra information in the higher dimensions that chooses between interchangeable clines in PC1 and PC2. But it is probably driven mostly by this pattern in PC1 and PC2.

Not sure if these clines always get it right for all populations though - I was finding when I tried to apply nMonte to Sintashta that it weirdly picked up as having Iberia_Mesolithic ancestry. If you look at the clines that could fit Sintashta, you see that there's a plausible cline for Sintashta (a 75:25 Steppe_EMBA:MNChl mix with some extra East European HG) and an implausible cline (80:20 Steppe_EMBA:MNChl mix with some Iberia_Mesolithic). See - http://i.imgur.com/P8YPWqs.png. A very small difference (maybe in the higher dimensions) was making nMonte pick up the implausible one with Iberia_Mesolithic.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

Maykop culture will be incredibly interesting because of its heterogenous nature. Anthropologically, its closest analogies are to be found in Chalcolithic Southern Turkmenistan (4000 BC) and multiple groups of Yamna and Catacomb cultures (Ukraine, Volga-Ural, Kalmykia). I am sure it will pack quite some EHG element. http://www.archaeology.nsc.ru/ru/publish/journal/doc/2010/411/16.pdf

Samuel Andrews said...

@JayDeep,

About our debate of where the R1a Z93 in Sintashta is from. Here's more evidence it is from Europe: The nuclear DNA and mtDNA between Sintashta and Yamnaya is Sintashta had European EEF and WHG admixture. Sintashta had ancestry from deep in Europe, west of Russia, where Corded Ware lived.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

I think that the only reason Iran_CA works better is due to the need for excess CHG in the southern steppes and Ukraine, prior to the arrival of grains and animals. That is pretty clear from the Ukrainian hunters we have. I only expect that input to rise as we get closer to remains from Crimea and Mariupol, and such. If you model Yamnaya as Khvalynsk and Armenian CA, it needs a little more CHG. Which is perfectly fine as the Kuban and SE Ukrainian hunters are probably between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya already. It is only if you go EHG + Iran_CA that the fit looks okay, but it is pretty clear, IMO, that Yamnaya doesn't come from a pure EHG group to begin with.

Maykop and Novosobodnaya are probably just a little more CHG and EHG than Armenians, which will fix a lot of these fits. Although, my opinion is that Yamnayan ancestors are already almost fully admixed to their Bronze Age levels before Maykop even exists. Maykop is likely a trade partner, but unlikely to offer much in the way of genes. Ukrainian hunters and Khvalynsk show us that geneflow is not required to have metal goods from another group, such as Balkan farmers. The same may also apply to Maykop.

Olympus Mons said...



! You're in for a big surprise when you see Iberian Beaker is no different than the preceding population. Zero....zero links to the Caucasus”


Chad… we had agreed to ignore each other. And I should ignore you. But this is too good to let go. So, let me enlighten you. First remember this – Kum6! Shocked?

a. So Original BB were from preceding pop? Isn’t it what I and many others have been saying? Roth, J. desideri, anyone with an IQ above 100 and so forth? So, no incoming raiding horseman from the steppe, or super fleets of sailors? What a lovely spin and so many more are coming here in eurogenes in the near future– a big LOL.

b. What preceding Pop? The preceding pop is the late Neolithic arriving carenated Potery and arrows people that repopulated all Iberia during the 4th millennia, and among those were the aDna of central Portugal BB. Yeah no shit Sherlock. This people had little to do with surrounding Europeans. So, a mystery (not to me).

c. No Caucasus? – A name: Kum6. Yeah that north Anatolian 4700BC girl loaded with CHG? Read Omrak and Gunther on its dna. To me she was, absolutely, a fleeing Shulaveri-Shomu girl. Now…
a. Mix Kum6 with a Samara HG and will it not yield a Yamnaya?
b. Mix Kum6 with a bit more WHG (Portugal had a little bit more by Mtdna) with whif of SSA dna via north Africa route and you get a Iberian Original BB.
c. Mix this original bell beaker with a CWC women and you get your beloved steppe dna in Half Breeds BB from Germany.

It’s this simple. Occam razor. And let it be written how viciously against this most of you Steppe freaks have been up until now! Lets start to make future memory.

Davidski said...

Mix Kum6 with a Samara HG and will it not yield a Yamnaya?

No you idiot, it won't.

Olympus Mons said...

Maykop is going to be a disappointment.
I mean, at least has the potential to be.
Because if new archelogy take on it is right, Maykop were Leilatepe (ish people), which is a Uruk mixed with Iran_chalc and a bit of remaining Shulaveri-Shomu.

We know that just around Arukhlo there were over 20,000 Shulaveris. Just next to it Gadachrili Gora also looked packed. So, lots of people to be dislodge but naturally many remained. One figures mostly women. And the new population either full south, Full nortwestern Iran or a mix of both.

Maykop had the ostensive of Ubaid-to-Uruk. So, lots of J2 and maybe J1.

Olympus Mons said...

@davidski.
explain.

Davidski said...

Explain what?

Yamnaya has a huge direct contribution from a CHG derived group or groups. Every test shows this, like this unsupervised tree.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9o3EYTdM8lQLXZIdUpyV3RQWTA/view?usp=sharing

Kum6 has minimal CHG admixture, and almost clusters with the earlier Barcin farmers. A population like that cannot produce Yamnaya by mixing with EHG.

Olympus Mons said...

So, Kum6 has mininal CHG?. Ok was under the impression that Kum6 packed a considerable amount of CHG. to be a shulaveri had to have a good component of CHG. If that is not the case... Then I retract that Kum6 and Samara locals would yield something close to a Yamnaya. - in that case OK, I was been an idiot.

Rob said...

OM

Yes it seems the cat is out of the bag
Did u see my last post here ?
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/yamnaya-related-admixture-in-bronze-age.html?m=1#comment-form

Al Bundy said...

Ric thanks

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob, Nope. will look into it.
What was it about?

Rob said...

John Koch's talk about genetic changes on the Iberian and Atlantic facade . Seems like he is also aware of the "more data in the pipeline" and implies an north to south movement of genes from lower Rhine to west Iberia
Essentially it seems he is advocating what most here have long argued - BB Iberia was essentially MNE which met and "collided" with eastern Beaker

Davidski said...

I like the dates in this screen cap from Koch's talk. Matches my analysis of ATP9.

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6OKhhklbuiM/WKjc3ot9wcI/AAAAAAAAFTM/3Milw5BemyYC8_yRM4vPCcekIoyIi06vACLcB/s1600/Koch.jpg

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2017/02/yamnaya-related-admixture-in-bronze-age.html

Rob said...

@ Volod

Yes I wonder if Majkop will be more Armenia Chalcolithic like, or just an even more ChG shifted version of Yamnaya Kalmykia (say 65% ChG, 35% EHG).
Anyhow Krause in a recent talk briefly alludes to it (c. 15 minutes in and the "pull" of Yamnaya from EHG)
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=JTY9K1Q_Sbg

Al Bundy said...

Ric thanks

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob.
No. What have long been argued here is that the BB (earlier) from Iberia were not the MNE local pop but an exogenous populations (mostly from Steppe) travelling by space, boat, super sprinters, horse, ufo, whatever either as warriors or as merchants, or metallurgists.

What the advocates of local BB origin in Portugal have argued is that original BB met CWC in Bohemia and those constituted a second and later branch of BB that we all still have to measure the impact.

Rob said...

"What have long been argued here is that the BB (earlier) from Iberia were not the MNE local pop but an exogenous populations (mostly from Steppe) travelling by space, boat, super sprinters, horse, "

Lol I think that's been a minority position ; which hasn't been excluded; so it could still be right
But one has to say, the via North Africa route is even less likely

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
Via North Africa because there is no such thing as an Iberia Middle neolithic and Chalcolithic. Its the same thing. Prior to 4th millennia there were a very scarse population barely agriculture, barely hunters no more, lots of shell middens, and no settlements, just caves and some very crude shelters.
Mid 4th its a completely different people, different live style and settlements like Porto Torrão that had more then 20,000 People. -- Were did they come from? Not north because we know the culture and it wasnt them.

Meanwhile North Africa, at exactly same time was loosing hundreds of thousands... Oh yes, they came from North Africa.



Rob said...

So are you suggesting that copper age North Africa will look like Alpine Europeans ?

Davidski said...

But we already have plenty of samples from Early Neolithic, Middle Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iberia.

And the samples from Middle Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iberia look like Early Neolithic Iberians with extra Western European Hunter-Gatherer ancestry.

So there were no major migrations into Iberia during the Middle Neolithic or Chalcolithic. All that happened was that local forager admixture increased, probably via admixture with people from remnant forager bands that survived the Neolithic transition.

Olympus Mons said...

@Rob,
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0277379114002728

Go to the very end, there is a Mp4 animation. See the contraction in population in North Africa between 6000bp and 5000bp. That is the time that Iberia started to have a true population in terms of sizing. Up until that point North Africa was Heaven for Pastoral and agriculture. Why in heavens name would they have avoided that highway into south Europe?

So local WHG (more in Portugal then the rest of Iberia) mixed with late EEF arrivals (5500BC) and this big flux of people coming.

What I think is the skimming near shores of the Mediterranean converge to mostly Iberia because of Gibraltar to run away from what would have seemed hell. THe birth of the Sahara desert was brutal.

Olympus Mons said...


"But we already have plenty of samples from Early Neolithic, Middle Neolithic and Chalcolithic Iberia."


No we don't. We have Portalon samples that are the most remote and further way place to look for those incoming.

Wait until you get samples from San blas, perdigoes, la Pijotilla... Those were the incoming 4th millenia people. Not the ones way beyond north of the Mesetas.

Something that you understand. Is like having samples from beyond the Urals and them saying, well have samples for the Russia so we know what Yamnaya...

Chad Rohlfsen said...

Just wait for it. L51 and Steppe ancestry enter Iberia only after 2200-2000BCE. That's where my money has been for a couple of years now.

Olympus Mons said...

@Davidski,
Which samples do we have prior to 4000bc?

Davidski said...

You haven't checked this yourself? Not very scientific.

Olympus Mons said...

or better. - The distance from eastern Anatolia and North iran is 500KM. The distance from Lisbon to Portalon is more than 600KM. - Were Anatolians and Iranians the same?

You do have a problem with space and time.

Olympus Mons said...

You haven't checked this yourself? Not very scientific.

Well I am the idiot. And I do not know of samples for non Hunter Gatheres (la brana1) that are not in the 4th millennia.

Samuel Andrews said...

@Rob,
"John Koch's talk about genetic changes on the Iberian and Atlantic facade ."

Does he have access to unpublished Western European ancient DNA?

Rob said...

He implies it in his talk, from what I understood.

Krefter said...

Spanin, Past and Present.

http://mtdnaatlas.blogspot.com/2017/02/spain-past-and-present.html

Modern
I have over 3,000 mtDNA samples from Spain. About 1,000 from Poland, Russia, Baltic, Denmark, Finland, and France. About 600 from Britain. And several hundred from Sweden, Greece, Ireland, and the Balkans. I also know of studies which give mHG frequencies for 1,000s of samples from Croatia, Romania, the Netherlands, and Eastern Germany.

Ancient
I have over 300 samples from Neolithic Iberia, Germany, and Hungary. I have about 100 samples from the BA Steppe. And about 200 from LNBA Germany.

With all of that data I'm more convinced than ever natural selection transformed European mHG frequencies. Nothing else could explian the uniformaity of modern European mHGs frequencies. Nothing else could explain crazy 20-30% K in throughout Neolithic Europe and tiny 5-8% in modern Europe(or even under 4% in Eastern Europe).

Krefter said...

What happened in Europe between 3000 BC and 0 AD which such drastic changes in mHG frequencies acroos 100s of miles...

Iron age Poland: 40% H
Iron age Germany: 40% H
Neolithic Hungary: 20% H
Iron age Spain: 40% H
Neolithic Spain: 20% H

Davidski said...

The Iron Age and Migration Period happened.

I'm not sure about the natural selection angle. Let's wait for more Iron Age data from Europe.

Ric Hern said...

My Pleasure Al.

Davidski said...

By the way, there's no archaeological hiatus between Khvalynsk and Yamnaya on the Caspian Steppe.

At 4000 BC, when Khvalynsk ends, there are Repin Kurgans there, and this is sometimes thought of as an early stage of Yamnaya.

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com.au/2014/12/pit-grave-yamnaya-kurgans-are-as-old-as.html

Rob said...

Apart from 2 or 3 outliers over the sigma range, the majority of dates in table one fall after 37/3600 BC, which is the generally accepted dating for Repin upper limit.

The Repin culture is nevertheless intrusive to the region, and of a different character to Khvalynsk.

Aram said...

New mtdnas from Steppe

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28148921

Results are confusing?

Rob said...

I think they had 4 Yamnaya mtDNA: 2 were U/U4 and 2 were C4a.
2 "post-Stog" (Eneolithic, pre-Yamnaya) were U/U4 also.

Slumbery said...

Davidski
"At 4000 BC, when Khvalynsk ends, there are Repin Kurgans there, and this is sometimes thought of as an early stage of Yamnaya."

In the exact same area or just generally in the Yamnaya range? Because the previous commenters did not say that there was a discontinuity in the entire Yannaya range at the time, they said there was a discontinuity in the particular area were the Khvalynsk samples are from, and then an expansion of the neighboring Repin group into it.

Davidski said...

Same area: Volga-Ural steppe. Unless you're really pedantic, in which case they maybe expanded from the neighboring village.

Continuity is more or less there, and it shows in the DNA as well.

Rob said...

It's not a mere village away but from somewhere hundreds of miles away which actually had the basis of metallurgy and cattleherding which otherwise lacked in Khvalynsk
That's not pedentism, that's being not wrong

Davidski said...

It wasn't hundreds of miles away. There's a map in the paper showing the different sites, and the Repin site is very close to the generally accepted Khvalynsk territory, or even overlaps with it. You and Slumbery can both have a look, the paper is open access.

And Khvalynsk was certainly a cattle herding culture. Not sure about their metallurgy, but the two genomes we have came from remains buried with copper stuff.

Davidski said...

From the paper...

Early (Repino) Stage

In this stage, some signs of the steppe Eneolithic remain, but Pit-Grave culture features begin to appear, such as kurgans with skeletons buried in a crouched position on their backs with bent legs and in eastern orientation, and the ocher application.


Doesn't sound like a hiatus to me.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"Continuity is more or less there, and it shows in the DNA as well".
There is a common consensus both archeological and paleoanthropological that Repin culture is a newcomer in this area from the west. What is more, the unique anthropological type of Khvalynsk culture, that was quite homogenious in its final phase, had long disappeared before the arrival of Repin culture and was superseded by Uraloid hunter-gatherer type linked to South Siberia. On the other hand, Repin culture demonstrated close similarities with Sredny Stog cranial series. Another point which is worth mentioning is that Northeastern European hunter-gather type (Pit-Comb Ware, Dnieper-Donets cultures) was by far the strongest and most representative anthropological component in Khvalynsk culture, followed by South Siberian hunter-gatherers and gracile Circum-Caspian Mediterranean types. The Northeastern European HGs were a new element on those territories which had been inhabited solely by South-Siberian HGs in Mesolithic times.The former came from the forest zone of Eastern Europe along multiple rivers that flow to the south-east. https://m.cyberleninka.ru/article/v/k-paleoantropologii-eneolita-povolzhya

Davidski said...

You need to switch your focus to ancient DNA.

Nirjhar007 said...

Volodymir,

Do you suggest close cranial similarity between Majkop and Ukraine Chalcolithic people? and altogether, how close were they, with Samara and Yamnaya types?. Pardon if already discussed .

And Corded Ware types are closest to which population?.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"You need to switch your focus to ancient DNA".
The odds are pretty high that Sredny Stog will be the ancestor to Yamnaya and not Khvalynsk genetically. At least, it makes sense if you account for paleoanthropology. For example, I was not surprised to find out recently that Dnieper-Donets culture is EHG due to the fact that there are no paleoanthropological signs of any admixture there as shown by multiple pieces of research. However, the first episode of Southern admixture is clearly seen in Sredny Stog (4500-3500BC) culture which is clearly hybrid in its nature. Another factor that contributed greatly to its spread and demographic growth was the first registered domestication of horses in the steppe (4200-4000BC).

Davidski said...

Yamnaya and Khvalynsk have exactly the same genetic components, just different ratios of them. That's a fact.

There's nothing stopping Khvalynsk from being ancestral to Yamnaya genetically.

Rob said...

@ Dave

What I meant was a change occurred c. 4000 BC. This corresponds to the demise of Balkan Copper Age cultures, which had repercussion on the steppe, causing a local crisis (but less severe) and shifts in territory and power.
The Khvalynsk culture certainly had access to domesticated animals, like cattle, but weren't the specialized cattle-herders of the Yamnaya period. They probably traded them from the Balkans.
Its the same with the hoard of Copper in some of the burials - gifts or payment from Balkan chiefs.
This ended after 4000 BC, and when metal slowly reappears, it is of Caucasian origin.

It is currently thought that Repin expanded from the Dnieper - Don steppe, expanding toward the Kuban, & Volga. So Repin could overlie Khvalynsk, another group using the same sort of land as earlier groups.

West of the Dnieper, a more variety of groups existed in the post-4000 BC steppe. There was 'post-Stog' group (Dnieper - Bug), very similar to Repin but differences in pottery and some aspects of burial. So they probably represented two distinct clans. Further west was Usatavo (late CT group), Cernavoda (? pastoralised north Balkan groups), Mikhlaivoka, a couple of Baden mounds, etc.

The curious thing is that Repin also appears to expand west, appearing above burials of preceding groups.
So I think the upcoming studies might clarify all this ,and find L51 and Z645.

Volodymyr Lutsyk said...

"Yamnaya and Khvalynsk have exactly the same genetic components, just different ratios of them. That's a fact.
"There's nothing stopping Khvalynsk from being ancestral to Yamnaya genetically."
Paleoanthropology stands in total agreement with genetics on this. But, if you follow this link (https://www.academia.edu/6643554/О_краниологических_особенностях_населения_ямной_археологической_культуры_Северо-Западного_Прикаспия) on Page 146 (Image 5) you will notice that:
1)Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog were practically identical anthropologically and developed at the same time.
2)Yamnaya series of Southern and Eastern Ukraine is very similar to Khvalynsk and Sredny Stog as well as Yamnaya of Saratov and Volgograd.
3)Yamnaya series of Samara and Orenburg are shifted somewhat to the east of Khvalynsk, Sredny Stog (the previous Uraloid EHG substratum I was talking about).
4)Yamnaya series of Astrakhan, Kalmykia and Stavropol are shifted much to the east in comparison with Khvalynsk (powerful South Siberian HG substratum)
5) Ukrainian, Saratov and Volgograd Yamnaya paleoanthropologically can be most easily presented as a mixture of Neolithic Northeastern European HGs and Caucasus (Maykop and Kura-Araxes). It is especially true about Yamnaya of Southern Ukraine which is the closest to Maykop.

Slumbery said...

Davidski: could have been the ancestors to Yamnaya does not equal that they certainly were. There were a few groups that consisted the same genetic components with different ratios. At the current resolution it is hard to tell wether the differences between Khvalynsk and full blown Yamnaya are from gradual gene flow or discontinuity and then another related population with somewhat different ratios being the ancestor. So the DNA argunent not so powerful in this particular matter. (At the other hand I have some doubt about the reliability of craniometry...)

jv said...

Davidski said...
How about we stick to ancient DNA?
OK! Most of your comments are about the pre-Yamnaya period-Samara Culture, Khvalynsk, Repin. And Cultures west of Samara in the Ukraine. My mtDNA H6a1 was found in Samara in Yamnaya & Srubnaya Cultures. It would be interesting to know if H6a1 was around Steppes n the Pre-Yamnaya period. (or was she traded for a cow or pelt from the Maikop Culture to the Pontic-Caspian Steppe men) H6a1a didn't migrated into Central/Northern Europe until 2400 BCE. H6a1 & H6a2 are Steppe lineages and spread with the migrations of yDNA R1b & R1a. I enjoy reading about those yDNA lineages to find out a bit more about my H6a1a women.

jv said...

R1b found in Elshanka Culture in Samara? I've often wondered if my H6a1 arrived in Samara with the Elshanka Culture.Link to article: http://ejournal23.com/journals_n/1453208266.pdf

a said...

Sok River-8 samples-11km section both Yamnaya and Poltavka samples R1a/b. 11km+/- section. Top end Sok river cluster R1b H/G 7500YBP+/- further south along Volga.230km South Sok river cluster R1a/b Kvhalynsk R1a/b-Q 6700YBP+/- samples.

Starting from top of river with the oldest sample;
1]I0124-R1b H.G-7650+/-YBP
2]1.85km south I0432Poltavka R1a
3-5]3.65km+/- south Yamnaya-I0438+I0439+I0429-R1b
6]south Yamna 2km+/- I0443-R1b
7]south 2km+/-Poltavka-I0440-R1b
8]south 1km+/-Poltavka-I0371-R1b


http://umap.openstreetmap.fr/en/map/ancient-human-dna_41837#4/51.23/56.69

a said...

Repin stratified beneath Yamnaya.

https://books.google.ca/books?id=0FDqf415wqgC&pg=PA319&lpg=PA319&dq=repin+culture&source=bl&ots=2Za2sOQLOz&sig=fX1L5HOIyWohBXhcO9RWP4O_ThA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjWx9mUwpzSAhVL6oMKHZFaDu4Q6AEIRjAK#v=onepage&q=repin%20culture&f=false


fig 1 map
https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/viewFile/16087/pdf

Grey said...

André de Vasconcelos said...
"We should be careful when referring to cavalry and its military advantage, especially when using words like 'dominance', when used this early in history."

Fair enough. The original question was "why" would IE expand and the answer from history is "because they could."

The Huns, Mongols, Turks etc expanded because they could. The farmers expanded over the HGs because they could.

Historically, populations with a military advantage expand - whether because of numbers / population density like the farmers vs HG or some technological advantage like Mongols vs everyone.

So yes my cavalry point is circular:

if IE expanded (currently under debate) then
- they must have had a military advantage (and me assuming it was horses)

but the other point being addressed was you don't need a "why" for expansion - only a how.

Grey said...

OM
"What have long been argued here is that the BB (earlier) from Iberia were not the MNE local pop but an exogenous populations (mostly from Steppe) travelling by space, boat, super sprinters, horse, ufo, whatever either as warriors or as merchants, or metallurgists."

just boat

there are only three possibilities
1) R1b was already there
2) big migration/invasion
3) small initial migration + fluke

option (3) more or less requires travel by water (imo)

For the king said...

Keep in mind that steppe populations introduced new diseases to Europe and it's farmers. This "Plague" most likely did way more damage to those farmers than the superior military tactics of early Indo-Europeans. Same thing happened with the native populations of the Americas.

"About 4,500 years ago, for example, the DNA of Europe's inhabitants suddenly took on a strong resemblance to that of the Yamnaya, a nomadic people from western Russia," journalist Carl Zimmer wrote for the New York Times. Which means that these nomads seems to have moved into the area.

The reason for the migration was unclear, according to a press release, but now, this new evidence provides a potential explanation. These large scale migrations of western Russia nomads into the genetically distinct region of European hunter-gatherers could have been influenced by the plague. If one population is wiped out by a noxious disease or sent scrambling to find a new place to live, the authors suggest, another population may have moved in to replace them."

http://www.businessinsider.com/plague-is-5000-years-old-may-have-changed-human-history-2015-10

"These horse riding metal workers may have brought Indo-European languages with them; today this language family comprises most of the tongues spoken in Europe. The discovery of plague DNA in Yamnaya burials and a population decline in Europe around the same time has led some researchers to wonder if their passage west was facilitated by the spread of disease."


http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-34832781

Antoni Małkowski said...

This plague is highly probable.
I think that the Huns, Avars and przetrzebili European pig farmer.

Chad Rohlfsen said...

It wasn't the bubonic plague. I'm pretty sure this one was hard to pass and likely took pretty intimate contact.

Grey said...

@For the King
"Keep in mind that steppe populations introduced new diseases to Europe and it's farmers."

yes, fair point.

i assumed horses because nomads generally don't have a numerical advantage but if they spread a plague then maybe they had a temporary numerical advantage (which was all they needed)

#

@me
"option (3) more or less requires travel by water (imo)"
volga->baltic->atlantic coast
danube->rhine->atlantic coast
meditterranean

batman said...

The Volga-route used to be the most important waterway for travel, trade and cultural inter-change between Europe and Asia - continously from the Early Mesolithic to the Late Iron Age.

http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.ancestry.com/~villandra/earlypotteryEurope.jpg