6000 yo EHG pile dwellings near lakes and rivers in NW Russia : R1a1 -M17

[Angela]

I finally plowed through this whole collection of short papers. My take away is that these people did not have much to do with the "Indo-Europeans" as these are defined by Anthony and others, including Gimbutas.

Everyone can check for themselves, but there's no metallurgy (the tools are all bone or flint), no elite graves, certainly no horse riding or chariots. They're not pastoralists, either, in the sense that this word is applied to the steppe. These people seem to me to be primarily hunter-gatherer fishers, with a seasonal winter and perhaps summer camp, living off turtles, fish, birds-primarily water fowl, bears, elk, deer, etc. There is some cattle breeding, and they have pigs and sheep and goats, even in one case a horse, but some of these communities didn't get domesticated animals of any kind until the mid 2nd millennium BC. Others got it some time in the mid to late 3rd millennium BC, but the domesticated animals formed a small part of their consumption patterns. They did do some farming, but also relatively late. Mention is also made that some of this later influence came from Corded Ware moving east, or from communities to their south at later dates.

See the article by Sablin, MV, on page 224.
https://www.academia.edu/9452168/Ar...azurkevich_A._Polkovnikova_M._Dolbunova_E._ed

 

[Alan]

Please take a look at my comment here.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ages-in-Europe?p=451439&viewfull=1#post451439

 

[Angela]

Please take a look at my comment here.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ages-in-Europe?p=451439&viewfull=1#post451439

Yes, I saw it. I must be slow today. I am supposed to draw what inference? These people may indeed be a source for Indo-European languages, but the culture which was the driver of the specific "Indo-European" culture which spread throughout the world, i.e. pastoralism, metallurgy, unequal distributions of wealth and prestige, militarism, horse based warfare, etc., did not, in my opinion, stem from these hunter-gatherers. Rather, they were an Indo-Europeanized people.

 

[Alan]

Yes, I saw it. I must be slow today. I am supposed to draw what inference? These people may indeed be a source for Indo-European languages, but the culture which was the driver of the specific "Indo-European" culture which spread throughout the world, i.e. pastoralism, metallurgy, unequal distributions of wealth and prestige, militarism, horse based warfare, etc., did not, in my opinion, stem from these hunter-gatherers. Rather, they were an Indo-Europeanized people.

Thats the point. I wouldn't call them "indo Europinzed" though. More a very early mixturre of PIE with H&G.

According to this paper. They were highlanders (Shepherds) from near a lake.

 

[Aberdeen]

Thats the point. I wouldn't call them "indo Europinzed" though. More a very early mixturre of PIE with H&G.

According to linguistic_archeological evidences. They were highlanders (Shepherds) from near a lake and not Steppic people.

So, not a Steppic people but a Uralic people? But I have to admit the points Angela raised do point to IE culture possibly being a Caucasian culture that mingled with the Russian hunter gatherers. The one possible argument that could be raised against it is that there is perhaps a better correlation between IE language and R1a than between IE language and R1b. Those R1b groups that have IE languages usually have at least 5% R1a.

 

[Alan]

So, not a Steppic people but a Uralic people? But I have to admit the points Angela raised do point to IE culture possibly being a Caucasian culture that mingled with the Russian hunter gatherers. The one possible argument that could be raised against it is that there is perhaps a better correlation between IE language and R1a than between IE language and R1b. Those R1b groups that have IE languages usually have at least 5% R1a.

I already answered that here.

Near a lake

As far as I know there is no lake in or close enough to the Urals.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped..._in_Russia.svg/2000px-Urals_in_Russia.svg.png

North of the Caspian or Black Sea would work, if it was mountainous, but it is Steppe land.

South,East and West of the Caspian or South, East of the Black Sea is mountainous and near a lake.

However I do not disagree that Proto IE might have originated with a synthesis of herders from South and H&G from further North. But you are forgetting one thing. Typical for H&G have always been I and C. Not R1b or R1a.

In fact the only H&G from North who had these Haplogroups were significantly Gedrosia admixed. And no basal R1a found there yet.

IMO there are still three competing theories. West of the Caspian (West Asian highlands), PC Steppes or East of the Caspian(South_Central Asia).

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ages-in-Europe?p=451461&viewfull=1#post451461

 

[Aberdeen]

I already answered that here.



http://www.eupedia.com/forum/thread...ages-in-Europe?p=451461&viewfull=1#post451461

Wrong. There are numerous lakes in the Ural Mountains (Uvildy, Itkul, Turgyak, Boshoye Shchuchye, etc.). And the two oldest Y DNA samples we have from Russia are R1a1* and R1b1*, both over 7,000 years old. And the current distribution of R1a in eastern Europe suggests R1a coming from Russia, as does the fact that CW includes R1a. Let's remember that although CW is related to Yamnaya, it's not the same thing. Let's also remember that we have one R1a and two R1b samples from Spain that are also over 7,000 years old, so the story of Y haplotype R in Europe is actually quite complicated.

 

[Alan]

Wrong. There are numerous lakes in the Ural Mountains (Uvildy, Itkul, Turgyak, Boshoye Shchuchye, etc.). And the two oldest Y DNA samples we have from Russia are R1a1* and R1b1*, both over 7,000 years old. And the current distribution of R1a in eastern Europe suggests R1a coming from Russia, as does the fact that CW includes R1a. Let's remember that although CW is related to Yamnaya, it's not the same thing. Let's also remember that we have one R1a and two R1b samples from Spain that are also over 7,000 years old, so the story of Y haplotype R in Europe is actually quite complicated.

Thanks for mentioning that there are bigger lakes in the Urals. I didn't knew that. But I doubt that they came from there, because there is no single theory so far which would settle the PIE so far North. Not a single.

But for the sake of God why is no one here able to understand that the date when this R1a or R1b was found in Russia or Spain is not of any importance for the age of the actual clade.

I had this discussion dozen times with a user who similary didn't understand it so this is why I am quite tired of explaining it.

The Sample found in Russia could be 100000 years old, it wouldn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that the clades are not basal. There is no R1b m343 or R1a m420. The Russian as well Iberian R1a/R1b are all downstream.

Take a look at this Phylogenetic tree. And try to imagine a similar picture for R1a.

http://img4.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/r1btreefcx0y3shbq.gif

 

[Aberdeen]

Thanks for mentioning that there are bigger lakes in the Urals. I didn't knew that. But I doubt that they came from there, because there is no single theory so far which would settle the PIE so far North. Not a single.

But for the sake of God why is no one here able to understand that the date when this R1a or R1b was found in Russia or Spain is not of any importance for the age of the actual clade.

I had this discussion dozen times with a user who similary didn't understand it so this is why I am quite tired of explaining it.

The Sample found in Russia could be 100000 years old, it wouldn't matter because it doesn't change the fact that the clades are not basal. There is no R1b m343 or R1a m420. The Russian as well Iberian R1a/R1b are all downstream.

Take a look at this Phylogenetic tree. And try to imagine a similar picture for R1a.

http://img4.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/r1btreefcx0y3shbq.gif

I'm looking at that website and it states that L23 is in southeastern Europe and Anatolia and that it's a downstream subclade, Z2103, that's found in western Asia (and eastern Europe). And subclades downstream of L23 (L51 and L11 are already in Europe prior to the formation of P312 and those subclades downstream of it that make up most of the R1b in Europe. And the dates suggested by that website are way off according to this website.

www.yfull.com/tree/R1b/

It says that M269 formed 12700 years ago, L23 formed 7000 years ago, P312 formed 5000 years ago and those European subclades downstream of it formed about 4700 years ago, about when BB was expanding in that part of the world. So it appears that all that R1b diversity in western Europe formed there prior to the Bronze Age.

 

[Angela]

Thats the point. I wouldn't call them "indo Europinzed" though. More a very early mixturre of PIE with H&G.

According to this paper. They were highlanders (Shepherds) from near a lake.

I'm not sure about that, certainly not in terms of culture...These papers aren't describing these groups in 6,000 or even 5,000 BC. They're describing them in 2500 BC and even 1500 BC and saying that is when the first indications of animal domestication can be found, and agriculture as well. There's no metallurgy at all.

Regardless of how we come to understand the genesis of the "Indo-European" culture in the arid steppe lands, these people in the northwest were not the innovators or synthesizers of that culture; they received this culture later, and in some cases much later, than the 4-3,000 BC period that Anthony highlights as the period when the Indo-European culture was "created".

Language is a separate although related issue. They may well have been speaking a language related to the language spoken by the arid steppe dwellers to their south.

As for genetic structure, I don't know. Certainly, I would think they might be EHG and/or WHG heavy. How much of the "Near Eastern" component they would have had is a very interesting question, but I would doubt they had very much. I do think, however, that these people may have contributed quite a bit to the Northeast European genome, which is why I think their "Yamnaya" relatedness is inflated, in my view.

 

[nuadha]

I haven't read the paper which is the subject of this thread in its entirety, but unless I'm mistaken people who have read it report that the women in this group of hunter gatherers from what is now Russia were severely malnourished in comparison to the men and showed signs of extreme violence. There is nothing to be lauded here.

Neither is there anything to be generalized from. If we dig up just about any old bridge, mine, sailboat, or other artifact of harsh living conditions you will most likely find men who are malnourished or fatally wounded at a young age. Most workplace death still occur to men.

The sentiment of this thread that when men have bad living conditions its their own fault while when women face bad living conditions its societies fault for "treating" them this way.

 

[nuadha]

If this was an attempt at humor, I don't find the idea that a world where women were routinely kidnapped, raped, and treated like chattel was the "good old days" at all funny.

Id rather be kidnapped or just run off with the victor (which might also be the case) than be slaughtered for having the wrong genitalia.

 

[Angela]

Id rather be kidnapped or just run off with the victor (which might also be the case) than be slaughtered for having the wrong genitalia.

Why would you assume that I would find the latter any more funny than the former? Or, put it another way, why would you assume that because I find the former appalling, I find the latter acceptable? I'm indeed appalled by the idea that population change may have come about in a lot of instances because incoming males slaughtered all or most of the men they encountered. You'd have to be a psychopath not to be appalled by it.

Terrible things have been done throughout history to both women and men. If you would care to re-read the exchange, I was responding to a comment made about what was done to women.

Nuadha: Neither is there anything to be generalized from. If we dig up just about any old bridge, mine, sailboat, or other artifact of harsh living conditions you will most likely find men who are malnourished or fatally wounded at a young age. Most workplace death still occur to men.

The sentiment of this thread that when men have bad living conditions its their own fault while when women face bad living conditions its societies fault for "treating" them this way.

We were not discussing injuries or death because of warfare. We were talking about malnutrition. If there is famine etc., most people will suffer, but the people at the top of the "food chain" literally, will suffer less. That is often the elite males. In warfare, warriors generally get more of the provisions. The examples are numerous even if it wasn't always the case.

Famine is often the result of forces beyond the control of any human being or society, today as well as in the past. However, it is also true that famine can result from war because crops are deliberately destroyed and the peasants who work the land are killed and distribution networks are disrupted. Most wars have been started by men, in case you hadn't noticed. That's not to say that women wouldn't have been as bad had they had the power, as Cleopatra and a few other examples prove, but the fact is that they didn't.

Your conclusion as to the "sentiment" of this thread is incorrect.

 

[LeBrok]

Id rather be kidnapped or just run off with the victor (which might also be the case) than be slaughtered for having the wrong genitalia.

That's exactly the case how people survived. However, we do different things just to survive, and different things how to be honest, righteous and tolerant in in normal society.
Welcome to Eupedia Nuadha.

 

[MOESAN]

the image that has been cultivated for decades is of European colonists invading and destroying peaceful societies living in perfect harmony with nature
blaming the west for whatever goes wrong in this world and trying to make us feel guilty (and some things go wrong)

1- women rapts can have been common among neighbouring small tribes living i, conditions not favoring reproduction success - in other environment, and on large spaces I'm not so sure it was exactly the same, without excluding it.
2- concerning Amazone Amerindians, it seems the place of wives were not so bad these last times among some tribes: they had the right to moke males sometimes naking them after some "viril" feast with plenty of alcohol or something else - and among males, if the better hunters won some prestige, none is kept aside concerning food: the food, game or fish, was equally shared between all - so we have to be cautious in our statements: humanity is not uniform nor constant by time, and we are sometimes very astonished by the deportment of some "inferior" animals; concerning sociability and capacity of learning (it recall me an hyppopotamus charging a crocodile to save an antilope (what is not to surprising) BUT also trying and managing to push this harmed antilope onto the stabile ground with great mildness) -