Eneolithic aDNA from Lake Baikal Siberia

Southeastern Europe / Anatolia: (...) I2c (...) C1a2

Please open Google Maps and check where are Mentese and Barcin located.

These are two places in westernmost Turkey, almost at the gates of Europe.

I consider I2c and C1a2 in that area as the result of gene flow from Europe.

This gene flow is confirmed in autosomal DNA, which shows 10-15% WHG.

==============================

As for C1a2 - it was probably Southern European (from Iberia to the Balkans).


Which sample was C1b ??? :unsure:

Southeastern Europe / Anatolia

IMHO there is not enough evidence that people in those regions were similar to each other to count them as one.

A few samples of I2c and C1a2 in Anatolia only prove that there was some limited gene flow, but nothing more.

We actually have not enough samples from Southeastern Europe. That single R1b from Villabruna was buried in Northern Italy, so it doesn't count as Southeastern Europe (even if his lineage originated from that region, as David Reich speculated).
 
This is inaccurate, obsolete dating. More recent dating done with more accurate techniques shows 8800-8000 BP.

Let's stick to the most recent available dates. This 8800-8000 BP has been published in 2016, a few months ago.

By the way - even 7500 BP would be still older than Lokomotiv (which was dated to 7250-6040 BP).



The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age. The majority of Mesolithic, Neolithic and Copper Age samples of R1b are from Russia. The "Big Picture" which emerges from aDNA when it comes to dominant haplogroups in various regions prior to the Neolithization of Europe, is this:

Region: dominant "indigeneous" Y-DNA haplogroups

1. Western and Central Europe: I2a, I1, I2c, C1a2
2. European part of Russia: R1a, R1b, Q1a
3. Caucasus region (Georgia): J1b, J2a
4. Western Asia*: G2, E1, J2, R2, T, G1, H2, L1, F3


*Mostly samples from Anatolia, the Levant and from Iran.

The most mysterious - due to their scarcity in aDNA so far - are haplogroups J1 and N1c. We have J1b in a hunter-gatherer from Georgia, but then there is a long "gap" and the next relevant sample - J1a dated to 2500-1950 BC - is from the Levant (Ain Ghazal, Early Bronze Age). When it comes to N1c the oldest sample in Europe, dated to 2500 BC, is from the region of Smolensk.

It seems, that J1 was a relatively minor lineage until it became associated with Proto-Semitic people and then spread with them. Today, many subclades of J1a and also some subclades of J1b correlate strongly with populations of Semitic origin.



I used the term "EHG" in its geographical meaning. EHG = Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer. No matter what autosomal makeup someone had, if he lived in Eastern Europe (including the European part of Russia) and was a hunter-gatherer (or descended primarily from local Eastern hunter-gatherers), then I use the term "EHG" to denote such a prehistoric person. It is possible indeed, that there were several hunter-gatherer groups with different autosomal makeups living in prehistoric Easternmost Europe.

So I'm not saying that "autosomally EHG people" were the only group of hunter-gatherers in Mesolithic Eastern Europe. There could be some autosomally Non-EHG groups in that region as well. However, there is no evidence for this so far.

It is not the dating per se that leads to the observed discrepancies, it is the calibration. So the very same reservations apply to the findings pertaining to the cultures south of the Baikal. The most significant shift in paradigm, as far as I know, was Intcal09 - comparisons of findings from before and after this date necessarily fall short.

Your claims about the 'big picture' can safely be discarded - the sampling of Eurasia is far too discrepant to allow for sweeping generalizations like this. However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.

I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology. Grandiose claims like that betray a highly pseudoscientific mindset.
 
It is not the dating per se that leads to the observed discrepancies, it is the calibration. So the very same reservations apply to the findings pertaining to the cultures south of the Baikal. The most significant shift in paradigm, as far as I know, was Intcal09 - comparisons of findings from before and after this date necessarily fall short.

Your claims about the 'big picture' can safely be discarded - the sampling of Eurasia is far too discrepant to allow for sweeping generalizations like this. However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.

I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology. Grandiose claims like that betray a highly pseudoscientific mindset.

Karelia is still older, but not by much. It doesn't matter though. To say that R1b appears to have originated among hunters in Europe and on the Eurasian steppe is a correct statement.

Villabruna is a proto-EHG.

Please convince me otherwise. I think the best you'll get is for me to change my statement to "Villabruna looks exactly like one would expect a proto-EHG to look like."

And we have R* in Siberia 20k bp, which appears to be unrelated to Villabruna. This just tells me that R has been on the Eurasian steppe following herds from, at the latest the LGM, all the way to the Mesolithic. Long enough to have been a Y-HG in many different populations. In fact, MA-1 appears to share a common ancestor with all of the ice age populations of Europe.

**EDIT** Kura axes is the oldest R1b found yet in West Asia. This is seen after we see a sharp rise in admixture between all these populations.
 
Karelia is still older, but not by much. It doesn't matter though. To say that R1b appears to have originated among hunters in Europe and on the Eurasian steppe is a correct statement.

Villabruna is a proto-EHG.

Please convince me otherwise. I think the best you'll get is for me to change my statement to "Villabruna looks exactly like one would expect a proto-EHG to look like."

And we have R* in Siberia 20k bp, which appears to be unrelated to Villabruna. This just tells me that R has been on the Eurasian steppe following herds from, at the latest the LGM, all the way to the Mesolithic. Long enough to have been a Y-HG in many different populations. In fact, MA-1 appears to share a common ancestor with all of the ice age populations of Europe.

**EDIT** Kura axes is the oldest R1b found yet in West Asia. This is seen after we see a sharp rise in admixture between all these populations.

The Epigravettian is a partial continuance of the Central European Gravettian. Therefore it is hardly surprising that Villabruna is much closer to the hunter gatherers of Western Europe. In fact, it is the later Western Hunter Gatherers that show closer affinity to the hunter-gatherers of Eastern Europe and ultimately something related to the Afontova Gora specimen relative to the Epigravettians. This is even more evident in the Scandinavian hunter gatherers, who represent the next gradation with yet more eastern affinity. The hunter gatherers from the Oleni Ostrov cemetery are the most eastern transitional population within the geographic boundaries of Europe, as is expected from their location. It's only a matter of finding the right ancestral populations, although somewhere in the middle of the Villabruna-Afontova pole appears to be accurate enough.

I'm not sure what your point is with regards to the Mal'ta-Buret burial. Clearly, a single R* in the Siberian fridge is hardly informative. This environment favours preservation too well, so all kinds of odd things pile up there. You wouldn't argue that K2* is Siberian because of Ust'-Ishim, would you?
 
MarkoZ,
However, you're specifically wrong about the connection of R1b1 and 'EHG' - this is geographically and genetically untenable as evidenced by the Italian Epigravettian and the specimen from Kura-Araxes which you conveniently ignored.
You should pay more attention to subclades to which they belonged. The vast majority of modern R1b in Eurasia is M269+. Villabruna hunter from North Italy was R1b1a-L278 but it was also derived for several additional SNPs which are on a separate branch of R1b, not the one leading to M269. Samara EHG from Russia was R1b1a-P297+ (which is the very branch leading to M269): https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/ He was on the branch leading to M269, even though he was not derived for it himself. But still that EHG subclade was closer in the tree to R1b-M269 than Villabruna one. Kura-Araxes I1635 from Kalavan (2619-2465 BC) was R1b1a1b-CTS3187. This means that Kura-Araxes was negative for M269 mutation, despite being such a recent sample. This CTS3187 is present in some ethnic Armenians today, but it is very rare.
I also take issue with your careless equating of uniparental markers and language families. A cursory reading of the modern distributions of haplotypes doesn't render void decades of research in linguistics & archeology.
Of course that Y-DNA subclades can be linked with languages because language - just like Y-DNA - is usually transmitted paternally from father to son. So there clearly is a strong correlation. And archaeological cultures have been linked with languages as well. For example Khvalynsk culture has been linked by Marija Gimbutas and several other scholars with Early Proto-Indo-Europeans. That was long before ancient DNA studies became available. Currently ancient DNA shows that Khvalynsk people had R1a and R1b haplogroups. These people have been previously linked with Proto-Indo-European language. Scholars claimed that Khvalynsk people were PIE-speakers long ago. Currently we have learned what Y-DNA haplogroups did Khvalynsk people carry. Thanks to this, we can also link their Y-DNA haplogroups with PIE language.
 
MarkoZ, You should pay more attention to subclades to which they belonged. Remember that the vast majority of modern R1b in Eurasia is M269+. Villabruna hunter from North Italy was R1b1a-L278 but it was also derived for several additional SNPs which are on a separate branch of R1b, not the one leading to M269. Samara EHG from Russia was R1b1a-P297+ (which is the very branch leading to M269): https://www.yfull.com/tree/R-P297/ He was on the branch leading to M269, even though he was not derived for it himself. But still that EHG subclade was closer in the tree to R1b-M269 than Villabruna one. Kura-Araxes I1635 from Kalavan (2619-2465 BC) was R1b1a1b-CTS3187. This means that Kura-Araxes was negative for M269 mutation, despite being such a recent sample. This CTS3187 is present in some ethnic Armenians today, but it is very rare.

I am well aware of the subclades - if you took the time to read the last few posts you'll notice that I was contesting the supposition that R1b1 is an 'EHG' marker.

You followed up on with an even more extremist position:

The most striking evidence that R1b is an EHG marker is the almost total lack of R1b in aDNA from places other than Russia before the Bronze Age.


Evidently, it is you who should have paid attention to the subclades.


 
As for the "Y-DNA and language are both passed from father to son as a package" thing:

Of course there are exceptions to this rule, which are known as "ethno-linguistic assimilation".

This happened for example in the Roman Empire (adoption of Latin language by "barbarians" = Latinization; this is how half of Europe started to speak Romance languages) and in the HRE (adoption of German language by Non-German peoples, Slavs, Balts, etc. = Germanization), as well as in case of adoption of Spanish and Portuguese languages by Native Americans, and also adoption of English language by every immigrant in the USA. Etc., etc. However, such assimilation is most likely to happen in highly civilized societies, such as Rome or Germany; or in Hellenistic kingdoms and later in the Byzantine Empire (where Greek language was adopted by many of originally Non-Greek peoples). In more primitive societies - such as kinship-based, patriarchal tribes - that was a less common occurence, even though it also happened on some occasions.

That's why ancient DNA is needed to provide evidence on ethno-linguistic origins of various lineages.

Just because some lineage is common among speakers of "Language X" today, does not necessarily mean that it was common already among speakers of "Proto-Language X", since it could be assimilated. We can see this e.g. among Turkic-speaking groups.
 
Evidently, it is you who should have paid attention to the subclades.

I do pay attention. I wrote that EHG subclades are most closely related to M269.

Then M269+ (but already mostly Z2103) "suddenly" shows up in Yamnaya culture.

Where did that M269>L23>Z2103 found in Yamnaya come from ???

There is no evidence of any M269+ outside of Russia before Yamnaya.

So IMHO it was just one particularly succesful EHG lineage / "clan".

As for R1a M198>M417 - it can't be found in EHG either, it only shows up - also very "suddenly" - in Corded Ware for the first time. However, just like in case of M269>L23, I assume that M198>M417 was a particularly successful EHG lineage. Some other EHG lineages became extinct.

That was probably due to the violent nature of Early PIE societies.

There was constant competition between "clans" and many EHG lineages got extinct, while a few succeeded.
 
Of course that Y-DNA subclades can be linked with languages because language - just like Y-DNA - is usually transmitted paternally from father to son. So there clearly is a strong correlation. And archaeological cultures have been linked with languages as well. For example Khvalynsk culture has been linked by Marija Gimbutas and several other scholars with Early Proto-Indo-Europeans. That was long before ancient DNA studies became available. Currently ancient DNA shows that Khvalynsk people had R1a and R1b haplogroups. These people have been previously linked with Proto-Indo-European language. Scholars claimed that Khvalynsk people were PIE-speakers long ago. Currently we have learned what Y-DNA haplogroups did Khvalynsk people carry. Thanks to this, we can also link their Y-DNA haplogroups with PIE language.


It's a gross simplification to say that language is usually transmitted from father to son. The imposition of languages by elite dominance of males became common from the iron age onwards, but this was a function of advanced military & political organization rather than paternity.

Regarding Khvalynsk: there's nothing about the material culture that indicates any kind of linguistic affiliation. Though I'm sure you've made up your mind already.

As for the "Y-DNA and language are both passed from father to son as a package" thing:

Of course there are exceptions to this rule, which are known as "ethno-linguistic assimilation".

This happened for example in the Roman Empire (adoption of Latin language by "barbarians" = Latinization; this is how half of Europe started to speak Romance languages) and in the HRE (adoption of German language by Non-German peoples, Slavs, Balts, etc. = Germanization), as well as in case of adoption of Spanish and Portuguese languages by Native Americans, and also adoption of English language by every immigrant in the USA. Etc., etc. However, such assimilation is most likely to happen in highly civilized societies, such as Rome or Germany; or in Hellenistic kingdoms and later in the Byzantine Empire (where Greek language was adopted by many of originally Non-Greek peoples). In more primitive societies - such as kinship-based, patriarchal tribes - that was a less common occurence, even though it also happened on some occasions.

That's why ancient DNA is needed to provide evidence on ethno-linguistic origins of various lineages.

Just because some lineage is common among speakers of "Language X" today, does not necessarily mean that it was common already among speakers of "Proto-Language X", since it could be assimilated. We can see this e.g. among Turkic-speaking groups.

History and pre-history can hardly be compared in this case. But thanks for stating what everyone knows already.



I do pay attention. I wrote that EHG subclades are most closely related to M269.


Read again.
 
It's a gross simplification to say that language is usually transmitted from father to son. The imposition of languages by elite dominance of males became common from the iron age onwards, but this was a function of advanced military & political organization rather than paternity.


OK - so you are claiming that it was the case from the Iron Age onwards.

And PIE expansions had been already in the Bronze Age, in times when language was still strongly correlated with Y-DNA, as you admit.

Though I'm sure you've made up your mind already.


That was Marija Gimbutas, not me. A nice summary of Gimbutas and other archaeologists is provided by Grzegorz Jagodziński here:

http://grzegorj.interiowo.pl/lingwpl/pochie2.html#hip6

Cultures often linked with the earliest/deepest PIE origins according to the Steppe Hypothesis, are either all or just some of these:

- Seroglazovo culture (11th-9th millennia BC)
- Bug-Dnieper culture (6300-5500 BC)
- Dnieper-Donets culture (5400-4200 BC)
- Samara culture (6th-5th millennia BC)

After that, in the mid-6th millennium BC, that early PIE population emigrated towards the Middle Volga, and formed Samara culture there. The reason of that migration was probably the great flooding of the Black Sea by water from the Mediterranean Sea (which took place ca. 5600 BC) - as the result of which sea level in the Black Sea rised by even 150 meters and large areas of previously dry land became parts of the Black Sea. In their new homeland at the Middle Volga, PIE gradually learned from their neighbours to the east and to the south about the domestication of horses and about copper metallurgy. In 5200-4000 BC Khvalynsk culture existed between Saratov, Northern Caucasus, the Azov Sea and the Ural River.

Khvalynsk culture was a continuation of Samara culture and a predecessor of fully developed kurgan cultures from later times. It was a Copper Age culture. They had domesticated horses. Proto-kurgans also emerged already in Khvalynsk culture. Around 4500/4200 BC people of Khvalynsk culture started to expand westward (Phase I of PIE expansions according to Gimbutas), forming Sredni Stog culture (4500/4200 - 3300 BC). Sredni Stog people established contact with people of agricultural Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (5500–2750 BC) from Romania, Moldova and Ukraine.

During the existence of Sredni Stog culture, PIE dialect continuum gradually started to split into various IE language families.

The earliest group which split from PIE of Sredni Stog culture, were Proto-Anatolian speakers of Cernavodă culture (4000-3200 BC). Around 3300 BC two other cultures - Yamnaya (Phase A) and Corded Ware (Middle Dnieper = Early Corded Ware) - emerged from Sredni Stog.
 
OK so you are claiming that it was the case from the Iron Age onwards.

And PIE expansions had been already during the Bronze Age, in times when language was still strongly correlated with Y-DNA, as you admit.




That was Marija Gimbutas, not me. A nice summary of Gimbutas and other archaeologists is provided by Grzegorz Jagodziński here:

http://grzegorj.interiowo.pl/lingwpl/pochie2.html#hip6

Cultures often linked with the earliest/deepest PIE origins according to the Steppe Hypothesis, are either all or just some of these:

- Seroglazovo culture (11th-9th millennia BC)
- Bug-Dnieper culture (6300-5500 BC)
- Dnieper-Donets culture (5400-4200 BC)
- Samara culture (6th-5th millennia BC)

After that, in the mid-6th millennium BC, that early PIE population emigrated towards the Middle Volga, and formed Samara culture there. The reason of that migration was probably the great flooding of the Black Sea by water from the Mediterranean Sea (which took place ca. 5600 BC) - as the result of which water level in the Black Sea rised by even 150 meters and large areas of previously dry land became part of the Black Sea. In their new homeland at the Middle Volga, PIE gradually learned from their neighbours to the east and to the south about the domestication of horses and about copper metallurgy. In 5200-4000 BC Khvalynsk culture existed between Saratov, Northern Caucasus, the Azov Sea and the Ural River.

Khvalynsk culture was a continuation of Samara culture and a predecessor of fully developed kurgan cultures from later times. It was a Copper Age culture. They had domesticated horses. Proto-kurgans also emerged already in the Khvalynsk culture. Around 4500/4200 BC people of Khvalynsk culture started to expand westward (Phase I of PIE expansions according to Gimbutas), forming Sredni Stog culture (4500/4200 - 3300 BC). Sredni Stog people established contact with people of agricultural Cucuteni-Trypillian culture (5500–2750 BC) from Romania, Moldova and Ukraine.

During the existence of Sredni Stog culture, PIE dialect continuum gradually started to split into various IE language families.

The earliest group which split from PIE of Sredni Stog culture, were Proto-Anatolian speakers of Cernavodă culture (4000-3200 BC). Around 3300 BC two other cultures - Yamnaya (Phase A) and Corded Ware (Middle Dnieper = Early Corded Ware) - emerged from Sredni Stog.

Thanks again, but I'm well aware of Gimbutas 'research'. However, since progress has been made in the archeology of the Transcaucasus during the last few decades we now know that the definite chronology of the Kurgans is Leyla-Tepe -> Maykop -> Yamnaya. Whether this tells us anything about the languages of said cultures I don't know.
 
We already have mtDNA from Maykop and it does not match mtDNA from the Steppe / Yamna.

Moreover, the issue of PIE is all about expansions of language and people, not cultural trends.

Maykop culture were most certainly speakers of one of languages of the Caucasus, not of IE:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_the_Caucasus
 
Leilatepe - or at least their metallurgy - seems to be derived from Sumerian-speaking Uruk (see: Uruk expansions):

(...) The appearance of Leilatepe tradition’s carriers in the Caucasus marked the appearance of the first local Caucasian metallurgy. This is attributed to migrants from Uruk, arriving around 4500 BCE. Leilatepe metalwork tradition was very sophisticated right from the beginning, and featured many bronze items. Yet later, the quality of metallurgy declined with the Kura–Araxes culture. (...)

Sumerian language was Non-Indo-European:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sumerian_language
 
We already have mtDNA from Maykop and it does not match mtDNA from the Steppe / Yamna.

Why should it?

Moreover, the issue of PIE is all about expansions of language and people, not cultural trends.

More specifically, it is only about the expansion of language. Although I'm not sure why you'd endorse Gimbutas if you really hold that opinion.

Maykop culture were most certainly speakers of one of languages of the Caucasus, not of IE:

Since the Caucasus is home to at 3 distinct language families not found elsewhere, I'd think that the mountains functioned as a refuge for languages that once had a wider distribution in the Circumpontic. There's little reason to assume continuity with an archeological culture that flourished in the region 5,000 years earlier. Also, the cultural impetus that lead to Maykop clearly lies outside of the modern range of the various Caucasian families, with no relatives attested further south.
 
it is clear Maykop came from south of Caucasus and was trading with Uruk
IMO Yamnaya people were already on the steppe before Maykop

around LGM Caspian Sea expanded upto Khvalynsk area, Aral Sea flooded into Caspian Sea and Caspian Sea via Manych depression into Black Sea, maybe around time of Seraglazovo
flooding of Black Sea from Mediterranean probably was 10 ka or earlier

maybe R1a1a was born in Seraglazovo and from there expanded to EHG and to EN Bajkal, this was not IE
 
Leilatepe - or at least their metallurgy - seems to be derived from Sumerian-speaking Uruk (see: Uruk expansions):



Sumerian language was Non-Indo-European:

More specifically, it derives from Ubaid which in a later phase would give way to Uruk. However, there is no reason to assume that they spoke Sumerian only because they came from the area of Mesopotamia. Ubaid predates the first attestation of Sumerian by 2,000 years.
 
More specifically, it is only about the expansion of language.

It was about expansions of people as well. This "Anti-Migrationist" approach that you represent has been smashed by genetic evidence.

There were some sweeping migrations:

https://s12.postimg.io/bszjn5fbx/sweeping_migrations.png

sweeping_migrations.png


It is funny now, but at one point in time some genetic scholars used to think that farmers expanded to Europe from Sardinia. Nobody back then expected that Sardinians are just genetic remnants of a once larger whole, from times when Europe used to be populated by Sardinian-like people:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/early/2016/09/01/072926.full.pdf

"European population "outliers" and "farming out of Sardinia" ???

(...)

When the first genomic data from early European farmers was obtained from a Scandinavian skeleton and a mummy from the Alps, commonly known as Otzi or the Tyrolean Iceman. Researchers were surprised that they showed a strong population affinity to modern-day Sardinians [6, 69]. This observation was even more puzzling since archaeological investigations demonstrate that farming started in the Fertile Crescent [59]. Later studies confirmed those affinities for early farmers from the areas of modern-day Sweden [22], Germany [24], Hungary [50], Spain [52, 51] and Ireland [53], which all showed particularly strong affinities to modern-day Sardinians and not to modern-day Near Eastern populations. Ancient genomic data from Neolithic Anatolia [27, 56, 58] resolved the puzzle by showing that Neolithic individuals from Anatolia were genetically similar to Neolithic farmers from across Europe and modern-day Sardinians. (...)"
 
It was about expansions of people as well. This "Anti-Migrationist" approach that you represent has been smashed by genetic evidence.

Your confused attacks are misplaced - I subscribe to no particular paradigm. I merely stated that the PIE-question is indeed linguistic in nature. Any attempt to construe the evidence to fit one's favorite archeological site is putting the cart before the horse.

You on the other hand seem to favour the conveniently ecletic approach - your insistence that the development of the Kurgan mound in the southern Caucasus and its subsequent spread to the north is meaningless with regard to the question of socio-linguistic affiliation is textbook diffusionism.
 

This thread has been viewed 49137 times.

Back
Top