PDA

View Full Version : Teal people found: Caucasians!



Pages : [1] 2

Tomenable
16-11-15, 15:40
It turns out that the mysterious "Teal People" lived in Caucasus region, in what is now Georgia, before mixing with Russian EHG, as Davidski has predicted - and they had been a genetically distinct, isolated population since at least 25,000 years ago:

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151116/ncomms9912/full/ncomms9912.html

http://m.phys.org/news/2015-11-fourth-strand-european-ancestry-hunter-gatherers.html

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-


The sequencing of ancient DNA recovered from two separate burials in Western Georgia - one over 13,000 years old, the other almost 10,000 years old - has enabled scientists to reveal that the Yamnaya owed half their ancestry to previously unknown and genetically distinct hunter-gatherer sources: the fourth strand.

By reading the DNA, the researchers were able to show that the lineage of this fourth Caucasus hunter-gatherer strand diverged from the western hunter-gatherers just after the expansion of anatomically modern humans into Europe from Africa.

The Caucasus hunter-gatherer genome showed a continued mixture with the ancestors of the early farmers in the Levant area, which Manica says makes sense given the relative proximity. This ends, however, around 25,000 years ago - just before the time of the last glacial maximum, or peak Ice Age.

At this point, Caucasus hunter-gatherer populations shrink as the genes homogenise, a sign of breeding between those with increasingly similar DNA. This doesn't change for thousands of years as these populations remain in apparent isolation in the shelter of the mountains - possibly cut off from other major ancestral populations for as long as 15,000 years - until migrations began again as the Glacial Maximum recedes, and the Yamnaya culture ultimately emerges.

"We knew that the Yamnaya had this big genetic component that we couldn't place, and we can now see it was this ancient lineage hiding in the Caucasus during the last Ice Age," said Manica.

While the Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry would eventually be carried west by the Yamnaya, the researchers found it also had a significant influence further east. A similar population must have migrated into South Asia at some point, says Eppie Jones, a PhD student from Trinity College who is the first author of the paper.

"India is a complete mix of Asian and European genetic components. The Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry is the best match we've found for the European genetic component found right across modern Indian populations," Jones said. Researchers say this strand of ancestry may have flowed into the region with the bringers of Indo-Aryan languages.

The widespread nature of the Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry following its long isolation makes sense geographically, says Professor Ron Pinhasi, a lead senior author from University College Dublin. "The Caucasus region sits almost at a crossroads of the Eurasian landmass, with arguably the most sensible migration routes both west and east in the vicinity

Tomenable
16-11-15, 16:10
Here is a previous paper (from 2014) with the same samples from the same sites in Georgia:

"Satsurblia: New Insights of Human Response and Survival across the Last Glacial Maximum in the Southern Caucasus":

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111271

Goga
16-11-15, 16:18
Another proof that those folks who Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Horizon came from the Maykop civilization. R1b was in Maykop first before it entered into Yamnaya. Maykop is older than Yamnaya.

In turn Maykop was highly influenced by folks from the Iranian Plateau (like Leyla-Tepe). Also, nice to see that the writers do associate Indo-Aryan people (Indians, ancient speakers of Sanskrit) with teal folks.


R1a in the Iranian Plateau entered the steppes via the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea, while R1b entered the steppes also from the eastern shores of the Caspian Sea from the Iranian Plateau but also from the Maykop.

Tomenable
16-11-15, 16:19
Y-DNA haplogroups of "Teal People", were J and J2:

Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (formerly: "Teal People"), 2 samples - J, J2
Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (Karelia and Samara), 3 samples - R1b, R1a, J

It seems, that both CHG and EHG shared haplogroup J.


R1b was in Maykop first before it entered into Yamnaya.

We don't know this, no R1b was found so far among "Teal people" - only J and J2.

Which confirms Bicicleur's theory, that initially, in Paleolithic times, IJ split into I and J around the Caucasus, and then I migrated to Europe (becoming the main haplogroup of WHG) and J stayed in the Caucasus region, where CHG people emerged.

Goga
16-11-15, 16:25
Y-DNA haplogroups of "Teal People", were J and J2:

Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (formerly: "Teal People"), 2 samples - J, J2
Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (Karelia and Samara), 3 samples - R1b, R1a, J

It seems, that EHG and CHG shared haplogroup J.



No R1b was found so far among "Teal people" - only J and J2.It's a known fact that R1b entered Yamnaya from Caucasus. R1b was originally from the Iranian Plateau, but before they entered Yamnaya they first settled down around Maykop. When R1b migrated into Yamnaya R1b folks brought teal with them.


R1b or even R1a in Karelia could be brought by the same people who brought J2 to Karelia. And we all know that J2 came from West Asia. So, my point is that there were different waves of R1a and R1b from the Iranian Plateau Into the steppes. Some are very ancient, some are not very ancient...

Maciamo
16-11-15, 16:30
I haven't read the full paper yet, but at first sight the authors' interpretation seems rather hasty.

First of all, if the teal component found in Yamna and Indo-Europeans is of Paleolithic Caucasian origin, then does that mean that the teal component should be split in two categories (Caucasian/Steppe vs Gedrosian/West Asian) ? Or is it the same Caucasian people who expanded south and spread the teal component around the Middle East, presumably with the expansion of J1 and J2a during the Kura-Araxes period ?

The two samples tested were:

- Satsurblia (13,300 years old) : Y-DNA J and mtDNA K3
- Kotias (9,700 years old) : Y-DNA J2a and mtDNA H13c

Both samples are almost completely teal-coloured in admixtures, except one which has about 10% of Near Eastern/Early Farmer admixture.

What surprises me is that neither the Y-DNA nor the mtDNA lineages show an association with Yamna or any Indo-European culture. MtDNA K3 is found almost exclusively in Georgia nowadays, which means it wasn't part of the maternal lineages that mixed with Proto-Indo-Europeans. Likewise H13c is essentially found in the Caucasus and Middle East. Although H13a was found among Yamna and Bell Beakers, all H13 subclades are relatively rare in Europe today, except in Sardinia (8%), which is the only part of Europe with virtually no Steppe ancestry. When we see that the paternal lines belong to J* and J2a, two lineages also more common in the Middle East than Europe, it makes me wonder whether Mesolithic Caucasian really are ancestral to Yamna and other IE people.

It's not because Paleolithic and Mesolithic Caucasians had the teal admixture that it necessarily is the source of the Yamna teal. No Paleolithic or Mesolithic genomes from Armenia, Iran or Kurdistan have been tested to date, and there is a good chance that these would have carried the same teal admixture. We can't draw any definitive conclusion from only two Caucasian samples without knowing what the genomes of people further south looked like during the same period.

It would make more sense if the teal component was brought to the Steppe from eastern Anatolia or Armenia during the Neolithic. In terms of mtDNA, there is overwhelming evidence of a direct migration from that region to the Steppe, with the presence of mt-haplogroups H5, H8c, H15 or J1b1a, among others. None of these are Caucasian in origin, but rather from the northern Fertile Crescent. I still stand by my theory that R1b settled in that region during the Late Paleolithic, domesticated cattle, mixed with local women (H5, H8c, H15, J1b1a) who gave them the teal admixture, then moved across the Caucasus in search for pastureland for their cattle.

Tomenable
16-11-15, 16:35
R1b was originally from the Iranian Plateau

Goga, your "originally" usually means like 30,000 years ago.... But originally, we are all from Africa.

That's why your excitement that someone migrated across the Iranian Plateau (after entering Eurasia from Africa) in Paleolithic times has not much to do with the issue of PIEs, who emerged as a distinct group much later than Paleolithic times.

The region of Iran is a natural transit route from Africa to Europe and Northern Eurasia. Another such route is Anatolia.

When people migrated out of Africa, there were only two obvious routes into Europe - either via Iran, or via Anatolia.

It is not so extraordinary that many groups came from (or via) the Iranian Plateau, instead of Anatolia.

Goga
16-11-15, 16:44
The two samples tested were:

- Satsurblia (13,300 years old) : Y-DNA J and mtDNA K3
- Kotias (9,700 years old) : Y-DNA J2a and mtDNA H13cHere we go. We are talking here about very, very ancient DNA. We are talking about Caucasian H&G.

Indo-European languages are younger than 10,000 years old. The very first Indo-Europeans were not H&G.

When R1b from the Iranian Plateau entered Maykop it was aleady at least 5,000 years later.


I did always believe that Proto-Indo-European language was born when J2 and R1 folks encountered each other..

Goga
16-11-15, 16:48
Goga, your "originally" usually means like 30,000 years ago.... But originally, we are all from Africa.Has nothing to do with Africa.

Leyla-Tepe culture is 6,500 - 7000 years old. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leyla-Tepe_culture


I'm sure that R1b entered Maykop and Yamnaya Horizon from the Iranian Plateau around that time, 7,000 years ago. While Caucasian H&G are at least 10,000 years old...

Tomenable
16-11-15, 16:51
We don't know where did R1 originally come from, but IMO the opinion of Jean Manco, that R1 (and by extension, both R1a and R1b) originally comes from an LGM refuge in Siberia, near Lake Baikal, is not improbable.

After all, haplogroup R is most closely related to haplogroup Q, and both of these haplogroups correlate with ANE ancestry, which is common among Q-rich populations (Native Americans) and R-rich populations.

But I'm afraid that Goga will not allow any haplogroup to emerge somewhere else than the Iranian Plateau. All nice haplogroups must be originally from Iran according to him. :)

Haplogroup I is most closely related to haplogroup J, and now we have a confirmation, that they split from each other around the Caucasus, but J stayed in an LGM refuge there, while I survived the LGM in Europe.

Goga
16-11-15, 17:00
We don't know where did R1 originally come from, but IMO the opinion of Jean Manco, that R (and by extension, both R1a and R1b) originally comes from an LGM refuge in Siberia is not improbable.

After all, haplogroup R is most closely related to haplogroup Q, and both of these haplogroups correlate with ANE ancestry, which is common among Q-rich populations (Native Americans) and R-rich populations.

But I'm afraid that Goga will not allow any haplogroup to emerge somewhere else than the Iranian Plateau. All nice haplogroups must be originally from Iran according to him. :)

Haplogroup I is most closely related to haplogroup J, and now we have a confirmation, that they split from each other around the Caucasus, but J stayed in an LGM refuge there.
What you fail to understand is that 'teal' is very rich of ANE.


R* is more than 25,000 years old. It has nothing to do with Leyla-Tepe, Maykop or Yamnaya. Let alone P. P is the ancestor of R* and Q and it is even much older. My guess is that P* evolved in (South)Central Asia.

bicicleur
16-11-15, 17:04
Y-DNA haplogroups of "Teal People", were J and J2:

Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (formerly: "Teal People"), 2 samples - J, J2
Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (Karelia and Samara), 3 samples - R1b, R1a, J

It seems, that both CHG and EHG shared haplogroup J.



We don't know this, no R1b was found so far among "Teal people" - only J and J2.

Which confirms Bicicleur's theory, that initially, in Paleolithic times, IJ split into I and J around the Caucasus, and then I migrated to Europe (becoming the main haplogroup of WHG) and J stayed in the Caucasus region, where CHG people emerged.

I have red the paper hastily.
The results are both surprising and enlightning.
I have to adapt my view.
Afaik Georgia was uninhabited during LGM.
The Satsurblia J2a was probalby Eastern Epigravettian, which was both north and south of the Caucasus at that time, as well as north of the Black Sea.
The Eastern Eprigravettian first appears after LGM near the Krim, so they probably survived LGM near the Sea of Azov, but another posibility is Kostenki were also people might have survived LGM.
I now guess IJ was south of Caucasus 42 ka, but both I and J2 (or J?) crossed the Caucasus (well, as sea levels were lower one could probably walk the eastern Black Sea shores back then).
While I moved further west in Europe, J2 may have stayed in the east or came back to the east just before LGM
It is known that Pavlovian, develloped from Gravettian in Moravia and expanded back to Kostenki area just before LGM.

If there is more info about the cultural context of the Satsurblia sample, it would be interesting.

It is a big surprise as J2a has always been associated with the Natufians in the Levant 16-11 ka.
This seems very unlikely now.

J was also identified next to the Karelian hunter.

PS : We can therefore report with confidence the discovery and analysis of human occupation in western Georgia during the period spanning between 17.9–16.2 ka cal. BP. The lithic analyses reveal that during this period, there existed a cultural (lithic) variant resembling the Eastern Epi-Gravettian

http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0111271

Tomenable
16-11-15, 17:25
Maciamo, it's true that vast areas still remain completely unsampled for ancient DNA.

A map showing what we know about EHG, CHG and AEF (Anatolian Early Farmer) autosomal groups, and their Y-DNA:

http://s17.postimg.org/y4i4vf4bj/EHG_CHG_AEF.png

http://s17.postimg.org/y4i4vf4bj/EHG_CHG_AEF.png

bicicleur
16-11-15, 17:39
the link between CHG and ANI might be the following :

first neolithic in Baluchistan dates 9 ka

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

check YFull and you'll find an Indian subclade of J2a with TMRCA +/- 9000 years

PS : check this : http://www.yfull.com/tree/J-Z6057/

Angela
16-11-15, 17:54
This is a very interesting and exciting paper, and gives us a lot of good information, but I think some people, including the authors, are being a little hasty here. I think it's best to wait for genomes from further east or south east.

For one thing, from my skimming of the paper (if I'm wrong correct me), the authors found no or tiny Mal'ta affinity, which is supposed to equate to ANE affinity. Other, prior papers, found ANE in the population that mixed with EHG. All of these amateur calculators show high ANE in the Near East today. Is that all wrong, just as the low Middle East numbers in those calculators are wrong ? Doesn't it seem that perhaps there is a "teal" population, similar to this one which was found in what is now Georgia, which did have such a similarity? Perhaps this other "teal" population was located closer to the south Caspian and perhaps east of it?

There is also Maciamo's point about the mtDna to consider. Perhaps this sample is not representative of the area, but if it is representative, the mtDna that went onto the steppe is much more similar to the mtDna of Armenia or eastern Anatolia generally, isn't it?

I just went to Dienekes site and he has a post about it with the expected first comment. How can we go back to all the teal on the steppe is from women who were imported during the Neolithic or even the Copper Age if we have an EHG carrying y Dna "J" north of the Caucasus? Doesn't it seem as if there was "folk" movement going in either direction depending on the period. I think we need a lot more data before we can come to that sort of conclusion.

http://www.dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/11/westasian-in-flesh-hunter-gatherers.html

"Years ago, I detected (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html) the presence of a West_Asian genetic component (with dual modes in "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia") whose origins I placed in the "highlands of West Asia" and which I proposed spread into Europe post-5kya with Indo-European languages.

Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html) showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.

A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG)."

In my mind this also calls into question the stats positing such high admixture from Andronovo into India or Central Asia and south central Asia. I think a lot of the admixture was from these very early periods. Given how little actual "North European" is found in these populations I'm skeptical as to how much autosomal influence can be attributed to these late steppe civilizations

Fluffy
16-11-15, 17:55
This is interesting. Does this mean that J is Indo European?

Angela
16-11-15, 18:08
It also looks strangely as if this was the Basal Eurasian population? Or largely Basal Eurasian. What an unexpected development if that is true.

Well, it's certainly a great place to hide out and avoid mixing for a couple of thousand years.

To another point, the authors do seem to be saying that they think the Indo-European language was brought to the steppe with these people. I'm not sure about that yet.

Goga
16-11-15, 18:27
This is interesting. Does this mean that J is Indo European?Not really J*, but some subclades of J2a.

I think that the very first proto-proto-Indo-European language was born on the Iranian Plateau when J2a (+G2a) folks mixed with R1b/R1a/R2a folks. = Caucasus (J2a & G2a) + Gedrosia (R1a/R1b/R2a)

bicicleur
16-11-15, 18:33
It also looks strangely as if this was the Basal Eurasian population? Or largely Basal Eurasian. What an unexpected development if that is true.

Well, it's certainly a great place to hide out and avoid mixing for a couple of thousand years.

To another point, the authors do seem to be saying that they think the Indo-European language was brought to the steppe with these people. I'm not sure about that yet.

we need DNA from Maykop
Maykop postdated the split of Anatolian from PIE , so Maykop can't have been IE in origin
Is Maykop J2a? Is Maykop teal?

Goga
16-11-15, 18:36
we need DNA from Maykop
Maykop postdated the split of Anatolian from PIE , so Maykop can't have been IE in origin
Is Maykop J2a? Is Maykop teal?
Maykop is older than Yamnaya. And it has been proven many times that there was a migration from Maykop into Yamnaya..


Maykop was most likely R1b, with some J2a, G2a and even some R1a.

Fluffy
16-11-15, 18:41
Not really J*, but some subclades of J2a.

I think that the very first proto-proto-Indo-European language was born on the Iranian Plateau when J2a (+G2a) folks mixed with R1b/R1a/R2a folks. = Caucasus (J2a & G2a) + Gedrosia (R1a/R1b/R2a)

Makes sense to me.

sparkey
16-11-15, 20:01
Nobody should be surprised that I'm particularly interested in this study finding Paleolithic Y-DNA I2 in Switzerland.

Alan
16-11-15, 20:09
The Caucasus hunter-gatherer genome showed a continued mixture with the ancestors of the early farmers in the Levant area, which Manica says makes sense given the relative proximity. This ends, however, around 25,000 years ago - just before the time of the last glacial maximum, or peak Ice Age.


But going by this article it seems like there was a fourth H&G group related to WHG. This sounds like something very WHG like.

From the article it seems something Teal like mixed with something WHG/EHG like H&G who were native to the Caucasus.


"India is a complete mix of Asian and European genetic components. The Caucasus hunter-gatherer ancestry is the best match we've found for the European genetic component found right across modern Indian populations," Jones said. Researchers say this strand of ancestry may have flowed into the region with the bringers of Indo-Aryan languages.


So these people must have been what we call Teal + something WHG like already if the Indo European signature in India resembles this mostly.

Alan
16-11-15, 20:16
Y-DNA haplogroups of "Teal People", were J and J2:

Caucasian Hunter-Gatherer (formerly: "Teal People"), 2 samples - J, J2
Eastern Hunter-Gatherer (Karelia and Samara), 3 samples - R1b, R1a, J

It seems, that both CHG and EHG shared haplogroup J.



We don't know this, no R1b was found so far among "Teal people" - only J and J2.

Which confirms Bicicleur's theory, that initially, in Paleolithic times, IJ split into I and J around the Caucasus, and then I migrated to Europe (becoming the main haplogroup of WHG) and J stayed in the Caucasus region, where CHG people emerged.
Two samples are still far too low to be able to say something.


Don't you find it mysterious that there is J in EHG, there is J in those Caucasus "teal like" groups, but no J in Yamna? So J reached the EHG without any Teal admixture but skipped Yamna while Yamna is like 50-60% Teal?

I would be suprised if we wouldn't find A: R1b in Caucasus in further samples or B: J in Yamna samples.

And yes Bicicleur was right with his theory of the Caucasus root but also I preached milion times that people are being wrong in calling J an EEF exclusiv Haplogroup simply out of the logic that it's closest cousins I and K are WHG and ANE. J and I might be the WHG like ancestry in EEF actually. And Basal Eurasian might be connected to yDNA G and H

Alan
16-11-15, 20:24
I haven't read the full paper yet, but at first sight the authors' interpretation seems rather hasty.

First of all, if the teal component found in Yamna and Indo-Europeans is of Paleolithic Caucasian origin, then does that mean that the teal component should be split in two categories (Caucasian/Steppe vs Gedrosian/West Asian) ? Or is it the same Caucasian people who expanded south and spread the teal component around the Middle East, presumably with the expansion of J1 and J2a during the Kura-Araxes period ?

The two samples tested were:

- Satsurblia (13,300 years old) : Y-DNA J and mtDNA K3
- Kotias (9,700 years old) : Y-DNA J2a and mtDNA H13c

Both samples are almost completely teal-coloured in admixtures, except one which has about 10% of Near Eastern/Early Farmer admixture.

What surprises me is that neither the Y-DNA nor the mtDNA lineages show an association with Yamna or any Indo-European culture. MtDNA K3 is found almost exclusively in Georgia nowadays, which means it wasn't part of the maternal lineages that mixed with Proto-Indo-Europeans. Likewise H13c is essentially found in the Caucasus and Middle East. Although H13a was found among Yamna and Bell Beakers, all H13 subclades are relatively rare in Europe today, except in Sardinia (8%), which is the only part of Europe with virtually no Steppe ancestry. When we see that the paternal lines belong to J* and J2a, two lineages also more common in the Middle East than Europe, it makes me wonder whether Mesolithic Caucasian really are ancestral to Yamna and other IE people.

It's not because Paleolithic and Mesolithic Caucasians had the teal admixture that it necessarily is the source of the Yamna teal. No Paleolithic or Mesolithic genomes from Armenia, Iran or Kurdistan have been tested to date, and there is a good chance that these would have carried the same teal admixture. We can't draw any definitive conclusion from only two Caucasian samples without knowing what the genomes of people further south looked like during the same period.

It would make more sense if the teal component was brought to the Steppe from eastern Anatolia or Armenia during the Neolithic. In terms of mtDNA, there is overwhelming evidence of a direct migration from that region to the Steppe, with the presence of mt-haplogroups H5, H8c, H15 or J1b1a, among others. None of these are Caucasian in origin, but rather from the northern Fertile Crescent. I still stand by my theory that R1b settled in that region during the Late Paleolithic, domesticated cattle, mixed with local women (H5, H8c, H15, J1b1a) who gave them the teal admixture, then moved across the Caucasus in search for pastureland for their cattle.

Good point and I am still saying the region between the Zagros and Elborz mountains is the missing link.

Maciamo
16-11-15, 20:49
we need DNA from Maykop
Maykop postdated the split of Anatolian from PIE , so Maykop can't have been IE in origin
Is Maykop J2a? Is Maykop teal?

IMO, the main J2a culture in the Caucasus was Kura-Araxes, which spread southward, while Maykop while probably a mix of G2a and R1b and might be the source of R1b-L51 that migrated along the northern Black Sea shore to Europe. That was my original theory about the spread of IE R1b. My first clue was that the oldest (bronze) sword ever found was in Maykop and resembled uncannily ancient Celtic and Germanic swords, as if it was their ancestral model. We now know that Yamna people belonged to R1b, but to the eastern Z2123 branch that is more associated with IE branches like Greek, Armenian or Tocharian. That doesn't leave a lot of possibilities for the origin of R1b-L51. If it isn't Maykop, then its Kemi-Oba or possibly some lost cultures lost under the shallow waters of the northern Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

Tomenable
16-11-15, 20:54
Where do you think was the boundary between "CHG / Teal" autosomal and "AEF" autosomal ???:

I agree that we need to check aDNA from Eastern Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Armenia and Western Iran:

But if "Teal people" migrated across the Caucasus, then "Teal" in Yamnaya almost certainly comes at least partially from CHG. Unless you want to argue that "Teal" ancestral to Yamnaya migrated to the east of the Caspian Sea, not through CHG territory:

http://s17.postimg.org/lao1aiqkf/AEF_CHG.png

http://s17.postimg.org/lao1aiqkf/AEF_CHG.png

Fluffy
16-11-15, 20:57
IMO, the main J2a culture in the Caucasus was Kura-Araxes, which spread southward, while Maykop while probably a mix of G2a and R1b and might be the source of R1b-L51 that migrated along the northern Black Sea shore to Europe. That was my original theory about the spread of IE R1b. My first clue was that the oldest (bronze) sword ever found was in Maykop and resembled uncannily ancient Celtic and Germanic swords, as if it was their ancestral model. We now know that Yamna people belonged to R1b, but to the eastern Z2123 branch that is more associated with IE branches like Greek, Armenian or Tocharian. That doesn't leave a lot of possibilities for the origin of R1b-L51. If it isn't Maykop, then its Kemi-Oba or possibly some lost cultures lost under the shallow waters of the northern Black Sea and Sea of Azov.

Another very plausible theory.

Tomenable
16-11-15, 21:03
Also we must remember that already Khvalynsk people 7200-6000 years ago had a lot of "Teal" component.

These ones:


Khvalynsk Eneolithic in the Volga steppes: Saratovo, Russia (n=3)

Three individuals described here were among 39 excavated in 1987-88 at the Eneolithic cemetery of Khvalynsk II, Saratov oblast, Russia, on the west bank of the Volga River, 6 km north of the village of Alekseevka. Khvalynsk I and II are two parts of the same cemetery, excavated in 1977-79 (Khvalynsk I) and 1987-88 (Khvalynsk II).23 The two excavations revealed 197 graves, about 10x larger than other cemeteries of this period in the Volga-Ural steppes, dated by radiocarbon to 5200-4000 BCE (95.4% confidence). (...)

Tomenable
16-11-15, 21:09
According to MfA, even EHG - including Karelian EHG - already scored a bit of Teal (ANE is not included in this analysis, though):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!&p=120898&viewfull=1#post120898


EHG did actually score some Teal, but back then it was thought a case of EHG-related admixture in Teal.

http://abload.de/img/ehg5ezl5.png

^it is taken from Haak et al. ADMIXTURE table.

Fire Haired14
16-11-15, 22:08
ENF=Farmer. Is dead.

I'm not surprised by the results. It didn't make sense to me Basal Eurasians expanded only with farming. I knew Hunter gatherers of West Asia also had Basal Eurasian. West Asian genetic origins are a lot more complicated than early farmers repopulating the region.

Modern Caucasus look like they might be 50%+ from Upper Paleolithic Caucasus people. The Kurds here are probably happy with the results, they have ancestry from their region from before the Sumerians, way back in very primitive times.

The first farmers of Europe certainly had a lot of Near Eastern hunter gatherer ancestry, which clearly was closely related to hunter gatherers in Europe.

These CHG genomes fit better as Yamnaya's non-EHG ancestors than any moderns. They score almost 100% in "Teal" of the paper's ADMIXTURE. It really looks like they were the Teal people.

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

I've added Hirisplex results of the CHG genomes and new Late Upper Palaeilthic WHG genome to Pre-Historic West Eurasian Phenotype (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1798287387).

The oldest Caucasus genome(13,300yo) and Swiss genome(13,700yo) had rs12913832 AG, confirming blue eyes are over 13,000 years old. The Swiss genome is our first Brown eyed WHG person.

Both Caucasus genomes and new WHG had CC in rs16891982. The oldest example of derived alleles in that SNP are from Sweden and Anatolia dating to 6000 BC. The new WHG had GG in rs1426654 but both Caucasus guys had AA in rs1426654. Both were Caucasus guys were confirmed to have the C11 haplotype found in 97% of AA rs1426654 today. So, far all pre-Neolithic West Eurasians are mostly derived in rs1426654, except WHG.

With these new data it appears: There was eye-color variation in both West Asia and Europe over 13,000 years ago. Blue eyes probably originated before the LGM. Caucasus had the same pigmentation-related alleles as modern West Asians. Mutations associated with Light skin existed over 13,000 years ago in at least the Caucasus(but certainly elsewhere).

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

This paper tells a lot about origins of South Asians. I'm going to post about it later. Many methods show CHG is the best proxy for non-Eastern ancestors of South Asians. They're basically the Teal, ASI, Wet Asian, signal we've seen for years. They contributed ancestry to all West Eurasians and South Asians, and probably others.

Angela
16-11-15, 22:13
How many times does it have to be said??? All humans were hunter-gatherers before they became farmers.

As to the relationship between some of these hunter-gatherers:

"Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ~45 kya, shortly after the expansion of anatomically modern humans into Europe and from the ancestors of Neolithic farmers ~25 kya, around the Last Glacial Maximum."

If I'm reading the paper and the supplement correctly, both CHG and ENFs in Anatolia had Basal Eurasian? So did Kostenki? So the admixture between non Basal Eurasian hunter gatherers and Basal Eurasian hunter gatherers had to take place before 25kya.

Fire Haired14
16-11-15, 23:46
I've read through whole paper, except ADMIXTURE part it's too small to read. This is the information I've got....

Genetic continuation from Late Upper Palaeolithic-Mesolithic.
>Continuation in Georgia between 13,000-10,000yo. Continuation in Central Europe between 13,000-8,000yo.

South Asians, Yamnaya, and South Caucasus fit best as CHG+something else.
>South Asians fit best as CHG+South Indian. Yamnaya fits best as CHG+EHG. South Caucasus fits best as CHG+EF.
>D(Yoruba, X; Onge, Indian population) results say of all moderns and ancients, Indians are closest to CHG. Also, they're much closer to CHG than to Onge.

Europeans(not just north) have CHG ancestry via Steppe
>Besides Caucasus, CHG shares most drift with (all)Europeans. After that CHG shares most drift with South Asians.
>D-states and Drift(F3-stats) show European-relation to CHG follows the same pattern as Steppe ancestry. High CHG-drift first appears in Europe in Late Neolithic(we've heard the story a million times).

SouthWest Asians have CHG ancestry?
>In Supp 9. they tested f3(Target; Source1, Source2), to see what modern Eurasians fit best as an admixture of.
>SW Asians fit best as EF+African. Although Cypriots fit best as CHG+EEF. I tend to think African is hiding CHG ancestry in SW Asians, but maybe not.

CHG has complicated relationship to other Ancients(xSteppe, Steppe admixed).
>MA1 is Mr. ANE, but he very slightly closer to CHG than to EF.
>CHG is equally related to ANE and WHG(according to D-stats).
>CHG is slightly closer to EHG than to WHG.
>Of all ancients(xSteppe, Steppe admixed) CHG is closest to EF.

EF and WHG have lots of shared ancestry
>WHG, including the new 13,700 one, are much closer to EF than to CHG. Much more significantly than CHG is closer to EF than to WHG.

Alan
17-11-15, 02:14
ENF=Farmer. Is dead.

I'm not surprised by the results. It didn't make sense to me Basal Eurasians expanded only with farming. I knew Hunter gatherers of West Asia also had Basal Eurasian. West Asian genetic origins are a lot more complicated than early farmers repopulating the region.

Modern Caucasus look like they might be 50%+ from Upper Paleolithic Caucasus people. The Kurds here are probably happy with the results, they have ancestry from their region from before the Sumerians, way back in very primitive times.

The first farmers of Europe certainly had a lot of Near Eastern hunter gatherer ancestry, which clearly was closely related to hunter gatherers in Europe.

These CHG genomes fit better as Yamnaya's non-EHG ancestors than any moderns. They score almost 100% in "Teal" of the paper's ADMIXTURE. It really looks like they were the Teal people.

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

I've added Hirisplex results of the CHG genomes and new Late Upper Palaeilthic WHG genome to Pre-Historic West Eurasian Phenotype (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1xe9sgt0PSt6cUQ3cYp14foBoaVGsOKZBmmHJoKz0HB0/edit#gid=1798287387).

The oldest Caucasus genome(13,300yo) and Swiss genome(13,700yo) had rs12913832 AG, confirming blue eyes are over 13,000 years old. The Swiss genome is our first Brown eyed WHG person.

Both Caucasus genomes and new WHG had CC in rs16891982. The oldest example of derived alleles in that SNP are from Sweden and Anatolia dating to 6000 BC. The new WHG had GG in rs1426654 but both Caucasus guys had AA in rs1426654. Both were Caucasus guys were confirmed to have the C11 haplotype found in 97% of AA rs1426654 today. So, far all pre-Neolithic West Eurasians are mostly derived in rs1426654, except WHG.

With these new data it appears: There was eye-color variation in both West Asia and Europe over 13,000 years ago. Blue eyes probably originated before the LGM. Caucasus had the same pigmentation-related alleles as modern West Asians. Mutations associated with Light skin existed over 13,000 years ago in at least the Caucasus(but certainly elsewhere).

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

This paper tells a lot about origins of South Asians. I'm going to post about it later. Many methods show CHG is the best proxy for non-Eastern ancestors of South Asians. They're basically the Teal, ASI, Wet Asian, signal we've seen for years. They contributed ancestry to all West Eurasians and South Asians, and probably others.

I might have misunderstood the paper, but doesn't it actually say, that in the Caucasus there was a WHG/EHG/ANE related Hunters and Gatherers group since 25.000 bc which mixed with incoming farmers and created what we call "Teal farmers" ? If so than most of the Basal Eurasian is EEF derived, came via the EEF. That doesn't disprove the existence of an Basal Eurasian like population which probably existed 20000 BC before it mixed with a WHG like group to create EEF and merged with a Caucasus H&G group which resembles WHG/ANE.

But take in mind the paper speaks about a paleolithic Caucasus H&G group which merged with incoming EEF groups. So this Caucasus H&G is important to understand the origin of paleolithic movements but doesn't play much of a role for Neolithic once.

For Neolithic movements, EEF, Teal, EHG and WHG are much more important becaus the Caucasus H&G population didn't existed anymore in it's pure form.

Alan
17-11-15, 02:16
According to MfA, even EHG - including Karelian EHG - already scored a bit of Teal (ANE is not included in this analysis, though):

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!&p=120898&viewfull=1#post120898

I mentioned that a milion times that EHG groups showed some Caucaso_Gedrosia like ancestry but everyone ignored it and claimed it is a remnant of EHG ancestry in Teal People. I said it is the remnant of a third population which merged into Teal farmers as well EHG groups and is most likely the source for the R Haplogroups in both.

Alan
17-11-15, 02:23
How many times does it have to be said??? All humans were hunter-gatherers before they became farmers.

As to the relationship between some of these hunter-gatherers:

"Caucasus hunter-gatherers (CHG) belong to a distinct ancient clade that split from western hunter-gatherers ~45 kya, shortly after the expansion of anatomically modern humans into Europe and from the ancestors of Neolithic farmers ~25 kya, around the Last Glacial Maximum."

If I'm reading the paper and the supplement correctly, both CHG and ENFs in Anatolia had Basal Eurasian? So did Kostenki? So the admixture between non Basal Eurasian hunter gatherers and Basal Eurasian hunter gatherers had to take place before 25kya.

Kostenki was yDNA NO, I think the Basal Eurasian showing up in Kostenki is simply shared archaic ancestry. Kostenki even showed some SSA signals. It is simple, the more ancient the samples the closer to the root and therefore the more noisy "weird admixture" will show up which is simply shared ancestry with other distant related groups, in the case of Kostenki it is Basal Eurasians imo.

Fire Haired14
17-11-15, 02:29
Kostenki had Y DNA C1.

Tomenable
17-11-15, 02:55
I might have misunderstood the paper, but doesn't it actually say, that in the Caucasus there was a WHG/EHG/ANE related Hunters and Gatherers group since 25.000 bc which mixed with incoming farmers and created what we call "Teal farmers"

The paper says that mixing of Caucasus HGs with some Near Easterners (ancestors of ENF ?) ended 25,000 years ago. They mixed with ancestors of ENF long before those people became farmers (25,000 years ago there was no farming anywhere in the world). Since 25,000 years ago they were isolated from outside admixtures for the next 15,000 years, until 10,000 years ago (8,000 BC).


the paper speaks about a paleolithic Caucasus H&G group which merged with incoming EEF groups.

I haven't read all of it yet, but AFAIK it doesn't say anything about Caucasus HGs merging with incoming ENF groups.

It says that they mixed with some "Pre-ENF" groups more than 25,000 years ago - i.e. before those groups became ENF.

How can we call someone who lived 25,000 years ago "Early Neolithic Farmers"? No farmers existed back then.

Alan
17-11-15, 04:40
Taking a look at this graph

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151116/ncomms9912/images/ncomms9912-f1.jpg

Well we have reached a point where Eastern/Teal farmer DNA exceeds EHG admixture even slightly in Yamna by ~5%, that expecting this admixture came via "female lineages" would actually need us to assume that there was a female replacement above 100% what is basically out of logic. Looking how we find J in EHG samples, I think we haven't found out everything yet. It simply can't be that male Teal farmer Haplogroups skipped Yamna, but appear in EHG groups who are supposed (by some people) to be the paternal parents of Yamna. Allot of things don't fit here. And as Maciamo I think with further Samples, at best from further Southeast, we will find some R lineages.

That said these samples are from West Caucasus, I still think North Caucasus samples will show some additional EHG admixture to their pred. Teal ancestry.

Alan
17-11-15, 04:41
Kostenki had Y DNA C1.

Sure? And who was the NO individual?

But even better anyways, since C1 is even more archaic no wonder we find Basal Eurasian like admixture in him

Alan
17-11-15, 04:44
The paper says that mixing of Caucasus HGs with some Near Easterners (ancestors of ENF ?) ended 25,000 years ago. They mixed with ancestors of ENF long before those people became farmers (25,000 years ago there was no farming anywhere in the world). Since 25,000 years ago they were isolated from outside admixtures for the next 15,000 years, until 10,000 years ago (8,000 BC).



I haven't read all of it yet, but AFAIK it doesn't say anything about Caucasus HGs merging with incoming ENF groups.

It says that they mixed with some "Pre-ENF" groups more than 25,000 years ago - i.e. before those groups became ENF.

How can we call someone who lived 25,000 years ago "Early Neolithic Farmers"? No farmers existed back then.

Ah ok I missed that part, so it is the same source as EEF . The only difference as I said in my early posts seems to be a simple ANE "admixture" (Now it looks like it isn't really admixture but ANE like drift) from a Caucasus (I still believe this Caucasus H&G are actually arrivals from the Iranian Plateau) H&G.

Fire Haired14
17-11-15, 04:48
Well we have reached a point where Eastern/Teal farmer DNA exceeds EHG admixture in Yamna by 5-10% that expecting this admixture came via "female lineages" would actually need us to assume that there was a female replacement above 100% what is basically nonsense.

Bronze age Steppe Y DNA is marked by patriarch lineages that represent ~100% of the male lineages. ~100% Eastern Yamnaya have R1b-Z2103, ~100% proto-Indo Iranians have R1a-Z94, ~100% Corded ware has R1a-M417, ~100% Eastern Bell Beaker has R1b-P312.

So, when EHG and CHG first mixed many hg J CHG males could have mixed with EHG females. However, in the end a few lucky EHG-male lines became the patriarch lineages. So ancestry from CHG males remained but their Y DNA was erased, along with the Y DNA of 99% of EHG males.

This is important to understand. Every R1a/b EHG represents dead-lineages, 99% of their Y DNA was also replaced.


Looking how we find J in EHG samples, I think we haven't found out everything yet. It simply can't be that male Teal farmer Haplogroups skipped Yamna, but appear in EHG groups who are supposed (by some people) to be the paternal parents of Yamna. Allot of things don't fit here. And as Maciamo I think with further Samples, at best from further Southeast, we will find some R lineages.

EHG didn't show signs of Basal Eurasian. These CHG guys had Basal Eurasian. Karelia_HG could have had West Asian ancestry but it must have been very small.

Fire Haired14
17-11-15, 04:50
I just noticed EHG scores a little of CHG stuff, they could have CHG in them. CHG is closer to EHG than to WHG.

Alan
17-11-15, 04:57
So, when EHG and CHG first mixed many hg J CHG males could have mixed with EHG females. However, in the end a few lucky EHG-male lines became the patriarch lineages. So ancestry from CHG males remained but their Y DNA was erased, along with the Y DNA of 99% of EHG males.

This is important to understand. Every R1a/b EHG represents dead-lineages, 99% of their Y DNA was also replaced.

Finally a conclusion that does make sense. It could very well happened that way, that R1b male lineages were simply "lucky" to bottleneck. But than this would still assume a close to 100% female contribution from Teal/CHG and 100% male contribution of EHG, cause Teal in Yamna is 5 times more than in EHG (which was brought to them probably by some Teal male/female admixture).

I think this scenario is possible but does not really convince me, because it still needs many random/unlikely events to have happened at once. Simply to many for my taste.

Alan
17-11-15, 05:00
Bronze age Steppe Y DNA is marked by patriarch lineages that represent ~100% of the male lineages. ~100% Eastern Yamnaya have R1b-Z2103, ~100% proto-Indo Iranians have R1a-Z94, ~100% Corded ware has R1a-M417, ~100% Eastern Bell Beaker has R1b-P312.

So, when EHG and CHG first mixed many hg J CHG males could have mixed with EHG females. However, in the end a few lucky EHG-male lines became the patriarch lineages. So ancestry from CHG males remained but their Y DNA was erased, along with the Y DNA of 99% of EHG males.

This is important to understand. Every R1a/b EHG represents dead-lineages, 99% of their Y DNA was also replaced.



EHG didn't show signs of Basal Eurasian. These CHG guys had Basal Eurasian. Karelia_HG could have had West Asian ancestry but it must have been very small. EHG does show some Teal like admixture that must have reached them at some point, just like the yDNA J which is obviously for now connected to CHG/Teal like people.

Alan
17-11-15, 05:07
Some more interesting facts, CHG seems to be more shifted towards East than most modern Caucasians who have an EEF shift , in fact it seems to fit into the Eastern West Asian populations, basically on the Iranian Plateau samples. As I said in my other posts the Caucasus and Iranian Plateau farmers would be Teal like while Anatolian and Levantine farmers EEF like. I suspect that North Caucasus samples from around the Neolithic will turn out as Teal/CHG with some EHG like admixture.

This strenghtens my believe even more that those "CHG" groups are actually arrivals from the Iranian Plateau.

Fire Haired14
17-11-15, 05:24
The ADMIXTURE results are impossible to read in Supp info. But the paper gives a good description of the results in Supp. Note 9. In Summary what they say is...

A Middle Eastern component appears in K=9. From K=9-K=15 CHG is a mixture of it and a South Asian centered component. The South Asian component first appears in late Neolithic Europeans, and today most Europeans and West Asians have membership in it. The rest of West Eurasians score in SHG/EHG/WHG centered component and Middle Eastern component.

In K=15 the older CHG scores 100% in a new Caucasus-centered component but the younger one scores just under 10% in a Middle Eastern component. Caucasus today score almost 50% in Middle Eastern component and over 50% in CHG. From K=15-K=20 nothing really changes.
South Asians are a mixture of CHG component and another South Asian component.
>Europeans are mostly a mixture of SHG/WHG/EHG+CHG+MIddle Eastern. West Asians are mostly a mixture of CHG+Middle Eastern.
>By K=18 it looks like Middle Easterns splits into typical Mediterranean and SW Asian.

Fire Haired14
17-11-15, 05:58
ADMIXTURE results for Satsurblia, 13,300 years old from Georgia. Posted orignally by Tag Heuer (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!&p=121056&viewfull=1#post121056). It's crazy to see someone from so long ago score similar to present day Caucasus pops, and score so high in ENF, which since 2013 most though was only from the Neolithic.

ANE K7
23.62% ANE
0.52% ASE
9.65% WHG-UHG
0.00% East_Eurasian
3.12% West_African
0.70% East_African
62.40% ENF

Eurogenes K36
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Arabian
17.43% Armenian
0.00% Basque
0.00% Central_African
0.00% Central_Euro
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% East_Balkan
0.00% East_Central_Asian
0.00% East_Central_Euro
0.01% East_Med
0.00% Eastern_Euro
0.00% Fennoscandian
0.00% French
0.00% Iberian
0.00% Indo-Chinese
0.00% Italian
0.00% Malayan
0.00% Near_Eastern
0.00% North_African
0.00% North_Atlantic
46.99% North_Caucasian
0.00% North_Sea
0.00% Northeast_African
0.00% Oceanian
0.00% Omotic
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% South_Central_Asian
0.00% South_Chinese
0.00% Volga-Ural
4.00% West_African
31.57% West_Caucasian
0.00% West_Med

Alan
17-11-15, 06:21
ADMIXTURE results for Satsurblia, 13,300 years old from Georgia. Posted orignally by Tag Heuer (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!&p=121056&viewfull=1#post121056). It's crazy to see someone from so long ago score similar to present day Caucasus pops, and score so high in ENF, which since 2013 most though was only from the Neolithic.

ANE K7
23.62% ANE
0.52% ASE
9.65% WHG-UHG
0.00% East_Eurasian
3.12% West_African
0.70% East_African
62.40% ENF

Eurogenes K36
0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Arabian
17.43% Armenian
0.00% Basque
0.00% Central_African
0.00% Central_Euro
0.00% East_African
0.00% East_Asian
0.00% East_Balkan
0.00% East_Central_Asian
0.00% East_Central_Euro
0.01% East_Med
0.00% Eastern_Euro
0.00% Fennoscandian
0.00% French
0.00% Iberian
0.00% Indo-Chinese
0.00% Italian
0.00% Malayan
0.00% Near_Eastern
0.00% North_African
0.00% North_Atlantic
46.99% North_Caucasian
0.00% North_Sea
0.00% Northeast_African
0.00% Oceanian
0.00% Omotic
0.00% Pygmy
0.00% Siberian
0.00% South_Asian
0.00% South_Central_Asian
0.00% South_Chinese
0.00% Volga-Ural
4.00% West_African
31.57% West_Caucasian
0.00% West_Med

Could you also use the puntDNAL K11 calculator. This calculator here is old and with our current knowledge about genetics not very usefull. Would love to see the puntDNAL K11, Dodecad Globe 13 and K12b results.

Alan
17-11-15, 06:35
The ADMIXTURE results are impossible to read in Supp info. But the paper gives a good description of the results in Supp. Note 9. In Summary what they say is...

A Middle Eastern component appears in K=9. From K=9-K=15 CHG is a mixture of it and a South Asian centered component. The South Asian component first appears in late Neolithic Europeans, and today most Europeans and West Asians have membership in it. The rest of West Eurasians score in SHG/EHG/WHG centered component and Middle Eastern component.

In K=15 the older CHG scores 100% in a new Caucasus-centered component but the younger one scores just under 10% in a Middle Eastern component. Caucasus today score almost 50% in Middle Eastern component and over 50% in CHG. From K=15-K=20 nothing really changes.
South Asians are a mixture of CHG component and another South Asian component.
>Europeans are mostly a mixture of SHG/WHG/EHG+CHG+MIddle Eastern. West Asians are mostly a mixture of CHG+Middle Eastern.
>By K=18 it looks like Middle Easterns splits into typical Mediterranean and SW Asian.

I would refrain from using "middle Eastern component" for the non CHG/Teal like ancestry in modern West Asians. You wouldn't call a component in that does not fit WHG as "European".

What you probably mean with "Middle Eastern component" THAT IS Anatolian farmer + something Southern-Arabian farmers like.

I can only repeat what I said month ago.

Imo we are dealing here with three farmer/West Asian groups by Neolithic time.

1. Anatolian/Western farmers
2. Iranian Plateau/Caucasus aka Eastern farmers
3. Southern farmers

The North Caucasus however I assume would be CHG plus some EHG admixture.

Sile
17-11-15, 06:52
Supplementary notes below for this report

http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/151116/ncomms9912/extref/ncomms9912-s1.pdf

Supplementary #8 is the ydna and mtdna


IMO, since I in swiss and J is in the Causasus from this report, IJ are already split from each other , then K1 ( LT ) and G are also "free" as where and when they split on the link below...as per karafet the split is 22000 years ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paragroup
It would seem to me that I and J seem to be the first wave
G, L, T the second wave and
R1 the third wave into central-Europe

G was already in the Caucasus ( as per the paper ) but was not found .

IMO, the Kurds seems the oldest group in the vicinity

In regards to the paper supported by russians that the Caucasus was a wall and could not be crossed, was a fantasy dream as I stated, the west caspian avenue was the path with Lezkins and dagestans showing the many haplogroups they still have.



Bichon belongs to Y haplogroup I2a (see methods). Haplogroup I has been found at high

frequencies in Europe but is virtually absent elsewhere 52

. This haplogroup is suggested to have a European pre- LGM origin53

and has been found in ancient samples with hunter-gatherer backgrounds from central and northern Europe

1,2,7,8
.

bicicleur
17-11-15, 09:34
Kostenki had Y DNA C1.

indeed, but 38000 years ago, before Gravettian
it is not even sure that Kostenki was Aurignacian

Alan
17-11-15, 13:17
Someone wrote this



I and J findings from this paper was early, pre any R1 by a looonnng time.............actually only G , L, T where around ...............R1 was still under the K2 band
Karafet estimates the IJ split at 22000 ............surely for I to get to Switzerland was not in any great speed from outside of Europe ...or....was IJ still in union in Europe!

Indeed IJ is quite older than R and brother to the parental K. If the samples are indeed from upper paleolithic, than the yDNA of those guys at this time might not play a role for Yamna yet cause by that time R lineages would still be around IranianPlateau and South_Central Asia.

No wonder we didn't found any R lineages. The timeline is simply too early.

bicicleur
17-11-15, 15:41
Sure? And who was the NO individual?

But even better anyways, since C1 is even more archaic no wonder we find Basal Eurasian like admixture in him

both Ush-Ishim and Oase were pré-NO, Oase had a lot of extra Neanderthal admixed recently.

Alan
17-11-15, 18:48
After reading a bit more of it, I am starting to get the impression that Basal Eurasian is indeed Basal to Eurasians.

I was saying for a long time that J and some R lineages would be connected to Teal like people. Now after reading all this stuff it almost looks to me like, this CHG/Teal is not really a mixture of EF and EHG/ANE/WHG but rather that this Teal component is something like the uncle to EHG/ANE/WHG means those components evolved out of something very CHG/Teal like.

I also start to think that EHG is not really a mixture of WHG and ANE but something EHG like is possibly ancestral to both while something CHG like is ancestral to EHG

And this CHG/Teal group is the transition population from something Basal Eurasian related to EHG, it might possibly even be ancestral to EHG/ANE/WHG and closely related to ASI.

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/sdjzlp9rstuq.png


In this scenario population "W" would be EHG, and SHG would be the transition from EHG to WHG while population "X" maybe slighty more upstream would be CHG/Teal.

Brennos
17-11-15, 20:17
Bronze age Steppe Y DNA is marked by patriarch lineages that represent ~100% of the male lineages. ~100% Eastern Yamnaya have R1b-Z2103, ~100% proto-Indo Iranians have R1a-Z94, ~100% Corded ware has R1a-M417, ~100% Eastern Bell Beaker has R1b-P312.


I'm sorry, but this isn't true: Eastern Yamnaya is 100% L23, not Z2103... then, Corded Ware hasn't got 100% cca R1a: we have a good amount of R1b now.

Sile
17-11-15, 22:11
Someone wrote this



Indeed IJ is quite older than R and brother to the parental K. If the samples are indeed from upper paleolithic, than the yDNA of those guys at this time might not play a role for Yamna yet cause by that time pre K lineages would still be around IranianPlateau and South_Central Asia.

No wonder we didn't found any R lineages. The timeline is simply too early.

There is 10000 years to play with here.........from the burial of the J ydna and the separation of IJ haplogroups.

I doubt the split occurred in the caucasus, my guess is in europe on the black sea

Alan
18-11-15, 00:07
Someone pointed out something recently which I had totally forgotten.

Yamna had ~50% CHG/Teal mtDNA and ~50% EHG specific mtDNA.

If CHG played no paternal role in Yamna and all admixture came via female influx( which sounds absurd to me on it's own) that would mean 100% female replacement but if that was the case we would need to find 90-100% CHG/Teal mtDNA in Yamna what is not the case. Than the J sample in EHG, so CHG contributed to EHG via male lineages but not to Yamna?
This hole theory has so many flaws it simply doesn't work.

Goga
18-11-15, 00:12
Original R1b that migrated into the Yamnaya was mostly West Asian. That's why Yamnaya was 50% teal / West Asian.

It was actually that teal R1b mixed with EHG females...

Alan
18-11-15, 00:24
Original R1b that migrated into the Yamnaya was mostly West Asian. That's why Yamnaya was 50% teal / West Asian.

It was actually that teal R1b mixed with EHG females...


The Teal/CHG in EHG came via yDNA J and some female teal lineages (since such were found among EHG too) it seems. R1b in Samara is different from R1b in Yamna there are thousands of years in between. R1b l23 probably came from South with Teal herder/farmers and R1b1 in EHG is of different origin.

holderlin
18-11-15, 00:30
It could be that I'm smoking crack, and I'm sure someone will point this out if it's the case, but there seems to be a common misconception about "Teal/CHG ", WHG, ENF, or all these components we speak of for that matter e.g. I hear it said that "Teal has alot of ANE", or "(Karelia/Samara) EHG already had Teal" etc.

My understanding is that there is no "ANE in Teal", but rather MA-1, the model ANEer, had a large component of Teal. Teal is just a pattern of allele frequencies found in Eurasia, as with all these other "populations"/components we speak of.

So (Karelia/Samara) EHG didn't have "Teal and ANE", but rather EHG had ANE, part of which includes the Teal component, because it came along with other ANE components. Because of this we would assume an "ANE" Teal origin rather than a CHG in this case.

This is of course all dependent on what we're comparing to, and what we're calling everything.

This is why the more ancient samples (MA-1, Kostenki, and Ust-Ishim) contain several of these components in large chunks. They're upstream closer to the Basal Eurasian roots which should have carried a piece of all of these components.

holderlin
18-11-15, 00:33
The Teal/CHG in EHG came via yDNA J and some female teal lineages (since such were found among EHG too) it seems. R1b in Samara is different from R1b in Yamna there are thousands of years in between. R1b l23 probably came from South with Teal herder/farmers and R1b1 in EHG is of different origin.

This is really starting to look less and less likely, but it's still possible I guess.

holderlin
18-11-15, 00:43
Also, a Maykop mtDNA was found to be M52, which is Indian specific.

I think the only other Indian specific mtDNA was found in high status Mitanni, which makes sense given the Indo-Aryan language and post-dating the Vedic period in the Indus River region.

This whole picture is really starting to look quite complex. The J EHG is the kicker for me.

*EDIT* Samples were too old for Mitanni

Alan
18-11-15, 01:31
Also, a Maykop mtDNA was found to be M52, which is Indian specific.

I think the only other Indian specific mtDNA was found in high status Mitanni, which makes sense given the Indo-Aryan language and post-dating the Vedic period in the Indus River region.

This whole picture is really starting to look quite complex. The J EHG is the kicker for me.

As I pointed out quite a few times, Mitanni are not yet even clear to have been either Indo_Aryan or yet undivided Indo_Iranian. Mitanni is so archaic that if it even was Indo_Aryan, it came ultimately from the same region the Indo_Aryan core started to expand from. Mitanni on itself is as old as Indo_Aryan in India, means Mitanni did not came from India but possibly belonged to the same wave of Indo_Aryans (if they were Indo_Aryans) but went a different way.

Yes most of the Teal/CHG in EHG is indeed ANE connected and can be assumed to have come via the same source which brought ANE to Teal/CHG, and this percentage was estimated by calculators to be around 8%.

Well now we have however some EHG samples who do show more of the teal component which indeed seems to have come via the Teal farmers. There was one EHG sample who was 25% Teal and this prior to these CHG findings, which have pushed the general CHG admixture in EHG higher to average of 15% instead of 8%.

Also it seems more and more like the "ANE" in those Teal/CHG groups is not real ANE admixture but ancient shared ancestry which shows up in both. In fact considering that Kostenki who predates MA1 already had some Basal Eurasian, it looks more and more like something CHG like could be ancestral to both ANE and WHG which drifted so much away over time that they completely lost their Basal Eurasian affinity.

Take in mind EEF is probably connected to G and H Haplogroups and those are siblings of IJK which are connected to CHG, WHG, ANE and ENA.

I even assume that the ANE in EHG is not real admixture but shared ancestry with ANE and possibly something EHG like is ancestral to ANE and WHG. While something CHG like is ancestral to EHG and ENA/ASI. That could be another explanation why EHG seems to show allot of CHG ancestry.

Goga
18-11-15, 01:58
R1b in Samara is different from R1b in Yamna there are thousands of years in between. R1b l23 probably came from South with Teal herder/farmers and R1b1 in EHG is of different origin.This is what the real educated scientists on this issue are saying. But some amateur hobbyists are still living in their own dream world.

And yes, I do agree with you that there were multiple waves into the steppes from different times and different places.

holderlin
18-11-15, 02:02
And also




http://i.imgur.com/G0p306N.gif

Goga
18-11-15, 02:19
As I pointed out quite a few times, Mitanni are not yet even clear to have been either Indo_Aryan or yet undivided Indo_Iranian. Mitanni is so archaic that if it even was Indo_Aryan, it came ultimately from the same region the Indo_Aryan core started to expand from. Mitanni on itself is as old as Indo_Aryan in India, means Mitanni did not came from India but possibly belonged to the same wave of Indo_Aryans (if they were Indo_Aryans) but went a different way.Current Indo-Aryans are mostly dravidian with some West Asian (teal) DNA in them. Dravidian is native to their region. So that means that the original Aryans were mostly West Asian people from the Iranian Plateau/BMAC.

Aryans that invaded the Indian Peninsula were mostly Caucaso-Gedrosia folks, almost identical to their direct descendants Kurds and Persians, although Kurds are more pure Iranids than Persians. Persians are more mixed with non-Iranids/non-Aryans...

Goga
18-11-15, 02:23
http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/sdjzlp9rstuq.png


This tree doesn't make any sense

holderlin
18-11-15, 02:38
As I pointed out quite a few times, Mitanni are not yet even clear to have been either Indo_Aryan or yet undivided Indo_Iranian. Mitanni is so archaic that if it even was Indo_Aryan, it came ultimately from the same region the Indo_Aryan core started to expand from. Mitanni on itself is as old as Indo_Aryan in India, means Mitanni did not came from India but possibly belonged to the same wave of Indo_Aryans (if they were Indo_Aryans) but went a different way.

Yes, I know this, but the Indian mtDNA in Mitanni samples can still be made sense of much easier than that in Maykop.

*EDIT* Samples were too old to be Mitanni


Well now we have however some EHG samples who do show more of the teal component which indeed seems to have come via the Teal farmers. There was one EHG sample who was 25% Teal and this prior to these CHG findings, which have pushed the general CHG admixture in EHG higher to average of 15% instead of 8%.

Yes, the Khvalynsk samples. This is the earliest evidence for Teal proper (CHG) on the steppe. This culture was the direct descendant of the Samara culture. This Teal also predates artifacts from the Caucuses by 1000 years. The graves are rich and ALL of the copper is from the Balkans.


Also it seems more and more like the "ANE" in those Teal/CHG groups is not real ANE admixture but ancient shared ancestry which shows up in both.

Yes, after this paper this is very fitting. Before this paper I would have said that pure/high Teals(CHG) and WHG/EHG were descendant from Kostenki/MA-1 like populations, but it looks more like we had older WHG and CHG that had time to homogenize and later mixed with each other and other populations to form Kostenki and MA-1 like populations. But Ust-Ishim also had Teal and he was super old so whatever, more data needed.


In fact considering that Kostenki who predates MA1 already had some Basal Eurasian, it looks more and more like something CHG like could be ancestral to both ANE and WHG which drifted so much away over time that they completely lost their Basal Eurasian affinity.

Take in mind Basal Eurasian is connected to G and H Haplogroups and those are siblings of IJK which are connected to CHG, WHG, ANE and ENA.

I even assume that the ANE in EHG is not real admixture but shared ancestry with ANE and possibly something EHG like is ancestral to ANE and WHG. While something CHG like is ancestral to EHG. That could be another explanation why EHG seems to show allot of CHG ancestry.

Yeah all plausible. The picture will just get more interesting.

Goga
18-11-15, 02:51
Yes, I know this, but the Indian mtDNA in Mitanni samples can still be made sense of much easier than that in Maykop.Interesting. But are you sure it was Mittani, because as far as I know there are no Mittani DNA samples tested to date.

If somebody ever tested ancient Mittani samples I would know about that.

Sile
18-11-15, 02:55
in regards to this topic thread , if your conclusions to not fit with the current ydna tree from after the paper below, then you are wrong.





European Journal of Human Genetics 23, 369-373 (March 2015) | doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.106



Article Tools

Send to a friend (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/foxtrot/svc/mailform?doi=10.1038/ejhg.2014.106&file=/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html)
Export citation (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/ris/ejhg2014106a.ris)
Rights and permissions (https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPG&publication=European%20Journal%20of%20Human%20Gene tics&title=Improved%20phylogenetic%20resolution%20and%2 0rapid%20diversification%20of%20Y-chromosome%20haplogroup%20K-M526%20in%20Southeast%20Asia&author=Tatiana%20M%20Karafet,%20Fernando%20L%20Men dez,%20Herawati%20Sudoyo,%20J%20Stephen%20Lansing, %20Michael%20F%20Hammer%20et%20al.&contentID=10.1038/ejhg.2014.106&publicationDate=03/01/2015&volumeNum=23&issueNum=3&numPages=5&pageNumbers=pp369-373)
Order commercial reprints (https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGR&publication=European%20Journal%20of%20Human%20Gene tics&title=Improved%20phylogenetic%20resolution%20and%2 0rapid%20diversification%20of%20Y-chromosome%20haplogroup%20K-M526%20in%20Southeast%20Asia&author=Tatiana%20M%20Karafet,%20Fernando%20L%20Men dez,%20Herawati%20Sudoyo,%20J%20Stephen%20Lansing, %20Michael%20F%20Hammer%20et%20al.%20&contentID=10.1038/ejhg.2014.106&publicationDate=03/01/2015&volumeNum=23&issueNum=3&numPages=5&pageNumbers=pp369-373&orderBeanReset=true)





Search Pubmed for

Tatiana M Karafet (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Karafet+Tatiana+M)
Fernando L Mendez (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Mendez+Fernando+L)
Herawati Sudoyo (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Sudoyo+Herawati)
J Stephen Lansing (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Lansing+J+Stephen)
Michael F Hammer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Hammer+Michael+F)




Improved phylogenetic resolution and rapid diversification of Y-chromosome haplogroup K-M526 in Southeast Asia

Tatiana M Karafet, Fernando L Mendez, Herawati Sudoyo, J Stephen Lansing and Michael F Hammer
Abstract

The highly structured distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups suggests that current patterns of variation may be informative of past population processes. However, limited phylogenetic resolution, particularly of subclades within haplogroup K, has obscured the relationships of lineages that are common across Eurasia. Here we genotype 13 new highly informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms in a worldwide sample of 4413 males that carry the derived allele at M526, and reconstruct an NRY haplogroup tree with significantly higher resolution for the major clade within haplogroup K, K-M526. Although K-M526 was previously characterized by a single polytomy of eight major branches, the phylogenetic structure of haplogroup K-M526 is now resolved into four major subclades (K2a–d). The largest of these subclades, K2b, is divided into two clusters: K2b1 and K2b2. K2b1 combines the previously known haplogroups M, S, K-P60 and K-P79, whereas K2b2 comprises haplogroups P and its subhaplogroups Q and R. Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. Estimates of the interval times for the branching events between M9 and P295 point to an initial rapid diversification process of K-M526 that likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q.


To read this article in full you may need to log in, make a payment or gain access through a site license (see right).



http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html

This is an updated paper form her 2014 paper

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Text.pdf

Alan
18-11-15, 02:56
As I pointed out quite a few times, Mitanni are not yet even clear to have been either Indo_Aryan or yet undivided Indo_Iranian. Mitanni is so archaic that if it even was Indo_Aryan, it came ultimately from the same region the Indo_Aryan core started to expand from. Mitanni on itself is as old as Indo_Aryan in India, means Mitanni did not came from India but possibly belonged to the same wave of Indo_Aryans (if they were Indo_Aryans) but went a different way..


And therefore the M52 in Maykop is very unlikely from India. And I think it represents an ancient clade of M from Western Asia.

Just look we have M1 in North Africa and M in India from somwhere these M must have arrived. West Asia is in the middle of both regions therefore it is quite logical to find some M there too.

Goga
18-11-15, 03:05
And therefore the M52 in Maykop is very unlikely from India. And I think it represents an ancient clade of M from Western Asia.

Just look we have M1 in North Africa and M in India from somwhere these M must have arrived. West Asia is in the middle of both regions therefore it is quite logical to find some M there too.
Maykop is at least 1000 years older than Mitanni. I don't get it how some people link M52 in Maykop with India through Mitanni who came into existence 1000 years after Maykop?

What I'm trying to say is that M52 could migrate into India with Mitanni or M52 could migrate into India 1000 years earlier with different culture.


And we don't even know whether Mitanni had some M52 or not

Alan
18-11-15, 03:14
MtDNA M is so old (it is the sibling of N which gave birth in Western Asia) that by the time of Paleolithic already this Haplogroup was widespred in Eurasia. Simply just like yDNA C. I don't think we can limit M to any of the world regions.

holderlin
18-11-15, 04:36
in regards to this topic thread , if your conclusions to not fit with the current ydna tree from after the paper below, then you are wrong.



European Journal of Human Genetics 23, 369-373 (March 2015) | doi:10.1038/ejhg.2014.106



Article Tools

Send to a friend (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/foxtrot/svc/mailform?doi=10.1038/ejhg.2014.106&file=/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html)
Export citation (http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/ris/ejhg2014106a.ris)
Rights and permissions (https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPG&publication=European%20Journal%20of%20Human%20Gene tics&title=Improved%20phylogenetic%20resolution%20and%2 0rapid%20diversification%20of%20Y-chromosome%20haplogroup%20K-M526%20in%20Southeast%20Asia&author=Tatiana%20M%20Karafet,%20Fernando%20L%20Men dez,%20Herawati%20Sudoyo,%20J%20Stephen%20Lansing, %20Michael%20F%20Hammer%20et%20al.&contentID=10.1038/ejhg.2014.106&publicationDate=03/01/2015&volumeNum=23&issueNum=3&numPages=5&pageNumbers=pp369-373)
Order commercial reprints (https://s100.copyright.com/AppDispatchServlet?publisherName=NPGR&publication=European%20Journal%20of%20Human%20Gene tics&title=Improved%20phylogenetic%20resolution%20and%2 0rapid%20diversification%20of%20Y-chromosome%20haplogroup%20K-M526%20in%20Southeast%20Asia&author=Tatiana%20M%20Karafet,%20Fernando%20L%20Men dez,%20Herawati%20Sudoyo,%20J%20Stephen%20Lansing, %20Michael%20F%20Hammer%20et%20al.%20&contentID=10.1038/ejhg.2014.106&publicationDate=03/01/2015&volumeNum=23&issueNum=3&numPages=5&pageNumbers=pp369-373&orderBeanReset=true)




Search Pubmed for

Tatiana M Karafet (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Karafet+Tatiana+M)
Fernando L Mendez (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Mendez+Fernando+L)
Herawati Sudoyo (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Sudoyo+Herawati)
J Stephen Lansing (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Lansing+J+Stephen)
Michael F Hammer (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=search&term=Hammer+Michael+F)



Improved phylogenetic resolution and rapid diversification of Y-chromosome haplogroup K-M526 in Southeast Asia

Tatiana M Karafet, Fernando L Mendez, Herawati Sudoyo, J Stephen Lansing and Michael F Hammer
Abstract

The highly structured distribution of Y-chromosome haplogroups suggests that current patterns of variation may be informative of past population processes. However, limited phylogenetic resolution, particularly of subclades within haplogroup K, has obscured the relationships of lineages that are common across Eurasia. Here we genotype 13 new highly informative single-nucleotide polymorphisms in a worldwide sample of 4413 males that carry the derived allele at M526, and reconstruct an NRY haplogroup tree with significantly higher resolution for the major clade within haplogroup K, K-M526. Although K-M526 was previously characterized by a single polytomy of eight major branches, the phylogenetic structure of haplogroup K-M526 is now resolved into four major subclades (K2a–d). The largest of these subclades, K2b, is divided into two clusters: K2b1 and K2b2. K2b1 combines the previously known haplogroups M, S, K-P60 and K-P79, whereas K2b2 comprises haplogroups P and its subhaplogroups Q and R. Interestingly, the monophyletic group formed by haplogroups R and Q, which make up the majority of paternal lineages in Europe, Central Asia and the Americas, represents the only subclade with K2b that is not geographically restricted to Southeast Asia and Oceania. Estimates of the interval times for the branching events between M9 and P295 point to an initial rapid diversification process of K-M526 that likely occurred in Southeast Asia, with subsequent westward expansions of the ancestors of haplogroups R and Q.


To read this article in full you may need to log in, make a payment or gain access through a site license (see right).



http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v23/n3/full/ejhg2014106a.html

This is an updated paper form her 2014 paper

http://genome.cshlp.org/content/suppl/2015/02/18/gr.186684.114.DC1/Supplemental_Text.pdf

Thanks, but you know many humiliated scientists had this attitude.

LeBrok
18-11-15, 05:44
After reading a bit more of it, I am starting to get the impression that Basal Eurasian is indeed Basal to Eurasians.

I was saying for a long time that J and some R lineages would be connected to Teal like people. Now after reading all this stuff it almost looks to me like, this CHG/Teal is not really a mixture of EF and EHG/ANE/WHG but rather that this Teal component is something like the uncle to EHG/ANE/WHG means those components evolved out of something very CHG/Teal like.

I also start to think that EHG is not really a mixture of WHG and ANE but something EHG like is possibly ancestral to both while something CHG like is ancestral to EHG

And this CHG/Teal group is the transition population from something Basal Eurasian related to EHG, it might possibly even be ancestral to EHG/ANE/WHG and closely related to ASI.

http://img5.fotos-hochladen.net/uploads/sdjzlp9rstuq.png


In this scenario population "W" would be EHG, and SHG would be the transition from EHG to WHG while population "X" maybe slighty more upstream would be CHG/Teal.
All these groups had common ancestors. Some separated earlier, some later and closer to LGM. All of them developed their own "personalities, distinctions (mutations) between 30 and 12 kya, during separation. After Ice Age was gone they started expending and remixing. The biggest factor in remixing happened when Near Eastern Farmers expended swallowing all the hunter gatherers and their admixtures.
I know I'm preaching to the quire but I had to vocalize this thought to give the latest findings this perspective.

In this paper I like that they captured the local hunter gatherers genome before admixing with farmers. I would love to see all the genomes of Mesolithic hunter gatherers of Eurasia in their premixed stage. This is how we are going to get to the bottom of all the admixtures conundrum.

LeBrok
18-11-15, 05:54
And therefore the M52 in Maykop is very unlikely from India. And I think it represents an ancient clade of M from Western Asia.

Just look we have M1 in North Africa and M in India from somwhere these M must have arrived. West Asia is in the middle of both regions therefore it is quite logical to find some M there too.
Could be the case as well. Farming has spread from Near East to Indus Valley, and it was spread by way of migrating farmers.

holderlin
18-11-15, 06:35
Interesting. But are you sure it was Mittani, because as far as I know there are no Mittani DNA samples tested to date.

If somebody ever tested ancient Mittani samples I would know about that.

The samples I was thinking of are too old actually

holderlin
18-11-15, 06:45
I really wasnt suggesting anything other than that we havent seen an M mtDNA in this setting and that it was interesting that it was in Maykop. It wasnt a hint of any kind. The Syrian example was just the only other example from the period, the mechanism of which could be precisely explained with more degree of certainty.

Actually this is consistent with some sort of Uruk expansion influence.

holderlin
18-11-15, 07:15
When are those South Asian samples gonna be done

bicicleur
18-11-15, 09:36
Current Indo-Aryans are mostly dravidian with some West Asian (teal) DNA in them. Dravidian is native to their region. So that means that the original Aryans were mostly West Asian people from the Iranian Plateau/BMAC.

Aryans that invaded the Indian Peninsula were mostly Caucaso-Gedrosia folks, almost identical to their direct descendants Kurds and Persians, although Kurds are more pure Iranids than Persians. Persians are more mixed with non-Iranids/non-Aryans...

you're turning things upside down
Dravidians were in India before Indo-Europeans
Dravidians originate from a mixture of 1st agriculture in Mergarh 9 ka with local paleolithical Indian haplo H
They expanded southward from the Indus Valley way before arrival of first Indo-Europeans 3.7 ka

Goga
18-11-15, 14:11
you're turning things upside down
Dravidians were in India before Indo-Europeans
Dravidians originate from a mixture of 1st agriculture in Mergarh 9 ka with local paleolithical Indian haplo H
They expanded southward from the Indus Valley way before arrival of first Indo-Europeans 3.7 ka
I was talking about the current Indo-European speaking Indians (Indo-Aryans). Before Aryans (Iranians) from BMAC and Zoroastrian Yaz migrated into India, people of India were Dravidian. Those Dravidians mixed a little bit with Aryans (Iranids) from BMAC and the Zoroastrian Yaz culture and a new group was born: Indo-Aryans. But Indo-Aryans (Indid) are still mostly Dravidian and have just a little bit input from Aryan (Iranid) BMAC and Aryan (Iranid) Zoroastrian Yaz culture. Aryans (Iranians) of BMAC & Zoroastrian Yaz culture were most likely Caucaso-Gedrosia folks. Zoroastrianism is not really native to SouthCetral Asia but more to West Asia. BMAC had close ties with the Iranian Plateau, since it was actually an eastern extension of the Iranian Plateau..


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kVXB4_I0_Ec/VZ-7AnvI8NI/AAAAAAAAHSA/YKIvPumA0E8/s640/Indo-Aryan%252BMigration%252BInto%252BNepal.jpg (http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-kVXB4_I0_Ec/VZ-7AnvI8NI/AAAAAAAAHSA/YKIvPumA0E8/s1600/Indo-Aryan%252BMigration%252BInto%252BNepal.jpg)


http://www.unm.edu/~gbawden/328-cenAsia/328-cenAsia.htm

holderlin
18-11-15, 17:48
you're turning things upside down
Dravidians were in India before Indo-Europeans
Dravidians originate from a mixture of 1st agriculture in Mergarh 9 ka with local paleolithical Indian haplo H
They expanded southward from the Indus Valley way before arrival of first Indo-Europeans 3.7 ka

Futile attempt

bicicleur
18-11-15, 18:27
Futile attempt

yes, I know

Sile
18-11-15, 18:56
Thanks, but you know many humiliated scientists had this attitude.

Since the ydna tree via van oven is based on papers like karafet and others and agreed by the genetic scholars, then I see little point in wasting our time reading posts by others who have an agenda of creating their own trees to fit the needs of their haplogroup

Angela
18-11-15, 19:12
These are apparently the K12b results for one of these samples. Does anyone know which of these is from the DIY and which is from gedmatch? Also, why are they so different?

"K12 Dodecad results:

32.98% Gedrosia

- Siberian
- Northwest_African
- Southeast_Asian
- Atlantic_Med
7.08% North_European
- South_Asian
0.01% East_African
- Southwest_Asian
- East_Asian
59.02% Caucasus
0.91% Sub_Saharan
Code:
Distance ID
17.8 Abhkasians_Y
19.4 Adygei
19.5 Chechens_Y
19.8 Georgians
19.9 North_Ossetians_Y
20.3 Lezgins
20.4 Balkars_Y
20.8 Armenians
21.1 Kumyks_Y
21.4 Armenians_15_Y
21.8 Kurds_Y

22.0 Iranian_D
22.7 Kurd_D

22.9 Armenian_D
24.9 Azerbaijan_Jews
25.1 Turks
25.4 Iranians
25.5 Georgia_Jews
25.8 Uzbekistan_Jews
25.9 Assyrian_D"


"Kit F322930

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 48.47
2 Gedrosia 18.61
3 Southwest_Asian 14.3
4 Atlantic_Med 10.98
5 North_European 5.14
6 South_Asian 1.75
7 Northwest_African 0.69
8 Southeast_Asian 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 6.03
2 Azerbaijan_Jews (Behar) 6.45
3 Georgia_Jews (Behar) 6.88
4 Assyrian (Dodecad) 7.04
5 Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev) 7.1
6 Armenian (Dodecad) 7.28
7 Turks (Behar) 7.84
8 Turkish (Dodecad) 9.11
9 Iranian_Jews (Behar) 10.11
10 Armenians (Behar) 11.35
11 Iraq_Jews (Behar) 11.36
12 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 11.44
13 Kurd (Dodecad) 12.78
14 Druze (HGDP) 13.16
15 Iranian (Dodecad) 13.32
16 Lebanese (Behar) 13.95
17 Cypriots (Behar) 15.25
18 Iranians (Behar) 16.32
19 Syrians (Behar) 17.5
20 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 18.94
my result with Dodekade 12b"

Ed. It would also be interesting to see how this sample scores in the K7b calculator's "West Asian" component, especially in light of Dienekes' comment that:

"Years ago, I detected (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html) the presence of a West_Asian genetic component (with dual modes in "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia") whose origins I placed in the "highlands of West Asia" and which I proposed spread into Europe post-5kya with Indo-European languages.

Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html) showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.

A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG)."

Ed. I've been informed these are the K12b results of the two specimens from the paper, one perhaps more EEF admixed than the other.

Sile
18-11-15, 20:03
Laz states that he is convinced it CHG

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/children-of-eden/

Sile
18-11-15, 20:06
Clearly all signs show that K moving from SW asia towards SE asia , came back via northern iran and the caspian sea areas .
the movement back to wards SW asia seems very minimal in haplotypes in pre bronze age times

with the split of IJ happening the same time as LT splitting off from K ( making it the first to make the separation ), I will not be surprised to find any further studies in the regions noted as per the paper to show L and T as well as G and H

I am only talking about ydna

Goga
18-11-15, 20:19
These are apparently the K12b results for one of these samples. Does anyone know which of these is from the DIY and which is from gedmatch? Also, why are they so different?

"K12 Dodecad results:

32.98% Gedrosia

- Siberian
- Northwest_African
- Southeast_Asian
- Atlantic_Med
7.08% North_European
- South_Asian
0.01% East_African
- Southwest_Asian
- East_Asian
59.02% Caucasus
0.91% Sub_Saharan
Code:
Distance ID
17.8 Abhkasians_Y
19.4 Adygei
19.5 Chechens_Y
19.8 Georgians
19.9 North_Ossetians_Y
20.3 Lezgins
20.4 Balkars_Y
20.8 Armenians
21.1 Kumyks_Y
21.4 Armenians_15_Y
21.8 Kurds_Y

22.0 Iranian_D
22.7 Kurd_D

22.9 Armenian_D
24.9 Azerbaijan_Jews
25.1 Turks
25.4 Iranians
25.5 Georgia_Jews
25.8 Uzbekistan_Jews
25.9 Assyrian_D"


"Kit F322930

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 48.47
2 Gedrosia 18.61
3 Southwest_Asian 14.3
4 Atlantic_Med 10.98
5 North_European 5.14
6 South_Asian 1.75
7 Northwest_African 0.69
8 Southeast_Asian 0.06


Ed. It would also be interesting to see how this sample scores in the K7b calculator's "West Asian" component, especially in light of Dienekes' comment that:

"Years ago, I detected (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html) the presence of a West_Asian genetic component (with dual modes in "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia") whose origins I placed in the "highlands of West Asia" and which I proposed spread into Europe post-5kya with Indo-European languages.

Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html) showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.

A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG)."

Nice, so that 13,000 years old Caucasians were 32.98% Gedrosia and 59.02% Caucasus.

So they had more Caucasus than Gedrosia. It's like 2/3 Caucasus and 1/3 Gedrosian. This makes sense, due to Caucasians are more J2a, G2 and J1 folks than R1b, R1a and R2a folks.


I believe that the original Indo-Europeans were more like the opposite. Like 2/3 Gedrosia and 1/3 Caucasus. Becasue I do relate Caucasus with G2a and J2a and Gedrosia with R1b, T, R1a and R2a. They came to birth when Caucasus and Gedrosia folks mixed with each other, but R1a, R2a, T, R1b were in majority above J2a, G2a significant minority.

holderlin
18-11-15, 20:58
Since the ydna tree via van oven is based on papers like karafet and others and agreed by the genetic scholars, then I see little point in wasting our time reading posts by others who have an agenda of creating their own trees to fit the needs of their haplogroup

I gotchya. It was just a very final position.

Angela
18-11-15, 21:05
Apparently, even academics don't think things through sufficiently. Roy King: "A nice game changer. Satsurblia is the magnet that draws much of the Near East away from Early Neolithic farmers. Again, the revenge of the Mesolithic."

I don't think so. Mesolithic peoples were small in number. Their life style couldn't support anything else. It's only when these people adopted farming and their numbers massively increased that they were able to change the balance in Anatolia and the Levant.

Just so we have it to look at, this is the proposed tree from Jones et al including the CHG:

7522

Ed. Perhaps, indeed, as I once speculated, the Basal Eurasian refugium was actually near the Caucasus.

bicicleur
18-11-15, 21:29
Clearly all signs show that K moving from SW asia towards SE asia , came back via northern iran and the caspian sea areas .
the movement back to wards SW asia seems very minimal in haplotypes in pre bronze age times

with the split of IJ happening the same time as LT splitting off from K ( making it the first to make the separation ), I will not be surprised to find any further studies in the regions noted as per the paper to show L and T as well as G and H

I am only talking about ydna

I have another scenario.
K was in northern India when it gave birth to P and NO.
K was ousted or outcompeted by haplo H from central India who allready had microliths. P was allready born by then and split into P1 and P2
Part of K and sons went west, part crossed the Hindu Kush to Central Asia and another part went east to Sundaland

remember both Ust-Ishim and Oase were sons of K

new tools arrived at Altaï Mountains and spread further from there to Bajkal area 38 ka
there are no signs whatsoever for an expansion from Sundaland into Siberia

bicicleur
18-11-15, 22:02
Apparently, even academics don't think things through sufficiently. Roy King: "A nice game changer. Satsurblia is the magnet that draws much of the Near East away from Early Neolithic farmers. Again, the revenge of the Mesolithic."

I don't think so. Mesolithic peoples were small in number. Their life style couldn't support anything else. It's only when these people adopted farming and their numbers massively increased that they were able to change the balance in Anatolia and the Levant.

Just so we have it to look at, this is the proposed tree from Jones et al including the CHG:

7522

Ed. Perhaps, indeed, as I once speculated, the Basal Eurasian refugium was actually near the Caucasus.

yes mesolithic were small in number
but the distribution of J2a seems to reflect the spread of neolithics except in Europe
that is why it was tought they were the Natufians
now they appear to be the Eastern Epigravettians
somehow somewhere they must have taken over the initiative from the first farmers (G2a?), it seems they were the ones bringing SW Asian agriculture to Mehrgarh
European and Anatolian neolithic was G2a, but no trace of them in India (well some Indian subclades of J2a are as old as Mehrgarh, 9 ka, we don't have any anciant DNA from there yet)

as for Basal Eurasian, I think they diverged way before LGM and I'd say in northern India - but these are wild guesses
if Basal Eurasian split way before LGM, some of their sons came together during LGM and started mixing again, others went extinct

bicicleur
18-11-15, 22:32
Laz states that he is convinced it CHG

http://www.unz.com/gnxp/children-of-eden/

thx
interesting link

Fire Haired14
19-11-15, 00:13
Ed. Perhaps, indeed, as I once speculated, the Basal Eurasian refugium was actually near the Caucasus.

CHG basically is Teal. That tree is based on a handful of formal stats and ignores other formal stats.

LeBrok
19-11-15, 01:02
These are apparently the K12b results for one of these samples. Does anyone know which of these is from the DIY and which is from gedmatch? Also, why are they so different?

"K12 Dodecad results:

32.98% Gedrosia

- Siberian
- Northwest_African
- Southeast_Asian
- Atlantic_Med
7.08% North_European
- South_Asian
0.01% East_African
- Southwest_Asian
- East_Asian
59.02% Caucasus
0.91% Sub_Saharan
Code:
Distance ID
17.8 Abhkasians_Y
19.4 Adygei
19.5 Chechens_Y
19.8 Georgians
19.9 North_Ossetians_Y
20.3 Lezgins
20.4 Balkars_Y
20.8 Armenians
21.1 Kumyks_Y
21.4 Armenians_15_Y
21.8 Kurds_Y

22.0 Iranian_D
22.7 Kurd_D

22.9 Armenian_D
24.9 Azerbaijan_Jews
25.1 Turks
25.4 Iranians
25.5 Georgia_Jews
25.8 Uzbekistan_Jews
25.9 Assyrian_D"


"Kit F322930

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Caucasus 48.47
2 Gedrosia 18.61
3 Southwest_Asian 14.3
4 Atlantic_Med 10.98
5 North_European 5.14
6 South_Asian 1.75
7 Northwest_African 0.69
8 Southeast_Asian 0.06

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Uzbekistan_Jews (Behar) 6.03
2 Azerbaijan_Jews (Behar) 6.45
3 Georgia_Jews (Behar) 6.88
4 Assyrian (Dodecad) 7.04
5 Armenians_15 (Yunusbayev) 7.1
6 Armenian (Dodecad) 7.28
7 Turks (Behar) 7.84
8 Turkish (Dodecad) 9.11
9 Iranian_Jews (Behar) 10.11
10 Armenians (Behar) 11.35
11 Iraq_Jews (Behar) 11.36
12 Kurds (Yunusbayev) 11.44
13 Kurd (Dodecad) 12.78
14 Druze (HGDP) 13.16
15 Iranian (Dodecad) 13.32
16 Lebanese (Behar) 13.95
17 Cypriots (Behar) 15.25
18 Iranians (Behar) 16.32
19 Syrians (Behar) 17.5
20 Kumyks (Yunusbayev) 18.94
my result with Dodekade 12b"

Ed. It would also be interesting to see how this sample scores in the K7b calculator's "West Asian" component, especially in light of Dienekes' comment that:

"Years ago, I detected (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2012/07/bronze-age-indo-european-invasion-of.html) the presence of a West_Asian genetic component (with dual modes in "Caucasus" and "Gedrosia") whose origins I placed in the "highlands of West Asia" and which I proposed spread into Europe post-5kya with Indo-European languages.

Earlier this year, the study by Haak et al. (http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html) showed that steppe invaders after 5kya brought into Europe a 50/50 mix of "Eastern European Hunter-Gatherer" (EHG) ancestry/An unknown population from the Near East/Caucasus. The "unknown population" was most similar to Caucasians/Near Easterners like Armenians but did not correspond to any ancient sample.

A new paper in Nature Communications by Jones et al. finds this "missing link" in the flesh in Upper Paleolithic/Mesolithic hunter-gatherers from Georgia which they call "Caucasus Hunter-Gatherers" (CHG)."



So CHG is basically two component/ancestry of Gedrosian and Caucasian. Now should we look for these two ancestors of CHG or we are closer to conclude that Gedrosia and Caucasia is one and the same component? Just not strongly defined from modern genomes and easily mixed.
I think Alan had a thread about this issue.

Alan
19-11-15, 03:42
Kit F322930 must be the EEF mixed sample since it shows Atl_Med and Southwest Asian.

While the other is the purer CHG/Teal individual.

Alan
19-11-15, 03:57
CHG basically is Teal. That tree is based on a handful of formal stats and ignores other formal stats.



Agreed, going by that tree it seems like CHG is all Basal Eurasian derived, but CHG has as much affinity to EF as to WHG or EHG. In fact it is closer to EHG than EF is but by this tree the opposite seems to be.

I still think CHG is higher up in the tree close to the root but drifting towards WHG and EHG actually and the only reason why it shares Basal Eurasian like ancestry is because it is so close to the root and like a sibling to Basal Eurasian.

Sile
19-11-15, 07:24
I have another scenario.
K was in northern India when it gave birth to P and NO.
K was ousted or outcompeted by haplo H from central India who allready had microliths. P was allready born by then and split into P1 and P2
Part of K and sons went west, part crossed the Hindu Kush to Central Asia and another part went east to Sundaland

remember both Ust-Ishim and Oase were sons of K

new tools arrived at Altaï Mountains and spread further from there to Bajkal area 38 ka
there are no signs whatsoever for an expansion from Sundaland into Siberia

the time line is this
K , next

K1 ( which is T and L )

next
K2a ( which is N and O )

next
K2b ( which is P, with later M, S, Q and R )

they did not split off each other at the same time

holderlin
19-11-15, 07:34
CHG basically is Teal. That tree is based on a handful of formal stats and ignores other formal stats.

This is sort of what I was getting at earlier. We have an early, relatively homogenous Teal source in CHG. But it's still just Teal, which using drift comparisons and other stats appears to have differentiated from ENF and WHG at such and such a time.

I don't know that there's such thing as a basal Eurasian yet.

bicicleur
19-11-15, 10:20
the time line is this
K , next

K1 ( which is T and L )

next
K2a ( which is N and O )

next
K2b ( which is P, with later M, S, Q and R )

they did not split off each other at the same time

estimated TMRCA :

K 43.9 ka
K2 43.5 ka
K2b 43.5 ka

this is just 400 years

(allthough the absolute date cannot be correct : Ust-Ishim is +/- 45 ka and is pré-K2a)

MOESAN
19-11-15, 20:55
there seems to be a common misconception about "Teal/CHG ", WHG, ENF, or all these components we speak of for that matter e.g. I hear it said that "Teal has alot of ANE", or "(Karelia/Samara) EHG already had Teal" etc.
My understanding is that there is no "ANE in Teal", but rather MA-1, the model ANEer, had a large component of Teal. Teal is just a pattern of allele frequencies found in Eurasia, as with all these other "populations"/components we speak of.
So (Karelia/Samara) EHG didn't have "Teal and ANE", but rather EHG had ANE, part of which includes the Teal component, because it came along with other ANE components. Because of this we would assume an "ANE" Teal origin rather than a CHG in this case.
This is of course all dependent on what we're comparing to, and what we're calling everything.
This is why the more ancient samples (MA-1, Kostenki, and Ust-Ishim) contain several of these components in large chunks. They're upstream closer to the Basal Eurasian roots which should have carried a piece of all of these components.

Good point - all you say explains why we have so often discrepancies in comparisons of diverse components among ancient and current populations, components of different age and different "depth". CHG is not exactly 'westasian', 'westasian' can be broken down in more than a part, 'ANE' could present in more than ONE more recent component and so on... things changed as time passed: the today 'caucasus' component is not exactly the pure heir of CHG;
my first generation brain (salon 1948-49) is too slow to make a well weighted answer just now but you put yout finger on it!

holderlin
19-11-15, 21:13
Good point - all you say explains why we have so often discrepancies in comparisons of diverse components among ancient and current populations, components of different age and different "depth". CHG is not exactly 'westasian', 'westasian' can be broken down in more than a part, 'ANE' could present in more than ONE more recent component and so on... things changed as time passed: the today 'caucasus' component is not exactly the pure heir of CHG;
my first generation brain (salon 1948-49) is too slow to make a well weighted answer just now but you put yout finger on it!

Yeah, I think I may have contradicted the above statement when speaking of the findings in the paper in a subsequent post, but that was going with all that the paper suggest and I don't know if I buy all of it. Even though nearly all Teal, these samples are still young compared to Kostenki, MA-1, etc. and all of the Pleistocene samples contain large percentages of multiple components.

To me this suggests that pre-LGM Eurasians were robust mixtures of components that later homogenized through various mechanisms, the obvious scenario being in isolated ice refuges.

MOESAN
19-11-15, 21:20
There were surely more simpler admixtures than the today components which have their drift by isolation, their undergone selection and their new "creations" by mutation; in fact, apart mutations, all that is redistribution, a dynamic phenomenon

holderlin
19-11-15, 23:25
There were surely more simpler admixtures than the today components which have their drift by isolation, their undergone selection and their new "creations" by mutation; in fact, apart mutations, all that is redistribution, a dynamic phenomenon

Yes exactly. Things still don't make sense though. We need some super old samples from South Asia and the Middle east.

Jason Neuharth
20-11-15, 18:21
Nobody should be surprised that I'm particularly interested in this study finding Paleolithic Y-DNA I2 in Switzerland.

After 4 days of working with 18Gb bam file I have the Y snp and Mtdna for Switzerland Grotte du Bichon M 13,560–13,770 cal. BP I2a U5b1h
he is positive for I2a1a2a L1286 which downstream from missing y-dna SNPs I2a1 P37.2/PF4004 and I2a1a CTS595.

sparkey
20-11-15, 21:13
After 4 days of working with 18Gb bam file I have the Y snp and Mtdna for Switzerland Grotte du Bichon M 13,560–13,770 cal. BP I2a U5b1h
he is positive for I2a1a2a L1286 which downstream from missing y-dna SNPs I2a1 P37.2/PF4004 and I2a1a CTS595.

Thanks, really interesting! That's an ancestral marker to the subclades known by the Nordtvedt nicknames of I2a-Western and I2a-Alpine. Both have modern carriers close by, especially Alpine. Also of interest is that this sample dates between the yfull estimates for the clade age and the modern TMRCA of L1286.

MOESAN
20-11-15, 23:27
It's a known fact that R1b entered Yamnaya from Caucasus. R1b was originally from the Iranian Plateau, but before they entered Yamnaya they first settled down around Maykop. When R1b migrated into Yamnaya R1b folks brought teal with them.


R1b or even R1a in Karelia could be brought by the same people who brought J2 to Karelia. And we all know that J2 came from West Asia. So, my point is that there were different waves of R1a and R1b from the Iranian Plateau Into the steppes. Some are very ancient, some are not very ancient...

R1b in Maykop, a known fact?
all these Y- ligneages in Iranian plateau: very clannic clans indeed: almost everyone going its way without mix with the others? maybe, but I've hard work to swallow it...
no offense, but presently I find all these ligneages flourishing in the same regions at almost same time very surprising; but we have not to fight one agains another; it's just my point with my present knowledge.
what strikes me is the very striking differences of %s in Y-R1a/R1b and others, more "southern" Y haplos (J1, J2, G, ...) in Northern Eurasia: it seems to me R1a and R1b northern ligneages had very different stories. at this point of time I hold on for a steppic central asian position of the most of R1a and R1b ligneages before converging towards West Europe and Hindu Kush or pass through SOuth caspian See to go more southwestwards; a bet; we 'll know more tomorrow.

Goga
21-11-15, 00:03
R1b in Maykop, a known fact?
all these Y- ligneages in Iranian plateau: very clannic clans indeed: almost everyone going its way without mix with the others? maybe, but I've hard work to swallow it...
no offense, but presently I find all these ligneages flourishing in the same regions at almost same time very surprising; but we have not to fight one agains another; it's just my point with my present knowledge.
what strikes me is the very striking differences of %s in Y-R1a/R1b and others, more "southern" Y haplos (J1, J2, G, ...) in Northern Eurasia: it seems to me R1a and R1b northern ligneages had very different stories. at this point of time I hold on for a steppic central asian position of the most of R1a and R1b ligneages before converging towards West Europe and Hindu Kush or pass through SOuth caspian See to go more southwestwards; a bet; we 'll know more tomorrow.
Yeah R1b seems to be very patriarchal


You forgot ancient R1b in Africa! Also, very old subclades of R1b, like M335, P297 have been found in West Asia.


R1b in Africa was not from the Steppes, right? There is no Steppes ancestry in Africa, but West Asian ancestry instead.


R1b (R-V88) in Africa was maybe in Africa even before R1b entered Europe. It's that old. R1b in Africa is much older than R1b in Yamnaya. So, tell me how is it possible that R1b in Africa came from the Steppes???


The one and only explanation is that R1b entered AFRICA and the Steppes from West Asia.



What's going to happen i tomorrow?

Sile
21-11-15, 00:21
Yeah R1b seems to be very patriarchal


You forgot ancient R1b in Africa! Also, very old subclades of R1b, like M335, P297 have been found in West Asia.


R1b in Africa was not from the Steppes, right? There is no Steppes ancestry in Africa, but West Asian ancestry instead.


R1b (R-V88) in Africa was maybe in Africa even before R1b entered Europe. It's that old. R1b in Africa is much older than R1b in Yamnaya. So, tell me how is it possible that R1b in Africa came from the Steppes???


The one and only explanation is that R1b entered AFRICA and the Steppes from West Asia.



What's going to happen i tomorrow?

R1b-v88 entered the northern levant ( 14000 yo ) from south caucasus ( maybe its origins are lebanon ), v88 then went to egypt (9000 yo) , then south along the nile river through sudan and beyond

I assume another line hugged the north African coast heading towards Morocco

Goga
21-11-15, 00:59
R1b-v88 entered the northern levant ( 14000 yo ) from south caucasus ( maybe its origins are lebanon ), v88 then went to egypt (9000 yo) , then south along the nile river through sudan and beyond

I assume another line hugged the north African coast heading towards Morocco
Yeah, this is what I mean. When R1b was in Africa at so early stage it was even much, much earlier in West Asia.

I'm sure R1* evolved into R1a* and R1b* somewhere between Kurdistan and Iran. Because you can take even me as an example. My haplogroup is R1a*. Very archaic! So I guess that R1b* was also native to northern parts of West Asia. R1b in Iran exists for tens of thousands of years.

With other words R1b was in West Asia even thousands of years before proto-Indo-European languages ever existed.

And now we know for sure that there were many gene flows from West Asian/Caucasus into Yamnaya, the recent one even not so long time ago. And they found very young R1b in Yamnaya which is the same R1b as some populations south of Caucasus around ancient Maykop. There was a gene from South into North. We have got auDNA as prove and we got Y- & mtDna as prove.

The only possible explanation when very young R1b entered the Steppes (Yamnaya) from West Asia (Maykop) has to be at the time of Maykop culture.
Everything is right. The age of cultural transition from Maykop into Yamnaya, The age of R1b in Yamnaya, West Asian auDNA gene flow in Yamnaya, archaeology...


This case is no brainer, if I was a judge, I would say 'case solved' a long time ago, time to move on!

Sile
21-11-15, 02:32
Yeah, this is what I mean. When R1b was in Africa at so early stage it was even much, much earlier in West Asia.

I'm sure R1* evolved into R1a* and R1b* somewhere between Kurdistan and Iran. Because you can take even me as an example. My haplogroup is R1a*. Very archaic! So I guess that R1b* was also native to northern parts of West Asia. R1b in Iran exists for tens of thousands of years.

With other words R1b was in West Asia even thousands of years before proto-Indo-European languages ever existed.

And now we know for sure that there were many gene flows from West Asian/Caucasus into Yamnaya, the recent one even not so long time ago. And they found very young R1b in Yamnaya which is the same R1b as some populations south of Caucasus around ancient Maykop. There was a gene from South into North. We have got auDNA as prove and we got Y- & mtDna as prove.

The only possible explanation when very young R1b entered the Steppes (Yamnaya) from West Asia (Maykop) has to be at the time of Maykop culture.
Everything is right. The age of cultural transition from Maykop into Yamnaya, The age of R1b in Yamnaya, West Asian auDNA gene flow in Yamnaya, archaeology...


This case is no brainer, if I was a judge, I would say 'case solved' a long time ago, time to move on!

I believe R1 split into R1a and R1b on the east side of the caspian sea...around modern Turkmenistan .....

I also agree that R1b yamnya was fed from southern caucasus

Goga
21-11-15, 02:42
I believe R1 split into R1a and R1b on the east side of the caspian sea...around modern Turkmenistan ....Yeah, that might be true. Because it's more likely that some tribes of R1a (M417) expened into the Steppes from the eastern side of the Caspian Sea, same way how hg. J ended up in Karelia. While R1b went further deep al the way to the Mediterranean Sea.

Alan
21-11-15, 03:01
A Vadim Verenich posted Satsurbila results based on his new calculator.

0.00% Amerindian
0.00% Ancestor
30.10% ANE
13.53% ANI
0.00% Arctic
0.00% Australian
56.35% Caucasian
0.00% EastAfrican
0.00% Mesolithic
0.01% NearEast
0.00% Neolithic
0.00% NorthAfrican
0.00% Oceanic
0.00% Siberian
0.00% SouthEastAsian
0.00% Subsaharian


Least-squares method.

Using 1 population approximation:
1 Lezgin @ 11.744658
2 Chechen @ 13.414464
3 Adygei @ 14.322171
4 North_Ossetian @ 15.559762
5 Lak @ 16.542275
6 Balkar @ 17.096389
7 Tabasaran @ 17.212844
8 Avar @ 17.268119
9 Azerbaijani_Dagestan @ 17.915575
10 Georgian_Svan @ 18.497122
11 Abhkasian @ 19.004842
12 Georgian_Imereti @ 19.981193
13 Georgian_Kakheti @ 20.180957
14 Georgian @ 20.193127
15 Kabardin @ 20.295474
16 Georgian_Megrel @ 20.315016
17 Stalskoe @ 20.46631
18 Cirkassian @ 20.591733
19 Adjara @ 21.342976
20 Kurd @ 22.41803
500 iterations.

Alan
21-11-15, 03:04
Comment from the User MfA

With future ancient South Asian HG samples, ANE will be obsolete for the most of the Eurasia.

I agree with that, I really assume ANE is more like a zombie component. And the pre or proto "ANEs" were residing somewhere in South_Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau.

LeBrok
21-11-15, 05:25
Comment from the User MfA


I agree with that, I really assume ANE is more like a zombie component. And the pre or proto "ANEs" were residing somewhere in South_Central Asia and the Iranian Plateau.I still think it is more of Central Asia component. In PC charts all ANE containing samples pull directly to Mal'ta boy place.

Tomenable
21-11-15, 05:32
^ Actually, when it comes to modern populations, the highest % of ANE admixture is among Western Siberians:

Western Siberians are 57% ANE:

From: "Reconstructing Genetic History of Siberian and Northeastern European Populations" (2015):

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/18/029421

Abstract:

"Siberia and Western Russia are home to over 40 culturally and linguistically diverse indigenous ethnic groups. Yet, genetic variation of peoples from this region is largely uncharacterized. We present whole-genome sequencing data from 28 individuals belonging to 14 distinct indigenous populations from that region. We combine these datasets with additional 32 modern-day and 15 ancient human genomes to build and compare autosomal, Y-DNA and mtDNA trees. Our results provide new links between modern and ancient inhabitants of Eurasia. Siberians share 38% of ancestry with descendants of the 45,000-year-old Ust-Ishim people, who were previously believed to have no modern-day descendants. Western Siberians trace 57% of their ancestry to the Ancient North Eurasians, represented by the 24,000-year-old Siberian Mal'ta boy. In addition, Siberians admixtures are present in lineages represented by Eastern European hunter-gatherers from Samara, Karelia, Hungary and Sweden (from 8,000-6,600 years ago), as well as Yamnaya culture people (5,300-4,700 years ago) and modern-day northeastern Europeans. These results provide new evidence of ancient gene flow from Siberia into Europe."

Data Supplements:

http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2015/10/18/029421.figures-only

Data Figures:

http://biorxiv.org/content/biorxiv/suppl/2015/10/18/029421.DC1/029421-2.pdf

Fire Haired14
21-11-15, 11:04
Interesting D-stats provided by Davidski and others.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1TPByWTZL2eOhq21QvpeV-PFe7Ev04FAcxeD-72fyMnA/edit#gid=0

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

CHG's placement on human tree?

Putting humans into a simple tree is very difficult. With ancient genomes which moderns are a mixture of it is much easier. Laz 2014 created a very reasonable tree with ancient genomes of human genetics. According to Laz's tree CHG has WHG-like and Basal Eurasian ancestry. Along with this CHG probably has MA1-type ancestry(will have to be confirmed with more formal stats). In no way does the data suggest CHG was pure Basal Eurasian like Jones 2015 modeled CHG.

We'll need many more formal stats, ADMIXTURE, PCA, etc., etc., to understand where in the human tree CHG is.

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

CHG ancestry in West Asia?

Formal stats confirm there's a lot ancestry closely related to CHG in South Asia and Yamnaya. But what about West Asia? ADMIXTURE and F3-drift stats from Jones 2015 tell us CHG's closest modern relatives live in the Caucasus. F3-drift stats didn't show an especially close relation with other West Asians. However CHG component of ADMIXTURE is also very high in the rest of West Asia.

We're going to need formal stats, not just ADMIXTURE, to back up the idea of CHG-like ancestry in West Asia. F3(not drift) shows that Assyrian/Lezgin/Turkish fit as a mixture of CHG+EEF(best proxy of Neolithic Near East?).

Furthermore D-stats showed that EEF and WHG have a closer relation to modern Caucasus than to CHG. EEF especially has a much closer relation to modern Caucasus. Lezgin appears to have MA1 or European-like ancestry on top of CHG. Loschbour and MA1 is closer to Lezgin as opposed to CHG than Stuttgart. Weirdly Yamnaya(had lots of ANE and WHG) wasn't as significantly closer to Lezgin as opposed to CHG.

Fire Haired14
21-11-15, 11:41
Ancient DNA has shown West Eurasians are mixtures of various very differnt ancient people. One way or another these ancient people are the source for similarities and many of the differences between West Eurasians in phenotype. I suspect most "Caucasoid" features come from Paleolithic West Asia with "ENF" people.

Look at Indians! They have very Caucasoid-features and are likely a mixture of CHG and earlier South Asians. Where did they get the Caucasoid features? Obviously from CHG who were Paleolithic West Asians.

West Asians and Europeans have very few connections since the Paleolithic but the shared features are still there!! It's very interesting to learn where the features come from. What did WHG, EEF, EHG, CHG, etc. look like? What did Yamnaya look like? Even though West Eurasians are much more advanced than say Oceania, they have just as distant Paleolithic origins. They're the story of early non-African humans on the western side of the world while Oceania is the story of non-African humans from the South East. There were Caucasoid-looking people in the same primitive lifestyle as Oceania today.

Tomenable
21-11-15, 12:34
Hunters of Sri Lanka - the Vedda people - whose native language is neither Indo-European nor Dravidian - also have these features:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedda_language#Substratum_influence_in_Sinhalese

http://vedda.org/pix/dambana_veddas_2000.jpg

http://vedda.org/pix/danigala-chief300.jpg

http://www.srilankaholidayarchitects.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/12/034A9260-copy1-e1418233717893-1024x550.jpg

http://vedda.org/pix/tissahamy.jpg

This first old guy has blue eyes, it seems:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f89NuukY32U

Tomenable
21-11-15, 12:38
Do these Veddas from Sri Lanka - or other forager groups from South India - score any CHG autosomal DNA ???:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=52ELI1Vumdc


I suspect most "Caucasoid" features come from Paleolithic West Asia with "ENF" people.

Mesolithic European hunters were Caucasoid as well.

Morphologically they were not much different from modern Europeans.

Pigmentation has changed much more than morphology.

Alan
21-11-15, 14:53
I still think it is more of Central Asia component. In PC charts all ANE containing samples pull directly to Mal'ta boy place.
yes with SOuth_Central Asia I mean the region of Central and South Asia. I doubt North Pakistan and Kazakhstan were genetically much different during the mesolithic even.

The reason why every population pulls towards Mal'ta when ANE contained, is because Mal'ta is used as refference population for ANE. But as I said the day we have South_Central Asian samples which possibly(or possibly not) prove South_Central Asians do not have Mal'ta ancestry but from a different pre ANE like source. This moment ANE will be obsolete and appear just like a fusion of ancient South_Central Asian and Native Americans(ancient Siberians).

Alan
21-11-15, 14:59
We're going to need formal stats, not just ADMIXTURE, to back up the idea of CHG-like ancestry in West Asia. F3(not drift) shows that Assyrian/Lezgin/Turkish fit as a mixture of CHG+EEF(best proxy of Neolithic Near East?).




has he gone insane lol? (or did you add this part) Why should CHG+EEF be the best proxy for Neolithic Near Easterners because modern heavily admixed and post Bronze and Iron Age populations such as Turks/Assyrians/Lezgians appear like EEF+CHG? I thought the conensus was that a EEF like group mixed into the Caucasus over time this is visible from one of the CHG samples who shows first signs of EEF.

Or did you mean by Neolithic times the Near East was dominated by two components CHG (in the East and Caucasus) and EEF in the West. Than I agree. In fact I go further and say ancient Near East beginning with Neolithic was dominated by three groups, EEF in West, CHG in East and something like "Southern Farmers" in South.

In Anatolia obviously those CHG like groups pushed from the Caucasus and likely Iranian Plateau into Anatolia and the Levant. Why should the Neolithic Near Easterners(by that I assume you mean Neolithic farmers?) be EEF+CHG if Neolithic West and Central Anatolians appear EEF?



I suspect most "Caucasoid" features come from Paleolithic West Asia with "ENF" people.


Fire there was never an "ENF" people. Thats at least what we should know from now. But if you replace ENF with EEF and CHG (sidenote both are heavy in something "Basal Eurasian like" ) that makes sense and I agree.


I wrote month ago what I think people of different components looked like. And I wrote that EEF would be the archetype of those what former anthropologists called Nordics and Mediterranids.

"Teal " or now CHG would be very akine to EEF with the difference of signs of "dinarization" aka "mtebidization" and slightly more broad faced.

WHG would be like broad or rounder faced Europeans. And ANE like something Kalash like who have Native American vibes on them.

EHG would be a cross of WHG and ANE look.

Angela
21-11-15, 17:06
To say that confusion reigns would be kind, I think.

I always think that the next ancient genome will clarify things, but the ball keeps getting kicked down the road. Until we get ancient genomes from further east and India, and the Maykop ones that we know are being analyzed, I don't think the dust will settle.

Part of the problem is, in my opinion, that Haak et al was not read carefully enough because people rushed off to do their own "analyses" and create their own "calculators", which often wound up just creating more confusion. Also, as I said at the time, I thought there was a bit of a disconnect between the stats and the discussion of them in the supplement, and some of the most sweeping statements in the body of the paper. That's bound to happen, I suppose, when you have so many authors.

I still maintain, and there is support in that supplement for the proposition that the people who moved into Europe were not necessarily the "Yamnaya Indo-Europeans" from that specific area of the steppe, or at least they were not the group responsible for all the movements into Europe. (Also, even among them, I think the proportions of these ancient populations varied.)

I believe, as I said at the time, that the people who helped to form Corded Ware, in particular, could have been a "related" population to Yamnaya and not a descendent of Yamnaya, and therefore an "Indo-Europeanized" population. In either case, however, they were heavier in EHG, and with some EEF, and therefore carrying less "CHG". Further north, some of the Indo-Europeanized groups might have been very heavily EHG. Further south the Indo-European groups might have been more heavily CHG.

The sooner people jettison this simplistic notion from the 19th century that the "Indo-Europeans" were this unique, homogeneous group that moved as a unit to everywhere we see Indo-European languages today, the better the analyses we are able to produce.

I'll just add that not only are some of these people confused, they are actually posting incorrect information in so far as Askenazi ethnogenesis is concerned. Contrary to what was written, there is no academic IBD analysis which shows sharing between Ashkenazim and Italians from anywhere in Italy. The old notion that the Ashkenazim were created from an admixed group of Italians and Jews who moved north to Germany has been seriously discredited. I would recommend that if these people are interested in the subject they search for the relevant threads here.

The fact that someone could seriously state that because Ashkenazim plot near Sicilians (and Greeks, and Maltese) on a PCA means that Italians and Ashkenazim are "related" shows a profound misunderstanding of the literature on the subject (if the person has even read it) and of the nature of PCAs as well. Similar placement may or may not mean "relatedness" depending on the PCA but also depending on the admixtures which formed the relevant populations. Two populations can plot near one another and not share any "recent" ancestry.

This is what happens when agenda and not data drives analyses.

bicicleur
21-11-15, 17:38
all these calculators
maybe they should make a new calculator from scratch
or maybe - and more likely - we don't have enough data yet to construct the correct calculator

Alan
21-11-15, 18:25
In fact I go further and say ancient Near East beginning with Neolithic was dominated by three groups, EEF in West, CHG in East and something like "Southern Farmers" in South.

As seen on Jones et al the Levant looks like a mix of EEF and something "East African" shifted. That "East African" shift must have come with those "Southern/Southwestern farmers who probably gave later birth to Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers.

Alan
21-11-15, 18:51
all these calculators
maybe they should make a new calculator from scratch
or maybe - and more likely - we don't have enough data yet to construct the correct calculator

I would say the puntDNAL k11 calculator is so far the most accurate concerning ancient DNA. But now that we have some CHG samples we would need a new calculator using these samples as refference too.

Tomenable
21-11-15, 21:53
Yamna people can be modelled genetically as a mix of EHG and either "Teal" or CHG. This also applies already to Khvalynsk people, even though in slightly different proportions. In anthropological terms I'm not sure how things looked like in Yamna culture (maybe the population was already so intermixed that it comprised a single anthropological type), but a morphological duality of Khvalynsk population can be observed.

Let's quote Mathieson's study:

"The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid and northern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from the northern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here."

I guess that originally (before they merged into one population) EHG = northern types and "Teal" or CHG = southern types.

I wonder which cranio-facial type or types can be attributed to males SVP35 with R1b (grave 12) and SVP46 with R1a (grave 1) ???

Were both of them of northern Europeoid cranio-facial type, or was one or both of them of southern Europeoid type?

Tomenable
21-11-15, 22:24
Alan,

Here are some reconstructions of WHGs:

1) Loschbour male:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUnh_X3jH0w

http://im9.kommersant.ru/Issues.photo/CORP/2014/09/18/KMO_111307_08348_1_t218_144834.jpg

http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/669df97ed00d98457db11dc05f9d92f3/519/291/wortv3/d676c960a6340a291eb05742f6dd2c1782fb53bc

2) Loschbour female:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmlovynSh4

http://s2.postimg.org/67xqxjbp5/Loschbour_woman.jpg

3) La Brana male:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mw-cromag.jpg
http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/la%20brana%20man.jpg?itok=lw8ZZlID

Sile
21-11-15, 22:28
In fact I go further and say ancient Near East beginning with Neolithic was dominated by three groups, EEF in West, CHG in East and something like "Southern Farmers" in South.

As seen on Jones et al the Levant looks like a mix of EEF and something "East African" shifted. That "East African" shift must have come with those "Southern/Southwestern farmers who probably gave later birth to Proto Afro_Asiatic speakers.

The only haplogroups in East Africa to create this "something EEF and East african " was either ancient F or E

Tomenable
21-11-15, 22:33
Yamna people can be modelled genetically as a mix of EHG and either "Teal" or CHG. This also applies already to Khvalynsk people, even though in slightly different proportions. In anthropological terms I'm not sure how things looked like in Yamna culture (maybe the population was already so intermixed that it comprised a single anthropological type), but a morphological duality of Khvalynsk population can be observed.

Let's quote Mathieson's study:

"The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid and northern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from the northern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here."

I guess that originally (before they merged into one population) EHG = northern types and "Teal" or CHG = southern types.

I wonder which cranio-facial type or types can be attributed to males SVP35 with R1b (grave 12) and SVP46 with R1a (grave 1) ???

Were both of them of northern Europeoid cranio-facial type, or was one or both of them of southern Europeoid type?

Reconstructions of Khvalynsk people:

http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-1.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-4.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-6.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-6-1-.jpghttp://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-6-2.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-7-1.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-7-2.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-7-3.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-10.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-12.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-13.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-17.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-18.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-21.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-22.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-23.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-24.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-25.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-27.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-28.jpg

Source:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php/38378-First-Indo-Europeans?p=1025629&viewfull=1#post1025629

Tomenable
21-11-15, 22:37
^ Continued (due to the limit of 20 images per post):

http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-147.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-127.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-35.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-33.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-31.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-30-.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-30.jpg
http://i1078.photobucket.com/albums/w496/meon-12/hvalynsk/hvalynsk-29.jpg

Tomenable
21-11-15, 23:12
I believe, as I said at the time, that the people who helped to form Corded Ware, in particular, could have been a "related" population to Yamna and not a descendent of Yamna, and therefore an "Indo-Europeanized" population. In either case, however, they were heavier in EHG, and with some EEF, and therefore carrying less "CHG". Further north, some of the Indo-Europeanized groups might have been very heavily EHG. Further south the Indo-European groups might have been more heavily CHG.

I'm not sure why do you consider Yamnaya as the "original Indoeuropeans". That culture was not the first stage of PIE, but the last one:

According to linguist Robert Stephen Paul Beekes: "There seems to be no doubt that the Yamnaya culture represents the LAST phase of an Indo-European linguistic unity, although there were probably already significant dialectal differences within it."

Marija Gimbutas who was the original author of the Kurgan Hypothesis also didn't consider Yamna as the earliest PIE, but a later stage.

Gimbutas saw early stages of PIE in Chalcolithic steppe cultures which preceded Yamna - Samara and Khvalynsk cultures.

According to Mayu's blog, Corded Ware was descended from PIE groups which emigrated from the steppe during Early Yamna phase:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

AFAIK, all Yamna samples collected so far are from later phases of Yamna culture, so they are people who stayed in that part of the steppe after several other groups had already emigrated in various directions before. Which may be the reason why all that we can see there is ht35.

All Yamna samples tested so far, are from period called by Mayu "Indoeuropean stage 3", not from "stage 2":

Stage 2:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CeK4gX-YKHI/U1dzIlx0RjI/AAAAAAAAChs/M1ZJy-pavXY/s1600/IE2.png

Stage 3:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4lp4uK-eJ0M/U1dzIjfPofI/AAAAAAAACho/6Ljb1_71WlY/s1600/IE3.png

By the time of Stage 3 some haplogroups and subclades - such as R1b-L51 - could already be outside of the steppe zone.

Maybe R1b-L51 - which is absent from Yamna samples known to date - was in Coţofeni culture or in Ezero culture ???

Tomenable
22-11-15, 00:05
^^^
PIEs were a strongly patriarchal, clan based, polygynous society. Inheriting and family ties were entirely male-based (when they married, a woman was entering the family of her husband, ceasing to be part of her former family). Each clan was descended in terms of Y-DNA from a common male ancestor (its founder), and members of each clan carried a different haplogroup or at least a different subclade. Any migrations were also clan-based. According to Mayu during Stage 2 (Early Yamna), there were migrations in 3 directions - to the south-west into the Balkans, to the north-west into Central Europe and to the north-east (founders of Afanasevo culture). We can suppose that each of those Early Yamna migrating clans or tribes, carried a different haplogroup or at least a different subclade as their main marker (if more than one clan moved, then of course they could carry more than one specific subclade or haplogroup). So - for example - maybe those migrating into the Balkans carried predominantly R1b-L51, those migrating into Central Europe carried predominantly R1a-Z283 and those migrating into areas where they later created the Afanasevo culture carried predominantly R1a-Z93*. We are left for example with R1b-Z2103 which, it seems, stayed in the region until the Late Yamna period.

*And also R1a-Tarim, it seems.

holderlin
22-11-15, 02:52
I also agree that R1b yamnya was fed from southern caucasus

As long as we agree that this is a dogma, then I'm OK with it.

The origin is clearly Samara

Alan
22-11-15, 03:31
Alan,

Here are some reconstructions of WHGs:

1) Loschbour male:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PUnh_X3jH0w

http://im9.kommersant.ru/Issues.photo/CORP/2014/09/18/KMO_111307_08348_1_t218_144834.jpg

http://blobsvc.wort.lu/picture/669df97ed00d98457db11dc05f9d92f3/519/291/wortv3/d676c960a6340a291eb05742f6dd2c1782fb53bc

2) Loschbour female:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2cmlovynSh4

http://s2.postimg.org/67xqxjbp5/Loschbour_woman.jpg

3) La Brana male:

https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/mw-cromag.jpg
http://www.iflscience.com/sites/www.iflscience.com/files/styles/ifls_large/public/blog/%5Bnid%5D/la%20brana%20man.jpg?itok=lw8ZZlID


predominantly broad or round faced. Of course there will be exception but in German we say, "exceptions prove the rule".

Some modern "WHG" type. Of course less depigmented. No one said WHG or ANE looked "non Caucasoid", just that the majority would have been more similar to the significantly broader or rounder faced types.

http://ais.badische-zeitung.de/piece/02/a6/57/b4/44455860.jpg

http://img.mypopulars.com/images/dolph-lundgren/Dolph-Lundgren-11.jpg

http://bi.gazeta.pl/im/2/11425/z11425902X.jpg
http://cdn-premiere.ladmedia.fr/var/premiere/storage/images/tele/news-tele/rendez-vous-en-terre-inconnue-pour-gerard-jugnot-destination-la-bolivie/30035751-1-fre-FR/Rendez-vous-en-terre-inconnue-pour-Gerard-Jugnot-destination-la-Bolivie_portrait_w532.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 07:30
Alan, are you writing about face shape (height : breadth) or skull shape (length : width ratio, level of roundness)?

In case of Mesolithic WHGs they were dolichocephalic (long-skulled), it can be seen when you look at Loschbour skull's profile.

In Europe a trend of brachycephalization (skulls becoming rounder over time) has been observed since Neolithic times until recently.

This is being discussed for example in this paper: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

Alan
22-11-15, 14:26
Alan, are you writing about face shape (height : breadth) or skull shape (length : width ratio, level of roundness)?

In case of Mesolithic WHGs they were dolichocephalic (long-skulled), it can be seen when you look at Loschbour skull's profile.

In Europe a trend of brachycephalization (skulls becoming rounder over time) has been observed since Neolithic times until recently.

This is being discussed for example in this paper: http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

I am talking about head broudness, the loshbour Guy is also broad headed even though he is slightly longer headed than average.
Loshbours headshape is rather Dolichocephalic and broad and he is an exception since he seems to be the only one out of the the males who is very longheaded, We can't conclude that WHG are long headed based on Loshbour if the two other male reconstructions are rather brachycephalic.

As I said in one of my posts month ago. I never claimed WHG were all brachycephalic.

Based on what I have seen from the cranial material found and reconstructions. WHG and EHG are predominantly Meso- to Brachycephalic. That means there are many WHG samples who are middle longheaded and many who are short headed. And they were also very broad faced on average. But also characteristics of WHG and EHG are strong browridges and sloping forhead.

While found EEF skeletons were Dolicho- to Mesocephalic and Robust (medium broad) or sometimes long faced.

CHG samples from what I have seen in people who are very heavy in this component are like EEF but with a slight dinarization process and some characterstics of EHG. Basically like many of the Yamna reconstructions. They would be meso-to dolichocephalic.



I have seen other mesolithic H&G reconstructions from Germany they are pretty round or broad headed.

Alan
22-11-15, 14:56
Here are some more mesolithic WHG reconstructions. pred. meso- to brachycephalic. Often broader/rounder faced
https://mathildasanthropologyblog.files.wordpress.com/2008/08/seperated-at-birth.jpghttp://www.revolution-jungsteinzeit.de/images/blog_neu/Blaetterhoehlenfrau_Halbprofil_links__440pix.jpg
http://ichef-1.bbci.co.uk/news/624/media/images/78818000/jpg/_78818461_c0208178-early_human,_stone_age_culture-spl.jpghttps://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/07/91/3f/07913f4a549daf8cbfc2646b3cc75cd2.jpg

EEF reconstructions on the other hand are pred. Dolicho- to Mesocephalic and mostly Robust.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Du0ZHP7oifI/UrBuOhn-OLI/AAAAAAAAJa4/oJes4IzZBqs/s1600/article-2525035-1A24190400000578-122_634x773.jpghttp://3.bp.blogspot.com/-yhkJPXA0fTA/UcmCW44wOtI/AAAAAAAApi0/0THHyVkqx98/s640/2013-05-07T220717Z_434523928_GM1E9580FMQ01_RTRMADP_3_MALTA .jpghttp://2.bp.blogspot.com/-t7QOYwJzDAc/VE_F_Us6VKI/AAAAAAAAOBc/BBn_T-NhsII/s1600/Lagolo%2Band%2BOtzi%2B260.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 15:27
Alan,

You claim that they are brachycephalic and to support this claim, you then post pictures showing their faces from the front.

This indicates, that you are one of many people who confuse Head Shape with Face Shape. You can't tell if someone is brachycephalic, mesocephalic or dolichocephalic by looking at his head just frontally - you must take a look from either left or right profile. Long-headedness is about the length of skull as measured from forehead to occiput (the back of your head). It is not about the height of face measured from chin to the top of head. Someone can be "broad-faced + long-headed" or "long-faced + short-headed" as well.

Loschbour is obviously dolichocephalic (long-headed).

Mesolithic HGs in Europe used to be more dolichocephalic than modern Europeans (see: the trend toward brachycephalization).

By the way - the last of your picture shows Ötzi, who was a Neolithic EEF farmer.

Ötzi was indeed brachycephalic or mesocephalic (this is the only profile picture you posted).

Alan
22-11-15, 15:35
Of course there will be allot of overlap, since EEF is virtually made up of 50% pre WHG like ancestry.

The point is just to show the average. On Average EEF types are longer headed(dolicho- to mesocephalic) and Robust while WHG types shorter headed (meso- to brachycephalic) and broad/rounder faced.

Tomenable
22-11-15, 15:36
While found EEF skeletons were Dolicho- to Mesocephalic and Robust (medium broad) or sometimes long faced.

Today North Africans and Middle Easterners are indeed more dolichocephalic - on average - than Europeans. But the most dolichocephalic populations (CI 73-75) are Sub-Saharan Africans, South Indians, Eskimos, Inuits, and Australo-Melanesians.

According to this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/PSM_V50_D602_World_cephalic_index_map.jpg


On Average EEF types are longer headed

I still don't know if you are talking about face shape or skull shape.

Ötzi looks rather medium- or short-headed (meso- or brachycephalic), and he was EEF.

Alan
22-11-15, 15:42
@Tomenable

I don't know if you even red what I write. I wrote WHG were pred. meso- to brachycephalic. Means some samples were mesocephalic(middle longheaded) other were brachycephalic(short headed).

If you have knowledge about this stuff you should know that someone with this kind of facial structure can no way be anything else but brachycephalic.
http://www.revolution-jungsteinzeit.de/images/blog_neu/Blaetterhoehlenfrau_Halbprofil_links__440pix.jpg



On the other hand this guy looks pred. mesocephalic
https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/07/91/3f/07913f4a549daf8cbfc2646b3cc75cd2.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 15:46
Posting some random pictures is un-scientific.

Why don't you check numerical data from some anthropological publication? I remember reading that from Paleolithic to Mesolithic the trend in Europe was generally toward dolichocephalization, but then from Neolithic to the 19th century the trend was toward brachycephalization. So Mesolithic Europeans were apparently more dolichocephalic, on average, than modern Europeans.

What is behind these processes is still largely unknown (maybe it's just random drift).

But according to this publication, brachycephalic skulls are more "cost-effective" in terms of volume vs. staying warm:

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/anth/smith/TimeMach1984.pdf

In general populations around the equator tend to be more dolichocephalic so maybe relationship with climate exists. But there are some exceptions (e.g. brachycephalic Native Americans near the equator, dolichocephalic Scandinavians near the Arctic Circle).

That said, Scandinavia has seen the trend of brachycephalization as well (they used to be more dolicho- in the past than now).

Alan
22-11-15, 15:50
Also you need to see it in this perspective. There are some people in Northeast Europe mostly who have this kind of extreme broad,round heads which are not so relevant in other regions of the continent and therefore can only be traced to WHG or EHG ancestry, while there are some kind of facial features in South Europe or Western Asia (especially among some Bedouin tribes which are rare in Northeast Europe and can only be traced to EEF ancestry.

Just to give two extreme examples.

Alan
22-11-15, 15:53
Today North Africans and Middle Easterners are indeed more dolichocephalic - on average - than Europeans. But the most dolichocephalic populations (CI 73-75) are Sub-Saharan Africans, South Indians, Eskimos, Inuits, and Australo-Melanesians.

According to this map: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/PSM_V50_D602_World_cephalic_index_map.jpg



I still don't know if you are talking about face shape or skull shape.

Ötzi looks rather medium- or short-headed (meso- or brachycephalic), and he was EEF.

disagree, Todays West Asians are not more or not less meso-Dolichocephalic than South or Central Europeans.
Going from what we know about the skeletons the ancient West Asians were more Longheaded dolicho-mesocephalic than modern West Asians who have undergone a shortening process. That was even mentioned by old school anthropologists.

That is exactly the reason why I say the EEF were the most dolicho-mesocephalic types of West Eurasia by that time, because virtually all Neolithic skeletons from Anatolia and the Levant were Robust Dolichocephalic types.

Sub Saharan Africans, South Indians, Eskimos, Inuits or whatever are not West Eurasians so they don't play any role.

Though Sub Saharan Africans and South Indians are not more Dolichocephalic. South Indian tribals are meso- or brachycephalic. There is also huge variation in Sub Saharan Africans. In fact the most Dolichocephalic Sub Saharan Africans are the West Eurasian (EEF) mixed East Africans like Ethopians and Eritreans. And in West Africa the Mali and Mauritanians(Afro_Asiatic admixed).

And Eskimos, Inuits Dolichocephalic? The Eskimos I have seen were average Mesocephalic (middle longheaded) and Inuits mostly brachycephalic round faced.

But than again. They don't play any role in our discussion about West Eurasian types and the differences between WHG and EEF.

Tomenable
22-11-15, 15:54
I was talking about North Africa and Middle Eastern Arabic-speaking countries, not about West Asia in general.

The shortening (and widening) process is the general trend seen in most parts of the world.

The lengthening process of skulls (dolichocephalization) is less frequently observed than brachycephalization.

Angela
22-11-15, 20:22
I haven't yet gone over all of the pictures that have been posted in this thread, but I personally don't have any confidence that even forensic artists can give us a good sense of the appearance of these ancient peoples, much less people just posting sketches on the internet.

This is the first reconstruction of Oetzi. In my opinion, it obviously owes a lot to a perception, conscious or not, that he would have looked like modern Central Europeans.
http://www.nals.info/bilder/248-6-oetzi-archeologie-museum-bozen.jpg


This is the second reconstruction. I have some familiarity with these areas, and I think that his time, as well as correcting the pigmentation based on the snp analysis, they looked at phenotypes common in the Tyrol.
http://images.nationalgeographic.com/wpf/media-live/photos/000/325/cache/iceman-oetzi-otzi-reconstructed-new_32525_600x450.jpg

A reconstruction for La Brana was recently done. Yet prior reconstructions of European hunter-gatherers looked slightly different. Which ones are more correct?
http://media-2.web.britannica.com/eb-media/97/44397-004-D45BC527.jpg

http://www.britannica.com/topic/Cro-Magnon

Where does this Les Elyzies sample fit?

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/127/411559023_4d7e42d34f.jpg

Tomenable
22-11-15, 21:10
much less people just posting sketches on the internet.

But those are not that random guy's own sketches but some professional reconstructions as well.

He just scanned them or something, and posted on the internet.

What I like about those sketches is that authors didn't pretend that they know pigmentation. :)

holderlin
22-11-15, 23:06
Yamna people can be modelled genetically as a mix of EHG and either "Teal" or CHG. This also applies already to Khvalynsk people, even though in slightly different proportions. In anthropological terms I'm not sure how things looked like in Yamna culture (maybe the population was already so intermixed that it comprised a single anthropological type), but a morphological duality of Khvalynsk population can be observed.

Let's quote Mathieson's study:

"The unusually large cemetery at Khvalynsk contained southern Europeoid and northern Europeoid cranio-facial types, consistent with the possibility that people from the northern and southern steppes mingled and were buried here."

I guess that originally (before they merged into one population) EHG = northern types and "Teal" or CHG = southern types.

I wonder which cranio-facial type or types can be attributed to males SVP35 with R1b (grave 12) and SVP46 with R1a (grave 1) ???

Were both of them of northern Europeoid cranio-facial type, or was one or both of them of southern Europeoid type?

Everything in the region after Dnieper Donets/Samara is a mix of "Southern" and "Northern". But of course with no evidence for contact with Caucuses until darn close to Yamnaya this was assumed to be a result of contact with the Balkans, at least prior to ancient genetic revelations. I was trying to match the individual Khvalynsk samples with some of these other characteristics as well but I couldnt dig it up. I don't know that it's all been curated together, or at least it's not readily available.

Stredny Stog was clearly a mix of Balkan(WHG+EEF)+Steppe(EHG+(dash of Teal at this stage?)), and it seems to be implied by one of these research groups that this is the source of EEF/WHG in Sintashta rather than requiring a Corded War migratiion back to the East Pontic after penetration into Northern Europe.

Tomenable
22-11-15, 23:15
Currently available Ancient samples of R1b haplogroup (in total 45+ samples) and R1a haplogroup (in total 71+ samples) suggest, that both R1b-M269/L23 and R1a-M198/M417 could initially increase in numbers (demographic expansion) in the Volga steppe. If not counting R1b-V88 Iberians, the oldest known samples of R1a and R1b come from exactly the same prehistoric peoples and cultures - from EHGs and from Khvalynsk culture (= the best candidate for the earliest PIE culture according to M. Gimbutas).

Roughly from that area, they could later expand territorially, roughly at the same time, but along distinct routes.

I've made two maps showing possible early expansion routes & ranges, based on available samples and their chronology:

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31728-Early-expansion-of-R1a-M198-M417-in-the-light-of-aDNA-evidence

R1a M198/M417:

http://s1.postimg.org/di5tzku0d/Early_expansion_of_R1a_M198.png

http://s1.postimg.org/di5tzku0d/Early_expansion_of_R1a_M198.png

R1b M269/L23:

http://s1.postimg.org/r1lbqot7h/Early_R1b_expansion.png

http://s17.postimg.org/3x1m9tbgt/Early_R1b_M269_L23_expansion.png

MOESAN
22-11-15, 23:33
But those are not that random guy's own sketches but some professional reconstructions as well.

He just scanned them or something, and posted on the internet.


What I like about those sketches is that authors didn't pretend that they know pigmentation. :)





some unverifiable traits in facIal reconstruction BASED ON SKELETONS:
pigmentation form and implantation of head hairs, facial pillosity: moustaches, beard, eyebrows, fleshy form of nose tip, eyelids, thickness and form of lips, and so on: AnD ALL THESE FEATURES ARE OF THE GREATER IMPORTANCE CONCERNING EXTERNAL LOOK AND PROFANS JUDGEMENT AND FEELINGS.
it's why I don't accord too much weight to these artistic reconstitutions

Tomenable
22-11-15, 23:49
MOESAN, thank you for your comments.

I think we should just leave physical anthropology alone, at least for now.

What do you think about my R1b and R1a expansion maps posted above?

Many people pursue a "South of Caucasus" agenda for the origin of either just R1b M269 or both M269 and R1a M198.

Considering that both M269 and M198 formed ca. 14 - 13 thousand years ago, I think it is probable that either one or both of them originally came from south of the Caucasus. But they most likely came as hunters, not as farmers (because it was too early for farming). And I think that L23 and M417 arose already in the steppe, most likely within the Samara & Khvalynsk cultures. There is solid evidence that demographic expansion of those lineages took place already in the steppe, and we also found aDNA samples of both R1b and R1a at first in EHGs, then in Khvalynsk culture. I think the "Southern Agenda" pursued by some users - which seems to be their substitute for the old Anatolian Hypothesis (which is now totally dead) - can't be sustained in the light of new findings.

Another nail to the coffin of this "Southern Agenda" was the discovery that "Teal people" could in fact be... hunters from Caucasus. Every supporter of the "Southern Agenda" was expecting them to be already farmers or herders, not still hunter-gatherers.

So this is a huge unpleasant surprise for them as well.

I think supporters of this "Southern Agenda" want to claim, that Proto-IE language first evolved south of the Caucasus, then went to the steppe. But this is impossible to claim if we assume that the migration from the south took place in Mesolithic times.

Because we know from linguists, that PIE language is not so old.

So even if some R1b or R1a came from the Middle East to the north in Mesolithic times, they were not yet PIE-speakers.

It seems increasingly more probable, that Marija Gimbutas was right not just in general outline, but also in many details - it seems that Samara culture (the first guys ever who domesticated horses) and Khvalynsk culture were the earliest PIE speakers.

Sile
22-11-15, 23:58
why is it that every paper that comes out gets distorted by fabrication about ydna R1 ??

the paper has 2x J and 1 x I ydna
lets not have R1 fantasy dreams as per usual

when you find CHG in a per with R1 .........then we can talk about it

holderlin
23-11-15, 00:05
I'm not sure why do you consider Yamnaya as the "original Indoeuropeans". That culture was not the first stage of PIE, but the last one:

According to linguist Robert Stephen Paul Beekes: "There seems to be no doubt that the Yamnaya culture represents the LAST phase of an Indo-European linguistic unity, although there were probably already significant dialectal differences within it."

Marija Gimbutas who was the original author of the Kurgan Hypothesis also didn't consider Yamna as the earliest PIE, but a later stage.

Gimbutas saw early stages of PIE in Chalcolithic steppe cultures which preceded Yamna - Samara and Khvalynsk cultures.

According to Mayu's blog, Corded Ware was descended from PIE groups which emigrated from the steppe during Early Yamna phase:

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

AFAIK, all Yamna samples collected so far are from later phases of Yamna culture, so they are people who stayed in that part of the steppe after several other groups had already emigrated in various directions before. Which may be the reason why all that we can see there is ht35.

All Yamna samples tested so far, are from period called by Mayu "Indoeuropean stage 3", not from "stage 2":

Stage 2:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-CeK4gX-YKHI/U1dzIlx0RjI/AAAAAAAAChs/M1ZJy-pavXY/s1600/IE2.png

Stage 3:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-4lp4uK-eJ0M/U1dzIjfPofI/AAAAAAAACho/6Ljb1_71WlY/s1600/IE3.png

By the time of Stage 3 some haplogroups and subclades - such as R1b-L51 - could already be outside of the steppe zone.

Maybe R1b-L51 - which is absent from Yamna samples known to date - was in Coţofeni culture or in Ezero culture ???

Yep, the archaeology is in strong support of everything radiating from Samara(Possibly Dnieper Donets as well because they clearly share ancestors). For this reason many call Samara the actual PIE's. Yamnaya is used simply because it's the last layer exhibiting cultural homogeneity across the region before we see historically attested, already differentiated, IE's. Therefore, as a result it also clearly displays all of the characteristics we would expect based on the reconstructed lexicon. In other words, it's the safest bet, where linguists and archaeologists are in agreement and other pre-genetics data is also aligned. Just like the sources you reference, many claim that Hittites, if not Tocharians as well, probably left before Yamnaya as we define it existed.

The Volga also shows evidence of an unbelievably early Neolithic for the region, which the Samara and related cultures are a direct result of. Considering this, one shouldnt be surprised at hegemony.

The genetics are actually already in support of a Samara as PIE hypothesis, but people like to ignore this for various reasons.

Goga
23-11-15, 00:14
why is it that every paper that comes out gets distorted by fabrication about ydna R1 ??

the paper has 2x J and 1 x I ydna
lets not have R1 fantasy dreams as per usual

when you find CHG in a per with R1 .........then we can talk about it

Lol, some folks are disappointed by the recent scientific papers and science in general, so they still try to find some kind of excuse to not abandon their dream world.

Samara & Khvalynsk cultures? C'mon people should find a better excuse and try better. Samara & Khvalynsk cultures were absolutely not proto-Indo-European at all, that's even ridiculous to think about it.

What we do know is that those Indo-Europeans who have invaded the Europe came from Yamnaya and not Samara, lol.

Linguistic links between Indo-European and Uralic are artificial. There're more real links between Indo-European, Kartvelian, proto-Semitic, Sumerian etc.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 00:16
why is it that every paper that comes out gets distorted by fabrication about ydna R1 ??

the paper has 2x J and 1 x I ydna
lets not have R1 fantasy dreams as per usual

when you find CHG in a per with R1 .........then we can talk about it

Both CHG males, who are presumed to be "Teal people", had haplogroup J - not R1.

On the other hand, both R1a and R1b were present among EHGs, already before they acquired "Teal admixture".

The lack of R1 in CHGs seems to confirm what has been suggested time and again before - namely, that their "Teal admixture" perhaps came exclusively from women.

In wartime, prehistoric people used to capture enemy women. After conquering enemy settlements, they used to kill all men, but to take possession of their women. So a group of EHGs could either raid a group of CHGs (capturing a lot of their women in the process), or they could even entirely conquer a group of CHGs, thus acquiring their autosomal DNA, but not their Y-DNA.

There is of course also a more peaceful possibility - namely, exchanging brides between EHGs and "Teals" or CHGs, which led to the dillution of "Teal admixture" in EHGs.

Goga
23-11-15, 00:18
Yep, the archaeology is in strong support of everything radiating from Samara(Possibly Dnieper Donets as well because they clearly share ancestors). For this reason many call Samara the actual PIE's. Yamnaya is used simply because it's the last layer exhibiting cultural homogeneity across the region before we see historically attested, already differentiated, IE's. Therefore, as a result it also clearly displays all of the characteristics we would expect based on the reconstructed lexicon. In other words, it's the safest bet, where linguists and archaeologists are in agreement and other pre-genetics data is also aligned. Just like the sources you reference, many claim that Hittites, if not Tocharians as well, probably left before Yamnaya as we define it existed.

The Volga also shows evidence of an unbelievably early Neolithic for the region, which the Samara and related cultures are a direct result of. Considering this, one shouldnt be surprised at hegemony.

The genetics are actually already in support of a Samara as PIE hypothesis, but people like to ignore this for various reasons.LMAO, Samara? Are you serious??

There is a recent scientific paper that shows that folks that Indo-Europized Europe came from Yamnaya.


But delusional people changed their mind about Yamnaya when they found out that Yamnaya was for a huge part West Asian. So are trying to look for other places to spread the lies.


Love s**** when you are finding out that you are not who you think you are...

Goga
23-11-15, 00:20
Once again, SAMARA??? Joke of the day!


Please, try better next time..

Tomenable
23-11-15, 00:31
IMO people who were local hunter-gatherers in the steppe, did domesticate local horses (Samara culture) on their own.

Nobody brought horses to the steppe, it was their natural environment. And when it comes to other domestic animals - they could come together with women, who were kidnapped by "to-become-pastoralists" steppe hunters in their raids against farming villages.

Really, know-how can spread not just through "we migrate and give you", but also through "they attack us and steal it".

Tomenable
23-11-15, 00:34
LMAO, Samara? Are you serious??

Yes, the earliest evidence of domestication of horses comes from Samara culture.

And what advantages do horses provide (that allow for hunters to conquer farmers) - see the history of Native North Americans during the 1600s and the 1700s, when horse-riding buffalo hunters & gatherers raided and bullied sedentary farmers without horses.

Athiudisc
23-11-15, 00:36
Currently available Ancient samples of R1b haplogroup (in total 45+ samples) and R1a haplogroup (in total 71+ samples) suggest, that both R1b-M269/L23 and R1a-M198/M417 could initially increase in numbers (demographic expansion) in the Volga steppe. If not counting R1b-V88 Iberians, the oldest known samples of R1a and R1b come from exactly the same prehistoric peoples and cultures - from EHGs and from Khvalynsk culture (= the best candidate for the earliest PIE culture according to M. Gimbutas).

Roughly from that area, they could later expand territorially, roughly at the same time, but along distinct routes.

I like it.

Fluffy
23-11-15, 00:39
why is it that every paper that comes out gets distorted by fabrication about ydna R1 ??

the paper has 2x J and 1 x I ydna
lets not have R1 fantasy dreams as per usual

when you find CHG in a per with R1 .........then we can talk about it

Yes I agree with this. Enough is enough.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 00:41
Nobody needs a CHG with R1 because there is R1 in EHGs, and that even before they got admixed by "Teal".

As I wrote you don't need Y-DNA to acquire someone's autosomal admixture.

One can safely have sons with any woman without risk that one's son may not acquire one's Y-DNA... :)

Again let me remind you that Proto-IEs were 1) patriarchal and 2) polygynous:

Maternal side of their ancestry did not matter to them (women just "provided wombs" for little PIE fetuses):


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ErXa5PyHj4I

Goga
23-11-15, 00:43
Yes, the earliest evidence of domestication of horses comes from Samara culture.

And what advantages do horses provide (that allow for hunters to conquer farmers) - see the history of Native North Americans during the 1600s and the 1700s, when horse-riding buffalo hunters & gatherers raided and bullied sedentary farmers without horses.I heard that they found traces of domestication of horses in Arabia thousands of years before the steppes. Nobody knows for sure wherethe domestication of horses took place. But we all know for sure that the Neolithic revolution and that first domestication of animal took place in West Asia.

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14658678



+ first domestication of horses has nothing to do with Proto-Indo-European. It was only important when Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya invaded Europe with horses. But that was long after the domestication of horses. :

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14658678




I think that domestication of horse predate PIE.

Goga
23-11-15, 00:44
Nobody needs a CHG with R1 because there is R1 in EHGs, and even before they got admixed by "Teal".

As I wrote you don't need Y-DNA to acquire someone's autosomal admixture.

One can safely have sons with any woman without risk that one's son may not acquire one's Y-DNA... :)So what that there is R1 in EHG? There is also J in EHG and J is not native to EHG..

Goga
23-11-15, 00:50
" Saudis 'find evidence of early horse domestication'

Saudi officials say archaeologists have begun excavating a site that suggests horses were domesticated 9,000 years ago in the Arabian Peninsula "


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-14658678



I'm sure that early horse domestication in Arabia spread from the Iranian Plateau not long after the Neolithicrevolution !!!!



+ first domestication of horses has nothing to do with Proto-Indo-European! It was only important when Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya invaded Europe with horses.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 00:55
There is also J in EHG and J is not native to EHG.

What does it even mean to be "native to EHG" or to other tribe ???

J could be so widespread, that it could be "native" in many places.

How long does a lineage need to live in a place, to be "native" there?


Saudi officials say archaeologists have begun excavating a site that suggests horses were domesticated 9,000 years ago in the Arabian Peninsula "

Who knows maybe they did, but it did not spread outside of the Arabian Peninsula to the rest of the world.

A genetic study on horses found out, that all modern male horses descended from western part of the Eurasian steppe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse#Genetic_evidence


A study published in 2012 that performed genomic sampling (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparative_genomics) on 300 work horses from local areas as well as a review of previous studies of archaeology, mitochondrial DNA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_DNA), andY-DNA (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA) suggested that horses were originally domesticated in the western part of the Eurasian steppe.[22] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse#cite_note-Warmuth-22) Both domesticated stallions and mares spread out from this area, and then additional wild mares were added from local herds; wild mares were easier to handle than wild stallions. Most other parts of the world were ruled out as sites for horse domestication, either due to climate unsuitable for an indigenous wild horse population or no evidence of domestication.[23] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse#cite_note-LesteLasserre-23)

So if any horses were domesticated in Arabia, they never become successful, but died out or got wild again.

I'm not sure if you realize, but the same thing can be invented in more than one place. For example agriculture did emerge more than once - in several populations indepentedly from each other. EEFs never brought agriculture to the Americas or to China.

Goga
23-11-15, 01:04
What does it even mean to be "native to EHG" or to other tribe ???

J could be so widespread, that it could be "native" in many places.

How long does a lineage need to live in a place, to be "native" there?Sure at that time J was maybe already native to EHG. But my point is that R1 in EHG could be also originally from the same place as J before R1 ended up in NorthEastern Europe.


It's not anymore about thesis, antithesis, synthesis or sifts of paradigm. We’re talking here about bits and bytes. Computer era, era of globalization, the world is becoming a huge village. And computers are telling us that PIE came from the South, not North.


Just let it go, time to move on. People can’t beat hard science especially this very rationalistic era with advanced computers around.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:06
Yes but EHGs were hunters, not farmers.

So if J or R1a or R1b migrated from the south, they did that long before farming.


And computers are telling us that PIE came from the South, not North.

Then you must apparently fix your computers.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:09
But we all know for sure that the Neolithic revolution and that first domestication of animal took place in West Asia.

We all know for sure that the Neolithic revolution took place several times independently from each other - for example in West Asia, in China, in the Americas. Who was first is irrelevant, what's relevant is that West Asians didn't bring agriculture to entire world. There were several groups of hunter-gatherers around the world, who domesticated distinct animals and started to grow distinct plants.

Do you seriously think, that West Asians migrated to the Americas and to China, teaching local hunters how to farm ???

No, in those places (and in several other places) local hunters came up with similar ideas, resulting in similar innovations.

West Asians were the first ones to do such things, but they were not the only ones who did such things.

Goga
23-11-15, 01:13
Who knows maybe they did, but it did not spread outside of the Arabian Peninsula to the rest of the world.

A genetic study on horses found out, that all modern male horses descended from western part of the Eurasian steppe:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Domestication_of_the_horse#Genetic_evidence



So if any horses were domesticated in Arabia, they never become successful, but died out or got wild again.

I'm not sure if you realize, but the same thing can be invented in more than one place. For example agriculture did emerge more than once - in several populations indepentedly from each other. EEFs never brought agriculture to the Americas or to China.
I'm sure that the horse domestication spread into Steppes during the Neolithic era.

BUT, BUT. BUT, who cares? Horse domestication has nothing to do with PIE. Horses don't speak a human language.

PIE is younger than horse domestication..


It was only important, long after horse domestication occurred, when Indo-Europeans from Yamnaya invaded Europe by horses. It was one of the reasons why Indo-Europeans spread that fast in Europe.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:18
I'm sure that the horse domestication spread into Steppes during the Neolithic era.

The steppes was where wild horses originally lived, and they were domesticated by groups of local hunters (such as Botai culture).

Goga
23-11-15, 01:20
Then you must apparently fix your computers.Or you should come back into the real world of computers from your dream world. You can get very sick if you stay in your dream for some time. If you stay to long in your matrix, you will be never able to come back into reality; our common shared real world of computers.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:21
Goga it is you who keep ignoring evidence that seems uncomfortable for your "Iranid race made everything" theory. I work with evidence not with wild statements such as "surely R1 came from Iranian Plateau even though there is no aDNA to support this".

Even IF that came from Iranian Plateau, then another question is WHEN did R1 come from Iranian Plateau.

If it came from there more than 10,000 years ago then those people were not yet speakers of Proto-Indo-European.

Obviously everyone came from the south at some point, because people originated in Africa, not in Greenland...

But aren't we talking about the origins of PIE community ??? Other threads are for migrations which took place waaaay back.

Goga
23-11-15, 01:23
The steppes was where wild horses originally lived, and they were domesticated by groups of local hunters (such as Botai culture).

There're also steppes on the Iranian Plateau and Arabian Peninsula. Your knowledge of topography seems also not to be very strong.


Horses could migrate from the Iranian Plateau into the Steppes and even fatser that humans...

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:29
There're also steppes on the Iranian Plateau and Arabian Peninsula.

Uhm... , these are deserts, semi-deserts or arid plains rather than places full of long and juicy grass, which is ideal for horses.


Horses could migrate from the Iranian Plateau into the Steppes and even fatser that humans...

OK I give up. Every fu... I mean every living thing migrated from the Iranian Plateau !!! :)

Are you happy now that you are the cradle of everything? But together with Sub-Saharan Africa. The two greatest regions.

BTW, I'm not claiming that PIEs emerged near the Baltic Sea. You are the one arguing that "my homeland = PIE homeland".

Goga
23-11-15, 01:31
Goga it is you who keep ignoring evidence that seems uncomfortable for your "Iranid race made everything" theory. I work with evidence not with wild statements such as "surely R1 came from Iranian Plateau even though there is no aDNA to support this".

Even IF that came from Iranian Plateau, then another question is WHEN did R1 come from Iranian Plateau.

If it came from there more than 10,000 years ago then those people were not yet speakers of Proto-Indo-European.
BINGO!


Actually, West Asian auDNA is spread all over the world. From Africa into India and even as far as China. It's the most widespread auDNA in our reality. And now they found out that CHG has to be native somewhere around the Caucasus. So, auDNA science supports that West Asian auDNA is the most influential one

How old is R1b in Africa, the most distant

holderlin
23-11-15, 01:33
Once again, SAMARA??? Joke of the day!


Please, try better next time..

I guess I will waste some time to inform you, if you're a real person, which is hard for me to believe, that Yamnaya is descended from DnieperDonets/Samara->Khvalysnk/StrednyStog. The denial is getting absurd. The genetics supports this as well, quite clearly.

The only argument for a Southern homeland at this stage is that it's "still possible". Which I guess I could agree with, however extremely improbably at this point.

Like I said before, if Maykop is the home of these elusive all teal R1a and R1b dudes then I might have to revise my opinion.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:37
Actually, West Asian auDNA is spread all over the world. From Africa into India and even as far as China

:push: ...

OK everyone is West Asian. Good night, it's late here. :grin:

Goga
23-11-15, 01:37
Uhm... , these are deserts, semi-deserts or arid plains rather than places full of long and juicy grass, which is ideal for horses.


OK I give up. Every fu... I mean every living thing migrated from the Iranian Plateau !!! :)

Are you happy now that you are the cradle of everything? But together with Sub-Saharan Africa. The two greatest regions.
Few thousand years ago Arabia and Iranian Plateau was much GREENER! Never heard of desertification of the Middle East??


Please try to educate yourself somehow and after 10 years come back with stronger argumentation. This is not funny anymore, there is lots of differences between us in knowledge. Because you are very ignorant about the world we are living in.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:38
Never heard of desertification of the Middle East??

I've heard of it but I thought that you people made Mesopotamia etc. green by expanding man-made irrigation.

So it seems your ancestors were lazier than I though, if that land was already green when they settled. :P


Because you are very ignorant about the world we are living in.
I thought we were talking about the world PIEs were living in thousands of years ago, not about the world we are living in.

Perhaps the reason why we can't come to an agreement is because I'm talking about the past and you about the present? :innocent:

Goga
23-11-15, 01:42
I guess I will waste some time to inform you, if you're a real person, which is hard for me to believe, that Yamnaya is descended from DnieperDonets/Samara->Khvalysnk/StrednyStog. The denial is getting absurd. The genetics supports this as well, quite clearly. LMAO, the Kurgans in Yamnaya show strong similarities with older Kurgans in Maykop. Yamnaya was heavily influenced culturally, archeologically and genetically by Maykop culture.


I will enjoy to hear you singing a different tune when they come with R1b from Maykop.


Once again, SAMARA? Hahaha, you made me laugh today after a long Sunday-working. Thank you for that!

holderlin
23-11-15, 01:45
BINGO!


Actually, West Asian auDNA is spread all over the world. From Africa into India and even as far as China. It's the most widespread auDNA in our reality. And now they found out that CHG has to be native somewhere around the Caucasus. So, auDNA science supports that West Asian auDNA is the most influential one

How old is R1b in Africa, the most distant

You can't be for real. Seriously. You're too perfectly designed to piss people off.

Goga
23-11-15, 01:48
You can't be for real. Seriously. You're too perfectly designed to piss people off.I'm a raver can't you see


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix7qeLBWkm4

Tomenable
23-11-15, 01:50
if Maykop is the home of these elusive all teal R1a and R1b dudes then I might have to revise my opinion.

I'm also open to changing my opinion if some new aDNA shows up.

There is a Polish saying that "only cows do not change their minds".

I'm going to add: "and also these who first domesticated them". :grin:

holderlin
23-11-15, 01:55
LMAO, the Kurgans in Yamnaya show strong similarities with older Kurgans in Maykop. Yamnaya was heavily influenced culturally, archeologically and genetically by Maykop culture.


I will enjoy to hear you singing a different tune when they come with R1b from Maykop.


Once again, SAMARA? Hahaha, you made me laugh today after a long Sunday-working. Thank you for that!

Caucuses is a late arrival on the steppe bro, you don't see evidence until Yamnaya or related layers. You know why? Because at this stage IE's had likely undergone significant expansion and linguistic differentiation. In other words Yamnaya are likely downstream of the true PIE speakers.

It's amazing people actually respond to you

holderlin
23-11-15, 01:59
And Indo-Iranian speakers have absolutely nothing to do with Sumerians. This is one thing I'm sure of.

holderlin
23-11-15, 02:03
Samara burials are Kurgans

Maykop "Kurgans" do not predate those on the steppe.

Everyone. This is false. Yet for some reason people prate it on these forums as if it's a widely accepted consensus. Again, it is quite false. Please stop saying it.

Goga
23-11-15, 02:05
Caucuses is a late arrival on the steppe bro, you don't see evidence until Yamnaya or related layers. You know why? Because at this stage IE's had likely undergone significant expansion and linguistic differentiation. In other words Yamnaya are likely downstream of the true PIE speakers.

It's amazing people actually respond to you
Oh, not once again! Indo-Europeans in Europe came from Yamnaya and not Samara, lol! Those Indo-Europeans who came from Yamnaya invaded Europe and yeah, by horses, lol.


To be honest, do you know why you have difficulties to argue with me? Because your education and knowledge is average, maybe below average and because my IQ is between 128-134 points (more than average). I don't think you have higher IQ.


It is very difficult to fool people with higher IQ and more knowledge/education...


I'm a raver, can't you see
Do you wanna rave all night with me?
I wanna dance until the sun goes down
Dance until the world goes round and round!


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ix7qeLBWkm4

Tomenable
23-11-15, 02:32
my IQ is between 128-134 points (more than average). I don't think you have higher IQ.

It is very difficult to fool people with higher IQ and more knowledge/education...

There is a cure for your condition, though:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU

holderlin
23-11-15, 03:43
There is a cure for your condition, though:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9pD_UK6vGU

Yes, this would surely get him to fall in line with the Steppe hypothesis.

holderlin
23-11-15, 03:44
Too smart otherwise

Tomenable
23-11-15, 03:52
Let's better come back to discussing Teal people.

How and when did those genes (or peoples) enter the steppe.

To me it looks like a steady gene flow, not like some rapid immigration.

1) Samara HG sample (5650-5555 BC) had ~0% Teal admixture,
2) Khvalynsk samples (4700-4000 BC) had ~25% Teal admixture,
3) Yamnaya_Samara (3340-2620 BC) had ~48% Teal admixture,

Between 1) and 2) there were 1250 years, between 2) and 3) some 1370 years.

This means that Teal admixture was increasing by 1% every 50-60 years.

So it was increasing by 0,5% every single generation (on average).

This looks like a steady gene flow, if it was indeed such a "fluent" process.

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

By the way, we now treat EHGs as the "receiving end" of Teal admixture.

But what if that gene flow was not one-sided, but mutual (bride exchanging ???).

I wonder, if there was EHG admixture in Caucasus (or wherever "Teal" people lived).

Maybe at the same time when EHG became 48% "Teal", Teal became some % "EHG" ???

Tomenable
23-11-15, 04:28
I know that Goga is claiming that Sumerians were Proto-IE.

The easiest way to tell if this is possible or not, would be to check what was Sumerian DNA.

So far we only have mtDNA from Sumerians, no Y-DNA:

http://www.tesisenxarxa.net/handle/10803/795;jsessionid=D7027C7481C0FE36E74BE8F34171AE08.td x1

And these six samples are from period 2900 - 2550 BC:

- H14a
- U4
- U4a2b
- R
- J1a1
- L2a1

holderlin
23-11-15, 04:46
Seriously. If PIE are Teals from the Iranian plateau, who imposed their culture on the steppe using farming platoons of BMAC originated R1b and R1a guys with no EHG, then surely the first evidence of Teal on the Steppe should be an all or mostly Teal R1b/R1a guy right?

holderlin
23-11-15, 04:48
Sumerian PIEs lulz

If anyone thinks that Samara as PIEs is crazier than Sumerian PIEs, please let me know.

Sile
23-11-15, 05:38
Seriously. If PIE are Teals from the Iranian plateau, who imposed their culture on the steppe using farming platoons of BMAC originated R1b and R1a guys with no EHG, then surely the first evidence of Teal on the Steppe should be an all or mostly Teal R1b/R1a guy right?

G1 was found in great numbers in central asia

Sile
23-11-15, 05:40
Caucuses is a late arrival on the steppe bro, you don't see evidence until Yamnaya or related layers. You know why? Because at this stage IE's had likely undergone significant expansion and linguistic differentiation. In other words Yamnaya are likely downstream of the true PIE speakers.

It's amazing people actually respond to you

There where other haplogroups in the south and north cuacasus areas prior to R1 getting there

Angela
23-11-15, 18:45
Can we please bring these discussions somewhat back on topic?


Holderlin: Samara burials are Kurgans

Maykop "Kurgans" do not predate those on the steppe.

Everyone. This is false. Yet for some reason people prate it on these forums as if it's a widely accepted consensus. Again, it is quite false. Please stop saying it.

It all depends how you define a kurgan, doesn't it, and what kind of testing you use?

https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/radiocarbon/article/view/16087
http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2014/12/pit-grave-yamnaya-kurgans-are-as-old-as.html
The analysis of the paper is incorrect. The correct interpretation can be found in the comments section.

For the opposite point of view, that every "elite" burial, even if it's just a hole dug in a hill is a kurgan, see:
https://www.academia.edu/1870168/Rassamakin_Y.Y._2011._Eneolithic_Burial_Mounds_in_ the_Black_Sea_Steppe_From_the_First_Burial_Symbols _to_Monumental_Ritual_Architecture._In_S._Muller-Celka_ed._._Ancestral_Landscapes._TMO_61_Maison_de _l_Orient_et_la_M%C3%A9diterran%C3%A9e_Lyon_293-306


Tomenable: I'm not sure why do you consider Yamnaya as the "original Indoeuropeans". That culture was not the first stage of PIE, but the last one.

This isn't the first time we've discussed this issue. It all depends on how you are defining the term "Indo-Europeans", doesn't it? I was talking about the "Indo-European" culture which developed on the steppe per Anthony and Mallory in the period from about 4200 BC to 3000 BC. after they had adopted animal herding, agriculture, copper metallurgy etc. as the lexicon of their language would indicate.

The people to the north of them, who developed into the Corded Ware people, were not "Indo-Europeans" in that cultural sense even if they were related to them genetically. Certainly the forest steppe people didn't possess any of the hallmarks of that culture.

If you push the definition back in time to include fisher hunters living in some yurt or cave without any of those developments then the term loses all meaning, in my opinion.

These hunters contributed their genes to the "Indo-Europeans", but they were not yet Indo-Europeans. At least that's how I see it.

I also must ask, have you lost your sense of irony, Tomenable? All of your many posts could be interpreted to be an attempt to prove that the Indo-Europeans were "pure" EHG whose closest living descendants, and therefore the inheritors of their "glory", such as it is, are the Balto-Slavs. Of course, there's that bothersome "teal" component, but apparently if it was acquired through wife stealing it's acceptable, but if some R1b "teal" men brought it, it's not. Do I have that right?

Perhaps it would be more correct to say that a lot of people interested in and discussing this topic are influenced by some sort of "ethnic" agenda.

More worrisome for me is the fact that posters seem to be claiming as an authority on matters anthropological a notorious racist of who knows what academic background, if any, (is he in prison, btw?) and proudly claiming as well an eight year long association with him. Really? How disappointing.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 19:22
I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

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

Angela it's bad that you removed so many posts because Alan's misinformation will spread.

I mean you also removed a lot of Alan's misinformation but some still remained. :)


The people to the north of them, who developed into the Corded Ware people, were not "Indo-Europeans" in that cultural sense even if they were related to them genetically. Certainly the forest steppe people didn't possess any of the hallmarks of that culture.

We do not know who developed into the Corded Ware people, and where did they originally live.

It is Maciamo's hypothesis that they lived in the forest steppe.

Khvalynsk culture is not in the forest steppe, R1a sample from that culture is from the steppe.


If you push the definition back in time to include fisher hunters living in some yurt or cave without any of those developments then the term loses all meaning, in my opinion.

No it does not because "Proto-Indo-European people" = people who spoke PIE language.

BTW - Samara and Khvalynsk cultures were not fisher hunters, but those were Copper Age cultures already.

LeBrok
23-11-15, 19:26
I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

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

Angela it's bad that you removed so many posts because Alan's misinformation will spread.

I mean you also removed a lot of Alan's misinformation but some still remained. :)

All of topic posts were moved here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31734-Cephalic-index-of-ancient-populations-and-reconstructions

LeBrok
23-11-15, 19:32
I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

It started as a linguistic term. Now, when we know much more, it should be expended for their entire culture. I addressed it as IE package: http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31383-Indo-European-package

Tomenable
23-11-15, 19:42
I also must ask, have you lost your sense of irony, Tomenable? All of your many posts could be interpreted to be an attempt to prove that the Indo-Europeans were "pure" EHG whose closest living descendants, and therefore the inheritors of their "glory", such as it is, are the Balto-Slavs.

Khvalynsk was not pure EHG but mixed EHG + Teal, and I claimed that Khvalynsk were Proto-Indo-Europeans (as did Gimbutas).

By the way - how did you come up with an idea, that Balto-Slavs are the closest living descendants of EHGs ??? Most of EHGs have NO living paternal descendants, because they got nearly extinct (only 1% of R1a in the world is not under M198/M417).

Only a few lineages or clans out of hundreds of thousands were so successful.

And I don't need to remind, that EHGs were both R1a and R1b (see the Samara HG), not just R1a.

When I check Fig. 3 from Haak 2015, it shows that Eastern and Northern Euros are autosomally largely descended from Yamnaya.

And Yamnaya were 52% EHG + 48% Teal so we are autosomally largely Teal / Caucasus HG as well, not just EHG.

Weren't you just underlining the importance of autosomal DNA (compared to Y-DNA) in your last post ??? :wink:

Some ethnic groups with high frequency of R1b are at the same time not very much "Steppe" autosomally, indicating that R1b increased to high frequencies due to elite dominance by a small group of steppe males over large native populations.

While Eastern Europeans and some Northern Europeans (like Norwegians) are largely "Steppe" autosomally, so here it was a mass migration rather than just elite dominance with foreign Y-DNA transmitted with local autosomes.

Western Europeans may have a lot of steppe Y-DNA, but they are autosomally VERY Non-Steppe. This indicates that their ruling chieftains (who had a lot of wifes and children) were from the steppe, but the bulk of the population were locals.

Thanks to founder effects, steppe Y-DNA increased in frequency, but autosomal DNA remained mostly local.

Yamnaya autosomal ancestry decreases in Europe as you go from north-east to south-west!


therefore the inheritors of their "glory", such as it is, are the Balto-Slavs.

What glory ??? According to Gimbutas Indo-Europeans were the "bad guys", not the "good guys" !!! :laughing: :wink:

According to Gimbutas, those evil Indo-Europeans came and ruined the superb Neolithic civilization.

We must accept our heritage with all its glory and all its horror - not just glory alone. :wink:

Not to mention that those IE brutes probably even destroyed the flourishing Indus Valley Civilization.

Why is it that everyone wants to be descended from the "bad guys"? :thinking:

I guess that's why I like the Sith more than the Jedi in "Star Wars".

Tomenable
23-11-15, 20:00
Of course, there's that bothersome "teal" component, but apparently if it was acquired through wife stealing it's acceptable, but if some R1b "teal" men brought it, it's not. Do I have that right?

Angela, what "R1b teal" ??? There is no R1b in CHGs so far - both of them were J.

But there is R1b in EHGs - see that Samara Hunter, who was 0% Teal, but had R1b.

We have 3 samples of EHG males, of whom 1 was R1a and 1 was R1b.

Then we have 3 from Khvalynsk, of whom 1 was R1a and 1 was R1b.

BTW, what if "Teal" component was brought by R1a men - would that be acceptable?

It is just as likely that there was R1a among "Teal" people, as that there was R1b there.

But currently it is most likely that Teal people = CHG and that there was J there.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 20:26
Lazaridis (co-author together with Haak of the "Massive migration from the steppe" 2015 study) twitted this:

https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/666355572501954560

http://s28.postimg.org/be11fd19p/CHG_Lazaridis.png

So he is quite convinced that CHGs are "the right Teal people", not "wrong Teal people" as some of us here think.

We now have two groups of hunter-gatherers - EHGs and Caucasus HGs - mixing together and creating PIE.

BTW it seems that modern Kurds - among some other groups - are autosomally a good modern proxy for CHGs.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 20:31
All of topic posts were moved here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/31734-Cephalic-index-of-ancient-populations-and-reconstructions

Thanks LeBrok.


culture which developed on the steppe per Anthony and Mallory in the period from about 4200 BC to 3000 BC.

Khvalynsk is dated 4200-3800 BC (I've seen also 4700-4000 BC but this dating is wrong according to Gravetto-Danubian (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!&p=122135&viewfull=1#post122135)).

BTW, all Yamnaya samples that we have so far are dated 3340-2620 BC, which means that we do not have any samples from the earliest centuries of Yamnaya culture, as shown in this link by Maju (4000-3500 BC, "Early Yamna" - Indoeuropean stage 2):

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

http://s18.postimg.org/omy3hd2g9/IE_Stage_2.png

Tomenable
23-11-15, 20:55
Perhaps it would be more correct to say that a lot of people interested in and discussing this topic are influenced by some sort of "ethnic" agenda.

Well one of "symptoms" of such ethnic agenda on your part was assuming that if Teal people came from the south, then they belonged to "Italian" R1b haplogroup.

The truth is that EHG Samara hunter was R1b, and had no "Teal" admixture, while Khvalynsk samples were mixed - one R1a, one R1b - and both had 25% "Teal".

So R1b was in the steppe before Teal admixture came, while the first sample of steppe R1a appears in a Teal-admixed population.

There are also claims here, that "Teal people" probably came from Iran. Perhaps nobody remembers Underhill's 2014 study on R1a, in which he claimed that R1a was originally spreading from Iran or from West Asia, due to the fact that it's basal clades are most abundant there (it seems that Goga also has such a basal clade of R1a). One of users from Anthrogenica also posted autosomal stuff, which shows that modern R1a-rich Kurds are a good proxy for Teal / CHGs - better than Armenians.

Not that I am necessarily supporting this idea in its entirety, I am just posting this to illustrate that assuming that if anything came from the south then it automatically had to be R1b rather than R1a, is totally wrong.

In modern times in West Asia R1b-Z2103 is not even more numerous than R1a-Z93, both are roughly on par - but it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Z2103 and Z93, but about M269/L23 and M198/M417.

So modern frequencies of some very late branches are irrelevant when we are talking about origins of more basal lineages.

bicicleur
23-11-15, 21:51
Thanks LeBrok.



Khvalynsk is dated 4200-3800 BC (I've seen also 4700-4000 BC but this dating is wrong according to Gravetto-Danubian (http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5833-Teal-discovered-!!&p=122135&viewfull=1#post122135)).

BTW, all Yamnaya samples that we have so far are dated 3340-2620 BC, which means that we do not have any samples from the earliest centuries of Yamnaya culture, as shown in this link by Maju (4000-3500 BC, "Early Yamna" - Indoeuropean stage 2):

http://forwhattheywereweare.blogspot.com/p/blog-page.html

http://s18.postimg.org/omy3hd2g9/IE_Stage_2.png

why the link with Baalberge?
is this because of the R1 DNA found there?

Tomenable
23-11-15, 21:57
^
I think you mean this sample (it seems that it was R1, but neither R1b1a2 nor R1a1a):

http://s22.postimg.org/6m28v92jl/Baalberge_R1.png

http://s22.postimg.org/6m28v92jl/Baalberge_R1.png

I'm not sure why the link with it - I would rather propose the Globular Amphora as first IE-speakers in Central Europe.

Wikipedia says this:

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


Marija Gimbutas and her followers argue that the Baalberge culture was an intrusive hybrid culture deriving ultimately from the Eurasian steppe, part of the Kurgan hypothesis. In that case it would have been an Indo-European-speaking culture. Some aspects of Baalberge burials might support this theory, such as the presence of pottery allegedly influenced by the Baden culture (an Indo-Europeanised culture according to Gimbutas) and the Bodrogkersztúr culture and the posture of the corpses, laid on their right hand side with their legs pulled up - a posture typical of the "Yamna culture." But other aspects of the burials are very different from burials in the east, such as the placement of the hands over the mouth in an eating gesture (which is unknown in authentic kurgan sites) and the much less marked use of red ochre. In particular, there are no signs of the steppe kurgans that characterise the Kurgan culture. Finally, comparative anatomy suggests the deceased came from a locally derived population, not from the east. Mallory therefore considers the Baalberge group a local development.[6]

Anatomy is one thing, but it would be much better to actually test their autosomal DNA. Has this been done already?

bicicleur
23-11-15, 22:05
The truth is that EHG Samara hunter was R1b, and had no "Teal" admixture, while Khvalynsk samples were mixed - one R1a, one R1b - and both had 25% "Teal".

So R1b was in the steppe before Teal admixture came, while the first sample of steppe R1a appears in a Teal-admixed population.

There are also claims here, that "Teal people" probably came from Iran. Perhaps nobody remembers Underhill's 2014 study on R1a, in which he claimed that R1a was originally spreading from Iran or from West Asia, due to the fact that it's basal clades are most abundant there (it seems that Goga also has such a basal clade of R1a). One of users from Anthrogenica also posted autosomal stuff, which shows that modern R1a-rich Kurds are a good proxy for Teal / CHGs - better than Armenians.

Not that I am necessarily supporting this idea in its entirety, I am just posting this to illustrate that assuming that if anything came from the south then it automatically had to be R1b rather than R1a, is totally wrong.

In modern times in West Asia R1b-Z2103 is not even more numerous than R1a-Z93, both are roughly on par - but it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Z2103 and Z93, but about M269/L23 and M198/M417.

So modern frequencies of some very late branches are irrelevant when we are talking about origins of more basal lineages.

IMO Yamnaya teal must have come through Maykop.
We need Maykop DNA, both autosomal and Y.

yes R1 tribes originaly came from south of Caspian Sea which was populated since 13-14 ka.
IMO R1a and R1b entered via Caucasus Europe > 10 ka, and they followed the big east-European rivers up north.
Before that the Pontic Steppe was populated by I or J. (the eastern Epigravettian like in Satsurblia had also spread in the Don and Dnjepr valleys)

David Anthony about the Dnjepr Rapids : 8000 BC there were 3 different skull and body types. Many skeletons in the graves had arrowtips in them.
Between 7000 and 6200 BC only one of these 3 was taking over the whole Dnjepr Rapids area (not only body type, also funeral customs).

So R1 tribes had arrived and there were wars untill 1 tribe dominated this interesting area full of big fishes to catch.

Angela
23-11-15, 22:12
Well one of "symptoms" of such ethnic agenda on your part was assuming that if Teal people came from the south, then they belonged to "Italian" R1b haplogroup.

The truth is that EHG Samara hunter was R1b, and had no "Teal" admixture, while Khvalynsk samples were mixed - one R1a, one R1b - and both had 25% "Teal".

So R1b was in the steppe before Teal admixture came, while the first sample of steppe R1a appears in a Teal-admixed population.

There are also claims here, that "Teal people" probably came from Iran. Perhaps nobody remembers Underhill's 2014 study on R1a, in which he claimed that R1a was originally spreading from Iran or from West Asia, due to the fact that it's basal clades are most abundant there (it seems that Goga also has such a basal clade of R1a). One of users from Anthrogenica also posted autosomal stuff, which shows that modern R1a-rich Kurds are a good proxy for Teal / CHGs - better than Armenians.

Not that I am necessarily supporting this idea in its entirety, I am just posting this to illustrate that assuming that if anything came from the south then it automatically had to be R1b rather than R1a, is totally wrong.

In modern times in West Asia R1b-Z2103 is not even more numerous than R1a-Z93, both are roughly on par - but it is irrelevant because we are not talking about Z2103 and Z93, but about M269/L23 and M198/M417.

So modern frequencies of some very late branches are irrelevant when we are talking about origins of more basal lineages.

What on earth are you talking about? Your post is totally incoherent.

I have no special attachment to "R1b", Italic or otherwise. I don't even know my father's y dna line, nor do I care. I leave this kind of atavistic nonsense to you guys.

I also have no special attachment to the Indo-Europeans. I'm perfectly aware that the language I speak and much of the culture I inherited owes a great deal to them, but that doesn't stop me from finding a lot of the hallmarks of the Indo-European culture very unattractive, and I think it's a damn shame that the Balkan cultures fell. Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history. So, whether the proto Indo-European language first developed south of the Caucasus or north of it is immaterial to me,I although as I've opined before, on balance I think the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the "least bad" option.

I also don't know whether the "teal" in the Indo-Europeans came strictly from women or also from men through some version of the scenario that Maciamo has proffered. There isn't enough ancient dna yet for firm conclusions so far as I can see. I don't care either way about that either, but apparently for some weird combination of "ethnic" or "racialist" ideology combined with macho posturing some of you guys do.

As to culture, it's clear to me that other than the domestication of the horse and the marrying of wheeled vehicles and pastoralism, everything else was borrowed either from the Balkans or from Maykop. There's nothing wrong with that. I actually admire the Indo-Europeans for their ability to take technology from other, more advanced cultures, adapt it to their own particular environment and then make further developments on their own.

Perhaps you should stop projecting your own world view, prejudices, agenda, and inability to be objective about history onto other people. I'd also advise using less emotion and more reason when attempting to understand pre-history.

As to your specific complaint about the moved posts, luckily I am not the only moderator here. If you feel that some posts have not been preserved for posterity in the proper thread, address your concerns to LeBroc.

For further clarity about my point of view, see LeBroc's post number 203 and the accompanying link.

With regard to my original post about Corded Ware peoples,I don't think we have enough data to decide which scenario is closest to what actually happened, but I am leaning toward thinking that the proto-Corded Ware people were a related group and not the result of a migration from Yamnaya, because if they were transplants it's unclear why they didn't have all the hallmarks of the Indo-European "package".

I'm quite aware of the nature of the Khvalysk culture, and that it was beginning to be mixed "genetically". I was attempting a bit of humorous exaggeration to show how ridiculous it can become to try to push the "Indo-Europeans" as a specific group of people too far into the past. As to the nature of the Khvalysk culture, classifying it as a "Copper Age" culture is rather misleading, in my opinion. It's clear to me that although one can see the beginnings of the Indo-European "package" in the archaeological remains, they still had a long way to go: they had domesticated animals, but their only copper was of the ornamental kind and came from the Balkans as they had no copper metallurgy of their own, early graves were communal, and even when later on individual graves are found there is no great evidence of social stratification as would be seen by more material wealth in the graves of any "chiefs". I'm unclear about the nature and extent of the agriculture they practiced.

Perhaps they hadn't imported enough "Teal" wives yet, with their superior culture?

As for their language, according to Anthony, perhaps by 4,000 BC people in the western steppe tribes were speaking "archaic" dialects of "proto Indo-European" similar to "Anatolian".
https://books.google.com/books?id=0FDqf415wqgC&pg=PA182&lpg=PA182&dq=Khvalynsk+culture&source=bl&ots=2Z63qNJGRy&sig=zMIwR9v6lgc61XnAoH6NkUXfeBY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjUpPXYkafJAhUMXB4KHZk-BnkQ6AEISTAJ#v=onepage&q=Khvalynsk%20culture&f=false

Now that bit of housekeeping has been taken care of, our discussion is at an end.

bicicleur
23-11-15, 22:22
^
I think you mean this sample (it seems that it was R1, but neither R1b1a2 nor R1a1a):

http://s22.postimg.org/6m28v92jl/Baalberge_R1.png

http://s22.postimg.org/6m28v92jl/Baalberge_R1.png

I'm not sure why the link with it - I would rather propose the Globular Amphora as first IE-speakers in Central Europe.

Wikipedia says this:

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



Anatomy is one thing, but it would be much better to actually test their autosomal DNA. Has this been done already?

Would Baden culture not be related to the speakers of the Anatolian languages?

Angela
23-11-15, 22:32
IMO Yamnaya teal must have come through Maykop.
We need Maykop DNA, both autosomal and Y.

yes R1 tribes originaly came from south of Caspian Sea which was populated since 13-14 ka.
IMO R1a and R1b entered via Caucasus Europe > 10 ka, and they followed the big east-European rivers up north.
Before that the Pontic Steppe was populated by I or J. (the eastern Epigravettian like in Satsurblia had also spread in the Don and Dnjepr valleys)

David Anthony about the Dnjepr Rapids : 8000 BC there were 3 different skull and body types. Many skeletons in the graves had arrowtips in them.
Between 7000 and 6200 BC only one of these 3 was taking over the whole Dnjepr Rapids area (not only body type, also funeral customs).

So R1 tribes had arrived and there were wars untill 1 tribe dominated this interesting area full of big fishes to catch.


You don't think it could have come from further east? What do you think R1a and R1b were like autosomally when they first arrived?

bicicleur
23-11-15, 22:45
I also have no special attachment to the Indo-Europeans. I'm perfectly aware that the language I speak and much of the culture I inherited owes a great deal to them, but that doesn't stop me from finding a lot of the hallmarks of the Indo-European culture very unattractive, and I think it's a damn shame that the Balkan cultures fell. Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history. So, whether the proto Indo-European language first developed south of the Caucasus or north of it is immaterial to me,I although as I've opined before, on balance I think the Pontic-Caspian steppe is the "least bad" option.


Neither have I my DNA tested, but I am aware that I am in part the product of Indo-European culture.
I think they acted as typical cattle herding tribes.
You could compare it to the Bantu expansion and the Zulu kingdoms for a more modern parallel.
And I don't think the IE were unique at that time either.
I guess the Semitic tribes arrived from Africa into the Levant during 4th mill BC, they were pastors too.

The Semitic family is a member of the larger Afroasiatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroasiatic_languages) family, all of whose other five or more branches have their origin in East Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa). Largely for this reason, the ancestors of Proto-Semitic speakers were originally believed by some to have first arrived in the Middle East from Africa, possibly as part of the operation of the Saharan pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory), around the late Neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic).[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#cite_note-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#cite_note-15) Diakonoff sees Semitic originating between the Nile Delta and Canaan as the northernmost branch of Afroasiatic. Blench even wonders whether the highly divergent Gurage languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurage_languages) indicate an origin in Ethiopia (with the rest of Ethiopic Semitic a later back migration).
A recent Bayesian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability) analysis of alternative Semitic histories supports the former possibility and identifies an origin of Semitic languages in the Levant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant) around 3,750 BC with a single introduction from southern Arabia into Africa around 800 BC.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#cite_note-16)
IMO they were responsable for the end of the Uruk expansion.
They enter written history with the Akkadians, who had allready assimilated the culture of the Summerians.
But the Amorites were still wild and feared nomads with cattle or goats, and if you read about the cruelties during the wars between the cities in Mesopotamia, it is horrifying.
It was what it was back then.
I don't believe either that 'Old Europe' was that peacefull and egalitarian as Gimbutas described.
Somebody had to dig and do the hard work in the mines, but we see from the graves in the Varna necropolis that the bulk of the gold was concentrated in just a few graves.
Furthermore it looks like Old Europe was allready in decline before the first IE people invaded.
Maybe it was climate change and there was hunger in both the Balkans and the steppe and it was a matter of survival of the fittest.

bicicleur
23-11-15, 23:01
You don't think it could have come from further east? What do you think R1a and R1b were like autosomally when they first arrived?

My guess is they survived LGM north of the Hindu Kush, where R1 would have split from R2 - but this is speculating from my side.
There would have survived some people LGM in the Kupruk area, Afghanistan, but this is not an area which has had much attention, nor will it in the near future.
They must have been mostly ANE.
It is strange the Karelian EHG didn't have teal though as they were acompanied by some J.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 23:13
Every time we claw ourselves up toward some kind of civilization, less advanced cultures from the fringes bring it all crashing down and we have to start building it up all over again. This has been repeated ad nauseam throughout human history.

Yes but that was not the fault of those less advanced cultures which took over, but the fault of those civilizations which decayed:

http://www.sq.4mg.com/AppA.htm


Why do civilizations rise and fall?

One of the best explanations came from Ibn Khaldun, considered by many to be the father of the Social Sciences. He lived from 1332-1406, working as an Islamic scholar in Tunis, Fez, Granada, and Cairo. Khaldun argues that each dynasty (or civilization) has within itself the seeds of its own downfall. He explains that new ruling houses tend to emerge on the peripheries of great empires. They use the much stronger social solidarity present in those peripheries to their advantage, in order to bring about a change in leadership. The new rulers are at first considered barbarians in comparison to the old ones. As the new dynasties establish themselves at the center of their empires, they become increasingly lax, less coordinated, disciplined and watchful. They become more concerned with maintaining their new power and lifestyle at the center of their empire. Their original internal cohesion and ties to the peripheral group dissolves into factionalism and individualism, diminishing their capacity as a political unit. Thus conditions are created wherein a new dynasty can emerge at the periphery of their control, grow strong, and effect a change in leadership, beginning the cycle anew. This pattern can be seen throughout history. Rome was on the periphery of the Etruscan and Greek civilizations, and conquered both.

The most recent change in the world's leading civilization was from the British Empire to the United States, one of its colonies. While the British may not have considered American colonials as barbarian, they definitely looked upon Washington, Lincoln, Rockefeller, and Ford as socially inferior.

And even though this has been repeated all the time, the humanity is advancing. We are making 3 steps forward per 1 step back.

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

Considering that the general pattern has been that new leading civilizations tend to emerge on the fringes of old leaders, I would say that after the USA sinks into oblivion, Canada will probably emerge as the new leading civilization. Watch your own hat! :)

Or Mexico, who knows. Especially if Mexican immigrants take over the southern half of the USA, which is already taking place. :)

Alternatively it is possible that Canada and Mexico will partition the USA, and one of them will become the new leader.

Alan
23-11-15, 23:17
More worrisome for me is the fact that posters seem to be claiming as an authority on matters anthropological a notorious racist of who knows what academic background, if any, (is he in prison, btw?) and proudly claiming as well an eight year long association with him. Really? How disappointing.


Just because someone has false which has likely put him in jail, that doesn't play minimal role for his anthropological skills when it comes to cranial classification. Just in case no one noticed all almost all 19th to 20th century racialists had a dubious ideology. Most of those "racial classification are even based on them. He knew what I though about his political ideology and we were often enough arguing about this. It was also him with whom I argued about Yamnas complexion/pigmentation. He thought they must be "Nordic" based on their location, I told him instinctively that they were possibly not "natives" to that region for so long and had darker/olive pigmentation.

I am betting nearly half, if not more of anyone who is interested in anthropology or genetics in these forums, indeed came across that man.

virtually everyone I saw were quoting or asking him for his opinion when it came to physical anthropology.

oriental
23-11-15, 23:20
Don't forget the Sahara was not always desert. Only 5,000 years ago it turned to desert. Every 21,000 years the Sahara and the Middle east becomes green for 5,000 years. So around 3,000 BC approx., 24,000 BC, 45,000 BC, 66,000 BC, 86,000 BC the Sahara and Middle east were green for roughly 5,000 years so during those slotted times there would have been plenty of people living around those areas. The desert conditions forced them to migrated to higher ground where there was vegetation or other wetter greener pastures for hunting or growing food.

Alan
23-11-15, 23:22
And to the questions of PIE. Last time I checked the oldest Kurgans, characteristic for PIE are placed in Leyla-Tepe and Maykop.


The earliest known kurgans are dated to the 4th millennium BC in the Caucasus.[3] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKipfer2000291-3) Kurgan barrows were characteristic of Bronze Age (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bronze_Age) peoples, and have been found from the Altay Mountains (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altay_Mountains) to the Caucasus (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caucasus), Ukraine (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukraine), Romania (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romania), and Bulgaria (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulgaria). Kurgans were used in the Ukrainian and Russian steppes, their use spreading with migration into eastern, central, and northern Europe (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe) in the 3rd millennium BC.

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


What I start to believe is that we are dealing here with a network of "PIE cultures" who were residing in the territory all around the Caspian see (West, South, North and possibly even East of it).

Tomenable
23-11-15, 23:30
I know that Americans consider Mexicans as "very barbaric".

Hellenistic Greeks thought the same about Romans, and Romans thought the same about Germans - let's just quote Tacitus:

Tacitus, "Origin, Location, Manners, and Inhabitants of Germany", published in 98 AD (less than two thousand years after Tacitus wrote that, Germany has been the most advanced of European countries, while Italy is not in a very good shape today):


15. Life in times of peace

When not engaged in war they pass much of their time in the chase, and still more in idleness, giving themselves up to sleep and feasting. The bravest and most warlike do no work; they give over the management of the household, of the home, and of the land to the women, the old men, and the weaker members of the family, while they themselves remain in the most sluggish inactivity. It is strange that the same men should be so fond of idleness and yet so averse to peace. It is the custom of the tribes to make their chiefs presents of cattle and grain, and thus to give them the means of support. The chiefs are especially pleased with gifts from neighboring tribes, which are sent not only by individuals, but also by the state, such as choice steeds, heavy armor, trappings, and neck-chains. The Romans have now taught them to accept money also.

16. Lack of cities and towns

It is a well-known fact that the peoples of Germany have no cities, and that they do not even allow buildings to be erected close together. They live scattered about, wherever a spring, or meadow, or a wood has attracted them. Their villages are not arranged in the Roman fashion, with the buildings connected and joined together, but every person surrounds his dwelling with an open space, either as a precaution against the disasters of fire, or because they do not know how to build. They make no use of stone or brick, but employ wood for all purposes. Their buildings are mere rude masses, without ornament or attractiveness, although occasionally they are stained in part with a kind of clay which is so clear and bright that it resembles painting (...)

(...)

23. Their food and drink

A liquor for drinking is made out of barely, or other grain, and fermented so as to be somewhat like wine. The dwellers along the river-bank also buy wine from traders. Their food is of a simple variety, consisting of wild fruit, fresh game, and curdled milk. They satisfy their hunger without making much preparation of cooked dishes, and without the use of any delicacies at all. In quenching their thirst they are not so moderate. If they are supplied with as much as they desire to drink [alcohol], they will be overcome by their own vices as easily as by the arms of an enemy.

24. German amusements

At all their gatherings there is one and the same kind of amusement. This is the dancing of naked youths amid swords and lances that all the time endanger their lives. Experience gives them skill, and skill in turn gives grace. They scorn to receive profit or pay, for, however, reckless their pastime, its reward is only the pleasure of the spectators. Strangely enough, they make games of chance a serious employment, even when sober, and so venturesome are they about winning or losing that, when every other resource has failed, on the final throw of the dice they will stake even their own freedom. He who loses goes into voluntary slavery and, though the younger and stronger of the players, allows himself to be bound and sold. Such is their stubborn persistence in a bad practice, though they themselves call it honor.

(...)

46. Here end the territories of the Suevians (...) the Peucinians, whom some call Basstarnians, speak the same language with the Germans, use the same attire, build like them, and live like them, in that dirtiness and sloth so common to all Germans (...).

(...)

6. Iron is not plentiful among them, as may be inferred from the nature of their weapons. Only a few make use of swords or long lances. Ordinarily they carry a spear (which they call a framea), with a short and narrow head, but so sharp and easy to handle that the same weapon serves, according to circumstances, for close or distant conflict. As for the horse-soldier, he is satisfied with a shield and a spear. The foot-soldiers also scatter showers of missiles, each man having several and hurling them to an immense distance, and being naked or lightly clad with a little cloak. They make no display in their equipment. Their shields alone are marked with fancy colors. Only a few have corselets, and just one or two here and there a metal or leather helmet. Their horses are neither beautiful nor swift; nor are they taught various wheeling movements after the Roman fashion, but are driven straight forward so as to make one turn to the right in such a compact body that none may be left behind another.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 23:37
it's clear to me that other than the domestication of the horse and the marrying of wheeled vehicles and pastoralism, everything else was borrowed either from the Balkans or from Maykop. There's nothing wrong with that. I actually admire the Indo-Europeans for their ability to take technology from other, more advanced cultures, adapt it to their own particular environment and then make further developments on their own.

In that respect the Latins / Italics / Romans were similar - they borrowed from Greeks, Hellenistic kingdoms, Etruscans, Celts, and from everyone else around them. In fact this is what all peoples do, the ones who are better in borrowing become the new leaders.

From Celts they borrowed mail armor, among other things. Among things that Rome made on its own was Roman law.

When you look at Romans, they didn't have too many original inventions, but they improved many older inventions of others.

Domestication of the horse and the invention of chariots are still very important original contributions of PIEs.

Those inventions revolutionized warfare for the next several thousand years, until the emergence of machine guns and tanks.

Tomenable
23-11-15, 23:49
I am leaning toward thinking that the proto-Corded Ware people were a related group and not the result of a migration from Yamnaya, because if they were transplants it's unclear why they didn't have all the hallmarks of the Indo-European "package".

Maybe for the same reason, why Bell Beakers did not have all the hallmarks of the Indo-European "package".

Corded Ware had in any case more hallmarks of that package than Bell Beakers. IIRC Bell Beakers were not even a true society (not any kind of tribe, etc.), but rather groups of smiths travelling from place to place. Not to mention that the oldest Bell Beaker sites seem to be from Iberia, while supporters of steppe origin claim that the gene flow was in the opposite direction than the spread of culture. How could people be spreading in the opposite direction (from east to west) than their material culture (from west to east)?

BTW, Angela, can you list all the things that you consider to be the hallmarks of the Indo-European culture?


Neither have I my DNA testedI had it tested recently (but just Y-DNA) and I turned out to be R1b-M269, perhaps P312.

As you know I'm rather seeing R1a as a bit more than or at least equally Indo-European as R1b.

So Angela can't accuse me of "ethno-genetic chauvinism", as I'm not even R1a myself.

And I'm also not claiming that PIEs originated in my homeland, as Goga is claiming.

Angela
23-11-15, 23:57
Neither have I my DNA tested, but I am aware that I am in part the product of Indo-European culture.
I think they acted as typical cattle herding tribes.
You could compare it to the Bantu expansion and the Zulu kingdoms for a more modern parallel.
And I don't think the IE were unique at that time either.
I guess the Semitic tribes arrived from Africa into the Levant during 4th mill BC, they were pastors too.

The Semitic family is a member of the larger Afroasiatic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Afroasiatic_languages) family, all of whose other five or more branches have their origin in East Africa (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_Africa). Largely for this reason, the ancestors of Proto-Semitic speakers were originally believed by some to have first arrived in the Middle East from Africa, possibly as part of the operation of the Saharan pump (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sahara_pump_theory), around the late Neolithic (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neolithic).[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#cite_note-14)[15] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#cite_note-15) Diakonoff sees Semitic originating between the Nile Delta and Canaan as the northernmost branch of Afroasiatic. Blench even wonders whether the highly divergent Gurage languages (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gurage_languages) indicate an origin in Ethiopia (with the rest of Ethiopic Semitic a later back migration).
A recent Bayesian (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bayesian_probability) analysis of alternative Semitic histories supports the former possibility and identifies an origin of Semitic languages in the Levant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levant) around 3,750 BC with a single introduction from southern Arabia into Africa around 800 BC.[16] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semitic_languages#cite_note-16)
IMO they were responsable for the end of the Uruk expansion.
They enter written history with the Akkadians, who had allready assimilated the culture of the Summerians.
But the Amorites were still wild and feared nomads with cattle or goats, and if you read about the cruelties during the wars between the cities in Mesopotamia, it is horrifying.
It was what it was back then.
I don't believe either that 'Old Europe' was that peacefull and egalitarian as Gimbutas described.
Somebody had to dig and do the hard work in the mines, but we see from the graves in the Varna necropolis that the bulk of the gold was concentrated in just a few graves.
Furthermore it looks like Old Europe was allready in decline before the first IE people invaded.
Maybe it was climate change and there was hunger in both the Balkans and the steppe and it was a matter of survival of the fittest.

We're largely in agreement.

I did test at 23andme. However, being a woman, I have no y chromosome to test, my father is deceased, and none of my relatives in that line have any interest in testing, which probably shows their great good sense. :)

All it told me in terms of autosomal ancestry is that I am a typical Italian of my particular "place" or "admixture", if you will, which is to say almost exactly mid-point between Northern Italians and the Florentine variety of Tuscan. Of course, I already knew that. :) Still, considering that it only cost 99 dollars and included health information, it was worth it.

Oh, I did learn that I have a variety of mtDna, U2e, which, wherever it originated, is an mtDna common among EHG and then later in the Indo-Europeans. MtDna is very important in terms of possible health and fitness issues, so I do pay attention to that, but in terms of identity, it's all much too long ago. We're more than our uniparental markers, and more than any one ancient population.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 00:05
Perhaps you should stop projecting your own world view, prejudices, agenda, and inability to be objective about history onto other people. I'd also advise using less emotion and more reason when attempting to understand pre-history.

Sorry Angela but it's not me who is not using reason but rather people who imagine the existence of some "genetically the same but not really the same" population in order to be able to claim that what Haak & Lazaridis 2015 called "Yamnaya admixture" in Corded Ware is not really Yamnaya, but something else closely related. Or that "Teal" in CHG is not really "Teal".

But of course those closely related people did not speak Indo-European (as you seem to be claiming).

So I wonder how were they related (common ancestry, but not common language ??? - why so ???).

And also I wonder how and when exactly do you think did Balto-Slavic and Indo-Iranic people start speaking Indo-European languages. Perhaps at some point (when?) they got conquered by Bell Beakers who imposed language ???

The problem is that Bell Beakers never advanced that far east. So who "Indo-Europeanized" us?

And perhaps if Aryans were not IEs but Indo-Europeanized, then it's time to change the name from "Indo-European" to "European".

Because India has no R1b, it is full of R1a, which is not an originally PIE marker according to you.

So why the need to keep "Indo-" there ???

Tomenable
24-11-15, 00:20
And the funniest thing is that Western European posters keep pretending that Yamna were L51, when they were Z2103.

So your "massive migration from the steppe to Western Europe which entirely omitted Eastern Europe even though they had to cross it on their way to Western Europe because - hey - that's geography" theory still has some major flaws.

Another issue is "Steppe" autosomal admixture, which is much higher in north-eastern Europe than in south-western Europe.

It seems people tend to use autosomal when it proves their point, but when Y-DNA proves it better, they ignore autosomal. :)

Really I have an impression that there is some kind of Cold War era resentment in the air on this forum.

But they told me before I joined this forum that Maciamo is very pro-R1b, I just didn't expect that others are even more so.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 00:32
Indo-European studies started from Sanskrit language. And now Sanskrit is "Indo-Europeanized".

So maybe just throw to garbage the whole "PIE" concept and rename it to something else.

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

BTW - the "assault on Indo-Europeanness" of Balto-Slavs is not a new one.

There was a study by supporters of the Anatolian Hypothesis, which modeled the spread of IE languages as a spread of an epidemic disease, and they also "forgot" to include Balto-Slavic branch in their analysis (as if those were not even IE languages).

There is a "counter-study" discussing that study, I'm now posting it below:

http://historum.com/ancient-history/53838-mismodeling-indo-european-origins.html#post1382412?postcount=1

Mismodeling Indo-European Origins: the Assault On Historical Linguistics:


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ

And some comments to that video lecture:

"Can language spread be modeled using computational techniques designed to trace the diffusion of viruses? As recently announced in the New York Times, a team of biologists claims to have solved one of the major riddles of human prehistory, the origins of the Indo-European language family, by applying methodologies from epidemiology. In actuality, this research, published in Science, does nothing of the kind. As the talk presented here shows, the assumptions on which it rests are demonstrably false, the data that it uses are woefully incomplete and biased, and the model that it employs generates error at every turn, undermining the knowledge generated by more than two centuries of research in historical linguistics and threatening our understanding of the human past.

The talk presented here was originally delivered at Stanford University on December 13, 2012, sponsored by Stanford's Program in History and Philosophy of Science and Technology and co-sponsored by the Department of Linguistics. After a brief introduction by Kären Wigen, chair of the Stanford History Department, the presenters jointly deliver an address that lasts for some 50 minutes. A fifteen- minute period of questions and answers rounds out the video presentation.

The talk begins with Martin Lewis providing a brief examination of the media coverage of the issue. As he shows, not only the New York Times but also a number of other major news outlets, including Scientific American and the BBC, unreasonably portrayed the Science article as constituting a major scientific breakthrough. He then moves on to consider the significance of the topic, arguing that Indo-European origins and expansion has long been one of the most ideologically fraught issues of the human past, and that politically charged preconceptions continue to muddle scholarly interpretations. Asya Pereltsvaig subsequently explains the model used by the Science team, and then goes on to outline its linguistic failings, examining matters of vocabulary, grammar, and phonology. Martin Lewis then outlines the geo-historical problems of the Science paper before offering a few observations on the creation of ignorance. Asya Pereltsvaig concludes the presentation with a discussion of the languishing condition of historical linguistics and a warning about the possibility of generating "lodged fallacies" in the public imagination.

Further elaborations of the critique of the Science article can be found in a series of articles on the presenters' blog, GeoCurrents, located here: IndoEuropean Origins - GeoCurrents (http://www.geocurrents.info/category/indo-european-origins)"

Another article:

Mismodeling Indo-European Origin and Expansion: Bouckaert, Atkinson, Wade and the Assault on Historical Linguistics | GeoCurrents (http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/mismodeling-indo-european-origin-and-expansion-bouckaert-atkinson-wade-and-the-assault-on-historical-linguistics)

Mismodeling Indo-European Origin and Expansion: Bouckaert, Atkinson, Wade and the Assault on Historical Linguistics

"(...) The series, however, has been put on hold by the recent publication of two heralded articles on the history and geography of the Indo-European language family. On August 24, a short piece in Science—“Mapping the Origins and Expansion of the Indo-European Language Family”—made extravagant claims, purporting to overturn the most influential historical-linguistic account of the world’s most widespread language family. On the same day, Nicholas Wade, noted New York Times science reporter, wrote a half-page spread in the news section of the Times on the Science report, entitled “Family Tree of Languages Has Roots in Anatolia, Biologists Say.” Over the next few days, the story was picked up—and often twisted in the process—by assorted journalists. Within a few days, headlines appeared as preposterous as “English Language Originated in Turkey.”

As Wade’s title indicates, the Science article, written by Remco Bouckaert and eight others (most notably Quentin D. Atkinson), seeks to overturn the thesis that the Indo-European (I-E) family originated north of the Black and Caspian seas. It instead locates the I-E heartland in what is now Turkey, supporting the “Anatolian” thesis advanced a generation ago by archeologist Colin Renfrew. The Science team bases its claims on mathematical grounds, using techniques derived from evolutionary biology and epidemiology to draw linguistic family trees and model the geographical spread of language groups. According to Wade, the authors claim that their study does nothing less than “solve” a “long-standing problem in archaeology: the origin of the Indo-European family of languages.” (Strictly speaking, however, the problem is not an archaeological one, as excavations by themselves tell us nothing about the languages of non-literate peoples; it is rather a linguistic problem with major bearing on prehistory more generally.)

As GeoCurrents is deeply interested in the intersection of language, geography, and history, the two articles immediately grabbed our attention. Our initial response was one of profound skepticism, as it hardly seemed likely that a single mathematical study could “solve” one of the most carefully examined conundrums of the distant human past. Recent work in both linguistics and archeology, moreover, has tended against the Anatolian hypothesis, placing Indo-European origins in the steppe and parkland zone of what is now Ukraine, southwest Russia, and environs. The massive literature on the subject was exhaustively weighed as recently as 2007 by David W. Anthony in his magisterial study, The Horse, the Wheel, and Language: How Bronze-Age Riders from the Eurasian Steppes Shaped the Modern World. Could such a brief article as that of Bouckaert et al. really overturn Anthony’s profound syntheses so easily?

The more we examined the articles in question, the more our reservations deepened. In the Science piece, the painstaking work of generations of historical linguists who have rigorously examined Indo-European origins and expansion is shrugged off as if it were of no account, even though the study itself rests entirely on the taken-for-granted work of linguists in establishing relations among languages based on words of common descent (cognates). In Wade’s New York Times article, contending accounts and lines of evidence are mentioned, but in a casual and slipshod manner. More problematic are the graphics offered by Bouckaert and company. The linguistic family trees generated by their model are clearly wrong, as we shall see in forthcoming posts. And on the website that accompanies the article, an animated map (“movie,” according to its creators) of Indo-European expansion is so error-riddled as to be amusing, and the conventional map on the same site is almost as bad. Mathematically intricate though it may be, the model employed by the authors nonetheless churns out demonstrably false information.

Failing the most basic tests of verification, the Bouckaert article typifies the kind of undue reductionism that sometimes gives scientific excursions into human history and behavior a bad name, based on the belief that a few key concepts linked to clever techniques can allow one to side-step complexity, promising mathematically elegant short-cuts to knowledge. While purporting to offer a truly scientific* approach, Bouckaert et al. actually forward an example of scientism, or the inappropriate and overweening application of specific scientific techniques to problems that lie beyond their own purview.

The Science article lays its stake to scientific standing in a straightforward but unconvincing manner. The authors claim that as two theories of Indo-European (I-E) origin vie for acceptance, a geo-mathematical analysis based on established linguistic and historical data can show which one is correct. Actually, many theories of I-E origin have been proposed over the years, most of which—including the Anatolian hypothesis—have been rejected by most specialists on empirical grounds. Establishing the firm numerical base necessary for an all-encompassing mathematical analysis of splitting and spreading languages is, moreover, all but impossible. The list of basic cognates found among Indo-European languages is not settled, nor is the actual enumeration of separate I-E languages, and the timing of the branching of the linguistic tree remains controversial as well. As a result of such uncertainties, errors can easily accumulate and compound, undermining the approach.

The scientific failings of the Bouckaert et al. article, however, go much deeper than that of mere data uncertainty. The study rests on unexamined postulates about language spread, assuming that the process works through simple spatial diffusion in much the same way as a virus spreads from organism to organism. Such a hypothesis is intriguing, but must be regarded as a proposition rather than a given, as it does not rest on a foundation of evidence. The scientific method calls for all such assumptions to be put to the test. One can easily do so in this instance. One could, for example, mathematically model the hypothesized diffusion of Indo-European languages for historical periods in which we have firm linguistic-geographical information to see if the predicted patterns conform to those of the real world. If they do not, one could only conclude that the approach fails. Such failure could stem either from the fact that the data used are too incomplete and compromised to be of value (garbage in/garbage out), of from a more general collapse of the diffusional model. Either possibility would invalidate the Science article.

Such a study, it turns out, has been conducted—and by none other than Bouckaert et al. in the Science article in question. Their model not only looks back 8,500 years into the past, when the locations and relations of languages families are only conjectured, but also comes up to the near present (1974), when such matters are well known. Here a single glance at their maps reveals the failure of their entire project, as they depict eastern Ukraine and almost all of Russia as never having been occupied by Indo-European speakers. Are we to believe that Russian and Ukrainian are not I-E languages? Or perhaps that Russians and Ukrainian speakers do not actually live in Russia and Ukraine? By the same token, are we to conclude that the Scythian languages of antiquity were not I-E? Or perhaps that the Scythians did not actually live in Scythia? And these are by no means the only instances of the study invalidating itself, as we shall soon demonstrate. An honest scientific report would have admitted as much, yet that of Bouckaert et al. instead trumpets its own success. How could that possibly be?

One can only speculate as to why the authors proved incapable of noting the failure of their model to mirror reality. Did they neglect to look at their own maps, trusting that the underlying equations were so powerful that they would automatically deliver? Could their faith in their model trump their concern for empirical evidence? Or could it be that their knowledge of linguistic geography is so scanty that they do not grasp the distribution of the Russian language, much less that of Scythian? If so, they are not operating at an acceptable undergraduate level of geo-historical knowledge. Alternatively, the authors might be aware that their model generates nonsense, but prefer to pretend otherwise, hoping to buffalo the broader scholarly community. They seem, after all, to conceal their approach as much as possible, couching their “findings” in jargon-ridden prose that proves a challenge not just for lay readers but also for specialists in neighboring subfields. (Translations of such passages as “Contours on the map represent the 95% highest posterior density distribution for the range of Indo-European” will be forthcoming.)

Regardless of whether the authors are intentionally trying to mislead the public or have simply succeeded in fooling themselves, their work approaches scientific malpractice. Science ultimately demands empirical verification, and here the project fails miserably. If generating scads of false information does not falsify the model, what possibly could? Non-falsifiable claims are, of course, non-scientific claims. The end result is a grotesquely rationalistic and hence ultimately irrational approach to the human past. As such, examining the claims made by the Science team becomes an example of what my colleagues Robert Proctor and Londa Schiebinger have aptly deemed “agnotology,” or “the study of culturally induced ignorance or doubt, particularly the publication of inaccurate or misleading scientific data.”

As the critique we offer is harsh and encompassing, GeoCurrents will devote a number of posts to examining in detail the claims made and techniques employed by Bouckaert, Atkinson, and their colleagues. But before delving into the nitty-gritty, a few words are in order about what ultimately lies at stake. We are exercised about the Science article not merely because of our passion for the seemingly esoteric issue of Indo-European origins, but also because we fear for the future of historical linguistics—and history more generally. The Bouckaert study, coupled with the mass-media celebration of the misinformation that it presents, constitutes an assault on a field that has generated an extraordinary body of rigorously derived information about the human past. Such an attack occurs at an unfortunate moment, as historical linguistics is already in crisis. Linguistics departments have been cutting positions in historical inquiry for some time, creating an environment in which even the best young scholars in the field are often unable to obtain academic positions.

The devaluation of historical linguistics is merely one aspect of a much larger shift away from the study of the past. Subdisciplines such as historical geography and historical sociology have been diminishing for decades, and even the discipline of history faces declining enrollments and reduced faculty slots. Academic history itself, moreover, has been progressively shying away from the deeper reaches of the human past to focus on modern if not recent historical processes. Such developments do not bode well for the maintenance of an educated public. At the risk of descending into hyperbole, we do worry about the emergence of something approaching institutionally produced societal dementia. The past matters, and we care deeply for the preservation of its study."

Tomenable
24-11-15, 01:56
Part of the lecture about languages that they left out in their model:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ#t=2622

About interactions of Early Proto-Indo-Europeans with Proto-Uralics:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ#t=2676

And about Late Indo-European groups borrowing words from farmers:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jHsy4xeuoQ#t=2727

"(...) One thing that makes Greek [language] distinct is that it has this huuuge substrate of Non-Indo-European words. And guess what, those words are words for agriculture, for building, for statecraft. According to this model you had farmers crossing the Aegean Sea, coming into an area of Mesolithic hunter-gatherers, and then borrowing words for agriculture from those hunter-gatherers. There is the same problem with Armenian [language], probably the same problem with Germanic [language], and the same problem also with the Indic languages. (...)"

If the idea that "Teal people" were not CHG hunters but some Neolithic farmers, and that they were the original Proto-Indo-European speakers, and they Indo-Europeanized EHG hunters, is true, then how can we explain the fact, that when later Indo-European languages - allegedly created by "Teal" farmers - expanded to various areas, they had to BORROW words for agriculture from Non-Indo-Europeans, such as Pelasgians in Greece, Funnelbeaker farmers in Scandinavia, or remnants of Indus Valley Civilization peoples*.

That's why the "South of Caucasus Hypothesis / Farmer Hypothesis" does not hold up.

Proto-Indo-Europeans were hunters who turned into animal herders, with no agricultural vocabulary.

Not much Neolithic Near Eastern farmer influence there, at all.

The model in which PIE emerged when two groups of hunters (EHG + CHG) mixed, explains PIE origins well enough.

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

*About interactions between remnants of Indus Valley Civ. and incoming Indo-Aryans (see pp. 471 - 473 out of 782):

https://ia800503.us.archive.org/30/items/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranians/TheOriginOfTheIndo-iranian.pdf

Fire Haired14
24-11-15, 02:13
I don't care either way about that either, but apparently for some weird combination of "ethnic" or "racialist" ideology combined with macho posturing some of you guys do.

Very true. What man doesn't want his ancestors to be badass horse riding warriors and random hot women they threw onto their horse?:laughing: Tomenable doesn't do this though.

Count the percentage of women that post on genetic-forums and how often when talking about ancestors the women are mentioned? And think about it, you never read about Yamnaya women. To be honest when I think of Anatolia Neolithic or WHG or Yamnaya or Sumerians or whatever, I never think of women.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 02:39
But I don't even find Proto-Indo-Europeans to be "superior". Unlike those racialist ideologists did in the past.

As Angela wrote, they were, in many respects, not as advanced as Non-Indo-European civilizations that they replaced. Different things facilitated PIE expansion - Yersinia pestis plague, military skills (including horse riding), etc. These are rather people who want to claim that PIE originated among more advanced farming peoples of the Near East (such as Goga who claims that PIE = Sumerians), who just can't stand the idea that some unwashed barbarians managed to impose their language and their Y-DNA... :)

Twilight
24-11-15, 04:07
And the funniest thing is that Western European posters keep pretending that Yamna were L51, when they were Z2103.

So your "massive migration from the steppe to Western Europe which entirely omitted Eastern Europe even though they had to cross it on their way to Western Europe because - hey - that's geography" theory still has some major flaws.

Another issue is "Steppe" autosomal admixture, which is much higher in north-eastern Europe than in south-western Europe.

It seems people tend to use autosomal when it proves their point, but when Y-DNA proves it better, they ignore autosomal. :)

Really I have an impression that there is some kind of Cold War era resentment in the air on this forum.

But they told me before I joined this forum that Maciamo is very pro-R1b, I just didn't expect that others are even more so.

Pardon me for saying this but Im Western European also and just seeing this for the first time personally it's hard for me to wrap my head around this. It might just be propaganda of some sort that we are trying to battle, who knows for sure.
According to Maciamo"s Early Neolithic map, Georgia was composed of YDNA G, R1B (I) and no YDNA J. To see Haplogroup J in at least two Georgian Epigrvittian samples and no YDNA J traces in Caucasian Neolithic Remains just makes me a little suspicious. And this also leads me to some questions.

http://www.eupedia.com/europe/neolithic_europe_map.shtml#early_neolithic

-Is the map obsolete?
-Was there evidence of prehistoric Ydna cleansing in Georgia?
-Did Ydna J people retreat somewhere?
-etc.

Rethel
24-11-15, 12:21
I never think of women.

Because you are probably patriarchal shouvinist and rasist!
But if you would think about - you would be sexist and rapist! :laughing:

Rethel
24-11-15, 12:42
Reconstructions of Khvalynsk people:

This is very interesting reconstruction, becasue, this people are mixed.

I see very normal (present-day) (east)european features, I see people
with neareastern features, but I see also some strange (and some ugly)
people which are not so often seeing on the street, but generally they
all are not to much different from us.

Rethel
24-11-15, 13:19
PIEs were a strongly patriarchal, clan based, polygynous society. Inheriting and family ties were entirely male-based (when they married, a woman was entering the family of her husband, ceasing to be part of her former family). Each clan was descended in terms of Y-DNA from a common male ancestor (its founder), and members of each clan carried a different haplogroup or at least a different subclade. Any migrations were also clan-based. According to Mayu during Stage 2 (Early Yamna), there were migrations in 3 directions - to the south-west into the Balkans, to the north-west into Central Europe and to the north-east (founders of Afanasevo culture). We can suppose that each of those Early Yamna migrating clans or tribes, carried a different haplogroup or at least a different subclade as their main marker (if more than one clan moved, then of course they could carry more than one specific subclade or haplogroup). So - for example - maybe those migrating into the Balkans carried predominantly R1b-L51, those migrating into Central Europe carried predominantly R1a-Z283 and those migrating into areas where they later created the Afanasevo culture carried predominantly R1a-Z93*. We are left for example with R1b-Z2103 which, it seems, stayed in the region until the Late Yamna period. *And also R1a-Tarim, it seems.

I see Tomenable, that you came onto right path :)


Many people pursue a "South of Caucasus" agenda for the origin of either just R1b M269 or both M269 and R1a M198.

But if you have 20.000 years of empty time-space, then you have a lot of time for such wandering.
Btw, it doesn't matter, were lived PPIE people before some point of time. They could originally lived
around the Irkutsk, after that came through iranian plataeu becasue on the south was warmer, and
later, still as one group, cross the Caucasus and settle around Samara exploring the lands as far as
Onega... and still it doen't mean, that some smaller group not split and have some share in creating
other cutures in different places. Sumerians they were ofcourse not, but euphratean lingusic theory
claim, that some indoeuropean dilect preceeded people, which in later times were called Sumerians.
so it is not impossible, that some group of people (it was not millions!) go somewhere else in early
stage of IEpeople history.



Considering that both M269 and M198 formed ca. 4 - 13 thousand years ago,

So, as you see, this error in counting is so huge, that any prooving and disproving based on time are usless.


"Teal people"

Why they are called teal?


I think supporters of this "Southern Agenda" want to claim, that Proto-IE language first evolved south of the Caucasus, then went to the steppe. But this is impossible to claim if we assume that the migration from the south took place in Mesolithic times.

Tomenable,
but people living in Mesolithic tomes, was speaking, isn't?
So "forming language" here or here is an empty disscusion.
If they came in mesolithic from Caucasus settled on Volga,
and after that they split aroundd the world, then you have
continuum of the same people and the same language. For
this that they changed their language by the way we don't
have any evidences and we will not have ever.


Because we know from linguists, that PIE language is not so old.

We know, that linguists are claiming, that IE languages can have 4-40k years.
And evern this is only a timeline to the last common stage (as some vulgar latin).


So even if some R1b or R1a came from the Middle East to the north in Mesolithic times, they were not yet PIE-speakers.

But were a little pre PIE :)
Does it really matter when and where they were speaking pure last stage language?
Did existing last common stage of Romanic languages somewhere in a. V century CE
means, that history of Roman(ian)s started in V CE??? Know... they had much longer
history than that, which reach even >1500 years before that time, and language on
which this people had were speaking, was still their language and still was some kind
of "romanic" language, even if he is called latin or italic dialects.


It seems increasingly more probable, that Marija Gimbutas was right not just in general outline, but also in many details - it seems that Samara culture (the first guys ever who domesticated horses) and Khvalynsk culture were the earliest PIE speakers.

I share this view also, but it doesn't mean, that they do not exist before and after that time and place. :)

Rethel
24-11-15, 13:34
On the other hand, both R1a and R1b were present among EHGs, already before they acquired "Teal admixture".
The lack of R1 in CHGs seems to confirm what has been suggested time and again before - namely, that their "Teal admixture" perhaps came exclusively from women.You are probably right, but interesting thing is, that in some volgian republics (NOT IN ALL!) middle-eastern Y-hg's (J+E+T)
are on quite high percentage level. If they slowly were coming into that area, hwen IE were still small in number, then they
could have some genetic influance on still small IE-R1 population. This of course dooes not mean, as some people would say
that this make from J,E,T-people IEs - no, they simply settle in that area, and after when IEs go on their own, they stayed
there - and luckily do not increased in number, and probably were not mingled with IE - otherwise, they would be large part
migration and population. So, if they were not slaves or travelers, they could live side by side but have different identity.
they used to kill all men,

Only this ones, who have a weapon.
Rest of them was prefere to enslaved :)

Tomenable
24-11-15, 13:53
According to Mathieson 2015, in Khvalynsk culture co-existed with each other R1b1 and R1a1.

If I am not mistaken, those were not basal R1b1* and R1a1*, but those samples have not been tested for more derived subclades.

They could be something less basal than R1b1* and R1a1*, but it has not been tested so far.

If we believe Y-Full age estimates on age of the most common Indo-European subclades (M198, M417, M269, L23):

M198 (formed 12,000 BC, TMRCA 6,000 BC) and M269 (formed 11,200 BC; TMRCA 4,400 BC)

M417 (formed 6,000 BC, TMRCA 3,500 BC) and L23 (formed 4,400 BC; TMRCA 4,200 BC)

Considering the age of Khvalynsk, lineages such as M417, L23 or M269 could be represented by just 1 individual male each at that time.

Only M198 could be more numerous among the population of Early Khvalynsk, because it's TMRCA is old enough.

But I do not see good reasons to think that M417, L23 and M269 were not parts of the Khvalynsk community, even if just small parts of it.

Let's also ask ourselves how numerous could be that entire PIE "tribe" ???

Perhaps no more than several thousand people ??? Most of lineages got extinct later, just a few became high-status and increased in frequency:

http://www.psmag.com/nature-and-technology/17-to-1-reproductive-success

"Once upon a time, 4,000 to 8,000 years after humanity invented agriculture, something very strange happened to human reproduction. Across the globe, for every 17 women who were reproducing, passing on genes that are still around today—only one man did the same.

"It wasn't like there was a mass death of males. They were there, so what were they doing?" asks Melissa Wilson Sayres, a computational biologist at Arizona State University, and a member of a group of scientists who uncovered this moment in prehistory by analyzing modern genes.

Another member of the research team, a biological anthropologist, hypothesizes that somehow, only a few men accumulated lots of wealth and power, leaving nothing for others. These men could then pass their wealth on to their sons, perpetuating this pattern of elitist reproductive success. Then, as more thousands of years passed, the numbers of men reproducing, compared to women, rose again. "Maybe more and more people started being successful," Wilson Sayres says. In more recent history, as a global average, about four or five women reproduced for every one man."

Men (left) versus women (right), effective population size by sex over time:

Small numbers of men fathered lots of children, most of men fathered a few or zero; but the number of reproducing women remained high:

The same pattern took place not just in Europe, also in other continents:

http://a2.files.psmag.com/image/upload/c_fit,cs_srgb,w_620/MTI4ODMwNDQ5ODU3MzY5MzYy.png

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

If Khvalynsk tribes numbered around 5000 people, for example 2000 males 3000 females (males often die in war, but also kidnap brides in war from neighbouring tribes, etc. - so there are more females). Half of them were in reproductive age, this gives 1000 males and 1500 females.

Now as we know from the study linked above, out of 17 females from that time descendants of whom survived to our times, only descendants of 1 male did. Assuming that descendants of 1/3 of the 1500 females did not get extinct, we are left with 500 female Khvalynsk ancestors.

Now divide this number by 17, and we are left with just around 30 Khvalynsk males descendants of whom are still around today.

And of those 30, probably just a few Y-DNA lineages became very successful, while others are with us, but at low frequencies.

Rethel
24-11-15, 14:00
What does it even mean to be "native to EHG" or to other tribe ???
J could be so widespread, that it could be "native" in many places.
How long does a lineage need to live in a place, to be "native" there?

You made here an exellent point!:good_job:
Haplogroups - especially this one who like wander - cannot be a "native" to any place. Hg could be a "native" i.e. related to another (the same) hg or subHG... People with J could travel as far as Karelia or Somalia, and still be J-selfidentifide people. For example, Negros living among Americans, Jews or Karaims living in Europe, Tatars living in Russia and Poland - still are not IE, and if in the future some archeologists would find their artefacts which in daily sphere of life are the same as their neighbours, and would find their graves on the same land as IEs - but would them identyfied as having different hg: "karaim-hg, jew-hg, and tatar-hg" - it will not mean, that they were IEs becasue they lived on the same street, and they used the same artefacts and probably know their neighbour language - so how much in time, when HunGath-groups where living alongside on the same land not even knowing each other... So for example J in Karelia and R1 in Karelia, doesn't mean that they were the same people, and that today some J can claim to by IE, becasue some J was living xk years ago in the same area as some IE. It could be two different groups of people, even if they were trading their women having in result the same aDNA. But what is most important, it is the fact, that their origin was different from the beginning, even is some guy was assimilated leter. Jews, Karaims and Tatars lived here from long time, and are even in some sense assimilated, but they are still different people, with different history and tradition. Of course, they do not have one hg, but at the beginning they had, as every tribe - especially in bronze age and earlier.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 14:02
And Angela's idea that Balto-Slavs in terms of Y-DNA are "direct descendants of EHGs, not Indo-Europeans" is wrong.

That's because TMRCA of R1a-M417 is just 5500 years ago.

So, if anything, we might be descendants of ONE PARTICULAR EHG MALE, not of all EHGs as a collective group.

And also at that time EHGs were no longer EHGs, because hunter-gatherer lifestyle no longer existed there.

Alan
24-11-15, 14:11
You made here an exellent point!:good_job:
Haplogroups - especially this one who like wander - cannot be a "native" to any place. Hg could be a "native" i.e. related to another (the same) hg or subHG... People with J could travel as far as Karelia or Somalia, and still be J-selfidentifide people. For example, Negros living among Americans, Jews or Karaims living in Europe, Tatars living in Russia and Poland - still are not IE, and if in the future some archeologists would find their artefacts which in daily sphere of life are the same as their neighbours, and would find their graves on the same land as IEs - but would them identyfied as having different hg: "karaim-hg, jew-hg, and tatar-hg" - it will not mean, that they were IEs becasue they lived on the same street, and they used the same artefacts and probably know their neighbour language - so how much in time, when HunGath-groups where living alongside on the same land not even knowing each other... So for example J in Karelia and R1 in Karelia, doesn't mean that they were the same people, and that today some J can claim to by IE, becasue some J was living xk years ago in the same area as some IE. It could be two different groups of people, even if they were trading their women having in result the same aDNA. But what is most important, it is the fact, that their origin was different from the beginning, even is some guy was assimilated leter. Jews, Karaims and Tatars lived here from long time, and are even in some sense assimilated, but they are still different people, with different history and tradition. Of course, they do not have one hg, but at the beginning they had, as every tribe - especially in bronze age and earlier.

Love that logic of Tomenable and yours. J could have been native to many places because it is so old. But R1a or R1b couldn't have been so widespred because R1a1 and R1b1 (not even basal R1a and R1b) was found in Karelia?

Wasn't that exactly what I was preaching you guys a million times? but your refused to accept that R1a and R1b probably existed beyond Samara and adjusting regions?

Nice to see how you guys jump on that horse if it suits the own believes.

So you are arguing that all male lineages of Yamna was brought by EHG, cause no "J" was found in them, yet EHG themselves had some J. So Yamna who are according to you guys descend of EHG males, "stole" wifes from the Caucasus but their parents the EHG themselves had CHG type J?

And all this conclusion is based on only two upper paleolithic/Mesolithic CHG samples, who might not even play yet a role for post Neolithic PIE because R1 lineages in the region might have arrived later as bicicleur points, because yet the Caucasus and north of the Black and Caspian Sea was yet still populated by I and J lineages.

Rethel
24-11-15, 14:18
To be honest, do you know why you have difficulties to argue with me? Because your education and knowledge is average, maybe below average and because my IQ is between 128-134 points (more than average). I don't think you have higher IQ.

Goga,
higher IQ and having many information not necessary means, that you
are right. Even beeng a scientist doesn't guarantee that someone is right.

If you would have even higher IQ and the best knowledge of buddhism it would
not mean that you are right in everything. And if you would live only 300 years
ago, and you would have whole knoledge which was known in Kurdstan at that
time, it would not mean that you are right - european would be probably more
righter than you, even if he would have lower IQ - and lower knowledge... But
even he, watching by present day knoledge perspective would be a fooll... But
present day knoledge is ridicules if you will consider, that from perspective of
people from XXX century most of us is talking a nonsense...


It is very difficult to fool people with higher IQ and more knowledge/education...

Yes, this is true. But if you find one, it doesn't mean, that he will be right. IQ, knoledge,
science-corectness, do not mean, that someone is right. Btw, every one, who made a
difference and progress in science was consider to be a fooll. Only people who were
writting according to ideological needs were admire - and today is exactly the same,
and it is even much larger phenomenon! And if they are even wrong, then they are
still claiming, that they were right from the beginning - like in some kind of cult.

According to your IQ. Garry Kasparow has much highter IQ than you. And he is (still?)
beliving and promoting the theory that whole human civilisation has about 1000 years.
Creators of this worldview, Fomienko and Nosowski, are more inteligent than you too.

So, do you share this view, becasue they are smarter?

High IQ simply means, that you can faster speak
more nonsences than average human, as well as
some inteligent stuff too. It works in both sides.

epoch
24-11-15, 14:20
Very true. What man doesn't want his ancestors to be badass horse riding warriors and random hot women they threw onto their horse?:laughing: Tomenable doesn't do this though.

Count the percentage of women that post on genetic-forums and how often when talking about ancestors the women are mentioned? And think about it, you never read about Yamnaya women. To be honest when I think of Anatolia Neolithic or WHG or Yamnaya or Sumerians or whatever, I never think of women.

I do.

There appears to be a difference between people who came to enjoy the scientific field of paleogenetics to track their Y-DNA and those that jumped in out of love of archaeology. I am the latter. I remember how hard it was for archaeologists to be able to say something about the peoples related to their finds. To me this is an unbelievable trip: We can now see who those people were. And that goes so much farther than PIE: There seems to be a 10% admixture in Denisova that suggests it was split off 1.5 million years ago. That can't hardly be anything else but Homo Erectus or possibly Homo Antecessor. In either case we can now see for a million years.

So currently I don't care all that much about my Y-DNA: I don't even know it. And thus I do take note of the women.

Tomenable
24-11-15, 14:25
Love that logic of Tomenable and yours. J could have been native to many places because it is so old. But R1a or R1b couldn't have been so widespred because R1a1 and R1b1 (not even basal R1a and R1b) was found in Karelia?

R1a is a very old haplogroup - formed 20,000 years BC, TMRCA 15,700 BC.

But 99% of all people alive today with R1a, belong to young M198/M417 subclade (formed 6,000 BC TMRCA 3,500 BC per YFull).

Only 1% of R1a belongs to all other subclades which are not under M198/M417.

This is also the case with a few other haplogroups, such as of course R1b.

A few very successful lineages fathered so many children, while most of other lineages fathered a few or got extinct entirely.

In times of Khvalynsk culture some of those lineages of R1a and R1b could be represented by just ONE INDIVIDUAL MALE each.

Only later those males became chieftains of SOME groups of Indo-Europeans, and fathered most of children in those groups.

Rethel
24-11-15, 14:27
Let's better come back to discussing Teal people.

How and when did those genes (or peoples) enter the steppe.

To me it looks like a steady gene flow, not like some rapid immigration.

1) Samara HG sample (5650-5555 BC) had ~0% Teal admixture,
2) Khvalynsk samples (4700-4000 BC) had ~25% Teal admixture,
3) Yamnaya_Samara (3340-2620 BC) had ~48% Teal admixture,

Between 1) and 2) there were 1250 years, between 2) and 3) some 1370 years.

This means that Teal admixture was increasing by 1% every 50-60 years.

So it was increasing by 0,5% every single generation (on average).

This looks like a steady gene flow, if it was indeed such a "fluent" process.

So I would prefer in this case female theory :)
Male theory would have sense only in Samara
and early-Chwałyńsk period. :)

Tomenable
24-11-15, 14:29
Rethel,

As I wrote I would like to see if there was EHG admixture among "Teal people".

Because it could be bride exchanging, and EHGs could be becoming Teal-admixed, while Teals could be becoming EHG-admixed.

It was not necessarily a one-sided gene flow Teal -> EHG without any backflow.

Modern inhabitants of Caucasus are definitely admixed by people from the north of Caucasus (and by those from the south too).

Tomenable
24-11-15, 14:41
J could have been native to many places because it is so old.

It seems that Karelian J was J1(xJ1a) and Georgian J was J1b - both are very rare today:

http://www.anthrogenica.com/showthread.php?5875-230-ancient-Eurasians-data-analysis-(Mathieson-Reich-Haak-)

Rethel
24-11-15, 15:11
This isn't the first time we've discussed this issue. It all depends on how you are defining the term "Indo-Europeans", doesn't it? I was talking about the "Indo-European" culture which developed on the steppe per Anthony and Mallory in the period from about 4200 BC to 3000 BC. after they had adopted animal herding, agriculture, copper metallurgy etc. as the lexicon of their language would indicate.

So you should define your terminology.

Indoeuropeans - BIG capital first letter "I", and plural - means PEOPLE. And I mean always that - as probably 90% of people.

indoeuropean (adj) culture - it is a culture. some Indoeuropeans lived in that culture, some not, and some not-Indeuropeans could lived in that culture. Japanese in USA (and in Japan also) lived in western or even american culture, but they are not Americans. Some Khoisa in SAR are living in western/american/british culture but it not makes them Afrikanes, British or Americans.

proto-indoeuropean (adj) language - it is language. Some Indoeuropeans are speking that language, some not. Some not Indoeuropeans are speaking that language. Negros in subsaharian Africa are usually speaking in english. In Nigeria is even a community, for which english is the first language. But this not make them Englishmen - or maybe makes? By definition of some people here, it makes them Englishmen. This is absurd.

But for you, this is an agenda and racism :)
So you must be incoherant so you are talking about something els, than someone else. :)


The people to the north of them, who developed into the Corded Ware people, were not "Indo-Europeans" in that cultural sense even if they were related to them genetically. Certainly the forest steppe people didn't possess any of the hallmarks of that culture.

So culturally they were cordeds and yamna. Why do you need make only one of them Indoeuropeans?

I live in a different culture than some guy from Bosna, but it not mean, that we are not Slaves.
Ba! I live in totaly different culture than Goral, Silesian or Kashub, but it not mean thet they are
not Poles. Differences are even bigger than difference between you and me.

So, corded and yanmna they can be both indoeuropean and created by Indoeuropeans.

To be an Indoeuropean it is not a matter of a shape of some beaker!!!


If you push the definition back in time to include fisher hunters living in some yurt or cave without any of those developments then the term loses all meaning, in my opinion. These hunters contributed their genes to the "Indo-Europeans", but they were not yet Indo-Europeans. At least that's how I see it.

Arent they still the same people?
Did Leonardo da Vinci is different nation than you? :petrified:
Did your paternal grandpaaaaaa from XIII century
wasn't from the same house than you are? :petrified:


I also must ask, have you lost your sense of irony, Tomenable? All of your many posts could be interpreted to be an attempt to prove that the Indo-Europeans were "pure" EHG

The first could be. But it doesn;t matter so much, becasue this whole persentages
don't even guarantee how guy looks like... so this is only a mater for showing how
different population were infuencing on each other... thats all... and I am affraind
that even point of defaine autisinak mixture is totaly coincidental, like east, west.


whose closest living descendants, and therefore the inheritors of their "glory", such as it is, are the Balto-Slavs. Of course, there's that bothersome "teal" component, but apparently if it was acquired through wife stealing it's acceptable, but if some R1b "teal" men brought it, it's not. Do I have that right?

Because this is the whole point!

(Of course if someone do not want change the thing to fit to himself. This is the reasn why I am
censecuently difaining IEa as R1 even if he will be a nego, because as you tataly rightly mention
the whole point is in patrylinear heritage, not in percentage of aDNA. But if you want to cultivate
some kind of genetical/rasist usurpers, then still claim that only you have not agenda, and define
ethnicity by language, beakers and percentage of aDNA, to argue, who is more whiter than white) :)


Perhaps it would be more correct to say that a lot of people interested in and discussing this topic are influenced by some sort of "ethnic" agenda.

Because this is a natural goal, and it is not bad, if is not depending on selfwishes.
Your proposing of lacking any agenda and abcense of clear rules who is who in the
result are giving not only false agenda, but also stupid fights abaut who is cleaner.
It has no sense at all... but your misinformational attitude to further this behavior.
Maybe you not see this, but this is as it is...


More worrisome for me is the fact that posters seem to be claiming as an authority on matters anthropological a notorious racist of who knows what academic background, if any, (is he in prison, btw?) and proudly claiming as well an eight year long association with him. Really? How disappointing.

For you and Le, everyone is a rasyct exept you both :)

Rethel
24-11-15, 15:25
I define Indo-Europeans as people who spoke Proto-Indo-European language.

That's the only way how they can be defined because PIE is a linguistic term, not a cultural term.

No, from more than 150 years it isn't.
You know probably lithuanian, but you are not a Lithuanian.
You know english, but you are not Englishman.

So in this case, I must agree with LeBrok.
Partialy - becasue he as always mised the people.
Package is a good idea, but the people must be in
the first place, because without people there is no
language, no culture, no beakers, no IE studies, no
bind feel heritage at all - no sense at all of course.

Only some guys who were fishing and now are dead :)


Khvalynsk culture is not in the forest steppe, R1a sample from that culture is from the steppe.

But Samara it was in at that time forrest zone?

Angela
24-11-15, 15:29
I do.

There appears to be a difference between people who came to enjoy the scientific field of paleogenetics to track their Y-DNA and those that jumped in out of love of archaeology. I am the latter. I remember how hard it was for archaeologists to be able to say something about the peoples related to their finds. To me this is an unbelievable trip: We can now see who those people were. And that goes so much farther than PIE: There seems to be a 10% admixture in Denisova that suggests it was split off 1.5 million years ago. That can't hardly be anything else but Homo Erectus or possibly Homo Antecessor. In either case we can now see for a million years.

So currently I don't care all that much about my Y-DNA: I don't even know it. And thus I do take note of the women.

There's a third group, perhaps the most numerous group, and that's made up of ultra "nationalist" often racialist people with an agenda to prove the superiority of their group because of their closer connection to the "Indo-Europeans". They infest certain anthrofora. The profile seems to be that of a largely male, quite young, and not very socially well adjusted group. Some have tried to go "legit", and prove their claims through some computer savvy, but that is their natural milieu. Their fantasy world seems to be peopled by visions of themselves as Conan the Barbarian or "blonde cowboys" of the steppe. I'm no trained psychiatrist, but I have usually found that the prevalence of that kind of fantasy life is sort of inversely proportional with the actual experience these "men" have with women. :)

This makes it very difficult for people who indeed were drawn to this topic through their interests in history and archaeology to wade through all the "drek". A certain amount of holding one's nose is often necessary.

Still, there are compensations. I have quite enjoyed watching as ancient dna has steadily but surely shredded all their certainties.

bicicleur
24-11-15, 16:22
R1a is a very old haplogroup - formed 20,000 years BC, TMRCA 15,700 BC.

But 99% of all people alive today with R1a, belong to young M198/M417 subclade (formed 6,000 BC TMRCA 3,500 BC per YFull).

Only 1% of R1a belongs to all other subclades which are not under M198/M417.

This is also the case with a few other haplogroups, such as of course R1b.

A few very successful lineages fathered so many children, while most of other lineages fathered a few or got extinct entirely.

In times of Khvalynsk culture some of those lineages of R1a and R1b could be represented by just ONE INDIVIDUAL MALE each.

Only later those males became chieftains of SOME groups of Indo-Europeans, and fathered most of children in those groups.

put just 1 healthy male together with just 1 healthy female on planet earth
make sure they have plenty of food, but no condoms of pills
let them have lots of pleasure
within 500 years planet earth will be overpopulated as it is now
if they want to continue the same way they will have to start eliminating each other
that is what happened
you estimated a few posts ago there are only 30 male Khvalynsk lines alive today
I think it is an overestimation

Rethel
24-11-15, 16:23
Khvalynsk was not pure EHG but mixed EHG + Teal, and I claimed that Khvalynsk were Proto-Indo-Europeans (as did Gimbutas).By the way - how did you come up with an idea, that Balto-Slavs are the closest living descendants of EHGs ??? Most of EHGs have NO living paternal descendants, because they got nearly extinct (only 1% of R1a in the world is not under M198/M417).

Tomenable, it is not, that they are all dead, some of them of course yes, but others had
simply less sons and grandsons or they were relate in different combination as genetians
think. Did you never see through all this 15 yeras, like "brothers" becoming "fathers" even
"uncles" or "graaandsons" :) But if is creating to much time, then they must be dead.. :)


Btw, did even 1%o of people were tested? No. From archeological
material probably 1/1000.000 So, everything can yet happend... :)


And I don't need to remind, that EHGs were both R1a and R1b (see the Samara HG), not just R1a.

Amen.
But not becasue they were supermans like Angela thinks, but becasue
this is a proof for unbelivers who were laughing and banning people for
claiming that R1a and R1b are one and the same tribe.


When I check Fig. 3 from Haak 2015, it shows that Eastern and Northern Euros are autosomally largely descended from Yamnaya.
And Yamnaya were 52% EHG + 48% Teal so we are autosomally largely Teal / Caucasus HG as well, not just EHG.So this shows me, that aDNA has nothing or not so to
much to do with features, as some people like to think.


Weren't you just underlining the importance of autosomal DNA (compared to Y-DNA) in your last post ??? :wink:

Yes, she was. :cool-v:


Some ethnic groups with high frequency of R1b are at the same time not very much "Steppe" autosomally, indicating that R1b increased to high frequencies due to elite dominance by a small group of steppe males over large native populations.

What is more important for this encreasing in number and making
many new subklades wasnt needed tens of thousands of years.


While Eastern Europeans and some Northern Europeans (like Norwegians) are largely "Steppe" autosomally, so here it was a mass migration rather than just elite dominance with foreign Y-DNA transmitted with local autosomes.

In case of Scandinavia and Germany, there was simply almost replacment.
Small number of locals, and probably decimating some part of them, I guess.
But it was obviuos from long time ago, before autosomal.

Thanks to founder effects, steppe Y-DNA increased in frequency, but autosomal DNA remained mostly local.


Yamnaya autosomal ancestry decreases in Europe as you go from north-east to south-west!

What is funny, it is mostly becasue of R1a.


What glory ??? According to Gimbutas Indo-Europeans were the "bad guys", not the "good guys" !!! :laughing: :wink:
According to Gimbutas, those evil Indo-Europeans came and ruined the superb Neolithic civilization.
We must accept our heritage with all its glory and all its horror - not just glory alone. :wink:
Not to mention that those IE brutes probably even destroyed the flourishing Indus Valley Civilization.

You must understand, that if someone is living in cospire world were racist are everywhere and everyone who isn't noone and
from nowhere is perseived as a some kind of nazi, he/she will know better than you what you are looking for, and always it'll
be a baaaad things, and you never ever explain, that this is not true or something like that. Even if you would like this glory
of your ancestors - who ever they are - what is wrong with that? :petrified: Some people are members of brotherhoods of knights
because they like it, or becasue of that they feel conected whith their medieval forefathers... But someone who is from the
whole planet, and has no ancestors (or has them in some place) will be accusing this people or will try to make them funny.

Problem is, when some one what to be R1, if he isn't. This is a problem, which are supporting by so called
non agenda people - becasue non agenda menas for anotgher people, that I can be, whoever I like to be.


Why is it that everyone wants to be descended from the "bad guys"? :thinking:

Maybe becasue this is more interesting than doing nothing neighbours of that guys.