PDA

View Full Version : MtDna from the Bronze Age Caucasus, including Maykop



Angela
16-08-16, 01:36
I wish we had yDna, and autosomal, but still, it's interesting, and it's based on whole mitochondria.

See: A.S. Sokolov et al

"Six complete mitochondrial genomes from Early Bronze Age humans in the North Caucasus"

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0305440316301091


"The North Caucasus region is rich in early Bronze Age sites, with burials yielding many artifacts, including those from the Chekon, Natukhaevskaya, Katusvina-Krivitsa kurgan groups (at Krasnodar Krai, Russia) and Klady kurgan (near Novosvobodnaya Village, Republic of Adygea, Russia). According to the mainstream archaeological hypothesis, these sites belong to the Maikop culture (3700–3000 years BC), with Novosvobodnaya communities representing an offshoot of Maikop ancestry. However, due to specific differences in Novosvobodnaya artifacts, the Maikop and Novosvobodnaya assemblages could represent two synchronous archaeological cultures living in almost sympatry but showing independent ancestry, from the Near East and Europe respectively. Here, we used target-enrichment together with high-throughput sequencing to characterize the complete mitochondrial sequence of three Maikop and three Novosvobodnaya individuals. We identified T2b, N1b1 and V7 haplogroups, all widely spread in Neolithic Europe. In addition, we identified the Paleolithic Eurasian U8b1a2 and M52 haplogroups, which are frequent in modern South Asia, particularly in modern India. Our data provide a deeper understanding of the diversity of Early Bronze Age North Caucasus communities and hypotheses of its origin. Analyzing non-human sequencing reads for microbial content, we found that one individual from the Klady kurgan was infected by the pathogen Brucella abortus that is responsible for zoonotic infections from cattle to humans. This finding is in agreement with Maikop/Novosvobodnaya livestock groups, mostly consisting of domestic pigs and cattle. This paper represents a first mitochondrial genome analysis of Maikop/Novosvobodnaya culture as well as the earliest brucellosis case in archaeological humans."

The site was previously studied and they also found mtDna V7. Here is the link:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/

" The mtDNA haplogroup affiliation was determined as V7, suggesting a role of the TRB culture in the development of the Novosvobodnaya culture and supporting the model of sharing between Novosvobodnaya and early Indo-European cultures."

"One hypothesizes the existence of a single Maikop culture with two developmental phases [1 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/#R1)-3 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/#R3)], including finds discovered in Novosvobodnaya stanitsa (former Tsarskaya). The other hypothesis suggests that the archaeological collections assembled in Novosvobodnaya stanitsa should be treated individually, as independent artifacts (as a distinct culture). During the archaeological excavations of the kurgan grave “Klady” near Novosvobodnaya stanitsa in 1979–1991, which were supervised by A.D. Rezepkin, a total of 22 kurgans were uncovered with 93 well-stratified burial sites. These records allow one not only to establish the absolute chronology of the artifacts, but also to contribute to a better understanding of the origin of the Novosvobodnaya culture [4 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/#R4), 5 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/#R5)]."

"Recently, archaeological evidence has emerged to argue against the opinion that the Novosvobodnaya culture shares links with the West Asian Maikop culture. The discovered artifacts support the hypothesis that the Baalberg phase of early periods of the Indo-European Funnel-Beaker culture played a significant role in the Novosvobodnaya archaeological culture, rather than the West Asian Maikop culture [5 (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4115223/#R5)]. To prove or rule out this hypothesis, a DNA analysis is required as one of the definitive tools."

I can't say the results are exactly what I would have expected. I would have thought there would have been some U4/U5 in this group, although this is only three samples and those may show up if we get more samples.

As to Maykop, I expected south of Caucasus mtDna, but I didn't expect mtDna so affiliated with India.

I don't see how the Maykop women marrying into the steppe could be responsible for the "CHG" there, given we don't see much of this on the steppe.

If someone has access it would be great to get the results by date and specific site at least.

As for Brucella:
"Brucellosis can affect any organ or organ system, and 90% of patients have a cyclical (undulant) fever. Though variable, symptoms can also include these clinical signs: headache, weakness, arthralgia, depression, weight loss, fatigue, and liver dysfunction. Foul-smelling perspiration is considered a classical sign. Between 20 and 60% of cases have osteoarticular complications - arthritis, spondylitis, or osteomyelitis. Hepatomegaly may occur, as can gastrointestinal complications.Up to 20% of cases can have genitourinary involvement; orchitis and epididymitis are most common. Neurological symptoms include depression and mental fatigue. Cardiovascular involvement can include endocarditis resulting in death."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brucella

Cows may be cleaner than chickens but they still harbor lots of nasty stuff.
If the "Indo-Europeans" had some degree of immunity to this, that, along with some immunity to plague, could explain some of their success as they moved into Europe and India.

Ed.

"- Krasnodar Krai, Maikop burial, 4000-3000 BCE, mt-hg U8b1a2

- Krasnodar Krai, Maikop burial, 3700-3300 BCE mt-hg U8b1a2

- Republic of Adygea, Maikop burial, Russia, 3700-3300 BCE mt-hg M52

- Republic of Adygea, Novosvobodnaya burial, Russia, 3700-3300 BCE mt-hg V7

- Krasnodar Krai, unknown burial, Russia, 3700-3300 BCE mt-hg N1b1

- Republic of Adygea, unknown burial, Russia, 3700-3300 BCE mt-hg T2b"

Maciamo
16-08-16, 10:01
It's great to finally have more Maykop and Novosvobodnaya samples. I had linked Maykop to R1b people and Novosvobodnaya probably more to R1a people. The article confirms that two distinct populations may have been living side by side in sympatry. Could it be the original sympatry between R1a and R1b that gave birth to the PIE language and culture?

The discovery of V7 made a lot of sense since I have linked (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25613-Identifying-the-original-Indo-European-mtDNA-from-isolated-settlements) this haplogroup to the Proto-Indo-European migrations, and particularly to haplogroup R1a.

I have also linked T2b (T2b2 and T2b4) to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age spread of R1a. Unfortunately we don't know if this burial belongs to Maykop, Novosvobodnaya, or neither.

The other haplogroups are more mysterious.

U8b1 is a rare haplogroup that has been found in Italy, Turkey and Jordan and so appears to be more West Asian and possibly linked originally to Y-haplogroup J2a. It can't be excluded that early R1b cattle herders from Anatolia brought this mtDNA lineage with them when they migrated to the North Caucasus. The only other ancient U8b1 sample was a U8b1a1 from the Unetice culture. Although I have argued that R1b spread from Maykop to the Balkans then Central Europe, notably through the Unetice culture, it may be a bit early to link the two as the deep clades do not match and U8b1a2 is extremely rare in northern and western Europe today. But if Proto-Indo-European R1b men advanced by taking wives/concubines among the conquered populations, some of their original mtDNA lineages, especially the rare ones, would quickly have disappeared.

N1b1 was found in the Anatolian Neolithic and could prove that R1b-M269 crossed with cattle from Anatolia to the North Caucasus and the Pontic Steppe. N1b1 hasn't been found in any ancient sample from Europe or Central Asia to date, so it is also unlikely to be an original PIE lineage - unless it was also a rare one that was lost early and simply wasn't part of the female population that migrated to Europe and central Asia.

The presence of M52 is surprising, but could be linked to the Y-haplogroup L1a in Chalcolithic Armenia and to the 5% or so of Y-DNA L in the North Caucasus today.

Virtue
16-08-16, 10:35
Maciamo you're a good anthropologist and all, but leave the ludicrous mainstream theories out of this. (which may easily be proven wrong in a few weeks or years from now.)

Just because these findings are there, does not necessarily make them true. Another person, or that same person can do the same testing of this population, and these findings may be gone tomorrow. Stick with the findings that have the most proof to them.

Also, the Kurgan and Anatolian theories/hypothesizes are not necessarily true. They are just exactly that, theories. They can both be only partially true, or not true at all.

And personally, from my own analysis of the Basque language, and my experience with Basque people and culture, it has recently come to my attention that Basque and Vasconic are nothing more than isolated (old European) proto-languages. (just Like proto-Indo-European)

These proto-languages stopped evolving during the Indo-European invasion, and now we have Standard Basque. ​This explains why Basque has one of the least linguistic borrowings in Europe. This would explain why Basque is less developed or organized than say IE or Afro-Asiatic, as the words seem more Like "nonsensical gibberish, and the grammar has no official word order. (unless you count the common "SOV".)

(I am basically saying here, that Basque or Vasconic, is merely an isolated Western European language group, but stopped evolving due to the more prominent Indo-European language group. (during invasion) This may explain why it has so many different functions and complex grammar.

It is possible that proto-Indo-European and proto-Afro-Asiatic started off similar to Basque/Vasconic. Because Basque acts like a more nomadic language. (It has Ergative grammar. Kind of like the isolated Eskimo, or Amerindian languages)

Alan
16-08-16, 11:53
As in one of my earlier posts said I believe mtDNA m is ancient in Western Asia. This Haplogroup has been found in previous studies about ancient East Anatolia.

My argument for that was, we find M in North Africa and we find M in SOuth Asia. What scenario might be responsible for this Haplogroup reaching both regions?

I am also not aware of U8 being actually typical for South Asia either. All I know is that U7 is frequent in South Asia and Iran but also found in a Scythian sample of Rostov.

Virtue
16-08-16, 12:02
As in one of my earlier posts said I believe mtDNA m is ancient in Western Asia. This Haplogroup has been found in previous studies about ancient East Anatolia.

My argument for that was, we find M in North Africa and we find M in SOuth Asia. What scenario might be responsible for this Haplogroup reaching both regions?

I am also not aware of U8 being actually typical for South Asia either. All I know is that U7 is frequent in South Asia and Iran but also found in a Scythian sample of Rostov.Actually, you may be looking in the wrong area. The oldest clade of U6 was unbelievably found recently in Romania as far back as 35,000 ybp-

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/35000-year-old-mtdna-haplogroup-u6-from.html

So this could explain with M and U6, that possibly there was a Back-migration from Europe into Africa. As evident from the indigenous lineages the Canary Islander females. Perhaps a pre-Afro-Asiatic speaking European population came from Southern Europe (Italy or Balkans) and then migrated into Northern Africa.

Virtue
16-08-16, 12:44
It's great to finally have more Maykop and Novosvobodnaya samples. I had linked Maykop to R1b people and Novosvobodnaya probably more to R1a people. The article confirms that two distinct populations may have been living side by side in sympatry. Could it be the original sympatry between R1a and R1b that gave birth to the PIE language and culture?

The discovery of V7 made a lot of sense since I have linked (http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/25613-Identifying-the-original-Indo-European-mtDNA-from-isolated-settlements) this haplogroup to the Proto-Indo-European migrations, and particularly to haplogroup R1a.

I have also linked T2b (T2b2 and T2b4) to the Chalcolithic and Bronze Age spread of R1a. Unfortunately we don't know if this burial belongs to Maykop, Novosvobodnaya, or neither.

The other haplogroups are more mysterious.

U8b1 is a rare haplogroup that has been found in Italy, Turkey and Jordan and so appears to be more West Asian and possibly linked originally to Y-haplogroup J2a. It can't be excluded that early R1b cattle herders from Anatolia brought this mtDNA lineage with them when they migrated to the North Caucasus. The only other ancient U8b1 sample was a U8b1a1 from the Unetice culture. Although I have argued that R1b spread from Maykop to the Balkans then Central Europe, notably through the Unetice culture, it may be a bit early to link the two as the deep clades do not match and U8b1a2 is extremely rare in northern and western Europe today. But if Proto-Indo-European R1b men advanced by taking wives/concubines among the conquered populations, some of their original mtDNA lineages, especially the rare ones, would quickly have disappeared.

N1b1 was found in the Anatolian Neolithic and could prove that R1b-M269 crossed with cattle from Anatolia to the North Caucasus and the Pontic Steppe. N1b1 hasn't been found in any ancient sample from Europe or Central Asia to date, so it is also unlikely to be an original PIE lineage - unless it was also a rare one that was lost early and simply wasn't part of the female population that migrated to Europe and central Asia.

The presence of M52 is surprising, but could be linked to the Y-haplogroup L1a in Chalcolithic Armenia and to the 5% or so of Y-DNA L in the North Caucasus today.Also, while I am on the subject. There is actually an Out-of-India theory that I believe makes more sense than Kurgan or Anatolian hypothesis-

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#Indo-Aryan_migration_theory

To me it is possible, just like that Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Schlegel suggested, that the Indo-European urheimat may be somewhere in India or near-

Indian homelandMost scholars assumed a homeland either in Europe or in Western Asia, and Sanskrit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit) must in this case have reached India by a language transfer from west to east.[29] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#cite_note-FOOTNOTEKumar_A_S2012123-34)[30] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#cite_note-FOOTNOTEHewson1997229-35) Some Europeans and Indians believed that the Proto-Indo-European language (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language) must be Sanskrit (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sanskrit), or something very close to it. A few early Indo-Europeanists, such as Enlightenment (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_Enlightenment) pioneersVoltaire (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voltaire),[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGoodrick-Clarke1998-36) Immanuel Kant (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immanuel_Kant),[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGoodrick-Clarke1998-36) and Karl Wilhelm Friedrich Schlegel (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Schlegel)[32] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#cite_note-FOOTNOTESchlegel1808-37) had a firm belief in this and essentially created the idea that India was the Urheimat (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urheimat) (origin) of all Indo-European languages. In a 1775 letter, Voltaire expressed his belief that the "dynasty of the Brahmins (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahmin)" taught the rest of the world: "I am convinced that everything has come down to us from the banks of the Ganges (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganges)."[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGoodrick-Clarke1998-36) The idea intrigued Kant who "suggested that mankind together with all science must have originated on the roof of the world [the Himalayas (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Himalayas) ]."[31] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indigenous_Aryans#cite_note-FOOTNOTEGoodrick-Clarke1998-36)




I would say that Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Schlegel were onto something, and give the (non-mainstream) Out-of-India theory much merit.

bicicleur
16-08-16, 15:01
I believe Basal Eurasian may have originated in India and there may have been an expansion from India before LGM, but that has nothing to do with IE.
Geometric microliths were invented in India 35 ka, and Kebara culture in the Levant had it right after LGM.

The trouble with mtDNA is there are no sources with TMRCA available for every subclade like you can find on YFull for Y-DNA.

berun
16-08-16, 16:37
This old mtDNA and the actual Y-DNA is pointing that the neolitization of the area was done by Anatolians: T2b, U8b1b1 and N1b1a were found in the Barcin samples. For the Y-DNA, being the most spread among Anatolians G2a, nowadays 77/162 Abkhazians are G2a, 57/126 Circassians, and 72/154 Shapsugs (speaking NW Caucasian languages), 92/132 north Ossetians are G2a (talking Iranic language), 13/17 Svans, 8/16 Mengrelians (speaking Georgian dialects). The CHG or Iran_Neolithic that spread northwards must come from the "Indian" side.

79507950

7949

Virtue
16-08-16, 16:59
I believe Basal Eurasian may have originated in India and there may have been an expansion from India before LGM, but that has nothing to do with IE.
Geometric microliths were invented in India 35 ka, and Kebara culture in the Levant had it right after LGM.

The trouble with mtDNA is there are no sources with TMRCA available for every subclade like you can find on YFull for Y-DNA.Leave the mainstream theories out of the picture and do your own independent research.

Continue to go with my own interpretation- which is their wise interpretation- Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Schlegel believed in the Out-of-India theory.

All you people do is go with the theories of Marija Gimbutas and Colin Renfrew. (Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesis.) as if it's literal fact...

For some reason I managed to rake a 3 thumbs down in terms of "helpfulness" when I stated nothing but the truth. Go back to those three people I mentioned, they have a better credibility than some feminist Anthropologist named Marija Gimbutas. (an amateur whom nobody truly intellectual knows or cares about...) Take the idea from far better minds- Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Schlegel. All intellectuals, Indo-Europeanists, all of them being progenitors of the Out-of-India theory (which makes more sense than the "Kurgan hypothesis"...) credible people with far better achievements. Not some Lithuanian feminist...

Virtue
16-08-16, 17:10
Science has been a joke ever since the Guggenheim Fellowship altered it in the early 20th century.

You guys know Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Schlegel were the original Indo-Europeanists and believed the IE urheimat was in India? Yep, That's the stuff. Stick with those guys, that know their stuff. And the Basque people (whom speak a "proto-language", not a "language".)

Jewish people told me personally. Of course this is a joke and I am totally crazy, and nobody would ever believe me.

Virtue
16-08-16, 17:19
I believe Basal Eurasian may have originated in India and there may have been an expansion from India before LGM, but that has nothing to do with IE.
Geometric microliths were invented in India 35 ka, and Kebara culture in the Levant had it right after LGM.

The trouble with mtDNA is there are no sources with TMRCA available for every subclade like you can find on YFull for Y-DNA.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_Wilhelm_Friedrich_Schlegel

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

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

The problem with anthropologists these days, is that they are afraid of Losing their careers by becoming a maverick.

These 3 people^^^ had it figured out in the 18th century. And it's the 21st century and people are fixated on some poor Kurgan hypothesis which has almost no scientific background or merit...Voltaire, Kant and Schlegel are turning in their graves.

bicicleur
16-08-16, 17:50
This old mtDNA and the actual Y-DNA is pointing that the neolitization of the area was done by Anatolians: T2b, U8b1b1 and N1b1a were found in the Barcin samples. For the Y-DNA, being the most spread among Anatolians G2a, nowadays 77/162 Abkhazians are G2a, 57/126 Circassians, and 72/154 Shapsugs (speaking NW Caucasian languages), 92/132 north Ossetians are G2a (talking Iranic language), 13/17 Svans, 8/16 Mengrelians (speaking Georgian dialects). The CHG or Iran_Neolithic that spread northwards must come from the "Indian" side.

79507950

7949

once I thought the same and now I start thinking again : the black spot on the map, could it be Maykop?

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_G2a.gif

On the other hand, Maykop culture ended 4500 years ago.
Could these people have stayed in the same area that long?
Well, they probably did in Sardegna too.

Maciamo
16-08-16, 18:04
once I thought the same and now I start thinking again : the black spot on the map, could it be Maykop?

The black spot in the Northwest Caucasus represents Adyghe people. The modern city of Maykop, after which the ancient culture was named, is indeed in Adyghea, but the modern people have probably little to do with the Bronze Age inhabitants.

Angela
16-08-16, 18:10
once I thought the same and now I start thinking again : the black spot on the map, could it be Maykop?

http://cdn.eupedia.com/images/content/Haplogroup_G2a.gif

On the other hand, Maykop culture ended 4500 years ago.
Could these people have stayed in the same area that long?
Well, they probably did in Sardegna too.

Except for the "Indian" M52, which I think is more like "Paskistani" or central Asian M52, the rest of those mtDna lineages are still present in that area today. I wouldn't be surprised if some of them never left.

Some of them did leave, though, like V7, which we find a lot of in northern Europe, and the U8 lineage.

I'm more interested in where they came from...

If Maykop descends from Leyla Tepe, I think some of it came from there, perhaps the M52 and the U8? However, although the rest could roughly be called "Neolithic" lineages, they're not really Cucuteni Tripolyte lineages, are they?

Anyone know where they are the most common...the specific types, I mean?

Virtue
16-08-16, 18:13
Most of those people in the Caucasus have unusually homogeneous Y-DNA on the male side, for their tribe (i.e. G2a for Georgians), but for a neighboring tribe it will be something like (J1) for Chechens or Ingush. How did these non-IE speaking Caucasoids survive the Indo-European invasion?

berun
16-08-16, 20:34
@Maciamo, clearly the Ossetians are not so old in their mountains, but Circassians and Kartvelians if they were not protected from IE invaders by their mountains, then from where they would come? The Kartvelian case could be much or less discussed as the protolanguage dates around 2000 BC, but as far as I remember the NW Caucasian languages are old as 5000 BC and I have no hints to think that they migrated from elsewhere, and they are known from old, per example the abasgoi (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abasgoi)around 50 BC. By the way the half-pagan half-Christian Abkazians were buring the deceased under kurgans in the XVI century.

Alan
16-08-16, 21:41
The black spot in the Northwest Caucasus represents Adyghe people. The modern city of Maykop, after which the ancient culture was named, is indeed in Adyghea, but the modern people have probably little to do with the Bronze Age inhabitants.

Indeed, What is also interesting almost non of these mtDNA in Maykop are found in Yamnaya. There goes the kidnapped Caucasus wifes theory.

berun
17-08-16, 08:55
In the supp info of "West Eurasian mtDNA lineages in India: an insight into the spread of the Dravidian language and the origins of the caste system" there is an excel with 1180 Indian mtDNA, but I haven't found any M52 or U8, so I don't understand this statement:


In addition, we identified the Paleolithic Eurasian U8b1a2 and M52 haplogroups, which are frequent in modern South Asia, particularly in modern India.

Angela
17-08-16, 13:53
On mtDna M52:


"We completely sequenced the mtDNA genome of
nine M* samples, which harbor 16223–16275 substitutions in hypervariable
segment I (HVS-I), to determine their potential source region.
All nine samples were found to share common coding region variants,
which enabled us to define a new autochthonous South Asian-specific
haplogroup M52, which turned out to share a common origin with
one of its sister branches, labeled here as M52a (Figure 3), detected
among Indian non-Muslims. The same haplogroup has been recently
reported in the Tharus of Nepal and in the Andhra Pradesh population.
50 All nine sequences of Muslims are nested within the M52
lineage (Figure 3). Considering this phylogenetic structuring, the
newly characterized haplogroup M52 is most likely to have an Indian
rather than West Asian or Arabian origin. AMOVA yielded no
statistically significant results for any group distinctions on the basis
of religion (Indian Muslims and non-Muslims), geography (North
India, South India and West India) or other criteria investigated
(Supplementary Table 3)."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2859343/

berun
17-08-16, 18:15
Thank you Angela for the ref; even so, as the 2015 paper with 1180 mtDNA didn't found any M52 I looked at the sources of the paper that you add; the paper finds 9 cases of M52 among 472 Indian Muslims (2%), but everybody will guess that this pop is not the best to know ancient mtDNA... and such high number is in fact more an orange alarm than other thing; for the Indian non-Musliams they have got 796 mtDNA samples from a 2004 paper, 752 from a 2003 paper and 550 from a 1999 paper (total 2098), they don't give the numbers of Indian M52 found neither Tharu M52, but the M52 Tharus are... one case among 472 samples. So it's a big deal to say that M52 is "frequent"... what would be the case if per example we would sample 3000 Iranians? I think that the biased data by the number of samples taken in each pop could point another history.

Alan
18-08-16, 07:28
Thank you Angela for the ref; even so, as the 2015 paper with 1180 mtDNA didn't found any M52 I looked at the sources of the paper that you add; the paper finds 9 cases of M52 among 472 Indian Muslims (2%), but everybody will guess that this pop is not the best to know ancient mtDNA... and such high number is in fact more an orange alarm than other thing; for the Indian non-Musliams they have got 796 mtDNA samples from a 2004 paper, 752 from a 2003 paper and 550 from a 1999 paper (total 2098), they don't give the numbers of Indian M52 found neither Tharu M52, but the M52 Tharus are... one case among 472 samples. So it's a big deal to say that M52 is "frequent"... what would be the case if per example we would sample 3000 Iranians? I think that the biased data by the number of samples taken in each pop could point another history.

I had critized this approach on various Haplogroups such as yDNA R2 already. On the WIkipedia page some people wrote R2 "originated" in India because the highest number of R2 individuals has been found there, not realizing that naturally you will find higher number of one Haplogroup in a population of a billion people in comparison to a population with maybe 10-100 million. With other words it doesn't really matter how high the number/frequency is, especially in India where Caste Systems play a huge role and end up in high Frequencies in single Haplogroups (Founder effect).

As I said I personally don't believe M originated in India just out of the logic that M is the sister clade of N and M if found both in India, as well North Africa what makes an origin inbetween most likely IMO. I think M has been moved around by Neolithic farmers/herders both to India as well North Africa. But I could be wrong and it is possible that there is an ancient South Asian contribution into West Asia. As we know there is interaction between South_Central Asia and West Asia from ancient times.

Maciamo
18-08-16, 09:14
As I said I personally don't believe M originated in India just out of the logic that M is the sister clade of N and M if found both in India, as well North Africa what makes an origin inbetween most likely IMO. I think M has been moved around by Neolithic farmers/herders both to India as well North Africa. But I could be wrong and it is possible that there is an ancient South Asian contribution into West Asia. As we know there is interaction between South_Central Asia and West Asia from ancient times.

Mt-haplogroups N and M represent the Out-of-Africa migrations that colonised Eurasia, Oceania and later the Americas. We shouldn't forget that, bar a tiny number of haplogroup L in the Middle East and southern Europe, all non-Africans belong to either N or M, and virtually all Europeans are descended from N. That's the problem with a phylogenetic tree that uses some letters to name haplogroups under other letters. People don't instinctively realise that if they belong to haplogroup HV, H, V, J, T or U, they automatically belong to haplogroup L3, N and R too. Someone who belongs to K also belongs to U. It's not either/or. We don't suddenly cut out a part of our ancestry and of the defining mutations accumulated over time by our ancestors when we switch from N to R to HV to H. Some who is H is L3+N+R+HV+H. It's a package deal.

When we say that someone belongs to haplogroup L, we mean only L, without the mutations for N and M, but with many other mutations instead. The nomenclature is made to clearly separate Africans from non-Africans. But it's purely arbitrary too. Eurasians could have just had deep subclades of L3 instead of their own letters. It's also completely arbitrary to decide that with haplogroup N1a, suddenly N1a1b2 should be renamed haplogroup I, or that U8b2 should be called haplogroup K.

All this to say that haplogroup M52 is just a minor side branch of M that didn't get its own name, unlike mt-haplogroups C, D, E, G, Q and Z under M. In fact, since genetics started in Western countries, most mitochondrial haplogroup letters were attributed to European haplogroups and their Middle Eastern Palaeolithic ancestors (such as R). There weren't enough letters in the alphabet for Asian branches, so only two subclades of M got their own name letter, but others just got a number after the M, including the very major haplogroup M7, which is found about 10% of East Asians and therefore has over 150 million carriers today. Other major East Asian haplogroups include M8, M9 and M10. But it's important to understand that M7 and not closer to M8, M9 or M52 than to other branches of M that got their own name, like haplogroup D, F or G. They all sprouted from M*. There are some exceptions. Haplogroups C and Z, for example, are subclades of M8.

So it doesn't make any sense to say that M52 is Middle Eastern or South Asian simply because the first Out-of-Africa migration that carried mt-haplogroup M (alongside Y-haplogroup D) followed the coasts of Arabia and South Asia all the way to East Asia and Oceania. We have no idea at present when and where the mutation for M52 first occurred. It could have been anywhere in Asia. But it could also have been in the Caucasus for all we know.

Virtue
18-08-16, 10:29
I have to ask some of you, but doesn't some of this haplogroup stuff seem a bit far-fetched and outlandish? Some of these theories or explanations are next to impossible. I am not trying to be mean or unproductive, I really mean no offense by this. But...if guys may be debating on small trivial things and theories that might not even be true- You are not getting to the bigger picture, but are wasting your time on mere delusions, and cannot figure out the explanation.

Everyone is debating on the technical and complex on these on these haplogroup findings, instead of the Occam's Razor. Put all these haplogroups together (mtdna and Y-DNA) with an ancient documented population, and voila. We've already seen Guanche people of Canary Islands before (before Spanish conquest..) and they were fair-skinned Caucasoids? And they carried most of these haplogroups, you guys have mentioned here. They had haplogroup J1 (predominant) and E-M81, and looked as white as a Nord or Greek.

7951
And yes, I think those are definitely Punic looking tattoos.^ And these people do not look Sub-Saharan African. My own theory, is that there is enough evidence to conclude that there may have been a back-migration of these individuals from Europe into Africa. (pre-Berberids.) (this could also explain why Afro-Asiatic is almost absent from across the Saharan African desert and only North Africa and Near East. -- it was a European language group that thrived better in Northern Africa and died in Europe, come Indo-European invasion.)

(remember, Afro-Asiatic is just a word, or categorization. Proto-Afro-Asiatic language group may have actually began, in even Southern Europe.)


(also, nobody seemed to have commented on the fascinating, recent discovery of the oldest clade found of haplogroup U6 being found in Romania, about 35,000 ybp.) While it seemed to have almost virtually disappeared in Europe and is in North Africa. (how the heck did that thing originate there? And these women then become predominant in Northwest Africa???)

Dienekes-

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/35000-year-old-mtdna-haplogroup-u6-from.html

Oh (on the contrary, sorry guys, but) it seems there has already been a post on this here, neat-

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32288-Back-migration-from-Paleolithic-Europe-to-Africa-through-Basal-mtDna-U6

Virtue
18-08-16, 10:39
This may explain why there are findings of E-M81 in the Albanian populations as well as other Balkanic areas and Southern Europe. (Italy?) (just archaic haplogroups may be able to prove this. If you can compare DNA from Albanians to Canary Island Guanches, that would be interesting. Who knows, there may be a significant find here. And the Romanian finding of West African U6 might be the gateway-portal and clue to a definite back-migration.)

Maybe European proto-Afro-Asiatic speakers had a massive migration (by boat) from Balkans (or other Southern Europe). Or, perhaps ancient Europeans crossed the oceans into Africa when it was more icier. They became the Berberids and the Egyptians etc. (thinking too far into this, but what if?)

I am hypothesizing/surmising this happened about or around during the LGM. There may have been an extremely larger group of language in Europe, but due to a smaller population and isolation they later evolved into proto-Afro-Asiatic, proto-Vasconic, proto-Indo-European, proto-Kartvelian, about every other language group you can think of. etc)

berun
18-08-16, 11:24
Finaly the discussion about M52 seems sterile as Bernard in Anthrogenetica has found that the sample is not showing other mutations related to such haplo. Well, no surprise if the authors label such haplo "frequent" in south Asia; allways it's good to check sources and use own logics as out there are many people with university degree got from good memory alone. The conclusion seems by now that NW Caucasus was colonized by Anatolian farmers delivering there pre-proto-Kartvelian or NW Caucasian. Also it will be necessary to check more to distinguish their expected substrate CHG DNA from the similar Iran_Neolithic DNA from Azerbadjan (latu sensu) spread in the Copper Age, otherwise we will continue to discuss from data worked with the ass.

bicicleur
18-08-16, 11:47
I have to ask some of you, but doesn't some of this haplogroup stuff seem a bit far-fetched and outlandish? Some of these theories or explanations are next to impossible. I am not trying to be mean or unproductive, I really mean no offense by this. But...if guys may be debating on small trivial things and theories that might not even be true- You are not getting to the bigger picture, but are wasting your time on mere delusions, and cannot figure out the explanation.

Everyone is debating on the technical and complex on these on these haplogroup findings, instead of the Occam's Razor. Put all these haplogroups together (mtdna and Y-DNA) with an ancient documented population, and voila. We've already seen Guanche people of Canary Islands before (before Spanish conquest..) and they were fair-skinned Caucasoids? And they carried most of these haplogroups, you guys have mentioned here. They had haplogroup J1 (predominant) and E-M81, and looked as white as a Nord or Greek.

7951
And yes, I think those are definitely Punic looking tattoos.^ And these people do not look Sub-Saharan African. My own theory, is that there is enough evidence to conclude that there may have been a back-migration of these individuals from Europe into Africa. (pre-Berberids.) (this could also explain why Afro-Asiatic is almost absent from across the Saharan African desert and only North Africa and Near East. -- it was a European language group that thrived better in Northern Africa and died in Europe, come Indo-European invasion.)

(remember, Afro-Asiatic is just a word, or categorization. Proto-Afro-Asiatic language group may have actually began, in even Southern Europe.)


(also, nobody seemed to have commented on the fascinating, recent discovery of the oldest clade found of haplogroup U6 being found in Romania, about 35,000 ybp.) While it seemed to have almost virtually disappeared in Europe and is in North Africa. (how the heck did that thing originate there? And these women then become predominant in Northwest Africa???)

Dienekes-

http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2016/05/35000-year-old-mtdna-haplogroup-u6-from.html

Oh (on the contrary, sorry guys, but) it seems there has already been a post on this here, neat-

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32288-Back-migration-from-Paleolithic-Europe-to-Africa-through-Basal-mtDna-U6

If I recall well there is something strange about Guanche on Canary Islands.
Don't they have R1b without metallurgy?

It is the same as


Finaly the discussion about M52 seems sterile as Bernard in Anthrogenetica has found that the sample is not showing other mutations related to such haplo.

some lost atypical branch of the clade.

Virtue
18-08-16, 12:43
If I recall well there is something strange about Guanche on Canary Islands.
Don't they have R1b without metallurgy?

It is the same as



some lost atypical branch of the clade.yep R1b as well as P* (unknown clades) were found on a sample of Guanche mummies.

http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/08/ancient-guanche-y-dna.html

WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 5, 2009Ancient Guanche Y-DNA (http://leherensuge.blogspot.com/2009/08/ancient-guanche-y-dna.html)

Via Dienekes (http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2009/08/ancient-y-chromosomes-from-canary.html) I have just come to know of a fascinating new research on ancient Y-DNA from the Canary Islands. It is most precious information, as it informs us not only of the patrilineal genetics of the aboriginal Guanches (the matrilineages had already been researched previously (http://mathildasanthropologyblog.wordpress.com/2009/05/16/mt-dna-from-la-palma-guanche-remains/)) but also, by extension, about the pre-Arabic Y-DNA of North Africa to some extent.

Rosa Fregel et al., Demographic history of Canary Islands male gene-pool: (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-9-181.pdf)
replacement of native lineages by European (http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1471-2148-9-181.pdf). BMC Evolutionary Biology, 2009 (provisional PDF - open access).

The authors managed to extract Y-DNA from 30 individuals, most of them from La Palma, from the pre-colonial period. Additionally 42 individuals from the period of Castilian conquest were also sampled succefully.

The aboriginal Guanches (n=30) had the following haplogroups (sorted by numerical importance):

E1b1b1b (M81) - 8 - 26.7%
E1b1b1a (M78) - 7 - 23.3%
J1 (M267) - 5 - 16.7%
R1b1b2 (M269) - 3 - 10%
K(xP) (M9) - 3 - 10%
I (M170) - 2 - 6.7%
E1a (M33) - 1 - 3.3%
P(xR1) - 1 - 3.3%

Angela
18-08-16, 15:49
@Virtue,
Any further off topic posts on this thread will be deleted.

MOESAN
18-08-16, 16:45
Science has been a joke ever since the Guggenheim Fellowship altered it in the early 20th century.

You guys know Voltaire, Immanuel Kant, and Karl Schlegel were the original Indo-Europeanists and believed the IE urheimat was in India? Yep, That's the stuff. Stick with those guys, that know their stuff. And the Basque people (whom speak a "proto-language", not a "language".)

Jewish people told me personally. Of course this is a joke and I am totally crazy, and nobody would ever believe me.


I think some new things happened in science after Voltaire and Emmanuel Kant, did they not?
The Indic I-Ean languages show rather an influence of native languages (dravidian for the most, if I remember well) and local deities upon an Indo-Iranic linguistic and cultural basis than the contrary.
I-Ean question taken apart, the flow of genetic influences seems rather from Iran to India through Pakistan, since Neolithic, what doesn't discard totally some converse lighter flow into Iran and even Caucasus-Near-East. But it seems to me the first light POSSIBLE genetic influences from (North?) India to Near-East date rather from the great metallurgy rising: exchanges on both directions, I think. The Y-R1a ligneages of today South India came from or across Afghanistan, seemingly. Sooner, Y-J2 and others came the same way. I-Eans could have originated far from Europe, but then rather from South-Central Asia than from genuine India, whatever the lands they crossed to reach other places of Eurasia.
What doesn't exclude Harappa cultural influences at some times, + the possibility of an South-Iran origin of the true Sumerians (come by sea, supposed). All guess for this last bet. I say that because apparently, the Sumerian language and the Elamite languages could be, not cousins of dravidian, but far isolated "oncles" formed upon a very archaïc proto-language ancestor to dravidian too. The problem is that the few words we have for these ancient languages could be linked to trade more than to intime life, so comprising a lot of loan-words for goods, so not too informative: here I make guesses, because I have not the detail of the concerned studies.
Concerning basque, I cannot consider it as a proto-language. "proto-" has sense only when compared to subsequent affiliated languages, it has nothing to do with the supposed "level" of languages. Basques of today are not poor lyevolved people unable to ameliorate their language to answer to their needs. And I don't think an ergative or non-ergative language can be the mark of nomadism or sedentism.
Good afternoon.

Virtue
18-08-16, 17:16
@Virtue,
Any further off topic posts on this thread will be deleted.How is it off-topic? My point was that people are debating on unnecessary content, and whether they realize it or not, these things have already been posted and discussed before..


I don't believe the Kurgan hypothesis, but it may have truth to it most def, but only half-truths. And if Marija Gimbutas were alive today, she may have even altered it and admitted that it was no longer a relevant theory. Sorry Angela, but I think even she (Marija) herself would admit that. She died in 1994, 22 years ago, long before haplogroup science came to the mainstream. So the theory is obviously outdated, and if she kept up with the current findings she would definitely change her theory to the point where it wouldn't even be called "Kurgan" anymore.


Marija Gimbutus and Colin Renfrew weren't the first Indo-Europeanists, either. Voltaire, Immanuel Kant and Friedrich Schlegel- and they were the originators of the Indo-European invasion theory and the latter Out-of-India theory. Surprisingly, I have Basque anthropologist and linguist friends who agree, and believe the Out-of-India theory is the most realistic, and that the Kurgan and Anatolian theories for Indo-European invasion makes no sense. (And personally, I don't believe 3 of those aforementioned brilliant minds, can be wrong either.) :useless:

And knowing Basques and their non-IE language, they could tell in an instant whether the mainstream theories (Kurgan or Anatolian) are crap, Angela... They can compare their language to that of the proto-Indo-European one, and instantly know instinctively.

"What Marija Gimbautus was saying, makes no sense." Maju told me. I showed him how the Basques became R1b and he thought it was a pretty legit theory. But he disagrees with both the Kurgan and Anatolian hypothesis.)




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Renfrew,_Baron_Renfrew_of_Kaimsthorn


Also, Colin Renfrew is a member of the British Royal Academy, which is affiliated to the Guggenheim Fellowship. (a group infamous in scientific circles for their poor reputation and of bringing nonsense theories to science, and their debunked pseudo-sciences.) >> So his credibility as an archaeologist is pretty bad.

Virtue
18-08-16, 17:22
I think some new things happened in science after Voltaire and Emmanuel Kant, did they not?Yep, some things definitely did happen - forgery by the Guggenheim Fellowship in order to further their pseudoscientific cause.

Did you know if Voltaire was alive today, he would be jailed for the perspectives and theories he's told about? You're from France and you should know this.

(He was flirting with Queen Ekaterina II (Catherine II) of Russia for over 20 years by postal mail, I got some of those letters right in the closet in the room right next to me. lol)

Also, Immanuel Kant was the first man to suggest that the Earth revolved around the Sun, in a time when most Europeans thought it was the exact opposite.

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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ef/Haplogroup_F_(Y-DNA).PNG



Funny how haplogroup F is pictured in the mid there in India, the biggest bubble. But now this map is outdated and not relevant, apparently. (something tells me some corrupt people aren't telling the truth. And I wouldn't be surprised if haplogroup R1a, R1b and R2 are actually haplogroup F or haplogroup K. Am I suggesting Haplogroup science is fixed by people with an agenda? Conspiracy theory? Yep.)

berun
18-08-16, 19:44
Basque has around a 60% of loanwords, mainly from Spanish as I remember, but of course my memory is not the best, so you can check out what said an expert as Voltaire about it.

MOESAN
18-08-16, 20:25
Basque has around a 60% of loanwords, mainly from Spanish as I remember, but of course my memory is not the best, so you can check out what said an expert as Voltaire about it.

Thanks, Berun, you answered in my place. It's true I don't speak Basque language (we say 'Euskareg' in modern breton!) bit I red some simple explanations about ergative language, and I've at hand two basque language booklets and can easily see the modern Castillan borrowed words in it, it doesn't need being a specialist! Without speaking about older loanwords which need deeper knowledge.

@Virtue: I never said I was an expert of Basque. But I maintain 'ergative' is not the mark of some "primitivity" in language or of some way of life specificity; it seems it could be a kind of "passivity" or "destiny undercoming" philosophy of life, in an intuitive analysis (not too scientific, I avow). Even some accusative languages have some specific syntaxic variants evocating same tendancies, spite their accusative status (Celtics by instance).
But we are far here from the present thread and that could be kept on in a thread open in Linguistic, even if I lack time to read and answer every matter in this rich forum, helas.
No offense, of course!

berun
18-08-16, 22:51
I think that I will never visit Louisiana after checking how its hot sun is so hard as to demyelinate so fast a bunch of inner wires.

Moi-même
18-08-16, 23:11
Thanks for sharing, Angela.

About the absence of autosomal and Y DNA, they may keep it for another paper. mt-DNA is much easier and faster to read.

Alan
18-08-16, 23:32
Finaly the discussion about M52 seems sterile as Bernard in Anthrogenetica has found that the sample is not showing other mutations related to such haplo. Well, no surprise if the authors label such haplo "frequent" in south Asia; allways it's good to check sources and use own logics as out there are many people with university degree got from good memory alone. The conclusion seems by now that NW Caucasus was colonized by Anatolian farmers delivering there pre-proto-Kartvelian or NW Caucasian. Also it will be necessary to check more to distinguish their expected substrate CHG DNA from the similar Iran_Neolithic DNA from Azerbadjan (latu sensu) spread in the Copper Age, otherwise we will continue to discuss from data worked with the ass.

I honestly doubt Maykop were descend of Anatolian farmers. A few mtDNA resembling those of Anatolian Farmers don't tell much. I would be suprised if Maykop didn't turn out as CHG/Iran_Neo with more Villabruna like and less BE and some Anatolian_Neo admixture. yDNA will be quite interesting also. Since it doesn't seem that the CHG/Iran_Neo in Yamna came via Caucasus wifes alone.

Maciamo
19-08-16, 09:10
I honestly doubt Maykop were descend of Anatolian farmers. A few mtDNA resembling those of Anatolian Farmers don't tell much. I would be suprised if Maykop didn't turn out as CHG/Iran_Neo with more Villabruna like and less Basal admixture. yDNA will be quite interesting also. Since it doesn't seem that the CHG/Iran_Neo in Yamna came via Caucasus wifes alone.

I admit that I have thought about early R1b cattle herders coming from Iran instead of eastern Anatolia/Armenia. It would make more sense in the light of the Middle Easter admixture found in Yamna being mainly CHG-like and not Anatolian Farmer-like. Cows were domesticated c. 8500 BCE, but didn't appear in the Pontic Steppe/North Caucasus until about 5500 BCE, I think. That leaves an awful lot of time for cattle herders to have first ventured east to Iran before crossing the Caucasus. In fact that may be why we see more R1b (both M269 and M73) in Daghestan than around Maykop in the Northwest Caucasus. So it increasingly looks like I missed a step when I drew an arrow from Kurdistan to the Steppe in my R1b migration map. I should probably have had R1b backtrack east to Iran first, then pass along the Caspian coast through Azerbaijan and Daghestan, which is the typical route to cross the Caucasus.

bicicleur
19-08-16, 10:04
I still doubt proto IE crossed the Caucasus with cattle.
Didn't cattle arrive on the Pontic steppe along with Balkan copper?

berun
19-08-16, 11:48
@Alan

It's not a few mtDNA linking Maykop with Anatolia but four in five, it's an impressive proportion. To that its possible to add up the high freq of G2a, also charactetistic of Anatolian Neolithics. Occam's razor makes the rest. Of course I'm not denying "Iranian" genes from Leylatepe but it will be necessary to wait for Y-DNA and admixtures, but allways taking into account the possible CHG Mesolithics living before all it.

MOESAN
19-08-16, 12:34
I dont take offense, I just hate ignorance

A mental transfer from Virtue to Maverick? Or another man of the same sect?

Your nerves blind you, you are too sharp-reacting (and a bit respectless)! It's a pity because otherwise you could maybe tell us some interesting things about Baskic? In a linguistic thread. And here I'm not moking you.
I'm ignorant as all the people are ignorant in a big part, even the scholars, even YOU. But I'm not stupid (I hope).
Speaking about Baskic and loans or no loans, you HAD TO precise if you were speaking about ancient Baskic (or proto-B) or about current Baskic. If you compare ancient Baskic to present day English, you're mistaking; you would have to speak about Anglo-Saxon or even old Germanic. Just a point.
I suppose the Maverick's future will be short enough here.

berun
19-08-16, 13:44
@Maverick, I suggest you to dwell two years alone in the Rocky Mountains, you could cure so your angry and unversal hate, otherwise i think that i will se you in TV news involved in a school shooting.

Angela
19-08-16, 13:56
I still doubt proto IE crossed the Caucasus with cattle.
Didn't cattle arrive on the Pontic steppe along with Balkan copper?

I think the archaeology shows pretty clearly that domesticated animals and copper flowed from the Balkans east onto the steppe. Whether any cattle also came from south of the Caucasus I don't know. Is there anything in the archaeology to show that?

As I said in my original post, the mtDna certainly doesn't support an influx of "CHG" onto the steppe through "Caucasus wives", whether kidnapped or traded for, but it's only six samples altogether, so we'll have to see. I would be tempted to say it was there since the Mesolithic, except that the genetic data shows an increase over time and from south to north of that autosomal component, yes?

Alan
19-08-16, 14:11
@Alan

It's not a few mtDNA linking Maykop with Anatolia but four in five, it's an impressive proportion. To that its possible to add up the high freq of G2a, also charactetistic of Anatolian Neolithics. Occam's razor makes the rest. Of course I'm not denying "Iranian" genes from Leylatepe but it will be necessary to wait for Y-DNA and admixtures, but allways taking into account the possible CHG Mesolithics living before all it.
As far as I am aware the high frequency of G2a is of modern Caucasus and I assume it was brought with Proto Kartvellian speakers. I don't believe Kartvellian is a Iran_Neo/CHG tongue. Rather it is an Anatolian_Neo language related to Basque. Modern Caucasus is mixed like ~65% CHG and ~35% Anatolian/Levant_Neo.

Whatever language Maykop spoke I am criticial that it was Kartvelian.

berun
19-08-16, 14:37
Modern Caucasus admixture is to take with caution, as this geographic region is debt much to an artificial political consensus. Looking at genes the Caucasus is split mainly between east and west, and my pet idea is that such dualism is the product of a competing northwards colonization of Iran_Neolithics and Anatolia_Neolithics. Actual and old genes point that the first wave to reach NW Caucasus was the Anatolian, but natural neighbour interchange and the Laylatepe influx must have delivered also Iran_Neolitic DNA... which might be differentiated from the local Mesolithic CHG, otherwise everything will be messed.

bicicleur
19-08-16, 15:20
I think the archaeology shows pretty clearly that domesticated animals and copper flowed from the Balkans east onto the steppe. Whether any cattle also came from south of the Caucasus I don't know. Is there anything in the archaeology to show that?

As I said in my original post, the mtDna certainly doesn't support an influx of "CHG" onto the steppe through "Caucasus wives", whether kidnapped or traded for, but it's only six samples altogether, so we'll have to see. I would be tempted to say it was there since the Mesolithic, except that the genetic data shows an increase over time and from south to north of that autosomal component, yes?

that is my feeling to
after the Epigravettian, there was a continuous flow south to north across the Caucuasus
then, when Sintashta or degrading clmimate ousted many tribes out of the steppe, the direction of the flow reversed untill iron age

Alan
19-08-16, 15:40
I admit that I have thought about early R1b cattle herders coming from Iran instead of eastern Anatolia/Armenia. It would make more sense in the light of the Middle Easter admixture found in Yamna being mainly CHG-like and not Anatolian Farmer-like. Cows were domesticated c. 8500 BCE, but didn't appear in the Pontic Steppe/North Caucasus until about 5500 BCE, I think. That leaves an awful lot of time for cattle herders to have first ventured east to Iran before crossing the Caucasus. In fact that may be why we see more R1b (both M269 and M73) in Daghestan than around Maykop in the Northwest Caucasus. So it increasingly looks like I missed a step when I drew an arrow from Kurdistan to the Steppe in my R1b migration map. I should probably have had R1b backtrack east to Iran first, then pass along the Caspian coast through Azerbaijan and Daghestan, which is the typical route to cross the Caucasus.

Yep makes archeologically sense. NW Iran= > Leyla Tepe=> Kura Araxes, Maykop and the Steppes.

Sile
19-08-16, 20:53
As far as I am aware the high frequency of G2a is of modern Caucasus and I assume it was brought with Proto Kartvellian speakers. I don't believe Kartvellian is a Iran_Neo/CHG tongue. Rather it is an Anatolian_Neo language related to Basque. Modern Caucasus is mixed like ~65% CHG and ~35% Anatolian/Levant_Neo.

Whatever language Maykop spoke I am criticial that it was Kartvelian.

Wasn't ancient G2a and G2b also found in ancient SE-Anatolia?

A. Papadimitriou
19-08-16, 22:45
Maciamo you're a good anthropologist and all, but leave the ludicrous mainstream theories out of this. (which may easily be proven wrong in a few weeks or years from now.)

Just because these findings are there, does not necessarily make them true. Another person, or that same person can do the same testing of this population, and these findings may be gone tomorrow. Stick with the findings that have the most proof to them.

Also, the Kurgan and Anatolian theories/hypothesizes are not necessarily true. They are just exactly that, theories. They can both be only partially true, or not true at all.

And personally, from my own analysis of the Basque language, and my experience with Basque people and culture, it has recently come to my attention that Basque and Vasconic are nothing more than isolated (old European) proto-languages. (just Like proto-Indo-European)

These proto-languages stopped evolving during the Indo-European invasion, and now we have Standard Basque. ​This explains why Basque has one of the least linguistic borrowings in Europe. This would explain why Basque is less developed or organized than say IE or Afro-Asiatic, as the words seem more Like "nonsensical gibberish, and the grammar has no official word order. (unless you count the common "SOV".)

(I am basically saying here, that Basque or Vasconic, is merely an isolated Western European language group, but stopped evolving due to the more prominent Indo-European language group. (during invasion) This may explain why it has so many different functions and complex grammar.

It is possible that proto-Indo-European and proto-Afro-Asiatic started off similar to Basque/Vasconic. Because Basque acts like a more nomadic language. (It has Ergative grammar. Kind of like the isolated Eskimo, or Amerindian languages)

I agree with you on your first statement. Both the mainstream theories and their popular alternatives can be partly or entirely wrong. That being I don't agree with the rest of the statements. It's important to note that there are many languages with free or relatively free word order.

Personally I believe that the PIE had relatively free word order like Latin, Classical, medieval and modern Greek, Persian, Romanian, Albanian, (but also: Finnish, Turkish) etc. Many languages with high or relatively high degree of morphological marking have relatively free word order.

The things being said here are mostly true about Greek too. So there's nothing special about Basque or the languages which have relatively free word order.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Basque_grammar#Syntax

Alan
19-08-16, 23:13
Wasn't ancient G2a and G2b also found in ancient SE-Anatolia?

Not as far as I know, Eastern Anatolian samples turned out R1b, L1a so far.