PDA

View Full Version : Migration from the Steppe to Anatolia was 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC)



Tomenable
16-10-16, 02:16
Here are some aDNA samples from Asia Minor on Gedmach:



Age in years
Period/culture
Gedmatch kit
Sample ID


~8635
Neolithic
Z145547
Tep002


~8350
Neolithic
M411713
I1583


~8350
Neolithic
M754279
I0746


~8350
Neolithic
M936428
I0709


~8350
Neolithic
M897077
I0707


~5826
Copper Age
M091434
I1584


~5150
Early Bronze
M300627
Kum4



I've tested those ancient Anatolian samples with this calculator:

GedrosiaDNA - Eurasia K14 Neolithic:

https://s17.postimg.org/vsy61q40f/Steppe_Migration_Anatolia.png

https://s17.postimg.org/vsy61q40f/Steppe_Migration_Anatolia.png

Kum4 = Kumtepe B period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumtepe


Around 3700 BC [~5700 years ago] new settlers came to Kumtepe. The people of this new culture, Kumtepe B, built relatively large houses with multiple rooms, sometimes a porch. They also practiced animal husbandry and agriculture. The main domestic animals were goats and sheep, bred not only for meat but for milk and wool as well. They knew lead and bronze along with copper. Shortly after 3000 BC Yassıtepe and Hisarlık (Troy) were colonized probably from Kumtepe.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 02:17
One Neolithic sample - I0746 - actually scored 2,5% Yamnaya-Afanasievo, but I added it to "other".

All the remaining four Neolithic samples scored zero (-) of Yamnaya-Afanasievo, exactly as expected.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 02:28
In GedrosiaDNA Eurasia K14 Neolithic, this sample scores almost 1/5 Yamnaya:

Gedmatch kit M926386 - sample I1631 (Areni-1, Copper Age Armenia):

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Areni-1_cave_complex


The Areni-1 cave complex (Armenian: Արենիի քարանձավ) is a cave in the Areni village of southern Armenia along the Arpa River. In 2010, it was announced that the earliest known shoe was found in the cave.[1] In January 2011, the earliest known winery in the world was announced to have been found.[2] Also in 2011, the discovery of a straw skirt dating to 3900 BC was reported.[3]*

[*straw skirts were also found in Bronze Age Europe and in Xiaohe cemetery in Xinjiang]

Kit M926386

Admix Results (sorted):

# Population Percent
1 Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers 25.32
2 Early_European_Farmers 19.11
3 Afanasievo_Yamnaya 19.02
4 SW_Asian 18.81
5 Kalash 14.23
6 SHG_WHG 2.11
7 S_Amerindian 1.41

Single Population Sharing:

# Population (source) Distance
1 Armenian_BA2 25.1
2 Hungarian_BA5 26.46
3 Armenian_IA 27.23
4 Hungarian_BA3 29.36
5 RISE_baSca 30.02
6 Bell_Beaker_LN5 30.13
7 HungaryGamba_BA2 31.17
8 Corded_Ware_BA4 31.53
9 Armenian_BA3 31.53
10 Hungarian_BA7 31.55
11 Corded_Ware_BA3 31.66
12 Hungarian_BA1 31.7
13 Bell_Beaker_LN1 31.7
14 HungaryGamba_BA1 32.83
15 Bell_Beaker_LN2 32.98
16 Benzigerode_LN1 33.07
17 HungaryGamba_IA 33.15
18 Unetice_BA2 33.96
19 Bell_Beaker_BA1 34.01
20 Karasuk_BA5 34.62

Mixed Mode Population Sharing:

# Primary Population (source) Secondary Population (source) Distance
1 67.2% Armenian_BA2 + 32.8% HungaryGamba_EN2 @ 5.47
2 66.5% Armenian_BA2 + 33.5% HungaryGamba_EN1 @ 5.62
3 51.5% Armenian_BA2 + 48.5% Hungarian_BA5 @ 7.92
4 74.1% Armenian_BA2 + 25.9% Baalberge_MN3 @ 8.07
5 74% Armenian_BA2 + 26% HungaryGamba_CA @ 8.1
6 75.6% Armenian_BA2 + 24.4% Baalberge_MN2 @ 8.25
7 72.6% Armenian_BA2 + 27.4% Baalberge_MN1 @ 8.51
8 76.5% Armenian_BA2 + 23.5% Remedello_BA @ 8.6
9 76.9% Armenian_BA2 + 23.1% Starcevo_EN @ 8.66
10 76.9% Armenian_BA2 + 23.1% HungaryGamba_EN @ 8.66
11 76.9% Armenian_BA2 + 23.1% Iceman @ 8.66
12 76.9% Armenian_BA2 + 23.1% LBK_EN @ 8.66
13 75.7% Armenian_BA2 + 24.3% Montenegro_BA1 @ 8.67
14 59.3% Armenian_BA2 + 40.7% Stuttgart @ 8.78
15 73.6% Armenian_BA2 + 26.4% HungaryGamba_EN7 @ 8.97
16 66.7% Armenian_BA2 + 33.3% HungaryGamba_EN8 @ 8.98
17 62.9% Hungarian_BA5 + 37.1% Armenian_BA4 @ 9.55
18 70.4% Hungarian_BA5 + 29.6% Afansievo_BA1 @ 10.21
19 65.1% Armenian_BA2 + 34.9% LBK_EN2 @ 10.31
20 56.7% Armenian_BA2 + 43.3% Corded_Ware_BA3 @ 10.33

Alan
16-10-16, 03:03
That is shared ancestry, there is no way that Steppe ancestry reached Anatolia and the highland so early. I bet even CHG will score some Steppe "ancestry".

Tomenable
16-10-16, 03:14
there is no way that Steppe ancestry reached Anatolia and the highland so early.

No way, because... ???

We have new, milk-drinking settlers in Kumtepe circa 3700 BC (based on archaeology).

If not the Steppe, then please propose some alternative place of their ultimate origin.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 03:18
Copper Age Barcin I1584 has around 10% of "Kalash" admixture (apart from Yamnaya-Afanasievo).

I counted it as part of "other" in that table.

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

This is how they score in Dodecad K12b:

Orange = admixtures correlating with transition to Copper Age
Red = admixtures correlating with transition to Bronze Age

https://s18.postimg.org/gg1f727ix/Dodecad_K12b.png

I1584 = Copper Age Anatolia (Barcin sample)
Kum4 = Early Bronze Age Anatolia (Kumtepe)

I1631 = Areni-1 cave (Copper Age Armenia)
I1658 = Early Bronze Armenia (Kura-Araxes)
I1635 = Early Bronze Armenia (Kura-Araxes)

https://s18.postimg.org/gg1f727ix/Dodecad_K12b.png

Tomenable
16-10-16, 03:40
I bet even CHG will score some Steppe "ancestry".

You mean Kotias and Satsurblia ??? Yes they do.

But they are very old - Paleolithic / Mesolithic - so in this case we know that it is shared ancestry.

By the way Kotias and Satsurblia score more "Steppe" than Iran Neolithic and Iran Late Neolithic.

So probably Kotias is a better than Iran Neolithic proxy for CHG admixture in Yamnaya.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 03:49
But neither Kotias, nor Satsurblia, nor Iran Neo/Late Neo score as much Yamnaya as Kum4.

Kum4 scores over 50% and those CHG / Iran Neolithic samples score 20-30%.

And in Dodecad K12b, Iran Neolithic does not score any "North Europe", while Areni-1 does.

So I think that this is rather genuine Yamnaya admixture, not just shared ancestry.

I1290 + I1671 = Neolithic Iran. They don't score any "NorthEurope", unlike Armenian I1631:

https://s12.postimg.org/bubd9k7e5/Iran_Dodecad_K12b.png

https://s12.postimg.org/bubd9k7e5/Iran_Dodecad_K12b.png

MarkoZ
16-10-16, 04:50
Afaik, the Kum4 sample is a low coverage genome that belongs to a woman from the Kumtepe settlement. This is hardly indicative of the larger population trend.

It's also quite misleading to call this 'steppe' affinity. My guess is that we'll see this kind of affinity wherever the Villabruna and the Mal'ta clusters coalesce, which surely happened in more than one place.

Alan
16-10-16, 05:28
No way, because... ???

We have new, milk-drinking settlers in Kumtepe circa 3700 BC (based on archaeology).

If not the Steppe, then please propose some alternative place of their ultimate origin.

milk drinking settlers came obviously from the Iranian Plateau since herding evolved there. we don't need the Steppes for this. Also the Kumptepe sample looks obviously CHG_Iran_Neo mixed and this is what the people propose for it's origin.

Alan
16-10-16, 05:29
Afaik, the Kum4 sampe is a low coverage genome of that belongs to a woman from the Kumtepe settlement. This is hardly indicative of the larger population trend.

It's also quite misleading to call this 'steppe' affinity. My guess is that we'll see this kind of affinity wherever the Villabruna and the Mal'ta clusters coalesce, which surely happened in more than one place.

Sure my wording was not well fitting but I meant what you said, the "Steppe" ancestry showing here is just affinity, affinity created via DNA that is found in both the Steppe and this Anatolian samples (either ANE or VIllabruna like DNA).

Maciamo
16-10-16, 08:02
Very interesting initiative. Thanks for sharing. I had proposed that the Anatolian branch of IE languages left the Pontic Steppe before the start of the Yamna period (3500 BCE), and were probably part of the very first incursions to the Balkans from 4200 BCE. That would place their entrance into Anatolia around 4000 BCE, which is exactly what you data says.

What's interesting is that the Steppe admixture (Gedrosia + North Europe) shows up around 4000 BCE both in western Anatolia (I1584) and Armenia (I1631). That would mean that the first PIE migrations left the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures (two precursors of Yamna) both into the Balkans (well documented incursions from 4200 BCE) and directly across the Caucasus.


One Neolithic sample - I0746 - actually scored 2,5% Yamnaya-Afanasievo, but I added it to "other".

All the remaining four Neolithic samples scored zero (-) of Yamnaya-Afanasievo, exactly as expected.

That 2.5% of Yamna could be due to intermingling with the original R1b tribes of cattle herders from the South Caucasus/West Iran region, before they crossed the Caucasus to the Steppe. Or it could just be noise since the K12b result doesn't show any Gedrosia (nor North European obviously).

Maciamo
16-10-16, 08:40
Copper Age Barcin I1584 has around 10% of "Kalash" admixture (apart from Yamnaya-Afanasievo).


If I am not mistaken, the J2b sample from PP Neolithic Iran (AH2) scored extremely high on Kalash admixture. This could mean that the Kalash are essentially derived from those Neolithic Iranian farmers.

I think that some of those J2b also crossed the Caucasus to settle in the Volga region in the Neolithic, explaining why J2b is common in the Volga region today, but is also found among upper-caste Indians, and at low frequencies a bit everywhere in Europe. That would also explain the small amount of Kalash-like admixture among Europeans, which was absent before the Bronze Age.

arvistro
16-10-16, 09:08
That would fit with kurgan theory nicely.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 12:45
milk drinking settlers came obviously from the Iranian Plateau since herding evolved there.

Impossible, because admixture percentages do not add up / do not match.

Neolithic Iranians had either 0% or much lower % of North Europe / Steppe than Kumtepe B and Areni-1 peoples.


since herding evolved there.

It doesn't matter. Herding was already known in the Steppe before 4150 BC.

So they could come from the Steppe as well.


Afaik, the Kum4 sample is a low coverage genome (...)

Being low coverage doesn't necessarily mean that admixture proportions are totally wrong.

And remember that already I1584 from Barcin shows some 16% of Yamnaya admixture.

Compared to ~0% of Yamnaya admixture in Neolithic Anatolian samples.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 12:57
It's also quite misleading to call this 'steppe' affinity.

Do you believe in Krause's Dead Cat Bounce?:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/dead-cat-bounce.html

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

With no Steppe IE migration into South Asia?:

http://eurogenes.blogspot.com/2016/10/the-peopling-of-south-asia-illustrated.html

https://2.bp.blogspot.com/-_D0oPtbEFzQ/WAG4LPVMVKI/AAAAAAAAE_8/CqQey-_BJkYiBEJwsqMefFc-mpxEYH_HQCLcB/s1600/Once_upon_a_time2.png

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-FdQPFnvus8g/WAG7iWqV9uI/AAAAAAAAFAU/WHggjziYqRI38ZFC3FlKsPPThzsaoFhowCLcB/s1600/Once_upon_a_time3.png

https://1.bp.blogspot.com/-Bx-GgBb0bps/WAG4WBY7TiI/AAAAAAAAFAE/PIhtss3nQd8jmdPEsVS3p2CKNEgOQoqQwCLcB/s1600/Once_upon_a_time4.png

https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-8E9eVepOOKw/WAG4cpeRGEI/AAAAAAAAFAI/PUkuFSAVJto99mniR7t3cbS_1GbKC86MQCLcB/s1600/Once_upon_a_time5.png

Goga
16-10-16, 13:00
Very interesting initiative. Thanks for sharing. I had proposed that the Anatolian branch of IE languages left the Pontic Steppe before the start of the Yamna period (3500 BCE), and were probably part of the very first incursions to the Balkans from 4200 BCE. That would place their entrance into Anatolia around 4000 BCE, which is exactly what you data says.

What's interesting is that the Steppe admixture (Gedrosia + North Europe) shows up around 4000 BCE both in western Anatolia (I1584) and Armenia (I1631). That would mean that the first PIE migrations left the Sredny Stog and Khvalynsk cultures (two precursors of Yamna) both into the Balkans (well documented incursions from 4200 BCE) and directly across the Caucasus.



That 2.5% of Yamna could be due to intermingling with the original R1b tribes of cattle herders from the South Caucasus/West Iran region, before they crossed the Caucasus to the Steppe. Or it could just be noise since the K12b result doesn't show any Gedrosia (nor North European obviously).
You forgot (ignoring on purpose??) only a very small detail, the MAYKOP CULTURE! Maykop Culture predate Yamnaya and it has been proven that Yamnaya was influenced by the Maykop Culture.

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

Goga
16-10-16, 13:05
It has been said that before the gene flow from Iran & Kurdistan native people of Armenia were as 'white' as Celts. Later Semites (Assyrians) and later Iranians (Aryans, Kurds/Persians) dominated Armenians and Armenians became darker in skin tone..

Goga
16-10-16, 13:22
IF it is true that there is Steppe auDNA of that ancient age in Anatolia, then it could be something to do with the Maykop Culture. West Asian Maykop folks already had direct 'contact' with the Steppes folks who became later part of the Yamnaya Culture.

MarkoZ
16-10-16, 13:39
Do you believe in Krause's Dead Cat Bounce?


No.

By the way, is Eurogenes 'Polako'?

Olympus Mons
16-10-16, 13:45
No way, because... ???

We have new, milk-drinking settlers in Kumtepe circa 3700 BC (based on archaeology).

If not the Steppe, then please propose some alternative place of their ultimate origin.

Tomenable....you do notice the madness of talking about a population that lived 5,000 years before as showing(or not showing) Yamnaya ancestry... right?

Secondly, if there is something we learned in 2016 is that diferent people living 300km from eachother (caucasus/iran) were as genetic diferentiated as a german and a chinese today. Also that a region as anatolia that above all others everybody thought was homogenous was after all very genetic heterogenous.

So, statistics is great. really great...but lets not torture it that much!

Olympus Mons
16-10-16, 13:57
It has been said that before the gene flow from Iran & Kurdistan native people of Armenia were as 'white' as Celts. Later Iranians (Aryans, Kurds/Persians) dominated Armenians and Armenians became darker in skin tone

GOGA, are you talking about "my" Shulaveri shomu?

Anyways, 5000bc saw in south caucasus the earliest big human dispersal that I know of. people moving from either North Iran or south Kurdinstan moved and made havoc. Until we have Dna from whoever lived between 8000bc and 5000bc in the overall region, we are missing a big chunk.

Thirdly...does anyone know why johannes Krause wrote on the slide 4900bc as the movement of peopel from south caucasus to the steppe (why not a round number like 5000)? --Anyone who know me knows how important I claim 4900bc was in south caucasus. Mentesh Tepe fell....

Olympus Mons
16-10-16, 14:09
And still johannes Krause. The guy has hundreds upon hundreds of adna samples that they might have sequence at Max Planck but not published yet. he made a slide like that one changing is view in less than a year... does that not tell you that he knows what we dont know?

bicicleur
16-10-16, 14:49
Here are some aDNA samples from Asia Minor on Gedmach:



Age in years
Period/culture
Gedmatch kit
Sample ID


~8635
Neolithic
Z145547
Tep002


~8350
Neolithic
M411713
I1583


~8350
Neolithic
M754279
I0746


~8350
Neolithic
M936428
I0709


~8350
Neolithic
M897077
I0707


~5826
Copper Age
M091434
I1584


~5150
Early Bronze
M300627
Kum4



I've tested those ancient Anatolian samples with this calculator:

GedrosiaDNA - Eurasia K14 Neolithic:

https://s17.postimg.org/vsy61q40f/Steppe_Migration_Anatolia.png

https://s17.postimg.org/vsy61q40f/Steppe_Migration_Anatolia.png

Kum4 = Kumtepe B period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumtepe

It seems to confirm the hypothesis of David Anthony for the Anatolian branch as a consaquence of IE intrusion from the steppe into the Balkans 4200 - 4000 BC.
So the 3700 BC new settlers in Kumtepe would be Anatolian IE. Troy would also be founded by yhem. It makes sense.

Olympus Mons
16-10-16, 14:59
It seems to confirm the hypothesis of David Anthony for the Anatolian branch as a consaquence of IE intrusion from the steppe into the Balkans 4200 - 4000 BC.
So the 3700 BC new settlers in Kumtepe would be Anatolian IE. Troy would also be founded by yhem. It makes sense.

What is that Joahanne krause knows that we dont?
Is it fair to say that if a guy living in the midst of large hundreds of samples not yet published draws the slide he did... lets take it seriously? picking from that what can be infered? - Not this narrative here put forward right?

Olympus Mons
16-10-16, 15:07
Tomenable
... And most important. ..... who is the hottie you are using as avatar?!?!

Alan
16-10-16, 15:19
And to come back to the question, even if this was really "Steppe" admixture in Anatolia 5- 6000 BC it certanly wasn't Indo European yet and would make the Steppe theory even more dubious because that would mean since the supposed Indo European migration the "Steppe admixture" never rised from Late Neolithic times.

But as I wrote already this all seems to be Iran_Neo ancestry because even Iran_Neo_Meso_CHl samples showed some EHG like ancestry. It seems to be very ancient shared ancestry.

I can't believe how some people jump on this wrong horse while we have clearly the studies saying that using the Steppes as source for Anatolian_CHL samples we get a negative result the same with Armenian EBA. All it looks like this both regions are a merge of Iran_Neo, CHG and Anatolian_Neo.

Alan
16-10-16, 15:29
The reason why you didn't post any of the Iran_Neo samples was because you know exactly what this would mean for your theory and you are trying too hard to deceive the people. That is not the fine English way.

Here is an Iran_Neo samples used with K14 Neolithic.

Population





N_Amerindian
-


Afansievo_Yamnaya
24.30


Kalash
14.55


Siberian
-


S_Amerindian
-


Sub_Saharan
0.23


SE_Asian
-


E_African
-


SW_Asian
25.53


Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers
16.88


SHG_WHG
-


Early_European_Farmers
-


S_Indian
18.51


Papuan
-




This calculator doesn't have an Iran_Neo or CHG component simple as that. Therefore the Iran_Neo component get split up in other "likely categories".

And Yamnaya is just possible shared ancestry.

In fact from Iran_Neo to Armenian EBA and Anatolia_CHL the "Steppe" admixture shrinks rather than rises. This is why Armenian EBA samples are basically a mixture of Iran_CHL and Anatolian_Chl. And Anatolian_CHL itself is Anatolian_Neo with Iran_Neo admixture. No Steppes or anything akine there.

Angela
16-10-16, 15:49
It seems to confirm the hypothesis of David Anthony for the Anatolian branch as a consaquence of IE intrusion from the steppe into the Balkans 4200 - 4000 BC.
So the 3700 BC new settlers in Kumtepe would be Anatolian IE. Troy would also be founded by yhem. It makes sense.

If the new settlers in Kumtepe were Anatolian IE, then this proves the exact opposite of David Anthony's claim. There is no WHG or SHG in those people. That would show up in people who went from the Ukraine down through the Balkans into Anatolia.

What it may explain is part of the additional CHG like/Iranian Neolithic like affinity in southeastern Europe which would have flowed from later movements from Anatolia into those areas. The affinity to Kumtepe has already been shown in a number of analyses.

What this entire thread shows is a total misunderstanding of how to use or not use admixture calculators. There's a whole thread on that subject. I suggest it be read again.

You can't apply a "component" like Afanasievo or Yamnaya to samples a thousand or more years older. All that percentage in Kumtepe shows, as has been pointed out, is affinity to Caucasus/Iranian dna.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 15:53
Satsurblia CHG (Gedmatch kit M677694):

1) In Eurasia K14:



Population



N_Amerindian
-


Afansievo_Yamnaya
32.79


Kalash
14.25


Siberian
-


S_Amerindian
-


Sub_Saharan
-


SE_Asian
-


E_African
-


SW_Asian
24.67


Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers
11.47


SHG_WHG
-


Early_European_Farmers
6.74


S_Indian
10.07


Papuan
-



2) In Dodecad K12b:



Population



Gedrosia
39.88


Siberian
-


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
-


North_European
9.84


South_Asian
0.54


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
-


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
47.91


Sub_Saharan
1.83



Kotias CHG (Gedmatch kit M551062):

1) In Eurasia K14:



Population



N_Amerindian
-


Afansievo_Yamnaya
23.87


Kalash
19.06


Siberian
1.20


S_Amerindian
-


Sub_Saharan
2.41


SE_Asian
-


E_African
0.63


SW_Asian
22.69


Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers
-


SHG_WHG
-


Early_European_Farmers
18.85


S_Indian
11.28


Papuan
-



2) In Dodecad K12b:



Population



Gedrosia
34.94


Siberian
0.98


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
-


North_European
9.76


South_Asian
1.17


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
-


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
47.18


Sub_Saharan
5.95



Iran Neolithic (Gedmatch kit M967114):

1) In Eurasia K14:

Alan posted above.

2) In Dodecad K12b:



Population



Gedrosia
67.02


Siberian
-


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
-


North_European
-


South_Asian
6.25


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
5.28


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
19.91


Sub_Saharan
1.55



Iran Late Neolithic (Gedmatch kit M937770):

1) In Eurasia K14:

Alan posted above.

2) In Dodecad K12b:



Population



Gedrosia
61.56


Siberian
-


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
-


North_European
-


South_Asian
0.81


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
7.76


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
29.87


Sub_Saharan
-



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

As you can see CHG scores not only more Yamnaya than IranNeo, but it also scores North European.

IranNeo scores no North Europe at all in DodecadK12b, so it did not contribute to modern Europeans.

What it means is that "CHG-like" admixture in Yamnaya was not from IranNeo, but rather from CHG.

Exactly as Davidski wrote on his blog some time ago.

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

Let's also check Kumtepe 4 and Areni-1 in Dodecad K12b (to show that they score a lot of NorthEuro):

Kumtepe 4 (Gedmatch kit M300627):



Population



Gedrosia
24.53


Siberian
-


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
3.17


Atlantic_Med
15.00


North_European
28.36


South_Asian
-


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
1.52


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
27.42


Sub_Saharan
-



I1631 from Areni-1 (Gedmatch kit M926386):



Population



Gedrosia
15.34


Siberian
-


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
13.17


North_European
22.21


South_Asian
0.36


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
8.63


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
40.29


Sub_Saharan
-



Today such amounts of "North Euro" admixture are found only in populations living to the north of Caucasus.

Alan
16-10-16, 15:57
Tom don't try to save it by changing the subject. I told you this "Steppe in Armenia EBA etc would simply be Iran_Neo or CHG ancestry. It doesn't matter from where, but the overall ancestry of the samples points more to a two or even three way mix of Anatolian_CHL and Iran_CHL + maybe some CHG. the point here is Iran_CHL has significant CHG admixture in comparison to Iran_Neo.

You were caught by deceiving the people and now try to turn the game around as if we are trying to lie that is seriously a bad characteristic, exactly as Davidski has it.

Just one post earlier you weren't claiming it came from CHG but the Steppes.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 16:01
As Bicicleur wrote:

David W. Anthony wrote that Proto-Anatolian speakers came from the Steppe to the Balkans ca. 4200-4000 BC. Those who came to Kumtepe ca. 3700 BC were the same wave of IE migrants who had settled in the Balkans before. This explains why Kum4 had no any SW Asian admixture*, but only Steppe and Neolithic EEF - they mixed with farmers in the Balkans, then moved to Anatolia.

Kumtepe 4 scores 53,15% of Yamnaya-Afanasievo in Eurasia K14 and 28,36% North European in Dodecad K12b.

She was one of Proto-Anatolian speaking migrants who came from the Steppe, across the Balkans, to Kumtepe.

Yamnaya admixture in Areni-1 is harder to explain, but they didn't have as much of it as Kumtepe B.

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

*SW Asian = more or less Levantine.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 16:02
three way mix of Anatolian_CHL and Iran_CHL + maybe some CHG

Davidski explained that Yamnaya had no any Iran Neo or Iran CHL admixture.

They only had admixture similar to Mesolithic Kotias and Paleolithic Satsurblia.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 16:04
There is no WHG or SHG in those people.

No because they only had EHG, which is included in Yamnaya-Afanasievo / North European.

They didn't have any "extra WHG" beyond the level of WHG-like part of their EHG ancestry.

Angela
16-10-16, 16:05
Tomenable
... And most important. ..... who is the hottie you are using as avatar?!?!

She must be his new girlfriend. She's fine, I must say.

Alan
16-10-16, 16:05
Thats what Davidski says. What the studies claim is that Armenian_EBA is best fit as a three way mix of Iran_CHL, Anatolian_CHL and CHG. Which fits geographically seen also perfecty.

bicicleur
16-10-16, 16:08
If the new settlers in Kumtepe were Anatolian IE, then this proves the exact opposite of David Anthony's claim. There is no WHG or SHG in those people. That would show up in people who went from the Ukraine down through the Balkans into Anatolia.

What it may explain is part of the additional CHG like/Iranian Neolithic like affinity in southeastern Europe which would have flowed from later movements from Anatolia into those areas. The affinity to Kumtepe has already been shown in a number of analyses.

What this entire thread shows is a total misunderstanding of how to use or not use admixture calculators. There's a whole thread on that subject. I suggest it be read again.

You can't apply a "component" like Afanasievo or Yamnaya to samples a thousand or more years older. All that percentage in Kumtepe shows, as has been pointed out, is affinity to Caucasus/Iranian dna.

how much SHG/WHG was there in old Europe? do you know?
the Barcin had only 1.5 % in average
Barcin arrival was allready 3700 BC, these people didn't stay in the Balkans very long

more than 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, these Kumtepe arrivals and Yamna may have a common ancestor
CHG doesn't have 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, does it ?

Tomenable
16-10-16, 16:08
You can't apply a "component" like Afanasievo or Yamnaya to samples a thousand or more years older.

Kumtepe 4 is not at all older than Proto-Indo-Europeans, it is dated to 3150 BC.

People who were 100% "Afanasievo-Yamnaya" already existed on the Steppe in 4500-4000 BC.

Proto-Anatolians came to the Balkans from the Steppe already in 4200-4000 BC.

Angela
16-10-16, 16:38
No because they only had EHG, which is included in Yamnaya-Afanasievo / North European.

They didn't have any "extra WHG" beyond the level of WHG-like part of their EHG ancestry.

I guess you didn't read my post carefully. It's highly unlikely a group from the Ukraine, which furthermore moved through the Balkans to Anatolia, didn't pick up any additional WHG, and wouldn't show SHG, which is EHG admixed.

As always, your analyses are not objective.You also can't claim you have proved there was movement from the Balkans to Anatolia by using a calculator based on modern populations. "North European" is a modern composite which contains a lot of EHG/ANE, and WHG. So does Kumteppe.

Am I saying that it couldn't have happened that way? No, I'm not. I'm saying that you can't prove it this way.

As for the Armenian samples, I don't know. It's more ambiguous in my mind. Was there periodic gene flow back and forth across the Caucasus and these are hints about it, or are we just talking about EHG or Caucasus, for example, that had straddled the Caucasus for a long time?

@Tomenable,
Don't be cute; you know I was talking about finding Yamnaya in Satsurblia

Angela
16-10-16, 17:08
how much SHG/WHG was there in old Europe? do you know?
the Barcin had only 1.5 % in average
Barcin arrival was allready 3700 BC, these people didn't stay in the Balkans very long

more than 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, these Kumtepe arrivals and Yamna may have a common ancestor
CHG doesn't have 50 % Yamna/Afanasievo, does it ?


We know that the farmers in Europe picked up an additional 8-10% WHG almost immediately. This would have been long after that, when MN farmers show an additional 10 to 15% on top of that. I'm sure Tomenable could provide the figures if he were being honest.

No, we don't have samples from the Balkans for that period that have been analyzed in this way, so it's possible they didn't have anything additional. That's why I said that it's possible that the Anatolian languages moved to Anatolia in this way.

Another thing to consider is the archaeology, however. We've discussed this on this board before. There is no archaeological trail down through the Balkans to Anatolia to support Anthony's hypothesis. I combed his book to see if he outlines it and he doesn't. At the time I raised it no one could point to anything. If someone can provide it that would change matters.

Ed. What date are the Sopot samples? We've got "E" and "J2" there, and it's later. They're pretty far north and west, but have they been analyzed? Don't we also have one Tripolye sample? Why hasn't someone gotten those genomes?

bicicleur
16-10-16, 19:38
We know that the farmers in Europe picked up an additional 8-10% WHG almost immediately. This would have been long after that, when MN farmers show an additional 10 to 15% on top of that. I'm sure Tomenable could provide the figures if he were being honest.

No, we don't have samples from the Balkans for that period that have been analyzed in this way, so it's possible they didn't have anything additional. That's why I said that it's possible that the Anatolian languages moved to Anatolia in this way.

Another thing to consider is the archaeology, however. We've discussed this on this board before. There is no archaeological trail down through the Balkans to Anatolia to support Anthony's hypothesis. I combed his book to see if he outlines it and he doesn't. At the time I raised it no one could point to anything. If someone can provide it that would change matters.

Ed. What date are the Sopot samples? We've got "E" and "J2" there, and it's later. They're pretty far north and west, but have they been analyzed? Don't we also have one Tripolye sample? Why hasn't someone gotten those genomes?

what is 8 - 10 % additional ?

there probably was WHG in Anatolia too, where the Villabrunans may have originated

they couldn't have picked it up in the Balkans, as there is only one single mesolithic finding in the whole Balkans, and that is in the Varna area
during mesolithic, the Balkans (south of the Danube) were pretty deserted, except some coastal areas

there were HG in the Carpathian Basin though, and also some in Greece
but looking at Greek mtDNA , it was probably allready infiltrated by Anatolian HG, it was not WHG

Greek mesolithic





Greece
Theopetra, Thessaly [Theo5]


7605–7529 BC




K1c
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




Greece
Theopetra, Thessaly [Theo1]


7288–6771 BC




K1c
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




Greece
Revenia [Rev5]
F
6438–6264 BC




X2b
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




neolithic





Greece
Paliambela [Pal7]
F
4452– 4350 BC




J1c1
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




Greece
Kleitos [Klei10]
M
4230-3995 BC
G2a2a1b


K1a2
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)



do we have a Tripolye sample? please let me know

what archeological link is there with the Kumtepe newcomers?
we discussed it in another thread
I then suspected an expansion from old Europe, similar to Remedello
was there some consensus in that thread ?
as far as I recall it was rather clueless, which certainly will make some conclude that they came from the Iranian plateau ;-)

Olympus Mons
16-10-16, 19:41
I keep on doing these reality checks:
a. 4900 BC – the Apogee of a huge dispersal of a large population (Shulaveri). This population had come (as per cattle/goats DNA) from Anatolia, INTO the land of Kotias and Satsurblia (CHG) 1.200 years earlier. Let’s not forget that CHG has EHG and WHg components.
b. 4800 BC – Start to showup settlements in the Kuban river that looked like this population fleeing moving near the Eastern shores of black sea. Kuban river moves into steppe, passing through Maykop. Some moved also into steppe probably by Caspian western shores into Kalmikya.
c. 4800 BC Kumtepe A (so Kumetepe6) settlement appears. This people push to much to CHG for Anatolians. Too freaking much. So, to me were Shulaveri. Unfortunaly is low resolution but we might be looking to the first Shulaveri shomu genome.
d. This means that whoever came to dislodge them came from the East following the Zagros mountain either form Northwestern Iran or north Iraq.


So, when you talk about populations a 1000 years later… dudes, this Shulaveri component can show up in Yamnaya or wherever you choose… Remember! --- Why does Johannes Krause a director from Max Planck just made a presentation that shows 4900 bc as the date CHG enters the steppe? And also show its movement to Anatolia?

Alan
16-10-16, 19:44
what is 8 - 10 % additional ?

there probably was WHG in Anatolia too, where the Villabrunans may have originated

they couldn't have picked it up in the Balkans, as there is only one single mesolithic finding in the whole Balkans, and that is in the Varna area
during mesolithic, the Balkans were pretty deserted

there were HG in the Carpathian Basin though, and also some in Greece
but looking at Greek mtDNA , it was probably allready infiltrated by Anatolian HG, it was not WHG

Greek mesolithic





Greece
Theopetra, Thessaly [Theo5]


7605–7529 BC




K1c
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




Greece
Theopetra, Thessaly [Theo1]


7288–6771 BC




K1c
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




Greece
Revenia [Rev5]
F
6438–6264 BC




X2b
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




neolithic





Greece
Paliambela [Pal7]
F
4452– 4350 BC




J1c1
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)




Greece
Kleitos [Klei10]
M
4230-3995 BC
G2a2a1b


K1a2
Hofmanová 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Hofmanova2015)



do we have a Tripolye sample? please let me know

The "WHG " in Anatolia is not real "WHG" but ancestral component to WHG that merged with Basal EUrasians. Anatolian_Neo itself is ~50% WHG like.

What Angela means is real WHG admixture that happened in Europe. That is 5-10%

Angela
16-10-16, 19:50
She must be his new girlfriend. She's fine, I must say.

Goodness gracious. Sile gave a thumbs down for my admiring comment on Tomenable's new avatar. Maybe he thinks African women can't be attractive. How Nordicist of him.

Or perhaps he objects to me thinking that she's his girlfriend. Well, I have to think that; otherwise I'd be forced to think he's making some sort of racist allusion. We wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions.

Angela
16-10-16, 20:12
The "WHG " in Anatolia is not real "WHG" but ancestral component to WHG that merged with Basal EUrasians. Anatolian_Neo itself is ~50% WHG like.

What Angela means is real WHG admixture that happened in Europe. That is 5-10%

As Alan said, this is all established.

Near Eastern farmers who went to Europe picked up local WHG admixture in Europe shortly after they arrived. As Alan said, 5-10%. We've known this for, what, two years?

By the Middle Neolithic they had picked up an additional 10-15%.

Now, if the MN farmers in the Balkans were like the farmer samples we have from nearby in Central Europe, then how could people coming from the Ukraine establish a culture in the Balkans and then go all through the Balkans to Anatolia and not show WHG/SHG in a calculator based on ancient genomes which has a component for it?

Of course, if someone shows me a clear archaeological trail from the Balkans to Anatolia, and proof that the Balkan farmers had no WHG, then my doubts that Kumteppe was the result of a steppe migration via the Balkans will be resolved.

It just occurred to me... Weren't the Italian populations one of the closest to Kumeppe? That would make them/us much more "Indo-European" than has previously been proposed. What a kick in the teeth that would be...

@Bicicleur,

It's one Tripolye mtdna. The authors suggest perhaps there was movement from the Near East. Certain internet bloggers have no problem getting the autosomal dna of some ancient rather incomplete samples, but never, it seems, the ones that might upset their theories. Ah well, maybe I'm just too used to looking for conspiracies.

It's discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?highlight=Tripolye+mtdna



As I said we also have those Sopot/Lengyel samples with "E" and "J2". What are they like autosomally. Might they also have increased "CHG" coming from Anatolia?

Olympus Mons
16-10-16, 21:11
Goodness gracious. Sile gave a thumbs down for my admiring comment on Tomenable's new avatar. Maybe he thinks African women can't be attractive. How Nordicist of him.

Or perhaps he objects to me thinking that she's his girlfriend. Well, I have to think that; otherwise I'd be forced to think he's making some sort of racist allusion. We wouldn't want to jump to any conclusions.

Nope. That level of beauty does not elicit racism even from a KKK member.

bicicleur
16-10-16, 21:26
As Alan said, this is all established.

Near Eastern farmers who went to Europe picked up local WHG admixture in Europe shortly after they arrived. As Alan said, 5-10%. We've known this for, what, two years?

By the Middle Neolithic they had picked up an additional 10-15%.

Now, if the MN farmers in the Balkans were like the farmer samples we have from nearby in Central Europe, then how could people coming from the Ukraine establish a culture in the Balkans and then go all through the Balkans to Anatolia and not show WHG/SHG in a calculator based on ancient genomes which has a component for it?

Of course, if someone shows me a clear archaeological trail from the Balkans to Anatolia, and proof that the Balkan farmers had no WHG, then my doubts that Kumteppe was the result of a steppe migration via the Balkans will be resolved.

It just occurred to me... Weren't the Italian populations one of the closest to Kumeppe? That would make them/us much more "Indo-European" than has previously been proposed. What a kick in the teeth that would be...

@Bicicleur,

It's one Tripolye mtdna. The authors suggest perhaps there was movement from the Near East. Certain internet bloggers have no problem getting the autosomal dna of some ancient rather incomplete samples, but never, it seems, the ones that might upset their theories. Ah well, maybe I'm just too used to looking for conspiracies.

It's discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?highlight=Tripolye+mtdna



As I said we also have those Sopot/Lengyel samples with "E" and "J2". What are they like autosomally. Might they also have increased "CHG" coming from Anatolia?

where did they catch that exta WHG ? in the Balkans or in the Carpathian Basin ?
did the cardial ware neolithic also pick this up ?

afaik we have Starcevo and LBK DNA but no EN Balkan DNA, neither EN Greek DNA

and your big if seems to confirm that

I repeat :

they couldn't have picked it up in the Balkans, as there is only one single mesolithic finding in the whole Balkans, and that is in the Varna area
during mesolithic, the Balkans were pretty deserted

there were HG in the Carpathian Basin though, and also some in Greece
but looking at Greek mtDNA , it was probably allready infiltrated by Anatolian HG, it was not WHG

Starcevo culture were isolated settlements ; unlike LBK and early Greek, Starcevo farmers didn't just live from farming, but also from hunting and fishing, I suppose they were more open for contact with local HG

the origin of Central Europe MN is also Carpathian Basin : Sopot and Lengyel, allthough TRB may have had inputs from elsewhere too

anyway I have to update my records
the Tripolye mt-DNA are not included yet

I don't claim this is proof, but it makes sense to me

And I don't know if you noticed :

Kum4 = Kumtepe B period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumtepe = bronze age

Kum6 is from another period = copper age





Turkey
Kumtepe [Kum6]


6,700 BP




H2a
Omrak 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Omrak2016)

Maciamo
16-10-16, 21:49
You forgot (ignoring on purpose??) only a very small detail, the MAYKOP CULTURE! Maykop Culture predate Yamnaya and it has been proven that Yamnaya was influenced by the Maykop Culture.

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

Maykop only predates Yamna by 200 years. Steppe migrations started from 4200 BCE, 500 years before Maykop.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 22:06
See pages 8-9 and map from Fig. 2:

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(104)jlr2013-9(1-21).pdf

https://s14.postimg.org/ir6sfat0h/Suworo_Migracja.png

They surely did not expand into Central Anatolia immediately after that.

But Kumtepe is located near the Dardanelles, very close to the Balkans:

http://shissem.com/kumtepe.jpg

bicicleur
16-10-16, 22:09
Tomenable,

I have these 2 :





Turkey
Kumtepe [Kum6]


6,700 BP




H2a
Omrak 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Omrak2016)


Chalcolithic
Turkey
Barcın Höyük [I1584 / M10-111]
F
3943-3708 calBCE (5016±31 BP)




K1a17
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)




where does Kum4 come from?

Tomenable
16-10-16, 22:28
Tomenable,

I have these 2 :





Turkey
Kumtepe [Kum6]


6,700 BP




H2a
Omrak 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Omrak2016)


Chalcolithic
Turkey
Barcın Höyük [I1584 / M10-111]
F
3943-3708 calBCE (5016±31 BP)




K1a17
Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016)




where does Kum4 come from?

Kum4 sample was published in two publications so far:

1) Omrak et al. 2016 - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901516-X

2) Hofmanová et al. 2016 - http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full

Graph from Hofmanová - yellow is Yamnaya admixture, look at Kumtepe4 and 6:

https://s21.postimg.org/e1qtmhsp3/Kumtepe_Step.png

LeBrok
16-10-16, 22:38
Davidski explained that Yamnaya had no any Iran Neo or Iran CHL admixture.

They only had admixture similar to Mesolithic Kotias and Paleolithic Satsurblia.That's crazy and can't be true.

Tomenable
16-10-16, 22:39
That's crazy and can't be true.

It can be true but the problem is: we don't have these samples yet.

I mean, we have Mesolithic Kotias but we don't have Neolithic descendants of Kotias.

We need samples from Neolithic descendants of Kotias to verify this.

Obviously IranNeo were related to, but not descended from, Satsurblia and Kotias.

Where did people descended from Satsurblia-Kotias live during the Neolithic period?

Goga
17-10-16, 00:06
GOGA, are you talking about "my" Shulaveri shomu?Don't know much about Shulaveri, but I meant Bronze Age Armenians.

Goga
17-10-16, 00:15
Maykop only predates Yamna by 200 years. Steppe migrations started from 4200 BCE, 500 years before Maykop.Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture, between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC).

The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.



PS. 'Kumtepe' is not Anatolia at all, but it is actually part of the ancient Greece/ Balkans, 'Marmara'. Has nothing to do with the 'Eastern' Anatolia. That 'Kumtepe' person is a Pontic Greek/Balkanic. Has nothing to do with the Maykop that Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Culture and the 'Eastern' Anatolian (Armenian) R1b-something.

Angela
17-10-16, 00:24
Kum4 sample was published in two publications so far:

1) Omrak et al. 2016 - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901516-X

2) Hofmanová et al. 2016 - http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full

Graph from Hofmanová - yellow is Yamnaya admixture, look at Kumtepe4 and 6:

https://s21.postimg.org/e1qtmhsp3/Kumtepe_Step.png

Did you really try to understand that graphic before you posted it? Kostenki 14 is all yellow. He was all Yamnaya thousands of years before that admixture existed? Can you be any more absurd? The best definition for that "yellow" is combined EHG/CHG. "Yamnaya" is that plus a bit of "farmer" blue and "Whg" orange.

Oh, and as for your map, anyone can draw an arrow. It takes more than that to draw a connection between culture X and culture Y.

What that graphic shows is the progressive movement of Caucasus populations into the more southern and western Near East.

I was saying for about four years that the "CHG" component was in Otzi and other European farmers before the steppe people arrived, and I was right...again.

As for Iran Neolithic, Lazaridis never said they were the best fit for the "southern" admixture into the steppe. He said it was a population "related to" or "like" Iran Chalcolithic. Stop creating strawman arguments.

Goga
17-10-16, 00:29
Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture.

The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.



PS. 'Kumtepe' is not Anatolia at all, but it is actually part of the ancient Greece/ Balkans, 'Marmara'. Has nothing to do with the 'Eastern' Anatolia.'Kumtepe' is NOT Anatolia. So there was no migration from the Steppe into Anatolia between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC). By Anatolia I mean homeland of the Armenians. 'Kuntepe' was historic homeland of the Greeks, before the Turks arrived..


But there was a migration from Anatolia into the Steppes between 4000-3000 BC. Maykop is at least from 3700BC. And that is at least 5700 years ago. And it is precisely between 6000-5500 ybp. The age when second stage late PIE of the Yamnaya Horizon was born.

Goga
17-10-16, 00:40
here is 'Anatolia':

https://s11.postimg.org/gt2u20hmr/turkey.jpg
8112

Armenians are from Eastern Anatolia. And the Armenian PIE Model of Ivanov is actually modelled between Eastern Anatolia and Iran. And NOT Marmara where 'Kumtepe' is from.


That 'Kumtepe' person is actually a 'GREEK' and not an 'Armenian' at all. Has NOTHING to do with the Eastern Anatolian R1b-something

Olympus Mons
17-10-16, 01:10
Guys, Guys (and girl)...
Kumtepe6 woman (4800bc) is Shulaveri-Shomu (kicked out from Kotias land 4900bc) with H2 mtdna and always found a bit awkward by decoders because it shifted too much to CHG for a late neolithic in western anatolia. Also that woman shared ancestry with a 1000bc F38 a R1b1a2a2-CTS1078/Z2103 just north of lake Urmia…so Caucasus as well anyways. Actually just near the other R1b (although X L23) from 4000bc.

Just need to sample a bit more. Those kuban river settlements opening the gates to steppe land, arising at the same time (4800bc) as Kumtepe are also the same Anatolia_N loaded up with CHG from kotias land. Probably why Joahanne Krause now makes a map with that migration by 4900 bc. By around 4500bc they were as far away as Samara. Remember… cereals from south Caucasus totally fail I north Caucasus. So, keep on running.

I just figure it out when I read about Kumtepe I(a) (so Kum6) so the founders of Kumtepe and saw the assemblage… oh yes. My shulaveri.
http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/147895.pdf


Large amount of people kicked out… they had to show up somewhere…
Yamnaya and steppe… my a*s.

Goga
17-10-16, 01:17
Satsurblia CHG (Gedmatch kit M677694):

1) In Eurasia K14:



Population



N_Amerindian
-


Afansievo_Yamnaya
32.79


Kalash
14.25


Siberian
-


S_Amerindian
-


Sub_Saharan
-


SE_Asian
-


E_African
-


SW_Asian
24.67


Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers
11.47


SHG_WHG
-


Early_European_Farmers
6.74


S_Indian
10.07


Papuan
-



2) In Dodecad K12b:



Population



Gedrosia
39.88


Siberian
-


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
-


North_European
9.84


South_Asian
0.54


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
-


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
47.91


Sub_Saharan
1.83



Kotias CHG (Gedmatch kit M551062):

1) In Eurasia K14:



Population



N_Amerindian
-


Afansievo_Yamnaya
23.87


Kalash
19.06


Siberian
1.20


S_Amerindian
-


Sub_Saharan
2.41


SE_Asian
-


E_African
0.63


SW_Asian
22.69


Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers
-


SHG_WHG
-


Early_European_Farmers
18.85


S_Indian
11.28


Papuan
-



2) In Dodecad K12b:



Population



Gedrosia
34.94


Siberian
0.98


Northwest_African
-


Southeast_Asian
-


Atlantic_Med
-


North_European
9.76


South_Asian
1.17


East_African
-


Southwest_Asian
-


East_Asian
-


Caucasus
47.18


Sub_Saharan
5.95




Iran Neolithic (Gedmatch kit M967114):

...
Iran Late Neolithic (Gedmatch kit M937770):

...


As you can see CHG scores not only more Yamnaya than IranNeo, but it also scores North European.

IranNeo scores no North Europe at all in DodecadK12b, so it did not contribute to modern Europeans.

What it means is that "CHG-like" admixture in Yamnaya was not from IranNeo, but rather from CHG.

Exactly as Davidski wrote on his blog some time ago.

Today such amounts of "North Euro" admixture are found only in populations living to the north of Caucasus.

MAYKOP was a NORTH Caucasian Culture! Northern part of it is 'Russian Federation' now. Afansievo_Yamnaya auDNA is a MIXED auDNA and it is YOUNGER than Maykop auDNA. Huge part of Afansievo_Yamnaya auDNA is from Maykop Culture.

https://s22.postimg.org/qttsp3crl/abc.jpg8113



Satsurblia & Kotias (and even 'Kumtepe') CAN'T have Afansievo_Yamnaya admixture because they are older and pre-date Yamnaya admixture by thousands of years.


As you can see from Dodecad K12b Satsurblia & Kotias are mostly Caucaso-Gedrosia folks. That MINOR North_European admixture in them is from a gene flow from the north (Russia). Those Caucasian CHGs were DIRECT neighbors of the Steppes folks, of course they would have some minor gene flow from those people, since in the past there were no borders. 'Borders' are a modern human artificial invention.

Goga
17-10-16, 01:39
Guys, Guys (and girl)...
Kumtepe6 woman (4800bc) is Shulaveri-Shomu (kicked out from Kotias land 4900bc) with H2 mtdna and always found a bit awkward by decoders because it shifted too much to CHG for a late neolithic in western anatolia. Also that woman shared ancestry with a 1000bc F38 a R1b1a2a2-CTS1078/Z2103 just north of lake Urmia…so Caucasus as well anyways. Actually just near the other R1b (although X L23) from 4000bc.

Just need to sample a bit more. Those kuban river settlements opening the gates to steppe land, arising at the same time (4800bc) as Kumtepe are also the same Anatolia_N loaded up with CHG from kotias land. Probably why Joahanne Krause now makes a map with that migration by 4900 bc. By around 4500bc they were as far away as Samara. Remember… cereals from south Caucasus totally fail I north Caucasus. So, keep on running.

I just figure it out when I read about Kumtepe I(a) (so Kum6) so the founders of Kumtepe and saw the assemblage… oh yes. My shulaveri.
http://www.ascsa.edu.gr/pdf/uploads/hesperia/147895.pdf


Large amount of people kicked out… they had to show up somewhere…
Yamnaya and steppe… my a*s.Thanks for sharing info about this Shulaveri-Shomu culture. Somehow I was not really interested in this culture. But I'm going to try to 'update' my knowledge abut it.


That's why I said that I 'never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans'..

LeBrok
17-10-16, 01:42
It can be true but the problem is: we don't have these samples yet.

We have Samara and Yamnaya and we have Iran Neolithic. It is obvious that Iran Neolithic deposited 25-30% of their DNA in Yamnaya. Also supported by archeological/cultural achievements in farming and herding of Yamnaya which came from middle East. Extra Baloch and Caucasian admixture didn't come from Siberia or Europe, and their increase mimics Iranian Neolithic proportions. It could only come from Iran with farmers.




Samara HG


Poltavka, mid Yamnaya


Iranian Neolithic



Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
6.13


Baloch
14.33

Baloch
30.06

Baloch
62.71


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
7.57

Caucasian
24.97


NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
59.14

NE-Euro
-


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
0.99

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.35


American
9.62

American
2.21

American
-


Beringian
0.15

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88


San
-

San
-

San
0.18


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.2

W-African
-

W-African
1.78

Alan
17-10-16, 02:02
Iran_CHL -> Caucasus herders + EHG = Yamnaya.

It is highly unlikely that mesolithic and paleolithic Kotias_Satsurbila Hunters and Gatherers contributed to Bronze Age Yamnaya without the influx of Iranian_Neolithic herders/farmers.

bicicleur
17-10-16, 09:23
Kum4 sample was published in two publications so far:

1) Omrak et al. 2016 - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901516-X

2) Hofmanová et al. 2016 - http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full

Graph from Hofmanová - yellow is Yamnaya admixture, look at Kumtepe4 and 6:

https://s21.postimg.org/e1qtmhsp3/Kumtepe_Step.png

thank you Tomenable

the all yellow are SATP and KK1

can you tell me who SATP and KK1 are? are they Kotias Klde and Satsurblia?

the blue and the orange, it's obvious

Kostenki shouldn't be around here

MarkoZ
17-10-16, 09:41
I think the parsimonious explanation is that time machines were invented in the Steppe, so Yamna admixed into Kostenki's ancestors via bridal kidnapping.


can you tell me who SATP and KK1 are?
They are the Caucasus Hunter Gatherers tested here:

http://www.nature.com/articles/ncomms9912

Olympus Mons
17-10-16, 10:44
Iran_CHL -> Caucasus herders + EHG = Yamnaya.

It is highly unlikely that mesolithic and paleolithic Kotias_Satsurbila Hunters and Gatherers contributed to Bronze Age Yamnaya.

Alan. No. but the overall kura valley where Satsurblia and Kotias lived were overrun by the incoming (probably Anatolian) Shulaveri-Shomu by 6200BC. They were diferent than everybody else around. Very complete package of Farming, cattle herding and hunters. By 4900 bc even their bigger settlements were all gone. And there is a conspicous layer of ashes in some of those places. So probably not friendly people coming. Then there were the sioni and later (800 years) it became what is known as the Kura-araxes.

After 1500 years. they must have had lots of CHG in them. Lots of H2 and h13 women loading that CHG into them. So, if you find in north caucasus CHG+Anatolian_N its probably them. A never care about the ones fleeing north (N caucasus and Steppe) but they obviously did. SO, if Iran_neolithic some here talk about is actually CHG, them I garantee you whoever kicked Shulaveri came from the east/south East. Because they flee to the shores of East black sea up to Kuban river (4800bc) and into the steppe (4500bc). Others flee also to black sea shores but south so ending up in Kumtepe (4800bc).

Now, what I am writing next is my personal view. So take it as such.
The reason why you have R1b-L23 and R1b-Z2103 and also R1b-L51 is because those original M269 flee to diferent places. to me M260 (later + L51) are the ones that went south.
I can track Shulaveri style (architecture and way of living package) in Tell tsaf (israel 4800bc) in Merimda (delta Egypt 4.800bc) and even later in Iberia (3500bc). Lets see.
I know that most people these days are more focus on the "ones" fleeing north I supose. To me the ones fleeing south are the interesting ones. they became L51 and made Europe.

berun
17-10-16, 13:12
@Tomeable, The yellow is the Caucasian/Zagros component.

But are you willing to check the Samarans and Khavalynskians?

LeBrok
17-10-16, 17:06
Kum4 sample was published in two publications so far:

1) Omrak et al. 2016 - http://www.cell.com/current-biology/abstract/S0960-9822%2815%2901516-X

2) Hofmanová et al. 2016 - http://www.pnas.org/content/113/25/6886.full

Graph from Hofmanová - yellow is Yamnaya admixture, look at Kumtepe4 and 6:

https://s21.postimg.org/e1qtmhsp3/Kumtepe_Step.png
Kostenki and CHG are very different. Kostenki doesn't have Caucasian, and CHG are loaded with it.



CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya


Kostenki



Population


Population



S-Indian
0.62

S-Indian
13.18


Baloch
36.63

Baloch
12.49


Caucasian
54.15

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
3.84

NE-Euro
29.02


SE-Asian
0.59

SE-Asian
4.28


Siberian
0.77

Siberian
1.75


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.15

Papuan
5.16


American
-

American
3.32


Beringian
-

Beringian
1.43


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
18.76


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
5.89


San
-

San
1.24


E-African
-

E-African
1.82


Pygmy
0.25

Pygmy
0.92


W-African
3.01

W-African
0.73






Looks like CHG is late arrival to the area. It didn't pick up Med from Anatolians or WHG yet, it didn't pick up SW Asian from Natufians. Got a bit Euro from EHG, and a lot of Baloch, possibly from Iranian HG or it came with it from East?

Angela
17-10-16, 17:18
where did they catch that exta WHG ? in the Balkans or in the Carpathian Basin ?
did the cardial ware neolithic also pick this up ?

afaik we have Starcevo and LBK DNA but no EN Balkan DNA, neither EN Greek DNA

and your big if seems to confirm that

I repeat :

they couldn't have picked it up in the Balkans, as there is only one single mesolithic finding in the whole Balkans, and that is in the Varna area
during mesolithic, the Balkans were pretty deserted

there were HG in the Carpathian Basin though, and also some in Greece
but looking at Greek mtDNA , it was probably allready infiltrated by Anatolian HG, it was not WHG

Starcevo culture were isolated settlements ; unlike LBK and early Greek, Starcevo farmers didn't just live from farming, but also from hunting and fishing, I suppose they were more open for contact with local HG

the origin of Central Europe MN is also Carpathian Basin : Sopot and Lengyel, allthough TRB may have had inputs from elsewhere too

anyway I have to update my records
the Tripolye mt-DNA are not included yet

I don't claim this is proof, but it makes sense to me

And I don't know if you noticed :

Kum4 = Kumtepe B period: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kumtepe = bronze age

Kum6 is from another period = copper age





Turkey
Kumtepe [Kum6]


6,700 BP




H2a
Omrak 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Omrak2016)





In the following thread you said this about Tripolye:

"I think Tripolye has a multi-ethnic origin :
- LBK people coming from the north
- Starcevo people coming from Carpathian Basin
- 2nd wave neolithic arrival from Central Anatolia

Late Tripolye was also affected by incoming steppe people"


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?highlight=Tripolye+mtdna

Have you changed your mind?

Of course, we're all just speculating here, until and if the sample is analyzed.

As for Kumtepe, it seems pretty clear to me from the Hofmanova graphic that the increased admixture in Kumtepe was "Caucasus like". In that regard it's interesting that as time passed and you get closer to the founding of Troy the percentage decreased.

In terms of the archaeology I haven't been able to find anything showing influence from the Balkans on Kumtepe; on the contrary, the influence seems to mostly go the other way, with Kumtepe influence reaching way up into the Balkans.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3062571?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

However, there were a lot of different cultures in Anatolia. It's possible that there was one which did show influence from the Balkans. I just haven't found it.

Oh, yes, the Iberia cultures, which were originally Cardial, also show some increase in HG by the MN.

bicicleur
17-10-16, 18:11
In the following thread you said this about Tripolye:

"I think Tripolye has a multi-ethnic origin :
- LBK people coming from the north
- Starcevo people coming from Carpathian Basin
- 2nd wave neolithic arrival from Central Anatolia

Late Tripolye was also affected by incoming steppe people"


http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?highlight=Tripolye+mtdna

Have you changed your mind?

Of course, we're all just speculating here, until and if the sample is analyzed.

As for Kumtepe, it seems pretty clear to me from the Hofmanova graphic that the increased admixture in Kumtepe was "Caucasus like". In that regard it's interesting that as time passed and you get closer to the founding of Troy the percentage decreased.

In terms of the archaeology I haven't been able to find anything showing influence from the Balkans on Kumtepe; on the contrary, the influence seems to mostly go the other way, with Kumtepe influence reaching way up into the Balkans.

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3062571?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents

However, there were a lot of different cultures in Anatolia. It's possible that there was one which did show influence from the Balkans. I just haven't found it.

Oh, yes, the Iberia cultures, which were originally Cardial, also show some increase in HG by the MN.

So far there is no new elements, I haven't changed my mind about Tripolye.
Would it be in contradiction to what I think about Kum4?

I had allready some Tripolye mtDNA, and some Globular Amphora.
The Globular Amphora doesn't seem to match Verteba, but Globular Amphora origin is supposed to be east of the Carpaths (north of Usatovo)
I guess some of the Tripolye underneath is also included in the link you gave me yesterday, but the codes are not the same.



Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [5]


3638–3370 BC




T2a1b1
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [7b]


3634–3358 BC




H
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [1]


3619–2936 BC




H
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [2]


3511–3099 BC




Pre-HV
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [7a]


3006–2578 BC




HV/V
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [4]


3006–2488 BC




J
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)














+ more
Verteba Cave

4900 – 2750 BC

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?highlight=Tripolye+mtdna















Globular Amphora
Poland
Kowal 14 [feature 238]


2850-2570 BC




K2a
Kozlowski 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Kozlowski2014)


Globular Amphora
Poland
Kowal


2850-2570 BC




K
Witas 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Witas2015)


Globular Amphora Chalcolithic
Poland
Kowal, Kuyavia region


2850-2570 BC




K2a*
Kozlowski 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Kozlowski2014)



The MN Iberia cultures you mean, I suppose they are the megalithic sites (La Mina et al) ?


The picture for MN/Chalcolithic is much more troubled than for EN.
There are indeed a lot of different cultures in Anatolia, but also in the Balkans.

And yes, it's all guesswork for now.
Waiting for new elements and a better resolution.

Angela
17-10-16, 20:45
So far there is no new elements, I haven't changed my mind about Tripolye.
Would it be in contradiction to what I think about Kum4?

I had allready some Tripolye mtDNA, and some Globular Amphora.
The Globular Amphora doesn't seem to match Verteba, but Globular Amphora origin is supposed to be east of the Carpaths (north of Usatovo)
I guess some of the Tripolye underneath is also included in the link you gave me yesterday, but the codes are not the same.



Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [5]


3638–3370 BC




T2a1b1
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [7b]


3634–3358 BC




H
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [1]


3619–2936 BC




H
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [2]


3511–3099 BC




Pre-HV
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [7a]


3006–2578 BC




HV/V
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)


Cucuteni-Trypillia
Ukraine
Verteba Cave [4]


3006–2488 BC




J
Nikitin 2010 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2010)














+ more
Verteba Cave

4900 – 2750 BC

http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32691-Upcoming-paper-on-Tripolyte-ancient-mtDna?highlight=Tripolye+mtdna















Globular Amphora
Poland
Kowal 14 [feature 238]


2850-2570 BC




K2a
Kozlowski 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Kozlowski2014)


Globular Amphora
Poland
Kowal


2850-2570 BC




K
Witas 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Witas2015)


Globular Amphora Chalcolithic
Poland
Kowal, Kuyavia region


2850-2570 BC




K2a*
Kozlowski 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Kozlowski2014)



The MN Iberia cultures you mean, I suppose they are the megalithic sites (La Mina et al) ?


The picture for MN/Chalcolithic is much more troubled than for EN.
There are indeed a lot of different cultures in Anatolia, but also in the Balkans.

And yes, it's all guesswork for now.
Waiting for new elements and a better resolution.

Well, it rather seemed like that to me unless you had some new information. Of course, as you say, there was more than one culture in the Balkans.

As to the Middle Neolithic in Spain, the paper is below. The samples were from Catalonia mostly, I believe.

Guenther et al
http://www.pnas.org/content/112/38/11917.abstract

This is their PCA, where you can see the movement:

8114

Tomenable
18-10-16, 01:01
"Kumtepe B" people established Troy and Luvian inscriptions were found in Troy.

Also Paris and Priam are Indo-European names, probably Luvian or related ones.

Tomenable
18-10-16, 01:03
time machines were invented in the Steppe, so Yamna admixed into Kostenki's ancestors

Kostenki14 belonged to a Proto-Caucasoid population which was ancestral to Crown Eurasian component in all West Eurasians.

Those Kostenki14-like populations also contributed part of ancestry to South Indian hunter-gatherers, but not to East Asians.

In other words, Yamnaya were 50% EHG + 50% CHG and Kostenki14-like population was ancestral to both EHG and CHG.

MarkoZ
18-10-16, 01:38
So much for your erroneous interpretation of Yamna ancestry in Hofmanova's ADMIXTURE analysis. It almost seems like you're just throwing these things out to see what sticks.


Kostenki14 belonged to a Proto-Caucasoid population

Kostenki's skeletal dimensions generally speak of a tropically adapted human. Not sure where you got the impression that K14 is Caucasoid.


which was ancestral to Crown Eurasian component in all West Eurasians.

If by 'Crown Eurasian' (did you make that up?) you mean the ancestor of West Eurasian Upper Paleolithic populations, that's not entirely accurate though not totally off the mark. K14 is pulled towards Basal Eurasian as demonstrated by Willerslev et al:

https://dnaexplained.files.wordpress.com/2014/11/k14-tree.png

source: http://science.sciencemag.org/content/early/2014/11/05/science.aaa0114

It's possible that K14 comes from a population that was ancestral to the late Upper Paleolithic West Eurasians and mixed with a Basal Eurasian population.


Those Kostenki14-like populations also contributed part of ancestry to South Indian hunter-gatherers, but not to East Asians.


I think the more sensible conclusion would be that K14 still has the signature of his ultimate South-East Asian deep ancestry.

Tomenable
18-10-16, 03:18
I wrote Proto-Caucasoid (= ancestral to Caucasoids), not Caucasoid.

Tropically adapted Caucasoids or part-Caucasoids have existed as well.


If by 'Crown Eurasian' (did you make that up?)

No I didn't. Crown Eurasians = all of Eurasians except for Basal Eurasians.

Basal Eurasians were that human group which moved to Arabia after the OoA, Crown Eurasians moved to the Near East.

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

Thanks for that graph, I forgot that K14 had some Basal admixture as well.

But then I was talking about a K14-like population ("K14 minus Basal" folks), not specifically about K14.


I think the more sensible conclusion would be that K14 still has the signature of his ultimate South-East Asian deep ancestry.

If that is where his "Basal" came from, then yes.

Had Basal Eurasians expanded from Arabia, along the coast through India, all the way to South-East Asia?

There is a hypothesis about "Southern Migration" and "Northern Migration" routes into Eurasia after the OoA.

Maybe descendants of Basal Eurasians migrated along the southern route, and of Crown Eurasians to the north.


So much for your erroneous interpretation of Yamna ancestry in Hofmanova's ADMIXTURE analysis.

It is not erroneous (because other types of evidence support it), and not Yamna but most likely Sredni Stog ancestry.

LeBrok
18-10-16, 05:23
Kostenki14 belonged to a Proto-Caucasoid population which was ancestral to Crown Eurasian component in all West Eurasians.

Those Kostenki14-like populations also contributed part of ancestry to South Indian hunter-gatherers, but not to East Asians.

In other words, Yamnaya were 50% EHG + 50% CHG and Kostenki14-like population was ancestral to both EHG and CHG. CHG has 55% of Caucasian admixture. Kostenki has 0%.

Angela
18-10-16, 05:24
Tomenable,

Stop deflecting and going off on tangents when you've been proven wrong. You totally misinterpreted the Hofmanova graphic. Everyone who can see and spends two minutes looking at that graphic knows it, so it doesn't prove what you claimed it proved.

Did you just not bother to really examine it, or did you intend to deceive people?

Tomenable
18-10-16, 07:19
Hofmanova 2016 was a poor publication which got most of things wrong (as explained by the OP in that Anthrogenica thread linked by MarkoZ) - and they got that Kumtepe result only accidentally right. I'm relying first of all on Dodecad K12b and Eurasia K14 which clearly show that Kumtepe4 and 6 had North-Eastern European i.e. Steppe admixture, but Kum4 did not have any Levantine aka. South-West Asian admixture. This is in agreement with data suggesting that Trojans who descended from Kumtepe B people were Luvian-speakers and had Indo-European given names (e.g. Paris, Priam). This is also in agreement with David W. Anthony who wrote that by 4200-4000 BC Proto-Anatolian speakers came from the Steppe to Bulgaria. It is not at all improbable that farmer-herders who established Kumtepe B culture between 3900 and 3200 BC were descended from the same early wave of Steppe emigrants, admixed by Balkan farmers.

In other words I'm not relying on just one graph but on interdisciplinary evidence which support each other and form altogether a coherent picture. I'm not sure why you doubt it - do you think that Anthony is wrong regarding Proto-Anatolian migration?

Arame
18-10-16, 09:40
Kumtepe4 is a BA sample. And it has EHG.
Here a better K5 from Hoffmanova.
It has some 20-30% of EHG (not Yamna). While Armenia Chl has 20% of EHG.
But off course the exact route of that EHG expansion is unknown!!!
http://i.imgur.com/haaSJb0.png

Arame
18-10-16, 09:47
Olympos

Good news for You. Aknashen (Shulaveri) site got finances and aDNA from there will not be late.

There are typos in that article. Millenium instead of century.
http://news.am/eng/news/351593.html

@all

Kura araxes (EBA) is very different from Armenia Chl. It is anti EHG. It is mostly ENF/CHG/IranChl.

MarkoZ
18-10-16, 10:53
I wrote Proto-Caucasoid (= ancestral to Caucasoids), not Caucasoid.

Well, that's not what the 'proto-' affix usually indicates. If K14 showed no independent morphometrical development towards the Caucasoid type, he wasn't a Proto-Caucasoid. These labels become meaningless if we don't examine every single specimen individually.


No I didn't. Crown Eurasians = all of Eurasians except for Basal Eurasians.

Google returns a blog and a few forum entries for 'Crown Eurasians'.


But then I was talking about a K14-like population ("K14 minus Basal" folks), not specifically about K14.

No you weren't. You said K14 belonged to a population that was ancestral to most Eurasians.




If that is where his "Basal" came from, then yes.

Had Basal Eurasians expanded from Arabia, along the coast through India, all the way to South-East Asia?

There is a hypothesis about "Southern Migration" and "Northern Migration" routes into Eurasia after the OoA.

Maybe descendants of Basal Eurasians migrated along the southern route, and of Crown Eurasians to the north.


No, it's precisely the opposite. Both C and F radiated out of South-East Asia after CF migrated out of Africa. Most Eurasians derive their ancestry from this migration. Tellingly, K14's C-M130 still exists in significant frequencies in Australia and India. He must have picked up his Basal Eurasian component further west or north.

Olympus Mons
18-10-16, 11:57
Olympos

Good news for You. Aknashen (Shulaveri) site got finances and aDNA from there will not be late.

There are typos in that article. Millenium instead of century.
http://news.am/eng/news/351593.html

@all

Kura araxes (EBA) is very different from Armenia Chl. It is anti EHG. It is mostly ENF/CHG/IranChl.


Hi Arame... the article does not say they have extracted samples. But I believe you.
Just look at that architechture. Fully Shulaveri.
You Probably already know that i truly believe it was them the original bearers of M269. And some will have L23, others not. Aknashen were the first to be abandoned. so around 5400 bc) and either moved north to joint the rest of shulaveri or way already. lets see.
After 4900 bc (Why does Johannes Krause from Max planck wrote 4900 bc, why indeed) They made Svobodnoe, Mesokho, Khavlinski (a large percentage), Yamanya (a fairly good percentage). West they show up as Kumtepe6. south, ok my god, South.... that is where the juice stuff is.



Kura araxes is naturally after the "explosion" that "KIcked" the shulaveri. That "explosion" came from the east, from Iran I now believe. so 1000 years (Kura araxes) after that invasion people are very admixed. Probably, Probably even to Maykop. No wonder Maykop had an "indian" Mtdna (M) and guys found in PRE-Kura araxes also had "indian" Ydna (L1a) . Kura araxes had loads od admix of diferent people.

Angela
18-10-16, 16:50
From Hofmanova:

"Finally, f 4-statistics of the form f4(Aegean, Kumtepe, CHG, 6=Khomani) showed that CHG populations shared unique drift with Kumtepe6 when compared to both Greek and Anatolian Aegeans (Table S25). Though little is known about hunter-gatherers in Anatolia, this suggests that towards the end of, or directly following, the Neolithic expansion there was gene flow from the Caucasus and neighboring regions to Anatolia. If there was continued gene flow across the Aegean at this time between Greece and Anatolia, this would also be compatible with the f 3 outgroup results which show the later Greek samples to be closer to CHG than the Rev5 and two early Neolithic Anatolian samples."

The title of the graphic you posted, a title you conveniently neglected to post:

"Figure S15: Supervised run of ADMIXTURE. The clusters to be supervised were chosen to best fit the presumed ancestral populations (for WHG Motala, for CHG KK1 and SATP and for farmers Bar8 and Bar31). 73."

Yellow represents CHG based on Paleolithic and Mesolithic samples, not Yamnaya.

You totally misrepresented the meaning of that graphic.

When it was pointed out, it suddenly became an unreliable paper. If it was so unreliable why did you use it?

As for its unreliability, imo, the results were sloppily and confusingly presented, but there was certainly some good analysis in there. Eurogenes went *** **** because the circles for the Ashkenazim were placed over Poland. God forbid anyone think they represented Polish genetics.

The Hofmanova paper is discussed here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32342-New-data-from-Greek-Anatolian-Neolithic?highlight=Hofmanova

As for David Anthony's work, I'm a great admirer of a lot of it, but the "Anatolian" languages portion is one of the weakest parts because he just dumps the supposed "Anatolian" speakers in the Balkans and doesn't trace them to Anatolia. So, perhaps they either originated in Anatolia or moved south through the Caucasus to Anatolia. I don't know, and neither do I care how it turns out. We need more ancient dna.

@Arame,

I can't make heads or tails of that graphic purporting to show EHG in Kumtepe. If you wish, present a clearer image and explain your point.

Alan
18-10-16, 16:52
I don't know if confusing or adjusting the real geographic terms to fit their own believes/models. Aegean and Marmara are Anatolia and not "Southeast and East Anatolia". Those regions are Mesopotamia and Transcaucasus.

This is the traditional definition of Anatolia, based on the original name givers the Greeks.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/aa/AnatolieLimits.jpg

Southeast "Anatolia" in reality doesn't exist and the only reason the term Anatolia was given to that region is because of the modern state Turkey.

The Ivanov model is the West Asian Highland hypothesis.

Angela
18-10-16, 18:20
Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

I think this is the abstract of the paper:

"The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."


That seems to indicate to me that they indeed have WHG. Or was it SHG? We'll know very soon. Also, was it all absorbed locally, or, as Bicicleur suggested, is it back migration from LBK type people and people from the Carpathians? What will be more interesting is if they captured when and how much EHG made its way into the Balkans, and into which specific cultures.

Tomenable
18-10-16, 18:53
Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

I think this is the abstract of the paper:

"The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."

That seems to indicate to me that they indeed have WHG. However, was it all absorbed locally, or, as Bicicleur suggested, is it back migration from LBK type people and people from the Carpathians? What will be more interesting is if they captured when and how much EHG made its way into the Balkans, and into which specific cultures.

Hmm, so maybe my old idea (I've already given up on it) that the original homeland of R1b-M269/L23 was in the Balkans, will turn out to be true. If they had admixture from both WHG and EHG, then it is possible that they also had some R1.


Kumtepe4 is a BA sample. And it has EHG.
Here a better K5 from Hoffmanova.
It has some 20-30% of EHG (not Yamna).

20-30% EHG combined with 20-30% CHG = 40-60% Yamna.

Which is in agreement with EurasiaK14 result (>50% Yamna).

Angela
18-10-16, 19:09
Hmm, so maybe my old idea (I've already given up on it) that the original homeland of R1b-M269/L23 was in the Balkans, will turn out to be true. If they had admixture from both WHG and EHG, then it is possible that they also had some R1.



20-30% EHG combined with 20-30% CHG = 40-60% Yamna.

Which is in agreement with EurasiaK14 result (>50% Yamna).

I repeat: show a legible graphic with 20-30% EHG in the Kumtepe samples. I'm tired of claims being made which on more investigation are either incorrect or deliberately misleading.

See post #83

Tomenable
18-10-16, 19:10
See what Arame wrote.

==========

Edit:

OK I'll read post #83.

bicicleur
18-10-16, 19:54
Angela,

EEF is the Stuttgart genome, right?
does it mean EEF has allready some WHG admixture, compared to the Central Anatolian farmers? And maybe also compared to the NW Anatolian farmers?

Angela
18-10-16, 20:01
Angela,

EEF is the Stuttgart genome, right?
does it mean EEF has allready some WHG admixture, compared to the Central Anatolian farmers? And maybe also compared to the NW Anatolian farmers?

Yes, to the best of my recollection, Stuttgart or LBK is where they found the additional single digit amount of WHG picked up locally, i.e. not the WHG like alleles they already possessed when they were in Anatolia.

I think I also recall that the Hungarian farmer genomes had less, but someone should check me on that.

Angela
18-10-16, 21:17
Sorry, guys, that Hofmanova graphic was starting to confuse me. What it shows (if we take the labeling as correct) is the presence of CHG yellow in the Neolithic from very early on, since yellow is the color for the Paleolithic and Mesolithic CHG. The orange Motala element which is WHG with some EHG is in some of the Hungarian Neolithic samples, but not in LBK. It's also not in the Anatolian samples, including Kumtepe.

That may or may not tie in with the Matthiesen paper which is upcoming, where he mentions eastern hunter-gatherers.

However, looking at those yellow percentages they seem close to what normally are called the percentages for WHG in the early farmers.

So, it's all very confusing. I hope Hofmanova and Hellenthal didn't get the colors confused. Maybe Matthiesen will clarify things.

LeBrok
19-10-16, 03:56
Iain Matthiesen of the Reich Lab will be presenting his paper on Balkan farmers tomorrow, so we should know more about their make-up very soon.

I think this is the abstract of the paper:

"The area of southeastern Europe known as the Balkans has always been
a crossroads between Europe and Asia: a conduit for people, culture and
language. Beginning around 6,500 BCE, the Balkans was the first place in
Europe to become transformed by farming, brought by a new wave of migrants
from Anatolia. From this staging point, farming and people spread to all corners
of Europe. However, the dynamics of the interaction between farmers and
indigenous European hunter-gatherers in the first place that they encountered
each other remains poorly understood because of the near complete absence
of genetic data from prehistoric specimens from this region. We generated
new genome-wide ancient DNA data from 65 farmers from the Balkans
and adjacent regions dating as far back as 6,400 BCE. We document how
the dynamics of admixture between the regions first farmers and its indigenous
hunter-gatherers was complex, with evidence of local admixture from
hunter-gatherers related to those from Scandinavia and Eastern Europe."

Awesome. Can't wait.

MOESAN
20-10-16, 23:53
Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture, between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC).

The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.



PS. 'Kumtepe' is not Anatolia at all, but it is actually part of the ancient Greece/ Balkans, 'Marmara'. Has nothing to do with the 'Eastern' Anatolia. That 'Kumtepe' person is a Pontic Greek/Balkanic. Has nothing to do with the Maykop that Indo-Europized the Yamnaya Culture and the 'Eastern' Anatolian (Armenian) R1b-something.

Some other scientists think, as Gimbutas, that the first moves from the Kurgans Steppes began around 4500/4300 BC by infiltrations into S-E and Danubian Europe, firstable along the Western Black Sea shores before reaching Danube, and later reaching Macedoine and Hungary; these incursions, seemingly proved by physical anthropology and archeology and economy, would not have left lasting linguistic input, nevertheless. around 3500/3300 BC there would have been a second wave, not from the center of Kurgans but from recently "kurganized" pops (mixed) of N-W the Black Sea. I cannot confirm or infirm it, but it's to temper the affirmations.
I'm personally sure that more than a move took place in Steppes and towards different directions with changes in the centers of gravity and crossings with peripheric pops, even during the creation phasis.
&: It's very possible that South Caucasus groups took the leadership at some stage of History but it does not resolve in itself the question of the language -
the pre-Kurgan period in the Steppes (Neolithic) saw diverse influences on them: from Tripolye ("Old Europe"), Transcaucasus (for Ukraina) and East Caspian on Volga/Samara - complicated!
here we are dealing with one supposed egg and more than a hone!
for auDNA, yes Yamanya people were roughly 50% EHG 50% CHG; was this CHG part completely "ancestral" there (HGs + some Neolithics) or dominantly recently "I-E-Maykop-transcaucasian-bronze", or ...?
A lot (not all) on fora interprets data for its chapel, putting labels upon vague auDNA groupings.

Goga
21-10-16, 00:27
Some other scientists think, as Gimbutas, that the first moves from the Kurgans Steppes began around 4500/4300 BC by infiltrations into S-E and Danubian Europe, firstable along the Western Black Sea shores before reaching Danube, and later reaching Macedoine and Hungary; these incursions, seemingly proved by physical anthropology and archeology and economy, would not have left lasting linguistic input, nevertheless. around 3500/3300 BC there would have been a second wave, not from the center of Kurgans but from recently "kurganized" pops (mixed) of N-W the Black Sea. I cannot confirm or infirm it, but it's to temper the affirmations.
I'm personally sure that more than a move took place in Steppes and towards different directions with changes in the centers of gravity and crossings with peripheric pops, even during the creation phasis.
&: It's very possible that South Caucasus groups took the leadership at some stage of History but it does not resolve in itself the question of the language -
the pre-Kurgan period in the Steppes (Neolithic) saw diverse influences on them: from Tripolye ("Old Europe"), Transcaucasus (for Ukraina) and East Caspian on Volga/Samara - complicated!
here we are dealing with one supposed egg and more than a hone!
for auDNA, yes Yamanya people were roughly 50% EHG 50% CHG; was this CHG part completely "ancestral" there (HGs + some Neolithics) or dominantly recently "I-E-Maykop-transcaucasian-bronze", or ...?
A lot (not all) on fora interprets data for its chapel, putting labels upon vague auDNA groupings.
Don't think so. Danube would be full of WHG/SHG mixed with the Neolithic Anatolians (farmers) and not CHG. But the point is that there is not so much of WHG in the Indo-European areas of the Western Asia/Iranian Plateau. Some of it is from the recent era mostly brought with the Greeks

So, I'm absolutely sure that CHG was not ancestral to Danube. Maybe there was some in Danube, but Danube was mostly SHG/WHG & Neolithic Anatolian farmers.


Neolithic Anatolian farmers were very different from CHG/Iranian Plateau Neolithic people.


Since DNA studies became popular it was one the first discoveries that there is no WHG/SHG around the Iranian Plateau. And that's why one of the first conclusions was that WHG/SHG were not part of the ancient PIE. There is a lot of hg. I2 in Danube, so there would be also a lot WHG/SHG auDNA in the ancient times. If there was an ancient migration (5000 years ago) from Danube into Zagros Mountains or other western parts of the Iranian Plateau, there would be also ancient WHG auDNA in that part of the world. But ancient DNA samples from Zagros/Iranian Plateau don't show any traces from Danube/WHG/SHG. So we can conclude that there was NO migration from Danube into Northern West Asia 5000 years ago.

MarkoZ
21-10-16, 01:29
In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.

Alan
21-10-16, 03:14
In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.

Stone stelea are found throughout the Middle East as far as Arabia!! some of the oldest are in Kurdistan near my home region. So as long as scientist don't show me any signs of Indo European Bronze Age in Saudi Arabia, I doubt Stelae alone can be used as sign for it. Looks more like a general Neolithic thing.


Anthropomorphic stelae of the Near East

Bronze Age anthropomorphic funerary stelae have been found in Saudi Arabia. There are similarities to the Kurgan type in the handling of the slab-like body with incised detail, though the treatment of the head is rather more realistic.[12] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae#cite_note-12)
The anthropomorphic stelae so far found in Anatolia appear to post-date those of the Kemi Oba culture (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kemi_Oba_culture) on the steppe and are presumed to derive from steppe types. A fragment of one was found in the earliest layer of deposition at Troy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troy), known as Troy I.[13] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae#cite_note-13)
Thirteen stone stelae, of a type similar to those of the Eurasian steppes, were found in 1998 in their original location at the centre of Hakkâri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hakk%C3%A2ri), a city in the south eastern corner of Turkey, and are now on display in the Van Museum. The stelae were carved on upright flagstone-like slabs measuring between 0.7 m to 3.10 m in height. The stones contain only one cut surface, upon which human figures have been chiseled. The theme of each stele reveals the fore view of an upper human body. Eleven of the stelae depict naked warriors with daggers, spears, and axes-masculine symbols of war. They always hold a drinking vessel made of skin in both hands. Two stelae contain female figures without arms. The earliest of these stelae are in the style of bas relief while the latest ones are in a linear style. They date from the 15th to the 11th century BC and may represent the rulers of the kingdom of Hubushkia (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubushkia), perhaps derived from a Eurasian steppe culture that had infiltrated into the Near East.[14] (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurgan_stelae#cite_note-14)



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


Imo the Hetittes came from the East or Northeast not the West.

Angela
21-10-16, 19:02
In Gimbutas thought Bulgarian Ezero culture is credited with bringing IE to Anatolia. Said culture actually is contemporaneous with the appearance of typically North-Pontic materials in the lowlands of the eastern Balkans. Later, elements of the Ezero culture appear in the first archaelogical layer of Troy. The problem with this however is that the supposed migrants from Balkans must have been farmers because they brought with themselves the communal 'Tell' mounds and a Neolithic material culture. Unless the steppe herders readily assimilated into the farmer cultures, it is difficult to believe that they spread an Indo-European language into the Troad. This becomes even more apparent if we take into account that it was the early farmer cultures that heavily influenced the Northern Pontic. Even the characteristic stone stelae first appear in the Romanian Neolithic, in one of the predecessor cultures of Varna, erroneously interpreted by Gimbutas as an early 'Kurgan' presence in the Balkans.

That's always been the question about this culture, yes? Did it spread from northwest Anatolia into the Balkans or the reverse. Another problem with the Gimbutas version, where they are steppe admixed people who bring the "Anatolian" languages into Anatolia and whose cultural influence can be found in Troy Level 1, is that the people of Kumtepe 6, which is a neighboring site whose population is thought to have fed into Troy. is that despite Tomenable's proposals there is no evidence of EHG in them.

Even Eurogenes, who claims to find steppe influence in virtually everyone, has supposedly just stated that they are probably a mix of Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG from the Caucasus.

Of course, there's a lot of population structure in Anatolia, and the Balkans, so that isn't to say that some other group won't be found who brought these languages to Anatolia by moving through the Balkans.

Olympus Mons
21-10-16, 21:58
...
Even Eurogenes, who claims to find steppe influence in virtually everyone, has supposedly just stated that they are probably a mix of Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG from the Caucasus.
.
I think he was talking about Kum6 that actually is quite diferent culture from Kum4. Actually there is almost 1000 years of absence of people there from one to the other.

Altought actually he does see Steppe in almost every relevant event... even those that occured millenia before and 1000 miles away.

MOESAN
21-10-16, 22:02
Don't think so. Danube would be full of WHG/SHG mixed with the Neolithic Anatolians (farmers) and not CHG. But the point is that there is not so much of WHG in the Indo-European areas of the Western Asia/Iranian Plateau. Some of it is from the recent era mostly brought with the Greeks

So, I'm absolutely sure that CHG was not ancestral to Danube. Maybe there was some in Danube, but Danube was mostly SHG/WHG & Neolithic Anatolian farmers.


Neolithic Anatolian farmers were very different from CHG/Iranian Plateau Neolithic people.


Since DNA studies became popular it was one the first discoveries that there is no WHG/SHG around the Iranian Plateau. And that's why one of the first conclusions was that WHG/SHG were not part of the ancient PIE. There is a lot of hg. I2 in Danube, so there would be also a lot WHG/SHG auDNA in the ancient times. If there was an ancient migration (5000 years ago) from Danube into Zagros Mountains or other western parts of the Iranian Plateau, there would be also ancient WHG auDNA in that part of the world. But ancient DNA samples from Zagros/Iranian Plateau don't show any traces from Danube/WHG/SHG. So we can conclude that there was NO migration from Danube into Northern West Asia 5000 years ago.

Sorry Goga but I don't see how you understood my unconclusive post; my aim was to say I-E first incursions in Europe (from East to West!) were supposed to have begun earlier than the middle period of Yamnaya; I never said CHG was settled in Danube region as a majority since 4500 BC: I spoke of "Steppes tribes" whatever their auDNA components and the %s of CHG among them; BTW the HGs (SHG or WHG or?) in Danube regions during MN were a weak component of the pop as a whole, in Tripolye surroundings it's uneasy to know (plains?mountains? the samples are scarce but the bulk of the pop was anatolian-danubian) - where did you see I said a huge pop of WHG/SHG from Danube had colonized Transcaucasus or Zagros at those times? When I spoke of moves on every direction, I spoke of Pontic Steppes; but the same occurrred South the BlackSea and South the Caucasus, but not at the same time.
Just trying to be clear

MOESAN
21-10-16, 22:15
Interesting. Never heard of pre-Yamnaya migration from the Steppes into the Balkans. If that was the case, then those folks were NOT Indo-European speakers at all, since Indo-European language was brought into Europe by Yamnaya Horizon folks. And those folks were linguistically, culturally & geneticcally influenced by the Maykop Culture, between 6000-5000 ybp (4000-3000 BC).

The scientists do agree with each other that before Yamnaya Culture, people in the Steppes spoke a different non-IE Steppes language. It was Yamnaya that was the FIRST proto-Indo-European language of the Steppes.



Concerning languages, scientists are scientists when they speak about attested structure, grammar, phonetics, evolution but they stay almost ordinal human beings when they speak about glottochronology or first apparition in a precise place of a language without any written source;
300/200 years is a little enough spanning; and we don't know if the cultural input of Maykop and other cultural and unresolved demic input from Transcaucasus are the source of the I-Ean language birth.

MOESAN
21-10-16, 23:31
The reason why you didn't post any of the Iran_Neo samples was because you know exactly what this would mean for your theory and you are trying too hard to deceive the people. That is not the fine English way.

Here is an Iran_Neo samples used with K14 Neolithic.

Population





N_Amerindian
-


Afansievo_Yamnaya
24.30


Kalash
14.55


Siberian
-


S_Amerindian
-


Sub_Saharan
0.23


SE_Asian
-


E_African
-


SW_Asian
25.53


Neolithic_Balkan_Farmers
16.88


SHG_WHG
-


Early_European_Farmers
-


S_Indian
18.51


Papuan
-




This calculator doesn't have an Iran_Neo or CHG component simple as that. Therefore the Iran_Neo component get split up in other "likely categories".

And Yamnaya is just possible shared ancestry.

In fact from Iran_Neo to Armenian EBA and Anatolia_CHL the "Steppe" admixture shrinks rather than rises. This is why Armenian EBA samples are basically a mixture of Iran_CHL and Anatolian_Chl. And Anatolian_CHL itself is Anatolian_Neo with Iran_Neo admixture. No Steppes or anything akine there.

I agree in some way.
All these auDNA autopsies mixing "basic" componants of different ages are beginning to bore me; they mix arbitrary theorical componants (not without value it's true) with real historical pops, not always of the same time and they do magy; even scientists don't produce the same results for the same pops because they use some pops as unbroken componants to evaluate (break) other pops; by instance in K14 'afanasyevo/yamana' is ancient pop, kalash is a modern pop, SW Eurasian an articifial modern componant (I suppose at least): what a mess; everybody will keep on arguing on until the coming centuries? LOL; shared ancestry from ancient pops doesn't tell us which precise ancestry is shared without help of IBD. It's true graphics without precise explanations are confusing...

Angela
21-10-16, 23:46
I think he was talking about Kum6 that actually is quite diferent culture from Kum4. Actually there is almost 1000 years of absence of people there from one to the other.



We've been discussing both Kum 4 and 6. The "yellow" on the Hofmanova graphic, which is present in both samples, and which it was claimed was EHG, is actually CHG. It seems that everyone is in agreement about the "ethnic" make up of both samples except some people posting here.

The interesting fact is that Kum 6, which some papers maintain blended into Troy seems to be, in fact, as stated above, Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG. Of course, there are many levels at Troy, so perhaps there was opportunity for migrations from other places.

MOESAN
21-10-16, 23:51
Sorry SW-Asian here could be neolithic, I don't know the composition of K14 'neol';
and without speaking of IBD, we can see in K14 the absence of something like CHG for West-Asian (gedrosia, caucasus) except maybe Kalash and of EHG, so Afanasyevo-Yamanya seems covering both CHG (west-asian for a big part) and EHG, and we don' know more about the precise 'afan-yamna' present in Kum6 or others; other breakings could be as bad all the way; BTW Iran-neo would not be a better standard.
we are in front of the limits of admixture calculators, maybe.
it's easy to see relations but not to see who are the donors and receivers and how it occurred, in my personal case at least;

Angela
21-10-16, 23:57
For clarity, the results from the Haak et al paper are based only on ancient genomes. Plus, it is not a standard Admixture analysis.

bicicleur
22-10-16, 11:16
We've been discussing both Kum 4 and 6. The "yellow" on the Hofmanova graphic, which is present in both samples, and which it was claimed was EHG, is actually CHG. It seems that everyone is in agreement about the "ethnic" make up of both samples except some people posting here.

The interesting fact is that Kum 6, which some papers maintain blended into Troy seems to be, in fact, as stated above, Anatolia Neolithic, Levant Neolithic, and CHG. Of course, there are many levels at Troy, so perhaps there was opportunity for migrations from other places.

Yellow is indeed CHG.
We don't know how the yellow got into Kum4/6. It is very unlikely to have gotten there via some unadmixed CHG.

One came make different conclusions e.g. for K=3 and for K=5.
There are no clear conclusions at all, except that Kum4 is different from Kum6.
Kum6 was probably part of the Kumtepe founding population ca 4800 BC.
Kum4 is part of or admixed with the people that arrived in Kumtepe ca 3700 BC.
Furthermore coverage on Kum4 is'nt great, and Y- nor mtDNA are known.

Level I (the oldest) of Troy is unknown.
If I recall well David Anthony claims a shrine in level II to be IE.

Angela
22-10-16, 14:55
Yellow is indeed CHG.
We don't know how the yellow got into Kum4/6. It is very unlikely to have gotten there via some unadmixed CHG.

One came make different conclusions e.g. for K=3 and for K=5.
There are no clear conclusions at all, except that Kum4 is different from Kum6.
Kum6 was probably part of the Kumtepe founding population ca 4800 BC.
Kum4 is part of or admixed with the people that arrived in Kumtepe ca 3700 BC.
Furthermore coverage on Kum4 is'nt great, and Y- nor mtDNA are known.

Level I (the oldest) of Troy is unknown.
If I recall well David Anthony claims a shrine in level II to be IE.

I thought Eurogenes just claimed that it was the Kum 6 which was low coverage? I don't remember, frankly, which one it was. If you have a citation, that would be great.

What we have is what we have, unfortunately (I would think they tried to analyze all the Kumtepe samples available), and what we have doesn't indicate any EHG in either of these samples. As the technology gets better perhaps they can revisit the samples and clear it up for us.

I agree that it's unlikely that pure CHG moved into Anatolia. Those CHG samples are Paleolithic and Mesolithic. I find it unlikely that such a population remained isolated and untouched for all those thousands of years in the south Caucasus while surrounded by farmers. That's part of the reason I'm skeptical about Eurogenes' claims that Yamnaya is EHG plus pure CHG and a little Balkan Neolithic. However, it's perfectly natural, it would seem to me, that a mixed CHG/Anatolian Neolithic group moved into northwestern Anatolia at some point. There certainly is clear archaeological proof of movement south and west from the Caucasus around this time

Olympus Mons
22-10-16, 17:03
...
I agree that it's unlikely that pure CHG moved into Anatolia. Those CHG samples are Paleolithic and Mesolithic. I find it unlikely that such a population remained isolated and untouched for all those thousands of years in the south Caucasus while surrounded by farmers. That's part of the reason I'm skeptical about Eurogenes' claims that Yamnaya is EHG plus pure CHG and a little Balkan Neolithic. However, it's perfectly natural, it would seem to me, that a mixed CHG/Anatolian Neolithic group moved into northwestern Anatolia at some point. There certainly is clear archaeological proof of movement south and west from the Caucasus around this time

Angela. Yes. Its called Shulaveri Shomu. They lived for almost 1500 years at the heart of Kotias and Satsurblia land. And by 4900bc were gone. Really gone as in settlements totally abandonment.

Probably Kum6 is a related shulaveri women. As its about them that Krause and Haak are postulating as the movement from south Caucasus taking CHG into steppe. So Khavlinsky is them mixing with local population almost completely EHG.

bicicleur
22-10-16, 18:13
I thought Eurogenes just claimed that it was the Kum 6 which was low coverage? I don't remember, frankly, which one it was. If you have a citation, that would be great.

What we have is what we have, unfortunately (I would think they tried to analyze all the Kumtepe samples available), and what we have doesn't indicate any EHG in either of these samples. As the technology gets better perhaps they can revisit the samples and clear it up for us.

I agree that it's unlikely that pure CHG moved into Anatolia. Those CHG samples are Paleolithic and Mesolithic. I find it unlikely that such a population remained isolated and untouched for all those thousands of years in the south Caucasus while surrounded by farmers. That's part of the reason I'm skeptical about Eurogenes' claims that Yamnaya is EHG plus pure CHG and a little Balkan Neolithic. However, it's perfectly natural, it would seem to me, that a mixed CHG/Anatolian Neolithic group moved into northwestern Anatolia at some point. There certainly is clear archaeological proof of movement south and west from the Caucasus around this time

what we have in Kumtepe is an admixture of admixed people
and that leaves room for a lot of hocus pocus

Angela
22-10-16, 18:55
what we have in Kumtepe is an admixture of admixed people
and that leaves room for a lot of hocus pocus

Who, pray tell, is engaging in hocus pocus?

I'm certainly not the one making false claims here, or engaging in wild speculation either.

I'm not addressing whether Anthony is correct that the Anatolian languages entered Anatolia from the Balkans. He may be correct about that.

I'm addressing the specific issue, raised by Tomenable, of whether the Kumtepe samples show clear evidence of EHG. They don't. Period.

That doesn't mean we won't find a sample somewhere in Anatolia at the right time period and with the right culture which does.

MOESAN
22-10-16, 19:26
The "WHG " in Anatolia is not real "WHG" but ancestral component to WHG that merged with Basal EUrasians. Anatolian_Neo itself is ~50% WHG like.

What Angela means is real WHG admixture that happened in Europe. That is 5-10%

Just a remark which doesn't concern you:
I'm amazed by all these percentages of (W)(E)(S)HG rising up in every Neolithic pop of Anatolia or elsewhere (I exagerate but just a little); so Anatolia Neol is no more Anatolia Neol? every pop can explode every morning into new bits? too much changes everyday or almost; what value accord to all these comparisons with terms changing restless? Would it not be more useful to speak then (for a short time!) of Levant-Neol and AnatHGs?) I regreat my dear old EEF (a tear falls down on my keyboard...) - I know we all descend from HG's but I would be glad to can compare pops with something more stable...
a try to humor...

davef
22-10-16, 21:23
Just a remark which doesn't concern you:
I'm amazed by all these percentages of (W)(E)(S)HG rising up in every Neolithic pop of Anatolia or elsewhere (I exagerate but just a little); so Anatolia Neol is no more Anatolia Neol? every pop can explode every morning into new bits? too much changes everyday or almost; what value accord to all these comparisons with terms changing restless? Would it not be more useful to speak then (for a short time!) of Levant-Neol and AnatHGs?) I regreat my dear old EEF (a tear falls down on my keyboard...) - I know we all descend from HG's but I would be glad to can compare pops with something more stable...
a try to humor...

I see where you're going, MOESAN. Seems that every month we have to tweak a few things and discover a new subset of west hunter gatherer or european farmer and their ancestors/descendants/cousins/aunts/uncles/in laws (lol). That's how it goes and if its based on fact and not from individuals who want to twist the picture around to separate themselves from populations they don't like I'm ok with that.

I'll admit I too was shocked to hear Anatolia neo is half whg like (I'm not doubting you Alan, I'm not of the expertise to) even if it isn't from an actual, authentic whg population from Europe.

MOESAN
22-10-16, 21:35
For clarity, the results from the Haak et al paper are based only on ancient genomes. Plus, it is not a standard Admixture analysis.

Angela, can you give me the clues for this Haak paper if I can have the complete work free, it would help me to discuss more seriously? Thanks

MOESAN
22-10-16, 21:43
I see where you're going, MOESAN. Seems that every month we have to tweak a few things and discover a new subset of west hunter gatherer or european farmer and their ancestors/descendants/cousins/aunts/uncles/in laws (lol). That's how it goes and if its based on fact and not from individuals who want to twist the picture around to separate themselves from populations they don't like I'm ok with that.

I'll admit I too was shocked to hear Anatolia neo is half whg like (I'm not doubting you Alan, I'm not of the expertise to) even if it isn't from an actual, authentic whg population from Europe.

I agree, but, what kind of facts? Can we compare Allentoft and Lazaridis, by instance?
I looked at your "pedigree" your "about me": can I help you in some way? I 've my own problems: married two times, a small peniss (I write a second 's' to lengthen it), a poor sexual life, addiction to alcohol but too less bottles at home, no social help to buy more, and one of my sons play drums!!! So I know what hard life signifies.

Angela
22-10-16, 23:26
Angela, can you give me the clues for this Haak paper if I can have the complete work free, it would help me to discuss more seriously? Thanks

This is the paper, which was made available by the Reich Lab, since Lazaridis is co-lead author.
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/nature14317.pdf

This is the link to the extended data and figures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html#extended-data.

This is the supplementary data, which is really the guts of the paper. Just click on supplementary information
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html#supplementary-information

Alan
23-10-16, 04:17
Just a remark which doesn't concern you:
I'm amazed by all these percentages of (W)(E)(S)HG rising up in every Neolithic pop of Anatolia or elsewhere (I exagerate but just a little); so Anatolia Neol is no more Anatolia Neol? every pop can explode every morning into new bits? too much changes everyday or almost; what value accord to all these comparisons with terms changing restless? Would it not be more useful to speak then (for a short time!) of Levant-Neol and AnatHGs?) I regreat my dear old EEF (a tear falls down on my keyboard...) - I know we all descend from HG's but I would be glad to can compare pops with something more stable...
a try to humor...

No it wouldn't be more useful because Levant Neo itself is still 40% WHG like. So it's not like Levant farmers were Basal Eurasian proto farmers and mixed with Anatolian HG. In fact Basal Eurasian came to Levant and Anatolia either from the south coast of Iran, Persian Gulf or Arabia. Those HG mixed with the Anatolian and Levant HG and created the new Farmers. The only difference from Anatolian farmers to Levant farmers is the propotion of Basal Eurasian vs WHG like admixture. You can split the component always further back, the only question is at which point does it still matter?

davef
23-10-16, 06:10
I agree, but, what kind of facts? Can we compare Allentoft and Lazaridis, by instance?
I looked at your "pedigree" your "about me": can I help you in some way? I 've my own problems: married two times, a small peniss (I write a second 's' to lengthen it), a poor sexual life, addiction to alcohol but too less bottles at home, no social help to buy more, and one of my sons play drums!!! So I know what hard life signifies.

I appreciate your support MOESAN, but I'm getting along well these days. I'm not addicted to alcohol thanks to intervention from my mother but I do drink recreationally and feel physically as healthy as a 20 year old, but I am very unhealthy mentally and rely on medication (which in itself isn't sufficient) and normal people don't seem to grasp those who aren't "normal" so they question why I'm "this" or why I act "this' way or why I struggle with "this".

But, thanks to companies who appreciate and realize my talent in programming as well as my parents who want to see me thrive in spite of my pecularities, I'm doing well for myself.

I apologize for straying from the thread's topic, btw

arvistro
23-10-16, 08:53
Who, pray tell, is engaging in hocus pocus?

I'm certainly not the one making false claims here, or engaging in wild speculation either.

I'm not addressing whether Anthony is correct that the Anatolian languages entered Anatolia from the Balkans. He may be correct about that.

I'm addressing the specific issue, raised by Tomenable, of whether the Kumtepe samples show clear evidence of EHG. They don't. Period.

That doesn't mean we won't find a sample somewhere in Anatolia at the right time period and with the right culture which does.
Do they show clear evidence of not having ehg or just their ehg like thing has also some other explanation?

Fire Haired14
23-10-16, 10:46
Laz's Anatolia Chl. genomes probably have EHG ancestry. There's analysis suggesting they do. If they have EHG they certainly got it from the Caucasus not the Steppe though.

Angela
23-10-16, 14:35
Do they show clear evidence of not having ehg or just their ehg like thing has also some other explanation?

I'm not aware of any analysis showing they have EHG, or additional WHG, for that matter.

Everyone seems to agree they have CHG.

@Moesan,
For a long time the big emphasis among amateurs was on clearly delineating the "European" or "aboriginal" hunter-gatherers from the Near Eastern "farmers". That of course ignored the fact that the WHG, or EHG for that matter, didn't materialize out of the rocks. They came from elsewhere, either the Near East or Siberia.

The other problem, as I kept repeating, is that everybody was a hunter-gatherer originally. It also became apparent with time that the hunter-gatherers living in Europe shared ancestry with the hunter-gatherers in the Near East. It's just that the hunter-gatherers in the Near East who invented agriculture and became Anatolian Neolithic farmers and Levant Neolithic farmers also had ancestry from another type of hunter-gatherer group, the Basal Eurasians, who may have split off earlier from the main Out of Africa group. (You'll find all of this in the Haak paper.)

Does that matter? Not to me. The question which I wanted answered, and which everyone not obsessed by "racial identity" politics wanted answered is "Did farming come to Europe through cultural diffusion or through the actual migration of people from the Middle East?" The answer is clearly that it was brought by the migration of people.

The second question was did the "Indo-European" languages spread through the world largely through the migration of people from somewhere in the east? The picture is almost complete and the answer to that is also yes.

The genetic make-up of modern Europeans is mostly the result of the admixture which resulted from these migrations, although in different proportions depending on the area.

That's it.

Oh, there's nothing wrong with using EEF, so long as people understand what it means. It means the Early European farmer signature based on Stuttgart, or LBK.

MOESAN
23-10-16, 22:48
I appreciate your support MOESAN, but I'm getting along well these days. I'm not addicted to alcohol thanks to intervention from my mother but I do drink recreationally and feel physically as healthy as a 20 year old, but I am very unhealthy mentally and rely on medication (which in itself isn't sufficient) and normal people don't seem to grasp those who aren't "normal" so they question why I'm "this" or why I act "this' way or why I struggle with "this".

But, thanks to companies who appreciate and realize my talent in programming as well as my parents who want to see me thrive in spite of my pecularities, I'm doing well for myself.

I apologize for straying from the thread's topic, btw

We was making joke, but you're right. It's a bit out of topic. But I was pleased by your presentation of yourself.

MOESAN
23-10-16, 22:51
No it wouldn't be more useful because Levant Neo itself is still 40% WHG like. So it's not like Levant farmers were Basal Eurasian proto farmers and mixed with Anatolian HG. In fact Basal Eurasian came to Levant and Anatolia either from the south coast of Iran, Persian Gulf or Arabia. Those HG mixed with the Anatolian and Levant HG and created the new Farmers. The only difference from Anatolian farmers to Levant farmers is the propotion of Basal Eurasian vs WHG like admixture. You can split the component always further back, the only question is at which point does it still matter?

breaking DNA in components is the rule in some way, OK. But if serious surveys don't take the same criteria when speaking of the same pops because they don't take the same screen "resolution", a lot of our discussions are weakly based. It was just my remark.
I repeat we cannot put Lazaridis and Allentoft shoulder to shoulder, by example.

MOESAN
23-10-16, 23:05
This is the paper, which was made available by the Reich Lab, since Lazaridis is co-lead author.
https://genetics.med.harvard.edu/reich/Reich_Lab/Welcome_files/nature14317.pdf

This is the link to the extended data and figures:
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html#extended-data.


http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v522/n7555/abs/nature14317.html#supplementary-information
Thanks, Angela; I had only some short insights picked on fora. Concerning Yamna it doesn't seem changing the two "components" in cause from Allentoft; but I 've to read it completely.
This is the supplementary data, which is really the guts of the paper. Just click on supplementary information

MarkoZ
24-10-16, 11:04
Stone stelea are found throughout the Middle East as far as Arabia!! some of the oldest are in Kurdistan near my home region. So as long as scientist don't show me any signs of Indo European Bronze Age in Saudi Arabia, I doubt Stelae alone can be used as sign for it. Looks more like a general Neolithic thing.

Yes, you're absolutely right. The Middle East has the most elaborate anthropomorphic stelae - contemporaneous stelae found in Europe look primitive in comparison. I mentioned the Romanian stelae because those found in the Northern Pontic look like they had been derived from those found in the Balkans. The concept itself likely spread with the farmers in the Neolithic.



Imo the Hetittes came from the East or Northeast not the West.

I presently favor a south-eastern origin for the Anatolian branch as a whole. The first evidence of the Anatolian languages appears in a Luwian seal found at Tarsus. There are also the shared innovations between Anatolian and Hurrian to the exclusion of Uratrian. An Indo-European migration from Iraq along the Euphrates as imagined by Gordon Whittaker would fit what little evidence we have quite well I think.

MarkoZ
24-10-16, 13:36
As to 'EHG', I think the misunderstanding comes from the presupposition that the hunters from Oleni Ostrov constitute an isolated population. To illustrate this, take a look at what happens in Lazaridis' analysis:

8132

Source: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311 (fig. 4)

The 11,000-12,000 years old Hotu III individual from Northern Iran already carries a significant portion of the ancestral component commonly associated with the hunters from North-Western Russia. This affinity is unlikely to be the result of an earlier migration to the south since the Hotu cave remains predate Oleni Ostrov by thousands of years.

On the contrary, there is a very high probability that the common source of this affinity is the Paleolithic Zarzian complex centered in the Middle East, responsible for introducing the bow and the domesticated dog from Africa to Eurasia. This is exactly what Semenov & Bulat predicted earlier this year, citing Underhill (2014) on the phylogenetic & geographic structure of Y-DNA R1a. In sum:


In [36] we discussed two possibilities. The first is that Y-DNA R1a1 could be ultimately aZarzian marker which denotes the representatives of mesolithic cultures who came to Karelia fromthe South-East from the Caspian seashores (possibly via the Black sea region). The second is thatR1a1 could come from the East or Central Asia in paleolithic time. The newest archaeologicalfindings allow us to support the Zarzian point of view.

On the far-flung archaeological affinities of Oleni Ostrov:


In addition to the local component the cultural influences on Yuzhniy Oleni Ostrov, theinfluences of most far-off regions have been mentioned in different works. For example, one articlehighlights the unexpected similarities of Yuzhniy Oleni Ostrov inhabitants and the representativesof culture Çatalhöyük [19, p. 92]: «However, the distribution observed on the charts provokes anumber of questions because of the convergence of typological characteristics of the groupsdiametrically opposed geographically and for which the likelihood of direct biological kinshipand mutual contacts excluded. The most vivid illustration of this is the convergence ofcharacteristics a series of Mesolithic Oleni Ostrov burial ground with sample from Çatalhöyük bythe values of the second factor …». But the finding of the Y-DNA haplogroup J, which is associatedwith significantly more southern regions, only confirms ties of Yuzhniy Oleni Ostrov with theSouthern cultures.

Source: http://ejournal8.com/journals_n/1461227205.pdf

They speculate that a group of Zarzian migrants managed to impose themselves on the North-Eastern European Swiderian cultures, resulting in both the Oleni Ostrov culture and what they call the 'Elshanskaya' complex (which includes Samara).

I guess all we can tentatively conclude is that there was an as yet unidentified population from Iran or thereabouts, which influenced large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, likely due to innovations adopted from Africa. Of course, this means that we should be cautious about interpreting affinity to the Eastern Hunter Gatherers as North-Eastern European ancestry.

bicicleur
24-10-16, 14:18
As to 'EHG', I think the misunderstanding comes from the presupposition that the hunters from Oleni Ostrov constitute an isolated population. To illustrate this, take a look at what happens in Lazaridis' analysis:

8132

Source: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311 (fig. 4)

The 11,000-12,000 years old Hotu III individual from Northern Iran already carries a significant portion of the ancestral component commonly associated with the hunters from North-Western Russia. This affinity is unlikely to be the result of an earlier migration to the south since the Hotu cave remains predate Oleni Ostrov by thousands of years.

On the contrary, there is a very high probability that the common source of this affinity is the Paleolithic Zarzian complex centered in the Middle East, responsible for introducing the bow and the domesticated dog from Africa to Eurasia. This is exactly what Semenov & Bulat predicted earlier this year, citing Underhill (2014) on the phylogenetic & geographic structure of Y-DNA R1a. In sum:



On the far-flung archaeological affinities of Oleni Ostrov:



Source: http://ejournal8.com/journals_n/1461227205.pdf

They speculate that a group of Zarzian migrants managed to impose itself on the North-Eastern European Swiderian cultures, resulting in both the Oleni Ostrov culture and what they call the 'Elshanskaya' complex (which includes Samara).

I guess all we can tentatively conclude is that there was an as yet unidentified population from Iran or thereabouts, which influenced large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, likely due to innovations adopted from Africa. Of course, this means that we should be cautious about interpreting affinity to the Eastern Hunter Gatherers as North-Eastern European ancestry.

IMO it is not advantageous to try and model populations by means of EHG ancestry, because EHG expanded into eastern Europe during paleo - or early mesolithic times but they didn't expand much further afterwards.
I don't think Yamnaya is a consequence of EHG expansion, but maybe there is a component in Yamnaya which is also ancestral to EHG.
It is also possible that both EHG and Yamnaya have some common CHG ancestry.

Maybe a specific part of the EHG population contributed to the CW and Sintashta ancestry though.

Angela
24-10-16, 15:31
Armenia Chalcolithic can be modeled as having a percentage of Samara Eneolithic, which is pretty specific. Perhaps it was female mediated, a mirror of what could have been happening north of the Caucasus. Then it doesn't show up in Armenia EBA. It shows up again in the MB. If that's wrong someone correct the record.

Is there modeling showing the same thing for Kum4? If not, then on what is all this speculation based? That, if only the sample were better, it would? That's a belief, a hunch, which may or may not be right, but it's not evidence.

If the modeling was done, it would be helpful if someone could reproduce it here.

MarkoZ
24-10-16, 16:15
IMO it is not advantageous to try and model populations by means of EHG ancestry, because EHG expanded into eastern Europe during paleo - or early mesolithic times but they didn't expand much further afterwards.
I don't think Yamnaya is a consequence of EHG expansion, but maybe there is a component in Yamnaya which is also ancestral to EHG.
It is also possible that both EHG and Yamnaya have some common CHG ancestry.

Maybe a specific part of the EHG population contributed to the CW and Sintashta ancestry though.

Fair enough, I mostly agree. But there are a lot of circular arguments about the EHG component floating around. Hence people obsessively looking for EHG 'ancestry', because they thought it was an reliable indicator of Indo-European languages.

Btw, even Konzintsev, formerly one of the foremost advocates of the "Indo-European = European, blond, blue eyes" hypothesis in Russia, just published an article in which he says that PIE is basically Near Eastern: https://kunstkamera.academia.edu/AlexanderKozintsev

Progress has been made.

Angela
24-10-16, 17:09
He's placing the origin of Proto-Indo-European in the Near East, thus making Hittite and the "Anatolian" languages "autochthonous". However, after that it appears to be the standard spread from the steppe.

Krause seems to agree as to the origin, and the spread of the European IE languages from the steppe so far as I can tell, but it's unclear to me what he and Haak mean as to Indo-Iranian and Indo-Aryan. Until we do know it isn't helpful for people to be setting up straw man arguments all over the place.

"The earliest stage of Indo-European history:Evidence of linguistics, paleogenetics, and archaeology
Two scenarios explaining the early separation of the Anatolian branch of Indo-European (IE) language family (5th
millennium BC, according to S.A. Starostin) are examined. The Balkan scenario is used by advocates of the steppe and Central European theories of IE homeland. The former theory is supported and the latter refuted by genetic data. The steppe theory identifies ancestral Anatolians with Suvorovo people, who migrated from the northwestern Black Sea area to the Balkans. But judging by archaeological indicators (shell-tempered pottery of Cucuteni C type, cord decoration,zoomorphous scepters, elements of the steppe burial rite), IE groups moved toward the Balkans gradually and enteredAnatolia no earlier than 3000 BC, when people of southeastern Europe used wheeled transport. The Hittite language, on theother hand, lacked two words denoting the wheel (or wagon) in other IE languages, implying that Anatolians had beenisolated from other Indo-Europeans since the 5th millennium BC. The Balkan scenario, which excludes a single rapid migration, does not account for that. Therefore, an alternative must be considered—the Caucasian scenario, assuming anearly presence of proto-Indo-Europeans in the Near East. This scenario can explain the long isolation of Anatolians. Apparently, a Near Eastern IE group migrated to northeastern Caucasus in the 5th millennium BC. Its presence there is documented by high-quality Near Eastern type ware in the lower strata of the pre-Maikop fortress Meshoko. Later, the southern tradition was displaced by two others. One was marked by pottery decorated with punched nodes and possibly manufactured by speakers of a North Caucasian language. The other was a steppe tradition, probably associated with Skely aculture (akin to Suvorovo) and evidenced by ceramic forms and shell temper resembling Cucuteni C at Svobodnoe andMeshoko, cruciform mace-heads at Meshoko, and fragment of zoomorphous scepter at Yasenovaya Polyana. Being the most active part of the steppe population, the Skelya people may have adopted an IE language from the Near Eastern immigrants. This steppe IE dialect gave rise to all IE languages except the Anatolian branch, which, under this scenario, was autochthonous in the Near East. The hypothesis is upheld by a Caucasian autosomal component in the gene pool of theKhvalynsk and Yamnaya people. Southerly migrations of filial IE groups ancestral to Greeks, Armenians, etc., along theBalkan route occurred after the emergence of the steppe IE language."

If there is no evidence of the "Yamnaya y lineages" south of the Caucasus at the appropriate time then are we supposed to believe the language was transferred by the women?

Goga
24-10-16, 18:57
As to 'EHG', I think the misunderstanding comes from the presupposition that the hunters from Oleni Ostrov constitute an isolated population. To illustrate this, take a look at what happens in Lazaridis' analysis:

8132

Source: http://biorxiv.org/content/early/2016/06/16/059311 (fig. 4)

The 11,000-12,000 years old Hotu III individual from Northern Iran already carries a significant portion of the ancestral component commonly associated with the hunters from North-Western Russia. This affinity is unlikely to be the result of an earlier migration to the south since the Hotu cave remains predate Oleni Ostrov by thousands of years.

On the contrary, there is a very high probability that the common source of this affinity is the Paleolithic Zarzian complex centered in the Middle East, responsible for introducing the bow and the domesticated dog from Africa to Eurasia. This is exactly what Semenov & Bulat predicted earlier this year, citing Underhill (2014) on the phylogenetic & geographic structure of Y-DNA R1a. In sum:



On the far-flung archaeological affinities of Oleni Ostrov:



Source: http://ejournal8.com/journals_n/1461227205.pdf

They speculate that a group of Zarzian migrants managed to impose themselves on the North-Eastern European Swiderian cultures, resulting in both the Oleni Ostrov culture and what they call the 'Elshanskaya' complex (which includes Samara).

I guess all we can tentatively conclude is that there was an as yet unidentified population from Iran or thereabouts, which influenced large parts of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, likely due to innovations adopted from Africa. Of course, this means that we should be cautious about interpreting affinity to the Eastern Hunter Gatherers as North-Eastern European ancestry.
Thank you very much. This is another academic paper which supports the Iranian origin of R1a1! I'm also going to save this paper in my library.

Goga
24-10-16, 19:38
Btw, even Konzintsev, formerly one of the foremost advocates of the "Indo-European = European, blond, blue eyes" hypothesis in Russia, just published an article in which he says that PIE is basically Near Eastern: https://kunstkamera.academia.edu/AlexanderKozintsev

Progress has been made.No matter how much people try to find some excuses and how much they live in their own alternative dream world. NOBODY can change the reality. It is what it is. Science and DNA don't lie. In the past sick twisted degenarated people with inferiority complex & hidden agenda could foul other by trying to change history. But today we live in the 21st century. Scientists can trace migrations and therefore look into the past and dig into history. GENETICA changed everything. Nowadays it has become more difficult to spread lies and propaganda. REAL history can't be changed and more and more people are starting to accept this reality.

bicicleur
24-10-16, 19:44
do you have a link to this quote of Krause ?

he says this is the weak point of the Balkan theory
The Balkan scenario, which excludes a single rapid migration, does not account for that.
But if a group of simple cattle herders split from the IE in the Balkans, would that have been detectable in specific pottery, scepters or burials?

Does he say the Maikop people were North Caucasian, not Near Eastern?
Would the Skelya adopt the language but not the traditions nor the artefacts of the pre-Maikop Meshoko?
What link can be made between these pre-Maikop Meshoko and Hittites/Luwians?

A lot remains to be explained.

What I've always wondered about the Balkan theory is why Maikop didn't have a bigger impact on the steppe people.

This is Maikop/Novosobnaya



Maikop and Novosvobodnaya
Russia
Klady


3600-3000 BC




U8, T2 and N1
Nedoluzhko 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtmlNedoluzhko2015)


Novosvobodnaya
Russia
Klady


3500 BC




V7
Nedoluzhko 2014 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nedoluzhko2014)





This is Khvalynsk



Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122/SVP 35]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015


Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433/SVP 46]
M
4700-4000 BC
R1a1
M459
U5a1i
Mathieson 2015


Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0434/SVP 47]
M
4700-4000 BC
Q1a
F2676
U4a2 or U4d
Mathieson 2015


I'm curious about the autosomal component.

Autosomal CHG may have entered the steppe way before the 5th mill BC, as evidenced by the presence of J in Karelia.

Fluffy
24-10-16, 19:54
No matter how much people try to find some excuses and how much they live in their own alternative dream world. NOBODY can change the reality. It is what it is. Science and DNA don't lie. In the past sick twisted degenarated people with inferiority complex & hidden agenda could foul other by trying to change history. But today we live in the 21st century. Scientists can trace migrations and therefore look into the past and dig into history. GENETICA changed everything. Nowadays it has become more difficult to spread lies and propaganda. REAL history can't be changed and more and more people are starting to accept this reality.

This is true. I wish people would stop pushing their personal agendas and let the science talk.

Goga
24-10-16, 19:55
Does he say the Maikop people were North Caucasian, not Near Eastern?
Maykop = North Caucasus.

But North Caucasians are actually Near Eastern (Iranian Plateau) in origin with some extra EHG ancestry from the Steppes. Didn't you hear about the Uruk migration from Irani into the Caucasus? If you compare Iranian Leyla-Tepe (original Uruk?) with Maykop culture you will find huge similarities. Maykop was basically Middle Eastern / NorthWest ASIAN in nature. The thing is that Maykop was a little bit shifted toward the Steppes, because of some EHG geneflow from the neighboring Steppes


CHG admixture is a West ASIAN admixture.

Yamnaya was Indo-Europized by R1b West Asians from the Armenian/Iranian Plateau. Second stage PIE Yamnaya folks were actually for a HUGE part West Asian in their DNA.

Voyager
24-10-16, 20:14
If there is no evidence of the "Yamnaya y lineages" south of the Caucasus at the appropriate time then are we supposed to believe the language was transferred by the women?
Right, still no common R1b-mutation less than 5600 years old between aDNA from Caucasus and Western Europe, meaning that the common ancestors between the Steppe and Western populations, if they existed, were around or older than 6000 years, this destroys the 4000 years old Steppe massive migration westward by male at least.
And the horse ? the wheel? etc the Bronze age riders who shaped the modern world were also women?

Nevertheless, I note that even if we don't have at all any R1b-L51 in the aDNA of Steppe population but only in the Western , we still have an Mt-DNA mutation (mutation I3a) present both in UNETICE Western aDNA (I0117, I0114,,BZH18) and Yamnaya Culture (I0440) , then these individual must have a common female ancestors. I think may be the male IE L51 who lived 4000 years ago were killed or fled Westward and the Steppe invaders kept the women. The male lines were completly replaced but not the female lines, this could fit the data.

bicicleur
24-10-16, 22:35
Right, still no common R1b-mutation less than 5600 years old between aDNA from Caucasus and Western Europe, meaning that the common ancestors between the Steppe and Western populations, if they existed, were around or older than 6000 years, this destroys the 4000 years old Steppe massive migration westward by male at least.
And the horse ? the wheel? etc the Bronze age riders who shaped the modern world were also women?

Nevertheless, I note that even if we don't have at all any R1b-L51 in the aDNA of Steppe population but only in the Western , we still have an Mt-DNA mutation (mutation I3a) present both in UNETICE Western aDNA (I0117, I0114,,BZH18) and Yamnaya Culture (I0440) , then these individual must have a common female ancestors. I think may be the male IE L51 who lived 4000 years ago were killed or fled Westward and the Steppe invaders kept the women. The male lines were completly replaced but not the female lines, this could fit the data.

Yamna was R1b.
By Sintashta R1b was replaced by R1a on the steppe. Prior to that R1a herders were probably Indo-Europeanized in the forest-steppe zone.
R1a was replaced by Hunnic and Turkic tribes on the steppe.

The most likely origin for R1b-L51 is the steppe.

It is the normal process. The males are ousted, enslaved or killed. The enslaved finally get killed too.
Only a few women slaves are worth keeping and breeding with.

Arame
27-10-16, 10:53
Olympos

You Shulaveri will not be late :)
http://eurogenes.blogspot.am/2016/10/strong-mitogenomic-continuity-on.html

GloomyGonzales
27-10-16, 13:29
Yamna was R1b.
By Sintashta R1b was replaced by R1a on the steppe. Prior to that R1a herders were probably Indo-Europeanized in the forest-steppe zone.
R1a was replaced by Hunnic and Turkic tribes on the steppe.

The most likely origin for R1b-L51 is the steppe.

It is the normal process. The males are ousted, enslaved or killed. The enslaved finally get killed too.
Only a few women slaves are worth keeping and breeding with.

For a while we have aDNA only from eastern part of Yamnaya culture. I guess folks from western part of Yamnaya culture were predominntly bearers of R1a haplos.

Huitzilopochtli
27-10-16, 14:04
For a while we have aDNA only from eastern part of Yamnaya culture. I guess folks from western part of Yamnaya culture were predominntly bearers of R1a haplos.

It sounds counter-intuitive. Wouldn't we expect R1b to predominate in the westernmost steppe, where they left for Western Europe? Perhaps R1a was rare until the Corded Ware migrations.

GloomyGonzales
27-10-16, 17:38
It sounds counter-intuitive. Wouldn't we expect R1b to predominate in the westernmost steppe, where they left for Western Europe? Perhaps R1a was rare until the Corded Ware migrations.

Nope. It would be more reasonable to expect R1a folks in western part of Yamnaya since we have a lot of R1a in CWC. R1b folks did not migrate to Central and Western Europe from Pontic steppe but R1a surely did.

berun
27-10-16, 18:20
It sounds counter-intuitive. Wouldn't we expect R1b to predominate in the westernmost steppe, where they left for Western Europe? Perhaps R1a was rare until the Corded Ware migrations.

R1b is not found in perceptible percentages there nowadays and no ancient samples from there are provided. It's a matter of faith so. Moreover when reliying in archaeology there are no Yamnayan migration registered to CW and such phantom migration would provide there R1a. You may now perceive the flawness of the steppe theory.

Angela
27-10-16, 18:39
R1b is not found in perceptible percentages there nowadays and no ancient samples from there are provided. It's a matter of faith so. Moreover when reliying in archaeology there are no Yamnayan migration registered to CW and such phantom migration would provide there R1a. You may now perceive the flawness of the steppe theory.

Specific parts of the steppe theory of the "Indo-European" languages may be tweaked in the future, but I don't know of any reputable scholar who denies that many of the European "Indo-European" languages reached Europe from the steppe along with a migration of people. Krause and Haak don't seem to deny it, and neither do Renfrew or even Ivanova, for that matter.

The only changes will have to do with the earliest stage of proto-Indo-European, perhaps the direction from which Greek arrived, and the exact migration path to India, nothing more.

berun
27-10-16, 21:41
Specific parts of the steppe theory of the "Indo-European" languages may be tweaked in the future, but I don't know of any reputable scholar who denies that many of the European "Indo-European" languages reached Europe from the steppe along with a migration of people. Krause and Haak don't seem to deny it, and neither do Renfrew or even Ivanova, for that matter.

The only changes will have to do with the earliest stage of proto-Indo-European, perhaps the direction from which Greek arrived, and the exact migration path to India, nothing more.

I know what are thinking the mainstream academics with that issue, and even I addered such theory thinking that the experts in that were doing a good job as it is to be expected (and chariots helped for such belief), but after receiving several slaps from the ancient DNA results, and reviewing again the IE fauna and flora, the steppes now seem to me a dry source, just again, like an evil spell, mainstream Humanistics theories turn to be 100% flawed and mistaken. Of course I don't think I have special aptitudes to unmask mud theories, the problem is that I'm usualy so free (as demanded by science) that sometimes I question the queen bee; of course a bad bussiness with so many worker bees buzzing everywhere around (not you). Well, let's see if my logics are yet working fine or if archaeology / linguistics fit better for those living in Wonderland, it's just a question of time to know the answer.

MOESAN
28-10-16, 10:21
concerning Y R1a R1b the problem is consideable changes certainly occurred between 3000 and our era in Eurasia, so we cannot rely only on densities of today, as everybody knows.
CWC R1a could have stayed at first rather in northern lands compared to southern Pontic steppes (CWC were on the mergins concerning metals and seemed copying pops more evolved technically on the matter; the most typical CWC people physically speaking were in N-E Germany, not in Austria nor in the southern Ukraina; I have no ready to use stable theory to date but I think we have to search for R1b somewhere in eastern-southeastern Europe at some stage of History, come there from Anatolia or southern Pontic Steppes (rather this late case); it's what the comparisons of R1b SNPs distribution seems telling me. I previously gave my bet to an eastern Caspian origin, today I doubt; except some apparently rare deadend R1b in LN Iberia, the Central Europe R1b as in Vatya seem arrived from East Carpathians; could have R1b been already present among late Tripolye??? We know Eastern-Central European demic input appeared later in the farther eastern Steppes (so many moves on every direction) what doesn't discard Iranian cultural input too. Yamnaya in CWC is a shared auDNA (so frmalesplayed their role here), and this can occur also if R1a and some of the R1b tribes had rovered long times in Steppes, without the patriarchal clans of Yamnaya would have played a role among CWC; all the way R1b Yamna is kind of "lost" clade. Catacomb could have played an heavier role in IE spread into East steppes according to Kozintsev.

MarkoZ
28-10-16, 11:45
Specific parts of the steppe theory of the "Indo-European" languages may be tweaked in the future, but I don't know of any reputable scholar who denies that many of the European "Indo-European" languages reached Europe from the steppe along with a migration of people. Krause and Haak don't seem to deny it, and neither do Renfrew or even Ivanova, for that matter.

As I see it, the reason Corded Ware and its eastern predecessors are so firmly on the Indo-European horizon is because they contributed a lot of ancestry to present day Europeans. The possibility of Indo-European languages spreading without major gene flow as in the case of Tyrsenian languages is never taken into account for the obvious reasons.

In the latter case there could be no credible attempt to discern between a spread in the Pontic steppe, a naval route across the Black Sea or even the Mediterranean and the West Asian route over the Bosporus.

Voyager
28-10-16, 13:36
R1b folks did not migrate to Central and Western Europe from Pontic steppe but R1a surely did.
I had a rapid look to the R1a migration trails, that fits little bit better to the massive migration from the Steppes 4800-3000 years ago mentioned by J. Krause but i's not the case with R1b migration history.
All R1a mutations found specificaly in Western Europe like R1a-L664 (age around 4500 y) appeared after the supposed steppes migration starting 4800 years ago. This is compatible but as I said before it's not the case of the R1b-L51 mutation, found only in Western Europe aDNA, which is around 6000 years old much before the steppes migration.

MOESAN
28-10-16, 16:25
Just to be clear: when I speak or the females role in CWC, I don't insist on their moves to Western Europe but on the autosomes shared by CWC (male OR female) and Yamna people: Steppes origin, whatever the Y lineages! but "steppe" here doesn't signify "IE" at the date of sharing: it could have been before IE Chalco/BA but maybe also after;

Angela
28-10-16, 18:11
As I see it, the reason Corded Ware and its eastern predecessors are so firmly on the Indo-European horizon is because they contributed a lot of ancestry to present day Europeans. The possibility of Indo-European languages spreading without major gene flow as in the case of Tyrsenian languages is never taken into account for the obvious reasons.

In the latter case there could be no credible attempt to discern between a spread in the Pontic steppe, a naval route across the Black Sea or even the Mediterranean and the West Asian route over the Bosporus.


I deliberately didn't address the issue of the size of the migration when I carefully said:

"I don't know of any reputable scholar who denies that many of the European "Indo-European" languages reached Europe from the steppe along with a migration of people. "

I've been on record for a long time as believing that we have very unreliable data as to population levels in Europe prior to the "arrival" of the "Indo-Europeans". Also, while we have a trail of kurgans leading into Europe from the steppe I've never seen any reliable analysis of how many people from the steppe they might actually represent. It's also important to realize that the trail abruptly stops approximately in the middle of the Hungarian plain. Nor has anyone explained to me how there could have been such massive growth in population levels in the steppe, which the terrain and the subsistence strategies wouldn't warrant, in my opinion. It's only when you get to populations such as Corded Ware, who were not on the steppe, and did practice farming as well as herding that you could get that kind of population growth.

It has seemed to me for a long time that a lot of the movement into Europe was actually of "Indo-Europeanized" forest steppe and forest people, some of them carrying a lot of WHG. That's why I think the "Yamnaya" numbers in certain groups may be inflated, not to mention later population movements that might have inflated such numbers, as in the case of the Finns.

That doesn't change the fact that the Balto-Slavic languages, and perhaps Germanic, can be traced to the steppe, and Celtic and Italic as well.

Whether the "homeland" of proto-Indo-European languages is actually in the Armenian highlands, but then moved to the steppe at least for the "European" languages, leaving the "Anatolian" languages like Hittite behind is another issue entirely. I think that's definitely a possibility, if not a probability. From what I can tell, even the terrain, as well as the flora and fauna, doesn't disqualify it, and we definitely have a movement of the "CHG" component from south to north.

@Moesan,
There is definitely R1b of the right variety in southeastern Europe, i.e. Z2103, which we find in eastern Yamnaya. The problem is that there's very little L11+ and the little that exists can be explained by historical era migrations. That leads to the most vexing problem, which is where were the L11+ people hiding. If we ever get some genomes from the western steppe that might provide us with some answers. Also, once the Balkan farmer paper is published, and if they tested samples up to and including Tripolye, then we'll know if they might have absorbed some R1b there. Or, we may discover that the L11+ people actually took a more northern route.

People who think all of this is settled are mistaken, imo.

holderlin
28-10-16, 23:24
So I see this thread and I think "Oh man I need to read this right away. How did I miss it?" Then, literally, the first post I jump to is Moesan talking about his small penis and alcoholism. Lol.

I'll continue reading and no doubt have something to say.

@Moesan I struggle with booze too. Keep fighting. And there's nothing you can do about your penis. Dont dwell on it.

MOESAN
28-10-16, 23:43
Maykop = North Caucasus.

But North Caucasians are actually Near Eastern (Iranian Plateau) in origin with some extra EHG ancestry from the Steppes. Didn't you hear about the Uruk migration from Irani into the Caucasus? If you compare Iranian Leyla-Tepe (original Uruk?) with Maykop culture you will find huge similarities. Maykop was basically Middle Eastern / NorthWest ASIAN in nature. The thing is that Maykop was a little bit shifted toward the Steppes, because of some EHG geneflow from the neighboring Steppes


CHG admixture is a West ASIAN admixture.

Yamnaya was Indo-Europized by R1b West Asians from the Armenian/Iranian Plateau. Second stage PIE Yamnaya folks were actually for a HUGE part West Asian in their DNA.

A question:
Wiki says Uruk was a certain cultural development of lower Mesopotamia and not a typical Iranian or Armenian phenomenon, spite influences over all around; by the way close cultures of same nature can influence one another without too big changes in pop. Have you more data proving it found birth in Iran region more specifically? Just to complete my poor knowledge

Olympus Mons
28-10-16, 23:44
I ... and we definitely have a movement of the "CHG" component from south to north.


Yes. And when and who were the people that migrated north and took that CHG?



...southeastern Europe, i.e. Z2103, which we find in eastern Yamnaya.

Yes,but those we have archeological traces and path...and none for the other. right?

MOESAN
29-10-16, 00:02
@Moesan,
There is definitely R1b of the right variety in southeastern Europe, i.e. Z2103, which we find in eastern Yamnaya. The problem is that there's very little L11+ and the little that exists can be explained by historical era migrations. That leads to the most vexing problem, which is where were the L11+ people hiding. If we ever get some genomes from the western steppe that might provide us with some answers. Also, once the Balkan farmer paper is published, and if they tested samples up to and including Tripolye, then we'll know if they might have absorbed some R1b there. Or, we may discover that the L11+ people actually took a more northern route.

People who think all of this is settled are mistaken, imo.

Thanks for taking the pain to answer my "generalistic" posts!
I have had time to study again the scarce distribution of L51 and L11 ; I 'll try to make my point after having looked acutely to my maps; I can tell you at first sight, L11 is very spotty, but show some hospots (compared to others, not big %s of course) in N-E Poland/W-Regions of Baltic states and in front of those, in S-E central Sweden, without speaking of N-E Germany E-Denmark ( a bit less dense); these L11 could be for an heavy part the "nacestors of U106; I repeat interpretation of a lone SNP as L51 is misliding; it's the chain which has to be looked at, knowing it's acrobatic because in lands were global R1b absolute % is light, drift of upstream SNPs can occur very easily in every direction; L51 seems more western but a spot appears too in C-S Poland. I'll try to do better next time.

MOESAN
29-10-16, 00:12
Just speaking about kurgans which are tumuli too; later cultures reproduce the tumuli system: imitation or new waves, elites or more, stayed with the old system? surely naive question...

berun
29-10-16, 08:16
Well, try to do a hole on earth and you will have a kurgan... ;) no matter where you live. By that also there are kurgans in pre-Columbine America, just wiki 'list of burial mounds in the United States' to look to some. By luck Yamnayists are not linking them to IE white charioters...

MOESAN
29-10-16, 14:09
Well, try to do a hole on earth and you will have a kurgan... ;) no matter where you live. By that also there are kurgans in pre-Columbine America, just wiki 'list of burial mounds in the United States' to look to some. By luck Yamnayists are not linking them to IE white charioters...

true - but some pops like to keep on with traditions; they can change, but very often under influences of other pops traditions (snobism, religion...); Metals Age pops show different burial practices even in the same period and in close region (flat tombs an d so on...); is not your Ocam razor a bit blunt?