PDA

View Full Version : Corded Ware Culture admixture against Yamnayans



berun
19-12-16, 14:27
I have taken the results from Genetiker blog; the Pit Grave culture / Yamna is at around 80% EHG + 20% Caucasian; the Middle Neolithic Funnelbeaker culture (4300-2800 BC) provide some 20% WHG + 5% EHG + 75% EEF. The supposed blend of Neolithics and Yamnayans in the Corded Ware provide some 15% WHG + 20% EEF + 10% Caucasian + 55% EHG.

8287


Of course a simple blend between Yamnayans and Neolithics is not an answer as the incoming population would have 10% WHG + -17% EEF + 20% Caucasian + 100% EHG as to give the known results for CW... these percents only can be justified if newcomers outnumbered the local population. Also a 20% of EEF in CW is not supporting the discovery that the X chromosome displays a more local women intervention, as with simple numbers a Yamnayan male with 0% of EEF that would have descendency with a local farmer woman would have sons with 37% EEF, if such sons marry local womens again their EEF will rise to 55%...

Some CW individuals display admixtures that are not known among Yamnayans: orange and red is known for Chucki, orange and cian is known for Goyet Q56-16, red and cian is known for Cioclovina, and cian and purple is known for Vestonice14.

Maybe someone can give an explanation for these paradoxs or may provide better admixture results?

bicicleur
19-12-16, 14:45
did you use Genetiker K = 14 or K = 16 admixture ?

berun
19-12-16, 17:15
the K = 14

bicicleur
19-12-16, 18:56
I've studied the K = 14 too, and I find it very interesting.

You'll find the Yamna, Afanasievo and Poltavka are all similar :
lots of EHG with an important share of CHG and no EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1b-P297

Poltavka outlier, Potapovka, CW, Sintashta, Srubna & Andronovo are different :
lots of EHG too, but CHG is reduced and they have EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1a-M417
they took over from the R1b-P297

bicicleur
19-12-16, 19:05
the references in this K = 14 are not exact
e.g. EEF is not the stutgart genome, it is more like NW Anatolian
so you can't compare with other studies published
but browsing within this K = 14 population gives some very interesting insights

berun
19-12-16, 19:36
Realy not, as it fits well with LBK (5% WHG + 95% EEF) and then with the successive Funnelbeaker, where the HG proxy increases x5 after some centuries as neighbours, so that the EEF seems reliable at least. By the way you are right that Yamnyans R1b are against even the Corded Ware R1a, and their derived cultures (Andronovo, Srubna, Sintashta...). It's water-clear that CW was IE, but it's origins are blurred.

MarkoZ
19-12-16, 19:53
One explanation could be that CW sprung from one of the cultures in Northern Russia or perhaps the Moscow region. I think Mallory alluded to this possbility due to the difficulty in deriving the material culture of Corded Ware from Yamna directly.


Lothar Kilian isolated twenty-three diagnostic features. He argued that the Corded Ware burials possessed a series of traits not found in the Pontic-Caspian – amphorae, cord-decorated beakers, battle-axes – which are the essential markers of the Corded Ware culture. In contrast, the steppe burials utilized egg-shaped pottery, hammer-head pins, ochre and a variety of burial postures unknown in the Corded Ware horizon. While there may be some generic similarities, Kilian concluded that the specific differences do not support an historical connection between the two regions.’ (Mallory, 1989)

LeBrok
19-12-16, 20:33
One explanation could be that CW sprung from one of the cultures in Northern Russia or perhaps the Moscow region. I think Mallory alluded to this possbility due to the difficulty in deriving the material culture of Corded Ware from Yamna directly.




I think CW were Northern Yamnayans. Rich in R1a and more forest dweller hunter-farmer than steppe farmer-herder more R1b.

Olympus Mons
19-12-16, 20:44
I think CW were Northern Yamnayans. Rich in R1a and more forest dweller hunter-farmer than steppe farmer-herder more R1b.

Yes, and who took agriculture to those steppe people? Is Joahannes Krause right in being a 4900BC event coming from the South Caucasus?

bicicleur
19-12-16, 21:15
it has been suggested that the CW/Sintashta people are actualy more western than eastern European in origin, because of their EEF admixture

if I recall well David Anthony suggested the Abashevo culture as ancestral to Potapovka/Sintashta
they were herders and probably had gotten horses from Yamna
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abashevo_culture

from their DNA it is clear that CW and Potapovka/Sintashta have a common origin which is different from Yamna

berun
19-12-16, 21:19
I think CW were Northern Yamnayans. Rich in R1a and more forest dweller hunter-farmer than steppe farmer-herder more R1b.

Difficult case even for David Anthony:


Srubnaya Ethnicity
Russian archaeological traditions permit archaeologists to
discuss the linguistic affiliations of prehistoric populations
without much apology. Such a relaxed attitude toward
language identity and material culture perhaps is facilitated
by the steppe/forest ecological border that runs across
southern Russia, which was a persistent cultural and
linguistic border for millennia. Language and ecology
are easily seen as associated in this region because they
actually were associated historically at this persistent
economic-cultural-linguistic border. Most experts agree
that the languages spoken by the Scythians and Sarmatians
across the western steppes, north of the Caspian and Black
Seas, were Iranian, specifically from the eastern Iranian
subgroup (“eastern” in relation to west Iranian within
Iran), judging from roots contained in personal names, god
names, and occasional other words noted by Greeks and
Persians after 500 BC, and from toponyms in the steppes,
as well as from archaeological remains that correlate with
rituals specified in later Persian texts (Kuzmina 2007;
Parpola 2002; Sims-Williams 2002). Continuity in skeletal
traits and artifact styles between the LBA and the Iron Age
suggests that the LBA (Srubnaya-Andronovo) population
was ancestral to the Scythian-Saka population, so almost
all Russian archaeologists accept that the languages of the
LBA steppes were an archaic form of Iranian, ancestral
to the Iranian languages spoken later in the same steppe
regions (Koryakova and Epimakhov 2007:150). Western
archaeologists tend to be dubious (Lamberg-Karlovsky
2002). The late MBA or MBA II Sintashta-Potapovka-
Filatovka chain of cultures (Figure 1.5) between the upper
Tobol River in the east (Sintashta) and the upper Don in
the west (Filatovka) was ancestral to the LBA Srubnaya-
Andronovo cultures, so is often interpreted as the material
residue of the common Indo-Iranian ancestral community.
Finno-Ugric, the prehistoric ancestor of the Uralic
languages spoken today in the forest zone north of the
Samara Valley, borrowed vocabulary from both common
Indo-Iranian and early Iranian (Koivulehto 2001), proving
that these ancient languages bordered each other, so the
forest-zone Volosovo and Garin-Bor cultures are often
assumed to represent Finno-Ugric speakers. The Indo-
Iranian ethnonym Arya/Ārya appeared as a loanword in
ancestral Finno-Ugric as *orya, denoting “slave” (Carpelan
and Parpola 2001:112), implying that Indo-Iranian Aryans
were captured and enslaved by people in the forest zone.
Arya/Ārya was a self-applied ethnonym of the composers
of the oldest hymns in Sanskrit (in the Rig Veda) and early
Iranian (in the Avesta), both compiled before 1000 BC, so
it probably was a self-applied ethnonym of the speakers
of common Indo-Iranian (Filatovka-Potapovka-Sintashta).
Finno-Ugric *orya, “slave,” therefore implies hostilities
between forest-zone Uralic and steppe-zone Indo-Iranian
speakers. But another loan into common Finno-Ugric
during the same period was common Indo-Iranian *asura,
“lord,” borrowed into Finno-Ugric as *asera, “lord”
or “prince,” implying alliance or integration between
Uralic speakers and Indo-Iranian chiefs, testifying to the
complexity of the relationships between Finno-Ugric
speakers and Indo-Iranian speakers. Finno-Ugric later
borrowed phonologically early Iranian terms for hundred,
bee, honey, tribe/troop, wheel, spindle, bridge, and boat
(Koivulehto 2001), probably during the Srubnaya period.

bicicleur
19-12-16, 21:25
Realy not, as it fits well with LBK (5% WHG + 95% EEF) and then with the successive Funnelbeaker, where the HG proxy increases x5 after some centuries as neighbours, so that the EEF seems reliable at least. By the way you are right that Yamnyans R1b are against even the Corded Ware R1a, and their derived cultures (Andronovo, Srubna, Sintashta...). It's water-clear that CW was IE, but it's origins are blurred.

I have started another thread about a Khvalynsk newcomer who seems ancestral to Yamna here :
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33113-teal-CHG-component-in-Yamna-and-Afanasievo-arrived-during-Khvalynsk-period?highlight=Khvalynsk
some people didn't trust this K=14 admixture because of the EEF does not 100 % correspond to the light blue in this K=14.
that is their choice
I've browsed and checked a lot in this K = 14 population and to me it seems very logical
but again,you cannot compare rigorously with studies that take the Stutgart genome as EEF reference

johen
19-12-16, 22:52
Difficult case even for David Anthony:

Continuity in skeletal
traits and artifact styles between the LBA and the Iron Age
suggests that the LBA (Srubnaya-Andronovo) population
was ancestral to the Scythian-Saka population


Does it mean that west scythian and the Altai Pazyryk scythian were different people?

- The Altai scythians were achaeologicaly Atai natives.
https://s12.postimg.org/sotpekpl9/Capture.png

- Moreover, the iron age Atai admixture is similar to Okunvo Indians.
https://s31.postimg.org/5qn0sb09n/Capture2.png

LeBrok
19-12-16, 23:04
Yes, and who took agriculture to those steppe people? Is Joahannes Krause right in being a 4900BC event coming from the South Caucasus?Iranian farmers coming through Caucasus.

berun
19-12-16, 23:20
Even so NW Asia Minor EN is blue as the sky...

Olympus Mons
19-12-16, 23:24
Iranian farmers coming through Caucasus.
Why would Iran farmers go to steppe by crossing mountains and not just go up via eastern caspian? Dont think steppe 4000bc had much Iran neolithic. but ok.

berun
19-12-16, 23:25
@Bicicleur, even so NW Asia Minor EN is blue as the sky...

@johen, it's out of my scope, maybe different as could be vikings and anglo-saxons?

@Olimpus Mons, deserts and lack of in between cultures

LeBrok
19-12-16, 23:52
Why would Iran farmers go to steppe by crossing mountains and not just go up via eastern caspian? Dont think steppe 4000bc had much Iran neolithic. but ok.Perhaps some of them went through eastern Caspian, though is likely that farming was mediated in big part by Maykop culture to Yamnaya. Yamnayans look like 75% Samara H-G and 25% Iranian Neolithic in this Harappa run.





Samara HG


Yamnaya Rise522


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years


CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya



Population


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
6.13

S-Indian
0.62


Baloch
14.33

Baloch
33.24

Baloch
62.71

Baloch
36.63


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
6.58

Caucasian
24.97

Caucasian
54.15


NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
56.02

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
3.84


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.59


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
0.77


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.35

Papuan
0.15


American
9.62

American
2.46

American
-

American
-


Beringian
0.15

Beringian
0.75

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
0.18

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.25


W-African
0.2

W-African
0.95

W-African
1.78

W-African
3.01

Angela
20-12-16, 02:16
Perhaps some of them went through eastern Caspian, though is likely that farming was mediated in big part by Maykop culture to Yamnaya. Yamnayans look like 75% Samara H-G and 25% Iranian Neolithic in this Harappa run.





Samara HG


Yamnaya Rise522


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years


CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya



Population


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
6.13

S-Indian
0.62


Baloch
14.33

Baloch
33.24

Baloch
62.71

Baloch
36.63


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
6.58

Caucasian
24.97

Caucasian
54.15


NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
56.02

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
3.84


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.59


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
0.77


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.35

Papuan
0.15


American
9.62

American
2.46

American
-

American
-


Beringian
0.15

Beringian
0.75

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
0.18

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.25


W-African
0.2

W-African
0.95

W-African
1.78

W-African
3.01














It looks like 60/40 to me for Yamnaya Rise 522, with 40% being the "southern" component. That would fit with all the other academic analyses. Or, am I reading it incorrectly?

LeBrok
20-12-16, 03:50
It looks like 60/40 to me for Yamnaya Rise 522, with 40% being the "southern" component. That would fit with all the other academic analyses. Or, am I reading it incorrectly?
Looking at how much Baloch and Caucasian increased and that S-Indian completely vanished, there can't be more than 25%, I reckon at least from these numbers. There was one paper telling us that Yamnayans were 50% like Bronze Age Armenians, IIRC. But this could be due to migration of Yamnayans to the other side of Caucasus by Bronze Age, mixing their genes into population there and increasing similarity of two groups.

Angela
20-12-16, 04:44
Sorry I'm being so dense. Isn't Rise 522, labelled Yamnaya, 33.24% Baloch and 6.58% Caucasus? Isn't that 40% of the total genome of Yamnaya?

There seems to have been a steady flow north, as Samara had about 14%, which then increased to 33%.

LeBrok
20-12-16, 08:54
Sorry I'm being so dense. Isn't Rise 522, labelled Yamnaya, 33.24% Baloch and 6.58% Caucasus? Isn't that 40% of the total genome of Yamnaya?

There seems to have been a steady flow north, as Samara had about 14%, which then increased to 33%.Look at Iranian Neolithic. It had 24% of Caucasian. In what proportions they had to mix with Samara to drop Caucasian to 6% in Yamnaya? 1 to 3. NE Euro in Samara drops a quarter, 25% in transition to Yamanya. It also gives 1 to 3 ratio, when considering that they mixed with Iranian Farmer who had 0 of it.

bicicleur
20-12-16, 09:33
Look at Iranian Neolithic. It had 24% of Caucasian. In what proportions they had to mix with Samara to drop Caucasian to 6% in Yamnaya? 1 to 4. NE Euro in Samara drops a quarter, 25% in transition to Yamanya. It also gives 1 to 4 ratio, when considering that they mixed with Iranian Farmer who had 0 of it.

early people in the steppe were EHG admixed with some WHG
the people coming in from south of the Caucasus were also EHG, but had mixed with CHG en route

that is at least what K=14 is telling me

LeBrok
20-12-16, 09:55
early people in the steppe were EHG admixed with some WHGNope, EHG is a lot of WHG admixed with ANE. In Harappa NE Euro and Baloch.
the people coming in from south of the Caucasus were also EHG, but had mixed with CHG en route
that is at least what K=14 is telling me[/QUOTE]Where did you get this? Post the run.
Harappa shows that there was a little admixture 4% of EHG in CHG, but no Caucasian CHG admixture in Samara EHG. It denotes some EHG migration into CHG before neolithic.

bicicleur
20-12-16, 10:20
for the run, look at the 1st post in this thread and here :

https://genetiker.wordpress.com/2016/10/07/k-14-admixture-analysis-of-lapita-genomes/

berun
20-12-16, 14:27
the people coming in from south of the Caucasus were also EHG, but had mixed with CHG en route

that is at least what K=14 is telling me

where do you see it? (that is in pre-Bronze samples)

By the way there are interesting people: Hungary BA (so after the CW) was 25% WHG, 25% EHG, 50% EEF (just seems a simple mix between SHG and LBK); there is no CHG... why? the Pannonian plain is the natural pass to go from the steppes to Central Europe, and moreover the ecosystem fits weel herders.

Another set of five samples (C Asia Minor PN) that I dn't know from which paper come deliver 75% EEF and 25% CHG, it's Central Asia Minor Pre-Neolithic? that would be quite interesting for all questions about peopling Europe if such pop also expanded into it.

bicicleur
20-12-16, 14:53
where do you see it? (that is in pre-Bronze samples)



there are 3 khvalynsk genomes
2 are similar to Karelian and Samara HG
the 3rd is Yamna-like (Yamna could be a mixture of 2/3 of this 3rd Khvalynsk and 1/3 Karelian/Samara HG)

Olympus Mons
20-12-16, 15:01
@Lebrok,
Impossible.

That is what I don’t get it. If there was a movement of people into North Caucasus from south Caucasus that took agriculture and some pastoral lifestyle it would be the Shulaveri-Shomu that were a vast amount of people in Georgia that disappeared and were replaced by 4900bc.
And if I am right it was them (the SSC) taking PIE language (as Joahnnes Krause at Max plank seem to indicate) and taking (IMO) R1b-M269 and L23 into several places around the planet them their genetics is…. Complicated. Shulaveri Shomu will be a mix of Balkan Hunter gatheres///Balkan Farmers///Anatolia Barcin///Kotias.


You first notice “them” in Fikertepe (6600BC-5900BC) . If they were fikirtepe they were very admix with whatever you get of Balkan (like Bulgaria) as huntergatherer. So, if am right we should never forget that actually there had to be a link to Starčevo culture or the Kőrös culture or the Criş culture. Its just that SCK had not much Barcin Admix, and while they were moving the south shores of Black sea in Anatolia they admix a lot with Barcin, so by Fikiertepe they would be Starcevo like mixing with Barcin. (http://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/the-forefathers-of-the-shulaveri-shomu-3917)




When in 6000bc they arrive into South Caucasus, into the land of CHG, they were getting the CHG admix increased. And increased because let’s not assume that CHG stayed put in Georgia and not moved along south cost of black sea?! – ridiculous. So even Fikertepe should have some CHG.





So when Mentesh tepe fell and Shulaveri where gone… You can track them as a stressed out pop in the Kuban river, even getting kicked out by Maykop. So maybe were them already admixed with more EHG arriving to samara and become a large component of Khvalynsk and Yamnaya in Samara… (http://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/from-shulaveri-shomu-to-kubans-3429 )



Just my take. And I will be right in the end. :)

Sile
20-12-16, 18:32
Why would Iran farmers go to steppe by crossing mountains and not just go up via eastern caspian? Dont think steppe 4000bc had much Iran neolithic. but ok.

Why eastern Caspian, ?............they will travel via western Caspian like they do today, where most of people live ......

Eastern caspian is too hard , they had to deal with the fast flowing oxus river


Between Azeri lands in western southern caspian sea area to Daghestan in western northen caspian sea area, we find nearly every different Ydna haplogroup

drinking water is needed to survive , from the Aral sea it flowed to the caspian sea, then from the caspian sea into the black sea. The black sea did not penetrate into the Aegean sea until ~9000BC, so people like Villabruna could cross from Anatolia into europe without getting wet

LeBrok
20-12-16, 18:59
@Lebrok,
Impossible.

That is what I don’t get it. If there was a movement of people into North Caucasus from south Caucasus that took agriculture and some pastoral lifestyle it would be the Shulaveri-Shomu that were a vast amount of people in Georgia that disappeared and were replaced by 4900bc.
And if I am right it was them (the SSC) taking PIE language (as Joahnnes Krause at Max plank seem to indicate) and taking (IMO) R1b-M269 and L23 into several places around the planet them their genetics is…. Complicated. Shulaveri Shomu will be a mix of Balkan Hunter gatheres///Balkan Farmers///Anatolia Barcin///Kotias.


You first notice “them” in Fikertepe (6600BC-5900BC) . If they were fikirtepe they were very admix with whatever you get of Balkan (like Bulgaria) as huntergatherer. So, if am right we should never forget that actually there had to be a link to Starčevo culture or the Kőrös culture or the Criş culture. Its just that SCK had not much Barcin Admix, and while they were moving the south shores of Black sea in Anatolia they admix a lot with Barcin, so by Fikiertepe they would be Starcevo like mixing with Barcin. (http://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/the-forefathers-of-the-shulaveri-shomu-3917)




When in 6000bc they arrive into South Caucasus, into the land of CHG, they were getting the CHG admix increased. And increased because let’s not assume that CHG stayed put in Georgia and not moved along south cost of black sea?! – ridiculous. So even Fikertepe should have some CHG.





So when Mentesh tepe fell and Shulaveri where gone… You can track them as a stressed out pop in the Kuban river, even getting kicked out by Maykop. So maybe were them already admixed with more EHG arriving to samara and become a large component of Khvalynsk and Yamnaya in Samara… (http://r1b2westerneurope.blogs.sapo.pt/from-shulaveri-shomu-to-kubans-3429 )



Just my take. And I will be right in the end. :)
Sorry I'm not familiar with Shulaveri and their faith. Here are more Harappa samples, perhaps will tell you something more.



NE1 Hungary


EN Anatolia, Barcin?


CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years


Kvalinsk HG



Population


Population


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.62

S-Indian
6.13

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
36.63

Baloch
62.71

Baloch
20.2


Caucasian
28.27

Caucasian
37.64

Caucasian
54.15

Caucasian
24.97

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
12.13

NE-Euro
0.86

NE-Euro
3.84

NE-Euro
-

NE-Euro
71.08


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.59

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
0.77

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.15

Papuan
0.35

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
-

American
-

American
6.89


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
1.7


Mediterranean
45.75

Mediterranean
47.24

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
13.45

SW-Asian
14

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0.18

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.05

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.25

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.35

W-African
0.27

W-African
3.01

W-African
1.78

W-African
0.13




For more explanation about harappa admixture go here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32877-HarappaWorld-Gedmatch-post-and-compare-your-admixtures-to-ancient-and-contemporary

Olympus Mons
20-12-16, 19:29
Sorry I'm not familiar with Shulaveri and their faith. Here are more Harappa samples, perhaps will tell you something more.

For more explanation about harappa admixture go here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/32877-HarappaWorld-Gedmatch-post-and-compare-your-admixtures-to-ancient-and-contemporary


HI Lebrok,
Nope. I think this references is too admixed already. We need to have more crude references. We need to have a lot more samples from Balkans, from south Caucasus (mostly here) and North Caucasus.

LeBrok
20-12-16, 19:44
where do you see it? (that is in pre-Bronze samples)

By the way there are interesting people: Hungary BA (so after the CW) was 25% WHG, 25% EHG, 50% EEF (just seems a simple mix between SHG and LBK); there is no CHG... why? the Pannonian plain is the natural pass to go from the steppes to Central Europe, and moreover the ecosystem fits weel herders.

Another set of five samples (C Asia Minor PN) that I dn't know from which paper come deliver 75% EEF and 25% CHG, it's Central Asia Minor Pre-Neolithic? that would be quite interesting for all questions about peopling Europe if such pop also expanded into it.
Indeed Hungarian BA is peculiar. Not much, or non at all, Iranian/CHG admixture. There is however a big increase in EHG/WHG, the rest is of EEF type farmer. He might be a mixture of West Yamnaya and Cucuteni.
Corded Ware guys look almost all the same, mostly EHG/WHG with 5-10% of Iranian Neolithic/CHG, and 5-10% of EEF. The EEF thy could have picked up from local farmers.

LeBrok
20-12-16, 19:57
HI Lebrok,
Nope. I think this references is too admixed already. We need to have more crude references. We need to have a lot more samples from Balkans, from south Caucasus (mostly here) and North Caucasus.


Armenian Chalcolithic


Armenia MBA
M930063

Armenia LBA
M691697


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
0.27

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
17.64

Baloch
23.13

Baloch
28.22


Caucasian
41.35

Caucasian
38.66

Caucasian
30.75


NE-Euro
20.25

NE-Euro
18.57

NE-Euro
24.77


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
0.54

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
0.92

Papuan
-


American
0.55

American
1.3

American
1.54


Beringian
-

Beringian
0.59

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
11.12

Mediterranean
9.34

Mediterranean
6.98


SW-Asian
8.81

SW-Asian
4.94

SW-Asian
6.38


San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
-

W-African
1.99

W-African
1.36







EN Anatolia, Barcin?


CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years



Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.62

S-Indian
6.13


Baloch
-

Baloch
36.63

Baloch
62.71


Caucasian
37.64

Caucasian
54.15

Caucasian
24.97


NE-Euro
0.86

NE-Euro
3.84

NE-Euro
-


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
0.59

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
0.77

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
0.15

Papuan
0.35


American
-

American
-

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
47.24

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
14

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88


San
-

San
-

San
0.18


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.25

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.27

W-African
3.01

W-African
1.78




Most Armenian admixtures look local, except 20% of NE Euro. NE Euro didn't exist here in such numbers before, look at 3 guys below Armenians. Seems like there was a big Yamnaya invasion into Armenia at the end of Neolithic.

bicicleur
20-12-16, 20:57
By the way there are interesting people: Hungary BA (so after the CW) was 25% WHG, 25% EHG, 50% EEF (just seems a simple mix between SHG and LBK); there is no CHG... why? the Pannonian plain is the natural pass to go from the steppes to Central Europe, and moreover the ecosystem fits weel herders.



do you mean these people :



Vatya
Hungary
Szazhalombatta-Foldvar [RISE254]
M
2128-1909 BC
I
FI2, CTS2514, CTS3384
or I2a1 (Tagankin) (Z2657/CTS7669/PF3765+ Z2673/CTS12003/PF3846+ Z2652/CTS4568/PF3733+, FGC18615/Y12523- FGC18580/Y7862- FGC18589/Y5341- S6669-, Z2616/S5140+ V1191/Z2611/PF3638+)
J1c9
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015; additional info from Vladimir Tagankin


Vatya
Hungary
Erd 4 [RISE479]
M


I2a2a1a2a
L1229
T2b
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015


Vatya
Hungary
Erd 4 [RISE480]
F






U5a2a
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015)


Vatya
Hungary
Erd 4 [RISE483]
F






H2a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015)


Vatya
Hungary
Erd 4 [RISE484]
F






T1a1
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015)


Middle Bronze Age
Hungary
Battonya Voris Oktober [RISE349]
F
2034-1748 BC




T2b3
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015)


Maros
Hungary
Szoreg - C [RISE373]
F
1886-1696 BC




K1a2a
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015)


Maros
Hungary
Szoreg - C [RISE374]
M
1866-1619 BC
G2a
F3088
or (Kendall) G2a2a1a (PF3177)
T2b
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015; add info from Ted Kendall


Gáta/Wieslburg
Hungary
M85 Enese elkerül? 02. Kóny, Proletár-d?l? II [KON 6]


1770-1760 BC
R1b1a2
M269
U5b1
Szécsényi-Nagy 2015 thesis (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Szecsenyi-Nagy2015)


Vatya
Hungary
Szazhalombatta-Foldvar [RISE247]
M
1746-1611 BC
I2a2a1
CTS9183
H11a
Allentoft 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Allentoft2015); Mathieson 2015




Vatya-Maros-Gata/Wieslburg 4.1-3.6 ka?

Both Hungarian EN and CA have EEF with some WHG, but no EHG nor CHG
Hungarian has EHG added, but also a fraction of CHG

bicicleur
20-12-16, 21:02
Another set of five samples (C Asia Minor PN) that I dn't know from which paper come deliver 75% EEF and 25% CHG, it's Central Asia Minor Pre-Neolithic? that would be quite interesting for all questions about peopling Europe if such pop also expanded into it.



Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon004] PPN
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2b2b – F705


N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Bon004 Pre-Pottery Neolithic > 8300 G2a2b2b-F705 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-bon004/)
Centraal Anatolia PPN 85 % EEF + 5 % steppe + 5 % WHG + 4 % CHG + 1 % (Karitiana/ Natufi/ Papua)


Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon002] PPN
F






K1a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon005] PPN
F






N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon001] PPN
M
8212 – 7952 BC
G2a2b2b1a – PF3422


U3
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Bon001 Pre-Pottery Neolithic 8212–7952 G2a2b2b1a-PF3422 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-bon001/)















Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep001] Pottery Neolithic
M
7500-5800 BC
G, J2 or R1b


K1a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Tep001 Pottery Neolithic 7500–5800 G, J2, or R1b calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-tep001/)
Centraal Anatolia PN 75 % EEF + 20 % CHG + 2 % natufi + 1 % steppe + 1 % Papua + 1 % (WHG/ Eskimo/ Karitiana)


Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep006] Pottery Neolithic
M
7500-5800 BC
C1a2 – Y10446


N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Tep006 Pottery Neolithic 7500–5800 C1a2-Y10446 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-tep006/)


Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep003] Pottery Neolithic
M
7500-5800 BC
G2a2a – PF3159*


N1b1a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Tep003 Pottery Neolithic 7500–5800 G2a2a-PF3159* calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-tep003/)


Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep002] Pottery Neolithic
F






K1a12a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep004] Pottery Neolithic
F






N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




















why does Boncuklu only have 4% CHG ,while Tepecik has 20%?
Boncuklu is older, it is PPN, while Tepecik is PN
it look like the CHG came along with the pottery

http://www.cell.com/cms/attachment/2067973052/2067204626/gr1.jpg

LeBrok
20-12-16, 21:35
Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon004] PPN
M
6500-6200 BC
G2a2b2b – F705


N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Bon004 Pre-Pottery Neolithic > 8300 G2a2b2b-F705 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-bon004/)
Centraal Anatolia PPN 85 % EEF + 5 % steppe + 5 % WHG + 4 % CHG + 1 % (Karitiana/ Natufi/ Papua)


Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon002] PPN
F






K1a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon005] PPN
F






N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




Turkey
Boncuklu [Bon001] PPN
M
8212 – 7952 BC
G2a2b2b1a – PF3422


U3
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Bon001 Pre-Pottery Neolithic 8212–7952 G2a2b2b1a-PF3422 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-bon001/)















Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep001] Pottery Neolithic
M
7500-5800 BC
G, J2 or R1b


K1a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Tep001 Pottery Neolithic 7500–5800 G, J2, or R1b calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-tep001/)
Centraal Anatolia PN 75 % EEF + 20 % CHG + 2 % natufi + 1 % steppe + 1 % Papua + 1 % (WHG/ Eskimo/ Karitiana)


Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep006] Pottery Neolithic
M
7500-5800 BC
C1a2 – Y10446


N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Tep006 Pottery Neolithic 7500–5800 C1a2-Y10446 calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-tep006/)


Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep003] Pottery Neolithic
M
7500-5800 BC
G2a2a – PF3159*


N1b1a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

Tep003 Pottery Neolithic 7500–5800 G2a2a-PF3159* calls (https://genetiker.wordpress.com/y-snp-calls-for-tep003/)


Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep002] Pottery Neolithic
F






K1a12a
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




Turkey
Tepecik-Ciftlik [Tep004] Pottery Neolithic
F






N1a1a1
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8




















why does Boncuklu only have 4% CHG ,while Tepecik has 20%?
Boncuklu is older, it is PPN, while Tepecik is PN
it look like the CHG came along with the pottery


Definitely CHG/Caucasian admixture expansion. Are any of these in Gedmatch to check admixtures?

Angela
20-12-16, 22:48
Haven't we known for a while that CHG like ancestry moved into Anatolia and the Levant as time passed, just as "Anatolian farmer" type ancestry moved north and east? That's what the papers have pointed out, as well as some of the amateur bloggers.

Some analyses also have a bit of it in Copper Age people of Europe like Otzi, and in some of the Hungarians, although not all. I think we may see a lot more of it coming at that time, and later in the Bronze Age, once we get some more ancient southern European samples.

There were two big movements out of the Near East. One was from a group centered around Anatolia and the Levant, and one was from the southern Caucasus/Iran. The latter moved into India and southwest into the rest of the Near East, and north as well, ultimately reaching the steppe. The former went into Europe, across North Africa, down into the Arabian peninsula and into Africa and also west and north west into other areas of the Near East. It's a sort of bifurcated "Womb of Nations" to use Dienekes' old term. That ancestry is what binds all those areas together. As pertains to Europe, you have that "Caucasus" type ancestry entering Europe both from the southeast and the east with steppe people.

As for percentages of "Caucasus", or "Iranian farmer", or "southern" or whatever , using admixture programs which use modern people instead of ancient genomes as references is always going to give a distorted picture, because those groups are admixed themselves. Plus, as a counterbalance to admixture, you need to use formal stats. Finally, we need to get access to the papers which have analyzed lots of samples from the Caucasus and surrounding areas for the relevant time periods. Until then, we won't know how much ANE or EHG or whatever was south of the Caucasus at relevant times.

Anyway, that's how I see it.

berun
20-12-16, 22:49
There is only a Hungary BA sample in the K = 14, and without further refs I don't who was.


why does Boncuklu only have 4% CHG ,while Tepecik has 20%?
Boncuklu is older, it is PPN, while Tepecik is PN
it look like the CHG came along with the pottery

Seems reasonable, but surely after the regional domestication of a given plant or a given animal there was a dinamic burst of migrations and expansion: herders occupying areas were barley can't grow, barley where wheat can't resist temperatures, goat-herders in mountains and forests where sheeps have not a so easy access, etc.

berun
20-12-16, 22:55
As for percentages, using admixture programs which use modern people instead of ancient genomes is always going to give a distorted picture.

108% true...

LeBrok
21-12-16, 01:34
Haven't we known for a while that CHG like ancestry moved into Anatolia and the Levant as time passed, just as "Anatolian farmer" type ancestry moved north and east? That's what the papers have pointed out, as well as some of the amateur bloggers.

Some analyses also have a bit of it in Copper Age people of Europe like Otzi, and in some of the Hungarians, although not all. I think we may see a lot more of it coming at that time, and later in the Bronze Age, once we get some more ancient southern European samples.

There were two big movements out of the Near East. One was from a group centered around Anatolia and the Levant, and one was from the southern Caucasus/Iran. The latter moved into India and southwest into the rest of the Near East, and north as well, ultimately reaching the steppe. The former went into Europe, across North Africa, down into the Arabian peninsula and into Africa and also west and north west into other areas of the Near East. It's a sort of bifurcated "Womb of Nations" to use Dienekes' old term. That ancestry is what binds all those areas together. As pertains to Europe, you have that "Caucasus" type ancestry entering Europe both from the southeast and the east with steppe people.

As for percentages of "Caucasus", or "Iranian farmer", or "southern" or whatever , using admixture programs which use modern people instead of ancient genomes as references is always going to give a distorted picture, because those groups are admixed themselves. Plus, as a counterbalance to admixture, you need to use formal stats. Finally, we need to get access to the papers which have analyzed lots of samples from the Caucasus and surrounding areas for the relevant time periods. Until then, we won't know how much ANE or EHG or whatever was south of the Caucasus at relevant times.

Anyway, that's how I see it.The difference I guess, is that Caucasus admixture in Neolithic Anatolia is from CHG mostly and only minimal from Iranian Neolithic. Caucasus admixture in Yamnaya is mostly from Iranian Neolithic and only minimal from CHG.

Angela
21-12-16, 03:43
I don't save the results of all the formal stats analyses being done. Perhaps I should save some, but I don't. I've been figuring once we have the long awaited paper everything may change anyway, at least slightly. My recollection, however, is that one of the "CHG" samples, Satsurblia, perhaps, can be modeled as mostly Iran Neolithic with some EHG.

The CHG samples are very old. I'm a bit skeptical that some pure "CHG" population survived and was moving into western Anatolia at these late dates. For some analysts I think using the ancient sample is a convenient way to track the ancestry, not that some "pure" population remained. The CHG would be mixed with some other ancestry, I believe. I do also think, however, that some experimenters would prefer to think this is some pure northern Caucasus/quasi European ancestry, rather than something related to Iranian Neolithic.

If I'm remembering this incorrectly, someone can correct the record.

There's a mistake in post 37. Anatolia Neolithic moved east and northeast in the Near East.

LeBrok
21-12-16, 05:04
I don't save the results of all the formal stats analyses being done. Perhaps I should save some, but I don't. I've been figuring once we have the long awaited paper everything may change anyway, at least slightly. My recollection, however, is that one of the "CHG" samples, Satsurblia, perhaps, can be modeled as mostly Iran Neolithic with some EHG.

The CHG samples are very old. I'm a bit skeptical that some pure "CHG" population survived and was moving into western Anatolia at these late dates. For some analysts I think using the ancient sample is a convenient way to track the ancestry, not that some "pure" population remained. The CHG would be mixed with some other ancestry, I believe. I do also think, however, that some experimenters would prefer to think this is some pure northern Caucasus/quasi European ancestry, rather than something related to Iranian Neolithic.

If I'm remembering this incorrectly, someone can correct the record.

There's a mistake in post 37. Anatolia Neolithic moved east and northeast in the Near East.Yes it could be modeled like this, because CHG and Iranian Farmer where very related and there was a leak of EHG through caucasus too. On top of it all 3 groups were related on very ancient level through Baloch admixture. All had substantial level of it. My deduction comes from analyzing proportion of Caucasus and Baloch admixtures in Yamnayans, and these point to Iranian Farmer being main source and not CHG.

holderlin
21-12-16, 22:54
I've studied the K = 14 too, and I find it very interesting.

You'll find the Yamna, Afanasievo and Poltavka are all similar :
lots of EHG with an important share of CHG and no EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1b-P297

Poltavka outlier, Potapovka, CW, Sintashta, Srubna & Andronovo are different :
lots of EHG too, but CHG is reduced and they have EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1a-M417
they took over from the R1b-P297

There is clear evidence of steppe mixing with EEF (almost certainly directly to the West) in Srubna, Poltavka, Sintashta, and Corded Ware that must have happened prior to, or at least without any CHG/Iran Neolithic admixture(or very little). This is consistent with the notion of steppe mixing with Europe very early on, which subsequently formed, at least in part, the R1a dominant populations that spread onto the steppe after Yamnaya.

berun
21-12-16, 23:45
I just see a simple expansion of CW over unprofited Central Asian steppes (Sintashta, Andronovo, etc.), carrying there R1a and developing there the great Indo-Aryan branch.

holderlin
22-12-16, 00:30
I just see a simple expansion of CW over unprofited Central Asian steppes (Sintashta, Andronovo, etc.), carrying there R1a and developing there the great Indo-Aryan branch.

Perhaps, but what is CW? It appears to be composed of EHG and EEF admixture with less CHG than Yamnaya, and in some samples no CHG at all (or barely).

Actually we see the same thing in Bell Beaker, Unetice, and Nordic Bronze age too. What I'm saying is that these populations are evidence of Steppe mixing with EEF/WHG before the arrival of CHG in the magnitudes seen in Yamnaya.

holderlin
22-12-16, 00:44
This is consistent with a pre-Yamnaya PIE that began to move into Western Europe before what we all call Yamnaya.

I still think Yamnaya spoke Indo-Iranian, which was closer to Indic than Iranian (Indic Homeland). CW at the outset was probably very Indic sounding as well, but eventually differentiated into Iranian on the steppe and Baltic in the north. Compare Lithuanian, Sanskrit, and Avestan.

LeBrok
22-12-16, 01:13
There is clear evidence of steppe mixing with EEF (almost certainly directly to the West) in Srubna, Poltavka, Sintashta, and Corded Ware that must have happened prior to, or at least without any CHG/Iran Neolithic admixture(or very little). This is consistent with the notion of steppe mixing with Europe very early on, which subsequently formed, at least in part, the R1a dominant populations that spread onto the steppe after Yamnaya.The samples from East -Central Yamnaya that we have tell us a different story. There is only mixing with Iranian Neolithic and CHG. You might be right about West Yamnaya but we don't have any samples yet. Corded show both influences Iranian and EEF farmers.

HarappaWorld in Gedmatch admixtures of ancient populations are very telling.

LeBrok
22-12-16, 01:24
Perhaps, but what is CW? It appears to be composed of EHG and EEF admixture with less CHG than Yamnaya, and in some samples no CHG at all (or barely). Isn't it more likely that they came with IN/CHG admixture already and got EEF from local farmers? You know, central and even north europe were full of them, right?


Actually we see the same thing in Bell Beaker, Unetice, and Nordic Bronze age too. What I'm saying is that these populations are evidence of Steppe mixing with EEF/WHG before the arrival of CHG in the magnitudes seen in Yamnaya. A good evidence of Bronze Age population with high WHG/EHG without IN/CHG is only Hungarian Bronze Age. They could have been West Yamnayans.

Goga
22-12-16, 03:55
This is consistent with a pre-Yamnaya PIE that began to move into Western Europe before what we all call Yamnaya.

I still think Yamnaya spoke Indo-Iranian, which was closer to Indic than Iranian (Indic Homeland). CW at the outset was probably very Indic sounding as well, but eventually differentiated into Iranian on the steppe and Baltic in the north. Compare Lithuanian, Sanskrit, and Avestan.Nothing but noncense. Lithuanian has absolutely nothing to do with the Iranian. Greek & Armenian are closer to Iranian than Lithuanian, lmao what are you talking about???

Proto-Iranian is much older that Corded Ware culture. Corded Ware is max 2900 BCE.

Proto-Iranian is from 4000 BCE.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2Atkinson-IE-Branches-Map.png

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/08/ie1.jpg


http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/how-large-was-the-area-in-which-proto-indo-european-was-spoken

Goga
22-12-16, 04:02
CW was proto-Germanic, has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Iranian, period. Proto-Iranian predate CW by at least 1000 years. Actually, Iranian is closer to Armenian and Greek due to Graeco-Aryan connection in West Asia. Proto-Iranian was antive to the Iranian Plateau. NOBODY speaks Iranian outside the Iranian Plateau. Iranian is part of the Zagros Mountains and the Iranian Plateau.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan

holderlin
22-12-16, 04:06
Isn't it more likely that they came with IN/CHG admixture already and got EEF from local farmers? You know, central and even north europe were full of them, right?

A good evidence of Bronze Age population with high WHG/EHG without IN/CHG is only Hungarian Bronze Age. They could have been West Yamnayans.

There's several samples in post Yamnaya (presumably IE) cultures that show disproportionately low CHG, and it does look completely absent in some. I'm going off the admixture run. I'm saying this looks like evidence that there was early mixing between EHG/Steppe and the farming cultures to the West. The Hungarian Sample is the best example with none, but I'm saying that this looks to show up in many samples in all of the post-Yamnaya layers.

holderlin
22-12-16, 04:08
CW was proto-Germanic, has ABSOLUTELY nothing to do with the Iranian, period. Proto-Iranian predate CW by at least 1000 years. Actually, Iranian is closer to Armenian and Greek due to Graeco-Aryan is West Asia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan

No, CW was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to be called Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic is Nordic Bronze age.

Lithuanian is strikingly similar to Indic.

holderlin
22-12-16, 04:12
Nothing but noncense. Lithuanian has absolutely nothing to do with the Iranian. Greek & Armenian are closer to Iranian than Lithuanian, lmao what are you talking about???

Proto-Iranian is much older that Corded Ware culture. Corded Ware is max 2900 BCE.

Proto-Iranian is from 4000 BCE.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2Atkinson-IE-Branches-Map.png

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/08/ie1.jpg


http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/how-large-was-the-area-in-which-proto-indo-european-was-spoken

You don't know what you're talking about. Lithuanian and Indic are ridiculously similar AND Lithuanian is essentially identical to PIE.

Goga
22-12-16, 04:14
No, CW was waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay too early to be called Proto-Germanic. Proto-Germanic is Nordic Bronze age.

Lithuanian is strikingly similar to Indic.
lol, you don't know what you are talking about. CW were resposible for Nordic Bronze Age after they arrived from Yamnaya. CW was just proto-Germanic. Nothing special about it.

Indic is not even close to the ancient Sanskrit. 2 very different languages. Indic people don't even understand Sanskrit. Indic is for a HUGE part Dravidian. How can it be similar to Lithuanian, lmao ?

Goga
22-12-16, 04:19
You don't know what you're talking about. Lithuanian and Indic are ridiculously similar AND Lithuanian is essentially identical to PIE.Lithuanian derived from proto-Balto-Slavic. Has nothing to do with PIE. It is not even directly evovled from PIE. It has been evolved from proto-Baltic.

First we got frist stage PIE around the Iranian Plateau,
then second stage of PIE in Yamnaya Horizon,
then proto-Balto-Slavic,
then proto-Baltic,
then proto-Western Baltic
then proto-Lithuanian,
then modern Lithuanian

So, to many steps from PIE. Lithuanian has nothing to do with PIE. And definitely nothing to do with Iranian/Aryan. Lithuanian has many Finno-Ugric (Mongoloid) infuences...

I'm sure proto-Graeco-Iranian, proto Anatolian were much closer to PIE, to it's source, since first stage of PIE is from West Asia.

Proto-Iranian is even OLDER than then proto-Balto-Slavic.

Indic and Sanskrit are 2 very different languages, there are only very few similarities between Sanskrit and modern-Indic. People in India don't understand Sanskrit. Indic is mostly Dravidian....

Goga
22-12-16, 04:31
Lithuanian is a VERY young language. Only 1000 years old! Split between Latvia and Lithuanian (from proto-Baltic, then proto-Western Baltic) was only 1000 years ago. It is also heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric (Mongoloid). Nothing special about it.

First we got frist stage PIE around the Iranian Plateau,
then second stage of PIE in Yamnaya Horizon,
then proto-Balto-Slavic,
then proto-Baltic,
then proto-Western Baltic
then proto-Lithuanian,
then modern Lithuanian


http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2015/02/image_2516_2-Indo-European-Languages.jpg


http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/linguistics/science-indo-european-languages-originated-pontic-caspian-steppe-02516.html

Goga
22-12-16, 04:41
http://www.armeniaproject.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/nature02029-f1.2.jpg

http://www.armeniaproject.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Indop1.jpg

http://www.armeniaproject.com/blogs/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Indop2.jpg

http://www.armeniaproject.com/blogs/?cat=15

Goga
22-12-16, 04:56
Corded Ware is only from 2900 BCE. Aryan split from Graeco-Aryan is from 5300 BCE. It was MUCH older than Corded Ware. Corded Ware has absolutely nothing to do with Graeco-Aryan that took shape in West Asia. There is almost 2500 years gap between Graeco-Aryan and Corded Ware. Graeco-Aryan connection is MUCH older. Corded Ware was very young and was actually proto-Germanic, nothing special about it at all. Stop with your ridiculous claims that proto-Iranian is from Corded Ware. Just don't insult proto-Iranian people, my direct ancestors...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan

berun
22-12-16, 15:38
This is consistent with a pre-Yamnaya PIE that began to move into Western Europe before what we all call Yamnaya.

I still think Yamnaya spoke Indo-Iranian, which was closer to Indic than Iranian (Indic Homeland). CW at the outset was probably very Indic sounding as well, but eventually differentiated into Iranian on the steppe and Baltic in the north. Compare Lithuanian, Sanskrit, and Avestan.

pre-Yamnayan PIE going west? which aracheological culture support it? as far as I know there is none.

For the linguistic side, in the CW area developed Germanic and Balto-Slavic, and such branches are first degree sisters.

holderlin
22-12-16, 17:11
lol, you don't know what you are talking about. CW were resposible for Nordic Bronze Age after they arrived from Yamnaya. CW was just proto-Germanic. Nothing special about it.

Nordic Bronze age was over a thousand years after CW. Saying that CW was "responsible" for NBA isn't correct. A lot of shit happens in a thousand years and this is a unique culture.


Indic is not even close to the ancient Sanskrit. 2 very different languages. Indic people don't even understand Sanskrit. Indic is for a HUGE part Dravidian. How can it be similar to Lithuanian, lmao ?

Sanskrit is the earliest written Indic language. So WTF are you talking about

holderlin
22-12-16, 17:24
Lithuanian is a VERY young language. Only 1000 years old! Split between Latvia and Lithuanian (from proto-Baltic, then proto-Western Baltic) was only 1000 years ago. It is also heavily mixed with Finno-Ugric (Mongoloid). Nothing special about it.

First we got frist stage PIE around the Iranian Plateau,
then second stage of PIE in Yamnaya Horizon,
then proto-Balto-Slavic,
then proto-Baltic,
then proto-Western Baltic
then proto-Lithuanian,
then modern Lithuanian


http://cdn.sci-news.com/images/2015/02/image_2516_2-Indo-European-Languages.jpg


http://www.sci-news.com/othersciences/linguistics/science-indo-european-languages-originated-pontic-caspian-steppe-02516.html

Lithuanian is so similar to the reconstructed PIE that you can't call it a "young" language. It was historically attested late, but it's basic forms have been spoken since PIE itself.

All of your great looking trees don't change this or the similarities to Sanskrit.

And the oldest IE Language is certainly Anatolian, not your fantasy PIE/Iranian on the Iranian Plateau.

holderlin
22-12-16, 17:37
pre-Yamnayan PIE going west? which aracheological culture support it? as far as I know there is none.

For the linguistic side, in the CW area developed Germanic and Balto-Slavic, and such branches are first degree sisters.

Evidence? There is mixing all over the place at the CT/Steppe interface. How bout Sredny Stog and Bug Dniester? And I don't think we got the samples we would need to really investigate this. I know the graves are a complete mixed bag physically with Steppe and Mediterranean types. I think we only got sample from the Yamnaya horizon above Dnieper Donets, which actually gave some indication of this process with an I2 male, but who was very autosomally Yamnaya.

Germanic also shows coevolution with Celtic, and it also contains a whole vocabulary Non-IE sea faring words among others. Probably the I1 dominated farmers that preceded them. It's actually really interesting because not coincidentally you have the first North European culture where boats and the sea play a huge part.

Germanic actually looks like an interface language between Baltic, Celtic, and the pre-IE (presumably, but this is vague) Scandinavian farmers.

holderlin
22-12-16, 17:41
Corded Ware is only from 2900 BCE. Aryan split from Graeco-Aryan is from 5300 BCE. It was MUCH older than Corded Ware. Corded Ware has absolutely nothing to do with Graeco-Aryan that took shape in West Asia. There is almost 2500 years gap between Graeco-Aryan and Corded Ware. Graeco-Aryan connection is MUCH older. Corded Ware was very young and was actually proto-Germanic, nothing special about it at all. Stop with your ridiculous claims that proto-Iranian is from Corded Ware. Just don't insult proto-Iranian people, my direct ancestors...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graeco-Aryan

My god. Lol

bicicleur
22-12-16, 17:46
There is clear evidence of steppe mixing with EEF (almost certainly directly to the West) in Srubna, Poltavka, Sintashta, and Corded Ware that must have happened prior to, or at least without any CHG/Iran Neolithic admixture(or very little). This is consistent with the notion of steppe mixing with Europe very early on, which subsequently formed, at least in part, the R1a dominant populations that spread onto the steppe after Yamnaya.

that is the same way I see it
these R1a tribes didn't have any CHG prior to their contacts with Yamna populations, but they had already mixed with EEF

MarkoZ
22-12-16, 18:47
Lithuanian is only 'conservative' in comparison with Slavic, which has more innovations due to its complex history and didn't retain the conservative declension system that is still seen in Lithuanian. Any inference about the origin however are likely to be false in this regard, since we know that Balto-Slavic must have come from a region that is nowadays Slavic. A similar dynamic can be seen in the Germanic branch, whose most archaic member Icelandic is quite far from the ultimate origin.

Balto-Slavic itself isn't that archaic in the grand scheme. Mastasovic speculates that the relative paucity of foreign words is due to the proto-language being surrounded by other Indo-European branches.

The best attested representative of a 'pure' Indo-European language is still Sanskrit, imho. Witzel states that only 3% of its vocabulary have an unresolved or foreign etymology.

Sile
22-12-16, 19:12
Nothing but noncense. Lithuanian has absolutely nothing to do with the Iranian. Greek & Armenian are closer to Iranian than Lithuanian, lmao what are you talking about???

Proto-Iranian is much older that Corded Ware culture. Corded Ware is max 2900 BCE.

Proto-Iranian is from 4000 BCE.

http://geocurrents.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/2Atkinson-IE-Branches-Map.png

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/gnxp/files/2012/08/ie1.jpg


http://www.geocurrents.info/cultural-geography/linguistic-geography/how-large-was-the-area-in-which-proto-indo-european-was-spoken

So, in regards to the insert , where does Pontic-Greek come in ?...............as Armenian-Greek?

Angela
22-12-16, 21:28
I think you gentlemen should take a look at this spreadsheet by one of the very good posters on eurogenes. It includes both modern and ancient samples. The fact that the percentages for the ancient samples like Loschour, Karelia, etc. are so good gives me confidence that the percentages for samples like Corded Ware are probably pretty good as well.

It was posted in a thread about an upcoming paper which may follow Krause in holding that CHG is the Indo-European cluster.

This is why I said you need to look at formal stats as well.

See:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iVsKDUmDo4Zezea-B0VkZnFNb4XUVX7TT_HEZz-IFdk/edit#gid=1880196592

Olympus Mons
22-12-16, 22:45
I think you gentlemen should take a look at this spreadsheet by one of the very good posters on eurogenes. It includes both modern and ancient samples. The fact that the percentages for the ancient samples like Loschour, Karelia, etc. are so good gives me confidence that the percentages for samples like Corded Ware are probably pretty good as well.

It was posted in a thread about an upcoming paper which may follow Krause in holding that CHG is the Indo-European cluster.

This is why I said you need to look at formal stats as well.

See:
https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1iVsKDUmDo4Zezea-B0VkZnFNb4XUVX7TT_HEZz-IFdk/edit#gid=1880196592


Angela,and what is your take on it?

Angela
22-12-16, 23:05
Angela,and what is your take on it?

Do you mean whether I think CHG is the Indo-European marker?

If that's the question, I'd say I'm not sure yet but it's possible. These are, for now, in both cases speculation, because the papers haven't come out yet. Neither has the long awaited Reich/Patterson paper on all those ancient Caucasus area genomes.

I've been on record for a long time as saying that I think there was movement of people from south of the Caucasus north onto the steppe, whether directly over the mountains or by circling around the Caspian. That was in the days when certain bloggers were vociferous in maintaining that the Caucasus mountains were a total block on any "southern" migrations onto the steppe. Now we know there was such movement.

Whether that ancestry is the Indo-European marker I don't know. It's a complicated question. For one thing, are we talking about genetically, culturally, linguistically? If we go by David Anthony, he says that the Indo-Europeans were the Yamnaya people of the steppe from the period around 3500 BC who had a certain genetic mix, a certain culture, and spoke a certain language. That would be a mixed EHG/CHG group, yes? Everyone else would be Indo-Europeanized, including Corded Ware perhaps.

I've leaned that way for a long time, but in addition to the genes, it's clear that a lot of the culture came from south of the Caucasus too, most of it, in fact, I think, that or "Old Europe". Is it possible that those "CHG" migrants brought with them a language related to the "Anatolian" branch of the Indo-European languages. I think it's possible, but as I said, I need to read the actual papers, and see what linguists have to say about it.

A. Papadimitriou
23-12-16, 00:23
So, in regards to the insert , where does Pontic-Greek come in ?...............as Armenian-Greek?

Pontic Greek theoretically descends from Koine, which in turn descends from Attic, just like Standard Modern Greek.
Actually it has more archaic Ionic elements than the standard one. Pontic Greeks can be Greco-Persian genetically, with possible Thracian, 'Scythian', Caucasian etc elements.
It would make sense historically. Their neighbors, may have influenced them because that happens everywhere.
The language is as Greek as the standard one.

Btw, @Goga I don't think that Greek and Albanian or Greek and Armenian can be grouped together. It's worse than grouping Germanic with Slavic.
Is there a link of that study?

Goga
23-12-16, 00:36
My god. LolThe biggest LMAO is when you stated that Corded Ware spoke some proto-Iranian, after proto-Iranian was separated from Indo-Iranian and continued to evolve differently from proto-Indic.

It is YOU who try to link (proto-Germanic) Corded Ware to the Iranians/Aryans. The point is that Corded Ware has nothing to do with Iranians/Aryans. This was the biggest joke of 2016 and maybe even of 2017!!!

Aryans/Iranians (my direct ancestors) predate Corded Ware by thousands of years. Corded Ware folks (and their modern descendants) are not Aryan/Iranian, were never Aryan and will never be Aryans. It is a huge LMAO to me when non-Iranians claim and want to be the so called Aryans, while they have nothing to do with the ancient Mitanni, Medes, Persians and Parthians...

Goga
23-12-16, 00:45
Btw, @Goga I don't think that Greek and Albanian or Greek and Armenian can be grouped together. It's worse than grouping Germanic with Slavic.
Is there a link of that study?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0pa7SPns8fQ

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/337/6097/957

http://dienekes.blogspot.nl/2012/08/proto-indo-european-homeland-in.html

Goga
23-12-16, 01:03
So, in regards to the insert , where does Pontic-Greek come in ?...............as Armenian-Greek?Armenian exhibits more satemization than centumization. Armenian is closer to Indo-Iranian, than to Greek (centum language). But Armenian shares certain features only with Greek. I believe we should compare Armenian moslty to the ancient Anatolian languages.


To my understanding the Pontic-Greek is mostly from proto-Greek with some Anatolian/Armenian influences.

They found the MOST archaic Greek in NorthEAST Anatolia.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UcAYP4irSyQ


"Against all odds: archaic Greek in a modern world

An endangered Greek dialect spoken in Turkey has been identified by Dr Ioanna Sitaridou as a "linguistic goldmine" because of its closeness to a language spoken 2,000 years ago."

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/against-all-odds-archaic-greek-in-a-modern-world

Goga
23-12-16, 01:07
Think about it just a sec. Why did they found the MOST archaic Greek in NorthEAST Anatolia and NOT elsewhere...?

http://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/against-all-odds-archaic-greek-in-a-modern-world

A. Papadimitriou
23-12-16, 01:34
All modern Greek dialects were called 'Romeika' (=Roman) by common people.
So, the scientist who decided to use it for a single language or dialect shouldn't be considered a serious one.

Sile
23-12-16, 01:37
Pontic Greek theoretically descends from Koine, which in turn descends from Attic, just like Standard Modern Greek.
Actually it has more archaic Ionic elements than the standard one. Pontic Greeks can be Greco-Persian genetically, with possible Thracian, 'Scythian', Caucasian etc elements.
It would make sense historically. Their neighbors, may have influenced them because that happens everywhere.
The language is as Greek as the standard one.

Btw, @Goga I don't think that Greek and Albanian or Greek and Armenian can be grouped together. It's worse than grouping Germanic with Slavic.
Is there a link of that study?

So, when did these Pontic Greeks arrive on the Eastern Black sea coast?

Some DNA haplogroup state they are Ionion from Miletus travelled there.

Can we assume that the Mycenaeans and their replacements, the Dorians spoke the same language and if not which one contributed to these pontic Greeks

holderlin
23-12-16, 02:01
Lithuanian is only 'conservative' in comparison with Slavic, which has more innovations due to its complex history and didn't retain the conservative declension system that is still seen in Lithuanian. Any inference about the origin however are likely to be false in this regard, since we know that Balto-Slavic must have come from a region that is nowadays Slavic. A similar dynamic can be seen in the Germanic branch, whose most archaic member Icelandic is quite far from the ultimate origin.

Balto-Slavic itself isn't that archaic in the grand scheme. Mastasovic speculates that the relative paucity of foreign words is due to the proto-language being surrounded by other Indo-European branches.

The best attested representative of a 'pure' Indo-European language is still Sanskrit, imho. Witzel states that only 3% of its vocabulary have an unresolved or foreign etymology.

They're both very unadulterated in comparison to other IE languages. I've heard many explanations as to why Lithuanian is so conservative, and they all seem like reaches to me. Just like Indo-Iranian is closer to Indic than Iranian, Balto-Slavic is more Baltic than Slavic. In other words Slavic is just a more bastardized version of Baltic, IMHO. And actually Rivers that have Baltic names encompass nearly the entire region of CW, which is not a coincidence.

I would only disagree that Sanskrit is more conservative on the simple grounds that there are many words in Lithuanian that are the exact same word as the reconstructed PIE. This is probably overlooked in a more technical analysis, but it's hard to ignore. "Horse" for example if I had to recall one is the same in PIE as Lithuanian. This is amazing to me.

Even more impressive is not only how far apart they are in distance, but how late Lithuanian was even written down that it would present as so conservative.

A. Papadimitriou
23-12-16, 03:21
So, when did these Pontic Greeks arrive on the Eastern Black sea coast?

Some DNA haplogroup state they are Ionion from Miletus travelled there.

Can we assume that the Mycenaeans and their replacements, the Dorians spoke the same language and if not which one contributed to these pontic Greeks

The Greeks supposedly entered what is now modern Greece around 2000BC. I don't know if that is correct. Mycenean Greece is dated around c. 1600 – c. 1100 BC
The Dorian invasion isn't a fact, the semi-mythical events are labeled 'the return of the Heraclidae' in ancient sources. The interpretation is highly speculative.
The Greeks begun to establish colonies after 900-800 BC, first in Eastern Mediterranean.
The colonization of the Black Sea coasts happened later (not sure currently) but when Herodotus wrote his Histories there were Greeks in 'Scythia' (practically Ukraine),
and some of them had left the coasts and settled among the natives (see: Gelonians, Budini) -who imo were Uralic people in the forest steppe, many scholars would disagree-.


You can read about the Bosporan Kingdom. The Persian, Thracian and 'Scythian' elements are obvious.
Also there was the medieval Empire of Trebizond after the sack of Constantinople on 1204 by crusaders.

holderlin
23-12-16, 04:55
that is the same way I see it
these R1a tribes didn't have any CHG prior to their contacts with Yamna populations, but they had already mixed with EEF

Yes, It looks obvious to me. Bell Beaker too, so R1b as well.

Of course I'm looking for my early Italo-celtic departure as manifesting in Bell Beaker so I'm a bit biased, also looking for Tocharian in Afanasevo.

Goga
23-12-16, 05:26
Huh?? There is a huge amount of post-Neolithic Iranian Plateau auDNA from the in the ancient (~ 5000 yo) samples from the Steppes, at least up to 30%...

Goga
23-12-16, 05:34
F999942
Afanasievo-RISE509



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
63.24


2
Baloch
29.56


3
Caucasian
2.03


4
Mediterranean
1.89


5
Beringian
1.45


6
American
1.4


7
W-African
0.44




Dodecad K12b



1
North_European
65.23


2
Gedrosia
27.43


3
Atlantic_Med
5.12


4
Caucasus
1.84


5
Sub_Saharan
0.2


6
Siberian
0.08


7
South_Asian
0.06


8
Southeast_Asian
0.04






M828784
Afanasievo-RISE511



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
63.76


2
Baloch
28.13


3
American
3.56


4
Caucasian
2.18


5
Siberian
1.64


6
W-African
0.72



Dodecad K12b







1
North_European
66.75


2
Gedrosia
26.55


3
Siberian
2.89


4
Atlantic_Med
2.53


5
Caucasus
0.74


6
Sub_Saharan
0.54

LeBrok
23-12-16, 05:58
F999942
Afanasievo-RISE509



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
63.24


2
Baloch
29.56


3
Caucasian
2.03


4
Mediterranean
1.89


5
Beringian
1.45


6
American
1.4


7
W-African
0.44




Dodecad K12b



1
North_European
65.23


2
Gedrosia
27.43


3
Atlantic_Med
5.12


4
Caucasus
1.84


5
Sub_Saharan
0.2


6
Siberian
0.08


7
South_Asian
0.06


8
Southeast_Asian
0.04






M828784
Afanasievo-RISE511



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
63.76


2
Baloch
28.13


3
American
3.56


4
Caucasian
2.18


5
Siberian
1.64


6
W-African
0.72



Dodecad K12b







1
North_European
66.75


2
Gedrosia
26.55


3
Siberian
2.89


4
Atlantic_Med
2.53


5
Caucasus
0.74


6
Sub_Saharan
0.54



Baloch is very ancient admixture and is not indicator of Steppe and Iran mixing in pre Neolithic times. Baloch is Central Asian paleolithic/Ice Age admixture. Baloch is present in Kostenki and Mal'ta, but not Caucasus. Samara has 0 Caucasian but is rich in Baloch. It is impossible for Iranian Neolithic or CHG to come to Steppe and leave no Caucasian but only Baloch. However, later Afansievo should have Baloch and Caucasian from Iranian Neolithic.

Goga
23-12-16, 06:02
M690970
Sintashta-RISE386



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
57.8


2
Mediterranean
19.92


3
Baloch
18.5


4
Caucasian
2.01


5
W-African
1.2


6
Beringian
0.56




Dodecad K12b



1
North_European
53.75


2
Atlantic_Med
26.36


3
Gedrosia
16.61


4
Caucasus
1.86


5
Sub_Saharan
0.9


6
Siberian
0.42


7
Northwest_African
0.09






M277797
Sintashta-RISE395



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
58.44


2
Mediterranean
23.06


3
Baloch
17.64


4
W-African
0.82


5
Pygmy
0.03



Dodecad K12b



1
North_European
54.97


2
Atlantic_Med
29.58


3
Gedrosia
14.62


4
Sub_Saharan
0.66


5
Caucasus
0.17




Where all that Gedrosia/Baloch in the Steppes is from if it is NOT from R1a???


Afanasievo is older than Sintashta, Afanasievo has no Med, while Sintashta has lots of it. This indicates that there was a migration from Europe into the Steppes AFTER the Indo-Europization of the Steppes. That means that Atlantic_Med / Mediterranean arrived in the Steppes after the collonizations of Neolithic Iranian folks.

Goga
23-12-16, 06:07
Baloch is very ancient admixture and is not indicator of Steppe and Iran mixing in pre Neolithic times. Baloch is Central Asian paleolithic/Ice Age admixture. Baloch is present in Kostenki and Mal'ta, but not Caucasus. Samara has 0 Caucasian but is rich in Baloch. It is impossible for Iranian Neolithic or CHG to come to Steppe and leave no Caucasian but only Baloch. However, later Afansievo should have Baloch and Caucasian from Iranian Neolithic.So if Gedrosia/Baloch in the Steppes is not from R1a, where is it from then? What I'm trying to say is that Gedrosia/Baloch is an integral (important) part of R1a AND R1b. Even Mal'ta R* fella was full of Gedrosia/Baloch. So Gedrosia/Baloch has to be connected to R1a & R1b.


Afanasievo is older than Sintashta, Afanasievo has no Med, while Sintashta has lots of it. This is a great indication that there was a migration from Europe into the Steppes AFTER the Indo-Europization process of the Steppes. That means that Atlantic_Med / Mediterranean in the Steppes arrived much later after the collonizations of Neolithic Iranian folks.


Afanasievo: 3300 to 2500 BC = 0%-1.89% Mediterranean / 2.53%-5.12% Atlantic_Med
Sintashta : 2100 to 1800 BC = 19.92%- 23.06% Mediterranean / 26.36%-29.58% Atlantic_Med


Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes arrived very late and much later after Gedrosia/Baloch. Gedrosia/Baloch in both Afanasievo and Sintashta has to be from R1a, nothing more, nothing less...

holderlin
23-12-16, 06:18
F999942
Afanasievo-RISE509



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
63.24


2
Baloch
29.56


3
Caucasian
2.03


4
Mediterranean
1.89


5
Beringian
1.45


6
American
1.4


7
W-African
0.44




Dodecad K12b



1
North_European
65.23


2
Gedrosia
27.43


3
Atlantic_Med
5.12


4
Caucasus
1.84


5
Sub_Saharan
0.2


6
Siberian
0.08


7
South_Asian
0.06


8
Southeast_Asian
0.04






M828784
Afanasievo-RISE511



HarappaWorld



1
NE-Euro
63.76


2
Baloch
28.13


3
American
3.56


4
Caucasian
2.18


5
Siberian
1.64


6
W-African
0.72



Dodecad K12b







1
North_European
66.75


2
Gedrosia
26.55


3
Siberian
2.89


4
Atlantic_Med
2.53


5
Caucasus
0.74


6
Sub_Saharan
0.54




If they're going East I would expect CHG.

The thing is Kotias shows up everywhere on the steppe, but Iran Neolithic does not. It's hard to make sense of everything with some comparisons.

Goga
23-12-16, 06:30
If they're going East I would expect CHG.

The thing is Kotias shows up everywhere on the steppe, but Iran Neolithic does not. It's hard to make sense of everything with some comparisons.CHG is not from the 'East'. CHG is from the Caucasus. Eastern Steppes (Afanasievo area) are more 'Eastern' than CHG/Caucasus.

Neolithic Iranian folks were not exactly the same as CHG. Neolithic Iranians were more shifted toward the South Asia, while CHG from Caucasus was slightly more Northern. The connection between those 2 has to be ANE, though.

It is even possible that R* or R2*/R1* is actually from the Northern India. Iranian Neolithic was mostly Gedrosia/Baloch, but who is saying that Gedrosia/Baloch is native to Iran? Maybe that Iranian Neolithic farmer of Zagros Mountains (Western parts of the Iranian Plateau) was actually an immigrant from SouthCentral Asia/Northern India?

Angela
23-12-16, 07:16
Samara indeed has "Caucasian" in some formal stats analyses.

holderlin
23-12-16, 07:34
CHG is not from the 'East'. CHG is from the Caucasus. Eastern Steppes (Afanasievo area) are more 'Eastern' than CHG/Caucasus.

Neolithic Iranian folks were not exactly the same as CHG. Neolithic Iranians were more shifted toward the South Asia, while CHG from Caucasus was slightly more Northern. The connection between those 2 has to be ANE, though.

It is even possible that R* or R2*/R1* is actually from the Northern India. Iranian Neolithic was mostly Gedrosia/Baloch, but who is saying that Gedrosia/Baloch is native to Iran? Maybe that Iranian Neolithic farmer of Zagros Mountains (Western parts of the Iranian Plateau) was actually an immigrant from SouthCentral Asia/Northern India?

I think there was Iran Neolithic gene flow from the East around the Caspian, but more importantly there was no EEF. That is all I mean.

How MA-1 relates to CHG and Iran Neolithic would help explain much. This is sort of what I was getting at a while back when I said that "Teal" appeared to predate any contact with the Caucuses, but we see Karelia in Iran Hotu and absolutely not a shred of "Teal" in Karelia. There's no denying that there was gene flow from Iran to the Steppe as early as the Mesolithic BUT. We also see Kotias in Samara HG and not in Karelia. Part of me does wonder if the "Teal" showing up in some comparisons has been on the steppe since MA-1.

holderlin
23-12-16, 07:41
Samara indeed has "Caucasian" in some formal stats analyses.

Yep, and Hotu has some "steppe" in some stats, but in others it looks different.

The thing about admixture is that you get a broader picture, which is more useful in some models we're all trying to fit. Going off that the "Teal" disappears in some of the cultures following or contemporary with Yamnaya.

I don't know. What I do know is that Tocharian, Celto-Italic, and Anatolian HAD to have left PIE before Indic.

Goddamit

Alan
23-12-16, 07:53
The studies show all Yamnaya at around 50/50 EHG/CHG. Many amateur calculators too. The lowest estimates of CHG I have seen were around ~38%. 20% is not even half of it. Any calculator that calculates 80% EHG for Yamnaya. Is extremely broken and uses rather modern populations as refference. the 20% "CHG" look actually more like the modern Caucasus component you get in the higher Ks and which is based on modern pops. K14/15 is splitten too far down to components. For Yamnaya K4-K10 make sense. More components are uneccessary.

LeBrok
23-12-16, 08:34
So if Gedrosia/Baloch in the Steppes is not from R1a, where is it from then? What I'm trying to say is that Gedrosia/Baloch is an integral (important) part of R1a AND R1b. Even Mal'ta R* fella was full of Gedrosia/Baloch. So Gedrosia/Baloch has to be connected to R1a & R1b.What haplogroup was Kostenki?


Kostenki



Population



S-Indian
13.18


Baloch
12.49


Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
29.02


SE-Asian
4.28


Siberian
1.75


NE-Asian
-


Papuan
5.16


American
3.32


Beringian
1.43


Mediterranean
18.76


SW-Asian
5.89


San
1.24


E-African
1.82


Pygmy
0.92


W-African
0.73





Afanasievo is older than Sintashta, Afanasievo has no Med, while Sintashta has lots of it. This is a great indication that there was a migration from Europe into the Steppes AFTER the Indo-Europization process of the Steppes. That means that Atlantic_Med / Mediterranean in the Steppes arrived much later after the collonizations of Neolithic Iranian folks.
Sintashta really looks like a migration directly from Europe, like Corded Ware from Estonia. Or perhaps both migrated from North Yamnaya, one went West, the other East? Though this high Mediterranean points to European Neolithic Farmer or WHG. So most likely Sintashta came from Estonia.


Corded Estonia


Sintashta



Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
14.27

Baloch
17.64


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
59.09

NE-Euro
58.44


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.8

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
25.26

Mediterranean
23.06


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.5

W-African
0.82



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/From_Corded_Ware_to_Sintashta.jpg

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


Afanasievo: 3300 to 2500 BC = 0%-1.89% Mediterranean / 2.53%-5.12% Atlantic_Med
Sintashta : 2100 to 1800 BC = 19.92%- 23.06% Mediterranean / 26.36%-29.58% Atlantic_Med
Afansievo is more like Yamnaya


Afansievo Rise511


Poltavka, mid Yamnaya



Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
28.13

Baloch
30.06


Caucasian
2.18

Caucasian
7.57


NE-Euro
63.76

NE-Euro
59.14


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
1.64

Siberian
0.99


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
3.56

American
2.21


Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.72

W-African
-



https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/43/IE-migrations.gif

LeBrok
23-12-16, 08:40
The studies show all Yamnaya at around 50/50 EHG/CHG. Many amateur calculators too. The lowest estimates of CHG I have seen were around ~38%. 20% is not even half of it. Any calculator that calculates 80% EHG for Yamnaya. Is extremely broken and uses rather modern populations as refference. the 20% "CHG" look actually more like the modern Caucasus component you get in the higher Ks and which is based on modern pops. K14/15 is splitten too far down to components. For Yamnaya K4-K10 make sense. More components are uneccessary.



CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya


Samara HG


Poltavka, mid Yamnaya


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years



Population


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
0.62

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
6.13


Baloch
36.63

Baloch
14.33

Baloch
30.06

Baloch
62.71


Caucasian
54.15

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
7.57

Caucasian
24.97


NE-Euro
3.84

NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
59.14

NE-Euro
-


SE-Asian
0.59

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.77

Siberian
-

Siberian
0.99

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.15

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.35


American
-

American
9.62

American
2.21

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
0.15

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0.18


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.25

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
3.01

W-African
0.2

W-African
-

W-African
1.78



Why there is so little Caucasian admixture in Yamnaya, if half of CHG genome should be in it? By Harappa admixtures Yamnaya could be modeled as 75% Samara HG - 25% Iranian Neolithic.

LeBrok
23-12-16, 09:19
Mal'ta was R* and had some Baloch at 24% but overall he was NE-Euro at 40% and 20% American, and missing totally Caucasian admixture. Iranian Neolithic, on other hand was almost made of two sources, Baloch and Caucasian. There was not even a smidge of NE-Euro or American in Iranian Neolithic, to suggest any ancestry coming from people like Mal'ta boy. Both were related through Baloch and S-Indian common ancestor in the far far past, but otherwise quite different people. It is unlikely but still possible that Baloch could have been a source of R or P, but definitely not R1a or R1b.



Mal'ta


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years



Population


Population



S-Indian
10.13

S-Indian
6.13


Baloch
24.09

Baloch
62.71


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
24.97


NE-Euro
40.14

NE-Euro
-


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.7

Papuan
0.35


American
17.71

American
-


Beringian
6.74

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88


San
0.3

San
0.18


E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.19

Pygmy
-


W-African
-

W-African
1.78

LeBrok
23-12-16, 09:38
Sintashta looks like pure CW Estonian, Andronovo is later and shows some mixing with locals. Less Med, and more Baloch, American, Beringian and Siberian.


Corded Estonia


Sintashta


Andronovo



Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
0.54


Baloch
14.27

Baloch
17.64

Baloch
21.23


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
2.4


NE-Euro
59.09

NE-Euro
58.44

NE-Euro
56.39


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.8

Siberian
-

Siberian
1.93


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
-

American
1.05


Beringian
-

Beringian
-

Beringian
1.22


Mediterranean
25.26

Mediterranean
23.06

Mediterranean
14.37


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.06


W-African
0.5

W-African
0.82

W-African
0.81

MarkoZ
23-12-16, 10:40
They're both very unadulterated in comparison to other IE languages. I've heard many explanations as to why Lithuanian is so conservative, and they all seem like reaches to me. Just like Indo-Iranian is closer to Indic than Iranian, Balto-Slavic is more Baltic than Slavic. In other words Slavic is just a more bastardized version of Baltic, IMHO. And actually Rivers that have Baltic names encompass nearly the entire region of CW, which is not a coincidence.

A more reasonable conclusion would be that Lithuanian resembles more closely the Balto-Slavic root than do the Slavic languages.


I would only disagree that Sanskrit is more conservative on the simple grounds that there are many words in Lithuanian that are the exact same word as the reconstructed PIE. This is probably overlooked in a more technical analysis, but it's hard to ignore. "Horse" for example if I had to recall one is the same in PIE as Lithuanian. This is amazing to me.

Lithuanian 'arklys' ('horse') doesn't derive from PIE '*hek'wos'. There's Lithuanian 'ašva ' ('mare'), but it's not exactly the same.


Even more impressive is not only how far apart they are in distance, but how late Lithuanian was even written down that it would present as so conservative.

In many ways Lithuanian isn't very conservative at all, however. Just look at, for example, the verbal morphology and compare it with ancient Greek or Sanskrit.

Goga
23-12-16, 13:22
Mal'ta was R* and had some Baloch at 24% but overall he was NE-Euro at 40% and 20% American, and missing totally Caucasian admixture. Iranian Neolithic, on other hand was almost made of two sources, Baloch and Caucasian. There was not even a smidge of NE-Euro or American in Iranian Neolithic, to suggest any ancestry coming from people like Mal'ta boy. Both were related through Baloch and S-Indian common ancestor in the far far past, but otherwise quite different people. It is unlikely but still possible that Baloch could have been a source of R or P, but definitely not R1a or R1b.



Mal'ta


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years



Population


Population



S-Indian
10.13

S-Indian
6.13


Baloch
24.09

Baloch
62.71


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
24.97


NE-Euro
40.14

NE-Euro
-


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.7

Papuan
0.35


American
17.71

American
-


Beringian
6.74

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88


San
0.3

San
0.18


E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.19

Pygmy
-


W-African
-

W-African
1.78


Mal'ta was R*. But he was not really ancestral to R1* or R2*. Mal'ta was obviously 'mixed'. We can even call Ma'ta R3* or something. He belonged to a different subtype of R*, than ancestors of R2* & R1*. R1* (and therefore R1a* & R1b*) evolved from a different source and different subtype of R* than Mal'ta...

berun
23-12-16, 13:23
Evidence? There is mixing all over the place at the CT/Steppe interface. How bout Sredny Stog and Bug Dniester? And I don't think we got the samples we would need to really investigate this. I know the graves are a complete mixed bag physically with Steppe and Mediterranean types. I think we only got sample from the Yamnaya horizon above Dnieper Donets, which actually gave some indication of this process with an I2

Ok I understand that I was confuses. You was explaining a western expansion of Yamnayans... in the steppe itself. Yamna spreads all the Pontic and Caspian steppe so from my point of view western was west of tge Carpathians.

By the way it's that Yanmayists have not found a name for the steppe culture after Khavalinsk and before Yamna? ( Or it's that there was nothing there to name? :)

Goga
23-12-16, 13:35
Sintashta really looks like a migration directly from Europe, like Corded Ware from Estonia. Or perhaps both migrated from North Yamnaya, one went West, the other East? Though this high Mediterranean points to European Neolithic Farmer or WHG. So most likely Sintashta came from Estonia.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sintashta_culture
I'm not sure where Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes is from, but it is still possible that Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes arrived at the same time when it arrive in the Baltic region. Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med auDNA is not really that old in the Balitc region. But I don't think that there was a migration from NorthEastern Europe into Central Asia, since there are no 'European' Y-DNA haplogroups in Central Asia. There is no I1, I2a, R1a-Z282 etc. in Central Asia. Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes has to be from a different source. Maybe a second invasion (wave) of LATE Yamnaya folks into Central Asia thousand years later???

There was actually a miration from Central Asia into the Baltics, since they found some ancient Y-DNA hg. J1 in Karelia...

Goga
23-12-16, 13:55
Btw, EAST Iranic BMAC culture is OLDER than Sintashta

BMAC : 2300 to 1700 BC
Sintashta : 2100 to 1800 BC
Andronovo : 2000 to 900

EAST Iranian BMAC culture can't be from Sintashta. It is even chronologically impossible that BMAC is from Sintashta/Andronovo. Even BEFORE Sintashta there was already a split between WEST and EAST Iranians. Ancient Iranians (proto-Medes) from Western Parts of the Iranian Plateau migrated into South Central Asia and evolved into the East Iranian who became known as BMAC folks.

A. Papadimitriou
23-12-16, 13:56
After the Neolithic there seems to be a flow from Anatolia and Caucasus or a region close to it to Iran, not from the steppes.




Population
Loschbour:Loschbour
Barcin_Neolithic:I0707
Esperstedt_MN:I0172
Karelia_HG
Kotias:KK1
Nganasan
Mozabite
Iran_Neolithic:I1290
Israel_Natufian:I0861
Paniya
Dai
Distance




Iran_Neolithic:WC1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97,3
2
0
0,7
0,005367


Iran_Neolithic:I1945
0
0
0
2,8
0
0
0
92,1
0
5,1
0
0,011044


Iran_Neolithic:I1290
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0


Iran_Late_Neolithic:I1671
0
0,9
0
0
15,3
0
0
75,8
7,1
0,9
0
0,005985


Iran_Hotu:I1293
0
0
0
13,4
0
0
0
84,1
0
2,5
0
0,011722


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1674
0
12,7
0
0
27,2
0
0
39,9
20,2
0
0
0,006394


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1670
0
16,2
0
0
28,1
1,3
0
39,4
15
0
0
0,006489


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665
0
0,6
0
0
43,2
0
0
24,9
31,3
0
0
0,009529


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1662
0
19,3
0
0
19,3
0
0
49
12,4
0
0
0,007656


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1661
0
24,7
0
0
16,1
0
0
56,7
2,5
0
0
0,006435


So, if the IE languages weren't already there in the Neolithic*, they could have been brought there by a group of people who had Barcin, Kotias admixture. Even Natufian increases.

*Most would say they weren't but I am mentioning it in order to be 100% clear.

bicicleur
23-12-16, 15:08
After the Neolithic there seems to be a flow from Anatolia and Caucasus or a region close to it to Iran, not from the steppes.




Population
Loschbour:Loschbour
Barcin_Neolithic:I0707
Esperstedt_MN:I0172
Karelia_HG
Kotias:KK1
Nganasan
Mozabite
Iran_Neolithic:I1290
Israel_Natufian:I0861
Paniya
Dai
Distance




Iran_Neolithic:WC1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97,3
2
0
0,7
0,005367


Iran_Neolithic:I1945
0
0
0
2,8
0
0
0
92,1
0
5,1
0
0,011044


Iran_Neolithic:I1290
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
100
0
0
0
0


Iran_Late_Neolithic:I1671
0
0,9
0
0
15,3
0
0
75,8
7,1
0,9
0
0,005985


Iran_Hotu:I1293
0
0
0
13,4
0
0
0
84,1
0
2,5
0
0,011722


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1674
0
12,7
0
0
27,2
0
0
39,9
20,2
0
0
0,006394


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1670
0
16,2
0
0
28,1
1,3
0
39,4
15
0
0
0,006489


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1665
0
0,6
0
0
43,2
0
0
24,9
31,3
0
0
0,009529


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1662
0
19,3
0
0
19,3
0
0
49
12,4
0
0
0,007656


Iran_Chalcolithic:I1661
0
24,7
0
0
16,1
0
0
56,7
2,5
0
0
0,006435


So, if the IE languages weren't already there in the Neolithic*, they could have been brought there by a group of people who had Barcin, Kotias admixture. Even Natufian increases.

*Most would say they weren't but I am mentioning it in order to be 100% clear.

wait a minute, no KK1 in Iran Neolithic? Is that correct, am I missing something?

http://oi65.tinypic.com/311pgrq.jpg

LeBrok
23-12-16, 17:28
I'm not sure where Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes is from, but it is still possible that Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes arrived at the same time when it arrive in the Baltic region. Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med auDNA is not really that old in the Balitc region. Main source of Med were EEF.


Motala 12


NE7 Hungary


Nordic LN, Rise 71
M671253


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
-

Baloch
9.29


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
19.04

Caucasian
10.55


NE-Euro
90.24

NE-Euro
16.69

NE-Euro
51.89


SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.07

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.57

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
1.58

American
-

American
-


Beringian
0.68

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
6.83

Mediterranean
56.18

Mediterranean
27.34


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
7.96

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
0.22


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
-

W-African
0.11

W-African
0.7







But I don't think that there was a migration from NorthEastern Europe into Central Asia, since there are no 'European' Y-DNA haplogroups in Central Asia. There is no I1, I2a, R1a-Z282 etc. in Central Asia. Mediterranean / Atlantic_Med in the Steppes has to be from a different source. Maybe a second invasion (wave) of LATE Yamnaya folks into Central Asia thousand years later???No Y from Estonia Corded yet, and not many from Sintashta and Andronovo, nothing from NW Yanaya either. We have to wait.


There was actually a miration from Central Asia into the Baltics, since they found some ancient Y-DNA hg. J1 in Karelia...Sure 3000 years before Yamnaya, and still they didn't bring much of Caucasian admixture, nore they were the source of Med. It has nothing to do with Yamnaya, Estonia, Sintashta and Andronovo. So far we see a strong genetic link of these cultures.

holderlin
23-12-16, 17:57
CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya


Samara HG


Poltavka, mid Yamnaya


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years



Population


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
0.62

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
6.13


Baloch
36.63

Baloch
14.33

Baloch
30.06

Baloch
62.71


Caucasian
54.15

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
7.57

Caucasian
24.97


NE-Euro
3.84

NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
59.14

NE-Euro
-


SE-Asian
0.59

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.77

Siberian
-

Siberian
0.99

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.15

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.35


American
-

American
9.62

American
2.21

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
0.15

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0.18


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.25

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
3.01

W-African
0.2

W-African
-

W-African
1.78



Why there is so little Caucasian admixture in Yamnaya, if half of CHG genome should be in it? By Harappa admixtures Yamnaya could be modeled as 75% Samara HG - 25% Iranian Neolithic.

Yeah this is about what I see in most data sets. I sort of average it in my head to about 1/3 "Teal".

holderlin
23-12-16, 18:46
A more reasonable conclusion would be that Lithuanian resembles more closely the Balto-Slavic root than do the Slavic languages.



Lithuanian 'arklys' ('horse') doesn't derive from PIE '*hek'wos'. There's Lithuanian 'ašva ' ('mare'), but it's not exactly the same.



[/COLOR]In many ways Lithuanian isn't very conservative at all, however. Just look at the gender system & the verbal morphology and compare it with ancient Greek or Sanskrit.

In many ways Sanskrit isn't conservative either. Vowel collapses for example, and I know Sanskrit is super conservative, but it's more impressive to me that Lithuanian comes very close if not matching its archaisms.

OK, maybe I was thinking of "wolf" where it's essentially the same word in Lithuanian.

MOESAN
23-12-16, 23:02
Baloch is very ancient admixture and is not indicator of Steppe and Iran mixing in pre Neolithic times. Baloch is Central Asian paleolithic/Ice Age admixture. Baloch is present in Kostenki and Mal'ta, but not Caucasus. Samara has 0 Caucasian but is rich in Baloch. It is impossible for Iranian Neolithic or CHG to come to Steppe and leave no Caucasian but only Baloch. However, later Afansievo should have Baloch and Caucasian from Iranian Neolithic.


I agree. These diverse components ('teal', 'baloch', 'gedrosia' are uneasy to hand because they contain very old common auDNA of Central Asia
we said that already very long ago

MOESAN
23-12-16, 23:29
pre-Yamnayan PIE going west? which aracheological culture support it? as far as I know there is none.

For the linguistic side, in the CW area developed Germanic and Balto-Slavic, and such branches are first degree sisters.

I'm late (no time)
We have to take all these families trees with caution: languages are strange things and they show discrepancies between ancient grammar and new grammar, with not always evident links between phonetic and grammar, between grammar, lexicon and phonetic; some hints of proximity are based upon old "genealogic" ties, others upon new geographic contacts (mix of the "tree" and the "wave" systems). Old proximities can be puzzled by language shifts and adoption by very different submitted ethnies. It's a long time all these family trees would be exactly the same if the question was so simple. When I find a man too sure of himself I fear.
I don't know what Holderlin is trying to prove - I dont think Ind-Ir languages are directly issued from a proto-Baltic or a proto-Slavo-Batlic family, but I don't discard a possible link or contact zone between the proto-stages of all these languages during satem gestation - the links between Greek and I-I could be very ancient but after these groups separated for a long time I think -here I'm a bit short. Concerning CWC, I'm almost sure they were a proto-satem speakers group (substratum in Saami lang through where? Southeast Baltic or Norway?). I think Germanic was launched by dominantly Y-R1b-U106 groups, surely with some contacts with some Y-R1a and continental Y-I1, and after CWC times.

MOESAN
24-12-16, 00:23
I've studied the K = 14 too, and I find it very interesting.

You'll find the Yamna, Afanasievo and Poltavka are all similar :
lots of EHG with an important share of CHG and no EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1b-P297

Poltavka outlier, Potapovka, CW, Sintashta, Srubna & Andronovo are different :
lots of EHG too, but CHG is reduced and they have EEF, their identified Y-DNA is R1a-M417
they took over from the R1b-P297

Thse cultures are recent compared to Yamnaya and even GAC or CWC - someones pretend the development of metallurgy in Pit Grave culture knew an East-West direction? I've not the details so I 'm withut opinion. But concerning the above cultures, auDNA confirmes craniology: evident ties with Northeast and Central Europe so West-East demic input, spite Sintashta would show Southeast Caspian cultural influences (buildings among them).
Steppes saw exchanges at high scale, maybe when first colonizers of the Steppes met and took advantage of the Tripolye and akin evolved cultures?

Dagne
24-12-16, 00:37
In many ways Lithuanian isn't very conservative at all, however. Just look at the gender system & the verbal morphology and compare it with ancient Greek or Sanskrit.

Lithuanian is a conservative language compared to other modern languages. At a time when Ancient Greek or Sanskrit were spoken Lithuanian probably was not even a well formed protolanguage and would have looked much more similar to IE roots

Alan
24-12-16, 04:36
CHG, Satsurblia georgia 13kya


Samara HG


Poltavka, mid Yamnaya


Iranian Neolithic 10,000 years



Population


Population


Population


Population



S-Indian
0.62

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
6.13


Baloch
36.63

Baloch
14.33

Baloch
30.06

Baloch
62.71


Caucasian
54.15

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
7.57

Caucasian
24.97


NE-Euro
3.84

NE-Euro
75.62

NE-Euro
59.14

NE-Euro
-


SE-Asian
0.59

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
0.77

Siberian
-

Siberian
0.99

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.15

Papuan
-

Papuan
-

Papuan
0.35


American
-

American
9.62

American
2.21

American
-


Beringian
-

Beringian
0.15

Beringian
-

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
3.88


San
-

San
-

San
-

San
0.18


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
0.25

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
3.01

W-African
0.2

W-African
-

W-African
1.78



Why there is so little Caucasian admixture in Yamnaya, if half of CHG genome should be in it? By Harappa admixtures Yamnaya could be modeled as 75% Samara HG - 25% Iranian Neolithic.

The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they atually took this route and not the South_Central Asian way where I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already.

holderlin
24-12-16, 05:50
Lithuanian is a conservative language compared to other modern languages. At a time when Ancient Greek or Sanskrit were spoken Lithuanian probably was not even a well formed protolanguage and would have looked much more similar to IE roots

For modern languages? It would be the most conservative I'm pretty sure. It sort of is apples and oranges comparing ancient attestations with modern.

That's what makes it so impressive and as you say at the time when Sanskrit was spoken whatever form of Baltic that was spoken at the time MUST have been very close to PIE if not indistinguishable.

LeBrok
24-12-16, 07:10
The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they even took this route and not the South_Central Asian way were I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already. I know what you are saying, they all have ancestral components and might have mixed along the way somewhat too. I believe it is very hard for programmers to really separate mixtures. However, in my observations, I used changes in proportions of admixtures to figure out population movements rather than comparing admixtures alone. Also only dominant admixtures were used to make sure they don't dissipate on their way into a noise.
I do believe Iran-Neo picked up some CHG on their way to the steppe, but it couldn't have been more than 25%. Otherwise we would see proportion of Caucasian to Baloch skewed towards Caucasian.
On PCA charts, the distance and direction Yamnaya went from EHG position towards Iranian Neo/CHG, points to 25-30% admixture, not more.
http://j2-m172.info/wp-content/uploads/sites/3/2016/06/PCAtest2_Eurogenes_2016-06-23_detail-Levant.png
http://eurogenes.blogspot.ca/2016/06/a-moment-of-clarity.html


What you actually saying is very visible in Global 10 K11 ran. They use source population of 100% CHG and 100% Iranian Neolithic. This guys are very related and have probably 90% same genome. In Iranian Neolithic there is 90% of CHG and vice versa, and yet they managed to created 100% source in both. That's quite a paradox.
I'm guessing that they created CHG source population from 100% CHG, and used 10% distinct genome part of Iran Neo to make 100% Iran Neo. Right? I might be wrong.
Anyway, at 10% of total genome it is easy to lose, Iran Neo when it travels to Yamnaya and mixes with locals, getting divided by half and half till it vanishes. Also ancient genomes are not very complete to start with and can easily miss such small parts, which is not helping when dealing with 10% small Iran Neo DNA. In case of K11 Yamnaya is based on almost 50/50 Karelia EHG/Kotias CHG. All hunter gatherers. Anyway, instead of seeing mostly Iranian Neo, which we should to my understanding, we see almost only CHG. Not realising that this CHG is the CHG part in Iranian Neolithic Genome.
Well, maybe I'm wrong, but I think this is what happened here.
Another thing increasing CHG admixture in Yamnaya is that EHG part is based on Karelia and not on Samara. I'm sure Samara being closer had more ancient similarities to CHG than Karelia guy. So a part of Samara EHG is associated with CHG instead of with EHG, making neolithic impact of south caucasus on Yamnaya exaggerated.

Unfortunately I can't confirm it by Gedmatch as the only Karelia sample, which used to be available, can't be found in the system anymore.

holderlin
24-12-16, 07:34
The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they even took this route and not the South_Central Asian way were I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already.

I don't know if I agree with all of this but it does seem like there's some really old South Asian(?) shared ancestor to both MA-1 and CHG, or something like that, leading to conflicting data. You see Baloch in Paleolithic Europe samples too. Could this be some of the first Caucasoids coming from South Asia? Kostenki has Baloch and his Y-HG is Coastal out of Africa. And of course you see Karelia in Hotu.

MOESAN
24-12-16, 12:16
@Lebrok
I agree for the most. CHG and Iran Neol are not exactly the same but cover a huge common ancestry - always the same problem when trying to put dates on admixtures events when they are not separated by numerous thousends of years. The all directions exchanges of pops around Caspian and Black Sea over time since Neolithic and even earlier times prevent us to be too affirmative concerning proto-historic moves of pops (who gives who takes?) and their cultural assignation, when only admixtures methods are used without IBD.

MOESAN
24-12-16, 12:34
I don't know if I agree with all of this but it does seem like there's some really old South Asian(?) shared ancestor to both MA-1 and CHG, or something like that, leading to conflicting data. You see Baloch in Paleolithic Europe samples too. Could this be some of the first Caucasoids coming from South Asia? Kostenki has Baloch and his Y-HG is Coastal out of Africa. And of course you see Karelia in Hotu.

The more you go back in past the more you find admixtures of "modern" pops! very funny indeed! the modern geographic assignations of admixture components can mislead some of us. BTW I'm amazed when I see comparisons mixing IranCHL with CHGlike (miracle of imprecision) and Samara HGlike, because I think CHG (already close to IranNeol) was present at some level inSamaraHG and IranCHL: I've the feeling we mix carots and turlips and potatoes in savant mathematics. It recalls me some admixtures runs with (I exagerate to be more pedagogic) "French S-West Bordeaux"+"all Asia" + " 157 BC Samaritans ", I think you see what I mean.
That said, I found Alan's arguments are not without foundation. One of my options for PIE people is an East Caspian one rather than South or North Caucasus, at first time.

Angela
24-12-16, 18:56
The reason for that is because CHG-Iran_Neo and Samara HG do have shared ancestry and if you don't use the supervised mode for your calculator, depending on which population we use first and which we add. The calculator might take this shared ancestry actually as Samara HG instead of CHG or Iran_Neo. There are reasonable arguments from the papers that Samara HG itself could have been already Iran_Neo or CHG admixed. Indeed some samples did show more of this admixture than others.There also seems to be Zarzian and Leyla Tepe culture influence on the Steppe cultures already by Neolithic if not even earlier.

CHG itself is little more ANE and WHG shifted than Iran_Neo, the reason why it shows always some more "EHG" like admixture and in this case East European.

It is archeologically seen also unlikely to assume that a purely Iran_Neo pop crossed into the Steppes without having changed itself slightly on the way up there already. archeoligically the influence makes sense in the way of Iran_CHL => CHL_Caucasus=> Bronze Age Steppes.

This is why the studies gave a ~32% Iran_CHL+~15% CHG like + 53% Samara HG like as a good model, because these Iranian_Plateau herders obviously catched up some additional admxiture on the Caucasus before they mixed with the Samara H&Gs like population, if they even took this route and not the South_Central Asian way were I expect that we will find a Iran_Neo+EHG like people by Neolithic already.

This is what it seems like to me as well for now. Hopefully, more genomes from the Caucasus and adjacent areas from the appropriate times will clear it up more.

Sile
24-12-16, 19:02
The more you go back in past the more you find admixtures of "modern" pops! very funny indeed! the modern geographic assignations of admixture components can mislead some of us. BTW I'm amazed when I see comparisons mixing IranCHL with CHGlike (miracle of imprecision) and Samara HGlike, because I think CHG (already close to IranNeol) was present at some level inSamaraHG and IranCHL: I've the feeling we mix carots and turlips and potatoes in savant mathematics. It recalls me some admixtures runs with (I exagerate to be more pedagogic) "French S-West Bordeaux"+"all Asia" + " 157 BC Samaritans ", I think you see what I mean.
That said, I found Alan's arguments are not without foundation. One of my options for PIE people is an East Caspian one rather than South or North Caucasus, at first time.

Is it part of this complex

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bactria-Margiana_Archaeological_Complex

LeBrok
24-12-16, 20:54
The more you go back in past the more you find admixtures of "modern" pops! very funny indeed! the modern geographic assignations of admixture components can mislead some of us. BTW I'm amazed when I see comparisons mixing IranCHL with CHGlike (miracle of imprecision) and Samara HGlike, because I think CHG (already close to IranNeol) was present at some level inSamaraHG and IranCHL: I've the feeling we mix carots and turlips and potatoes in savant mathematics. It recalls me some admixtures runs with (I exagerate to be more pedagogic) "French S-West Bordeaux"+"all Asia" + " 157 BC Samaritans ", I think you see what I mean.
That said, I found Alan's arguments are not without foundation. One of my options for PIE people is an East Caspian one rather than South or North Caucasus, at first time. I wonder what we are going to find in BMAC area. It used to be strong Neolithic Farmer Culture for some time, then they got mixed with Steppe IE of Andronovo, just before South expansion of IEs. I'm expecting to see some interesting stuff. Possibly some eastern branches of R1b mixed into BMAC farmer culture?

MarkoZ
25-12-16, 00:47
*My previous post should've actually been something like 'compare the gender system to the Anatolian branch and the verbal morphology to Greek or Sanskrit". Not sure what I was thinking here.


In many ways Sanskrit isn't conservative either. Vowel collapses for example, and I know Sanskrit is super conservative, but it's more impressive to me that Lithuanian comes very close if not matching its archaisms.

OK, maybe I was thinking of "wolf" where it's essentially the same word in Lithuanian.

Sanskrit is not PIE, that's a given. One of the changes observed from the original [a/e/o] to [a].

When you say Lithuanian 'matches its archaisms' (in reference to Sanskrit), it would be helpful if stated how you came to this conclusion, since the consensus is that Lithuanian is very much a modern language and not some kind of linguistic fossil.


Lithuanian is a conservative language compared to other modern languages. At a time when Ancient Greek or Sanskrit were spoken Lithuanian probably was not even a well formed protolanguage and would have looked much more similar to IE roots

I don't think the conservativeness of modern languages relative to PIE can be quantified in any meaningful way - the timeframe between the split of the root language and today is simply too large to permit such comparisons. A more salient method would be a comparison with reconstructed Balto-Slavic, which most models show as branching off rather late.

MOESAN
26-12-16, 00:15
Why would Iran farmers go to steppe by crossing mountains and not just go up via eastern caspian? Dont think steppe 4000bc had much Iran neolithic. but ok.

From what I red (little?) the North Pontic Neolithic was rather a mixed culture were ancient HG habits were not overwhelmed by new agricultural modes. And compared to western Catacombs, the Yamnaya people were very less "farmerlike" in their economic ways. Could all that confirm a rather weak agricultural aspect of the South to North Caucasus colonisation (what demic input?), even before the metals ages? And Maykop seems to me more a "parasite" warlike spotty settled society that a slow continual colonisation (and I recall their craniometric means closer to SE Caspian people of the time than to Caucasus people with something from farther in them, spite this is not a proof, because they could have passed through South Caucasus by South Caspian even if it was not so easy); but I'm not archeologist and I could put someones to smile. Just to say that the most deeply farmerlike influences could have been more the result of a western proto-Tripolye and full Tripolye input (what dates?) than a S-Caucasus one, the last inputs being about Late Chalco and after (+Balkan cattle in Steppes). We know some of the later Steppes cultures show a Central-East European demic input, and it could confirm affirmations of scholars about part of the post-Tripolye pops going eastwards and taking on more nomadic ways of life (surely more in an osmosis pattern than in a conquest one), being responsible of EEF among CWC (soon enough) and others, later in Russia steppes. But for Catacombs, Grigoryev spoke of a clear I-I linguistic input so maybe more an eastern Caspian input, than a South Caucasus one. We know agriculture in SE Caspian was very evolved around the 2000BC but surely it began earlier. (I want not link recent BMAC culture to this possible more ancient input (before 3000 BC), nor I link by force BMAC to PIE pops, to date, even if possible).
*BMAC could have been linked to Hurro-Urartian language speakers and not I-E ones and Harappa to a language close to Dravidian or Elamitic?
I would be glad to have ancient auDNA of two Catacombs groups (Western and Eastern, not exactly the same); we have only mtDNA rather steppelike, but I don't know which Catacomb group has been studied for it, helas.

Goga
26-12-16, 02:34
It seems that BMAC is older than we thought. BMAC is at least from 3700 BC. And it is from Iran and therefore of the 'Iranian' origin and NOT Hurro-Urartian.

3700 BC is after the same time when Leyla-Tepe folks migrated into the Maykop Horizon and Mesopotamia. So, Leyla-Tepe people migrated in different directions. BMAC was contemporary to Maykop.


Leyla-Tepe : 4350 BC

The Uruk period (Mesopotamia) : 4000 BC
Maykop : 3700 BC
BMAC : 3700 BC


https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/files/2007/03/MAIS_map.jpg


" Archaeologists discover traces of BMAC in northeastern Iran

"Storage spaces dating back to 3700 BC have been discovered at the site. Large pots which were used for storing grains and other agricultural products have been dug out in the spaces," he added.
"We have found seeds of grain, barley and grapes. The grapes were likely used for production of vinegar or a special drink," he stated.

Vahdati said, "Chalo reveals details of the BMAC in Iran. Maybe it is better to call it the Greater Khorasan culture, because parts of Merv, Samarkand, and Bukhara were under the influence of Greater Khorasan." "


http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/archaeological-excavation-Chalo-site-Sankhast-5-HR.jpg

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/archaeological-excavation-Chalo-site-Sankhast-1-HR.jpg

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html

holderlin
26-12-16, 07:08
From what I red (little?) the North Pontic Neolithic was rather a mixed culture were ancient HG habits were not overwhelmed by new agricultural modes. And compared to western Catacombs, the Yamnaya people were very less "farmerlike" in their economic ways. Could all that confirm a rather weak agricultural aspect of the South to North Caucasus colonisation (what demic input?), even before the metals ages? And Maykop seems to me more a "parasite" warlike spotty settled society that a slow continual colonisation (and I recall their craniometric means closer to SE Caspian people of the time than to Caucasus people with something from farther in them, spite this is not a proof, because they could have passed through South Caucasus by South Caspian even if it was not so easy); but I'm not archeologist and I could put someones to smile. Just to say that the most deeply farmerlike influences could have been more the result of a western proto-Tripolye and full Tripolye input (what dates?) than a S-Caucasus one, the last inputs being about Late Chalco and after (+Balkan cattle in Steppes). We know some of the later Steppes cultures show a Central-East European demic input, and it could confirm affirmations of scholars about part of the post-Tripolye pops going eastwards and taking on more nomadic ways of life (surely more in an osmosis pattern than in a conquest one), being responsible of EEF among CWC (soon enough) and others, later in Russia steppes. But for Catacombs, Grigoryev spoke of a clear I-I linguistic input so maybe more an eastern Caspian input, than a South Caucasus one. We know agriculture in SE Caspian was very evolved around the 2000BC but surely it began earlier. (I want not link recent BMAC culture to this possible more ancient input (before 3000 BC), nor I link by force BMAC to PIE pops, to date, even if possible).
*BMAC could have been linked to Hurro-Urartian language speakers and not I-E ones and Harappa to a language close to Dravidian or Elamitic?
I would be glad to have ancient auDNA of two Catacombs groups (Western and Eastern, not exactly the same); we have only mtDNA rather steppelike, but I don't know which Catacomb group has been studied for it, helas.

That's another thing that's very obvious in the Archeaology. All of the copper on the steppe was coming from the balkans, as was farming material culture. This was happening long before Yamnaya layers, which is sort of the basis of my Pre-Yamnaya PIE stance.

holderlin
26-12-16, 08:51
Not sure what I was thinking here.

You were so excited to try and pwn me with linguistics that you posted before reading enough. I don't know what you're trying to prove, but Lithuanian is in fact the most archaic among living IE languages. It's hard to debate this.

Yes the verb forms are an exception as is Anatolian. You can't really compare Anatolian as it's likely older than the re-constructed PIE.


Sanskrit is not PIE, that's a given. One of the changes observed from the original [a/e/o] to [a].

When you say Lithuanian 'matches its archaisms' (in reference to Sanskrit), it would be helpful if stated how you came to this conclusion, since the consensus is that Lithuanian is very much a modern language and not some kind of linguistic fossil.

Yes the vowel convergence as I mentioned.

My opinion is based mainly in how it sounds, so it's a bit tricky to quantify. And you must know it's considered among Greek, Sanskrit, and Anatolian as the most important sources for reconstructing the root language. So it actually is some kind of linguistic fossil.

SON: Sanskrit sunus - Lithuanian sunus
SHEEP: Sanskrit avis - Lithuanian avis
SOLE: Sanskrit padas - Lithuanian padas
MAN: Sanskrit viras - Lithuanian vyras
SMOKE: Sanskrit dhumas - Lithuanian dumas




I don't think the conservativeness of modern languages relative to PIE can be quantified in any meaningful way - the timeframe between the split of the root language and today is simply too large to permit such comparisons. A more salient method would be a comparison with reconstructed Balto-Slavic, which most models show as branching off rather late.

This is a silly argument. Yes, it did branch off late, because PIE was spoken by Dnieper-Donets and Samara HG. Why would that be more "salient"? It's far more impressive to look at actual languages that were spoken than reconstructions.

MOESAN
26-12-16, 12:35
@Goga
Thanks. I'm not sharp enough in archeology - I need more readings - I was speaking of the BMAC late developments linguistically not assigned yet for I know. That said, and I know it's boring for all of us, some cultural material links between cultures don't prove everytime a pure ethnic link nor continuity (we see that in Europe with plain Unetice and Uneticelike cultures) - It seems to me I red by example Kura-Araxes culture territory was not mono-ethnic, but maybe I mistake?

MOESAN
26-12-16, 12:44
@Holderlin
I'm not an expert in eastern languages, far from that.
But at first sight, phonetically speaking, it seems Baltic (so Balto-Slavic I believe it has existed) are and was very close to I-I languages; it's why I don't believe in a hazardous convergence among diverse satem languages; a very tight comunity has existed I think somewhere in the Steppes for all these languages today a bit more diversified.
Conservative grammar traits left aside (I'm too short to speak about them) I have the fealing even proto-Greek was phonetically more palatalized than today Greek; its quick evolution in a relatively short time compared to history pushes me to conclude this is due to language shift and adoption of early Greek language by submitted or dominated population (non I-E?).

bicicleur
26-12-16, 13:52
It seems that BMAC is older than we thought. BMAC is at least from 3700 BC. And it is from Iran and therefore of the 'Iranian' origin and NOT Hurro-Urartian.

3700 BC is after the same time when Leyla-Tepe folks migrated into the Maykop Horizon and Mesopotamia. So, Leyla-Tepe people migrated in different directions. BMAC was contemporary to Maykop.


Leyla-Tepe : 4350 BC

The Uruk period (Mesopotamia) : 4000 BC
Maykop : 3700 BC
BMAC : 3700 BC


https://www.penn.museum/sites/expedition/files/2007/03/MAIS_map.jpg


" Archaeologists discover traces of BMAC in northeastern Iran

"Storage spaces dating back to 3700 BC have been discovered at the site. Large pots which were used for storing grains and other agricultural products have been dug out in the spaces," he added.
"We have found seeds of grain, barley and grapes. The grapes were likely used for production of vinegar or a special drink," he stated.

Vahdati said, "Chalo reveals details of the BMAC in Iran. Maybe it is better to call it the Greater Khorasan culture, because parts of Merv, Samarkand, and Bukhara were under the influence of Greater Khorasan."

storage pits 3700 BC, but also objects identifiable with BMAC ?

Goga
26-12-16, 14:32
storage pits 3700 BC, but also objects identifiable with BMAC ?
not only artifacts but also graves were similar to BMAC:


"Based on previous studies, the BMAC was only limited to the sites located in Central Asia: in present day northern Afghanistan, eastern Turkmenistan, and some regions in Tajikistan, but the first season of excavation showed that the Chalo site is also part of this great culture," he added.

"In most of the trenches, we discovered graves exhibiting signs of the BMAC. Environmental factors have caused serious damage to the graves, which have been discovered in upper layers of the ground," Vahdati stated.

"All the artifacts unearthed from the graves have the same characteristics identified for the BMAC in Central Asia," he added.

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html

bicicleur
26-12-16, 15:11
not only artifacts but also graves were similar to BMAC:


"Based on previous studies, the BMAC was only limited to the sites located in Central Asia: in present day northern Afghanistan, eastern Turkmenistan, and some regions in Tajikistan, but the first season of excavation showed that the Chalo site is also part of this great culture," he added.

"In most of the trenches, we discovered graves exhibiting signs of the BMAC. Environmental factors have caused serious damage to the graves, which have been discovered in upper layers of the ground," Vahdati stated.

"All the artifacts unearthed from the graves have the same characteristics identified for the BMAC in Central Asia," he added.

http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html

But are these graves and artifacts identified as BMAC also dated 3700 BC ?

The Jétun farmers settled in the northern Kopet Dag mountains 6.2 ka and later also in the Murgab.

In the Zeravshan valley precious stones were found like lapis lazuli, turquoise and carnelium, along with copper ores.
These were traded with Uruk, just like Maykop was trading with Uruk.

Goga
26-12-16, 15:20
Yeah, all those artifacts are from the prehistoric site of Chalo near the town of Sankhast in North Khorasan Province, Iran.

MarkoZ
29-12-16, 01:00
I don't know what you're trying to prove, but Lithuanian is in fact the most archaic among living IE languages. It's hard to debate this.

It is hard debate this because you have thus far presented zero evidence to corroborate your claims. I have referenced Matasovic for an explanation with regards to some of the features observed in the Balto-Slavic branch. The hypothesis of Balto-Slavic and more specifically Lithuanian as linguistic fossils would require solid evidence to be taken seriously and the burden of proof is on you.




My opinion is based mainly in how it sounds, so it's a bit tricky to quantify.

I take that to mean that your subjective feelings are the deciding factor to you. Tricky to quantify indeed.



This is a silly argument. Yes, it did branch off late, because PIE was spoken by Dnieper-Donets and Samara

To my knowledge, the lexicostatistical models used in glottochronology usually don't involve geography. All they measure is the relative change with respect to the root language under the assumption that language development occurs in a linear fashion. If B-S was something like a frozen remnant of PIE the phylogeny would have to be revised.

holderlin
29-12-16, 10:09
It is hard debate this because you have thus far presented zero evidence to corroborate your claims. I have referenced Matasovic for an explanation with regards to some of the features observed in the Balto-Slavic branch. The hypothesis of Balto-Slavic and more specifically Lithuanian as linguistic fossils would require solid evidence to be taken seriously and the burden of proof is on you.





I take that to mean that your subjective feelings are the deciding factor to you. Tricky to quantify indeed.




To my knowledge, the lexicostatistical models used in glottochronology usually don't involve geography. All they measure is the relative change with respect to the root language under the assumption that language development occurs in a linear fashion. If B-S was something like a frozen remnant of PIE the phylogeny would have to be revised.

Yeah you gave a reference. Nice work. I guess when something's so widely accepted and obvious one doesn't feel compelled to dig up papers or discuss in depth linguistics. Start a thread on the linguistics forum and I'll come play. The phylogeny relies on certain rules and assumptions in order to, you know, actually do something, but it doesn't mean that these convergences or reconstructions actually existed. They're derivative of a system designed to allow such a study. So no, you wouldn't have to revise shit. What I'm proposing is not significant enough to interfere with the consensus phylogeny. It only helps explain the genetics and the archaeology, in fact I'm actually relying on consensus phylogeny to help explain the nebulous archaeology and the sparse genetics.

The only reason I bring it up here is because most of these people are interested in the genetic identity of certain language speakers, and so I actually try to fit the linguistics to the genetics and the archaeology. It all has to match to be right.

Phonology has nothing to do with my subjective feelings, unless I said that Lithuanian gave me an erection and because of that it's archaic.

holderlin
29-12-16, 10:18
One explanation could be that CW sprung from one of the cultures in Northern Russia or perhaps the Moscow region. I think Mallory alluded to this possbility due to the difficulty in deriving the material culture of Corded Ware from Yamna directly.

This is another wrinkle in the PIE homeland "problem". We're pretty darn sure that Yamnaya spoke IE or Proto-IE as some maintain, yet it's hard to force a Yamnaya->CW model. The root of the problem is the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya, then we have CW and Srubna in the same spots, and later on we find that Srubna, Sintashta, Andronovo, Potapovka, and CW are very similar genetically. Some would say identical. These are R1a dominated groups, which we saw in the Kunda-Swiderian "Karelia" sample. So we're left, at the very least, being unable to rule out the Northern region as part of the PIE homeland. If we can't rule it out, and yet we're so damn sure of Yamnaya being PIE then we have no choice but to include the region encompassing the the CW horizon as PIE speaking as well.

Interesting also to note that CW has a relatively large amount of Paleo-euro and admixture that is lacking in Yamnaya. Paleo-Siberian too.

It's amazing that even after seeing essentially all of the genetics support the archaeological findings leading to the notion of a NE European PIE, that people still dispute it. Sometimes I open myself up to Goga and Alan's assertions, but there's just too much opposing evidence. Looking at Zoroastrian Iran admixture does help me open myself to the theory of a Zagros origin, but Look IE speakers all over the world today, they are mixed as ever, and that time in Iran was very late relative to the time frame for PIE. At best it could have been a very early lingua franca revolving around horse trading which led to it's roots being so difficult to trace. This is partly true as can be seen in the Mitanni horse training manuals.

A very interesting note is the small SSA signal seen in Sintashta and one of the CW samples. Sintashta is thought of as sort of the launch pad for archaeologically recognizable contacts between the steppe and the Iranian Plateau/South-South West Asia and we know that West Asia shows some SSA by the Neolithic/Copper age. I think one of the Zorastrian Iranian samples had a pinch of SSA as well. So this makes sense.

On a side note. Check out the super early and relatively large East Asian/Mongoloid admixture in Afanasevo. This lines up with speculation that the Chinese got metallurgy and Horses from Tocharian speakers.

MarkoZ
29-12-16, 13:02
Yeah you gave a reference. Nice work. I guess when something's so widely accepted and obvious one doesn't feel compelled to dig up papers or discuss in depth linguistics. Start a thread on the linguistics forum and I'll come play. The phylogeny relies on certain rules and assumptions in order to, you know, actually do something, but it doesn't mean that these convergences or reconstructions actually existed. They're derivative of a system designed to allow such a study. So no, you wouldn't have to revise shit. What I'm proposing is not significant enough to interfere with the consensus phylogeny. It only helps explain the genetics and the archaeology, in fact I'm actually relying on consensus phylogeny to help explain the nebulous archaeology and the sparse genetics.

The only reason I bring it up here is because most of these people are interested in the genetic identity of certain language speakers, and so I actually try to fit the linguistics to the genetics and the archaeology. It all has to match to be right.

Phonology has nothing to do with my subjective feelings, unless I said that Lithuanian gave me an erection and because of that it's archaic.

:rolleyes2:

MarkoZ
29-12-16, 13:27
This is another wrinkle in the PIE homeland "problem". We're pretty darn sure that Yamnaya spoke IE or Proto-IE as some maintain, yet it's hard to force a Yamnaya->CW model. The root of the problem is the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya, then we have CW and Srubna in the same spots, and later on we find that Srubna, Sintashta, Andronovo, Potapovka, and CW are very similar genetically. Some would say identical. These are R1a dominated groups, which we saw in the Kunda-Swiderian "Karelia" sample. So we're left, at the very least, being unable to rule out the Northern region as part of the PIE homeland. If we can't rule it out, and yet we're so damn sure of Yamnaya being PIE then we have no choice but to include the region encompassing the the CW horizon as PIE speaking as well.

You know, I actually believe that anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty what languages those preliterate archaeological cultures spoke must be greatly overestimating the power of historical linguistics.

I actually agree with most of the problems you mentioned. I recently learned that the oldest layers of Corded Ware are actually found in and around Latvia and Finland: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255716945_New_dates_for_the_Late_Neolithic_Corded_ Ware_Culture_burials_and_early_husbandry_in_the_Ea st_Baltic_region

holderlin
30-12-16, 09:26
You know, I actually believe that anyone who claims to know with absolute certainty what languages those preliterate archaeological cultures spoke must be greatly overestimating the power of historical linguistics.

Well it's all relative to the kind of data that a certain science is built on. In this case it's very soft, so being "certain" is a lot difference than being "certain" in say chemistry, or biology, or in the most extreme case math and logic. And of course the reason for this is that we're never really certain of anything.

I do agree though that people get ahead of themselves in these presuppositions, which over time leads to an inability to be creative when considering other possibilities.

e.g. people seem to be absolutely sure that CW was Balto-Slavic for example, but the genetics highlighted in this very thread, seem to suggest that CW was actually more like Indo-Iranian speaking.


I actually agree with most of the problems you mentioned. I recently learned that the oldest layers of Corded Ware are actually found in and around Latvia and Finland: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/255716945_New_dates_for_the_Late_Neolithic_Corded_ Ware_Culture_burials_and_early_husbandry_in_the_Ea st_Baltic_region

Don't think I've seen this paper, but I do know that Telegin held this opinion, and I would have to agree. These are broadly dispersed hunter gatherers that have very similar material culture, which as we move into the copper age seems to become centered on the Samara Valley. Then we see the genetics confirm that these are all the same people, essentially, with the same Y-HGs that we've been associating with the spread of IE for awhile now.

So yeah, when I claim Baltic PIE I don't know why people freak out.

bicicleur
30-12-16, 09:50
@ holderlin

how do you figure the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya ?

Swiderian has its roots 13 ka in Poland and expanded east after the youngest dryas.
I can't imagine they were ancestral to the Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG.
The Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG are autosomaly abt 85 % EHG and 15 % WHG.
I guess that 15 % WHG is due to admixture with Swiderian.

holderlin
30-12-16, 10:24
@ holderlin

how do you figure the trajectory from Kunda-Swiderian ->Dnieper-Donets/Samara->Yamnaya ?

Swiderian has its roots 13 ka in Poland and expanded east after the youngest dryas.
I can't imagine they were ancestral to the Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG.
The Karelian/Samara R1a/R1b HG are autosomaly abt 85 % EHG and 15 % WHG.

I guess that 15 % WHG is due to admixture with Swiderian.

Knew you'd call me out.

Dneiper-Donets looks like a wedge from the North and the tools are similar to Swiderian-Kunda.

R1a Karelia is Kunda or very similar.

bicicleur
30-12-16, 12:57
Knew you'd call me out.

Dneiper-Donets looks like a wedge from the North and the tools are similar to Swiderian-Kunda.

R1a Karelia is Kunda or very similar.

IMO the Swiderian/Kunda people were Y-DNA I, possibly I1 and mtDNA U5, U4, U2e and autosomal WHG

they spread all over Eastern Europe (only in very thin layers), but except near the Baltic (Kunda et al) were displaced by incoming EHG, Y-DNA R1 HG, their mtDNA was C and Z
the Swiderian males disapeared in Eastern Europe when these EHG arrived, but females remained (at least their DNA)

later also CHG admixture came into the Pontic steppe along with mtDNA H2a
you'll find the first H2a on the Pontic in both Khvalynsk and Dnjepr Donets
I guess its origin is south of the Caucasus

MOESAN
30-12-16, 14:22
I had not the Harappa admixt tables at hand. As Lebrok if I understood him well, concerning Armenia, it seems it has been a huge increase of 'northern-euro' at BA (maybe CHL? I have not the data), with no decrease of 'baloch', but small decrease of 'mediter' - when we look at diverse old Steppes pops we see a 'northeuro' clear presence with a ratio 'baluch'/'caucasus' in favor of the first compared to ancient situations; I wonder if the new active mix was not more 'northern'+more 'baloch' at the expenses of 'caucasus'+'mediter'? All that could point to an East-Caspian scenario of expansion (PIE ties?) from South Central Asia rather than a S -> N Caucasus travel at first ( even if I know some parts of 'baluch' could be very old in Steppes), and later, mixed in Steppes, a N -> S Caucasus travel around BA...? the story of some later LBA Steppes cultures is another one, with an European input rising again the 'mediter' part. Sorry if this post is not centered on CWC, a more northern culture influenced by the Steppes ones but farther from the sources of big moves of the time. (I was said they were poor on metals and still had stone axes imitating the Sumerianlike metallic ones).

holderlin
30-12-16, 20:06
IMO the Swiderian/Kunda people were Y-DNA I, possibly I1 and mtDNA U5, U4, U2e and autosomal WHG

they spread all over Eastern Europe (only in very thin layers), but except near the Baltic (Kunda et al) were displaced by incoming EHG, Y-DNA R1 HG, their mtDNA was C and Z
the Swiderian males disapeared in Eastern Europe when these EHG arrived, but females remained (at least their DNA)

later also CHG admixture came into the Pontic steppe along with mtDNA H2a
you'll find the first H2a on the Pontic in both Khvalynsk and Dnjepr Donets
I guess its origin is south of the Caucasus

Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree, sort of. There's no pots really until like 5000 BC, but the Red Deer Island cemetery looks similar to Kunda and Suomusjarvi cultures, and of course we now know the samples tested were EHG. They only tested 2 males, which happen to be EHG, other graves could show other admixture. Remember the Motala samples actually show some ANE, which is consistent with such a situation where we'd have long standing interactions between WHG and more ANE shifted EHG.

I understand you're saying that because the Karelia samples are EHG (R1a) and that Swiderian should be WHG (I1 or I2), and that because of this we can't relate Swiderian-> Suomusjarvi-Kunda to Dnieper-Donets, but I don't think we should be so sure of this. The cultures in the region were all very similar at this time and we see R1a EHG. This is what we know.

berun
30-12-16, 20:16
A good combo would be Funnelbeaker + Yamnaya, this combo is not providing a good result for CW but it does for the Bronze Age Unetice culture, a millennia after the supposed steppe expansion in Central Europe, because it is around 10% WHG, 30 EEF, 55% EHG, 5% CHG; this would be a fine result if combining a Funnelbeaker (20% WHG, 5% EHG, 75% EEF) for each Yamnayan (85% EHG and 15% CHG). But of course the case fails when Central Europeans would number some 4 millions: there was not such numbers in the steppes, just looking at Mongolia tells it.

bicicleur
30-12-16, 20:57
Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree, sort of. There's no pots really until like 5000 BC, but the Red Deer Island cemetery looks similar to Kunda and Suomusjarvi cultures, and of course we now know the samples tested were EHG. They only tested 2 males, which happen to be EHG, other graves could show other admixture. Remember the Motala samples actually show some ANE, which is consistent with such a situation where we'd have long standing interactions between WHG and more ANE shifted EHG.

I understand you're saying that because the Karelia samples are EHG (R1a) and that Swiderian should be WHG (I1 or I2), and that because of this we can't relate Swiderian-> Suomusjarvi-Kunda to Dnieper-Donets, but I don't think we should be so sure of this. The cultures in the region were all very similar at this time and we see R1a EHG. This is what we know.

we only have a very little bit of Swiderian/Kunda mtDNA
I hope we'll get some Y/autosomal soon

as for the pots, I think they travelled from east to west, maybe along with some brides
that might explain the similarities

Motala was still I2, but it was not pure WHG any more, it had already some EHG admixture which shows influence coming from eastern Europe

holderlin
30-12-16, 22:11
we only have a very little bit of Swiderian/Kunda mtDNA
I hope we'll get some Y/autosomal soon

as for the pots, I think they travelled from east to west, maybe along with some brides
that might explain the similarities

Motala was still I2, but it was not pure WHG any more, it had already some EHG admixture which shows influence coming from eastern Europe

What was the Swiderian-Kunda mtDNA again? U5? Remember Yamnaya had a Y-HG I2 as well.

People do seem to think that the pots in that region came from Siberians. The reasoning makes sense I guess although further to the South I would expect a very early influence from Balkan farmers.

Dov
30-12-16, 22:13
e.g. people seem to be absolutely sure that CW was Balto-Slavic for example, but the genetics highlighted in this very thread, seem to suggest that CW was actually more like Indo-Iranian speaking.
Why do you think so? Abashevo (z93?) were probably East Indo-European, and speak proto-Indo-Iranian. While Fatyanovo (z280?) or Middle Dnieper culture (z280?) were probably Western Indo-Europeans and speak proto-Baltoslavic. The relative similarity between Lithuanian and Sanskrit (as well as Russian and Sanskrit) refers to proto-CW common origin. How it close to PIE? Who knows. When restoring PIE usually analyze all languages, from Armenian to Celtic.

But of course would be better to have these paleo-DNA, instead speculation.

bicicleur
30-12-16, 22:59
What was the Swiderian-Kunda mtDNA again? U5? Remember Yamnaya had a Y-HG I2 as well.

People do seem to think that the pots in that region came from Siberians. The reasoning makes sense I guess although further to the South I would expect a very early influence from Balkan farmers.


What was the Swiderian-Kunda mtDNA again? U5? Remember Yamnaya had a Y-HG I2 as well.

People do seem to think that the pots in that region came from Siberians. The reasoning makes sense I guess although further to the South I would expect a very early influence from Balkan farmers.

I have this



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 54]
M
5616–5482 BC




[T?
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 36]
M
5557–4792 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 45]
M
5471–5223 BC




C
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 64]
M
5479–5064 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 19]
F
5474–5225 BC




U3
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 17]


5437–5090 BC




[?
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 34]


5323–4941 BC




C4a2
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 32]
M
undated




[T
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 57]


undated




[H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Dereivka [DD 33]


5000 BC




[H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Nikolskoye [Ni 58]
M
undated




C
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Nikolskoye [Ni 94]
F
5358–4993 BC




U5a1a
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)



but there is mtDNA H which was not in early WHG nor EHG

this is interesting

bicicleur
30-12-16, 23:01
oops, half my post is gone

MOESAN
31-12-16, 00:52
IMO the Swiderian/Kunda people were Y-DNA I, possibly I1 and mtDNA U5, U4, U2e and autosomal WHG

they spread all over Eastern Europe (only in very thin layers), but except near the Baltic (Kunda et al) were displaced by incoming EHG, Y-DNA R1 HG, their mtDNA was C and Z
the Swiderian males disapeared in Eastern Europe when these EHG arrived, but females remained (at least their DNA)

later also CHG admixture came into the Pontic steppe along with mtDNA H2a
you'll find the first H2a on the Pontic in both Khvalynsk and Dnjepr Donets
I guess its origin is south of the Caucasus

It seem most of Swiderians were phenotypically "archaïc" types (old mix since or before Mesolithic) who colonised East-Baltic N-Russia regions E-N-E Moscow if I rely on a Russian scholar; he wrote this "archaïc" types mixed with a tall a bit more slender dolichocephalic and dolichomorphic type which evocates me a lot of Steppic people of the subsequent centuries;his thesis was the Swiderians (+ some Ertebolle people?) were responsbile for Y-I1 and Y-I2a2 presence in Kazan E-Moscow region today (Maciamo has other explanations with very later Germanics); they could have seen their Y-haplos erased by new dominant Y-R1a male elites at the end of Neolithic or even already since their tardive weak Neolithic evolution. They could be "pure" WHG when Y-R1a people had more ANE to give EHG? I agree with more than a forumer that CWC are not directly issued from Yamnaya; they only have a great common auDNA basis surely encouraged by females exchanges over a long time. So, difference, rather gradual than steep.
For CWC, Have they had a common language with Yamnaya? or a common free koinè? (PIE); it's possible their common links came from more East, between S-Volga/Samara and more East Caspian regions, where PIE concretion could have taken place between influence of South Central Asia (more cultural) and influence from West - ITS Eastern-North-Eastern Europe, more demic???
I don't create nothing new here, only trying to synthetize what I know to date.

MOESAN
31-12-16, 01:05
A good combo would be Funnelbeaker + Yamnaya, this combo is not providing a good result for CW but it does for the Bronze Age Unetice culture, a millennia after the supposed steppe expansion in Central Europe, because it is around 10% WHG, 30 EEF, 55% EHG, 5% CHG; this would be a fine result if combining a Funnelbeaker (20% WHG, 5% EHG, 75% EEF) for each Yamnayan (85% EHG and 15% CHG). But of course the case fails when Central Europeans would number some 4 millions: there was not such numbers in the steppes, just looking at Mongolia tells it.

I did not find so bad the supposed mix Yamna/FBC (if based on 60/40% or 66/34%) when we take in account other small mixtures on the road... and the fact we have few auDNA for FBC and that East continental FBC were surely not exactly the same people as West maritime FBC. That said, I think as you, CWC is not a direct product of Yamnaya, but they share ancient auDNA more female based, since a long time.

holderlin
31-12-16, 06:07
Why do you think so? Abashevo (z93?) were probably East Indo-European, and speak proto-Indo-Iranian. While Fatyanovo (z280?) or Middle Dnieper culture (z280?) were probably Western Indo-Europeans and speak proto-Baltoslavic. The relative similarity between Lithuanian and Sanskrit (as well as Russian and Sanskrit) refers to proto-CW common origin. How it close to PIE? Who knows. When restoring PIE usually analyze all languages, from Armenian to Celtic.

But of course would be better to have these paleo-DNA, instead speculation.

I don't necessarily think this is the case, it was a bad example of evidence that challenged presuppositions. I'm basing this on the genetic similarity between Sintashta and CW->Andronovo; Iranians being directly derivative of CW.

I've actually been saying something very similar to what you post here. Shit I've even been prating the Lithuanian/Sanskrit comparison.

One thing is for certain. The steppe after Yamnaya is very Western shifted genetically.

holderlin
31-12-16, 06:22
I have this



Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 54]
M
5616–5482 BC




[T?
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 36]
M
5557–4792 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 45]
M
5471–5223 BC




C
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 64]
M
5479–5064 BC




H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 19]
F
5474–5225 BC




U3
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 17]


5437–5090 BC




[?
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 34]


5323–4941 BC




C4a2
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 32]
M
undated




[T
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Lillie 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lillie2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Yasinovatka [Ya 57]


undated




[H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Dereivka [DD 33]


5000 BC




[H
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Nikolskoye [Ni 58]
M
undated




C
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)


Dnieper-Donets
Ukraine
Nikolskoye [Ni 94]
F
5358–4993 BC




U5a1a
Newton 2011 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Newton2011);Nikitin 2012 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2012)



but there is mtDNA H which was not in early WHG nor EHG

this is interesting

Thanks.

What's the latest long awaited paper? I lose track. Is it Maykop and Cucenti-Tripolye? Isn't there some Indus River samples too?

holderlin
31-12-16, 06:45
It seem most of Swiderians were phenotypically "archaïc" types (old mix since or before Mesolithic) who colonised East-Baltic N-Russia regions E-N-E Moscow if I rely on a Russian scholar; he wrote this "archaïc" types mixed with a tall a bit more slender dolichocephalic and dolichomorphic type which evocates me a lot of Steppic people of the subsequent centuries;his thesis was the Swiderians (+ some Ertebolle people?) were responsbile for Y-I1 and Y-I2a2 presence in Kazan E-Moscow region today (Maciamo has other explanations with very later Germanics); they could have seen their Y-haplos erased by new dominant Y-R1a male elites at the end of Neolithic or even already since their tardive weak Neolithic evolution. They could be "pure" WHG when Y-R1a people had more ANE to give EHG? I agree with more than a forumer that CWC are not directly issued from Yamnaya; they only have a great common auDNA basis surely encouraged by females exchanges over a long time. So, difference, rather gradual than steep.
For CWC, Have they had a common language with Yamnaya? or a common free koinè? (PIE); it's possible their common links came from more East, between S-Volga/Samara and more East Caspian regions, where PIE concretion could have taken place between influence of South Central Asia (more cultural) and influence from West - ITS Eastern-North-Eastern Europe, more demic???
I don't create nothing new here, only trying to synthetize what I know to date.

Thanks, I hadn't dug up anything about the Swiderian physical type, but I was familiar with Ertebolle. I agree that the "tall" suggests to me also that this could be a "steppic" type. EHG is mostly WHG anyway. It's entirely possible that EHG came from further West than Samara and Karelia. Swiderian's pretty old and we know that by 16kya EHG was already around halfway formed as seen in the AG samples.

But, they are probably WHG I2/I1 and the source of the I1 founder effect in Scandinavia. The Motala and the Pitted Ware samples are proabably what Swiderians looked like.

holderlin
31-12-16, 06:56
The steppe after Yamnaya also appeared to be the first really depigmented people. What happened here?

I think Samara was pretty depigmented, but the samples that are undoubtedly similar to modern day Northern Europeans all come after CW and are clearly derivative of CW.

bicicleur
31-12-16, 10:33
The steppe after Yamnaya also appeared to be the first really depigmented people. What happened here?

I think Samara was pretty depigmented, but the samples that are undoubtedly similar to modern day Northern Europeans all come after CW and are clearly derivative of CW.

the Tocharian people depicted in the Tarim Basin were fairskinned

8345

if the Tocharian speaking people were fairskinned, who are identified with Afanansievo, then Yamna shlould be fairskinned too

berun
31-12-16, 12:11
if the Tocharian speaking people were fairskinned, who are identified with Afanansievo, then Yamna shlould be fairskinned too

Not very much knowledge about it, but the presumed archaeological facts linking Afanasievo with the Tocharians are even more sci-fi like than those of the Corded Ware with Yamna; realy you might take care with your steppe gurus.

By the way the Tarim mummies were R1a1... Yamnayans were the Kura-Araxes R1b type.

Alan
31-12-16, 13:56
the Tocharian people depicted in the Tarim Basin were fairskinned

8345

if the Tocharian speaking people were fairskinned, who are identified with Afanansievo, then Yamna shlould be fairskinned too

That is not a scientific reasoning imo. Also we have data at hand from all the samples we gathered it appears they were even very slightly below South European average when it comes to light pigmentation.

And I still see people connecting Sintashta to CW in that way, that they think it derived fom it. While the scenario that both derive from the same culture is even more likely.

bicicleur
31-12-16, 14:59
Not very much knowledge about it, but the presumed archaeological facts linking Afanasievo with the Tocharians are even more sci-fi like than those of the Corded Ware with Yamna; realy you might take care with your steppe gurus.

By the way the Tarim mummies were R1a1... Yamnayans were the Kura-Araxes R1b type.

Tocharian branched of from IE prior to Indo_iranian and remnants of Tocharian have been found in the Tarim Basin.
Afanasievo seems the most logical explanation to me.
There may be other explanations but right now I don't know which ones.

The Tarim mummies were not R1a-M417 but R1a-M198*, so probably neither Yamna nor Indo-Iranian.
R1a-M198 is also observed near lake Bajkal 8ka, long before IE in the Altaï area.
How they got fair skin and European looks is even more puzzling.

bicicleur
31-12-16, 15:04
That is not a scientific reasoning imo. Also we have data at hand from all the samples we gathered it appears they were even very slightly below South European average when it comes to light pigmentation.

And I still see people connecting Sintashta to CW in that way, that they think it derived fom it. While the scenario that both derive from the same culture is even more likely.

It is not a proof but how would you explain the fairskinned people on the painting found along with Tocharian writings?

As for CW and Sintashta they both have Y-DNA R1a-M417 and similar autosomal DNA and both were IE.

Goga
31-12-16, 16:23
As for CW and Sintashta they both have Y-DNA R1a-M417 and similar autosomal DNA and both were IE.CW was derived from Z282, while Central Asian cultures were from Z93. 2 very different things.

Also, Corded Ware is from 2900 BC at max, while according to Underhill (2014), the downstream R1a-M417 subclade diversified into Z282 and Z93 about 3800 BC, same age as BMAC in Iran.

So, there is almost 1000 years between Corded Ware and Central Asian R1a-Z93. R1a-Z282 was (is) NOT 'Aryan' at all.

Some ancient 'Aryans' that carried R1a, were mostly Z94, so even Z93 can't even been seen as 'Aryan'. So only Z94 subclade of R1a (+some ancient non-M417 Iranian R1a-sublcades) can be seen as an 'Aryan' marker. Other non-R1a 'Aryan' markers were moslty downstreams of J2a, like PF5087 and PF5050...

Alan
31-12-16, 16:31
It is not a proof but how would you explain the fairskinned people on the painting found along with Tocharian writings?

As for CW and Sintashta they both have Y-DNA R1a-M417 and similar autosomal DNA and both were IE.


I am not talking about Tocharians. We have data from Yamnaya at hand that shows they were pigmentationwise on level on modern Irano_Anatolians but went through drastic depigmentation within hundreds of years.

Goga
31-12-16, 16:59
Some people still live in a dreamworld and want to feel special by connecting themselves with the 'real' Aryans (Iranian speakers). R1a-Z93 already existed in SouthCentral Asia even 1000 years before CW came into the existence. How can R1a-Z93 in Central Asia can be from CW when it PREDATES CW by 1000 years? LMAO..

R1a-Z93 = 3800BC, same age as East Iranian BMAC http://www.payvand.com/news/13/nov/1138.html
Corded Ware = 2900BC = R1a-Z282


Z93 is not the same as Z282, differences are HUGE, like differences between the African R1b and the European R1b

Angela
31-12-16, 17:27
Study on Yamnaya pigmentation from the Reich Lab:
Mathiesen et al
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html

It confirms the findings of the previous Sandra*(Ed.) Wilde et al paper on steppe populations.

See also:
http://dienekes.blogspot.com/2015/03/natural-selection-and-ancient-european.html


Bottom line: brown eyed, lower levels of SLC45A2 than modern Europeans, including Southern European populations.

berun
31-12-16, 17:34
Tocharian branched of from IE prior to Indo_iranian and remnants of Tocharian have been found in the Tarim Basin.
Afanasievo seems the most logical explanation to me.
There may be other explanations but right now I don't know which ones.

The Tarim mummies were not R1a-M417 but R1a-M198*, so probably neither Yamna nor Indo-Iranian.
R1a-M198 is also observed near lake Bajkal 8ka, long before IE in the Altaï area.
How they got fair skin and European looks is even more puzzling.

The branching that you refer is infered from lexicostatistics or from phonetic evolution? It could be got a tricky result depending of the choice.

The Tarim mummies were M198+ but xZ93, so there are a lot of subclades left... by the way, it would be more difficult to join Tocharian R1a1a with Afanasievo Kura-Araxes R1b... (if it was an offshot of Yamnayans it will be it's clade).

holderlin
31-12-16, 19:55
"Kura Axes R1b"

Lulz

holderlin
31-12-16, 20:00
Going off the genetics, as Angela pointed out, Yamnayans didn't seem to be very depigmented, but Andronovo was like a modern Danish population. It seems strange.

holderlin
31-12-16, 20:05
I am not talking about Tocharians. We have data from Yamnaya at hand that shows they were pigmentationwise on level on modern Irano_Anatolians but went through drastic depigmentation within hundreds of years.

Yes, this is what I was getting at. Something seems to happen after CW where all of a sudden we have super white skinned populations with light eyes and hair. The topics been brought up before obviously. I didn't mean to hit the hot button, but we're on the topic of the genetics of these populations. They all look similar on an admixure run and they remain similar to modern day depigmented populations in North Europe. Something weird happened, but we may never know.

holderlin
31-12-16, 20:12
Not very much knowledge about it, but the presumed archaeological facts linking Afanasievo with the Tocharians are even more sci-fi like than those of the Corded Ware with Yamna; realy you might take care with your steppe gurus.

No one ever said it's a fact. It's just the best candidate. It lines up with history, archaeology, linguistics, and genetics. I would bet large sums of money that Afanasievo spoke Tocharian.


Kura-Araxes R1b type.

Please explain this special Kura-Araxes R1b.

Are people still looking for Maciamo's magical R1b cattle herders that infiltrated the steppe from Anatolia?

Goga
31-12-16, 20:37
Going off the genetics, as Angela pointed out, Yamnayans didn't seem to be very depigmented, but Andronovo was like a modern Danish population. It seems strange.Nothing strange. Andronovo had more EHG than Yamnaya population. Modern Danish population has also more EHG than Yamnaya.

I believe that EHG was light, since it had also some so called 'Mongoloid' Northern Eurasian roots.


Andronovo was very different from Danish people. Firstly, Andronovo belonged to different Y-DNA haplogroups, mostly 'Iranian' from BMAC and maybe even older lineages than Yamnaya. Also, Andronovo had more Gedrosia component. What links Andronovo with modern Danish people is mostly mtDNA and EHG auDNA from these females.

People of second stage Yamnaya PIE homeland became lighter because of EHG females. After the original PIE folks from West Asia migrated into Yamnaya, they started heavily mixing with EHG locals of Northern Eurasia. Because of those EHG female Indo-Europeans became lighter. Their original PIE auDNA from Yamnaya started to diminish

Original R1b PIE folks from West Asia that migrated into Yamnaya were dark..

MarkoZ
31-12-16, 21:19
Some people still live in a dreamworld and want to feel special by connecting themselves with the 'real' Aryans (Iranian speakers).

I understand your frustration, but you're actually committing the very same scientific sins as the countless Europeans before who have used the whole Indo-European issue to construct a special identity for themselves. The point being that the Anatolians and the North-Western Indians saw themselves as ethnic Aryans as well - saying that only the Iranians have a claim to this ethnonym just isn't true.

Moreover, this obfuscates that the orthodox position regarding the homeland of PIE is without the shadow of a doubt wrong in this respect, as it has Anatolian and Indo-Iranian branch off in completely opposite directions roughly a thousand years apart only to have those branches meet again in the Middle East or South Asia where they adopt a shared endonym. Of course, the only sane conclusion is that those Aryan peoples had a common history somewhere in West- or South Asia before they developed into independent ethne.

On that front, there's another powerful argument to be made about the Greeks - tellingly situated at the crossroads to West Asia - who used the cognate aristos to refer to the upper echelon of their society. I'm not going to try and drive this point home, but if there was an equally strong trajectory (not just burial hills with no obvious connection to anything and ghost components) in the reverse direction (i. e. Europe -> West Asia) rest assured we'd be hearing about this endlessly.

Edit: Sorry for the derail. Though I believe when eye and hair color come up it's always a good idea to change to topic.

Goga
31-12-16, 21:38
I understand your frustration, but you're actually committing the very same scientific sins as the countless Europeans before who have used the whole Indo-European issue to construct a special identity for themselves. The point being that the Anatolians and the North-Western Indians saw themselves as ethnic Aryans as well - saying that only the Iranians have a claim to this ethnonym just isn't true.

Moreover, this obfuscates that the orthodox position regarding the homeland of PIE is without the shadow of a doubt wrong in this respect, as it has Anatolian and Indo-Iranian branch off in completely opposite directions roughly a thousand years apart only to have those branches meet again in the Middle East or South Asia where they adopt a shared endonym. Of course, the only sane conclusion is that those Aryan peoples had a common history somewhere in West- or South Asia before they developed into independent ethne.

On that front, there's another powerful argument to be made about the Greeks - tellingly situated at the crossroads to West Asia - who used the cognate aristos to refer to the upper echelon of their society. I'm not going to try and drive this point home, but if there was an equally strong trajectory (not just burial hills with no obvious connection to anything and ghost components) in the reverse direction (i. e. Europe -> West Asia) rest assured we'd be hearing about this endlessly.

Edit: Sorry for the derail. Though I believe when eye and hair color come up it's always a good idea to change to topic.I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I never denied that Greeks have Aryan ancestry to some degree, and much much more than Germanic of Balto-Slavic folks. Why? Because ancient proto-Aryans and proto-Greeks evolved from the same Graeco-Aryan people and because Greeks and Iranian (Aryans) have always been living next to each other.

Aryans that invaded India came from BMAC. And we all know where those ancient BMAC folks were originally from. From WEST Asia!

Talking abou the Aryans, Aryans spoke most likely an Iranian language. Ancient Zoroastrian writings (Vendidad) are telling that Aryans that invaded India came from Airyana Vaeja. Airyana Vaeja is located according to ancient Zoroastrian and Greek writings in Iran.

http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm


http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm



http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/images/maps/DionysiusMap405BC.jpg
Map based on the descriptions of Dionysius c. 405 BCE


http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/images/maps/GedrosiaAriaLucasLow.jpg
1823 Lucas map showing nations c200 BCE


http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/location.htm



But, according to me Airyana Vaeja was only the homeland of the East Iranians who were originally from Western Iran. BMAC was very similar to advanced West Asian cultures. It were the 'Eastern' Iranians who invaded India & the Steppes (Anronovo).


But neverless, Aryans were mostly Iranian Plateau (Caucaso-Gedrosia) folks (Caucasoid) and had NOTHING to do with the 'Mongoloid' EHG auDNA or something like that.

As we know Vendidad was written in East Iranic language, but West Iranian people, like Persians and the Medes (Magi) called themselves also Aryans in the past. We have DNA from Medo-Persian era and DNA of those people is very similar to modern Iranian/Aryan people.

holderlin
01-01-17, 04:06
I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I never denied that Greeks have Aryan ancestry to some degree, and much much more than Germanic of Balto-Slavic folks. Why? Because ancient proto-Aryans and proto-Greeks evolved from the same Graeco-Aryan people and because Greeks and Iranian (Aryans) have always been living next to each other.

Aryans that invaded India came from BMAC. And we all know where those ancient BMAC folks were originally from. From WEST Asia!

Talking abou the Aryans, Aryans spoke most likely an Iranian language. Ancient Zoroastrian writings (Vendidad) are telling that Aryans that invaded India came from Airyana Vaeja. Airyana Vaeja is located according to ancient Zoroastrian and Greek writings in Iran.

http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/airyanavaeja.htm


http://heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/index.htm



http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/images/maps/DionysiusMap405BC.jpg
Map based on the descriptions of Dionysius c. 405 BCE


http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/images/maps/GedrosiaAriaLucasLow.jpg
1823 Lucas map showing nations c200 BCE


http://www.heritageinstitute.com/zoroastrianism/aryans/location.htm



But, according to me Airyana Vaeja was only the homeland of the East Iranians who were originally from Western Iran. BMAC was very similar to advanced West Asian cultures. It were the 'Eastern' Iranians who invaded India & the Steppes (Anronovo).


But neverless, Aryans were mostly Iranian Plateau (Caucaso-Gedrosia) folks (Caucasoid) and had NOTHING to do with the 'Mongoloid' EHG auDNA or something like that.

As we know Vendidad was written in East Iranic language, but West Iranian people, like Persians and the Medes (Magi) called themselves also Aryans in the past. We have DNA from Medo-Persian era and DNA of those people is very similar to modern Iranian/Aryan people.

Assuming that to be "Mongloid" you would have to have a significant amount of East Asian admixture.

MA-1, Villabruna, and paleoeuropeans weren't "mongloid", nor were paleosiberians before a relatively late date. EHG was not "Mongloid". All of these populations were as Caucasoid as can be.

It's funny the way you use this as a thinly veiled racial slur and you think it's OK.

A. Papadimitriou
01-01-17, 06:33
"Kura Axes R1b"

Lulz

...

It's that


Kura-Araxes
Armenia
Kalavan [I1635 / KA1/12]
M
2619-2465 calBCE (4005±35 BP)

R1b1-M415 (xM269)
L388/PF6468, L389/PF6531
X2f

Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016); revision (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/744192603424456704); Additional SNPs from Sergey Malyshev






On that front, there's another powerful argument to be made about the Greeks - tellingly situated at the crossroads to West Asia - who used the cognate aristos to refer to the upper echelon of their society. I'm not going to try and drive this point home, but if there was an equally strong trajectory (not just burial hills with no obvious connection to anything and ghost components) in the reverse direction (i. e. Europe -> West Asia) rest assured we'd be hearing about this endlessly.

Edit: Sorry for the derail. Though I believe when eye and hair color come up it's always a good idea to change to topic.

How is the Greek word 'aristos' related to what you say?

holderlin
01-01-17, 07:47
...

It's that


Kura-Araxes
Armenia
Kalavan [I1635 / KA1/12]
M
2619-2465 calBCE (4005±35 BP)

R1b1-M415 (xM269)
L388/PF6468, L389/PF6531
X2f

Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016); revision (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/744192603424456704); Additional SNPs from Sergey Malyshev





Oh OK. Yeah. So around 1000 years after Yamnaya this is supposed to be the source of Yamnaya R1b, or steppe R1b in general? I don't understand how people still take this seriously.

holderlin
01-01-17, 07:50
...


How is the Greek word 'aristos' related to what you say?

'Aryan'='Aristos'

Dov
01-01-17, 08:37
Now, looking in retrospect, I have a feeling that linguistics has said long time ago, that we are now discussing:

- Indo-European lexicon of flora and fauna clear indicates to the north.

- Slavic and Germanic languages ​​are best preserve the original PIE lexicon of flora and fauna.

- Baltic, Slavic, Germanic (well, almost) speakers have no a serious non-Indo-European substrate. The largest non-Indo-European substratum there is in Armenian and Hittite. This suggests that first people closer to the hypothetical PIE homeland.

- Heroes of the Rigveda and Mahabharata have light pigmentation and eye color "as the blue lotus." Now this is confirmed by genetics Sintashta/Andronovo and CW.
Moreover, Ahiless, Menelaus have a light pigmentation to.

- Indo-Europeans, and even Indo-Iranians, had contact with Finno-Ugrians . This is reflected in the language of the Finno-Ugric peoples.

- A common word for "winter" in Indo-European, and absence or the difference for other times of the year.

In general, all the theses clearly point to the north (eastern) Europe, and exclude Anatolia, Caucasus and Middle East.

bicicleur
01-01-17, 12:00
...

It's that


Kura-Araxes
Armenia
Kalavan [I1635 / KA1/12]
M
2619-2465 calBCE (4005±35 BP)

R1b1-M415 (xM269)
L388/PF6468, L389/PF6531
X2f

Lazaridis 2016 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Lazaridis2016); revision (https://twitter.com/iosif_lazaridis/status/744192603424456704); Additional SNPs from Sergey Malyshev





He is R1b all right.
But does that connect him to Yamna?
It's a different subclade to start with.

berun
01-01-17, 12:42
From the Corded Ware autosomals to the Armenian R1b... good jump. "Kura-Araxes R1b" is a pet label as "Armenian R1b" or "Hurrian R1b", I just don't care much about it. The case to apply this label to Yamnayans is:

the maximum variance of M269+ is in Old Armenia
V88 brothers must came from the Near East
actual Armenians are 25% L23 ("father" of Z2103)
RISE413 (1800 BC Armenia) was already M269
Yamnayans were mainly subclade Z2013 but there was also a sample with its precedessor M269
the Kura-Araxes sample of 2500 BC was M415, so just three steps before M269 (its "grand-grandson")
Yamnayans had 25% CHG component
Yamnayans had kurgans with origins in the Caucasus
Yamnayans had socket battle axes of copper that were developed first in the Caucasus
Yamnayans were inside the Circumpontic metallurgical province, which encompassed Anatolia, Caucasus, steppes and Balkans.

Just sum all it and you get Kura-Araxes R1b, no matter if the R1b sample is 1000 years after the first Yamnayans, as it is granted that it will pop up R1b in Armenia 2000 years before any Yamnayan.

berun
01-01-17, 12:51
No one ever said it's a fact. It's just the best candidate. It lines up with history, archaeology, linguistics, and genetics. I would bet large sums of money that Afanasievo spoke Tocharian.

First of all there was no history in the Tarim in 2000 BC, just prehistory, so we must rely in archaeology, so then you might deliver here which archaeological proofs are linking the Altai with the Tarim desert (weapons? pots?); in whichever case you might take into account that the Afanasievans disappear 500 years before the Tarim mummies appear, just a good time jump. For linguistics, Tocharian is attested around 300-500 AD, so there is a lot of time between the mummies and the language: it's not assured that both are connected. For genetics, the Tarim mummies are R1a. There were some Yamnayan R1a? Just I try to understand how a bunch of Yamnyans were able to deliver R1a to Central Europe, Central Asia, and R1b to Western Europe keeping their own subclade Z2103 just on the site, because for a mean person as me it sounds quite weird.

A. Papadimitriou
01-01-17, 13:27
Oh OK. Yeah. So around 1000 years after Yamnaya this is supposed to be the source of Yamnaya R1b, or steppe R1b in general? I don't understand how people still take this seriously.

No one said it is 'the source', no this time at least.

And about the 'Aryan'/'Aristos' thing I wasn't talking to you. Read before you comment. (He implied something more than that without actually stating it)

MarkoZ
01-01-17, 13:29
I'm not sure what you're talking about. But I never denied that Greeks have Aryan ancestry to some degree, and much much more than Germanic of Balto-Slavic folks. Why? Because ancient proto-Aryans and proto-Greeks evolved from the same Graeco-Aryan people and because Greeks and Iranian (Aryans) have always been living next to each other.

Aryans that invaded India came from BMAC. And we all know where those ancient BMAC folks were originally from. From WEST Asia!

Talking abou the Aryans, Aryans spoke most likely an Iranian language. Ancient Zoroastrian writings (Vendidad) are telling that Aryans that invaded India came from Airyana Vaeja. Airyana Vaeja is located according to ancient Zoroastrian and Greek writings in Iran


But, according to me Airyana Vaeja was only the homeland of the East Iranians who were originally from Western Iran. BMAC was very similar to advanced West Asian cultures. It were the 'Eastern' Iranians who invaded India & the Steppes (Anronovo).


But neverless, Aryans were mostly Iranian Plateau (Caucaso-Gedrosia) folks (Caucasoid) and had NOTHING to do with the 'Mongoloid' EHG auDNA or something like that.

As we know Vendidad was written in East Iranic language, but West Iranian people, like Persians and the Medes (Magi) called themselves also Aryans in the past. We have DNA from Medo-Persian era and DNA of those people is very similar to modern Iranian/Aryan people.

Lol, my last post came out a bit cryptic, sorry.

The broader issue that the talk about Iranian Aryans will not convince anyone. A Lycian or a Hittite would also have used a cognate of 'Arya' to refer to his fellow citizen, and Anatolia wasn't invaded by Iranians until much after the expansion of the Anatolian branch. From this we can infer that 'Arya' or a cognate thereof must have been the ethnic designator used by the early Indo-European speaking peoples.

Similarly, India was not invaded by Aryans before the Battle of the Ten Kings in the later books of the Rig-Veda, yet the inhabitants of India referred to themselves as Aryan from the beginning. This means that the Indo-Iranians already considered themselves Aryans.

The fact that no semantically related cognate exists in the younger European languages actually strenghtens your point that there isn't much of a demic impact in mainland Europe from the 'original' Indo-Europeans (well, probably with the exception of Greece). A good analogy would be the fact that few self-respecting Frenchmen would consider themselves Italic, for example.

bicicleur
01-01-17, 14:05
First of all there was no history in the Tarim in 2000 BC, just prehistory, so we must rely in archaeology, so then you might deliver here which archaeological proofs are linking the Altai with the Tarim desert (weapons? pots?); in whichever case you might take into account that the Afanasievans disappear 500 years before the Tarim mummies appear, just a good time jump. For linguistics, Tocharian is attested around 300-500 AD, so there is a lot of time between the mummies and the language: it's not assured that both are connected. For genetics, the Tarim mummies are R1a. There were some Yamnayan R1a? Just I try to understand how a bunch of Yamnyans were able to deliver R1a to Central Europe, Central Asia, and R1b to Western Europe keeping their own subclade Z2103 just on the site, because for a mean person as me it sounds quite weird.

For Gods sake, don't rush like that.
Nobody here claims the Tarim mummies to be Yamna or Afanasievo, on the contrary.
I just told that Afanasievo is the most obvious way to explain Tocharian. My mind is open about that and I invite you to come up with another explanation.

MarkoZ
01-01-17, 14:06
And about the 'Aryan'/'Aristos' thing I wasn't talking to you. Read before you comment. (He implied something more than that without actually stating it)

Both derived from the root *ar-, used as a social designator: in Anatolian & I-I meaning 'compatriot - in Greek something more exclusive (which could explain the superlative). The subsequent parallel evolution into a word with generic positive connotations is also striking. Thus, aristos became 'the best' in Greek and arya came to mean something like 'pious' or 'perfect' in India.

Dov
01-01-17, 14:15
First of all there was no history in the Tarim in 2000 BC, just prehistory, so we must rely in archaeology, so then you might deliver here which archaeological proofs are linking the Altai with the Tarim desert (weapons? pots?)

Well, that's a opinion of some Russian/Soviet archeologists as Danilenko, Safronov etc.
Along with this, the Proto-Tocharian possible to associate with the Karasuk culture.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karasuk_culture
8346
On the whole, only two culture can be Tocharians. Afanasevo or Karasuk.

For example Russian archaeologist Klein believes that Afanasievo and Karasuk culture (about Karasuk confirmed by genetics) does not come from Yamnaya culture. He also writes that Karasuk culture more suited to Tocharian migrations. Karasuk type items were found in Xinjiang, where lives Tochars. Tocharians have Finno-Ugric substratum in their language. And Finno-Ugric have substratum from Tocharian ( honey 'mete' (fu) from 'met' (tochar) etc). Hence the conclusion that they were walking along the forest belt, far from steppe.

Rethel
01-01-17, 15:04
How they got fair skin and European looks is even more puzzling.

How how?
R1-tribe was white tribe, so logically, among all R1-folks whitness
is noticable in early statges, even if people darkend with time.

Rethel
01-01-17, 15:19
A Lycian or a Hittite would also have used a cognate of 'Arya' to refer to his fellow citizen

And where can I read about it?

MarkoZ
01-01-17, 15:39
And where can I read about it?

Mallory's and Adam's 'The Oxford Introduction to Proto-Indo-European and the Proto-Indo-European World' is where I first found it. They give verbatim:

Hittite arā 'member of one's own group, peer, friend'.

Lycian arus- 'citizens'

berun
01-01-17, 15:55
Tocharians have Finno-Ugric substratum in their language. And Finno-Ugric have substratum from Tocharian ( honey 'mete' (fu) from 'met' (tochar) etc). Hence the conclusion that they were walking along the forest belt, far from steppe.

The case is that FU mete is an Indo-Iranian loanword (*medhu), so it's needed a time frame (2000 BC) and a space frame (Central Asia / Sintashta - Adrononovo) to deliver the loanword to Finnougric, and then proto-Tocharians get this word from their Finnougric neighbours. Of course this little history puts aside Afanasievans.

Dov
01-01-17, 16:24
The case is that FU mete is an Indo-Iranian loanword (*medhu), so it's needed a time frame (2000 BC) and a space frame (Central Asia / Sintashta - Adrononovo) to deliver the loanword to Finnougric, and then proto-Tocharians get this word from their Finnougric neighbours. Of course this little history puts aside Afanasievans.
FU mete from tocharian met
FU ves' "gold" from tocharian. A wäs, B yasa
(Pedersen 1950, Aalto 1959)

and vis versa
tocharian kälk "go", käläk "follow" from FU kulkea "go" (Krause)

MOESAN
01-01-17, 17:03
Going off the genetics, as Angela pointed out, Yamnayans didn't seem to be very depigmented, but Andronovo was like a modern Danish population. It seems strange.

(west?) Catacombs C seem having got dark hairs and eyes, but 'european' light skin; they were not the same as Yamnaya (not completely) but the culture overlapped with Yamnaya, and some scholars think that physically Catacomb is more "central"/common to almost all the immediately subsequent cultures of the Steppes; not completely different from Yamnya, but showing other elements?. Yamnaya would not be the most productive culture on the demic side?

A. Papadimitriou
01-01-17, 17:50
Both derived from the root *ar-, used as a social designator: in Anatolian & I-I meaning 'compatriot - in Greek something more exclusive (which could explain the superlative). The subsequent parallel evolution into a word with generic positive connotations is also striking. Thus, aristos became 'the best' in Greek and arya came to mean something like 'pious' or 'perfect' in India.

But I don't understand what it has to do with placing the homeland of 'Indo-Iranians' in the West. By itself it doesn't mean anything about any homeland.

Also the Hittites didn't use the term 'Aryan' as an ethnic term. They used the adverb 'nesili' with the meaning 'in "hittite" language', so the ethnonym would have been something like 'Nesians'
Not even the Persians used it imo (I mean they didn't use it as an ethnic name originally, although I wouldn't insist on that much). Because Herodotus just mentions that the Medes once did. Greeks didn't either and it isn't attested anywhere in Europe.

Then the terms in 'Hittite' and Lycian probably just meant 'men' like similar terms which exist even in non-IE languages. Ιn Athens the orators addressed the citizens with "Ὦ ἄνδρες Ἀθηναῖοι".
'Andres' means 'men' but it can be translated as 'citizens' in that context.

Mallory and people like him are propagandists. For example, as I have mentioned there's no real evidence that the primary meaning of the world 'kuklos' (reconsructed pGr *kwokwlos) in proto-Greek was wheel. Because in classical Greek it could have been used for anything circular, even for 'a place of assembly'. And the Greeks used the word 'τροχός' (tro'khos, modern Greek tro'xos) for the wheel from 'тρέχω΄ ('=I run), supposedly from IE *dʰregʰ- (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/Category:Terms_derived_from_the_PIE_root_*d%CA%B0r eg%CA%B0-), like Old Irish droch (https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/droch#Old_Irish) (pronounced /drox/, x in IPA is more like German ch, Dutch ch, Modern Greek χ).

I originally placed IE homeland in Central-Eastern Europe. But for me various scenarios work and even though my views can be considered 'Eurocentric' too, I don't like misleading statements and oversimplifications.

Goga
01-01-17, 18:10
Lol, my last post came out a bit cryptic, sorry.

The broader issue that the talk about Iranian Aryans will not convince anyone. A Lycian or a Hittite would also have used a cognate of 'Arya' to refer to his fellow citizen, and Anatolia wasn't invaded by Iranians until much after the expansion of the Anatolian branch. From this we can infer that 'Arya' or a cognate thereof must have been the ethnic designator used by the early Indo-European speaking peoples.

Similarly, India was not invaded by Aryans before the Battle of the Ten Kings in the later books of the Rig-Veda, yet the inhabitants of India referred to themselves as Aryan from the beginning. This means that the Indo-Iranians already considered themselves Aryans.

The fact that no semantically related cognate exists in the younger European languages actually strenghtens your point that there isn't much of a demic impact in mainland Europe from the 'original' Indo-Europeans (well, probably with the exception of Greece). A good analogy would be the fact that few self-respecting Frenchmen would consider themselves Italic, for example.
I don't think that ancient Greeks called themslves 'Aryans'. Philosophers like Plato, Aristoteles, Socrates never said that the Greeks were 'Aryan' people. According to them the Medes and other Iranian speaking people were called by all ancients 'Aryans', but the Greeks never mentioned that Greeks and the Medes were identical to each other..

Greeks said that the Medes were 'Aryans' only to indicate that the Medes spoke an Iranian dialect. People like the Medes, Persians, Sogdians, Bactrians etc.

Also, no other ethinc group than ancient Iranians called themselves explicitly 'Aryan' 2000 years ago. Think of the Persian kings who called themselves 'Aryans'.


Even today the designation 'Iranian' has the same meaning as 'Aryan'. 'Aryan' was nothing than an ethnic name of people of 'Iranian' heritage.

'Aryan' = 'Iranian'


But I do agree with you that so called 'Aryans' were more tied to West Asia than SouthCentral Asia, although Vedidad was written in East Iranian (SouthCentral Asian) dialect and 'Aryans' that invaded India came from BMAC..

berun
01-01-17, 22:07
FU mete from tocharian met
FU ves' "gold" from tocharian. A wäs, B yasa
(Pedersen 1950, Aalto 1959)

and vis versa
tocharian kälk "go", käläk "follow" from FU kulkea "go" (Krause)

In fact all these words are of IE origin: met from IE *medhu 'mead', wäs from *eus / *wes 'to shine', and even Finish kulki 'to go, to move, wander' is coming somehow from IE *kwelkul (or something alike) which stands now as English 'wheel'. But well, FU and Tocharian are far from my scope and it must be taken into account phonetic laws.

holderlin
01-01-17, 22:45
Now, looking in retrospect, I have a feeling that linguistics has said long time ago, that we are now discussing:

- Indo-European lexicon of flora and fauna clear indicates to the north.

- Slavic and Germanic languages ​​are best preserve the original PIE lexicon of flora and fauna.

- Baltic, Slavic, Germanic (well, almost) speakers have no a serious non-Indo-European substrate. The largest non-Indo-European substratum there is in Armenian and Hittite. This suggests that first people closer to the hypothetical PIE homeland.

- Heroes of the Rigveda and Mahabharata have light pigmentation and eye color "as the blue lotus." Now this is confirmed by genetics Sintashta/Andronovo and CW.
Moreover, Ahiless, Menelaus have a light pigmentation to.

- Indo-Europeans, and even Indo-Iranians, had contact with Finno-Ugrians . This is reflected in the language of the Finno-Ugric peoples.

- A common word for "winter" in Indo-European, and absence or the difference for other times of the year.

In general, all the theses clearly point to the north (eastern) Europe, and exclude Anatolia, Caucasus and Middle East.

I feel like I've hammered these points and similar ones millions of times on here. People who have opposing views don't seem to care about these things.

Happy new year everyone

Goga
01-01-17, 23:14
I feel like I've hammered these points and similar ones millions of times on here. People who have opposing views don't seem to care about these things.
I reacted billions of times on these invalid unsientific points. I debunked them one by one, but it seems that people like you just ignore it. I'm not going to do it again and again and again.

People like you still keep repeating some invalid unsientific nonsence. You are like parrots, like a broken record. If you think that by keep repeating lies you make it somehow valid, well think again. This is NOT how science (and Y-DNA patterns) works...

I mean, c'mon what has winter to do with the Indo-Europeans? Like there are no winters on the Iranian Plateau or Central Asia, lol. The eternal snow on the mountain peaks in Iran and the mountains in Iran are much higher than in the whole Eastern Europe combined.


Mount Damavand, 5,610 m (18,410 ft)
http://danamotor.ir/East_Azarbaijan_Mount_Sahand.jpg (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9ismY9aHRAhVDVRoKHTibBIQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffouman.com%2FY%2FPicture_View-East_Azarbaijan_Mount_Sahand.htm&psig=AFQjCNGMI76ntN8ur_OgRqrXEzVUGAyhgg&ust=1483393402818542)

Milan.M
01-01-17, 23:18
Mallory and people like him are propagandists. For example, as I have mentioned there's no real evidence that the primary meaning of the world 'kuklos' (reconsructed pGr *kwokwlos) in proto-Greek was wheel. Because in classical Greek it could have been used for anything circular, even for 'a place of assembly'. And the Greeks used the word 'τροχός' (tro'khos, modern Greek tro'xos) for the wheel from 'тρέχω΄ ('=I run) supposedly from IE *dʰregʰ-, like Old Irish droch (pronounced /drox/, x in IPA is more like German h, Dutch ch, Modern Greek χ).


.
I found probable cognate 'τροχός'(wheel) and 'тρέχω΄trékhō ('=I run),is found in South Slavic- tъrk (to run),tъrka(race),development for wheel can be seen in Macedonian Slavic where "tъrkalo"(wheel) comes from the same verb,maybe influenced with it's development like the Greek.I would assume English "track" to be cognate with some of this words.
As for "kolo"(wheel,circle etc) which is cognate to Greek "kuklos" is also used for wheel and for every other circular object,i found far fetched also that it meant a wheel primarily.

Angela
01-01-17, 23:40
(west?) Catacombs C seem having got dark hairs and eyes, but 'european' light skin; they were not the same as Yamnaya (not completely) but the culture overlapped with Yamnaya, and some scholars think that physically Catacomb is more "central"/common to almost all the immediately subsequent cultures of the Steppes; not completely different from Yamnya, but showing other elements?. Yamnaya would not be the most productive culture on the demic side?

I've been saying for more than two years that the demic impact in Europe from the actual "Indo-Europeans" (according to David Anthony, ie the "Yamnayans") was probably not very substantial and that the real genetic impact was from people further north and west. As MarkoZ stated above, the only exception might be the Greeks and people descended from them.

Nothing yet has changed my mind, although there is still a question of the composition of the people of the far western Yamnaya horizon.

bicicleur
02-01-17, 00:34
I've been saying for more than two years that the demic impact in Europe from the actual "Indo-Europeans" (according to David Anthony, ie the "Yamnayans") was probably not very substantial and that the real genetic impact was from people further north and west. As MarkoZ stated above, the only exception might be the Greeks and people descended from them.

Nothing yet has changed my mind, although there is still a question of the composition of the people of the far western Yamnaya horizon.

afaik we don't have any Catacomb DNA, nor western Yamna DNA
so long there is no way telling whether Yamna had a big genetic impact on Europe or not
that DNA should be compared to Carpathian Basin DNA like Vucedol et al, which we don't have either

another trace that has to be explored further is early Iberian Bell Beaker, to be compared with Iberian CA on one hand and El Portalon on the other hand

I wondered many times whether there could be a link between Yamna and El Portalon

Angela
02-01-17, 00:58
afaik we don't have any Catacomb DNA, nor western Yamna DNA
so long there is no way telling whether Yamna had a big genetic impact on Europe or not
that DNA should be compared to Carpathian Basin DNA like Vucedol et al, which we don't have either

another trace that has to be explored further is early Iberian Bell Beaker, to be compared with Iberian CA on one hand and El Portalon on the other hand

I wondered many times whether there could be a link between Yamna and El Portalon

We don't have y dna for Catacomb, that's true, but we do have mtDna (and pigmentation snps).
http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/copperbronzeagedna.shtml

I may be wrong, but I thought they'd been plotted, no? Maybe someone with a better recall of it can remind us.

As I said, I think they "probably" didn't have all that much demic impact. We need more ancient dna clarity. I also, as I've said before, don't think that Yamnaya "migrated" wholesale into Corded Ware.

Btw, we agree that something different was introduced to Spain from the east in the El Portalon time period. I'm just not sure it was from Yamnaya. They weren't seafarers. I've always been intrigued by the similarity between El Portalon and the modern Tuscan samples.

MarkoZ
02-01-17, 15:42
But I don't understand what it has to do with placing the homeland of 'Indo-Iranians' in the West. By itself it doesn't mean anything about any homeland.

If we accept for the sake of an argument that cognates of *ar- constituted a common ethnonym among at least the early Indo-European speakers, this would provide us with a clue to the puzzle of the PIE homeland insofar as these ethnonyms occur irregularly in the various Indo-European branches. In West and South Asia they were encompassing terms that were used describe the entire ethnos of the Indo-European communities, always meaning something like 'compatriot', 'citizen' or 'one of us'. In the European languages on the other hand *ar- derived social designators either don't occur at all or acquire a more exclusive meaning. I mentioned Greek 'aristos' - more speculatively there's also Proto-Celtic *aryos for 'noble, freed man'. This could mean that in Asia the spread of Indo-European had something to do with the expansion of the original population, while in Europe those languages spread as a result of something like an elite dominance.


Also the Hittites didn't use the term 'Aryan' as an ethnic term. They used the adverb 'nesili' with the meaning 'in "hittite" language', so the ethnonym would have been something like 'Nesians'
Not even the Persians used it imo (I mean they didn't use it as an ethnic name originally, although I wouldn't insist on that much). Because Herodotus just mentions that the Medes once did. Greeks didn't either and it isn't attested anywhere in Europe.

In the historically attested Indo-European languages 'Aryan' and cognates were never really the primary ethnonym. My point is that there was something like a meta-ethnos that might have been retained from more ancient times.


Mallory and people like him are propagandists.

That's an unfair characterization - you might not agree with all of his conclusions but Mallory is usually very objective and points out the problems with his own theories.

GloomyGonzales
02-01-17, 16:03
FU mete from tocharian met
FU ves' "gold" from tocharian. A wäs, B yasa
(Pedersen 1950, Aalto 1959)

and vis versa
tocharian kälk "go", käläk "follow" from FU kulkea "go" (Krause)

rus. gulyat' - go, wander, tch. B kälk – go, hung. halad – pass, go, fin. kulkea – go, pass

rus. tsena - price, tch.B cane - unit of money, lat. quantus – “how much” , lit. kaina - price, latv. cena – price, fin. hinta = price, est. hind = price.

rus. vertet’ – rotate, turn, vorot – wheel and axle, tch.A wärkänt - wheel , tch.B. yerkwanto – wheel, lat. vertere – turn, rotate, hung. forog – turn, rotate, fin. pyörä - wheel, est. pööre – turn, wheel, veeretama – rotate, turn

rus. mesto – land, place, location, tch. B. mise – field, place, missi – settlement, community, lit. miestas – community, village, latv. muiža – household, thrac. midne, muka – community, village, lydian mous – field, place, fin. maa, maadoitus– land, field, est. maa, mandus - land, field, country

rus. siniy – dark blue, tch.B. kentse – copper rust, oxide, greek kyanos – dark blue, lin.B. kuwanowoko - worker of lapis lazuli and glass, hett. kuwanna - copper blue, dark blue, luw. kuwanzu – copper, sumer. kuan – sky colored metal, est. sinine - dark blue, fin. sininen - dark blue.

holderlin
02-01-17, 20:01
I reacted billions of times on these invalid unsientific points. I debunked them one by one, but it seems that people like you just ignore it. I'm not going to do it again and again and again.

People like you still keep repeating some invalid unsientific nonsence. You are like parrots, like a broken record. If you think that by keep repeating lies you make it somehow valid, well think again. This is NOT how science (and Y-DNA patterns) works...

I mean, c'mon what has winter to do with the Indo-Europeans? Like there are no winters on the Iranian Plateau or Central Asia, lol. The eternal snow on the mountain peaks in Iran and the mountains in Iran are much higher than in the whole Eastern Europe combined.


Mount Damavand, 5,610 m (18,410 ft)
http://danamotor.ir/East_Azarbaijan_Mount_Sahand.jpg (https://www.google.nl/url?sa=i&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=imgres&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj9ismY9aHRAhVDVRoKHTibBIQQjRwIBw&url=http%3A%2F%2Ffouman.com%2FY%2FPicture_View-East_Azarbaijan_Mount_Sahand.htm&psig=AFQjCNGMI76ntN8ur_OgRqrXEzVUGAyhgg&ust=1483393402818542)

You've debunked nothing, ever. Well that's not true, I guess you continually debunk yourself with your ridiculous posts.

That's a nice looking mountain though.

MarkoZ
02-01-17, 22:02
You've debunked nothing, ever. Well that's not true, I guess you continually debunk yourself with your ridiculous posts.

That's a nice looking mountain though.

He's right though - all early Indo-European speakers must have been familiar with comparatively cold winters, including North-West India.

Related to this, in one of my favorite recent papers on the PIE question Anna Dybo tries to reconstruct the topography of the Indo-European homeland. She concludes:


The peculiarities of the landscape-related lexicon in both families are as follows. First ofall, the steppe must be excluded from the regions potentially inhabited by Proto-Indo-Europeans. Some relatively high mountains with many kinds of rocks and sharp or bigstones are present. Some of these mountains are covered by forests. There are words for narrowpassages, canyons, precipices, mines and caves, foothills, valleys and dells, meadows in forests and on the river-banks. The rivers have fords and are definitely smaller than theirProto-Altaic counterparts (there is no semantic variation between “river” and “sea”; nota benethat the only trace of the name of flood is GA; the lower Danube?); cf. here the noticeablyweaker function of fish in the Indo-European economy (expressed in a substantially smallernumber of terms for fishing tools, fish body parts and fish species — see the example below).But they could have lived near a sea or a big lake with sandy banks.

http://www.jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

There are quite a few places that fit this description, the closest matches perhaps being the prominent mountain ranges in the arid-temperate zones. Hindu Kush, Zagros, Dinaric Alps or the Himalayas basically. It also sounds like exactly the kind of biome transhumant herders would live in.

Olympus Mons
03-01-17, 00:16
There are quite a few places that fit this description, the closest matches perhaps being the prominent mountain ranges in the arid-temperate zones. Hindu Kush, Zagros, Dinaric Alps or the Himalayas basically. It also sounds like exactly the kind of biome transhumant herders would live in.

MarkoZ....Arrrgh....Aaaarrrrgggghhhh!!!! - Kidding not really upset.

that description cries shulaveri shomu in between the Caucasus, lesser Caucasus passages (Georgia) to go to Aratashen (armenia), valleys (Azerbaijan). Its all in there. And if they were ones dispersing all over...

It can also be other places I suppose. But, great read. thank you.

holderlin
03-01-17, 02:56
He's right though - all early Indo-European speakers must have been familiar with comparatively cold winters, including North-West India.

Related to this, in one of my favorite recent papers on the PIE question Anna Dybo tries to reconstruct the topography of the Indo-European homeland. She concludes:



http://www.jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

There are quite a few places that fit this description, the closest matches perhaps being the prominent mountain ranges in the arid-temperate zones. Hindu Kush, Zagros, Dinaric Alps or the Himalayas basically. It also sounds like exactly the kind of biome transhumant herders would live in.

My God, right about which part? I'm familiar with this paper.

bicicleur
03-01-17, 09:31
He's right though - all early Indo-European speakers must have been familiar with comparatively cold winters, including North-West India.

Related to this, in one of my favorite recent papers on the PIE question Anna Dybo tries to reconstruct the topography of the Indo-European homeland. She concludes:



http://www.jolr.ru/files/(108)jlr2013-9(69-92).pdf

There are quite a few places that fit this description, the closest matches perhaps being the prominent mountain ranges in the arid-temperate zones. Hindu Kush, Zagros, Dinaric Alps or the Himalayas basically. It also sounds like exactly the kind of biome transhumant herders would live in.

How many PIE words are known?
Would it be representative for the whole vocabulary?
And when would these words have originated?
Could some of them have been inherited from older times?

Dov
03-01-17, 12:48
I feel like I've hammered these points and similar ones millions of times on here. People who have opposing views don't seem to care about these things.

Happy new year everyone
Yes, for humans sometimes difficult to revise views.


Yeah, I don't necessarily disagree, sort of. There's no pots really until like 5000 BC, but the Red Deer Island cemetery looks similar to Kunda and Suomusjarvi cultures, and of course we now know the samples tested were EHG. They only tested 2 males, which happen to be EHG, other graves could show other admixture. Remember the Motala samples actually show some ANE, which is consistent with such a situation where we'd have long standing interactions between WHG and more ANE shifted EHG.

I understand you're saying that because the Karelia samples are EHG (R1a) and that Swiderian should be WHG (I1 or I2), and that because of this we can't relate Swiderian-> Suomusjarvi-Kunda to Dnieper-Donets, but I don't think we should be so sure of this. The cultures in the region were all very similar at this time and we see R1a EHG. This is what we know.

And you raised an interesting discussion.
Red Deer Island burial had a close bond with the culture Veret'e (north Vologda region and south Arkhangelsk region). In this culture there are Europoids burial, who have the highest average growth among all the Mesolithic population. (176cm). And Mtdna two of them U4. Items of this burial similar to the culture Kunda.
83598360


A little bit about this culture in Russian wiki:
https://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%25 92%25D0%25B5%25D1%2580%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%25D1%25 8C%25D0%25B5_%28%25D0%25BA%25D1%2583%25D0%25BB%25D 1%258C%25D1%2582%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%29&edit-text=

Also interesting coincidence. Some genetic calculators show Russians with maximum proximity to Yamnaya. As far as I know, they were Kargopol_Russians (but maybe I am mistaken) which are in fact the local indigenous population, who have became speaking Slavic language. As once before they became Finno-Ugric speaking. Perhaps, they are partly autosomal descendants Veret'e culture that live in this isolated area so far.
Also, may be that Kunda and the Veret'e is WHG and EHG.

I made a map of some Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures of northeast. There may be some discrepancies in the dates and area, but in general, gives an overview.

http://s019.radikal.ru/i636/1701/42/b5f8b3332658.png

Milan.M
03-01-17, 13:19
Markoz, Interesting paper on the environment of IE speakers we can discuss, let me mention that Himalayas are etymologically connected to Sanskrit-hima,Latin-hiems,Slavic-zima,Greek-kheima,Baltic-ziema,denoting cold,snow,winter etc,what about to the old name of the Balkan peninsula and Balkan mountains Haemus.

holderlin
03-01-17, 18:11
Yes, for humans sometimes difficult to revise views.



And you raised an interesting discussion.
Red Deer Island burial had a close bond with the culture Veret'e (north Vologda region and south Arkhangelsk region). In this culture there are Europoids burial, who have the highest average growth among all the Mesolithic population. (176cm). And Mtdna two of them U4. Items of this burial similar to the culture Kunda.
83598360


A little bit about this culture in Russian wiki:
https://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=https%3A%2F%2Fru.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2F%25D0%25 92%25D0%25B5%25D1%2580%25D0%25B5%25D1%2582%25D1%25 8C%25D0%25B5_%28%25D0%25BA%25D1%2583%25D0%25BB%25D 1%258C%25D1%2582%25D1%2583%25D1%2580%25D0%25B0%29&edit-text=

Also interesting coincidence. Some genetic calculators show Russians with maximum proximity to Yamnaya. As far as I know, they were Kargopol_Russians (but maybe I am mistaken) which are in fact the local indigenous population, who have became speaking Slavic language. As once before they became Finno-Ugric speaking. Perhaps, they are partly autosomal descendants Veret'e culture that live in this isolated area so far.
Also, may be that Kunda and the Veret'e is WHG and EHG.

I made a map of some Mesolithic and Neolithic cultures of northeast. There may be some discrepancies in the dates and area, but in general, gives an overview.

http://s019.radikal.ru/i636/1701/42/b5f8b3332658.png

Yes, this is what most archaeologists maintain, generally speaking, these were all closely related cultures that seemed to culminate in the domestication of Horses with a focus on the Samara Valley. I ordered a good book on the subject, so soon my understanding will have a greater depth, breadth, and detail. Unfortunately for some of the actual papers I think you still need to speak Russian, which I do not.

I don't know if the calculators are revealing anything related here, but it's worth looking into. I would probably be more interested in what population was closest to EHG, and I think this is Estonians, which, not coincidentally is encompassed by Kunda. Thanks for the map. It prompted me to verify that my book has a section on the Veret'e Culture.

halfalp
04-01-17, 17:53
Paleolithic haplogroups from Hellespont to India where F,G,H ( Basal Eurasian ) following ( in a symmetrical further and back migrations ) the Alpin Belt and the horizontal fauna migration of eurasia ( the same north of Pontus and Caspian was with R and Q in the eurasian steppe )n either J or R where in Iranian Plateau in paleolithic, i fought it was a resolve question by a long time, but some people needs the last Lazaridis or Mathiesen paper because they dont have reasoning....

halfalp
04-01-17, 18:03
By the way, i think that Hindu Kush is the center of something wich going with the PIE but i dont really know what, it can be physicaly, or culturaly ( Hindu kush people lies physical traits with Caucasus, Basques, Amerindians ( if the mongoloid features going away )... And Hindu Kush feets also with some kind of central ( neither north or south, but the two road goes to rome ) Urheimat of a paleolithic pre-PIE.

halfalp
04-01-17, 18:14
Hindu Kush seems also the only place of the world where haplogroups R1 ( xR1b / or maybe basal ? ), R2, and Q, ( but i'm not sure of the clades and the ages of mutations, ), leave together.

halfalp
04-01-17, 18:22
Seriously you can make zèle, but you know, that everything you just said, is nothing. First of all, tocharian languages and tarim mummies as nothing to do. You just have to reasoning, how can a Centum Language ( if you still think that Satem are linguistiques inovations by Centum people, i can do nothing for you ) be on the other side of a Satem language wall, if you look at the Balkan and especially with Illyrian or Thracian languages, you gonna that when Centum and Satem language live together, thats create local dialects wich lost linguistes in their tentative to decifer languages, on the other hand, tocharian is so old, so indo-eiuropean, and so centum, that, tocharian must have live somwhere without Iranics people for fellows, but instead proto-turkic or heaven chinese dialects. ( For Berun ) Like tthe Gansu Corridor just like every ancient chinese historian just says.

MOESAN
04-01-17, 21:04
Markoz, Interesting paper on the environment of IE speakers we can discuss, let me mention that Himalayas are etymologically connected to Sanskrit-hima,Latin-hiems,Slavic-zima,Greek-kheima,Baltic-ziema,denoting cold,snow,winter etc,what about to the old name of the Balkan peninsula and Balkan mountains Haemus.


aside the thread, your set of cognates are very interesting; Welsh gaeaf, Breton gou(i)añv : "winter" supposing *gaiam- << with *IE gh-

Sile
04-01-17, 22:07
Seriously you can make zèle, but you know, that everything you just said, is nothing. First of all, tocharian languages and tarim mummies as nothing to do. You just have to reasoning, how can a Centum Language ( if you still think that Satem are linguistiques inovations by Centum people, i can do nothing for you ) be on the other side of a Satem language wall, if you look at the Balkan and especially with Illyrian or Thracian languages, you gonna that when Centum and Satem language live together, thats create local dialects wich lost linguistes in their tentative to decifer languages, on the other hand, tocharian is so old, so indo-eiuropean, and so centum, that, tocharian must have live somwhere without Iranics people for fellows, but instead proto-turkic or heaven chinese dialects. ( For Berun ) Like tthe Gansu Corridor just like every ancient chinese historian just says.

you cannot just lump illyrian or thracian as either centum or satem

liburnians of north-illyrian stock spoke a centum language similar to Venetic

Aestrianne ( south illyrian ) spoke a satem language

clearly ancient historians did not care about aligning language with race when they wrote their papers

bicicleur
04-01-17, 23:03
Yes, this is what most archaeologists maintain, generally speaking, these were all closely related cultures that seemed to culminate in the domestication of Horses with a focus on the Samara Valley. I ordered a good book on the subject, so soon my understanding will have a greater depth, breadth, and detail. Unfortunately for some of the actual papers I think you still need to speak Russian, which I do not.

I don't know if the calculators are revealing anything related here, but it's worth looking into. I would probably be more interested in what population was closest to EHG, and I think this is Estonians, which, not coincidentally is encompassed by Kunda. Thanks for the map. It prompted me to verify that my book has a section on the Veret'e Culture.

What is Veret'e? Is there some relation to Butovo?

http://www.quartaer.eu/pdfs/2010/2010_hartz.pdf

Acording to the map in here, Red deer island is borderland between Swiderian and Butovo land.

halfalp
04-01-17, 23:50
The Thraco-Illyrians materials, such as toponyme or tribes names is a total mess, we found some typical satem tribes names just border with centum tribes names.

Sile
05-01-17, 00:46
The Thraco-Illyrians materials, such as toponyme or tribes names is a total mess, we found some typical satem tribes names just border with centum tribes names.

I agree

Clearly the term illyrian or thracian should be meant as a geographical term and not a ethnic or linguistic term ............Illyria is like saying scandinavian , as in an area and not a people directly

holderlin
05-01-17, 17:45
What is Veret'e? Is there some relation to Butovo?

http://www.quartaer.eu/pdfs/2010/2010_hartz.pdf

Acording to the map in here, Red deer island is borderland between Swiderian and Butovo land.

Yes, as I understand it these are all closely related techno-complexes. From the Vistula to the Urals

I don't know where some of these cultures are supposed to start or begin, nor am I sure the naming conventions aren't degenerate. Veret'e, Butovo, and Red Deer Island ("Onega"?) look very similar. And of course we know that Red Deer Island was EHG. We also know that Samara was EHG as well. We also know that Dieper-Donets tools are firmly rooted in this complex. In the South these cultures begin to use pottery and pick up domesticated livestock from the Balkans, and likely the East Caspian or Caucuses by 6000BC.

This seems strange, but I'm also fairly certain that the physical type in some sites in modern day Ukraine, before Dnieper-Donets, is Mediterranean. So it actually looks like the balkan farmers had moved in for awhile and practiced hunting and fishing. Perhaps it was like raw frontier land compared the thousands of years of farms to the West and South. People everywhere seem to like hunting.

Milan.M
10-01-17, 17:36
- A common word for "winter" in Indo-European, and absence or the difference for other times of the year.

In general, all the theses clearly point to the north (eastern) Europe, and exclude Anatolia, Caucasus and Middle East.
There is common words for "other" times of the year,but in ancient times there was two seasons at least in our society.
Spring;
From Proto-Slavic *vesna, from Proto-Indo-European *wésr̥ ‎(“spring”). Cognate with Lithuanian vasara, Sanskrit वसर् ‎(vasar, “morning”) and वसन्त ‎(vasantá, “spring”), Persian بهار ‎(bahâr, “spring”), Ancient Greek ἔαρ ‎(éar), Latin ver, Old Armenian գարուն ‎(garun), Old Norse vár.

“Depends which calendar but St George (celebrated on May 6th) brings summer, St Demetrius (October 26th) brings winter”.
St.George was celebrated here as spring festival,and there are probably much earlier pagan conections.
https://erinlawless.files.wordpress.com/2013/04/george1.jpg

Hero slaying a dragon is another common myth among IE people,aspect shared by St.George
Deity of so called Thracian horseman
http://www.my-favourite-planet.de/images/middle-east/turkey/pergamon/istanbul_dj-31032010-1-0887c_hero-horseman.jpg


Do you think there is winter only in north Europe?

For example Krell's PIE Homeland Thesis

In support of the Kurgan steppe hypothesis, there are words for horse, cow, pig, goat, and sheep, as well as words for piglet, lamb, and cattle; words for riding, milking, wool, and possibly for breaking a horse; and words for wheel, hub, axle, and transport by vehicle. All these would support the idea of a pastoral society.

But there are also words for grain, barley, kernel, broad beans, axes, milling, grinding, sowing, reaping, gathering, plowing, and fields for plowing, which suggest an agricultural society.

In addition, missing from Gimbutas' analysis are the words for ducks, geese, cranes, salmon, and eels, which are not your typical steppes creatures, words for ships and rowing, likewise not as likely for a pastoral culture, and words for ore, gold, and silver, even though Gimbutas insists that the Kurgan people only knew copper.
Krell concludes that, while their is certainly some support in the vocabulary for the Kurgan theory, Diakonov's Balkan Theory (1985) fits far better.

halfalp
11-01-17, 21:46
Well, if we follow Anthony idea of creation of proto-indo-europeans ( old europe farmers being in contact with bug-dniester culture ), maybe that in first instance, the proto-indo-europeans can have being farmers of y-dna G haplogroup, and by the years and the demographic changes, R1b become the new major haplogroups in Yamna. I remember once Maciamo talk about an italic-tocharian expression refeering with paint pottery, it can be a relicate of that time, when cucuteni farmers maybe has an more cultural influence, and gave the " farming society " words package than in later times, when the culture changes in east pontic steppe and north caucasus in a pastoral culture.

Dov
24-01-17, 19:52
In support of the Kurgan steppe hypothesis, there are words for horse, cow, pig, goat, and sheep, as well as words for piglet, lamb, and cattle; words for riding, milking, wool, and possibly for breaking a horse; and words for wheel, hub, axle, and transport by vehicle. All these would support the idea of a pastoral society.

But there are also words for grain, barley, kernel, broad beans, axes, milling, grinding, sowing, reaping, gathering, plowing, and fields for plowing, which suggest an agricultural society.

In addition, missing from Gimbutas' analysis are the words for ducks, geese, cranes, salmon, and eels, which are not your typical steppes creatures, words for ships and rowing, likewise not as likely for a pastoral culture, and words for ore, gold, and silver, even though Gimbutas insists that the Kurgan people only knew copper.
Krell concludes that, while their is certainly some support in the vocabulary for the Kurgan theory, Diakonov's Balkan Theory (1985) fits far better.

We already know that at least the eastern Yamnaya not an ancestor of any Indo-Europeans. Also, they are mixed with Caucasian population.
There is no need to take all of these outdated theories as Gimbutas, Dyakonov, and so on. New data of genetics and archeology tell us about the other.

Also, there is no elks neither on Balkans, nor in Steppe (in most).
IE *(e)l-k[h]-: eng. elk, greek. άλκη, latin. alce, rus. los', ancient ger. ëlho, ëlaho, ger. Elch,ancient eng. eolh, ind. ŕśya-, ŕśa- “male antelope”
Which is the totem animal of early Indo-Europeans.
But elk and his cult is already good represented in the mesolithic Red Deer Island burials:

http://s001.radikal.ru/i193/1701/e7/5abdb36832b6.jpghttp://i069.radikal.ru/1701/91/cd0958c1d5e0.jpghttp://s019.radikal.ru/i620/1701/e6/82a54d36ee78.jpg


Already pritsipe clear that proto-proto-IE is a survived population of the end Upper Paleolithic - Mesolithic of north-east Europe, which gradually began to descend down to the south. They are also known as EHG. In such cultures (Corded-Ware, Dniepr-Don, Yamnaya) usually find the "mighty" northern cromanoid skeletons. All these cultures have one source. This is the north.

Milan.M
24-01-17, 21:16
We already know that at least the eastern Yamnaya not an ancestor of any Indo-Europeans. Also, they are mixed with Caucasian population.
There is no need to take all of these outdated theories as Gimbutas, Dyakonov, and so on. New data of genetics and archeology tell us about the other.

Also, there is no elks neither on Balkans, nor in Steppe (in most).
IE *(e)l-k[h]-: eng. elk, greek. άλκη, latin. alce, rus. los', ancient ger. ëlho, ëlaho, ger. Elch,ancient eng. eolh, ind. ŕśya-, ŕśa- “male antelope”
Which is the totem animal of early Indo-Europeans.
But elk and his cult is already good represented in the mesolithic Red Deer Island burials:

http://s001.radikal.ru/i193/1701/e7/5abdb36832b6.jpghttp://i069.radikal.ru/1701/91/cd0958c1d5e0.jpghttp://s019.radikal.ru/i620/1701/e6/82a54d36ee78.jpg


Already pritsipe clear that proto-proto-IE is a survived population of the end Upper Paleolithic - Mesolithic of north-east Europe, which gradually began to descend down to the south. They are also known as EHG. In such cultures (Corded-Ware, Dniepr-Don, Yamnaya) usually find the "mighty" northern cromanoid skeletons. All these cultures have one source. This is the north.

I just stated different approach,not that i favor any of it,still is criticism.She is speaking about eels not elks,the snake like fish,also geese,cranes,salmon,ducks.We cant just select words that suit our theory only.Common words for ships and rowing.What theory you favor?

MarkoZ
24-01-17, 22:32
New data of genetics and archeology tell us about the other.

It'd help if you actually specified what these new findings that support a North-Eastern European homeland are.

As for the elk, the Greek and Latin words seem to be loanwords from Germanic rather than carryovers from a northerly homeland. The cognates in Tocharian and Indic refer to antelopes. Which is the original meaning?

Tomenable
25-01-17, 00:08
There are quite a few places that fit this description, the closest matches perhaps being the prominent mountain ranges in the arid-temperate zones. Hindu Kush, Zagros, Dinaric Alps or the Himalayas basically. It also sounds like exactly the kind of biome transhumant herders would live in.Ural and Northern Caucasus as well.

johen
25-01-17, 01:34
Already pritsipe clear that proto-proto-IE is a survived population of the end Upper Paleolithic - Mesolithic of north-east Europe, which gradually began to descend down to the south. They are also known as EHG. In such cultures (Corded-Ware, Dniepr-Don, Yamnaya) usually find the "mighty" northern cromanoid skeletons. All these cultures have one source. This is the north.

Problem is the russsian anthrology did not mention the other cultures except afanasievo, andronovo and yamna regarding cromagnon type paleo Europid. Interesting thing is they always mentioned afanasievo first, not yamna(pit-grave). If the paleo type people popped up at bronze age, my question is where they hid so long time in order to keep the paleo type. Some of american Indian still have kept UP type until now according to Coon and C Loring Brace. Moreover, I think this cromagnon type paleo people spread IndoEuropean Language to Europe, Iran, India and tarim basin, b/c the afanseivo R1b skull is so close to srubna R1-Z93(Aryian) and 2,000bc tarim skull.

http://i39.photobucket.com/albums/e181/Borntobeking/1-2.jpg


In Soviet science to paleoevropeytsam decided to apply anthropological designation of " paleo race (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438) ." [ 2 ] (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438#cite_note-1)
Paleo race (paleo type of proto-european type (race),the northern race severoevropeoidny type kromanidny type) is characterized by a massive face, brahikefaliey, large (acting)nose, massive physique, svetlopigmentirovannostyu(ie,hair, eyes, skin.). [3] (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438#cite_note-2) The origin of the type associated with the Cro-Magnon, [4] (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438#cite_note-3) [5] (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438#cite_note-4) are typical representatives of thisrace were representatives Afanasiev archaeological culture (III - beginning of II thousand. BC. E.), Tagar culture (VIII- IIIcenturies. BC. E .), Andronovo culture ( 2300 to n . e -. 1000 to the n . e ), the pit culture ( 3600 - 2300 up to n . e). carcass cultures ( 1700 - 1200 cc . to n . Oe .), the Scythian population Pazyryk culture ( VII of - II of centuries . to n. e .) and others [ (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438#cite_note-5)6 (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438#cite_note-5) ] (http://dic.academic.ru/dic.nsf/ruwiki/668438#cite_note-5) . Differences types of races for the different cultures were in the size and proportions of the face spread which is negligible .


According to Antropologia, E.N. Chrisanfova, I.V. Perevozchikov, 2005 y, Paleoeuropoid type was widespread in steppe zone of Eurasia from Dnieper to Altaye-Sayan region in 2-3 millenium bc.

Description of cromagnon type paleo european(so called proto Europid)

Twenty-four skulls from Afanas'evo sites possess similar characters. In addition to such Europoid traits as a prominent nose and an orhtognathous, ralatively short and unflattened face, the Afanas'evo skulls are massive. The latter is expressed in a greater facial breadth, a greater slant of the forehead, and in highly developed supraorbital crests. This combination of characters is unknown among the modern European races but occurs in the Upper Paleolithic period.

The closest analogy to the Afans'evo skulls offered by the Cro-Magnon type of western Europe.

Dov
25-01-17, 06:09
It'd help if you actually specified what these new findings that support a North-Eastern European homeland are.

Corded Ware and Yamnaya (which are attributed as the Indo-European) are similar in part autosomal, and certainly have a common source in the north.
Basal R1a found in the north as well as R1b (just more eastern).



As for the elk, the Greek and Latin words seem to be loanwords from Germanic rather than carryovers from a northerly homeland. The cognates in Tocharian and Indic refer to antelopes. Which is the original meaning?
We know that the eastern Corded Ware who are the ancestors of the Indians came from the north, forest zone (there live Elks). So initially they called elk, and then started calling the antelope.
The same goes for Tochars. They also went in forest area and contacted with the Finno-Ugric.

Dov
25-01-17, 06:59
We cant just select words that suit our theory only.
I just chose a word that excludes other areas.


What theory you favor?
Well, even 3 years ago it was widely believed in the archaeological science that Yamnaya can be ancestral to Indo-Iranians. After, genetic study proved that this is not. East Yamnaya is a dead-end population.

Also, after this genetic research of Yamnaya culture Russian archaeologist Klein saw inconsistencies in it and criticized the Anthony, Mallory and Co work. He also sees the source of the Indo-Europeans in the north, somewhere near the Baltic Sea. He was also adhered to a long-standing theory that PIE was Funnelbeaker. But now this also seems to be not true. Therefore, a new theory has yet to be written.

Dov
25-01-17, 08:38
Ural and Northern Caucasus as well.
There is no need to invent the mountain system in the PIE area. These Ivanov-Gamkrelidze reconstructions(?) as *Hek'or- *k[h]el *ont'-/*nt. *b[h]erg[h if they are correct, that probably words means elevation, hill, top, stone, rock, and not "huge mountains system as Cordilleras/Andes-Himalayas". At least there is no specific mountain vocabulary, as well as the mountain flora and fauna in the PIE.

MarkoZ
25-01-17, 13:32
Corded Ware and Yamnaya (which are attributed as the Indo-European) are similar in part autosomal, and certainly have a common source in the north.
Basal R1a found in the north as well as R1b (just more eastern).


We know that the eastern Corded Ware who are the ancestors of the Indians came from the north, forest zone (there live Elks). So initially they called elk, and then started calling the antelope.
The same goes for Tochars. They also went in forest area and contacted with the Finno-Ugric.

I guess you've gotten a bit circular here. Your argument is essentially that the familiarity with elks points to a far northern origin for PIE, and since we know that PIE came from the far north, elks must have been known to the PIE speakers.

There's also an issue with Tocharian 'yäl' (antelope), which lacks the kʰ and looks to be derived from the bare root if G&I are to be believed. This makes it unlikely to be a simple corruption of the PIE word for elk.