PDA

View Full Version : Paleolithic and Mesolithic migrations in Europe and Siberia



Dov
06-03-17, 15:20
http://s011.radikal.ru/i316/1703/3a/378a62325910.png

8546

In the middle of Upper Paleolithic, there is migration groups of Eastern European Paleolithic in Siberia. There was found a clear "cultural-genetic" relationship between Gagarino, Avdeevo, Kostenki13, Zaraysk sites and Mal'ta-Buret'. (Okladnikov Anikovich, Lisitsyn). Later were found European-style sites in Urals. Unique European Paleolithic Siberia developed in parallel with the local forms of the Siberian Paleolithic. But about 17 000 years ago it has been completely replaced Asian Paleolithic, with typical Asian tools and instruments. (Lisitsyn)

At the end of the Upper Paleolithic began warming and change of natural zones. Many cold-loving animals are moved to the north, such as deer,polar fox, endangered mammoth and so on. After them came and people. Survived populations final Palaeolithic of Eastern Europe began the familiarization coast of Ancylus Lake (now the Baltic Sea), the upper reaches of the Volga, and other previously inaccessible areas. There they met with the populations of Western European Paleolithic.

With the disappearance of large herd animals and open landscape loses its meaning driving hunt. Smaller and mobile species that live in the forest zone, forcing a person to change the traditional way of hunting for the Paleolithic. There were small groups of hunters armed with bows and arrows, which appeared at the end of the Paleolithic era, probably in swiderian WHG culture. The oldest bow found in Denmark. This made it possible to hunt both the large and smaller single animals and birds.

Water spaces has become very much, and a herd of hoofed animals is much less. The role of fishing was rising. This is confirmed by the findings of numerous instruments for fishing: hooks, harpoons, spears. At this time, there was invented a curved fishhook (direct existed in the Paleolithic). The most important achievement in the use of fishing nets were. But neither spear or rod could not provide a sufficient number of production. In the Baltic Mesolithic sites were finds the remnants of fishing nets. The peat bogs of Scandinavia known finds of fragments of fishing nets over 25m.

Dov
06-03-17, 15:22
The problem of Mongoloid admixture in the Mesolithic Eastern Europe.
http://s018.radikal.ru/i524/1703/c2/90bc0154b7e3.png

The Mesolithic in Eastern Europe have a certain Mongoloid admixture. And in antropology and archeology source of this still unknown. This came from "nowhere".

T. Alekseeva 1997:
"The distinctive set of features - brachycephaly caused very large transverse diameter of the skull and is accompanied by a very broad, flat face with a slightly protruding nose.
This was identified in three Eastern European populations:
- Mesolithic population in Yuzhny Oleni Ostrov (my note: C1g, С1g)
- Population Dnieper-Donets culture (my note: C, C4a2, C)
- Tribes Pit-Comb Ware culture
This anthropological type in Europe is an alien who does not have anything to do with the basic anthropological types of the territory.
The undeniable analogies of this morphological form identified in Eastern Siberia"

Here on the forum there have been suggestions that this is due to the migration R1a from Siberia. But such a conclusion seems premature to me. There is a certain correlation with the Mesolithic asiatic mt.DNA C in Karelia and Dnieper-Donets culture, which probably derived from from it. Perhaps it was the penetration of the small tribes of Siberia in the Mesolithic. These tribes have left a small admixture of the local population of the forest zone, and nothing more. If we assume that this was the dominant line R1a, it would be enormously affected to anthropology and material culture of the local populations. Culture would definitely acquired Asian features. But nothing happened like that and culture of mesolithic have european features. But such things are usually tracked and do not remain without a trace, such as the penetration of comb-ceramics tribes, which were carriers of sharply distinguished cultural traits.

We need more Y DNA from the Yuzhny Oleni Ostrov to solve the mystery.
And also from Eastern European Paleolithic. Until now, only 3(!) were tested. While about 50(!) from the rest of European paleolith. But Eastern European Paleolithic, probably a direct ancestor of the majority Europeans.

berun
07-03-17, 00:01
There were R1a in Mesolithic Baikal area, and as we don't know how they went there they could be an ancient population somehow related with Mal'ta, but yet Europoid. They could get some Eastern admixture there and spread back to Europe with the new EHG genes. Even they could have spread over an older R1a HG European population. With so few samples it's difficult to track all it and dates available allow many hypotheses; I must keep open doors.

Even so, surely such C people didn't came from Siberia alone.

Dov
07-03-17, 04:11
There were R1a in Mesolithic Baikal area, and as we don't know how they went there they could be an ancient population somehow related with Mal'ta, but yet Europoid. They could get some Eastern admixture there and spread back to Europe with the new EHG genes. Even they could have spread over an older R1a HG European population. With so few samples it's difficult to track all it and dates available allow many hypotheses; I must keep open doors.

Even so, surely such C people didn't came from Siberia alone.

By that time, 10,000 years ago, Siberia no longer had European populations or a European cultural tradition. The centers of the European cultural tradition fade 17,000 years ago, and replaced by a local Asian Paleolithic. Although probably some connections with Europe remained for several thousand years.

Very little information about the Kitoi culture, where R1a was found. But judging by this info, it was a culture with an Asian cultural tradition. A "Protomongoloid" type is noted. It is also partially ancestral for Glazkovo culture. Glazkovo culture is ancestral for Evenks and Tungus-Manchus.

Also, a set of haplo from the burial of a Lokomotiv and Shamanka does not look like a Europoid population:
Y-DNA: 2xR1a, 3xK, C3
Mt.DNA: 2xA, 2xD, 3xF, G2a, U5a

It looks rather "Mongoloid" and probably these R1a and U5a are accidental echo of ancient migrations from Europe.
But Alekseeva noted the similarity of Mongoloid skulls from the Mesolithic of Europe and some series of skulls from eastern Siberia. May be she had in mind these skulls from Lokomotiv and Shamanka burials. But I do not have such information. In general, everything is quite confusing so far.

LeBrok
07-03-17, 05:36
Groups of hunter gatherers where not that numerous and Central Asia is extremely vast. There could have been always room for Europoid and Mongoloid types, together with mixed groups. This coexistence continues till today. In middle ages Mongolians and Turks dominated Central Asia, afterwards pendulum swung to Russia, and Caucasoids invaded Central Asia again.
This is generally speaking of course. However, I would like to notice that from all the genetic samples that we have already, there is hardly any true Mongoloid genotype to be found. To be honest, there is also hardly full Caucasoid to be found (as we know them today), except perhaps guys immediately after Yamaya expansion.

For example, the oldest types, genetically don't resemble anyone we know. They are archaic, pre Caucasoid and pre Mongoloid, before they evolved into races. As we can see they contain equal proportions of all admixtures. They had lived so far apart but their admixtures were so similar, like cousins.



F999935
K-M526

T732095
Oase1


Ust'-Ishim, Siberia
45kya

Romania, Central Balkans
40kya


Run time
21.09

Run time
4.52


S-Indian
26.72

S-Indian
26.35


Baloch
8.4

Baloch
6.99


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
2.19


NE-Euro
6.51

NE-Euro
16.81


SE-Asian
12.11

SE-Asian
14.75


Siberian
2.05

Siberian
0.22


NE-Asian
3.84

NE-Asian
1.21


Papuan
10.9

Papuan
9.3


American
1.13

American
-


Beringian
2.7

Beringian
-


Mediterranean
8.14

Mediterranean
7.61


SW-Asian
4.65

SW-Asian
2.94


San
2.44

San
5.62


E-African
7.27

E-African
3.02


Pygmy
1.74

Pygmy
-


W-African
1.39

W-African
2.99




Now 20k years later we can notice bigger diversification between these cousins. Mal'ta has a lot of Baloch and American, which are strictly Central Asian admixtures. Vestonice developed Med which is signature of populations from around Mediterranean Sea.






F999914
R


Vestonice, Czech 24Kya
Mal'ta
24kya


Run time


Run time
8


S-Indian
14.06

S-Indian
10.13


Baloch
1.68

Baloch
24.09


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
41.3

NE-Euro
40.14


SE-Asian
0.8

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
3.98

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
4.65

Papuan
0.7


American
3.75

American
17.71


Beringian
-

Beringian
6.74


Mediterranean
23.93

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
2.99

SW-Asian
-


San
1.27

San
0.3


E-African
0.42

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
0.19


W-African
1.18

W-African
-



Then 15ky later, in Mesolithic, we have these guys:


F999918
I-L460

M737081

M925976 AfontovaGora3+AfontovaGora2


Loschbour, Luxembourg
7 kya

Kvalinsk HG (I0122+I0124+I0433)
7 kya

Afontova Gora in Syberia


Run time
14.93

Run time
8.15

Run time
3.9


S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-

S-Indian
-


Baloch
-

Baloch
20.2

Baloch
25.02


Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-

Caucasian
-


NE-Euro
77.83

NE-Euro
71.08

NE-Euro
52.64


SE-Asian
0.44

SE-Asian
-

SE-Asian
-


Siberian
-

Siberian
-

Siberian
-


NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-

NE-Asian
-


Papuan
0.84

Papuan
-

Papuan
-


American
-

American
6.89

American
20.01


Beringian
-

Beringian
1.7

Beringian
1.91


Mediterranean
20.66

Mediterranean
-

Mediterranean
-


SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-

SW-Asian
-


San
-

San
-

San
-


E-African
-

E-African
-

E-African
-


Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-

Pygmy
-


W-African
0.17

W-African
0.13

W-African
0.42



I think that Kvalinsk is more related to Afontova Gora than to WHG. Seems like WHG came from different refugium after LGM than these other two, who maybe came from a common one. Afontova Gora had more American admixture and could have look a bit Mongoloid. Though, with all these samples I don't see true Mongoloid signature, which would have lots of NE Asian, SE Asian and Siberian admixtures.

Here is modern people of Central/North Asia. Interestingly, there is lack of SE Asian component in Central Asia. SE Asians have never ventured too much North.




S Indian
Baloch
Caucasian
NE Euro
SE Asian
Siberian
NE Asian
Papuan
American
Beringian
Mediterranean
SW Asian
San
E African
Pygmy
W African


mongolian
1%
5%
5%
6%
0%
38%
39%
0%
1%
2%
2%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


chukchi
0%
0%
1%
5%
0%
12%
0%
0%
1%
80%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


kyrgyz
2%
8%
8%
11%
1%
30%
34%
0%
2%
2%
3%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%


nganassan
0%
1%
1%
3%
0%
89%
1%
0%
0%
4%
1%
0%
0%
0%
0%
0%

johen
07-03-17, 07:44
This is generally speaking of course. However, I would like to notice that from all the genetic samples that we have already, there is hardly any true Mongoloid genotype to be found. To be honest, there is also hardly full Caucasoid to be found (as we know them today), except perhaps guys immediately after Yamaya expansion.

For example, the oldest types, genetically don't resemble anyone we know. They are archaic, pre Caucasoid and pre Mongoloid, before they evolved into races. As we can see they contain equal proportions of all admixtures. They had lived so far apart but their admixtures were so similar, like cousins.

Very good point. I think Russian anthropologists explained that way.


Analysis of Neolithic and Eneolithic paleoanthropological materials in comparative aspect using available comparative data on synchronous cultures led to a very important conclusion that in the Neolithic Era and at the turn of Neolithic-Chalcolithic in the anthropological composition across Eurasia dominated morphological complexes with incomplete differentiation into consolidated Mongoloid and Caucasoid complexes of the main (geographical) races
V. Bunak identified one of unconsolidated complexes in varying anthropological variations in the Eurasian north-western forest zone as a separate racial community, which he called “Northern Eurasian Anthropological Formation” (Bunak, 1956, p. 101). To that anthropological community belong the Neolithic population groups of the Baraba steppe adjacent to the Altai-Sayan upland (Creek, Sopka-2/1). The area of the Northern Eurasian Anthropological Formation enormous area: the main finds were obtained in the north-western (Onega lake, southern basin of the White Sea, Karelia, Baltics) and southeastern (northern Baraba) fringes, and also in the northern forest zone of the East European Plain (Pit–Comb Ware Cultural-Historical Community)
Tatiana Chikisheva Dynamics of anthropological differentiation in South-Western Siberian population in Neolithic - Early Iron Age Professorial dissertation, Novosibirsk, 2010


Craniometrically, prehistoric populations of Gorny Altai are mostly intermediate between Mongoloid and Caucasoid populations. Genetically, individuals from Neolithic and Bronze Age burials display only Western Eurasian mtDNA haplotypes. Such genetic uniformity over two or three millennia points to the absence of gene drift. Gene fl ow, resulting in the presence of both Western and Eastern mtDNA haplotypes in Gorny Altai, is evidenced only by the Early Iron Age people of the Pazyryk culture. The finding is supported by archaeological data (Molodin, 2003)
A PALEOGENETIC STUDY OF THE PREHISTORIC POPULATIONS OF THE ALTAI
T.A. Chikisheva1, M.A. Gubina2, I.V. Kulikov3, T.M. Karafet4, M.I. Voevoda3, and A.G. Romaschenko


The Okunev tribes of the Minusinsk Basin, those associated with Karakol, Ust-Tartas, and Krotovo cultures as well those buried in “Andronoid” cemeteries of Western Siberia at Yelovka II and Cherno-ozerye, were apparently descendants of the local Neolithic tribes. All these groups display highly peculiar and apparently very ancient trait combinations which could hardly have resulted from an admixture between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. The role of the European component in their origins remains unclear.
A.G. Kozintsev, CRANIOMETRIC EVIDENCE OF THE EARLY CAUCASOID MIGRATIONS TO SIBERIA AND EASTERN CENTRAL ASIA, WITH REFERENCE TO THE INDO-EUROPEAN PROBLEM* (2009)

Dov
07-03-17, 08:31
-
Noticeably as between 40kya and 25kya, there has been a gradual differentiation of European population from all others, both cultural and genetic.
By the way, there was Baloch in Afontova Gora?


Very good point. I think Russian anthropologists explained that way.
This is just an outdated view of Bunak. In 1960s there were really two opinions. Bunak, Yakimov believed that in Mesolithic was "a unique local population forms, without a Mongoloid admixture," as well as Uralic race is a unique form, without the participation of Mongoloids. While Alekseev and Co. claimed otherwise. Now the first opinion is not seriously considered. The Ural race was definitely is "mixed" and in the Mesolithic there was a penetration of Mongoloid populations.

LeBrok
07-03-17, 09:05
Noticeably as between 40kya and 25kya, there has been a gradual differentiation of European population from all others That's right, and we can see strong affinity between East Europe and Siberia/Altay, that existed pretty much till Iron Age.



By the way, there was Baloch in Afontova Gora?Looks like it. "Baloch" is one ancient Central-South component of Asia. Whatever this is it is called like this in HarappaWorld in GedMatch.

Dov
07-03-17, 09:34
That's right, and we can see strong affinity between East Europe and Siberia/Altay, that existed pretty much till Iron Age.
Looks like it. "Baloch" is one ancient Central-South component of Asia. Whatever this is it is called like this in HarappaWorld in GedMatch.
Possible that carriers of R brought Baloch to the Eastern European sites of mammonth hunters and replaced the old male lines about 30-25 kya, or it was admixed without R. Or Baloch was received only in Siberia. Althought, this is no more than guesses. We need a more Paleolithic DNA.

bicicleur
07-03-17, 09:47
there is hardly any true Mongoloid genotype to be found.

what is true Mongoloid then ?

8547

Bororo Indian in Brazil
her ancestors came from Siberia 16 ka
she lives in the tropics, but she is adapted to the cold

Northener
07-03-17, 10:00
That's right, and we can see strong affinity between East Europe and Siberia/Altay, that existed pretty much till Iron Age.


Looks like it. "Baloch" is one ancient Central-South component of Asia. Whatever this is it is called like this in HarappaWorld in GedMatch.

Not only East Europe, with the Tumulus and Urnfield also Central and Northwest Europe.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

LeBrok
07-03-17, 17:19
Possible that carriers of R brought Baloch to the Eastern European sites of mammonth hunters and replaced the old male lines about 30-25 kya, or it was admixed without R. Or Baloch was received only in Siberia. Althought, this is no more than guesses. We need a more Paleolithic DNA.The age of R and locations fit this scenario.

LeBrok
07-03-17, 17:24
what is true Mongoloid then ?

8547

Bororo Indian in Brazil
her ancestors came from Siberia 16 ka
she lives in the tropics, but she is adapted to the cold
I think their might be 3 major types which separated 30 kya. The American/Siberian/Beringian, then NE Asian and SE Asian. The American, Siberian and Beringian probably since LGM.

bicicleur
07-03-17, 17:56
I think their might be 3 major types which separated 30 kya. The American/Siberian/Beringian, then NE Asian and SE Asian. The American, Siberian and Beringian probably since LGM.

I think 30 ka Mongoloid split from west Eurasian, more or less along the line of the split between Q and R.
We have evidence of human presence in Beringia just before and just after LGM (well, 14 ka), but I don't think there was continuity in Beringia during LGM, it seems to far north to me.

johen
08-03-17, 00:03
This is just an outdated view of Bunak. In 1960s there were really two opinions. Bunak, Yakimov believed that in Mesolithic was "a unique local population forms, without a Mongoloid admixture," as well as Uralic race is a unique form, without the participation of Mongoloids. While Alekseev and Co. claimed otherwise. Now the first opinion is not seriously considered. The Ural race was definitely is "mixed" and in the Mesolithic there was a penetration of Mongoloid populations.

As far as I know, Alekseyeva classified the mesolithic people of North East Europe as traditional caucasoid, even if they had the contradicting looks. It means she rejected the opinion that the mesolithic people were mixed with caucasoid amd mongolid.

A significant contribution to the study of the early population history of Eastern Europe and of the origins
of the contradictory trait combinations distributed on that territory was made by T.I. Alekseyeva. In a joint
monograph describing the Neolithic cranial series from Sakhtysh in the Upper Volga area, she notes that certain
European Mesolithic groups were characterized by large dimensions of the braincase and especially by its
conspicuous height. The face was wide and relatively low and a flattened upper facial profile co-occurred with
a sharp midfacial profile and sharply protruding nasal bones (Alekseyeva, 1997). In Alekseyeva’s words, this
unusual trait combination, which was more than once revealed by multivariate statistics, was widely distributed
and was typical of Mesolithic Caucasoids of the forest and forest-steppe zones of Eastern Europe as evidenced
by groups such as Zvejnieki, Popovo, Southern Oleniy (Reindeer) Island, and Vasilievka I and III. In her words,
there is no doubt that robustness and upper facial flatness were inherited from earlier Caucasoid populations of
Eastern Europe (Ibid.: 26).

1. Problem is same thing happened in the Altai, however, result by T. A. Chikisheva (https://www.researchgate.net/profile/T_Chikisheva)(2015) was different:

Most physical anthropologists studying the prehistoric populations of Gorny Altai, too, believe that the key evolutionary factor was hybridization between Caucasoids and Mongoloids. However, human remains recently excavated in that territory suggest that at least in certain cases, intermediacy might have been caused by evolutionary conservatism, leading to unusual combinations of diagnostic traits. Thus, certain prehistoric cranial series from Gorny Altai are characterized by a broad face, equally flattened at the nasomalar and zygo-maxillary levels, convex nasal bones combined with a small nasal prominence angle, medium wide nasal aperture, and broad and low orbits
This combination, which is rather unusual since it cannot be described as either Caucasoid or Mongoloid, shows a remarkable persistence in Gorny Altai over several millennia. The entire complex of these traits was observed in several skeletal populations of that territory, from the Neolithic to the Early Iron Age, strongly implying biological continuity.

Quite a number of human skeletal remains associated with the Pazyryk and Kara-Koba cultures have been published (Chikisheva, 1994, 1996, 2000b, 2002, 2003a). The morphological trait combination that is predominant among the Pazyryk tribes appears to be autochthonous and probably derives from the Neolithic population of Gorny Altai and from people associated with an Okunev-type culture(Karakol).

2. Moreover Kozintsev proved it by comparing all bronze stepp groups in a pairwise manner with Mahalanobis D2 values (2008, 2009). And he lead a conclusion that East Ural and Okunevo people were intermediate between caucasoid and Mongoloid. Is there any couter argument against Kozintsev’s result?

The Okunev tribes of the Minusinsk Basin, those associated with Karakol, Ust-Tartas, and Krotovo cultures as well those buried in “Andronoid” cemeteries of Western Siberia at Yelovka II and Cherno-ozerye, were apparently descendants of the local Neolithic tribes. All these groups display highly peculiar and apparently very ancient trait combinations which could hardly have resulted from an admixture between Mongoloids and Caucasoids. The role of the European component in their origins remains unclear.

LeBrok
08-03-17, 04:20
I think 30 ka Mongoloid split from west Eurasian, more or less along the line of the split between Q and R.
We have evidence of human presence in Beringia just before and just after LGM (well, 14 ka), but I don't think there was continuity in Beringia during LGM, it seems to far north to me.Maybe even earlier. Look at Usti'shim 45kya, he already shows more East Asian influence than Oase1, and he is in Central Asia, not Far East. This means that in East Asia diversification should have been even bigger already. Process was already under way.
It is possible that diversification of American/Beringian/Siberian happened later after LGM when Northern peeps stated spreading from refugium farther south. But it is just my guess.

Dov
08-03-17, 09:10
Is there any couter argument against Kozintsev’s result?
I have already cited Gromov conclusions:
- сultural-genetic similarity with Kalmykia and Astrakhan.
- there is purely Europoid and purely Mongoloid skulls at the early stage of Okunevo culture
- at a late stage already mixed skull series

bicicleur
08-03-17, 09:41
Maybe even earlier. Look at Usti'shim 45kya, he already shows more East Asian influence than Oase1, and he is in Central Asia, not Far East. This means that in East Asia diversification should have been even bigger already. Process was already under way.
It is possible that diversification of American/Beringian/Siberian happened later after LGM when Northern peeps stated spreading from refugium farther south. But it is just my guess.

First modern humans came to Siberia via the Central Asian corridor only ca 48 ka, before it was Neanderthal and Denisovan land.
Native Americans arrived in America in waves 16-13 ka.
Paleo-eskimo arrived around Bering Street 5.5 ka, Inuit just over 2 ka.

johen
08-03-17, 19:54
I have already cited Gromov conclusions:
- there is purely Europoid and purely Mongoloid skulls at the early stage of Okunevo culture

Can you tell me when and which burial is the early stage of Okunevo?
Actually I never heard that okunevo sites have Europoid and Mongoloid, but afanasievo’s.

Craniofacial morphological study of human remains from Neolithic period of Altai mountain,Buryatia and Inner Mongolia China show great heterogeneity of morphological traits amongpopulations of the historic periods. Due to obtained craniofacial data the Neolithic Afanasevpopulation from Altai mountain characterize Caucasoid anthropological features while studied Neolithicpopulations from Inner Mongolia, Baikal lake region show typical mongoloid anthropological features.Nevertheless most taxonomic traits of some skulls from Kharagol site of Afanasev culture of Altaimountain demonstrate their mongoloid features. It may show that Neolithic Afanasev population fromAltai mountain anthropologically was heterogeneity which can be explained by migration of mongoloid population from East Asia.


I have already cited Gromov conclusions:
- сultural-genetic similarity with Kalmykia and Astrakhan.
- at a late stage already mixed skull series

1.
Gromov (Ibid.) suggests that the Okunev community resulted from an admixture of Eastern and Western populations, and that this admixture is evident at both the within-group and between-group level. Leaving the former aside because of a lesser reliability of individual diagnostics, it can be noted that at the between-group level, the Okunev physical type is quite peculiar, and this peculiarity is not seen in either of the supposed ancestral groups (Caucasoid or Mongoloid). Therefore the observed pattern could hardly have resulted from admixture. This is evidenced by both craniometrics (Ibid.)and cranial nonmetrics (Gromov, Moiseyev, 2004), and by the results of their integration (Kozintsev, Gromov, Moiseyev, 1999, 2003; Kozintsev, 2004). In addition, if the Catacomb people actually participated in Okunev origins, we would have to admit that they were ancestral also to the Neolithic population of Krasnoyarsk–Kansk area, which is craniometrically quite close to the Okunev group. As nothing indicates this, it is more reasonable to assume that the Okunev people were autochthonous, and that European elements of their culture are borrowings.

2. And Alexander Kozintsevalso(2009) used Kalmykia sample, which was close to Andronovo(Fedorov),not okunevo.

Fedorov, the Upper Ob, pooled: Catacomb, Stavropol area (0.50); late Pit Grave, Kalmykia (0.80); Pit Grave, Stavropol area (0.90)

3. Surely the altai people like the Ural people has made anthropologists confusing, which, I think, is caused by Malta Boy.
https://s31.postimg.org/5qn0sb09n/Capture2.png

Okunevo’s genes originated in the Malta and continued to Karasuk and the Iron age Altai(East Scythians). Without malta, all west Eurasian genes of central Asia seems to be from Yamna. A few days ago scythian reserach also concluded that East scythian were mixed with Yamna and East Asian. So this conclusion becomes against recent anthro data.
However, Okunevo’s genetic admixture directly came from Malta, which means Alexander Kozintsev result is correct, I think. And also recent Russsian anthropologists already proved Karasuk and East/ west scythian case also.

The results suggest that the Irmen people originated in the Novosibirsk and Baraba areas from a mixture of Andronovo (Fedorovka) and autochthonous groups. Dental data are inconsistent with the idea that the Karasuk tribes might have taken part in this process. The Karasuk people clearly descended from the Okunevo people, as evidenced by the elevated frequencies of the Carabelli cusp and deflecting wrinkle. None of these traits is present in the Irmen people, who display dental gracility evidently introduced by Andronovo (Fedorovka) tribes.

The Late Scythian population considered in this study proved to be genetically homogeneous, although some connections with the Sarmatians were found. We also revealed similarities between the Scythian groups and the local Bronze Age population of the Srubnaya culture, as well as, to a lesser extent, a group representative of the Central Asian Bronze Age Okunevo culture.

Craniometrically, prehistoric populations of Gorny Altai are mostly intermediate between Mongoloid and Caucasoid populations. Genetically, individuals from Neolithic and Bronze Age burials display only Western Eurasian mtDNA haplotypes
Quite a number of human skeletal remains associated with the Pazyryk and Kara-Koba cultures have been published (Chikisheva, 1994, 1996, 2000b, 2002, 2003a). The morphological trait combination that is predominant among the Pazyryk tribes appears to be autochthonous and probably derives from the Neolithic population of Gorny Altai and from people associated with an Okunev-type culture(Karakol)

Dov
09-03-17, 09:50
Can you tell me when and which burial is the early stage of Okunevo?
Actually I never heard that okunevo sites have Europoid and Mongoloid, but afanasievo’s.

google translate:

In the early Okunev monuments, there are individual Caucasoid and Mongoloid skulls that do not bear traces of metisation. By the late stage of the existence of culture, there is a certain homogenization of the population. A comparison of the skulls of the Okunevites with a series of skulls from the cemeteries of Siberian and Eastern European cultures of the Neolithic and Palaeometallic ages shows that the Okunevs belong to the circle of metisal populations.

The contacts of the local population with the Western European groups of Western origin, which in fact led to the formation of Okunevo culture, formed the anthropological image of the Okunevites. It is characterized by brachycrania and some flattening of the facial skeleton with a rather protruding nose.

Attention is drawn to the certain similarity between the Okunevites and the population of the Bronze Age of Kalmykia and the Astrakhan right bank. Skulls from the burial grounds of the pit culture of this region were characterized by europeoid features and brahikrania. In this series there are artificially deformed skulls, whose shape of deformation is similar to that of Okunevskaya. Unfortunately, significant gaps in the cranial materials of the Neolith-Bronze Age from the territory of Kazakhstan and Iriuralye, the intermediate territories between South Siberia and Eastern Europe, do not allow us to determine the path of movement of European migrants. (Gromov)
http://earthpapers.net/antropologiya-naseleniya-okunevskoy-kultury-yuzhnoy-sibiri

johen
09-03-17, 19:52
google translate:

http://earthpapers.net/antropologiya-naseleniya-okunevskoy-kultury-yuzhnoy-sibiri

Thanks, really good Information.


The most notable feature is Okunev artificial deformation of skulls. It is expressed in a large skewness and flatness occipital-parietal department. The center of this flatness occurs in the region compounds the parietal and occipital bones, at least - in the area obeliona. Designed for fixing the height of the deformation index of the occiput (EWI) and the index of the occiput (IPE) have revealed a similarity with the other series of skulls, deformed in the occipital-parietal region and originality okunevtsev. EHS features a series parietal deformation of non-deformed and brings with okunevtsami skulls from burial pit and pit-Catacomb culture of Kalmykia, Zoroastrians Frinkenta (XIII c.), Men's series of the Nestorian cemeteries XIII century. Chu Valley. IPE characterizes the specificity of strain Okunev skulls. According to this index closest to the population Okunev culture Yamnik(?) Kalmykia

1.The deformation culture among Afanasievo, catacomb and okunevo contiuned definately to only scythian/Hun elites, not commoners, like this:
Alekseeva EA Reconstruction of the face on the skull of the male burial Ustyug 1 (Bakal culture, V-VI cent. BC ): I think he would be a scythian elite.
http://www.rusanthropology.ru/images/ustug_all.jpg


In early Okunev monuments are individual Caucasoid and Mongoloid skull, do not carry traces of cross-breeding. By the late stages of the culture there is a certain homogenization of the population. Compare okunevtsev skulls with lots of skulls from burial grounds in Siberia and the Eastern cultures of the Neolithic and paleometal shows that okunevtsy belong to the circle metisnye populations.

Ya, that one is a mistery. And the Caucasoid might be remnants of Afanasievo people, because afansievo people merged with local okunevo people. As far as I know, okunevo tuva cranial series resemble late yamna series.
http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/07Sokolova(434-456).pdf


Noteworthy okunevtsev certain similarity with the population era of Kalmykia and the Astrakhan bronze right bank. The skulls from burial pit culture of this region characterized Caucasoid features and brahikraniey. In this series are artificially deformed skull, the shape of which is similar to the strain Okunev. Unfortunately, significant gaps in the cranial materials Neolithic-bronze from the territory of Kazakhstan and Iriuralya, intermediate territory between Siberia and South Eastern Europe, did not allow us to determine the path of movement of European workers.

The author’s anthropological analysis is consistent with the archaelogical data that there has been no evidence for western people to enter western steppe in south siberia before 2,000bc. (we should not explain it by a cowboy story)
Again I want to ask a question of how the afanasievo people migrated in Altai without footprints in western steppe? I always think that they used Ural forests/forest steppe with lots of food where is cool in summer, and warm in winter. That is why animal husbandry and copper mining was developed in the east Urals even in 4th millenium bc. How come ancient people tried to migrate to the coldest area from warm area? As far as I know, winter temperature in mongolia steppe is below -40C, but -12C even in Karelia, Russia. How come yamna people knew there was copper in altai, not knowing copper in sintashta before 2,000bc?
= how to explain the yamna migration in Russian Academy?


In terms of cranial morphology, the Afanasyev people were very similar to those associated with the synchronous Pit-grave (Yamnaya) culture of the Russian Plain. Two hypothesis have been advanced to explain the origin of the Afanasyev population. In early studies, the morphological similarity between the Afanasyev and Pit-grave people was explained by a large-scale migration of Caucasoids from Eastern Europe to Southern Siberia and Easter Central Asia (Debetz, 1948; Alexeyev, 1961). Later, Alexeyev (1989: 350 – 355) discussed another possibility: the Afanasyev people had independently descended from an early Caucasoid population whose homeland was the eastern part of the Eurasian steppe belt.


Nor are these affi nities shown by the Afanasyev people disregarding isolated Central and Western European ties of Saldyar and Afanasyeva Gora. Despite this, the ties of the Afanasyev groups with the early and late Catacomb are distributed approximately evenly. The general conclusion is rather modest: Afanasyev roots apparently lie in Eastern European steppes and forest-steppes, but relating them to a specific culture is impossible.
A.G. Kozintsev(2009)

Northener
09-03-17, 19:59
Thanks, really good Information.



1.The deformation culture among Afanasievo, catacomb and okunevo contiuned definately to only scythian/Hun elites, not commoners, like this:
Alekseeva EA Reconstruction of the face on the skull of the male burial Ustyug 1 (Bakal culture, V-VI cent. BC ): I think he would be a scythian elite.
http://www.rusanthropology.ru/images/ustug_all.jpg



Ya, that one is a mistery. And the Caucasoid might be remnants of Afanasievo people, because afansievo people merged with local okunevo people. As far as I know, okunevo tuva cranial series resemble late yamna series.
http://www.clarkriley.com/JIES4034web/07Sokolova(434-456).pdf



The author’s anthropological analysis is consistent with the archaelogical data that there has been no evidence for western people to enter western steppe in south siberia before 2,000bc. (we should not explain it by a cowboy story)
Again I want to ask a question of how the afanasievo people migrated in Altai without footprints in western steppe? I always think that they used Ural forests/forest steppe with lots of food where is cool in summer, and warm in winter. That is why animal husbandry and copper mining was developed in the east Urals even in 4th millenium bc. How come ancient people tried to migrate to the coldest area from warm area? As far as I know, winter temperature in mongolia steppe is below -40C, but -12C even in Karelia, Russia. How come yamna people knew there was copper in altai, not knowing copper in sintashta before 2,000bc?
= how to explain the yamna migration in Russian Academy?




A.G. Kozintsev(2009)

Ok...talking about a flat occiput....


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

MOESAN
09-03-17, 22:11
Not only East Europe, with the Tumulus and Urnfield also Central and Northwest Europe.


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

My friend, could you explain me your point here?

Northener
09-03-17, 22:28
My friend, could you explain me your point here?

Of course!
When I compare genetics with archeology the essence is:

- Genetics: roots in Omsk/Seima-Turbino!?
Gedmatch results of my autosomal DNA with ancient aDNA material. This was the result:
1. Ust-Ishii Siberia 45kya up to 6cM, Omsk, Seima-Turbino
2. Ne 1 Hungary 7,2 kya up to 5cM, Neoltihic Hungary
3. Clovis Montana 12,5 kya up to 4cM, Native America, ANE like
4. Loschbour Lux 8 kya up to 4cM, WHG
5. LBK Stuttgart 7 kya up to 3cM, Neolithic Southern Germany
6. Br 2 Hungary 3,2 kya up to 3cM Bronze Age Hungary
7. Rise Sweden 3,7 KY up to 3 cM R1b U106 Corded Ware Sweden

- Archeology: Bronze Age Sögel warriors, Prof L. Kooijmans(1998):
''The northern Netherlands is part of the northern group (NW Germany and Denmark) especially of the Sögeler Kreis characterized by a number of distinctive men's graves. The Drouwen grave is the best known Dutch example. (that's my mothers place of birth !- Northener) It's remarkable that the Elp culture has never been presented as the immigration of a new group of people. Because clearly this period was a time when a number of new elements made their entry while others disappeared. The disappearance of beakers, the appearance of the Sögel men's graves with the first 'swords', among other things, the fully extended burial posture, under barrows; all the factors have been reason enough in the past to conclude that the Elp culture represented an immigration of Sögel warriors."

This supposed immigration of Bronze Age warriors was about 1600 BC.

- Archeology: Sögel warriors are rooted in Seima-Turbino, Dr. S.A, Grigoryev (2002)
"In Northern Germany and Denmark, where all the processes were underway but some at a later date than in more southerly areas, celts and spear-heads with a decorated socket inheriting directly Seima-Turbino traditions, appear only from the timecorresponding to stage Br B/1 in Southern Germany(Fig. 97) [Müller-Karpe, 1980, Taf. 501, 504, 506]"

I know this is a short cut, the reality is always complicated, but to give you a an idea why I made this statement.



Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

MOESAN
10-03-17, 00:07
I'm sticked to my chair, and my legs can no more carry me (by surprise) -
two problems: what confidence in Gedmatch? Some more
Ust 'Ishim has no North Sea, no Baltic, only a few Atlantic, and is drifted towards SE-Asia - you have surely some good ANE taste as other northern Europeans but...
concerning Grigoryev, I have some doubts; it's true that in what I red (an abstract) he spoke of a Seima-Turbino influence upon people of the Steppes, already kurganized, what according to him created the future Germanic, Baltic and Slavic cultures before they moved westwards (he spoke that Celts received too some influence! even until Gaul) - but let' be cautious; Germanics are Y-R1b-U106°Y-I1+Y-R1a but this R1a is specific (and rather CWC or just pre-CWC?) - to me Seyma-Turbino is rather a Y-N1 phenomenon, perhaps with some taste of a branch of Y-Q, before I know more - what don't prove there has not been cultural influences at the mergins.
It's true I know little yet about all these chains of more or less lined and derived ancient cultures -

Northener
10-03-17, 17:19
I'm sticked to my chair, and my legs can no more carry me (by surprise) -
two problems: what confidence in Gedmatch? Some more
Ust 'Ishim has no North Sea, no Baltic, only a few Atlantic, and is drifted towards SE-Asia - you have surely some good ANE taste as other northern Europeans but...
concerning Grigoryev, I have some doubts; it's true that in what I red (an abstract) he spoke of a Seima-Turbino influence upon people of the Steppes, already kurganized, what according to him created the future Germanic, Baltic and Slavic cultures before they moved westwards (he spoke that Celts received too some influence! even until Gaul) - but let' be cautious; Germanics are Y-R1b-U106°Y-I1+Y-R1a but this R1a is specific (and rather CWC or just pre-CWC?) - to me Seyma-Turbino is rather a Y-N1 phenomenon, perhaps with some taste of a branch of Y-Q, before I know more - what don't prove there has not been cultural influences at the mergins.
It's true I know little yet about all these chains of more or less lined and derived ancient cultures -

That's the amazing part in genetics, Moesan!

One way or another: there is a Steppe/Siberian substrate in my North Dutch DNA.

And yes it's partly a matter of pouring water into wine, when it has lost the title wine?
There are thousand of years in between. Tough to oversee al the consequences of that.
My favorite metaphor is that genetic population reconstructions are like reconstructions of streams in a jacuzzi. Scientist can develop good models for it. But, certainly with human behavior and the past, a model never equals reality. You can't simple oversee the whole reality.

That said.
The advantage of Gedmatch not the admixtures but the ability to 1:1 compare with ancient DNA, is: it contains no pre fab labels like "North Sea" etc. Nothing wrong with admixtures very insightful, but they put it in ready mades, in frames. With all the disadvantages along with it, like it depends heavily on the presumptions behind it.
And of course a basic thing like the quality of the ancient sample can make a good difference in the result of the ability to compare.

But in the end there is a slice of DNA which started in Siberia and ended not far from the North Sea shore.
1000 ways how it could get there.

How about this educated guess: I suppose that one prominent breeding ground of the Bronze Age culture was indeed the Steppe. The Bronze age package and 'pioniers', trough mixtures, transformations, fusion with locals, eventually reached about 1600 BC the Nordic Europeans territory....And there it left thousand years later some residues in the genetic gene pool of that area. Sounds not odd to me ;)

Anyone comments? Adds? Corrections. Please feel free!

Northener
10-03-17, 19:37
I'm sticked to my chair, and my legs can no more carry me (by surprise) -
two problems: what confidence in Gedmatch? Some more
Ust 'Ishim has no North Sea, no Baltic, only a few Atlantic, and is drifted towards SE-Asia - you have surely some good ANE taste as other northern Europeans but...
concerning Grigoryev, I have some doubts; it's true that in what I red (an abstract) he spoke of a Seima-Turbino influence upon people of the Steppes, already kurganized, what according to him created the future Germanic, Baltic and Slavic cultures before they moved westwards (he spoke that Celts received too some influence! even until Gaul) - but let' be cautious; Germanics are Y-R1b-U106°Y-I1+Y-R1a but this R1a is specific (and rather CWC or just pre-CWC?) - to me Seyma-Turbino is rather a Y-N1 phenomenon, perhaps with some taste of a branch of Y-Q, before I know more - what don't prove there has not been cultural influences at the mergins.
It's true I know little yet about all these chains of more or less lined and derived ancient cultures -

Add nice recent map, anonymous autor, about the spread of Pazyryk Scythian. I know no reference, but the picture of Germany/Netherlands/Denmark fascinates me....stay on your chair ;)
http://i67.tinypic.com/246t5ia.png

johen
10-03-17, 21:30
Add nice recent map, anonymous autor, about the spread of Pazyryk Scythian. I now no reference, but the picture of Germany/Netherlands/Denmark fascinates me....stay on your chair ;)
http://i67.tinypic.com/246t5ia.png When did the scythian enter Ancient Japan? I never heard that nomad used ship.

Northener
10-03-17, 21:58
adaptive....http://ethnobs.ru/en/library/237/_aview_b18268

johen
10-03-17, 23:09
adaptive....http://ethnobs.ru/en/library/237/_aview_b18268
Scythian were horse riding people. The problem is the horse was introduced to Janpan 4 century.
So the only chance is the ancient Gaya Kingdom, who migrated from Manchuria to ancient Korea and later ruled Ancient Japan after Yayoi. Most of japanese think that the Gaya people were japonics b/c of artifacts. Problem is Gaya people were legendary horse riding people.

see 1st century B.C. Gaya Armor in Korea:
http://i.imgur.com/MsyhssQ.jpg

Avar helmet, which was introduced to Europe,and later German tribes used.
http://i.imgur.com/rPtiFXQ.jpg

so result after Gaya and Yayoi ruling in ancient Japan:
http://d3a5ak6v9sb99l.cloudfront.net/content/advances/3/2/e1601877/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1

However, anthropologically koreans and japanese are different peoples. look like the same situation between Yamna and afanasievo.

MOESAN
11-03-17, 00:29
@Northerner: I don't deny the taste of far N-E Europe (close Ural and even some traces farther) in W-Europe, particularly among Scandinavians (less than Finns, of course) - but I was amazed (I was obliged to swallow a 1/2 L of bad wine to recover some forces) by the preference for a so old and far pop in tour auDNA - an element in types of people in Slavic Europe and North Europe shows something 'mongoloid' (the exotic part of 'east-baltic' composit), but rather different from the today Amerindians as a whole and from SE-Asians -
SO It was only this FRIST place in the palmares which astnished me - I already wrote some parts of the ANE auDNA elements were inherited from a pop which had some ties with a parlty undifferencied relic Eurasian pop of ancient times -
I regreat we are are obliged to speak again of classical anthropology; but auDNA (with the today methods) can hardly give answer about old crossings of diverse pops VS old undifferencied 'stock' pops with raciation subsequent process, when sometimes a typologic+metric study can give clues - about Okunevo/Karasuk I red opposite thoughts + a thirs way: A) two "pure" groups mixing since the begenning VS old undifferenced pop; + B) someones add this last situation did not prevent introgressions of pure differencied groups (noticely a Yamanaylike group and a N-China group) - even if this last group could be the bearers of Y-N1 and of Seyma-Turbino adaptations, and future motor of Finnic-Ugric tribes spite the high faced type of China did not leave too much physcial traces, I prefer the B) explanation -

@Johen: I think the map posted by Northerner is an ANE au DNA density map; he could confirm or infirm us. I already saw this map (which authords?)

MOESAN
11-03-17, 00:34
Oops: too much wine of yesterday?
I forgotten the third opinion (I would put in first in fact!): only undifferencied people in early Okunevo -
the question is that every culture is treated as a monolithic one demically speaking, when in fact there were variations between sites of the same cultures - sometimes limitedn sometimes striking), so sometimes people are arguing one against another and sure of their opinions, when in fact they do'nt speak always of the exact same object -

Northener
11-03-17, 10:39
Scythian were horse riding people. The problem is the horse was introduced to Janpan 4 century.
So the only chance is the ancient Gaya Kingdom, who migrated from Manchuria to ancient Korea and later ruled Ancient Japan after Yayoi. Most of japanese think that the Gaya people were japonics b/c of artifacts. Problem is Gaya people were legendary horse riding people.

However, anthropologically koreans and japanese are different peoples. look like the same situation between Yamna and afanasievo.


Fascinating Johen, compliments for your in debt knowledge!
What are your thoughts about the relation with my autosomal DNA and, regarding the picture, NW Europe/Germans in general? Why there is a red Scythian highlight in this region?

Northener
11-03-17, 11:15
Oops: too much wine of yesterday?
I forgotten the third opinion (I would put in first in fact!): only undifferencied people in early Okunevo -
the question is that every culture is treated as a monolithic one demically speaking, when in fact there were variations between sites of the same cultures - sometimes limitedn sometimes striking), so sometimes people are arguing one against another and sure of their opinions, when in fact they do'nt speak always of the exact same object -

What a nice correspondence in our pidgin mix of 'vin-english' and as we call it Dutch stone coal english ;)
I guess my auDNA region had always been more connected with the Nordic hemisphere. Already in the FTDNA admixtures there were besides a big Scandinavian component some unexpected 'Finnish' components....
Besides the very clear Omsk connection the native American was very obvious and unexpected.
And regering my phenotype, always doubtful about those connections, I'am meso, high cranial vault, flat occiput, an especially broad face (hard to get good fitting glasses ;) and not because of obesitas (hahaha), besides that I'am very tall, long arms and legs....
Regarding my (grand-)parents my grandmother at fathers side could have had some Steppe influences, very tall and broad faced (=wide malars!), which gave here almost a Sibirid expression.
All for what it's worth. Projection;)

MOESAN
11-03-17, 11:30
Thanks for your admiration concerning my 'pidgin' english (I prefer "exotic", more dreamful) -
I'll send your private posts when I have time (it would not be too long) -
aside the presence of not neglictible Y-Q of supposed Steppes origin in Scandinavia, what make you think the map you posted is about Red Scythians? I believed it was about ANE DNA?
Thanks for answer.

Northener
11-03-17, 12:40
Thanks for your admiration concerning my 'pidgin' english (I prefer "exotic", more dreamful) -
I'll send your private posts when I have time (it would not be too long) -
aside the presence of not neglictible Y-Q of supposed Steppes origin in Scandinavia, what make you think the map you posted is about Red Scythians? I believed it was about ANE DNA?
Thanks for answer.

Thanks in advance for the - excotic-privat posting! That's indeed a kind of difference Nordics seem to write somewhat curtly. But I like those Romanesk phrases like that of Michel Onfray (or that of my family in law from Northern France).

Red was a "Babylonian" mistake, red was the color of the hotspot on the map.....

Northener
11-03-17, 14:21
Far-fetched 'ANE'/Steppe/Siberian influences?

A picture of my (very tall) grandmother:
http://i66.tinypic.com/28v5eh4.jpg

I guess the facial type expresses some influences.....

LeBrok
11-03-17, 16:42
I think she has a lot from EHG/WHG. I think they had these small noses. I mean a low bridge, sky jump profile, and bigger lower flashy part.

Northener
11-03-17, 18:09
I think she has a lot from EHG/WHG. I think they had these small noses. I mean a low bridge, sky jump profile, and bigger lower flashy part.

I guess we are getting now in the danger zone of the anthro fora, but tall, low nose bridge, snub/pug nose, broad cheeks....it al gives the impression of 'east baltic'
http://b2.ifrm.com/67/29/0/p458003/drkostbaltisch21iy.jpg (with also grey blue eyes, blond hair) or even a bit more like ANE, native american https://cdn.indiancountrymedianetwork.com/wp-content/uploads/diane_humetewa_2009_orig.jpg
Or this Selkup grandmother, look again to the eyes, nose and cheeks, the total facial impression:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/04/Selkup_grandmother.jpg

She definitely has a an other kind of face than most NW Europeans!

MOESAN
14-03-17, 21:15
@Northerner: I'm afraid I'm growing old - my eyes red Ust'Ishim and I thought Mal'ta - but the first is very older and whatever the admixtures calculations, he was an older form of Humanity and so shared more DNA with a LOT of modern pops, in West or in East - more archaïc DNA, so my reaction was a bit over the reasonable level! THat said, could you tell us what exactly this beautiful map is about.

Dov
18-03-17, 13:28
Many Mesolithic skull series of Eastern Europe show flattening and a decrease in horizontal profiling, which clearly indicate a Mongoloid admixture. But this has nothing to do with ANE. In modern European populations, horizontal profiling is much more pronounced.

(nm) nazomalar angle 140 and more = mongoloid admixture
(zm) zygomaxilar angle more than 127-129 = mongoloid admixture
nazal bone angle less than 29 = mongoloid admixture


http://i026.radikal.ru/1703/61/92977465c4a6.png



Perhaps modern Europeans come from a small Mesolithic populations without these admixtures. Or their horizontal profiling increased after mixing with farmers.


Can be compared with modern populations:

Modern Russians of Novgorod:
nazomalar angle - 135.9
zygomaxilar angle - 123.5
Nasal bones - 31.9

Modern Udmurts:
nazomalar angle - 142.2
zygomaxilar angle - 128.9

nazomalar angle:
Yukagirs - 148,7
Mongolians - 146,4
Nenets - 146,4
Khanty - 143,9
Mansi - 142,1
Lopar - 140,6

johen
19-03-17, 16:50
Many Mesolithic skull series of Eastern Europe show flattening and a decrease in horizontal profiling, which clearly indicate a Mongoloid admixture. But this has nothing to do with ANE. In modern European populations, horizontal profiling is much more pronounced.

(nm) nazomalar angle 140 and more = mongoloid admixture
(zm) zygomaxilar angle more than 127-129 = mongoloid admixture
nazal bone angle less than 29 = mongoloid admixture

Perhaps modern Europeans come from a small Mesolithic populations without these admixtures. Or their horizontal profiling increased after mixing with farmers.


Confusing, but I think Russian anthropologists could not help but differentiate Bronze people among others including mesolithics and neolithics which is closer to modern people.


Debetz (1936), and Alexeev and Gokhman (1987) identified a so-called CroMagnon variety among the Bronze and Iron Age skeletal materials of European Russia and southern Siberia. This variety that combined the cranial robustness with a broad face, had its roots in the local Upper Palaeolithic

As you said, they also mentioned that the bronze people originated in the local UP. We don’t know which locals were their ancestors and where to hide until bronze age. However, I am sure that the bronze people brought IE language according to kurgan theory.

Can I ask questions?
1. Are there any mesolithic skulls, whose NM angle is below 140 or ZM angle below 127?
2. Do you have NM and ZM angle data of bronze people, especially Yamna/afanasievo?
3. And How broad are yamna and afansievo’s faces?

Northener
19-03-17, 20:36
Many Mesolithic skull series of Eastern Europe show flattening and a decrease in horizontal profiling, which clearly indicate a Mongoloid admixture. But this has nothing to do with ANE. In modern European populations, horizontal profiling is much more pronounced.

(nm) nazomalar angle 140 and more = mongoloid admixture
(zm) zygomaxilar angle more than 127-129 = mongoloid admixture
nazal bone angle less than 29 = mongoloid admixture


http://i026.radikal.ru/1703/61/92977465c4a6.png



Perhaps modern Europeans come from a small Mesolithic populations without these admixtures. Or their horizontal profiling increased after mixing with farmers.


Can be compared with modern populations:

Modern Russians of Novgorod:
nazomalar angle - 135.9
zygomaxilar angle - 123.5
Nasal bones - 31.9

Modern Udmurts:
nazomalar angle - 142.2
zygomaxilar angle - 128.9

nazomalar angle:
Yukagirs - 148,7
Mongolians - 146,4
Nenets - 146,4
Khanty - 143,9
Mansi - 142,1
Lopar - 140,6

How do you explain the Siberian component in my aDNA and the ery obvious 'East-Baltid' phenotype or pop of my grandmother?

East Baltic, Hilden (1958): "Body strongly built and stocky, large, short head, wide and square shaped face, strongly emphasized arches of the cheek, comparably wide nose which was low from its root."

Of course she had also a big WHG/SHG component and also a Neolithic (Med) farmer component.

So I don't say it's a 100% fit, but the 'east baltic', 'mongoloïd' features especially the shape of her nose and the cheeks are according to me undeniable.....Please correct me If I'am wrong, Don.

I guess these kind of phenotype is rooted in the Pit Comb Ware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit–Comb_Ware_culture) the cranial finding of this culture are very clear about that. You already stated that. I think it's no coincidence that the spread of the 'East Baltic' equivalent 'Tavastid' shows almost 1:1 the picture of the spread of the Corded Ware.

http://i63.tinypic.com/2wolqhi.jpg
http://i65.tinypic.com/vd32pg.jpg

Dov
19-03-17, 23:11
Confusing, but I think Russian anthropologists could not help but differentiate Bronze people among others including mesolithics and neolithics which is closer to modern people.


As you said, they also mentioned that the bronze people originated in the local UP. We don’t know which locals were their ancestors and where to hide until bronze age. However, I am sure that the bronze people brought IE language according to kurgan theory.

Can I ask questions?
1. Are there any mesolithic skulls, whose NM angle is below 140 or ZM angle below 127?
2. Do you have NM and ZM angle data of bronze people, especially Yamna/afanasievo?
3. And How broad are yamna and afansievo’s faces?

1.Yes, there you can see mesolithic Zvejnieki have 139.8 and 125.5. Vasilievka III (Dnepro-Donetsk) has 140.1 and 124.2 Most likely there is an admixture there and there, but it is small.
Perhaps modern Europeans partly come from these populations.

Also there in the table is seen as an early series of Neolithic Zvejnieki are fairly European and have 138.2 and 122.0. (Similar characteristics in the population of modern Russians Tver and Ryazan)
And the late series is already 141.9 and 130.1 (similar to the modern Udmurt population).

Alekseeva also writes that the original dolichocephalyc europoid Dnepro-Donetsk type is in Yasinovatka (pit A). And in Vasilievka II there was a meso-brahicephalyc component of eastern origin. And now we know in Dnepro-Donetsk there are East-Asian MtDNA.

2. There are some data on Yamnaya, but they are quite common. The culture was on a vast territory.
Nm 136.3
Zm 124.4

(Eastern Corded Ware)
Fatyanovo
Nm 136.4
Zm 126.4

Balanovo
Nm 135.7
Zm 121.7

Well, we know that Yamnaya was mixed with CHG populations, and CWC with EEF. Maybe that's why they have so enlarge profiling in comparison with Mesolithic? Who knows.

3. I have not seen such data.

Dov
19-03-17, 23:50
How do you explain the Siberian component in my aDNA and the ery obvious 'East-Baltid' phenotype or pop of my grandmother?

East Baltic, Hilden (1958): "Body strongly built and stocky, large, short head, wide and square shaped face, strongly emphasized arches of the cheek, comparably wide nose which was low from its root."

Of course she had also a big WHG/SHG component and also a Neolithic (Med) farmer component.

So I don't say it's a 100% fit, but the 'east baltic', 'mongoloïd' features especially the shape of her nose and the cheeks are according to me undeniable.....Please correct me If I'am wrong, Don.

I guess these kind of phenotype is rooted in the Pit Comb Ware (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pit–Comb_Ware_culture) the cranial finding of this culture are very clear about that. You already stated that. I think it's no coincidence that the spread of the 'East Baltic' equivalent 'Tavastid' shows almost 1:1 the picture of the spread of the Corded Ware.

Asian admixture can be from mesolithic, can be from pit comb ware.
But mesolithic admix is already implied in the EHG, as far I understand.
Maybe you just have a random siberian admix from historical times? What admix do other Dutch have?

But for reliability it is still better to take measurements, it is difficult to say something from the photo. But eyes of your grandmother's not alike on the so-called "Eastern Baltid".

Northener
20-03-17, 09:40
Thanks Don, it's a Finno-Ugric treat I guess.
Usht-Ishim (related to me) is haplotype NO, thanks to Siberian spread it went into Finland/Balticum.

See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17149388

The comb ware blended partly into corded ware:

"The spread of the Uralic speaking societies represented by Combed Ware Style 2 to Finland, Estonia and Latvia brought about a replacement of the regionally spoken Ancient European. This again appears to have left substrate ele- ments (both vocabulary and place names) in the replacing Uralic. Meanwhile, in the Volga-Oka region, Ljalovo was followed by the Eneolithic Volosovo culture around 3600 BC. The Volosovo, as all other earlier and contemporary (Sub-)Neolithic cultures of the region of interest, based its subsistence on hunting, fishing and gathering.

Around 3200 BC, however, the Corded Ware culture, carried by a demic movement (although there are alternative explanations), pushed from the south into the East Baltic and as far as the south and west of Finland. This culture had formed within a pastoral and agricultural context and linguistically, it is linked to Proto-Northwest-Indo-European. This would provide a plausible source for the Proto-Indo-European loanwords found in western Uralic (i.e. ancestor of Finnic). In spite of strong pressure, the western Uralic (north of the Daugava) persisted even though changes in the cultural identity occurred. The immigration of the Corded Ware Culture definitively divided Finland in two areas, eventually diverging both lingually and ethnically. While in the south and west, a Finnic line of development began, development in the east and north led towards Sámi. South of the Daugava, Indo-European replaced the original Ancient European language.

The Volosovo societies had contacts with steppe societies, who were probably speakers of Proto-Indo-European. On the other hand, between 2800 and 2600 BC Indo-European speakers came into close contact with Uralic/Finno-Ugric speakers in the Volga-Oka region, where the Fat’janovo culture (a variety within the extensive Corded Ware–Battle Axe entity), carried by a demic movement, pushed from the south-west and settled down in the midst of the local Volosovo societies. This repeated the situation experienced in Latvia, Esthonia and SW Finland after the Corded Ware expansion. Also in Central Russia the Uralic/Finno-Ugric persisted in spite of strong pressure. No doubt Fat’janovo provided a source for Indo-European loanwords, although this is difficult to verify because Slavicisation extinguished the local Uralic/Finno-Ugric langua- ges centuries ago. Moreover, the Fat’janovo expansion apparently broke the extensive east-west contact network indicated above. Later, before and after 2000 BC, waves of influence emanating from Indo-Aryan and Iranian steppe societies, represented by the Abaševo culture and varieties of the Timber Grave (esp. Pozdnjakovo) culture, transmitted additional lingual elements.

The combined influence of Fat’janovo, Abaševo and Pozdnjakovo on Voloso- vo resulted in the formation of a new Bronze Age cultural expression in the Volga-Oka region marked by Fabric Impressed Ware (often called “Net Ware” or “Textile Ware”). Soon a strong wave of influence, probably carried by a demic movement, brought this cultural expression to eastern Fennoscandia. At the same time, the Sejma-Turbino “cross-cultural network” distributed bronzes and, no doubt, also other cultural elements from East Russia as far as Estonia and Finland. This was a period of intensive cultural expansion which calmed down in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. As a whole, during the Bronze
Age, the Volga-Oka region and the Mid-Volga zone in particular underwent strong Indo-European pressure. In spite of this, the Uralic languages survived there until the Middle Ages and some, such as Mari, are spoken by minorities still today.

In the west, again waves of influence emanating from the coasts of the southern Baltic Sea reached the Finnic region, first from the Baltic and then from the Germanic sphere."

http://www.helsinki.fi/venaja/nwrussia/eng/Conference/pdf/Carpelan.pdf

In this mobile Corded Ware (Indo-European) waves from NW Russia/ Baltcum it has had influence on the North Germanic/ Low Lands area. And also left it's genetical traces.

I call it traces because, like haplotype N, it's not common in NW Europe. But in my aDNA there is a very clear relationship with Usht-Ishim (6cM), and the admixtures point slightly to Finland (FTDNA 3% and DNA Land 5%).

And in in NW Europe also in the physical appearance (phenotype) it's likewise, it's not very obvious but some people have clear traces of the Finno-Ugric or 'East-Baltic' phenotype....

Ukko
20-03-17, 20:38
Thanks Don, it's a Finno-Ugric treat I guess.
Usht-Ishim (related to me) is haplotype NO, thanks to Siberian spread it went into Finland/Balticum.

See:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17149388

The comb ware blended partly into corded ware:

"The spread of the Uralic speaking societies represented by Combed Ware Style 2 to Finland, Estonia and Latvia brought about a replacement of the regionally spoken Ancient European. This again appears to have left substrate ele- ments (both vocabulary and place names) in the replacing Uralic. Meanwhile, in the Volga-Oka region, Ljalovo was followed by the Eneolithic Volosovo culture around 3600 BC. The Volosovo, as all other earlier and contemporary (Sub-)Neolithic cultures of the region of interest, based its subsistence on hunting, fishing and gathering.

Around 3200 BC, however, the Corded Ware culture, carried by a demic movement (although there are alternative explanations), pushed from the south into the East Baltic and as far as the south and west of Finland. This culture had formed within a pastoral and agricultural context and linguistically, it is linked to Proto-Northwest-Indo-European. This would provide a plausible source for the Proto-Indo-European loanwords found in western Uralic (i.e. ancestor of Finnic). In spite of strong pressure, the western Uralic (north of the Daugava) persisted even though changes in the cultural identity occurred. The immigration of the Corded Ware Culture definitively divided Finland in two areas, eventually diverging both lingually and ethnically. While in the south and west, a Finnic line of development began, development in the east and north led towards Sámi. South of the Daugava, Indo-European replaced the original Ancient European language.

The Volosovo societies had contacts with steppe societies, who were probably speakers of Proto-Indo-European. On the other hand, between 2800 and 2600 BC Indo-European speakers came into close contact with Uralic/Finno-Ugric speakers in the Volga-Oka region, where the Fat’janovo culture (a variety within the extensive Corded Ware–Battle Axe entity), carried by a demic movement, pushed from the south-west and settled down in the midst of the local Volosovo societies. This repeated the situation experienced in Latvia, Esthonia and SW Finland after the Corded Ware expansion. Also in Central Russia the Uralic/Finno-Ugric persisted in spite of strong pressure. No doubt Fat’janovo provided a source for Indo-European loanwords, although this is difficult to verify because Slavicisation extinguished the local Uralic/Finno-Ugric langua- ges centuries ago. Moreover, the Fat’janovo expansion apparently broke the extensive east-west contact network indicated above. Later, before and after 2000 BC, waves of influence emanating from Indo-Aryan and Iranian steppe societies, represented by the Abaševo culture and varieties of the Timber Grave (esp. Pozdnjakovo) culture, transmitted additional lingual elements.

The combined influence of Fat’janovo, Abaševo and Pozdnjakovo on Voloso- vo resulted in the formation of a new Bronze Age cultural expression in the Volga-Oka region marked by Fabric Impressed Ware (often called “Net Ware” or “Textile Ware”). Soon a strong wave of influence, probably carried by a demic movement, brought this cultural expression to eastern Fennoscandia. At the same time, the Sejma-Turbino “cross-cultural network” distributed bronzes and, no doubt, also other cultural elements from East Russia as far as Estonia and Finland. This was a period of intensive cultural expansion which calmed down in the middle of the 2nd millennium BC. As a whole, during the Bronze
Age, the Volga-Oka region and the Mid-Volga zone in particular underwent strong Indo-European pressure. In spite of this, the Uralic languages survived there until the Middle Ages and some, such as Mari, are spoken by minorities still today.

In the west, again waves of influence emanating from the coasts of the southern Baltic Sea reached the Finnic region, first from the Baltic and then from the Germanic sphere."

http://www.helsinki.fi/venaja/nwrussia/eng/Conference/pdf/Carpelan.pdf

In this mobile Corded Ware (Indo-European) waves from NW Russia/ Baltcum it has had influence on the North Germanic/ Low Lands area. And also left it's genetical traces.

I call it traces because, like haplotype N, it's not common in NW Europe. But in my aDNA there is a very clear relationship with Usht-Ishim (6cM), and the admixtures point slightly to Finland (FTDNA 3% and DNA Land 5%).

And in in NW Europe also in the physical appearance (phenotype) it's likewise, it's not very obvious but some people have clear traces of the Finno-Ugric or 'East-Baltic' phenotype....


This is outdated BS, there is no support for Carpelan from many scholars today, the timeline he describes is impossible.
I have posted several more recent studies and papers here several times but you people dont read them and just come up with stuff from your head or post outdated sources.

Northener
20-03-17, 22:07
This is outdated BS, there is no support for Carpelan from many scholars today, the timeline he describes is impossible.
I have posted several more recent studies and papers here several times but you people dont read them and just come up with stuff from your head or post outdated sources.

If you have more and good recent stuff, welcome!!

Does this mean that the essence: haplotype N coming from Siberia went into Finland/Balticum/NW Russia (founder effect) and had from Corded Ware times on also an impact on NW Europe not right!?

Ukko
21-03-17, 11:58
If you have more and good recent stuff, welcome!!

Does this mean that the essence: haplotype N coming from Siberia went into Finland/Balticum/NW Russia (founder effect) and had from Corded Ware times on also an impact on NW Europe not right!?

The Language Contact Situation in Prehistoric Northeastern Europe

https://www.academia.edu/20252178/The_Language_Contact_Situation_in_Prehistoric_Nort heastern_Europe

On Germanic-Saami contacts and Saami prehistory

http://www.academia.edu/1959273/On_Germanic-Saami_contacts_and_Saami_prehistory

Formation of Proto-Finnic – an archaeological scenario from theBronze Age – Early Iron Age

http://www.oulu.fi/sites/default/files/content/CIFU12-BookOfAbstracts_4.pdf

Spatiotemporal Contributions to the Linguistic Prehistory of Fennoscandia

​https://helda.helsinki.fi/handle/10138/135714

De situ linguarum fennicarum aetatis ferreae, Pars I

http://www.helsinki.fi/folkloristiikka/English/RMN/RMN_9_Winter_2014-2015.pdf#page=64

Kaleva and his Sons from Kalanti –On the Etymology of Certain Names in Finnic Mythology

http://www.linguistics.fi/julkaisut/SKY2012/Heikkila.pdf

THE MIGRATION PERIOD, PRE-VIKING AGE, AND VIKING AGE IN ESTONIA

http://www.academia.edu/2237217/THE_MIGRATION_PERIOD_PRE-VIKING_AGE_AND_VIKING_AGE_IN_ESTONIA

Marks of Fire, Value and Faith. Swords with Ferrous Inlays in Finland during the Late Iron Age (ca. 700–1200 AD)

http://www.doria.fi/handle/10024/119919



Estonian Journal of Archaeology


http://www.kirj.ee/archaeology


The Journal Virittäjä

http://www.kotikielenseura.fi/english/index.html

Ukko
21-03-17, 11:58
What do we know about the prehistory of languages and cultures in areas, such as Northern Europe that do not have written documents or large extinct cities? For decades, archaeology and linguistics, two disciplines weaving together multiple interdisciplinary aspects have fostered a dialogue focusing on cultural and linguistic networks, mobility and contacts between people. This book sheds new light on cultural diffusion and language change in prehistoric Northern Europe with special emphasis on the northern Baltic Sea area. The rise of agriculture, identification of new cultural waves in terms of language are topics that outline the early prehistory in the North. The book contains twelve articles by linguists and archaeologists, evidence drawn from various Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages, and up-to-date insights into the research of prehistoric Northern Europe.


Riho Grünthal: Introduction: an interdisciplinary perspective on prehistoric Northern Europe [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_introduction.pdf)]
Mika Lavento: Cultivation among hunter-gatherers in Finland – evidence of activated connections? [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_lavento.pdf)]
Charlotte Damm: From Entities to Interaction: Replacing pots and people with networks of transmission [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_damm.pdf)]
Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_aikio.pdf)]
Asko Parpola: Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated 'total' correlations [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_parpola.pdf)]
Tiit-Rein Viitso: Early Metallurgy in Language: The History of Metal Names in Finnic [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_viitso.pdf)]
Karl Pajusalu: Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic Languages [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_pajusalu.pdf)]
Petri Kallio: The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kallio.pdf)]
Guus Kroonen: Non-Indo-European root nouns in Germanic: evidence in support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf)]
Santeri Junttila: The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_junttila.pdf)]
Riho Grünthal: Baltic loanwords in Mordvin [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_grunthal.pdf)]
Willem Vermeer: Why Baba-Yaga? Substratal phonetics and restoration of velars subject to the Progressive Palatalization in Russian/Belorussian and adjacent areas (appr. 600–900 CE) [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_vermeer.pdf)]

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266.html

Northener
21-03-17, 18:37
What do we know about the prehistory of languages and cultures in areas, such as Northern Europe that do not have written documents or large extinct cities? For decades, archaeology and linguistics, two disciplines weaving together multiple interdisciplinary aspects have fostered a dialogue focusing on cultural and linguistic networks, mobility and contacts between people. This book sheds new light on cultural diffusion and language change in prehistoric Northern Europe with special emphasis on the northern Baltic Sea area. The rise of agriculture, identification of new cultural waves in terms of language are topics that outline the early prehistory in the North. The book contains twelve articles by linguists and archaeologists, evidence drawn from various Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages, and up-to-date insights into the research of prehistoric Northern Europe.


Riho Grünthal: Introduction: an interdisciplinary perspective on prehistoric Northern Europe [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_introduction.pdf)]
Mika Lavento: Cultivation among hunter-gatherers in Finland – evidence of activated connections? [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_lavento.pdf)]
Charlotte Damm: From Entities to Interaction: Replacing pots and people with networks of transmission [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_damm.pdf)]
Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_aikio.pdf)]
Asko Parpola: Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated 'total' correlations [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_parpola.pdf)]
Tiit-Rein Viitso: Early Metallurgy in Language: The History of Metal Names in Finnic [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_viitso.pdf)]
Karl Pajusalu: Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic Languages [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_pajusalu.pdf)]
Petri Kallio: The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kallio.pdf)]
Guus Kroonen: Non-Indo-European root nouns in Germanic: evidence in support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf)]
Santeri Junttila: The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_junttila.pdf)]
Riho Grünthal: Baltic loanwords in Mordvin [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_grunthal.pdf)]
Willem Vermeer: Why Baba-Yaga? Substratal phonetics and restoration of velars subject to the Progressive Palatalization in Russian/Belorussian and adjacent areas (appr. 600–900 CE) [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_vermeer.pdf)]

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266.html

Ukko, impressive, thank you very much.
Loads to read now!
I have no agenda or something like that. I'am driven by curiosity for my roots. Genetics are fascinating in this respect. My Y-DNA brought me to Egypt, now my aDNA to Siberia (and the Finno-Ugric).
So again thanks and I will rest my case until I've read lots of them ;)

Northener
21-03-17, 22:33
What do we know about the prehistory of languages and cultures in areas, such as Northern Europe that do not have written documents or large extinct cities? For decades, archaeology and linguistics, two disciplines weaving together multiple interdisciplinary aspects have fostered a dialogue focusing on cultural and linguistic networks, mobility and contacts between people. This book sheds new light on cultural diffusion and language change in prehistoric Northern Europe with special emphasis on the northern Baltic Sea area. The rise of agriculture, identification of new cultural waves in terms of language are topics that outline the early prehistory in the North. The book contains twelve articles by linguists and archaeologists, evidence drawn from various Finno-Ugric and Indo-European languages, and up-to-date insights into the research of prehistoric Northern Europe.


Riho Grünthal: Introduction: an interdisciplinary perspective on prehistoric Northern Europe [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_introduction.pdf)]
Mika Lavento: Cultivation among hunter-gatherers in Finland – evidence of activated connections? [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_lavento.pdf)]
Charlotte Damm: From Entities to Interaction: Replacing pots and people with networks of transmission [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_damm.pdf)]
Luobbal Sámmol Sámmol Ánte (Ante Aikio): An essay on Saami ethnolinguistic prehistory [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_aikio.pdf)]
Asko Parpola: Formation of the Indo-European and Uralic (Finno-Ugric) language families in the light of archaeology: Revised and integrated 'total' correlations [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_parpola.pdf)]
Tiit-Rein Viitso: Early Metallurgy in Language: The History of Metal Names in Finnic [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_viitso.pdf)]
Karl Pajusalu: Phonological Innovations of the Southern Finnic Languages [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_pajusalu.pdf)]
Petri Kallio: The Prehistoric Germanic Loanword Strata in Finnic [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kallio.pdf)]
Guus Kroonen: Non-Indo-European root nouns in Germanic: evidence in support of the Agricultural Substrate Hypothesis [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_kroonen.pdf)]
Santeri Junttila: The prehistoric context of the oldest contacts between Baltic and Finnic languages [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_junttila.pdf)]
Riho Grünthal: Baltic loanwords in Mordvin [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_grunthal.pdf)]
Willem Vermeer: Why Baba-Yaga? Substratal phonetics and restoration of velars subject to the Progressive Palatalization in Russian/Belorussian and adjacent areas (appr. 600–900 CE) [PDF (http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266_vermeer.pdf)]

http://www.sgr.fi/sust/sust266/sust266.html

Stil reading! ;)

There is still something in my mind I have traced something, but it still escapes...

The question is: how did the Finno-Ugric genes became part of the Northsea genepool?

I guess it's this one, according to ISOGG:
Geographic distribution so far of ancestry of modern-day haplogroup N subgroup men (not complete):
N1a1
CTS10760 Finland, Sweden, Sweden (Saami), Norway, Norway (Saami), Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Belarus, Ukraine, Poland, Germany, Czech Republic, Hungary, Romania, Netherlands, England, Scotland, Russia, Russia (Evens, Tatars, Maris, Komis, Mordvins, Chuvashes, Bashkirs, Karanogays), Russian Siberia (Nenets, Selkups, Tatars, Dolgans)


In my case: a clear connection with Ust-Ushim, underlined by admixture test (3-5% Finnish) and so called "pseudo-mongoloid" of "East-Baltic" kind of features in the family.

And ok that's familiar but for the country's around the North Sea it's more often mentioned (in the genotype and phenotype) of course way way less than around the Baltic Sea.....but still? What is the most plausible route from the East to the West? Paleothic-Mesolithicum? Corded ware? Bronze Age? Iron Age?

Still puzzling......

Ukko
22-03-17, 01:55
Stil reading! ;)

There is still something in my mind I have traced something, but it still escapes...


Welcome to the club. :wary2:


What is the most plausible route from the East to the West? Paleothic-Mesolithicum? Corded ware? Bronze Age? Iron Age?

Still puzzling......

It looks now late Bronze Age-early Iron Age for the Finnic arrival and influence, we are close to unlocking the stories of Northern Europeans but we need more ancient DNA to guide us.

Northener
22-03-17, 09:58
Welcome to the club. :wary2:



It looks now late Bronze Age-early Iron Age for the Finnic arrival and influence, we are close to unlocking the stories of Northern Europeans but we need more ancient DNA to guide us.

Hahah Yes I guess so.
One little ad which confirms, in timing, the late Bronze Age-early Bronze Age for the Finnic arrival in NW Europe, the y full tree of the N subtype also found around the North Sea:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-CTS10760/


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

Northener
22-03-17, 20:59
It looks now late Bronze Age-early Iron Age for the Finnic arrival and influence, we are close to unlocking the stories of Northern Europeans but we need more ancient DNA to guide us.

]

http://www.kolumbus.fi/geodun/YDNA/SNP-N-TREE-FIN.jpg



When I look at this tree, regarding the North Sea, the Nores beloong to the Fenno-Scandic tree, and the English and Dutch one belong to the M-2783 tree, so to the Baltic part.

When the zenith moment of the spread is during the Bronze Age, than it's most probably part of the long distance networks of the Nordic Bronze Age. My aDNA region North Dutch belonged to the Nordic Bronze Age.

The influence of the Balts collapsed about 500 BC, at least when this publication is right:
https://www.academia.edu/5708651/The_Baltic_Bronze_Age_Collapse_Transformations_and _collapse_in_the_Baltic_region_during_the_5th_cent ury_BC

Ukko
22-03-17, 23:55
Hahah Yes I guess so.
One little ad which confirms, in timing, the late Bronze Age-early Bronze Age for the Finnic arrival in NW Europe, the y full tree of the N subtype also found around the North Sea:
https://www.yfull.com/tree/N-CTS10760/


Sent from my iPad using Eupedia Forum (http://r.tapatalk.com/byo?rid=89698)

I am 99% positive that the Finnic originated N lines found in NW Europe arrived during the Iron Age, most likely Migration Period and/or Viking Age.
People read Y trees in different ways, IMHO the N tree shows a Bronze Age birth and Iron Age expansion from European Russia between Pontic-Caspian steppe and Ural Mountains.
Arrival there most likely from Altai in the Bronze Age, some connection to Seima Turbino is likely.

Ukko
23-03-17, 00:00
The autosomal signals can be just +/-1000 years as the Germanic and Finnic connections where extensive and mostly women where exchanged as part of the trade based contacts, I would look at the mtdna lines as soon as the tests come more accurate.

johen
23-03-17, 00:51
I am 99% positive that the Finnic originated N lines found in NW Europe arrived during the Iron Age, most likely Migration Period and/or Viking Age.
People read Y trees in different ways, IMHO the N tree shows a Bronze Age birth and Iron Age expansion from European Russia between Pontic-Caspian steppe and Ural Mountains.
Arrival there most likely from Altai in the Bronze Age, some connection to Seima Turbino is likely.

1.I think Nganasan N1b would be related with Okunevo N and east scythian N1b. Probably it would be connected to Neolithic Hongshan culture N in manchu.


Another ancestral component that is maximized in the north Siberian Nganasan population becomes visible from the 2ndmillennium BCE onwards in the eastern steppe (Okunevo, Karasuk, Mezhovskaya). This component appears later in all Iron Age populations but with significantly higher levels in the eastern steppe zone than in the West.

2. I think seima-turbino culture would be related with yakut N1c and Fin N1c

Armor plates of Ymyyahtahskaya neolithic and bronze Culture(Ымыяхтахскaя культура) site in shaka republic
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-HUDXmhJLNs8/T0yWoenhoyI/AAAAAAAAAYQ/awJpFwKEJHE/s1600/ec951bc405aa1ea4cd.jpg

seima turbino armor plates
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-u88Goou9fzQ/T3OgpO80EcI/AAAAAAAAAl4/-_v17CMbk5k/s1600/sibir_32.jpg

3. But I am not sure where N started, altai or manchu.

johen
23-03-17, 00:54
^
http://www.nature.com/article-assets/npg/ncomms/2017/170303/ncomms14615/images/w926/ncomms14615-f7.jpg

In the map, east asia gene(Han, yellow) started to appear since Iron age. So the N seemed to not originate in Manchu.
However, considering Cucuteni-Trypillian pottery culture in neolithic yangshao of china (first culture in yellow river) and egypt-type piramid in Hongshan of manchu (first neolithic culture in East Asia).
I think it is highly posible for N to enter Manchu from altai. Moreover, altai bronze culture is connected to gansu yangshao. And Yangshao N is archaeologically related with Hongshan N.
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/threads/33545-Vinca-culture-and-shaman-culture

Moreover N people in Hongshan(west Liao) was significantly different from O3 people, even if N and O are genetically similar. The author mentioned not just "different", but "significantly different". so I think Hongshag N people admixture would be similar to okunevo people NO admixture, not to east asian admixture.


The Yellow River valley, located in the southwest region of the West Liao River valley, was one original centre of agriculture in China. O3-M122 is the most abundant haplogroup in both ancient (80%, n=5) and extant population (53%, n=304) of the region [8, 13], but the frequency of O3-M122 only began to rise in the West Liao River valley in the Bronze Age.The ancient West Liao River valley population is significantly different from both the ancient Yellow River Valley population (P<0.01), and the extant Yellow River Valley population (P<0.01).
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C5fOTNyx_WI/Uq2vf7rj2yI/AAAAAAAACSs/zsm8FfhoIws/s1600/EAsiaNeolithic.PNG

Northener
23-03-17, 10:28
I am 99% positive that the Finnic originated N lines found in NW Europe arrived during the Iron Age, most likely Migration Period and/or Viking Age.
People read Y trees in different ways, IMHO the N tree shows a Bronze Age birth and Iron Age expansion from European Russia between Pontic-Caspian steppe and Ural Mountains.
Arrival there most likely from Altai in the Bronze Age, some connection to Seima Turbino is likely.
Thanks!!
Migration period and/or Viking age.....mmmm for England I guess both, for Northern Netherlands I guess mostly the Migration Period.
You must know there are two significant parts in the Northern Netherlands:
a. Inland, higher sandy territory ('Saxon') this part is fully integrated in the oldest population developments of Northwest Germany and Southern Scandinavia, so Ertebølle (Swifterbant), Funnelbeaker, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Nordic Bronze Age. The last on could be interesting because about 1600 BC there was a heavy influence of the Nordics, see this, with the magnificent title, 'the end of the Nordic rainbow' http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026
But I guess reading your posting 1600 BC is to early for a N1c influence from the NE to the NW?
b. Coastal, wetland territory ('Frisian') people inhabited these areas about 500 BC, at the end of the Roman period, about 3/4 th century AD a severe population decline, followed by a very clear influx of the Nordics, the Saxons (from Nordalbingia), Angels, Jutes. Could this populations/tribes at that time (4th/5th century AD) from the Northsea side of Germany and Denmark already be influenced by the N1c from the Eastsea?
The old anthroplogist suspect 'East Baltic' phenotype features along this tribes. But could be projection.

Northener
23-03-17, 10:32
The autosomal signals can be just +/-1000 years as the Germanic and Finnic connections where extensive and mostly women where exchanged as part of the trade based contacts, I would look at the mtdna lines as soon as the tests come more accurate.

Sharp!
From the 7/8 th century onwards 'Frisian' became in Europe synoniem with 'trader' and especially slave trade....
Otherwise: where there also 'power' so 'political' network connections between North and East sea? Or different horizons?

Northener
23-03-17, 10:35
Interesting Johen, could explain the aDNA connection with Ust-Ushim....I guess.

Ukko
23-03-17, 15:17
Thanks!!
Migration period and/or Viking age.....mmmm for England I guess both, for Northern Netherlands I guess mostly the Migration Period.
You must know there are two significant parts in the Northern Netherlands:
a. Inland, higher sandy territory ('Saxon') this part is fully integrated in the oldest population developments of Northwest Germany and Southern Scandinavia, so Ertebølle (Swifterbant), Funnelbeaker, Corded Ware, Bell Beaker, Nordic Bronze Age. The last on could be interesting because about 1600 BC there was a heavy influence of the Nordics, see this, with the magnificent title, 'the end of the Nordic rainbow' http://rjh.ub.rug.nl/Palaeohistoria/article/view/25026
But I guess reading your posting 1600 BC is to early for a N1c influence from the NE to the NW?
b. Coastal, wetland territory ('Frisian') people inhabited these areas about 500 BC, at the end of the Roman period, about 3/4 th century AD a severe population decline, followed by a very clear influx of the Nordics, the Saxons (from Nordalbingia), Angels, Jutes. Could this populations/tribes at that time (4th/5th century AD) from the Northsea side of Germany and Denmark already be influenced by the N1c from the Eastsea?
The old anthroplogist suspect 'East Baltic' phenotype features along this tribes. But could be projection.

We know from autosomal and Y-dna that Finns are partly Frisian, Saxon, Jutish so the North Sea connection is real.
The sama trade routes where in use from Bronze Age to the Hansa, just people running it at particular times changed.
From the eastern side of the Baltic Sea there where three routes that connected in to this North Sea-Baltic Sea network.
Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga and the Curonian Lagoon, all of these get concentrations of N1c lines after its appearence in to the region.
Now we just need to date it closer so we can understand the context within it happened.

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


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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Varangian_routes.png

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

Northener
23-03-17, 17:04
We know from autosomal and Y-dna that Finns are partly Frisian, Saxon, Jutish so the North Sea connection is real.
The sama trade routes where in use from Bronze Age to the Hansa, just people running it at particular times changed.
From the eastern side of the Baltic Sea there where three routes that connected in to this North Sea-Baltic Sea network.
Gulf of Finland, Gulf of Riga and the Curonian Lagoon, all of these get concentrations of N1c lines after its appearence in to the region.
Now we just need to date it closer so we can understand the context within it happened.

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


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

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/dd/Varangian_routes.png

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

“The developing society of the Mare Balticum region was certainly not a national culture in the modern sense. The Danes, the Frisians, and the Rus operating there were a multiethnic, multilingual, and nonterritorial community composed of nomads of the sea and of urban dwellers in partly eastern, and partly polis towns and trading settlements. Confirming the theory that the market as an economic organization is the creation of traders and not of farmers or artisans, the Rus and Frisians appear as international merchants. In this kind of professional society of a “lower” culture, there is as yet no place for a literary or sacred language, the basis of a “higher” culture. In urban trading settlements, different languages served different functions. The vernacular was the medium of communication within the family and clan, while at least two or more linguae francae were reserved to referential usage. In short, a professional society developed a low-level, professional culture that was bound neither to a specific territory nor to a religion that might be expressed through a sacred, written language”, Omeljan Pritsak, The Origin of the Rus’ (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press 1981): 27.

Probably the Rus were mostly Scandinavian with Slavs and Finns joined to them over the course of years of settlement in today’s Russia, but the number of newcomers from Sweden probably was always small in relation to the native Slavs and Finno-Ugrian-speaking inhabitants. Sometimes the word “Viking”, “Varangian”, and “Rus” are used interchangeably, but the first term was applied mainly to those Scandinavians from Norway and Denmark who behaved like pirates rather than merchants. The Rus or Varangians, on the other hand, were primarily traders, although not averse to plunder. Attempts to differentiate between the two designations have led nowhere, so we may consider the two as synonymous. The Rus had come to the east in the eighth century and had established themselves in Ladoga in the north as their principal settlement, but they later transferred to Novgorod. Then they moved south on the Dnieper River, and Kiev became their main town. As early as 908, they had raided Constantinople across the Baltic Sea. By the time of Ibn Fadlan’s trip, the Rus had been well established in Novgorod, Kiev, and elsewhere, so those who came to the Bulghars to trade may have come from any Rus settlement, “although”, Frye writes, “those described by Ibn Fadlan, we may guess, came from the north down rivers from the Baltic” Those already settled in towns such as Novgorod probably would not have been so “wild” and “uncultured” as our author depicts them.

https://www.academia.edu/2390360/Encountering_the_Other_in_the_Middle_Ages_from_Ibn _Fadlan_s_account_to_Michael_Crichton_s_Fiction

MOESAN
24-03-17, 15:56
^

Moreover N people in Hongshan(west Liao) was significantly different from O3 people, even if N and O are genetically similar. The author mentioned not just "different", but "significantly different". so I think Hongshag N people admixture would be similar to okunevo people NO admixture, not to east asian admixture.


http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-C5fOTNyx_WI/Uq2vf7rj2yI/AAAAAAAACSs/zsm8FfhoIws/s1600/EAsiaNeolithic.PNG

Have you percentages? this map uses very too close colours so I cannot interpret it. Thanks by advance.

Megalophias
24-03-17, 17:28
Have you percentages?
Miaozigou: 100% (3/3) N(xN1c1-Tat, N1c2a1-M128)
Halahaigou: 100% (12/12) N(xN1c1-Tat) - 8 of them not M128, 4 no call
Niuheliang: 17% (1/6) C, 17% (1/6) O3, 67% (4/6) N-M241(xN1c1-Tat) - 2 not M128, 2 no call
Taosi: 25% (1/4) O3a2c1-M134, 75% (3/4) O3-M122(xM7, M134)
Daxi: 6% (1/16) O2a1-M95, 6% (1/16) O3-M122(xM7, M134), 31% (5/16) O3a2b-M7, remainder (57%) other or not determined
Maqiao + Xindili: 64% (9/14) O1a-M119, 36% (5/14) other or not determined

epoch
31-03-17, 11:28
I found articles that suggest that after LGM and probably the Younger Dryas huge lakes were formed in Siberia, of which we don't have a good idea how large they were, that may have served as a barrier for further contact between east and west at some points in time. Although these lakes also existed when mammoths migrated over the mammoth steppe. But one can imagine that during the great melts the discharge got so big it formed a barrier.

http://www.folk.uib.no/ngljm/PDF_files/Mangerud-et-al01.pdf

(http://www.folk.uib.no/ngljm/PDF_files/Mangerud-et-al01.pdf)

Rethel
01-04-17, 13:40
..........................................