PDA

View Full Version : Oldest R1a M417 yet, guess where it was found.



Fire Haired14
20-09-17, 07:11
New Mathison et al. 2017 prepint at bioRxiv The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616). It includes new genomes including several from Eneolithic Ukraine. Two have a genetic structure similar to Corded Ware and the male belongs to Y DNA R1a M417 and mtDNA H2a1a.

I6561, Alexandria Ukraine, 3500 BC, Y DNA R1a M417, mtDNA H2a1a.

He might have all the EEF admixture Corded Ware needs which could mean Corded Ware people were straight migrants from the Steppe with no local admixture.

Apparently, he isn't labelled to any famous Eneolithic culture, he certainly wasn't a Yamnaya person. Maybe Corded Ware emerged from an Eneolithic Steppe people who left little traces in archaeology hence the debate in archaeology whether Corded Ware was indigenous to Central Europe or a newcomer from the Steppe.

So this is what we've got. An unamed Eneolithic R1a M417 ethnolingustic group first appears in Ukraine in 3500 BC. Then we see them all over Eastern Europe in 2500 BC and in Samara Russia in 2800 BC. Then much later we, in around 1800 BC, we see them in Central Asia and Siberia in the form of Andronovo and Sintashta. Around that time they arrived in South Asia and Afghanistan. Andronovo is the ancestor of the early historical Sycthians and Corded Ware is the main ancestor of modern Balts and many Slavic speakers.

Fire Haired14
20-09-17, 07:18
Another important thing to mention is this Eneolithic Ukraine guy very likely wasn't indigenous to Ukraine. Ukraine Neolithic and Mesolithic genomes belong mostly to R1b1a and I2a2 and have loads of WHG. He may have originated somewhere further east where EHG and CHG had the oppurtunity to mix. Then again maybe some Ukraine HGs had loads of ANE and R1a.

Maciamo
20-09-17, 08:38
Not surprising. That's exactly what I proposed in my R1a history several years ago. My R1a migration map even shows the origin of M417 around Ukraine between Dnieper-Donets and Yamna (Eneolithic Ukraine fits this time frame, although I didn't mention it because there is no specific name of culture).

http://cache.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a_migration_map.jpg


My phylogenetic tree shows that M17 and M417 originated in the Mesolithic but R1a-M417 started expanding during the Chalcolithic (Eneolithic) period.

http://www.eupedia.com/images/content/R1a-tree.png


H2a1 is one of the mtDNA I found to be correlated with the original PIE R1a branch (http://www.eupedia.com/europe/Haplogroup_R1a_Y-DNA.shtml#mtDNA). Among them C4a, U2e, U4 and U5a1a could be considered Mesolithic Steppe, while the H (H1b, H1c, H2a1, H6, H7, H11) and T1a1a1 would probably have migrated from the Balkans to the Steppe during the Neolithic and Chalcolithic. H1b in particular was confirmed in Cucuteni-Tripolye and likely entered the Steppe from there. H7 was found in LBK Hungary (Alföld), and LBK later did expand until Ukraine. H1c and H11 were found in Blätterhöhle (Late Neolithic Germany) in a population largely dominated by U5b2a, suggesting a sizeable Mesolithic European component (and indeed the Blätterhöhle site started in the Mesolithic and continued in the Neolithic). H2a1 itself would probably have come from the Caucasus during the Mesolithic or Neolithic, as it hasn't been found in Neolithic Europe yet.

bicicleur
20-09-17, 09:29
it is reported as Sredny Stog, but also as a meeting point with other cultures :

Alexandria (1 individual)An Eneolithic cemetery of the Sredny Stog II culture was excavated by D. Telegin in 1955-1957 near the village of Alexandria, Kupyansk district, Kharkov region on the left bank of theriver Oskol.105A total of 33 individuals were recovered.106 Based on craniometric analysis (I.Potekhina 1999) it was suggested that the Eneolithic inhabitants of Alexandria were nothomogeneous and resulted from admixture of local Neolithic hunter-gatherers and earlyfarmers, possibly Trypillian groups.107 We report genetic data from one individual:• I6561

both Y and mtDNA don't point toward Sredny Stog

mtDNA H2a1a points toward CHG admixture

bicicleur
20-09-17, 09:34
New Mathison et al. 2017 prepint at bioRxiv The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616). It includes new genomes including several from Eneolithic Ukraine. Two have a genetic structure similar to Corded Ware and the male belongs to Y DNA R1a M417 and mtDNA H2a1a.

I6561, Alexandria Ukraine, 3500 BC, Y DNA R1a M417, mtDNA H2a1a.

He might have all the EEF admixture Corded Ware needs which could mean Corded Ware people were straight migrants from the Steppe with no local admixture.

Apparently, he isn't labelled to any famous Eneolithic culture, he certainly wasn't a Yamnaya person. Maybe Corded Ware emerged from an Eneolithic Steppe people who left little traces in archaeology hence the debate in archaeology whether Corded Ware was indigenous to Central Europe or a newcomer from the Steppe.

So this is what we've got. An unamed Eneolithic R1a M417 ethnolingustic group first appears in Ukraine in 3500 BC. Then we see them all over Eastern Europe in 2500 BC and in Samara Russia in 2800 BC. Then much later we, in around 1800 BC, we see them in Central Asia and Siberia in the form of Andronovo and Sintashta. Around that time they arrived in South Asia and Afghanistan. Andronovo is the ancestor of the early historical Sycthians and Corded Ware is the main ancestor of modern Balts and many Slavic speakers.

where did you find the dating, 3500 BC ?

did you find his autosomal DNA composition ?

Promenade
20-09-17, 14:06
The paper mentions a lot of other neat things to mull over:

1. Iron gates HGs are unique, Balkans possible Ice age refuge that re-introduced WHG like ancestry to Europe -

"This population (Iron_Gates_HG) is represented in our study by 40 individuals from five sites.Modeling Iron Gates hunter gatherers as a mixture of WHG and EHG (Supplementary Table 3) shows that they are intermediate between WHG (~85%) and EHG (~15%). However, this qpAdm model does not fit well (p =0.0003, Supplementry table 3) and the Iron Gates hunter - gatherers carry mitochondrial haplogroup K1 (7/40) as well as other subclades of haplogroups U (32/40)and H (1/40). This contrasts with WHG, EHG and Scandinavian hunter-gatherers who almost all carry haplogroups U5 or U2. One interpretation is that the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers have ancestry that is not present in either WHG or EHG. Possible scenarios include genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and Anatolia, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split during a re-expansion into Europe from the Southeast after the Last Glacial Maximum."

2. More evidence of WHG resurgence in west and central Europe. Male dominated, not only changed genes but culture -

"In the Balkans, Copper Age populations (Balkans_Chalcolithic) harbor significantly more hunter gatherer-related ancestry than Neolithic populations as shown, for example, by the statistic D( Mbuti,WHG, Balkans_Neolithic, Balkans_Chalcolithic); Z=4.3(Supplementary Data Table 2). This is roughly contemporary with the “resurgence” of hunter-gatherer ancestry previously reported in central Europe and Iberia and is consistent with changes in funeral rites, specifically the reappearance around 4500 BCE of the Mesolithic tradition of extended supine burial–in contrast to the Early Neolithic tradition of flexed burial."

"We provide the first evidence for sex - biased admixture between hunter - gatherers and farmers in Europe, showing that the Middle Neolithic “resurgence” of hunter gatherer-related ancestry in central Europe and Iberia was driven more by males than by females."

3. GAC acted as barrier to steppe ancestry -

"Both Globular Amphora Complex groups of samples had more hunter gatherer-related ancestry than Middle Neolithic groups from Central Europe (we estimate 25%[CI: 22-27%] WHG ancestry, similar to Chalcolithic Iberia, Supplementary Data Table 3). In east-central Europe, the Globular Amphora Complex preceded or abutted the Corded Ware Complex that marks the appearance of steppe - related ancestry, while in southeastern Europe, the Globular Amphora Complex bordered populations with steppe - influenced material cultures for hundreds of years and yet the individuals in our study have no evidence of steppe related ancestry, providing support for the hypothesis that this material cultural frontier was also a barrier to gene flow."

4. Earliest westward steppe ancestry -

"In two directly dated individuals from southeastern Europe, one (ANI163) from the Varna I cemetery dated to 4711-4550 BCE and one (I2181) from nearby Smyadovo dated to 4550-4450 BCE, we find far earlier evidence of steppe- related ancestry (Figure 1B,D). These findings push back the first evidence of steppe-related ancestry this far West in Europe by almost 2,000 years but it was sporadic as other Copper Age (~5000-4000BCE) individuals from the Balkans have no evidence of it."

5. European Neolithic Farmers share common ancestor from NW Anatolia and are WHG shifted, Greek farmers are an outlier and might share common ancestors with Central Anatolians that are CHG shifted -

"An important question about the initial spread of farming into Europe is whether the first farmers that brought agriculture to northern Europe and to southern Europe were derived from a single population or instead represent distinct migrations. We confirm that Mediterranean populations, represented in our study by individuals associated with the Epicardial Early Neolithic from Iberia, are closely related to Danubian populations represented by the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) from central Europe and that both are closely related to the Balkan Neolithic population. These three populations form a clade with the NW Anatolian Neolithic individuals as an outgroup, consistent with a single migration into the Balkan peninsula, which then split into two (Supplementary Information Note 3). In contrast, five southern Greek Neolithic individuals (Peloponnese_Neolithic)– three (plus one previously published) from Diros Cave and one from Franchthi Cave are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers D-statistics (Supplementary Information Table 2) show that in fact, these “Peloponnese Neolithic” individuals dated to ~4000BCE are shifted away from WHG and towards CHG, relative to Anatolian and Balkan Neolithic individuals.

"Possible sources are related to the Neolithic population from the central Anatolian site of Tepecik Ciftlik, or the Aegean site of Kumtepe, who are also shifted towards CHG relative to NW Anatolian Neolithic samples, as are later Copper and Bronze Age Anatolians"

6. Doubt cast on steppe like individuals bringing IE languages to Anatolia -

"No evidence that steppe-related ancestry moved through southeast Europe into Anatolia"

"Moreover, while Bronze Age Anatolian individuals have CHG-related ancestry, they have neither the EHG-related ancestry characteristic of all steppe populations sampled to date, nor the WHG -related ancestry that is ubiquitous in Neolithic southeastern Europe (Extended Data Figure 2, Supplementary Data Table2). An alternative hypothesis is that the ultimate homeland of Proto-Indo-European languages was in the Caucasus or in Iran. In this scenario, westward movement contributed to the dispersal of Anatolian languages, and northward movement and mixture with EHG was responsible for the formation of a “Late Proto-Indo European”- speaking population associated with the Yamnaya Complex. While this scenario gains plausibility from our results, it remains possible that Indo-European languages were spread through southeastern Europe into Anatolia without large scale population movement or admixture. "

Angela
20-09-17, 19:18
Thank-you, Promenade. There's certainly a lot here, some of it new. I don't remember this being spelled out so clearly in the first "edition" of the paper:

""This population (Iron_Gates_HG) is represented in our study by 40 individuals from five sites.Modeling Iron Gates hunter gatherers as a mixture of WHG and EHG (Supplementary Table 3) shows that they are intermediate between WHG (~85%) and EHG (~15%). However, this qpAdm model does not fit well (p =0.0003, Supplementry table 3) and the Iron Gates hunter - gatherers carry mitochondrial haplogroup K1 (7/40) as well as other subclades of haplogroups U (32/40)and H (1/40). This contrasts with WHG, EHG and Scandinavian hunter-gatherers who almost all carry haplogroups U5 or U2. One interpretation is that the Iron Gates hunter-gatherers have ancestry that is not present in either WHG or EHG. Possible scenarios include genetic contact between the ancestors of the Iron Gates population and Anatolia, or that the Iron Gates population is related to the source population from which the WHG split during a re-expansion into Europe from the Southeast after the Last Glacial Maximum.""


Given the mtDna, I wonder if the first scenario is more plausible, with yDna I2a going south and these maternal lineages going north? Or perhaps it's both, with the latter scenario occurring first and then the first?


Nice to have this confirmed as well...both LBK and Epicardial derive from the same Balkan Neolithic population. The split occurred in Europe, as I've believed since I read Paschou et al. I never understood why there was such vitriol heaped on that paper by some people at Anthrogenica and at theapricity from what I'm told. He's been proved correct on that point, at least, and he did it with modern dna.
http://www.pnas.org/content/111/25/9211.full

The Peloponnese Neolithic is different, and already contained CHG. (Two of the four already lean "Anatolian Bronze Age", so I'd be leery of interpreting modeling that shows "Anatolian Bronze Age" genetics in Europe as only having arrived in Europe in the actual European Bronze Age.

I have speculated for years that some strands of the Neolithic might have contained some CHG. There is Otzi, for example, although he was Copper Age. Well, here it is, and in 4000 BCE. Now, the question is: does that mean that some of the CHG in mainland Greeks, at least Peloponnese Greeks, has been in them since this time, and is that true of any other areas in Europe? In other words, did this flow go into other areas of the Balkans and Italy directly as well, or was there migration flow from these Neolithic Greeks into other parts of Greece, the Balkans or perhaps into Italy?

Some of this was prefigured in Kilinc et al:
http://www.cell.com/current-biology/fulltext/S0960-9822(16)30850-8

We discussed it here:
http://www.eupedia.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-32591.html

""An important question about the initial spread of farming into Europe is whether the first farmers that brought agriculture to northern Europe and to southern Europe were derived from a single population or instead represent distinct migrations. We confirm that Mediterranean populations, represented in our study by individuals associated with the Epicardial Early Neolithic from Iberia, are closely related to Danubian populations represented by the Linearbandkeramik (LBK) from central Europe and that both are closely related to the Balkan Neolithic population. These three populations form a clade with the NW Anatolian Neolithic individuals as an outgroup, consistent with a single migration into the Balkan peninsula, which then split into two (Supplementary Information Note 3). In contrast, five southern Greek Neolithic individuals(Peloponnese_Neolithic)– three (plus one previously published) from Diros Cave and one from Franchthi Cave are not consistent with descending from the same source population as other European farmers D-statistics (Supplementary Information Table 2) show that in fact, these “Peloponnese Neolithic” individuals dated to ~4000BCE are shifted away from WHG and towards CHG, relative to Anatolian and Balkan Neolithic individuals.

"Possible sources are related to the Neolithic population from the central Anatolian site of Tepecik Ciftlik, or the Aegean site of Kumtepe, who are also shifted towards CHG relative to NW Anatolian Neolithic samples, as are later Copper and Bronze Age Anatolians""

I'm sure the comments about proto-Indo European are going over like a lead balloon in certain quarters. Either they're just building interest or they have a surprise in store for us and want to prepare the ground. :)

Angela
20-09-17, 20:43
Some other interesting things:

"Unexpectedly, one Neolithic individual from Dereivka (I3719), which we directly date to
4949-4799 BCE, has entirely NW Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry."

Now, does that mean this individual is related to the more CHG/Iran Neo related Kumtepe 6 samples (and Peloponnese Neolithic) than the standard early Balkan Neolithic? We've speculated a lot about this here, as I said above. I wonder if this ancestry could have come across northern Anatolia, i.e. the southern Black Sea Coast?

Since there is such early admixture between farmer groups and steppe people in this area of the Balkans, that strengthens the position of Anthony when he said domestic animals moved from "Old Europe" east into the steppe. Now, he included sheep and goats in that exchange, which the early farmers did indeed bring with them to Europe.

If that's the case, then it would indeed be hard to see what any putative migration from the Caucasus would have brought, which would bring us back to bride exchange as an explanation for the steadily increasing CHG. I would say it was some forms of bronze metallurgy (there was a more proximate source from copper metallurgy in "Old Europe", but this increase seems to be older than that, yes?

Of course, the proportion of cattle in the mixture steadily increased as one went north, so it may be that these farmer groups did not introduce sheep and goats onto the steppe, and that these were introduced into the eastern steppe by Caucasus like groups.

bicicleur
20-09-17, 22:08
Ukraine Mesolithic, Neolithic and Iron_Gates_HG are admixed relative to WHG and EHG. Iron_Gates_HG shares ancestry with Anatolian Neolithic.
















Mesolithic/EN->Neolithic/MN population transformations in Latvia and Ukraine are in opposite directions.






Ukraine Neolithic is shifted towards WHG and has less EHG/ANE ancestry relative to Mesolithic








Ukraine Eneolithic has Anatolian Neolithic and CHG ancestry.




Malak Preslavets has more HG ancestry than Balkans Neolithic






Balkans Chalcolithic has more HG (both WHG and EHG) ancestry than Balkans Neolithic








Balkans Bronze Age has more WHG and Steppe (EHG+CHG) ancestry than Balkans Chalcolithic








LBK and Iberia_EN have more WHG ancestry than Balkans Neolithic












LBK_Austria has the same HG ancestry as LBK_EN (from Germany)




LBK has same HG ancestry as Starcevo




Globular Amphora has more WHG ancestry than Central_MN




Varna has similar HG ancestry to Balkans Chalcolithic and no Steppe ancestry








Trypillia has more HG ancestry than Balkans Chalcolithic and no Steppe ancestry








Varna_outlier has Steppe ancestry. Balkans_Chalcolithic_outlier may have steppe ancestry but has no evidence of CHG component (however number of SNPs is low).












Krepost Neolithic and Peloponnese Neolithic are both shifted towards CHG and away from WHG, relative to Anatolia Neolithic - a similar pattern to that seen in Minoans
























The Anatolia Neolithic to Anatolia Bronze Age shift is driven by changes in CHG and Iran Neolithc ancestry not by migration from Steppe populations that have EHG ancestry












An increase in CHG/Iran_N in Chalcolithic Anatolia is not seen in Central Europe or Iberia Middle Neolithic, or between the Balkans neolithic and Chalcolithic.










Outlier Yamnaya individuals have Anatolian Neolithic ancestry.

holderlin
20-09-17, 22:17
New Mathison et al. 2017 prepint at bioRxiv The Genomic History Of Southeastern Europe (http://www.biorxiv.org/content/early/2017/09/19/135616). It includes new genomes including several from Eneolithic Ukraine. Two have a genetic structure similar to Corded Ware and the male belongs to Y DNA R1a M417 and mtDNA H2a1a.

I6561, Alexandria Ukraine, 3500 BC, Y DNA R1a M417, mtDNA H2a1a.

He might have all the EEF admixture Corded Ware needs which could mean Corded Ware people were straight migrants from the Steppe with no local admixture.

Apparently, he isn't labelled to any famous Eneolithic culture, he certainly wasn't a Yamnaya person. Maybe Corded Ware emerged from an Eneolithic Steppe people who left little traces in archaeology hence the debate in archaeology whether Corded Ware was indigenous to Central Europe or a newcomer from the Steppe.

So this is what we've got. An unamed Eneolithic R1a M417 ethnolingustic group first appears in Ukraine in 3500 BC. Then we see them all over Eastern Europe in 2500 BC and in Samara Russia in 2800 BC. Then much later we, in around 1800 BC, we see them in Central Asia and Siberia in the form of Andronovo and Sintashta. Around that time they arrived in South Asia and Afghanistan. Andronovo is the ancestor of the early historical Sycthians and Corded Ware is the main ancestor of modern Balts and many Slavic speakers.

This is a Sredny Stog sample, and is EXACTLY what I've been saying about Sredny Stog since long before anyone else. They've looked like the origin of Corded Ware since long before any genetic data.

I've stated ad nauseam that Sredny Stog will be the earliest samples to resemble Corded Ware and MBA/LBA Steppe i.e. the first example of Steppe+EEF, which is then seen in all presumed IE speakers shortly following.

holderlin
20-09-17, 22:19
This isn't a new sample. This was in the original publication and I posted about it in the original thread.

Promenade
20-09-17, 22:32
Given the mtDna, I wonder if the first scenario is more plausible, with yDna I2a going south and these maternal lineages going north? Or perhaps it's both, with the latter scenario occurring first and then the first?

Well from the mtdna we currently have available from Iron Gates HGs it doesn’t look out of the ordinary to me. The paper mentions “other subclades” of U, but so far they are all U5 and U4 and even the subclade of K they have isn’t out of the ordinary in Europe, but maybe they also have foreign mtdna subclades that haven’t been revealed yet.

Also if I2a went south, why didn’t R1b? Many of the IG HGs have R1b and so did all their Romanian HG neighbors.

I’m interested in seeing just what separates IG HGs from all the other European Hunter Gatherers now though. If it is was Anatolia contact wouldn’t we expect to see EEF ancestry in them and at least some ydna G? And as far as I know their mtdna doesn’t seem to peculiar either. In my opinion it’s more likely that they are a source population from which the rest of the WHGs split from.


Some other interesting things:

"Unexpectedly, one Neolithic individual from Dereivka (I3719), which we directly date to
4949-4799 BCE, has entirely NW Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry."

Now, does that mean this individual is related to the more CHG/Iran Neo related Kumtepe 6 samples (and Peloponnese Neolithic) than the standard early Balkan Neolithic? We've speculated a lot about this here, as I said above. I wonder if this ancestry could have come across northern Anatolia, i.e. the southern Black Sea Coast?

If they described him as being “entirely NW Anatolian Neolithic related” then I would think the opposite. He probably has no CHG and is similar to other European Farmers outside of Greece. On figure 1B you can see that he is probably even less CHG shifted than the other Balkan Neolithic samples.

In fact he looks like a really pure version of Balkan Neolithic, which is entirely odd because he is much younger than most of the others and is found way farther north and east. Perhaps it was a disillusioned man sick of his farmer lifestyle looking to connect with his hunter gatherer roots? More likely I think it will be a woman, probably traded away. I wonder what style burial this individual was given?

Angela
20-09-17, 23:10
Well from the mtdna we currently have available from Iron Gates HGs it doesn’t look out of the ordinary to me. The paper mentions “other subclades” of U, but so far they are all U5 and U4 and even the subclade of K they have isn’t out of the ordinary in Europe, but maybe they also have foreign mtdna subclades that haven’t been revealed yet.

Also if I2a went south, why didn’t R1b? Many of the IG HGs have R1b and so did all their Romanian HG neighbors.

I’m interested in seeing just what separates IG HGs from all the other European Hunter Gatherers now though. If it is was Anatolia contact wouldn’t we expect to see EEF ancestry in them and at least some ydna G? And as far as I know their mtdna doesn’t seem to peculiar either. In my opinion it’s more likely that they are a source population from which the rest of the WHGs split from.



Those are very good points. Although, how then did I2a get into Anatolia.

As for why there's no EEF ancestry in IG's hunter-gatherers, how could there be a J1 hunter-gatherer in Karelia without it? After enough time breeding with locals, the initial linkage breaks?

I think this is still pretty murky, perhaps to them as well.

Yetos
20-09-17, 23:30
@ promenande

I know that Kleitos is G2a2a
4200 BC

bicicleur
21-09-17, 01:37
Those are very good points. Although, how then did I2a get into Anatolia.

As for why there's no EEF ancestry in IG's hunter-gatherers, how could there be a J1 hunter-gatherer in Karelia without it? After enough time breeding with locals, the initial linkage breaks?

I think this is still pretty murky, perhaps to them as well.

I2 are the Villabrunans who spread over Central and Western Europe and the Ukraine 15 ka.
I think their origin lies in Anatolia.

Angela
21-09-17, 01:56
I2 are the Villabrunans who spread over Central and Western Europe and the Ukraine 15 ka.
I think their origin lies in Anatolia.

Now that makes sense to me.

Oh, and thanks for post # nine above.

Dov
21-09-17, 03:10
Another important thing to mention is this Eneolithic Ukraine guy very likely wasn't indigenous to Ukraine. Ukraine Neolithic and Mesolithic genomes belong mostly to R1b1a and I2a2 and have loads of WHG. He may have originated somewhere further east where EHG and CHG had the oppurtunity to mix. Then again maybe some Ukraine HGs had loads of ANE and R1a.
Yes you are right. Neolithic Ukraine was replaced by the new Eneolithic population, which occurs probably from the Don region. This has long been noted by archeology and paleoanthropology, and now we also have evidence of paleogenetics. The earliest traces of the Sredniy Stog begin in the Rostov - Don area.
Previous aDNA data from those cemeteries as the early Derievka is not yet ancestral for CW and BB. Probably because of this we have collision with a shortage of European R1b in those burials.

Fire Haired14
21-09-17, 03:48
This is a Sredny Stog sample, and is EXACTLY what I've been saying about Sredny Stog since long before anyone else. They've looked like the origin of Corded Ware since long before any genetic data.

I've stated ad nauseam that Sredny Stog will be the earliest samples to resemble Corded Ware and MBA/LBA Steppe i.e. the first example of Steppe+EEF, which is then seen in all presumed IE speakers shortly following.

Nice Job!! No more everything Steppe=Yamanya. Maybe Steppe and PIE might originated in Sredny Stog like in 4500 BC.

Dov
21-09-17, 03:50
This is a Sredny Stog sample, and is EXACTLY what I've been saying about Sredny Stog since long before anyone else. They've looked like the origin of Corded Ware since long before any genetic data.

I've stated ad nauseam that Sredny Stog will be the earliest samples to resemble Corded Ware and MBA/LBA Steppe i.e. the first example of Steppe+EEF, which is then seen in all presumed IE speakers shortly following.

Similar to the Corded ornament (which is typical for CW and BB) was in the Volga area. Also, Sredniy Stog begins its expansion from the Don and replace old populations. And Don is pretty close to the Volga.
This explains the similarity of the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk. And also the explain secret of their horse breeding, which probably originated in the Volga region.

holderlin
21-09-17, 16:41
Nice Job!! No more everything Steppe=Yamanya. Maybe Steppe and PIE might originated in Sredny Stog like in 4500 BC.

I'm not one to boast about my alleged predictions, but I learned from the best on this site. And I had to claim some props for this one. I saw this sample in one of the versions I read when the original thread was hot. Are there additional Ukraine Eneolithic besides the 3? They seem to make reference to them in the supplementary info, but that's all I can find.

Yes, the mechanism for dispersal of the languages is looking more complex than Yamnaya=PIE. Sredny Stog/Khvalynsk probably spoke something close to PIE with the full farming lexicon. I imagine this was something closer to Anatolian than the hypothetical reconstruction. The East probably moved towards Indo-Iranian and the West to Italo-Celtic. The Italo-Celtic moved into the interior of Europe first, while Indo-Iranian genetically homogenized and it's Western portion moved towards Baltic and the East to Iranian.

holderlin
21-09-17, 16:46
Similar to the Corded ornament (which is typical for CW and BB) was in the Volga area. Also, Sredniy Stog begins its expansion from the Don and replace old populations. And Don is pretty close to the Volga.
This explains the similarity of the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk. And also the explain secret of their horse breeding, which probably originated in the Volga region.

Agreed. I was leaving out the horses for the moment, but this was surely a key component to everything. There does appear to be a priority to Samara, which we also see in the genetics, but the move from Dneiper-Donets to Sredny-Stog doesn't look to require Samara on a material basis i.e. Dneiper-Donets and Samara appear to be culturally homogeneous.

holderlin
21-09-17, 16:48
Yes you are right. Neolithic Ukraine was replaced by the new Eneolithic population, which occurs probably from the Don region. This has long been noted by archeology and paleoanthropology, and now we also have evidence of paleogenetics. The earliest traces of the Sredniy Stog begin in the Rostov - Don area.
Previous aDNA data from those cemeteries as the early Derievka is not yet ancestral for CW and BB. Probably because of this we have collision with a shortage of European R1b in those burials.

Yes. This supports the priority of the Volga region.

Maciamo
22-09-17, 10:05
This is a Sredny Stog sample, and is EXACTLY what I've been saying about Sredny Stog since long before anyone else. They've looked like the origin of Corded Ware since long before any genetic data.

I've stated ad nauseam that Sredny Stog will be the earliest samples to resemble Corded Ware and MBA/LBA Steppe i.e. the first example of Steppe+EEF, which is then seen in all presumed IE speakers shortly following.

Kudos on this. I did not make any prediction as to whether Sredny Stog would be more ancestral to Corded Ware or to the western R1b branch (Unetice, etc.). It's a bit early to tell if it was overwhelmingly R1a rather than R1b, but at least there is evidence that R1a-M417 was present.

holderlin
22-09-17, 18:37
Kudos on this. I did not make any prediction as to whether Sredny Stog would be more ancestral to Corded Ware or to the western R1b branch (Unetice, etc.). It's a bit early to tell if it was overwhelmingly R1a rather than R1b, but at least there is evidence that R1a-M417 was present.

I guess with all my inane posting I was bound to get something right, or at least supported by unexpected results.

I was going on a simple archaeological question predicated largely on the fact that we hadn't yet seen any genomes from these spots. Where do we see the earliest blatant evidence of steppe culture mixing with the Balkan farming complexes? The answer was clearly and undoubtedly Sredny Stog.

And upon closer examination the pottery looks precisely what one would expected early versions of corded ware to look like. Then we see this EEF-Steppe type all across NW Eurasia and NE Europe in the following thousand or so years, which strongly suggests something very important about early interactions with steppe and farmers.

One of the big problems with PIE as we know is the highly sophisticated farming lexicon, which seems to be incompatible with much of the early steppe cultures. Sredny Stog offers a possible solution.

Dov
23-09-17, 00:01
I somehow also generalized, I'll try again. It seems that nothing has changed much. Apart from, that primary expansion of the Sredniy Stog was from the East, from the Don region.

-All existing and historically fixed Indo-Europeans and their languages ​​come from Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. For now, with the exception of the Hittites, but about them a separate conversation.

-This extension and decay of their languages ​​came from one point.

- In CW and in BB is present: corded pattern, similar genetics and admixture of farmers, burial on the side. All this leads us to the Derievka. Where the admixture of farmers is obtained from Trypillian women as well as probably burial on the side.

- It is well seen how Corded Ware hypothetically appears from Derievka, and begins expansion to the north, into the forest zone. This is how Middle Dnepr culture emerges. All this can be associated with R1a expansion.

-The question of how the expansion of R1b occurs is still open and incomprehensible. Archaeologically it is difficult to say something. But nevertheless, by indirect evidence (includind archelogical), it still happened. We will be helped only by paleogenetics.

It is also interesting, why they split with the predominance of R1a and R1b in different populations. Probably there were some preconditions.

holderlin
23-09-17, 01:45
I somehow also generalized, I'll try again. It seems that nothing has changed much. Apart from, that primary expansion of the Sredniy Stog was from the East, from the Don region.

-All existing and historically fixed Indo-Europeans and their languages ​​come from Corded Ware and Bell Beaker. For now, with the exception of the Hittites, but about them a separate conversation.

-This extension and decay of their languages ​​came from one point.

- In CW and in BB is present: corded pattern, similar genetics and admixture of farmers, burial on the side. All this leads us to the Derievka. Where the admixture of farmers is obtained from Trypillian women as well as probably burial on the side.

- It is well seen how Corded Ware hypothetically appears from Derievka, and begins expansion to the north, into the forest zone. This is how Middle Dnepr culture emerges. All this can be associated with R1a expansion.

-The question of how the expansion of R1b occurs is still open and incomprehensible. Archaeologically it is difficult to say something. But nevertheless, by indirect evidence (includind archelogical), it still happened. We will be helped only by paleogenetics.

It is also interesting, why they split with the predominance of R1a and R1b in different populations. Probably there were some preconditions.

Great summary.

bicicleur
23-09-17, 05:09
Similar to the Corded ornament (which is typical for CW and BB) was in the Volga area. Also, Sredniy Stog begins its expansion from the Don and replace old populations. And Don is pretty close to the Volga.
This explains the similarity of the Sredniy Stog and Khvalynsk. And also the explain secret of their horse breeding, which probably originated in the Volga region.

the Y-DNA tells a different story

Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.
The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

Maybe in Ukraine or in the Volga or Don area these R1b-P297 developped a common language with some R1b1a-L754xP297 who subsequently crossed the Caucasus and became herders (more specific R1b1a2-V88). That would make these R1b1a-L754xP297 the possible forefathers of the Hittites.
We do have R1b1a1b-CTS3187 (L389xP297) in Kura-Araxes.

Fire Haired14
23-09-17, 05:42
the Y-DNA tells a different story

Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.

And the R1a M417 Sredny Stog guy obviously has a different origin than the other Sredny Stog people who look like earlier Neolithic/Mesolithic Ukrainians. So, was he really of Sredny Stog origin or from another people? And therefore does Sredny Stog really have anything to with PIE or did PIE orignate somewhere further east?


The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

Samara_HG who dates 8,000 years old also belonged to R1b1a1-P297. I support a Western Steppe origin for M269, L23, Z2103, and L151. The Baltic HGs, like the Ukraine HGs and Balkan HGs, went the way of the do do bird. It's fascinating they had so much R1b1a before the R1b L23 expansions but all their R1b1a disappeared.

bicicleur
23-09-17, 10:08
Samara_HG who dates 8,000 years old also belonged to R1b1a1-P297. I support a Western Steppe origin for M269, L23, Z2103, and L151. The Baltic HGs, like the Ukraine HGs and Balkan HGs, went the way of the do do bird. It's fascinating they had so much R1b1a before the R1b L23 expansions but all their R1b1a disappeared.

this is the DNA from the Samara area





Russia
Sok River, Samara [I0124/SVP 44]
M
5650-5555 BC
R1b1a
M343+, L278+, [P297 equivalent PF6513+], M478-, [M478 equivalent Y13872+, Y13866- (The presence of positive and negative markers in the M478 node can reflect an intermediate stage of its formation.)], M478-, M269-
U5a1d
Haak 2015 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Haak2015); Sergey Malyshev (http://www.kumbarov.com/ht35/aDNA_23.06.2015.pdf); Mathieson 2015


Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0122 / SVP 35]
M
5200-4000 BCE
R1b1
M415
H2a1
Mathieson 2015; Lazaridis 2016


Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0433 / SVP 46]
M
5200-4000 BCE
R1a1
M459
U5a1i
Mathieson 2015


Samara Eneolithic
Russia
Khvalynsk II, Volga River, Samara [I0434 / SVP 47]
M
5200-4000 BC
Q1a
F2676
U4a2 or U4d
Mathieson 2015




the HG was M73+,M478-, so away from both M478 and M269, and this branch was not found in later Khvalynsk

Dov
23-09-17, 13:33
the Y-DNA tells a different story

Mesolithic Ukraine, Mariupol and Sredny Stog Y-DNA is R1b1a-L754xP297 and I2a2a1b1-L701,L702, not the PIE Y-DNA.
The PIE Y-DNA is R1b-P297 which is Baltic in origin (mesolithic Latvia and Narva) till it gets replaced by Combed Ware R1a1-YP1272 over there.
That seems to be the moment when R1b-P297 starts moving south.

Maybe in Ukraine or in the Volga or Don area these R1b-P297 developped a common language with some R1b1a-L754xP297 who subsequently crossed the Caucasus and became herders (more specific R1b1a2-V88). That would make these R1b1a-L754xP297 the possible forefathers of the Hittites.
We do have R1b1a1b-CTS3187 (L389xP297) in Kura-Araxes.

Why different? These Y or very early or generally probably not the Sredniy Stog. But rather old burials of the Neolithic Ukraine from old Derievka which is estimated at 5500-4800 BCE, while the Sredniy Stog is 5300-4250 BCE (Klein). And this was replaced by pupulation of actual Sredniy Stog (as noticed by Fire Haired about R1a from Alexandria 5000-3500 BCE) It is already a different population, which probably came from the Lower Don culture, and where horse breeding was already developed. But their graves did not survive in the mass, just few. But we also can to test the actual Sredniy Stog. Maybe there is something interesting for us.

Also note, we generally still do not know anything about the Western European R1b and we can not somehow connect them with archeology(only indirectly), while the genesis of Corded Ware and R1a is probably understandable.

bicicleur
23-09-17, 16:30
Why different? These Y or very early or generally probably not the Sredniy Stog. But rather old burials of the Neolithic Ukraine from old Derievka which is estimated at 5500-4800 BCE, while the Sredniy Stog is 5300-4250 BCE (Klein). And this was replaced by pupulation of actual Sredniy Stog (as noticed by Fire Haired about R1a from Alexandria 5000-3500 BCE) It is already a different population, which probably came from the Lower Don culture, and where horse breeding was already developed. But their graves did not survive in the mass, just few. But we also can to test the actual Sredniy Stog. Maybe there is something interesting for us.

Also note, we generally still do not know anything about the Western European R1b and we can not somehow connect them with archeology(only indirectly), while the genesis of Corded Ware and R1a is probably understandable.



Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5893.E1.L1 / Grave 93]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1b1
R1b1:PF6250:8439542G->A; R1:CTS3321:14829196C->T; R:F370:16856357T->C
U5a2a
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5892.E1.L1 / Grave 33]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1b1a
R1b1a:PF6249:8214827C->T; R:M799:23134896C->T
U4a1
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5891.E1.L1 / Grave 18]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R
R:M651:9889199G->A
U4d
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5890.E1.L1 / Grave 87]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2)
R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L754:22889018G->A; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1b:M343:2887824C->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R:CTS7876:17722802G->A; etc
U5a1b
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5886.E1.L1 / Grave 12]
M
5500-4800 BCE
I
I:CTS2387:14286853T->C; I:CTS7502:17511797A->G; I:CTS7831:17692855T->A; I:FGC2412:21689728A->G; I:FGC2416:7642823G->T; I:PF3817:21939618G->A
U4a
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5885.E1.L1 / Grave 84]
F
5500-4800 BCE




U5b2b
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5883.E1.L1 / Grave 39]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2)
R1b1a:CTS4244:15510064T->G; R1b1a:FGC35:18407611C->T; R:CTS7876:17722802G->A; R:F459:18017528G->T; R:M651:9889199G->A; R:M734:18066156C->T
U4a
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5881.E1.L1 / Grave 20]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1
R1:CTS997:7132713G->A; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R:CTS207:2810583A->G
U5a1b
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5876.E1.L1 / Grave 142]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1a
R1a:L62:17891241A->G; R1a:L146:23473201T->A; R1:CTS997:7132713G->A; R1:CTS2565:14366723C->T; R1:CTS3321:14829196C->T; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:CTS8116:17839981G->A; R1:P231:9989615A->G; R1:P238:7771131G->A; R1:P286:17716251C->T; R:CTS3622:15078469C->G; etc
U5a2a
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [S5875.E1.L1 / Grave 53]
M
5500-4800 BCE
I2a2a1b
I2a2a1b:CTS10100:19255890G->A; I2a2a1:CTS9183:18732197A->G; I2a2:L37:17516123T->C; I:CTS1800:14073053G->A; I:CTS2387:14286853T->C; etc
U4a1
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [I4114 / Grave 103]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1b1a
R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:CTS3063:14637352T->C; R1b1a:FGC36:13822833G->T; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1a:PF6271:23984056G->A; R1b1:CTS2134:14193384G->A; R1b1:CTS2229:14226692T->A; R1b1:L278:18914441C->T; R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R1:P294:7570822G->C; R:CTS3622:15078469C->G; etc.
U5a1
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [I4112 / Grave 1]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R
R:M734:18066156C->T;
U5a2a
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [I4111 / Grave 123]
F
5500-4800 BCE




U4d
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [I4110 / Grave 73]
M
5500-4800 BCE
R1b1a (xR1b1a1a, xR1b1a1a2)
R1b1a:A702:10038192G->A; R1b1a:FGC36:13822833G->T; R1b1a:FGC41:7900883C->A; R1b1a:L754:22889018G->A; R1b1a:L761:16773870A->G; R1b1a:L1345:21558298G->T; R1b1a:PF6271:23984056G->A; R1b1:L1349:22722580T->C; R1b:M343:2887824C->A; R1:CTS4075:15377120A->G; R1:CTS5611:16394489T->G; R1:F102:7854412A->G; R1:L875:16742224A->G; R1:P238:7771131G->A; etc


Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Sredny Stog
Ukraine
Dereivka I [I3717 / Grave 42]
M
5500-4800 BCE
I2a2a1b1
I2a2a1b1:L702:7629205C->T; I2a2a1:CTS9183:18732197A->G; I2a2a:P221:8353707C->A; I2a2:L37:17516123T->C; I2a2:L181:19077754G->T; I2a2:P218:17493630T->G; I2a:L460:7879415A->C; I:CTS88:2723755G->A; I:CTS674:6943522C->T; etc
U5a2a
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)


Eneolithic (Stog/Post-Stog)
Ukraine
Revova, kurgan 3 [R3.19a]
M
4274 ± 93 BC




U4
Nikitin 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Nikitin2017)



Ukraine
Alexandria : contact zone between Sredny Stog and others

5000-3500 BCE
R1a1a1-M417

H2a1a
Mathieson 2017 (http://www.ancestraljourneys.org/bibliography.shtml#Mathieson2017)




these are indeed Dereivka 5500-4800 BC and they look like a continuation of the mesolithic and Mariupol populations

nevertheless it looks like R1b1a-L754xP297 was in southern Russia, Ukraine and the Iron Gates
while R1b-P297 was more northern prior to the arrival of combed ware

Dov
23-09-17, 17:36
these are indeed Dereivka 5500-4800 BC and they look like a continuation of the mesolithic and Mariupol populations
Yes, its true. Neolithic Dereivka still has old populations. But I want to remind to avoid confusion that Dereivka is a large burial ground and there are burials from different times (as in Zvejnieki). When we talk about Dereivka as pre-IE, we have in mind the later Eneolithic layers.
Here a little about this culture:
https://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2F%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B E%D0%BD%D0%B4.%D1%80%D1%84%2F%3Fpage_id%3D9312&edit-text=

Dov
23-09-17, 19:01
There is also confusion due to the fact that the Early pre-corded Sredniy Stog (Old Neolthic Ukraine population) is a different culture with different roots than the late corded Sredniy Stog II (Eneolithic). Now sometimes the later Sredniy Stog II is distinguished in the Dereivka culture (link above).

holderlin
24-09-17, 01:42
Yes, its true. Neolithic Dereivka still has old populations. But I want to remind to avoid confusion that Dereivka is a large burial ground and there are burials from different times (as in Zvejnieki). When we talk about Dereivka as pre-IE, we have in mind the later Eneolithic layers.
Here a little about this culture:
https://translate.google.ru/translate?sl=ru&tl=en&js=y&prev=_t&hl=ru&ie=UTF-8&u=http%3A%2F%2F%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%BE%D1%84%D0%B E%D0%BD%D0%B4.%D1%80%D1%84%2F%3Fpage_id%3D9312&edit-text=

Good read. Went in to a little more detail than the source I had gone off of.

This is sort of like the problem with the big bang in that it's difficult to talk about the big bang at it' beginning (or prior), but it makes perfect sense to talk about moments following.

We're looking for this perfect beginning of PIE, but it couldn't have really happened like that. All of these populations were speaking something prior to the time frame for PIE that wasn't PIE, as defined, up to a period where PIE formed, then differentiated and dispersed. It would have been very fluid and complex. PIE may never even have existed as we think of it, or as it's reconstructed.

We can circumvent this problem if we talk about a pre-PIE, but this has no real definition. I guess what I'm getting at is that PIE could not have existed without a fully developed understanding of farming culture. And this is clearly not happening with Samara HGs, so even if the genes are clearly radiating out of the mesolithic Volga/(Baltic Y-lines), they could not have been speaking Indo-European until they contacted farmers. The language is a farming language. This is one of the problems with the steppe origin.

I don't think we'll ever be able to deduce a "homeland" because it never really existed in the way most people are thinking. And I honestly think that the mixing of the steppe and Balkan complexes is the most plausible mechanism at this point. But then of course we have this influx of Caucasian that some people are trying to ascribe a quasi-Mesopotamian identity which would have brought the farming lexicon through the mountains. I think the latter is less likely, but I'm getting pissed that we have no real Maykop genomes yet. I believe we got some mtDNA though.

I also need to keep reminding people that most Scythian samples (and ANI) had little to no Anatolian farmer in them. This strongly suggests that Yamnaya (at its Eastern fringes, at the very least) was already differentiated into Indo-Iranian.

Dov
24-09-17, 03:49
This is sort of like the problem with the big bang in that it's difficult to talk about the big bang at it' beginning (or prior), but it makes perfect sense to talk about moments following.

We're looking for this perfect beginning of PIE, but it couldn't have really happened like that. All of these populations were speaking something prior to the time frame for PIE that wasn't PIE, as defined, up to a period where PIE formed, then differentiated and dispersed. It would have been very fluid and complex. PIE may never even have existed as we think of it, or as it's reconstructed.

And it seems to me the opposite. Paleogenetics will gradually put everything in its place and tell us more, where archeology is powerless. For example. Not so long ago it was almost axiomatically considered, Dnepro-Donetsk -> Sredny Stog -> different Indo-European cultures (opinions were different in fact, but it was one of mainstream) Now paleogenetics told us that the population of Dnepro-Donetsk and Sredny Stog (early) simply died out and was replaced by another population, and can not be ancestral for IE. We just removed the excess. And this question became a little closer to the truth.

But yes, I agree that many of these cultures were not speak IE, but I think something like IE. Also they were all culturally and genetical similar.
But we received our specific IE language only from one cultural group of people.



We can circumvent this problem if we talk about a pre-PIE, but this has no real definition. I guess what I'm getting at is that PIE could not have existed without a fully developed understanding of farming culture. And this is clearly not happening with Samara HGs, so even if the genes are clearly radiating out of the mesolithic Volga/(Baltic Y-lines), they could not have been speaking Indo-European until they contacted farmers. The language is a farming language. This is one of the problems with the steppe origin.

I don't think we'll ever be able to deduce a "homeland" because it never really existed in the way most people are thinking. And I honestly think that the mixing of the steppe and Balkan complexes is the most plausible mechanism at this point. But then of course we have this influx of Caucasian that some people are trying to ascribe a quasi-Mesopotamian identity which would have brought the farming lexicon through the mountains. I think the latter is less likely, but I'm getting pissed that we have no real Maykop genomes yet. I believe we got some mtDNA though.

In my opinion, the hypothetical migration of the proto-IE population from the Lower Don to the Eneolithic Dereivka region is a pretty beautiful solution to all the problems you have named.
By the way look opinion of a professional. Here, really everything converges and is explained:


The localization in the steppes and forest-steppes between the Dniester, the Lower Don and the Kuban of the first pastoral shepherds is in good agreement with the three main directions of the pre-Indo-European linguistic contacts. In the west, they directly bordered on the carriers of agricultural vocabulary of Middle Eastern origin (Trypillians), in the north-east - the Finno-Ugric, and to the southeast - the Kartvelian lexicon of the Caucasus
(c)Zaliznyak

holderlin
24-09-17, 08:20
And it seems to me the opposite. Paleogenetics will gradually put everything in its place and tell us more, where archeology is powerless. For example. Not so long ago it was almost axiomatically considered, Dnepro-Donetsk -> Sredny Stog -> different Indo-European cultures (opinions were different in fact, but it was one of mainstream) Now paleogenetics told us that the population of Dnepro-Donetsk and Sredny Stog (early) simply died out and was replaced by another population, and can not be ancestral for IE. We just removed the excess. And this question became a little closer to the truth.

But yes, I agree that many of these cultures were not speak IE, but I think something like IE. Also they were all culturally and genetical similar.
But we received our specific IE language only from one cultural group of people.



In my opinion, the hypothetical migration of the proto-IE population from the Lower Don to the Eneolithic Dereivka region is a pretty beautiful solution to all the problems you have named.
By the way look opinion of a professional. Here, really everything converges and is explained:

I don't disagree with much of what you say.

I do think you're putting too much in the genetics. There's Yamnaya burials in Bulgaria that are 40% EEF, and, archaeologically, Dneiper Donets still looks nearly identical to Samara whereas the genetics disagree.

Sure, we probably have a pre-farming IE in Samara and or the Baltic from which early dispersals radiate. But what exactly is the mechanism?

Essentially what you're saying is that latter Srendy Stog = Western Khvalynsk, which I can buy, but Khvalynsk is way less farmer than Sredny Stog and PIE is very very farmer.

Dov
24-09-17, 12:47
I don't disagree with much of what you say.

I do think you're putting too much in the genetics. There's Yamnaya burials in Bulgaria that are 40% EEF, and, archaeologically, Dneiper Donets still looks nearly identical to Samara whereas the genetics disagree.

And you imagine 15-20 years ago all these archaeological cultures. There it is not clear who came from and when, only very roughly speaking (There even genesis of Andronovo was very weird, and not from CW). And now we have a lot of logical constructions due to paleogenetics. As in criminalistics, dna made a revolution in archeology.


Essentially what you're saying is that latter Srendy Stog = Western Khvalynsk, which I can buy, but Khvalynsk is way less farmer than Sredny Stog and PIE is very very farmer.

The basic view is that the main lexicon of the IE is pastoral, or even supposedly "mesolithic". (which is exactly happened in western Khvalynsk)
Then they came to Dereivka, and began to contact with Trypillians and borrowed their neolithic vocabulary for the agriculture. It seems that everything is logical to me.

MOESAN
24-09-17, 16:56
@[email protected]
Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
&:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
&&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.

holderlin
24-09-17, 20:31
And you imagine 15-20 years ago all these archaeological cultures. There it is not clear who came from and when, only very roughly speaking (There even genesis of Andronovo was very weird, and not from CW). And now we have a lot of logical constructions due to paleogenetics. As in criminalistics, dna made a revolution in archeology.



The basic view is that the main lexicon of the IE is pastoral, or even supposedly "mesolithic". (which is exactly happened in western Khvalynsk)
Then they came to Dereivka, and began to contact with Trypillians and borrowed their neolithic vocabulary for the agriculture. It seems that everything is logical to me.

I understand the archaeology doesn't allow a high resolution picture, but there are some things that you can't dismiss. Things like copper coming from the Balkans, and contemporaneous Dnieper-Donets and Samara layers possessing very similar material culture.

I don't disagree necessarily with a pre-farming-PIE in Samara, but it has no real linguistic definition. Also, Yamnaya has no Anatolian farmer, and yet you require the farming lexicon to come from mixing with the Balkans. It also sounds like you would need to see this in the genetics. This is problematic.

And I don't think we can say the the "main lexicon" is pastoral.

holderlin
24-09-17, 20:35
@[email protected]
Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
&:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
&&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.

Your mechanism of PIE formation is something like what I imagine.

It's hard to divorce PIE from farming. The Anatolian hypothesis exists for a reason.

Dov
24-09-17, 22:47
I understand the archaeology doesn't allow a high resolution picture, but there are some things that you can't dismiss. Things like copper coming from the Balkans, and contemporaneous Dnieper-Donets and Samara layers possessing very similar material culture.

I don't disagree necessarily with a pre-farming-PIE in Samara, but it has no real linguistic definition. Also, Yamnaya has no Anatolian farmer, and yet you require the farming lexicon to come from mixing with the Balkans. It also sounds like you would need to see this in the genetics. This is problematic.

And I don't think we can say the the "main lexicon" is pastoral.

Many of their agricultural terms are borrowed from the Middle East languages. These words like the type of activity were alien to them and obviously borrowed from outside.

L. Zaliznyak: (although there are some controversial terms, such as borrowing a horse, as for me)

The well-known linguist V. Illich-Svitych (1964) noted that a certain part of the agrarian and cattle-breeding vocabulary was borrowed from the prasemites and Sumerians. As an example of prasemitic borrowings, the researcher named the words: tauro - bull, gait - goat, agno - lamb, bar - grain, cereals, dehno - bread, grain, kern - millstone, medu - honey, sweet, sekur - ax, nahu - vessel , ship, haster - star, septm - seven, klau - key, etc. According to V. Illich-Svitych, from the language of Sumerians, u borrowed the words: kou - cow, reud - ore, auesk - gold, akro - field, duer - doors, hkor - mountains, etc. (Gamkrelidze, Ivanov, 1984, pp. 272-276).

However, especially a lot of agricultural and livestock terminology, names of food products, household items and-e borrowed from the Prahattans and the Prakhurites, whose ancestral home is localized in Anatolia and in the upper reaches of the Tigris and the Euphrates. SA Starostin (1988, pp. 112-163) believes that the roots of klau, medu, akgho, bar and some others are not Primamitic or Sumerian, but Hatto-Khuritic ones, cited by V. Illich-Svitych. In addition, he suggests numerous examples of Hutto-Khuritic vocabulary in i-e languages. Here are just some of them: ekuo - horse, kago - goat, porko - pig, hvelena - wave, ouig - oats, hag - berry, rughio - rye, lino - lion, kulo - count, list, gueran - millstone, sel - village, dholo - valley, arho - open space, area, tuer - cottage cheese, sur - cheese, bhar - barley, penkue - five and many others. An analysis of these linguistic borrowings shows that they occurred in the process of direct contacts of the Pra-Indo-Europeans with the more developed Prahutto-Khurites not later than the V millennium BC. (Starostin, 1988, pp. 112-113, 152-154).

By the time this coincides with the contacts Eneolithic Dereivka culture with Tripolye.
And this why agrarian cultures, including Anatolia, hardly can be considered as IE. Because many agricultural terms for In PIE have non Indo-European roots.

A main lexicon IE can be even north-Mesolithic. All this flora and fauna (elks and birches), as well as the names of different tools.

And Samara and Dnepro-Donets are similar, why not. All these cultures have common Mesolithic roots.

Dov
24-09-17, 22:53
@[email protected]
Very interesting posts, trying to put some light into this intricated successions of cultures.
Languages comparisons could put languages close or far according to lexicon as opposed to grammar, both as as opposed to phonetic trends.
I lack knowledge about the ties between agricultural and pastoral vocabularies of diverse linguistic groups; a deep study about this could help here, I think. A possibility could be that a language spoken in Steppes gained strength about the 5000/4000 BC and borrowed agricultural lexicon from Tripolye influenced cultures of West Steppes; what would not exclude some other loans from other cultures (South Caucasus? or else?);
A good "fusion" in Steppes could have produced a partly new language rather homogenous NOW (after loans) before radiation/diffusion under the form of an homogenous enough "PIE", creating the impression of a cool history without any tribulation in the language? At those times these loanwords borrowed through the same filter on a short enough period would show provisory homogeneity and after that would undergo the same phonetic evolutionS than "genuine" PIE words among the "daughters" languages.
Maybe sometime archeology and genetics will find an agreement? Without more data I guess that a lot of the agricultural vocabulary came from Tripolye culture; Catacombs seemed more agricultural than Yamnaya and physically more akin to East-Central Europe, at least the western Catacombs. But where came Catacombs from? Maybe a melting pot? In fact its physical heterogeneity between subgroups (same for mt DNA between West and East?) and the case of western types and DNA in later eastern Steppes cultures point towards a brewing West/East-East/West spanning a long enough time, I think. But if what I say is sensible (loanwords in a short enough time) we can consider that the agricultural package was obtained from West for the most, soon enough, and transmitted only after to East, where by the way, stoke breeding seemed stronger than plants culture. The 'satem' trend, as said by forumers here and there, could have been born early enough, perhaps as soon as CWC, during some language transmission to unkown groups of North-East or East.
&:I was said that the PIE agricultural lexicon was not so developped as believed at first. In accord with what Dov wrote.
&&: this doesn't say us too precisely from where came the pre-agricultural PIE.

Thanks for the interesting comment.

I'll try to describe my vision.
- Pastoralists, with a domesticated horse from the Don region, with a basic shepherd's vocabulary, could theoretically contact the Caucasian languages in those places.
- Further, they moved to the west, to the area of modern Derevika. With a corded ornamentation and horse breeding.
- In those places they began to borrow Middle Eastern agricultural vocabulary from the Trypillians, and at the same time linguistically contact with the Pit-Comb Ware culture (Uralics) in the north.

At the expense of Satem is still incomprehensible. Maybe it was just a territorial feature of CW, maybe because of contacts with someone (Pit-Comb Ware?) I have never seen any specifics on this issue. All this is very vague and not definite.

MOESAN
28-09-17, 13:57
Dov, I don't disagree as a whole (ATW I only do hypothesis of amateur)
I guess CWC had an early IE on way to satemization they imported to Scandinavia before other IE tribes input. for the most palatalization is a phonetic palatalizing process; I think in East Europe the languages showing the strongest this trend are Russian(s) - plus some finnic trends? - Polish and Czechoslovakian ones, more than the South Slavic languages which ("learned slavics"?). Turkic languages show all of them some palatalization, but it seems the Volga turkic ones would show the strongest tendancy on the matter, not only for consonnants but also for vowels. I know convergences exist but here I wonder if the trend did not come from this area or close areas a bit further East??? The "neutral" or central PIE localization before radiatin towards every direction could have been more western so again around Ukraine. Only guesses.

holderlin
01-10-17, 06:20
Dov, I don't disagree as a whole (ATW I only do hypothesis of amateur)
I guess CWC had an early IE on way to satemization they imported to Scandinavia before other IE tribes input. for the most palatalization is a phonetic palatalizing process; I think in East Europe the languages showing the strongest this trend are Russian(s) - plus some finnic trends? - Polish and Czechoslovakian ones, more than the South Slavic languages which ("learned slavics"?). Turkic languages show all of them some palatalization, but it seems the Volga turkic ones would show the strongest tendancy on the matter, not only for consonnants but also for vowels. I know convergences exist but here I wonder if the trend did not come from this area or close areas a bit further East??? The "neutral" or central PIE localization before radiatin towards every direction could have been more western so again around Ukraine. Only guesses.

This is another reason. Well said.

Centum languages, roughly speaking, also seem to show more archaisms in comparison to Satem languages, which would be consistent with early departure at the interface with the Balkan complexes.

holderlin
01-10-17, 08:44
Many of their agricultural terms are borrowed from the Middle East languages. These words like the type of activity were alien to them and obviously borrowed from outside.

L. Zaliznyak: (although there are some controversial terms, such as borrowing a horse, as for me)


By the time this coincides with the contacts Eneolithic Dereivka culture with Tripolye.
And this why agrarian cultures, including Anatolia, hardly can be considered as IE. Because many agricultural terms for In PIE have non Indo-European roots.

A main lexicon IE can be even north-Mesolithic. All this flora and fauna (elks and birches), as well as the names of different tools.

And Samara and Dnepro-Donets are similar, why not. All these cultures have common Mesolithic roots.

If you think that DD had a similar language to Samara, then you would also have to presume that when this language first mixed with farmers we would have PIE. This would have occured in the West in Ukraine.

Maybe it is just Samara hegemony interacting with the Caucuses, which is essentially a Mesopotamian proxy. It's possible. I just don't think it's as likely as PIE at contact with Balkans.

Tomenable
01-10-17, 12:05
The oldest R1a in general, the oldest R1a-M417, and the oldest R1a-Z93:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=13911&p=1318959&viewfull=1#post1318959

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Je9MSxLd1GY/WcuzFWCF86I/AAAAAAAAGHY/1GJk6vQXAz8PHpEScVs4tIlyO511e2oCgCLcBGAs/s1600/R1a-M417_The_Beast.png

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Je9MSxLd1GY/WcuzFWCF86I/AAAAAAAAGHY/1GJk6vQXAz8PHpEScVs4tIlyO511e2oCgCLcBGAs/s1600/R1a-M417_The_Beast.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4JPMYHTZis

Angela
01-10-17, 14:15
Yes, indeed, we need the perspective of bizarre you-tubers dedicated to Nordic paganism. This stuff is going to rot your brain, Tomenable.

davef
01-10-17, 14:42
No, he speaks the truth. They were forged by Odin in the mountains of Norway, were 8 feet tall, and blonde. They brought civilization to the cannibalistic farmer tribes by establishing institutions where they learned how to read, as well as basic math skills.

Fun fact: their societies were completely matrialinic and allowed women to serve in their militaries. The Amazonian tribes as spoken of by the ancient Greeks consisted of 7 ft tall Nordic female Viking warriors.

IronSide
01-10-17, 15:37
No, he speaks the truth. They were forged by Odin in the mountains of Norway, were 8 feet tall, and blonde. They brought civilization to the cannibalistic farmer tribes by establishing institutions where they learned how to read, as well as basic math skills.

Fun fact: their societies were completely matrialinic and allowed women to serve in their militaries. The Amazonian tribes as spoken of by the ancient Greeks consisted of 7 ft tall Nordic female Viking warriors.

Ancient cannibals established civilization .. it is known .. it is known.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ibfxC9O8Fmo

Tomenable
01-10-17, 16:52
Map showing the location of Alexandria within the Pontic-Caspian Steppe:

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/33/3c/57333c0609d0e31b273fc437db3a83ab.jpg

https://i.pinimg.com/originals/57/33/3c/57333c0609d0e31b273fc437db3a83ab.jpg

Tomenable
01-10-17, 17:08
Fun fact: their societies were completely matrialinic and allowed women to serve in their militaries. The Amazonian tribes as spoken of by the ancient Greeks consisted of 7 ft tall Nordic female Viking warriors.

Actually that "powerful female Viking warrior-chieftain" was probably a hoax:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DLUMINLTNLE#t=3m10s

holderlin
01-10-17, 18:37
The oldest R1a in general, the oldest R1a-M417, and the oldest R1a-Z93:

http://www.forumbiodiversity.com/showthread.php?t=13911&p=1318959&viewfull=1#post1318959

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Je9MSxLd1GY/WcuzFWCF86I/AAAAAAAAGHY/1GJk6vQXAz8PHpEScVs4tIlyO511e2oCgCLcBGAs/s1600/R1a-M417_The_Beast.png

https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-Je9MSxLd1GY/WcuzFWCF86I/AAAAAAAAGHY/1GJk6vQXAz8PHpEScVs4tIlyO511e2oCgCLcBGAs/s1600/R1a-M417_The_Beast.png


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4JPMYHTZis

I was oblivious that Karelia was usurped as the oldest R1a. Wow.

Tomenable
04-10-17, 02:47
So now let's wait for R1b-L51 from the Steppe.

holderlin
04-10-17, 16:55
So now let's wait for R1b-L51 from the Steppe.

What's the TMRCA? Like 6000 ybp?

I would expect to find it somewhere in Ukraine. We've tested a bunch of Ukraine samples, but I don't think much from the Yamnaya horizon proper.

MOESAN
05-10-17, 17:48
the rather North position of R1b-L11 and maybe later first U106 (noproblem for modern U106) put me to believe L51 was in East-(North-East?) non-russian Europe; P312 took rather the Central Europe road. Someones will say the oldest samples are not in Eastern Europe, OK, but I imagine, with caution, that we have kind of a trail in East-Central Europe for L51 with descendants growing in density towards West. DOn't forget R1b has later been overrun by R1a bearers in Eastern Europe. For what it's worth. To date, without more ancient R1b-L51, we are reduced to do bets, but the brothers Z2103 being in the Steppes, I doubt western L23 made huge leaps directly to SW Europe before giving birth to L51. Wait and see.

holderlin
06-10-17, 00:55
the rather North position of R1b-L11 and maybe later first U106 (noproblem for modern U106) put me to believe L51 was in East-(North-East?) non-russian Europe; P312 took rather the Central Europe road. Someones will say the oldest samples are not in Eastern Europe, OK, but I imagine, with caution, that we have kind of a trail in East-Central Europe for L51 with descendants growing in density towards West. DOn't forget R1b has later been overrun by R1a bearers in Eastern Europe. For what it's worth. To date, without more ancient R1b-L51, we are reduced to do bets, but the brothers Z2103 being in the Steppes, I doubt western L23 made huge leaps directly to SW Europe before giving birth to L51. Wait and see.

If people aren't dead set on EBA Steppe genome=PIE, then I see nothing wrong with an L51 launch point in NE Europe. But if we need EBA steppe genotype, then our L51 would likely need to have remained in the Pontic region until 4000-4500BCish at the earliest.

To @Dov's point, L51 launch point to the East of Derievka on the lower Don makes some sense. This is also closer to the presumed source of the CHG that we see increase from the mesolithic to the EBA. The Alexandria sample predates Yamnaya, which is consistent with a more southerly origin of the EBA steppe genotype.



This will all make sense if we see that Maykop is mostly CHG with a minority of EHG, and that the EBA steppe genotype has a clear origin in the South nearer to Maykop. Then my Balkan theory of farming economy will be supplanted by the quasi-Mesopotamian via The Caucuses which always seemed to make the least sense given the whole body of data.

ThirdTerm
06-10-17, 01:48
Two Copper Age individuals (I4110 and I6561, Ukraine_Eneolithic) from Dereivka and Alexandria dated to ~ 3600-3400 BCE (and thus preceding the Yamnaya complex) also have mixtures of steppe-and NW Anatolian Neolithic-related ancestry (Figure 1D, Supplementary Data Table 2).


Mathieson et al. (2017) didn't actually identify Y-DNA or mtDNA haplogroups of these ancient Ukrainian samples but they did PCA analysis on these ancient samples. I cannot find any relevant information on R1a in the main text and the supplementary paper attached to it, in which I6561 is included in the long list.



Alexandria (1 individual)

An Eneolithic cemetery of the Sredny Stog II culture was excavated by D. Telegin in 1955-1957 near the village of Alexandria, Kupyansk district, Kharkov region on the left bank of the river Oskol.105 A total of 33 individuals were recovered.106 Based on craniometric analysis (I.Potekhina 1999) it was suggested that the Eneolithic inhabitants of Alexandria were not homogeneous and resulted from admixture of local Neolithic hunter-gatherers and early farmers, possibly Trypillian groups.107 We report genetic data from one individual:

I6561

MOESAN
06-10-17, 22:24
If people aren't dead set on EBA Steppe genome=PIE, then I see nothing wrong with an L51 launch point in NE Europe. But if we need EBA steppe genotype, then our L51 would likely need to have remained in the Pontic region until 4000-4500BCish at the earliest.

To @Dov's point, L51 launch point to the East of Derievka on the lower Don makes some sense. This is also closer to the presumed source of the CHG that we see increase from the mesolithic to the EBA. The Alexandria sample predates Yamnaya, which is consistent with a more southerly origin of the EBA steppe genotype.



This will all make sense if we see that Maykop is mostly CHG with a minority of EHG, and that the EBA steppe genotype has a clear origin in the South nearer to Maykop. Then my Balkan theory of farming economy will be supplanted by the quasi-Mesopotamian via The Caucuses which always seemed to make the least sense given the whole body of data.

Very possible - in my post #55 I put north-east between brackets; I think indeed L51 were in touch with southern pops forming maybe a continuum of R1b clans - L11 is a later stage, but born in close enough areas too - my aim was to show L51 was not a southeastern Europe haplo for the most, even less a southwestern one by origin -
concerning genesis, I can imagine PIE tribes had inputs of West (CTC) and South (Caucus) with their acquisitions on agricultural ground - for Maykop I'm still between two thoughts: seemingly they physically shew ties with S-East Caspian more than to Caucasus pops and this could be linked to the so criticized 'caucasus'><'gedrosia' opposition in Europe - but this does not exclude a East to West travel South the Caspian across Caucasus mountains. But I stay puzzled with this so peculiar Maykop phenomenon, maybe more a chieftains raiders society than a constructive agricole one?

holderlin
07-10-17, 09:01
Very possible - in my post #55 I put north-east between brackets; I think indeed L51 were in touch with southern pops forming maybe a continuum of R1b clans - L11 is a later stage, but born in close enough areas too - my aim was to show L51 was not a southeastern Europe haplo for the most, even less a southwestern one by origin -
concerning genesis, I can imagine PIE tribes had inputs of West (CTC) and South (Caucus) with their acquisitions on agricultural ground - for Maykop I'm still between two thoughts: seemingly they physically shew ties with S-East Caspian more than to Caucasus pops and this could be linked to the so criticized 'caucasus'><'gedrosia' opposition in Europe - but this does not exclude a East to West travel South the Caspian across Caucasus mountains. But I stay puzzled with this so peculiar Maykop phenomenon, maybe more a chieftains raiders society than a constructive agricole one?

Where is Goga and Alan as we move to the Caucuses? In Spite of all the R1 in Mesolithic->BA Europe this should give Iranians and Kurds hope of the pure Teal R1b-L51.

MOESAN
07-10-17, 17:49
Personally, to date, I don't think these L51 come from Sth-Caucasus, I'm not sure R1b was the principal element among Maykop elites even, but I cannot exclude they already had others R1b subgroups, more eastern (Central Asia). But we can say we know there were since long ago contacts between W-Steppes people and Southern ones North the Caucasus.

holderlin
07-10-17, 19:58
Very possible - in my post #55 I put north-east between brackets; I think indeed L51 were in touch with southern pops forming maybe a continuum of R1b clans - L11 is a later stage, but born in close enough areas too - my aim was to show L51 was not a southeastern Europe haplo for the most, even less a southwestern one by origin -
concerning genesis, I can imagine PIE tribes had inputs of West (CTC) and South (Caucus) with their acquisitions on agricultural ground - for Maykop I'm still between two thoughts: seemingly they physically shew ties with S-East Caspian more than to Caucasus pops and this could be linked to the so criticized 'caucasus'><'gedrosia' opposition in Europe - but this does not exclude a East to West travel South the Caspian across Caucasus mountains. But I stay puzzled with this so peculiar Maykop phenomenon, maybe more a chieftains raiders society than a constructive agricole one?

I've considered East/circum-Caspian CHG origin before based on the fact that obvious Caucasus admixture seems to pre-cludes Caucasus material culture.

The thing is Mesopotamian power, influence, and genes seem to be exploding in all directions at this time and these Caucasian cultures would serve as a fitting intermediate.

Dov
07-10-17, 23:20
holderlin
Why are you trying to exclude Trypolye? In any case, they were the main agro consultants for PIE. The movement from the lower Don does not exclude Tripolye and the farmers, it simply gives more opportunities for contact with the Caucasus. But we do not really know what was there, at that time much autosomal DNA from CW and BB from the Tripolye, as well as the probable borrowing of the agro vocabulary from them. In the late Dereivka ceramics were found traces of grain, barley, millet and peas. They already had hoe farming along with cattle breeding near the Trypillians.

But for example, in Rakushechniyar culture (which was on the lower Don, among others), no clear traces of farming have been found. Only cerealers mill, horny hoes and stone knives, which were most likely used for gathering. But at the same time found many animal bones: sheep, pigs, cows and horses. That is, before contact with the Tripolye, they probably did not have any farming. They engaged exclusively in cattle breeding, as well as hunting and gathering.

MOESAN
08-10-17, 16:27
I've considered East/circum-Caspian CHG origin before based on the fact that obvious Caucasus admixture seems to pre-cludes Caucasus material culture.

The thing is Mesopotamian power, influence, and genes seem to be exploding in all directions at this time and these Caucasian cultures would serve as a fitting intermediate.

I think we are giving too much credit to Mesopatamian culture and even more to Mesopotamian demic unput. Their cultuiral influence, maybe not native but already the result of diverse inputs, can have influenced later cultures of South Caucasus and South Caspian, without strong demic input. Always this credit to (too) well known cultures at the depends of others (let's keep in mind all the credit China had before new discoveries...). I think teh southern input in Steppes is a late enough one, alreadu a mix of several influences and new sunthesis. Always bets, it's true before confirmations or discredit.

holderlin
08-10-17, 19:13
holderlin
Why are you trying to exclude Trypolye? In any case, they were the main agro consultants for PIE. The movement from the lower Don does not exclude Tripolye and the farmers, it simply gives more opportunities for contact with the Caucasus. But we do not really know what was there, at that time much autosomal DNA from CW and BB from the Tripolye, as well as the probable borrowing of the agro vocabulary from them. In the late Dereivka ceramics were found traces of grain, barley, millet and peas. They already had hoe farming along with cattle breeding near the Trypillians.

But for example, in Rakushechniyar culture (which was on the lower Don, among others), no clear traces of farming have been found. Only cerealers mill, horny hoes and stone knives, which were most likely used for gathering. But at the same time found many animal bones: sheep, pigs, cows and horses. That is, before contact with the Tripolye, they probably did not have any farming. They engaged exclusively in cattle breeding, as well as hunting and gathering.

I was only considering the possibility in relation to the influx of Caucasian admixture in a scenario where it's coming from the South. By the time of Yamnaya, influence from the Caucasus is obvious in the material culture as is the admixture. Just musing.


I do think PIE emerges with contact between steppe and Balkans.

hrvclv
13-10-17, 14:38
Humble contribution from a non-specialist :
In "Des Steppes aux Oceans", a book on PIE written in 1986 for a profane public, scholar Andre Martinet noted that PIE words for the numbers 1 to 100 were distinctly of non-PIE origin. He concluded they had to have been borrowed from some neighboring culure.
What he observed was as follows :
- Aspirates (bh- , dh-, etc) are as frequent in PIE words as voiceless plosive consonants.
- Aspirates are far more frequent than voiced consonants.
- PIE numbers have voiceless and voiced consonants, but NO aspirates of any kind, which is a statistical anomaly.
This doesn't tell us were the number words came from. It just goes to show that borrowings occurred at some (maybe multiple) stages.

MOESAN
22-10-17, 13:22
We can suppose it was surely a well evolved and mighty culture (at least for trade) to be able to pass its numbers to an other culture, but I don't know which one it was. Here we have to distinguish between numbers vocal names and numbers written signs.

Konstantin
07-01-18, 00:23
In the development of culture may be divided into two major periods: the early, so — called donorboy, and late — corded or derevsky , now allocated in a separate culture with a largely different roots. Samples of r1a was obnarujeny in the late period - that is, a cord.

nothingfail
25-07-18, 00:00
Hi. What is the most common R1a sub type on the Balkans, what subtype and where from are the oldest R1a samples on the Balkans/ Greece? So much info, impossible to read everything to find out this. Hope someone of you who knows already can share the info. Links would be helpful. Many thanks.

nothingfail
25-07-18, 00:02
Hi. I wrote to a profile of yours on facebook but unsure you check messages there often, there were not any recent posts... So I am trying here, too. What is the most common R1a sub type on the Balkans, what subtype and where from are the oldest R1a samples on the Balkans/ Greece? So much info, impossible to read everything to find out this. Hope someone of you who knows already can share the info. Links would be helpful. Many thanks.

nothingfail
25-07-18, 00:04
. Hi. I wrote to a profile of yours on facebook but unsure you check messages there often, there were not any recent posts... So I am trying here, too. What is the most common R1a sub type on the Balkans, what subtype and where from are the oldest R1a samples on the Balkans/ Greece? So much info, impossible to read everything to find out this. Hope someone of you who knows already can share the info. Links would be helpful. Many thanks.

Saetrus
26-11-18, 18:42
There is no R1a in Kura-Araxes the PIE culture so people should start considering the language family they really spoke. Sredny Stog and R1a-M417 are strongly related to one group of people and it's not Indo-Europeans:

"The Sredny Stog culture carried a number of traits exclusive for the later Turkic peoples.

As far as the kurgans are concerned, only the Turkic peoples had retained a name for a man-made grave marker hill, and they bestowed that name "kurgan" on all surrounding IE and non-IE peoples, precisely because those people did not have a term for a foreign object belonging to a foreign religion from a contrasting culture.

The presumptuous militantly patriarchal nature of the Eneolithic burials is nearly identical to that of the Turkic kurgans in the historical times, which are known as being dual endogamic societies with no exaggerated sexual dominance, just to name the Dulo/Ukil ruling clans of the Hunno-Bulgars, or Ashina/Ashtak ruling clans of the Turks.

Animal bones are an intriguing accompaniment to many burials and the principal species represented were ovicaprids, cattle, horse, dog and some wild animals. These remains may often be interpreted simply as joints of meat presented as food offerings; however, other rituals were also at play. Frequently the skull and forelegs of a sheep, or much more rarely of a horse, are encountered in a grave and indicate the presence of a 'head and hooves' cult. In some cases the forepart of the animal might have been erected directly over the burial.

This prominent, radically distinctive, and without equal trait seems being directly taken directly from the textbook on Turkic burial traditions. Like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite survived and is well documented until the Middle Ages, and like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite was never as a traditional custom among Indo-European or Finno-Ugrian peoples."

https://i.imgur.com/MczjpKK.jpg


Sort populations from central and north Asian by R1a and it's all Turkic groups at the top, from all over Eurasia. R1a is by far the most important Turkic Y-DNA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_Central_and_Nort h_Asia
https://i.imgur.com/GstrB3X.jpg
(Sort them by J and literally all IE groups go to the top.)


This guy here did a great work listing hundreds of placenames of Turkic origin in Corded Ware territory:
https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Bulgar.html
https://i.imgur.com/qnCgZEL.jpg


There is a lot of literature in Polish about the strong connection of Slavic and Altaic languages in case anyone is interested:

Theory of Asiatic origin of Slavs that was based among other things on many Altaic words in Slavic languages. Here is a short description of this theory (in Polish):
https://i.postimg.cc/tTTrjnp3/screenshot-447.png
The strong link Slavic languages have with Altaic languages was described by Kazimierz Moszyński in his book “Pierwotny zasięg języka prasłowiańskiego”:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/pierwotny-zasiag-jezyka-prasowianskiego/oclc/836127907

Joey37
26-11-18, 20:46
Carlos, is that you? What's with the Italian flag? Using the methodology you use to assign R1a to Turks, we should call R1b Basque because they have the highest amounts of that. Turkic languages were unknown west of the Volga until well into the classical period. And the areas that are now Turkic were once Iranic; you can change your language but not your y-dna.

markod
26-11-18, 21:26
There is no R1a in Kura-Araxes the PIE culture so people should start considering the language family they really spoke. Sredny Stog and R1a-M417 are strongly related to one group of people and it's not Indo-Europeans:

"The Sredny Stog culture carried a number of traits exclusive for the later Turkic peoples.

As far as the kurgans are concerned, only the Turkic peoples had retained a name for a man-made grave marker hill, and they bestowed that name "kurgan" on all surrounding IE and non-IE peoples, precisely because those people did not have a term for a foreign object belonging to a foreign religion from a contrasting culture.

The presumptuous militantly patriarchal nature of the Eneolithic burials is nearly identical to that of the Turkic kurgans in the historical times, which are known as being dual endogamic societies with no exaggerated sexual dominance, just to name the Dulo/Ukil ruling clans of the Hunno-Bulgars, or Ashina/Ashtak ruling clans of the Turks.

Animal bones are an intriguing accompaniment to many burials and the principal species represented were ovicaprids, cattle, horse, dog and some wild animals. These remains may often be interpreted simply as joints of meat presented as food offerings; however, other rituals were also at play. Frequently the skull and forelegs of a sheep, or much more rarely of a horse, are encountered in a grave and indicate the presence of a 'head and hooves' cult. In some cases the forepart of the animal might have been erected directly over the burial.

This prominent, radically distinctive, and without equal trait seems being directly taken directly from the textbook on Turkic burial traditions. Like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite survived and is well documented until the Middle Ages, and like the kurgan burials themselves, this religious rite was never as a traditional custom among Indo-European or Finno-Ugrian peoples."

https://i.imgur.com/MczjpKK.jpg


Sort populations from central and north Asian by R1a and it's all Turkic groups at the top, from all over Eurasia. R1a is by far the most important Turkic Y-DNA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y-DNA_haplogroups_in_populations_of_Central_and_Nort h_Asia
https://i.imgur.com/GstrB3X.jpg
(Sort them by J and literally all IE groups go to the top.)


This guy here did a great work listing hundreds of placenames of Turkic origin in Corded Ware territory:
https://www.v-stetsyuk.name/en/Alterling/Bulgar.html
https://i.imgur.com/qnCgZEL.jpg


There is a lot of literature in Polish about the strong connection of Slavic and Altaic languages in case anyone is interested:

Theory of Asiatic origin of Slavs that was based among other things on many Altaic words in Slavic languages. Here is a short description of this theory (in Polish):
https://i.postimg.cc/tTTrjnp3/screenshot-447.png
The strong link Slavic languages have with Altaic languages was described by Kazimierz Moszyński in his book “Pierwotny zasięg języka prasłowiańskiego”:
http://www.worldcat.org/title/pierwotny-zasiag-jezyka-prasowianskiego/oclc/836127907

The R1b in KA is also very far from L23 though.

Are we sure about the rumors regarding Kura-Araxes as the PIE homeland?

Saetrus
27-11-18, 00:38
The areas that are now Turkic were once Iranic; you can change your language but not your y-dna.

https://i.imgur.com/ylijAP8.jpg

There is still plenty of Iranic Y-DNA in that region, Kura-Araxes didn't have only R1b.



The R1b in KA is also very far from L23 though


The Ararat Valley has the highest variance of L23 in the world by a good margin so they should also find the right R1b.

Olympus Mons
27-11-18, 01:44
There is still plenty of Iranic Y-DNA in that region, Kura-Araxes didn't have only R1b.

The Ararat Valley has the highest variance of L23 in the world by a good margin so they should also find the right R1b.

... And isn't it from Erzurum, 300km away, the only L23 man found with any known subclade?

markod
27-11-18, 06:04
There is still plenty of Iranic Y-DNA in that region, Kura-Araxes didn't have only R1b.


The Ararat Valley has the highest variance of L23 in the world by a good margin so they should also find the right R1b.


Yeah, but I'm not sure how reliable modern distributions are, really.

By the way, don't E-V13 & J1 have similar distributions in Europe? I've always thought their spread was consistent with a Middle Bronze Age invasion of Europe from the South-East (Carpathians, Dinaric range).

I would really like to see ancient DNA from Italy where these Bronze Age haplogroups seem to be most concentrated nowadays. Looks like Slavic and Paleo-Balkanic expansions wiped a good chunk of them out in South-Eastern Europe.

Angela
27-11-18, 17:17
Yeah, but I'm not sure how reliable modern distributions are, really.

By the way, don't E-V13 & J1 have similar distributions in Europe? I've always thought their spread was consistent with a Middle Bronze Age invasion of Europe from the South-East (Carpathians, Dinaric range).

I would really like to see ancient DNA from Italy where these Bronze Age haplogroups seem to be most concentrated nowadays. Looks like Slavic and Paleo-Balkanic expansions wiped a good chunk of them out in South-Eastern Europe.

I don't see any wipe out of E-V13 in the Balkans, although I take your point about the Slavic expansions changing the yDna mix. E-V13 remains much more prevalent there than in Italy.

https://vieilleeurope.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ev13.gif

I think we also need more studies of the specific clades of J1 in the places in Europe where it exists.

markod
28-11-18, 08:33
I don't see any wipe out of E-V13 in the Balkans, although I take your point about the Slavic expansions changing the yDna mix. E-V13 remains much more prevalent there than in Italy.

https://vieilleeurope.files.wordpress.com/2016/01/ev13.gif

I think we also need more studies of the specific clades of J1 in the places in Europe where it exists.

I didn't express myself well, sorry. E-V13 definitely peaks in frequency in the Balkans because of a late founder effect, but the sum of J2b/J2a, E-V13, J1 - i. e. those weird haplogroups that probably expanded in Bronze Age but don't show up much in the samples we have thus far - are pretty concentrated in Italy. I think that's a point Saetrus made in his earlier posts.

The Central & Southern Italian y-DNA profile reminds me a bit of Cyprus without the Near Eastern haplogroups but with more R1b.

Angela
28-11-18, 17:19
I didn't express myself well, sorry. E-V13 definitely peaks in frequency in the Balkans because of a late founder effect, but the sum of J2b/J2a, E-V13, J1 - i. e. those weird haplogroups that probably expanded in Bronze Age but don't show up much in the samples we have thus far - are pretty concentrated in Italy. I think that's a point Saetrus made in his earlier posts.

The Central & Southern Italian y-DNA profile reminds me a bit of Cyprus without the Near Eastern haplogroups but with more R1b.

It depends, I think, what you mean by the Balkans, or what country we're discussing in terms of which haplogroup. Certainly, the total of J2 in Greece and Albania is as high or higher than in Italy, and that includes mainland Greece, not just the islands like Crete. Of course, the mix is different in terms of J2a and J2b in Greece and the Balkans than in Italy. I've always thought, however, that the J2 on the eastern coast of Italy was probably heavily derived from the Balkans. Calabria and Sicily may be somewhat different, but those areas were heavily settled from the Peloponnese, so that is something to consider.
http://www.abroadintheyard.com/wp-content/uploads/Haplogroup-J2.jpg

As for J1 it's a similar story, although the pattern is different. At any rate, the percentages are low.

https://i.imgur.com/qAfhGbr.png

The latter two maps are from Wiki:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/1/11/J2%28Y-DNA%29.png/1200px-J2%28Y-DNA%29.png

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/db/HG_J1_%28ADN-Y%29.PNG



Had there not been a Slavic invasion the numbers for these haplogroups would have made the Italian numbers pale in comparison.

In terms of E-V13, I'm not aware of any studies showing whether the E-V13 is different from, or a sub-type of the prevalent clade in Greece and Albania. I think the likelihood is that it spread from the Balkans to Italy, but we shall see.

Ultimately, I think we're going to have to wait for ancient dna from Italy to sort this out. I just wish that it were the Reich group doing it and not that Spanish group.

Saetrus
04-12-18, 17:19
the sum of J2b/J2a, E-V13, J1 - i. e. those haplogroups that probably expanded in Bronze Age but don't show up much in the samples we have thus far

Except for the Indo-European samples we have so far, right? Anatolian Indo-Europeans were J2, G, J1, Mycenaean Greeks were J2, Thracians were J2, E1b-V13 with the J2 one being an elite aristocratic sample, and Bactrians were J2, G, J1, L, R1b, E1b, T.



are pretty concentrated in Italy. I think that's a point Saetrus made
No, my point is all those haplogroups are associated with the Caucasian autosomal component and if you look at the Iron Age the Indo-European groups associated with it are much more varied and much more ancient than the IE group with the L51 founder effect.
https://i.imgur.com/Lz2VeBr.jpg